Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	north_n	side_n	south_n	2,400	5	9.1749	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10197	A quench-coale. Or A briefe disquisition and inquirie, in vvhat place of the church or chancell the Lords-table ought to be situated, especially vvhen the Sacrament is administered? VVherein is evidently proved, that the Lords-table ought to be placed in the midst of the church, chancell, or quire north and south, not altar-wise, with one side against the wall: that it neither is nor ought to be stiled an altar; that Christians have no other altar but Christ alone, who hath abolished all other altars, which are either heathenish, Jewish, or popish, and not tollerable among Christians. All the pretences, authorities, arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford, Edmond Reeve, Dr. John Pocklington, and a late Coale from the altar, to the contrary in defence of altars, calling the Lords-table an altar, or placing it altarwise, are here likewise fully answered and proved to be vaine or forged. By a well-wisher to the truth of God, and the Church of England.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1637 (1637)	STC 20474; ESTC S101532	299,489	452

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 Insti●●●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 co●piled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Gr●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 no● busines nor person nor of any other thing but their owne will and vaine glory N● pusillis in re●us 〈◊〉 ce●e●a volu●● 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 Successo●r Ou● 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 Churche● 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

Communion Tables were of a different forme from the Altars then in Churches being both longer broder then Altars wich were all most perfectly square but Tables all most as long againe as brode They could not therfore be situated in the same individuall precise place as the Altars stood being thus different in proportion forme from them This is the Coales owne argument even against it selfe 2. Because the Coale itselfe confesseth that Altars were incorporated fixed unto this wall that Tables were not to be so therfore they were not to be placed punctually in that place in such sort ar the Altars stood were placed by his owne confession 3. Because the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke prescribes that the Minister at the time of administring consecrating the Sacrament shal stand at the North side of the Table not at the North end which clearly determines that the Table ought to be situated Table-wise with the sides or Longest squares of it North and South not Altar wise with the ends of it North South and the sides of it East and West against the Wall as some popish Altars stood And therfore the Jnjunction never intended that it should be set in the very precise place where the Altar was in the selfe same manner as it was situated for the Table being but a long square not a perfect Quadratum hath but two sides two ends the narrowest square of it being ever in our Engish Tongue termed an end not a Side the longest square only a SIDE And though Geometricians vsually terme every square* Latus in Latine which we translate a side wich yet more properly signifieth the breadth then the length of a thing and so rather the end then the side yet we in our English phrase ever call the long square only the side and the Narrew the end The Rubrike therfore beeing first compiled in English for English men according to the usuall meaning of the English phrase not to shew any termes of Art or skill but to direct instruct both Ministers people in the most plaine familiar way the word North-side must needs ' be interpreted of the long-side of the Table standing Northward which we ever phrase the side not of the narrowersquare set Northward which we ever heretofore and still phrase the North-end Wherfore the shife used by the Coalier That the North-end and the North-side come both to one there being no difference in this case between them he that stands and ministreth at the North-end of the Altar standing no question at the North-side there of as inpropertie of speech we ought to call it cujus contrarium verum est since we neither use nor ought so to call it in our English dialect is but a mere ridiculous evasion a miserable shift Neither wil his Objection that the Communion prayer Booke done into Latine by command authorised by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth in the 2. yeare of her raigne translates it Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem pa tem c. avayle him Since SEPTENTRIONALIS PARS though it may signifie the Northerne end of the Table as well as the North-side in case the end of it were so situated yet here signifies only the North-side not end of the Table the North-side being the Norh-part of the Table as well as the end the originall English which it Translates the North-side not end and the Tables at the time of this Translation standing with the Long-side not the end of it towar● the North. 4. Because the Queenes visitors and the whole Kingdomne thus interpreted it even in point of practise by placing all the Communion Tables in all Churches at that very time by vertue of this J●junction and the Rubrike not Altarwise with the two ends North and South and the sides East West along by the wall but Table-wise with the two long sides North and South and the ends East and VVest a good distance from the wall as they have stood from 1. Elizabeth till now of late without any Alteration as experience and all aged men who well remember how the visitors placed them with our fore cited writers prove past all contradiction Neyther were they thus placed by casualty but of set purpose to difference them from Popish Massing Altars even in point of situation to teach the people that thy were Tables to eate and drinke at not Side-Tables or dressers as the Epistoler observes If then the Queens owne visitors and all those throughout the Kingdome whether Ministers or Church wardens who had a hand inplacing the Communion Tables vpon the removing of Altars did thus interpret the Injunction not of the precise place where the Altar stood or manner of its standing with the one side against the East-wall of the Quiere under the East-window but only of that part of the Church where the Altar stood and there upon situated the Tables throughout all England and Wales not Altar-wise but Table-wise only as is before expressed an experimentall truth past all contradistion then certainely there can be nothing in this Injuncttion prescribing them to be now new placed Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Chancel in that precise forme place and manner as the Altars stood as our Novellers now froms hence most fondly contend 3 Finally admitt these words might ●simplie consider ed be taken in that strict senc as some now would haue them yet the following words and shal be appointed by the Commissioners not the Bishops or Ordinaries who are expresly excluded though the Coale would make the prime men which relate as well to the placing as to the covering of the Table leaves the manner and precise place of Situs to the Commissioners appointement since the very places wherein the Altars formerly stood were not so sitting to sett the Table in in many Churches as some other place in the same part of the Church or Chauncel All which considered this Injunction gives no warrant at all for the late removing of our Tables railing them in Altarwise for wich the Coale is so hote fiery Now where as the Coale would willinglie make the world beleive that this Injunction saith that the removing of Altars was a thing of no great moment so that for ought it appeares unto the Contrary neither the Article nor Homily nor the Queenes Injunctions nor the Canons 1571. haue determined any thing but that as the Lords-Supper may be called Sacrifice so may the Holy Table becalled our Altar and set up in the place where the Altar stood 2. I answer That these words in the Injunction There semeth noe matter of great moment referrs not to Altars as if the removing or standing of them were a matter of no great moment for then the Parleament King and Councel in King Edwards dayes would not have so carefully removed them out of Churches expuoged their very name out of

Calendas we may well demurre to this second reason Of which more fully anon Only to retort the reason let me argue thus The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven in the Church-Bible and midst of his people not at the East end of the Church where none must sit neare him as I bare else-where proved And in every good Christians heart Ergo these not the Table are to be bowed unto As for his Chaire of State That it ought alwayes to be bowed unto I thinke when it is in the ward-robe Cart Imbroy derers or upholsters shop c. should have been excepted he must shew us some Law or Statute for it ere we can beleeve it And though some men bow unto it now and then because the King sits some times personally in it This Gentleman must prove that God sits personally some-times on the Table which he can hardly doe But he and others tell us that God sits alwayes there Very good Then I thus retort the similitude No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chaire of State when the King himselfe is sitting in it but only when he is absent For when the King his in it they never doe it but bow only and immediately to the King without any respect to the Coaire Therefore since God is alwayes sitting on the Table they ought not to bow or doe any reverence to it at all And so this Simitude cuts the throate of their cause if rightly paralleld and applied This will likewise overthrow his Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise else-where at large refelled Here also writes he it is to be considered unto the honouring of Gods holy name of his Table rather in what place of the Chauncell Gods Board or Seat should stand Doth not nature itselfe teach us that in every common house the Seate of the chiefest should be above every inferiour And should not Christianitie teach us that no Seate of any person much lesse of any of the Laity it seemes then the Cleargie may sit above God himselfe if they please should be above Gods mercy Seate the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chauncell c. And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chauncell is it not decent that the ends thereof thus this Expositour and Patron of the Common-Prayer-Booke dares controll it be towards North and South The Holy Ghost commaundeth all things to be done decently and according unto order Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South against the expresse order of the Common-Prayer-Booke And if it ought so to be in all things much more ought it to be in every thing about Gods house especially in the standing of his Sacred Seate As if this Seate stood very undece●tly and quite out of order unlesse the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order But of this me●ry profound Divinity hereafter This only by the way for a Breakfast The Authour having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners That we are all bound in conscience for to learne believe and obey whatsoever is commaunded in the Commuuion-Booke Homilies Booke and Constitutions or Canons Booke All which condemne his bowing to and placing of the Table North and South And so by his owne censure not speaking according to the Communion Booke Doctrine J may with a safe conscience before God affirme that there is no light of Gods holy spirit within him They are his owne words and censure of all those who speake not according to the Communion Booke Doctrine which himselfe professedly speakes against in all these and other passages But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise NOTE THIS It appeares by Num. 1. 50. c. c. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Campe of Israel and the Levites were there commaunded to encampe ROVND ABOVT IT To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. c. 7. 11. hath relation as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large It is also evident by Numb 3. 26. c. 4. 26. And the hanging for the dore of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROVND ABOVT c. That the Passage in the Counsell of Constantinople where the same phrase is used is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it the words being the same both in Latine Greeke and English in all places TO THE CHRISTIAN READER CHRISTIAN READER it is storied of Croesus his dumbe-borne Sonne that when he saw a Persian Captaine going to stay his Father his filiall affection was so stirred in him at the sight that though he never spake before yet then he brake forth into these words O man doe not kill Croesus And so saved his Fathers life What this dutifull Sonne thus unexpectedly uttered being ever before tongue-tied out of his endeared love to his naturall Father I am here constrained out of my loyall respects to my spirituall Mother the Church of England publikely to speake to some treacherous seeming-Sonnes of hers who have almost stabbed her to the heart under a specious pretence of fighting for her in some late printed workes O man doe not murther and betray my Mother the Church of England Even as Iudas once did our Saviour with a kisse whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholy for her Alas when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles and the Booke of Common-Prayer to which you have all subscribed When I see you raking the very ashes and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent Iewel Raynolds Whitaker Fulke Willet Perkins with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Romes greatest Goliahs whom you never durst so much as looke upon by way of Opposition in their life times proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings When I behold you siding with the Papists maintaining their Antichristian Errours Doctrines Ceremonies abuses before all the world without blush or shame Defending their Erronious Writers against our famous Orthodox Authours whose blessed memories you seeke causelesly to steine When I behold you avowing even in print That the Church of Rome is a true Church That personall Succession of Bishops is requisite and Essentiall to make a true Church That the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England derive their lineall Succession and Episcopall dignity from S. Peters Chaire and the very Sea of Rome and that we should not acknowledge them for Bishops in case they either did not or could not doe so That the Pope of Rome or Papacy is not the Antichrist Nor Antichrist yet come or

sayth Christ is the light of the worlde Ergo. Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise at the East end of the Church This ce●tainely is but a madd Consequence For first Christ is noe Corporall or naturall but a spirituall and supernaturall light enlightninge mens understandings only by the light of his word his grace and spirit John 1. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Heb. 6. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal. 19. 8. not their corporall eyes 2. Hee is an universall light in this respect John 1. 8. 9. not scituated or fixed in the East but diffused over the whole worlds as farr as his Church is spread 3. The place where this light is ordinarily dispensed in the readinge preachinge of his word is not the Communion Table o● Altar but the Pulpitt readinge deske standinge for the most part about the midst of our Churches not at the East but West end of our Chancells 4. There is no Analogie betweene the Communion Table and light unlesse in respect of those Candlesticks unburninge tapers which some Popish Novellers place for a double shewe upon it contrarie to the Homilies Articles which expressely condemne them 5. Light is of a diffusive nature spreadinge it selfe into every quarter-indifferently torches or Candles that give light are Commonly placed in the midst Math. 5. 15. not at the East end of the roome or Table that they maye give light to all that are in the house Witnes the greate Lamp in the midst of Paules Quire or greate braunched Candlesticks in the midst of our Churches that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 15. Amonge whom yee shyne as lights of the worlde in the MIDST of a crooked and perverse Nation The Candlesticks Lampes amonge the Jewes were placed not in the East but South-side of the Tabernacle Exod. 40. 24. 25. In the Temple the Candlesticks that were placed 5. on the Northside 5. on the South 2. Chron. 4. 7. but none in the East end So that from these particulars it appeares that there is no Analogie betweene light and the Couimunion Table that if any argument maye bee thence deduced for its scituation it will bee but this That it ought to stand in the midst or in the South or Northside of the Church because the Lamps lights Candlesticks were are soe placed in the Tabernacle Temple and most of our Churches and Christ is sayd to bee and walke in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. ● 13. 20. c. 2. 2. For the second braunch of this argument Christ is a branch for soe Oriens is used Zeph. 6 12. the place hee quotes Ergo the Lords Table ought to stand at the East end of the Church As it is a ridiculous Inconsequent fitt for a Cambridge Ignoramus where this good Logicall argument with many such like was printed so there is little Analoges betweene branches Lords Tables unlesse in regard of matter For First Trees and branches growe not in Churches or Temples 2. They springe upp are planted as well West North and South as East are Commonly planted with us West South to avoid the East North blastinge windes 3. Christ is a branch yea a tree of life seituated not in the East but in the midst of the Paradice of God Rev. 2. 7. of which the tree of knowledge of good and evill in the midst of Paradice Gen. 2. 9. c. 3. 3. was but a tipe This allusion therefore as it is impertinent there beinge no similitude betweene the Lords Table a branch so ● proves that the Communion Table shoulde bee placed in the midst of the Church because Christ the tree of life and the tree of knowledge typifyinge him were planted in the midst of Paradize a tipe of the Church For the third That Christ shall come out of the East Ergo the Communion Table ought to stand in the East end of the Church As this argument is taken out of Bellarmine l. 3. de Sanctis c. 3. who useth it to justifie and prove that wee onght to praye and build our Churches towards the East and well answeared and refuted by Doctor Willet in the name of the Protestants whoe condemne this superstition which many nowe pleade for So it is built upon a false foundation For first no Scripture sayth That Christ shall come to Iudgment from the East but that hee shall come in the Cloudes Rev. 1. 7. Math. 24. 30. and soe come againe as hee ascended Acts 1. 11. But hee ascended upright in a cloude into heaven not East ward Acts 1. 9. 10. 11. Luke 24. 51. Marke 16. 19. Therefore hee shall so discend Heaven beinge neither East West North or South in regard of the Earth its Center but diametrally about it And soe Christs discent from it must bee such 1. Thess. 4. 16. 2. That text of Math. 24. 27. As the lightninge commeth out of the East and shineth Even unto the West so shall the comminge of the sonne of man bee as all Orthodox divines generally accord relates only to the celeri●ie sodainenes and terriblenes of Christs comminge to judgment which shall bee as swift as suddaine and terrible as lightninge 1. Cor. 15. 52. 1. Thess. 4. 16. c. 5. 2. 3. 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rev. 6. 12. to the end Luke 21. 34. 35. Marke 13. 32. to 37. which thus explaine it not to that part of heaven from whence hee shall descend which if it bee East in respect of one part of the world must yet bee West North South as to other parts in relation to that Clymate or Country to which hee shall descend the worlde beinge plainely Circular globall havinge no angles nor squares so no East West North or South if simplie considered in it selfe 3. Admitt that Christ shoulde come to Iudgment out of the East in respect of England and these partes of the worlde yet this is no Reason to prove that our Communion Tables shoulde bee placed at the East end of our Chauncells Altarwise for then no doubt the primitive Christians woulde have so placed it not in the midst of their Churches For First the Lords Table serves only for the administration of the Sacrament instituted to shewe forth Christs till hee come 1. Cor. 25. 26. not to demonstrate the manner of his second comminge to Iudgment to which the Table hath no relation Christs second comminge therefore havinge no reference to the Communion Table nor the Table to it can bee noe argument for its Easterlie scitnation 2. The Apostle in the 1. Cor. 11. in all matters Circumstances concerninge the administration of the Sacrament sends us only to Christs originall institution not to his second Comminge But the Table at which hee instituted the Sacrament stood in the midst as I have proved Therefore our Communion Tables shoulde so stand nowe let Christs come to Iudgment which waye hee please 3. Christs gives us this charge by his Apostles do all things decently and in

wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood there commonly covered as thereto belongeth shal be appointed BY THE VISITORS and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed at which time the same shal be so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon saye with in the body of the Church or chancell which makes me suspect that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer ministration the Communicants also more conveniently in more number communicate with the sayd Minister and after the Communion done from time to time the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before In which Injunction much wrested insisted on by the Cole these particulars are remarkable to stoppe the mouthes of our moderne Innovators First that Communion Tables are no Altars nor ought to be so stiled they being here put in opposition contradistinction one to the other though some now confound bind them together as one 2. That all Altars were removed ordered to be removed by vertue and forme of a Law therfore provided to witt the Statute of Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them Therfore the bringing in setting up of Altars now and the calling of Communion Tables Altars is against that Law and the Booke of Common Prayer 3. That the setting up continuance of Communion Tables and the calling of them by this name was and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars or High-Altars against the Law 4. That all Altars were generally removed enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls in the Queenes owne Chapples for better example unto others So that the erecting of Altars in them or any of them must needs be a late Novelty contrary to Law to this Injunction and a grosse Non-conformity 5. That the care of Taking downe Altars setting up Communion Tables was committed to the Curate Church-wardens of each parish not the Bishop yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars and displace the Tables Altarwise 6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen her Successors that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers as their Visitours having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abundantly evidence 7. That the ordering of the Situation covering of the Communion Tables is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocesse but to the Queenes Visitors who were then specially appointed by her Commission as they were in King Henry the 8. King Edwards dayes many of them being Lay-persons Which Visitours placed them Tablewise not Altarwise in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since till with in these two or 3. yeares last past 8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell and there to stand unmoveable even when the Sacrament is administred the Injunctions expresly prescribing that where ever it stand before yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed it shal be removed into such part of the Chancell or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard c. after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before Which word shal be is not a baer arbitrary permission only as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it but a direct pr●●●pt as is the later-clause by his owne confession else the Churchw●rdens might choose whither they would remoue the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised I come now to answer the objection being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them First then I answer that this clause set in the place where the Altar stood implies not but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle for all Altars were not so situated before this Injunction The Altar in Carmarthen Church was placed in the middest of the Church without the Quire The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches Chapples built North or North and South stood at the South end of the Quire not the East in many Churches some Altats stood one way some an other some West some North and South as walafridus Strabus witnisseth● but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire as the Promises evidence The Author of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres or Chauncles in the place where now he would have them situated which he can never doe else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe but marre his cause make poinct-blanke against him since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall but in the place where the Altar stood so that where the Alter was placed in the midst west North or South end of the Church or Chancle the Table was to be there situated likewise 2. By The place where the Altar stood is not to be interpreted so precisely that it must stand in that particular individuall place or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood for this certainly was not the meaning but in the place that is in that end of the Church where the Altar stood to witt in the midst of the Church if the Altar stood there or in the East West North or South end of the Church where the Altars were so severally situated or in the Chauncel where the Altar formerly stood in the Chann●le that this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction not that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere as our Innouators expound it is most apparant by these Reasons 1. First Because the

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 p●opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors Innouat●rs together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts Questions to th●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

Statutes of Mort c. In witnesse whereof c. Witnesse the King at Westminster the 1● day of November in the 31. yeare of the reigne of King Henry the 8 c. Teripsum Regem From which Patent truely transcribed out of the Rolls where it it is in Lattine I observe First that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches Chappels or Church-yeards without a speciall License from the King himselfe under his Great Seale Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories Visitations inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures suspend or silence Ministers and the like without such a speciall grant or Licence And so their Episcopall jurisdiction not ●ure divino but meerly humane by the Kings grant and institution Secondly that after such a License given them by the King under his great Seale they cannot yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church Chappel or Church-yeard without suing forth a spec●all Patent out of the Chauncery under the Great Seale particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses to consecrate such such a Church Chappel or Church yeard in speciall much more then must they have the like speciall Patent and Commission to keep Courts Visitations suspend or silence Ministers and the like which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out but goe on of their owne heads in and by their owne Episcopall authorities for the most part for which a Paemunire lies against them Thirdly that every consecration is and makes a Mortmani● Therefore it is against the Law and must have a speciall License and warrant from the King under his Great Seale as this Patent prescribes Fourthly this Patent allowes neither the Bishops nor their Officers to take any fees at all for any such consecrations Therefore the fees they exact for them are meere extortions for which an Inditement or Bill lyeth in the Sta-chamber Fifthly they cannot inforce any man or Parish to have their Chappels Churches or Church-yeards consecrated unlesse themselves require and desire it may be done as some words in the Patent which for brevity sake I have omitted manifest and the words may nor shall consecrate implieth as much Sixtly that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altar-clothes which have a distinct peculiar forme of Consecration but only Churches Chappels Church-yeards After this King Henry the ● in the 37 yeare of his reigne by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford among other things granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Di●cesse Moreover without speciall grant from the King they had no such power For which cause it was then specially inser●e● into this and other Bishops Patents And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use But upon the change and reformation of religion which is worthy of observation i● quite vanished away as did many other Popish Superstitions by the abolishing of the Masse●Bookes Primers and Ceremonials which prescribed the manner and forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples and Church-yeardes by the Statutes of 2. 3. E. 6. c. 1. 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I finde not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edward● dayes by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2 One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches Chapples or Church-yeards though all other parts of Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall jurisdiction as keeping of Courts Visitations Probale of Wills granting of Letters of Administration suspending of Ministers upon Legall and just groundes c. be particularly granted them in those Patents Yet how To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS in o●● owne Royall Name Stead and Authority not their owne as the Patents of Scory Couerdale 5. Ed. 6. parsf in the Rolls with many others testify Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches Chapples 〈◊〉 Church-yards inserted into heir Patents in these latter dayes from the King under his Great S●ale authorizing them to keep Consistories Visitations prove Wills grant L●●ters of Administration Suspend Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiasticall Censures upon any Subj●ct Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law to execute any of those particulars aud what ever they doe in any of them is Coram non judice and but a meere Nullity especially their Consecration of Churches Chapples Church-yeards Altars for which they have neither Patent● Statute Article Injunction Canon or Orthodox Writer of our Church Or for those long since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication which they would now receive But of this enough for this present in which I have been the more prolix because it is a poiet of Law not hitherto discussed fully by any that I have mett with QVESTION IIII. The 4. Question I shall propound is this What Law or Canon there is to enjoyne Ministers to read the Epistle and Gosple or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table or to suspend them if they refuse to doe it when there is no Communion The reason of this demaund is five-fold 1. Because in truth there is no Statute Law Injunction or Canon extant prescribing any such thing 2. Because the Rubricke before the Communion ordaines that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID and the Preist standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table shall say the Lords prayer with thi collect following c. And the Rubricke at the end of the Communion ordaines thus Vpon the Holy-dayes if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homily concluding with the generall prayer c. But it sayth not that it shall then be sayd at the Communion Table Whence I observe 1. That the● Rubricke ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table but at such times only as there is a Communion 2. That when he reades service at it the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body or MIDDLE of the Church or Chappel where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be sayd So as the Pr●●st ought not to goe up to the Table or high Altar but they ought to be removed and brought downe to him as is cleare by th●s Rubricke and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82 Canon forecited if you read Whence I argue thus The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar but then only when it is removed and brought downe into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at as the Rubricke Injunction Canon resolve But the Table is not thus

last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church anciently and in Queen Elizabeths dayes And so it ought by Law to be now And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches because they had a Communion on those dayes But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men and the Ceremony to wit● the use of reading second service at the Table now fo●●oo●h at the High Altar as they call it only retained and urged Which ought not to be read there by Law as I have manifested unlesse there be a Commnion and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table as the Rubricke in the Communion the Queens Injunctions and 28. Canon prescribe not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table and the standing in the middest not 〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where 〈◊〉 can ●eare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN 〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read as the Common Prayer-Booke injoynes them Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables situated Altarwise reading it only in their Pewes appointed for that purpose as they do in Parish Churches else they may be lawfully indicted fined and imprisoned for it as egregious viol●ters of the statute of 1● Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer that they seeme so much to stand upon QVESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any and for pract se it hath beene otherwise The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round or in an Oual manner as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulcher at Ierusalem The famous Church of Tyre built by Paulinus Bishop of that city was otherwise situated For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof which fully discribes it informes us That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames and that there was a seperation with great distance betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch and the Porch standing thus Eastw●rds It is certaine that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest or West end of it not at the East in the middest whereof the same Sermon informes us the Altar stood The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct a●thority p. 53. That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon which sayth th●● the Porch stood Eastward and the Sanctuary a great distance from it in the middest of which the Altar stood So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch which stood Eastward Since this time the Churches as I have else-where manifested have been diversly situated according to the conveniency of the place Some being round or Ouall Others square Others standing North and South as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church with divers of the Kings owne Chapples And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges Hospitals Noblemen and Gentlemen And if this be not sufficient the very late Popish Chapple at Somersett-house with the new Church in Court Garden which as it stands not now perfectly East and West so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part Which some Prelates without Law Canon and reason I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end to the great expence of the builder the hindrance and deformity of that good worke which yet must not be used for a Church because not consecrated by a Bishops co●●ring white Rochet Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law utterly exploded as a Romish Relique If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches as is apparent there is not There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise Being the end for which J moved the Question And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle so as litle Antiquity For in Durantus his time one of the latest authorities Bish●p Iewel quotes who lived not above 400 yeares since the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire and not close against the wall as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell ●ites but by other passages By the Altar sayth he our heart is understood which is in the MIDDEST of the body ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church Moreover he informes us that in consecrating the Altar the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now close to the Easterno wall to signify that ●e ought to take care for all and be vigilant for all which is signified by CIRCUITUM by his compassing or going round the Altar And if this be not sufficient out of Isiodor Amalarius Fortunatus Rabanus Maurus and others fore-cited he thus defines a Quire Chorus est multitudo exsacris coll●cta dictus Chorus quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent ita psallerent Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire yet ab initio non fuit sic it hath been but of late times so even as the Papists themselves confesse Hence our Learned Dr. ●ulke

Augusta dedicated to S. Afra there were two Quiers in which were two Altars standing under two arches at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars the first cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys Versus Occidentem in parte septentrionali non juxta murum SED QUASI IN MEDIO that stood towards the West not East in the North part not close by the wall but as it were in MIDDEST Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus c. went round about it from foot high and more Anastasius writes of Pop● Theodorus that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar honoring him as the Preist of the royall City Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end of the Quire where the Bishops chaires and Seates now generally are placed or in the midst of the Quire or else B●shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churches● Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their East●rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates a●d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iew●sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull ●itting and de●ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violēt Innouators without any Lawfull authority for what end all England sees and knowes to well So as I may truly thus retort the argument that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes when their