feare and lie lowest upon the dust the Saints in Heaven may upbraidingly say unto them or rather triumphantly sing Rent your hearts and not your garments Curvae in terras animae at â—â—lestiâ—inanes But will D. Lawrence say is not this the doctrine of the seditious Corahs of this age does not this doctrine make all persons alike holy and all places and so confound all order in Religion Our Saviour tels us in the Gospel that the Temple is holier then the gold and the Altar then the gift and by expulsing those exchangers and hucksters beyond the utmost borders of the Sanctuary both after his Baptisme and before his Passion when those legall Sacrifices were before ejected thence where the Christian Church was best represented their lasting devotion being performed here their expiring types within showes that this distinction should last The Doctors first proofe was So it was amongst the Jewes therefore so it ought to be now in this place the Doctor proceeds to show further that by our Saviours owne doctrine â—nd precedent the Jewish distinction of holinesse in the Church ought still to remaine To the Jewish platforme of Worship it was in part answered before that our Saviour had made an alteration thereof inducing in its stead a more ingenuous confident manner of worship but now this of the Doctors seemes to crosse that opinion By this argument the Doctor would seeme to prove that our Saviour was so far from violating the Jewish distinctions that he did zealously preserve them and vindicate them from the violations of other men and that also after the ejection of legall Sacrifices I answer It is confest that our Saviour did purge the Temple from the prophanation of those which bought and sold therein as in a common place but herein many things are considerable which the Doctor passes over with silence First these buyers and sellers did not onely exercise a common trade in that sanctified place but it should seem their trading was full of fraud and unjustice for our Saviour sayes plainely that they made the house of prayer a very den of theeves Secondly it is not manifest whether legall Sacrifices were now de jure ejected or no and so whether this prophanation be to be considered as a trespasse committed against the law of Moses or as a violation of a Christian Oratory Baptisme was now in force by Johns institution but Circumcision was not disanulled by any act of our Saviour nor disused by his Apostles for we finde the contrary even after Christs Ascension Besides we finde not that our Saviour till his passion did repeate or oppose any Mosaicall rites whatsoever but wee finde apparently that he did observe strictly many of them He observed the Sabbath he did eate the Passeover he did refraine the lists of the inner courts c. and till his expiration he did not teare the vaile of the Oracle in sunder so that we see no reason why the Temple till then might not remaine wholly Jewish Thirdly consider this act of prophanation either way and it is no wonder that our Saviour should reforme it for even in Christian Oratories at this day no such thing ought to be indured He which denies any externall positive adoration or genuflexion due to the Church it selfe or any division of it or utensill in it does not deny internall and such negative reverence as this viz. that it should be free preserved inviolable from common servile exercises and offices and much more from impious abuses This unjust aspersion the Doctors every where labour to cast upon us but as they want proofe to confirme it so I hope they will want auditors to beleeve it But if wee suppose this as Christian abuse the Temple being now de jure Christian why did not our Saviour comming with such unresistible authority purge the inner court and Oracle also from Jewish ceremonious services and destinate them to prayer and preaching as well as the outer court Why did he not enter and draw the vaile and dissolve that partition as after he did If the Jewish devotions had beene now fully consummated who had beene more fit to enter into the Holiest then He and his Disciples or what Incense could have beene more sacred in that place then his prayers Certainely if his time had beene come he might have as well expelled the Priests and Levites usurping against him as he did the chapmen of Doves and Oxen and certainely he did not want boldnesse for wee know with what freedome hee spoke at other times to the greatest of them So then this is a very weake argument to prove that our Saviour did still preserve in force that terrible kinde of holinesse in the Church of God which makes some parts thereof inaccessible to Lay-men and others to Priests according to the Jewish patterne But on the contrary what is more apparent then this truth that our Saviour hath rent in sunder that vaile of partition which these Doctors would faine hang up againe that they might usurpe a greater dignity to themselves and their owne Order then the Gospel of Christ doth allow them As to the approaching of the throne of grace and that with boldnesse wee say wee are all royall Priests now and we are not to disclaime that prerogative because the Doctor seemes to jeere at it It is true that the Nation of the Jewes was also stiled a Priestly Kingdome to the Lord and it was so in comparison of all other Nations which then lived but whereas it is said now that we are a royall Priest-hood it is said in comparison of the Jewes themselves Aaron might once a yeere approach the Oracle but with feare and trembling presenting Incense in one hand and blood in the other but we may now approach that Throne which is more honourable then the Oracle and that with boldnesse and at all times whatsoever Neverthelesse I doe not say that the raigne of our Soveraigne doth take away the holinesse of persons or places or things but it changeth that holinesse which was in them and maketh the manner thereof different That holinesse which was then in the High Priest is now dispersed into all the people of God for if we are all Priâ—â—â— as Aaron was certainely we are all Priests of a higher order then Aarons was Therefore the sinne of Corah cannot justly be charged upon us under the Gospel as the Doctor would have it if we claime accesse into the Holiest for Aarons order is now dissolved and so are the conditions of Aarons order Neither â—et the Doctor suppose that I make no difference now betwixt the person of a Priest and of a Lay-man as to all purposes for all equality does not overthrow all order and decencie Vzziah had a person as sacred as the Priest yet Vzziaâ— might not officiate as the Priest did Vzziah had his offices distinct and so had the Priest and these offices might not be confounded â—ontrary to decencie although the sanctity of persons
testimony of their owne sinfulnesse Howsoever all such oblations whether expiatory or gratulatory were equally Sacrifices though not equally typicall for all expiatory Sacrifices were not bloody onely nor all gratulatory unbloody We read of Cain and Abel before the institution of Aarons Order that the one presented to God his homage in part of his flocke the other in part of his graine the one did sacrifice upon an Altar as well as the other and that Sacrifice which was unbloody was typicall and expiatory as well as that which was bloody and that which was bloody might be graulatory as well as that which was unbloody or at least nothing appeares to the contrary We read also of Noah that he had a distinct notice of cleane and uncleane creatures and did sacrifice accordingly so that the Religion and Priesthood before the Law was not so farre different from that under the Law though pompe and ceremonies and some other accidentall parts were wanting as from ours under the Gospel or at least in matters of Sacrifice it was little or not at all different All Sacrifices also under the Mosaicall Law were not bloody for Incense was offered to God as well as flesh and there was an Altar for Odours as well as for blood and all Sacrifices whatsoever received their value and acceptation from the Passion of Christ as that did purifie them not as they did typifie that for it seemes else that other divine services should not be so valuable and acceptable as Sacrifices not those Sacrifices which were lesse typicall as those which were more and that no Sacrifices at all had beene admitted of by God from such men as did not understand their typicall nature as few did either before or under the Law Besides it does not appeare that the Passion of Christ was a proper reall Sacrifice in fact and therefore it was necessary that it should be prefigured yet no necessity is that it should be prefigured by Sacrifice a parte ante or commemorated by Sacrifice a parte post The death of our Saviour was rather a pious Passion then a divine action or service done to God and though our Saviour did not resist or shunne such a martyrdome wickedly inforced by other yet he was not so active in it as to imbrue his owne hands in his owne blood So that if our Saviours Passion was a Sacrifice it was but a figurative improper mentall Sacrifice in as much as the meritorious sanctity thereof did not consist in the act done but in the innocence patience and excellence of the party suffering We cannot more properly call the death of Christ a Sacrifice then we may the Crosse the Altar or God the Priest and we cannot properly say that God did sacrifice to himselfe upon an Altar of that forme and matter It is a very lame inference therefore that Sacrifice must now be to commemorate Christs Passion past because it was prefigured by Sacrifice being yet to come and because it was it selfe a proper Sacrifice in the act Doctor Heylin sayes once that Christ did not deprive us of all manner of Sacrifices but onely those which had beene before which might if continued have beene a strong presumption of his not comming in the flesh This seemes a weake reason for if our Saviours Passion were a proper Sacrifice it was a bloody one and if there be the same reason of representing it past as there was future by Sacrifice then bloody Sacrifices are no lesse proper now to represent it then they were before and if so why were former Sacrifices abolished at all Surely the best reason why Jewish Sacrifices were abolished is because those services were but shadowes of that body which in our Sacrament is really presented and exhibited If we doe acknowledge that the body of our Saviour is otherwise present in our Sacrament then it was in the Jewish Types we must acknowledge that the shadowes of that body are the lesse needfull for gianting that Jewish Sacrifices and ours differ not in nature but in circumstance as their signifie a thing future ours past I doe not see but that our Sacrament is as meere a shadow as their Sacrifice was and that beasts now slaine might as well commemorate our Saviours death past as they did prefigure it to come The Doctor sayes that the Jewish Sacrifices were bloody ours not that the Jewish Priests were from Aaron ours from Melchisedeck and these he puts as substantiall differences tomake our Sacrament no Jewish Sacrifice But these differences are not sufficient for his purpose because we know that all Jewish Sacrifices were not bloody nor does the order of Melchisedeck hinder from bloody Sacrifices for if Melchisedeck did sacrifice as it is most probable that he did it is as probable that his Sacrifices were not all unbloody So then his other difference also is as fond when he sayes that our Altars are for Evangelicall not Mosaicall offerings in as much as betwixt Evangelicall and Mosaicall offerings he has not yet proved any other difference but nominall or circumstantiall onely of the like reason and weight are the rest of the Doctors inferences for as he has proved yet no true proper Sacrifice so much lesse has hee proved any necessity of either Priest or Altar in a downe-right sense We may grant Sacrifice yet deny both Priest and Altar for we read that the Passeover was called the Lords Sacrifice yet we know it was not killed only by Priests nor eaten upon an Altar though it was the most honourable of Jewish Sacrifices and most neerely relating to the Passion of Christ So also the Passion it selfe of Christ if it was a proper Sacrifice yet it was offered up upon a woodden Crosse not a stone Altar and the Sacrificer thereof was not a Priest wherefore we see plainely that all the Doctors allegations hitherto are frivolous and altogether insufficient We come now from the Old to the New Testament and here Doctor Pocklington and Master Meade lay hold of these words of our Saviour Leave thy gift at the Altar and gâ—e and reconcile thy selfe to thy brother c. These words were spoken by our Saviour whilst the Altar was in use and before the Communion was instituted and may more properly be interpreted of such an Altar as men did repaire to with gifts and offerings then to our Tables where we come rather to receive then give yet our Divines now cite them to patronise the word Altar It would little advance the reality of Altars that they had beene so named once by our Saviour but here so much as the name used is not cleerely proved Doctor Heylin for his next evidence cites 1 Cor. 11. Doe this in remembrance of me c. As often as yee eate this bread and drinke this cup yee shew forth the Lords death till be come Here is sayes Doctor Heylin a Sacrifice whose nature is commemorative here is in this Sacrifice an Hoe facite for Priests different from the Hoc edite
Secondly if antiquity in honouring of sacred places were more rigorous then we are now we doe imagine that in part it was erroneous and in part that it had some reasons unknowne to us at this time and so vanished now that they ought not to prescribe to us All rude prophanation of holy ground wee doe dislike as antiquity did because it is opposite to the rules of decencie and order and if any man teach that the house of God is contemptible or that there ought to be a community of places or persons we wish the Anathema of Gangra to seize upon him Howsoever we dare not in all things follow antiquity If antiquity did thinke the Church too holy for justice to approach when malefactors sought shelter there from the due execution of law we dare not follow antiquity therein if antiquity did thinke the Quire so holy that the person of an anoynted Emperour might have no place therein we dare not in this follow antiquity if antiquity did thinke the Chancell ground too holy for any Lay-mans bones to repose in or the Church-yard too unholy for a Priests interment we dare not justifie this usage if antiquity did thinke fit to translate the bones Peter Paul Augustine Aidan c. from one consecrated place to another for more holinesse sake as if it were profitable to the ashes of the Saints so to be translated we dare not applaud this invention if antiquity did place such holinesse in the Altar as if it had medicinall force in it to cure bodily diseases and for that reason did fall downe before it as to a common Physitian wee cannot so farre abuse our beliefe if antiquity did exclude divers stations of Christians from divers partitions and limits in the body of the Church wee dare not now in these dayes practise this observation We doe not hold the judgement of antiquity to be in all things infallible neither in these circumstances dare we strictly addict our selves to their imitation the Papists themselves being scarce devoted to all these observations at this day But if we approve antiquity in all these things yet how does it appeare that it did sanctifie the Altar in stead of the Arke and Mercie-seate or the Chancell in the same manner as the Jewish Oracle was and if it did how could our Priests prove hence such worship as they now challenge due to the Altar If we consider the Arke and the Oracle and compare them with our Table and Quire we shall finde that the paralell of honour cannot hold for many reasons for 〈…〉 First Those times were not as ours are the sweete pacification of Christ had not then made God so indulgent to mankind as now he is so that he would be glorified then with more terror than now he is God in those dayes did not admit of so much familiarity in his Servants as now he does yet to shew that some familiarity might be without sawcinesse which the Doctor seemes unwillingly to grant to some men he offered himselfe in the milde semblance of a familiar friend even in those times This the examples of Abraham Isaac Jacob Moses c. sufficiently verifie Was Moses sawcy or Joshua c. when he ascended up into the Mount within the cloud and brightnesse of God or was the Congregation more reverent and obsequious when they durst not so much as lift up their eye after Moses because of the terror of God certainely no for God was more sanctified by the bold addresse of Moses then by the awfull distance of the people and therefore whilest their faces were blacke with feare his face was arayed in divine splendor and Majesty Neither was it the holinesse of Moses his person but the gratious indulgence of God that made this difference betwixt him and the people And so wee say now of these dayes mutatis mutandis Secondly The Table is of it selfe much different from the Arke and Mercy seate The Arke was terrible by reason of the Law of God which was therein inclosed that mortall Law from whose condemnation no man living could escape of himselfe But the Table presents us with the very marrow of the Gospell wherein is life and health and forgivenesse of sinnes Also the Arke was Canopyed with the Mercy seate that dreadfull Throâ—â— of God where God did keepe a strange residence vocally ruling his people and administring justice after a terrible manner But the Table is an â—â—â—fill wherein God is not so presentiall at all times nor at any time meerely by the meanes of that it selfe but by the meanes of the Sacrament at some times supported by it Also the Sanctum Sanctorum it selfe was such a place as was wonderfully terrible by reason of Gods residence in it after the losse of the Arke and the Mercy seate And soâ—e doe not repute our Chancells whose chiefest honour is borrowed from the holy table and for these reasons we know the Arke was not to be touched even by a Priest and that upon a godly consideration but upon such penalty as Vzzah indured â—nd with this condition our Table cannot â—uite and we know that the Oracle also was not to be approached but once a yeare and that by the High Priest only with this condition also our Quires cannot agree for if these conditions were admitted the Table might not be touched or remooved or altered for any reason whatsoever or any other place designed for the administration of the Communion or any other time appointed but once every yeare Lastly Neither the Gospell written nor the prâ—ctise of antiquity doe informe us that ever the Altar and Chancell were so honoured by Christians as the Arke and Oracle were by the Jewes we see no probability that ever the Table was accounted any thing but a holy utensill till Doctor Helyn disâ—â—yned ned that 〈◊〉 for why should the chalice and patin be utensils and not the Table they being more necrely imployed about the body and blood of our Saviour then the Table if the Table be not as meere an instrument and utensill as the Chalice is then the Doctor must derive its honour from some other thing than the Sacrament and designe it for some higher use proper to it selfe as the Arke and Merci-seate was but this the Doctor cannot doe and if he should attempt it even so he would crosse his owne assertions The Arke with the Mercy-seat could not properly be said an utensill in the Jewish service because they were ordained by God for no humane office but rather for a receptacle of the divinity as a place where God would set the soles of his feete But the Table is therefore placed in the Church that it may be employed in the Communion and if the Communion had not beene instituted no such thing had beene necessary at all Neither is it of any absolute necessity in the Communion for in case of persecution it is held that for want of a Table wee may celebrate the Eucharist upon the ground it selfe
this doctrine then their adversaries doe or else I wish they did not more advance this doctrine then those which they call the seditious Corahs of the time But if the Doctors are so well wishing to temporall rulers how is it that they all alleadge the example of Ambrose and Theodosius so often without any kinde of detestation or dislike nay seeming rather to justifie and applaud it and how is it that they speake so pleasingly of Numerianus Numerianus sonne to Carus the Emperour comming into the Church at Antioch and desiring to behold their mysteries quasi per transennam peeping it is likely through the rayles or lattice dores of the Quire he was presently rebuked by Babylas for that attempt but this heinous prophanation was committed but by the sonne of an Emperour and so Babylas might be the more bold in his rebuke therefore let us rather see how Theodosius was used at Millaine Theodosius a penitent Emperour having beene long prohibited the Church and at last â—â—â—ceived againe and permitted to communicate yet he was thought unworthy after his offring made 〈◊〉 have any abode granted him within the bounds of the Quire It was not sufficient that he was an â—â—perour and a Christian Emperour and a 〈◊〉 Christian Emperour it was not sufficient that iâ—Constantinople and his Easterne dominions his 〈◊〉 was within the Quire but at the proud check of a Bishop of Millaine sent by one of the Deacons he must depart that sacred place This story the Doctors do all severally produce either once or 〈…〉 if it were not dishonourable to all Princes to have it mentioned at all or rather impious or ungâ—â—tious in all Priests to suffer the mention thereof 〈◊〉 passe uncensured from their lipps Here is a cleare authority cited againe and againe with the weight of Saint Ambrose his name to abet it that by the rules of approved antiquity the persons of Princes were not worthy to approach that part of the Church where the Altar was placed and where the Priestâ— and Deacons did officiate And if Saint Ambrose would so extrude an annoynted Emperour at Millâ—ine what would the Pope himselfe have done at Rome if such a pious Bishop would be so insolent and distoyall what would the Bishop of all Bishops have done The Doctors do not openly declare themselves in favour of this act of Saint Ambrose because I thinke it needs not for their opinion in sufficiently evident of itselfe and if they did not discover their consent by silence yet their scope in this whole busines would make it manifest For by what Law did Saint Ambrose confine the Emperour to the body of the Church it was not by the Law of God nor of the Emperour for it should seeme the Emperour had a contrary Law in his Easterne dominions it must needs be by this Altar Law and this only If the Levites table be so much dignified and hallowed meerly by bearing the body of our Saviour then certainly the Priest which conâ—ecrates the same and is more nobly and intelligently active in the celebration of the Sacrament must needs acquire much more dignity and holinesse and if so then Priests must needs be more excellent then Princes then whom the table is more excellent This must needs bee that which did convince Theodosius and this if it be yeelded to will still convince and confound and degrade all Christian Princes whatsoever for this is one of the most powerfull intoxications that the Inchantresse of Rome mingles for the princes of the earth The foundations of the Popish Hierarchy are not yet quite razed in many mens minds The Scripture is cleere that as Priests are dedicated to God and admitted to a nearenesse in holy affaires to serve and officiate at Gods Aâ—tar and doe thereby gaine a sanctity above meere Lay-men so also that Princes are sacred in a higher degree in that they are anoynted by God to feede governe and protect both Priests and Lay-men and to represent God himselfe in his power and majesty and to have nearest accesse in things of the highest and holyest nature Aarâ—n though the first and greatest of his order receives his solemne consecration from the hands of him which weilds the scepter and when the Law is to bee delivered the scepter-bearer is to bee admitted into the presence of God and higher to bee promoted in the dreadfull majesticall cloud then any of the house of Levi nay his next subordinate attendant obtaines a higher station in the smoaking Mountaine then any of the Priests Also when the Tabernacle and the Arke is to be framed and when the Temple is to be erected the modells are prescribed and committed to the charge of the Prince and when all is finished the Princes blessing and prayer presents the same as dedicated and separated to Gods service And in all the offices of Religion the Priests serve in the outward action but the Lawgiver superintends over the Priests in that service and when any great difficulty requires God is to bee consulted and approached at the command of the supreme Ruler so that the good or ill state of Religion depends chiefly upon the good or ill government of Gods immediate Lievetenant And thus Aaron is but as a mouth to Moses in some things but Moses is as a God to Aaron in all things and though Moses may not officiate at the Altar meerly out of contempt to Aaron and his function or out of enmity to all order and relation yet he may move uncontrolled in his own superiour first moving sphere It is a poore shift of our Doctors to pretend that Moses was within sacerdotall orders and to cite the 99. Psalme where it is sayd Moses and Aaron among the Priests for Moses had not Ecclesiasticall power because he was of Ecclesiasticall Order but he may therefore â—ee reckoned amongst men of Ecclesiasticall Order because he had more then Ecclesiasticall power What Moses had in the government of the Church over Church-men themselves the same David had and Solomon had and all the successors of David and Solomon ought to have Till the world was inslaved to Church-men under the pretence of Church policie the care of Temporall and Spirituall affaires was not divided neither was the one which is the basest given to the Magistrate and the most excellent attributed to the Priest as if the Prince was the body and the Priest the Soule of the State Miserable were wee sayes Doctor Pockington he meanes in poynt of Religion if my Lord of Canterbury could not derive his lineal succession from Saint Peter but I thinke if this bee all our stay wee are now most miserable for our Religion is the same as theirs is in Geneva and theirs in Scotland and theirs in the Netherlands and in the North parts of Germany where no Bishops are and if they are miserable wee cannot be happy Had wee beene Hereticks if in the reformation none of the Romish Clergy had had hand in our reformation if Cranmer