restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
as venerable as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table both in respect of matter use relation to God and Christ and divine institution undoubtedly they are therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers Shewbread Tables and Altar were in Solomons Temple which stood one by the side of the other 2. Chron. c. 4. 5. 6. If the East end of the Church or Quire be the most worthy and fittest for the Tables scituation nowe why was it not so for the Arke the Altar and shewbread Table heretofore why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple but in the West the midst of it or in the Court as the premises Manifest Certainely if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignitie no preheminenâ—ie or implements in them heretofoâ—e by divine appointment our Novellers can have little reason to pleade that they ought to have any such precedency honour or use nowe The third reason alleaged for the placinge of Communion Tables Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells is because they are High Altars So Saelford Reeves and the Coale from the Altar and Bishop Mountague in his least Lent Sermon stile them contrarie to the dialect of our Church after the Popish language This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise to bringe in Altars Preists bowinge to Altars kneelinge at and before them to adore the Hostia to which wee are already proceeded and in fine to sett upp publique and private Masses yea the whole body of Poperie againe For which these are immediate preparatives of which they are reall parts and adjuncts This and this only is the true undoubted cause all others meere idle pretences to delude the people why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places lately rayled in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Quire And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates Churchmen who originally presse it not only the qualities doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every mâ—ns Conscience experience visibly discernes unlesse he be strangely hoodwinckt but the things themselves compared with the historie of former tymes declare For if wee looke into the storie of the Church wee shall finde that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation was the pullinge downe of Altars and settinge upp of Communion Tables and the first thinge againe acted upon the restitution of popery was the settinge up of Altars turninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates doe upon which Masses presently were sayd Thus we reade that in the yeare of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance Geneâ—a Basill Stransburge and other Cittie 's the first thinge they did was this they proclaymed that Masses ALTARS Images in all places shoulde bee abolished and there upon the Images and Altars with Ceremonies and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all About the yeare of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont beinge sommoned pressed to forsake God and revolt againe to Idolatrie which they had begun to cast of agreed togeather to make a solemne protestation that they woulde utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope and live and die in the maintenance and confession of Gods word and truth Whereupon they sayd lett us all goe to morrowe into the Temple to heare the word of God after let us cast to the ground all the Idolls and ALTARS to which they all agreed sayinge let us soe doe yea and that the very same houre in the which they have appointed us to bee at the Councill house Whereupon the next daye after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body as soone as they came into the Temple without any further delaye they beate downe the Images cast downe the ALTARS After Sermon they went to Billers where they beate downe their Images and ALTARS Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginninge of Reformation in his Raigne gave order to pull downe Altars and sett upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdome And to the ende that all of them might bee totallie abolished Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the forme of the Lords board and to procure one Godlie uniformity exhorted all his Diocesse unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture with the usage of the Apostles with the primitive Church and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings in abolishing of divers vaine and superstitioâ—s opinions of the Popish Masse out of the hearts of the simple which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the forme of an Altar then of a Table as the King and Councell in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture of the Lords Supper Hereupon I say he appointed the forme of a right Table to be used in his Diocesse according to the King Councells instructions and consideration and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standing by the High Altars side And upon this occasion as it most probable he wrote his booke DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS of breaking downe Altars registred by Bishop Bâ—le among other his workes though not now extant that I can find Not long before this John Hoper Bishop of Gloster afterwards a Martyr as was that worthy Ridley preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio tooke occasion thus to Censure Altars and to move the King utterly to demolish them If question now be asked is there then no Sacrifice left to bee done of Christian people yea truly but none other then such as might be done without Altars and they be of 3. sorts The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence and liberality to the poore Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Heb. 13. 16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is the mortifying of our owne bodies and to die from sinne Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we studie not dayly to offer these Sacrifices to God we be no Christian men seing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then these which may and ought to be done without Altars There should among Christians be no Altars And therfore it was not without the great wisdome and knowledge of God that Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church lacked Altars For they knew that the use of them was taken away It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables according to the first institution of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people they have of Sacrifices to be done upon Altars For as long as the Altars remaine both the ignorant
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 〈◊〉 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 preâ—ching 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 Câ—apple 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 Wincâ—ester 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 gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation 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 mâ—aneth 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
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 falâ—e 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 wiâ—t 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. râ—vived 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 Pamplâ—t 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 iâ—selfe 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 idolatâ—ous 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 coÌ„sciences dejected discontented spirits drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as late experience to apparantly manifests So that this fiâ—â—t 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
Crucifix in the mid lest two Candlestâ—ckes 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 thiâ—g of no great request even among the Papists who bow only to the Hostia on it Bâ—shâ— Mâ—tons Iâ—stitution 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 stâ—â—ed Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9 Col. 243. Nicâ—ph Gâ—eg f. 10. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacramâ—nt 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 Châ—rch 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 Fatâ—eâ—s or Ecclesiasticall Historians where all the Rights and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church are accurately sett downe and aâ—scribed See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. de Ceremoniâ—s 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 sâ—â—â—nce by them 2. Because the Primitive Church and Chrâ—stians 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 deemâ—d 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 Carnotâ—â—ses 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 heâ—ds 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 bâ—wing to or towards Images or Idols all worshipping 〈◊〉 God in by through or towards them Holding divâ—◠〈◊〉 and adoration a thing peculiar to God alone 〈…〉 immediately to God himselfe without any such 〈…〉 â—elpes of Images or Altars condemning all relative wâ—rship as derogatory to his Majesty See the Homily of the 〈◊〉 of Idolatrie Bishop Ushers answer to the Iesuites Challenge of Images and praying to Saints Therefore this vvorshâ—pping and adoring of God in by through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table is a thing utterly coÌ„demned 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 〈◊〉 Pagans who sâ—â—ndered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sunne the Crosse an Asses head and the like Concluding and protâ—sting 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 â—eaven 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 SacrameÌ„t 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 justâ—fy 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 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 Eâ—â—perour in the Cathedrall Church at Fâ—ankfâ—â—d 〈…〉 for him to sit in Ad Altaris 〈…〉 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 Bavarâ—â— 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 Marquâ—sse of Brandenburge on the left hand And the Arch-bishop of Treuier neither on the right hand 〈◊〉 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
Electâ—urs 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 Comaeâ—i 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 â—um 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 〈…〉 of the Church is no good argument it being a Ceremony 〈◊〉 for the King at his Coronation not to others and a 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 prostratuâ—in 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 〈◊〉 returning before the Altar casting himselfe downe in manner of a Crosse the Arch-Bâ—shop 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 sâ—ave 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 Bishâ—ps 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 Vassâ—les to the Pope and Prelates their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or posâ—â—ssions A heâ—â—sh policy worthy observation Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Mantiâ— Cardiâ—alat us Alberti Epise Mogunt Rerum Germ Scriptores Tom. 2. p. 399. VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of Mâ—ntz 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 hâ—s 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 Anâ—o 1066. Hoâ—eden Annql pars prior p. 447. J reade that King Herroâ—d 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 posterâ—or 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 Euangeliâ—ts and 〈…〉 After which 〈◊〉 in the Arch-Bishop an 〈…〉 And taking the Crowne from the Altar put it 〈◊〉 his â—and So at his second Coronation he was ledde into the Cathedrall Church of S. Swithim at VVinchester 〈…〉 even unto the Altar ibi flexis genubus and 〈◊〉 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 Hildeâ—â—â—â—â— whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together enâ—â—â—â—â— into a Country-Church Ante Aram injunctis lateribus 〈◊〉 in multam horam protracta Oratione Cast themselves downe before the Altar one by the others side and
m Hierom de scripto Eccl. with others in the lives of Cyprian Tertul. prâ—fixed to their workes n Cookes Censura p. 13. o Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. p De praes adv haer p 182 189. Ad uxoreÌ„ l. 2 128 129 130 De Coronr Militis p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ent q Diaelogus cum Tryphone and Apol. 2. r Sterâ—at l. 1. 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus 〈◊〉 CoenaÌ„ DominicaÌ„ s Page 43. 44. 45. 46 t Apol. adv â—entes u Replie to Harding Artic. 3. divis 26. p. 144. x The 3. part of the Homily against the Paril of Idolatrie p 66. 67. y â—e Calep. Holioke in their Dictionar Ara. z Epist. l. 1. Epist. 7. in Erasin Epist. 74. a Epist. l. 1 Epist. 9. Epist. 69. in Pamel b Epist. l. 1 Epist. 12. Apud PameliuÌ„ 70. p. 101. c Bastards of the false Fathers p. 11. to 18 d Censura p. 75. to 82 e Se Cookes Censura D. Lâ—nes D. Favar f Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. g Epist. l. 2 Epist. 3. in Pamelius Epist. 63. h Concil Carthag 1 Can. 6. 9. 3. Can. 15. 4. Can. 18. 20. * Tui opinionem nominis enormiter gravat quod causas sanguinis agis quod abjecta Ecclesiarum solicitudine negocijs seculariâ—us te tottâ—m occupas involuis Verum tamen tui professio ordiniâ— nec degeneres saeculi curas nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost dicit Secularia negotia si habueriâ—is eos qui contemptibiliores sunt inter vos ad judicanduÌ„ eligite Non decet ordinem profeffionis tuae in alea tanti diutius ludere salute anime spietate adeâ— damnabiliter secularibus involuere montemque Seir Bariginoso spiritu circumine Petr. Blesens Epist. 42. ad Epist. Camoracenj i Fox Acts monum p. 1211. k Se Hâ—d Cant. Oâ—or l 3 s. 271 l See Novells Reproof of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. m In his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell n Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. on Hebr. 13. sect 6. o See Reynolds Conf with Hare c. 8. div 4. p Garner deEuchar others forecited q De Eucharistia or the Sacrament of the Altar r Peter Martyr Defensia adâ— Gard. deEuchar 2. William Wraghton 3 William Salisbury * vel propter artâ— latriam vitandam tutius erit ut sedengenu flectens mensae Dominicae populus accumbere assuescant They therfore used 〈◊〉 sit at the Sacrament in King Edwards dayes to avoyd the peril of adoration 4. Iohn Bale Bishop of Osyris 5. B. Pilkington 6. Thomas Becon * Heb. 13. Altars not tollerable among Christians Christ his Apostles and the primative Church used tables at the ministration of the holy CoÌ„munion O cruell butchers O murtherers Masses why they serve The Lords Table cast out of the Temples Dan. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Ceremonies The apparell of the Massemongers The gesture which the Masse mongers use in their Masse The Masse mongers Trinkets * Lib 2. Offic. c. 18. Altares Note Exod. 2â— When Altars came first into the Church A Table more meet for the ministration of the Lords Supper then an Altar * Heb. 10â— Of gestures to be used at the Lords Table Of kneeling Of standing Of sitting * Note Of vestures at the ministration of the Lords Supper Surplesse * See D. Rainolds conference with Hart c. 8. divis 4. 5. Haddon contra Osorium lib. 3. fol. 285. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe fol. 66. And Thomas Becons Comparison between the Lords Supper the Popes Masse Bishop Iewel Defence of the Apologie part 3. c. 5. divis 1. * See Fox Acts and Monum p. 1873. 1356. 1366. 1384. 1405. 1604. 1781. 1834. 1837. accordingly 7. Deane Nowell * Chrysost. Hom. â—18 in 2. Cor. August Tract 26. in Ioan. multi multis locis Hierom ad Demetriadem ad Nepotian 8. Walter Haddon 9. D. Fulke * Note 10. M. Calfehill 11. Bishop Babington 12. M. Cartwrigt * Optatus l 6. Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. vid. Euse. l. 10. ex orat panegyr in Eucariâ—s vid. Aug. de civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. Item de consecr distinct 2. * Origen cont Cels. l. 4. Volat. vid. volat venerer contr Floretum l. 4. Beat Rhen Ep. praefix Leiturg Chrysost. Heb. 13. 4. Tit. 2. 5. 1. The. 4. 4 13. D. Willet Object 1. Answer 1. * See William Salisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter * Fox Acts monum p. 1806. * Confutation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1. 1 William Salisbury * Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gaddes of stele digesteth them * The Bee gathereth hony on the same flour that the Spider gathereth poyson 2 Richard Woodman ast; Fox Acts monum p. 1806. The B. of Chichester rightly answered of his man according to his question Sacram of the Altar The Altar how it is to be taken where it is Christ the true and only Altar 3 D. Fulke 5 D. Rainold a In Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia b Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus c Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 25. d Epist. 86. de Civitat Dei 18. c. 27. l. 22 c. 10. Confesse l. 11. 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21. e Theph in Matth. 23. f Aretheas in collect exposit in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert Com. 8. in Apocalyp 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Masse g The Rhemists in their Annotat on the New Testament h Greg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii Chrysoâ—t demonstr quod Christus sit Deus Homil. in Matth. 16. 8. 3. in priâ—r Epist. ad Corinth 24. 27â— ad populum Antioch 60. 61. Sermon de Euchar. de B. Philogenio Sâ—crat Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract in Iohan 26. de verbis Domini Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint c. 11. i Prudent Hym. de S. Laur. CoÌ„c Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor etymol. ar l. 7. â— 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Lev. Epi. 79. aâ— Dioscer k The Booke of Com. prayâ— in the Commun l Iustin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. 5. Lev. Serm. 4. de quadrag m Concil Constant. Sess. 13. Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can 2. n Durandus in rational divinor officiis l. 4. c. 53. †Panis benedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius 6 D. Willeâ— 7 David Dickson 8. King Iames. Object 2. o Treatise of Gods house p. 2. Answer 1. p See B. Iewels Replie to Harding Art 1. div 5. p. 5. q In their forecited places m See this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. others of the Masse n Fox Acts monnm p. 1211. Service Sacraments * Page 61. 62. * By like D. Heylyn wâ—o playes tâ—e ignoraÌ„t Lawyer to
deride and flout us for our follies Apostasies miserable publike contradictions 7. Seventhly they open the mouthes of this Babilonish Crew and of forraigne and domesticke Papists to slaunder both our Church and Arch-Prelates as if shee and they with many other of our Prelates and Cleargie of chiefe note were now returning with the dogge to his vomit and the washed Sow to her wallowing in the mire yea to the very vomit and mire of that VVhore of Rome which we had formerly spned and cast out That this is the common Newes in most forraigne parts not only the reports of Travellers witnes but Sr. Iohn Cooke your Majesties principall Secretary of State some few yeares since in the very infancy of these Innovations and backeslidings affirmed openly in Star-chamber in the now Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case that this newes was spread as farre as the very Wals of Rome itself upon his certaine intelligence thence And therefore it was high time for your Majesty your Prelates and the State to looke more strictly to our Religion and to take away all occasions of such Rumours Since which there have been more occasions of them given then in forty yeares before So as this Rumour is generally believed abroad as a most certaine truthâ— and crept into some of their late printed Bookes This likewise is the common confident discourse and persuasion of most Priests and Papists at home both among themselves and in the Company of Protestants over whom they now seeme to triumph and sticke not openly to affirme and justify that both our Arch-Bishops to omit others are theirs To make this good I shall give your Majesty two late instances of which I have certaine intelligence and witnesses too if need be worthy your Royall consideration A Barkeshire Gentleman of some worth a Popish Recusant was since Easter last 1636. at a publike meeting where were divers prime Gentlemen of the Shire and 3 or 4 Iustices of Peace if not more VVhere entring into Discourse concerning some Controversies of Religion between the Papists and us with some of the Company he used these words in the hearing of them all Well Gentlemen you may talke and discourse of your Religion as long as you please but we have the Queens Majesty and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury firme on our side And so long wee shall make our partie good enough with you Some of the Company questioning him for these words He answered He would justify and make good what he sayd But was never yet for ought I heare required to doe it though intimation hath been given of these speeches to some whom they much concerne When Dr. Cosen 's the last Summer 1636. removed from the Bishopricke of Durham to his Colledge at Cambridge He gave his Friends of New-Castle a farewell Sermon in the Towne at which Sermon preached in the after-noone most of the Papists in that Towne were present Two of them the next morning meeting with two Marchants of the Towne who were Protestants they went all into a Taverne to drinke their mornings draughts The Papists demaunded of the Protestants whether they heard Dr. Cosens his Sermon One replied that he only heard of it but heard it not by reason of some busines that hindred him The other made Answer that he heard it The Papists demaund of him how he liked it He replied That it was but a plaine ordinary Sermon and that he heard nothing extraordinary in it Yea but said the Papists did you marke his garbe his cringes to the Altar and how he bowed himselfe when Iesus was named He hath the right garbe and duckes of our Priests The other answered he did not much observe his gestures Well said the Papists Dr. Cosens is a learned honest Gentleman and to tell you truely He and the Arch-Bishop of Yorke are both ours The other bade them take heed what they said Wee know well enough said they what we say we tell you againe they are both ours Whereupon one of the Protestants merrily replied If you will needs have both of them to be yours pray take them to yourselves we can spare them well enough Many words past to this purpose The Protestants complained of these speeches as scandalous to the Arch-Bishop and acquainted him there-with Whereupon the Papists were Articled against in the High Commission-Court at Durham and cited to appeare there Appearance they made but they have not yet made any full answer the busines being hushed up in a maner and layd asleepe Dr. Cosens in the meane time takes his journy towards Cambridge Most of the Gentlemen Papists in the Bishopricke to prove him theirs brought him a dayes-journy on his way and some of them as farre as Yorke Like speeches have been used by other Papists yet more privately modestly The like report they in print of Dr. Theodor Price Subdeane of West-minster that however he lived like an Atheist yet he died like a professed Papist This J confesse is not only a report but a truth He being a reported Papist long before his death Which made many wonder at the impudency of that great Prelate who knowing him intus in cute durst recommend him to your Majesty as the fittest man he in his conscience could pitch upon to make a Welsh Bishop And so earnestly to stickle for him against your Lord High Chamberlaine and his Chaplaine Dr. Griffirth Williams Especially being a man that never preached all his life but one Sermon as was reported and that in Latine penned as was bruited in Oxford long agoâ— by his Kinsman D. Lewes And he not long after a notorious Sodomite flying the Realme and losing his Provostship in Oxford for this very Sinne Yet now without any purgation or satisfactioÌ„ for so foule a crime is preferred not only to the Mastership of S. Crosses but likewise made your Majesties Chaplaine in Ordinary I will not say by whom and the chiefe man imployed for the now Chancellour of Oxford in his canvase for that dignity against the Earle of Peâ—broke your Lord High Chamberlaine who had most voyces though not the fairest play It may be these Arch-Prelates countenancing and preferring of such persons is one maine ground of these Papists speeches VVho are worthy to be punished for them if they cannot justify and make them good And they unworthy to stay one hower in their places in case they shall not or cannot both by their Actions Doctrines c preceedings disprove them to be true as J hope their Graces wil being Fathers in God highest growen up into Christ in all things and the Eldest in Grace for which cause the word Grace is used unto Arch-Bishops as Mr. Reeve learnedly informes us But how-ever that shall fall out upon tryall yet this certainly is one fruite of these late Jnnovations and Bookes to produce such speeches in these and more mens mouthes then three or foure 8. Eightly these Bookes Innovations and Apostasies both in Doctrines Ceremonies
Calendas we may well demurre to this second reason Of which more fully anon Only to retort the reason let me argue thus The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven in the Church-Bible and midst of his people not at the East end of the Church where none must sit neare him as I bare else-where proved And in every good Christians heart Ergo these not the Table are to be bowed unto As for his Chaire of State That it ought alwayes to be bowed unto I thinke when it is in the ward-robe Cart Imbroy derers or upholsters shop c. should have been excepted he must shew us some Law or Statute for it ere we can beleeve it And though some men bow unto it now and then because the King sits some times personally in it This Gentleman must prove that God sits personally some-times on the Table which he can hardly doe But he and others tell us that God sits alwayes there Very good Then I thus retort the similitude No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chaire of State when the King himselfe is sitting in it but only when he is absent For when the King his in it they never doe it but bow only and immediately to the King without any respect to the Coaire Therefore since God is alwayes sitting on the Table they ought not to bow or doe any reverence to it at all And so this Simitude cuts the throate of their cause if rightly paralleld and applied This will likewise overthrow his Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise else-where at large refelled Here also writes he it is to be considered unto the honouring of Gods holy name of his Table rather in what place of the Chauncell Gods Board or Seat should stand Doth not nature itselfe teach us that in every common house the Seate of the chiefest should be above every inferiour And should not Christianitie teach us that no Seate of any person much lesse of any of the Laity it seemes then the Cleargie may sit above God himselfe if they please should be above Gods mercy Seate the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chauncell c. And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chauncell is it not decent that the ends thereof thus this Expositour and Patron of the Common-Prayer-Booke dares controll it be towards North and South The Holy Ghost commaundeth all things to be done decently and according unto order Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South against the expresse order of the Common-Prayer-Booke And if it ought so to be in all things much more ought it to be in every thing about Gods house especially in the standing of his Sacred Seate As if this Seate stood very undeceâ—tly and quite out of order unlesse the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order But of this meâ—ry profound Divinity hereafter This only by the way for a Breakfast The Authour having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners That we are all bound in conscience for to learne believe and obey whatsoever is commaunded in the Commuuion-Booke Homilies Booke and Constitutions or Canons Booke All which condemne his bowing to and placing of the Table North and South And so by his owne censure not speaking according to the Communion Booke Doctrine J may with a safe conscience before God affirme that there is no light of Gods holy spirit within him They are his owne words and censure of all those who speake not according to the Communion Booke Doctrine which himselfe professedly speakes against in all these and other passages But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise NOTE THIS It appeares by Num. 1. 50. c. c. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Campe of Israel and the Levites were there commaunded to encampe ROVND ABOVT IT To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. c. 7. 11. hath relation as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large It is also evident by Numb 3. 26. c. 4. 26. And the hanging for the dore of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROVND ABOVT c. That the Passage in the Counsell of Constantinople where the same phrase is used is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it the words being the same both in Latine Greeke and English in all places TO THE CHRISTIAN READER CHRISTIAN READER it is storied of Croesus his dumbe-borne Sonne that when he saw a Persian Captaine going to stay his Father his filiall affection was so stirred in him at the sight that though he never spake before yet then he brake forth into these words O man doe not kill Croesus And so saved his Fathers life What this dutifull Sonne thus unexpectedly uttered being ever before tongue-tied out of his endeared love to his naturall Father I am here constrained out of my loyall respects to my spirituall Mother the Church of England publikely to speake to some treacherous seeming-Sonnes of hers who have almost stabbed her to the heart under a specious pretence of fighting for her in some late printed workes O man doe not murther and betray my Mother the Church of England Even as Iudas once did our Saviour with a kisse whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholy for her Alas when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles and the Booke of Common-Prayer to which you have all subscribed When I see you raking the very ashes and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent Iewel Raynolds Whitaker Fulke Willet Perkins with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Romes greatest Goliahs whom you never durst so much as looke upon by way of Opposition in their life times proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings When I behold you siding with the Papists maintaining their Antichristian Errours Doctrines Ceremonies abuses before all the world without blush or shame Defending their Erronious Writers against our famous Orthodox Authours whose blessed memories you seeke causelesly to steine When I behold you avowing even in print That the Church of Rome is a true Church That personall Succession of Bishops is requisite and Essentiall to make a true Church That the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England derive their lineall Succession and Episcopall dignity from S. Peters Chaire and the very Sea of Rome and that we should not acknowledge them for Bishops in case they either did not or could not doe so That the Pope of Rome or Papacy is not the Antichrist Nor Antichrist yet come or
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 〈◊〉 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 â—â—â—â—swing 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 Statuâ—es 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
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 eâ—â—rimplyinge 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 Israliâ—es 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 â—idd 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 Manaâ—â—eh 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 Maâ—h 23. 35. was slaine betweene the Temple and the Altar Altarsâ—in 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 aunciâ—nâ— 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 Xenâ—phon 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 Oâ—r 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 sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
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 Injunctâ—ons 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 Pâ—pists 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 calâ—ed 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
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 Nigâ—o 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 thâ—â—fe 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 Altaâ—s 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 CoÌ„ference 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
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 eâ—â—â—ed 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
testify were fore charged and complained on that they had no Altars nor Images It is evident therfore that they tooke all Images yea all Altars to by the same reason to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them following this rule we must obey God rather then men So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds There have been Altars sayth M. Harding even from the Apostles time and that even as it is used now farr from the body of the Church c. This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge For first where he sayth The Apostles in their time erected Altars It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in woodes and Forests and in Caves under the ground And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church Verily Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ hath these words against Celsus Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines aut Aras aut Templa Celsus chargeâ—h our religion with this that we have neither Images nor Altars nor Temples Likewise sayth Arnobius that lived somewhat after Origen writing against the heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus â—oc Imagines nec Aras Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Images nor Altars And Volateranus Vernerius testify that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the First that caused Altars to be erected Therfore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say That Altars have ever been even sithence the Apostles time Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name and to Queen Elizabeth herselfe London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265â— brought in the altars first into the Church utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive some now too that call themselves Protestants about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church others affirme that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in Volateranus Durand Flascit Mass. Pet. Aequillinus Joan. Sella Thus M. Beacon The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament one the 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers All these Authorities to which the Papists could never yee replie the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath informing us that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning who must be understood not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had For otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and thing and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Ignatius the Apostles Canons and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer first that this namelesse Author in modesty good manners should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen Arnobius then our Homilies and these our learnedest writers whose judgments authorities certainely will over ballance his 2. These Authors tooke their words meaning aright what ever is pretended as appeares 1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe The Gentiles charged the Christians that they had neither Temples nor Images nor Altars Was their meaning then that they had Temples indeed but not to sacrifice in Images to but not to adore or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images that the Christians had Images but not to adore though the Gentiles objected they had none and Lactantius Minucius Felix too about that age expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all Their meaning therfore being as our Homilies those very words themselves resolve that they had no publicke Temples no Images at all for any assemblies use or purpose their meaning likewise must be that they had no Altars at all for any purpose not no Altars for any bloody externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on as he falsely glosseth it Since the wâ—nt of Temples Imagesâ— Altars are all coupled together objected to them in the same sence and manner Now had the Christians in that age had Temples but not for Idolls service Images but not to adore Altars but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on as the Coale Glosseth it the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples Altars or Images to them as is probable since they had them but their not sacrificing on them adoring them as they did not making a right use of them whoâ— they had them as we tax all couetous men or Nonpreaching Ministers that are Schollers not for having no mony or learning but for not making such use of them as they should The very objection therefore cleares it
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 sâ—ad 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 â—ver-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 Oâ—igens 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 Dionysiusâ—Alexandrinus 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
of the Lord where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministred are cast downe broken on peces and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim to Erkenwald to Grimbald to Catherine to Modwyne c. But ô Lord bannish out of the Congregation that most vile stinking Idoll the Masse and restore unto us the Holy blessed Communion that we eating together of one bread and drinking of one Cup may remember the Lords death be thankfull to thee Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations of Ceremonies of Images of Altars of Copes of vestmentes of Pixes of Crosses of Censers of Holy waterbuckets of Holy bread basketes of Chrismatories above all Idolatrous Preists and ungodly ignorant Curates And in his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper used his common dayly apparel The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall gameplayers garments as with an Humerall or Ephod with an Albe with a girdle with a stole with a maniple with an amice with a chesible and the like c. commeth unto the Altar with great Pompe and with a solemne pace Where it is wonderfull to be spoken how he setteth forth himselfe to all Godly men to be lamented pitied to children even to be derided to be lauged to scorne while like another Roscius with his foolish player-like mad gestures the poore wretch wrytheth himselfe on every side now bowing his knees now standing right up now crossing himselfe as though he were a frayd of spirites now stoping downe now prostrating himselfe now knocking on his breast now sensing now kissing the Altar the Booke and Patene now streching out his armes now folding his hands together now making charecters signes tokens crosses now lifting up the bread Chalice now holding his peace now crying out now saying now singing now breathing now making no noise now washing of hands now eating now drinking now turning him unto the Altar now unto the people now blessing the people either with his fingers or with an empty cuppe c. When it evidently appeareth by the Histories that the Ministers of Christes churche in times past when they ministred the Holy Sacraments either of Baptisme or of the Lords Supper used none other then their Common and dayly apparell yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first which first of all as Sabellicus testifyeth did forbidd that from thence forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their dayly aray but such holy garmentes as were appointed unto that use This Bishop lived in the yeare of our Lord 260. Christ simply and plainly and without any decking or gorgious furniture prepared and ministred that heavenly banket The Massemonger with a marvelous great pompe wonderfull gay shâ—w setteth forth his marchandise For he hath an Altar sumptuously built yea that is covered with most fyne and white linnen clothes so likewise richly garnished decked and trimmed with divers gorgious pictures and costly Images He hath also crewettes for water and for wine towels coffers pyxes Philacteries banners candlestickes waxe candles organes singing Bells sacry belles chalices of silver and of gold patenes sensers shyppe frankensence Altar cloothes curtines paxes basyns ewers crosses Chrismatory Reliques jewels owches precious stones myters crosse staves and many other such like ornaments more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron then for the mynistery of the New Testament It is nobly sayd of S. Ambrose the Sacraments require no gold neither do they delight in gold which are not bought for gold The garnishing of the Sacramentes is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners And verily those are precious vesselles which redeeme soules from death That is the true treasure of the Lord which worketh that that his bloud hath wrought Againe he sayth The church hath gold not that it should keepe it but that it should bestow it and helpe when need is For what doth it profitt to keep that which serveth to no use Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and bloud to his Disciples sitting at the Table When the time was now come sayth Luke Jesus sate downe and his 12. Disciples with him Luc. 22. The Massemonger delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar In distributing the mysteries of his body bloud Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aarons Preistes whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beastes but he used a Table as a furniture much more meet to gett defend confirme encrease and continue Frendship But the Massemonger as one alwayes desirous to shed bloud standeth at an Altar and so delivereth the Communion to his people when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banket maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table saying 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lordes Table of the Table of the Devills Neither did the ancient old Church of Christ alow these Aaronicall and Jewish Altars For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper after the example of Christ as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures also by the writings of the auncient Fathers and Doctors For the Sacrifices taken away to what use I pray yow should Altars serve among the Christians except ye will call againe and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sacrifices Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beastes then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship neither doe those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion then the cawdron the fyrepanne the basen the sholve the fleshhoke the gredyrne and such like instruments which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing dressing and doing their Sacrifices For unto the Honest seemly worthy celebration of the Holy banket of the body and bloud of Christ we have need not of an Altar but of a Table except ye will say that the primative Church which more then two hundred yeares after Christes ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries yea except ye will say that Christ himselfe the Author of this most Holy Supper did dote was out of his witts which not standing at an Altar like Aarons Preist but sitting at a Table as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordaine and minister this Holy Heavenly food For who is so rude ignorant of antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper when notwithstanding from Christes ascension unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of
as also the Holy things themselves they call by their proper names of signes Sacraments and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host yea and if Altars were Lawfull yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them unlesse as they doe the bread so they will transubstantiate the dead bodyes of beastes into the body of Christ not then borne when those things were layd upon the Altar Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo 115. any thing thereof it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars which we suppose your selves doe not observe whereby it may well be doubted as of divers others of those Sermons whether it be Augustines or no especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God Last of all let the good Reader understand that here in the Papists joyne with the Heathen which quarrelled with the Primative Churches that they had no Images Altars nor Temples whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the first that erected Altars Also that Gerson affirmeth that Silvester Bishop of Rome was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie Quaest. 6. part 2. Error 54. determines thus Altars we acknowledge none Altars we have none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1 Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables not sacrificed upon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. Epist. 50. He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximiâ—ian a Catholike Bishop beating him with Clubs even in the Church lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood and made to be removed not fastened to the wall as their Popish Altars were Damascus Epistol 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists and to be partakers only of the Lords Table he sayth the Lords Table not the Lords Altar To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites that they had polluted him in that they sayd the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing What other thing I pray you doe your sacrificing Preists they cannot abide the Lords Table they must have an Altar Sacrifice They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes beckings duckinges crossinges kissinges tossings tumblings besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread wine the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods Also Bishop Jewell Bishop Hooper B. Ridley others in their forecited passages against Altars together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c 5. which authorizeth Justices of Peace Majors Bailifs other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and Reliques of Popery and that if any Altar Pix Beades Pictures or such like Popish Reliques or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their or any of their custody they shal be presently defaced and burnt which Act expresly defines Altars as well as Beades and Pictures to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished all which have with one unanimous voyce condemned Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish abolished by Christs death contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians resolving likewise in expresse Termes that Communion Tables are no Altars nor yet to be so stiled And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise as the objectors pretend they ought to be because they falsly stile and deeme them Altars If any here object First that Communion Tables are Altars because D. John Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir 1. p. 43. averrs that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar are partakers of the Altar which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh for habemus Altare we also under the Gosple have an Altar Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar and may be so tearmed To this I answer first that this great over confident Doctor shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures as thus to misquote misprinte these texts no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning 2. I answer that it is most cleare that the first Text of the two namly 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite AT not of the Altar as he reades it are partakers with the Altar is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes Levites and Iewish Altars not of Christs Ministers and Lords Tables First Because the things of the Temples and Altars which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges are here couplâ—d together and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles of purpose to confute this blind Doctor instruct all men that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist Levites under the Law not of the Ministers under the Gosple as all Expositors whatsoever both old and new interpret it 2. Because the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord
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 irâ—e 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 relaâ—e 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 â—ocke 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
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 â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly 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 sâ—em 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 enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full 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 bâ—th 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 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es 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 Bâ—shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churchesâ— Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their Eastâ—rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates aâ—d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iewâ—sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull â—itting and deâ—ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violeÌ„t 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
some defects or cause of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved rectified supplied before a new Parliament might be called to d ee it or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament All which questions in conveniences defests would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified without any need of future alierations Rites or Ceremonies or continuing this power to her Heyres Successors which are purposely omitted in this clause This appeares most clearly by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act where the forfaitures for offending against the first clause is severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes HER HEIRES and Successors and though the 2. clause saith that he who shall be convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles omitting her Heires abolissing all forraigne power repugnent to the same and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors their Commissioners power only to punish all Heresies Errors Scismes contempts offences Abuses enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes Statutes not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes so new He resies Errors Ecclesiasticall offences not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or Inâ—isdiction before These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld And here I wonder much that the Colier should alleadge and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. which enacts that all Ecclesiasticall power together with all such Iurisdictions priviledges superiorities preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State persons for reformation order correction of the same and of all manner Errors heresies scismes abuses offences contempt enormites shall for ever by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme c. was not an Jntroductions of a New Law but confirmative of an old annexing no newâ— but only the old Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State persons be as he truly confesseth for ever united to the Crowne to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name appoint from time to time only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in from by under his Majestey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy given to heare determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall correct vice sinne what soever to all such persons as his Majestey to witt by speciall Patent Commission shall appoint thereunto As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis can or dare affirme their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be Iure divino or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters Patents or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale to keepe visitations Consistories to make and imprint visitation Oathes Articles in their owne names impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions in their owne names rights or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales in they owne names alone not his Majesteyes contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch King and Pope in his owne Dioces had no Soveraigne over them to acknowledge Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne dignity and his Loyall subjects Liberties or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute this grand objection to maintaine his Altars new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction The S. Objection is this That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity the matter shal be referred to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing conteined in that Booke Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church and there it ought to stand I answer first the Argument followes not For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing but only when and wher there is a doubt and diversity risen in any parrish concerning the use practise of the said Booke not whenâ— and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire all taking it for granted that it ought not so to be placed but to stand in that place manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation â— time all most out of mind till now Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places and in case that any Popish Innouators have raysed a doubt in any place where there is or can be none touching the placing of the Lords Table the Ordinary in this case can not must not make any innouation but order that it must stand in that place forme as was at first ordained by the Queeâ—es Commissioners where it stood ever since it being his Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline 2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall especially when the Sacrament is administred is contrary to these Books the Queenes Jnjunctions Canons writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Communion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause but is expresly prohibited by it so to doe The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in London that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quierâ—
prescribe any new Rites Ceremonies or visitation 〈◊〉 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 seâ—ret 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 Directâ—r 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
another Woman believe me the time is come whâ—n ye shall worshipp neither at Jerusalem nor in this hill but the true worshippers shall worshipp God in spirit and truth So is it now said the place makes not the man holy but the man makes the place hâ—ly and ye shall not worshippe your Jdols Stockes and Stones neither at Wilsingham Ipswich Canterbury nor Sheve for God chuses not the people for the places sake but the places for the peoples sakeâ— But iâ— ye be in the middest of the feild God is as ready to heare your faithfull prayers as in any Abbey or Burrey yea a thousand times more for the one place he hates as defiled with Idolatry and the other he loves as undefiled and cleane If the good man lye in prison tyed in chames or at the stake burned for Gods cause That place is holy For the holinesse of the man and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him As Tertullian saith yet there should be common places appointed for the people to assemble and come together in to praise our God c. Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard nor Christen moldes as they be called when it it is no better then other Earth but rather worse for the conjuring that Bishops use about it It appeares in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves the Widdows Sonne going to buriall Christ buried without the city c. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops but in a severall place appointed for the same purpose without the city which custome remaineth to this day in many godly places As it then was lawfull and no hurt to the dead so it is now and one place is as holy as another to be buried in saving that comely order requires the bodies not to be castaway because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and shall be glorified at the last day againe but seemely to be buried and an honest place to be kept severall from Beasts and unreverent using of the same for the same purpose IT IS POPISH TO BELEEVE that which the Bishops doe teach That place to be more holy then the rest which they have hallowed as they say with their conjured water crossings censings processions c. But blessed be that God our Lord which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fantasies which they devise to fill their bellies and maintaine their authority by Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardnesse of the people to keepe them exercised that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament nor yet commanded now either to us oâ—â— them but forbidden to be used of all both of us and them We be no longer under shaddowes but under the truth Christ hath fulfilled all and taken away all such darke kind of Ceremonies and hath placed the cleare light of his Gospell in the Churchâ— to continue to the end Thus and much more this Bishop who liberally censures all Lordly Non-preaching Dominering Bishops tearming these creatures ravening Wolves Lyâ—ns Beares and such other ravening Beasts for mercilesnes rapâ—ne and cruelty If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our Sâ—â—tutes Commonâ—prayerâ— boâ—ke Hâ—milies Canons Articleâ— Injunctions Writers and thus derived by this reverent Bishop himselfe in a Booke printed at Lordâ— n◠〈◊〉 An 1562. the same yeare he 39. Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them to consecrate Churches Chappels Church yards and Altars accounting them alltogether prophane unlesse they have defiled conjured I should have said consecrated them with their new devised Ceremonies Orisons Consecration Rites and Ceremonies takenout of Popist Masse-bookes Ceremonials Rituals at large related in Summa Rosella Summa Angelica Bochellous Gratian Ivo Lyderwood Hostrensis with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars and treatises of this subject deserving rather derision then imitation If they have no Law at all for it but only the Popes Canon Law as they have not aboli shed by sundry acts of Parliament is derogatory to the Kings prerogative the subjects liberties and the Lawes and Statuâ—es of the Realme Then why are they now of late so madde upon these consecrations as things of infinite moment How hotte they have beene upon consecration of Altars appeares not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton of which before but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches in Mâ—gaâ—len Colledge 〈◊〉 Oxford in Clare-hall Petorhouse Queenes Collâ—dgâ— with diâ—en other Colledges in the Vniversity of Cambridge solemntly dedicated with some kinde of consecration adorned with Tapors Candlestickes Basons Crucifixes Crosses rich Altar-clothes clasped brave Bookes with Crosses in steed of Bosses Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions rich hangings and dayly adred with superstitious idolatrous geniculations to the great greife of all good Christians who mourne to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poysened disguised with the Reliques Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose Whom the divinity Professour of Cambridge D. Câ—llins in 〈◊〉 publike Sermons hath of late yeeres much extâ—lled like an Apostazing Pander preaching openly in S. Maries Churchâ— That it is sitt wâ—e should meet the Papists halfeway both in preaching and practise Which he and others there have not oâ—â—â— done but almost if not quite râ—nâ—honâ—â— unto them as as Franciscu de Sancta Clara that moderne Reconciler vaunts it sundry places of his printed Booke To the great incouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction Who vauâ—â— thatâ— they need no step one foote to us who are running withal speed to come home to them unless Gods present plagues 〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasie stay our progresse and some stoute private Champions and royall Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome to drive us home againe for never a Prelate will or dares to doe it many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chaire whence D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree with all their migâ—â— and man How earnest and zealous our Prelates have bâ—â—â— in their consecration of Churches Chappels and Church-yards placing great holinesse in this Ceremony yea and necessity too And evident not only by their late visitation Articles wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated graund they have hallowed with their Rochets that it be by no meanes prophaned but likewise by sundrie late consecrations and contests about this Ceremonie I shall instance only in â— particulars omitting all the rest together with the solemne consecration of the foundation stones of the repaire of Paules which were very solemnely blessed by the Bishoppe who hath farre more charity towards sencelesse stones then men whom he can finde
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. â—ó quod Altare praetergressi ex Pontificis instituto pixide incluso piâ—ei 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 dayâ—â— 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 Sacâ—ifice 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 consâ—crated Altaâ—s not to others But few or none of our Altars not one of our Lords 〈◊〉 ables have yet been so solemnely consecrated the reason why Papists refuse to bow to them 〈◊〉 it makes 〈◊〉 for any genuâ—lectio◠〈…〉 or Tables Thirdly this honour and reverence is 〈◊〉 to be given to those Altars only wheâ—c the body of Christ is a wayes 〈…〉 pix and Masse celebrated And thâ—â— say 〈◊〉 Papists in their private discourses 〈…〉 of the 〈…〉 46â— is thâ—t 〈◊〉 reason why thâ—y bow 〈…〉 cause Christs boâ—y is they imagine â—s the 〈…〉 as they bow not at all to or towards the body of Christ reserved on it But our Altars for ought I yet know 〈◊〉 have no body of 〈…〉 on them Therefore they are not yet to be bowed unto or reverenâ—ed by vertue of 〈…〉 likewise ordaines that 〈…〉 which l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 8â— p. 558. Which our Bishops urge with much vigour As for the Synod of 〈◊〉 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 hâ—s 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 Masâ—e is celebrating That every Altar have its proper Ornaments and decent furnature as Altar-clothes towels a
there prayed along time Maâ—meâ—â—â—rie de Gestis Regum Angl lib. â— p. 10â— Thus the Monkes of Glastenbury when their Abbot â—â—â—â—â—â—ine felâ— at variance with them and chased them with 〈◊〉 men into â—he Church sancto Altari miserius fuas applâ—â—â—â—â—â—â— Bewayled thâ—is miseâ—ies 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 Amplexarâ—â—â— Altâ—â—â—â— imbracing the holy Altar in his armes Alium ad Altaris crepidinem sagitâ—is 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 pretermiâ—ted 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. 〈◊〉 King of Poland after his conversion from Paganisme to â—â—ristianity Inâ—er equitandum quotiescunque turres Ecclesiarum inspeâ—â—t detracto pileo caput inâ—linavit Deum qui coleretur in Ecclesia veneratus When he did ride abrode as oft as he beheld the Towers â—he 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 â—â—rds-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 opposiâ—e 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 Schismatiâ—kes by him though Bishop White in his Epistle Dedicatorie to his late Treatise of the Sabbath be very angrie with thoseâ— who repute or stâ—â—yâ— us Schismaticks from the Roman Church at this day because most but those whom he there styles Puritanes ` Presbâ—teâ—ians c. are perfectly reconciled to it they are so â—arre from being adored and bowed to that the Papists and Popiâ—â—ly 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 〈◊〉 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 â—hem 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 Coâ—vinalium 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 Ecclâ—siae quamolim Synagogae instituit Mensam dedit in qua epuletur non autem in qua offeretur victima Nec Sacâ—rdos consecravit qui offerent sacrificâ—rentque sed Ministrosdedit quiepulâ—m sacrum distribuerâ—â—â— Arae fixae statuae pecudibus mactandis ignibus foâ—end is magis sont Idoneae Christum in Mensa sacrosanctum suum conviuâ—um primò instituisâ—e accum charisâ—â—â—nis suis discipulis celebrasâ—e Evangelica historia testatur Hanc Mensaâ— auro purissimo coopertam atque infinitis propemodum geâ—mis ornatam ex Taletio occupatà m Musem Araâ—um Dâ—cem seâ—um reportasse â—estatur Leo Affcicanus l. 5. c. 79. Jn priâ—itiva quoque Ecclesia mensarum in celebratione Coenae Dominicaeusum cum alium literarum monumenta tum ilâ—a Nicenae Synodi verba testantur Jn divina MENSA ne â—umiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem c. Thus Sturkius who at large pieades for the use and conveniency of religious and pious Disâ—ourses 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 prâ—phanation of the Lords day by Feasting Dancing Ales Revels 〈◊〉
Ceremony Since therefore this bowing is neither commaunded by Gods Law nor any Statâ—te or Canon confirmed by Parliament and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. expresly prohibits all Rites and Ceremonies but such as are prescribed by Parliament in the Booke of Common-prayer as this is not the Bishoppes practise therefore or Cathedrall usage are no good arguments to perswade the practise of it Secondly God forbid that the Bishoppes practise should be the rules of mens obedience many of them living and doing things quite contrary to Christs precepts in all things Christ prohibites them both to be or called Gracious Lords Mat. 20. 25. 26. Lâ—ke 22. 25. 26. 1 Pet. 5. 1. 23. And they desire both to be Lords and to be so stiled of all men and style themselves so too He prohibits them all civill temporall Offices Iurisdiction and Dominion they ingrosse all into their hands He would have them be content only with one sword Ephes. 6. 17. to wit of the spirit the word of God and they in despite of him will not only chalenge and possesse but use and abuse both He commaunds them to be lowly and humble Matth. 11. 29. Col. 3. 12. And they studdy nothing else but to be pround and lofty He enjoynes them to be pittifull and mercifull even as he is mercifull Col. 2. 12. 13. Ephes. 4. 31. 32. Luke 6. 36. And they shew themselves altogether pittilesse and cruell He wils them to be patient and yet who more cholericke and angrie to be meeke and gentle yet who more insolent and inhumaine To be ready to pardon and forgive And yet who so dispitefull malicious or revengfull To be holy in all maner of conversation even as he is holy And yet who so prophane or in heart in life So malignant against purity holinesse and holy men as they To be apt to teach and yet who more unfitt or unwilling to preach then they To preach the word in season and out of season and that every day Vnde necesse est in singules ut ita dicam dies sementum facere ut ipsa saltem assiduitate doctrinae sermonem auditorum animi retinere possint S. Chrysestom l. 6. de sacer Tom. 5. Col. 471. Yet they will neither doe it themselves and silence all others who desire to doe it Having made almost a famine of Gods Word throughout out the Land Amos 8. 11. He presoribes them to â—sed his flocke Acts 20. 28. Ioh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Ezech. 36. 6. to 17. Ioh. 10. 1. c. Ia. 40. 1. 2. and they starue them To seeke his wandring sheepe and they runne from and looke not after them To be Pastors to them yet who such theeves and muâ—therers who not only fleece but kill sley devoure and sucke the very blood of their sheepe To comfort his people and speake comfortably to his inheritance yet who such causes of greife vexation oppression teares and anguish of heart unto them as they He commaunds them to be blamelesse yet who more â—candalous and blame-worthy Not selfewilled Yet who so violont wilfull and head strong in all their undertakings Not soone angry yet who more touchie or outragious No strikers Yet who strike more then they and that with both Swords with which they lay on like mad men almost in every place Not given to filthy lucre yet who more griping and covetous Not given to wine yet who love or follow it more then they Sober Yet who so Incivill Iust Yet who unjust oppressive or treacherous both in word and deede Temperaie Yet who more immoderate in all kind of pompe and luxurie Ruling well their owne houses Yet what houses or servants so unruly disorderly irreligious or prophane as theirs Men having a good report of all men Yet who so ill reported of as they Men holaing fast the faithfull word as they have been taught Yet who such Apostates from the truth and revolters from the established doctrine of the Church as they Men able and williug by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainesayers Yet who so unwilling if not unable to doe it as many of them God forbid then that their example should be our precedents J read in our learned Bale Scriptorum Brit. Cent. 9. c. 97. p. 756. See Bishop Whites Orthodox paragr 12. p. 63. in the life of Iohn White Bishop of Winchester whom he styles Antichristi Romani terrificus Minister Principum illusor animorum carnifex duplex periurus hypocrita qui rostris unguibus in regno Angliae restituere conatur omnes Antichristi Româ—ni tyranides idololatrias faetida impia dognita universa That as he changed his religion like a Weather-cocke with the times so he had this disticke bestowed upon him for his paines by Iohn Parkhurst Candidus es recte nec candidus es Rogitas cur Nomine candidus es Moribus niger es And may wee not now say the like of some of our Candid Prelates who like the Polypus change their colour with the Climate and can shift themselves out of one colour into another at their pleasure especially Blacke White Being sometimes all white in there surplesles anon all blacke in their gownes at other times speckled black and white in their Rotchets wearing their Shirt-sleeves as a Child once ignorantly toâ—d a Bishop over their gowne-sleeves Those who can thus easily change their garments from white to black c. can as easily alter their religion As some of their Predicâ—ssours have done Bishop Pilkington in his Exposition upon Aggeus chap. 1. verse 9. tells us of some Bishops here in England in Queen Maries dayes which some beginne to magnify who in one yeares space confirmed the pâ—eaching of the Gospell of Christ and pure Ministring of Gods SacrameÌ„ts the same men within the same yeare with the same impudent mouthes and blasphemous tongues brought in the Pope set up Jdols banished Christ and his holy Supper appointed for all men that will to receive it together tooke way his holy Gospell Table and Sacraments and placed by their Authority the Masse for one shaveling to eate up all and blesse the people with empty Chalice and burned his Preachers to fill their bellies I cannot say that some of our Bishops have in as short a time done the like or as much as this comes to Only this I dare say of some of them Qui color Albus erat nunc est contrarius albo That they have in a short time altered their colour for the worse and like the Albanes of whom Plinic writes growne black in their old age when as they were white in their youth contrary to the custome of all other people I shall therefore deny this reason to be of force and conclude with Iohn Parkhurst verses to England Anglia furcatis nimium ne fidito mitris Dic rogo num serus sum tibi praemonitur The fift Reason The fift reason is that I find in the learned
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 Câ—aldâ—a 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 â—e 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 margeâ—t 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur 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 â—estimonies 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 situaâ—ion 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— â—he 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 sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Saâ—erdote 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 ritâ—s 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. 1â—35 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 Aquiâ—as the Diuines of Colen Bellaâ—mine himselfe and Estâ—us proves 〈◊〉 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 Bâ—shops 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 Visitoâ—s 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 thereâ—â—t Secondly in the Object â—apists 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 lâ—st liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists and that in these respects 〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partiall if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it Wiâ—nes 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 Châ—ist 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 â—s 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
and saith O Mr. Dr. wee little thought to have mett you here The Dr. not seeing them before and knowing that they obserued this his bowing like one deprehended in the very act of spirituall adultery waâ—ed as pale as ashes and was in such a perplexity for the present as if he would have fallen downe dead in the place having not a word to replie Which they perâ—â— lying 〈◊〉 into some other discourse that he might recollect his spirit This I shortly after received by accident from the parties thee 〈◊〉 eye-witnesses of the fact being people of no meane 〈…〉 it to divers What then may we conclude from this 〈◊〉 that we are now in this particular more Idolatrous and Popish then the Papists themselves that we have many a Papist masâ—ed underâ— Protestants hood who are not ashamed to be Papists but only that they are so soone and sodenly discovered to be such at unawares and that it is high time for his most Excellent Majesty our most Gracious Soveraigne Lord King Charles Defender of our faith and Religion with all his faithfull Officers and Subjects to looke about them To prevent these Romish Innovations Relâ—pses and grosse Back slidings to Pâ—perie in time expresly prohibited by his Majesty both in his royall Declaration before the 39. Article and concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament p. 21. 22. 42. When as his owne advanced Chaplaines and I would he had no more such of them but this one are growen such Popelings as to commit such notorious Idolatrie in his owne royall Court and Chapple to the encouraging and confirming of Papists in their most grosse superstition and Idolatrie and greiving of the Soules of all his true-hearted loyall Subjects whose love will prove his strongest guard against all those treacherous Romish Ianizaries Iesâ—ites Assinates whose faith is faction whose very religion is rebellion whose practise the murthering of mens soules and bodies especially of Christian Princâ—s as many of our Writers and the Booke for the 5. of November miserablie guelded and corrupted in this very particular in the last impression 1635. it were worth the inquiring by whom and whose authority to discover a new nâ—st of Traytours at leastwise to our religion if not our King and State at large relate See Mr. William Tyndall his Practise of Popish Prelates Obedience of a Christiaâ—man Dr. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry the 8. Henry Stalbridge his exhortatiory Epistle Dr. Iohn White his Defence of the. Way c. 6. 9. 10. 11. Since then there is now no maâ—eriall sollid justifiable difference at all between the Pagans Papists and our Romanizing Novellers bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes Lords-Tables as the premises witnesse needs must we now not only passe lentence against it but abandon and abhor it as most groâ—â—e Jdolatrie Yea as that which no doubt among other several particulars of our late backsliding to the Church of Rome hath been one cause of drawing downe that Plague and Pestilence which now spreades it selfe every where among us with these other spirituall temporall judgements which now we languish under and are likely to increase upon us to our utter ruine And have we not all cause to feare the very extremity of Gods wrath to be powred on us of which he hath given us visible prognostickes from heaven I shall name but one of many upon the 23. day of February last past in Sussex and sundrie places of the Kingdome from 8 till 9â— of the Clocke in the morning there was seen by many persons of good quality who have testified it under their hands three Sunnes nâ—are together a thing veâ—y rare and at the same time a Raine-bow such as was never seen the like but once differing from ordinary Raine-bowes in these 7. remarkable particulars 1. First where as all other Raine-bowes are in some watry thick cloud this was in no cloud at all ouâ— in the cleare open ayre 2. Secondly where as other Raine-bowes are ever in direct opposition to the Sunne so as he that turnes his face to the bow turnes his backe on the Sunne this stood directly South-east in the same quarter that the Sunne theâ—â— was 3. Thirdly other Raine-bowes are commonly lower then the Sunne and one end of them seemes almost to touch the earth This vvas farre higher then the Sunne goes in the Sommer-solstice none being ever seen so high by many degrees 4. Other Raine-bovves are seen only at a certaine distance 5. or 6. miles about and that but one vvay vvhethervvards it is reflicted This seemed above 30. miles distance every way 5. Fiftly other Raine-bowes continue but a short space and then vanish This a full houre from 8. till 9. of the clock as long as the 3 Sunnes continued Sixtly other Raine-bovves are flitâ—ing and moue vvith 〈◊〉 cloud vvherein they are This vvas fixed continuing in the same place a full houre Seventhly vvhich is the strangest of all principally to be considered whereas all other Raine-bowes stand with the 〈◊〉 downeward in this maner â— this appeared all the while with the hornes upward thusâ— which makes it the more terrible The bow as all know and we of this Nation especially who have wonne so many battles by it is a Military or warlike instrument Now as long as the backe of their bow is towards the Archer and the hornes from him towards his enemie it is a Signe of peace and safety that he hath no intent at all to shoote hurt or slay him But when once the Archer turâ—es his bow the contrary way with the â—tring and hornes toward himselfe and the backe of the bow towards his enemie then its a signe he is angrie and intends to shoote and slay him The application is obvious God hath a bow a warlike Instrument as well as man which Scriptures often mention See Ps. 7 12. Lam. 2. 4. c. 3 12. This bow immediately after the flood when he out of his infinite goodnes entred into a covenant of mercy and peace with Noah and his posterity placed in the cloud for a token of this Coveuant between him and the Earth See Gen. 9. 13. 14. 15. 16. And becanse it was a token only of love grace and peace he placed it with the hornes downeward and the backe towards Heaven to testify and proclaime peace and mercy to the world Now when God shall thus in aâ—unusuall miraculous maner invert this bow of his turning the hornes of it towards Heaven and the backe upon us in such a visible and notorious fashion that many Counties of the Kingdome at once might did take notice of it though few such serious notice as they should what can we thence in all probability conclude But that we having so long waged warre against Heaven with our prodigious shâ—meles manifold open sinnes See Ier. 3. 8. 9. Ier. 3. 3. and so farre broken our covenant and long continued league with God m the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of his ordinances he hath now a
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌ„ding 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 â—stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câ—uâ—m Christs â—l iâ—sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâ—prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia â—â—cat Aâ—am Cruâ—is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pâ—rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ— ex institute per Antithesâ—m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ— cum Christe â—â—ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieâ—â—m Sacrificâ—â— incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ— incru 〈◊〉 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 Pâ—nis quem â—gâ— 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 Chriâ—â— upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâ—ment 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 Origâ—n 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 â—ernimus 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 veriâ—as 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 establishâ—d 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 loÌ„g 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
all our Prelates Ceremonies are then are not the same to be obeyed because the same destroyeth our freedome in Christ. Dr. Barnes saith Mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 300. The Summe of all this will lead us by the hand one step farther namely If it be a sinne in Church-Governours to commaund especially upon strict penalty Indifferent decent things It wil be a sinne also in Ministers and in private Christians to subscribe Ex animo and to yeeld obedience by CoÌ„formity to such commaunds although the Ceremonies were as good indeed as they were preteÌ„ded which I believe they are not Indifferent-Decent-Things For doth not such voluntarily Subscription and Conforming to them build up our Church-Governours yea and with them that which is most to be taken to heart of us our Soveraigne civill Governours also in the confidence that such commaundements are as well lawfully given by them as received and obeyed yea confirmed and allowed by us Now to build up or edify a Brother to sinne is properly to offend a Brother For the proper Definition of an offence is that which edifieth a Brother unto Sinne as the originall word expresseth it 1. Cor. 8. 10. and so to sinne against a Brother is to wound his Conscience Yea and as much as in us lyeth to cause him to perish for whom Christ died Which is no better then Spirituall Murther of his Soule Now if thus to edifie any Brother to Sinne be so heynous an offence how much more heynous an offence is it to edifie our Governours to the giving urging of such commaundements yea and to the sharpe Censuring of all others as refractory and factious persons who choose rather to undergoe the losse of the greatest Comforts they enjoy iâ— this World then to wound the Consciences either of them selves or of their Governours It is true by forbearing obedience to those commaundements we offend the Spirits of our Governours and make them to be though causelesly offended with us But by yeelding obedience to these things we should offend their Consciences in edifying them to sinne and provoke the Lord to be offended with them Better they be offended with us without fault then through our fault God to be offended with them and us It is not for Christians Much lesse for Ministers to redeeme outward peacâ— and Liberty at so deâ—re a price as the hazard of the blood of so many precious Soules especially of our Governours in highest place and Authority What then shall we thinke of those Lordly Dominering Prelates who not only take upon them to enforce both Ministers and people to the observation and practise of the Ceremonies prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer further then the Staâ—uâ—e of 1. Eliz. c. 2. and the Law authorizeth them But likewise by their New-printed Vsiâ—ation Oathes and Articâ—es presume like so many Pâ—pes and Parliaments contrary to the Law of God the Statutes of the Realme and their owne 13. Canon even of their owne heads alone without the Kings Authority or Licence under his great Seale to impose new Popish Rites and Ceremonies of their owne devising is standing up at Gloria Patri the Gospell and Nicene Creto Bowing at the name of Iesus Praying toward the East Bowing to Altars and Commuâ—on-Tables and the likâ— of which there is not one sillable in Scripture or Bâ—â—ke of Common-Prayer itselfe and so are directly prohibited by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. which prohibites the use of any other Rites or Ceremonies then those expressed in the Booke of Common-Prayer under severe penalties to enforce them on Ministers and people against their consciences by Excommunications Suspentions deprivations imprisonments threats and such like open violence Certainly we must needs conclude them to be meere Antichristian tyrants not the meeke Disciples of our Lord Iesus Christ who never tooke such authority and State upon them thus to tyrannize it over mens consciences bodies estates in things indifferent much lesse in things unlawfull as many of the Ceremonies and Jnjunctions are Against which all godly Ministers and people ought solemly to protest and to goe on boldly in their Ministry and Christian dutie in despite of all their threats imprisonments their suspentions and Excommunications to the contrary which in truth are meere nullities not only by Gods Law but by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme since our Bishops have no Lords Patents or Commission under the broade Seale Authorizing them to exercise any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or Censures or to keepe any Visitations Consistoriâ—s And since all their proceedings suspentions excommunications are made in their owne names under their owne Seales not his Majesties as they ought by Law to be Wherefore Let us all now stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ yea and the Lawes of our Realme too haue made us free and not be againe intangled in the Prelates yeokes of bondage formerly grievous but now intollerable I shall close up all with Bishop Pillingtons words It is not meet that God should be King and the Pope and Prelates to make Lawes for him to rule by But God rules by his owne Lawes Gregorius Magnus Pastoralium l. 3. c. 5. Aliter admonendi sunt subditi aliter Praelati Illos ne sâ—bjectio conterat Jllos ne locus superior extollat Illi ne minus quae rubentur jmpleant Illi ne plus justo jubeant quae compleantur Illi ut humiliter subjaceant Illi quoque ut temperanter praesint Marsilius Pat Dâ—fensoris Paris Pars 2. c. 28. Talium Decretalium ordinatores praeter licentiam fidelis Legislatoris aut Principis ad ipsorum quoque observationem quenquam inducentes verbis suâ—reptilijs quasi cogentes comminando simplicibus eorum transgressoribus damnationem aeternam aut blasphemias five anathemata vel alias maledictiones inferentes in quenquam verbo vel scripto corporaliter sunt extremo puniendi supplicio tanquam Conspiratores Civilis Schismatis concitatores Est enim gravissima species CRIMINIS LAE SAE MAJESTATIS quoniam IN PRINCIPATUM DIRECTE COMMITTITUR Ad ejus etiam supremi pluralitatem consequeÌ„ter per necessitatem ad solutionem cuiuslibet Politiae perducens I should be glad to see this adjudged for Orthodox Law as it is and executed on our audacious Innovators convicted of High treason by it FINIS A POSTSCRIPT CHristian Reader since the finishing of this Treatise a memorable Story hath fallen out in the Tovvne of Colchester in the County of Essex vvorthy publike knovvledge vvhich I shall here relate One Thomas Nuceman Parson of the Parish Church of S. Runwald in Colchester caused the Communion-Table in his Church to be removed and rayled in Altarwise Which done he enjoynes all the Communicants to come up to the new rayle and there to kneel downe and receive the Sacrament refusing to administer the Communion to any but such who came up to the rayle though present in the Chauncell and ready to