A Quench-Coal, Inquiry 1 (4 of 4)

A Quench-Coal · Inquiry 1 (4 of 4)

p. 122And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise, as the objectors pretend they ought to be, because they falsly stile, and deeme them Altars.

If any here object, First,Object. 1. 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 owne hand London 1636. Edir. 1. p. 43. averrs, that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar. 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar, are partakers of the Altar: which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh, for habemus Altare, we also under the Gosple have an Altar. Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar, Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar, and may be so tearmed.

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

2. I answer, that it is most cleare, that the first Text of the two, p. 123namly, 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know, that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple, and they which waite AT (not of the Altar, as he reades it) are partakers with the Altar; is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes, Levites and Iewish Altars, not of Christs, Ministers and Lords Tables.

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

2. Because, the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute, in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gosple,**See William Salisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter. where he puts the Preachers and Preaching of the Gosple, and the living by it, in direct opposition & contradistinction to the Preistes & Levites ministring about Holy things in the Temple, and living of the Temple; serving at the Altar, and partaking with the Altar, to preaching of the Gosple, and living by it; drawing an argument by way of equity from one to the other, in this manner; The Preist and Levites under the Law, which minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple, and those that wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar, & that by Gods ordination.

Therfore by the selfesame reason hath the Lord ordained, that the Ministers of the Gosple, who preach the Gosple, (not those who seldome or never preach, as our great Prelates doe) should live of the Gosple. So that if we interpret this Text, as this novell Doctor hath done, we shall quite overturne the Apostles argument & similitude, and make it a meere nonsence Tantalogie, such as his Sunday no Sabbath is, as full almost of Errors and falsehoods, as lines.

p. 1243. To that of Heb, 13. 10. We have an Altar, it is true that the Bishop of Chichester, heretofore in his Conference with **Fox Acts & monum, p. 1806.Richard Woodman Martyr, alleaged this very Text, to prove the Popish Sacrament of the Altar, and that it is meant of their Popish Altars, whereon their Sacrifice of the Masse is offred, and the Rhemists in their Notes on Heb. 13. sect. 6. conclude thus: This Altar (sayth Isychius) is the Altar of Christs body, which the Jewes for their incredulity must not behold: 1. 6. c. 21. in Levit.

And the Greeke word (as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the Old Testament) signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphoricall and spirituall Altar. Whereby we prove against the Heretickes, that we have not a Common table or prophane Communion boord to eate meere bread upon, but a very Altar in the proper sense, to sacrifice Christs body upon: and so called of the Fathers in respect of the sayd body sacrificed.

Greg. Nazianz. in orat. de Gorgonia. Chrysoft. demonst. quod Christus sit Deus Socrat. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August. Epist. 86. de Civitate Dei l. 8. c. 27. & l. 22. c. 10. Confess. 1. 9. c. 11. 13. Contr. fauct Manich. 1. 20. c. 21. Theophylact in 23. Math.

And when it is called a table, it is in respect of the heavenly food of Christs body & bloud received.

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

But for any Protestant writer of our owne Church or other who interprets the Altar in this Text to be the Communion Table, or a materiall Altar. I professe, I know not any till this new Doctor, M. Shelford, M. Reeve, & the nameles author of the Coale p. 125from the altar page 47. (who yes writes thus dubiously of this Text, as applied to the Lords Table;) and above all indeed S. Paul in his Habemus Altare, Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meant the Lords table, or the Lords Supper, or rather the Sacrifice itselfe certaine it is, that he conceived the name altar, neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church.)

All the Fathers and ancients on this Text that I have seene; yea Isychius, whom the Rhemists quote, interpret it of Christ himselfe, whom the Rhemists themselves in their Notes on Apoc. 6. 9. interpret to be the altar under which the soules of all Martyrs live in heaven expecting their bodies,**Confutation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1.Rev 6 that in these Positive words: Christ as man (NO DOVBT;) the altar under which the soules of the Martyrs live in heaven, &c. which M. Cartwright & Doctor Fulke thus resort upon them:

But if Christ be the Altar here, and that without doubt, not withstanding that he is not here expresly sayd to be, why should not he so be also in Heb. 13. 10. where the name of Altar is more directly applied to him? why was it there an Altar of stone; which is here of flesh? there in proper speech an Altar, which is here but a borrowed speech? Verily there can be no other reason why that Altar was of stone, but that the Jesuites, which out of that place framed it, either for heavines of understanding to conceive the truth, or for hardnes of heart to yeeld unto it, were heavier and harder then the very stones themselves, whereof they would have the Altar. And where in disagreeing themselves, they agree with the truth: so in that which followeth: Christ is the Altar as he is man, they are as farre from the truth, as they are neere & like unto themselves; especially if they meane he is the Altar according to his Manhood alone: for when his Manhood, being the Sacrifice, was sanctified by Christ, which is the Altar: and the thing which sanctifieth, is of a Higher nature then that which is sanctified by it, Math. 23. 19. Heb, 7. 7. it must p. 126needes follow, that our Saviour Christ must be considered in somewhat else then in his manhood. when he is sayd to sanctifie to same.

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

First, 11William Salisbury.by William Salisbury his Battery of the Popes Bater, printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. But now (writes he) are we set upon to batter, and beate downe the head corner stone of their Popish Batereulx: we will first declare yet one grammer terme more, for the unlearned sake, which though it be no high point of Divinity, neverthelesse who so hath not the knowledge thereof, his Divinity is but humanity or rather carnality then true knowledge in divine matters. And so the grammarians call it a speach spoken by a figure called Metonymia, when the thing conteyned is ment by the name of the thing that conteyneth it. As when he say, reach hither the Cupp, meaning to have the drinke conteyned in the Cuppe.

This figurative speech used Christ himselfe, when he sayd Luke 22. This Cupp is the New Testament in my bloud: where he ment of the wine, and not of the Cup.

And likewise Matthew 23. where he speaketh by the name of the Citty unto them, that dwelled in the Citty, saying, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that stayest the Prophetes, &c.

Such manner of speach is also much used in the old Testament; as Esay 1. Heare … Heaven and harken … earth.

And in an other place, Howle ye ships of Tharsis. And so the Papistes must either grant that, that kind of speech is used in the text, that we shall anone rehearse hereafter, ior els must they grant, that the Jewes, (whose Altars or rather Sacrifices and forbidden meate, the writer of the Epistle alludeth unto) were wont to eate up their Altars being made of stones. And that were hard meat indeed; yea that were meate alone for **Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gaddes of stele & digesteth them.Ostriches? yea or rather stone meat were more meet for such as have stony heartes, as have all Papisticall Doct. who against p. 127their conscience, knowledge and learning, and being all destitute of the spirit of God, cry & shout for the defence of their welbeloved Altars, Habemus Altars, Habemus Altare, Habemus Altare; yea & I may tell yow this Habemus Altare, is their judgeling tricke, wherby they doe juggle unto the unlearned, it is all their Tabernacle, & only refuge against all tempestes, and this is as well their shote anker, as their halow at their hosing up of their ankor. But to hale in my saile and to land at the proposed haven.

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

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

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

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

And therfore would I think it an exceeding good deed for such as injoy their right witt to pick out from amongst p. 128themselves as many as are vexed with the spirit of the sayd kind of phrenesy, and send them to Bedlem, or to their owne City of Rome. For els they shall still infect other, & doe more hurt then every man is ware of.

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

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

And forsorh, ye Papisticall Preistes, as many of yow as understand the Latine, and marked what yow read, (and if yee had been**The Bee gathereth hony on the same flour, that the Spider gathereth poyson. Bees & not Spiders) yow might have gathered the nature of this manner of allusion or resemblance of Christes Crosse unto the altars of the Jewes, even out of your owne poysoned Masse.

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

p. 12922Richard Woodman.By Richard Woodman Martyr, who interprets this Text only of Christ, in hisast;ast;Fox Acts & monum. p. 1806. second Examination before the Bishop of Chicester, which I shall here verbatim rela…e,

Chichester.

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

Woodman.

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

Chich.

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

Wood.

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

Chich.

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

Wood.

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

Chich.

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

The man.

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

Wood.

He hath expounded the matter almost as well as I.

Chich.

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

The man.

Forsooth yow would not have me eate this Table.

Wood.

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

p. 130Chich.

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

The man.

Yes forsooth my Lord, that was my meaning indeed.

Wood.

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

Chich.

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

Wood.

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

Chich.

Well, lett this matter passe, & let us turne to the principall againe.Sacram, of the Altar. How say yow by the Sacrament of the Altar.

Wood.

Yow meane the Sacrament of the body & bloud of Christ Jesus?

Chich.

I meane the Sacrament of the Altar, and so I say.

Wood.

You meane Christ to be the Altar, doe yow not?

Chich.

I meane the Sacrament of the Altar in the Church, what is it so strange to yow.

Wood.

It is strang to me indeed,The Altar how it is to be taken & where it is. if yow meane the Altar of stone.

Chich.

It is that Altar that I meane.

Wood.

I understand not the Altar so.

Chich.

No I thinke so indeed: and that is the cause that yow be deceived. I pray yow, how doe you understand the Altar then?

Wood.

If you will give me leave till I have done, I will shew yow how I understand the Altar, and where it is.

p. 131Chich.

Yes, yow shall have leave to say your mind as much as yow will.

Wood.

It is written, Math. 18. That wheresoever two or three be gathered together in Christs name, there is he in the middest among them: and whatsoever they aske the Father upon earth it shalbe granted them in heaven, agreeing to the 5. of Math. saying: When thou commest to offer thy gift at the Altar, and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy offring, and go first & be reconconciled to thy brother, and then offer thy gift. The Preistes would have interrupted mee, but the Bishop bad them let me alone.

Chich.

Yow shall heare a prety conclusion anone.

Wood.

I pray yow let me make an end, and then find fault with me if you can.

Now to the matter:Christ the true and only Altar. In these two places of Scripture, I prove that Christ is the true Altar, whereon every Christian man and woman ought to come and offer their gifts.

First wheresoever the people are gathered together in Christs name, there is he in the middest; and where he is there is the Altar, so that we may be bold to come and offer our gift, if we be in love and charity: if we be not, we must leave there our offring, and goe first and be reconciled to our brother, and agree with him quickly, and so forth, and then come & offer the gift.

Some will say, how shall I agree with my adversary, when he is not nigh by a hundred miles? may I not pray till I have spoken with him? To all such I answer: if yow presume to pray among the faithfull, wishing any evill to any man, woeman or child, thou as kest vengeance upon thy selfe: For no such as keth any thing else of the Lord in h…s prayer, wherfore agree with thy adversary; that is make thy life agreeable to Gods word. Say in thy heart without dissimulation, that thou as kest God and all the world forgivenesse from the bottome of thy heart, intending never to offend them any more.

p. 132Then all such may be bold to come and offer their gift, their prayer on the Altar, where the people of God be gathered together: Thus have I shewed yow my mind, both of the Altar, and of the offering, as I understand it.

Chich.

Doe yow understand the offring and the Altar so? I never heard any man understand it so, no not Luther the great hereticke, that was condemned by a generall Councell, & his picture burned.

Wood.

If he were an hereticke, I thinke he understood it not so indeed; but I am sure all Christians ought to understand it so.

Chich.

O what vaine glory is in yow, as though yow understood all things, and other men nothing. Heare me: I will shew yow the true understanding, both of the Altar, and the offring on the Altar. We have an Altar (sayd Paul) that yee may not eat of. Meaning thereby, that no man might eate of that which was offered on the Altar, but the Preist.

For in Paules time all the living that the Preist had, the people came & offered it on the Altar, mony or other things: and when the people came to offer it, and then remembred, that they had any thing against their brother, then they left their offring upon the Altar, and went and were reconciled to their brother: and they came againe and offered their gift, and the Preist had it. This is the true understanding of the place that yow have rehearsed: wherfore yow be deceived.

Wood.

My Lord, that was the use in the old Law. Christ was the end of that. But indeed I perceive by Paules words, the Sacrifice was offered in Paules time: yet that maketh not that it was well done, but he rebuked it. Wherfore it seemeth to me that yow be deceived.

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

p. 13333D. FulkeThe judicious solide D. William Fulke, in his confutation and answer of the Rhemist Testament Heb. 13. 10. sect. 6. doth thus expound this Text: The Apostle speaketh expresly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christes death, as it is manifest in the two verses next following, which is by Christian faith, and not in the Sacrament only, whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observation of the Leviticall Sacrifice.

Therfore this place is brutishly abused, to prove that the Christians have a materiall Altar, as the Papists have many. The Apostle meaneth, Christ to be the Altar, & not the Table whereon the Lordes Supper is ministred, which is called an Altar, but unproperly, as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice. For he saith, We have an Altar, which is but one, where as the Popish Altars and Communion Tables are many.

But Isychius sayth, This Altar is the Altar of Christes body; ye abuse Isychius, for he sayth that the Altar is the body of Christ it selfe. Such an one sayth he, may not come, neither to the vaile nor to the Altar; that is, to the body of Christ, to doe the ministery thereof.

For that hath Paul, writing to the Hebrewes, taught to be the vaile and the Altar.

The same he sayth l. …. c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth, that the intelligible Altar is the Lords Body, for he sayth, we have an Altar, whereof they have no power to eate, which serve the Tabernacle, namely, the body of Christ. For it is not Lawfull for the Jewes to eate of it. This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witnesse; that is in the entrance of the heavens, because we have entrance into the Heavens with him.

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

p. 134But that it is called of them a Table, and was indeed a Table made of boardes, & removeable, set in the midst of the people, not placed against a wall, I have shewed sufficiently, by the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers before.

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

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

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

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

If the Jesuites will answer according to their drift heere of, proving an Altar of stone, and not a Communion Table, they must say that for reward of their obstinate cleaving to the Ceremonies of the Law, they shall not eat stones, a small punishment for so great a finne, which if the Jesuites were put unto, they would (I thinke) cry for a Communion Table, as of some better digestion then the Popish Altar: whereby it is evident how sottish it is which they straine so much at, touching the proper signification of the Greeke word, and the Hebrew answering there unto: which as if those words which properly signifie one thing, cannot by borrowed speech signifie p. 135another thing unproperly. And as though they were ignorant, that the word as properly signifieth a reall Sacrifice, as this word signifieth an Altar, were not in this very Chapter translated from the property of it to signifie a spirituall Sacrifice.

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

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

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

What cursed spirits therfore are these, which upon the confidence of this place, making as much for their Altars as for Baals, scoffe at the Holy Table of the Lord, in calling it a common & prophane board, which must needs (unlesse they have heardned their faces to all impudency, grant that the first and last time that ever our Saviour Christ ministred the p. 136Eucharist in his owne person, did it at a Table, and not at an Altar, and at the same Table also at which he eat his common repast, which notwithstanding we doe not, nor (in the peace and quiet of the Church) thinke meet to be done.

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

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

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

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

And indeed this unproperty of speech in the Altar is yet further confirmed. When in the same place. Augustine objecteth to one as an Ignorance, that he understood not the name of Altar to be more used in the vvriting of the Law & of the Prophets, then under the Gospell, but most evidently of all, in that the proving, that there is mention of an Altar in the p. 137New Testament, alleadgeth the place in the Apocalipse, which the Jesuites themselues interpret of our Saviour Christ. Yow were heere also greatly over-seen to bring this place; seeing he against whom this ignorance is objected, affirmed that in stead of a beast, we have now bread in the Sacrament: and in stead of blood we have the cup: where yow would beare the world in hand, that Beringarius was the first that denied Transubstantiation.

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

55D. Rainold.By D. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart Chap. 8. Divis. 4. p. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478.

Hart.

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

Rainolds.

And are you out of doubt that by the words, We have an Altar, the Apostle meaneth a materiall Altar, p. 138such as your Altars made of stone.

Hart.

What else? A very Altar?

Rainolds.

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

Hart.

The Jewes, & such prophane men?

Rainolds.

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

Hart.

They doe; and what then?

Rainolds.

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

Hart.

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

Rainolds.

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

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

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

Hart.

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

Rainolds.

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

And that is manifest by the words he addeth to shew his meaning touching the Jewes and the Altar, Heb. 13. 11. p. 139For (sayth he) the bodies of those beastes whose blood is brought unto the Holy place by the High Preist for sinne, are burnt without the camp…. Therfore even Iesus that he might sanctifie the people wish his owne blood, suffered without the gare.

Which words are some what darke, but they will be plaine, 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 Iewes cannot be partakers of the fruit of Christs death, & the redemption which he purchased with his pretious blood, if they still retaine the Ceremoniall worship of the Law of Moses.

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

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

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

The Apostle therfore exhorting the Hebrewes, to stablish their hearts vvith grace, that teacheth them to serve the Lord in spirit & truth after the Doctrine of the Gospell, not vvith p. 140meates, that is to say, with the Ceremonies of the Law, a part whereof was the difference between unclean & clean in meats doth move them to it with this reason, verse 10. that they serve the Tabernacle and stick unto the Rites of the Jewish Preist hood, their soules shall have no part of the food of our Sacrifice, no fruit of Christes death, verse 11. For as the bodyes of those beastes which are offred for sinne, & their blood brought into the Holy place by the High Preist, might not be eaten by the Preistes, but were burnt without the campe: so neither may the keepers of the Preistly Ceremonies have life by feeding upon Christ, who (to show this mystery) did suffer death without the Gate, when he shed his bloud to clense the people from their sinne. verse 12.

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

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

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

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

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

Hart.

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

p. 141For you cannot deny your selfe, but that it signifieth properly an Altar, a materiall Altar to sacrifice upon, & not a metaphoricall & spirituall Altar. Whereby as they conclude, that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon, but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon: so for profe hereof they adde, that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed, it is also called an Altar of the Fathers, even ofaaIn Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia. Gregorie Nazianzene, bbDemonst. quod Christus sit Deus.Chrysostome, ccHistor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 & 25.Sir 50:1Socrates, ddEpist. 86. de Civitat. Dei 18. c. 27. & l. 22 c. 10. Confesse l. 11. & 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21.Augustine, and eeTheph. in Matth. 23.Matt 23Theophylact.

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

Rainolds.

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

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

Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon, that the person of Christ incarnate, is meant under the metaphore of bread, & our beleefe in him is signified by p. 142eating. Wherein they say well. But if a man should tell them, that the Greeke word artos, (as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament,) doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily, & not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread: were not this as true a speech as their owne? yet how wise to the purpose, who is so blind that seeth not? yea, to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves, upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God. doe affirme expresly, that Christ is this Altar. Christ (say they) as man, no doubt is this Altar. They meane it (I hope) in a Metaphoricall, or other figurative speech.

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

And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove, that Masse is sayd in Heaven, as that in earth: and that Christ is properly bread without a figure, as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament: the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread, yea the true bread, would prove the one cleerly, as they could fitt it with this note: and the word Altar, would put the other out of controversie, cheifly if that were noted with all, that an Angell stood before the Altar, having a Golden Censer, Rev. 8. 3. thoughffAretheas in collect. exposit. in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert. Com. 8. in Apocalyp. 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Masse.Rev 8 others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ.

But it fareth with your Rhemists, as it is wont vvith false Prophets, Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval, and others daube it over with a rotten plaister, and when a storme cometh the wall falleth & plaister with it: For though, as they lay it on, it seemeth hansome, thatggThe Rhemists in their Annotat. on the New Testament. vvords signifie p. 143properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie, & not metaphoricall or spirituall things: yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used (by metaphors, or other figures) to signifie those things vvhichwhich properly they doe not signifie, the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is, will laugh at it.

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

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

For that vvhichwhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table, because it is ordained for the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body & blood: ThehhGreg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii. Chryso…t. demonstr. quod Christus sit Deus. Homil. in Matth. 16. & 8. 3. in pri…r Epist. ad Corinth. 24. & 27… ad populum Antioch. 60. & 61. Sermon de Euchar. & de B. Philogenio. S…crat. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. & 25. August. Epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract in Iohan 26. de verbis Domini. Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint. c. 11.Matt 16Sir 50:1 Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it.

And this improper sence. Marrie, by a figure of speech, by vvhichwhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality, are given one unto another: as Christ is called David, Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist, Elias, Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon, Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem, Isay 62. 9. theiiPrudent. Hym. de S. Laur. Cōc. Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor. etymol. ar. l. 7. …. 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Lev. Epi. 79. a… Dioscer. Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers & Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old, are wont to give the name, as of Preistes & Levites, to Pastours & Deacons. p. 144so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper: and of an Altar to the Lords Table.

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

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

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

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

For we have not a Common, but akkThe Booke of Com. pray… in the Commun. Holy Table, as both we call it, & esteem it: not a prophane Communion board, but the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of thankesgiving, & the Cup of blessing, as the Apostles Doctrine, and practise of thellIustin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. & l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. & 5. Lev. Serm. 4. de quadrag. Fathers teach us: your selves are guilty rather of feeding men with meere bread, who doe takemmConcil. Constant. Sess. 13. & Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can. 2. away the Cup of the New Testament in the bloud of Christ from the Christian people: & in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament, doe give in your Masses, nnDurandus in rational. divinor. officiis l. 4. c. 53.meere bread indeed by your owne Confession, the p. 145Common bread, that goeth under the name of*††Panis benedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius. Holy bread. I would to God M. Hart, you would thinke with your selfe even in your bed (as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4.) & consider more deepely, both the wicked abuses, wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prophaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Masse, & the treacherous meanes, whereby your Masters & Fellowes of the Colledge of Rhemes doe seeke to maintaine it.

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

66D. Wille…By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9. generall controversie part. 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars; Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, of which they have no power to eate that serve at the Tabernecle. That is, the Altar whereon Christes body is offered: Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum. Answer. The Apostle speaketh expresly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christes death (as it is manifest in the two verses next following,) which is by a Christian faith, and not in the Sacrament only, whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observations of the Leviticall Sacrifices.

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

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

This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed, that Christ is the true Altar, whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer, he proveth by the Conference of p. 146those two places of the Gospel. Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar, & remember that thy brother hath ought against thee, &c.

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

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

77David Dickson.By David Dickson, who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus: We have an Altar, &c. Such as will eate of Jesus & be partakers of him, must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle, by keeping on foot, & continuing the Ceremonies, & appertaynances annexed there unto; such Feastes, such Jubil es, such Altars, such sprinklings, & Holy water, such Preists and vestimentes, &c. as Levi had.

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

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

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

The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart, in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James8. King Iames. himselfe, who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel. 9. v. determines thus: I saw under the Altar the soules of the Martyrs, which cryed with a loud voyce: How long wilt thou delay, ô Lord, since thou art Holy & true, to revenge our blood.

p. 147For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs, that the soules lying under the Altar, to wi…t in the safegard of Jesus Christ, (who is the only Altar, whereupon & by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lipps, to wit our humble prayers to God the Father) did pray, & their blood did cry to Heaven, & crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked.

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

If any object in the second place, Object. 2.as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangly doth, and before him ooTreatise of Gods house p. 2.M. Shelford, that the Lords Table may be called an Altar, yea the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar (though the Scripture never stile either of them thus.)

First, Because the Fathers some times phrase them so.

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

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

4. Because our Godly Martyrs, as John Fryth, Archbishop Crammer, John Lambert, John Philpot, Bishop Latimer, and Bishop Ridley, call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The Sacrament of the Altar, & the Communion Table an Altar, as their words cited in the Coale from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify: from whence that Pampl…t concludes thus: p. 148So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar, and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged; neither the Prince or Prelates, the Preist or people dissenting from it, some of those termes being further justified by the Statute Law.

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

2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yeares after Christ had no Altars of which more before; therforeppSee B. Iewels Replie to Harding Art. 1. div. 5. p. 5. not the name of Altars, or of the Sacrament of the Altar.

3. The Fathers usually and properly stile the Communion Table, the Lords table, the Holy table, the Table &c. and the Sacrament i…selfe, the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of Christs body and blood, the Eucharist and the like, & that properly, and those who phrase the Table an Altar, or the Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar, doe it only improperly and figuratively, (as they stile faith, and our hearts the Altar of a Christian,) either in relation to Christ himselfe, who is our only true Altar, whose body, blood & death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament, or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Crosse, is here spiritually exhibited, or by reason of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse, and oblations of Charity for the poores releife that are there offred up when the Sacrament is received, or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven, who must consecrate all our Services, Sacrifices, & spirituall oblations, & make them acceptable to his Father.

In these regards only, asqqIn their forecited places. some of our Martyrs, Bishop Jewell, D. Fulke, D. Reynolds, M. Deane Nowell, D. Willet, and M. Cartwright observe, the Fathers sometime stile the Lords Table, an Altar, or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and p. 149oblations, which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Crosse, here represented to us, but never truly or properly. Therfore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar; nor yet the Sacrament, to be the Sacrament of the Altar, or that it may properly be so termed.

4. Though the Fathers phrase the Communion Table an Altar, or the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar; yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully doe it, or that they did well in it. For when they used this manner of speech, the Sacrifice of the Masse & Masse-Preists, with other idolat…ous popish trash, was not knowne nor heard in the world, neither were there any to be scandalized with those phrases, or to wrest them to such ill ends & purposes, as since they have been: There were then no Papists to be hardned & encouraged in their popish Superstition, no Protestants to be scandalized or drawen to dreame of Masse and Masse Preists againe, as now there are.

Therfore they (prochance) might lawfully use these termes, though we may not: And yet mmSee this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. & others of the Masse.Heb 13these termes & speeches of the Fathers, the Papists have formerly derived and still defend & justify all the abominations of their Masse, their altars, Masse Preistes massing vestments, Cringes, Ceremonies; which shewes, that the Fathers might have better spared then used them, since all this hurt, but no good at all hath proceeded from them; & if we should now after so long a discontinuance & disuse of these Titles, and our exploding of them, as nnFox Acts & monnm. p. 1211.savouring to much of Popery and Iudaisme, and tending to foment them, should reassume them, it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries, errors & superstitions concerning the Masse and altars wherein they differ for Protestants, but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery, and others scandalized with these termes either wholly to seperate from our Church as false, superstitious, Popish, or else to continue in it with wounded, troubled, scrupulous cōsciences & dejected discontented spirits, & drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as late experience to apparantly manifests.

p. 150So that this fi…t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected.

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

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

The language therfore of this Act, made thus before the Masse was taken away, or the grosse opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us, is not much to be regarded, much lesse insisted on, though the Coale from the Altar; doth principally relie upon it.

2. I answer, that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, nor the Lords table, an Altar, but rather the contrary; For the Tittle of it is this: An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speake against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar,&c.

And the body of the Act runs thus: As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar; and in Scripture (marke it,) THE SVPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD, THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, &c.

So that the name which the Statute gives it, is only the Sacrament used, 8. times together in this Act; and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, thus so stiled, and this clause, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, is not a Title given it by the Statute, but by the Preistes and vulgar people, who then usually called it so, and added only by way of explanation as their usuall terme, not the Parleaments, and being omitted in the ensuing parts & clauses of this Act, which termes, the Sacrament, the Sacrament of Christes body and blood, with out this terme p. 151of explination; which this Act expresly declares, to be no Title given it in, or by the Scripture, which ever calls it, the Supper and Table of the Lord, the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ; but only by the vulgar, who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected, neither Masse nor Transubstantiation, nor Altars being then abolished, as they were shortly after.

3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar, (the sole thing now in question,) but, the Table of the Lord: therfore it makes nothing for Altars, or the stiling of the Communion Table an Altar.

4. No Act either in King Edwards Raigne or Queen Elizabeths, or since her dayes, this alone excepted, calls the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, but only the Sacrament, the Holy Sacrament, &c. this Title therfore being omitted in all other Acts, & mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar, not the Parleaments, and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Masse and Altars were againe set up and revived, but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this, can be no plea at all, for us now to call the Lords Table, an Altar, or his Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar; but rather argues the contrary; that we should for beare to stile them thus, because the Parleament in all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service (except only in Queen Maries dayes) hath done it; though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary, that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law, but never proves it, neither in truth can doe it.

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

I answer, that there is in this a double mistake. 1. in the Statute p. 152itselfe, in citing, 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes 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 seemes the Author of this Coale, (who stiles S. Edward Cooke, S. Robert Cooke, & makes M. Plowden a Iudge, & stiled him **Page 61. 62.Judge Plowden, though he were never any Iudge; & a Professed Papist) was some **By like D. Heylyn w…o playes t…e ignorāt Lawyer to, in his hist. of the Sabbath part. 2. c. 7 8.busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite & interpret Statutes in which he had no skill, or else borrowed his Law, from others, as ignorant as himselfe, perchance from aaTreatise of Gods house p. 2.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. (thoughbbService & Sacraments 1. M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary,) as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion.

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

p. 153And in the end of this Act… this clause is inserted: and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd, that all Lawes, Statutes & Ordinances, whereby an other service, administration of Sacraments, or Common prayer is limited, established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void & of none effect.

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

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

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

From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale, that neither the head, nor body, nor any branch, or member of p. 1541. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice, nor an Altar, nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side, much lesse on all sides acknowledged, as he falsely vaunts; that both the Princes, Prelates, Preists, & people have dis…ented from it, & that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes.

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

To the 3. reason I answer; that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer, set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar, as is evident by the Booke itselfe, and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar: Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority: but when the Altars the next yeare following (for no reformation can be perfited at first, but by degrees) were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund, & 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 Counsell, (which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction, registred by M. Fox; the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. & 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke, and the names of Lords Table, Gods board, Communion Table, Holy Table, Communion Sacrament, & Sacrament of Christs body & blood, & Lords Table, only retained & inserted in its steed; which Booke being afterwards altered, amended & revided by Act of Parliament, 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names, Altar, & Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted, and those other Phrases & expressions only retained.

The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar, being thus particularly, purposely & professedly damned & expunged p. 155out of the Booke of Common Prayer, by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes, & never thought meet to be used or reinserted since, is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution, that the Communion Table is not an Altar (much lesse anaaShelford p. 2. 7. … High Altar, as some now phrase it;) that the Lords Table, ought not to be stiled an Altar, nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, (else why should these Titles be thus exploded?) and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus, much lesse to write & plead in defence of these their Titles, as these new Champions doe, but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture, the Common Prayer Booke, & these two statutes give them.

To the 4. reason; I answer:

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

True it is, Bishop Latimer sayth, that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places, in a figurative and improper sence; & Bishop Ridley, in answer to that place, that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill, sayth, that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar, not the Jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord; but themselves never call it an Altar, but a Table only; they being so farre from it, that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke, de Confringendis Altaribus, and bbFox Acts & monum. p. 1211. 1212.he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples, & in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke.

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

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

For John Fryth only sayth, they examined me touching p. 156the Sacrament of the Altar; the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it, not he; who mentions it as their Interrogatorie, not his answer.

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

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

Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8: dayes, before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe ccFox Acts & monum. p. 1703.confessed at last.

Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar, but afterwards he did; not using it in his writings; and so farre was he s…em calling the Communion Table an Altar, that he was the cheife agent in casting ou… Altars: and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke, his, ddIbidem p. 1211.name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley, for the removing of Altars, and setting up Tables in their places; and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar, (condemning both Altars, and their very name in some sort) sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter, being approved, if not compiled by him.

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

Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons, notwithstanding these Objections, that the Communion Table is no p. 157Altar, and that the Church, State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars, and their very name together with them, by which Altars (as Philippus Eilbrachius: writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect. 7.) the Crosse of Christ is overturned, and therfore they are to be taken away; the Orthodox Churches doing well, in removing them, and restoring Tables, at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny, but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper.

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

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

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

Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England: eeFox Act… & monum. p. 1404. 1406.For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church: Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar, and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar; Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church, and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar, and setting their very Tombes; and rotten Carcases, above Christs mercy seat, and Chaire of Estate, p. 158… of their present successors may be credited, who as they will have no …ea…es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty, some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops (who should give good example of humility to others,) to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them; If then our Tables must be situated. as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares; they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell, because Altars have there been usually placed, as the premises abundantly evidence.

And these ensuing Testimonies will prove… lexond… control. **Rerum Germanic. Script. m. 1. p. 5…0. 591.Sigismund the Monke, in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum, Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records; That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of Augusta dedicated to S. Afra, there were two Quiers, in which were two Altars standing under two arches; & at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles, which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes. and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people. Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars; the first & cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys, Versus Occidentem in parte, septentrionali, non juxta murum, SED QUASI IN MEDIO: & that stood towards the West, (not East) in the North part, not close by the wall, but as it were in MIDDEST.

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

**De Vitis pont. Rom p. 68. 69.Anastasius writes of Pop… Theodorus, that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare; he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar, honoring him as the Preist of the royall City.

Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end p. 159of the Quire where the Bishops chaires, and Seates now generally are placed, or in the midst of the Quire; or else B…shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar, where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand, for feare any should sitt above, or in equipage with God Almighty.

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

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

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

If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe, are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire, in the North, not East end, yea at the very lower part and end, not p. 160East 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 Quire, as they call it, since the old Altar under which S. Peter & Paul lie buried (& at, which the **See Thomas Beacons reliq. of Rome.Romanists affirme, they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse,) stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church, the Preists, Prelates a…d people taking the upper hand thereof, and sitting above it, as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar.

The 3. objection Object. 3.is this: aaCoale frō the Altar p. 30. 53. 54.The Jewes and Pagans Altars, stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples; Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall, as now they are placed.

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

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

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

3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the bbSe Orme …ods Pagano-Papis… l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform.Gentiles & Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums, MercieMercy-Seates, Copes, Miters, Aaronicall attires vestments, Organs, Singing-men, & a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies, Orders, Pastimes Festivals & Consecrations; why not then in the standing of their Altars; having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular, as they have in all, or most of the others.

p. 1614. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple & Court, of the Temples by diuine institution & direction, & so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason, as the most vsefull …itting and de…ent scituation; therfore Christians should rather imitate, then directly thwart them in this particular, having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe.

The 4. objection is this. Object 4. Se the Coale p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52.The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated, (where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed,) therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples.

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

As for the practise in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crowne, I am utterly ignorant of it: But when he was Prince of Wales, I once receiued the Sacrament in his Chapple at Sant Iames; & then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the middest of the Chapple, and white linnen Clothes, like Table Clothes, were spread upon the deskes of the Seates (where in the Communiant… p. 162sate round about) in a decent manner, the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seates, and this (they then certified me, had been, and was the custome of administring the Sacrament there, both in Prince Henries & his Majestyts time.

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

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

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

Will it therfore follow; Therfore all Papish Churches & Chapples ought to have such Officers, Instruments, & chaunting? We know, that many Cathedralls now, I know not by what Law, have no Communion Tables in them, but High Altars, (so they terme p. 163them,) elevated on High with many steps, and ascents, their very exalted situation & name, being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles, so oft condemned in Scriptures, Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3, Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Altars, situated in High places.

Shall therfore all our parish Churches & Chapples have no Communion Tables in them, (though prescribed by our Statutes, Common Prayer-Booke, Articles of Religion, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, writers,) but High-Altars only, which all these decree? We know that these new erected Cathedrall High Altars have much furniture, as Tapers, Basons, Cushions (yea and Crucifixes,aaThe hom. against the Perill of Idol. Se p. 41. 42. 61 expresly condemned by our Homilies, as unlawfull either to be made or used in Churches,) standing on them; Which M. Andrew Melvin, that famous Scottish Poët & Divine, thus wittily describes in Latine Verse:

bbAn. Mel. Musoe print. An. 1620. p. 24.In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum:

Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara?

Lumina coeca duo, pollubra sicca duo?

Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum?

Lumine coeca suo;**Sorde sepulta sua. flumine sicca suo?

Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram;

Purpuream**Pingit religio…a lupam. So the first Copy but the corrected, as in the Text. gemino mact at honore lupam?

Si Christi haec Mensa est, cur Missae est structa paratu?

Cur versa in tenebras, Lux? in inane Latex?

Si sensus, cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis,

Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece?

Cur, quae pulsa prius, presto est caliginis umbra?

Quò calamistra trucis, philtraque blanda Lupae?