quas Artis sibi praetextu cumulaverâ—nt Sed quos cognoverit medendi solida scientia fidelique voluntate pollere Sic nemo se ei libenter navi committat quae ab eo regatur qui nomine tantum opibus se Gubernatorem jactet peritiam autem navigandi nullam teneat Sed mavult quisque cum eo navigare qui tametsi obscuro sit nomine tenuibus facultatibus ad ritè tamen gubernandam navem existat Probe doctus exercitatus Quanto vero majore cura ac studio S. M. tuae inquirendi sunt atque approbandi quibus non corpora sed summam credat Religionis Christi reconcinnandae qua aeterna omnium salus continetur Adsit ergo S. M. T. Rex nostet Christus ut summam de Religione restituenda Concilium eos sibi delegat Consiliarios qui vim Regni Christi probè norint toto illud corde expetunt obtinere cum primis apud semetipsos tùm etiam apud omnes alios Nihilque in eo humani commodi vel gratiae spectent sed paratissimi sint extrema potius carnis incommoda subire quam ullam praeterire occasionem Regnum Christi adferendi propagandi This was Bucers advice to your pious Predecessour King Edward I hope it will not be unseasonable for me now to recommend it to your Majesty At whose Royall feet I now in all humility prostrate both my selfe and these my unworthy Labours voyd of all Courtship Flattering Elegancie or Trappings and having nothing else but loyalty and plaine Rusticke downe-right dealing to make them acceptable to your Highnes beseeching your Majesty what ever others may buze into your cares against them to make a charitable construction of them as proceeding from the reall syncerity and fidelity of his heart who as he dayly prayes to God for your Majesties long life and happines as his duty bindes him and shall continue thus to doe So he is and ever shal be ready to Sacrifice not only his studies but life and what ever else he hath unto your Majesties service And in despite of enuy and calumny shall ever manifest himselfe in all things Your Majesties Loyall dutifull and obedient Subject Though yet I conceale my name till I may doe your Majesty further Service EDMOND REEVE His Reasons For bovving to Lords-Tables and placing them Altar-vvise related and refuted CHISTIAN READER before I entertaine thee with a serious Epistle give me leave to detaine thee a little with some late Paradoxes in Edmond Reeve printed by License to prove the necessity Lawfulnes of bowiÌ„g to and towards the Altar and Communion Table at our entring in and going out of the Church to refresh thy spirits withall His first reason is this As the people of God being entred into Gods house to wit the Temple of Ierusalem did worship towards the Sanctuary or mercy Seate from which he was heard speaking not their Altars or Shew-bread-Tables so now also ought EVERY ONE being come into Gods house to prostrate himselfe that is make low obeysance towards Gods mercy Seare being the uppermost part of our Temples unto Almighty God there This reason is properly reduced into these two Logicall Arguments point-blanke against his Conclusion 1. The Jewes worshipped towards the Sanctuary and mercy Seate from which God was heard speaking a Type of our Pulpits and Reading Pewes if of any thing not towards their Altars or Tables Ergo EVERY ONE now also ought to bow to Gods mercy Seate the Pulpit and Reading Pew from which he is heard speaking in his Word not unto Altars and Tables 2. Every one ought to prostrate himselfe towards the uppermost part of our Temples unto Almightie God there But the Roofes of our Temples at least the East wall of them in the Authors sence not the Table or Akar or our Pulpits standing higher then they are the uppermost part of our Temples Ergo we must prostrate ourselves towards them to God there Not towards the Table or Altar But how then a prostration of the body towards the ground the lower part of the Temple can be a prostration towards the Roofe or upper part of the Church when as it removes the body further from it unlesse Mr. Reeve can tell me how a man may prostrate himselfe upward I cannot yet discerne 2. His second Argument is this The Divine wisdome of the Church calling the Communion-Table Gods Board doth give us to understand that that is to be accounted the peculiar Seat of God within the Temple For after a Church or Chappell is consecrated by a Bishop Gods gracious presence is ever at his mercy Seate saith the Margent and therefore towards it unto God there we are to make low obeysance whensoever we come into Gods house to pray Also as the Chaire of State is alwayes to be honoured though the person of the Royall Majesty be not seene there So is GODS BOARD EVER TO HAVE DUE REVERENCE therefore this bowing is done due to the Board itselfe not God and God who is there perpetually is alwayes to be prostrated unto yea wheÌ„ as the body blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament is not upon the same So the Passage in Bishop Mortons too nor Divine Service in saying therein or in any other place of the Holy Temple For which cause it is prescribed that ever the holy Communion-Table should be kept Sacred This I have else-where fully answered out of Shelford Widdowes who produce neither Scripture nor Reason for all this they say nor any authority but their owne 1. First therefore let them prove That God hath and ought to have a Seate in every Church 2. Secondly that this Seate is the Communion-Table only not the Pulpit Reading Pew Bible or any other part of the Church 3. Thirdly that God alwayes sits there by his grace when there is no body in the Church to beare him Company no Service no Sacrament of Christs body and blood 4. Fourthly that when there is Divine Service read in the Church a Sermon preached in the Pulpit or a Child Christned at the Font and no Service or Sacrament at the the Table that he yet sits still on the Table and is there only specially present by his grace and not at these other places in any of his Ordinances 5. Fiftly that God is alike present at the Table by his grace when there is no Communion as when there is one 6. Sixtly that men ought in point of duty to bow to every place where God is present And to one part only off or instrument in the Church and not to the whole Fabricke Seventhly that a Bishops consecration confines God close prisoner to his mercy Seate the Table so as never to suffer him to stirre one inch from thence no not when there is no SacrameÌ„t no Divine Service no person there to doe him homage nor use of his speciall presence Till these bedlam Paradoxes be proved which wil be ad Gâ—aecas
A QUENCH-COALE OR A briefe Disquisition and Inquirie in what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords-Table ought to be situated especially when the Sacrament is administred 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 Iewish or Popish and not tollerable among Christians All the Pretences Authorities Arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford Edmond Reeve Dr. Iohn Pocklington and A late Coale from the Altar to the contrary in defence of Altars calling the Lords-Table an Altar or placing it Altar-wise 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 Hebr. 7. 12. 13. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to an other Tribe of which no man gave attendance at the Altar Augustinus de verbis Domini secundum Joannem Serm. 42. Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Printed in the yeare 1637. To the High and Mightie Prince CHARLES By the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine France and Ireland Defender of the Faith c. MOST DREAD SOVERAIGNE THE bleeding and almost desperate Condition of the long established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England of late yeares not only secretly undermined by Popish Priests and Jesuites but openly oppugned affronted by some English Priestes and Prelates in divers Visitation-Articles Sermons and printed Bookes licenced for the Presse to the intollerable contempt of your Majesties late pious Declarations Hath made me so presumptuous as not only to compile but likewise to recommend this unpolished Quench-Coale to your Royall Personage Wherein like a plain-dealing English-man I have according to my poore ability not only defended the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England in the particulars now oppugned against those treacherous rebellious Sonnes of hers who have professedly both in their Sermons practises and printed Bookes oppugned them out of her owne Records and Writers which I have principally made use of but likewise discovered and layd open without flattery or partiallity their desperate practises aymes plots and intentions to suppresse and roote out our syncere Religion and usher in Popery by degrees Together with the method and progresse they have made and prosecuted in this their pernicious designe The reasons inducing me to dedicate this rude incompt Discourse which I had neither time nor opportunity to polish to your Sacred Majesty were these 1. First to acquâ—int your Highnes with the severall dangers wherewith the Religion Doctrine and Discipline by Law establishest in the Church of England are now surrounded and those open affronts and oppositions made of late yeares against it Of which I presume your Majesty who commonly see with other mens eyes and heare with other mens eares as most Princes are forced to doe have not beene yet so fully acquainted as your faithfull Subjects could desire especially by your Prelates 2. Secondly to informe your Majesty how grosly some of your Prelates and Chaplaines have abused your Highnes and your Subjects eares and eyes both in the Pulpit the Counsell-Chamber and in printed Bookes in the point of Altars and their situation of Communion-Tables Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire Which Altars Situs of Lords-Tables they have peremptorily affirmed to be consonant to the practise of approred Antiquity Yea to the Statutes Doctrine Canons and Discipline of the Church of England When as it is most apparant That the primitive Church laand Christians had no Altars but Tables only for aboue 260 teyeares after Christ And that then and ever since till now of late both their Tables and Altars were alwayes placed in the MIDST of their Quires or Churches As J have here plentrifully manifested And that they neither bowed to nor towards their Altars as these new Doctours falsely dogmatize 3. Thirdly To present unto your Majesty the many dangerous Innovations and backslidings to Popery that have crept into our Church of late and now are publikely justifyed in print yea enjoyned by some of your potent Prelates and enforced on your poore Subjects especially godly Ministers under paine of suspension excommunication deprivation yea fining imprisonment and utter ruine in your High Commissions at first erected to suppresse all Poperie Innovations Errours and Episcopall enchroachments upon your Eeclesiasticall Prerogative but now used as the chiefe Instruments to countenance and set them up in professed opposition and rebellion against your Majesties Lawes Proclamations and two late pious Declarations to all your loning Subjects VVherein your Majesty to the unspeakeable joy of all your true-hearted people calling God to record before whom you stand hath made this solemne Protestation That you will never give way to the authorizing of any thing whereby ANY INNOVATION may steale or creep into the Church but preserve that unity of Doctrine Discipline established in the Time of Queen Elizabeth whereby the Church of England hath stood florished ever since That you doe professe to maintaine the true ReligioÌ„ Doctrine established in the Church of England without ADMITTING OR CONNIVING AT ANY BACKSLIDING TO POPERY OR SCHISME That you will not INDVRE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING JN THE LEAST DEGREE from the seâ—â—d Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established And that you will esteeme those subordinate Officers and Ministers that shal be but negligent in seeing this your Declaration executed much more then those who apparantly oppugne it as culpable both to God and your Majesty And will expect that hereafter they give you a better account Yet notwithstanding both these your royall Declarations Some of your Prelates who were both privies and parties to them with others of your Clergie have since their publication not only suffered many Jnnovations to creep and steale into our Church admitted and connived at many backslidings to Poperie and Romish Schisme and permitted nay licensed in print many varyings and departings in the highest degree from the setled established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England But likewise been the chiefe Authours and fomenters yea the open Abbettours and Commaunders of them both in the Pulpit High Commission their Visitation-Articles Synodes and in printed Bookes Especially in setting up justifying writing and preaching for Images Crucifixes Altars Priests Sacrifices of the Altar bowing to Altars to Communion-Tables and rayling them in Altarwise with other particulars else-where specified in this Discourse In which we have lately backslided not only towards Popery but quite Apostatized to it as the Priestes the Papists glory and cracke in every place justifying in
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
is not Baptisme the word as necessarie as the Lords supper Math. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yeaâ— more needfull and absolutely necessarieâ— since men maye bee saved without receivinge the Sacrament of the Lords supper but not without Baptisme the word read and preached as many teach 6. To make the Communion Table Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate and place of his speciall presence if it bee meant of his spirituall presence only is a falsehood since hee is alwayes equallie present in this manner in all his ordinances to the end of the worlde Math. 28. 19. 20. If of his Corporall presence which is only nowe in heaven Acts 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. John 14. 2. 3. 28. c. 16. 7. 16. 17. 19. 21. the thinge they intend then it smels of ranke Popoâ—se intimatinge a transubstantiation of the breade wyne into Christs verie bodie bloode a notorious Popish absurditie longe since exploded by our Church drowned in our Martyrs blood whoe oppugned it to the death 3. Admitt that the Communion Table were Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate which they take as graunted without any Scripture ground or reason which I desire them first to prove before they lay it downe an undoubted principle yet the conclusion will not followe that therefore is must stand at the East end of the Chauncell or Quire Altarwise For first the mercy seate stood in the end of the Tabernacle and Temple upon the topp of the Arke not at the East Therefore the Table should stand so too were it a mercy seate 2. Christs Chaire of Estate ought to bee seated there where himselfe hath promised his speciall presence But that is not in the East end but in the midst of the Church and people Math. 18. 20. as I have formerly proved by sundry Scriptures Therefore it shoulde bee placed in the midst 4. Whereas these men protend that the East end of the Chancell or Quire where they nowe raile in the Table Altarwise is the highest and most worthy place in the Church and that noe seates must there bee suffered for feare any shoulde take the wall or upper hand of Christ and sitt above him or checkmate with him in his owne Temple I answeare First that these are ridiculous Childish fantastique conceites of their owne superstitious braines grounded on no Scripture or solid reason and so not to be credited 2. These reasons make Christ ambitious of place precedency corporally present here an Earth when as he was still is lowly humble Matth. 11. 29. forbiddinge men to sitt downe at any Feast in the uppermost place but in the lowest and pronouncinge an woe against the Pharisies for lovinge the uppermost seates in Synagogues and Feasts Math. 23. 6. Luke 11. 43. therefore were hee nowe on Earth hee woulde not contend for precedency and the upper-most place as these his ambitious-Champions doe for him because they love precedency themselves much lesse will hee doe it nowe he hath taken upp his seate and throne in heaven hath left the Earth altogeather in his bodily presence where these Novellers woulde faine to be still resident in the Church on the Communion Table as the Papists saye he is upon their Altars close prisoner in a Pix 3. It is most false that the East end of the Quire or Chauncell where they nowe place their Altars and Tables is the most honourable and prime place of the Church and Quire For in all Cathedralls that I have seene in his Majesties Chappell 's the Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Thrones and seates and the Kings Closetts are at the West end of the Quire or Chancell And the most honorable persons seat is the West not the East end of them the more West any man sits the higher the more East the lower the seates next the West end beinge reputed the highest and honorablest the seates next the East the lowest for the singinge men and Quiresters the meaner sort of people Soe in Parish Churches where there are any seates in the Chancell or Quire the seate at the West end is usually esteemed the worthiest and first seate and the neerer the East end the meaner and lower are they reputed The West end therefore of the Quire and Chancell as these instances and experience undeniable manifest is the cheifest the place where the most honorable persons have their seates chaires of State If therefore the Communion Table or their Altars bee Christs Chaire of State and that hee ought to take precedency and place of all men then it must bee placed in the West end of the Quire in Cathedralls where the Bishops Throne and seate is scituated and removed to the West end of the Chancell where the best man of the Parish sits not thrust downe to the East end of the Quire or Chancell against the wall which is in truth the lowest place by their owne practice and resolution And here we may behold the desperate soâ—tishnes and frenzie of these Popish Innovators whoe under a vaine pretence of givinge Christ the Communion Table the upper hand that none may sitt above them will needs thrust them into the varie lowest place even in their owne practice Iudgements and Common reputation where servants or the meaner sort of people only sit where there are seates or formes in most Churches which yet against their owne Iudgements and knowledge out of I knowe not what factious strange superstitions humour must upon a suddaine be Cried upp for the most honorable place by these learned Rabbies 4. Admit the Communion Table Christs Chaire of Estate and mercy seate and that it ought to be placed in the best and uppermost place of the Church yet it is only such and thus to bee scituated when the Sacrament is administred For howe is it his Chaire of State his mercy seate and cheifest place of residence when there is no Sacramentall breade wyne upon it to represent his spirituall presence to us But when the Sacrament is to be administred the booke of Common prayer the Queenes Injunctions Fathers and forecited Authors informe us that it must bee placed in the body or midst of the Church or Chancell Therefore our Novellers must either deny the East end of the Quire to be the most honorable place or that it was ever so reputed or else confesse the invalidity of this their proposition That the Table ought to stand in the cheife and most honorable place of the Church unlesse they will Condemne the Fathers the primitive yea our owne Church and all our cheife writers of Error in this particular 5. Admit that the East end of the Chancell or Quire bee the most honorable parte of the Church and that the Table for this reason ought there to be rayled in Why are not the Font and Pulpit there placed and rayled in as well as the Table and the Bible and readinge pewe too Are not the Font the Pulpit the Bible as honorable
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
the word Sacerdos denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist It is a Rule both in Philosophy Diuinitie Omnia agunt propter finem All things especially all Rationall agent aime at some vltimate vttermost or finall end in all their Actions Much more then in their serious writings Polemicall discourses We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles that finis causa finalis est primus in intentione vltimus in executione agentis The first thing in Intention of the agent though the lâ—st in execution And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem all middle causes are and worke only to produce the end Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem These things being undoubted truths past all dispute And it being as true likewise that Altars themselves Preists being but instrument subordinate relatine things 〈◊〉 for some other vse the â—â—nation of Tables Altarwise being but â— ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise only because he desires it should be so plated or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest only for the Titles sake no more but for some further end all these serving to no vse or purpose at all simplie considered but only with relation to some further end The sole Question then wil be what this end should be To which if our Innouators late Colliar would giue a direct Answer in down right English termes it can be no other but this That the end they strive for in contending for Altars Priests turning Tables Altarwise is only to vsher in a Sacrifice into our Church since Cardinall Bellarmine B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect 15. p. 46. expresly resolve That Preists Altar Sacrifice are relatives haue mutuall vnseperable dependance one on the other since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice as both the scriptures and the Papists acknowledge the Coale ingenuously confesseth p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church can be no other but that which formerly vpon the beginning of reformation was cast out but that sacrifice was only the Idololaâ—rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe by these Altars Preists Communion Tables seated Altarwise If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper I answer that a Table is farre more decent for such â— purpose then an Altar a Table posture then an Altar situation a Minister then a Preist since we neuer read in scripture of any supper or eating at an Altar since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table which Table if we believe the Cronickleâ— of Flaunders Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague as most precious relique which the Church of Rome flath yet to shew if you dare belieue them though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar 〈◊〉 at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they 〈◊〉 only to him 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice which our Church allowes not â— Prepitiatory as the Papists make their Masse I answer first that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice neither doth shee in her Homilies or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so much lesse in her Common prayer Booke Injunctions Canons or statntes neither doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these to proue this bold assoueration either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar he layes open all his shrids stolen wares 2. The Church of England euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8. expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words Wee must take heed then saith the Homily least of a Memory it BE MADE A SACRIFICE If not A SACRIFICE then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice to be no Sacrifice which is a contradiction to say we must take heed least of the MEMORY we make it A SACRIFICE Is all one as to say wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice a Memorie a Sacrifice being here put in direct opposition contradistinction one to an other in this clause in the following parts of the Homily which 4. seuerall times cals the Sacrament A MEMORY A COMMEMORATION AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christs death but neuer a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words Now it followeth to haue with this knowledge a sure constant saith not only that the death of Christ is avay lable for a redemption of all the world c but also that he made vpon the Crosse A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee a perfect cleansing of thy sinns so that then acknowledge no other sauiour redeemer Mediator Advocat Intercessour but CHRIST ONLY Herein thou needest no other mans helpe NO OTHER SACRIFICE therfore neither commemoratiue 〈◊〉 propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Preistâ— observe this well to which they haue subscribed NO MASSE let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees consider this No meanes established by mans injunction Therefore no A tâ—r Preist Sacrifice or Table seated Altar-wise All which this homily strikes dead at once and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too almost in the selflame words 3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull and contradiction For as the picture of a man is no man or of fire no fire or of a Chalice or Sacrament no Câ—alice or Sacrament So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice is in truth no Sacrifice nor kinde nor species of a Sacrifice but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice So that this is but a Mountebancks chear and distinction to delude children fooles with all not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine 4. The Sacrament neither is nor can be a sacrifice for every sacrifice whether legall or Euangelicall is a religious seruice holocast worship or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5â— 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. Hâ—b 9. 14. 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer after the receiving of the Sacrament prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer And thus we offer present unto thee O Lord our selues our
the Parliaments privity or consent and cuâ—ningly obtruded it on the Church of England Making this Article now to run thus The Church hath power to decree Rues and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet so farre runnes the Bishops forgery and addition it is not Lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written c. Which whole first clause to yet Is no part of the Article but a meere forgery and imposture of the Bishops Whose glosse is as pernicious as the text or woise For by Church they understand nothing else but Bishops Making the sence of this forgery to be this The Church that is the Bishops in their Visitations Consistories and High Commissions as they now de facto expound it witnes their late new Visitation Articles Rites and Ceremonies which they would hence justify and Authorize and likewise the Cleargie in their Conuocation without the King and Parliaments consent have both power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in matters of Faith An exposition Doctrine quite contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. 6. 19. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. and all Acts concerning Religion Heresie Bishops and the like yea directly repugnant to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles And quite opposite to the Scriptures and all ancient VVriters who never tooke the word Church for Bishops or Cleargie-men only but for the whole Congregation and as well as much for the common-people as the Bishops and Ministers as the 19. Article next preceeding it and our Writers plentifully witnes This forgery how ill soever glossed is thrust into both the late Editions of the Articles Anno 1628. published by your Majesties speciall commaund and made a part of the 20 Article notwithstanding your Majesty in your Declaration before both these Editions Expressely prohibited The least difference from the Articles of the Church of England allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeths dayes or any varying and departing from them in the least degree in which it is not to be found Nor yet in the Articles of Ireland n. 75. taken verbatim out of this 20. Article printed in London the very same yeare or in the Addition of those Articles An. 1629. a yeare after these two last impressions If the Bishops here reply that they found it added in Rogers his Exposition on the Articles printed some yeares before J answer that Coppy was not the Authorized Authenticke Originall by which they should be directed but a bastard Coppy with which your Majesty would not have your poore Subjects cheated or deluded Your Majesty therefore prohibiting any the least difference from the Articles allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeths dayes by Parliament Prohibited them to insert this forged addition If they reply that they were ignorant of the Originall true Coppyes and knew not this to be a forgery I answer that this is very improbable that so many great Bishops should be altogether ignorant which were the true genuine Articles of our Church who had read subscribed and given them in charge to others so often But admit it true yet ignorance in this case is no plea at all for any man much lesse for Bishops And if they are so ignorant of the very Articles of our Church J hope your Majesty and others will thinke them very unmeet to be Bishops in our Church and trust lesse to their pretended knowledge judgement and learning in future times giving little credit to any thing they doe or say without examination of it since they are so really or affectedly ignorant of the very Articles of our Church in the which they pretend most skill But if they knew the very Originall Coppyes Articles as no doubt they did and that this clause was not in them but a meere late forgery most fraudelently and corruptly added to them Then they were accessaries wilfull consenters to this forgery to delude both your Majesty and the whole Church of England with it Yea protessed rebels against your Majesties Declaration before these two impressions made by their owne advice prohibiting the least difference from the sayd true Articles and Originals And so are they guilty of forgery treachery and contumacy against your Majesty in the highest degree If a man forge but a private Wil or Deed to cosen any private man of any Inheritance Lease or personal estate he shal be severely punished in the Star-chaÌ„ber fined pyllored if not loose his eares beside What punishments then doe they deserve who have thus corrupted the CommoÌ„-prayer-Booke the Prayers for the Gunpowder-treason and the Articles of Religion all ratified by Parliament so matters of Records to corrupt or rase Records or forge deeds the second time is felony and to forge a new Article of Religion to deceive your Majesty your whole Kingdom and that not only for the present but for all future ages Certainly hanging is to good for them Should a poore Puritane doe but halfe as much the Bishops would have drawen hanged and quartered him long ere this especially if the thing were derogatory to their Hierarchie and Epis. copall Iurisdiction But Bishops and their Agents thinke they may doe any thing in these dayes without check or censure Yet I hope your Majesty will not let them goe scot-free for these their forgeries corruptioÌ„s If not all done by their Commaund and privity yet doubtles by their connivance negligence and subsequent consents And is it not now high time for your Majesty to looke to these persidious Innovatours and to repose no trust in them any longer since they are lately growen so powerfull so insolent as thus to sophisticate to pervert these very Originall Records of the the Church of England to which they have subscribed and to forge new Articles of Religion to cheat your Majesty the whole Church of England with for feare they proceed to further forgeries of an higher nature VVee know that the Bishops of Rome have forged a Donation from Constantine and others with which they have deluded and troubled all the world thrust the Roman Emperours froÌ„ their Throne Territories and usurped a temporall Monarchie over all the world VVe know that the Bishops of England in King Richard the 2. and Henry the 4. his dayes forged two bloody Acts of Parliament against the true Professours of the Gospell to which the Commons never consented though they foisted their assents into them upon which tyrannous forged Acts most of our Martyrs were butchered thousaÌ„ds of godly ChristiaÌ„s loyall Subjects imprisoned martyred ruinated and stript of all their goods or else abjured by blood-sucking tyrannous Prelates Whether they may not in time proceed to the like attempts if not severely punished for those fore-past forgeries and corruptions of our Churches Parliamentary Records I humblie submit to your Majesties and all wise-mens considerations Ambition tyranny pride malice being boundles when
they have once overswolm'd the bankes of due moderation or growen impudent and unrulie especially in Bishops Having thus represented to your Majesties Royall view these 3 grand forgeries and corruptions give me leave I humblie beseech your Highnes to adde to these two other late Jmpostures obtruded on the Church of England 1. The first by Dr. then Mr. Iohn Cosens and his confederates Who Anno 1628. the same yeare your Majesties Declarations were published sett forth a Booke intiteled A collection of private Devotions or the Howers of Prayer Wherein was much Popish Trash and Doctrine comprized and at least 20 several points of Popery maintained to countenance all which in the Title and Epistle of this Booke he writes That these Devotions of his were after this maner published by Queen Elizabeth and were heretofore published among us by her High and Sacred Authority to witt in the Preces of Horary sett forth by her Royall Authority Anno 1573. VVhen as there is no Analogie at all either in matter forme or method between these Devotions of his and those devout Prayers of her Majesty nor any of his points of Popery in them as hath been proved by two particular Answers to his Devotions in print Yet these Devotions of his were never yet suppressed but publikely sold among us approved by a Bishops license and now reprinted to abuse your Majesties poore Subjects encourage Papists and scandalize that ever-blessed pious Queen as the Authour and Patronesse of his grosse Popery An abuse not tollerable in a Christian State 2. The second is as bad or worse Anno 1631. One Iohn Ailward not long before a Popish Priest published a Booke intiteled An Historicall Narration of the judgement of some most learned Bishops concerning Gods Election Affirming the Errours of the Arminians to be the Iudgement and Doctrine of the Church of England and of the Martyrs and Reformers of it both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes This Booke though written in professed opposition to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles to Suppresse Arminianisme yet now made the only iustrument to advance it and suppresse the truth was licensed by Mr. Martyn then Chaplaine to the Bishop of London now Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The whole Booke except some 3. or 4. leaves containing nothing else but a Coppy ef an Answer to a Letter wherein the Answerer purged himselfe and others from Pelagian Errours c. This Master-peece forsooth is pretended to be sett out by the Bishops and Reformers of our Church in the inception of Queen Elizabeths raigne by publike Authority and the Doctrine then taught and professed When this new Booke was printed no Coppies must come abrode as the Stationer then affirmed before the Bishop of London had presented it to your Majesty and gained your Royall approbation thereof Not long after this it flies abrode ouer all the Realme to the great amazement and disturbance of many of your Subjects One of them comming to that learned Knights hands Sir Humphry Lynde better read in Fathers and Popish Authours then English Antiquities he was so much stumbled and greiued at it that he presently repaired with it to a Gentlemans study of his acquaintance Telling him there was a new Booke freshly published which proued the Martyrs and Reformers of our Church to be professed Arminians and that this was the Doctrine publikely taught and printed by Authority in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths-raigne Saying withall it would doe infinite harme and desiring him to take some paines to answer it The Gentleman no sooner turned ever two or three leaves of the Booke but he presently discovered the grand Imposture Informing the Knight that this Coppy of a Letter c. was written by one Champenies whom Iohn Venon Divinity Lecturer of Paules in the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth expresly affirmed to be then a ranke Papist and a Pelagian and that in answer to this Verons Lectuâ— es of Predestination then publikely preached at Paules dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and printed by Authority in the second yeare of her Highnes raigne He likewise acquainted him that this Coppy of his Letter was printed about the third yeare of her Dominion without any Authours or Printers name thereto or place where or yeare when it was printed or any intimation at all that it was ever licensed All which were plaine evidences that it was printed in a corner without any license at all And whereas sayd he you desire a speedy Answer to it if you will give me but a paire of gloves I will show you two Answers to it already in print above â—0 yeares since by publike Authority and one of the first printed Coppies of this Letter to boote To which the Knight replied J am sure you doe but jest with me No sayd the other I am in good earnest wil you give me or wager a paire of gloves hereupon That answered he I will doe with all my heart Then sayd the Gentleman reach me hither those three Bookes he pointed to He did so The first was a Coppy of the Letter without name of Authour Printer date of time or place Which compared with that in this new Booke proved the same verbatim Now sayd the Gentleman you have seen the Originall I will shew you the Authour of it which he did in Verons Apology f. 37. and likewise two severall Answers in print The first by Iohn Veron himselfe fore-named intitled An Apologie in Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and imprinted at London by Iohn Tisdale in the fourth yeare of her Raigne Wherein this whole Letter is fully answered The second by that famous Learned Man and exile for Religion in Queen Maries dayes Robert Crowly In his Apologie of those English Preachers and Writers which Cerberus the three-headed Dogg of Hell chargeth with false Doctrine under the name of Predestination Seen and allowed according to Her Majesties Injunctions and printed at London by Henry Denham Anno 1566. Wherein this whole Letter is at large recited in severall Sections and then answered Verbatim This Booke being nothing else but a particular professed Answer to it by publike Authority As directly contrary to the truth and Doctrine of the Church of England then taught and established When the Gentleman had shewed him these two printed ancient Answers to this new Booke He likewise turned to some passages in Bishop Latymer which answered and cleared his words cited in this Booke from any such sence as it would fasten on them And to answer the Passage in it out of Bishop Hoopers Preface before his Exposition on the ten Commaundements He shewed him first the Confession and Protestation of the Bishops Faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and the whole Parliament and printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. Secondly A briefe and cleare Confession of the Christian Faith containing 100 Articles London 1584. Thirdly An Exposition upon certaine Psalmes London 1510. Jn all
middest of all the people Thus this Jewell of the Church From whose words it is apparant that the Communion Table in the Apostles times and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. yeares after Christ stood in the middest of the Church or Chancel not at the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall And that it ought nowe thus to stand in the Churches beinge thus placed in his time Which bookes of his beinge A defence both of the doctrine and practice of the Church of England against the Papists Commaunded to bee had in every Church for Ministers and the people to reade And therefore it seemes a strange prodigious insolencie that men of our owne Church as they pretend should bee soe impudent as publiquely to affront and refute his doctrine in print but farr stranger they shoulde doe it by publique license to disparage him and justifie the Papists doctrine is a cleere demonstration to mee That by the very doctrine and practice of the Church of England the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH OR CHAVNCELL especially when the Sacrament is administred and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chauncell like a Dresser a side Table or Popish Altar to the end it maye not bee thence removed and that the people maye come up to it by severall rankes and files to receive the Sacrament is a meere Popish Innovation contrarie both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England The namelesse Author of the Coale from the Altar takinge upon him to be farre wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell yea then Bishop Baâ—ington D. Fulke M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers is bold to write without blushinge That the authorities of Eusebius Augustine Durandus and the 5. Councell of Constantinople doe not prove that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church or Chauncell that B. Jewell is mistaken in their meaninge and shapes severall answeares for to shift them To that of Eusebius hee sayth 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 sayth the middle The Altar though it stood alonge the Easterne wall yet it maye bee well interpreted to bee in the middle of the Chancell in Reference to the North and South as since it hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people beinge more mingled with the Jewes then in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the middest of the Temple the better to conforme unto them To which I answeare 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort meere nonsence The Altar was placed in the middest of the Church or Chancell that is sayth he in the East end of it or in the middest of the East end as if the East end of the Church or Chancell were the Church or Chancell it selfe or the midst of it the middest of the Church or Chancell But these beinge distinct and different things the midst of the Church or Chancell can bee not more interpreted to bee the middest of the Eastwall or end of them then the East wall or midst of the East end of the Quire can bee the midst of the Church So that this evasion is but a meere nonsence Bull And had Eusebius intended any such thinge he woulde have thus expressed himselfe that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Quire not in the midst of the Church or Quire and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with woodden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificiall carving 2. I answeare that The second parte of the Replie is a plaine concession of what hee formerly denied and not only soe but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason Soe that here wee have one peece of the Coale against the other one denyinge that it was in the midst the other confessinge and provinge the contrary Nowe whereas hee writes that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria I answeare that it seemes this famous Temple was one of the first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviours death and soe became a generall patterne for all the rest The greate Church at Hierusalem beinge built round or ovall like to it and havinge the Altar in the midst like this In the edifying whereof Paulinus Bishop of Tyre whoe passed all others for rare and singular guifts was the chiefe meanes and director And till hee can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive tymes either before or not long after this wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Quire Altarwise as nowe they are situated which hee can never doe I shall take it as a generall and sufficient proofe for the settinge of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell That which hee adds that it was done perchance to please the Jewes is but his owne fancie no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thinge And admitt it true yet the Jewes situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple though not out of any Iewish fancie or conceit but by Gods owne direction is a fitter patterne for Christians to followe then any Popish Altars fixed station at or against the East end of the Quire only by a bold Friers or Popes direction without Reason Scripture president or divine direction to warrant it To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople he replies that although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth signifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar soe as there was no parte thereof that was not compassed by the people noe more then if a man shoulde saye that hee hath seene the Kinge sittinge in his Throne and all his Nobles about him it needs or could bee thought that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence as many of the Nobles beinge behinde him as before him for which hee cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answeare First That as the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Circle as hee confesseth soe the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to compasse or stand round about the Altar in a Circle and to hemne it in on every side If this then bee the proper meaninge of the words of this Councill as all must acknowledge good reason have wee to take them in their proper sence and not improperly 2. This word and phrase is soe taken and interpreted in the Scripture as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.
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
it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles Fathers and primitive Church in the purest tymes as I have already manifested of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas 3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops owne Canons and the judgement of our best writers 4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of tables amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade at home whoe place their Tables at which they eate and drinke in the midst of their dyninge roomes at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt or stand round about them The Lords Table therefore beinge a table to eate and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture all sortt of writers from the Apostles dayes till nowe the Lords supper â— Coâ— 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest decentest which is Common to all suppinge tables doth best expresse resemble the nature of a supper by standinge in the midst of the Communicants and their sittinge standinge or kneelinge round about it altogeather not by severall files and turnes like soe many bidden-guests Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise like a Dresser or sideCubberd not a Table the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files and there to receive by turnes kneelinge doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table nor the other to bee the Lords supper 5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Masse Altars Preists sacrifices and private Masses where the Preist alone Communicates drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell nowe urged is nothinge else but to usher Altars Preists publique and private Masses adoration of Altars and the Hostia transubstantiation and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke vaunt and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table and administringe the Sacrament was used in the primitive Church till Poperie private Masses thrust it out When Poperie Masses Masse Preists Transubstantiation Altars adoration of the Hostia other Popish trash were abolished this scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne Antidote against these popish innovations and soe hath continued eversince The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe soe ought with all diligence and courage to bee with stood 6. Because this scituation is most orderly and decent and that in 5. regards First Because the Minister thereby maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer his administration and Consecration which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire or Chauncell in most greate Churches and parishes 2. Because there the CoÌ„mmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently and in greater number communicate with the Minister then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell as remote as maye bee from the people Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82. Canon neither can they bee gaine sayd 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye more easily see the Minister when and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament then when hee is more remote and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God and saye Amen to every prayer as they are enioyâ—ed 4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table 5. When the Table stands in the midst all the Communicants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance disorder noise or stirr as they are expressely Commanded to doe 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe dâ—vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile and there to receive divides the Communion Communicants and Congregation makinge so many Communions and Congregations as there are Companies breeds a Confusion disorder disturbance noise distraction and oft tymes a Contention in the Church in causinge the people to march upp and downe some one waye and some another to contend whoe shall first receive or take the uppermost place to crowd thrust and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it breeds many quarrells factions schismes and divisions betweene the Minister the people hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations prayers reverence devotion attention singinge enforceth the people whoe are olde blinde lame sicke impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive whoe shoulde rather come to them inverts the practice Custome of our Church ever since reformation lengthens the administration and puts all into a Combustion yea into Confusion causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists 7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles Articles THE COMMUNION his Table the COMMUNION TABLE Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people in a Common not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM or COLLOCATUM ever used to expresse a thing that is Common the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people the rayling of it in that so none but the Minister may have accesse unto it destroyes both the Communion Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister and sequestring it from the people 8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church and Congregation because that is the place wherein God Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame Magisterially determine Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MIDDEST of his holie place and Cittie Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us and wee are called by thy name Hosea 11. 9. I am God and not man the holie one in the MIDST of thee Joell 2.
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â— Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our 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
sayth Christ is the light of the worlde Ergo. Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise at the East end of the Church This ceâ—tainely is but a madd Consequence For first Christ is noe Corporall or naturall but a spirituall and supernaturall light enlightninge mens understandings only by the light of his word his grace and spirit John 1. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Heb. 6. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal. 19. 8. not their corporall eyes 2. Hee is an universall light in this respect John 1. 8. 9. not scituated or fixed in the East but diffused over the whole worlds as farr as his Church is spread 3. The place where this light is ordinarily dispensed in the readinge preachinge of his word is not the Communion Table oâ— Altar but the Pulpitt readinge deske standinge for the most part about the midst of our Churches not at the East but West end of our Chancells 4. There is no Analogie betweene the Communion Table and light unlesse in respect of those Candlesticks unburninge tapers which some Popish Novellers place for a double shewe upon it contrarie to the Homilies Articles which expressely condemne them 5. Light is of a diffusive nature spreadinge it selfe into every quarter-indifferently torches or Candles that give light are Commonly placed in the midst Math. 5. 15. not at the East end of the roome or Table that they maye give light to all that are in the house Witnes the greate Lamp in the midst of Paules Quire or greate braunched Candlesticks in the midst of our Churches that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 15. Amonge whom yee shyne as lights of the worlde in the MIDST of a crooked and perverse Nation The Candlesticks Lampes amonge the Jewes were placed not in the East but South-side of the Tabernacle Exod. 40. 24. 25. In the Temple the Candlesticks that were placed 5. on the Northside 5. on the South 2. Chron. 4. 7. but none in the East end So that from these particulars it appeares that there is no Analogie betweene light and the Couimunion Table that if any argument maye bee thence deduced for its scituation it will bee but this That it ought to stand in the midst or in the South or Northside of the Church because the Lamps lights Candlesticks were are soe placed in the Tabernacle Temple and most of our Churches and Christ is sayd to bee and walke in the midst of the golden Candlesticks Rev. â— 13. 20. c. 2. 2. For the second braunch of this argument Christ is a branch for soe Oriens is used Zeph. 6 12. the place hee quotes Ergo the Lords Table ought to stand at the East end of the Church As it is a ridiculous Inconsequent fitt for a Cambridge Ignoramus where this good Logicall argument with many such like was printed so there is little Analoges betweene branches Lords Tables unlesse in regard of matter For First Trees and branches growe not in Churches or Temples 2. They springe upp are planted as well West North and South as East are Commonly planted with us West South to avoid the East North blastinge windes 3. Christ is a branch yea a tree of life seituated not in the East but in the midst of the Paradice of God Rev. 2. 7. of which the tree of knowledge of good and evill in the midst of Paradice Gen. 2. 9. c. 3. 3. was but a tipe This allusion therefore as it is impertinent there beinge no similitude betweene the Lords Table a branch so â— proves that the Communion Table shoulde bee placed in the midst of the Church because Christ the tree of life and the tree of knowledge typifyinge him were planted in the midst of Paradize a tipe of the Church For the third That Christ shall come out of the East Ergo the Communion Table ought to stand in the East end of the Church As this argument is taken out of Bellarmine l. 3. de Sanctis c. 3. who useth it to justifie and prove that wee onght to praye and build our Churches towards the East and well answeared and refuted by Doctor Willet in the name of the Protestants whoe condemne this superstition which many nowe pleade for So it is built upon a false foundation For first no Scripture sayth That Christ shall come to Iudgment from the East but that hee shall come in the Cloudes Rev. 1. 7. Math. 24. 30. and soe come againe as hee ascended Acts 1. 11. But hee ascended upright in a cloude into heaven not East ward Acts 1. 9. 10. 11. Luke 24. 51. Marke 16. 19. Therefore hee shall so discend Heaven beinge neither East West North or South in regard of the Earth its Center but diametrally about it And soe Christs discent from it must bee such 1. Thess. 4. 16. 2. That text of Math. 24. 27. As the lightninge commeth out of the East and shineth Even unto the West so shall the comminge of the sonne of man bee as all Orthodox divines generally accord relates only to the celeriâ—ie sodainenes and terriblenes of Christs comminge to judgment which shall bee as swift as suddaine and terrible as lightninge 1. Cor. 15. 52. 1. Thess. 4. 16. c. 5. 2. 3. 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rev. 6. 12. to the end Luke 21. 34. 35. Marke 13. 32. to 37. which thus explaine it not to that part of heaven from whence hee shall descend which if it bee East in respect of one part of the world must yet bee West North South as to other parts in relation to that Clymate or Country to which hee shall descend the worlde beinge plainely Circular globall havinge no angles nor squares so no East West North or South if simplie considered in it selfe 3. Admitt that Christ shoulde come to Iudgment out of the East in respect of England and these partes of the worlde yet this is no Reason to prove that our Communion Tables shoulde bee placed at the East end of our Chauncells Altarwise for then no doubt the primitive Christians woulde have so placed it not in the midst of their Churches For First the Lords Table serves only for the administration of the Sacrament instituted to shewe forth Christs till hee come 1. Cor. 25. 26. not to demonstrate the manner of his second comminge to Iudgment to which the Table hath no relation Christs second comminge therefore havinge no reference to the Communion Table nor the Table to it can bee noe argument for its Easterlie scitnation 2. The Apostle in the 1. Cor. 11. in all matters Circumstances concerninge the administration of the Sacrament sends us only to Christs originall institution not to his second Comminge But the Table at which hee instituted the Sacrament stood in the midst as I have proved Therefore our Communion Tables shoulde so stand nowe let Christs come to Iudgment which waye hee please 3. Christs gives us this charge by his Apostles do all things decently and in
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
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
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâ—fying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâ—ts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâ—acon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâ—sh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
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 stilâ—â— 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 Aâ—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 caâ—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 partainetâ—â—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 â—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 Popistâ— would stifly continue as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader In which Treatise after he had shewed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish serving only for Sacrifices offrings which ended in and with Christs offâ—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 Consumâ—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 decentâ— a faire comely Table The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christes Table and his Supper also The unfaithfull heathen thinkes scorne of the same The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion The Heathen in no sence can away with it The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian yea to be thought to be Christ himselfe so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen And shall we seeke upon them Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies of their execrable Rites and cursed usages Or is Christes religion so unperfit of itselfe so needy and beggerly that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen borrow Altars of the Pope borrow vestimentes of the Jewes besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christes Religion and now restored home to the owners thereof Therfore let us either render home againe unto the heathen the superstition of the imbring dayes and to the Pope his halowed Altars and unto the Jewes their Aarons vestimentes or els let us like good companions joyne together in a league with them and be tenauntes in Commune put our religion with theirs in hotch potche After which at the end of the Booke he proceeds thus S. Paul through the secret advertisment of the Holy Ghost did know before hand then if he had geven the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table that there would be in time to come certaine Jewish teachers that would build and sett up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon And surely the holy D. S. Augustine nor any other Godly writer would never have used this terme Altar so often after that sort as they did if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge what absurdity what inconveniencie and what mischiefe and abomination have been grounded on their translated termes And I pray yow what though S Augustine or other Doctours used to terme the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar which if it be as I take it I take it after the most sound and
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
to receive it not to worship it so delivered it to them SITTING not kneeling Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence no Sacrament for God is not a Sacrament neither is the Sacrament God Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did If thou wilt be more devout then they were be not deceived but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie But I would wish with all my heart that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament were taken away or els that the people were taught that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe but to Christ which is represented by that Sacrament or signe But the most certaine sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Absteine from all evill appearaunce Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error and the weaklings offended and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone Therfore when Satan commaunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him worship him He answered It is writen thou shalt worship the Lord Math. 4. Standing which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes I can right well allow it if it be appointed by common order to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jewes Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come as our Sacrament is a signe figure of Christ come and gone Neither did that gesture want his mysteries For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne then had hethereto appeared unto them which were wrapped round about with the darke shadowes of ceremonies againe that other yea and these more perfect Sacraments were to be given to Gods people which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes Baptisme and the Lords Supper Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches if it were received by publique authority and common consent and might conveniently be used in our Churches I could alow that gesture best For as it is be doubted but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and bloud which use was also observed in the primative Church and long after So likewise it is most Commonly that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ and of his Disciples Nothing can be unreverently done that is done of the example of Christ of his Apostles We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ we have a Table set before us is it not meet and convenient that we sitte at our Table The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat yea rather who sitteth not downe when Christ feed the people he bad them not kneele downe nor stand upon their feet but he commaunded them to sit downe John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke which thing we doe at the Lords-Table Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses even the preaching of the glorious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover even the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie preach and declare unto us that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion that there is none other doctrine nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then those only which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord. And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture that we are come to the perfection of our Religion and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us Notwithstanding as I sayd before gestures are free so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred In all things which we call indifferent this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed Abstayne from all evill apparaunce Father I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe But come of tell me what sayest thou concerning the vestures which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper Sonne In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse a cope in some only a surplesse in some neither cope nor surplesse but their owne decent apparell Father And what thinkest thou in this behalfe Sonne When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body blood to his disciples he used none other but his owne Commone dayly apparell so likewise did the Apostles after him and the primative Church likewise used that order so was it continued many yeares after tyll superstition began to creep into the Church After that time fonde foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne devysed without the authority of Gods word that the Minister in the divine service and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linnen vesture which we now commonly call a Surplesse Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ of his Apostles requiring no paynted visores to set forth the glory beauty of our Religion which is then most glorious and most beautifull when it is most simple none otherwise setforth then it was used and left unto us of Christ of his Apostles And contrarywise it is then most obscured defaced when it is dawbed over with the vile vayne colours of mans wisdome although outwardly never so gorgious and glorious Afterward as superstition grew and encreased so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church and in adourning decking trimming the Temples of the Christians yea that so much the more because they were now perswaded that such Temples and will workes pleased God deserved remission of sinnes everlasting life By this meanes came it to passe that the simple and plaine Tables which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church were taken away and standing Altars set up and gorgeously decked with sumptuous
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
situation hath been changed without yea against both Law and Canon Therfore the Lords Tables in all other Churches Chapples ought thus to be situated As for the practise in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crowne I am utterly ignorant of it But when he was Prince of Wales I once receiued the Sacrament in his Chapple at Sant Iames then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the middest of the Chapple and white linnen Clothes like Table Clothes were spread upon the deskes of the Seates where in the Communiantâ— sate round about in a decent manner the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seates and this they then certified me had been and was the custome of administring the Sacrament there both in Prince Henries his Majestyts time Whether the Custome be different at Whitehall or other his Majestyes Chapples I know not since I never was at any Sacrament there but of the other I was an eye-witnes and many who have beene ancient servants both to Prince Henry his Majesty can testify this to have been the Custome I cannot therfore thinke that the King Princes Chapples doe jarre or vary in this particular But admit they should yet vivendum est legibus non Exemplis his Majestyes subjects must live according to his Lawes in this particular not according to the patterne of his Chapples exempt as from all Episcopall Iurisdiction as all other Churches Chapples should be as well as they if this argument hold good so from ordinary Rules and Lawes which bind the Subject But to give a more particular answer I say that admit the Antecedent true yet the consequence is infirme We know that Cathedrall Churches have Deanes Prebends Canons Singing-men Choristers Organists Virgerers Copes Sackbuts yea Kits Cornets oft times in them that they sing not read their whole divine Service prayers to I doubt me much whether with any serious contrition compunction since S. James writes thus c. 5. v. 13. If any man be merry let him sing Psalmes if any man be sorry or afflicted let him pray not sing Salomon sayth Prov. 25. 20. As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather as vineger upon niter so is he that singeth songs too much more then with an heavy heart Will it therfore follow Therfore all Papish Churches Chapples ought to have such Officers Instruments chaunting We know that many Cathedralls now I know not by what Law have no Communion Tables in them but High Altars so they terme them elevated on High with many steps and ascents their very exalted situation name being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles so oft condemned in Scriptures Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3 Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Altars situated in High places Shall therfore all our parish Churches Chapples have no Communion Tables in them though prescribed by our Statutes Common Prayer-Booke Articles of Religion Homilies Injunctions Canons writers but High-Altars only which all these decree We know that these new erected Cathedrall High Altars have much furniture as Tapers Basons Cushions yea and Crucifixes expresly condemned by our Homilies as unlawfull either to be made or used in Churches standing on them Which M. Andrew Melvin that famous Scottish Poët Divine thus wittily describes in Latine Verse In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara Lumina coeca duo pollubra sicca duo Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum Lumine coeca suo flumine sicca suo Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram Purpuream gemino mact at honore lupam Si Christi haec Mensa est cur Missae est structa paratu Cur versa in tenebras Lux in inane Latex Si sensus cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece Cur quae pulsa prius presto est caliginis umbra Quò calamistra trucis philtraque blanda Lupae Which may be thus Englished upon the Altar Furniture thereof in England Why on Court-Altars two Bookes clasped lie Two lightless Lights two empty Basons drie Does England in Gods worship lock-up Sense Darke in her Beames dry in Streames influence Whilst with Romes Rites shee Royall-Altars Decks Offers shee not Romes Whore in all respects If `t is Christs Board why is it Mass-like trim'd Why has it empty Fonts Lights wholely dim'd If Romes Dumbe-Showes be from the Britans banisht Why are our Bibles Shut our pure Prayers vanisht Why are Romes Foggs brought back expell'd before What meane the Tyres sweet Drafts of that bace Whore Shall it therfore follow because these Cathedrall Altars have such trinkets standing on them ergo every parish Church Chapple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars Communion Tables to I trow not unlesse there were some Law or Statute for it since the Rubricke of the Common Prayer Booke the 82. Canon Prescribes that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linnen cloth upon it and that at other times during diviue service only it should be covered with a Carpet of filke or other decent stuffe so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it in Cathedrall Churches are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Booke of Common Prayer the Canons yea and the Queenes Injunctions as the High Altar is This argument therfore now much insisted on is invalid untesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Lawes Canons in those particulars then now they are The 5. Objection is this That the Queenes Injunctions commaund the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood Ergo they ought to be placed Altar-wise To this I answer that the words of the Queenes Injunctions published Anno 1559. by the advise of her most honorable Counsaile are these For the Tables in the Church Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many sundrie parts of the Realme the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacrament ACCORDING TO THE FORME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majestyes Visitours In the order where of having for uniformity there seemeth no matter of great moment so that the Sacrament be duly reverently Ministred yet for observation of one uniformity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALME and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALFE it is ordered that no Altar be taken downe but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Church-wardens or one of them at the leastâ—
wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood there commonly covered as thereto belongeth shal be appointed BY THE VISITORS and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed at which time the same shal be so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon saye with in the body of the Church or chancell which makes me suspect that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer ministration the Communicants also more conveniently in more number communicate with the sayd Minister and after the Communion done from time to time the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before In which Injunction much wrested insisted on by the Cole these particulars are remarkable to stoppe the mouthes of our moderne Innovators First that Communion Tables are no Altars nor ought to be so stiled they being here put in opposition contradistinction one to the other though some now confound bind them together as one 2. That all Altars were removed ordered to be removed by vertue and forme of a Law therfore provided to witt the Statute of Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them Therfore the bringing in setting up of Altars now and the calling of Communion Tables Altars is against that Law and the Booke of Common Prayer 3. That the setting up continuance of Communion Tables and the calling of them by this name was and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars or High-Altars against the Law 4. That all Altars were generally removed enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls in the Queenes owne Chapples for better example unto others So that the erecting of Altars in them or any of them must needs be a late Novelty contrary to Law to this Injunction and a grosse Non-conformity 5. That the care of Taking downe Altars setting up Communion Tables was committed to the Curate Church-wardens of each parish not the Bishop yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars and displace the Tables Altarwise 6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen her Successors that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers as their Visitours having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abundantly evidence 7. That the ordering of the Situation covering of the Communion Tables is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocesse but to the Queenes Visitors who were then specially appointed by her Commission as they were in King Henry the 8. King Edwards dayes many of them being Lay-persons Which Visitours placed them Tablewise not Altarwise in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since till with in these two or 3. yeares last past 8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell and there to stand unmoveable even when the Sacrament is administred the Injunctions expresly prescribing that where ever it stand before yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed it shal be removed into such part of the Chancell or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard c. after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before Which word shal be is not a baer arbitrary permission only as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it but a direct prâ—â—â—pt as is the later-clause by his owne confession else the Churchwâ—rdens might choose whither they would remoue the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised I come now to answer the objection being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them First then I answer that this clause set in the place where the Altar stood implies not but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle for all Altars were not so situated before this Injunction The Altar in Carmarthen Church was placed in the middest of the Church without the Quire The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches Chapples built North or North and South stood at the South end of the Quire not the East in many Churches some Altats stood one way some an other some West some North and South as walafridus Strabus witnissethâ— but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire as the Promises evidence The Author of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres or Chauncles in the place where now he would have them situated which he can never doe else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe but marre his cause make poinct-blanke against him since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall but in the place where the Altar stood so that where the Alter was placed in the midst west North or South end of the Church or Chancle the Table was to be there situated likewise 2. By The place where the Altar stood is not to be interpreted so precisely that it must stand in that particular individuall place or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood for this certainly was not the meaning but in the place that is in that end of the Church where the Altar stood to witt in the midst of the Church if the Altar stood there or in the East West North or South end of the Church where the Altars were so severally situated or in the Chauncel where the Altar formerly stood in the Channâ—le that this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction not that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere as our Innouators expound it is most apparant by these Reasons 1. First Because the
thereby hath given encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishop other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them which resolution faithfully copied out of the Regestets of the Counsell-Table â—earing date the 3. of November 1633. the Author of the Coale from the Altar who ends with it bath at large relaved To this I answer first that this concernes only one particular Church no more and the reason of this order drawen from the example of the Cathedrall of Paules Sant Gregories proximitâ—e there to is not communicable to other Churches peâ—nliar to this alone Therefore it can be no president for others Secondly It was not here resolved that our Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise as the Colier argues neuber is there mention of any example save â— at of Pauls 〈◊〉 and that of late times sinde King Iames nor any Canon Rubrick Statute authority or writer produced by the opposities to justify this situation of the Table for all heir pretence of the practise of approved antiquity foisted in to the order where as the other side produced good antiquity authorityes for them as I am informed among others The Rubrike before the Communion the Queenes Injunctions the 82. Canon Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington Doctor Fulke with the Fathers quoted by them and an un interrupted presciption in all Parish Churches most Cathedrals from the beginning of reformation 3. Though his May stey ordered the Table should stand where it was placed by the Deane Chapter of Pauls direction upon this groud cheifly that it was the most convenient Place in that Church as not only the persons then present can depose but the order inselfe insinuates in these words Now his Majestey having heard a particular relation made by the Councill of both parties of all the cariage proceedings in this cause was pleased to declare HIS DISLIKE OF ALL INNOUATIONS receeding FROM ANCIENT CONSTITVTIONS grounded upon just warrantable reasons especially in matters concerning Ecclesiasticall orders goverment knowing how easily men are drawen to affect Novelties how soone in such cases weake judgments may be overtaken abused the insuing words which seeme to give particular reasons why this being but a Nouelty was tolerated passed over when as otherwise his Mayestey would not have connived at it His Mayesteye therefore deeming it an Innouation declaring thus his dislike of all Innouations this order is so farre from giving authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churces committed to them as the Author of the Coale infers that unlesse he will apply that ancient verse Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata To the Metropolitane Bishops other ordinaries that they love are incouraged to affect set up these Innouations which his Mayestey dislikes they must rather be discouraged then animated by this order to require the like in any much lesse in all the Churches committed to them And truly if al things be well considered they have little cause to be thus incouraged to require make this Innouation as they generally doe not being ashamed or afrayed to give it in charge to Church-wardens Ministers in their Visitation printed Articles and to excommunicate Church-wardings for not removing rayling in the Lords-Table Altar-wise as appeares by the Church-wardens of Ipswich Beckington Colchester and others For first the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. Enasts vpon the Prelates Clergies joint Petition in Parliament That they the sayd Clergie in their Convocations Synods any of them in their severall Diocesse visitations Consistories or Iurisdictions from henceforth shall presume to attempt alleage claime or put in vre any Constitutions or ordinances Provinciall Synodals or any other Canons nor shall enact promulge or execate any such Canons Constitutions or ordicances provinciall by what soeuer name or names they may be called in their Conuocations in time coming which alway shal be assembled by authority of the Kings writ vnlesse the same clergie may have the Kings most royall assent to make promulge execute such Canons Constitutions ordinances provinciall or Synodall and the kings most royall assent vnder his great Seale he had to the same all which King James his Letters Patents before the Canons 1603. morefully expresse manifest Vpon peine of every one of the sayd Clergie doing contrary to this being thereof conuict to suffer imprisonment make fine at the Kings will The penalty of which Law every Metropolitane Bishop ordinary hath incurred some say a Praemineere to by printing making visitation Articles Injunctions in their owne names for altering rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise many such Innouations without his Mayesteyes royall assent approbation under his great Seale of England had to the same 2. The 12. Canon 1603. ordaines this who soever shall hereafter affirme that it is Lawful for any sort of Ministers lay persons or either of them and Bishops with other ordinaries are certainly with in this number to joyne to gether make Rules Orders or Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall without the Kings authority shall submit themselves to beruled governed by them let them be excommunicate ipso facto not be restored vntill they shall repent publikely reuoke those their wicked Anabapsticall Errors But our Bishops Arch-deacons other Ordinaries with the nameles Iudicious Learned Divine who writ the Coale from the Altar affirme that in print to all the world that it is lawfull for them either of them to make printe visitation Oathes Articles Injunctions Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall for the rayling in of Communion Tables turning them Altarwise other Nouell Ceremonies as standing vp at Gloria Patri the Gospell Athanasius the Nicene Creed bowing at the name of Iesus to Communion Tables Altars c. Yea to keep Consistories visitations without the Kings Authority vnder his great Seale licensing them to make or exccute any such Articles Constitutions Ordinances or to keep any Court or Consistorie and they enforce by visitations excommunications fines imprisonments the power of the High Commission divers of his Majesteyes Subjects to submit them selves to be ruled gouerned by them Therefore they are all ipso facto excommunicate by this then owne Canon so irregular all their proceedings nullities neither are they to be restored vntill they shall repent publikely reuoke these their wicked and their Anabaptisticall Errors Articles Oathes Constitutions which they have thus audasiosly imposed vpon his Mayesteyes loyall Subjects 3. His Mayestey in his Declaration to his louing Subjects of the causes which moued him to dissolve the last Parliament published by his Majesteyes speciall commaund Anno 1628. p. 21. 42. 43. Makes this most solemne protestation We call God to record before whom wee stand that it is and
the Kings free Chappels much lesse then any of his Vniversities which are more peculiar to his Majestie and more to be respectâ—d and of they did they incurred a Praemunire Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in his owne name and right as Archbishop only they must and would withstand him according to their oaths and duties both to his Majestie the Vniversity But if he woâ—ld come as the Kings visit uâ— and substitute only and in his name and right alone with a speciall Commission or Patent under his greatâ—â—eale they would willingly submit to his visitation otherwise not This contestation grew so great that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majestie and his honourable privy Counsell at Hampton 〈◊〉 â— Whereupon the opeâ—ing â— hearing of the case pretended by the Vniversitâ—es Arch-bishops was whether his Majestie or the Arch-bishops or which of them should be supreme in causes Ecclesiasticall and sole visitour of the Vniversities in Law righâ— The Arch-bisop declared that he desired not to visit the Vniversity out of any ambition or desire of Innovation c. But only to rectify some enormities of lâ—ng Continuance And what were they There were some Chappels belonging to certaine Colledges in that Vniversity the which had never yet been consecrated and yet divine service Sacraments were ministred in then and had beene so for many yeares and for instaÌ„ce he named Eâ—â—â—nuel Colledge for one which hath been used as a Chappel ever since the yeare of our Lord 1524 and Sidney Sussex Colledge Chappell used from An 1598. till this present So that the consecration of these two Chappels were the principall cause at least pretence of this great contestation before the Arch-bishop and Vniversity A weighty matter God wootâ— to trouble his Majestie and whole Counsell with when as there is neither Scripture Law nor Canon of our Church in force to justifie such a consecration but Lawes and authoritiâ—â— store against it Bishop Pilkington Walter Haddon Mr. Fox and others much jeare and deride the madnesse folly and superstition of Cardinall Poole and his Deputie visitors of this very Vniversity of Cambridge for digging up Mr. Bucers and Paulus Fâ—gius bores out of S. Maries Church iâ— Cambridge â— yeares after they were interred And interdicting and nâ—w conâ—ecrating the Church againe as prophaned by them for feare their Masses and divine service there used should be nothing worth the place being made prophane and unholy by these Heretickes funerals as they judged them When as the Church was holy enough to say Masse in for three yeare space before all that would not heare itâ— must be imprisoned although the parties lay there buried And is it not then a farre greater madnes superstition and ridiculous frenzie for our dominering Arch-Prelats to deeme these two Chappels prophane places unfitt to administer the Sacraments aâ—d celebrate divine service in because never yet consecrated by a Bishop not only after three but almost threescore yeares use and practise of divine service Sermons and Sacraments in them WheÌ„ as neither his predecestâ—â—rs Whiâ—gift Bancroft and Abbot men very ceremonious and much addicted to superstition ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration And there is no such Canons Law and Doctrine to enforce the consecratioÌ„ of them now as were to justifie the rehallowing of S. Maries in Queen Maries time which the Popish Canon Law then approvâ—d O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God and patronize the authorized Doctrines of our Church as they are for these superstitious ridiculous Romish trifles fitter for Schoole-boyes to sport themselves with all then for great and grave Bishops ever imployed in the highest State and Church affaires to trouble both the Vniversity King Counsell and themselves with all If any here reply that the Counsell of London An 1236. under Cardinall Otho the Popes Legate first of all ordained and decreed here in England that Churches should be consecrated whereas before that time as the words of the Constitution witnesse divers Cathedrals and Parochiall Churches in England had been built many years before and used as Churches and yet were never consecrated J answer that it seemes till this Constitution even in those times of superstitious grosse blindness Consecration was not held a thing of any moment or necessity much lesse then should it be so reputed now Yet as those ancient Churches must then for this Legates gaine be all consecrated within a certaine space that he might have a round fee from every of them or else be wholy suspended and interdicted so must these ancient Chapples now by this Popish Canon After this Constitution the Bishops by Bulls from the Pope tooke upon them to consecrate Churches Chapples and Church-yeards in their owne names and rights till the abolishing of the Popes usurped power and restoring the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Crowne An. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 26. H. 8. c. 1. After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapple Church or Church-yeard till they had obtained a speciall License from the King under his broad Seale for them and their successours enabling and authorizing them to doe it Which Licence they after much suite to the King Henry the 8. obtaâ—ned in the 31. yeare of his reigne the Coppy whereof I shall sett here downe The King to all men unto whome these presents shall come greeting Know yee that wee out of our speciall grace certaine knowledge and meere motion have granted and given License and by these presents for us and our heires doe grant and give License as much as in us is to the most reverend Fathers in Christ Thomas Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke and to the reverend Father in Christ John Bishop of Bath and Wells and also to all other Bishops and Suffraganes within our Realme of England that they and every 〈◊〉 them may consecrate any Churches Chappels or Church-yeards in our Kingdome of England already built and finished as well for the administration and receiving of all Sacraments and Sacramentals to be ministred in them oâ— any of them As for the use of the buriall of dead persâ—ns within the same Churches or Church-yeards and euery of them c. And wee further will and grant by these presents thaâ— our Chancellour of England shall make or cause to be made and deliver or cause to be delivered to any of the foresaid Arch-bishops and Suffraganes from time to time as often as there shall be need so many and such a number of our Letters Patents with speciall and sufficient words aâ—d clauses to be made in due forme of Law for the execution of the Premises and to be sealed under the great Seale as shal be necessary and fitt for the premises or any of them by his discretion c. Notwithstanding the
to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion unlesse they will grant that it ought alwayes to stand in the middest of the Church or Chancel which they profestedly deny witnesse the Rubricke Institution and Canon Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it but only when there is a Commiâ—â—ion Thirdly because the Rubricke before Te Deum saith that the Epistle and the Gospell shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce that the people may heare the Minister that readâ—th them and the Minister Atanding and turning himselfe as â—he may best be heard of ALL such as be present Therefore this is direct that the Second Servicâ— whereof the Epistle and Gospell are a part must be read in the Reading Pâ—w where the Lessons are when there is no Communion Because there he may best be heard of ALL present and that he must not turne his fuce East but West to the people Fourthly because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches not to read divine Service at but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at This is the sole use for which it serves As the Font is ordained only for Baptismâ— the 〈◊〉 for reading and the Chest or pâ—oremans loâ— in every Church for Almes So it for the L Sâ— as is clear by 1 Coâ—â— 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2â— c. The Common-prayer-booke The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramntâ— of the right use of the Church of the Râ—pairing and keeping cleare of Churches Queen Elizabeths Inâ—unctions Canons sett ouâ— 1511. p 18. and Can 1603. Can 8â— 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever mett with all have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus Whereas her Majesty understandeth c. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament according to the forme of Law therefore provided Hence Mathew Parkers visitation-Articles An 1560. Art 2. thus Whether have you in your Churches c. A comly and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMVNION c. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus Church-wardens shall see there be a faire repaired Table which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion and a câ—eane Cloth to cover it A convenient Pulpit whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught c. The 28. Can 1603. thus Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Churches within the Realme of England therefore in Cathedrals too which had then no Altars convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed to what end to read Service at No But for the celebration of the holy Communion c. And likewâ—se that a convenient seate be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN With a comly decent Pulpit for the preaching of Gods word Can. 83. Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies yea by the resolution of all our Preâ—utes â—isitation Articles is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it And the 28 Canon with the Rubricke before Tâ— Deum expresly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose It is cleare that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table but only when there is a Communion That the reading of Service at it on other times is a meere abuse and perversion of that end for which it was instituted And Bishoppes may with as much reason and Law enjoyne them to reade Second Service at the Font in the Pulpit or at the Poore mans box as at it Fifthly Because the Queenes Injunctions the 82 Canon and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Metropoliticall visitation expresly prescribe That when ever the Minister shall reade Service at the Table it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle as thereby the Minister shall be the more coveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said Minister Which words compared with the Rubricke before Te Deum are a direct resolution that the Minister ought not to reade any prayers at the Table but when there is a Communion Which being most cleare No Bishoppes may or ought to enjoyne Ministers to reade Second Service at the Table or Altar when there is no Communion neither can they suspend any for not doing it And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to reade Service thus both the Bishop and they as D. Wreâ— Bâ—shop of Norwich with many of his Clergie have done incurre the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indited fined and imprisoned for it by this Law It being a saying of divinâ— sâ—rvice in another manner and forme and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Booke of Common-prayer Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Canons condemnes this Innovation which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity but only in Popish Churches of late yeares All that can be alledged for it is that which Shelford and the Colier produce for Altars and bowing to them The practise of our Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches being most Popish corrupt and most opposite to our Lawes and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes Images Tapors Altars Altar-adorations Vestments Chaunting lascivious Musicke Gesticulations with a World of other Romish Antichristian Reliques and Ceremonies All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatrie of the time and place of Prayer The Common Prayer-Booke 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late being fitter our detestation then Imitation To which I answer 1. That we must live by precepts not Examples Our Cathedrals in this and sundrie other particulars are contrary to our Lawes and Canons in point of practise therefore to be detested corrected and reformed by our Lawes and made like to other Churches Not our Laws Canons and Churches to be squared by them the worst of any 2. The Rubricke of the Common Prayer-Booke in the end of the Communion prescribes in direct termes That in Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches where be many Pâ—eists and Deacons they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST except they have a reasonable cause to thâ— contrary By which it is cleare that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedrall Collegiate Church and that every Preist and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister unlesse he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary And who can this Minister be but the Bishop Ergo Bishops are but Ministers and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals Ergo to be alwayes Resident at their Seas and no dancing attendance on the Court. The
as in the places fore-cited so in his Defence against Gâ—egory Martin writes thus The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT AND NOT AGAINST A WALL AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand which is easy to prove and hath often times been proved and it seemes sayth he to Martin of the Papists you confesse as much VVhich words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton who concurs both in words and judgement with him in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament This Hospinian proves by sundry authorities and by that of the Counsell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Survis Crab Binius and others render CIRCVMCIRCA ALTARE round about the Altar as the word doth properly signify even in Sacred Scripture other authours as Bishop Iewel Bishop Morton both resolve I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Iesuite Vasquez more moderate then many of our Novellers Nihilominus certum est c. Although there be many Authours to witt of late time which he there cites for the placing of Altars towards the East Yet it is certaine that it is NO SINNE or offence to situate not only lesser Altars but likewise the High Altar and Quires and Chancles too which he there speakes of towards other climates or parts of the world For this tradition how-ever some urge it as necessary and a binding Law non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt It is not of the number of those traditions which have been left unto us under any precept VVhich he proves out of the forecited words of Walafridus Strabâ— adding out of Nicephorus that men have diveâ—sly ordered those things in former times Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of Socrates wherein the Altar stood westward it being free for Christians in these things vel hanc vel illam consiâ—â—tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custome in the siâ—uation of their Altars Lords Tables and Quires Much more theâ— to rayle in or not rayle in their Altars or Lords Tables Altar-wise at the East end of the Quire or to come up to the rayle as Bishop Wreâ— will now inforce all his Diocesse by his new iuvented Articles to receive contrary to the custome of all our churches from Queen Elizabeths time till now yea contrary to the practise in the dayes of Popery and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Quire or Chancle to receive but only to offer as is evident by Concilium Toâ— et â—â—um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communiceâ— Extra Chorum populus Concil Eluber Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist 52. Innocentius 1. Epist. 22. Niciph Eccles Hist â— 12. c. 41. Chamir l. 9. de Coena Domini c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge p. 391. with others forequoted And the Rubricke of the Booke of Common-Prayer sett forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Quire the men on the one side the women on the other side and there to receive And likewise King Iames his Proclamation new printed before the Bookes of Common-Prayer admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and publicke for me of Gods service from this which is now established c. it being necessâ—ry to use constancy in the holding of the publicke determinations of States for that such is the unquietnâ—sse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions as Wren other Novellors and the Colier now affecting every yeare new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemtible VVhereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice established is the Weals of all Common Wealthes which J would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon QVESTION VI. The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours is this VVhat Statute Canon Scripture Anâ—iquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Altars VVhether their cringing and bowing be a divine adoâ—ation or only a civill worship And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist bowing and practise of adoring Altars Crucifixes Crosses and Images which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatrie This Question is Tâ—â—partie and the cheife of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it beginning with the first branch thereof Law Canon Injunction Constitution of our Church enjoyning and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremonie I never yet met with any no not in times of Popery except that of Cardinall Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Maries dayes in the Vniversity of Cambridge fore mentioned Scripture there is not any direct in point only some texts are strained and miserablie perverted to this purpose As 1 Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy feare will I worship towards thy holy Temple The nearest texts they can ciâ—e for their purpose and yet farre enough from it For what Logician will not deride this argument David would and did worship towards the Temple at Ierusalem Ergo we must bow downe and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or else-where out of the Temple worshipped that is prayed towards it Ergo Christians when they come in or goe out of our Churches must bow downe to the Table or Altar VVhat coherence of vigour is there in this argument What beast had he reason would thus dispute Had they hence inferred Ergo we must alwayes adore bow downe to or worship God towards not in our Churches and Chaples This had been a more probable inference though unsound Because the Iewes worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only which is vanished Not towards their Synagogues of which our Churches is rather patternes and successours then of the Temple which was but one not many and that a type of our Saviour abolished shortly after his death nor of our Churches built long since after another forme and to an other purpose then it But to answer the texts fully 1. First the worship towards the Temple here mentioned was not bare bowing downe of the body only as these Novellers dreame to or towards it or the Altar or Temple but a praying towards it as is evident by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer 2. Secondly it was a worship towards the Temple only not towards the Altar in the Temple And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table For the Church or Chapple
Table when they consecrats the Sacrament or marry any man warrants or proves a custome to bow to or towards the Lords Table never in use till now of late See the Common Prayer-Booke the Rubricke before Communion and Mariage Secondly this is alleadged as an extraordinary example only of one and shee a woman who in ancient times might not come neare the Altars nor touch the Altar-clothes by the Canons Gratian. de Consedratione Distinct. 1. Rodulphus Tungrensis de Canonum observantia Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 254. B. in an extraordinary case at an extraordinary time of the night when none were present in the Church This swallow therefore makes no Summer proves no generall practise or custome then but the contrary The sixt Antiquity The sixt is that of Eutropius the Eunuch Socrates Scholast Eccl es Hist. l. 6. c. 5. who incurring the Emperour Arcaaius displeasure tooke the Church for his Sanctuary and lay along at the foote of the Altar I answer That there is no prostration to or towards the Altar to adore it but to be secured by it a flying to it only as a Sanctuary by a guilty person fearing death not a voluntary adoration of it or bowing to it by an innocent person â—n no danger of his life Therefore impertinent our bowers not lying downe along at the feet of our Altars as they did The seaventh Antiquity The seaventh is the example of Paulus the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople who perceiving his Church to be in great immineÌ„t danger of burning by reason of a fearce fire fell prostrate before the Altar referring unto God in his prayer the preservation of his Church and so by his uncessant earnest prayers miraculously preserved the Church from burning Socrates l. 7. c. 39. in the Booke 38. in the English Nicephorus Eccles. Hist. l. 14. c. 41. I answer That here was no prostration or bowing to or towards the Altar but only a prostration in prayer before it Which proves nothing Besides Nicephorus makes no mention of the Altar but only relates that Paulus went into the Sanctuary and there prostrated himselfe in prayer Finally this case is extraordinary upon an extraordinary occasion Neither doe the Historians mention it to prove any reverence then given to the Altar but only to shew the force and fruite of prayer which can quench even the most raging flames of fire In a word We reade here of a bowing and prostration in prayer before the Altar but not of any bowing or prostration to the Altar without any prayer The thing only in dispute For which there is not one example in any Authour till above 500 yeares after Christ. The eighth Antiquity The eight is that of Rusticus a Cardinall Deacon of Rome about the yeare of our Lord 550. Contra Aâ—ephalis Disputatio Bibl. Patrum Tom. 6. Pars 2. p. 225. G. 229. E. where he writes thus Wee all adore the Crosse and by it him whose Crosse it is yet wee are not sayd to coadore the Crosse wâ—â—h Christ neither by this is there one nature of the Crosse and of Christ. Similiter adorare Altare â—oadorare Altari Trinitatâ— non dicimur sed potius per Altare Nec enim Tabernaculum in Eremâ— nec Arca nec Templum nec Altaria ab antiquis coadorabantur concolebantur neque una est Dei horum facta Natura Hae verò creaturae non coadorentur Trinitati sed per eas Trinitas adoretur Nec non clavos quibus fixus est lignum venerabilis Crucis omnis per totum mâ—rdum Ecclesia absque â—lla contradictione adorant c. To which I answer First that this is one of the Papists new forged Fathers not heard of in the Church till now of late Besides they branded him for a Schismaticke and a man then deprived by the Pope and cannot certainly define whether this be his work See Biblioth Patrum before his workes Secondly this worke must not be so ancient or else the Authour is a great lyar it being that the vniversall Church did not adore the Crosse and Nay es universally in that age nor adore God and Christ in by and through Altars Crucifâ—xâ—s and Images nor yet in 50 yeares after as is apparant by Pope Gregory the first Registr lib. 7. Epist. 109 l. 9 Epist. 9. No nor yet in 300 yeares after witnesse the Councell of Constantinople Anno 754. Mathew Westminster Hâ—â— 793. Houeden Annal. pars l. p. 405. The Councell of Paus An. 824. Agobardus his booke de Picturis Imaginibus Our owne Homilies aganst the Perill of Idolatrie together with Zonarus in his Annals Nâ—celus in his Annals Eutropius in his Romane History and the other Centurie writers witnessing as much This Authour therefore being either a bastard or a lyer will not stand them much in stead Thirdly I answer if our Novellers will take advantage of this authority which I have quoted for them let them take him all or none That I presume they will not doe for then they must adore the Crosse the Crucifix and Nayles wherewith our Saviour was pearced and that they will not doe I suppose as yet If therefore they disclaime him in this why not in that of adoring the Altar Fourthly he writes expresly that they did adore the Altar and not coadore the Trinity with it but rather adore the Trinity by or through it Now thus to adore the Altar or God with or by or through it is no lesse Idolatrie by our owne Homilies â— and all our writers resolution Whereupon Dr. Duncombe in his determination at Cambridge disclaimed utterly any worshipping or adoring God by or through the Altar even in his defence of bowing to or towards it This Idolatrous adoration of the Altar and President will not stead them but quite spoyle their cause The ninth Antiquity The ninth that may be objected is that of Stephanus Edvensis a Bishop An 950. Cap. 12. de Sacramento Altaris Where he writes That the Preist coming to the Altar in his Massing-vâ—stâ—ents osculatnr Evangelium Altare kisseth the Bible and the Altar signifying him thereby who with the kille of his meare nation hath made both one in the incaruation of the Iewes and Gentiles He holds or stands at Tenet dexteram partem Altaris the right hand-side of the Altaâ— because Christ was promised in the Law to the Jewes before he preacheâ— to the Gentiles After that the Gosple is removed from the right hand or corner of the Altar to the left by the Deacon or Preist the right hand is attributed to the Iewes for the veneration of the Law the left to the Gentiles for their execrable Idolatrie The Gosples Doctrine committed to them was first repulsed by the Iewes Whence the Gosple ought to be read on the left side of the Altar towards the North c. O profound reason and divinity After the Preist inclinans seante Medium Altaris bowing himselfe or kneeling downe before the middest of the
Altar prayes to God the Father to give him the spirit of humility c. Which I have cited more at large to shew the ridiculous grounds of Popish Ceremonies I answer First that in all this there is not one word of bowing to or towards the Altar which certainly would here have been mentioned among other Ceremonies had it been then in use Secondly the last words mention only a kneeling downe at the Altar and that by the Preist at the time of Consecration to pray but no kneeling or bowing to the Altar either before after or without any prayer the Ceremony now contended fore This therefore is not home The tenth Antiquity The tenth is that of Honorius Augustodunensis de antiquo ritu Mâ—ssarum l. 3. c. 30. De Inclinationibus Dam Ecclesiam ingredientes ad Altare inclinamus quasi regem milites adoramus Aeterni quippe Regis Milites sumus cui semper in precinctu specialis militiae assumus Cum autem ad Orientem Occidentem inclinamus Deum ubique praesentem nos adorare monstramus Quem it a rationali motu ab ortu nostrae nativitatis usque ad occasum mortis sequi debemus sicut coelum ab Oriente in Occidentem naturali revolutione ferri videmus Quod Monachi expressius designavit qui se toto corpore ab Oriente in Occidentem girant To which I answer That this Authour lived 1120 yeares after Christ and is the first undoubted writer that makes mention of bowing to the Altar at the enâ—ring into the Church which I have met with all Which Ceremony as is likely began in his dayes But yet observe First he sayth they bowed To not towards the Altar only Which many of our Novellers deny they doe Secondly that the ground and reason of bowing to the Altar then is farre different from those reasons alleadged for it now They bowed thus Only to restify that they were Gods Soldiours ready at all times to doe him service Not from any reasons drawne from the Altar But wee forsooth must bow to it because it is Gods mercy seat the place of Christs speciall presence on Earth his Chaire of state to testify ouâ— Communion with the faithfull because it is the principall part of the Church And if all these faile because it is used in Cathedrall Churches Which reason they never dream'd on then Thirdly that as they then bowed to the Altar so likewise they bowed themselves both East and West to testify that God whom they worshipped was every where alike present But our men will only bow Eastward and have all Altars so situated not Westward And confine Gods speciall presence to their Altar and the East end of the Church as if he were not every where present alike Which is directly opposite both to their practise and reason here alleadged to the contrary Fourthly they bowed only to the Altar at their first entrance into the Church ours now not only at their coming in but every time they passe by it towards it repaire to it retire from it and at their going out of the Church besides Fiftly this in that age was the practise only of Monkes when they went to their houres of prayer for of them he speakes as is evident by the precedent and subsequent chapters with reference to these houres Therefore it is no proofe for Ministers or Laymens practise of it then or now The eleaventh Antiquity The eleaventh is that of Rudolphus Tungrensis florishing about the yeare of our Lord 1380. De Canonum observantia propositio 23. Who as he informes us in direct tearmes that Sixtus the second Anno 261 ordained That the Masse should be celebrated upon an Altar QUOD ANTEA NON FIEBAT which before that time was not done a cleare proofe that Christians for 261 yeares after Christ had no Altar in use so he writes That the Preist in that age read the Gosple at the left corner of the Altar according to the Roman Order that on the Right side he might be the readier to receive oblation and performe sacrifice That the Roman Order prescribes that incense with a Tapor should be caried before the Gosple when it was caried to the Altar or Readers seate And then relating divers Ceremonies about the Masse he sayth Sacerdos autem humiliationem Christi usque ad mortem Ctucis nobis indicat quando se usque ad Altare inclinat dicendo habe igitur ohlationem Et statim in sequentibus narrationem de Dominica passione orditur Quam usque ad supplices te rogamus observat Quosque juxta Altare se inclinans Christum in Cruce inclinato capite spiritum tradidisse signat To which I answer That this is no bowing to or towards the Altar But a bowing of the Preist as low as the Altar and by â—r besides the Altar not out of any respect or reverence to it but to shâ—w forth Christs humiliation unto the death of the Crosse as iâ— the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26 instituted for that purpose and then celebrated were not sufficient for that without this idle Ceremonie to shew that Christ bowed his head when he gave up the Ghost as if Christ himselfe at his last supper or his Apostles after him could not have prescribed such Ceremonies for these ends had they thought them necessary Tâ—erefore it s no warrant or proofe of any bowing or inclination to or towards the Altar especially for other ends which is not so much as mentioned in this writer there being non Canon extant for it in his age The twelveth Antiquity The twelveth is that of Eugenius Roblesius Bibl. Patrum Tom. 15. p. 761. G. H. de authoritate ordine Officij Mâ—rzabarici among the Gothes Where J find no mention of the Preists genuflection to the Altar before the ordinary Masâ—e or in it But these passages after it Absoluta Missa Sacerdos genubus flexis juxta Altare recitat salve regina Dâ—nde deosculato Altare convertit se ad populum But in the Lenton Masses immediately after the Psalmes Sacerdâ—s genust xo supragradus Altaris recitat quasdam preces c. Hinc ante sacrificium oblationom Sacerdos genu flexo ad Altare recitat alias preces c. But all this proves only a kneeling and genuflection in prayer at the Altar not any bowing or incuruation to or towâ—rds it and that all the time of the Consecration by the Preist alone not by other at other seasous These are all the cheife Authorities I have hitherto observed which seem to give any colour to this bowing to or towards Altars which Ceremonie I cannot finde prescribed in any Bookes of Divine Offices Canonists Missals Caeremonials Primers Psalters Liturgies Masse-Bookes or Masses no not in the Popish Churches much leâ—â—e at home that have hitherto come unto my hands A strong argument and evidence in my judgement that it was never used in former times as now it is of late The fore-cited Authorities two only excepted and those late Popish
writers making nothing at all either for the lawfulnesse of this Ceremonie though many ignorant superstitious persons are deluded by them Most of these Authorities I confesse are not cited or objected by the opposites but least they might object or pervert them hereafter J have here propounded and answered them by way of anticipation and all others of this nature in answering these These are the only Authorities yet behind The first is that of the fift Generall Counsell Surius Tom. 2. p. 440. See Bish. Mortons Institution of the Sacram l. 7. c. 3. Sect. 3. p. 5. 15. of Constantinople Actio 1. where Iohn the Patriarch speakes thus Haec patienter sustinete fratres prius A DOREMUS SANCTUM ALTARE post hoc do vobis responsionem Et cum intrassent ad Sanctum Altare permansernnt clamantes Multi enim Imperarores c. To vvhich I answer First that this Patriarch speakes plainly of adoring the Altar it selfe not to or towards it or of the Hostia upon it VVhich our bowers themselves confesse to be Idolatrous Secondly the ensewing vvords prove that this adoring the Altar was only a going to the Altar there to pray not a bowing to the Altar it selfe of vvhich there is not a word unlesse wee will make this Patriarch a grosse Idolater in adoring the very Altar From which the Lollards both in France and England were so farre averse that they were called Pileati or Oeputials by the Papists Antiqu Eccles. Brit. 295. 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
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
and other pastimes Epist. Dedicat Antiqu Connival l. 1. c. 16. fol. 36. c. 23. fol. 67. c. 25. fol. 74. 75. c. 33. f. 133. to 138. and l. 3. c. 2l 22. so much contested for now of late All which the primitive Christians abandoned as well as Altars But though these Novellers have neither Statute Canon Scripture nor Antiquity for this new invented Ceremonie yet doubâ—lâ—sse being reasonable creatures they must have some reasons for it True they thiâ—ke they have so But if their reasons be but examined they are in truth meer lying 〈◊〉 crackbrainde fantasies of their owne invention not warranted by any Scripture or registred in any Father or Authour noâ— known to Durandus See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉 or Mirologus See De Divinis Officiâ—s lâ—b or any other Romanists who have taken upon them to give a reason for every one of their Ceremonies though never so superstitious or ridiculous If any desire to know their Reasons they are these 1. First they say they doe must bow to or towards the High-Altar and Lords-Table because it is the place of Christs speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of estate wherein he 〈◊〉 See Giles Widdowes his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puriâ—â—â—â—â— p. â—9 Shelfords Sermon of Gods house p. 2. 4. 18. 19. 20. Reeve his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-Prayer-Booke neare the end Which reason I have already proved falce Only I shall demaund these few Questions of them I. QVESTION By what Scriptures or Fathers they can make good this proposition That the High-Altar or Lords-Table is the speciall place of Gods presence upon Earth and his Chaire of state wherein 〈◊〉 II. QVESTION What they meane by this speciall presence whether his corporall or his divine presence If his corporall that implyes first a Transubstantiation of the Sacramentall bread and wine into the very body bloud of Christ. Secondly a perpetuall reservation of the consecrated bread thus transubstantiated into Christs body on the Altar Lords-Table else the reason holds not but only at the time wheÌ„ the Sacrament is administred and the consecrated bread wine is standing on the Table And so they ought them only to bow to or towards the Altar Not at other times when there is no Sacrament Bishop Mortons Iâ—stitution of the Sacrament p 463. as now they doe Thirdly it implyeth a denyall of the Scriptures and Articles of the Creed which assure us That Christ in his humane nature and corporall presence is wholy assâ—nded into Heaven That he hath quite lest the world and is gone to his Fatherâ— That he is sett downe at his Fathers owne right hand That he is no more corporally present upon Earth That he cannot be corporally in many places at once and never was so that wee find in the Scripture That the Heavens must containe him untill his second comming to judgement And the like Acts 3. 21. cap. 1. 10. 11. John 14. 2. 3. 19. c. 16. 28. c. 17. 11. 12. c. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 3. 22. Heb. 10. 12. cap. 12. 2. And it is point-blancke against the Homilies Articles Writers and established doctrine of the Church of England to which these Rebellious sonnes of Belial have subscribed If they meane only Christs Spirituall presence that certainly is as much at the Font the Pulpit the Bible the Common-Prayer-Booke as on the Table as much in the whole Church and Quire as in all or any of these standing in them Yea much more in every pore Christians heart and soule the true Temples of God wherein Christ and his spirit dwell by faith Ephesâ— 3. 17. c. 2. 21. 1. Cor. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 2. 20. Therefore if this reason hold firme they must bow alike to or towards all and every of these as well and as oft as to the Table or Altar III. QVESTION Admit the Preposition true I would demaund of them how they can prove this their assertion to be truely Orthodox That men ought to bow and worship to and towards the place of Christs speciall presence What Scripture Councell or Father hath taught them any such Doctrine Certainely if this be good Divinity then when ever they see the Pulpit Bible Font Church or any pious Saint of God though never so pore they must for sooth bow 〈◊〉 theÌ„ because Christ is specially present in them then they must no sooner looke up to Heaven but they must bow their knees and bodies to it for that is Gods Throne Christs Chaire of Estate indeed and the place of their speciall residence by the Scriptures expresse resolution Yea then when ever they see the Paten or Chalice which immediately containe the Bread and Wine they must bow to them because they are the place of Christs speciall presence rather then the Table or Altar on which those vessels which conteine the Sacrament only stand IV. QVESTION Jf this reason be folid I would then demaund but this Question whether Christ be not more immediately really and spiritually present yea and corporally too if they hold any such presence in the Sâ—crament as they seeme to doe in the Consecrated Bâ—ead and Wine then in the Chalice or Cup or on the Table or Altar it selâ—e If so as all must necessarily graunt then it will inevitably follow from this reason that they must much more adore and bow to the consecrated bread and wine then either to the Altar or Table If so then I would demaund of them First what is the reason they bow only to the Altar or Table not to the consecrated bread ond wine Or in case they answer that they bow to both How their bowing to the bread and wine differs from the Papists adoration of them which our Church condemnes as most grosse Idolatrie Secondly What is the cause why they bow to the Altar or Table before the bread and wine are consecrated when Christ certainely is not there present in that manner as they fansie and yet bow not to the bread and wine after consecration when Christ is specially present in them Thirdly why many of them at the administration of the Sacrament when as they have the bread and wine in their hands bow downe to the ground almost as they come from passe by or goe to the Table or Altar out of their reverence and respect to the Table and Altar and yet bow not at all to the consecrated bread and wine which they hold then in their hands Fourthly whether bowing to and towards the Altar or Table so frequently and devoutly as they deeme it when there is no Sacramentall bread and wine upon it and at the time of the Sacrament even when they hold the Sacrament in their hâ—nds and their not bowing to or towards and adoring of the Sacrament it selfe which is farre more hoâ—ourable then either the Table or Altar which serve only for its consecration and distribution and may put them more immediately in mind of Christ be not an advancing a preferring of
plurimos Ministros sed impudentes Clericos sed raptores subditos Pastores ut dicuntur sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos quippe non commoda plebi providentes sed proprij plenitudinem vontris quaetentes Ecclesiae domus habentes sed turpis lucri gratia eas adeuntes rarâ— sacrificantes nunquam puro corde inter ALTARIA stantes Praecepta Christi spernentes suas libidines rebus omnibus implere curantes Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis pedibus usurpantes sed merito cupiditatis in Iudae traditoris pestilentem Cathedram decidentes Veritatem pro inimico odientes ac mendatijs ac si charissimis fratribus faventes Iustos innopes immanes quasi angues torvis vultibus consicantes sceleratos divites absque velo verecundiae respectu sicut coelestos Angelos venerantes c. Cuius 〈◊〉 CARBONE IGNITO DE ALTARI forcipe Cherâ—â—â—â— advcâ—o â—abia Isaiâ— inundata suâ—â— A Note vpon 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order Tending to search out the truth in this Question Whether it be Lavvfull for Church-Covernours to Command indifferent decent things in the administration of Gods Worship VVritten by a judicious divine and pertinent to the matters debated in the Quench-Coale ALL I conceive that this place houldeth forth touching the point of Decency and Order may be summed up in these particulars 1. First that the whole Church and every member thereof are to performe all the duties of Gods worship in a decent orderly maner 2. Secondly what the Church and Members thereof are to doe in this kind That the Church-Governours may and ough to see it done Thirdly that it being the duty of Church-Governours to see that all things in the Cougregation be done decently orderly It is therefore their part in eminent measure to be able to discerne and judge what is decent and undecent what is orderly disorderly Now when I say it is their part I meane it is their duty Their place and authority requireth it not that they alwayes have a power and Spirit of discerning to judge a right in this case For it seemeth the High-Priest with the rest of his Brethren and Prophets yea and David himselfe all of them thought it decent to bring backe the Arke of the Lord upon a New-Cart which afterward David himselfe saw and confessed it was not done after due order 1. Chron. 15. 13. From whence it appeareth since they also are subject to errours in this kind that it will not be safe for them to judge and declare the decency of things by no better a rule then their owne wisdome judgement pleasure But even they also as well as the people must be guided by such rules as the Holy Ghost directeth us unto in this case which are the holy and infallible Scriptures and with Scripture Nature and Civill-Customes Yea and I willingly also admit the lawfull Custome of the Church or Congregation in which a man liveth For to judge of Decency by all these Rules we have warrant in Scripture as 1. Cor. 14. 34. 1. Cor. 11. 14. 16. And indeed they who are to approve themselves in all their proceedings as Paul dia and as all Church-Masters ought to doe to every Mans conscience in the sight of God ought to be seriously guided by these patterns It is not fitt for them I say to give for the ground of their proceedings their owne wisdome and pleasure but it be hooves them to justifie their doings therein froÌ„ such rules as every good Conscience may see approveable 2. Cor. 1. 12. 13. Fourthly lastly this place in hand houldeth-foarth also farther this truth that whatsoever thing the Church seeth by those former rules to be indifferent and decent or which Church-Governours shall by these rules declare so to be those things may and ought lawfully to be done For farther clearing whereof and the better describing of the power of Church-Governours in these matters It may be observed that of decent things lawfull to be done in Gods Church some are Indifferent and decent As to preach in a Gowne or Cloake whereof the one is no more necessary or expedient then the other But now they are become Laudable Ceremonies whereas before they were but Ceremonies alone Now are they become necessary rites godly Institutions seemly ordinances when as afore they had no such names Iohn Bales Image of both Churches on Apoc 13. f. 108. 1. 2. Decent and Expedient As to abide in single life or to enter into marriage Of which though marriage in time of persecution be indifferent yet single life is more expedient to prevent the troubles of the Flesh 1. Cor. 7. 3. Necessarie and decent either allwayes As a Woman to keepe silence in the Church Or at least Hic Nunc in some places and at some times so as the neglect thereof would be uncomely and unexpedient by light of 1. Nature 2. Scripture 3. Custome As a Woman to be unvailed in the Congregation in Easterne Countries so to abstaine from bloud whilst the eating of it was offensive to the Iewes Now for such things as are necessary and 〈◊〉 Church-Governours have power to give order and commandement concerning them As did the Sinod at Ierusalem touching those things which they called Necessary to wit Necessary during the time of the offence of the Jewes VVhich was necessary to be avoyded Acts. 15. 28. Of such things as are decent and expedient Church-Governours also have power 〈◊〉 declare the Decency and Expediency of them yea and to advise and perswade the practise of them But not to give an Order or Law to bind the people thereunto farther then themselves shall find it expedient and decent for themselves Thus in point of abiding in Single-life in time of the Churches Distresse the Apostle gives his advise and judgement 1. Cor. 7. 25. 40. Yea and perswaded to it for avoyding trouble in the flesh Vers. 26. 28. but would not bind them to it neither in point of Conscience nor of outward practiseâ— as having no command for it from the Lord V. 25. In which respect he calleth such a commandement if he had given it a Snare V. 35. And herein the power of the Church-Governours falleth short of the authority of Civill Magistrates who may in civill-matters make binding Lawes for any thing expedient for publike-weale which subjects are readily to submit 〈◊〉 1. Pet. 2. 13. But Church-Governours have not the like power in matters Ecclesiasticall to make binding Lawes for any thing expedient in the Churches behoofe unlesse Necessity be joyned with expediency Objection Against this it may be objected Paul had power to commaund Philemon that which was convenient Therefore he might make a Law commanding the Church some expedient decent things Answer It followes not For first it s one thing to give a Commaundement for once another thing to make a Law to bind One alwayes to doe the like Secondly it is one thing