A Quench-Coal

EDMOND REEVE His Reasons For bowing to Lord's-Tables, and placing them Altar-wise, related and refuted.

CHISTIAN READER, before I entertain thee with a serious Epistle, give me leave to detain thee a little with some late Paradoxes in Edmond Reeve, printed by License, to prove the necessity & Lawfulnes of bowīg to and towards the Altar and Communion. Table at our entering in and going out of the Church, to refresh thy spirits withal. His first reason is this.

This reason is properly reduced into these two Logical Arguments, point-blank against his Conclusion.

Ergo, EVERY ONE now also ought to bow to God's mercy Seat, (the Pulpit and Reading Pew, from which he is heard speaking in his Word; not unto Altars and Tables.

But how then a prostration of the body towards the ground the lower part of the Temple, can be a prostration towards the Roofe or upper part of the Church, when as it removes the body further from it (unless Mr. Reeve can tell me how a man may prostrate himself upward) I cannot yet discern.

This I have else-where fully answered out of Shelford & Widdowes, who produce neither Scripture nor Reason for all this they say, nor any authority, but their own.

1. First therefore let them prove: That God hath and ought to have a Seat in every Church.

2. Secondly, that this Seat is the Communion-Table only, not the Pulpit, Reading Pew, Bible, or any other part of the Church.

3. Thirdly, that God always sits there by his grace, when there is nobody in the Church, to bear him Company, no Service, no Sacrament of Christ's body and blood.

4. Fourthly, that when there is Divine Service read in the Church, a Sermon preached in the Pulpit, or a Child Christened at the Font, and no Service or Sacrament at the the Table, that he yet sits still on the Table, and is there only specially present by his grace, and not at these other places in any of his Ordinances.

5. Fifthly, that God is alike present at the Table by his grace when there is no Communion as when there is one.

6. Sixthly, that men ought in point of duty to bow to every place where God is present: And to one part only off, or instrument in the Church, and not to the whole Fabric:

Seventhly, that a Bishops consecration confines God close prisoner to his mercy Seat, the Table, so as never to suffer him to stir one inch from thence, no not when there is no Sacrament, no Divine Service, no person there to do him homage, nor use of his special presence.

Till these bedlam Paradoxes be proved, which will be ad G • aecas Calendas, we may well demure to this second reason. Of which more fully anon. Only to retort the reason, let me argue thus.

The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto.

But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven, in the Church-Bible, and midst of his people, not at the East end of the Church where none must sit near him, as I bare else-where proved; And in every good Christians heart.

Ergo, these, not the Table, are to be bowed unto. As for his Chair of State; That it ought always to be bowed unto. (I think when it is in the ward-robe, Cart, Imbroy derers or upholsters shop, &c. should have been excepted,) he must show us some Law or Statute for it, ere we can believe it.

And though some men bow unto it now and then, because the King sits sometimes personally in it: This Gentleman must prove, that God sits personally some-times on the Table, which he can hardly do. But he and others tell us, that God sits always there; Very good; Then I thus retort the similitude.

No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chair of State when the King himself is sitting in it, but only when he is absent; For when the King his in it, they never do it, but bow only and immediately to the King, without any respect to the Coaire.

Therefore since God is always sitting on the Table, they ought not to bow or do any reverence to it at all.

And so this Simitude cuts the throat of their cause if rightly paralleled and applied.

This will likewise overthrow his Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise, else-where at large refelled.

But of this me • ry profound Divinity hereafter: This only by the way for a Breakfast: The Author, having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners.

That we are all bound in conscience for to learn, believe and obey whatsoever is commanded in the Commuuion-Book, Homilies Book and Constitutions or Canons Book.

All which condemn his bowing to, and placing of the Table North and South: And so by his own censure, not speaking according to the Communion Book Doctrine. J may with a safe conscience before God affirm that there is no light of God's holy spirit within him.

They are his own words and censure, of all those who speak not according to the Communion Book Doctrine, which himself professedly speaks against, in all these, and other passages.

But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus, who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly, in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops, whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise.

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.

C HRISTIAN READER, it is storied of Croesus his dumb-borne Son, that when he saw a Persian Captain going to stay his Father, his filial affection was so stirred in him at the sight, that though he never spake before, yet then he brake forth into these words: O man, do not kill Croesus; And so saved his Fathers life.

What this dutiful Son thus unexpectedly uttered (being ever before tongue-tied) out of his endeared love to his natural Father, I am here constrained, (out of my loyal respects to my spiritual Mother the Church of England) publicly to speak to some treacherous seeming-Sons of hers, who have almost stabbed her to the heart, under a specious pretence of fighting for her, in some late printed works: O man, do not murder and betray my Mother the Church of England. (Even as Judas once did our Savior with a kiss) whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholly for her.

Alas, when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles, and the Book of Common-Prayer, to which you have all subscribed; When I see you raking the very ashes, and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent Jewel, Reynolds, Whitaker, Fulke, Willet, Perkins, with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Rome's greatest Goliath's, (whom you never durst so much as look upon, by way of Opposition, in their life times) proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings; When I behold you siding with the Papists, maintaining their Antichristian Errors, Doctrines, Ceremonies & abuses before all the world, without blush or shame; Defending their Erronious Writers against our famous Orthodox Authors, whose blessed memories you seek causelessly to steine; When I behold you avowing even in print;

When I see out own Divines (if we may believe them) by public License in printed Books defending all these with sundry other erroneous Romish Positions, maintaining all Popish Ceremonies, conforming themselves to Popish Mass-Priests, in their noddes, cringes, genuflections, habits, preaching, writing, Ceremonies; And joining thus with them in a most treacherous confederacy against the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, as many late Writers, and by Name Bishop Montague, Bishop White, Edmond Reene, Dr. Pocklington, Dr. Heylin, Dr. Primerose, Dr. Laurence, Dr. Read, Mr. Shelford, Mr. Chowne, Mr. Studly, with others in their late printed Books, Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles, and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons, both in the Court, City, University and Country have done.

When I behold our Lord's Tables everywhere called, and turned into Altars, or railed Altar-wise; Our Ministers transformed into Priests, and so styled: Our Religion Metamorphosed into external Popish Pomp and Ceremonies; Our Devotion into Superstition; Our Holines into professed profaneness; Our godnes into impiory; Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing; Our Lord's days into Play-days; Our Conscience into unconscio • ableness; Our fear of God into Atheism; Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes; Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitors and mere Tyrants; Our Pastors into Wolves; Our Religious Fasting (even in this time of Plague and danger) into Feasting; Our devout Prayers into carnal lollity; Our Profession of Religion into Derision, and God's Word, (yea Heaven and Hell ) into a Fable; And that principally by means of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Books in print, (which no man can have free liberty to answer, this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours, to engross the power and command of all our printing Presses into their own hands, and to stay whatever may either detect or cross their Antichristian Romish designs.)

When I behold all this, I say, even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit, how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and pen, and cry out aloud that all may hear, to these open Powder. Traitors, who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once; O men, do not thus murder and destroy the Church of England.

Now, because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnatural Treachery, nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell, I have here single & out some three or four of them to combat with, (especially the Author of A Coale from the Altar, intiteled, A Judicious Learned Divine; Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuel Baker, in the Bishops of London's Open, hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church,) concerning Altars, the Sacrament of the Altar, the •••• swing of the Communion Table an Altar, and the placing of it Altarwise, with one side against the Wall, as the East end of the Church.

Which they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Books, in open affront and defiance to our Statu • es, Articles of Religion, Book of Common-Prayer, Injunctions, Canons, Martyrs, and most Eminent Writers.

Which particulars though they seem small at first view, and are slighted by many, as matters of no great moment, yet, all Circumstances considered, they are very important, and the conniving at them without Opposition, like to prove fatal to our Religion, as the Reading of the Treatise itself, will evidence more at large.

To make this apparent in few words; There is no man almost so ignorant, as not to know; So blind, as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us (the heads whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament) who labor with all diligence, power, and cunning artifice, to bring the whole body of Popery into our Church again, yet secretly by degrees, with as little noise as might be, by those several Stratagemes and means, which that cunning-pated Jesuit Adam Contzin in his Book of Politickes printed at Mainz, Anno 1621. hath prescribed them for that purpose; Which they prosecute and follow to an hairs-breadth.

To effect this Plot the better (according to the Popes consultation and direction in his Conclave) they first vented all the Arminian points in printed Books; Which though at first oppugned by many to their hazard, have now (under a pretence of silencing all controversies in this kind) quite silenced the truth itself; Being now publicly printed and preached everywhere without control, contrary to his Majesty's Proclamation, concerning the inhibiting and calling in of Montague's Book (which led the Dance,) in his Declaration before the 39. Articles; And concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament; Which are now made snares only by these potent Confederates (contrary to his Majesty's pious intention) to suppress the truth, and bring those into trouble, who defend it against Arminian Novelties or Popish Tenants, either by printing or preaching.

Next after this, they began to cry up, practice, and enjoin m • ny superstitious Popish Ceremonies, especially bowing at the name of Jesus, both in time of Divine Service and Sermons, to the end it might usher in bowing to Altars, Images, Crucifixes, with adoration of the Sacramental bread and wine; Which Ceremony getting head by violence, many suffering for opposing it, and others either ignorantly or cowardly submitting to it, though not prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer; Then they began at first in some private places to set up Images, Altars, yea Crusifixes in Churches, directly contrary to our Homilies; To call Lord's-Tables, Altars; To turn them Altarwise or into Altars, and bow down unto them.

And because an Altar without a Priest was to no purpose, they next begin, to term themselves with other Ministers by no other name but Priests; Yea Priests to dance attendance on these new Altars, both in their Sermons, Books and Writings.

Which being done but secretly in corners (as every Evil is bashful at first, and creeps up but by degrees) these new devises also got • ground by little and little, some potent Bishops setting them on, and countenancing them under hand, Crushing such who chiefly oppugned these Innovations in the High-Commission and elsewhere.

And having thus by public Censures and these under • and Devises given open countenance to them, and disheartened people from opposing them, they grew in a short time so impudent as openly to plead for Jmages, Altars, Priests, turning of Communion-Tables Altar-wise, bowing to them and at the name of Jesus, reading of Second Service at them, standing up at Gloria Patri, the Gospel, &c. and that not only in the Pulpit, but in the High-Commission and in print, setting some shallowpated fellows (as Giles Widdowes, Reeve and Shelford) in the fore-front to break the Ice, to see how the people would relish them; And then when these men had borne the brunt and blame for a while, and the strangeness of the things was almost vanished, seconding them with others of better note and parts, to give greater Countenance to them, that people might the more willingly embrace these Innovations.

Which being thus once pleaded for in print, our Bishops (the chief Plotters and fomenters of them) begin first more covertly under-hand by way of persuasion and entreaty, and now at last openly in their Visitation-Articles by way of peremptory command, (one pragmatical impudent Prelate giving the first onset, and then others seconding him in their fore-plotted order,) to enjoin all these Innovations, Popish Practises and Ceremonies to be put in full execution throughout their Diocese; And now they are grown so impudent, as to excommunicate, suspend, yea Censure in the High Commission all such Church-wardens and Ministers, who out of Conscience towards God, Obedience to his Majesty's Laws and Declarations, or love to Religion, dare oppose or not sub •• ie unto 〈◊〉 many Church-wardens being excommunicated for not 〈◊〉 in the Table Altarwise; And many Ministers suspended excommunicated, put from their Livings, if not field 〈◊〉 imprisoned too (especially in Bishop Wrens and Bishop 〈◊〉 Diocese) for not bowing to the Altar, and as the names Jesus, not reading Second Service at the High Altar 〈◊〉 Lord's-Table, for opposing the railing in of the Table Altarwise, without Lawfull Authority, or preaching against, or not yielding to these Popish Proceedings; Which have lately gotten such head in most places, that now all thing except Latin Service, are prepared for the Mass in many Churches, which added to these Novelties, will make us perfect Papists: For we have Altars (with Altar-clothe •• Tapers, Bisons and other Romish furniture on them,) Priests, Crucifixes, bowing to Altars, coming up to the Altar, and there kneeling down to receive, all Popish Trinekets and Massing Ceremonies, Copes, Organs, Vestments (especially in our Cathedrals, which now must be. Pattern • of Imitation to all other Churches in the Diocese, ) all which being but mere Preparations for the Mass, how soon that also may steal in upon us, (if his Majesty's pious care, with other our Magistrates vigilancy and inferior Minister out-cries, who are over-silent in such an exigent, prevent 〈◊〉 not with speed,) by these active hot-spurs machinations who have made such a swift progress in all the other particulars which they impudently press and justice with bra • e • faces and obdurate hearts; (not fearing already to style th • Lord's Supper, an unbloody Sacrifice, the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar, and to maintain a corporal presence in the Eucharist, I fear to divine.

And when Mass is once installed and set up, the next thing these Novellers are to effect,) Popery will be perfectly restored with it, and then face well all our Religion, which we have enjoyed, with all extern • peace and felicity attending it.

Now, 〈◊〉 it is plain (according to the moderne Papists and these Innovatours Doctrine,) that there can be no Mass without an Altar, or Super-Altar; No Altar but at the East end of the Church, as remote from the people as they he, for the better officiating of private Mass; And neither Mass nor Altar without a Sacrifice, a Sacrament of the Altar, and a Priest to Consecrate and Offer it; The oppugning of these Innovations (the immediate Harbengers and fore-runners both of Mass and open Popery, without which there can be no Mass, and Popery can never get head among us, (and by conniving at which without •• ong and sudden Opposition, both Mass and Popery, the things principally a • med at, without which these other are to no purpose, will presently perke up and get quiet possession among us, to the utter overthrow of our Religion,) must needs be of great consequence.

〈◊〉 know, that when a Ciety is beleaguerd, whiles the 〈◊〉 and Out works are safe and defended, the Citty is in no danger of surprisal: But if the Enemies once get them, all is in danger to be lost: Our Lord's-Tables, Ministers, Lord's Supper, yea the very use and defense of these Titles, 〈◊〉 well as the things, are the Bulworkes and Outworkes of our Religion, as long as we maintained them, there was as fear of Mass or open Popery; But since the Altars and the name of Altars invaded and thrust out our Lord's-Tables and their names, Priests out Ministers and the Title of Ministers, and those other Massing Ceremonies prevailed, the Outworkes of our Religion are quite lost and taken, with many of the In-works too; by our Popish Adversaries, and all is in great danger of speedy surpris ••• ; Is it not then high time for us to awake and bestir ourselves; To beat out these secret Traitors, which demolish these Out-fortifications, or betray them to our Romish Adversaries and to make good and regain these Sconces (if it be possible) without which all will be hazarded, if not quite l • st, and that in a little space for ought we know?

Let no man then think slightly of these smaller matters, without which the grandest designs of our Popish Adversaries cannot be effected or proceed: But let all rather labor to pry into that great Treacherous plot and hidden mystery of Iniquity, which sets all these under-wheels on work, and endeavor all they may, to oppose that imminent inundation of the whole body of Popery, flowing in a main upon us, all which wise men both foresee and fear • Which it will be in vain to do, if we permit these Banks, these Bulworkes J here content for, to be broken down • Which alone will secure us, if maintained, but ruin all if once demolished, by foreign Opposites or homebred Traitors.

For the Coale from the Altar (the main Treatise I he •• encounter, which fires all these fortifications at once, that the enemies may enter and surprise us whiles we either neglect or strive to quench the flame:) The Author thereof, 〈◊〉 seems, was ashamed to own it by his name, (though as impudent, as shameless, as active an instrument of mischief as great an incendiary for his years as any living in our Church, if he on whom fame hath fathered it, be the man.)

The Title informs us, that he is a Divine, yea a judicio • Learned Divine, (perchance in his own and some other conceit;) But certainly what ever his Learning is, sure I at his Judgment is not very great, and his honesty less, as will appear in the Quench-Coale.

For the Letter he undertakes to answer (which he would injuriously without any ground Father upon Mr. Cotton of Boston, the more to abuse had Censure the true Author of it, with whom he hath lately had some personal quarrels and contests) is certainly known to be Dr. Williams now Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of Westminster, a man far more Learned and judicious then the Answerer, and every way able to make good his own Letter, which I have not particularly undertaken to defend, dealing in this Controversy with the Coale, no further then concerns the points debated in the Letter, and that in general, without any relation unto the Epistoler, who no doubt will answer for himself without a Proctor.

As for this Quench-Coale, having to do with others as well as the Coale, I have therein followed mine own Method, though confused, not the Coals; And cleared the points in Controversy by our own English Martyrs, Writers and Records, omitting Foreigners, partly for brevity sake, and partly because impertinent in these particulars, which principally concern the practice and judgment only of our own Church; In which as I wonder much that the rumored Author of the Coale could find no Lord's-day Sabbath, though he writ An History of it, so J wonder how he could find an Altar in it; Our Church having cashered Altars as Popish, Heathenish & Jewish, yet he deemes the Christian; And retained & prescribed the Name and Sanctification of the Lord's-day Sabbath, which he brandes as Jewish, as if Altars were not more Jewish then it.

And here good Reader, I desire thee to observe, 〈◊〉 they are that thus plead most stiffly for Altars, calling Comunion-Tables Altars, and turning them Altar-wise, 〈◊〉

Certainly, these men, I fear, are quite distracted thr •• malice, or tossed to and for with a spirit of giddines, 〈◊〉 they could not so earnestly oppose & write against Judah • (as they term it,) with the one hand, and yet at the 〈◊〉 time embrace and write for it with the other.

Now, if Judaism be so distasteful to them, as that 〈◊〉 cannot brook the name, much less the Sanctification of 〈◊〉 Lord's-day Sabbath, which the Homilies of the Time and 〈◊〉 of Prayer, and the third part of the Homilie against Rebellus to which they have subscribed, pleads for, as truly Christian How then can they write for Altars, ( yea the naming of 〈◊〉 Lord's-Table an Altar, and his Supper the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 Altar,) which the first part of the Homilie, against the 〈◊〉 of Idolatry, p. 18. and the second Part of the Sermon of 〈◊〉 Time and Place of Prayer, p. 131. condemn • both as Jewish Popish and Heathenish, as many of our Writers before and since these Homilies have done?

Let them therefore either reject Altars, as they do • Christian Sabbath, because they are Jewish; Or else 〈◊〉 and plead for this Sabbath, and its strict Sanctification, ( ••• mitting it be Jewish, as it is not,) because they write so 〈◊〉 lie for Altars, more Jewish far then the names, or strict Sanctification of the Lord's-day Sabbath.

To draw to a Conclusion; All J have here written, is • y out of pure zeal to God's glory, the Patronage of his 〈◊〉 , and benefit of his Church, without any private spleen particular persons.

If any good accrue to God's people by it, or this my Mo •• Church of England; I desire God may have the glory, 〈◊〉 whom alone it is due; If no public benefit be reaped by 〈◊〉 , nor satisfaction given to private Christians in these • ggering times, to settle both their Judgments, Conscien • and Practice, as I hope there will; Yet I have done my 〈◊〉 endeavor; The Success is God's alone, not mine to 〈◊〉 ; To his Blessing I commend both thee and it, desiring 〈◊〉 the short space I had to compile it in, may excuse the de •• in the composition. So I rest.

Thy Friend in the Lord. Iuli • the tenth 1636.

Courteous Reader, this should have come in at the 3. Question, concerning the Consecration of Churches; Immediatly before the words of Bishop Pilkington there cited, Page 214. Line 32.

Matthew Parker, the Learned Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, relating the form of Consecrating Churches, Chapels, Altars, Foundation-stones, Vestments, Chalices, and the like, out of the ancient Missals and Saxon Pontificals, which our Bishops at this day use; Concludes thus of them all.

Thus this Arch-Bishop of these Dedications, so much now contested for by his present Successo • r; Ou • of what spirit, he hath here determined to our hands, I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉 .

A QUENCH-COALE, OR A brief disquisition, or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table, ought to be situated especially when the Sacrament is administered.

I T hath been a great Question lately raised and much agitated among us, by some Innovating Romish spirits; In what place of the Church or Chancel the Lord's Table ought to stand, specially at the time of the Sacraments administration; whether in the Body or midst of the Church, Chancel or Choir, or at the East end of the Choir Alterwise, where some now rail it in, and plead it ought of right to stand? The Rubric in the Comon prayer book before the Communion, thus resolves this question. The Table at the Communion time havinge a fair white Lynnen clothe upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, OR IN THE CHANCELL where morning prayer and eveninge prayer be appointed to be said. And the priest standing AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE, shall say the Lord's prayer with this Collect following &c.

Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions published in the first year of her Rain, when the former Rubric was made thus explain and define this question. The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed shall be soe placed in good sort with in the Chancel, as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number communicate with the said Minister: And after the Communion done from time to time the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before. Therefore it is not to be moveable, not fixed, or railed in at the East end of the Chancel.

The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction. Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Church • with in the Realm of England, convenient, and decent Tables are provided, and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion, we appoint that the same Tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired inconvenient, and decent manner, and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silk, or other decent stuff, and with a fair lynnen clothe at the time of the administration as becometh that Table, and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to be administered, At which time the same shall be placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL, as thereby the Minister may be the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration; and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number may communicate with the said Minister.

Queen Elizabeth's visitors in the first year of her Rain (who best knew the meaning of the Rubric and Injunctions, made that very year) did by special direction, place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England, in the body of the Church, or Chancel some distance from the wall, with the two ends standing East and West, and the two sides North and South; in which sort they have stood no less then 73. years, or more, And in such Churches where the Tables could not conveniently stand always in the body of the Church or Chancel, they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand, givinge direction, according to the Rubric, and Queens Injunctions, for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancel, when the Sacrament should be administered, as the said Rubric, Injunctions, and Canons prescribe.

In the year of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithy treatise touching the Lord's supper, compiled as some gather, by M. William Tyndale, and printed at the end of his works, wherein p. 476. 477. he wisheth, that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time. After which, he prescribes this form of administringe it, wishing, that the secular Princes would command and establish it. To wit, That the bread and wyne should be set before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lord's Table (not an Altar) purely and honestly laid &c. Then let the Preacher, (whom he would have to preach, at least twice every week) exhort them lovingly to draw near unto this Table of the Lord &c. This donne let him come down, (to wit from the pulpit) and accompanied honestly with other Ministers, come forth readily unto the Lord's Table (not the Altar) the congregation now SET ROUND ABOUT IT, and also in their other convenient seats, the Pastor exhortinge them all to pray for grace, faith, and love which all this Sacrament signifieth, and putteth them in mind of, Then let there be read openly, and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue, &c. Where this Author prescribes a Table, not an Altar, and that to stand in the face of the Congregation, not at the upper end of the Choir, that soe the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT & thus receive. This he determines to be according to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time, and that which our Martyrs then desired to be restored.

In the year 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 Council (whereof Archbishop Cramner, and Thomas Bishop of Eli where two) writ a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London, to give substantial Order throughout all his Dioces, that with all diligence, all the Altars in every Church, and Chapel with in his Dioces be taken down, and in steed of them a Table to be set up in some convenient part of the Chancel with in every such Church or Chapel to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion, sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lord's board should rather be after the form of a Table then of an Altar. After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the form of a Right Table to be used in his Dioces, and in the Church of Paul's brake down the wall standing by the high Altars side, placinge the Table a good distance from the wall.

M. Martin Bucer, in his Censure of the Common prayer book, of the Church of England, in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes, That it appears by the forms of the most ancient Temples, and writings of the Fathers, that the Clergy 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 plainly hear the things that were there recited, and be understood of all that were present, And he there condemns, the placinge of the Choir soe remote from the body of the Church, and administringe distinct service & Sacraments therein, as contrary to Christ's 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 down, and Communion Tables placed in the body of the Church or Chancel in their steed. * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lord's supper (March. 30. 1555.) to be set up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen, without the Choir, & taking away the Altar thence. The MIDDEST of the Church being then thought the fittest place for its situation.

Incomparable Bishop Jewell,* one of Queen Elizabeth's visitors, in the first year of her Rain, who had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables, and placinge these Tables in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, if not incomposinge the Rubrics in the Communion book,) in his answer to Hardings Preface, writes thus. An Altar we have, such as Christ and his Apostles, and other Holy Fathers had, which of the Greeks was called the Holy Table, And of the Latins the Table of the Lord, and was made not of Stone, but of Timber, and stood not at the end of the Choir, BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE, as many ways it may appear. And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had, we desire to have none. And in his Reply to Hardinge, Article 3. Divis. 26. He proceeds thus. Now whether it may seem likely that the same Altars stood soe far of from the hearing of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth, I refer myself to these authorities that here follow. Eusebius thus describeth the form and furniture of the Church in his time. The Church being ended, & comely furniture with high Thrones for the honor of the Rulers, and wish stalls beneath set in order, And last of all the holy of holies, I mean the Altar, BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST. Eusebius saith not, the Altar was set at the end of the Choir, but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE. S. Augustinus likewise saith thus. Christ feedeth us daily, and this is his Table here set IN THE MIDDEST. O my hearers, what is the matter that ye see the Table, and yet come not to the meat? In the 5. Council of Constantinople, it is written thus. When the Lessen or Chapter was reading, the people with silence dr • ve together ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR, and gave care; (Yet D. Pocklington writes, that they are much mistaken that produce the Council of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church, and the Coale from the Altar, saith the like: ) And to leave others. Durand examininge the cause, why the Priest turneth himself about at the Altar, yieldeth this reason for the same. In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH. I opened my mouth, And Platina noteth, that Boniface Bishop of Rome, was the first, that in the time of the ministration, divided the Priest from the people. To leave further Allegations, that the Choir was then in the body of the Church, divided with rails from the rest, whereof it was called Cancell, or Chancel, &c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth, that the people for distance of place could not hear what the Priest said. A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soon see he is far deceived. For Chrysostom saith: The deacon at the holy Mysteries stood up, and thus spake unto the people; Oremus pariter omnes, let us all pray together; And again he saith, the Priest and people at the ministration talk together. The Priest saith, the Lord be with you, the people answereth, And with thy spirit. Justinian the Emperor commanded, that the Priest should soe speak a loud at the holy Ministration as the people might hear him: And to leave rehearsal of others. Bessarion saith, the Priest speaking these words, the people standing by at each part of the Sacrament, or on every side, saith Amen. After which he concludes thus. Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time, nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe far off from the body of the Church, nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not, soe many untruths being found in M. Hardings premises, (all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar, to affront Bishop Jewel, and justify M. Hardinge, and that by public license, such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostasy of our age:) we may well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion. And in the margin he hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words. The. 82. un truth. The Altars, and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH, as shall appear. And Article 13. division 6. p: 362. he cites the same passages of Eusebius, Augustine, and the Council of Constantinople, to prove, that there was anciently but one Altar and Communi • n Table in every Church, and that standing in the midst of the Church, Choir, people; and concludes thus; Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus, describinge the manner of the Greek Church as it is used at this day, saith thus; In the Greek Church there is but one Altar, and the same standing IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE, and the Choir also was in the midst of all the people, Thus this Jewell of the Church: From whose words it is apparent, that the Communion Table in the Apostles times, and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. years after Christ, stood in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, not at the East end of the Choir, Altarwise against the wall; And that it ought now thus to stand in the Churches, being thus placed in his time. Which books of his, being A defense both of the doctrine, and practice of the Church of England against the Papists, Commaunded to be had in every Church for Ministers and the people to read. (And therefore it seems a strange prodigious insolency, that men of our own Church (as they pretend) should be soe impudent, as publicly to affront and refute his doctrine in print; but far stranger they should do it by public license to disparage him, and justify the Papists doctrine) is a clear demonstration to me. That by the very doctrine, and practice of the Church of England, the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH OR CHAVNCELL, especially when the Sacrament is administered; and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chauncell, like a Dresser, a side Table, or Popish Altar, (to the end it may not be thence removed, and that the people may come up to it by several ranks and files to receive the Sacrament,) is a mere Popish Innovation contrary both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England.

The nameless Author of the Coale from the Altar, taking upon him to be far wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell, (yea then Bishop Ba • ington, D. Fulke, M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers) is bold to write without blushinge, That the authorities of Eusebius, Augustine, Durand, and the 5. Council of Constantinople, do 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 meaning, and shapes several answers for to shift them. To that of Eusebius he saith, 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 he saith the middle; The Altar though it stood alonge the Eastern wall, yet it may be well interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancel in Reference to the North and South, as since it hath stood. And were it otherwise, yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria, wherein the people being more mingled with the Jews then in other places, might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple, the better to conform unto them. To which I answer: 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort mere nonsense. The Altar was placed in the midst of the Church or Chancel, that is (saith he) in the East end of it, or in the midst of the East end; as if the East end of the Church or Chancel were the Church or Chancel it self, or the midst of it, the midst of the Church or Chancel, But these being distinct, and different things, the midst of the Church or Chancel, can be not more interpreted, to be the midst of the Eastwall or end of them, then the East wall, or midst of the East end of the Choir, can be the midst of the Church, So that this evasion is but a mere nonsense Bull; And had Eusebius intended any such thing, he would have thus expressed himself; that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Choir, not in the midst of the Church or Choir, and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with wooden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificial carving.

2. I answer, that The second parte of the Reply is a plain concession of what he formerly denied; and not only soe, but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason, Soe that here we have one piece of the Coale against the other: one denying that it was in the midst, the other confessinge, and provinge the contrary: Now whereas he writes, that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria: I answer, that it seems this famous Temple was one of the first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Savior's death, and soe became a general pattern for all the rest: The great Church at Jerusalem being built round or ovall like to it, and havinge the Altar in the midst, like this;) In the edifying whereof, Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, who passed all others for rare and singular gifts, was the chief means and director, And till he can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive times, either before, or not long after this, wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Choir Altarwise, as now they are situated, which he can never do, I shall take it as a general and sufficient proof for the setting of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancel. That which he adds, that it was done perchance to please the Jews; is but his own fancy, no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thing; And admit it true, yet the Jews situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple, though, not out of any Jewish fancy or conceit, but by God's own direction, is a fitter pattern for Christians to follow, then any Popish Altars, fixed station at or against the East end of the Choir, only by a bold Friers or Popes direction, without Reason, Scripture, president, or divine direction to warrant it.

To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople, he replies, that although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in it self doth signify a Circle, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cannot be properly interpreted, round about the Altar, soe as there was no parte thereof, that was not compassed by the people; no more then if a man should say, that he hath seen the Kinge sitting in his Throne, and all his Nobles about him, it needs or could be thought, that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence, as many of the Nobles being behind him as before him; for which he cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answer, First, That as the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is, a Circle, as he confesseth; soe the proper signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is, to compass or stand round about the Altar in a Circle, and to hemne it in on every side. If this then be the proper meaning of the words of this Council, as all must acknowledge, good reason have we to take them in their proper sense, 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 sitting, standing and incircling the throne or Table round about on every parte; Therefore it should by the same Reason be soe taken here.

3. When as we say, the Kings Nobles do inviron or stand round about his Throne; this implies, that his Throne stands not against a wall, but soe as men may stand round about him; round about, e •• rimplyinge a perfect Circle, though about doth not always soe.

4. I shall make it most clear, that all Altars anciently were placed in the midst of Temples, Churches, or Quires, and that it was the use both among Jews. Pagans, and Christians, to compass, stand, dance, & goeround about them; therefore it shall be intended the people did soe there, till the contrary can be proved, which will be ad Graecas Calendas.

To that of S. Augustine, he 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, according to the usual meaning of the Latin phrase, afferre in medium, which is not to be construed thus, bring it precisely into the midst, but bring 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 knew not howe to conster Latin, and need be set to school again to learn their Grammar. I wonder why this pragmatical Criticke cavilled not at our new translators for rendringe that of Math. 18. 20. where two or three gathered together there I am in medio corum, in the midst of them; where the same latin word is used: If in medio, here may be properly Englished, in the midst, not at the East end, or before them; why not in this text of Augustine? All know, that the proper signification of Medium, is the midst; and of in medium afferre, to bring into the midst, not before men; Coram nobis, being the common phrase, signifying to bring, a thing before men, not in medium afferre; And if this Gentleman remember his Grammar; Sentit medios illapsus in hosts, cannot be interpreted, he perceived he was fallen, before his Enemies, but, into the midst of them. The translation of Bishop Jewell therefore is good & proper, & the Colier a nonsense Criticke, to quarrel 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 Priests stood at the midst of the Altar: For it is generally known that many hundred years before Durand was borne, the Altars generally stood in Christian Churches, even as now they do.

I answer, first, that to interpret in medio Ecclesiae, the midst of the Altar, not of the Church, is nonsense; 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 own confession signify 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 known neither by experience (for no man is so ancient,) nor by any authentic writer extant, that many 100. years before Durand was borne the Altars generally, stood in Christian Churches as now they do; there being not one testimony that can be produced to prove it. The Altar in the Cathedral Church of Rome standing, even in time of Mass, when the Pope receiveth the Sacrament, in the midst of the Choir, & the Pope sitting in a Chair of estate about it, as William Thomas an eywitnesse of it An. 1547. testifieth in his History of Italy, yet the contrary is well known, & shall God willing be proved; & if this were soe well known, I wonder why this judicious learned man proves it no better, begging only the Question disputed, instead of proving it; having thus answered, 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 works in folio, shows at large, That the Apostles and Primitive Christians had no Altare but Communion • Tables only, and those made of boards, & REMOVEABLE, SET IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL; they are his own words.

Doctor William Fulke, in his Confutation of the Remish Testament, notes on Heb. 13. sect. 6. Anno 1589. writes thus: The Lord's Table of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table, as it is indeed; and an Altar, as it is improperly; But that it is called of them a Table, and was indeed a Table made of boards, and removeable set in the midst of the people, not placed against a wall, I have shown sufficiently by the Testimony of the ancient Fathers before, (to wit those whom Bishop Jewell quotes:) So on the 1. Cor. 11. sect. 1 • . He & M. Cartwright both affirm: That in the Primitive Church, the Lord's Table was situated in THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AND PEOPLE, not against a wall.

Doctor Andrew Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. general Controversy. Quest. 6. Error. 53. p. 496. writes thus against the Papists, concerning the fashion & form of Churches, & the divisions & partitions with in: We will not much contend, soe these conditions be observed: First, that all superstition be avoided in making one place of the Church holier then the rest, wherein the Papists mightily offend. For the Choir and Chancel was for their Priests & singers, the other parte of the Church for lay-men, they were not to enter into that holy place, And thus according to the places they divided the Congregation as though one parte were more holy then the other. But where learn they, that Churches ought to have a Sanctuary as the Jewish Churches had. That was an evident tipe, and is now accomplished in our Savior Christ, who is now entered into the heavens, as the high Priest then entered into the holy place to make attonoment for the people Heb. 9. 24. this therefore is very gross to revive and renew again Jewish types and figures, as their own Ordinary gloss saith. The external Rites, & Ceremonies of the Law, because they were a shaddow of Christ to come, & of his Mysteries, Therefore the truth of the Gospel being come, are made unlawful & vanished away. Solomon's Temple then with the Sanctuary and Priesthood therefore which were shadows of things to come, are no presidents or Patterns for Christians to follow, But if here in not with standing they will imitate the buildinge of Solomon's Temple to have a Sanctuary, why do they not also build towards the West, as the Temple was? why bring they not their ALTARS DOWNE TO THE BODY OF THE CHURCHES. For in their holy place there was no Altar. And indeed Altar we acknowledge none, as hereafter shall be proved. But we see no Reason why the Communion Table may not be set IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, as well as in the Chancel if the place be more convenient, and fit to receive the Communicants: But I pray you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuary then the Font or Baptisterie? They are both Sacraments, as well Baptism as the Lord's supper; why should one be preferred as holier then the other? Thus this Doctor.

By all these authorities it is most apparent, that by the express Resolution of the Common prayer book confirmed by Act of Parliament; Of Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the Bishops, learned writers, & constant practice of the Church of England from the beginning of Reformation until now, the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancel, or Choir Altarwise against the wall, especially when the Sacrament is administered; but in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, and that soe it stood in the Primitive Church.

Now for the better discovery of the place where the Table ought to stand, it will not be impertinent to inquire.

First, where the Table of Shewbreade was placed?

2. Where Jewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood?

3. How the Jews Tables, & the Table at which Christ instituted 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 be produced for the placinge of the Communion Table Altarwise, at the East end of the Chancel against the wall? &c.

For the first of these, it is most evident, that the shewbread • Table (a tipe of Christ, & the Sacramental breads,) stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum, but without the veil of the Tabernacle on the Northside, (not at the East side) of the Tabernacle. Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9. 2. 3. 6. 7. which are express; compared 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 may be any president for Communion Tables, they ought to be placed, not in the East end of the Chancel, but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood.

For the second; we must know, that Altars were anciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills, & elevated places, especially among 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 frequently styled 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 naught else but high-Altars,) God himself gave express charge to the Israli • es, Exod. 20. 28. not to go up by steps to his Altar, that their nakedness be not discovered: And to pluck down, & destroy all high places. Numb. 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39. yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish, as even in despite of God himself, to erect high places, high Altars, & to go up by steps unto them, instead of Communion Tables; & to Christian the Lord's Table, with the name of an Altar, and high Altar too. The Golden Altar for incense was set before the Ark of the testimony in the first Tabernacle: And the Altar of burnt offering, which was most holy, was placed before the door of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation. Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. & that by God's own appointment, And when a burnt offering of fowls was brought to the Altar, the Priest was to wringe the blood of it out at the side of the Altar; and to pluck away the Croppe with the Feathers, and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST parte, by the place of the ashes. Levite. 1. 14. 15. 16, Therefore the Altar of burnt offering did not stand Altarwise 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 he placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the congregation in the fore front of the house. Another Altar he erected in the middle of the Court, before the house of the Lord, on which he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings. And when the Temple was consecrated, the Levites which were the singers with their soons, and their brethren being arrayed in white Lynnen, havinge Cymballs, and Psalteries, and Harps stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar (to wit of the golden and brazen Altar,) and with them an 120 Priests, soundinge with trumpetts, All which is clearly 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, he made a trench, round about the Altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed, And the water ran round about the Altar, and filled the trench. 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the midst, where men might stand round about it, not against a wall. We read of David that he build an Altar to the Lord, in the threshinge flower of Araunah. 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof, but in the midst of it; as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocence, soe will I COMPASSE thine Altar • Lord. We read 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 therefore stood not in the corner, or East end of the Temple, but in the midst, or near the entringe into it; In the 2. Kings 12. 9. we read, that Jehoiada the Priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the • idd thereof, and set it besides the Altar on the right side, as one cometh into the house of the Lord. So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple, but near the entry, almost as our fonts now 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 between 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 all 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. We read of a prophesy. Isaiah. 19. 19. In that day shall there be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt. And of a commination to the Idolatrous Israelites. Ezech. 6. 4. 5. your Altars shall be desolate, & I will scatter your bones ROVND ABOUT YOVR ALTARS. We find mention of the gate of the Altar NORTHWARD in Jerusalem. Ezech. 8. 5. and the brazen Altar stood Northward, as it seems. Ezech. 9. 2. We read of an Altar, that was before the house. Ezech. 40. 47. Whereupon the Priests the Ministers of the Lord are enjoined in the time of a solemn Fast, to weep between the porch, and the Altar. Joel 2 17. So Ezech. 8. 16. the same expression is used, Behold at the door of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch, and the Altar were about 25. 35. men &c. And Zacharias, as Christ informs us. Ma • h. 23. 35. was slain between the Temple, and the Altar; Altars • in those days standing usually without the Temples: it being both a troublesome, & unseemly thing to bring Oxen. Sheep, Calves & other beasts into the Temple there to kill, & sacrifice them on the Altar. By all these Scripture Testimonies it is apparent, that Altars both among the Jews, & Gentiles, were never placed in the upper end or against the East walls of their Temples. but in the Courts, the Entries, or midst of their Templies, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 in such manner that men might go freely round about them, far different from their moderne situation; which hath no one pattern in Scripture to warrant it. Now if Altars were thus situated either without their Temples, or near their entrance, porch, or doors, or else in the midst of them in former ages, so as men might freely compass, & walk round about them, why should they not be thus placed, by our Altar-introducers, & heathenish Popish Innovators now? There is neither of these Novellers but would have a Choir, or Sanctū Sanctorum in his Church, & would take it very ill if any man should subvert, or write against Quires in Churches; yet themselves, by placinge their Altars & Communion Tables Altarwise against the East wall of their Churches, do utterly overturn & destroy their much applauded Quires, out of a mere superstitious sottish ignorance. For the Latin word Chorus (from which our Quires have their derivation, & denomination) as Isiodor Hispalensis, Rabanus Maurus, Calepine Eliot, Thomasius Olioke, with others testify, is nothing else, but; multitudo in sacris collect; & dictus Chorus, quod initio in modum Coronae CIRCA ARAS STARENT, & ita psallerent: A multitude assembled, together in sacred places or Temples, and called a Choir, because that in the beginning they stood ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS in manner of a Crown 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, may not stand round about them like a ringe or crown, and so singe praises unto God, when they receive the Eucharist; both overturn the very name, & essence of their Quires, which anciently did Compass, & surround their Altars, as these authors testify. And not they only, but others longe before them witness, that of the aunci • n • Poët Virgil, very pregnant to this purpose, which may serve as a Commentary on the former Etymology, or definition of a Choir.

Which Alexander ab Alexandro thus seconds. It was (saith he) a usual Custom, ut sacrificantes ARAS CIRCUMCURRERENT, that those who sacrificed should run round about the Altars, beginning their course from the left hand to the right, which they thought more Religious, and anon from the right hand to the left. Those who sacrificed, as they were eatinge, used to singe praises to the God's; CIRCUM ARAS psallere as mnnerum, to singe by measure about the Altars, to singe songs, and verses, and playinge on Cimballs, CHOROS agitare, to make Quires, or Daunces. It is recorded of Antoninus Caesar, that when he sacrificed to the God Heliogabalus, he brought thither Phaenicean-women; quae in orbem cursitarent cymbalaque & organa Musica CIRCUM ARAS psallerent, who might run round in a Circle, and play upon Cymballs, & Organs ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS, And that this singinge and dauncinge about Altars was usual among the ancient heathens, appears by Plato legum Dialog. 7. Strabo Geogr. lib. 10. Euripides Bacchae Caelius, Rhodiginus Antiq. lect. l. 5. c. 3. Athenaeus dipnosoph. 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 which Athenaeus records out of Clearchus Solensis, that the Lacedaemonians those who had no wives, the women at a certain Feast drawinge them ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS buffeted them with their fists, that avoydinge this contumely they might be taken with the love of children, and take them wives at a fit age. And Alexaunder of Alexandro, relates out of Plutarch and Xen • phon, that it was a custom among the Lacedaemonians to whipp their youthes which exceeded 14. years of age ROUND ABOUT THEIR ALTARS. A pregnant Evidence, that their Altars then stood in the midst of their Quires & Temples, not at the East end of them against a wall. Our Popish Novellers therefore who have newly removed their Altars, & Communion Tables to the East end of their Quires close to the wall, must either bring them down again into the midst of the Choir, to preserve both the name, use and essence of their Quires, or else disclayme their Quires, & Christian them with some other name: By all this as also by the Coale from the Altars confession, it is most apparent, that both the Jews, and Gentiles Altars, stood not at the East end of their Temples, Quires, Chauncells, nor yet against a wall, but about the midst of their Temples, or Courts at least wise in such sort, that men might stand, and freely walk round about them. O • r superstitious Innovators therefore, who will needs turn, (1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19. 20. H • br. 7. 11. 12. 13. 14.) Jews, or Gentiles, or both, in erectinge Altars, must likewise imitate them in the situation of their Altars, or else reject their Altars, as well as their manner of situation in the midst, which they refuse to follow.

For the third, howe the Jews Tables, & the Table at which our Savior instituted the Sacrament were situated? It is apparent, that they were so placed, as that they usually sat round about them, This is evident by the 1. Sam. 16. 11. where Samuel said to Jesse, send and fetch David, for we will not sit ROUND till he come hither ( so the Hebrew, and Margin read it ) and by Psalm. 128. • . Thy children shall be like Olive plants ROUND ABOUT THY TABLE. Our Savior and his Disciples at the Institution of the Lord's supper sat round about the Table, after the Jewish Custom, 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 days of our Savior it is apparent, that the gesture of the Jews was such as the Romans used. The Table BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST ROUND ABOUT THE TABLE Were certain bedds, some times two, some times three, some times more, according to the number of the guests, upon these they lay down in manner as followeth: each bedd contained 3. persons, some times. 4. seldom, or never more. If one lay upon the bedd, then he rested the upper part of his body on the left elbowe, the lower part lying at length upon the bedd, but if many lay upon the bedd, then the uppermost did lie at the bedds head, laying his feet behind the seconds back, in like manner. The third or fourth did lie, each restinge his head in the others bosom: Thus John leaned on Jesus bosom. John 13. 23. Their Tables were perfectly circulare or round, whence their manner of sitting was termed Mesibah, a sitting ROUND, and their phrase of invitinge their guests to sit down was, sit ROUND. 1. Sam. 10. 11. Psal. 128. 3. Thus he, with whom all the Rabines, and Commentators on these texts accord. So among the Romans, the Tables were placed, and the guests sat down in the self same manner as they did among the Jews, as Godwyn in his Roman Antiquites l. 2. sect. 3. c. 14. Records, yea among most Nations in all their Feasts, their Tables at which they sat down to eat or drink, were ever placed in such sort, and with such a distance from the wall, that the guests sat round about them: And so are all the Tables placed here in England, none ever seeing a dyninge-Table placed like a side-Table against a wall, in such sort as our Communion Tables are now situated in many places. If then all Tables at which men eat, & drink, have ever both among the Jews, & Romans, our own, all other Nations, been placed in the midst of the room, or in such sort that men might sit round about them: Why should not then the Lord's Table (especially when we eat, and drink the Lord's supper) be placed in the midst of the Church, or Chauncell in such sort, that all the people may sit or kneel round, and eat, and drink about it, since Christ himself, & his Apostles when he 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 himself, & his Apostles used? And are not those both factious, & obstinately schismatical who contrary to the usage of all Nations, ages, & our Savior's own example, will place the Lord's Table Altarwise, like a dresser, or side Table, against the East wall of the Church, as far of as may be from the people, that so none may sit, & receive near it, much less round about it, & that without all Reason, sense, or president? undoubtedly they are, yet such is the sottishnes, pride, & superstitious willfulness of many of our domineeringe Prelates, whose will is their only reason, Religion, Law, that they will be wiser then Christ, then his Apostles, then all the world besides, & no place seems soe fittinge to them for the Communion Tables situation, as that which is most unfit, the East end of the Chauncell wall, against which one side of it must lean, for fear of fallinge, & is there imprisoned, impounded with rails & bars, for fear of runninge away. O Madness ô folly whether are these men's wits, & senses fledd, who are thus soe strangely frentike out of their overmuch learning?

For the 4. How Communion Tables (some times termed Altars improperly ) were placed in the Primitive Church? The fore-mentioned passages of Eusebius, Augustine, the 5. Council of Constantinople, Bishop Jewell, & others assure us, that they were placed in the midst of the Church, or Choir, not at the East end against the wall, as they are now: To these I shall add, That Socrates Scholasticus, and Nicephorus record, That in the Church of Antioch in Syria, the Altar stood not to the East, but towards the West. Walafridus Strabus records the same in express words, & further informs us, that many did pray from the East to the West. And that the Jews where ever they were, usually prayed towards the Temple at Jerusalem; (as Daniel did in great Babel, which stood East from Jerusalem, as Isaiah 43. 5. Ier. 49. 28. Dan. 11. 44. Zach. 8. 7. Math. 2. 1. 2. and all Maps witness, Soe that Daniel praying towards, it, turned his face directly West, not East; as our Novellers dotingly fancy, who allege his example, for turninge their faces in prayer, the buildinge of Chancells, Chapels, Churches, Altars, placinge Communion Tables, and bowinge, toward the East, when as he prayed Westward only, and his example is quite opposite, and point blank against them; and their superstitious. easterly adoration, derived from Necromancers, and those heathen Idolaters, Ezech. 8. 16. who worship the risinge sun, toward the East, as D. Willet Synopsis papismi. contr. 9. qu. 6. Error. 52. proves against the Papists.) And from thence Walafridus thus concludes: We being instructed by these examples, know, that those have not erred, neither do they err, who either in Temples newly built to God, or cleansed from the filthiness of Idols, have set their Altars towards divers clymates, according to the opportunity 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 Jerusalem, which Constant • ne & his mother built over the Sepulcher of our Lord, of a wonderful greatenes, in a round form; in the Temple of Rome anciently called Pantheon, consecrated by Boniface, by Phocas the Emperors permission, to the honor 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 necessity, we dare not disapprove. Let every man abound in his own sense, The Lord is high to all those who call upon him in truth, and salvation is far from sinners. Let us draw near to us: Thus he. Gregory Nazianzen in his 21. Oration. p. 399. declaming against the unworthy Bishops and Ministers of his age, saith thus: They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministries with unwashen hands and minds, as they say, and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it self, 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 & help of life; A clear evidence that the Communion Table was then so situated, that the Ministers might go and stand round about it. S. Chrysostom in his first Homilie upon Isaiah. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting &c. hath this passage concerning the Lord's Table? doest thou not think that the Angels stand ROVND ABOUT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE, AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence? A clear Evidence, that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age, that men, and Angels might stand round about, and Compass it on every part. To wit, in the midst of the Church or Choir, as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plain words. where no doubt it always stood (as the learned Thomas Verow testifieth) till private Popish Masses (wherein the Priest only receiveth) removed it to the East end of the Choir or Chauncell near the wall, as remote, as might be from the people. If any object, (as the late Coale from the Altar doth) that Socrates Scholasticus, and Nicephorus write: That in most Churches in their times the Altar was usually placed toward the East. I answer:

First, that before their days in Eusebius, Chrysostom's, Augustine's, & the Emperor Zeno his time, it stood in the midst of the Church, or Choir, and soe it did in Durand his age, 1320. years after Christ, and in the Greek Churches anciently and at this day, as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved.

2. Neither of these two Authors affirm, that the Altar, or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Choir close against the wall, as now they are placed, the thing to be proved; but only toward the East part of the Church, ad Orientem versus, saith Nicephorus: that is, nearer to the East then to the West end of the Church; to wit, in the midst of the Chauncell, or Choir ( which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then, as our Chauncells, & Quires are now, though not in all;) as is evident by the forequoted authorities: Soe as the argument hence deduced, can be but this non sequitur, Altars in their days stood usually toward the East end of the Churches, (to wit in the midst of the Quires, & Chauncells which stood Easterly, as our Communion Tables stood till now of late,) Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancel, as some Novellers now place them; whereas the argument hold good the contrary way: They were placed toward the East end of the Church, therefore not in the very East end Altarwise: since toward the East, is one thing, and in the East another, as toward London in case of situation, or travel) is one thing, in London another, That which is toward London, being not in it, as he who is toward Marriage, is not yet actually married. We read of Daniel, that he prayed toward Jerusalem, Dan. 6. 10. yet he was then in Bable, many miles from it. We read likewise of certain Idolaters, (and of no others but them in Scripture, for the Jews usually prayed Westward, the Tabernacle, and Temple being soe situated) who had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the East, & worshipped the sun towards the East; yet they s • ood not in the East end, but in the inner-Court of the Lord's house at the door of the Temple between the porch, and the Altar, which stood West, not East ward; yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference between, toward the East, and in the East. Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authority therefore makes against, not for our Innovators; who can produce no one authentic writer, testimony or example, for above a thousand years after Christ, to prove, that Altars, or Lord's Tables stood or were situated Altarwise against the East wall of the Choir, in such manner as now they place them; there being many pregnant testimonies to the contrary, that they stood in the midst of the Choir, Church, or Chauncell, where now they ought to stand, as they did in former ages.

I come now to the 5. thing, to examine, what place is most proper, and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table, especially when the Sacrament is administered? Noah doubt the midst of the Church, or Chauncell, (not the East end of it, where it is newly placed) as the Rubric of the Communion book, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the 82. Canon, the fore-cited Fathers, and writers resolve in express terms; and that for those ensuinge reasons, which under correction cannot be answered.

First, because the table at which our Savior originally instituted the Sacrament, was placed in the midst of the room, he and his Disciples sitting then round about it, and soe administringe, and receivinge it, as the premises manifest. Now we ought to imitate our Savior's institution, and example as near as may be, 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament, but likewise in all decent, and convenient Circumstances, whereof the situation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one: Amonge the 6. reasons, why the Lord's board should rather be after the form of a table then of an Altar, published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Council, this was the 5. and Cheifest. Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table, not at an Altar; wherefore seeing the form of a Table is more agreeable with Christ's institution then the form of an Altar, therefore the form of a Table is rather to be used then the form of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion. The same argument holds as firm in the situation of the Table; The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreeable with Christ's institution then the standing of it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Choir, Therefore this situation of it is rather to be used then the other.

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

3. Because it is most consonant to the book of Common prayer, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the Bishops own Canons, and the judgment of our best writers.

4. Because it is the most usual and proper situation of tables among all Nations in all ages both a broad & at home, who place their Tables at which they eat, and drink, in the midst of their dyninge rooms, at least wise in such sort that men may sit, or stand round about them, The Lord's Table therefore being a table to eat, and drink at, 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it self usually termed both in Scripture, & all sortt of writers from the Apostles days till now, the Lord's supper; • . Co • . 11. 20. this situation of it must be fittest, & decentest, which is Common to all suppinge tables, & doth best express, & resemble the nature of a supper, by standing in the midst of the Communicants; and their sitting, standing, or kneelinge round about it altogether (not by several files, and turns,) like soe many bidden-guests. Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise, like a Dresser, or sideCubberd, not a Table; & the causinge of men to come upp to the rail by several files; and there to receive by turns, kneelinge, doth neither express the one to be the Lord's table, nor the other to be the Lord's supper.

5. Because this situation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass, Altars, Priests, sacrifices, and private Masses, where the Priest alone Communicates, & draw them upp to the right use of the Lord's supper. Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell, now urged is nothing else, but to usher Altars; Priests, public, and private Masses, adoration of Altars, and the Hostia, transubstantiation, and the whole body of Popery into our Church again, as the Papists themselves do everywhere crack, & vaunt, and all who are not willfully blinded may at first view discern by woeful experience. This form of scituatinge the Lord's Table, and administringe the Sacrament, was used in the primitive Church, till Popery, & private Masses, thrust it out. When Popery, Masses, Mass Priests, Transubstantiation, Altars, adoration of the Hostia, & other Popish trash were abolished, this situation of it was again revived as a Sovereign Antidote against these popish innovations, and soe hath continued eversince. The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things again, & soe ought with all diligence, and courage to be with stood.

6. Because this situation is most orderly, and decent, and that in 5. regards.

First, Because the Minister thereby may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer, his administration, and Consecration, which many cannot hear when the table stands at the furthest end of the Choir, or Chauncell in most great Churches, and parishes.

2. Because there the Cōmmunicants also may more conveniently, and in greater number communicate with the Minister, then they can do when the Table stands at the end of the Choir or Chauncell, as remote as may be from the people: Both these reasons are rendered in the Common prayer book, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the 82. Canon, neither can they be gain said.

3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst may more easily see the Minister when, and howe he consecrates the Sacrament, then when he is more remote, and may the better make their Confession to Almighty God, and say Amen to every prayer, as they are enjoy • ed.

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

5. When the Table stands in the midst, all the Communicants may receive together in the seats next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance, disorder, noise, or stir, as they are expressly Commanded to do. 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end, c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this new d • vise of setting the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall, and causinge the Communicants to come upp in several disorderly ranks and squadrons to the rail, and there to receive, divides the Communion, Communicants, and Congregation, making so many Communions, and Congregations as there are Companies; breeds a Confusion, disorder, disturbance, noise, distraction, and oft times a Contention in the Church, in causinge the people to march upp and down, someone way, and some another, to contend who 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 who would else receive it, breeds many quarrels, factions, schisms, and divisions between the Minister & the people, hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations, prayers, reverence, devotion, attention, singinge; enforceth the people who are old, blind, lame, sick, impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive, who should rather come to them; inverts the practice & Custom of our Church ever since reformation, lengthens the administration, and puts all into a Combustion, yea into Confusion, causinge many to turn Papists and Separationists.

7. The Lord's 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 Latin phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM, or COLLOCATUM, ever used to express a thing that is Common; & the Scriptures quoted in the next ensuing reason evidence. Whereas the placing of the Table so far from the people, the railing of it in that so none, but the Minister may have access unto it, destroys both the Communion & Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister, and sequestering it from the people.

8. The Communion Table ought to be 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 dream, & Magisterially determine. Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is said to be in the MIDDEST of his holy place, and City. Psal. 48. 9. We have thought of thy lovinge kindness oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple. Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us, and we are called by thy name. Hosea 11. 9. I am God, and not man, the holy one in the MIDST of thee. Joel 2. 27. ye shall know that I am in the MIDST of Israel. Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. ye have polluted the Sanctuary, the Lord is in the MIDST thereof. The Kinge of Israel, even the midst of thee. The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mighty. Zech. 2. 5. For I saith the Lord will be the glory in the MIDST of her. Math. 18. 2 • . Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the MIDST of them. Luke 2. 46. Christ's Parents found him in the Temple sitting in the MIDST of the Doctors. John 20. 19. when our Savior appeared to his Disciples, after his resurrection, he came and stood in the MIDST of them, and said, Peace be unto you. Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The son of man is said to be, & to walk in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks, which are there interpreted, to be the 7. Churches. Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lamb is said 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 he spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd. Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Israelites, that he 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 voice out of the MIDST of darkness, and of fire too. Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Isaiah. c. 12. v. 6. writes thus, Crie out, and shout thou Inhabitant of Zion, for great is the holy one of Israel in the MIDST of thee. By all which texts it is evident, That God and Christ are said to be principally present in the MIDST of the Temple, congregation, people; whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that saith, they are specially present at the Temple, Congregation, people, The Communion Table therefore being Christ mercy seat, the place of our Savior's special presence upon Earth, and his Chair of Estate (as Giles Widdowes, Shelford, Reeves, & other Novellers dogmatize) ought to be placed in the midst of the people, Church, and Congregation, where these Scriptures jointly affirm, that God, and Christ are more immediately, & specially present, if they be more in one place of the Church and Temple, then another, as they say he is.

9. Add to this that the Apostle saith, 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 do both of them principally dwell with in these Temples, but in the heart (seated in the midst of the body.) Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also do they principally dwell, and manifest themselves in the midst of our Material Temples and Congregations: Therefore for this and the precedent, reasons, our Communion Tables ought to be situated in the midst of our Churches or Quires, as they have been in ancient times, where our Injunct • ons, Canons, writers, Communion book, and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same, prescribe, that they should stand, at least wise when the Sacrament is administered.

10. The Altar of Incense, and the shewbreade table stood not in the Choir, or Sanctum Sanctorum, but in the midst of the Sanctuary or body of the Temple, as the premises Evidence, and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records. Now these being in some sort types of the Communion Tible, intimate, (which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them) that it should be situated 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 Chancel, specially at the Sacraments administration. I come now in the 6. place, to examine those reasons which are, or can be alleged by our Novellers, for placinge Communion Tables, Altarwise against the East end, wall, of the Choir of Chauncell.

The first reason alleged by them is this; The high Altar or Lord's Table (saith dotinge M. Robert Shelford Priest in his Sermon of God's house, Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18.) usually standeth at the East end of God's house, Idque propter Christum &c. and that because of Christ whe • is called the light of the world, 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,

What frentique Bedlam logic, & divinity is this? what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation? Is not this far worse then that of Durand, & other P • pists, Christ is called a Rock, and a Corner stone. 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lord's Tables must be 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 Lord's Tables ought to be made only of wood, not stone (Christ being else where called a vine, Tree of life &c. & more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it. Therefore high Altars, and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church, since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood, not stone, (as Bishop Jewell, and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine, Optatus, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and others) as our Communion Tables are, and ought to be, by the direct prescript of the book of Common prayer (which calls it God's BOARD) the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions at the end, Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councils letter, and 6. reasons. Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles. Art. 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament: on Math. 23. sect. 7. on Heb. 13. sect. 6. on Apoc. 6. sect. 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect. 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeal l. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi, the 9. general Controversy qu. 6. part. 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell, and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin. Bishop Farrar, Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404:1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination. Fox ibidem. p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his friends in general. Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turn them now adays into Altars made of stone. But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument.

First he saith, Christ is the light of the world. Ergo. Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise at the East end of the Church. This ce • tainely is but a mad Consequence.

For first, Christ is no Corporal, or natural, but a spiritual and supernatural light, enlightninge men's 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 corporal eyes.

2. He is an universal light in this respect. John 1. 8. 9. not situated or fixed in the East, but diffused over the whole worlds as far as his Church is spread,

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

4. There is no Analogy between the Communion Table and light, unless in respect of those Candlesticks, & unburninge tapers which some Popish Novellers place for a double show upon it, contrary to the Homilies, & Articles which expressly condemn them.

5. Light is of a diffusive nature, spreadinge it self 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 room or Table, that they may give light to all that are in the house. Witnes the great Lamp in the midst of Paul's Choir, or great braunched Candlesticks, in the midst of our Churches, & that of the Apostle. Phil. 2. 15. Amonge whom ye shine as lights of the world in the MIDST of a crooked and perverse Nation. The Candlesticks & Lamps among the Jews were placed not in the East, but Southside 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 appears, that there is no Analogy between light and the Couimunion Table, & that if any argument may be thence deduced for its situation, it will be 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 said to be, and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks. Rev. • . 13. 20. c. 2. 2.

For the second branch of this argument, Christ is a branch. (for soe Oriens is used, Zeph. 6, 12. the place he quotes) Ergo the Lord's Table ought to stand at the East end of the Church. As it is a ridiculous Inconsequent (fit for a Cambridge Ignoramus, (where this good Logical argument, with many such like, was printed) so there is little Analoges between branches & Lord's Tables, unless in regard of matter.

For First, Trees and branches grow not in Churches, or Temples.

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

3. Christ is a branch, yea a tree of life seituated not in the East but in the midst of the Paradise of God. Rev. 2. 7. of which the tree of knowledge of good, and evil in the midst of Paradise. Gen. 2. 9. c. 3. 3. was but a tipe: This allusion therefore, as it is impertinent, (there being no similitude between the Lord's Table, & a branch,) so • proves, that the Communion Table should be 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 justify, and prove that we onght to pray, and build our Churches towards the East,) and well answered and refuted by Doctor Willet in the name of the Protestants, who condemn this superstition, which many now plead for: So it is built upon a false foundation.

For first no Scripture saith, That Christ shall come to Judgment from the East: but that he shall come in the Clouds, Rev. 1. 7. Math. 24. 30. and soe come again as he ascended: Acts 1. 11. But he ascended upright in a cloud, into heaven, not East ward. Acts 1. 9. 10. 11. Luke 24. 51. Mark 16. 19. Therefore he shall so descend; Heaven being neither East, West, North or South in regard of the Earth its Center, but diametrally about it, And soe Christ's descent from it must be such. 1. Thess. 4. 16.

2. That text of Math. 24. 27. (As the lightninge cometh out of the East; and shineth Even unto the West, so shall the coming of the son of man be:) as all Orthodox divines generally accord, relates only to the celeri • ie, sodainenes and terriblenes of Christ's coming to judgment (which shall be as swift, as sudden, 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. Mark 13. 32. to 37. which thus explain it;) not to that part of heaven from whence he shall descend; which if it be East in respect of one part of the world, must yet be West, North & South, as to other parts, in relation to that Clymate or Country to which he shall descend: the world being plainly Circular, & globall, havinge no angles nor squares, & so no East, West, North, or South if simply considered in it self.

3. Admitt that Christ should come to Judgment out of the East in respect of England, and these partes of the world; yet this is no Reason to prove, that our Communion Tables should be placed at the East end, of our Chauncells Altarwise, (for then no doubt the primitive Christians would have so placed it, & not in the midst of their Churches.

For First, the Lord's Table serves only for the administration of the Sacrament instituted, to show forth Christ's till he come, 1. Cor. 25. 26. not to demonstrate the manner of his second coming to Judgment, to which the Table hath no relation. Christ's second coming therefore havinge no reference to the Communion Table, nor the Table to it, can be no argument for its Easterlie scitnation.

2. The Apostle in the 1. Cor. 11. in all matters & Circumstances concerning the administration of the Sacrament, sends us only to Christ's original institution, not to his second Comminge, But the Table at which he instituted the Sacrament stood in the midst, as I have proved, Therefore our Communion Tables, should so stand now, let Christ's come to Judgment which way he please.

3. Christ's 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 pattern from the manner of his second Comminge, which is left Arbitrarie to himself and his Fathers pleasure, Acts 1. 7. Math. 24. 36. not prescribed as a pattorne of imi tation unto us: But the standing of the Table in the midst in Christ, the primitive, and all reformed Churches Iudgments, is most decent, and Convenient, therefore it is to be observed, and retained of us.

The second reason alleged by our Novellers for their new dislocation of Communion Tables, is this: The Communion Tables ought to be placed at the East end of the Chancel, because it is Christ's mercy seat, his claire of Estate, and the special place of his presence here on Earth, on which he sits, and resides, and the East end of the Chauncell or Choir is the upper, the best part, the prime place of honor in the Church, and therefore no seats ought to be there suffered, and the Altar, the Communion Table must be there seated that soe none may take the wall of Christ, 〈◊〉 sit above him and God Almighty. This reason hath been often alleged by our Archbishops, Bishops, and others in the high-Commission, and urged by Giles Widdowes, M. Shelford, Reeve, & other fantasticke Scriblers in their ridiculous frant • cke novel Pamphlets which no man may have liberty freely to write or preach against, though never so erroneous, superstitious, Popish, and absurd. To this I answer.

First, that the mercy-seat was Jewish, tipicall, & abolished by Christ's 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 be a mercy seat.

2. The mercy seat was nothing else but the Coveringe of the Ark, so called, because it Covered, and hidd the Law, it was made of pure gold, two cubits, and an half broad with two Cherubims of gold of beaten work in the two ends of the mercy seat, and it was put above upon the Ark. 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, form, workemanshipp, situation, neither is there any Ark upon the topp whereof they may be satt, & if you will make the Choir resemble the Ark, you must then place them upon the roof and leds of our Quires, therefore they are not mercy seats.

3. God did only dispence his word and Oracles, and all things which he gave Commandment to the Children of Israel from between the two Cherubims, and the mercy seat. Exod. 25. 22. and the fore-quoted texts. The pulpi • therefore in this regard & of it elevation above the pewes, & people should rather be Christ's mercy seat, then the Communion Table, where Christ only distributed his body and blood unto us, not his word, and precepts.

4. The Ark and mercy seat stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the West end of the Temple, not the East. Heb. 9. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. whether none but the high Priest might enter, and that but once a year not without blood. If therefore the Communion Table be a mercy seat, it must stand in the West end of our Churches upon the topp of the Ark in a Sanctrum Sanctorum, as it did, neither ought any Bishop or Priest to come near it, but the high Priest only, (to with the Archbishop of Canterbury Private of all Engiand) and that once a year, and no more, with bloody sacrifices.

5. There was but one mercy seat standing only in the Temple, not in the Synagogues over the Ark, which was but one. If therefore the Lord's Table be a mercy seat, there should be but one in all the world. This first reason therefore is but a Jewish frenticke dream.

6. The paten which contains the Consecrated bread, and the Chalice, which hold the hallowed wyne, & stand upon the Table, as the mercy seat did upon the Ark being made of silver in most, & of gold in some places, should rather be Christ's mercy seat then the Table it self, yet no men bow, or cring to them, or plead for their honor, and precedently, though more worthy in respect of matter, use, & immediate contayninge of the material partes of the Sacrament, then the Table.

2. I answer, That the Communion Table is not Christ's Chair of Estate, as these Novellers dogmatize. For heaven only is Christ's Throane, Earth but his foo stool. 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. Isaiah 66. 1. Matth. 5. 34. Acts. 7. 49. And it is the express resolution of the Scripture, and the Article of our Creed, that Christ in his human nature hath his Throane, and mercy seat only at his Fathers own right hand in heaven, where he sits in Majesty and glory, making perpetual intercession for us; and shall there constantly reside until his second coming to Judgment, Acts 1. 11. c. 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. howe then the Communion Table can be his chair of State, and chief place of his presence, I cannot conjecture.

2. Christ in the Sacrament exhibits himself not in his State & glory to us, but in the very depth of his passion & humiliation, the Sacrament being instituted, not to manifest his exaltation and glory, but to express unto us the breakinge of God's body & effusion of his blood on the Cross, & to show forth his death till his coming. 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 be colourobly styled, his chair of State and M • j • sty, I cannot comprehend.

3. Whoe ever heard a Table to eat & drink at, tearmeds chare of State, either in respect of the meat, or guests? or howe can it be so termed without gross absurdity, especially when the party there present on it, is exposed to us only as spiritual meat and drink, to be 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 thing may be there termed Christ's Chair of Estate, it should be the Plater & Chalice, wherein the bread & wyne are immediately comprised, not the Table whereon they stand, which is rather a footstool to support Christ's Chair, then the Chair wherein he sits in State; the bread & wyne not so much as touching the Table.

5. Why should the Lord's Table be Christ's mercy seat or Chair 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 Baptism, & the word as necessary as the Lord's supper? Math. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yea • more needful, and absolutely necessary • since men may be saved without receivinge the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, but not without Baptism, & the word read, and preached, as many teach.

6. To make the Communion Table Christ's mercy seat, Chair of Estate, and place of his special presence, if it be meant of his spiritual presence only, is a falsehood; since he is always equally present in this manner in all his ordinances to the end of the world. Math. 28. 19. 20. If of his Corporal presence, which is only now in heaven, Acts 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. John 14. 2. 3. 28. c. 16. 7. 16. 17. 19. 21. (the thing they intend) then it smells of rank Popo • se, intimatinge a transubstantiation of the bread & wyne into Christ's very body & blood, a notorious Popish absurdity, longe since exploded by our Church, & drowned in our Martyrs blood: who oppugned it to the death.

3. Admitt, that the Communion Table were Christ's mercy seat, & Chair of Estate, (which they take as granted without any Scripture, ground or reason, which I desire them first to prove, before they lay it down an undoubted principle) yet the conclusion will not follow, that therefore is must stand at the East end of the Chauncell or Choir Altarwise.

For first, the mercy seat stood in the end of the Tabernacle, and Temple upon the topp of the Ark, not at the East. Therefore the Table should stand so too were it a mercy seat.

2. Christ's Chair of Estate ought to be seated there where himself hath promised his special 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 should be placed in the midst.

4. Whereas these men protend, that the East end of the Chancel or Choir where they now rail in the Table Altarwise, is the highest and most worthy place in the Church; and that no seats must there be suffered, for fear any should take the wall or upper hand of Christ, and sit above him, or checkmate with him in his own Temple. I answer.

First, that these are ridiculous Childish fantastique conceits of their own superstitious brains, 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 sit down at any Feast in the uppermost place, but in the lowest, and pronouncinge an woe against the Pharisees for lovinge the uppermost seats in Synagogues, and Feasts, Math. 23. 6. Luke 11. 43. therefore were he now on Earth, he would not contend for precedency, and the upper-most place, as these his ambitious-Champions do for him, because they love precedency themselves, much less will he do it now, he hath taken upp his seat and throne in heaven, & hath left the Earth altogether in his bodily presence, where these Novellers would fain to be still resident in the Church on the Communion Table, as the Papists say he is upon their Altars, close prisoner in a Pix.

3. It is most false, that the East end of the Choir or Chauncell where they now place their Altars and Tables, is the most honorable and prime place of the Church and Choir; For in all Cathedrals that I have seen, & in his Majesty's, Chapels, the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans Thrones and seats, and the Kings Closetts are at the West end of the Choir or Chancel, 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 seats next the West end being reputed the highest and honorablest, the seats next the East, the lowest, for the singinge men and Quiresters, & the meaner sort of people. Soe in Parish Churches, where there are any seats in the Chancel or Choir, the seat at the West end is usually esteemed the worthiest and first seat, and the nearer the East end the meaner, and lower are they reputed. The West end therefore of the Choir and Chancel, as these instances, and experience undeniable manifest, is the chiefest, & the place where the most honorable persons have their seats, & chairs of State. If therefore the Communion Table, or their Altars, be Christ's Chair of State, and that he ought to take precedency and place of all men, then it must be placed in the West end of the Choir in Cathedrals, where the Bishops Throne and seat is situated, and removed to the West end of the Chancel, where the best man of the Parish sits, not thrust down to the East end of the Choir or Chancel against the wall, which is in truth the lowest place by their own practice, and resolution. And here we may behold the desperate so • tishnes, and frenzy of these Popish Innovators, who under a vain pretence of givinge Christ, & the Communion Table the upper hand, that none may sit above them, will needs thrust them into the vary lowest place even in their own practice, Judgments, and Common reputation, where servants or the meaner sort of people only sit, (where there are seats or forms) in most Churches, which yet against their own Judgments and knowledge, (out of I know not what factious strange superstitions humor) must upon a sudden be Cried upp for the most honorable place, by these learned Rabbies.

4. Admit the Communion Table Christ's Chair of Estate and mercy seat; and that it ought to be placed in the best and uppermost place of the Church; yet it is only such, and thus to be situated when the Sacrament is administered: For howe is it his Chair of State, his mercy seat, and chiefest place of residence, when there is no Sacramental bread & wyne upon it to represent his spiritual presence to us? But when the Sacrament is to be administered, the book of Common prayer, the Queens Injunctions, Fathers, and forecited Authors inform us, that it must be placed in the body or midst of the Church, or Chancel. Therefore our Novellers must either deny the East end of the Choir to be the most honorable place, or that it was ever so reputed; or else confess the invalidity of this their proposition, That the Table ought to stand in the chief and most honorable place of the Church, unless they will Condemne the Fathers, the primitive, yea our own Church, and all our chief writers of Error in this particular.

5. Admit, that the East end of the Chancel or Choir be the most honorable parte of the Church, and that the Table for this reason ought there to be railed in: Why are not the Font and Pulpit there placed and railed in as well as the Table, and the Bible, and reading 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 Solomon's Temple which stood one by the side of the other. 2. Chron. c. 4. & 5.

6. If the East end of the Church or Choir be the most worthy; and fittest for the Tables situation now, why was it not so for the Ark, 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? Certainly if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignity, no preheminen • ie or implements in them heretofo • e by divine appointment, our Novellers can have little reason to plead, that they ought to have any such precedency, honor, or use now.

The third reason alleged for the placinge of Communion Tables. Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells, is; because they are High Altars: So Saelford, Reeves, and the Coale from the Altar, and Bishop Montague in his least Lent Sermon style them; contrary to the dialect of our Church, after the Popish language; This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise, to bring in Altars, Priests, bowinge to Altars, kneelinge, at, and before them, to adore the Hostia (to which we are already proceeded) and in fine, to set upp public, and private Masses, yea the whole body of Popery again: For which these are immediate preparatives, of which they are real parts & and adjuncts: This, and this only is the true undoubted cause, (all others mere idle pretences to delude the people) why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places, & lately railed in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Choir. And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates, & Churchmen who originally press it, not only the qualities, doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every m • ns Conscience, & experience visibly discerns unless he be strangely hoodwinckt, but the things themselves compared with the history of former times declare.

For if we look into the story of the Church, we shall find, that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation, was the pullinge down of Altars, and setting upp of Communion Tables, and the first thing again acted upon the restitution of popery was the setting up of Altars, & turninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates do, upon which Masses presently were said: Thus we read: that in the year of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance, Gene • a, Basel, Stransburge, and other Cities the first thing they did, was this; they proclaimed that Masses, ALTARS, & Images in all places should be abolished, and there upon, the Images and Altars, with Ceremonies, and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all. About the year of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont being summoned & pressed to forsake God and revolt again to Idolatry, which they had begun to cast of, agreed together to make a solemn protestation, that they would utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope, and live, and die in the maintenance and confession of God's word and truth. Whereupon they said, lett us all go to morrow into the Temple to hear the word of God, & after let us cast to the ground all the Idols, and ALTARS; to which they all agreed; saying, let us soe do; yea, and that the very same hour in the which they have appointed us to be at the Council house: Whereupon the next day after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body, & as soon as they came into the Temple without any further delaye, they beat down the Images, & cast down the ALTARS. After Sermon they went to Billers where they beat down their Images and ALTARS. Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginning of Reformation in his Rain, gave order to pull down Altars, and set upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdom, And to the ende that all of them might be totallie abolished.

Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the form of the Lord's board, and to procure one Godly uniformity, exhorted all his Diocese, 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 vain, and superstitio • s opinions of the Popish Mass, out of the hearts of the simple, which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the form of an Altar, then of a Table, as the King and Council in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved, and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture, of the Lord's Supper; Hereupon (I say) he appointed the form of a right Table to be used in his Diocese, (according to the King & Councils instructions and consideration) and in the Church of Paul's brake down the wall standing by the High Altars side. And upon this occasion (as it most probable) he wrote his book DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS, of breaking down Altars, registered by Bishop B • le among other his works, 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, took 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 be done of Christian people? yea truly, but none other then such, as might be done without Altars, and they be of 3. sorts. The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving, Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence, and liberality to the poor, 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 own bodies, and to die from sin. Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we study not daily to offer these Sacrifices to God, we be no Christian men, seeing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then these which may and ought to be done without Altars. There should among Christians be no Altars, And therefore it was not without the great wisdom 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 turn the Altars into Tables according to the first institution of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people, they have of Sacrifices to be done, upon Altars, For as long as the Altars remain, both the ignorant people, and the ignorant, & evil persuaded Priest will dream always of Sacrifice. Therefore 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 Jonah. A great shame it is for a Noble King, Emperor, or Magistrate contrary to God's word, to deteyne or keep from the devil or his Ministers any of their goods o • Treasure, as the Candles, Images, Crosses, vestments Altars: For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent, at length they will be maintained as things necessary, as now we find true by late woeful experience. And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah, he 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 said at the High Altar, to be better then that which is said in the Choir; that in the Choir better, then that which is said in the body of the Church, that in the body of the Church, better then that which is said in the Feild or in a man's Chamber. But our Prophet saith the Lord hath no respect 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 heap, Daniel in the Cave of the Lions, Hieremie in the claypit, the thief upon the Cross, S. Stephen under the Stones, wherefor the grace of God is to be 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 help in every place, yet I do not condemn the public place of prayer, whereas God's 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 Priest, Minister and the people into one place, and shut up the partition called the C • auncell, that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other, as though the veil and partition of the Temple in the old Law, yet should remain in the Church, where indeed all signs & types are ended in Christ: And in case this were done, it should not only express 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 said Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Judgment of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church: further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ, might both hear and see plainly what is done, as it was used in the Primative Church, when as the abomination done upon Altars was not known, nor the Sacrifice of Christ's precious blood so conculcated and trodden under feet. Hereupon, as also upon M. Bucer's forecited opinion to this purpose, and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx, London 1559. (and not upon M. Calvin's Letter, as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40.) all the Altars in England by the King and his Councils direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedral Collegiate Parish Churches and Chapels, and Tables set up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late, to wit in the midst of the Church or Chauncell, as appears by that is 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 set up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion, contrary to the King and Councils Ordinance, caused the said Altar to be taken away, and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH, which the Vicar removing, Bishop Farrar himself in the third year of King Edwards Rain; Commaunded the Vicar to set the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL again, near the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion. After this in the 5. & 6. year of King Edwards Rain, as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church, (according to the prophesy of William Mauldon; who in th • days of King Henry the 8. when the Mass most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in man's reason it might seem unpossible that the glory & opinion of them soe depely rooted in the hearts of 〈◊〉 many could by any means possible so soon decay and vanish to naught, yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. years by the spirit (no doubt) of prophesy declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to pass, 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 roots, &c.) so the very name of them was wholly expunged out of the Book of Common Prayer, by the whole Convocation and Parliament, and the name of God's-board, Lord's-Table, Table, and Holy-Table, inserted and retained both in the Rubric and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed, & the Table enjoined therein at the time 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 Sacrament, and the name of the Lord's Table only used and mentioned in them, as he that reads them may discern. A truth so clear; that the nameless Author of the Coale from the Altar, p. 39. 40. confesseth; that the former Liturgy, (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 Book then established; ye • upon this only ground, not from any scanda • which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people, but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgy 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 Clergy of England, would be so rash or inconsiderate, as to alter their whole Liturgy formerly confirmed by Parleament, only to humor M. Calvin, (without any Scripture, reason, or other convincing considerations,) and upon no other grounds. Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjectural, though positively laid down; or else the Church of England & Prelates then • more honored M. Calvin and his judgment, then many of them and of our Clergy do now; who make it a chief part of their superstitio • zeal, to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons, all they may, without any just or lawful cause; adorning Bellarmine, Baronius, and the Popish Schoolmen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent, to vilefy him the more, and humor the Catholic faction. And that this is but forgery, will appear, not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsel to Bishop Ridley; That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realm were already taken down, (not to please M. Calvin) but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS, & so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Book and Homilies upon the self same good and godly Considerations; but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatry, wherein Altars are expressly condemned as heathenish, Idolatrous, and Popish; the Homily also showing at large, that Godly Kings in all ages brake them down, and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up; contrary to God's command, who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so set up or suffer Altars, Images, and Idols undestroyed; and to break down 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 took them to be unlawful in the Church or Temple of God, and therefore had none? whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer, calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our days, HEATHENISH & JEWISH ABUSES, which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God, and profane and defile their Churches, and grossly abuse, yea filthily defile the Lord's holy Supper, with infinite toys and trifles of men's own popish devises, to make a goodly show, and to deface the plain, simple & sincere Religion of Christ Jesus, yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Book, which they subscribe to, and force others likewise, to subscribe unto; (yea contrary to their Oath and solemn profession when they were ordained Ministers, and consecrated Bishops,) set themselves now tooth and nail to turn Communion Tables into Altars, & term them by this name, both in their visitation Articles, Sermons, and printed Books, as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Mary's days: who upon the change of Religion & setting up of Popery, made this their first work, to remove Communion Tables; to erect Altars everywhere, without which they could have no Masses, nor Mass-Priests; and to preach against, 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables, and extol Altars, as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now do, 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 inform the Reader, & lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended, by turning of our Lord's Tables into Altars. M. Fox our learned Ecclesiastical Historian, who not only writes the History of Queen Mary's days, but lived in those times, records, that in the first year of Queen Mary as soon as she came to the Crown, and before any Law made for that purpose, many men (just as too many Bishops & Ministers are now) were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses (the inseparable companions of them) in Churches: That D. Weston pre • ching at Paul's Cross the 20. of October the same year to wt: 1553. named the Lord's Table, an Oyster-borde; to which M. Fox addeth this marginal Note; The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston, calling the Lord's Table an Oyster-board; That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following, gave in charge to present all such as did disturb the Queens proceedings, in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Mass, or any part thereof: The 24. of October the same year, one Act was made to punish such, who should willingly or of purpose, molest lett, disturb or otherwise trouble any Parson, Vicar, Parish, Priest, or Curate, preparing, saying, singing, ministering or celebrating the Mass, or unlawfully, contemptuously, & maliciously, of their own power or authority, pull down, deface, spoil, or otherwise break any Altar or Altars, or any Crucifix or Cross that then was, or after that should be in any Church, C • apple or Church-yard; which was seconded by the Queens Proclamation the 15. day of December following. Upon the 2. of December 155 • . Stephen Gardener Bishop of Winc • ester, and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Paul's Cross before King Philip, Cardinal Poole, and other Peers: 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 naughtiness against the Sacraments of Christ, denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, and pulled down the Altars. 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 set up in the middle of the Church, for celebration of the Communion. On the 3. of December John Agustine a violent Papist came to the Lord's Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden, and laid both his hands upon it, saying; who set this here again, it being taken down the Sunday before: He is a knave that set it here, &c. and if he say any service here again, I will lay the Table on his face, & in that rage he with other took up the Table and laid it on a chest in the Chancel, and set the Tressels by it; And the 26. of November following, he said to M. B. and, ye pulled down the Altar, will ye built it again, No (quoth he) except I be commanded, for I was commanded to do that I did. The next Sunday, this Churchwarden had provided a Priest to say Mass, for which he had got •• a • Altar. October 1. 1555. in the last Exam • nation of Bishop Ridley, D. White, Bishop of Lincoln, raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyril; Altars are erected in Christ's name in Britain & in far Countries; Ergo Christ is come; But we may use the contrary of that reason; Altars are plucked down in Britain. 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 Jews were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices, as the Table of the Lord's 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 Christ's name, Ergo Christ is come) he meaneth that the Communion is ministered in his remembrance, Ergo he is come &c. As for the taking down of the Altars, it was done upon just consideracions, for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jews usage. Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministered, more duly received then in these later days, when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church. Lincoln. 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, until it pleased God of his goodness to place it clean out of the Church. Ridley; your Lordships irreverent terms do not elevate the thing &c. To this speech of Bishop White, M. Fox affixeth this marginal Censure. Bishop White blasphemously calleth, the board of the Lord's Table, An Oyster Table. Which just Censure the Coale from the Altar most injuriously turns upon M. Prynne, for calling the Lord's Table, a Drester. A slovenly and scornful term, deserving no other Answer, then what the marginal Notes in the Acts & Monuments give in the one place to the Dean of Westminster, or in the other to the Bishop of Lincoln D. White. And truly had the Gentleman in the place pretended, expressly termed the Lord's Table a Dresser, as these two nickenamed it, An Oyster board, or Oyster Table, I should have passed thus verdict upon him, that he was Nig • o CARBONE notandus; defamedly marked with this black Coale. But examining his words, & finding them to be misreported, to lay a causeless blemish on him; I must needs conclude, that the namcelesse Priest or Colier who hath fastened this scandal on him, is as black & shameless as his Coale. For he never terms the Lord's Table, a Dresser; but only Censures such who against the Rubric for the Communion, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the Canons An. 1571. (not 1471. as himself mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking) p. 18.(which is no mistake, the English Copy, which he no question saw and followed, printed the same year with the Latin, 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 Lord's Table to eat and drink at, Like, or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table, is all he writes; wherein he is as far from blasphemy, or calling the Lord's Table, a Dresser, as the Scripture itself is from blasphemy, or terming Christ a th •• fe, when it saith, 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 Thief in the night; the comparisons & similitudes being both apt, the one in regard of the manner of the Tables situation, the other in respect, of the sudden fearful unexpectednes of Christ's second coming to Judgment; though the name of a Dresser, unfit to be imposed on the Lord's Table; & of a thief upon our Savior. By which slovenly term M. Prynne is so far from calling the Communion Table; that he phraseth it, A religious implement of God's own appointment. But to return again 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 show how eagerly the Popish Prelates, were bent to remove Communion Tables, & set up Altars in their steeds, & how much he detested this their practice, in his excellent Farwell to his friends in general, breaks forth into these patheticke words: Othou now wicked and bloody Sea, why dost thou now set up again many Altars of Idolatry, which by the word of God were justly taken away? Why hast thou overthrown the Lord's Table? Why dost thow daily delude thy people, masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lord's Supper? The Papists in their discourses with our stout & learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hot as a Coale, for Altars, & the Sacrament of the Altare; For in his 11. examination on S. Andrew's day 1555. Christopherson who reasoned with him, demanded 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 do call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord, in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Cross; the with Sacrifice all the Alta • s and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow; the with pertaineth nothing in your Sacrament, hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone. Christopherson. No doth I pray yow, what signifieth Altar? Philpot. Not as yow falsely take it, materially, but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Cross. Christopherson. Where find yow it ever so taken? Philpot. O, yes that I do in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he saith: We have an Altar of which it is not lawful for them to eat 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 bless me out of your company, yow are such an o • stinate heretic, 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 do, for want of better proof. In the Cōference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martyn, March 155 • . Martyn speaks thus to Crammer in defense of Mass & Altars which he couples both together. If yow mark the Devils language well, it agreeth with your proceedings most truly; For cast thy self downward, said he, and so taught yow to cast all things down wards; Down with the Sacrament, down with the Mass, down with the Altars, &c. In Cardinal Pooles visitation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors set forth certain Statutes, whereby they would have the university hereafter ordered; wherein among other things they prescribed, at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himself to the Altar, ( a ceremony, superstition, and Idolatry now taken up by many contrary to, or without all Scriptures, Law and Canon, though thus enjoined by, &, borrowed from the Papists, whose superstitious toys are now much imitated and adored ) In April, the same year, Cardinal Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocese of Canterbury. Article 18. 23. concerning the people, inquired; whether the Altars in the Churches be consecrated, or no? And whether there do burn a lamp or candle before the Sacrament? And if there do not, that then it be provided for with expedition? As Altars were thus erected, bowed to, pleaded for, and countenaunced in Queen Mary's time, upon the revivall of Popery, & Communion Tables removed & scoffed at; so immediately upon her death, & the descent of the Crown to Queen Elizabeth, this religious Princes by her Injunctions, (published in the first year of her Rain) commanded the Altars in Churches to be removed (which was done in many Churches in sundry parts of the Realm 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 wit, the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. rat • fying the Common Prayer Book, which prescribes the Sacrament to be administered at a Table not at an Altar. (By which it is apparent, that the ministering of it, at an Altar, is against, & not according to the Statute; and so punishable thereby:) And hereupon Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Metropolitical Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others, Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion, set in place prescribed by the Queens Majestyes Injunctions, And whether your Altars be taken down, according to the Commandment in that behalf given? After this, Anno 1561. the Book of Orders published by the Queens Commissioners, and Book of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoined decent Communion Tables standing on a frame, to be made and set in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood, styling them always Communion Tables, not once an Altar, and putting them in opposition to Altars, And the Canons made in the Synod at London Anno 1571. (which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them, it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed, though p. 15. in the Latin, which the Colier followed, who it seems never saw the English:) prescribe, that Churchwardens shall see there be a fair joined Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion, and a clean cloth to cover it, & that they shall see, that all Roodelo • ts in which wooden Crosses stood & all other Relics of superstition be clane taken away, which being executed accordingly, thereupon Jerome Osorius, the Rhemists, Dorman, Harding, Hart and other Papists, complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their several writings, that they had cast down Images, Churches, Altars, removed them out of their Churches and set up profane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed; which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell, Gualther Haddon, M. Fox, M. Dean Nowel, M. Thomas B • acon, D. Fulke and M. Carthwright, D. Willet & D. Reynolds not only justify as lawful, but as necessary & commendable, affirming that Queen Elizabeth & the Church of England might as lawfully remove and break, down Popish Altars, Images and Crucifixes, as Hezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israel demolished & brake down Heathenish groves, Idols, Images, Altars, by God's own special command and approbation. From all which particular passages we may clearly discern, That one of the first things which our own & other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion & abolishing of Popery, was the breaking down and abandoning of Altars, together with their name, and placing of Communion Tables in their steed; that the first thing again, 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 inseparable concommitants & followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them) into our Church again; That our godly Martyrs, Princes, Prelates, writers yea and our Church itself, have constantly both in their Iudgments, practice, & disputes, condemned Altars, as Jewish, Heathenish, Popish & unlawful unto Christians; That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Book of Common Prayer, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England, & were never yet written or preached for, patronized, enjoined, or erected but among, and by Papists, & that to receive the Mass & set up Popery, which fall or stand together with them. And that the Communion Table is no Altar, nor High Altar, as our Novellers dream and teach. All this being thus premised, I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altarwise.

First, therefore I deny, that the Communion or Lord's Table is either an Altar, or High Altar, that it ought so to be styled or reputed, or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches;

First, because the Scripture never terms the Lord's 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 Book, Homilies, Articles, Canons, Injunctions, writers do the like, distinguishing the Communion Table & Altars as opposite contradistinct things, inconsistent one with the other, abandoning not Altars only themselves, but the very name of Altars, as Jewish and Heathenish, 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged, so as it is not to be found in our Book of Common Prayer, Articles, Injunctions, Homilies, Canons, which never term the Lord's Table an Altar, either properly or improperly.

3. Because Altars & Lord's Tables differ much one from the other.

1. In matter, the one being made of stone, gold, brass, 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 form 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 broad as long, the one having horns oft times, to which delinquents fled and laid hold, the other not.

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

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

5. In institution, the one Legal, Jewish, Typicall, & Heathe • sh; the other Evangelical & Christian, of which anon: the one instituted before and under the Law, the other only under the Gospel.

6. In their appendices, attendants, & circumstances.

For First, Altars were usually, consecrated both among the Jews and Gentiles, Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb. 7. 10. as they are this day among the Papists, with many Jewish and Superstitious Ceremonies, oylings; sprinklings, exorcisms, Relics of Sancts, orisons, & I know not what other fond conceits; but Communion Tables were never so consecrated either in the primitive, or Christian Churches of latter times.

2. Altars we ever accompanied with Preistes, Sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offringe; &c. Exod. 40. Levite. 1. 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. Hebr. 7. 1. to 15. 1. Kinge 18. 20. to 37. among the Jews and Gentiles: with Masses, Massepreistes, Pixes, consecrated Hostiaes, Tapers, Basons, Candelstickes, Crucifixes, Images, Sancts Relics, Altar-clothes, Massing, vestments, to add gestures, & Fooleries: but Communion Tables only with Ministers and preachers of the Gospel 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 maintain, erect, propagate and usher in Gentilism, Judaism, Popery, Mass, 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 own Church abandoned and cast them out. The other to abandon them, and to restore, preserve, perpetuate the purity and integrity of the Doctrine, use, and administration of the Sacrament, according to its primitive institution; as the so e ••• ed and subsequent authorities evidence at large; and King Edward the 6. with his Council both in their Letter to Bishop Ridley, and in their 6. reasons why the Lord's board should rather be after the form of a Table then of an Altar, punctually resolve.

8. Because all Altars, Sacrifices, Priest, & the Temple itself where the Altar stood (for the Jews had no Altars in their Ordinary Synagogues, but only in and about their Temple, to show that we Christians should have no Altars in our Churches which succeed their Synagogues not the Temple,) were but types and shadows of Christ the true Altar, Priest, 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 therefore vanished at his death, as the whole Epistles to the Hebrews, & Galatians, & Colossions c. 2. prove at large. Hence the Apostle calls Christ himself, our Altar, Heb. 13. 10. & Rev. 6. 9. c. 8. 3. 5. c. 9. 13. do the like, as Expositors old and new, together with King James himself in his Paraphrase upon the Apocalypse, & our own Martyrs, writers generally accord.

Hence Origen most pertinently resolves thus: The truth therefore 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 Jerusalem, there was a Temple, there was an Altar, there were High Priests and Preistes; But when as in the coming of God our Savior descending from heaven, truth sprang out of the earth, the shadows and examples full to the ground, For Jerusalem fell, the Temple fell, ALTARE SUBLATUM EST, the Altar was taken away, &c. SI ALTARE VIDER IS DESTITUTUM, &c. If thou shalt see the Altar destitute, be not thou sad thereat, If thou find not the High Priest do not thou despair. EST IN CAELIS ALTARE, there is an Altar in Heaven, & an High Priests of future good things stands by it chosen of God; according to the order of Melchisedecke.

Hence Paschatius Rhadbertus most pertinently concludes: REPVLIT Dominus ALTARE SWM 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 Priest.

And S. Ambrose, Gregory the great, Beda, Andreas the Archbishop of Caesaria, S. Bernard, with divers other Fathers expressly resolve; ALTARE DOMINI CHRISTVS, that Christ himself is the Altare of the Lord, the Altar meant both in the Hebrews and Apocalypse, and that all Altars were but types of him and ceased with him. And though some of the punier Fathers 260. years after Christ and since, do sometimes by a figurative and improper speech, call the Communion Table, (but more commonly only the Sacramental bread and wine representing the body and blood of our Savior) the Altar, in respect of the Sacrifices of prayer and praise there offered at the receiving of the Sacrament, thence called the Eucharist; of the Collections and Alms there and there given by the Communicants for the relief of the poor, 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 Christ's body and blood who is the true Altar; are there mystically distributed, not out of any relation to, or analogy between Jewish & Heathen Altars and Tables, or because the Sacrament is in truth a real Sacrifice as the Papists and our ignorant Popish Innovators fondly dream, yet they most usually and properly term it only the Lord's Table, or Boord, and the Sacrament administered there at, the Lord's Supper, as appears by sundry passages in Nazianzen, Augustine, Theodoret, Chrysostom • Hieron, Oecumenius, Theophylact, & other Fathers,

All these are cited by Bishop Jewel, Bishop Babington. D. Rainolds, & our writers; they styling the Cross whereon Christ suffered & was Sacrificed, the Altar of the Cross, yea faith, the heart and mind of godly men, an Altar, as frequently as the Communion Table, and in the self same figurative and improper sense.

Hence S. Jerome 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. & Gregory the great Homil. 22. Super Ezekiel f. 209. E. F. aver: Altare Deiest Corbonum, Histia & Sacrificia bona opera fidelium, THE ALTAR OF GOD IS A GOOD HEART, the good works of the Faithful 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 shun ALTARS, Images & Idol Temples, that so they may not be erected &c. whiles that he seeth nothing in the mean time, that we in the mean while have the mind of just men instead of Altars and temples; from which without all doubt the sweet odors of Incense are sent forth, vows, I say and prayers from a pure conscience. Let whoever will therefore if he please make inquiry of these Altars which I have last mentioned, and compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in, truly he may plainly understand, that they verily are inanimate and in process of time will become corruptible; but these our Altars shall so long continue in the immortal soul, as long as the reasonable soul shall continue. Now these Fathers thus styling both the heart itself, and the mind and faith which have their chief residence in the heart, an ALTAR; in respect of the spiritual Sacrifices of prayer and praise offered by faith on a pure heart as on a spiritual Altar, and they still • • the Communion Table an Altar only in this sense 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 sense can be no A • gument at all to prove, that it is properly and in truth an Altar, or in that sense as some now press it.

And these other 3. the heart, mind, and faith, which they term an Altar, being situated not in the East part, but in the midst of the temple of the body, are a stonger evidence to prove, that the Table ought to be situated in the midst of the Church, though it were an Altar, as these 3, termed Altars, are in the midst of the body; then that the Table is properly an Altar, and therefore ought to stand in the East end of the Choir Altarwise.

5. Because the Scripture expressly condemns Altars as Jewish & abolished by Christ, putting Altars, Priests, & their waiting on the Altar, as Jewish & Heathenish, in direct opposition to the Lord's Tables, Ministers, preaching of the Gospel, consecrating of the Lord's Supper at his Table; & distinguishing Christ & his Ministers, from Aaron & the Priests of his order, in this, that one of them was to give attendance at the Altar the other not, as is evident by 3. remarkable Texts of Scripture.

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

The next Text is that of 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ; the bread which we break, 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 Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? what shall I say then, that the Idol is anything, or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is anything? But I say that the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils. ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table and of the Table of Devils; wherein the first part, the Ministers of the Gospel, who bless, eat, drink, & participate of the Communion of the body & blood of Christ, & partake of that bread at the Lord's Table; are distinguished from Israel after the flesh, & the Priests of Aaron, who ca • e of the Sacrifices offered upon Altars, and are partakers of Altars; and the Lord's Table put in opposition to the Jewish Altars; and in the second part, the Sacrifices, Cup & Table of Devils, and partaking of them, put in opposition and contradistinction to the Cup and Table of the Lord, and the eating and drinking of them.

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

In which Text (as David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, with others observe,) the Apostle proveth that Aaron's Priesthood is changed & the Ordinance thereof, because Psal. 110. speaketh of Christ's Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, 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 wit the material Altar commanded in the Law. To declare, that Altars and giving attendance at Altars properly belonging to the Levitical Priesthood, were abolished by Christ the true Priest and Sacrifice, of which they were but types; And that as Christ himself was borne of the tribe of Judah, of which no man gave attendance at the Altar, so the Ministers of Christ under the Gospel who profess themselves of his Tribe and Stock, should by his example give no attendance at the Altar, since he never did, nor ought to do it.

From this remarkable Text, the Church of the foreigners in • nand An. 1550. when John de Alasco, that Noble Polonian was their chief Minister and Superintendent, in the Confession of their faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and printed at London that same year, Cum Privilegio, make this the 5. note of Christ's Kingdom, THAT IT KNOWES NO ALTAR, since he is of the tribe of Judah, wherein NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR, neither needeth he the furniture of any mystical vestments, that he may enter into typical Sanctuaries or Holy places, all which things are abolished with this their Priesthood, because the truth of those things which they did shadow out is exhibited.

And David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Hebrews printed at Aberdence 1635. p. 126. 127. infers from thence.

First, that Christ's Priesthood is freed from that Altar which God commanded in the Law, and all the service thereof.

2. That another Altar he knoweth not; & Christ's Priesthood 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 material Altar in Christ's Priesthood, and tie his Church unto it (as the Papists add, and our New Prelates and Doctors do now) must look by what Law they do it.

4. That negative Conclusions in matters of faith & duties, follow well from the Scriptutes Silence. It is not warranted from Scripture therefore I am not bound to believe it? Since the Apostle here reasoneth thus; That none of the tribe of Judah attended the Altar, because Moses speak nothing of that Tribe concerning the Priest-hood ( which overturns all Priests, Altars and attendance at Altars under the Gospel, and the calling of the Lord's-Table an Altar, because the Scripture is silent and speaks nothing of them, but against them. )

To which I shall add a 5. inference. That Christ himself never gave any attendance at the Altar, nor yet Melchi • edecke; or any of Christ's Tribe, Therefore none of Christ's Ministers ought to do it; and that those Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Ministers, who will needs have & set up Altars, plead, write, dispute for Altars, & likewise wait on, serve & give attendance at the Altar, are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal, & of their Tribe; not Ministers of Jesus 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 therefore whom it concerns look well unto it, and evade, or answer it as they may.

6. Christians have no such sacrifices, incense-offerings, or oblations, which require any material Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon, no spiritual service at all that requires an Altar. Therefore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar. All their Sacrifices now (as prayer, praise, liberality to the poor, mortifying their lusts, & the offering up of their souls and bodies • living Sacrifice unto God,) are spiritual, requiring neither a Priest, much less 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. as Bishop Hooper, and King Edward the 6. with his Counsel argue: Therefore they neither have nor ought to h • re any material Altar, but only Christ their spiritual 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 Sacramental bread or wine, or the Lord's Supper itself, and a means to consecrate them. This reason is fully warranted by our Savior's own resolution, Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say, whosoever shall swear by the Altar it is nothing, but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools 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 offered thereon as more holy then they, even as Christ our spiritual altar, consecrates and hallowes all our spiritual Sacrifices, Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say, that the Lord's Table is better then the bread and wine, or the Lord's Supper itself, (though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it, and when they have the Sacrament itself in their hand, to which they give no such adoration, imply it to be so) or that it consecrates the Sacrament laid upon it; (for what need then any prayer or words of consecration?) therefore it is no Altar.

8. Every Altar was, and ought to be dedicated & solemnly consecrated unto God, with special ointments, sprinkling of blood and solemnities; (specially the Altar of incense and atonement, 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 the 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. solemnly 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 solemnly dedicated; sprinkled & enoyled, neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God, or of our Church and State; Therefore they neither are, nor can be Altars.

9. That which will be a means to make ignorant people & superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Mass, and Popish Priests, and to usher Popery, Mass & Mass-Preistes by degrees into our Church again to the polluting & defiling of God's house, S • crament & the setting up of gross Idolatry, must needs be sinful, unlawful & 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 & administering at them, will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices, Mass, and Popish Priests, & will usher Popery, Mass and Mass-Priests by degrees into our Church again, &c. as Bishop Hooper, & others forequoted authorities evidence, and King Edward the 6. and his Council in their 3. reason against Altars resolve, Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therefore they must needs be sinful, unlawful, & to be abandoned of us now, as they have been heretofore, both in King Edward the 6. & in Queen Elizabeth's days.

10. That which neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the Primitive Church, for above the 250. years 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. years after Christ, either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only.

Therefore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now. This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. & his Counsel against Altars, Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds 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 Evangelists.

And S. Paul calleth the coming to the holy Communion, the coming unto the Lord's 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. Wherefore seeing the form of a Table is more agreeable with Christ's institution, and with the usage of the Apostles, and of the Primitive Church, then the form of an Altar, therefore the form of a Table is rather to be used, then the form of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion. Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a black Coale, and some what blurred & obseured I shall produce some few authorities, to clear it.

The third part of our own incomparable Homily, against the Perill of Idolatry, (confirmed both by Statute, the Articles of our Church, and every Ministers subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us: That all Christians in the Primitive Church, as Origen against Celsus, Cypriam also & A • nobius do testify, were fore charged and complained on, that they had no Altars nor Images: It is evident therefore, that they took all Images, (yea all Altars to, by the same reason) to be unlawful in the Church of the Temple of God, and therefore had none though the Gentiles therefore were Highly displeased with them, following this rule, we must obey God rather then men. So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds.

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

This man could never utter so many untruths together without some special privilege.

For first, where he saith: The Apostles in their time erected Altars, It is well known that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithful for fear of the Tyrants were fain to meet together in private houses, in vacant places in woods and Forests, and in Caves under the ground. And may we think that Altars were built before the Church?

Verily Origen thal lived above 200. years after Christ, hath these words against Celsus: Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines, aut Aras, aut Templa; Celsus charge • h our religion with this, that we have neither Images, nor Altars, nor Temples.

Likewise saith Arnobius, that lived somewhat after Origen, writing against the heathens: Accusatis nos, quod nec Templa habeamus • oc Imagines, nec Aras. Ye 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. Therefore 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 works printed Cum Privilegio, and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name, and to Queen Elizabeth herself, London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lord's Supper and the Popes Mass f. 102. 103. & Relics 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. years after Christ's 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 year of our Lord 265 • brought in the altars first into the Church, utterly forbidding Tables anymore to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lord's-Supper: when notwithstanding from Christ's ascension unto that time, the Lord's Supper was always ministered at a Table, according to the practice 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 Lord's body and blood until that time was ministered upon a Table according to the practice 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 do so stoutly strive (& some now too, that call themselves Protestants) about the year of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church; others affirm, that they came in about the year of our Lord 594. But I believe that Altars came not into the Church before the year of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Mass 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 Cross, printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. (who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum; that Christians in Origen's 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 ye reply) 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 Origen's 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 external Sacrifices, as the Gentiles had.

For otherwise it is most certain, that the Church had Altars, 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 nameless Author, in modesty & good manners, should have rather deemed himself mistaken in the meaning of Origen & Arnobius, then our Homilies, and these our learnedest writers, whose judgments & authorities certainly will over balance his.

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

1. By the Gentiles objection itself: 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 simply had neither Temples nor Images. Certainly the Coale itself 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; expressly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all.

Their meaning therefore being (as our Homilies, & those very words themselves resolve,) that they had no public 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 & external 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 sense and manner.

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

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

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

Minucius Felix (flourishing in Tertullian's time, 200. years after Christ) in his Octavius Oxoniae 1627, p. 104, First mentions this Objection of the Gentiles, & gives this pi • hie reply thereto; But think ye that we conceal 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 himself is God's Image? what Temple shall I build to him, when as this whole world fabricated by his workmanship cannot contain him? And why I being a man 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 offerings to God, which he hath brought forth only for my use, that I should cast back his gift unto him, is an ungrateful thing; when as a good mind, and a pure heart, & a sincere conscience is a Sacrifice fit to be offered to him. Therefore he who embraceth innocence, supplicates to the Lord, he who follow • j • stice, sacrificeth to God; he who absteines from dece • ts, attaineth God • he who delivers a man from danger, slayeth the best oblation: These are our Sacrifices; these are God's Holy things, thus among us, he is most religious, who is most just &c.

Where this acute Father clearly acknowledgeth, that the Christians had no material Temples, Images, Altars or Sacrifices, at all among them, but only spiritual sacrifices, Altars & oblations; and had they then in truth had any real 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 stopped their mouths by falsifying their objection, & showing the Gentiles the righ • use of them, to free them from any further Cavil of not using them at all, or amiss.

The like Answer Origen gives to Celsus; Celsus (writes he) saith that we shun the very building both of Altars, and of Images, & of Temples, not suffering them to be erected (an infallible evidence and charge, that they had none at all for any purpose, 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 mean time, 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 therefore that will examine these Altars, which I have newly mentioned, and if he lift compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in.

Verily he shall plainly understand, 〈…〉 mate and will be corrupted in process of 〈…〉 or Altars in an immortal soul, shall continue as long, as the reasonable soul, shall be pleased to dwell therein, &c.

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

The Christians (saith Celsus) cannot endure either Temples or Altars, or Images & Statutes to be looked upon, they openly disprayse Images &c.

To which Origen thus replies: The Christians & also the Jews, when they hear, thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve; neither shalt thou make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above or in the earth beneath, &c. and for many things not unlike these, do not only dislike the Temples of the God's, and Altars, and these Images, but would if there be a necessity rather run more willingly to death, then out of any sin or impiety altogether defile what they rightly think of God the maker of all things, &c.

Therefore Celsus affirms, that Images are by no means to be esteemed for God, but dedicated to the God's; when as it is plainly perspicuous, that to make and affirm 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 form as of the invisible, so also of the incorporiall God.

By both which charges and replies, it is clear, that Christians in those days had no material Temples, Altars, Images; but only spiritual Temples, Altars and Sacrifices in their hearts, and breasts, and that they rejected all material Altars, Images and Sacrifices as unlawful, and abominable. Origen himself not denying the charge to be true, but justifying the Christians for having neither, S. Arnobius in his 6. Book 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 form of any of the God's, that we built no Altars, &c. (A plain 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 slain beasts, not Frankincense, not salted corn, and that we bring not in liquid wine poured out in bowles.

Which things verily (saith Arnobius) we do not therefore give over and forbear, either to build or do, as if we carried impious and wicked minds, or had taken up some contempt against the God's out of a rash despair, but because we think & believe the God's; (if so be they are God's indeed, and endued with the eminency of this name?) will either deride these kinds of Honors, 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 shows at large the reasons, why Christians build no Temples, made no Images or Altars, and offered no such Sacrifices at all to God, & why they thought it unlawful so to do; not denying the objection but confessing the matter of fact to be true, and defending it from the very fundamental grounds of Religion; which he would never certainly have done had the Christians then had any material Temples, Images or Altars for any divine or spiritual use.

S. Lactantius, his Scholar, meets 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 do 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 Laurel or sacred leaves to adore the Altar, or rushes or green turfes which verily are most vain, but of those things that are brought forth out of a sincere heart.

Therefore 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 laid righteousness, Pretence, faith, innocence, chaste • ty, abstinence. What mean Temples; what Altars, what finally Images themselves, which are either the monuments of dead, or absent persons.

After which he disputes excellently against Images showing why Christians had none, and concludes, that D ••• lls were the Authors of Images, wherefor without doubt there is no Religion, where ever there is an Image.

From all these Fathers answers, therefore, it is most clear and evident, that the Christians in their times had neither Images nor Altars; and that they held them both unlawful, unnecessary, ranking them both together as Paganism, Judaism & Idolatr •• ; they then using no Altars (no not to consecrate the Sacramention,) for fear of inclining to Gentelisme or Judaism, or hardening the Jews or Gentiles in the use of their abolished idolatrous Sacrifices or Altars.

3. These Histories forecited, which affirm, that Pope Sixtus the second about th • 〈◊〉 65. or 294, or after, first brought in Altars into the Church, will quite take of this absurd evasion.

For these Altars thus introduced by him, were not for any bloody or external Sacrifice, such as the Jews 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 Lord's Supper on; and so these authorities of Origen, Arnobius, Minucius Felix, and Lactantius, must necessarily be intended, as all the forecited writers, and our Homilies interpret them, that Christians had no Altars at all in those times, no not to celebrate the Sacrament on, and then the shift in the Coale, that they had Altars for this purpose, but not for any bloody or external Sacrifices, must need be fabulous and forged, having no Authority, that I know to back it in any writer.

Now whereas to justify this apparent falsehood, as I have manifested it, the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Arnobius, styling the Lord Table, an Altar, is pretended, and so the name, and thing itself, used and known among Christians before that age.

I answer, that these authorities in truth, when once examined, will vanish into smoke. To take them according to their Antiquity, not their Order.

The ancient & main Authority is that of Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar. But this I shall afterward prove, to be meant only of Christ himself, not of the Communion Table, as all the Fathers and ancient expositors, our own writers, and Martyrs, and all Protestant Divines accord, without dissent, or question. So that this proves nothing.

That of the Apostles Canons (the 〈◊〉 in pretended Antiquity) hath been long since disclaimed & branded as counterfeit coin by all our learned writers, and many Papists themselves, yea as a spurious brat of some later age, many hundred years after the Apostles and the puriest of these Fathers.

Neither are Ignatius his Epistles of any better authority, being all forgid & spurious, a • M. Cook hath undeniably proved them. But admit them true, yet they made little to the purpose. For that of his 6. Epistle ad Maguesianos, is but this: Run all together into the Temple of God as to one Altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest 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; Esteem Widdowes continuing in chastity as the Altar of God.

Neither of these style the Communion Table, the Altar; the two first of them being meant of Christ, & the Church itself, the last and first used figuratively and by way of similitude, only; the first applied to the Church, the other to Widdowes, neither to the Communion Table, the thing in question.

That of Irenaeus, the next ancient, is to as little purpose his words adverse. Heresies l. 9. c. 20. being but these; David was a Priest to God, although Saul persecuted him: Omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem: yea all just men have a Preistly order, or are Priests So all the Apostles of the Lord are Priests, who neither inherit Feiles, nor houses, but always serve God and the Altar, of whom even Moses in Deutr. spake in the benediction of Levie: who saith to his Father and Mother, I have not known thee, &c.

Which Text speaks not of the Communion Table, nor of any proper Priests, or Altars, but only of spiritual & metaphorical Priests & Altars.

For it termed all righteous men, Priests that attend on God and his Altar, & he saith, the Apostles were such when they plucked the ears of corn, they then waiting on God and the Altar, which was long before the Communion Table or Lord's Supper was instituted, so that here the Altar; if properly meant, is not the Lord's Table but the Jewish Altar, and that before the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper instituted; If allegorically and spiritually, it is meant only of Christ, our spiritual Altar, Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 65. 9. on whom all the faithful, who are spiritual Priests, 1. Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. do waste, not of the Lord's Table, at which none but Ministers serve and consecrate. So that this makes nothing to the purpose.

What Irenaeus means by the Altar, will appear more evidently by his own words. Adv. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. where, as he stiles the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, not the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar, but the Eucharist, (with which he joins no other oblation used among Christians, but only that of praise and thankgiving, neither of which requires an Altar;) so he writes, that God will have us also offer a gift at the Altar, (to wit the Sacrifice of prayer and praise) frequently without intermission.

And least any one should here dream of a material Altar here on earth, he explains himself what he means by the Altar, and where this Altar is situated in the very next words, EST ERGO ALTARE IN CAELIS, &c. Therefore our ALTAR IS IN THE HEAVENS: For thither all our prryers are directed.

Irenaeus therefore neither knew, nor spake of any Altar that Christians then had, but of Christ himself, who is now in heaven, neither doth he so much as once style the Lord's Table, an Altar, nor make mention of an Altar, whereat the Sacrament was administered throughout his works. His authority therefore might well have been spared.

The next Father is Tertullian, out of whom two passages are alleged; One, out of his Book de Poenitentia, where he remembereth Geniculationem ad Aras. Bowing and ducking to Altars, now much in use. But certainly 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, as 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 therefore is suspicious, & to put it out of doubt, Erasmus, Rhenanus, Junius, & M. Cook prove it, not to be Tertullian's but some conterfeit thrust upon him, the phrase being certainly none of his, no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age. This counterfeit authority therefore will not stand the Coale in any stead.

The second passage is that in his Book 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 seem to thwart one another at the first view.

To this I answer, that though this Book be generally conceived Tertullans, yet I suspect, that the additions after the end of the Lord's prayer explained, where in this passage is, are none of his. For I find this passage in them: Sic & die Paschae quo communis & quasi publica jejunij religio est, merito deponiemus of culum, &c. which intimates, that Christians on Easter day did Keep, a common & public Fast, • nd therefore refused to kiss one another • And it makes Easter day, not to be Stationum dies; a day of praying standing, as the next words prove.

Now it is certain, that Tertullian in his Book de Corona Militis, writes, that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickedness to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lord's day, being the joyful day of Christ's resurrection, much more then to do it upon Easter day; and that the Christians did not fast but rejoice in remembrance of Christ's resurrection from Easter to whitsontide.

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

Add to this; That Cyprian (a great admirer of Tertullian, whom he styled his Minister) makes no mention of this Book or of Tertullian, or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar, or Kiss of peace, or other such Customs & Ceremonies, in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, which is probable he would have done, had Tertullian written any such Book as this, or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use, they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church. Moreover, this Book makes mention of Hermas Book, intitled the Pastor, by way of approbation, and gives an answer to an objection out of it; when as in his Book de Pudicitia, he thus censures it as counterfeit; Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha, falsa & adultera judicatur, as the Books now passing under his name are accounted.

Moreover, in this very Book of Tertullian, in his Book de Corona Militis, & so in S. Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is by both of them, jointly styled, the Eucharist, & both of them interpret, Give us this day our daily bread, of Christ, who is our living and true bread which came down from heaven; whose body the Sacramental bread is esteemed, and on whom we daily feed in the Sacrament, and Eucharist.

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

Beside this, that famous Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, flourishing but 240. years after Christ, very near Tertullian's time, writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome, that an ancient Minister, who was a Bishop long before him (a plain evidence, that Ministers & Bishops were then both one, and so promiscuously styled) being present when some were baptized & hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him, & falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptism where with he was baptized of the heretics was not true, whereupon he desired to be rebaptized: which he durst not do, but told him, that the daily Communion many times ministered might suffice him; when he had been present at the LORD'S-TABLE, and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food, and had communicated, and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I durst not again baptize him, but bade him be of good cheare, of a sure faith, and boldly to approach unto the Communion of the Sincts. But he for all this morunneth continually, horror with draweth him from the LORD'S-TABLE, and being entreated hardly, is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiastical prayers.

In which ancient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himself, we have not mention at all of any Altar, or Sacrament, or Sacrifice of the Altar, but twice together the name of the Lord's Table, & also of a daily Communion, holy food, ministering 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.

He, as also Justine Martyr, & Clemens Alexandrinus, oft times making mention of the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, bread and wine, receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or chief 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 expressly determine, that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250, years after Christ had no Temples, Altars, nor Images at all, and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second, about the year of our Lord 265. after Tertullian's age.

This authority therefore of his, & all others cited in the Coale, & great part of D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches, Temples, Altars and Bishops chairs among Christians with in 200. years after Christ, must needs be fabulous & Apocryphal. He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches, in the Authors quoted (or in truth misquoted) by him, for material Churches, which they mean only of the Christian Congregations, who had then no public Churches, but only private places in Woods, Chambers, Vaults, Caves, and the like, to meet in, as Tertullian • , Bishop Jewell, and our own Homilies witness.

But admit this Book & Passage to be Tertullian's own, yet then it may be a question; whether Tertullian means by Aram the Lord's-Table, or that place wherein the Christians met. Ara signifying a Sanctuary, as well as an Altar.

If the place wherein the Christians assembled, as the words preceeding, & drift of the place import, ( Sle militer de statlonum diebus, non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum, quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini. 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, & participatio 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 Christ's body and blood, standing still in the place that they received in: but, that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled, till all prayers & divine offices were fully ended.

If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itself, then, it makes nothing to the purpose; if of the Altar or Communion Table itself, 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 Testimony, & therefore ought not to • ver-balance those many pregnant, weighty, punctual 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. Cyprians: Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale, but the words not cited.

The first is his Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras. As if it were lawful after the Altars of the Devil, to approach to the Altar of God &c. whence we behold and believe 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 anymore to handle it: And that they should contend with all their might, that such should not return again, ad Altaris impiamenta & contagia fratrum, to the polluting of the Altar, and contagion of the brethren.

The second is his Epistle to the Presbyters, Deacons and people of Furnis. It was long ago ordained in a Council of Bishops, that no Clergy man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer, of any man's will, since all who are honored with divine Priesthood ought not to addict themselves to anything, but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices, and to prayers and orisons.

The Levitical Tribe which did wait on the Temple, and Altar, & divine service, had no inheritance or temporal portion allotted them among their brethren, but others manuring the earth, they should only worship God, &c. Therefore Victor since, against the form lately prescribed to Priests in the Council, 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 & necessary, factum, servetur a nobis, simul & caeteris fratribus detur exemplum, ne quid Sacerdotes & ministros Dei Altari ejus & Ecclesiae vocantes, ad saeculares molestias devocet.

The third is his Epistle to Januarius. Porro autem Eucharistia & unde baptizati unguntur oleum, in Altari sanctificatur, 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 Lord's Table, & twice of an Altar.

To these authorities I answer first in general; that the often mention 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 works are attributed to S. Cyprian, and many places in him corrupted, as D. James & M. Alexander Cook have proved, & among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini, (which mentions Altars) with other of his works to be none of his, but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis, living about the year of our Lord 1156. at least 900. years after Cyprian: & these Epistles, for ought I know, may be his or some others; most at least many of the Epistles, or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes, being spurious.

3. The name Altar is not usual in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age; & Dionysius • Alexandrinus (as I have proved in his Epistle, registered by Eusebius ) living about S. Cyprians age, twice terms it only the Lord's Table.

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

5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, the Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, & the Table in S. Paul's words, only the Lord's Table.

And in his 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 Evangelical truth, and Dominicall tradition, nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commanded and done by any human and novel Tradition; that we ought herein to do only what the Lord hath done before; that if S. Paul or an Angel from heaven should teach us to do 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; therefore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall think meet to be done, but that Christ who is before all men, hath first done.

Neither ought we to follow the custom 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 therefore tying himself and all men thus strictly to Christ's institution, & example, in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament: And Christ & his Apostles never administering it at an Altar, nor styling the Lord's-Table, an Altar, & his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar, I cannot but from hence conclude, that these Passages certainly are none of Cyprians. But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities.

1. I answer, That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lord's-Table, an Altar, nor expressly affirm, that Christians then had Altars, being a mere allusion to the Priests and Altars under the Law, relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. & Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itself doth evidence. Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers, Prayers, & Sermons, when we had no Altars in our Church for them to wait at, nor Communion Tables called or known by the names of Altars.

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

3. If this Epistle make anything for Altars, then, it makes far more against our Bishops tenets & power now, since it expr • sly affirms, that the people have power, & are boundin conscience to reject always, and not to receive any man for their Bishop, or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopric, who shall fall away from the truth to heresy, or Idolatry; that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopric, 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 main, scope & drist of this Epistle.

To the second I answer, that this Epistle mentions, a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Council, not in S. Cyprians age, for ought appears, before whose days we read of no such Council, but long after; Yea Pamelius notes, that this Epistle was written in some Council, in what he knoweth not, belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Council of Carthages, an hundredth years after that under S. Cyprian; In which Councils the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle, (written as is evident by the subject of it, after these 3. Councils) 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 expressly define the Lord's Table to be an Altar, or so named or reputed in his age, or that the Christians then had Altars.

And if it makes anything for Altars in that age, yet that expressly condemns Clergiemens intermeddling with any secular offices, or employments whatsoever, since they ought wholly, yea solely to addict and devote themselves to God's service, prayer, preaching, and other spiritual duties of their ministerial function.

A shroud check to some of our present Prelates & Clergiemen, now most zealous for Altars, who dare presume to take upon them temporal offices, honors, employments, & so far to engage themselves in Secular, Temporal, Civil, or State affairs, that many of the • almost wholly neglect their spiritual functions and duties, serving the world and Mammon more then God himself.

To the third, I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age, in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrism, or the Sacrament, on an Altar, much less the Doctrine of that time, that Chrism or the Eucharist could not be consecrated without an Altar, which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius, I may farther affirm it, to be a l •• e Popish fo • gerie and imposture, then S. Cyprians. And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude, notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale, that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. years after Christ had no Altars, neither did they repute or call the Lord's 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, written, 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 Altars, with their names, and the calling of the Communion Tables, upon good, godly, pious grounds & considerations heretofore. Therefore 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 premises, which yet to make more perspicuous, I shall further clear by these ensuing authorities, Osotius, Dormian, Harding, the Rhemists, Hart, and other Papists, complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth, and the Church of England in their time, that they had taken away, broken down, demolished all the Altars, and cast them out of the Church, setting up profane Tables or Oyster-boards, as they termed them in their steeds, using only such Tables, not Altars, to consecrate the Lord's-Supper on; blaming our Church in the self same manner, & for the self same cause, as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church, for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon.

A clear Confession and apparent evidence, that the Church of England both in King Edwards, and Queen Elizabeth's days, abolished and condemned Altars.

Stephen Gardener Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward days, that they had no Altars, but Tables and Boards to eat and drink at; to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford in King Edwards days, returned this answer; What use is there of an Altar, where no fire burns, nor beasts are slain for Sacrifices. And concerning bowing to Altars (a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practiced, both without Scripture & Canon) he there thus determines; If an Angel from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars, let him be accursed. I do not think (saith he) that any of the Fathers were polluted with so gross Idolatry, as to bow their bodies before Altars, especially when there is no Communion; but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus, let none of us be lead by their Books, or examples to decline from the strict observation of God's Law, which peremptorily forbiddeth, the making of Idols & bowing to them or before them. This was this great learned man's judgment concerning Altars & bowing to them.

William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox, dedicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England. f. 12, Ye hold still Vestments, Popes, incense and ALTARS, organs & crosses in the Church, all which ordinances, Constitutions, & Ceremonies the Pope hath devised & maed, Ergo ye still have the Pope. Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances & Ceremonies in receiving whereof the Pope is still retained.

William Salisbury, in his Battery of the Popes Batter, printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. & dedicated to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chancellor of England, spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars, as Heathenish, Jewish, Popish, and unfit to be tolerated in Churches; to the end that the rude and simple people being better persuaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture, should not have occasion to murmer grudge, or be offended, neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England (who as redoubted grand Captine, hath first enterprised, on this most notable feat) nor with any other Bishop or Lawfull Officer, that attempted to pluck down and remove the Popish Altars out of Christ's, Churches and Temples; in the maintenance whereof he was fully persuaded, that all the learned Popist • would stiffly continue, as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader.

In which Treatise, after he had shown Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish, serving only for Sacrifices & offerings, which ended in and with Christ's off • ing up of his body once for all: be concludes thus: So then now if it be a clear case, and that by the plain text of Holy Scripture, that since Christ was once offered on the Altar of the Cross, all carnal Sacrifices, & all manner of offerings, that ever were wont to be offered upon the Altars, be wholly extinguished, utterly void and of none effect. And in as much as no man (being in his right wit when he advisedly perceiveth and plainly understandeth, that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose, but to burn or to offer Sacrifices & oblations upon, which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept) but he will strait ways acknowledge, that their ought not any Altar to remain to any use among us Christians, after the death and passion of our Master Christ; at which time as he protesteth himself, saying, Consum • tum est, it is finished; signifying thereby, that Moses Law was not only by him prevented, fulfilled, and finished, but that the same Law or any Commaundment, Rite, Ceremony, or any other part there in contained, (as concerning any burthening or Jurisdiction over the Christians) was to all intents ended, taken away, and fully determined, and the Gospel as it were a new Law, surrogated, confirmed and established in steed of the old.

Therefore 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 foolish, as to go about to wede his corn with a since, to moye his hey with a weeding hoke; and to tedde the same with a rake? Is a leaden Cistern made for to sail on the Sea, is a ship, made to be drawn 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 do men ordain fetherbeds for their dogs, and lie themselves in kennells? who maketh a Garnar of an Oven, or an Oven of a Garnar? Or who maketh a threshing flour in his dwelling house, and a herth in his barn? who can make a pleasant & a brave banketing house, of filthy Schambles, or of a stinking Slaughter house? Yea or who had not rather have his Supper laid on a fair Table before him, then on a bloody Butchars Cradle.

And so likewise (to apply some of these strong Anagogies and dark sayings to our purpose) is not a Garnar more meet to lay up grain in than an Oven? Is it not more meet to make a threshing flour in a barn then in a man's dwelling house? And to make an herth to kendle fire on in the middes of a man's house, then by the moyes side in his barn.

And so who can make the Jews old slaughter Synagogue to serve for the new Euangelike Banketing Temple? Or who had rather eat the heavenly banket of the Lord's Supper on a Jewish, a heathenlyk, or a Popish Altar: then on a decent • & a fair comely Table? The unbelieving Jew defieth Christ's Table and his Supper also. The unfaithful heathen thinks scorn 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 sense can away with it. The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian, yea to be thought to be Christ himself, so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen. And shall we seek upon them? Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies, of their execrable Rites, and cursed usages? Or is Christ's religion so unperfit of itself, so needy and beggarly, that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen, borrow Altars of the Pope, & borrow vestimentes of the Jews? besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage, which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christ's Religion, and now restored home to the owners thereof.

Therefore let us either render home again unto the heathen, the superstition of the imbring days, and to the Pope his hallowed Altars, and unto the Jews, their Aaron's vestimentes: or else let us like good companions join 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 Book 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 certain Jewish teachers that would build and set up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lord's Supper upon.

And surely the holy D. S. Augustine, nor any other Godly writer, would never have used this term Altar, so often; after that sort as they did, if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge, what absurdity, what inconveniency, and what mischief and abomination have been grounded on their translated terms. And I pray yow what though S, Augustine, or other Doctors used to term the Lord's Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, which if it be as I take it (I take it after the most sound and faithfullist understanding) the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their strange terms being so far fetched.

For thus I understand them: The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the sign of the Altar, which Altar betokeneth the Cross, which Cross betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offered on the Crolle, or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherefore good Christian brethren, let us that are homely fellows, not be ashamed of the old Termes, that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture, which calleth the reverend and healthful remembrance of the Lord's death by breaking of bread, by the name of the Lord's Supper, or the Communion, & partaking of the body & blood of Christ. And the thing whereat we sit devoutly to eat the Lord's Supper, lett us both have it, and call it the Lord's-bord, or the Lord's-Table, and not a borrowed towell, nor a Popish stone Altar, nor yet a wooden Altar, with a Super-altar. And let us present with so far fetched terms and so dearly bought, the Popes glace, and his fair Ladies of Rome. Thus he.

John Bale Bishop of Osyris, in his Image of both Churches, or par • phrase upon the Revelation, as he makes Christ himself the only Altar spoken of and intended. Rev. 6. 9. & c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offered: So in his Preface to the first part of his Book, he reckons up beads, Altars, Images, Organs, Lights &c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church, terming them; the very filthy dregs of darkness. All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he saith shall be plucked away by the evident word of God, and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appear. For no longer continueth the whore, then whoredom is in price. Take away the Rites and Ceremonies, the Jewels and Ornaments, the Images and lights, their Lordships and Fatherhodes, the Altars and Masses, with the Bishops and Priests, and what is their Holy whorish Church anymore.

Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9, reckons up Altars, Copes, Masses, & Trentals among other Popish abominations, which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Money, 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 Relics and Altars: for the ears, singing, ringing and Organs piping: for the nose frankincense sweet; to wash away sins, as they say, Holy water of their own holying, and making Priests an infinite sort, Masses, Trentalls, driges, and pardones &c.

But where the Gospel's 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 pulpit, a preacher to the People, a Deacon for the poor, a Table for the Communion, with bare walls, or else written with Scriptures, having God's eternal word, sounding always amongst them in their sight and ears; and last of all they should have good discipline, correct faults, and keep good order in all their meetings.

Learned M. Thomas Becon, in his works 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 Mary's days vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus: Moreover, heretofore we were taught, to beat down the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars, which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode, & a strang Sacrifice for sin, commanded to be built up, as though calves, goats, sheep, & such other brute beasts should be offered again after the Preisthode of Aaron, for the sins of the people, and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table, and after the example of Christ, to receive together at it the holy mysteries of Christ's body and blood in remembrance that Christ's body was broken, and his blood shed for our sins.

But now the sacrificing • orcerers shame not, both in their private talk, and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lord's Table an Oysterbord, and therefore have they taken out of the Temples those seemly Tables, which we following the examples of the dearly beloved son, and of the Primative Church used. at the Ministration of the Holy Communion, and they have brought in again their bloodly and butcherly Altars. and upon those they sacrifice & offer daily, say they, that is, they kill, slay and murder thy dear son Christ for the sins of the people. For as thy Holy Apostle saith Heb. 9. Where no sheading of blood is, there is no remission and forgiveness of sins. If thorough their Massing, sins be forgiven, then must the Sacrifice that there is offered, be slain, and the blood thereof shed.

If the Massemonger therefore offer Christ up in their Masses, a Sacrifice unto God for the sins of the people, so followeth it that they murder, kill and slay Christ, yea and shed his blood at their Masses, and so by this means we must needs confess, 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, dieth no more. Death hath no more power over him. For as touching that he died, he died concerning sin once. And as touching that he liveth, he liveth unto the God his Father. If Christ therefore died no more, then do 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; but to keep the people in blindness, to deface the passion and death of Christ, and to maintain their idle and drafsacked bellies, in all pomp and honor, with the labor of other men's hands, and with the sweat of poope men's brows, so far is it of, that they with their abominable Massing & stinking sacrificing, put away the sins either of the quick or of the dead, as they make the unlearned & simple people to believe.

Ah Lord God & heavenly Father, if thou were not a God of long suffering & of great patience, how couldest thou abide these intolerable injuries, and so much detestable blasphemies, which the wicked Papists commit against thee & thy son Christ, in their Idolatrous Masses, at their Heathenish Altars.

As in the days of wicked Queen Jezebel, the Altars of the Lord were cast down, 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 ministered, are cast down & broken on pieces, and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim, to Erkenwald, to Grimbald, to Catherine, to Modwyne, &c. But ô Lord, bannish out of the Congregation that most vile & stinking Idol the Mass, and restore unto us the Holy & blessed Communion, that we eating together of one bread, and drinking of one Cup, may remember the Lord's death, & be thankful, to thee.

Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations, of Ceremonies, of Images, of Altars, of Copes, of vestmentes, of Pixes, of Crosses, of Censers, of Holy waterbuckets, of Holy bread basketes, of Chrismatories, & above all Idolatrous Priests, and ungodly ignorant Curates.

And in his Comparison between the Lord's Supper and the Popes Mass fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus; Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper, used his common & daily apparel. The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall & gameplayers garments, as with an Humerall, or Ephod; with an Albe, with a girdle, with a stole, with a maniple, with an amice, with a chesible, and the like &c. cometh unto the Altar with great Pomp, and with a solemn pace. Where (it is wonderful to be spoken) how he setteth forth himself, to all Godly men to be lamented & pitied, & to children, even to be derided & to be lauged to scorn, while like another Roscius, with his foolish, playerlike & mad gestures, the poor wretch wrytheth himself on every side, now bowing his knees, now standing right up, now crossing himself, as though he were a frayd of spirits, now stoping down, now prostrating himself, now knocking on his breast, now sensing, now kissing the Altar, the Book and Patene, now streching out his arms, now folding his hands together, now making charecters, signs, 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 cup, &c.

When it evidently appeareth by the Histories, that the Ministers of Christ's church in times past when they ministered the Holy Sacraments, either of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper, used none other, then their Common and daily apparel: yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first, which first of all (as Sabellicus testifieth) did forbid, that from thence, forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their daily array, but such holy garments as were appointed unto that use. This Bishop lived in the year of our Lord 260.

Christ simply and plainly, and without any decking or gorgeous furniture, prepared and ministered that heavenly banket.

The Massemonger with a marvelous great pomp & wonderful gay sh • w setteth forth his merchandise.

For he hath an Altar sumptuously built, yea & that is covered with most fine and white linen clothes, so likewise richly garnished, decked and trimmed with divers gorgeous pictures, and costly Images. He hath also crewettes for water and for wine, towels, coffers, pyxes, Philacteries, banners, candlesticks, wax candles, organs, singing Bells, sacry belles, chalices of silver and of gold, patenes, sensers shyppe, frankensence, Altar cloothes, curtines, paxes, basyns, ewers, crosses, Chrismatory, Relics, jewels, owches, precious stones, myters, cross staves, and many other such like ornaments, more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron, then for the ministry of the New Testament.

It is nobly said of S. Ambrose, the Sacraments require no gold, neither do they delight in gold, which are not bought for gold. The garnishing of the Sacraments is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners. And verily those are precious vessels, which redeem souls from death. That is the true treasure of the Lord, which worketh that, that his blood hath wrought.

Again he saith: The church hath gold, not that it should keep it, but that it should bestow it, and help when need is. For what doth it profit to keep that, which serveth to no use?

Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and blood to his Disciples, sitting at the Table. When the time was now come (saith Luke) Jesus sat down, and his 12. Disciples with him. Luc. 22.

The Massemonger, delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar. In distributing the mysteries of his body & blood, Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aaron's Preistes, whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beasts, but he used a Table, as a furniture, much more meet to get, defend, confirm, increase and continue Frendship.

But the Massemonger as one always desirous to shed blood, standeth at an Altar, and so delivereth the Communion to his people: when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banket, maketh mention not of an Altar, but of a Table, saying, 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, & of the Table of the Devils.

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

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

Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beasts, then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship; neither do those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion, then the cawdron, the fyrepanne, the basen, the sholve, the fleshhoke, the gredyrne, and such like instruments, which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing, dressing, and doing their Sacrifices.

For unto the Honest, seemly & worthy celebration of the Holy banket, of the body and blood of Christ, we have need not of an Altar, but of a Table, except ye will say, that the primative Church, which more then two hundred years after Christ's ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries: yea except ye will say that Christ himself the Author of this most Holy Supper, did dote & was out of his wits, which not standing at an Altar, like Aaron's Priest, but sitting at a Table, as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordain and minister this Holy & Heavenly food.

For who is so rude & ignorant of antiquities, which knoweth not, that Pope Sixtus the second, about the year of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables anymore to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lord's Supper; when notwithstanding from Christ's ascension unto that time, the Lord's Supper was always ministered at a Table, according to the practice of Christ of his Apostles, and of the Primative Church? But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and of the virgins Mary, of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner, Heb. 13, We have an Altar, whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat, 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 offered unto God the Father, it can none otherwise be, but most thankfully and most acceptable.

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

But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramental bread unto the Communicants except, they first of all kneel down with great humility & reverence, that they may, by this their gesture declare & show evidently to such as are present, that they worship & honor that bread for a God: which is so great & so notable wickedness as none can exceed, when it is plain & evident by the ancient writers, that the Geastes of the Lord's Supper long and many years after Christ's resurrection sat at the Table.

So far is it of, that they either after the manner of the Jews stood right up: or after the custom of the Papists kneeled, when they should receive the Holy mysteries of the body & blood of Christ.

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

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 Lord's Supper, maketh mention not of an Altar, but of a Table. Ye cannot be partakers, saith he, of the Lord's Tables, and of the Devils also.

Tables for the ministration of the Lord's Supper continued in the Church of Christ, almost 300. years after Christ universally, and in some places longer, as Histories make mention: 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 Commandment of God, to offer Sacrifice upon them. But all those Sacrifices do now cease, (for they were but shadows of things to come) therefore the Altar ought to cease with them.

Christ alone is our Altar, our Sacrifice & our Priest. 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 persuaded that they could, not duly & truly, and in right form minister the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.

And this their Altar and Superaltar, likewise must be consecrate, have prints and charactes made therein, washed with oil, wine and water, be covered with a cloth of hayer, and be garnished with fine white linen clothes & other costly apparel, or else whatsoever was done thereon, was counted vain & unprofitable.

The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed & maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresy, which the Papists hold, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass; while they teach, that they offer Christ in their Mass to God the Father, an oblation and Sacrifice for the sins of the people both of the living and of the dead, and by this means they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling & alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christ's death.

And therefore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no less to be thrown down, 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 Celebration of the Lord's Supper. Finally, who knoweth not that we come unto the Lord's Table, not to offer bloody Sacrifices, to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars, but to eat and drink, and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offered up for us on the Altar of the cross, a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father, yea and that once for all.

Now if we come together to eat and drink these Holy mysteties, & so spiritually to eat Christ's body and to drink his blood unto salvation both of our bodies & souls, who seeth not, that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, then an Altar.

And first of all, forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ, at the receiving of the Sacrament, thorough the doctrine of the Papists, although of it self, 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.

And by this means this gesture of kneeling creept in, and is yet used in the Church of the Papists, to declare that they worship the Sacrament, as their Lord God and Savior. (Whence M. Roger Cutchud. in his 1. & 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio, Anno 1560. writes: ) Many coming to the Lord's Table, do misbehave themselves, & so do 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 been used, Christ would have elevated it above his head. He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples; bidding them to eat 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 kind of reverence, & no Sacrament: for God is not a Sacrament, neither is the Sacrament God. Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did. If thou wilt be more devout, then they were, be not deceived, but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatry.)

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

But the most certain & sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling, that there may outwardly appear no kind of evil, according to this Commaundment of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstain from all evil appearance: Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error, and the weaklings offended, and plucked back from the truth of the Gospel. Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honor is due to none but to God alone. Therefore when Satan commanded our Savior Christ to kneel down before him & worship him: He answered, It is written; thou shalt worship the Lord, Math. 4.

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

And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jews, Exod. 12. when they did eat the Paschal Lamb, which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come, as our Sacrament is a sign & figure of Christ come and gone. Neither did that gesture want his mysteries.

For the standing of the Jews at the eating of the Lord's Passover, signified that they had a further journey to go in matters of Religion, and that there was a more clear light of the Gospel to shine, then had hethereto appeared unto them, which were wrapped round about with the dark shadows of ceremonies: again that other, yea and these more perfect Sacraments, were to, be given to God's people, which all things were fulfilled and came to pass under Christ, the author of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospel, and the institutor of the Holy Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Now as concerning sitting at the Lord's Table, which is also used at this day in certain reformed Churches, if it were received by public authority and common consent, and might conveniently be used in our Churches; I could alow that gesture best.

For as it is be doubted, but that Christ and his Disciples sat at the Table, when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and blood: which use was also observed in the primative Church, and long after.

So likewise it is most Commonly, that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ, and of his Disciples. Nothing can be unreverently done, that is done of the example of Christ & of his Apostles. We come together to eat and drink the Holy mysteries of the body and blood of Christ; we have a Table set before us, is it not meet and convenient, that we sit at our Table?

The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat? yea rather who sitteth not down? when Christ feed the people, he bad them not kneel down, nor stand upon their feet, but he commanded them to sit down, John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eat and drink, which thing we do at the Lord's-Table. Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lord's Table want her mystery.

For as the standing of the Jews at the eating of the Lord's Passover signified, that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses, even the preaching of the glorious Gospel of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesu: & other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passover, even the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. So in like manner the sitting of the Christian Communicants at the Lord's Table doth signify, preach and declare unto us, that we are come to our journeys end concerning Religion, & that there is none other doctrine, nor none other Sacraments to be looked for, then those only, which we have already received of Christ the Lord.

And therefore we sitting down at the Lord's Table show by that our gesture, that we are come to the perfection of our Religion, and look for none other doctrine to be given unto us: Notwithstanding as I said before, gestures are free, so that none occasion of evil be either done or offered.

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

Untill this time the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ & of his Apostles, requiring no painted visores to set forth the glory & beauty of our Religion: which is then most glorious, and most beautiful; when it is most simple, & none otherwise setforth, then it was used and left unto us of Christ, & of his Apostles.

And contrariwise it is then most obscured & defaced, when it is daubed over with the vile & vain colors of man's wisdom, although outwardly never so gorgeous and glorious.

Afterward as superstition grew and increased, so likewise the people began more and more to be liberal in giving to the Church, and in adourning, decking & trimming the Temples of the Christians, yea & that so much the more, because they were now persuaded, that such Temples, and will works pleased God, deserved remission of sins & everlasting life.

By this means came it to pass, that the simple and plain Tables, which were used in the Apostolic and Primative Church, were taken away, and standing Altars set up, and gorgeously decked with sumptuous apparel, & garnished with gold, pearl, & precyous stone. And because that he, which should minister at that gorgeous & sumptuous Altar, should answer in some points to the glory thereof, therefore it was devised, that the minister also should have on his back galant and gorgeous apparel, as an Amyce, an albe, a tunicke, a girdle, a fannell, a stole, a vestment &c. whereof some were made of silk, some of velvet, some of cloth of gold, yea & those garnished with Angels, with Images, with birds, with beasts, with fishes, with flowers, with herbs, with trees, and with all things that might satisfy and please the vain eye of the carnal man.

And all these things being before but voluntary, gre • afterward unto matters of so great weight & importance, yea unto such necessity, that it was made a matter of conscience, yea it was become deadly sin to minister the Holy Communion without these scenicall, Histrionicall, & Hickescorner like garments; so that now to sing Mass or to consecrate, as they use to say, without these Popish robes, is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sin, so far is it of, that these Missal vestures are now things of indifferency.

Wherefore in my judgment, it were meet and convenient, that all such disguised apparel were utterly taken away, forasmuch as it is but the vain invention of man, & hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papists? For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idols? what concord is there between Christ and Belial: what have the vestments of a Popish Altar, to do 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 Dormans proof, printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. & 66. writes thus: Touching the name of Altars, which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basel (as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9.) where we call it the Lord's 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 think, that men had Altars in steed of Tables, in their private houses in those days, but our Savior expressly saying, that the hands of him, who should betray him, were upon the Table, taketh away all doubting. Luc. 22. c. 21.

And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam, 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 alleged for the Lord's Table, they may go therefore & join themselves to the Jews, as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies, so in Altars also; as it seemeth indeed, they would both become themselves, and make us too Jews, rather then Christians.

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

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

Now the old Doctors do call it the Lord's Table, usually, truly, without figure, and agreeably to the Scriptures. Concerning the spiritual worship or service of God, or Sacrifice, if yow will (seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basel) due to be done at the Lord's Table, which, as a fore is noted, he calleth an Altar, it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lord's Table: that is to say, true repentance of heart, which is as the Prophet calleth it, Psal. 51. v. 19. a service & a Sacrifice pleasant unto God, the offering up of our prayers & praises unto God; which service and Sacrifice of praise, as the Psal. withnesseth, Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honor God; & specially that Sacrifice of thanks giving, most peculiar to this Altar or Lord's Table, and to that Holy Sacrament, having thereof a peculiar name, being called with the Greeks Eucharistia, to say, thanks giving, for the grateful remembrance of that one Sacrifice offered by our Savior once for all: which Sacrifice of thanks giving we jointly with other present, do offer up to Christ our Savior, in the memorial by him self, and by faith in our heats do communicate his precious body and blood, a Sacrifice by him self offered for us.

Neither are our oblations, or offerings to the poor 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 Offertorium, without any offering for the poor; saving that yow did not forget to receive the offerings for yourselves at the usual offering days, and when any Dirige, or Monthes mind did fall.

Thus yow se, M. Dorman, that we have even that same spiritual worship, service, and Sacrifice too (if yow so will) due to be done at this Altar, that is to wit, the Lord's 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 gross, S. Basel so oft speaking of spiritual worshipping, and spiritual service, might somewhat reform your carnal and sensual understanding? yow se we do not stick to grant yow not only a spiritual worship and service, but a Sacrifice too, which yet hath no need of your Altars, framed to yourselves, upon this false fantasy, that the body and blood of Christ are there offered by the Preistes, for the quick & dead, with the abuse of that distinction of the bloody and unbloody offering of Christ's body, applied to the same: which altogether is a false fable, & a vain dream most meet for M. Dorman.

The Scriptures, Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. & 13. 11. 12. do thus teach us, that Christ our Savior once for all offered up his body and blood upon the Altar of the Cross, the one & only Sacrifice of sweet Savior to his Father: by the which one oblation of the body of Christ • a Sacrifice for our sins, once forever offered, and no more to be offered by any man, we be sanctified and made perfect.

Wherefore the Popish Preistes, which do repeat often the Sacrifice of Christ's death, as they do teach, thereby, as much as in them lieth, do take away the efficacy and virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ's death, making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law: the imperfection of which Sacrifices, S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the same. For the continuance whereof their Preistes needed also succession: but Christ is a Priest forever without succession, as the Apostle Heb. 10. plainly teacheth.

Our service and Sacrifice now, is the often and thankful remembrance of that only Sacrifice, in the receiving of the Holy Sacrament at the Lord's Table, according to his own institution: Hoc facite in memoriam mei. Do this in remembrance of me: with spiritual feeding by faith also, upon that his most precious body and blood, so by him for us offered. Touching the pulling down of your Altars, I answer: they are justly destroyed, as were those wicked Altars by Asa, Josaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, godly Kings of Judah 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 Idolatry 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 Mass, & of Idolatry to Images, after which he complains thus of the Papists: also of Christians we have made us Jews, and yourselves of Ministers of the Gospel have yow made Jewish and Aaronicall Levites, yow have on Aaron's robes, yow use his gestures, yow have brought in his incense, his censers, his Altars, his candles, his candlesticks, his belles, and his banner, his gold and his silver into the service and Temple of God.

Of the which beginning of things, S. Jerome in his time much complained. And would to God yow had done no worse, then thus to make us & yourselves altogether Juish, by your shadows imitating and counterfeiting the old Law.

Elegant Walter Haddon & M. Fox in his answer to Jerome Osorious lib. 3. fol. 271. write thus concerning Altars: Now whereas thou sayest, that Images, signs, Crosses and Altars are cast down, I suppose that this part of the Complaint doth not much appertain to Luther, or the Ministers of the Eve • gelicall doctrine, when as they never put any hands to the pulling down of them.

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

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

If King Sebastian shall think meet to cherish and follow these parts of the Roman Superstition in Altars, in Images, in Pictures, and adoring Images, he hath the voices of the Scripture on the one side, of Monks on the other, to which he may choose whither he will hearken, he may do in his Reipublike, at his peril and pleasure, But on the other side if Elizabeth Queen of the English, the Scripture leading her, shall think meet, that these filthiness of impure superstition, which no Christian may endure without the danger of himself, and of his, rightly to be driven from the Empire, & cast out of the Realm, verily she 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.

Unless perchance Osorious shall think the memory of Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, not much to be applauded, who both destroyed Altars, and Images & Groves, and break in pieces the brazen Serpent, or then Gedion also who when he was no King cut down the Grove, and overturned the Altar, what therefore? that which in the Carnal Law was lawful to the Kings of the Jews, shall it be less lawful to our governers, Magistrates in the spiritual Kingdom or Christ? Or shall that then which in them was thought worthy of praise, & reward by the verdict of the Scriptures, be condemned of impiety in Christian Princes now? After which he proceeds, to justifye this action in breaking down and abolishing Images & Altars, by Histories, Fathers, and Councils in the Primative times.

D. Fulke, 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 profane Tables are removed, and Altars consecrated. Christ and his Apostles were to blame (if it be as yow say) to minister upon profane Tables, without consecrating of Altars, But who shall bear witness for consecration of Altars? who but S. Augustine Serm. 255. de tempore. And who shall warrant us that this Sermon is not falsely entitled to S. Augustine (as a great number of those Sermons are?) But admit it be Augustine's own authority, yet he speaketh only of consecrating of Altars, not for this end to discern the Lord's body and blood. For that their Tables and Altars were dedicated to the Holy use of ministration, it is not the matter we stand upon, but whither they were consecrated for this end.

They were called Altars improperly, as the Sacrament was called a Sacrifice, the Ministers sacrificing Priests & 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. IT STOOD IN THE MIDDEST, THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT STAND ROUND ABOUT IT. Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. ad Paulin. tyr. ex Aug. de verb. Dom. secund. Joan. Serm. 46. It was removeable & carried by the clerks August. Quaest. vet. & nov. Test. q. 101. Or otherwise as appeareth by Optatus l. 6. Therefore it is nothing 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 Cross, are not Holy but cursed. And so is all that pertaineth to them. Neither have they perfection of the Lord's Altar that was in the Temple, which was a figure of Christ's only true Sacrifice once offered, & that never can be sacrificed again, (as S. Augustine Sayth) Neither did the Altars of the temple sanctify by touching, for then the murderer which took hold of the horns of the Altar, should be sanctified, whom God commanded to be drawn from thence & executed, Exod. 21. 14. 1. Reg. 2. 28. Neither if any man had offered any other gift, then that God which commanded, 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 sick of the disease of the Pharisees, which was covetousness, (as Chrysostom and Theophylact note) by magnifying the gifts of the Altar.

M. James Calfhill, in his Answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Cross, London. 1565. the Preface to the Reader, writes thus: Thus Idols brought in Oratories, Chapels and Altars, Sacrifices, vestimentes & such like, which all be utterly condemned 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 coats, and come like blind fools, with candles in their hands, at noon day, and so proceed to the Holy Mass: with renting of throats, & tearing of notes, chanting of Priests, howling of Clerks, flinging of coals, & piping of Organs. thus they continue a long while in mirth and jolity, many mad parts be played. But when 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 fair, think you? to make such a do, to bring in the Devil: O blind beasts, O senseless Hipocrites, whom God hath geven over unto themselves. that they should not see their own folly, and yet bewray their shame, to all the world beside.

Bishop Babington in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars: Concerning the Altar how it was made for matter, height, length, and breadth, the text is plain 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 Hebrews expoundeth 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 do) of boards and wood, not Altars (as they do) of stone.

Origen was above two hundred years after Christ, & he saith, that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians, Quod nec imagines, nec Templa, nec Aras haberent, that they had neither Images, nor Churches, nor Altars.

Arnobius (after him) saith the same to the Heathens, Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus, nec Aras, nec Imagines, yow accuse us for that we have neither Churches, nor Altars, nor Images. Gerson saith, that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made, and willed that no man should consecrate at a wooden Altar, but himself and his successors there. Belike then the former ages knew not profound reason, that Altars must be of stone, quia Pe • ra erat Christus, because the Rock was Christ, as Durand after devised. Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for steddinesse and continuance, wooden Tables having been before used, but I say in some places, not in all.

For S. Augustine saith, that in his time in Africa they were made of wood. For the Donatists, saith he, break in sunder the Altar-boards, Again, the Deacons duty was to remove the Altar. Chrysostom calleth it, The Holy board, S. Augustine, 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. Mark with your self therefore the newness 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 regarded.

Touching the horns of the Altar spoken of, they literally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of, & figuratively noted strength, so that, to bind the Sacrifice to the horns of the Altar, was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith, and only to rest, & trust and stay upon him, and to tie all carnal affections fast also to the Altars Horns, 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 himself for all man kind. Concerning the Lamps, as little do they warrant Popish Altars, And Christians used no such follies & apish imitations of things abrogated & serving only for the time.

M. Thomas Cartwright 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 discern the Lord's body, is the removing of profane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars. So the Rhemists: to which he replies.

Altars under the Law were Holy, because they were built upon the foundation of God's institution. Now they are profane, not only because they have no institution of God, whereupon a stone may be laid, 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 said, they sat down, a thing used at a table, & strang at an Altar, whereat they sat not but stood: that they did eat & drink which was never used at an Altar, and is usual at a table.

For although they did eat of that which came from the Altar, yet they never did eat at it. And if your Masonrie of Altars came from the Lord's ordination under the Law, why should our table be profane, or your Altar Holy, considering 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 show-bread standing upon the table, hath a nearer Analogy with the bread of the Sacrament then had the flesh of slain beasts which was laid upon the Altar.

Now your Hill Altars (being failed of the Holy Scriptures) go to beg grace of the ancient Fathers: where notwithstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God, yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peters Chapel at Rome, which is always building and never built.

If they present yow with some rough stones to the setting of it up, yet bring they no mortar to hold them from falling upon heaps. For often times they help you with the name of an Altar, when the thing they signify thereby is a Communion Table, assigning it the Deacons Duty to remove the Altar, that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH, AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE: even as they term the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice improperly (because it is a sign 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 themselves, they call by their proper names, of signs & Sacraments, and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host, yea and if Altars were Lawfull, yet could they argue no real presence of the body of Christ upon them, unless (as they do the bread) so they will transubstantiate the dead bodies of beasts into the body of Christ, not then borne, when those things were laid upon the Altar.

Neither hath Augustine's Serm. de tempo. 115. anything thereof: it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars, which we suppose yourselves do not observe, whereby it may well be doubted (as of divers others of those Sermons) whether it be Augustine's or no; especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzar's testimony of Christ the Son of God.

Last of all, let the good Reader understand, that here in the Papists join with the 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: whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars built.

D. Willet, in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9. general controversy Quaest. 6. part. 2. Error 54. determines thus: Altars we acknowledge none. Altars we have none in our Churches; S. Paul calleth it the Lord's 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 set upon Tables, not sacrificed upon Altars.

Augustine also calleth it, Mensam Domini, the Lord's table. Epist. 59. & Epist. 50.

He showing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximi • ian a Catholic Bishop, beating him with Clubs, even in the Church, lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt, & wounded him with the wood of the Altar, which they had broken down, where though he improperly call it an Altar, yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood, and made to be removed, not fastened to the wall, as their Popish Altars were. Damascus Epistol. 4. Let the Local Bishops be content to minister as Priests, and to be partakers only of the Lord's Table, he saith the Lord's Table, not the Lord's Altar.

To these I might add M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus: Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Israelites, that they had polluted him, in that they said, the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing. What other thing, I pray you, do your sacrificing Priests? they cannot abide the Lord's Table, they must have an Altar & Sacrifice. They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lord's Table according to the first institution in honest apparel, but they must have a private Mass in Masking Cotes, dashed full of turns and half turns, beckings, duckinges, crossinges, kissinges, tossings, tumblings, besides the irreverent breathing out of words upon bread & wine, & the holding them up to be worshipped as God's.

Also Bishop Jewell, Bishop Hooper, B. Ridley & others, in their forecited passages against Altars, together with D. Reynold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest. appeal 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 Hebrews 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 chief Officers of Cities and Towns Corporate, in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Books and Relics of Popery, and that if any Altar, Pix, Beads, Pictures, or such like Popish Relics, or any Popish Book or Books shall be found in their, or any of their custody they shall be presently defaced and burnt, which Act expressly defines, Altars as well as Beads and Pictures, to be mere Relics of Popery fit to be demolished) all which have with one unanimous voice, condemned Altars, as Heathenish, Jewish, Popish, abolished by Christ's death, contrary to his institution the practice of the Apostles and Primative Church, and unmeet to be used or tolerated among Christians, resolving likewise in express Termes, that Communion Tables are no Altars, nor yet to be so styled.

And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise, as the objectors pretend they ought to be, because they falsely style, and deem them Altars.

If any here object, First, that Communion Tables are Altars, because D. John Pocklington, in his Sunday no Sabbath, printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies, Chaplings own hand London 1636. Edir. 1. p. 43. averrs, that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar. 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that wait of the Altar, are partakers of the Altar: which is not to be understood of Israel after the flesh, for habemus Altare, we also under the Gospel have an Altar. Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar, Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lord's Table is an Altar, and may be so termed.

To this I answer first, that this great over confident Doctor, shows himself a very Ignoramus in the quotations, If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts, which it seems 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 sense and meaning.

2. I answer, that it is most clear, that the first Text of the two, namely, 1. Cor. 9. 13. Do ye not know, that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple, and they which wait AT (not of the Altar, as he reads it) are partakers with the Altar; is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes, Levites and Jewish Altars, not of Christ's, Ministers and Lord's Tables.

First, Because the things of the Temples and Altars, (which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple, there being 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 Priest & Levites under the Law, not of the Ministers under the Gospel, as all Expositors whatsoever, both old and new interpret it.

2. Because, the Apostle expressly resolves it so past all dispute, in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, where he puts the Preachers and Preaching of the Gospel, and the living by it, in direct opposition & contradistinction to the Preistes & Levites ministering about Holy things in the Temple, and living of the Temple; serving at the Altar, and partaking with the Altar, to preaching of the Gospel, and living by it; drawing an argument by way of equity from one to the other, in this manner; The Priest 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 God's ordination.

Therefore by the selfsame reason hath the Lord ordained, that the Ministers of the Gospel, who preach the Gospel, (not those who seldom or never preach, as our great Prelates do) should live of the Gospel. So that if we interpret this Text, as this novel Doctor hath done, we shall quite overturn the Apostles argument & similitude, and make it a mere nonsense Tantalogie, such as his Sunday no Sabbath is, as full almost of Errors and falsehoods, as lines.

3. To that of Heb, 13. 10. We have an Altar, it is true that the Bishop of Chichester, heretofore in his Conference with Richard Woodman Martyr, alleged 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 Mass is offered, and the Rhemists in their Notes on Heb. 13. sect. 6. conclude thus: This Altar (saith Isychius) is the Altar of Christ's body, which the Jews for their incredulity must not behold: 1. 6. c. 21. in Levite.

And the Greek word (as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the Old Testament) signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphorical and spiritual Altar. Whereby we prove against the Heretics, that we have not a Common table or profane Communion board to eat mere bread upon, but a very Altar in the proper sense, to sacrifice Christ's body upon: and so called of the Fathers in respect of the said 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 Christ's body & blood received.

And other Papists generally infer from hence (as Harding against Jewell, & Hare in his Conference with D. Rainolds, cap. 8. divis. 4. that by Altars is not meant Christ himself, but the very material Altar on which they Sacrifice Mass; inferring from hence, that the Church of Christ hath yet altars & Priests, and that the Communion table is here termed an Altar.

But for any Protestant writer of our own Church or other who interprets the Altar in this Text to be the Communion Table, or a material Altar. I profess, I know not any till this new Doctor, M. Shelford, M. Reeve, & the nameless author of the Coale from the altar page 47. ( who yes writes thus dubiously of this Text, as applied to the Lord's Table; ) and above all indeed S. Paul in his Habemus Altare, Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meant the Lord's table, or the Lord's Supper, or rather the Sacrifice itself certain 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 seen; yea Isychius, whom the Rhemists quote, interpret it of Christ himself, whom the Rhemists themselves in their Notes on Apoc. 6. 9. interpret to be the altar under which the souls of all Martyrs live in heaven expecting their bodies, that in these Positive words: Christ as man ( NO DOVBT; ) the altar under which the souls 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 expressly said 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 Jesuits, which out of that place framed it, either for heaviness of understanding to conceive the truth, or for hardness of heart to yield 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 far from the truth, as they are near & like unto themselves; especially if they mean he is the Altar according to his Manhood alone: for when his Manhood, being the Sacrifice, was sanctified by Christ, which is the Altar: and the thing which sanctifieth, is of a Higher nature then that which is sanctified by it, Math. 23. 19. Heb, 7. 7. it must needs follow, that our Savior Christ must be considered in somewhat else then in his manhood. when he is said to sanctify to same.

How our own writers have expounded this Text heretofore, will appear.

First, by William Salisbury his Battery of the Popes Bater, printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. But now (writes he) are we set upon to batter, and beat down the head corner stone of their Popish Batereulx: we will first declare yet one grammar term more, for the unlearned sake, which though it be no high point of Divinity, nevertheless 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 speech spoken by a figure called Metonymia, when the thing contained is meant by the name of the thing that containeth it. As when he say, reach hither the Cupp, meaning to have the drink contained in the Cup.

This figurative speech used Christ himself, when he said Luke 22. This Cupp is the New Testament in my blood: where he meant 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 Prophets, &c.

Such manner of speech is also much used in the Old Testament; as Isaiah 1. Hear • Heaven and hearken • earth.

And in another place, Howle ye ships of Tharsis. And so the Papists must either grant that, that kind of speech is used in the text, that we shall anon rehearse hereafter, ior else must they grant, that the Jews, (whose Altars or rather Sacrifices and forbidden meat, the writer of the Epistle alludeth unto) were wont to eat up their Altars being made of stones. And that were hard meat indeed; yea that were meat alone for Ostriches? yea or rather stone meat were more meet for such as have stony hearts, as have all Papistical Doct. who against their conscience, knowledge and learning, and being all destitute of the spirit of God, cry & shout for the defense of their well-beloved Altars, Habemus Altars, Habemus Altare, Habemus Altare; yea & I may tell yow this Habemus Altare, is their judgeling trick, whereby they do juggle unto the unlearned, it is all their Tabernacle, & only refuge against all tempests, and this is as well their shote anker, as their halow at their hosing up of their ankor. But to hale in my sails 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 learnings: for it is a good thing, that the heart be established with grace, and not with meats, 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 brief rehearsal of all the chiefest matters that he entreated of before, adding thereto diverse Godly sentences to persuade the Hebrews to abide in this learning: Inducing them also, by alluding unto their Law being but a shadow to cleave unto the Gospel, and to let go the shadow.

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

Now therefore must the Papists be thought not only to be of too childish a wit, and of no understanding, but rather furious and mad, if they continue to prove their stony altars by this text.

And therefore would I think it an exceeding good deed for such as enjoy their right wit to pick out from amongst themselves as many as are vexed with the spirit of the said kind of phrenesy, and send them to Bedlem, or to their own City of Rome. For else they shall still infect other, & do 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 revelation of S. John: if altar in those places, admitting the like trope and figurative speech, do not signify Christ also (God knoweth, it signifieth nothing less then the confirmation of such altars as the Pope hath filled every corner of Christ's Church with all.

And if the Papists (after that all the Testimonies, as well of the Old & the New Testament have failed them) go about to wrest the saying of the old Doctors, for the stabilishing of their altars, they shall get nothing thereby, but still utter their own gross ignorance, or their perverse blindness, For whereso ever the old Catholic Doctors, used this word altar for the Lord's Table, then alluded they unto the Jews Altar, & meant thereby the Cross which served as an altar to offer upon the Sacrifice of Christ's natural body.

And forsorh, ye Papistical Preistes, as many of yow as understand the Latin, and marked what yow read, (and if ye had been Bees & not Spiders) yow might have gathered the nature of this manner of allusion or resemblance of Christ's Cross unto the altars of the Jews, even out of your own poisoned Mass.

For do you not remember how ye mumbled (how ye redd I would say) in a certain rime of your said 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 blood! and again in another prose: Ara crucis, lampas lucis, verasalus hominum; whose sense in English word for word is this: The Altar of the Cross, the lamp of light & the very health of men.

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

To pass by that learned Martyr M. John Philpot, with our famous Thomas Beacon, who in their forecited passages, interpret the Altar in this Text, to be Christ himself: not any material Altar either of wood or stone.

The judicious solid 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 expressly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christ's 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 remain in the Ceremonial observation of the Levitical Sacrifice.

Therefore this place is brutishly abused, to prove that the Christians have a material Altar, as the Papists have many. The Apostle meaneth, Christ to be the Altar, & not the Table whereon the Lord's Supper is ministered, which is called an Altar, but improperly, 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 saith, This Altar is the Altar of Christ's body; ye abuse Isychius, for he saith that the Altar is the body of Christ it self. Such an one saith he, may not come, neither to the veil nor to the Altar; that is, to the body of Christ, to do the ministry thereof.

For that hath Paul, writing to the Hebrews, taught to be the veil and the Altar.

The same he saith l. • . c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth, that the intelligible Altar is the Lord's Body, for he saith, we have an Altar, whereof they have no power to eat, which serve the Tabernacle, namely, the body of Christ. For it is not Lawfull for the Jews to eat of it. This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witness; that is in the entrance of the heavens, because we have entrance into the Heavens with him.

It is manifest therefore, that Hesychius meaneth not the Ppish Altars, but the body of Christ in Heaven, the mystery whereof is celebrated on the Lord's Table; which of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table, as it is indeed, and an Altar, as it is improperly.

But that it is called of them a Table, and was indeed a Table made of boardes, & removeable, set in the midst of the people, not placed against a wall, I have shown 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 Hebrews exhorting them to seek establishment of their hearts in the grace which was brought unto them in the Gospel, & not in the discretion of meats, allegeth this for proof, 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 partaker of our Savior Christ, who suffered out of the gates of Jerusalem, and is the truth of the shadows & figures, which were burnt without the camp.

This being the very natural meaning of the Text, let the Reader observe, how not childishly only, but absurdly also, the Jesui • es apply this place to prove a Real Altar, and consequently a Sacrifice of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

For first, what is that which the Jews are threatened to be deprived of the eating of.

If the Jesuits will answer according to their drift here 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 punishment for so great a sin, which if the Jesuits were put unto, they would (I think) cry for a Communion Table, as of some better digestion then the Popish Altar: whereby it is evident how sottish it is which they strain so much at, touching the proper signification of the Greek word, and the Hebrew answering there unto: which as if those words which properly signify one thing, cannot by borrowed speech signify another thing improperly. And as though they were ignorant, that the word as properly signifieth a real Sacrifice, as this word signifieth an Altar, were not in this very Chapter translated from the property of it to signify a spiritual Sacrifice.

Wherefore by the Altar is meant our Savior Christ, so called, for that as he is the Priest and Sacrifice, so also he is the Altar, which sanctified himself to be offered unto his Holy Father, as the Altar did sanctify the gift which was upon it, And it is Christ, not sacrificed upon an Altar of stone, by a Priest, but which offered himself upon Mount Calvary, without the gates of Jerusalem, as is expressly mentioned here in this place.

Neither doth the writer to the Hebrews mean Christ, suffering in a Mystery, but that oblation of himself which he once offered, wherein the fire of God's anger fed upon his body and soul to have (as were the Sacrifices of beasts) consumed them, if that his humanity had not been supported and borne up by the eternal spirit of his God head, wherein he offered himself unto his Holy Father.

And Isychius l. 6. c. 21. in Lev. saying, that Christ's body is the Altar, confuteth you plainly, that hereof would ground an Altar of stone: and saying, that the Jews for their incredulity 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 down the throat, & the beholding of Christ he placeth in the eye of faith, which the incredulous Jews wanting must not behold him.

What cursed spirits therefore are these, which upon the confidence of this place, making as much for their Altars as for Baals, scoff at the Holy Table of the Lord, in calling it a common & profane board, which must needs (unless they have hardened their faces to all impudency, grant that the first and last time that ever our Savior Christ ministered the Eucharist in his own 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 do not, nor (in the peace and quiet of the Church) think 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 fain to confess that the Fathers call it as well a Table as an Altar, but say they that is improperly in respect of the heavenly food of Christ's body and blood received.

And I pray you, what should let us to say, that when they call it an Altar; they do it improperly, because of the spiritual Sacrifice of thanks 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 having shown it before will here content ourselves with one place, and the same taken from your own allegations.

And from him who may well be instead of all the rest, for August. Epist. 86. speaking of that which under the Gospel 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, blood to blood: whereby the same reason that the beast which is offered must needs be an unproper speech, and the fire that consumeth it a metaphorical fire: it followeth that the Altar, whereupon the beast is laid 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 objecteth to one as an Ignorance, that he understood not the name of Altar to be more used in the writing of the Law & of the Prophets, then under the Gospel, but most evidently of all, in that the proving, that there is mention of an Altar in the New Testament, allegeth the place in the Apocalypse, which the Jesuits themselves interpret of our Savior Christ. Yow were here 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 bear the world in hand, that Beringarius was the first that denied Transubstantiation.

And S. Augustine answering it, and affirming that blood succeeded to blood, yet doth evidently declare, that he meant a figurative and Sacramental blood, in that where the other said, we have instead of a beast, bread, Augustine answereth, that as the Jews had the presence bread, so we in the Supper of the Lord, and when he saith, that everyone taketh a piece of the Immaculate Lamb: it is evident that he meaneth by the Lamb, the figure & Sacrament of the Lamb, unless you will dare to say, that our Savior Christ in the Supper is cu • or broken in pieces: but as for your shift it is not so honest: for presupposing (as you do) that it is very blood 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 retained, 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 again to have place meet for your Popish dishes, yow shall repair to the Butchers shamble or slaughter house, where this Marchandise of yours is most saleable.

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

And that is manifest by the words he addeth to show his meaning touching the Jews and the Altar, Heb. 13. 11. For (saith he) the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought unto the Holy place by the High Priest for sin, are burnt without the camp • . Therefore even Jesus that he might sanctify the people wish his own blood, suffered without the gare.

Which words are some what dark, but they will be plain, if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would prove, & the reason by which he proveth it.

The thing that he would prove, is, that the Jews cannot be partakers of the fruit of Christ's death, & the redemption which he purchased with his precious blood, if they still retain the Ceremonial 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 sin, which Sacrifices shadowed Christ, & taught this doctrine, Lev. 6. 16. & 7. 6.

For whereas the Preistes who served the Tabernacle in the Ceremonies of the Law, Levite. 4. 3. & 16. 17. had a part of other Sacrifices & offerings & did eat of them, Lev. 6. 30. there were certain beasts commanded to be offered for sin in special sort, & their blood to be brought into the Holy place, whose bodies might not be eaten, but must be burnt without the Campe.

Now, by these Sacrifices offered so for sin our only Sovereign Sacrifice Jesus Christ was figured, Heb. 9. 12. who entered by his blood into the Holy place, to cleanse us from all sin, 1. John 1. 7. & 2. 2. & his body was crucified without the gate, John 19. 20. that is, the Gate of the Citty of Jerusalem: & they who keep the Preistly rites of Moses Law, cannot eat of him, that by his death they may live, John 6. 51. for none shall live by him who seek to be saved by the Law, as it is written, Gal. 5. 2. if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

The Apostle therefore exhorting the Hebrews, to stablish their hearts with grace, that teacheth them to serve the Lord in spirit & truth after the Doctrine of the Gospel, not with meats, 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 Priest hood, their souls shall have no part of the food of our Sacrifice, no fruit of Christ's death, verse 11. For as the bodies of those beasts which are offered for sin, & their blood brought into the Holy place by the High Priest, 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 blood to cleanse the people from their sin. verse 12.

And thus it appeareth by the Text itself, that the name of Altar betokneth the Sacrifice, that is to say, Christ crucified; not as his death is shown 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 Greek word, (is also the Hebrew) that it signifieth properly an Altar to Sacrifice on; as though it might not therefore be used figuratively; where yet themselves must needs acknowledge it to be so too.

Next the weakness of your reason; who thereof do gather, that, by the Sacrifice, which that word importeth in the Apostle, is meant the clean offering, of which the Prophet speaketh.

For the clean offering, 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.

Wherefore the name of Altar in the Epistle to the Hebrews doth neither signify a Massing Altar, nor prove the Sacrifice of Massing Preistes.

Our Savior in the Gospel teacheth of himself, that he is the true bread, which giveth life unto the world, the bread which came down from Heaven, that whosoever eateth of it should not die; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51.

Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. do note thereon, that the person of Christ incarnate, is meant under the metaphor of bread, & our belief in him is signified by eating. Wherein they say well. But if a man should tell them, that the Greek word artos, (as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament,) doth properly signify bread which we eat bodily, & not a metaphorical or spiritual bread: were not this as true a speech as their own? yet how wise to the purpose, who is so blind that seeth not? yea, to go no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greek they seek advantage themselves, upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the souls of them who were killed for the word of God. do affirm expressly, that Christ is this Altar. Christ (say they) as man, no doubt is this Altar. They mean 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 Greek word thusiasterion, (as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament) signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a Metaphoricall or spiritual Altar.

And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove, that Mass is said in Heaven, as that in earth: and that Christ is properly bread without a figure, as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament: the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread, yea the true bread, would prove the one clearly, as they could fit it with this note: and the word Altar, would put the other out of controversy, chiefly if that were noted with all, that an Angel stood before the Altar, having a Golden Censer, Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirm the Altar to be Christ.

But it fareth with your Rhemists, as it is wont with false Prophets, Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddy wall, and others daube it over with a rotten plaster, and when a storm cometh the wall falleth & plaster with it: For though, as they lay it on, it seemeth hansome, that words signify properly the natural things which they are used to signify, & not metaphorical or spiritual things: yet if it be opened that hereby is meant that words may not be used (by metaphors, or other figures) to signify those things which properly they do not signify, the boys in grammar Schools who know not what a Metaphor is, will laugh at it.

Wherefore this plaster will not help the weakness of your muddy wall, I mean of the Conclusion which you would prove it by, & do infer upon it, that we have an Altar in the proper sense to Sacrifice Christ's body upon.

In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers do show a piece of greater Art, partly by drawing us into hatred, who have not Popish Altars, but Communion Tables, partly by winding the names of Fathers in, as if they made for you against us, Both with skill and cunning, but more of Sophistry, then divinity, 1. Cor. 10. 21.

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

And this improper sense. Marrie, by a figure of speech, by which 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 the Baptist, Elias, Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon, Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem, Isaiah 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers & Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old, are wont to give the name, as of Preistes & Levites, to Pastors & Deacons. so of a Sacrifice to the Lord's Supper: and of an Altar to the Lord's Table.

For these things are linked by nature in relation & mutual dependence (as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice, & the Sacrificers, who serve the Altar, that is Preistes and Levites. Wherefore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sense to Sacrifice Christ's body upon, then must they mean also the Levitical Priest-hood to serve in sacrificing of it.

But the Levitical Priest-hood is gone, Heb. 7. 11. & they knew it, neither did they call the ministry of the Gospel so, but by a figure.

Your Rhemists therefore do abuse them, in proving as by them, that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly, But us of the other side they do 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 Savior Christ, & sacrifice him upon it, • ad but a Common Table and profane Communion board to eat mere bread upon.

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

For we have not a Common, but a Holy Table, as both we call it, & esteem it: not a profane Communion board, but the Lord's Supper, 1. Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of thanksgiving, & the Cup of blessing, as the Apostles Doctrine, and practice of the Fathers teach us: yourselves are guilty rather of feeding men with mere bread, who do take away the Cup of the New Testament in the blood of Christ from the Christian people: & instead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament, do give in your Masses, mere bread indeed by your own Confession, the Common bread, that goeth under the name of* Holy bread. I would to God M. Hart, you would think with yourself even in your bed (as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4.) & consider more deeply, both the wicked abuses, wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is profaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Mass, & the treacherous means, whereby your Masters & Fellowes of the College of Reims do seek to maintain it.

Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar, or of the clean offering the principal places whereon their show standeth: they go about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple, partly by discrediting us with fall • e reproaches, partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers. Which two kinds of proof do bear the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations.

By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9. general controversy 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 eat that serve at the Tabernecle. That is, the Altar whereon Christ's body is offered: Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum. Answer. The Apostle speaketh expressly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christ's 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 remain in the Ceremonial observations of the Levitical Sacrifices.

For the Apostle speaketh manifestly, verse. 12. of the suffering of Christ without the Gate. Christ therefore is the Altar, yea our Priest and Sacrifice too.

Further, you abuse this place to prove your material Popish Altars, which are many: but the Apostle saith, we have an Altar, speaking of one.

This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed, that Christ is the true Altar, whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer, he proveth by the Conference of those two places of the Gospel. Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar, & remember that thy brother hath ought against thee, &c.

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

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

By David Dickson, who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus: We have an Altar, &c. Such as will eat of Jesus & be partakers of him, must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle, by keeping on foot, & continuing the Ceremonies, & appertaynances annexed there unto; such Feasts, such Jubil es, such Altars, such sprinklings, & Holy water, such Priests and vestimentes, &c. as Levi had.

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

Then 1. those Ordinances of Levitical Service were figures of Christ, some in one part, some in another, and He is the Accomplishment of them, even the Truth of them ALL, The true Tabernacle, the true Priest, the true Sacrifice, the true Altar, &c.

2. Christ's self, is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath. Our Altar is He only; and nothing but he, 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 himself, who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel. 9. v. determines thus: I saw under the Altar the souls of the Martyrs, which cried with a loud voice: 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 souls lying under the Altar, to wi • t in the safeguard of Jesus Christ, (who is the only Altar, whereupon & by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lips, 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 sundry other writers of our Church, together with all Protestant writers, whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himself, not of Communion Tables and Altars; Therefore it proves not that the Communion Table is, or may be called an Altar, though the Fathers sometimes improperly style it so, contrary to the Scripture language, yet not in that sense, or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators do, to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar, and set upp Mass again.

If any object in the second place, as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangely doth, and before him M. Shelford, that the Lord's Table may be called an Altar, yea the Lord's Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar (though the Scripture never style either of them thus.)

First, Because the Fathers sometimes phrase them so.

2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. r • vived by El. c. 2. terms the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the Sacrament of the Altar.

3. Because the Common Prayer Book in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. calls the Lord's 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 Lord's 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 Priest or people dissenting from it, some of those terms being further justified by the Statute Law.

To the first of these Reasons I answer: First, that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lord's Table, an Altar, but the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, the Communion of Christ's body & blood, we ought therefore to style 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 speak as Christ and God hath taught us of these ordinances.

2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. years after Christ had no Altars of which more before; therefore not the name of Altars, or of the Sacrament of the Altar.

3. The Fathers usually and properly style the Communion Table, the Lord's table, the Holy table, the Table &c. and the Sacrament i • self, the Lord's Supper, the Sacrament of Christ's 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, do it only improperly and figuratively, (as they style faith, and our hearts the Altar of a Christian,) either in relation to Christ himself, 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 Cross, is here spiritually exhibited, or by reason of the spiritual Sacrifices of prayer and praise, and oblations of Charity for the poor's relief that are there offered 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, & spiritual oblations, & make them acceptable to his Father.

In these regards only, as some of our Martyrs, Bishop Jewell, D. Fulke, D. Reynolds, M. Dean Nowell, D. Willet, and M. Cartwright observe, the Fathers sometime style the Lord's 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 Cross, here represented to us, but never truly or properly. Therefore 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 Lord's Supper the Sacrament of the Altar; yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully do it, or that they did well in it. For when they used this manner of speech, the Sacrifice of the Mass & Mass-Priests, with other idolat • ous popish trash, was not known 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 hardened & encouraged in their popish Superstition, no Protestants to be scandalized or drawn to dream of Mass and Mass Priests again, as now there are.

Therefore they (prochance) might lawfully use these terms, though we may not: And yet these terms & speeches of the Fathers, the Papists have formerly derived and still defend & justify all the abominations of their Mass, their altars, Mass Preistes massing vestments, Cringes, Ceremonies; which shows, that the Fathers might have better spared then used them, since all this hurt, but no good at all hath proceeded from them; & if we should now after so long a discontinuance & disuse of these Titles, and our exploding of them, as savouring to much of Popery and Judaism, and tending to foment them, should reassume them, it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries, errors & superstitions concerning the Mass and altars wherein they differ for Protestants, but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery, and others scandalized with these terms either wholly to separate from our Church as false, superstitious, Popish, or else to continue in it with wounded, troubled, scrupulous consciences & dejected discontented spirits, & drive them almost clean away from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as late experience to apparently manifests.

So that this fi •• t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected.

To the second and main reason; I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancy of reformation; whence M. Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes, annexeth this observation to it.

But note the time of the first making of this Statute, which was before that the Mass taken away, when the opinion of the real presence was dot removed from us.

The language therefore of this Act, made thus before the Mass was taken away, or the gross opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us, is not much to be regarded, much less insisted on, though the Coale from the Altar; doth principally rely upon it.

2. I answer, that this Act doth not call the Lord's Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, nor the Lord's table, an Altar, but rather the contrary; For the Tittle of it is this: An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speak 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 Savior Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar; and in Scripture (mark it,) THE SUPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD, THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, &c.

So that the name which the Statute gives it, is only the Sacrament used, 8. times together in this Act; and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, thus so styled, 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 usual term, not the Parleaments, and being omitted in the ensuing parts & clauses of this Act, which terms, the Sacrament, the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, without this term of explination; which this Act expressly 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 Mass 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: therefore it makes nothing for Altars, or the styling of the Communion Table an Altar.

4. No Act either in King Edwards Rain or Queen Elizabeth's, or since her days, this alone excepted, calls the Lord's Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, but only the Sacrament, the Holy Sacrament, &c. this Title therefore 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 Mass and Altars were again 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 Lord's Table, an Altar, or his Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar; but rather argues the contrary; that we should for bear to style them thus, because the Parleament in all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service (except only in Queen Mary's days) hath done it; though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirms the contrary, that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law, but never proves it, neither in truth can do 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 Rain, 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 acknowledged, &c.

I answer, that there is in this a double mistake. 1. in the Statute itself, in citing, 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speaks nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer, nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seems the Author of this Coale, (who stiles S. Edward Cook, S. Robert Cook, & makes M. Plowden a Judge, & styled him Judge Plowden, though he were never any Judge; & a Professed Papist) was some busy pragmatical Divine who took upon him to cite & interpret Statutes in which he had no skill, or else borrowed his Law, from others, as ignorant as himself, perchance from 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. (though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary,) as is clear by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion.

Whereas at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniform order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments, set forth in a Book intitled; The Book of Common Prayer, &c. the which was repealed in the first year of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honor of God, and discomfort to the professors of the truth of Christ's Religion. Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament, that the said estatute of Repeale & every thing therein contained ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE, and the service, administration of Sacraments rites & Ceremonies, contained or appointed in or by the said Book, shall be void and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John the Baptist next coming, & that the said Book with the order of service, and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies, with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute • , shall stand and be from and after the said Feast in full force and effect, according to the tenor and effect of this estatute, anything in their foresaid estatute of repeal to the contrary not with standing.

And in the end of this Act • this clause is inserted: and be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that all Laws, Statutes & Ordinances, whereby another service, administration of Sacraments, or Common prayer is limited, established or set forth to be used with in this Realm or any other the Queens Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void & of none effect.

By which it is most apparent. First, that this Act repeales the statute of repeal 1. Mariae: only as to the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. & 6. Ed. 6. & no further; therefore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Book, and so remains 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 Book itself, & 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 purged from these terms, 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 affirms, nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer, no not; 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. & 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expressly repealed by the last clause of this Act, (the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foot) because they prescribed another Book of Common Prayer, service and administration of the Sacrament, then this which this Statute confirms; which enacts, that the said Book &c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute, shall stand and be in full force and effect, not by virtue 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 less on all sides acknowledged, as he falsely vaunts; that both the Princes, Prelates, Priests, & people have dis • ented from it, & that none of the said terms have been further justified by the Statute Laws.

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

To the 3. reason I answer; that true it is in the first Book of Common Prayer, set forth in King Edwards days An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar, as is evident by the Book itself, and the 2. reason why the Lord's bord should rather be after the form of a Table then an Altar: Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by public authority: but when the Altars the next year following (for no reformation can be perfected at first, but by degrees) were removed by the King and Counsels special command, & Communion Tables placed in their Roomes, not to humor M. Calvin, but upon good and Godly considerations, and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsel, (which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction, registered by M. Fox; the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. & 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Book, and the names of Lord's Table, God's board, Communion Table, Holy Table, Communion Sacrament, & Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, & Lord's Table, only retained & inserted in its steed; which Book being afterwards altered, amended & revided by Act of Parliament, 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names, Altar, & Sacrament of the again purpose omitted, and those other Phrases & expressions only retained.

The names therefore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar, being thus particularly, purposely & professedly damned & expunged out of the Book of Common Prayer, by the whole Church of England in two several 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 less an High Altar, as some now phrase it;) that the Lord's Table, ought not to be styled an Altar, nor the Lord's 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 style them thus, much less to write & plead in defense of these their Titles, as these new Champions do, but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture, the Common Prayer Book, & 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 Lord's Table, an Altar, or the Sament, the Sacrament of the Altar.

True it is, Bishop Latimer saith, that the Doctors call the Lord's Table an Altar in many places, in a figurative and improper sense; & Bishop Ridley, in answer to that place, that Bishop White objected out of Cyril, saith, that S. Cyril 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 far from it, that Bishop Ridley writ a special Book, de Confringendis Altaribus, and he and Bishop Latimer had a chief hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapels, & in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Book.

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

And as they style not the Communion Table an Altar, so not the Lord's supper, the Sacrament of the Altar.

For John Fryth only saith, they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar; the term 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 styled it, not to his own voluntary answer, which must be made of, and according to the question demanded.

M. Philpot only saith, that the old writers do 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 himself.

Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8: days, before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himself confessed at last.

Take no offense at the term of Sacrament of the Altar, but afterwards he did; not using it in his writings; and so far was he s • em calling the Communion Table an Altar, that he was the chief agent in casting ou • Altars: and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Book, his, name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley, for the removing of Altars, and setting up Tables in their places; and the 6. reasons why the Lord's Board should rather be after the form 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 styled, or that the Lord's Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar, but the contrary.

Since therefore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons, notwithstanding these Objections, that the Communion Table is no Altar, and that the Church, State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars, and their very name together with them, by which Altars ( as Philippus Eilbrachius: writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect. 7.) the Cross of Christ is overturned, and therefore they are to be taken away; the Orthodox Churches doing well, in removing them, and restoring Tables, at which the Papists themselves dare not deny, but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper.

The objection falls quite to ground, and I may thus invertit: Communion Tables are no Altars, neither ought they to be styled or reputed Altars; Therefore they ought not to be placed Altarwise, against the East end of the Choir, 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 midst of the Church or Choir, because Altars anciently ever stood so, b • th among the Jews, Gentiles, Pagon Greeks & 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 Greek Churches, and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durand, Gentianus Herveticus, and other Authors.

Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England: For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church: Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was laid in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paul's above the High Altar, and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar; Therefore 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 Christ's mercy seat, and Chair 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 fear any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty, some thinks they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops (who should give good example of humility to others,) to be there erected for fear any man's rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them; If then our Tables must be situated. as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few years; they must then be placed in the midst of the Choir or Chancel, because Altars have there been usually placed, as the premises abundantly evidence.

And these ensuing Testimonies will prove • lexond • control. Sigismund the Monk, in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum, Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records; That in the ancient Cathedral 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 Choir under the rayles, which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes. and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people. Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars; the first & chief 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 days of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus &c. went round about it from foot high and more.

Anastasius writes of Pop • Theodorus, that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople coming to Rome in his time about the year of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare; he caused a chair to be placed for him hard by the Altar, honoring him as the Priest of the royal City.

Either therefore the Altar in those days stood near the West end of the Choir where the Bishops chairs, and Seats now generally are placed, or in the midst of the Choir; or else B • shops then usually sat at the East end of the Choir cheek by will with the Altar, where our Prelates will suffer no seats at all to stand, for fear any should sit above, or in equipage with God Almighty.

The same Author relates, that Pope Sergius about the year of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare veil 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 veil of Curtaines could not inviron it round about.

In the great Cathedral Church of Rome itself, (whence these Romanizers would seem to take their pattern) the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day (as William Thomas an eye-witness in his History of Italy, & Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report) when the Pope himself and all the Cardinals received the Sacrament, STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Choir, upon every way, and the Pope being brought behind (or above it as our Prelates term it) was there in a Throne of wonderful Majesty set up as a God, sitting above Christ and God almighty himself by our Novellers & Prelates language: in which manner the Altar stood there long before, & yet continues situated, as I am informed.

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

If Altars therefore even in the very Cathedrals of Rome itself, are thus seated in the midst of the Chapel or Choir, 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 situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall, or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Choir, as they call it, since the old Altar under which S. Peter & Paul lie buried (& at, which the Romanists affirm, they consecrated the Sacrament and said Mass,) stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church, the Priests, Prelates a • d people taking the upper hand thereof, and sitting above it, as the Pope himself doth above the High Altar.

The 3. objection is this: The Jews and Pagans Altars, stood in the midst of their Quiers and Temples; Therefore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall, as now they are placed.

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

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

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

3. Our Novellers will needs imitate the Gentiles & Jews in their Sanctum Sanctorums, Mercy-Seats, Copes, Miters, Aaronicall attires vestments, Organs, Singing-men, & a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies, Orders, Pastimes Festivals & Consecrations; why not then in the standing of their Altars; having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular, as they have in all, or most of the others.

4. The Altars of the Jews were placed in the midst of the Tabernacle Temple & Court, of the Temples by divine institution & direction, & so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason, as the most useful • itting and de • ent situation; therefore Christians should rather imitate, then directly thwart them in this particular, having both God's institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to do.

The 4. objection is this. The Communion Tables in all Cathedral Churces and in all his Majesteyes Chapels are so situated, (where Ecclesiastical discipline is best observed,) therefore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapels.

I answer: 1. but I know not, neither do I believe the Axtecedent to be true, for certain I am, that in many Cathedrals with in these few years (& by name in the Cathedral of Salisbury, Winchester, Exeter, Bristol, Worcester, Carlisle 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 alive, it stood so in all Cathedrals of England, & in all or most of the Kings Chapels. If they have been otherwise situate of late years, (as the Tables in many Churches have been) contrary to Law; it is but an innovation, introduced by some violent Innouators, without any Lawfull authority, for what end all England sees, and knows to well. So as I may truly thus retort the argument: that the Tables in Cathedral Churches, and the Kings Chapels stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late days, when their situation hath been changed without, yea against both Law and Canon, Therefore the Lord's Tables in all other Churches & Chapels, ought thus to be situated.

As for the practice in his Mayesteyes Chapels since he came to the Crown, I am utterly ignorant of it: But when he was Prince of Wales, I once received the Sacrament in his Chapel at Sant James; & then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the midst of the Chapel, and white linen Clothes, like Table Clothes, were spread upon the deskes of the Seats (where in the Communiant • sat round about) in a decent manner, the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seats, and this (they then certified me, had been, and was the custom of administering the Sacrament there, both in Prince Henries & his Majestyts time.

Whether the Custom be different at Whitehall, or other his Majestyes Chapels, I know not; since I never was at any Sacrament there; but of the other, I was an eye-witness, and many who have been ancient servants both to Prince Henry, & his Majesty, can testify this to have been the Custom. I cannot therefore think, that the King & Princes Chapels do jar or vary in this particular.

But admit they should, yet vivendum est legibus non Exemplis; his Majestyes subjects must live according to his Laws in this particular, not according to the pattern of his Chapels; exempt, as from all Episcopal Jurisdiction, (as all other Churches & Chapels should be as well as they if this argument hold good,) so from ordinary Rules and Laws, which bind the Subject.

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

Will it therefore follow; Therefore all Papish Churches & Chapels ought to have such Officers, Instruments, & chaunting? We know, that many Cathedrals now, I know not by what Law, have no Communion Tables in them, but High Altars, ( so they term them, ) elevated on High with many steps, and ascents, their very exalted situation & name, being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles, so oft condemned in Scriptures, Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3, Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Altars, situated in High places.

Shall therefore all our parish Churches & Chapels have no Communion Tables in them, (though prescribed by our Statutes, Common Prayer-Book, Articles of Religion, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, writers,) but High-Altars only, which all these decree? We know that these new erected Cathedral High Altars have much furniture, as Tapers, Basons, Cushions (yea and Crucifixes, expressly condemned by our Homilies, as unlawful either to be made or used in Churches,) standing on them; Which M. Andrew Melvin, that famous Scottish Poët & Divine, thus wittily describes in Latin Verse:

THE MANNER OF ALTERING THE Communion Table of the Collegiate Church of WOLVERHAMPTON in the County of STAFFORD: & consecrating it for an Altar, the 11. day of October. Anno Domini 1635.

V PON Satarday being the 10. of October 1635. Master Edward Latham, one of the Proctors of Leichfeild, & Surrogate of Woluerhampton accompanied with some 20. or 30. Persons, men, women and Chorasters, came to the Town, many of the Inhabitants, but chiefly the Clergy going to meet him.

The intent of his & their coming, was to perform the solemnity of Dedicating the Communion Table to be an Altar, and of consecrating certain Altar Clothes (as they said) to the glory of God.

The Table was made new for this purpose, being about a yard & an half in length, exquisitely wrought and inlaid, a fair wall of waynscot being at the back of it, & the rail before it, was made to open in the middle, & not at one side; the middle, where the Ministers tread, being matted with a very fair Matt.

Upon the Table was placed a fair Communion Book, covered with cloth of gold, & bossed with great silver Bosses, together with a fair Cushion of Damaske, with a Carpet of the same; both party coulored of sky color & purple, the fringe of the Carpet being blew & white.

On each side of the Table hangs two pieces of white Callico, & betwixt them the 10 Commandments, written in a fair Table with guilded Letters, the foresaid Cushion standing just below it.

But on the North end where the Minister stands to consecrate, & in that piece of white Callico, is represented at the top, the picture of Angels with faces, clouds; & birds fleying; about the middle, the picture of Peter on the Cross, at the bottom, George on horseback treading on the Dragon, leaves, & grass, with some trees, being beneath all, almost at the end of it.

In the other piece of white Callico on the West end, is the same as on the North end, only the picture in the middle differs, being the picture of Paul with his sword in his hand, all this being the curious work of some needle woman.

Now the mystery why, the Pictures of Peter, & Paul & George on horseback, & more other are in this work, is imagined, because the Church is dedicated to the memory of Peter and Paul & it is under the Jurisdiction of Sant Georges Chapel at Windsor.

The next day being the Lord's day, as soon as the Priests (for so they would be called, to suite the better with their Altar) came to the Church, each of them made a Low Congee a piece at their very first entering in at the great Church door, and another Congee a piece at the I will door, & after that 3. Congees apiece towards the Altar (before its dedication,) and so they went into the Chancel where a bason of water & a towel was provided for the Preistes to wash in, where was incense burnind which perfumed the whole Church; & then they returned back making 3. Congees a piece, & went to service; which was solemnly performed, the Organs blowing, great singing, not heard of in this Church before, which kind of service lasted two hours at least.

Service being finished there was a Sermon Preached by one Master Ieffery Arch-deacon of Salop in the County of Salop, whom the Surragate brought with him.

His text was, John. 10. 22. 23. And it was at Jerusalem the Feast of the Dedication, & it was winter, & Jesus walked in the Temple in Solomon's Porch.

All his whole Sermon was to prove the truth of the Altar. He had not one place of Canonical Scripture as we remember, & but one place in all, which was out of the Maccabees: His Sermon lasted an hour.

After Sermon they went to the Dedication, or rather as the Preacher styled it, Renouation of the Altar: and in the Bellhouse 4. of them putt on the rich broidered Copes, and every one of them had a Paper in his hand, which they termed: Censer, & so they went up to the Altar, reading as it went, for they looked often on it.

As they went they made 3. Congees apiece, & when they came to the Altar, they kneeled down & prayed over the cloth, & the other Consecrated things, the Organs blowing all the while; this solemnity lasted almost half an hour.

After all this was performed there was a Communion, and one was appointed to stand with a Bason to receive the offertory; divers gave money, & it was thought it had been given to the poor; but the man that held the Bason gave it to the Surragate, (the some gathered being reputed about 40. s,) he calling the Church-wardens gave them as he said 10. s, the remainder he told them he would bestow on other pious uses, but the 10: d. being counted, proved to want. 6. of the just some he said he had delivered them.

None gave the Communion, but the 4. that had Copes.

This finished, they washed their hands & returned, making 3. Congees apiece as before.

These Copes & the silver Basons were brought from Leich- field.

The Communion and Dedication ended, they went to dinner, & in the Afternoone they come to Church again, where was a Sermon preached by one Master Vsuall a Minister, & his text was in the 2. Sam: 7. 2. And David said to Nathan the Prophet, se now I dwell in an house of Cedar, And the Ark of God abideth under Curtaines.

This Sermon did justify and magnify the Altar, & lasted more then an hour: which being finished, they went to prayer; which was very solemnly performed, the Organs blowing, & diverse Anthems & Responds being sung at that time: which done, they departed from the Church to their lodging, where they were very merry; & to grace this solemnity and Consecration of the Altar the Higher, the next day being Monday, they of Leich-feld went out of Town many of them very drunk, defiling themselves with this swinish sin like so many filthy brute beasts, to make the Altar the more holy & venerable, and themselves more apt to nod & Congee to it, & this manner of keeping this feast of Dedication, a pattern for all the Country to Imitate. Thus ended this late Dedication, with which I here conclude my rude Discourse, and Quench-Coale.

THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE.

I N this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to p • opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors & Innouat • rs, together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts & Questions to th • m.

The first Quaere is this: What is the true & final end they aim at, in erecting Altars, styling Communion Tables Altars, & placing them Altar-wise, & in christening themselves again by the name of Priests, (not as it is used for a contract of the word Presbyter, which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the Gospel, but of the word Sacerdos, denoting a sacrificing or massing Priest.

It is a Rule both in Philosophy & Divinity, Omnia agunt propter finem; All things (especially all Rationall agent) aim at some vltimate, uttermost, or final end in all their Actions; Much more then in their serious writings & Polemicall discourses; We know again that it is an undoubted Maxim in the Schools; that finis & causa finalis est primus in intention, vltimus in executione agentis. The first thing in Intention of the agent, though the l • st in execution; And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem, all middle causes are and work only to produce the end: Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem.

These things being undoubted truths past all dispute; And it being as true likewise, that Altars themselves & Priests being but instrument & subordinate relatine things, 〈◊〉 for some other use, & the •• nation of Tables Altarwise being but • ceremony the utmost end or final cause thereof being of themselves, (since none is so simple to ses up an Altar only because he would have an Altar, or to turn the Lord's Table Altar-wise, only because he desires, it should be so plated: or to style himself affoctedly a Priest, only for the Titles sake, & no more, but for some further end, all these serving to no use or purpose at all simply considered, but only with relation to some further end:) The sole Question then will be, what this end should be? To which if our Innouators & late Colliar would give a direct Answer in down right English terms; it can be no other but this; That the end they strive for, in contending for Altars, Priests, & turning Tables Altarwise, is only to vsher in a Sacrifice, into our Church, since Cardinal Bellarmine & B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect: 15. p. 46. expressly resolve. That Priests, Altar & Sacrifice are relatives, & have mutual & inseparable dependence one on the other; & since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice, as both the scriptures, and the Papists acknowledge, & the Coale ingenuously confesseth: p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this? Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church, can be no other, but that which formerly, upon the beginning of reformation, was cast out: but that sacrifice was only the Idolola • rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle: Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in again, by these Altars, Priests, & Communion Tables seated Altarwise.

If they reply that they do it only for the more decent celebration of the Lord's Supper.

I answer, that a Table is far more decent for such • purpose, then an Altar; a Table posture, then an Altar situation; & a Minister, then a Priest: since we never read in scripture of any supper, or eating at an Altar, since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table; (which Table, if we believe the Cronickle • of Flaunders, Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. removed from Noremberge to Prague, as most precious relique, which the Church of Rome flath yet to show, if you dare believe them, though she never consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it, (which me thinks she should then dve, I but in an Altar, 〈◊〉 at an Altar, & since we find no mention in scripture, of any Priests, but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table, If they reply; as the Coale doth, that they 〈◊〉 only to him) 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice, which our Church allows, not • Prepitiatory, as the Papists make their Mass.

I answer first, that our Church allows not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice, neither doth she in her Homilies, or Articles style the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper so, much less in her Common prayer Book, Injunctions, Canons or statntes: neither, doth the Colier allege one passage in any of all these, to prove this bold assoueration, either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggarly Pedlar, he lays open all his shrids & stolen wares.

2. The Church of England (even in that very homily he cites p. 8.) expressly condemns this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words; We must take heed then (saith the Homily,) least of a Memory, it BE MADE A SACRIFICE. If not A SACRIFICE, then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice, unless they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice, to be no Sacrifice, which is a contradiction; & to say, we must take heed, least of the MEMORY, we make it A SACRIFICE: Is all one as to say: we must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice; a Memory, & a Sacrifice, being here put in direct opposition & contradistinction one to another in this clause, & in the following parts of the Homily; which 4. several times, calls the Sacrament, A MEMORY, A COMMEMORATION, AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christ's death, but never a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory: Both which it expressly clubs down in these words: Now it followeth, to have with this knowledge a sure & constant saith, not only that the death of Christ, is avay lable for a redemption of all the world, &c: but also that he made upon the Cross, A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins, so that then acknowledge no other savior, redeemer. Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, but CHRIST ONLY.

Herein thou needest no other man's help. NO OTHER SACRIFICE ( therefore neither commemoratiue, 〈◊〉 propitiatory: for this vniuerfull Negative includes both ) or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Priest • observe this well to which they have subscribed ) NO MASSE, (let those who labor might and main to usher it into the Church by degrees, consider this.) No means established by man's injunction; Therefore no A t • r, Priest, Sacrifice, or Table seated Altar-wise; All which this homily strikes dead at once; and our Common-Prayer-Book and 39. Article too, almost in the selflame words.

3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a mere Bull, and contradiction: For as the picture of a man is no man, or of fire no fire; or of a Chalice, or Sacrament, no C • alice, or Sacrament; So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice, is in truth no Sacrifice, nor kind, nor species of a Sacrifice, but only a shadow or memorial of a Sacrifice. So that this is but a Mountebancks cheer, and distinction to delude children & fools with all, not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine.

4. The Sacrament neither is; nor can be a sacrifice, for every sacrifice whether legal, or Evangelical, is a religious service, holocast, worship, or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himself. Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5 • . 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. H • b. 9. 14. & 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Book of Common-prayer, after the receiving of the Sacrament, prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer: And thus we offer & present unto thee O Lord our selves, our sules & bodies to be a reasonable, holy, & livelie SACRIFICE unto thee, &. But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament, we offer up nothing unto God, but only God tenders his Son, with all the benefits of his death and passion unto us; As the words take & rate this, the prayers before and after the Sacrament, the Scriptures, and every man's experience withesseth. Therefore it can by no means be termed a Sacrifice; Whence the Homille of the Sacrament terms our thanksgiving to God after the Sacrament received, and at other times a Sacrifice, p. 103. as the Apostle expressly doth Heb,. 13. 15. & the Psalmist before him. Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. Ier. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. Ion. 2. 9. But never terms the Sacrament it self thus, because it neither is, nor can be a sacrifice commemorative, or propitiat • rie, unless with reference to this thanksgiving, and to the whole act and service, not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine, as B sh: 〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout.

5. This Homily • times together her case the Sacrament a Table & Lord's Table, never a Sacrifice, an Altar, or Sac •• meant of the Altar; Admitt the Homilie granted it to be a Sacrifice, which it doth not, yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Priest, Altar, or Tables situated Altar-wise, even by the Homilie and Book of Common-prayers resolution; Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice, as these Innovators would obtrude by crast and power upon us, which stands in need both of a Priest, an Altar, or Table placed Altar-wise • or of the name of a Sacrifice, to make people reasly to esteem in so.

6. Nemorepente for turpissimus: 〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves, or proceed so far at the first dash, for fear of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉 ; but they will usher in things by certain insemble degrees, step by step, till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last. First then we most have Communion-Tables only turned Altar-wise; Then we must have them termed Altars; Next we must set up Altars indeed; Then we must cringe to, and adore them; after that have a Priest, to write on them; then a commemorative sacrificrenly to be off red on them. And thus far we have already proceeded in many places AND GENERALL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHURCHES (as the Colier in forms his friend and • eader both: p. 1. and 27: The Ring-leaders and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us back to Rome, that •• unded them: And now must we and Rome be brought •• gether 〈…〉 , as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉 each other: the next step must be, to make the Sacrament a propiriatory sacrifice, as the Papists do, who first proceeded • this method, and held it but commemorative, as appears by all their ancient Schoolmen. And then when the thing itself is once got in • the name of it • yet too gross and odio •• will quickly follow, it shall then be rebaptized with the name of Mass, by these its Godfathers; who as they have already pleaded for its Popish title: The Sacrament of the Altar, because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. stiles it the Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ, commonly called (to wit by the Papists in those days, not the Parliament or Protestants) The Sacrament of the Altar: So they will by the selfsame reason call it by the name of the Mass, and justify this Title of it, by the Mass itself, to be lawfully warranted both by Prince, P •• late, Priest, & the whole Parliament, because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. (and the Book of Common-prayer established by it) there stiles it: The holy Comm • nion commonly called THE MASSE (to wit by the Papists and ignorant people of those times, the Mass being not quite abolished till this law was made.) Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Mass, and the name of Mass, 〈◊〉 is clear by the body of the Act, the Book of the Commo • -prayer then set out, and since corrected; the Homily of the worthy recei • ing of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Article • with all the surnamed writers, Injunctions, and Cannons of our Church (and neither old Doting Shelford, nor his so •• e the Colier, dare deny;) even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar; Though th • se ignorant Scrib ••• would justify both the lawfullnes of Altars, and of term •• the Lo • ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from th ••• against the meaning of the Law, as I have already ••• fested.

Since therefore it is clear by the Colier, that the 〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉 some notable designs in 〈◊〉 upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Church • which he terms A GOOD WORKE (J would it were so) NOW IN HAND (which we find too true, and since this good work, is just like Coliers work and Character by the printed (yea his own) happy premunition truly ROMAN, to wit, by Altars, and Priests, and Tables turned Altarwise to usher in Mass with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church, for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedral & Collegiate Churches; It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestic ••• ialists what their intentions are, to stop their further progress, both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designs, and to admonish them, and all others, in the words of our own established

The second Question I would propound to these Novelle • s is this. That since they will now style themselves and be called of others only Priests, (so Shelford termed himself 〈◊〉 the Title page of his unlearned Treatises, and many others have done in late prin • ed Sermons & Pamphlets what kind of Priests they are, & wherein their Priesthood consists. If they say, they are only spiritual Priests, and have only a spiritual Priesthood, • o •• ffer up the spiritual sac • ifices of prayer, 〈◊〉 , thanksg • uing alms, righteousness, broken and contr ••• hearts, and their own bodies & souls to God; that every Christian is as much a Priest, even by Christ's own institution a themselves, and hath the s • lfesame Priesthood that they 〈◊〉 Rev. 1. 6. 1. Pet. 2 • 5 • Exo • 19. •• And so they do all they can • o engross this Title as peculiar to themselves, which is common to every Christian. If they mean by Priests nothing 〈◊〉 Pres • yters , and intend no more by their name and Priesthood but only the Eldershippe & Ministry, let them enjoy that Title and office in Peace, I quarrel not with them; Only this I must inform them • That such Priests need neither Altar nor Sacrifice, but 〈◊〉 expressly debar • ed from both by G • d himself, 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. 17. 18. 21. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. 14. But if they mean by the word Priest, 〈◊〉 , or S • cerd •• , a sacrificing Priest, or a Priest waiting at, or upon the Altar; as it is clear they do, both by their writings; their prayers before their Sermont, (where they pray for the Priest •• ) 〈◊〉 serve & wai • a • the Altar • their erecting and pleading for Altars and Commemorative Sacrifices at least, 〈◊〉 evident 〈…〉 and shall then inquire of them, what 〈◊〉 Sacrificing Priests they are, and of what order their Priesthood is? In Scripture I read only of 4 kinds of Priests and Preisthoods; Priests (Heb. c. 5. & 7. & 8. & 9. & 10. Levite. c. 1. verse. 12. Exod. c. 28. & 29. & 30.) after the order of Aaron • Priests after the order of Melchizedek, (2 Kings 17. 32. 1 Kin: c. 12. 31. 32. c. 13. 33. 2. Kin: 10. 18, &c.) Priests of Baal, and Priests of the high places, or Idol Priests. The two first of divine, the two latter of Diabolical institution: Since which there hath sprung up of late in the Church another d • stinct generation of Priests, commonly called by the name of Mass-Priests; and those are both of Papal Diabolical institution. Other sorts of Sacrificing Priests then these I neither know nor read of. The sole question then will be, of which of those of 5 sorts of Priests our Novellers & Altar-panons are? If of the first sort; that is directly abolished, changed & abrogated by our Savior. Heb. 7. 11. 12. c. 8. 6. to 13. & cap. 9. 10. throughout. Col. 2. 14. 15. 16. And those who cry down the name and sanctification of the Lord's day Sabbath as •• wish; will not I hope tear • ne themselves in the order of Aaron's Priests, which is far more Jewish; Of which sort of Priests they cannot be, unless they are lawfully descended from the tribe of Levi, Num. 3. 6, &c. c. 16. 1, & Josh, c. 13. v. 14. & 33. Psal. 135. 10. Mal. 2. 4. 8. Hebr. 7. 5. If of the order of M • chizedech, that is peculiar only to our Savior, subsisting personally in him alone; and incommunicable to any other, as the Apostle directly resolves, Hebr. 5. 9. 10. c. 6. •• . c. 7. throughout • . • . 9. 10. As all authors interpret, old and new writers acknowledge, and among them Mr. David Dickson in his commentary a short explanation on the Hebrews 7. An: 1634 • where he lays down the conclusion fully warranted by the Apostles text.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

All which considered; I hope these Novellers dare not say, they are Priests after the order of Aaron, much less of M • lchiz • dech, which is peculiar to Christ alone.

P • reists of Baal, or Idol-Priests, J presume they neither will, nor dare style themselves.

If therefore they be Priests of any order, they are, and can be no other but S • minary or Mass-Priests: and if they are such Priests in truth, as their writing and practices declare them; Then let them be gone packing to Rome their mother, or to some English Seminaries or Cloisters, where they may say and sacrifice Ma •• e.

Sure our Homilies inform both them and us that we have no need of Mass or Sacrificing Priests, neither yet (thanks be to God) have we any Masses to be chaunted, (unless our Cathedral divine service may be so termed, which comes nearest Mass of any) in our Parish Churches, standing in need only of Preaching Ministers, not Sacrificing Mass-Priests, condemned by our statutes, as direct Trayt • rs • to our King and State : And if those Jnnovators will-needs enroll themselves in this order of Priests, I should not envy them the horn of a Tyburne • ippert, to grace their order and necks with all, nor yet the shaving of their Crowns to the very shoulders ( • o use Father Latymers speeches) • which they well demerit, instead of that Egreg • am vero laudem & spolia ampla, which prick them on to as • ume this new title & office of Priests and Preistshood.

The third Question J shall propose to them (and all our Prelates) is this, what Law, Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars: (a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton, as you have heard, which will shortly creep up by degrees in other places:) Or for Consecrating Churches, Chapels, or Churchyeards? Statute I am certain there is none for it, yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments, and the Book of Common-prayers, with divers of our learned Writers are against it.

To make this clear in few words.

1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church, Chapel, or Church-yard makes a Mort:

This is the express resolution of the whole Parliament & Realm in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal. Mort. • . and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses.

But Mort: are directly against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, as appears by Brook, Fiz: and Rastall in their Titles Mort: Therefore these Consecrations are so too.

2. Secondly, they are expressly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1.

If these statutes with that of Jac • c. 5. were duly executed, we should not have so many of those books in the Realm as now they are, which are freely printed, and sold openly in every Stationers shoppe. 1. Eliz: c. 2. 8. Eliz: c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12.

Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct terms abolisl • e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and P •• mers wherein the manner prayers, and service, for consecrating of Churches, Chapels, Church-yards, or Altars, are prescribed and established in their places, the Book of Common-prayer, and Ordination of Ministers, wherein there is not one syllable concer • ing any such consecrations, nor any form of prayer or service, instit • ted for all or either of them, as there is for all other rites & Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary: And since they expressly prohibit all other Rites, Ceremonies, Forms of Prayer, and Consecrations, then such as are comprised and prescribed in th • se two Books; It is infallable that they have utterly abolished, and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches, Church-yards, Chapels, and Altars, as Jewish, Popish, Superstitious, or at least superfluous, and quite excluded it out of our Church.

As for our Canons, Homilies, I • junctions, and Articles of Religion, there is not in all, nor any one of them inferred • re title concerning these Consecrations; Which condemn and exclude them by their silence; The Homilies likewise have some glances against them: For our writers, Mr. Tyndale in • is obedience ( page 136. 152.) of a Christian man, William Wra • ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox, John Bale B: of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places; Thomas Becon in his Relics of Rome, Mr. Cal • r hill in his book against Marshall, Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs.

And many other of our writers have expressly censured and de •• ed those Consecrations, as Superstitious, Jewish, Popish, and Antichristian, styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches, Chapels, and Altars, inv • nted only for profi •• , and reserved only to Bishops for gain sake.

And to name no more, reverent Pilkirg • on sevea • ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing words:

If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our S •• tutes, Common • prayer • bo • ke, H • milies, Canons, Article • , Injunctions, Writers, and thus derived by this reverent Bishop himself, in a Book printed at Lord • n • 〈◊〉 An: 1562. (the same year, he 39. Articles of Religion were promulgated and ratified,) I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them, to consecrate Churches, Chapels, Church yards, and Altars, accounting them altogether profane; unless they have defiled, conjured, (I should have said consecrated) them with their new devised Ceremonies, Orisons, Consecration, Rites, and Ceremonies, takenout of Popist Mass-books, Ceremonials, Rituals, at large related in Summa Rosella, Summa, Angelica, Bochellous, Gratian, Ivo, Lyderwood, Hostrensis, with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars, and treatises of this subject, deserving rather derision then imitation.

If they have no Law at all for it, but only the Popes Canon Law, (as they have not) aboli shed by sundry acts of Parliament, is derogatory to the Kings prerogative, the subjects liberties, and the Laws and Statu • es of the Realm; Then why are they now of late so mad upon these consecrations, as things of infinite moment. How hot they have been upon consecration of Altars, appears not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton, of which before, but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, in M • ga • len College 〈◊〉 Oxford, in Clare-hall, Petorhouse, Queens Coll • dg • , with di • en other Colleges in the University of Cambridge, solemntly dedicated with some kind of consecration, adorned with Tapors, Candlesticks, Basons, Crucifixes, Crosses, rich Altar-clothes, clasped brave Books, with Crosses in steed of Bosses, Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions, rich hangings, and daily adred with superstitious idolatrous geniculations, to the great grief of all good Christians, who mourn to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poysened & disguised with the Relics, Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose; Whom the divinity Professor of Cambridge D. C • llins in 〈◊〉 public Sermons hath of late years much ext • lled, like an Apostazing Pander, preaching openly in S. Mary's Church • That it is sit w • e should meet the Papists halfeway, both in preaching and practice; Which he and others there have not o ••• done, but almost if not quite r • n • hon •• unto them, as as Franciscu de Sancta Clara (that moderne Reconciler) vaunts it sundry places of his printed Book; To the great encouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction; Who vau •• that • they need no step one foot to us, who are running withal speed to come home to them, unless God's present plagues 〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasy stay our progress, and some stout private Champions and royal Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome, to drive us home again, for never a Prelate will or dares to do it, many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chair, (whence D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree, ) with all their mig •• and man: How earnest and zealous our Prelates have b ••• in their consecration of Churches, Chapels, and Church-yards, placing great holiness in this Ceremony, yea and necessity too; And evident, not only by their late visitation Articles, wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated grand they have hallowed with their Rochets, that it be by no means profaned, but likewise by sundry late consecrations, and contests about this Ceremony, I shall instance only in • particulars, omitting all the rest, together with the solemn consecration of the foundation stones of the repair of Paul's, (which were very solemnly blessed by the Bishoppe, who hath far more charity towards senseless stones, then men, whom he can find spare hours to curse, excommunicate, imprison, dismember, and what not, but not to bless or preach to.)

The first instance I shall pitch on, is that of S. Giles Church in the Feildes.

This Church about 9. years since, was new repaired in some of the walls, leds, and seats, & all divine offices, Sacraments, preaching of divine service was celebrated in it, after its repair for two years space or more, (time enough one would think to consecrate it, if prayer, preaching of God's Word, holy exercises, and Sacraments can make places holy: ) All this time it was thought holy enough without any such consecration, by D. Mountain then Bishop of London: But his Successor, after a years space (I know not upon what grounds, or humor, much less by what law or authority) would needs have the Church consecrated, though not new built, but repaired, • n which case by the Canon Law there needs no fresh conse • ration.

The Parish at first oppose it, but the present Bishop will not be foiled in this Laudable work, whereupon he seque • ters the Church for a month or 3 weeks space, locks up the • oores, suffers neither divine service, nor Sermons, nor Sacraments (except Baptism) all that while, to the great disturbance of the Parishioners; At last af • er much ado, and the expense of 50. or 60 •• in fees and entertainment, the Bishopp solemnly consecrates it, after the old Romish manner (there being no Protestant form prescribed by our Church) a crucifix, condemned expressly by our Homiles, being first set up in the glass window, to h • ll • w it in a legal form though the fees for consecration were Simony by the Canon Law, and extortion by the Common Law, and so illegal by both.

The 2. instance, is that of the new Chapel in the Kings Bench prison, buil • by St. John Lentall.

After it had been built & used as a Chapel above a years space, I know not by what Law, it must needs be consecrated, or else threatn • d to be sequestered and interdicted.

The present Archbishoppes surrogate, & Bishop Wren, by late delegation under the Archbishop forsooth, would do the feat, but not under 30 • . fees at least, that was the lowest they would stoop to; So pure and innocent are these holy Consecrations and Consecratours from Simony and extortion; This price being in a manner agreed upon (hough somewhat an overhigh rate for so short a work • ) D. Cu • le Bishop of Winchester hearing of it, alleged it was within his 〈◊〉 , and t • e of • reit belonged not to them, but to him to consecrate; And because he would be sure to prevail, he proffered to hallow it gratis, and take nothing but a dinner for his pains, which the other would have besides their 30 • .

Hereupon S • . John Lentall yields, that he should have the h • nour to consecrate it.

A week or two before this consecration, some Popishly affected person or other, had caused the picture of Christ and his 12 Apostles to be hung up in th • Chapel, contrary to the Homilies and Doctrine of our Church, the which some more honest minded persons rased and defaced.

The B • shop coming to consecrate the Chapel, since Easter last , esples the defacing of these Images, & was very angry at it; Telling Sr. John, that had he known of the defacing of these holy Images, which ought to be respected before he came thither, h • would not have consecrated the Chapel till they had been repaired and beautefied again; Ye • since he was come, he would consecrate it as it was, but gave Sr. John a special charge to see these holy Relics of Rome repaired with all speed, which thereupon being done, hath driven many from the Chapel.

By which true relation of this Consecration, we may see what an holy c • re our devout Prel • t • have of preserving & setting up these Images and Pictures, which the very Homilies and subscribed Doctrine of our Church enjoin, them in all especial manner to deface, pull down, and cast out of all our Churches, as things that do not adorn or consecrate, but most fil • hely defile, idulterate, and profane them. Ex • ungue Leonem, you may know what and whose creatures they are, and what they aim at, by their claws.

The third instance J shall nominate, is now very fresh in memory.

D. Lawde Archbishop of Canterbu • y, contested lately with the University of Cambridge • , pretending that he by his Metropolitical authority ought to visit them.

The University on the other side alleged; That their University it self, and many of their Colleges, were of the Kings foundation, and so of right exempt from all Episcopal ju • isdiction; That they were not under the Bishop of the Diocese his visitation, therefore not under the Arch-bishops; That every College had its proper visitours, appointed by the Charters of their foundation, with his Majesty's and his Royal ancestors special appointment, & therefore ought to be visited by no other.

That the Kings Majesty alone by the Canon Law and those statutes was the sole visitour of the whole Realm; That no Bishop could keep any visitation, no not in his own Diocese, but by special Pate • t and Commission under the Kings broad Seal authorising him, and that in the Kings name and right alone, not his own, as these Statutes of Ed. 6. c. 2. and all the Bishops Patents in Edward the 6. time made according to this Act, expressly define.

That they were bound by their oath of Supremacy and allegiance to his Majesty to defend this right of his, to the uttermost of their powers, and by their oath to maintain his Privileges.

That no Archbishop since 25. H. 8. c. 1. ( except Cardinal Poole by a Commission from the Pope, as his Legate and Delegate in Queen Mary's time) had ever attempted and presumed to visit the University in his own Metropolitical right, and that it was never visited before that time by any B. as Metropolitan, but only as the Popes Legate, and by virtue of his Bulls: That King Henry the 8 King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth, and King James, did visit it by their Commissioners, & no Archbishop in their time durst presume to visit it by his Archiepiscopall power only: That Robert Holgate Archbishop of York, in King Henry the 8. his days, with other Bishops, and all the Bishops whatsoever in King Edward the 6. time, were forced to tal • e special Patents and Licenses from the King, enabling and authorising them in precise words, to visit their Diocese and execute Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that only Nomine, vice, & autoritate Regis, which they could not do without such Patents.

That no Bishop or Ordinary, without a special Patent or Commission, can or dares to visit any one of the Kings free Chapels, much less then, any of his Universities, which are more peculiar to his Majesty, and more to be respect • d, and of they did, they incurred a Praemunire.

Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in his own name and right as Archbishop only, they must and would withstand him, according to their oaths, and duties, both to his Majesty & the University; But if he woe • ld come as the Kings visit u • and substitute only, and in his name and right alone, with a special Commission or Patent under his great •• eale, they would willingly submit to his visitation, otherwise not.

This contestation grew so great, that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majesty, and his honorable privy Counsel at Hampton 〈◊〉 • Whereupon the ope • ing & • hearing of the case (pretended by the Vniversit • es & Arch-bishops) was whether his Majesty, or the Arch-bishops, or which of them should be supreme in causes Ecclesiastical, and sole visitour of the Universities in Law & righ • The Arch-bisop declared, that he desired not to visit the University out of any ambition or desire of Innovation, &c. But only to rectify some enormities of l • ng Continuance; And what were they? There were some Chapels belonging to certain Colleges in that University, the which had never yet been consecrated, and yet divine service & Sacraments were ministered in then, and had been so for many years, and for instance he named E ••• nuel College for one (which hath been used as a Chapel ever since the year of our Lord 1524) and Sidney Sussex College Chapel, used from An: 1598. till this present.

So that the consecration of these two Chapels were the principal cause (at least pretence) of this great contestation before the Arch-bishop and University.

A weighty matter, God woot • to trouble his Majesty and whole Counsel with, when as there is neither Scripture, Law, nor Canon of our Church in force, to justify such a consecration, but Laws and authoriti •• store against it.

And is it not then a far greater madness superstition, and ridiculous frenzy for our dominering Arch-Prelates, to deem these two Chapels profane places, unfit to administer the Sacraments, a • d celebrate divine service in, because never yet consecrated by a Bishop, not only after three, but almost threescore years use and practice of divine service, Sermons and Sacraments in them; Whē as neither his predecest •• rs Whi • gift, Bancroft, and Abbot, (men very ceremonious, and much addicted to superstition) ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration. And there is no such Canons, Law, and Doctrine to enforce the consecratiō of them now, as were to justify the rehallowing of S. Mary's, in Queen Mary's time, which the Popish Canon Law then approv • d.

O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God, and patronize the authorized Doctrines of our Church, as they are for these superstitious, ridiculous Romish trifles, fitter for School-boys to sport themselves with all, then for great and grave Bishops (ever employed in the highest State and Church affairs) to trouble both the University, King, Counsel, and themselves with all.

If any here reply, that the Counsel of London An: 1236. under Cardinal Otho the Popes Legate, first of all ordained and decreed here in England, that Churches should be consecrated, whereas before that time, (as the words of the Constitution witness) divers Cathedrals and Parochial Churches in England had been built many years before, and used as Churches, and yet were never consecrated: J answer, that it seems till this Constitution, even in those times of superstitious gross blindness, Consecration was not held a thing of any moment or necessity, much less then should it be so reputed now.

Yet as those ancient Churches must then, for this Legates gain be all consecrated within a certain space, that he might have a round fee from every of them, or else be wholly suspended and interdicted, so must these ancient Chapels now, by this Popish Canon.

After this Constitution, the Bishops by Bulls from the Pope took upon them to consecrate Churches, Chapels, and Church-yeards, in their own names and rights, till the abolishing of the Popes usurped power, and restoring the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Crown. An. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. & 26. H. 8. c. 1.

After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapel, Church, or Church-yeard, till they had obtained a special License from the King, under his broad Seal, for them and their successors, enabling and authorizing them to do it; Which Licence they (after much suite to the King, Henry the 8.) obta • ned in the 31. year of his reign, the Copy whereof I shall set here down.

From which Patent (truly transcribed out of the Rolls, where it it is in Latin,) I observe:

First, that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches, Chapels, or Church-yeards, without a special License from the King himself, under his Great Seal: Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories, Visitations, inflict Ecclesiastical Censures, suspend or silence Ministers and the like, without such a special grant or Licence: And so their Episcopal jurisdiction, not • ure divino, but merely human by the Kings grant and institution.

Secondly, that after such a License given them by the King, under his great Seal, they cannot, yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church, Chapel, or Church-yeard, without suing forth a spec • all Patent out of the Chauncery, under the Great Seal, particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses, to consecrate such & such a Church, Chapel, or Church yeard in special, (much more then must they have the like special Patent, and Commission, to keep Courts, Visitations, suspend or silence Ministers, and the like,) which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out, but go on of their own heads, in and by their own Episcopal authorities for the most part, for which a Paemunire lies against them.

Thirdly, that every consecration is, and makes a Mortmani • ; Therefore it is against the Law, and must have a special License and warrant from the King, under his Great Seal, as this Patent prescribes.

Fourthly, this Patent allows neither the Bishops, nor their Officers, to take any fees at all, for any such consecrations; Therefore the fees they exact for them, are mere extortions, for which an Inditement or Bill lieth in the Sta-chamber.

Fifthly, they cannot enforce any man, or Parish, to have their Chapels, Churches, or Church-yeards consecrated, unless themselves require and desire it may be done, as some words in the Patent (which for brevity sake I have omitted) manifest, and the words may, nor shall consecrate, implieth as much.

Sixthly, that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altar-clothes, (which have a distinct peculiar form of Consecration) but only Churches, Chapels, & Church-yeards.

After this King Henry the • . in the 37 year of his reign, by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford, among other things, granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Di • cesse. Moreover without special grant from the King they had no such power; For which cause it was then specially inser • e • into this and other Bishops Patents.

And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use.

But upon the change and reformation of religion, (which is worthy of observation) i • quite vanished away, as did many other Popish Superstitions, by the abolishing of the Mass • Books, Primers, and Ceremonials, which prescribed the manner and form of Consecrating Churches, Chapels, and Church-yeardes, by the Statutes of 2. &. 3. E. 6. c. 1. & 3. & 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I find not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edward • days by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2: One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches, Chapels, or Church-yeards, though all other parts of Ecclesiastical and Episcopal jurisdiction (as keeping of Courts, Visitations, Probale of Wills, granting of Letters of Administration, suspending of Ministers upon Legal and just grounds &c. be particularly granted them in those Patents: Yet how? To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS, in o •• own Royal Name, Stead, and Authority, not their own, as the Patents of Scory, Coverdale, 5. Ed. 6. parsf: in the Rolls, with many others testify: Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches, Chapels, 〈◊〉 Church-yards, inserted into heir Patents in these latter days, from the King, under his Great S • ale, authorizing them to keep Consistories, Visitations, prove Wills, grant L •• ters of Administration, Suspend, Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiastical Censures upon any Subj • ct.

Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law, to execute any of those particulars, and what ever they do in any of them is Coram non judice, and but a mere Nullity, especially their Consecration of Churches, Chapels, Church-yeards, Altars, for which they have neither Patent • Statute, Article, Injunction, Canon, or Orthodox Writer of our Church: Or for those long since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication, which they would now receive.

But of this enough for this present, in which I have been the more prolix, because it is a poiet of Law, not hitherto discussed fully, by any that I have met with.

The 4. Question I shall propound, is this: What Law or Canon there is to enjoin Ministers, to read the Epistle and Gospel, or second service at the High-Altar or Lord's Table (or to suspend them if they refuse to do it) when there is no Communion.

1. Because in truth there is no Statute, Law, Injunction, or Canon extant, prescribing any such thing.

2. Because the Rubric before the Communion ordains, that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID, and the Priest standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table, shall say the Lord's prayer with thi collect following. &c. And the Rubric at the end of the Communion ordains thus: Upon the Holy-days if there be no Communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the Homily, concluding with the general prayer, &c. But it saith not, that it shall then be said at the Communion Table: Whence I observe:

1. That the • Rubric ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lord's Table, but at such times only as there is a Communion.

2. That when he reads service at it, the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church, but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body, or MIDDLE of the Church, or Chapel, where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be said: So as the Pr •• st ought not to go up to the Table or high Altar, but they ought to be removed and brought down to him, as is clear by th • s Rubric, and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the 82 Canon forecited, if you read: Whence I argue thus:

The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar, but then only, when it is removed and brought down into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at, as the Rubric, Injunction & Canon resolve: But the Table is not thus to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion (unless they will grant, that it ought always to stand in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, which they profestedly deny) witness the Rubric Institution and Canon: Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it, but only when there is a Commi •• ion.

Thirdly, because the Rubric before Te Deum saith, that the Epistle and the Gospel shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce, that the people may hear the Minister that read • th them, and the Minister Atanding and turning himself, as • he may best be heard of ALL such as be present: Therefore this is direct, that the Second Servic • (whereof the Epistle and Gospel are a part) must be read in the Reading P • w, where the Lessons are, when there is no Communion; Because there, he may best be heard of ALL present, and that he must not turn his fuce East, but West to the people.

Fourthly, because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches, not to read divine Service at, but to Consecrate and minister the Lord's Supper at; This is the sole use for which it serves: As the Font, is ordained only for Baptism • , the 〈◊〉 for reading, and the Chest or p • oremans lo • in every Church for Alms: So it for the L: S • as is clear by 1 Co •• 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2 • . &c. The Common-prayer-book; The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramnt • , of the right use of the Church, of the R • pairing and keeping clear of Churches.

Queen Elizabeth's In • unctions & Canons set ou • 1511. p: 18. and Can: 1603. Can: 8 • . 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever met with all, have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus:

Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies, yea by the resolution of all ( our Pre • utes • isitation Articles ) is only instituted for the celebration of the Lord's Supper at it; And the 28 Canon, with the Rubric before T • Deum expressly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose: It is clear, that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table, but only when there is a Communion: That the reading of Service at it on other times, is a mere abuse and perversion of that end, for which it was instituted: And Bishops may with as much reason and Law enjoin them to read Second Service, at the Font, in the Pulpit, or at the Poor man's box, as at it.

No Bishops may or ought to enjoin Ministers to read Second Service at the Table or Altar, when there is no Communion, neither can they suspend any for not doing it.

And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to read Service thus, both the Bishop and they (as D. Wre • . B • shop of Norwich, with many of his Clergy have done) incur the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indicted, fined and imprisoned for it by this Law; It being a saying of divin • s • rvice in another manner and form, and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer; Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Canons) condemns this Innovation, which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now; Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity, but only in Popish Churches of late years.

All that can be alleged for it is that which Shelford and the Colier produce for Altars, and bowing to them; The practice of our Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, being most Popish, corrupt, and most opposite to our Laws and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes, Images, Tapors, Altars, Altar-adorations, Vestments, Chaunting, lascivious Music, Gesticulations, with a World of other Romish Antichristian Relics and Ceremonies: (All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatry of the time and place of Prayer: The Common Prayer-Book: 3. & 4. E. 6. c. 10. & 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late) being fitter our detestation then Imitation.

1. That we must live by precepts, not Examples; Our Cathedrals in this, and sundry other particulars, are contrary to our Laws and Canons in point of practice, therefore to be detested. corrected, and reformed by our Laws, and made like to other Churches; Not our Laws, Canons, and Churches to be squared by them, the worst of any.

2. The Rubric of the Common Prayer-Book, in the end of the Communion, prescribes in direct terms; That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, where be many P • eists and Deacons, they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST, except they have a reasonable cause to th • contrary; By which it is clear, that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedral & Collegiate Church, and that every Priest and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister, unless he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary: And who can this Minister be but the Bishop? Ergo Bishops are but Ministers, and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals: Ergo to be always Resident at their Seas, and no dancing attendance on the Court.

The last clause of this Rubric relates only to all the Priests and Deacons receiving with the Minister, not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister, for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission.

Thus was the Sacrament daily administered in every Cathedral and Collegiate Church anciently, and in Queen Elizabeth's days; And so it ought by Law to be now; And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lord's Table in those Churches, because they had a Communion on those days.

But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued, and not so much as looked after by our Bishops and Cathedral men; and the Ceremony, to wit • , the use of reading second service at the Table (now fo • • oo • h at the High Altar, as they call it,) only retained and urged; Which ought not to be read there by Law, as I have manifested, unless there be a Commnion, and then only at 〈◊〉 Lord's Table, as the Rubric in the Communion, the Queens Injunctions, and 28. Canon prescribe, not at an Alta.

Our Bishops therefore must now either pull down their High Altars in their Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table, (and the standing in the midst, not 〈◊〉 Choir where all may hear, not at the upper end, where 〈◊〉 can • ear whats read, as in Paul's and other Cathedrals, 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others, when to say AMEN, 〈◊〉 that they hear not what is read) as the Common Prayer-Book enjoins them; Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lord's Tables, situated Altarwise, reading it only in their Pewes, appointed for that purpose, as they do in Parish Churches, else they may be lawfully indicted, fined and imprisoned for it, as egregious viol • ters of the statute of 1 • Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer, that they seem so much to stand upon.

The 5 Question I shall propose is this; What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapels East and West, or placing the Chancle or Choir at the East end of them, Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any; and for pract se it hath been otherwise.

The Coliars strange gloss to evade this direct a • thority, p. 53. ( That this Altar stood along the Eastern Wall of this Chancle, which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South. ) is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon, which saith, th •• the Porch stood Eastward, and the Sanctuary a great distance from it, in the midst of which the Altar stood. So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church, being so far remote from and beyond the Porch, which stood Eastward.

Since this time the Churches (as I have else-where manifested) have been diversely situated according to the conveniency of the place; Some being round or Ouall; Others square; Others standing North and South, as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church, with divers of the Kings own Chapels; And the Chapels of Sundrie Colleges, Hospitals, Noblemen and Gentlemen; And if this be not sufficient, the very late Popish Chapel at Somersett-house; with the new Church in Court Garden, which as it stands not now perfectly East and West, so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part; Which some Prelates (without Law, Canon, and reason, I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit) commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end, to the great expense of the builder, the hindrance, and deformity of that good work, which yet must not be used for a Church, because not consecrated by a Bishops co •• ring white Rochet; Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law, & utterly exploded as a Romish Relique.

If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapels, East and West, or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches, as is apparent, there is not; There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or railing 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise; Being the end for which J moved the Question.

And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle, so as little Antiquity.

For in Durantus his time (one of the latest authorities Bish • p Jewel quotes) who lived not above 400 years since, the Altar stood in the midst of the Choir, and not close against the wall, as is evident not only by the words Bishop Jewel • ites, but by other passages: By the: Altar ( saith he) our heart is understood, which is in the MIDDEST of the body, ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE, as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church.

Moreover he informs us, that in consecrating the Altar, the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT, goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times (which he could not do stood it Altarwise as now, close to the Easterno wall,) to signify that • e ought to take care for all, and be vigilant for all, which is signified by CIRCUITUM, by his compassing or going round the Altar.

And if this be not sufficient, (out of Isiodor , Amalarius , Fortunatus , Rabanus , Maurus , and others fore-cited) he thus defines a Choir , Chorus est multitudo exsacris coll • cta, & dictus Chorus, quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent, & ita psallerent: Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority.

This ancient definition of a Choir is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers.

Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Choir, yet ab initio non fuit sic: it hath been but of late times so, even as the Papists themselves confess.

Hence our Learned Dr. • ulke , as in the places fore-cited, so in his Defense against G • egory Martin writes thus:

The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT, AND NOT AGAINST A WALL, AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand, which is easy to prove, and hath often times been proved, and it seems (saith he to Martin of the Papists ) you confess as much; Which words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton (who concurs both in words and judgment with him) in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament.

This Hospinian proves by sundry authorities, and by that of the Counsel of Constantinople 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . which Survis, Crab, Binius, and others render CIRCVMCIRCA ALTARE, round about the Altar, as the word doth properly signify even in Sacred Scripture, & other authors, as Bishop Jewel, & Bishop Morton both resolve.

I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Jesuit Vasquez, more moderate, then many of our Novellers, Nihilominus certum est, &c. Although there be many Authors (to wit of late time, which he there cites) for the placing of Altars towards the East; Yet it is certain, that it is NO SINNE or offense to situate not only lesser Altars, but likewise the High Altar (and Quires and Chancles too, which he there speaks of) towards other climates or parts of the world; For this tradition (how-ever some urge it as necessary, and a binding Law) non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt; It is not of the number of those traditions, which have been left unto us under any precept; Which he proves out of the forecited words of Walafridus, Strab • , adding out of Nicephorus, that men have dive • sly ordered those things in former times.

Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of Socrates, wherein the Altar stood westward, it being free for Christians in these things, vel hanc vel illam consi •• tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custom in the si • uation of their Altars, (Lord's Tables) and Quires: Much more the • to rail in, or not rail in their Altars or Lord's Tables Altarwise at the East end of the Choir, or to come up to the rail (as Bishop Wre • will now enforce all his Diocese by his new iuvented Articles, to receive, contrary to the custom of all our churches from Queen Elizabeth's time till now, yea contrary to the practice in the days of Popery, and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Choir or Chancle to receive, but only to offer, as is evident by Concilium To • et •• um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communice • ; Extra Chorum populus. Council: Eluber: Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense: Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist: 52. Innocentius. 1. Epist. 22. Niciph: Eccles: Hist: • . 12. c. 41. Chamir. l. 9. de Coena Domini. c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge, p. 391. with others forequoted.

The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours, is this:

This Question is T •• party, and the chief of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any; J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it, beginning with the first branch thereof:

Law, Canon, Injunction, Constitution of our Church, enjoining and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremony, I never yet, met with any, no not in times of Popery, except that of Cardinal Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Mary's days, in the University of Cambridge, fore mentioned.

Scripture there is not any direct in point, only some texts are strained and miserably perverted to this purpose. As 1: Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy fear will I worship towards thy holy Temple; The nearest texts they can ci • e for their purpose, and yet far enough from it.

For what Logician will not deride this argument:

What coherence of vigor is there in this argument? What beast had he reason would thus dispute? Had they hence inferred, Ergo, we must always adore, bow down to, or worship God towards (not in) our Churches and Chaples: This had been a more probable inference, though unsound; Because the Jews worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only, which is vanished; Not towards their Synagogues, of which our Churches is rather patterns and successors, then of the Temple, which was but one, not many, and that a type of our Savior, abolished shortly after his death, nor of our Churches built long since after another form, and to an other purpose then it.

1. First, the worship towards the Temple, here mentioned, was not bare bowing down of the body only (as these Novellers dream) to, or towards it, or the Altar or Temple, but a praying towards it, as is evident, by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King. 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan: 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lord's Table without prayer.

2. Secondly, it was a worship towards the Temple only, not towards the Altar in the Temple; And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table; For the Church or Chapel it self is neither.

3. Thirdly, it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple; Not any genufl • ction or chringing to the Temple: But this bowing of our Novellers, is not simply towards, but likewise to the Altar, as Reeue, & D. Pocklington acknowledge; Now bowing to, and towards the Altar, are in some respects two distinct things; Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple, no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar,

4. Fourthly, this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of ways in scripture; Improperly and Properly: Improperly for a praying in some private place, not only out of the Temple, but even out of the sight and veiwe of it.

Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Jerusalem: Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Jews where ever they were, whether in captivity exile or their own Country, 1. King. 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts.

Properly: For worshipping or praying in the Temple: as, 1. King: • . 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron: 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29.

Take it in either sense, and it will not avayle our Novellers, David in his private devotions, even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple, did worship or pray towards it; Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church, when we see the Table or High Altar must bow down to or towards it; or David did worship God towards, that is, in his Temple.

Ergo, they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table, ( for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God, unless they will make new forms of Altars and Tables, and be mewed up within them by • ike Popish authority ) are but frenticke ridiculous consequents; Yet the best that can be drawn •• om these texts, to justify these Ceremonies.

5. Fifthly, the Jews had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For:

1. First, they had a divine premission and authority, if not a precept so to do.

2. Secondly, a promise from God himself to hear & gra ••• their prayers made towards the Temple;

Both which appears by the forequoted texts of the Kings, Chronicles, Daniel, and the Psalms. Viz: 1 King. 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2.

But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or •• wards Altars or Tables, but a direct precept against it, which many read at the Altar & Table, (to wit, the second Commandment, Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them; extending as well to Tables as to Images, Idols or any other creatures) though they presently break it by bowing unto the Table or Altar.

Neither have we any promise of reward, or of answering our prayers made to us, for this cringing to Altars and Tables.

Their practice thereof warrants not ours.

3. Thirdly. the Temple was a special and lively type of our Savior Christ himself, (as Divines generally accord,) and that in many respects, too tedious here to mention.

Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables & High Altars.

4. Fourthly, the Temple was the place of God's special presence, which God had chosen for himself to dwell in, and to put his name there, where all the Israelites were every year by special command from God, to meet & to worship him, and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it. Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King. 7. 29. 30, &c. Psal. 122. 3. 4.

But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove, that the High Altar or Communion. Table is the special place of God's presence, the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in; Sure the Scriptures informs us, that WHERESOEVER two or three (Mat. 18. 20.) are gathered together in Christ's name, there is he in the MIDDEST of them; And thereupon commands us: To pray EVERY where, &c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now everywhere alike present by his Grace: Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it, as they do.

5. Finally, the Jews whether they were East, West, North, or South from the Temple, or it from them, worshipped and prayed towards it.

But our Innovatours, as they will have all Altars stand Eastward, so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East, and Altars standing towards the East.

These texts therefore, with David's worshipping towards the Temple (on which they principally rely) make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables, which no Fath • r or Orthodox exp • siter that I have seen, ever deduced from the Scriptures.

Yea, but if these do not avayle them, Mr. Shelford (in his Sermon of God's house, p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.) acquaints us with some others that will: as, Psal. 99. 5. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool:

Oh senseless Divinity, and childish Logic! Who ever read of such dist • acted inferences? Had the Psalmist said we will worship at the Altar; Or had this footestoble, here mentioned, been the Altar, or this worship, a mere bowing of the b • dy towards the Ark, or to it, and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it, there had been some shadow of worshipping, that is, of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar, but not of bowing to, or towards it, much less to or towards the Lord's Table, which is neither an Altar, no • h • th any Analogy with the Altar, nei her is it so termed by Saint Paul, as this D • eamer doteth, as I have else where proved at large. But since, we read not in Scripture, that David ever worsh • pped or bowed to or towards the Altar; And this s • o es ••• le here, by his own confe •• on was the Arcke, but by David's own exp • sition God's holy mountain o • . H • ll Z • on, Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping, not a bow • ng, but prayer: Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremony.

Yea, but if these texts fall sh • rt, yet others come fully home: as Exod. 12. 27. Then the people. bowed themselves and worshipped. Ergo Potlid: Therefore we must bow down, and worsh • p the Al • ar or Communion Table.

Had th • se either b • wed themselves to or towards the Altar, the inference had been somewhat tolerable, though nothing to the purpose, for bowing to Lord's Tables; But seeing they bowed only to worship God by praising him, or praying to him (their bowing it self being not their worshipping, as these Dreamers fancy, the texts themselves distinguishing the bowing from the worship, and worship from the bowing) and since the first of these bowed themselves when and where there was no Altar near them; And the second not to or towards the Altar, but unto God; Therefore can they with no more probability hence infer the lawfulness of mere bowing to or towards the Altar or L. T. then they ca • hence make good that these bowed themselves to, and worshipped towards the Altar, which is certain they never did.

The other 〈◊〉 of Is • y. 45. 23. and Rom. 24. 11. (meant only of the bowing and subjection of men to our S • viour Christ himself, not to Altars or the name Jesus, as S P • ul here expressly resolves) are so impertinently cited by Mr. Shelso •• to this purpose, that they need no answer.

All men shall bow to Christ himself at the day of judgment: 〈◊〉 , they must bow to or towards Lord's Ta • les and C • mmunion Tables now; Being a consequence, nor tolerable in a B • dlam, much less in an ancient highly applauded Divine, by Ignoramusses of his own strain.

Yea but if these texts miscarry (yet say some) that of Isaiah.

1. I answer, first, that this is only the railing speech of Rabshaketh, not the dictate of God's infallible Spirit, therefore no authentic proof.

2. Secondly, the first part of it is a direct untruth, why not the latter too, there being no such command of Hezechiahs in Scripture, for the Israelites to worship before one Altar?

3. Yet thirdly, I say, that this Commaund to worship before the Altar, makes nothing for worshipping or bowing to the Altar, much less the Table; No more then David lifting up his hands towards God's holy Oracle: Ps. 28. 2. proves that we ought to lift up our hands towards the Table or Altar, when we come in, or depart out of the Church, or when ever we make prayers unto God.

For first, this worshipping before the Altar was not any Genuflection, or bowing to or towards it, but a bringing of an Oolation or Sacrifice to it, and burning incense on it, as the next words expound it, and Gen. 8. 20. 1 King. 3 4. 2 Kin. 16. • 2. 13. c. 18. 22. Ps. 43. 4. Ps. 51. 19. Ps. 118. 27. Isaiah. 56. 7. Mat. 5. 23. compared together, testify:

Or else, it was only a standing upright, and praying to God before it, o • near it, without any incuruation of the body to or towards i • : 2 Kin: 8. 21. 22. 2 Chron. 6. 12. Luk. 18. 11. 13. Neither of which warrant or enforce any bowing to or towards it:

Secondly, because they might worship before the Altar, without any bowing or particular inclination of the body to it, as we use to kneel and pray before the Font at every Christening, before the Minister and Pulpit at every Sermon, before the Grave at every funeral, before the Reading Deske at every Common-prayer, Mourning or Evening, and yet bow or cringe our bodies to or towards neither of them, out of any respect at all unto them; Neither do we the like to the Sacrament or Lord's Table when we receive his Supper though most kneel before it then.

So that J may now safely conclude, that there is no Scripture at all for this new Ceremony, the rather, because Exod. 20. 23. 24. 25. 26. Dan. 27. 5. Josh. 8. 31. God commands his Altars to be made only of Earth or unhewne stones, without any Image or Picture on them, to withdraw the Jews from bowing to them, being made of so base materials, enjoining them also not to go up by steps to his Altar (as our Novellers do to their High Altars,) that their nakedness be not discovered theron, which would have been more discovered by bowing and stoping down thereto, then by assending to it by steps.

As for Psal. 95. 6. it is as extravaga • t to this purpose as the rest; The Table being not our Lord and maker, before noted, towards whom this text enjoins us to kneel and fall down prostrate: Which I have sufficiently answered in refelling them, and therefore pass it by.

But are there no Fathers or Antiquities for bowing to Altars and Lord's Tables?

To Tables certainly, not one, unless that of Nazianzen concerning his Mother Quod venerādae Mensae nunquam terga verteret, be wrested to this purpose contrary to the sense; To wit, that she never turned her back upon the Lord's Table, by neglecting to communicate, when ever the Sacrament was administered at it; Which is far enough from bowing to it: The Table there being put for the Sacrament it self, adminis • red thereon, as it is in Sundrie such passages in the Fathers, Nicephorus Greg. f. 10. Cent. Magd. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9. Col. 243. and others.

For bowing to and towards Altars there are some seeming Passages in Antiquity, the chief whereof J shall recite and answer, omitting the residue as impertinent.