in proprietie of speech wee ought to call it and so implies not as it is supposed by the Epistoler that the end or narrower part thereof is to bee placed towards the East great Window And this Interpretation of the Rubrick I the rather stand to because that in the Common Prayer booke done into Latine by command and authorized by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth Ann. 2â— of her reigne it is thus translated Ad cujus mensae septentrionalem partem Minister stans orabit orationem Dominicam viz. That the Minister standing at the North part of the Table shall say the 〈…〉 5. FOr the Parenthesis I might very well have passed it over as not conducing to this purpose but that it seemes to cast a scorne on them by whose direction the Booke of the Fast in 1â— of the King was drawne up and published as if it were a Noveltie or singular devise of theirs to call the latter part of Divine Service by the name of Second Service whereas indeed the name is very proper for it and every way agreeable both to the practise of antiquitie and the intentions of this Church at that very time when the Booke of Common Prayer was first established For if we looke into the Liturgie of our Church immediately after Athanasius Creed wee shall find it thus Thus endeth the Order of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the whole yeare i. e. the forme of Morning and Evening Prayer for all dayes equally aswell the working dayes as the holy dayes without any difference Then looke into the first Rubricke before the Communion and wee find it thus So many as intend to bee partakers of the holy Communion shall signifie their names unto the Curates over night or else in the morning before the beginning of Morning Praier or immediately after Where cleerly it is meanâ— that there should be some reasonable time betweene Morning Praier and the Communion For otherwise what leisure could the Curate have to call before him open and notorious 〈◊〉 Livers or such as have done any wrong unto their neighbours by word or deed and to advertise them in any wise not to presume to come unto the Lords Table till they have manifested their repentance and amended their former naâ—ghty lives and recompensed the parties whom they have done wrong unto Or what spare time can wee afford him betweene the Reading Pew and the Holy Table to reconcile those men betwixt whom hee 〈◊〉 malice and hatred to raigne and on examination of their dispositions to admit that party who is contented 〈◊〉 â—â—rgive and repell the obstinate according as by the Rubrick hee is bound to doe Which being compared with the first Rubrick after the Communion where it is said that upon the Holi-daies if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homilie concluding with the Praier for the whole state of Christs Church militant here on earth c. makes it both manifest and undeniable that the distinction of the First and Second Service is grounded on the very meaning of holy Church however the Epistoler doth please to slight it 6. THat which next followes is a Confirmation onely of what went before Viz. that The Ministers standing at the North side of the Table was no new direction in the Queenes time onely but practised in King Edwards reigne that in the plot of our Liturgie sent by Knox and Whittingham to Master Calvin in the latter end of Queene Mary it is said that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table that onely was put in to shâ—w that â—ee had the Booke entituled The Troubles of Francofurt that in King Edwards Liturgies the Minister standing in the middest of the Altar i. e. with his back turned towards the people 1549 is turned into his standing at the Northside of the Table 1552. And finally that this last Liturgy was revived by Parlâ—ament 1â— Eliz. This wee acknowledge to be true but it addes nothing to the reasons produced before and so perhaps it is as true that it was used so when this Letter was written in most places of England which in this kind had too much deviated from the ancient practise But where it followeth in the next place that What is done in Chappels or Cathedrall Churches is not the poynt in question but how the Tables are appoynted to be placed in Parish Churches I thinke that therein the Epistoler hath been much mistaken For certainly the ancient Orders of the Church of England have beene best preserved in the Chappell 's of the Kings Majestie and the Cathedralls of this Kingdome without the which perhaps wee had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves for the whole forme and fashion of Divine Service And therefore if it bee so in the Chappell 's and Cathedrall Churches as the Epistoler doth acknowledge it is a pregnant Argument that so it ought to bee in the Parochiall which heerein ought to president and conforme themselves according to the Patterne of the Mother Churches And I would faine learne of this doughtie Disputant why hee should make such difference betweene the Chappell 's and Cathedrall Churches on the one side and the Parochialls on the other as if some things which were not warranted by Law were used in the one and such as are allowed by Law were not permitted to the other The Lawes and Canons now in force looke alike on all And therefore heere must bee some cunning to make the Chappell 's and Cathedralls guiltie of some â—oule transgression some breach of Law and publick Order the better to expose them to the censure of a race of men who like them ill enough already 7. AS for that fancie which comes next that In some Chappell 's and Cathedralls the Altars may bee still standing or to make use of their Covers and Ornaments Tables may bee placed in their roome of the same length and fashion the Altars were of 〈…〉 dreame and a poore conjecture Questionlesse neither the Chappell 's Royall nor any of the Cathedrall Churches have hitherto been so 〈◊〉 brought Gods Name bee praysed but that they have been able to provide themselves of convenient Ornaments without being any way beholding to their former Altars However if it were lawfull in Cathedrall Churches either to suffer the old Altars to continue standing or to set up Tables in their places of the same length and fashion that the Altars were of onely in poynt of thrift to save greater charges I hope it will bee thought more lawfull by indifferent men to place the Table Altar-wise in Parochiall Churches in poynt of decencie and due obedience unto publike Order That Altars doe stand still in the Lutheran Churches the Doctours and Divines whereof hee doth acknowledge afterwards to bee sound Protestants by the Epistoler is confessed though it makes against him as also that the Apology for the Augustan Confession doth allow it And he confesseth too not
Thanksgiving Part. 2. pag. 700. And this I have he rather laid downe at large to shew with what indifferencie these names of Table Board and Altar have beene used before and may be used for the present as also in what regard the Lord's Table may be called an â—ltar And this according unto Master Foxes Marginall note in the selfe same Page viz. The Table how it may be called an Altar and in what respect which shewes that he allowed it to be called an Altar though this Epistoler doth not like it 15. NOw as the Story of the change is not altogether true so the reason there assigned is both â—alâ—e and dangerous First it is false the Alteration not being made because the people were scandalized with Altars in Countrey Churches The people were so farre from being scandalized with having Altars that in the Countreyes of Devon and Cornwall they rose up in Armes because the Masse was taken from them Act. and Monum Part. 2. pa. 666. And if we looke into the Story of thoâ—e times we shall quickly find that it was no scandall taken by the people which did occasion that or any other câ—ange in the Common prayer Booke but and offence conceived by Calvin It seemes that Bucer had informed him of the condition of this Church and the publike Liâ—urgie thereof and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Sommerset who was then Protector Epistola ad Bucerâ—m In which his Letter to the Duke hee finds great fault with the Commemoration of the dead which was then used in the Celebration of the Lords Supper though he acknowledgeth the same to bee very ancient calling it by the name of a piece of Leaven Quo mâ—ssa integra sanctae coenae quodammodo aceâ—ieret where with the whole Communion was made sower Other things in the Liturgie hee found fault withall and then adviseth Illa omnia abscindi seâ—el that they should all at once be cut off for ever Epist. ad Protectorem Angliae Nor stayed hee here but he solliciâ—ed Archbishop Cranmer to the same â—ffect 〈◊〉 1551 being the yeare before the Alâ—eration made as by the placing of that Letter doth appeare complaining in the same unto him 〈…〉 That in the Church of England there was yet remaining a whole masse of Popery which did not only blemish and obscure but in a manner overthrow Gods holy worship So that however in his Answer to the Devonshire men the King had formerly affirmed that the Lords Supper as it was then administred was brought even to the very â—se as CHRIST left iâ— as the Apostles used it and as the holy Fathers delivered it Act. and Monum Part. 2. pa. 667 Yet to please Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector and as it seemes had tooke â—pon him to wrâ—te â—â—to the King about it Epistol ad 〈◊〉 1551 the Lituâ—gy then established was called in by Parliament though in the very act it selfe they could not but acknowledge that the said Booke of Common prayer was both agreeable to Gods Word and â—he Primitive Church 5. 6. of Edw. 6. cap. 1. So that the leaving of the word Altar out of the Common Prayer booke last established and other alteraâ—ions which were therein made grew not from any sâ—andall which was taken at the name of Altar by the Countrie people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgy by Calvin as before I said 16 AS false it is but far more dangerous which is next alleaged viz. that The people being â—â—andaâ—ized in countrey Churches did first de facâ—o beat down Altars and then the Prince to countenance no doubt and confirme their unruly actions did by a kinde of Law put them doâ—ne de jure Wherâ— is is said in all the Monuments of our Church or State that ever in the former times the Countrey people tooke upon them to bee reformers of the Church or that in this particular they did de facto beat downe Altars This is fine doctrine were it true for the common people who questionlesse will heaâ—ken to it with a greedy â—are as loving nothing more then to have the soveraigntie in sacred matters and who being led by a Preâ—edent more than they are by the Lawe or Precept thinke all things lawfull to bee done which were done before them But sure the people never did it For in the Letters sent in the Kings name to Bishop Ridley it is said that it was come to the Kings knowledge how the Altars within the most part of the Churches of this Realme being already upon good and godly consideration taken downe there did remaine Altars in diverse other Chuâ—ches Actes and Monument Part. 2. pag. 699. So that the Altars were not generally taken dowâ—e throughouâ— the Kingdome and those which were tooke downe were taken downe on good and godly consideration which certainely implyes some Order and Authority from those who had a power to doe it Not beaten downe de facto by the common people in a popular huâ—our withouâ— Authoritie or Warrant And had they all beene beaten downe de â—actâ— by the common people that kindâ— of Laâ— which after put them downe de jure had come too late to carry any stroake in so great a businesse Vnlesse perhaps the King was willing on the post-fact to partake somewhat of the honour or durst not but confirme the doings of disordered people by a kind of Law A kind of Law And is the Edict and Direction of the King in sacred matters but a kind of Law The peoples beating downe the Altars was as it seemes a powerfâ—ll Law a very Club-Law at the least against the which was no resistance to be made the Princes Edict to remove them but a kind of Law which no man was obliged unto nor had regarded but that they found it sorted with the peoples humour Just so he dealt before with the Queenes Injunctions The Queens Injuctions had appoynted that the Holy Table in every Church should be â—ecently made and set up in the place where thâ— Altâ—r stood and thereupon it is resolved by the Epistoler that if by placing of the Table Altarwise is meant the setting of it in that place of the Chancell where the Altar stood there may be somewhat sayd for that because the Injunctions did so place it The Edict of King Edward but a kind of Law the Order of Qu. Elizabeth but a kind of somewhat This is no mannerly dealing with Kings and Queenes my good Brother of BOSTON 17. YEt such a kind of Law it was that being seconded by a kind of somewhat in the Queenes Injunctions 1559 referring to that order of King Edward it hath taken from us the Children of the Church and Common-wealth the name nature of former Altars The Children of the Church And who are they Those onely which are bounded Intrâ— partem Donati the lot and portion of the Brethren of the Dispersion those who have kepâ— their children's fore-heads from the signe of the Crosse
PErlegi librum hunc cuititulus est A Coale from the Altar or An Answer to a Letter c. in quo nihil reperio quò minùs cum utilitate publicâ imprimatur Modò intra tres menses proximè sequentes typis mandetur Sa Baker R. P. D. Episc Londin Sacellanus Domest Maij 5o. 1636. A COALE FROM THE ALTAR OR AN ANSVVER TO A Letter not long since written to the Vicar of GR. against the placing of the Communion Table at the East end of the Chancell and now of late dispersed abroad to the disturbance of the Church First sent by a Iudicious and Learned Divine for the satisfaction of his private Friend and by him commended to the Presse for the benefit of others HEB. 13. 10. Wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to eate which serve the Tabernacle LONDON Printed for ROBERT MILBOVRNE at the signe of the Vnicorne neere Fleet-bridge 1636. THE PRINTER TO THE READER I Am to advertise thee good Reader of some certaine things for thy better understanding of this Treatise First that whereas thou shalt find here three severall Characters Thou wouldst take notice that the Roman is the words of the Author the Italiâ—k matter of Distinction partly but principally of Quotation by him used and that the English letter doth exhibit to thee the words and periods of the Epistle or Discourse which is here confuted Secondly that howsoever the Letter by him here replyed unto be scattered up and downe and in divers hands Yet because possiblie the Copie of the same hath not hitherto been seene of all who may chance cast their eyes upon this Treatise and partly that the world may see that hee hath dealt trulie with the Epistoler and not omitted any Argument or Autority by him produced The very Letter it selfe is herewith Printed and bound together with it though it bee Apocrypha Last of all I must let thee know that whereas the Acts and Monuments otherwise called the Booke of Martyrs being a Booke which the Epistoler makes much use of is of a different Edition in the reply from that which is so often cited in the Letter and that there have beene many Editions of the same That which the Author deales in is the last Edition Printed at LONDON in three volumes Anno 1631. I have no more to say unto thee but wish thee good luck in the name of the Lord And so adieu A COALE FROM THE ALTAR OR An Answer to a Letter not long since written to the Vicar of GR. against the placing of the Communion-Table at the Eastâ— end of the Chancell c. SIR The Introduction I Have read your Letter and cannot but extreamely wonder that you should be so easilie over-weighed as I see you are You say that you were willing once of your owne accord to have removed your Cammunion Table unto the East end of your Chancell according as it is in his Majesties Chappell and generally in all Collegiate and Cathedrall Churches and that you had intended so to doe had you not mett with a Discourse written in way of Letter to the Vicar of GR. and as you have taken it upon common report by a Reverend Prelate of this Church whose Arguments have so prevailed with you that you are almost taken off from that resolution though it be now exacted of you by your Ordinarie It seemes you are not rightly ballanced when you can be so easily induced to change your purposes especially as the Case now is which requires more of your obedience than your Curiositie And should wee all be so affected as to demurre on the Commands of our Superiours in matters of exterior Order and publicke Government till wee are satisfied in the Grounds and Reasons of their Commandments or should we flie off from our duty at sight of every new devise that is offered to us we should soone find a speedie dissolution both of Church and State You know who said it well enough Si ubi jubeantur quaerere singulis liceat pereunte obsequio imperium etiam intercidit Tacit. Hist. lib. 1. Yet notwithstanding since you desire that I would give you satisfaction in the present point by telling you both what I thinke of the Discourse which hath so swayed you and what may be replyed against it in maintenance of the Order now commended unto you I will adventure on the second if you will excuse me in the first You say and probably believe so too that it was written by a Reverend Prelate and indeed by some Passages therein it may so bee thought for it is written as from a Diocesan unto a private Parish Priest in his Jurisdiction and then I hope you cannot justly be offended if I forbeare to passe my censure upon my betters Yet so far I dare give you my opinion of it that I am confident it can bee none of his who is pretended for the Author nor indeed any ones worthy to be advanced I will not say unto so high a dignity in the Church but to so poore a Vicarige as his was to whom the Letter was first written Nay to speake freely to you I should least thinke it his whom you entitle to it on uncertaine heare-sayes of all mens else in that he hath beene generally reported to bee of extraordinary parts in poynt of learning and of most sincere affections unto the Orders of the Church no shew or footstep of the which or either of them is to be found in all that Letter And I dare boldly say that when it comes unto his knowledge what a poore trifling peece of Worke some men the better to indeere the Cause by so great a name haue thus pinned upon him hee will not rest till hee have traced this Fame to the first originall and having found the Authors of it will conne them little thankes for so great an injurie For my part I should rather thinke that it was writ by Mr. Cotton of Boston who meaning one day to take Sanctuary in New England was willing to doe some great Act before his going that hee might be the better welcome when hee came amongst them or by some other neighbouring Zelote whose wishes to the cause were of morestrength then his performance and after spread abroad of purpose the better to diâ—coâ—nâ—enance that Vniforâ—â—â—y of publicke Order to which the piety of these times is so well inclined Further than this I shall not satisfie you in your first desire but hope that you will satisfie your selfe with this refusall For the next part of your request that I should let you see if at least I can what may be said in Answer unto that Discourse which hath so suddainly overswayed you I shall therein endeavour your satisfaction though my Discretion for so doing may perhaps proove the second Holocaust that shall be sacrificed on those Altars which are there opposed And this I shal the rather do because you say that the Discourse or Letter is now much sought after and
onely that they stood a yeare or two in King Edwards time as may appeare by the Liturgy printed 1549. but that the Queenes Commissioners were content they should stand as before we noted What stood they but a yeare or two in King Edwards time Yes certainely they stood foure yeares at the least in that Princes reigne For in the first yeare of King Edward being 1547. was passed that Statute entituled An Act against such persons as shall speake ireverently of the Sacrament of the Altar Anno 1548. The Common prayer Book was confirmed by Parliament although not publi shed till the next yeare wherein the word Altar is oft used and by the which it seemes the Altars did continue as before there were Anno. 1540 A Let ter in the Kings name from the Lords of the Coun cell came to Bishop â—â—â—â—er for abrogating Private Masses wehrein it is appoynted that the Holy bles sed Communion bee ministred at the High Altar of the Church and in no other places of the same Act. and Monum Part. 2. p. 662. And in the yeare 1550. which was the fourth yeare of his reigne came out an Order from the Councell unto Bishop Ridley for taking downe the Altars in his Diocesse Pag. 699. So long it seemes they stood without contradiction and longer might have stood perhaps if Calvin had given way unto it of which more heereafter 8. IN the meane time from matter of Evidence and Authoritie wee must proceed next unto poynt of Reason and then goe on againe unto matter of Fact as the way is lead by the Epistoler whom we must follow step by step in all his wandrings And in this way hee tells us That the Sacrifice of the Altar beeing abolished these call them what â—ou will are no more Altars but Tables of Stone or timber and that it was alleaged so 24. Novemb. 4â— Edw. 6. And 〈…〉 so alleaged that the Sacrifice of the Altar was abolished I believe it not It was alleaged indeed That the forme of an Altar was ordained for the Sacrifices of the Law that both the Law and the Sacrifices thereof doe cease and therefore that the forme of the Altar ought to cease also Act and Monuments part 2. pag. 700. The Sacrifice of the Altar and the Sacrifices of the Law are two different things it being told us by Saint Paul that wee the Christians have an Altar whereof they have no right to â—are which served the Tâ—bernacle Hebr. 13. 10. That Altar and that Sacrifice must continue alwaies And were it granted as it need not that since the Law and Sacrifices thereof be both abolished therefore the forme of the Altar is to be abolished yet would this rather helpe than hurt us For the Communion Table standing in the Body of the Church or Chancell hath indeed more resemblance to Altars on which the Priests did offer either Sacrifice or Incence under the Law then if it did stand Altarwise close along the wall as did the Altars after in the Christian Church the one of them which was that for Sacrifice standing in atriâ— Sacerdotum in the middle of the Priests Court without the Temple the other being that of Incense in Templo exteriori even in the outward part of the Temple and not within the Sanctum Sanctorum as our Altars doe 9. THat the said Tables of stone or timber though placed Altarwise for so I take it is his meaning may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses where there are no people so voyd of understanding as to be scandalized wee are glad to heare of and if it be not true would to God it were However wee may safely say that a small measure of understanding is in this kind sufficient to avoid offence there being none so weak of wit who may not easily bee perswaded if at least they will or that their Leaders will permit them that the disposing of Gods Table rather to one place than another it is not considerable in it selfe or otherwise materiall in his publick worship further than it conduceth unto Order and Vniformitie If any bee so void of understanding which wee hardly thinke and plead their weaknesse in this point as did the Brethren in the Conference at Hampton Court wee aske them with his Majestie of happy memory not whether 45 yeares but whether 80 yeares be not sufficient for them to gather strength and get understanding whether they be not rather head-strong than not strong eenough Confer at Hampt Court pag. 66. For it may very well be thought that it is not any want of understanding but an opinion rather that they have of their understandings which makes some men run crosse to all publick Order and take offâ—nce at any thing whereof themselves are not the Authors 10. THat which next followeth viz. that on the orders for breaking downe of Altars all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables but not upon the fashion or forme of Tables is fairer in the flourish than in the fact For in the Act. Mon. p. 1212. which there is cited being of my Edit part 2. pag. 700. there is no such matter It is there said indeed that on receipt of his Majesties Leâ—ters sent to Bishop Ridley the Bishop did 〈◊〉 the right forme of a Table to be used in all his Diâ—cesse but that it was appointed so in all other Diocesses as the Epistoler hath affirmed doth not appeare by any thing in that place remembred And though hee did appoint it so yet possibly it may be doubted whether the people fully understood his meaning it being there said that after the exhortation of the said Bishop Ridley there grew a great diversity about the forme of the Lords boord some using it after the forme of a Table and some of an Altar So that the difference was not about the having of a Table wherein it seemes most men were ready to obey the Kings Command and the Bishops Order but in the placing of the same some men desiring that it should be placed after the fashion of an Altar others more willing that it should be used like a Common Table in which boâ—h parties followed their owne affections as in a thing which had not been determined of but lâ—ft at large 11. THat which comes after is well said but not well applyed It is well said that In the old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar and a Table an Altar in respect of what is there offred unto God and a Table iâ— regard of what is there participated by men as for Example by the Priests By this might better have been applied and used to justifie the calling of the Communion Table by the name of Altar in respect of those Oblations made to God as the Epistoler doth acknowledge afterwards That of the â—â—ophet Malachie 1. ver 7. is indeed worth the marking and doth demonstrate very well that in the old Testament Gods Altar is the very same with Gods Table but how it answereth
〈…〉 place of the â—ebrewes 13. 10. is beyond my reach the Prophet speaking of that 〈◊〉 and those Sacrifices whereof wee have no right to eaâ—e which live under the Gospell and the Apostle of that Altar and that Sacrifice whereof they have no right to eate which live under the Law In case that Passage had been urged by the Vicar of Gr as the Epistoler hath informed us for wee take his word against some of his fellow Ministers as before him it was by Master Morgan against Peter Martyr in maintenance of an Altar in the Christian Church however it might possibly have been answered otherwise by the Respondent sure it had never been well answered by that text of Malachie 12. VVHere it is next said that we have no Altar in regard of Oblation but wee have an Altar in regard of Participation Communion granted to us Were it no otherwiâ—e than it is here said yet here we are all allowed an Altar in regard of Participation and Communion which is enough to justifie both the scituation of the Table Altarwise and the name of Altar and that too in the very instant of receiving the Communion Now for the proofe that wee have an Altar also in regard of Oblation wee need looke no further than into the latter end of this second Paragraph where howsoever the Epistoler doth suppose that the name of Altar crept hee might aswell have said it came into the Church in a kind of complying in Phrase with the people of the Iewes as Chemnitius Gerardus and other sound Protestants were of opinion where by the way we may perceive that some may bee sound Protestants though they like of Altars Yet he acknowledgeth withall that it was so called partly in regard of those Oblations made upon the Communion Table for the use of the Priest and the Poore whereof we reade in Justine Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and other ancient Writers and partly because of the Sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving as Arch-bishop Cranmer and others thought Acts Monum pag. 1211. which is Part 2. pag. 700. of my Edition Whereby it seemes that besides the complying in Phrase with the Iews which the Christians of the Primitive times had little care of when there was not greater reason to perswade them to it the Communion Table was called an Altar both in regard of the Oblations there made to God for the use of his Priests and of his Poore as also of the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanks-giving which was there offred to him by the Congregation And therefore as before wee found an Altar in regard of Participation and Communion so heere wee have an Altar in respect of Oblation also 13. THis though it be so cleere a Truth that the Epistoler could not deny it yet puls hee downe with one hand what hee was after forced to set up with the other For so it followeth in the Letter The use of an Altar is to Sacrifice upon and the use of a Table is to eate upon And because Communion is an action most proper for a Table as an Oblation is for an Altar what then therefore the Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a Table onely doe not you call it an Altar This is indeed the inâ—erence which is made from the former Principles But if the Principles be true as indeed they are not there being an Altar in the Temple which was not made to Sacrifice upon as the Altar of Incense and a Tâ—ble also in the Temple which was not made to â—ate upon as the Table for the Sheâ—-bread another and a worse conclusion would soone follow on it which is that men would thinke it necessary to sit at the Communion For if Communion be an action most proper for a Table as it is affirmed and that the use of a Table to be Eate upon as is also said the inference will be very strong that therefore wee are bound to sit at the Communion even as wee doe at Common Tables which wee eate upon A thing much sought for by some men as if not onely a great part of their Christian liberty but that their whole Religion did consist therein but brought into the Churches first by the moderne Arians who stubbornly gain-saying the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour thought it no robbery to be equall with him and sit down with him at his Table and for that cause most justly banished the reformed Church in Poland For so it was determined there in a generall Synod An â— 1583. Ne sessio sit in usu ad mensam Domini The reason was Nam haec ceremoniea Ecclesijs christianis coetibus Evangelicis non est usitâ—ta tantumque propria infidelibus Arianis domino parâ— solio sese collocantibus Because it was a thing not used in the Christian Church but proper to the Arians onely who thought themselves haile-fellowes with their Lord and Saviour and to them we leave it 14. WEe are now come unto the Story of the Change the change of Altars into Tables and the reasons of it which is thus delivered In King Edwards Liturgy of 1549 it is every where but in that of 1552 it is no where called an Altar but the Lords Boord Why Because the people being scandalized heerewith in Countrey Churches first beats them downe de facto then the supreame Magistrate by a kind of Law puts them downe de jure and setting Tables in their roomes tooke from vs the Children of the Church and Common-wealth both the name and nature of former Altars What ever may be said of the change in the Publicke Liturgie the reason here assigned for taking downe of Altars is both false and dangerous Nor is it altogether true that in the Liturgies here remembred the name of Altar is used onely in the one though true it be that that of the Lâ—rds Boord or Table is used onely in the other Though the Epistoler had not perhaps the leisuâ—e to â—earch the Liturgie of 1549 where it is once called Gods boord and once his Table as viz. in the Praier We doe not presume c. and in the Rubricke of the same yet he could not be ignorant that it was so observed in his owne Author the Acts and Monuments and in the Page by him often quoted Where it is said that The Booke of Common Prayer calleth the thing whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministred indifferently a Table an Altar or the Lord's Board without prescription of any forme thereof either of a Table or of an Altar so that whether the Lord's Board have the forme of an Altar or of a Table the Booke of Common Prayer calleth it both an Altar and a Table For as it calleth it an Altar whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministred a Table and the Lord's board so it calleth the Table whereon the holy Communion is distributed with Lauds and Thanksgivings unto the Lord an Altar For that there is offered the same Sacrifice of Praise and
him Origen or Arnobius flourished Irenaeus who proves the Apostles to be Priests because they did Deo Altari servire attend the service of the Lord and wait upon him at the Altar Whereof see lib. 4. advers haereses cap. 20. And so St Cyprian who lived before Arnobius though after Origen doth call it plainely Altare Dei Gods Altar Ep. lib. 1. C. 7. ad Epictetum See the like in the 8. and 9. Epist. of the same booke also But to goe higher yet Ignatiusâ—seth â—seth it in no lesse than three of his Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Philadelph One Altar and one Altar in every Church and finally in his Epistle ad Tarsensâ— he termes it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods altar as both Tertullian and St Cyprian did after call it So in the Canon of the Apostles which though not writ by them are certainly of good antiquity the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth occurre in the 3 4. and 5. Canons And above all indeed St Paul in his Habemus altare Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meane the Lords Table or the Lords Supper or rather the Sacrifice it selfe which the Lord once offred certain it is that he conceaved the name of Altar neither to bee impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church So that for ought appeares in the ancient Writers the name of Altar is as old as the name of Table indifferently and promiscuously used without doubt or scruple Nor doth that reverend Bishop Iewell deny but that the Lords table anciently was called an Altar and citeth elsewhere divers of the Fathers which did call it so wherin consult his 13. Art 6. sect though now it bee resolved by this Epistoler that the name being so many yeares â—bolisâ—ed it is in his iudgment fitter that the Altar if wee will needs call it so should according to the Canon stand tablewise then that the Vicars table to trouble the poore Town of Gr. should stand Altarwise Hac est illa Helena This is indeed the thing most aimed at in all this bâ—sinesse Popullo ut placerent quas fecisset fabulas onely she pleasing of the people It was to please the people who as it is affirmed in the beginning of this letter had taken some â—mbrâ—ges and offence at the plaâ—ing of the table where the Altar stood that the Churchwardens were appointed to remove it into the middle of the Chancell It was to please the people that the authoritie of the Churâ—h-wardens is advanced so high above their Ministers And now for feare of troubling the poore people we must not use the name of Altars or place the table Altar-wise lest they should take it for a Dresser and in a pious fury break it all in pieces as they are told their Anâ—estors had done de facto in King Edwards reigne Ad populuâ— phaleras SECT III. WEe are now come to the last part of this Epistle viz. the fixing of the Altar or Communion-table at the upper end of the Quire And unto this it is thus said by the Epiâ—â—oler viz. that for the standing of the table in the higher part of the church he had declaâ—ed his asâ—ent already in opinion but tâ—at iâ— should be fixed there was so farre fâ—â—m being Canonicall that it is directly against the Canon It may be neither so nor so Not so for certaine in the first For in the Vicars judgement the Communionâ— table ought to stand like an Altaâ— all along the wall and in the opinion of the Epistoler although hee bee content that it should stand above the steps yet he would have it placed tablewise with one end towards the East great Window which certainly is no assent in but a diversity of opinion And for the second howsoever it bee ordered in the Rubrick that the Communion table shall stand in the body of the Church or in the Chancell and not oâ— of the Chaâ—cel as the Epistoler hath informed us where Morning and Evening prayer are appoâ—nted to bee read yet his illation therupon that seeing morning and evening prayer bee appoynted to bee read in the body of the Church as in most country Churches hee saith it is therfore the Table should stand most Canonically in the body of the Church is both uncertaine and unsound For seeing it is ordered in the Booke it selfe That Morning and Evening prayer shall bee used in the accustomed place of the Church Chappell or Chancell except it shall bee otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the place hee must first shew us where it was determined by the Ordinary of the place that Morning and Evening prayer shall be â—aid onely in the body of the Church before he venture on such new and â—trange conclusions And for the Rubrick it saith only that it shall so be placed in Communion time And that too to bee understood according as it hath been since interpreted by the best authoritie not as if ordered upon any dislike of placing the Communion table where the Altar stood but as permitting it to the discretion of the Ordinary to set or cause it to bee set in the time of the administration of the Sacrament so as it might be most convenient for the Communicants who in the former times as it is well knowne had rather been lookers on the Sacrament than partakers of it 2 THe like construction is also to be made of the Queenes Iniunction 1559. which is next alleaged and of the 82. Canon now iâ— force being a recitall and confirmation of that part of the Injunction where it is sayd that In the time of the Communion the Table shall bee placed in so good sort within the Chancell the 82 Canon hath it within the Church or Chancell as thereby the Minister may more conveniently bee heard by the Communicants Which plainely is a matter of Permission rather than Command yea and a matter of Permission onely in such times and places where otherwise the Minister cannot conveniently bee heard of the Communicants So that in all the lesser Churches such as our Countrey Churches for the most part are and in all others where the Minister standing at the Altar may be heard conveniently the Table may stand Altar-wise in the time of ministration without breach of Canon And this in the Epistoâ—er's judgement the ablest Canonist no doubt in the Church of England who hath already freely granted that placing of the Table Altar-wise is the most decent situation when it is not used for use too where the Quire is mounted up by steps and open which may soâ—ne be done so that he which oâ—â—iciats may be seene and heard of all the Congregation This was the thing the Vicar aimed at Of whâ—m we have no cause to thinke or reason to conceive that â—ee intended so to fixe his Table unto the wall or to incorporat it into the same as the Altars were that there should be no moving or removing it on just
the Altar abolished these call them what you will are no more Altars but Tables of Stone or Tymber and so was it alleaged 24 Novem. 4â— Edw. 6. 1549. Sublato enim relativo formali manet obsolutum materiale tantum And so may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses where there are no people so void of understanding as to bee scandalized For upon the Orders of breaking downe Altars all Diocesses did agree upon receiving Tables but not upon the fashion and forme of the Tables Acts and Monum pag. 1212. Besides that in the old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar and a Table An Altar in respect of what is there offered unto God and a Table in respect of what is there participated by men as for example by the Priests So haâ—e yâ—u Goâ—'s Altar the verie same with God's Table in Malachie 1. v. 7. The place is worth the marking For it Answers that very Objâ—ction out of Heb. 13. 10. which you made to some of yâ—ur fellow Ministers and one Master Morgan before you to Peter Martyr in a Disputation at Oxford Wee have no Altar in regard of an Oblation but wee have an Altar in regard of Participation and Communion granted unto us The use of an Altar is to Sacrifice upon and the use of a Table is to eate upon and because Communion is an Action most proper for a Table as an Oblation is for an Altar therefore the Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Table onely doe not you call it an Altar In King Edwards Liturgie of 1549. it is every where but in that of 1552. it is no where called an Altar but the Lords Boord Why Because the people being scandalized herewith in Countrey Churches first beats them downe de facto then the supreme Magistrates by a kind of Law puts them down de jure and setting Tables in their roomes tooke from us the Children of the Church and Common-wealth both tâ—e name and the nature of former Altars as you may see Injunction 1559. referring to that orâ—er of King Edward in his Councell mentioned Acts and Monum pag. 1211. And I hope you have more Learning than to conceive the Lords Table to be a new name and so to bee ashamed of the Name For besides that CHRIST himselfe instituted this Sacrament upon a Table and not upon an Altar as Archbishop Cranmer observes and others Act and Monum pag. 1211. it is in the Christian Church 200 yeares more ancient than the name of an Altar as you may see most learnedly prooved out of Saint Paul Origen and Arnobius if you doe but reade a Booke that is in your Church Iewel against Harding of Private Masse Art 3. p. 143. And whether this name of Altar crept into the Church in a kinde of complying in phrase with the people of the Iewes as I have read in Chemnitius Gerardus and other sound Protestants yet such as suffer Altars to stand or that it proceed from these Oblations made upon the Communion Table for the vse of the Priest and the poore whereof wee reade in Iustin Martyr Iraeneus Tertullian and other ancient Writers or because of the Sacrifice of Praise and Thankesgiving as Arch-bishop Cranmer and others thought Acts and Monuments pag. 1211. the name being now so many yeares abolished it is fitter in my Iudgement that the Altar if you will needes so call it should according to the Canon stand Tablewise than your Table to trouble the poore Towne of Gr. because erected otherwise Lastly that your Table should stand in the higher part of the Church you have my assent already in opinion but that it should be there fixed is so farre from being Canonicall that it is directly against the Canon For what is the Rubrick of the Church but a Canon And the Rubrick saith it shall stand in the body of the Church or of the Chancell where Morning praier and Evening prayer be appointed to be read If therefore Morning and Evening prayer bee appâ—inted to be read in the body of the Church as in most countrey Churches it is where shall the Table stand most Canonically And so is the Table made removeable when the Communion is to be celebrated to such place as the Minister may be most conveniently heaâ—d by the Communicants by Qu. Eliz. Injunct 1559. And so saith the Canon in force that in the time of the Communion the Table shall bee placed in so good sort within the Church and Chancel as therby the Minister may be more conveniently heard Can. 82. Now iudge you 〈…〉 and you shall bee satisfied Iewel against Harding of private Masse Art 3. p. 145. The Sum of all is this 1. You may not erect an Altar where the Canons onely admit a communiâ—n Table 2. This Table must not stand Altarwise and you at the North end thereof but Tablewise as you must officiate at the Northside of the same 3. This Taâ—le oâ—ght to bee laid up decently covered in the Chancell onely as I suppose but ought not to be officiated upon either in the first or second Service as you 〈◊〉 but in that place of the Church or Chancell where you may be seene and heard of all Though peradventure you be with â—im in Tacitus Master of your owne yet are you not of other mens eares and therefore your Parishioners must be Iudges of your audiblenesse in this case Whether side soever you or your Parish shall yeeld to th' other in this needlesse Controversie shall remaine in my poore iudgâ—ment the more discreet grave and learned of the two And by that time you have gained some more Experience in the Cure of Soules you shall finde no such Ceremonie as Christian Charitie which I recommend unto you and aâ— ever c. FINIS
holy Table in every Church shall be decently made in case the Altars were removed which they left at liberty and set in the place where the Altar stood and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth If in the place where the Altar stood then certainly it must stand along cloâ—e by the wall because the Altars alwaies stood so and that aswell in Countrey Churches as in great mens Chappels all being equally regarded in the said Injunctions as in the Preface to the same doth at full appeare Wheras in case the Table were to stand with one end toward the East great Window as is after said it could not possibly sâ—and in the place where the Altar did as the Injunctions have appointed the Altar taking up much roome to the North and South which the Table placed endlong doth not taâ—e up and contrary the Table taking up much roome to the East and West which the Altar did not However wee may take what is given us heere by the Epistoler where hee affirmes that placing of the Table where the Altar stood is the most decent scituation when it is not used and for use too where the Quire is mounted up by steps and open so that he that officiates may bee seene and heard of all the Congregation and such an one as he â—ad heard the Vicaâ—s Chancell was not Wâ—ether the Chancell at Gra was mounted up by stâ—ps or not is no great matter In case it were not so it might have easily been done without much charge and those of Gra were the more beholding to this Epistoler for taking so much paines to save their purses If it were mounted up by steps and that it were most decent for the Tables to be placed thereon Why not aswell along the Wall as with one end thereof to the East great Window 2. FOr this there are three Reasons given us First because then the Countrey people would suppose them Dressers rather than Tables Secondly because the Queenes Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall matters directed that the â—able should stand not where the Altar but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood Orders 1561. And thirdly because the Minister appointed to reade the Communion â—which hee the Vicar out of the Booke of Fast 1â— of the King was pleased as the Epistoler phraseth it to call Second Service is directed to reade the Commandements not at the end but at the Northside of the Table which implies the End to be placed towards the East great Window Rubrick before the Communion And would the people take the Table if placed Altarwise to be a â—resser not a Table I now perceive from whom it was that Mr. Prynne borrowed so unmannerly and prophane a phrase whereof I thought him formerly to have beene the Author Lâ—me Giles his haltings And from whom also he did borrow the quotations in his Appendix against Bowing at the name of JESUS the mistakes and all â— qq * 4. Viz. Rubrick for the Communion Queene Elizab. Injunctions Injunc for Tables in the Church The Booke of Canons An. 1471. p. 18. I say and the mistakes and all for both with him and this Epistâ—ler it is p. 18. whereas indeed in the old Book which was thâ—â— meant by the Epistoler it is p. 15. which plainly shewes out of whose quiver Mr. Prynne did steale those arrowes Just in that scornfull sort Doctor Weston the then Deane of Westminster did in a Conference at Oxford with Bishop Latimer call the Communion Tables as in King Edwards reigne they had beene placed in some Churches by the name of â—yster-boards Act. Mon. Part. 3. p. 85. and so hee called in a Sermon at S â— Pauls Crosse also p. 95. The like did Doctor White the then Bishop of Lincolne in a Conference with Bishop Ridley where hee doth charge the Protestants in King Edwards daies for setting up an Oyster Table in stead of an Altar p. 497. The Church of England is in the meane time but in sorry case If shee appoint the Lords Board to be placed like a common Table the Papists they will call it an Oyster-table If like an Altar the Puritans and Mr. Prynne will call it a Drâ—sser-beard A slovenlie and scornfull terme as before was said and such as doth deserve no other Answer than what the Marginall notes in the Acts and Monuments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminâ—ter viz. The blâ—sâ—hemous mouth of Doctor Wâ—ston calling the Lords table an Oysterboard pat 85. or what they give in th' other place to the Bishop of Lincolne viz. Bishop White blasphemously called the â—oord of the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 Oyster table pag. 497. I would there were no worse notes in the Acts and Monuments 3. AS for the Orders published by the Queenes Commâ—ssioners An â— 1561. they say indeed as is alleaged thâ—t in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand but then they say withall which is not alleaged that there be fixed on the wall over the Communion board the tables of Gods Precepts imprinted for the said purpose And in the Booke of Advertisemeâ—ts entituled Articles of Advertisement for due order in the publick Administration of Common-praier and the holy Sacraments and published in An â— 1565. it is ordered thus The Parish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table which they shall decently cover with a Carpet of silke or other decent covering and with a white linneâ— cloath in the time of the Administration And shall set the tea Commandements upon the East wall over the said Table Which put together make up this construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the steps and under the Commandements and therefore all along the wall on which the ten Commandements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before And in this wise wee must interpret the said Orders and Advertisements or else the Orders published 1561 must run quite crosse to the Injunctions published 1559 but two yeares before which were râ—diculous to imagine in so grave a State 4. NOr doth it helpe the cause undertaken by the Epistoler that The Minister appointed to reade the Communion is directed to reade the Commandements not at the end but at the Northside of the Table there being no difference in this case betweene the North-end and the North-side which come both to one For in all quadrilaterall and quadrangular figures whether they bee a perfect Square which Geometricians call Quadratum or a long Square as commonly our Communion Tables are which they call Oblongum it's plaine that if wee speake according to the rules of Art as certainly they did which composed that Rubricke every part of it is a side how ever Custome hath prevailed to call the narrower sides by the name of ends When therefore hee that ministreth at the Altar stands at the North-end of the same as wee use to call it hee stands no question at the North-side thereof as