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

THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE. (Book 2)

IN this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to p••opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors & Innouat••rs, toge∣ther with the reasons why I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 propose these doubts & Questions to th••m.

The first Quaere is this: What is the true & finall end they ayme at, in erecting Altars, styling Commu∣nion Tables Altars, & placing them Altar-wise, & in christe∣ning themselves againe by the name of Preists, (not as it is vsed for a contract of the word Presbyter, which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the Gosple, but of the word Sacerdos, denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist.

It is a Rule both in Philosophy & Diuinitie,a 1.1 Omnia agunt propter finem; All things (especially all Rationall agent) aime at some vltimate, vttermost, or finall end in all their Actions; Much more then in their serious writings & Polemicall discourses; We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles; thatb 1.2 finis & causa finalis est primus in intentione, vltimus in executione agentis. The first thing in Intention of the agent, though the l••st in execution; And thatc 1.3 Omnia med in sum et a∣gunt propter finem, all middle causes are and worke only to pro∣duce the end: Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem.

These things being undoubted truths past all dispute; And it being as true likewise, that Altars themselves & Preists being but instru∣ment & subordinate relatine things, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for some other vse, & the ••••nation of Tables Altarwise being but •• ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves, (since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar, or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise, only because he desires, it should be so pla∣ted: or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest, only for the Titles sake, &

no more, but for some further end, all these serving to no vse or pur∣pose at all simplie considered, but only with relation to some further end:) The sole Question then wilbe, what this end should be? To which if our Innouators & late Colliar would giue a direct An∣swer in down right English termes; it can be no other but this; That the end they strive for, in contending for Altars, Priests, & turning Tables Altarwise, is only to vsher in a Sacrifice, into our Church, since Cardinall Bellarmine & B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect: 15. p. 46. expresly resolve. That Preists, Altar & Sacrifice are relati∣ves, & haue mutuall & vnseperable dependance one on the other; & since there can be no other use of these but only for sa∣crifice, as both thee 1.4 scriptures, and thef 1.5 Papists acknow∣ledge, & the Coale ingenuously confesseth: p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this? Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church, can be no other, but that which former∣ly, vpon the beginning of reformation, was cast out: but that sacrifice was only the Idolola••rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle: There∣fore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe, by these Altars, Preists, & Communion Tables seated Altarwise.

If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebra∣tion of the Lords Supper.

I answer, that ag 1.6 Table is farre more decent for such •• purpose, then an Altar; a Table posture, then an Altar situation; & a Minister, then a Preist: since we neuer read in scripture of any supper, or eating at an Altar, since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table; (which Table, if we believe theh 1.7 Cronickle•• of Flaunders, Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague, as most precious relique, which thei 1.8 Church of Rome flath yet to shew, if you dare belieue them, though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it, (which me thinkes shee should then dve, I but in an Altar, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at an Altar, & since we finde no mention in scripture, of any Preists, but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at this Table, If they reply; as thek 1.9 Coale doth, that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 only to him) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice, which our Church allowes, not ••

Prepitiatory, as the Papists make their Masse.

I answer first, that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice, neither doth shee in her Homilies, or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so, much lesse in her Common prayer Booke, Injunctions, Canons or statntes: neither, doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these, to proue this bold assoueration, either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar, he layes open all his shrids & stolen wares.

2. The Church of England (euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8.) expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words;l 1.10 Wee must take heed then (saith the Homily,) least of a Memory, it BE MADE A SACRIFICE. If not A SACRIFICE, then not a commemoratiue Sacri∣fice, vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice, to be no Sacrifice, which is a contradiction; & to say, we must take heed, least of the MEMORY, we make it A SACRIFICE: Is all one as to say: wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice; a Memorie, & a Sacrifice, being here put in direct opposition & contradistinction one to an other in this clause, & in the following parts of the Homily; which 4. seuerall times, cals the Sacrament, A MEMORY, A COMME∣MORATION, AND OUTWARD TESTI∣MONY of Christs death, but neuer a Sacrifice commemo∣ratiue or Propitiatory: Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words:m 1.11 Now it followeth, to haue with this knowledge a sure & constant saith, not only that the death of Christ, is avay lable for a redemption of all the world, &c: but also that he made vpon the Crosse, A TRVE AND SVFFI∣CIENT SACRIFICE for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sinns, so that then acknowledge no other sauiour, redeemer. Mediator, Advocat, Intercessour, but CHRIST ONLY.

Herein thou needest no other mans helpe. NO O∣THER SACRIFICE (therfore neither commemora∣tiue, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 propitiatory: for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both) or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉〈◊〉 New Preist•• observe this well to which they haue subscri∣bed)

NO MASSE, (let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees, consider this.) No meanes established by mans injunction; Therefore no A t••r, Preist, Sacrifice, or Table seated Altar-wise; All which this homily strikes dead at once; and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too, almost in the selflame words.

3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull, and contradiction: For as the picture of a man is no man, or of fire no fire; or of a Chalice, or Sacrament, no C••alice, or Sacra∣ment; So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice, is in truth no Sacrifice, nor kinde, nor species of a Sacrifice, but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice. So that this is but a Mountebancks chear, and distinction to delude children & fooles with all, not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine.

4. The Sacrament neither is; nor can be a sacrifice, for every sacrifice whether legall, or Euangelicall, is a religious seruice, holocast, worship, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe. Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5••. 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. H••b. 9. 14. & 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer, after the receiving of the Sacrament, prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer: And thus we offer & present unto thee O Lord our selues, our sules & bo∣dies to be a reasonable, holy, & livelie SACRIFICE unto thee, &. But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament, we offer up nothing unto God, but only God tenders his Sonne, with all the benefits of his death and pas∣sion unto us; As the words take & rate this, the prayers be∣fore and after the Sacrament, the Scriptures, and every mans experience withesseth. Therefore it can by noe meanes be tearmed a Sacrifice; Whence the Homille of the Sacrament tearms our thanksgiving to God after the Sacramēt received, and at other times a Sacrifice, p. 103. as the Apostle expresly doth Heb,. 13. 15. & the Psalmist before him. Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. Ier. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. Ion. 2. 9. But

never tearmes the Sacrament it selfe thus, because it neither is, nor can be a sacrifice commemorative, or propitiat••rie, un∣lesse with reference to this thanksgiving, and to the whole act and service, not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine, as B sh: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout.

5. This Homily •• times together her case the Sacrament a Table & Lords Table, never a Sacrifice, an Altar, or Sac••••ment of the Altar; Admitt the Homilie granted it to be a Sacrifice, which it doth not, yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Preist, Altar, or Tables situated Altar-wise, euen by the Ho∣milie and Booke of Common-prayers resolution; Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice, as these Innovators would obtrude by crast and power upon us, which stands in need both of a Preist, an Altar, or Table placed Altar-wise•• or of the name of a Sacrifice, to make people reasly to esteeme in so.

6. Nemorepente for turpissimus: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves, or proceed so farre at the first dash, for feare of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉〈◊〉; but they will usher in things by certaine insemble degrees, step by step, till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last. First then wee most haue Communion-Tables only turned Altar-wise; Then wee must haue them termed Altars; Next wee must sett up Altars indeed; Then wee must cringe to, and adore them; after that haue a Preist, to write on them; then a commemorative sacrificrenly to bee off red on them. And thus farre wee have already proceeded in many places AND GENERALL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHVRCHES (as the Colier in formes his friend and ••eader both: p. 1. and 27: The Ring-leaders and most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us backe to Rome, that ••••unded them: And now must wee and Rome bee brought ••••gether 〈…〉〈…〉, as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 each

other: the next step must be, to make the Sacrament a pro∣piriatory sacrifice, as the Papists doe, who first proceeded •• this method, and held it but commemorative, as appeares by all their ancient Schoolemen. And then when the thing it∣selfe is once gott in•• the name of it ••yet too grosse and odio•••• will quickly follow, it shall then be rebaptized with the name of Masse, by these its Godfathers; who as they have al∣ready pleaded for its Popish title: The Sacrament of the Altar, because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. stiles it the Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ, commonly called (to witt by the Papists in those dayes, not the Parliament or Protestants)q 1.12 The Sa∣crament of the Altar: So they will by the selfesame reason call it by the name of the Masse, and justify this Title of it, by the Masse itselfe, to be lawfully warranted both by Prince, P••••∣late, Preist, & the whole Parliament, because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. (and the Booke of Common-prayer esta∣blished by it) there stiles it: The holy Comm••nion commonly called THE MASSE (to witt by the Papists and igno∣rant people of those times, the Masse being not quite aboli∣shed till this law was made.) Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Masse, and the name of Masse, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is cleare by the body of the Act, the Booke of the Commo••-prayer then sett out, and since corrected; the Homily of the worthy recei••ing of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Article•• with all the surnamed writers, Injunctions, and Cannons of our Church (and neither old Doting Shelford, nor his so••••e the Colier, dare deny;) even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar; Though th••se ignorant Scrib•••••• would justifie both the lawfullnes of Altars, and of term•••• the Lo••ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from th•••••• against the meaning of the Law, as I have already ••••••∣fested.

Since therefore it is cleare by the Colier, that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some notable designes in 〈◊〉〈◊〉

upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Church•• which he tearmesr 1.13 A GOOD WORKE (J would it were so) NOW IN HAND (which wee finde too true, and since this good worke, is just like Coliers worke and Character by the printed (yea his owne) happy premunition trulys 1.14 ROMAN, to witt, by Altars, and Preists, and Ta∣bles turned Altarwise to usher in Masse with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church, for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedrall & Collegiate Churches; It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestick ••••••ialists what their intentions are, to stoppe their further progresse, both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designes, and to admo∣nish them, and all others, in the words of our owne establi∣shed

t 1.15 Homily: BEFORE ALL THINGS this wee must be sure of, especially, that this supper be in such wise done, and ministred as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded it to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and the godly Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it.

For (as the worthy man S. Ambrose saith) he is unworthy of the Lords Table that otherwise doth celebrate the Mystery, then it was delivered by him: Neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume then it was giuen by the Au∣thor, but when the Author gave it, he gave it not a Sacrificing Shave•• Masse-Preist, he gaue it not at an Altar, but at a table, and that situated in the MIDDEST table-wise, as J haue manifested, to his Disciples sitting; not kneeling round a∣bout itu 1.16. Therefore we must be sure so to minister if we will be either worthy of the Lord or devout, we must then take heed (as it is now ••••gh time so to doe it) lest of the memory is be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉〈◊〉; lect of a Communion it be made a private ea∣•••••••••• (therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebra∣tion placed Altar-wise, at the remotest East end of the Chan∣••••••••, brought in with private Masses, & for that purpose one∣ly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 le•••••• of two parts we have but one, least applying it to

the dead, wee loose the fruite that be alive: hol••some counsell & necessary doctrine for these present times, as the 34. Article tearmed the Homilies, with which I shall close up this first quaere.

QVESTION II.

The second Question I would propound to these Novelle••s is this. That since they will now stile themselves and be called of others only Preists, (so Shelford tearmed himselfe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Title page of his unlearned Treatises, and many others have done in late prin••ed Sermons & Pamphletsw 1.17 what kind of Preists they are, & wherein their Preisthood consists. If they say, they are only spirituall Preists, and have only a* 1.18 spiritual Preisthood, ••o••••ffer up the spirituall sac••ifices of prayer, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, thanksg••uing almes, righteousnesse, broken and contr•••••• hearts, and their owne bodies & soules to God; that every Chri∣stian is as much a Preist, even by Christs owne institution a themselves, and hath the s••lfesame Preisthood that they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rev. 1. 6. 1. Pet. 2•• 5 ••Exo•• 19. •••• And so they doe all they can ••o ingrosse this Title as peculiar to themselvs, which is common to every Christian. If they meane by Preists nothing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pres••ytersx 1.19, and intend no more by their name and Preist∣hood but only the Eldershippe & Ministrie, let them enjoy that Title and office in Peace, I quarell not with them; Only this I must informe them•• That such Preists need neither Al∣tar nor Sacrifice, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expresly debar••ed from both by G••d himselfe, 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. 17. 18. 21. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. 14. But if they meane by the word Preist,y 1.20 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or S••cerd••••, a sacrificing Preist, or a Preist waiting at, or upon the Altar; as it is cleare they doe, both by their writings; their prayers before their Sermont, (where they pray for the Preist••••) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 serve & wai•• a•• the Altar•• their erecting and pleading for Altars and Commemorative Sacrifices at least, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evident 〈…〉〈…〉 and shall then inquire of them, what 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Sacrificing Preists they are, and of what order their Preisthood is? In Scripture I read only of 4 kinds of Preists and Preist∣hoods; Preists (Heb. c. 5. & 7. & 8. & 9. & 10. Levit. c. 1. vers. 12. Exod. c. 28. & 29. & 30.) after the order of Aaron•• Preists after the order of Melchizedech, (2 Kings 17. 32. 1 Kin: c. 12. 31. 32. c. 13. 33. 2. Kin: 10. 18, &c.) Preists of Baal, and Preists of the high places, or Idol Preists. The two first of di∣vine, the two latter of Diabolicall institution: Since which there hath sprung up of late in the Church another d••stinct generation of Preists, commonly called by the name of Masse-Preists; and those are both of Papall Diabolicall insti∣tution. Other sorts of Sacrificing Preists then these I nei∣ther know nor read of. The sole question then will be, of which of those of 5 sorts of Preists our Novellers & Altar-pa∣nons are? If of the first sort; that is directly abolished, changed & abrogated by our Saviour. Heb. 7. 11. 12. c. 8. 6. to 13. & cap. 9. 10. throughout. Col. 2. 14. 15. 16. And those who crie downe the name and sanctification of the Lords day Sabbath asz 1.21 ••••wish; will not I hope tear••ne themselves in the order of Aarons Preists,a 1.22 which is farre more Jewish; Of which sort of Preists they cannot be, vnlesse they are lawfully descended from the tribe of Leui, Num. 3. 6, &c. c. 16. 1, & Iosh, c. 13. v. 14. & 33. Psal. 135. 10. Mal. 2. 4. 8. Hebr. 7. 5. If of the order of M••chizedech, that is peculiar only to our Saviour, subsisting personally in him alone; and incommunicable to any other, as the Apostle directly resolves, Hebr. 5. 9. 10. c. 6. ••••. c. 7. throughout ••. ••. 9. 10. As all authors interpret, old and new writers ac∣knowledge, and among them Mr. David Dickson in his b 1.23 commentarie a short explanation on the Hebrewes 7. An: 1634•• where he layes downe the conclusion fully warranted by the Apostles text.

1.

That to make any Preists in the new Testament by special office beside Christ, is to rent the Preisthood of Christ, and to make it imperfect like Aarons, which for

the same reason that it had many Preists, was weake, imper∣fect & inferiour to Christs.

2.

That to make Preists by office in the New Testament, to offer up any corporall sacrifice is to make Christs Preist∣hood seperable from his owne person, which is against the nature of Christs Preisthood, which can not pas••e from one to another. Hebr. 7. 24.

3.

That to make plurality of the Preists in Christs Preist∣hood, Vicars, or Substitutes, or in any respect, partaker of the office with him, is to praesuppose that Christ is not able to doe that office alone, but is either dead or weake that he cannot fulfill that office; contrary to the text which saith: Because he continueth for ever, he hath an unchangable Preisthood, or a Preisthood that cannot passe from one to another. Hebr. 7. 24.

4.

That whosoever communicateth Christs Preisthood with another, besides his owne person, maketh Christ not able alone to saue to the uttermost, those that come unto God by him.

5.

That the Scripture knoweth no Preist, but the Levi∣ticall Preists of Aarons post••rity, for the time of the Law•• Or else that one Preist that was made by oath in the time of the Gospell, besides these the Apostle knoweth none, nei∣ther were there any other in his time in the Church.

6.

That to have Preists now, after the similitude of Preists under the Law, were to renounce the difference which God hath made betwixt the Law and the Gospell.

7.

That to make a Preist in the Gospell, who is not con∣secrated by an Oath, to abide for evermore in the office, but

may be changed, and another come iu his place, is contrary to Evangelicall Preisthood.

8.

That to make Plurality of Preists in the Gospell, is to alter the order of Melchizedech sworne with an Oath, and to renounce the worke sett betwixt the Law and the Gos∣pell.

9.

That to make a man Preist now, is to marre the Sonne of Gods priviledge; To whome the priviledge only be∣longeth.

10.

That to make a sin••ull and weake man Preist now, is to weaken the Preisthood of the Gospell, and make it like the Law.

11.

That as long as Christs consecration lasteth (which endureth for ever) none must medle with his Preistly office.

12.

That to adde unto it, and to bring in as many Preists now, as did serve in the Temple of old, is to provoke God, to adde as many plagues, as are written in Gods booke, upon themselves, and their Preists also.

All which considered; I hope these Novellers dare not say, they are Preists after the order of Aaron, much lesse of c 1.24 M••lchiz••dech, which is peculiar to Christ alone.

P••reists of Baal, or Idol-Preists, J presume they neither will, nor dare stile themselves.

If therefore they be Preists of any order, they are, and can be no other but S••minary or Masse-Preists: and if they are such Preists in truth, as their writing and practises declare them; Then let them be gone packing to Rome their mo∣ther, or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters, where they may say and sacrifice Ma••••e.

Sure ourd 1.25 Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists, neither yet (thankes be to God) have wee any Masses to be chaunted, (unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed, which comes nearest Masse of any) in our Parish Churches, standing in need only ofe 1.26 Preaching Ministers, not Sacrificing Masse-Preists, condemned by our statutes, as direct Trayt••rs•• to our King and Statef 1.27: And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists, I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne ••ippert, to grace their order and neckes with all, nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders (••o use Father Latymers speeches)•• which they well demerit, in stead of that Egreg••am verò laudem & spolia am∣pla, which pricke them on to as••ume this new title & office of Preists and Preistshood.

QVESTION III.

The third Question J shall propose to them (and all our Prelates) is this, what Law, Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars: (a Ceremony already begun at Wol∣verhampton, as you have heard, which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places:) Or for Consecrating Churches, Chappels, or Churchyeards? Statute I am certaine there is none for it, yea sure I am that all the statutes againstg 1.28 Mort. con∣cerning divine service and Sacraments, and the Booke of Com∣mon-prayers, with divers of our learned Writers are a∣gainst it.

To make this cleare in few wordes.

1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church, Chappell, or Church-yard makes a Mort:

This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament & Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal. Mort. ••. and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses.

But Mort: are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme, as appeares by Brook, Fiz: and Rastall in their Titles Mort: Therefore these Consecrations are so too.

2. Secondly, they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1.

If these statutes with that of Jac•• c. 5. were duely executed, we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are, which are freely printed, and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe. 1. Eliz: c. 2. 8. Eliz: c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12.

All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service, and to take away all occasions of dive sity, of opinions, rites & Ceremonies in our Church, clearely and utterly abolish, & extinguish and forbid for ever to be used, or kept in this Realme all bookes, called Missals, Breviaries, Officials, Ma∣nuals, Processionals, Legends, Primers, or other Bookes whatsoever, heretofore used for service of the church, writ∣ten or printed in the English or Lattin tongue; With all o∣ther manner of Rites, Ceremonies, divine service, Consecra∣tions, or publike formes of prayer, then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England, and in the Booke of Ordination, ratified by these Acts; In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant, con∣cerning the Consecration of Churches, Chappels, or Church•• yardes, or Altars, nor any forme of prayer pre∣scribed for the purpose, as there is both for the Admini∣stration of the Lords supper, Baptisme, whether publike or private, Mariage, Buriall of the Dead, Chur∣ching of Women, visitation of the sicke, confirma∣tion of Children, Ordination of Deacons and Mini∣sters, Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ••ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or neces∣sary.

Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolisl••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those Popish Books and P••••mersh 1.29 where∣in the manner prayers, and service, for consecrating of Churches, Chappels, Church-yards, or Altars, are prescribed and established in their places, the Booke of Common-prayer, and Ordination of Ministers, wherein there is not one syllable concer••ing any such consecrations, nor any forme of prayer or service, instit••∣ted for all or either of them, as there is for all other rites & Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary: And since they expresly prohibite all other Rites, Ceremonies, Formes of Prayer, and Consecrations, then such as are comprised and prescribed in th••se two Bookes; It is infallable that they have utterly abolished, and abrogated this Ceremony of Conse∣crating of Churches, Church-yards, Chappels, and Altars, as Iewish, Popish, Superstitious, or at least superfluous, and quite ex∣cluded it out of our Church.

As for our Canons, Homilies, I••junctions, and Articles of Re∣ligion, there is not in all, nor any one of them inferred ••re title concerning these Consecrations; Which condemne and exclude them by their silence; Thei 1.30 Homilies likewise have some glances against them: For our writers, Mr. Tyndall in ••is obedience (page 136. 152.) of a Christian man, William Wra••gh∣ton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox, Iohn Bale B: of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places; Thomas Becon in his Reliques of Rome,k 1.31 Mr. Cal••r hill in his booke against Marshall,l 1.32 Mr. Fox in his booke of Martyrs.

And many other of our writers haue expresly censured and de••••ed those Consecrations, as Superstitious, Iewish, Popish, and Antichristian, styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches, Chappels, and Altars, inv••nted only for profi••••, and reserved only to Bishops for gaine sake.

And to name no more, reverent Pilkirg••on sevea••ely cen∣sures these Consecrations in these ensewing wordes:m 1.33

The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delig••••

the people, but where the Gospell is preached, they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart, they are con••ent with an honest place, appointed to resort together in, though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all. It is writ∣ten n 1.34 that God dwels not in Temples made with handes, nor is worshipped with any worke of mans handes, but he is a ••spirit, an invisible substance, and will be worshipped in spi∣rit and truth, not in outward wordes only of the ••ippe, but with the deepe lighes and groanes of the heart, and the who••e power of the mind, & earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith? And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone, and timber, but hath willed as top 1.35 pray in all places, and hath taken away that Iewish and Popish holinesse, which is thought to be more in one place then in another. All the Earth, is the Lords, and he is present in all places, hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith.* 1.36 Therefore those Bishops which thinke with their conjured water, to make one place more holy then the rest, are no better then the Iewes, deceaving the people, and teaching that only to be holy, which they have censed, crossed, oyled, and breathed upon. For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then another.q 1.37 Woman, believe me, the time is come wh••n ye shall worshipp neither at Jerusalem, nor in this hill, but the true worshippers shall worshipp God in spirit and truth: So is it now said, the place makes not the man holy, but the man makes the place h••ly, and ye shall not worshippe your J∣dols, Stockes, and Stones, neither at Wilsingham, Ipswich, Canterbury, nor Sheve, for God chuses not the people for the places sake, but the places for the peoples sake•• But i•• ye be in the middest of the feild. God is as ready to heare your faithfull prayers, as in any Abbey or Burrey, yea a thou∣sand times more, for the one place he hates, as defiled with Idolatry, and the other he loves, as undefiled and cleane. If the good man lye in prison, tyed in chames, or at the stake

burned for Gods cause: That place is holy: For the ho∣linesse of the man, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him; As Tertullian saith, yet there should be common pla∣ces appointed for the people to assemble and come toge∣ther in, to praise our God, &c.

Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard, nor Christen moldes (as they be called, when it it is no better then other Earth, but rather worse, for the conjuring that Bishops use about it.) It appeares in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves, the Widdows Sonne going to buriall, Christ buried without the city, &c. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops, but in a severall place appointed for the same purpose without the city, which custome remaineth to this day in many god∣ly places.

As it then was lawfull and no hurt to the dead, so it is now, and one place is as holy as another to be buried in, sa∣ving that comely order requires the bodies not to be casta∣way, because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, and shall be glorified at the last day againe, but seemely to be bu∣ried, and an honest place to be kept severall from Beasts, and unreverent using of the same, for the same pur∣pose.

IT IS POPISH TO BELEEVE that which the Bishops doe teach: That place to be more holy then the rest which they have hallowed, as they say, with their con∣jured water, crossings, censings, processions, &c.

But blessed be that God our Lord, which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fan∣tasies, which they devise to fill their bellies, and maintaine their authority by: Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardnesse of the people to keepe them exercised, that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles; yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament, nor yet commanded now, either to us o••••

them, but forbidden to be used of all, both of us and them.

We be no longer under shaddowes, but under the truth.

Christ hath fulfilled all, and taken away all such darke kind of Ceremonies, and hath placed the cleare light of his Gospell in the Church•• to continue to the end.

Thus and much more this Bishop, who liberally cen∣sures all Lordly Non-preaching Dominering Bishops, tearming these creatures ravening Wolves, Ly••ns, Beares, and such other ravening Beasts, for mercilesnes, rap••ne and cruelty.

If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our S••••∣tutes, Common••prayer•• bo••ke, H••milies, Canons, Article••, Injunctions, Writers, and thus derived by this reverent Bi∣shop himselfe, in a Booke printed at Lord•• n•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 An: 1562. (the same yeare, he 39. Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified,) I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them, to consecrate Churches, Chappels, Church yards, and Altars, accounting them alltogether prophane; unlesse they have defiled, conjured, (I should have said consecrated) them with their new devised Ceremonies, Orisons, Conse∣cration, Rites, and Ceremonies, takenout of Popist Masse-bookes, Ceremonials, Rituals, at large related in Summa Ro∣sella, Summa, Angelica, Bochellous, Gratian, Ivo, Lyderwood, Ho∣strensis, with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars, and treatises of this subject, deserving rather derision then imitation.

If they have no Law at all for it, but only the Popes Canon Law, (as they have not) aboli shed by sundryr 1.38 acts of Parlia∣ment, is derogatory to the Kings prerogative, the subjects liber∣ties, and the Lawes and Statu••es of the Realme; Then why are they now of late so madde upon these consecrations, as things of infinite moment. How hotte they have beene upon

consecration of Altars, appeares not only by the new conse∣crated Altar at Wolverhampton, of which before, but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches, in M••ga••len Colledge 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Oxford, in Clare-hall, Petorhouse, Queenes Coll••dg••, with di••en other Colledges in the Vniversity of Cambridge, solemntly dedicated with some kinde of consecration, adorned with Tapors, Candlestickes, Basons, Crucifixes, Crosses, rich Altar-clothes, clasped brave Bookes, with Crosses in steed of Bosses, Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions, rich hangings, and dayly ad∣red with superstitious idolatrous geniculations, to the great greife of all good Christians, who mourne to see these Foun∣tains of learning thus desperately poysened & disguised with the Reliques, Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose; Whom the divinity Professour of Cambridge D. C••llins in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 publike Sermons hath of late yeeres much ext••lled, like an Apostazing Pander, preaching openly in S. Maries Church•• That it is sitt w••e should meet the Papists halfeway, both in preac∣hing and practise; Which he and others there have not o•••••• done, but almost if not quite r••n••hon•••• unto them, as asa 1.39 Fran∣ciscu de Sancta Clara (that moderne Reconciler) vaunts it sundry places of his printed Booke; To the great incourage∣ment and triumph of all the Roman Faction; Who vau•••• that•• they need no step one foote to us, who are running withal speed to come home to them, unless Gods present plagues 〈◊〉〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasie stay our progresse, and some stoute private Champions and royall Edicts encoun∣ter us in the way to Rome, to drive us home againe, for never a Prelate will or dares to doe it, many of them spurring us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chaire, (whenceb 1.40 D. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree,) with all their mig•••• and man: How earnest and zealous our Prelates have b•••••• in their consecration of Churches, Chappels, and Church-yards, placing great holinesse in this Ceremony, yea and ne∣cessity too; And evident, not only by their latec 1.41 visitation Ar∣ticles,

wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated graund they have hallowed with their Rochets, that it be by no meanes prophaned, but likewise by sundrie late consecra∣tions, and contests about this Ceremonie, I shall instance only in •• particulars, omitting* 1.42 all the rest, together with the so∣lemne consecration of the foundation stones of the repaire of Paules, (which were very solemnely blessed by the Bishoppe, who hath farre more charity towards sencelesse stones, then men, whom he can finde spare howres to curse, excommuni∣cate, imprison, dismember, and what not, but not to blesse or preach to.)

The first instance I shall pitch on, is that of S. Giles Church in the Feildes.

This Church about 9. yeares since, was new repaired in some of the wals, leds, and seats, & all divine offices, Sacramēts, preaching of divine service was celebrated in it, after its repair for two yeares space or more, (time enough one would think to consecrate it, if prayer, preaching of Gods Word, holy exer∣cises, and Sacraments can make places holy:) All this time it was thought holy enough without any such consecration, by D. Mountaine then Bishop of London: But his Successour, after a yeares space (I know not upon what grounds, or hu∣mour, much lesse by what law or authority) would needs have the Church consecrated, though not new built, but repaired, ••n which case by thed 1.43 Canon Law there needes no fresh conse••ration.

The Parish at first oppose it, but the present Bishop will not be foyled in this Laudable worke, whereupon he seque••ters the Church for a month or 3 weekes space, lockes up the ••oores, suffers neither divine service, nor Sermons, nor Sacra∣ments (except Baptisme) all that while, to the great distur∣bance of the Parishioners; At last af••er much adoe, and the expence of 50. or 60•••• in fees and entertainment, the Bishopp solemnely consecrates it,* 1.44 after the old Romish manner (there being no Protestant forme prescribed by our Church) a cruci∣fix,

condemnede 1.45 expresly by our Homiles, being first sett up in the glasse window, to h••ll••w it in a legall forme though the fees for consecration weref 1.46 Symony by the Canon Law, andg 1.47 ex∣tortion by the Common Law, and so illegall by both.

The 2. instance, is that of the new Chappel in the Kings Bench prison, buil•• by St. Iohn Lentall.

After it had been built & used as a Chappel aboue a yeares space, I know not by what Law, it must needs be consecrated, or else threatn••d to be sequestred and interdicted.

The present Archbishoppes surrogate, & Bishop Wren, by late delegation under the Archbishop forsooth, would doe the feat, but not under 30••. fees at least, that was the lowest they would stoop to; So pure and innocent are these holy Consecrations and Consecratours from Symony and extor∣tion; This price being in a manner agreed upon (hough somewhat an overhigh rate for so short a work••) D. Cu••le Bishop of Winchester hearing of it, alledged it was within his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and t••e of•• reit belonged not to them, but to him to consecrate; And because he would be sure to prevayle, he profered to hallow it gratis, and take nothing but a dinner for his paines, which the other would have besides their 30••.

Hereupon S••. Iohn Lentall yeelds, that he should have the h••nour to consecrate it.

A weeke or two before this consecration, some Popishly affected person or other, had caused the picture of Christ and his 12 Apostles to be hung up in th•• Chappel, contrary to the Homilies and Doctrine of our Church, the which some more honest minded persons rased and defaced.

The B••shop comming to consecrate the Chappel, since Ea∣ster last* 1.48, esples the defacing of these Images, & was very an∣grie at it; Telling Sr. Iohn, that had he knowne of the defa∣cing of these holy Images, which ought to be respected be∣fore he came thither, h•• would not have consecrated the Chappel till they had beene repaired and beautefied againe;

Ye•• since he was come, he would consecrate it as it was, but gave Sr. Iohn a speciall charge to see these holy Reliques of Rome repaired with all speed, which thereupon being done, hath driven many from the Chappel.

By which true relation of this Consecration, we may see what an holy c••re our devout Prel••t•• have of preserving & setting up these Images and Pictures, which the veryh 1.49 Ho∣milies and subscribed Doctrine of our Church injoyne, them in all especiall manner to deface, pull downe, and cast out of all our Churches, as things that doe not adorne or consecrate, but most fil••hely defile, idulterate, and prophane them. Ex••un∣gue Leonem, you may know what and whose creatures they are, and what they ayme at, by their clawes.

The third instance J shall nominate, is now very fresh in memory.

D. Lawde Archbishop of Canterbu••y, contested lately with the Vniversity of Cambridg••, pretending that he by his Metro∣politicall authority ought to visit them.

The Vniversity on the other side alledged; That their Vni∣versity it selfe, and many of their Colledges, were of the Kings foundation, and so of righti 1.50 exempt from all Episcopall ju••is∣diction; That they were not under the Bishop of the Dio∣cesse his visitation, therefore not under the Arch-bishops; That every Colledge had its proper visitours, appointed by the Charters of their foundation, with his Majesties and his Royall ancestours speciall appointment, & therefore ought to be visited by no other.

That the power and right of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State and persons•• especially of the Vniversities, was a cheefe flower of the Crowne united to it, by ex∣presse words, in two severall Act•• of Parliament, to witt, 26. H. 8. c. 1. 1. Eliz. c. 1. And also by 37. H. 8. c. 17. 8. Eliz. c. 1.

That the Kings Majestie alone by the Canon Law and those statutes was the sole visitour of the whole Realme; That no Bishop could keepe any visitation, no not in his owne Diocesse, but by speciall Pate••t and Commission under the Kings broad Seale authorising him, and that in the Kings name and right alone, not his owne, as these Statutes of Ed. 6. c. 2. and all the Bishops Patents in Edward the 6. time made according to this Act, ex∣presly define.

That they were bound by their oath of Supremacy and allegiance to his Majestiel 1.51 to defend this right of his, to the ut∣termost of their powers, and by their oath to maintaine his Priviledges.m 1.52

That no Archbishop since 25. H. 8. c. 1. (except Cardinall Poole by a Commission from the Pope, as his Legate and Dele∣gate in Queen Maries time) had ever attempted and presumed to visit the Vniversity in his owne Metropoliticall right, and that it was never visited before that time by any B. as Metro∣politan, but only asn 1.53 the Popes Legate, and by vertue of his Buls: That King Henry the 8 King Edward the 6. Queene Eliza∣beth, and King Iames, did visit it by their Commissioners, & no Archbishop in their time durst presume to visit it by his Archiepiscopall power only: Thato 1.54 Robert Holgate Arch∣bishop of Yorke, in King Henry the 8. his dayes, with other Bi∣shops, and all the Bishops what soever in King Edward the 6. time, were forced to tal••e speciall Patents and Licenses from the King, enabling and authorising them in precise words, to visit their Diocesse and execute Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and that only Nomine, vicè, & autoritate Regis, which they could not do without such Patents.p 1.55

That no Bishop or Ordinary, without a speciall Patent or Commission, can or dares to visit any one of the Kings free Chap∣pels, much lesse then, any of his Vniversities, which are more pecu∣liar to his Majestie, and more to be respect••d, and of they did, they incurred a Praemunire.q 1.56

Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in

his owne name and right as Archbishop only, they must and would withstand him, according to their oaths, and duties, both to his Majestie & the Vniversity; But if he wo••ld come as the Kings visit u•• and substitute only, and in his name and right alone, with a speciall Commission or Patent under his great••••eale, they would willingly submit to his visitation, o∣therwise not.

This contestation grew so great, that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majestie, and his honourable privy Counsell at Hampton 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •• Whereupon the ope••ing &•• hearing of the case (pretended by the Vniversi∣t••es & Arch-bishops) was whether his Majestie, or the Arch-bishops, or which of them should be supreme in causes Eccle∣siasticall, and sole visitour of the Vniversities in Law & righ•• The Arch-bisop declared, that he desired not to visit the Vni∣versity out of any ambition or desire of Innovation, &c. But only to rectify some enormities of l••ng Continuance; And what were they? There were some Chappels belonging to certaine Colledges in that Vniversity, the which had never yet been consecrated, and yet divine service & Sacraments were ministred in then, and had beene so for many yeares, and for instāce he named E••••••nuel Colledge for oner 1.57 (which hath been used as a Chappel ever since the yeare of our Lord 1524) and Sidney Sussex Colledge Chappell, used from An: 1598. till this present.

So that the consecration of these two Chappels were the principall cause (at least pretence) of this great contestation before the Arch-bishop and Vniversity.

A weighty matter, God woot•• to trouble his Majestie and whole Counsell with, when as there is neithers 1.58 Scripture, Law, nor Canon of our Church in force, to justifie such a con∣secration, but Lawes and authoriti•••• store against it.

t 1.59 Bishop Pilkington,u 1.60 Walter Haddon. Mr. Fox, and others much jeare and deride the madnesse, folly, and su∣perstition of Cardinall Poole, and his Deputie visitors of

this very Vniversity of Cambridge, for digging up Mr. Bucers and Paulus F••gius bores out of S. Maries Church i•• Cambridge, ••. yeares after they were interred; And inter∣dicting, and n••w con••ecrating the Church againe as pro∣phaned by them, for feare their Masses and divine service, there used, should be nothing worth, the place being made prophane and unholy by these Heretickes funerals, as they judged them: When as the Church was holy enough to say Masse in for three yeare space before, & all that would not heare it•• must be imprisoned, although the parties lay there buried.

And is it not then a farre greater madnes superstition, and ridiculous frenzie for our dominering Arch-Prelats, to deeme these two Chappels prophane places, unfitt to administer the Sacraments, a••d celebrate divine service in, because never yet consecrated by a Bishop, not only after three, but almost three∣score yeares use and practise of divine service, Sermons and Sacraments in them; Whē as neither his predecest••••rs Whi••∣gift, Bancroft, and Abbot, (men very ceremonious, and much addicted to superstition) ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration. And there is no such Canons, Law, and Doctrine to enforce the consecratiō of them now, as were to justifie thex 1.61 rehallowing of S. Maries, in Queen Maries time, which the Popish Canon Law then approv••d.

O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God, and patronize the authorized Doctrines of our Church, as they are for these superstitious, ridiculous Romish trifles, fitter for Schoole-boyes to sport themselves with all, then for great and grave Bishops (ever imployed in the highest State and Church affaires) to trouble both the Vniver∣sity, King, Counsell, and themselves with all.

If any here reply, that they 1.62 Counsell of London An: 1236. under Cardinall Otho the Popes Legate, first of all ordained and decreed here in England, that Churches should be consecrated,

whereas before that time, (as the words of the Constitution witnesse) divers Cathedrals and Parochiall Churches in England had been built many years before, and used as Churches, and yet were never consecrated: J answer, that it seemes till this Constitution, even in those times of superstitious grosse blindness, Consecration was not held a thing of any mo∣ment or necessity, much lesse then should it be so reputed now.

Yet as those ancient Churches must then, for this Legates gaine be all consecrated within a certaine space, that he might have a round fee from every of them, or else be wholy sus∣pended and interdicted, so must these ancient Chapples now, by this Popish Canon.

After this Constitution, the Bishops byz 1.63 Bulls from the Pope tooke upon them to consecrate Churches, Chapples, and Church-yeards, in their owne names and rights, till the aboli∣shing of the Popes usurped power, and restoring the Ecclesia∣sticall jurisdiction to the Crowne. An. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. & 26. H. 8. c. 1.

After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapple, Church, or Church-yeard, till they had obtained a speciall License from the King, under his broad Seale, for them and their successours, enabling and authorizing them to doe it; Which Licence they (after much suite to the King, Henry the 8.) obta••ned in the 31. yeare of his reigne, the Coppy whereof I shall sett here downe.

a 1.64 The King to all men, unto whome these presents shall come greeting. Know yee that wee, out of our speciall grace, certaine knowledge, and meere motion, have granted and given License, and by these presents for us and our heires doe grant and give License, as much as in us is, to the most reverend Fathers in Christ, Thomas Arch-bi∣shop of Canterbury, and Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke, and to the reverend Father in Christ, John Bishop of Bath and Wells, and also to all other Bishops and Suffraganes

within our Realme of England, that they, and every 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them may consecrate any Churches, Chappels, or Church-yeards, in our Kingdome of England already built and fi∣nished, as well for the administration and receiving of all Sacraments and Sacramentals to be ministred in them, o•• any of them; As for the use of the buriall of dead pers••ns within the same Churches, or Church-yeards, and euery of them, &c.

And wee further will and grant by these presents, tha•• our Chancellour of England shall make or cause to be made, and deliver or cause to be delivered to any of the foresaid Arch-bishops and Suffraganes from time to time, as often as there shall be need, so many, and such a number of our Letters Patents, with speciall and sufficient words a••d clauses to be made in due forme of Law, for the execution of the Premises, and to be sealed under the great Seale, as shalbe necessary and fitt for the premises or any of them, by his discretion, &c. Notwithstanding the Statutes of Mort: &c. In witnesse whereof, &c. Wit∣nesse the King at Westminster, the 1••. day of November in the 31. yeare of the reigne of King Henry the 8, &c. Ter∣ipsum Regem.

From which Patent (truely transcribed out of the Rolls, where it it is in Lattine,) I observe:

First, that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches, Chappels, or Church-yeards, without a speciall License from the King himselfe, under his Great Seale: Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories, Visitations, inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures, sus∣pend or silence Ministers and the like, without such a speciall grant or Licence: And so their Episcopall jurisdiction, not ••ure divino, but meerly humane by the Kings grant and insti∣tution.

Secondly, that after such a License given them by the King, under his great Seale, they cannot, yea ought not by

Law to consecrate any Church, Chappel, or Church-yeard, without suing forth a spec••all Patent out of the Chauncery, under the Great Seale, particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses, to consecrate such & such a Church, Chappel, or Church yeard in speciall, (much more then must they have the like speciall Patent, and Com∣mission, to keep Courts, Visitations, suspend or silence Mini∣sters, and the like,) which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out, but goe on of their owne heads, in and by their owne Episcopall authorities for the most part, for which a Paemunire lies against them.

Thirdly, that every consecration is, and makes ab 1.65 Mort∣mani••; Therefore it is against the Law, and must have a spe∣ciall License and warrant from the King, under his Great Seale, as this Patent prescribes.

Fourthly, this Patent allowes neither the Bishops, nor their Officers, to take any fees at all, for any such con∣secrations; Therefore the fees they* 1.66 exact for them, are meere extortions, for which an Inditement or Bill lyeth in the Sta-chamber.

Fifthly, they cannot inforce any man, or Parish, to have their Chappels, Churches, or Church-yeards consecrated, un∣lesse themselves require and desire it may be done, as some words in the Patent (which for brevity sake I have omitted) manifest, and the words may, nor shall consecrate, implieth as much.

Sixtly, that this gives them no power at all to conse∣crate Altars or Altar-clothes, (which have ac 1.67 distinct pe∣culiar forme of Consecration) but only Churches, Chappels, & Church-yeards.

After this Kingd 1.68 Henry the ••. in the 37 yeare of his reigne, by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford, among other things, granted him power to proceed to the Conse∣cration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Di••cesse. Moreover without speciall grant from the King they had no

such power; For which cause it was then specially inser••e•• into this and other Bishops Patents.

And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all o∣ther Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use.

But upon the change and reformation of religion, (which is worthy of observation) i•• quite vanished away, as did many other Popish Superstitions, by the abolishing of the Masse••Bookes, Primers, and Ceremonials, which prescribed the man∣ner and forme of Consecrating Churches, Chapples, and Church-yeardes, by the Statutes of 2. &. 3. E. 6. c. 1. & 3. & 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I finde not in all the Patents made to Bi∣shops in King Edward•• dayes by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2: One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches, Chapples, or Church-yeards, though all other parts of Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall jurisdiction (as keeping of Courts, Visitations, Probale of Wills, granting of Letters of Admi∣nistration, suspending of Ministers upon* 1.69 Legall and just groundes &c. be particularly granted them in those Patents: Yet how? To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS, in o•••• owne Royall Name, Stead, and Authority, not their owne, as the Patents of Scory, Couerdale, 5. Ed. 6. parsf: in the Rolls, with many others testify: Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches, Chapples, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church-yards, inserted into heir Patents in these latter dayes, from the King, under his Great S••ale, authorizing them to keep Consistories, Visitations, prove Wills, grant L••••ters of Administration, Suspend, Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiasticall Censures upon any Sub∣j••ct.

Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law, to execute any of those particulars, aud what ever they doe in any of them is Coram non judice, and but a meere Nullity,

especially their Consecration of Churches, Chapples, Church-yeards, Altars, for which they have neither Patent•• Statute, Article, Injunction, Canon, or Orthodox Writer of our Church: Or for those longe 1.70 since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication, which they would nowf 1.71 receive.

But of this enough for this present, in which I have been the more prolix, because it is a poiet of Law, not hitherto dis∣cussed fully, by any that I have mett with.

QVESTION IIII.

The 4. Question I shall propound, is this: What Law or Canon there is to enjoyne Ministers, to read the Epistle and Gosple, or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table (or to suspend them if they refuse to doe it) when there is no Com∣munion.

The reason of this demaund is five-fold:

1. Because in truth there is no Statute, Law, Injunction, or Canon extant, prescribing any such thing.

2. Because the Rubricke before the Communion ordaines, that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVE∣NING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID, and the Preist standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table, shall say the Lords prayer with thi col∣lect following. &c. And the Rubricke at the end of the Com∣munion ordaines thus: Vpon the Holy-dayes if there be no Communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, untill the end of the Homily, concluding with the generall prayer, &c. But it sayth not, that it shall then be sayd at the Communion Table: Whence I observe:

1. That the•• Rubricke ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table, but at such times only as there is a Communion.

2. That when he reades service at it, the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body, or MIDDLE of the Church, or Chappel, where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be sayd: So as the Pr••••st ought not to goe up to the Table or high Altar, but they ought to be removed and brought downe to him, as is cleare by th••s Rubricke, and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, and the 82 Ca∣non forecited, if you read: Whence I argue thus:

The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar, but then only, when it is removed and brought downe into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at, as the Rubricke, Injunction & Canon resolve: But the Table is not thus to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion (unlesse they will grant, that it ought alwayes to stand in the middest of the Church, or Chancel, which they profestedly deny) witnesse the Ru∣bricke Institution and Canon: Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it, but only when there is a Com∣mi••••ion.

Thirdly,* 1.72 because the Rubricke before Te Deum saith, that the Epistle and the Gospell shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce, that the people may heare the Minister that read••th them, and the Minister Atanding and turning him∣selfe, as ••he may best be heard of ALL such as be pre∣sent: Therefore this is direct, that the Second Servic•• (where∣of the Epistle and Gospell are a part) must be read in the Rea∣ding P••w, where the Lessons are, when there is no Communion; Because there, he may best be heard of ALL present, and that he must not turne his fuce East, but West to the people.

Fourthly, because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches,* 1.73 not to read divine Service at, but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at; This is the sole use for which it serves: As the Font, is ordained only for Baptism••, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for reading, and the Chest or p••oremans lo•• in every Church for Almes: So it for the L: S•• as is clear by 1 Co•••• 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2••. &c. The Common-prayer-booke; The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramnt••, of the right use of the Church, of the R••pairing and keeping cleare of Chur∣ches.

Queen Elizabeths In••unctions & Canons sett ou•• 1511. p: 18. and Can: 1603. Can: 8••. 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever mett with all, have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus:

Whereas her Majesty understandeth, &c. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament, according to the forme of Law therefore provided: Hence Mathew Parkers visitation-Articles An: 1560. Art. 2. thus: Whether have you in your Churches, &c. A comly and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMVNION, &c. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus: Church-wardens shall see, there be a faire repaired Table, which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion, and a c••eane Cloth to cover it; A convenient Pulpit, whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught, &c. The 28. Can: 1603. thus: Whereas we have no doubt, but that in all Churches within the Realme of England (therefore in Cathe∣drals too, which had then no Altars) convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed (to what end? to read Ser∣vice at? No; But) for the celebration of the holy Commu∣nion, &c. And likew••se that a convenient seate be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN: With a comly & decent Pulpit for the preaching of Gods word Can. 83.

Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies, yea by the resolution of all (our* 1.74 Pre••utes ••isita∣tion Articles) is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it; And the 28 Canon, with the Rubricke before T•• Deum expresly confines the reading of divine ser∣vice to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose: It is cleare, that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table, but only when there is a Communion: That the reading of Service at it on other times, is a meere abuse and perversion of that end, for which it was instituted: And Bi∣shoppes may with as much reason and Law enjoyne them to reade Second Service, at the Font, in the Pulpit, or at the Poore mans box, as at it.

Fifthly,* 1.75 Because the Queenes Injunctions, the 82 Ca∣non, and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Me∣tropoliticall visitation expresly prescribe:

That when ever the Minister shall reade Service at the Table, it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle, as thereby the Minister shall be the more co∣veniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also more conve∣niently, and in more number may communicate with the said Minister:

Which words, compared with the Rubricke before Te Deum, are a direct resolution, that the Minister ought not to reade any prayers at the Table, but when there is a Communion; Which being most cleare;

No Bishoppes may or ought to enjoyne Ministers to reade Second Service at the Table or Altar, when there is no Communion, neither can they suspend any for not doing it.

And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to reade Service thus, both the Bishop and they (as D. Wre••. B••shop of Norwich, with many of his Clergie have done) incurre the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indited, fined and imprisoned for it by this Law; It being a saying of divin••

s••rvice in another manner and forme, and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Booke of Common-prayer; Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Ca∣nons) condemnes this Innovation, which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now; Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity, but only in Popish Churches of late yeares.

All that can be alledged for it is that whichg 1.76 Shelford and the h 1.77 Colier produce for Altars, and bowing to them; The practise of our Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches, being most Popish, corrupt, and most opposite to our Lawes and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes, Images, Tapors, Altars, Altar-adorations, Vestments, Chaunting, lascivious Musicke, Gesticulations, with a World of other Romish Antichristian Reliques and Ceremonies: (All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatrie of the time and place of Prayer: The Common Prayer-Booke: 3. & 4. E. 6. c. 10. & 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late) being fitter our detestation then Imitation.

To which I answer:

1. That we must live by precepts, not Examples; Our Ca∣thedrals in this, and sundrie other particulars, are contrary to our Lawes and Canons in point of practise, therefore to be detested. corrected, and reformed by our Lawes, and made like to other Churches; Not our Laws, Canons, and Churches to be squared by them, the worst of any.

2. The Rubricke of the Common Prayer-Booke, in the end of the Communion, prescribes in direct termes; That in Ca∣thedrall and Collegiate Churches, where be many P••eists and Dea∣cons, they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Mini∣ster EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST, ex∣cept they have a reasonable cause to th•• contrary; By which it is cleare, that there ought to be a Communion celebrated

every Sunday in every Cathedrall & Collegiate Church, and that every Preist and Deacon of the Church ought then to re∣ceive it with the Minister, unlesse he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary: And who can this Minister be but the Bi∣shop? Ergo Bishops are but Ministers, and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals: Ergo to be alwayes Resident at their Seas, and no dancing attendance on the Court.

The last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister, not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister, for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission.

Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Ca∣thedrall and Collegiate Churchi 1.78 anciently, and in Queen Elizabeths dayes; And so it ought by Law to be now; And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches, because they had a Communion on those dayes.

But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omit∣ted and discontinued, and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men; and the Ceremony, to wit••, the use of reading second service at the Table (now fo•• ••oo••h at the High Altar, as they call it,) only retained and urged; Which ought not to be read there by Law, as I have mani∣fested, unlesse there be a Commnion, and then only at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lords Table, as the Rubricke in the Communion, the Queens In∣junctions, and 28. Canon prescribe, not at an Alta.

Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches, and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table, (and the standing in the middest, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare, not at the upper end, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can ••eare whats read, as in Paules and other Cathedrals, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give

notice to the Cheristers and others, when to say AMEN, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read) as the Common Prayer-Booke injoynes them; Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables, situated Altarwise, reading it only in their Pewes, appointed for that purpose, as they do in Parish Churches, else they may be law∣fully indicted, fined and imprisoned for it, as egregious viol••ters of the statute of 1•• Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer, that they seeme so much to stand upon.

QVESTION V.

The 5 Question I shall propose is this; What Law or Ca∣non is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West, or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them,k 1.79 Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any; and for pract se it hath beene otherwise.

The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood other∣wise: And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round, or in an Oual manner, as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepul∣cher at Ierusalem: The famousl 1.80 Church of Tyre, built by Paulinus Bishop of that city, was otherwise situated: For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof, which fully discribes it, in∣formes us; That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it, reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames, and that there was a seperation with great distance, betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch: The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch, and the Porch standing thus Eastw••rds; It is certaine, that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest, or West end of it, not at the East in the middest whereof (the same Sermon informes us) the Altar stood.

The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct a••thority, p. 53. (That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle, which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South.) is a direct forge∣ry contrary to the words of this Sermon, which sayth, th•••• the Porch stood Eastward, and the Sanctuary a great distance from it, in the middest of which the Altar stood. So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church, being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch, which stood Eastward.

Since this time the Churches (as I have else-where mani∣fested) have been diversly situated according to the conve∣niency of the place; Some being round or Ouall; Others square; Others standing North and South, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Sa∣voy Church, with divers of the Kings owne Chapples; And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges, Hospitals, Noblemen and Gentlemen; And if this be not sufficient, the very late Po∣pish Chapple at Somersett-house; with the new Church in Court Garden, which as it stands not now perfectly East and West, so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part; Which some Prelates (without Law, Canon, and rea∣son, I know not upon what superstitious overweaning con∣ceit) commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end, to the great expence of the builder, the hindrance, and deformity of that good worke, which yet must not be used for a Church, because not consecrated by a Bishops co••••∣ring white Rochet; Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law, & utterly exploded as a Romish Relique.

If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Chur∣ches or Chapples, East and West, or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches, as is apparent, there is not; There can∣not then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise; Being the end for which J moved the Question.

And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle, so as litle Antiquity.

For in Durantus his time (one of the latest authorities Bi∣sh••p Iewel quotes) who lived not above 400 yeares since, the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire, and not close against the wall, as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell ••ites, but by other passages: By the: Altar (m 1.81 sayth he) our heart is understood, which is in the MIDDEST of the body, ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE, as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church.

Moreover he informes us,n 1.82 that in consecrating the Altar, the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT, goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times (which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now, close to the Easterno wall,) to signify that ••e ought to take care for all, and be vigilant for all, which is signi∣fied by CIRCUITUM, by his compassing or going round the Altar.

And if this be not sufficient, (out of Isiodoro 1.83, Amalariusp 1.84, Fortunatusq 1.85, Rabanusr 1.86, Mauruss 1.87, and others fore-cited) he thus defines a Quiret 1.88, Chorus est multitudo exsacris coll••cta, & dictus Chorus, quód initio in modum CORONAE CIR∣CUMARAS starent, & ita psallerent: Enough to An∣swer the Coliarsu 1.89 idle euation of his authority.

This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantusu 1.90 Bartholomeus Gavantusx 1.91 and other late Popish writers.

Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire, yet ab initio non fuit sic: it hath been but of late times so, even as the Papists themselves confesse.

Hence our Learned Dr. ••ulkey 1.92, as in the places fore-cited, so in his Defence against G••egory Martin writes thus:

The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT, AND NOT AGAINST A WALL, AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand, which is easy to prove,

and hath often times been proved, and it seemes (sayth he to Martin of the Papistsz 1.93) you confesse as much; VVhich words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Mor∣ton (who concurs both in words and judgement with him) in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacra∣ment.

This Hospiniana 1.94 proves by sundry authorities, and by that of the Counsell of Constantinople 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which Survis, Crab, Binius, and others render CIRCVMCIR∣CA ALTARE, round about the Altar, as the word doth properly signify even inb 1.95 Sacred Scripture, & other authours, as Bishop Iewel, & Bishop Morton both resolve.

I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Iesuitec 1.96 Vasquez, more moderate, then many of our No∣vellers, Nihilominus certum est, &c. Although there be ma∣ny Authours (to witt of late time, which he there cites) for the placing of Altars towards the East; Yet it is certaine, that it is NO SINNE or offence to situate not only lesser Altars, but likewise the High Altar (and Quires and Chancles too, which he there speakes of) towards other climates or parts of the world; For this tradition (how-ever some urge it as necessa∣ry, and a binding Law) non est de earum numero quae sub prae∣cepto nobis volita fuerunt; It is not of the number of those tradi∣tions, which have been left unto us under any precept; VVhich he proves out of the forecited words ofd 1.97 Walafridus, Strab••, adding out ofe 1.98 Nicephorus, that men have dive••sly ordered those things in former times.

Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out off 1.99 Socrates, wherein the Altar stood westward, it being free for Christians in these things, vel hanc vel illam consi••••tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custome in the si••uation of their Altars, (Lords Tables) and Quires: Much more the•• to rayle in, or not rayle in their Altars or Lords Tables Altar∣wise at the East end of the Quire, or to come up to the rayle

(asg 1.100 Bishop Wre•• will now inforce all his Diocesse by his new iuvented Articles, to receive, contrary to the custome of all our churches from Queen Elizabeths time till now, yea contrary to the practise in the dayes of Popery, and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Quire or Chancle to receive, but only to offer, as is evident by Concilium To•• et ••••um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communi∣ce••; Extra Chorum populus. Concil: Eluber: Can. 76. Sardi∣cense Can. 10. Agathense: Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist: 52. Innocen∣tius. 1. Epist. 22. Niciph: Eccles: Hist: ••. 12. c. 41. Chamir. l. 9. de Coena Domini. c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge, p. 391. with others forequoted.

And the Rubricke of the Booke of Common-Prayer, sett forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Quire, the men on the one side, the women on the other side, and there to receive.

And likewise King Iames his Proclamation, new printed before the Bookes of Common-Prayer, admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any fur∣ther alteration in the common and publicke for me of Gods service from this which is now established, &c. it being necess••ry to use constancy in the holding of the publicke determinations of States, for that such is the unquietn••sse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions (as Wren & other Novellors, and the Colier now) affecting every yeare new formes of things, as if they should be followed in their un∣constancy, would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemtible;

VVhereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice established, is the Weals of all Common Wealthes, which J would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon.

QVESTION VI.

The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours, is this:

VVhat Statute, Canon, Scripture, An••iquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Al∣tars; VVhether their cringing and bowing be a divine ado∣••ation, or only a civill worship? And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist, bowing, and practise of adoring Altars, Crucifixes, Crosses, and Images, which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatrie.

This Question is T••••partie, and the cheife of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any; J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it, beginning with the first branch thereof:

Law, Canon, Injunction, Constitution of our Church, en∣joyning and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremonie, I never yet, met with any, no not in times of Popery, except that ofi 1.101 Cardinall Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Maries dayes, in the Vniversity of Cambridge, fore mentioned.

Scripture there is not any direct in point, only some texts are strained and miserablie perverted to this purpose. As k 1.102 1: Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy feare will I worship to∣wards thy holy Temple; The nearest texts they can ci••e for their purpose, and yet farre enough from it.

For what Logician will not deride this argument:

David would and did worship towards the Temple at Ierusalem.

Ergo we must bow downe and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables:

David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or else-where out of the Temple, worshipped, that is,l 1.103 prayed towards it;

Ergo Christians when they come in or goe out of our Churches, must bow downe to the Table or Altar.

VVhat coherence of vigour is there in this argument? What beast had he reason would thus dispute? Had they hence in∣ferred, Ergo, we must alwayes adore, bow downe to, or worship God towards (not in) our Churches and Chaples: This had been a more probable inference, though unsound; Because the Iewes worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only, which is vanished; Not towards their Synagogues, of which our Churches is rather patternes and successours, then of the Temple, which was but one, not many, and that a type of our Saviour, abolished shortly after his death, nor of our Churches built long since after another forme, and to anm 1.104 other purpose then it.

But to answer the texts fully:

1. First, the worship towards the Temple, here mentioned, was not bare bowing downe of the body only (as these Novellers dreame) to, or towards it, or the Altar or Temple, but a praying towards it, as is evident, by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King. 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan: 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer.

2. Secondly, it was a worship towards the Temple only, not towards the Altar in the Temple; And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table; For the Church or Chapple it selfe is neither.

3. Thirdly, it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple; Not any genufl••ction or chringing to the Temple: But this bowing of our Novellers, is not simply towards, but likewise to the Altar, asn 1.105 Reeue, &o 1.106 D. Pocklington ac∣knowledge; Now bowing to, and towards the Altar, are in some respects two distinct things; Therefore this wor∣shipping towards the Temple, no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar,

4. Fourthly, this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of wayes in scripture; Improperly and Pro∣perly: Improperly for a praying in some private place, not only out of the Temple, but even out of the sight and veiwe of it.

Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Ierusalem: Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Iewes where ever they were, whether in captivity exile or their owne Country, 1. King. 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts.

Properly: For worshipping or praying in the Temple: as, 1. King: ••. 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron: 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29.

Take it in either sence, and it will not avayle our Novel∣lers, David in his private devotions, even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple, did worship or pray towards it; Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church, when we see the Table or High Altar must bow downe to or towards it; or David did worship God towards, that is, in his Temple.

Ergo, they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table, (for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God, unlesse they will make new formes of Altars and Tables, and be mewed up within them by ••ike Popish authority) are but frenticke ridiculous consequents; Yet the best that can be drawne ••••om these texts, to justify these Ceremonies.

5. Fiftly, the Iewes had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For:

1. First, they had a divine premission and authority, if not a precept so to doe.

2. Secondly, a promise from God himselfe to heare & gra•••••• their prayers made towards the Temple;

Both which appeares by the forequoted texts of the Kings, Chronicles, Daniel, and the Psalmes. Viz: 1 King. 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2.

But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or ••••∣wards Altars or Tables, but a direct precept against it, which

many read at the Altar & Table, (to witt, the second Com∣maundement, Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow downe to them, nor worship them; extending as well to Tables as to Images, Idols or any other creatures) though they presently breake it by bowing unto the Table or Altar.

Neither have we any promise of reward, or of answering our prayers made to us, for this cringing to Altars and Tables.

Their practise thereof warrants not ours.

3. Thirdly. the Temple was a speciall and lively type of our Saviour Christ himselfe, (as Divines generally accord,) and that in many respects, too tedious here to mention.

Wherefore the Iewes were thus to worshipq 1.107 towards the Temple, to teach them alwayes to looke forwards to∣wards Christ, which was to come in the flesh, as to their only Sanctuary, helpe and refuge in all conditions, the only Mediatour and intercessour, to whom they must pray, the only High Preist, Sacrifice, Oblation and Altar they must de∣pend on typified by the Temple, but never towards Syna∣gogues.

Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Commu∣nion Tables & High Altars.

4. Fourthly, the Temple was the place of Gods speciall presence, which God had chosen for himselfe to dwell in, and to put his name there, where all the Isralites were every yeare by speciall commaund from God, to meet & to wor∣ship him, and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it. Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King. 7. 29. 30, &c. Psal. 122. 3. 4.

But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scrip∣ture to prove, that the High Altar or Communion. Table is the speciall place of Gods presence, the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in; Sure the Scriptures in∣formes us, that VVHERESOEVER two or three (Mat.

18. 20.) are gathered together in Christs name, there is he in the MIDDEST of them; And thereupon commaunds us: To pray EVERY where, &c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace: Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it, as they doe.

5. Finally, the Jewes whether they were East, West, North, or South from the Temple, or it from them, worshipped and prayed towards it.

But our Innovatours, as they will have all Altars stand Eastward, so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East, and Altars standing towards the East.

These texts therefore, with Davids worshipping towards the Temple (on which they principally relie) make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables, which no Fath••r or Orthodox exp••siter that I have seen, ever deduced from the Scriptures.

Yea, but if these doe not avayle them, Mr. Shelford (in his Sermon of Gods house, p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.) acquaints us with some others that will: as, Psal. 99. 5. Exalt yee the Lord our God, and worship at his footstoole:

E••go, the first reverence that we must make when wee come into the Church, is to bow to the Lords Table, which Saint Paul calls the Lords Altar, and to worship God to∣wards it.

Oh sencelesse Divinity, and childish Logicke! Who ever read of such dist••acted inferences? Had the Psalmist sayd we will worship at the Altar; Or had this footestoble, here men∣tioned, been the Altar, or this worship, a meere bowing of the b••dy towards the Arke, or to it, and not a praying or sacri∣ficing only before or at it, there had been some shaddow of worshipping, that is, of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar, but not of bowing to, or towards it, much lesse to or to∣wards the Lords Table, which is neither an Altar, no•• h••th

any Analogie with the Altar, nei her is it so tearmed by Saint Paul, as this D••eamer doteth, as I have else where proved at large. But since, we read not in Scripture, that David ever wor∣sh••pped or bowed to or towards the Altar; And this s••o es••••••le here, by his owne confe••••on wasr 1.108 the Arcke, but by Davids owne exp••sition Gods holy mountaine o••. H••ll Z••on, Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping, not a bow••ng, but prayer: Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremonie.

Yea, but if these texts fall sh••rt, yet others come fully home: as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl. bowed themselves and worshipped. Ergo Potlid: Therefore we must bow downe, and worsh••p the Al••ar or Communion Table.

Had th••se either b••wed themselves to or towards the Al∣tar, the inference had been somewhat tolerable, though no∣thing to the purpose, for bowing to Lords Tables; But seeing they bowed only to worship God by praysing him, or praying to him (their bowing it selfe being not their worshipping, as these Dreamers fancie, the texts themselves distinguishing the bowing from the worship, and worship from the bowing) and since the first of these bowed themselves when and where there was no Altar neare them; And the second not to or to∣wards the Altar, but unto God; Therefore can they vvith no more probability hence inferre the lawfulness of meere bovv∣ing to or tovvards the Altar or L. T. then they ca•• hence make good that these bovved themselves to, and vvorshipped to∣vvards the Altar, which is certaine they never did.

The other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Is••y. 45. 23. and Rom. 24. 11. (meant on∣ly of the bowing and subjection of men to our S••viour Christ himselfe, not to Altars or the name Iesus, as S P••ul here ex∣presly resolves) are so impertinently cited by Mr. Shelso••••* 1.109 to this purpose, that they need no answer.

All men shall bow to Christ himselfe at the day of judge∣ment: 〈◊〉〈◊〉, they must bow to or towards Lords Ta••les and C••mmunion Tables now; Being a consequence, nor tole∣rable in a B••dlam, much lesse in an ancients 1.110 highly applauded Divine, by Ignoramusses of his owne straine.

Yea but if these texts miscary (yet say some) that oft 1.111 Isay.

36. 7. and 2 Chron. 32. 12. Hath not the same Hezechiah (sayth rayling Rabshaketh) taken away his High places, and his Al••ars, and commanded Iudah and lerusalem, saying, yee shall worship before one Altar, and burne incence on it?

1. I answer, first, that this is only the rayling speech of Rabshaketh, not the dictate of Gods infallible Spirit, therefore no authenticke proofe.

2. Secondly, the first part of it is a direct untruth, why not the latter too, there being no such commaund of Hezechiahs in Scripture, for the Isralites to worship before one Altar?

But admitt there were:

3. Yet thirdly, I say, that this Commaund to worship before the Altar, makes nothing for worshipping or bowing to the Altar, much lesse the Table; No more then David lifting up his hands towards Gods holy Oracle: Ps. 28. 2. proves that we ought to lift up our hands towards the Table or Altar, when we come in, or depart out of the Church, or when ever we make prayers unto God.

For first, this worshipping before the Altar was not any Genuflection, or bowing to or towards it, but a bringing of an Oolation or Sacrifice to it, and burning incense on it, as the next words expound it, and Gen. 8. 20. 1 King. 3 4. 2 Kin. 16. ••2. 13. c. 18. 22. Ps. 43. 4. Ps. 51. 19. Ps. 118. 27. Isay. 56. 7. Mat. 5. 23. compared together, testify:

Or else, it was only a standing upright, and praying to God before it, o•• neare it, without any incuruation of the body to or to∣wards i••: 2 Kin: 8. 21. 22. 2 Chron. 6. 12. Luk. 18. 11. 13. Neither of which warrant or enforce any bowing to or to∣wards it:

No more then the Rubricke in the Common-prayer-booke, prescribing the man a••d the woman to kn••••le downe in some convenient place nigh unto the place where the Table standeth, when they are Churched, there to p••ay-implyes;

That they ought to use to bow to or towards the Table.

Secondly, because they might worship before the Altar, without any bowing or particular inclination of the body to it, as we use to kneele and pray before the Font at every Christning, before the Minister and Pulpit at every Sermon, before the Grave at every funerall, before the Reading Deske at every Common-prayer, Mourning or Evening, and yet bow or cringe our bodies to or towards neither of them, out of any respect at all unto them; Neither doe we the like to the Sacrament or Lords Table when we receive his Supper though most kneele before it then.

So that J may now safely conclude, that there is no Scrip∣ture at all for this new Ceremonie, the rather, because Exod. 20. 23. 24. 25. 26. Dan. 27. 5. Iosh. 8. 31. God commaunds his Al∣tars to be made only of Earth or unhewne stones, without any I∣mage or Picture on them, to withdraw the Iewes from bow∣ing to them, being made of so base materials, enjoyning them also not to goe up by steps to his Altar (as our Novellers doe to their High Altars,) that their nakednesse be not discovered theron, which would haue been more discouered by bowing and stoping downe thereto, then by assending to it by steps.

As for Psal. 95. 6. it is as extravaga••t to this purpose as the rest; The Table being not our Lord and maker, before noted, towards whom this text enjoynes us to kneele and fall downe prostrate: Which I have sufficiently answered in refelling them, and therefore passe it by.

But are there no Fathers or Antiquities for bowing to Al∣tars and Lords Tables?

To Tables certainly, not one, unlesse that of Nazianzen concerning his Motheru 1.112 Quod venerādae Mensae nunquam ter∣ga verteret, be wrested to this purpose contrary to the sence; To witt, that shee never turned herw 1.113 backe upon the Lords Table, by neglecting to communicate, when ever the Sacrament was administred at it; Which is farre enough from bowing to it: The Table there being put for the Sacrament it selfe, ad∣minis••red thereon, as it is in Sundrie such passages in the Fa∣thers, Nicephorus Greg. f. 10. Cent. Magd. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9. Col. 243. and others.

For bowing to and towards Altars there are some seeming Passages in Antiquity, the cheife whereof J shall recite and answer, omitting the residue as impertinent.

The Antiquity of this bovving.

The first Antiquity J finde that may probablie be objected for bowing to Altars, is thex 1.114 Masse of S. Iames the Apostle, the brother of the Lord, if we dare beleive it: Wherein among other things, I finde a Prayer prescribed to the Preist, to be sayd, A fo••bus usque ad Alta••e, from the Church-dore to the Altar, which hath these words in it:

We shake and ••remble comming to thy holy Altar. After the Preist is gon in to the Altar, the Deacon cryes; Let us bow our heads to the Lo••d; And then the Preist kneeling downe, sayth this prayer: Tho•• who only art the Lord, and a m••rcifull God; Incli∣nantibus cernices suas CORAM SANCTO ALTARI, &c. To all that bow then neckes b••fore thy holy Altar, & ask speciall gu••fisfiō there, sen•• fo••th

thy good grace, and 〈…〉〈…〉 dictions, which cannot be taken away from u, &c.

ANSWER.

To which I answer; First, that this Liturgie is but a me••re late Popish forgery (brought in many hundred yeares after Christ.

y 1.115 Bellarmine andz 1.116 Baronius, being so ingenious to confesse, that there are so many additions to it of late times, as it is not easy to judge what part it had S. Iames for the Au••hour.

But if he were Authour of any part, yet doubtlesse not of this, asa 1.117 Mr. Cooke proves sufficiently; To whom I shall re∣ferre you.

Secondly, here is not a word of the Preists bowing to or towards the Altar, nor yet of the peoples; But only a bowing their necke to the Lord.

Thirdly, this bowing their neckes before the Altar, was not with any relation to the Altar, but to God, and only a bowing of the body in prayer to the Lord.

Therefore this spacious forged Antiquity, hatched but of late yeares, makes nothing for this Ceremonie.

The Second Antiquity.

The second, is that ofb 1.118 Dionysius Arcopagita, who writes:

That a Bishop when he is to be consecrated, utroque genu flexo ante Altar••a, kneeling on both his knees before the Al••tar, hath the Gosple delivered by God, layd upon his head and hand: That a Preist kneeling before the Altar on his knees, hath the Bishops right hand layd upon him; That the Deacon kneeling only on one knee before the Altar, hath the Bishops right hand imposed.

After which he observes, that accesse to the Altar, inflexio genuum, the bowing of the knees, and laying on of

hands, &c. is common to all three, and that their accesse to the Altar, and bowing of their knees, and all the spirituall Graces in them to God, &c.

To which I answer:

First, that this Antiquity is but some late Counterfeite No∣veltie, as Mr. Cookec 1.119 hath shewed at large, and the very Ce∣remonies of Ordination here mentioned prove, which came not in, till at least 600 yeares after Dionysius dayes, asd 1.120 Alcu∣mirus witnesseth.

Secondly, admitt the Authour genuine, not forged, yet here is nothing but a kneeling downe before the Altar on both knees, to receive Imposition of hands, not any bowing of the knee or body to or towards the Altar, the thing which should be proved.

The third Antiquity.

The third, is that ofe 1.121 Tertu••••••n, where his Panitence, a∣mong other things, is prescribed. Aris Dei adgenicular••: To bow the knee to Gods Altars.

This some thinke an unanswerable Antiquity.

I answer, first: Thatf 1.122 Erasmus and divers others thinke this to be none of Tertullians, in regard of its phrase, and because Al∣tars (as I have proved) were not then in use.

Secondly, I answer: That the true Coppy reades it, CHA∣RIS, not ARIS DEI; as La Cerda the I••su••e in his Edition of Tertullian, and Annotations, proves at large; And the antece∣d••nt & subsequent words do manifest.

Plerumque v••ró je••uni••s p••eces alere, ingemiscere, lacrymari & mugire d••es ••octesque ad Dominum Deum ••uum, P••aesbyteris advol••, & A••is (for Charis) Dei adgeniculars, & omnibus fratri∣bus

legationes depricationis suae injurgere.

After which, some few ••nes, it ••o••owes by way of recitall: Ergo cum te ad fratrum g••nua protenais, Christum contrecta, Christum exo as: Which last words prov••s that, & A••••s, ••mistaken, and put in for Charis; ET be••••g here a pla•••••• bodge, absurdly thrust in for Ch•• Which added to arts, makes Charis.

This, the placing of it between Presbyteris advolui, and om∣nibus fratribus, &c. warrants to be the true sence and reading; And that for three reasons.

First, because the parties that were thus to prostrate them∣selves to the Elders and Saints of God wereg 1.123 Paen••tents, or men excluded and excommunicated from the Churth and Sacra∣ments for some hainous sim••••s, which they were thus to lament: This bowing and prostration therefore of themselves, could not be Aris Dei, to the Altars, from which they were exclu∣ded; But Charis Dei, to the beloved Saints of God, to whom they might have private accesse for comfort and counsell.

Secondly, because the end of this bowing to the Elders and Brethren was only to aske them pardon for their scandals and offences against the whole Church and them; And to depre∣cate their crimes, as the last words, omnibus fratribus legationes depraecationis suae injungere, manifest: Or elseh 1.124 to desire them to pray, greive and lament to God both with and for them; As the following clauses.

Quid consortes casuum tuorum ut plauso••es fugis? Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere: Condole at uni∣versum, & ad remedium conlaboret, necesse est, &c.

Now, it were absurd for them thus to bow and kneele dovvne to the Altar of God, for either of these tvvo causes; Therefore it vvas questionlesse to the Saints of God, and must so be rendred.

Thirdly, because the Tripartite History, Ierom, Cyprian, with others, quoted by Rhenanus and La Cerda, touching the

manner of the Ex••••••logesis (Con••ession) in the prima∣tive times, make no mention at all of any bowing to Altars, used in this kinde of discipline, by Pae••••tence; But only a bow∣ing to the Saints of God, who bedewed these Paenitents with their teares.

This bowing therefore only to Gods Saints is no proofe of the Antiquity of bowing to Altars.

Thirdly, admit it were Aris Dei, yet it makes nothing to the purpose: For this was not any precise bowing to or to∣wards the Altar such as is now used, but only a kneeling or prostration in prayer before it, as the text doth mani∣fest.

Besides it is Aris Dei adgeniculari, in the Passiue, not adge∣niculare in the Active verbe; Therefore no voluntary genu∣flexion to the Altar, but an enjoyned and enforced prostra∣tion of a pae••itent by the Altar; So that this grand autho∣rity well examined vanisheth into smoke, extending only to paenitents, not any other.

The fourth Antiquity.

The fourth is that ofi 1.125 Athanatius. Quid? quòd & ho∣diè qui ad Sanctum Altare accedunt, idque amplectuntur, ac cum metu ac laetitia salutant, non in lapidibus & lignis, sed in gratia per lapides & ligna nobis raepresentata adhae∣rent.

I answer, first, that this is notk 1.126 Athanasius his genuine worke.

Secondly, that this was only a coming up unto, and em∣bracing and kissing of the Altar, which our Novellers now use not when they bow to it, or before it; And that out of Superstition, rather then any true Christian devotion, as is manifest.

Thirdly, it is spoken only of such who came to receive the Sacrament, ••nd at the time of their receiving, not of o∣thers.

The fift Antiquity.

The fift, is that of Gorgonia, who being dangerously sicke (asl 1.127 Nazianzen in his Oration in her praise records) and dispairing of Mans helpe, went secretly in the darke night unto the Church; Ad Altare cum fide procumbit; Casts herself downe with faith by the Altar, calling him to witnesse who is worshipped upon it, with a loude voyce, &c. And moving her head to the Altar with the like crie, and abundance of tea••es, threatned shee would not remove from thence, till sh•• had recovered her health, and so continued praying and weeping at the Altar, till by Gods goodnesse shee was mi∣raculously recovered.

To which I answer:

First, that here is no mention of any bowing to or to∣wards the Altar, but only of a kneeling downe, and a pro∣stration at it, to pray and weep to him that is worshipped on it; Which proves no more the use or practice of bowing to Al∣tars, then our Ministers kneeling downe and praying at the Lords Table, when they consecrats the Sacrament, or marry any man, warrants or proves a custome to bow to or towards the Lords Table, never in use till now of late. See the Common Prayer-Booke, the Rubricke before Communion and Mariage.

Secondly, this is alleadged as an extraordinary example only of one,

and shee a woman (who in ancient times might not come neare the Altars, nor touch the Altar-clothes by the Ca∣nons; (Gratian. de Consedratione Distinct. 1. Rodulphus Tun∣grensis de Canonum observantia: Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 254. B.)

in an extraordinary case, at an extraordinary time of the

night when none were present in the Church: This swallow therefore makes no Summer, proves no generall practise or custome then, but the contrary.

The sixt Antiquity.

The sixt, is that of Eutropius the Eunuch (Socrates Scholast, Eccl es. Hist. l. 6. c. 5.) who incurring the Emperour Arcaaius displeasure, tooke the Church for his Sanctuary, and lay along at the foote of the Altar.

I answer:

That there is no prostration to or towards the Altar to a∣dore it, but to be secured by it, a flying to it only as a Sanctua∣ry by a guilty person fearing death, not a voluntary adoration of it, or bowing to it, by an innocent person ••n no danger of his life.

Therefore impertinent, our bowers not lying downe along at the feet of our Altars, as they did.

The seaventh Antiquity.

The seaventh, is the example of Paulus the Novatian Bi∣shop of Constantinople, who perceiving his Church to be in great & imminēt danger of burning, by reason of a fearce fire, fell prostrate before the Altar, referring unto God in his prayer the preservation of his Church, and so by his unces∣sant earnest prayers miraculously preserved the Church from burning. Socrates l. 7. c. 39. in the Booke 38. in the English Nicephorus, Eccles. Hist. l. 14. c. 41.

I answer:

That here was no prostration or bowing to or towards the

Altar, but only a prostration in prayer before it; Which proves nothing.

Besides, Nicephorus makes no mention of the Altar, but on∣ly relates, that Paulus went into the Sanctuary, and there prostra∣ted himselfe in prayer.

Finally, this case is extraordinary, upon an extraordinary occasion: Neither doe the Historians mention it to prove any reverence then given to the Altar, but only to shew the force and fruite of prayer, which can quench even the most raging flames of fire.

In a word; We reade here of a bowing and prostration in prayer before the Altar, but not of any bowing or prostration to the Altar without any prayer; The thing only in dispute; For which there is not one example in any Authour till above 500 yeares after Christ.

The eighth Antiquity.

The eight, is that of Rusticus, a Cardinall Deacon of Rome, about the yeare of our Lord 550. Contra A••ephalis Disputa∣tio. Bibl. Patrum, Tom. 6. Pars 2. p. 225. G. 229. E. where he writes thus:

Wee all adore the Crosse, and by it, him whose Crosse it is, yet wee are not sayd to coadore the Crosse w••••h Christ, neither by this is there one nature of the Crosse and of Christ. Similiter adorare Alta∣re, ••oadorare Altari Trinitat•• non dicimur, sed po∣tius per Altare. Nec enim Tabernaculum in Ere∣m••, nec Arca, nec Templum, nec Altaria ab an∣tiquis coadorabantur & concolebantur & neque una est Dei & horum facta Natura. Hae verò crea∣turae non coadorentur Trinitati, sed per eas Trini∣tas adoretur. Nec non & clavos quibus fixus est, & lignum venerabilis Crucis, omnis per totum

m••rdum Ecclesia absque ••lla contradictione ado∣rant, &c.

To which I answer:

First, that this is one of the Papists new forged Fathers, not heard of in the Church till now of late; Besides, they branded him for a Schismaticke, and a man then deprived by the Pope, and cannot certainly define whether this be his work. See Biblioth. Patrum before his workes.

Secondly, this worke must not be so ancient, or else the Authour is a great lyar, it being that the vniversall Church did not adore the Crosse and Nay es universally in that age, nor adore God and Christ in, by, and through Altars, Crucif••x••s, and Images, nor yet in 50 yeares after, as is apparant by Pope Gregory the first; (Registr. lib. 7. Epist. 109 & l. 9 Epist. 9.) No, nor yet in 300 yeares after witnesse the Councell of Constantinople An∣no 754. Mathew Westminster H••••: 793. Houeden Annal. pars l. p. 405. The Councell of Paus An. 824. Agobardus his booke de Picturis & Imaginibus: Our owne Homilies aganst the Perill of Idolatrie, together with Zonarus in his Annals, N••celus in his Annals, Eutropius in his Romane History, and the other Centurie writers witnessing as much.

This Authour therefore being either a bastard or a lyer, will not stand them much in stead.

Thirdly, I answer, if our Novellers will take advantage of this authority, which I have quoted for them, let them take him all, or none.

That I presume they will not doe, for then they must adore the Crosse, the Crucifix, and Nayles wherewith our Saviour was pearced, and that they will not doe (I suppose) as yet: If there∣fore they disclaime him in this, why not in that of adoring the Altar.

Fourthly, he writes expresly, that they did adore the Altar, and not coadore the Trinity with it, but rather adore the Trinity by or through it.

Now thus to adore the Altar, or God with, or by, or through it, is no lesse Idolatrie, by our owne Homilies •• and all our wri∣ters resolution; Whereupon Dr. Duncombe in his determina∣tion at Cambridge, disclaimed utterly any worshipping or ado∣ring God by or through the Altar, even in his defence of bow∣ing to or towards it.

This Idolatrous adoration of the Altar and President will not stead them, but quite spoyle their cause.

The ninth Antiquity.

The ninth that may be objected, is that ofm 1.128 Stephanus Ed∣vensis, a Bishop An: 950. Cap. 12. de Sacramento Altaris, Where he writes:

That the Preist coming to the Altar in his Mas∣sing-v••st••ents, osculatnr Evangelium & Altare, kisseth the Bible and the Altar, signifying him thereby, who with the kille of his meare nation hath made both one in the incar∣uation of the Iewes and Gentiles.

He holds or stands at (Tenet dexteram partem Altaris) the right hand-side of the Alta••, because Christ was promi∣sed in the Law to the Jewes, before he preache•• to the Gentiles. After that the Gosple is removed from the right hand or corner of the Altar to the left by the Deacon or Preist, the right hand is attributed to the Iewes, for the ve∣neration of the Law, the left to the Gentiles for their exe∣crable Idolatrie.

The Gosples Doctrine committed to them, was first re∣pulsed by the Iewes; Whence the Gosple ought to be read on the left side of the Altar towards the North, &c. (O pro∣found reason and divinity!)

After the Preist, inclinans seante Medium Altaris, bowing himselfe or kneeling downe before the middest of the Altar, prayes

to God the Father to give him the spirit of humility, &c. Which I have cited more at large, to shew the ridiculous grounds of Popish Ceremonies.

I answer:

First, that in all this there is not one word of bowing to or towards the Altar, which certainly would here have been mentioned among other Ceremonies, had it been then in use.

Secondly, the last words mention only a kneeling downe at the Altar (and that by the Preist, at the time of Consecration) to pray, but no kneeling or bowing to the Altar, either before, after, or without any prayer, the Ceremony now contended fore. This therefore is not home.

The tenth Antiquity.

The tenth, is that ofn 1.129 Honorius Augustodunensis de antiquo ritu M••ssarum, l. 3. c. 30. De Inclinationibus.

Dam Ecclesiam ingredientes ad Altare inclinamus, quasi regem milites adoramus. Aeterni quippe Re∣gis Milites sumus, cui semper in precinctu specialis militiae assumus. Cum autem ad Orientem & Oc∣cidentem inclinamus, Deum ubique praesentem nos adorare monstramus. Quem it a rationali motu ab ortu nostrae nativitatis usque ad occasum mortis se∣qui debemus, sicut coelum ab Oriente in Occiden∣tem naturali revolutione ferri videmus. Quod Mo∣nachi expressius designavit, qui se toto corpore ab Oriente in Occidentem girant.

To which I answer:

That this Authour lived 1120 yeares after Christ, and is the first undoubted writer that makes mention of bowing to the Altar at the en••ring into the Church, which I have met with all; Which Ceremony, as is likely, began in his dayes. But yet observe.

First, he sayth, they bowed To, not towards the Altar only; Which many of our Novellers deny they doe.

Secondly, that the ground and reason of bowing to the Al∣tar then, is farre different from those reasons alleadged for it now.

They bowed thus: Only to restify that they were Gods Sol∣diours, ready at all times to doe him service; Not, from any rea∣sons drawne from the Altar; But wee forsooth must bow to it, because it is Gods mercy seat, the place of Christs speciall pre∣sence on Earth, his Chaire of state, to testify ou•• Communion with the faithfull, because it is the principall part of the Church; And if all these faile, because it is used in Cathedrall Churches; Which reason they never dream'd on then.

Thirdly, that as they then bowed to the Altar, so likewise they bowed themselves both East and West, to testify, that God whom they worshipped was every where alike present.

But our men will only bow Eastward, and have all Altars so situated, not Westward; And confine Gods speciall presence to their Altar, and the East end of the Church, as if he were not every where present alike; Which is directly opposite both to their practise and reason here alleadged to the contrary.

Fourthly, they bowed only to the Altar at their first en∣trance into the Church, ours now, not only at their coming in, but every time they passe by it, towards it, repaire to it, retire from it, and at their going out of the Church besides.

Fiftly, this, in that age, was the practise only of Monkes when they went to their houres of prayer (for of them he speakes, as is

evident by the precedent and subsequent chapters) with re∣ference to these houres. Therefore it is no proofe for Mi∣nisters or Laymens practise of it then, or now.

The eleaventh Antiquity.

The eleaventh, is that ofo 1.130 Rudolphus Tungrensis, florishing about the yeare of our Lord 1380. De Canonum observantia propositio 23. Who as he informes us in direct tearmes, that Sixtus the second Anno 261 ordained;

That the Masse should be celebrated upon an Altar, QUOD ANTEA NON FIEBAT, which before that time was not done, (a cleare proofe that Christians for 261 yeares after Christ had no Altar in use) so he writes:

That the Preist in that age read the Gosple at the left corner of the Altar, according to the Roman Order, that on the Right side he might be the readier to receive oblation, and performe sacrifice. That the Roman Order prescribes, that incense with a Tapor should be caried before the Gosple, when it was ca∣ried to the Altar or Readers seate. And then rela∣ting divers Ceremonies about the Masse, he sayth: Sacerdos autem humiliationem Christi usque ad mortem Ctucis nobis indicat, quando se usque ad Altare inclinat, dicendo habe igitur ohlationem. Et statim in sequentibus narrationem de Dominica passione orditur; Quam usque ad supplices te ro∣gamus, observat; Quosque juxta Altare se incli∣nans, Christum in Cruce inclinato capite spiritum tradidisse signat.

To which I answer:

That this is no bowing to or towards the Altar; But a

bowing of the Preist, as low as the Altar, and by ••r besides the Altar, not out of any respect or reverence to it, but to sh••w forth Christs humiliation unto the death of the Crosse (as i•• the Sacrament (1 Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26) instituted for that purpose, and then celebrated, were not sufficient for that, without this idle Ceremonie, to shew that Christ bowed his head, when he gave up the Ghost, (as if Christ himselfe at his last supper, or his Apostles after him, could not have prescribed such Ceremo∣nies for these ends, had they thought them necessary:) T••ere∣fore its no warrant or proofe of any bowing or inclination to or towards the Altar (especially for other ends) which is not so much as mentioned in this writer, there being non Canon extant for it in his age.

The twelveth Antiquity.

The twelveth, is that of Eugenius Roblesius (Bibl. Patrum Tom. 15. p. 761. G. H.) de authoritate & ordine Officij M••r∣zabarici, among the Gothes. Where J find no mention of the Preists genuflection to the Altar before the ordinary Mas••e, or in it; But these passages after it: Absoluta Missa, Sa∣cerdos genubus flexis juxta Altare recitat, salve regina. D••nde deosculato Altare, convertit se ad populum: But in the Lenton Masses, immediately after the Psalmes, Sacerd••s genust xo supragradus Altaris recitat quasdam preces, &c. Hinc ante sa∣crificium & oblationom, Sacerdos genu flexo ad Altare, recitat. alias preces, &c.

But all this proves only a kneeling and genuflection in prayer at the Altar, not any bowing or incuruation to or to∣w••rds it, and that all the time of the Consecration by the Preist alone, not by other at other seasous.

These are all the cheife Authorities I have hitherto ob∣served, which seem to give any colour to this bowing to or towards Altars, which Ceremonie I cannot finde prescribed in any Bookes of Divine Offices, Canonists, Missals, Caeremo∣nials,

Primers, Psalters, Liturgies, Masse-Bookes, or Masses (no not in the Popish Churches, much le••••e at home) that have hi∣therto come unto my hands: A strong argument and evi∣dence in my judgement, that it was never used in former times as now it is of late: The fore-cited Authorities (two only excepted, and those late Popish writers) making nothing at all either for the lawfulnesse of this Ceremonie, though many ignorant superstitious persons are deluded by them.

Most of these Authorities, I confesse, are not cited or ob∣jected by the opposites, but least they might object or pervert them hereafter, J have here propounded and answered them by way of anticipation, and all others of this nature, in answe∣ring these.

These are the only Authorities yet behind.

The first is that of the fift Generall Counsell (Surius Tom. 2. p. 440. See Bish. Mortons Institution of the Sacram: l. 7. c. 3. Sect. 3. p. 5. 15.) of Constantinople, Actio. 1. where Iohn the Pa∣triarch speakes thus: Haec patienter sustinete fratres, & prius A DOREMUS SANCTUM ALTARE, & post hoc do vobis responsionem: Et cum intrassent ad Sanctum Al∣tare, permansernnt clamantes; Multi enim Imperarores, &c.

To vvhich I answer:

First, that this Patriarch speakes plainly of adoring the Al∣tar it selfe, not to or towards it, or of the Hostia upon it; VVhich our bowers themselves confesse to be Idolatrous.

Secondly, the ensewing vvords prove, that this adoring the Altar, was only a going to the Altar there to pray, not a bowing to the Altar it selfe, of vvhich there is not a word, un∣lesse wee will make this Patriarch a grosse Idolater in ado∣ring the very Altar; From which the Lollards both in France and England were so farre averse, that they were called Pi∣leati

or Oeputials by the Papists, (Antiqu: Eccles. Brit. 295.) ••ó quod Altare praetergressi ex Pontificis instituto pixide incluso pi••ei honorem non deferant: Because they would not putt of their Caps to the Pix or Altar, when they passed by them. And if they would not so much as move their Caps to them, much lesse did they bow their knees or bodies to or towards them.

This president therfore, take it in one sence or other, wil not advantage our Nouellers, vnlesse they will confesse, that they adore the Altar it selfe, and not God towards it, which makes them grosse Idolaters.

The second Authority.

The second, is that of Cardinall Pooles Deputie visitours in Queen Maries bloody dayes, who among other Noble Acts in that visitation, decreed and prescribed (Fox Acts & Monu∣ments, p. 1781.) how many Pater Nosters and Ave Maries every man should say, when he should enter into the Church, and in his entrance AFTER WHAT SORT HE SHOULD BOW HIMSELFE TO THE ALTAR; And how to the Maister of the house.

This Authority, I confesse Is full, for bowing not to the Hostia only, as the passage in Bishop Morton would fable, but to the Altar it selfe.

But yet observe, first, when and by whom this Ceremonie was prescribed: In Queen Maries dayes, by professed Pa∣pists, and Champions for the Church of Rome.

Secondly, to whom it was prescribed, only to Schollars in the Universitie, and no others.

Thirdly, with what this Ceremonie was attended; VVith Pater Nosters and Ave Maries.

Fourthly, to whom it is likewise extended; To the Mai∣ster of each Colledge, as well as to the Altar, and that in the Church it selfe.

Therefore certainly they then reputed it no religious wor∣ship or divine adoration, as most now esteeme it.

Jf our Bishops and Novellers will take this for their pat∣terne and president, (some of them being not ashamed to magnify Queen Maries, and depresse Queen Eliz abeths day••••. See Dr. Dupra his preface to the Vniversity Statutes at Oxford) I shall then conclude with Dr. Pocklington; (Sunday no Sab∣bath, p. 2. 48.) That they are lineally discended from S. Peters Chaire a•• Rome, and with a late Iesuite, which I have not yet seen, but heard of; That the Iesuites need write no more for the Sa∣c••ifice of the Masse, for that we are writing for and setting up Al∣tars so fast in England, that they hope to see Masse there very shortly (if these may have their will at least, and God and his Majesty prevent it not with speed.) But if they are ashamed of such a president, let them with like shame henceforth a∣bandon such an Antichristinn Romish practise.

The third Authority.

The third, is that of Odo Bishop of Paris in a Synode about

the yeare of our Lord 1206. (Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gal. l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 81, p. 558.) Summa reverentia & honor maximus sacris Altaribus exhibeatur, & maximè ubi sacro sanctum corpus Domini reservatur, & Missa celebratur.

A very probable Authority for this Ceremonie:

To which I answer:

First, that there is not one word in this Injunction concer∣ning bowing to or towards the Altar: And reverence, and great honour might be given to it, in such manner as it is given to Churches, Fonts, Pulpits, Bibles, and the like, not by bowing to or towards them, but by a reverend use and estimation of them free from superstition on the one hand; And propho∣nesse

on the other. So as this Authority in truth proves no∣thing.

Secondly, admit it meant of bowing to Altars, yet it is to be given only to sacred cons••crated Alta••s, not to others; But few or none of our Altars, not one of our Lords 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ables have yet been so solemnely consecrated, (the reason why Papists refuse to bow to them.) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it makes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for any genu••lectio••, 〈…〉〈…〉, or Tables.

Thirdly, this honour and reverence is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be given to those Altars only whe••c the body of Christ is a wayes 〈…〉〈…〉 pix, and Masse celebrated: And th•••• (say 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Papists in their private discourses: 〈…〉〈…〉 of the 〈…〉〈…〉 46••.) is th••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reason why th••y bow 〈…〉〈…〉 cause Christs bo••y, is they imagine, ••s the 〈…〉〈…〉 as they bow not at all to or towards the body of Christ reserved on it.

But our Altars, for ought I yet know 〈◊〉〈◊〉, have no bo∣dy of 〈…〉〈…〉 on them. Therefore they are not yet to be bowed un∣to or reveren••ed, by vertue of 〈…〉〈…〉 like∣wise ordaines, that 〈…〉〈…〉 which l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 8••. p. 558. Which our Bishops urge with much vigour.

As for the Synod of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 An. 1583. though it decree ma∣ny things concerning Altars, (as that* 1.131 none shall stand un∣der the Organs, Pulpit, or against the Piltars of the Church, or over against the High Altar, or neare the Church-dores, or any unfitting place: That there shall not be above 7 Altars in any Church: That all of them shall be of stone 7 handfuls and an halfe broade, and 8 handfuls long: That i•• might have a faire Altar-cloth to cover it; That a Cisterne of water (See Bochellus Decreta Eccles. Gal. l. 3. Tit. c. 33. 34.

p. 362.) with two or three towels neare it for the Preist to wash h••s hands: (defiled with their unholy holy Sacrifice of the Messe:) That every Altar, where the Bishop shall judge, it may conveniently be done, shall be rayled in with an Iron or stone rayle, or at least with a woodden on••, stan∣ding at least 7 hand-breathes distance from the Altar, with∣in which rayle no Layman may enter whiles that Mas••e is celebrating: That every Altar have its proper Ornaments and decent furnature, as Altar-clothes, towels, a Crucifix in the mid lest, two Candlest••ckes at the least, one placed at the right hand, another at the left, which shall stand alvvayes on it, but especially on all Holy-dayes, unlesse the Bishop at some times shall otherwise order.

VVhich Popish Constitution Bishop Wren with other of our Prelates and Novellers now follow to an haires breadth: though I say this Counsell decreed all this and more, yet there is not a syllable in it concerning bowing to the Altar; Therefore it seemes to be a thi••g of no great request, even a∣mong the Papists, who bow only to the Hostia on it, (B••sh•• M••∣tons I••stitution of the Sacram: p. 463.) not to the Altar it selfe or towards it.

These I suppose are the prime Authorities that can be pro∣duced by any for bowing to Altars; And all these if duely weighed are nothing, at least to sway with any Protestant or syncere Christian.

As for bowing to or towards the Lords Table, (which I have proved not to be an Altar, nor yet to be of right so styled, but only the Lords Table, as even in times of superstation it hath been st••••ed; Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9: Col. 243. Ni∣c••ph: G••eg. f. 10. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacra∣m••nt, p. 303.) there is not one syllable in all my reading, nor I thinke in any man else to be found.

If any demaund now of me, how I prove, that the primitive Ch••rch and Coristia is bowed not to Altars & Lords Tables, and therefore we ought not now to doe it?

I answer, that I can manifest it sundrie wayes:

1. Because I finde no such thing either in the Fat••e••s or Ecclesiasticall Historians, where all the Rights, and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church, are accurately sett downe and a••∣scribed, (See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. de Ceremoni••s & Ritibus Eccles.) so as this of all other had it been a thing of that moment, and so much practised as some now fable) would not have been passed over in s••••••nce by them.

2. Because the Primitive Church and Chr••stians for 260 yeares after Christ or more, had no Altars at all among them, as I have else where proved; Therefore no bowing to Al∣tars; And to Tables we never read that any bowed, no not in times of Popery, when they so farre disdained Lords-Tables that they contemptuously styled them Prophane Tables and Oysterboards. Acts & Monum. Edit. ult. pars 3. p. 85. 95. 497.

3. Because the Christians in the Primitive Church for many hundred yeares after Christ prohibited all Christian•• to bow their knees or kneel on any Lordsday, and from Easter till Whitson-tide on any weekeday, in honour of Christs resurection, holding it an offence and sinne so to doe even in the act of prayer and adoration it selfe; As, Tertullians vvords in his Booke De Corona Militis, witnesseth; Die Dominica jejunium ne∣fas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare.

And these subsequent Authorities doe likewise manifest it; Iustin Martyr. Quaest. 115. Tertullian ad uxorem. Hierom Advers: Luceforianos de Ecclesiasticis observationibus: c. 29. Radulphus Tungrenfis de Canonum observantia. Proposit. 23. p. 458. A. Concil: Nicaenum Can. 20. Carthag. 6. Can. 20. Constantinop. 6. Can. 90. Turonense sub Carolo Magno Can. 37. Gratian de Consecratione Dist. 3. Ori∣gen Homil. 4. in Num. Cyprian Centur in Orat: Do∣mini.

Centur. Magd. 3. c. 6. col. 135.

If then the Primitive Christians prayed and worshipped standing and deem••d it a sinne to kneel either in prayer or any other act of adoration or worship on those dayes, the cheife time of the•• Christian and publicke assembles, especial∣ly for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Ivo Carno∣t••••ses Decretal. Pars 1. c. 25. 34.

It is certaine therefore, that they used not in their Assemblies to bow their bodies or knees to or towards High Altars or Lords Tables•• & as certain that they kneeled not at the Sacra∣ment, much lesse bovved their he••ds or knees at the naming of Iesus, as some ignorant shallovv-pated Novellers now pre∣tend and give out, without proofe or shaddovv of truth••

4. Because the Fathers condemned, as Idolatry, all b••w∣ing to or towards Images, or Idols, all worshipping 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God, in, by, through, or towards them; Holding div•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and adoration, a thing peculiar to God alone, 〈…〉〈…〉 immediately to God himselfe, without any such 〈…〉〈…〉 ••elpes of Images or Altars, condemning all relative w••r∣ship, as derogatory to his Majesty: See the Homily of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Idolatrie: Bishop Ushers answer to the Iesuites Challenge of Images and praying to Saints.

Therefore this vvorsh••pping and adoring of God, in, by, through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table, is a thing utterly cōdemned by them, & to be detested of all, which would have hardned the Gentiles in their Idolatrie,

for which cause they suffered no Images in their Churches, and carefully (Tertulliani Apologia) wiped of these Cauils of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pagans, who s••••ndered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sunne, the Crosse, an Asses head, and the like;

Concluding and prot••sting, that adoration and worship was due to God alone, and that immediately.

5. Because, they reputed Christ only the true Altar, the only Altar in ••eaven which they adored, all other Altars were Iewish or Pagan reliques, abolished by Christs death, which had no Authority to warrant them in the Scripture;

Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. See Bishop Mortons Insti∣tution of the Sacramēt, Edit. 2. p. 415. 418. 461. 462. There∣fore

unfitt to be bowed to or towards, or to be the objects of any relative worship, as most now make this their bowing. Upon all which grounds, I conceive, I may safely assirm••, (at least till our Novellers shall be able to prove the contrary) that the Primitive Church and Christians, never used to bow to Altars or Lords Tables, and that there are no Fathers nor Antiquities to just••fy this usage.

In the Discription of the election of Maximilian to be King of the Romanes in the month of Ianuary, An. 1486. Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 32.

I 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 E••••perour in the Cathedrall Church at F••ankf••••d 〈…〉〈…〉 for him to sit in; Ad Alta∣ris 〈…〉〈…〉; A th•• South-side of the Altar, where the Gosple is usually read, higher then the other seates, just over against the Altar; That the Arch-bishop of Mentz, the Duke of Bavar••••, the Count Palatine of Rhene, Maxi∣milian Arch-Duke of Austria, and the Duke of Burgundie sate on his left hand; The Arch bishop of Colen, the Duke of Saxonie, and the Marqu••sse of Brandenburge on the left hand; And the Arch-bishop of Treuier neither on the right hand 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the left, but just before the Kings face, be∣fore the Altar. On the same side of the Quire sate divers other Bishoppes. On the North-side of the Altar sate ma∣ny Bishops, Earles, Dukes, and Nobles.

All which in order went and offered at the Altar. After which the King came and received his Crowne at the High Altar. Masse being ended, the Princes Elect••urs went to the Altar to sweare, according to the tenour of the golden Bull.

At last Maximilian, led by the Arch-bishops of Mentz & Colen, was lifted up upon the Altar, and TE DEUM sung & played on the Organes. CIRCA ALTARE

about the Altar, at the sides, by the exalted King, stood the Arch-bishop of Colen and Mentz, and before his face stood the Arch-bishop of Treuier, the other Princes accompaning and standing about them.

By which it is evident the High Altar at Frankford at the time of this Coronation stood not Altarwise, against the East-wall of the Quire, for the King sitting on the South-side of it, just over against the Altar, and these 5 great Princes sitting in di∣stinct seates at his right hand in state, the Altar was at least 5 seates distance from the East-wall, and stood so, that the Arch-bishops, Princes and Nobles when the Emperour was eleua∣ted on it, stood round about it, and him, at the time of this royall solemnity.

The Heathen Altars likewise stood not against the East-wall of the Quire, as appeares by Paulus in Curculione: Nur•• Ara veneris haec est ANTE horum fores. Ovid. Motamorph. l. 10. Ante fores horum stabat Iovis hospitis Ara. Iulius Cae∣sar Bullingerus de Theatro l. 1. c. 22. p. 256. Latini Comae••i Aram in PROSCENIO CONSTITUUNT in Apolonis honorem, &c. Vide ibid.

So that the placing of Altars against the East-wall, is but a late Novelty, even among the Papists themselves, and so likewise this bowing to or towards the Altar; For J finde no mention of it in the exact Discription of this Solemnity.

Only I read, that when Maximilian was crowned at Aken the 31. day of March following, they went into the Quire to the High Altar, and there heard Masse. Then the 3. day of April he offered at the Altar of the Virgin Mary. That after some Hymnes sung, and collects reade in the Quire: Rex prostravit se super tapetum ad gradus Altaris totus in lon∣gum: The King prosttated himselfe at the steps of the Al∣tar upon a Carpet, lying all along upon it. And the Arch-Bishop of Colen, super ••um sic proctratum legit, reads over him thus prostrate, Lord save the King, with other two Col∣lects. (Erge, we must thus prostrate our selves when we come in

〈…〉〈…〉 of the Church, is no good argument it being a Ceremony 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the King at his Coronation, not to others, and a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not to or towards the Altars, but at the steps of it, to have an Arch-Bishop read a prayer over him, and some speciall 〈◊〉〈◊〉.)

After which he sate downe in a Royall Seate be∣fore, the Altar, the Arch-Bishop of Mentz sitting on his right hand, and Treuier on the left; Then these Bishops tooke of the Kings upper garment, and leading him be∣tween them, ante Altare prostratu••in modum Crucis, he pro∣strated himselfe in forme of a Crosse before the Altar, the Arch-bishop of Colen saying divers prayers (there specified) over him, and the Letanie. The Letanie ended, the Arch-Bishop of Colen, standing before the Altar, with his Pasto∣rall staffe in his hand, asked of the King six Questions, the last whereof was this; Wilt thou reverently exhibite due subjection and faith to the most holy Father and Lord in Christ the Pope of Rome, & to the holy Church of Rome?

(The Popes were anciently sworne to the Emperour, and elected by him, now they must sweare to the Pope, and be chosen by him and his three. Arch-Bishop Electours, who are still at his devotion. See Gratian Distinctio. 69. and Dr. Crakenthorpe of the Popes temporall Monarchie, cap. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.)

After which Questions he was ledde by the Arch-Bishops of Mentz and Trevler to the Altar, and putting two of the fingers of his right hand on the Altar; Sayd, I will, and J shall faith∣fully performe all the premises as farre as God by his divine assistance shall enable me, and the prayers of faithfull Chri∣stians shall assist me: So helpe me God and all his Saints.

Which done, these Bishoppes brought him backe before the Altar. After that they leade him againe to the Altar, qui prostravit se ad terram in longum, and then the Arch-bi∣shop of Colen reade a blessing and prayer or two over him; Which done, they annoynted him in severall places; And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 returning before the Altar, casting himselfe downe in

manner of a Crosse, the Arch-B••shop of Colen reade other prayers over him. Then they girt him with a sword; After that, they set the Crowne on his head with severall Collects; then leading them againe to the Altar, he layd both his hands on the Altar, and made this profession among other things in the vulgar tongue; (Which in truth made him a s••ave both to the Pope and Prelates, rather then a King:) I will yeeld due and Canonicall honour to the holy Bishop and Church of Rome, and to the other Bish••ps and Churches: These things likewise which have been given & conferred by Kings and Emperours to churches or Ecclesiasticall persons, I will inviolably preserve and cause to be preserved by them, the Lord Iesus Christ assisting me.

By which oath and practise the Emperours and Kings of the Romanes are made Vass••les to the Pope and Prelates, their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or pos••••ssions; A he••••sh policy worthy observation. Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Man∣ti•• Cardi••alat us. Alberti Epise: Mogunt: Rerum Germ: Scriptores. Tom. 2. p. 399.

VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of M••ntz was made a Cardi∣nall; he tame up to the High Altar, and there kneeling downe be∣fore it on both his knees, the Popes Legate graced him with a red hats, the badge of this h••s dignity which he put upon his head: He kneeling downe before the Altar till the song of S. Augustins and S. Ambrose was sung.

So An••o 1066. Ho••eden Annql: pars prior p. 447. J reade, that King Herro••d, at the celebration of the Masse at Westminster; Ante Altare in Oratione prostratus jaceret, lay prostrate be∣fore the Altar in prayer.

VVhen our King Richard the first was to be crowned (Houeden Annal: pars poster••or: p. 656. 657. 739.) he came tothe Altar before the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Clergie, and People, and kneeling downe on his knees before the Altar, tooke the usuall Coronation-oath, upon the Euangeli••ts and

〈…〉〈…〉 After which, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Arch-Bishop an 〈…〉〈…〉 And taking the Crowne from the Altar, put it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his ••and. So at his second Coronation, he was ledde into the Cathedrall Church of S. Swithim at VVinchester 〈…〉〈…〉, even unto the Altar, & ibi flexis genubus, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with bended knees, devoutly received a benediction from Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and from thence was ladde to his Throne.

I reade also, that Hugh Abbot of Cluney, and Hilde∣•••••••••• whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together, en∣•••••••••• into a Country-Church, Ante Aram injunctis, lateribus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in multam horam protracta Oratione; Cast themselves downe before the Altar one by the others side, and there prayed along time. Ma••me••••••rie de Gestis Regum Angl: lib. ••. p. 10••.

Thus the Monkes of Glastenbury (when their Abbot ••••••••••••ine fel•• at variance with them, and chased them with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 men into ••he Church) sancto Altari miserius fuas appl••∣••••••••••••, Bewayled th••is mise••ies, to witt, at the holy Al∣tar, where the Abbot slew two, and wounded foureteen of them; Yea the Abbot himselfe with a speare (sayth Houe∣den, Annal: pars prior, p. 456. 460.) thrust one of the Monkes, through the body, and slew him, Sacrum Amplexar∣•••••• Alt••••••••, imbracing the holy Altar in his armes; Alium ad Altaris crepidinem sagit••is Confossum necauit.

But that any of these Kings, Prelates, or Monkes bowed their bodies to or towards the Altar at their entring in, passing by or repairing to the Altar, or coming in, or going out of the Church, as we doe now, I finde not one syllable in these Histo∣ries which certainly would not have pretermi••ted it, had it been then in common use.

Indeed, I read in Aeneas Picalomineus, Cardinall of Sens, (Europes status sub Frederico tertio Imp. c. 19. 63.) that Vla. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 King of Poland after his conversion from Paganisme to ••••ristianity; In••er equitandum quotiescunque turres Eccle∣siarum

inspe••••t, detracto pileo, caput in••linavit; Deum (qui coleretur in Ecclesia) veneratus: When he did ride abrode, as oft as he beheld the Towers, ••he pulled of his hat, and bowed his head, worshipping God, who is adored in the Church: But that he did thus, when he saw the Altar or ••••rds-Table, I find not, had he used any such Ceremony, this Cardinall doubtlesse would have recorded the one as well as the other.

If our Altar-worshippers will presse or imitate his example, then they must bow and worship towards our Churches-steeples, when they see them, (for which they may have some colour from Davids worshipping, Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 138. 2. and Daniels praying towards the Temple, Dan. 6. 10.) not towards the Altar or Table.

Now, most of our Churches towers and steeples stind, ei∣ther at the west end or in the middest of the Churches, few or none of them at the Eist-end, quite opposi••e to their Altars and Tables situation; This president therefore will manifest∣ly overthrow their bowing to, and worshipping towards the Altar, and the East, which they now so much contest for.

As for these mentioned prostrations, and kneelings downe at or before the Altar only to pray, or to receive a Crowne or Cardinals hat, without any relation to the Altars, as they were for these speciall ends and purposes, not out of any respect to the Altar; So they warrant not our genuflexion or inclina∣tion of our bodies towards, or to the Altar or Table, upon reasons drawne from the Altar or Table, or for other purposes, and upon other occasions then these.

Besides, this kneeling and prostration of theirs was only at and before consecrated Altars, not at or before Lords Tables or unhallowed Altars.

But few of our High Altars are yet solemnely dedicated by our Prelates, neither can they, unlesse they be removed further from the wall, the Bishop being to goe 7 times about

the Altar, when he consecrates it; As I have proved out of Du∣randus, Rat: Divinarum, l. 1.

And admitt they are thus hallowed, yet being consecrated not by a power derived immediately from the Pope of Rome, but by such as are yet counted Schismati••kes by him, (though Bishop White in his Epistle Dedicatorie to his late Treatise of the Sabbath, be very angrie with those••, who repute, or st••••y•• us Schismaticks from the Roman Church at this day, because most, but those whom he there styles Puritanes, `Presb••te∣••ians, &c. are perfectly reconciled to it,) they are so ••arre from being adored and bowed to, that the Papists and Popi••••∣ly affected (the only men who are likely to how to or to∣wards them) will thinke them fitter to be demolished:

For Anno 1177, in the Councell of Venice, under Pope Alex∣ander, where the three Anti-Popes, Victor, Paschall, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were degraded; (See Houeden Annal: pars posterior pag.

568••) It was decreed among other things: That all the Altars dedicated by those Anti-Popes, or their Ordinaries, should be demolisheds; Which was done accordingly: Yea Christian Arch-Bishop of Mentz, burnt his Bull, with his owne hands received from Pope Paschall, in the presence of Pope Alexander, receiving a new Bull from him.

So Geeffry Plantaginet Arch-Bishop of Yorke (See Houe∣den Annal: pars posterior p. 713.) overturned all the Altars, brake all the Chalices, that Hugh Bishop of Durham had celebrated at or used, or any other Preist in his presence, af∣ter his excommunication by him.

Our High Altars therefore, by the same reason, being not consecrated at all, or at least by Schismatickes or Excom∣municate persons (if not by the sentence of the Church of Rome, yet by the expresse determination of the 12 Canon 1603. (which together with the stature of 1. Eliz. c. 2. con∣demnes the consecrating of, & bowing to Altars by necessary consequence, with all other our late Innovation, excommu∣nicating all those ips•• facto, that neither prescribe or submitt

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

unto ••hem,) are rather to be broken dovvne, removed, abo∣lished, as they were both in King Edw. the 6. & Queen Eliza∣beths dayes, then they bowed to, or adored; Since as Gulielmus Sturkius observes (Antiquit Co••vinalium, l. 2. 6. 16. P. 209.)

Christ, Apostplorum, & primitivae Ecclesiae exemplo ma∣gis videntur quadrare mensae, quam Altaria: Verissimis illis impletis (ait) legalibusi, & peracto in cruce sacrificio per Christum, earn hic rationem Eccl••siae, quamolim Syna∣gogae instituit. Mensam dedit in qua epuletur, non autem in qua offeretur victima: Nec Sac••rdos consecravit, qui offerent sacrific••rentque, sed Ministrosdedit, quiepul••m sacrum distribuer••••••. Arae, fixae, & statuae, pecudibus ma∣ctandis, & ignibus fo••end is magis sont Idoneae. Christum in Mensa sacrosanctum suum conviu••um primò instituis••e, accum charis••••••nis suis discipulis celebras••e, Evangelica hi∣storia testatur. Hanc Mensa•• auro purissimo coopertam, atque infinitis propemodum ge••mis ornatam, ex Tale∣tio occupatàm, Musem Ara••um D••cem se••um reportasse ••e∣statur Leo Affcicanus, l. 5. c. 79. Jn pri••itiva quoque Eccle∣sia mensarum in celebratione Coenae Dominicaeusum, cum alium literarum monumenta, tum il••a Nicenae Synodi ver∣ba testantur. Jn divina MENSA ne ••umiliter intenti simus, ad propositum panem, &c.

Thus Sturkius who at large pieades for the use and conve∣niency of religious and pious Dis••ourses, conferences, the reading and talking of Scripture and divine things at Feasts and Christian Assemblies, both from the Example of Christ, the Fathers, and Heathen Philosophers, Antiqu: Convivalium, l. 3. c. 1••. fol. 382. 383.

In direct opposition to Bishops Wrens new Visitation-Ar∣ticles to the contrary. Whom I desire his worship, and all those prophane ones of his opinion, to reade at their best lea∣sure, together with his other notable passages against the pr••∣phanation of the Lords day; by Feasting, Dancing. Ales, Revels, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and other pastimes, (Epist. Dedicat: Antiqu: Conni∣val:

l. 1. c. 16. fol. 36. c. 23. fol. 67. c. 25. fol. 74. 75. c. 33. f. 133. to 138. and l. 3. c. 2l. 22.) so much contested for now of late; All which the primitive Christians abandoned, as well as Al∣tars.

But though these Novellers have neither Statute. Canon, Scripture, nor Antiquity for this new invented Ceremonie, yet doub••l••sse being reasonable creatures, they must have some reasons for it. True, they thi••ke they have so; But if their reasons be but examined, they are in truth meer lying 〈◊〉〈◊〉 crackbrainde fantasies of their owne invention, not warranted by any Scripture, or registred in any Father, or Authour, no•• known to Durandus, (See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉〈◊〉.) or Mirologus, (See De Divinis Offici••s l••b.) or any other Ro∣manists, who have taken upon them to give a reason for every one of their Ceremonies, though never so superstitious or ri∣diculous.

If any desire to know their Reasons, they are these:

1. First, they say, they doe & must bow to or towards the High-Altar and Lords-Table, because it is the place of Christs spe∣ciall presence upon Earth, and his Chaire of estate wherein he 〈◊〉〈◊〉. See Giles Widdowes his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puri∣••••••••••, p. ••9. Shelfords Sermon of Gods house, p. 2. 4. 18. 19. 20. Reeve his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-Prayer-Booke, neare the end.

Which reason I have already proved falce. Only I shall demaund these few Questions of them:

I. QVESTION.

By what Scriptures or Fathers they can make good this proposition; That the High-Altar or Lords-Table is the speciall place of Gods presence upon Earth, and his Chaire of state, wherein 〈◊〉〈◊〉?

II. QVESTION.

What they meane by this speciall presence, whether his corporall, or his divine presence?

If his corporall, that implyes, first, a Transubstantiation of the Sacramentall bread and wine into the very body & bloud of Christ.

Secondly, a perpetuall reservation of the consecrated bread thus transubstantiated into Christs body on the Altar & Lords-Table, (else the reason holds not, but only at the time whē the Sacrament is administred, and the consecrated bread & wine is standing on the Table; And so they ought them only to bow to or towards the Altar; Not at other times when there is no Sacrament, (Bishop Mortons I••stitution of the Sacrament p: 463.) as now they doe.)

Thirdly, it implyeth, a denyall of the Scriptures and Ar∣ticles of the Creed, which assure us, That Christ in his hu∣mane nature and corporall presence is wholy ass••nded into Heaven; That he hath quite lest the world, and is gone to his Father••; That he is sett downe at his Fathers owne right hand; That he is no more corporally present upon Earth; That he cannot be corporally in many places at once, and never was so that wee find in the Scripture; That the Hea∣vens must containe him untill his second comming to judgement: And the like, Acts 3. 21. cap. 1. 10. 11. John 14. 2. 3. 19. c. 16. 28. c. 17. 11. 12. c. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 3. 22. Heb. 10. 12. cap. 12. 2.

And it is point-blancke against the Homilies, Articles, Writers and established doctrine of the Church of England, to which these Rebellious sonnes of Belial have subscribed.

If they meane only Christs Spirituall presence, that cer∣tainly is as much at the Font, the Pulpit, the Bible, the Com∣mon-Prayer-Booke, as on the Table, as much in the whole Church and Quire, as in all, or any of these standing in them;

Yea much more in every pore Christians heart and soule the true Temples of God, wherein Christ and his spirit dwell by faith; Ephes•• 3. 17. c. 2. 21. 1. Cor. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 2. 20.

Therefore if this reason hold firme they must bow a∣like to or towards all and every of these, as well, and as oft as to the Table or Altar.

III. QVESTION.

Admit the Preposition true, I would demaund of them, how they can prove this their assertion to be truely Ortho∣dox; That men ought to bow and worship to and towards the place of Christs speciall presence? What Scripture, Councell, or Father hath taught them any such Doctrine? Certainely if this be good Divinity, then when ever they see the Pulpit, Bible, Font, Church, or any pious Saint of God though never so pore, they must for sooth bow 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thē, because Christ is specially present in them, then they must no sooner looke up to Heaven, but they must bow their knees and bo∣dies to it, for that is Gods Throne, Christs Chaire of Estate. indeed, and the place of their speciall residence, by the Scrip∣tures expresse resolution: Yea then when ever they see the Paten or Chalice, which immediately containe the Bread and Wine, they must bow to them, because they are the place of Christs speciall presence, rather then the Table or Altar, on which those vessels which conteine the Sacrament only stand.

IV. QVESTION.

Jf this reason be folid, I would then demaund but this Question, whether Christ be not more immediately, really, and spiritually present (yea and corporally too, if they hold any such presence in the S••crament, as they seeme to doe,) in the Consecrated B••ead and Wine, then in the Chalice or Cup, or on the Table or Altar it sel••e? If so, (as all must necessarily

graunt) then it will inevitably follow from this reason, that they must much more adore and bow to the consecrated bread and wine, then either to the Altar or Table.

If so, then I would demaund of them:

First, what is the reason they bow only to the Altar or Table, not to the consecrated bread ond wine? Or in case they answer that they bow to both; How their bowing to the bread and wine differs from the Papists adoration of them, which our Church condemnes as most grosse Ido∣latrie?

Secondly, What is the cause why they bow to the Altar or Table, before the bread and wine are consecrated, when Christ certainely is not there present, in that manner as they fansie, and yet bow not to the bread and wine after consecra∣tion, when Christ is specially present in them?

Thirdly, why many of them at the administration of the Sacrament, when as they have the bread and wine in their hands, bow downe to the ground almost, as they come from, passe by, or goe to the Table or Altar, out of their reverence and respect to the Table and Altar, and yet bow not at all to the consecrated bread and wine, which they hold then in their hands?

Fourthly, whether bowing to and towards the Altar or Table so frequently and devoutly (as they deeme it) when there is no Sacramentall bread and wine upon it, and at the time of the Sacrament, even when they hold the Sacrament in their h••nds, and their not bowing to or towards, and ado∣ring of the Sacrament it selfe (which is farre more ho••ourable then either the Table or Altar, which serve only for its conse∣cration and distribution, and may put them more immediately in mind of Christ) be not an advancing & a preferring of the Table & Altar, not only before the Pulpit, the Fōt, the Bible, the Common-prayer Booke, the Paten & the Chalice themselves, but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine, the Sa∣crament of Christs Supper, and the Lord Christ himselfe, to

whome they give no such congies, such solemne adoration, reverence, genuflexion, honour and respect?

If so, then it is almost execrable and ab••minable; Jf not, then let them informe me; How that which is least bowed to, worshipped or adored, is most reverenced and respected, then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection; Or how themselves can preach and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that the name Iesus is more honourable, venerable, great and glo∣rious then any other of our Saviours ••ames, because it is and ought to be most cringed, capped and bowed to of all others? Till all these Quest••ons are resolved, J shall desire them to suspend this their capitall reason.

The 2 Reason.

The second reason for this Ceremonie is; Because the Al∣tar and Table are Christs mercy-seate, and the memory of the ever∣lasting Sacrifice, there made and presented to th•• Trintry. So Mr. o 1.132 Shelford Preist, here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity (opened so to Christ himselfe that made it, as if he himselfe had forgotten it, or were not able of himselfe to present its memory to his Father, without a Masse-Preists helpe) which Lawe Giles Widdowes thus seconds.p 1.133 The Church is the place of Gods presence; The Communion-Table the Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus, and his theifest place of presence in our Church: Where his PREISTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to re∣concile us to God, offended with our dayly sinnes.

Where we sind a resolution of my first Question; What is the end of our Novellers writing, preaching and contesting for altars and Preists, to wit, that we may have a Sacrifice a∣gaine. And what Sacrifice is that?

The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith,q 1.134 Widdowes; The Sa∣crament or Sacrifice of the Altar, sayth She ford, page 2. 19. And what kind of Sacrifice is this? A commemorative

w••••••e Sh••••ford and the Colier. And no other but so? Yea quoth Widdowes a propitiatorie sacrifice likewise, to reconcile us to God, offended with our dayly sinnes.

And so we have now not only Altars and Preists, but the Sacrifice of the Masse it selfe in its ful latitude, both as Com∣memorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine, in Bookes la••ely printed by Authority, and not yet called in; How soone we may have all of them (as wee have Altars Preists and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places) in point of practise, I leave to others to determine; This being made the reason why wee bow to Tables and Altars, because they are Christs mercy seat, and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice, &c. is there made and presented to the Trinity.

This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar, to be no mercy Seate, and the Lords Sup∣per no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory.

I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affir••e, both by Scripture and reason.

Secondly, when they have done this, then to make this ap∣peare in like maner by Scripture or solid arguments drawne from it, or at least by Fathers and Councels, that Christians are bound to bow to Christs mercy seate, or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered; The Iewes never doing it to the one, nor the Primitive Churches to the other. Till this be done I shall demurre upon this Rea∣son.

The third Reason.

The 3. Reasō is this;r 1.135 The Tible & Altar are a signe of the place whe••e our Saviour was most dishonoured and c••ucified; There∣fore wee must bow unto them. So Giles Widdowes reasons in a Booke licensed at Oxford by some learned D••ctours.

I answer:

First, that this is a plaine untruth, for they are neither a signe of Ierusalem, Golgatha, the High-Preist hall or the Crosse.

Secondly, if a truth, yet unable to VVarrant this Ce••••mo∣nie; For what Scripture, reason or Authour is there to just fie, that men ought to bow at the signe of the place where our Saviour was dispised dishonoured and crucified.

Thirdly, if this reason be good, then these Novellers must bow at and to the signes of Ierusalem which hang up in every Citie, or to, or towards these Tauerne Posts (which these bowers haunt much night and day, to make them nod, bow and reele the better to their Altars) where the signe of Ie∣rusalem hangs; For they are properly the signe of the place where our Saviour was most dispised and crucified then the Table or Altar: Then likewise they must bow to every Mappe of Ierusalem, of the holy Land, for they are signes of that place too; Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves, to which I wish these Cringers would all travell in pilgrimage, that so they might have the sight of the place it selfe to encourage them in this their bowing, which is bet∣ter and more moving then the bare signe of it.

Fourthly, this perchance may make something for the ado∣ring of Crucifixes and the Crosse, because though they are no signes of the place where Christ was dispised and cru∣cified, yet they are signes of that on which he was dispised and crucified, whereas the Table or Altar is a signe of neither. So that the Papists, if any, shall give him thankes for this reason.

The fourth Reason.

A fourth reason they produce in print is this:

Let us learne of our Mother C••urches, for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and returne. VVhere∣fore to follow their good and holy patterne, we also are to doe the like, both at our first coming in to Gods house, and at our going out, so Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house, p. 20. and the Coale too, p. 1. 2. 27. 64.

And if I may judge, this is the cheife, if not the sole reason, why most men use this Ceremony. The Arch-Bishops both doe & practise it for reasons best knowne to themselves; and the Prebends, Deanes and Cathedrall men with other Mini∣sters and C••rates in Citty, Court and Country, to imitate and please the Bishoppes, whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demurre (as these writers, to witt, the Colier in his C••ale, pag. 2. & Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-B••oke Dogmatize) else wee shall soone finde a speedy dissolution both of church and State.

To this Reason then I answer:

First, that Gods written Law, not our Prelates examples, no further th•••• warranted by Gods word, Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Minsters and peoples obedience in matters of faith; Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9. 2 Pet. 1. 19.

And it together with the the Lawes of the Realme, and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament, (of which fort there are none now extant) the only rule for them to follow in matters of Ceremony.

Since therefore this bowing is neither commaunded by Gods Law, nor any Stat••te or Canon confirmed by Parlia∣ment,

and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. expresly prohibits all Rites and Ceremonies but such as are prescribed by Parliament, in the Booke of Common-prayer, (as this is not) the Bishoppes practise therefore or Cathedrall usage, are no good arguments to perswade the practise of it.

Secondly, God forbid, that the Bishoppes practise should be the rules of mens obedience, many of them living and doing things quite contrary to Christs precepts in all things. Christ prohibites them both to be or called Gracious Lords, Mat. 20. 25. 26. L••ke 22. 25. 26. 1 Pet. 5. 1. 23. And they desire both to be Lords, and to be so stiled of all men, and style themselves so too; He prohibits them all civill temporall Offi∣ces, Iurisdiction and Dominion,s 1.136 they ingrosse all into their hands. He would have them be content only with one sword, Ephes. 6. 17. to wit, of the spirit, the word of God, and they in despite of him will not only chalenge and possesse, but use and abuse both. He commaunds them to be lowly and humble, Matth. 11. 29. Col. 3. 12. And they studdy nothing else but to be pround and lofty; He enjoynes them to be pittifull and mer∣cifull, even as he is mercifull, Col. 2. 12. 13. Ephes. 4. 31. 32. Luke 6. 36. And they shew themselves altogether pittilesse and cruell. He wils them to be* 1.137 patient, and yet who more chole∣ricke and angrie? to be meeke and gentle, yet who more inso∣lent and inhumaine? To be ready to pardon and forgive; And yet who so dispitefull, malicious or revengfull? To be holy in all maner of conversation even as he is holy; And yet who so prophane or in heart, in life? So malignant against purity, holi∣nesse, and holy men as they? To be apt to teach, and yet who more unfitt or unwilling to preach then they? To preach the word in season and out of season, and that every day; Vnde ne∣cesse est in singules, ut ita dicam dies sementum facere, ut ipsa sal∣tem assiduitate doctrinae, sermonem auditorum animi retinere pos∣sint. S. Chrysestom: l. 6. de sacer: Tom. 5. Col. 471. Yet they will neither doe it themselves, and silence all others who desire to doe it; Having made almost a famine of Gods Word, through∣out

out the Land, Amos 8. 11. He presoribes them; to ••sed his flocke, (Acts 20. 28. Ioh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Ezech. 36. 6. to 17. Ioh. 10. 1. &c. Ia. 40. 1. 2.) and they starue them; To seeke his wandring sheepe, and they runne from and looke not after them; To be Pastors to them, yet who such theeves and mu••∣therers, who not only fleece, but kill, sley, devoure, and sucke the very blood of their sheepe? To comfort his people, and speake comfortably to his inheritance, yet who such causes of greife, vexation, oppression, teares, and anguish of heart unto them, as they? He commaunds them to be blamelesse, yet who more ••candalous and blame-worthy? Not selfewilled; Yet who so violont, wilfull and head strong in all their underta∣kings? Not soone angry, yet who more touchie or outra∣gious? No strikers; Yet who strike more then they, and that with both Swords, with which they lay on like mad men almost in every place? Not given to filthy lucre, yet who more griping and covetous? Not given to wine, yet who love or follow it more then they? Sober; Yet who so Inci∣vill? Iust; Yet who unjust, oppressive, or treacherous both in word and deede. Temperaie; Yet who more immoderate in all kind of pompe and luxurie? Ruling well their owne houses; Yet whata 1.138 houses or servants so unruly, disorderly, irre∣ligious or prophane as theirs? Men having a good report of all men;b 1.139 Yet who so ill reported of as they? Men hol∣aing fast the faithfull word, as they have been taught; Yet who such Apostates from the truth, and revolters from the establi∣shed doctrine of the Church, as they? Men able and wil∣liug by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainesayers; Yet who so unwilling (if not unable) to doe it, as many of them?

God forbid. then that their example should be our prece∣dents. J read in our learned Bale (Scriptorum Brit. Cent. 9. c. 97. p. 756. See Bishop Whites Orthodox paragr. 12. p. 63.) in the life of Iohn White Bishop of Winchester, whom he styles

Antichristi Romani terrificus Minister, Principum illusor, animo∣rum carnifex, duplex & periurus, hypocrita, qui rostris & un∣guibus in regno Angliae restituere conatur, omnes Antichristi Ro∣m••ni tyranides, idololatrias, faetida, & impia dognita universa; That as he changed his religion like a Weather-cocke with the times, so he had this disticke bestowed upon him for his paines, by Iohn Parkhurst.

Candidus es recte, nec candidus es, Rogitas cur? Nomine candidus es, Moribus niger es.

And may wee not now say the like of some of our Candid Prelates, who like the Polypus change their colour with the Climate, and can shift themselves out of one colour into an∣other at their pleasure, especially Blacke & White; Being sometimes all white in there surplesles, anon all blacke in their gownes, at other times speckled black and white in their Rotchets, wearing their Shirt-sleeves (as a* 1.140 Child once igno∣rantly to••d a Bishop) over their gowne-sleeves.

Those who can thus easily change their garments from white to black, &c. can as easily alter their religion; As some of their Predic••ssours have done.

Bishop Pilkington in his Exposition upon Aggeus, chap. 1. verse 9. tells us of some, Bishops here in England in Queen Maries dayes, (which some beginne to magnify) who in one yeares space con∣firmed the p••eaching of the Gospell of Christ, and pure Ministring of Gods Sacramēts, & the same men within the same yeare, with the same impudent mouthes and blasphe∣mous tongues brought in the Pope, set up Jdols, banished Christ and his holy Supper, appointed for all men that will to receive it together, tooke way his holy Gospell, Table and Sacraments, and placed by their Authority the Masse for one shaveling to eate up all, and blesse the people with empty Chalice, and burned his Preachers to fill their bellies.

I cannot say that some of our Bishops, have in as short a time done the like, or as much as this comes to; Only this I dare say of some of them:

c 1.141 Qui color Albus erat, nunc est contrarius albo.

That they have in a short time altered their colour for the worse, and (like the Albanes of whomd 1.142 Plinic writes) growne black in their old age, when as they were white in their youth, con∣trary to the custome of all other people.

I shall therefore deny this reason to be of force, and con∣clude with Iohne 1.143 Parkhurst verses to England:

Anglia furcatis nimium ne fidito mitris, Dic rogo, num serus sum tibi praemonitur?

The fift Reason.

The fift reason, is that I find in the learned and reverend Prelate, Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham, in his Insti∣tution of the Sacrament. Edit. 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus.

The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only, & ours in bowing, as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table, as when there is, which is not to the Table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the Table, to testify the Com∣munion of all the faithfull Communicants there at, even as the people of God did, in adoring before the Arke, his foot∣stoole. Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2.

As Daniels bowing at prayer in C••ald••a, looking towards, the temple at Ierusalem, where the Temple of Gods wor∣ship was, Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done, Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple.

Which words againe are repeated for failing. Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect: 2. Pag 551.

I ANSWER.

That I can hardly beleive, that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne, but a tricke of Legerdemaine, thrust in by some other, without his privity, with purpose to ble∣mish this incomparable peece of his, and draw a scandall upon him.

My Reasons are three.

First, because his judgment & practise formerly to my knowledge, haue been otherwise in this particular, and like∣wise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus; And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published, ••e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly, wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars, and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise, and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them.

Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered, unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rot∣chets, as to make them all turne-coates, as it hath made most of them.

Secondly, because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords, or of Bishop * 1.144 Andrewes streine, then his, as the invention, not to the Table, but to the Lord of the Table, &c. evidenceth.

Thirdly, because it is a contradiction to what himselfe pro∣fessedly maintaines in other places against the Papists, and in the words immediately foregoing, as appeares by these two particulars:

First, the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition, writes thus:

c 1.145 That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE, so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND: This he proves in the marge••t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited: By Coccius. Tom. 2. Tract. de Altar; Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie, who writes thus: Altare, Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM. By Chrysostom: l. 6. de Sacerdotio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: where the Preists are said to stād in a circle about the Altar: By Dionysius Areopogita: Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 3. Pon∣tifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI col••ocatur: CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdo∣tibus Ministri Selecti: By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo. 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta: Concluding thus.

These ••estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr., Fulke against Gregory Morton, c. 17. The Table stood so, that men might stand ROUND. ABOUT IT. Then comes in this addition, which begins thus: All this not∣withstanding, you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist & Altar, or yet the new situa••ion thereof in our Church as convenient, and for or∣der more decent, &c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church, in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient, and for order more decent, then the situation of them in the midst.

A thing which the Bishop (who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie) would never doe.

Since in the very Table of his Booke••, ••he hath this Reference: It was so anciently placed as to stand round a∣bout it.

And here by the way. I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottish••es of the times wherein we live.

Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authori∣ties in Queen Elizabeth dayes, pr••ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle, so as-men might stand round about them.

Bishop Morton here, in his learned Booke, from the same authorities positive affirmes the like, and that in both the au∣thorized Editions of his Booke. The first An. 1631. and the second Edition. Anno 1635.

Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings, so oft and so newly printed, with publike approbation, Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath, and a nameless Colier in hisd 1.146 Cole from the Altar (two ridiculous idle Pamphlets) within one yeare af∣ter, even by publike license too. must be set up to affront these learned Bishops, together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham, and all the writers of our Church in this (& other particulars too) that

Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church; And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it, are impertinent, and no wayes evidence that they contest for.

Good God, what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time, in the same Church, by men of the same religion, and both by Authority! Cer∣tainly, the Licensers of these Bookes, and Prelates that give way to them, deserve to be made examples for it to posteri∣ty, for shaming both our Church & our Religion, and making us laughing stockes to all the world, by authorizing such con∣tradictions.

& idle Romish Pamphlets. But to returne to the point.

2ly. The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes: (p. 462.) That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table: Which they would not have done, had Altar, caried in in it, the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same li∣berty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart. And both before and after he shewes: (l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464.) That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar, placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven, which he proves by Irenaeus: l. 4. c. 34. Nazian∣zen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com: in Hebr. 10. with other Fa∣thers.

But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name, the having use and situation of Al∣tars in our Church, and of Priests too; From which he is so farre:e 1.147 That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner: Yourf 1.148 Cardinall his objection is this:

That Preist, Altar & Sacrifice are Rela∣tives, and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other. So he, and that truely, &c.

But what if wee shall say of this point of Appellations, that it was not so from the beginning, here unto we claime but your owne common confessions. Viz. g That the A∣postles did willingly absteine, from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos, & Altar: So your Cardinall & Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Masse. Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers, who have sought a proofe of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar, used by the Apostle Paule, Hebr. 13. But also, themselves, who from S. Luke, Acts. 13. (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) concluded a proper Sacrifice. As if the Apostles had both

absteined, and not absteined from the words of Preist and Sacrifice.

And againe, your Iesuite Lorinus; (In Acts. 14. 22. de Sa∣••erdote. Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum, ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij & Idolorum, concedo.) The New Te∣stament (saith he) absteined from the word Sacerdos, as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament. So he, vvherefore this and the English word Priest, hauing a different relation, one to a sacrificing Minister, (which is proper to the Old Testament,) the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter, in the New Testrment, which is Senior, and hath no relation to a sacrificing func∣tion.

It must follow, that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testa∣ment, for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New, per∣forme as fond and fruitlesse a labour, as the patching of old vestments with new pieces, whereby the rent is made worse.

But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such tearmes in their speeches concerning Christian vvorship, whereof these your fore-named Disputers can give you a reason; Least that (sayg 1.149 they) the Iewish Priesthood being as yet in force, might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish rit••s. Which is enough to shew, that you are persuaded they absteined from the use of these words for some Rea∣sons.

Thus he and much more against Priests: And against Al∣tars likewise he hath sundrie passages: p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing, seemes not to be his.

Here againe I cannot but admire, that these tearmes of Priests & Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denyed by our writers, together with Altars & Sacrifices them∣selves so notablie refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631.

1••35. should the selfesame yeares by doting Shelford, Wid∣dowes

& Reeve, and this yeare by Dr. Pocklington, and the namelesse Colier be publikely maintained point-blanke a∣gainst the Bishop; And that they by publike authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a materiall Altar, which this Bishop out of Aqui••as, the Diuines of Colen, Bella••mine himselfe and Est••us, proves, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be ment of it, but only of Christ himselfe, or of the Altar of the Grosse; p. 416. 417.

I feare therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishops Chaplains, who licensed these New Pamphlets which point-blanke oppugne the B••shops booke; Or else by some of these New Writers or their Freinds.

These Reasons (I say) enduce me to beleeve, that this is not the Bishops passage. But that which doth must pre∣vaile with me is this,* 1.150 the sottishnes of the difference, reason and proofes therein alledged, which savours neither of his judgement, learning, nor acurenes; All which I shall now examine.

1. First, the partie here puts a difference betweene Pro∣testants bowing to the Altar and Table, and Papists, which (sayth he) is three fold:

First, in the cause or reason of this bowing: Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it: Therefore by his owne confession they bow not to or to∣wards the Altar, out of any relation to, or occasion dravvne from the Altar; Though Cardinall Pooles Visito••s in Cambridge enjoyned the Schollers to bow to the ALTAR, as well as to the Hostia in Queen Maries dayes.

But Protestants bow towards the Table, to testify the Communiō of all the fait•• full communicants. there••••t.

Secondly, in the Object, ••apists bow to the Eucharist, Pro∣testants to the Lord of the Table, not to the Table of the Lord.

Thirdly, in the time, Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it; Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon.

The second difference, makes Papists and Protestants bow∣ing both one. For they bow not to the Eucharist, or conse∣crated bread and wine; (See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament, l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.)

But as they apprehend and, beleeve it to be the very body & bloud of Christ,

ye•• Christ himselfe both God and man: And so to him which these Protestants termes, the Lord of the Tabl••; Therefore the ob∣ject of their bowing (at leastwise according to the Papists Do∣ctrine) is both one; And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions.

The first and l••st liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists, and that in these respects.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partiall, if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it. Wi••nes the 3. first reasons alledged for this Ceremonie, all drawne from the Table, and M. Shelfords distinction, (See his Sermon of the Church p. 79.) that it is not terminativum cultus, sed MOTIVUM.

But, the Papists have so much piety and religion in them, as neither to make it one or other, bowing towards it, ONLY to adore the Eucharist.

Secondly, the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Ch••ist himselfe (as they beleeve) is real∣ly present on it;

At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoyned to bow towards it only to a∣dore the Sacrament.

A cleare euidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by, •• or done unto the Al∣tar.

But our Novellers (out stripping the Papists) how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it; When they both know and beleeve that Christ is not there re∣ally present neither in his person nor in his ordinances; And when ••s neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church en∣joyne them so to doe.

(A plaine euidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table, but to the Table

and Altar it selfe;)

Therefore their bowing is farre worse, more unreasonable & absurd then the Papists in these two respects.

3ly. The Papists bow thus (Bishop Morton Ibid.) only to adore their breaden God, terminating their worship intentional∣ly only in Christ:

But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration, bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table: And why so? What to worship or honour him thereby•• No such matter; But to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table; Such a peece of new divinity, as J never read the like, except in some Popish Masse bookes, to witt, Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum, their Ladies Psalter, Primer, &c. which teach their Proselites, to pray to God to move the Saints to pray to him for them. For who ever read of any immediate bowing and adoration to God, to testify only a communion among men? A bowing to the Lord of the Table, not to terminate it selfe in him, but by and the through him, to signify the Communion of all faithfull Communicants at the Table? VVhat is this but to make Christ and his worship a stalking horse to our brainsick fantasies? to adore them by and through Christ? And to erect a kinde of new worshipping of him, not terminated in him, but given to him for some end, that is, out of him and beyond him.

In this regard therefore this bowing is farre more* 1.151 intolle∣rable then the Papists: Theirs being at the most, a relative worship of God by or through the Hostia and our Novellers a∣doration towards the Table, and their owne fantasies in and through God himselfe, as this reason manifests, which I shall next examine.

And here, first I shall demaund, in what Scripture or au∣thour this reason of bowing to or towards the Lords Table, is to be found, except in this: And what idle head was the first inventour thereof? Certainly, if there be any new thing under the Sunne, (Eccles. 1. 9. 10.) or any thing written of late

that were never heard or thought off before, this reason is it.

Secondly, I shall demaund, where God requires this C••∣remony in Scripture for any such end as this? And whether he will not be angrie with us, for giving him such a worship as is neither required by him, nor terminated in him.

Thirdly, what authority any man hath to institute any such adoration or Ceremony upon his owne conceite, without asking either God or the King leave to doe it?

Fourthly, what thing there is in this our bowing to the Lord of the Table, towards the Table, that can lively and significanly re∣present 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to God or men the Communion of the faith∣full Communicants thereat?

The rather, because this is no joynt act of all the whole congregation together, but of some particul••rs only, and that severally by themselves.

F••f••ly, how our bowing when there is no communion ce∣lebrated, can testify that, which is only really and truely signi∣fied by the Communion it selfe?

Sixtly, whether it be not an high presumption in man, to dare of his owne head to institue a Ceremonie or externall ge∣sture, to signify that, which he hath long before particularly ordered to be signified by a Sacrament of his owne institution? (l. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.) Seeing it imports a weaknes & insufficiency in the Sacrament instituted by God himselfe, (and that in bread where many comes, & wine where many grapes are united together) to signify our Communion: l. Cor. 10. 16. 17.

Seventhly, whether this bowing only towards the Table be not one great step towards the adoring of the Eucharist on the Table; And whether these who yeeld to the one, will not easily be drawne to proceed on to the other? And so safest to avoyd the first: for feare of being once taken with the second? which can hardly creep in among us if we with∣stand the first.

Eightly, whether God being omniscient, and know∣ing what was fir••••st to advance his glory, reverence, worship and feare, knew not of these reasons produced by them for bowing to Altars and Lords-Tables, when the Scriptures were penned? If not, then he is not omniscient, and so not God. Jf he knew of them then, why did he not record them in Scripture, or prescribe this bowing, as necessary upon these new-coyned reasons? If he knew them, and yet thought them not sufficient upon which to require or pre∣scribe any such vvorship or Ceremony, and therefore passed them both over in silence, vvhy should wee dust and ashes presume to give God a worship, upon such weake prin∣ciples as were not prevalent enough to move him to require it at our hands, or to cause Christ himselfe or his Apostles to practise it for our imitation?

Wherefore let us ••ot make our selves wiser then God, or more carefull of his adoration then himselfe hath been, for feare the reward of all our pragma••icall diligence in this na∣ture, be but that of these who presume to adde to the written word of God, (D••utr. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18.) or at least that of the prophet, (Isay, 1. 11. 12.) Who hath required these things at your hands?

I come now in the last place to examine the proofes of Scripture cited for this Ceremony, which being the same J have formerly answered, and all quoted to this purpose by doting Shelford (Se hi•• Serm. of Gods house, p. 18. 19. 20.) J shall passe them by; Only affirming thus much, that neither of these Scriptures warrant the reason here alledged for this bow∣ing, or end for which they are cited; For what sense are there in these arguments:

The people of God worshipped before the Arke, Daniel prayed towards the Temple, and Dauid to; Therefore Christians ought to bow, not to the Table of the Lord, but the Lord of the Table, to testify the Communion of all the Communicants there at?

This Logicke and Divinity better beseemes a Colier then a Scholler, a bruite beast then a reverend Prelate; ••••erefore certainly none of his, but some mans who desired to Father this spurious frenticke passage upon him, to gaine it cred•• & applause by his deserved fame, and to cast a scandall & ble∣mish on this his worthy worke.

If therefore it be none of his conception, I hope he will now no longer Father it; If his in truth, (which few Schol∣lers dare or can beleeve) I hope he will now correct it, both for his owne honour and the good of others, the very gros••est oversight of profound Schollers, being apt to pas••e current with Novices, and some times with men of gravity and judgemen, for want of examination or overweaning of the parties worth; As appeares by B••shop Andrews Sermon on Phil. 2. 9. 10. 11. Whose extrauagant reasons and false quo∣tations, to prove the bowing at the name of Iesus a duty of that text, against the unanimous reasons of all Fathers, and exposi∣tours before him, but the Rhemists, Sorbenists, & 2 or 3 Iesuites (who never made this bowing a duty of the text, or a thing ne∣cessarily thēce inforced;) are so approved, that now all ou•• Pul¦pits, Schooles, & late printed* 1.152 Pamphlets ••ing of nothing else but this his new-invented duty, & r••diculous childish reasons for to prove it, which well examined prove so irrationall and unworthy such a deepe-learned Scholler, that his greatest ad∣mirours in other things would blush at them, & disclaim him for ever in them; As the Answer to that Sermon by way of Quaeres, will in part discover to such as shall peruse it.

Having thus examined the Authorities and Reasons pro∣duced for this new bowing to Altars and Lords-Tables. I now proceed to the next poynt of the Question propounded; Whether it be a divine adoration, or only a civil worship? A divine adoration certainly it is; Being not done to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table, paralleled with worship¦ping towards Gods Temple, worshipping at his foote-stoole, Da∣niels prayer, &c. And so expresly determined by Mr. Shelford;

(See the Serm: of Gods house, p. 18. 19. 20.) The fore-cited passage fathered on Bishop Morton,* 1.153 Mr. Cozens, Mr. Widdowes, Ed∣ward Reeve, aud Dr. Duncombe in his Determination, & Dr. Pocklington Suuday no Sabhath, p. 50.

C••ill worship it cannot be, because terminated they say in God, done in Gods owne house and presence, not in any civill but religious respect; Done towards the Altar or Table, not as civill, but as sacred and religions things, to which no civill worship at all is d••e•••• in any civill respect.

If then it be a divine worship, as they hold i••, it must be ei∣ther a sincere and genuine worship, or Superstitious: Not the former.

First, because not instituted or prescribed by God in his word, no text so much as intimating, much lesse enjoyning it, nor any one example in the New Testament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it.

Secondly, because never practised by the Patriarches or Prophets in the Old Testament, who never thus bowed to or towards Altars: nor by Christ or his Ap••stes in the new, who never thus inclined their knees or bodies to or towards Lords-Tables, nor yet, for ought we finde, to God himselfe, unlesse it were in prayer only, Mat. 26. 39. Acts 20. 36. c. 21. 5. Ephes. 3. 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. A thing worthie noting••, taking off all hare-adoration only fo the body, not accompanied with prayer or some so other religious duty.

Thirdly, Altars themselves under the Gospell, abolished by Christs death, are not of divine institution, but contrary to it; Therefore the bowing towards, them, to honour God or wor∣ship Christ thereby, is superstitious & unlawfull.

Fourthly, had it been a worship of divine institution, its probable, that the Saints of God in the Apostles dayes, the pri∣mitive Church, and all succeeding ages would both have conscionablie and constantly used it; And either fore-com∣maunded or enforced the observation thereof. But this they have not done. Therefore it is not of divine institu∣tion.

Fi••tly, no divine worship due to God or required by him, is arbitrary to be done or not done at mans election; Neither can it be omitted without mortall sinne; But this is arbitrary at mans election, and may be omitted without mor∣tall sinne, as the stoutest Champions thereof will and must onselfe; Since nob 1.154 Law of God or man prescribes it as necessary; Therefore it is no divine worship.

Sxitly, no relative worship of God,* 1.155 in, through, or by reason of any other Creature is of divine institution, there being no pa••t ••ne of any such worship in Scripture.

This the Homilie against the Perill of Idolatry plentifully proves. (See B••shop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament, l. 7. throughout; especially c. 8. Sect. 1. p. 547. 548.) But this (and so the bowing at the naming of Iesus) is a relative, not an immediate worship. Therefore not truely divine.

Seventhly, that which the most pious Christians, the most judicious & zealous Protestants in their writings and practise have censured & declined as evill & superstitious; And being only by the most igorant, blinde, superstitious and Popish Persons most practised and contested for, that certainly is not any divine institution, nor any syncere adoration ap∣proved by God: But this bowing is such, as the premises, & experience witnesse; Therefore not of divine institution, or any syncere adoration approved by God.

Eightly, that whose cheife, Patrons are inforced to flie to meere forged authorities, and absurd ridiculous reasons of their owne late invention, to justify and maintaine it, that cer∣tainly is not truly divine.

Such is this bowing to and towards Altars and Lords-Tables; As the premises testify. Therefore not divine. And so by consequence a meere* 1.156 superstitious will-worship of mans inuention, which God neither, approves of nor allowes, Isay. 1. 11. 12. And being not of faith it must be sinne, Rom. 14. 23.

All which I desire our new Maisters of Ceremonies to consider

now at last, who perchance have not yet so much as rumi∣nated on this point, but taken up this practise (as most men doe new fashions) without any examination either of its lawfulnes, decency, or conveniency; Contrary to the Apostles rule who adviseth us, (1. Thes. 5. 21. 22.) to prove all things, and to hold fast only that which is good; Abstaining from all appea∣rance of evill; Whith this bowing certainly hath:

First, because it is a new upstart innovation, prescribed by by no Law of God or man.

Secondly, because it tends to erect, countenance and usher in a relative worship of God, in, by and through the Crea∣ture.

Thirdly, because it seemes to implie an actuall transub∣stantiation of the bread and wine into Christs very body, and tends to usher in this doctrine, together with an adoration of the Hostia; and reservation of it on the Altar or Table in a Pix, the maine ends for which it seemes and is now taken up. For as kneeling at the Sacrament, first ushered in adoration of the Sacrament, so this bowing to the Table or Altar, must reuiue it, the true end for which it is now ••rged.

Fourthly, because it hardens Papists in their Idolatr••us superstition of adoring the Eucharist, and bowing to Crucifixes, Images, Crosses, condemned by us as most grosse Idolatrie. See the Homilie of the Perill of Idolatrie, Bishop Morton his 7. Booke of the Institution of the Sacrament.

Fiftly, because it gives generall offence and scandall to most, especially those who are pious and judicious.

Sixtly, because it tends to the erection of Altars, Priests and Sacrifices formerly abandoned, and gives Papists occasion not only in words but in writing also to vaunt and hope, that we are now apostatizing and revolting unto Rome a∣gaine.

Seventhly, because it advenceth the Table and Altar a∣bove the Font, Pulpit, Bible, Chalice, Paten, yea and the consecrated bread and wine, to neither of which any

such genuflexion is given.

Eightly, because there is appearance of superstition and Idolatrie in it, which is or may be committed by it, as probablie as of the Papists adoring of the Eucharist; Upon these grounds therefore, all Christians should renounce it.* 1.157

I come now to the last clause of the Question to inquire how this bowing to,a 1.158 towards or before the Altar or Table differs either from the Pagans or Papists practise of bowing to or towards Images, Altars, Crucifixes, Crosses & the like, which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers expresly define to be Idolatrie?

For the Pagan Gentiles, it is evident, that they bowed to or towards their Altars, over or under which the Images or Statues of their Idol-Gods, which they worshipped towards the Altars stood, as the Papists and we have now our Crucifixes standing on or over our Altars either in Arras, Glasse or Mettle, or in some Curious common Prayer-Booke standing on our Altars, only for a dumbe shew, adorned with two or three silver Crucifixes (in stead of Bosses) on the cover, in Imitation of these Pagans. That this of the Pagans is no fable, is evident first by Virgil.

b 1.159 Aut ante or a Deum pingues spaciatur ad Aras, &c. Dicitur ante Aras media inter uumina divum, Multa Iovem manibus supplex or asse supinis. c 1.160 Iamque dies epulata novem gens omnis & Aris FACTUS HONOS, &c. d 1.161 Hanc Aram luco statuit quae maxima semper Dicetur nobis, & erit quae maxima semper, &c.

Secondly, by,e 1.162 Vitruvius, who writing of the structure of Pagan Temples saith:

That the Cells wherein the Images, of the Idol-Gods were placed, were built at the East end of the Temple, and that their faces looked westward; But the

Altars ad Orientem versus towards the East (wher•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 No∣vellers situate them:) ut qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad A••am 〈◊〉〈◊〉 la••es, out sacrificia facientes, spectent ad simulacrum sublimius A a s••um: That so those who came to the Altar to Offer or Sa∣crifice, might looke toward the Jmage placed over the Al∣tar ipsaque simulachra videantur exorien••••a contueri supplican∣tes & saecrificantes. And might seeme to be••••••d the Images there set up both when they prayed and sacrificed.

Thirdly, by Clemens, Alex••nd••inus, who writes: That the most ancient. Temples looked towards the West; Vt qui vultu Imaginis tuents stabant ad Orientem verterentur; That so those who stood with their faces towards their Images, might be turned toward the East, when they wor∣shipped: Which that of* 1.163 Ezechi••l concerning the Idolaters of his age, well explaines.

And he brought me into the inner-Court of the Lords-house, and behold at the dore of the Temple of the Lord between the porch and the ALTAR were about 25 men with their bookes toward the Temple of the Lord, and THEIR FACES TOWARD THE EAST, and they worshipped the Sunne TOWARDS THE EAST.

Hence we may clearly discerne; VVhence this custome of placing Altars, worshipping, praying & bowing towards the East (now much contended f••r) had its originall, even from the Heathen Jdolaters worshipping the using Sunne, and pla∣cing their Images and Altars at the East end of their Temples, to∣wards which they bowed and looked when they prayed or sacrificed.

* 1.164 Whence Hospinian writes expresly: At this day most Al∣tars among the P••pists (marke it) are placed in prima Templo∣rum parte, ET VERSUS ORIENTEM SPEC∣TANT, in the forefront of their Churches, and looke toward THE EAST; Quod etiam AB ETHNICIS SUMPSERUNT, which they likewise tooke from the

Et••••uickes. For many of the Heathen adored the Sunne for a God, whence in their publicke sacrifices they turned their faces to∣ward th••rising Sunne, &c. Wherefore the Lordin his Law com∣maunded, that the Sanctum Sanctorum, in which the mercy-seat was placed, should stand not toward the East, but toward the West, least the Israelites should seeme to worship him after the maner of the Ethnickes. VVhich I wish* 1.165 Bishop Wren and other who will have the Readers Pew & all other seates so placed, that the Minister and people when they pray, may all looke Eastward towards the Altar or Lords-Table (whereas the Rubricke in the Common-prayer fore-cited enjoynes the Minister to turne his face towards the people) would now at last consider: To avoyd which practise the primitive Chri∣stians, (as he there proves at large out of the Authorities quoted by Bishop Iewell, (yea and by Bishop Iewell himself, whom he recites with honour and approbation) placed their Altars and Lords-Tables in the Midst of their Churches or Quires; Out of which our Nouellers & Colier would now remove them to imitate the Papists, and these Idolatrous Ethnickes.

Fourthly, this is apparant by Prudentius:

Iam si sub Aris ad sigillorum ped•••• Iaceatis, infra sectilem quercum siti, Quid esse vobis aestimem proiectitius?

Fif••ly,g 1.166 by S. Augustine, who writes, that the Pagan Idols were placed over their Altars honorabili sublimitate, in an honorable sublimity, ut a praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, that they may be minded, or looked upon by those that prayed or Sacrificed.

Sixtly, by Horace (in an Image)

h 1.167 Praesenti tibi maturos largimur honores I••r andasque tuum per nomen ponimus Aras.

Seventhly, by Ouidi 1.168

Nos quoque tangit honos festis gaudemus & Aris. Turbaque caelestis ambitiosa sumus.

Eightly, by the expresse testimony of the Scriptures, 2. Chron. 34. 3. 4. In the twelfth years Iosiab began to purge Iudah and Ierusalem from the high places, and the groves and the carued Images, and the molten Images; And they brake down•• THE ALTARS of Baalim, and the IMAGES THAT WERE ON HIGH ABOVE THEM, or over them.

Hence we finde Altars and Jmages of the Heathenish & Iewish Idolaters ever coupled together for the most part in Scripture both in point of erection and demolition, as Exod. 34. 13.

Ye shall destroy their Altars and breake downe their Images, standing over or about them: So Deutr. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. there are the same words: 2 Kings 11. 18. And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal: And brake it downe, his Altars and Images brake they in peeces, 2 Chron. 14. 2. And he tooke away the Altars of the strange Gods and the high places, and brake downe the Jmages, c. 33. 15. And he tooke away the strange Gods, and the Idol out of the house of the Lord, and all the Altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord, and cast them out of the City, Isay. 17. 7. 1. In that day shall a man looke to his maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the holy one of Israel: And he shall not looke to the Altars, the worke of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groues or the Images. Hose•• 10. 1. 2. According to the multitude of the fruite he hath increased the Altars, according to the goodnes of the land they haue made goodly Images. He shall breake downe their Altars, he shall spoyle their Images.

So we read that Ahab reared up an Altar for Baal in the house of Baal, 1 Kings, 16. 32. And an Image of Baal

which ••••horam put away: 2. Kings 3. 2. From all which texts, compared with 2 Chron. 34. 3. 4. it is apparant, that Pagan and Jewish Idolaters had the Images and Statues of their Jdols standing above or over their Altars, towards which they looked and bowed their bodies and kne••s both when they sacrificed and prayed: As is evident by Isay. 17. 7. 8. Exod. 20. 4. 5. c. 23. 24. Levit. 26. 1. Numb. 25. 2. Iosh. 23. 7. 16. Iudg. 2. 17. 19. 1 Kings 19. 18. 2 Kings 5. 18. c. 17. 35. 2 Chron. 25. 14. Isay. 2. 9. Rom. 11. 4.

This our famous Dr. Reynolds testifieth and proves at large•• De Romanae Ecclesiae Idelolatriae, l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 46. proving likewise that the Altars at Athens dedicated to the unknowen God had an Image over it, Acts. 17. which he manifests from. v. 16. 23. 24. 25. 29.

1. Which being a cleare undenyable truth; I would first know what difference at all there is, between those Idola∣trous Pagans, Papists, and our late Innovatours? (See Francis de Croy his three-fold Conformity, part. 1. and Ormered his Pa∣gano-Papismus.) These Ethnickes had Altars: So have the Papists and wee: They had the Images of the Idols, they worshipped in their Temples, and these standing in the East end of their Temples above and over their Altars; And we have the Image of our Saviour on the Crosse (which our Homilies hold unlawfull to be made, much more unlawfull to be sett up in Chur∣ches) standing either upon our Altars, or above them, in Ta∣pestrie, or Glasse-windowes, or both, just as have the Pa∣pists.

They when they worshipped, prayed or Sacrificed to their Idol-Gods, bowed and turned their faces towards their Altars and Images; So doe the Papists towards their Altars and Crucifixes, and so doe wee: Where then lies the diffe∣rence? If they replie, that the Paga••s terminated their wor∣ship only in their Altars and Images, adored the Altars and Images themselves, not God in, by, or through them.

Our owne Homilies will take away this euasion both of the Papists and our Novellers, (See the Perill of Idolatrie, part. 3. p. 50.) where we read thus. Furthermore in that they say, they doe not worship their Images (or Altars) as the Gentiles did their Idols (or Altars) but God and the Saints whome the I∣mages (& Altars) doe represent, and therefore that their bowings before Images (& Altars) be not like the Idolatrie of the Gentiles before their Idols (& Altars:) S. Augustine, Lactantius and Cle∣mens doe prove evidently, that by this there answer they be all ONE with the Gentiles Idolaters:

The Gentiles (saith S: Au∣gustine. in Psal. 135.) which seeme to be of the purer re∣ligion, say: Wee worship not the Images, but by the cor∣porall Image, we doe be hold the Signes of the things we ought to worship. And Lactantius saith: (Instit. l. 2. c. 2, 3.) We feare not the Images, but them after whose like∣nesse the Images be made, and to whose name they be con∣secrated.

And Clement saith, that Serpent the devill uttereth these words by the mouth of certaine men; Wee to the honour of the invisible God worship visible Images: Which surely is most false. See how in using the same excuses which the Gentiles Idolaters pretended, they shew themselves to joyne with them in Idolatrie. For notwithstanding this ex∣cuse S. Augustine, Clemens & Lactantius prove them Ido-Iaters.

Thus thek 1.169 Homilies; And Dr. Reynolds, De Idolat. Rom. Eccles. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 86. &c. Dr. Iohn White his way to the Church: Sect. 51. n. 7. 8. p. 207. 208. Bishop Iewell, Bishop Alley, Bishop Abbot, Bishop Usher, Dr. Fulke, Dr. Wille, Dr. Field, and all other of learned wri∣ters, in their Tracts concernng Images and their Adora∣tion. out of these and other Fathers.

VVhere then is the difference between Pagans, Papists, and our late Novellers in these particulars? (To which I may adde the Tapors on our Altars, used by the Pagans, and con∣demned by ourl 1.170 Homilies and Writers, as Heathenish and Super∣stitious;) Certainly I can yet finde none. If they replie; That they can only worship before the Altar, Table and Cru∣cifix, but doe not worship the Altar, Table or Crucifix it selfe, as the Pagans and Papists did & doe.

I answer: That as bowing, kneeling, and worship∣ping before God; Is the same in Scripture phrase, with bowing, kneeling, praying to, and worshipping God him∣selfe: witnesse, Deut. 26. 10. 1 Sam. 1. 12. 15. 19. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Psal. 2. 27. Ps. 72. 9. Ps. 86. 9. Ps 95. 6. Ps. 96. 9. 15. Ps. 98. 6. 9. Isay. 6. 23. Dā. 6. 10. 11. 26. Mich. 6. 6. Rev. 3. 9 c. 4. 10. 5. 8. c. 7. 10. c. 15. 4. compared with Isay. 45. 23. c. 49. 23. c 60. 1••. Rom. 14. 1••. Hebr. 11. 21. Gen: 24. 26. 4. c. 47. 31. Exod. 4. 31. c. 12. 27. c. 34. 8. 1 Chron. 29. 10. 2. Chron. 7. 3. c. 29, 29, 30. Neh: 8, 6. Ps. 72. 9. with other texts. And as bowing, kneeling and falling downe before men, is all one with bowing, kneeling and falling downe to men; Gen: 49, 8. 1 Sam: 25, 23. 2 Sam: 14, 33 c. 24, 20. 1 Kings 1. 16. 23. 2 Kings 2. 15. Prov: 14. 9. paralleld with Gen: 27. 29. Exod: 11. 8. 1 Kings 2. 9. 1 Chron: 21. 21. So bowing, kneeling, worshipping, or falling downe be∣fore or towards Images or Altar, the very same in Scrip∣ture language & account, wit•• bowing, kneeling, wor∣shipping, or falling downe to Images, or Altars, 2 Caron. 25. 14. Isay. 44. 15. 17. 19. (which Iunius renders, Pro∣cumbit CORAM EO:) Dan: 3. 3. 5, 6. Luke 4, 71. If thou therefore wilt fall downe or worship BEFORE me, all those shall be thine; Compared with Exod: 20, 5. Le∣vit. 26. 1. Matth. 4. 9.

This is the resolution of our Homilies, p. 20. and 44. to 75. of William VVraghton in his Rescuer of the Romish

Fox (where this is excellently cleared) and generally of all our Writers against Images, and,m 1.171 Adoration of the Eucharist, the thing novv clearly a•• med at in this Ceremony, as Dr. Heylyn in his late History of the Sabbath intimateth, if not in the Coale too.

This Cloake therefore is to short to cover their nakednes, neither will it serue the turne.

If they say, they have no eye at all at the Altar in this their bowing, nor yet at the Crucifix over it; And that neither of these are the termina••iōs, or total or particular object of their bowing towards them; All which they must affirme and make good to acquit themselves from relatiue worship and Idolatrie.

I answer; That this is but a meere forgery and pre∣text.

For first, Shelford in his Authorized Booke (Page 19.) faith; That the Altar or Table is motivum cultus; The mouing cause of this their worship & ••doration towards it; Therefore certainly it hath some Influence into it, and some share in it.

Secondly, as it is the object that stirs up this worship (for weren 1.172 there no Altar or Table, ••here would not be any such bow∣ing to to or towards the place where it stands, a plaine evidence that it is both the o••igin••ll cause, if not the object of this worship,) so it is the only visible object to which it is directed, in which it is terminated, their eye, minde, and bodily incuruation being all leuelled at it alone; Else why should they not as well bow toward the Font, Pulpit, or any other part of the Church indifferently, but to and towards it alone; God being every¦where alike present, (as Honorius Augustodunensis formerly shewes,) and no more confined to the Altar or Table, then to any other part of the Church.

Thirdly, it is not terminated objectively in God or Christ, because done to them, only to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table or Altar to which we

bow, as the Passages fatl••••red on Bishop Morton (Page 403.) witnesseth: Therefore terminated only in the Table or Altar.

Fourthly, all the reasons produced to appropriate this bowing to or towards the Altar and Table, & to justify the lavvfulnes thereof, are only drawen from the Altar it selfe. The reasons therefore of its use and lawfulnes being drawen only from the Altar and Table; This bowing without que∣stion must have relation to them, as its Object & Termi∣nation.

Fiftly, the situation of the Tables Altar-wise, and eleuating and raysing the ground in some places higher then before, the gracing of it with Crucifixes, Altar∣clothes, Arras hangings, Candlestickes, Basons, Cushions and other Massing furniture, the better to induce men to adore and bow unto it, is a stro••g argument in my judgement, that they bow directly to it, making it the immediate object of their bowing, and worship not God, whose presence they now confine to the Altar, and never adore in this maner but in, by, through, on or towards the Altar or Table.

Sixtly, the bowing to it when there is no Sacrament at all on it, nor cause to deeme God specially present at or on it, (See Bishop Mort on, p. 463.) is an invincible argument, that they doe i•• to the Table or Altar, and not simplie to∣wards it.

And to put this out of further doubt.

1. First, I have heard many of them confesse, that they doe bow vnto the Altar.

2. Secondly, J have heard them exhort and perswade o∣thers to bow to it.

3. Thirdly, I have heard them preach for bowing not towards but To the Altar and Table; And fevv Sermons have there been of late times either at Court, Paules Crosse, or our Universitie Churches, vvherein there have not been some Passage either to justify, presse, excuse, or persuade the bovv∣ing

To Altars & Lords-Tables. If any man thinke this a slaunder, vvhich thousands can vvitnesse, then heare in the last place Bookes printed by Authority, confessing it in direct tearmes.

Giles Widdowes in his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puritan, p. 89. printed at Oxford by License An: 1632. And that Pope∣ling Thomas Browne in his Sermon at S. Maries, Oxford 1634. plead not only for Altars and bowing towards them, but for bovving AT & TO them: So that by the judge∣ment of Oxford-Scriblers and Licensers; This bowing is to the Table & Altar.

Mr. Robert Shelford in his 5. Treatises printed by License 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cambridge (to his eternall infamie) p. 17. 18. 19. 20. though in words he minseth the matter; That he would not have them give divine worship to gods Table, but to worship God to∣wards it; Yet he confesseth, that the Altar is motivum cultus, and bids vs direct our aspect TO it, and bow our bodies towards it; And makes it at least a partiall object of this genuflec∣tion. Edward Reeve in his Exposition on the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Booke is downe-right, for removing Tables Altarwise, and bowing TO them.

If these crack-braind writers have not weight enough; Then heare one since them all, in stead of all. Dr. Iohn Pock∣lington, a greet learned Dr. of Divinity, late President of a Colledge in Cambridge, Chaplaine to a great Bishop, and that in a Visitation-Sermon (the most prophane and scurrilous ever yet printed, if not preached) entitled Sunday no Sabbath; Li∣censed by that Apostate William Bray, Chaplaine to the now Archbishop of Canterbury (a great zelot and Precisian, here∣tofore an earnest preacher against Altars and prophane Sabbath-breakers whiles a Lecturer) March. 15. 1635 and twice printed in the yeare of our Lord 1636. who as in his first Edition, p. 48. seemes to inferre; That the Sacrament can not be consecrated without an Altar; So p. 50. he concludes his Sermon thus:

And if we doe not only bend or bow

our body TO his blessed Boorde, or HOLY ALTAR (so he oft times cals it) but fall flat on our faces so soone as ever we approch in sight thereof, what Patriarch, A∣postle; blessed Martyr, holy or learned Father would con∣demne us for it? or rather would not be delighted to see their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so honoured, and their devotion so reverently imitated, and so good care taken to have it continued in the Lords house, on the Lords-day, by the Lords Saints, un∣to the Lords comming againe.

This bowing therefore being not only towards, but TO the Table, (which is made at least the partiall Termination & Object of it, if not the totall or principall) how it differs from the Pagans or Papists relative worship of Idols, Images, Pictures, Altars, or how it can be excused from impiety and most grosse Jdolatrie (as bad as that of the ••aplanders who worship a red cloute upon a sticke, to use the comparison of the I••suite Coster) I cannot possibl••e discerne.* 1.173

And that it is the same in all respects with the Papists de∣r••ved from them, set up to reduce us backe to Rome, and harden Papists in their Jdolatrie, give me leave to relate a late story to you. On* 1.174 Munday, Thursday last, some Citizens of Londō of good quality went with other of their friends to VVhitehall, to see the Ceremonies of the Mun∣day and washing of the poore mens feet: VVhich when they had beheld some of the company desired to see his Majesties Chapple at VVhite-hall: They did so; And in the Chapple found one of the Queens women of their acquaintance at her prayers before the Crucifix: VVho seeing them dravving ••eer her, left off her devotions, and came & saluted them. W••••••s they were vewing the Chapple and talking together, in comes a Gentleman, a Papist, and makes a low Congie to the ground almost, and after that a second, the one to the M••ar•• the other to the Crucifix, and so departs. Where∣upon one of the Company spake thus to the Popish Gentle∣woman 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord will you never see and give over your most

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

grosse Idolatrie of worshipping Images, stockes and stones; With other words to like purpose,

The Popish Gentle-woman defended this practise the be•••• shee could and whiles they were discoursing about it in one side of the Chapple in came Dr. Browne of S. Faithes, then newly made Dea••e of Hereford; and as soone as ever he en∣tred in at the Chapple doore, he bowed 3. seuerall times to∣gether downe to the ground to the High Altar, on which he fi••••d his eyes; After which coming up into the midst of the Chapple he fixeth his eyes upon the Crucifix, and bow∣eth downe to the ground to it: Which they all beholding & wondring at; Law you now (quoth the Popish Gentle-wo∣man, to the Citizen who discoursed with her) this is done of your owne men, a great Dr. and one of his Majesties owne Chaplaines; See you how he bowed to the Altar and Cru∣cifix, farre lower and oftner then the Popish Gentleman did; And cā you blame that in us which your owne Doctours doe? I tell you, you must and will all come to this ere long. In truth replied the Citizen, you have No••plussed me, J can not tell what to say, I never thought to have seene Dr. Browne doe such an Act as this.

By this time the Dr. was come hard by them, and most of them being his familiar acquaintance, one of them steps to him, and saith O, Mr. Dr. wee little thought to have mett, you here. The Dr. not seeing them before, and knowing that they obserued this his bowing, like one deprehended in the very act of spirituall adultery, wa••ed as pale as ashes, and was in such a perplexity for the present, as if he would have fallen downe dead in the place, having not a word to replie; Which they per•••• lying, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into some other discourse, that he might recollect his spirit.

This I shortly after received by accident from the parties thee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 eye-witnesses of the fact, being people of no meane 〈…〉〈…〉 it to divers.

What then may we conclude from this, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that we are

now in this particular more Idolatrous and Popish then the Papists themselves, that we have many a Papist mas••ed un∣der•• Protestants hood, who are not ashamed to be Papists, but only that they are so soone and sodenly discovered to be such at unawares, and that it is high time for his most Excel∣lent, Majesty our most Gracious Soveraigne Lord King Charles, Defender of our faith and Religion, with all his faith∣full Officers and Subjects to looke about them; To prevent these Romish Innovations, Rel••pses and grosse, Back slidings to P••perie in time, (expresly prohibited by his Majesty, both in his royall Declaration before the 39. Article, and concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament, p. 21. 22. 42.) When as his owne advanced Chaplaines (and I would he had no more such of them but this one) are growen such Pope∣lings, as to commit such notorious Idolatrie in his owne royall Court and Chapple, to the encouraging and confirming of Papists in their most grosse superstition and Idolatrie, and greiving of the Soules of all his true-hearted loyall Subjects, whose love will prove his strongest guard against all those treacherous Romish Ianizaries Ies••ites & Assinates, whose faith is faction, whose very religion is rebellion; whose practise the murthering of mens soules and bodies, especially of Christian Princ••s, as many of our Writers, and the Booke for the 5. of No∣vember, (miserablie guelded and corrupted in this very parti∣cular in the last impression, 1635. it were worth the inqui∣ring by whom and whose authority, to discover a new n••st of Traytours, at leastwise to our religion, if not our King and State:) at large relate. See Mr. William Tyndall his Prac∣tise of Popish Prelates, Obedience of a Christia••man. Dr. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry the 8. Henry Stal∣bridge his exhortatiory Epistle, Dr. Iohn White his Defence of the. Way, c. 6. 9. 10. 11.

Since then there is now no ma••eriall sollid justifiable diffe∣rence at all between the Pagans, Papists, and our Romanizing Novellers bowing to Altars, Images, Crucifixes & Lords-Tables,

as the premises witnesse, needs must we now not only passe lentence against it, but abandon and abhor it, as most gro••••e Jdolatrie; Yea as that which no doubt (among other several particulars of our late backsliding to the Church of Rome) hath been one causeo 1.175 of drawing downe that Plague and Pestilence, which now spreades it selfe every where a∣mong us, with these other spirituall & temporall judgements which now we languish under, and are likely to increase upon us to our utter ruine.

And have we not all cause to feare the very extremity of Gods wrath to be powred on us, of which he hath given us visible prognostickes from heaven? I shall name but one of many, upon the 23. day of February last past in Sussex and sundrie places of the Kingdome, from 8, till 9•• of the Clocke in the morning there was seen by many persons of good qua∣lity (who have testified it under their hands) three Sunnes n••are together (a thing ve••y rare) and at the same time a Raine-bow (such as was never seen the like but once) diffe∣ring from ordinary Raine-bowes in these 7. remarkable par∣ticulars:

1. First, where as all other Raine-bowes are inp 1.176 some watry thick cloud, this was in no cloud at all ou•• in the cleare open ayre.

2. Secondly, where as other Raine-bowes are ever in di∣rect opposition to the Sunne, so as he that turnes his face to the bow, turnes his backe on the Sunne, this stood directly South-east in the same quarter that the Sunne the•••• was.

3. Thirdly, other Raine-bowes are commonly lower then the Sunne, and one end of them seemes almost to touch the earth; This vvas farre higher then the Sunne goes in the Sommer-solstice none being ever seen so high by many de∣grees.

4. Other Raine-bovves are seen only at a certaine distance, 5. or 6. miles about, and that but one vvay vvhethervvards it

is reflicted; This seemed above 30. miles distance every way.

5. Fiftly, other Raine-bowes continue but a short space, and then vanish: This a full houre from 8. till 9. of the clock, as long as the 3 Sunnes continued.

Sixtly, other Raine-bovves are flit••ing and moue vvith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cloud vvherein they are: This vvas fixed, continuing in the same place a full houre.

Seventhly (vvhich is the strangest of all, principally to be considered) whereas all other Raine-bowes stand with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 downeward in this maner •• this appeared all the while with the hornes upward thus•• which makes it the more terrible; The bow as all know (and we of this Nation especially who have wonne so many battles by it) is a Mili∣tary or warlike instrument; Now as long as the backe of their bow is towards the Archer and the hornes from him towards his enemie, it is a Signe of peace and safety, that he hath no intent at all to shoote, hurt, or slay him; But when once the Archer tur••es his bow the contrary way with the ••tring and hornes toward himselfe, and the backe of the bow towards his enemie, then its a signe he is angrie and intends to shoote and slay him: The application is obvious, God hath a bow, (a warlike Instrument) as well as man, which Scriptures often mention: (See Ps. 7, 12. Lam. 2. 4. c. 3, 12.) This bow immediately after the flood, when he out of his in∣finite goodnes entred into a covenant of mercy and peace, with Noah and his posterity, placed in the cloud for a token of this Co∣veuant between him and the Earth: (See Gen. 9. 13. 14. 15. 16.) And becanse it was a token only of love, grace and peace, he placed it with the hornes downeward, and the backe towards Heaven, to testify and proclaime peace and mercy to the world; Now when God shall thus in a••unusuall miracu∣lous maner invert this bow of his, turning the hornes of it towards Heaven and the backe upon us in such a visible and notorious fashion, that many Counties of the Kingdome at

once might & did take notice of it (though few such serious notice as they should,) what can we thence in all probabili∣ty conclude; But that we having so long waged warre against Heaven with our prodigious sh••meles manifold open sinnes, (See Ier. 3. 8. 9. Ier. 3. 3.) and so farre broken our covenant and long continued league with God m the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his ordinances, he hath now a resolution to breake off his covenant of peace & of grace with us, and to denounce open warre against us from Heaven; And therefore hath bent his bow, turned the string of it towards Heaven; and the backe of it upon us, and made ready his arrowes upon the string to dis∣charge them against the faces of us his on gracio••s rebels & enem••ies, who proceed to provoke him dayly more and more. Psal. 7. 12. Psal. 11. 2.

And hath not God himselfe (if I may so speake) made this very Comentary on this text and Prodigy? Hath he not shot abrode his (Psal. 95. 5. 6.) Arrows of the Plague and Pesti∣lence among us, and made them in Newcastle, London and o∣ther places (where they have wounded thousands to death) even (Ier, 46. 10.) almost drunk•• with our bloud? Yet (Isay. 5. 25. c. 9. 12. 17. 31. c. 10. 4.) for all that his anger, (this bow and arrow of his) is not turned away, but still str••t••hed aut and full bent against us: Neither can wee either Imagine or divine when the arrowes of this his pestiferous qui••er wilbe spent, since they fall thicker among us every day, and wee have not yet put on the armes of publike fasting, prayer, humiliation and repentance, (bu•• rather of feasting, dancing, masking, playing, chambring, da••lying, and what not,) the only armour of proofe that can ward off their deadly stroke. But when God hath short out this ••heefe of Plague Arrowes at us with this bow of his; Shall we then thinke he haith no other arrowes to let flie against us? O! I Cannot but with feare and troubling suspect the contrary.

Never was there any such Raine-bow as this seene before in any age, (for ought I can finde in storie) but one, and that

vvas here in England too, pertending the heaviest woefull dayes and tidings to it, that ever it heard or saw before; For th•••• Month, time of the day, forme & continuance, it was the same with this, only differing in the day of the month and ••pparition of two Sunnes then, whereas now there were three. Which Mr. Fox thus relates (See Acts & Monuments Edit. 1610. p 1333.) and Dr. Hackewell out of him, (See 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the government of the worldy l. 2.) who accounts it one of the strongest prodigies that ever he read off:

Upon the•••• 5. day of February An. 1555. that was seene (saith Fox) within the City of London (where some saw this last sight too) about 9. of the clocke in the fore-noone strong sights. There was seen two Sunnes both shining at once, the one a good pretty way distant from the other (as these 3. now seene were.) it the same time was also seene a Raine-bovv turned contrary, and a great deale higher then hath been a••customed. The common standing of the Raine-bovv is thus••. But this stood this••, with the head dovvne∣ward and the feete as it vvere upvvard. Both these sights vvere seen as vvell at West-minster, in Cheap-side, on the south-side of Paules as in very many other places, and that by a great number of honest men.

Also certaine Aldermen went out of the Guld hall to behold the sight: What these prodigies did then protend, the subsequent story of Queen Maries blo••dy unhappy dayes (at large recorded in the Acts & Monument••, and other histories of our ovvne) can vvitnes; And Mr. Fox his marginall Note annexed to this passage (strong sights seene before the comming in of King Philip & Subversion of Religion) can testify.

God forbid J should he so presumptuous as peremptorily to determine that these late Apparitions should bode us any such blacke ominous euents; The piety of our most gracious Soveraigne, his zeale and care for religion, manifested both in his ovvne private practise and in his fore-mentioned De∣clarations; Together vvith his most admirable clemency, pro∣hibit

me from the very thoughts of any such unluckey Divi∣nation. But were it not for this confidence and full persua∣sion of his Majesties incomparable goodnes, clemency, zeale and love to our Religion, for which all succeeding ages will adore his memorie; And were it not for those many godly Christians of all sorts and rankes of men, which are every where scattered up and downe among us (though many by our Bishops tyranny have beene forced to flie the Realme, & more like to follow) through the open desperate designes and practises of some swaging domine••ing Prelates, who doe what they list on the one hand; And the secret ••reacheries of the Iesuites, Priests & Papists on the other hand to under∣mine our Religion, and ruine both it, Church, State & all else at once are such, and our backslidings toward Rome within these 4 yeares past, so great and manifold, that I should not only feare, but expect the selfesame consequents now, which then ensued. But blessed be our good God, our gracious King is safe (and for ever may he be so) and so our Religion and wee seeme in despite of all the hellish powderplots now prepared to blow up us and it at once; Which Plots being here in part discovered, and layd more fully open in some other new printed Troatises, I doubt not but his most royall Majesty and honourable Lords, (who hitherto (out of State policy and abundant clemency) have convinced all these late dangerous Innovations, the better to discover, and more justly to proceed against the plotters and fomenters of them, suffi∣ciently detected by name in the last Parliaments remon∣strance to this purpose) will now at last when the Ro∣mish Priests and Projectors are growen so open insolent and notorious, provide a speedy remedy to the eye of all good subjects, to wit, the extirpation of that generation of Vipers, which hath long been gnawing out their owne mo∣thers bowels; The prosperity and florishing of our Re∣ligion, Church, State, the diversion of all gods inflicted & menaced judgments, and their owne eternall honour. To

which blessed worke, as I have here contributed my poore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on deavours, so I hope all true English hearts that have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sparlie of loyalty in them to their Soveraigne, love to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Country, or zeale to the established Religion of our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Which in their breast, will now without more delay 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most assistance, (it being now high time or 〈◊〉〈◊〉) thus to doe.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 no man say these things stood now upon are but triuiall, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they either are or make way for that which is the maine 〈◊〉〈◊〉. That which Chrysostome writes in a like rase, (See 〈…〉〈…〉 Cor. 3.) I may truly apply to this: Hoc parum non 〈…〉〈…〉 Imò vero est fere ••••tum; Ci••o eum neglectum sit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Parva itaquè nunquam despiciamus, ne in magna in∣••••••••••.

It is a true saying of Pope Gregory the first, (See Maral. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 13.) and we have found it experimentally true in these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 here debated. Qui modica spernit paulatim 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 curare parva negligimus, inseusibiliter seducti, au∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 majora perpetiamus. Esus quippe potusque ad Lu∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 L••sus (as our playing with Popish novelties, Cere∣monies and royes hath done) ad idololatriam traxit: Quia s••in vanitatis culpa nequaquàm cau••è compescitur, ab iniquitate pro∣•••••••• men•• incauta deuoratur.

I. shall therefore desire all those who deeme these things ••rifles, to ruminate on these two Fathers words; And diligent∣ly to consider whether they tend; Then J presume they will change their judgments.

Much more might be sayd concerning these Questions & matters here debated; Bnt this J hope will suffice for the present, I shall therefore close up all with the words of Dr. Edward Chulouer in his Sermon entitled Pauls Peregrinations, delivered at Pauls Crosse Anno 1617. London 1623. p. 316. to 329.

Let us now travell from Athens into England, from the world under the Law, to the world under the Gospel, and consider what it is, wherein we are to imitate

these Gentiles; Concerning their Altars, and what it is vvherein we must leave and forsake them. Altars, as they are properly so taken for those on which the typicall or supposed reall Sacrifices were offred, are novv ceased and taken away. Our Saviour vvhen he vvas lifted up upon the Crosse, bad Altars to be beaten dovvne; When he rent the veile of the Temple, the Earth-quake shooke their foun∣dation; VVhen he died, their parts were acted and vvent out. The Papists that they may scrue the Pope farther into the mistery of iniquity, vvill have him maintaine one Lesson, vvhich themselves confesse to be a note of Anti∣christ, and that is, that Ievvish Ceremonies are not yet ceased, at the least in matters of Sacrifices and Altars. But perhaps they had rather be beholden to the Gentiles for them. For if vve vvould beleive Cardinall Baronius, vve may see their lustrall vvater,* 1.177 and sprinkling of Scpulchres, in Iuvenall sixth Satyre, Lights in Scpulchres, in Suetonius & Octavius, Lamps lighted on Saturday, in Geuecas. 96. Epist. Distribution of Tapers amongst the people, in Ma∣crobius his Saturnals. But more lively may vve see it in their Altars:

1. First,* 1.178 in multiplying the number of them in every Church; God allowes but two Altars to the Temple, and Bruschius reckons 51. in one Church in Vlmes, taking their patterne belike from Venus Temple, of which the Poet; Ubi Templum illi centumque Sabeo thure calent arae: But God teacheth no such Arithmeticke, as to mul∣tiply Altars, because Ephraim (saith he) hath made many Altars to sinne, Hos. 8.

2. Secondly, they imitate the Gentiles in dedicating their Altars to such as it is unknowne, or at the least uncer∣taine if ever any such were in the world, as to S. George, S. Catharine, and S. Christopher, doing no otherwise then did the Romans, who consecrated Altars, Dijs incertis, to their uncertaiue Gods, or these Athenians,

who built them

Deo ignoto, to their unknowne God. But we need not much seeke to know whom they follow in these devotions, vvhen as it is a maine Argument urged by Bellarmine, that Altars and Sacrifices were used by the Gentiles, therefore they must still be retained by Christians: I know not vvhat antiquity they pretend, nor vvhat they can finde in the Primitive Church,

to prove the lawfulnes of them, we denie not, but that the Fathers might tearme the Table of the Lords sup∣per an Altar:

And that first, in respect of the similitude it hath to the Altar of the Ould Testament, for that on it are placed the Sacraments of Christs body, which before was figura∣tively offered up by the Priest upon the Altar.

Secondly, because on it vvere laid the Oblations and Offerings, which vvell disposed people vvere vvont to be∣stovv upon the poore, & this vve vvill grant them; But that there vvere any such Altars in use in the Primitive Church as they pretend vve absolutely deny. VVe have an High Priest (saith the Authour to the Hebrevves) vvho needeth not daily as those Priests to offer Sacrifice, nor that he should offer himselfe as often as the High Priest entreth into the Holy place, every yeare vvith the blood of others, for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the vvorld, but novv once in the end of the vvorld, hath he appeared to put avvay sinne by that Sacrifice himselfe Chap. 9. v. 25. 28.

VVell then, Altars of Stone and Metals are nov* 1.179 bani∣shed the Christian vvorld, by the decree of our Lord Christ Iesus, and herein vve must observe that Precept of our Saviour to his Disciples; Goe not into the vvay of the Gentiles in these things imitate them not; But vvhat doe vve, therefore altogether shunne Altars, & Jmages, & Temples? Jt vvas an old imputation indeed of Celsus & others, against Christians in the Primitive Church, as it is novv of the Romans against us, that vve abandon these

Ceremonies, & relinquish them, to which my answer at this time shalbe no other then what Origen gave Celsus; Celsus affirmes (saith he) that we shune Altars and Images, because he takes it to be the beleife of that invi∣sible & inexplicable Communion we maintaine; When in the meane time he perceives not, that to us the mindes of the just are for Altars & Temples; From which doubt∣les are sent forth these most sweet odours of Incense, vowes I meane, and Prayers from a pure Conscience: We are not therefore ambitious in mouing Altars, or framing I∣mages, which heretofore have been the Tabernacles of De∣vils, and C••ges of uncleme Spirits; But rather embrace such living Altars, as one whom we see to burne the true fire of zeale, kindled not by vestall Virgins, but by the Spirit of God.

Let any man (addes that Father) make an inquiry into those Altars which we expound, and compare them with those which Celsus (I will say which the Pope would bring in,) or the Images which are fixt in the mind of them which worship God with Phydias's or Policletus's, or whom he ever men list to select of cunning Artisicers, and he shall plainly see, that these inanimate and sencelesse Colosses shall decay and corrupt with time, whereas these living Sanctuaries shall be immortall, and continue for ever.

Shall we feare (Beloved) least Altars & Images be taken a∣way, or Churches loose somewhat of their Grace and Government.

I must tell you with S. Ambrose, that neither our Prayers nor Sacrifices stand in need of such trimming, the best a∣dorning of Sacraments, is not Tissues & Silke, or em∣broidered Canopies, or spangled Crucifixes, or painted Poppets, or any the like faceings,* 1.180 Popery sets forth her Altars, more like Pageants then places which fa∣vour

of Christs simplicity, but the redeeming of Cap∣tions, &c.

But now what should we admire those Altars whose covering our Saviour Christ pronounced to be but untigh∣teous Māmon, or those Cēsers whose metal S. Peter was not ashamed to confesse that he had none 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Crie not there∣fore, Templum Domini, &c. The Temple of the Lord, &c. as did sometimes the Iewes, Ier. 7. Hee is the Temple of the Lord, in whom true faith dwelleth, who is clothed with Iustice as with the vaile of the Tabernacle, in whom not Temperance alone, or Abstinence sing their parts, but in whom the whole set of vertues make a com∣pleat Quire; Wouldest thou therefore like the Gentiles build an Altar, and yet not as did these Athenians to the unknowne God? VVhy, see matter and stuffe prepared to thine hand, the Prophets and Apostles for the founda∣tion, Christ himselfe for the chiefe Corner-stone:

Wouldest thou lay it over with pure & refined me∣tall? VVhy, see the word of God, it is like Gold 7. times purified in the fire.

VVouldst have a Beast to slay? Mortify and kill thy beastly affections, which otherwise would kill thee.

VVantest thou a knife to kill them; Take the Sword of Preaching not into thine hand, but into thy heart, that is, it which is sharp••r then a two-edged sword, & cutteth to the dividing and separating of soule and Spirit.

Are all these things prepared, and lackest thou yet fire to consume them? VVhy zeale must be that fire, with∣out which all these will profit thee nothing.

O beloved! if these were the Sacrifices of the Roma∣nists, or these the Altars of Papisme, I vvould change my speech, and most heartily request you to joyne hands with them, and let the seamelesse coate of Christ to suffer rupture and division no more between us.

No longer should thy blessed name (sweet Iesus) beare reproach among the uncircumcised infidels for our sepera∣tion, but if their Altars be but the Popes Exchequers, and the Priests but like the Publicanes, which sit there at the receit of custome; Goe out of Babylon, let us treate no longer with her upon Articles of agreement.

What Erasmus saith of the Altars of our time, the same verdict* 1.181 S. Bernard gives of the Altars of his time, by the hight of such sumptuous and wonderfull vanities (saith he) men are more incited to offer then to adore. Thus riches are swallowed up by riches, thus mony drawes in mony, because I know not by what meanes (but so it is) where men see most, there are they most willing to give.

On Altars therefore is presented the beautifull portrac∣ture of some Saint, and it is thought so much the more ho∣ly, by how much the more beautifull. Men runne to kisse it, they are invited to enrich it, and more are astonished at things curious, then inclined to adore things religious; O vanity of vanities, and yet not greater vanity then mad∣nes, the Church abounds in the Walls, and wants in her poore; She cloathes her stones with gold, and leaves her Sonne naked, to the cold, the maintenance of the poore serve to satisfie the eyes of the rich, the curious find matter to delight them, the distressed find no bread to sustaine them.

But are these the devotions which Rome so vaunteth of? Well might S. Austin (in Psalm. 43. 49.) then wish those of his time to forbeare Sacrificing & Altars, if this be all the fruit of them.

Alas! he shewes himselfe farre from alowing such im∣postures, (saith he) If thou hast a fat Bull, reserve him not for the Altar, as if Iewish or Gentilish Sacrifices were in use, but kill him for the poore, though they cannot drinke the bloud of Goates, yet they cā eate the flesh of Bulls, and he which said unto thee. If I hunger, I will not tell it thee,

will then tell thee I was hungry, and thou gavest me to eate.

But what Altar then would he have us to erect to God? What Sacrifices, thinkes he, ascend best pleasing in his sight? Why, he turnes us to the Psalmist. Offer unto the Lord, the Sacrifice of praise, an humble and a contrite heart shalt thou not dispise.

So then wouldest thou build an Altar? VVhy, the lof∣tiest Altar thou canst build, is a lowly heart: VVouldest thou have something to offer, see an oblation passing the bloud of Goates and Calves, and Sacrifices of praise and thanks∣giving.

VVell might we heare, least God should have required something without us, something in the house that the M••thes had corrupted, something in the Garner, which the Mice or vermine had consumed; Something in the Field, which the Fox or Wolfe had devoured; But he sends us to our selves, and to our immodest Closet, which none but God can unlocke, (saith Austin) thine Altar is thy conscience, offer thereon the Sacrifice of praise.

We are secure, we goe not into Arabia for Frank incense, neither doe we rip up the bowels of the earth for Stories to beautifie our Altars, If Paul could find an Altar abroad; Know. Christians have it at home, within their owne breasts.

If all these Authorities be not sufficient, take but one more for all, past all exception fresh in memory; To wit, the testi∣mony of the reverend learned Prelate D. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Iustitution of the Sacrament set forth by publike Authority and approbation Anne 1631. and since 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Anne 1635. with enlargements. Where L. 6. c. 3. S••ct. 8. p. 416. 417. and c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. (if the latter be his Addition) where thus he writes: If furthermore wee speak of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture Heb. 13. 10. VVe have an Altar

(saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eate, that serve at the Tabernacle; This some of you greedily catch at, for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse, (See the Rhemists in their Annot. upon the place, & Mr. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie, Tract. 3. Sect. 3. Sub. 4.) and are presently repulsed by your Aquinas, expounding the place to signify either his Altar upon the Crosse, or else his bo∣dy, as his Altar in Heaven; Mentioned Apocal, 8. and called the golden Altar. Aquinas, istud Altare vel est Crux Chri∣sti 〈…〉〈…〉

If we our selves should tell you, how some one affirmeth, that this Altar, spoken of by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostle•• is the body of Christ himselfe in Heaven•• upon which and by which all Christians are to•• often up their Spirituall Sacrifice of Faith Devotion, Thankfulness Hope and Charity; You would presently answer, that this one cea••ainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist•• the words are so contradictory to your R••mish Gatbe not with standing you may find all this in the Antididagma of the Divines of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Antidi∣dagm: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de Miss••, Sacrificie Post 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (Habemus Al∣tare) Heb. 13. Et Apoe. 8. (Aure••m Altare) in que & per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrifitia fid••i devotionis, gratiarum actionis, Spei, & Charitatis De•• Patri debent offerre. Atque it a sit ut Christus sit Altare, Sacerdos, & Sacrificium. August. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar, in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier, that your Cardinall was content to leave it behind him, because many Catholikes (saith he) interpret it otherwise.

Bella•• Quia non desunt 〈◊〉〈◊〉, qui interpretantur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vel de Cruce, vel de Christo ipso, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 L. 1•• de Missa. c. 14.

And indeed, who is of so shallow a braine, as not to dis∣cerne notorious conconscionablenesse of your disputers, who confessing that the Apostles in their times did Abstain frō the words Sacrifice, Priest & Altar, doe notwith∣stāding alledge the word, Altar, in the text to the Hebrews, for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse. Will you be con∣tented to permit the decision of this point to the judge∣ment of your Jesuite ••stius.

Estius Comment. in 13. ad Hebr. (Habemus Altare) Thomas Altare his interpretatur C••u∣••m Christs, ••l i••sum Christum, de quo edere, inquit, est fructum passionis percipere, & ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari. Crucem Christi pr••prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est. Vnde Ecelesia ••••cat A••am, Cru••is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam, quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit (Iesum extra p••rtam passum esse) ire in ara Crucis obiatum; Vt taceam, quod toties in hae Epistola, atqu•• ex institute per Antithes••m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernacul••, cum Christe ••••∣ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentie∣••••m Sacrific•••• incruenti nonae legis, non multum verisimile est, eum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aliud agentem, velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrifici•• incru 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere; Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate me∣moriam ex antedictis remeare hu•• pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum, Panis vocatur, fide manducandus. Vt Ioh. 6 P••nis quem ••g•• dabe.

Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas, which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle, wher•• he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion, that it was with out the gate, and observeth, for confirmation-sake, that th•• Apostle often, of purpose, opposeth the Sacrifice of Chri•••• upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testa••ment, so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrific•• of the New Testrment, So hee, what is, if this be not ou•• Protestantiall profession, concerning this word Altar, t•• prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christ••

Crosse; And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse.

But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so, if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is, to whom a man in fasting must repaire; Orig••n resolveth us, saying: He is not to be sought here on Earth at all, but in Heaven. Origen Iejunans debes adi∣re

Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiqu•• non in terris quaerendus est, sed in Coelis. Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo. In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10.

If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution, that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth, Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him, as he did himselfe, saying: I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these Al∣tars are but Signes; A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, there will J offer up my Oblations;

Gregor Nazianzen. Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt, ut a∣liud habeo, cujus figurae sunt ea, quae nec oculis ••ernimus, super quod nec ascia, neo manus aseenda••, nec ullum Artificum instru∣mentum auditum est, sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo, in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium, Oblationes & Holocausta, tanto praestantiora, quanio veri••as ambrā Orat. 28. p. 484.

As great a difference (doubtlesse) as between Signes and things, &c. For your better apprehension of this truth, if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament, propounded it, in the place where he with his Disciples, gave it unto them, to be Eaten and Drunken; Then tell us where it was ever knowne, that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking? In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on, but besides the Altar. Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament, that the place whereon it is Celebrated, is not called an Altar of the Lord,

seeing the Spirit of God, by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes; For the Apostle, as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely, The Supper of the Lord, & the vessel prepared for the Liquid: The Cup of the Lord; So did he name the place whereon it was set: The Table of the Lord, and the contemners thereof, Guilty of the Bo∣dy and Bloud of the Lord; And thereupon did denounce the vengeance & Plague, which fell upon prophane Com∣municants, the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter. 1. Cor. 11.

Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pock∣lington, Shelford, Reeve & the Colier, who in the point of Altars, and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Al∣tars

or Lords-Tables, are more Popish then the very Ie∣suites and Papists themselves, who as the Bishop here proves, disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text: I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates, Bray & Baker, (very zealous Puritans, and eager men heretofore against Altars, Images, bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus, Images, Sacrifices, Sabbath∣breaking, &c. but now are hote against them) since Bi∣shops Chaplaines, as eager against them, when they were Lecturers, who dare license such Popish trash, in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell, yea Bishop Mor∣ton printed but one yeare before, by publike li∣cense; And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates, who permit them thus to doe without controll.

But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned, be∣cause they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires, belonging not to their functions, that they have no time at all to thinke of God, Religion, or any part of their E∣piscopall function, & so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please; Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke (which they gape after) for their

paines, in licensing such Romish Pamphlets, at these in pu∣blike affront, not only to the Articles, Homilies, most emi∣nent writers, and establish••d Doctrine of our Church, but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles, and after the last Parliaments dissolution, and the eternall infamie & scandall of our Church, which they cannot expiare with their lives.

Well, how ever they brave it out for the present, a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long, to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates, the mildest tearme, that charity itselfe (if regulated by truth) can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these; which act plainly manifests, that having so lōg main∣tained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints, that themselves are both turned Apostates, to make good their Doctrine by practise and example.

But of this enough. Only let me conclude of them & the new English Priests & Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gil∣das, who thus Caracterizeth them:* 1.182 Sacerdotes habet Bri∣tania, sed insipientes; quam plurimos Ministros, sed impu∣dentes; Clericos, sed raptores subditos: Pastores, ut dicuntur, sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos; (quippe non commoda plebi providentes sed proprij plenitudinem von∣tris quaetentes:) Ecclesiae domus habentes, sed turpis lucri gratia eas adeuntes; rar•• sacrificantes, & nunquam puro corde inter ALTARIA stantes: Praecepta Christi spernentes, & suas libidines rebus omnibus implere curan∣tes: Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis pedibus usurpantes, sed merito cupiditatis in Iudae traditoris pestilentem Ca∣thedram decidentes: Veritatem pro inimico odientes, ac mendatijs ac si charissimis fratribus faventes: Iustos innopes immanes quasi angues torvis vultibus consicantes, & sce∣leratos divites absque velo verecundiae respectu sicut coe∣lestos Angelos venerantes, &c.

Cuius 〈◊〉〈◊〉 CARBONE IGNITO DE AL∣TARI forcipe Cher•••••••• advc••o ••abia, & Isai••, inundata su••••?

Notes

• a 1.1

  Aqui∣nas 1•• 2••. quaestiō 1. Artic 1. 2. 1•• Quaest: 6. Ar 1. 2.
• b 1.2

  Aqui∣nas 1•• 2••. Quaest 1. Ar. I••. Ar 32 •• 2. 2•• qu. 189. Ar, 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• c 1.3

  Aqui∣nas 1•• 2••. qu. I. Art. 3 qu 96 Art. 1. 1. 2••. qu. 8. Art. 2. So Occhum, Scotus, Bo∣navēture. Aegydius. Durādus. Lambard. Medis Vil la, Bacon. & all the School∣men. Kec∣kerman. Zabarell. Magyrus. Ruuio. & all Logi∣ciaha.
• e 1.4

  Gē. 8. 20. Levit. 1. 6. to 9. c. 2. & 9. c. 7. 31. Exod. 20. 24.
• f 1.5

  Bellarm. de Missa. I. 1. c. 2. Sum. An∣gelica Tit. Altar:
• g 1.6

  Fox Acts & Monti∣ments. p. 121. 1212. B. Morton Institution of the Sa∣crament: p. 463.
• h 1.7

  Magnū Chron: Belgio••••m.
• i 1.8

  Thomas Beconlike∣liques of Rome.
• k 1.9

  Page ••
• l 1.10

  Homilie of the wor thy recei∣ving of the Sacramēt. part. 1. p. 198. Edi••. 1632.
• m 1.11

  P. 200.
• q 1.12

  Col. p. •• 16. 17.
• r 1.13

  Colefron•• the Altar. p. 4. line 19. 20.
• s 1.14

  Epistle to the reader I am to ad∣vertise thee, &c. Thou woul¦dest take notice (and so many doe) that the Romā•• is the words of the Author
• t 1.15

  Of the Sacram. part. 1. p. 198.
• u 1.16

  Which some scā∣dalously terme: An unreverēs & unseem∣ly gesture, as if Christ & his A∣postles were un∣reverent, & institu∣ted & re∣ceived the Sacramēt in an un∣reverent & unseem¦ly manner.
• w 1.17

  In imita¦••ion of Po∣pish Preists who•••• so title them∣selves in the fronts of their bookes.
• * 1.18

  See Bi∣shop Mor∣tons Insti∣tution of the Sacra∣ment Edit. 2. lib. 6. c. 3. Sect. 1. 2. 3.
• x 1.19

  B. Mor∣ton. Ibid p. 415. 461
• y 1.20

  D. Rey∣nolds con∣fer. with Hart. p. 446. to 473 D. Fulke Rhem. Te∣stament. Notes on Heb 7. c. 9. 10.
• z 1.21

  Heylyn. Pocklinton & others.
• a 1.22

  B. Mor∣ton Instit. of the Sa∣crament. ••6. c 3.
• b 1.23

  Pag. 134 135 142. 144. 145. See B. Mor∣ton his In∣stitution of the Sa∣crament. l. c. 3. through∣out, and in the procee∣ding and ense••ving ••hapters. D Fulke and Mr. Cart••rig•• in the con∣••utation of the R••em. Testament on Hebr. 7. & 8. & 9 & 10. to the same••••••pose.
• c 1.24

  See Bis-Mortō his Institution of the Sa∣crament. l. 6. c. 3. 4. 5. 6. through∣out.
• d 1.25

  Of the worthy re∣ceiving & esteeming of the Sa∣crament, p. 200.
• e 1.26

  2 Tim. 4 1•• 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2
• f 1.27

  27. Eliz. c. 2 See Rastall Re∣cusantes, Ie••uites, Seminary-Preistes, Rom. ser∣vice and Sacra∣mēnts, &c.
• g 1.28

  See Ra∣••••all Title Mort:
• h 1.29

  See sum∣ma Ange∣lica & Ro∣sella Tit. consecrat. &c. Et ratr. de Consecra∣tionis di∣stinct. 1. & 16. Anto∣n•• Corseti R••portoriū Tit. Con∣secratio.
• i 1.30

  Of the I∣dolat. The right use of the Church, the time and place of prayer.
• k 1.31

  Foli•• 91. 92. 93.
• l 1.32

  Page 210 414
• m 1.33

  Exposi∣tion of A∣geus, c. 2. v. 2. 3, and c. 1. v. 7. 8.
• n 1.34

  Acts 7
• p 1.35

  1 Tim. 2.
• * 1.36

  Note this.
• q 1.37

  Iohn 4
• r 1.38

  2. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 27•• H. 8•• cap. 15. 37. H•• 8. c. 17•• 32. H. 8. c. 3
• a 1.39

  Deus Na∣tura & Gratia, in sund••••e pages.
• b 1.40

  Sunday no ••abbath p. 2•• 48. Edit 1.
• c 1.41

  See Bis: ••••audes Wrens, Pearce, Whites, and other of their Articles to this pur∣pose
• * 1.42

  Cre•• Church, the Chap∣pell at Ha∣mors••••th, & others.
• d 1.43

  Summa Angelica Tit. cons••∣cratio Ec∣clesiae.
• * 1.44

  See Pon∣tificale E∣piscoporum de conse∣cratione Ecclesiae. Mr. Calfe hill his an∣swer to Marshall. F. 93. 94. 95. 96.
• e 1.45

  Of the Perill of Idolatrie.
• f 1.46

  See Sum∣ma Ange∣lica & Ro∣sella Tit: Symonia.
• g 1.47

  Se•• Brook Fitz. ha∣bent & Ristal Tit. extortion.
• * 1.48

  1636.
• h 1.49

  Of the Perill of I∣dolatrie. The Right use of the Church. The Time and Place of Prayer.
• i 1.50

  2 H. 5. c. 21. H. 8. c. 21. Cooks Iustitutes: f. 344. a. and other Law books there cited
• l 1.51

  1. Eliz. c. 1.
• m 1.52

  Antiqu. Ecces. Brit: in late Fox Acts and Monumēts p. 1774. to 1782.
• n 1.53

  Antiqu: Eccles. Brit: pas∣sim.
• o 1.54

  36. H. 8. p. 13.
• p 1.55

  See 5. H. 6. parts. ••••. in this Ro••s.
• q 1.56

  Cooks In∣stitut. F. 334. a: Brooke Praemuni∣re. 21. 21. E. 3 60. a:
• r 1.57

  Se Speeds History of great 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 106•••• 1068.
• s 1.58

  Popes (& so Bishops) have no scriptures for their hallowing of thinges. B. Pilking¦ton on Ag∣geus. c. 2. 2. 10.
• t 1.59

  Exposit: on Aggeus 1. v. 78. De vita & Obitu M. Buceri.
• u 1.60

  Acts and Monumēts p 1777. to 1788.
• x 1.61

  Se Sum∣ma Ange∣lica & Ro∣sella Tit. Consecra∣tio Eccle∣siae.
• y 1.62

  Ioannis de Aton C••n∣stit: Dom: Othonis de consecra∣ti••nis Ec∣cles: f. 5. 6 7.
• z 1.63

  15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastall Mort. 8.
• a 1.64

  31 H 8. In the Pa∣tent Rols: pars 4••.
• b 1.65

  15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastall Mortma∣nie. 8 3.
• * 1.66

  30••. 40••. a Church or Chapple
• c 1.67

  Sum•••• Angelica Tit: Con∣secrat: Al∣taris & Pontifica∣le Roma∣num.
• d 1.68

  37. H. 8. in the R••••s pars prima
• * 1.69

  Note this: Bishops then could not suspēd or deprive Ministers, with∣out a spe∣ciall Patent or Com∣missiō, and that upon just and Lawfull causes, war¦ranted by some sta∣tute there in force: Ergo now they can∣not doe it. And not one of thē having such a Pa∣••ent or Commissiō at this day from the King, all their sus∣pensions and pro∣ceedings against Ministers and others are meere Nullities.
• e 1.70

  Fox Act•• & Monu∣ments. p. 1147 999 5. & 6. E. 6. c. 3.
• f 1.71

  Dedica∣cion for sport at the end.
• * 1.72

  The third reason of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.73

  4. Reasons
• * 1.74

  Have you a decent Commu∣nion Table to admi∣nister the Sacrament or Com∣muniō at? This is the ordinary Article in all visita∣tions.
• * 1.75

  The 5. rea∣son.
• g 1.76

  Sermon of Gods House: p. 20.
• h 1.77

  A Coale from the Altar. p. 11. 27.
• i 1.78

  Ivo Dene∣talium: pars 2a. c. 25. 26 28. 29. 34 25 August. Epist. 118 ad Ianua∣rium. Cy∣prianus de coena Do∣mini. Am∣bros. l. 4. de Sacra∣mentis c. 6
• k 1.79

  See Hos∣pinian de Origine Altarium & Tem∣plorum. And the Authori∣ties in the beginning forecited.
• l 1.80

  Walafri∣dus Stra∣bus de Re∣bus Eccles. c. 1. Euse∣bius Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4.
• m 1.81

  Ratio∣nale Di∣vin l. 1. c. 2 nu. 15.
• n 1.82

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. l 1. c. 7. nu 15.
• o 1.83

  De offi∣cijs, l. 1. c. 3
• p 1.84

  De Ec∣clesiasticis officijs, lib. 3. c. 3.
• q 1.85

  De In∣stit. Cleri∣corum: l. 1. c 33.
• r 1.86

  Rationa∣le Divin. l 1. c. 1. nu 18.
• s 1.87

  Page 56.
• t 1.88

  Page 56.
• u 1.89

  De Riti∣bus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu. 1.
• u 1.90

  De Riti∣bus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu. 1.
• x 1.91

  Commēt. in Rutr. Missale: par: 1 Tit. 15. Sect. 2
• y 1.92

  Cap. 17. Sect. 15.
• z 1.93

  Lib. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 462. E∣dit. 2.
• a 1.94

  De Ori∣gine Al∣tarium.
• b 1.95

  Acts 14. 28. Iob. 10 24 Exod. 39 25. 26
• c 1.96

  19. 12. Num. 1. 50. Iosh. 6. 3. 4. 2 Sā. 5. 9. Exod. 16. 13. 2 Cron. 4. 3. 2 Kings 6 14 15. Iob. 16. 13. Psal 7. 7. Ps. 17 9. Ps. 18. 4 5 Ps. 22. 12 16. Ps 88. 17. Ps. 103 3. Ps. 118. 10. 12. Jonab. 2 3. 5 Luk. 21 20. Heb. 11. 30. c. 12. 1. Rō. 20 9. •• Jeue. 3. Qu. 83. Disp 233. co. 2. n. 20
• d 1.97

  De rebus Eccles. c. 4.
• e 1.98

  Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 24.
• f 1.99

  Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21.
• g 1.100

  Visitatiō Articles for Nor∣wich Dio∣cesse.
• i 1.101

  Fox Acts & Monu∣ments, p. 1781.
• k 1.102

  See Shel∣fords Ser∣mō of Gods house: p. 18 19 20. Bishops Mortons Institution of the Sa∣crament. Edit 2. p. 463.
• l 1.103

  •• King. 8 29 30. 33 35 Dan. 9. 10
• m 1.104

  2 Ch••ō, 7. 12. See the Homily of the right use of ••he Church.
• n 1.105

  Exposi∣tion of the Cate∣chisme in the Com∣munion-Booke to∣wards the end.
• o 1.106

  Sunday no Sab∣bath: p. 50.
• q 1.107

  See the Commen∣tatours on 1 King. 8. 2 Chor. 6. Ps. 5. 7. & 138. 2. & Dan. 6. 10
• r 1.108

  See Bi∣s••••p. M••rt. u••itution of the Sa∣crament. p. 463.
• * 1.109

  Sermon of Gods house, p. 18.
• s 1.110

  In the ••ncomia∣•••••••••• ver∣ses before his booke.
• t 1.111

  D Wal∣burton D••••me of Wels, in a Sermon, and others in their Sermons.
• u 1.112

  Oratio 28 de Fu∣nere Patris p. 472.
• w 1.113

  See Ps. 21 12. Ier. 2 27. c. 32 33. 2 C••ron. 29. 6. where the like phrase is used.
• x 1.114

  De Bi∣bliotheca Patrum Colon•• A∣grip. 1618 p. 14 15.
• y 1.115

  Descrip∣tor: Eccl. A•••• 34.
• z 1.116

  Annal: Tō. 1. An. 63 nu 17.
• a 1.117

  Censura scriptorum veterum: p. 9 10.
• b 1.118

  Eccles. H••era••••h. l. c. 5.
• c 1.119

  Censura: p. 50. 52. 54.
• d 1.120

  D•• Di∣vin••s Ossi∣cijs.
• e 1.121

  De Paeni∣tentia, lib. Edit. Rhe∣nani. Tō. 2 p. 46.
• f 1.122

  See Cooke Censura p. 70. Rhe∣nanus in argumento 〈◊〉〈◊〉 libri
• g 1.123

  Rhena∣nus & La Cerda l••i∣dem: Tri∣part. Hist. l. 9. c. 35.
• h 1.124

  See Tri∣part. Hist. l. 9. c. 35
• i 1.125

  Adversus eos qui hummae in Christ•• &c. p. 565
• k 1.126

  Cookes Censura 93. &c.
• l 1.127

  Oratio 25 p. 443.
• m 1.128

  Bibl: Patrum Tom. 10. p. 415. 416. E. c.
• n 1.129

  Bibliot••. Patrum Tom. 12. pars 1. p. 1054.
• o 1.130

  Biblioth. patr. Tom. 14. p. 252 A 254. B. C. 256. B.
• * 1.131

  There∣fore all of them stood not Easter∣ly at the upper end of the Chancle.
• o 1.132

  Sermon of Gods 〈◊〉〈◊〉, p. 2 4 19.
• p 1.133

  The La••∣lesse knee∣lesse Schis∣maticall Puritan. p. 34. 89.
• q 1.134

  Page 34.
• r 1.135

  The law∣lesse knee lesse Puri∣tan, p. 89.
• s 1.136

  Bishop White his Title to his Trea∣tise of the Sabbath, and Bishop Morton in his Institu∣tion of the Sacrament Edit. 2.
• * 1.137

  1 Tim. 3. 2. to 9. Tit. 1. 5. to 11. Eph. 4 31. 32. 1 Pet. 1. 15 16. 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3.
• a 1.138

  Bucer Enarrat. in Psal. 92
• b 1.139

  Quod si Pontifi∣ces nolunt de se tur∣pia narra∣ri, aut ne∣faria, nihil ejusmodi faciant: aut cum fecerint, nō putent caipsa ita latere, ut & sciri & posteris narrari nequeant. Papir. Massa:
• * 1.140

  Mr. Bad∣gers young daughters speech to Bis•• Laude who as∣ked him:

  Why he wore his shirt∣sleeves upon the top of his cloths
• c 1.141

  See the Orthodox faith, &c. in āswer to a Popish Treatise, entitled WHITE DIED BLACK Dr. of Di∣vinity, Deane of Carlile then, now Bishop of Ely, to compare his and his brothers Doctrines and P••sitions there defended, with these since mentioned in his last Treatise, and in the High Commission Court.
• d 1.142

  Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 2. Herodotus: l. 2.
• e 1.143

  Balaeus, Cent. 9. c. 97.
• * 1.144

  Iust like his bowing not to the name of Iesus, but to the Sence; Serm. on Phil. 2. 9. 10. 11.
• c 1.145

  Pag. 462
• d 1.146

  Pag. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.
• e 1.147

  Pag. 361. 462.
• f 1.148

  Bellarm. l. 1. de Missac. 2. dist. 5.
• g 1.149

  Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa, c. 17.
• * 1.150

  Fox Acts & Monu∣ments. p. 1781.
• * 1.151

  Bishop Morton l. through∣out.
• * 1.152

  Shelford, Reeve Rives, Pockling∣ton, Dr. R••ad, Browne, Widdows, Adams, Wren, Page, and I know not how many more, who bring it in by head & shoulders into their Sermons and wri∣tings.
• * 1.153

  In his de∣votions, the Prayer, when we are pro∣strate before the Altar.
• b 1.154

  Rom. 4. 15. 1.
• * 1.155

  Iohn 3. 4.
• * 1.156

  See Bish; Mort: In∣stitution of the Sacra∣ment, l. 8. c. 1. p. 557. Col. 2. 18.
• * 1.157

  Bishop Morton, l. 7. through out, and p. 541. 542. 445.
• a 1.158

  Of the Perill of I∣dolatrie. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sa∣crament. l. 7.
• b 1.159

  Aeneid. l. 4. p. 171. 172.
• c 1.160

  Aeneid. l. 5. p. 213.
• d 1.161

  Aeneid. l. 8. p. 279.
• e 1.162

  De Arcti∣tectura, l. 4. c. 5 8. Dr. Raynolds d••ldololat. Romanae Ecclesiae. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 46. p. 432.
• * 1.163

  Ezech. 8. 16.
• * 1.164

  De Ori∣gine Al∣••••rium.
• * 1.165

  See his visitation-Articles.
• g 1.166

  Epist. 49 Quaest. 3. Tom. 2. p. 223.
• h 1.167

  Epist. l. 2. Epist. 1. p. 276. See Iuvenal. Satyr. 12. 13. p. 115. 119. 121.
• i 1.168

  Fostorum l. 5. p. 88.
• k 1.169

  Ouid. Fastorum. l. 4. Ma∣crobius Sa∣turn. l. 1. c. 7. Iuve∣nal: Satyr. 12. Virgil. Aeneid. l. 8. p. 230. l. 11. p: 353. Copa. p. 563. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 16. c. 37. Su••tonij, Caligula. Sect. 13. Tatianus Orat. adv. Graecos. Baruch. 6. 10.
• l 1.170

  Part. ••. p 50. 51. 75. Par••. 1. p. 38. Francis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Croy his first Con∣formity, c. 25 Orm••∣rod. Pag••. no-papis∣mus semb. 37. 123. 124. 125.
• m 1.171

  See Bi∣shop Mor∣ton Insti∣tution of the Sacra∣ment, l. 7. and Dr. Reinolds de Idolot. Eccles. Rom.
• n 1.172

  See the Homily a∣gainst the Per••ll of ••∣d latrie, part. 3. which ar∣gues thus on case of Images.
• * 1.173

  Enchiri∣dion: De Sacraem. Euchari∣stiae, c 8: ••. Decimo••Bis: Mor∣ton Insti∣tution of the Sacra∣ment, l 7. c. 8. Sect. 2 p. 549.
• * 1.174

  An. 1636
• o 1.175

  See the Homilie of the Time and place of Prayer, The secōd part of the Perill of Idolatrie: The exhor¦tation for the fast: The last great plague.
• p 1.176

  Iris est inflectio solis in nube. Ma∣gyrus Kec∣kerman & others.
• * 1.177

  Baron. Auval. ann. Dom. 44.
• * 1.178

  Brush•• de Monast. Germano, fol. 129. Virgil.
• * 1.179

  Note.
• * 1.180

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 our 〈…〉〈…〉 their High Altars note this.
• * 1.181

  Ad Gul∣cel. Absa∣sem Apol••
• * 1.182

  De Ex∣cidio & Conquest. Brit. Re∣rum Brit: Script. p. 134. 135.