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
indefinitely be onely meant the person of the Queene then being not her Heires and Successours by Metropolitan indefinitely wee must also meane the Metropolitan then being and not his Successours and then the power heere given the Queene had beene determined with the death of Arch-bishop Parker which was some 28 yeares before her owne Thirdly from another clause in the selfe same Act where it is said that If any person being twice convict of depraving the booke of Common Praier c. shall off end againe the third time and be thereof lawfully convict hee shall forfeit for his third offence to our Soveraign Lady the Queene all his Goods and Chattels c. where though the Queene be onely named the penaltie of the Law 〈◊〉 be and is most justly taken by her Heires and Successours or else there were no remedy at this time by the Lawes provided for the third Contempt Fourthly from the usuall forme of those Acts and Statutes which were made purposely for the particular and personall profit safetie and advantage of the said Queene which are distinguished from others by this note or Character viz. This Act to continue during the Queenes Majesties life that now is onely Such is the Act against rebellioâ—s assemblies 1. Eliz. cap. 16. Those against such as shall rebelliously take or conspire to takâ— from the Queenes Majestie any of her Towers Castles c. 14. Eliz. cap. 1. And against such as shall conspire or practise the enlargement of any Prisoner committed for High Treason cap. 2. That against seditious Wordâ— and Rumors uttered against the Queenâ—s most excellent Majestie 23. Eliz. ca. 2. And finally that for the safety of the Queenes royal person and the continuance of the Realme in Peace An â— 27. ca. 1. In the which last although it bee not said expresly that it shal dure no longer theÌ„ her natural life yet the word Person in effect doth declare as much Fiftly from a resolution in the Law in a case much like it being determined by that great Lawyer Ploydon that if a man give Lands to the King by deed inrolled a Feeâ— simple doth passe without these words Successours and Heires because in â—udgement of Law The King never dieth Coke on Litâ— pag. 9. b. And last of all it may be argued that the said clause or any thing therin conteined is not indeed Introductorie of any new power which was not in the Crowne before but rather Declaratorie of an old which anciently did belong to all Christian Kings as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah and among others to ours also who with the Câ—unsell of their Prelateâ— and other Clergie might and did induce such Rites and Ceremonies into the Churches of and in their severall kingdomes as were thought most convenient for God's publick Service till at the last all Ecclesiasticall autoritie was challenged and usurped by the See of Rome Which is the answer and determination of Sir Robert Coke in Cawdries case being the fifth part of his Reports entituled De jure Regis Ecclesiastico where hee affirmeth that if the Act of Parliament 1â— Eliz. 2. cap. 1. whereby it was enacted That all Ecclesiasticall power and autoritie which heretofore had beene or might lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Ecclesiasticall state and persons and for reformation of all and all manner Errours Heresies Schismes Abuses and Contempts Offences and Enormities should bee for ever united and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme Was not an Act introductory of a new law but confirmative of an old for that this Act doth not annex any jurisdiction to the Crowne but that which was in truth or of right ought to bee by the ancient Lawes of the Realme parcell of the Kings Jurisdiction and united to the crowne Imperiall By this Authoritie the Altars were first taken downe in King Edwards reigne though countenanced and allowed of in the Common-prayer Booke then by Law established the better as the cause is pleaded by Bishop Ridley to avoyd superstition Actes and Monum Part. 2. pag. 700. and by the same or by that mentioned 1 â— Eliz. cap. 2. his Majestie now being might appoynt the Table to bee set up where formerly the Altar stood had it been otherwise determined in the Rubrick as indeed it is not to avoyd prophanenesse 8. I Will adde one thing more for your satisfaction which perhaps you know not And that is that his sacred Majestie hath hereupon already declared his pleasure in the Case of Saint Gregories Church neere Saint Pauls in London and thereby given encouragement to the Metropolitans Bishops and other Ordinaries to require the like in all the Churches committed to them Which resolution of his Majestie faithfully copied out of the Registers of his Councell-Table I shall present herewith unto you and so commend my selfe to you and us all to the grace of God in JESVS CHRIST At Whitehall the third of November 1633. Present the KINGS most excellent Majestie Lo Archbish. of Cant. Lo Keeper Lo Archbish. of Yorke Lo Treasurer Lo Privie Seale Lo Duke of Leâ—nox Lo High Chamberlain Ear. Marshall Lo Chamberlaine Ear of Bridgewater Ear of Carlile Lo Cottington Mr. Treasurer Mr. Comptroller Mr. Secretary Cooke Mr. Secret Windebanke THis day was debated before his Majestie sitting in Coâ—nsell the Question and Difference which grew about the Removing of the Communion Table in Saint Gregories Church neere the Cathedrall Church of Saint Paul from the middle of the Chancell to the upper end and there placed Altar-wiâ—e in such manner as it standeth in the sayd Cathedralls and Mother Church as also in all other Cathedralls and in his Majesties owne Chappell and as is consonant to the practise of approoved Antiquitie Which removall and placing of it in that sort was done by Order of the Deane and Chapter of St. Pauls who are Ordinaries thereof as was avowed before his Majestie by Doctor King and Doctor Montfort two of the Prebends there Yet some few of the Parishioners being but five in number did complaine of this Act by Appeale to the Court of Arches pretending that the Booke of Commâ—n-prayer and the 82. Canon doe give permiâ—sion to place the Communion Table where it may stand with most fitnesse and convenience Now his Majestie having heard a particular relation made by the Counsaile of both parties of all the carriage and proceedings in this cause was pleased to declare his dislike of all Innovation receeding from ancient Constitutions grounded upon just and warâ—antable reasons especially in matters concerning Eccleâ—iasticall Orders and Government knowing how easily men are drawne to affect Novelties and how soone weake judgements in such cases may bee overtaken and abused And he was also pleased to observe that if those few Parishioners might have their wills the difference thereby 〈…〉 of the neereneâ—s of St. Gregories standing close to the wall thereof And likewise for so much as concernes the liberty given by the said Common
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
that ye see the table and yet come not to the meat But clearely Mensa illa in medio constituta is not to be interpreted The table set here in the middest as it is translated but The table which is heere before you According to the usuall meaning of the Latine phrase afferre in medium which is not to be construed thus to bring a thing precisely into the middle but to bring it to us or before us As for that passage from Durandus where it is said that he examining the cause why the Priest turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeâ—â—ds this reason for it In medio Ecclesiae aperui os meum that proves not that the Altar stood in the middest of the Church but that the Priests stood at the middest of the Altar It is well known that many hundred yeares before hee was borne the Altars generally stood in the Christian Churches even as now they doe 6 NOw that wee may aswell say somewhat in maintenance of the Altars standing in the East part of the Church as wee have answered those autorities which were produced by the Epistoler for planting of it in the middlest wee will alleage one testimonie and no more but one but such a one as shall give very good assurance of that generall usage and in briefe is this Socrates in his Ecclesiasticall Historie lib. 5. c. 21. speaking of the different customes in the Christian Church saith of the Church of Antioch the chiefe Citty of Syria that it was built in different manner from all other Churches How so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because the Altar was not placed to the East-ward but to the Westward Nicephorus Hist. lib. 12. cap. 24. observes it generally of all the Altars in that Citty and note 's withall that they were situate in a different manner from all other Altars And howsoever possibly in some other places which they knew not of the Altars might stand West-ward as they did in Antioch or to some other point of heaven as the North or South if any stood so yet it is manifest by this that in the generall practise of the Church the Altars used to stand to the Eastward onely So that for ought appeares unto the contrary in this Epistle the Vicar of Gr. might very safely hold his three Conclusions at the first remembred First that an Altar may be used in the Christian Church Secondly that the Table may stand Altar-wise the Minister officiating at the North-end thereof And thirdly that the Table may stand constantly in the upper part of the Chancell close along the wall not to bee taken downe either in the First or Second Service especially if the Miniâ—ter there standing may be seene and heard of al the Congregation With the which Summarie of mine I had concluded this reply had I not found this Item given unto the Vicar in the close of all that by that time hee had gained more experience in the cure of Soules he should find no such Ceremony as Christian Charity Where if his meaning be that Christian Charity is in it selfe more precious than any Ceremony no doubt it will be easily granteâ— it being by St. â—aul preferred before Faith and Hope But if hee meane that they which have the cure of Soules should rather choose to violate all the Orders of holy Church and neglect all the Ceremonies of the same then give offence unto the Brethren the Children of the Church as before hee called them it is like many other Passages before remembred onely a trick to please the people and pâ—t the reines into their hands who are too forwards in themselves to contemne all Ceremonie though in so doing they doe breake in sunder the bonds of Charitie 7. I Have now ended with the Letter and for your further satisfaction will lay downe somewhat touching the ground or reason of the thing required not in it selfe for that is touched upon before but as it either doth relate unto the King the Metropolitan or in your case the Ordinarie which requires it from you For the true ground whereof you may please to know that in the Statute 1â— Eliz. cap. 2. whereby the Common Praier booke now in use was confirmed and established it was enacted That if there shall happen any irreverence or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by misusing the Orders appointed in the same that then the Queenes Majestie by the advise of her Commissioners for causes Ecclesiasticall or of the Metropolitan might ordeine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may bee most for the advancement of Gods glorie the edifying of his Church and the due reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments A power not personall to the Queene onely when she was alive but such as was to be continued also unto her successours So that in case the Common Praier booke had determined positively that the Table should be placed at all times in the middle of the Church or Chancell which is not determined of or that the Ordinarie of his owne autoritie could not have otherwise appointed which yet is not so the Kings most excellent Majestie on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people as it hath beene accustomed in these latter daies in sitting on it in time of Sermon and otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts and making Rates and such like businesses may by the last clause of the said Statute for the due reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments with the advice and counsell of his Metropolitan command it to bee placed where the Altar stood and to be railed about for the greater decencie For howsoever in the Act the Queen be onely named not her Heires and Successours yet plainly the autoritie is the same in them as it was in her which may be made apparant by manie Arguments drawne from the Common Law and the Act it selfe First from the purpose of that clause which was to fence the Rites and Cereremonies of the Church then used from all irreverence and contempt and for the publishing of such other Rites and Ceremonies as might in further time be found convenient for the advancement of Gods glorie the edifying of his Church and the procurement of due reverence to Christ's holy Sacraments But seeing that the Ritesâ—nd â—nd Ceremonies of the Church were not onely subject unto Irreverence and contempt in the said Queenes time but are and have been sleighted and irreverently abused in time of her Successors the Act had ill provided for the Churches safetie in case the power of rectifying what was amise either by ordering of new Rites or stablishing the old did not belong aswell to her Successours as it did to her Next froâ— the verie phrase and stile which is there used For it is said the Queene with the advice of the Metropolitan might ordeine and publish c. the Queene indefinitely and the Metropolitan indefinitely If then by Queene
and necessarie causes but that in correspondence unto former practise and the Injunction of the Queene he thought the place where formerly the Altar stood to be fittest for it at least out of the time of the ministration and in that time too if hee might be heard conveniently of the Congregation And whether hee might or no no doubt he better knew than this extravagant Epistoler and so in that respect might be aswell Master of the peoples eares as he in Tacitus whom this Epistoler hath remembred was of his owne 3. I Say according unto former practise and the Queenes Injunction For if we looke into the former practise either of the Chappels of the King the best interpreter of the Law which himselfe enacted wherein the Communion Table hath so stood as now it doth since the beginning of Queene Elizabeth what time that Rubrick in the Common Praier booke was confirmed and ratified or of Collegiate and Cathedrall Churches the best observers of the forme and order of God's publick Service the Vicar had good warrant for what he did And for the Injunctions howsoever it bee said in them that in the time of the CoÌ„munion the table shal be placed in so good sort within the Chancell◠〈◊〉 thereby the Minister may more conveniently be heard being a matter of Permison onely if occasion be yet it is ordred in the same that after the Communion done from time to time the same holy Table shall be placed where it stood before that is where formerly the Altar stood So that the next clause of this Epistoler wherin it is referred to the Vicar's judgement Whether this Table which like Daedalus his Ensignes moves and removes from place to place and that by the inward wheeles of the Church Canon be fitly resembled to an Altar that stirr's not an inch might have well been spared as not being likely to be any part of the Vicars meaning For we may reasonably presume that it was onely his intent to keep the table free from irreverent usage and by exalting it to the highest place to 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 reverence to the blessed Sacrament from the Common people who if infected with the fancies of these latter daies are like enough to thrust it down into the Bell-free or some worser corner Nor say I so without good reason it being so resolved of in the Altare Damascenum that any place be it what it will is good enough for the Lords Table the Communion ended De loco ubi conâ—istat cur solliciti cum quovis loco vel angulo extra tempus administrationis collocari possit pa. 718. What need they be so carefull say those factious spirits which composed that booke how to dispose or place the Table seeing that out of the time of the ministration it may be put in any place or corner whatsoever it be High time assuredly that such prophanenes should be met with 4 THere is one only passage more to be considered in this letter for the close of all and that is this that If we doe desire to know out of Eusebius Augustin Durandus the fifâ—h Councell of Constantinople how long Communion tables have stood in the midst of the Church we should reade Bishop Jewell against Harding Art 3. p. 143. and we shal be satisfied And read him though we have yet we are not satisfied Eusebius tels us of the Church of Tyre that being finished and all the â—eats thereof set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Founder after all placed the most holy Altar in the midst thereof and compassed it about with raiâ—es to hinder the rude multitude from pressing neer it This proves not necessarily that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church or in the middle of the same as the Epistoler doth intend when hee saith the middle The Altar though it stood along the Eastern wall yet may be well interpreted to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle of the Chancel in reference to the North and South as it since hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people being more mingâ—ed wiâ—h the Iewes than in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple the better to conforme unto them For if as Bishop Iewell saith in the selfe samâ— place The holy Table was called an Altar onely in allusion to the Altars in the old law or if as this Epistoler tells us the name of Altar crept into the Church by a kind of complying in pâ—rase with the people of the Iewes 〈…〉 5 THat of the fifth Councel of Constantinople as it is there called being indeed the Councell sub Agapeto Menna against Anthimus Severus affirms as much in sound as the Epistoler doth intend but if examined rightly concludes against him It is there said that in the reading of the Diptychs the people with great silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together about the Altar and gave eare unto theÌ„ Where although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth â—ignifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar so as there was no part thereof which was not compassed with the people no more than if a man should say that hee had seene the King sitting in his throne and all his Noblemen about him it needs or could bee thought that the throne was placed in the very middle of the Presence as many of the Nobles being behind him as there was before him And certainly if the man of God in the description of God's throne in the kingdome of Heaveâ— had any reference or resemblance as no doubt hee had unto the thrones of kings on earth wee have hit right enough upon the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the aforesaid Councell it being said in the 4th chapter of the Revelatâ— on vers 6. that round about the throne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were foure beasts full of â—yes and chap. 7. ver 11. that all the Angels stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 round about the throne So that for all is said in the fifth Councell of Constantinople the Altar might and did stand at the end of the Chancel although the people came together about it to heare the Diptychs i. e. the Commemoration of those famous Prelates and other persons of chiefe note which had departed in the faith The like mistake there is if it be lawfull so to say in the words of S. Austin That which hath beene alleaged from him being the 46 Sermon not the 42 is this CHRISTVS quotidie pasâ—it Mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est O Audientes ut mensam videatis ad epulas non accedatis Which BP. Iewell thus transâ—lateth Christ feedeth us daily and this is his Table here set in the middest O my hearers what is the matter