Letter to Bishop of Chester

A LETTER (Against the erection of an ALTAR.)

Written June 29. 1635. to the Reverend Father John L. Bishop of Chester.

A Mong the many things for which bad men evie such as are of eminent estate, there is one (of special note) for which good men pity them: and it is, that they have many who seek to serve themselves with their favor, and by flattery hope to find what they seek; and very few who sincerely set their observances of them, towards their interests, without a squint-eyd aspect to their own ends.

Of whether sort I have been (among those that profess themselves devoted to your Lordship) I appeal to your experience of me, for the best part of twenty years time, wherein you have given me occasion very often to acknowledge unto others (as a part of your good nature, and my good hap) that while my conscience hath directed me freely to speak, your goodness (as an instance of Pliny his observation) hath disposed you patitiently to hear me, and to value my speech by the justness of my cause, and validity of my reasons, rather than by the disparity of your parts, and place, which give you great advantage over me, both for gainsaying and prevailing.

It was the confidence which I had in Solomon's prophetical promise, for the final acceptation of faithful offices, which made me at the first more bold with your Lordship, than many others have been; and since I have found by the Success of mine upright intentions, in treaties with you, that I have not therein been more bold with you, than welcome to you; I cannot but take heart to go on, as any occasion of moment is presented unto me.

And now, my Lord, there is one of great (and as some would rather style it of a massy ) weight, which hath occasioned much discourse, and many censures; (though your Lordship, whom they most concern, be like to hear the least of them) it is that new Structure of stone at the upper end of the old Consitory, which Papists talk of as of an Altar, whereupon they exalt their hopes of re-edification of their Babel among us. It was one of them, from whom, being at Budworth, I had the first notice • f that news; which I told him I would not believe: for it seemed to me more strange than true, that a Papist, dwelling at least fourteen miles from Chester, and coming thither seldom, should know better what was done in the Cathedral, than I the Sub-dean of the Church, who was there almost every week throughout the whole year.

And I could not think (it is so great) that it grew up (like Jonah's Gourd ) in a night, or that it was set up, as the Temple of Solomon was set together, without all noise of axe, or hammer, or instrument of iron.

But at my next coming to Chester, I saw he had but too much, and too solid ground for his report, and yet to abate from his rejoicing at the matter, I told him when we met again (as I had heard by some) that it was a funeral monument of Saint Warburghs burial in that place, which was anciently called by the name of her Chapel: with this (for that time) I interred his triumph under a Tombstone, which he had set up as incense on an Altar.

But when others (seriously observing the matter, and form, and situation of it) compared all with your purpose of employment of the place to religious uses (as they had heard) and thereupon suspected therein at least a propension to Popery; and some said (as I was told to my face) that though your Lordship (as Bishop) were the Author, I (as Sub-dean) was some way an Actor or approver of that, which was so great an eye-sore unto many good people. I was much perplexed what answer to make them, though rather for you, than for myself.

Yet for you my Lord, I said (in terms of asseveration and assurance) that I had known you long and (as you were pleased in one of your letters to me to say) thoroughly, and yet I could never observe anything in you, which might induce me to doubt of your liking of a Communion Table, above an Altar, or of your dislike of popish either building of Altars, or bowing to Altars. And I could have said somewhat more to have made them wholly of my mind, touching your Lordships meaning that way, but that I would not make use of any of your secrets (without your leave) though for your defense.

But for myself, mine answer was, that if I had had any notice of such an alteration beforehand, (and you have sometimes accounted the Dean and Chapter, à consiliis to the Bishop) I should have done my best endeavor to dissuade you from it, by some such reasons as these that follow.

First, [Reason 1] because Altars were at first ordained by God, and erected by men, for such services as ceased with the Pedagogie of the Jewish Religion, and that was chiefly for sacrifices, typifying or foreshadowing Christ to come.

Secondly, [Reason 2] because Christ instituting the memorial of his death for the Christian Church, made no use of an Altar (as being after his departure no more to be sacrificed either typically or really) but of a Table. So did the Apostles and the Primitive Church in the purest times, against whom some Heathens objected, as we find in Minutius Felix and Origen, that they had neither Temples, nor Altars, nor Images; which place we must understand with limitation and difference: for before their time, the Christians had places appropriate to Religious worship (which now are called Temples, Churches, Chapels) though not always so public, that the Heathens could know them, nor at any time such, as they conceived: (for they took a Temple for a place wherein a Demon was enclosed, as they believed;) nor such as Bellarmine fancied, when he defined a Temple to be nothing else but the place of an Altar. We must take it then in the Testimony forealledged, that a Temple was not simply denied to the Christians in those ancient times, but a Temple under such a particular sense and notion as hath been noted.

But for Altars and Images (in a literal and proper acception) their original and use (for Christian Churches) are to be referred to younger times. So that for Altars (which for the present appertain to our especial observation) we may well say with Bishop Jewel, that the setting up of them is a Noveltie in our Evangelical Religion, whereas Communion Tables are ancient, and have been used from the first institution of the Sacrament.

Some Papists say the contrary, upon confidence of that of the Apostle, Heb. 13.10. We have an Altar. &c. But that, as Pareus showeth, is a foolish proof, and it seemeth by Bellarmine, that himself, and other Papists of good accompt with him (he may mean Aquinas for one) thought little better of it, and therefore he professeth not to urge it to that purpose: yet he holds Altars to be very ancient, and pleads for their antiquity (against an Heretic (as he calls him) who accused them of Novelty) by an Inscription in an old Altar; but how old the date of it was, he could not tell. Brerely out of Pretorius refers the original of Altars among Christians, for the Author, to Sixtus the second; and for the age, to the year 262. then, said he, did Sixtus the second abrogate Tables, hitherto in use, and set up Altars.

But it is not probable, that so good a man, and a Martyr, as he was, having but a short and a troublesome time of his Bishopric (which lasted not full three years) would be Author of such an alteration and defection from the form and use of the Primitive Church to his time; and that it was not so either ordained, or not so received by the Churches, will be manifest by the answer to Bellarmine's testimonies for the antiquity of Altars, out of ancient Authors; of which he saith first in general, There is scarce any of them which makes not mention of the Altar; and then he names the Canons of the Apostles, Dionys. Areopagita, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Tertullian, Optatus, and Hier • m, and Augustine; this in his book of the worshipping of Saints. And in his book of the Mass he addeth, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom and Ambrose.

But of these, some be suppositious proofs, as that out of the Canons of the Apostles, and Dionys. Areopagita: some though legitimate, as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, albeit they speak of Altars (as Tertullian de poenitentia, where he observeth kneeling at the Altar as a part of the Penitents practice) we must not understand them but of Communion Tables, not of Altars, in a proper acception.

And though Bellarmine would shift off the forecited saying of Minutius Felix, by pretence of the privacie of the Christian profession, as though they had Altars, but privately, out of the sight of the Heathens: yet it is plain by Origen, who flourished not long before Minutius, in his answer to Celsus, that the Christians had neither Altars, nor Images: For Altars which belong to our present purpose) saith he, our mind serves turn, from which are sent up the sweet incense of prayers, out of a pure conscience. Since Christians had Temples, the Authors that mention Altars, are Optatus, Ambrose, Athanasius, the two Gregory's, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine. They are to be understood, not of an Altar properly, but of a communion Table, as may appear by Optatus, Eusebius, and Augustine: which, as for the matter of it, it was not made of stone, but of wood; so, for the site of it, it was not set in the end of the Chancel, but in the middle, at least so as it might be removed, and so placed at the Communion, that the people might come round about it, as Bishop Jewel observeth against Doctor Harding, and Bishop Morton in his late learned book of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

And though Bellarmine brag of the antiquity of Altars, yet (as secretly confessing the seniority of wooden Tables before them) he is fain to say, he insists not in his disputation upon the Altar of Stone, but calls that (whatsoever it be) an Altar whereon the Sacrifice (such as he and others, believing the mystery of iniquity, do imagine) is made by the words of consecration. And as I doubt not but a Table may be made of stone, so an Altar may be made of wood (and for that there was a particular ordinance, Exod. 27.1. that it should be made of Shitim wood, overlayd with brass; ) and it may be moveable too, as a Table, yea, as a Trencher, though it be of stone. For the Papists have their portable Altars, made of a piece of a slate stone, light and little, for commodious carriage from place to place, as they please. But the Altars which give the strongest support to their superstition, are stony & fixed fabrics, which whensoever they began (for the time is uncertain) are most in use in the Popish Churches, and required as necessary by Popish Doctors to be of stone (else they may not be consecrated) as signifying Christ the Rock, and his resting in a stony Sepulcher: and for the upper part of it, it must be of one entire stone. All this is the determination of Aquinas, to whose writings Pope Innocent gave the first place, after the Canon of the Scripture.

Against these our third Reason may be; [Reason 3] the danger of depravation, and corruption of the doctrine of the Church, by changing the Christian Sacrament into a Popish Sacrifice: for from literal and real Altars (properly so called) Bellarmine and Brerely infer a literal and a real Sacrifice. The name of an Altar in Greek and Hebrew (saith Bellarmine ) doth intimate a Sacrifice. Item, Altars are not used to be set up, but for Sacrifice, properly so called. Again (saith he) Altars properly taken, are not set up but for Sacrifice properly taken. And again, Altars are most evident signs of a Sacrifice properly so called. Altars and Sacrifices infer one another, saith Brerely.

They make the like inference (I grant) from the name Priest, as we may see by Bellarmine, who makes that title one of his topicks, to prove his Sacrifice; but not with like advantage, as they argue, from the Altar: for the one is offered but to the ear, the other to the eye: and we see by experience, that the Poet spake like a Prophet, when he said, that the objects of the ear are more weak in their working, than those of the eye: the one is but a transient word, the other is a permanent work; the one is properly an Altar, the other noteth not properly a Priest, in the Evangelical Church.

But what need we be troubled at the consequence of a Sacrifice upon an Altar, when by Sacrifice we may understand that which is Orthodox in sense, and not unwonted for use in the true Church of God? For, as many of the Ancients use the word Altar, so do they the word Sacrifice also; yea, and some of the most learned, and best reputed Papists, give a sound interpretation of it; as, their Master of the Sentences, and their Angelical Doctor (the two most renowned Rabbies in the Romish Church) who say It is therefore called a Sacrifice, because it is the memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice of the Altar of the Cross; or (as Bellarmine himself addeth, as the joint consent of Lombard, Aquinas, and other Schoolmen) because it hath the like effect with a true and real sacrificing of Christ.

To which the answer may be, First, That there be but few disputing Papists (specially since the Trent Council) that conceive so soundly of the Sacrament, as to take it for a Sacrifice in that sense; and for Bellarmine, he shows his dislike of it, and pleads with all his power for an Altar, and Sacrifice properly taken.

Secondly, For the vulgar Papists, their faith is of the stamp of their Teachers tenet, who are (as Aquinas out of Gregory compares them together) as the Asses in Job, to the Oxen feeding besides them, the people adhering to them with an implicit faith, as gross in believing, as their Doctors are false in teaching of untruth; and so The Supper of the Lord, by a most pernicious error (as Beza notes it) is changed into the Sacrament of the Altar, the Sacrament of the Altar into a Sacrifice, a figurative into a real and expiatory Sacrifice. And (which is more in it self, and more to us, as being of greater authority in our Church) in the Articles of Religion, to which we subscribe, there is one that saith, The Sacrisice of the Mass: wherein Papists say (which, as a late Glosser on them acknowledgeth, is their common opinion) that the Priests offer up Christ for remission of guilt and pain, for the quick and the dead, is a blasphemous sigment, and pernicious imposture.

My fourth Reason against Altars is this; [Reason 4] The Papists Sacrament of the Altar, or Sacrifice of the Mass, on an Altar, hath been the Altar on which they have sacrificed many a Protestant, because they would not believe the doctrine of the Cakeincarnation (as King James called it) which is so senseless a conceit, that in that dispute (as the most learned Lord Primate of Armagh hath complained) we are put to prove that bread is bread, and wine is wine; a matter (one would think) that easily might be determined by common sense: and therefore (saith he) because we have to deal with men, that will needs herein be senseless, we will refer them to Tertullian's discourse of the five senses, wishing they might be restored to their five wits again. And yet they did, like the children of this world (wisely in their generation) to bring them to the trial of Transubstantiation, and adoration of the breaden God: for they that would swallow such gross absurdities, it was not like they would make scruple of any point, either of opinion, or of practice in the Popish Religion.

Fifthly, [Reason 5] As such Altars and Idolatrous errors, have been (for the most part) married together in the Popish Church; so they that have (in the days of reformation) abolished the one, have demolished the other: as in the days of King Edward the sixth.

For though in the first Communion Book (that was published by his authority anno 1549.) there be frequent mention of an Altar, and but once of a Board or Table (and then it may be there were more Altars than Communion Tables in the Churches of the Kingdom) yet afterward, in the year following ( viz. 1550.) he gave order for the taking down of Altars, and restoring of Communion Tables, according to the first institution and practice of the Primitive Church. And in the second Communion book (confirmed by Act of Parliament) in the fifth and sixth of his reign, we find constant mention of a Communion Table, with appointment, that it be placed in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel, the Priest standing on the North side.

With this agreeth the Communion book set forth in the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and those Constitutions which were made in her time: as in the book of Canons, published in the year 1571. the Church-wardens are charged to see, that there be a fair joined Table, which may serve for Administration of the holy Communion. And the Books of several Editions, both in her time, and in the reign of King James, and our Sovereign that now is, do all agree with that Constitution (which we have observed before) both for the Tables placing in the Church, and the Priests standing at the Table. And the Canons of 1603 (with good conformity to the former rules) ordain thus: Whereas we have no doubt, but that in all Churches (of the Realm of England) convenient and decent Tables are provided, we appoint that the same Tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in time of divine service, with a Carpet of silk, or other decent stuff, and with a fair linen cloth, at the time of ministration, as becometh that Table; and so stand, saving when the holy Communion is administered, at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort (within the Church or Chancel) as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number, may communicate with the said Minister.

And if we take our prospect from the present State of our Church, as under the guidance of my Lord of Canterbury that now is, and thence look forward towards the future, we may have good hope (though Altars be made of stone, and Tables but of wood) that the newest of those shall crumble into dust, and be trodden under feet, while these shall stand up as perpetual monuments of the Primitive Institutions of the blessed Sacrament. For the first of the Articles of his Visitation (which as Sir Nathanael Brent his Visitor and Vicar general said in an Assembly of the Clergy, were with especial diligence dictated or penned by him) it is made a chife part of the Church-wardens care, that Communion Tables shall be provided in all their Churches, and they so placed, as may be of most use and edification. His words are these.

Whether have you in your several Churches, and Chapels, the whole Bible of the largest volume, the Book of Common Prayer (both fairly and substantially bound) a Font of stone set up in the ancient usual place, a convenient and decent Communion Table, with a Carpet of silk, or some other decent stuff, continually laid upon the same, at the time of divine service, and a fair linen cloth thereon at the time of the receiving of the holy Communion? and whether is the same Table placed in such convenient sort, (within the Chancel or Church) as that the Minister may be best heard in his prayer, and administration, and that the greatest number may communicate?

Sixthly, [Reason 6] from hence we may now except against such new Altars, as Schismaticall Novelties. Novelties in respect of the first founded Churches, which were before Popery was planted; and novelties again, in respect of the State of the chief reformed Churches, since it was supplanted: as for ours of England, from the year 1550. (until this present) Altars (by the most authentic Constitutions, and constant custom of our Church) have stood excommunicated, and Tables of wood authorized in their stead. And Schismaticall, because the Canon takes it for certain and undoubted, that there be decent and convenient Tables provided in all the Churches of the Realm of England: and if that (which your Lordship hath set up) be an Altar (and I know not by what more proper name to call it) there is Schism upon Schism, a division from the general, and a subdivision in our particular Church: for in the Choir there is a Table of wood, and above that, in the upper end of the old Consitory, an Altar of stone.

Seventhly, hereby Papists are emboldened, [Reason 7] and take heart, and hope to see their superstition restored again, as I have heard by divers; and he that was my first Informer of the erection of an Altar, when I denied it (as before I have said) replied presently (with a confident jollity) Nay, you will all of you come to us, or to it, at the length. And some others said, The Bishop is wise, and hath good intelligence how things are like to go, and he prudently applieth himself to the times, and acteth his part accordingly. And I doubt not but much more, and somewhat worse hath been said than I have heard, which if it came to your Lordships ear (at the first hand) would happily induce your Lordship to believe, that there is more need of double reins to keep men back, than of a goad or spur to prick men forward to the profession of Popery, especially in your Diocese; of a great part whereof our Sovereign that late was, was informed (and that too truly) that it abounded more with Popish Recusants, than any County of England. His Majesty had heard of some amendment then, but now the report goes, that some go back, and those men of some eminent note, which may be better known unto yourself, than to me; yet I have heard their Names, and can name mine Author for divers of them.

Eighthly, [Reason 8] To another sort of men, who (by way of gratitude for your great moderation towards them) have held it their duty to present their hearty devotions to Almighty God, for your long and comfortable continuance among us, this Altar (if you make the Consitory place where it is a graduate from a Court to a Church) will be a rock of offense, and make them as stiff against kneeling at the Sacrament, as any of their Adversaries flexible or pliable to bow to an Altar.

We have hitherto told them, that we are clear from all suspicion of Popish adoration, since (in the Articles of our Religion) it is expressly said, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance to be reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped: and that for the avoiding of superstition, it was ordained by the Church in King Edwards days, That no wafer cake, but common bread, without any print, should be used in the administration of the Sacrament. And in the Rubric of all our Communion books since his time, the like caution is set down in these words: And to take away the superstition that any person hath, or might have, in the bread and wine, it shall suffice, that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten at the Table with other meats.

But if Altars be set up, they will be more stiff in standing out against conformity in gesture, at the Sacrament, and we that are conformable, shall be less strong to contest with them in that particular, at least we shall do it with less hope of good success, and more disadvantage, by their greater jealousy, and deeper prejudice of our persuasions, wherein in former times (as your Lordship knows) our labor hath not been in vain bestowed on divers of them.

And is there, or can there be anything in that heap of stones, which may serve to repair the ruins which an Altar may make? If Altars had been needful, the first and purest Churches would not have wanted them; if they had been lawful, or useful, the zeal of the best reformed Churches would not have been so set against them, so hot, and so long: so hot, as to pull them down, so long, as all this while before noted, to keep them down below the footstool of the Lord's Table: and for a thing which they accounted naught, or needless, or both, to make alteration, and give offense, the prudence (not the piety only) of precedent ages hath not approved.

And how needless a thing was this (to say no worse) when (if it had not been done at all) none would ever have required a reason of the omission of it; but being done, very many (though you hear them not) make question of it, nay, make no question to censure and condemn it; and few there are that can give a good interpretation of it, or make a probable Apology for it, for ought I have yet heard, [Reason 9] or of myself can yet conceive. Especially since that (which shall be my last reason against this erection) if it be an Altar (for yet I say not that it is so) it is resolved by wise men, that it is not in the power of a particular Bishop (without warrant from the King, or his Council under him) either to set up, or to pull down Altars; which I the rather believe, because in King Edwards days (when they were to be deposed, and Communion Tables set up for the service of the Sacrament) Letters in the Kings name (subscribed with the consent of nine Privy Counselors) were directed to Bishop Ridley to that purpose, with considerations of reason for their removal, that it might be effected without, or with as little offense as possible might be.

In this discourse of mine, my Lord, I argue rather against that dull and dumb text of the handycrafts man, with the over quick conceits and crafty comments (which Popishly affected persons have set upon it) than against your intentions, in either appointment or permission of it, because yet I know not what they are.

And I will not presume to determine anything without direction from your Lordship; I know you will not say, as the Tribes of Reuben, or Gad, and half Tribe of Manasseh did, in defense of their Altar, when the other Tribes, suspecting a Schism, prepared to fight with them, that it is not an Altar for burnt offerings or sacrifice, but for a witness of uniformity in Religion with them that have them, and so plead for them, as I have shown.

For a man may sooner eat up an Altar of stone, though it were as big as a Church, than reconcile our Church and the Romish together, whatsoever the quirking Scotist Damport, masked under the title of Franciscus à sancta Clara, hath devised; or the flourishing Poet (whose wit outbraveth his name) hath lately fancied, touching the union in Religion. I believe Bishop Hall, who hath proved the repugnances irreconcilable

Howsoever, you may perhaps conceive it to be of some use unto you, to clear you from all imputation of Puritanism, which some have (as you say, and those that well know you, may swear) very undeservedly put up against you: and for that purpose perhaps you raised it up, to support your Episcopal reputation against that reproach.

Your learned and worthy Predecessour, Bishop Morton, had the same lot, for he was accused (to King James ) as a favourer of Puritans; but he cleared himself, first by a Letter to his Majesty, and afterwards by a Book, not by an Altar, or any alteration which might incline towards conformity to the opposite side; and hath since shown himself a vigilant watchman, and a courageous Champion for Christ and his Church, against the whole host of sacrificing Shavelings.

Nor will it suffice with some, to purge you from all appearance of Puritanism, though you should set up the Mass, with every trifle and tittle that belongs unto it; for there were Bishops in the Council of Trent, who were so far Papists, and a great deal further, and yet had the name of Puritans put upon them; and which may be more for any subjects credit and comfort, against the contempt of that reproach (when they do not deserve it) King James himself (though he was the greatest enemy of such as were truly worthy of that title) was (by some Papists) termed a Puritan, and that so rigid, as to be an enemy to Protestants.

Thus far, my Lord, I have made bold to represent unto you, what (in my conceit) doth much concern you to consider; and for the use you will make of it, I must recommend it to God, and your own conscience. It may be some (if they knew what I have done) would suggest I have herein presumed too much upon your Lordships patience and lenity. To such I can say thus much for myself, that Aquinas hath resolved, an inferior Clerke may sometimes admonish a Prelate; yea, and is bound unto it, with this proviso, that it be done with reverence and mansuetude; and that the greatest Prelates in the world have been sometimes freely reprehended by their inferiors; as Pope Eugenius the third, by Bernard; Pope Paul the fourth, by a private person in Rome, and Pope Pius the fifth, by Peter Soto (a Friar) who wrote Letters to him, wherein he admonished him freely, to take order that Bishops, and other inferior Pastors, might be compelled to keep residence with their charges, and threatened him with utter damnation, in the judgment of God, unless he did so.

But there will be no need of such vigorous words, your Lordships ready disposition to condescend to the sway of religious reason, would make it unmannerly malapertnesse in me, if I should (especially in such an ambiguous case wherein I know not how far your Lordship is engaged) use the fervency of the Friar to you, who never used any Popelike perverseness or frowardness to me.

I see myself enlarged beyond the limits of a Letter, which if you take to be a fault, take it also for my punishment: for I had never less leisure to be over long in my writing, than at this time; yet I cannot forbear to add further, the proof of my hearty desire, to have you deeply endeared in the favor of him whom the Apostle calleth ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) the Bishop of Souls, 1 Pet. 2.25. at whose Visitation (which though it come not in haste, will be sure and severe) I wish you may give a good account of your great charge, and that in the mean time you may rather grow, than abate in the reverend regard of all good men, which will either not be had, or not held, if it begin not at God; nor will God vouchsafe to favor or honor any in such sort, who sets not an high price on every piece or part of Religion, to secure and preserve it from all impeachment. For (as the Orator observed) it is no better than abandoned, if it be not every way, and entirely maintained: and in this, so far as your Lordship is interested more than others, so much more acceptable (I hope) will mine advertisements of it be unto you. If otherwise, I should find offense instead of favor (which my long experience of your benignity forbids me to fear) I shall be so far from repenting me of my plain dealing with you, that (if I know mine own heart) I think I should rather offer myself as a Sacrifice on an Altar, than leave any part of my duty to God or your Lordship (of so great moment as this is) unperformed. And so I rest

A POSTSCRIPT To the precedent Letter, for further satis faction to the Reader touching the publication of it, and some other points of moment that appertain unto it.

T He Letter it self hath shown upon what occasion it was written, and why it is now published I shall render the reason, and this it is; Since my coming to London, I was credibly informed, that a copy of it was brought hither (by what means I know not) prepared for the Press, and that (either with or without my consent) it would presently be printed. If so, said I, I had rather make use of mine own power over it, for setting of it forth, in the way of truth and fair daylight, than suffer it by stealth to come abroad, (and like a non licet Pamphlet) to wander about, without due correction, and a lawful pass.

Besides, by mine own edition of it, I may make use of a fit opportunity to present unto the Reader some particulars, wherein he may desire a further satisfaction, than the Letter it self (if it should come alone) could bring unto him: which I shall sort under these several heads.

1. The Bishops Answer returned unto my Letter.

2. The late verses written as an Elegy upon the pulling down of that stone-work, against which my Letter was directed.

3. Such discourses as since have been published in favor of Altars, and bowing towards them, though more for the name, than for the thing it self.

1. For the first Particular, What answer the Bishop returned to my Letter when he had read it.

That being the answer not of his hand, but of his tongue, and that many years since I would not take upon me now to report it, without a new recourse unto him, to rectify my remembrance thereof, lest (at such a distance of time) I should mistake his words or meaning) and therefore the last week, having told him (in effect) what I have related (touching the publishing of this Letter) I desired him to inform me what I should say (as from him) concerning that offensive structure, which was commonly called and condemned by the name of an Altar. This said he.

When I caused it to be set up, I protest I had no thought of an Altar; and I meant it only for a repositorie to the Preacher (in the use of a table) in that place; which though it were somewhat near the Choir, was not used but as a Consistory Court, and where (upon removal of the seats to the west end of the Cathedral) the materials (whereof it was made) were found ready for such a purpose: but hearing great offense was taken at it, I gave order for it to be taken down, which is done accordingly.

Whereupon followeth the second Particular, concerning the late verses, written as an Ironicall Elegy upon that occasion, whereof the Title is this.

A sad complaint of the late Altar newly erected, and prepared for a new sacrifice, by the Lord Bishop of Chester, in the upper end of the Chancel of the Cathedral Church of Chester, in the new intended Chapel there, newly pulled down (as it was high time.)

Then follow the verses, whereof I will select such and so many as may be a convenient introduction to discover the difference betwixt the ground of truth, and the descant of wit and fancy raised upon it: and they are these,

I like it well enough that as Elijah mocked the Priests of Baal, 1. Kings 18 27. So that all that set up Altars for Idolatry, or that Superstitiously bow unto them, should have their blind devotion played upon, both in Prose and verse, and so be sacrificed to Derision, and therefore since I see the composer of this Poem showeth a great deal of zeal against that, which my soul hateth as well as his, and from which my body is as free as his can be (for I never yet bowed head or knee, either to or towards an Altar or holy table) I will not call it (as some would do) a libel. But yet least the reader should suppose, that all this smoke (or if any will call it a perfume, because they resent it with delight, I will not contend with them) hath the fire of historical truth to produce and maintain it: I conceive it to be consonant both to good conscience, and necessary discretion, to make a true, but brief report, in what place the Altar stood, and what respect it had when it was erected.

The place was the same which was formerly (for many years) used for the Consistory Court, it is the utmost room of the Cathedral eastward, betwixt which and the Choir, there is an intermediate space (more large than it) which is employed to no particular use, but lieth open for passage round about it. In this place (for ought I can learn) there was never any exercise of Religion since the Churches reformation by Queen Elizabeth: and here it stood so far from all respect of Adoration, that I verily believe it never had so much as one Cap or Congey from any one, unless perhaps some simple Papist (seeing it so neglected) in pure pity rather than in piety, bestowed, as an alms, some part of his superabundant Superstition upon it; which yet I cannot think was often done (if done at all) because the passage to it was usually locked up, except in time of public prayer and sermon: Nor can I imagine the Bishop ever meant (whatever other meaning he might have) that any one should bow unto it or superstitiously direct their Adoration towards it.

And I cannot but conceive (at least of such as have been long and soundly trained up in the truth of our Protestant Doctrine against the absurdity of Popish Transubstantiation) that their curious and constant homage towards the Altar (as too many phrase it) hath more affinity with Hypocrisy than with Superstition.

They that have observed some late unpleasing passages (betwixt the Bishop and me) will marvel that I make this Apology for him, and I confess there is some cause to move them to it; but more, as I conceive, to move me to this.

1. For that (for the most part of mine intercourse with him) I have had more experience of favorable than of offensive dealing from him, and if that which is best and most should not more affect me than the contrary, I should contradict at once both my natural disposition, and Christian profession.

2. For the late difference betwixt us (which some may think I should not easily digest) I take it for a matter of too small moment, to be the root of a settled misconceit; for it was but about the setting down of a cypher without a figure (The choice of a Clark for the Convocation at York. )

And for that we were thus far agreed, that he was unwilling to be crossed in a second choice of me especially having been used to sway the Election himself, and it may be also pre-engaged to some other (who might have more mind and better leisure than I had, to spend time and to take pains to little purpose) and I was loath again to be designed the Clergies unprofitable servant in that kind, wherein (unless I did overdoe the duty of my place if so I could do anything and put a double task upon myself, by giving attendance by turns on both Convocations) I might be sure to return my talent in a Napkin, with no more profit by it, than he that hath labored for the wind, Eccles. 5.16.

3. The third and last particular is concerning such discourses, as (since my Letter was pend) have been published in print, in favor of Altars and bowing towards them, though they say more for the name, than for the thing it self; whereof, though much hath been said, a little may suffice to set us right in that point.

For that, first I take it to be a very good and safe rule of Religious worwip (and especially pertinent to the state of the Evangelical Church) which the Prophet Isaiah delivereth in these words; In that day shall a man look to his maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the holy one of Israel, and he shall not look to the Altars, the work of his hands, neither shall he respect that which his fingers have made, Isaiah 17. ver. 7, 8.

Secondly, though some men's slighting both of the Lord's Table, and Temple, required a remedy to keep off contempt, both from them and the exercises of Religion belonging to them, and that usually the manner of Reformers of irreligious errors, is to do as Gardeners do with crooked twigs (which is to bend them as far the contrary way, not that they should remain crooked on either hand, but that afterwards they might rest in a right consistence) yet there was great care to be taken in this case (which some writers for Altars seem not to regard so much as they ought) that the remedy of Prophanesse might not be such as might foment superstition, a sore which in some constitutions doth easily turn to the Gangreen of Idolatry, and is so much the more dangerous, as there be the more subtle and sedulous agents to infect men with it; and as they that are most infected, will the less acknowledge their own disease, or be more unwilling to admit of the means to cure them of it: In this respect I much feared that what ground was gotten in this way against the Profane would be easily turned to the advantage of such as were Popish.

Thirdly, be it the Ancient Fathers as is alleged (by divers who have written for Altars ) do frequently call the Communion Table by the name of Altar (as they use the word Priest and Levite, and other terms of conformity to the Old Testament) yet if they were now alive again, and observed how their language hath been misapplied to the promotion of Popery, they would (I believe) no more approve of such expressions, as formerly were frequent in their discourses, then we do now think it fit to use the word Tyrant for a King, though anciently all Kings were called so, even Jupiter himself, by Homer and others, when they meant to speak very honourably of him, or to call our Bishops Popes, which was a common title to them all in former times, when the Bishops of Rome were better men, than since they made it peculiar to themselves.

Fourthly, Though the forms of Speech, and Phrases touching Altars and Gestures, were tendered unto us in the name of the fathers (as in Altar treatises we find them cited) very few would look so far back as to their times, for direction in Religion, but to most (no doubt) the next precedent Age would be the Horizon of their holy observation: for it is the manner of most, both Papists, and other ignorant people, when they hear •• y thing of the old religion, to fancy none other then that of their Popish Ancestors, which in respect of true venerable and orthodox Antiquity, is in no other sense, to be called the old Religion, then Almanacs out of date are called old Almanacs because they have a precedency of time though far short if old or Ancient before that of the year current.

Fifthly, Albeit it be lawful, to call the Communion table by the name of an Altar (for which term there hath) been but too much striving of late) yet commonly to call it so (as some do) to put the better title which is the Lord's Table out of use is not to be liked, much less to bring it into disgrace: as he would have done, who pleading for the name Altar, against the Book called The holy table name & thing, had a mind and meaning to call his answer to it, Trapezuntius vapulans 1. The table man beaten: but upon better advice he bethought himself of a fitter title for his treatise.

Sixthly, Since the Papists never, or very rarely use the word Table, but Altar both out of too much devotion too it, and too great dis-affection of us, & our Church, it would be convenient that we were (at least) more spareing in the use of the word Altar, and Generally more accustomed ourselves to the name Table, the rather because since we have seemed in terms, and some other ways, to comply with them, more then in former times, they have multiplied in number and advanced in confidence: And it would become our human Prudence and Protestant zeal (for to be a Protestant is not to be a lukewarm Laodicean but a fervent professor of sound faith, and Religion) to cut of all occasions of their increase and encouragement, and that they may abate in both, to do what lawfully we may for contracting of their number, and correcting of their humor, and spirit, that (notwithstanding their desires and designs) we may still be happy in a constant enjoyment of truth, and peace.

Lastly Comparing what I have written in the precedent letter to the Bishop, with that I have read in the discourses for Altars set forth in print (since the date thereof though I have intentively perused them, I find nothing in them for Altars (either in respect of name, or thing, or use) to alter my judgment for the negative Tenet nor to refute the reasons, which I have produced to prove it, so that to this Postscript (to the Reader) I may sincerely subscribe (as a learned friend did to me when I requested him to present my letter to the Bishop)