THe first Argument to prove Railes about the Commu­nion Table to be dangerous and unlawfull.

That which is an Ornament or ingredient to make up an high Altar is unlaw­full and abominable and to be abhorred by Christians.

But a raile about the Communion Table is an Orna­ment or ingredient to make up an high Altar.

Therefore a Raile about the Communion table is un­lawfull, &c.

[Page 2] The Major or the first proposition may be pro­ved by all those learned writings that have been published to shew the unlawfulnesse of high Al­tars, amongst which that set forth by the B. of Lincolne hath great strength in it. But let me adde moreover that place Heb. 13. 10. to evince the same, the words are these, Wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to eate that serve at the Tabernacle; from which place these two arguments may be framed.

1 Christians are to have but one Altar (1. Christ) therefore they must not have any more Altars be­sides him.

Master Mede, as in this whole argument hath written a collation most unworthy of his worth and learning, so in expounding of this place of the Apostle Pag. 15. where he makes this excep­tion, I know (saith he) what you will bee ready to except, namely that by the Altar here named is meant Christ, which I (quoth he) for my part would willingly admit, so that it be understood with this caution, Christ as he is to be eaten in the Eucharist, for the Apostle speaks here of an Altar to be eaten of, which is not the materiall instru­ment or seat, but the Sacrifices used thereupon.

In which words hee would not have Christ simply considered, but Christ as eaten in the Eu­charist to bee the Christians Altar. Contra, First take what he grants, if Christ as eaten in the Eu­charist onely bee our Altar, then have wee no Altars of wood or Stone, for that Christ is but one, but the other altars are innumerable, the Apo­stle acknowledges but one only altar among Christians. [Page 3] Secondly, let us compare ver. 15 with the tenth. By him therfore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; whence I reason thus.

That Christ by whom our Sacrifices of praise are continually to be offered, is the Altar there meant by the Apostle.

But that Christ, is Christ simply understood without reference to the Sacrament, &c. ergo.

As it was by Gods appointment among the Jewes, that no sacrifice could be accepted, but that which was offered up upon the Altar of burnt offering, so no Sacrifice (be it of thanks­giving, or prayer, or whatsoever other service) can ever please God unlesse it bee offered up by Christ. But now will Master Mede say, either that wee must never offer up the sacrifice of thanksgiving to God but at the Eucharist; or that we can cōtinually offer up our sacrifices by Christ, as eaten in the Eucharist? must wee alwayes re­ceive the Sacrament, when we offer up our prai­ses unto God? or doe we receive the Sacrament continually, i. daily? for the daily sacrifice among the Jews was called the continuall sacri­fice; but it is very observable, that the Apostle saith (by him, not upon it) let us offer, &c. inten­ding plainly the person of our Lord and Saviour, and not an Altar of Wood or Stone; and it is strange that he should being this place to prove Altars lawfull in the times of the N. T. which is most expresse against it.

Secondly, there is an other argument in the same place, i. They have no right to partake of [Page 4] that Altar, (1: Christ) that serve at the Tabernacle; who are they that serve at the tabernacle, but the Priests and sacrificers under the Law? or such as bring in Jewish ceremonies in the time of the Gospell, (as some of the Hebrews that the Apo­stles wrote unto, did) so the meaning of the place must be this; They that bring in or observe Jewish ceremonies in the times of the Gospell, have no part or interest in Christ, they have no right un­to him: but they that set up Altars in the times of the new Testament, doe plainly bring in Jew­ish ceremonies; therefore such have no fellow­ship with Jesus Christ; for surely they haue no right to him, and none hath any communion with him, but they to whom God the Father hath given right unto him; and this agrees with that place, Gal. 5. 2. Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing, and Jewish Altars are every whit as dangerous as Circumcision.

For the further illustrating of this argument, it will not be altogether unprofitable to consider the ground of the Apostle, which was this, That there was to be by Gods own appointment but one Altar only for sacrifice amongst the Jewes (which one Altar the Apostle in that place makes a cleere type of Christ) Levit. 1. Deut. 12. 13. 14. hence it was that when the Reubenites & Gadites, and halfe tribe of Manasseth had erected an other Altar by the banke of Jordan the residue of the 12. tribes thought that offence to be so excee­dingly displeasing unto God that Josh. 22. it is [Page 5] called a turning away from following the Lord, yea rebellion against the Lord, and to bee compared with the iniquity of Peor, and for which they thought that God would be wroth with the whole congregation, yea, they intended to pursue the sinne with open hostility, and to fight against them in battell for it. And though they were mis­taken touching the end and scope of that Altar of witnesse (it being set up onely for a civill monu­ment, and not for sacrifice) yet thus much is war­ranted by the Zeale of the nine Tribes and halfe, and the answere also and apology of the other Tribes, that there must be but one Altar for sacri­fice amongst the people of God; and that (saith the Apostle) is only Christ amongst Christians. Thus also 2. Kings 13. when as Ieroboam had set up a new Altar, the Lord himselfe did oppose it by a speciall message, seconded by a speciall mira­cle, forbidding the Prophet either to returne the same way, or to eat bread in that place, thereby implying that they were not worthy of any Com­munion. To the same purpose the prophet Hoseah rebuketh the degenerate Israelites Ch. 1. saying, because Ephraim hath made many Altars to sinne, therefore Altars shall be unto him to sin, i. ei­ther they shall bee given up to their idoll Altars, or else that this shall be a most heinous and pro­voking sinne: and that we might know the rise and ground of this sinne, it is added in the next words, I have written to them the great things of the law, & they have accounted them strange things, as if he should say, It is not strange that they should fall to set up Altars, that swerve from the onely rule [Page 6] of worship, the word of God.

All which proves that the Apostle to the Heb. alludes to the Commandement of God in the law, that because there was but one Altar of burnt offe­ring in the Law, so there is but one Altar among Christians, that is Christ, who is both the Priest, and Sacrifice, and Altar alone; & more especially the Altar did typifie his Deity, which only made the sacrifice meritorious, for the altar did sanctifie the gift Mat. 18. 19. Now what could sanctifie Christs Sacrifice, but his Deity? which is also cleered, Heb. 9. 14. where Christ is said, in reference to this type of the Altar, to have offered up him­selfe by his eternall spirit without spot to God, where by the eternall spirit, wee must understand the Godhead of Christ.

But see the practice of these times, they will have Priests not Ministers, Altars not Commu­nion Tables, Sacrifices not Sacraments: they will bow, and cringe to and before their Altars, yea, they will nor indure any man to enquire after what manner Christ is in the Sacrament, whether by way of consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, or in a spirituall manner, yea, they will have Ta­pers, and Books never used, empty Basons and Challices there, what is this but the Masse it selfe, for here is all the furniture of it. Thus farre for the proving of the first proposition.

The Assumption or the second proposition, (that a Raile about the Communion Table is one of the ingredients to make up an high Altar, or a Po­pish Altar) may be proved.

[Page 7] First, by Ecclesiasticall history, railes about the Lords Table, whether of wood or stone were never commanded to bee set up, but since the ere­cting of Altars, and the idoll of the Masse, and Transubstantiation was adored; and after Anti­christ was in his Pontificalibus. I might alledge out of Binius diverse acts of popish Councels to this purpose, especially it was strictly injoyned in one of the Councells of Megara, which was (as may appeare by all the acts of it) a most Antichri­stian conventicle, but I have not now the books by mee, whosoever will may consult with the Au­thour.

Secondly, it may appear by all the Cathedrall churches, in which only high Altars have beene continued since times of Reformation, all which also have been railed in, and all the Communicants made to receive kneeling at the rails, and no where else; from whence now since the Altar-worship hath spread (by the diligence of popish Pre­lates) and tables have beene turned into Altars, the railing of them also hath beene universally in­joyned in the like manner.

Thirdly the same appeared evidently to bee the intent of the A. B. and the rest of the commissio­ners (when our cause was handled before them) they did generally construe our opposing of the railes to be an opposition of the Altars, the A. B. professing it to be the place of some more especiall presence of the Lord, and therefore to be railed in; Doctor Worrall that hideous Apostate alledged that old proverbe to prove Altars, amieus us (que). ad a­ras, [Page 8] confounding ignorantly aras and altaria, [...] & ara (as Master Mede could well informe him) being used of heathen altars onely, and such as are set up to heathenish Gods, [...] & Altare spoken of such Altars as were appointed for the worship of the true God under the Law; but I suppose this aspiring Diatrephes would rather have aram (i an heathenish Altar) or haram a hogstye to worship at, so that thereby he may climbe up to a Bishoprick, and nourish his swinish lusts, then to embrace the pure worship of God (which sometimes he professed) with peace to his conscience, and a well grounded expectation of eternall glory.

Objection, But it will be said, what were there not cancelli before the invention of Altars? were they not anciently set up in the primitive Chur­ches? Answer. This indeed was alledged by the Archbishop, in his censure of us, for the proofe of the antiquity of railes; but if his state businesse would have permitted him to have searched Lin­woods Constitutions, there hee might have learned the true meaning of Cancelli, that it signifies parti­tionem quae s [...]parat chorum a navi ecclesiae, that is the partition betwixt the body of the Church and the quire, which is commonly called the Chancel upon that occasion, but what is this to the raile? onely we may observe that the Archbishops con­stitutions as well as of the Popes doe vary excee­dingly.

By all this it may appeare how extreamely they are befooled and deluded which account to Table [Page 9] to be Altars but such as stand Dresserwise at the East end of the Chancell, for if the Table bee rai­led in, and hath the Altar furniture, and Altar worship, what can be required else to the essence of an Altar? and thus much shall suffice for the first argument.

The second argument against railing about of the Lords TABLE.

Whatsoever is appointed and erected to uphold false worship, or wil-worship, or idolatrous Worship, is abominable and not to be endured in Christian assemblies.

But railes about Communion Tables are appointed and erected to uphold false, idolatrous, and wil-worship, Therefore, &c.

The Proofe of the fo [...]mer Proposition.

Every meanes of false worship is forbidden by the same Commandement that prohibus false wor­ship it selfe, (for every precept that forbids any sin, forbids also all the meanes and occasions of it.)

But whatsoever is appointed and erected to uphold false worship, is a direct meanes of false worship, Therefore, &c,

The proofe of the assumption or the second Proposition of the prosyllogisme.

That which is appointed onely as a means to uphold and to discover kneeling at the Sacram [...]nt is ap­pointed and erected onely to uphold false or will-worship.

[Page 10] This proofe is built upon this ground, that kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is a false, idolatrous, and will-worship; for the proofe whereof I shall not say much, because that others have done it sufficiently to those that will receive sound and wholsome Doctrine. But for present satisfaction take these few things.

To leave the imitable example of Christ and his A­postles, and to follow the practice of idolaters, is a false worship, an idolatrous worship, a will­worship.

But to kneele at the Sacrament is to leave the imita­ble example of Christ and his Apostles, and to follow the practice of idolaters, &c.

The proofe of the proposition is manifest Ephe. 5. 1. 1. Cor. 11. 1. where the same subject is handled, that we have in hand.

Now that kneeling is a leaving of the example of Christ it is evident Mat. 26. 20. whose ex­ample alwayes binds as long as it is constant, and not varying, as it is in the particular case.

Ob. But our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, neither sate, nor stood, but lay downe rather; for so the word in the Originall is said to signifie. An­swere, The word signifies to sit downe and is so or­dinarily translated Luke 24. 30. Mat. 14. 13. It was indeed a sitting after the Jewish manner at meals, which was a sitting with a kind of leaning downe upon the arme; which kinde of gesture or mixt sitting being peculiar to the Church of the Jews, sitting without leaning is justly received in reformed Churches.

[Page 11] Ob. But some say, that sitting at the Sacra­ment was an occasionall gesture by reason of the Passeover joyned with the institution of the Sa­crament, and therefore Christians are no more bound to it, then they are to other occasionall circumstances, as that it was then received at sup­per, yea, in a private house, by men and not by women, &c.

Answ. Tis true indeed, that those were all oc­casionall, but the same cannot be said of sitting at the Sacrament, for it is evident, that after the Passeover was ended, Ioh. 13. 4. our Saviour rose up from it, and afterwards sate down again to in­stitute and administer his last Supper, so that this gesture was not taken up by occasion of the Passeover, but it was a gesture purposely appoin­ted by him, which I may also further prove by this argument.

If sitting at the Sacrament hath a Sacramen­mentall signification, then that gesture was not taken up by occasion of the Passeover, but is un­changeable and purposely instituted by our Lord and Saviour.

But sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament hath a Sacramentall signification, &c.

This may be cleerly proved by the words of Christ himselfe, Luke 22. 27. &c. where imme­diately after the institution of the Lords Supper, our Saviour interprets this to be the meaning of sitting at the receiving of it, that it signifies the fa­miliar communion and fellowship that believers have with him here in Grace, and shall have with him hereafter in the Kingdome of Heaven: as in [Page 12] all Feasts, which Princes and great Potentates do make and invite us to, if they shall admit us to sit down with them at the same Table, they testifie a great deal of friendship, familiaritie and neere societie with us; and this is taught us not onely by Musculus, Rainolds, and John Alasco, but even by the Papists themselves, even Thomas Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 60. art. 3. sayes that the Lords Supper is not only a signe to remember his Passion already past, or a demonstration of the present benefit, but also that it prefigures our aeternall glory.

Now to proceed to the second branch of the former proposition, that kneeling at the receiving of the Sa­cramēt is an imitation of the practice of Idolaters.

This may be proved by testimonies, Kneeling was not used for many hundred yeeres after Christ and the Apostles time, for it was brought in for the worship of the breaden God, Beza epi­stol. 8. Peter Martyr in his Epistle ad Dominos Po­lonos. Paraeus de symbol. Euchar. lib. 1. 11. and it is e­vident by Ecclesiasticall Stories, so that the For­malists and Patrons of kneeling at the Sacrament cannot find or bring forth so much as one writer before the 1000 yeere after Christ: yea, it is cleer that it was the brood of Reall bodily presence, having Honorius the third for the Father, Anno 1220. Pope Innocent the third for the Grandfa­ther, who in the time of King Henry the third, en­devoured to establish it by fire and faggot, Anno 1215. for he seconded Pope Gregory the seventh, who Anno 1037, advanced the opinion of the Reall presence.

[Page 13] Adde to this the blasphemy of that plea that is used by the Patrons of kneeling in the defence of it, when as they say that it is the more reve­rend gesture of receiving: then belike that used by Christ and his Apostles vvas not so reverend, or the Prelats and their creatures in Kneeling are more reverend then Christ and his Apostles: and is not this horrid blasphemy?

Thus much also for the second Argument. The third Argument.

That which is an occasion or invitation to idolatrous bowing and cringing to Altars, is idolatrous, and to be abhorred.

But the raile is an occasion to Idolatrous bowing and cringing to Altars, &c.

The proofe of the former proposition. It may appeare by this, because that bowing towards or before the Altar is Idolatrous.

First, because to worship electively towards or before any creature or invention of man without warrant from God is idolatrous: for I demand else why may wee not as well worship electively towards or before a Crucifix or Popish Image as before or towards an Altar? the Papists will say, that they are not such Sots as to terminate their worship upon a stock or a stone, no more then our Altar worshippers doe upon a piece of wood, or a Joyners frame; and can wee think that when the Israelites kissed the Calves, and worshipped the Altars at Dan and Bethel, that they chiefly inten­ded the Images and Altars in that worship, or ter­minated their worship upon them? nay but, sayes [Page 14] Jeroboam, this is thy God oh Israel, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, he means, that these did but represent the true God that is worshipped at Jerusalem, and he it is that I would have you to bow unto, though you bow before his Image, and so Aaron said of his Calfe, Exod 32. and yet that is called an Idoll, Acts 7. 41.

Ob. But did not God command to bow and to fall downe in worship towards the Temple? Did not David say, And in thy feare will I wor­ship towards thy holy Temple? and why may not Christians worship an Altar, as well as the Jewes worshiped towardes the Temple? Answere, The Jews had a warrant from God to worship him towards the Temple, and the holy of holies, but wee have none in this case; for have we any such Temple now as the Jewes? It is evident that the Temple at Hierusalem was one of the greatest types of Christ in all the booke of God, Joh. 2. 19. For did not the ful­nesse of the Godhead dwell in him bodily, Col. 2. 9. i. in a glorious manner, as Gods glory did of old in the Temple, and that typicall signi­fication was the ground of all their adoration towards the Temple: but now the body is come these shadows, are vanished away, Col. 2. 16. and to bring in such shadowes now, is a flat denyall of Christ.

Secondly this is most wicked of all the rest, when as bowing is practised at such times when as the Sacrament is not administred; for Christ being equally present at both Sacraments, & also [Page 15] present in the ordinance of preaching in a speciall manner, why should wee not as well bow to the Font, or to the pulpit, as to the supposed Altar?

Shall wee say as that great Arch-Prelate said at the sentence of Master Burton, &c. Christ said of the one onely hoc est verbum meum, but of the other hee said, hoc est corpus meum; but doth not this stinke of Popish transubstantiation? had his holinesse forgotten, or never read that of AVSTINE, accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum? Or is not hoc est corpus meum, verbum meum? hath not the Sacrament all his fealing vertue from the Word? how was that great miracle wrought upon him (which hath beene confidently reported as from his mouth) that when hee was Bishop of London, and falne into a dangerous sicknesse, hee was rai­sed out of it meerly by the receiving of the Sa­crament? Was it by the meere vertue of the Bread and Wine, or the outward elements? (but this might have been had in a Taverne, and Vintners might turne Physicians, if this were all) or was it by any vertue of the word of institution or promise annexed to the Sacrament? if it was, why doth hee not ascribe as much or more to the word then to the Sacrament? nay, why did not his Highnes make that Chamber-table at which that Sacrament was consecrated and administred an high Altar too? Doth hee still performe that homage and obeysance to that Table, whensoe­ver he sees it? or doth his successor in the same Sea [Page 16] do the like? Nay, will it not follow hence that whensoever any private Communion is celebra­ted in a corner, (as in case of sicknesse is enjoyned in the book of common Prayer) that such Tables are ever after holy Tables and Altars, to which Gods speciall presence is tyed in a speciall man­ner, and towards which all the Family and others are bound always to adore, and to prostrate them­selves: or if they think this to be superstitious, let them tell us their just reason, why such Tables should be so adored in Churches, and not also in private Chambers? where the cause is the same, why is not the effect the same?

Thirdly, Our Church accounts the elements to be in use but common Bread and Wine after the Sacrament is ended, and leaveth them to the Minister to use at his pleasure; why then should the Table have more reverence then the conse­crated elements have when the supper is ended, so as to reverence the one and not the other? Why but doth not the Scripture say that the Al­tar doth consecrate the gift and sacrifice, and not on the contrary the sacrifice the Altar? There­fore the Altar is rather to be adored, then the sa­crifice, or the outward elements? But such po­pish spirits in these dayes say the contrary, that their sacrifice sanctifies their altar, and Christ be­ing really present in the sacrifice this makes their altar to be so holy and so worshipfull ever after, that it makes it worthy to be bowed unto: there­fore the sacrifice or outward elements should much rather be adored after the Sacrament then [Page 17] the Communion Table: thus they are contrary to themselves, but I shall conclude this with the saying of our Lord and Saviour, Mat. 24. 23. 26. When they shall say unto you, loe here is Christ, or there is Christ, (as they say of the Altar, and Masse, and Sacrifice) go not forth unto them; let not any that feares God, or loves his own soul, step out of doores to see the Masse-Christ, or to altar-Christ, much lesse to bow down to him. Thus far of the Proposition.

Now for the assumption, that a raile about the Communion table (or supposed Altar) is an oc­casion or invitation to idolatrous bowing is clere by daily experience; the more that Communi­on Tables are dect and adored and sequestred from the rest of the Church, the more the o­pinion of inherent holinesse in the Table is nourished, and so much the more persons superstitiously addicted will shew unwarran­table reverence to the Table, yea let mee tell you what I have seene my selfe, at the consecra­tion of Sir Thomas Fanshawes Chappell in Ware parrish, being Minister of the place, I was com­manded by the Bishop to bee present by all meanes, being there I saw the Bishop himselfe, Sir Thomas and diverse others, that bowed to, or at the least towards the Table being railed in, before that any Sacrament was administred at it. Was it not a worshipfull joyner, that made such a worshipfull Table, yea, that such great perso­nages should do such obeysance unto? surely the adoring and railing in of the Table was a speciall [Page 18] invitation to this adoration, which otherwise they will not doe to a common table in a Parlor or a joyners shop, no nor a table in a Church not rai­led in. Thus much of the third argument.

The fourth Argument.

That which makes a Jewish sanctuary or Sanctum Sanctorum, in the times of the new Testa­ment, is utterly unlawfull, and to be abhorred by Christians.

But the setting up of Railes about the Communion Tables makes an other Jewish Sanctuary, Therefore, &c.

The fifth Argument.

Taken from the vain pleas that are made in the defence of rails, which are especially three, the first whereof and maine is the pretence of unifor­mity and order, that all the Communicants may [Page 22] come up to the raile, and receive the Sacrament alike kneeling; the second, least that the Com­munion Table should be annoyed with boys, or dogs, or telling of money, or laying of hats upon the Table; the third is, that they make for the Ministers ease, it being troublesome to him, to go with the Elements from seat to seat, to distribute them to all the Communicants.

The sixt and last Argument.

That which brings in conformity with the Papists and Idolaters, ought not to be indured in re­formed Churches.

But the erecting and setting up of rails about Com­munion Tables, and so turning Tables into Al­tars, [Page 34] makes reformed Churches conformable with Papists and Idolaters, &c.

I shall not need to insist upon the proofe of the assumption, for the arguments before alleaged, and the practice of forreigne popish, and our owne Cathedrall Churches is sufficient to prove this, therefore for brevity sake I will omit this.

The proofe of the major or first proposition. That all conformity with Idolaters must be a­voided, we are taught by divers precepts given to the Israelites, as Deut. 12. 30. 32. Take heed that thou be not snared by following of Idolaters, and Canaanites, &c. and that thou enquire not af­ter their gods, saying, how did these nations serve their Gods? Thou shalt not doe so to the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hates, have they done to their Gods; whatsoever thing I command you, that observe to doe it, thou shalt not adde thereto, nor diminish from it: therefore, 2 Chron. 13. 9. Abijah reproves Jeroboam and his army, that they had made them Priests after the manner of the Na­tions of the Lands: and it was one of the grea­test sins of Achaz, 2 King. 16. 10. That when hee saw an Altar at Damascus, hee sent to Vriah the Priest the fashion of the Altar, and the patterne of it, that hee might make such another in the house of the Lord: so doubtlesse our Priests first took the pattern of their railed Altars from Rome, & so commanded them to be set up amongst us.

Our Adversaries reply, that they doe not use the same rites with the Papists, with the same mind that they doe. Answ. To use the same things, that the Papists do, in civill affairs, we go [Page 35] not about to condemne; if they would use a raile to enclose walks or gardens, who would speake against it? but to use the same Rites or Orna­ments in the worship of God, that the Papists, the Ministers of the Antichrist, the Priests of Baal doe, what is this, but with Achaz, to set up the Altar of Damascus.

Ob. But what a blasphemous speech is this, that a rail should be used about walks or gardens, that is appointed for the adorning of the Com­munion Table? Answ. Tis true, that for using such a speech against a Rail at Ware, Master Hum­phry Parker of Hartford was censured very se­verely by the high Commission Court, Sir Tho­mas Fanshaws zeale prosecuting the cause against him and me, against him, for no other cause pre­tended, but because upon the dislike of rails pro­vided for the Communion Table, as being not so decent, he cast out such a speech, That if the rails provided did not like them, hee would buy them for his garden; and let mee here insert how this offence of his was set forth and aggravated by the A. B. at his censure. Suppose (said he) that when Aholiab and Bezalcel were making the hang­ings for the Tabernacle, some malepert person should have come to them, and said, What is here a motly coat for a fool that you are making of divers colours? Had not this been a very wic­ked speech? So though this Parker (said hee) spake thus irreverently of the raile whilest it was in the Joyners shop, before it ever had been con­secrated to that sacred use about the communion [Page 36] Table, yet because it was destined to this holy nse, therefore thus and thus hee deserves to be censured.

Oh the patience of our good God, that endures such blasphemies to be daily belched out in these hellish Courts, by those that set their mouthes against Heaven! Belike then his Highnesse edicts and inventions are to be compared to, and are of equall binding force with the Commandements of Almighty God, and his raile is of like autho­rity with the pattern that God shewed Moses on the Mount, and the heavenly figure of the Taber­nacle; yea, should a man speak against the flax or linnen in the Drapers shop, in case that a Surplice should afterwards be made of it, it would be as great an offence in the repute of his greatnesse, as of old to speak against the Levitical Ceremonies ordained by the only Law-giver himself, though perhaps as well a Whores smock, as a Priests frock may be made of it; but of this by the way.

To returne to the argument of the imitation of Idolaters, the Formalists say, that they do it not with the same minde and intention with Idola­ters: well, but the Rail is the same, the Altar is the same, the manner of using is the same, and in the same part of worship, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; what shall wee term imitation to be, if these things make not imitation?

Ob. 'Tis true, that in those things that have been invented by Antichrist or his instruments, we are not to communicate with them, but those that are more ancient then Popery and Antichri­stianisme, [Page 37] though used by them, we may lawfully use the same, but such was the use of the raile, as may appeare out of Eusebius, for Constantine him­selfe invented and used it.

Answ. Though a Rail be as ancient as the times of Constantine the Great, yet wee know that the mystery of iniquity began to worke in the Apo­stles time. Many errors and heresies were broched even in those dayes, besides in Constantines days, the Idoll of the Masse, and unbloudy sacrifice was not invented, therefore then there was much lesse danger of a Rail, therefore let the Rail be as an­cient as the age of Constantine, or the Apostles themselves, yet if it hath been abused or defiled by Antichrist, it is to be abhorred by us. Zanchie a learned Authour upon the fourth Commande­ment, That even indifferent things polluted and defiled by superstition are to be abolished, and to the like purpose to Queen Elizabeth, Neque enim honestum est, ut quae in Dei contumeliam usurpata diu fuerunt sires sint perse [...], ea in Ecclesiâ cum discrimine etiam salutis piorum retineantur: and hee proves it by the example of Hezechias, Serpens ae­neus qui institutus fuerat à Deo, & quidem ad salutem Israelitarum, per pium Regem Hezechiam, quia illo contra Dei verbum abutebantur Israelitae, sublatus est, & ab hoc facto summè laudatur Hezechias, quòd illum scilicet Serpentem redigeret in cineres, eosque in pro­fluentem, ne ullum uspiam extaret vestigium, projici jusserit: How much more then should rails about Communion Tables be burnt, that have beene and are daily so wickedly abused, though never so innocent in their first invention?

[Page 38] Ob. But if all these evils are inferred upon the railing in of Communion Tables, then it will be said unto me, why then have you, when you were called into the high Commission Court, & prose­cuted by Sir Thomas Fanshaw of Ware Parke, for words spoken against the Raile there, which you had called an innovation, a snare to mens consci­ences, a breach of the second Commandement, Idolatry and Superstition, why have you so base­ly yielded to the submission imposed upon you by that Court? acknowledging at the last, that you were sorry for such words spoken by you?

Why did you professe at last before them, that now you were of a contrary judgment, and that you allowed a raile with a kneeling bench affixed to be a decent & convenient ceremony, & promi­mised never to oppose that rail or any other cere­mony more?

Answ. Tis true, that by the perswasion of friends, thus far I yielded, and truly very basely and timorously, I deny not, I will not goe about to plead now for that accursed fact, nor excuse my selfe by the greatnesse of my temptations and straights; no, but I will lay my hand upon my mouth, or rather cry out to the shame and con­fusion of mine owne face, that I have denyed the truth of Christ, and been ashamed of him in this adulterous and sinfull generation, worthy also to be denied of him, when he shall come in the glo­ry of his Father with his holy Angels; and I doe with indignation and detestation retract every word of that submission, desiring earnestly [Page 39] the Lord, not to lay this sin to my charge, and his people to forgive the scandall of it, or rather not to take offence at it; and do willingly to make up this breach, forgoe all the certaine comforts that I had upon the earth; onely let this be added, which I must needs speake for caution to others, that I perceived evidently whilst I was confor­mable in my judgment, that I must needs give way to the Rail, or what soever innovations, upon the same grounds that I conformed upon. But the Lord be thanked, that though I was a servant of sin, yet he hath at the last subdued my soule to obey from the heart the forme of Doctrine to which I am delivered.

It is then (I hope) upon farre other, and far bet­ter grounds, that I have reversed my former sin, then that I yielded upon at the first; this I did rash­ly and unadvisedly, and in temptation, but now that the other is done in cold bloud, and with due deliberation (I meane this retractation of my er­rour) let these few Reasons testifie unto the World; and I do humbly entreat every soul that shall peruse these few lines, to acquaint as many as he can perceive to be any ways scandalized by my fall, with what is here contained, that they may be raised up again; this I do earnestly beg of them, yea, let mee be bold to charge them in the name of the Lord Jesus, so far to tender the Go­spell of Christ, and the honour of Christian pro­fession, yea, and the bleeding heart of a wounded Christian: as also to make this use of it to them­selves, Let him that standeth, take heed lest hee fall.