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.

A QUENCH-COALE, OR A breife disquisition, or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Com∣munion Table, ought to bee situa∣ted especially when the Sacrament is admi∣nistred. (Book 1)

IT hath been a great Question lately raysed and much agitated among us, by some Inno∣vating Romish spirits; In what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords Table ought to stand, specially at the time of the Sacra∣ments administration; whether in the Body or midst of the Church, Chancell or

Quire, or at the East end of the Quire Alterwise, where some now rayle it in, and plead it ought of right to stand? The Rubricke in the Comon prayer booke before the Commu∣nion, thus resolves this question. The Table at the Communion tyme havinge a faire white Lynnen cloath upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, OR IN THE CHANCELL where morninge prayer and eveninge prayer bee appointed to be said. And the preist standinge AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE, shall saye the Lords prayer with this Collect followinge &c.

Queene Elizabeths Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne, when the former Rubricke was made thus explaine and define this question. The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to bee distributed shalbe soe placed in good sort with in the Chancell, as whereby the Minister maye bee more conveniently heard of the Commu∣nicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communi∣cants alsoe more conveniently, and in more number commu∣nicate with the sayd Minister: And after the Communion done from tyme to tyme the same holy Table to bee placed where it stood before. Therefore it is not to be moveable, not fixed, or rayled in at the East end of the Chancell.

The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction. Whereas wee have no doubt but that in all Churche•• with in the Realme of England, convenient, and decent Tables are provided, and placed for the celebration of the holy Commu∣nion, wee appoint that the same Tables shall from tyme to time bee kept and repaired inconvenient, and decent manner, and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silke, or other decent stuffe, and with a faire lynnen cloath at the time of the administration as becommeth that Table, and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to bee admi∣nistred, At which time the same shalbee placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL, as thereby the Minister maye bee the more conveniently heard of the

Communicants in his prayer and administration; and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently, and in more number maye communicate with the sayd Minister.

Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne (whoe best knewe the meaninge of the Rubricke and Injunctions, made that very yeare) did by speciall direction, place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England, in the bodie of the Church, or Chancell some distance from the wall, with the two ends standinge East and West, and the two sides North and South; in which sort they have stood noe lesse then 73. yeares, or more, And in such Churches where the Tables coulde not conveniently stand alwayes in the body of the Church or Chancell, they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand, givinge direction, accordinge to the Rubricke, and Queenes In∣junctions, for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancell, when the Sacrament shoulde bee administred, as the sayd Rubricke, Injunctions, and Canons prescribe.

In the yeare of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithie treatise touchinge the Lords supper, compiled as some gather, by M. William Tyndall, and printed at the end of his workes, wherein p. 476. 477. hee wisheth, that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time. After which, hee prescribes this forme of administringe it, wishing, that the secular Princes woulde commaund and esta∣blish it. To witt, That the breade and wyne shoulde bee sett before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lords Table (not an Altar) purely and honestly laide &c. Then let the Preacher, (whom hee would have to preach, at least twise every weeke) exhort them lovingly to drawe neere unto this Table of the Lord &c. This donne let him come downe, (to witt from the pulpit) and accompanied honestly with other Ministers, come forth readily unto the Lords Table (not the Altar) the congregation nowe SET ROUND ABOUT IT, aud alsoe in their other convenient seates, the Pastor ex∣hortinge them all to praye for grace, faith, and love which all

this Sacrament signifieth, and putteth them in minde of, Then let there bee read openly, and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue, &c. Where this Author pre∣scribes a Table, not an Altar, and that to stand in the face of the Congregation, not at the upper end of the Quire, that soe the Con∣gregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT & thus receive. This hee determines to bee accordinge to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time, and that which our Martyrs then desired to bee restored.

In the yeare of the Lord 1549. (as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London. 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records) Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell (whereof Archbishop Cramner, and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two) writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London, to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces, that with all diligence, all the Altars in every Church, and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe, and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion, sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar. After with letter and Reasons recei∣ved the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces, and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side, placinge the Table a good distance from the wall.

M. Martin Bucer, in his Censure of the Common prayer booke, of the Church of England, in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes, That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples, and writings of the Fathers, that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples, which were for the most parte round, And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people, that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited, and be understood of all that were present, And hee there condemnes, the placinge of

the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church, and ad∣ministringe distinct service & Sacraments therin, as contrary to Christs Institution, and an intolerable contumely to God; exhortinge Kinge Edward, and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same. Shortly after which Censure of his, the Altars were taken downe, and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed.*‡ 1.1 Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords sup∣per (March. 30. 1555.) to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen, without the Quire, & takinge awaye the Altar thence. The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation.

Incomparable Bishop Jewell,*‡ 1.2 one of Queene Elizabeths visitors, in the first yeare of her Raigne, whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables, and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church, or Chancell, if not incompo∣singe the Rubricks in the Communion booke,) in his answeare to Hardings Preface, writes thus. An Altar wee have, such as Christ and his Apostles, and other Holy Fathers had, which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table, And of the Latines the Table of the Lord, and was made not of Stone, but of Timber, and stood not at the end of the Quire, BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE, as many wayes it maye appeare. And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had, wee desire to have none. And in his Reply to Hardinge, Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus. Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth, I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe.a 1.3 Eusebius thus describeth the forme and fur∣niture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended, & comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers, and wish stalles beneath sett in order, And last of all the holie of holies, I meane the Altar, BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST. Eusebius sayth not, the Altar was sett at the

end of the Quire, but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE.b 1.4 S. Augusti∣nus likewise sayeth thus. Christ feedeth us dayly, and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST. O my hearers, what is the matter that yee see the Table, and yet come not to the meate? In the 5.c 1.5 Councill of Constantinople, it is written thus. When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge, the people with silence dr••ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR, and gave care; (Yet* 1.6 D. Pocklington writes, that they are much mista∣ken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church, and the* 1.7 Coale from the Altar, sayth the like:) And to leave others.d 1.8 Durandus examininge the cause, why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar, yeildeth this reason for the same. In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH. I opened my mouth, And Platina noteth, that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome, was the first, that in the time of the ministration, di∣vided the Preist from the people. To leave further Allega∣tions, that the Quire was then in the body of the Church, divi∣ded with railes from the rest, whereof it was called Cancell, or Chancell, &c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth, that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd. A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived. Fore 1.9 Chriso∣stome sayth: The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up, and thus spake unto the people; Oremus pariter omnes, let us all praye to∣gether; And againe hee sayth, the Preist and people at the mi∣nistration talke togeather. The Preist sayth, the Lord bee with you, the people answeareth, And with thy spirit. Justinian the Empe∣rour commanded, that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him: And to leave rehearsall of others.f 1.10 Bessarion sayth, the Preist speakinge these words, the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament, or on every side, sayth Amen. After which hee concludes thus. Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the

Apostles time, nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church, nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not, soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises, (all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar, to affront Bishop Iewell, and justifie M. Hardinge, and that by publique license, such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age:) wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion. And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words. The. 82. un truth. The Altars, and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH, as shall appeare. And Article 13. division 6. p: 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius, Augustine, and the Councell of Constantinople, to prove, that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communi••n Table in every Church, and that stan∣dinge in the middest of the Church, Quire, people; and con∣cludes thus; Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus, describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye, sayth thus; In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar, and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE, and the Quire alsoe was in the middest of all the people, Thus this Jewell of the Church: From whose words it is apparant, that the Communion Table in the Apostles times, and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. yeares after Christ, stood in the middest of the Church, or Chancel, not at the East end of the Quire, Altarwise against the wall; And that it ought nowe thus to stand in the Churches, beinge thus placed in his time. Which bookes of his, beinge A defence both of the doctri∣ne, and practice of the Church of England against the Papists, Commaunded to bee had in every Church for Ministers and the people to reade. (And therefore it seemes a strange prodigious insolencie, that* 1.11 men of our owne Church (as they pretend) should bee soe impudent, as publiquely to affront and refute his doctrine in print; but farr stranger they shoulde doe it by publique license to disparage him, and justifie the Papists doctrine) is a cleere demon∣stration

to mee. That by the very doctrine, and practice of the Church of England, the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH OR CHAVN∣CELL, especially when the Sacrament is administred; and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chaun∣cell, like a Dresser, a side Table, or Popish Altar, (to the end it maye not bee thence removed, and that the people maye come up to it by severall rankes and files to receive the Sacrament,) is a meere Popish Innovation contrarie both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England.

The namelesse Author of the* 1.12 Coale from the Altar, takinge upon him to be farre wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell, (yea then Bishop Ba••ington, D. Fulke, M. Bucer and all the learned∣dest writers) is bold to write without blushinge, That the autho∣rities of Eusebius, Augustine, Durandus, and the 5. Councell of Constantinople, doe not prove, that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church, or Chauncell; that B. Jewell is mistaken in their meaninge, and shapes severall answeares for to shift them. To that of Eusebius hee sayth, This proves not necessarily, that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church, or in the middle of the same, as the Epistoler doth intend, when hee sayth the middle; The Altar though it stood alonge the Easterne wall, yet it maye bee well inter∣preted to bee in the middle of the Chancell in Reference to the North and South, as since it hath stood. And were it other∣wise, yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria, wherein the people beinge more mingled with the Jewes then in other places, might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the mid∣dest of the Temple, the better to conforme unto them. To which I answeare: 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort meere nonsence. The Altar was placed in the middest of the Church or Chancell, that is (sayth he) in the East end of it, or in the middest of the East end; as if the East end of the Church or Chancell were the Church or Chancell it selfe, or the midst of it, the

middest of the Church or Chancell, But these beinge distinct, and different things, the midst of the Church or Chancell, can bee not more interpreted, to bee the middest of the Eastwall or end of them, then the East wall, or midst of the East end of the Quire, can bee the midst of the Church, So that this evasion is but a meere non∣sence Bull; And had Eusebius intended any such thinge, he woulde have thus expressed himselfe; that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Quire, not in the midst of the Church or Quire, and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with woodden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificiall carving.

2. I answeare, that The second parte of the Replie is a plaine concession of what hee formerly denied; and not only soe, but a con∣firmation of it with an annexed reason, Soe that here wee have one peece of the Coale against the other: one denyinge that it was in the midst, the other confessinge, and provinge the contrary: Nowe whereas hee writes, that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria: I answeare, that it seemes this famous Temple was one of the* 1.13 first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviours death, and soe became a generall patterne for all the rest: The* 1.14 greate Church at Hierusalem beinge built round or ovall like to it, and ha∣vinge the Altar in the midst, like this;) In the edifying where∣of, Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, whoe passed all others for rare and singular guifts, was the chiefe meanes and director, And till hee can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive tymes, either before, or not long after this, wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Quire Altarwise, as nowe they are situated, which hee can never doe, I shall take it as a gene∣rall and sufficient proofe for the settinge of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell. That which hee adds, that it was done perchance to please the Jewes; is but his owne fancie, no Histo∣rian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thinge; And ad∣mitt it true, yet the Jewes situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple, though, not out of any Iewish fancie or

conceit, but by Gods owne direction, is a fitter patterne for Christians to followe, then any Popish Altars, fixed station at or against the East end of the Quire, only by a bold Friers or Popes direction, without Reason, Scripture, president, or divine direction to war∣rant it.

To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople, he replies,* 1.15 that although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in it selfe doth signifie a Circle, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cannot bee properly interpreted, round about the Altar, soe as there was no parte thereof, that was not com∣passed by the people; noe more then if a man shoulde saye, that hee hath seene the Kinge sittinge in his Throne, and all his Nobles about him, it needs or could bee thought, that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence, as many of the Nobles beinge behinde him as before him; for which hee cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answeare, First, That as the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, a Circle, as hee confesseth; soe the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, to compasse or stand round about the Altar in a Circle, and to hemne it in on every side. If this then bee the proper meaninge of the words of this Councill, as all must acknowledge, good reason have wee to take them in their proper sence, and not improperly.

2. This word and phrase is soe taken and interpreted in the Scripture, (as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.) For sittinge, standinge and incircling the throne or Table round about on every parte; Therefore it shoulde by the same Reason bee soe taken here.

3. When as wee saye, the Kings Nobles doe inviron or stand round about his Throne; this implies, that his Throne stands not against a wall, but soe as men maye stand round about him; round about, e••••rimplyinge a perfect Circle, though about doth not al∣wayes 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 com∣passe, stand, dance, & goeround about them; therefore it shalbee

intended the people did soe there, till the contrarie can bee proved, which wilbee 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 ren∣dringe 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 in∣terpreted, 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 testi∣mony that can be produced to prove it. The Altar in the Cathe∣drall 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 PEO∣PLE, 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 indiffe∣rently a Table, as it is indeede; and an Altar, as it is unpro∣perly; 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 suffi∣ciently

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 Pri∣mitive 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. ge∣nerall 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.* 1.16 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 atto∣noment 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, & Ceremo∣nies of the Law, because they were a shaddowe of Christ to come, & of his Mysteries, Therefore the truth of the Gospell beinge co∣me, 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 Pat∣ternes for Christians to followe, But if here in not with stan∣dinge 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 acknowledge none, as hereafter shall bee proved. But wee see noe Reason why the Communion Table maye not bee sett IN THE BO∣DY OF THE CHURCH, as well as in the Chan∣cell if the place bee more convenient, and fitt to receive the Communicants: But I praye you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuarie then the Font or Baptisterie? They are both Sacraments, as well Baptisme as the Lords supper; why shoul∣de one bee preferred as holier then the other? Thus this Doctor.

By all these authorities it is most apparent, that by the expresse Resolution of the Common prayer booke confirmed by Act of Par∣liament; Of Queene Elizabeths Injunctions,* 1.17 the Bishops, learned writers, & constant practice of the Church of England from the beginninge of Reformation untill now, the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancell, or Quire Altarwise against the wall, especially when the Sacrament is administred; but in the middest of the Church, or Chancell, and that soe it stood in the Primitive Church.

Nowe for the better discoverie of the place where the Table ought to stand, it will not bee impertinent to enquire.

First, where the Table of Shewbreade was placed?

2. Where Iewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood?

3. How the Iewes Tables, & the Table at which Christ insti∣tuted the Sacrament were situated?

4. How the Communion Tables were placed in the Primitive Church?

5. What place is most proper & Convenient for the Table?

6. What reasons can bee produced for the placinge of the Com∣munion Table Altarwise, at the East end of the Chancell against the wall? &c.

For the first of these, it is most evident, that the shewbread•• Table (a tipe of Christ, & the Sacramentall breads,) stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum, but without the vaile of the Taber∣nacle

on the Northside, (not at the East side) of the Taberna∣cle. Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9. 2. 3. 6. 7. which are expresse; com∣pared with the 1. Kings 7. 28. 1. Chron. 9. 32. c. 23. 29. c. 28. 16. 2. Chron. 4. 19. c. 13. 11. c. 29. 18. If the situation then of the Shewbreade Table maye bee any president for Communion Tables, they ought to be placed, not in the East end of the Chancell, but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood.

For the second; wee must knowe, that Altars were aunciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills, & elevated places, especially amonge the Idolatrous Gentiles, Jer. 11. 13. Exod. 34. 13. Numb. 23. 1. and 28. 29. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. 2. Kings 11. 18. c. 21. 3. to c. 23. 12. whence they are fre∣quently stiled in Scripture, high places, and condemned by that name. 1. Kings 2. 3. 4. c. 1••. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 14. 2. Kings 12. 3. c. 14. 4. c. 15. 4. 35. c. 17. 29. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 32. 1. c. 33. 17. Jer. 42. 35. Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. 25. In detestation of these high places, (in truth nought else but high-Altars,) God himselfe gave expresse charge to the Israli••es, Exod. 20. 28. not to goe up by steps to his Al∣tar, that their nakednes bee not discovered: And to plucke downe, & destroye all high places. Numb. 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39. yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish, as even in dispite of God himselfe, to erect high places, high Al∣tars, & to goe up by steps unto them, in stead of Communion Tables; & to Christen the Lords Table, with the name of g 1.18 an Altar, and high Altar too. The Golden Altar for incense was sett before the Arke of the testimony in the first Taber∣nacle: And the Altar of burnt offeringe, which was most holy, was placed before the doore of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation. Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. & that by Gods owne appointment, And when a burnt offeringe of fowles was brought to the Altar, the Preist was to wringe the blood of it out at the side of the Altar; and to plucke awaye the Croppe with the Feathers, and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST parte, by the place of the ashes. Levit. 1. 14.

15. 16, Therefore the Altar of burnt offeringe did not stand Altar∣wise against the East end of the Tabernacle, or Temple. When the Temple was built, Solomon placed the Altar of incense covered with pure gold, not with in, but by the Altar. The brazen Altar hee placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the con∣gregation in the fore front of the house. Another Altar hee erected in the middle of the Court, before the house of the Lord, on which hee offered burnt offerings, and meate offe∣rings, and the fatt of the peace offerings. And when the Temple was consecrated, the Levites which were the singers with their soons, and their brethren beinge arayed in white Lynnen, havinge Cymballs, and Psalteries, and Harpes stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar (to witt of the golden and brazen Altar,) and with them an 120 Preists, soundinge with trumpetts, All which is cleerely related 1. Kings 6. 22. c. 8. 64. 2. Kings 16. 14. 2. Chron. 1. 5. 6. c. 5. 12. c. 7. 7. Neither of these Altars therefore stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum; in the East side, or against the East wall of the Temple. When Elijah built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Carmel, hee made a trench, round about the Altar, as greate as woulde containe two measures of seede, And the water ranne round about the Altar, and filled the trench. 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the middest, where men might stand round about it, not against a wall. Wee reade of David that hee build an Altar to the Lord, in the threshinge flowre of Araunah. 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof, but in the middest of it; as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocencie, soe wil I COMPASSE thyne Altar •• Lord. Wee reade in the 2. Kings 11. 11. that when Jehoash was Crowned, the Gaurd stood every man with his weapons in his hand round about the Kinge, from the right corner of the Temple to the left corner, alonge by the Altar and the Temple; The Altar there∣fore stood not in the corner, or East end of the Temple, but in the middest, or neere the entringe into it; In the 2. Kings 12. 9. wee

reade, that Jehoiada the Preist tooke a chest, and bored a hole in the ••idd thereof, and sett it besides the Altar on the right side, as one commeth into the house of the Lord. So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple, but neere the entry, almost as our fonts nowe stand. And c. 16. 14. It is recorded, that Kinge Ahaz brought the brazen Altar which was before the Lord from the forefront of the house, from betweene the Altar, and the house of the Lord, and put it on the northside of the Altar, (not the East:) Mana••••eh built Altars for al the host of heaven in the two Courts of the house of the Lord. 2. Kings 21. 5. 2. Chron. 33. 4. 5. 2. Kings 23. 12. Kinge Asarenewed the Altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord. 2. Chron. 15. 8. Wee reade of a prophesie. Isay. 19. 19. In that daye shall there bee an Altar to the Lord in the middest of the Land of Egypt. And of a commination to the Idolatrous Isralites. Ezech. 6. 4. 5. your Altars shalbee desolate, & I will scatter your bones ROVND ABOVT YOVR ALTARS. We finde mention of the gate of the Altar NORTHWARD in Hierusalem. Ezech. 8. 5. and the brazen Altar stood Northward, as it seemes. Ezech. 9. 2. Wee reade of an Altar, that was before the house. Ezech. 40. 47. Whereupon the Preists the Ministers of the Lord are enjoyned in the time of a solemne Fast, to weepe betweene the porch, and the Altar. Joell 2 17. So Ezech. 8. 16. the same expression is used, Behold at the doore of the Temple of the Lord, betweene the porch, and the Altar were about 25. 35. men &c. And Zacharias, as Christ informes us. Ma••h. 23. 35. was slaine betweene the Temple, and the Altar; Al∣tars••in those dayes standinge usually without the Temples: it beeing both a troublesome, & unseemely thinge to bringe Oxen. Sheepe, Calves & other beasts into the Temple there to kill, & sacrifice them on the Altar. By all these Scripture Testimonies it is appa∣rant, that Altars both amonge the Iewes, & Gentiles, were never placed in the upper end or against the East walls of their Temples. but in the Courts, the Entries, or middest of their Templies,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

in such manner that men might goe freely round about them, farre different from their moderne scituation; which hath noe one patterne in Scripture to warrant it. Now if Altars were thus scituated either without their Temples, or neere their entrance, porch, or doores, or else in the middest of them in former ages, so as men might freely compasse, & walke round about them, why shoul∣de they not bee thus placed, by our Altar-introducers, & heathe∣nish Popish Innovators nowe? There is neither of these Novellers but woulde have a Quire, or Sanctū Sanctorum in his Church, & woulde take it very ill if any man shoulde subvert, or write against Quires in Churches; yet themselves, by placinge their Altars & Communion Tables Altarwise against the East wall of their Churches, doe utterly overturne & destroye their much ap∣plauded Quires, out of a meere superstitious sottish ignorance. For the Latine word Chorus (from which our Quires have their de∣rivation, & denomination) ask 1.19 Isiodor Hispalensis,l 1.20 Raba∣nus Maurus,m 1.21 Calepine Eliot, Thomasius Olioke, with n 1.22 others testifie, is nothinge else, but; multitudo in sacris col∣lect; & dictus Chorus, quod initio in modum Coronae CIRCA ARAS STARENT, & ita psallerent: A multitude assembled, togeather in sacred places or Tem∣ples, and called a Quire, because that in the beginninge they stood ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS in manner of a Crowne or garland, and soe would singe; Our Innovators therefore by removinge their Altars to the East end of their Quires, & their railinge them in close-Prisoners against the wall, soe as the Choresters, singinge men, people cannot, maye not stand round about them like a ringe or crowne, and so singe praises unto God, when they receive the Eucharist; both overturne the verie name, & essence of their Quires, which aunciently did Compasse, & surround their Altars, as these authors testifie. And not they onlie, but others longe before them witnes, that of the aun∣ci••n•• Poët Virgil, very pregnant to this purpose, which maye serve as a Commentarie on the former Etymologie, or definition of a Quire.

o 1.23 Instauratque CHOROS, Mistique ALTARIA CIRCUM Cretesque, Dryopes{que} fremunt pictique Agathyrsi, &c.

p 1.24 Dona ferunt, cumulantque oneratis lancibus ARAS, Tam Salijad Cantus, Incensa Altaria Circum, Populeis ad sunt Evincti tempora ramis, Hicjuvenum CHORUS, ille senum, qui carmine laudes, Herculeas, & facta ferunt &c.

Which may be thus Englished:

Promiscuous Quires about the Altars round, Creets, Epires, Scythians, squeaking-notes resound, &c.

In Chargers to the Altars, guifts they bringe, The prauncing Preists, bout burning Altars singe, Their browes with boughes & poplar-garlands drest, A Quire of younge-men, Old-men ready prest, Hercules fame and sactes to chaunt, &c.

Whichq 1.25 Alexander ab Alexandro thus seconds. It was (sayth hee) a usuall Custome, ut sacrificantes ARAS CIRCUM∣CURRERENT, that those whoe sacrificed shoulde runne round about the Altars, beginninge their course from the left hand to the right, which they thought more Reli∣gious, and anon from the right hand to the left. Those whoe sacrificed, as they were eatinge, used to singe prayses to the Gods; CIRCUM ARAS psallere as mnnerum, to sin∣ge by measure about the Altars, to singe songes, and verses, and playinge on Cimballs, CHOROS agitare, to make Quires, or Daunces.r 1.26 It is recorded of Antoninus Caesar, that when hee sacrificed to the God Heliogabalus, hee brought thither Phaenicean-weomen; quae in orbem cursi∣tarent

cymbalaque & organa Musica CIRCUM ARAS psallerent, whoe might runne round in a Circle, and playe upon Cymballs, & Organs ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS, And that this singinge and dauncinge about Al∣tars was usuall amonge the auncient heathens, appeares by Plato legum Dialog. 7. Strabo Geogr. lib. 10. Euripides Bacchae Caelius, Rhodiginus Antiq. lect. l. 5. c. 3. Athenaeus dipno∣soph. l. 14. c. 11. 12. Bulengerus de Theatro lib. 1. c. 52. an ll. 2. c. 12. to 17. with others, there cited Answearable to whichs 1.27 Athenaeus records out of Clearchus Solensis, that the Lacedaemonians those whoe had noe wives, the women at a certaine Feast drawinge them ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS buffeted them with their fists, that avoydinge this contumelie they might bee taken with the love of children, and take them wives at a fitt age. And t 1.28 Alexaunder of Alexandro, relates out ofu 1.29 Plutarch andx 1.30 Xe∣n••phon, that it was a custome amonge the Lacedaemonians to whipp their youthes which exceeded 14. yeares of age ROUND ABOUT THEIR ALTARS. A pregnant Evidence, that their Altars then stood in the middest of their Quires & Temples, not at the East end of them against a wall. Our Popish Novellers therefore whoe have newly removed their Altars, & Communion Tables to the East end of their Quires close to the wall, must either bringe them downe againe into the middest of the Quire, to preserve both the name, use and essence of their Quires, or else disclayme their Quires, & Christen them with some other name: By all this as also by the* 1.31 Coale from the Altars confession, it is most apparent, that both the Jewes, and Gentiles Altars, stood not at the East end of their Tem∣ples, Quires, Chauncells, nor yet against a wall, but about the middest of their Temples, or Courts at least wise in such sort, that men might stand, and freely walke round about them. O••r superstitious Innovators therefore, whoe will needs turne, (1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19. 20. H••br. 7. 11. 12. 13. 14.) Jewes, or Gentiles, or both, in erectinge Altars, must likewise

imitate them in the scituation of their Altars, or else reject their Altars, as well as their manner of scituation in the middest, which they refuse to followe.

For the third, howe the Jewes Tables, & the Table at which our Saviour instituted the Sacrament were scituated? It is apparant, that they were so placed, as that they usually sate round about them, This is evident by the 1. Sam. 16. 11. where Samuel sayd to Jesse, send and fetch David, for wee will not sitt ROUND till hee come hither (so the Hebrewe, and Margin read it) and by Psalm. 128. ••. Thy children shalbee like Olive plants ROUND ABOUT THY TABLE. Our Saviour and his Disciples at the Institution of the Lords sup∣per sate round about the Table, after the Jewish Custome, as is evident by Matthew 9. 10 c. 26. 20. 26. 27. Mar. 14. 18. 19. 20. c. 16. 14. Luke 7. 37. 49. c. 11. 39. c. 22. 14. 27. 30. c. 24. 30. John 13. 12. 18. 23. 1. Cor. 10. 1••. 21. c. 11. 20. &c. compared with the two former texts. Hence Thomas Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 3. c. 2. p. 114. 115. writes thus: In the dayes of our Saviour it is apparant, that the gesture of the Jewes was such as the Romanes used. The Table BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST ROUND ABOUT THE TABLE Were cer∣taine bedds, some tymes two, some tymes three, some tymes more, accordinge to the number of the guests, upon these they lay downe in manner as followeth: each bedd contained 3. persons, some tymes. 4. sildome, or never more. If one lay upon the bedd, then hee rested the upper part of his body on the left elbowe, the lower part lyinge at length upon the bedd, but if many lay upon the bedd, then the uppermost did lye at the bedds head, layinge his feet behinde the seconds backe, in like manner. The third or fourth did lye, each restinge his head in the others bosome: Thus John leaned on Jesus bosome. Iohn 13. 23. Their Tables were perfectly circulare or round, whence their manner of sittinge was ter∣med Mesibah, a sittinge ROUND, and their phrase of in∣vitinge

their guests to sit downe was, sit ROUND. 1. Sam. 10. 11. Psal. 128. 3. Thus hee, with whom all the Rabines, and Commentators on these texts accord. So amonge the Romans, the Tables were placed, and the guests sate downe in the selfe same manner as they did amonge the Iewes, as Godwyn in his Roman Antiquites l. 2. sect. 3. c. 14. Records, yea amongez 1.32 most Nations in all their Feasts, their Tables at which they sate downe to eate or drinke, were ever placed in such sorte, and with such a distance from the wall, that the guests sate round about them: And so are all the Tables placed here in England, none ever seeinge a dyninge-Table placed like a side-Table against a wall, in such sorte as our Communion Tables are nowe scituated in many places. If then all Tables at which men eate, & drinke, have ever both amonge the Iewes, & Romans, our owne, all other Nations, been placed in the midst of the roome, or in such sort that men might sitt round about them: Why shoulde not then the Lords Table (especially when wee eate, and drinke the Lords supper) bee placed in the midst of the Church, or Chauncell in such sort, that all the people maye sitt or kneel round, and eate, and drinke about it, since Christ himselfe, & his Apostles when hee instituted this Sacrament had their Table thus situated, and satt round it, as all acknowledge? Is not that order best which all Nations, ages, yea Christ himselfe, & his Apostles used? And are not those both factious, & obstinately schismaticall whoe contrarie to the usage of all Nations, ages, & our Saviours owne example, will place the Lords Table Altar∣wise, like a dresser, or side Table, against the East wall of the Church, as farr of as maye bee from the people, that so none maye sitt, & receive neere it, much lesse round about it, & that without all Reason, sence, or president? undoubtedly they are, yet such is the sottishnes, pride, & superstitious wilfulnes of many of our do∣mineeringe Prelates, whose will is their only reason, Religion, Lawe, that they will bee wiser then Christ, then his Apostles, then all the worlde besides, & no place seemes soe fittinge to them for the Com∣munion Tables situation, as that which is most unfitt, the East end

of the Chauncell wall, against which one side of it must leane, for feare of fallinge, & is there imprisoned, impounded with railes & barrs, for feare of runninge awaye. O Madnes ô folly whether are these mens witts, & sences fledd, whoe are thus soe strangely * 1.33 frentike out of their overmuch learninge?

For the 4. How Communion Tables (some tymes tearmed Altars improperly) were placed in the Primitive Church? The fore-mentioned passages of Eusebius, Augustine, the 5. Councill of Constantinople, Bishop Jewell, & others assure us, that they were placed in the midst of the Church, or Quire, not at the East end against the wall, as they are now: To these I shall add, Thata 1.34 Socrates Scholasticus, andb 1.35 Nicephorus record, That in the Church of Antioch in Syria, the Altar stood not to the East, but towards the West.c 1.36 Walafridus Strabus records the same in expresse words, & further informes us, that many did praye from the East to the West. And that the Jewes where ever they were, usually prayed* 1.37 towards the Temple at Hie∣rusalem; (as Daniell did in greate Babell, which stood East from Hierusalem, as Esay 43. 5. Ier. 49. 28. Dan. 11. 44. Zach. 8. 7. Math. 2. 1. 2. and all Mapps witnesse, Soe that Daniell prayinge towards, it, turned his face directly West, not East; as our Novellers dotingly fancie, whoe alleage his example, for turninge their faces in prayer, the buildinge of Chancells, Chappells, Churches, Altars, placinge Communion Tables, and bowinge, toward the East, when as hee prayed Westward only, and his example is quite opposite, and point blanke against them; and their superstitious.* 1.38 easterly adoration, deri∣ved from Necromancers, and those heathen Idolaters, Ezech. 8. 16. whoe worshipp the risinge sunne, toward the East, as D. Willet Synopsis papismi. contr. 9. qu. 6. Error. 52. proves against the Papists.) And from thence Walafridus thus concludes: Wee beinge instructed by these examples, knowe, that those have not erred, neither doe they erre, whoe either in Temples newly built to God, or cleansed from the filthynes of Idolls, have sett their Altars towards divers clymates, accordinge to

the opportunitie of the places; because there is no place where God is not present: for we have learned by most true relation, that in the Church of Ierusalem, which Constant••ne & his mo∣ther built over the Sepulchre of our Lord, of a wonderfull greatenes, in a round forme; in the Temple of Rome anciently called Pantheon, consecrated by Boniface, by Phocas the Empe∣rors permission, to the honour of all Sancts, & in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles, Altars have been placed, not only towards the East, but likewise distributed into other parts, and quarters of the Church. These since they were so placed either unpossibly, or by necessitie, wee dare not disapprove. Let every man abound in his owne sence, The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth, and salvation is farr from sinners. Let us drawe neere to us: Thus hee. Gregorie Na∣zianzen in his 21. Oration. p. 399. declaming against the un∣worthie Bishops and Ministers of his age, sayth thus: They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with un∣washen hands and mindes, as they say, and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe, and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur & protenduntur, and are pressed & thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE (not Altar) esteeming this order, not an example of virtue but a maintenance & helpe of life; A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated, that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it.d 1.39 S. Chryso∣stome in his first Homilie upon Esay. 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge &c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table? doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE, AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence? A cleare Evidence, that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age, that men, and Angells might stand round about, and Compasse it on every part. To witt, in the middest of the Church or Quire, ase 1.40 S. Augustine his

coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words. where no doubt it al∣wayes stood (as the learned* 1.41 Thomas Verow testifyeth) till pri∣vate Popish Masses (wherein the Preist only receiveth) removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall, as remote, as might bee from the people. If any object, (as the late* 1.42 Coale from the Altar doth) thatf 1.43 Socrates Schola∣sticus, and Nicephorus write: That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East. I answeare:

First, that before their dayes in Eusebius, Chrysostomes, Au∣gustines, & the Emperour Zeno his tyme, it stood in the midst of the Church, or Quire, and soe it did in Durandus his age, 1320. yeares after Christ,g 1.44 and in the Greeke Churches an∣ciently and at this day, as Bishop Jewell hath formerly pro∣ved.

2. Neither of these two Authors affirme, that the Altar, or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall, as nowe they are placed, the thing to be proved; but only toward the East part of the Church, ad Orientem versus, sayth Nicephorus: that is, neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church; to witt, in the middest of the Chauncell, or Quire (which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then, as our Chauncells, & Quires are nowe, though not in all;) as is evident by the forequoted authorities: Soe as the argument hence deduced, can bee but this non sequitur, Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Chur∣ches, (to witt in the midst of the Quires, & Chauncells which stood Easterly, as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late,) Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell, as some Novellers nowe place them; whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye: They were placed toward the East end of the Church, therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise: since toward the East, is one thinge, and in the East another, as toward London in case of scituation, or travell) is one thinge, in London another, That which is toward

London, beinge not in it, as hee whoe is toward Marriage, is not yet actually maried. Wee reade of Daniell, that hee prayed to∣ward Hierusalem, Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable, many miles from it. Wee reade likewise of certainei 1.45 Idolaters, (and of noe others but them in Scripture, for the Jewes usually prayed Westward, the Tabernacle, and Temple beinge soe scituated) whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the East, & worshipped the sunne towards the East; yet they s••ood not in the East end, but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple be∣tweene the porch,k 1.46 and the Altar, which stood West, not East ward; yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene, to¦ward the East, and in the East. Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against, not for our Innovators; whoe can produce noe one authen∣ticke writer, testimonie or example, for above a thowsand yeares after Christ, to prove, that Altars, or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire, in such manner as nowe they place them; there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie, that they stood in the midst of the Quire, Church, or Chauncell, where nowe they ought to stand, as they did in former ages.

I come nowe to the 5. thinge, to examine, what place is most proper, and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table, especially when the Sacrament is administred? Noe doubt the midst of the Church, or Chauncell, (not the East end of it, where it is newly placed) as the Rubricke of the Communion booke, Queene Elizabeths Injunctions, the 82. Canon, the fore-cited Fathers, and writers resolve in expresse tearmes; and that for those ensuinge reasons, which under correction cannot bee answeared.

First, because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament, was placed in the midst of the roome, hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it,

and soe administringe, and receivinge it, as the premises mani∣fest. Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution, and example as neere as maye bee, 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament, but likewise in all decent, and convenient Cir∣cumstances, whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one: Amonge the 6. reasons, why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar, published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill, this was the 5. and Cheifest.m 1.47 Christ did institute the Sacra∣ment of his body and blood at a Table, not at an Altar; where∣fore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar, therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion. The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table; The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agrea∣ble with Christs institution then the standinge of it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire, Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other.

2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles, Fathers, and primitive Church in the purest tymes, as I have already manifested, & of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas,

3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer, Queene Elizabeths Injunctions, the Bishops owne Canons, and the judgement of our best writers.

4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of ta∣bles amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade & at home, whoe place their Tables at which they eate, and drinke, in the midst of their dyninge roomes, at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt, or stand round about them, The Lords Ta∣ble therefore beinge a table to eate, and drinke at, 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture, & all sortt of writers from

the Apostles dayes till nowe, the Lords supper; ••. Co••. 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest, & decentest, which is Common to all suppinge tables, & doth best expresse, & resemble the nature of a supper, by standinge in the midst of the Communicants; and their sittinge, standinge, or kneelinge round about it altogeather (not by severall files, and turnes,) like soe many bidden-guests. Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise, like a Dresser, or side∣Cubberd, not a Table; & the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files; and there to receive by turnes, kneelinge, doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table, nor the other to bee the Lords supper.

5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will o 1.48 more move the simple people from the superstitious opi∣nions of the Popish Masse, Altars, Preists, sacrifices, and pri∣vate Masses, where the Preist alone Communicates, & drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper. Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell, nowe urged is nothinge else, but to usher Altars; Preists, publique, and private Masses, adoration of Altars, and the Hostia, transubstantiation, and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe, as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke, & vaunt, and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience. This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table, and administringe the Sacrament, was used in the primitive Church, till* 1.49 Poperie, & private Masses, thrust it out. When Poperie, Masses, Masse Preists, Transubstantiation, Altars, adoration of the Hostia, & other Popish trash were abolished, thisp 1.50 scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne An∣tidote against these popish innovations, and soe hath conti∣nued eversince. The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe, & soe ought with all dili∣gence, and courage to bee with stood.

6. Because this scituation is mostq 1.51 orderly, and decent, and that in 5. regards.

First, Because the Minister thereby maye bee more con∣veniently

heard of the Communicants in his prayer, his ad∣ministration, and Consecration, which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire, or Chauncell in most greate Churches, and parishes.

2. Because there the Cōmmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently, and in greater number communicate with the Minister, then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell, as remote as maye bee from the people: Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke, Queene Elizabeths Injunctions, and the 82. Canon, neither can they bee gaine sayd.

3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye* 1.52 more easily see the Minister when, and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament, then when hee is more remote, and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God, and saye Amen to every prayer, as they arer 1.53 enioy••ed.

4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute, and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table.

5. When the Table stands in the midst, all the Communi∣cants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance, disorder, noise, or stirr, as they ares 1.54 expressely Commanded to doe. 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end, c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe d••vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall, and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile, and there to receive, divides the Communion, Communicants, and Congregation, makinge so many Communions, and Congregations as there are Companies; breeds a Confusion, disorder, disturbance, noise, distra∣ction, and oft tymes a Contention in the Church, in causinge the people to march upp and downe, some one waye, and some another, to contend whoe shall first receive, or take the uppermost place, to crowd, thrust, and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro, drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it, breeds many

quarrells, factions, schismes, and divisions betweene the Minister & the people, hinder the Communicants much in their Medita∣tions, prayers, reverence, devotion, attention, singinge; enforceth the people whoe are olde, blinde, lame, sicke, impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive, whoe shoulde rather come to them; in∣verts the practice & Custome of our Church ever since reformation, lengthens the administration, and puts all into a Combustion, yea into Confusion, causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists.

7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles & Articles, THE COMMUNION, & his Table the COMMUNION TABLE: Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people, & in a Common, not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM, or COLLO∣CATUM, ever used to expresse a thing that is Common; & the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence. Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people, the rayling of it in that so none, but the Minister may have accesse unto it, destroyes both the Communion & Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister, and sequestring it from the people.

8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church, and Congregation, because that is the place wherein God & Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence, as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence, not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame, & Magisterially determine. Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MID∣DEST of his holie place, and Cittie. Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple. Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us, and wee are called by thy name. Hosea 11. 9. I am God, and not man, the holie one in the MIDST of thee. Joell 2. 27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell. Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie, the Lord is in the MIDST thereof. The Kinge of Israell, even the midst of thee. The Lord thy God in the MIDST of

thee is mightie. Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her. Math. 18. 2••. Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them. Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors. John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples, after his resurrection, hee came and stood in the MIDST of them, and sayde, Peace bee unto you. Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee, & to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks, which are there interpreted, to bee the 7. Churches. Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne, and in the MIDST of the Elders. Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush, a type of the Church. Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd. Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites, that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb. 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire. Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes, and of fire too. Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay. c. 12. v. 6. writes thus, Crie out, and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion, for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee. By all which texts it is evident, That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple, congregation, people; whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth, they are specially present at the Temple, Congregation, people, The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate, the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth, and his Chaire of Estate (as Giles Widdowes, Shelford, Reeves, & other Novellers dogma∣tize) ought to bee placed in the middest of the people, Church, and Congregation, where these Scriptures joyntly affirme, that God, and Christ are more immediately, & specially present, if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple, then another, as they saye hee is.

9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth, Our bodies are the Temples of Christ, and the holy Ghost. 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples, but in the heart (seated in the midst of the bodie.) Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell, and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations: Therefore for this and the prece∣dent, reasons, our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires, as they have been in auncient tymes, where our Injunct••ons, Canons, writers, Communion booke, and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same, prescribe, that they shoulde stand, at least wise when the Sacrament is administred.

10. The Altar of Incense, and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire, or Sanctum Sanctorum, but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple, as the premises Evi∣dence, and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records. Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible, intimate, (which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar im∣properly in relation to them) that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were.

Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons; for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell, specially at the Sacraments administration. I come nowe in the 6. place, to examine those reasons which are, or can bee alleaged by our Novellers, for placinge Communion Tables, Altarwise against the East end, wall, of the Quire of Chauncell.

The first reason alleaged by them is this; The high Altar or Lords Table (sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford* 1.55 Preist in his Sermon of Gods house, Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18.) usually standeth at the East end of Gods house, Idque propter Chri∣stum &c. and that because of Christ whe•• is called the light of the worlde, and ORIENS, to with the branch.

Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East. Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument, is this,

Christ is called the light of the vvorld, the BRANCH, and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East.

Therefore the Communion Table & high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church.

What frentique Bedlam logicke, & divinitie is this? what Con∣sequence or Coherence in this argumentation? Is not this farr worse then that oft 1.56 Durandus, & other P••pists, Christ is called a Rocke, and a Corner stone. 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone; To whicht I might vetor•• from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is cal••ed the branch; Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood, not stone (Christ beinge else where called au 1.57 vyne, Tree of life &c. & more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it. Therefore high Altars, and Communion Ta∣bles ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church, since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood, not stone, (asx 1.58 Bishop Jewell, andy 1.59 Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine, Optatus, Chryso∣stome, Athanasius, and others) as our Communion Tables are, and ought to bee, by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer (which calls it Gods BOARD) the Ho∣mily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament, Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end, Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter, and 6. reasons. Fox Acts and Mo∣numents p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603.

Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles. Art. 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament: on Math. 23. sect. 7. on Heb. 13. sect. 6. on Apoc. 6. sect. 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect. 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds confe∣rence with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi, the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part. 2. Error 55. p. 498.* 1.60 Bishop Jewell, and* 1.61 Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin. Bishop Farrar, Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404:1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination. Fox ibidem. p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall. Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone. But to come to a more particular exami∣nation of this part of this argument.

First hee sayth, Christ is the light of the worlde. Ergo. Com∣munion Tables ought to stand Altarwise at the East end of the Church. This ce••tainely is but a madd Consequence.

For first, Christ is noe Corporall, or naturall, but a spirituall and supernaturall light, enlightninge mens understandings, only by the light of his word, his grace, and spirit, John 1. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Heb. 6. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal. 19. 8. not their corporall eyes.

2. Hee is an universall light in this respect. John 1. 8. 9. not scituated or fixed in the East, but diffused over the whole worlds as farr as his Church is spread,

3. The place where this light is ordinarily dispensed in the rea∣dinge & preachinge of his word, is not the Communion Table, o•• Altar, but the Pulpitt, & readinge deske, standinge for the most part about the midst of our Churches, not at the East but West end of our Chancells.

4. There is no Analogie betweene the Communion Table and light, unlesse in respect of those Candlesticks, & unburninge tapers which some Popish Novellers place for a double shewe upon it, contrarie to the* 1.62 Homilies, & Articles which expressely con∣demne them.

5. Light is of a diffusive nature, spreadinge it selfe into every quarter-indifferently, & torches, or Candles that give light are Commonly placed in the midst, Math. 5. 15. not at the East end of the roome or Table, that they maye give light to all that are in the house. Witnes the greate Lamp in the midst of Paules Quire, or greate braunched Candlesticks, in the midst of our Churches, & that of the Apostle. Phil. 2. 15. Amonge whom yee shyne as lights of the worlde in the MIDST of a crooked and perverse Nation. The Candlesticks & Lam∣pes amonge the Jewes were placed not in the East, but South∣side of the Tabernacle. Exod. 40. 24. 25. In the Temple the Candlesticks that were placed. 5. on the Northside, 5. on the South. 2. Chron. 4. 7. but none in the East end: So that from these particulars it appeares, that there is no Analogie betweene light and the Couimunion Table, & that if any argument maye bee thence deduced for its scituation, it will bee but this, That it ought to stand in the midst, or in the South, or Northside of the Church, because the Lamps, lights, Candlesticks were & are soe placed in the Tabernacle, Temple, and most of our Churches, and Christ is sayd to bee, and walke in the midst of the golden Candlesticks. Rev. ••. 13. 20. c. 2. 2.

For the second braunch of this argument, Christ is a branch. (for soe Oriens is used, Zeph. 6, 12. the place hee quotes) Ergo the Lords Table ought to stand at the East end of the Church. As it is a ridiculous Inconsequent (fitt for a Cambridge Ignora∣mus, (where this good Logicall argument, with many such like, was printed) so there is little Analoges betweene branches & Lords Tables, unlesse in regard of matter.

For First, Trees and branches growe not in Churches, or Tem∣ples.

2. They springe upp, & are planted as well West, North, and South as East, & are Commonly planted with us West, & South, to avoid the East, & North blastinge windes.

3. Christ is a branch, yea a tree of life seituated not in the East but in the midst of the Paradice of God. Rev. 2. 7. of

which the tree of knowledge of good, and evill in the midst of Paradice. Gen. 2. 9. c. 3. 3. was but a tipe: This allusion therefore, as it is impertinent, (there beinge no similitude betweene the Lords Table, & a branch,) so •• proves, that the Communion Table shoulde bee placed in the midst of the Church, because Christ the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge (typifyinge him) were planted in the midst of Paradize, a tipe of the Church.

For the third, That Christ shall come out of the East, Ergo, the Communion Table ought to stand in the East end of the Church; As this argument is taken out of Bellarmine l. 3. de Sanctis c. 3. (who useth it to justifie, and prove that wee onght to praye, and build our Churches towards the East,) and well answeared and refuted by Doctort 1.63 Willet in the name of the Protestants, whoe condemne this superstition, which many nowe pleade for: So it is built upon a false foundation.

For first no Scripture sayth, That Christ shall come to Iudgment from the East: but that hee shall come in the Cloudes, Rev. 1. 7. Math. 24. 30. and soe come againe as hee ascended: Acts 1. 11. But hee ascended upright in a cloude, into heaven, not East ward. Acts 1. 9. 10. 11. Luke 24. 51. Marke 16. 19. Therefore hee shall so discend; Heaven beinge neither East, West, North or South in regard of the Earth its Center, but diametrally about it, And soe Christs discent from it must bee such. 1. Thess. 4. 16.

2. That text of Math. 24. 27. (As the lightninge com∣meth out of the East; and shineth Even unto the West, so shall the comminge of the sonne of man bee:) as all Orthodox di∣vines generally accord, relates only to the celeri••ie, sodainenes and terriblenes of Christs comminge to judgment (which shall bee as swift, as suddaine, and terrible as lightninge. 1. Cor. 15. 52. 1. Thess. 4. 16. c. 5. 2. 3. 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rev. 6. 12. to the end. Luke 21. 34. 35. Marke 13. 32. to 37. which thus explaine it;) not to that part of heaven from whence hee shall descend; which if it bee East in respect of one

part of the world, must yet bee West, North & South, as to other parts, in relation to that Clymate or Country to which hee shall descend: the worlde beinge plainely Circular, & globall, havinge no angles nor squares, & so no East, West, North, or South if simplie considered in it selfe.

3. Admitt that Christ shoulde come to Iudgment out of the East in respect of England, and these partes of the worlde; yet this is no Reason to prove, that our Communion Tables shoulde bee pla∣ced at the East end, of our Chauncells Altarwise, (for then no doubt the primitive Christians woulde have so placed it, & not in the midst of their Churches.

For First, the Lords Table serves only for the administration of the Sacrament instituted, to shewe forth Christs till hee come, 1. Cor. 25. 26. not to demonstrate the manner of his second com∣minge to Iudgment, to which the Table hath no relation. Christs second comminge therefore havinge no reference to the Communion Table, nor the Table to it, can bee noe argument for its Easterlie scitnation.

2. The Apostle in the 1. Cor. 11. in all matters & Circum∣stances concerninge the administration of the Sacrament, sends us only to Christs originall institution, not to his second Com∣minge, But the Table at which hee instituted the Sacrament stood in the midst, as I have proved, Therefore our Communion Tables, shoulde so stand nowe, let Christs come to Iudgment which waye hee please.

3. Christs gives us this charge by his Apostles, do all things decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 11. 33. 34. c. 13. 40. never sendinge us to take a patterne from the manner of his second Com∣minge, which is left Arbitrarie to himselfe and his Fathers pleasure, Acts 1. 7. Math. 24. 36. not prescribed as a pattorne of imi tation unto us: But the standinge of the Table in the midst in Christ, the primitive, and all reformed Churches Iudgments, is most decent, and Convenient, therefore it is to bee observed, and retained of us.

The second reason alleaged by our Novellers for their newe

dislocation of Communion Tables, is this: The Communion Tables ought to bee placed at the East end of the Chancell, because it is Christs mercy seate, his claire of Estate, and the speciall place of his presence here on Earth, on which hee sitts, and resides, and the East end of the Chauncell or Quire is the upper, the best part, the prime place of honour in the Church, and therefore no seates ought to bee there suffered, and the Altar, the Communion Table must bee there seated that soe none maye take the wall of Christ, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sitt above him and God Almighty. This reason hath been often alleaged by our* 1.64 Arch∣bishops, Bishops, and others in the high-Commission, and urged byl 1.65 Giles Widdowes,m 1.66 M. Shelford,n 1.67 Reeve, & other fantasticke Scriblers in their ridiculous frant••cke novel Pamphlets which no man maye have libertie freely to write or preach against, though never so erroneous, superstitious, Popish, and absurd. To this I answeare.

First, that the mercy-seate was Jewish, tipicall, & abolished by Christs death, of whom it was a type. Rom. 3. 25. 1. John 2. 2. Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 9. 1. to 12. and all Commentators on these textt, & on Exod. c. 25. and 26. and 30. and 31. and 37. and 39. and 40. Godwins Roman Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. Therefore is not, it cannot bee a mercy seate.

2. The mercie seate was nothinge else but the Coveringe of the Arke, so called, because it Covered, and hidd the Lawe, it was made of pure gold, two cubites, and an halfe broade with two Cherubims of gold of beaten worke in the two ends of the mercie seate, and it was put above upon the Arke. Exod. 25. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. 26. 34. c. 30. 6. c. 31. 7. c. 37. 6. to 10. c. 40. 20. Lev. 16. 13. 14. 15. Num. 7. 8. 9. Our Communion Tables are not such for matter, forme, worke∣manshipp, scituation, neither is there any Arke upon the topp whereof they maye bee satt, & if you will make the Quire resem∣ble the Arke, you must then place them upon the roofe and leds of our Quires, therefore they are not mercy seates.

3. God did only dispence his word and Oracles, and all

things which hee gave Commaundement to the Children of Israell from betweene the two Cherubims, and the mercie seate. Exod. 25. 22. and the fore-quoted texts. The pulpi•• therefore in this regard & of it elevation above the pewes, & people shoulde rather bee Christs mercie seate, then the Communion Table, where Christ only distributed his bodie and blood unto us, not his word, and precepts.

4.o 1.68 The Arke and mercy seate stood in the Sanctum San∣ctorum at the West end of the Temple, not the East. Heb. 9. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. whether none but the high Preist might enter, and that but once a yeare not without blood. If therefore the Communion Table bee a mercy seate, it must stand in the West end of our Churches upon the topp of the Arke in a Sanctrum Sancto∣rum, as it did, neither ought any Bishop or Preist to come neere it, but the high Preist only, (to with the Archbishop of Canterbury Private of all Engiand) and that once a yeare, and noe more, with blooddy sacrifices.

5. There was but* 1.69 one mercy seate standinge only in the Temple, not in the Synagogues over the Arke, which was but one. If therefore the Lords Table bee a mercie seate, there shoulde bee but one in all the worlde. This first reason therefore is but a Iewish frenticke dreame.

6. The paten which containes the Consecrated breade, and the Chalice, which hold the hallowed wyne, & stand upon the Table, as the mercy seate did upon the Arke beinge made of silver in most, & of gold in some places, shoulde rather be Christs mercy seate then the Table it selfe, yet no men bowe, or cring to them, or plead for their honour, and precedently, though more worthy in respect of matter, use, & immediate contayninge of the materiall partes of the Sacrament, then the Table.

2. I answeare, That the Communion Table is not Christs Chaire of Estate, as these Novellers dogmatize. For heaven only is Christs Throane, Earth but his foo stoole. Gen. 4. 2. Psal. 103. 11. Psal. 110. 1. Heb. 1. 13. c. 8. 1. c. 10. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 34. Psal. 11. 4. Isay 66. 1. Matth. 5. 34. Acts. 7. 49.

And it is the expresse resolution of the Scripture, and the Article of our Creede, that Christ in his humane nature hath his Throane, and mercy seate only at his Fathers owne right hand in heaven, where hee sits in Majesty and glorie, makinge per∣petuall intercession for us; and shall there constantly reside untill his second comminge to Iudgment, Acts 1. 11. c. 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. howe then the Communion Table can bee his chaire of State, and cheife place of his presence, I cannot conjecture.

2. Christ in the Sacrament exhibits himselfe not in his State & glorie to us, but in the very depth of his passion & humiliation, the Sacrament beinge instituted, not to manifest his exaltation and glorie, but to expresse unto us the breakinge of Gods body & effusion of his blood on the Crosse, & to shewe forth his death till his comminge. 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26. Math. 26. 28. Luke 22. 19. 20. Howe therefore this place, Phil. 2. 7. 8. and Emblem of his greatest debasement, can bee colourobly stiled, his chaire of State and M••j••sty, I cannot comprehend.

3. Whoe ever heard a Table to eate & drinke at, tearmeds chare of State, either in respect of the meate, or guests? or howe can it bee so tearmed without grosse absurditie, especially when the party there present on it, is exposed to us only as spirituall meate and drinke, to bee received by us, not adored of us. 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. 16. 17. 21. c. 11. 21. to 30. John 6. 48. to 59.

4. If any thinge maye bee there tearmed Christs Chaire of Estate, it shoulde bee the Plater & Chalice, wherein the breade & wyne are imediately comprised, not the Table whereon they stand, which is rather a footstoole to support Christs Chaire, then the Chaire wherein hee sits in State; the breade & wyne not so much as touchinge the Table.

5. Why shoulde the Lords Table bee Christs mercy seate or Chaire of State, rather then the Font, the Pulpit, or Church Bible? Is not Christ as really & spiritually present in the one as the other, by his mercy, grace, & spirit? and 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 transub∣stantiation of the breade & wyne into Christs verie bodie & bloode, a notorious Popish absurditie, longea 1.70 since exploded by our Church, & drowned inb 1.71 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, thec 1.72 mercy seate stood in the end of the Taber∣nacle, 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 Chan∣cell 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 check∣mate 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 pronoun∣cinge 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 pre∣cedency, 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 hea∣ven, & 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 honou∣rable and prime place of the Church and Quire; For in all Cathe∣dralls that I have seene, & in his Majesties, Chappells, 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 re∣puted. 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 sci∣tuated, 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 upper∣most place of the Church; yet it is only such, and thus to bee sci∣tuated when the Sacrament is administred: For howe is it his Chaire of State, his mercy seate, and cheifest place of resi∣dence, 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 Chan∣cell. 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 hono∣rable place of the Church, unlesse they will Condemne the Fa∣thers, the primitive, yea our owne Church, and all our cheife wri∣ters 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 as venerable, as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table, both in respect of matter, use, relation to God and Christ, and divine institution? undoubtedly they are; therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers, Shewbread Tables, and Altar were in Solomons Temple which stood one by the side of the other. 2. Chron. c. 4. & 5.

6. If the East end of the Church or Quire be the most worthy; and fittest for the Tables scituation nowe, why was it not so for the Arke, the Altar, and shewbread Table heretofore? why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple, but in the West; the midst of it, or in the Court, as the premises Manifest? Certainely if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignitie, no preheminen••ie or implements in them heretofo••e by di∣vine appointment, our Novellers can have little reason to plea∣de, that they ought to have any such precedency, honour, or use nowe.

The third reason alleaged for the placinge of Communion Ta∣bles. Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells, is; because they are High Altars: Sog 1.73 Saelford, Reeves, and the Coale from the Altar, and Bishop Mountague in his least Lent Sermon stile them; contrarie to the dialect of our Church, after the Popish language;h 1.74 This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise, to bringe in Altars, Preists, bowinge to Al∣tars, kneelinge, at, and before them, to adore the Hostia (to which wee are already proceeded) and in fine, to sett upp publi∣que, and private Masses, yea the whole body of Poperie againe: For which these are immediate preparatives, of which they are reall parts & and adjuncts: This, and this only is the true undoubted cause,i 1.75 (all others meere idle pretences to delude the peo∣ple) why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places, & lately rayled in Altarwise in most parishes

against the East wall of the Quire. And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates, & Churchmen who originally presse it, not only the qualities, doctrines and actions of the parties themsel∣ves which every m••ns Conscience, & experience visibly discernes unlesse he be strangely hoodwinckt, but the things themselves com∣pared with the historie of former tymes declare.

For if wee looke into the storie of the Church, wee shall finde, that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reforma∣tion, was the pullinge downe of Altars, and settinge upp of Communion Tables, and the first thinge againe acted upon the restitution of popery was the settinge up of Altars, & tur∣ninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates doe, upon which Masses presently were sayd: Thus we reade: thatk 1.76 in the yeare of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Reli∣gion at Berne Constance, Gene••a, Basill, Stransburge, and other Citties the first thinge they did, was this; they proclay∣med that Masses, ALTARS, & Images in all places shoulde bee abolished, and there upon, the Images and Altars, with Ceremonies, and Masses were accordingly removed and abo∣lished in them all. Aboutl 1.77 the yeare of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont beinge sommoned & pressed to forsake God and revolt againe to Idolatrie, which they had begun to cast of, agreed togeather to make a solemne protestation, that they woulde utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope, and live, and die in the maintenance and confession of Gods word and truth. Whereupon they sayd, lett us all goe to morrowe into the Temple to heare the word of God, & after let us cast to the ground all the Idolls, and ALTARS; to which they all agreed; sayinge, let us soe doe; yea, and that the very same houre in the which they have appointed us to bee at the Councill house: Whereupon the next daye after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body, & as soone as they came into the Temple without any further delaye, they beate downe the Images, & cast downe the ALTARS. After Sermon they went to Billers where they beate downe

their Images and ALTARS. Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginninge of Reformation in his Raigne, gave order to pull downe Altars, and sett upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdome, And to the ende that all of them might bee totallie abolished.

Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the forme of the Lords board, and to procure one Godlie uniformity, ex∣horted all his Diocesse, unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture, with the usage of the Apostles, with the primitive Church, and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings, in abolishing of divers vaine, and superstitio••s opinions of the Popish Masse, out of the hearts of the simple, which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the forme of an Altar, then of a Table, as the King and Councell in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved, and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture, of the Lords Supper; Hereupon (I say) he appointed the forme of a right Table to be used in his Diocesse, (according to the King & Councells instructions and consideration) and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standing by the High Altars side. And upon this occasion (as it most probable) he wrote his booke DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARI∣BUS, of breaking downe Altars, registred by Bishop B••le among other his workes, though not now extant that I can find. Not long before this, John Hoper Bishop of Gloster, (afterwards a Martyr, as was that worthy Ridley) preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah, printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio, tooke occasion thus to Censure Altars, and to move the King utterly to demolish them. If question now be asked, is there then no Sacrifice left to bee done of Chri∣stian people? yea truly, but none other then such, as might be done without Altars, and they be of 3. sorts. The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving, Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence, and liberality to the poore, Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Heb. 13.

16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is, the mortifying of our owne bodies, and to die from sinne. Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we studie not dayly to offer these Sacrifices to God, we be no Christian men, seing Christian men have no other Sacri∣fices then these which may and ought to be done without Al∣tars. There should among Christians be no Altars, And ther∣fore it was not without the great wisdome and knowledge of God, that Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church lacked Altars, For they knew that the use of them was taken away, It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables according to the first institu∣tion of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people, they have of Sacrifices to be done, upon Altars, For* 1.78 as long as the Altars remaine, both the ignorant people, and the igno∣rant, & evill perswaded Preist will dream alway of Sacrifice. Therfore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition, then should the true Religion of God sooner take place, which he thus seconds, in his 8. Sermon upon Ionah. A great shame it is for a Noble King, Emperour, or Magistrate contrary to Gods word, to deteyne or keep from the devill or his Ministers any of their goods o•• Treasure, as the Candles, Images, Crosses, vestiments Altars: For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent, at length they will be maintayned as things ne∣cessary, as now we find true by late wofull experience. And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah, hee proceeds thus: But this prayer of Jonas is so acceptable, it might be thought of some men, that the place where Jonas prayed in should have be••tered it; as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time, that judgeth the Prayer sayd at the High Altar, to be better then that which is sayd in the Quier; that in the Quier better, then that which is sayd in the body of the Church, that in the body of the Church, better then that which is sayd in the Feild or in a mans Chamber. But our Prophet sayth the Lord hath no re∣spect to the place, but to the heart & faith of him that prayeth.

And that appeareth. For penitent Jonas prayeth out of the whales belly, and miserable Job upon the dung heape, Daniell in the Cave of the Lyons, Hieremie in the claypit, the theife upon the Crosse, S. Stephen under the Stones, wherfore the grace of God is to bee prayed for in every place, and every where as our necessity shall have need, and wanteth solace. Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place, because that our necessity requireth helpe in every place, yet I doe not condemne the publike place of prayer, whereas Gods word is preached, his holy Sacrament used, and common prayer made unto God, but allow the same, and sory it is no more frequented & haunted, but this I would wish, that the Magistrates would put both the Preist, Minister and the people into* 1.79 one place, and shut up the partition called the C••auncell, that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other, as though the vayle and partition of the Temple in the old Law, yet should remaine in the Church, where indeed all signes & types are en∣ded in Christ: And in case this were done, it should not only expresse the dignity & grace of the New Testament, but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister, and also provoke the sayd Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Iudgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church: further that such as would re∣ceive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ, might both heare and see playnly what is done, as it was used in the Primative Church, when as the abomination done upon Altars was not knowne, nor the Sacrifice of Christs precious blood so conculcated and troden under feet. Hereupon, as also upon M. Bucers forecited opinion to this purpose, and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx, London 1559. (and not upon M. Calvins Letter, as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40.)o 1.80 all the Altars in England by the King and his Councells direction were utterly taken

away out of all Cathedrall Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappells, and Tables sett up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late, to witt in the middest of the Church or Chauncell, as appeares by that isp 1.81 storied of Bishop Farrar, by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales, where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop, finding an Altar sett up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion, contrary to the King and Councells Ordinance, caused the sayd Altar to be taken away, and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH, which the Vicar removing, Bishop Farrar himselfe in the third yeare of King Edwards Raigne; Commaunded the Vicar to sett the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL againe, neere the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion. After this in the 5. & 6. yeare of King Ed∣wards Raigne, as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church, (according to theq 1.82 prophesie of William Mauldon; who in th•• dayes of King Henry the 8. when the Masse most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in mans reason it might seeme unpossible that the glorie & opinion of them soe depely roo∣ted in the hearts of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many could by any meanes possible so soone decay and vanish to naught, yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. yeares by the spirit (no doubt) of prophesie declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to passe, that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the rootes, &c.) so the veryr 1.83 name of them was wholly ex∣punged out of the Booke of Common Prayer, by the whole Convocation and Parliament, and the name of Gods-boord, Lords-Table, Table, and Holy-Table, inserted and retained both in the Rubricke and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed, & the Table enjoyned therein

at the tyme of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chauncell. And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority, the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church, and of the worthy receiving the Sa∣crament, and the name of the Lords Table only used and men∣tioned in them, as he that reades them may discerne. A truth so cleare; that the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar, p. 39. 40. confesseth; that the former Liturgie, (wherein was the name of Altar) was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Booke then established; ye•• upon this only ground, not from any scan∣da•• which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people, but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgie by Calvin, who was all in all with my Lord Protector &c. A very likely tale, I promise you. As if the whole Parliament and Clergie of England, would be so rash or inconsiderate, as to alter their whole Liturgies 1.84 formerly confirmed by Parleament, only to humor M. Calvin, (without any Scripture, reason, or other convincing considerations,) and upon no other groundes. Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjecturall, though positively layd downe; or else the Church of England & Prelates then•• more honoredt 1.85 M. Calvin and his judgment, then many of them and of our Clergie doe now; who make it a cheife part of their superstitio•• zeale, tou 1.86 revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons, all they may, without any just or lawfull cause; adorning Bellarmine, Baronius, and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent, to vilefy him the more, and humor the Ca∣tholike faction. And that this is but forgery, will appeare, not by the forementionedx 1.87 Letter of King Edward and his Coun∣sell to Bishop Ridly; That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe, (not to please M. Calvin) but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS, & so no doubt the name of

Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations; but like∣wise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellenty 1.88 Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie, wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish, Idolatrous, and Popish; the Homily also shewing at large, that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe, and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up; contrary to Gods commaund, who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars, Images, and Idolls un∣destroyed; and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images: recording. That all Christians in the primitive Church, as Origen against Celsus, Cypriam also, and Arnobius testify, were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles, that they had no Altars nor Images: From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Tem∣ple of God, and therfore had none? whence the second part of thez 1.89 Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer, calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes, HEATHE∣NISH & JEWISH ABUSES, which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God, and prophane and defile their Churches, and grosly abuse, yea filthily de∣file the Lords holy Supper, with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises, to make a goodly shew, and to deface the plaine, simple & syncere Religion of Christ Jesus, yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke, which theya 1.90 subscribe to, and force others likewise, to subscribe unto; (yeab 1.91 contrary to their Oath and solemne pro∣fession when they were ordained Ministers, and consecrated Bishops,) set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars, & terme them by this name, both in theirc 1.92 vi∣sitation Articles,d 1.93 Sermons, and printede 1.94 Bookes, as the Pa∣pists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes: who upon the change of Religion & setting up of Popery, made this

their first worke, to remove Communion Tables; to erect Altars every where, without which they could have no Masses, nor Masse-Preists; and to preach against, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 scosse at Commu∣nion Tables, and extoll Altars, as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe, whose Practises (& ends too no doubt) are the same with these in former times; which I shall take a little Liberty to relate, both to informe the Reader, & lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended, by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars. M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian, who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes, but lived in those times, records,f 1.95 that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne, and before any Law made for that pur∣pose, many men (just as too many Bishops & Ministers are now) were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses (the insepe∣rable companions of them) in Churches: Thatg 1.96 D. Weston pre••ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt: 1553. named the Lords Table, an Oister-borde; to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note; The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston, calling the Lords Table an Oister-board; That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following, gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings, in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse, or any part thereof: The 24. of October the same yeare, oneh 1.97 Act was made to punish such, who should willingly or of purpose, molest lett, disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson, Vicar, Parish, Preist, or Curate, preparing, saying, singing, ministring or celebra∣ting the Masse, or unlawfully, contemptuously, & maliciously, of their owne power or authority, pull downe, deface, spoile, or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars, or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was, or after that should be in any Church, C••apple or Church-yard; which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following.i 1.98 Upon the 2. of December 155••. Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Win∣c••ester, and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse

before King Philip, Cardinall Poole, and other Peeres: where in his Sermon he had this passage. And let us now awake which so long have slept, and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ, denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, and pulled downe the Al∣tars. k 1.99 March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things, for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church, to be taken away, and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church, for celebration of the Com∣munion. l 1.100 On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Pa∣pist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden, and layd both his hands upon it, saying; who set this here againe, it being taken downe the Sunday before: He is a knave that set it here, &c. and if he say any service here againe, I will lay the Table on his face, & in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell, and set the Tressels by it; And the 26. of No∣vember following, he sayd to M. B. and, ye pulled downe the Altar, will ye built it againe, No (quoth he) except I be com∣maunded, for I was commaunded to do that I did. The next Sunday, this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse, for which he had gott••••a•• Altar.m 1.101 October 1. 1555. in the last Exam••nation of Bishop Ridley, D. White, Bishop of Lincolne, raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill; Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine & in farre Countries; Ergo Christ is come; But we may use the contrary of that rea∣son; Altars are plucked downe in Britaine. Ergo Christ is not come. Bishop Ridley smilng, answered: your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare, in Scripture, signifieth as well the Altar, whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices, as the Table of the Lords Supper. Cyrillus m••aneth there by this word Altare, not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord, and by that saying (Aultars are erected in Christs name, Ergo Christ is come) he meaneth that the Communion is ministred in his remembrance, Ergo

he is come &c. As for the taking downe of the Altars, it was done upon* 1.102 just consideracions, for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jewes usage. Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministred, more duely received then in these later dayes, when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church. Lincolne. A goodly receiving I promise yow, to set an Oyster Table in steed of an Altar, and to come from puddings at Westminister to receive, and yet when your Table was constituted, yow could never be content, in placing the same now East, now North, now one way, now another, untill it pleased God of his goodnes to place it cleane out of the Church. Ridley; your Lordships unreverent termes doe not elevate the thing &c. To this speech of Bishop White, M. Fox affixeth this marginall Censure. Bishop White blasphemously calleth, the board of the Lords Table, An Oyster Table. Which just Censure then 1.103 Coale from the Altar most injuriously turnes upon M. Prynne, for calling the Lords Table, a Drester. A slovenly and scornefull terme, deserving no other Answer, then what the marginall Notes in the Acts & Monu∣ments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminster, or in the other to the Bishop of Lincolne D. White. And truly had the Gentleman in theo 1.104 place pretended, expresly termed the Lords Table a Dresser, as these two nickenamed it, An Oister board, or Oyster Table, I should have passed thus verdict upon him, that he was Nig••o CARBONE notandus; defamedly marked with this blacke Coale. But examining his words, & finding them to be misreported, to lay a causeles blemish on him; I must needs conclude, that the namcelesse Preist or Colier who hath fastned this scandall on him, is as blacke & shameles as his Coale. For he ne∣ver termes the Lords Table, a Dresser; but only Censures such who against the Rubricke for the Communion, Queen Eliza∣beths Injunctions, and the Canons An. 1571. (not 1471. as himselfe mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking) p. 18.(which is no mistake, the English Coppy, which he no question saw and followed, printed the same yeare with the Latine, which is p. 15.

warranting the quotation true both in regard of Page & words,) what ever the Coale either ignorantly or maliciously spatters out to the contrary:) at the administration of the Sacrament, place the Communion Table Altarwise with one side against the wall, more like a Side-Table, Cupbard or Dresser, then a Lords Table to eat and drinke at, Like, or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table, is all he writes; wherein he is as farre from blasphemie, or calling the Lords Table, a Dresser, as the Scripture itselfe is from blasphemie, or terming Christ a th••••fe, when it sayth, Matth. 24. 4••. 1. Thess. 5. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 3. 3. c. 16. 15. that Christ & the day of the Lord shall come as, or like a Thiefe in the night; the comparisons & similitudes being both apt, the one in regard of the maner of the Tables situation, the other in respect, of the sodaine fearfull unexpectednes of Christs second comming to Judgment; though the name of a Dresser, unfit to be imposed on the Lords Table; & of a theife upon our Saviour. By which slovenly terme M. Prynne is so farre from calling the Communion Table; that he phraseth it,q 1.105 A reli∣gious implement of Gods owne appointment. But to returne againe to that from which this false Calumnie in the Coale hath diverted me. This our famous learned Martyr Bishop Ridley, not long after this his Conference to shew how eagerly the Popish Prelates, were bent to remove Communion Tables, & set up Altars in their steeds, & how much he detested this their practise, in his excellent Farwell to his friends in generall, breakes forth into these patheticke words: Othou now wicked and bloody Sea,r 1.106 why dost thou now set up againe many Altars of Idolatrie, which by the word of God were justly taken away? Why hast thou overthrowne the Lords Table? Why dost thow dayly delude thy people, masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lords Supper? The Papists in their discourses with our stout & learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hote as a Coale, for Altars, & the Sacrament of the Altare; Fors 1.107 in his 11. exami∣nation on S. Andrewes day 1555. Christopherson who reaso∣ned with him, demaunded whether S. Augustine did not call

the Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar? To which M. Philpot replied: That maketh nothing for the probation of your Sacrament. For so he and other ancient writers doe call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord, in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offred upon the Altar of the Crosse; the with Sacrifice all the Alta••s and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did pre∣figure and shadow; the with pertaineth nothing in your Sa∣crament, hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone. Chri∣stopherson. No doth I pray yow, what signifieth Altar? Philpot. Not as yow falsely take it, materially, but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Crosse. Christopherson. Where find yow it ever so taken? Philpot. O, yes that I doe in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he sayth: We have an Altar of which it is not lawfull for them to eate that serve the Tabernacle. Is not Altar there taken for the Sacrifice of the Altar, and not for the Altar of Lime and Stone? Christopherson. Well God blesse me out of your company, yow are such an o•• stinate heretike, that I never heard the like. Philpot. I pray God keep me from such blind Doctors, which when they are not able to prove what they say, then they fall to blaspheming as yow doe, for want of better proofe. In thet 1.108 Cōference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martyn, March 155••. Martyn speakes thus to Crammer in defence of Masse & Altars which he couples both togeather. If yow marke the Devills language well, it agreeth with your proceedings most truly; For cast thy selfe downeward, sayd he, and so taught yow to cast all things downe wardes; Downe with the Sacrament, downe with the Masse, downe with the Altars, &c. Inu 1.109 Cardinall Pooles visi∣tation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors sett forth certaine Statutes, whereby they would have the uni∣versity hereafter ordered; wherein among other things they pre∣scribed, at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himselfe to the Altar, (a ceremonie, superstition, and

Idolatrie now taken up by many contrary to, or without all Scriptu∣res, Law and Canon, though thus enjoyned by, &, borrowed from the Papists, whose superstitious toyes are now much imitated and adored)x 1.110 In Aprill, the same yeare, Cardinall Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocesse of Canter∣bury. Article 18. 23. concerning the people, inquired; whether the Altars in the Churches be consecrated, or no? And whe∣ther there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament? And if there doe not, that then it be provided for with expe∣dition? As Altars were thus erected, bowed to, pleaded for, and countenaunced in Queen Maries time, upon the revivall of Popery, & Communion Tables removed & scoffed at; so immediately upon her death, & the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth, this religious Princes by her* 1.111 Injunctions, (published in the first yeare of her Raigne) commaunded the Altars in Churches to be re∣moved (which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion) and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament, according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED; to witt, the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. rat••fying the Common Prayer Booke, which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar. (By which it is apparant, that the ministring of it, at an Altar, is against, & not according to the Statute; and so punishable thereby:) And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others,y 1.112 Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion, sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions, And whether your Altars be taken downe, according to the Com∣maundement in that behalfe given? After this, Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissio∣ners, and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame, to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar

formerly stood, stiling them alwayes Communion Tables, not once an Altar, and putting them in opposition to Altars, And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. (which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the z 1.113 Coale doth falsely accuse them, it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed, though p. 15. in the La∣tine, which the Colier followed, who it seemes never saw the En∣glish:) prescribe, that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion, and a cleane cloth to cover it, & that they shall see, that all Roodelo••ts in which wooden Crosses stood & all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away, which being executed accordingly, thereupona 1.114 Hierom Osorius, theb 1.115 Rhemists,c 1.116 Dorman,d 1.117 Harding,e 1.118 Hart and other Pa∣pists, complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings, that they had cast downe Images, Churches, Altars, removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sa∣crament on in their steed; which Act of theirsf 1.119 Bishop Jewell, g 1.120 Gualther Haddon, M. Fox,h 1.121 M. Deane Nowel,i 1.122 M. Tho∣mas B••acon,k 1.123 D. Fulke and M. Carthwright,l 1.124 D. Willet & m 1.125 D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull, but as necessary & commendable, affirming that Queen Elizabeth & the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake, downe Po∣pish Altars, Images and Crucifixes, as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished & brake downe Hea∣thenish groves, Idolls, Images, Altars, by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation. From all which particular passa∣ges we may clearly discerne, That one of the first things which our owne & other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Reli∣gion

& abolishing of Popery, was the breaking downe and abando∣ning of Altars, together with their name, and placing of Commu∣nion Tables in their steed; that the first thing againe, the Papists did, upon the restitution of Popery, was the erecting of Altars, & casheering Communion Tables. That the setting up of Altars, & turning Communion Tables into Altars, or Altarwise, is to no other end, but to usher Masses & Popery (the inseperable concommitants & followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them) into our Church againe; That our godly Martyrs, Princes, Prelates, writers yea and our Church itselfe, have constantly both in their Iudgments, practise, & disputes, condemned Altars, as Iewish, Heathenish, Popish & unlawfull unto Christians; That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer, Ho∣milies, Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England, & were never yet written or preached for, patronized, enjoyned, or erected but among, and by Papists, & that to receive the Masse & sett up Popery, which fall or stand together with them. And that the Communion Table is no Altar, nor High Altar, as ourm 1.126 Novellers dreame and teach. All this being thus premised, I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar∣wise.

First, therfore I deny, that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar, or High Altar, that it ought so to be stiled or repu∣ted, or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches;

First, because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar, but a Table, 1. Cor. 10. 21. only & prescribes a Table only, not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament.

2. Because our Common Prayer Booke, Homilies, Articles, Canons, Injunctions, writers doe the like, distinguishing the Com∣munion Table & Altars as opposite contradistinct things, incon∣sistent one with the other, abandoning not Altars only themselves, but the very name of Altars, as Jewish and Heathenish, 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged, so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer, Articles, Injunctions,

Homilies, Canons, which never terme the Lords Table an Altar, either properly or improperly.

3. Because Altars & Lords Tables differ much one from the other.

1. In matter, the one being made of stone, gold, brasse, or earth for the most part, Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood.

2. In forme the one almost quite square, Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long, the one having hornes oft times, to which delin∣quents fled and layd hold, the other not.

3. In name & appellation, & that in all languages.

4. In use, the one being only to offer Sacrifices, incense & burnt offrings on; Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar, Altare & Ara, from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it; asa 1.127 Isiodor,b 1.128 Cilepine, Holicke and others witnes: the other only to eat and drinke at, 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30.

5. In institution, the one Legall, Iewish, Typicall, & Hea∣the••sh; the other Euangelicall & Christian, of which anon: the one instituted before and under the Law, the other only under the Gospell.

6. In their appendices, attendants, & circumstances.

For First, Altars were usually, consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles, Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb. 7. 10. as they are this dayc 1.129 among the Papists, with many Jewish and Su∣perstitious Ceremonies, oylings; sprinklings, exorcismes, Reli∣ques of Sancts, orisons, & I know not what other fonde concei∣tes; 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: withd 1.130 Masses, Massepreistes, Pixes,

consecrated Hostiaes, Tapers, Basons, Candelstickes, Cruci∣fixes, Images, Sancts Reliques, Altar-cloathes, Massing, ve∣stiments, 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, pro∣pagate 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, accor∣ding to its primitive institution; as the so e••••••ed and subsequent authorities evidence at large; ande 1.131 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 thef 1.132 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.

Hencef 1.133 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 exam∣ples full to the ground, For Hierusalem fell, the Temple fell, ALTARE SUBLATUM EST, the Altar was taken away, &c. SI ALTARE VIDER IS DESTITU∣TUM, &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 Melchi∣sedecke.

Henceg 1.134 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.

Andh 1.135 S. Ambrose,i 1.136 Gregory the great,k 1.137 Beda,l 1.138 Andreas the Archbishop of Caesaria,m 1.139 S. Bernard, with divers other Fa∣thers expresly resolve; ALTARE DOMINI CHRI∣STVS, 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 then 1.140 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 distribu∣ted, 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 ino 1.141 Nazianzen,p 1.142 Augustine,q 1.143 Theodoret,r 1.144 Chrysosto∣me•• s 1.145 Hieron,t 1.146 Oecumenius,u 1.147 Theophylact, & otherx 1.148 Fathers,

All these are cited by Bishop Iewell, Bishop Babington. D. Rai∣nolds, & 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 Al∣tars 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 heart itselfe, and the mind and faith which have their cheife residence in the heart, an ALTAR; in respect of the spiri∣tuall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse offred by faith on a pure heart as on a spirituall Altar, and they stil•• •• the Communion Table an Altarp 1.149 only in this sence and in a figurative and improper speech, as they call the heart, mind end faith an Altar, their phrasing of it an Altar only in this sence can be no A••gument at all to prove, that it is properly and in truth an Altar, or in that sence as some now presse it.

And these other 3. the heart, mind, and faith, which they terme an Altar, being scituated not in the East part, but in the middest of the temple of the body, are a stonger evidence to prove, that the Table ought to be scituated in the middest of the Church, though it were an Altar, as these 3, termed Altars, are in the middest of the

body; then that the Table is properly an Altar, and therfore ought to stand in the East end of the Quire Altarwise.

5. Because the Scripture expresly condemnes Altars as Iewish & abolished by Christ, putting Altars, Preists, & their waiting on the Altar, as Iewish & Heathenish, in direct opposition to the Lords Tables, Ministers, preaching of the Gospell, consecrating of the Lords Supper at his Table; & distinguishing Christ & his Mi∣nisters, from Aaron & the Preists of his order, in this, that one of them was to give attendance at the Altar the other not, as is evi∣dent by 3. remarkable Texts of Scripture.

The First of them is the 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things, live of the things of the Temple; and they which waite at the Altare are par∣takers of the Altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospell should live of the Gospell; Where Preachers of the Gospell, are directly distinguished from Preists, waiting on the Altar; and preaching of the Gospell in the one, put in opposition, to waiting on the Altar, in the other, The one being Euangelicall, the other only Legall and abolished.

The next Text is that of 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ; the bread which we breake, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread & one body, & are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israell after the flesh, are not they which eate of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? what shall I say then, that the Idoll is any thing, or that which is offred in Sacrifice to Idolls is any thing? But I say that the things which the Gen∣tiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devills and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devills. yee cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devills, yee cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills; wherein the first part, the Ministers of the Gospell, who blesse, eate, drinke, & participate of the Communion of the body & blood of Christ, & partake of that bread at the Lords

Table; are distinguished from Israell after the flesh, & the Preists of Aaron, who ca••e of the Sacrifices offred upon Altars, and are partakers of Altars; and the Lords Table put in opposition to the Iewish Altars; and in the second part, the Sacrifices, Cup & Table of Devills, and partaking of them, put in opposition and contra∣distinction to the Cup and Table of the Lord, and the eating and drinking of them.

The 3. Text is that of Heb. 7. 12. 13. 14. where Christ him∣selfe, his Preisthood and Ministers, are thus purposely distinguished from Aaron and the Leviticall Preists, and Preisthood, that one of them gave attendance at the Altar, the other not: For the Preist∣hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law: For he of whom these things are spoken partai∣net•• ••o another Tribe, OF WHICH NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda of which Tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning Preisthood &c.

In which Text (as David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Epistle of Paule to the Hebrewes, with others observe,) the Apostle proveth that Aarons Preisthood is changed & the Ordinance therof, because Psal. 110. speaketh of Christs Preisthood after the order of Melchisedek, that is freed from the service of the Altar; and Christ was borne not of the Tribe of Aaron but of Judah, of which no man gave attendant at the Altar, to witt the materiall Altar commaunded in the Law. To declare, that Altars and giving attendance at Altars properly belonging to the Leviticall Preisthood, were abolished by Christ the true Preist and Sacrifice, of which they were but types; And that as Christ himselfe was borne of the tribe of Judah, of which no man gave attendance at the Altar, so the Ministers of Christ under the Gosple who professe themselves of his Tribe and Stocke, should by his example give no attendance at the Altar, since he never did, nor ought to doe it.

From this remarkable Text, the Church of the forraigners in ••nand An. 1550. when John de Alasco, that Noble Polonian

was their cheife Minister and Superintendent, in the Confession of their faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and printed at London that same yeare, Cum Privilegio, make this the 5. note of Christs Kingdome,* 1.150 THAT IT KNOWES NO ALTAR, since he is of the tribe of Juda, wherein NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR, neither needeth he the furniture of any mysti∣call vestiments, that he may enter into typicall Sanctuaries or Holy places, all which things are abolished with this their Preisthood, because the truth of those things which they did shadow out is exhibited.

And David Dickson in his short Explanation of the He∣brewes printed at Aberdence 1635. p. 126. 127. inferres from thence.

First, that Christs Preisthood is freed from that Altar which God commaunded in the Law, and all the service thereof.

2. That an other Altar he knoweth not; & Christs Preist∣hood being declared to be freed from the service of this Altar no Law can tie it to any other.

3. That whosoever will erect another materiall Altar in Christs Preisthood, and tie his Church unto it (as the Papists add, and our New Prelates and Doctors doe now) must looke by what Law they doe it.

4. That negative Conclusions in matters of faith & due∣ties, follow well from the Scriptutes Silence. It is not war∣ranted from Scripture therfore I am not bound to beleive it? Since the Apostle here reasoneth thus; That none of the tribe of Judah attended the Altar, because Moses speake nothing of that Tribe concerning the Preist-hood (which overturnes all Preists, Altars and attendance at Altars under the Gospell, and the calling of the Lords-Table an Altar, because the Scripture is silent and speakes nothing of them, but against them.)

To which I shall adde a 5. inference. That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar, nor yet Melchi••edecke;

or any of Christs Tribe, Therfore none of Christs Ministers ought to doe it; and that those Archbishops, Bishops, Preists and Ministers, who will needs have & set up Altars, plead, write, dispute for Altars, & likewise waite on, serve & give attendance at the Altar, are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal, & of their Tribe; not Ministers of Iesus Christ, nor any of his sacred Tribe, none of which gave any attendance at the Altar; This is the Apostles reason, inference, & the very drife of his argumentation, not mine, let those therfore whom it concernes looke well unto it, and evade, or answer it as they may.

6. Christians have no such sacrifices, incense-offrings, or obla∣tions, which require any materiall Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon, no spirituall service at all that requires an Altar. Therfore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar. All their Sacrifices now (as prayer, prayse, liberality to the poore, mortifying their lusts, & the offring up of their soules and bodyes ••living Sacrifice unto God,) are spirituall, requi∣ring neither a Preist, much lesse an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon, Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. H••sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. H••or. 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Rom 12. 1. asa 1.151 Bishop Hooper, andb 1.152 King Edward the 6. with his Counsell argue: Therfore they neither have nor ought to h••re any materiall Altar, but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon.

7. If the Communion Table were an Altar, then it should be greater and better then the Sacramentall bread or wine, or the Lords Supper itselfe, and a meanes to consecrate them. This reason is fully* 1.153 warranted by our Saviours owne resolution, Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say, whoso∣ever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing, but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Yee fooles and blind, for whether is greather, the gift, or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift? and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offred thereon as more holy then they, even as Christ our

spirituall altar, consecrates and hallowes all our spirituall Sa∣crifices, Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say, that the Lords Table is better then the bread and wine, or the Lords Supper itselfe, (though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it, and when they have the Sa∣crament itselfe in their hand, to which they give no such adoration, imply it to be so) or that it consecrates the Sacrament layd upon it; (for what need then any prayer or words of consecration?) therfore it is no Altar.

8. Every Altar was, and ought to be dedicated & solemnly consecrated unto God, with speciall oyntments, sprinkling of blood and solemnities; (specially the Altar of incense and at∣tonement, and those Altars placed in the Temple:) else they were not to be used or reputed Altars. Exod. 24. 4. to 9. c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to, ••0. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 9. 10, &c. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9. Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus thed 1.154 Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars, and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons Collegiate Church in the Countre of Stafford, upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnely dedicated after the Popish manner, by M. Iefferies Archdeacon of Salop and others: of which more anon: But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated, nor solemnely de∣dicated; sprinkled & enoyled, neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God, or of our Church and State; Therfore they neither are, nor can be Altars.

9. That which will be a meanes to make ignorant people & superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Mas∣se, and Popish Preists, and to usher Popery, Masse & Masse-Preistes by degrees into our Church againe to the polluting & de∣filing of Gods house, S••crament & the setting up of grosse Idola∣trie, must needs be sinnefull, unlawfull & to be abandoned of us: But the erecting of Altars in our Churches, the calling of Communion Tables, Altars, and turning of them Altarwise, & so reading second service & administring at them, will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still

to dream of Sacrifices, Masse, and Popish Preists, & will usher Popery, Masse and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church againe, &c. ase 1.155 Bishop Hooper, & others forequoted authorities evidence, and King Edward the 6. and his Councell in their 3. reason against Altars resolve, Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therfore they must needs be sinfull, unlawfull, & to be abandoned of us now, as they have been heretofore, both in King Edward the 6. & in Queen Elizabeths dayes.

10. That which neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the Primi∣tive Church, for above the 250. yeares after him, either had or used in their Churches & administration of the Sacrament, that we (who ought to imitate their example,) 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6.) ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches.

But neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the primitive Church in her purest times, for above 250. yeares after Christ, either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sa∣crament but Communion Tables only.

Therfore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now. This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. & his Coun∣sell against Altars, Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who pro∣pounds it thus: Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table, and not at an Altar, as it appeareth manifestly by the Euangelists.

And S. Paul calleth the comming to the holy Communion, the comming unto the Lords Supper, and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion. Wher∣fore seeing the forme of a Table is more agreable with Christs institution, and with the usage of the Apostles, and of the Pri∣mitive Church, then the forme of an Altar, therfore the forme of a Table is rather to be used, then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion. Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a blacke Coale, and some what blurred & obseured I shall produce some few authorities, to cleare it.

The third part of our owne incomperable Homily, against the Perill of Idolatrie, (confirmed both byf 1.156 Statute, theg 1.157 Arti∣cles of our Church, and every Ministersh 1.158 subscription as Or∣thodox truth p. 44. assures us: That all Christians in the Pri∣mitive Church, asi 1.159 Origen against Celsus,k 1.160 Cypriam also & l 1.161 A••nobius doe testify, were fore charged and complained on, that they had no Altars nor Images: It is evident therfore, that they tooke all Images, (yea all Altars to, by the same rea∣son) to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God, and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them, following this rule,m 1.162 we must obey God rather then men. So the Homily whichn 1.163 Bishop Jewell thus seconds.

There have been Altars, sayth M. Harding; even from the Apostles time, and that even as it is used now, farr from the body of the Church, &c.

This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge.

For first, where he sayth: The Apostles in their time ere∣cted Altars, It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses, in vacant places in woodes and Forests, and in Caves under the ground. And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church?

Verilyo 1.164 Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ, hath these words against Celsus: Objicit nobis quod non habe∣mus Imagines, aut Aras, aut Templa; Celsus charge••h our re∣ligion with this, that we have neither Images, nor Altars, nor Temples.

Likewise saythp 1.165 Arnobius, that lived somewhat after Ori∣gen, writing against the heathens: Accusatis nos, quod nec Templa habeamus ••oc Imagines, nec Aras. Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches, nor Images, nor Altars.

And Volateranus & Vernerius testify, that Sixtus Bishop of

Rome, was the First that caused Altars to be erected. Ther∣fore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say; That Altars have ever been, even sithence the Apostles time.

Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication, in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio, and dedica∣ted to all the Bishops of England by name, and to Queen Eli∣zabeth herselfe, London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison be∣tween the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. & Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus: Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion, The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries. And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not, that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265•• brought in the altars first into the Church, utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the admini∣stration of the Lords-Supper: when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time, the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table, according to the practise of Christ, of his Apostles, and of the primitive Church, Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar, which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ, of his Apostles and of the primitive Church; & here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come, for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive (& some now too, that call themselves Protestants) about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church; others affirme, that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in, Volateranus, Durand. Flascit. Mass. Pet. Aequillinus, Joan. Sella. Thus M. Beacon.

The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill, in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse, printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. (who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum; that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars,) by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, one the 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers.

All these Authorities (to which the Papists could never yee replie) the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath; informing us, that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning; who must be understood, not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples, but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices, as the Gentiles had.

For otherwise it is most certaine, that the Church had Al∣tars, both the name and thing, and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either; which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ignatius, the Apostles Canons, and Heb. 13. 10.

To which I answer, first, that this namelesse Author, in modesty & good manners, should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen & Arnobius, then our Homilies, and these our learnedest writers, whose judgments & authorities cer∣tainely will over ballance his.

2. These Authors tooke their words & meaning aright, what ever is pretended; as appeares.

1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe: The Gentiles charged the Christians, that they had neither Temples, nor Images, nor Altars: Was their meaning then, that they had Temples indeed, but not to sacrifice in, & Images to, but not to adore; or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images. Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition; & the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images; that the Christians had Images, but not to adore, though the Gentiles

objected they had none, and Lactantius & Minucius Felix too about that age; expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all.

Their meaning therfore being (as our Homilies, & those very words themselves resolve,) that they had no publicke Temples, no Images at all, for any assemblies, use, or purpose; their meaning likewise must be, that they had no Altars at all for any purpose; (not, no Altars for any bloody & externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had, but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on, as he falsely glosseth it:) Since the w••nt of Temples, Images•• Altars are all coupled together, & objected to them in the same sence and manner.

Now had the Christians in that age had Temples, but not for Idolls service, Images, but not to adore; Altars, but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on, as the Coale Glosseth it; the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples, Al∣tars, or Images to them, as is probable; since they had them, but their not sacrificing on them, & adoring them as they did, & not ma∣king a right use of them who•• they had them; as we tax all couetous men, or Nonpreaching Ministers, that are Schollers, not for having no mony or learning, but for not making such use of them as they should.

The very objection therefore cleares it infallibly, that they had no Temples, Images or Altar at all.

2. The Fathers answers to these objections will take of this Cavill quite.

Minucius Felix (flourishing in Tertullians time, 200. yeares after Christ) in his Octavius Oxoniae 1627, p. 104, First men∣tions this Objection of the Gentiles, & gives this pi••hie reply thereto; But thinke ye that we conceale what we worship, if we have not Images, Temples and Altars? For what Image shall I feine to God, when as if thou rightly judge, man him∣selfe is Gods Image? what Temple shall I build to him, when as this whole world fabricated by his workemanship can not containe him? And why I being aman remaining more at

large, shall I imprison the power of so great a Majesty with in one little house? Is he not better to be dedicated in our mind? yea is he not to be consecrated in our breast? shall I offer Sacrifice and burnt offrings to God, which he hath brought forth only for my use, that I should cast backe his gift unto him, is an ungratefull thing; when as a good mind, and a pure heart, & a syncere conscience is a Sacrifice fit to be offred to him. Therfore he who embraceth innocency, suppli∣cates to the Lord, he who follow ••j••stice, sacrificeth to God; he who absteines from dece••ts, attaineth God•• he who delivers aman from danger, slayeth the best oblation: These are our Sacrifices; these are Gods Holy things, thus among us, he is most religious, who is most just &c.

Where this acute Father clearly acknowledgeth, that the Chri∣stians had no materiall Temples, Images, Altars or Sacrifices, at all among them, but only spirituall sacrifices, Altars & obla∣tions; and had they then in truth had any reall Temples, Images, Altars; he would no doubt have all aged & confessed, yea proved, that they had them though they knew not of them, & so have stop∣ped their mouthes by falsifying their objection, & shewing the Gen∣tiles the righ••use of them, to free them from any further Cavill of not using them at all, or amisse.

The like Answera 1.166 Origen gives to Celsus; Celsus (writes he) sayth that we shun the very building both of Altars, and of Images, & of Temples, not suffring them to be erected (an in∣fallible evidence and charge, that they had none at all for any pur∣pose, because they would not so much as suffer them to be built, but shunde the very making of them.) When as he seeth nothing in the meane tyme, how that we have the mind of just men in ••••eed of, (or for) our Altars and hearthes; out of which without all doubt the sweetest odors, of incense are sent forth, and prayers out of a more pure conscience. Let any man therfore that will examine these Altars, which I have newly mentio∣ned, and if he lift compare them with these Altars which Cel∣sus hath brought in.

Verily he shall plainely understand, 〈…〉〈…〉 mate and wilbe corrupted in processe of 〈…〉〈…〉 or Altars in an immortall soule, shall continue as long, as the reasonable soule, shalbe pleased to dwell therein, &c.

But we truly have Images not made by any impure worke men, but framed and formed in us by the word of God itsel∣fe, to witt the virtues imitating the first borne of every crea∣ture, &c. in which I should beleive it fitting, that honor should be ascribed to him who is the exemplar of all Images, to witt the Image of the invisible God, the only begotten God, &c. Which he thus seconds in another place:

b 1.167 The Christians (sayth Celsus) cannot endure either Tem∣ples or Altars, or Images & Statutes to be looked upon, they openly disprayse Images &c.

To which Origen thus replies: The Christians & also the Jewes, when they heare, thou shalt feare the Lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve; neither shalt thou make to thy selfe any graven Image, nor the likenes of any thing that is in hea∣ven above or in the earth beneath, &c. and for many things not unlike these, doe not only dislike the Temples of the Gods, and Altars, and these Images, but would if there be a necessity rather runne more willingly to death, then out of any sinne or impietie altogether defile what they rightly thinke of God the maker of all things, &c.

Therfore Celsus affirmes, that Images are by noe meanes to be esteemed for God, but dedicated to the Gods; when as it is plainely perspicuous, that to make and affirme such things, is the part of such men as are about the divinity. But we shall not so much as account them as Images of the divine Image, as those who may make no forme as of the invisible, so also of the incorporiall God.

By both which charges and replies, it is cleare, that Christians in those dayes had no materiall Temples, Altars, Images; but only spirituall Temples, Altars and Sacrifices in their hearts, and brests, and that they rejected all materiall Altars, Images and Sacrifices

as unlawfull, and abominable. Origen himselfe not denying the charge to be true, but justifying the Christians for having neither, S. Arnobius in his 6. Booke against the Gentiles, brings them in thus objecting: In this part ye have used to fix the greatest crime of impiety upon us, that we neither build sacred houses for the Offices of worship, that we constitute not the Image or forme of any of the Gods, that we built no Altars, &c. (A plaine charge against the Christians, that they then neither had, nor yet would build any Temples, or set up any Images or Altars, which they could not have objected if they had then any,) that we offer not the blood of slaine beastes, not Frankincense, not salted corne, and that we bring not in liquid wine powred out in bowles.

Which things verily (sayth Arnobius) we doe not therfore give over and forbeare, either to build or doe, as if we caried impious and wicked mindes, or had taken up some contempt against the Gods out of a rash despaire, but because we thinke & beleive the Gods; (if so be they are Gods indeed, and en∣dued with the eminencie of this name?) will either deride these kindes of Honours, if they can laugh, or will take them ill at our hands, if they may be exasperated with the motions of anger.

After which he shewes at large the reasons, why Christians build no Temples, made no Images or Altars, and offred no such Sacrifices at all to God, & why they thought it unlawfull so to doe; not denying the objection but confessing the matter of fact to be true, and defending it from the very fundamentall grounds of Religion; which he would never certainely have done had the Christians then had any materiall Temples, Images or Altars for any divine or spirituall use.

e 1.168 S. Lactantius, his Scholer, meetes with the same objection, and answers it in this manner: Whosoever shall obey all these heavenly precepts, he is a worshipper of the true God, whose Sacrifices are meekn••••s of mind, and an innocent life & good actions.

All which things he who exhibits, sacrificeth 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 hee 1.169 disputes excellently against Images she∣wing 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,d 1.170 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 eva∣sion.

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 wri∣ters, and our Homilies interpret them, that Christians had no Al∣tars at all in those times, no not to celebrate the Sacrament on, and then the shift in thee 1.171 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 ma∣nifested it,* 1.172 the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Ar∣nobius, stiling the Lord Table, an Altar, is pretended, and so the name, and thing itselfe, used and knowen among Chri∣stians before that age.

I answer,* 1.173 that these authorities in truth, when once examined, will vanish into smoke. To take them according to their Antiqui∣ty, 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 asf 1.174 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••g 1.175 M. Cooke hath undeniably pro∣ved 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 Com∣munion 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 Sup∣per was instituted, so that here the Altar; if properly meant, is not the Lords Table but the Iewish Altar, and that before the Sacra∣ment 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, butg 1.176 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 wri∣tes, 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 ourh 1.177 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 heaven, neither doth he so much as once stile the Lords Table, an Altar, nor make mention of an Altar, whereat the Sacrament was administred throughout his workes. His authority therfore might well have been spared.

The next Father is Tertullian, out of whom two passages are alleadged; One, out of his Booke de Poenitentia, where he re∣membreth Geniculationem ad Aras. Bowing and ducking to Altars, now much in use. But certainely Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity, as to be adored & bowed to, since the consecration of them came in long after, in Pope Felix time, asi 1.178 M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon, neither can it be proved, that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars.

This authority therfore is suspicious, & to put it out of doubt, Erasmus, Rhenanus, Junius, &k 1.179 M. Cooke prove it, not to be Tertullians but some conterfeit thrust upon him, the phrase being certainely none of his, no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age. This counterfeit authority therfore will not stand the Coale in any stead.

The second passage is that in his Booke de Oratione c. 14. Nonne solemnior ••rit statio tua••si••ad Atam Deisteris? Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned, not kneeling or bowing to, or at it, So that these two Authorities seeme to thwart one another at the first view.

To this I answer, that though this Booke be generally conceived Tertullans, yet I suspect, that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained, where in this passage is, are none of his. For I find this passage in them: Sic & die Paschae quo com∣munis & quasi publica jejunij religio est, merito deponiemus of culum, &c. which intimates, that Christians on Easter day did Keep, a common & publike Fast, ••nd therfore refused to kisse one another•• And it makes Easter day, not to be Statio∣num dies; a day of praying standing, as the next words prove.

Now it is certaine, that Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis, writes, that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickednes to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lords day, being the joyfull day of Christs resurrection, much more then to doe it upon Easter day; and that the Christians did not fast but rejoyce in remembrance of Christs resurrection from Ea∣ster to whitsontide.

No Ecclesiasticall writer extant then making mention of any solemne fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians, in that age on Easter day; who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoyce, l 1.180 applying, that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast, Psall. 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it. This passage makes me suspitious, that the later part of this Booke is none of his.

Adde to this; That Cyprian (am 1.181 great admirer of Tertul∣lian, whom he stiled his Minister) makes no mention of this Booke or of Tertullian, or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar, or Kisse of peace, or other such Customes & Ceremonies, in his Ex∣position or Commentary on the Lords Prayer, which is probable he would have done, had Tertullian writen any such Booke as this, or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use, they being

both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church. Moreover, this Booke makes mention of Hermas Booke, intitled the Pastor, by way of approbation, and gives an answer to an objection out of it; when as in his Booke de Pudicitia, he thus censures it as counterfeit; Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha, falsa & adultera judicatur, as then 1.182 Bookes now passing under his name are accounted.

Moreover, in this very Booke of Tertullian, in his Booke de Corona Militis, & so in S. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them, ioyntly sti∣led, the Eucharist, & both of them interpret, Give us this day our dayly bread, of Christ, who is our living and true bread which came downe from heaven; whose body the Sacramen∣tall bread is esteemed, and on whom we dayly feed in the Sacrament, and Eucharist.

Now both of them stiling the Sacrament, the Eucharist, and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar, but only of spirituall bread to be eaten of us, (neither of a Table) we may doubt this passage to be none of his.

Beside this, that famouso 1.183 Dionysius Bishop of Alexan∣dria, flourishing but 240. yeares after Christ, very neare Ter∣tullians time, writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome, that an ancient Minister, who was a Bishop long before him (a plaine evidence, that Ministers & Bishops were then both one, and so promiscuously stiled) being present when some were baptised & hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him, & falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptisme where with he was baptised of the heretickes was not true, whereupon he desired to be rebapti∣zed: which he durst not doe, but told him, that the dayly Communion many times ministred might suffice him; when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE, and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food, and had com∣municated, and of a long time had been partaker of the body

and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I durst not againe bap∣tise him, but bade him be of good cheare, of a sure faith, and boldly to approch unto the Communion of the Sincts. But he for all this morunneth continually, horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE, and being intreated hardly, is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiasticall prayers.

In which auncient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himselfe, we have not mention at all of any Altar, or Sacrament, or Sacrifice of the Altar, but twice together the name of the Lords Table, & also of a dayly Communion, holy food, ministring and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ &c. Which being the proper genuine & undoubted language of that age, makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted.

p 1.184 He, as alsoq 1.185 Justine Martyr, & Clemens Alexandrinus, oft times making mention of the Lords Supper, the Eucharist, bread and wine, receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or cheife Ministers, and the Tables to, but never of any Sacrament of the Altar, nor of an Altar, but only here.

Finally, all the forequoted Fathers & Authors expresly deter∣mine, that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250, yeares after Christ had no Temples, Altars, nor Images at all, and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second, about the yeare of our Lord 265. after Tertullians age.

This authority therfore of his, & all others cited in the Coale, &r 1.186 great part ofs 1.187 D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath con∣cerning the Antiquity of Churches, Temples, Altars and Bishops chaires among Christians with in 200. yeares after Christ, must needs be fabulous & Apocryphall. He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches, in the Authors quoted (or in truth misquoted) by him, for materiall Churches, which they meane only of the Christian Congregations, who had then no publike Churches, but only private places in Woods, Chambers, Vaults, Caves, and the like, to

meet in, ast 1.188 Tertullian••,u 1.189 Bishop Jewell, and ourx 1.190 owne Homilies witnes.

But admit this Booke & Passage to be Tertullians owne, yet then it may be a question; whether Tertullian meanes by Aram the Lords-Table, or that place wherein the Christians mett.y 1.191 Ara signifying a Sanctuarie, as well as an Altar.

If the place wherein the Christians assembled, as the words pre∣ceeding, & drift of the place import, (Sle militer de statlonum diebus, non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus inter∣veniendum, quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Do∣mini. Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solemnor erit statio s••ad Aram Dei steteris? (to wit after the Sacrament received) Accepto corpore Domini, & reservatio utrumque salarum est, & parti∣cipatio Sacrificij, & executio officij: which cannot properly be intended, that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar, and not depart from it after they had received Christs body and blood, standing still in the place that they received in: but, that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assem∣bled, till all prayers & divine offices were fully ended.

If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itselfe, then, it makes nothing to the purpose; if of the Altar or Communion Table itselfe, then it will inevitably follow hence, that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing, not kneeling, and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another

However, it is but a single Testimonie, & therfore ought not to ••ver-ballance those many pregnant, weighty, punctuall authorities to the contrary.

The last authority, to prove the name & use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius & in O••igens time, is S. Cy∣prians: Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale, but the words not cited.

The first is hisz 1.192 Epistle to Epictetus and the people of As∣suras. As if it were lawfull after the Altars of the Devill, to

approch to the Altar of God &c. whence we behold and be∣leive this censure to have come from the disquisition of God; ne apud Altare consistere, that they should not persevere, to stand at the Altar, or any more to handle it: And that they should contend with all their might, that such should not returne againe, ad Altaris impiamenta & contagia fra∣trum, to the polluting of the Altar, and contagion of the brethren.

The second is hisa 1.193 Epistle to the Presbyters, Deacons and people of Furnis. It was long agoe ordained in a Councell of Bishops, that no Clergie man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer, of any mans will, since all who are honored with divine Preisthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing, but only to serve the Altar and Sacri∣fices, and to prayers and orisons.

The Leviticall Tribe which did waite on the Temple, and Altar, & divine service, had no inheritance or temporall por∣tion allotted them among their brethren, but others manuring the earth, they should only worship God, &c. Therfore Victor since, against the forme lately prescribed to Preists in the Councell, he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter, a Tutor, non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur, ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose & necessarie, factum, servetur a nobis, simul & caeteris fratribus detur ex∣emplum, ne quid Sacerdotes & ministros Dei Altari ejus & Ecclesiae vocantes, ad saeculares molestias devocet.

The third is hisb 1.194 Epistle to Januarius. Porro autem Eucha∣ristia & unde baptizati unguntur oleum, in Altari sanctifica∣tur, sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam, qui nec Altare habuit, nec Ecclesiam, unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse; quando constet oleum sanctificari & Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse. And in his Oration de Coena Domini, we find only once mention of the Lords Table, & twice of an Altar.

To these authorities I answer first in generall; that the often men∣tion of an Altar in these places, rather argues the Epistles, & this Sermon not to be Cyprians, then that the Christians, in his time had Altars, which all the forecited Fathers & Authors deny.

2. That many forged workes are attributed to S. Cyprian, and many places in him corrupted, asc 1.195 D. James & M. Alexander Cooke have proved, & among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini, (which mentions Altars) with other of his workes to be none of his, but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis,d 1.196 living about the yeare of our Lord 1156. at least 900. yeares after Cyprian: & these Epistles, for ought I know, may be his or some others;e 1.197 most at least many of the Epistles, or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes, being spurious.

3. The name Altar is not usuall in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age; & Dionysius••Alexandrinus (as I have proved in his Epistle, registred byf 1.198 Eusebius) living about S. Cyprians age, twice termes it only the Lords Table.

4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles, seemes to stagger at them, nor knowing certainly to de fine what time they were written, nor what the parties were to whom, or concer∣ning whom, they were directed.

5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist, the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of Christs body & blood, & the Table in S. Paules words, only the Lords Table.

And in hisg 1.199 Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament, which all coufes to be his, he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament, writing, that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the Euan∣gelicall truth, and Dominicall tradition, nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commaunded and done by any humane and novell Tradition; that we ought herein to doe only what the Lord hath done before; that if S. Paul or an Angell from heaven should teach us to doe any

thing, then what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema: That Christ only is to be heard; therfore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall thinke meet to be done, but that Christ who is before all men, hath first done.

Neither ought we to follow the custome of any man, but the truth of God. For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ, I find none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ.

S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution, & example, in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament: And Christ & his Apostles never administring it at an Altar, nor stiling the Lords-Table, an Altar, & his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar, I cannot but from hence conclude, that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians. But to come to the particular scanning of these autho∣rities.

1. I answer, That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table, an Altar, nor expresly affirme, that Christians then had Altars, being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law, relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. & Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence. Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers, Prayers, & Sermons, when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at, nor Communion Tables called or kno∣wen by the names of Altars.

2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time, to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age, which makes it suspuious if not spu∣rious, written long after his decease.

3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars, then, it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets & power now, since it expr••sly affirmes, that the people have power, & are boundin conscience to reject alwayes, and not to receive any man for their Bishop, or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke, who shall

fall away from the truth to heresie, or Idolatrie; that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke, and, becomes no Bishop, neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop, but the people are to elect a new in his ste••d; the maine, scope & drist of this Epistle.

To the second I answer, that this Epistle mentions, a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell, not in S. Cyprians age, for ought appeares, before whose dayes we read of no such Councell, but long after; Yea Pamelius notes, that this Epistle was written in some Councell, in what he knoweth not, belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages, an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian; In which Councells theh 1.200 Constitu∣tion mentioned in this Epistle, (written as is evident by the subject of it, after these 3. Councells) was made and decreed; & so not S. Cyprians. And indeed the words, Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio, a••t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur; discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers, then his.

But admit it his, yet the word Altar, and expression herein used, is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. & doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar, or so named or reputed in his age, or that the Christians then had Altars.

And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age, yet that ex∣presly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secu∣lar offices, or imployments whatsoever, since they ought wholy, yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service, prayer, preaching, and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function.

A shrowde* 1.201 checke to some of our present Prelates & Clergiemen,

now most zealous for Altars, who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices, honors, imployments, & so farre to ingage them∣selves in Secular, Temporall, Civill, or State affaires, that many of the•• almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties, serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe.

To the third, I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age, in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme, or the Sacrament, on an Altar, much lesse the Doctrine of that time, that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be cōsecrated without an Altar, which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius, I may farther affirme it, to be a l••••e Popish fo••gerie and imposture, then S. Cyprians. And so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude, notwith∣standing these objected authorities in the Coale, that the Primi∣tive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars, neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar, and so my •• 9. Argument still holds good, maugre all those spurious Fathers & newminted evasions. I now proceed to my 10. Argument:

10. Those things and names which the whole Church, State, & most approved writers of our Church of England have censured, abandoned, & condemned upon good, godly, pious grounds, & considerations heretofore, ought not to be patronized, used, writ∣ten, preached for, revived, or new erected in our Churches now.

But the whole Church, State, & most approved writers of the Church of England have censured, abandoned, and condemned Al∣tars, with their names, and the calling of the Communion Tables, uponi 1.202 good, godly, pious grounds & considerations hereto∣fore. Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached, revived, or new erected in our Churches now; The Major is unquestionable, the Minor evidently proved in, & by the pre∣mises, which yet to make more perspicuous, I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities,k 1.203 Osotius,l 1.204 Dormian,m 1.205 Harding,n 1.206 the

Rhemists,o 1.207 Hart, andp 1.208 other Papists, complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth, and the Church of England in their time, that they had taken away, broken downe, demo∣lished all the Altars, and cast them out of the Church, setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards, as they termed them in their steeds, using only such Tables, not Altars, to consecrate the Lords-Supper on; blaming our Church in the selfe same manner,q 1.209 & for the selfe same cause, as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church, for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon.

A cleare Confession and apparant evidence, that the Church of England both in King Edwards, and Queen Elizabeths dayes, abo∣lished and condemned Altars.

Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes, that they had no Al∣tars, but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at; to which r 1.210 Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes, returned this answer; What use is there of an Altar, where no fire burnes, nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices. And concerning bowing to Altars (a Popish Cere∣mony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised, both without Scripture & Canon) he there thus determines; If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacra∣ments or Altars, let him be accursed. I doe not thinke (sayth hee) that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Ido∣latrie, as to bow their bodyes before Altars, especially when there is no Communion; but if at any time they shall be disco∣vered to have done thus, let none of us be lead by their Bookes, or examples to decline from the strict observation of Gods Law, which peremptorily forbiddeth, the making of Idolls & bowing to them or before them. This was this great learned mans judgment concerning Altars & bowing to them.

William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox,* 1.211 de∣dicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England. f. 12, Yee hold still Vestiments,

Popes, incense and ALTARS, organes & crosses in the Church, all which ordinances, Constitutions, & Ceremonies the Pope hath devised & maed, Ergo ye still have the Pope. Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances & Ceremonies in re∣ceiving whereof the Pope is still retained.

William Salisbury,* 1.212 in his Battery of the Popes Batter, printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. & dedica∣ted to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chauncellour of England, spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars, as Heathe∣nish, Jewish, Popish, and unfit to be tollerated in Churches; to the end that the rude and simple people being better per∣suaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture, should not have occasion to murmer grudge, or be offended, neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England (who as redoubted grand Captine, hath first enterprised, on this most notable feat) nor with any other Bishop or Lawfull Officer, that attempted to plucke downe and remove the Po∣pish Altars out of Christs, Churches and Temples; in the main∣tenance whereof he was fully persuaded, that all the learned Popist•• would stifly continue, as he there professeth in his Pre∣face to the Reader.

In which Treatise, after he had shewed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish, serving only for Sacrifices & offrings, which ended in and with Christs off••ing up of his body once for all: be concludes thus: So then now if it be a cleare case, and that by the plaine text of Holy Scripture, that since Christ was once offred on the Altar of the Crosse, all carnall Sacrifices, & all manner of offrings, that ever were wont to be offred upon the Altars, be wholly extinguished, utterly voyd and of none ef∣fect. And in as much as no man (being in his right witt when he advisedly perceiveth and plainely understandeth, that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose, but to burne or to offer Sacrifices & obla∣tions upon, which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept) but he will strait wayes acknowledge, that their ought

not any Altar to remaine to any use among us Christians, after the death and passion of our Master Christ; at which time as he protesteth himselfe, saying, Consum••tum est, it is finished; signifying thereby, that Moses Law was not only by him prevented, fulfilled, and finished, but that the same Law or any Commaundment, Rite, Ceremony, or any other part there in contained, (as concerning any burthening or Juris∣diction over the Christians) was to all intents ended, taken away, and fully determined, and the Gospell as it were a new Law, surrogated, confirmed and established in steed of the old.

Therfore Christians thus freed from the Law ought to have no Altars, but Tables; For what husbandman (be he never so simple) will be about to plough his land with a whelebarowe, to harrow it with a slede, or to carry with an harrow? what husbandman, I say is so folish, as to goe about to wede his corne with a sith, to moye his hey with a weeding hoke; and to tedde the same with a rake? Is a leaden Cesterne made for to sayle on the Sea, is a ship, made to be drawne of horses as a waggon upon the Land? do Noble men build sumptuons Palaces for their horses to stand in, and lie themselves in old ruinons stables? or doe men ordeine fetherbeds for their dogges, and lye themselves in kennells? who maketh a Garnar of an Oven, or an Oven of a Garnar? Or who maketh a threshing flore in his dwelling house, and a herth in his barne? who can make a pleasaunt & a brave banketing hou∣se, of filthy Schambles, or of a stinking Slaughter house? Yea or who had not rather have his Supper layed on a faire Table before him, then on a bloudy Butchars Cradle.

And so likewise (to apply some of these strong Anagogies and darke sayings to our purpose) is not a Garnar more meete to lay up grain in than an Oven? Is it not more meete to make a threshing flore in a barne then in a mans dwelling house? And to make an herth to kendle fyre on in the middes of a mans house, then by the moyes side in his barne.

And so who can make the Jewes old slaughter Synagoge to serve for the new Euangelike Banketing Temple? Or who had rather eate the heavenly banket of the Lords Supper on a Jewish, a heathenlyk, or a Popish Altar: then on a decent•• & a faire comely Table? The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christes Table and his Supper also. The unfaithfull heathen thinkes scorne of the same. The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet. The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion. The Heathen in no sence can away with it. The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian, yea to be thought to be Christ himselfe, so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen. And shall we seeke upon them? Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies, of their execrable Rites, and cursed usages? Or is Christes religion so unperfit of itselfe, so needy and beggerly, that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen, borrow Altars of the Pope, & borrow vestimentes of the Jewes? besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage, which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christes Religion, and now restored home to the owners thereof.

Therfore let us either render home againe unto the hea∣then, the superstition of the imbring dayes, and to the Pope his halowed Altars, and unto the Jewes, their Aarons vesti∣mentes: or els let us like good companions joyne together in a league with them, and be tenauntes in Commune, & put our religion with theirs in hotch potche.

After which at the end of the Booke he proceeds thus: S. Paul through the secret advertisment of the Holy Ghost did know before hand, then if he had geven the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table, that there would be in time to come cer∣taine Jewish teachers that would build and sett up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon.

And surely the holy D. S. Augustine, nor any other Godly writer, would never have used this terme Altar, so often; after that sort as they did, if they had had but the least incke∣ling

in the world of foreknowledge, what absurdity, what inconveniencie, and what mischiefe and abomination have been grounded on their translated termes. And I pray yow what though S, Augustine, or other Doctours used to terme the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, which if it be as I take it (I take it after the most sound and faithfullist under∣standing) the unlearned people should not be greatly behol∣den unto them for their straunge termes being so farre fetched.

For thus I understand them: The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the signe of the Altar, which Altar betokeneth the Crosse, which Crosse betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offred on the Crolle, or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wher∣fore good Christian brethren, let us that are homely fellowes, not be ashamed of the old Termes, that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture, which calleth the reverend and healthfull remembraunce of the Lords death by breaking of bread, by the name of the Lords Supper, or the Communion, & partaking of the body & bloud of Christ. And the thing whereat we* 1.213 sitt devoutly to eate the Lords Supper, lett us both have it, and call it the Lords-bord, or the Lords-Table, and not a borrowed towell, nor a Popish stone Altar, nor yet a wodden Altar, with a Super-altar. And let us present with so far fetched termes and so dearly bought, the Popes glace, and his faire Ladyes of Rome. Thus he.

John Bale Bishop of Osyris,* 1.214 in his Image of both Churches, or par••phrase upon the Revelation, as he makes Christ him∣selfe the only Altar spoken of and intended. Rev. 6. 9. & c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offred: So in his Preface to the first part of his Booke, he reckons up beades, Altars, Images, Organs, Lights &c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church, terming them; the very

filthy dreggs of darknes. All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he sayth shalbe plucked away by the evident word of God, and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appea∣re. For no longer continueth the whore, then whoredome is in price. Take away the Rites and Ceremonies, the Jewels and Ornaments, the Images and lightes, their Lordships and Fatherhodes, the Altars and Masses, with the Bishops and Preists, and what is their Holy whorish Church any more.

Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Ag∣geas c. 1. v. 9,* 1.215 reckons up Altars, Copes, Masses, & Trentals among other Popish abominations, which the Common peo∣ple thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Mony, how wickedly soever they had lived.

And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus: The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all: as for the eyes, their God hanges in a rope, Images gilded, painted, carved most finely, copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners, with Reliques and Altars: for the eares, singing, ringing and Organs piping: for the nose frankincense sweet; to wash away sinnes, as they say, Holy water of their owne holying, and making Preists an infinite sort, Masses, Trentalls, driges, and pardones &c.

But where the Gospells preached, they knowing that God is not pleased, but only with a pure heart, they are content with an Honest place appointed, to resort together in, though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all, but have only a pul∣pit, a preacher to the People, a Deacon for the poore, a Table for the Communion, with bare walles, or els written with Scriptures, haveing Gods eternall word, sounding alwayes amongst them in their sight and eares; and last of all they should have good discipline, correct faults, and keepe good order in all their meetings.

Learned M. Thomas Becon,* 1.216 in his workes in Folio, printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. & dedicated by name to both their Archbishops & all the Bishops of England, & by

them approved; hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars, some whereof I shall transcribe at large. In his Humble supplication unto God, for the restoring of his Holy word, written in Queen Maries dayes vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus: Moreover,* 1.217 heretofore we were taught, to beate downe the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars, which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode, & a strang Sacrifice for sinne, commaunded to be built up, as though calfes, goates, sheep, & such other brute beastes should be offred againe after the Preisthode of Aaron,* 1.218 for the sinnes of the people, and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table, and after the example of Christ, to receave together at it the holy mysteries of Christs body and bloud in remembrance that Christs body was broken, and his bloud shead for our sinnes.

But now the sacrificing ••orcerers shame not, both in their private talke, and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord, and therfore have they taken out of the Temples those seemely Tables, which we following the examples of the dearly beloved sonne, and of the Prima∣tive Church used. at the Ministration of the Holy Commu∣nion, and they have brought in againe their bloodly and butcherly Altars. and upon those they sacrifice & offer dayly,* 1.219 say they, that is, they kill, slea and murder thy deare sonne Christ for the sinnes of the people. For as thy Holy Apostle sayth Heb. 9. Where no sheading of bloud is, there is no re∣mission and forgivenes of sinnes. If thorow their Massing, sinnes be forgiuen, then must the Sacrifice that there is offred, be slain, and the bloud thereof shead.

If the Massemonger therfore offer Christ up in their Mas∣ses, a Sacrifice unto God for the sinnes of the people,* 1.220 so follo∣weth it that they murder, kill and slea Christ, yea and shed his bloud at their Masses, and so by this meanes we must nee∣des confesse, that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers, then honest and pure Tables.

But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death, dyeth no more. Death hath no more power over him. For as touching that he died, he died con∣cerning sinne once. And as touching that he liveth, he liveth unto the God his Father. If Christ therfore died no more, then doe the Papists sacrifice him no more. If they sacrifice him no more, then are they but jangling juglars, and their Masses serve for none other purpose;* 1.221 but to keepe the people in blindnesse, to deface the passion and death of Christ, and to maintaine their idle and drafsacked bellies, in all pompe and honor, with the labor of other mens hands, and with the sweat of poope mens browes, so farr is it of, that they with their abominable Massing & stincking sacrificing, put away the sinnes either of the quicke or of the dead, as they make the unlearned & simple people to beleive.

Ah Lord God & heavenly Father, if thou were not a God of long suffring & of great patience, how couldest thou abide these intollerable injuries, and so much detestable blasphemyes, which the wicked Papists committ against thee & thy sonne Christ, in their Idolatrous Masses, at their Hea∣thenish Altars.

As in the dayes of wicked Queen Jezabel,* 1.222 the Altars of the Lord were cast downe, and other Altars were reared, and set up to Baal: even so now the Tables of the Lord, where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministred, are cast downe & broken on peces, and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim, to Erkenwald, to Grimbald, to Catherine, to Mod∣wyne,* 1.223 &c. But ô Lord, bannish out of the Congregation that most vile & stinking Idoll the Masse, and restore unto us the Holy & blessed Communion, that we eating together of one bread, and drinking of one Cup, may remember the Lords death, & be thankfull, to thee.

Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations, of Cere∣monies,* 1.224 of Images, of Altars, of Copes, of vestmentes, of Pixes, of Crosses, of Censers, of Holy waterbuckets, of Holy

bread basketes, of Chrismatories, & above all Idolatrous Preists, and ungodly ignorant Curates.

And in his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus; Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper,* 1.225 used his com∣mon & dayly apparel. The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall & gameplayers garments, as with an Humerall, or Ephod; with an Albe, with a girdle, with a stole, with a maniple, with an amice, with a chesible,* 1.226 and the like &c. commeth unto the Altar with great Pompe, and with a solemne pace. Where (it is wonderfull to be spoken) how he setteth forth himselfe, to all Godly men to be lamen∣ted & pitied, & to children, even to be derided & to be lauged to scorne, while like another Roscius, with his foolish, player∣like & mad gestures, the poore wretch wrytheth himselfe on every side, now bowing his knees, now standing right up, now crossing himselfe, as though he were a frayd of spirites, now stoping downe, now prostrating himselfe, now knocking on his breast, now sensing, now kissing the Altar, the Booke and Patene, now streching out his armes, now folding his hands together, now making charecters, signes, tokens, & crosses, now lifting up the bread & Chalice, now holding his peace, now crying out, now saying, now singing, now breathing, now making no noise, now washing of hands, now eating, now drinking, now turning him unto the Altar, now unto the people, now blessing the people either with his fingers, or with an empty cuppe, &c.

When it evidently appeareth by the Histories, that the Mi∣nisters of Christes churche in times past when they ministred the Holy Sacraments, either of Baptisme or of the Lords Supper, used none other, then their Common and dayly ap∣parell: yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first, which first of all (as Sabellicus testifyeth) did forbidd, that from thence, forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their dayly aray, but such holy garmentes

as were appointed unto that use. This Bishop lived in the yeare of our Lord 260.

Christ simply and plainly, and without any decking or gorgious furniture, prepared and ministred that heavenly banket.

The Massemonger with a marvelous great pompe & won∣derfull gay sh••w setteth forth his marchandise.* 1.227

For he hath an Altar sumptuously built, yea & that is co∣vered with most fyne and white linnen clothes, so likewise richly garnished, decked and trimmed with divers gorgious pictures, and costly Images. He hath also crewettes for water and for wine, towels, coffers, pyxes, Philacteries, banners, candlestickes, waxe candles, organes, singing Bells, sacry belles, chalices of silver and of gold, patenes, sensers shyppe, frankensence, Altar cloothes, curtines, paxes, basyns, ewers, crosses, Chrismatory, Reliques, jewels, owches, precious stones, myters, crosse staves, and many other such like orna∣ments, more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron, then for the mynistery of the New Testament.

It is nobly sayd of* 1.228 S. Ambrose, the Sacraments require no gold, neither do they delight in gold, which are not bought for gold. The garnishing of the Sacramentes is the redem∣ption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners. And verily those are precious vesselles, which redeeme soules from death. That is the true treasure of the Lord, which worketh that, that his bloud hath wrought.

Againe he sayth: The church hath gold, not that it should keepe it, but that it should bestow it, and helpe when need is. For what doth it profitt to keep that, which serveth to no use?

Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and bloud to his Disciples, sitting at the Table. When the time was now come (sayth Luke) Jesus sate downe, and his 12. Disciples with him. Luc. 22.

The Massemonger, delivered the bread and wine to his

geates kneeling before the Altar. In distributing the myste∣ries of his body & bloud, Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aarons Preistes, whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beastes, but he used a Table, as a furniture, much more meet to gett, defend, confirme, encrease and continue Frendship.

But the Massemonger as one alwayes desirous to shed bloud, standeth at an Altar, and so delivereth the Communion to his people: when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy ban∣ket, maketh mention not of an Altar, but of a Table, saying, 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lordes Table, & of the Table of the Devills.

Neither did the ancient & old Church of Christ alow these Aaronicall and Jewish Altars. For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper, after the example of Christ, as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures,* 1.229 & also by the writings of the auncient Fathers and Doctors.

For the Sacrifices taken away, to what use, I pray yow should Altars serve among the Christians? except ye will call againe, and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sa∣crifices.

Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beastes, then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship;* 1.230 neither doe those Altars more agree with the Christian Reli∣gion,* 1.231 then the cawdron, the fyrepanne, the basen, the sholve, the fleshhoke, the gredyrne, and such like instruments, which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing, dressing, and doing their Sacrifices.

For unto the Honest, seemly & worthy celebration of the Holy banket, of the body and bloud of Christ, we have need not of an Altar, but of a Table, except ye will say, that the pri∣mative Church,* 1.232 which more then two hundred yeares after Christes ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the di∣vine mysteries: yea except ye will say that Christ himselfe the Author of this most Holy Supper, did dote & was out of his

witts, which not standing at an Altar, like Aarons Preist, but sitting at a Table, as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordaine and minister this Holy & Heavenly food.

For who is so rude & ignorant of antiquities, which kno∣weth not, that Pope Sixtus the second, about the yeare of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church for∣bidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper; when notwithstanding from Christes ascension unto that time, the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table, according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles, and of the Primative Church? But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ, the Sonne of God, and of the virgine Mary, of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner, Heb. 13, We have an Altar, whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eate, which serve in the Tabernacle.

Our Altar is not of stone, but of God. Not Worldly, but Heavenly, not visible, but invisible. Not dead, but living; upon the which Altar whatsoever is offred unto God the Fa∣ther, it can none otherwise be, but most thankfully and most acceptable.

And like as Christ administring the most Holy mysteries of his body & blood to his Disciples, sat downe at the Table. So likewise his Giustes, that is so say his Apostles, sitting at the same Table receaved that Heavenly food sitting.

But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramentall bread unto the Communicants except, they first of all kneele downe with great humility & reverence, that they may, by this their gesture declare & shew evidently to such as are present, that they worship & honour that bread for a God: which is so great & so notable wickednesse as none can ex∣ceed, when it is plaine & evident by the ancient writers, that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many yeares after Christes resurrection sat at the Table.

So farre is it of, that they either after the manner of the Jewes stood right up: or after the custome of the Papists

kneeled, when they should receave the Holy mysteries of the body & blood of Christ.

So in his Cathechisme f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus:

Father.

What thinkest, thou, is it more meet to receave the Supper of the Lord at a Table,* 1.233 or at an Altar?

Sonne.

At a Table.

Father.

Why so?

Sonne.

For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table, and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table.

And what can be more perfect then that, which Christ and his Apostles have done.

All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table.

And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper, ma∣keth mention not of an Altar, but of a Table. Ye can not be partakers, sayth he, of the Lordes Tables, and of the Devills also.

Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ, almost 300. years after Christ uni∣versally, and in some places longer, as Histories make men∣tion: So that the use of Altars is but a new invention, and brought in, as some write, by Pope Sixtus the second of that name.

Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice. And Altars were built and set up at the Commandement of God, to offer Sacrifice upon them. But all those* 1.234 Sacrifices doe now cease, (for they were but shadowes of things to come) ther∣fore the Altar ought to cease with them.

Christ alone is our Altar, our Sacrifice & our Preist. Our Altar is in Heaven, Our Altar is not made of stone, but of flesh & blood: of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar, whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle.

Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars, while they had such confidence in them, that without an Altar, or in the stead thereof, a Super-altare, they were perswa∣ded that they could, not duely & truly, and in right forme minister the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ.

And this their Altar and Superaltar, likewise must be con∣secrate, have prints and charactes made therein, washed with oyle, wine and water, be covered with a cloth of hayer, and be garnished with fine white linnen clothes & other costly apparell, or els whatsoever was done thereon, was counted vaine & unprofitable.

The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed & maintai∣ned the most wicked error and damnable heresie, which the Papistes hold, concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse; while they teach, that they offer Christ in their Masse to God the Father, an oblation and Sacrifice for the sinnes of the people both of the living and of the dead, and by this meanes they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling & alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christes death.

And therfore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no lesse to be throwen downe, and cast out of the Temples of the Christians, then in times past the Altars of the Preistes of Baal.

So far is it of that they be meet to be used, at the Celebra∣tion of the Lords Supper. Finally, who knoweth not that we come unto the Lords Table, not to offer bloody Sacrifices, to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars, but to eate and drinke, and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offred up for us on the Altar of the crosse, a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father, yea and that once for all.

Now if we come together to eate and drinke these Holy mysteties, & so spiritually to eate Christes body and to drinke his blood unto salvation both of our bodies & soules, who seeth not, that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the

Lords Supper, then an Altar.

Father.

Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended.* 1.235 But what sayest thou concer∣ning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table? Shall we receave those Holy mysteries, kneeling, standing or sitting?

Sonne,

Albeit I know & confesse, that gestures of them∣selves be indifferent, yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoyded, as have outwardly any appearance of evill, accor∣ding to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstaine from all evill apparaunce.

And first of all,* 1.236 forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ, at the receiving of the Sacrament, thorow the doctrine of the Papistes, although of it selfe, it be indifferent, to be, or not to be used, yet would I wish, that it were taken away by the authority of the hier powers.

Father.

Why so?

Sonne.

For it hath an outward appearaunce of evill. When the Papist thorow their pestilent perswasions had made of the Sacramentall bread and wine a God, then gave they in Com∣mandment streight wayes, that all people should with all re∣verence kneele unto it, worship & honour it.

And by this meanes this gesture of kneeling creept in, and is yet used in the Church of the Papistes, to declare that they worship the Sacrament, as their Lord God and Saviour. (Whence M. Roger Cutchud. in his 1. & 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio, Anno 1560. writes:) Many comming to the Lords Table, doe misbehave themselves, & so doe the lookers on, in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling & bowing their bodies, & knocking their breasts, & with Elevation of their hands. If it were to be elevated & served to the standers by, as it hath beene used, Christ would have elevated it above his head. He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples; bidding them to eate it, & not to hold up their hands to receive it, & not to worship it: & so delivered it to them SITTING, & not kneeling: Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence, & no

Sacrament: for God is not a Sacrament, neither is the Sacra∣ment God. Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did. If thou wilt be more devout, then they were, be not deceived, but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie.)

But I would wish with all my heart, that either this knee∣ling at the receiving of the Sacrament, were taken away, or els that the people were taught, that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe, but to Christ, which is represented by that Sacrament or signe.

But the most certaine & sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling, that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill, according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Ab∣steine from all evill appearaunce: Lest the enemies by the con∣tinuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error, and the weaklings offended, and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell. Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone. Therfore when Satan com∣maunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him & worship him: He answered, It is writen; thou shalt worship the Lord, Math. 4.

Standing,* 1.237 which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes, I can right well allow it, if it be appointed by common order, to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion.

And this gesture of standing was also used at the Com∣maundment of God of the old Jewes, Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe, which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come, as our Sacrament is a signe & figure of Christ come and gone. Neither did that gesture want his mysteries.

For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover, signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion, and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne, then had hethereto appeared unto them, which were wrapped round about with the darke sha∣dowes

of ceremonies: againe that other, yea and these more perfect Sacraments, were to, be given to Gods people, which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ, the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell, and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes, Baptisme and the Lords Supper.

Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table,* 1.238 which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches, if it were received by publique authority and common consent, and might conveniently be used in our Churches; I could alow that gesture best.

For as* 1.239 it is be doubted, but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table, when Christ delivered unto them the Sacra∣ment of his body and bloud: which use was also observed in the primative Church, and long after.

So likewise it is most Commonly, that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ, and of his Disciples. Nothing can be unreverently done, that is done of the exam∣ple of Christ & of his Apostles. We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ; we have a Table set before us, is it not meet and con∣venient, that we sitte at our Table?

The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat? yea rather who sitteth not downe? when Christ feed the people, he bad them not kneele downe, nor stand upon their feet, but he commaunded them to sit downe, John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke, which thing we doe at the Lords-Table. Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery.

For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified, that there was yet to come another do∣ctrine then the Law of Moses, even the preaching of the glo∣rious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu: & other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover, even the

Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper. So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie, preach and declare unto us, that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion, & that there is none other doctrine, nor none other Sacraments to be loo∣ked for, then those only, which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord.

And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture, that we are come to the perfection of our Religion, and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us: Notwithstanding as I sayd before, gestures are free, so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred.

In all things which we call indifferent; this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed: Abstayne from all evill apparaunce.

Father.

I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe.* 1.240 But come of, tell me: what sayest thou concerning the ve∣stures, which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper?

Sonne.

In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse & a cope, in some only a surplesse: in some neither cope nor surplesse, but their owne decent apparell.

Father.

And what thinkest thou in this behalfe?

Sonne.

When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did mi∣nister the Sacrament of his body & blood to his disciples, he used none other but his owne Commone & dayly apparell: & so likewise did the Apostles after him, and the primative Church likewise used that order, & so was it continued many yeares after, tyll superstition began to creep into the Church. After that time, fonde, foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne de∣vysed without the authority of Gods word, that the Minister in the divine service, and in the ministration of the Holy Sa∣craments should use a white linnen vesture, which we now commonly call a Surplesse.* 1.241

Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the sim∣plicity

of Christ & of his Apostles, requiring no paynted vi∣sores to set forth the glory & beauty of our Religion: which is then most glorious, and most beautifull; when it is most simple, & none otherwise setforth, then it was used and left unto us of Christ, & of his Apostles.

And contrarywise it is then most obscured & defaced, when it is dawbed over with the vile & vayne colours of mans wisdome, although outwardly never so gorgious and glo∣rious.

Afterward as superstition grew and encreased, so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church, and in adourning, decking & trimming the Temples of the Christians, yea & that so much the more, be∣cause they were now perswaded, that such Temples, and will workes pleased God, deserved remission of sinnes & ever∣lasting life.

By this meanes came it to passe, that the simple and plaine Tables, which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church, were taken away, and standing Altars set up, and gor∣geously decked with sumptuous apparell, & garnished with gold, pearle, & precyous stone. And because that he, which should minister at that gorgeous & sumptuous Altar, should answer in some points to the glory thereof, therfore it was devised, that the minister also should have on his backe * 1.242 galant and gorgious apparell, as an Amyce, an albe, a tu∣nicke, a girdle, a fannell, a stole, a vestment &c. whereof some were made of silke, some of veluet, some of cloth of gold, yea & those garnished with Angels, with Images, with birds, with beastes, with fishes, with floures, with herbes, with trees, and with all things that might satisfy and please the vaine eye of the carnall man.

And all these things being before but voluntary, gre•• afterward unto matters of so great waight & importance, yea unto such necessity, that it was made a matter of conscience, yea it was become deadly sinne to minister the Holy Com∣munion without these scenicall, Histrionicall, & Hickescorner like garments; so that now to sing Masse or to consecrate, as they use to say, without these Popish robes, is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sinne, so farr is it of, that these Missall vestures are now things of indiffe∣rency.

Wherfore in my judgment, it were meet and convenient, that* 1.243 all such disguised apparell were utterly taken away, forasmuch as it is but the vaine invention of man, & hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papistes? For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idolls? what concord is there between Christ and Beliall: what have the vestiments of a Popish Altar, to doe with the Table of the Lord Christ.

Many such passages are in this Author, which for brevity case I pretermitt.

Reverend M. Alexander Nowell, in his Reprofe of Dor∣mans profe, printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. & 66. writes thus: Touching the name of Al∣tars, which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill (as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9.) where we call it the Lords Table, we have for us good authority.

First, that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table, and not at an Altar, is most manifest: except M. Dorman would have us thinke, that men had Altars in steed of Tables, in their private houses in those dayes, but our Saviour expressely saying, that the handes of him, who should betray him, were upon the Table, taketh away all doubting. Luc. 22. c. 21.

And S. Paule 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Do∣minicam, the Lord his Table.

Sure I am that M. Dorman, & all the Papists with him, can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament,

for their Altars, as I have alledged for the Lords Table, they may goe therfore & joyne themselves to the Jewes, as in mul∣titude of Jewish ceremonies, so in Altars also; as it seemeth indeed, they would both become themselves, and make us too Jewes, rather then Christians.

If S. Basill, & some old writers call it an Altar, that is no proper, but a figurative name, for that as in the old Law their burnt offrings & Sacrifices were offred upon the Altar, so are our Sacrifices of prayer, and thankgiving &c. offred up to God at the Lords Table, at it were an Altar.

But such kind of figurative speech, can be no just cause, to set up Altars, rather then Tables, unlesse they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars, for that like phrase is used of them, where it is sayed, Christ offred up himselfe upon the Altar of the Crosse.

Now the old* 1.244 Doctors doe call it the Lords Table, usually, truly, without figure, and agreably to the Scriptures. Con∣cerning the spirituall worship or service of God, or Sacrifice, if yow will (seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill) due to be done at the Lords Table, which, as a fore is noted, he calleth an Altar, it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table: that is to say, true repentaunce of heart, which is as the Pro∣phet calleth it, Psal. 51. v. 19. a service & a Sacrifice pleasaunt unto God, the offering up of our prayers & prayses unto God; which service and Sacrifice of prayse, as the Psal. withnesseth, Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God; & specially that Sa∣crifice of thankes giving, most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table, and to that Holy Sacrament, having thereof a peculiar name, being called with the Greekes Eucharistia, to say, than∣kes giving, for the gratefull remembraunce of that one Sa∣crifice offered by our Saviour once for all: which Sacrifice of thanks giving we joyntly with other present, doe offer up to Christ our Saviour, in the memoriall by him selfe, and by faith in our heates doe communicate his precious body and blood, a Sacrifice by him selfe offred for us.

Neither are our oblations, or offrings to the poore lacking, when we come to this Altar, which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable, and pleasant to God, where as yow Papists have no such thing, but only the bare word Offer∣torium, without any offring for the poore; saving that yow did not forget to receive the offrings for your selves at the usuall offring dayes, and when any Dirige, or Monthes mind did fall.

Thus yow se, M. Dorman, that we have even that same spirituall worship, service, and Sacrifice too (if yow so will) due to be done at this Altar, that is to witt, the Lords Table, which S. Paul speaketh of here, and any other Altar or service he meaneth not, nor knew none.

And were yow not altogether to grosse, S. Basill so oft spea∣king of spirituall worshipping, and spirituall service, might somewhat reforme your carnall and sensuall understanding? yow se we doe not sticke to grant yow not only a spirituall worship and service, but a Sacrifice too, which yet hath no need of your Altars, framed to your selves, upon this false phantasie, that the body and bloud of Christ are there offred by the Preistes, for the quicke & dead, with the abuse of that distinction of the bloudy and unbloudy offering of Christs body, applied to the same: which altogether is a false fable, & a vaine dreame most meet for M. Dorman.

The Scriptures, Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. & 13. 11. 12. doe thus teach us, that Christ our Saviour once for all offred up his body and bloud upon the Altar of the Crosse, the one & only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father: by the which one oblation of the body of Christ•• a Sacrifice for our sinnes, once for ever offered, and no more to be offered by any man, we be sanctified and made perfit.

Wherfore the Popish Preistes, which doe repeate often the Sacrifice of Christs death, as they doe teach, thereby, as much as in them lieth, doe take away the efficacie and vertue of the Sacrifice of Christes death, making it like to the

Sacrifices of the old Law: the imperfection of which Sacri∣fices, S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the same. For the continuance whereof their Preistes needed also suc∣cession: but Christ is a Preist for ever without succession, as the Apostle Heb. 10. plainly teacheth.

Our service and Sacrifice now, is the often and thankfull remembraunce of that only Sacrifice, in the receiving of the Holy Sacrament at the Lords Table, according to his owne institution: Hoc facite in memoriam mei. Doe this in remem∣brance of me: with spirituall feeding by faith also, upon that his most precious body and bloud, so by him for us offered. Touching the pulling downe of your Altars, I answer: they are justly destroyed, as were those wicked Altars by Asa, Josa∣phat, Ezechias, Josias, godly Kings of Juda destroyed, 4. Reg. 18. c. 22. 4, Reg. 23. 2. Para. 14. a. 3. 2. Para. 17. b. 6. 2. Para. 31. a. 1. 2. Para. 34. a. 4.

For as abominable Idolatrie was committed on, & before your Altars, as ever was upon, and before those.

If yow require prouses hereof, you shall have them in their due places of the Masse, & of Idolatrie to Images, after which he complaines thus of the Papists: also of Christians we have made us Jewes, and your selves of Ministers of the Gosple have yow made Jewish and Aaronicall Levites, yow have on Aarons robes, yow use his gestures, yow have brought in his incense, his censers, his Altars, his candles, his candlestickes, his belles, and his banner, his gold and his silver into the service and Temple of God.

Of the which beginning of things, S. Hierome* 1.245 in his time much cōplained. And would to God yow had done no worse, then thus to make us & your selves altogether Juish, by your shadowes imitating and counterfeyting the old Law.

Elegant Walter Haddon* 1.246 & M. Fox in his answer to Hierom Osorious lib. 3. fol. 271. write thus concerning Altars: Now whereas thou sayest, that Images, signes, Crosses and Altars are cast downe, I suppose that this part of the Complaint doth

not much appertaine to Luther, or the Ministers of the Eua••∣gelicall doctrine, when as they never put any hands to the pulling downe of them.

Neither is it equall, that those who are but private men, should by force & Tumults take liberty to themselves, to do•• any thing in the Common wealth or Church.

But if the Magistrates by their lawfull authority, because they see it agreeable to the word of God, doe piously and quietly doe their office therein, what hath Osorius a private man and a stranger here, either to scould at, or to intermedle with it.

If King Sebastian shall thinke meet to cherish and follow these parts of the Roman Superstition in Altars, in Images, in Pictures, and adoring Images, he hath the voyces of the Scri∣pture on the one side, of Monkes on the other, to which he may chuse whither he will harken, he may doe in his Reipu∣blike, at his perill and pleasure, But on the other side if Eli∣zabeth Queen of the English, the Scripture leading her, shall thinke meet, that these filthinesses of impure superstition, which no Christian may endure without the danger of him∣selfe, and of his, rightly to be driven from the Empire, & cast out of the Realme, verily shee doth nothing therein, which may not plainly be defended by the perspicuous authority of the sacred Scripture, and by the great examples of the most approved Kings.

Unlesse perchance Osorious shall thinke the memory of Ezekiah, Josiah, Jehosaphat, not much to be appladed, who both destroyed Altars, and Images & Groves, and breake in peeces the brasen Serpent, or then Gedion also who when he was no King cut downe the Grove, and overturned the Altar, what therfore? that which in the Carnall Law was lawfull to the Kings of the Jewes, shall it be lesse lawfull to our go∣verners, Magistrates in the spirituall Kingdome or Christ? Or shall that then which in them was thought worthy of prayse, & reward by the verdict of the Scriptures, be con∣demned

of impiety in Christian Princes now? After which he proceeds, to justifye this action in breaking downe and abo∣lishing Images & Altars, by Histories, Fathers, and Councells in the Primative times.

D. Fulke,* 1.247 in his Confutation of the Rhemist Testament on the 1. Cor. c. 11. sect. 18. fol. 287. determines thus of Altars: But yow proceed & say, for this prophane Tables are remo∣ved, and Altars consecrated. Christ and his Apostles were to blame (if it be as yow say) to minister upon prophane Tables, without consecrating of Altars, But who shall beare witnes for consecration of Altars? who but S. Augustine Serm. 255. de tempore. And who shall warrant us that this Sermon is not falsly intituled to S. Augustine (as a great number of those Sermons are?) But admit it be Augustines owne aucto∣rity, yet he speaketh only of consecrating of Altars, not for this end to discerne the Lords body and bloud. For that their Tables and Altars were dedicated to the Holy use of mini∣stration, it is not the matter we stand upon, but whither they were consecrated for this end.

They were called Altars unproperly, as the Sacrament was called a Sacrifice, the Ministers sacrificing Preists & Levites, yet were they neither in matter, for me nor use, like unto your Popish Altars of stone, that were set against a wall. For they were Tables of wood, and so commonly were called, as it is manifest by S. Augustine Ep. 50. Bonifacio. And Optatus l. 6. both speaking of the rage of the Donatists, which brake, or shaved, or scraped the boardes of the Altar or Table.* 1.248 IT STOOD IN THE MIDDEST, THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT STAND ROUND A∣BOUT IT. Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. ad Paulin. tyr. ex Aug. de verb. Dom. secund. Joan. Serm. 46. It was removeable & carried by the clerkes August. Quaest. vet. & nov. Test. q. 101. Or otherwise as appeareth by Optatus l. 6. Therfore it is no∣thing like Popish Altars. So on Matthew 23. fol. 46. sect. 7. he determines thus:

Popish Altars that are set up to overthrow the Altar of the Crosse, are not Holy but cursed. And so is all that pertaineth to them. Neither have they perfection of the Lords Altar that was in the Temple, which was a figure of Christs only true Sacrifice once offered, & that never can be sacrificed againe, (as S. Augustine Sayth) Neither did the Altars of the temple sanctifie by touching, for then the murtherer vvhich tooke hold of the hornes of the Altar, should be sanctified, whom God commaunded to be drawne from thence & execu∣ted, Exod. 21. 14. 1. Reg. 2. 28. Neither if any man had offered any other gift, then that God which commaunded, had the gift been made Holy by touching the Altar, for it was the ordinance of God, by which the Altar sanctified the gift, and not any quality in the Altar. It is like you are sicke of the disease of the Pharisees, which was covetousnes, (as Chry∣sostome and Theophylact note) by magnifying the gifts of the Altar.

M. James Calfhill,* 1.249in his Answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse, London. 1565. the Preface to the Reader, writes thus: Thus Idolls brought in Oratories, Chapels and Altars, Sacrifices, vestimentes & such like, vvhich all be utterly con∣demned of the Lord. fol. 31. 32. he proves out of Origen, that the primative Christians had neither Images nor altars in their Churches.

And fol. 95. writing against the Popish manner of consecrating Churches, he concludes thus: then they put on their Massing coates, and come like blind fooles, with candles in their han∣des, at noone daye, and so proceed to the Holy Masse: vvith renting of throtes, & tearing of notes, chanting of Preists, howling of Clarkes, flinging of coales, & piping of Organs. thus they continue a long while in mirth and jolity, many mad parts be played. But vvhen the vice is come from the Altar, and the people shall have no more sport: they conclude their service with a true sentence, Terribilis est locus iste: this place is terrible.

And have they not fisht faire, thinke you? to make such a doe, to bring in the Devill: O blind beastes, O senselesse Hipocrites, whom God hath geven over unto themselves. that they should not see their owne folly, and yet bevvray their shame, to all the vvorld beside.

Bishop Babington* 1.250 in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars: Concer∣ning the Altar how it vvas made for matter, height, length, and breadth, the text is plaine in the 8. first verses.

For the use of us we may note two things; First, that it was a figure of Christ, as the Apostle to the Hebrewes expoun∣deth it, And secondly, that the Altars used in Popery, are not warranted by this example.

But that the Primative Churches used Communion. Tables (as we now doe) of boards and wood, not Altars (as they doe) of stone.

Origen was above two hundred yeares after Christ, & he sayth, that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians, Quod nec imagines, nec Templa, nec Aras haberent, that they had nei∣ther Images, nor Churches, nor Altars.

Arnobius (after him) sayth the same to the Heathens, Ac∣cusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus, nec Aras, nec Imagines, yow accuse us for that we have neither Churches, nor Altars, nor Images. Gerson sayth, that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made, and willed that no man should con∣secrate at a wooden Altar, but himselfe and his successors there. Belike then the former ages knew not profound rea∣son, that Altars must be of stone, quia Pe••ra erat Christus, be∣cause the Rocke was Christ, as Durandus after devised. Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for sted∣dinesse and continuance, wooden Tables having been before used, but I say in some places, not in all.

For S. Augustine sayth, that in his time in Africa they were made of wood. For the Donatists, sayth he, breake in sunder the Altar-boords, Again, the Deacons duty was to remove

the Altar. Chrysostome calleth it, The Holy boord, S. Augu∣stine, mensam Domini, the Table of the Lord. Athanasius, mensam ligneam, the Table of wood.

Yet was this Communion Table called an Altar, not that it was so, but only by allusion metaphorically, as Christ is called an Altar, or our hearts be called Altars, &c. Marke with your selfe therfore the newnesse of this point, for stone Altars in comparison of our ancient use of Communion Tables, and let Popery and his parts fall, and truth & sound antiquity be re∣garded.

Touching the hornes of the Altar spoken of, they litterally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of, & figurati∣vely noted strength, so that, to bind the Sacrifice to the hor∣nes of the Altar, was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith, and only to rest, & trust and stay upon him, and to tye all carnall affections fast also to the Altars Hornes, by subduing and making them captive to God. This Altar was in one place, and the Sacrifice in one place, nothing how Christ should only once, and in one place offer up himselfe for all man kind. Concerning the Lampes, as little doe they warrant Popish Altars, And Christians used no such follies & apish imitations of things abrogated & serving only for the time.

M. Thomas Cartwright* 1.251 in his Confutation of the Rhemists translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament, upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 11. sect. 18. fol. 415. writes thus of Altars: The next note to discerne the Lords body, is the removing of prophane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars. So the Rhemists: to which he replies.

Altars under the Law were Holy, because they were buil∣ded upon the foundation of Gods institution. Now they are prophane, not only because they have no institution of God, whereupon a stone may be layd, but because they are contrary to the institution which propoundeth a Table, Luke 22. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Math. 26. 20. 26. 27. and (in the matter of the Eucharist) never mentioneth Altar:

which is confirmed further, in that this Sacrament is called in the Scripture the Supper of the Lord, (whereunto a Table doth well agree) & is never termed a Sacrifice, for which an Altar is fit. That it is sayd, they sat downe, a thing used at a table, & strang at an Altar, whereat they sat not but stood: that they did eat & drinke which was never used at an Altar, and is usuall at a table.

For although they did eate of that which came from the Altar, yet they never did eate at it. And if your Masonrie of Altars came from the Lords ordination under the Law, why should our table be prophane, or your Altar Holy, consi∣dering that even under the Law, there was as well a Holy table, as an Holy Altar.

And (setting apart the example of Christ) by so much the table is fitter now then the Altar: as the shew-bread standing upon the table, hath a nearer Analogie with the bread of the Sacrament then had the flesh of slaine beastes which was layd upon the Altar.

Now your Hill Altars (being failed of the Holy Scriptu∣res) goe to beg grace of the* 1.252 ancient Fathers: where not∣withstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God, yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peters Chappell at Rome, which is alwayes building and never built.

If they present yow with some rough stones to the setting of it up, yet bring they no morter to hold them from falling upon heapes. For often times they helpe you with the name of an Altar, when the thing they signifie therby is a Commu∣nion Table, assigning it the Deacons Dutie to remove the Al∣tar, that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH, AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE: even as they terme the Lords Supper a Sacrifice unproperly (because it is a signe of the true Sacrifice) when in truth they will only recommend unto us a Sacrament.

Other sometimes, even the naked and bare name of Altar they take away from yow, calling that whereupon the Holy things are set (as it is) a Table, as also the Holy things them∣selves, they call by their proper names, of signes & Sacraments, and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host, yea and if Altars were Lawfull, yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them, unlesse (as they doe the bread) so they will transubstantiate the dead bo∣dyes of beastes into the body of Christ, not then borne, when those things were layd upon the Altar.

Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo. 115. any thing thereof: it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars, which we suppose your selves doe not observe, whereby it may well be doubted (as of divers others of those Sermons) whether it be Augustines or no; especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God.

Last of all, let the good Reader understand, that here in the Papists joyne with the* 1.253 Heathen, which quarrelled with the Primative Churches, that they had no Images, Altars nor Temples, whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome, was the first that erected Altars.

Also that Gerson affirmeth, that Silvester Bishop of Rome, was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone: where∣upon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded.

D. Willet,* 1.254 in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9. generall contro∣versie Quaest. 6. part. 2. Error 54. determines thus: Altars we acknowledge none. Altars we have none in our Churches; S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1. Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread, which is broken, 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables, not sacrificed upon Altars.

Augustine also calleth it, Mensam Domini, the Lords table. Epist. 59. & Epist. 50.

He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximi∣••ian a Catholike Bishop, beating him with Clubs, even in the Church, lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt, & woun∣ded him with the wood of the Altar, which they had broken downe, where though he improperly call it an Altar, yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood, and made to be re∣moved, not fastened to the wall, as their Popish Altars were. Damascus Epistol. 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists, and to be partakers only of the Lords Ta∣ble, he sayth the Lords Table, not the Lords Altar.

To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus: Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites, that they had polluted him, in that they sayd, the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing. What other thing, I pray you, doe your sacrificing Preists? they cannot abide the Lords Table, they must have an Altar & Sacrifice. They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell, but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes, dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes, beckings, duc∣kinges, crossinges, kissinges, tossings, tumblings, besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread & wine, & the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods.

Also Bishop Jewell, Bishop Hooper, B. Ridley & others, in their forecited passages against Altars, together with D. Rai∣nold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest. appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy, his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c, 5. (which authorizeth Justices of Peace, Majors, Bailifs & other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate, in their Li∣berties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and

Reliques of Popery, and that if any Altar, Pix, Beades, Pictu∣res, or such like Popish Reliques, or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their, or any of their custody they shalbe presently defaced and burnt, which Act expresly defines, Altars as well as Beades and Pictures, to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished) all which have with one unanimous voyce, condemned Altars, as Heathenish, Jewish, Popish, abo∣lished by Christs death, contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church, and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians, resolving likewise in expresse Termes, that Communion Tables are no Altars, nor yet to be so stiled.

And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise, as the ob∣jectors pretend they ought to be, because they falsly stile, and deeme them Altars.

If any here object, First,* 1.255 that Communion Tables are Altars, because D. John Pocklington, in his Sunday no Sabbath, prin∣ted and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Arch∣bishop of Canterburies, Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir. 1. p. 43. averrs, that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar. 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar, are parta∣kers of the Altar: which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh, for habemus Altare, we also under the Gosple have an Altar. Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar, Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar, and may be so tearmed.

To this I answer first,* 1.256 that this great over confident Doctor, shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations, If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts, which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible, for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. & Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle, and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures, as thus to misquote, misprinte these texts, no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning.

2. I answer, that it is most cleare, that the first Text of the two,

namly, 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know, that they which Mi∣nister about holy things live of the things of the Temple, and they which waite AT (not of the Altar, as he reades it) are partakers with the Altar; is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes, Levites and Iewish Altars, not of Christs, Ministers and Lords Tables.

First, Because the things of the Temples and Altars, (which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple, there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges) are here coupl••d together, and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles, of purpose to confute this blind Doctor, & instruct all men, that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist & Levites under the Law, not of the Ministers under the Gosple, as all Expositors whatsoever, both old and new interpret it.

2. Because, the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute, in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord ordai∣ned, that they which preach the Gosple,* 1.257 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 Al∣tar, 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 * 1.258 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 Har∣ding against Jewell, & Hare in his Conference with D. Rai∣nolds, 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,* 1.259 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 hea∣vines 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 ac∣cording 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 sancti∣fie to same.

How our owne writers have expounded this Text heretofore, will appeare.

First,1 1.260 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 Testa∣ment; 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) were wont to eate up their Altars being made of stones. And that were hard meat indeed; yea that were meate alone for * 1.261 Ostriches? yea or rather stone meat were more meet for such as have stony heartes, as have all Papisticall Doct. who against

their conscience, knowledge and learning, and being all desti∣tute of the spirit of God, cry & shout for the defence of their welbeloved Altars, Habemus Altars, Habemus Altare, Habe∣mus Altare; yea & I may tell yow this Habemus Altare, is their judgeling tricke, wherby they doe juggle unto the unlearned, it is all their Tabernacle, & only refuge against all tempestes, and this is as well their shote anker, as their halow at their hosing up of their ankor. But to hale in my saile and to land at the proposed haven.

The English text of Habemus Altare written, Hebrew 13. is this: Be not carried about with diverse and strang lear∣nings: for it is a good thing, that the heart be established with grace, and not with meates, which have not prosited them that have had their pastime in them. We have an Altar, of the which they have no power to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle, &c.

Here he doeth in a manner make a breife rehearsall of all the cheifest matters that he entreated of before, adding thereto diverse Godly sentences to persuade the Hebrewes to abide in this learning: Inducing them also, by alluding unto their Law being but a shadow to cleave unto the Gosple, and to let goe the shadow.

And therfore he sayth thus unto them: And as you had certaine Sacrifices offred on the Altars, whereof it was not Lawfull even for the very offerers to eat: so likewise have we a sacrifice once offred upon the altar of the Crosse, whereof it is not Lawfull for as many of yow as be yet duskened with the shadow of the Law to eate, nor to be partakers of it at all.

Now therfore must the Papists be thought not only to be of too childish a witt, and of no understanding, but rather fu∣rious and mad, if they continue to prove their stony altars by this text.

And therfore would I think it an exceeding good deed for such as injoy their right witt to pick out from amongst

themselves as many as are vexed with the spirit of the sayd kind of phrenesy, and send them to Bedlem, or to their owne City of Rome. For els they shall still infect other, & doe more hurt then every man is ware of.

At the last to draw to an end in this matter; where this word Altar is read in the 6. 8. & 11. Chapters of the revela∣tion of S. John: if altar in those places, admitting the like trope and figurative speech, do not signifie Christ also (God knoweth, it signifieth nothing lesse then the confirmation of such altars as the Pope hath filled every corner of Christs Church with all.

And if the Papistes (after that all the Testimonies, as well of the Old & the New Testament have fayled them) goe about to wrest the saying of the old Doctours, for the stabi∣lishing of their altars, they shall get nothing therby, but still utter their owne grosse ignorance, or their perverse blindnes, For whereso ever the old Catholike Doctours, used this word altar for the Lords Table, then alluded they unto the Jewes Altar, & ment thereby the Crosse which served as an altar to offer upon the Sacrifice of Christes naturall body.

And forsorh, ye Papisticall Preistes, as many of yow as un∣derstand the Latine, and marked what yow read, (and if yee had been* 1.262 Bees & not Spiders) yow might have gathered the nature of this manner of allusion or resemblance of Chri∣stes Crosse unto the altars of the Jewes, even out of your owne poysoned Masse.

For doe you not remember how ye mumbled (how ye redd I would say) in a certaine rime of your sayd hotch potch, which began: Laudes crucis extollamus, nos qui crucis exultamus, &c, Oquam Falix quam praeclara, fuit haec salut is ara, rubens agni sanguine. O how excellent & how happy, was this altar of ir••e, besprynckeled with Lambes bloud! and againe in an∣other prose: Ara crucis, lampas lucis, verasalus hominum; whose sence in English word for word is this: The Altar of the Crosse, the lampe of light & the very health of men.

2 1.263 By Richard Woodman Martyr, who interprets this Text only of Christ, in hisast; 1.264 second Examination before the Bishop of Chicester, which I shall here verbatim rela••e,

Chichester.

Follow your vocation: yow have a little lear∣ning: we have an Altar, Heb. 13. whereof yow may not eate. What meaneth S. Paul thereby?

Woodman.

There is no man so foolish, to eate stones, I trow.

Chich.

What mockers and scorners be yow, to say no man will be so foolish to eate stones? it is a plaine ••ocke.

Wood.

Why my Lord, yow sayd I had no learning, nor knowledge. Wherfore it becommeth yow to make things more plaine to me, and not to aske me such darke questions, and yet blame me to, me thinke it is too much.

Chich.

I dare say, yow know what it meaneth well inough. The most foole in my house will understand my meaning better then yow doe.

Wood.

There stood some of his men not farre of, talking together beside a windowe. He called one of them by his name.

Chich.

Come hither, I say to thee, thou shalt not eat of this Table; what doe I meane thereby?

The man.

Forsooth my Lord,* 1.265 yow would not have me eate of this table, laying his hand thereupon. With this answer he made all them in the house to fall on laughing, and I could not hold it in, but burst out with laughter, and sayd.

Wood.

He hath expounded the matter almost as well as I.

Chich.

He meaneth well inough, if yow would understand him, answer me againe, to make it more plaine, I say to yee, Thou shalt not eat of this Table, what meane I thereby?

The man.

Forsooth yow would not have me eate this Table.

Wood.

These words made them all langh; wherewith the Bishop was almost angry, because the answer proved no better and sayd.

Chich.

He meaneth that I would not have him eate any of the meat that is set upon this Table. How sayest thou, doest thou not mean so?

The man.

Yes forsooth my Lord, that was my meaning in∣deed.

Wood.

Yea my Lord, now yow have told him what yow mean, he can say so too: and so could I have done (as little witt as I have) if yow had sayd, Paul meant that no man might eate of that which was offred upon the Altar, but the Preists.

Chich.

Yea I perceive yow understand the meaning of Paule well inough, but that yow list to cavill with me.

Wood.

Why my Lord, doe yow thinke I understand such darke places of the Scripture, without learning? yow sayd even now, I had no knowledge, nor learning, wherfore I answered yow, as yow judged of me.

Chich.

Well, lett this matter passe, & let us turne to the principall againe.* 1.266 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,* 1.267 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 shalbe 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 recon∣conciled 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:* 1.268 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 bro∣ther, 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, woe∣man 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 gathe∣red 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 under∣stand it so.

Chich.

O what vaine glory is in yow, as though yow un∣derstood 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 see∣meth 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, inter∣pret the Altar in this Text, to be Christ himselfe: not any ma∣teriall Altar either of wood or stone.

3 1.269 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 un∣derstandeth, 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 entran∣ce 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 an∣cient 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 Ta∣ble 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 before.

By M. Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists Heb. 13. 10. sect. 6. (we have an Altar.) The writ••r to the Hebre∣wes exhorting them to seek establishment of their hearts in the grace which was brought unto them in the Gospell, & not in the discretion of meates, alleadgeth this for profe, that even as those which seryed the Tabernacle, were not partakers by eating of those beasts, whose blood being brought into the holy place, their bodies were burnt without the campe.

Even so, those which holding fast the Ceremonies of the Law, are even yet as it were in the Tabernacle, cannot be par∣taker of our Saviour Christ, who suffered out of the gates of Jerusalem, and is the truth of the shadowes & figures, which were burnt without the camp.

This being the very naturall meaning of the Text, let the Reader observe, how not childishly only, but absurdly also, the Jesui••es apply this place to prove a Reall Altar, and conse∣quently a Sacrifice of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

For first, what is that which the Jewes are threatned to be deprived of the eating of.

If the Jesuites will answer according to their drift heere of, proving an Altar of stone, and not a Communion Table, they must say that for reward of their obstinate cleaving to the Ceremonies of the Law, they shall not eat stones, a small pu∣nishment for so great a finne, which if the Jesuites were put unto, they would (I thinke) cry for a Communion Table, as of some better digestion then the Popish Altar: whereby it is evident how sottish it is which they straine so much at, tou∣ching the proper signification of the Greeke word, and the Hebrew answering there unto: which as if those words which properly signifie one thing, cannot by borrowed speech signifie

another thing unproperly. And as though they were igno∣rant, that the word as properly signifieth a reall Sacrifice, as this word signifieth an Altar, were not in this very Chapter translated from the property of it to signifie a spirituall Sa∣crifice.

Wherfore by the Altar is meant our Saviour Christ, so cal∣led, for that as he is the Preist and Sacrifice, so also he is the Altar, which sanctified himselfe to be offered unto his Holy Father, as the Altar did sanctifie the gift which was upon it, And it is Christ, not sacrificed upon an Altar of stone, by a Preist, but which offered himselfe upon Mount Calvary, without the gates of Jerusalem, as is expresly mentioned here in this place.

Neither doth the writer to the Hebrewes meane Christ, suffering in a Mysterie, but that oblation of himselfe which he once offered, wherein the fire of Gods anger fed upon his body and soule to have (as were the Sacrifices of beasts) con∣sumed them, if that his humanity had not been supported and borne up by the eternall spirit of his God head, wherein he offered himselfe unto his Holy Father.

And Isychius l. 6. c. 21. in Lev. saying, that Christs body is the Altar, confuteth you plainly, that hereof would ground an Altar of stone: and saying, that the Jewes for their incredu∣lity must not behold him, he giveth you another blow, thereby declaring that the eating of Christ is the beholding of him, and not the ••arn all eating of him, or swallowing him downe the throate, & the beholding of Christ he placeth in the eye of faith, which the incredulous Jewes wanting must not behold him.

What cursed spirits therfore are these, which upon the con∣fidence of this place, making as much for their Altars as for Baals, scoffe at the Holy Table of the Lord, in calling it a common & prophane board, which must needs (unlesse they have heardned their faces to all impudency, grant that the first and last time that ever our Saviour Christ ministred the

Eucharist in his owne person, did it at a Table, and not at an Altar, and at the same Table also at which he eat his common repast, which notwithstanding we doe not, nor (in the peace and quiet of the Church) thinke meet to be done.

But of this matter let the Reader see more before upon 1. Cor. 11. 29. where also he shall see how unworthily the ancient Fathers are abused for maintenance of Massing Altars. And let it be here observed how the evidence of the truth presseth them, which are faine to confesse that the Fathers call it as well a Table as an Altar, but say they that is unproperly in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body and blood received.

And I pray you, what should let us to say, that when they call it an Altar; they doe it unproperly, because of the spiri∣tuall Sacrifice of thankes giving, that is offered at it. Set aside the truth of the cause triable by other reasons, what warrant have you for your answer which we have not for ours.

Nay we may much trulyer say it then you can; which ha∣ving shewed it before will heere content our selves with one place, and the same taken from your owne allegations.

And from him who may well be in stead of all the rest, for August. Epist. 86. speaking of that which under the Gospell succeeded that under the Law saith thus: One Altar ought to give place to another, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, beast to beast, bloud to bloud: whereby the same reason that the beast which is offered must needs be an un∣proper speech, and the fire that consumeth it a metaphoricall fire: it followeth that the Altar, whereupon the beast is layd and consumed must needs be an unproper speech.

And indeed this unproperty of speech in the Altar is yet further confirmed. When in the same place. Augustine ob∣jecteth to one as an Ignorance, that he understood not the name of Altar to be more used in the vvriting of the Law & of the Prophets, then under the Gospell, but most evidently of all, in that the proving, that there is mention of an Altar in the

New Testament, alleadgeth the place in the Apocalipse, which the Jesuites themselues interpret of our Saviour Christ. Yow were heere also greatly over-seen to bring this place; seeing he against whom this ignorance is objected, affirmed that in stead of a beast, we have now bread in the Sacrament: and in stead of blood we have the cup: where yow would beare the world in hand, that Beringarius was the first that denied Transubstantiation.

And S. Augustine answering it, and affirming that bloud succeeded to bloud, yet doth evidently declare, that he meant a figurative and Sacramentall bloud, in that where the other sayd, we have in stead of a beast, bread, Augustine answereth, that as the Jewes had the presence bread, so we in the Supper of the Lord, and when he sayth, that every one taketh a peece of the Immaculate Lambe: it is evident that he meaneth by the Lambe, the figure & Sacrament of the Lambe, unlesse you will dare to say, that our Saviour Christ in the Supper is cu•• or broken in peeces: but as for your shift it is not so honest: for presupposing (as you doe) that it is very bloud and raw flesh, which is there received, the word of Table fitteth it not so well, but rather the word of Altar ought to have been re∣tained, considering that men use not to bring any of these dishes to their Tables, and yet were usually brought under the Law to the Altar: which Altar if you be ashamed to build up againe to have place meet for your Popish dishes, yow shall repaire to the Butchers shamble or slaughter house, where this Marchandise of yours is most saleable.

5 1.270 By D. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart Chap. 8. Divis. 4. p. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478.

Hart.

The name of Altar is used properly for a materiall Altar, by the Apostle to the Hebrewes, saying Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, whereof they have no power to eate which serve the Tabernacle, &c.

Rainolds.

And are you out of doubt that by the words, We have an Altar, the Apostle meaneth a materiall Altar,

such as your Altars made of stone.

Hart.

What else? A very Altar?

Rainolds.

And they who have no power to eate of this Altar are the stubborne Jewes, who keepe the Ceremonies of the Law.

Hart.

The Jewes, & such prophane men?

Rainolds.

Then your Masse Preists may, & doe use to eat of this Altar.

Hart.

They doe; and what then?

Rainolds.

Their teeth be good & strong, if they eat of an Altar that is made of stone. Are ye sure that they eat of it.

Hart.

Eat of an Altar? As though ye knew not, that, by the Altar the Sacrifice which is offered upon the Altar, is signified. They eat of Christes body, which thereby is meant.

Rainolds.

Is it so? Then the word (Altar) is not taken for a very Altar in the proper sence, but figuratively for the body of Christ the which was sacrificed & offered.

Neither is it taken for the body of Christ, in that respect that Christ is offered in the Sacrament, in the which sort he is mystically offered as often as the faithfall doe eat of that bread, & drinke of that Cup. Wherein the breaking of his body and shedding of his bloud is represented to them.

But in that respect that Christ was offered on the Crosse in the which sort he was truly offred, not often, but once, to take away the sinnes of many, & to sanctifie them, for ever, who be∣leive in him.

Hart.

Nay, the ancient Father Isichius expoundeth it of the body of Christ in the Sacrament (as I shewed) which the Jewes must not behold. They might behold his body upon the Crosse, & did so.

Rainolds.

But the Holy Apostle himselfe did understand it of the body of Christ, as it was offred on the Crosse.

And that is manifest by the words he addeth to shew his meaning touching the Jewes and the Altar, Heb. 13. 11.

For (sayth he) the bodies of those beastes whose blood is brought unto the Holy place by the High Preist for sinne, are burnt without the camp••. Therfore even Iesus that he might sanctifie the people wish his owne blood, suffered without the gare.

Which words are some what darke, but they will be plai∣ne, if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would pro∣ve, & the reason by which he proveth it.

The thing that he would prove, is, that the Iewes cannot be partakers of the fruit of Christs death, & the redemption which he purchased with his pretious blood, if they still re∣taine the Ceremoniall worship of the Law of Moses.

The reason by which he proveth it, is an ordinance of God in a kind of Sacrifices appointed by the Law to be offered for sinne, which Sacrifices shadowed Christ, & taught this doctri∣ne, Lev. 6. 16. & 7. 6.

For whereas the Preistes vvho served the Tabernacle in the Ceremonies of the Law, Levit. 4. 3. & 16. 17. had a part of other Sacrifices & offerings & did eate of them, Lev. 6. 30. there were certaine beasts commaunded to be offred for sinne in speciall sort, & their blood to be brought into the Holy place, vvhose bodies might not be eaten, but must be burnt vvithout the Campe.

Now, by these Sacrifices offred so for sinne our only Soue∣raigne Sacrifice Iesus Christ vvas figured, Heb. 9. 12. vvho entred by his blood into the Holy place, to clense us from all sinne, 1. Iohn 1. 7. & 2. 2. & his body vvas crucified vvithout the gate, Iohn 19. 20. that is, the Gate of the Citty of Ieru∣salem: & they vvho keep the Preistly rites of Moses Law, cannot eate of him, that by his death they may live, Iohn 6. 51. for none shall live by him vvho seeke to be saved by the Law, as it is vvritten, Gal. 5. 2. if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

The Apostle therfore exhorting the Hebrewes, to stablish their hearts vvith grace, that teacheth them to serve the Lord in spirit & truth after the Doctrine of the Gospell, not vvith

meates, that is to say, with the Ceremonies of the Law, a part whereof was the difference between unclean & clean in meats doth move them to it with this reason, verse 10. that they serve the Tabernacle and stick unto the Rites of the Jewish Preist hood, their soules shall have no part of the food of our Sacrifice, no fruit of Christes death, verse 11. For as the bodyes of those beastes which are offred for sinne, & their blood brought into the Holy place by the High Preist, might not be eaten by the Preistes, but were burnt without the campe: so neither may the keepers of the Preistly Ceremonies have life by feeding upon Christ, who (to show this mystery) did suffer death without the Gate, when he shed his bloud to clense the people from their sinne. verse 12.

And thus it appeareth by the Text itselfe, that the name of Altar betokneth the Sacrifice, that is to say, Christ crucified; not as his death is shewed forth in the Sacrament, but as he did suffer death without the gate.

Whereby you may perceive first, the folly of your Rhemists, about the Greeke word, (is also the Hebrew) that it signifieth properly an Altar to Sacrifice on; as though it might not therfore be used figuratively; where yet themselves must needes acknowledge it to be so too.

Next the weaknes of your reason; who thereof doe gather, that, by the Sacrifice, which that word importeth in the Apostle, is meant the cleane offring, of which the Prophet speaketh.

For the cleane offring, of which the Prophet speaketh, Mal. 1. 11. is offered in every place, the Sacrifice meant by the Apostle, Heb. 13. 11. in one place only, without the Gate.

Wherfore the name of Altar in the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth neither signifie a Massing Altar, nor prove the Sacrifice of Massing Preistes.

Hart.

That which you touch, as folishly noted by our Rhe∣mists in their Annot. on Heb. 13. 10. about the Greeke and Hebrew word, is noted very truly.

For you cannot deny your selfe, but that it signifieth pro∣perly an Altar, a materiall Altar to sacrifice upon, & not a metaphoricall & spirituall Altar. Whereby as they conclude, that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon, but a very Altar in the pro∣per sence to sacrifice Christ body upon: so for profe hereof they adde, that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed, it is also called an Altar of the Fathers, even ofa 1.271 Gregorie Nazianzene, b 1.272Chrysostome,c 1.273 Socrates,d 1.274 Augustine, ande 1.275 Theophylact.

And when it is called a Table, it is in respect of the Hea∣venly food of Christs body & bloud received.

Rainolds.

The note of your Rhemists, about the Greeke & Hebrew word is true, (I grant) yet foolish too, though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift. For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth, we have an Altar, it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually, or in a figurative sence, as we expound it of Christ, but materially of a very Altar, such as is used in their Masses: they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion, (as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach there∣unto in the old Testam. signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphoricall & spirituall Altar. Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it, I will make you see by an example of their owne.

Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe, that he is the true bread, which giveth life unto the world, the bread which came downe from Heaven, that whosoever eateth of it should not die; if any man eate of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51.

Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon, that the person of Christ incarnate, is meant under the metaphore of bread, & our beleefe in him is signified by

eating. Wherein they say well. But if a man should tell them, that the Greeke word artos, (as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament,) doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily, & not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread: were not this as true a speech as their owne? yet how wise to the purpose, who is so blind that seeth not? yea, to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves, upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God. doe affirme expresly, that Christ is this Altar. Christ (say they) as man, no doubt is this Altar. They meane it (I hope) in a Metaphoricall, or other figurative speech.

For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly, yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thu∣siasterion, (as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament) signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar.

And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove, that Masse is sayd in Heaven, as that in earth: and that Christ is properly bread without a figure, as that bread is pro∣perly Christ in the Sacrament: the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread, yea the true bread, would prove the one cleerly, as they could fitt it with this note: and the word Altar, would put the other out of controversie, cheifly if that were noted with all, that an Angell stood before the Altar, having a Golden Censer, Rev. 8. 3. thoughf 1.276 others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ.

But it fareth with your Rhemists, as it is wont vvith false Prophets, Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval, and others daube it over with a rotten plaister, and when a storme cometh the wall falleth & plaister with it: For though, as they lay it on, it seemeth hansome, thatg 1.277 vvords signifie

properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie, & not metaphoricall or spirituall things: yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used (by meta∣phors, or other figures) to signifie those things vvhich pro∣perly they doe not signifie, the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is, will laugh at it.

Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall, I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by, & doe infer upon it, that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon.

In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art, partly by drawing us into hatred, vvho have not Popish Altars, but Communion Tables, partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in, as if they made for you against us, Both vvith skill and cunning, but more of Sophi∣strie, then divinity, 1. Cor. 10. 21.

For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table, because it is ordained for the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body & blood: Theh 1.278 Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it.

And this improper sence. Marrie, by a figure of speech, by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality, are given one unto another: as Christ is called David, Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist, Elias, Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon, Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem, Isay 62. 9. thei 1.279 Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers & Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old, are wont to give the name, as of Preistes & Levites, to Pastours & Deacons.

so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper: and of an Altar to the Lords Table.

For these thinges are linked by nature in relation & mu∣tuall dependence (as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice, & the Sacrificers, who serve the Altar, that is Prei∣stes and Levites. Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon, then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacri∣ficing of it.

But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone, Heb. 7. 11. & they knew it, neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so, but by a figure.

Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them, in proving as by them, that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly, But us of the other side they doe abuse more, by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech, as if we, whose Churches, have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ, & sacrifice him upon it, ••ad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon.

A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men, whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury.

For we have not a Common, but ak 1.280 Holy Table, as both we call it, & esteem it: not a prophane Communion board, but the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of thankesgiving, & the Cup of blessing, as the Apostles Doctrine, and practise of thel 1.281 Fathers teach us: your selves are guilty rather of feeding men with meere bread, who doe takem 1.282 away the Cup of the New Testament in the bloud of Christ from the Christian people: & in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament, doe give in your Mas∣ses, n 1.283 meere bread indeed by your owne Confession, the

Common bread, that goeth under the name of*† 1.284 Holy bread. I would to God M. Hart, you would thinke with your selfe even in your bed (as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4.) & con∣sider more deepely, both the wicked abuses, wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prophaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Masse, & the treacherous meanes, whereby your Masters & Fellowes of the Colledge of Rhe∣mes doe seeke to maintaine it.

Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar, or of the cleane offring the principall places whereon their shew standeth: they goe about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple, partly by discrediting us with fal••e reproches, partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers. Which two kinds of profe doe beare the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations.

6 1.285 By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9. generall controversie part. 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars; Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, of which they have no power to eate that serve at the Taber∣necle. That is, the Altar whereon Christes body is offered: Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum. Answer. The Apostle spea∣keth expresly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christes death (as it is manifest in the two verses next following,) which is by a Christian faith, and not in the Sacrament only, whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall obser∣vations of the Leviticall Sacrifices.

For the Apostle speaketh manifestly, vers. 12. of the suffe∣ring of Christ without the Gate. Christ therfore is the Altar, yea our Preist and Sacrifice too.

Further, you abuse this place to prove your materiall Po∣pish Altars, which are many: but the Apostle sayth, we have an Altar, speaking of one.

This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sea∣led, that Christ is the true Altar, whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer, he proveth by the Conference of

those two places of the Gospel. Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar, & remember that thy brother hath ought against thee, &c.

Likewise, Math. 18. where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the middest.

Wheresoever then people are gathered together in Christs name, there is he in the middest, and where he is, there is the Altar, so that we may be bold to come & offer our gift, Fox p. 1991. Col. 2.

7 1.286 By David Dickson, who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus: We have an Altar, &c. Such as will eate of Jesus & be partakers of him, must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle, by kee∣ping on foot, & continuing the Ceremonies, & appertaynan∣ces annexed there unto; such Feastes, such Jubil es, such Al∣tars, such sprinklings, & Holy water, such Preists and vesti∣mentes, &c. as Levi had.

He calleth Christ, by the name of the Altar; because Hee is the thing signified by the Altar, & by the Sacrifice, and by she rest of the Leviticall Ceremonies.

Then 1. those Ordinances of Leviticall Service were figu∣res of Christ, some in one part, some in another, and Hee is the Accomplishment of them, even the Truth of them ALL, The true Tabernacle, the true Preist, the true Sacrifice, the true Altar, &c.

2. Christes selfe, is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath. Our Altar is He only; and nothing but hee, the Apostle knoweth no other.

The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart, in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James* 1.287 himselfe, who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel. 9. v. determines thus: I saw under the Altar the soules of the Martyrs, which cryed with a loud voyce: How long wilt thou delay, ô Lord, since thou art Holy & true, to revenge our blood.

For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs, that the soules lying under the Altar, to wi••t in the safegard of Jesus Christ, (who is the only Altar, whereupon & by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lipps, to wit our humble prayers to God the Father) did pray, & their blood did cry to Heaven, & crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked.

Thus all these with sundrie other writers of our Church, together with all Protestant writers, whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himselfe, not of Communion Tables and Altars; Therfore it proves not that the Communion Table is, or may be called an Altar, though the Fathers some times improperly stile it so, contrary to the Scripture language, yet not in that sence, or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators doe, to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar, and set upp Masse againe.

If any object in the second place,* 1.288 as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangly doth, and before him o 1.289 M. Shelford, that the Lords Table may be called an Altar, yea the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar (though the Scripture never stile either of them thus.)

First, Because the Fathers some times phrase them so.

2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. r••vived by El. c. 2. termes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar.

3. Because the Common Prayer Booke in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. cals the Lords Table promiscuously both by the name of a Table an Altar.

4. Because our Godly Martyrs, as John Fryth, Archbishop Crammer, John Lambert, John Philpot, Bishop Latimer, and Bishop Ridley, call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The Sacrament of the Altar, & the Communion Table an Altar, as their words cited in the Coale from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify: from whence that Pampl••t concludes thus:

So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar, and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged; neither the Prince or Prelates, the Preist or people dissenting from it, some of those termes being further justified by the Statute Law.

To the first of these Reasons I answer:* 1.290 First, that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lords Table, an Altar, but the Lords Table, the Lords Supper, the Communion of Christs body & blood, we ought therfore to stile them so as the Scripture doth, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. to call them by those names the Scripture gives them, which are proper & genuine, since we ought to speake as Christ and God hath taught us of these ordinances.

2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yea∣res after Christ had no Altars of which more before; therforep 1.291 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, asq 1.292 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 ar∣gument 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 scan∣dalized 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 yetm 1.293 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, asn 1.294 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, su∣perstitious, Popish, or else to continue in it with wounded, troubled, scrupulous cōsciences & dejected discontented spi∣rits, & 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,* 1.295 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 remo∣ved 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 Sacra∣ment 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 Eliza∣beths, 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 Sacra∣ment of the Altar; but rather argues the contrary; that we should for beare to stile them thus, because the Parleament in all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service (except only in Queen Maries dayes) hath done it; though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary, that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law, but never proves it, neither in truth can doe it.

5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes, that this Statute of ••. E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne, was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head & body, and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar, and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknow∣ledged, &c.

I answer, that there is in this a double mistake. 1. in the Statute

itselfe, in citing, 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sa∣crament or Common Prayer, nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale, (who stiles S. Edward Cooke, S. Robert Cooke, & makes M. Plowden a Iudge, & stiled him* 1.296 Judge Plowden, though he were never any Iudge; & a Professed Papist) was some* 1.297 busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite & interpret Statutes in which he had no skill, or else borrowed his Law, from others, as ignorant as himselfe, perchance froma 1.298 M. Shelford, who quotes, or rather misquotes these two Acts.

2. In the thing for which he cites it, for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. (thoughb 1.299 M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary,) as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion.

Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments, set forth in a Booke intitled; The Booke of Common Prayer, &c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God, and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Chri∣stes Religion. Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament, that the sayd estatute of Repeale & every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE, and the service, administration of Sacraments rites & Ceremonies, conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke, shalbe voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming, & that the sayd Booke with the order of service, and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremo∣nies, with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute••, shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect, according to the tenor and effect of this estatute, any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing.

And in the end of this Act•• this clause is inserted: and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd, that all Lawes, Sta∣tutes & Ordinances, whereby an other service, administration of Sacraments, or Common prayer is limited, established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void & of none effect.

By which it is most apparant. First, that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae: only as to the Booke of Com∣mon Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. & 6. Ed. 6. & no further; therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke, and so remaines unrevived, and still repealed by this Act as before.

2. That it revives not any Statute for Common: Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed, but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe, & that not as it was at first published, when it had the name of Altar, & Sacrament of the Altar in it, but as it was pur∣ged from these termes, and testified in 5. & 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act.

So as it neither revives the head, body, and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar, the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar, nor any of these phrases, as the Author of the Coale from the Altar, ignorantly and falsely affirmes, nor any other Sta∣tute concerning Common Prayer, no not; 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. & 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act, (the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacra∣ments now on foote) because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer, service and administration of the Sacra∣ment, then this which this Statute confirmes; which enacts, that the sayd Booke &c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute, shall stand and be in full force and effect, not by vertue of any former Law, but according to the tenor & effect of this Statute.

From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale, that neither the head, nor body, nor any branch, or member of

1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice, nor an Altar, nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side, much lesse on all sides acknowledged, as he falsely vaunts; that both the Princes, Prelates, Preists, & people have dis••ented from it, & that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes.

And so this maine authority on which he & M. Shelford built, is point blanke against them, makes nothing at all for them; and over throwes their cause.

To the 3. reason I answer; that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer, set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar, as is evident by the Booke itselfe, and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should ra∣ther be after the forme of a Table then an Altar: Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then remo∣ved by publike authority: but when the Altars the next yeare following (for no reformation can be perfited at first, but by de∣grees) were removed by the King and Counsells speciall com∣maund, & Communion Tables placed in their Roomes, not to humor M. Calvin, but upon good and Godly considera∣tions, and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell, (which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction, registred by M. Fox; the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by au∣thority of Parleament 5. & 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke, and the names of Lords Table, Gods board, Communion Table, Holy Table, Communion Sacra∣ment, & Sacrament of Christs body & blood, & Lords Table, only retained & inserted in its steed; which Booke being af∣terwards altered, amended & revided by Act of Parliament, 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names, Altar, & Sacrament of the againe pur∣pose omitted, and those other Phrases & expressions only retained.

The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar, being thus particularly, purposely & professedly damned & expunged

out of the Booke of Common Prayer, by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes, & never thought meet to be used or reinserted since, is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution, that the Communion Table is not an Altar (much lesse ana 1.300 High Altar, as some now phrase it;) that the Lords Table, ought not to be stiled an Altar, nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, (else why should these Titles be thus exploded?) and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus, much lesse to write & plead in defence of these their Titles, as these new Champions doe, but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture, the Common Prayer Booke, & these two statutes give them.

To the 4. reason; I answer:

First, that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table, an Altar, or the Sa∣ment, the Sacrament of the Altar.

True it is, Bishop Latimer sayth, that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places, in a figurative and im∣proper sence; & Bishop Ridley, in answer to that place, that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill, sayth, that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar, not the Jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord; but themselves never call it an Altar, but a Table only; they being so farre from it, that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke, de Confringendis Altaribus, andb 1.301 he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples, & in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke.

Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there ••ited, & M. Philpot expre••••ly resolves, that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar, but Christ himselfe.

And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar, so not the Lords supper, the Sacrament of the Altar.

For John Fryth only sayth, they examined me touching

the Sacrament of the Altar; the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it, not he; who mentions it as their Interrogatorie, not his answer.

So John Lamberts words: I make yow the same Answer, that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar, relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it, not to his owne voluntarie answer, which must be made of, and according to the question de∣manded.

M. Philpot only sayth, that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto, the Sacrament of the Altar; but he calls it not so himselfe.

Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8: dayes, before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantia∣tion, of which he was at first an over earnest defender as him∣selfe c 1.302 confessed at last.

Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar, but afterwards he did; not using it in his writings; and so farre was he s••em calling the Communion Table an Altar, that he was the cheife agent in casting ou•• Altars: and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke, his,d 1.303 name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley, for the remo∣ving of Altars, and setting up Tables in their places; and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar, (condemning both Altars, and their very name in some sort) sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter, being approved, if not compiled by him.

So that all these Reasons & authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and en••lamed, are now quite extinguished upon ••••••full examination, & neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar, or may be so stiled, or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar, but the contrary.

Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons, notwithstanding these Objections, that the Communion Table is no

Altar, and that the Church, State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars, and their very name together with them, by which Altars (as Philippus Eilbrachius: writes in his Epa∣northosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect. 7.) the Crosse of Christ is overturned, and therfore they are to be taken away; the Orthodox Churches doing well, in removing them, and restoring Tables, at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny, but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper.

The objection fals quite to ground, and I may thus invertit: Communion Tables are no Altars, neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars; Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar∣wise, against the East end of the Quire, in such manner as the late Popish Altars, as is pretended stood.

But admit Communion Tables to be Altars, then it will hence necessarily, follow•• that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire, because Altars anciently ever stood so, b••th among the Jewes, Gentiles, Pagon Greekes & Romans, and Christians to, as I have largely manifested.

Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches; thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches, and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus, Gen∣tianus Herveticus, and other Authors.

Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England: e 1.304 For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church: Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar, and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar; Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church, and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar, and setting their very Tombes; and rotten Carcases, above Christs mercy seat, and Chaire of Estate,

〈…〉〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited, who as they will have no ••ea••es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty, some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tom∣bes especially of Bishops (who should give good example of humi∣lity to others,) to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them; If then our Tables must be situa∣ted. as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares; they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell, because Altars have there been usually placed, as the premises abundantly evidence.

And these ensuing Testimonies will prove•• lexond•• control.* 1.305 Sigis∣mund the Monke, in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum, Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records; That in the ancient Cathe∣drall Church of Augusta dedicated to S. Afra, there were two Quiers, in which were two Altars standing under two arches; & at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles, which di∣vided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes. and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the peo∣ple. Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars; the first & cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys, Versus Occidentem in parte, septentrionali, non juxta murum, SED QUASI IN MEDIO: & that stood towards the West, (not East) in the North part, not close by the wall, but as it were in MIDDEST.

Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome, so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water* 1.306 ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus &c. went round about it from foot high and more.

* 1.307 Anastasius writes of Pop•• Theodorus, that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare; he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar, honoring him as the Preist of the royall City.

Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end

of the Quire where the Bishops chaires, and Seates now generally are placed, or in the midst of the Quire; or else B••shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar, where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand, for feare any should sitt above, or in equipage with God Almighty.

The same Author relates, that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church, having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar, two of each side: the Altar therefore stood not against the wall, but some distance from it, else this travarse or vayle of Cur∣taines could not inviron it round about.

In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe, (whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne) the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day (as William Tho∣mas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy, & Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report) when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament, STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire, upon every way, and the Pope being brought behind (or above it as our Prelates terme it) was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God, sitting above Christ and God almighty him∣selfe by our Novellers & Prelates language: in which manner the Altar stood there long before, & yet continues scituated, as I am informed.

And in S. Peters Church at Rome, (as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to, in Cardinall Wolsies dayes, in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome, & M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate,) the Sacrament & Altar are both in a Chapple, not in the East, but Northside of the Church; and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple, under an old Altar, at the very lower part or end of the Church, (not the upper.)

If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe, are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire, in the North, not East end, yea at the very lower part and end, not

East or upper end of the Churches••; Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them, for their East••rly situa∣tion of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall, or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire, as they call it, since the old Altar under which S. Peter & Paul lie buried (& at, which the* 1.308 Romanists affirme, they consecrated the Sacra∣ment and sayd Masse,) stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church, the Preists, Prelates a••d people taking the upper hand thereof, and sitting above it, as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar.

The 3. objection* 1.309 is this:a 1.310 The Jewes and Pagans Altars, stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples; Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall, as now they are placed.

I answer 1.* 1.311 That this is a mad consequence: For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars, then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars; & if we will reject the latter as Iew••sh & heathenish much more Altars themselves, as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us.

2. I answer, That the argument, is a meere Nonsequitur; For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did, yet will it follow. Ergo we must place them against the East∣wall or end of the Church or Chauncell.

Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West, North or South-side of the Church or Quire, is as good a consequent.

3. Our Novellers will needes imitate theb 1.312 Gentiles & Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums, Mercie-Seates, Copes, Miters, Aaronicall attires vestments, Organs, Singing-men, & a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies, Orders, Pastimes Festivals & Consecrations; why not then in the standing of their Altars; having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this par∣ticular, as they have in all, or most of the others.

4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple & Court, of the Temples by diuine institution & direction, & so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason, as the most vsefull ••itting and de∣••ent scituation; therfore Christians should rather imitate, then di∣rectly thwart them in this particular, having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe.

The 4. objection is this.* 1.313 The Communion Tables in all Ca∣thedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated, (where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed,) therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples.

I answer: 1. but I know not, neither doe I beleiue the Axtece∣dent to be true, for certaine I am, that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares (& by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury, Winchester, Exeter, Bristol, Worcester, Carlile and others) the Communion Table stood East & West a good distance from the wall, not Altarwise against it, & with in the memory of some men yet aliue, it stood so in all Cathedrals of England, & in all or most of the Kings Chapples. If they haue been otherwyse si∣tuate of late yeares, (as the Tables in many Churches haue been) con∣trary to Law; it is but an innouation, introduced by some violēt In∣nouators, without any Lawfull authority, for what end all England sees, and knowes to well. So as I may truly thus retort the argu∣ment: that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches, and the Kings Chap∣ples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes, when their situation hath been changed without, yea against both Law and Canon, Therfore the Lords Tables in all other Churches & Chapples, ought thus to be situated.

As for the practise in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crowne, I am utterly ignorant of it: But when he was Prince of Wales, I once receiued the Sacrament in his Chapple at Sant Ia∣mes; & then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacra∣ment administration was placed in the middest of the Chap∣ple, and white linnen Clothes, like Table Clothes, were spread upon the deskes of the Seates (where in the Communiant••

sate round about) in a decent manner, the Ministers delive∣ring them the Sacrament in those seates, and this (they then certified me, had been, and was the custome of administring the Sa∣crament there, both in Prince Henries & his Majestyts time.

Whether the Custome be different at Whitehall, or other his Majestyes Chapples, I know not; since I never was at any Sacra∣ment there; but of the other, I was an eye-witnes, and many who have beene ancient servants both to Prince Henry, & his Majesty, can testify this to have been the Custome. I cannot therfore thinke, that the King & Princes Chapples doe jarre or vary in this parti∣cular.

But admit they should, yet vivendum est legibus non Exem∣plis; his Majestyes subjects must live according to his Lawes in this particular, not according to the patterne of his Chapples; exempt, as from all Episcopall Iurisdiction, (as all other Chur∣ches & Chapples should be as well as they if this argument hold good,) so from ordinary Rules and Lawes, which bind the Subject.

But to give a more particular answer. I say, that admit the Antecedent true, yet the consequence is infirme: We know, that Cathedrall Churches have Deanes, Prebends, Canons, Sin∣ging-men, Choristers, Organists, Virgerers, Copes, Sackbuts, (yea Kits & Cornets oft times) in them, & that they sing, not read their whole divine Service & prayers to; (I doubt me much whether with any serious contrition & compunction, since, S. James writes thus c. 5. v. 13. If any man be merry, let him sing Psalmes, if any man be sorry or afflicted, let him pray, not sing: & Salomon sayth Prov. 25. 20. As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, & as vineger upon niter, so is he that singeth songs too, much more then with an heavy heart.)

Will it therfore follow; Therfore all Papish Churches & Chap∣ples ought to have such Officers, Instruments, & chaunting? We know, that many Cathedralls now, I know not by what Law, have no Communion Tables in them, but High Altars, (so they terme

them,) elevated on High with many steps, and ascents, their very exalted situation & name, being clearly derived from the Ido∣latrous High places of the Gentiles, so oft condemned in Scriptures, Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3, Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Al∣tars, situated in High places.

Shall therfore all our parish Churches & Chapples have no Communion Tables in them, (though prescribed by our Statutes, Common Prayer-Booke, Articles of Religion, Homilies, In∣junctions, Canons, writers,) but High-Altars only, which all these decree? We know that these new erected Cathedrall High Altars have much furniture, as Tapers, Basons, Cushions (yea and Crucifixes,a 1.314 expresly condemned by our Homilies, as unlawfull either to be made or used in Churches,) standing on them; Which M. Andrew Melvin, that famous Scottish Poët & Divine, thus wittily describes in Latine Verse:

b 1.315 In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum: Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara? Lumina coeca duo, pollubra sicca duo? Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum? Lumine coeca suo;* 1.316 flumine sicca suo? Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram; Purpuream* 1.317 gemino mact at honore lupam?

Si Christi haec Mensa est, cur Missae est structa paratu? Cur versa in tenebras, Lux? in inane Latex? Si sensus, cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis, Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece? Cur, quae pulsa prius, presto est caliginis umbra? Quò calamistra trucis, philtraque blanda Lupae?

Which may be thus Englished, upon the Altar & Furniture thereof in England.

Why, on Court-Altars, two Bookes clasped lie, Two lightless Lights, two empty Basons drie? Does England in Gods worship lock-up Sense? Darke in her Beames, dry in Streames influence? Whilst with Romes Rites, shee Royall-Altars Decks, Offers shee not Romes Whore in all respects? If `tis Christs Board, why is it Mass-like trim'd? Why has it empty Fonts? Lights wholely dim'd? If Romes Dumbe-Showes be from the Britans banisht, Why are our Bibles Shut, our pure Prayers vanisht? Why are Romes Foggs brought back, expell'd before? What meane the Tyres, sweet Drafts of that bace Whore?

Shall it therfore follow, because these Cathedrall Altars have such trinkets standing on them, ergo every parish Church & Chap∣ple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars & Com∣munion Tables to?

I trow not, unlesse there were some Law or Statute for it; since the Rubricke of the Common Prayer Booke, & the 82. Canon Prescribes, that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linnen cloth upon it, and that at other times, during diviue service only, it should be cove∣red with a Carpet of filke, or other decent stuffe; so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it, in Cathedrall Churches, are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Booke of Common Prayer, the Canons, yea and the Queenes Injun∣ctions, as the High Altar is.

This argument, therfore (now much insisted on) is invalid, un∣tesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Lawes & Ca∣nons in those particulars, then now they are.

The 5.* 1.318 Objection is this: That the Queenes Injunctions commaund the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood: Ergo they ought to be placed Altar∣wise.

To this I answer, that the words of the Queenes Injunctions, published Anno 1559. by the advise of her most honorable Counsaile, are these:

For the Tables in the Church.

Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many & sundrie parts of the Realme, the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacra∣ment, ACCORDING TO THE FORME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED; and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed, upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majestyes Visitours.

In the order where of, having for uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment; so that the Sacrament be duly & reverently Ministred: yet for observation of one unifor∣mity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALME, and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALFE, it is ordered, that no Altar be taken downe but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Church∣wardens, or one of them at the least••, wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used; & that the HOLY TA∣BLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood, & there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, & shalbe appointed BY THE VISITORS; and so to stand saving when the Commu∣nion of the Sacrament is to be distributed: at which time the same shalbe so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell (the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon, saye, with in the body of the Church or chancell, which makes me suspect,

that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions,) as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his prayer & ministration, & the Commu∣nicants also, more conveniently & in more number communi∣cate with the sayd Minister; and after the Communion done, from time to time, the same HOLY TABLE to be pla∣ced where it stood before.

In which Injunction, (much wrested & insisted on by the Cole) these particulars are remarkable, to stoppe the mouthes of our mo∣derne Innovators.

First, that Communion Tables are no Altars, nor ought to be so stiled, they being here put in opposition & contradistinction one to the other, though some now confound & bind them together as one.

2. That all Altars were removed, & ordered to be re∣moved, by vertue and forme of a Law, therfore provided, to witt the Statute of: Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them. Therfore the bringing in & setting up of Altars now, and the calling of Communion Tables, Altars, is against that Law, and the Booke of Common Prayer.

3. That the setting up & continuance of Communion Tables, and the calling of them by this name, was, and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe; & the re∣moving of them and altering of their name to Altars, or High-Al∣tars: against the Law.

4. That all Altars were generally removed & enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme, and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church; therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls, & in the Queenes owne Chapples, for better example unto others: So that the erecting of Altars in them, or any of them, must needs be a late Novelty, contrary to Law, to this Injunction, and a grosse Non-conformity.

5. That the care of Taking downe Altars, & setting up Communion Tables, was committed to the Curate & Church∣wardens

of each parish, not the Bishop: yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars, and displace the Tables Altarwise.

6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen & her Successors, & that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers, as their Visitours, having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe, as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abun∣dantly evidence.

7. That the ordering of the Situation & covering of the Communion Tables, is referred not to the Bishop or Ordi∣nary of the Diocesse, but to the Queenes Visitors, who were then* 1.319 specially appointed by her Commission, as they were in King Henry the 8. & King Edwards dayes, many of them being Lay-persons.

Which Visitours placed them Tablewise, not Altarwise, in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since, till with in these two or 3. yeares last past.

8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell, and there to stand unmoveable, even when the Sacrament is administred: the Injunctions expresly prescribing, that where ever it stand befo∣re; yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distri∣buted, it shalbe removed into such part of the Chancell, (or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs) as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard &c. & after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood be∣fore.

Which word shalbe, is not a baer arbitrary permission only, as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it, but a direct pr••••••pt, as is the later-clause, by his owne confession, else the Churchw••rdens

might choose; whither they would remoue the Table after the Sa∣reament ended to the place where it stood before.

These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus pre∣mised, I come now to answer the objection, being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them.

First then I answer,* 1.320 that this clause, & set in the place where the Altar stood, implies not, but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle, for all Altars were not so situated,o 1.321 before this Injunction: The Altar in Carmarthen Church, was placed in the middest of the Church, without the Quire.

The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches & Chap∣ples (built North or North and South) stood at the South end of the Quire, not the East: & in many Churches some Altats stood one way, some an other, some West, some North and South, as p 1.322 walafridus Strabus witnisseth•• but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire, as the Promises evidence. The Au∣thor of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres, or Chauncles, in the place where now he would have them situated (which he can never doe) else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe, but marre his cause, & make poinct-blanke against him; since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall, but, in the place where the Altar stood, so that where the Alter was placed in the midst, west North or South end of the Church or Chancle, the Table was to be there situated likewise.

2. By The place where the Altar stood, is not to be interpre∣ted so precisely, that it must stand in that particular individuall place, or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood; for this cer∣tainly was not the meaning, but, in the place, that is, in that end of the Church where the Altar stood; to witt, in the midst of the Church, if the Altar stood there; or in the East, West, North or South end of the Church, where the Altars were so severally situated; or in the Chauncel, where the Altar formerly stood in the Chann••le: that

this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction, & not, that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood, or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere, as our, Innouators expound it, is most apparant by these Reasons.

1. First Because the Communion Tables wereq 1.323 of a different forme from the Altars then in Churches being both longer & broder then Altars, wich were all most perfectly square, but Ta∣bles all most as long againe as brode.

They could not therfore be situated in the same individuall precise place as the Altars stood, being thus different in proportion & for∣me from them.

This is ther 1.324 Coales owne argument, even against it selfe.

2. Because the Coale itselfe confesseth,s 1.325 that Altars were in∣corporated, & fixed unto this wall; & that Tables were not to be so; therfore they were not to be placed punctually in that place, & in such sort ar the Altars stood & were placed, by his owne confession.

3. Because the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke prescribes; that the Minister at the time of administring & con∣secrating the Sacrament shal stand at the North side of the Table, not at the North end: which clearly determines, that the Ta∣ble ought to be situated Table-wise with the sides or Longest squa∣res of it North and South, not Altar wise, with the ends of it North & South and the sides of it East and West, against the Wall, as so∣me popish Altars stood: And therfore the Jnjunction never inten∣ded, that it should be set in the very precise place where the Altar was, & in the selfe same manner as it was situated; for the Table being but a long square, not a perfect Quadratum, hath but two sides, & two ends; the narrowest square of it, being ever in our Eng∣ish Tongue, termed an end not a Side, & the longest square only a SIDE.

And though Geometricians vsually terme every square** 1.326 Latus, in Latine, which we translate a side, (wich yet more properly signi∣fieth the breadth, then the length of a thing, and so rather the end then the side, yet we in our English phrase ever call the long square

only, the side, and the Narrew the end: The Rubrike therfore beeing first compiled in English, for English men, according to the usuall meaning of the English phrase, not to shew any termes of Art or skill, but to direct & instruct both Ministers & people in the most plaine & familiar way; the word North-side, must needs' be interpreted of the long-side; of the Table standing Northward, which we ever phrase the side, not of the narrower∣square set Northward, which we ever heretofore and still, phrase the North-end.

Wherfore the shife used by the Coalier,t 1.327 That the North-end and the North-side come both to one, there being no diffe∣rence in this case between them, he that stands and ministreth at the North-end of the Altar, standing no question at the North-side there of, as inpropertie of speech we ought to call it, (cujus contrarium verum est, since we neither use nor ought so to call it in our English dialect,) is but a mere ridiculous evasion, & a miserable shift.

Neither wil his Objection,v 1.328 that the Communion prayer Boo∣ke done into Latine by command & authorised by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth in the 2. yeare of her raigne, tran∣slates it.

Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem pa tem &c. avayle him: Since SEPTENTRIONALIS PARS, though it may signifie, the Northerne end of the Table, as well as the North-side, in case the end of it were so situated, yet here signifies only, the North-side, not end of the Table, the North-side being the Norh-part of the Table, as well as the end the originall English which it Translates, the North-side not end, and the Ta∣bles at the time of this Translation standing with the Long-side. not the end of it towar•• the North.

4. Because the Queenes visitors and the whole Kingdomne thus interpreted it, even in point of practise, by placing all the Communion Tables in all Churches at that very time, by vertue of this J••junction and the Rubrike, not Altarwise, with the two ends North and South, and the sides East & West along by the wall;

but Table-wise, with the two long sides North and South, and the ends East and VVest, a good distance from the wall. as they have stood from 1. Elizabeth, till now of late, without any Altera∣tion, as experience, and all aged men, who well remember how the visitors placed them. with our fore cited writers prove, past all con∣tradiction.

x 1.329 Neyther were they thus placed by casualty, but of set pur∣pose, to difference them from Popish Massing Altars, even in point of situation, & toy 1.330 teach the people that thy were Tables to eate and drinke at, not Side-Tables or dressers, as the Episto∣ler observes,

If then the Queens owne visitors, and all those throughout the Kingdome, whether Ministers or Church wardens, who had a hand inplacing the Communion Tables vpon the removing of Altars, did thus interpret the Injunction, not of the precise place where the Altar stood, or manner of its standing; with the one side against the East-wall of the Quiere, under the East-window, but only of that part of the Church where the Altar stood, and there upon si∣tuated the Tables throughout all England and Wales, not Altar∣wise, but Table-wise only, as is before expressed,; an experimentall truth past all contradistion,) then certainely there can be nothing in this Injuncttion prescribing them to be now new placed Altar∣wise against the East-wall of the Chancel, in that precise forme, place and, manner as the Altars stood, as our Novellers now froms hence most fondly contend,

3 Finally admitt these words might (••simplie consider ed) be ta∣ken in that strict senc as some now would haue them, yet the follo∣wing words; and shalbe appointed by the Commissioners, not the Bishops or Ordinaries, who are expresly, excluded (though the Coale would make the prime men) which relate as well to the placing, as to the covering of the Table; leaves the manner and precise place of Situs, to the Commissioners appointement, since the very places wherein the Altars formerly stood, were not so sitting to sett the Table in, in many Churches, as some other place in the same part of the Church or Chauncel.

All which considered, this, Injunction gives no warrant at all for the late removing of our Tables & railing them in Altarwise, for wich the Coale is so hote & fiery.

Now where as thez 1.331 Coale would willinglie make the world beleive, that this Injunction saith, that the removing of Altars was a thing of no great moment; so that for ought it ap∣peares unto the Contrary, neither the Article nor Homily, nor the Queenes Injunctions nor the Canons. 1571. haue deter∣mined any thing, but that as the Lords-Supper may be called Sacrifice, so may the Holy Table becalled our Altar, and set up in the place where the Altar stood.

2. I answer, That these words in the Injunction; There se∣meth noe matter of great moment, referrs not to Altars, as if the removing or standing of them were a matter of no great moment (for thena 1.332 the Parleament, King, and Councel in King Ed∣wards dayes, would not have so carefully removed them out of Churches & expuoged their very name out of the Comon Prayer Booke, not the Queene and the Parliament by espe∣ciall Law prouided for that purpose done the like, neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing, or our Martyrs & Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes,) but it relates only, to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the re∣moving of them, with order and direction to be given by them, was noe matter of great moment, but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion concei∣ved of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors, they might have been well removed without any such or∣der from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides, according to the forme of the Law ther∣fore provided: For they hauing a Law authorising them to re∣move their Altars, and to sett up, Tables in their stead, they might without only order from the visitours, even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided, removed their Al∣tars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sa∣crament:

So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order & direction, for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables & Altars themsilves, or the removing of them simplie considered, as the Coliar dreames (and so his inference grounded on this is misin∣terpretation, is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle, adged terme the Lords Table an Altar, but the Holy Table, Communion Table, or Lords Board & Table only.

The 6. objection* 1.333 is this; The orders published by the Quee∣nes Commisioners Anno: 1561. say,b 1.334 that in the place whe∣re the steps were, the Communion Table shall stand; & that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board, the Ta∣bles of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose.

And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus.

The parrish shall provide a decent Table, standing on a frame for the Communion Table, &c.

And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East∣wall over the side Table.

Which put together make up this Construction, that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall, on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be pla∣ced, which was directly where the Altar had stood before,

I answer* 1.335 first, that those two Authorities ever use the word Ta∣ble, and never stile the Lords Table and Altar, as his Objector doth, and would have it termed; therefore its most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar.

2. If both the Queenes Injunctions, those Orders 1561: & Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Com∣munion Tables to stand Altar-wise, why were they not all then placed so, but stood Table-wise, then, and ever since? why did our learnedc 1.336 Bishop Jewell in that very age & Bishop Babing∣ton Doctor Fulcke, Doctor Willet & Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time, (the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements, in their Authorised,

workes, maintaine, that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell; as it did in the primitive Church, and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England, proving & defending it against the Papists whom they con∣tended with, if this were both the Doctrine of our Church, the pre∣cept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions, Orders, Advertisse∣ment, that they should be placed•• Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire? yea if this were so, why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches, to aff ont this si∣tuation of the Table in them all? Certainely the Coliar must sa∣tisfy and solve these questions fully, or else he must give me leave to thinke: that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Autho∣rities, (If the thing be well observed) as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions.

3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Com∣munion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words, prove; that the Table was to stand Altar-wise, with one side against the wall, but a good di∣stance from it, as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before; & that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Com∣munion Board, or upon the East wall over the side Table, is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang per∣pendicularly over••t (for that they could not doe, the Tables stan∣ding where the steps of the Altar stood, but over it, that is, some good height above it, not direstly over it, is cleare.) First, by the words them selves intimating as much, (for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table; over in both these places, relating to the Wall, next antecedent, not to the Table; at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table: now the wall by which the Table stands, cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table, but only, over, that is, above it, therfo∣re neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it, or writ∣ten on it, as it is in many Churches.

Thus Ioseph was saide, to be set over all the Land of Egipt:

Gen. 41. 33, 43. not in situation, for so he could not be, but, in Authority and Iurisdiction, that is, he took place and had prece∣dency & commaund of all in Egipt, or was above them or in higher authority then they.

Thus David useth the phrase Ps: 66.12. Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades, that is to be above us & triumph over us.

So we say, that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window, when it hangs above it, though not direstly over it, such a thing is over your head, that is, above it, not directly over it.

4. Admit over it, be meant perpendicularly over it, yet this makes not at all for its situation, Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse & over it, must be interpreted, over the East end of it next to the East wall, not the East side of it placed against the wall, that which hangs over the East end, being as truly saide to be over the Table, as that with hangs over the side or middle of it.

5. Neither of these affirme, that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred, neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated; but at other times,

Therefore it proves nothing at all, that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire, at the time of the admi∣nistration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre.

The 7. Objecteon* 1.337 for the placing of the Communion Table Al∣tar-wise is this.

d 1.338 The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts, that if there shall happē any irrever̄ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies

or Rites of the Church, by the misusing of the Orders ap∣pointed in this Booke, the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme, ordaine or publish such fur∣ther Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the advance∣ment of Gods glory, the edyfying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments.

A power not personal (sayth the Coale) to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors.

So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determi∣ned positively, that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel, which is not determi∣ned of; or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe, which yet is not so: the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people (as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes) in sitting on it, in time of Sermon, & otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Ac∣counts, & making Rates, & such like businesses, may by the last clause of the side, for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries & Sacraments, with the advise & Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood & to be railed about for the greater decency.

To this I answer first,* 1.339 That a possead Esse non valet conse∣quentia.

The Kingh by virtue of this Act, by the advise of the Metro∣politanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood, & there rayled in:

Ergo it ought there to be placed & railed in, before, or without the Kings Commaund, is no good Argument: yea the contrary holds good.

The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Ma∣gesteyes expresse Commaund, & that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale, as is evident by Queen Elizabeths

Injunctions, the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. & the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565: with the Statute of 25. H 8. ••. 19. the King being, to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Sea∣le as all his Proclamations & writs doe testify.

But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing, under his great Seale, Therfore it ought not to be done.

2. This branch of the Statute, takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates & Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever, o•• to alter any for∣merly prescribed or established, vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes, her Commissioners, & Metrapolitane being only to advise her, in cause she require their advise, but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names, either with, or with our the Queenes advise, they being (as some say in a Premunire if they doe it) by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compa∣red with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c, 16. 3. & 4. Ed•• 6, c. 11. & his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declara∣tion before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Ma∣jesteyes speciall Commaund. London: 1628.

By what right or power then I pray, & with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall, can or doe our Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Ordinaries & officials in their severall vi∣sitations take upon them, to prescribe new rites & Ceremonies of their owne devising, to print & pubblish them in their owne names, without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles, & to injoyne Ministers, Church-wardens, Sidemen to submit unto them, suspending, questioning, & excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it, when as them selves for making & they for submitting to any such Rites, Ceremonies, or Con∣stitutions, are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603? By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables; order & give in charge ine 1.340 printed Articles, that Communion Tables shalbe

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

changed removed, & sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel, & there rayled in, that the Ministers shall bow & cring unto them, administer the Sacrament, yea read the 2. service (as they call it,) at the Table, even when there is no Sa∣crament, & that all the Communicants shall come up to recei∣ve? that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri, the Gosple, Athanasius & the Nicene Creed, bow at every naming of Iesus, Woemen to be Churched with vayles. & not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Com∣maunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale, suspen∣ding, silencing, depriving, excommunicating Ministers, and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submit∣ting to these their Novell Articles & Injunctions, being all De∣rogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative, con∣trary to this objected clause of the Statute, and to the first clause thereof, which enacts;

That no manner of Parson, vicar, or other Minister what soever, shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use, or by open fact, deed or thenreatning, compell, cause, procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathe∣drall or parrish Church or Chapple, to use ANY OTHER RITE, CEREMONY, ORDER, FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords. Supper, Mattens Evening song, Administration of the Sa∣craments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, under the penalties therein expressed, which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these No∣uell Rites & Ceremonies, The Coalier therfore might well have f••••o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him, & these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar, to kindle a combustion in our Church,

3. I answer, that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it, not her Heires & Successors & their Commissioners, & that for two

reasons; First, for the Parleament then knew her syncerity & love to Religion, and her desire to aduance it, of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time, but especially in Queen Maries dayes; therfore they would trust her with such a power; But they then knew not, neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne, nor what they might prove, in point of Religion.

Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority (who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, with the due use & reverence of Christe holy misteries & Sacraments formerly setled by this Act, & the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament) but limited it only to the Queen.

2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament & other Rites & Ceremonies of the Church of England, being then but newly corrected & published, there might there upon (as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations) grow some questions, doubts & inconveniences about it, or some defects or cau∣se of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescri∣bed which needed to be resolved, rectified, & supplied before a new Parliament might be called to dee it, or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament.

All which questions, in conveniences & defests, would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified, without any need of future alie∣rations, Rites, or Ceremonies, or continuing this power to her Hey∣res & Successors, which are purposely omitted in this clause.

This appeares most clearly, by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act; where the forfaitures for offen∣ding against the first clause is, severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes, HER HEIRES and Successors; and though the 2. clause saith, that he who shallbe convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles, omitting her Heires 〈1 page missing〉〈1 page missing〉 〈1 page missing〉〈1 page missing〉

abolissing, all forraigne power repugnent to the same; and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors, & their Com∣missioners, power only to punish all Heresies, Errors, Scismes, contempts. offences, Abuses, & enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes, Statutes, not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes, & so new He resies Errors, & Ecclesia∣sticall offences, not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or In••is∣diction before.

These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld.

And here I wonder much that thek 1.341 Colier should alleadge, and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. (which enacts, that all Ecclesiasticall power, together, with all such Iurisdictions, priviledges, superiorities & preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power, or authority hath hereto∣fore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State & persons, & for reforma¦tion, order, & correction of the same and of all manner, Er∣rors, heresies, scismes abuses, offences contempt, & enormites, shall for ever, by authority of this persent Parliament be uni∣ted and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme &c.) was not an Jntroductions of a New Law, but confirmative of an old, annexing no new•• but only the old Ecclesiastical Iu∣risdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State & persons, be (as he truly confesseth) for ever united to the Crowne, & to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name & appoint from time to time, only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale, as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe, I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops, Bishops Arch Deacons and other Eccle∣siasticall persons (who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in, from, by, & under his Maje∣stey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy gi∣ven to heare & determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall, & correct vice & sinne what soever, & to all such persons as

his Majestey (to witt by speciall Patent & Commission) shall appoint thereunto. As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. re∣solves interminis) can or dare affirme, their Episcopall Iurisdic∣tion to be Iure divino, or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters, Patents, or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale, to keepe visitations & Consistories, to make and imprint visitation Oathes & Articles in their owne names, & impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects, or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdicti∣ons in their owne names & rights, or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales & in they owne names alone, not his Majesteyes, contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. & 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Mo∣narch, King and Pope in his owne Dioces, & had no Soveraigne o∣ver them to acknowledge.

Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne, dignity, and his Loyall subjects Liberties, or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute & this grand objection, to maintaine his Altars & new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise, which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction,

The S. Objection* 1.342 is this. That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer,l 1.343 that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity, the matter shalbe referred to the Bishop of the Dio∣cesse, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not con∣trary unto any thing conteined in that Booke.

* 1.344 Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church, and there it ought to stand.

I answer first,* 1.345 the Argument followes not.

For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing, but only when and wher there is a doubt

and diversity risen in any parrish concerning, the use & prac∣tise of the said Booke; not, when•• and where there is no doubt con∣cerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire, all taking it for granted, that it ought not so to be placed, but to stand in that place & manner as it hath do∣ne from the beginning of reformation (&•• time all most out of mind) till now, Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places, and in case that any Popish In∣nouators have raysed a doubt in any place, where there is or can be none, touching the placing of the Lords Table; the Ordinary in this case can not, must not make any innouation, but order that it must stand in that place & forme as was at first ordained by the Quee••es Commissioners & where it stood ever since, it being hism 1.346 Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies, or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline.

2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke; now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall, especially when the Sacrament is administred, is contrary to these Books, the Queenes Jnjunctions, Canons, writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now.

Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Commu∣nion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause, but is expresly pro∣hibited by it, so to doe

The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this.* 1.347

n 1.348 His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure, in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in Lon∣don, that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quier••, & thereby hath given en∣couragement to the Metropolitane, Bishop & other Ordina∣ries, to require the like in all other Churches committed to them; which resolution faithfully copied out of the Regestets

of the Counsell-Table, ••earing date the 3. of November. 1633. the Author of the Coale from the Altar, who ends with it. bath at large relaved.

To this I answer first,* 1.349 that this concernes only one particular Church & no more and the reason of this order drawen from the example of the Cathedrall of Paules & Sant Gregories proxi∣mit••e there to, is not communicable to other Churches & pe••nliar to this alone.

Therefore it can be no president for others. Secondly, It was not here resolved, that our Communion Tables ought to stand Altar∣wise as the Colier argues, neuber is there mention of any example, save •• at of Pauls 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (and that of late times sinde King Ia∣mes) nor any Canon, Rubrick, Statute authority or writer pro∣duced by the opposities to justify this situation of the Table, for all heir pretence of the practise of approved antiquity, foisted in to the order; where as the other side produced good antiquity & au∣thorityes for them, as I am informed, & among others.

The Rubrike before the Communion, the Queenes Injunc∣tions the 82. Canon, Bishop Iewell, Bishop Babington, Doc∣tor Fulke, with the Fathers quoted by them, and an un interrup∣ted presciption in all Parish Churches & most Cathedrals from the beginning of reformation:

3. Though his May stey ordered the Table should stand where it was placed by the Deane & Chapter of Pauls direction, upon this groud cheifly that it was the most convenient Place in that Church, as not, only the persons then present can depose, but the order inselfe insinuates in these words.

Now his Majestey having heard a particular relation ma∣de by the Councill of both parties, of all the cariage & pro∣ceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare HIS DIS∣LIKE OF ALL INNOUATIONS & receeding FROM ANCIENT CONSTITVTIONS, grounded upon just & warrantable reasons, especially in mat∣ters concerning Ecclesiasticall orders & goverment knowing how easily men are drawen to affect Novelties, & how soone

in such cases weake judgments may be overtaken & abused: & the insuing words which seeme to give particular reasons, why this being but a Nouelty was tolerated & passed over, when as otherwise his Mayestey would not have connived at it.

His Mayesteye therefore deeming it an Innouation, & decla∣ring thus his dislike of all Innouations; this order is so farre from giving authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bi∣shops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churces committed to them, as the Author of the Coale infers, that unlesse he will apply that ancient verse.

Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata.

To the Metropolitane Bishops & other ordinaries that they, love & are incouraged to affect & set up these Innouations, which his Mayestey dislikes, they must rather be discouraged then anima∣ted by this order to require the like in any, much lesse in all the Churches committed to them.

And truly if al things be well considered they have little cause to be thus incouraged to require & make this Innouation as they ge∣nerally doe, not being ashamed or afrayed to give it in charge to Church-wardens & Ministers in their Visitationo 1.350 printed Articles, and to excommunicate Church-wardings for not remo∣ving & rayling in the Lords-Table Altar-wise as appeares by the Church-wardens of Ipswich, Beckington, Colchester and others.

For first, the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. Enasts vpon the Pre∣lates & Clergies joint Petition in Parliament, That they, the sayd Clergie (in their Convocations & Synods) any of them (in their severall Diocesse, visitations, Consistories or Iuris∣dictions) from henceforth shall presume to attempt, alleage, claime, or put in vre any Constitutions or ordinances, Provin∣ciall Synodals, or any other Canons, nor shall enact, promulge or execate any such Canons, Constitutions or ordicances pro∣vinciall, by what soeuer name or names they may be called in

their Conuocations in time coming, which alway shalbe as∣sembled by authority of the Kings writ, vnlesse the same cler∣gie may have the Kings most royall assent to make, promulge & execute such Canons, Constitutions, & ordinances provin∣ciall, or Synodall and the kings most royall assent vnder his great Seale, he had to the same: (all which King James his Letters Patents before the Canons 1603. morefully expresse & manifest.)

Vpon peine of every one of the sayd Clergie doing contra∣ry to this, & being thereof conuict, to suffer imprisonment & make fine at the Kings will.

The penalty of which Law every Metropolitane Bishop & ordi∣nary hath incurred (& some say a Praemineere to) by printing & making visitation Articles & Injunctions in their owne names, for altering & rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise, & many such Innouations, without his Mayesteyes royall assent & appro∣bation under his great Seale of England had to the same.

2. The 12. Canon 1603. ordaines this: who soever shall he∣reafter affirme, that it is Lawful for any sort of Ministers & lay persons or either of them, (and Bishops with other ordina∣ries are certainly with in this number) to joyne to gether, & ma∣ke Rules, Orders or Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall, without the Kings authority, & shall submit themselves to be∣ruled & governed by them, let them be excommunicate ipso facto, & not be restored, vntill they shall repent & publikely reuoke those their wicked & Anabapsticall Errors; But our p 1.351 Bishops, Arch-deacons & other Ordinaries, with the* 1.352 name∣les Iudicious Learned Divine who writ the Coale from the Al∣tar) affirme (& that in print to all the world) that it is lawfull for them & either of them to make & printe visitation Oa∣thes, Articles, Injunctions & Constitutions in causes Ecclesi∣asticall, for the rayling in of Communion Tables & turning them Altarwise, & other Nouell Ceremonies, as standing vp at Gloria Patri, the Gospell, Athanasius; & the Nicene Creed, bowing at the name of Iesus, & to Communion Tables & Al∣tars

&c. Yea to keep Consistories & visitations without the Kings Authority vnder his great Seale licensing them to make or exccute any such Articles, Constitutions, Ordinances, or to keep any Court or Consistorie, and they enforce by visita∣tions excommunications, fines imprisonments, & the power of the High Commission divers of his Majesteyes Subjects to submit them selves to be ruled & gouerned by them.

Therefore they are all ipso facto excommunicate by this then owne Canon, (& so irregular & all their proceedings nullities,) neither are they to be restored vntill they shall repent & pu∣blikely reuoke these their wicked and their Anabaptisticall Errors, Articles, Oathes, & Constitutions, which they have thus audasiosly imposed vpon his Mayesteyes loyall Subjects.

3. His Mayestey in hisq 1.353 Declaration to his louing Sub∣jects of the causes which moued him to dissolve the last Par∣liament, published by his Majesteyes speciall commaund Anno 1628. p. 21. 42. 43. Makes this most solemne protestation.

We call God to record before whom wee stand, that it is and alwayes hath been, our hearts desire to befound worthy of that title which we accompt the most glorious in all our Crowne: Defender of the faith: NEITHER SHALL WEE EVER GIVE WAY TO THE AU∣THORIZINGE OF ANY THINGE WHE∣RE BY ANY INNOUATION MAY STEA∣LE OR CREEP INTO THE CHURCH, but preserue the vnity of Doctrine & discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of Eng∣land had stood & florished ever since.

Wee doe here professe to maintaine the true Religion & Doctrine esta blished in the Church of England without ad∣mitting or conniving at ANY BACKSLIDING EI∣THER TO POPERY OR SCHISME: Wee doe also declare that wee maintaine the ancient & just Rights & Liberties of our Subjects with so much constancy & justice that they shall haue cause to acknowledge that under our go∣verment

& gracious protection, they live in a more happy and free estate, then any Subjects in the Christian world.

But the turning of Communion Tables into Altars & so terming them; the rayling of them in Altarwise & so standing, the forceing of the Communicants by seuerall rankes & files to come vp to them, & there to receive kneeling at the rayle, the enjoyning of Ministers to read the second service (as they now Tearme it) at the Table, when there is no Communion, & to ducke, to bow vnto it going to it, re∣turning from it, & at their ingresse to & egresse from the Church, (all which Bishop Wren & others in their late visitation Ar∣ticles & instructions have most strictly enjoined, suspending & excommunicating such Ministers & Churchwardens who have refused to submitt to these & otherlike Romish Nouel∣ties) are all of them direct Innouations, not used nor heard of from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth raigne till of late, they are contrary to the Purity of that Doctrine & Discipline establi∣shed in the time of Queen Elizabeth, where by the Church of England hath stood & florished euer since: they are an appa∣rent backsliding to Popery, borrowed from the Papishs, and brought in only to simbolize with them, & sett vp Masse and that all Popish Doctrines, Rites, & Ceremonies againe, by degres, as the premises & experience witnes.

They are contrary to the ancient and just Rights & Liberties of the Subjects, who ought not to have any such Nouelties thrust vpon them, much lesse to be excommunicated fined, suspended, imprisoned, & thrust from their freeholds, Lectu∣res & Cures but by the Law of the Land, & some speciall Act of parleament as the Statute of Magna, Charta. c. 29. The la∣te Petition of Right 3. Garoli with other Acts therein reci∣ted expresly resolve.

Therefore they are all directly contrary to his Majesteyes De∣clarations, & this his most solemne & Christian Protistation, both to God & All his Loyall Subjects, Neither hath his Maje∣stey given the least way to the Authorising of them or any of them, or given any admittance or conniuance to them or gi∣ven

any authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them, as the nameles Author of the Coale most impudently & falsely (to his Mayesteyes great disho∣nor & reproach) hath a vowed in print, & the Bishops & their officers given out in speeches, to couler ouer these & all other their late Popish Innouations, brought in & fomented by themselves alone, in affront of this his Majestoyes declaration & royall pleasure signified this is print by Speciall Command to all his Loyall Subjects, whose heares were not so much overjoyed at the sight of it at first, as now they are overgreiued to see the Metropo∣litanes, Bishops, Ordinaries, & this blacke Collier in his blushlesse Coale from the Altar, so insolently & apparantly to thwart, af∣front, & bid defiance to it by all these with other their dangerous Popish Innouations, & by suspending, silencing, excommunicating all such faithfull Ministers, Lecturers, Church-wardens, People, who out of Conscience towars God, Loyalty to his Mayesteyes Lawes, & obedience to this his royall Declaration refuse to submit vnto them, which they hope his Mayestey vpon information of this their most desperate insolency, & exorbitant disloyalty & rebellion a∣gainst his Lawes, & Declaration, will not only consider, but most seuerely punish, to his poore Subjects comfort & releife.

4. His Mayesteye to shew his further detestation against these Innouations, in his Declaration before the 39. Articles of Re∣ligion, reprinted by his Majesteyes commaundment. London 1628. (which Declaration was made vpon mature Delibera∣tion & with the advise of so many of our Bishops as might conueniently becalled together) thus signifieth his royall pleasu∣re therein: That wee are supreme Gouernour of the Church of England: and that if ANY DIFFERENCE A∣RISE about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions, Canons, or other Constitutions what soeuer thereto belon∣ging. THE CLERGIE IN THEIR CONVO∣CATION (not euery Bishop or ordinary in his Dioces, as the Coale & order of the Councill Table oited in it, which doubt lesse

in this was not rightly entred or Copied and determines) IS TO ORDER AND SETTLE THEM: (But how of their owne heades without any speciall Commission from his Min∣yestey? Noe I warrant you:) having FIRST obtained LEA∣VE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE SO TO DOE, AND WEE APPROVING THEIR SAID ORDINANCES AND CONSTITU∣TIONS; providing that none bemade CONTRA∣RY TO THE LAWES AND CUSTOMES OF THE LAND.

That of our Prinely care, that the Churchmen may doe the worke which is proper vnto them; the Bishops & Clergie from time to time in Convocation vpon their humble desire SHALL HAVE LICENCE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE to deliberate of and, to doe all such things, as being made plaine by them, & ASSENTED TO BY VS, shall concerne THE SETLED CON∣TINUANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE of the Church of England now establi∣shed FROM WHICH WE NOT ENDURE ANY VARYING, OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE.

Where his Mayestey & the Bishops themselves expressely de∣termine against the Coales Doctrine & Bishops Practise:

1. That if any difference arise about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions, Canons or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging, or the true sence and meaning of them, not the Metropolitane or Ordinaries in their seuerall Iuris∣dictions, nor yet the High Commissioners; but the whole Clergie in Convocation is to order them.

Therefore this difference concerning Alters, the situation & ray, ling in of Communion Tables, the reading of the 2. service at them, receiving at them & the like; which euery Bishop, Arch-deacon, Chancellor, & Surregare now takes vpon h••m perempterily to order & Alter at his pleasurs.

2. That the whole Clergie in Convocation can neither de∣liberate on, nor Order, or settle any thing, in these or such other particulars, or differences, unlesse they first obtaine leave from his Mayestey vnder his brode seale so to doe, & He also ap∣prove their said ordinances & Constitutions by his or•• a••d sea∣le & Letters Parents; Therefore the Metropolitane himselfe, the Bishops, Arch deacons, & other Ordinaries with their vnder-Offi∣cers, can order or settle nothing in these particulars, or others, nor prescribe any new Rites, Ceremonies or visitation 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Arti∣cles in their owne names, by their owne power; (as they most pre∣sumptuously doe in all places euery day, without any leaue first ob∣tained from his Mayestey vnder his bread Seale so to doe) or to publish, give them in charge, & impose them on his Subjects with∣out his Majesteyes approvation & asleht, thereto his broad Seale likewise.

3. That the Clergie in Conuocation, much lesse then any Bishop in his Diocesse, can order or determine nothing, no not by his Mayesteyes licence & approbation vnder his broad Seale, that can binde the Subjects, or inferior Clergie in case it be contrary, to the Lawes and Customes of the Realme:

But Articles & Bishops Constitutions for the Turning of Communion Tables into Altars & rayling them in Altarwise, with other for enamed particulars, are contrary to the Lawes of the Realme, & to the Customes of it from the 10. of Queen Elizabeth till now (sufficient to make two successive* 1.354 pre∣scriptions at the Citull & Canon Law) neither were this made by the Clergie in Conuocation by his Mayesteyes licence, & assent vnder his Seale, but by the Bishops, Arch-deucons, & their officers themselves, without any such royall license or assent.

Therefore they are meerly voyd, & neither doe nor ought to bin∣de his Mayesteyes Subjects, or the inferior Clergie.

4. That his Majestey will never authorize, or assent vnto any thing propounded to him by his Bishops or Clergie, no not in Conuocation, but what shall concerne the setled conti∣nuance of the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church

of England, but the Turning of Communion Tables in to Altars, the rayling of them in Altarwise, &c. Do not concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, but tend to the se••ret vndermining & discon∣tinuance of them; Therefore his Mayestey hath not authorized, nor assented to these Innouations.

5. That his Majestey will not endure any varying or de∣parting in the least Degree from the setled established Doc∣trine & Discipline of the Church of England: Therefore he will not endure that his Bishops (who were priuy to this his Roy∣all Declaration made by their owne advice,) should vary & depart from both, in setting vp Altars in steed of Lords Tables, in Terming the Lords Table, an Altar & high Altar, & his Sup∣per the Sacrament of the Altar, in rayling in Communion Ta∣bles Altar-wise, & their forcing the Ministers to consecrate & the people to receiue, or in prescibing any other new Popish Rites and Ceremonies.

Much lesse wil he endure, that they should affirme both by word mouth & printed Bookes authorized by their Chaplaines, that all these things are done with his approbation, & by his priuate direction & Commaund, but will one day call them, and these erronious superstitious Popish writers to an account, for these their andacious contumelies, & affronts in contempt of his Lawes and Declarations, of purpose to alienate the hearts & affections of his faithfull loyall subjects from him, & to countenance & further their owne Romish designes, to vndermine religion & vsher in Pope∣r, by degrees which hath now well nigh wound in not only its head & rayle, but almost its intire body into our Church, by these their treacherous, disloyall practises, proceedings, & Innouations.

All which considered, the Councell Table order for St. Gre∣gorius Tables seituation, will stand the Bishops & the Colier in no steed at all: and the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar (with other popish Scriblers) may justly feare, that his Ma∣jestey for those vntriuthes & false Rumors raysed vp, & publikely printed of him, (as if he were the cheife Patron Author & Di∣rect••r

of all those late Romish Nouclties, Rites, & Ceremonies, which haue either secretly crept or vyolently in truded themselves into our Church contrary to his Lawes & Declarations) will give them no great thankes or reward, but inflict an heauy censure on them, and make them & their abesters sing a publike Palinodie, suitable to these his Royall Declarations, published by his speciall Com∣maund, from whence his justice, honor, piety & constancy will ne∣uer doubtles suffer him to receed in the least degree.

I haue now through Gods assistance runne over, blowen out and quite extinguished (as I suppose,) the Coale from the Altar (or rather from* 1.355 Mr. Samuel Bakers, Ouen) which was like to sets our Churchon fire, what euer the nameles Author of this Treatise (who vpon examination proves neither learned nor indicious if a Divine, as the Title stiles him) or Mr. Shelford, Doctor Pock∣lington, or Edmond Reeue, haue lately written or objected in de∣fence of Altars, or placing & rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise, talking of those idle glosses, & false Cauils they haue made to elude the Authorities and Antiquities which Bishop Iewel and Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincolne in his Letter to the vicar of Grantham (for he is certainly knowen to be the Author of it and hath auowed it,) haue produced against the Antiquity of Altars, & for the scituating of Tables in the midst of the Church and Qui∣re: all which I shall here prostrate to thy Christian Censure, ha∣uing done nothing in this argument out of vaine glory, faction, op∣position, or desire of victory over impotent Antigonists, but out of a sincere affection to the truth, & that loyalty, that duty & en∣deared respect I beare, both to my gracious Prince, (whose honor, Constancy & fidelity are interessed in this Controversie) & to the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, which these, like so many secret Powder-traytors would sodainly, blow vp, & subuert, by their Romish Treatises & desperate Innoua∣tions If I have fayled or erred in any particular (as what man is free from these common infirmities of Mortality,) impute it not is the wilfulnes but weakenes of him, who wilbe more glad, more ready, to see & correct his owne Ouersights, then to lay open or Censure

others. if thou receive satisfaction from it (as I hope thou will in some good measure,) in the things therein discussed, give God the glory, pray for me; who as I am not afrayd to defend the truth in this Apostatizing faint hearted age, when as it hath few Friends, but feuer Patrons: so I shall neither be ashamed to set my name to this Defence, when the Author of the Coale from the Altar, da∣res be so bold as subscribe his name to his Assayling firebrand, which I here principally haue encountred, with our owne domesticke writters & Records.

And now, good Reader, I should here dismisse thee but that as the Coale concludes with the Councel-Table Order, & the Coppy of that Letter which it thought to burne to ashes, so I shall close vp the first part of my Quench-Coale with a true Re∣lation of the Manner & forme, not only of turning a Communion Table Altar-wise, but likewise Dedicating a Communion Table to be an Altar in such a solemne manner, as our age hath scarce heard the like.

The Historie whereof, as it was acted, I haue vnder the hands of an eyewitnes or two, who with-hundreds more can make it good, if need be vpon their Oathes.

Notes

• ‡ 1.1

  Fox Acts & Monu∣ments p. 1404. 1406.
• ‡ 1.2

  See his life before his works Sect. 25.
• a 1.3

  Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4.
• b 1.4

  De verb. Domini secundum Ieannem Serm. 42.
• c 1.5

  Actio 1.
• * 1.6

  Sunday no Sab∣bath p. 27.
• * 1.7

  p. 54 53.
• d 1.8

  Ration. divin. l. 5.
• e 1.9

  In Ephes. 2. Hom. 3. in 2. Cor. H••mil. 18.
• f 1.10

  De Sa∣eramento Enchari∣stica.
• * 1.11

  A Coale from the Altar p. 53. to 57. D. Pock∣lington Sunday no Sabbath. p. 27. Edit. 1.
• * 1.12

  Page 53. 54. 55. 56.
• * 1.13

  Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. 4
• * 1.14

  Walafri∣dus Strabus de rebus Eccl. l. 4. c. 19.
• * 1.15

  A Coale from the Altar p. 45. 55.
• * 1.16

  A good Quire for those no∣vellers whoe plead soe much of late for sanctum sanctorum.
• * 1.17

  1. Eliz. c. 2. 5. & 6. Ed. 6. c. 1.
• g 1.18

  Shelford his sermon of Gods house p. 2. 4. c. 15. 17. 19. Reeves his exposition of the Ca∣thechisine in the Cō∣munion booke. D. Pocklingtō Sunday no Sabbath, & a Coale from the Altar.
• k 1.19

  Originū l. 6. c. 19.
• l 1.20

  De univ. l. 5: c. 9.
• m 1.21

  In their severall dictiona∣ries: Cho∣rus.
• n 1.22

  Ser••ius in Virgil. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 6.
• o 1.23

  Aen••id. l. 4.
• p 1.24

  Aen••id. l. 8.
• q 1.25

  Genia∣lium dier•• l 4. c. 17. f. 226. 227.
• r 1.26

  Ibidem see Hero∣dian, Zo∣naras, Lampri∣dius, and Grimston in his life.
• s 1.27

  Deipno∣soph l 13. c. 1.
• t 1.28

  Genia∣liū dierum l. 4. c. 17.
• u 1.29

  Laconi∣ca Instit.
• x 1.30

  Lacaede∣mon. Res∣publica.
• * 1.31

  Page 30.
• z 1.32

  See Gu∣••••el. Stuc∣kius: Anti. Conviva∣li•• passim.
• * 1.33

  Acts 26. 24.
• a 1.34

  Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 22.
• b 1.35

  Eccl. hist. l. 12. c. 34.
• c 1.36

  De Rebu•• Eccl. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••st. l. 4. c. 19.
• * 1.37

  Se 2. Chr 6 20. 21. 34 38. Ps. 138. 2. d Dan. 6. 10.
• * 1.38

  Pope Vigi∣lius was the first who ordained that those who sayd Masse, should tor∣ne their haces to∣wards the East; D. Barnes & Iohn Bale in the life of Vigil.
• d 1.39

  Tom. 1. Col. 1281.
• e 1.40

  De verbis Dom. se∣cund. loan. Serm. 42.
• * 1.41

  Reliques of Rome chap. of Church Goods fol. 322. vol. 3
• * 1.42

  Coale frō the Altar. p. 56 57. objection.
• f 1.43

  Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 22.
• g 1.44

  Eccl. hist. l. 12. c. 34.
• i 1.45

  Ezech. 16 17.
• k 1.46

  Exo. 26. 27. Ezech. 8. 16. 17. Godwins, Moses, & Aron l. 2. c. 1. D. Willet Sy∣nopsis Pa∣pismi. Contr. 9. q. 6. Error 52. 53.
• m 1.47

  Fox Acts and monum. p. 1211.
• o 1.48

  Fox Acts & monu∣ments p. 1211.
• * 1.49

  M. Tho∣mas Vegon Reliq. of Rome: ch. of Church Goodes: s. 322.
• p 1.50

  Fox Acts & monu. p. 1404. 1406. & the fore∣going testi∣monies.
• q 1.51

  1. Cor. 15. 40.
• * 1.52

  B. Hooper Sermon 4. on Ionas.
• r 1.53

  In the Cōmunion & Homily of the right use of the Church p. 8 Can. 18.
• s 1.54

  And in the Homily of the right use of the Church p. 8. Can. 18 Gratian. de Consec. Dist. 1.
• * 1.55

  He might have ad∣ded Masse or Popish Preist.
• t 1.56

  Rationale divin. l. 4. See B. Ie∣wells Reply to Harding Article 3. divi. 26. p. 145. & fo D. Pockl. arg. Sund∣no Sabbath p. 43. 44.
• u 1.57

  Iohn 15. 1. 2. 4. 5. Rom. 11. 16. 17. 18 Rev. 2. 7. c. 22. 2.
• x 1.58

  Reply to Hardinge Art. 3. div. 26. p. 145. defence of the •• Apol. parte 2. ch. 1. div•• 3. p. 315. 316.
• y 1.59

  Notes on Exod. 20. & 27. p. 279. 307.
• * 1.60

  Defence of the Apo. part. 2. c. 1 divis. 3. p. 315. reply to Hardin. art. 3. div. 26. p. 145.
• * 1.61

  Notes on Exo. c. 20. & 27. p. ••79. 307.
• * 1.62

  Homely against the perill of Id••lat. par. 3. p. 50. 51 52. 75. Queene Elizabets Injunct. n. 23. art. of Ireland 52.
• t 1.63

  Synopsis Papism•• the 9. gen. Contr. qu. 6. Error 52 53.
• * 1.64

  In M. Chancies & M. Wards ca∣se, & others.
• l 1.65

  I Schisma∣ticall Puri∣tan p.•…•…
• m 1.66

  Sermon of Gods house.
• n 1.67

  Exposi∣tion of the Catech. in the Cōmon prayer booke neere the end. Coale from the Altar. p. 52.
• o 1.68

  Godwyn ibid. l. 2. c. 1. p. 78.
• * 1.69

  Godwyn ibidein.
• a 1.70

  Artic. 28
• b 1.71

  Fox Acts & monu∣ments the later part.
• c 1.72

  Godwyns Iewish An∣tiquities l. 2. c. 1.
• g 1.73

  Treatise of the Church or God•• house p. 2. 4. 15. 17. 19.
• h 1.74

  Exposi∣tion of the Catech. in the Com∣munion booke to∣ward the end.
• i 1.75

  Page 6. 14. 15. 18. 32. 38. to 58.
• k 1.76

  Fox Acts & Monu. p 795.
• l 1.77

  Fox ibid. p. 879.
• * 1.78

  Note this
• * 1.79

  Note.
• o 1.80

  Fox Acts & monum. p. 1211. 1212.
• p 1.81

  Fox Acts & Monu. p. 1404. 1406.
• q 1.82

  Fox ibid. p. 888.
• r 1.83

  This the Common prayer Bo∣kes them∣selves evi∣dence, and the Coale from the Altar con∣fesseth. p. 37. to 42.
• s 1.84

  3. and 4. E 6. c. 1.
• t 1.85

  See An∣tiasminia∣nisme p. 58. 59. 64
• u 1.86

  B. White in the Cē∣sure of D. Vastnicke & other of the B••s. all that time; Norming∣ton and others in their late Serm. M. Shelford in his 5. Treatises: with many others.
• x 1.87

  Fox Acts & Monu. p. 121.
• y 1.88

  Edit. ult. part. 2. p. 18 44.
• z 1.89

  Pag. 1••1.
• a 1.90

  Canons 1603. Can. 36. 37. 38.
• b 1.91

  See the Booke of Ordinat.
• c 1.92

  B. Wrens late visit. Articles.
• d 1.93

  Bishop Montague in his Sermon before the King, the last Lent.
• e 1.94

  Shelford, Reve, B. White, D. Pocklington, the Coale from the Altar, with others.
• f 1.95

  Acts & Monum. p. 1282.
• g 1.96

  Ibidem p. 1333.
• h 1.97

  1. Mariae c. 3. Sess. 2.
• i 1.98

  Fox ibid. p. 1344. 1345.
• k 1.99

  Fox ibid. p. 1404. 1406.
• l 1.100

  Fox ibid. p. 1512. 1515.
• m 1.101

  Fox ibid p. 1601. 1604.
• * 1.102

  Note. See Fox p. 1211.
• n 1.103

  Page 20. 21.
• o 1.104

  Lame Giles his haultings.
• q 1.105

  Lame Giles. p. 37
• r 1.106

  Fox ibid. p. 1610.
• s 1.107

  Fox Acto & Monu. p. 1652. 1653.
• t 1.108

  Fox ibid. p. 1703.
• u 1.109

  Fox ibid. p. 1781.
• x 1.110

  Fox: ibid p. 1786.
• * 1.111

  Neere the end.
• y 1.112

  Artic. 2.
• z 1.113

  Page 20. 21.
• a 1.114

  Se Had∣don C••nt. 〈…〉〈…〉 l. 3. s. 271.
• b 1.115

  Annot. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. Cor. 11. se. 18. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heb. ••0 sect. 6.
• c 1.116

  M. No∣vel his Re∣prouse of Dormans proose ••. 15. 16. 17
• d 1.117

  in his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell.
• e 1.118

  Reynolds Cons. with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 8. divis 4.
• f 1.119

  Answer to Hardings Preface. Replie to Harding Art. 3. div. 26.
• g 1.120

  Contr. Osorum l. 3. f. 271.
• h 1.121

  Reproofe of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. 66.
• i 1.122

  His Catech. vol. 1. f. 484.
• k 1.123

  Answer to the Rhemish Test on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. on Hebr. 13. sect. 6. Apo•• 6 sect. 2.
• l 1.124

  Synopsis Papismi Contr. gener. 9. Error 53 54. 55.
• m 1.125

  Confer with Hart ēh. 8. sect. 4.
• m 1.126

  Shelford of Gods house: p. 2. 4. 15. 17. The Coale from the Altar Sunday no Sabb. p 15 27 28 29 43 48. 50
• a 1.127

  Orig. l. 15. 4.
• b 1.128

  ••n their Di••••••••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.129

  Summa Angelica: 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Altare & Cons••o. Alt. Rhem. Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18.
• d 1.130

  Summa Ang. Tit. Altare & Cons. Alt. D. Rainold 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with Hart c. 8. diois. 4. 5. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe. f. 66.
• e 1.131

  Fox Acts & monum•• p. 1211.
• f 1.132

  Godwin Moses and Aaron l. 3. c. 2. & l. 2. c. 1.
• f 1.133

  Hom. 17. Sup. Iesum Nave to••. 1 s. 158 f. 6.
• g 1.134

  In L am. Ier. l. 2. zain: Btbl. Patrū tom. 9. part. 1. p. 167. &c.
• h 1.135

  Enarrat in Ps. 118. Oct 3. Tom. 2. p. 422, &c.
• i 1.136

  In 7 Psal. Poenitent. ••. 235, &c
• k 1.137

  Exposit. ••n Exod. c. 20. to 4. Col. 112. 113.
• l 1.138

  Comment. in Apoc. c. 47. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 526.
• m 1.139

  In Festo Omnium Sanctorum Serm. 4. Col. 292, &c.
• n 1.140

  Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4•• 5. Hos. 14 2. Heb. 13. 15.
• o 1.141

  Nazianz. Orat. in laudem Basily & 21 Oratio.
• p 1.142

  De verbis Domini secundum Joan. Serm. 46. Tom. 10. p. 225.
• q 1.143

  Theodoret Dial. Atreptus c. 11.
• r 1.144

  Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. De Pomitentia Hom. 7. Tom. 5. Col. 746. B. Hom. 45. in Ioan. Hom. in Psal. 22 & 216. Hom. 1. deverbus Isaiae vidi Dom.
• s 1.145

  Com. in Natuum c. 1. Tom. 5. p. 137.
• t 1.146

  Theophylac••t Evar. in 1. Cor. 11.
• u 1.147

  Oecumenius in 1. Cor. c. 11.
• x 1.148

  Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. Eusebius Caesariensis apud Damascenum Paralel. l. 3. c. 47. Petrus Blesensis Hom. 20. in Litania Ma••ai. Niceph. Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 41. Euthymius in Psal. 22. Concil. Nicenum. can ••lt. apud Servum Tom. 1. p. 347. Gratianus de consecrat. distinct. 2.
• p 1.149

  B. Iewel. Replie to Harding Art. 30 divis 26. p. 145. D. Reynold con••••rence with Hart p 476. 477 478 M. Nowell his Reprofe of Dormans proufe p. 15. 16. 17. D. Fulke and M. Cart∣wright Con••ut of the Rhemish Testament on Heb. 13. sect. 16. & 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211.
• * 1.150

  Quod nullum Al∣tarenovit, cum sit ex Tribu Iuda in quo ne∣mo assistit Altari &c. Ibidem.
• a 1.151

  Third Serm. upon Ionah.
• b 1.152

  Fox Acts & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 1211.
• * 1.153

  See the Rhemish Notes, & M Cart∣wright on this Text.
• d 1.154

  Gratian. de Consec. Distinct. •• Summa Angelica Tit. de Consecrat. Altaris.
• e 1.155

  Serm. 3. on Jenah.
• f 1.156

  1. Elz. c. 12.
• g 1.157

  Art. 35.
• h 1.158

  Can. 36. 37.
• i 1.159

  Contra Cels. l. 4. & 8.
• k 1.160

  Contra Demetria∣dem.
• l 1.161

  Advers. Geutes l. 6
• m 1.162

  Acts 5.
• n 1.163

  Defence of the Apologie Artic. 3. 26. Divis. p. 145.
• o 1.164

  Contra Celsum l. 4
• p 1.165

  Arnobius l. 6.
• a 1.166

  Contra Ce••s. l. 8. Tom. 4. f. 101 Cels. & Aras & simulachra & delubro, nos aut diffugere QVO MINVS FVN∣DEN∣TVR, &c.
• b 1.167

  Contra Cels. l. 7. f. 96. 97. l. 4. f. 46. 47.
• e 1.168

  Instit. l. 6 De ver•• Cultu c. 24.
• e 1.169

  Instit. l. 2 c. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 11. 17. 18. 19.
• d 1.170

  Se Tho∣•••• Becons Reliques of Rome. fol. 322. a.
• e 1.171

  Page 45•• 46. 47.
• * 1.172

  Object.
• * 1.173

  Answer.
• f 1.174

  Cookes Censura p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
• g 1.175

  Censura p. 59. 60. 61.
• g 1.176

  So he sti∣les it also l. 5. p. 540. 541.
• h 1.177

  Se Aug. de Sanctis Serm. 11. B. Iewells Replie to Harding Artic. 20. divis. 3. p. 440, 441. & Art. 1. divis. 9. p. 18. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. according∣ly, who use this very expression, that the Altar is in heaven, & Christ the Altar.
• i 1.178

  Reliq. of Rome of Church Goods vol. 3. f. 322.
• k 1.179

  Censurae Pat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 80.
• l 1.180

  See Greg. Nys. Orat. 3. de resur & all the Fathers on that Text.
• m 1.181

  Hierom de scripto. Eccl. with others in the lives: of Cyprian & Tertul. pr••fixed to their workes.
• n 1.182

  Cookes Censura p. 13.
• o 1.183

  Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 8.
• p 1.184

  De praes. adv. haer p 182 189. Ad uxorē. l. 2 128 129 130 De Coronr Militis p. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ent.
• q 1.185

  Diaelogus cum Try∣phone and Apol. 2.
• r 1.186

  Ster••at. l. 1. & 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Coenā Dominicā.
• s 1.187

  Page 43. 44. 45. 46
• t 1.188

  Apol. adv ••entes.
• u 1.189

  Replie to Harding Artic. 3. divis. 26. p. 144.
• x 1.190

  The 3. part of the Homily against the Paril of Idolatrie p 66. 67.
• y 1.191

  ••e Calep. & Holioke in their Dictionar. Ara.
• z 1.192

  Epist. l. 1. Epist. 7. in Erasin. & Epist. 74.
• a 1.193

  Epist. l. 1 Epist. 9. Epist. 69. in Pamel.
• b 1.194

  Epist. l. 1 Epist. 12. Apud Pa∣meliū 70. p. 101.
• c 1.195

  Bastards of the false Fathers p. 11. to 18
• d 1.196

  Censura p. 75. to 82
• e 1.197

  Se Cookes Censura, D. L••nes & D. Fa∣var.
• f 1.198

  Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8.
• g 1.199

  Epist. l. 2 Epist. 3. in Pamelius Epist. 63.
• h 1.200

  Concil. Carthag. 1 Can. 6. 9. & 3. Can. 15. & 4. Can. 18. 20.
• * 1.201

  Tui opi∣nionem nominis enormiter gravat, quod causas sanguinis agis, quod abjecta Ecclesiarum solicitu∣dine negocijs seculari••us te tott••m occupas, & involuis. Verum tamen tui professio ordini••, nec degeneres saeculi curas, nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost. dicit. Secularia negotia si habueri••is, eos, qui contemptibiliores sunt inter vos, ad judicandū eligite. Non decet ordinem profeffionis tuae in alea tanti diutius ludere & salute anime spietate ade•• damnabiliter secularibus involuere montemque Seir Bariginoso spiritu circumine. Petr. Blesens. Epist. 42. ad Epist. Camoracenj.
• i 1.202

  Fox Acts & monum. p. 1211.
• k 1.203

  Se H••d. Cant. O••or l 3 s. 271
• l 1.204

  See Novells Reproof of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17.
• m 1.205

  In his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell.
• n 1.206

  Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. on Hebr. 13. sect. 6.
• o 1.207

  See Rey∣nolds Conf with Hare c. 8. div 4.
• p 1.208

  Garner deEuchar. & others forecited.
• q 1.209

  De Eu∣charistia, or the Sa∣crament of the Altar.
• r 1.210

  Peter Martyr. Defensia ad••. Gard. deEuchar.
• * 1.211

  2. William Wraghton
• * 1.212

  3 William Salisbury.
• * 1.213

  vel pro∣pter art•• latriam vitandam tutius erit ut seden∣genu flectens mensae Dominicae populus accumbere assuescant. They therfore used 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sit at the Sacrament in King Edwards dayes to avoyd the peril of adoration.
• * 1.214

  4. Iohn Ba∣le Bishop of Osyris.
• * 1.215

  5. B. Pil∣kington.
• * 1.216

  6. Thomas Becon.
• * 1.217

  Heb. 13. Altars not tollerable among Christians
• * 1.218

  Christ, his Apostles and the primative Church used tables at the mi∣nistration of the holy Cōmunion
• * 1.219

  O cruell butchers.
• * 1.220

  O murthe∣rers.
• * 1.221

  Masses why they serve.
• * 1.222

  The Lords Table cast out of the Temples Dan. 11.
• * 1.223

  1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.224

  Ceremo∣nies.
• * 1.225

  The appa∣rell of the Masse∣mongers.
• * 1.226

  The gestu∣re which the Masse mongers use in their Mas∣se.
• * 1.227

  The Masse mongers Trinkets.
• * 1.228

  Lib 2. Offic. c. 18.
• * 1.229

  Altares.
• * 1.230

  Note.
• * 1.231

  Exod. 2••.
• * 1.232

  When Al∣tars came first into the Church
• * 1.233

  A Table more meet for the ministra∣tion of the Lords Supper, then an Altar.
• * 1.234

  Heb. 10••.
• * 1.235

  Of gestu∣res to be used at the Lords Ta∣ble.
• * 1.236

  Of knee∣ling.
• * 1.237

  Of stan∣ding.
• * 1.238

  Of sitting.
• * 1.239

  Note.
• * 1.240

  Of vestu∣res at the ministra∣tion of the Lords Supper.
• * 1.241

  Surplesse.
• * 1.242

  See D. Rainolds conference with Hart c. 8. divis. 4. 5. Had∣don contra Osorium lib. 3. fol. 285. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe fol. 66. And Thomas Becons Comparison between the Lords Supper, & the Popes Masse. Bishop Iewel Defence of the Apologie part. 3. c. 5. divis. 1.
• * 1.243

  See Fox Acts and Monum. p. 1873. 1356. 1366. 1384. 1405. 1604. 1781. 1834. 1837. ac∣cordingly. 7. Deane Nowell.
• * 1.244

  Chrysost. Hom. ••18. in 2. Cor. August. Tract. 26. in Ioan. & multi multis locis
• * 1.245

  Hierom ad Demetria∣dem, & ad Nepotian.
• * 1.246

  8. Walter Haddon.
• * 1.247

  9. D. Fulke
• * 1.248

  Note,
• * 1.249

  10. M. Calfehill.
• * 1.250

  11. Bishop Babington
• * 1.251

  12. M. Cartwrigt
• * 1.252

  Optatus l 6. Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. vid. Euse. l. 10. ex orat. panegyr. in Eucari••s vid. Aug. de civ. Dei l. 10. c. 5. Item de consecr. distinct. 2.
• * 1.253

  Origen cont. Cels. l. 4. Volat. vid. volat. & venerer contr. Flo∣retum l. 4. Beat Rhen Ep. praefix Leiturg. Chrysost. Heb. 13. 4. Tit. 2. 5. 1. The. 4. 4
• * 1.254

  13. D. Willet.
• * 1.255

  Object. 1.
• * 1.256

  Answer 1.
• * 1.257

  See Wil∣liam Sa∣lisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter.
• * 1.258

  Fox Acts & monum, p. 1806.
• * 1.259

  Confu∣tation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1.
• 1 1.260

  William Salisbury.
• * 1.261

  Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gaddes of stele & digesteth them.
• * 1.262

  The Bee gathereth hony on the same flour, that the Spider gathereth poyson.
• 2 1.263

  Richard Woodman.
• ast; 1.264

  Fox Acts & monum. p. 1806.
• * 1.265

  The B. of Chichester rightly answered of his man according to his que∣stion.
• * 1.266

  Sacram, of the Altar.
• * 1.267

  The Altar how it is to be taken & where it is.
• * 1.268

  Christ the true and only Altar.
• 3 1.269

  D. Fulke
• 5 1.270

  D. Rai∣nold.
• a 1.271

  In Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia.
• b 1.272

  Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus.
• c 1.273

  Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 & 25.
• d 1.274

  Epist. 86. de Civitat. Dei 18. c. 27. & l. 22 c. 10. Confesse l. 11. & 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21.
• e 1.275

  Theph. in Matth. 23.
• f 1.276

  Aretheas in collect. exposit. in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert. Com. 8. in Apocalyp. 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Masse.
• g 1.277

  The Rhemists in their An∣notat. on the New Testament.
• h 1.278

  Greg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii. Chryso••t. demonstr. quod Christus sit Deus. Homil. in Matth. 16. & 8. 3. in pri••r Epist. ad Corinth. 24. & 27•• ad populum Antioch. 60. & 61. Sermon de Euchar. & de B. Philogenio. S••crat. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. & 25. August. Epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract in Iohan 26. de verbis Domini. Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint. c. 11.
• i 1.279

  Prudent. Hym. de S. Laur. Cōc. Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor. etymol. ar. l. 7. ••. 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Lev. Epi. 79. a•• Dioscer.
• k 1.280

  The Booke of Com. pray•• in the Commun.
• l 1.281

  Iustin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. & l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. & 5. Lev. Serm. 4. de quadrag.
• m 1.282

  Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. & Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can. 2.
• n 1.283

  Durandus in rational. divinor. officiis l. 4. c. 53.
• † 1.284

  Panis be∣nedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius.
• 6 1.285

  D. Wille••
• 7 1.286

  David Dickson.
• * 1.287

  8. King Iames.
• * 1.288

  Object. 2.
• o 1.289

  Treatise of Gods house p. 2.
• * 1.290

  Answer 1.
• p 1.291

  See B. Iewels Re∣plie to Harding Art. 1. div. 5. p. 5.
• q 1.292

  In their forecited places.
• m 1.293

  See this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. & others of the Masse.
• n 1.294

  Fox Acts & monnm. p. 1211.
• * 1.295

  Service, & Sacra∣ments.
• * 1.296

  Page 61. 62.
• * 1.297

  By like D. Heylyn w••o playes t••e ignorāt Lawyer to, in his hist. of the Sab∣bath part. 2. c. 7 8.
• a 1.298

  Treatise of Gods house p. 2.
• b 1.299

  Service & Sacra∣ments 1.
• a 1.300

  Shelford p. 2. 7. ••
• b 1.301

  Fox Acts & monum. p. 1211. 1212.
• c 1.302

  Fox Acts & monum. p. 1703.
• d 1.303

  Ibidem p. 1211.
• e 1.304

  Fox Act•• & monum. p. 1404. 1406.
• * 1.305

  Rerum Germanic. Script. m. 1. p. 5••0. 591.
• * 1.306

  Platina N••col. 3.
• * 1.307

  De Vitis pont. Rom p. 68. 69.
• * 1.308

  See Tho∣mas Bea∣cons reliq. of Rome.
• * 1.309

  Object. 3.
• a 1.310

  Coale frō the Altar p. 30. 53. 54.
• * 1.311

  Answer 1.
• b 1.312

  Se Orme ••ods Paga∣no-Papis•• l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform.
• * 1.313

  Object 4. Se the Coa∣le p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52.
• a 1.314

  The hom. against the Perill of Idol. Se p. 41. 42. 61
• b 1.315

  An. Mel. Musoe print. An. 1620. p. 24.
• * 1.316

  Sorde se∣pulta sua.
• * 1.317

  Pingit religio••a lupam. So the first Copy but the corre∣cted, as in the Text.
• * 1.318

  Object. 5. A Coale from the Alt. p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer.
• * 1.319

  37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts & Monum. p. 1181. 1192. B. Iewels life before his workes sect. 25.
• * 1.320

  Answer 1.
• o 1.321

  Fox Acts & Monu∣ments p. 1404. 1406.
• p 1.322

  Dc Re••us Ecclesia∣sticis. l. 4. c. 19.
• q 1.323

  Fox Acts & Monu∣ments p. 1211. 1212.
• r 1.324

  Page 19.
• s 1.325

  Page 51.
• * 1.326

  Alatit••∣dine.
• t 1.327

  Page. 23. 24.
• v 1.328

  Page. 23.
• x 1.329

  Fox Acts, & monu∣ments. p. 1211. 1212.
• y 1.330

  Coale. p. 20. 71.
• z 1.331

  Page, 13
• a 1.332

  5. & 6. E 6.. 1. Ely. •• 2. Fox Acts & Moun∣ments. p 1211. 1212.
• * 1.333

  Object. 6.
• b 1.334

  Coale p. 22.
• * 1.335

  Answer 1.
• c 1.336

  In their, fore cited & places, (words.
• * 1.337

  Object 7
• d 1.338

  Coale p 58 59 60 61. &c.
• * 1.339

  Answer 1.
• e 1.340

  Bishop Wrens vi∣sitation Articlos which o∣ther.
• k 1.341

  Cole pag. 62.
• * 1.342

  8 Object.
• l 1.343

  Coale from the Altar. pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiuua∣ted.
• * 1.344

  Fox acts. Monu∣ments. p. 1212.
• * 1.345

  Answer 1.
• m 1.346

  Decla∣ration be∣fore the 32 Articles, & concer∣ning the dissolution of the Par∣leament. p. 21.42.
• * 1.347

  Object 9.
• n 1.348

  Coale from the Altar. p: 63: 64: &c
• * 1.349

  Answer 1.
• o 1.350

  Bishop Wren in his Arti∣cles for Norwich Diocesse, & Bishop Percie for Bath and Wels.
• p 1.351

  In their seueral vi∣sitation Articles.
• * 1.352

  Doctor Heylyn as most giue out, & so∣me Cir∣cumstan∣ces disco∣ver.
• q 1.353

  Papc. 21. 42. 43
• * 1.354

  where 25. or 30. yeares ma∣kes a good Prescrip∣tion.
• * 1.355

  Who li∣censed it.