A Quench-Coal, Inquiry 1 · Part

A Quench-Coal · Inquiry 1 · Part

p. 164Which may be thus Englished, upon the Altar & Furniture thereof in England.

Why, on Court-Altars, two Bookes clasped lie,

Two lightless Lights, two empty Basons drie?

Does England in Gods worship lock-up Sense?

Darke in her Beames, dry in Streames influence?

Whilst with Romes Rites, shee Royall-Altars Decks,

Offers shee not Romes Whore in all respects?

If `tis Christs Board, why is it Mass-like trim'd?

Why has it empty Fonts? Lights wholely dim'd?

If Romes Dumbe-Showes be from the Britans banisht,

Why are our Bibles Shut, our pure Prayers vanisht?

Why are Romes Foggs brought back, expell'd before?

What meane the Tyres, sweet Drafts of that bace Whore?

Shall it therfore follow, because these Cathedrall Altars have such trinkets standing on them, ergo every parish Church & Chapple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars & Communion Tables to?

I trow not, unlesse there were some Law or Statute for it; since the Rubricke of the Common Prayer Booke, & the 82. Canon Prescribes, that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linnen cloth upon it, and that at other times, during diviue service only, it should be covered with a Carpet of filke, or other decent stuffe; so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it, in Cathedrall Churches, are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Booke of Common Prayer, the Canons, yea and the Queenes Injunctions, as the High Altar is.

This argument, therfore (now much insisted on) is invalid, untesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Lawes & Canons in those particulars, then now they are.

p. 165The 5.Object. 5. A Coale from the Alt. p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer. Objection is this: That the Queenes Injunctions commaund the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood: Ergo they ought to be placed Altarwise.

To this I answer, that the words of the Queenes Injunctions, published Anno 1559. by the advise of her most honorable Counsaile, are these:

For the Tables in the Church.

Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many & sundrie parts of the Realme, the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacrament, ACCORDING TO THE FORME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED; and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed, upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majestyes Visitours.

In the order where of, having for uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment; so that the Sacrament be duly & reverently Ministred: yet for observation of one uniformity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALME, and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALFE, it is ordered, that no Altar be taken downe but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Churchwardens, or one of them at the least…, wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used; & that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood, & there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, & shalbe appointed BY THE VISITORS; and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed: at which time the same shalbe so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell (the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon, saye, with in the body of the Church or chancell, which makes me suspect, p. 166that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions,) as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his prayer & ministration, & the Communicants also, more conveniently & in more number communicate with the sayd Minister; and after the Communion done, from time to time, the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before.

In which Injunction, (much wrested & insisted on by the Cole) these particulars are remarkable, to stoppe the mouthes of our moderne Innovators.

First, that Communion Tables are no Altars, nor ought to be so stiled, they being here put in opposition & contradistinction one to the other, though some now confound & bind them together as one.

2. That all Altars were removed, & ordered to be removed, by vertue and forme of a Law, therfore provided, to witt the Statute of: Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them. Therfore the bringing in & setting up of Altars now, and the calling of Communion Tables, Altars, is against that Law, and the Booke of Common Prayer.

3. That the setting up & continuance of Communion Tables, and the calling of them by this name, was, and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe; & the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars, or High-Altars: against the Law.

4. That all Altars were generally removed & enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme, and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church; therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls, & in the Queenes owne Chapples, for better example unto others: So that the erecting of Altars in them, or any of them, must needs be a late Novelty, contrary to Law, to this Injunction, and a grosse Non-conformity.

5. That the care of Taking downe Altars, & setting up Communion Tables, was committed to the Curate & Churchwardens p. 167of each parish, not the Bishop: yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars, and displace the Tables Altarwise.

6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen & her Successors, & that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers, as their Visitours, having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe, as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abundantly evidence.

7. That the ordering of the Situation & covering of the Communion Tables, is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocesse, but to the Queenes Visitors, who were then **37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts & Monum. p. 1181. 1192. B. Iewels life before his workes sect. 25.specially appointed by her Commission, as they were in King Henry the 8. & King Edwards dayes, many of them being Lay-persons.

Which Visitours placed them Tablewise, not Altarwise, in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since, till with in these two or 3. yeares last past.

8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell, and there to stand unmoveable, even when the Sacrament is administred: the Injunctions expresly prescribing, that where ever it stand before; yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed, it shalbe removed into such part of the Chancell, (or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs) as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard &c. & after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before.

Which word shalbe, is not a baer arbitrary permission only, as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it, but a direct pr…pt, as is the later-clause, by his owne confession, else the Churchw…rdens p. 168might choose; whither they would remoue the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before.

These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised, I come now to answer the objection, being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them.

First then I answer,Answer 1. that this clause, & set in the place where the Altar stood, implies not, but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle, for all Altars were not so situated,ooFox Acts & Monuments p. 1404. 1406. before this Injunction: The Altar in Carmarthen Church, was placed in the middest of the Church, without the Quire.

The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches & Chapples (built North or North and South) stood at the South end of the Quire, not the East: & in many Churches some Altats stood one way, some an other, some West, some North and South, as ppDc Re…us Ecclesiasticis. l. 4. c. 19.walafridus Strabus witnisseth… but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire, as the Promises evidence. The Author of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres, or Chauncles, in the place where now he would have them situated (which he can never doe) else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe, but marre his cause, & make poinct-blanke against him; since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall, but, in the place where the Altar stood, so that where the Alter was placed in the midst, west North or South end of the Church or Chancle, the Table was to be there situated likewise.

2. By The place where the Altar stood, is not to be interpreted so precisely, that it must stand in that particular individuall place, or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood; for this certainly was not the meaning, but, in the place, that is, in that end of the Church where the Altar stood; to witt, in the midst of the Church, if the Altar stood there; or in the East, West, North or South end of the Church, where the Altars were so severally situated; or in the Chauncel, where the Altar formerly stood in the Chann…le: that p. 169this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction, & not, that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood, or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere, as our, Innouators expound it, is most apparant by these Reasons.

1. First Because the Communion Tables wereqqFox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. 1212. of a different forme from the Altars then in Churches being both longer & broder then Altars, wich were all most perfectly square, but Tables all most as long againe as brode.

They could not therfore be situated in the same individuall precise place as the Altars stood, being thus different in proportion & forme from them.

This is therrPage 19. Coales owne argument, even against it selfe.

2. Because the Coale itselfe confesseth,ssPage 51. that Altars were incorporated, & fixed unto this wall; & that Tables were not to be so; therfore they were not to be placed punctually in that place, & in such sort ar the Altars stood & were placed, by his owne confession.

3. Because the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke prescribes; that the Minister at the time of administring & consecrating the Sacrament shal stand at the North side of the Table, not at the North end: which clearly determines, that the Table ought to be situated Table-wise with the sides or Longest squares of it North and South, not Altar wise, with the ends of it North & South and the sides of it East and West, against the Wall, as some popish Altars stood: And therfore the Jnjunction never intended, that it should be set in the very precise place where the Altar was, & in the selfe same manner as it was situated; for the Table being but a long square, not a perfect Quadratum, hath but two sides, & two ends; the narrowest square of it, being ever in our Engish Tongue, termed an end not a Side, & the longest square only a SIDE.

And though Geometricians vsually terme every square*Alatit… dine. Latus, in Latine, which we translate a side, (wich yet more properly signifieth the breadth, then the length of a thing, and so rather the end then the side, yet we in our English phrase ever call the long square p. 170only, the side, and the Narrew the end: The Rubrike therfore beeing first compiled in English, for English men, according to the usuall meaning of the English phrase, not to shew any termes of Art or skill, but to direct & instruct both Ministers & people in the most plaine & familiar way; the word North-side, must needs' be interpreted of the long-side; of the Table standing Northward, which we ever phrase the side, not of the narrowersquare set Northward, which we ever heretofore and still, phrase the North-end.

Wherfore the shife used by the Coalier,ttPage. 23. 24. That the North-end and the North-side come both to one, there being no difference in this case between them, he that stands and ministreth at the North-end of the Altar, standing no question at the North-side there of, as inpropertie of speech we ought to call it, (cujus contrarium verum est, since we neither use nor ought so to call it in our English dialect,) is but a mere ridiculous evasion, & a miserable shift.

Neither wil his Objection, vvPage. 23.that the Communion prayer Booke done into Latine by command & authorised by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth in the 2. yeare of her raigne, translates it.

Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem pa tem &c. avayle him: Since SEPTENTRIONALIS PARS, though it may signifie, the Northerne end of the Table, as well as the North-side, in case the end of it were so situated, yet here signifies only, the North-side, not end of the Table, the North-side being the Norh-part of the Table, as well as the end the originall English which it Translates, the North-side not end, and the Tables at the time of this Translation standing with the Long-side. not the end of it towar… the North.

4. Because the Queenes visitors and the whole Kingdomne thus interpreted it, even in point of practise, by placing all the Communion Tables in all Churches at that very time, by vertue of this J…junction and the Rubrike, not Altarwise, with the two ends North and South, and the sides East & West along by the wall; p. 171but Table-wise, with the two long sides North and South, and the ends East and VVest, a good distance from the wall. as they have stood from 1. Elizabeth, till now of late, without any Alteration, as experience, and all aged men, who well remember how the visitors placed them. with our fore cited writers prove, past all contradiction.

xxFox Acts, & monuments. p. 1211. 1212.Neyther were they thus placed by casualty, but of set purpose, to difference them from Popish Massing Altars, even in point of situation, & toyyCoale. p. 20. 71. teach the people that thy were Tables to eate and drinke at, not Side-Tables or dressers, as the Epistoler observes,

If then the Queens owne visitors, and all those throughout the Kingdome, whether Ministers or Church wardens, who had a hand inplacing the Communion Tables vponupon the removing of Altars, did thus interpret the Injunction, not of the precise place where the Altar stood, or manner of its standing; with the one side against the East-wall of the Quiere, under the East-window, but only of that part of the Church where the Altar stood, and there upon situated the Tables throughout all England and Wales, not Altarwise, but Table-wise only, as is before expressed,; an experimentall truth past all contradistion,) then certainely there can be nothing in this Injuncttion prescribing them to be now new placed Altarwise against the East-wall of the Chancel, in that precise forme, place and, manner as the Altars stood, as our Novellers now froms hence most fondly contend,

3 Finally admitt these words might (…simplie consider ed) be taken in that strict senc as some now would hauehave them, yet the following words; and shalbe appointed by the Commissioners, not the Bishops or Ordinaries, who are expresly, excluded (though the Coale would make the prime men) which relate as well to the placing, as to the covering of the Table; leaves the manner and precise place of Situs, to the Commissioners appointement, since the very places wherein the Altars formerly stood, were not so sitting to sett the Table in, in many Churches, as some other place in the same part of the Church or Chauncel.

p. 172All which considered, this, Injunction gives no warrant at all for the late removing of our Tables & railing them in Altarwise, for wich the Coale is so hote & fiery.

Now where as the zzPage, 13Coale would willinglie make the world beleive, that this Injunction saith, that the removing of Altars was a thing of no great moment; so that for ought it appeares unto the Contrary, neither the Article nor Homily, nor the Queenes Injunctions nor the Canons. 1571. hauehave determined any thing, but that as the Lords-Supper may be called Sacrifice, so may the Holy Table becalled our Altar, and set up in the place where the Altar stood.

2. I answer, That these words in the Injunction; There semeth noe matter of great moment, referrs not to Altars, as if the removing or standing of them were a matter of no great moment (for thenaa5. & 6. E 6.. 1. Ely. … 2. Fox Acts & Mounments. p 1211. 1212. the Parleament, King, and Councel in King Edwards dayes, would not have so carefully removed them out of Churches & expuoged their very name out of the Comon Prayer Booke, not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like, neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing, or our Martyrs & Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes,) but it relates only, to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them, with order and direction to be given by them, was noe matter of great moment, but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors, they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides, according to the forme of the Law therfore provided: For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars, and to sett up, Tables in their stead, they might without only order from the visitours, even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided, removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament: p. 173So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order & direction, for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables & Altars themsilves, or the removing of them simplie considered, as the Coliar dreames (and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation, is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle, adged terme the Lords Table an Altar, but the Holy Table, Communion Table, or Lords Board & Table only.

The 6. objectionObject. 6. is this; The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno: 1561. say,bbCoale p. 22. that in the place where the steps were, the Communion Table shall stand; & that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board, the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose.

And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus.

The parrish shall provide a decent Table, standing on a frame for the Communion Table, &c.

And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the Eastwall over the side Table.

Which put together make up this Construction, that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall, on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed, which was directly where the Altar had stood before,

I answerAnswer 1. first, that those two Authorities ever use the word Table, and never stile the Lords Table and Altar, as his Objector doth, and would have it termed; therefore its most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar.

2. If both the Queenes Injunctions, those Orders 1561: & Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise, why were they not all then placed so, but stood Table-wise, then, and ever since? why did our learned ccIn their, fore cited & places, (words.Bishop Jewell in that very age & Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke, Doctor Willet & Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time, (the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements, in their Authorised, p. 174workes, maintaine, that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell; as it did in the primitive Church, and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England, proving & defending it against the Papists whom they contended with, if this were both the Doctrine of our Church, the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions, Orders, Advertissement, that they should be placed… Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire? yea if this were so, why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches, to aff ont this situation of the Table in them all? Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully, or else he must give me leave to thinke: that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities, (If the thing be well observed) as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions.

3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words, prove; that the Table was to stand Altar-wise, with one side against the wall, but a good distance from it, as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before; & that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board, or upon the East wall over the side Table, is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly over…t (for that they could not doe, the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood, but over it, that is, some good height above it, not direstly over it, is cleare.) First, by the words them selves intimating as much, (for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table; over in both these places, relating to the Wall, next antecedent, not to the Table; at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table: now the wall by which the Table stands, cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table, but only, over, that is, above it, therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it, or written on it, as it is in many Churches.

Thus Ioseph was saide, to be set over all the Land of Egipt: p. 175Gen. 41. 33, 43. not in situation, for so he could not be, but, in Authority and Iurisdiction, that is, he took place and had precedency & commaund of all in Egipt, or was above them or in higher authority then they.

Thus David useth the phrase Ps: 66.12. Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades, that is to be above us & triumph over us.

So we say, that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window, when it hangs above it, though not direstly over it, such a thing is over your head, that is, above it, not directly over it.

4. Admit over it, be meant perpendicularly over it, yet this makes not at all for its situation, Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse & over it, must be interpreted, over the East end of it next to the East wall, not the East side of it placed against the wall, that which hangs over the East end, being as truly saide to be over the Table, as that with hangs over the side or middle of it.

5. Neither of these affirme, that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred, neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated; but at other times,

Therefore it proves nothing at all, that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire, at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre.

The 7. ObjecteonObject 7 for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this.

ddCoale p 58 59 60 61. &c.The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts, that if there shall happē any irrever̄ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies p. 176or Rites of the Church, by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke, the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme, ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory, the edyfying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments.

A power not personal (sayth the Coale) to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors.

So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determined positively, that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel, which is not determined of; or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe, which yet is not so: the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people (as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes) in sitting on it, in time of Sermon, & otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts, & making Rates, & such like businesses, may by the last clause of the side, for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries & Sacraments, with the advise & Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood & to be railed about for the greater decency.

To this I answer first, Answer 1.That a possead Esse non valet consequentia.

The Kingh by virtue of this Act, by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood, & there rayled in:

Ergo it ought there to be placed & railed in, before, or without the Kings Commaund, is no good Argument: yea the contrary holds good.

The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund, & that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale, as is evident by Queen Elizabeths p. 177Injunctions, the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. & the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565: with the Statute of 25. H 8. …. 19. the King being, to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations & writs doe testify.

But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing, under his great Seale, Therfore it ought not to be done.

2. This branch of the Statute, takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates & Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever, o… to alter any formerly prescribed or established, vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes, her Commissioners, & Metrapolitane being only to advise her, in cause she require their advise, but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names, either with, or with our the Queenes advise, they being (as some say in a Premunire if they doe it) by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c, 16. 3. & 4. Ed… 6, c. 11. & his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund. London: 1628.

By what right or power then I pray, & with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall, can or doe our Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Ordinaries & officials in their severall visitations take upon them, to prescribe new rites & Ceremonies of their owne devising, to print & pubblish them in their owne names, without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles, & to injoyne Ministers, Church-wardens, Sidemen to submit unto them, suspending, questioning, & excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it, when as them selves for making & they for submitting to any such Rites, Ceremonies, or Constitutions, are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603? By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables; order & give in charge in eeBishop Wrens visitation Articlos which other.printed Articles, that Communion Tables shalbe p. 174duplicate page p. 175duplicate page p. 176duplicate page p. 177duplicate page p. 178changed removed, & sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel, & there rayled in, that the Ministers shall bow & cring unto them, administer the Sacrament, yea read the 2. service (as they call it,) at the Table, even when there is no Sacrament, & that all the Communicants shall come up to receive? that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri, the Gosple, Athanasius & the Nicene Creed, bow at every naming of Iesus, Woemen to be Churched with vayles. & not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale, suspending, silencing, depriving, excommunicating Ministers, and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles & Injunctions, being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative, contrary to this objected clause of the Statute, and to the first clause thereof, which enacts;

That no manner of Parson, vicar, or other Minister what soever, shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use, or by open fact, deed or thenreatning, compell, cause, procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple, to use ANY OTHER RITE, CEREMONY, ORDER, FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords. Supper, Mattens Evening song, Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, under the penalties therein expressed, which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites & Ceremonies, The Coalier therfore might well have f…o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him, & these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar, to kindle a combustion in our Church,

3. I answer, that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it, not her Heires & Successors & their Commissioners, & that for two p. 179reasons; First, for the Parleament then knew her syncerity & love to Religion, and her desire to aduance it, of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time, but especially in Queen Maries dayes; therfore they would trust her with such a power; But they then knew not, neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne, nor what they might prove, in point of Religion.

Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority (who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, with the due use & reverence of Christe holy misteries & Sacraments formerly setled by this Act, & the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament) but limited it only to the Queen.

2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament & other Rites & Ceremonies of the Church of England, being then but newly corrected & published, there might there upon (as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations) grow some questions, doubts & inconveniences about it, or some defects or cause of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved, rectified, & supplied before a new Parliament might be called to dee it, or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament.

All which questions, in conveniences & defests, would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified, without any need of future alierations, Rites, or Ceremonies, or continuing this power to her Heyres & Successors, which are purposely omitted in this clause.

This appeares most clearly, by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act; where the forfaitures for offending against the first clause is, severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes, HER HEIRES and Successors; and though the 2. clause saith, that he who shallbe convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles, omitting her Heires page missing page missing p. 182abolissing, all forraigne power repugnent to the same; and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors, & their Commissioners, power only to punish all Heresies, Errors, Scismes, contempts. offences, Abuses, & enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes, Statutes, not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes, & so new He resies Errors, & Ecclesiasticall offences, not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or In…isdiction before.

These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld.

And here I wonder much that the kkCole pag. 62.Colier should alleadge, and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. (which enacts, that all Ecclesiasticall power, together, with all such Iurisdictions, priviledges, superiorities & preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power, or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State & persons, & for reformation, order, & correction of the same and of all manner, Errors, heresies, scismes abuses, offences contempt, & enormites, shall for ever, by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme &c.) was not an Jntroductions of a New Law, but confirmative of an old, annexing no new… but only the old Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State & persons, be (as he truly confesseth) for ever united to the Crowne, & to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name & appoint from time to time, only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale, as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe, I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops, Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons (who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in, from, by, & under his Majestey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy given to heare & determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall, & correct vice & sinne what soever, & to all such persons as p. 183his Majestey (to witt by speciall Patent & Commission) shall appoint thereunto. As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis) can or dare affirme, their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be Iure divino, or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters, Patents, or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale, to keepe visitations & Consistories, to make and imprint visitation Oathes & Articles in their owne names, & impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects, or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions in their owne names & rights, or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales & in they owne names alone, not his Majesteyes, contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. & 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch, King and Pope in his owne Dioces, & had no Soveraigne over them to acknowledge.

Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne, dignity, and his Loyall subjects Liberties, or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute & this grand objection, to maintaine his Altars & new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise, which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction,

The S. Objection8 Object. is this. That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer,llCoale from the Altar. pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiuuated. that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity, the matter shalbe referred to the Bishop of the Diocesse, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing conteined in that Booke.

**Fox acts. Monuments. p. 1212.Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church, and there it ought to stand.

I answer first,Answer 1. the Argument followes not.

For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing, but only when and wher there is a doubt p. 184and diversity risen in any parrish concerning, the use & practise of the said Booke; not, when… and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire, all taking it for granted, that it ought not so to be placed, but to stand in that place & manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation (&… time all most out of mind) till now, Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places, and in case that any Popish Innouators have raysed a doubt in any place, where there is or can be none, touching the placing of the Lords Table; the Ordinary in this case can not, must not make any innouation, but order that it must stand in that place & forme as was at first ordained by the Quee…es Commissioners & where it stood ever since, it being hismmDeclaration before the 32 Articles, & concerning the dissolution of the Parleament. p. 21.42. Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies, or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline.

2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke; now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall, especially when the Sacrament is administred, is contrary to these Books, the Queenes Jnjunctions, Canons, writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now.

Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Communion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause, but is expresly prohibited by it, so to doe

The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this.Object 9.

nnCoale from the Altar. p: 63: 64: &cHis sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure, in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in London, that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quier…, & thereby hath given encouragement to the Metropolitane, Bishop & other Ordinaries, to require the like in all other Churches committed to them; which resolution faithfully copied out of the Regestets p. 185of the Counsell-Table, …earing date the 3. of November. 1633. the Author of the Coale from the Altar, who ends with it. bath at large relaved.

To this I answer first,Answer 1. that this concernes only one particular Church & no more and the reason of this order drawen from the example of the Cathedrall of Paules & Sant Gregories proximit…e there to, is not communicable to other Churches & pe…nliar to this alone.

Therefore it can be no president for others. Secondly, It was not here resolved, that our Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise as the Colier argues, neuber is there mention of any example, save … at of Pauls … (and that of late times sinde King Iames) nor any Canon, Rubrick, Statute authority or writer produced by the opposities to justify this situation of the Table, for all heir pretence of the practise of approved antiquity, foisted in to the order; where as the other side produced good antiquity & authorityes for them, as I am informed, & among others.

The Rubrike before the Communion, the Queenes Injunctions the 82. Canon, Bishop Iewell, Bishop Babington, Doctor Fulke, with the Fathers quoted by them, and an un interrupted presciption in all Parish Churches & most Cathedrals from the beginning of reformation:

3. Though his May stey ordered the Table should stand where it was placed by the Deane & Chapter of Pauls direction, upon this groud cheifly that it was the most convenient Place in that Church, as not, only the persons then present can depose, but the order inselfe insinuates in these words.

Now his Majestey having heard a particular relation made by the Councill of both parties, of all the cariage & proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare HIS DISLIKE OF ALL INNOUATIONS & receeding FROM ANCIENT CONSTITVTIONS, grounded upon just & warrantable reasons, especially in matters concerning Ecclesiasticall orders & goverment knowing how easily men are drawen to affect Novelties, & how soone p. 186in such cases weake judgments may be overtaken & abused: & the insuing words which seeme to give particular reasons, why this being but a Nouelty was tolerated & passed over, when as otherwise his Mayestey would not have connived at it.

His Mayesteye therefore deeming it an Innouation, & declaring thus his dislike of all Innouations; this order is so farre from giving authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churces committed to them, as the Author of the Coale infers, that unlesse he will apply that ancient verse.

Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata.

To the Metropolitane Bishops & other ordinaries that they, love & are incouraged to affect & set up these Innouations, which his Mayestey dislikes, they must rather be discouraged then animated by this order to require the like in any, much lesse in all the Churches committed to them.

And truly if al things be well considered they have little cause to be thus incouraged to require & make this Innouation as they generally doe, not being ashamed or afrayed to give it in charge to Church-wardens & Ministers in their Visitation ooBishop Wren in his Articles for Norwich Diocesse, & Bishop Percie for Bath and Wels.printed Articles, and to excommunicate Church-wardings for not removing & rayling in the Lords-Table Altar-wise as appeares by the Church-wardens of Ipswich, Beckington, Colchester and others.

For first, the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. Enasts vponupon the Prelates & Clergies joint Petition in Parliament, That they, the sayd Clergie (in their Convocations & Synods) any of them (in their severall Diocesse, visitations, Consistories or Iurisdictions) from henceforth shall presume to attempt, alleage, claime, or put in vre any Constitutions or ordinances, Provinciall Synodals, or any other Canons, nor shall enact, promulge or execate any such Canons, Constitutions or ordicances provinciall, by what soeuer name or names they may be called in p. 187their Conuocations in time coming, which alway shalbe assembled by authority of the Kings writ, vnlesse the same clergie may have the Kings most royall assent to make, promulge & execute such Canons, Constitutions, & ordinances provinciall, or Synodall and the kings most royall assent vnderunder his great Seale, he had to the same: (all which King James his Letters Patents before the Canons 1603. morefully expresse & manifest.)

VponUpon peine of every one of the sayd Clergie doing contrary to this, & being thereof conuict, to suffer imprisonment & make fine at the Kings will.

The penalty of which Law every Metropolitane Bishop & ordinary hath incurred (& some say a Praemineere to) by printing & making visitation Articles & Injunctions in their owne names, for altering & rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise, & many such Innouations, without his Mayesteyes royall assent & approbation under his great Seale of England had to the same.

2. The 12. Canon 1603. ordaines this: who soever shall hereafter affirme, that it is Lawful for any sort of Ministers & lay persons or either of them, (and Bishops with other ordinaries are certainly with in this number) to joyne to gether, & make Rules, Orders or Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall, without the Kings authority, & shall submit themselves to beruled & governed by them, let them be excommunicate ipso facto, & not be restored, vntill they shall repent & publikely reuoke those their wicked & Anabapsticall Errors; But our ppIn their seueral visitation Articles.Bishops, Arch-deacons & other Ordinaries, with the **Doctor Heylyn as most giuegive out, & some Circumstances discover.nameles Iudicious Learned Divine who writ the Coale from the Altar) affirme (& that in print to all the world) that it is lawfull for them & either of them to make & printe visitation Oathes, Articles, Injunctions & Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall, for the rayling in of Communion Tables & turning them Altarwise, & other Nouell Ceremonies, as standing vp at Gloria Patri, the Gospell, Athanasius; & the Nicene Creed, bowing at the name of Iesus, & to Communion Tables & Altars p. 188&c. Yea to keep Consistories & visitations without the Kings Authority vnderunder his great Seale licensing them to make or exccute any such Articles, Constitutions, Ordinances, or to keep any Court or Consistorie, and they enforce by visitations excommunications, fines imprisonments, & the power of the High Commission divers of his Majesteyes Subjects to submit them selves to be ruled & gouerned by them.

Therefore they are all ipso facto excommunicate by this then owne Canon, (& so irregular & all their proceedings nullities,) neither are they to be restored vntill they shall repent & publikely reuoke these their wicked and their Anabaptisticall Errors, Articles, Oathes, & Constitutions, which they have thus audasiosly imposed vponupon his Mayesteyes loyall Subjects.

3. His Mayestey in his qqPapc. 21. 42. 43Declaration to his louing Subjects of the causes which moued him to dissolve the last Parliament, published by his Majesteyes speciall commaund Anno 1628. p. 21. 42. 43. Makes this most solemne protestation.

We call God to record before whom wee stand, that it is and alwayes hath been, our hearts desire to befound worthy of that title which we accompt the most glorious in all our Crowne: Defender of the faith: NEITHER SHALL WEE EVER GIVE WAY TO THE AUTHORIZINGE OF ANY THINGE WHERE BY ANY INNOUATION MAY STEALE OR CREEP INTO THE CHURCH, but preserue the vnity of Doctrine & discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England had stood & florished ever since.

Wee doe here professe to maintaine the true Religion & Doctrine esta blished in the Church of England without admitting or conniving at ANY BACKSLIDING EITHER TO POPERY OR SCHISME: Wee doe also declare that wee maintaine the ancient & just Rights & Liberties of our Subjects with so much constancy & justice that they shall hauehave cause to acknowledge that under our goverment p. 189& gracious protection, they live in a more happy and free estate, then any Subjects in the Christian world.

But the turning of Communion Tables into Altars & so terming them; the rayling of them in Altarwise & so standing, the forceing of the Communicants by seuerall rankes & files to come vp to them, & there to receive kneeling at the rayle, the enjoyning of Ministers to read the second service (as they now Tearme it) at the Table, when there is no Communion, & to ducke, to bow vntounto it going to it, returning from it, & at their ingresse to & egresse from the Church, (all which Bishop Wren & others in their late visitation Articles & instructions have most strictly enjoined, suspending & excommunicating such Ministers & Churchwardens who have refused to submitt to these & otherlike Romish Nouelties) are all of them direct Innouations, not used nor heard of from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth raigne till of late, they are contrary to the Purity of that Doctrine & Discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth, where by the Church of England hath stood & florished euer since: they are an apparent backsliding to Popery, borrowed from the Papishs, and brought in only to simbolize with them, & sett vp Masse and that all Popish Doctrines, Rites, & Ceremonies againe, by degres, as the premises & experience witnes.

They are contrary to the ancient and just Rights & Liberties of the Subjects, who ought not to have any such Nouelties thrust vponupon them, much lesse to be excommunicated fined, suspended, imprisoned, & thrust from their freeholds, Lectures & Cures but by the Law of the Land, & some speciall Act of parleament as the Statute of Magna, Charta. c. 29. The late Petition of Right 3. Garoli with other Acts therein recited expresly resolve.

Therefore they are all directly contrary to his Majesteyes Declarations, & this his most solemne & Christian Protistation, both to God & All his Loyall Subjects, Neither hath his Majestey given the least way to the Authorising of them or any of them, or given any admittance or conniuance to them or given p. 190any authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them, as the nameles Author of the Coale most impudently & falsely (to his Mayesteyes great dishonor & reproach) hath a vowed in print, & the Bishops & their officers given out in speeches, to couler ouer these & all other their late Popish Innouations, brought in & fomented by themselves alone, in affront of this his Majestoyes declaration & royall pleasure signified this is print by Speciall Command to all his Loyall Subjects, whose heares were not so much overjoyed at the sight of it at first, as now they are overgreiued to see the Metropolitanes, Bishops, Ordinaries, & this blacke Collier in his blushlesse Coale from the Altar, so insolently & apparantly to thwart, affront, & bid defiance to it by all these with other their dangerous Popish Innouations, & by suspending, silencing, excommunicating all such faithfull Ministers, Lecturers, Church-wardens, People, who out of Conscience towars God, Loyalty to his Mayesteyes Lawes, & obedience to this his royall Declaration refuse to submit vntounto them, which they hope his Mayestey vponupon information of this their most desperate insolency, & exorbitant disloyalty & rebellion against his Lawes, & Declaration, will not only consider, but most seuerely punish, to his poore Subjects comfort & releife.

4. His Mayesteye to shew his further detestation against these Innouations, in his Declaration before the 39. Articles of Religion, reprinted by his Majesteyes commaundment. London 1628. (which Declaration was made vponupon mature Deliberation & with the advise of so many of our Bishops as might conueniently becalled together) thus signifieth his royall pleasure therein: That wee are supreme Gouernour of the Church of England: and that if ANY DIFFERENCE ARISE about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions, Canons, or other Constitutions what soeuer thereto belonging. THE CLERGIE IN THEIR CONVOCATION (not eueryevery Bishop or ordinary in his Dioces, as the Coale & order of the Councill Table oited in it, which doubt lesse p. 191in this was not rightly entred or Copied and determines) IS TO ORDER AND SETTLE THEM: (But how of their owne heades without any speciall Commission from his Minyestey? Noe I warrant you:) having FIRST obtained LEAVE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE SO TO DOE, AND WEE APPROVING THEIR SAID ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONS; providing that none bemade CONTRARY TO THE LAWES AND CUSTOMES OF THE LAND.

That of our Prinely care, that the Churchmen may doe the worke which is proper vntounto them; the Bishops & Clergie from time to time in Convocation vponupon their humble desire SHALL HAVE LICENCE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE to deliberate of and, to doe all such things, as being made plaine by them, & ASSENTED TO BY VSUS, shall concerne THE SETLED CONTINUANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE of the Church of England now established FROM WHICH WE NOT ENDURE ANY VARYING, OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE.

Where his Mayestey & the Bishops themselves expressely determine against the Coales Doctrine & Bishops Practise:

1. That if any difference arise about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions, Canons or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging, or the true sence and meaning of them, not the Metropolitane or Ordinaries in their seuerall Iurisdictions, nor yet the High Commissioners; but the whole Clergie in Convocation is to order them.

Therefore this difference concerning Alters, the situation & ray, ling in of Communion Tables, the reading of the 2. service at them, receiving at them & the like; which eueryevery Bishop, Arch-deacon, Chancellor, & Surregare now takes vponupon h…m perempterily to order & Alter at his pleasurs.

p. 1922. That the whole Clergie in Convocation can neither deliberate on, nor Order, or settle any thing, in these or such other particulars, or differences, unlesse they first obtaine leave from his Mayestey vnderunder his brode seale so to doe, & He also approve their said ordinances & Constitutions by his or… a…d seale & Letters Parents; Therefore the Metropolitane himselfe, the Bishops, Arch deacons, & other Ordinaries with their vnderunder-Officers, can order or settle nothing in these particulars, or others, nor prescribe any new Rites, Ceremonies or visitation … & Articles in their owne names, by their owne power; (as they most presumptuously doe in all places eueryevery day, without any leaue first obtained from his Mayestey vnderunder his bread Seale so to doe) or to publish, give them in charge, & impose them on his Subjects without his Majesteyes approvation & asleht, thereto his broad Seale likewise.

3. That the Clergie in Conuocation, much lesse then any Bishop in his Diocesse, can order or determine nothing, no not by his Mayesteyes licence & approbation vnderunder his broad Seale, that can binde the Subjects, or inferior Clergie in case it be contrary, to the Lawes and Customes of the Realme:

But Articles & Bishops Constitutions for the Turning of Communion Tables into Altars & rayling them in Altarwise, with other for enamed particulars, are contrary to the Lawes of the Realme, & to the Customes of it from the 10. of Queen Elizabeth till now (sufficient to make two successive**where 25. or 30. yeares makes a good Prescription. prescriptions at the Citull & Canon Law) neither were this made by the Clergie in Conuocation by his Mayesteyes licence, & assent vnderunder his Seale, but by the Bishops, Arch-deucons, & their officers themselves, without any such royall license or assent.

Therefore they are meerly voyd, & neither doe nor ought to binde his Mayesteyes Subjects, or the inferior Clergie.

4. That his Majestey will never authorize, or assent vntounto any thing propounded to him by his Bishops or Clergie, no not in Conuocation, but what shall concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church p. 193of England, but the Turning of Communion Tables in to Altars, the rayling of them in Altarwise, &c. Do not concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, but tend to the se…ret vndermining & discontinuance of them; Therefore his Mayestey hath not authorized, nor assented to these Innouations.

5. That his Majestey will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree from the setled established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England: Therefore he will not endure that his Bishops (who were priuy to this his Royall Declaration made by their owne advice,) should vary & depart from both, in setting vp Altars in steed of Lords Tables, in Terming the Lords Table, an Altar & high Altar, & his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, in rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise, & their forcing the Ministers to consecrate & the people to receiue, or in prescibing any other new Popish Rites and Ceremonies.

Much lesse wil he endure, that they should affirme both by word mouth & printed Bookes authorized by their Chaplaines, that all these things are done with his approbation, & by his priuate direction & Commaund, but will one day call them, and these erronious superstitious Popish writers to an account, for these their andacious contumelies, & affronts in contempt of his Lawes and Declarations, of purpose to alienate the hearts & affections of his faithfull loyall subjects from him, & to countenance & further their owne Romish designes, to vndermine religion & vsher in Poper, by degrees which hath now well nigh wound in not only its head & rayle, but almost its intire body into our Church, by these their treacherous, disloyall practises, proceedings, & Innouations.

All which considered, the Councell Table order for St. Gregorius Tables seituation, will stand the Bishops & the Colier in no steed at all: and the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar (with other popish Scriblers) may justly feare, that his Majestey for those vntriuthes & false Rumors raysed vp, & publikely printed of him, (as if he were the cheife Patron Author & Direct…r p. 194of all those late Romish Nouclties, Rites, & Ceremonies, which hauehave either secretly crept or vyolently in truded themselves into our Church contrary to his Lawes & Declarations) will give them no great thankes or reward, but inflict an heauy censure on them, and make them & their abesters sing a publike Palinodie, suitable to these his Royall Declarations, published by his speciall Commaund, from whence his justice, honor, piety & constancy will neuer doubtles suffer him to receed in the least degree.

I hauehave now through Gods assistance runne over, blowen out and quite extinguished (as I suppose,) the Coale from the Altar (or rather from**Who licensed it. Mr. Samuel Bakers, Ouen) which was like to sets our Churchon fire, what euer the nameles Author of this Treatise (who vponupon examination proves neither learned nor indicious if a Divine, as the Title stiles him) or Mr. Shelford, Doctor Pocklington, or Edmond Reeue, hauehave lately written or objected in defence of Altars, or placing & rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise, talking of those idle glosses, & false Cauils they hauehave made to elude the Authorities and Antiquities which Bishop Iewel and Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincolne in his Letter to the vicar of Grantham (for he is certainly knowen to be the Author of it and hath auowed it,) hauehave produced against the Antiquity of Altars, & for the scituating of Tables in the midst of the Church and Quire: all which I shall here prostrate to thy Christian Censure, hauing done nothing in this argument out of vaine glory, faction, opposition, or desire of victory over impotent Antigonists, but out of a sincere affection to the truth, & that loyalty, that duty & endeared respect I beare, both to my gracious Prince, (whose honor, Constancy & fidelity are interessed in this Controversie) & to the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, which these, like so many secret Powder-traytors would sodainly, blow vp, & subuert, by their Romish Treatises & desperate Innouations If I have fayled or erred in any particular (as what man is free from these common infirmities of Mortality,) impute it not is the wilfulnes but weakenes of him, who wilbe more glad, more ready, to see & correct his owne Ouersights, then to lay open or Censure p. 195others. if thou receive satisfaction from it (as I hope thou will in some good measure,) in the things therein discussed, give God the glory, pray for me; who as I am not afrayd to defend the truth in this Apostatizing faint hearted age, when as it hath few Friends, but feuer Patrons: so I shall neither be ashamed to set my name to this Defence, when the Author of the Coale from the Altar, dares be so bold as subscribe his name to his Assayling firebrand, which I here principally hauehave encountred, with our owne domesticke writters & Records.

And now, good Reader, I should here dismisse thee but that as the Coale concludes with the Councel-Table Order, & the Coppy of that Letter which it thought to burne to ashes, so I shall close vp the first part of my Quench-Coale with a true Relation of the Manner & forme, not only of turning a Communion Table Altar-wise, but likewise Dedicating a Communion Table to be an Altar in such a solemne manner, as our age hath scarce heard the like.

The Historie whereof, as it was acted, I hauehave vnderunder the hands of an eyewitnes or two, who with-hundreds more can make it good, if need be vponupon their Oathes.