PErlegi librum hunc cuititulus est [A Coal from the Altar; or, An Answer to a Letter, etc.] in quo nihil reperio quò minùs cum utilitate publicâ imprimatur; Modò intra tres menses proximè sequentes typis mandetur.  
Sa▪ Baker R. P. D. Episc: Londin: Sacellanus Domest. Maij 5ᵒ. 1636.   

A COAL FROM THE ALTAR. OR, AN ANSWER TO A Letter not long since written to the Vicar of GR. against the placing of the Communion Table at the East end of the Chancel; and now of late dispersed abroad to the disturbance of the Church.  
First sent by a judicious and Learned Divine for the satisfaction of his private Friend; and by him commended to the Press, for the benefit of others.  HEB. 13. 10. We have an Altar, whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the Tabernacle. 
LONDON, Printed for ROBERT MILBOURNE, at the sign of the Unicorn near Fleet-bridge. 1636.   

THE PRINTER TO THE READER.  
I Am to advertise thee, good Reader, of some certain things, for thy better understanding of this Treatise. First, that whereas thou shalt find here three several Characters, Thou wouldst take notice that the Roman is the words of the Author; the Italic, matter of Distinction, partly, but principally of Quotation by him used; and that the English letter doth exhibit to thee, the words and periods of the Epistle, or Discourse which is here confuted. Secondly, that howsoever the Letter by him here replied unto, be scattered up and down, and in diverse hands; Yet because possibly, the Copy of the same hath not hitherto been seen of all, who may chance cast their eyes upon this Treatise; and partly, that the world may see, that he hath dealt truly with the Epistoler, and not omitted any Argument or Authority by him produced; The very Letter itself is herewith Printed, and bound together with it, though it be Apocrypha. Last of all, I must let thee know, that whereas the Acts and Monuments, otherwise called the Book of Martyrs, being a Book which the Epistoler makes much use of, is of a different Edition in the reply, from that which is so often cited in the Letter; and that there have been many Editions of the same: That which the Author deals in, is the last Edition, Printed at LONDON in three volumes, Anno 1631. I have no more to say unto thee, but wish thee good luck in the name of the Lord; And so adieu.   

A COAL FROM THE ALTAR. OR, An Answer to a Letter, not long since written to the Vicar of GR. against the placing of the Communion-Table at the East end of the Chancel, etc.  
SIR,  

The Introduction.  
I Have read your Letter, and cannot but extremely wonder, that you should be so easily over-weighed as I see you are. You say that you were willing once, of your own accord, to have removed your Cammunion Table unto the East end of your Chancel, according as it is in his Majesty's Chapel, and generally in all Collegiate and Cathedral Churches: and that you had intended so to do, had you not met with a Discourse written in way of Letter, to the Vicar of GR. (and as you have taken it upon common report) by a Reverend Prelate of this Church; whose Arguments have so prevailed with you, that you are almost taken off from that resolution, though it be now exacted of you by your Ordinary. It seems you are not rightly balanced, when you can be so easily induced to change your purposes; especially as the Case now is, which requires more of your obedience, than your Curiosity. And should we all be so affected, as to demur on the Commands of our Superiors, in matters of exterior Order, and public Government, till we are satisfied in the Grounds and Reasons of their Commandments; or should we fly off from our duty, at sight of every new devise, that is offered to us: we should soon find a speedy dissolution, both of Church and State. You know, who said it, well enough, Si ubi jubeantur, quaerere singulis liceat, pereunte obsequio imperium etiam intercidit. Tacit. Hist. lib. 1. Yet notwithstanding, since you desire, that I would give you satisfaction in the present point, by telling you both what I think of the Discourse, which hath so swayed you; and what may be replied against it, in maintenance of the Order now commended unto you: I will adventure on the second, if you will excuse me in the first. You say, and probably believe so too, that it was written by a Reverend Prelate, and indeed by some Passages therein it may so be thought; for it is written as from a Diocesan, unto a private Parish Priest in his Jurisdiction: and then, I hope, you cannot justly be offended, if I forbear to pass my censure upon my betters. Yet so far I dare give you my opinion of it, that I am confident it can be none of his who is pretended for the Author: nor indeed any ones worthy to be advanced, I will not say unto so high a dignity in the Church, but to so poor a Vicarige as his was, to whom the Letter was first written. Nay to speak freely to you, I should least think it his, whom you entitle to it on uncertain hearesayes, of all men's else: in that he hath been generally reported to be of extraordinary parts in point of learning, and of most sincere affections unto the Orders of the Church; no show or footstep of the which, or either of them, is to be found in all that Letter. And I dare boldly say, that when it comes unto his knowledge, what a poor trifling piece of Work, some men, the better to endear the Cause by so great a name, have thus pinned upon him: he will not rest till he have traced this Fame to the first original; and having found the Authors of it, will con them little thanks for so great an injury. For my part, I should rather think, that it was writ by Mr. Cotton of Boston, who meaning, one day, to take Sanctuary in New England, was willing to do some great Act before his going; that he might be the better welcome when he came amongst them: or by some other neighbouring Zealot, whose wishes to the cause were of morestrength than his performance; and after spread abroad of purpose, the better to discountenance that Uniformity of public Order, to which the piety of these times is so well inclined. Further than this, I shall not satisfy you in your first desire; but hope that you will satisfy yourself with this refusal.  
For the next part of your request, that I should let you see (if at least I can) what may be said in Answer unto that Discourse, which hath so suddenly overswayed you; I shall therein endeavour your satisfaction: though my Discretion for so doing, may perhaps prove the second Holocaust▪ that shall be sacrificed on those Altars, which are there opposed. And this I shall the rather do, because you say that the Discourse or Letter is now much sought after, and applauded, and scattered up and down in several Copies: of purpose, as it were, to distract the people, and hinder that good work which is now in hand. In Answer to the which, I shall keep myself unto my pattern, and to the business which is chiefly there insisted on: grounding myself especially, on the self same Authors and Autorities, which are there laid down; though not laid down so truly, at least not so clearly, as they ought to be. Nor had I here said any thing touching the preamble thereunto, but fallen directly on the main: but that, me thinks, I meet with somewhat, which seems to cast a scorn upon the Reverence appointed by the Canon, unto the blessed name of JESUS; which the Epistoler, whosoever he was, would have so performed, that they which use it, do it Humbly, and not Affectedly, to procure Devotion, not De●ision of the Parishioners. That Herb, according as the saying is, hath spoiled all the Pottage. For when the Church commands, that at the name of JESUS, due and lowly reverence shall be done, by all Persons present, and this to testify (as the Canon saith) our inward humility: Why should we think of any man who obeys the Canon, that he doth rather do it out of Affectation, than Affection? rather affectedly, then humbly, as his own phrase is. Such Censurers of the hearts of other men, had need be careful of their own. For the next Caution, that those which use it, do it to procure Devotion of the people, and not Derision; it is more unseasonable: There being none, I think, who ever used it otherwise, then having testified their own Humility and Devotion, to procure the like Devotion and Humility in other men: none, I dare boldly say, that did ever use it, to procure Derision of their Parishioners, no more than David when he danced before the Ark, intended to make sport for jeering Michol. And therefore the Epistoler must either mean, that doing reverence at the name of the Lord JESUS, is of itself so vain a thing, that it must needs procure Derision from the looke●s on: or else, that honest and conformable men, should rather choose to disobey the Church, and the Canons of it; then by obedience to the same, incur the censure of some few, who as they walk in the Counsel of the ungodly, so do they also sit in the seat of Scorners. This said, we will descend to those three particulars, which are insisted on in that Epistolary Discourse. viz. First, The having of an Altar at the upper end of the Quire. Secondly, The placing of the Table, Altarwise. Lastly, The fixing of it in the Choir, that so it may not be removed into the body of the Church: which things, the Vicar, as it seems, did both approve of, and desire, and was therein crossed, and opposed by the Epistoler; how justly, and on what sure grounds, we shall see in order.   

SECT. I.  
AND first of all he ●aith in his said Letter to the Vicar, That if he should erect any such Altar, his discretion would prove the only Holocaust which would be sacrificed thereon. Why so? Because he had subscribed when he came to his place, that that other oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars▪ is a blasphemous ●igment, and pernicious Imposture, Artic. 31. And here I cannot but observe, that there is little fair dealing to be looked for from this Epistoler, that falters thus in the beginning: there being no such clause in all that Article. The Article hath nothing in it, either of Papists, Altars, or that other oblation: which is here thrust into the text, only to make poor men believe, that by the Doctrine of the Church in her public Articles, Altars and Papists are mere relatives; that so whoever talks of Altars, or placing of the Table Altarwise, may be suspected presently to be a Papist, or at lea●t 〈◊〉 affected. As for that other oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars, that's said to be a plasphemous figment, and pernicious Imposture; therefore the only Holocaust remaining to be sacrificed, the discretion of the Vicar. What had he sacrificed his discretion only, and no more than so? The Article goes further sure, for it determineth positively, that The sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said, that the Priests did offer CHRIST for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, was blasphemous fables, and pernicious deceits. And therefore had the Vicar of Gr. erected or intended to erect an Altar for such a sacrifice, he had not only sacrificed his discretion on it, but also his Religion; and been no longer worthy to be called a Son of the Church of England. 〈◊〉 ●hen as sure it is, the Church admits of other sacrifices and oblations, although not of those: as viz. of the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13. 15. as also of the oblation of our whole selves, c●r souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to Almighty GOD, Rom. 12. 1. both which, she teacheth us to offer to him, as our bounden duty and service is, in the holy Sacrament. [Prayer after the Communion.] And not so only, but she alloweth of a Commemorative sacrifice, for a perpetual memory of Christ's precious death, of that his full, perfect, and sufficient sacrific●, oblation and satisfation for the sins of the whole world, to be continued till his coming again: [Prayer of the Consecration.] When therefore it is said in the First Homily of the Sacrament, alleged by the Epistoler, that we ought, to take heed lest the Lords Supper (not the Communion, as he lays it down) of a memory to be made a sacrifice; it reflects not on any of the Sacrifices before allowed of. The Church is constant to herself, though her Doctors are not: and thus discovers and expounds her own intentions: W● must then take heed (saith the Homily) lest of the memory, it be made a Sacrifice; lest of a Communion, it be made a private eating; lest of two parts, we have but one; lest applying it for the dead, we lose the fruit that be alive. By which it is most manifest, that the Sacrifice rejected in the Homily, is that which is cried down in the Book of Articles: which the Epistoler had no reason to suspect, was ever thought on, much less aimed at, by the Vicar of Gr. though he desired to have an Altar, i. e. to have the Communion Table placed Altarwise, at the upper end of his Choir, or used the name of Altar, for the holy Table. For it is granted afterwards by the Epistoler, that the Lords Table anciently was called an Altar, because of the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: for which he voucheth Archbishop Cranmer, and others; and cities the Acts and Monum. pag. 1211. which is Part 2. pag. 700. of my Edition.  
2 AS for the Canons of the Convocation, Anno 1571. out of which is alleged, that not the vicar, but the Church wardens are to provide for the Communion; and that not an Altar, but a fair joined Table: its plain they tell us no s●ch matter, or not so much unto his purpose, as he would persuade us. All that those Canons say, is this, and that in plain affirmative terms, without those Negations; Aeditui curabuntmensam ex asseribus composite junctam, quae administrationi sacro sanctae Communionis inserviat; & mundum tapetem qui illam contegat: that the Churchwardens shall provide a decent joined Table for the Communion, and see that it be orderly covered with an handsome Carpet. And there was reason why this Care (for so much as concerned the providing of these things) should be imposed on the Churchwardens, rather than upon the Minister; viz. because the Table and the Carpet both, were to be fitted and provided at the Charge of the Parish. But the said Canons do not tell us, that the Churchwardens shall provide this Table, exclusively of the Vicar, without his counsel; or that they shall appoint either of what fashion it shall be, or whether it shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel: or whether in the Chancel, it shall be placed at the upper end, like an Altar; or in the middle, like a Table. For any thing those Canons tell us, the Vicar was to have a greater hand in ordering the said Table, being so provided, than the Churchwardens were, or aught to have: as one that better understood what was convenient in, and for ●ods service, than they did or could. Nor did the Vicar any thing in this case against the Ca●on, for he provided not the Table; nor caused any Altar to be built of new; but only caused the Table, which he found provided by the Churchwardens, to be disposed of to a more convenient place, than before it stood in: so that the Allegation was as needless, as the reprehension without ground. Only it pleaseth the Epistoler, to give some countenance to the Vestry-doctrine of these days; in which the Churchwardens, and other Elders of the Vestry, would gladly challenge to themselves the Supreme disposing of all Ecclesiastical matters in their several Parishes: leaving their Minister, (in Towns Corporate especially,) to his Meditations; as if he only were intended for a looker on, a dull Spectator of their active undertake.  
3 FOr, besides what is here ascribed to the Church wardens, and denied the Vicar, or Incumbent; it followeth in the next place, save one, that Uicars were never enabled to set up Altars, but allowed once, with others (i. e. the Churchwardens) to pull them down. Injunct. 1● Eliz. for Tables in the Church. Whereas indeed the 〈◊〉, or the Minister in that Injunction, is the principal man, and the Churchwardens, or one of them, are added for assistance only; perhaps, because they were to bear the Charges of it. For it is ordered that n● Altar be taken down, but by the oversight of the Curate of the Church, and the Churchwardens, or one of them at the least, wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used▪ N●t pulled down therefore, as the Epistoler hath i●, which implies 〈◊〉 or a popular fury; but taken down in fair and orderly manner: and that not by the Church wardens, as the principal men, but by the Curate chiefly, and any one of the Churchwardens, whom he pleased to choose. It's true indeed, the Bishop of the Diocese is he to whom the ordering of these things doth of right belong; and in the preface to the Common Prayer Book it is so appointed. For in the said Preface it i● said, that for as much as nothing almost can be so plainly set forth but doubts may arise in the use and practise of the same: to appease all such diversities, (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this Book, the Parties that so doubt shall always resort unto the Bishop of the Diocese, etc. But then, it is as true, or at least, more fit, that he should send his resolutions to the Priest, then to the Parish; the Curate having taken an oath of Canonical obedience to him, which the people have not. 〈…〉 of the Letter, that the Churchwardens 〈…〉 other smack of the said Vestrie-doctrine: and was there placed in front to delight the people, who need, God wot, no such encouragements to contemn their Parsons, being too forward in that kind of their own accord. Paroc pecor stimulis— Labour est inhibere vo l●ntes.  
4 FOr the remaining passsage in this first Paragraph, where it is said, that Altars were removed by Law, and Tables placed in their steed, in all, or the most Churches in England; and for the proof thereof, the Queen's Injunctions cited, as if they did affirm as much: it's plain, that there is no such thing in the said Injunction. The Queen's Injunctions An. 1559. tell us of neither all nor most▪ as it is alleged: but only say, that in many and sundry parts of this Realm, the Altars in the Churches were removed, and tables placed for the administration of the holy Sacrament, etc. Sundry and many is not all nor most; in my poor conceit. And it is plain by that which follows, not only that in other places, the Altars were not taken down upon opinion of some further Order to be taken in it by the Queen's Commissioners; but it is ordered, That no Altar shall be taken down, without the oversight of the Curate, & one of the Church wardens at the least; and that too with great care and caution, as before is said. Nay the Commissioners were contented well enough, that the Altars formerly erected might have still continued; declaring, as it doth appear by the said Injunction, that the removing of the Altars, seemed to be a matter of no great moment: and so it is acknowledged by this Epistoler, in the following paragraph, where he confesseth it in these words, It seems the Queen's Commissioners were content, that they (the Altars) should stand, as we may guess by the Injunctions 1559. In which we have that great advantage which Tully speaks of, Con●itentem reum. The Queen's Commissioners, as they had good authority for what they did; so we may warrantably think, that they were men of special note, and able judgements. And therefore if they were contented, that the Altars formerly erected should continue standing, (as the Epistoler confesseth;) it is a good Argument, that in the first project of the Reformation, neither the Queen nor her Commissioners disallowed of Altars, or thought them any way unserviceable in a Church Reform. So that for aught appears unto the contrary, neither the Article, nor the Homily, nor the Queen's Injunctions, nor the Canons of 1571. have determined any thing: but that as the Lords Supper may be called a Sacrifice, so may the holy Table be called an Altar; and consequently, set up in the place, where the Altar stood.  
5 Now as there is alleged no Canon, Ordinance, or Doctrine, which if examined rightly, do declare against it; so there is much that may be said in defence thereof: and of that much we will use nothing, but that which will agree with the capacity of the meanest man, and shall be proved by that authority, which the Epistoler trusts to most; in all this business, even the Acts and Monuments. To which we shall adjoin, for our more assurance, the Testimony of two Acts of Parliament; one under King Edward the sixth, th'other under Queen Elizabeth. First, for the Acts and Monuments, we find, that not a few of those which suffered death for their opposing of the gross & carnal Doctrine of Transubstantiation, did not only well enough endure the name of Altar, but without any doubt or scruple, called the Lords Supper, sometimes a Sacrifice, and many times the Sacrament of the Altar. So speaks john Fryth, Secondly, They examined me, touching the Sacrament of the Altar, Whether it was the very Body of Christ or not. Act; and Monuments, part. 2. pag. 307. john Lambert thus, As concerning th'other six Sacraments, I make you the same Answer, that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar, and no other, pag. 401. And in another place, CHRIST being offered up once for all, in his own proper person, is yet said to be offered up not only every year at Easter, but also every day in the celebration of the Sacrament; because his Oblation once for ever made, is thereby represented, pa. 435. Archbishop Cranmer also, though he opposed the Statute of the Six Articles, particularly that of Transubstantiation, which he throughly canvased: yet at the phrase or term of Sacrament of the Altar, he took no offence, but useth it as formerly had been accustomed, pag. 443.  
6. NOr was it a new name taken up of late, but such as some of them acknowledge to be derived from pure Antiquity; & those too, such as lived and suffered, after the name of Altar had been left out of the Book of Common Prayer, which was last established. john Philpott thus, That partly because it is a Sacrament of that lively Sacrifice, which CHRIST offered for our sins upon the Altar of the Cross; and partly because that Christ's body crucified for us, was that bloody Sacrifice, which the bloodshedding of all the beasts offered upon the Altar in the old Law did prefigurate, & signify unto us: the old Writers do sometimes call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, amongst other names which they ascribe thereunto, the Sacrament of the Altar, Part. 3. pag. 23. Thus Bishop Latimer plainly granteth, that the Lords Table may be called an Alt●r, and that the Doctors call it so in many places, though there be no propitiatory Sacrifice, but only CHRIST, pag. 85. And lastly, Bishop Ridley do●h not only call it, the Sacrament of the Altar, affirming thus, that in the Sacrament of the Altar, is the natural body and blood of CHRIST, etc. pag. 492. But in reply unto an Argument of the Bishop of Lincoln's, taken out of Cyrill, doth resolve it thus, That the Word ALTAR, in the Scripture, signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the jews were wont to offer their burnt Sacrifices, as the Table of the Lords Supper: And that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word ALTAR, not the jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord: and by that saying, Altars are erected in Christ's name, Ergo, CHRIST is come; he means, that the Communion is administered in his remembrance▪ Ergo, CHRIST is come, pag. 497. Which being the language of the Prelates, and other learned men then living, it is no marvel, if in the Parliament, 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1. the same name occur. The Parliaments in matters which concerned God's Service, did then use to speak, according as the Church had taught them. Now in that Parliament, however it was resolved, that the whole Communion should be restored, which in effect, was a plain abolition of the former Mass; yet is that Act which so restores it, entitled, An Act against such persons as shall speak irreverently, against the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, commonly called, The Sacrament of the Altar; and for the receiving thereof under both kinds. And in the body of the Act, there is special Order taken for a Writ, to be directed to the Bishop of the Diocese, on such delinquencies; where it is called expressly, Sacro sanctum Sacramentum Altaris; the holy Sacrament of the Altar. Which being repealed by Queen Mary, in the first Parliament of her reign, because of the Communion under both kinds, in the same allowed of; was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth, both the head and body, and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. cap. 1. 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 Laws.   

SECT. II.  
NExt, for the second point, the standing of the Communion Table, Altarwise; the said Epistoler thus declares himself to the Vicar of Gr. If you mean (saith he) by Altarwise, that it should stand in that place of the Chancel where the Altar stood▪ I think somewhat may be said for because the injunctions 1559. did so place it. And I conceive it to be the most decent situation when it is not used, and for use too, where the Choir is mounted up by steps, and open, so that he that officiates may be seen and heard of all the Congregation. Such an one I hear your Chancel is not. But if you mean by Altarwise, that it should stand along close by the wall, so as you be forced to officiate at one end thereof (as you may have observed in great men's Chapels) I do not believe that ever the Communion Tables were (otherwise than by casualty) so placed in Country Churches. This I have laid together, as being but a Preamble to the next Discourse; and rather matter of opinion and hearsay, than of proof, reason, or authority: For it stands only on I think, and I conceive, and I have heard, and I believe not; which no man can interpret to be Demonstrations. Therefore to look upon the passage, as it lieth together, we have a plain confession, that if by placing of the Table Altarwise, is meant the setting of it in that place where the Altar stood; there is then somewhat, at the least, to be said for that, because the Injunctions did so place it: and next an absolute revocation of the said confession; where it is said, that if by Altarwise is meant, that it should stand along close by the wall, than he believeth not that ever the Communion Table was so placed (unless by causualty) in Country Churches. Quo teneam nodo? This is just fast and loo●e, and I know not what; the reconciliation of two Contradictions. The Queen's Injunctions were set out for the reiglement and direction of all the Churches in this kingdom, and it is said in them, that the holy Table in every Church shall be decently made, (in case the Altars were removed, which they left at liberty) and set in the place where the Altar stood, and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth. If in the place where the Altar stood, then certainly it must stand along clo●e by the wall, because the Altars always stood so: and that aswell in Country Churches, as in great men's Chapels, all being equally regarded in the said Injunctions, as in the Preface to the same doth at full appear. Whereas in case the Table were to stand with one end toward the East great Window, as is after said; it could not possibly s●and in the place where the Altar did, as the Injunctions have appointed: the Altar taking up much room to the North and South, which the Table placed endlong doth not ta●e up; and contrary, the Table taking up much room to the East and West, which the Altar did not. However we may take what is given us here by the Epistoler, where he affirms, that placing of the Table where the Altar stood, is the most decent situation when it is not used, and for use too, where the Choir is mounted up by steps and open, so that he that officiates may be seen and heard of all the Congregation; and such an one, as he ●ad heard, the Vicar's Chancel was not. Whether the Chancel at Gra: was mounted up by st●ps, or not, is no great matter. In case it were not so, it might have easily been done, without much charge: and those of Gra: were the more beholding to this Epistoler, for taking so much pains to save their purses. If it were mounted up by steps, and that it were most decent for the Tables to be placed thereon: Why not aswell along the Wall, as with one end thereof to the East great Window?  
2. FOr this, there are three Reasons given us, First, because then the Country people would suppose them, Dressers, rather than Tables. Secondly, because the Queen's Commissioners for Ecclesiastical matters, directed that the ●able should stand, not where the Altar, but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood▪ Order 1561. And thirdly, because the Minister appointed to read the Communion, ●which he, the Vicar, out of the Book of Fast 1●. of the King, was pleased, as the Epistoler phraseth it, to call Second Service) is directed to read the Commandments, not at the end, but at the Northside of the Table, which implies the End to be placed towards the East great Window. Rubric before the Communion. And would the people take the Table, if placed Altarwise, to be a ●resser, not a Table? I now perceive from whom it was that Mr. Prynne borrowed so unmannerly and profane a phrase, whereof I thought him formerly to have been the Author [L●me Giles his haltings]: And from whom also he did borrow the quotations in his Appendix, against Bowing at the name of JESUS, the mistakes and all. ● qq. * 4. Viz. Rubric for the Communion. Queen Elizab. Injunctions, [Injunc. for Tables in the Church] The Book of Canons, An. 1471. p. 18. I say, and the mistakes and all: for both with him, and this Epistoler, it is p. 18. whereas indeed in the old Book, which was th●● meant by the Epistoler, it is p. 15. which plainly shows, out of whose quiver Mr. Prynne did steal those arrows. Just in that scornful sort, Doctor Weston, the than Deane of Westminster, did in a Conference at Oxford with Bishop Latimer, call the Communion Tables, as in King Edward's reign they had been placed in some Churches, by the name of ●yster-boards, Act. & Mon. Part. 3. p. 85. and so he called in a Sermon at S ●. Paul's Cross also, p. 95. The like did Doctor White, the then Bishop of Lincoln, in a Conference with Bishop Ridley, where he doth charge the Protestants in King Edward's days, for setting up an Oyster Table in stead of an Altar, p. 497. The Church of England, is in the mean time, but in sorry case. If she appoint the Lords Board to be placed like a common Table, the Papists they will call it an Oyster-table: If like an Altar, the Puritans, and Mr. Prynne, will call it a Dr●sser-beard. A slovenlie and scornful term, as before was said, and such as doth deserve no other Answer, than what the Marginal notes in the Acts and Monuments, give in the one place to the Dean of Westmin●ter. viz. The blasphemous mouth of Doctor W●ston, calling the Lords table an Oysterboard, pat. 85. or what they give in th'other place to the Bishop of Lincoln; viz. Bishop White blasphemously called the ●oord of the Lords Supper, 〈◊〉 Oyster table▪ pag. 497. I would there were no worse notes in the Acts and Monuments.  
3. AS for the Orders published by the Queen's Commissioners, An ●. 1561. they say indeed as is alleged, th●t in the place where the steps were, the Communion Table shall stand: but then they say withal, which is not alleged, that there be fixed on the wall over the Communion board, the tables of God's Precepts imprinted for the said purpose. And in the Book of Advertisements, entitled, Articles of Advertisement for due order in the public Administration of Common-praier, and the holy Sacraments; and published in An ●. 1565. it is ordered thus: The Parish shall provide a decent Table, standing on a frame, for the Communion Table, which they shall decently cover with a Carpet of silk, or other decent covering, and with a white linne● cloth in the time of the Administration: And shall set the ten Commandments upon the East wall, over the said Table. Which put together make up this construction, that the Communion Table was to stand above the steps, and under the Commandments: and therefore all along the wall, on which the ten Commandments were appointed to be placed; which was directly where the Altar had stood before. And in this wise we must interpret the said Orders and Advertisements; or else the Orders published 1561, must run quite cross to the Injunctions published 1559, but two years before: which were ridiculous to imagine in so grave a State.  
4. NOr doth it help the cause undertaken by the Epistoler, that The Minister appointed to read the Communion, is directed to read the Commandments, not at the end, but at the Northside of the Table: there being no difference in this case between the North-end, and the North-side, which come both to one. For in all quadrilaterall, and quadrangular figures, whether they be a perfect Square, which Geometricians call Quadratum, or a long Square (as commonly our Communion Tables are) which they call Oblongum: its plain that if we speak according to the rules of Art, (as certainly they did which composed that Rubric) every part of it is a side; how ever Custom hath prevailed to call the narrower sides by the name of ends. When therefore he that ministereth at the Altar, stands at the North-end of the same, as we use to call it; he stands no question at the North-side thereof, as in propriety of speech we ought to call it; and so implies not, as it is supposed by the Epistoler, that the end, or narrower part thereof, is to be placed towards the East great Window. And this Interpretation of the Rubric, I the rather stand to, because that in the Common Prayer book done into Latin by command, and authorized by the great Seal of Queen Elizabeth, Ann. 2●. of her reign, it is thus translated: Ad cujus mensae septentrionalem partem, Minister stans, orabit orationem Dominicam. viz. That the Minister standing at the North part of the Table, shall say the 〈…〉  
5. FOr the Parenthesis, I might very well have passed it over; as not conducing to this purpose; but that it seems to cast a scorn on them, by whose direction the Book of the Fast, in 1●. of the King was drawn up and published, as if it were a Novelty or singular devise of theirs, to call the latter part of Divine Service, by the name of Second Service: whereas indeed the name is very proper for it, and every way agreeable both to the practice of antiquity, and the intentions of this Church at that very time, when the Book of Common Prayer was first established. For if we look into the Liturgy of our Church, immediately after Athanasius Creed, we shall find it thus: Thus endeth the Order of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the whole year: i. e. the form of Morning and Evening Prayer for all days, equally, aswell the working days, as the holy days, without any difference. Then look into the first Rubric before the Communion, and we find it thus: So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signify their names unto the Curates over night, or else in the morning before the beginning of Morning Prayer, or immediately after. Where clearly it is mean●, that there should be some reasonable time between Morning Prayer and the Communion. For otherwise, what leisure could the Curate have, to call before him, open, and notorious 〈◊〉 Livers, or such as have done any wrong unto their neighbours by word or deed, and to advertise them, in any wise not to presume to come unto the Lord's Table, till they have manifested their repentance, and amended their former naughty lives, and recompensed the parties whom they have done wrong unto? Or what spare time can we afford him, between the Reading Pew, and the Holy Table, to reconcile those men, betwixt▪ whom he 〈◊〉 malice and hatred to reign; and on examination of their dispositions, to admit that party, who is contented 〈◊〉 forgive, and repel the obstinate; according as by the Rubric he is bound to do. Which, being compared with the first Rubric, after the Communion, where it is said, that upon the Holidays, if there be no Communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the Homily, concluding with the Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth, etc. makes it both manifest and undeniable, that the distinction of the First and Second Service, is grounded on the very meaning of holy Church; however the Epistoler doth please to slight it.  
6. THat which next follows, is a Confirmation only of what went before: Viz. that The Ministers standing at the North side of the Table, was no new direction in the Queen's time only, but practised in King Edward's reign; that in the plot of our Liturgy sent by Knox, and Whittingham to Master Calvin, in the latter end of Queen Mary, it is said, that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table; (that only was put in to sh●w, that ●ee had the Book entitled, The Troubles of Francofurt:) that in King Edward's Liturgies, the Minister standing in the midst of the Altar, (i. e. with his back turned towards the people) 1549, is turned into his standing at the Northside of the Table, 1552. And finally, that this last Liturgy was revived by Parliament, 1●. Eliz. This we acknowledge to be true, but it adds nothing to the reasons produced before: and so perhaps it is as true, that it was used so, when this Letter was written, in most places of England; which in this kind had too much deviated from the ancient practice. But where it followeth in the next place, that What is done in Chapels, or Cathedral Churches, is not the point in question, but how the Tables are apppointed to be placed in Parish Churches: I think that therein the Epistoler hath been much mistaken. For certainly the ancient Orders of the Church of England, have been best preserved in the Chappells of the King's Majesty, and the cathedrals of this Kingdom; without the which perhaps, we had before this been at a loss amongst ourselves, for the whole form and fashion of Divine Service. And therefore if it be so in the Chappells and Cathedral Churches, as the Epistoler doth acknowledge; it is a pregnant Argument, that so it ought to be in the Parochial; which herein ought to precedent and conform themselves, according to the Pattern of the Mother Churches. And I would fain learn of this doughty Disputant, why he should make such difference between the Chappells, and Cathedral Churches on the one side, and the Parochialls on the other: as if some things which were not warranted by Law, were used in the one; and such as are allowed by Law, were not permitted to the other. The Laws and Canons now in force, look alike on all. And therefore here must be some cunning, to make the Chappells and cathedrals guilty of some ●oule transgression, some breach of Law and public Order; the better to expose them to the censure of a race of men, who like them ill enough already.  
7. AS for that fancy which comes next, that In some Chappells and cathedrals, the Altars may be still standing or to make use of their Covers and Ornaments, Tables may be placed in their room, of the same length and fashion the Altars were of; 〈…〉 dream, and a poor conjecture. Questionless, neither the Chappells Royal, nor any of the Cathedral Churches▪ have hitherto been so 〈◊〉 brought, (Gods Name be praised) but that they have been able to provide themselves of convenient Ornaments, without being any way beholding to their former Altars. However, if it were lawful in Cathedral Churches, either to suffer the old Altars to continue standing, or to set up Tables in their places, of the same length and fashion that the Altars were of, only in point of thrift, to save greater charges: I hope it will be thought more lawful, by indifferent men, to place the Table Altarwise, in Parochial Churches, in point of decency, and due obedience unto public Order That Altars do stand still in the Lutheran Churches, (the Doctors and Divines whereof he doth acknowledge afterwards to be sound Protestants) by the Epistoler is confessed, though it makes against him: as also that the Apology for the Augustan Confession doth allow it. And he confesseth too, not only that they stood a year or two in King Edward's time, as may appear by the Liturgy printed 1549. but that the Queen's Commissioners were content they should stand, as before we noted. What, stood they but a year or two in King Edward's time? Yes certainly they stood four years at the least, in that Prince's reign. For in the first year of King Edward, being 1547. was passed, that Statute, entitled, An Act against such persons as shall speak ireverently of the Sacrament of the Altar. Anno 1548. The Common prayer Book was confirmed by Parliament, although not published till the next year; wherein the word Altar is oft used, and by the which it seems the Altars did continue as before there were. Anno. 1540, A Letter in the King's name from the Lords of the Councell cell, came to Bishop ●●●●er, for abrogating Private Masses; wehrein it is apppointed, that the Holy blessed Communion be ministered at the High Altar of the Church, and in no other places of the same. Act. and Monum. Part. 2. p. 662. And in the year 1550. which was the fourth year of his reign, came out an Order from the Council, unto Bishop Ridley, for taking down the Altars in his Diocese, Pag. 699. So long it seems they stood without contradiction; and longer might have stood perhaps, if Calvin had given way unto it; of which more hereafter.  
8. IN the mean time; from matter of Evidence and Authority, we must proceed next unto point of Reason, and then go on again unto matter of Fact; as the way is lead by the Epistoler, whom we must follow step by step in all his wanderings. And in this way he tells us. That the Sacrifice of the Altar being abolished, these (call them what ●ou will) are no more Altars, but Tables of Stone or timber, and that it was alleged so 24. Novemb. 4●. Edw. 6. And 〈…〉 so alleged, that the Sacrifice of the Altar was abolished? I believe it not. It was alleged indeed, That the form of an Altar was ordained for the Sacrifices of the Law; that both the Law, and the Sacrifices thereof do cease, and therefore that the form of the Altar ought to cease also. Act▪ and Monuments part. 2. pag. 700. The Sacrifice of the Altar, and the Sacrifices of the Law, are two different things: it being told us by Saint Paul, that we (the Christians) have an Altar, whereof they have no right to ●are, which served the Tabernacle, Hebr. 13. 10. That Altar, and that Sacrifice, must continue always. And were it granted, as it need not, that since the Law, and Sacrifices thereof be both abolished, therefore the form of the Altar is to be abolished: yet would this rather help, than hurt us. For the Communion Table standing in the Body of the Church or Chancel, hath indeed more resemblance to Altars, on which the Priests did offer either Sacrifice, or Incense, under the Law; then if it did stand Altarwise, close along the wall, as did the Altars, after in the Christian Church: the one of them, which was that for Sacrifice, standing in atri● Sacerdotum, in the middle of the Priest's Court, without the Temple; the other being that of Incense, in Templo exteriori, even in the outward part of the Temple, and not within the Sanctum Sanctorum, as our Altars do.  
9 THat the said Tables of stone, or timber (though placed Altarwise, for so I take it is his meaning) may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses where there are no people so void of understanding, as to be scandalised, we are glad to hear of: and if it be not true, would to God it were. However we may safely say, that a small measure of understanding, is in this kind sufficient to avoid offence: there being none so weak of wit, who may not easily be persuaded (if at least they will, or that their Leaders will permit them) that the disposing of God's Table, rather to one place than another, it is not considerable in itself, or otherwise material in his public worship, further than it conduceth unto Order and Uniformity. If any be so void of understanding, which we hardly think, and plead their weakness in this point, as did the Brethren in the Conference at Hampton Court; we ask them with his Majesty of happy memory, not whether 45 years, but whether 80 years be not sufficient for them to gather strength, and get understanding; whether they be not rather headstrong, than not strong eenough. Confer. at Hampt. Court. pag. 66. For it may very well be thought that it is not any want of understanding, but an opinion rather that they have of their understandings, which makes some men run cross to all public Order, and take offence at any thing, whereof themselves are not the Authors.  
10. THat which next followeth, viz. that on the orders for breaking down of Altars, all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables, but not upon the fashion or form of Tables, is fairer in the flourish, than in the fact. For in the Act. & Mon. p. 1212. which there is cited, being of my Edit. part 2. pag. 700. there is no such matter. It is there said indeed, that on receipt of his Majesty's Le●ters sent to Bishop Ridley, the Bishop did 〈◊〉 the right form of a Table to be used in all his Diocese: but that it was appointed so in all other Dioceses, as the Epistoler hath affirmed, doth not appear by any thing in that place remembered. And though he did appoint it so, yet possibly it may be doubted, whether the people, fully understood his meaning: it being there said, that after the exhortation of the said Bishop Ridley, there grew a great diversity about the form of the Lords board, some using it after the form of a Table, and some of an Altar. So that the difference was not about the having of a Table, wherein it seems, most men were ready to obey the King's Command, and the Bishop's Order; but in the placing of the same: some men desiring, that it should be placed after the fashion of an Altar, others more willing that it should be used like a Common Table; in which bo●h parties followed their own affections, as in a thing which had not been determined of, but l●ft at large.  
11. THat which comes after is well said, but not well applied. It is well said, that In the old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar and a Table▪ an Altar in respect of what is there offered unto God, and a Table, i● regard of what is there participated by men, as for Example by the Priests. By this might better have been applied, and used to justify the calling of the Communion Table by the name of Altar, in respect of those Oblations made to God: as the Epistoler doth acknowledge afterwards. That of the prophet Malachi, 1. ver. 7. is indeed worth the marking, and doth demonstrate very well that in the old Testament, God's Altar is the very same with God's Table, but how it answereth 〈…〉 place of the hebrews, 13. 10. is beyond my reach, the Prophet speaking of that 〈◊〉 and those Sacrifices, whereof we have no right to ea●e which live under the Gospel; and the Apostle of that Altar, and that Sacrifice, whereof they have no right to eat, which live under the Law. In case, that Passage had been urged by the Vicar of Gr: as the Epistoler hath informed us, for we take his word; against some of his fellow Ministers, as before him it was by Master Morgan against Peter Martyr, in maintenance of an Altar in the Christian Church: however it might possibly have been answered otherwise by the Respondent, sure it had never been well answered by that text of Malachi.  
12. Where it is next said, that we have no Altar in regard of Oblation, but we have an Altar in regard of Participation & Communion granted to us: Were it no otherwise than it is here said, yet here we are all allowed an Altar, in regard of Participation and Communion; which is enough to justify both the situation of the Table Altarwise, and the name of Altar, and that too in the very instant of receiving the Communion. Now for the proof that we have an Altar also in regard of Oblation, we need look no further than into the latter end of this second Paragraph; where howsoever the Epistoler doth suppose, that the name of Altar crept (he might aswell have said, it came) into the Church, in a kind of complying in Phrase with the people of the jews, as Chemnitius, Gerardus, and other sound Protestants were of opinion; (where by the way, we may perceive that some may be sound Protestants, though they like of Altars:) Yet he acknowledgeth withal, that it was so called, partly, in regard of those Oblations made upon the Communion Table, for the use of the Priest and the Poor, whereof we read in Justine Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other ancient Writers; and partly, because of the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, as Archbishop Cranmer, and others thought, Acts & Monum. pag. 1211. which is Part 2. pag. 700. of my Edition. Whereby it seems, that besides the complying in Phrase with the jews (which the Christians of the Primitive times had little care of, when there was not greater reason to persuade them to it:) the Communion Table, was called an Altar, both in regard of the Oblations there made to God, for the use of his Priests, and of his Poor; as also, of the Sacrifice of Praise and thanksgiving, which was there offered to him by the Congregation. And therefore, as before we found an Altar, in regard of Participation, and Communion; so here we have an Altar in respect of Oblation also.  
13. THis, though it be so clear a Truth, that the Epistoler could not deny it; yet pulls he down with one hand, what he was after forced to set up with the other. For so it followeth in the Letter: The use of an Altar is to Sacrifice upon, and the use of a Table is to eat upon: And because Communion is an action most proper for a Table, as an Oblation is for an Altar; what then? therefore the Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a Table only, do not you call it an Altar? This is indeed the in●erence which is made from the former Principles. But if the Principles be true, as indeed they are not, there being an Altar in the Temple, which was not made to Sacrifice upon, as the Altar of Incense; and a Table also in the Temple, which was not made to ●ate upon, as the Table for the Shewbread: another, and a worse conclusion would soon follow on it; which is, that men would think it necessary to sit at the Communion. For if Communion be an action most proper for a Table, as it is affirmed, and that the use of a Table to be Eat upon, as is also said: the inference will be very strong, that therefore we are bound to sit at the Communion, even as we do at Common Tables, which we eat upon. A thing much sought for by some men, as if not only a great part of their Christian liberty, but that their whole Religion did consist therein; but brought into the Churches first, by the modern Arians (who stubbornly gainsaying the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, thought it no robbery to be equal with him, and sit down with him at his Table:) and for that cause most justly banished the reformed Church in Poland. For so it was determined there, in a general Synod, An ●. 1583. Ne sessio sit in usu ad mensam Domini. The reason was, Nam haec ceremoniea, Ecclesijs christianis & coetibus Evangelicis non est usit●ta; tantumque propria infidelibus Arianis, domino par● solio sese collocantibus: Because it was a thing not used in the Christian Church, but proper to the Arians only, who thought themselves hail-fellows with their Lord and Saviour; and to them we leave it.  
14. We are now come unto the Story of the Change, the change of Altars into Tables, and the reasons of it, which is thus delivered: In King Edward's Liturgy of 1549, it is every where; but in that of 1552, it is no where called an Altar, but the Lords Board. Why? Because the people being scandalised herewith in Country Churches, first beats them down de facto, than the supreme Magistrate by a kind of Law, puts them down de jure; and setting Tables in their rooms, took from us the Children of the Church and Commonwealth, both the name and nature of former Altars. What ever may be said of the change in the Public Liturgy, the reason here assigned for taking down of Altars, is both false and dangerous. Nor is it altogether true, that in the Liturgies here remembered, the name of Altar is used only in the one; though true it be, that that of the L●rds Board, or Table, is used only in the other. Though the Epistoler had not, perhaps, the leisure, to ●earch the Liturgy of 1549, where it is once called God's board, and once his Table, as viz. in the Prayer: We do not presume, etc. and in the Rubric of the same: yet he could not be ignorant that it was so observed in his own Author, the Acts and Monuments; and in the Page by him often quoted. Where it is said, that The Book of Common Prayer calleth the thing whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministered, indifferently, a Table, an Altar, or the Lord's Board, without prescription of any form thereof either of a Table, or of an Altar; so that whether the Lord's Board have the form of an Altar, or of a Table, the Book of Common Prayer calleth it both an Altar and a Table. For as it calleth it an Altar, whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministered, a Table, and the Lord's board: so it calleth the Table, whereon the holy Communion is distributed with laud's and Thanksgivings unto the Lord, an Altar: For that there is offered the same Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving. Part. 2. pag. 700. And this I have he rather laid down at large, to show with what indifferency these names of Table, Board, and Altar, have been used before; and may be used for the present: as also in what regard the Lord's Table may be called an alter. And this according unto Master Foxes Marginal note, in the self same Page; viz. The Table how it may be called an Altar, and in what respect: which shows that he allowed it to be called an Altar, though this Epistoler doth not like it.  
15. NOw as the Story of the change is not altogether true, so the reason there assigned, is both ●al●e and dangerous. First, it is false, the Alteration not being made, because the people were scandalised with Altars in Country Churches. The people were so far from being scandalised with having Altars; that in the Countries of Devon and Cornwall, they rose up in Arms, because the Mass was taken from them. Act. and Monum. Part. 2. pa. 666. And if we look into the Story of tho●e times, we shall quickly find, that it was no scandal taken by the people, which did occasion that or any other c●ange in the Common prayer Book; but and offence conceived by Calvin. It seems that Bucer had informed him of the condition of this Church, and the public Liturgy thereof; and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Somerset, who was then Protector. Epistola ad Bucer●m. In which his Letter to the Duke, he finds great fault with the Commemoration of the dead, which was then used in the Celebration of the Lords Supper, though he acknowledgeth the same to be very ancient; calling it by the name of a piece of Leaven, Quo m●ssa integra sanctae coenae quodammodo ace●ieret, where with the whole Communion was made sour. Other things in the Liturgy he found fault withal, and then adviseth, Illa omnia abscindi se●el, that they should all at once be cut off for ever. Epist. ad Protectorem Angliae. Nor stayed he here, but he solicited Archbishop Cranmer to the same ●ffect, 〈◊〉. 1551, being the year before the Alteration made, (as by the placing of that Letter doth appear) complaining in the same unto him, 〈…〉 That in the Church of England, there was yet remaining a whole mass of Popery, which did not only blemish and obscure, but in a manner overthrow Gods holy worship. So that however in his Answer to the Devonshire men, the King had formerly affirmed, that the Lords Supper, as it was then administered, was brought even to the very ●se, as CHRIST left i●, as the Apostles used it, and as the holy Fathers delivered it; Act. and Monum. Part. 2. pa. 667: Yet to please Calvin, who was all in all with my Lord Protector, and as it seems had taken ●pon him to wr●te ●●to the King about it, Epistol. ad 〈◊〉 1551, the Liturgy then established, was called in by Parliament; though in the very act itself they could not but acknowledge, that the said Book of Common prayer was both agreeable to God's Word, and ●he Primitive Church. 5. & 6. of Edw. 6. cap. 1. So that the leaving of the word, Altar, out of the Common Prayer book last established, and other altera●ions which were therein made, grew not from any scandal which was taken at the name of Altar, by the Country people; but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgy, by Calvin, as before I said.  
16 AS false it is, but far more dangerous, which is next alleged; viz. that The people being scandalised in country Churches, did first de fac●o, beat down Altars, and then the Prince, to countenance, no doubt, and confirm their unruly actions, did by a kind of Law put them do●ne de jure. Wher● is is said in all the Monuments of our Church, or State, that ever in the former times, the Country people took upon them to be reformers of the Church; or that in this particular, they did the facto, beat down Altars? This is fine doctrine, were it true, for the common people, who questionless will harken to it with a greedy ●are; as loving nothing more than to have the sovereignty in sacred matters: and who being led by a Pre●edent, more than they are by the Law or Precept, think all things lawful to be done, which were done before them. But sure the people never did it. For in the Letters sent in the King's name to Bishop Ridley, it is said, that it was come to the King's knowledge, how the Altars within the most part of the Churches of this Realm, being already upon good and godly consideration taken down, there did remain Altars in divers other Church's, Acts and Monument Part. 2. pag. 699. So that the Altars were not generally taken dow●e throughout the Kingdom: and those which were taken down, were taken down on good and godly consideration; which certainly implies some Order and Authority from those who had a power to do it: Not beaten down, de facto, by the common people, in a popular humour, without Authority or Warrant. And had they all been beaten down the ●act●, by the common people, that kind● of La● which after put them down de jure, had come too late to carry any stroke in so great a business: Unless perhaps the King was willing on the post-fact to partake somewhat of the honour; or durst not but confirm the doings of disordered people, by a kind of Law. A kind of Law? And is the Edict and Direction of the King in sacred matters, but a kind of Law? The people's beating down the Altars, was, as it seems, a powerful Law, a very Club-Law at the least, against the which was no resistance to be made; the Prince's Edict to remove them, but a kind of Law, which no man was obliged unto, nor had regarded, but that they found it sorted with the people's humour. Just so he dealt before with the Queen's Injunctions. The Queen's Injuctions had apppointed that the Holy Table in every Church should be ●ecently made, and set up in the place where th● Alt●r stood: and thereupon it is resolved by the Epistoler, that if by placing of the Table Altarwise, is meant the setting of it in that place of the Chancel where the Altar stood, there may be somewhat said for that, because the Injunctions did so place it. The Edict of King Edward, but a kind of Law? the Order of Qu. Elizabeth▪ but a kind of somewhat? This is no mannerly dealing with Kings and Queens, my good Brother of BOSTON.  
17. YEt such a kind of Law it was, that being seconded by a kind of somewhat, in the Queen's Injunctions 1559, referring to that order of King Edward, it hath taken from us the Children of the Church, and Commonwealth, the name & nature of former Altars. The Children of the Church? And who are they? Those only which are bounded Intr● partem Donati, the lot and portion of the Brethren of the Dispersion; those who have kep● their child's foreheads from the sign of the Cross, their knees from bowing at the blessed name of J●SUS, or doing honour to him in his ho●y Sacrament; those who have kept their hands from paying their Duties to the Priest; their eyes from being defiled with looking on prohibited vestments, such as have formerly been abused to idolatrous services. Those doubtless ar● the Children of the Church here meant, which must not use the name of Altars; as if it were the Shibboleth of their profession. From us the children of the Church? Yes marry Sir. Now judge, if at the least you know a Cat by her claw, if that which I at first suspected, be not come about; For but with half an eye one may see by this, of what strain the Epistoler is, or else unto what pa●●i● he applies himself in all this business. As for the Children of the Commonwealth, it's time that Criticism were forgotten, and that they were the Children of the Kingdom too. We live, We praise God for it, in a Monarchy, not in a D●m●cracie. And therefore they that go about to coin distinctions, between the 〈◊〉 of the King, and the Commonweal; may perhaps pass for subtle Sophisters, but never shall attain the honour to be thought sou●● Subjects.  
18. But it is time we should proceed, and leave these Children of the Church and the Common- wealth to their grand Directors; who, though in other things, they are all for Novelties, new forms of Prayer, new Rites and Ceremonies of Religion, if they brook of any; new offices, in the dispensation of God's Word and Sacrament; must yet affect the name of Table, even for pure antiquity: the name of the Lord's Table, being told them to be no new name, and therefore none to be ashamed of it. A thing that might have well been spared, there being none so void of Piety and understanding, as to be scandalised at the name of the Lord's Table; as are some men, it seems, at the name of Altar: saving that somewhat must be said to persuade the people, that questionless such men there are, the better to endear the matter. Nor is the name of Altar so new a name, that any man should be ashamed thereof, as if it were a term taken up of late, in time of Popery. For whereas the Epistoler pleadeth, That Christ himself did institute the Sacrament upon a Table, and not upon an Altar, and that the name of Table, is in the Christian Church, 200. years more ancient than the name of Altar, as is most learnedly proved out of St. Paul, Origen, and Arnobius, by Bishop Jewel, against Harding of Private Mass. p. 143: It may be possible that neither CHRIST our Savours institution will of necessity infer the use of Tables, (Tables, I mean, placed Table-wise, towards the East great Window, as before was said;) nor Bishop jewel's proofs come home to the point in hand. Fo● howsoever our Saviour instituted this holy Sacrament at a Table, not at an Altar▪ yet is the Table, in regard of that institution, but an accessory, and a poin● of Circumstance; nothing therein of Substance, nothing which is to be considered as a Principal. For if it were a matter of Substance, that it was instituted at a Table, then must the fashion of that Table, being, as it is conceived, of an oval form, be a matter of Substance also; and compassed round about with beds, as then the custom was, for the Communicants to rest upon whilst they do receive. But herein is the Table no more considerable, than that it was first instituted after Supper, in an upper chamber, distributed amongst twelve only; and those twelve, all men; and those men, all Priests: which, no man is so void of sense, as to imagine to be things considerable in the administration of this holy Sacrament. And yet should this be granted too, that in the having of a Table we must conform ourselves to the LORD's example: yet for the situation of that Table, I doubt it would be hardly proved by the epistoler, that the two ends thereof did stand a●●● and West; or that there was a great Wind●● in the East end of the Chamber, towards the which the Table was placed endlong, at the Institution; as he would have it now at the Ministration.  
19 AS little comfort can he find in Bishop jewel, or in S ●. Paul, Origen, and A●nobius, by him alleged. Of St. Paul there is nothing said in all that Section (it is the 26 of the third Article) which concerns this matter: nothing that sets forth the antiquity of the name of Table. St. Paul is cited once only in that whole Section, and the place cited, then is this; Quomodo dicet Amen ad tuam gratiarum Actionem. 1 Cor. 14. So that unless this Argument be good, The people cannot say Amen to Prai●rs made in a strange tongue, because they know not what is said, Ergo, the name of Table is 200 years more ancient than the name of Altar: There is not any thing alleged from St. Paul which can advantage the Epistoler for the Point in hand. Indeed, from Origen, and Arnobius, it is there alleged, that generally the Gentiles did object against the Christians of those times, that they had neither Altars, Images, nor Temples; Obijcit nobis quod non habeam●● imagines, aut a● as, aut templa; So Origen, contr. Cels. 1. 4. N●s accusatis quod nec templa habeamus, ne● imagines, nec arras. So saith Arnobius, lib. 2. contr. Gentes. But ●nto this objection we need no better answer, than Bishop jewel's own in the sel●e same Section: viz. That th●n the faithful, for fear of Tyrants, we●e fain to meet together in private houses, in vacant places, in Woods and Forests, and Caves under the ground. But we will further ●ay withal, that t●ough the Christians had some Churches, in those perilous times, yet were they not so gorgeous, nor so richly furnished, as were the Temples of the Gentiles. And so both Origen and Arnobius must be understood, no● that the Christians in their times, had at all no Temples, or at the lest no Altars in them: but th●t their Churches were so mean, that they deserved not the name of Temples; & that they had no Altars, for bloody and external Sacrifices, as the Gentiles had.  
20 FOr otherwise it is most certain, that the Church had Altars, both the name and the thing; and used both name and thing a long time together, before the birth of Origen, or Arnobius Afer. Tertullian, who lived in the same age with Origen, but sometime before; and a full hundred years before Arnobius, hath the name of Altar; as a thing used and known in the Christian Church: as, Nun solemnior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris? Li● de oratione cap. 14. Will not thy station, (or form of Devotion then in use) be thought more solemn, if thou dost stand by or before th● Altar. And in his book de Poenitentia, he remembreth geniculationem ad arras; kneeling or bowing of the knee before the Altar. Before him, Origen, or Arnobius, flourished Irenaeus, who proves the Apostles to be Priests, because they did Deo & Altari servire, attend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at the Altar. Whereof see lib. 4. advers. haereses, cap. 20. And so St Cyprian, who lived before Arnobius, though after Origen, doth call it plainly, Altar Dei, God's Altar, Ep. lib. 1. C. 7. ad Epictetum. See the like in the 8. and 9 Epist. of the same book also. But to go higher yet, Ignatius●seth ●seth it in no less than three of his Epistles: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Magnes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad Philadelph. One Altar, and one Altar in every Church; and finally in his Epistle ad Tarsens● he terms it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God's altar, as both Tertullian, and St Cyprian did after call it. So in the Canon of the Apostles, which though not writ by them, are certainly of good antiquity, the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth occur in the 3▪ 4. and 5. Canons. And above all indeed St Paul in his Habemus altar, Heb. 13. 10. In which place, whether he mean the Lords Table, or the Lord's Supper, or rather the Sacrifice itself, which the Lord once offered; certain it is that he conceived the name of Altar, neither to be impertinent, nor improper in the Christian Church. So that for aught appears in the ancient Writers, the name of Altar is as old as the name of Table; indifferently and promiscuously used without doubt or scruple. Nor doth that reverend Bishop jewel deny, but that the Lords table anciently was called an Altar, and citeth elsewhere diverse of the Fathers, which did call it so: wherein consult his 13. Art. & 6. sect. though now it be resolved by this Epistoler, that the name being so many years abolished, it is in his judgement fitter, that the Altar, (if we will needs call it so) should according to the Canon stand tablewise; then that the Vicar's table to trouble the poor Town of Gr. should stand Altarwise. Hac est illa Helena. This is indeed the thing most aimed at in all this business, Popullo ut placerent quas fecisset fabulas, only she pleasing of the people. It was to please the people, who as it is affirmed in the beginning of this letter, had taken some ●mbr●ges and offence at the pla●ing of the table, where the Altar stood; that the Churchwardens were appointed to remove it into the middle of the Chancel. It was to please the people, that the authority of the Churchwardens is advanced so high above their Ministers. And now for fear of troubling the poor people, we must not use the name of Altars, or place the table Altarwise; lest they should take it for a Dresser, and in a pious fury break it all in pieces, as, they are told, their Ancestors, had done de facto, in King Edward's reign. Ad populu● phaleras.   

SECT. III.  
We are now come to the last part of this Epistle, viz. the fixing of the Altar, or Communion-table at the upper end of the Choir: And unto this it is thus said by the Epistoler, viz. that for the standing of the table in the higher part of the▪ church, he had declared his as●ent already in opinion▪ but t●at i● should be fixed there, was so far f●●m being Canonical, that it is directly against the Canon. It may be neither so, nor so. Not so for certain in the first. For in the Vicar's judgement, the Communion● table ought to stand like an Alter, all along the wall; and in the opinion of the Epistoler, although he be content that it should stand above the steps, yet he would have it placed tablewise, with one end towards the East great Window: which certainly is no assent in, but a diversity of opinion. And for the second, howsoever it be ordered in the Rubric, that the Communion table shall stand in the body of the Church▪ or in the Chancel, (and not, o● of the Chancel, as the Epistoler hath informed us); where Morning and Evening prayer are appointed to be read: yet his illation thereupon, that seeing morning and evening prayer be apppointed to be read in the body of the Church, (as in most country Churches, he saith, it is), therefore the Table should stand most Canonically in the body of the Church; is both uncertain and unsound. For seeing it is ordered in the Book itself, That Morning and Evening prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the Church, chapel, or Chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the place: he must first show us where it was determined by the Ordinary of the place, that Morning and Evening prayer shall be ●aid only in the body of the Church, before he venture on such new and strange conclusions. And for the Rubric, it saith only, that it shall so be placed in Communion time; And that too to be understood, according as it hath been since interpreted by the best authority, not as if ordered upon any dislike of placing the Communion table where the Altar stood, but as permitting it to the discretion of the Ordinary, to set, or cause it to be set in the time of the administration of the Sacrament, so as it might be most convenient for the Communicants; who in the former times, as it is well known, had rather been lookers on the Sacrament, than partakers of it.  
2 THe like construction is also to be made of the Queen's Injunction 1559. which is next alleged, and of the 82. Canon now i● force, being a recital and confirmation of that part of the Injunction, where it is said, that In the time of the Communion, the Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Chancel (the 82 Canon hath it within the Church or Chancel) as thereby the Minister may more conveniently be heard by the Communicants. Which plainly is a matter of Permission, rather than Command; yea, and a matter of Permission only in such times and places, where otherwise the Minister cannot conveniently be heard of the Communicants. So that in all the lesser Churches, such as our Country Churches for the most part are, and in all others where the Minister standing at the Altar, may be heard conveniently: the Table may stand Altarwise in the time of ministration, without breach of Canon. And this in the Episto●er's judgement, the ablest Canonist, no doubt, in the Church of England, who hath already freely granted; that placing of the Table Altarwise, is the most decent situation when it is not used, & for use too, where the Choir is mounted up by steps, and open, (which may so●ne be done) so that he which o●●iciats may be seen and heard of all the Congregation. This was the thing the Vicar aimed at. Of wh●m we have no cause to think, or reason to conceive, that ●ee intended so to fix his Table unto the wall, or to incorporate it into the same, as the Altars were; that there should be no moving or removing it, on just and necessary causes: but that in correspondence unto former practice, and the Injunction of the Queen, he thought the place where formerly the Altar stood to be fittest for it, at least, out of the time of the ministration: and in that time too, if he might be heard conveniently of the Congregation. And whether he might or no, no doubt he better knew, than this extravagant Epistoler; and so in that respect might be aswell Master of the people's ears, as he in Tacitus, whom this Epistoler hath remembered, was of his own.  
3. I Say according unto former practice, and the Queen's Injunction. For if we look into the former practice, either of the Chapels of the King, the best interpreter of the Law, which himself enacted, wherein the Communion Table hath so stood as now it doth, since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, what time that Rubric in the Common Prayer book was confirmed, and ratified: or of Collegiate and Cathedral Churches, the best observers of the form and order of God's public Service; the Vicar had good warrant for what he did. And for the Injunctions, howsoever it be said in them, that in the time of the Communion, the table shallbe placed in so good sort within the Chancell●, 〈◊〉 thereby the Minister may more conveniently be heard; being a matter of Permison only, if occasion be: yet it is ordered in the same, that after the Communion done, from time to time, the same holy Table shall be placed where it stood before, that is, where formerly the Altar stood. So that the next clause of this Epistoler, wherein it is referred to the Vicar's judgement, Whether this Table, which like Daedalus his Ensigns, moves and removes from place to place, and that by the inward wheels of the Church Canon, be fitly resembled to an Altar, that stirr's not an inch; might have well been spared: as not being likely to be any part of the Vicar's meaning. For we may reasonably presume that it was only his intent to keep the table free from irreverent usage; and by exalting it to the highest place▪ to 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 reverence to the blessed Sacrament, from the Common people; who if infected with the fancies of these latter days, are like enough to thrust it down into the Belfry, or some worse corner. Nor say I so without good reason, it being so resolved of in the Altar Damascenum, that any place, be it what it will, is good enough for the Lords Table, the Communion ended. De loco ubi con●istat cur solliciti, cum quovis loco vel angulo extra tempus administrationis, collocari possit. pa. 718. What need they be so careful (say those factious spirits which composed that book) how to dispose or place the Table; seeing that out of the time of the ministration, it may be put in any place or corner whatsoever it be. High time assuredly, that such profaneness should be met with.  
4 THere is one only passage more to be considered in this letter, for the close of all, and that is this; that If we do desire to know out of Eusebius, Augustin, Durandus, & the fif●h Council of Constantinople, how long Communion tables have stood in the midst of the Church, we should read Bishop Jewel against Harding, Art. 3. p. 143. and we shallbe satisfied. And read him though we have, yet we are not satisfied. Eusebius tells us of the Church of Tyre, that being finished, and all the ●eats thereof set up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ The Founder after all, placed the most holy Altar in the midst thereof, and compassed it about with rai●es, to hinder the rude multitude from pressing near it. 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 along the Eastern wall, yet may be well interpreted to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the middle of the Chancel, in reference to the North and South, as it since hath stood. And were it otherwise, yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria, wherein the people being more mingled wi●h the jews, than 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. For if, as Bishop jewel saith in the self sam● place, The holy Table was called an Altar, only in allusion to the Altars in the old law, or if as this Epistoler tells us, the name of Altar crept into the Church, by a kind of complying in phrase with the people of the jews: 〈…〉  
5 THat of the fifth Council of Constantinople, as it is there called, being indeed the Council sub Agapeto & Menna against Anthimus & Severus, affirms as much in sound, as the Epistoler doth intend; but if examined rightly, concludes against him. It is there said, that in the reading of the Diptyches, the people with great silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gathered together about the Altar, and gave ear unto them. Where, although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in itself doth signify a Circle; yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot be properly interpreted, round about the Altar, so as there was no part thereof which was not compassed with the people: no more than if a man should say, that he had seen the King sitting in his throne, and all his Noblemen about him, it needs, or could be thought, that the throne was placed in the very middle of the Presence; as many of the Nobles being behind him, as there was before him. And certainly, if the man of God in the description of God's throne in the kingdom of Heave●, had any reference or resemblance (as no doubt he had) unto the thrones of kings on earth; we have hit right enough upon the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the aforesaid Council: it being said in the 4th chapter of the Revelate on, vers 6. that round about the throne, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were four beasts full of ●yes; and chap. 7. ver. 11. that all the Angels stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, round about the throne. So that for all is said in the fifth Council of Constantinople, the Altar might and did stand at the end of the Chancel, although the people came together about it to hear the Diptyches; i. e. the Commemoration of those famous Prelates, and other persons of chief note, which had departed in the faith. The like mistake there is, if it be lawful so to say, in the words of S. Austin. That which hath been alleged from him, being the 46 Sermon, not the 42, is this, CHRISTUS quotidie pas●it. Mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est O Audientes, ut mensam videatis, & ad epulas non accedatis. Which BP. jewel thus trans●lateth, Christ feedeth us daily, and this is his Table here set in the midst. O my hearers, what is the matter, that ye see the table, and yet come not to the meat. But clearly, Mensa illa 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, to bring a thing precisely into the middle, but to bring it to us, or before us. As for that passage from Durandus, where it is said, that he examining the cause, why the Priest turneth himself about at the Altar, ye●●ds this reason for it, In medio Ecclesiae aperui os meum: that proves not that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church, but that the Priests stood at the midst of the Altar. It is well known, that many hundred years before he was borne, the Altars generally stood in the Christian Churches, even as now they do.  
6 NOw that we may aswell say somewhat in maintenance of the Altars standing in the East part of the Church; as we have answered those autorities which were produced by the Epistoler, for planting of it in the middlest we will allege one testimony, and no more but one, but such a one as shall give very good assurance of that general usage, and in brief is this: Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 5. c. 21. speaking of the different customs in the Christian Church, saith of the Church of Antioch, the chief City of Syria, that it was built in different manner from all other Churches. How so? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Because the Altar was not placed to the Eastward, but to the Westward. Nicephorus, Hist. lib. 12. cap. 24. observes it generally of all the Altars in that City, and note's withal, that they were situate in a different manner from all other Altars. And howsoever possibly in some other places which they knew not of, the Altars might stand Westward, as they did in Antioch, or to some other point of heaven, as the North, or South, if any stood so: yet it is manifest by this, that in the general practice of the Church, the Altars used to stand to the Eastward only. So that for aught appears unto the contrary in this Epistle, the Vicar of Gr. might very safely hold his three Conclusions, at the first remembered. First, that an Altar may be used in the Christian Church; Secondly, that the Table may stand Altarwise, the Minister officiating at the North-end thereof; And thirdly, that the Table may stand constantly in the upper part of the Chancel, close along the wall, not to be taken down, either in the First, or Second Service, especially, if the Minister there standing may be seen and heard of all the Congregation. With the which Summarie of mine I had concluded this reply, had I not found this Item given unto the Vicar in the close of all, that by that time he had gained more experience in the cure of Souls, he should find no such Ceremony, as Christian Charity. Where if his meaning be, that Christian Charity is in itself more precious than any Ceremony, no doubt it will be easily grante●: it being by St. ●aul preferred before Faith and Hope. But if he mean, that they which have the cure of Souls should rather choose to violate all the Orders of holy Church, and neglect all the Ceremonies of the same; then give offence unto the Brethren, the Children of the Church, as before he called them: it is like many other Passages before remembered, only a trick to please the people, and p●t the reins into their hands, who are too forwards in themselves to contemn all Ceremony, though in so doing they do break in sunder the bonds of Charity.  
7. I Have now ended with the Letter, and for your further satisfaction will lay down somewhat, touching the ground or reason of the thing required: not in itself, for that is touched upon before, but as it either doth relate unto the King, the Metropolitan, or in your case, the Ordinary, which requires it from you. For the true ground whereof you may please to know, that in the Statute 1●. Eliz. cap. 2. whereby the Common Prayer book now in use, was confirmed and established, it was enacted, That if there shall happen any irreverence or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, by misusing the Orders appointed in the same: that then the Queen's Majesty, by the advice of her Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan, might ordain or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of God's glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments. A power not personal to the Queen only, when she was alive; but such as was to be continued also unto her successors. So that in case the Common Prayer book had determined positively, that the Table should be placed at all times in the middle of the Church or Chancel, which is not determined of; or that the Ordinary of his own authority, could not have otherwise appointed, which yet is not so: the Kings most excellent Majesty, on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people (as it hath been accustomed in these latter days) in sitting on it in time of Sermon, and otherwise profanely abusing it, in taking Accounts, and making Rates and such like businesses; may by the last clause of the said Statute, for the due reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments, with the advice and counsel of his Metropolitan, command it to be placed where the Altar stood, and to be railed about for the greater decency. For howsoever in the Act, the Queen be only named, not her Heirs and Successors; yet plainly the authority is the same in them, as it was in her; which may be made apparent by many Arguments drawn from the Common Law, and the Act itself. First, from the purpose of that clause, which was to fence the Rites and Cereremonies of the Church, then used, from all irreverence and contempt: and for the publishing of such other Rites and Ceremonies, as might in further time be found convenient, for the advancement of God's glory, the edifying of his Church, and the procurement of due reverence to Christ's holy Sacraments. But seeing that the Rites●nd ●nd Ceremonies of the Church, were not only subject unto Irreverence and contempt in the said Queen's time, but are, and have been slighted, and irreverently abused in time of her Successors: the Act had ill provided for the Church's safety, in case, the power of rectifying what was amise, either by ordering of new Rites, or stablishing the old, did not belong aswell to her Successors, as it did to her. Next, fro● the very phrase and style which is there used. For it is said, the Queen, with the advice of the Metropolitan might ordain and publish, etc. the Queen indefinitely, and the Metropolitan indefinitely, If then by Queen indefinitely be only meant, the person of the Queen then being, not her Heirs and Successors; by Metropolitan indefinitely, we must also mean the Metropolitan then being, and not his Successors: and then the power here given the Queen, had been determined with the death of Archbishop Parker, which was some 28 years before her own. Thirdly, from another clause in the self same Act, where it is said, that If any person being twice convict (of depraving the book of Common Prayer, etc.) shall off end again the third time, and be thereof lawfully convict, he shall forfeit for his third offence, to our Sovereign Lady the Queen, all his Goods and Chattels, etc. where, though the Queen be only named, the penalty of the Law 〈◊〉 be, and is most justly taken by her Heirs and Successors; or else there were no remedy, at this time, by the Laws provided, for the third Contempt. Fourthly, from the usual form of those Acts and Statutes, which were made purposely for the particular and personal profit, safety, and advantage of the said Queen, which are distinguished from others by this note or Character, viz. This Act to continue, during the Queen's Majesty's life that now is only. Such is the Act, against rebellious assemblies, 1. Eliz. cap. 16. Those against such as shall rebelliously take, or conspire to tak● from the Queen's Majesty any of her Towers, Castles, etc. 14. Eliz. cap. 1. And against such, as shall conspire, or practise the enlargement of any Prisoner committed for High Treason. cap. 2. That against seditious, Word● and Rumours uttered against the Queen's most excellent Majesty. 23. Eliz. ca 2. And finally, that for the safety of the Queen's royal person, and the continuance of the Realm in Peace, An ●. 27. ca 1. In the which last, although it be not said expressly that it shall dure no longer than her natural life, yet the word, Person, in effect, doth declare as much. Fiftly, from a resolution in the Law, in a case much like: it being determined by that great Lawyer Ploydon, that if a man give Lands to the King by deed enrolled, a Fee● simple doth pass, without these words, Successors and Heirs; because in ●udgement of Law, The King never dieth. Coke on Lit●. pag. 9 b. And last of all, it may be argued, that the said clause or any thing therein contained, is not indeed introductory of any new power, which was not in the Crown before; but rather declaratory of an old, which anciently did belong to all Christian Kings (as before any of them to the Kings of judah) and among others to ours also: who, with the Counsel of their Prelate's, and other Clergy, might, and did induce such Rites and Ceremonies into the Churches of, and in their several kingdoms, as were thought most convenient for God's public Service; till at the last, all Ecclesiastical authority was challenged and usurped by the See of Rome. Which is the answer and determination of Sir Robert Coke, in Cawdries' case, being the fifth part of his Reports, entitled, De jure Regis Ecclesiastico; where he affirmeth, that if the Act of Parliament, 1●. Eliz. 2. cap. 1. whereby it was enacted, That all Ecclesiastical power and authority, which heretofore had been, or might lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical state, and persons, and for reformation of all, and all manner Errors, Heresies, Schisms, Abuses, and Contempts, Offences, and Enormities, should be for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: Was not an Act introductory of a new law, but confirmative of an old, for that this Act doth not annex any jurisdiction to the Crown, but that which was in truth, or of right aught to be by the ancient Laws of the Realm, parcel of the King's Jurisdiction, and united to the crown Imperiall. By this Authority the Altars were first taken down in King Edward's reign, though countenanced and allowed of in the Common-prayer Book, then by Law established; the better, as the cause is pleaded by Bishop Ridley, to avoid superstition, Acts and Monum. Part. 2. pag. 700. and by the same, or by that mentioned, 1 ●. Eliz. cap. 2. his Majesty now being, might appoint the Table to be set up, where formerly the Altar stood, (had it been otherwise determined in the Rubric, as indeed it is not) to avoid profaneness.  
8. I Will add one thing more for your satisfaction, which perhaps you know not; And that is, that his sacred Majesty hath hereupon already declared his pleasure, in the Case of Saint Gregory's Church near Saint Paul's in London, and thereby given encouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them. Which resolution of his Majesty, faithfully copied out of the Registers of his Council-table, I shall present herewith unto you, and so commend myself to you, and us all to the grace of God in JESUS CHRIST.  

At Whitehall, the third of November. 1633.  

Present, the KING'S most excellent Majesty.  
Lo: Archbish. of Cant.  
Lo: Keeper.  
Lo: Archbish. of York.  
Lo: Treasurer.  
Lo: Privy Seal.  
Lo: Duke of Le●nox.  
Lo: High Chamberlain.  
Ear. Martial.  
Lo: Chamberlain.  
Ear: of Bridgewater.  
Ear: of Carlisle.  
Lo: Cottington.  
Mr. Treasurer.  
Mr. controller.  
Mr. Secretary Cook.  
Mr. Secret. Windebanke.   
THis day was debated before his Majesty, sitting in Co●nsell, the Question and Difference which grew about the Removing of the Communion Table in Saint Gregory's Church, near the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul, from the middle of the Chancel to the upper end, and there placed Altarwise, in such manner as it standeth in the said cathedrals and Mother Church, (as also in all other cathedrals, and in his Majesties own Chapel) and as is consonant to the practice of approved Antiquity. Which removal, and placing of it in that sort, was done by Order of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, who are Ordinaries thereof, as was avowed before his Majesty by Doctor King, and Doctor Montfort, two of the Prebends there. Yet some few of the Parishioners, being but five in number, did complain of this Act by Appeal to the Court of Arches, pretending that the Book of Commonprayer, and the 82. Canon do give permission to place the Communion Table, where it may stand with most fitness and convenience. Now his Majesty having heard a particular relation made by the Counsel of both parties, of all the carriage and proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare his dislike of all Innovation, & receding from ancient Constitutions, grounded upon just and warrantable reasons, especially in matters concerning Eccle●iasticall Orders and Government, knowing how easily men are drawn to affect Novelties, and how soon weak judgements in such cases may be overtaken and abused. And he was also pleased to observe, that if those few Parishioners might have their wills, the difference thereby 〈…〉 of the neerene●s of St. Gregory's, standing close to the wall thereof. And likewise, for so much as concerns the liberty given by the said Common book, or Canon, for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chapel with most conveniency; that liberty is not so to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish, much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinary, to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing itself, and for the time, when and how long, as he may find cause. Upon which consideration his Majesty declared himself, That he well approved and confirmed the Act of the said Ordinary, and also gave commandment, that if those few Parishioners before mentioned, do proceed in their said Appeal, than the Dean of the Arches, (who was then attending at the hearing of the Cause) shall confirm the said Order of the aforesaid Deane and Chapter.     

A COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN to the Vicar of GR: against the placing of the Communion Table at the East end of the Chancel.  
SIR,  
WIth my very hearty Commendations. When I spoke with you last, I told you that the standing of the Communion Table, was unto me a thing so indifferent, that unless offence and umbrages were taken by the Town against it, I should never move it, or remove it. That which I did not then suspect, is come to pass. T●e Alderman whom I have known this 17. or 18. years, to be a discreet and modest man, and far from any ●umour of 〈◊〉 together with the better sort of the Town, have complained against it: And I have (without taking notice of your Act, or touching in one ●●llable upon your reputation) appointed the Church Wardens (whom it 〈◊〉 doth concern under the 〈◊〉) to settle it for this time, as you may see by this Copy enclosed.  
Now for your own satisfaction, and my poor advice for the future, I have written unto you somewhat more at large, than I use to express myself in this kind.  
I do therefore (to deal plainly) like many things well, and disallow of some things in your carriage of the business. It is well done that you affect decency and comeliness, in the officiating of GOD's Divine Service; That you precedent yourself with the forms in his Majesty's Chapels, and the Quires of Cathedral Churches (if your Choir, as those others, could contain your whole congregation;) that you do the reverence appointed by the Canon to the blessed name of JESUS, so it be done humbly, and not affectedly, to procure Devotion, not derision of your Parishioners, and that you do not maintain it Rationibus non cogentibus, and so spoil a good Cause with bad arguments. These things I do allow and practise. But that you should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Choir; That the Table ought to stand Altarwise; That the fixing thereof in the Choir is Canonical, and that it ought not to be removed to the body of the Church; I conceive to be in you so many mistake.  
For the first, if you should erect any such Altar, which (I know you will not) your discretion will prove the only Holocaust to be sacrificed thereon. For you have subscribed when you came to your place, that That other Oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars, is a Blasphemous figment, and pernicious imposture, in the thirty one Article: And also, that we in the Church of England ought to take heed, lest our Communion of a memory, be made a Sacrifice: In the first Homily of the Sacrament. And it is not the Vicar, but the Churchwardens, that are to provide for the Communion, and that not an Altar, but a fair joined Table: Canons of the Convocation, 1571. pag. 18. And that the Altars were removed by Law, and Tables placed in their stead, in all, or the most Churches in England, appears by the Queen's Injunctions, 1559. related unto, and so confirmed in that point by our Canons still in force. And therefore (I know) you will not change a Table into an Altar, which Vicars were never enabled to set up, but allowed once with other's to pull down. Injunction of 1●. Elizab. for Tables in the Church.  
For the second point. That your Communion Table is to stand Altarwise, if you mean in that place of the Chancel, where the Altar stood, I think somewhat may be said for that; because the Injunctions 1559. did so place it; And I conceive it to be the most decent situation, when it is not used, and for use too, where the Choir is mounted up by steps, and open, so that he that officiates may be s●ene and heard of all the Congregation. Such an one I hear your Chancel is not. But if you mean by Altarwise, that the Ta●le should stand along close by the wall, so as you be forced to officiate at one end thereof (as you may have observed in great m●ns Chapels:) I do not believe that ever the Communion Tables were (otherwise than by casualty) so placed in Country Churches. For, besides that, the Countrypeople would suppose them Dressers, rather than Tables; And that Qu. Elizabeth's Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical, directed that the Table should stand, not where the Altar, but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood. Orders 1561. The Minister appointed to read the Communion (which you, out of the book of Fast in 1●. of the King, are pleased to call, Second Service) is directed to read the Commandments, not at the end, but at the North-side of the Table, which implies the end to be placed towards the East great Window, Rubric before the Communion. Nor was this a new direction in the Queen's time only, but practised in king Edward's reign, for in the plot of our Liturgy sent by Mast Knox, and Whittingham to Mas●er Calvin in the reign of Queen Mary, it is said, that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table. Troubles at Frankford. pag. 30. And so in King Edward's Liturgies, the Ministers standing in the midst of the Altar, 1549. is turned to his standing at the North-side of the Table, 1552. And this last Liturgy was revived by Parliament, 1●. Eliz. cap. 2. And I believe it is so used at this day in the most places of England. What you saw in Chapels, or Cathedral Churches is not the point in question, but how the Tables are appointed to be placed in Parish Churches. In some of the Chapels and Cathedrals, the Altars may be still standing, for aught I know; or to ma●e use of their Covers and Ornaments, Tables m●y be placed in their room, of the same length and fashion the Altars were of. We kn●w the Altars stand still in Lutheran Church's; And the Apology for the Augustan Confession, Art. 12. doth allow it. The Altars stood a year or two in King Edward's times, as appears by the Liturgy print●a 1549. and it seems the Queen's Commissioners were content they should stand, as w●e may guess by the Injunctions, 1559. But how is this to be understood? The Sacrifice of the Altar abolished, these (call them what you will) are no more Altars, but Tables of Stone or Timber; and so was it alleged 24 Novem. 4●. Edw. 6. 1549. Sublato enim relativo formali, manet obsolutum & materiale tantum. And so may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses, where there are no people so void of understanding, as to be scandalised. For upon the Orders of breaking down Altars, all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables, but not upon the fashion and form of the Tables. Acts and Monum. pag. 1212. Besides that, in the old Testament, one and the same thing is termed an Altar and a Table. An Altar, in respect of what is there offered unto God, and a Table in respect of what is there participated by men, as for example, by the Priests; So ha●e y●u Go●'s Altar; the very same with God's Table in Malachi 1. v. 7. The place is worth the marking. For it Answers that very Objection out of Heb. 13. 10. which you made to some of your fellow Ministers; and one Master Morgan before you to Peter Martyr, in a Disputation at Oxford. We have no Altar in regard of an Oblation, but we have an Altar in regard of Participation, and Communion granted unto us. The use of an Altar is to Sacrifice upon, and the use of a Table is to eat upon; and because Communion is an Action most proper for a Table, as an Oblation is for an Altar, therefore the Church in her Liturgy, and Canons, calling the same a Table only, do not you call it an Altar? In King Edward's Liturgy of 1549. it is every where, but in that of 1552. it is no where called an Altar, but the Lords Board. Why? Because the people being scandalised herewith in Country Churches, first beats them down de facto, than the supreme Magistrates by a kind of Law puts them down de jure, and setting Tables in their rooms, took from us, the Children of the Church and Commonwealth, both t●e name and the nature of former Altars, as you may see. Injunction 1559. referring to that order of King Edward in his Council mentioned, Acts and Monum. pag. 1211. And I hope you have more Learning than to conceive the Lords Table to be a new name, and so to be ashamed of the Name. For, beside that CHRIST himself instituted this Sacrament upon a Table, and not upon an Altar, as Archbishop Cranmer observes, and others, Act▪ and Monum. pag. 1211. it is in the Christian Church 200 years more ancient, than the name of an Altar, as you may see most learnedly proved out of Saint Paul, Origen, and Arnobius, if you do but read a Book that is in your Church, jewel against Harding of Private Mass. Art. 3. p. 143. And whether this name of Altar crept into the Church in a kind of complying in phrase with the people of the jews, as I have read in Chemnitius, Gerardus, and other sound Protestants, (yet such as suffer Altars to stand); or that it proceed from these Oblations made upon the Communion Table, for the use of the Priest, and the poor, whereof we read in justin Martyr, Iraeneus, Tertullian, and other ancient Writers; or because of the Sacrifice of Praise, and Thanksgiving, as Archbishop Cranmer, and others thought, Acts and Monuments, pag. 1211. the name being now so many years abolished, it is fitter in my judgement, that the Altar (if you will needs so call it) should according to the Canon, stand Tablewise, than your Table to trouble the poor Town of Gr. because erected otherwise.  
Lastly, that your Table should stand in the higher part of the Church, you have my assent already in opinion: but that it should be there fixed, is so far from being Canonical, that it is directly against the Canon. For what is the Rubric of the Church, but a Canon? And the Rubric saith, it shall stand in the body of the Church, or of the Chancel, where Morning prayer, and Evening prayer be appointed to be read; If therefore Morning and Evening prayer be appointed to be read in the body of the Church, (as in most country Churches it is) where shall the Table stand most Canonically? And so is the Table made removable, when the Communion is to be celebrated, to such place as the Minister may be most conveniently hea●d by the Communicants, by Qu. Eliz. Injunct. 1559. And so saith the Canon in force, that in the time of the Communion, the Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Church and Chancel, as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard, Can. 82. Now judge you 〈…〉 and you shall be satisfied. jewel against Harding of private Mass. Art. 3. p. 145. The Sum of all is this.  
1. You may not erect an Altar, where the Canons only admit a communion Table.  
2. This Table must not stand Altarwise, and you at the North end thereof, but Tablewise, as you must officiate at the Northside of the same.  
3. This Ta●le o●ght to be laid up (decently covered) in the Chancel only, as I suppose, but ought not to be officiated upon, either in the first or second Service (as you 〈◊〉) but in that place of the Church or Chancel, where you may be seen and heard of all; Though peradventure you be with ●im in Tacitus, Master of your own, yet are you not of other men's ears; and therefore your Parishioners must be judges of your audiblenesse in this case.  
Whether side soever (you or your Parish) shall yield to th'other, in this needless Controversy, shall remain, in my poor judgement, the more discreet, grave, and learned of the two: And by that time you have gained some more Experience in the Cure of Souls, you shall find no such Ceremony, as Christian Charity; which I recommend unto you, and a● ever, etc.  
FINIS.