CONTAYNING NOT ONELY AN Historicall relation of all those severall Popish Ceremonies and practises which Mr. IOHN COSENS hath lately brought into the said Cathedrall Church: But likewise a punctuall confuration of them; especially of erecting Altars, and cringing to them, (a practise much in vse of late) and of praying towards the East.

PSAL. 4. 3.

O yee sonnes of men, how long will yee turne my glory into shame? how long will you loue Vanitie, and seeke after leasing?

PHIL. 3. 18, 19.

For many walke, of whom I haue told you often, but now tell you weeping, that they are the enemies of the Crosse of Christ. Whose end is destruction, whose God is theyr bellie, whose glory is there shame, who minde earthly things.

Printed at Edenborough in Scotland, 1628. By the Heyres of ROBERT CHARTERIS.



PSAL. 31. 6. v.

I hate them that holde of superstitious vanities.

Imprinted, 1628:

Psalme. 31. part of the 6. verse.

IN the common translation, I haue hated them that hold of superstitious vanities.

In the new translation, Them that regard lying vanities.

In the Geneva translation, Them that giue them­selues to deceitfull vanities: whereupon they giue this good note. This affection ought to be in all Gods children, to hate whatsoever thing is not graunted vpon Gods word, as deceitfull and vaine.

Such are all humane Traditions, Ethelothreskiai, superstitious will-worships the inventions of mans braine.

The vulgar Latine hath Odisti, thou ô God hatest. And Vatab [...]us hath, Odi observantes vanitates fru­stra, or vanitates mendacy, vaine vanities, or the va­nities of alye. That is saith he;

Odi observantes opera quae prae se ferunt vanitatem et mendacium: id est eos qui superstitioni student, & ea observant, quae à vero Dei cultu animos piorum a­vocant.

I hate them that obserue workes carrying a shew of, or which vphold and countenance vanity and falshood. That is hate the followers and favourers of superstiti­on, [Page 2] observing things which withdraw godly mindes, from the true worship of God.

Wow whereas some haue Odi, other Odisti, God hateth, or I hate; they are all one, to one effect, for we must hate what God hateth, we must loue what God loveth; wee must apply our selues to Gods will, and conforme our selues to the similitude of God, after whose image we are made, as much as we can.

Be you perfect, saith our Saviour, as your heaven­ly Father is perfect. Therefore we must hate with a perfect hatred, whatsoever God hateth: as David did, Psal. 139. 21. ver.

Doe not I hate them ô Lord that hate thee? Doe not I earnestly contend with those that rise vp against thee? Yea I hate them with a perfect hatred, or vnfeined ha­tred, I count them mine enemies.

On which words one observeth well, The Pro­phet teacheth vs boldly to contemne all the hatred of the wicked, and friendship of the world, when they would hinder vs from serving God sincerely.

God is good, yea goodnesse it selfe; Therefore it is not possible but God should loue best that which is most like himselfe, and hate the contrary: So must we doe, not loue our selues, or that which is like our selues, for we are nought.

Omnis homo mendax, every man is a lyer, and the imaginations of mans heart are onely evill continually saith God.

Therefore we must not loue but hate our owne imaginations, inventions, and lyes; and loue God who is good, and Christ who is truth, vnder [Page 3] whose lipps, no vanity, no guile, no lye can lie.

As a Father saith, expounding my text: Recte veritas odit vanitatem, quia vanitas in falsitate con­fistit odisse enim dicitur id quod reprobat.

Christ being truth, must needes hate vanity, because vanity consists in falshood; for what a man hates, that he reiects.

Esau was a reprobate, reiected of God, because God hated him: As we reade in the first of Mala­chy, Iacob haue I loved, but Esau haue I hated; yet here­in we may not imitate God, in hating any man vn­der pretence, that we thinke him a reprobate.

We may not presume to enter into Gods iudge­ments, and giue sentence of election, or reprobati­on vpon any. Because we know not, he that now stands, whether he may fall, and he that hath fal­len, whether he may rise againe, and stand.

Therefore in that respect we must hate none; we must loue our enemies and all.

As our Saviour saith in the 5. of Matth. Yee haue heard that it hath beene said of ould: Loue thy neigh­bour, and ha [...]e thine enemy: but I say vnto you, Loue your enemies.

And St. Iohn saith, 1. Epist. 3. chap. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. And againe, He that hateth his brother, walketh in darknesse. And yet a­ gaine, He that hateth his brother, is a manslayer.

Was David a manslayer? did he walke in dark­nesse, and abide in death? because he hated them that hold of superstitious vanities?

No verily: for he hated not their persons, but their iniquities, their evill workes, and affections, [Page 4] he did wish their amendment, and saluation, ta­king God for an example, of whom thus he spea­keth, in his 5. Psal.

Thou art not a God that loveth wickednesse, thou ha­test all them that worke vanity. Yet he saith else where: Thou ô Lord savest both man and beast, how excellent is thy mercy ô God.

Which appeareth, in that he maketh his Sunne to shine, and his raigne to fall vpon iust, and vn­iust. And as St. Paul saith, he would haue all to be sa­ved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Therefore he loveth the man, though he hate their manners, their naughtinesse, and vanities.

So must we do, as the Prophet Amos bidds vs, in his 5. ch. 15. v. Hate the evill, and leue the good: we must not simply hate, nor simply loue, because no man is so absolutely evill, but he hath some good­nes; nor so absolutely good, but he hath some bad­nes: As our Saviour saith, There is none good but God.

How then? they that holde of superstitious va­nities, must we not hate them? Not their persons, which may perhaps haue some sparkes, some tin­cture of goodnesse; but their badnesse is to be ha­ted, and themselues, quatenus, so farre forth, as they invent, and maintaine superstitious vanities, opposite to Gods Law, which they ought to loue.

As David professeth, in his 119. Psal. 113. vers. I hate vaine inventions, but thy law doe I loue.

So must we, loue Gods law, which forbiddeth i­dolatry, and hate vaine inventions, and the inven­tours of vanities, when they would insnare and in­tangle vs with their fraudulent impostures, to se­duce, [Page 5] and allure vs to their superstitious and idol services.

So farre forth we must hate them, though they be never so neere, and deare vnto vs: As our Savi­our teacheth vs, Luke 14. 26. verse.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, brother and sister, wife and children, he can not be my Disciple.

That is, he that casts not off all affections, and desires, which draw him from God to the world, from Christ to Antichrist.

So then it is no impiety to hate our carnall and naturall friends, when they become our ghostly enemies, hindering Gods glory and our salvation.

Neither must we hate them secretly, hold our tongues, and let them alone. As the Prophet Ho­ses saith, Ephraim is turned after Idols; Let him alone; that is, trouble not your selues with him, he is in­corrigible, In a desperate case; Let him alone, let him perish in his sins: But we must indeavour to a­mend our Ephraimites, hoping to reclaime them, from their Idols, after which of late they haue ha­stily turned.

But if they proue stubborne, and stifnecked, then must we cry aloud, and proclaime their folly: we must discover their blindnesse, and nakednesse to the world; we must persecute them with fire and sword; fire of zeale, and sword of Gods word; ha­ving the lawes of God, and the King on our side.

As it is said in the 17. Apoc. 16. ver. The 10 Hornes, that is the 10. Nations shall hate the Whore of Babylon, the Church of Rome, and shall make her desolate, and na­ked, [Page 6] and shall eate her flesh, and burne her with fire.

But what are those vaine superstitions, the hol­ders whereof ought to be hated? Some thinke Magicall arts are meant thereby; to which saith Pliny, Orientales populi ad insaniam us (que) addicti sunt. The Easterne people ranne mad after Magick; which Gods Law vtterly condemnes.

But the superstitious vanities in my text, are more generall: Vanitiy of vanities, (saith Salomon) all is va­nity, beside the feare of God and keeping of his commandements.

Those vanities, saith a learned interpreter, are hu­mane traditions, superstitious Ceremonies, which vn­dermine and over throw both the Law and the Gospell; after which Ceremonies, Orientales, our East-wor­shippers runne made in a manner.

And what are Ceremonies? are all vaine? are all superstitious? God forbid.

Many are tolerable, A few necessary;

Most are ridiculous, And some abominable.

Indeed in the beginning, when the law was first published, it pleased Almighty God to traine vp the people of Israell, vnder a multitude of Cere­monies, to keepe them in exercise, and helpe their infirmity.

By the externall observation of which, he would accustome them, to his spirituall worship; and nur­ture them, in his feare and obedience; till the comming of Christ, who was the end, the comple­ment, the consummation of Ceremonies.

For when Christ had appeared, who was the truth and substance, the Shadowes departed: nei­ther [Page 7] would he burden his Church, with traditions and rudiments any longer.

Onely to preserue the memory of his benefits, he ordeined two Sacraments, & left to his Church liberty to make Lawes and Canons, for order and comelinesse agreeable to his word.

For, Ceremoniarum anima, saith one, est verbum Dei: The life, and soule of every Ceremony, is the word of God; without which, it is dead and dam­ned.

But Popes, and papall Prelates, not content with that simplicity which pleased the Apostles, and primitiue Church; would needes adde Cere­mony to Ceremony, increasing their number in infinitum, till they had heapt vp a world of Cere­monies, which they adorn'd with worldly splen­dor and bravery.

Adeo vt, & Gentes & Iudeos, externi cultus super­stitione Christiani vicerint, saith Szegedine. Insomuch as Christians haue surpassed both Iewes and Gen­tiles in the superstition of externall worship.

Which malady, or plague rather of the Church, began then to prevaile, saith he; Quando relicto verbo Dei mundana sapientia administrari caepit religio Christi; When the government of Christs religion began to be managed, nay mard, and mangled with worldly wis­dome; Gods word being abandoned.

For now, saith he, not one among a thousand, can be content to serue God, in spirit and truth; but he will affect some superstitious Ceremony, to worship God therewith.

Whereas Christs Church, in stead of many rites, and [Page 8] signes, of which the Iewish religion consisted: A Christo acceperit paucam, saith he, eadem (que) factu facillima, in­tellectu augustissima, observatione castissima.

The Church hath received of Christ but a few; and those most easie to be done, maiesticall for contemplati­on, chast and vndefiled in observation.

Quid hac ad insulsas Caeremoniarum nugas? Quid ad superstitionem plusquam Iudaicam? Quid ad Phi­laricam tyrannidem quae extruciat miseras conscien­tias? Quid ad tot Idololatriae portenta?

What are these to the trifles of vnsavoury Ceremo­nies? To superstition more then Iudaicall? To their divelish tyranny in tormenting wretched consciences? Nay what are they to the prodigious monsters of Popish Idolatry?

Whereupon he concludeth: Non esse Caeremoni­arū multitudine onerandam Ecclesiam: Christs Church may not be over whelmed with an Ocen Sea of Ceremo­nies.

It must fly the superfluous furniture of pom­pous rites, and Papall Pageants, devised onely to astonish simple people, to ravish their eyes, and mindes, and to amaze them with admiration.

Now indeed the originall cause of most of our superstitious ceremonies, is that Popish opinion; that Christs Church hath yet Priests, Sacrifices, and Altars.

Whereas in truth Christ was sent of God to be the last priest, which should offer the last Sacrifice, vpon the last Altar, that ever the world should haue.

He had, saith Paul, Hebr. 7. Aparabaton ierosunen; [Page 9] a Priesthood which could not passe or be resigned to any ther: He was not to haue any successour, being a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedick.

Having neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life, but made like vnto the Sonne of God abideth a Priest continually.

Not made as the sonnes of Aaron were after the law of a carnall commandement; but after the power of an endlesse life; saith he, in the 16. verse. For they be­ing mortall men could not otherwise continue but by their lineall succeeding of their dying fathers one after another till the passion of Christ.

After whose sacrifice offered on the Crosse, which was the conclusion and consummation of all sacrifices: the whole Ceremoniall Law, Mosai­call Sacrifices, and Priesthood, were to end, with the beautifull Temple, and Altar therein.

Onely the sacrifice of prayer, of praise, & thanks­giving, which every faithfull man and woman must offer to God vpon the most holy Altar Christ, is left to the Church.

So Ireneus calls him, lib. 4. Altare nostrum Christus Christ is our Altar. And Epiphanius saith, Christus est Victima, Sacerdos, Altare, Deus & homo, omnia in omnibus pro nobis factus: Christ is the Sacrifice, the Priest, the Altar, both God and man, made all in all for our sakes.

To revive therefore and raise vp againe Iewish types and figures long since dead and buried; in bringing in Altars in stead of Tables, Priests in stead of Ministers; propitiatory sacrifices in stead of Sacraments. Is it not Antichristian presump­tion, [Page 10] and sacrilegious impiety, robbing Christ of his honour, and vs of our salvation?

What is it else but an apostacy? a publike pro­testation to renounce the onely sacrifice, and the onely sacrificer Christ Iesus.

It is the reiteration, saith a learned writer, of the ex­piatory sacrifice offered by Christ vpon the Altar of the Crosse, and the surrogation of an vpstart Priest, for Christ the eternall Sacrificer, and Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeke.

The ordinary Glosse saith well. Externi ritus & Ceremoniae Legis, quia fuerunt vmbra Christi tum venturi, et mysteriorum, ideo adveniente veritate E­vangelica, illicita facta sunt, & evannerunt: The ex­ternall rites and Ceremonies of the Law, because they were shadowes of Christ to come, and of his mysteries, therefore the truth of the Gospell being once come, they, are made vnlawfull, and haue vanished out of sight.

They ought not then to be patternes or presi­dents for Christians to follow since the comming of Christ who hath accomplished all.

And the renewing of them derogateth much from Christs soveraigne sacrifice, for it implieth imperfection in the same, As St. Paul proveth, by the legall sacrifices offered so often because they were imperfect.

Origen writeth thus in his Treatise on Matthew, veniente Principe Sacerdotum, the Prince of Priests be­ing come, the Priest in figure ceased. The Temple made of stones is destroyed, to giue place to the Temple made of lively stones: Effossum est Altare quod erat deor­sum: The Altar below on earth was broken downe, [Page 11] because the heavenly Altar had appeared.

What haue we then to doe with them if they be past and gone? Surely nothing. True Chri­stians ever since their Lords death, haue left them both Priests and Altars to Iewes and Gentiles.

But the whore of Babylons bastardly brood, do­ing vpon their Mothers beauty, that painted Har­lot the Church of Rome, haue laboured to restore her all her robes and iewells againe: especially her looking glasse the Masse, in which she may behold all her bravery.

For they despising the plaine simplicity and modest attire of that graue matron Christs holy spouse haue turned her officers all out of dores with all hir houshold stuffe, hir Tables, hir Cupps, hir bookes, hir Communions, the very names of hir Ministers, and such like words vsed by the ho­ly Ghost throughout the new Testament.

In stead whereof the words Priest, and Altar, are taken vp by them; because without Priest no Sa­crifice can be offered; without Priest and Sacri­fice there is no vse of an Altar: and without all 3. Priests, Sacrifice, and Altar, there can be no Masse.

But the Masse comming in brings in with it an inundation of Ceremonies, Crosses, and Crucifix­es, and Challices, and Images, Copes, and Can­dlesticks, and Tapers, and Basons, and a thousand such Trinckets; which attend vpon the Masse: All which wee haue seene in this Church since the Communion table was turned to an Altar.

Yet indeed it is no Altar, that's but a nick-name, it is wrongfully so called. For if it be an Altar there [Page 12] must needes be a Sacrifice offered by a Priest to God; but in the Communion nothing is offered to God but prayers, but praise and thanksgiving, which the hearts and lipps of all faithfull Com­municants offer to God by their Mediator Christ.

They lay them not on a Table, they lay not their thanks, they lay not their prayers vpon an Al­tar, either of wood, or stone; as the Aaronicall Priests, laid their burnt offerings and incense.

We set indeed the bread and wine vpon the ta­ble, besigning them to a Sacramentall vse by the consecration of Gods holy word: we doe not offer them to God, but God offereth them, and giveth them to vs, and with them his sonne Christ, if we be faithfull and worthy receivers.

To such they are in deed and in truth spiritually, and Sacramentally, the very body and blood of Christ, then which more holy things the whole world affordeth not.

But if it be an Altar as Masse-priests and out priests vse to call it; and the body and blood of Christ a sacrifice to God offered thereon, then is the Altar better, and more holy then the body of Christ, for it sanctifieth it.

Marke this, if the table whether wood or stone be an Altar, it is better then the body of Christ, and holier, (which to say or think is horrible blas­phemy) it is holier I say because it sanctifieth Christs body and blood if it be an Altar.

For without contradiction saith the Apostle, Heb. 7. 7. v. the lesse is blessed of the better, proving there­by that Melchisedecke was a better man then Abra­ham, [Page 13] and we know that to blesse is to consecrate or sanctifie.

So saith our Saviour in the 23. of Matth. 3. v. re­prooving the Pharisees, who taught, whosoever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing, but whosoever shall sweare by the gift, that is the sacrifice vpon the Altar, he is guilty, Ye fooles and blinde, whether is greater the gift or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift. So say I to such fond and ignorant teachers, who call them­selues priests and the table an Altar.

Ye blinde popish priests vnderstand ye not that by erecting an Altar ye advance it aboue the body of Christ, ye make it better then Christs body, by making it a sacrifice sanctified by the Altar.

And I am verily persuaded that some there are, who esteeme more of it then they doe of Christs body.

For I haue seene, I haue seene I say the priest (so will he needs be called) take vp the body and blood after consecration, and holding them in his hands, make a low legg to the Altar; and before he set them downe againe bow himselfe devoutly and worship the Altar.

He yeelded no reverence at all to Christs body, neither when he held it in his owne, nor when he had delivered it, into the receivers hands.

What is it to preferre a stone or a peece of wood before the body of Christ if this be not? to bow to his altar, and not to his body, to make many leggs to the Kings chaire, and none to the King himself.

And this is evident by their daily practise, for the altar is every day worshipped with ducking to [Page 14] it, though there be no Communion, nor any man there; Christs body is not worshipped with duck­ing, no not at the Communion: Is it not worse then popery?

But the Fathers many times call it an Altar. It is true, for the mystery of iniquity began betime to worke by small beginnings lurking in words.

Sacerdotes, Altaria, Priests, and Altars, and reie­cting them which Gods Spirit had taught, and the Apostles ever vsed, Ministros & Mensas, Ministers and Tables, that way might be made for Antichrist and his abominable sacrifice of the Masse.

Yet the Fathers worshipped not their altars: Ter­tullian, saith Bellarmine, was the first that mentioneth geniculation, that is ducking to altars, which he learned of his Master Montanus, the first founder of crossings, and duckings, and many other Cere­moniall fooleries, to which he annexed the gift of the holy Ghost.

For Tortullian, saith Chemnitius, was the authour, omnium fere Ceremoniarum Papisticarum; in a manner of all Popish Ceremonies.

Whereupon arose an opinion that Montanus the heretick was the holy Ghost; that he claimed the name, vertue, and dignity of the holy Ghost; which is not credible so learned a Doctour as Ter­tullian could belieue.

But hee ascribed as the papists doe, such power and holinesse to the Ceremonies which Montanus had devised, that without them none could bee partakers of the holy Ghost.

As if the holy Ghost were annexed to Ceremo­nies, [Page 15] included in Ceremonies, collated by Cere­monies.

Whereupon saith Bugenhagius a learned German, The Church of Rome condemned Montanus for an he­retick, and yet neverthelesse retained his heresies.

Which, saith he, hereby is manifest, in that the books which defend his heresies are preserved, but the workes of those Fathers which confuted them are lost.

Montanus therefore was the first Altar worship­per, and they that now imitate him in ducking to Altars are little better then hereticall Montanists.

But giue me leaue I pray you to aske this questi­on, why bow you not the knee to the font also, it being Lavacrum regenerationis, the laver of regene­ration, as honourable, and a more necessary Sa­crament.

For without Baptisme none can bee saved, as some teach; but many that are baptised dye, before they come to the yeares of discretion, and proba­tion, that they may be fit to receiue the Commu­nion, yet we see none make leggs to the Font.

Why doe they not? Christ is as much present there, and as really, and the Font is an Altar as well as the Table, and so it was termed in the pri­mitiue Church by Prudentius, who lived 1300. yeares agoe.

Who speaking of a combate betweene Chastity and Lust, after Chastity had killed Lust.

Abolens Baptismate labem, Catholico [...]n Templ [...] divini Fontis ad Aram Consecrat gladium: (saith he)

Having washed away her spotts in Baptisme she con­secrates [Page 16] her sword, wherewith she slew her enemie, to the Catholick Church, and hangs it vp, Fontis ad Aram, at the Altar of the Font. Loe here the Font also is called an A [...]tar.

Therefore honour ye the Font as well as the Table with one and the same worship of bowing the knee to it, or else you are hereticks, affording more holinesse and more dignity to one Altar, and to one Sacrament, then to the other.

For either your worship is religious, or civill; if it bee civill yee are absurd ideots in honouring stocks and stones more then any poore man who is the image of God; for who will low [...] too low to a begger as to sweep the ground with his beard, if it be not very short.

If [...]t be religious you are more absurd in prefer­ring the memory of Christs body and blood, be­fore the whole Trinity: Seeing you are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, and not in the name of Christ alone.

The Lords Table therefore and the Font they are Altars both alike, as an apple and an egg are o­nions both alike; that is neither of them properly and truly, though they haue a kind of resemblance, and being both alike, and of equall worthinesse, why are they so farr put asunder the whole length of the Church, one at the head, the other at the foote?

Why are they not set in the body of the Church or quire, being the fittest place to receiue the grea­test assemblies and most Communicants.

Why is the Altar lifted vp to the top of the Sanctuary or Chancell, and the Font not admitted so much as to the bottome? It is not suffered to stand in the wonted place behinde the quire dore, why is one preferred as holier then the other, be­ing Sacraments of equall dignity.

In St. Peters Church at Zuricke the Lords Table and the Font or Baptistory stood both in one place as witnesseth Hospinian: and so they stood here all the time of our former Bishops, till the proud Al­tar mounting aloft, shouldered the poore Font out of the quire, and tossing it from post to pillar thrust it almost quite out of dores.

Doe I say almost? 'tis out of the Church quite, for one thing is Templum, another thing Ecclesia.

Ecclesia is the Church where a congregation of people vseth to assemble, to heare the word prea­ched, which in Latine is Concio, and it signi­fieth not onely the Sermon, but caetum, the multi­tude meeting together to heare Gods word.

And the Preacher is called Ecclesiastes, or Concio­nator, derived from the same words.

Whereupon I conclude that where no congre­gation vseth to meete to heare Sermons, that place is no Church; and consequently the Font being set in no place of assembly, it is not in the Church: I confesse it is, in Templo, in part of this vast fabrike, but there it is where the people never meet to hear Gods word preached no more then they doe in the steeple where the bells hang.

For this cause St. Bernard reprehended in his time, Templorum immensas altitudines, et immode­ratas [Page 18] longitudines; the excessiue heights, and immo­derate lengths of Temples.

Why so? because he misliked worldly magnifi­cence in the spirituall service of God, who dwells not in Temples made with hands.

Also, because he would not haue the Minister and people sundred, nor scattered abroad in spati­ous roomes, but ioyned together as neere as might be. Who standing in the midst, vugli stante co­rona, the people all about him, round in a ring, he may better be heard, and they edified.

For all things in the Church, ought to be done to edification, saith Paul, which then is best, when the Minister abides with the people, or they draw neere to him: He may not runne away in a Cope, as farre as he can get him from the congregation.

But what a tricke is this which our newfangled Ceremony-mongers have taken vp of late, to goe in a Cope to the Altar, to say two or three prayers after the Sermon? why vse they this ceremony, not mentioned in the Communion booke or Canons?

Why suffer they not the Preacher to dismisse the congregation with the blessing of Gods peace as was wont to be done, and our last Bishop esteemed to be best.

How dare they put off, and put on a Cope so often in one service, not onely to pray, but to reade the Epistle and Gospell, and ten commandements at the Altar onely, and no other place where the Le­tany and other service is read, there being no such thing appointed in the Booke of Common praier? And the Canons according to the advertisements [Page 19] published in the seventh yeare of Queene Eliza­beth, commanding no Copes to be vsed, but Sur­plices, when all other prayers are said at the Com­munion table; saue onely at the administration of the holy Communion.

Why doe they these things contrary to law? and never done in our Church before since the Masse was banished?

Is it because they are enamoured with Copes? doe they dote vpon Copes?

Or are the Psalmes and Chapters read in the bo­dy of the Church not so good Gospel, nor so wor­thy to be coped?

Or is there so neere affinity betweene Copes and Altars, are they so married together that they can not be parted?

Or thinke they their prayers and other service more holy in such priestly vestiments, in sancto san­ctorum, in that most holy place so devoutly duckt vnto, by our foolish, bewitched, and besotted Ga­lathians.

Againe, why sing they the Nicen Creed in a Cope at the Altar, the booke appointing it to be said as the Apostles Creed is said, not sung.

Why make they the people to stand vp when it is sung, that ceremony of standing being forbid­den by law, by which you that stand, (marke what I say) you that stand are to be punished for obey­ing such vnlawfull commands, as I mean to proue when time shall serue?

Lastly, why forbid they singing of Psalmes in such a tune, as all the people may sing with them, [Page 20] and praise God together, before and after Ser­mons, as by authority is allowed, and heretofore hath beene practised both here and in all refor­med Churches?

How dare they in stead of Psalmes, appoint An­thems, (little better then prophane Ballads some of them I say, so many Anthems to be sung, which none of the people vnderstand, nor all the singers themselues, which the preface to the Communion booke, and the Queenes Iniunctions, will haue cut off, because the people is not edified by them?

It is for spite they beare to Geneva, which all pa­pists hate, or for the loue of Rome, which because they cannot imitate in having Latine service, yet they will come as neer it as they can, in having ser­vice in English so said and sung, that few or none can vnderstand the same? I blame not the singers, most of which mislike these prophane innovati­ons, though they be forced to follow them?

Their guides are in fault, blinde guides, mem­bers of our Church, rotten members I doubt, of higher degree; to whom all men and women are rank puritans and schismaticks, to be thrust outand expeld, if they refuse to dance after their fantasti­call pipe in every idle ceremony.

These cry with the Iewes, Templum Domini, Tem­plum Domini: The Church of God, the service of God; when indeed their whole service is little else then superstitious vanity.

What is it but hypocriticall and Pharisaicall de­votion? vnder the colour of long prayer, mor­ning, and evening, and midday, they devoure, [Page 21] what devoure they? not poore widowes houses, but rich benefices, whole townes and villages.

For seldome shall you see a stout ceremony-mon­ger, but the same will also be a notorious Non-re­sident, a very Tot-Quot; not content with one or two little ones, but foure or fiue great preferments and dignities.

And still he aspireth, and climeth higher, never thinking himselfe sufficiently rewarded for his great learning, and service of God, in sitting at Church three times a day, to heare men pipe, and chaunt, and chaunt himselfe where he listeth.

A base imployment, prohibited by Pope Gre­gory himselfe; who speaking de cantu Ecclesiastico, hath these words.

Prohibitum est ne quit in Ecclesia cantet, nisi inferi­ores ordines, vtpote Subdiaconi; Diaconi vero lectioni & praedicationi incumbant. It is forbidden, saith the Pope, that any chaunt in Churches, but men of meane degree, none aboue Subdeacons; but Ministers or Dea­cons, must apply themselues to reading and preaching; for that makes most for the peoples edification, to which all must be done.

And when we take orders of the Bishop, charge is given to reade, and preach Gods word, not to sing: any lewd Lay-man can doe that, without laying on of a Bishops hands, without consecra­tion.

St. Paul saith, I was not sent to baptise, (much lesse to sing in a quire) but to preach. And, woe to me, saith he, if I preach not the Gospell: he saith not, woe to me, if I obserue not the canonicall houres of devotion in singing.

This makes me call to remembrance, a strange speech little better then blasphemy, vttered lately by a young man, in the presence of his Lord, and many learned men.

I had rather goe forty miles to a good service, then two miles to a Sermon. (Os durum.)

And what meant he by a good service? his mea­ning was manifest; where goodly Babylonish robes were worne, imbroydered with images.

Where he might heare a delicate noise of singers, with Shakebuts, and Cornets, and Organs, and if it were possible, all kinde of Musicke, vsed at the dedication of Nabuchodonosors golden Image.

To such a dainty service of heavenly Harmony, the singular devotion, and hot zeale of this holy man, would carry him over hills and dales, through fire and water, rather forty miles, then two miles to a Sermon.

How think you? was not this a profane, witlesse, gracelesse, Antichristian saying, which preferreth piping, and singing before Gods ordinance of preaching.

Yet learned Aretius, that famous Helvetian Di­vine, sticks not to say: In Papatu, cantus Ecclesiasti­asticus omnia pessundat, adeo vt pro doctrina, perpetua regnat Musica. In the Popes Kingdome Church chaun­ting marrs all, insomuch as in stead of the perpetuall sounding of Gods holy word, in the hearts of the faith­full, the sound of musicall melody, rings in their eares, and raignes in their mindes, they are so tickled, nay ravished with the delight thereof.

But what say by him who accusing our fathers, [Page 23] not long since said: when they banished Popery by taking away the Masse, that they tooke away all religion, and the whole service of God? they called it a reformation, saith he, but it was indeed a de­formation, whereby Gods service was disordered and mard.

But now the case is altered, for of late yeares, re­ligion hath beene begun, prettily well to be resto­red againe in this Church: and by the boldnesse of resolute and couragious officers, way is made for reducing of the Masse.

For before we had Ministers, as the Scripture calls them, we had Communion tables, we had Sa­craments: but now we haue Priests, and Sacrifi­ces, and Altars, with much Altar furniture, and ma­ny Massing implements. Nay what want we? haue not all religion againe?

For if religion consist in Altar-ducking, Cope­wearing, Organ-playing, piping and singing.

Crossing of chushions, and kissing of clouts, oft starting vp, and squatting downe, nodding of heads, and whirling about, till their noses stand Eastward.

Setting Basons on the Altar, Candlesticks and Crucifixes; burning Waxe-candles, in excessiue number, when and where there is no vse of Lights.

And that which is worst of all, guilding of An­gels, and garnishing of Images, and setting them vp aloft; whereas Lactantius saith, procul dubio i­bi nulla est religio vbi sunt Simulacra: without doubt there is no religion in that Church, where Images are placed.

If I say religion consist in these and such like su­perstitious vanities, ceremoniall fooleries, apish toyes, and popish trinckets, we had never more re­ligion then now.

And though our Leiturgy be not in Latine, yet order is taken, by confus [...]dnesse of voices, some squeaking, some blating, some roaring, and thun­dering with a multitude of melodious instruments that the greatest part of the service, is no better vn­derstood, then if it were in Hebrew or Irish.

Nay the Sacrament it selfe is turned well neare into a theatricall stage play, that when mens minds should be occupied about heavenly meditations, of Christs bitter death and passion, of their owne sinnes, of faith and repentance, of the ioyes of hea­ven, and the torments of hell: At that very season, very vnseasonably, their eares are possest with plea­sant tunes, and their eyes fed with pompous spe­ctacles, of glistering pictures, and histrionicall ge­stures, representing vnto vs Apollo's solemnities in his Temple at Delos, which the Poet describeth in his fourth of his Aeneiods.

Instaurat (que) charos, misti (que) Altaria circum.

Cretes (que), Dryopes (que) fremunt picti (que) Agathyrsi.

Our young Apollo repaireth the quire, and sets it out gayly, with strange Babylonish ornaments; the hallowed Priests daunce about the Altar, making pretty sport, and fyne pastime, with trippings, and turnings, and crossings, and crouchings; while Cre­tes, Dryopes (que) picti (que) Agathyrsi, Choristers, and sing­ing-men, and parti-coloured Cope-wearers, fre­munt, they shout and cry, and make most sweet A­pollinian harmony.

Are these ceremonies fit for the holy Commu­nion? Doe this, saith Christ, in remembrance of mee.

Can these paltry toyes bring to our memory Christ and his blood-shedding?

Did Christ minister the Sacrament in such man­ner to his Disciples at his last Supper?

Was there an Altar in the chamber where he supt? Did Christ put on a Cope laden with Ima­ges? Or did he change his garments? saith Hamin­gius.

Apage ineptias, fie vpon fopperies, and super­stitious vanities, I hate them.

A decent Cope is commanded by our Canons to be vsed sometimes, onely at the Communion.

Whether a stately Cope, a sumptuous Cope, a Cope imbroydered with Idols, of silver, gold, and pearle: a mock-Cope, a scornfull Cope, vsed a long time at Masse and May-games, as some of ours were: Whether I say such a Cope, be a decent Cope, fit for the Lords table, iudge ye beloved.

And if you condemn them, as you cannot chuse if you be good Christians; how dare ye communi­cate with vs in our superstitious vanities?

Haue you not Churches at home in your owne Parishes not yet polluted with Idols; and Commu­nion tables not yet changed into Altars?

Where you may receiue with comfort the holy Communion, (without such All-a-flantara) in plaine and simple manner, as our Saviour ordei­ned, and the primitiue Church practised, till An­tichrist arose, and mightily prevailed against the truth.

Stay at home in the name of God, till things be amended, and reduced to the state and forme they were in our lesse ceremonious, and more preach­ing Bishops time.

Duck no more to our Altar when you come in and goe out: I assure it is an Idol, a damnable Idol as it is vsed.

Remember Gods commandement Thou shalt not make to thy selfe, the likenesse of any thing in heaven aboue, or in the earth beneath, thou shall not bow downe to them, nor worship them: How dare you disobey God, nay mock God, as the Priest doth, who stands at the Altar in a Cope, and there reades with a loud voice, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor wor­ship them; and as soone as he hath done reading, as when he began to reade, he turnes him about, bowes downe againe, and worships the Altar.

Is not this derision of God and mockery? Be not deceived, saith Paul, Theos ou mucteresetai, God is not, God will not be mocked.

Beleeue not those Balaams, which lay stumbling blocks in your way, to make you fall into spirituall fornication, telling you, when you bow to the Al­tar, you worship God, not the Altar, for so answer all popish and heathenish Idolaters.

Tell me this? Is not that woman a whore, who yeelds her body to an adulterer? though she say her minde is chaste, she keeps her heart true to her husband.

So say I, They are whores, and whoremongers, they commit spirituall fornication, who bow their bodies, before that Idol the Altar, notwithstan­ding [Page 27] they say, their mindes are cleane, they lift vp their hearts to heaven.

God appointed Altars to be set vp by King Sa­lomon, in his Temple at Ierusalem: They were true Altars, types and figures of Christ to come, as the Priests and Sacrifices were: yet Gods people bowed not to them, nor worshipped them.

No nor the Arke of the Covenant, a symbolicall signe of Gods perpetuall presence; which was so sacred, that none but consecrated hands might touch it, no nor the cart that carried it; they might not look into it, as the men of Bethshemis did, of whom 50 thousand died presently for that trespass.

David indeed danced before it, on the way as it came from the house of Obed Edom, and by conse­quence he turned his back toward it, (vnlesse he leapt backward all the way in his dance;) we reade not that he bowed his body to it, or duckt so low, as to touch the ground with his nose.

How dare ye then bow downe and worship an Altar, a counterfeit Altar, the Image of an Altar, and no better.

Why feare you to turne your backs to the Al­tar? Are the backs of Christian men and women more prophane then the backs of Iewes, that by no meanes they may sit, or stand, or kneele, with their backs eastward?

But they must turne about, and looke on the Al­tar when they pray, or heare the Gospell, or re­hearse the articles of their faith.

Ye foolish Galathians, what Iannes, and Iambres, Aegyptian Sorcerers haue bewitched you, that you [Page 28] should follow so readily such vaine superstitions, and beggerly rudiments.

Ye may not be hold altars, ascribing holinesse to them: you must looke vp to God, and his Sonne Christ when you pray.

The Iewes had onely two altars; they were fi­gures of Christ to come: those shadowes are past and gone: the altars are demolished: you may not make new to gaze vpon superstitiously, but you must looke to your maker.

As God himselfe expresly commandeth in the 17. ch. of the Prophecy of Esay. 7. v. Reade it. At that day shall a man looke to his Maker, and his eyes shall haue respect to the holy one of Israel.

And he shall not looke to the altars, the workes of his hands, neither shall he respect that which his fingers haue made, either groues or Images, Ta­pers, or Candlesticks.

Why will ye be Throma koi, fighters against God in resisting his will, and doing the thing he so ear­nestly forbids.

God will wound the hairy scalpe, saith David, of him that continueth in his wickednesse. Take heed of Gods vengeance, if you continue in your folly, which I pray God giue you grace to leaue.

Hearken what Peter Martyr saith, that excellent Divine, disputing against Winchester, Si vel Angelus de coelo nos provocare velit a [...] adoranda vel Sacramen­ta, vel Altaria, vel honorem divinum rebus creatis exhibendum, Anathema sit. If an Angel from heaven would provoke vs to adore either Sacrament or Altar, or any other creature, let him be accursed.

And it is most certaine that every creature that is bowed vnto in respect of any holinesse therein for religion sake, that religious worship makes it an Idol: of which sort the Altar is one, a notable one, religiously adored in this Church every day.

Therefore learned Chemnitius, in treating of I­mages, and reckoning vp all manner of Idols, he names Altaria, expresly Altars, among the same.

Againe, I doe not think, saith Peter Martyr, that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatry, as to bow their bodies before Altars, especially when there is no Communion, as is daily done at Durham, not to the place, but to the very stone, when they stand close by the Altar.

But if at any time, saith he, they shall be discovered to haue beene such, (Altar-worshippers) let none of vs be led by their books, or examples, vt à iusta observan­tia divinae legis aberret, to decline from the strict observation of Gods law, which peremptorily forbid­deth the making of Idols, and bowing to them.

But the Lords table is no Idol, no nor Altar, if it be the Lords boord, as the Communion booke rightly names it.

For which Stephen Gardiner scoffingly accuseth vs, that we haue no Altars, but Tables, or Boords, ad comedendum & bibendum, to eate and drink at.

To which Peter Martyr answereth very well: Quid opus est Altari, vbi nec ignis ardeat, nec victimae caedantur? what vse is there of an Altar, where no fire burnes, nor beasts are slaine for sacri­fice?

Shew me either out of the words of Christ, or [Page 30] the Apostles doctrine, any commandement for the erecting of Altars.

We haue tables, as St. Paul in his Epistles calls them, who knew well enough, that Christ did insti­tute the mystery of the Eucharist, at his last Sup­per, not at an altar, but a table.

There he supt, there he brake bread; and we know, men vse to sup, and breake bread, not vpon altars, but at tables.

Origen and Arnobius testifie, that the Gentiles in their time, 1400. yeeres since, made the same ob­iection against Christians, that they had not altars.

If therefore there were none in the primitiue Church, which was most pure; why should we borrow them now of the corrupt Popish Church?

But what say you? saith one of our Ceremonie­masters, are not Altars mentioned in the new Testa­ment, we haue an Altar, whereof they haue no right to eate which serue the Tabernacle, Hebr. 13.

And in the 6. of the Revel. 9. v. I saw vnder the Al­tar, the soules of them that were slaine for the word of God. Loe here Altars are plainly named. Is not this a substantiall proofe, that our Church now hath Altars?

O learned head! Thinks he indeed that all the Martyrs soules, which since Christs time haue suffe­red, for the testimony of Iesus, are lodged so coldly vnder an altar stone; wailing and crying, some of them sixteene hundred yeeres, How long Lord, how long wilt thou avenge our blood? and yet poore soules there must abide till doomes day. A damnable he­resie.

I would faine learne of such a dreaming Divine, [Page 31] there being so many Altars in the Christian world, vn­der which of them lie so many millions of soules: for St. Iohn speakes but of one Altar, I saw vnder the Al­tar. I pray you is not this Altar Christ, the Altar of the faithfull, Esa. 56.

So it is expounded by all learned Divines, both Pa­pists and Protestants. And among the rest, by one, whose authority the proudest Altar-worshipper dare not gain say: I meane the King, Theologus Rex, that di­vine Prince King Iames, who in his paraphrase on the Revelation, hath these words, interpreting that text. I saw vnder the Altar the soules of the Martyrs, which cry­ed with a loud voice, How long wilt thou delay ô Lord, since thou art holy and true, to revenge our blood.

For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs, that the soules lying vnder the Altar, to wit in the safe­gard of Iesus Christ, (who is the onely Altar, whereupon, and by whom it is onely lawfull for vs to offer the sacrifice of hearts and lipps, to wit, our humble prayers to God the Father.)

They did pray, and their blood did cry to heaven, and craue at the hands of their Father a iust revenge of their torments vpon the wicked.

Then white robes were given to every one of them: Which, saith he, ought to be a wonderfull comfort to all the Church militant.

Since by this they be assured, that the soules of the Mar­tyrs, so soone as their bodies are killed shall immediately be rewarded, with bright glory in heaven, not going into a­ny other place by the way, which is signified by the white robes.

Thus for his Maiesties royall pen: by whom we are taught, that Christ is our one and onely Altar, and [Page 32] that the soules of the Saints, being presently rewar­ded with glory in heaven, and not going to any other place by the way, none of them are vnder our Altar, (though it be a braue one) for it is out of their way to heaven from the place where they suffered Martyr­dome.

As for that place, Hebr. 13. We haue an Altar, &c. St. Paul himselfe expounds it afterwards, in the 15 verse, to be Christ, saying, by him therefore [...]et vs offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name.

Which, saith Aquinas, cannot be vnderstood of a mate­riall Altar in the Church: and whosoever thinks it to be so, he is therein more popish, then Frier Thomas him­selfe.

But now I come to their maine argument, which they think quite overthrowes all that I haue said con­cerning Altars, and Ceremonies.

The Kings Chappell, say they, hath an Altar, and all furniture belonging thereunto: Dare you disallow in ours, what the King hath in his? It is little better then trea­son, as one said.

I answere, It was never out of the Kings Chappell, (at least the name of an altar) since the first refor­mation in King Edwards time, if it had, I suppose it had never come in againe, in his religoius successours raigne.

But it hath been by law eiected out of this Church, and changed into a sacred table, Ieran Bape [...]an, as Chrysostome calls it, I marvell therefore, what law­lesse man, could restore it without law.

Againe, what haue we doe with imitation of the Court [...] May we be so sawcy, as to imitate the King in [Page 33] all things? Is it not treason? Is not rebellion so to doe?

What [...]old presumption is this in a Priest or Prelate to take vpon him to be like the King without his leaue, and not to suffer for his Maiesty to haue some­thing extraordinary, aboue the vulgar sort in magni­ficence and state.

The King commands vs to obey his lawes, not i­mitate his Chappell contrary to his lawes, which binde Cathedrall Churches as well as as the rest; none are exempted, none can be dispenst withall.

The law is this. The Communion Table, not Altar, shall stand in the body of the Church, or Chancell, where morning and evening prayer be appointed to be said, and the Mini­ster shall stand at the northside of the Table.

Therefore our Communion table must stand as it had wont to doe, in the midst of the quire: not at the east end, as farre as is possible from the people, where no part at all of evening prayer is ever said, and but a peece of the morning, and that never till of late.

Neither must the Table be placed along from north to south, as the altar is set, but from east to west, as the custome is of all reformed Churches: otherwise, the Minister cannot stand at the north side, there being neither side toward the north.

And I trow there are but two sides of a long table, and two ends: make it square, and then it will haue foure sides, and no end, or foure ends, and no side, at which any Minister can stand to celebrate.

I confesse, it is not materiall, which way a man turne his face, when he ministers, and prayeth, if it be left as a thing indifferent, without superstition.

A [...] St. Augustine saith, Cum quis quaerit orare, collocat membra sic [...]t ei occurrit: when any mangoes about to pray, be pleaseth his body as occasion serveth.

And St. Paul exhorteth every man to lift vp pure hands, whether toward the east, or west, it makes no matter.

Yet indeed, it is more dangerous to pray toward the east, because the idolatrous Heathen which worship­ped the Sun rising, did so.

And it was the custome of the Iewes, to pray west­ward, lest they should be entised, to worship the Ori­entall Sunne, as the Heathen did.

Which God himselfe in the 8. chap. of Ezech. 16. v. reckoneth among the abominations of the idolatrous Israelites, who turning their backs toward the Tem­ple, worshipped the Sunne toward the East.

But the Iewes, saith Bellarmine, which served the Lord, prayed toward the West: Therefore Christians must turne them toward the East.

A bolde reason: The Iewes did well in avoiding all occasion of Idolatry, vnto which the vulgar sort is too prone: as appeareth by the people of this place, how soone learned they to bow downe to the Altar, and worship it. The Iewes I say did well, therefore may Christians doe ill, in imitating the idolatrous Gen­tiles, in that foolish, popish, superstitious observation, of turning their faces eastward when they pray.

And why may we not imitate the Iewes, in the things they did well, the reason of their so doing be­ing not ceremoniall, but morall?

The ceremoniall law is indeed abrogated therefore we may not retaine it; but the morall law is still in force, binding both Iewes and Christians to avoid I­dolatry.

But see the shamelesnesse of a doting Iesuite: he is content we should imitate the Iewes in their ceremo­nies, [Page 35] long since disanulled and ended, in having Al­tars, Sacrifices, Priests, priestly vestiments, oyntments, incense: But he will not haue vs be like the Iewes, in casting Idols out of our Churches, and in shunning all occasions of Idolatry, by turning our backs on the East, when we pray, as they did.

Our good Princes, and learned Bishops, when they began to reforme the Church of England, were care­full that wee should bee like the Iewes rather in this point, then the idolatrous Papists, or Gentiles.

And therefore they ordeined by law, that the Communion table should not stand Altarwise, the two ends looking to the south and north, as of pur­pose Altars were set in Popery, that the Masse priest might stand on the west side, with his face toward the East, and his back to the people.

But contrariwise, they appointed the table to bee placed in the midst of the Church, to be moveable, fastned neither to wall, nor floore, the ends standing from East to West, as I said before.

And they precisely inioyned the Minister to stand at the celebration of the Lords Supper, on the north side of the Table, to the intent they should not be like superstitious shauelings.

Which make mee to wonder at the presumptuous boldnesse of him, or them, which immediately after the death of our last learned Bishop, before wee had ano­ther, about eleven yeares ago, took vpon him, (I know not by what authority) to alter the situation of the Communion table, from the ould manner of standing which it had kept in all Bishops times, from the be­ginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne, saue onely when the Rebels possest this Church, and sang Masse therin.

The Lords table I say eleven yeares agoe was turned to an altar, and so placed, that the Minister cannot stand to doe his office on the north side, as the law ex­presly chargeth him to doe, because there is no side of the table standing northward.

He I say, that contrary to law d [...]rst doe this, in imi­tation of Papists and Rebels, deserues hee not to bee sharply censured? why doe I say durst he doe it?

Non audet stygius Pluto tentare quod audet Effrenis Monachus.

The Divellin hell dare not attempt more then an vn­ruly Monke, or Frierdare doe.

A Divell and a Frier will adventure strangely: I haue heard of a Divell that preacht, I haue heard of a Frier that preacht in a rope; but I neuer heard of, either Divell or Frier, that preached in a Cope.

But why is the Communion table set in the east end of the Church, and not in the west end, or middle ra­ther, whereas Socrates saith, in his 5 book, 21 chap. that in a Temple at Antioch, the altar was placed at the west end.

And Gentean Hervet, a popish writer, describing the fashion of the Greeke Church at this time, saith, In Graeconum Templis, vnicum est Altare, ia [...] in medio Cho­ro: The Graecians haue but one Altar, in a Church, and that, in the middle of the Quire.

Therefore neither the Graecians, nor the people of Antioch, looked eastward, but rather westward when they prayed.

Binius also and Bawnius say, that because the Manichees which dia worship the Sunne prayed toward the East. Leo the first ordeined, that to discerne Catholikes from here­ticks, Ad [...] conversi Deum colerent: The Catho­licks should worship toward the West.

Afterward by the constitution of Pope Vigilius, it was ordeined, that the Minister standing at the Altar, should pray toward the West.

It came therefore from Antichrist to restrain Chri­stian liberty, by commanding will-worship, the do­ctrine of men, without any warrant out of Gods word.

Againe Necromancers and Sorcerers turne their faces to the East, when they act their inchantments: and it little becomes Christians to follow Witches, and Coniurers, in their superstitious, and divelish de­votions, by preferring East before West.

It being a Ceremony, of all other most foolish, he­reticall, Papisticall, Paganicall, and Magicall.

Let vs therefore in the name of God, hate with the Prophet David, the abominations, and superstitious vanities.

If we hate them not, God will hate vs, and abhorre our festivities with all the pomp and glory of our Church.

As he tolde the Israelites in the fifth of Amps, v. 21. I hate and abborre your feast dayes, I will not smell your solemne assemblies. Take away from me the noise of thy songs, I will not heare the melody of thy instruments: for ye haue borne the Tabernacle of Molocke, and Chiun your Images, the starre of your God which you made to your selues.

Such Molocks, such Chiuns, such Images and starres some of vs here haue made to themselues, lift vp your eyes, you praised them; set vp aloft, round this Church.

Harke then what Christ saith to the Angel of the Church of Ephe [...]us, Revel. 2.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.