is not Baptisme the word as necessarie as the Lords supper Math. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yeaâ— more needfull and absolutely necessarieâ— since men maye bee saved without receivinge the Sacrament of the Lords supper but not without Baptisme the word read and preached as many teach 6. To make the Communion Table Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate and place of his speciall presence if it bee meant of his spirituall presence only is a falsehood since hee is alwayes equallie present in this manner in all his ordinances to the end of the worlde Math. 28. 19. 20. If of his Corporall presence which is only nowe in heaven Acts 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. John 14. 2. 3. 28. c. 16. 7. 16. 17. 19. 21. the thinge they intend then it smels of ranke Popoâ—se intimatinge a transubstantiation of the breade wyne into Christs verie bodie bloode a notorious Popish absurditie longe since exploded by our Church drowned in our Martyrs blood whoe oppugned it to the death 3. Admitt that the Communion Table were Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate which they take as graunted without any Scripture ground or reason which I desire them first to prove before they lay it downe an undoubted principle yet the conclusion will not followe that therefore is must stand at the East end of the Chauncell or Quire Altarwise For first the mercy seate stood in the end of the Tabernacle and Temple upon the topp of the Arke not at the East Therefore the Table should stand so too were it a mercy seate 2. Christs Chaire of Estate ought to bee seated there where himselfe hath promised his speciall presence But that is not in the East end but in the midst of the Church and people Math. 18. 20. as I have formerly proved by sundry Scriptures Therefore it shoulde bee placed in the midst 4. Whereas these men protend that the East end of the Chancell or Quire where they nowe raile in the Table Altarwise is the highest and most worthy place in the Church and that noe seates must there bee suffered for feare any shoulde take the wall or upper hand of Christ and sitt above him or checkmate with him in his owne Temple I answeare First that these are ridiculous Childish fantastique conceites of their owne superstitious braines grounded on no Scripture or solid reason and so not to be credited 2. These reasons make Christ ambitious of place precedency corporally present here an Earth when as he was still is lowly humble Matth. 11. 29. forbiddinge men to sitt downe at any Feast in the uppermost place but in the lowest and pronouncinge an woe against the Pharisies for lovinge the uppermost seates in Synagogues and Feasts Math. 23. 6. Luke 11. 43. therefore were hee nowe on Earth hee woulde not contend for precedency and the upper-most place as these his ambitious-Champions doe for him because they love precedency themselves much lesse will hee doe it nowe he hath taken upp his seate and throne in heaven hath left the Earth altogeather in his bodily presence where these Novellers woulde faine to be still resident in the Church on the Communion Table as the Papists saye he is upon their Altars close prisoner in a Pix 3. It is most false that the East end of the Quire or Chauncell where they nowe place their Altars and Tables is the most honourable and prime place of the Church and Quire For in all Cathedralls that I have seene in his Majesties Chappell 's the Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Thrones and seates and the Kings Closetts are at the West end of the Quire or Chancell And the most honorable persons seat is the West not the East end of them the more West any man sits the higher the more East the lower the seates next the West end beinge reputed the highest and honorablest the seates next the East the lowest for the singinge men and Quiresters the meaner sort of people Soe in Parish Churches where there are any seates in the Chancell or Quire the seate at the West end is usually esteemed the worthiest and first seate and the neerer the East end the meaner and lower are they reputed The West end therefore of the Quire and Chancell as these instances and experience undeniable manifest is the cheifest the place where the most honorable persons have their seates chaires of State If therefore the Communion Table or their Altars bee Christs Chaire of State and that hee ought to take precedency and place of all men then it must bee placed in the West end of the Quire in Cathedralls where the Bishops Throne and seate is scituated and removed to the West end of the Chancell where the best man of the Parish sits not thrust downe to the East end of the Quire or Chancell against the wall which is in truth the lowest place by their owne practice and resolution And here we may behold the desperate soâ—tishnes and frenzie of these Popish Innovators whoe under a vaine pretence of givinge Christ the Communion Table the upper hand that none may sitt above them will needs thrust them into the varie lowest place even in their owne practice Iudgements and Common reputation where servants or the meaner sort of people only sit where there are seates or formes in most Churches which yet against their owne Iudgements and knowledge out of I knowe not what factious strange superstitions humour must upon a suddaine be Cried upp for the most honorable place by these learned Rabbies 4. Admit the Communion Table Christs Chaire of Estate and mercy seate and that it ought to be placed in the best and uppermost place of the Church yet it is only such and thus to bee scituated when the Sacrament is administred For howe is it his Chaire of State his mercy seate and cheifest place of residence when there is no Sacramentall breade wyne upon it to represent his spirituall presence to us But when the Sacrament is to be administred the booke of Common prayer the Queenes Injunctions Fathers and forecited Authors informe us that it must bee placed in the body or midst of the Church or Chancell Therefore our Novellers must either deny the East end of the Quire to be the most honorable place or that it was ever so reputed or else confesse the invalidity of this their proposition That the Table ought to stand in the cheife and most honorable place of the Church unlesse they will Condemne the Fathers the primitive yea our owne Church and all our cheife writers of Error in this particular 5. Admit that the East end of the Chancell or Quire bee the most honorable parte of the Church and that the Table for this reason ought there to be rayled in Why are not the Font and Pulpit there placed and rayled in as well as the Table and the Bible and readinge pewe too Are not the Font the Pulpit the Bible as honorable
and other pastimes Epist. Dedicat Antiqu Connival l. 1. c. 16. fol. 36. c. 23. fol. 67. c. 25. fol. 74. 75. c. 33. f. 133. to 138. and l. 3. c. 2l 22. so much contested for now of late All which the primitive Christians abandoned as well as Altars But though these Novellers have neither Statute Canon Scripture nor Antiquity for this new invented Ceremonie yet doubâ—lâ—sse being reasonable creatures they must have some reasons for it True they thiâ—ke they have so But if their reasons be but examined they are in truth meer lying 〈◊〉 crackbrainde fantasies of their owne invention not warranted by any Scripture or registred in any Father or Authour noâ— known to Durandus See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉 or Mirologus See De Divinis Officiâ—s lâ—b or any other Romanists who have taken upon them to give a reason for every one of their Ceremonies though never so superstitious or ridiculous If any desire to know their Reasons they are these 1. First they say they doe must bow to or towards the High-Altar and Lords-Table because it is the place of Christs speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of estate wherein he 〈◊〉 See Giles Widdowes his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puriâ—â—â—â—â— p. â—9 Shelfords Sermon of Gods house p. 2. 4. 18. 19. 20. Reeve his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-Prayer-Booke neare the end Which reason I have already proved falce Only I shall demaund these few Questions of them I. QVESTION By what Scriptures or Fathers they can make good this proposition That the High-Altar or Lords-Table is the speciall place of Gods presence upon Earth and his Chaire of state wherein 〈◊〉 II. QVESTION What they meane by this speciall presence whether his corporall or his divine presence If his corporall that implyes first a Transubstantiation of the Sacramentall bread and wine into the very body bloud of Christ. Secondly a perpetuall reservation of the consecrated bread thus transubstantiated into Christs body on the Altar Lords-Table else the reason holds not but only at the time wheÌ„ the Sacrament is administred and the consecrated bread wine is standing on the Table And so they ought them only to bow to or towards the Altar Not at other times when there is no Sacrament Bishop Mortons Iâ—stitution of the Sacrament p 463. as now they doe Thirdly it implyeth a denyall of the Scriptures and Articles of the Creed which assure us That Christ in his humane nature and corporall presence is wholy assâ—nded into Heaven That he hath quite lest the world and is gone to his Fatherâ— That he is sett downe at his Fathers owne right hand That he is no more corporally present upon Earth That he cannot be corporally in many places at once and never was so that wee find in the Scripture That the Heavens must containe him untill his second comming to judgement And the like Acts 3. 21. cap. 1. 10. 11. John 14. 2. 3. 19. c. 16. 28. c. 17. 11. 12. c. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 3. 22. Heb. 10. 12. cap. 12. 2. And it is point-blancke against the Homilies Articles Writers and established doctrine of the Church of England to which these Rebellious sonnes of Belial have subscribed If they meane only Christs Spirituall presence that certainly is as much at the Font the Pulpit the Bible the Common-Prayer-Booke as on the Table as much in the whole Church and Quire as in all or any of these standing in them Yea much more in every pore Christians heart and soule the true Temples of God wherein Christ and his spirit dwell by faith Ephesâ— 3. 17. c. 2. 21. 1. Cor. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 2. 20. Therefore if this reason hold firme they must bow alike to or towards all and every of these as well and as oft as to the Table or Altar III. QVESTION Admit the Preposition true I would demaund of them how they can prove this their assertion to be truely Orthodox That men ought to bow and worship to and towards the place of Christs speciall presence What Scripture Councell or Father hath taught them any such Doctrine Certainely if this be good Divinity then when ever they see the Pulpit Bible Font Church or any pious Saint of God though never so pore they must for sooth bow 〈◊〉 theÌ„ because Christ is specially present in them then they must no sooner looke up to Heaven but they must bow their knees and bodies to it for that is Gods Throne Christs Chaire of Estate indeed and the place of their speciall residence by the Scriptures expresse resolution Yea then when ever they see the Paten or Chalice which immediately containe the Bread and Wine they must bow to them because they are the place of Christs speciall presence rather then the Table or Altar on which those vessels which conteine the Sacrament only stand IV. QVESTION Jf this reason be folid I would then demaund but this Question whether Christ be not more immediately really and spiritually present yea and corporally too if they hold any such presence in the Sâ—crament as they seeme to doe in the Consecrated Bâ—ead and Wine then in the Chalice or Cup or on the Table or Altar it selâ—e If so as all must necessarily graunt then it will inevitably follow from this reason that they must much more adore and bow to the consecrated bread and wine then either to the Altar or Table If so then I would demaund of them First what is the reason they bow only to the Altar or Table not to the consecrated bread ond wine Or in case they answer that they bow to both How their bowing to the bread and wine differs from the Papists adoration of them which our Church condemnes as most grosse Idolatrie Secondly What is the cause why they bow to the Altar or Table before the bread and wine are consecrated when Christ certainely is not there present in that manner as they fansie and yet bow not to the bread and wine after consecration when Christ is specially present in them Thirdly why many of them at the administration of the Sacrament when as they have the bread and wine in their hands bow downe to the ground almost as they come from passe by or goe to the Table or Altar out of their reverence and respect to the Table and Altar and yet bow not at all to the consecrated bread and wine which they hold then in their hands Fourthly whether bowing to and towards the Altar or Table so frequently and devoutly as they deeme it when there is no Sacramentall bread and wine upon it and at the time of the Sacrament even when they hold the Sacrament in their hâ—nds and their not bowing to or towards and adoring of the Sacrament it selfe which is farre more hoâ—ourable then either the Table or Altar which serve only for its consecration and distribution and may put them more immediately in mind of Christ be not an advancing a preferring of
7. 10. as they are this day among the Papists with many Jewish and Superstitious Ceremonies oylings sprinklings exorcismes Reliques of Sancts orisons I know not what other fonde conceites but Communion Tables were never so consecrated either in the primitive or Christian Churches of latter times 2. Altars wee ever accompanied with Preistes Sacrifices burnt offrings peace offringe c. Exod. 40. Levit. 1. 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. Hebr. 7. 1. to 15. 1. Kinge 18. 20. to 37. among the Jewes and Gentiles with Masses Massepreistes Pixes consecrated Hostiaes Tapers Basons Candelstickes Crucifixes Images Sancts Reliques Altar-cloathes Massing vestiments to adde gestures Fooleries but Communion Tables only with Ministers and preachers of the Gospell a chalice plater bread and wine without more or other furniture but a decent cloth to cover them 7. In their effects the one tending to maintaine erect propagate and usher in Gentilisme Judaisme Popery Masse Massepreists Transul stantiation and Superstition among Christians and to corrupt the doctrine administration and right use of the Sacrament the true cause why the Primitive Christians why all reformed Churches and our owne Church abandoned and cast them out The other to abandon them and to restore preserve perpetuate the purity and integrity of the Doctrine use and administration of the Sacrament according to its primitive institution as the so eâ—â—â—ed and subsequent authorities evidence at large and King Edward the 6. with his Councell both in their Letter to Bishop Ridley and in their 6. reasons why the Lords board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar punctually resolve 8. Because all Altars Sacrifices Preist the Temple itselfe where the Altar stood for the Jewes had no Altars in their Ordinary Synagogues but only in and about their Temple to shew that we Christians should have no Altars in our Churches which succeed their Synagogues not the Temple were but types and shadowes of Christ the true Altar Preist and Temple Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 7. l. to 15. c. 13. 10. as all the Fathers generally all Commentators and Christian writers accord and therfore vanished at his death as the whole Epistles to the Hebrewes Galathians Colossions c. 2. prove at large Hence the Apostle calls Christ himselfe our Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 6. 9. c. 8. 3. 5. c. 9. 13. doe the like as Expositors old and new togeather with King James himselfe in his Paraphrase upon the Apocalypse our owne Martyrs writers generally accord Hence Origen most pertinently resolves thus The truth therfore was in the Heavens but the shadow and example of the truth on earth and whiles this shadow did continue on earth there was an heavenly Hierusalem there was a Temple there was an Altar there were High Preists and Preistes But when as in the comming of God our Saviour descending from heaven truth sprang out of the earth the shadowes and examples full to the ground For Hierusalem fell the Temple fell ALTARE SUBLATUM EST the Altar was taken away c. SI ALTARE VIDER IS DESTITUTUM c. If thou shalt see the Altar destitute be not thou sad thereat If thou find not the High Preist doe not thou despaire EST IN CAELIS ALTARE there is an Altar in Heaven an High Preists of future good things stands by it chosen of God according to the order of Melchisedecke Hence Paschatius Rhadbertus most pertinently concludes REPVLIT Dominus ALTARE SVVM DE ECCLESIA in qua CHRISTVS ALTARE CREDITVR ESSE Hostia Sacrificium Pontifex Sacerdos The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of the Church in which Christ is BELEEVED TO BE THE only ALTAR obligation and Sacrifice High Preist And S. Ambrose Gregory the great Beda Andreas the Archbishop of Caesaria S. Bernard with divers other Fathers expresly resolve ALTARE DOMINI CHRISTVS that Christ himselfe is the Altare of the Lord the Altar meant both in the Hebrewes and Apocalyps and that all Altars were but types of him and ceased with him And though some of the punier Fathers 260. yeares after Christ and since doe sometimes by a figurative and improper speach call the Communion Table but more commonly only the Sacramentall bread and wine representing the body and blood of our Saviour the Altar in respect of the Sacrifices of prayer and prayse there offred at the receiving of the Sacrament thence called the Eucharist of the Collections and Almes there and there given by the Communicants for the releife of the poore which are called a Sacrifice an oblation Heb. 13. 16. Math. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. and in as much as Christs body and blood who is the true Altar are there mistically distributed not out of any relation to or analogie between Jewish Heathen Altars and Tables or because the Sacrament is in truth a reall Sacrifice as the Papists and our ignorant Popish Innovators fondly dreame yet they most usually and properly terme it only the Lords Table or Boord and the Sacrament administred there at the Lords Supper as appeares by sundrie passages in Nazianzen Augustine Theodoret Chrysostomeâ— Hieron Oecumenius Theophylact other Fathers All these are cited by Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington D. Rainolds our writers they stiling the Crosse whereon Christ suffred was Sacrificed the Altar of the Crosse yea faith the heart and mind of godly men an Altar as frequently as the Communion Table and in the selfe same figurative and improper sence Hence S. Hierom iu Psal. 25. 31. Tom. 6. p. 30. B. 46. B. writes thus Altare fidelium fides est FAITH IS THE ALTAR OF THE FAITHFVLL And the same Father Comment in Marc. 9. Tom. 6. p. 58. 79. Gregorie the great Homil. 22. Super Ezechiel f. 209. E. F. averre Altare Deiest Corbonum Histia Sacrificia bona opera fidelium THE ALTAR OF GOD IS A GOOD HEART the good workes of the Faithfull are the oblation and Sacrifices And Origen Contra Celsum l. 8. tom 4. fol. 101. writes to the same effect Celsus chargeth us Christians that we shunne ALTARS Images Idoll Temples that so they may not be erected c. whiles that he seeth nothing in the meane time that we in the meane while have the mind of just men insted of Altars and temples from which without all doubt the sweet odors of Incense are sent forth vowes I say and prayers from a pure conscience Let whoever will therfore if he please make inquiry of these Altars which I have last mentioned and compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in truly he may plainly understand that they verily are inanimate and in processe of time will become corruptible but these our Altars shall so long continue in the immortall soule as long as the reasonable soule shall continue Now these Fathers thus stiling both the
faithfullist understanding the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their straunge termes being so farre fetched For thus I understand them The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the signe of the Altar which Altar betokeneth the Crosse which Crosse betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offred on the Crolle or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherfore good Christian brethren let us that are homely fellowes not be ashamed of the old Termes that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture which calleth the reverend and healthfull remembraunce of the Lords death by breaking of bread by the name of the Lords Supper or the Communion partaking of the body bloud of Christ. And the thing whereat we sitt devoutly to eate the Lords Supper lett us both have it and call it the Lords-bord or the Lords-Table and not a borrowed towell nor a Popish stone Altar nor yet a wodden Altar with a Super-altar And let us present with so far fetched termes and so dearly bought the Popes glace and his faire Ladyes of Rome Thus he John Bale Bishop of Osyris in his Image of both Churches or parâ—phrase upon the Revelation as he makes Christ himselfe the only Altar spoken of and intended Rev. 6. 9. c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offred So in his Preface to the first part of his Booke he reckons up beades Altars Images Organs Lights c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church terming them the very filthy dreggs of darknes All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he sayth shal be plucked away by the evident word of God and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appeare For no longer continueth the whore then whoredome is in price Take away the Rites and Ceremonies the Jewels and Ornaments the Images and lightes their Lordships and Fatherhodes the Altars and Masses with the Bishops and Preists and what is their Holy whorish Church any more Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9 reckons up Altars Copes Masses Trentals among other Popish abominations which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Mony how wickedly soever they had lived And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all as for the eyes their God hanges in a rope Images gilded painted carved most finely copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners with Reliques and Altars for the eares singing ringing and Organs piping for the nose frankincense sweet to wash away sinnes as they say Holy water of their owne holying and making Preists an infinite sort Masses Trentalls driges and pardones c. But where the Gospells preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are content with an Honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all but have only a pulpit a preacher to the People a Deacon for the poore a Table for the Communion with bare walles or els written with Scriptures haveing Gods eternall word sounding alwayes amongst them in their sight and eares and last of all they should have good discipline correct faults and keepe good order in all their meetings Learned M. Thomas Becon in his workes in Folio printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. dedicated by name to both their Archbishops all the Bishops of England by them approved hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars some whereof I shall transcribe at large In his Humble supplication unto God for the restoring of his Holy word written in Queen Maries dayes vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus Moreover heretofore we were taught to beate downe the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode a strang Sacrifice for sinne commaunded to be built up as though calfes goates sheep such other brute beastes should be offred againe after the Preisthode of Aaron for the sinnes of the people and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table and after the example of Christ to receave together at it the holy mysteries of Christs body and bloud in remembrance that Christs body was broken and his bloud shead for our sinnes But now the sacrificing â—orcerers shame not both in their private talke and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord and therfore have they taken out of the Temples those seemely Tables which we following the examples of the dearly beloved sonne and of the Primative Church used at the Ministration of the Holy Communion and they have brought in againe their bloodly and butcherly Altars and upon those they sacrifice offer dayly say they that is they kill slea and murder thy deare sonne Christ for the sinnes of the people For as thy Holy Apostle sayth Heb. 9. Where no sheading of bloud is there is no remission and forgivenes of sinnes If thorow their Massing sinnes be forgiuen then must the Sacrifice that there is offred be slain and the bloud thereof shead If the Massemonger therfore offer Christ up in their Masses a Sacrifice unto God for the sinnes of the people so followeth it that they murder kill and slea Christ yea and shed his bloud at their Masses and so by this meanes we must needes confesse that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers then honest and pure Tables But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death dyeth no more Death hath no more power over him For as touching that he died he died concerning sinne once And as touching that he liveth he liveth unto the God his Father If Christ therfore died no more then doe the Papists sacrifice him no more If they sacrifice him no more then are they but jangling juglars and their Masses serve for none other purpose but to keepe the people in blindnesse to deface the passion and death of Christ and to maintaine their idle and drafsacked bellies in all pompe and honor with the labor of other mens hands and with the sweat of poope mens browes so farr is it of that they with their abominable Massing stincking sacrificing put away the sinnes either of the quicke or of the dead as they make the unlearned simple people to beleive Ah Lord God heavenly Father if thou were not a God of long suffring of great patience how couldest thou abide these intollerable injuries and so much detestable blasphemyes which the wicked Papists committ against thee thy sonne Christ in their Idolatrous Masses at their Heathenish Altars As in the dayes of wicked Queen Jezabel the Altars of the Lord were cast downe and other Altars were reared and set up to Baal even so now the Tables
of the Lord where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministred are cast downe broken on peces and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim to Erkenwald to Grimbald to Catherine to Modwyne c. But ô Lord bannish out of the Congregation that most vile stinking Idoll the Masse and restore unto us the Holy blessed Communion that we eating together of one bread and drinking of one Cup may remember the Lords death be thankfull to thee Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations of Ceremonies of Images of Altars of Copes of vestmentes of Pixes of Crosses of Censers of Holy waterbuckets of Holy bread basketes of Chrismatories above all Idolatrous Preists and ungodly ignorant Curates And in his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper used his common dayly apparel The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall gameplayers garments as with an Humerall or Ephod with an Albe with a girdle with a stole with a maniple with an amice with a chesible and the like c. commeth unto the Altar with great Pompe and with a solemne pace Where it is wonderfull to be spoken how he setteth forth himselfe to all Godly men to be lamented pitied to children even to be derided to be lauged to scorne while like another Roscius with his foolish player-like mad gestures the poore wretch wrytheth himselfe on every side now bowing his knees now standing right up now crossing himselfe as though he were a frayd of spirites now stoping downe now prostrating himselfe now knocking on his breast now sensing now kissing the Altar the Booke and Patene now streching out his armes now folding his hands together now making charecters signes tokens crosses now lifting up the bread Chalice now holding his peace now crying out now saying now singing now breathing now making no noise now washing of hands now eating now drinking now turning him unto the Altar now unto the people now blessing the people either with his fingers or with an empty cuppe c. When it evidently appeareth by the Histories that the Ministers of Christes churche in times past when they ministred the Holy Sacraments either of Baptisme or of the Lords Supper used none other then their Common and dayly apparell yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first which first of all as Sabellicus testifyeth did forbidd that from thence forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their dayly aray but such holy garmentes as were appointed unto that use This Bishop lived in the yeare of our Lord 260. Christ simply and plainly and without any decking or gorgious furniture prepared and ministred that heavenly banket The Massemonger with a marvelous great pompe wonderfull gay shâ—w setteth forth his marchandise For he hath an Altar sumptuously built yea that is covered with most fyne and white linnen clothes so likewise richly garnished decked and trimmed with divers gorgious pictures and costly Images He hath also crewettes for water and for wine towels coffers pyxes Philacteries banners candlestickes waxe candles organes singing Bells sacry belles chalices of silver and of gold patenes sensers shyppe frankensence Altar cloothes curtines paxes basyns ewers crosses Chrismatory Reliques jewels owches precious stones myters crosse staves and many other such like ornaments more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron then for the mynistery of the New Testament It is nobly sayd of S. Ambrose the Sacraments require no gold neither do they delight in gold which are not bought for gold The garnishing of the Sacramentes is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners And verily those are precious vesselles which redeeme soules from death That is the true treasure of the Lord which worketh that that his bloud hath wrought Againe he sayth The church hath gold not that it should keepe it but that it should bestow it and helpe when need is For what doth it profitt to keep that which serveth to no use Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and bloud to his Disciples sitting at the Table When the time was now come sayth Luke Jesus sate downe and his 12. Disciples with him Luc. 22. The Massemonger delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar In distributing the mysteries of his body bloud Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aarons Preistes whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beastes but he used a Table as a furniture much more meet to gett defend confirme encrease and continue Frendship But the Massemonger as one alwayes desirous to shed bloud standeth at an Altar and so delivereth the Communion to his people when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banket maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table saying 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lordes Table of the Table of the Devills Neither did the ancient old Church of Christ alow these Aaronicall and Jewish Altars For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper after the example of Christ as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures also by the writings of the auncient Fathers and Doctors For the Sacrifices taken away to what use I pray yow should Altars serve among the Christians except ye will call againe and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sacrifices Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beastes then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship neither doe those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion then the cawdron the fyrepanne the basen the sholve the fleshhoke the gredyrne and such like instruments which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing dressing and doing their Sacrifices For unto the Honest seemly worthy celebration of the Holy banket of the body and bloud of Christ we have need not of an Altar but of a Table except ye will say that the primative Church which more then two hundred yeares after Christes ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries yea except ye will say that Christ himselfe the Author of this most Holy Supper did dote was out of his witts which not standing at an Altar like Aarons Preist but sitting at a Table as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordaine and minister this Holy Heavenly food For who is so rude ignorant of antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper when notwithstanding from Christes ascension unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of
before By M. Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists Heb. 13. 10. sect 6. we have an Altar The writâ—r to the Hebrewes exhorting them to seek establishment of their hearts in the grace which was brought unto them in the Gospell not in the discretion of meates alleadgeth this for profe that even as those which seryed the Tabernacle were not partakers by eating of those beasts whose blood being brought into the holy place their bodies were burnt without the campe Even so those which holding fast the Ceremonies of the Law are even yet as it were in the Tabernacle cannot be partaker of our Saviour Christ who suffered out of the gates of Jerusalem and is the truth of the shadowes figures which were burnt without the camp This being the very naturall meaning of the Text let the Reader observe how not childishly only but absurdly also the Jesuiâ—es apply this place to prove a Reall Altar and consequently a Sacrifice of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For first what is that which the Jewes are threatned to be deprived of the eating of If the Jesuites will answer according to their drift heere of proving an Altar of stone and not a Communion Table they must say that for reward of their obstinate cleaving to the Ceremonies of the Law they shall not eat stones a small punishment for so great a finne which if the Jesuites were put unto they would I thinke cry for a Communion Table as of some better digestion then the Popish Altar whereby it is evident how sottish it is which they straine so much at touching the proper signification of the Greeke word and the Hebrew answering there unto which as if those words which properly signifie one thing cannot by borrowed speech signifie another thing unproperly And as though they were ignorant that the word as properly signifieth a reall Sacrifice as this word signifieth an Altar were not in this very Chapter translated from the property of it to signifie a spirituall Sacrifice Wherfore by the Altar is meant our Saviour Christ so called for that as he is the Preist and Sacrifice so also he is the Altar which sanctified himselfe to be offered unto his Holy Father as the Altar did sanctifie the gift which was upon it And it is Christ not sacrificed upon an Altar of stone by a Preist but which offered himselfe upon Mount Calvary without the gates of Jerusalem as is expresly mentioned here in this place Neither doth the writer to the Hebrewes meane Christ suffering in a Mysterie but that oblation of himselfe which he once offered wherein the fire of Gods anger fed upon his body and soule to have as were the Sacrifices of beasts consumed them if that his humanity had not been supported and borne up by the eternall spirit of his God head wherein he offered himselfe unto his Holy Father And Isychius l. 6. c. 21. in Lev. saying that Christs body is the Altar confuteth you plainly that hereof would ground an Altar of stone and saying that the Jewes for their incredulity must not behold him he giveth you another blow thereby declaring that the eating of Christ is the beholding of him and not the â—arn all eating of him or swallowing him downe the throate the beholding of Christ he placeth in the eye of faith which the incredulous Jewes wanting must not behold him What cursed spirits therfore are these which upon the confidence of this place making as much for their Altars as for Baals scoffe at the Holy Table of the Lord in calling it a common prophane board which must needs unlesse they have heardned their faces to all impudency grant that the first and last time that ever our Saviour Christ ministred the Eucharist in his owne person did it at a Table and not at an Altar and at the same Table also at which he eat his common repast which notwithstanding we doe not nor in the peace and quiet of the Church thinke meet to be done But of this matter let the Reader see more before upon 1. Cor. 11. 29. where also he shall see how unworthily the ancient Fathers are abused for maintenance of Massing Altars And let it be here observed how the evidence of the truth presseth them which are faine to confesse that the Fathers call it as well a Table as an Altar but say they that is unproperly in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body and blood received And I pray you what should let us to say that when they call it an Altar they doe it unproperly because of the spirituall Sacrifice of thankes giving that is offered at it Set aside the truth of the cause triable by other reasons what warrant have you for your answer which we have not for ours Nay we may much trulyer say it then you can which having shewed it before will heere content our selves with one place and the same taken from your owne allegations And from him who may well be in stead of all the rest for August Epist. 86. speaking of that which under the Gospell succeeded that under the Law saith thus One Altar ought to give place to another sword to sword fire to fire bread to bread beast to beast bloud to bloud whereby the same reason that the beast which is offered must needs be an unproper speech and the fire that consumeth it a metaphoricall fire it followeth that the Altar whereupon the beast is layd and consumed must needs be an unproper speech And indeed this unproperty of speech in the Altar is yet further confirmed When in the same place Augustine objecteth to one as an Ignorance that he understood not the name of Altar to be more used in the vvriting of the Law of the Prophets then under the Gospell but most evidently of all in that the proving that there is mention of an Altar in the New Testament alleadgeth the place in the Apocalipse which the Jesuites themselues interpret of our Saviour Christ. Yow were heere also greatly over-seen to bring this place seeing he against whom this ignorance is objected affirmed that in stead of a beast we have now bread in the Sacrament and in stead of blood we have the cup where yow would beare the world in hand that Beringarius was the first that denied Transubstantiation And S. Augustine answering it and affirming that bloud succeeded to bloud yet doth evidently declare that he meant a figurative and Sacramentall bloud in that where the other sayd we have in stead of a beast bread Augustine answereth that as the Jewes had the presence bread so we in the Supper of the Lord and when he sayth that every one taketh a peece of the Immaculate Lambe it is evident that he meaneth by the Lambe the figure Sacrament of the Lambe unlesse you will dare to say that our Saviour Christ in the Supper is cuâ— or broken in peeces but as for your shift it is not so honest for presupposing as you
doe that it is very bloud and raw flesh which is there received the word of Table fitteth it not so well but rather the word of Altar ought to have been retained considering that men use not to bring any of these dishes to their Tables and yet were usually brought under the Law to the Altar which Altar if you be ashamed to build up againe to have place meet for your Popish dishes yow shall repaire to the Butchers shamble or slaughter house where this Marchandise of yours is most saleable By D. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart Chap. 8. Divis. 4. p. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. Hart. The name of Altar is used properly for a materiall Altar by the Apostle to the Hebrewes saying Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar whereof they have no power to eate which serve the Tabernacle c. Rainolds And are you out of doubt that by the words We have an Altar the Apostle meaneth a materiall Altar such as your Altars made of stone Hart. What else A very Altar Rainolds And they who have no power to eate of this Altar are the stubborne Jewes who keepe the Ceremonies of the Law Hart. The Jewes such prophane men Rainolds Then your Masse Preists may doe use to eat of this Altar Hart. They doe and what then Rainolds Their teeth be good strong if they eat of an Altar that is made of stone Are ye sure that they eat of it Hart. Eat of an Altar As though ye knew not that by the Altar the Sacrifice which is offered upon the Altar is signified They eat of Christes body which thereby is meant Rainolds Is it so Then the word Altar is not taken for a very Altar in the proper sence but figuratively for the body of Christ the which was sacrificed offered Neither is it taken for the body of Christ in that respect that Christ is offered in the Sacrament in the which sort he is mystically offered as often as the faithfall doe eat of that bread drinke of that Cup. Wherein the breaking of his body and shedding of his bloud is represented to them But in that respect that Christ was offered on the Crosse in the which sort he was truly offred not often but once to take away the sinnes of many to sanctifie them for ever who beleive in him Hart. Nay the ancient Father Isichius expoundeth it of the body of Christ in the Sacrament as I shewed which the Jewes must not behold They might behold his body upon the Crosse did so Rainolds But the Holy Apostle himselfe did understand it of the body of Christ as it was offred on the Crosse. And that is manifest by the words he addeth to shew his meaning touching the Jewes and the Altar Heb. 13. 11. For sayth he the bodies of those beastes whose blood is brought unto the Holy place by the High Preist for sinne are burnt without the campâ— Therfore even Iesus that he might sanctifie the people wish his owne blood suffered without the gare Which words are some what darke but they will be plaine if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would prove the reason by which he proveth it The thing that he would prove is that the Iewes cannot be partakers of the fruit of Christs death the redemption which he purchased with his pretious blood if they still retaine the Ceremoniall worship of the Law of Moses The reason by which he proveth it is an ordinance of God in a kind of Sacrifices appointed by the Law to be offered for sinne which Sacrifices shadowed Christ taught this doctrine Lev. 6. 16. 7. 6. For whereas the Preistes vvho served the Tabernacle in the Ceremonies of the Law Levit. 4. 3. 16. 17. had a part of other Sacrifices offerings did eate of them Lev. 6. 30. there were certaine beasts commaunded to be offred for sinne in speciall sort their blood to be brought into the Holy place vvhose bodies might not be eaten but must be burnt vvithout the Campe. Now by these Sacrifices offred so for sinne our only Soueraigne Sacrifice Iesus Christ vvas figured Heb. 9. 12. vvho entred by his blood into the Holy place to clense us from all sinne 1. Iohn 1. 7. 2. 2. his body vvas crucified vvithout the gate Iohn 19. 20. that is the Gate of the Citty of Ierusalem they vvho keep the Preistly rites of Moses Law cannot eate of him that by his death they may live Iohn 6. 51. for none shall live by him vvho seeke to be saved by the Law as it is vvritten Gal. 5. 2. if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing The Apostle therfore exhorting the Hebrewes to stablish their hearts vvith grace that teacheth them to serve the Lord in spirit truth after the Doctrine of the Gospell not vvith meates that is to say with the Ceremonies of the Law a part whereof was the difference between unclean clean in meats doth move them to it with this reason verse 10. that they serve the Tabernacle and stick unto the Rites of the Jewish Preist hood their soules shall have no part of the food of our Sacrifice no fruit of Christes death verse 11. For as the bodyes of those beastes which are offred for sinne their blood brought into the Holy place by the High Preist might not be eaten by the Preistes but were burnt without the campe so neither may the keepers of the Preistly Ceremonies have life by feeding upon Christ who to show this mystery did suffer death without the Gate when he shed his bloud to clense the people from their sinne verse 12. And thus it appeareth by the Text itselfe that the name of Altar betokneth the Sacrifice that is to say Christ crucified not as his death is shewed forth in the Sacrament but as he did suffer death without the gate Whereby you may perceive first the folly of your Rhemists about the Greeke word is also the Hebrew that it signifieth properly an Altar to Sacrifice on as though it might not therfore be used figuratively where yet themselves must needes acknowledge it to be so too Next the weaknes of your reason who thereof doe gather that by the Sacrifice which that word importeth in the Apostle is meant the cleane offring of which the Prophet speaketh For the cleane offring of which the Prophet speaketh Mal. 1. 11. is offered in every place the Sacrifice meant by the Apostle Heb. 13. 11. in one place only without the Gate Wherfore the name of Altar in the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth neither signifie a Massing Altar nor prove the Sacrifice of Massing Preistes Hart. That which you touch as folishly noted by our Rhemists in their Annot. on Heb. 13. 10. about the Greeke and Hebrew word is noted very truly For you cannot deny your selfe but that it signifieth properly an Altar a materiall Altar to sacrifice upon not a metaphoricall
of these ordinances 2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yeares after Christ had no Altars of which more before therfore not the name of Altars or of the Sacrament of the Altar 3. The Fathers usually and properly stile the Communion Table the Lords table the Holy table the Table c. and the Sacrament iâ—selfe the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body and blood the Eucharist and the like that properly and those who phrase the Table an Altar or the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar doe it only improperly and figuratively as they stile faith and our hearts the Altar of a Christian either in relation to Christ himselfe who is our only true Altar whose body blood death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Crosse is here spiritually exhibited or by reason of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse and oblations of Charity for the poores releife that are there offred up when the Sacrament is received or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven who must consecrate all our Services Sacrifices spirituall oblations make them acceptable to his Father In these regards only as some of our Martyrs Bishop Jewell D. Fulke D. Reynolds M. Deane Nowell D. Willet and M. Cartwright observe the Fathers sometime stile the Lords Table an Altar or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and oblations which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Crosse here represented to us but never truly or properly Therfore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar nor yet the Sacrament to be the Sacrament of the Altar or that it may properly be so termed 4. Though the Fathers phrase the Communion Table an Altar or the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully doe it or that they did well in it For when they used this manner of speech the Sacrifice of the Masse Masse-Preists with other idolatâ—ous popish trash was not knowne nor heard in the world neither were there any to be scandalized with those phrases or to wrest them to such ill ends purposes as since they have been There were then no Papists to be hardned encouraged in their popish Superstition no Protestants to be scandalized or drawen to dreame of Masse and Masse Preists againe as now there are Therfore they prochance might lawfully use these termes though we may not And yet these termes speeches of the Fathers the Papists have formerly derived and still defend justify all the abominations of their Masse their altars Masse Preistes massing vestments Cringes Ceremonies which shewes that the Fathers might have better spared then used them since all this hurt but no good at all hath proceeded from them if we should now after so long a discontinuance disuse of these Titles and our exploding of them as savouring to much of Popery and Iudaisme and tending to foment them should reassume them it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries errors superstitions concerning the Masse and altars wherein they differ for Protestants but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery and others scandalized with these termes either wholly to seperate from our Church as false superstitious Popish or else to continue in it with wounded troubled scrupulous coÌ„sciences dejected discontented spirits drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as late experience to apparantly manifests So that this fiâ—â—t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected To the second and maine reason I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancie of reformation whence M. Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes annexeth this observation to it But note the time of the first making of this Statute which was before that the Masse taken away when the opinion of the reall presence was dot removed from us The language therfore of this Act made thus before the Masse was taken away or the grosse opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us is not much to be regarded much lesse insisted on though the Coale from the Altar doth principally relie upon it 2. I answer that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar nor the Lords table an Altar but rather the contrary For the Tittle of it is this An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speake against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar c. And the body of the Act runs thus As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar and in Scripture marke it THE SVPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST c. So that the name which the Statute gives it is only the Sacrament used 8. times together in this Act and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ thus so stiled and this clause commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar is not a Title given it by the Statute but by the Preistes and vulgar people who then usually called it so and added only by way of explanation as their usuall terme not the Parleaments and being omitted in the ensuing parts clauses of this Act which termes the Sacrament the Sacrament of Christes body and blood with out this terme of explination which this Act expresly declares to be no Title given it in or by the Scripture which ever calls it the Supper and Table of the Lord the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ but only by the vulgar who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected neither Masse nor Transubstantiation nor Altars being then abolished as they were shortly after 3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar the sole thing now in question but the Table of the Lord therfore it makes nothing for Altars or the stiling of the Communion Table an Altar 4. No Act either in King Edwards Raigne or Queen Elizabeths or since her dayes this alone excepted calls the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Sacrament the Holy Sacrament c. this Title therfore being omitted in all other Acts mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar not the Parleaments and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Masse and Altars were againe set up and revived but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this can be no plea at all for us now to call the Lords Table an Altar or his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but rather argues the contrary that we should for beare to stile them thus because the Parleament in
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâ—em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ— Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ— that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâ—th among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ— lexondâ— control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
c. But what if wee shall say of this point of Appellations that it was not so from the beginning here unto we claime but your owne common confessions Viz. g That the Apostles did willingly absteine from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos Altar So your Cardinall Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Masse Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers who have sought a proofe of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar used by the Apostle Paule Hebr. 13. But also themselves who from S. Luke Acts. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both absteined and not absteined from the words of Preist and Sacrifice And againe your Iesuite Lorinus In Acts. 14. 22. de Saâ—erdote Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij Idolorum concedo The New Testament saith he absteined from the word Sacerdos as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament So he vvherefore this and the English word Priest hauing a different relation one to a sacrificing Minister which is proper to the Old Testament the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter in the New Testrment which is Senior and hath no relation to a sacrificing function It must follow that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testament for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour as the patching of old vestments with new pieces whereby the rent is made worse But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such tearmes in their speeches concerning Christian vvorship whereof these your fore-named Disputers can give you a reason Least that say they the Iewish Priesthood being as yet in force might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish ritâ—s Which is enough to shew that you are persuaded they absteined from the use of these words for some Reasons Thus he and much more against Priests And against Altars likewise he hath sundrie passages p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing seemes not to be his Here againe I cannot but admire that these tearmes of Priests Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denyed by our writers together with Altars Sacrifices themselves so notablie refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631. 1â—35 should the selfesame yeares by doting Shelford Widdowes Reeve and this yeare by Dr. Pocklington and the namelesse Colier be publikely maintained point-blanke against the Bishop And that they by publike authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a materiall Altar which this Bishop out of Aquiâ—as the Diuines of Colen Bellaâ—mine himselfe and Estâ—us proves 〈◊〉 be ment of it but only of Christ himselfe or of the Altar of the Grosse p. 416. 417. I feare therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishops Chaplains who licensed these New Pamphlets which point-blanke oppugne the Bâ—shops booke Or else by some of these New Writers or their Freinds These Reasons I say enduce me to beleeve that this is not the Bishops passage But that which doth must prevaile with me is this the sottishnes of the difference reason and proofes therein alledged which savours neither of his judgement learning nor acurenes All which I shall now examine 1. First the partie here puts a difference betweene Protestants bowing to the Altar and Table and Papists which sayth he is three fold First in the cause or reason of this bowing Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it Therefore by his owne confession they bow not to or towards the Altar out of any relation to or occasion dravvne from the Altar Though Cardinall Pooles Visitoâ—s in Cambridge enjoyned the Schollers to bow to the ALTAR as well as to the Hostia in Queen Maries dayes But Protestants bow towards the Table to testify the CommunioÌ„ of all the faitâ— full communicants thereâ—â—t Secondly in the Object â—apists bow to the Eucharist Protestants to the Lord of the Table not to the Table of the Lord. Thirdly in the time Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon The second difference makes Papists and Protestants bowing both one For they bow not to the Eucharist or consecrated bread and wine See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. But as they apprehend and beleeve it to be the very body bloud of Christ yeâ— Christ himselfe both God and man And so to him which these Protestants termes the Lord of the Tablâ— Therefore the object of their bowing at leastwise according to the Papists Doctrine is both one And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions The first and lâ—st liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists and that in these respects 〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partiall if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it Wiâ—nes the 3. first reasons alledged for this Ceremonie all drawne from the Table and M. Shelfords distinction See his Sermon of the Church p. 79. that it is not terminativum cultus sed MOTIVUM But the Papists have so much piety and religion in them as neither to make it one or other bowing towards it ONLY to adore the Eucharist Secondly the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Châ—ist himselfe as they beleeve is really present on it At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoyned to bow towards it only to adore the Sacrament A cleare euidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by â— or done unto the Altar But our Novellers out stripping the Papists how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it When they both know and beleeve that Christ is not there really present neither in his person nor in his ordinances And when â—s neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church enjoyne them so to doe A plaine euidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table but to the Table and Altar it selfe Therefore their bowing is farre worse more unreasonable absurd then the Papists in these two respects 3ly The Papists bow thus Bishop Morton Ibid. only to adore their breaden God terminating their worship intentionally only in Christ But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table And why so What to worship or honour him therebyâ— No such matter But to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table Such a peece of new divinity as J never read the like except in some Popish Masse bookes to witt Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum their Ladies Psalter Primer c. which teach their Proselites to pray to God to move
quas Artis sibi praetextu cumulaverâ—nt Sed quos cognoverit medendi solida scientia fidelique voluntate pollere Sic nemo se ei libenter navi committat quae ab eo regatur qui nomine tantum opibus se Gubernatorem jactet peritiam autem navigandi nullam teneat Sed mavult quisque cum eo navigare qui tametsi obscuro sit nomine tenuibus facultatibus ad ritè tamen gubernandam navem existat Probe doctus exercitatus Quanto vero majore cura ac studio S. M. tuae inquirendi sunt atque approbandi quibus non corpora sed summam credat Religionis Christi reconcinnandae qua aeterna omnium salus continetur Adsit ergo S. M. T. Rex nostet Christus ut summam de Religione restituenda Concilium eos sibi delegat Consiliarios qui vim Regni Christi probè norint toto illud corde expetunt obtinere cum primis apud semetipsos tùm etiam apud omnes alios Nihilque in eo humani commodi vel gratiae spectent sed paratissimi sint extrema potius carnis incommoda subire quam ullam praeterire occasionem Regnum Christi adferendi propagandi This was Bucers advice to your pious Predecessour King Edward I hope it will not be unseasonable for me now to recommend it to your Majesty At whose Royall feet I now in all humility prostrate both my selfe and these my unworthy Labours voyd of all Courtship Flattering Elegancie or Trappings and having nothing else but loyalty and plaine Rusticke downe-right dealing to make them acceptable to your Highnes beseeching your Majesty what ever others may buze into your cares against them to make a charitable construction of them as proceeding from the reall syncerity and fidelity of his heart who as he dayly prayes to God for your Majesties long life and happines as his duty bindes him and shall continue thus to doe So he is and ever shal be ready to Sacrifice not only his studies but life and what ever else he hath unto your Majesties service And in despite of enuy and calumny shall ever manifest himselfe in all things Your Majesties Loyall dutifull and obedient Subject Though yet I conceale my name till I may doe your Majesty further Service EDMOND REEVE His Reasons For bovving to Lords-Tables and placing them Altar-vvise related and refuted CHISTIAN READER before I entertaine thee with a serious Epistle give me leave to detaine thee a little with some late Paradoxes in Edmond Reeve printed by License to prove the necessity Lawfulnes of bowiÌ„g to and towards the Altar and Communion Table at our entring in and going out of the Church to refresh thy spirits withall His first reason is this As the people of God being entred into Gods house to wit the Temple of Ierusalem did worship towards the Sanctuary or mercy Seate from which he was heard speaking not their Altars or Shew-bread-Tables so now also ought EVERY ONE being come into Gods house to prostrate himselfe that is make low obeysance towards Gods mercy Seare being the uppermost part of our Temples unto Almighty God there This reason is properly reduced into these two Logicall Arguments point-blanke against his Conclusion 1. The Jewes worshipped towards the Sanctuary and mercy Seate from which God was heard speaking a Type of our Pulpits and Reading Pewes if of any thing not towards their Altars or Tables Ergo EVERY ONE now also ought to bow to Gods mercy Seate the Pulpit and Reading Pew from which he is heard speaking in his Word not unto Altars and Tables 2. Every one ought to prostrate himselfe towards the uppermost part of our Temples unto Almightie God there But the Roofes of our Temples at least the East wall of them in the Authors sence not the Table or Akar or our Pulpits standing higher then they are the uppermost part of our Temples Ergo we must prostrate ourselves towards them to God there Not towards the Table or Altar But how then a prostration of the body towards the ground the lower part of the Temple can be a prostration towards the Roofe or upper part of the Church when as it removes the body further from it unlesse Mr. Reeve can tell me how a man may prostrate himselfe upward I cannot yet discerne 2. His second Argument is this The Divine wisdome of the Church calling the Communion-Table Gods Board doth give us to understand that that is to be accounted the peculiar Seat of God within the Temple For after a Church or Chappell is consecrated by a Bishop Gods gracious presence is ever at his mercy Seate saith the Margent and therefore towards it unto God there we are to make low obeysance whensoever we come into Gods house to pray Also as the Chaire of State is alwayes to be honoured though the person of the Royall Majesty be not seene there So is GODS BOARD EVER TO HAVE DUE REVERENCE therefore this bowing is done due to the Board itselfe not God and God who is there perpetually is alwayes to be prostrated unto yea wheÌ„ as the body blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament is not upon the same So the Passage in Bishop Mortons too nor Divine Service in saying therein or in any other place of the Holy Temple For which cause it is prescribed that ever the holy Communion-Table should be kept Sacred This I have else-where fully answered out of Shelford Widdowes who produce neither Scripture nor Reason for all this they say nor any authority but their owne 1. First therefore let them prove That God hath and ought to have a Seate in every Church 2. Secondly that this Seate is the Communion-Table only not the Pulpit Reading Pew Bible or any other part of the Church 3. Thirdly that God alwayes sits there by his grace when there is no body in the Church to beare him Company no Service no Sacrament of Christs body and blood 4. Fourthly that when there is Divine Service read in the Church a Sermon preached in the Pulpit or a Child Christned at the Font and no Service or Sacrament at the the Table that he yet sits still on the Table and is there only specially present by his grace and not at these other places in any of his Ordinances 5. Fiftly that God is alike present at the Table by his grace when there is no Communion as when there is one 6. Sixtly that men ought in point of duty to bow to every place where God is present And to one part only off or instrument in the Church and not to the whole Fabricke Seventhly that a Bishops consecration confines God close prisoner to his mercy Seate the Table so as never to suffer him to stirre one inch from thence no not when there is no SacrameÌ„t no Divine Service no person there to doe him homage nor use of his speciall presence Till these bedlam Paradoxes be proved which wil be ad Gâ—aecas
Phocas the Emperors permission to the honour of all Sancts in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles Altars have been placed not only towards the East but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of the Church These since they were so placed either unpossibly or by necessitie wee dare not disapprove Let every man abound in his owne sence The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth and salvation is farr from sinners Let us drawe neere to us Thus hee Gregorie Nazianzen in his 21. Oration p. 399. declaming against the unworthie Bishops and Ministers of his age sayth thus They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and mindes as they say and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur protenduntur and are pressed thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE not Altar esteeming this order not an example of virtue but a maintenance helpe of life A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it S. Chrysostome in his first Homilie upon Esay 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence A cleare Evidence that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age that men and Angells might stand round about and Compasse it on every part To witt in the middest of the Church or Quire as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words where no doubt it alwayes stood as the learned Thomas Verow testifyeth till private Popish Masses wherein the Preist only receiveth removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall as remote as might bee from the people If any object as the late Coale from the Altar doth that Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus write That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East I answeare First that before their dayes in Eusebius Chrysostomes Augustines the Emperour Zeno his tyme it stood in the midst of the Church or Quire and soe it did in Durandus his age 1320. yeares after Christ and in the Greeke Churches anciently and at this day as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved 2. Neither of these two Authors affirme that the Altar or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall as nowe they are placed the thing to be proved but only toward the East part of the Church ad Orientem versus sayth Nicephorus that is neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church to witt in the middest of the Chauncell or Quire which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then as our Chauncells Quires are nowe though not in all as is evident by the forequoted authorities Soe as the argument hence deduced can bee but this non sequitur Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Churches to witt in the midst of the Quires Chauncells which stood Easterly as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell as some Novellers nowe place them whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye They were placed toward the East end of the Church therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise since toward the East is one thinge and in the East another as toward London in case of scituation or travell is one thinge in London another That which is toward London beinge not in it as hee whoe is toward Marriage is not yet actually maried Wee reade of Daniell that hee prayed toward Hierusalem Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable many miles from it Wee reade likewise of certaine Idolaters and of noe others but them in Scripture for the Jewes usually prayed Westward the Tabernacle and Temple beinge soe scituated whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East worshipped the sunne towards the East yet they sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
order 1. Cor. 11. 33. 34. c. 13. 40. never sendinge us to take a patterne from the manner of his second Comminge which is left Arbitrarie to himselfe and his Fathers pleasure Acts 1. 7. Math. 24. 36. not prescribed as a pattorne of imi tation unto us But the standinge of the Table in the midst in Christ the primitive and all reformed Churches Iudgments is most decent and Convenient therefore it is to bee observed and retained of us The second reason alleaged by our Novellers for their newe dislocation of Communion Tables is this The Communion Tables ought to bee placed at the East end of the Chancell because it is Christs mercy seate his claire of Estate and the speciall place of his presence here on Earth on which hee sitts and resides and the East end of the Chauncell or Quire is the upper the best part the prime place of honour in the Church and therefore no seates ought to bee there suffered and the Altar the Communion Table must bee there seated that soe none maye take the wall of Christ 〈◊〉 sitt above him and God Almighty This reason hath been often alleaged by our Archbishops Bishops and others in the high-Commission and urged by Giles Widdowes M. Shelford Reeve other fantasticke Scriblers in their ridiculous frantâ—cke novel Pamphlets which no man maye have libertie freely to write or preach against though never so erroneous superstitious Popish and absurd To this I answeare First that the mercy-seate was Jewish tipicall abolished by Christs death of whom it was a type Rom. 3. 25. 1. John 2. 2. Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 9. 1. to 12. and all Commentators on these textt on Exod. c. 25. and 26. and 30. and 31. and 37. and 39. and 40. Godwins Roman Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. Therefore is not it cannot bee a mercy seate 2. The mercie seate was nothinge else but the Coveringe of the Arke so called because it Covered and hidd the Lawe it was made of pure gold two cubites and an halfe broade with two Cherubims of gold of beaten worke in the two ends of the mercie seate and it was put above upon the Arke Exod. 25. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. 26. 34. c. 30. 6. c. 31. 7. c. 37. 6. to 10. c. 40. 20. Lev. 16. 13. 14. 15. Num. 7. 8. 9. Our Communion Tables are not such for matter forme workemanshipp scituation neither is there any Arke upon the topp whereof they maye bee satt if you will make the Quire resemble the Arke you must then place them upon the roofe and leds of our Quires therefore they are not mercy seates 3. God did only dispence his word and Oracles and all things which hee gave Commaundement to the Children of Israell from betweene the two Cherubims and the mercie seate Exod. 25. 22. and the fore-quoted texts The pulpiâ— therefore in this regard of it elevation above the pewes people shoulde rather bee Christs mercie seate then the Communion Table where Christ only distributed his bodie and blood unto us not his word and precepts 4. The Arke and mercy seate stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the West end of the Temple not the East Heb. 9. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. whether none but the high Preist might enter and that but once a yeare not without blood If therefore the Communion Table bee a mercy seate it must stand in the West end of our Churches upon the topp of the Arke in a Sanctrum Sanctorum as it did neither ought any Bishop or Preist to come neere it but the high Preist only to with the Archbishop of Canterbury Private of all Engiand and that once a yeare and noe more with blooddy sacrifices 5. There was but one mercy seate standinge only in the Temple not in the Synagogues over the Arke which was but one If therefore the Lords Table bee a mercie seate there shoulde bee but one in all the worlde This first reason therefore is but a Iewish frenticke dreame 6. The paten which containes the Consecrated breade and the Chalice which hold the hallowed wyne stand upon the Table as the mercy seate did upon the Arke beinge made of silver in most of gold in some places shoulde rather be Christs mercy seate then the Table it selfe yet no men bowe or cring to them or plead for their honour and precedently though more worthy in respect of matter use immediate contayninge of the materiall partes of the Sacrament then the Table 2. I answeare That the Communion Table is not Christs Chaire of Estate as these Novellers dogmatize For heaven only is Christs Throane Earth but his foo stoole Gen. 4. 2. Psal. 103. 11. Psal. 110. 1. Heb. 1. 13. c. 8. 1. c. 10. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 34. Psal. 11. 4. Isay 66. 1. Matth. 5. 34. Acts. 7. 49. And it is the expresse resolution of the Scripture and the Article of our Creede that Christ in his humane nature hath his Throane and mercy seate only at his Fathers owne right hand in heaven where hee sits in Majesty and glorie makinge perpetuall intercession for us and shall there constantly reside untill his second comminge to Iudgment Acts 1. 11. c. 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. howe then the Communion Table can bee his chaire of State and cheife place of his presence I cannot conjecture 2. Christ in the Sacrament exhibits himselfe not in his State glorie to us but in the very depth of his passion humiliation the Sacrament beinge instituted not to manifest his exaltation and glorie but to expresse unto us the breakinge of Gods body effusion of his blood on the Crosse to shewe forth his death till his comminge 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26. Math. 26. 28. Luke 22. 19. 20. Howe therefore this place Phil. 2. 7. 8. and Emblem of his greatest debasement can bee colourobly stiled his chaire of State and Mâ—jâ—sty I cannot comprehend 3. Whoe ever heard a Table to eate drinke at tearmeds chare of State either in respect of the meate or guests or howe can it bee so tearmed without grosse absurditie especially when the party there present on it is exposed to us only as spirituall meate and drinke to bee received by us not adored of us 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. 16. 17. 21. c. 11. 21. to 30. John 6. 48. to 59. 4. If any thinge maye bee there tearmed Christs Chaire of Estate it shoulde bee the Plater Chalice wherein the breade wyne are imediately comprised not the Table whereon they stand which is rather a footstoole to support Christs Chaire then the Chaire wherein hee sits in State the breade wyne not so much as touchinge the Table 5. Why shoulde the Lords Table bee Christs mercy seate or Chaire of State rather then the Font the Pulpit or Church Bible Is not Christ as really spiritually present in the one as the other by his mercy grace spirit and
people and the ignorant evill perswaded Preist will dream alway of Sacrifice Therfore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition then should the true Religion of God sooner take place which he thus seconds in his 8. Sermon upon Ionah A great shame it is for a Noble King Emperour or Magistrate contrary to Gods word to deteyne or keep from the devill or his Ministers any of their goods oâ— Treasure as the Candles Images Crosses vestiments Altars For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent at length they will be maintayned as things necessary as now we find true by late wofull experience And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah hee proceeds thus But this prayer of Jonas is so acceptable it might be thought of some men that the place where Jonas prayed in should have beâ—tered it as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time that judgeth the Prayer sayd at the High Altar to be better then that which is sayd in the Quier that in the Quier better then that which is sayd in the body of the Church that in the body of the Church better then that which is sayd in the Feild or in a mans Chamber But our Prophet sayth the Lord hath no respect to the place but to the heart faith of him that prayeth And that appeareth For penitent Jonas prayeth out of the whales belly and miserable Job upon the dung heape Daniell in the Cave of the Lyons Hieremie in the claypit the theife upon the Crosse S. Stephen under the Stones wherfore the grace of God is to bee prayed for in every place and every where as our necessity shall have need and wanteth solace Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place because that our necessity requireth helpe in every place yet I doe not condemne the publike place of prayer whereas Gods word is preached his holy Sacrament used and common prayer made unto God but allow the same and sory it is no more frequented haunted but this I would wish that the Magistrates would put both the Preist Minister and the people into one place and shut up the partition called the Câ—auncell that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other as though the vayle and partition of the Temple in the old Law yet should remaine in the Church where indeed all signes types are ended in Christ And in case this were done it should not only expresse the dignity grace of the New Testament but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister and also provoke the sayd Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Iudgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ might both heare and see playnly what is done as it was used in the Primative Church when as the abomination done upon Altars was not knowne nor the Sacrifice of Christs precious blood so conculcated and troden under feet Hereupon as also upon M. Bucers forecited opinion to this purpose and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx London 1559. and not upon M. Calvins Letter as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40. all the Altars in England by the King and his Councells direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedrall Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappell 's and Tables sett up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late to witt in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as appeares by that is storied of Bishop Farrar by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop finding an Altar sett up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion contrary to the King and Councells Ordinance caused the sayd Altar to be taken away and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH which the Vicar removing Bishop Farrar himselfe in the third yeare of King Edwards Raigne Commaunded the Vicar to sett the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL againe neere the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion After this in the 5. 6. yeare of King Edwards Raigne as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church according to the prophesie of William Mauldon who in thâ— dayes of King Henry the 8. when the Masse most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in mans reason it might seeme unpossible that the glorie opinion of them soe depely rooted in the hearts of 〈◊〉 many could by any meanes possible so soone decay and vanish to naught yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. yeares by the spirit no doubt of prophesie declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to passe that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the rootes c. so the very name of them was wholly expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Convocation and Parliament and the name of Gods-boord Lords-Table Table and Holy-Table inserted and retained both in the Rubricke and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed the Table enjoyned therein at the tyme of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chauncell And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church and of the worthy receiving the Sacrament and the name of the Lords Table only used and mentioned in them as he that reades them may discerne A truth so cleare that the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar p. 39. 40. confesseth that the former Liturgie wherein was the name of Altar was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Booke then established yeâ— upon this only ground not from any scandaâ— which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgie by Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector c. A very likely tale I promise you As if the whole Parliament and Clergie of England would be so rash or inconsiderate as to alter their whole Liturgie formerly confirmed by Parleament only to humor M. Calvin without any Scripture reason or other convincing considerations and upon no other groundes Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjecturall though positively layd downe or else the Church of England
heart itselfe and the mind and faith which have their cheife residence in the heart an ALTAR in respect of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse offred by faith on a pure heart as on a spirituall Altar and they stilâ—â— the Communion Table an Altar only in this sence and in a figurative and improper speech as they call the heart mind end faith an Altar their phrasing of it an Altar only in this sence can be no Aâ—gument at all to prove that it is properly and in truth an Altar or in that sence as some now presse it And these other 3. the heart mind and faith which they terme an Altar being scituated not in the East part but in the middest of the temple of the body are a stonger evidence to prove that the Table ought to be scituated in the middest of the Church though it were an Altar as these 3 termed Altars are in the middest of the body then that the Table is properly an Altar and therfore ought to stand in the East end of the Quire Altarwise 5. Because the Scripture expresly condemnes Altars as Iewish abolished by Christ putting Altars Preists their waiting on the Altar as Iewish Heathenish in direct opposition to the Lords Tables Ministers preaching of the Gospell consecrating of the Lords Supper at his Table distinguishing Christ his Ministers from Aaron the Preists of his order in this that one of them was to give attendance at the Altar the other not as is evident by 3. remarkable Texts of Scripture The First of them is the 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite at the Altare are partakers of the Altar Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospell should live of the Gospell Where Preachers of the Gospell are directly distinguished from Preists waiting on the Altar and preaching of the Gospell in the one put in opposition to waiting on the Altar in the other The one being Euangelicall the other only Legall and abolished The next Text is that of 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread one body are all partakers of that one bread Behold Israell after the flesh are not they which eate of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar what shall I say then that the Idoll is any thing or that which is offred in Sacrifice to Idolls is any thing But I say that the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devills and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devills yee cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devills yee cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills wherein the first part the Ministers of the Gospell who blesse eate drinke participate of the Communion of the body blood of Christ partake of that bread at the Lords Table are distinguished from Israell after the flesh the Preists of Aaron who caâ—e of the Sacrifices offred upon Altars and are partakers of Altars and the Lords Table put in opposition to the Iewish Altars and in the second part the Sacrifices Cup Table of Devills and partaking of them put in opposition and contradistinction to the Cup and Table of the Lord and the eating and drinking of them The 3. Text is that of Heb. 7. 12. 13. 14. where Christ himselfe his Preisthood and Ministers are thus purposely distinguished from Aaron and the Leviticall Preists and Preisthood that one of them gave attendance at the Altar the other not For the Preisthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law For he of whom these things are spoken partainetâ—â—o another Tribe OF WHICH NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda of which Tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning Preisthood c. In which Text as David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Epistle of Paule to the Hebrewes with others observe the Apostle proveth that Aarons Preisthood is changed the Ordinance therof because Psal. 110. speaketh of Christs Preisthood after the order of Melchisedek that is freed from the service of the Altar and Christ was borne not of the Tribe of Aaron but of Judah of which no man gave attendant at the Altar to witt the materiall Altar commaunded in the Law To declare that Altars and giving attendance at Altars properly belonging to the Leviticall Preisthood were abolished by Christ the true Preist and Sacrifice of which they were but types And that as Christ himselfe was borne of the tribe of Judah of which no man gave attendance at the Altar so the Ministers of Christ under the Gosple who professe themselves of his Tribe and Stocke should by his example give no attendance at the Altar since he never did nor ought to doe it From this remarkable Text the Church of the forraigners in â—nand An. 1550. when John de Alasco that Noble Polonian was their cheife Minister and Superintendent in the Confession of their faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and printed at London that same yeare Cum Privilegio make this the 5. note of Christs Kingdome THAT IT KNOWES NO ALTAR since he is of the tribe of Juda wherein NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR neither needeth he the furniture of any mysticall vestiments that he may enter into typicall Sanctuaries or Holy places all which things are abolished with this their Preisthood because the truth of those things which they did shadow out is exhibited And David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Hebrewes printed at Aberdence 1635. p. 126. 127. inferres from thence First that Christs Preisthood is freed from that Altar which God commaunded in the Law and all the service thereof 2. That an other Altar he knoweth not Christs Preisthood being declared to be freed from the service of this Altar no Law can tie it to any other 3. That whosoever will erect another materiall Altar in Christs Preisthood and tie his Church unto it as the Papists add and our New Prelates and Doctors doe now must looke by what Law they doe it 4. That negative Conclusions in matters of faith dueties follow well from the Scriptutes Silence It is not warranted from Scripture therfore I am not bound to beleive it Since the Apostle here reasoneth thus That none of the tribe of Judah attended the Altar because Moses speake nothing of that Tribe concerning the Preist-hood which overturnes all Preists Altars and attendance at Altars under the Gospell and the calling of the Lords-Table an Altar because the Scripture is silent and speakes nothing of them but against
them To which I shall adde a 5. inference That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar nor yet Melchiâ—edecke or any of Christs Tribe Therfore none of Christs Ministers ought to doe it and that those Archbishops Bishops Preists and Ministers who will needs have set up Altars plead write dispute for Altars likewise waite on serve give attendance at the Altar are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal of their Tribe not Ministers of Iesus Christ nor any of his sacred Tribe none of which gave any attendance at the Altar This is the Apostles reason inference the very drife of his argumentation not mine let those therfore whom it concernes looke well unto it and evade or answer it as they may 6. Christians have no such sacrifices incense-offrings or oblations which require any materiall Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon no spirituall service at all that requires an Altar Therfore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar All their Sacrifices now as prayer prayse liberality to the poore mortifying their lusts the offring up of their soules and bodyes â—living Sacrifice unto God are spirituall requiring neither a Preist much lesse an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hâ—sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. Hâ—or 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Rom 12. 1. as Bishop Hooper and King Edward the 6. with his Counsell argue Therfore they neither have nor ought to hâ—re any materiall Altar but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven 〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon 7. If the Communion Table were an Altar then it should be greater and better then the Sacramentall bread or wine or the Lords Supper itselfe and a meanes to consecrate them This reason is fully warranted by our Saviours owne resolution Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say whosoever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty Yee fooles and blind for whether is greather the gift or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offred thereon as more holy then they even as Christ our spirituall altar consecrates and hallowes all our spirituall Sacrifices Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say that the Lords Table is better then the bread and wine or the Lords Supper itselfe though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it and when they have the Sacrament itselfe in their hand to which they give no such adoration imply it to be so or that it consecrates the Sacrament layd upon it for what need then any prayer or words of consecration therfore it is no Altar 8. Every Altar was and ought to be dedicated solemnly consecrated unto God with speciall oyntments sprinkling of blood and solemnities specially the Altar of incense and attonement and those Altars placed in the Temple else they were not to be used or reputed Altars Exod. 24. 4. to 9. c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to â—0 c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 9. 10 c. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9. Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus the Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons Collegiate Church in the Countre of Stafford upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnely dedicated after the Popish manner by M. Iefferies Archdeacon of Salop and others of which more anon But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated nor solemnely dedicated sprinkled enoyled neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God or of our Church and State Therfore they neither are nor can be Altars 9. That which will be a meanes to make ignorant people superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists and to usher Popery Masse Masse-Preistes by degrees into our Church againe to the polluting defiling of Gods house Sâ—crament the setting up of grosse Idolatrie must needs be sinnefull unlawfull to be abandoned of us But the erecting of Altars in our Churches the calling of Communion Tables Altars and turning of them Altarwise so reading second service administring at them will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists will usher Popery Masse and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church againe c. as Bishop Hooper others forequoted authorities evidence and King Edward the 6. and his Councell in their 3. reason against Altars resolve Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therfore they must needs be sinfull unlawfull to be abandoned of us now as they have been heretofore both in King Edward the 6. in Queen Elizabeths dayes 10. That which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the Primitive Church for above the 250. yeares after him either had or used in their Churches administration of the Sacrament that we who ought to imitate their example 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6. ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches But neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitive Church in her purest times for above 250. yeares after Christ either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only Therfore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. his Counsell against Altars Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds it thus Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table and not at an Altar as it appeareth manifestly by the Euangelists And S. Paul calleth the comming to the holy Communion the comming unto the Lords Supper and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion Wherfore seeing the forme of a Table is more agreable with Christs institution and with the usage of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church then the forme of an Altar therfore the forme of a Table is rather to be used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a blacke Coale and some what blurred obseured I shall produce some few authorities to cleare it The third part of our owne incomperable Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie confirmed both by Statute the Articles of our Church and every Ministers subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us That all Christians in the Primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also Aâ—nobius doe
testify were fore charged and complained on that they had no Altars nor Images It is evident therfore that they tooke all Images yea all Altars to by the same reason to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them following this rule we must obey God rather then men So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds There have been Altars sayth M. Harding even from the Apostles time and that even as it is used now farr from the body of the Church c. This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge For first where he sayth The Apostles in their time erected Altars It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in woodes and Forests and in Caves under the ground And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church Verily Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ hath these words against Celsus Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines aut Aras aut Templa Celsus chargeâ—h our religion with this that we have neither Images nor Altars nor Temples Likewise sayth Arnobius that lived somewhat after Origen writing against the heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus â—oc Imagines nec Aras Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Images nor Altars And Volateranus Vernerius testify that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the First that caused Altars to be erected Therfore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say That Altars have ever been even sithence the Apostles time Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name and to Queen Elizabeth herselfe London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265â— brought in the altars first into the Church utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive some now too that call themselves Protestants about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church others affirme that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in Volateranus Durand Flascit Mass. Pet. Aequillinus Joan. Sella Thus M. Beacon The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament one the 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers All these Authorities to which the Papists could never yee replie the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath informing us that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning who must be understood not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had For otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and thing and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Ignatius the Apostles Canons and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer first that this namelesse Author in modesty good manners should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen Arnobius then our Homilies and these our learnedest writers whose judgments authorities certainely will over ballance his 2. These Authors tooke their words meaning aright what ever is pretended as appeares 1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe The Gentiles charged the Christians that they had neither Temples nor Images nor Altars Was their meaning then that they had Temples indeed but not to sacrifice in Images to but not to adore or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images that the Christians had Images but not to adore though the Gentiles objected they had none and Lactantius Minucius Felix too about that age expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all Their meaning therfore being as our Homilies those very words themselves resolve that they had no publicke Temples no Images at all for any assemblies use or purpose their meaning likewise must be that they had no Altars at all for any purpose not no Altars for any bloody externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on as he falsely glosseth it Since the wâ—nt of Temples Imagesâ— Altars are all coupled together objected to them in the same sence and manner Now had the Christians in that age had Temples but not for Idolls service Images but not to adore Altars but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on as the Coale Glosseth it the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples Altars or Images to them as is probable since they had them but their not sacrificing on them adoring them as they did not making a right use of them whoâ— they had them as we tax all couetous men or Nonpreaching Ministers that are Schollers not for having no mony or learning but for not making such use of them as they should The very objection therefore cleares it
heaven neither doth he so much as once stile the Lords Table an Altar nor make mention of an Altar whereat the Sacrament was administred throughout his workes His authority therfore might well have been spared The next Father is Tertullian out of whom two passages are alleadged One out of his Booke de Poenitentia where he remembreth Geniculationem ad Aras Bowing and ducking to Altars now much in use But certainely Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity as to be adored bowed to since the consecration of them came in long after in Pope Felix time as M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon neither can it be proved that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars This authority therfore is suspicious to put it out of doubt Erasmus Rhenanus Junius M. Cooke prove it not to be Tertullians but some conterfeit thrust upon him the phrase being certainely none of his no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age This counterfeit authority therfore will not stand the Coale in any stead The second passage is that in his Booke de Oratione c. 14. Nonne solemnior â—rit statio tuaâ—siâ—ad Atam Deisteris Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned not kneeling or bowing to or at it So that these two Authorities seeme to thwart one another at the first view To this I answer that though this Booke be generally conceived Tertullans yet I suspect that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained where in this passage is are none of his For I find this passage in them Sic die Paschae quo communis quasi publica jejunij religio est merito deponiemus of culum c. which intimates that Christians on Easter day did Keep a common publike Fast â—nd therfore refused to kisse one anotherâ— And it makes Easter day not to be Stationum dies a day of praying standing as the next words prove Now it is certaine that Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis writes that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickednes to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lords day being the joyfull day of Christs resurrection much more then to doe it upon Easter day and that the Christians did not fast but rejoyce in remembrance of Christs resurrection from Easter to whitsontide No Ecclesiasticall writer extant then making mention of any solemne fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians in that age on Easter day who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoyce applying that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast Psall 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it This passage makes me suspitious that the later part of this Booke is none of his Adde to this That Cyprian a great admirer of Tertullian whom he stiled his Minister makes no mention of this Booke or of Tertullian or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar or Kisse of peace or other such Customes Ceremonies in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lords Prayer which is probable he would have done had Tertullian writen any such Booke as this or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church Moreover this Booke makes mention of Hermas Booke intitled the Pastor by way of approbation and gives an answer to an objection out of it when as in his Booke de Pudicitia he thus censures it as counterfeit Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha falsa adultera judicatur as the Bookes now passing under his name are accounted Moreover in this very Booke of Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis so in S. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them ioyntly stiled the Eucharist both of them interpret Give us this day our dayly bread of Christ who is our living and true bread which came downe from heaven whose body the Sacramentall bread is esteemed and on whom we dayly feed in the Sacrament and Eucharist Now both of them stiling the Sacrament the Eucharist and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but only of spirituall bread to be eaten of us neither of a Table we may doubt this passage to be none of his Beside this that famous Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria flourishing but 240. yeares after Christ very neare Tertullians time writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome that an ancient Minister who was a Bishop long before him a plaine evidence that Ministers Bishops were then both one and so promiscuously stiled being present when some were baptised hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptisme where with he was baptised of the heretickes was not true whereupon he desired to be rebaptized which he durst not doe but told him that the dayly Communion many times ministred might suffice him when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food and had communicated and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ I durst not againe baptise him but bade him be of good cheare of a sure faith and boldly to approch unto the Communion of the Sincts But he for all this morunneth continually horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE and being intreated hardly is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiasticall prayers In which auncient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himselfe we have not mention at all of any Altar or Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar but twice together the name of the Lords Table also of a dayly Communion holy food ministring and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which being the proper genuine undoubted language of that age makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted He as also Justine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus oft times making mention of the Lords Supper the Eucharist bread and wine receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or cheife Ministers and the Tables to but never of any Sacrament of the Altar nor of an Altar but only here Finally all the forequoted Fathers Authors expresly determine that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250 yeares after Christ had no Temples Altars nor Images at all and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. after Tertullians age This authority therfore of his all others cited in the Coale great part of D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches Temples Altars and Bishops chaires among Christians with in 200. yeares after Christ must needs be fabulous
Apocryphall He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches in the Authors quoted or in truth misquoted by him for materiall Churches which they meane only of the Christian Congregations who had then no publike Churches but only private places in Woods Chambers Vaults Caves and the like to meet in as Tertullianâ— Bishop Jewell and our owne Homilies witnes But admit this Booke Passage to be Tertullians owne yet then it may be a question whether Tertullian meanes by Aram the Lords-Table or that place wherein the Christians mett Ara signifying a Sanctuarie as well as an Altar If the place wherein the Christians assembled as the words preceeding drift of the place import Sle militer de statlonum diebus non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit an magis Deo obligat Nonne solemnor erit statio sâ—ad Aram Dei steteris to wit after the Sacrament received Accepto corpore Domini reservatio utrumque salarum est participatio Sacrificij executio officij which cannot properly be intended that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar and not depart from it after they had received Christs body and blood standing still in the place that they received in but that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled till all prayers divine offices were fully ended If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itselfe then it makes nothing to the purpose if of the Altar or Communion Table itselfe then it will inevitably follow hence that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing not kneeling and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another However it is but a single Testimonie therfore ought not to â—ver-ballance those many pregnant weighty punctuall authorities to the contrary The last authority to prove the name use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius in Oâ—igens time is S. Cyprians Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale but the words not cited The first is his Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras As if it were lawfull after the Altars of the Devill to approch to the Altar of God c. whence we behold and beleive this censure to have come from the disquisition of God ne apud Altare consistere that they should not persevere to stand at the Altar or any more to handle it And that they should contend with all their might that such should not returne againe ad Altaris impiamenta contagia fratrum to the polluting of the Altar and contagion of the brethren The second is his Epistle to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Furnis It was long agoe ordained in a Councell of Bishops that no Clergie man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer of any mans will since all who are honored with divine Preisthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices and to prayers and orisons The Leviticall Tribe which did waite on the Temple and Altar divine service had no inheritance or temporall portion allotted them among their brethren but others manuring the earth they should only worship God c. Therfore Victor since against the forme lately prescribed to Preists in the Councell he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter a Tutor non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose necessarie factum servetur a nobis simul caeteris fratribus detur exemplum ne quid Sacerdotes ministros Dei Altari ejus Ecclesiae vocantes ad saeculares molestias devocet The third is his Epistle to Januarius Porro autem Eucharistia unde baptizati unguntur oleum in Altari sanctificatur sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam qui nec Altare habuit nec Ecclesiam unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse quando constet oleum sanctificari Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse And in his Oration de Coena Domini we find only once mention of the Lords Table twice of an Altar To these authorities I answer first in generall that the often mention of an Altar in these places rather argues the Epistles this Sermon not to be Cyprians then that the Christians in his time had Altars which all the forecited Fathers Authors deny 2. That many forged workes are attributed to S. Cyprian and many places in him corrupted as D. James M. Alexander Cooke have proved among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini which mentions Altars with other of his workes to be none of his but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis living about the yeare of our Lord 1156. at least 900. yeares after Cyprian these Epistles for ought I know may be his or some others most at least many of the Epistles or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes being spurious 3. The name Altar is not usuall in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age Dionysiusâ—Alexandrinus as I have proved in his Epistle registred by Eusebius living about S. Cyprians age twice termes it only the Lords Table 4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles seemes to stagger at them nor knowing certainly to de fine what time they were written nor what the parties were to whom or concerning whom they were directed 5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body blood the Table in S. Paules words only the Lords Table And in his Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament which all coufes to be his he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament writing that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the Euangelicall truth and Dominicall tradition nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commaunded and done by any humane and novell Tradition that we ought herein to doe only what the Lord hath done before that if S. Paul or an Angell from heaven should teach us to doe any thing then what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema That Christ only is to be heard therfore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall thinke meet to be done but that Christ who is before all men hath first done Neither ought we to follow the custome of any man but the truth of God For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ I find
the Primative Church But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ the Sonne of God and of the virgine Mary of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner Heb. 13 We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eate which serve in the Tabernacle Our Altar is not of stone but of God Not Worldly but Heavenly not visible but invisible Not dead but living upon the which Altar whatsoever is offred unto God the Father it can none otherwise be but most thankfully and most acceptable And like as Christ administring the most Holy mysteries of his body blood to his Disciples sat downe at the Table So likewise his Giustes that is so say his Apostles sitting at the same Table receaved that Heavenly food sitting But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramentall bread unto the Communicants except they first of all kneele downe with great humility reverence that they may by this their gesture declare shew evidently to such as are present that they worship honour that bread for a God which is so great so notable wickednesse as none can exceed when it is plaine evident by the ancient writers that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many yeares after Christes resurrection sat at the Table So farre is it of that they either after the manner of the Jewes stood right up or after the custome of the Papists kneeled when they should receave the Holy mysteries of the body blood of Christ. So in his Cathechisme f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus Father What thinkest thou is it more meet to receave the Supper of the Lord at a Table or at an Altar Sonne At a Table Father Why so Sonne For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table And what can be more perfect then that which Christ and his Apostles have done All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table Ye can not be partakers sayth he of the Lordes Tables and of the Devills also Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ almost 300. years after Christ universally and in some places longer as Histories make mention So that the use of Altars is but a new invention and brought in as some write by Pope Sixtus the second of that name Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice And Altars were built and set up at the Commandement of God to offer Sacrifice upon them But all those Sacrifices doe now cease for they were but shadowes of things to come therfore the Altar ought to cease with them Christ alone is our Altar our Sacrifice our Preist Our Altar is in Heaven Our Altar is not made of stone but of flesh blood of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars while they had such confidence in them that without an Altar or in the stead thereof a Super-altare they were perswaded that they could not duely truly and in right forme minister the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. And this their Altar and Superaltar likewise must be consecrate have prints and charactes made therein washed with oyle wine and water be covered with a cloth of hayer and be garnished with fine white linnen clothes other costly apparell or els whatsoever was done thereon was counted vaine unprofitable The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresie which the Papistes hold concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse while they teach that they offer Christ in their Masse to God the Father an oblation and Sacrifice for the sinnes of the people both of the living and of the dead and by this meanes they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christes death And therfore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no lesse to be throwen downe and cast out of the Temples of the Christians then in times past the Altars of the Preistes of Baal So far is it of that they be meet to be used at the Celebration of the Lords Supper Finally who knoweth not that we come unto the Lords Table not to offer bloody Sacrifices to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars but to eate and drinke and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offred up for us on the Altar of the crosse a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father yea and that once for all Now if we come together to eate and drinke these Holy mysteties so spiritually to eate Christes body and to drinke his blood unto salvation both of our bodies soules who seeth not that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lords Supper then an Altar Father Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended But what sayest thou concerning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table Shall we receave those Holy mysteries kneeling standing or sitting Sonne Albeit I know confesse that gestures of themselves be indifferent yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoyded as have outwardly any appearance of evill according to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstaine from all evill apparaunce And first of all forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ at the receiving of the Sacrament thorow the doctrine of the Papistes although of it selfe it be indifferent to be or not to be used yet would I wish that it were taken away by the authority of the hier powers Father Why so Sonne For it hath an outward appearaunce of evill When the Papist thorow their pestilent perswasions had made of the Sacramentall bread and wine a God then gave they in Commandment streight wayes that all people should with all reverence kneele unto it worship honour it And by this meanes this gesture of kneeling creept in and is yet used in the Church of the Papistes to declare that they worship the Sacrament as their Lord God and Saviour Whence M. Roger Cutchud in his 1. 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio Anno 1560. writes Many comming to the Lords Table doe misbehave themselves so doe the lookers on in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling bowing their bodies knocking their breasts with Elevation of their hands If it were to be elevated served to the standers by as it hath beene used Christ would have elevated it above his head He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples bidding them to eate it not to hold up their hands
to receive it not to worship it so delivered it to them SITTING not kneeling Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence no Sacrament for God is not a Sacrament neither is the Sacrament God Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did If thou wilt be more devout then they were be not deceived but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie But I would wish with all my heart that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament were taken away or els that the people were taught that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe but to Christ which is represented by that Sacrament or signe But the most certaine sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Absteine from all evill appearaunce Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error and the weaklings offended and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone Therfore when Satan commaunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him worship him He answered It is writen thou shalt worship the Lord Math. 4. Standing which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes I can right well allow it if it be appointed by common order to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jewes Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come as our Sacrament is a signe figure of Christ come and gone Neither did that gesture want his mysteries For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne then had hethereto appeared unto them which were wrapped round about with the darke shadowes of ceremonies againe that other yea and these more perfect Sacraments were to be given to Gods people which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes Baptisme and the Lords Supper Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches if it were received by publique authority and common consent and might conveniently be used in our Churches I could alow that gesture best For as it is be doubted but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and bloud which use was also observed in the primative Church and long after So likewise it is most Commonly that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ and of his Disciples Nothing can be unreverently done that is done of the example of Christ of his Apostles We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ we have a Table set before us is it not meet and convenient that we sitte at our Table The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat yea rather who sitteth not downe when Christ feed the people he bad them not kneele downe nor stand upon their feet but he commaunded them to sit downe John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke which thing we doe at the Lords-Table Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses even the preaching of the glorious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover even the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie preach and declare unto us that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion that there is none other doctrine nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then those only which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord. And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture that we are come to the perfection of our Religion and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us Notwithstanding as I sayd before gestures are free so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred In all things which we call indifferent this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed Abstayne from all evill apparaunce Father I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe But come of tell me what sayest thou concerning the vestures which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper Sonne In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse a cope in some only a surplesse in some neither cope nor surplesse but their owne decent apparell Father And what thinkest thou in this behalfe Sonne When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body blood to his disciples he used none other but his owne Commone dayly apparell so likewise did the Apostles after him and the primative Church likewise used that order so was it continued many yeares after tyll superstition began to creep into the Church After that time fonde foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne devysed without the authority of Gods word that the Minister in the divine service and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linnen vesture which we now commonly call a Surplesse Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ of his Apostles requiring no paynted visores to set forth the glory beauty of our Religion which is then most glorious and most beautifull when it is most simple none otherwise setforth then it was used and left unto us of Christ of his Apostles And contrarywise it is then most obscured defaced when it is dawbed over with the vile vayne colours of mans wisdome although outwardly never so gorgious and glorious Afterward as superstition grew and encreased so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church and in adourning decking trimming the Temples of the Christians yea that so much the more because they were now perswaded that such Temples and will workes pleased God deserved remission of sinnes everlasting life By this meanes came it to passe that the simple and plaine Tables which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church were taken away and standing Altars set up and gorgeously decked with sumptuous
apparell garnished with gold pearle precyous stone And because that he which should minister at that gorgeous sumptuous Altar should answer in some points to the glory thereof therfore it was devised that the minister also should have on his backe galant and gorgious apparell as an Amyce an albe a tunicke a girdle a fannell a stole a vestment c. whereof some were made of silke some of veluet some of cloth of gold yea those garnished with Angels with Images with birds with beastes with fishes with floures with herbes with trees and with all things that might satisfy and please the vaine eye of the carnall man And all these things being before but voluntary greâ— afterward unto matters of so great waight importance yea unto such necessity that it was made a matter of conscience yea it was become deadly sinne to minister the Holy Communion without these scenicall Histrionicall Hickescorner like garments so that now to sing Masse or to consecrate as they use to say without these Popish robes is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sinne so farr is it of that these Missall vestures are now things of indifferency Wherfore in my judgment it were meet and convenient that all such disguised apparell were utterly taken away forasmuch as it is but the vaine invention of man hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papistes For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idolls what concord is there between Christ and Beliall what have the vestiments of a Popish Altar to doe with the Table of the Lord Christ. Many such passages are in this Author which for brevity case I pretermitt Reverend M. Alexander Nowell in his Reprofe of Dormans profe printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. 66. writes thus Touching the name of Altars which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9. where we call it the Lords Table we have for us good authority First that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table and not at an Altar is most manifest except M. Dorman would have us thinke that men had Altars in steed of Tables in their private houses in those dayes but our Saviour expressely saying that the handes of him who should betray him were upon the Table taketh away all doubting Luc. 22. c. 21. And S. Paule 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam the Lord his Table Sure I am that M. Dorman all the Papists with him can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament for their Altars as I have alledged for the Lords Table they may goe therfore joyne themselves to the Jewes as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies so in Altars also as it seemeth indeed they would both become themselves and make us too Jewes rather then Christians If S. Basill some old writers call it an Altar that is no proper but a figurative name for that as in the old Law their burnt offrings Sacrifices were offred upon the Altar so are our Sacrifices of prayer and thankgiving c. offred up to God at the Lords Table at it were an Altar But such kind of figurative speech can be no just cause to set up Altars rather then Tables unlesse they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars for that like phrase is used of them where it is sayed Christ offred up himselfe upon the Altar of the Crosse. Now the old Doctors doe call it the Lords Table usually truly without figure and agreably to the Scriptures Concerning the spirituall worship or service of God or Sacrifice if yow will seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill due to be done at the Lords Table which as a fore is noted he calleth an Altar it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table that is to say true repentaunce of heart which is as the Prophet calleth it Psal. 51. v. 19. a service a Sacrifice pleasaunt unto God the offering up of our prayers prayses unto God which service and Sacrifice of prayse as the Psal. withnesseth Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God specially that Sacrifice of thankes giving most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table and to that Holy Sacrament having thereof a peculiar name being called with the Greekes Eucharistia to say thankes giving for the gratefull remembraunce of that one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour once for all which Sacrifice of thanks giving we joyntly with other present doe offer up to Christ our Saviour in the memoriall by him selfe and by faith in our heates doe communicate his precious body and blood a Sacrifice by him selfe offred for us Neither are our oblations or offrings to the poore lacking when we come to this Altar which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God where as yow Papists have no such thing but only the bare word Offertorium without any offring for the poore saving that yow did not forget to receive the offrings for your selves at the usuall offring dayes and when any Dirige or Monthes mind did fall Thus yow se M. Dorman that we have even that same spirituall worship service and Sacrifice too if yow so will due to be done at this Altar that is to witt the Lords Table which S. Paul speaketh of here and any other Altar or service he meaneth not nor knew none And were yow not altogether to grosse S. Basill so oft speaking of spirituall worshipping and spirituall service might somewhat reforme your carnall and sensuall understanding yow se we doe not sticke to grant yow not only a spirituall worship and service but a Sacrifice too which yet hath no need of your Altars framed to your selves upon this false phantasie that the body and bloud of Christ are there offred by the Preistes for the quicke dead with the abuse of that distinction of the bloudy and unbloudy offering of Christs body applied to the same which altogether is a false fable a vaine dreame most meet for M. Dorman The Scriptures Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. 13. 11. 12. doe thus teach us that Christ our Saviour once for all offred up his body and bloud upon the Altar of the Crosse the one only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father by the which one oblation of the body of Christâ— a Sacrifice for our sinnes once for ever offered and no more to be offered by any man we be sanctified and made perfit Wherfore the Popish Preistes which doe repeate often the Sacrifice of Christs death as they doe teach thereby as much as in them lieth doe take away the efficacie and vertue of the Sacrifice of Christes death making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law the imperfection of which Sacrifices S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the
same For the continuance whereof their Preistes needed also succession but Christ is a Preist for ever without succession as the Apostle Heb. 10. plainly teacheth Our service and Sacrifice now is the often and thankfull remembraunce of that only Sacrifice in the receiving of the Holy Sacrament at the Lords Table according to his owne institution Hoc facite in memoriam mei Doe this in remembrance of me with spirituall feeding by faith also upon that his most precious body and bloud so by him for us offered Touching the pulling downe of your Altars I answer they are justly destroyed as were those wicked Altars by Asa Josaphat Ezechias Josias godly Kings of Juda destroyed 4. Reg. 18. c. 22. 4 Reg. 23. 2. Para. 14. a. 3. 2. Para. 17. b. 6. 2. Para. 31. a. 1. 2. Para. 34. a. 4. For as abominable Idolatrie was committed on before your Altars as ever was upon and before those If yow require prouses hereof you shall have them in their due places of the Masse of Idolatrie to Images after which he complaines thus of the Papists also of Christians we have made us Jewes and your selves of Ministers of the Gosple have yow made Jewish and Aaronicall Levites yow have on Aarons robes yow use his gestures yow have brought in his incense his censers his Altars his candles his candlestickes his belles and his banner his gold and his silver into the service and Temple of God Of the which beginning of things S. Hierome in his time much coÌ„plained And would to God yow had done no worse then thus to make us your selves altogether Juish by your shadowes imitating and counterfeyting the old Law Elegant Walter Haddon M. Fox in his answer to Hierom Osorious lib. 3. fol. 271. write thus concerning Altars Now whereas thou sayest that Images signes Crosses and Altars are cast downe I suppose that this part of the Complaint doth not much appertaine to Luther or the Ministers of the Euaâ—gelicall doctrine when as they never put any hands to the pulling downe of them Neither is it equall that those who are but private men should by force Tumults take liberty to themselves to doâ— any thing in the Common wealth or Church But if the Magistrates by their lawfull authority because they see it agreeable to the word of God doe piously and quietly doe their office therein what hath Osorius a private man and a stranger here either to scould at or to intermedle with it If King Sebastian shall thinke meet to cherish and follow these parts of the Roman Superstition in Altars in Images in Pictures and adoring Images he hath the voyces of the Scripture on the one side of Monkes on the other to which he may chuse whither he will harken he may doe in his Reipublike at his perill and pleasure But on the other side if Elizabeth Queen of the English the Scripture leading her shall thinke meet that these filthinesses of impure superstition which no Christian may endure without the danger of himselfe and of his rightly to be driven from the Empire cast out of the Realme verily shee doth nothing therein which may not plainly be defended by the perspicuous authority of the sacred Scripture and by the great examples of the most approved Kings Unlesse perchance Osorious shall thinke the memory of Ezekiah Josiah Jehosaphat not much to be appladed who both destroyed Altars and Images Groves and breake in peeces the brasen Serpent or then Gedion also who when he was no King cut downe the Grove and overturned the Altar what therfore that which in the Carnall Law was lawfull to the Kings of the Jewes shall it be lesse lawfull to our governers Magistrates in the spirituall Kingdome or Christ Or shall that then which in them was thought worthy of prayse reward by the verdict of the Scriptures be condemned of impiety in Christian Princes now After which he proceeds to justifye this action in breaking downe and abolishing Images Altars by Histories Fathers and Councells in the Primative times D. Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhemist Testament on the 1. Cor. c. 11. sect 18. fol. 287. determines thus of Altars But yow proceed say for this prophane Tables are removed and Altars consecrated Christ and his Apostles were to blame if it be as yow say to minister upon prophane Tables without consecrating of Altars But who shall beare witnes for consecration of Altars who but S. Augustine Serm. 255. de tempore And who shall warrant us that this Sermon is not falsly intituled to S. Augustine as a great number of those Sermons are But admit it be Augustines owne auctority yet he speaketh only of consecrating of Altars not for this end to discerne the Lords body and bloud For that their Tables and Altars were dedicated to the Holy use of ministration it is not the matter we stand upon but whither they were consecrated for this end They were called Altars unproperly as the Sacrament was called a Sacrifice the Ministers sacrificing Preists Levites yet were they neither in matter for me nor use like unto your Popish Altars of stone that were set against a wall For they were Tables of wood and so commonly were called as it is manifest by S. Augustine Ep. 50. Bonifacio And Optatus l. 6. both speaking of the rage of the Donatists which brake or shaved or scraped the boardes of the Altar or Table IT STOOD IN THE MIDDEST THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT STAND ROUND ABOUT IT Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. ad Paulin. tyr ex Aug. de verb. Dom. secund Joan. Serm. 46. It was removeable carried by the clerkes August Quaest. vet nov Test. q. 101. Or otherwise as appeareth by Optatus l. 6. Therfore it is nothing like Popish Altars So on Matthew 23. fol. 46. sect 7. he determines thus Popish Altars that are set up to overthrow the Altar of the Crosse are not Holy but cursed And so is all that pertaineth to them Neither have they perfection of the Lords Altar that was in the Temple which was a figure of Christs only true Sacrifice once offered that never can be sacrificed againe as S. Augustine Sayth Neither did the Altars of the temple sanctifie by touching for then the murtherer vvhich tooke hold of the hornes of the Altar should be sanctified whom God commaunded to be drawne from thence executed Exod. 21. 14. 1. Reg. 2. 28. Neither if any man had offered any other gift then that God which commaunded had the gift been made Holy by touching the Altar for it was the ordinance of God by which the Altar sanctified the gift and not any quality in the Altar It is like you are sicke of the disease of the Pharisees which was covetousnes as Chrysostome and Theophylact note by magnifying the gifts of the Altar M. James Calfhill in his Answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse London 1565. the Preface to the Reader writes
as also the Holy things themselves they call by their proper names of signes Sacraments and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host yea and if Altars were Lawfull yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them unlesse as they doe the bread so they will transubstantiate the dead bodyes of beastes into the body of Christ not then borne when those things were layd upon the Altar Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo 115. any thing thereof it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars which we suppose your selves doe not observe whereby it may well be doubted as of divers others of those Sermons whether it be Augustines or no especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God Last of all let the good Reader understand that here in the Papists joyne with the Heathen which quarrelled with the Primative Churches that they had no Images Altars nor Temples whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the first that erected Altars Also that Gerson affirmeth that Silvester Bishop of Rome was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie Quaest. 6. part 2. Error 54. determines thus Altars we acknowledge none Altars we have none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1 Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables not sacrificed upon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. Epist. 50. He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximiâ—ian a Catholike Bishop beating him with Clubs even in the Church lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood and made to be removed not fastened to the wall as their Popish Altars were Damascus Epistol 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists and to be partakers only of the Lords Table he sayth the Lords Table not the Lords Altar To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites that they had polluted him in that they sayd the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing What other thing I pray you doe your sacrificing Preists they cannot abide the Lords Table they must have an Altar Sacrifice They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes beckings duckinges crossinges kissinges tossings tumblings besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread wine the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods Also Bishop Jewell Bishop Hooper B. Ridley others in their forecited passages against Altars together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c 5. which authorizeth Justices of Peace Majors Bailifs other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and Reliques of Popery and that if any Altar Pix Beades Pictures or such like Popish Reliques or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their or any of their custody they shal be presently defaced and burnt which Act expresly defines Altars as well as Beades and Pictures to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished all which have with one unanimous voyce condemned Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish abolished by Christs death contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians resolving likewise in expresse Termes that Communion Tables are no Altars nor yet to be so stiled And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise as the objectors pretend they ought to be because they falsly stile and deeme them Altars If any here object First that Communion Tables are Altars because D. John Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir 1. p. 43. averrs that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar are partakers of the Altar which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh for habemus Altare we also under the Gosple have an Altar Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar and may be so tearmed To this I answer first that this great over confident Doctor shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures as thus to misquote misprinte these texts no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning 2. I answer that it is most cleare that the first Text of the two namly 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite AT not of the Altar as he reades it are partakers with the Altar is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes Levites and Iewish Altars not of Christs Ministers and Lords Tables First Because the things of the Temples and Altars which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges are here couplâ—d together and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles of purpose to confute this blind Doctor instruct all men that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist Levites under the Law not of the Ministers under the Gosple as all Expositors whatsoever both old and new interpret it 2. Because the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord
ordained that they which preach the Gosple where he puts the Preachers and Preaching of the Gosple and the living by it in direct opposition contradistinction to the Preistes Levites ministring about Holy things in the Temple and living of the Temple serving at the Altar and partaking with the Altar to preaching of the Gosple and living by it drawing an argument by way of equity from one to the other in this manner The Preist and Levites under the Law which minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple and those that wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar that by Gods ordination Therfore by the selfesame reason hath the Lord ordained that the Ministers of the Gosple who preach the Gosple not those who seldome or never preach as our great Prelates doe should live of the Gosple So that if we interpret this Text as this novell Doctor hath done we shall quite overturne the Apostles argument similitude and make it a meere nonsence Tantalogie such as his Sunday no Sabbath is as full almost of Errors and falsehoods as lines 3. To that of Heb 13. 10. We have an Altar it is true that the Bishop of Chichester heretofore in his Conference with Richard Woodman Martyr alleaged this very Text to prove the Popish Sacrament of the Altar and that it is meant of their Popish Altars whereon their Sacrifice of the Masse is offred and the Rhemists in their Notes on Heb. 13. sect 6. conclude thus This Altar sayth Isychius is the Altar of Christs body which the Jewes for their incredulity must not behold 1. 6. c. 21. in Levit. And the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall Altar Whereby we prove against the Heretickes that we have not a Common table or prophane Communion boord to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs body upon and so called of the Fathers in respect of the sayd body sacrificed Greg. Nazianz. in orat de Gorgonia Chrysoft demonst quod Christus sit Deus Socrat. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 86. de Civitate Dei l. 8. c. 27. l. 22. c. 10. Confess 1. 9. c. 11. 13. Contr. fauct Manich. 1. 20. c. 21. Theophylact in 23. Math. And when it is called a table it is in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body bloud received And other Papists generally inferre from hence as Harding against Jewell Hare in his Conference with D. Rainolds cap. 8. divis 4. that by Altars is not meant Christ himselfe but the very materiall Altar on which they Sacrifice Masse inferring from hence that the Church of Christ hath yet altars Preists and that the Communion table is here termed an Altar But for any Protestant writer of our owne Church or other who interprets the Altar in this Text to be the Communion Table or a materiall Altar I professe I know not any till this new Doctor M. Shelford M. Reeve the nameles author of the Coale from the altar page 47. who yes writes thus dubiously of this Text as applied to the Lords Table and above all indeed S. Paul in his Habemus Altare Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meant the Lords table or the Lords Supper or rather the Sacrifice itselfe certaine it is that he conceived the name altar neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church All the Fathers and ancients on this Text that I have seene yea Isychius whom the Rhemists quote interpret it of Christ himselfe whom the Rhemists themselves in their Notes on Apoc. 6. 9. interpret to be the altar under which the soules of all Martyrs live in heaven expecting their bodies that in these Positive words Christ as man NO DOVBT the altar under which the soules of the Martyrs live in heaven c. which M. Cartwright Doctor Fulke thus resort upon them But if Christ be the Altar here and that without doubt not withstanding that he is not here expresly sayd to be why should not he so be also in Heb. 13. 10. where the name of Altar is more directly applied to him why was it there an Altar of stone which is here of flesh there in proper speech an Altar which is here but a borrowed speech Verily there can be no other reason why that Altar was of stone but that the Jesuites which out of that place framed it either for heavines of understanding to conceive the truth or for hardnes of heart to yeeld unto it were heavier and harder then the very stones themselves whereof they would have the Altar And where in disagreeing themselves they agree with the truth so in that which followeth Christ is the Altar as he is man they are as farre from the truth as they are neere like unto themselves especially if they meane he is the Altar according to his Manhood alone for when his Manhood being the Sacrifice was sanctified by Christ which is the Altar and the thing which sanctifieth is of a Higher nature then that which is sanctified by it Math. 23. 19. Heb 7. 7. it must needes follow that our Saviour Christ must be considered in somewhat else then in his manhood when he is sayd to sanctifie to same How our owne writers have expounded this Text heretofore will appeare First by William Salisbury his Battery of the Popes Bater printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. But now writes he are we set upon to batter and beate downe the head corner stone of their Popish Batereulx we will first declare yet one grammer terme more for the unlearned sake which though it be no high point of Divinity neverthelesse who so hath not the knowledge thereof his Divinity is but humanity or rather carnality then true knowledge in divine matters And so the grammarians call it a speach spoken by a figure called Metonymia when the thing conteyned is ment by the name of the thing that conteyneth it As when he say reach hither the Cupp meaning to have the drinke conteyned in the Cuppe This figurative speech used Christ himselfe when he sayd Luke 22. This Cupp is the New Testament in my bloud where he ment of the wine and not of the Cup. And likewise Matthew 23. where he speaketh by the name of the Citty unto them that dwelled in the Citty saying Jerusalem Jerusalem thou that stayest the Prophetes c. Such manner of speach is also much used in the old Testament as Esay 1. Heare â— Heaven and harken â— earth And in an other place Howle ye ships of Tharsis And so the Papistes must either grant that that kind of speech is used in the text that we shall anone rehearse hereafter ior els must they grant that the Jewes whose Altars or rather Sacrifices and forbidden meate the writer of the Epistle alludeth unto
How say yow by the Sacrament of the Altar Wood. Yow meane the Sacrament of the body bloud of Christ Jesus Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar and so I say Wood. You meane Christ to be the Altar doe yow not Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar in the Church what is it so strange to yow Wood. It is strang to me indeed if yow meane the Altar of stone Chich. It is that Altar that I meane Wood. I understand not the Altar so Chich. No I thinke so indeed and that is the cause that yow be deceived I pray yow how doe you understand the Altar then Wood. If you will give me leave till I have done I will shew yow how I understand the Altar and where it is Chich. Yes yow shall have leave to say your mind as much as yow will Wood. It is written Math. 18. That wheresoever two or three be gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest among them and whatsoever they aske the Father upon earth it shal be granted them in heaven agreeing to the 5. of Math. saying When thou commest to offer thy gift at the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave there thy offring and go first be reconconciled to thy brother and then offer thy gift The Preistes would have interrupted mee but the Bishop bad them let me alone Chich. Yow shall heare a prety conclusion anone Wood. I pray yow let me make an end and then find fault with me if you can Now to the matter In these two places of Scripture I prove that Christ is the true Altar whereon every Christian man and woman ought to come and offer their gifts First wheresoever the people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come and offer our gift if we be in love and charity if we be not we must leave there our offring and goe first and be reconciled to our brother and agree with him quickly and so forth and then come offer the gift Some will say how shall I agree with my adversary when he is not nigh by a hundred miles may I not pray till I have spoken with him To all such I answer if yow presume to pray among the faithfull wishing any evill to any man woeman or child thou as kest vengeance upon thy selfe For no such as keth any thing else of the Lord in hâ—s prayer wherfore agree with thy adversary that is make thy life agreeable to Gods word Say in thy heart without dissimulation that thou as kest God and all the world forgivenesse from the bottome of thy heart intending never to offend them any more Then all such may be bold to come and offer their gift their prayer on the Altar where the people of God be gathered together Thus have I shewed yow my mind both of the Altar and of the offering as I understand it Chich. Doe yow understand the offring and the Altar so I never heard any man understand it so no not Luther the great hereticke that was condemned by a generall Councell his picture burned Wood. If he were an hereticke I thinke he understood it not so indeed but I am sure all Christians ought to understand it so Chich. O what vaine glory is in yow as though yow understood all things and other men nothing Heare me I will shew yow the true understanding both of the Altar and the offring on the Altar We have an Altar sayd Paul that yee may not eat of Meaning thereby that no man might eate of that which was offered on the Altar but the Preist For in Paules time all the living that the Preist had the people came offered it on the Altar mony or other things and when the people came to offer it and then remembred that they had any thing against their brother then they left their offring upon the Altar and went and were reconciled to their brother and they came againe and offered their gift and the Preist had it This is the true understanding of the place that yow have rehearsed wherfore yow be deceived Wood. My Lord that was the use in the old Law Christ was the end of that But indeed I perceive by Paules words the Sacrifice was offered in Paules time yet that maketh not that it was well done but he rebuked it Wherfore it seemeth to me that yow be deceived To passe by that learned Martyr M. John Philpot with our famous Thomas Beacon who in their forecited passages interpret the Altar in this Text to be Christ himselfe not any materiall Altar either of wood or stone The judicious solide D. William Fulke in his confutation and answer of the Rhemist Testament Heb. 13. 10. sect 6. doth thus expound this Text The Apostle speaketh expresly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observation of the Leviticall Sacrifice Therfore this place is brutishly abused to prove that the Christians have a materiall Altar as the Papists have many The Apostle meaneth Christ to be the Altar not the Table whereon the Lordes Supper is ministred which is called an Altar but unproperly as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice For he saith We have an Altar which is but one where as the Popish Altars and Communion Tables are many But Isychius sayth This Altar is the Altar of Christes body ye abuse Isychius for he sayth that the Altar is the body of Christ it selfe Such an one sayth he may not come neither to the vaile nor to the Altar that is to the body of Christ to doe the ministery thereof For that hath Paul writing to the Hebrewes taught to be the vaile and the Altar The same he sayth l. â— c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth that the intelligible Altar is the Lords Body for he sayth we have an Altar whereof they have no power to eate which serve the Tabernacle namely the body of Christ. For it is not Lawfull for the Jewes to eate of it This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witnesse that is in the entrance of the heavens because we have entrance into the Heavens with him It is manifest therfore that Hesychius meaneth not the Ppish Altars but the body of Christ in Heaven the mystery whereof is celebrated on the Lords Table which of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table as it is indeed and an Altar as it is unproperly But that it is called of them a Table and was indeed a Table made of boardes removeable set in the midst of the people not placed against a wall I have shewed sufficiently by the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers
spirituall Altar Whereby as they conclude that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon so for profe hereof they adde that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed it is also called an Altar of the Fathers even of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact. And when it is called a Table it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christs body bloud received Rainolds The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I grant yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth we have an Altar it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually or in a figurative sence as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very Altar such as is used in their Masses they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall spirituall Altar Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you see by an example of their owne Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giveth life unto the world the bread which came downe from Heaven that whosoever eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant under the metaphore of bread our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word artos as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne yet how wise to the purpose who is so blind that seeth not yea to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doe affirme expresly that Christ is this Altar Christ say they as man no doubt is this Altar They meane it I hope in a Metaphoricall or other figurative speech For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove that Masse is sayd in Heaven as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would prove the one cleerly as they could fitt it with this note and the word Altar would put the other out of controversie cheifly if that were noted with all that an Angell stood before the Altar having a Golden Censer Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont vvith false Prophets Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval and others daube it over with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth plaister with it For though as they lay it on it seemeth hansome that vvords signifie properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie not metaphoricall or spirituall things yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used by metaphors or other figures to signifie those things vvhich properly they doe not signifie the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is will laugh at it Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by doe infer upon it that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art partly by drawing us into hatred vvho have not Popish Altars but Communion Tables partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against us Both vvith skill and cunning but more of Sophistrie then divinity 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table because it is ordained for the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body blood The Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it And this improper sence Marrie by a figure of speech by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality are given one unto another as Christ is called David Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist Elias Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem Isay 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old are wont to give the name as of Preistes Levites to Pastours Deacons so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper and of an Altar to the Lords Table For these thinges are linked by nature in relation mutuall dependence as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice the Sacrificers who serve the Altar that is Preistes and Levites Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacrificing of it But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone Heb. 7. 11. they knew it neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them in proving as by them that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly But us of the other side they doe abuse more by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech as if we whose Churches have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ sacrifice him upon it â—ad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury For we have not a Common but a Holy Table as both we call it esteem it not a prophane Communion board but the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of
thankesgiving the Cup of blessing as the Apostles Doctrine and practise of the Fathers teach us your selves are guilty rather of feeding men with meere bread who doe take away the Cup of the New Testament in the bloud of Christ from the Christian people in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament doe give in your Masses meere bread indeed by your owne Confession the Common bread that goeth under the name of* Holy bread I would to God M. Hart you would thinke with your selfe even in your bed as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4. consider more deepely both the wicked abuses wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prophaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Masse the treacherous meanes whereby your Masters Fellowes of the Colledge of Rhemes doe seeke to maintaine it Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar or of the cleane offring the principall places whereon their shew standeth they goe about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple partly by discrediting us with falâ—e reproches partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers Which two kinds of profe doe beare the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie part 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar of which they have no power to eate that serve at the Tabernecle That is the Altar whereon Christes body is offered Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum Answer The Apostle speaketh expresly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by a Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observations of the Leviticall Sacrifices For the Apostle speaketh manifestly vers 12. of the suffering of Christ without the Gate Christ therfore is the Altar yea our Preist and Sacrifice too Further you abuse this place to prove your materiall Popish Altars which are many but the Apostle sayth we have an Altar speaking of one This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed that Christ is the true Altar whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer he proveth by the Conference of those two places of the Gospel Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar remember that thy brother hath ought against thee c. Likewise Math. 18. where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the middest Wheresoever then people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come offer our gift Fox p. 1991. Col. 2. By David Dickson who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus We have an Altar c. Such as will eate of Jesus be partakers of him must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle by keeping on foot continuing the Ceremonies appertaynances annexed there unto such Feastes such Jubil es such Altars such sprinklings Holy water such Preists and vestimentes c. as Levi had He calleth Christ by the name of the Altar because Hee is the thing signified by the Altar by the Sacrifice and by she rest of the Leviticall Ceremonies Then 1. those Ordinances of Leviticall Service were figures of Christ some in one part some in another and Hee is the Accomplishment of them even the Truth of them ALL The true Tabernacle the true Preist the true Sacrifice the true Altar c. 2. Christes selfe is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath Our Altar is He only and nothing but hee the Apostle knoweth no other The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James himselfe who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel 9. v. determines thus I saw under the Altar the soules of the Martyrs which cryed with a loud voyce How long wilt thou delay ô Lord since thou art Holy true to revenge our blood For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs that the soules lying under the Altar to wiâ—t in the safegard of Jesus Christ who is the only Altar whereupon by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lipps to wit our humble prayers to God the Father did pray their blood did cry to Heaven crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked Thus all these with sundrie other writers of our Church together with all Protestant writers whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himselfe not of Communion Tables and Altars Therfore it proves not that the Communion Table is or may be called an Altar though the Fathers some times improperly stile it so contrary to the Scripture language yet not in that sence or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators doe to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and set upp Masse againe If any object in the second place as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangly doth and before him M. Shelford that the Lords Table may be called an Altar yea the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar though the Scripture never stile either of them thus First Because the Fathers some times phrase them so 2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. râ—vived by El. c. 2. termes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar 3. Because the Common Prayer Booke in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. cals the Lords Table promiscuously both by the name of a Table an Altar 4. Because our Godly Martyrs as John Fryth Archbishop Crammer John Lambert John Philpot Bishop Latimer and Bishop Ridley call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Sacrament of the Altar the Communion Table an Altar as their words cited in the Coale from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify from whence that Pamplâ—t concludes thus So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged neither the Prince or Prelates the Preist or people dissenting from it some of those termes being further justified by the Statute Law To the first of these Reasons I answer First that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lords Table an Altar but the Lords Table the Lords Supper the Communion of Christs body blood we ought therfore to stile them so as the Scripture doth 1. Cor. 10. 11. to call them by those names the Scripture gives them which are proper genuine since we ought to speake as Christ and God hath taught us
all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service except only in Queen Maries dayes hath done it though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law but never proves it neither in truth can doe it 5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes that this Statute of â— E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknowledged c. I answer that there is in this a double mistake 1. in the Statute itselfe in citing 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale who stiles S. Edward Cooke S. Robert Cooke makes M. Plowden a Iudge stiled him Judge Plowden though he were never any Iudge a Professed Papist was some busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite interpret Statutes in which he had no skill or else borrowed his Law from others as ignorant as himselfe perchance from M. Shelford who quotes or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cites it for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament that the sayd estatute of Repeale every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE and the service administration of Sacraments rites Ceremonies conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke shal be voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming that the sayd Booke with the order of service and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatuteâ— shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this estatute any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing And in the end of this Actâ— this clause is inserted and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd that all Lawes Statutes Ordinances whereby an other service administration of Sacraments or Common prayer is limited established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void of none effect By which it is most apparant First that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae only as to the Booke of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. 6. Ed. 6. no further therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke and so remaines unrevived and still repealed by this Act as before 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe that not as it was at first published when it had the name of Altar Sacrament of the Altar in it but as it was purged from these termes and testified in 5. 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head body and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar nor any of these phrases as the Author of the Coale from the Altar ignorantly and falsely affirmes nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer no not 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foote because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer service and administration of the Sacrament then this which this Statute confirmes which enacts that the sayd Booke c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute shall stand and be in full force and effect not by vertue of any former Law but according to the tenor effect of this Statute From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale that neither the head nor body nor any branch or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice nor an Altar nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side much lesse on all sides acknowledged as he falsely vaunts that both the Princes Prelates Preists people have disâ—ented from it that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes And so this maine authority on which he M. Shelford built is point blanke against them makes nothing at all for them and over throwes their cause To the 3. reason I answer that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar as is evident by the Booke itselfe and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority but when the Altars the next yeare following for no reformation can be perfited at first but by degrees were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund Communion Tables placed in their Roomes not to humor M. Calvin but upon good and Godly considerations and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction registred by M. Fox the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke and the names of Lords Table Gods board Communion Table Holy Table Communion Sacrament Sacrament of Christs body blood Lords Table only retained inserted in its steed which Booke being afterwards altered amended revided by Act of Parliament 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names Altar Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted and those other Phrases
sules bodies to be a reasonable holy livelie SACRIFICE unto thee But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament we offer up nothing unto God but only God tenders his Sonne with all the benefits of his death and passion unto us As the words take rate this the prayers before and after the Sacrament the Scriptures and every mans experience withesseth Therefore it can by noe meanes be tearmed a Sacrifice Whence the Homille of the Sacrament tearms our thanksgiving to God after the SacrameÌ„t received and at other times a Sacrifice p. 103. as the Apostle expresly doth Heb 13. 15. the Psalmist before him Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. Ier. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. Ion. 2. 9. But never tearmes the Sacrament it selfe thus because it neither is nor can be a sacrifice commemorative or propitiatâ—rie unlesse with reference to this thanksgiving and to the whole act and service not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine as B sh 〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout 5. This Homily â— times together her case the Sacrament a Table Lords Table never a Sacrifice an Altar or Sacâ—â—ment of the Altar Admitt the Homilie granted it to be a Sacrifice which it doth not yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Preist Altar or Tables situated Altar-wise euen by the Homilie and Booke of Common-prayers resolution Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice as these Innovators would obtrude by crast and power upon us which stands in need both of a Preist an Altar or Table placed Altar-wiseâ— or of the name of a Sacrifice to make people reasly to esteeme in so 6. Nemorepente for turpissimus 〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves or proceed so farre at the first dash for feare of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉 but they will usher in things by certaine insemble degrees step by step till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last First then wee most haue Communion-Tables only turned Altar-wise Then wee must haue them termed Altars Next wee must sett up Altars indeed Then wee must cringe to and adore them after that haue a Preist to write on them then a commemorative sacrificrenly to bee off red on them And thus farre wee have already proceeded in many places AND GENERALL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHVRCHES as the Colier in formes his friend and â—eader both p. 1. and 27 The Ring-leaders and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us backe to Rome that â—â—unded them And now must wee and Rome bee brought â—â—gether 〈…〉 as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉 each other the next step must be to make the Sacrament a propiriatory sacrifice as the Papists doe who first proceeded â— this method and held it but commemorative as appeares by all their ancient Schoolemen And then when the thing itselfe is once gott inâ— the name of it â—yet too grosse and odioâ—â— will quickly follow it shall then be rebaptized with the name of Masse by these its Godfathers who as they have already pleaded for its Popish title The Sacrament of the Altar because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. stiles it the Sacrament of the body blood of Christ commonly called to witt by the Papists in those dayes not the Parliament or Protestants The Sacrament of the Altar So they will by the selfesame reason call it by the name of the Masse and justify this Title of it by the Masse itselfe to be lawfully warranted both by Prince Pâ—â—late Preist the whole Parliament because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. and the Booke of Common-prayer established by it there stiles it The holy Commâ—nion commonly called THE MASSE to witt by the Papists and ignorant people of those times the Masse being not quite abolished till this law was made Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Masse and the name of Masse 〈◊〉 is cleare by the body of the Act the Booke of the Commoâ—-prayer then sett out and since corrected the Homily of the worthy receiâ—ing of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Articleâ— with all the surnamed writers Injunctions and Cannons of our Church and neither old Doting Shelford nor his soâ—â—e the Colier dare deny even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar Though thâ—se ignorant Scribâ—â—â— would justifie both the lawfullnes of Altars and of termâ—â— the Loâ—ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from thâ—â—â— against the meaning of the Law as I have already â—â—â—fested Since therefore it is cleare by the Colier that the 〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉 some notable designes in 〈◊〉 upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Churchâ— which he tearmes A GOOD WORKE J would it were so NOW IN HAND which wee finde too true and since this good worke is just like Coliers worke and Character by the printed yea his owne happy premunition truly ROMAN to witt by Altars and Preists and Tables turned Altarwise to usher in Masse with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedrall Collegiate Churches It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestick â—â—â—ialists what their intentions are to stoppe their further progresse both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designes and to admonish them and all others in the words of our owne established Homily BEFORE ALL THINGS this wee must be sure of especially that this supper be in such wise done and ministred as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded it to be done as his holy Apostles used it and the godly Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it For as the worthy man S. Ambrose saith he is unworthy of the Lords Table that otherwise doth celebrate the Mystery then it was delivered by him Neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume then it was giuen by the Author but when the Author gave it he gave it not a Sacrificing Shaveâ— Masse-Preist he gaue it not at an Altar but at a table and that situated in the MIDDEST table-wise as J haue manifested to his Disciples sitting not kneeling round about it Therefore we must be sure so to minister if we will be either worthy of the Lord or devout we must then take heed as it is now â—â—gh time so to doe it lest of the memory is be 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 lect of a Communion it be made a private eaâ—â—â—â—â— therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebration placed Altar-wise at the remotest East end of the Chanâ—â—â—â— brought in with private Masses for that purpose onely 〈◊〉 leâ—â—â— of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead wee loose the fruite that be alive holâ—some counsell necessary
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌ„ding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite â—stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câ—uâ—m Christs â—l iâ—sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâ—prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia â—â—cat Aâ—am Cruâ—is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pâ—rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ— ex institute per Antithesâ—m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ— cum Christe â—â—ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieâ—â—m Sacrificâ—â— incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ— incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare huâ— pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 Pâ—nis quem â—gâ— dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wherâ— he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that thâ— Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chriâ—â— upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâ—ment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrificâ— of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ouâ— Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar tâ— prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christâ— Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origâ—n resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiquâ— non in terris quaerendus est sed in Coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis â—ernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseendaâ— nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium Oblationes Holocausta tanto praestantiora quanio veriâ—as ambraÌ„ Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. For your better apprehension of this truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where he with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken Then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes For the Apostle as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord the vessel prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord So did he name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the contemners thereof Guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates Bray Baker very zealous Puritans and eager men heretofore against Altars Images bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus Images Sacrifices Sabbath-breaking c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establishâ—d Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall of our Church which they cannot expiare with their lives Well how ever they brave it out for the present a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates the mildest tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so loÌ„g maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise and example But of this enough Only let me conclude of them the new English Priests Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas who thus Caracterizeth them Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam