〈…〉 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
applauded and scattered up and downe in severall Copies of purpose as it were to distract the people and hinder that good worke which is now in hand In Answer to the which I shall keepe my selfe unto my patterne and to the businesse which is chiefly there insisted on grounding my selfe especially on the selfe same Authors and Autorities which are there laid downe though not laid downe so truely at least not so cleerely as they ought to bee Nor had I here said any thing touching the preamble thereunto but fallen directly on the maine but that me thinkes I meet with somewhat which seemes to cast a scorne upon the Reverence appointed by the Canon unto the blessed name of IESUS which the Epistoler whosoever he was would have so performed that they which use it doe it Humbly and not Affectedly to procure Devotion not Deâ—ision of the Parishioners That Herbe according as the saying is hath spoiled all the Pottage For when the Church commands that at the name of JESUS due and lowly reverence shall be done by all Persons present and this to testifie as the Canon saith our inward humility Why should we thinke of any man who obeies the Canon that he doth rather doe it out of Affectation than Affection rather affectedly then humbly as his owne phrase is Such Censurers of the hearts of other men had need be carefull of their owne For the next Caution that those which use it doe it to procure Devotion of the people and not Derision it is more unseasonable There being none I thinke who ever used it otherwise then having testified their owne Humility and Devotion to procure the like Devotion and Humility in other men none I dare boldly say that did ever use it to procure Deriâ—ion of their Parishioneâ—â— no more then David when hee danced before the Arke intended to make sport for jeering Michol And therefore the Epistoler must either meane that doing reverence at the name of the Lord JESUS is of it selfe so vaine a thing that it must needs procure Derision from the lookeâ—s on or else that honest and conformable men should rather choose to disobey the Church and the Canons of it then by obedience to the same incurre the censure of some few who as they walke in the Counsell of the ungodly so doe they also sit in the seat of Scorners This said wee will descend to those three particulars which are insisted on in that Epistolary Discourse viz. First The having of an Altar at the upper end of the Quire Secondly The placing of the Table Altar-wise Lastly The fixing of it in the Quire that so it may not bee removed into the body of the Chuch which things the Vicar as it seemes did both approve of and desire and was therein crossed and opposed by the Epistoler how iustly and on what sure grounds wee shall see in order SECT I. AND first of all he â—aith in his said Letter to the Vicar That if hee should erect any such Altar his discretion would proove the onely Holocaust which would bee sacrificed thereon Why so Because he had subscribed when he came to his place that that other oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars is a blasphemous â—igment and pernicious Imposture Artic. 31. And here I cannot but observe that there is little faire dealing to be looked for from this Epistoler that faulters thus in the beginning there being no such clause in all that Article The Article hath nothing in it either of Papists Altars or that other oblation which is here thrust into the text onely to make poore men believe that by the Doctrine of the Church in her publicke Articles Altars and Papists are meere relatives that so whoever talkes of Altars or placing of the Table Altar-wise may be suspected presently to bee a Papist or at leaâ—t 〈◊〉 affected As for that other oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars that 's said to be a plasphemous figment and pernicious Imposture therefore the onely Holocaust remaining to bee sacrificed the discretion of the Vicar What had he sacrificed his discretion onely and no more then so The Article goes further sure for it determineth positively that The sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer CHRIST for the quick and the dead to have remission of paine or guilt was blasphemous fables and pernicious deceipts And therefore had the Vicar of Gr. erected or intended to erect an Altar for such a sacrifice he had not only sacrificed his discretion on it but also his Religion and beene no longer worthy to be called a Sonne of the Church of England 〈◊〉 â—hen as sure it is the Church admits of other sacrifices and oblations although not of those as viz. of the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Heb. 13. 15. as also of the oblation of our whole selves câ—r soules and bodies to bee a resonable holy and lively sacrifice to Almighty GOD Rom. 12. 1. both which she teacheth us to offer to him as our bounden duty and service is in the holy Sacrament Prayer after the Communion And not so onely but she alloweth of a Commemâ—rative sacrifice for a perpetuall memory of Christ's precious death of that his full perfect and sufficient sacrificâ— oblation and satisfation for the sinnes of the whole world to be continued till his comming againe Prayer of the Consecration When therefore it is said in the First Homily of the Sacrament alleaged by the Epistoler that wee ought to take heed lest the Lords Supper not the Communion as he laies it down of a memory to bee made a sacriâ—â—ce it reflects not on any of the Sacrifices before allowed of The Church is constant to her selfe though her Doctors are not and thus discovers and expounds her owne intentions Wâ— must then take heed saith the Homily lest of the memory it be made a Sacrifice lest of a Communion it bee made a private eating lest of two parts we have but one lest applying it for the dead we lose the fruit that bee alive By which it is most manifest that the Sacrifice rejected in the Homily is that which is cryed downe in the Booke of Articles which the Epistoler had no reason to suspect was ever thought on much lesse aymed at by the Vicar of Gr. though he desired to have an Altar i. e. to have the Communion Table placed Altar-wise at the upper end of his Quire or used the name of Altar for the holy Table For it is granted afterwards by the Epistoler that the Lords Table anciently was called an Altar because of the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for which hee voucheth Archbishop Cranmer and others and cites the Acts and Monum pag. 1211. which is Part 2. pag. 700. of my Edition 2 AS for the Canons of the Convocation Anno 1571. out of which is alleged that not the Uicar but the Church wardens are to provide for the
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
their knees from bowing at the blessed name of Jâ—SUS or doing honour to him in his hoâ—y Sacrament those who have kept their hands from paying their Duties to the Priest their eyes from being defiled with looking on prohibited vestments such as have formerly beene abused to idolatrous services Those doubtlesse arâ— the Children of the Church here meant which must not use the name of Altars as if it were the Shibboleth of their profession From us the children of the Church Yes marry Sir Now judge if at the least you know a Cat by her claw if that which I at first suspected be not come about For but with halfe an eye one may see by this of what straine the Epistoâ—er is or else unto what paâ—â—iâ— hee applyes him selfe in all this buâ—inessâ— As for the Children of the Common-wealth it 's time that Criticisme were forgotten and that they were the Children of the Kingdome too Wee live Wee praise God for it in a Monarchie not in a Dâ—mâ—cracie And therefore they that goe about to coyne distinctions betweene the 〈◊〉 of the King and the Common-weale may perhaps passe for subtill Sophisterâ— but never shall attaine the honour to bee thought souâ—â— Sâ—bjects 18. BVt it is time we should proceed and leave these Children of the Church and the Common wealth to their grand Directors who though in other things they are all for Novelties new formes of Praier new Rites and Ceremonies of Religion if they brooke of any new offices in the dispensation of God's Word and Sacrament must yet affect the name of Table even for pure antiquitie the name of the Lord's Table being told them to be no new name and therfore none to be ashamed of it A thing that might have well beene spared there being none so void of Pietie and understanding as to bee scandalized at the name of the Lord's Table as are some men it seemes at the name of Altar saving that somwhat must be said to perswade the people that questionlesse such men there are the better to indeere the matter Nor is the name of Altar so new a name that any man should be ashamed therof as if it were a terme taken up of late in time of Poperie For whereas the Epistoler pleadeth That Christ himselfe did institute the Sacrament upon a Table and not upon an Altar and that the name of Table is in the Christian Church 200. yeares more ancient than the name of Altar as is most learnedly proved out of St. Paul Origen and Arnobius by Bishop Jewell against Harding of Private Masse p. 143 It may bee possible that neither CHRIST our Savours institution will of necessitie infer the use of Tables Tables I meane placed Table-wise towards the East great Window as before was said nor Bishop Iewel 's proofes come home to the point in hand Foâ— howsoever our Saviour institâ—ted this holy Sacrâ—â—ent at a Table not at an Altar yet is the Table in regard of that iâ—stitution but an accessorie and a poinâ— of Circumstance nothing therein of Substance nothing which is to be considered as a Principall For if it were a matter of Substance that it was instituted at a Table then must the fashion of that Table being as it is conceived of an ovall forme be a matter of Substance also and compassed round about with beds as then the custome was for the Communicants to rest upon whil'st they doe receive But herein is the Table no more considerable than that it was first instituted after Supper in an upper chamber distributed amongst twelve only and those twelve all men and those men all Priests which no man is so void of sense as to imagine to be things considerable in the administration of this holy Sacrament And yet should this be granted too that in the having of a Table we must conforme our selves to the LORD's example yet for the situation of that Table I doubt it would be hardly proved by the â—pistoler that the two ends thereof did stand aâ—â—â— and West or that there was a great Windâ—â— in the East end of the Chamber towards the which the Table was placed endlong at the Institution as he would have it now at the Ministration 19. AS little comfort can he find in Bisâ—op Iewell or in S â— Paul Origen and Aâ—nobius by him alleaged Of St. Paul there is nothing said in all that SectioÌ„ it is the 26 of the third Article which concernes this matter nothing that sets forth the antiquitie of the name of Table St. Paul is cited once onely in that whole Section and the place cited then is this Quomodo dicet Amen ad tuam gratiarum Actionem 1 Cor. 14. So that unlesse this Argument be good The people cannot say Amen to Praiâ—rs made in a strange tongue because they know not what is said Ergo the name of Table is 200 yeares more ancient than the name of Altar There is not any thing alleaged from St. Paul which can advantage the Epistoler for the Point in hand Indeed from Origen and Arnobius it is there alleaged that generally the Gentiles did object against the Christians of those times that they had neither Altars Images nor Temples Obijcit nobis quod non habeamâ—â— imagâ—nes aut aâ— as aut templa So Origen contr Cels. 1. 4. Nâ—s accusatis quod nec templa habeamus neâ— iâ—agines nec aras So saith Arnobius lib. 2. contr Gentes But â—nto this objection wee need no better anâ—wer than Bishop Iewel 's owne in the selâ—e same Section viz. That thâ—n the faithfull for feare of Tyrants weâ—e faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in Woods and Fâ—rrests and Caves under the ground But we will furâ—her â—ay withall that tâ—ough the Christians had some Churches in those perillous times yet were they not so gorgious nor so richly furnished as were the Temples of the Gentiles And so both Origen and Arnobius must be understood noâ— that the Christians in their times had at all no Temples or at the least no Altars in them but thâ—t their Churches were so meane that they deserved not the name of Temples that they had no Altars for bloudy and external Sacrifices as the Gentiles had 20 FOr otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and the thing and used both name and thing a long time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius Afer Tertullian who lived in the same age with Origen but sometime before and a full hundred yeares before Arnobius hath the name of Altar as a thing used and knowne in the Christian Church as Nonne solemnior erit statio tua si ad aram Dei steteris Liâ— de oratione cap. 14. Will not thy station or forme of Devotion then in use be thought more solemne if thou dost stand by or before thâ— Altar And in his booke de Poenitentia he remembreth geniculationem ad aras kneeling or bowing of the knee before the Altar Before
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
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