Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	apostle_n	bishop_n	call_v	1,550	5	5.7733	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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 s●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

spirituall Altar Whereby as they conclude that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon so for profe hereof they adde that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed it is also called an Altar of the Fathers even of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact. And when it is called a Table it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christs body bloud received Rainolds The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I grant yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth we have an Altar it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually or in a figurative sence as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very Altar such as is used in their Masses they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall spirituall Altar Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you see by an example of their owne Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giveth life unto the world the bread which came downe from Heaven that whosoever eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant under the metaphore of bread our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word artos as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne yet how wise to the purpose who is so blind that seeth not yea to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doe affirme expresly that Christ is this Altar Christ say they as man no doubt is this Altar They meane it I hope in a Metaphoricall or other figurative speech For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove that Masse is sayd in Heaven as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would prove the one cleerly as they could fitt it with this note and the word Altar would put the other out of controversie cheifly if that were noted with all that an Angell stood before the Altar having a Golden Censer Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont vvith false Prophets Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval and others daube it over with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth plaister with it For though as they lay it on it seemeth hansome that vvords signifie properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie not metaphoricall or spirituall things yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used by metaphors or other figures to signifie those things vvhich properly they doe not signifie the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is will laugh at it Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by doe infer upon it that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art partly by drawing us into hatred vvho have not Popish Altars but Communion Tables partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against us Both vvith skill and cunning but more of Sophistrie then divinity 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table because it is ordained for the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body blood The Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it And this improper sence Marrie by a figure of speech by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality are given one unto another as Christ is called David Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist Elias Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem Isay 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old are wont to give the name as of Preistes Levites to Pastours Deacons so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper and of an Altar to the Lords Table For these thinges are linked by nature in relation mutuall dependence as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice the Sacrificers who serve the Altar that is Preistes and Levites Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacrificing of it But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone Heb. 7. 11. they knew it neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them in proving as by them that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly But us of the other side they doe abuse more by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech as if we whose Churches have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ sacrifice him upon it ●ad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury For we have not a Common but a Holy Table as both we call it esteem it not a prophane Communion board but the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of

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 ●ited M. Philpot expre●●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 s●em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ou● 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 en●lamed are now quite extinguished upon ●●●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 follow● that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so b●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 ●ea●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 prove● lexond● control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of

heart itselfe and the mind and faith which have their cheife residence in the heart an ALTAR in respect of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse offred by faith on a pure heart as on a spirituall Altar and they stil●● the Communion Table an Altar only in this sence and in a figurative and improper speech as they call the heart mind end faith an Altar their phrasing of it an Altar only in this sence can be no A●gument at all to prove that it is properly and in truth an Altar or in that sence as some now presse it And these other 3. the heart mind and faith which they terme an Altar being scituated not in the East part but in the middest of the temple of the body are a stonger evidence to prove that the Table ought to be scituated in the middest of the Church though it were an Altar as these 3 termed Altars are in the middest of the body then that the Table is properly an Altar and therfore ought to stand in the East end of the Quire Altarwise 5. Because the Scripture expresly condemnes Altars as Iewish abolished by Christ putting Altars Preists their waiting on the Altar as Iewish Heathenish in direct opposition to the Lords Tables Ministers preaching of the Gospell consecrating of the Lords Supper at his Table distinguishing Christ his Ministers from Aaron the Preists of his order in this that one of them was to give attendance at the Altar the other not as is evident by 3. remarkable Texts of Scripture The First of them is the 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite at the Altare are partakers of the Altar Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospell should live of the Gospell Where Preachers of the Gospell are directly distinguished from Preists waiting on the Altar and preaching of the Gospell in the one put in opposition to waiting on the Altar in the other The one being Euangelicall the other only Legall and abolished The next Text is that of 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread one body are all partakers of that one bread Behold Israell after the flesh are not they which eate of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar what shall I say then that the Idoll is any thing or that which is offred in Sacrifice to Idolls is any thing But I say that the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devills and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devills yee cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devills yee cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills wherein the first part the Ministers of the Gospell who blesse eate drinke participate of the Communion of the body blood of Christ partake of that bread at the Lords Table are distinguished from Israell after the flesh the Preists of Aaron who ca●e of the Sacrifices offred upon Altars and are partakers of Altars and the Lords Table put in opposition to the Iewish Altars and in the second part the Sacrifices Cup Table of Devills and partaking of them put in opposition and contradistinction to the Cup and Table of the Lord and the eating and drinking of them The 3. Text is that of Heb. 7. 12. 13. 14. where Christ himselfe his Preisthood and Ministers are thus purposely distinguished from Aaron and the Leviticall Preists and Preisthood that one of them gave attendance at the Altar the other not For the Preisthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law For he of whom these things are spoken partainet●●o another Tribe OF WHICH NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda of which Tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning Preisthood c. In which Text as David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Epistle of Paule to the Hebrewes with others observe the Apostle proveth that Aarons Preisthood is changed the Ordinance therof because Psal. 110. speaketh of Christs Preisthood after the order of Melchisedek that is freed from the service of the Altar and Christ was borne not of the Tribe of Aaron but of Judah of which no man gave attendant at the Altar to witt the materiall Altar commaunded in the Law To declare that Altars and giving attendance at Altars properly belonging to the Leviticall Preisthood were abolished by Christ the true Preist and Sacrifice of which they were but types And that as Christ himselfe was borne of the tribe of Judah of which no man gave attendance at the Altar so the Ministers of Christ under the Gosple who professe themselves of his Tribe and Stocke should by his example give no attendance at the Altar since he never did nor ought to doe it From this remarkable Text the Church of the forraigners in ●nand An. 1550. when John de Alasco that Noble Polonian was their cheife Minister and Superintendent in the Confession of their faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and printed at London that same yeare Cum Privilegio make this the 5. note of Christs Kingdome THAT IT KNOWES NO ALTAR since he is of the tribe of Juda wherein NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR neither needeth he the furniture of any mysticall vestiments that he may enter into typicall Sanctuaries or Holy places all which things are abolished with this their Preisthood because the truth of those things which they did shadow out is exhibited And David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Hebrewes printed at Aberdence 1635. p. 126. 127. inferres from thence First that Christs Preisthood is freed from that Altar which God commaunded in the Law and all the service thereof 2. That an other Altar he knoweth not Christs Preisthood being declared to be freed from the service of this Altar no Law can tie it to any other 3. That whosoever will erect another materiall Altar in Christs Preisthood and tie his Church unto it as the Papists add and our New Prelates and Doctors doe now must looke by what Law they doe it 4. That negative Conclusions in matters of faith dueties follow well from the Scriptutes Silence It is not warranted from Scripture therfore I am not bound to beleive it Since the Apostle here reasoneth thus That none of the tribe of Judah attended the Altar because Moses speake nothing of that Tribe concerning the Preist-hood which overturnes all Preists Altars and attendance at Altars under the Gospell and the calling of the Lords-Table an Altar because the Scripture is silent and speakes nothing of them but against

their Bookes or examples to decline from the strict observation of Gods Law which peremptorily forbiddeth the making of Idolls bowing to them or before them This was this great learned mans judgment concerning Altars bowing to them William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox dedicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England f. 12 Yee hold still Vestiments Popes incense and ALTARS organes crosses in the Church all which ordinances Constitutions Ceremonies the Pope hath devised maed Ergo ye still have the Pope Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances Ceremonies in receiving whereof the Pope is still retained William Salisbury in his Battery of the Popes Batter printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. dedicated to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chauncellour of England spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish and unfit to be tollerated in Churches to the end that the rude and simple people being better persuaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture should not have occasion to murmer grudge or be offended neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England who as redoubted grand Captine hath first enterprised on this most notable feat nor with any other Bishop or Lawfull Officer that attempted to plucke downe and remove the Popish Altars out of Christs Churches and Temples in the maintenance whereof he was fully persuaded that all the learned Popist● would stifly continue as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader In which Treatise after he had shewed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish serving only for Sacrifices offrings which ended in and with Christs off●ing up of his body once for all be concludes thus So then now if it be a cleare case and that by the plaine text of Holy Scripture that since Christ was once offred on the Altar of the Crosse all carnall Sacrifices all manner of offrings that ever were wont to be offred upon the Altars be wholly extinguished utterly voyd and of none effect And in as much as no man being in his right witt when he advisedly perceiveth and plainely understandeth that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose but to burne or to offer Sacrifices oblations upon which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept but he will strait wayes acknowledge that their ought not any Altar to remaine to any use among us Christians after the death and passion of our Master Christ at which time as he protesteth himselfe saying Consum●tum est it is finished signifying thereby that Moses Law was not only by him prevented fulfilled and finished but that the same Law or any Commaundment Rite Ceremony or any other part there in contained as concerning any burthening or Jurisdiction over the Christians was to all intents ended taken away and fully determined and the Gospell as it were a new Law surrogated confirmed and established in steed of the old Therfore Christians thus freed from the Law ought to have no Altars but Tables For what husbandman be he never so simple will be about to plough his land with a whelebarowe to harrow it with a slede or to carry with an harrow what husbandman I say is so folish as to goe about to wede his corne with a sith to moye his hey with a weeding hoke and to tedde the same with a rake Is a leaden Cesterne made for to sayle on the Sea is a ship made to be drawne of horses as a waggon upon the Land do Noble men build sumptuons Palaces for their horses to stand in and lie themselves in old ruinons stables or doe men ordeine fetherbeds for their dogges and lye themselves in kennells who maketh a Garnar of an Oven or an Oven of a Garnar Or who maketh a threshing flore in his dwelling house and a herth in his barne who can make a pleasaunt a brave banketing house of filthy Schambles or of a stinking Slaughter house Yea or who had not rather have his Supper layed on a faire Table before him then on a bloudy Butchars Cradle And so likewise to apply some of these strong Anagogies and darke sayings to our purpose is not a Garnar more meete to lay up grain in than an Oven Is it not more meete to make a threshing flore in a barne then in a mans dwelling house And to make an herth to kendle fyre on in the middes of a mans house then by the moyes side in his barne And so who can make the Jewes old slaughter Synagoge to serve for the new Euangelike Banketing Temple Or who had rather eate the heavenly banket of the Lords Supper on a Jewish a heathenlyk or a Popish Altar then on a decent● a faire comely Table The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christes Table and his Supper also The unfaithfull heathen thinkes scorne of the same The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion The Heathen in no sence can away with it The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian yea to be thought to be Christ himselfe so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen And shall we seeke upon them Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies of their execrable Rites and cursed usages Or is Christes religion so unperfit of itselfe so needy and beggerly that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen borrow Altars of the Pope borrow vestimentes of the Jewes besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christes Religion and now restored home to the owners thereof Therfore let us either render home againe unto the heathen the superstition of the imbring dayes and to the Pope his halowed Altars and unto the Jewes their Aarons vestimentes or els let us like good companions joyne together in a league with them and be tenauntes in Commune put our religion with theirs in hotch potche After which at the end of the Booke he proceeds thus S. Paul through the secret advertisment of the Holy Ghost did know before hand then if he had geven the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table that there would be in time to come certaine Jewish teachers that would build and sett up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon And surely the holy D. S. Augustine nor any other Godly writer would never have used this terme Altar so often after that sort as they did if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge what absurdity what inconveniencie and what mischiefe and abomination have been grounded on their translated termes And I pray yow what though S Augustine or other Doctours used to terme the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar which if it be as I take it I take it after the most sound and

ordained that they which preach the Gosple where he puts the Preachers and Preaching of the Gosple and the living by it in direct opposition contradistinction to the Preistes Levites ministring about Holy things in the Temple and living of the Temple serving at the Altar and partaking with the Altar to preaching of the Gosple and living by it drawing an argument by way of equity from one to the other in this manner The Preist and Levites under the Law which minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple and those that wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar that by Gods ordination Therfore by the selfesame reason hath the Lord ordained that the Ministers of the Gosple who preach the Gosple not those who seldome or never preach as our great Prelates doe should live of the Gosple So that if we interpret this Text as this novell Doctor hath done we shall quite overturne the Apostles argument similitude and make it a meere nonsence Tantalogie such as his Sunday no Sabbath is as full almost of Errors and falsehoods as lines 3. To that of Heb 13. 10. We have an Altar it is true that the Bishop of Chichester heretofore in his Conference with Richard Woodman Martyr alleaged this very Text to prove the Popish Sacrament of the Altar and that it is meant of their Popish Altars whereon their Sacrifice of the Masse is offred and the Rhemists in their Notes on Heb. 13. sect 6. conclude thus This Altar sayth Isychius is the Altar of Christs body which the Jewes for their incredulity must not behold 1. 6. c. 21. in Levit. And the Greeke word as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall Altar Whereby we prove against the Heretickes that we have not a Common table or prophane Communion boord to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs body upon and so called of the Fathers in respect of the sayd body sacrificed Greg. Nazianz. in orat de Gorgonia Chrysoft demonst quod Christus sit Deus Socrat. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 86. de Civitate Dei l. 8. c. 27. l. 22. c. 10. Confess 1. 9. c. 11. 13. Contr. fauct Manich. 1. 20. c. 21. Theophylact in 23. Math. And when it is called a table it is in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body bloud received And other Papists generally inferre from hence as Harding against Jewell Hare in his Conference with D. Rainolds cap. 8. divis 4. that by Altars is not meant Christ himselfe but the very materiall Altar on which they Sacrifice Masse inferring from hence that the Church of Christ hath yet altars Preists and that the Communion table is here termed an Altar But for any Protestant writer of our owne Church or other who interprets the Altar in this Text to be the Communion Table or a materiall Altar I professe I know not any till this new Doctor M. Shelford M. Reeve the nameles author of the Coale from the altar page 47. who yes writes thus dubiously of this Text as applied to the Lords Table and above all indeed S. Paul in his Habemus Altare Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meant the Lords table or the Lords Supper or rather the Sacrifice itselfe certaine it is that he conceived the name altar neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church All the Fathers and ancients on this Text that I have seene yea Isychius whom the Rhemists quote interpret it of Christ himselfe whom the Rhemists themselves in their Notes on Apoc. 6. 9. interpret to be the altar under which the soules of all Martyrs live in heaven expecting their bodies that in these Positive words Christ as man NO DOVBT the altar under which the soules of the Martyrs live in heaven c. which M. Cartwright Doctor Fulke thus resort upon them But if Christ be the Altar here and that without doubt not withstanding that he is not here expresly sayd to be why should not he so be also in Heb. 13. 10. where the name of Altar is more directly applied to him why was it there an Altar of stone which is here of flesh there in proper speech an Altar which is here but a borrowed speech Verily there can be no other reason why that Altar was of stone but that the Jesuites which out of that place framed it either for heavines of understanding to conceive the truth or for hardnes of heart to yeeld unto it were heavier and harder then the very stones themselves whereof they would have the Altar And where in disagreeing themselves they agree with the truth so in that which followeth Christ is the Altar as he is man they are as farre from the truth as they are neere like unto themselves especially if they meane he is the Altar according to his Manhood alone for when his Manhood being the Sacrifice was sanctified by Christ which is the Altar and the thing which sanctifieth is of a Higher nature then that which is sanctified by it Math. 23. 19. Heb 7. 7. it must needes follow that our Saviour Christ must be considered in somewhat else then in his manhood when he is sayd to sanctifie to same How our owne writers have expounded this Text heretofore will appeare First by William Salisbury his Battery of the Popes Bater printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. But now writes he are we set upon to batter and beate downe the head corner stone of their Popish Batereulx we will first declare yet one grammer terme more for the unlearned sake which though it be no high point of Divinity neverthelesse who so hath not the knowledge thereof his Divinity is but humanity or rather carnality then true knowledge in divine matters And so the grammarians call it a speach spoken by a figure called Metonymia when the thing conteyned is ment by the name of the thing that conteyneth it As when he say reach hither the Cupp meaning to have the drinke conteyned in the Cuppe This figurative speech used Christ himselfe when he sayd Luke 22. This Cupp is the New Testament in my bloud where he ment of the wine and not of the Cup. And likewise Matthew 23. where he speaketh by the name of the Citty unto them that dwelled in the Citty saying Jerusalem Jerusalem thou that stayest the Prophetes c. Such manner of speach is also much used in the old Testament as Esay 1. Heare ● Heaven and harken ● earth And in an other place Howle ye ships of Tharsis And so the Papistes must either grant that that kind of speech is used in the text that we shall anone rehearse hereafter ior els must they grant that the Jewes whose Altars or rather Sacrifices and forbidden meate the writer of the Epistle alludeth unto