A Retraction, Religious treatise
A Short Treatiſe to diſcover the miſchiefe of railing about the Communion Table, and the evill conſequents thereof.
THe firſt Argument to prove Railes about the Communion Table to be dangerous and unlawfull.
That which is an Ornament or ingredient to make up an high Altar is unlawfull and abominable and to be abhorred by Chriſtians.
But a raile about the Communion Table is an Ornament or ingredient to make up an high Altar.
Therefore a Raile about the Communion table is unlawfull, &c.
The Major or the firſt propoſition may be proved by all thoſe learned writings that have been publiſhed to ſhew the unlawfulneſſe of high Altars, amongſt which that ſet forth by the B. of Lincolne hath great ſtrength in it. But let me adde moreover that place Heb. 13. 10. to evince the ſame, the words are theſe, Wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to eate that ſerve at the Tabernacle; from which place theſe two arguments may be framed.
1 Chriſtians are to have but one Altar (1. Chriſt) therefore they muſt not have any more Altars beſides him.
Maſter Mede, as in this whole argument hath written a collation moſt unworthy of his worth and learning, ſo in expounding of this place of the Apoſtle Pag. 15. where he makes this exception, I know (ſaith he) what you will bee ready to except, namely that by the Altar here named is meant Chriſt, which I (quoth he) for my part would willingly admit, ſo that it be underſtood with this caution, Chriſt as he is to be eaten in the Euchariſt, for the Apoſtle ſpeaks here of an Altar to be eaten of, which is not the materiall inſtrument or ſeat, but the Sacrifices uſed thereupon.
In which words hee would not have Chriſt ſimply conſidered, but Chriſt as eaten in the Euchariſt to bee the Chriſtians Altar. Contra, Firſt take what he grants, if Chriſt as eaten in the Euchariſt onelyonly bee our Altar, then have wee no Altars of wood or Stone, for that Chriſt is but one, but the other altars are innumerable, the Apoſtle acknowledges but one only altar among Chriſtians. Secondly, let us compare ver. 15 with the tenth. By him therfore let us offer the ſacrifice of praiſe to God continually; whence I reaſon thus.
That Chriſt by whom our Sacrifices of praiſe are continually to be offered, is the Altar there meant by the Apoſtle.
But that Chriſt, is Chriſt ſimply underſtood without reference to the Sacrament, &c. ergo.
As it was by Gods appointment among the Jewes, that no ſacrifice could be accepted, but that which was offered up upon the Altar of burnt offering, ſo no Sacrifice (be it of thankſgiving, or prayer, or whatſoever other ſervice) can ever pleaſe God unleſſe it bee offered up by Chriſt. But now will Maſter Mede ſay, either that wee muſt never offer up the ſacrifice of thankſgiving to God but at the Euchariſt; or that we can cōtinually offer up our ſacrifices by Chriſt, as eaten in the Euchariſt? muſt wee alwayes receive the Sacrament, when we offer up our praiſes unto God? or doe we receive the Sacrament continually, i. daily? for the daily ſacrifice among the Jews was called the continuall ſacrifice; but it is very obſervable, that the Apoſtle ſaith (by him, not upon it) let us offer, &c. intending plainly the perſon of our Lord and Saviour, and not an Altar of Wood or Stone; and it is ſtrange that he ſhould being this place to prove Altars lawfull in the times of the N. T. which is moſt expreſſe againſt it.
Secondly, there is an other argument in the ſame place, i. They have no right to partake of that Altar, (1: Chriſt) that ſerve at the Tabernacle; who are they that ſerve at the tabernacle, but the Prieſts and ſacrificers under the Law? or ſuch as bring in Jewiſh ceremonies in the time of the Goſpell, (as ſome of the Hebrews that the Apoſtles wrote unto, did) ſo the meaning of the place muſt be this; They that bring in or obſerve Jewiſh ceremonies in the times of the Goſpell, have no part or intereſt in Chriſt, they have no right unto him: but they that ſet up Altars in the times of the new Teſtament, doe plainly bring in Jewiſh ceremonies; therefore ſuch have no fellowſhip with Jeſus Chriſt; for ſurely they hauehave no right to him, and none hath any communion with him, but they to whom God the Father hath given right unto him; and this agrees with that place, Gal. 5. 2. Behold I Paul ſay unto you, that if ye be circumciſed Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing, and Jewiſh Altars are every whit as dangerous as Circumciſion.
For the further illuſtrating of this argument, it will not be altogether unprofitable to conſider the ground of the Apoſtle, which was this, That there was to be by Gods own appointment but one Altar only for ſacrifice amongſt the Jewes (which one Altar the Apoſtle in that place makes a cleere type of Chriſt) Levit. 1. Deut. 12. 13. 14. hence it was that when the Reubenites & Gadites, and halfe tribe of Manaſſeth had erected an other Altar by the banke of Jordan the reſidue of the 12. tribes thought that offence to be ſo exceedingly diſpleaſing unto God that Joſh. 22. it is called a turning away from following the Lord, yea rebellion againſt the Lord, and to bee compared with the iniquity of Peor, and for which they thought that God would be wroth with the whole congregation, yea, they intended to purſue the ſinne with open hoſtility, and to fight againſt them in battell for it. And though they were miſtaken touching the end and ſcope of that Altar of witneſſe (it being ſet up onelyonly for a civill monument, and not for ſacrifice) yet thus much is warranted by the Zeale of the nine Tribes and halfe, and the anſwere alſo and apology of the other Tribes, that there muſt be but one Altar for ſacrifice amongſt the people of God; and that (ſaith the Apoſtle) is only Chriſt amongſt Chriſtians. Thus alſo 2. Kings 13. when as Ieroboam had ſet up a new Altar, the Lord himſelfe did oppoſe it by a ſpeciall meſſage, ſeconded by a ſpeciall miracle, forbidding the Prophet either to returne the ſame way, or to eat bread in that place, thereby implying that they were not worthy of any Communion. To the ſame purpoſe the prophet Hoſeah rebuketh the degenerate Iſraelites Ch. 1. ſaying, becauſe Ephraim hath made many Altars to ſinne, therefore Altars ſhall be unto him to ſin, i. either they ſhall bee given up to their idoll Altars, or elſe that this ſhall be a moſt heinous and provoking ſinne: and that we might know the riſe and ground of this ſinne, it is added in the next words, I have written to them the great things of the law, & they have accounted them ſtrange things, as if he ſhould ſay, It is not ſtrange that they ſhould fall to ſet up Altars, that ſwerve from the onelyonly rule of worſhip, the word of God.
All which proves that the Apoſtle to the Heb. alludes to the Commandement of God in the law, that becauſe there was but one Altar of burnt offering in the Law, ſo there is but one Altar among Chriſtians, that is Chriſt, who is both the Prieſt, and Sacrifice, and Altar alone; & more eſpecially the Altar did typifie his Deity, which only made the ſacrifice meritorious, for the altar did ſanctifie the gift Mat. 18. 19. Now what could ſanctifie Chriſts Sacrifice, but his Deity? which is alſo cleered, Heb. 9. 14. where Chriſt is ſaid, in reference to this type of the Altar, to have offered up himſelfe by his eternall ſpirit without ſpot to God, where by the eternall ſpirit, wee muſt underſtand the Godhead of Chriſt.
But ſee the practice of theſe times, they will have Prieſts not Miniſters, Altars not Communion Tables, Sacrifices not Sacraments: they will bow, and cringe to and before their Altars, yea, they will nor indure any man to enquire after what manner Chriſt is in the Sacrament, whether by way of conſubſtantiation, or tranſubſtantiation, or in a ſpirituall manner, yea, they will have Tapers, and Books never uſed, empty Baſons and Challices there, what is this but the Maſſe it ſelfe, for here is all the furniture of it. Thus farre for the proving of the firſt propoſition.
The Aſſumption or the ſecond propoſition, (that a Raile about the Communion Table is one of the ingredients to make up an high Altar, or a Popiſh Altar) may be proved.
Firſt, by Eccleſiaſticall hiſtory, railes about the Lords Table, whether of wood or ſtone were never commanded to bee ſet up, but ſince the erecting of Altars, and the idoll of the Maſſe, and Tranſubſtantiation was adored; and after Antichriſt was in his Pontificalibus. I might alledge out of Binius diverſe acts of popiſh Councels to this purpoſe, eſpecially it was ſtrictly injoyned in one of the Councells of Megara, which was (as may appeare by all the acts of it) a moſt Antichriſtian conventicle, but I have not now the books by mee, whoſoever will may conſult with the Authour.
Secondly, it may appear by all the Cathedrall churches, in which only high Altars have beene continued ſince times of Reformation, all which alſo have been railed in, and all the Communicants made to receive kneeling at the rails, and no where elſe; from whence now ſince the Altar-worſhip hath ſpread (by the diligence of popiſh Prelates) and tables have beene turned into Altars, the railing of them alſo hath beene univerſally injoyned in the like manner.
Thirdly the ſame appeared evidently to bee the intent of the A. B. and the reſt of the commiſſioners (when our cauſe was handled before them) they did generally conſtrue our oppoſing of the railes to be an oppoſition of the Altars, the A. B. profeſſing it to be the place of ſome more eſpeciall preſence of the Lord, and therefore to be railed in; Doctor Worrall that hideous Apoſtate alledged that old proverbe to prove Altars, amieus uſ que . ad aras, confounding ignorantly aras and altaria, foreign & ara (as Maſter Mede could well informe him) being uſed of heathen altars onelyonly, and ſuch as are ſet up to heatheniſh Gods, foreign & Altare ſpoken of ſuch Altars as were appointed for the worſhip of the true God under the Law; but I ſuppoſe this aſpiring Diatrephes would rather have aram (i an heatheniſh Altar) or haram a hogſtye to worſhip at, ſo that thereby he may climbe up to a Biſhoprick, and nouriſh his ſwiniſh luſts, then to embrace the pure worſhip of God (which ſometimes he profeſſed) with peace to his conſcience, and a well grounded expectation of eternall glory.
Objection, But it will be ſaid, what were there not cancelli before the invention of Altars? were they not anciently ſet up in the primitive Churches? Anſwer. This indeed was alledged by the Archbiſhop, in his cenſure of us, for the proofe of the antiquity of railes; but if his ſtate buſineſſe would have permitted him to have ſearched Linwoods Conſtitutions, there hee might have learned the true meaning of Cancelli, that it ſignifies partitionem quae ſ…parat chorum a navi eccleſiae, that is the partition betwixt the body of the Church and the quire, which is commonly called the Chancel upon that occaſion, but what is this to the raile? onelyonly we may obſerve that the Archbiſhops conſtitutions as well as of the Popes doe vary exceedingly.
By all this it may appeare how extreamely they are befooled and deluded which account to Table to be Altars but ſuch as ſtand Dreſſerwiſe at the Eaſt end of the Chancell, for if the Table bee railed in, and hath the Altar furniture, and Altar worſhip, what can be required elſe to the eſſence of an Altar? and thus much ſhall ſuffice for the firſt argument.
The ſecond argument againſt railing about of the Lords TABLE.
Whatſoever is appointed and erected to uphold falſe worſhip, or wil-worſhip, or idolatrous Worſhip, is abominable and not to be endured in Chriſtian aſſemblies.
But railes about Communion Tables are appointed and erected to uphold falſe, idolatrous, and wil-worſhip, Therefore, &c.
The Proofe of the fo…mer Propoſition.
Every meanes of falſe worſhip is forbidden by the ſame Commandement that prohibus falſe worſhip it ſelfe, (for every precept that forbids any ſin, forbids alſo all the meanes and occaſions of it.)
But whatſoever is appointed and erected to uphold falſe worſhip, is a direct meanes of falſe worſhip, Therefore, &c,
The proofe of the aſſumption or the ſecond Propoſition of the proſyllogiſme.
That which is appointed onelyonly as a means to uphold and to diſcover kneeling at the Sacram…nt is appointed and erected onelyonly to uphold falſe or will-worſhip.
This proofe is built upon this ground, that kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is a falſe, idolatrous, and will-worſhip; for the proofe whereof I ſhall not ſay much, becauſe that others have done it ſufficiently to thoſe that will receive ſound and wholſome Doctrine. But for preſent ſatisfaction take theſe few things.
To leave the imitable example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and to follow the practice of idolaters, is a falſe worſhip, an idolatrous worſhip, a willworſhip.
But to kneele at the Sacrament is to leave the imitable example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and to follow the practice of idolaters, &c.
The proofe of the propoſition is manifeſt Ephe. 5. 1. 1. Cor. 11. 1. where the ſame ſubject is handled, that we have in hand.
Now that kneeling is a leaving of the example of Chriſt it is evident Mat. 26. 20. whoſe example alwayes binds as long as it is conſtant, and not varying, as it is in the particular caſe.
Ob. But our Saviour Chriſt and his Apoſtles, neither ſate, nor ſtood, but lay downe rather; for ſo the word in the Originall is ſaid to ſignifie. Anſwere, The word ſignifies to ſit downe and is ſo ordinarily tranſlated Luke 24. 30. Mat. 14. 13. It was indeed a ſitting after the Jewiſh manner at meals, which was a ſitting with a kind of leaning downe upon the arme; which kinde of geſture or mixt ſitting being peculiar to the Church of the Jews, ſitting without leaning is juſtly received in reformed Churches.
Ob. But ſome ſay, that ſitting at the Sacrament was an occaſionall geſture by reaſon of the Paſſeover joyned with the inſtitution of the Sacrament, and therefore Chriſtians are no more bound to it, then they are to other occaſionall circumſtances, as that it was then received at ſupper, yea, in a private houſe, by men and not by women, &c.
Anſw. Tis true indeed, that thoſe were all occaſionall, but the ſame cannot be ſaid of ſitting at the Sacrament, for it is evident, that after the Paſſeover was ended, Ioh. 13. 4. our Saviour roſe up from it, and afterwards ſate down again to inſtitute and adminiſter his laſt Supper, ſo that this geſture was not taken up by occaſion of the Paſſeover, but it was a geſture purpoſely appointed by him, which I may alſo further prove by this argument.
If ſitting at the Sacrament hath a Sacramenmentall ſignification, then that geſture was not taken up by occaſion of the Paſſeover, but is unchangeable and purpoſely inſtituted by our Lord and Saviour.
But ſitting at the receiving of the Sacrament hath a Sacramentall ſignification, &c.
This may be cleerly proved by the words of Chriſt himſelfe, Luke 22. 27. &c. where immediately after the inſtitution of the Lords Supper, our Saviour interprets this to be the meaning of ſitting at the receiving of it, that it ſignifies the familiar communion and fellowſhip that believers have with him here in Grace, and ſhall have with him hereafter in the Kingdome of Heaven: as in all Feaſts, which Princes and great Potentates do make and invite us to, if they ſhall admit us to ſit down with them at the ſame Table, they teſtifie a great deal of friendſhip, familiaritie and neere ſocietie with us; and this is taught us not onelyonly by Muſculus, Rainolds, and John Alaſco, but even by the Papiſts themſelves, even Thomas Aquinas part. 3. quaeſt. 60. art. 3. ſayes that the Lords Supper is not only a ſigne to remember his Paſſion already paſt, or a demonſtration of the preſent benefit, but alſo that it prefigures our aeternall glory.
Now to proceed to the ſecond branch of the former propoſition, that kneeling at the receiving of the Sacramēt is an imitation of the practice of Idolaters.
This may be proved by teſtimonies, Kneeling was not uſed for many hundred yeeres after Chriſt and the Apoſtles time, for it was brought in for the worſhip of the breaden God, Beza epiſtol. 8. Peter Martyr in his Epiſtle ad Dominos Polonos. Paraeus de ſymbol. Euchar. lib. 1. 11. and it is evident by Eccleſiaſticall Stories, ſo that the Formaliſts and Patrons of kneeling at the Sacrament cannot find or bring forth ſo much as one writer before the 1000 yeere after Chriſt: yea, it is cleer that it was the brood of Reall bodily preſence, having Honorius the third for the Father, Anno 1220. Pope Innocent the third for the Grandfather, who in the time of King Henry the third, endevoured to eſtabliſh it by fire and faggot, Anno 1215. for he ſeconded Pope Gregory the ſeventh, who Anno 1037, advanced the opinion of the Reall preſence.
Adde to this the blaſphemy of that plea that is uſed by the Patrons of kneeling in the defence of it, when as they ſay that it is the more reverend geſture of receiving: then belike that uſed by Chriſt and his Apoſtles vvas not ſo reverend, or the Prelats and their creatures in Kneeling are more reverend then Chriſt and his Apoſtles: and is not this horrid blaſphemy?
Thus much alſo for the ſecond Argument. The third Argument.
That which is an occaſion or invitation to idolatrous bowing and cringing to Altars, is idolatrous, and to be abhorred.
But the raile is an occaſion to Idolatrous bowing and cringing to Altars, &c.
The proofe of the former propoſition. It may appeare by this, becauſe that bowing towards or before the Altar is Idolatrous.
Firſt, becauſe to worſhip electively towards or before any creature or invention of man without warrant from God is idolatrous: for I demand elſe why may wee not as well worſhip electively towards or before a Crucifix or Popiſh Image as before or towards an Altar? the Papiſts will ſay, that they are not ſuch Sots as to terminate their worſhip upon a ſtock or a ſtone, no more then our Altar worſhippers doe upon a piece of wood, or a Joyners frame; and can wee think that when the Iſraelites kiſſed the Calves, and worſhipped the Altars at Dan and Bethel, that they chiefly intended the Images and Altars in that worſhip, or terminated their worſhip upon them? nay but, ſayes Jeroboam, this is thy God oh Iſrael, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, he means, that theſe did but repreſent the true God that is worſhipped at Jeruſalem, and he it is that I would have you to bow unto, though you bow before his Image, and ſo Aaron ſaid of his Calfe, Exod 32. and yet that is called an Idoll, Acts 7. 41.
Ob. But did not God command to bow and to fall downe in worſhip towards the Temple? Did not David ſay, And in thy feare will I worſhip towards thy holy Temple? and why may not Chriſtians worſhip an Altar, as well as the Jewes worſhiped towardes the Temple? Anſwere, The Jews had a warrant from God to worſhip him towards the Temple, and the holy of holies, but wee have none in this caſe; for have we any ſuch Temple now as the Jewes? It is evident that the Temple at Hieruſalem was one of the greateſt types of Chriſt in all the booke of God, Joh. 2. 19. For did not the fulneſſe of the Godhead dwell in him bodily, Col. 2. 9. i. in a glorious manner, as Gods glory did of old in the Temple, and that typicall ſignification was the ground of all their adoration towards the Temple: but now the body is come theſe ſhadows, are vaniſhed away, Col. 2. 16. and to bring in ſuch ſhadowes now, is a flat denyall of Chriſt.
Secondly this is moſt wicked of all the reſt, when as bowing is practiſed at ſuch times when as the Sacrament is not adminiſtred; for Chriſt being equally preſent at both Sacraments, & alſo preſent in the ordinance of preaching in a ſpeciall manner, why ſhould wee not as well bow to the Font, or to the pulpit, as to the ſuppoſed Altar?
Shall wee ſay as that great Arch-Prelate ſaid at the ſentence of Maſter Burton, &c. Chriſt ſaid of the one onelyonly hoc eſt verbum meum, but of the other hee ſaid, hoc eſt corpus meum; but doth not this ſtinke of Popiſh tranſubſtantiation? had his holineſſe forgotten, or never read that of AVSTINE, accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum? Or is not hoc eſt corpus meum, verbum meum? hath not the Sacrament all his fealing vertue from the Word? how was that great miracle wrought upon him (which hath beene confidently reported as from his mouth) that when hee was Biſhop of London, and falne into a dangerous ſickneſſe, hee was raiſed out of it meerly by the receiving of the Sacrament? Was it by the meere vertue of the Bread and Wine, or the outward elements? (but this might have been had in a Taverne, and Vintners might turne Phyſicians, if this were all) or was it by any vertue of the word of inſtitution or promiſe annexed to the Sacrament? if it was, why doth hee not aſcribe as much or more to the word then to the Sacrament? nay, why did not his Highnes make that Chamber-table at which that Sacrament was conſecrated and adminiſtred an high Altar too? Doth hee ſtill performe that homage and obeyſance to that Table, whenſoever he ſees it? or doth his ſucceſſor in the ſame Sea do the like? Nay, will it not follow hence that whenſoever any private Communion is celebrated in a corner, (as in caſe of ſickneſſe is enjoyned in the book of common Prayer) that ſuch Tables are ever after holy Tables and Altars, to which Gods ſpeciall preſence is tyed in a ſpeciall manner, and towards which all the Family and others are bound always to adore, and to proſtrate themſelves: or if they think this to be ſuperſtitious, let them tell us their juſt reaſon, why ſuch Tables ſhould be ſo adored in Churches, and not alſo in private Chambers? where the cauſe is the ſame, why is not the effect the ſame?
Thirdly, Our Church accounts the elements to be in uſe but common Bread and Wine after the Sacrament is ended, and leaveth them to the Miniſter to uſe at his pleaſure; why then ſhould the Table have more reverence then the conſecrated elements have when the ſupper is ended, ſo as to reverence the one and not the other? Why but doth not the Scripture ſay that the Altar doth conſecrate the gift and ſacrifice, and not on the contrary the ſacrifice the Altar? Therefore the Altar is rather to be adored, then the ſacrifice, or the outward elements? But ſuch popiſh ſpirits in theſe dayes ſay the contrary, that their ſacrifice ſanctifies their altar, and Chriſt being really preſent in the ſacrifice this makes their altar to be ſo holy and ſo worſhipfull ever after, that it makes it worthy to be bowed unto: therefore the ſacrifice or outward elements ſhould much rather be adored after the Sacrament then the Communion Table: thus they are contrary to themſelves, but I ſhall conclude this with the ſaying of our Lord and Saviour, Mat. 24. 23. 26. When they ſhall ſay unto you, loe here is Chriſt, or there is Chriſt, (as they ſay of the Altar, and Maſſe, and Sacrifice) go not forth unto them; let not any that feares God, or loves his own ſoul, ſtep out of doores to ſee the Maſſe-Chriſt, or to altar-Chriſt, much leſſe to bow down to him. Thus far of the Propoſition.
Now for the aſſumption, that a raile about the Communion table (or ſuppoſed Altar) is an occaſion or invitation to idolatrous bowing is clere by daily experience; the more that Communion Tables are dect and adored and ſequeſtred from the reſt of the Church, the more the opinion of inherent holineſſe in the Table is nouriſhed, and ſo much the more perſons ſuperſtitiouſly addicted will ſhew unwarrantable reverence to the Table, yea let mee tell you what I have ſeene my ſelfe, at the conſecration of Sir Thomas Fanſhawes Chappell in Ware parriſh, being Miniſter of the place, I was commanded by the Biſhop to bee preſent by all meanes, being there I ſaw the Biſhop himſelfe, Sir Thomas and diverſe others, that bowed to, or at the leaſt towards the Table being railed in, before that any Sacrament was adminiſtred at it. Was it not a worſhipfull joyner, that made ſuch a worſhipfull Table, yea, that ſuch great perſonages ſhould do ſuch obeyſance unto? ſurely the adoring and railing in of the Table was a ſpeciall invitation to this adoration, which otherwiſe they will not doe to a common table in a Parlor or a joyners ſhop, no nor a table in a Church not railed in. Thus much of the third argument.
The fourth Argument.
That which makes a Jewiſh ſanctuary or Sanctum Sanctorum, in the times of the new Teſtament, is utterly unlawfull, and to be abhorred by Chriſtians.
But the ſetting up of Railes about the Communion Tables makes an other Jewiſh Sanctuary, Therefore, &c.
The Major or the former propoſition proved.
There are diverſe reaſons in the Epiſtle to the Heb. againſt the Jewiſh Sanctuary, take for an inſtance chap. 9. 1.—11. &c. where firſt that Sanctuary is called a wordly Sanctuary; ſo it is in reſpect of the times of the new teſtament, eſpecially in reſpect of that heavenly Sanctuary provided for us: it is for worldly, ſenſuall, and carnall hearts to ſet up ſuch a Sanctuary now. Secondly, verſe 8. 9. the firſt Tabernacle was a figure for the time then preſent, a figure of things revealed in the Goſpell, and a meere type and ſhadowe, but now the body being come, the ſhadowes vaniſh away; againe it ſerved onelyonly for the time then preſent, i. the times under the Law, whilſt the Leviticall prieſthood laſted, and therefore now hath no further uſe in the Churches of Chriſt. Thirdly, verſe 10. they were carnall ordinances impoſed onelyonly till the times of reformation, i. till the comming of Chriſt, as it is expounded, ver. 11. in a word, when the veile of the Temple rent from the top to the bottome, the Jewiſh Sanctuary ceaſed, and what will any man now dare to ſow up the veil again, by making a new Sanctuary? or is not this to deny the death and paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt? Fourthly, how is that to be meant, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God ſet forth to bee the propitiation for our ſins? the word ſignifies a mercy-ſeat. The Iewiſh mercy-ſeat in the Holy of Holies was always ſhut up, and none of the people might enter into it: but Chriſt is ſuch a mercy-ſeat as is ſet forth openly to Miniſters and people, that all ſorts may lawfully and freely repaire unto; which was one of the greateſt mercies that ever God beſtowed upon his people, for ſo indeed Chriſt is called the gift of God, Ioh. 4. 10. there is no other gift of God to be compared with this. But what a curſed ſacriledge is this to lock up the mercy-ſeat againe? yea, ſo to lock it up, as that neither Miniſters, nor People ſhall enter in: for truly ſo they doe in effect by their railing about of the Communion Table, the people are excluded out, it is an Holy of Holies to them (as M…ſter Mede would have it, foreign, ut à multitudinis acceſsu prohiberentur, that common people might not come at it) but doe the Prieſts (as they are well called that ſet up new ſacrifices) enter in themſelves? truly they are lockt up within the railes, and goe to their ſuppoſed Altar; but they that ſerve at the Tabernacle (as was ſaid before) have nothing to do with the Altar Jeſus Chriſt; ſo that as our Saviour charged the Scribes, and Phariſe, and Lawyers, Mat. 23. 13. Luke 11. 52. You have taken away the key of knowledge, you ſhut up the Kingdome of Heaven againſt men, and neither enter in your ſelves, nor ſuffer thoſe that would to enter in; as they dealt with the written word, ſo deale our Prelates both about the written word and the word incarnate too, they keep away the word faithfully preached from the people, and will neither preach it themſelves, nor ſuffer others that would to preach it, or heare it, they keepe away Jeſus Chriſt (the true Altar) at leaſt in his ſimplicity as Paul ſpeaks, 2. Cor. 11. 2. and will neither partake of Chriſt themſelves, nor ſuffer others to partake of him: They are like dogs ſleeping in a manger, that will neither eate oates themſelves, nor ſuffer the horſes to eate them that would. Thus far of the former Propoſition.
The proofe of the Aſſumption or ſecond Propoſition.
This propoſition may be cleered by the deſcription of the Jewiſh Sanctuary, given to us in the Scripture, for what is the Jewiſh Sanctuary, but a moſt holy place, where Gods glorious preſence eſpecially dwels, whither it was not lawfull for any to goe but only for the Prieſt, ordinarily once a yeere, and upon ſome extraordinary occaſions: and doth not the railed Table inferre all this? that it is the holy of holy place, where God is more eſpecially preſent then in any other part of the Church, or upon the whole earth beſides? is it not the place whither the Prieſt only and not the people may enter? they muſt ſtand (or kneel rather) as the people at the foot of Mount Sinai, and none may goe within the raile or range without great prophanation, and all this too, when the Prieſts doe enter, it is mainly once a yeere at Eaſter: and then forſooth ſome of the Prieſts are ſo devout, that they make Religion of it, to put off their ſhoos from off their feet before they enter within the rails; for ſay they did not God command Moſes ſo to doe in the like caſe, ſaying, put off thy ſhooes from off thy feet, &c. The Sacrament is appointed indeed for Chriſtians communion with Chriſt, and among themſelves, yea, and the people have as much right to draw neer to Chriſt, as the Miniſters have, Heb. 10. 22. and therefore to draw neer to the Table too: but the Prieſts would ſeeme to be holier then all the reſt, and the people, if they will have communion among themſelves they may, but the Prieſt is in his Cloſet and Cloyſter by himſelfe, and muſt have no communion with lay or carnall people, nor they with him; and what is this (I pray you) but another Jewiſh Sanctuary? Thus farre of the fourth Argument.
The fifth Argument.
Taken from the vain pleas that are made in the defence of rails, which are eſpecially three, the firſt whereof and maine is the pretence of uniformity and order, that all the Communicants may come up to the raile, and receive the Sacrament alike kneeling; the ſecond, leaſt that the Communion Table ſhould be annoyed with boys, or dogs, or telling of money, or laying of hats upon the Table; the third is, that they make for the Miniſters eaſe, it being troubleſome to him, to go with the Elements from ſeat to ſeat, to diſtribute them to all the Communicants.
The vanitie and ſin of the firſt plea and pretence of uniformitie.
That which unavoidably occaſions diſorder, unity and uniformity in ſin, it wickedly pretended for Church order and uniformity in Gods worſhip.
The ſetting up of rails about the Communion Table, and inforcing the Communicants to receive kneeling at them, unavoidably occaſions diſorder, unitie and uniformitie in ſin, Therefore, &c.
The major or firſt propoſition is grounded upon that place, 1 Cor. 14. ult. That all things in the Churches of God ſhould be done decently and in order, which place is ignorantly alleaged by Formaliſts in the defence of Ceremonies, for the Apoſtle, Ver. 37. tels the Corinthians, that the things that hee wrote unto them were the Commandements of God: he doth not leave it to the Corinthians, or any other Church, to invent what they pleaſe themſelves for order or decencie, but hee doth ſtrictly binde them to the commandements of God, and hee charges them, that even the things commanded by God ſhould be done decently and in order, now the commandement of a Magiſtrate, or any Church-governours, doth not make a thing to be decent and orderly becauſe they command it (for then if they command the worſhipping of Images, or Crucifixes, or whatſoever elſe though never ſo wicked, ſhall preſently be decent and orderly by vertue of their commandement) for that is orderly which God accounts orderly, and which is according to the rule of order, and that is decent, not that man accounts ſo, (for that which is decent and highly eſteemed amongſt men is an abomination in the ſight of God) but that is decent, that God accounts decent, and which is according to the rule of decencie, which is not the will of any man upon earth, but the revealed will of God alone; but here we ſee that whatſoever occaſions diſorder is contrary to the Apoſtles rule: Again ver. 26 of the ſame Chapter there is an other rule, Let all things be done to edification; now that which breeds unity and uniformity in ſin, doth not edifie but deſtroy, and make men like unto Devils, for they have ſuch an unity and uniformity, their Kingdome is not divided among themſelves; ſee alſo Exod. 23. 2.
The aſſumption or ſecond propoſition hath been proved already in the former Reaſons, for ſurely that which breeds uniformity in Jewiſh and Popiſh ſuperſtition is uniformity in ſin and curſed deformity, ſuch is uniformitie in kneeling at the Sacrament.
But I adde for further proof of the aſſumption, That which breeds ſcandall and offence to all ſorts of Chriſtians eſpecially weake and tender conſciences, breeds rather diſorder then order.
The ſetting up of railes about the Communion table, and the inforcing all the Communicants to receive at them, breeds ſcandall, &c.
For the proof of the propoſition, ſee Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the whole Chapters are ſpent in this, That ſcandals are carefully to be avoided in the Church, 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give no offence to the Jews or Gentiles, or to the Churches of God. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 43. art. 2. Scandalum activum ſemper eſt peccatum in eo qui ſcandalizat, vel quia ipſum opus quod facit eſt peccatum, vel etiam ſi habeat ſpeciem peccati, dimittendum eſt ſemper proximi, charitatem, ex qua unuſquiſque tenetur ſaluti proximi providere, & ſic qui non dimitti contra charitatem agit, i. An active ſcandall is always a ſin in him that gives offence, either becauſe that the worke that hee doth is a ſin, or alſo if it hath a ſhew of ſinne, it is always to be omitted for the love of our neighbour, by which every one is bound to provide for the ſalvation of his neighbour, and ſo hee that doth not omit that which is ſcandalous ſins againſt charity, and this agrees very well with that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 14. 15. Such as give offence to their brethren, walk not charitably: and it is a ſhame for us that Papiſts ſhould be more charitable in their judgement, and tender over the conſciences of poore Chriſtians then we are. Yet it is a received definition of a ſcandall among the Schoolmen, that it is dictum aut factum minus rectum praebens occaſionem ruinae, now though an action be not evill of it ſelfe, yet if it hath an appearance of evill, it is leſſe right then it ought to be, becauſe it is done inordinately, and is an occaſion of ſinne, and falling to another.
Now for the ſecond propoſition, that the inforcing to receive at a raile cauſe offence to Chriſtians experience ſufficiently proves, there being but few Congregations in this Kingdome, where ſome have not been offended and ſcandalized by the rail, and this new injunction of receiving at a rail.
Two things only are replyed in this caſe. Firſt, that this is a ſcandall taken not given, and therefore in ſuch caſes not to be omitted for ſuch a kind of offence, as our Saviour himſelf regarded not the offence of the Phariſees, when the Diſciples told him, Mat. 15. 12. Knoweſt thou not that the Phariſees were offended after they heard this ſaying, our Saviour anſwered and ſaid, Verſe 14. Let them alone, they are blind leaders of the blind, &c.
Secondly, they ſay that Magiſtrates are offended likewiſe by the refuſall of, and not conforming to the ceremonies, as well as weak Chriſtians are offended by the practice of them, and whether of theſe, thinke you, in this caſe is to be moſt regarded, a Magiſtrate or a weak Chriſtian?
To the firſt of theſe I anſwer, that though it were granted that the offence here ſpecified is taken onelyonly and not given, yet even paſſive offences are many times to bee avoided, as namely, when the things are not neceſſary (as the preaching of the truth by our Saviour was, at which the Phariſees were offended) though they be otherwiſe commendable; the brazen Serpent was a Monument ſet up of Moſes by divine inſtitution and appointment, yet Hezechias brake it in peeces and called it Nechuſtan, or a piece of Braſſe, becauſe it was not a neceſſary monument, and now the People ſtumbled at it, though there was no juſt occaſion of offence given to them; ſo Gideons Ephod was onelyonly a monument of a great victory, that God had wrought for him, yet the Iſraelites went a whoring after it, and abuſed it to idolatry, after the death of Gideon, and it became a ſnare to his houſe Jud. 8. 27. yea it is a common principle of nature, that we muſt hurt no man, and therefore we muſt doe nothing whereby any man may be hurt, or grieved, or wounded, this was ſignified by thoſe judiciall laws Deut. 22. when the Iſraelites were commanded to make battelments upon the tops of their houſes, leſt they ſhould bring the guilt of blood upon them, and Exodus 21. 33. he that diggs a pit and covers it not, if an Oxe, or an Aſſe fall into it, the digger of the pit ſhall make it good: the like Divines by good reaſon gather in caſe of danger to the ſoule.
But now the argument is yet ſtronger, if that which had not an appearāce of evil (as the brazen Serpent, and Gideons Ephod) yet was to be taken away & deſtroyed, being a paſsive ſcandal onelyonly, how much more that which hath an apperance of evill, as the preſent additions to Gods worſhip have, for then it is not onelyonly a paſſive ſcandall that proceeds from his weakeneſſe only that falls, but alſo active in reſpect that it gives occaſion of offence.
To the ſecond I anſwere, that it is a vaine plea to ſay that magiſtrates are offended by the refuſall of ceremonies, as well as weake Chriſtians by the injoyning of them, for that is not to bee called an offence that is taken by any mans diſobedience to an unjuſt command: might not Nebuchadnezzar alſo have made this plea, when thoſe three noble Jewes would not worſhip his golden image? And Jeroboam likewiſe when the Prieſts and Levites and godly Iſraelites refuſed to go up to Dan and Bethell? why, theſe Puritan Miniſters, and People, regard not the offence of the King and State, but all they ſtand upon, is that themſelves are offended and ſcandalized, belike then they are more to be reſpected then governours themſelves; againe it is a ſilly pretence, that they ſhould complaine of offences, that have power to reform them and to take away the occaſions of them, without any damage to themſelves, as Magiſtrates may eaſily doe by their command.
The ſecond pretence for railes is, leſt that the Communion Table ſhould be anoyed with boys or dogges, or telling of money, or laying on of hats upon the Table.
The proofe of the idleneſſe of this ſecond plea.
VponUpon a common reaſon or diſconvenience (if the anoyance of the Table be granted to bee ſuch) no ſpeciall privilege can be grounded, (as the railing about of the table alone is).
But all the pretended reaſons or diſconveniences are common to other inſtruments and utenſiles about Churches, as to the Font, to the pulpit, the Church-bible, &c.
The proofe of the Major or former Propoſition.
Every ſpeciall priviledge is grounded upon ſome ſpeciall reaſon. It were a ſenſeleſſe reaſon to ſay, that a King becauſe he is a man ſhould have a guard attending upon him, his Coūſellors of ſtate, his pallace, his power to call Parliaments, to preſſe Souldiers, &c. if this were a good ground, then every man, becauſe he is a reaſonable creature, muſt have all theſe royalties: or to ſay, that a garden, becauſe it hath trees, and herbs, and flowers, therefore it ſhould be incloſed, or fenced and walled in; nay but there is a ſpeciall reaſon for both theſe; Kings have ſuch great priviledges, and State, becauſe God hath given ſuch power unto them, and becauſe of the great charge that lies upon them above other men, and the ſafety of all the people ſtands in their preſervation and ſafety, ſo gardens are incloſed and fenced in, becauſe of the ſpeciall fruitfulneſſe, uſefulneſſe, and vertue that is in them, above common fields; here is now a ſpeciall reaſon for the ſpeciall and peculiar priviledges both of the one and of the other; ſo in the caſe in hand, there muſt be found ſome peculiar reaſon why the Communion Table ſhould be railed rather then other parts, or inſtruments of worſhip in the Church, for the rule of Logick holds ſure, à quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia.
The proofe of the aſſumption or ſecond Propoſition.
All theſe pretended diſconveniences of annoyance are common to other inſtruments or utenſils about Churches, as to the Font, to the Pulpit, to the Bible, or reading-ſeat, &c. for why ſhould it be a greater annoyance, for Dogs to fowle, or boyes, or men to lay their hats, or to tell money upon the Table (after the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is adminiſtred) then it is for the ſame or the like anoyances to bee done to the Font or Bible, or Pulpit, or reading ſeat? It was indeed a reaſon of a great Prelate of this Land given to my ſelfe for the ſetting up of rails; Why ſaid he, What if there ſhould be Cows in the Churchyard, if the Church-dores be open, is it fitting or decent, that the Cows ſhould come and play the beaſts at the holy Table? but what would not this filthineſſe defile other parts of the Church, as well as the holy Table (as he called it?) or ſhould we therefore ſay, that every part of the Church ſhold have a particular rail about it, or rather that the whole Church ſhold be railed about, that one rail might ſerve for al, for fear of ſuch defilemēts? But the truth is, that our Prelates have ſome ſecret myſtery of ſpeciall holineſſe in the Table above other parts of the Church (as was ſpecified before) but that is utterly ungrounded in the Word of God, and unreaſonable, and ſtinkes of the breaden and dunghill God, and is odious ſuperſtition, and therefore to be abhorred.
The third pretenſe for rails refuted, that they doe make for the Miniſters eaſe, it being troubleſome to him, to goe with the elements from ſeat to ſeat, &c.
If the obſervation of Chriſts owne inſtitution be far more eaſe to the Miniſter, then can come by the ſetting up of rails, and the peoples repayring to them to receive, then by their own plea the former is better then the latter.
But the obſervation of Chriſts owne inſtitution is far more eaſe to the Miniſter, then can come by the ſetting up of rails, and the peoples repayring to them, &c.
I ſhall not need to prove the former propoſition, or the conſequence; for let this be granted on both ſides, that that courſe is to be obſerved about the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, that may breed the moſt eaſe and the leaſt trouble both to Miniſtery and people.
Therefore I will come to the aſſumption, to prove that the inſtitution of our Saviour Chriſt will bring more eaſe and leſſe trouble both to Miniſtery and people. For the cleering of this I will ſhew that Chriſt never ordained that the Miniſter ſhould goe about to every Communicant, to deliver the Bread and Wine unto him, much leſſe that the Miniſter ſhould ſay a prayer to every Communicant in the delivery of the elements of Bread and Wine. For firſt Chriſt ſaid in the plurall number, foreign, Take yee, eat yee, drinke yee all of this, but hee never practiſed, nor commanded to ſay, Take thou, eat thou, drinke thou, &c. ſo Fenner in his doctrine of the Sacraments ſaith, that this ſpeech in the plurall number is moſt fit to ſignifie the communion and ſocietie of the Church in this worke, ſeeing Chriſt by his Miniſters exhorts all the Communicants, as it were with one expreſſion of common love and charity, that they ſhould rejoyce and eat together the ſame ſpirituall food of faith.
Ob. But it will be ſaid, that Miniſters muſt apply to every one in particular the promiſes of the Goſpell.
Anſ. It is true, but muſt they therefore deliver the elements in particular to every one, i. cannot the application be made but by changing the order of adminiſtration appointed by Jeſus Chriſt? When the Miniſter preaches the Word, hee doth particularly apply the promiſes of the Goſpell, yet he doth not go to every man in particular in the Congregation, ſo as to go from ſeat to ſeat, from man to man, to ſay, believe thou & then, &c. all believers apply theſe things to themſelves by faith: yea, but in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, the Miniſter changes the words of promiſe into a prayer, ſaying, The body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt that was given for you, &c. true they have theſe words, but in the Canon of the Maſſe (for there is the riſe of them) and they doe not utter them to the people but to God, as intending ſome oblation to him, or as if it were a great impiety to diſtribute the elements to ſuch as kneele devoutly, before they have uttered thoſe words charm-wiſe to conſecrate the Bread and Wine to every one in particular, which is all one, as if when thanks are given to God at meals for a company met together, ſome Zelot ſhould goe and give thanks for every man in particular.
Again, when as Chriſt ſaid, take and eat, the meaning is not, that hee gave to every one of them that ſate at the Table in particular the elements of Bread and Wine, no, though it be ſaid hee gave to the Diſciples, for ſo, Marke 6. 39-41. our Saviour commanded the Diſciples, that all the multitudes ſhould ſit downe by companies upon the green graſſe, and they ſat down in ranks by hundreds and by fifties, and when he had taken the five loaves & two fiſhes, he looked up to heaven, and bleſſed and brake the loaves, and gave to the Diſciples to ſet before them, and the two fiſhes divided he among them all, and yet it follows not that either Chriſt or his Diſciples gave immediatly and particularly to the five thouſand men, but they ſet them before them; ſo in this caſe: and this even Jeſuits, Cajetan and Suarez confeſſe, and with them in this particular, Beza and Piſcator doe agree, and it may cleerly alſo be proved by the commandement of Chriſt, when hee delivered the Cup ſaying, Divide it among your ſelves, Luke 22. 17. Some anſwer indeed, that thoſe words are to be underſtood not of the Cup in the Lords Supper, but of the Cup uſed in the Paſſeover; for of the cup in the Lords Supper our Saviour ſpeaks, Verſe 20. But I anſwer that in both Verſes our Saviour ſpeakes of the ſame cup, but that this precept of dividing it among themſelves is meant of the cup in the Euchariſt, it appears by the proteſtation ſubjoyned in the next Verſe, But I ſay unto you, That I will not drinke any more of the fruit of the Vine, &c. but the ſame proteſtation in the other Evangeliſts, Math. 26. 29. Mark 14. 23. is added touching the Lords Supper: beſides if hee had made this proteſtation of the paſchall cup that hee would not drinke any more, &c. He would not have afterwards drunke of the cup in the Euchariſt. But on the contrary, the Evangeliſts Mathew and Marke ſay that after he had reached forth the Cup in the Lords Supper, hee proteſted that hee would no more drinke of the fruit of the Vine, &c. therefore hee had already drunke of it. Now to gather up this argument, if our Saviours courſe of holy inſtitution might ſtand, that the Miniſter ſhould deliver the outward elements to one or two that were neereſt unto them, and the communicants ſhould divide the reſt among themſelves, might not the Miniſter have more eaſe and farre leſſe trouble without any raile? Yea, would not this prevent that intollerable protracting and lengthning of Sacraments, when there is a great multitude of Communicants, (which is occaſioned by a raile, and the particular diſtribution of the elements, and forme of Prayer joyned with it) as it falls out in many popular Congregations, ſo that Sacraments laſt many times two or three houres together? Thus much ſhall ſerve for the fift Argument.
The ſixt and laſt Argument.
That which brings in conformity with the Papiſts and Idolaters, ought not to be indured in reformed Churches.
But the erecting and ſetting up of rails about Communion Tables, and ſo turning Tables into Altars, makes reformed Churches conformable with Papiſts and Idolaters, &c.
I ſhall not need to inſiſt upon the proofe of the aſſumption, for the arguments before alleaged, and the practice of forreigne popiſh, and our owne Cathedrall Churches is ſufficient to prove this, therefore for brevity ſake I will omit this.
The proofe of the major or firſt propoſition. That all conformity with Idolaters muſt be avoided, we are taught by divers precepts given to the Iſraelites, as Deut. 12. 30. 32. Take heed that thou be not ſnared by following of Idolaters, and Canaanites, &c. and that thou enquire not after their gods, ſaying, how did theſe nations ſerve their Gods? Thou ſhalt not doe ſo to the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hates, have they done to their Gods; whatſoever thing I command you, that obſerve to doe it, thou ſhalt not adde thereto, nor diminiſh from it: therefore, 2 Chron. 13. 9. Abijah reproves Jeroboam and his army, that they had made them Prieſts after the manner of the Nations of the Lands: and it was one of the greateſt ſins of Achaz, 2 King. 16. 10. That when hee ſaw an Altar at Damaſcus, hee ſent to Vriah the Prieſt the faſhion of the Altar, and the patterne of it, that hee might make ſuch another in the houſe of the Lord: ſo doubtleſſe our Prieſts firſt took the pattern of their railed Altars from Rome, & ſo commanded them to be ſet up amongſt us.
Our Adverſaries reply, that they doe not uſe the ſame rites with the Papiſts, with the ſame mind that they doe. Anſw. To uſe the ſame things, that the Papiſts do, in civill affairs, we go not about to condemne; if they would uſe a raile to encloſe walks or gardens, who would ſpeake againſt it? but to uſe the ſame Rites or Ornaments in the worſhip of God, that the Papiſts, the Miniſters of the Antichriſt, the Prieſts of Baal doe, what is this, but with Achaz, to ſet up the Altar of Damaſcus.
Ob. But what a blaſphemous ſpeech is this, that a rail ſhould be uſed about walks or gardens, that is appointed for the adorning of the Communion Table? Anſw. Tis true, that for uſing ſuch a ſpeech againſt a Rail at Ware, Maſter Humphry Parker of Hartford was cenſured very ſeverely by the high Commiſsion Court, Sir Thomas Fanſhaws zeale proſecuting the cauſe againſt him and me, againſt him, for no other cauſe pretended, but becauſe upon the diſlike of rails provided for the Communion Table, as being not ſo decent, he caſt out ſuch a ſpeech, That if the rails provided did not like them, hee would buy them for his garden; and let mee here inſert how this offence of his was ſet forth and aggravated by the A. B. at his cenſure. Suppoſe (ſaid he) that when Aholiab and Bezalcel were making the hangings for the Tabernacle, ſome malepert perſon ſhould have come to them, and ſaid, What is here a motly coat for a fool that you are making of divers colours? Had not this been a very wicked ſpeech? So though this Parker (ſaid hee) ſpake thus irreverently of the raile whileſt it was in the Joyners ſhop, before it ever had been conſecrated to that ſacred uſe about the communion Table, yet becauſe it was deſtined to this holy nſe, therefore thus and thus hee deſerves to be cenſured.
Oh the patience of our good God, that endures ſuch blaſphemies to be daily belched out in theſe helliſh Courts, by thoſe that ſet their mouthes againſt Heaven! Belike then his Highneſſe edicts and inventions are to be compared to, and are of equall binding force with the Commandements of Almighty God, and his raile is of like authority with the pattern that God ſhewed Moſes on the Mount, and the heavenly figure of the Tabernacle; yea, ſhould a man ſpeak againſt the flax or linnen in the Drapers ſhop, in caſe that a Surplice ſhould afterwards be made of it, it would be as great an offence in the repute of his greatneſſe, as of old to ſpeak againſt the Levitical Ceremonies ordained by the only Law-giver himſelf, though perhaps as well a Whores ſmock, as a Prieſts frock may be made of it; but of this by the way.
To returne to the argument of the imitation of Idolaters, the Formaliſts ſay, that they do it not with the ſame minde and intention with Idolaters: well, but the Rail is the ſame, the Altar is the ſame, the manner of uſing is the ſame, and in the ſame part of worſhip, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; what ſhall wee term imitation to be, if theſe things make not imitation?
Ob. 'Tis true, that in thoſe things that have been invented by Antichriſt or his inſtruments, we are not to communicate with them, but thoſe that are more ancient then Popery and Antichriſtianiſme, though uſed by them, we may lawfully uſe the ſame, but ſuch was the uſe of the raile, as may appeare out of Euſebius, for Conſtantine himſelfe invented and uſed it.
Anſw. Though a Rail be as ancient as the times of Conſtantine the Great, yet wee know that the myſtery of iniquity began to worke in the Apoſtles time. Many errors and hereſies were broched even in thoſe dayes, beſides in Conſtantines days, the Idoll of the Maſſe, and unbloudy ſacrifice was not invented, therefore then there was much leſſe danger of a Rail, therefore let the Rail be as ancient as the age of Conſtantine, or the Apoſtles themſelves, yet if it hath been abuſed or defiled by Antichriſt, it is to be abhorred by us. Zanchie a learned Authour upon the fourth Commandement, That even indifferent things polluted and defiled by ſuperſtition are to be aboliſhed, and to the like purpoſe to Queen Elizabeth, Neque enim honeſtum eſt, ut quae in Dei contumeliam uſurpata diu fuerunt ſires ſint perſe foreign, ea in Eccleſiâ cum diſcrimine etiam ſalutis piorum retineantur: and hee proves it by the example of Hezechias, Serpens aeneus qui inſtitutus fuerat à Deo, & quidem ad ſalutem Iſraelitarum, per pium Regem Hezechiam, quia illo contra Dei verbum abutebantur Iſraelitae, ſublatus eſt, & ab hoc facto ſummè laudatur Hezechias, quòd illum ſcilicet Serpentem redigeret in cineres, eoſque in profluentem, ne ullum uſpiam extaret veſtigium, projici juſserit: How much more then ſhould rails about Communion Tables be burnt, that have beene and are daily ſo wickedly abuſed, though never ſo innocent in their firſt invention?
Ob. But if all theſe evils are inferred upon the railing in of Communion Tables, then it will be ſaid unto me, why then have you, when you were called into the high Commiſſion Court, & proſecuted by Sir Thomas Fanſhaw of Ware Parke, for words ſpoken againſt the Raile there, which you had called an innovation, a ſnare to mens conſciences, a breach of the ſecond Commandement, Idolatry and Superſtition, why have you ſo baſely yielded to the ſubmiſsion impoſed upon you by that Court? acknowledging at the laſt, that you were ſorry for ſuch words ſpoken by you?
Why did you profeſſe at laſt before them, that now you were of a contrary judgment, and that you allowed a raile with a kneeling bench affixed to be a decent & convenient ceremony, & promimiſed never to oppoſe that rail or any other ceremony more?
Anſw. Tis true, that by the perſwaſion of friends, thus far I yielded, and truly very baſely and timorouſly, I deny not, I will not goe about to plead now for that accurſed fact, nor excuſe my ſelfe by the greatneſſe of my temptations and ſtraights; no, but I will lay my hand upon my mouth, or rather cry out to the ſhame and confuſion of mine owne face, that I have denyed the truth of Chriſt, and been aſhamed of him in this adulterous and ſinfull generation, worthy alſo to be denied of him, when he ſhall come in the glory of his Father with his holy Angels; and I doe with indignation and deteſtation retract every word of that ſubmiſsion, deſiring earneſtly the Lord, not to lay this ſin to my charge, and his people to forgive the ſcandall of it, or rather not to take offence at it; and do willingly to make up this breach, forgoe all the certaine comforts that I had upon the earth; onelyonly let this be added, which I muſt needs ſpeake for caution to others, that I perceived evidently whilſt I was conformable in my judgment, that I muſt needs give way to the Rail, or what ſoever innovations, upon the ſame grounds that I conformed upon. But the Lord be thanked, that though I was a ſervant of ſin, yet he hath at the laſt ſubdued my ſoule to obey from the heart the forme of Doctrine to which I am delivered.
It is then (I hope) upon farre other, and far better grounds, that I have reverſed my former ſin, then that I yielded upon at the firſt; this I did raſhly and unadviſedly, and in temptation, but now that the other is done in cold bloud, and with due deliberation (I meane this retractation of my errour) let theſe few Reaſons teſtifie unto the World; and I do humbly entreat every ſoul that ſhall peruſe theſe few lines, to acquaint as many as he can perceive to be any ways ſcandalized by my fall, with what is here contained, that they may be raiſed up again; this I do earneſtly beg of them, yea, let mee be bold to charge them in the name of the Lord Jeſus, ſo far to tender the Goſpell of Chriſt, and the honour of Chriſtian profeſsion, yea, and the bleeding heart of a wounded Chriſtian: as alſo to make this uſe of it to themſelves, Let him that ſtandeth, take heed leſt hee fall.
FINIS.
End of the text · Charles Chauncey, A Retraction (1641)