them To which I shall adde a 5. inference That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar nor yet Melchiâ—edecke or any of Christs Tribe Therfore none of Christs Ministers ought to doe it and that those Archbishops Bishops Preists and Ministers who will needs have set up Altars plead write dispute for Altars likewise waite on serve give attendance at the Altar are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal of their Tribe not Ministers of Iesus Christ nor any of his sacred Tribe none of which gave any attendance at the Altar This is the Apostles reason inference the very drife of his argumentation not mine let those therfore whom it concernes looke well unto it and evade or answer it as they may 6. Christians have no such sacrifices incense-offrings or oblations which require any materiall Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon no spirituall service at all that requires an Altar Therfore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar All their Sacrifices now as prayer prayse liberality to the poore mortifying their lusts the offring up of their soules and bodyes â—living Sacrifice unto God are spirituall requiring neither a Preist much lesse an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hâ—sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. Hâ—or 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Rom 12. 1. as Bishop Hooper and King Edward the 6. with his Counsell argue Therfore they neither have nor ought to hâ—re any materiall Altar but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven 〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon 7. If the Communion Table were an Altar then it should be greater and better then the Sacramentall bread or wine or the Lords Supper itselfe and a meanes to consecrate them This reason is fully warranted by our Saviours owne resolution Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say whosoever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty Yee fooles and blind for whether is greather the gift or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offred thereon as more holy then they even as Christ our spirituall altar consecrates and hallowes all our spirituall Sacrifices Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say that the Lords Table is better then the bread and wine or the Lords Supper itselfe though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it and when they have the Sacrament itselfe in their hand to which they give no such adoration imply it to be so or that it consecrates the Sacrament layd upon it for what need then any prayer or words of consecration therfore it is no Altar 8. Every Altar was and ought to be dedicated solemnly consecrated unto God with speciall oyntments sprinkling of blood and solemnities specially the Altar of incense and attonement and those Altars placed in the Temple else they were not to be used or reputed Altars Exod. 24. 4. to 9. c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to â—0 c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 9. 10 c. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9. Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus the Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons Collegiate Church in the Countre of Stafford upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnely dedicated after the Popish manner by M. Iefferies Archdeacon of Salop and others of which more anon But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated nor solemnely dedicated sprinkled enoyled neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God or of our Church and State Therfore they neither are nor can be Altars 9. That which will be a meanes to make ignorant people superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists and to usher Popery Masse Masse-Preistes by degrees into our Church againe to the polluting defiling of Gods house Sâ—crament the setting up of grosse Idolatrie must needs be sinnefull unlawfull to be abandoned of us But the erecting of Altars in our Churches the calling of Communion Tables Altars and turning of them Altarwise so reading second service administring at them will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists will usher Popery Masse and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church againe c. as Bishop Hooper others forequoted authorities evidence and King Edward the 6. and his Councell in their 3. reason against Altars resolve Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therfore they must needs be sinfull unlawfull to be abandoned of us now as they have been heretofore both in King Edward the 6. in Queen Elizabeths dayes 10. That which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the Primitive Church for above the 250. yeares after him either had or used in their Churches administration of the Sacrament that we who ought to imitate their example 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6. ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches But neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitive Church in her purest times for above 250. yeares after Christ either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only Therfore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. his Counsell against Altars Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds it thus Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table and not at an Altar as it appeareth manifestly by the Euangelists And S. Paul calleth the comming to the holy Communion the comming unto the Lords Supper and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion Wherfore seeing the forme of a Table is more agreable with Christs institution and with the usage of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church then the forme of an Altar therfore the forme of a Table is rather to be used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a blacke Coale and some what blurred obseured I shall produce some few authorities to cleare it The third part of our owne incomperable Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie confirmed both by Statute the Articles of our Church and every Ministers subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us That all Christians in the Primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also Aâ—nobius doe
will needs turne 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19. 20. Hâ—br 7. 11. 12. 13. 14. Jewes or Gentiles or both in erectinge Altars must likewise imitate them in the scituation of their Altars or else reject their Altars as well as their manner of scituation in the middest which they refuse to followe For the third howe the Jewes Tables the Table at which our Saviour instituted the Sacrament were scituated It is apparant that they were so placed as that they usually sate round about them This is evident by the 1. Sam. 16. 11. where Samuel sayd to Jesse send and fetch David for wee will not sitt ROUND till hee come hither so the Hebrewe and Margin read it and by Psalm 128. â— Thy children shal bee like Olive plants ROUND ABOUT THY TABLE Our Saviour and his Disciples at the Institution of the Lords supper sate round about the Table after the Jewish Custome as is evident by Matthew 9. 10 c. 26. 20. 26. 27. Mar. 14. 18. 19. 20. c. 16. 14. Luke 7. 37. 49. c. 11. 39. c. 22. 14. 27. 30. c. 24. 30. John 13. 12. 18. 23. 1. Cor. 10. 1â— 21. c. 11. 20. c. compared with the two former texts Hence Thomas Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 3. c. 2. p. 114. 115. writes thus In the dayes of our Saviour it is apparant that the gesture of the Jewes was such as the Romanes used The Table BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST ROUND ABOUT THE TABLE Were certaine bedds some tymes two some tymes three some tymes more accordinge to the number of the guests upon these they lay downe in manner as followeth each bedd contained 3. persons some tymes 4. sildome or never more If one lay upon the bedd then hee rested the upper part of his body on the left elbowe the lower part lyinge at length upon the bedd but if many lay upon the bedd then the uppermost did lye at the bedds head layinge his feet behinde the seconds backe in like manner The third or fourth did lye each restinge his head in the others bosome Thus John leaned on Jesus bosome Iohn 13. 23. Their Tables were perfectly circulare or round whence their manner of sittinge was termed Mesibah a sittinge ROUND and their phrase of invitinge their guests to sit downe was sit ROUND 1. Sam. 10. 11. Psal. 128. 3. Thus hee with whom all the Rabines and Commentators on these texts accord So amonge the Romans the Tables were placed and the guests sate downe in the selfe same manner as they did amonge the Iewes as Godwyn in his Roman Antiquites l. 2. sect 3. c. 14. Records yea amonge most Nations in all their Feasts their Tables at which they sate downe to eate or drinke were ever placed in such sorte and with such a distance from the wall that the guests sate round about them And so are all the Tables placed here in England none ever seeinge a dyninge-Table placed like a side-Table against a wall in such sorte as our Communion Tables are nowe scituated in many places If then all Tables at which men eate drinke have ever both amonge the Iewes Romans our owne all other Nations been placed in the midst of the roome or in such sort that men might sitt round about them Why shoulde not then the Lords Table especially when wee eate and drinke the Lords supper bee placed in the midst of the Church or Chauncell in such sort that all the people maye sitt or kneel round and eate and drinke about it since Christ himselfe his Apostles when hee instituted this Sacrament had their Table thus situated and satt round it as all acknowledge Is not that order best which all Nations ages yea Christ himselfe his Apostles used And are not those both factious obstinately schismaticall whoe contrarie to the usage of all Nations ages our Saviours owne example will place the Lords Table Altar-wise like a dresser or side Table against the East wall of the Church as farr of as maye bee from the people that so none maye sitt receive neere it much lesse round about it that without all Reason sence or president undoubtedly they are yet such is the sottishnes pride superstitious wilfulnes of many of our domineeringe Prelates whose will is their only reason Religion Lawe that they will bee wiser then Christ then his Apostles then all the worlde besides no place seemes soe fittinge to them for the Communion Tables situation as that which is most unfitt the East end of the Chauncell wall against which one side of it must leane for feare of fallinge is there imprisoned impounded with railes barrs for feare of runninge awaye O Madnes ô folly whether are these mens witts sences fledd whoe are thus soe strangely frentike out of their overmuch learninge For the 4. How Communion Tables some tymes tearmed Altars improperly were placed in the Primitive Church The fore-mentioned passages of Eusebius Augustine the 5. Councill of Constantinople Bishop Jewell others assure us that they were placed in the midst of the Church or Quire not at the East end against the wall as they are now To these I shall add That Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus record That in the Church of Antioch in Syria the Altar stood not to the East but towards the West Walafridus Strabus records the same in expresse words further informes us that many did praye from the East to the West And that the Jewes where ever they were usually prayed towards the Temple at Hierusalem as Daniell did in greate Babell which stood East from Hierusalem as Esay 43. 5. Ier. 49. 28. Dan. 11. 44. Zach. 8. 7. Math. 2. 1. 2. and all Mapps witnesse Soe that Daniell prayinge towards it turned his face directly West not East as our Novellers dotingly fancie whoe alleage his example for turninge their faces in prayer the buildinge of Chancells Chappell 's Churches Altars placinge Communion Tables and bowinge toward the East when as hee prayed Westward only and his example is quite opposite and point blanke against them and their superstitious easterly adoration derived from Necromancers and those heathen Idolaters Ezech. 8. 16. whoe worshipp the risinge sunne toward the East as D. Willet Synopsis papismi contr 9. qu. 6. Error 52. proves against the Papists And from thence Walafridus thus concludes Wee beinge instructed by these examples knowe that those have not erred neither doe they erre whoe either in Temples newly built to God or cleansed from the filthynes of Idolls have sett their Altars towards divers clymates accordinge to the opportunitie of the places because there is no place where God is not present for we have learned by most true relation that in the Church of Ierusalem which Constantâ—ne his mother built over the Sepulchre of our Lord of a wonderfull greatenes in a round forme in the Temple of Rome anciently called Pantheon consecrated by Boniface by
yea rather abound with more and more stupendious Conjurations then they But S. Augustine who in his time complained of the multitude of Ceremonies if he were now alive what would he thinke of that immense and prolix number of Ceremonie◠〈◊〉 in use For writing to Ianuarius he thus speakes of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he hath laden with servile burthens Religion itselfe which the mercy of God would have to be free with very few and most manifest Ceremonies of Celebration that the condition of the Iewes is now more tollerable then that of Christians Who although they acknowledge not the time of liberty yet they are Subject to the rudiments of the Law not to human presumptions or Instiâ—â—â—ons Thus Augustine And verify the condition of this our time is much to be deplored that the Fathers of the Church either will not or cannot with the same edge of their minde cut off these and such like Ceremonies or rather TRIFLES from the Church where with they discerned and corrected these former vices of Ordalium or triall by fire But those being damned and abolished as Superstitious they still hold fast and retaine these Consecrations QUAMVIS PUERILIA ET DELIRIA SINT although they are Childish things and Dotages framed and coâ—piled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Grâ—gorie who writes That the rules of the Holy Fathers were delivered according to the circumstances of time Place person and instant busines But these having no regard neither of time nor place noâ— busines nor person nor of any other thing but their owne will and vaine glory Nâ— pusillis in reâ—us 〈◊〉 ceâ—eâ—a voluâ—â— Will not submit to the truth even in these triviall things Thus this Arch-Bishop of these Dedications so much now contested for by his present Successoâ—r Ouâ— of what spirit he hath here determined to our hands I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉 A QUENCH-COALE OR A breife disquisition or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table ought to bee situated especially when the Sacrament is administred IT hath been a great Question lately raysed and much agitated among us by some Innovating Romish spirits In what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords Table ought to stand specially at the time of the Sacraments administration whether in the Body or midst of the Church Chancell or Quire or at the East end of the Quire Alterwise where some now rayle it in and plead it ought of right to stand The Rubricke in the Comon prayer booke before the Communion thus resolves this question The Table at the Communion tyme havinge a faire white Lynnen cloath upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH OR IN THE CHANCELL where morninge prayer and eveninge prayer bee appointed to be said And the preist standinge AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE shall saye the Lords prayer with this Collect followinge c. Queene Elizabeths Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne when the former Rubricke was made thus explaine and define this question The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to bee distributed shal be soe placed in good sort with in the Chancell as whereby the Minister maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number communicate with the sayd Minister And after the Communion done from tyme to tyme the same holy Table to bee placed where it stood before Therefore it is not to be moveable not fixed or rayled in at the East end of the Chancell The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction Whereas wee have no doubt but that in all Churcheâ— with in the Realme of England convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion wee appoint that the same Tables shall from tyme to time bee kept and repaired inconvenient and decent manner and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silke or other decent stuffe and with a faire lynnen cloath at the time of the administration as becommeth that Table and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to bee administred At which time the same shal bee placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL as thereby the Minister maye bee the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number maye communicate with the sayd Minister Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe best knewe the meaninge of the Rubricke and Injunctions made that very yeare did by speciall direction place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England in the bodie of the Church or Chancell some distance from the wall with the two ends standinge East and West and the two sides North and South in which sort they have stood noe lesse then 73. yeares or more And in such Churches where the Tables coulde not conveniently stand alwayes in the body of the Church or Chancell they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand givinge direction accordinge to the Rubricke and Queenes Injunctions for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancell when the Sacrament shoulde bee administred as the sayd Rubricke Injunctions and Canons prescribe In the yeare of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithie treatise touchinge the Lords supper compiled as some gather by M. William Tyndall and printed at the end of his workes wherein p. 476. 477. hee wisheth that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time After which hee prescribes this forme of administringe it wishing that the secular Princes woulde commaund and establish it To witt That the breade and wyne shoulde bee sett before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lords Table not an Altar purely and honestly laide c. Then let the Preacher whom hee would have to preach at least twise every weeke exhort them lovingly to drawe neere unto this Table of the Lord c. This donne let him come downe to witt from the pulpit and accompanied honestly with other Ministers come forth readily unto the Lords Table not the Altar the congregation nowe SET ROUND ABOUT IT aud alsoe in their other convenient seates the Pastor exhortinge them all to praye for grace faith and love which all this Sacrament signifieth and putteth them in minde of Then let there bee read openly and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue c. Where this Author prescribes a Table not an Altar and that to stand in the face of the Congregation not at the upper end of the Quire that soe the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT thus receive This hee determines to bee accordinge to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time and that which our Martyrs then desired to bee
restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
middest of all the people Thus this Jewell of the Church From whose words it is apparant that the Communion Table in the Apostles times and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. yeares after Christ stood in the middest of the Church or Chancel not at the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall And that it ought nowe thus to stand in the Churches beinge thus placed in his time Which bookes of his beinge A defence both of the doctrine and practice of the Church of England against the Papists Commaunded to bee had in every Church for Ministers and the people to reade And therefore it seemes a strange prodigious insolencie that men of our owne Church as they pretend should bee soe impudent as publiquely to affront and refute his doctrine in print but farr stranger they shoulde doe it by publique license to disparage him and justifie the Papists doctrine is a cleere demonstration to mee That by the very doctrine and practice of the Church of England the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH OR CHAVNCELL especially when the Sacrament is administred and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chauncell like a Dresser a side Table or Popish Altar to the end it maye not bee thence removed and that the people maye come up to it by severall rankes and files to receive the Sacrament is a meere Popish Innovation contrarie both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England The namelesse Author of the Coale from the Altar takinge upon him to be farre wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell yea then Bishop Baâ—ington D. Fulke M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers is bold to write without blushinge That the authorities of Eusebius Augustine Durandus and the 5. Councell of Constantinople doe not prove that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church or Chauncell that B. Jewell is mistaken in their meaninge and shapes severall answeares for to shift them To that of Eusebius hee sayth 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 sayth the middle The Altar though it stood alonge the Easterne wall yet it maye bee well interpreted to bee in the middle of the Chancell in Reference to the North and South as since it hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people beinge more mingled with the Jewes then in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the middest of the Temple the better to conforme unto them To which I answeare 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort meere nonsence The Altar was placed in the middest of the Church or Chancell that is sayth he in the East end of it or in the middest of the East end as if the East end of the Church or Chancell were the Church or Chancell it selfe or the midst of it the middest of the Church or Chancell But these beinge distinct and different things the midst of the Church or Chancell can bee not more interpreted to bee the middest of the Eastwall or end of them then the East wall or midst of the East end of the Quire can bee the midst of the Church So that this evasion is but a meere nonsence Bull And had Eusebius intended any such thinge he woulde have thus expressed himselfe that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Quire not in the midst of the Church or Quire and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with woodden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificiall carving 2. I answeare that The second parte of the Replie is a plaine concession of what hee formerly denied and not only soe but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason Soe that here wee have one peece of the Coale against the other one denyinge that it was in the midst the other confessinge and provinge the contrary Nowe whereas hee writes that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria I answeare that it seemes this famous Temple was one of the first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviours death and soe became a generall patterne for all the rest The greate Church at Hierusalem beinge built round or ovall like to it and havinge the Altar in the midst like this In the edifying whereof Paulinus Bishop of Tyre whoe passed all others for rare and singular guifts was the chiefe meanes and director And till hee can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive tymes either before or not long after this wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Quire Altarwise as nowe they are situated which hee can never doe I shall take it as a generall and sufficient proofe for the settinge of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell That which hee adds that it was done perchance to please the Jewes is but his owne fancie no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thinge And admitt it true yet the Jewes situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple though not out of any Iewish fancie or conceit but by Gods owne direction is a fitter patterne for Christians to followe then any Popish Altars fixed station at or against the East end of the Quire only by a bold Friers or Popes direction without Reason Scripture president or divine direction to warrant it To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople he replies that although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth signifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar soe as there was no parte thereof that was not compassed by the people noe more then if a man shoulde saye that hee hath seene the Kinge sittinge in his Throne and all his Nobles about him it needs or could bee thought that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence as many of the Nobles beinge behinde him as before him for which hee cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answeare First That as the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Circle as hee confesseth soe the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to compasse or stand round about the Altar in a Circle and to hemne it in on every side If this then bee the proper meaninge of the words of this Councill as all must acknowledge good reason have wee to take them in their proper sence and not improperly 2. This word and phrase is soe taken and interpreted in the Scripture as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.
Phocas the Emperors permission to the honour of all Sancts in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles Altars have been placed not only towards the East but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of the Church These since they were so placed either unpossibly or by necessitie wee dare not disapprove Let every man abound in his owne sence The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth and salvation is farr from sinners Let us drawe neere to us Thus hee Gregorie Nazianzen in his 21. Oration p. 399. declaming against the unworthie Bishops and Ministers of his age sayth thus They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and mindes as they say and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur protenduntur and are pressed thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE not Altar esteeming this order not an example of virtue but a maintenance helpe of life A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it S. Chrysostome in his first Homilie upon Esay 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence A cleare Evidence that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age that men and Angells might stand round about and Compasse it on every part To witt in the middest of the Church or Quire as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words where no doubt it alwayes stood as the learned Thomas Verow testifyeth till private Popish Masses wherein the Preist only receiveth removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall as remote as might bee from the people If any object as the late Coale from the Altar doth that Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus write That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East I answeare First that before their dayes in Eusebius Chrysostomes Augustines the Emperour Zeno his tyme it stood in the midst of the Church or Quire and soe it did in Durandus his age 1320. yeares after Christ and in the Greeke Churches anciently and at this day as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved 2. Neither of these two Authors affirme that the Altar or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall as nowe they are placed the thing to be proved but only toward the East part of the Church ad Orientem versus sayth Nicephorus that is neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church to witt in the middest of the Chauncell or Quire which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then as our Chauncells Quires are nowe though not in all as is evident by the forequoted authorities Soe as the argument hence deduced can bee but this non sequitur Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Churches to witt in the midst of the Quires Chauncells which stood Easterly as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell as some Novellers nowe place them whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye They were placed toward the East end of the Church therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise since toward the East is one thinge and in the East another as toward London in case of scituation or travell is one thinge in London another That which is toward London beinge not in it as hee whoe is toward Marriage is not yet actually maried Wee reade of Daniell that hee prayed toward Hierusalem Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable many miles from it Wee reade likewise of certaine Idolaters and of noe others but them in Scripture for the Jewes usually prayed Westward the Tabernacle and Temple beinge soe scituated whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East worshipped the sunne towards the East yet they sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles Fathers and primitive Church in the purest tymes as I have already manifested of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas 3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops owne Canons and the judgement of our best writers 4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of tables amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade at home whoe place their Tables at which they eate and drinke in the midst of their dyninge roomes at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt or stand round about them The Lords Table therefore beinge a table to eate and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture all sortt of writers from the Apostles dayes till nowe the Lords supper â— Coâ— 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest decentest which is Common to all suppinge tables doth best expresse resemble the nature of a supper by standinge in the midst of the Communicants and their sittinge standinge or kneelinge round about it altogeather not by severall files and turnes like soe many bidden-guests Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise like a Dresser or sideCubberd not a Table the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files and there to receive by turnes kneelinge doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table nor the other to bee the Lords supper 5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Masse Altars Preists sacrifices and private Masses where the Preist alone Communicates drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell nowe urged is nothinge else but to usher Altars Preists publique and private Masses adoration of Altars and the Hostia transubstantiation and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke vaunt and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table and administringe the Sacrament was used in the primitive Church till Poperie private Masses thrust it out When Poperie Masses Masse Preists Transubstantiation Altars adoration of the Hostia other Popish trash were abolished this scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne Antidote against these popish innovations and soe hath continued eversince The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe soe ought with all diligence and courage to bee with stood 6. Because this scituation is most orderly and decent and that in 5. regards First Because the Minister thereby maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer his administration and Consecration which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire or Chauncell in most greate Churches and parishes 2. Because there the CoÌ„mmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently and in greater number communicate with the Minister then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell as remote as maye bee from the people Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82. Canon neither can they bee gaine sayd 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye more easily see the Minister when and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament then when hee is more remote and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God and saye Amen to every prayer as they are enioyâ—ed 4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table 5. When the Table stands in the midst all the Communicants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance disorder noise or stirr as they are expressely Commanded to doe 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe dâ—vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile and there to receive divides the Communion Communicants and Congregation makinge so many Communions and Congregations as there are Companies breeds a Confusion disorder disturbance noise distraction and oft tymes a Contention in the Church in causinge the people to march upp and downe some one waye and some another to contend whoe shall first receive or take the uppermost place to crowd thrust and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it breeds many quarrells factions schismes and divisions betweene the Minister the people hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations prayers reverence devotion attention singinge enforceth the people whoe are olde blinde lame sicke impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive whoe shoulde rather come to them inverts the practice Custome of our Church ever since reformation lengthens the administration and puts all into a Combustion yea into Confusion causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists 7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles Articles THE COMMUNION his Table the COMMUNION TABLE Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people in a Common not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM or COLLOCATUM ever used to expresse a thing that is Common the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people the rayling of it in that so none but the Minister may have accesse unto it destroyes both the Communion Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister and sequestring it from the people 8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church and Congregation because that is the place wherein God Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame Magisterially determine Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MIDDEST of his holie place and Cittie Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us and wee are called by thy name Hosea 11. 9. I am God and not man the holie one in the MIDST of thee Joell 2.
as venerable as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table both in respect of matter use relation to God and Christ and divine institution undoubtedly they are therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers Shewbread Tables and Altar were in Solomons Temple which stood one by the side of the other 2. Chron. c. 4. 5. 6. If the East end of the Church or Quire be the most worthy and fittest for the Tables scituation nowe why was it not so for the Arke the Altar and shewbread Table heretofore why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple but in the West the midst of it or in the Court as the premises Manifest Certainely if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignitie no preheminenâ—ie or implements in them heretofoâ—e by divine appointment our Novellers can have little reason to pleade that they ought to have any such precedency honour or use nowe The third reason alleaged for the placinge of Communion Tables Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells is because they are High Altars So Saelford Reeves and the Coale from the Altar and Bishop Mountague in his least Lent Sermon stile them contrarie to the dialect of our Church after the Popish language This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise to bringe in Altars Preists bowinge to Altars kneelinge at and before them to adore the Hostia to which wee are already proceeded and in fine to sett upp publique and private Masses yea the whole body of Poperie againe For which these are immediate preparatives of which they are reall parts and adjuncts This and this only is the true undoubted cause all others meere idle pretences to delude the people why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places lately rayled in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Quire And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates Churchmen who originally presse it not only the qualities doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every mâ—ns Conscience experience visibly discernes unlesse he be strangely hoodwinckt but the things themselves compared with the historie of former tymes declare For if wee looke into the storie of the Church wee shall finde that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation was the pullinge downe of Altars and settinge upp of Communion Tables and the first thinge againe acted upon the restitution of popery was the settinge up of Altars turninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates doe upon which Masses presently were sayd Thus we reade that in the yeare of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance Geneâ—a Basill Stransburge and other Cittie 's the first thinge they did was this they proclaymed that Masses ALTARS Images in all places shoulde bee abolished and there upon the Images and Altars with Ceremonies and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all About the yeare of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont beinge sommoned pressed to forsake God and revolt againe to Idolatrie which they had begun to cast of agreed togeather to make a solemne protestation that they woulde utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope and live and die in the maintenance and confession of Gods word and truth Whereupon they sayd lett us all goe to morrowe into the Temple to heare the word of God after let us cast to the ground all the Idolls and ALTARS to which they all agreed sayinge let us soe doe yea and that the very same houre in the which they have appointed us to bee at the Councill house Whereupon the next daye after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body as soone as they came into the Temple without any further delaye they beate downe the Images cast downe the ALTARS After Sermon they went to Billers where they beate downe their Images and ALTARS Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginninge of Reformation in his Raigne gave order to pull downe Altars and sett upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdome And to the ende that all of them might bee totallie abolished Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the forme of the Lords board and to procure one Godlie uniformity exhorted all his Diocesse unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture with the usage of the Apostles with the primitive Church and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings in abolishing of divers vaine and superstitioâ—s opinions of the Popish Masse out of the hearts of the simple which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the forme of an Altar then of a Table as the King and Councell in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture of the Lords Supper Hereupon I say he appointed the forme of a right Table to be used in his Diocesse according to the King Councells instructions and consideration and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standing by the High Altars side And upon this occasion as it most probable he wrote his booke DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS of breaking downe Altars registred by Bishop Bâ—le among other his workes though not now extant that I can find Not long before this John Hoper Bishop of Gloster afterwards a Martyr as was that worthy Ridley preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio tooke occasion thus to Censure Altars and to move the King utterly to demolish them If question now be asked is there then no Sacrifice left to bee done of Christian people yea truly but none other then such as might be done without Altars and they be of 3. sorts The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence and liberality to the poore Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Heb. 13. 16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is the mortifying of our owne bodies and to die from sinne Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we studie not dayly to offer these Sacrifices to God we be no Christian men seing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then these which may and ought to be done without Altars There should among Christians be no Altars And therfore it was not without the great wisdome and knowledge of God that Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church lacked Altars For they knew that the use of them was taken away It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables according to the first institution of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people they have of Sacrifices to be done upon Altars For as long as the Altars remaine both the ignorant
testify were fore charged and complained on that they had no Altars nor Images It is evident therfore that they tooke all Images yea all Altars to by the same reason to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them following this rule we must obey God rather then men So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds There have been Altars sayth M. Harding even from the Apostles time and that even as it is used now farr from the body of the Church c. This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge For first where he sayth The Apostles in their time erected Altars It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in woodes and Forests and in Caves under the ground And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church Verily Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ hath these words against Celsus Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines aut Aras aut Templa Celsus chargeâ—h our religion with this that we have neither Images nor Altars nor Temples Likewise sayth Arnobius that lived somewhat after Origen writing against the heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus â—oc Imagines nec Aras Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Images nor Altars And Volateranus Vernerius testify that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the First that caused Altars to be erected Therfore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say That Altars have ever been even sithence the Apostles time Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name and to Queen Elizabeth herselfe London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265â— brought in the altars first into the Church utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive some now too that call themselves Protestants about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church others affirme that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in Volateranus Durand Flascit Mass. Pet. Aequillinus Joan. Sella Thus M. Beacon The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament one the 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers All these Authorities to which the Papists could never yee replie the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath informing us that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning who must be understood not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had For otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and thing and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Ignatius the Apostles Canons and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer first that this namelesse Author in modesty good manners should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen Arnobius then our Homilies and these our learnedest writers whose judgments authorities certainely will over ballance his 2. These Authors tooke their words meaning aright what ever is pretended as appeares 1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe The Gentiles charged the Christians that they had neither Temples nor Images nor Altars Was their meaning then that they had Temples indeed but not to sacrifice in Images to but not to adore or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images that the Christians had Images but not to adore though the Gentiles objected they had none and Lactantius Minucius Felix too about that age expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all Their meaning therfore being as our Homilies those very words themselves resolve that they had no publicke Temples no Images at all for any assemblies use or purpose their meaning likewise must be that they had no Altars at all for any purpose not no Altars for any bloody externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on as he falsely glosseth it Since the wâ—nt of Temples Imagesâ— Altars are all coupled together objected to them in the same sence and manner Now had the Christians in that age had Temples but not for Idolls service Images but not to adore Altars but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on as the Coale Glosseth it the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples Altars or Images to them as is probable since they had them but their not sacrificing on them adoring them as they did not making a right use of them whoâ— they had them as we tax all couetous men or Nonpreaching Ministers that are Schollers not for having no mony or learning but for not making such use of them as they should The very objection therefore cleares it
of the Lord where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministred are cast downe broken on peces and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim to Erkenwald to Grimbald to Catherine to Modwyne c. But ô Lord bannish out of the Congregation that most vile stinking Idoll the Masse and restore unto us the Holy blessed Communion that we eating together of one bread and drinking of one Cup may remember the Lords death be thankfull to thee Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations of Ceremonies of Images of Altars of Copes of vestmentes of Pixes of Crosses of Censers of Holy waterbuckets of Holy bread basketes of Chrismatories above all Idolatrous Preists and ungodly ignorant Curates And in his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper used his common dayly apparel The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall gameplayers garments as with an Humerall or Ephod with an Albe with a girdle with a stole with a maniple with an amice with a chesible and the like c. commeth unto the Altar with great Pompe and with a solemne pace Where it is wonderfull to be spoken how he setteth forth himselfe to all Godly men to be lamented pitied to children even to be derided to be lauged to scorne while like another Roscius with his foolish player-like mad gestures the poore wretch wrytheth himselfe on every side now bowing his knees now standing right up now crossing himselfe as though he were a frayd of spirites now stoping downe now prostrating himselfe now knocking on his breast now sensing now kissing the Altar the Booke and Patene now streching out his armes now folding his hands together now making charecters signes tokens crosses now lifting up the bread Chalice now holding his peace now crying out now saying now singing now breathing now making no noise now washing of hands now eating now drinking now turning him unto the Altar now unto the people now blessing the people either with his fingers or with an empty cuppe c. When it evidently appeareth by the Histories that the Ministers of Christes churche in times past when they ministred the Holy Sacraments either of Baptisme or of the Lords Supper used none other then their Common and dayly apparell yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first which first of all as Sabellicus testifyeth did forbidd that from thence forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their dayly aray but such holy garmentes as were appointed unto that use This Bishop lived in the yeare of our Lord 260. Christ simply and plainly and without any decking or gorgious furniture prepared and ministred that heavenly banket The Massemonger with a marvelous great pompe wonderfull gay shâ—w setteth forth his marchandise For he hath an Altar sumptuously built yea that is covered with most fyne and white linnen clothes so likewise richly garnished decked and trimmed with divers gorgious pictures and costly Images He hath also crewettes for water and for wine towels coffers pyxes Philacteries banners candlestickes waxe candles organes singing Bells sacry belles chalices of silver and of gold patenes sensers shyppe frankensence Altar cloothes curtines paxes basyns ewers crosses Chrismatory Reliques jewels owches precious stones myters crosse staves and many other such like ornaments more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron then for the mynistery of the New Testament It is nobly sayd of S. Ambrose the Sacraments require no gold neither do they delight in gold which are not bought for gold The garnishing of the Sacramentes is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners And verily those are precious vesselles which redeeme soules from death That is the true treasure of the Lord which worketh that that his bloud hath wrought Againe he sayth The church hath gold not that it should keepe it but that it should bestow it and helpe when need is For what doth it profitt to keep that which serveth to no use Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and bloud to his Disciples sitting at the Table When the time was now come sayth Luke Jesus sate downe and his 12. Disciples with him Luc. 22. The Massemonger delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar In distributing the mysteries of his body bloud Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aarons Preistes whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beastes but he used a Table as a furniture much more meet to gett defend confirme encrease and continue Frendship But the Massemonger as one alwayes desirous to shed bloud standeth at an Altar and so delivereth the Communion to his people when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banket maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table saying 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lordes Table of the Table of the Devills Neither did the ancient old Church of Christ alow these Aaronicall and Jewish Altars For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper after the example of Christ as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures also by the writings of the auncient Fathers and Doctors For the Sacrifices taken away to what use I pray yow should Altars serve among the Christians except ye will call againe and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sacrifices Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beastes then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship neither doe those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion then the cawdron the fyrepanne the basen the sholve the fleshhoke the gredyrne and such like instruments which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing dressing and doing their Sacrifices For unto the Honest seemly worthy celebration of the Holy banket of the body and bloud of Christ we have need not of an Altar but of a Table except ye will say that the primative Church which more then two hundred yeares after Christes ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries yea except ye will say that Christ himselfe the Author of this most Holy Supper did dote was out of his witts which not standing at an Altar like Aarons Preist but sitting at a Table as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordaine and minister this Holy Heavenly food For who is so rude ignorant of antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper when notwithstanding from Christes ascension unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of
the Primative Church But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ the Sonne of God and of the virgine Mary of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner Heb. 13 We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eate which serve in the Tabernacle Our Altar is not of stone but of God Not Worldly but Heavenly not visible but invisible Not dead but living upon the which Altar whatsoever is offred unto God the Father it can none otherwise be but most thankfully and most acceptable And like as Christ administring the most Holy mysteries of his body blood to his Disciples sat downe at the Table So likewise his Giustes that is so say his Apostles sitting at the same Table receaved that Heavenly food sitting But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramentall bread unto the Communicants except they first of all kneele downe with great humility reverence that they may by this their gesture declare shew evidently to such as are present that they worship honour that bread for a God which is so great so notable wickednesse as none can exceed when it is plaine evident by the ancient writers that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many yeares after Christes resurrection sat at the Table So farre is it of that they either after the manner of the Jewes stood right up or after the custome of the Papists kneeled when they should receave the Holy mysteries of the body blood of Christ. So in his Cathechisme f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus Father What thinkest thou is it more meet to receave the Supper of the Lord at a Table or at an Altar Sonne At a Table Father Why so Sonne For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table And what can be more perfect then that which Christ and his Apostles have done All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table Ye can not be partakers sayth he of the Lordes Tables and of the Devills also Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ almost 300. years after Christ universally and in some places longer as Histories make mention So that the use of Altars is but a new invention and brought in as some write by Pope Sixtus the second of that name Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice And Altars were built and set up at the Commandement of God to offer Sacrifice upon them But all those Sacrifices doe now cease for they were but shadowes of things to come therfore the Altar ought to cease with them Christ alone is our Altar our Sacrifice our Preist Our Altar is in Heaven Our Altar is not made of stone but of flesh blood of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars while they had such confidence in them that without an Altar or in the stead thereof a Super-altare they were perswaded that they could not duely truly and in right forme minister the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. And this their Altar and Superaltar likewise must be consecrate have prints and charactes made therein washed with oyle wine and water be covered with a cloth of hayer and be garnished with fine white linnen clothes other costly apparell or els whatsoever was done thereon was counted vaine unprofitable The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresie which the Papistes hold concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse while they teach that they offer Christ in their Masse to God the Father an oblation and Sacrifice for the sinnes of the people both of the living and of the dead and by this meanes they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christes death And therfore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no lesse to be throwen downe and cast out of the Temples of the Christians then in times past the Altars of the Preistes of Baal So far is it of that they be meet to be used at the Celebration of the Lords Supper Finally who knoweth not that we come unto the Lords Table not to offer bloody Sacrifices to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars but to eate and drinke and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offred up for us on the Altar of the crosse a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father yea and that once for all Now if we come together to eate and drinke these Holy mysteties so spiritually to eate Christes body and to drinke his blood unto salvation both of our bodies soules who seeth not that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lords Supper then an Altar Father Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended But what sayest thou concerning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table Shall we receave those Holy mysteries kneeling standing or sitting Sonne Albeit I know confesse that gestures of themselves be indifferent yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoyded as have outwardly any appearance of evill according to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstaine from all evill apparaunce And first of all forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ at the receiving of the Sacrament thorow the doctrine of the Papistes although of it selfe it be indifferent to be or not to be used yet would I wish that it were taken away by the authority of the hier powers Father Why so Sonne For it hath an outward appearaunce of evill When the Papist thorow their pestilent perswasions had made of the Sacramentall bread and wine a God then gave they in Commandment streight wayes that all people should with all reverence kneele unto it worship honour it And by this meanes this gesture of kneeling creept in and is yet used in the Church of the Papistes to declare that they worship the Sacrament as their Lord God and Saviour Whence M. Roger Cutchud in his 1. 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio Anno 1560. writes Many comming to the Lords Table doe misbehave themselves so doe the lookers on in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling bowing their bodies knocking their breasts with Elevation of their hands If it were to be elevated served to the standers by as it hath beene used Christ would have elevated it above his head He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples bidding them to eate it not to hold up their hands
to receive it not to worship it so delivered it to them SITTING not kneeling Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence no Sacrament for God is not a Sacrament neither is the Sacrament God Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did If thou wilt be more devout then they were be not deceived but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie But I would wish with all my heart that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament were taken away or els that the people were taught that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe but to Christ which is represented by that Sacrament or signe But the most certaine sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Absteine from all evill appearaunce Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error and the weaklings offended and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone Therfore when Satan commaunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him worship him He answered It is writen thou shalt worship the Lord Math. 4. Standing which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes I can right well allow it if it be appointed by common order to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jewes Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come as our Sacrament is a signe figure of Christ come and gone Neither did that gesture want his mysteries For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne then had hethereto appeared unto them which were wrapped round about with the darke shadowes of ceremonies againe that other yea and these more perfect Sacraments were to be given to Gods people which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes Baptisme and the Lords Supper Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches if it were received by publique authority and common consent and might conveniently be used in our Churches I could alow that gesture best For as it is be doubted but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and bloud which use was also observed in the primative Church and long after So likewise it is most Commonly that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ and of his Disciples Nothing can be unreverently done that is done of the example of Christ of his Apostles We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ we have a Table set before us is it not meet and convenient that we sitte at our Table The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat yea rather who sitteth not downe when Christ feed the people he bad them not kneele downe nor stand upon their feet but he commaunded them to sit downe John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke which thing we doe at the Lords-Table Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses even the preaching of the glorious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover even the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie preach and declare unto us that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion that there is none other doctrine nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then those only which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord. And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture that we are come to the perfection of our Religion and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us Notwithstanding as I sayd before gestures are free so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred In all things which we call indifferent this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed Abstayne from all evill apparaunce Father I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe But come of tell me what sayest thou concerning the vestures which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper Sonne In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse a cope in some only a surplesse in some neither cope nor surplesse but their owne decent apparell Father And what thinkest thou in this behalfe Sonne When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body blood to his disciples he used none other but his owne Commone dayly apparell so likewise did the Apostles after him and the primative Church likewise used that order so was it continued many yeares after tyll superstition began to creep into the Church After that time fonde foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne devysed without the authority of Gods word that the Minister in the divine service and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linnen vesture which we now commonly call a Surplesse Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ of his Apostles requiring no paynted visores to set forth the glory beauty of our Religion which is then most glorious and most beautifull when it is most simple none otherwise setforth then it was used and left unto us of Christ of his Apostles And contrarywise it is then most obscured defaced when it is dawbed over with the vile vayne colours of mans wisdome although outwardly never so gorgious and glorious Afterward as superstition grew and encreased so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church and in adourning decking trimming the Temples of the Christians yea that so much the more because they were now perswaded that such Temples and will workes pleased God deserved remission of sinnes everlasting life By this meanes came it to passe that the simple and plaine Tables which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church were taken away and standing Altars set up and gorgeously decked with sumptuous
thus Thus Idolls brought in Oratories Chapels and Altars Sacrifices vestimentes such like vvhich all be utterly condemned of the Lord. fol. 31. 32. he proves out of Origen that the primative Christians had neither Images nor altars in their Churches And fol. 95. writing against the Popish manner of consecrating Churches he concludes thus then they put on their Massing coates and come like blind fooles with candles in their handes at noone daye and so proceed to the Holy Masse vvith renting of throtes tearing of notes chanting of Preists howling of Clarkes flinging of coales piping of Organs thus they continue a long while in mirth and jolity many mad parts be played But vvhen the vice is come from the Altar and the people shall have no more sport they conclude their service with a true sentence Terribilis est locus iste this place is terrible And have they not fisht faire thinke you to make such a doe to bring in the Devill O blind beastes O senselesse Hipocrites whom God hath geven over unto themselves that they should not see their owne folly and yet bevvray their shame to all the vvorld beside Bishop Babington in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars Concerning the Altar how it vvas made for matter height length and breadth the text is plaine in the 8. first verses For the use of us we may note two things First that it was a figure of Christ as the Apostle to the Hebrewes expoundeth it And secondly that the Altars used in Popery are not warranted by this example But that the Primative Churches used Communion Tables as we now doe of boards and wood not Altars as they doe of stone Origen was above two hundred yeares after Christ he sayth that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians Quod nec imagines nec Templa nec Aras haberent that they had neither Images nor Churches nor Altars Arnobius after him sayth the same to the Heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus nec Aras nec Imagines yow accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Altars nor Images Gerson sayth that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made and willed that no man should consecrate at a wooden Altar but himselfe and his successors there Belike then the former ages knew not profound reason that Altars must be of stone quia Peâ—ra erat Christus because the Rocke was Christ as Durandus after devised Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for steddinesse and continuance wooden Tables having been before used but I say in some places not in all For S. Augustine sayth that in his time in Africa they were made of wood For the Donatists sayth he breake in sunder the Altar-boords Again the Deacons duty was to remove the Altar Chrysostome calleth it The Holy boord S. Augustine mensam Domini the Table of the Lord. Athanasius mensam ligneam the Table of wood Yet was this Communion Table called an Altar not that it was so but only by allusion metaphorically as Christ is called an Altar or our hearts be called Altars c. Marke with your selfe therfore the newnesse of this point for stone Altars in comparison of our ancient use of Communion Tables and let Popery and his parts fall and truth sound antiquity be regarded Touching the hornes of the Altar spoken of they litterally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of figuratively noted strength so that to bind the Sacrifice to the hornes of the Altar was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith and only to rest trust and stay upon him and to tye all carnall affections fast also to the Altars Hornes by subduing and making them captive to God This Altar was in one place and the Sacrifice in one place nothing how Christ should only once and in one place offer up himselfe for all man kind Concerning the Lampes as little doe they warrant Popish Altars And Christians used no such follies apish imitations of things abrogated serving only for the time M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists translation Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 11. sect 18. fol. 415. writes thus of Altars The next note to discerne the Lords body is the removing of prophane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars So the Rhemists to which he replies Altars under the Law were Holy because they were builded upon the foundation of Gods institution Now they are prophane not only because they have no institution of God whereupon a stone may be layd but because they are contrary to the institution which propoundeth a Table Luke 22. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Math. 26. 20. 26. 27. and in the matter of the Eucharist never mentioneth Altar which is confirmed further in that this Sacrament is called in the Scripture the Supper of the Lord whereunto a Table doth well agree is never termed a Sacrifice for which an Altar is fit That it is sayd they sat downe a thing used at a table strang at an Altar whereat they sat not but stood that they did eat drinke which was never used at an Altar and is usuall at a table For although they did eate of that which came from the Altar yet they never did eate at it And if your Masonrie of Altars came from the Lords ordination under the Law why should our table be prophane or your Altar Holy considering that even under the Law there was as well a Holy table as an Holy Altar And setting apart the example of Christ by so much the table is fitter now then the Altar as the shew-bread standing upon the table hath a nearer Analogie with the bread of the Sacrament then had the flesh of slaine beastes which was layd upon the Altar Now your Hill Altars being failed of the Holy Scriptures goe to beg grace of the ancient Fathers where notwithstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peters Chappell at Rome which is alwayes building and never built If they present yow with some rough stones to the setting of it up yet bring they no morter to hold them from falling upon heapes For often times they helpe you with the name of an Altar when the thing they signifie therby is a Communion Table assigning it the Deacons Dutie to remove the Altar that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE even as they terme the Lords Supper a Sacrifice unproperly because it is a signe of the true Sacrifice when in truth they will only recommend unto us a Sacrament Other sometimes even the naked and bare name of Altar they take away from yow calling that whereupon the Holy things are set as it is a Table
as also the Holy things themselves they call by their proper names of signes Sacraments and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host yea and if Altars were Lawfull yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them unlesse as they doe the bread so they will transubstantiate the dead bodyes of beastes into the body of Christ not then borne when those things were layd upon the Altar Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo 115. any thing thereof it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars which we suppose your selves doe not observe whereby it may well be doubted as of divers others of those Sermons whether it be Augustines or no especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God Last of all let the good Reader understand that here in the Papists joyne with the Heathen which quarrelled with the Primative Churches that they had no Images Altars nor Temples whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the first that erected Altars Also that Gerson affirmeth that Silvester Bishop of Rome was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie Quaest. 6. part 2. Error 54. determines thus Altars we acknowledge none Altars we have none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1 Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables not sacrificed upon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. Epist. 50. He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximiâ—ian a Catholike Bishop beating him with Clubs even in the Church lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood and made to be removed not fastened to the wall as their Popish Altars were Damascus Epistol 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists and to be partakers only of the Lords Table he sayth the Lords Table not the Lords Altar To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites that they had polluted him in that they sayd the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing What other thing I pray you doe your sacrificing Preists they cannot abide the Lords Table they must have an Altar Sacrifice They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes beckings duckinges crossinges kissinges tossings tumblings besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread wine the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods Also Bishop Jewell Bishop Hooper B. Ridley others in their forecited passages against Altars together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c 5. which authorizeth Justices of Peace Majors Bailifs other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and Reliques of Popery and that if any Altar Pix Beades Pictures or such like Popish Reliques or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their or any of their custody they shal be presently defaced and burnt which Act expresly defines Altars as well as Beades and Pictures to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished all which have with one unanimous voyce condemned Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish abolished by Christs death contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians resolving likewise in expresse Termes that Communion Tables are no Altars nor yet to be so stiled And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise as the objectors pretend they ought to be because they falsly stile and deeme them Altars If any here object First that Communion Tables are Altars because D. John Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir 1. p. 43. averrs that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar are partakers of the Altar which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh for habemus Altare we also under the Gosple have an Altar Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar and may be so tearmed To this I answer first that this great over confident Doctor shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures as thus to misquote misprinte these texts no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning 2. I answer that it is most cleare that the first Text of the two namly 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite AT not of the Altar as he reades it are partakers with the Altar is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes Levites and Iewish Altars not of Christs Ministers and Lords Tables First Because the things of the Temples and Altars which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges are here couplâ—d together and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles of purpose to confute this blind Doctor instruct all men that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist Levites under the Law not of the Ministers under the Gosple as all Expositors whatsoever both old and new interpret it 2. Because the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord
haue vnder the hands of an eyewitnes or two who with-hundreds more can make it good if need be vpon their Oathes THE MANNER OF ALTERING THE Communion Table of the Collegiate Church of WOLVERHAMPTON in the Countie of STAFFORD consecrating it for an Altar the 11. day of October Anno Domini 1635. VPON Satarday being the 10. of October 1635. Maister Edward Latham one of the Proctors of Leichfeild Surrogate of Woluerhampton accompanied with some 20. or 30. Persons men weomen and Chorasters came to the Towne many of the Inhabitants but cheifly the Clergie going to meet him The intent of his their coming was to performe the solemnity of Dedicating the Communion Table to be an Altar and of consecrating certeyne Altar Cloathes as they said to the glory of God The Table was made new for this purpose being about a yard an halfe in lenght exquisitely wrought and inlaid a fayre wall of waynscot being at the backe of it the rayle before it was made to open in the middle not at one side the middle where the Ministers tread being matted with a very fayre Matt. Vpon the Table was placed a faire Communion Booke couered with cloth of gold bossed with great silver Bosses together with a faire Cushion of Damaske with a Carpet of the same both party coulored of skie coulor purple the fringe of the Carpet being blew white On each side of the Table hangs two peices of white Callico betwixt them the 10 Commaundements written in a fayre Table with guilded Letters the foresaid Cushion standing just below it But on the North end where the Minister stands to consecrate in that peice of white Callico is represented at the top the picture of Angels with faces cloudes birdes fleying about the middle the picture of Peter on the Crosse at the bottome George on horsebacke treading on the Dragon leaues grasse with some trees being beneath all almost at the end of it In the other peice of white Callico on the West end is the same as on the North end only the picture in the middle differs being the picture of Paul with his sword in his hand all this being the curious worke of some needle woman Now the mysterie why the Pictures of Peter Paul George on horsebacke more other are in this worke is imagined because the Church is dedicated to the memorie of Peter and Paul it is vnder the Iurisdiction of Sant Georges Chappell at Windsor The next day being the Lords day assoone as the Preists for so they would be called to suite the better with their Altar came to the Church each of them made a Low Congie a peece at their very first entring in at the great Church dore and an other Congie a peece at the I le dore after that 3. Congies apeece towards the Altar before its dedication and so they went into the Chancell where a bason of water a towel was provided for the Preistes to wash in where was incense burnind which perfumed the whole Church then they returned backe making 3. Congies a peece went to service which was solemnely performed the Organs blowing great singing not heard of in this Church before which kinde of seruice lasted two howres at least Seruice being finished there was a Sermon Preached by one Maister Ieffery Arch-deacon of Salop in the County of Salop whom the Surragate brought with him His text was Iohn 10. 22. 23. And it was at Hierusalem the Feast of the Dedication it was winter Iesus walked in the Temple in Salomons Porch All his whole Sermon was to prove the truth of the Altar He had not one place of Canonicall Scripture as we remember but one place in all which was out of the Maccabees His Sermon lasted an hower After Sermon they went to the Dedication or rather as the Preacher stiled it Renouation of the Altar and in the Bell-house 4. of them putt on the rich broydered Copes and euery one of them had a Paper in his hand which they termed Censer so they went vp to the Altar reading as it went for they looked often on it As they went they made 3. Congies apeece when they came to the Altar they kneeled downe prayed ouer the cloth the other Consecrated things the Organs blowing all the while this solemnity lasted almost halfe an hower After all this was performed there was a Communion and one was appointed to stand with a Bason to receyve the offertory divers gaue mony it was thought it had been giuen to the poore but the man that held the Bason gaue it to the Surragate the somme gathered being reputed about 40. s he calling the Church-wardens gaue them as he said 10. s the remainder he told them he would bestow on other pious vses but the 10 d. being counted proved to want 6. of the just somme he said he had deliuered them None gaue the Communion but the 4. that had Copes This finished they washed their hands returned making 3. Congies apeece as before These Copes the siluer Basons were brought from Leich feild The Communion and Dedication ended they went to dinner in the Afternoone they come to Church againe where was a Sermon preached by one Maister Vsuall a Minister his text was in the 2. Sam 7. 2. And David said to Nathan the Prophet se now I dwell in an house of Cedar And the Arke of God abideth vnder Curtaines This Sermon did justify and magnify the Altar lasted more then an hower which being finished they went to prayer which was very solemnely performed the Organs blowing diuers Anthems Responds being sung at that time which done they departed from the Church to their lodging where they were very merry to grace this solemnity and Consecration of the Altar the Higher the next day being munday they of Leich-feld went out of Towne many of them very drunke defiling themselues with this swinish sinne like so many filthie brute beastes to make the Altar the more holy venerable and themselves more apt to nod Congie to it this maner of keeping this feast of Dedication a patterne for all the Country to Imitate Thus ended this late Dedication with which I here conclude my rude Discourse and Quench-Coale THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE IN this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to pâ—opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors Innouatâ—rs together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts Questions to thâ—m The first Quaere is this What is the true finall end they ayme at in erecting Altars styling Communion Tables Altars placing them Altar-wise in christening themselves againe by the name of Preists not as it is vsed for a contract of the word Presbyter which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the Gosple but of
the word Sacerdos denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist It is a Rule both in Philosophy Diuinitie Omnia agunt propter finem All things especially all Rationall agent aime at some vltimate vttermost or finall end in all their Actions Much more then in their serious writings Polemicall discourses We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles that finis causa finalis est primus in intentione vltimus in executione agentis The first thing in Intention of the agent though the lâ—st in execution And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem all middle causes are and worke only to produce the end Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem These things being undoubted truths past all dispute And it being as true likewise that Altars themselves Preists being but instrument subordinate relatine things 〈◊〉 for some other vse the â—â—nation of Tables Altarwise being but â— ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise only because he desires it should be so plated or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest only for the Titles sake no more but for some further end all these serving to no vse or purpose at all simplie considered but only with relation to some further end The sole Question then wil be what this end should be To which if our Innouators late Colliar would giue a direct Answer in down right English termes it can be no other but this That the end they strive for in contending for Altars Priests turning Tables Altarwise is only to vsher in a Sacrifice into our Church since Cardinall Bellarmine B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect 15. p. 46. expresly resolve That Preists Altar Sacrifice are relatives haue mutuall vnseperable dependance one on the other since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice as both the scriptures and the Papists acknowledge the Coale ingenuously confesseth p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church can be no other but that which formerly vpon the beginning of reformation was cast out but that sacrifice was only the Idololaâ—rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe by these Altars Preists Communion Tables seated Altarwise If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper I answer that a Table is farre more decent for such â— purpose then an Altar a Table posture then an Altar situation a Minister then a Preist since we neuer read in scripture of any supper or eating at an Altar since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table which Table if we believe the Cronickleâ— of Flaunders Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague as most precious relique which the Church of Rome flath yet to shew if you dare belieue them though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar 〈◊〉 at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they 〈◊〉 only to him 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice which our Church allowes not â— Prepitiatory as the Papists make their Masse I answer first that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice neither doth shee in her Homilies or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so much lesse in her Common prayer Booke Injunctions Canons or statntes neither doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these to proue this bold assoueration either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar he layes open all his shrids stolen wares 2. The Church of England euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8. expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words Wee must take heed then saith the Homily least of a Memory it BE MADE A SACRIFICE If not A SACRIFICE then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice to be no Sacrifice which is a contradiction to say we must take heed least of the MEMORY we make it A SACRIFICE Is all one as to say wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice a Memorie a Sacrifice being here put in direct opposition contradistinction one to an other in this clause in the following parts of the Homily which 4. seuerall times cals the Sacrament A MEMORY A COMMEMORATION AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christs death but neuer a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words Now it followeth to haue with this knowledge a sure constant saith not only that the death of Christ is avay lable for a redemption of all the world c but also that he made vpon the Crosse A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee a perfect cleansing of thy sinns so that then acknowledge no other sauiour redeemer Mediator Advocat Intercessour but CHRIST ONLY Herein thou needest no other mans helpe NO OTHER SACRIFICE therfore neither commemoratiue 〈◊〉 propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Preistâ— observe this well to which they haue subscribed NO MASSE let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees consider this No meanes established by mans injunction Therefore no A tâ—r Preist Sacrifice or Table seated Altar-wise All which this homily strikes dead at once and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too almost in the selflame words 3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull and contradiction For as the picture of a man is no man or of fire no fire or of a Chalice or Sacrament no Câ—alice or Sacrament So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice is in truth no Sacrifice nor kinde nor species of a Sacrifice but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice So that this is but a Mountebancks chear and distinction to delude children fooles with all not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine 4. The Sacrament neither is nor can be a sacrifice for every sacrifice whether legall or Euangelicall is a religious seruice holocast worship or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5â— 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. Hâ—b 9. 14. 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer after the receiving of the Sacrament prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer And thus we offer present unto thee O Lord our selues our
sules bodies to be a reasonable holy livelie SACRIFICE unto thee But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament we offer up nothing unto God but only God tenders his Sonne with all the benefits of his death and passion unto us As the words take rate this the prayers before and after the Sacrament the Scriptures and every mans experience withesseth Therefore it can by noe meanes be tearmed a Sacrifice Whence the Homille of the Sacrament tearms our thanksgiving to God after the SacrameÌ„t received and at other times a Sacrifice p. 103. as the Apostle expresly doth Heb 13. 15. the Psalmist before him Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. Ier. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. Ion. 2. 9. But never tearmes the Sacrament it selfe thus because it neither is nor can be a sacrifice commemorative or propitiatâ—rie unlesse with reference to this thanksgiving and to the whole act and service not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine as B sh 〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout 5. This Homily â— times together her case the Sacrament a Table Lords Table never a Sacrifice an Altar or Sacâ—â—ment of the Altar Admitt the Homilie granted it to be a Sacrifice which it doth not yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Preist Altar or Tables situated Altar-wise euen by the Homilie and Booke of Common-prayers resolution Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice as these Innovators would obtrude by crast and power upon us which stands in need both of a Preist an Altar or Table placed Altar-wiseâ— or of the name of a Sacrifice to make people reasly to esteeme in so 6. Nemorepente for turpissimus 〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves or proceed so farre at the first dash for feare of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉 but they will usher in things by certaine insemble degrees step by step till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last First then wee most haue Communion-Tables only turned Altar-wise Then wee must haue them termed Altars Next wee must sett up Altars indeed Then wee must cringe to and adore them after that haue a Preist to write on them then a commemorative sacrificrenly to bee off red on them And thus farre wee have already proceeded in many places AND GENERALL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHVRCHES as the Colier in formes his friend and â—eader both p. 1. and 27 The Ring-leaders and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us backe to Rome that â—â—unded them And now must wee and Rome bee brought â—â—gether 〈…〉 as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉 each other the next step must be to make the Sacrament a propiriatory sacrifice as the Papists doe who first proceeded â— this method and held it but commemorative as appeares by all their ancient Schoolemen And then when the thing itselfe is once gott inâ— the name of it â—yet too grosse and odioâ—â— will quickly follow it shall then be rebaptized with the name of Masse by these its Godfathers who as they have already pleaded for its Popish title The Sacrament of the Altar because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. stiles it the Sacrament of the body blood of Christ commonly called to witt by the Papists in those dayes not the Parliament or Protestants The Sacrament of the Altar So they will by the selfesame reason call it by the name of the Masse and justify this Title of it by the Masse itselfe to be lawfully warranted both by Prince Pâ—â—late Preist the whole Parliament because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. and the Booke of Common-prayer established by it there stiles it The holy Commâ—nion commonly called THE MASSE to witt by the Papists and ignorant people of those times the Masse being not quite abolished till this law was made Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Masse and the name of Masse 〈◊〉 is cleare by the body of the Act the Booke of the Commoâ—-prayer then sett out and since corrected the Homily of the worthy receiâ—ing of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Articleâ— with all the surnamed writers Injunctions and Cannons of our Church and neither old Doting Shelford nor his soâ—â—e the Colier dare deny even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar Though thâ—se ignorant Scribâ—â—â— would justifie both the lawfullnes of Altars and of termâ—â— the Loâ—ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from thâ—â—â— against the meaning of the Law as I have already â—â—â—fested Since therefore it is cleare by the Colier that the 〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉 some notable designes in 〈◊〉 upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Churchâ— which he tearmes A GOOD WORKE J would it were so NOW IN HAND which wee finde too true and since this good worke is just like Coliers worke and Character by the printed yea his owne happy premunition truly ROMAN to witt by Altars and Preists and Tables turned Altarwise to usher in Masse with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedrall Collegiate Churches It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestick â—â—â—ialists what their intentions are to stoppe their further progresse both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designes and to admonish them and all others in the words of our owne established Homily BEFORE ALL THINGS this wee must be sure of especially that this supper be in such wise done and ministred as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded it to be done as his holy Apostles used it and the godly Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it For as the worthy man S. Ambrose saith he is unworthy of the Lords Table that otherwise doth celebrate the Mystery then it was delivered by him Neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume then it was giuen by the Author but when the Author gave it he gave it not a Sacrificing Shaveâ— Masse-Preist he gaue it not at an Altar but at a table and that situated in the MIDDEST table-wise as J haue manifested to his Disciples sitting not kneeling round about it Therefore we must be sure so to minister if we will be either worthy of the Lord or devout we must then take heed as it is now â—â—gh time so to doe it lest of the memory is be 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 lect of a Communion it be made a private eaâ—â—â—â—â— therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebration placed Altar-wise at the remotest East end of the Chanâ—â—â—â— brought in with private Masses for that purpose onely 〈◊〉 leâ—â—â— of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead wee loose the fruite that be alive holâ—some counsell necessary
doctrine for these present times as the 34. Article tearmed the Homilies with which I shall close up this first quaere QVESTION II. The second Question I would propound to these Novelleâ—s is this That since they will now stile themselves and be called of others only Preists so Shelford tearmed himselfe 〈◊〉 the Title page of his unlearned Treatises and many others have done in late prinâ—ed Sermons Pamphlets what kind of Preists they are wherein their Preisthood consists If they say they are only spirituall Preists and have only a spiritual Preisthood â—oâ—â—ffer up the spirituall sacâ—ifices of prayer 〈◊〉 thanksgâ—uing almes righteousnesse broken and contrâ—â—â— hearts and their owne bodies soules to God that every Christian is as much a Preist even by Christs owne institution a themselves and hath the sâ—lfesame Preisthood that they 〈◊〉 Rev. 1. 6. 1. Pet. 2â— 5 â— Exoâ— 19. â—â— And so they doe all they can â—o ingrosse this Title as peculiar to themselvs which is common to every Christian. If they meane by Preists nothing 〈◊〉 Presâ—yters and intend no more by their name and Preisthood but only the Eldershippe Ministrie let them enjoy that Title and office in Peace I quarell not with them Only this I must informe themâ— That such Preists need neither Altar nor Sacrifice but 〈◊〉 expresly debarâ—ed from both by Gâ—d himselfe 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. 17. 18. 21. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. 14. But if they meane by the word Preist 〈◊〉 or Sâ—cerdâ—â— a sacrificing Preist or a Preist waiting at or upon the Altar as it is cleare they doe both by their writings their prayers before their Sermont where they pray for the Preistâ—◠〈◊〉 serve waiâ— aâ— the Altarâ— their erecting and pleading for Altars and Commemorative Sacrifices at least 〈◊〉 evident 〈…〉 and shall then inquire of them what 〈◊〉 Sacrificing Preists they are and of what order their Preisthood is In Scripture I read only of 4 kinds of Preists and Preisthoods Preists Heb. c. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. Levit. c. 1. vers 12. Exod. c. 28. 29. 30. after the order of Aaronâ— Preists after the order of Melchizedech 2 Kings 17. 32. 1 Kin c. 12. 31. 32. c. 13. 33. 2. Kin 10. 18 c. Preists of Baal and Preists of the high places or Idol Preists The two first of divine the two latter of Diabolicall institution Since which there hath sprung up of late in the Church another dâ—stinct generation of Preists commonly called by the name of Masse-Preists and those are both of Papall Diabolicall institution Other sorts of Sacrificing Preists then these I neither know nor read of The sole question then will be of which of those of 5 sorts of Preists our Novellers Altar-panons are If of the first sort that is directly abolished changed abrogated by our Saviour Heb. 7. 11. 12. c. 8. 6. to 13. cap. 9. 10. throughout Col. 2. 14. 15. 16. And those who crie downe the name and sanctification of the Lords day Sabbath as â—â—wish will not I hope tearâ—ne themselves in the order of Aarons Preists which is farre more Jewish Of which sort of Preists they cannot be vnlesse they are lawfully descended from the tribe of Leui Num. 3. 6 c. c. 16. 1 Iosh c. 13. v. 14. 33. Psal. 135. 10. Mal. 2. 4. 8. Hebr. 7. 5. If of the order of Mâ—chizedech that is peculiar only to our Saviour subsisting personally in him alone and incommunicable to any other as the Apostle directly resolves Hebr. 5. 9. 10. c. 6. â—â— c. 7. throughout â— â— 9. 10. As all authors interpret old and new writers acknowledge and among them Mr. David Dickson in his commentarie a short explanation on the Hebrewes 7. An 1634â— where he layes downe the conclusion fully warranted by the Apostles text 1. That to make any Preists in the new Testament by special office beside Christ is to rent the Preisthood of Christ and to make it imperfect like Aarons which for the same reason that it had many Preists was weake imperfect inferiour to Christs 2. That to make Preists by office in the New Testament to offer up any corporall sacrifice is to make Christs Preisthood seperable from his owne person which is against the nature of Christs Preisthood which can not pasâ—e from one to another Hebr. 7. 24. 3. That to make plurality of the Preists in Christs Preisthood Vicars or Substitutes or in any respect partaker of the office with him is to praesuppose that Christ is not able to doe that office alone but is either dead or weake that he cannot fulfill that office contrary to the text which saith Because he continueth for ever he hath an unchangable Preisthood or a Preisthood that cannot passe from one to another Hebr. 7. 24. 4. That whosoever communicateth Christs Preisthood with another besides his owne person maketh Christ not able alone to saue to the uttermost those that come unto God by him 5. That the Scripture knoweth no Preist but the Leviticall Preists of Aarons postâ—rity for the time of the Lawâ— Or else that one Preist that was made by oath in the time of the Gospell besides these the Apostle knoweth none neither were there any other in his time in the Church 6. That to have Preists now after the similitude of Preists under the Law were to renounce the difference which God hath made betwixt the Law and the Gospell 7. That to make a Preist in the Gospell who is not consecrated by an Oath to abide for evermore in the office but may be changed and another come iu his place is contrary to Evangelicall Preisthood 8. That to make Plurality of Preists in the Gospell is to alter the order of Melchizedech sworne with an Oath and to renounce the worke sett betwixt the Law and the Gospell 9. That to make a man Preist now is to marre the Sonne of Gods priviledge To whome the priviledge only belongeth 10. That to make a sinâ—ull and weake man Preist now is to weaken the Preisthood of the Gospell and make it like the Law 11. That as long as Christs consecration lasteth which endureth for ever none must medle with his Preistly office 12. That to adde unto it and to bring in as many Preists now as did serve in the Temple of old is to provoke God to adde as many plagues as are written in Gods booke upon themselves and their Preists also All which considered I hope these Novellers dare not say they are Preists after the order of Aaron much lesse of Mâ—lchizâ—dech which is peculiar to Christ alone Pâ—reists of Baal or Idol-Preists J presume they neither will nor dare stile themselves If therefore they be Preists of any order they are and can be no other but Sâ—minary or Masse-Preists and if they are such Preists in truth as their writing and practises declare them Then let them be gone
another Woman believe me the time is come whâ—n ye shall worshipp neither at Jerusalem nor in this hill but the true worshippers shall worshipp God in spirit and truth So is it now said the place makes not the man holy but the man makes the place hâ—ly and ye shall not worshippe your Jdols Stockes and Stones neither at Wilsingham Ipswich Canterbury nor Sheve for God chuses not the people for the places sake but the places for the peoples sakeâ— But iâ— ye be in the middest of the feild God is as ready to heare your faithfull prayers as in any Abbey or Burrey yea a thousand times more for the one place he hates as defiled with Idolatry and the other he loves as undefiled and cleane If the good man lye in prison tyed in chames or at the stake burned for Gods cause That place is holy For the holinesse of the man and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him As Tertullian saith yet there should be common places appointed for the people to assemble and come together in to praise our God c. Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard nor Christen moldes as they be called when it it is no better then other Earth but rather worse for the conjuring that Bishops use about it It appeares in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves the Widdows Sonne going to buriall Christ buried without the city c. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops but in a severall place appointed for the same purpose without the city which custome remaineth to this day in many godly places As it then was lawfull and no hurt to the dead so it is now and one place is as holy as another to be buried in saving that comely order requires the bodies not to be castaway because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and shall be glorified at the last day againe but seemely to be buried and an honest place to be kept severall from Beasts and unreverent using of the same for the same purpose IT IS POPISH TO BELEEVE that which the Bishops doe teach That place to be more holy then the rest which they have hallowed as they say with their conjured water crossings censings processions c. But blessed be that God our Lord which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fantasies which they devise to fill their bellies and maintaine their authority by Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardnesse of the people to keepe them exercised that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament nor yet commanded now either to us oâ—â— them but forbidden to be used of all both of us and them We be no longer under shaddowes but under the truth Christ hath fulfilled all and taken away all such darke kind of Ceremonies and hath placed the cleare light of his Gospell in the Churchâ— to continue to the end Thus and much more this Bishop who liberally censures all Lordly Non-preaching Dominering Bishops tearming these creatures ravening Wolves Lyâ—ns Beares and such other ravening Beasts for mercilesnes rapâ—ne and cruelty If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our Sâ—â—tutes Commonâ—prayerâ— boâ—ke Hâ—milies Canons Articleâ— Injunctions Writers and thus derived by this reverent Bishop himselfe in a Booke printed at Lordâ— n◠〈◊〉 An 1562. the same yeare he 39. Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them to consecrate Churches Chappels Church yards and Altars accounting them alltogether prophane unlesse they have defiled conjured I should have said consecrated them with their new devised Ceremonies Orisons Consecration Rites and Ceremonies takenout of Popist Masse-bookes Ceremonials Rituals at large related in Summa Rosella Summa Angelica Bochellous Gratian Ivo Lyderwood Hostrensis with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars and treatises of this subject deserving rather derision then imitation If they have no Law at all for it but only the Popes Canon Law as they have not aboli shed by sundry acts of Parliament is derogatory to the Kings prerogative the subjects liberties and the Lawes and Statuâ—es of the Realme Then why are they now of late so madde upon these consecrations as things of infinite moment How hotte they have beene upon consecration of Altars appeares not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton of which before but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches in Mâ—gaâ—len Colledge 〈◊〉 Oxford in Clare-hall Petorhouse Queenes Collâ—dgâ— with diâ—en other Colledges in the Vniversity of Cambridge solemntly dedicated with some kinde of consecration adorned with Tapors Candlestickes Basons Crucifixes Crosses rich Altar-clothes clasped brave Bookes with Crosses in steed of Bosses Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions rich hangings and dayly adred with superstitious idolatrous geniculations to the great greife of all good Christians who mourne to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poysened disguised with the Reliques Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose Whom the divinity Professour of Cambridge D. Câ—llins in 〈◊〉 publike Sermons hath of late yeeres much extâ—lled like an Apostazing Pander preaching openly in S. Maries Churchâ— That it is sitt wâ—e should meet the Papists halfeway both in preaching and practise Which he and others there have not oâ—â—â— done but almost if not quite râ—nâ—honâ—â— unto them as as Franciscu de Sancta Clara that moderne Reconciler vaunts it sundry places of his printed Booke To the great incouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction Who vauâ—â— thatâ— they need no step one foote to us who are running withal speed to come home to them unless Gods present plagues 〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasie stay our progresse and some stoute private Champions and royall Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome to drive us home againe for never a Prelate will or dares to doe it many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chaire whence D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree with all their migâ—â— and man How earnest and zealous our Prelates have bâ—â—â— in their consecration of Churches Chappels and Church-yards placing great holinesse in this Ceremony yea and necessity too And evident not only by their late visitation Articles wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated graund they have hallowed with their Rochets that it be by no meanes prophaned but likewise by sundrie late consecrations and contests about this Ceremonie I shall instance only in â— particulars omitting all the rest together with the solemne consecration of the foundation stones of the repaire of Paules which were very solemnely blessed by the Bishoppe who hath farre more charity towards sencelesse stones then men whom he can finde
spare howres to curse excommunicate imprison dismember and what not but not to blesse or preach to The first instance I shall pitch on is that of S. Giles Church in the Feildes This Church about 9. yeares since was new repaired in some of the wals leds and seats all divine offices SacrameÌ„ts preaching of divine service was celebrated in it after its repair for two yeares space or more time enough one would think to consecrate it if prayer preaching of Gods Word holy exercises and Sacraments can make places holy All this time it was thought holy enough without any such consecration by D. Mountaine then Bishop of London But his Successour after a yeares space I know not upon what grounds or humour much lesse by what law or authority would needs have the Church consecrated though not new built but repaired â—n which case by the Canon Law there needes no fresh conseâ—ration The Parish at first oppose it but the present Bishop will not be foyled in this Laudable worke whereupon he sequeâ—ters the Church for a month or 3 weekes space lockes up the â—oores suffers neither divine service nor Sermons nor Sacraments except Baptisme all that while to the great disturbance of the Parishioners At last afâ—er much adoe and the expence of 50. or 60â—â— in fees and entertainment the Bishopp solemnely consecrates it after the old Romish manner there being no Protestant forme prescribed by our Church a crucifix condemned expresly by our Homiles being first sett up in the glasse window to hâ—llâ—w it in a legall forme though the fees for consecration were Symony by the Canon Law and extortion by the Common Law and so illegall by both The 2. instance is that of the new Chappel in the Kings Bench prison builâ— by St. Iohn Lentall After it had been built used as a Chappel aboue a yeares space I know not by what Law it must needs be consecrated or else threatnâ—d to be sequestred and interdicted The present Archbishoppes surrogate Bishop Wren by late delegation under the Archbishop forsooth would doe the feat but not under 30â— fees at least that was the lowest they would stoop to So pure and innocent are these holy Consecrations and Consecratours from Symony and extortion This price being in a manner agreed upon hough somewhat an overhigh rate for so short a workâ— D. Cuâ—le Bishop of Winchester hearing of it alledged it was within his 〈◊〉 and tâ—e ofâ— reit belonged not to them but to him to consecrate And because he would be sure to prevayle he profered to hallow it gratis and take nothing but a dinner for his paines which the other would have besides their 30â— Hereupon Sâ— Iohn Lentall yeelds that he should have the hâ—nour to consecrate it A weeke or two before this consecration some Popishly affected person or other had caused the picture of Christ and his 12 Apostles to be hung up in thâ— Chappel contrary to the Homilies and Doctrine of our Church the which some more honest minded persons rased and defaced The Bâ—shop comming to consecrate the Chappel since Easter last esples the defacing of these Images was very angrie at it Telling Sr. Iohn that had he knowne of the defacing of these holy Images which ought to be respected before he came thither hâ— would not have consecrated the Chappel till they had beene repaired and beautefied againe Yeâ— since he was come he would consecrate it as it was but gave Sr. Iohn a speciall charge to see these holy Reliques of Rome repaired with all speed which thereupon being done hath driven many from the Chappel By which true relation of this Consecration we may see what an holy câ—re our devout Prelâ—tâ— have of preserving setting up these Images and Pictures which the very Homilies and subscribed Doctrine of our Church injoyne them in all especiall manner to deface pull downe and cast out of all our Churches as things that doe not adorne or consecrate but most filâ—hely defile idulterate and prophane them Exâ—ungue Leonem you may know what and whose creatures they are and what they ayme at by their clawes The third instance J shall nominate is now very fresh in memory D. Lawde Archbishop of Canterbuâ—y contested lately with the Vniversity of Cambridgâ— pretending that he by his Metropoliticall authority ought to visit them The Vniversity on the other side alledged That their Vniversity it selfe and many of their Colledges were of the Kings foundation and so of right exempt from all Episcopall juâ—isdiction That they were not under the Bishop of the Diocesse his visitation therefore not under the Arch-bishops That every Colledge had its proper visitours appointed by the Charters of their foundation with his Majesties and his Royall ancestours speciall appointment therefore ought to be visited by no other That the power and right of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State and personsâ— especially of the Vniversities was a cheefe flower of the Crowne united to it by expresse words in two severall Actâ— of Parliament to witt 26. H. 8. c. 1. 1. Eliz. c. 1. And also by 37. H. 8. c. 17. 8. Eliz. c. 1. That the Kings Majestie alone by the Canon Law and those statutes was the sole visitour of the whole Realme That no Bishop could keepe any visitation no not in his owne Diocesse but by speciall Pateâ—t and Commission under the Kings broad Seale authorising him and that in the Kings name and right alone not his owne as these Statutes of Ed. 6. c. 2. and all the Bishops Patents in Edward the 6. time made according to this Act expresly define That they were bound by their oath of Supremacy and allegiance to his Majestie to defend this right of his to the uttermost of their powers and by their oath to maintaine his Priviledges That no Archbishop since 25. H. 8. c. 1. except Cardinall Poole by a Commission from the Pope as his Legate and Delegate in Queen Maries time had ever attempted and presumed to visit the Vniversity in his owne Metropoliticall right and that it was never visited before that time by any B. as Metropolitan but only as the Popes Legate and by vertue of his Buls That King Henry the 8 King Edward the 6. Queene Elizabeth and King Iames did visit it by their Commissioners no Archbishop in their time durst presume to visit it by his Archiepiscopall power only That Robert Holgate Archbishop of Yorke in King Henry the 8. his dayes with other Bishops and all the Bishops what soever in King Edward the 6. time were forced to talâ—e speciall Patents and Licenses from the King enabling and authorising them in precise words to visit their Diocesse and execute Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and that only Nomine vicè autoritate Regis which they could not do without such Patents That no Bishop or Ordinary without a speciall Patent or Commission can or dares to visit any one of
to the Lord of the Table paralleled with worshipping towards Gods Temple worshipping at his foote-stoole Daniels prayer c. And so expresly determined by Mr. Shelford See the Serm of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. The fore-cited passage fathered on Bishop Morton Mr. Cozens Mr. Widdowes Edward Reeve aud Dr. Duncombe in his Determination Dr. Pocklington Suuday no Sabhath p. 50. Câ—ill worship it cannot be because terminated they say in God done in Gods owne house and presence not in any civill but religious respect Done towards the Altar or Table not as civill but as sacred and religions things to which no civill worship at all is dâ—eâ—â— in any civill respect If then it be a divine worship as they hold iâ— it must be either a sincere and genuine worship or Superstitious Not the former First because not instituted or prescribed by God in his word no text so much as intimating much lesse enjoyning it nor any one example in the New Testament 〈◊〉 it Secondly because never practised by the Patriarches or Prophets in the Old Testament who never thus bowed to or towards Altars nor by Christ or his Apâ—stes in the new who never thus inclined their knees or bodies to or towards Lords-Tables nor yet for ought we finde to God himselfe unlesse it were in prayer only Mat. 26. 39. Acts 20. 36. c. 21. 5. Ephes. 3. 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. A thing worthie notingâ— taking off all hare-adoration only fo the body not accompanied with prayer or some so other religious duty Thirdly Altars themselves under the Gospell abolished by Christs death are not of divine institution but contrary to it Therefore the bowing towards them to honour God or worship Christ thereby is superstitious unlawfull Fourthly had it been a worship of divine institution its probable that the Saints of God in the Apostles dayes the primitive Church and all succeeding ages would both have conscionablie and constantly used it And either fore-commaunded or enforced the observation thereof But this they have not done Therefore it is not of divine institution Fiâ—tly no divine worship due to God or required by him is arbitrary to be done or not done at mans election Neither can it be omitted without mortall sinne But this is arbitrary at mans election and may be omitted without mortall sinne as the stoutest Champions thereof will and must onselfe Since no Law of God or man prescribes it as necessary Therefore it is no divine worship Sxitly no relative worship of God in through or by reason of any other Creature is of divine institution there being no paâ—t â—ne of any such worship in Scripture This the Homilie against the Perill of Idolatry plentifully proves See Bâ—shop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. throughout especially c. 8. Sect. 1. p. 547. 548. But this and so the bowing at the naming of Iesus is a relative not an immediate worship Therefore not truely divine Seventhly that which the most pious Christians the most judicious zealous Protestants in their writings and practise have censured declined as evill superstitious And being only by the most igorant blinde superstitious and Popish Persons most practised and contested for that certainly is not any divine institution nor any syncere adoration approved by God But this bowing is such as the premises experience witnesse Therefore not of divine institution or any syncere adoration approved by God Eightly that whose cheife Patrons are inforced to flie to meere forged authorities and absurd ridiculous reasons of their owne late invention to justify and maintaine it that certainly is not truly divine Such is this bowing to and towards Altars and Lords-Tables As the premises testify Therefore not divine And so by consequence a meere superstitious will-worship of mans inuention which God neither approves of nor allowes Isay. 1. 11. 12. And being not of faith it must be sinne Rom. 14. 23. All which I desire our new Maisters of Ceremonies to consider now at last who perchance have not yet so much as ruminated on this point but taken up this practise as most men doe new fashions without any examination either of its lawfulnes decency or conveniency Contrary to the Apostles rule who adviseth us 1. Thes. 5. 21. 22. to prove all things and to hold fast only that which is good Abstaining from all appearance of evill Whith this bowing certainly hath First because it is a new upstart innovation prescribed by by no Law of God or man Secondly because it tends to erect countenance and usher in a relative worship of God in by and through the Creature Thirdly because it seemes to implie an actuall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christs very body and tends to usher in this doctrine together with an adoration of the Hostia and reservation of it on the Altar or Table in a Pix the maine ends for which it seemes and is now taken up For as kneeling at the Sacrament first ushered in adoration of the Sacrament so this bowing to the Table or Altar must reuiue it the true end for which it is now â—rged Fourthly because it hardens Papists in their Idolatrâ—us superstition of adoring the Eucharist and bowing to Crucifixes Images Crosses condemned by us as most grosse Idolatrie See the Homilie of the Perill of Idolatrie Bishop Morton his 7. Booke of the Institution of the Sacrament Fiftly because it gives generall offence and scandall to most especially those who are pious and judicious Sixtly because it tends to the erection of Altars Priests and Sacrifices formerly abandoned and gives Papists occasion not only in words but in writing also to vaunt and hope that we are now apostatizing and revolting unto Rome againe Seventhly because it advenceth the Table and Altar above the Font Pulpit Bible Chalice Paten yea and the consecrated bread and wine to neither of which any such genuflexion is given Eightly because there is appearance of superstition and Idolatrie in it which is or may be committed by it as probablie as of the Papists adoring of the Eucharist Upon these grounds therefore all Christians should renounce it I come now to the last clause of the Question to inquire how this bowing to towards or before the Altar or Table differs either from the Pagans or Papists practise of bowing to or towards Images Altars Crucifixes Crosses the like which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers expresly define to be Idolatrie For the Pagan Gentiles it is evident that they bowed to or towards their Altars over or under which the Images or Statues of their Idol-Gods which they worshipped towards the Altars stood as the Papists and we have now our Crucifixes standing on or over our Altars either in Arras Glasse or Mettle or in some Curious common Prayer-Booke standing on our Altars only for a dumbe shew adorned with two or three silver Crucifixes in stead of Bosses on the cover in Imitation of these Pagans That this of
to commaund a particular person who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour as Philemon did to Paul Another thing to commaund yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority but Stewardly or Economically to witt when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name not in his owne As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions not his owne But of such things as are only Indifferent Decent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise perswade them Much lesse charge and commaund them And that this place in hand 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power though it be much urged to this end may appeare from these reasons First the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things but of Necessary-Decent things the neglect whereof was undecent and disorderly by the light of Nature Scripture and Custome As for Men to weare long-haire women to be bare-headed and for women to speake in the Congregation as also for men to speake many of them at once Secondly the words of this place run not thus Let all decent things be done Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done but thus Let all things to witt all Ecclesiasticall matters As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church all the duties of Gods worship Whether Praying Prophesying Psalmes or Sacraments or the like be done decently orderly in orderly and decent maÌ„ner But whether in that decent maner which Church-Governours doe appoint or in some other that the Apostle limitteth not but only requireth that all be done dâ—cently which if it be done his rule here prescribed is observed and followed 3. Thirdly the same may appeare out of this place by this argument If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle As looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King He that violateth such Acts or trangresseth such Orders transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King But it appeareth to be otherwise in this case See D. Barnes That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 297. to 300. as for instance If the Church-Governour coÌ„mand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne it being indifferent decent so to doe he that shall now and then preach in a cloake transgresseth the commaund of the Church But not of the Apostle For he that preacheth in a cloake preacheth also decently or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke de Pallio Now if so be it be done decently then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point But because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments To witt that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple and are blockes in Christen mens wayes that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven Iohn Paruâ—y his Articles Fox Acts Monuments p. 50â— First then that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund But to commaund indifferent decent things by order of Law exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty Ergo c. The former of these to witt that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them Now all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary not indifferent for the people to observe If therefore the Apostles over above the Commaundements of Christ which are necessary should teach the people to observe indifferent things also which Christ hath not commaunded they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION It will be in vaine to object that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith not of Government and Order unlesse it could be proved that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency Which for ought I can sâ—e no man goes about to doe unlesse it be from this place of the Cori which hath been already cleared as I hope from any such meaning As for the second or latter part of the Assumption that to commaund IndiffereÌ„t Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty is of itselfe evident For whereas for Example a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his though they had received that Guift of Continencie yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION It is wont to be excepted against them that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions but in the freedome of Conscience As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things Christian Liberty is preserved though the use and practise of outward things be limitted ANSWER Whereto I answer The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry But even in outward Actions and practise Let him doe saith he what he will he sinneth not let him be marryed Vers. 36. As who should say the Conscience being free from sinne in it J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it 2. Argument The second Reason may be this They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency they surely make a binding Law that all men shal be of one mind or of one practise in such things But the former is true from the rule
of the Holy-Ghost binding all Christians even the Apostles as well as others Rom. 14. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him Ergo c. OBJECTION But if it be sayd here that this place speaketh only of private Christians not of Church-Governours Answer I answer The place speaketh of Christians private and publike seeing it reserveth and referreth the judgment of our Brethren in such like things not to publike persons but only to Christ Ver. 4. 10. Third Argument The third Argument or reason is this They who did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came they surely did not make Lawes and bind Christians to accommodate themselves to their judgements and practise in the use of things Indifferent But the Apostles of Christ and the Christians too in the primitive Churches did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came As appeareth from the Apostles Example 1. Cor. 9. 10. 21. 22. 23. To the Jewes saith he J became a Iew c. Ergo c. OBJECTION But here it may be objected though the Apostles rather chose to use their Liberty and their lenity then their authority in these indifferent things wheresoever they came Yet if they had pleased they might have used their Apostolicall authority in binding all Churches to their judgements and practise in such things Answer 1. Hereunto I answer first that doubtles if they had received any such authority they would in some placeÌ„ or other and at one time or other have claimed it and practised it For a sword never used rusteth in the scabbard And Frustra est potentia quae nunquam venit in actum It is a true Axiome and pertinent to that we speake off 2. Secondly I say that the Apostle himselfe doth clear the point when he confesseth he did thus accommodate himselfe even to the weaknesses of Christians least he should abuse his authority in the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. 18. 19. 20. O that such Governours as plead so their Succession to the Apostles and doe challenge in sundrie passages of government Apostolicall authority would also be pleased to study and emulate an Apostolicall Spirit Fourth Argument Let a 4. Argument be this That if the Synod of the Apostles and Presbiters and Brethren of Ierusalem did reach their authority no farther theÌ„ to lay upon the Disciples necks the yoake burthen of Necessary things that only during the time while they continued Necessary Then may not any Succeding Synod reach their authority to lay upon the Church Commaundements and Canons of Indifferent things For this Synod at Ierusalem was and ought to be the patterne and president of all Succeeding Synods For Primum in vnoquoque genere est mensura reliquâ—rum And our Saviour teacheth us to refute abetrations from Primitive patterns with this Matth. 19. 8. Non sic fuit ab initio From the beginning it was not so But the Synod at Ierusalem reached their authority no farther then to lay Commaundements upon the Disciples only touching Necessary things Acts 15. 28. Necessary I say either in themselves as abstaining from Fornication or at least in respect of present offence as abstaining from blood c. And let me conclude this Argument taken from the Apostle Paul his intercourse with the Apostle Peter about a matter of this kind If the Apostle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to observe Indifferent things or Ceremonies of the Iewes Then other Church-Governours wil be as much blame-worthy for compelling Christians by Law by grevious ceÌ„sures to obserue the Ceremonies now in questioÌ„ though they were IndiffereÌ„t But the Apostle Paul tells us that Peter was to be blamed in this case Gala. 2. 11. 14. Ergo c. OBJECTION Now if any except thereat as some are wont to doe in this case and say that Peter was therefore blamed because the Ceremonies to which he compelled the Gentiles were not urged as things Indifferent but as Necessary to Iustification and Saluation ANSWER I answer This is but a meere evasion and will stand them in no stead For it is certaine Peter did not account them as necessary he knew the contrary nor did he so use them himselfe nor so compell others to them But knowing his Liberty for him a Iew to use them among the Iewes he used them when the Jewes came downe from Ierusalem out of a tender care to prevent their offence OBJECT But you will urge againe and say The false Teachers did urge them as necessary ANSWER I answer What then So did the Christian Iewes at Ierusalem yet Paul himselfe used them there Acts. 21. 23. 24. 26. 27. notwithstanding the corrupt opinion of worship and Necessity which they put upon them as much as ever did the false Teachers in Galatia OBIECTION Why then will you say did Paul blame that in Peter which he practised himselfe Answer He had indeed blamed Peter for that which he practised himselfe if he had therefore blamed him for practising such Ceremonies because they were urged by others with a corrupt opinion of Necessity and worship QVERE What was then the difference that made the practise of Paul lawfull in using the Ceremonies at Ierusalem and the practise of Peter unlawfull in using the same Ceremonies at Antioch ANSWER J answer The difference was this Though that corrupt opinion of the necessity of the Ceremonies prevailed alike in both places Yet the Ceremonies themselves had not the like warrant in both places In Ierusalem they were knowne to have been the Commandements of God and were not yet knowne to the Christian Iewes to have been abrogated and therefore at Jerusalem they had warrant from God to use them to avoyd the offence of the weake Iew there But at Antioch and in all other Churches of the Gentiles they were at best but things Indifferent as having never been commaunded of God there Whence it was that Peter saw his Liberty to forbeare them there at his first comming QVERE What was then the Sinne of Peter in resuming the practises of the Ceremonies there ANSWER His Sinne was double First the abuse of his authority in the Church for that unawares by his Example he compelled the Gentiles to the use of such Ceremonies as himselfe saw Liberty to forbeare amongst them And which having never been commaunded by God to them he had no power to impose on them His other sinne was the dissembling or concealing of his Christian Liberty which he should then then have stood upon when he saw the false teachers urge these Ceremonies upon the Gentiles as well as upon the Iewes to the prejudice of their Christian Liberty When things that are indifferent are commaunded to be done of necessity as now
m Hierom de scripto Eccl. with others in the lives of Cyprian Tertul. prâ—fixed to their workes n Cookes Censura p. 13. o Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. p De praes adv haer p 182 189. Ad uxoreÌ„ l. 2 128 129 130 De Coronr Militis p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ent q Diaelogus cum Tryphone and Apol. 2. r Sterâ—at l. 1. 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus 〈◊〉 CoenaÌ„ DominicaÌ„ s Page 43. 44. 45. 46 t Apol. adv â—entes u Replie to Harding Artic. 3. divis 26. p. 144. x The 3. part of the Homily against the Paril of Idolatrie p 66. 67. y â—e Calep. Holioke in their Dictionar Ara. z Epist. l. 1. Epist. 7. in Erasin Epist. 74. a Epist. l. 1 Epist. 9. Epist. 69. in Pamel b Epist. l. 1 Epist. 12. Apud PameliuÌ„ 70. p. 101. c Bastards of the false Fathers p. 11. to 18 d Censura p. 75. to 82 e Se Cookes Censura D. Lâ—nes D. Favar f Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. g Epist. l. 2 Epist. 3. in Pamelius Epist. 63. h Concil Carthag 1 Can. 6. 9. 3. Can. 15. 4. Can. 18. 20. * Tui opinionem nominis enormiter gravat quod causas sanguinis agis quod abjecta Ecclesiarum solicitudine negocijs seculariâ—us te tottâ—m occupas involuis Verum tamen tui professio ordiniâ— nec degeneres saeculi curas nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost dicit Secularia negotia si habueriâ—is eos qui contemptibiliores sunt inter vos ad judicanduÌ„ eligite Non decet ordinem profeffionis tuae in alea tanti diutius ludere salute anime spietate adeâ— damnabiliter secularibus involuere montemque Seir Bariginoso spiritu circumine Petr. Blesens Epist. 42. ad Epist. Camoracenj i Fox Acts monum p. 1211. k Se Hâ—d Cant. Oâ—or l 3 s. 271 l See Novells Reproof of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. m In his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell n Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. on Hebr. 13. sect 6. o See Reynolds Conf with Hare c. 8. div 4. p Garner deEuchar others forecited q De Eucharistia or the Sacrament of the Altar r Peter Martyr Defensia adâ— Gard. deEuchar 2. William Wraghton 3 William Salisbury * vel propter artâ— latriam vitandam tutius erit ut sedengenu flectens mensae Dominicae populus accumbere assuescant They therfore used 〈◊〉 sit at the Sacrament in King Edwards dayes to avoyd the peril of adoration 4. Iohn Bale Bishop of Osyris 5. B. Pilkington 6. Thomas Becon * Heb. 13. Altars not tollerable among Christians Christ his Apostles and the primative Church used tables at the ministration of the holy CoÌ„munion O cruell butchers O murtherers Masses why they serve The Lords Table cast out of the Temples Dan. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Ceremonies The apparell of the Massemongers The gesture which the Masse mongers use in their Masse The Masse mongers Trinkets * Lib 2. Offic. c. 18. Altares Note Exod. 2â— When Altars came first into the Church A Table more meet for the ministration of the Lords Supper then an Altar * Heb. 10â— Of gestures to be used at the Lords Table Of kneeling Of standing Of sitting * Note Of vestures at the ministration of the Lords Supper Surplesse * See D. Rainolds conference with Hart c. 8. divis 4. 5. Haddon contra Osorium lib. 3. fol. 285. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe fol. 66. And Thomas Becons Comparison between the Lords Supper the Popes Masse Bishop Iewel Defence of the Apologie part 3. c. 5. divis 1. * See Fox Acts and Monum p. 1873. 1356. 1366. 1384. 1405. 1604. 1781. 1834. 1837. accordingly 7. Deane Nowell * Chrysost. Hom. â—18 in 2. Cor. August Tract 26. in Ioan. multi multis locis Hierom ad Demetriadem ad Nepotian 8. Walter Haddon 9. D. Fulke * Note 10. M. Calfehill 11. Bishop Babington 12. M. Cartwrigt * Optatus l 6. Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. vid. Euse. l. 10. ex orat panegyr in Eucariâ—s vid. Aug. de civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. Item de consecr distinct 2. * Origen cont Cels. l. 4. Volat. vid. volat venerer contr Floretum l. 4. Beat Rhen Ep. praefix Leiturg Chrysost. Heb. 13. 4. Tit. 2. 5. 1. The. 4. 4 13. D. Willet Object 1. Answer 1. * See William Salisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter * Fox Acts monum p. 1806. * Confutation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1. 1 William Salisbury * Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gaddes of stele digesteth them * The Bee gathereth hony on the same flour that the Spider gathereth poyson 2 Richard Woodman ast; Fox Acts monum p. 1806. The B. of Chichester rightly answered of his man according to his question Sacram of the Altar The Altar how it is to be taken where it is Christ the true and only Altar 3 D. Fulke 5 D. Rainold a In Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia b Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus c Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 25. d Epist. 86. de Civitat Dei 18. c. 27. l. 22 c. 10. Confesse l. 11. 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21. e Theph in Matth. 23. f Aretheas in collect exposit in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert Com. 8. in Apocalyp 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Masse g The Rhemists in their Annotat on the New Testament h Greg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii Chrysoâ—t demonstr quod Christus sit Deus Homil. in Matth. 16. 8. 3. in priâ—r Epist. ad Corinth 24. 27â— ad populum Antioch 60. 61. Sermon de Euchar. de B. Philogenio Sâ—crat Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract in Iohan 26. de verbis Domini Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint c. 11. i Prudent Hym. de S. Laur. CoÌ„c Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor etymol. ar l. 7. â— 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Lev. Epi. 79. aâ— Dioscer k The Booke of Com. prayâ— in the Commun l Iustin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. 5. Lev. Serm. 4. de quadrag m Concil Constant. Sess. 13. Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can 2. n Durandus in rational divinor officiis l. 4. c. 53. †Panis benedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius 6 D. Willeâ— 7 David Dickson 8. King Iames. Object 2. o Treatise of Gods house p. 2. Answer 1. p See B. Iewels Replie to Harding Art 1. div 5. p. 5. q In their forecited places m See this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. others of the Masse n Fox Acts monnm p. 1211. Service Sacraments * Page 61. 62. * By like D. Heylyn wâ—o playes tâ—e ignoraÌ„t Lawyer to
in his hist. of the Sabbath part 2. c. 7 8. a Treatise of Gods house p. 2. b Service Sacraments 1. a Shelford p. 2. 7. â— b Fox Acts monum p. 1211. 1212. c Fox Acts monum p. 1703. d Ibidem p. 1211. e Fox Actâ— monum p. 1404. 1406. * Rerum Germanic Script m. 1. p. 5â—0 591. * Platina Nâ—col 3. * De Vitis pont Rom p. 68. 69. * See Thomas Beacons reliq of Rome Object 3. a Coale froÌ„ the Altar p. 30. 53. 54. Answer 1. b Se Orme â—ods Pagano-Papisâ— l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform Object 4. Se the Coale p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52. a The hom against the Perill of Idol Se p. 41. 42. 61 b An. Mel. Musoe print An. 1620. p. 24. * Sorde sepulta sua * Pingit religioâ—a lupam So the first Copy but the corrected as in the Text. Object 5. A Coale from the Alt. p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer * 37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts Monum p. 1181. 1192. B. Iewels life before his workes sect 25. Answer 1. o Fox Acts Monuments p. 1404. 1406. p Dc Reâ—us Ecclesiasticis l. 4. c. 19. q Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. 1212. r Page 19. s Page 51. Alatitâ—dine t Page 23. 24. v Page 23. x Fox Acts monuments p. 1211. 1212. y Coale p. 20. 71. z Page 13 a 5. 6. E 6. 1. Ely â— 2. Fox Acts Mounments p 1211. 1212. Object 6. b Coale p. 22. Answer 1. c In their fore cited places words Object 7 d Coale p 58 59 60 61. c. Answer 1. e Bishop Wrens visitation Articlos which other k Cole pag. 62. 8 Object l Coale from the Altar pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiuuated * Fox acts Monuments p. 1212. Answer 1. m Declaration before the 32 Articles concerning the dissolution of the Parleament p. 21.42 Object 9. n Coale from the Altar p 63 64 c Answer 1. o Bishop Wren in his Articles for Norwich Diocesse Bishop Percie for Bath and Wels. p In their seueral visitation Articles * Doctor Heylyn as most giue out some Circumstances discover q Papc 21. 42. 43 * where 25. or 30. yeares makes a good Prescription * Who licensed it * Like a Persecutor not an Apostle * It seemes they come to Church with poluted hands sâ—inking soules that they thus needed water incense * One Preist can consecrate the Sacrament what need then 4. neither of them a Bishop contrary to the Canons to Consecrate the Altar It sermes the Altar is more holy then the Sacrament which hath but one to hallow it * Defiled belike with the very Consecration of the Altar have Altar-clothes * It s well they would allaw an afternoone sermon to grace this Dedication since they admit none their since * Quod Nota. * Quod Nota. * This was an holy Dedication of an Altar indeed belike it was to Bacchus not to God a Aquinas 1â— 2â— quaestioÌ„ 1. Artic 1. 2. 1â— Quaest 6. Ar 1. 2. b Aquinas 1â— 2â— Quaest 1. Ar. Iâ— Ar 32 â— 2. 2â— qu. 189. Ar 〈◊〉 c Aquinas 1â— 2â— qu. I. Art 3 qu 96 Art 1. 1. 2â— qu. 8. Art 2. So Occhum Scotus BonaveÌ„ture Aegydius DuraÌ„dus Lambard Medis Vil la Bacon all the Schoolmen Keckerman Zabarell Magyrus Ruuio all Logiciaha e GeÌ„ 8. 20. Levit. 1. 6. to 9. c. 2. 9. c. 7. 31. Exod. 20. 24. f Bellarm. de Missa I. 1. c. 2. Sum. Angelica Tit. Altar g Fox Acts Montiments p. 121. 1212. B. Morton Institution of the Sacrament p. 463. h MagnuÌ„ Chron Belgioâ—â—m i Thomas Beconlikeliques of Rome k Page â— l Homilie of the wor thy receiving of the SacrameÌ„t part 1. p. 198. Ediâ— 1632. m P. 200. q Col. p. â— 16. 17. r Colefronâ— the Altar p. 4. line 19. 20. s Epistle to the reader I am to advertise thee c. Thou wouldest take notice and so many doe that the RomaÌ„â— is the words of the Author t Of the Sacram. part 1. p. 198. u Which some scaÌ„dalously terme An unrevereÌ„s unseemly gesture as if Christ his Apostles were unreverent instituted received the SacrameÌ„t in an unreverent unseemly manner w In imitaâ—ion of Popish Preists whoâ—â— so title themselves in the fronts of their bookes * See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. lib. 6. c. 3. Sect. 1. 2. 3. x B. Morton Ibid p. 415. 461 y D. Reynolds confer with Hart. p. 446. to 473 D. Fulke Rhem. Testament Notes on Heb 7. c. 9. 10. z Heylyn Pocklinton others a B. Morton Instit. of the Sacrament â—6 c 3. b Pag. 134 135 142. 144. 145. See B. Morton his Institution of the Sacrament l. c. 3. throughout and in the proceeding and enseâ—ving â—hapters D Fulke and Mr. Cartâ—rigâ— in the conâ—utation of the Râ—em Testament on Hebr. 7. 8. 9 10. to the sameâ—â—â—pose c See Bis-MortoÌ„ his Institution of the Sacrament l. 6. c. 3. 4. 5. 6. throughout d Of the worthy receiving esteeming of the Sacrament p. 200. e 2 Tim. 4 1â— 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2 f 27. Eliz. c. 2 See Rastall Recusantes Ieâ—uites Seminary-Preistes Rom. service and SacrameÌ„nts c. g See Raâ—â—all Title Mort h See summa Angelica Rosella Tit. consecrat c. Et ratr de Consecrationis distinct 1. 16. Antonâ— Corseti Râ—portoriuÌ„ Tit. Consecratio i Of the Idolat The right use of the Church the time and place of prayer k Foliâ— 91. 92. 93. l Page 210 414 m Exposition of Ageus c. 2. v. 2. 3 and c. 1. v. 7. 8. n Acts 7 p 1 Tim. 2. * Note this q Iohn 4 r 2. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 27â— H. 8â— cap. 15. 37. Hâ— 8. c. 17â— 32. H. 8. c. 3 a Deus Natura Gratia in sundâ—â—e pages b Sunday no â—abbath p. 2â— 48. Edit 1. c See Bis â—â—audes Wrens Pearce Whites and other of their Articles to this purpose * Creâ— Church the Chappell at Hamorsâ—â—th others d Summa Angelica Tit. consâ—cratio Ecclesiae * See Pontificale Episcoporum de consecratione Ecclesiae Mr. Calfe hill his answer to Marshall F. 93. 94. 95. 96. e Of the Perill of Idolatrie f See Summa Angelica Rosella Tit Symonia g Seâ— Brook Fitz. habent Ristal Tit. extortion * 1636. h Of the Perill of Idolatrie The Right use of the Church The Time and Place of Prayer i 2 H. 5. c. 21. H. 8. c. 21. Cooks Iustitutes f. 344. a. and other Law books there cited l 1. Eliz. c. 1. m Antiqu. Ecces Brit in late Fox Acts and MonumeÌ„ts p. 1774. to 1782. n Antiqu Eccles. Brit passim o 36. H. 8. p. 13. p See 5. H. 6. parts â—â— in this Roâ—s q Cooks Institut F. 334. a Brooke Praemunire 21. 21. E. 3 60. a