holy Table in every Church shall be decently made in case the Altars were removed which they left at liberty and set in the place where the Altar stood and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth If in the place where the Altar stood then certainly it must stand along cloâ—e by the wall because the Altars alwaies stood so and that aswell in Countrey Churches as in great mens Chappels all being equally regarded in the said Injunctions as in the Preface to the same doth at full appeare Wheras in case the Table were to stand with one end toward the East great Window as is after said it could not possibly sâ—and in the place where the Altar did as the Injunctions have appointed the Altar taking up much roome to the North and South which the Table placed endlong doth not taâ—e up and contrary the Table taking up much roome to the East and West which the Altar did not However wee may take what is given us heere by the Epistoler where hee affirmes that placing of the Table where the Altar stood is the most decent scituation when it is not used and for use too where the Quire is mounted up by steps and open so that he that officiates may bee seene and heard of all the Congregation and such an one as he â—ad heard the Vicaâ—s Chancell was not Wâ—ether the Chancell at Gra was mounted up by stâ—ps or not is no great matter In case it were not so it might have easily been done without much charge and those of Gra were the more beholding to this Epistoler for taking so much paines to save their purses If it were mounted up by steps and that it were most decent for the Tables to be placed thereon Why not aswell along the Wall as with one end thereof to the East great Window 2. FOr this there are three Reasons given us First because then the Countrey people would suppose them Dressers rather than Tables Secondly because the Queenes Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall matters directed that the â—able should stand not where the Altar but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood Orders 1561. And thirdly because the Minister appointed to reade the Communion â—which hee the Vicar out of the Booke of Fast 1â— of the King was pleased as the Epistoler phraseth it to call Second Service is directed to reade the Commandements not at the end but at the Northside of the Table which implies the End to be placed towards the East great Window Rubrick before the Communion And would the people take the Table if placed Altarwise to be a â—resser not a Table I now perceive from whom it was that Mr. Prynne borrowed so unmannerly and prophane a phrase whereof I thought him formerly to have beene the Author Lâ—me Giles his haltings And from whom also he did borrow the quotations in his Appendix against Bowing at the name of JESUS the mistakes and all â— qq * 4. Viz. Rubrick for the Communion Queene Elizab. Injunctions Injunc for Tables in the Church The Booke of Canons An. 1471. p. 18. I say and the mistakes and all for both with him and this Epistâ—ler it is p. 18. whereas indeed in the old Book which was thâ—â— meant by the Epistoler it is p. 15. which plainly shewes out of whose quiver Mr. Prynne did steale those arrowes Just in that scornfull sort Doctor Weston the then Deane of Westminster did in a Conference at Oxford with Bishop Latimer call the Communion Tables as in King Edwards reigne they had beene placed in some Churches by the name of â—yster-boards Act. Mon. Part. 3. p. 85. and so hee called in a Sermon at S â— Pauls Crosse also p. 95. The like did Doctor White the then Bishop of Lincolne in a Conference with Bishop Ridley where hee doth charge the Protestants in King Edwards daies for setting up an Oyster Table in stead of an Altar p. 497. The Church of England is in the meane time but in sorry case If shee appoint the Lords Board to be placed like a common Table the Papists they will call it an Oyster-table If like an Altar the Puritans and Mr. Prynne will call it a Drâ—sser-beard A slovenlie and scornfull terme as before was said and such as doth deserve no other Answer than what the Marginall notes in the Acts and Monuments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminâ—ter viz. The blâ—sâ—hemous mouth of Doctor Wâ—ston calling the Lords table an Oysterboard pat 85. or what they give in th' other place to the Bishop of Lincolne viz. Bishop White blasphemously called the â—oord of the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 Oyster table pag. 497. I would there were no worse notes in the Acts and Monuments 3. AS for the Orders published by the Queenes Commâ—ssioners An â— 1561. they say indeed as is alleaged thâ—t in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand but then they say withall which is not alleaged that there be fixed on the wall over the Communion board the tables of Gods Precepts imprinted for the said purpose And in the Booke of Advertisemeâ—ts entituled Articles of Advertisement for due order in the publick Administration of Common-praier and the holy Sacraments and published in An â— 1565. it is ordered thus The Parish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table which they shall decently cover with a Carpet of silke or other decent covering and with a white linneâ— cloath in the time of the Administration And shall set the tea Commandements upon the East wall over the said Table Which put together make up this construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the steps and under the Commandements and therefore all along the wall on which the ten Commandements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before And in this wise wee must interpret the said Orders and Advertisements or else the Orders published 1561 must run quite crosse to the Injunctions published 1559 but two yeares before which were râ—diculous to imagine in so grave a State 4. NOr doth it helpe the cause undertaken by the Epistoler that The Minister appointed to reade the Communion is directed to reade the Commandements not at the end but at the Northside of the Table there being no difference in this case betweene the North-end and the North-side which come both to one For in all quadrilaterall and quadrangular figures whether they bee a perfect Square which Geometricians call Quadratum or a long Square as commonly our Communion Tables are which they call Oblongum it's plaine that if wee speake according to the rules of Art as certainly they did which composed that Rubricke every part of it is a side how ever Custome hath prevailed to call the narrower sides by the name of ends When therefore hee that ministreth at the Altar stands at the North-end of the same as wee use to call it hee stands no question at the North-side thereof as
onely that they stood a yeare or two in King Edwards time as may appeare by the Liturgy printed 1549. but that the Queenes Commissioners were content they should stand as before we noted What stood they but a yeare or two in King Edwards time Yes certainely they stood foure yeares at the least in that Princes reigne For in the first yeare of King Edward being 1547. was passed that Statute entituled An Act against such persons as shall speake ireverently of the Sacrament of the Altar Anno 1548. The Common prayer Book was confirmed by Parliament although not publi shed till the next yeare wherein the word Altar is oft used and by the which it seemes the Altars did continue as before there were Anno. 1540 A Let ter in the Kings name from the Lords of the Coun cell came to Bishop â—â—â—â—er for abrogating Private Masses wehrein it is appoynted that the Holy bles sed Communion bee ministred at the High Altar of the Church and in no other places of the same Act. and Monum Part. 2. p. 662. And in the yeare 1550. which was the fourth yeare of his reigne came out an Order from the Councell unto Bishop Ridley for taking downe the Altars in his Diocesse Pag. 699. So long it seemes they stood without contradiction and longer might have stood perhaps if Calvin had given way unto it of which more heereafter 8. IN the meane time from matter of Evidence and Authoritie wee must proceed next unto poynt of Reason and then goe on againe unto matter of Fact as the way is lead by the Epistoler whom we must follow step by step in all his wandrings And in this way hee tells us That the Sacrifice of the Altar beeing abolished these call them what â—ou will are no more Altars but Tables of Stone or timber and that it was alleaged so 24. Novemb. 4â— Edw. 6. And 〈…〉 so alleaged that the Sacrifice of the Altar was abolished I believe it not It was alleaged indeed That the forme of an Altar was ordained for the Sacrifices of the Law that both the Law and the Sacrifices thereof doe cease and therefore that the forme of the Altar ought to cease also Act and Monuments part 2. pag. 700. The Sacrifice of the Altar and the Sacrifices of the Law are two different things it being told us by Saint Paul that wee the Christians have an Altar whereof they have no right to â—are which served the Tâ—bernacle Hebr. 13. 10. That Altar and that Sacrifice must continue alwaies And were it granted as it need not that since the Law and Sacrifices thereof be both abolished therefore the forme of the Altar is to be abolished yet would this rather helpe than hurt us For the Communion Table standing in the Body of the Church or Chancell hath indeed more resemblance to Altars on which the Priests did offer either Sacrifice or Incence under the Law then if it did stand Altarwise close along the wall as did the Altars after in the Christian Church the one of them which was that for Sacrifice standing in atriâ— Sacerdotum in the middle of the Priests Court without the Temple the other being that of Incense in Templo exteriori even in the outward part of the Temple and not within the Sanctum Sanctorum as our Altars doe 9. THat the said Tables of stone or timber though placed Altarwise for so I take it is his meaning may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses where there are no people so voyd of understanding as to be scandalized wee are glad to heare of and if it be not true would to God it were However wee may safely say that a small measure of understanding is in this kind sufficient to avoid offence there being none so weak of wit who may not easily bee perswaded if at least they will or that their Leaders will permit them that the disposing of Gods Table rather to one place than another it is not considerable in it selfe or otherwise materiall in his publick worship further than it conduceth unto Order and Vniformitie If any bee so void of understanding which wee hardly thinke and plead their weaknesse in this point as did the Brethren in the Conference at Hampton Court wee aske them with his Majestie of happy memory not whether 45 yeares but whether 80 yeares be not sufficient for them to gather strength and get understanding whether they be not rather head-strong than not strong eenough Confer at Hampt Court pag. 66. For it may very well be thought that it is not any want of understanding but an opinion rather that they have of their understandings which makes some men run crosse to all publick Order and take offâ—nce at any thing whereof themselves are not the Authors 10. THat which next followeth viz. that on the orders for breaking downe of Altars all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables but not upon the fashion or forme of Tables is fairer in the flourish than in the fact For in the Act. Mon. p. 1212. which there is cited being of my Edit part 2. pag. 700. there is no such matter It is there said indeed that on receipt of his Majesties Leâ—ters sent to Bishop Ridley the Bishop did 〈◊〉 the right forme of a Table to be used in all his Diâ—cesse but that it was appointed so in all other Diocesses as the Epistoler hath affirmed doth not appeare by any thing in that place remembred And though hee did appoint it so yet possibly it may be doubted whether the people fully understood his meaning it being there said that after the exhortation of the said Bishop Ridley there grew a great diversity about the forme of the Lords boord some using it after the forme of a Table and some of an Altar So that the difference was not about the having of a Table wherein it seemes most men were ready to obey the Kings Command and the Bishops Order but in the placing of the same some men desiring that it should be placed after the fashion of an Altar others more willing that it should be used like a Common Table in which boâ—h parties followed their owne affections as in a thing which had not been determined of but lâ—ft at large 11. THat which comes after is well said but not well applyed It is well said that In the old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar and a Table an Altar in respect of what is there offred unto God and a Table iâ— regard of what is there participated by men as for Example by the Priests By this might better have been applied and used to justifie the calling of the Communion Table by the name of Altar in respect of those Oblations made to God as the Epistoler doth acknowledge afterwards That of the â—â—ophet Malachie 1. ver 7. is indeed worth the marking and doth demonstrate very well that in the old Testament Gods Altar is the very same with Gods Table but how it answereth
〈…〉 place of the â—ebrewes 13. 10. is beyond my reach the Prophet speaking of that 〈◊〉 and those Sacrifices whereof wee have no right to eaâ—e which live under the Gospell and the Apostle of that Altar and that Sacrifice whereof they have no right to eate which live under the Law In case that Passage had been urged by the Vicar of Gr as the Epistoler hath informed us for wee take his word against some of his fellow Ministers as before him it was by Master Morgan against Peter Martyr in maintenance of an Altar in the Christian Church however it might possibly have been answered otherwise by the Respondent sure it had never been well answered by that text of Malachie 12. VVHere it is next said that we have no Altar in regard of Oblation but wee have an Altar in regard of Participation Communion granted to us Were it no otherwiâ—e than it is here said yet here we are all allowed an Altar in regard of Participation and Communion which is enough to justifie both the scituation of the Table Altarwise and the name of Altar and that too in the very instant of receiving the Communion Now for the proofe that wee have an Altar also in regard of Oblation wee need looke no further than into the latter end of this second Paragraph where howsoever the Epistoler doth suppose that the name of Altar crept hee might aswell have said it came into the Church in a kind of complying in Phrase with the people of the Iewes as Chemnitius Gerardus and other sound Protestants were of opinion where by the way we may perceive that some may bee sound Protestants though they like of Altars Yet he acknowledgeth withall that it was so called partly in regard of those Oblations made upon the Communion Table for the use of the Priest and the Poore whereof we reade in Justine Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and other ancient Writers and partly because of the Sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving as Arch-bishop Cranmer and others thought Acts Monum pag. 1211. which is Part 2. pag. 700. of my Edition Whereby it seemes that besides the complying in Phrase with the Iews which the Christians of the Primitive times had little care of when there was not greater reason to perswade them to it the Communion Table was called an Altar both in regard of the Oblations there made to God for the use of his Priests and of his Poore as also of the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanks-giving which was there offred to him by the Congregation And therefore as before wee found an Altar in regard of Participation and Communion so heere wee have an Altar in respect of Oblation also 13. THis though it be so cleere a Truth that the Epistoler could not deny it yet puls hee downe with one hand what hee was after forced to set up with the other For so it followeth in the Letter The use of an Altar is to Sacrifice upon and the use of a Table is to eate upon And because Communion is an action most proper for a Table as an Oblation is for an Altar what then therefore the Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a Table onely doe not you call it an Altar This is indeed the inâ—erence which is made from the former Principles But if the Principles be true as indeed they are not there being an Altar in the Temple which was not made to Sacrifice upon as the Altar of Incense and a Tâ—ble also in the Temple which was not made to â—ate upon as the Table for the Sheâ—-bread another and a worse conclusion would soone follow on it which is that men would thinke it necessary to sit at the Communion For if Communion be an action most proper for a Table as it is affirmed and that the use of a Table to be Eate upon as is also said the inference will be very strong that therefore wee are bound to sit at the Communion even as wee doe at Common Tables which wee eate upon A thing much sought for by some men as if not onely a great part of their Christian liberty but that their whole Religion did consist therein but brought into the Churches first by the moderne Arians who stubbornly gain-saying the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour thought it no robbery to be equall with him and sit down with him at his Table and for that cause most justly banished the reformed Church in Poland For so it was determined there in a generall Synod An â— 1583. Ne sessio sit in usu ad mensam Domini The reason was Nam haec ceremoniea Ecclesijs christianis coetibus Evangelicis non est usitâ—ta tantumque propria infidelibus Arianis domino parâ— solio sese collocantibus Because it was a thing not used in the Christian Church but proper to the Arians onely who thought themselves haile-fellowes with their Lord and Saviour and to them we leave it 14. WEe are now come unto the Story of the Change the change of Altars into Tables and the reasons of it which is thus delivered In King Edwards Liturgy of 1549 it is every where but in that of 1552 it is no where called an Altar but the Lords Boord Why Because the people being scandalized heerewith in Countrey Churches first beats them downe de facto then the supreame Magistrate by a kind of Law puts them downe de jure and setting Tables in their roomes tooke from vs the Children of the Church and Common-wealth both the name and nature of former Altars What ever may be said of the change in the Publicke Liturgie the reason here assigned for taking downe of Altars is both false and dangerous Nor is it altogether true that in the Liturgies here remembred the name of Altar is used onely in the one though true it be that that of the Lâ—rds Boord or Table is used onely in the other Though the Epistoler had not perhaps the leisuâ—e to â—earch the Liturgie of 1549 where it is once called Gods boord and once his Table as viz. in the Praier We doe not presume c. and in the Rubricke of the same yet he could not be ignorant that it was so observed in his owne Author the Acts and Monuments and in the Page by him often quoted Where it is said that The Booke of Common Prayer calleth the thing whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministred indifferently a Table an Altar or the Lord's Board without prescription of any forme thereof either of a Table or of an Altar so that whether the Lord's Board have the forme of an Altar or of a Table the Booke of Common Prayer calleth it both an Altar and a Table For as it calleth it an Altar whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministred a Table and the Lord's board so it calleth the Table whereon the holy Communion is distributed with Lauds and Thanksgivings unto the Lord an Altar For that there is offered the same Sacrifice of Praise and
Thanksgiving Part. 2. pag. 700. And this I have he rather laid downe at large to shew with what indifferencie these names of Table Board and Altar have beene used before and may be used for the present as also in what regard the Lord's Table may be called an â—ltar And this according unto Master Foxes Marginall note in the selfe same Page viz. The Table how it may be called an Altar and in what respect which shewes that he allowed it to be called an Altar though this Epistoler doth not like it 15. NOw as the Story of the change is not altogether true so the reason there assigned is both â—alâ—e and dangerous First it is false the Alteration not being made because the people were scandalized with Altars in Countrey Churches The people were so farre from being scandalized with having Altars that in the Countreyes of Devon and Cornwall they rose up in Armes because the Masse was taken from them Act. and Monum Part. 2. pa. 666. And if we looke into the Story of thoâ—e times we shall quickly find that it was no scandall taken by the people which did occasion that or any other câ—ange in the Common prayer Booke but and offence conceived by Calvin It seemes that Bucer had informed him of the condition of this Church and the publike Liâ—urgie thereof and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Sommerset who was then Protector Epistola ad Bucerâ—m In which his Letter to the Duke hee finds great fault with the Commemoration of the dead which was then used in the Celebration of the Lords Supper though he acknowledgeth the same to bee very ancient calling it by the name of a piece of Leaven Quo mâ—ssa integra sanctae coenae quodammodo aceâ—ieret where with the whole Communion was made sower Other things in the Liturgie hee found fault withall and then adviseth Illa omnia abscindi seâ—el that they should all at once be cut off for ever Epist. ad Protectorem Angliae Nor stayed hee here but he solliciâ—ed Archbishop Cranmer to the same â—ffect 〈◊〉 1551 being the yeare before the Alâ—eration made as by the placing of that Letter doth appeare complaining in the same unto him 〈…〉 That in the Church of England there was yet remaining a whole masse of Popery which did not only blemish and obscure but in a manner overthrow Gods holy worship So that however in his Answer to the Devonshire men the King had formerly affirmed that the Lords Supper as it was then administred was brought even to the very â—se as CHRIST left iâ— as the Apostles used it and as the holy Fathers delivered it Act. and Monum Part. 2. pa. 667 Yet to please Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector and as it seemes had tooke â—pon him to wrâ—te â—â—to the King about it Epistol ad 〈◊〉 1551 the Lituâ—gy then established was called in by Parliament though in the very act it selfe they could not but acknowledge that the said Booke of Common prayer was both agreeable to Gods Word and â—he Primitive Church 5. 6. of Edw. 6. cap. 1. So that the leaving of the word Altar out of the Common Prayer booke last established and other alteraâ—ions which were therein made grew not from any sâ—andall which was taken at the name of Altar by the Countrie people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgy by Calvin as before I said 16 AS false it is but far more dangerous which is next alleaged viz. that The people being â—â—andaâ—ized in countrey Churches did first de facâ—o beat down Altars and then the Prince to countenance no doubt and confirme their unruly actions did by a kinde of Law put them doâ—ne de jure Wherâ— is is said in all the Monuments of our Church or State that ever in the former times the Countrey people tooke upon them to bee reformers of the Church or that in this particular they did de facto beat downe Altars This is fine doctrine were it true for the common people who questionlesse will heaâ—ken to it with a greedy â—are as loving nothing more then to have the soveraigntie in sacred matters and who being led by a Preâ—edent more than they are by the Lawe or Precept thinke all things lawfull to bee done which were done before them But sure the people never did it For in the Letters sent in the Kings name to Bishop Ridley it is said that it was come to the Kings knowledge how the Altars within the most part of the Churches of this Realme being already upon good and godly consideration taken downe there did remaine Altars in diverse other Chuâ—ches Actes and Monument Part. 2. pag. 699. So that the Altars were not generally taken dowâ—e throughouâ— the Kingdome and those which were tooke downe were taken downe on good and godly consideration which certainely implyes some Order and Authority from those who had a power to doe it Not beaten downe de facto by the common people in a popular huâ—our withouâ— Authoritie or Warrant And had they all beene beaten downe de â—actâ— by the common people that kindâ— of Laâ— which after put them downe de jure had come too late to carry any stroake in so great a businesse Vnlesse perhaps the King was willing on the post-fact to partake somewhat of the honour or durst not but confirme the doings of disordered people by a kind of Law A kind of Law And is the Edict and Direction of the King in sacred matters but a kind of Law The peoples beating downe the Altars was as it seemes a powerfâ—ll Law a very Club-Law at the least against the which was no resistance to be made the Princes Edict to remove them but a kind of Law which no man was obliged unto nor had regarded but that they found it sorted with the peoples humour Just so he dealt before with the Queenes Injunctions The Queens Injuctions had appoynted that the Holy Table in every Church should be â—ecently made and set up in the place where thâ— Altâ—r stood and thereupon it is resolved by the Epistoler that if by placing of the Table Altarwise is meant the setting of it in that place of the Chancell where the Altar stood there may be somewhat sayd for that because the Injunctions did so place it The Edict of King Edward but a kind of Law the Order of Qu. Elizabeth but a kind of somewhat This is no mannerly dealing with Kings and Queenes my good Brother of BOSTON 17. YEt such a kind of Law it was that being seconded by a kind of somewhat in the Queenes Injunctions 1559 referring to that order of King Edward it hath taken from us the Children of the Church and Common-wealth the name nature of former Altars The Children of the Church And who are they Those onely which are bounded Intrâ— partem Donati the lot and portion of the Brethren of the Dispersion those who have kepâ— their children's fore-heads from the signe of the Crosse
and necessarie causes but that in correspondence unto former practise and the Injunction of the Queene he thought the place where formerly the Altar stood to be fittest for it at least out of the time of the ministration and in that time too if hee might be heard conveniently of the Congregation And whether hee might or no no doubt he better knew than this extravagant Epistoler and so in that respect might be aswell Master of the peoples eares as he in Tacitus whom this Epistoler hath remembred was of his owne 3. I Say according unto former practise and the Queenes Injunction For if we looke into the former practise either of the Chappels of the King the best interpreter of the Law which himselfe enacted wherein the Communion Table hath so stood as now it doth since the beginning of Queene Elizabeth what time that Rubrick in the Common Praier booke was confirmed and ratified or of Collegiate and Cathedrall Churches the best observers of the forme and order of God's publick Service the Vicar had good warrant for what he did And for the Injunctions howsoever it bee said in them that in the time of the CoÌ„munion the table shal be placed in so good sort within the Chancell◠〈◊〉 thereby the Minister may more conveniently be heard being a matter of Permison onely if occasion be yet it is ordred in the same that after the Communion done from time to time the same holy Table shall be placed where it stood before that is where formerly the Altar stood So that the next clause of this Epistoler wherin it is referred to the Vicar's judgement Whether this Table which like Daedalus his Ensignes moves and removes from place to place and that by the inward wheeles of the Church Canon be fitly resembled to an Altar that stirr's not an inch might have well been spared as not being likely to be any part of the Vicars meaning For we may reasonably presume that it was onely his intent to keep the table free from irreverent usage and by exalting it to the highest place to 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 reverence to the blessed Sacrament from the Common people who if infected with the fancies of these latter daies are like enough to thrust it down into the Bell-free or some worser corner Nor say I so without good reason it being so resolved of in the Altare Damascenum that any place be it what it will is good enough for the Lords Table the Communion ended De loco ubi conâ—istat cur solliciti cum quovis loco vel angulo extra tempus administrationis collocari possit pa. 718. What need they be so carefull say those factious spirits which composed that booke how to dispose or place the Table seeing that out of the time of the ministration it may be put in any place or corner whatsoever it be High time assuredly that such prophanenes should be met with 4 THere is one only passage more to be considered in this letter for the close of all and that is this that If we doe desire to know out of Eusebius Augustin Durandus the fifâ—h Councell of Constantinople how long Communion tables have stood in the midst of the Church we should reade Bishop Jewell against Harding Art 3. p. 143. and we shal be satisfied And read him though we have yet we are not satisfied Eusebius tels us of the Church of Tyre that being finished and all the â—eats thereof set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Founder after all placed the most holy Altar in the midst thereof and compassed it about with raiâ—es to hinder the rude multitude from pressing neer it This proves not necessarily that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church or in the middle of the same as the Epistoler doth intend when hee saith the middle The Altar though it stood along the Eastern wall yet may be well interpreted to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle of the Chancel in reference to the North and South as it since hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people being more mingâ—ed wiâ—h the Iewes than in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple the better to conforme unto them For if as Bishop Iewell saith in the selfe samâ— place The holy Table was called an Altar onely in allusion to the Altars in the old law or if as this Epistoler tells us the name of Altar crept into the Church by a kind of complying in pâ—rase with the people of the Iewes 〈…〉 5 THat of the fifth Councel of Constantinople as it is there called being indeed the Councell sub Agapeto Menna against Anthimus Severus affirms as much in sound as the Epistoler doth intend but if examined rightly concludes against him It is there said that in the reading of the Diptychs the people with great silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together about the Altar and gave eare unto theÌ„ Where although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth â—ignifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar so as there was no part thereof which was not compassed with the people no more than if a man should say that hee had seene the King sitting in his throne and all his Noblemen about him it needs or could bee thought that the throne was placed in the very middle of the Presence as many of the Nobles being behind him as there was before him And certainly if the man of God in the description of God's throne in the kingdome of Heaveâ— had any reference or resemblance as no doubt hee had unto the thrones of kings on earth wee have hit right enough upon the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the aforesaid Councell it being said in the 4th chapter of the Revelatâ— on vers 6. that round about the throne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were foure beasts full of â—yes and chap. 7. ver 11. that all the Angels stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 round about the throne So that for all is said in the fifth Councell of Constantinople the Altar might and did stand at the end of the Chancel although the people came together about it to heare the Diptychs i. e. the Commemoration of those famous Prelates and other persons of chiefe note which had departed in the faith The like mistake there is if it be lawfull so to say in the words of S. Austin That which hath beene alleaged from him being the 46 Sermon not the 42 is this CHRISTVS quotidie pasâ—it Mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est O Audientes ut mensam videatis ad epulas non accedatis Which BP. Iewell thus transâ—lateth Christ feedeth us daily and this is his Table here set in the middest O my hearers what is the matter