Thanksgiving Part. 2. pag. 700. And this I have he rather laid downe at large to shew with what indifferencie these names of Table Board and Altar have beene used before and may be used for the present as also in what regard the Lord's Table may be called an â—ltar And this according unto Master Foxes Marginall note in the selfe same Page viz. The Table how it may be called an Altar and in what respect which shewes that he allowed it to be called an Altar though this Epistoler doth not like it 15. NOw as the Story of the change is not altogether true so the reason there assigned is both â—alâ—e and dangerous First it is false the Alteration not being made because the people were scandalized with Altars in Countrey Churches The people were so farre from being scandalized with having Altars that in the Countreyes of Devon and Cornwall they rose up in Armes because the Masse was taken from them Act. and Monum Part. 2. pa. 666. And if we looke into the Story of thoâ—e times we shall quickly find that it was no scandall taken by the people which did occasion that or any other câ—ange in the Common prayer Booke but and offence conceived by Calvin It seemes that Bucer had informed him of the condition of this Church and the publike Liâ—urgie thereof and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Sommerset who was then Protector Epistola ad Bucerâ—m In which his Letter to the Duke hee finds great fault with the Commemoration of the dead which was then used in the Celebration of the Lords Supper though he acknowledgeth the same to bee very ancient calling it by the name of a piece of Leaven Quo mâ—ssa integra sanctae coenae quodammodo aceâ—ieret where with the whole Communion was made sower Other things in the Liturgie hee found fault withall and then adviseth Illa omnia abscindi seâ—el that they should all at once be cut off for ever Epist. ad Protectorem Angliae Nor stayed hee here but he solliciâ—ed Archbishop Cranmer to the same â—ffect 〈◊〉 1551 being the yeare before the Alâ—eration made as by the placing of that Letter doth appeare complaining in the same unto him 〈…〉 That in the Church of England there was yet remaining a whole masse of Popery which did not only blemish and obscure but in a manner overthrow Gods holy worship So that however in his Answer to the Devonshire men the King had formerly affirmed that the Lords Supper as it was then administred was brought even to the very â—se as CHRIST left iâ— as the Apostles used it and as the holy Fathers delivered it Act. and Monum Part. 2. pa. 667 Yet to please Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector and as it seemes had tooke â—pon him to wrâ—te â—â—to the King about it Epistol ad 〈◊〉 1551 the Lituâ—gy then established was called in by Parliament though in the very act it selfe they could not but acknowledge that the said Booke of Common prayer was both agreeable to Gods Word and â—he Primitive Church 5. 6. of Edw. 6. cap. 1. So that the leaving of the word Altar out of the Common Prayer booke last established and other alteraâ—ions which were therein made grew not from any sâ—andall which was taken at the name of Altar by the Countrie people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgy by Calvin as before I said 16 AS false it is but far more dangerous which is next alleaged viz. that The people being â—â—andaâ—ized in countrey Churches did first de facâ—o beat down Altars and then the Prince to countenance no doubt and confirme their unruly actions did by a kinde of Law put them doâ—ne de jure Wherâ— is is said in all the Monuments of our Church or State that ever in the former times the Countrey people tooke upon them to bee reformers of the Church or that in this particular they did de facto beat downe Altars This is fine doctrine were it true for the common people who questionlesse will heaâ—ken to it with a greedy â—are as loving nothing more then to have the soveraigntie in sacred matters and who being led by a Preâ—edent more than they are by the Lawe or Precept thinke all things lawfull to bee done which were done before them But sure the people never did it For in the Letters sent in the Kings name to Bishop Ridley it is said that it was come to the Kings knowledge how the Altars within the most part of the Churches of this Realme being already upon good and godly consideration taken downe there did remaine Altars in diverse other Chuâ—ches Actes and Monument Part. 2. pag. 699. So that the Altars were not generally taken dowâ—e throughouâ— the Kingdome and those which were tooke downe were taken downe on good and godly consideration which certainely implyes some Order and Authority from those who had a power to doe it Not beaten downe de facto by the common people in a popular huâ—our withouâ— Authoritie or Warrant And had they all beene beaten downe de â—actâ— by the common people that kindâ— of Laâ— which after put them downe de jure had come too late to carry any stroake in so great a businesse Vnlesse perhaps the King was willing on the post-fact to partake somewhat of the honour or durst not but confirme the doings of disordered people by a kind of Law A kind of Law And is the Edict and Direction of the King in sacred matters but a kind of Law The peoples beating downe the Altars was as it seemes a powerfâ—ll Law a very Club-Law at the least against the which was no resistance to be made the Princes Edict to remove them but a kind of Law which no man was obliged unto nor had regarded but that they found it sorted with the peoples humour Just so he dealt before with the Queenes Injunctions The Queens Injuctions had appoynted that the Holy Table in every Church should be â—ecently made and set up in the place where thâ— Altâ—r stood and thereupon it is resolved by the Epistoler that if by placing of the Table Altarwise is meant the setting of it in that place of the Chancell where the Altar stood there may be somewhat sayd for that because the Injunctions did so place it The Edict of King Edward but a kind of Law the Order of Qu. Elizabeth but a kind of somewhat This is no mannerly dealing with Kings and Queenes my good Brother of BOSTON 17. YEt such a kind of Law it was that being seconded by a kind of somewhat in the Queenes Injunctions 1559 referring to that order of King Edward it hath taken from us the Children of the Church and Common-wealth the name nature of former Altars The Children of the Church And who are they Those onely which are bounded Intrâ— partem Donati the lot and portion of the Brethren of the Dispersion those who have kepâ— their children's fore-heads from the signe of the Crosse
in proprietie of speech wee ought to call it and so implies not as it is supposed by the Epistoler that the end or narrower part thereof is to bee placed towards the East great Window And this Interpretation of the Rubrick I the rather stand to because that in the Common Prayer booke done into Latine by command and authorized by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth Ann. 2â— of her reigne it is thus translated Ad cujus mensae septentrionalem partem Minister stans orabit orationem Dominicam viz. That the Minister standing at the North part of the Table shall say the 〈…〉 5. FOr the Parenthesis I might very well have passed it over as not conducing to this purpose but that it seemes to cast a scorne on them by whose direction the Booke of the Fast in 1â— of the King was drawne up and published as if it were a Noveltie or singular devise of theirs to call the latter part of Divine Service by the name of Second Service whereas indeed the name is very proper for it and every way agreeable both to the practise of antiquitie and the intentions of this Church at that very time when the Booke of Common Prayer was first established For if we looke into the Liturgie of our Church immediately after Athanasius Creed wee shall find it thus Thus endeth the Order of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the whole yeare i. e. the forme of Morning and Evening Prayer for all dayes equally aswell the working dayes as the holy dayes without any difference Then looke into the first Rubricke before the Communion and wee find it thus So many as intend to bee partakers of the holy Communion shall signifie their names unto the Curates over night or else in the morning before the beginning of Morning Praier or immediately after Where cleerly it is meanâ— that there should be some reasonable time betweene Morning Praier and the Communion For otherwise what leisure could the Curate have to call before him open and notorious 〈◊〉 Livers or such as have done any wrong unto their neighbours by word or deed and to advertise them in any wise not to presume to come unto the Lords Table till they have manifested their repentance and amended their former naâ—ghty lives and recompensed the parties whom they have done wrong unto Or what spare time can wee afford him betweene the Reading Pew and the Holy Table to reconcile those men betwixt whom hee 〈◊〉 malice and hatred to raigne and on examination of their dispositions to admit that party who is contented 〈◊〉 â—â—rgive and repell the obstinate according as by the Rubrick hee is bound to doe Which being compared with the first Rubrick after the Communion where it is said that upon the Holi-daies if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homilie concluding with the Praier for the whole state of Christs Church militant here on earth c. makes it both manifest and undeniable that the distinction of the First and Second Service is grounded on the very meaning of holy Church however the Epistoler doth please to slight it 6. THat which next followes is a Confirmation onely of what went before Viz. that The Ministers standing at the North side of the Table was no new direction in the Queenes time onely but practised in King Edwards reigne that in the plot of our Liturgie sent by Knox and Whittingham to Master Calvin in the latter end of Queene Mary it is said that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table that onely was put in to shâ—w that â—ee had the Booke entituled The Troubles of Francofurt that in King Edwards Liturgies the Minister standing in the middest of the Altar i. e. with his back turned towards the people 1549 is turned into his standing at the Northside of the Table 1552. And finally that this last Liturgy was revived by Parlâ—ament 1â— Eliz. This wee acknowledge to be true but it addes nothing to the reasons produced before and so perhaps it is as true that it was used so when this Letter was written in most places of England which in this kind had too much deviated from the ancient practise But where it followeth in the next place that What is done in Chappels or Cathedrall Churches is not the poynt in question but how the Tables are appoynted to be placed in Parish Churches I thinke that therein the Epistoler hath been much mistaken For certainly the ancient Orders of the Church of England have beene best preserved in the Chappell 's of the Kings Majestie and the Cathedralls of this Kingdome without the which perhaps wee had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves for the whole forme and fashion of Divine Service And therefore if it bee so in the Chappell 's and Cathedrall Churches as the Epistoler doth acknowledge it is a pregnant Argument that so it ought to bee in the Parochiall which heerein ought to president and conforme themselves according to the Patterne of the Mother Churches And I would faine learne of this doughtie Disputant why hee should make such difference betweene the Chappell 's and Cathedrall Churches on the one side and the Parochialls on the other as if some things which were not warranted by Law were used in the one and such as are allowed by Law were not permitted to the other The Lawes and Canons now in force looke alike on all And therefore heere must bee some cunning to make the Chappell 's and Cathedralls guiltie of some â—oule transgression some breach of Law and publick Order the better to expose them to the censure of a race of men who like them ill enough already 7. AS for that fancie which comes next that In some Chappell 's and Cathedralls the Altars may bee still standing or to make use of their Covers and Ornaments Tables may bee placed in their roome of the same length and fashion the Altars were of 〈…〉 dreame and a poore conjecture Questionlesse neither the Chappell 's Royall nor any of the Cathedrall Churches have hitherto been so 〈◊〉 brought Gods Name bee praysed but that they have been able to provide themselves of convenient Ornaments without being any way beholding to their former Altars However if it were lawfull in Cathedrall Churches either to suffer the old Altars to continue standing or to set up Tables in their places of the same length and fashion that the Altars were of onely in poynt of thrift to save greater charges I hope it will bee thought more lawfull by indifferent men to place the Table Altar-wise in Parochiall Churches in poynt of decencie and due obedience unto publike Order That Altars doe stand still in the Lutheran Churches the Doctours and Divines whereof hee doth acknowledge afterwards to bee sound Protestants by the Epistoler is confessed though it makes against him as also that the Apology for the Augustan Confession doth allow it And he confesseth too not
onely that they stood a yeare or two in King Edwards time as may appeare by the Liturgy printed 1549. but that the Queenes Commissioners were content they should stand as before we noted What stood they but a yeare or two in King Edwards time Yes certainely they stood foure yeares at the least in that Princes reigne For in the first yeare of King Edward being 1547. was passed that Statute entituled An Act against such persons as shall speake ireverently of the Sacrament of the Altar Anno 1548. The Common prayer Book was confirmed by Parliament although not publi shed till the next yeare wherein the word Altar is oft used and by the which it seemes the Altars did continue as before there were Anno. 1540 A Let ter in the Kings name from the Lords of the Coun cell came to Bishop â—â—â—â—er for abrogating Private Masses wehrein it is appoynted that the Holy bles sed Communion bee ministred at the High Altar of the Church and in no other places of the same Act. and Monum Part. 2. p. 662. And in the yeare 1550. which was the fourth yeare of his reigne came out an Order from the Councell unto Bishop Ridley for taking downe the Altars in his Diocesse Pag. 699. So long it seemes they stood without contradiction and longer might have stood perhaps if Calvin had given way unto it of which more heereafter 8. IN the meane time from matter of Evidence and Authoritie wee must proceed next unto poynt of Reason and then goe on againe unto matter of Fact as the way is lead by the Epistoler whom we must follow step by step in all his wandrings And in this way hee tells us That the Sacrifice of the Altar beeing abolished these call them what â—ou will are no more Altars but Tables of Stone or timber and that it was alleaged so 24. Novemb. 4â— Edw. 6. And 〈…〉 so alleaged that the Sacrifice of the Altar was abolished I believe it not It was alleaged indeed That the forme of an Altar was ordained for the Sacrifices of the Law that both the Law and the Sacrifices thereof doe cease and therefore that the forme of the Altar ought to cease also Act and Monuments part 2. pag. 700. The Sacrifice of the Altar and the Sacrifices of the Law are two different things it being told us by Saint Paul that wee the Christians have an Altar whereof they have no right to â—are which served the Tâ—bernacle Hebr. 13. 10. That Altar and that Sacrifice must continue alwaies And were it granted as it need not that since the Law and Sacrifices thereof be both abolished therefore the forme of the Altar is to be abolished yet would this rather helpe than hurt us For the Communion Table standing in the Body of the Church or Chancell hath indeed more resemblance to Altars on which the Priests did offer either Sacrifice or Incence under the Law then if it did stand Altarwise close along the wall as did the Altars after in the Christian Church the one of them which was that for Sacrifice standing in atriâ— Sacerdotum in the middle of the Priests Court without the Temple the other being that of Incense in Templo exteriori even in the outward part of the Temple and not within the Sanctum Sanctorum as our Altars doe 9. THat the said Tables of stone or timber though placed Altarwise for so I take it is his meaning may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses where there are no people so voyd of understanding as to be scandalized wee are glad to heare of and if it be not true would to God it were However wee may safely say that a small measure of understanding is in this kind sufficient to avoid offence there being none so weak of wit who may not easily bee perswaded if at least they will or that their Leaders will permit them that the disposing of Gods Table rather to one place than another it is not considerable in it selfe or otherwise materiall in his publick worship further than it conduceth unto Order and Vniformitie If any bee so void of understanding which wee hardly thinke and plead their weaknesse in this point as did the Brethren in the Conference at Hampton Court wee aske them with his Majestie of happy memory not whether 45 yeares but whether 80 yeares be not sufficient for them to gather strength and get understanding whether they be not rather head-strong than not strong eenough Confer at Hampt Court pag. 66. For it may very well be thought that it is not any want of understanding but an opinion rather that they have of their understandings which makes some men run crosse to all publick Order and take offâ—nce at any thing whereof themselves are not the Authors 10. THat which next followeth viz. that on the orders for breaking downe of Altars all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables but not upon the fashion or forme of Tables is fairer in the flourish than in the fact For in the Act. Mon. p. 1212. which there is cited being of my Edit part 2. pag. 700. there is no such matter It is there said indeed that on receipt of his Majesties Leâ—ters sent to Bishop Ridley the Bishop did 〈◊〉 the right forme of a Table to be used in all his Diâ—cesse but that it was appointed so in all other Diocesses as the Epistoler hath affirmed doth not appeare by any thing in that place remembred And though hee did appoint it so yet possibly it may be doubted whether the people fully understood his meaning it being there said that after the exhortation of the said Bishop Ridley there grew a great diversity about the forme of the Lords boord some using it after the forme of a Table and some of an Altar So that the difference was not about the having of a Table wherein it seemes most men were ready to obey the Kings Command and the Bishops Order but in the placing of the same some men desiring that it should be placed after the fashion of an Altar others more willing that it should be used like a Common Table in which boâ—h parties followed their owne affections as in a thing which had not been determined of but lâ—ft at large 11. THat which comes after is well said but not well applyed It is well said that In the old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar and a Table an Altar in respect of what is there offred unto God and a Table iâ— regard of what is there participated by men as for Example by the Priests By this might better have been applied and used to justifie the calling of the Communion Table by the name of Altar in respect of those Oblations made to God as the Epistoler doth acknowledge afterwards That of the â—â—ophet Malachie 1. ver 7. is indeed worth the marking and doth demonstrate very well that in the old Testament Gods Altar is the very same with Gods Table but how it answereth
booke or Canon for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniencie that libertie is not so to be understood as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish much lesse to the particular fancie of any humerous person but to the judgement of the Ordinarie to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that poynt both for the thing it selfe and for the time when and how long as he may finde cause Vpon which consideration his Majestie declared himselfe That hee well approved and confirmed the Act of the said Ordinarie and also gave commandement that if those few Parishioners before mentioned do proceed in their said Appeale then the Deane of the Arches who was then attending at the hearing of the Cause shall confirme the said Order of the aforesaid Deane and Chapter A COPIE OF THE LETTER WRITTEN to the Vicar of GR against the placing of the Communion Table at the East end of the Chancell SIR WIth my very hearty Commendations When I spake with you last I told you that the standing of the Communion Table was unto me a thing so indifferent that unlesse offence and vmbrages were taken by the Towne against it I should never move it or remove it That which I did not then suspect is come to passe Tâ—e Alderman whom I have knowne this 17. or 18. yeares to bee a discreet and modest man and farre from any â—umour of 〈◊〉 together with the better sort of the Towne have complâ—â—ned against it And I have without taking notice of your Act or touching in one â—â—llable upon your reputation â—ppointed the Church Waâ—dens whom it 〈◊〉 doth concerne under the 〈◊〉 to settle it for this time as you may see by this Copy inclosed Now for your owne satisfaction and my poore advise for the future I have written unto you somewhat more at large then I vse to expresse my selfe in this kinde I doe therefore to deale plainely like many things well and disallow of some things in your cariage of the businesse It is well done that you affect decency and comlinesse in the officiating of GOD's Divine Serâ—ice That you president your selfe with the formes in his Majesties Chappels and the Quires of Cathedrall Churches if your Quire as those others could containe your whole congregation that you doe the reverence appointed by the Canon to the blessed name of IESVS so it be done humbly and not affectedly to procure Devotion not derision of your Parishioners and that you do not maintaine it Rationibus non cogentibus and so spoile a good Cause with bad arguments These things I doe allow and practise But that you should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Quire That the Table ought to stand Altarwise That the fixing therof in the Quire is Canonicall and that it ought not to bee removed to the body of the Church I conceive to be in you so many mistakings For the first if you should erect any such Altar which I know you will not your discretion will proove the onely Holocaust to be sacrificed thereon For you have subscribed when you came to your place that That other Oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars is a Blasphemous figment and pernicious imposture in the thirty one Article And also that we in the Church of England ought to take heed lest our Communion of a memory be made a Sacrifice In the first Homilie of the Sacrament And it is not the Vicar but the Church-wardens that are to provide for the Communion and that not an Altar but a faire joyned Table Canons of the Convocation 1571. pag. 18. And that the Altars were removed by Law and Tables placed in their stead in all or the most Churches in England appeares by the Queenes Injunctions 1559. related unto and so confirmed in that point by our Canons still in force And therefore I know you will not change a Table into an Altar which Vicars were never inabled to set up but allowed once with other's to pull downe Injunction of 1â— Elizab. for Tables in the Church For the second point That your Communion Table is to stand Altar-wise if you meane in that place of the Chancell where the Altar stood I thinke somewhat may be said for that because the Injunctions 1559. did so place it And I conceive it to be the most decent situation when it is not used and for use too where the Quire is mounted up by steps and open so that hee that officiates may bee sâ—ene and heard of all the Congregation Such an one I heare your Chancell is not But if you meane by Altar-wise that the Taâ—le should stand along close by the wall so as you be forced to officiate at one end thereof as you may have observed in great mâ—ns Chappels I do not believe that ever the Communion Tables were otherwise than by casualtie so placed in Countrey Churches For besides that the Countrey-people would suppose them Dressers rather than Tables And that Qu. Elizabeths Comissioners for causes Ecclesiasticall directed that the Table should stand not where the Altar but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood Orders 1561. The Minister appointed to reade the Communion which you out of the booke of Fast in 1â— of the King are pleased to call Second Service is directed to reade the Commandements not at the end but at the North-side of the Table which implies the end to bee placed towards the East great Window Rubrick before the Communion Nor was this a new direction in the Queenes time onely but practised in king Edward's raigne for in the plot of our Liturgie sent by Mast Knox and Whittingham to Masâ—er Calvin in the raigne of Queene Mary it is said that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table Troubles at Frankford pag. 30. And so in King Edward's Liturgies the Ministers standing in the middest of the Altar 1549. is turned to his standing at the North-side of the Table 1552. And this last Liturgie was revived by Parliament 1â— Eliz. cap. 2. And I believe it is so used at this day in the most places of England What you saw in Chappels or Cathedrall Churches is not the point in question but how the Tables are appointed to be placed in Parish Churches In some of the Chappels and Cathedrals the Altars may be still standing for ought I know or to maâ—e use of their Covers and Ornaments Tables mâ—y be placed in their roome of the same length and fashion the Altars were of Wee knâ—w the Altars stand still in Lutheran Chuâ—ches And the Apologie for the Augustan Confession Art 12. doth allow it The Altars stood a yeare or two in King Edwards times as appeares by the Liturgie printâ—a 1549. and it seemes the Queenes Commissioners were content they should stand as wâ—e may guesse by the Injunctions 1559. But how is this to be understood The Sacrifice of