Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	earth_n	high_a	place_n	6,761	5	4.5017	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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 e●●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 Communion● 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 1● 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

7. 10. as they are this day among the Papists with many Jewish and Superstitious Ceremonies oylings sprinklings exorcismes Reliques of Sancts orisons I know not what other fonde conceites but Communion Tables were never so consecrated either in the primitive or Christian Churches of latter times 2. Altars wee ever accompanied with Preistes Sacrifices burnt offrings peace offringe c. Exod. 40. Levit. 1. 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. Hebr. 7. 1. to 15. 1. Kinge 18. 20. to 37. among the Jewes and Gentiles with Masses Massepreistes Pixes consecrated Hostiaes Tapers Basons Candelstickes Crucifixes Images Sancts Reliques Altar-cloathes Massing vestiments to adde gestures Fooleries but Communion Tables only with Ministers and preachers of the Gospell a chalice plater bread and wine without more or other furniture but a decent cloth to cover them 7. In their effects the one tending to maintaine erect propagate and usher in Gentilisme Judaisme Popery Masse Massepreists Transul stantiation and Superstition among Christians and to corrupt the doctrine administration and right use of the Sacrament the true cause why the Primitive Christians why all reformed Churches and our owne Church abandoned and cast them out The other to abandon them and to restore preserve perpetuate the purity and integrity of the Doctrine use and administration of the Sacrament according to its primitive institution as the so e●●●ed and subsequent authorities evidence at large and King Edward the 6. with his Councell both in their Letter to Bishop Ridley and in their 6. reasons why the Lords board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar punctually resolve 8. Because all Altars Sacrifices Preist the Temple itselfe where the Altar stood for the Jewes had no Altars in their Ordinary Synagogues but only in and about their Temple to shew that we Christians should have no Altars in our Churches which succeed their Synagogues not the Temple were but types and shadowes of Christ the true Altar Preist and Temple Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 7. l. to 15. c. 13. 10. as all the Fathers generally all Commentators and Christian writers accord and therfore vanished at his death as the whole Epistles to the Hebrewes Galathians Colossions c. 2. prove at large Hence the Apostle calls Christ himselfe our Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 6. 9. c. 8. 3. 5. c. 9. 13. doe the like as Expositors old and new togeather with King James himselfe in his Paraphrase upon the Apocalypse our owne Martyrs writers generally accord Hence Origen most pertinently resolves thus The truth therfore was in the Heavens but the shadow and example of the truth on earth and whiles this shadow did continue on earth there was an heavenly Hierusalem there was a Temple there was an Altar there were High Preists and Preistes But when as in the comming of God our Saviour descending from heaven truth sprang out of the earth the shadowes and examples full to the ground For Hierusalem fell the Temple fell ALTARE SUBLATUM EST the Altar was taken away c. SI ALTARE VIDER IS DESTITUTUM c. If thou shalt see the Altar destitute be not thou sad thereat If thou find not the High Preist doe not thou despaire EST IN CAELIS ALTARE there is an Altar in Heaven an High Preists of future good things stands by it chosen of God according to the order of Melchisedecke Hence Paschatius Rhadbertus most pertinently concludes REPVLIT Dominus ALTARE SVVM DE ECCLESIA in qua CHRISTVS ALTARE CREDITVR ESSE Hostia Sacrificium Pontifex Sacerdos The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of the Church in which Christ is BELEEVED TO BE THE only ALTAR obligation and Sacrifice High Preist And S. Ambrose Gregory the great Beda Andreas the Archbishop of Caesaria S. Bernard with divers other Fathers expresly resolve ALTARE DOMINI CHRISTVS that Christ himselfe is the Altare of the Lord the Altar meant both in the Hebrewes and Apocalyps and that all Altars were but types of him and ceased with him And though some of the punier Fathers 260. yeares after Christ and since doe sometimes by a figurative and improper speach call the Communion Table but more commonly only the Sacramentall bread and wine representing the body and blood of our Saviour the Altar in respect of the Sacrifices of prayer and prayse there offred at the receiving of the Sacrament thence called the Eucharist of the Collections and Almes there and there given by the Communicants for the releife of the poore which are called a Sacrifice an oblation Heb. 13. 16. Math. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. and in as much as Christs body and blood who is the true Altar are there mistically distributed not out of any relation to or analogie between Jewish Heathen Altars and Tables or because the Sacrament is in truth a reall Sacrifice as the Papists and our ignorant Popish Innovators fondly dreame yet they most usually and properly terme it only the Lords Table or Boord and the Sacrament administred there at the Lords Supper as appeares by sundrie passages in Nazianzen Augustine Theodoret Chrysostome● Hieron Oecumenius Theophylact other Fathers All these are cited by Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington D. Rainolds our writers they stiling the Crosse whereon Christ suffred was Sacrificed the Altar of the Crosse yea faith the heart and mind of godly men an Altar as frequently as the Communion Table and in the selfe same figurative and improper sence Hence S. Hierom iu Psal. 25. 31. Tom. 6. p. 30. B. 46. B. writes thus Altare fidelium fides est FAITH IS THE ALTAR OF THE FAITHFVLL And the same Father Comment in Marc. 9. Tom. 6. p. 58. 79. Gregorie the great Homil. 22. Super Ezechiel f. 209. E. F. averre Altare Deiest Corbonum Histia Sacrificia bona opera fidelium THE ALTAR OF GOD IS A GOOD HEART the good workes of the Faithfull are the oblation and Sacrifices And Origen Contra Celsum l. 8. tom 4. fol. 101. writes to the same effect Celsus chargeth us Christians that we shunne ALTARS Images Idoll Temples that so they may not be erected c. whiles that he seeth nothing in the meane time that we in the meane while have the mind of just men insted of Altars and temples from which without all doubt the sweet odors of Incense are sent forth vowes I say and prayers from a pure conscience Let whoever will therfore if he please make inquiry of these Altars which I have last mentioned and compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in truly he may plainly understand that they verily are inanimate and in processe of time will become corruptible but these our Altars shall so long continue in the immortall soule as long as the reasonable soule shall continue Now these Fathers thus stiling both the

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 doub●l●sse being reasonable creatures they must have some reasons for it True they thi●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 no● known to Durandus See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉 or Mirologus See De Divinis Offici●s l●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 Puri●●●●● p. ●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 whē 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 I●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 ass●nded into Heaven That he hath quite lest the world and is gone to his Father● 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 Ephes● 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 〈◊〉 thē 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 S●crament as they seeme to doe in the Consecrated B●ead and Wine then in the Chalice or Cup or on the Table or Altar it sel●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 h●nds and their not bowing to or towards and adoring of the Sacrament it selfe which is farre more ho●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

and saith O Mr. Dr. wee little thought to have mett you here The Dr. not seeing them before and knowing that they obserued this his bowing like one deprehended in the very act of spirituall adultery wa●ed as pale as ashes and was in such a perplexity for the present as if he would have fallen downe dead in the place having not a word to replie Which they per●● lying 〈◊〉 into some other discourse that he might recollect his spirit This I shortly after received by accident from the parties thee 〈◊〉 eye-witnesses of the fact being people of no meane 〈…〉 it to divers What then may we conclude from this 〈◊〉 that we are now in this particular more Idolatrous and Popish then the Papists themselves that we have many a Papist mas●ed under● Protestants hood who are not ashamed to be Papists but only that they are so soone and sodenly discovered to be such at unawares and that it is high time for his most Excellent Majesty our most Gracious Soveraigne Lord King Charles Defender of our faith and Religion with all his faithfull Officers and Subjects to looke about them To prevent these Romish Innovations Rel●pses and grosse Back slidings to P●perie in time expresly prohibited by his Majesty both in his royall Declaration before the 39. Article and concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament p. 21. 22. 42. When as his owne advanced Chaplaines and I would he had no more such of them but this one are growen such Popelings as to commit such notorious Idolatrie in his owne royall Court and Chapple to the encouraging and confirming of Papists in their most grosse superstition and Idolatrie and greiving of the Soules of all his true-hearted loyall Subjects whose love will prove his strongest guard against all those treacherous Romish Ianizaries Ies●ites Assinates whose faith is faction whose very religion is rebellion whose practise the murthering of mens soules and bodies especially of Christian Princ●s as many of our Writers and the Booke for the 5. of November miserablie guelded and corrupted in this very particular in the last impression 1635. it were worth the inquiring by whom and whose authority to discover a new n●st of Traytours at leastwise to our religion if not our King and State at large relate See Mr. William Tyndall his Practise of Popish Prelates Obedience of a Christia●man Dr. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry the 8. Henry Stalbridge his exhortatiory Epistle Dr. Iohn White his Defence of the. Way c. 6. 9. 10. 11. Since then there is now no ma●eriall sollid justifiable difference at all between the Pagans Papists and our Romanizing Novellers bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes Lords-Tables as the premises witnesse needs must we now not only passe lentence against it but abandon and abhor it as most gro●●e Jdolatrie Yea as that which no doubt among other several particulars of our late backsliding to the Church of Rome hath been one cause of drawing downe that Plague and Pestilence which now spreades it selfe every where among us with these other spirituall temporall judgements which now we languish under and are likely to increase upon us to our utter ruine And have we not all cause to feare the very extremity of Gods wrath to be powred on us of which he hath given us visible prognostickes from heaven I shall name but one of many upon the 23. day of February last past in Sussex and sundrie places of the Kingdome from 8 till 9● of the Clocke in the morning there was seen by many persons of good quality who have testified it under their hands three Sunnes n●are together a thing ve●y rare and at the same time a Raine-bow such as was never seen the like but once differing from ordinary Raine-bowes in these 7. remarkable particulars 1. First where as all other Raine-bowes are in some watry thick cloud this was in no cloud at all ou● in the cleare open ayre 2. Secondly where as other Raine-bowes are ever in direct opposition to the Sunne so as he that turnes his face to the bow turnes his backe on the Sunne this stood directly South-east in the same quarter that the Sunne the●● was 3. Thirdly other Raine-bowes are commonly lower then the Sunne and one end of them seemes almost to touch the earth This vvas farre higher then the Sunne goes in the Sommer-solstice none being ever seen so high by many degrees 4. Other Raine-bovves are seen only at a certaine distance 5. or 6. miles about and that but one vvay vvhethervvards it is reflicted This seemed above 30. miles distance every way 5. Fiftly other Raine-bowes continue but a short space and then vanish This a full houre from 8. till 9. of the clock as long as the 3 Sunnes continued Sixtly other Raine-bovves are flit●ing and moue vvith 〈◊〉 cloud vvherein they are This vvas fixed continuing in the same place a full houre Seventhly vvhich is the strangest of all principally to be considered whereas all other Raine-bowes stand with the 〈◊〉 downeward in this maner ● this appeared all the while with the hornes upward thus● which makes it the more terrible The bow as all know and we of this Nation especially who have wonne so many battles by it is a Military or warlike instrument Now as long as the backe of their bow is towards the Archer and the hornes from him towards his enemie it is a Signe of peace and safety that he hath no intent at all to shoote hurt or slay him But when once the Archer tur●es his bow the contrary way with the ●tring and hornes toward himselfe and the backe of the bow towards his enemie then its a signe he is angrie and intends to shoote and slay him The application is obvious God hath a bow a warlike Instrument as well as man which Scriptures often mention See Ps. 7 12. Lam. 2. 4. c. 3 12. This bow immediately after the flood when he out of his infinite goodnes entred into a covenant of mercy and peace with Noah and his posterity placed in the cloud for a token of this Coveuant between him and the Earth See Gen. 9. 13. 14. 15. 16. And becanse it was a token only of love grace and peace he placed it with the hornes downeward and the backe towards Heaven to testify and proclaime peace and mercy to the world Now when God shall thus in a●unusuall miraculous maner invert this bow of his turning the hornes of it towards Heaven and the backe upon us in such a visible and notorious fashion that many Counties of the Kingdome at once might did take notice of it though few such serious notice as they should what can we thence in all probability conclude But that we having so long waged warre against Heaven with our prodigious sh●meles manifold open sinnes See Ier. 3. 8. 9. Ier. 3. 3. and so farre broken our covenant and long continued league with God m the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of his ordinances he hath now a

is not Baptisme the word as necessarie as the Lords supper Math. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yea● more needfull and absolutely necessarie● 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 Popo●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 so●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

so often as he shall doe any good or pions thing For God desires not a Sacrifice neither of a male creature neither of death blood but of a man and of life To which Sacrifice there is no need of Lawrell or sacred leaves to adore the Altar or rushes or greene turfes which verily are most vaine but of those things that are brought forth out of a sincere heart Therfore upon the Altar of God which is truly the greatest and is placed in the heart of man which cannot be defiled with blood is layd righteousnes Pretence faith innocence chast●ty abstinence What meane Temples what Altars what finally Images themselves which are either the monuments of dead or absent persons After which he disputes excellently against Images shewing why Christians had none and concludes that D●●●lls were the Authors of Images wherfore without doubt there is no Religion where ever there is an Image From all these Fathers answers therfore it is most cleare and evident that the Christians in their times had neither Images nor Altars and that they held them both unlawfull unnecessary ranking them both together as Paganisme Iudaisme Idolatr●● they then using no Altars no not to consecrate the Sacramention for feare of inclining to Gentelisme or Iudaisme or hardning the Iewes or Gentiles in the use of their abolished idolatrous Sacrifices or Altars 3. These Histories forecited which affirme that Pope Sixtus the second about th● 〈◊〉 65. or 294 or after first brought in Altars into the Church will quite take of this absurd evasion For these Altars thus introduced by him were not for any bloody or externall Sacrifice such as the Iewes or Gentiles used but only to consecrate receive the Sacrament at as all acknowledge If then Altars even to administer the Sacrament at were then first brought into the Church and not before as Historians generally accord then certaynely the Christians before that time had no Altars ●o not for the c●l●brating of the Lords Supper on and so these authorities of Origen Arnobius Minucius Faelix and Lactantius must necessarily be intended as all the forecited writers and our Homilies interpret them that Christians had no Altars at all in those times no not to celebrate the Sacrament on and then the shift in the Coale that they had Altars for this purpose but not for any bloody or externall Sacrifices must need be fabulous and forged having no Authority that I know to backe it in any writer Now whereas to justify this apparant falsehood as I have manifested it the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Arnobius stiling the Lord Table an Altar is pretended and so the name and thing itselfe used and knowen among Christians before that age I answer that these authorities in truth when once examined will vanish into smoke To take them according to their Antiquity not their Order The ancient maine Authority is that of Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar But this I shall afterward prove to be meant only of Christ himselfe not of the Communion Table as all the Fathers and ancient expositors our owne writers and Martyrs and all Protestant Divines accord without dissent or question So that this proves nothing That of the Apostles Canons the 〈◊〉 in pretended Antiquity hath been long since disclaimed branded as counterfeit coyne by all our learned writers and many Papists themselves yea as a spurious brat of some later age many hundred yeares after the Apostles and the puriest of these Fathers Neither are Ignatius his Epistles of any better authority being all forgid spurious a● M. Cooke hath undeniably proved them But admit them true yet they made little to the purpose For that of his 6. Epistle ad Maguesianos is but this Runne all together into the Temple of God as to one Altar to one Jesus Christ the High Preist of the only begotten God That in his 9. Epistle to the Philadelphians but this There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one blood of his shed for us and one Cup which is distributed to us for all man one Altar to all the Church And that in his 7. Epistle of Tarsenses but this Esteeme Widdowes continuing in chastity as the Altar of God Neither of these stile the Communion Table the Altar the two first of them being meant of Christ the Church itselfe the last and first used figuratively and by way of similitude only the first applied to the Church the other to Widdowes neither to the Communion Table the thing in question That of Irenaeus the next auncient is to as little purpose his words advers Haereses l. 9. c. 20. being but these David was a Preist to God although Saul persecuted him Omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem yea all just men have a Preistly order or are Preists So all the Apostles of the Lord are Preists who neither inherit Feiles nor houses but alwayes serve God and the Altar of whom even Moses in Deutr. spake in the benediction of Levie who sayth to his Father and Mother I have not knowne thee c. Which Text speakes not of the Communion Table nor of any proper Preists or Altars but only of spirituall metaphoricall Preists Altars For it termed all righteous men Preists that attend on God and his Altar he sayth the Apostles were such when they plucked the eares of corne they then waiting on God and the Altar which was long before the Communion Table or Lords Supper was instituted so that here the Altar if properly meant is not the Lords Table but the Iewish Altar and that before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted If allegorically and spiritually it is meant only of Christ our spirituall Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 65. 9. on whom all the faithfull who are spirituall Preists 1. Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. doe waste not of the Lords Table at which none but Ministers serve and consecrate So that this makes nothing to the purpose What Irenaeus meanes by the Altar will appeare more evidently by his owne words Adv. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. where as he stiles the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but the Eucharist with which he joynes no other oblation used among Christians but only that of prayse and thankgiving neither of which requires an Altar so he writes that God will have us also offer a gift at the Altar to witt the Sacrifice of prayer and prayse frequently without intermission And least any one should here dreame of a materiall Altar here on earth he explaines himselfe what he meanes by the Altar and where this Altar is scituated in the very next words EST ERGO ALTARE IN CAELIS c. Therfore our ALTAR IS IN THE HEAVENS For thither all our prryers are directed Irenaeus therfore neither knew nor spake of any Altar that Christians then had but of Christ himselfe who is now in

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

How say yow by the Sacrament of the Altar Wood. Yow meane the Sacrament of the body bloud of Christ Jesus Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar and so I say Wood. You meane Christ to be the Altar doe yow not Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar in the Church what is it so strange to yow Wood. It is strang to me indeed if yow meane the Altar of stone Chich. It is that Altar that I meane Wood. I understand not the Altar so Chich. No I thinke so indeed and that is the cause that yow be deceived I pray yow how doe you understand the Altar then Wood. If you will give me leave till I have done I will shew yow how I understand the Altar and where it is Chich. Yes yow shall have leave to say your mind as much as yow will Wood. It is written Math. 18. That wheresoever two or three be gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest among them and whatsoever they aske the Father upon earth it shal be granted them in heaven agreeing to the 5. of Math. saying When thou commest to offer thy gift at the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave there thy offring and go first be reconconciled to thy brother and then offer thy gift The Preistes would have interrupted mee but the Bishop bad them let me alone Chich. Yow shall heare a prety conclusion anone Wood. I pray yow let me make an end and then find fault with me if you can Now to the matter In these two places of Scripture I prove that Christ is the true Altar whereon every Christian man and woman ought to come and offer their gifts First wheresoever the people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come and offer our gift if we be in love and charity if we be not we must leave there our offring and goe first and be reconciled to our brother and agree with him quickly and so forth and then come offer the gift Some will say how shall I agree with my adversary when he is not nigh by a hundred miles may I not pray till I have spoken with him To all such I answer if yow presume to pray among the faithfull wishing any evill to any man woeman or child thou as kest vengeance upon thy selfe For no such as keth any thing else of the Lord in h●s prayer wherfore agree with thy adversary that is make thy life agreeable to Gods word Say in thy heart without dissimulation that thou as kest God and all the world forgivenesse from the bottome of thy heart intending never to offend them any more Then all such may be bold to come and offer their gift their prayer on the Altar where the people of God be gathered together Thus have I shewed yow my mind both of the Altar and of the offering as I understand it Chich. Doe yow understand the offring and the Altar so I never heard any man understand it so no not Luther the great hereticke that was condemned by a generall Councell his picture burned Wood. If he were an hereticke I thinke he understood it not so indeed but I am sure all Christians ought to understand it so Chich. O what vaine glory is in yow as though yow understood all things and other men nothing Heare me I will shew yow the true understanding both of the Altar and the offring on the Altar We have an Altar sayd Paul that yee may not eat of Meaning thereby that no man might eate of that which was offered on the Altar but the Preist For in Paules time all the living that the Preist had the people came offered it on the Altar mony or other things and when the people came to offer it and then remembred that they had any thing against their brother then they left their offring upon the Altar and went and were reconciled to their brother and they came againe and offered their gift and the Preist had it This is the true understanding of the place that yow have rehearsed wherfore yow be deceived Wood. My Lord that was the use in the old Law Christ was the end of that But indeed I perceive by Paules words the Sacrifice was offered in Paules time yet that maketh not that it was well done but he rebuked it Wherfore it seemeth to me that yow be deceived To passe by that learned Martyr M. John Philpot with our famous Thomas Beacon who in their forecited passages interpret the Altar in this Text to be Christ himselfe not any materiall Altar either of wood or stone The judicious solide D. William Fulke in his confutation and answer of the Rhemist Testament Heb. 13. 10. sect 6. doth thus expound this Text The Apostle speaketh expresly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observation of the Leviticall Sacrifice Therfore this place is brutishly abused to prove that the Christians have a materiall Altar as the Papists have many The Apostle meaneth Christ to be the Altar not the Table whereon the Lordes Supper is ministred which is called an Altar but unproperly as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice For he saith We have an Altar which is but one where as the Popish Altars and Communion Tables are many But Isychius sayth This Altar is the Altar of Christes body ye abuse Isychius for he sayth that the Altar is the body of Christ it selfe Such an one sayth he may not come neither to the vaile nor to the Altar that is to the body of Christ to doe the ministery thereof For that hath Paul writing to the Hebrewes taught to be the vaile and the Altar The same he sayth l. ● c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth that the intelligible Altar is the Lords Body for he sayth we have an Altar whereof they have no power to eate which serve the Tabernacle namely the body of Christ. For it is not Lawfull for the Jewes to eate of it This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witnesse that is in the entrance of the heavens because we have entrance into the Heavens with him It is manifest therfore that Hesychius meaneth not the Ppish Altars but the body of Christ in Heaven the mystery whereof is celebrated on the Lords Table which of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table as it is indeed and an Altar as it is unproperly But that it is called of them a Table and was indeed a Table made of boardes removeable set in the midst of the people not placed against a wall I have shewed sufficiently by the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers

of these ordinances 2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yeares after Christ had no Altars of which more before therfore not the name of Altars or of the Sacrament of the Altar 3. The Fathers usually and properly stile the Communion Table the Lords table the Holy table the Table c. and the Sacrament i●selfe the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body and blood the Eucharist and the like that properly and those who phrase the Table an Altar or the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar doe it only improperly and figuratively as they stile faith and our hearts the Altar of a Christian either in relation to Christ himselfe who is our only true Altar whose body blood death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Crosse is here spiritually exhibited or by reason of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse and oblations of Charity for the poores releife that are there offred up when the Sacrament is received or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven who must consecrate all our Services Sacrifices spirituall oblations make them acceptable to his Father In these regards only as some of our Martyrs Bishop Jewell D. Fulke D. Reynolds M. Deane Nowell D. Willet and M. Cartwright observe the Fathers sometime stile the Lords Table an Altar or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and oblations which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Crosse here represented to us but never truly or properly Therfore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar nor yet the Sacrament to be the Sacrament of the Altar or that it may properly be so termed 4. Though the Fathers phrase the Communion Table an Altar or the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully doe it or that they did well in it For when they used this manner of speech the Sacrifice of the Masse Masse-Preists with other idolat●ous popish trash was not knowne nor heard in the world neither were there any to be scandalized with those phrases or to wrest them to such ill ends purposes as since they have been There were then no Papists to be hardned encouraged in their popish Superstition no Protestants to be scandalized or drawen to dreame of Masse and Masse Preists againe as now there are Therfore they prochance might lawfully use these termes though we may not And yet these termes speeches of the Fathers the Papists have formerly derived and still defend justify all the abominations of their Masse their altars Masse Preistes massing vestments Cringes Ceremonies which shewes that the Fathers might have better spared then used them since all this hurt but no good at all hath proceeded from them if we should now after so long a discontinuance disuse of these Titles and our exploding of them as savouring to much of Popery and Iudaisme and tending to foment them should reassume them it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries errors superstitions concerning the Masse and altars wherein they differ for Protestants but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery and others scandalized with these termes either wholly to seperate from our Church as false superstitious Popish or else to continue in it with wounded troubled scrupulous cōsciences dejected discontented spirits drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as late experience to apparantly manifests So that this fi●●t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected To the second and maine reason I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancie of reformation whence M. Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes annexeth this observation to it But note the time of the first making of this Statute which was before that the Masse taken away when the opinion of the reall presence was dot removed from us The language therfore of this Act made thus before the Masse was taken away or the grosse opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us is not much to be regarded much lesse insisted on though the Coale from the Altar doth principally relie upon it 2. I answer that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar nor the Lords table an Altar but rather the contrary For the Tittle of it is this An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speake against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar c. And the body of the Act runs thus As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar and in Scripture marke it THE SVPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST c. So that the name which the Statute gives it is only the Sacrament used 8. times together in this Act and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ thus so stiled and this clause commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar is not a Title given it by the Statute but by the Preistes and vulgar people who then usually called it so and added only by way of explanation as their usuall terme not the Parleaments and being omitted in the ensuing parts clauses of this Act which termes the Sacrament the Sacrament of Christes body and blood with out this terme of explination which this Act expresly declares to be no Title given it in or by the Scripture which ever calls it the Supper and Table of the Lord the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ but only by the vulgar who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected neither Masse nor Transubstantiation nor Altars being then abolished as they were shortly after 3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar the sole thing now in question but the Table of the Lord therfore it makes nothing for Altars or the stiling of the Communion Table an Altar 4. No Act either in King Edwards Raigne or Queen Elizabeths or since her dayes this alone excepted calls the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Sacrament the Holy Sacrament c. this Title therfore being omitted in all other Acts mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar not the Parleaments and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Masse and Altars were againe set up and revived but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this can be no plea at all for us now to call the Lords Table an Altar or his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but rather argues the contrary that we should for beare to stile them thus because the Parleament in

Priest Altar doe notwithstāding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite ●stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur C●u●m Christs ●l i●sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi pr●prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia ●●cat A●am Cru●is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra p●rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atqu● ex institute per Antithes●m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernacul● cum Christe ●●ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentie●●m Sacrific●● incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrifici● incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare hu● pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 P●nis quem ●g● dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wher● he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that th● Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chri●● upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testa●ment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrific● of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ou● Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar t● prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christ● Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Orig●n resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiqu● non in terris quaerendus est sed in Coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis ●ernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseenda● nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium Oblationes Holocausta tanto praestantiora quanio veri●as ambrā Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. For your better apprehension of this truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where he with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken Then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes For the Apostle as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord the vessel prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord So did he name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the contemners thereof Guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates Bray Baker very zealous Puritans and eager men heretofore against Altars Images bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus Images Sacrifices Sabbath-breaking c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establish●d Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall of our Church which they cannot expiare with their lives Well how ever they brave it out for the present a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates the mildest tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so lōg maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise and example But of this enough Only let me conclude of them the new English Priests Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas who thus Caracterizeth them Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam