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 shâw 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
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 preheminenâie or implements in them heretofoâe 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 mâns 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 Geneâa 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 superstitioâs 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 Bâle 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
heart itselfe and the mind and faith which have their cheife residence in the heart an ALTAR in respect of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse offred by faith on a pure heart as on a spirituall Altar and they stilââ the Communion Table an Altar only in this sence and in a figurative and improper speech as they call the heart mind end faith an Altar their phrasing of it an Altar only in this sence can be no Aâgument at all to prove that it is properly and in truth an Altar or in that sence as some now presse it And these other 3. the heart mind and faith which they terme an Altar being scituated not in the East part but in the middest of the temple of the body are a stonger evidence to prove that the Table ought to be scituated in the middest of the Church though it were an Altar as these 3 termed Altars are in the middest of the body then that the Table is properly an Altar and therfore ought to stand in the East end of the Quire Altarwise 5. Because the Scripture expresly condemnes Altars as Iewish abolished by Christ putting Altars Preists their waiting on the Altar as Iewish Heathenish in direct opposition to the Lords Tables Ministers preaching of the Gospell consecrating of the Lords Supper at his Table distinguishing Christ his Ministers from Aaron the Preists of his order in this that one of them was to give attendance at the Altar the other not as is evident by 3. remarkable Texts of Scripture The First of them is the 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite at the Altare are partakers of the Altar Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospell should live of the Gospell Where Preachers of the Gospell are directly distinguished from Preists waiting on the Altar and preaching of the Gospell in the one put in opposition to waiting on the Altar in the other The one being Euangelicall the other only Legall and abolished The next Text is that of 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread one body are all partakers of that one bread Behold Israell after the flesh are not they which eate of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar what shall I say then that the Idoll is any thing or that which is offred in Sacrifice to Idolls is any thing But I say that the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devills and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devills yee cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devills yee cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills wherein the first part the Ministers of the Gospell who blesse eate drinke participate of the Communion of the body blood of Christ partake of that bread at the Lords Table are distinguished from Israell after the flesh the Preists of Aaron who caâe of the Sacrifices offred upon Altars and are partakers of Altars and the Lords Table put in opposition to the Iewish Altars and in the second part the Sacrifices Cup Table of Devills and partaking of them put in opposition and contradistinction to the Cup and Table of the Lord and the eating and drinking of them The 3. Text is that of Heb. 7. 12. 13. 14. where Christ himselfe his Preisthood and Ministers are thus purposely distinguished from Aaron and the Leviticall Preists and Preisthood that one of them gave attendance at the Altar the other not For the Preisthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law For he of whom these things are spoken partainetââo another Tribe OF WHICH NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda of which Tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning Preisthood c. In which Text as David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Epistle of Paule to the Hebrewes with others observe the Apostle proveth that Aarons Preisthood is changed the Ordinance therof because Psal. 110. speaketh of Christs Preisthood after the order of Melchisedek that is freed from the service of the Altar and Christ was borne not of the Tribe of Aaron but of Judah of which no man gave attendant at the Altar to witt the materiall Altar commaunded in the Law To declare that Altars and giving attendance at Altars properly belonging to the Leviticall Preisthood were abolished by Christ the true Preist and Sacrifice of which they were but types And that as Christ himselfe was borne of the tribe of Judah of which no man gave attendance at the Altar so the Ministers of Christ under the Gosple who professe themselves of his Tribe and Stocke should by his example give no attendance at the Altar since he never did nor ought to doe it From this remarkable Text the Church of the forraigners in ânand An. 1550. when John de Alasco that Noble Polonian was their cheife Minister and Superintendent in the Confession of their faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and printed at London that same yeare Cum Privilegio make this the 5. note of Christs Kingdome THAT IT KNOWES NO ALTAR since he is of the tribe of Juda wherein NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR neither needeth he the furniture of any mysticall vestiments that he may enter into typicall Sanctuaries or Holy places all which things are abolished with this their Preisthood because the truth of those things which they did shadow out is exhibited And David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Hebrewes printed at Aberdence 1635. p. 126. 127. inferres from thence First that Christs Preisthood is freed from that Altar which God commaunded in the Law and all the service thereof 2. That an other Altar he knoweth not Christs Preisthood being declared to be freed from the service of this Altar no Law can tie it to any other 3. That whosoever will erect another materiall Altar in Christs Preisthood and tie his Church unto it as the Papists add and our New Prelates and Doctors doe now must looke by what Law they doe it 4. That negative Conclusions in matters of faith dueties follow well from the Scriptutes Silence It is not warranted from Scripture therfore I am not bound to beleive it Since the Apostle here reasoneth thus That none of the tribe of Judah attended the Altar because Moses speake nothing of that Tribe concerning the Preist-hood which overturnes all Preists Altars and attendance at Altars under the Gospell and the calling of the Lords-Table an Altar because the Scripture is silent and speakes nothing of them but against
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 chargeâh 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 âoc 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 wânt 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
so often as he shall doe any good or pions thing For God desires not a Sacrifice neither of a male creature neither of death blood but of a man and of life To which Sacrifice there is no need of Lawrell or sacred leaves to adore the Altar or rushes or greene turfes which verily are most vaine but of those things that are brought forth out of a sincere heart Therfore upon the Altar of God which is truly the greatest and is placed in the heart of man which cannot be defiled with blood is layd righteousnes Pretence faith innocence chastâty abstinence What meane Temples what Altars what finally Images themselves which are either the monuments of dead or absent persons After which he disputes excellently against Images shewing why Christians had none and concludes that Dâââlls were the Authors of Images wherfore without doubt there is no Religion where ever there is an Image From all these Fathers answers therfore it is most cleare and evident that the Christians in their times had neither Images nor Altars and that they held them both unlawfull unnecessary ranking them both together as Paganisme Iudaisme Idolatrââ they then using no Altars no not to consecrate the Sacramention for feare of inclining to Gentelisme or Iudaisme or hardning the Iewes or Gentiles in the use of their abolished idolatrous Sacrifices or Altars 3. These Histories forecited which affirme that Pope Sixtus the second about thâ ãâã 65. or 294 or after first brought in Altars into the Church will quite take of this absurd evasion For these Altars thus introduced by him were not for any bloody or externall Sacrifice such as the Iewes or Gentiles used but only to consecrate receive the Sacrament at as all acknowledge If then Altars even to administer the Sacrament at were then first brought into the Church and not before as Historians generally accord then certaynely the Christians before that time had no Altars âo not for the câlâbrating of the Lords Supper on and so these authorities of Origen Arnobius Minucius Faelix and Lactantius must necessarily be intended as all the forecited writers and our Homilies interpret them that Christians had no Altars at all in those times no not to celebrate the Sacrament on and then the shift in the Coale that they had Altars for this purpose but not for any bloody or externall Sacrifices must need be fabulous and forged having no Authority that I know to backe it in any writer Now whereas to justify this apparant falsehood as I have manifested it the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Arnobius stiling the Lord Table an Altar is pretended and so the name and thing itselfe used and knowen among Christians before that age I answer that these authorities in truth when once examined will vanish into smoke To take them according to their Antiquity not their Order The ancient maine Authority is that of Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar But this I shall afterward prove to be meant only of Christ himselfe not of the Communion Table as all the Fathers and ancient expositors our owne writers and Martyrs and all Protestant Divines accord without dissent or question So that this proves nothing That of the Apostles Canons the ãâã in pretended Antiquity hath been long since disclaimed branded as counterfeit coyne by all our learned writers and many Papists themselves yea as a spurious brat of some later age many hundred yeares after the Apostles and the puriest of these Fathers Neither are Ignatius his Epistles of any better authority being all forgid spurious aâ M. Cooke hath undeniably proved them But admit them true yet they made little to the purpose For that of his 6. Epistle ad Maguesianos is but this Runne all together into the Temple of God as to one Altar to one Jesus Christ the High Preist of the only begotten God That in his 9. Epistle to the Philadelphians but this There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one blood of his shed for us and one Cup which is distributed to us for all man one Altar to all the Church And that in his 7. Epistle of Tarsenses but this Esteeme Widdowes continuing in chastity as the Altar of God Neither of these stile the Communion Table the Altar the two first of them being meant of Christ the Church itselfe the last and first used figuratively and by way of similitude only the first applied to the Church the other to Widdowes neither to the Communion Table the thing in question That of Irenaeus the next auncient is to as little purpose his words advers Haereses l. 9. c. 20. being but these David was a Preist to God although Saul persecuted him Omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem yea all just men have a Preistly order or are Preists So all the Apostles of the Lord are Preists who neither inherit Feiles nor houses but alwayes serve God and the Altar of whom even Moses in Deutr. spake in the benediction of Levie who sayth to his Father and Mother I have not knowne thee c. Which Text speakes not of the Communion Table nor of any proper Preists or Altars but only of spirituall metaphoricall Preists Altars For it termed all righteous men Preists that attend on God and his Altar he sayth the Apostles were such when they plucked the eares of corne they then waiting on God and the Altar which was long before the Communion Table or Lords Supper was instituted so that here the Altar if properly meant is not the Lords Table but the Iewish Altar and that before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted If allegorically and spiritually it is meant only of Christ our spirituall Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 65. 9. on whom all the faithfull who are spirituall Preists 1. Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. doe waste not of the Lords Table at which none but Ministers serve and consecrate So that this makes nothing to the purpose What Irenaeus meanes by the Altar will appeare more evidently by his owne words Adv. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. where as he stiles the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but the Eucharist with which he joynes no other oblation used among Christians but only that of prayse and thankgiving neither of which requires an Altar so he writes that God will have us also offer a gift at the Altar to witt the Sacrifice of prayer and prayse frequently without intermission And least any one should here dreame of a materiall Altar here on earth he explaines himselfe what he meanes by the Altar and where this Altar is scituated in the very next words EST ERGO ALTARE IN CAELIS c. Therfore our ALTAR IS IN THE HEAVENS For thither all our prryers are directed Irenaeus therfore neither knew nor spake of any Altar that Christians then had but of Christ himselfe who is now in
same For the continuance whereof their Preistes needed also succession but Christ is a Preist for ever without succession as the Apostle Heb. 10. plainly teacheth Our service and Sacrifice now is the often and thankfull remembraunce of that only Sacrifice in the receiving of the Holy Sacrament at the Lords Table according to his owne institution Hoc facite in memoriam mei Doe this in remembrance of me with spirituall feeding by faith also upon that his most precious body and bloud so by him for us offered Touching the pulling downe of your Altars I answer they are justly destroyed as were those wicked Altars by Asa Josaphat Ezechias Josias godly Kings of Juda destroyed 4. Reg. 18. c. 22. 4 Reg. 23. 2. Para. 14. a. 3. 2. Para. 17. b. 6. 2. Para. 31. a. 1. 2. Para. 34. a. 4. For as abominable Idolatrie was committed on before your Altars as ever was upon and before those If yow require prouses hereof you shall have them in their due places of the Masse of Idolatrie to Images after which he complaines thus of the Papists also of Christians we have made us Jewes and your selves of Ministers of the Gosple have yow made Jewish and Aaronicall Levites yow have on Aarons robes yow use his gestures yow have brought in his incense his censers his Altars his candles his candlestickes his belles and his banner his gold and his silver into the service and Temple of God Of the which beginning of things S. Hierome in his time much coÌplained And would to God yow had done no worse then thus to make us your selves altogether Juish by your shadowes imitating and counterfeyting the old Law Elegant Walter Haddon M. Fox in his answer to Hierom Osorious lib. 3. fol. 271. write thus concerning Altars Now whereas thou sayest that Images signes Crosses and Altars are cast downe I suppose that this part of the Complaint doth not much appertaine to Luther or the Ministers of the Euaâgelicall doctrine when as they never put any hands to the pulling downe of them Neither is it equall that those who are but private men should by force Tumults take liberty to themselves to doâ any thing in the Common wealth or Church But if the Magistrates by their lawfull authority because they see it agreeable to the word of God doe piously and quietly doe their office therein what hath Osorius a private man and a stranger here either to scould at or to intermedle with it If King Sebastian shall thinke meet to cherish and follow these parts of the Roman Superstition in Altars in Images in Pictures and adoring Images he hath the voyces of the Scripture on the one side of Monkes on the other to which he may chuse whither he will harken he may doe in his Reipublike at his perill and pleasure But on the other side if Elizabeth Queen of the English the Scripture leading her shall thinke meet that these filthinesses of impure superstition which no Christian may endure without the danger of himselfe and of his rightly to be driven from the Empire cast out of the Realme verily shee doth nothing therein which may not plainly be defended by the perspicuous authority of the sacred Scripture and by the great examples of the most approved Kings Unlesse perchance Osorious shall thinke the memory of Ezekiah Josiah Jehosaphat not much to be appladed who both destroyed Altars and Images Groves and breake in peeces the brasen Serpent or then Gedion also who when he was no King cut downe the Grove and overturned the Altar what therfore that which in the Carnall Law was lawfull to the Kings of the Jewes shall it be lesse lawfull to our governers Magistrates in the spirituall Kingdome or Christ Or shall that then which in them was thought worthy of prayse reward by the verdict of the Scriptures be condemned of impiety in Christian Princes now After which he proceeds to justifye this action in breaking downe and abolishing Images Altars by Histories Fathers and Councells in the Primative times D. Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhemist Testament on the 1. Cor. c. 11. sect 18. fol. 287. determines thus of Altars But yow proceed say for this prophane Tables are removed and Altars consecrated Christ and his Apostles were to blame if it be as yow say to minister upon prophane Tables without consecrating of Altars But who shall beare witnes for consecration of Altars who but S. Augustine Serm. 255. de tempore And who shall warrant us that this Sermon is not falsly intituled to S. Augustine as a great number of those Sermons are But admit it be Augustines owne auctority yet he speaketh only of consecrating of Altars not for this end to discerne the Lords body and bloud For that their Tables and Altars were dedicated to the Holy use of ministration it is not the matter we stand upon but whither they were consecrated for this end They were called Altars unproperly as the Sacrament was called a Sacrifice the Ministers sacrificing Preists Levites yet were they neither in matter for me nor use like unto your Popish Altars of stone that were set against a wall For they were Tables of wood and so commonly were called as it is manifest by S. Augustine Ep. 50. Bonifacio And Optatus l. 6. both speaking of the rage of the Donatists which brake or shaved or scraped the boardes of the Altar or Table IT STOOD IN THE MIDDEST THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT STAND ROUND ABOUT IT Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. ad Paulin. tyr ex Aug. de verb. Dom. secund Joan. Serm. 46. It was removeable carried by the clerkes August Quaest. vet nov Test. q. 101. Or otherwise as appeareth by Optatus l. 6. Therfore it is nothing like Popish Altars So on Matthew 23. fol. 46. sect 7. he determines thus Popish Altars that are set up to overthrow the Altar of the Crosse are not Holy but cursed And so is all that pertaineth to them Neither have they perfection of the Lords Altar that was in the Temple which was a figure of Christs only true Sacrifice once offered that never can be sacrificed againe as S. Augustine Sayth Neither did the Altars of the temple sanctifie by touching for then the murtherer vvhich tooke hold of the hornes of the Altar should be sanctified whom God commaunded to be drawne from thence executed Exod. 21. 14. 1. Reg. 2. 28. Neither if any man had offered any other gift then that God which commaunded had the gift been made Holy by touching the Altar for it was the ordinance of God by which the Altar sanctified the gift and not any quality in the Altar It is like you are sicke of the disease of the Pharisees which was covetousnes as Chrysostome and Theophylact note by magnifying the gifts of the Altar M. James Calfhill in his Answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse London 1565. the Preface to the Reader writes
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 Maximiâian 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 couplâd 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
before By M. Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists Heb. 13. 10. sect 6. we have an Altar The writâr to the Hebrewes exhorting them to seek establishment of their hearts in the grace which was brought unto them in the Gospell not in the discretion of meates alleadgeth this for profe that even as those which seryed the Tabernacle were not partakers by eating of those beasts whose blood being brought into the holy place their bodies were burnt without the campe Even so those which holding fast the Ceremonies of the Law are even yet as it were in the Tabernacle cannot be partaker of our Saviour Christ who suffered out of the gates of Jerusalem and is the truth of the shadowes figures which were burnt without the camp This being the very naturall meaning of the Text let the Reader observe how not childishly only but absurdly also the Jesuiâes apply this place to prove a Reall Altar and consequently a Sacrifice of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For first what is that which the Jewes are threatned to be deprived of the eating of If the Jesuites will answer according to their drift heere of proving an Altar of stone and not a Communion Table they must say that for reward of their obstinate cleaving to the Ceremonies of the Law they shall not eat stones a small punishment for so great a finne which if the Jesuites were put unto they would I thinke cry for a Communion Table as of some better digestion then the Popish Altar whereby it is evident how sottish it is which they straine so much at touching the proper signification of the Greeke word and the Hebrew answering there unto which as if those words which properly signifie one thing cannot by borrowed speech signifie another thing unproperly And as though they were ignorant that the word as properly signifieth a reall Sacrifice as this word signifieth an Altar were not in this very Chapter translated from the property of it to signifie a spirituall Sacrifice Wherfore by the Altar is meant our Saviour Christ so called for that as he is the Preist and Sacrifice so also he is the Altar which sanctified himselfe to be offered unto his Holy Father as the Altar did sanctifie the gift which was upon it And it is Christ not sacrificed upon an Altar of stone by a Preist but which offered himselfe upon Mount Calvary without the gates of Jerusalem as is expresly mentioned here in this place Neither doth the writer to the Hebrewes meane Christ suffering in a Mysterie but that oblation of himselfe which he once offered wherein the fire of Gods anger fed upon his body and soule to have as were the Sacrifices of beasts consumed them if that his humanity had not been supported and borne up by the eternall spirit of his God head wherein he offered himselfe unto his Holy Father And Isychius l. 6. c. 21. in Lev. saying that Christs body is the Altar confuteth you plainly that hereof would ground an Altar of stone and saying that the Jewes for their incredulity must not behold him he giveth you another blow thereby declaring that the eating of Christ is the beholding of him and not the âarn all eating of him or swallowing him downe the throate the beholding of Christ he placeth in the eye of faith which the incredulous Jewes wanting must not behold him What cursed spirits therfore are these which upon the confidence of this place making as much for their Altars as for Baals scoffe at the Holy Table of the Lord in calling it a common prophane board which must needs unlesse they have heardned their faces to all impudency grant that the first and last time that ever our Saviour Christ ministred the Eucharist in his owne person did it at a Table and not at an Altar and at the same Table also at which he eat his common repast which notwithstanding we doe not nor in the peace and quiet of the Church thinke meet to be done But of this matter let the Reader see more before upon 1. Cor. 11. 29. where also he shall see how unworthily the ancient Fathers are abused for maintenance of Massing Altars And let it be here observed how the evidence of the truth presseth them which are faine to confesse that the Fathers call it as well a Table as an Altar but say they that is unproperly in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body and blood received And I pray you what should let us to say that when they call it an Altar they doe it unproperly because of the spirituall Sacrifice of thankes giving that is offered at it Set aside the truth of the cause triable by other reasons what warrant have you for your answer which we have not for ours Nay we may much trulyer say it then you can which having shewed it before will heere content our selves with one place and the same taken from your owne allegations And from him who may well be in stead of all the rest for August Epist. 86. speaking of that which under the Gospell succeeded that under the Law saith thus One Altar ought to give place to another sword to sword fire to fire bread to bread beast to beast bloud to bloud whereby the same reason that the beast which is offered must needs be an unproper speech and the fire that consumeth it a metaphoricall fire it followeth that the Altar whereupon the beast is layd and consumed must needs be an unproper speech And indeed this unproperty of speech in the Altar is yet further confirmed When in the same place Augustine objecteth to one as an Ignorance that he understood not the name of Altar to be more used in the vvriting of the Law of the Prophets then under the Gospell but most evidently of all in that the proving that there is mention of an Altar in the New Testament alleadgeth the place in the Apocalipse which the Jesuites themselues interpret of our Saviour Christ. Yow were heere also greatly over-seen to bring this place seeing he against whom this ignorance is objected affirmed that in stead of a beast we have now bread in the Sacrament and in stead of blood we have the cup where yow would beare the world in hand that Beringarius was the first that denied Transubstantiation And S. Augustine answering it and affirming that bloud succeeded to bloud yet doth evidently declare that he meant a figurative and Sacramentall bloud in that where the other sayd we have in stead of a beast bread Augustine answereth that as the Jewes had the presence bread so we in the Supper of the Lord and when he sayth that every one taketh a peece of the Immaculate Lambe it is evident that he meaneth by the Lambe the figure Sacrament of the Lambe unlesse you will dare to say that our Saviour Christ in the Supper is cuâ or broken in peeces but as for your shift it is not so honest for presupposing as you
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawfull and necessary comly Ornaments That Christ is Really present upon Earth on the High-Altar and Communion-Table That Communion-Tables are Altars Ministers of the Gospell Priests serving at the Altar The Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar and may yea ought so to be phrased That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables and to place and Rayle them in Altar-wise at the East end of the Church and come up to them and receive when there is a Sacrament And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary points much insisted on and pressed at this present when Cleargie-mens sinnes are so open and notorious that they need no Confession but correction rather That the Lords-day is no Sabbath That it is Iewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath That it is not of divine but humane Institution nor within the morality of the fourth Commaundement That two howers only of it are to be sanctified nor the whole day That Morrises Dancing Sports and Pastimes yea labours of mens calling not specially prohibited by some humane Lawes even out of cases of necessity are Lawfull on it That men may fall totally and finally from Grace That they have free-will and may exactly fulfill the Law of God if they please themselves That men are justified by workes yea by charity and not by faith alone That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and workes and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sinnes That there is an universall grace given to all men whereby they may be saved if they will That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver That preaching is an extraordinary thing necessary only for extraordinary times and belonging to none but extraordinary men That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better then two a day That reading is properly preaching That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopall Iurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers Iure divino That the Ministers know more then the Lay-people the Bishops more then the Ministers the Arch-Bishops more then the Bishops And therefore what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people what ever the Bishops the Ministers and people what ever the Arch-Bishops the Bishops Ministers and people too are bound to believe and obey without further question or dispute That the Popes Lawes Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force and our Church ought to be governed by them and our Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed Legally according to them That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles Canons Injunctions Oathes Orders Rites Ceremonies in their owne names and rights and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them That they may silence suspend and excommunicate yea deprive and imprison Ministers at their pleasure without any Legall cause That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men though they have greater wages and so should doe more worke That they may Lawfully and laudablie neglect their spirituall functions to mannage temporall Offices and affaires exercise both Swords at once and rule both Church and State together When I see out owne Divines if we may believe them by publike License in printed Bookes defending all these with sundrie other erronious Romish Positions maintaining all Popish Ceremonies conforming themselves to Popish Masse-Priests in their noddes cringes genuflections habits preaching writing Ceremonies And joyning thus with them in a most treacherous confederacie against the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England as many late Writers and by Name Bishop Mountague Bishop White Edmond Reene Dr. Pocklington Dr. Heylyn Dr. Primerose Dr. Laurence Dr. Read Mr. Shelford Mr. Chowne Mr. Studly with others in their late printed Bookes Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons both in the Court City Uniuersitie and Country have done When I behold our Lords Tables euery where called and turned into Altars or rayled Altar-wise Our Ministers transformed into Priests and so stiled Our Religion Metamorphosed into externall Popish Pompe and Ceremonies Our Devotion into Superstition Our Holines into professed prophanesse Our godnes into impiory Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing Our Lords dayes into Play-dayes Our Conscience into unconscioâ ablenes Our feare of God into Atheisme Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and meere Tyrants Our Pastors into Wolves Our Religious Fasting even in this time of Plague and danger into Feasting Our devout Prayers into carnall lollity Our Profession of Religion into Derision and Gods Word yea Heaven and Hell into a Fable And that principally by meanes of some ãâã Authorized Bookes in print which no man can have free liberty to answer this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours to ingrosse the power and commaund of all our printing Presses into their owne hands and to stay whatever may either detect or crosse their Antichristian Romish designes When I behold all this I say even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and penne and cry out aloud that all may heare to these open Powder Traytours who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once O men doe not thus murther and destroy the Church of England Now because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnaturall Treachery nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell I have here single out some three or foure of them to combate with especially the Authour of A Coale from the Altar intiteled A Iudicious Learned Divine Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuell Baker in the Bishops of Londons Open hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church concerning Altars the Sacrament of the Altar the ââââswing of the Communion Table an Altar and the placing of it Altar-wise with one side against the Wall as the East end of the Church VVhich they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Bookes in open affront and defiance to our Statuâes Articles of Religion Booke of Common-Prayer Injunctions Canons Martyrs and most Eminent Writers Which particulars though they seeme small at first view and are slighted by many as matters of no great moment yet all Circumstances considered they are very important and the conniving at them without Opposition like to prove fatall to our Religion as the Reading of the Treatise itselfe will evidence more at large To make this apparant in few words There is no man almost so ignorant as not to know So blinde as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us the heades whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament who labour with all diligence power and cunning artifice to bring the whole body of Popery
into our Church againe yet secretly by degrees with as little noyse as might be by those severall Stratagemes and meanes which that cunning-pated Iesuite Adam Contzin in his Booke of Politickes printed at Mentz Anno 1621. hath prescribed them for that purpose Which they prosecute and follow to an haires-breadth To effect this Plot the better according to the Popes consultation and direction in his Conclave they first vented all the Arminian points in printed Bookes Which though at first oppugned by many to their hazard have now under a pretence of silencing all controversies in this kinde quite silenced the truth itselfe Being now publikely printed and preached every where without controll contrary to his Majesties Proclamation concerning the inhibiting and calling in of Mountagues Booke which led the Dance in his Declaration before the 39. Articles And concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament Which are now made snares only by these potent Confederates contrary to his Majesties pious intention to suppresse the truth and bring those into trouble who defend it against Arminian Novelties or Popish Tenents either by printing or preaching Next after this they began to crie up practise and enjoyne mâny superstitious Popish Ceremonies especially bowing at the name of Iesus both in time of Divine Service and Sermons to the end it might usher in bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes with adoration of the Sacramentall bread and wine Which Ceremonie getting head by violence many suffring for opposing it and others either ignorantly or cowardly submitting to it though not prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer Then they began at first in some private places to set up Images Altars yea Crusifixes in Churches directly contrary to our Homilies To call Lords-Tables Altars To turne them Altar-wise or into Altars and bow downe unto them And because an Altar without a Priest was to no purpose they next begin to tearme themselves with other Ministers by no other name but Priestes Yea Priestes to dance attendance on these new Altars both in their Sermons Bookes and VVritings VVhich being done but secretly in corners as every Evill is bashfull at first and creepes up but by degrees these new devises also gotâ ground by litle and litle some potent Bishops setting them on and countenancing them under hand Crushing such who chiefly oppugned these Innovations in the High-Commission and elsewhere And having thus by publike Censures and these underâand Devises given open countenance to them and disheartned people from opposing them they grew in a short time so impudent as openly to plead for Jmages Altars Priestes turning of Communion-Tables Altar-wise bowing to them and at the name of Iesus reading of Second Service at them standing up at Gloria Patri the Gospell c. and that not only in the Pulpit but in the High-Commission and in print setting some shallow-pated fellowes as Giles Widdowes Reeve and Shelford in the fore-front to breake the Ice to see how the people would relish them And then when these men had borne the brunt and blame for a while and the strangenes of the things was almost vanished seconding them with others of better note and parts to give greater Countenance to them that people might the more willingly embrace these Innovations VVhich being thus once pleaded for in print our Bishops the chiefe Plotters and fomenters of them begin first more covertly under-hand by way of persuasion and intreatie and now at last openly in their Visitation-Articles by way of peremptorie commaund one pragmaticall impudent Prelate giving the first onset and then others seconding him in their fore-plotted order to enjoyne all these Innovations Popish Practises and Ceremonies to be put in full execution throughout their Diocesse And now they are growen so impudent as to excommunicate suspend yea Censure in the High Commission all such Church-wardens and Ministers who out of Conscience towards God Obedience to his Majesties Lawes and Declarations or love to Religion dare oppose or not subââie unto ãâã many Church-wardens being excommunicated for not ãâã in the Table Altarwise And many Ministers suspended excommunicated put from their Livings if not field ãâã imprisoned too especially in Bishop Wrens and Bishop ãâã Diocesse for not bowing to the Altar and as the names Iesus not reading Second Service at the High Altar ãâã Lords-Table for opposing the rayling in of the Table Altar-wise without Lawfull Authority or preaching against or not yeelding to these Popish Proceedings VVhich have lately gotten such head in most places that now all thing except Latine Service are prepared for the Masse in many Churches which added to these Novelties will make us perfect Papists For we have Altars with Altar-clotheââ Tapers Bisons and other Romish furniture on them Priestes Crucifixes bowing to Altars coming up to the Altar and there kneeling downe to receive all Popish Trinekets and Massing Ceremonies Copes Organs Vestments especially in our Cathedrals which now must be Patternâ of Imitation to all other Churches in the Diocesse all which being but meere Preparations for the Masse how soone that also may steale in upon us if his Majesties pious care with other our Magistrates vigilancie and inferiour Minister out-cries who are over-silent in such an exigent prevent ãâã not with speed by these active hot-spurs machinations who have made such a swift progresse in all the other particulars which they impudently presse and justice with braâeâ faces and obdurate hearts not fearing already to stile thâ Lords Supper an unbloody Sacrifice the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and to maintaine a corporall presence in the Eucharist I feare to divine And when Masse is once installed and sett up the next thing these Novellers are to effect Popery wil be perfectly restored with it and then face well all our Religion which we have enjoyed with all externâ peace and felicity attending it Now ãâã it is plaine according to the moderne Papists and these Innovatours Doctrine that there can be no Masse without an Altar or Super-Altar No Altar but at the East end of the Church as remote from the people as they he for the better officiating of private Masse And neither Masse nor Altar without a Sacrifice a Sacrament of the Altar and a Priest to Consecrate and Offer it The oppugning of these Innovations the immediate Harbengers and fore-runners both of Masse and open Poperie without which there can be no Masse and Poperie can never get head among us and by conniving at which without ââong and sodaine Opposition both Masse and Popery the things principally aâmed at without which these other are to no purpose will presently perke up and get quiet possession among us to the utter overthrow of our Religion must needs be of great consequence ãâã know that when a Ciety is beleaguerd whiles the ãâã and Out workes are safe and defended the Citty is in no danger of surprisall But if the Enemies once get them all is in danger to be lost Our Lords-Tables Ministers Lords
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 Ceremonieâ ãâã 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 Instiâââons 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 coâpiled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Grâgorie 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 reâus ãâã ceâeâa voluââ 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 Successoâr Ouâ of what spirit he hath here determined to our hands I ãâã not recite ãâã 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 drâve 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 Communiân 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
For sittinge standinge and incircling the throne or Table round about on every parte Therefore it shoulde by the same Reason bee soe taken here 3. When as wee saye the Kings Nobles doe inviron or stand round about his Throne this implies that his Throne stands not against a wall but soe as men maye stand round about him round about eâârimplyinge a perfect Circle though about doth not alwayes soe 4. I shall make it most cleere that all Altars aunciently were placed in the midst of Temples Churches or Quires and that it was the use both amonge Iewes Pagans and Christians to compasse stand dance goeround about them therefore it shal bee intended the people did soe there till the contrarie can bee proved which wil bee ad Graecas Calendas To that of S. Augustine hee replies that mensa ipsius in MEDIO constituta is not to be interpreted the Table set here in the midst as it is translated but the Table which is here before you accordinge to the usuall meaninge of the Latine phrase afferre in medium which is not to be construed thus bringe it precisely into the middest but bringe it to us or before us Oh wise evasion as if Bishop Jewell Bishop Babington Doctor Fulke the Epistoler were such illiterate novices that they knewe not howe to conster Latine and need bee sett to schoole againe to learne their Grammer I wonder why this pragmaticall Criticke cavelled not at our newe translaters for rendringe that of Math. 18. 20. where two or three gathered togeather there I am in medio corum in the middest of them where the same latine word is used If in medio heere may bee properly Englished in the middest not at the East end or before them why not in this text of Augustine All knowe that the proper signification of Medium is the midst and of in medium afferre to bringe into the midst not before men Coram nobis beinge the common phrase signifying to bringe a thinge before men not in medium afferre And if this Gentleman remember his Grammer Sentit medios illapsus in hostes cannot bee interpreted hee perceived hee was fallen before his Enemies but into the midst of them The translation of Bishop Jewell therefore is good proper the Colier a nonsence Criticke to quarrell with it upon such slender grounds To that of Durandns in medio Ecclesiae apperuios meum that it proves not that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church but that the Preists stood at the midst of the Altar For it is generally knowne that many hundred yeares before Durand was borne the Altars generally stood in Christian Churches even as nowe they doe I answeare first that to interpret in medio Ecclesiae the midst of the Altar not of the Church is nonsence as if the Altar were the Church or the midst of the Altar the midst of the Church yea though it stood not in the midst but East end of it 2. If in medio here by his owne confession signifie in the midst not before the Altar then why not in that place of Augustine too at which he formerly carped as mis-translated 3. It is not well knowne neither by experience for noe man is so auncient nor by any authenticke writer extant that many 100. yeares before Durand was borne the Altars generally stood in Christian Churches as now they doe there being not one testimony that can be produced to prove it The Altar in the Cathedrall Church of Rome standing even in time of Masse when the Pope receiveth the Sacrament in the middest of the Quire the Pope sitting in a Chair of estate about it as William Thomas an eywitnesse of it An. 1547. testifyeth in his History of Italie yet the contrary is well knowne shall God willing be proved if this were soe well knowne I wonder why this judicious learned man proves it no better begging only the Question disputed in stead of proving it having thus answeared these nonsense idle Cavills against the authorities quoted by learned Jewell I now proceed to other of our writers Doctor Gervase Babington Bishop of Worcester in his Comfortable notes upon Exod. chap. 20. and 27. p. 279. 307. in his workes in folio shewes at large That the Apostles and Primitive Christians had no Altare but Communionâ Tables only and those made of boards REMOVEABLE SET IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL they are his owne words Doctor William Fulke in his Confutation of the Remish Testament notes on Heb. 13. sect 6. Anno 1589. writes thus The Lords Table of the auncient Fathers is called indifferently a Table as it is indeede and an Altar as it is unproperly But that it is called of them a Table and was indeede a Table made of boards and removeable sett in the midst of the people not placed against a wall I have shewed sufficiently by the Testimony of the auncient Fathers before to witt those whom Bishop Jewell quotes So on the 1. Cor. 11. sect 1â Hee M. Cartwright both affirme That in the Primitive Church the Lords Table was situated in THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AND PEOPLE not against a wall Doctor Andrew Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie Quest. 6. Error 53. p. 496. writes thus against the Papists concerninge the fashion forme of Churches the divisions partitions with in Wee will not much contend soe these conditions bee observed First that all superstition bee avoided in makinge one place of the Church holier then the rest wherein the Papists mightily offend For the Quire and Chancell was for their Preists singers the other parte of the Church for lay-men they were not to enter into that holy place And thus accordinge to the places they devided the Congregation as though one parte were more holie then the other But where learne they that Churches ought to have a Sanctuary as the Jewish Churches had That was an evident tipe and is nowe accomplished in our Saviour Christ whoe is nowe entred into the heavens as the high Preist then entred into the holie place to make attonoment for the people Heb. 9. 24. this therefore is very grosse to revive and renue againe Jewish tipes and figures as their owne Ordinarie glosse sayth The externall Rites Ceremonies of the Law because they were a shaddowe of Christ to come of his Mysteries Therefore the truth of the Gospell beinge come are made unlawfull vanished away Salomons Temple then with the Sanctuarie and Preisthood therefore which were shaddowes of things to come are no presidents or Patternes for Christians to followe But if here in not with standinge they will imitate the buildinge of Solomons Temple to have a Sanctuarie why doe they not alsoe build towards the West as the Temple was why bringe they not their ALTARS DOWNE TO THE BODY OF THE CHURCHES For in their holie place there was noe Altar And indeede Altar wee
acknowledge none as hereafter shall bee proved But wee see noe Reason why the Communion Table maye not bee sett IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH as well as in the Chancell if the place bee more convenient and fitt to receive the Communicants But I praye you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuarie then the Font or Baptisterie They are both Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords supper why shoulde one bee preferred as holier then the other Thus this Doctor By all these authorities it is most apparent that by the expresse Resolution of the Common prayer booke confirmed by Act of Parliament Of Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops learned writers constant practice of the Church of England from the beginninge of Reformation untill now the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancell or Quire Altarwise against the wall especially when the Sacrament is administred but in the middest of the Church or Chancell and that soe it stood in the Primitive Church Nowe for the better discoverie of the place where the Table ought to stand it will not bee impertinent to enquire First where the Table of Shewbreade was placed 2. Where Iewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood 3. How the Iewes Tables the Table at which Christ instituted the Sacrament were situated 4. How the Communion Tables were placed in the Primitive Church 5. What place is most proper Convenient for the Table 6. What reasons can bee produced for the placinge of the Communion Table Altarwise at the East end of the Chancell against the wall c. For the first of these it is most evident that the shewbreadâ Table a tipe of Christ the Sacramentall breads stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum but without the vaile of the Tabernacle on the Northside not at the East side of the Tabernacle Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9. 2. 3. 6. 7. which are expresse compared with the 1. Kings 7. 28. 1. Chron. 9. 32. c. 23. 29. c. 28. 16. 2. Chron. 4. 19. c. 13. 11. c. 29. 18. If the situation then of the Shewbreade Table maye bee any president for Communion Tables they ought to be placed not in the East end of the Chancell but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood For the second wee must knowe that Altars were aunciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills elevated places especially amonge the Idolatrous Gentiles Jer. 11. 13. Exod. 34. 13. Numb 23. 1. and 28. 29. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. 2. Kings 11. 18. c. 21. 3. to c. 23. 12. whence they are frequently stiled in Scripture high places and condemned by that name 1. Kings 2. 3. 4. c. 1â 31. 32. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 14. 2. Kings 12. 3. c. 14. 4. c. 15. 4. 35. c. 17. 29. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 32. 1. c. 33. 17. Jer. 42. 35. Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. 25. In detestation of these high places in truth nought else but high-Altars God himselfe gave expresse charge to the Israliâes Exod. 20. 28. not to goe up by steps to his Altar that their nakednes bee not discovered And to plucke downe destroye all high places Numb 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39. yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish as even in dispite of God himselfe to erect high places high Altars to goe up by steps unto them in stead of Communion Tables to Christen the Lords Table with the name of an Altar and high Altar too The Golden Altar for incense was sett before the Arke of the testimony in the first Tabernacle And the Altar of burnt offeringe which was most holy was placed before the doore of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. that by Gods owne appointment And when a burnt offeringe of fowles was brought to the Altar the Preist was to wringe the blood of it out at the side of the Altar and to plucke awaye the Croppe with the Feathers and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST parte by the place of the ashes Levit. 1. 14. 15. 16 Therefore the Altar of burnt offeringe did not stand Altar-wise against the East end of the Tabernacle or Temple When the Temple was built Solomon placed the Altar of incense covered with pure gold not with in but by the Altar The brazen Altar hee placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the congregation in the fore front of the house Another Altar hee erected in the middle of the Court before the house of the Lord on which hee offered burnt offerings and meate offerings and the fatt of the peace offerings And when the Temple was consecrated the Levites which were the singers with their soons and their brethren beinge arayed in white Lynnen havinge Cymballs and Psalteries and Harpes stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar to witt of the golden and brazen Altar and with them an 120 Preists soundinge with trumpetts All which is cleerely related 1. Kings 6. 22. c. 8. 64. 2. Kings 16. 14. 2. Chron. 1. 5. 6. c. 5. 12. c. 7. 7. Neither of these Altars therefore stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum in the East side or against the East wall of the Temple When Elijah built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Carmel hee made a trench round about the Altar as greate as woulde containe two measures of seede And the water ranne round about the Altar and filled the trench 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the middest where men might stand round about it not against a wall Wee reade of David that hee build an Altar to the Lord in the threshinge flowre of Araunah 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof but in the middest of it as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocencie soe wil I COMPASSE thyne Altar â Lord. Wee reade in the 2. Kings 11. 11. that when Jehoash was Crowned the Gaurd stood every man with his weapons in his hand round about the Kinge from the right corner of the Temple to the left corner alonge by the Altar and the Temple The Altar therefore stood not in the corner or East end of the Temple but in the middest or neere the entringe into it In the 2. Kings 12. 9. wee reade that Jehoiada the Preist tooke a chest and bored a hole in the âidd thereof and sett it besides the Altar on the right side as one commeth into the house of the Lord. So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple but neere the entry almost as our fonts nowe stand And c. 16. 14. It is recorded that Kinge Ahaz brought the brazen Altar which was before the Lord from the forefront of the house from betweene the Altar and the house of the Lord and put it on the northside of the Altar not the East Manaââeh built Altars for al the
host of heaven in the two Courts of the house of the Lord. 2. Kings 21. 5. 2. Chron. 33. 4. 5. 2. Kings 23. 12. Kinge Asarenewed the Altar of the Lord that was before the porch of the Lord. 2. Chron. 15. 8. Wee reade of a prophesie Isay. 19. 19. In that daye shall there bee an Altar to the Lord in the middest of the Land of Egypt And of a commination to the Idolatrous Isralites Ezech. 6. 4. 5. your Altars shal bee desolate I will scatter your bones ROVND ABOVT YOVR ALTARS We finde mention of the gate of the Altar NORTHWARD in Hierusalem Ezech. 8. 5. and the brazen Altar stood Northward as it seemes Ezech. 9. 2. Wee reade of an Altar that was before the house Ezech. 40. 47. Whereupon the Preists the Ministers of the Lord are enjoyned in the time of a solemne Fast to weepe betweene the porch and the Altar Joell 2 17. So Ezech. 8. 16. the same expression is used Behold at the doore of the Temple of the Lord betweene the porch and the Altar were about 25. 35. men c. And Zacharias as Christ informes us Maâh 23. 35. was slaine betweene the Temple and the Altar Altarsâin those dayes standinge usually without the Temples it beeing both a troublesome unseemely thinge to bringe Oxen. Sheepe Calves other beasts into the Temple there to kill sacrifice them on the Altar By all these Scripture Testimonies it is apparant that Altars both amonge the Iewes Gentiles were never placed in the upper end or against the East walls of their Temples but in the Courts the Entries or middest of their Templies in such manner that men might goe freely round about them farre different from their moderne scituation which hath noe one patterne in Scripture to warrant it Now if Altars were thus scituated either without their Temples or neere their entrance porch or doores or else in the middest of them in former ages so as men might freely compasse walke round about them why shoulde they not bee thus placed by our Altar-introducers heathenish Popish Innovators nowe There is neither of these Novellers but woulde have a Quire or SanctuÌ Sanctorum in his Church woulde take it very ill if any man shoulde subvert or write against Quires in Churches yet themselves by placinge their Altars Communion Tables Altarwise against the East wall of their Churches doe utterly overturne destroye their much applauded Quires out of a meere superstitious sottish ignorance For the Latine word Chorus from which our Quires have their derivation denomination as Isiodor Hispalensis Rabanus Maurus Calepine Eliot Thomasius Olioke with others testifie is nothinge else but multitudo in sacris collect dictus Chorus quod initio in modum Coronae CIRCA ARAS STARENT ita psallerent A multitude assembled togeather in sacred places or Temples and called a Quire because that in the beginninge they stood ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS in manner of a Crowne or garland and soe would singe Our Innovators therefore by removinge their Altars to the East end of their Quires their railinge them in close-Prisoners against the wall soe as the Choresters singinge men people cannot maye not stand round about them like a ringe or crowne and so singe praises unto God when they receive the Eucharist both overturne the verie name essence of their Quires which aunciently did Compasse surround their Altars as these authors testifie And not they onlie but others longe before them witnes that of the aunciânâ Poët Virgil very pregnant to this purpose which maye serve as a Commentarie on the former Etymologie or definition of a Quire Instauratque CHOROS Mistique ALTARIA CIRCUM Cretesque Dryopesque fremunt pictique Agathyrsi c. Dona ferunt cumulantque oneratis lancibus ARAS Tam Salijad Cantus Incensa Altaria Circum Populeis ad sunt Evincti tempora ramis Hicjuvenum CHORUS ille senum qui carmine laudes Herculeas facta ferunt c. Which may be thus Englished Promiscuous Quires about the Altars round Creets Epires Scythians squeaking-notes resound c. In Chargers to the Altars guifts they bringe The prauncing Preists bout burning Altars singe Their browes with boughes poplar-garlands drest A Quire of younge-men Old-men ready prest Hercules fame and sactes to chaunt c. Which Alexander ab Alexandro thus seconds It was sayth hee a usuall Custome ut sacrificantes ARAS CIRCUMCURRERENT that those whoe sacrificed shoulde runne round about the Altars beginninge their course from the left hand to the right which they thought more Religious and anon from the right hand to the left Those whoe sacrificed as they were eatinge used to singe prayses to the Gods CIRCUM ARAS psallere as mnnerum to singe by measure about the Altars to singe songes and verses and playinge on Cimballs CHOROS agitare to make Quires or Daunces It is recorded of Antoninus Caesar that when hee sacrificed to the God Heliogabalus hee brought thither Phaenicean-weomen quae in orbem cursitarent cymbalaque organa Musica CIRCUM ARAS psallerent whoe might runne round in a Circle and playe upon Cymballs Organs ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS And that this singinge and dauncinge about Altars was usuall amonge the auncient heathens appeares by Plato legum Dialog 7. Strabo Geogr. lib. 10. Euripides Bacchae Caelius Rhodiginus Antiq. lect l. 5. c. 3. Athenaeus dipnosoph l. 14. c. 11. 12. Bulengerus de Theatro lib. 1. c. 52. an ll 2. c. 12. to 17. with others there cited Answearable to which Athenaeus records out of Clearchus Solensis that the Lacedaemonians those whoe had noe wives the women at a certaine Feast drawinge them ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS buffeted them with their fists that avoydinge this contumelie they might bee taken with the love of children and take them wives at a fitt age And Alexaunder of Alexandro relates out of Plutarch and Xenâphon that it was a custome amonge the Lacedaemonians to whipp their youthes which exceeded 14. yeares of age ROUND ABOUT THEIR ALTARS A pregnant Evidence that their Altars then stood in the middest of their Quires Temples not at the East end of them against a wall Our Popish Novellers therefore whoe have newly removed their Altars Communion Tables to the East end of their Quires close to the wall must either bringe them downe againe into the middest of the Quire to preserve both the name use and essence of their Quires or else disclayme their Quires Christen them with some other name By all this as also by the Coale from the Altars confession it is most apparent that both the Jewes and Gentiles Altars stood not at the East end of their Temples Quires Chauncells nor yet against a wall but about the middest of their Temples or Courts at least wise in such sort that men might stand and freely walke round about them Oâr superstitious Innovators therefore whoe
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 sâood 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 CoÌmmunicants 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 enioyâed 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 dâvise 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.
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our Injunctâons Canons writers Communion booke and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same prescribe that they shoulde stand at least wise when the Sacrament is administred 10. The Altar of Incense and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire or Sanctum Sanctorum but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple as the premises Evidence and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible intimate which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell specially at the Sacraments administration I come nowe in the 6. place to examine those reasons which are or can bee alleaged by our Novellers for placinge Communion Tables Altarwise against the East end wall of the Quire of Chauncell The first reason alleaged by them is this The high Altar or Lords Table sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford Preist in his Sermon of Gods house Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18. usually standeth at the East end of Gods house Idque propter Christum c. and that because of Christ wheâ is called the light of the worlde and ORIENS to with the branch Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument is this Christ is called the light of the vvorld the BRANCH and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East Therefore the Communion Table high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church What frentique Bedlam logicke divinitie is this what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation Is not this farr worse then that of Durandus other Pâpists Christ is called a Rocke and a Corner stone 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone To whicht I might vetorâ from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is calâed the branch Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood not stone Christ beinge else where called a vyne Tree of life c. more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it Therefore high Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood not stone as Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine Optatus Chrysostome Athanasius and others as our Communion Tables are and ought to bee by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer which calls it Gods BOARD the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter and 6. reasons Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles Art 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament on Math. 23. sect 7. on Heb. 13. sect 6. on Apoc. 6. sect 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin Bishop Farrar Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination Fox ibidem p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument First hee
people and the ignorant evill perswaded Preist will dream alway of Sacrifice Therfore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition then should the true Religion of God sooner take place which he thus seconds in his 8. Sermon upon Ionah A great shame it is for a Noble King Emperour or Magistrate contrary to Gods word to deteyne or keep from the devill or his Ministers any of their goods oâ Treasure as the Candles Images Crosses vestiments Altars For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent at length they will be maintayned as things necessary as now we find true by late wofull experience And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah hee proceeds thus But this prayer of Jonas is so acceptable it might be thought of some men that the place where Jonas prayed in should have beâtered it as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time that judgeth the Prayer sayd at the High Altar to be better then that which is sayd in the Quier that in the Quier better then that which is sayd in the body of the Church that in the body of the Church better then that which is sayd in the Feild or in a mans Chamber But our Prophet sayth the Lord hath no respect to the place but to the heart faith of him that prayeth And that appeareth For penitent Jonas prayeth out of the whales belly and miserable Job upon the dung heape Daniell in the Cave of the Lyons Hieremie in the claypit the theife upon the Crosse S. Stephen under the Stones wherfore the grace of God is to bee prayed for in every place and every where as our necessity shall have need and wanteth solace Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place because that our necessity requireth helpe in every place yet I doe not condemne the publike place of prayer whereas Gods word is preached his holy Sacrament used and common prayer made unto God but allow the same and sory it is no more frequented haunted but this I would wish that the Magistrates would put both the Preist Minister and the people into one place and shut up the partition called the Câauncell that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other as though the vayle and partition of the Temple in the old Law yet should remaine in the Church where indeed all signes types are ended in Christ And in case this were done it should not only expresse the dignity grace of the New Testament but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister and also provoke the sayd Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Iudgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ might both heare and see playnly what is done as it was used in the Primative Church when as the abomination done upon Altars was not knowne nor the Sacrifice of Christs precious blood so conculcated and troden under feet Hereupon as also upon M. Bucers forecited opinion to this purpose and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx London 1559. and not upon M. Calvins Letter as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40. all the Altars in England by the King and his Councells direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedrall Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappell 's and Tables sett up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late to witt in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as appeares by that is storied of Bishop Farrar by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop finding an Altar sett up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion contrary to the King and Councells Ordinance caused the sayd Altar to be taken away and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH which the Vicar removing Bishop Farrar himselfe in the third yeare of King Edwards Raigne Commaunded the Vicar to sett the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL againe neere the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion After this in the 5. 6. yeare of King Edwards Raigne as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church according to the prophesie of William Mauldon who in thâ dayes of King Henry the 8. when the Masse most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in mans reason it might seeme unpossible that the glorie opinion of them soe depely rooted in the hearts of ãâã many could by any meanes possible so soone decay and vanish to naught yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. yeares by the spirit no doubt of prophesie declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to passe that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the rootes c. so the very name of them was wholly expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Convocation and Parliament and the name of Gods-boord Lords-Table Table and Holy-Table inserted and retained both in the Rubricke and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed the Table enjoyned therein at the tyme of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chauncell And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church and of the worthy receiving the Sacrament and the name of the Lords Table only used and mentioned in them as he that reades them may discerne A truth so cleare that the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar p. 39. 40. confesseth that the former Liturgie wherein was the name of Altar was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Booke then established yeâ upon this only ground not from any scandaâ which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgie by Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector c. A very likely tale I promise you As if the whole Parliament and Clergie of England would be so rash or inconsiderate as to alter their whole Liturgie formerly confirmed by Parleament only to humor M. Calvin without any Scripture reason or other convincing considerations and upon no other groundes Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjecturall though positively layd downe or else the Church of England
Prelates thenâ more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against ãâã scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câapple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottââaâ Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examânation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâaneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
ministred in his remembrance Ergo he is come c. As for the taking downe of the Altars it was done upon just consideracions for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jewes usage Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministred more duely received then in these later dayes when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church Lincolne A goodly receiving I promise yow to set an Oyster Table in steed of an Altar and to come from puddings at Westminister to receive and yet when your Table was constituted yow could never be content in placing the same now East now North now one way now another untill it pleased God of his goodnes to place it cleane out of the Church Ridley your Lordships unreverent termes doe not elevate the thing c. To this speech of Bishop White M. Fox affixeth this marginall Censure Bishop White blasphemously calleth the board of the Lords Table An Oyster Table Which just Censure the Coale from the Altar most injuriously turnes upon M. Prynne for calling the Lords Table a Drester A slovenly and scornefull terme deserving no other Answer then what the marginall Notes in the Acts Monuments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminster or in the other to the Bishop of Lincolne D. White And truly had the Gentleman in the place pretended expresly termed the Lords Table a Dresser as these two nickenamed it An Oister board or Oyster Table I should have passed thus verdict upon him that he was Nigâo CARBONE notandus defamedly marked with this blacke Coale But examining his words finding them to be misreported to lay a causeles blemish on him I must needs conclude that the namcelesse Preist or Colier who hath fastned this scandall on him is as blacke shameles as his Coale For he never termes the Lords Table a Dresser but only Censures such who against the Rubricke for the Communion Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the Canons An. 1571. not 1471. as himselfe mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking p. 18. which is no mistake the English Coppy which he no question saw and followed printed the same yeare with the Latine which is p. 15. warranting the quotation true both in regard of Page words what ever the Coale either ignorantly or maliciously spatters out to the contrary at the administration of the Sacrament place the Communion Table Altarwise with one side against the wall more like a Side-Table Cupbard or Dresser then a Lords Table to eat and drinke at Like or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table is all he writes wherein he is as farre from blasphemie or calling the Lords Table a Dresser as the Scripture itselfe is from blasphemie or terming Christ a thââfe when it sayth Matth. 24. 4â 1. Thess. 5. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 3. 3. c. 16. 15. that Christ the day of the Lord shall come as or like a Thiefe in the night the comparisons similitudes being both apt the one in regard of the maner of the Tables situation the other in respect of the sodaine fearfull unexpectednes of Christs second comming to Judgment though the name of a Dresser unfit to be imposed on the Lords Table of a theife upon our Saviour By which slovenly terme M. Prynne is so farre from calling the Communion Table that he phraseth it A religious implement of Gods owne appointment But to returne againe to that from which this false Calumnie in the Coale hath diverted me This our famous learned Martyr Bishop Ridley not long after this his Conference to shew how eagerly the Popish Prelates were bent to remove Communion Tables set up Altars in their steeds how much he detested this their practise in his excellent Farwell to his friends in generall breakes forth into these patheticke words Othou now wicked and bloody Sea why dost thou now set up againe many Altars of Idolatrie which by the word of God were justly taken away Why hast thou overthrowne the Lords Table Why dost thow dayly delude thy people masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lords Supper The Papists in their discourses with our stout learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hote as a Coale for Altars the Sacrament of the Altare For in his 11. examination on S. Andrewes day 1555. Christopherson who reasoned with him demaunded whether S. Augustine did not call the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar To which M. Philpot replied That maketh nothing for the probation of your Sacrament For so he and other ancient writers doe call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offred upon the Altar of the Crosse the with Sacrifice all the Altaâs and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow the with pertaineth nothing in your Sacrament hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone Christopherson No doth I pray yow what signifieth Altar Philpot. Not as yow falsely take it materially but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Crosse. Christopherson Where find yow it ever so taken Philpot. O yes that I doe in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he sayth We have an Altar of which it is not lawfull for them to eate that serve the Tabernacle Is not Altar there taken for the Sacrifice of the Altar and not for the Altar of Lime and Stone Christopherson Well God blesse me out of your company yow are such an oâ stinate heretike that I never heard the like Philpot. I pray God keep me from such blind Doctors which when they are not able to prove what they say then they fall to blaspheming as yow doe for want of better proofe In the CoÌference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martyn March 155â Martyn speakes thus to Crammer in defence of Masse Altars which he couples both togeather If yow marke the Devills language well it agreeth with your proceedings most truly For cast thy selfe downeward sayd he and so taught yow to cast all things downe wardes Downe with the Sacrament downe with the Masse downe with the Altars c. In Cardinall Pooles visitation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors sett forth certaine Statutes whereby they would have the university hereafter ordered wherein among other things they prescribed at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himselfe to the Altar a ceremonie superstition and Idolatrie now taken up by many contrary to or without all Scriptures Law and Canon though thus enjoyned by borrowed from the Papists whose superstitious toyes are now much imitated and adored In Aprill the same yeare Cardinall Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocesse of Canterbury Article 18. 23. concerning the people inquired whether the Altars in the
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâfying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâacon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâsh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
7. 10. as they are this day among the Papists with many Jewish and Superstitious Ceremonies oylings sprinklings exorcismes Reliques of Sancts orisons I know not what other fonde conceites but Communion Tables were never so consecrated either in the primitive or Christian Churches of latter times 2. Altars wee ever accompanied with Preistes Sacrifices burnt offrings peace offringe c. Exod. 40. Levit. 1. 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. Hebr. 7. 1. to 15. 1. Kinge 18. 20. to 37. among the Jewes and Gentiles with Masses Massepreistes Pixes consecrated Hostiaes Tapers Basons Candelstickes Crucifixes Images Sancts Reliques Altar-cloathes Massing vestiments to adde gestures Fooleries but Communion Tables only with Ministers and preachers of the Gospell a chalice plater bread and wine without more or other furniture but a decent cloth to cover them 7. In their effects the one tending to maintaine erect propagate and usher in Gentilisme Judaisme Popery Masse Massepreists Transul stantiation and Superstition among Christians and to corrupt the doctrine administration and right use of the Sacrament the true cause why the Primitive Christians why all reformed Churches and our owne Church abandoned and cast them out The other to abandon them and to restore preserve perpetuate the purity and integrity of the Doctrine use and administration of the Sacrament according to its primitive institution as the so eâââed and subsequent authorities evidence at large and King Edward the 6. with his Councell both in their Letter to Bishop Ridley and in their 6. reasons why the Lords board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar punctually resolve 8. Because all Altars Sacrifices Preist the Temple itselfe where the Altar stood for the Jewes had no Altars in their Ordinary Synagogues but only in and about their Temple to shew that we Christians should have no Altars in our Churches which succeed their Synagogues not the Temple were but types and shadowes of Christ the true Altar Preist and Temple Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 7. l. to 15. c. 13. 10. as all the Fathers generally all Commentators and Christian writers accord and therfore vanished at his death as the whole Epistles to the Hebrewes Galathians Colossions c. 2. prove at large Hence the Apostle calls Christ himselfe our Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 6. 9. c. 8. 3. 5. c. 9. 13. doe the like as Expositors old and new togeather with King James himselfe in his Paraphrase upon the Apocalypse our owne Martyrs writers generally accord Hence Origen most pertinently resolves thus The truth therfore was in the Heavens but the shadow and example of the truth on earth and whiles this shadow did continue on earth there was an heavenly Hierusalem there was a Temple there was an Altar there were High Preists and Preistes But when as in the comming of God our Saviour descending from heaven truth sprang out of the earth the shadowes and examples full to the ground For Hierusalem fell the Temple fell ALTARE SUBLATUM EST the Altar was taken away c. SI ALTARE VIDER IS DESTITUTUM c. If thou shalt see the Altar destitute be not thou sad thereat If thou find not the High Preist doe not thou despaire EST IN CAELIS ALTARE there is an Altar in Heaven an High Preists of future good things stands by it chosen of God according to the order of Melchisedecke Hence Paschatius Rhadbertus most pertinently concludes REPVLIT Dominus ALTARE SVVM DE ECCLESIA in qua CHRISTVS ALTARE CREDITVR ESSE Hostia Sacrificium Pontifex Sacerdos The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of the Church in which Christ is BELEEVED TO BE THE only ALTAR obligation and Sacrifice High Preist And S. Ambrose Gregory the great Beda Andreas the Archbishop of Caesaria S. Bernard with divers other Fathers expresly resolve ALTARE DOMINI CHRISTVS that Christ himselfe is the Altare of the Lord the Altar meant both in the Hebrewes and Apocalyps and that all Altars were but types of him and ceased with him And though some of the punier Fathers 260. yeares after Christ and since doe sometimes by a figurative and improper speach call the Communion Table but more commonly only the Sacramentall bread and wine representing the body and blood of our Saviour the Altar in respect of the Sacrifices of prayer and prayse there offred at the receiving of the Sacrament thence called the Eucharist of the Collections and Almes there and there given by the Communicants for the releife of the poore which are called a Sacrifice an oblation Heb. 13. 16. Math. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. and in as much as Christs body and blood who is the true Altar are there mistically distributed not out of any relation to or analogie between Jewish Heathen Altars and Tables or because the Sacrament is in truth a reall Sacrifice as the Papists and our ignorant Popish Innovators fondly dreame yet they most usually and properly terme it only the Lords Table or Boord and the Sacrament administred there at the Lords Supper as appeares by sundrie passages in Nazianzen Augustine Theodoret Chrysostomeâ Hieron Oecumenius Theophylact other Fathers All these are cited by Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington D. Rainolds our writers they stiling the Crosse whereon Christ suffred was Sacrificed the Altar of the Crosse yea faith the heart and mind of godly men an Altar as frequently as the Communion Table and in the selfe same figurative and improper sence Hence S. Hierom iu Psal. 25. 31. Tom. 6. p. 30. B. 46. B. writes thus Altare fidelium fides est FAITH IS THE ALTAR OF THE FAITHFVLL And the same Father Comment in Marc. 9. Tom. 6. p. 58. 79. Gregorie the great Homil. 22. Super Ezechiel f. 209. E. F. averre Altare Deiest Corbonum Histia Sacrificia bona opera fidelium THE ALTAR OF GOD IS A GOOD HEART the good workes of the Faithfull are the oblation and Sacrifices And Origen Contra Celsum l. 8. tom 4. fol. 101. writes to the same effect Celsus chargeth us Christians that we shunne ALTARS Images Idoll Temples that so they may not be erected c. whiles that he seeth nothing in the meane time that we in the meane while have the mind of just men insted of Altars and temples from which without all doubt the sweet odors of Incense are sent forth vowes I say and prayers from a pure conscience Let whoever will therfore if he please make inquiry of these Altars which I have last mentioned and compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in truly he may plainly understand that they verily are inanimate and in processe of time will become corruptible but these our Altars shall so long continue in the immortall soule as long as the reasonable soule shall continue Now these Fathers thus stiling both the
them To which I shall adde a 5. inference That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar nor yet Melchiâedecke 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 âliving 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. Hâsea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. Hâor 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 hâre any materiall Altar but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven ãâã 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 â0 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 Sâcrament 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 Aânobius doe
heaven neither doth he so much as once stile the Lords Table an Altar nor make mention of an Altar whereat the Sacrament was administred throughout his workes His authority therfore might well have been spared The next Father is Tertullian out of whom two passages are alleadged One out of his Booke de Poenitentia where he remembreth Geniculationem ad Aras Bowing and ducking to Altars now much in use But certainely Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity as to be adored bowed to since the consecration of them came in long after in Pope Felix time as M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon neither can it be proved that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars This authority therfore is suspicious to put it out of doubt Erasmus Rhenanus Junius M. Cooke prove it not to be Tertullians but some conterfeit thrust upon him the phrase being certainely none of his no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age This counterfeit authority therfore will not stand the Coale in any stead The second passage is that in his Booke de Oratione c. 14. Nonne solemnior ârit statio tuaâsiâad Atam Deisteris Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned not kneeling or bowing to or at it So that these two Authorities seeme to thwart one another at the first view To this I answer that though this Booke be generally conceived Tertullans yet I suspect that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained where in this passage is are none of his For I find this passage in them Sic die Paschae quo communis quasi publica jejunij religio est merito deponiemus of culum c. which intimates that Christians on Easter day did Keep a common publike Fast ând therfore refused to kisse one anotherâ And it makes Easter day not to be Stationum dies a day of praying standing as the next words prove Now it is certaine that Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis writes that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickednes to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lords day being the joyfull day of Christs resurrection much more then to doe it upon Easter day and that the Christians did not fast but rejoyce in remembrance of Christs resurrection from Easter to whitsontide No Ecclesiasticall writer extant then making mention of any solemne fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians in that age on Easter day who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoyce applying that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast Psall 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it This passage makes me suspitious that the later part of this Booke is none of his Adde to this That Cyprian a great admirer of Tertullian whom he stiled his Minister makes no mention of this Booke or of Tertullian or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar or Kisse of peace or other such Customes Ceremonies in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lords Prayer which is probable he would have done had Tertullian writen any such Booke as this or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church Moreover this Booke makes mention of Hermas Booke intitled the Pastor by way of approbation and gives an answer to an objection out of it when as in his Booke de Pudicitia he thus censures it as counterfeit Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha falsa adultera judicatur as the Bookes now passing under his name are accounted Moreover in this very Booke of Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis so in S. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them ioyntly stiled the Eucharist both of them interpret Give us this day our dayly bread of Christ who is our living and true bread which came downe from heaven whose body the Sacramentall bread is esteemed and on whom we dayly feed in the Sacrament and Eucharist Now both of them stiling the Sacrament the Eucharist and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but only of spirituall bread to be eaten of us neither of a Table we may doubt this passage to be none of his Beside this that famous Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria flourishing but 240. yeares after Christ very neare Tertullians time writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome that an ancient Minister who was a Bishop long before him a plaine evidence that Ministers Bishops were then both one and so promiscuously stiled being present when some were baptised hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptisme where with he was baptised of the heretickes was not true whereupon he desired to be rebaptized which he durst not doe but told him that the dayly Communion many times ministred might suffice him when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food and had communicated and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ I durst not againe baptise him but bade him be of good cheare of a sure faith and boldly to approch unto the Communion of the Sincts But he for all this morunneth continually horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE and being intreated hardly is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiasticall prayers In which auncient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himselfe we have not mention at all of any Altar or Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar but twice together the name of the Lords Table also of a dayly Communion holy food ministring and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which being the proper genuine undoubted language of that age makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted He as also Justine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus oft times making mention of the Lords Supper the Eucharist bread and wine receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or cheife Ministers and the Tables to but never of any Sacrament of the Altar nor of an Altar but only here Finally all the forequoted Fathers Authors expresly determine that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250 yeares after Christ had no Temples Altars nor Images at all and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. after Tertullians age This authority therfore of his all others cited in the Coale great part of D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches Temples Altars and Bishops chaires among Christians with in 200. yeares after Christ must needs be fabulous
Apocryphall He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches in the Authors quoted or in truth misquoted by him for materiall Churches which they meane only of the Christian Congregations who had then no publike Churches but only private places in Woods Chambers Vaults Caves and the like to meet in as Tertullianâ Bishop Jewell and our owne Homilies witnes But admit this Booke Passage to be Tertullians owne yet then it may be a question whether Tertullian meanes by Aram the Lords-Table or that place wherein the Christians mett Ara signifying a Sanctuarie as well as an Altar If the place wherein the Christians assembled as the words preceeding drift of the place import Sle militer de statlonum diebus non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit an magis Deo obligat Nonne solemnor erit statio sâad Aram Dei steteris to wit after the Sacrament received Accepto corpore Domini reservatio utrumque salarum est participatio Sacrificij executio officij which cannot properly be intended that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar and not depart from it after they had received Christs body and blood standing still in the place that they received in but that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled till all prayers divine offices were fully ended If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itselfe then it makes nothing to the purpose if of the Altar or Communion Table itselfe then it will inevitably follow hence that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing not kneeling and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another However it is but a single Testimonie therfore ought not to âver-ballance those many pregnant weighty punctuall authorities to the contrary The last authority to prove the name use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius in Oâigens time is S. Cyprians Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale but the words not cited The first is his Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras As if it were lawfull after the Altars of the Devill to approch to the Altar of God c. whence we behold and beleive this censure to have come from the disquisition of God ne apud Altare consistere that they should not persevere to stand at the Altar or any more to handle it And that they should contend with all their might that such should not returne againe ad Altaris impiamenta contagia fratrum to the polluting of the Altar and contagion of the brethren The second is his Epistle to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Furnis It was long agoe ordained in a Councell of Bishops that no Clergie man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer of any mans will since all who are honored with divine Preisthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices and to prayers and orisons The Leviticall Tribe which did waite on the Temple and Altar divine service had no inheritance or temporall portion allotted them among their brethren but others manuring the earth they should only worship God c. Therfore Victor since against the forme lately prescribed to Preists in the Councell he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter a Tutor non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose necessarie factum servetur a nobis simul caeteris fratribus detur exemplum ne quid Sacerdotes ministros Dei Altari ejus Ecclesiae vocantes ad saeculares molestias devocet The third is his Epistle to Januarius Porro autem Eucharistia unde baptizati unguntur oleum in Altari sanctificatur sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam qui nec Altare habuit nec Ecclesiam unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse quando constet oleum sanctificari Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse And in his Oration de Coena Domini we find only once mention of the Lords Table twice of an Altar To these authorities I answer first in generall that the often mention of an Altar in these places rather argues the Epistles this Sermon not to be Cyprians then that the Christians in his time had Altars which all the forecited Fathers Authors deny 2. That many forged workes are attributed to S. Cyprian and many places in him corrupted as D. James M. Alexander Cooke have proved among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini which mentions Altars with other of his workes to be none of his but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis living about the yeare of our Lord 1156. at least 900. yeares after Cyprian these Epistles for ought I know may be his or some others most at least many of the Epistles or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes being spurious 3. The name Altar is not usuall in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age DionysiusâAlexandrinus as I have proved in his Epistle registred by Eusebius living about S. Cyprians age twice termes it only the Lords Table 4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles seemes to stagger at them nor knowing certainly to de fine what time they were written nor what the parties were to whom or concerning whom they were directed 5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body blood the Table in S. Paules words only the Lords Table And in his Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament which all coufes to be his he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament writing that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the Euangelicall truth and Dominicall tradition nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commaunded and done by any humane and novell Tradition that we ought herein to doe only what the Lord hath done before that if S. Paul or an Angell from heaven should teach us to doe any thing then what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema That Christ only is to be heard therfore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall thinke meet to be done but that Christ who is before all men hath first done Neither ought we to follow the custome of any man but the truth of God For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ I find
none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it exprâsly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his steâd the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio aât deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of theâ almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be coÌsecrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a lââe Popish foâgerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so ãâã all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my â 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by
their Bookes or examples to decline from the strict observation of Gods Law which peremptorily forbiddeth the making of Idolls bowing to them or before them This was this great learned mans judgment concerning Altars bowing to them William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox dedicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England f. 12 Yee hold still Vestiments Popes incense and ALTARS organes crosses in the Church all which ordinances Constitutions Ceremonies the Pope hath devised maed Ergo ye still have the Pope Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances Ceremonies in receiving whereof the Pope is still retained William Salisbury in his Battery of the Popes Batter printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. dedicated to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chauncellour of England spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish and unfit to be tollerated in Churches to the end that the rude and simple people being better persuaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture should not have occasion to murmer grudge or be offended neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England who as redoubted grand Captine hath first enterprised on this most notable feat nor with any other Bishop or Lawfull Officer that attempted to plucke downe and remove the Popish Altars out of Christs Churches and Temples in the maintenance whereof he was fully persuaded that all the learned Popistâ would stifly continue as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader In which Treatise after he had shewed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish serving only for Sacrifices offrings which ended in and with Christs offâing up of his body once for all be concludes thus So then now if it be a cleare case and that by the plaine text of Holy Scripture that since Christ was once offred on the Altar of the Crosse all carnall Sacrifices all manner of offrings that ever were wont to be offred upon the Altars be wholly extinguished utterly voyd and of none effect And in as much as no man being in his right witt when he advisedly perceiveth and plainely understandeth that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose but to burne or to offer Sacrifices oblations upon which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept but he will strait wayes acknowledge that their ought not any Altar to remaine to any use among us Christians after the death and passion of our Master Christ at which time as he protesteth himselfe saying Consumâtum est it is finished signifying thereby that Moses Law was not only by him prevented fulfilled and finished but that the same Law or any Commaundment Rite Ceremony or any other part there in contained as concerning any burthening or Jurisdiction over the Christians was to all intents ended taken away and fully determined and the Gospell as it were a new Law surrogated confirmed and established in steed of the old Therfore Christians thus freed from the Law ought to have no Altars but Tables For what husbandman be he never so simple will be about to plough his land with a whelebarowe to harrow it with a slede or to carry with an harrow what husbandman I say is so folish as to goe about to wede his corne with a sith to moye his hey with a weeding hoke and to tedde the same with a rake Is a leaden Cesterne made for to sayle on the Sea is a ship made to be drawne of horses as a waggon upon the Land do Noble men build sumptuons Palaces for their horses to stand in and lie themselves in old ruinons stables or doe men ordeine fetherbeds for their dogges and lye themselves in kennells who maketh a Garnar of an Oven or an Oven of a Garnar Or who maketh a threshing flore in his dwelling house and a herth in his barne who can make a pleasaunt a brave banketing house of filthy Schambles or of a stinking Slaughter house Yea or who had not rather have his Supper layed on a faire Table before him then on a bloudy Butchars Cradle And so likewise to apply some of these strong Anagogies and darke sayings to our purpose is not a Garnar more meete to lay up grain in than an Oven Is it not more meete to make a threshing flore in a barne then in a mans dwelling house And to make an herth to kendle fyre on in the middes of a mans house then by the moyes side in his barne And so who can make the Jewes old slaughter Synagoge to serve for the new Euangelike Banketing Temple Or who had rather eate the heavenly banket of the Lords Supper on a Jewish a heathenlyk or a Popish Altar then on a decentâ a faire comely Table The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christes Table and his Supper also The unfaithfull heathen thinkes scorne of the same The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion The Heathen in no sence can away with it The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian yea to be thought to be Christ himselfe so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen And shall we seeke upon them Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies of their execrable Rites and cursed usages Or is Christes religion so unperfit of itselfe so needy and beggerly that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen borrow Altars of the Pope borrow vestimentes of the Jewes besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christes Religion and now restored home to the owners thereof Therfore let us either render home againe unto the heathen the superstition of the imbring dayes and to the Pope his halowed Altars and unto the Jewes their Aarons vestimentes or els let us like good companions joyne together in a league with them and be tenauntes in Commune put our religion with theirs in hotch potche After which at the end of the Booke he proceeds thus S. Paul through the secret advertisment of the Holy Ghost did know before hand then if he had geven the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table that there would be in time to come certaine Jewish teachers that would build and sett up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon And surely the holy D. S. Augustine nor any other Godly writer would never have used this terme Altar so often after that sort as they did if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge what absurdity what inconveniencie and what mischiefe and abomination have been grounded on their translated termes And I pray yow what though S Augustine or other Doctours used to terme the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar which if it be as I take it I take it after the most sound and
faithfullist understanding the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their straunge termes being so farre fetched For thus I understand them The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the signe of the Altar which Altar betokeneth the Crosse which Crosse betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offred on the Crolle or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherfore good Christian brethren let us that are homely fellowes not be ashamed of the old Termes that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture which calleth the reverend and healthfull remembraunce of the Lords death by breaking of bread by the name of the Lords Supper or the Communion partaking of the body bloud of Christ. And the thing whereat we sitt devoutly to eate the Lords Supper lett us both have it and call it the Lords-bord or the Lords-Table and not a borrowed towell nor a Popish stone Altar nor yet a wodden Altar with a Super-altar And let us present with so far fetched termes and so dearly bought the Popes glace and his faire Ladyes of Rome Thus he John Bale Bishop of Osyris in his Image of both Churches or parâphrase upon the Revelation as he makes Christ himselfe the only Altar spoken of and intended Rev. 6. 9. c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offred So in his Preface to the first part of his Booke he reckons up beades Altars Images Organs Lights c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church terming them the very filthy dreggs of darknes All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he sayth shal be plucked away by the evident word of God and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appeare For no longer continueth the whore then whoredome is in price Take away the Rites and Ceremonies the Jewels and Ornaments the Images and lightes their Lordships and Fatherhodes the Altars and Masses with the Bishops and Preists and what is their Holy whorish Church any more Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9 reckons up Altars Copes Masses Trentals among other Popish abominations which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Mony how wickedly soever they had lived And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all as for the eyes their God hanges in a rope Images gilded painted carved most finely copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners with Reliques and Altars for the eares singing ringing and Organs piping for the nose frankincense sweet to wash away sinnes as they say Holy water of their owne holying and making Preists an infinite sort Masses Trentalls driges and pardones c. But where the Gospells preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are content with an Honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all but have only a pulpit a preacher to the People a Deacon for the poore a Table for the Communion with bare walles or els written with Scriptures haveing Gods eternall word sounding alwayes amongst them in their sight and eares and last of all they should have good discipline correct faults and keepe good order in all their meetings Learned M. Thomas Becon in his workes in Folio printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. dedicated by name to both their Archbishops all the Bishops of England by them approved hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars some whereof I shall transcribe at large In his Humble supplication unto God for the restoring of his Holy word written in Queen Maries dayes vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus Moreover heretofore we were taught to beate downe the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode a strang Sacrifice for sinne commaunded to be built up as though calfes goates sheep such other brute beastes should be offred againe after the Preisthode of Aaron for the sinnes of the people and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table and after the example of Christ to receave together at it the holy mysteries of Christs body and bloud in remembrance that Christs body was broken and his bloud shead for our sinnes But now the sacrificing âorcerers shame not both in their private talke and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord and therfore have they taken out of the Temples those seemely Tables which we following the examples of the dearly beloved sonne and of the Primative Church used at the Ministration of the Holy Communion and they have brought in againe their bloodly and butcherly Altars and upon those they sacrifice offer dayly say they that is they kill slea and murder thy deare sonne Christ for the sinnes of the people For as thy Holy Apostle sayth Heb. 9. Where no sheading of bloud is there is no remission and forgivenes of sinnes If thorow their Massing sinnes be forgiuen then must the Sacrifice that there is offred be slain and the bloud thereof shead If the Massemonger therfore offer Christ up in their Masses a Sacrifice unto God for the sinnes of the people so followeth it that they murder kill and slea Christ yea and shed his bloud at their Masses and so by this meanes we must needes confesse that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers then honest and pure Tables But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death dyeth no more Death hath no more power over him For as touching that he died he died concerning sinne once And as touching that he liveth he liveth unto the God his Father If Christ therfore died no more then doe the Papists sacrifice him no more If they sacrifice him no more then are they but jangling juglars and their Masses serve for none other purpose but to keepe the people in blindnesse to deface the passion and death of Christ and to maintaine their idle and drafsacked bellies in all pompe and honor with the labor of other mens hands and with the sweat of poope mens browes so farr is it of that they with their abominable Massing stincking sacrificing put away the sinnes either of the quicke or of the dead as they make the unlearned simple people to beleive Ah Lord God heavenly Father if thou were not a God of long suffring of great patience how couldest thou abide these intollerable injuries and so much detestable blasphemyes which the wicked Papists committ against thee thy sonne Christ in their Idolatrous Masses at their Heathenish Altars As in the dayes of wicked Queen Jezabel the Altars of the Lord were cast downe and other Altars were reared and set up to Baal even so now the Tables
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
apparell garnished with gold pearle precyous stone And because that he which should minister at that gorgeous sumptuous Altar should answer in some points to the glory thereof therfore it was devised that the minister also should have on his backe galant and gorgious apparell as an Amyce an albe a tunicke a girdle a fannell a stole a vestment c. whereof some were made of silke some of veluet some of cloth of gold yea those garnished with Angels with Images with birds with beastes with fishes with floures with herbes with trees and with all things that might satisfy and please the vaine eye of the carnall man And all these things being before but voluntary greâ afterward unto matters of so great waight importance yea unto such necessity that it was made a matter of conscience yea it was become deadly sinne to minister the Holy Communion without these scenicall Histrionicall Hickescorner like garments so that now to sing Masse or to consecrate as they use to say without these Popish robes is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sinne so farr is it of that these Missall vestures are now things of indifferency Wherfore in my judgment it were meet and convenient that all such disguised apparell were utterly taken away forasmuch as it is but the vaine invention of man hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papistes For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idolls what concord is there between Christ and Beliall what have the vestiments of a Popish Altar to doe with the Table of the Lord Christ. Many such passages are in this Author which for brevity case I pretermitt Reverend M. Alexander Nowell in his Reprofe of Dormans profe printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. 66. writes thus Touching the name of Altars which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9. where we call it the Lords Table we have for us good authority First that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table and not at an Altar is most manifest except M. Dorman would have us thinke that men had Altars in steed of Tables in their private houses in those dayes but our Saviour expressely saying that the handes of him who should betray him were upon the Table taketh away all doubting Luc. 22. c. 21. And S. Paule 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam the Lord his Table Sure I am that M. Dorman all the Papists with him can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament for their Altars as I have alledged for the Lords Table they may goe therfore joyne themselves to the Jewes as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies so in Altars also as it seemeth indeed they would both become themselves and make us too Jewes rather then Christians If S. Basill some old writers call it an Altar that is no proper but a figurative name for that as in the old Law their burnt offrings Sacrifices were offred upon the Altar so are our Sacrifices of prayer and thankgiving c. offred up to God at the Lords Table at it were an Altar But such kind of figurative speech can be no just cause to set up Altars rather then Tables unlesse they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars for that like phrase is used of them where it is sayed Christ offred up himselfe upon the Altar of the Crosse. Now the old Doctors doe call it the Lords Table usually truly without figure and agreably to the Scriptures Concerning the spirituall worship or service of God or Sacrifice if yow will seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill due to be done at the Lords Table which as a fore is noted he calleth an Altar it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table that is to say true repentaunce of heart which is as the Prophet calleth it Psal. 51. v. 19. a service a Sacrifice pleasaunt unto God the offering up of our prayers prayses unto God which service and Sacrifice of prayse as the Psal. withnesseth Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God specially that Sacrifice of thankes giving most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table and to that Holy Sacrament having thereof a peculiar name being called with the Greekes Eucharistia to say thankes giving for the gratefull remembraunce of that one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour once for all which Sacrifice of thanks giving we joyntly with other present doe offer up to Christ our Saviour in the memoriall by him selfe and by faith in our heates doe communicate his precious body and blood a Sacrifice by him selfe offred for us Neither are our oblations or offrings to the poore lacking when we come to this Altar which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God where as yow Papists have no such thing but only the bare word Offertorium without any offring for the poore saving that yow did not forget to receive the offrings for your selves at the usuall offring dayes and when any Dirige or Monthes mind did fall Thus yow se M. Dorman that we have even that same spirituall worship service and Sacrifice too if yow so will due to be done at this Altar that is to witt the Lords Table which S. Paul speaketh of here and any other Altar or service he meaneth not nor knew none And were yow not altogether to grosse S. Basill so oft speaking of spirituall worshipping and spirituall service might somewhat reforme your carnall and sensuall understanding yow se we doe not sticke to grant yow not only a spirituall worship and service but a Sacrifice too which yet hath no need of your Altars framed to your selves upon this false phantasie that the body and bloud of Christ are there offred by the Preistes for the quicke dead with the abuse of that distinction of the bloudy and unbloudy offering of Christs body applied to the same which altogether is a false fable a vaine dreame most meet for M. Dorman The Scriptures Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. 13. 11. 12. doe thus teach us that Christ our Saviour once for all offred up his body and bloud upon the Altar of the Crosse the one only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father by the which one oblation of the body of Christâ a Sacrifice for our sinnes once for ever offered and no more to be offered by any man we be sanctified and made perfit Wherfore the Popish Preistes which doe repeate often the Sacrifice of Christs death as they doe teach thereby as much as in them lieth doe take away the efficacie and vertue of the Sacrifice of Christes death making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law the imperfection of which Sacrifices S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the
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 Peâra 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
ordained that they which preach the Gosple where he puts the Preachers and Preaching of the Gosple and the living by it in direct opposition contradistinction to the Preistes Levites ministring about Holy things in the Temple and living of the Temple serving at the Altar and partaking with the Altar to preaching of the Gosple and living by it drawing an argument by way of equity from one to the other in this manner The Preist and Levites under the Law which minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple and those that wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar that by Gods ordination Therfore by the selfesame reason hath the Lord ordained that the Ministers of the Gosple who preach the Gosple not those who seldome or never preach as our great Prelates doe should live of the Gosple So that if we interpret this Text as this novell Doctor hath done we shall quite overturne the Apostles argument similitude and make it a meere nonsence Tantalogie such as his Sunday no Sabbath is as full almost of Errors and falsehoods as lines 3. To that of Heb 13. 10. We have an Altar it is true that the Bishop of Chichester heretofore in his Conference with Richard Woodman Martyr alleaged this very Text to prove the Popish Sacrament of the Altar and that it is meant of their Popish Altars whereon their Sacrifice of the Masse is offred and the Rhemists in their Notes on Heb. 13. sect 6. conclude thus This Altar sayth Isychius is the Altar of Christs body which the Jewes for their incredulity must not behold 1. 6. c. 21. in Levit. And the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall Altar Whereby we prove against the Heretickes that we have not a Common table or prophane Communion boord to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs body upon and so called of the Fathers in respect of the sayd body sacrificed Greg. Nazianz. in orat de Gorgonia Chrysoft demonst quod Christus sit Deus Socrat. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 86. de Civitate Dei l. 8. c. 27. l. 22. c. 10. Confess 1. 9. c. 11. 13. Contr. fauct Manich. 1. 20. c. 21. Theophylact in 23. Math. And when it is called a table it is in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body bloud received And other Papists generally inferre from hence as Harding against Jewell Hare in his Conference with D. Rainolds cap. 8. divis 4. that by Altars is not meant Christ himselfe but the very materiall Altar on which they Sacrifice Masse inferring from hence that the Church of Christ hath yet altars Preists and that the Communion table is here termed an Altar But for any Protestant writer of our owne Church or other who interprets the Altar in this Text to be the Communion Table or a materiall Altar I professe I know not any till this new Doctor M. Shelford M. Reeve the nameles author of the Coale from the altar page 47. who yes writes thus dubiously of this Text as applied to the Lords Table and above all indeed S. Paul in his Habemus Altare Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meant the Lords table or the Lords Supper or rather the Sacrifice itselfe certaine it is that he conceived the name altar neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church All the Fathers and ancients on this Text that I have seene yea Isychius whom the Rhemists quote interpret it of Christ himselfe whom the Rhemists themselves in their Notes on Apoc. 6. 9. interpret to be the altar under which the soules of all Martyrs live in heaven expecting their bodies that in these Positive words Christ as man NO DOVBT the altar under which the soules of the Martyrs live in heaven c. which M. Cartwright Doctor Fulke thus resort upon them But if Christ be the Altar here and that without doubt not withstanding that he is not here expresly sayd to be why should not he so be also in Heb. 13. 10. where the name of Altar is more directly applied to him why was it there an Altar of stone which is here of flesh there in proper speech an Altar which is here but a borrowed speech Verily there can be no other reason why that Altar was of stone but that the Jesuites which out of that place framed it either for heavines of understanding to conceive the truth or for hardnes of heart to yeeld unto it were heavier and harder then the very stones themselves whereof they would have the Altar And where in disagreeing themselves they agree with the truth so in that which followeth Christ is the Altar as he is man they are as farre from the truth as they are neere like unto themselves especially if they meane he is the Altar according to his Manhood alone for when his Manhood being the Sacrifice was sanctified by Christ which is the Altar and the thing which sanctifieth is of a Higher nature then that which is sanctified by it Math. 23. 19. Heb 7. 7. it must needes follow that our Saviour Christ must be considered in somewhat else then in his manhood when he is sayd to sanctifie to same How our owne writers have expounded this Text heretofore will appeare First by William Salisbury his Battery of the Popes Bater printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. But now writes he are we set upon to batter and beate downe the head corner stone of their Popish Batereulx we will first declare yet one grammer terme more for the unlearned sake which though it be no high point of Divinity neverthelesse who so hath not the knowledge thereof his Divinity is but humanity or rather carnality then true knowledge in divine matters And so the grammarians call it a speach spoken by a figure called Metonymia when the thing conteyned is ment by the name of the thing that conteyneth it As when he say reach hither the Cupp meaning to have the drinke conteyned in the Cuppe This figurative speech used Christ himselfe when he sayd Luke 22. This Cupp is the New Testament in my bloud where he ment of the wine and not of the Cup. And likewise Matthew 23. where he speaketh by the name of the Citty unto them that dwelled in the Citty saying Jerusalem Jerusalem thou that stayest the Prophetes c. Such manner of speach is also much used in the old Testament as Esay 1. Heare â Heaven and harken â earth And in an other place Howle ye ships of Tharsis And so the Papistes must either grant that that kind of speech is used in the text that we shall anone rehearse hereafter ior els must they grant that the Jewes whose Altars or rather Sacrifices and forbidden meate the writer of the Epistle alludeth unto
were wont to eate up their Altars being made of stones And that were hard meat indeed yea that were meate alone for Ostriches yea or rather stone meat were more meet for such as have stony heartes as have all Papisticall Doct. who against their conscience knowledge and learning and being all destitute of the spirit of God cry shout for the defence of their welbeloved Altars Habemus Altars Habemus Altare Habemus Altare yea I may tell yow this Habemus Altare is their judgeling tricke wherby they doe juggle unto the unlearned it is all their Tabernacle only refuge against all tempestes and this is as well their shote anker as their halow at their hosing up of their ankor But to hale in my saile and to land at the proposed haven The English text of Habemus Altare written Hebrew 13. is this Be not carried about with diverse and strang learnings for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace and not with meates which have not prosited them that have had their pastime in them We have an Altar of the which they have no power to eat which serve in the Tabernacle c. Here he doeth in a manner make a breife rehearsall of all the cheifest matters that he entreated of before adding thereto diverse Godly sentences to persuade the Hebrewes to abide in this learning Inducing them also by alluding unto their Law being but a shadow to cleave unto the Gosple and to let goe the shadow And therfore he sayth thus unto them And as you had certaine Sacrifices offred on the Altars whereof it was not Lawfull even for the very offerers to eat so likewise have we a sacrifice once offred upon the altar of the Crosse whereof it is not Lawfull for as many of yow as be yet duskened with the shadow of the Law to eate nor to be partakers of it at all Now therfore must the Papists be thought not only to be of too childish a witt and of no understanding but rather furious and mad if they continue to prove their stony altars by this text And therfore would I think it an exceeding good deed for such as injoy their right witt to pick out from amongst themselves as many as are vexed with the spirit of the sayd kind of phrenesy and send them to Bedlem or to their owne City of Rome For els they shall still infect other doe more hurt then every man is ware of At the last to draw to an end in this matter where this word Altar is read in the 6. 8. 11. Chapters of the revelation of S. John if altar in those places admitting the like trope and figurative speech do not signifie Christ also God knoweth it signifieth nothing lesse then the confirmation of such altars as the Pope hath filled every corner of Christs Church with all And if the Papistes after that all the Testimonies as well of the Old the New Testament have fayled them goe about to wrest the saying of the old Doctours for the stabilishing of their altars they shall get nothing therby but still utter their owne grosse ignorance or their perverse blindnes For whereso ever the old Catholike Doctours used this word altar for the Lords Table then alluded they unto the Jewes Altar ment thereby the Crosse which served as an altar to offer upon the Sacrifice of Christes naturall body And forsorh ye Papisticall Preistes as many of yow as understand the Latine and marked what yow read and if yee had been Bees not Spiders yow might have gathered the nature of this manner of allusion or resemblance of Christes Crosse unto the altars of the Jewes even out of your owne poysoned Masse For doe you not remember how ye mumbled how ye redd I would say in a certaine rime of your sayd hotch potch which began Laudes crucis extollamus nos qui crucis exultamus c Oquam Falix quam praeclara fuit haec salut is ara rubens agni sanguine O how excellent how happy was this altar of irâe besprynckeled with Lambes bloud and againe in another prose Ara crucis lampas lucis verasalus hominum whose sence in English word for word is this The Altar of the Crosse the lampe of light the very health of men By Richard Woodman Martyr who interprets this Text only of Christ in his second Examination before the Bishop of Chicester which I shall here verbatim relaâe Chichester Follow your vocation yow have a little learning we have an Altar Heb. 13. whereof yow may not eate What meaneth S. Paul thereby Woodman There is no man so foolish to eate stones I trow Chich. What mockers and scorners be yow to say no man will be so foolish to eate stones it is a plaine âocke Wood. Why my Lord yow sayd I had no learning nor knowledge Wherfore it becommeth yow to make things more plaine to me and not to aske me such darke questions and yet blame me to me thinke it is too much Chich. I dare say yow know what it meaneth well inough The most foole in my house will understand my meaning better then yow doe Wood. There stood some of his men not farre of talking together beside a windowe He called one of them by his name Chich. Come hither I say to thee thou shalt not eat of this Table what doe I meane thereby The man Forsooth my Lord yow would not have me eate of this table laying his hand thereupon With this answer he made all them in the house to fall on laughing and I could not hold it in but burst out with laughter and sayd Wood. He hath expounded the matter almost as well as I. Chich. He meaneth well inough if yow would understand him answer me againe to make it more plaine I say to yee Thou shalt not eat of this Table what meane I thereby The man Forsooth yow would not have me eate this Table Wood. These words made them all langh wherewith the Bishop was almost angry because the answer proved no better and sayd Chich. He meaneth that I would not have him eate any of the meat that is set upon this Table How sayest thou doest thou not mean so The man Yes forsooth my Lord that was my meaning indeed Wood. Yea my Lord now yow have told him what yow mean he can say so too and so could I have done as little witt as I have if yow had sayd Paul meant that no man might eate of that which was offred upon the Altar but the Preists Chich. Yea I perceive yow understand the meaning of Paule well inough but that yow list to cavill with me Wood. Why my Lord doe yow thinke I understand such darke places of the Scripture without learning yow sayd even now I had no knowledge nor learning wherfore I answered yow as yow judged of me Chich. Well lett this matter passe let us turne to the principall againe
How say yow by the Sacrament of the Altar Wood. Yow meane the Sacrament of the body bloud of Christ Jesus Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar and so I say Wood. You meane Christ to be the Altar doe yow not Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar in the Church what is it so strange to yow Wood. It is strang to me indeed if yow meane the Altar of stone Chich. It is that Altar that I meane Wood. I understand not the Altar so Chich. No I thinke so indeed and that is the cause that yow be deceived I pray yow how doe you understand the Altar then Wood. If you will give me leave till I have done I will shew yow how I understand the Altar and where it is Chich. Yes yow shall have leave to say your mind as much as yow will Wood. It is written Math. 18. That wheresoever two or three be gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest among them and whatsoever they aske the Father upon earth it shal be granted them in heaven agreeing to the 5. of Math. saying When thou commest to offer thy gift at the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave there thy offring and go first be reconconciled to thy brother and then offer thy gift The Preistes would have interrupted mee but the Bishop bad them let me alone Chich. Yow shall heare a prety conclusion anone Wood. I pray yow let me make an end and then find fault with me if you can Now to the matter In these two places of Scripture I prove that Christ is the true Altar whereon every Christian man and woman ought to come and offer their gifts First wheresoever the people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come and offer our gift if we be in love and charity if we be not we must leave there our offring and goe first and be reconciled to our brother and agree with him quickly and so forth and then come offer the gift Some will say how shall I agree with my adversary when he is not nigh by a hundred miles may I not pray till I have spoken with him To all such I answer if yow presume to pray among the faithfull wishing any evill to any man woeman or child thou as kest vengeance upon thy selfe For no such as keth any thing else of the Lord in hâs prayer wherfore agree with thy adversary that is make thy life agreeable to Gods word Say in thy heart without dissimulation that thou as kest God and all the world forgivenesse from the bottome of thy heart intending never to offend them any more Then all such may be bold to come and offer their gift their prayer on the Altar where the people of God be gathered together Thus have I shewed yow my mind both of the Altar and of the offering as I understand it Chich. Doe yow understand the offring and the Altar so I never heard any man understand it so no not Luther the great hereticke that was condemned by a generall Councell his picture burned Wood. If he were an hereticke I thinke he understood it not so indeed but I am sure all Christians ought to understand it so Chich. O what vaine glory is in yow as though yow understood all things and other men nothing Heare me I will shew yow the true understanding both of the Altar and the offring on the Altar We have an Altar sayd Paul that yee may not eat of Meaning thereby that no man might eate of that which was offered on the Altar but the Preist For in Paules time all the living that the Preist had the people came offered it on the Altar mony or other things and when the people came to offer it and then remembred that they had any thing against their brother then they left their offring upon the Altar and went and were reconciled to their brother and they came againe and offered their gift and the Preist had it This is the true understanding of the place that yow have rehearsed wherfore yow be deceived Wood. My Lord that was the use in the old Law Christ was the end of that But indeed I perceive by Paules words the Sacrifice was offered in Paules time yet that maketh not that it was well done but he rebuked it Wherfore it seemeth to me that yow be deceived To passe by that learned Martyr M. John Philpot with our famous Thomas Beacon who in their forecited passages interpret the Altar in this Text to be Christ himselfe not any materiall Altar either of wood or stone The judicious solide D. William Fulke in his confutation and answer of the Rhemist Testament Heb. 13. 10. sect 6. doth thus expound this Text The Apostle speaketh expresly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observation of the Leviticall Sacrifice Therfore this place is brutishly abused to prove that the Christians have a materiall Altar as the Papists have many The Apostle meaneth Christ to be the Altar not the Table whereon the Lordes Supper is ministred which is called an Altar but unproperly as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice For he saith We have an Altar which is but one where as the Popish Altars and Communion Tables are many But Isychius sayth This Altar is the Altar of Christes body ye abuse Isychius for he sayth that the Altar is the body of Christ it selfe Such an one sayth he may not come neither to the vaile nor to the Altar that is to the body of Christ to doe the ministery thereof For that hath Paul writing to the Hebrewes taught to be the vaile and the Altar The same he sayth l. â c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth that the intelligible Altar is the Lords Body for he sayth we have an Altar whereof they have no power to eate which serve the Tabernacle namely the body of Christ. For it is not Lawfull for the Jewes to eate of it This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witnesse that is in the entrance of the heavens because we have entrance into the Heavens with him It is manifest therfore that Hesychius meaneth not the Ppish Altars but the body of Christ in Heaven the mystery whereof is celebrated on the Lords Table which of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table as it is indeed and an Altar as it is unproperly But that it is called of them a Table and was indeed a Table made of boardes removeable set in the midst of the people not placed against a wall I have shewed sufficiently by the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers
spirituall Altar Whereby as they conclude that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon so for profe hereof they adde that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed it is also called an Altar of the Fathers even of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact. And when it is called a Table it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christs body bloud received Rainolds The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I grant yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth we have an Altar it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually or in a figurative sence as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very Altar such as is used in their Masses they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall spirituall Altar Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you see by an example of their owne Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giveth life unto the world the bread which came downe from Heaven that whosoever eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant under the metaphore of bread our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word artos as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne yet how wise to the purpose who is so blind that seeth not yea to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doe affirme expresly that Christ is this Altar Christ say they as man no doubt is this Altar They meane it I hope in a Metaphoricall or other figurative speech For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove that Masse is sayd in Heaven as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would prove the one cleerly as they could fitt it with this note and the word Altar would put the other out of controversie cheifly if that were noted with all that an Angell stood before the Altar having a Golden Censer Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont vvith false Prophets Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval and others daube it over with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth plaister with it For though as they lay it on it seemeth hansome that vvords signifie properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie not metaphoricall or spirituall things yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used by metaphors or other figures to signifie those things vvhich properly they doe not signifie the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is will laugh at it Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by doe infer upon it that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art partly by drawing us into hatred vvho have not Popish Altars but Communion Tables partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against us Both vvith skill and cunning but more of Sophistrie then divinity 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table because it is ordained for the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body blood The Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it And this improper sence Marrie by a figure of speech by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality are given one unto another as Christ is called David Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist Elias Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem Isay 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old are wont to give the name as of Preistes Levites to Pastours Deacons so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper and of an Altar to the Lords Table For these thinges are linked by nature in relation mutuall dependence as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice the Sacrificers who serve the Altar that is Preistes and Levites Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacrificing of it But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone Heb. 7. 11. they knew it neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them in proving as by them that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly But us of the other side they doe abuse more by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech as if we whose Churches have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ sacrifice him upon it âad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury For we have not a Common but a Holy Table as both we call it esteem it not a prophane Communion board but the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of
thankesgiving the Cup of blessing as the Apostles Doctrine and practise of the Fathers teach us your selves are guilty rather of feeding men with meere bread who doe take away the Cup of the New Testament in the bloud of Christ from the Christian people in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament doe give in your Masses meere bread indeed by your owne Confession the Common bread that goeth under the name of* Holy bread I would to God M. Hart you would thinke with your selfe even in your bed as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4. consider more deepely both the wicked abuses wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prophaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Masse the treacherous meanes whereby your Masters Fellowes of the Colledge of Rhemes doe seeke to maintaine it Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar or of the cleane offring the principall places whereon their shew standeth they goe about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple partly by discrediting us with falâe reproches partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers Which two kinds of profe doe beare the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie part 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar of which they have no power to eate that serve at the Tabernecle That is the Altar whereon Christes body is offered Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum Answer The Apostle speaketh expresly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by a Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observations of the Leviticall Sacrifices For the Apostle speaketh manifestly vers 12. of the suffering of Christ without the Gate Christ therfore is the Altar yea our Preist and Sacrifice too Further you abuse this place to prove your materiall Popish Altars which are many but the Apostle sayth we have an Altar speaking of one This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed that Christ is the true Altar whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer he proveth by the Conference of those two places of the Gospel Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar remember that thy brother hath ought against thee c. Likewise Math. 18. where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the middest Wheresoever then people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come offer our gift Fox p. 1991. Col. 2. By David Dickson who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus We have an Altar c. Such as will eate of Jesus be partakers of him must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle by keeping on foot continuing the Ceremonies appertaynances annexed there unto such Feastes such Jubil es such Altars such sprinklings Holy water such Preists and vestimentes c. as Levi had He calleth Christ by the name of the Altar because Hee is the thing signified by the Altar by the Sacrifice and by she rest of the Leviticall Ceremonies Then 1. those Ordinances of Leviticall Service were figures of Christ some in one part some in another and Hee is the Accomplishment of them even the Truth of them ALL The true Tabernacle the true Preist the true Sacrifice the true Altar c. 2. Christes selfe is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath Our Altar is He only and nothing but hee the Apostle knoweth no other The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James himselfe who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel 9. v. determines thus I saw under the Altar the soules of the Martyrs which cryed with a loud voyce How long wilt thou delay ô Lord since thou art Holy true to revenge our blood For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs that the soules lying under the Altar to wiât in the safegard of Jesus Christ who is the only Altar whereupon by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lipps to wit our humble prayers to God the Father did pray their blood did cry to Heaven crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked Thus all these with sundrie other writers of our Church together with all Protestant writers whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himselfe not of Communion Tables and Altars Therfore it proves not that the Communion Table is or may be called an Altar though the Fathers some times improperly stile it so contrary to the Scripture language yet not in that sence or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators doe to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and set upp Masse againe If any object in the second place as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangly doth and before him M. Shelford that the Lords Table may be called an Altar yea the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar though the Scripture never stile either of them thus First Because the Fathers some times phrase them so 2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. râvived by El. c. 2. termes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar 3. Because the Common Prayer Booke in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. cals the Lords Table promiscuously both by the name of a Table an Altar 4. Because our Godly Martyrs as John Fryth Archbishop Crammer John Lambert John Philpot Bishop Latimer and Bishop Ridley call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Sacrament of the Altar the Communion Table an Altar as their words cited in the Coale from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify from whence that Pamplât concludes thus So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged neither the Prince or Prelates the Preist or people dissenting from it some of those termes being further justified by the Statute Law To the first of these Reasons I answer First that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lords Table an Altar but the Lords Table the Lords Supper the Communion of Christs body blood we ought therfore to stile them so as the Scripture doth 1. Cor. 10. 11. to call them by those names the Scripture gives them which are proper genuine since we ought to speake as Christ and God hath taught us
of these ordinances 2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yeares after Christ had no Altars of which more before therfore not the name of Altars or of the Sacrament of the Altar 3. The Fathers usually and properly stile the Communion Table the Lords table the Holy table the Table c. and the Sacrament iâselfe the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body and blood the Eucharist and the like that properly and those who phrase the Table an Altar or the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar doe it only improperly and figuratively as they stile faith and our hearts the Altar of a Christian either in relation to Christ himselfe who is our only true Altar whose body blood death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Crosse is here spiritually exhibited or by reason of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse and oblations of Charity for the poores releife that are there offred up when the Sacrament is received or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven who must consecrate all our Services Sacrifices spirituall oblations make them acceptable to his Father In these regards only as some of our Martyrs Bishop Jewell D. Fulke D. Reynolds M. Deane Nowell D. Willet and M. Cartwright observe the Fathers sometime stile the Lords Table an Altar or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and oblations which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Crosse here represented to us but never truly or properly Therfore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar nor yet the Sacrament to be the Sacrament of the Altar or that it may properly be so termed 4. Though the Fathers phrase the Communion Table an Altar or the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully doe it or that they did well in it For when they used this manner of speech the Sacrifice of the Masse Masse-Preists with other idolatâous popish trash was not knowne nor heard in the world neither were there any to be scandalized with those phrases or to wrest them to such ill ends purposes as since they have been There were then no Papists to be hardned encouraged in their popish Superstition no Protestants to be scandalized or drawen to dreame of Masse and Masse Preists againe as now there are Therfore they prochance might lawfully use these termes though we may not And yet these termes speeches of the Fathers the Papists have formerly derived and still defend justify all the abominations of their Masse their altars Masse Preistes massing vestments Cringes Ceremonies which shewes that the Fathers might have better spared then used them since all this hurt but no good at all hath proceeded from them if we should now after so long a discontinuance disuse of these Titles and our exploding of them as savouring to much of Popery and Iudaisme and tending to foment them should reassume them it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries errors superstitions concerning the Masse and altars wherein they differ for Protestants but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery and others scandalized with these termes either wholly to seperate from our Church as false superstitious Popish or else to continue in it with wounded troubled scrupulous coÌsciences dejected discontented spirits drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as late experience to apparantly manifests So that this fiâât reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected To the second and maine reason I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancie of reformation whence M. Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes annexeth this observation to it But note the time of the first making of this Statute which was before that the Masse taken away when the opinion of the reall presence was dot removed from us The language therfore of this Act made thus before the Masse was taken away or the grosse opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us is not much to be regarded much lesse insisted on though the Coale from the Altar doth principally relie upon it 2. I answer that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar nor the Lords table an Altar but rather the contrary For the Tittle of it is this An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speake against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar c. And the body of the Act runs thus As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar and in Scripture marke it THE SVPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST c. So that the name which the Statute gives it is only the Sacrament used 8. times together in this Act and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ thus so stiled and this clause commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar is not a Title given it by the Statute but by the Preistes and vulgar people who then usually called it so and added only by way of explanation as their usuall terme not the Parleaments and being omitted in the ensuing parts clauses of this Act which termes the Sacrament the Sacrament of Christes body and blood with out this terme of explination which this Act expresly declares to be no Title given it in or by the Scripture which ever calls it the Supper and Table of the Lord the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ but only by the vulgar who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected neither Masse nor Transubstantiation nor Altars being then abolished as they were shortly after 3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar the sole thing now in question but the Table of the Lord therfore it makes nothing for Altars or the stiling of the Communion Table an Altar 4. No Act either in King Edwards Raigne or Queen Elizabeths or since her dayes this alone excepted calls the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Sacrament the Holy Sacrament c. this Title therfore being omitted in all other Acts mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar not the Parleaments and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Masse and Altars were againe set up and revived but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this can be no plea at all for us now to call the Lords Table an Altar or his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but rather argues the contrary that we should for beare to stile them thus because the Parleament in
all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service except only in Queen Maries dayes hath done it though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law but never proves it neither in truth can doe it 5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes that this Statute of â E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknowledged c. I answer that there is in this a double mistake 1. in the Statute itselfe in citing 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale who stiles S. Edward Cooke S. Robert Cooke makes M. Plowden a Iudge stiled him Judge Plowden though he were never any Iudge a Professed Papist was some busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite interpret Statutes in which he had no skill or else borrowed his Law from others as ignorant as himselfe perchance from M. Shelford who quotes or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cites it for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament that the sayd estatute of Repeale every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE and the service administration of Sacraments rites Ceremonies conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke shal be voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming that the sayd Booke with the order of service and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatuteâ shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this estatute any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing And in the end of this Actâ this clause is inserted and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd that all Lawes Statutes Ordinances whereby an other service administration of Sacraments or Common prayer is limited established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void of none effect By which it is most apparant First that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae only as to the Booke of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. 6. Ed. 6. no further therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke and so remaines unrevived and still repealed by this Act as before 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe that not as it was at first published when it had the name of Altar Sacrament of the Altar in it but as it was purged from these termes and testified in 5. 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head body and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar nor any of these phrases as the Author of the Coale from the Altar ignorantly and falsely affirmes nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer no not 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foote because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer service and administration of the Sacrament then this which this Statute confirmes which enacts that the sayd Booke c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute shall stand and be in full force and effect not by vertue of any former Law but according to the tenor effect of this Statute From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale that neither the head nor body nor any branch or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice nor an Altar nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side much lesse on all sides acknowledged as he falsely vaunts that both the Princes Prelates Preists people have disâented from it that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes And so this maine authority on which he M. Shelford built is point blanke against them makes nothing at all for them and over throwes their cause To the 3. reason I answer that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar as is evident by the Booke itselfe and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority but when the Altars the next yeare following for no reformation can be perfited at first but by degrees were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund Communion Tables placed in their Roomes not to humor M. Calvin but upon good and Godly considerations and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction registred by M. Fox the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke and the names of Lords Table Gods board Communion Table Holy Table Communion Sacrament Sacrament of Christs body blood Lords Table only retained inserted in its steed which Booke being afterwards altered amended revided by Act of Parliament 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names Altar Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted and those other Phrases
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there âited M. Philpot expreââly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâem calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâlamed are now quite extinguished upon âââfull examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâth among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate ãâ¦ã of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no âeaâes at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ lexondâ control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
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 Popâ 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 Bâshops 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 Churchesâ Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their Eastârly 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 aâd 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 Iewâsh 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 âitting and deâent 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 violeÌt 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
the Comon Prayer Booke not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing or our Martyrs Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes but it relates only to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them with order and direction to be given by them was noe matter of great moment but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides according to the forme of the Law therfore provided For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars and to sett up Tables in their stead they might without only order from the visitours even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order direction for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables Altars themsilves or the removing of them simplie considered as the Coliar dreames and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle adged terme the Lords Table an Altar but the Holy Table Communion Table or Lords Board Table only The 6. objection is this The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno 1561. say that in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus The parrish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table c. And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East-wall over the side Table Which put together make up this Construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before I answer first that those two Authorities ever use the word Table and never stile the Lords Table and Altar as his Objector doth and would have it termed therefore it s most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar 2. If both the Queenes Injunctions those Orders 1561 Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise why were they not all then placed so but stood Table-wise then and ever since why did our learned Bishop Jewell in that very age Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke Doctor Willet Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements in their Authorised workes maintaine that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as it did in the primitive Church and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England proving defending it against the Papists whom they contended with if this were both the Doctrine of our Church the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions Orders Advertissement that they should be placedâ Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire yea if this were so why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches to aff on t this situation of the Table in them all Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully or else he must give me leave to thinke that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities If the thing be well observed as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words prove that the Table was to stand Altar-wise with one side against the wall but a good distance from it as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board or upon the East wall over the side Table is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly overât for that they could not doe the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood but over it that is some good height above it not direstly over it is cleare First by the words them selves intimating as much for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table over in both these places relating to the Wall next antecedent not to the Table at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table now the wall by which the Table stands cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table but only over that is above it therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it or written on it as it is in many Churches Thus Ioseph was saide to be set over all the Land of Egipt Gen. 41. 33 43. not in situation for so he could not be but in Authority and Iurisdiction that is he took place and had precedency commaund of all in Egipt or was above them or in higher authority then they Thus David useth the phrase Ps 66.12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades that is to be above us triumph over us So we say that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window when it hangs above it though not direstly over it such a thing is over your head that is above it not directly over it 4. Admit over it be meant perpendicularly over it yet this makes not at all for its situation Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse over it must be interpreted over the East end of it next to the East wall not the East side of it placed against the wall that which hangs over the East end being as truly saide to be over the Table as that with hangs over the side or middle of it 5. Neither of these affirme that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated but at other times Therefore it proves nothing at all that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre The 7. Objecteon for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts that if there shall happeÌ any irreverÌece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise
prescribe any new Rites Ceremonies or visitation ãâã Articles in their owne names by their owne power as they most presumptuously doe in all places euery day without any leaue first obtained from his Mayestey vnder his bread Seale so to doe or to publish give them in charge impose them on his Subjects without his Majesteyes approvation asleht thereto his broad Seale likewise 3. That the Clergie in Conuocation much lesse then any Bishop in his Diocesse can order or determine nothing no not by his Mayesteyes licence approbation vnder his broad Seale that can binde the Subjects or inferior Clergie in case it be contrary to the Lawes and Customes of the Realme But Articles Bishops Constitutions for the Turning of Communion Tables into Altars rayling them in Altarwise with other for enamed particulars are contrary to the Lawes of the Realme to the Customes of it from the 10. of Queen Elizabeth till now sufficient to make two successive prescriptions at the Citull Canon Law neither were this made by the Clergie in Conuocation by his Mayesteyes licence assent vnder his Seale but by the Bishops Arch-deucons their officers themselves without any such royall license or assent Therefore they are meerly voyd neither doe nor ought to binde his Mayesteyes Subjects or the inferior Clergie 4. That his Majestey will never authorize or assent vnto any thing propounded to him by his Bishops or Clergie no not in Conuocation but what shall concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England but the Turning of Communion Tables in to Altars the rayling of them in Altarwise c. Do not concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England but tend to the seâret vndermining discontinuance of them Therefore his Mayestey hath not authorized nor assented to these Innouations 5. That his Majestey will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree from the setled established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England Therefore he will not endure that his Bishops who were priuy to this his Royall Declaration made by their owne advice should vary depart from both in setting vp Altars in steed of Lords Tables in Terming the Lords Table an Altar high Altar his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar in rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise their forcing the Ministers to consecrate the people to receiue or in prescibing any other new Popish Rites and Ceremonies Much lesse wil he endure that they should affirme both by word mouth printed Bookes authorized by their Chaplaines that all these things are done with his approbation by his priuate direction Commaund but will one day call them and these erronious superstitious Popish writers to an account for these their andacious contumelies affronts in contempt of his Lawes and Declarations of purpose to alienate the hearts affections of his faithfull loyall subjects from him to countenance further their owne Romish designes to vndermine religion vsher in Poper by degrees which hath now well nigh wound in not only its head rayle but almost its intire body into our Church by these their treacherous disloyall practises proceedings Innouations All which considered the Councell Table order for St. Gregorius Tables seituation will stand the Bishops the Colier in no steed at all and the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar with other popish Scriblers may justly feare that his Majestey for those vntriuthes false Rumors raysed vp publikely printed of him as if he were the cheife Patron Author Directâr of all those late Romish Nouclties Rites Ceremonies which haue either secretly crept or vyolently in truded themselves into our Church contrary to his Lawes Declarations will give them no great thankes or reward but inflict an heauy censure on them and make them their abesters sing a publike Palinodie suitable to these his Royall Declarations published by his speciall Commaund from whence his justice honor piety constancy will neuer doubtles suffer him to receed in the least degree I haue now through Gods assistance runne over blowen out and quite extinguished as I suppose the Coale from the Altar or rather from Mr. Samuel Bakers Ouen which was like to sets our Churchon fire what euer the nameles Author of this Treatise who vpon examination proves neither learned nor indicious if a Divine as the Title stiles him or Mr. Shelford Doctor Pocklington or Edmond Reeue haue lately written or objected in defence of Altars or placing rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise talking of those idle glosses false Cauils they haue made to elude the Authorities and Antiquities which Bishop Iewel and Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincolne in his Letter to the vicar of Grantham for he is certainly knowen to be the Author of it and hath auowed it haue produced against the Antiquity of Altars for the scituating of Tables in the midst of the Church and Quire all which I shall here prostrate to thy Christian Censure hauing done nothing in this argument out of vaine glory faction opposition or desire of victory over impotent Antigonists but out of a sincere affection to the truth that loyalty that duty endeared respect I beare both to my gracious Prince whose honor Constancy fidelity are interessed in this Controversie to the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England which these like so many secret Powder-traytors would sodainly blow vp subuert by their Romish Treatises desperate Innouations If I have fayled or erred in any particular as what man is free from these common infirmities of Mortality impute it not is the wilfulnes but weakenes of him who wil be more glad more ready to see correct his owne Ouersights then to lay open or Censure others if thou receive satisfaction from it as I hope thou will in some good measure in the things therein discussed give God the glory pray for me who as I am not afrayd to defend the truth in this Apostatizing faint hearted age when as it hath few Friends but feuer Patrons so I shall neither be ashamed to set my name to this Defence when the Author of the Coale from the Altar dares be so bold as subscribe his name to his Assayling firebrand which I here principally haue encountred with our owne domesticke writters Records And now good Reader I should here dismisse thee but that as the Coale concludes with the Councel-Table Order the Coppy of that Letter which it thought to burne to ashes so I shall close vp the first part of my Quench-Coale with a true Relation of the Manner forme not only of turning a Communion Table Altar-wise but likewise Dedicating a Communion Table to be an Altar in such a solemne manner as our age hath scarce heard the like The Historie whereof as it was acted I
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 pâopound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors Innouatârs together with the reasons why I ãâã propose these doubts Questions to thâm 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 lâst 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 ãâã for some other vse the âânation 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 Idololaârous 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 ãâã it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar ãâã at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers ãâã at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they ãâã only to him ãâã 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 ãâã propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or ãâã NO SACRIFICING PREIST ãâã 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 târ 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 Câalice 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 ãâã 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. Hâb 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 SacrameÌt 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 propitiatârie 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 ãâã 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 Sacââment 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 ãâã Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves or proceed so farre at the first dash for feare of prevention and strong opp ãâã 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 âeader both p. 1. and 27 The Ring-leaders and most ãâã ãâã corrupt examples to reduce us backe to Rome that ââunded them And now must wee and Rome bee brought ââgether ãâ¦ã as muthally to embrace and ãâã 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 âyet too grosse and odioââ 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 Pââlate 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 Commânion 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 ãâã 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 receiâing 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 soââe 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 ãâã Sacrament of the Altar Though thâse ignorant Scribâââ would justifie both the lawfullnes of Altars and of termââ the Loâds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from thâââ against the meaning of the Law as I have already âââfested Since therefore it is cleare by the Colier that the ãâã and their Confederates ãâã some notable designes in ãâã 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 âââialists 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 ââgh time so to doe it lest of the memory is be ãâã a ãâã lect of a Communion it be made a private eaâââââ therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebration placed Altar-wise at the remotest East end of the Chanââââ brought in with private Masses for that purpose onely ãâã leâââ of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead wee loose the fruite that be alive holâsome counsell necessary
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 witâ the use of reading second service at the Table now foââooâh 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 ãâã 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 ãâã Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where ãâã can âeare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals ãâã the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN ãâã 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 violâters of the statute of 1â 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 Eastwârds 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 aâthority 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 thââ 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 ãâã 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 coââring 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 ãâã 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 Bishâp 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 âites 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 âe 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 collâcta 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. âulke
as in the places fore-cited so in his Defence against Gâegory Martin writes thus The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT AND NOT AGAINST A WALL AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand which is easy to prove and hath often times been proved and it seemes sayth he to Martin of the Papists you confesse as much VVhich words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton who concurs both in words and judgement with him in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament This Hospinian proves by sundry authorities and by that of the Counsell of Constantinople ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which Survis Crab Binius and others render CIRCVMCIRCA ALTARE round about the Altar as the word doth properly signify even in Sacred Scripture other authours as Bishop Iewel Bishop Morton both resolve I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Iesuite Vasquez more moderate then many of our Novellers Nihilominus certum est c. Although there be many Authours to witt of late time which he there cites for the placing of Altars towards the East Yet it is certaine that it is NO SINNE or offence to situate not only lesser Altars but likewise the High Altar and Quires and Chancles too which he there speakes of towards other climates or parts of the world For this tradition how-ever some urge it as necessary and a binding Law non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt It is not of the number of those traditions which have been left unto us under any precept VVhich he proves out of the forecited words of Walafridus Strabâ adding out of Nicephorus that men have diveâsly ordered those things in former times Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of Socrates wherein the Altar stood westward it being free for Christians in these things vel hanc vel illam consiââtudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custome in the siâuation of their Altars Lords Tables and Quires Much more theâ to rayle in or not rayle in their Altars or Lords Tables Altar-wise at the East end of the Quire or to come up to the rayle as Bishop Wreâ will now inforce all his Diocesse by his new iuvented Articles to receive contrary to the custome of all our churches from Queen Elizabeths time till now yea contrary to the practise in the dayes of Popery and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Quire or Chancle to receive but only to offer as is evident by Concilium Toâ et ââum 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communiceâ Extra Chorum populus Concil Eluber Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist 52. Innocentius 1. Epist. 22. Niciph Eccles Hist â 12. c. 41. Chamir l. 9. de Coena Domini c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge p. 391. with others forequoted And the Rubricke of the Booke of Common-Prayer sett forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Quire the men on the one side the women on the other side and there to receive And likewise King Iames his Proclamation new printed before the Bookes of Common-Prayer admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and publicke for me of Gods service from this which is now established c. it being necessâry to use constancy in the holding of the publicke determinations of States for that such is the unquietnâsse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions as Wren other Novellors and the Colier now affecting every yeare new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemtible VVhereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice established is the Weals of all Common Wealthes which J would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon QVESTION VI. The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours is this VVhat Statute Canon Scripture Anâiquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Altars VVhether their cringing and bowing be a divine adoâation or only a civill worship And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist bowing and practise of adoring Altars Crucifixes Crosses and Images which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatrie This Question is Tââpartie and the cheife of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it beginning with the first branch thereof Law Canon Injunction Constitution of our Church enjoyning and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremonie I never yet met with any no not in times of Popery except that of Cardinall Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Maries dayes in the Vniversity of Cambridge fore mentioned Scripture there is not any direct in point only some texts are strained and miserablie perverted to this purpose As 1 Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy feare will I worship towards thy holy Temple The nearest texts they can ciâe for their purpose and yet farre enough from it For what Logician will not deride this argument David would and did worship towards the Temple at Ierusalem Ergo we must bow downe and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or else-where out of the Temple worshipped that is prayed towards it Ergo Christians when they come in or goe out of our Churches must bow downe to the Table or Altar VVhat coherence of vigour is there in this argument What beast had he reason would thus dispute Had they hence inferred Ergo we must alwayes adore bow downe to or worship God towards not in our Churches and Chaples This had been a more probable inference though unsound Because the Iewes worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only which is vanished Not towards their Synagogues of which our Churches is rather patternes and successours then of the Temple which was but one not many and that a type of our Saviour abolished shortly after his death nor of our Churches built long since after another forme and to an other purpose then it But to answer the texts fully 1. First the worship towards the Temple here mentioned was not bare bowing downe of the body only as these Novellers dreame to or towards it or the Altar or Temple but a praying towards it as is evident by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer 2. Secondly it was a worship towards the Temple only not towards the Altar in the Temple And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table For the Church or Chapple
it selfe is neither 3. Thirdly it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple Not any genuflâction or chringing to the Temple But this bowing of our Novellers is not simply towards but likewise to the Altar as Reeue D. Pocklington acknowledge Now bowing to and towards the Altar are in some respects two distinct things Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar 4. Fourthly this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of wayes in scripture Improperly and Properly Improperly for a praying in some private place not only out of the Temple but even out of the sight and veiwe of it Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Ierusalem Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Iewes where ever they were whether in captivity exile or their owne Country 1. King 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts Properly For worshipping or praying in the Temple as 1. King â 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29. Take it in either sence and it will not avayle our Novellers David in his private devotions even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple did worship or pray towards it Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church when we see the Table or High Altar must bow downe to or towards it or David did worship God towards that is in his Temple Ergo they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God unlesse they will make new formes of Altars and Tables and be mewed up within them by âike Popish authority are but frenticke ridiculous consequents Yet the best that can be drawne ââom these texts to justify these Ceremonies 5. Fiftly the Iewes had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For 1. First they had a divine premission and authority if not a precept so to doe 2. Secondly a promise from God himselfe to heare graâââ their prayers made towards the Temple Both which appeares by the forequoted texts of the Kings Chronicles Daniel and the Psalmes Viz 1 King 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2. But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or ââwards Altars or Tables but a direct precept against it which many read at the Altar Table to witt the second Commaundement Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them extending as well to Tables as to Images Idols or any other creatures though they presently breake it by bowing unto the Table or Altar Neither have we any promise of reward or of answering our prayers made to us for this cringing to Altars and Tables Their practise thereof warrants not ours 3. Thirdly the Temple was a speciall and lively type of our Saviour Christ himselfe as Divines generally accord and that in many respects too tedious here to mention Wherefore the Iewes were thus to worship towards the Temple to teach them alwayes to looke forwards towards Christ which was to come in the flesh as to their only Sanctuary helpe and refuge in all conditions the only Mediatour and intercessour to whom they must pray the only High Preist Sacrifice Oblation and Altar they must depend on typified by the Temple but never towards Synagogues Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables High Altars 4. Fourthly the Temple was the place of Gods speciall presence which God had chosen for himselfe to dwell in and to put his name there where all the Isralites were every yeare by speciall commaund from God to meet to worship him and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King 7. 29. 30 c. Psal. 122. 3. 4. But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove that the High Altar or Communion Table is the speciall place of Gods presence the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in Sure the Scriptures informes us that VVHERESOEVER two or three Mat. 18. 20. are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the MIDDEST of them And thereupon commaunds us To pray EVERY where c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it as they doe 5. Finally the Jewes whether they were East West North or South from the Temple or it from them worshipped and prayed towards it But our Innovatours as they will have all Altars stand Eastward so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East and Altars standing towards the East These texts therefore with Davids worshipping towards the Temple on which they principally relie make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables which no Fathâr or Orthodox expâsiter that I have seen ever deduced from the Scriptures Yea but if these doe not avayle them Mr. Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. acquaints us with some others that will as Psal. 99. 5. Exalt yee the Lord our God and worship at his footstoole Eâgo the first reverence that we must make when wee come into the Church is to bow to the Lords Table which Saint Paul calls the Lords Altar and to worship God towards it Oh sencelesse Divinity and childish Logicke Who ever read of such distâacted inferences Had the Psalmist sayd we will worship at the Altar Or had this footestoble here mentioned been the Altar or this worship a meere bowing of the bâdy towards the Arke or to it and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it there had been some shaddow of worshipping that is of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar but not of bowing to or towards it much lesse to or towards the Lords Table which is neither an Altar noâ hâth any Analogie with the Altar nei her is it so tearmed by Saint Paul as this Dâeamer doteth as I have else where proved at large But since we read not in Scripture that David ever worshâpped or bowed to or towards the Altar And this sâo esâââle here by his owne confeââon was the Arcke but by Davids owne expâsition Gods holy mountaine oâ Hâll Zâon Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping not a bowâng but prayer Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremonie Yea but if these texts fall shârt yet others come fully home as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl bowed themselves and worshipped Ergo Potlid Therefore we must bow downe and worshâp the Alâar or Communion Table Had thâse either bâwed themselves to or towards the Altar the inference had been somewhat tolerable though
nothing to the purpose for bowing to Lords Tables But seeing they bowed only to worship God by praysing him or praying to him their bowing it selfe being not their worshipping as these Dreamers fancie the texts themselves distinguishing the bowing from the worship and worship from the bowing and since the first of these bowed themselves when and where there was no Altar neare them And the second not to or towards the Altar but unto God Therefore can they vvith no more probability hence inferre the lawfulness of meere bovving to or tovvards the Altar or L. T. then they caâ hence make good that these bovved themselves to and vvorshipped tovvards the Altar which is certaine they never did The other ãâã of Isây 45. 23. and Rom. 24. 11. meant only of the bowing and subjection of men to our Sâviour Christ himselfe not to Altars or the name Iesus as S Pâul here expresly resolves are so impertinently cited by Mr. Shelsoââ to this purpose that they need no answer All men shall bow to Christ himselfe at the day of judgement ãâã they must bow to or towards Lords Taâles and Câmmunion Tables now Being a consequence nor tolerable in a Bâdlam much lesse in an ancient highly applauded Divine by Ignoramusses of his owne straine Yea but if these texts miscary yet say some that of Isay. 36. 7. and 2 Chron. 32. 12. Hath not the same Hezechiah sayth rayling Rabshaketh taken away his High places and his Alâars and commanded Iudah and lerusalem saying yee shall worship before one Altar and burne incence on it 1. I answer first that this is only the rayling speech of Rabshaketh not the dictate of Gods infallible Spirit therefore no authenticke proofe 2. Secondly the first part of it is a direct untruth why not the latter too there being no such commaund of Hezechiahs in Scripture for the Isralites to worship before one Altar But admitt there were 3. Yet thirdly I say that this Commaund to worship before the Altar makes nothing for worshipping or bowing to the Altar much lesse the Table No more then David lifting up his hands towards Gods holy Oracle Ps. 28. 2. proves that we ought to lift up our hands towards the Table or Altar when we come in or depart out of the Church or when ever we make prayers unto God For first this worshipping before the Altar was not any Genuflection or bowing to or towards it but a bringing of an Oolation or Sacrifice to it and burning incense on it as the next words expound it and Gen. 8. 20. 1 King 3 4. 2 Kin. 16. â2 13. c. 18. 22. Ps. 43. 4. Ps. 51. 19. Ps. 118. 27. Isay. 56. 7. Mat. 5. 23. compared together testify Or else it was only a standing upright and praying to God before it oâ neare it without any incuruation of the body to or towards iâ 2 Kin 8. 21. 22. 2 Chron. 6. 12. Luk. 18. 11. 13. Neither of which warrant or enforce any bowing to or towards it No more then the Rubricke in the Common-prayer-booke prescribing the man aâd the woman to knââle downe in some convenient place nigh unto the place where the Table standeth when they are Churched there to pâay-implyes That they ought to use to bow to or towards the Table Secondly because they might worship before the Altar without any bowing or particular inclination of the body to it as we use to kneele and pray before the Font at every Christning before the Minister and Pulpit at every Sermon before the Grave at every funerall before the Reading Deske at every Common-prayer Mourning or Evening and yet bow or cringe our bodies to or towards neither of them out of any respect at all unto them Neither doe we the like to the Sacrament or Lords Table when we receive his Supper though most kneele before it then So that J may now safely conclude that there is no Scripture at all for this new Ceremonie the rather because Exod. 20. 23. 24. 25. 26. Dan. 27. 5. Iosh. 8. 31. God commaunds his Altars to be made only of Earth or unhewne stones without any Image or Picture on them to withdraw the Iewes from bowing to them being made of so base materials enjoyning them also not to goe up by steps to his Altar as our Novellers doe to their High Altars that their nakednesse be not discovered theron which would haue been more discouered by bowing and stoping downe thereto then by assending to it by steps As for Psal. 95. 6. it is as extravagaât to this purpose as the rest The Table being not our Lord and maker before noted towards whom this text enjoynes us to kneele and fall downe prostrate Which I have sufficiently answered in refelling them and therefore passe it by But are there no Fathers or Antiquities for bowing to Altars and Lords Tables To Tables certainly not one unlesse that of Nazianzen concerning his Mother Quod veneraÌdae Mensae nunquam terga verteret be wrested to this purpose contrary to the sence To witt that shee never turned her backe upon the Lords Table by neglecting to communicate when ever the Sacrament was administred at it Which is farre enough from bowing to it The Table there being put for the Sacrament it selfe adminisâred thereon as it is in Sundrie such passages in the Fathers Nicephorus Greg. f. 10. Cent. Magd. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9. Col. 243. and others For bowing to and towards Altars there are some seeming Passages in Antiquity the cheife whereof J shall recite and answer omitting the residue as impertinent The Antiquity of this bovving The first Antiquity J finde that may probablie be objected for bowing to Altars is the Masse of S. Iames the Apostle the brother of the Lord if we dare beleive it Wherein among other things I finde a Prayer prescribed to the Preist to be sayd A foâbus usque ad Altaâe from the Church-dore to the Altar which hath these words in it We shake and âremble comming to thy holy Altar After the Preist is gon in to the Altar the Deacon cryes Let us bow our heads to the Loâd And then the Preist kneeling downe sayth this prayer Thoâ who only art the Lord and a mârcifull God Inclinantibus cernices suas CORAM SANCTO ALTARI c. To all that bow then neckes bâfore thy holy Altar ask speciall guâfisfioÌ there senâ foâth thy good grace and ãâ¦ã dictions which cannot be taken away from u c. ANSWER To which I answer First that this Liturgie is but a meâre late Popish forgery brought in many hundred yeares after Christ. Bellarmine and Baronius being so ingenious to confesse that there are so many additions to it of late times as it is not easy to judge what part it had S. Iames for the Auâhour But if he were Authour of any part yet doubtlesse not of this as Mr. Cooke proves sufficiently To whom I shall referre you Secondly here is not a word of
the Preists bowing to or towards the Altar nor yet of the peoples But only a bowing their necke to the Lord. Thirdly this bowing their neckes before the Altar was not with any relation to the Altar but to God and only a bowing of the body in prayer to the Lord. Therefore this spacious forged Antiquity hatched but of late yeares makes nothing for this Ceremonie The Second Antiquity The second is that of Dionysius Arcopagita who writes That a Bishop when he is to be consecrated utroque genu flexo ante Altarâa kneeling on both his knees before the Alâtar hath the Gosple delivered by God layd upon his head and hand That a Preist kneeling before the Altar on his knees hath the Bishops right hand layd upon him That the Deacon kneeling only on one knee before the Altar hath the Bishops right hand imposed After which he observes that accesse to the Altar inflexio genuum the bowing of the knees and laying on of hands c. is common to all three and that their accesse to the Altar and bowing of their knees and all the spirituall Graces in them to God c. To which I answer First that this Antiquity is but some late Counterfeite Noveltie as Mr. Cooke hath shewed at large and the very Ceremonies of Ordination here mentioned prove which came not in till at least 600 yeares after Dionysius dayes as Alcumirus witnesseth Secondly admitt the Authour genuine not forged yet here is nothing but a kneeling downe before the Altar on both knees to receive Imposition of hands not any bowing of the knee or body to or towards the Altar the thing which should be proved The third Antiquity The third is that of Tertuââân where his Panitence among other things is prescribed Aris Dei adgenicularâ To bow the knee to Gods Altars This some thinke an unanswerable Antiquity I answer first That Erasmus and divers others thinke this to be none of Tertullians in regard of its phrase and because Altars as I have proved were not then in use Secondly I answer That the true Coppy reades it CHARIS not ARIS DEI as La Cerda the Iâsuâe in his Edition of Tertullian and Annotations proves at large And the antecedânt subsequent words do manifest Plerumque vâró jeâuniâs pâeces alere ingemiscere lacrymari mugire dâes âoctesque ad Dominum Deum âuum Pâaesbyteris advolâ Aâis for Charis Dei adgeniculars omnibus fratribus legationes depricationis suae injurgere After which some few ânes it âoâowes by way of recitall Ergo cum te ad fratrum gânua protenais Christum contrecta Christum exo as Which last words provâs that Aââs âmistaken and put in for Charis ET beââg here a plaâââ bodge absurdly thrust in for Châ Which added to arts makes Charis This the placing of it between Presbyteris advolui and omnibus fratribus c. warrants to be the true sence and reading And that for three reasons First because the parties that were thus to prostrate themselves to the Elders and Saints of God were Paenâtents or men excluded and excommunicated from the Churth and Sacraments for some hainous simââs which they were thus to lament This bowing and prostration therefore of themselves could not be Aris Dei to the Altars from which they were excluded But Charis Dei to the beloved Saints of God to whom they might have private accesse for comfort and counsell Secondly because the end of this bowing to the Elders and Brethren was only to aske them pardon for their scandals and offences against the whole Church and them And to deprecate their crimes as the last words omnibus fratribus legationes depraecationis suae injungere manifest Or else to desire them to pray greive and lament to God both with and for them As the following clauses Quid consortes casuum tuorum ut plausoâes fugis Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere Condole at universum ad remedium conlaboret necesse est c. Now it were absurd for them thus to bow and kneele dovvne to the Altar of God for either of these tvvo causes Therefore it vvas questionlesse to the Saints of God and must so be rendred Thirdly because the Tripartite History Ierom Cyprian with others quoted by Rhenanus and La Cerda touching the manner of the Exâââlogesis Conâession in the primative times make no mention at all of any bowing to Altars used in this kinde of discipline by Paeââtence But only a bowing to the Saints of God who bedewed these Paenitents with their teares This bowing therefore only to Gods Saints is no proofe of the Antiquity of bowing to Altars Thirdly admit it were Aris Dei yet it makes nothing to the purpose For this was not any precise bowing to or towards the Altar such as is now used but only a kneeling or prostration in prayer before it as the text doth manifest Besides it is Aris Dei adgeniculari in the Passiue not adgeniculare in the Active verbe Therefore no voluntary genuflexion to the Altar but an enjoyned and enforced prostration of a paeâitent by the Altar So that this grand authority well examined vanisheth into smoke extending only to paenitents not any other The fourth Antiquity The fourth is that of Athanatius Quid quòd hodiè qui ad Sanctum Altare accedunt idque amplectuntur ac cum metu ac laetitia salutant non in lapidibus lignis sed in gratia per lapides ligna nobis raepresentata adhaerent I answer first that this is not Athanasius his genuine worke Secondly that this was only a coming up unto and embracing and kissing of the Altar which our Novellers now use not when they bow to it or before it And that out of Superstition rather then any true Christian devotion as is manifest Thirdly it is spoken only of such who came to receive the Sacrament ând at the time of their receiving not of others The fift Antiquity The fift is that of Gorgonia who being dangerously sicke as Nazianzen in his Oration in her praise records and dispairing of Mans helpe went secretly in the darke night unto the Church Ad Altare cum fide procumbit Casts herself downe with faith by the Altar calling him to witnesse who is worshipped upon it with a loude voyce c. And moving her head to the Altar with the like crie and abundance of teaâes threatned shee would not remove from thence till shâ had recovered her health and so continued praying and weeping at the Altar till by Gods goodnesse shee was miraculously recovered To which I answer First that here is no mention of any bowing to or towards the Altar but only of a kneeling downe and a prostration at it to pray and weep to him that is worshipped on it Which proves no more the use or practice of bowing to Altars then our Ministers kneeling downe and praying at the Lords
Table when they consecrats the Sacrament or marry any man warrants or proves a custome to bow to or towards the Lords Table never in use till now of late See the Common Prayer-Booke the Rubricke before Communion and Mariage Secondly this is alleadged as an extraordinary example only of one and shee a woman who in ancient times might not come neare the Altars nor touch the Altar-clothes by the Canons Gratian. de Consedratione Distinct. 1. Rodulphus Tungrensis de Canonum observantia Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 254. B. in an extraordinary case at an extraordinary time of the night when none were present in the Church This swallow therefore makes no Summer proves no generall practise or custome then but the contrary The sixt Antiquity The sixt is that of Eutropius the Eunuch Socrates Scholast Eccl es Hist. l. 6. c. 5. who incurring the Emperour Arcaaius displeasure tooke the Church for his Sanctuary and lay along at the foote of the Altar I answer That there is no prostration to or towards the Altar to adore it but to be secured by it a flying to it only as a Sanctuary by a guilty person fearing death not a voluntary adoration of it or bowing to it by an innocent person ân no danger of his life Therefore impertinent our bowers not lying downe along at the feet of our Altars as they did The seaventh Antiquity The seaventh is the example of Paulus the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople who perceiving his Church to be in great immineÌt danger of burning by reason of a fearce fire fell prostrate before the Altar referring unto God in his prayer the preservation of his Church and so by his uncessant earnest prayers miraculously preserved the Church from burning Socrates l. 7. c. 39. in the Booke 38. in the English Nicephorus Eccles. Hist. l. 14. c. 41. I answer That here was no prostration or bowing to or towards the Altar but only a prostration in prayer before it Which proves nothing Besides Nicephorus makes no mention of the Altar but only relates that Paulus went into the Sanctuary and there prostrated himselfe in prayer Finally this case is extraordinary upon an extraordinary occasion Neither doe the Historians mention it to prove any reverence then given to the Altar but only to shew the force and fruite of prayer which can quench even the most raging flames of fire In a word We reade here of a bowing and prostration in prayer before the Altar but not of any bowing or prostration to the Altar without any prayer The thing only in dispute For which there is not one example in any Authour till above 500 yeares after Christ. The eighth Antiquity The eight is that of Rusticus a Cardinall Deacon of Rome about the yeare of our Lord 550. Contra Aâephalis Disputatio Bibl. Patrum Tom. 6. Pars 2. p. 225. G. 229. E. where he writes thus Wee all adore the Crosse and by it him whose Crosse it is yet wee are not sayd to coadore the Crosse wââh Christ neither by this is there one nature of the Crosse and of Christ. Similiter adorare Altare âoadorare Altari Trinitatâ non dicimur sed potius per Altare Nec enim Tabernaculum in Eremâ nec Arca nec Templum nec Altaria ab antiquis coadorabantur concolebantur neque una est Dei horum facta Natura Hae verò creaturae non coadorentur Trinitati sed per eas Trinitas adoretur Nec non clavos quibus fixus est lignum venerabilis Crucis omnis per totum mârdum Ecclesia absque âlla contradictione adorant c. To which I answer First that this is one of the Papists new forged Fathers not heard of in the Church till now of late Besides they branded him for a Schismaticke and a man then deprived by the Pope and cannot certainly define whether this be his work See Biblioth Patrum before his workes Secondly this worke must not be so ancient or else the Authour is a great lyar it being that the vniversall Church did not adore the Crosse and Nay es universally in that age nor adore God and Christ in by and through Altars Crucifâxâs and Images nor yet in 50 yeares after as is apparant by Pope Gregory the first Registr lib. 7. Epist. 109 l. 9 Epist. 9. No nor yet in 300 yeares after witnesse the Councell of Constantinople Anno 754. Mathew Westminster Hââ 793. Houeden Annal. pars l. p. 405. The Councell of Paus An. 824. Agobardus his booke de Picturis Imaginibus Our owne Homilies aganst the Perill of Idolatrie together with Zonarus in his Annals Nâcelus in his Annals Eutropius in his Romane History and the other Centurie writers witnessing as much This Authour therefore being either a bastard or a lyer will not stand them much in stead Thirdly I answer if our Novellers will take advantage of this authority which I have quoted for them let them take him all or none That I presume they will not doe for then they must adore the Crosse the Crucifix and Nayles wherewith our Saviour was pearced and that they will not doe I suppose as yet If therefore they disclaime him in this why not in that of adoring the Altar Fourthly he writes expresly that they did adore the Altar and not coadore the Trinity with it but rather adore the Trinity by or through it Now thus to adore the Altar or God with or by or through it is no lesse Idolatrie by our owne Homilies â and all our writers resolution Whereupon Dr. Duncombe in his determination at Cambridge disclaimed utterly any worshipping or adoring God by or through the Altar even in his defence of bowing to or towards it This Idolatrous adoration of the Altar and President will not stead them but quite spoyle their cause The ninth Antiquity The ninth that may be objected is that of Stephanus Edvensis a Bishop An 950. Cap. 12. de Sacramento Altaris Where he writes That the Preist coming to the Altar in his Massing-vâstâents osculatnr Evangelium Altare kisseth the Bible and the Altar signifying him thereby who with the kille of his meare nation hath made both one in the incaruation of the Iewes and Gentiles He holds or stands at Tenet dexteram partem Altaris the right hand-side of the Altaâ because Christ was promised in the Law to the Jewes before he preacheâ to the Gentiles After that the Gosple is removed from the right hand or corner of the Altar to the left by the Deacon or Preist the right hand is attributed to the Iewes for the veneration of the Law the left to the Gentiles for their execrable Idolatrie The Gosples Doctrine committed to them was first repulsed by the Iewes Whence the Gosple ought to be read on the left side of the Altar towards the North c. O profound reason and divinity After the Preist inclinans seante Medium Altaris bowing himselfe or kneeling downe before the middest of the
Altar prayes to God the Father to give him the spirit of humility c. Which I have cited more at large to shew the ridiculous grounds of Popish Ceremonies I answer First that in all this there is not one word of bowing to or towards the Altar which certainly would here have been mentioned among other Ceremonies had it been then in use Secondly the last words mention only a kneeling downe at the Altar and that by the Preist at the time of Consecration to pray but no kneeling or bowing to the Altar either before after or without any prayer the Ceremony now contended fore This therefore is not home The tenth Antiquity The tenth is that of Honorius Augustodunensis de antiquo ritu Mâssarum l. 3. c. 30. De Inclinationibus Dam Ecclesiam ingredientes ad Altare inclinamus quasi regem milites adoramus Aeterni quippe Regis Milites sumus cui semper in precinctu specialis militiae assumus Cum autem ad Orientem Occidentem inclinamus Deum ubique praesentem nos adorare monstramus Quem it a rationali motu ab ortu nostrae nativitatis usque ad occasum mortis sequi debemus sicut coelum ab Oriente in Occidentem naturali revolutione ferri videmus Quod Monachi expressius designavit qui se toto corpore ab Oriente in Occidentem girant To which I answer That this Authour lived 1120 yeares after Christ and is the first undoubted writer that makes mention of bowing to the Altar at the enâring into the Church which I have met with all Which Ceremony as is likely began in his dayes But yet observe First he sayth they bowed To not towards the Altar only Which many of our Novellers deny they doe Secondly that the ground and reason of bowing to the Altar then is farre different from those reasons alleadged for it now They bowed thus Only to restify that they were Gods Soldiours ready at all times to doe him service Not from any reasons drawne from the Altar But wee forsooth must bow to it because it is Gods mercy seat the place of Christs speciall presence on Earth his Chaire of state to testify ouâ Communion with the faithfull because it is the principall part of the Church And if all these faile because it is used in Cathedrall Churches Which reason they never dream'd on then Thirdly that as they then bowed to the Altar so likewise they bowed themselves both East and West to testify that God whom they worshipped was every where alike present But our men will only bow Eastward and have all Altars so situated not Westward And confine Gods speciall presence to their Altar and the East end of the Church as if he were not every where present alike Which is directly opposite both to their practise and reason here alleadged to the contrary Fourthly they bowed only to the Altar at their first entrance into the Church ours now not only at their coming in but every time they passe by it towards it repaire to it retire from it and at their going out of the Church besides Fiftly this in that age was the practise only of Monkes when they went to their houres of prayer for of them he speakes as is evident by the precedent and subsequent chapters with reference to these houres Therefore it is no proofe for Ministers or Laymens practise of it then or now The eleaventh Antiquity The eleaventh is that of Rudolphus Tungrensis florishing about the yeare of our Lord 1380. De Canonum observantia propositio 23. Who as he informes us in direct tearmes that Sixtus the second Anno 261 ordained That the Masse should be celebrated upon an Altar QUOD ANTEA NON FIEBAT which before that time was not done a cleare proofe that Christians for 261 yeares after Christ had no Altar in use so he writes That the Preist in that age read the Gosple at the left corner of the Altar according to the Roman Order that on the Right side he might be the readier to receive oblation and performe sacrifice That the Roman Order prescribes that incense with a Tapor should be caried before the Gosple when it was caried to the Altar or Readers seate And then relating divers Ceremonies about the Masse he sayth Sacerdos autem humiliationem Christi usque ad mortem Ctucis nobis indicat quando se usque ad Altare inclinat dicendo habe igitur ohlationem Et statim in sequentibus narrationem de Dominica passione orditur Quam usque ad supplices te rogamus observat Quosque juxta Altare se inclinans Christum in Cruce inclinato capite spiritum tradidisse signat To which I answer That this is no bowing to or towards the Altar But a bowing of the Preist as low as the Altar and by âr besides the Altar not out of any respect or reverence to it but to shâw forth Christs humiliation unto the death of the Crosse as iâ the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26 instituted for that purpose and then celebrated were not sufficient for that without this idle Ceremonie to shew that Christ bowed his head when he gave up the Ghost as if Christ himselfe at his last supper or his Apostles after him could not have prescribed such Ceremonies for these ends had they thought them necessary Tâerefore it s no warrant or proofe of any bowing or inclination to or towards the Altar especially for other ends which is not so much as mentioned in this writer there being non Canon extant for it in his age The twelveth Antiquity The twelveth is that of Eugenius Roblesius Bibl. Patrum Tom. 15. p. 761. G. H. de authoritate ordine Officij Mârzabarici among the Gothes Where J find no mention of the Preists genuflection to the Altar before the ordinary Masâe or in it But these passages after it Absoluta Missa Sacerdos genubus flexis juxta Altare recitat salve regina Dânde deosculato Altare convertit se ad populum But in the Lenton Masses immediately after the Psalmes Sacerdâs genust xo supragradus Altaris recitat quasdam preces c. Hinc ante sacrificium oblationom Sacerdos genu flexo ad Altare recitat alias preces c. But all this proves only a kneeling and genuflection in prayer at the Altar not any bowing or incuruation to or towârds it and that all the time of the Consecration by the Preist alone not by other at other seasous These are all the cheife Authorities I have hitherto observed which seem to give any colour to this bowing to or towards Altars which Ceremonie I cannot finde prescribed in any Bookes of Divine Offices Canonists Missals Caeremonials Primers Psalters Liturgies Masse-Bookes or Masses no not in the Popish Churches much leââe at home that have hitherto come unto my hands A strong argument and evidence in my judgement that it was never used in former times as now it is of late The fore-cited Authorities two only excepted and those late Popish
writers making nothing at all either for the lawfulnesse of this Ceremonie though many ignorant superstitious persons are deluded by them Most of these Authorities I confesse are not cited or objected by the opposites but least they might object or pervert them hereafter J have here propounded and answered them by way of anticipation and all others of this nature in answering these These are the only Authorities yet behind The first is that of the fift Generall Counsell Surius Tom. 2. p. 440. See Bish. Mortons Institution of the Sacram l. 7. c. 3. Sect. 3. p. 5. 15. of Constantinople Actio 1. where Iohn the Patriarch speakes thus Haec patienter sustinete fratres prius A DOREMUS SANCTUM ALTARE post hoc do vobis responsionem Et cum intrassent ad Sanctum Altare permansernnt clamantes Multi enim Imperarores c. To vvhich I answer First that this Patriarch speakes plainly of adoring the Altar it selfe not to or towards it or of the Hostia upon it VVhich our bowers themselves confesse to be Idolatrous Secondly the ensewing vvords prove that this adoring the Altar was only a going to the Altar there to pray not a bowing to the Altar it selfe of vvhich there is not a word unlesse wee will make this Patriarch a grosse Idolater in adoring the very Altar From which the Lollards both in France and England were so farre averse that they were called Pileati or Oeputials by the Papists Antiqu Eccles. Brit. 295. âó quod Altare praetergressi ex Pontificis instituto pixide incluso piâei honorem non deferant Because they would not putt of their Caps to the Pix or Altar when they passed by them And if they would not so much as move their Caps to them much lesse did they bow their knees or bodies to or towards them This president therfore take it in one sence or other wil not advantage our Nouellers vnlesse they will confesse that they adore the Altar it selfe and not God towards it which makes them grosse Idolaters The second Authority The second is that of Cardinall Pooles Deputie visitours in Queen Maries bloody dayes who among other Noble Acts in that visitation decreed and prescribed Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. how many Pater Nosters and Ave Maries every man should say when he should enter into the Church and in his entrance AFTER WHAT SORT HE SHOULD BOW HIMSELFE TO THE ALTAR And how to the Maister of the house This Authority I confesse Is full for bowing not to the Hostia only as the passage in Bishop Morton would fable but to the Altar it selfe But yet observe first when and by whom this Ceremonie was prescribed In Queen Maries dayes by professed Papists and Champions for the Church of Rome Secondly to whom it was prescribed only to Schollars in the Universitie and no others Thirdly with what this Ceremonie was attended VVith Pater Nosters and Ave Maries Fourthly to whom it is likewise extended To the Maister of each Colledge as well as to the Altar and that in the Church it selfe Therefore certainly they then reputed it no religious worship or divine adoration as most now esteeme it Jf our Bishops and Novellers will take this for their patterne and president some of them being not ashamed to magnify Queen Maries and depresse Queen Eliz abeths dayââ See Dr. Dupra his preface to the Vniversity Statutes at Oxford I shall then conclude with Dr. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath p. 2. 48. That they are lineally discended from S. Peters Chaire aâ Rome and with a late Iesuite which I have not yet seen but heard of That the Iesuites need write no more for the Sacâifice of the Masse for that we are writing for and setting up Altars so fast in England that they hope to see Masse there very shortly if these may have their will at least and God and his Majesty prevent it not with speed But if they are ashamed of such a president let them with like shame henceforth abandon such an Antichristinn Romish practise The third Authority The third is that of Odo Bishop of Paris in a Synode about the yeare of our Lord 1206. Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gal. l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 81 p. 558. Summa reverentia honor maximus sacris Altaribus exhibeatur maximè ubi sacro sanctum corpus Domini reservatur Missa celebratur A very probable Authority for this Ceremonie To which I answer First that there is not one word in this Injunction concerning bowing to or towards the Altar And reverence and great honour might be given to it in such manner as it is given to Churches Fonts Pulpits Bibles and the like not by bowing to or towards them but by a reverend use and estimation of them free from superstition on the one hand And prophonesse on the other So as this Authority in truth proves nothing Secondly admit it meant of bowing to Altars yet it is to be given only to sacred consâcrated Altaâs not to others But few or none of our Altars not one of our Lords ãâã ables have yet been so solemnely consecrated the reason why Papists refuse to bow to them ãâã it makes ãâã for any genuâlectioâ ãâ¦ã or Tables Thirdly this honour and reverence is ãâã to be given to those Altars only wheâc the body of Christ is a wayes ãâ¦ã pix and Masse celebrated And thââ say ãâã Papists in their private discourses ãâ¦ã of the ãâ¦ã 46â is thât ãâã reason why thây bow ãâ¦ã cause Christs boây is they imagine âs the ãâ¦ã as they bow not at all to or towards the body of Christ reserved on it But our Altars for ought I yet know ãâã have no body of ãâ¦ã on them Therefore they are not yet to be bowed unto or reverenâed by vertue of ãâ¦ã likewise ordaines that ãâ¦ã which l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 8â p. 558. Which our Bishops urge with much vigour As for the Synod of ãâã An. 1583. though it decree many things concerning Altars as that none shall stand under the Organs Pulpit or against the Piltars of the Church or over against the High Altar or neare the Church-dores or any unfitting place That there shall not be above 7 Altars in any Church That all of them shall be of stone 7 handfuls and an halfe broade and 8 handfuls long That iâ might have a faire Altar-cloth to cover it That a Cisterne of water See Bochellus Decreta Eccles. Gal. l. 3. Tit. c. 33. 34. p. 362. with two or three towels neare it for the Preist to wash hâs hands defiled with their unholy holy Sacrifice of the Messe That every Altar where the Bishop shall judge it may conveniently be done shall be rayled in with an Iron or stone rayle or at least with a woodden onâ standing at least 7 hand-breathes distance from the Altar within which rayle no Layman may enter whiles that Masâe is celebrating That every Altar have its proper Ornaments and decent furnature as Altar-clothes towels a
Crucifix in the mid lest two Candlestâckes at the least one placed at the right hand another at the left which shall stand alvvayes on it but especially on all Holy-dayes unlesse the Bishop at some times shall otherwise order VVhich Popish Constitution Bishop Wren with other of our Prelates and Novellers now follow to an haires breadth though I say this Counsell decreed all this and more yet there is not a syllable in it concerning bowing to the Altar Therefore it seemes to be a thiâg of no great request even among the Papists who bow only to the Hostia on it Bâshâ Mâtons Iâstitution of the Sacram p. 463. not to the Altar it selfe or towards it These I suppose are the prime Authorities that can be produced by any for bowing to Altars And all these if duely weighed are nothing at least to sway with any Protestant or syncere Christian. As for bowing to or towards the Lords Table which I have proved not to be an Altar nor yet to be of right so styled but only the Lords Table as even in times of superstation it hath been stââed Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9 Col. 243. Nicâph Gâeg f. 10. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacramânt p. 303. there is not one syllable in all my reading nor I thinke in any man else to be found If any demaund now of me how I prove that the primitive Chârch and Coristia is bowed not to Altars Lords Tables and therefore we ought not now to doe it I answer that I can manifest it sundrie wayes 1. Because I finde no such thing either in the Fatâeâs or Ecclesiasticall Historians where all the Rights and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church are accurately sett downe and aâscribed See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. de Ceremoniâs Ritibus Eccles. so as this of all other had it been a thing of that moment and so much practised as some now fable would not have been passed over in sââânce by them 2. Because the Primitive Church and Chrâstians for 260 yeares after Christ or more had no Altars at all among them as I have else where proved Therefore no bowing to Altars And to Tables we never read that any bowed no not in times of Popery when they so farre disdained Lords-Tables that they contemptuously styled them Prophane Tables and Oysterboards Acts Monum Edit ult pars 3. p. 85. 95. 497. 3. Because the Christians in the Primitive Church for many hundred yeares after Christ prohibited all Christianâ to bow their knees or kneel on any Lordsday and from Easter till Whitson-tide on any weekeday in honour of Christs resurection holding it an offence and sinne so to doe even in the act of prayer and adoration it selfe As Tertullians vvords in his Booke De Corona Militis witnesseth Die Dominica jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare And these subsequent Authorities doe likewise manifest it Iustin Martyr Quaest. 115. Tertullian ad uxorem Hierom Advers Luceforianos de Ecclesiasticis observationibus c. 29. Radulphus Tungrenfis de Canonum observantia Proposit. 23. p. 458. A. Concil Nicaenum Can. 20. Carthag 6. Can. 20. Constantinop 6. Can. 90. Turonense sub Carolo Magno Can. 37. Gratian de Consecratione Dist. 3. Origen Homil. 4. in Num. Cyprian Centur in Orat Domini Centur. Magd. 3. c. 6. col 135. If then the Primitive Christians prayed and worshipped standing and deemâd it a sinne to kneel either in prayer or any other act of adoration or worship on those dayes the cheife time of theâ Christian and publicke assembles especially for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Ivo Carnotââses Decretal Pars 1. c. 25. 34. It is certaine therefore that they used not in their Assemblies to bow their bodies or knees to or towards High Altars or Lords Tablesâ as certain that they kneeled not at the Sacrament much lesse bovved their heâds or knees at the naming of Iesus as some ignorant shallovv-pated Novellers now pretend and give out without proofe or shaddovv of truthâ 4. Because the Fathers condemned as Idolatry all bâwing to or towards Images or Idols all worshipping ãâã God in by through or towards them Holding divââ ãâã and adoration a thing peculiar to God alone ãâ¦ã immediately to God himselfe without any such ãâ¦ã âelpes of Images or Altars condemning all relative wârship as derogatory to his Majesty See the Homily of the ãâã of Idolatrie Bishop Ushers answer to the Iesuites Challenge of Images and praying to Saints Therefore this vvorshâpping and adoring of God in by through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table is a thing utterly coÌdemned by them to be detested of all which would have hardned the Gentiles in their Idolatrie for which cause they suffered no Images in their Churches and carefully Tertulliani Apologia wiped of these Cauils of ãâã Pagans who sâândered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sunne the Crosse an Asses head and the like Concluding and protâsting that adoration and worship was due to God alone and that immediately 5. Because they reputed Christ only the true Altar the only Altar in âeaven which they adored all other Altars were Iewish or Pagan reliques abolished by Christs death which had no Authority to warrant them in the Scripture Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. See Bishop Mortons Institution of the SacrameÌt Edit 2. p. 415. 418. 461. 462. Therefore unfitt to be bowed to or towards or to be the objects of any relative worship as most now make this their bowing Upon all which grounds I conceive I may safely assirmâ at least till our Novellers shall be able to prove the contrary that the Primitive Church and Christians never used to bow to Altars or Lords Tables and that there are no Fathers nor Antiquities to justâfy this usage In the Discription of the election of Maximilian to be King of the Romanes in the month of Ianuary An. 1486. Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 32. I ãâã that ãâã Eââperour in the Cathedrall Church at Fâankfââd ãâ¦ã for him to sit in Ad Altaris ãâ¦ã A thâ South-side of the Altar where the Gosple is usually read higher then the other seates just over against the Altar That the Arch-bishop of Mentz the Duke of Bavarââ the Count Palatine of Rhene Maximilian Arch-Duke of Austria and the Duke of Burgundie sate on his left hand The Arch bishop of Colen the Duke of Saxonie and the Marquâsse of Brandenburge on the left hand And the Arch-bishop of Treuier neither on the right hand ãâã the left but just before the Kings face before the Altar On the same side of the Quire sate divers other Bishoppes On the North-side of the Altar sate many Bishops Earles Dukes and Nobles All which in order went and offered at the Altar After which the King came and received his Crowne at the High Altar Masse being ended the Princes
Electâurs went to the Altar to sweare according to the tenour of the golden Bull. At last Maximilian led by the Arch-bishops of Mentz Colen was lifted up upon the Altar and TE DEUM sung played on the Organes CIRCA ALTARE about the Altar at the sides by the exalted King stood the Arch-bishop of Colen and Mentz and before his face stood the Arch-bishop of Treuier the other Princes accompaning and standing about them By which it is evident the High Altar at Frankford at the time of this Coronation stood not Altarwise against the East-wall of the Quire for the King sitting on the South-side of it just over against the Altar and these 5 great Princes sitting in distinct seates at his right hand in state the Altar was at least 5 seates distance from the East-wall and stood so that the Arch-bishops Princes and Nobles when the Emperour was eleuated on it stood round about it and him at the time of this royall solemnity The Heathen Altars likewise stood not against the East-wall of the Quire as appeares by Paulus in Curculione Nurâ Ara veneris haec est ANTE horum fores Ovid. Motamorph l. 10. Ante fores horum stabat Iovis hospitis Ara. Iulius Caesar Bullingerus de Theatro l. 1. c. 22. p. 256. Latini Comaeâi Aram in PROSCENIO CONSTITUUNT in Apolonis honorem c. Vide ibid. So that the placing of Altars against the East-wall is but a late Novelty even among the Papists themselves and so likewise this bowing to or towards the Altar For J finde no mention of it in the exact Discription of this Solemnity Only I read that when Maximilian was crowned at Aken the 31. day of March following they went into the Quire to the High Altar and there heard Masse Then the 3. day of April he offered at the Altar of the Virgin Mary That after some Hymnes sung and collects reade in the Quire Rex prostravit se super tapetum ad gradus Altaris totus in longum The King prosttated himselfe at the steps of the Altar upon a Carpet lying all along upon it And the Arch-Bishop of Colen super âum sic proctratum legit reads over him thus prostrate Lord save the King with other two Collects Erge we must thus prostrate our selves when we come in ãâ¦ã of the Church is no good argument it being a Ceremony ãâã for the King at his Coronation not to others and a ãâã not to or towards the Altars but at the steps of it to have an Arch-Bishop read a prayer over him and some speciall ãâã After which he sate downe in a Royall Seate before the Altar the Arch-Bishop of Mentz sitting on his right hand and Treuier on the left Then these Bishops tooke of the Kings upper garment and leading him between them ante Altare prostratuâin modum Crucis he prostrated himselfe in forme of a Crosse before the Altar the Arch-bishop of Colen saying divers prayers there specified over him and the Letanie The Letanie ended the Arch-Bishop of Colen standing before the Altar with his Pastorall staffe in his hand asked of the King six Questions the last whereof was this Wilt thou reverently exhibite due subjection and faith to the most holy Father and Lord in Christ the Pope of Rome to the holy Church of Rome The Popes were anciently sworne to the Emperour and elected by him now they must sweare to the Pope and be chosen by him and his three Arch-Bishop Electours who are still at his devotion See Gratian Distinctio 69. and Dr. Crakenthorpe of the Popes temporall Monarchie cap. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. After which Questions he was ledde by the Arch-Bishops of Mentz and Trevler to the Altar and putting two of the fingers of his right hand on the Altar Sayd I will and J shall faithfully performe all the premises as farre as God by his divine assistance shall enable me and the prayers of faithfull Christians shall assist me So helpe me God and all his Saints Which done these Bishoppes brought him backe before the Altar After that they leade him againe to the Altar qui prostravit se ad terram in longum and then the Arch-bishop of Colen reade a blessing and prayer or two over him Which done they annoynted him in severall places And ãâã returning before the Altar casting himselfe downe in manner of a Crosse the Arch-Bâshop of Colen reade other prayers over him Then they girt him with a sword After that they set the Crowne on his head with severall Collects then leading them againe to the Altar he layd both his hands on the Altar and made this profession among other things in the vulgar tongue Which in truth made him a sâave both to the Pope and Prelates rather then a King I will yeeld due and Canonicall honour to the holy Bishop and Church of Rome and to the other Bishâps and Churches These things likewise which have been given conferred by Kings and Emperours to churches or Ecclesiasticall persons I will inviolably preserve and cause to be preserved by them the Lord Iesus Christ assisting me By which oath and practise the Emperours and Kings of the Romanes are made Vassâles to the Pope and Prelates their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or posââssions A heââsh policy worthy observation Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Mantiâ Cardiâalat us Alberti Epise Mogunt Rerum Germ Scriptores Tom. 2. p. 399. VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of Mântz was made a Cardinall he tame up to the High Altar and there kneeling downe before it on both his knees the Popes Legate graced him with a red hats the badge of this hâs dignity which he put upon his head He kneeling downe before the Altar till the song of S. Augustins and S. Ambrose was sung So Anâo 1066. Hoâeden Annql pars prior p. 447. J reade that King Herroâd at the celebration of the Masse at Westminster Ante Altare in Oratione prostratus jaceret lay prostrate before the Altar in prayer VVhen our King Richard the first was to be crowned Houeden Annal pars posterâor p. 656. 657. 739. he came tothe Altar before the Arch-Bishops Bishops Clergie and People and kneeling downe on his knees before the Altar tooke the usuall Coronation-oath upon the Euangeliâts and ãâ¦ã After which ãâã in the Arch-Bishop an ãâ¦ã And taking the Crowne from the Altar put it ãâã his âand So at his second Coronation he was ledde into the Cathedrall Church of S. Swithim at VVinchester ãâ¦ã even unto the Altar ibi flexis genubus and ãâã with bended knees devoutly received a benediction from Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and from thence was ladde to his Throne I reade also that Hugh Abbot of Cluney and Hildeâââââ whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together enâââââ into a Country-Church Ante Aram injunctis lateribus ãâã in multam horam protracta Oratione Cast themselves downe before the Altar one by the others side and
there prayed along time Maâmeââârie de Gestis Regum Angl lib. â p. 10â Thus the Monkes of Glastenbury when their Abbot ââââââine felâ at variance with them and chased them with ãâã men into âhe Church sancto Altari miserius fuas applâââââââ Bewayled thâis miseâies to witt at the holy Altar where the Abbot slew two and wounded foureteen of them Yea the Abbot himselfe with a speare sayth Houeden Annal pars prior p. 456. 460. thrust one of the Monkes through the body and slew him Sacrum Amplexarâââ Altââââ imbracing the holy Altar in his armes Alium ad Altaris crepidinem sagitâis Confossum necauit But that any of these Kings Prelates or Monkes bowed their bodies to or towards the Altar at their entring in passing by or repairing to the Altar or coming in or going out of the Church as we doe now I finde not one syllable in these Histories which certainly would not have pretermiâted it had it been then in common use Indeed I read in Aeneas Picalomineus Cardinall of Sens Europes status sub Frederico tertio Imp. c. 19. 63. that Vla. ãâã King of Poland after his conversion from Paganisme to ââristianity Inâer equitandum quotiescunque turres Ecclesiarum inspeâât detracto pileo caput inâlinavit Deum qui coleretur in Ecclesia veneratus When he did ride abrode as oft as he beheld the Towers âhe pulled of his hat and bowed his head worshipping God who is adored in the Church But that he did thus when he saw the Altar or âârds-Table I find not had he used any such Ceremony this Cardinall doubtlesse would have recorded the one as well as the other If our Altar-worshippers will presse or imitate his example then they must bow and worship towards our Churches-steeples when they see them for which they may have some colour from Davids worshipping Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 138. 2. and Daniels praying towards the Temple Dan. 6. 10. not towards the Altar or Table Now most of our Churches towers and steeples stind either at the west end or in the middest of the Churches few or none of them at the Eist-end quite opposiâe to their Altars and Tables situation This president therefore will manifestly overthrow their bowing to and worshipping towards the Altar and the East which they now so much contest for As for these mentioned prostrations and kneelings downe at or before the Altar only to pray or to receive a Crowne or Cardinals hat without any relation to the Altars as they were for these speciall ends and purposes not out of any respect to the Altar So they warrant not our genuflexion or inclination of our bodies towards or to the Altar or Table upon reasons drawne from the Altar or Table or for other purposes and upon other occasions then these Besides this kneeling and prostration of theirs was only at and before consecrated Altars not at or before Lords Tables or unhallowed Altars But few of our High Altars are yet solemnely dedicated by our Prelates neither can they unlesse they be removed further from the wall the Bishop being to goe 7 times about the Altar when he consecrates it As I have proved out of Durandus Rat Divinarum l. 1. And admitt they are thus hallowed yet being consecrated not by a power derived immediately from the Pope of Rome but by such as are yet counted Schismatiâkes by him though Bishop White in his Epistle Dedicatorie to his late Treatise of the Sabbath be very angrie with thoseâ who repute or stââyâ us Schismaticks from the Roman Church at this day because most but those whom he there styles Puritanes ` Presbâteâians c. are perfectly reconciled to it they are so âarre from being adored and bowed to that the Papists and Popiââly affected the only men who are likely to how to or towards them will thinke them fitter to be demolished For Anno 1177 in the Councell of Venice under Pope Alexander where the three Anti-Popes Victor Paschall and ãâã were degraded See Houeden Annal pars posterior pag. 568â It was decreed among other things That all the Altars dedicated by those Anti-Popes or their Ordinaries should be demolisheds Which was done accordingly Yea Christian Arch-Bishop of Mentz burnt his Bull with his owne hands received from Pope Paschall in the presence of Pope Alexander receiving a new Bull from him So Geeffry Plantaginet Arch-Bishop of Yorke See Houeden Annal pars posterior p. 713. overturned all the Altars brake all the Chalices that Hugh Bishop of Durham had celebrated at or used or any other Preist in his presence after his excommunication by him Our High Altars therefore by the same reason being not consecrated at all or at least by Schismatickes or Excommunicate persons if not by the sentence of the Church of Rome yet by the expresse determination of the 12 Canon 1603. which together with the stature of 1. Eliz. c. 2. condemnes the consecrating of bowing to Altars by necessary consequence with all other our late Innovation excommunicating all those ipsâ facto that neither prescribe or submitt unto âhem are rather to be broken dovvne removed abolished as they were both in King Edw. the 6. Queen Elizabeths dayes then they bowed to or adored Since as Gulielmus Sturkius observes Antiquit Coâvinalium l. 2. 6. 16. P. 209. Christ Apostplorum primitivae Ecclesiae exemplo magis videntur quadrare mensae quam Altaria Verissimis illis impletis ait legalibusi peracto in cruce sacrificio per Christum earn hic rationem Ecclâsiae quamolim Synagogae instituit Mensam dedit in qua epuletur non autem in qua offeretur victima Nec Sacârdos consecravit qui offerent sacrificârentque sed Ministrosdedit quiepulâm sacrum distribuerâââ Arae fixae statuae pecudibus mactandis ignibus foâend is magis sont Idoneae Christum in Mensa sacrosanctum suum conviuâum primò instituisâe accum charisââânis suis discipulis celebrasâe Evangelica historia testatur Hanc Mensaâ auro purissimo coopertam atque infinitis propemodum geâmis ornatam ex Taletio occupatà m Musem Araâum Dâcem seâum reportasse âestatur Leo Affcicanus l. 5. c. 79. Jn priâitiva quoque Ecclesia mensarum in celebratione Coenae Dominicaeusum cum alium literarum monumenta tum ilâa Nicenae Synodi verba testantur Jn divina MENSA ne âumiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem c. Thus Sturkius who at large pieades for the use and conveniency of religious and pious Disâourses conferences the reading and talking of Scripture and divine things at Feasts and Christian Assemblies both from the Example of Christ the Fathers and Heathen Philosophers Antiqu Convivalium l. 3. c. 1â fol. 382. 383. In direct opposition to Bishops Wrens new Visitation-Articles to the contrary Whom I desire his worship and all those prophane ones of his opinion to reade at their best leasure together with his other notable passages against the prâphanation of the Lords day by Feasting Dancing Ales Revels ãâã
the Table Altar not only before the Pulpit the FoÌt the Bible the Common-prayer Booke the Paten the Chalice themselves but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine the Sacrament of Christs Supper and the Lord Christ himselfe to whome they give no such congies such solemne adoration reverence genuflexion honour and respect If so then it is almost execrable and abâminable Jf not then let them informe me How that which is least bowed to worshipped or adored is most reverenced and respected then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection Or how themselves can preach and ãâã that the name Iesus is more honourable venerable great and glorious then any other of our Saviours âames because it is and ought to be most cringed capped and bowed to of all others Till all these Questâons are resolved J shall desire them to suspend this their capitall reason The 2 Reason The second reason for this Ceremonie is Because the Altar and Table are Christs mercy-seate and the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to thâ Trintry So Mr. Shelford Preist here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity opened so to Christ himselfe that made it as if he himselfe had forgotten it or were not able of himselfe to present its memory to his Father without a Masse-Preists helpe which Lawe Giles Widdowes thus seconds The Church is the place of Gods presence The Communion-Table the Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus and his theifest place of presence in our Church Where his PREISTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes Where we sind a resolution of my first Question What is the end of our Novellers writing preaching and contesting for altars and Preists to wit that we may have a Sacrifice againe And what Sacrifice is that The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith Widdowes The Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar sayth She ford page 2. 19. And what kind of Sacrifice is this A commemorative wâââe Shââford and the Colier And no other but so Yea quoth Widdowes a propitiatorie sacrifice likewise to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes And so we have now not only Altars and Preists but the Sacrifice of the Masse it selfe in its ful latitude both as Commemorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine in Bookes laâely printed by Authority and not yet called in How soone we may have all of them as wee have Altars Preists and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places in point of practise I leave to others to determine This being made the reason why wee bow to Tables and Altars because they are Christs mercy seat and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice c. is there made and presented to the Trinity This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar to be no mercy Seate and the Lords Supper no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affirâe both by Scripture and reason Secondly when they have done this then to make this appeare in like maner by Scripture or solid arguments drawne from it or at least by Fathers and Councels that Christians are bound to bow to Christs mercy seate or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered The Iewes never doing it to the one nor the Primitive Churches to the other Till this be done I shall demurre upon this Reason The third Reason The 3. ReasoÌ is this The Tible Altar are a signe of the place wheâe our Saviour was most dishonoured and câucified Therefore wee must bow unto them So Giles Widdowes reasons in a Booke licensed at Oxford by some learned Dâctours I answer First that this is a plaine untruth for they are neither a signe of Ierusalem Golgatha the High-Preist hall or the Crosse. Secondly if a truth yet unable to VVarrant this Ceââmonie For what Scripture reason or Authour is there to just fie that men ought to bow at the signe of the place where our Saviour was dispised dishonoured and crucified Thirdly if this reason be good then these Novellers must bow at and to the signes of Ierusalem which hang up in every Citie or to or towards these Tauerne Posts which these bowers haunt much night and day to make them nod bow and reele the better to their Altars where the signe of Ierusalem hangs For they are properly the signe of the place where our Saviour was most dispised and crucified then the Table or Altar Then likewise they must bow to every Mappe of Ierusalem of the holy Land for they are signes of that place too Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves to which I wish these Cringers would all travell in pilgrimage that so they might have the sight of the place it selfe to encourage them in this their bowing which is better and more moving then the bare signe of it Fourthly this perchance may make something for the adoring of Crucifixes and the Crosse because though they are no signes of the place where Christ was dispised and crucified yet they are signes of that on which he was dispised and crucified whereas the Table or Altar is a signe of neither So that the Papists if any shall give him thankes for this reason The fourth Reason A fourth reason they produce in print is this Let us learne of our Mother Câurches for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and returne VVherefore to follow their good and holy patterne we also are to doe the like both at our first coming in to Gods house and at our going out so Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 20. and the Coale too p. 1. 2. 27. 64. And if I may judge this is the cheife if not the sole reason why most men use this Ceremony The Arch-Bishops both doe practise it for reasons best knowne to themselves and the Prebends Deanes and Cathedrall men with other Ministers and Cârates in Citty Court and Country to imitate and please the Bishoppes whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demurre as these writers to witt the Colier in his Câale pag. 2. Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Bâoke Dogmatize else wee shall soone finde a speedy dissolution both of church and State To this Reason then I answer First that Gods written Law not our Prelates examples no further thââ warranted by Gods word Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Minsters and peoples obedience in matters of faith Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9. 2 Pet. 1. 19. And it together with the the Lawes of the Realme and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament of which fort there are none now extant the only rule for them to follow in matters of
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câaldâa looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published âe writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeât by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã where the Preists are said to staÌd in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These âestimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ âhe hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâes of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely
c. But what if wee shall say of this point of Appellations that it was not so from the beginning here unto we claime but your owne common confessions Viz. g That the Apostles did willingly absteine from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos Altar So your Cardinall Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Masse Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers who have sought a proofe of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar used by the Apostle Paule Hebr. 13. But also themselves who from S. Luke Acts. 13. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both absteined and not absteined from the words of Preist and Sacrifice And againe your Iesuite Lorinus In Acts. 14. 22. de Saâerdote Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij Idolorum concedo The New Testament saith he absteined from the word Sacerdos as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament So he vvherefore this and the English word Priest hauing a different relation one to a sacrificing Minister which is proper to the Old Testament the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter in the New Testrment which is Senior and hath no relation to a sacrificing function It must follow that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testament for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour as the patching of old vestments with new pieces whereby the rent is made worse But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such tearmes in their speeches concerning Christian vvorship whereof these your fore-named Disputers can give you a reason Least that say they the Iewish Priesthood being as yet in force might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish ritâs Which is enough to shew that you are persuaded they absteined from the use of these words for some Reasons Thus he and much more against Priests And against Altars likewise he hath sundrie passages p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing seemes not to be his Here againe I cannot but admire that these tearmes of Priests Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denyed by our writers together with Altars Sacrifices themselves so notablie refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631. 1â35 should the selfesame yeares by doting Shelford Widdowes Reeve and this yeare by Dr. Pocklington and the namelesse Colier be publikely maintained point-blanke against the Bishop And that they by publike authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a materiall Altar which this Bishop out of Aquiâas the Diuines of Colen Bellaâmine himselfe and Estâus proves ãâã be ment of it but only of Christ himselfe or of the Altar of the Grosse p. 416. 417. I feare therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishops Chaplains who licensed these New Pamphlets which point-blanke oppugne the Bâshops booke Or else by some of these New Writers or their Freinds These Reasons I say enduce me to beleeve that this is not the Bishops passage But that which doth must prevaile with me is this the sottishnes of the difference reason and proofes therein alledged which savours neither of his judgement learning nor acurenes All which I shall now examine 1. First the partie here puts a difference betweene Protestants bowing to the Altar and Table and Papists which sayth he is three fold First in the cause or reason of this bowing Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it Therefore by his owne confession they bow not to or towards the Altar out of any relation to or occasion dravvne from the Altar Though Cardinall Pooles Visitoâs in Cambridge enjoyned the Schollers to bow to the ALTAR as well as to the Hostia in Queen Maries dayes But Protestants bow towards the Table to testify the CommunioÌ of all the faitâ full communicants thereâât Secondly in the Object âapists bow to the Eucharist Protestants to the Lord of the Table not to the Table of the Lord. Thirdly in the time Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon The second difference makes Papists and Protestants bowing both one For they bow not to the Eucharist or consecrated bread and wine See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. But as they apprehend and beleeve it to be the very body bloud of Christ yeâ Christ himselfe both God and man And so to him which these Protestants termes the Lord of the Tablâ Therefore the object of their bowing at leastwise according to the Papists Doctrine is both one And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions The first and lâst liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists and that in these respects ãâã Prot ãâã make the Table or Altar the partiall if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it Wiânes the 3. first reasons alledged for this Ceremonie all drawne from the Table and M. Shelfords distinction See his Sermon of the Church p. 79. that it is not terminativum cultus sed MOTIVUM But the Papists have so much piety and religion in them as neither to make it one or other bowing towards it ONLY to adore the Eucharist Secondly the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Châist himselfe as they beleeve is really present on it At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoyned to bow towards it only to adore the Sacrament A cleare euidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by â or done unto the Altar But our Novellers out stripping the Papists how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it When they both know and beleeve that Christ is not there really present neither in his person nor in his ordinances And when âs neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church enjoyne them so to doe A plaine euidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table but to the Table and Altar it selfe Therefore their bowing is farre worse more unreasonable absurd then the Papists in these two respects 3ly The Papists bow thus Bishop Morton Ibid. only to adore their breaden God terminating their worship intentionally only in Christ But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table And why so What to worship or honour him therebyâ No such matter But to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table Such a peece of new divinity as J never read the like except in some Popish Masse bookes to witt Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum their Ladies Psalter Primer c. which teach their Proselites to pray to God to move
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. Câill 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 dâeââ 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 ãâã 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 Apâstes 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 Fiâtly 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 paât âne of any such worship in Scripture This the Homilie against the Perill of Idolatry plentifully proves See Bâshop 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 ârged Fourthly because it hardens Papists in their Idolatrâus 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
the Pagans is no fable is evident first by Virgil. Aut ante or a Deum pingues spaciatur ad Aras c. Dicitur ante Aras media inter uumina divum Multa Iovem manibus supplex or asse supinis Iamque dies epulata novem gens omnis Aris FACTUS HONOS c. Hanc Aram luco statuit quae maxima semper Dicetur nobis erit quae maxima semper c. Secondly by Vitruvius who writing of the structure of Pagan Temples saith That the Cells wherein the Images of the Idol-Gods were placed were built at the East end of the Temple and that their faces looked westward But the Altars ad Orientem versus towards the East wherâ ãâã Novellers situate them ut qui ãâã ad Aâam ãâã laâes out sacrificia facientes spectent ad simulacrum sublimius A a sâum That so those who came to the Altar to Offer or Sacrifice might looke toward the Jmage placed over the Altar ipsaque simulachra videantur exorienââa contueri supplicantes saecrificantes And might seeme to beâââd the Images there set up both when they prayed and sacrificed Thirdly by Clemens Alexândâinus who writes That the most ancient Temples looked towards the West Vt qui vultu Imaginis tuents stabant ad Orientem verterentur That so those who stood with their faces towards their Images might be turned toward the East when they worshipped Which that of Ezechiâl concerning the Idolaters of his age well explaines And he brought me into the inner-Court of the Lords-house and behold at the dore of the Temple of the Lord between the porch and the ALTAR were about 25 men with their bookes toward the Temple of the Lord and THEIR FACES TOWARD THE EAST and they worshipped the Sunne TOWARDS THE EAST Hence we may clearly discerne VVhence this custome of placing Altars worshipping praying bowing towards the East now much contended fâr had its originall even from the Heathen Jdolaters worshipping the using Sunne and placing their Images and Altars at the East end of their Temples towards which they bowed and looked when they prayed or sacrificed Whence Hospinian writes expresly At this day most Altars among the Pâpists marke it are placed in prima Templorum parte ET VERSUS ORIENTEM SPECTANT in the forefront of their Churches and looke toward THE EAST Quod etiam AB ETHNICIS SUMPSERUNT which they likewise tooke from the Etââuickes For many of the Heathen adored the Sunne for a God whence in their publicke sacrifices they turned their faces toward thârising Sunne c. Wherefore the Lordin his Law commaunded that the Sanctum Sanctorum in which the mercy-seat was placed should stand not toward the East but toward the West least the Israelites should seeme to worship him after the maner of the Ethnickes VVhich I wish Bishop Wren and other who will have the Readers Pew all other seates so placed that the Minister and people when they pray may all looke Eastward towards the Altar or Lords-Table whereas the Rubricke in the Common-prayer fore-cited enjoynes the Minister to turne his face towards the people would now at last consider To avoyd which practise the primitive Christians as he there proves at large out of the Authorities quoted by Bishop Iewell yea and by Bishop Iewell himself whom he recites with honour and approbation placed their Altars and Lords-Tables in the Midst of their Churches or Quires Out of which our Nouellers Colier would now remove them to imitate the Papists and these Idolatrous Ethnickes Fourthly this is apparant by Prudentius Iam si sub Aris ad sigillorum pedââ Iaceatis infra sectilem quercum siti Quid esse vobis aestimem proiectitius Fifâly by S. Augustine who writes that the Pagan Idols were placed over their Altars honorabili sublimitate in an honorable sublimity ut a praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur that they may be minded or looked upon by those that prayed or Sacrificed Sixtly by Horace in an Image Praesenti tibi maturos largimur honores Iâr andasque tuum per nomen ponimus Aras Seventhly by Ouid Nos quoque tangit honos festis gaudemus Aris. Turbaque caelestis ambitiosa sumus Eightly by the expresse testimony of the Scriptures 2. Chron. 34. 3. 4. In the twelfth years Iosiab began to purge Iudah and Ierusalem from the high places and the groves and the carued Images and the molten Images And they brake downâ THE ALTARS of Baalim and the IMAGES THAT WERE ON HIGH ABOVE THEM or over them Hence we finde Altars and Jmages of the Heathenish Iewish Idolaters ever coupled together for the most part in Scripture both in point of erection and demolition as Exod. 34. 13. Ye shall destroy their Altars and breake downe their Images standing over or about them So Deutr. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. there are the same words 2 Kings 11. 18. And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal And brake it downe his Altars and Images brake they in peeces 2 Chron. 14. 2. And he tooke away the Altars of the strange Gods and the high places and brake downe the Jmages c. 33. 15. And he tooke away the strange Gods and the Idol out of the house of the Lord and all the Altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord and cast them out of the City Isay. 17. 7. 1. In that day shall a man looke to his maker and his eyes shall have respect to the holy one of Israel And he shall not looke to the Altars the worke of his hands neither shall respect that which his fingers have made either the groues or the Images Hoseâ 10. 1. 2. According to the multitude of the fruite he hath increased the Altars according to the goodnes of the land they haue made goodly Images He shall breake downe their Altars he shall spoyle their Images So we read that Ahab reared up an Altar for Baal in the house of Baal 1 Kings 16. 32. And an Image of Baal which ââhoram put away 2. Kings 3. 2. From all which texts compared with 2 Chron. 34. 3. 4. it is apparant that Pagan and Jewish Idolaters had the Images and Statues of their Jdols standing above or over their Altars towards which they looked and bowed their bodies and kneâs both when they sacrificed and prayed As is evident by Isay. 17. 7. 8. Exod. 20. 4. 5. c. 23. 24. Levit. 26. 1. Numb 25. 2. Iosh. 23. 7. 16. Iudg. 2. 17. 19. 1 Kings 19. 18. 2 Kings 5. 18. c. 17. 35. 2 Chron. 25. 14. Isay. 2. 9. Rom. 11. 4. This our famous Dr. Reynolds testifieth and proves at largeâ De Romanae Ecclesiae Idelolatriae l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 46. proving likewise that the Altars at Athens dedicated to the unknowen God had an Image over it Acts. 17. which he manifests from v. 16. 23. 24. 25. 29. 1. Which being a
reasons produced to appropriate this bowing to or towards the Altar and Table to justify the lavvfulnes thereof are only drawen from the Altar it selfe The reasons therefore of its use and lawfulnes being drawen only from the Altar and Table This bowing without question must have relation to them as its Object Termination Fiftly the situation of the Tables Altar-wise and eleuating and raysing the ground in some places higher then before the gracing of it with Crucifixes Altar-clothes Arras hangings Candlestickes Basons Cushions and other Massing furniture the better to induce men to adore and bow unto it is a stroâg argument in my judgement that they bow directly to it making it the immediate object of their bowing and worship not God whose presence they now confine to the Altar and never adore in this maner but in by through on or towards the Altar or Table Sixtly the bowing to it when there is no Sacrament at all on it nor cause to deeme God specially present at or on it See Bishop Mort on p. 463. is an invincible argument that they doe iâ to the Table or Altar and not simplie towards it And to put this out of further doubt 1. First I have heard many of them confesse that they doe bow vnto the Altar 2. Secondly J have heard them exhort and perswade others to bow to it 3. Thirdly I have heard them preach for bowing not towards but To the Altar and Table And fevv Sermons have there been of late times either at Court Paules Crosse or our Universitie Churches vvherein there have not been some Passage either to justify presse excuse or persuade the bovving To Altars Lords-Tables If any man thinke this a slaunder vvhich thousands can vvitnesse then heare in the last place Bookes printed by Authority confessing it in direct tearmes Giles Widdowes in his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puritan p. 89. printed at Oxford by License An 1632. And that Popeling Thomas Browne in his Sermon at S. Maries Oxford 1634. plead not only for Altars and bowing towards them but for bovving AT TO them So that by the judgement of Oxford-Scriblers and Licensers This bowing is to the Table Altar Mr. Robert Shelford in his 5. Treatises printed by License ãâã Cambridge to his eternall infamie p. 17. 18. 19. 20. though in words he minseth the matter That he would not have them give divine worship to gods Table but to worship God towards it Yet he confesseth that the Altar is motivum cultus and bids vs direct our aspect TO it and bow our bodies towards it And makes it at least a partiall object of this genuflection Edward Reeve in his Exposition on the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Booke is downe-right for removing Tables Altarwise and bowing TO them If these crack-braind writers have not weight enough Then heare one since them all in stead of all Dr. Iohn Pocklington a greet learned Dr. of Divinity late President of a Colledge in Cambridge Chaplaine to a great Bishop and that in a Visitation-Sermon the most prophane and scurrilous ever yet printed if not preached entitled Sunday no Sabbath Licensed by that Apostate William Bray Chaplaine to the now Archbishop of Canterbury a great zelot and Precisian heretofore an earnest preacher against Altars and prophane Sabbath-breakers whiles a Lecturer March 15. 1635 and twice printed in the yeare of our Lord 1636. who as in his first Edition p. 48. seemes to inferre That the Sacrament can not be consecrated without an Altar So p. 50. he concludes his Sermon thus And if we doe not only bend or bow our body TO his blessed Boorde or HOLY ALTAR so he oft times cals it but fall flat on our faces so soone as ever we approch in sight thereof what Patriarch Apostle blessed Martyr holy or learned Father would condemne us for it or rather would not be delighted to see their ãâã so honoured and their devotion so reverently imitated and so good care taken to have it continued in the Lords house on the Lords-day by the Lords Saints unto the Lords comming againe This bowing therefore being not only towards but TO the Table which is made at least the partiall Termination Object of it if not the totall or principall how it differs from the Pagans or Papists relative worship of Idols Images Pictures Altars or how it can be excused from impiety and most grosse Jdolatrie as bad as that of the âaplanders who worship a red cloute upon a sticke to use the comparison of the Iâsuite Coster I cannot possiblâe discerne And that it is the same in all respects with the Papists derâved from them set up to reduce us backe to Rome and harden Papists in their Jdolatrie give me leave to relate a late story to you On Munday Thursday last some Citizens of LondoÌ of good quality went with other of their friends to VVhitehall to see the Ceremonies of the Munday and washing of the poore mens feet VVhich when they had beheld some of the company desired to see his Majesties Chapple at VVhite-hall They did so And in the Chapple found one of the Queens women of their acquaintance at her prayers before the Crucifix VVho seeing them dravving âeer her left off her devotions and came saluted them Wâââs they were vewing the Chapple and talking together in comes a Gentleman a Papist and makes a low Congie to the ground almost and after that a second the one to the Mâarâ the other to the Crucifix and so departs Whereupon one of the Company spake thus to the Popish Gentlewoman ãâã Lord will you never see and give over your most grosse Idolatrie of worshipping Images stockes and stones With other words to like purpose The Popish Gentle-woman defended this practise the beââ shee could and whiles they were discoursing about it in one side of the Chapple in came Dr. Browne of S. Faithes then newly made Deaâe of Hereford and as soone as ever he entred in at the Chapple doore he bowed 3. seuerall times together downe to the ground to the High Altar on which he fiââd his eyes After which coming up into the midst of the Chapple he fixeth his eyes upon the Crucifix and boweth downe to the ground to it Which they all beholding wondring at Law you now quoth the Popish Gentle-woman to the Citizen who discoursed with her this is done of your owne men a great Dr. and one of his Majesties owne Chaplaines See you how he bowed to the Altar and Crucifix farre lower and oftner then the Popish Gentleman did And caÌ you blame that in us which your owne Doctours doe I tell you you must and will all come to this ere long In truth replied the Citizen you have Noâplussed me J can not tell what to say I never thought to have seene Dr. Browne doe such an Act as this By this time the Dr. was come hard by them and most of them being his familiar acquaintance one of them steps to him
vanitatis culpa nequaquà m cauâè compescitur ab iniquitate proââââ menâ incauta deuoratur I. shall therefore desire all those who deeme these things ârifles to ruminate on these two Fathers words And diligently to consider whether they tend Then J presume they will change their judgments Much more might be sayd concerning these Questions matters here debated Bnt this J hope will suffice for the present I shall therefore close up all with the words of Dr. Edward Chulouer in his Sermon entitled Pauls Peregrinations delivered at Pauls Crosse Anno 1617. London 1623. p. 316. to 329. Let us now travell from Athens into England from the world under the Law to the world under the Gospel and consider what it is wherein we are to imitate these Gentiles Concerning their Altars and what it is vvherein we must leave and forsake them Altars as they are properly so taken for those on which the typicall or supposed reall Sacrifices were offred are novv ceased and taken away Our Saviour vvhen he vvas lifted up upon the Crosse bad Altars to be beaten dovvne When he rent the veile of the Temple the Earth-quake shooke their foundation VVhen he died their parts were acted and vvent out The Papists that they may scrue the Pope farther into the mistery of iniquity vvill have him maintaine one Lesson vvhich themselves confesse to be a note of Antichrist and that is that Ievvish Ceremonies are not yet ceased at the least in matters of Sacrifices and Altars But perhaps they had rather be beholden to the Gentiles for them For if vve vvould beleive Cardinall Baronius vve may see their lustrall vvater and sprinkling of Scpulchres in Iuvenall sixth Satyre Lights in Scpulchres in Suetonius Octavius Lamps lighted on Saturday in Geuecas 96. Epist. Distribution of Tapers amongst the people in Macrobius his Saturnals But more lively may vve see it in their Altars 1. First in multiplying the number of them in every Church God allowes but two Altars to the Temple and Bruschius reckons 51. in one Church in Vlmes taking their patterne belike from Venus Temple of which the Poet Ubi Templum illi centumque Sabeo thure calent arae But God teacheth no such Arithmeticke as to multiply Altars because Ephraim saith he hath made many Altars to sinne Hos. 8. 2. Secondly they imitate the Gentiles in dedicating their Altars to such as it is unknowne or at the least uncertaine if ever any such were in the world as to S. George S. Catharine and S. Christopher doing no otherwise then did the Romans who consecrated Altars Dijs incertis to their uncertaiue Gods or these Athenians who built them Deo ignoto to their unknowne God But we need not much seeke to know whom they follow in these devotions vvhen as it is a maine Argument urged by Bellarmine that Altars and Sacrifices were used by the Gentiles therefore they must still be retained by Christians I know not vvhat antiquity they pretend nor vvhat they can finde in the Primitive Church to prove the lawfulnes of them we denie not but that the Fathers might tearme the Table of the Lords supper an Altar And that first in respect of the similitude it hath to the Altar of the Ould Testament for that on it are placed the Sacraments of Christs body which before was figuratively offered up by the Priest upon the Altar Secondly because on it vvere laid the Oblations and Offerings which vvell disposed people vvere vvont to bestovv upon the poore this vve vvill grant them But that there vvere any such Altars in use in the Primitive Church as they pretend vve absolutely deny VVe have an High Priest saith the Authour to the Hebrevves vvho needeth not daily as those Priests to offer Sacrifice nor that he should offer himselfe as often as the High Priest entreth into the Holy place every yeare vvith the blood of others for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the vvorld but novv once in the end of the vvorld hath he appeared to put avvay sinne by that Sacrifice himselfe Chap. 9. v. 25. 28. VVell then Altars of Stone and Metals are nov banished the Christian vvorld by the decree of our Lord Christ Iesus and herein vve must observe that Precept of our Saviour to his Disciples Goe not into the vvay of the Gentiles in these things imitate them not But vvhat doe vve therefore altogether shunne Altars Jmages Temples Jt vvas an old imputation indeed of Celsus others against Christians in the Primitive Church as it is novv of the Romans against us that vve abandon these Ceremonies relinquish them to which my answer at this time shal be no other then what Origen gave Celsus Celsus affirmes saith he that we shune Altars and Images because he takes it to be the beleife of that invisible inexplicable Communion we maintaine When in the meane time he perceives not that to us the mindes of the just are for Altars Temples From which doubtles are sent forth these most sweet odours of Incense vowes I meane and Prayers from a pure Conscience We are not therefore ambitious in mouing Altars or framing Images which heretofore have been the Tabernacles of Devils and Câges of uncleme Spirits But rather embrace such living Altars as one whom we see to burne the true fire of zeale kindled not by vestall Virgins but by the Spirit of God Let any man addes that Father make an inquiry into those Altars which we expound and compare them with those which Celsus I will say which the Pope would bring in or the Images which are fixt in the mind of them which worship God with Phydias's or Policletus's or whom he ever men list to select of cunning Artisicers and he shall plainly see that these inanimate and sencelesse Colosses shall decay and corrupt with time whereas these living Sanctuaries shall be immortall and continue for ever Shall we feare Beloved least Altars Images be taken away or Churches loose somewhat of their Grace and Government I must tell you with S. Ambrose that neither our Prayers nor Sacrifices stand in need of such trimming the best adorning of Sacraments is not Tissues Silke or embroidered Canopies or spangled Crucifixes or painted Poppets or any the like faceings Popery sets forth her Altars more like Pageants then places which favour of Christs simplicity but the redeeming of Captions c. But now what should we admire those Altars whose covering our Saviour Christ pronounced to be but untighteous MaÌmon or those CeÌsers whose metal S. Peter was not ashamed to confesse that he had none ãâã Crie not therefore Templum Domini c. The Temple of the Lord c. as did sometimes the Iewes Ier. 7. Hee is the Temple of the Lord in whom true faith dwelleth who is clothed with Iustice as with the vaile of the Tabernacle in whom not Temperance alone or Abstinence sing their parts but in whom the whole set of
vertues make a compleat Quire Wouldest thou therefore like the Gentiles build an Altar and yet not as did these Athenians to the unknowne God VVhy see matter and stuffe prepared to thine hand the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation Christ himselfe for the chiefe Corner-stone Wouldest thou lay it over with pure refined metall VVhy see the word of God it is like Gold 7. times purified in the fire VVouldst have a Beast to slay Mortify and kill thy beastly affections which otherwise would kill thee VVantest thou a knife to kill them Take the Sword of Preaching not into thine hand but into thy heart that is it which is sharpâr then a two-edged sword cutteth to the dividing and separating of soule and Spirit Are all these things prepared and lackest thou yet fire to consume them VVhy zeale must be that fire without which all these will profit thee nothing O beloved if these were the Sacrifices of the Romanists or these the Altars of Papisme I vvould change my speech and most heartily request you to joyne hands with them and let the seamelesse coate of Christ to suffer rupture and division no more between us No longer should thy blessed name sweet Iesus beare reproach among the uncircumcised infidels for our seperation but if their Altars be but the Popes Exchequers and the Priests but like the Publicanes which sit there at the receit of custome Goe out of Babylon let us treate no longer with her upon Articles of agreement What Erasmus saith of the Altars of our time the same verdict S. Bernard gives of the Altars of his time by the hight of such sumptuous and wonderfull vanities saith he men are more incited to offer then to adore Thus riches are swallowed up by riches thus mony drawes in mony because I know not by what meanes but so it is where men see most there are they most willing to give On Altars therefore is presented the beautifull portracture of some Saint and it is thought so much the more holy by how much the more beautifull Men runne to kisse it they are invited to enrich it and more are astonished at things curious then inclined to adore things religious O vanity of vanities and yet not greater vanity then madnes the Church abounds in the Walls and wants in her poore She cloathes her stones with gold and leaves her Sonne naked to the cold the maintenance of the poore serve to satisfie the eyes of the rich the curious find matter to delight them the distressed find no bread to sustaine them But are these the devotions which Rome so vaunteth of Well might S. Austin in Psalm 43. 49. then wish those of his time to forbeare Sacrificing Altars if this be all the fruit of them Alas he shewes himselfe farre from alowing such impostures saith he If thou hast a fat Bull reserve him not for the Altar as if Iewish or Gentilish Sacrifices were in use but kill him for the poore though they cannot drinke the bloud of Goates yet they caÌ eate the flesh of Bulls and he which said unto thee If I hunger I will not tell it thee will then tell thee I was hungry and thou gavest me to eate But what Altar then would he have us to erect to God What Sacrifices thinkes he ascend best pleasing in his sight Why he turnes us to the Psalmist Offer unto the Lord the Sacrifice of praise an humble and a contrite heart shalt thou not dispise So then wouldest thou build an Altar VVhy the loftiest Altar thou canst build is a lowly heart VVouldest thou have something to offer see an oblation passing the bloud of Goates and Calves and Sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving VVell might we heare least God should have required something without us something in the house that the Mâthes had corrupted something in the Garner which the Mice or vermine had consumed Something in the Field which the Fox or Wolfe had devoured But he sends us to our selves and to our immodest Closet which none but God can unlocke saith Austin thine Altar is thy conscience offer thereon the Sacrifice of praise We are secure we goe not into Arabia for Frank incense neither doe we rip up the bowels of the earth for Stories to beautifie our Altars If Paul could find an Altar abroad Know Christians have it at home within their owne breasts If all these Authorities be not sufficient take but one more for all past all exception fresh in memory To wit the testimony of the reverend learned Prelate D. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Iustitution of the Sacrament set forth by publike Authority and approbation Anne 1631. and since ãâã Anne 1635. with enlargements Where L. 6. c. 3. Sâct 8. p. 416. 417. and c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. if the latter be his Addition where thus he writes If furthermore wee speak of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below and to that end you object that Scripture Heb. 13. 10. VVe have an Altar saith the Apostle whereof they have no right to eate that serve at the Tabernacle This some of you greedily catch at for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse See the Rhemists in their Annot. upon the place Mr. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract 3. Sect. 3. Sub. 4. and are presently repulsed by your Aquinas expounding the place to signify either his Altar upon the Crosse or else his body as his Altar in Heaven Mentioned Apocal 8. and called the golden Altar Aquinas istud Altare vel est Crux Christi ãâ¦ã If we our selves should tell you how some one affirmeth that this Altar spoken of by ãâã the Apostleâ is the body of Christ himselfe in Heavenâ upon which and by which all Christians are toâ often up their Spirituall Sacrifice of Faith Devotion Thankfulness Hope and Charity You would presently answer that this one ceaâainely is some Lutheran or Calvinistâ the words are so contradictory to your Râmish Gatbe not with standing you may find all this in the Antididagma of the Divines of ãâã Antididagm ãâã de Missâ Sacrificie Post ãâã Habemus Altare Heb. 13. Et Apoe 8. Aureâm Altare in que per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrifitia fidâi devotionis gratiarum actionis Spei Charitatis Deâ Patri debent offerre Atque it a sit ut Christus sit Altare Sacerdos Sacrificium August ãâã de ãâã Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier that your Cardinall was content to leave it behind him because many Catholikes saith he interpret it otherwise Bellaâ Quia non desunt ãâã qui interpretantur ãâã vel de Cruce vel de Christo ipso ãâã L. 1â de Missa c. 14. And indeed who is of so shallow a braine as not to discerne notorious conconscionablenesse of your disputers who confessing that the Apostles in their times did Abstain froÌ the words Sacrifice
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite âstius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câuâm Christs âl iâsum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâprie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia ââcat Aâam Cruâis Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pârtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ ex institute per Antithesâm comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ cum Christe ââipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieââm Sacrificââ incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum ãâã aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ incru ãâã Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare huâ pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 Pânis quem âgâ dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wherâ he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that thâ Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chriââ upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrificâ of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ouâ Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar tâ prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christâ Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origân resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiquâ non in terris quaerendus est sed in Coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis âernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseendaâ nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium Oblationes Holocausta tanto praestantiora quanio veriâas ambraÌ Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. For your better apprehension of this truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where he with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken Then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes For the Apostle as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord the vessel prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord So did he name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the contemners thereof Guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates Bray Baker very zealous Puritans and eager men heretofore against Altars Images bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus Images Sacrifices Sabbath-breaking c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establishâd Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall of our Church which they cannot expiare with their lives Well how ever they brave it out for the present a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates the mildest tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so loÌg maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise and example But of this enough Only let me conclude of them the new English Priests Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas who thus Caracterizeth them Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam
m Hierom de scripto Eccl. with others in the lives of Cyprian Tertul. prâfixed 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. ãâã ãâã âent q Diaelogus cum Tryphone and Apol. 2. r Sterâat l. 1. 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus ãâã CoenaÌ DominicaÌ s Page 43. 44. 45. 46 t Apol. adv âentes 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 âe 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. Lânes 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 seculariâus te tottâm occupas involuis Verum tamen tui professio ordiniâ nec degeneres saeculi curas nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost dicit Secularia negotia si habueriâis 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 Hâd Cant. Oâor 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 ãâã 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 CoÌmunion 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. â18 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 Eucariâs 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 Chrysoât demonstr quod Christus sit Deus Homil. in Matth. 16. 8. 3. in priâr Epist. ad Corinth 24. 27â ad populum Antioch 60. 61. Sermon de Euchar. de B. Philogenio Sâcrat 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. CoÌc 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. â 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 wâo playes tâe ignoraÌt Lawyer to
Supper yea the very use and defence of these Titles ãâã well as the things are the Bulworkes and Out-workes of our Religion as long as we maintained them there was as feare of Masse or open Popery But since the Altars and the name of Altars invaded and thrust out our Lords-Tables and their names Priestes out Ministers and the Title of Ministers and those other Massing Ceremonies prevayled the Outworkes of our Religion are quite lost and taken with many of the In-workes too by our Popish Adversaries and all is in great danger of speedy surprisâââ Is it not then high time for us to awake and bestirre ourselves To beat out these secret Traytours which demolish these Out-fortifications or betray them to our Romish Adversaries and to make good and regaine these Sconces if it be possible without which all wil be hazarded if not quite lâst and that in a litle space for ought we know Let no man then thinke slightly of these smaller matters without which the grandest designes of our Popish Adversaries cannot be effected or proceed But let all rather labour to prie into that great Treacherous plot and hidden mystery of Iniquity which sets all these under-wheeles on worke and endeavour all they may to oppose that imminent inundation of the whole body of Popery flowing in a maine upon us all which wise men both foresee and feareâ Which it wil be in vaine to doe if we permit these Bankes these Bulworkes J here content for to be broken downeâ Which alone will secure us if maintained but ruine all if once demolished by forraigne Opposites or homebred Traytours For the Coale from the Altar the maine Treatise I heââ encounter which fires all these fortifications at once that the enemies may enter and surprise us whiles we either neglect or strive to quench the flame The Authour thereof ãâã seemes was ashamed to owne it by his name though as impudent as shamelesse as active an instrument of mischiefe as great an incendiary for his yeares as any living in our Church if he on whom fame hath fathered it be the man The Title informes us that he is a Divine yea a judicioâ Learned Divine perchance in his owne and some other conceit But certainly what ever his Learning is sure I at his Iudgement is not very great and his honestie lesse as will appeare in the Quench-Coale For the Letter he undertakes to answer which he would injuriously without any ground Father upon Mr. Cotton of Boston the more to abuse had Censure the true Authour of it with whom he hath lately had some personall quarrels and contests is certainly knowen to be Dr. Williams now Bishop of Lincolne and Deane of Westminster a man farre more Learned and judicious then the Answerer and every way able to make good his owne Letter which I have not particularly undertaken to defend dealing in this Controversie with the Coale no further then concernes the points debated in the Letter and that in generall without any relation unto the Epistoler who no doubt will answer for himselfe without a Proctor As for this Quench-Coale having to doe with others as well as the Coale I have therein followed mine owne Method though confused not the Coales And cleared the points in Controversie by our owne English Martyrs VVriters and Records omitting Forraigners partly for brevity sake and partly because impertinent in these particulars which principally concerne the practise and judgement only of our owne Church In which as I wonder much that the rumored Authour of the Coale could finde no Lords-day Sabbath though he writ An History of it so J wonder how he could finde an Altar in it Our Church having cashered Altars as Popish Heathenish Iewish yet he deemes the Christian And retained prescribed the Name and Sanctification of the Lords-day Sabbath which he brandes as Iewish as if Altars were not more Iewish then it And here good Reader I desire thee to obserue ãâã they are that thus plead most stifly for Altars calling Comunion-Tables Altars and turning them Altar-wise ãâã those who write and preach against the name ãâã Sanctification of the Lords-day Sabbath as Iewish Certainly these men I feare are quite distracted thrââ malice or tossed to and for with a spirit of giddines ãâã they could not so earnestly oppose write against Iudaâ as they tearme it with the one hand and yet at the ãâã time embrace and write for it with the other Now if Judaisme be so distastfull to them as that ãâã cannot brooke the name much lesse the Sanctification of ãâã Lords-day Sabbath which the Homilies of the Time and ãâã of Prayer and the third part of the Homilie against Rebellus to which they have subscribed pleades for as truly Christian How then can they write for Altars yea the naming of ãâã Lords-Table an Altar and his Supper the Sacrament of ãâã Altar which the first part of the Homilie against the ãâã of Idolatrie p. 18. and the second Part of the Sermon of ãâã Time and Place of Prayer p. 131. condemâ both as Iewish Popish and Heathenish as many of our Writers before and since these Homilies have done Let them therefore either reject Altars as they doeâ Christian Sabbath because they are Iewish Or else ãâã and plead for this Sabbath and its strict Sanctification âââmitting it be Iewish as it is not because they write so ãâã lie for Altars more Iewish farre then the names or strict Sanctification of the Lords-day Sabbath To draw to a Conclusion All J have here written is ây out of pure zeale to Gods glory the Patronage of his ãâã and benefit of his Churh without any private spleene particular persons If any good accrue to Gods people by it or this my Moââ Church of England I desire God may have the glory ãâã whom alone it is due If no publike benefit be reaped by ãâã nor satisfaction given to private Christians in these âggering times to settle both their Iudgements Conscienâ and Practise as I hope there will Yet I have done my ãâã endeavour The Successe is Gods alone not mine to ãâã To his Blessing I commend both thee and it desiring ãâã the short space I had to compile it in may excuse the deââ in the composition So I rest Thy Friend in the Lord. Iuliâ the tenth 1636. Courteous Reader this should have come in at the 3. Question concerning the Consecration of Churches Immediatly before the words of Bishop Pilkington there cited Page 214. Line 32. Mathew Parker the Learned Arch-Bishop of Canterbury relating the forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples Altars Foundation-stones Vestments Chalices and the like out of the ancient Missals and Saxon Pontificals which our Bishops at this day use Concludes thus of them all Who can doubt but that Papall Rites and Ceremonies abound with these kinde of Exorcismes which differ nothing at all from these anciently used in the Ordalium and vulgar forme of Purgation which they at length condemned
will needs turne 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19. 20. Hâbr 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 Constantâne 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
the Saints to pray to him for them For who ever read of any immediate bowing and adoration to God to testify only a communion among men A bowing to the Lord of the Table not to terminate it selfe in him but by and the through him to signify the Communion of all faithfull Communicants at the Table VVhat is this but to make Christ and his worship a stalking horse to our brainsick fantasies to adore them by and through Christ And to erect a kinde of new worshipping of him not terminated in him but given to him for some end that is out of him and beyond him In this regard therefore this bowing is farre more intollerable then the Papists Theirs being at the most a relative worship of God by or through the Hostia and our Novellers adoration towards the Table and their owne fantasies in and through God himselfe as this reason manifests which I shall next examine And here first I shall demaund in what Scripture or authour this reason of bowing to or towards the Lords Table is to be found except in this And what idle head was the first inventour thereof Certainly if there be any new thing under the Sunne Eccles. 1. 9. 10. or any thing written of late that were never heard or thought off before this reason is it Secondly I shall demaund where God requires this Câremony in Scripture for any such end as this And whether he will not be angrie with us for giving him such a worship as is neither required by him nor terminated in him Thirdly what authority any man hath to institute any such adoration or Ceremony upon his owne conceite without asking either God or the King leave to doe it Fourthly what thing there is in this our bowing to the Lord of the Table towards the Table that can lively and significanly represent ãâã to God or men the Communion of the faithfull Communicants thereat The rather because this is no joynt act of all the whole congregation together but of some particulârs only and that severally by themselves Fâfâly how our bowing when there is no communion celebrated can testify that which is only really and truely signified by the Communion it selfe Sixtly whether it be not an high presumption in man to dare of his owne head to institue a Ceremonie or externall gesture to signify that which he hath long before particularly ordered to be signified by a Sacrament of his owne institution l. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Seeing it imports a weaknes insufficiency in the Sacrament instituted by God himselfe and that in bread where many comes wine where many grapes are united together to signify our Communion l. Cor. 10. 16. 17. Seventhly whether this bowing only towards the Table be not one great step towards the adoring of the Eucharist on the Table And whether these who yeeld to the one will not easily be drawne to proceed on to the other And so safest to avoyd the first for feare of being once taken with the second which can hardly creep in among us if we withstand the first Eightly whether God being omniscient and knowing what was firââst to advance his glory reverence worship and feare knew not of these reasons produced by them for bowing to Altars and Lords-Tables when the Scriptures were penned If not then he is not omniscient and so not God Jf he knew of them then why did he not record them in Scripture or prescribe this bowing as necessary upon these new-coyned reasons If he knew them and yet thought them not sufficient upon which to require or prescribe any such vvorship or Ceremony and therefore passed them both over in silence vvhy should wee dust and ashes presume to give God a worship upon such weake principles as were not prevalent enough to move him to require it at our hands or to cause Christ himselfe or his Apostles to practise it for our imitation Wherefore let us âot make our selves wiser then God or more carefull of his adoration then himselfe hath been for feare the reward of all our pragmaâicall diligence in this nature be but that of these who presume to adde to the written word of God Dâutr 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18. or at least that of the prophet Isay 1. 11. 12. Who hath required these things at your hands I come now in the last place to examine the proofes of Scripture cited for this Ceremony which being the same J have formerly answered and all quoted to this purpose by doting Shelford Se hiâ Serm. of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. J shall passe them by Only affirming thus much that neither of these Scriptures warrant the reason here alledged for this bowing or end for which they are cited For what sense are there in these arguments The people of God worshipped before the Arke Daniel prayed towards the Temple and Dauid to Therefore Christians ought to bow not to the Table of the Lord but the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the Communicants there at This Logicke and Divinity better beseemes a Colier then a Scholler a bruite beast then a reverend Prelate ââerefore certainly none of his but some mans who desired to Father this spurious frenticke passage upon him to gaine it credâ applause by his deserved fame and to cast a scandall blemish on this his worthy worke If therefore it be none of his conception I hope he will now no longer Father it If his in truth which few Schollers dare or can beleeve I hope he will now correct it both for his owne honour and the good of others the very grosâest oversight of profound Schollers being apt to pasâe current with Novices and some times with men of gravity and judgemen for want of examination or overweaning of the parties worth As appeares by Bâshop Andrews Sermon on Phil. 2. 9. 10. 11. Whose extrauagant reasons and false quotations to prove the bowing at the name of Iesus a duty of that text against the unanimous reasons of all Fathers and expositours before him but the Rhemists Sorbenists 2 or 3 Iesuites who never made this bowing a duty of the text or a thing necessarily theÌce inforced are so approved that now all ouâ Pulpits Schooles late printed Pamphlets âing of nothing else but this his new-invented duty râdiculous childish reasons for to prove it which well examined prove so irrationall and unworthy such a deepe-learned Scholler that his greatest admirours in other things would blush at them disclaim him for ever in them As the Answer to that Sermon by way of Quaeres will in part discover to such as shall peruse it Having thus examined the Authorities and Reasons produced for this new bowing to Altars and Lords-Tables I now proceed to the next poynt of the Question propounded Whether it be a divine adoration or only a civil worship A divine adoration certainly it is Being not done to the Table of the Lord but