their Bookes or examples to decline from the strict observation of Gods Law which peremptorily forbiddeth the making of Idolls bowing to them or before them This was this great learned mans judgment concerning Altars bowing to them William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox dedicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England f. 12 Yee hold still Vestiments Popes incense and ALTARS organes crosses in the Church all which ordinances Constitutions Ceremonies the Pope hath devised maed Ergo ye still have the Pope Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances Ceremonies in receiving whereof the Pope is still retained William Salisbury in his Battery of the Popes Batter printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. dedicated to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chauncellour of England spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish and unfit to be tollerated in Churches to the end that the rude and simple people being better persuaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture should not have occasion to murmer grudge or be offended neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England who as redoubted grand Captine hath first enterprised on this most notable feat nor with any other Bishop or Lawfull Officer that attempted to plucke downe and remove the Popish Altars out of Christs Churches and Temples in the maintenance whereof he was fully persuaded that all the learned Popistâ— would stifly continue as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader In which Treatise after he had shewed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish serving only for Sacrifices offrings which ended in and with Christs offâ—ing up of his body once for all be concludes thus So then now if it be a cleare case and that by the plaine text of Holy Scripture that since Christ was once offred on the Altar of the Crosse all carnall Sacrifices all manner of offrings that ever were wont to be offred upon the Altars be wholly extinguished utterly voyd and of none effect And in as much as no man being in his right witt when he advisedly perceiveth and plainely understandeth that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose but to burne or to offer Sacrifices oblations upon which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept but he will strait wayes acknowledge that their ought not any Altar to remaine to any use among us Christians after the death and passion of our Master Christ at which time as he protesteth himselfe saying Consumâ—tum est it is finished signifying thereby that Moses Law was not only by him prevented fulfilled and finished but that the same Law or any Commaundment Rite Ceremony or any other part there in contained as concerning any burthening or Jurisdiction over the Christians was to all intents ended taken away and fully determined and the Gospell as it were a new Law surrogated confirmed and established in steed of the old Therfore Christians thus freed from the Law ought to have no Altars but Tables For what husbandman be he never so simple will be about to plough his land with a whelebarowe to harrow it with a slede or to carry with an harrow what husbandman I say is so folish as to goe about to wede his corne with a sith to moye his hey with a weeding hoke and to tedde the same with a rake Is a leaden Cesterne made for to sayle on the Sea is a ship made to be drawne of horses as a waggon upon the Land do Noble men build sumptuons Palaces for their horses to stand in and lie themselves in old ruinons stables or doe men ordeine fetherbeds for their dogges and lye themselves in kennells who maketh a Garnar of an Oven or an Oven of a Garnar Or who maketh a threshing flore in his dwelling house and a herth in his barne who can make a pleasaunt a brave banketing house of filthy Schambles or of a stinking Slaughter house Yea or who had not rather have his Supper layed on a faire Table before him then on a bloudy Butchars Cradle And so likewise to apply some of these strong Anagogies and darke sayings to our purpose is not a Garnar more meete to lay up grain in than an Oven Is it not more meete to make a threshing flore in a barne then in a mans dwelling house And to make an herth to kendle fyre on in the middes of a mans house then by the moyes side in his barne And so who can make the Jewes old slaughter Synagoge to serve for the new Euangelike Banketing Temple Or who had rather eate the heavenly banket of the Lords Supper on a Jewish a heathenlyk or a Popish Altar then on a decentâ— a faire comely Table The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christes Table and his Supper also The unfaithfull heathen thinkes scorne of the same The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion The Heathen in no sence can away with it The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian yea to be thought to be Christ himselfe so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen And shall we seeke upon them Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies of their execrable Rites and cursed usages Or is Christes religion so unperfit of itselfe so needy and beggerly that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen borrow Altars of the Pope borrow vestimentes of the Jewes besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christes Religion and now restored home to the owners thereof Therfore let us either render home againe unto the heathen the superstition of the imbring dayes and to the Pope his halowed Altars and unto the Jewes their Aarons vestimentes or els let us like good companions joyne together in a league with them and be tenauntes in Commune put our religion with theirs in hotch potche After which at the end of the Booke he proceeds thus S. Paul through the secret advertisment of the Holy Ghost did know before hand then if he had geven the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table that there would be in time to come certaine Jewish teachers that would build and sett up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon And surely the holy D. S. Augustine nor any other Godly writer would never have used this terme Altar so often after that sort as they did if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge what absurdity what inconveniencie and what mischiefe and abomination have been grounded on their translated termes And I pray yow what though S Augustine or other Doctours used to terme the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar which if it be as I take it I take it after the most sound and
A QUENCH-COALE OR A briefe Disquisition and Inquirie in what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords-Table ought to be situated especially when the Sacrament is administred VVherein is evidently proved that the Lords-Table ought to be placed in the MIDST of the Church Chancell or Quire North and South not Altar-wise with one side against the wall That it neither is nor ought to be stiled an Altar That Christians have no other Altar but Christ alone who hath abolished all other Altars which are either Heathenish Iewish or Popish and not tollerable among Christians All the Pretences Authorities Arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford Edmond Reeve Dr. Iohn Pocklington and A late Coale from the Altar to the contrary in defence of Altars calling the Lords-Table an Altar or placing it Altar-wise are here likewise fully answered and proved to be vaine or forged By a well-wisher to the truth of God and the Church of England Hebr. 7. 12. 13. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to an other Tribe of which no man gave attendance at the Altar Augustinus de verbis Domini secundum Joannem Serm. 42. Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Printed in the yeare 1637. To the High and Mightie Prince CHARLES By the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine France and Ireland Defender of the Faith c. MOST DREAD SOVERAIGNE THE bleeding and almost desperate Condition of the long established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England of late yeares not only secretly undermined by Popish Priests and Jesuites but openly oppugned affronted by some English Priestes and Prelates in divers Visitation-Articles Sermons and printed Bookes licenced for the Presse to the intollerable contempt of your Majesties late pious Declarations Hath made me so presumptuous as not only to compile but likewise to recommend this unpolished Quench-Coale to your Royall Personage Wherein like a plain-dealing English-man I have according to my poore ability not only defended the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England in the particulars now oppugned against those treacherous rebellious Sonnes of hers who have professedly both in their Sermons practises and printed Bookes oppugned them out of her owne Records and Writers which I have principally made use of but likewise discovered and layd open without flattery or partiallity their desperate practises aymes plots and intentions to suppresse and roote out our syncere Religion and usher in Popery by degrees Together with the method and progresse they have made and prosecuted in this their pernicious designe The reasons inducing me to dedicate this rude incompt Discourse which I had neither time nor opportunity to polish to your Sacred Majesty were these 1. First to acquâ—int your Highnes with the severall dangers wherewith the Religion Doctrine and Discipline by Law establishest in the Church of England are now surrounded and those open affronts and oppositions made of late yeares against it Of which I presume your Majesty who commonly see with other mens eyes and heare with other mens eares as most Princes are forced to doe have not beene yet so fully acquainted as your faithfull Subjects could desire especially by your Prelates 2. Secondly to informe your Majesty how grosly some of your Prelates and Chaplaines have abused your Highnes and your Subjects eares and eyes both in the Pulpit the Counsell-Chamber and in printed Bookes in the point of Altars and their situation of communion-Communion-Tables Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire Which Altars Situs of Lords-Tables they have peremptorily affirmed to be consonant to the practise of approred Antiquity Yea to the Statutes Doctrine Canons and Discipline of the Church of England When as it is most apparant That the primitive Church laand Christians had no Altars but Tables only for aboue 260 teyeares after Christ And that then and ever since till now of late both their Tables and Altars were alwayes placed in the MIDST of their Quires or Churches As J have here plentrifully manifested And that they neither bowed to nor towards their Altars as these new Doctours falsely dogmatize 3. Thirdly To present unto your Majesty the many dangerous Innovations and backslidings to Popery that have crept into our Church of late and now are publikely justifyed in print yea enjoyned by some of your potent Prelates and enforced on your poore Subjects especially godly Ministers under paine of suspension excommunication deprivation yea fining imprisonment and utter ruine in your High Commissions at first erected to suppresse all Poperie Innovations Errours and Episcopall enchroachments upon your Eeclesiasticall Prerogative but now used as the chiefe Instruments to countenance and set them up in professed opposition and rebellion against your Majesties Lawes Proclamations and two late pious Declarations to all your loning Subjects VVherein your Majesty to the unspeakeable joy of all your true-hearted people calling God to record before whom you stand hath made this solemne Protestation That you will never give way to the authorizing of any thing whereby ANY INNOVATION may steale or creep into the Church but preserve that unity of Doctrine Discipline established in the Time of Queen Elizabeth whereby the Church of England hath stood florished ever since That you doe professe to maintaine the true ReligioÌ„ Doctrine established in the Church of England without ADMITTING OR CONNIVING AT ANY BACKSLIDING TO POPERY OR SCHISME That you will not INDVRE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING JN THE LEAST DEGREE from the seâ—â—d Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established And that you will esteeme those subordinate Officers and Ministers that shal be but negligent in seeing this your Declaration executed much more then those who apparantly oppugne it as culpable both to God and your Majesty And will expect that hereafter they give you a better account Yet notwithstanding both these your royall Declarations Some of your Prelates who were both privies and parties to them with others of your Clergie have since their publication not only suffered many Jnnovations to creep and steale into our Church admitted and connived at many backslidings to Poperie and Romish Schisme and permitted nay licensed in print many varyings and departings in the highest degree from the setled established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England But likewise been the chiefe Authours and fomenters yea the open Abbettours and Commaunders of them both in the Pulpit High Commission their Visitation-Articles Synodes and in printed Bookes Especially in setting up justifying writing and preaching for Images Crucifixes Altars Priests Sacrifices of the Altar bowing to Altars to communion-Communion-Tables and rayling them in Altarwise with other particulars else-where specified in this Discourse In which we have lately backslided not only towards Popery but quite Apostatized to it as the Priestes the Papists glory and cracke in every place justifying in
abuses forgeries Innovations I answer that although it may prove dangeroos to me to nominate them in particular before your Majesty shall commaund me so to doe by reason of their over-swaying power Yet for your Majestiâ—s satisfaction herein who can judge of the Catt by her Claw I shall give your Highnes a Register of the names of some of the chiefe under-instruments by which you may easily discrie the heades and Grandes of this disloyall crew One of the first and chiefe instruments your Majesty in your Royall Declaration and Proclamation hath pointed out and nominated to my hands To witt Richard Mountague then Bachiâ—er of Divinity since that time punished with the fatt Bishopricke of Chichester for his notorious Schismes and Innovations whose Booke intituled Apello Caesarem published in the yeare 1625. as the words of your Highnes determine did open the way to those Schismes and Divisions which have since ensued in our Church For remedie and redresse whereof and for Satisfaction of the consciences of your good people your Majesty did not only by publike Proclamation call in that Booke of his which ministred matter of offence but to prevent the like danger for hereafter reprinted the Articles of Religion established in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory a plaine resolution that your Majesty intended to establish only the originall Coppy of the Articles confirmed in Parliament by Queen Elizabeth in which there is no such forgery or addition to the 20 Article as is before discovered not any other corrupted Coppy since and by a Declaration before those Articles did tie and restraine all opinions to the sence of those Articles that nothing might be left for private fancies and Innovations Yet notwithstanding this your Rayall care this Booke of his because not burn'd and the Authour rewarded advanced to be a governour in our Church before any publike recantation of his Errours is bought and sold And he not only in a new Latine Booke but likewise in a Court-Sermon at White Hall in Lent last in your Majesties Sacred presense forgetfull both of his duty and your Highnes Declaration hath presumed to plead not only for a Limbus Patrum bowing to Altars and rayling in lords-Lords-Tables Altarwise but likewise for Altars Priests and unbloody Sacrifices offred upon Altars toe in professed defiance to this your Declaration For which some of your Majesties Courtiers who heard his Sermon then openly protested that he deserued to be hanged up in White Hall gate it were a goodly signe the signe of such a Bishops skin and Rochet thus exalted and that they wondred how the Arch-Bishops could sit by and heare such a Sermon and not commaund him out of the Pulpit So insolent is this first grand Agent growen because not punished but preferred for his first offences The next chiefe Fâ—ctor is Dr. Iohn Cosens whom I have formerly nominated a man likewise much honoured enriched aduanced euen to your Majesties service and the next in some mens voyce to be recommended to a Bishopricke if your Majesty reserve not the disposition of Bishoprickes to your selfe but suffer others to have a finger in their disposall and all for the good Seruice he hath done the Church of Rome the affronts he hath offred to the Church of England and using such reproachfull words against your Majesties Supremacy for which another happily might have had his head and quarters aduanced as high as London bridge ere this in Leiw of all â—ther preferments The happy successe of these two leading Instruments hath since encouraged many others to the like attempts as Dr. Lawrence Mr. Robert Shelford Priest Mr. Edmond Reeue Dr. Iohn Pocklington Dr. Peterâ— Heylin the Authour as most conclude of A Coale from the Altar Chownaeus and others in late printed Bookes and Sermons in hope of like preferments to broach many Arminian and Popish Doctrines Ceremonies Innovations coÌ„trary to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England and in high contempt of your Majesties Declarations Which Bookes were licensed by William Bray and William Harwood Chaplaines to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury that now is by Samuel Baker and Mr. Weekes Chaplains to the now Bishop of London and by Dr. Beale late Vice-Chancellour of the University of Cambridge Yea one of them denying your Majesties Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastiaâ—all and affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church and not have erred in fundamentals even in the worst times dedicated to the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was liceÌ„sed by his Chaplaine William Harwood yea justified publikely by the Arch-Bishop in the High Commission in the Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Quid facient Domini audent cum talia Servi When the Chaplains dare license such Doctrines Bookes and Novelties by their Lords Authority it is much to be feared that their Lords themselves dare doe as much or more then this amounts to If your Majesty will but inquire of these new Authours and Licensers who are the men that cherish and countenance them By whose Privity and Authority they have presumed to attempt the writing and Licensing of such Bookes you may easily by these Rivulets trace out the Fountaines from whence all these Enormities Corruptions Forgeries and Innovations flow And if you shall vouchsafe with all to cast your Royall eye upon the Remonstrance touching the encrease of Popery Arminianisme and the decay of Religion presented to your Majesty by the Commons house the last Parliament it is a thousand to one but you will soone discover the very parties not only by guesse but by name Besides if your Majestie will once more cast your prying eye upon the late Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren Bishop Peirce Bishop Monntague and other your Prelates and Arch-Deacons visiting in their owne names and by their owne Authority Or cause a diligent inquiry to be made in all places where Altars Images Crucifixes bowing to Altars Tapers rayling Communion-Tables Altar-wise reading Second-Service at the Altar Consecrations of Altars Churches Chappels are introduced urged and many godly conformable Ministers excommunicated silenced suspended persecuted for not submitting to these with other such Innovations and New-Doctrines By whose Authority and commaund these things are done and inforced Or by what Authority some Schollers Ministers and Lecturers have been refused to be admitted to holy Orders Benefices and Lectures for not subscribing to certaine New-Doctrines Ceremonies underhand propounded to them And with all take this into your Royall consideration that in three late printed Treatises Arch-Bishops Bishops and Cathedrall Churches are made the Originall Patternes by which all other Persons and Churches must be regulated in these very Innovations Your Majesty without any further helpe or character may infalliblie discover both the roots the fountaines and Seminaries from whence all the premises issue More particular light then this is neither yet safe for me to give nor necessary for your Majesty to require
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawfull and necessary comly Ornaments That Christ is Really present upon Earth on the High-Altar and Communion-Table That Communion-Tables are Altars Ministers of the Gospell Priests serving at the Altar The Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar and may yea ought so to be phrased That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables and to place and Rayle them in Altar-wise at the East end of the Church and come up to them and receive when there is a Sacrament And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary points much insisted on and pressed at this present when Cleargie-mens sinnes are so open and notorious that they need no Confession but correction rather That the Lords-day is no Sabbath That it is Iewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath That it is not of divine but humane Institution nor within the morality of the fourth Commaundement That two howers only of it are to be sanctified nor the whole day That Morrises Dancing Sports and Pastimes yea labours of mens calling not specially prohibited by some humane Lawes even out of cases of necessity are Lawfull on it That men may fall totally and finally from Grace That they have free-will and may exactly fulfill the Law of God if they please themselves That men are justified by workes yea by charity and not by faith alone That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and workes and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sinnes That there is an universall grace given to all men whereby they may be saved if they will That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver That preaching is an extraordinary thing necessary only for extraordinary times and belonging to none but extraordinary men That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better then two a day That reading is properly preaching That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopall Iurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers Iure divino That the Ministers know more then the Lay-people the Bishops more then the Ministers the Arch-Bishops more then the Bishops And therefore what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people what ever the Bishops the Ministers and people what ever the Arch-Bishops the Bishops Ministers and people too are bound to believe and obey without further question or dispute That the Popes Lawes Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force and our Church ought to be governed by them and our Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed Legally according to them That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles Canons Injunctions Oathes Orders Rites Ceremonies in their owne names and rights and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them That they may silence suspend and excommunicate yea deprive and imprison Ministers at their pleasure without any Legall cause That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men though they have greater wages and so should doe more worke That they may Lawfully and laudablie neglect their spirituall functions to mannage temporall Offices and affaires exercise both Swords at once and rule both Church and State together When I see out owne Divines if we may believe them by publike License in printed Bookes defending all these with sundrie other erronious Romish Positions maintaining all Popish Ceremonies conforming themselves to Popish Masse-Priests in their noddes cringes genuflections habits preaching writing Ceremonies And joyning thus with them in a most treacherous confederacie against the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England as many late Writers and by Name Bishop Mountague Bishop White Edmond Reene Dr. Pocklington Dr. Heylyn Dr. Primerose Dr. Laurence Dr. Read Mr. Shelford Mr. Chowne Mr. Studly with others in their late printed Bookes Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons both in the Court City Uniuersitie and Country have done When I behold our Lords Tables euery where called and turned into Altars or rayled Altar-wise Our Ministers transformed into Priests and so stiled Our Religion Metamorphosed into externall Popish Pompe and Ceremonies Our Devotion into Superstition Our Holines into professed prophanesse Our godnes into impiory Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing Our Lords dayes into Play-dayes Our Conscience into unconscioâ— ablenes Our feare of God into Atheisme Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and meere Tyrants Our Pastors into Wolves Our Religious Fasting even in this time of Plague and danger into Feasting Our devout Prayers into carnall lollity Our Profession of Religion into Derision and Gods Word yea Heaven and Hell into a Fable And that principally by meanes of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Bookes in print which no man can have free liberty to answer this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours to ingrosse the power and commaund of all our printing Presses into their owne hands and to stay whatever may either detect or crosse their Antichristian Romish designes When I behold all this I say even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and penne and cry out aloud that all may heare to these open Powder Traytours who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once O men doe not thus murther and destroy the Church of England Now because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnaturall Treachery nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell I have here single out some three or foure of them to combate with especially the Authour of A Coale from the Altar intiteled A Iudicious Learned Divine Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuell Baker in the Bishops of Londons Open hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church concerning Altars the Sacrament of the Altar the â—â—â—â—swing of the Communion Table an Altar and the placing of it Altar-wise with one side against the Wall as the East end of the Church VVhich they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Bookes in open affront and defiance to our Statuâ—es Articles of Religion Booke of Common-Prayer Injunctions Canons Martyrs and most Eminent Writers Which particulars though they seeme small at first view and are slighted by many as matters of no great moment yet all Circumstances considered they are very important and the conniving at them without Opposition like to prove fatall to our Religion as the Reading of the Treatise itselfe will evidence more at large To make this apparant in few words There is no man almost so ignorant as not to know So blinde as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us the heades whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament who labour with all diligence power and cunning artifice to bring the whole body of Popery
into our Church againe yet secretly by degrees with as little noyse as might be by those severall Stratagemes and meanes which that cunning-pated Iesuite Adam Contzin in his Booke of Politickes printed at Mentz Anno 1621. hath prescribed them for that purpose Which they prosecute and follow to an haires-breadth To effect this Plot the better according to the Popes consultation and direction in his Conclave they first vented all the Arminian points in printed Bookes Which though at first oppugned by many to their hazard have now under a pretence of silencing all controversies in this kinde quite silenced the truth itselfe Being now publikely printed and preached every where without controll contrary to his Majesties Proclamation concerning the inhibiting and calling in of Mountagues Booke which led the Dance in his Declaration before the 39. Articles And concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament Which are now made snares only by these potent Confederates contrary to his Majesties pious intention to suppresse the truth and bring those into trouble who defend it against Arminian Novelties or Popish Tenents either by printing or preaching Next after this they began to crie up practise and enjoyne mâ—ny superstitious Popish Ceremonies especially bowing at the name of Iesus both in time of Divine Service and Sermons to the end it might usher in bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes with adoration of the Sacramentall bread and wine Which Ceremonie getting head by violence many suffring for opposing it and others either ignorantly or cowardly submitting to it though not prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer Then they began at first in some private places to set up Images Altars yea Crusifixes in Churches directly contrary to our Homilies To call lords-Lords-Tables Altars To turne them Altar-wise or into Altars and bow downe unto them And because an Altar without a Priest was to no purpose they next begin to tearme themselves with other Ministers by no other name but Priestes Yea Priestes to dance attendance on these new Altars both in their Sermons Bookes and VVritings VVhich being done but secretly in corners as every Evill is bashfull at first and creepes up but by degrees these new devises also gotâ— ground by litle and litle some potent Bishops setting them on and countenancing them under hand Crushing such who chiefly oppugned these Innovations in the High-Commission and elsewhere And having thus by publike Censures and these underâ—and Devises given open countenance to them and disheartned people from opposing them they grew in a short time so impudent as openly to plead for Jmages Altars Priestes turning of Communion-Tables Altar-wise bowing to them and at the name of Iesus reading of Second Service at them standing up at Gloria Patri the Gospell c. and that not only in the Pulpit but in the High-Commission and in print setting some shallow-pated fellowes as Giles Widdowes Reeve and Shelford in the fore-front to breake the Ice to see how the people would relish them And then when these men had borne the brunt and blame for a while and the strangenes of the things was almost vanished seconding them with others of better note and parts to give greater Countenance to them that people might the more willingly embrace these Innovations VVhich being thus once pleaded for in print our Bishops the chiefe Plotters and fomenters of them begin first more covertly under-hand by way of persuasion and intreatie and now at last openly in their Visitation-Articles by way of peremptorie commaund one pragmaticall impudent Prelate giving the first onset and then others seconding him in their fore-plotted order to enjoyne all these Innovations Popish Practises and Ceremonies to be put in full execution throughout their Diocesse And now they are growen so impudent as to excommunicate suspend yea Censure in the High Commission all such Church-wardens and Ministers who out of Conscience towards God Obedience to his Majesties Lawes and Declarations or love to Religion dare oppose or not subâ—â—ie unto 〈◊〉 many Church-wardens being excommunicated for not 〈◊〉 in the Table Altarwise And many Ministers suspended excommunicated put from their Livings if not field 〈◊〉 imprisoned too especially in Bishop Wrens and Bishop 〈◊〉 Diocesse for not bowing to the Altar and as the names Iesus not reading Second Service at the High Altar 〈◊〉 Lords-Table for opposing the rayling in of the Table Altar-wise without Lawfull Authority or preaching against or not yeelding to these Popish Proceedings VVhich have lately gotten such head in most places that now all thing except Latine Service are prepared for the Masse in many Churches which added to these Novelties will make us perfect Papists For we have Altars with Altar-clotheâ—â— Tapers Bisons and other Romish furniture on them Priestes Crucifixes bowing to Altars coming up to the Altar and there kneeling downe to receive all Popish Trinekets and Massing Ceremonies Copes Organs Vestments especially in our Cathedrals which now must be Patternâ— of Imitation to all other Churches in the Diocesse all which being but meere Preparations for the Masse how soone that also may steale in upon us if his Majesties pious care with other our Magistrates vigilancie and inferiour Minister out-cries who are over-silent in such an exigent prevent 〈◊〉 not with speed by these active hot-spurs machinations who have made such a swift progresse in all the other particulars which they impudently presse and justice with braâ—eâ— faces and obdurate hearts not fearing already to stile thâ— Lords Supper an unbloody Sacrifice the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and to maintaine a corporall presence in the Eucharist I feare to divine And when Masse is once installed and sett up the next thing these Novellers are to effect Popery wil be perfectly restored with it and then face well all our Religion which we have enjoyed with all externâ— peace and felicity attending it Now 〈◊〉 it is plaine according to the moderne Papists and these Innovatours Doctrine that there can be no Masse without an Altar or Super-Altar No Altar but at the East end of the Church as remote from the people as they he for the better officiating of private Masse And neither Masse nor Altar without a Sacrifice a Sacrament of the Altar and a Priest to Consecrate and Offer it The oppugning of these Innovations the immediate Harbengers and fore-runners both of Masse and open Poperie without which there can be no Masse and Poperie can never get head among us and by conniving at which without â—â—ong and sodaine Opposition both Masse and Popery the things principally aâ—med at without which these other are to no purpose will presently perke up and get quiet possession among us to the utter overthrow of our Religion must needs be of great consequence 〈◊〉 know that when a Ciety is beleaguerd whiles the 〈◊〉 and Out workes are safe and defended the Citty is in no danger of surprisall But if the Enemies once get them all is in danger to be lost Our Lords-Tables Ministers Lords
restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â— Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our Injunctâ—ons Canons writers Communion booke and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same prescribe that they shoulde stand at least wise when the Sacrament is administred 10. The Altar of Incense and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire or Sanctum Sanctorum but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple as the premises Evidence and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible intimate which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell specially at the Sacraments administration I come nowe in the 6. place to examine those reasons which are or can bee alleaged by our Novellers for placinge Communion Tables Altarwise against the East end wall of the Quire of Chauncell The first reason alleaged by them is this The high Altar or Lords Table sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford Preist in his Sermon of Gods house Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18. usually standeth at the East end of Gods house Idque propter Christum c. and that because of Christ wheâ— is called the light of the worlde and ORIENS to with the branch Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument is this Christ is called the light of the vvorld the BRANCH and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East Therefore the Communion Table high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church What frentique Bedlam logicke divinitie is this what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation Is not this farr worse then that of Durandus other Pâ—pists Christ is called a Rocke and a Corner stone 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone To whicht I might vetorâ— from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is calâ—ed the branch Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood not stone Christ beinge else where called a vyne Tree of life c. more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it Therefore high Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood not stone as Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine Optatus Chrysostome Athanasius and others as our Communion Tables are and ought to bee by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer which calls it Gods BOARD the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter and 6. reasons Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles Art 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament on Math. 23. sect 7. on Heb. 13. sect 6. on Apoc. 6. sect 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin Bishop Farrar Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination Fox ibidem p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument First hee
Prelates thenâ— more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ— zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâ—ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câ—apple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â— Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâ—ester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâ—aneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâ—fying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâ—ts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâ—acon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâ—sh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
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-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
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
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
wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood there commonly covered as thereto belongeth shal be appointed BY THE VISITORS and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed at which time the same shal be so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon saye with in the body of the Church or chancell which makes me suspect that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer ministration the Communicants also more conveniently in more number communicate with the sayd Minister and after the Communion done from time to time the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before In which Injunction much wrested insisted on by the Cole these particulars are remarkable to stoppe the mouthes of our moderne Innovators First that Communion Tables are no Altars nor ought to be so stiled they being here put in opposition contradistinction one to the other though some now confound bind them together as one 2. That all Altars were removed ordered to be removed by vertue and forme of a Law therfore provided to witt the Statute of Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them Therfore the bringing in setting up of Altars now and the calling of Communion Tables Altars is against that Law and the Booke of Common Prayer 3. That the setting up continuance of Communion Tables and the calling of them by this name was and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars or High-Altars against the Law 4. That all Altars were generally removed enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls in the Queenes owne Chapples for better example unto others So that the erecting of Altars in them or any of them must needs be a late Novelty contrary to Law to this Injunction and a grosse Non-conformity 5. That the care of Taking downe Altars setting up Communion Tables was committed to the Curate Church-wardens of each parish not the Bishop yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars and displace the Tables Altarwise 6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen her Successors that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers as their Visitours having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abundantly evidence 7. That the ordering of the Situation covering of the Communion Tables is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocesse but to the Queenes Visitors who were then specially appointed by her Commission as they were in King Henry the 8. King Edwards dayes many of them being Lay-persons Which Visitours placed them Tablewise not Altarwise in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since till with in these two or 3. yeares last past 8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell and there to stand unmoveable even when the Sacrament is administred the Injunctions expresly prescribing that where ever it stand before yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed it shal be removed into such part of the Chancell or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard c. after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before Which word shal be is not a baer arbitrary permission only as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it but a direct prâ—â—â—pt as is the later-clause by his owne confession else the Churchwâ—rdens might choose whither they would remoue the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised I come now to answer the objection being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them First then I answer that this clause set in the place where the Altar stood implies not but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle for all Altars were not so situated before this Injunction The Altar in Carmarthen Church was placed in the middest of the Church without the Quire The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches Chapples built North or North and South stood at the South end of the Quire not the East in many Churches some Altats stood one way some an other some West some North and South as walafridus Strabus witnissethâ— but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire as the Promises evidence The Author of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres or Chauncles in the place where now he would have them situated which he can never doe else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe but marre his cause make poinct-blanke against him since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall but in the place where the Altar stood so that where the Alter was placed in the midst west North or South end of the Church or Chancle the Table was to be there situated likewise 2. By The place where the Altar stood is not to be interpreted so precisely that it must stand in that particular individuall place or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood for this certainly was not the meaning but in the place that is in that end of the Church where the Altar stood to witt in the midst of the Church if the Altar stood there or in the East West North or South end of the Church where the Altars were so severally situated or in the Chauncel where the Altar formerly stood in the Channâ—le that this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction not that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere as our Innouators expound it is most apparant by these Reasons 1. First Because the
Communion Tables were of a different forme from the Altars then in Churches being both longer broder then Altars wich were all most perfectly square but Tables all most as long againe as brode They could not therfore be situated in the same individuall precise place as the Altars stood being thus different in proportion forme from them This is the Coales owne argument even against it selfe 2. Because the Coale itselfe confesseth that Altars were incorporated fixed unto this wall that Tables were not to be so therfore they were not to be placed punctually in that place in such sort ar the Altars stood were placed by his owne confession 3. Because the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke prescribes that the Minister at the time of administring consecrating the Sacrament shal stand at the North side of the Table not at the North end which clearly determines that the Table ought to be situated Table-wise with the sides or Longest squares of it North and South not Altar wise with the ends of it North South and the sides of it East and West against the Wall as some popish Altars stood And therfore the Jnjunction never intended that it should be set in the very precise place where the Altar was in the selfe same manner as it was situated for the Table being but a long square not a perfect Quadratum hath but two sides two ends the narrowest square of it being ever in our Engish Tongue termed an end not a Side the longest square only a SIDE And though Geometricians vsually terme every square* Latus in Latine which we translate a side wich yet more properly signifieth the breadth then the length of a thing and so rather the end then the side yet we in our English phrase ever call the long square only the side and the Narrew the end The Rubrike therfore beeing first compiled in English for English men according to the usuall meaning of the English phrase not to shew any termes of Art or skill but to direct instruct both Ministers people in the most plaine familiar way the word North-side must needs ' be interpreted of the long-side of the Table standing Northward which we ever phrase the side not of the narrowersquare set Northward which we ever heretofore and still phrase the North-end Wherfore the shife used by the Coalier That the North-end and the North-side come both to one there being no difference in this case between them he that stands and ministreth at the North-end of the Altar standing no question at the North-side there of as inpropertie of speech we ought to call it cujus contrarium verum est since we neither use nor ought so to call it in our English dialect is but a mere ridiculous evasion a miserable shift Neither wil his Objection that the Communion prayer Booke done into Latine by command authorised by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth in the 2. yeare of her raigne translates it Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem pa tem c. avayle him Since SEPTENTRIONALIS PARS though it may signifie the Northerne end of the Table as well as the North-side in case the end of it were so situated yet here signifies only the North-side not end of the Table the North-side being the Norh-part of the Table as well as the end the originall English which it Translates the North-side not end and the Tables at the time of this Translation standing with the Long-side not the end of it towarâ— the North. 4. Because the Queenes visitors and the whole Kingdomne thus interpreted it even in point of practise by placing all the Communion Tables in all Churches at that very time by vertue of this Jâ—junction and the Rubrike not Altarwise with the two ends North and South and the sides East West along by the wall but Table-wise with the two long sides North and South and the ends East and VVest a good distance from the wall as they have stood from 1. Elizabeth till now of late without any Alteration as experience and all aged men who well remember how the visitors placed them with our fore cited writers prove past all contradiction Neyther were they thus placed by casualty but of set purpose to difference them from Popish Massing Altars even in point of situation to teach the people that thy were Tables to eate and drinke at not Side-Tables or dressers as the Epistoler observes If then the Queens owne visitors and all those throughout the Kingdome whether Ministers or Church wardens who had a hand inplacing the Communion Tables vpon the removing of Altars did thus interpret the Injunction not of the precise place where the Altar stood or manner of its standing with the one side against the East-wall of the Quiere under the East-window but only of that part of the Church where the Altar stood and there upon situated the Tables throughout all England and Wales not Altar-wise but Table-wise only as is before expressed an experimentall truth past all contradistion then certainely there can be nothing in this Injuncttion prescribing them to be now new placed Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Chancel in that precise forme place and manner as the Altars stood as our Novellers now froms hence most fondly contend 3 Finally admitt these words might â—simplie consider ed be taken in that strict senc as some now would haue them yet the following words and shal be appointed by the Commissioners not the Bishops or Ordinaries who are expresly excluded though the Coale would make the prime men which relate as well to the placing as to the covering of the Table leaves the manner and precise place of Situs to the Commissioners appointement since the very places wherein the Altars formerly stood were not so sitting to sett the Table in in many Churches as some other place in the same part of the Church or Chauncel All which considered this Injunction gives no warrant at all for the late removing of our Tables railing them in Altarwise for wich the Coale is so hote fiery Now where as the Coale would willinglie make the world beleive that this Injunction saith that the removing of Altars was a thing of no great moment so that for ought it appeares unto the Contrary neither the Article nor Homily nor the Queenes Injunctions nor the Canons 1571. haue determined any thing but that as the Lords-Supper may be called Sacrifice so may the Holy Table becalled our Altar and set up in the place where the Altar stood 2. I answer That these words in the Injunction There semeth noe matter of great moment referrs not to Altars as if the removing or standing of them were a matter of no great moment for then the Parleament King and Councel in King Edwards dayes would not have so carefully removed them out of Churches expuoged their very name out of
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
last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church anciently and in Queen Elizabeths dayes And so it ought by Law to be now And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches because they had a Communion on those dayes But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men and the Ceremony to witâ— the use of reading second service at the Table now foâ—â—ooâ—h at the High Altar as they call it only retained and urged Which ought not to be read there by Law as I have manifested unlesse there be a Commnion and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table as the Rubricke in the Communion the Queens Injunctions and 28. Canon prescribe not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table and the standing in the middest not 〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where 〈◊〉 can â—eare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN 〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read as the Common prayer-Prayer-Booke injoynes them Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables situated Altarwise reading it only in their Pewes appointed for that purpose as they do in Parish Churches else they may be lawfully indicted fined and imprisoned for it as egregious violâ—ters of the statute of 1â— Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer that they seeme so much to stand upon QVESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any and for pract se it hath beene otherwise The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round or in an Oual manner as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulcher at Ierusalem The famous Church of Tyre built by Paulinus Bishop of that city was otherwise situated For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof which fully discribes it informes us That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames and that there was a seperation with great distance betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch and the Porch standing thus Eastwâ—rds It is certaine that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest or West end of it not at the East in the middest whereof the same Sermon informes us the Altar stood The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct aâ—thority p. 53. That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon which sayth thâ—â— the Porch stood Eastward and the Sanctuary a great distance from it in the middest of which the Altar stood So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch which stood Eastward Since this time the Churches as I have else-where manifested have been diversly situated according to the conveniency of the place Some being round or Ouall Others square Others standing North and South as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church with divers of the Kings owne Chapples And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges Hospitals Noblemen and Gentlemen And if this be not sufficient the very late Popish Chapple at Somersett-house with the new Church in Court Garden which as it stands not now perfectly East and West so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part Which some Prelates without Law Canon and reason I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end to the great expence of the builder the hindrance and deformity of that good worke which yet must not be used for a Church because not consecrated by a Bishops coâ—â—ring white Rochet Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law utterly exploded as a Romish Relique If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches as is apparent there is not There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise Being the end for which J moved the Question And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle so as litle Antiquity For in Durantus his time one of the latest authorities Bishâ—p Iewel quotes who lived not above 400 yeares since the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire and not close against the wall as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell â—ites but by other passages By the Altar sayth he our heart is understood which is in the MIDDEST of the body ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church Moreover he informes us that in consecrating the Altar the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now close to the Easterno wall to signify that â—e ought to take care for all and be vigilant for all which is signified by CIRCUITUM by his compassing or going round the Altar And if this be not sufficient out of Isiodor Amalarius Fortunatus Rabanus Maurus and others fore-cited he thus defines a Quire Chorus est multitudo exsacris collâ—cta dictus Chorus quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent ita psallerent Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire yet ab initio non fuit sic it hath been but of late times so even as the Papists themselves confesse Hence our Learned Dr. â—ulke
the Table Altar not only before the Pulpit the FoÌ„t the Bible the Common-prayer Booke the Paten the Chalice themselves but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine the Sacrament of Christs Supper and the Lord Christ himselfe to whome they give no such congies such solemne adoration reverence genuflexion honour and respect If so then it is almost execrable and abâ—minable Jf not then let them informe me How that which is least bowed to worshipped or adored is most reverenced and respected then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection Or how themselves can preach and 〈◊〉 that the name Iesus is more honourable venerable great and glorious then any other of our Saviours â—ames because it is and ought to be most cringed capped and bowed to of all others Till all these Questâ—ons are resolved J shall desire them to suspend this their capitall reason The 2 Reason The second reason for this Ceremonie is Because the Altar and Table are Christs mercy-seate and the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to thâ— Trintry So Mr. Shelford Preist here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity opened so to Christ himselfe that made it as if he himselfe had forgotten it or were not able of himselfe to present its memory to his Father without a Masse-Preists helpe which Lawe Giles Widdowes thus seconds The Church is the place of Gods presence The Communion-Table the Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus and his theifest place of presence in our Church Where his PREISTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes Where we sind a resolution of my first Question What is the end of our Novellers writing preaching and contesting for altars and Preists to wit that we may have a Sacrifice againe And what Sacrifice is that The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith Widdowes The Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar sayth She ford page 2. 19. And what kind of Sacrifice is this A commemorative wâ—â—â—e Shâ—â—ford and the Colier And no other but so Yea quoth Widdowes a propitiatorie sacrifice likewise to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes And so we have now not only Altars and Preists but the Sacrifice of the Masse it selfe in its ful latitude both as Commemorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine in Bookes laâ—ely printed by Authority and not yet called in How soone we may have all of them as wee have Altars Preists and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places in point of practise I leave to others to determine This being made the reason why wee bow to Tables and Altars because they are Christs mercy seat and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice c. is there made and presented to the Trinity This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar to be no mercy Seate and the Lords Supper no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affirâ—e both by Scripture and reason Secondly when they have done this then to make this appeare in like maner by Scripture or solid arguments drawne from it or at least by Fathers and Councels that Christians are bound to bow to Christs mercy seate or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered The Iewes never doing it to the one nor the Primitive Churches to the other Till this be done I shall demurre upon this Reason The third Reason The 3. ReasoÌ„ is this The Tible Altar are a signe of the place wheâ—e our Saviour was most dishonoured and câ—ucified Therefore wee must bow unto them So Giles Widdowes reasons in a Booke licensed at Oxford by some learned Dâ—ctours I answer First that this is a plaine untruth for they are neither a signe of Ierusalem Golgatha the High-Preist hall or the Crosse. Secondly if a truth yet unable to VVarrant this Ceâ—â—monie For what Scripture reason or Authour is there to just fie that men ought to bow at the signe of the place where our Saviour was dispised dishonoured and crucified Thirdly if this reason be good then these Novellers must bow at and to the signes of Ierusalem which hang up in every Citie or to or towards these Tauerne Posts which these bowers haunt much night and day to make them nod bow and reele the better to their Altars where the signe of Ierusalem hangs For they are properly the signe of the place where our Saviour was most dispised and crucified then the Table or Altar Then likewise they must bow to every Mappe of Ierusalem of the holy Land for they are signes of that place too Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves to which I wish these Cringers would all travell in pilgrimage that so they might have the sight of the place it selfe to encourage them in this their bowing which is better and more moving then the bare signe of it Fourthly this perchance may make something for the adoring of Crucifixes and the Crosse because though they are no signes of the place where Christ was dispised and crucified yet they are signes of that on which he was dispised and crucified whereas the Table or Altar is a signe of neither So that the Papists if any shall give him thankes for this reason The fourth Reason A fourth reason they produce in print is this Let us learne of our Mother Câ—urches for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and returne VVherefore to follow their good and holy patterne we also are to doe the like both at our first coming in to Gods house and at our going out so Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 20. and the Coale too p. 1. 2. 27. 64. And if I may judge this is the cheife if not the sole reason why most men use this Ceremony The Arch-Bishops both doe practise it for reasons best knowne to themselves and the Prebends Deanes and Cathedrall men with other Ministers and Câ—rates in Citty Court and Country to imitate and please the Bishoppes whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demurre as these writers to witt the Colier in his Câ—ale pag. 2. Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Bâ—oke Dogmatize else wee shall soone finde a speedy dissolution both of church and State To this Reason then I answer First that Gods written Law not our Prelates examples no further thâ—â— warranted by Gods word Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Minsters and peoples obedience in matters of faith Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9. 2 Pet. 1. 19. And it together with the the Lawes of the Realme and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament of which fort there are none now extant the only rule for them to follow in matters of
cleare undenyable truth I would first know what difference at all there is between those Idolatrous Pagans Papists and our late Innovatours See Francis de Croy his three-fold Conformity part 1. and Ormered his Pagano-Papismus These Ethnickes had Altars So have the Papists and wee They had the Images of the Idols they worshipped in their Temples and these standing in the East end of their Temples above and over their Altars And we have the Image of our Saviour on the Crosse which our Homilies hold unlawfull to be made much more unlawfull to be sett up in Churches standing either upon our Altars or above them in Tapestrie or Glasse-windowes or both just as have the Papists They when they worshipped prayed or Sacrificed to their Idol-Gods bowed and turned their faces towards their Altars and Images So doe the Papists towards their Altars and Crucifixes and so doe wee Where then lies the difference If they replie that the Pagaâ—s terminated their worship only in their Altars and Images adored the Altars and Images themselves not God in by or through them Our owne Homilies will take away this euasion both of the Papists and our Novellers See the Perill of Idolatrie part 3. p. 50. where we read thus Furthermore in that they say they doe not worship their Images or Altars as the Gentiles did their Idols or Altars but God and the Saints whome the Images Altars doe represent and therefore that their bowings before Images Altars be not like the Idolatrie of the Gentiles before their Idols Altars S. Augustine Lactantius and Clemens doe prove evidently that by this there answer they be all ONE with the Gentiles Idolaters The Gentiles saith S Augustine in Psal. 135. which seeme to be of the purer religion say Wee worship not the Images but by the corporall Image we doe be hold the Signes of the things we ought to worship And Lactantius saith Instit. l. 2. c. 2 3. We feare not the Images but them after whose likenesse the Images be made and to whose name they be consecrated And Clement saith that Serpent the devill uttereth these words by the mouth of certaine men Wee to the honour of the invisible God worship visible Images Which surely is most false See how in using the same excuses which the Gentiles Idolaters pretended they shew themselves to joyne with them in Idolatrie For notwithstanding this excuse S. Augustine Clemens Lactantius prove them Ido-Iaters Thus the Homilies And Dr. Reynolds De Idolat Rom. Eccles. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 86. c. Dr. Iohn White his way to the Church Sect. 51. n. 7. 8. p. 207. 208. Bishop Iewell Bishop Alley Bishop Abbot Bishop Usher Dr. Fulke Dr. Wille Dr. Field and all other of learned writers in their Tracts concernng Images and their Adoration out of these and other Fathers VVhere then is the difference between Pagans Papists and our late Novellers in these particulars To which I may adde the Tapors on our Altars used by the Pagans and condemned by our Homilies and Writers as Heathenish and Superstitious Certainly I can yet finde none If they replie That they can only worship before the Altar Table and Crucifix but doe not worship the Altar Table or Crucifix it selfe as the Pagans and Papists did doe I answer That as bowing kneeling and worshipping before God Is the same in Scripture phrase with bowing kneeling praying to and worshipping God himselfe witnesse Deut. 26. 10. 1 Sam. 1. 12. 15. 19. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Psal. 2. 27. Ps. 72. 9. Ps. 86. 9. Ps 95. 6. Ps. 96. 9. 15. Ps. 98. 6. 9. Isay. 6. 23. DaÌ„ 6. 10. 11. 26. Mich. 6. 6. Rev. 3. 9 c. 4. 10. 5. 8. c. 7. 10. c. 15. 4. compared with Isay. 45. 23. c. 49. 23. c 60. 1â— Rom. 14. 1â— Hebr. 11. 21. Gen 24. 26. 4. c. 47. 31. Exod. 4. 31. c. 12. 27. c. 34. 8. 1 Chron. 29. 10. 2. Chron. 7. 3. c. 29 29 30. Neh 8 6. Ps. 72. 9. with other texts And as bowing kneeling and falling downe before men is all one with bowing kneeling and falling downe to men Gen 49 8. 1 Sam 25 23. 2 Sam 14 33 c. 24 20. 1 Kings 1. 16. 23. 2 Kings 2. 15. Prov 14. 9. paralleld with Gen 27. 29. Exod 11. 8. 1 Kings 2. 9. 1 Chron 21. 21. So bowing kneeling worshipping or falling downe before or towards Images or Altar the very same in Scripture language account witâ— bowing kneeling worshipping or falling downe to Images or Altars 2 Caron 25. 14. Isay. 44. 15. 17. 19. which Iunius renders Procumbit CORAM EO Dan 3. 3. 5 6. Luke 4 71. If thou therefore wilt fall downe or worship BEFORE me all those shall be thine Compared with Exod 20 5. Levit 26. 1. Matth. 4. 9. This is the resolution of our Homilies p. 20. and 44. to 75. of William VVraghton in his Rescuer of the Romish Fox where this is excellently cleared and generally of all our Writers against Images and Adoration of the Eucharist the thing novv clearly aâ— med at in this Ceremony as Dr. Heylyn in his late History of the Sabbath intimateth if not in the Coale too This Cloake therefore is to short to cover their nakednes neither will it serue the turne If they say they have no eye at all at the Altar in this their bowing nor yet at the Crucifix over it And that neither of these are the terminaâ—ioÌ„s or total or particular object of their bowing towards them All which they must affirme and make good to acquit themselves from relatiue worship and Idolatrie I answer That this is but a meere forgery and pretext For first Shelford in his Authorized Booke Page 19. faith That the Altar or Table is motivum cultus The mouing cause of this their worship â—doration towards it Therefore certainly it hath some Influence into it and some share in it Secondly as it is the object that stirs up this worship for were there no Altar or Table â—here would not be any such bowing to to or towards the place where it stands a plaine evidence that it is both the oâ—iginâ—ll cause if not the object of this worship so it is the only visible object to which it is directed in which it is terminated their eye minde and bodily incuruation being all leuelled at it alone Else why should they not as well bow toward the Font Pulpit or any other part of the Church indifferently but to and towards it alone God being every-where alike present as Honorius Augustodunensis formerly shewes and no more confined to the Altar or Table then to any other part of the Church Thirdly it is not terminated objectively in God or Christ because done to them only to 〈◊〉 the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table or Altar to which we bow as the Passages fatlâ—â—red on Bishop Morton Page 403. witnesseth Therefore terminated only in the Table or Altar Fourthly all the
Calendas we may well demurre to this second reason Of which more fully anon Only to retort the reason let me argue thus The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven in the Church-Bible and midst of his people not at the East end of the Church where none must sit neare him as I bare else-where proved And in every good Christians heart Ergo these not the Table are to be bowed unto As for his Chaire of State That it ought alwayes to be bowed unto I thinke when it is in the ward-robe Cart Imbroy derers or upholsters shop c. should have been excepted he must shew us some Law or Statute for it ere we can beleeve it And though some men bow unto it now and then because the King sits some times personally in it This Gentleman must prove that God sits personally some-times on the Table which he can hardly doe But he and others tell us that God sits alwayes there Very good Then I thus retort the similitude No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chaire of State when the King himselfe is sitting in it but only when he is absent For when the King his in it they never doe it but bow only and immediately to the King without any respect to the Coaire Therefore since God is alwayes sitting on the Table they ought not to bow or doe any reverence to it at all And so this Simitude cuts the throate of their cause if rightly paralleld and applied This will likewise overthrow his Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise else-where at large refelled Here also writes he it is to be considered unto the honouring of Gods holy name of his Table rather in what place of the Chauncell Gods Board or Seat should stand Doth not nature itselfe teach us that in every common house the Seate of the chiefest should be above every inferiour And should not Christianitie teach us that no Seate of any person much lesse of any of the Laity it seemes then the Cleargie may sit above God himselfe if they please should be above Gods mercy Seate the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chauncell c. And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chauncell is it not decent that the ends thereof thus this Expositour and Patron of the Common-Prayer-Booke dares controll it be towards North and South The Holy Ghost commaundeth all things to be done decently and according unto order Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South against the expresse order of the Common-Prayer-Booke And if it ought so to be in all things much more ought it to be in every thing about Gods house especially in the standing of his Sacred Seate As if this Seate stood very undeceâ—tly and quite out of order unlesse the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order But of this meâ—ry profound Divinity hereafter This only by the way for a Breakfast The Authour having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners That we are all bound in conscience for to learne believe and obey whatsoever is commaunded in the Commuuion-Booke Homilies Booke and Constitutions or Canons Booke All which condemne his bowing to and placing of the Table North and South And so by his owne censure not speaking according to the Communion Booke Doctrine J may with a safe conscience before God affirme that there is no light of Gods holy spirit within him They are his owne words and censure of all those who speake not according to the Communion Booke Doctrine which himselfe professedly speakes against in all these and other passages But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise NOTE THIS It appeares by Num. 1. 50. c. c. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Campe of Israel and the Levites were there commaunded to encampe ROVND ABOVT IT To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. c. 7. 11. hath relation as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large It is also evident by Numb 3. 26. c. 4. 26. And the hanging for the dore of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROVND ABOVT c. That the Passage in the Counsell of Constantinople where the same phrase is used is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it the words being the same both in Latine Greeke and English in all places TO THE CHRISTIAN READER CHRISTIAN READER it is storied of Croesus his dumbe-borne Sonne that when he saw a Persian Captaine going to stay his Father his filiall affection was so stirred in him at the sight that though he never spake before yet then he brake forth into these words O man doe not kill Croesus And so saved his Fathers life What this dutifull Sonne thus unexpectedly uttered being ever before tongue-tied out of his endeared love to his naturall Father I am here constrained out of my loyall respects to my spirituall Mother the Church of England publikely to speake to some treacherous seeming-Sonnes of hers who have almost stabbed her to the heart under a specious pretence of fighting for her in some late printed workes O man doe not murther and betray my Mother the Church of England Even as Iudas once did our Saviour with a kisse whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholy for her Alas when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles and the Booke of Common-Prayer to which you have all subscribed When I see you raking the very ashes and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent Iewel Raynolds Whitaker Fulke Willet Perkins with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Romes greatest Goliahs whom you never durst so much as looke upon by way of Opposition in their life times proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings When I behold you siding with the Papists maintaining their Antichristian Errours Doctrines Ceremonies abuses before all the world without blush or shame Defending their Erronious Writers against our famous Orthodox Authours whose blessed memories you seeke causelesly to steine When I behold you avowing even in print That the Church of Rome is a true Church That personall Succession of Bishops is requisite and Essentiall to make a true Church That the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England derive their lineall Succession and Episcopall dignity from S. Peters Chaire and the very Sea of Rome and that we should not acknowledge them for Bishops in case they either did not or could not doe so That the Pope of Rome or Papacy is not the Antichrist Nor Antichrist yet come or
yea rather abound with more and more stupendious Conjurations then they But S. Augustine who in his time complained of the multitude of Ceremonies if he were now alive what would he thinke of that immense and prolix number of Ceremonie◠〈◊〉 in use For writing to Ianuarius he thus speakes of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he hath laden with servile burthens Religion itselfe which the mercy of God would have to be free with very few and most manifest Ceremonies of Celebration that the condition of the Iewes is now more tollerable then that of Christians Who although they acknowledge not the time of liberty yet they are Subject to the rudiments of the Law not to human presumptions or Instiâ—â—â—ons Thus Augustine And verify the condition of this our time is much to be deplored that the Fathers of the Church either will not or cannot with the same edge of their minde cut off these and such like Ceremonies or rather TRIFLES from the Church where with they discerned and corrected these former vices of Ordalium or triall by fire But those being damned and abolished as Superstitious they still hold fast and retaine these Consecrations QUAMVIS PUERILIA ET DELIRIA SINT although they are Childish things and Dotages framed and coâ—piled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Grâ—gorie who writes That the rules of the Holy Fathers were delivered according to the circumstances of time Place person and instant busines But these having no regard neither of time nor place noâ— busines nor person nor of any other thing but their owne will and vaine glory Nâ— pusillis in reâ—us 〈◊〉 ceâ—eâ—a voluâ—â— Will not submit to the truth even in these triviall things Thus this Arch-Bishop of these Dedications so much now contested for by his present Successoâ—r Ouâ— of what spirit he hath here determined to our hands I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉 A QUENCH-COALE OR A breife disquisition or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table ought to bee situated especially when the Sacrament is administred IT hath been a great Question lately raysed and much agitated among us by some Innovating Romish spirits In what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords Table ought to stand specially at the time of the Sacraments administration whether in the Body or midst of the Church Chancell or Quire or at the East end of the Quire Alterwise where some now rayle it in and plead it ought of right to stand The Rubricke in the Comon prayer booke before the Communion thus resolves this question The Table at the Communion tyme havinge a faire white Lynnen cloath upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH OR IN THE CHANCELL where morninge prayer and eveninge prayer bee appointed to be said And the preist standinge AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE shall saye the Lords prayer with this Collect followinge c. Queene Elizabeths Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne when the former Rubricke was made thus explaine and define this question The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to bee distributed shal be soe placed in good sort with in the Chancell as whereby the Minister maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number communicate with the sayd Minister And after the Communion done from tyme to tyme the same holy Table to bee placed where it stood before Therefore it is not to be moveable not fixed or rayled in at the East end of the Chancell The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction Whereas wee have no doubt but that in all Churcheâ— with in the Realme of England convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion wee appoint that the same Tables shall from tyme to time bee kept and repaired inconvenient and decent manner and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silke or other decent stuffe and with a faire lynnen cloath at the time of the administration as becommeth that Table and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to bee administred At which time the same shal bee placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL as thereby the Minister maye bee the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number maye communicate with the sayd Minister Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe best knewe the meaninge of the Rubricke and Injunctions made that very yeare did by speciall direction place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England in the bodie of the Church or Chancell some distance from the wall with the two ends standinge East and West and the two sides North and South in which sort they have stood noe lesse then 73. yeares or more And in such Churches where the Tables coulde not conveniently stand alwayes in the body of the Church or Chancell they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand givinge direction accordinge to the Rubricke and Queenes Injunctions for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancell when the Sacrament shoulde bee administred as the sayd Rubricke Injunctions and Canons prescribe In the yeare of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithie treatise touchinge the Lords supper compiled as some gather by M. William Tyndall and printed at the end of his workes wherein p. 476. 477. hee wisheth that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time After which hee prescribes this forme of administringe it wishing that the secular Princes woulde commaund and establish it To witt That the breade and wyne shoulde bee sett before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lords Table not an Altar purely and honestly laide c. Then let the Preacher whom hee would have to preach at least twise every weeke exhort them lovingly to drawe neere unto this Table of the Lord c. This donne let him come downe to witt from the pulpit and accompanied honestly with other Ministers come forth readily unto the Lords Table not the Altar the congregation nowe SET ROUND ABOUT IT aud alsoe in their other convenient seates the Pastor exhortinge them all to praye for grace faith and love which all this Sacrament signifieth and putteth them in minde of Then let there bee read openly and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue c. Where this Author prescribes a Table not an Altar and that to stand in the face of the Congregation not at the upper end of the Quire that soe the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT thus receive This hee determines to bee accordinge to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time and that which our Martyrs then desired to bee
acknowledge none as hereafter shall bee proved But wee see noe Reason why the Communion Table maye not bee sett IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH as well as in the Chancell if the place bee more convenient and fitt to receive the Communicants But I praye you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuarie then the Font or Baptisterie They are both Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords supper why shoulde one bee preferred as holier then the other Thus this Doctor By all these authorities it is most apparent that by the expresse Resolution of the Common prayer booke confirmed by Act of Parliament Of Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops learned writers constant practice of the Church of England from the beginninge of Reformation untill now the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancell or Quire Altarwise against the wall especially when the Sacrament is administred but in the middest of the Church or Chancell and that soe it stood in the Primitive Church Nowe for the better discoverie of the place where the Table ought to stand it will not bee impertinent to enquire First where the Table of Shewbreade was placed 2. Where Iewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood 3. How the Iewes Tables the Table at which Christ instituted the Sacrament were situated 4. How the Communion Tables were placed in the Primitive Church 5. What place is most proper Convenient for the Table 6. What reasons can bee produced for the placinge of the Communion Table Altarwise at the East end of the Chancell against the wall c. For the first of these it is most evident that the shewbreadâ— Table a tipe of Christ the Sacramentall breads stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum but without the vaile of the Tabernacle on the Northside not at the East side of the Tabernacle Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9. 2. 3. 6. 7. which are expresse compared with the 1. Kings 7. 28. 1. Chron. 9. 32. c. 23. 29. c. 28. 16. 2. Chron. 4. 19. c. 13. 11. c. 29. 18. If the situation then of the Shewbreade Table maye bee any president for Communion Tables they ought to be placed not in the East end of the Chancell but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood For the second wee must knowe that Altars were aunciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills elevated places especially amonge the Idolatrous Gentiles Jer. 11. 13. Exod. 34. 13. Numb 23. 1. and 28. 29. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. 2. Kings 11. 18. c. 21. 3. to c. 23. 12. whence they are frequently stiled in Scripture high places and condemned by that name 1. Kings 2. 3. 4. c. 1â— 31. 32. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 14. 2. Kings 12. 3. c. 14. 4. c. 15. 4. 35. c. 17. 29. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 32. 1. c. 33. 17. Jer. 42. 35. Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. 25. In detestation of these high places in truth nought else but high-Altars God himselfe gave expresse charge to the Israliâ—es Exod. 20. 28. not to goe up by steps to his Altar that their nakednes bee not discovered And to plucke downe destroye all high places Numb 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39. yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish as even in dispite of God himselfe to erect high places high Altars to goe up by steps unto them in stead of Communion Tables to Christen the Lords Table with the name of an Altar and high Altar too The Golden Altar for incense was sett before the Arke of the testimony in the first Tabernacle And the Altar of burnt offeringe which was most holy was placed before the doore of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. that by Gods owne appointment And when a burnt offeringe of fowles was brought to the Altar the Preist was to wringe the blood of it out at the side of the Altar and to plucke awaye the Croppe with the Feathers and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST parte by the place of the ashes Levit. 1. 14. 15. 16 Therefore the Altar of burnt offeringe did not stand Altar-wise against the East end of the Tabernacle or Temple When the Temple was built Solomon placed the Altar of incense covered with pure gold not with in but by the Altar The brazen Altar hee placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the congregation in the fore front of the house Another Altar hee erected in the middle of the Court before the house of the Lord on which hee offered burnt offerings and meate offerings and the fatt of the peace offerings And when the Temple was consecrated the Levites which were the singers with their soons and their brethren beinge arayed in white Lynnen havinge Cymballs and Psalteries and Harpes stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar to witt of the golden and brazen Altar and with them an 120 Preists soundinge with trumpetts All which is cleerely related 1. Kings 6. 22. c. 8. 64. 2. Kings 16. 14. 2. Chron. 1. 5. 6. c. 5. 12. c. 7. 7. Neither of these Altars therefore stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum in the East side or against the East wall of the Temple When Elijah built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Carmel hee made a trench round about the Altar as greate as woulde containe two measures of seede And the water ranne round about the Altar and filled the trench 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the middest where men might stand round about it not against a wall Wee reade of David that hee build an Altar to the Lord in the threshinge flowre of Araunah 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof but in the middest of it as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocencie soe wil I COMPASSE thyne Altar â— Lord. Wee reade in the 2. Kings 11. 11. that when Jehoash was Crowned the Gaurd stood every man with his weapons in his hand round about the Kinge from the right corner of the Temple to the left corner alonge by the Altar and the Temple The Altar therefore stood not in the corner or East end of the Temple but in the middest or neere the entringe into it In the 2. Kings 12. 9. wee reade that Jehoiada the Preist tooke a chest and bored a hole in the â—idd thereof and sett it besides the Altar on the right side as one commeth into the house of the Lord. So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple but neere the entry almost as our fonts nowe stand And c. 16. 14. It is recorded that Kinge Ahaz brought the brazen Altar which was before the Lord from the forefront of the house from betweene the Altar and the house of the Lord and put it on the northside of the Altar not the East Manaâ—â—eh built Altars for al the
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
it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles Fathers and primitive Church in the purest tymes as I have already manifested of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas 3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops owne Canons and the judgement of our best writers 4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of tables amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade at home whoe place their Tables at which they eate and drinke in the midst of their dyninge roomes at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt or stand round about them The Lords Table therefore beinge a table to eate and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture all sortt of writers from the Apostles dayes till nowe the Lords supper â— Coâ— 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest decentest which is Common to all suppinge tables doth best expresse resemble the nature of a supper by standinge in the midst of the Communicants and their sittinge standinge or kneelinge round about it altogeather not by severall files and turnes like soe many bidden-guests Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise like a Dresser or sideCubberd not a Table the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files and there to receive by turnes kneelinge doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table nor the other to bee the Lords supper 5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Masse Altars Preists sacrifices and private Masses where the Preist alone Communicates drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell nowe urged is nothinge else but to usher Altars Preists publique and private Masses adoration of Altars and the Hostia transubstantiation and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke vaunt and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table and administringe the Sacrament was used in the primitive Church till Poperie private Masses thrust it out When Poperie Masses Masse Preists Transubstantiation Altars adoration of the Hostia other Popish trash were abolished this scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne Antidote against these popish innovations and soe hath continued eversince The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe soe ought with all diligence and courage to bee with stood 6. Because this scituation is most orderly and decent and that in 5. regards First Because the Minister thereby maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer his administration and Consecration which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire or Chauncell in most greate Churches and parishes 2. Because there the CoÌ„mmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently and in greater number communicate with the Minister then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell as remote as maye bee from the people Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82. Canon neither can they bee gaine sayd 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye more easily see the Minister when and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament then when hee is more remote and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God and saye Amen to every prayer as they are enioyâ—ed 4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table 5. When the Table stands in the midst all the Communicants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance disorder noise or stirr as they are expressely Commanded to doe 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe dâ—vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile and there to receive divides the Communion Communicants and Congregation makinge so many Communions and Congregations as there are Companies breeds a Confusion disorder disturbance noise distraction and oft tymes a Contention in the Church in causinge the people to march upp and downe some one waye and some another to contend whoe shall first receive or take the uppermost place to crowd thrust and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it breeds many quarrells factions schismes and divisions betweene the Minister the people hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations prayers reverence devotion attention singinge enforceth the people whoe are olde blinde lame sicke impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive whoe shoulde rather come to them inverts the practice Custome of our Church ever since reformation lengthens the administration and puts all into a Combustion yea into Confusion causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists 7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles Articles THE COMMUNION his Table the COMMUNION TABLE Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people in a Common not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM or COLLOCATUM ever used to expresse a thing that is Common the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people the rayling of it in that so none but the Minister may have accesse unto it destroyes both the Communion Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister and sequestring it from the people 8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church and Congregation because that is the place wherein God Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame Magisterially determine Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MIDDEST of his holie place and Cittie Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us and wee are called by thy name Hosea 11. 9. I am God and not man the holie one in the MIDST of thee Joell 2.
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-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
situation hath been changed without yea against both Law and Canon Therfore the Lords Tables in all other Churches Chapples ought thus to be situated As for the practise in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crowne I am utterly ignorant of it But when he was Prince of Wales I once receiued the Sacrament in his Chapple at Sant Iames then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the middest of the Chapple and white linnen Clothes like Table Clothes were spread upon the deskes of the Seates where in the Communiantâ— sate round about in a decent manner the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seates and this they then certified me had been and was the custome of administring the Sacrament there both in Prince Henries his Majestyts time Whether the Custome be different at Whitehall or other his Majestyes Chapples I know not since I never was at any Sacrament there but of the other I was an eye-witnes and many who have beene ancient servants both to Prince Henry his Majesty can testify this to have been the Custome I cannot therfore thinke that the King Princes Chapples doe jarre or vary in this particular But admit they should yet vivendum est legibus non Exemplis his Majestyes subjects must live according to his Lawes in this particular not according to the patterne of his Chapples exempt as from all Episcopall Iurisdiction as all other Churches Chapples should be as well as they if this argument hold good so from ordinary Rules and Lawes which bind the Subject But to give a more particular answer I say that admit the Antecedent true yet the consequence is infirme We know that Cathedrall Churches have Deanes Prebends Canons Singing-men Choristers Organists Virgerers Copes Sackbuts yea Kits Cornets oft times in them that they sing not read their whole divine Service prayers to I doubt me much whether with any serious contrition compunction since S. James writes thus c. 5. v. 13. If any man be merry let him sing Psalmes if any man be sorry or afflicted let him pray not sing Salomon sayth Prov. 25. 20. As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather as vineger upon niter so is he that singeth songs too much more then with an heavy heart Will it therfore follow Therfore all Papish Churches Chapples ought to have such Officers Instruments chaunting We know that many Cathedralls now I know not by what Law have no Communion Tables in them but High Altars so they terme them elevated on High with many steps and ascents their very exalted situation name being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles so oft condemned in Scriptures Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3 Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Altars situated in High places Shall therfore all our parish Churches Chapples have no Communion Tables in them though prescribed by our Statutes Common Prayer-Booke Articles of Religion Homilies Injunctions Canons writers but High-Altars only which all these decree We know that these new erected Cathedrall High Altars have much furniture as Tapers Basons Cushions yea and Crucifixes expresly condemned by our Homilies as unlawfull either to be made or used in Churches standing on them Which M. Andrew Melvin that famous Scottish Poët Divine thus wittily describes in Latine Verse In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara Lumina coeca duo pollubra sicca duo Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum Lumine coeca suo flumine sicca suo Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram Purpuream gemino mact at honore lupam Si Christi haec Mensa est cur Missae est structa paratu Cur versa in tenebras Lux in inane Latex Si sensus cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece Cur quae pulsa prius presto est caliginis umbra Quò calamistra trucis philtraque blanda Lupae Which may be thus Englished upon the Altar Furniture thereof in England Why on Court-Altars two Bookes clasped lie Two lightless Lights two empty Basons drie Does England in Gods worship lock-up Sense Darke in her Beames dry in Streames influence Whilst with Romes Rites shee Royall-Altars Decks Offers shee not Romes Whore in all respects If `t is Christs Board why is it Mass-like trim'd Why has it empty Fonts Lights wholely dim'd If Romes Dumbe-Showes be from the Britans banisht Why are our Bibles Shut our pure Prayers vanisht Why are Romes Foggs brought back expell'd before What meane the Tyres sweet Drafts of that bace Whore Shall it therfore follow because these Cathedrall Altars have such trinkets standing on them ergo every parish Church Chapple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars Communion Tables to I trow not unlesse there were some Law or Statute for it since the Rubricke of the Common Prayer Booke the 82. Canon Prescribes that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linnen cloth upon it and that at other times during diviue service only it should be covered with a Carpet of filke or other decent stuffe so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it in Cathedrall Churches are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Booke of Common Prayer the Canons yea and the Queenes Injunctions as the High Altar is This argument therfore now much insisted on is invalid untesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Lawes Canons in those particulars then now they are The 5. Objection is this That the Queenes Injunctions commaund the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood Ergo they ought to be placed Altar-wise To this I answer that the words of the Queenes Injunctions published Anno 1559. by the advise of her most honorable Counsaile are these For the Tables in the Church Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many sundrie parts of the Realme the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacrament ACCORDING TO THE FORME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majestyes Visitours In the order where of having for uniformity there seemeth no matter of great moment so that the Sacrament be duly reverently Ministred yet for observation of one uniformity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALME and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALFE it is ordered that no Altar be taken downe but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Church-wardens or one of them at the leastâ—
the Comon Prayer Booke not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing or our Martyrs Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes but it relates only to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them with order and direction to be given by them was noe matter of great moment but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides according to the forme of the Law therfore provided For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars and to sett up Tables in their stead they might without only order from the visitours even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order direction for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables Altars themsilves or the removing of them simplie considered as the Coliar dreames and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle adged terme the Lords Table an Altar but the Holy Table Communion Table or Lords Board Table only The 6. objection is this The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno 1561. say that in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus The parrish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table c. And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East-wall over the side Table Which put together make up this Construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before I answer first that those two Authorities ever use the word Table and never stile the Lords Table and Altar as his Objector doth and would have it termed therefore it s most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar 2. If both the Queenes Injunctions those Orders 1561 Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise why were they not all then placed so but stood Table-wise then and ever since why did our learned Bishop Jewell in that very age Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke Doctor Willet Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements in their Authorised workes maintaine that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as it did in the primitive Church and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England proving defending it against the Papists whom they contended with if this were both the Doctrine of our Church the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions Orders Advertissement that they should be placedâ— Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire yea if this were so why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches to aff on t this situation of the Table in them all Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully or else he must give me leave to thinke that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities If the thing be well observed as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words prove that the Table was to stand Altar-wise with one side against the wall but a good distance from it as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board or upon the East wall over the side Table is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly overâ—t for that they could not doe the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood but over it that is some good height above it not direstly over it is cleare First by the words them selves intimating as much for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table over in both these places relating to the Wall next antecedent not to the Table at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table now the wall by which the Table stands cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table but only over that is above it therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it or written on it as it is in many Churches Thus Ioseph was saide to be set over all the Land of Egipt Gen. 41. 33 43. not in situation for so he could not be but in Authority and Iurisdiction that is he took place and had precedency commaund of all in Egipt or was above them or in higher authority then they Thus David useth the phrase Ps 66.12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades that is to be above us triumph over us So we say that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window when it hangs above it though not direstly over it such a thing is over your head that is above it not directly over it 4. Admit over it be meant perpendicularly over it yet this makes not at all for its situation Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse over it must be interpreted over the East end of it next to the East wall not the East side of it placed against the wall that which hangs over the East end being as truly saide to be over the Table as that with hangs over the side or middle of it 5. Neither of these affirme that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated but at other times Therefore it proves nothing at all that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre The 7. Objecteon for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts that if there shall happeÌ„ any irreverÌ„ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise
of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory the edyfying of his Church and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments A power not personal sayth the Coale to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determined positively that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel which is not determined of or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe which yet is not so the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes in sitting on it in time of Sermon otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts making Rates such like businesses may by the last clause of the side for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries Sacraments with the advise Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood to be railed about for the greater decency To this I answer first That a possead Esse non valet consequentia The Kingh by virtue of this Act by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood there rayled in Ergo it ought there to be placed railed in before or without the Kings Commaund is no good Argument yea the contrary holds good The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale as is evident by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565 with the Statute of 25. H 8. â— 19. the King being to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations writs doe testify But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing under his great Seale Therfore it ought not to be done 2. This branch of the Statute takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever oâ— to alter any formerly prescribed or established vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes her Commissioners Metrapolitane being only to advise her in cause she require their advise but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names either with or with our the Queenes advise they being as some say in a Premunire if they doe it by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c 16. 3. 4. Edâ— 6 c. 11. his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund London 1628. By what right or power then I pray with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall can or doe our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Ordinaries officials in their severall visitations take upon them to prescribe new rites Ceremonies of their owne devising to print pubblish them in their owne names without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles to injoyne Ministers Church-wardens Sidemen to submit unto them suspending questioning excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it when as them selves for making they for submitting to any such Rites Ceremonies or Constitutions are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603 By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables order give in charge in printed Articles that Communion Tables shal be changed removed sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel there rayled in that the Ministers shall bow cring unto them administer the Sacrament yea read the 2. service as they call it at the Table even when there is no Sacrament that all the Communicants shall come up to receive that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri the Gosple Athanasius the Nicene Creed bow at every naming of Iesus Woemen to be Churched with vayles not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale suspending silencing depriving excommunicating Ministers and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles Injunctions being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative contrary to this objected clause of the Statute and to the first clause thereof which enacts That no manner of Parson vicar or other Minister what soever shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use or by open fact deed or thenreatning compell cause procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple to use ANY OTHER RITE CEREMONY ORDER FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords Supper Mattens Evening song Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England under the penalties therein expressed which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites Ceremonies The Coalier therfore might well have fâ—â—o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar to kindle a combustion in our Church 3. I answer that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it not her Heires Successors their Commissioners that for two reasons First for the Parleament then knew her syncerity love to Religion and her desire to aduance it of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time but especially in Queen Maries dayes therfore they would trust her with such a power But they then knew not neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne nor what they might prove in point of Religion Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church with the due use reverence of Christe holy misteries Sacraments formerly setled by this Act the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament but limited it only to the Queen 2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament other Rites Ceremonies of the Church of England being then but newly corrected published there might there upon as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations grow some questions doubts inconveniences about it or
some defects or cause of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved rectified supplied before a new Parliament might be called to d ee it or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament All which questions in conveniences defests would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified without any need of future alierations Rites or Ceremonies or continuing this power to her Heyres Successors which are purposely omitted in this clause This appeares most clearly by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act where the forfaitures for offending against the first clause is severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes HER HEIRES and Successors and though the 2. clause saith that he who shall be convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles omitting her Heires abolissing all forraigne power repugnent to the same and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors their Commissioners power only to punish all Heresies Errors Scismes contempts offences Abuses enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes Statutes not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes so new He resies Errors Ecclesiasticall offences not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or Inâ—isdiction before These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld And here I wonder much that the Colier should alleadge and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. which enacts that all Ecclesiasticall power together with all such Iurisdictions priviledges superiorities preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State persons for reformation order correction of the same and of all manner Errors heresies scismes abuses offences contempt enormites shall for ever by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme c. was not an Jntroductions of a New Law but confirmative of an old annexing no newâ— but only the old Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State persons be as he truly confesseth for ever united to the Crowne to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name appoint from time to time only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in from by under his Majestey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy given to heare determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall correct vice sinne what soever to all such persons as his Majestey to witt by speciall Patent Commission shall appoint thereunto As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis can or dare affirme their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be Iure divino or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters Patents or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale to keepe visitations Consistories to make and imprint visitation Oathes Articles in their owne names impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions in their owne names rights or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales in they owne names alone not his Majesteyes contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch King and Pope in his owne Dioces had no Soveraigne over them to acknowledge Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne dignity and his Loyall subjects Liberties or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute this grand objection to maintaine his Altars new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction The S. Objection is this That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity the matter shal be referred to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing conteined in that Booke Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church and there it ought to stand I answer first the Argument followes not For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing but only when and wher there is a doubt and diversity risen in any parrish concerning the use practise of the said Booke not whenâ— and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire all taking it for granted that it ought not so to be placed but to stand in that place manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation â— time all most out of mind till now Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places and in case that any Popish Innouators have raysed a doubt in any place where there is or can be none touching the placing of the Lords Table the Ordinary in this case can not must not make any innouation but order that it must stand in that place forme as was at first ordained by the Queeâ—es Commissioners where it stood ever since it being his Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline 2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall especially when the Sacrament is administred is contrary to these Books the Queenes Jnjunctions Canons writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Communion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause but is expresly prohibited by it so to doe The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in London that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quierâ—
haue vnder the hands of an eyewitnes or two who with-hundreds more can make it good if need be vpon their Oathes THE MANNER OF ALTERING THE Communion Table of the Collegiate Church of WOLVERHAMPTON in the Countie of STAFFORD consecrating it for an Altar the 11. day of October Anno Domini 1635. VPON Satarday being the 10. of October 1635. Maister Edward Latham one of the Proctors of Leichfeild Surrogate of Woluerhampton accompanied with some 20. or 30. Persons men weomen and Chorasters came to the Towne many of the Inhabitants but cheifly the Clergie going to meet him The intent of his their coming was to performe the solemnity of Dedicating the Communion Table to be an Altar and of consecrating certeyne Altar Cloathes as they said to the glory of God The Table was made new for this purpose being about a yard an halfe in lenght exquisitely wrought and inlaid a fayre wall of waynscot being at the backe of it the rayle before it was made to open in the middle not at one side the middle where the Ministers tread being matted with a very fayre Matt. Vpon the Table was placed a faire Communion Booke couered with cloth of gold bossed with great silver Bosses together with a faire Cushion of Damaske with a Carpet of the same both party coulored of skie coulor purple the fringe of the Carpet being blew white On each side of the Table hangs two peices of white Callico betwixt them the 10 Commaundements written in a fayre Table with guilded Letters the foresaid Cushion standing just below it But on the North end where the Minister stands to consecrate in that peice of white Callico is represented at the top the picture of Angels with faces cloudes birdes fleying about the middle the picture of Peter on the Crosse at the bottome George on horsebacke treading on the Dragon leaues grasse with some trees being beneath all almost at the end of it In the other peice of white Callico on the West end is the same as on the North end only the picture in the middle differs being the picture of Paul with his sword in his hand all this being the curious worke of some needle woman Now the mysterie why the Pictures of Peter Paul George on horsebacke more other are in this worke is imagined because the Church is dedicated to the memorie of Peter and Paul it is vnder the Iurisdiction of Sant Georges Chappell at Windsor The next day being the Lords day assoone as the Preists for so they would be called to suite the better with their Altar came to the Church each of them made a Low Congie a peece at their very first entring in at the great Church dore and an other Congie a peece at the I le dore after that 3. Congies apeece towards the Altar before its dedication and so they went into the Chancell where a bason of water a towel was provided for the Preistes to wash in where was incense burnind which perfumed the whole Church then they returned backe making 3. Congies a peece went to service which was solemnely performed the Organs blowing great singing not heard of in this Church before which kinde of seruice lasted two howres at least Seruice being finished there was a Sermon Preached by one Maister Ieffery Arch-deacon of Salop in the County of Salop whom the Surragate brought with him His text was Iohn 10. 22. 23. And it was at Hierusalem the Feast of the Dedication it was winter Iesus walked in the Temple in Salomons Porch All his whole Sermon was to prove the truth of the Altar He had not one place of Canonicall Scripture as we remember but one place in all which was out of the Maccabees His Sermon lasted an hower After Sermon they went to the Dedication or rather as the Preacher stiled it Renouation of the Altar and in the Bell-house 4. of them putt on the rich broydered Copes and euery one of them had a Paper in his hand which they termed Censer so they went vp to the Altar reading as it went for they looked often on it As they went they made 3. Congies apeece when they came to the Altar they kneeled downe prayed ouer the cloth the other Consecrated things the Organs blowing all the while this solemnity lasted almost halfe an hower After all this was performed there was a Communion and one was appointed to stand with a Bason to receyve the offertory divers gaue mony it was thought it had been giuen to the poore but the man that held the Bason gaue it to the Surragate the somme gathered being reputed about 40. s he calling the Church-wardens gaue them as he said 10. s the remainder he told them he would bestow on other pious vses but the 10 d. being counted proved to want 6. of the just somme he said he had deliuered them None gaue the Communion but the 4. that had Copes This finished they washed their hands returned making 3. Congies apeece as before These Copes the siluer Basons were brought from Leich feild The Communion and Dedication ended they went to dinner in the Afternoone they come to Church againe where was a Sermon preached by one Maister Vsuall a Minister his text was in the 2. Sam 7. 2. And David said to Nathan the Prophet se now I dwell in an house of Cedar And the Arke of God abideth vnder Curtaines This Sermon did justify and magnify the Altar lasted more then an hower which being finished they went to prayer which was very solemnely performed the Organs blowing diuers Anthems Responds being sung at that time which done they departed from the Church to their lodging where they were very merry to grace this solemnity and Consecration of the Altar the Higher the next day being munday they of Leich-feld went out of Towne many of them very drunke defiling themselues with this swinish sinne like so many filthie brute beastes to make the Altar the more holy venerable and themselves more apt to nod Congie to it this maner of keeping this feast of Dedication a patterne for all the Country to Imitate Thus ended this late Dedication with which I here conclude my rude Discourse and Quench-Coale THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE IN this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to pâ—opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors Innouatâ—rs together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts Questions to thâ—m The first Quaere is this What is the true finall end they ayme at in erecting Altars styling Communion Tables Altars placing them Altar-wise in christening themselves againe by the name of Preists not as it is vsed for a contract of the word Presbyter which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the Gosple but of
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câ—aldâ—a looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published â—e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeâ—t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These â—estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâ—ion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ— â—he hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely