The Altar Dispute OR A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING THE SEVERALL INNOVATIONS OF THE ALTAR Wherein is discussed severall of the chiefe grounds and foundations whereon our Altar Champions have erected their buildings By H. PARKER Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to eate which serve the Tabernacle LONDON Printed by R. Cotes for Samuel Enderby and are to bee sold at his Shop at the Signe of the Starre in Popes-head-Ally 1641. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE WILLIAM LORD Viscount SAY and Seale Master of his Highnesse Court of Wardes and Liveries and one of his Majesties most Honourable privie Counsell MY LORD THe severall concurrent attempts which were made of late upon the setled doctrine and discipline of our Church begot jealous conceits in mee that either our Religion had been hitherto erroneous or was likely to prove unsure for the future Some blame me thought was due either to former times that they had not beene wise in receding from Rome so far as they had done or to the present for not being sincere in returning so fast back againe To excuse both 〈…〉 secure in points of so great concernment 〈◊〉 and tendernesse of conscience would not permit and to be rash in my censure without search and diligent study seemed unjust and unchristian wherefore that I might purchase to my selfe being thus perplexed just and fayre satisfaction and exâ—ricate my selfe out of the mischieves of stupidity and temerity both I did seriously addict my selfe notwithstanding the dissuasions of my owne particular profession interest and want of 〈…〉 debate ventilate and examine the novelties of the time And verily as to my selfe my indeavours were not long successesse for I did at last perceive that there was more danger in our innovators then depth in our Innovations and as to some others not injudicious I found them concurring with mee in opinion and incouraging mee withall to make my observations more publick My Lord I know none more desirous to diffuse good then your Honour nor scarce any better meane whereby to diffuse it to others then your 〈…〉 wherefore I beseech this as an addition to 〈◊〉 former favours that I may 〈…〉 Honoured Name whereby to make more acceptable to all good men thesepoore indeavours of Your most gratefully devoted servant and Allies-man H. P. Errata Page 8. l. 30. for Lev Min: read Lincolnshire Mr. p. 11. l. 9. for exception r. acception p. 12. l. 9. for opposed r. opposite p. 26. l. 22. for trnd r. round p. 27. l. 13. for instituted r. instructed p. 30. l. 14. for specified r. speciphicall p. 34 l. 12. for portable r. probable l. 14. probable r. portable p. 35. l. 7. for Western r. Eastern p. 37. l. 16. for stranger r. stronger p. 40. l. 1 for po r. posture p. 45 l. 23. for not r. most p. 54. l. 10. read of Peter p 72. l. 5. for supposition r. suppositum p. 74. l. 27. for consecrated r. unconsecrated THE ALTAR DISPVTE OR DISCOVRSE CONCERNING THE SEVERALL INNOVATIONS OF THE ALTAR Of ALTARS A Great Faction of Church-men has of late yeares by many severall innovations attempted to alter our Religion and to new reforme that Reformation of it which was begunne by Edw. 6. and further matured by Queene Eliz. The pretence was that our Ancestors in the Reformation did depart too farre from Popery out of favour to Puritanicall Calvin and so the designe was to have brought in Popery againe but with a muzzle upon it at first as Sir Ben. Ruddlard sayes which muzzell would soone have falne off or beene taken off as is generally conceived Amongst other innovations much care was had of Altars many bookes were printed and set forth by authority in favour of them but no man was suffered to say do or write any thing in answer or prejudice thereof The times are now a little more propitious and that audaciates me beyond my learning or profession to enterprise at this time something for the better clearing of the truth in this case concerning Altars If I faile not for want of learning and judgement I shall not for want of ingenuity and modesty and I wish that our Altar-Patrons had not beene so scurrilous and bitter as they have beene for it seemes to me that the venemous raylings and distempers of men within sacred Orders when they are treating of matters of Religion cast a great disgrace upon the age we are borne in the Countrey we are bred in the Religion we are Baptized in In this Altar-dispute foure things come into question 1 Concerning the reality of Altars 2 Concerning the propriety of the names 3 Concerning the Altar posture 4 Concerning the sanctity of the Altar or its due adoration CHAP. 1. 1 Concerning the reality of Altars AS for the maintaining of reall and proper Altars Doctor Heylin layes these grounds Hee sayes that the Passion of our Saviour as it was prefigured to the Jewes in the legall Sacrifice a parte ante so by Christs Institution it is to be commemorated by us Christians in the holy Supper a parte post A Sacrifice it was in figure a Sacrifice in fact and so by consequence a Sacrifice in the commemoration or upon the post fact He sayes further that if a Sacrifice be there must also be both Priest and Altar Yet he assignes these differences that the former Sacrifices were bloody as this is not that the former Priests were from Aaron ours from Melehisedeck that the former Altars were for Mosaicall ours for Evangelicall Sacrifices To shew the weaknesse of these grounds we answer that the word Sacrifice taken in a generall sense for any sacred office or divine service performed does not inferre any propriety of either Priest or Altar and if we take Sacrifice in that serise as the Patriarchs Jewes or Heathens did or as Papists now doe we grant Priests and Altars are necessarily implied thereby but such a Sacrifice we deny our Communion to be T is true the Passion of our Saviour was prefigured in Sacrifices a parte ante but very darkly and if Cain Abel Noah or Aaron did sacrifice to fore-signifie the death of Christ yet their maine or their meere end was not to make any such type or figure Sacrifices were from the beginning as well before Aaron as after but the knowledg of our Saviors death was obscure under Aaron but much more before the most knowing times under the Law did not expect such a suffering dying Redeemer as God had ordained much lesse did those more cloudy times before the Law The Rock in the Wildernes the Manna and divers other things were typicall yet no Sacrifices and Sacrifices may as well be not typicall and euen those Sacrifices which are typicall are not typicall qua Sacrifices more then Types are Sacrifices qua Types By the very light of nature all Nations did agree in all ages in presenting their God both with free will-offerings in testimony of his goodnesse and with expiatory Sacrifices in
but a slanderous consequent issuing out of his malice not out of our tenet for if the honour of the Sacrament doe not wholly consist in being a Sacrifice or the honour of Sacrifice in the externall worke done there is no more necessity of Altar then Table or that either Altar or Table should be held so essentially honourable to the Sacrament and this may be held by him which holds not all places equall and indifferent for divine services Wherefore as for Saint Cyprians rule Eucharistia in altari consecratur which Doctor Pocklington affirmes to be undenyable we say it must stand with our Saviours example who did administer the Eucharist upon a reall Table but upon an imaginary Altar and so we are not opposed to it but sayes Doctor Heylin further materiall Altars are very antient in the Church which if they were not erected for our Sacrifices certainely they were for Popish and this will prove Popery to be very antient I answer the Doctor has not proved formall stone Altars so antient but if he had he has not proved antiquity free from all error and superstition but we can easily prove the contrary but Doctor Heylin proceeds thus he which teaches that in the Primitive Church there was neither Priest Sacrifice nor Altar properly so called brings in confusion and ruine into the Church takes away all externall worship inables every man to the Priestly function and robs the Church of all due reverence This is a strange inference that I cannot sufficiently honour the Sacrament but under the name of Sacrifice nor Ministers but under the name of Priests nor the Communion-Table but under the name of Altar D. Heylins supposition herein of me must bee more weighty then my own certain knowledge of my self Doctor Pocklington also concurres herein for hee which denyes Altars sayes hee may as well deny Churches and he which denyes Churches may as well deny the Throne of Bishops in the Quire neere the Altar-place and he which denyes Thrones denyes the truth of Christian Religion by a strange dismembred deformed kinde of argumentation he makes Altars as necessary to be beleeved as Thrones of Bishops and Thrones as the succession of Bishops and the succession of Bishops as the rocke and foundation of all Religion Cartwright Ames and those of Geneva and all other Countreys which cannot derive their lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles are Puritanes and Heretiques though they scarce differ from us in any other point of consequence yet in this they are in worse condition then the Papists The Anchor of our Salvation is that my Lord of Canterbury is lineally descended from Saint Peter for no inthronization of Bishops no personall succession and no personall succession no derivation of faith can be from God to c. Were not this written against Puritans or by such as have an authority to prove quidlibet ex quolibet it would deserve laughter and not an answer but now we must be more serious The allegation is that there is the same evidence for Altars as Thrones and therefore since it is most impious to deny Thrones it is the like to deny Altars I wish Thrones had beene better proved for if Thrones doe prove Altars yet men of such ordinary faiths as mine may something scruple Thrones themselves Saint Aug. sayes that Thrones were remaining at Rome and Jerusalem till his dayes from the very Apostles times Saint Augustin might see thrones standing in both places but when they were first raised or by whom or for whom or for what reason he could not understand but by relation and what that relation might be he has not exprest neither doe I thinke that his maine hope of salvation was chained to that relation neither can I chaine mine to the same for my part I am so farre from making Thrones or Altars my soules anchorage that I beleeve neither to be Apostolicall and till the Doctor can better convince me of them I could wish hee would call in his Anathemaes or rather Epigrams against such Atheists as I am but sayes Doctor Pocklington further No Altar no Priest no Priest no Rubrick c. but we say in answer First that the relation betweene Priest and Altar is not inseparable as has beene proved Secondly that the word Priest derived from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} implyes not reall Sacrifice Thirdly if we did reject the word Priest utterly as lesse proper then Minister and lesse fit to be used as Sir Francis Bacon maintaines and as we doe not affect to use it yet we reject not the thing with the name the same Ministry the same sacred order we retaine and honour and hold it as revenerd as either Jew or Papist doe their sacrificing Priest-hood But what consequence is this no Priest no Ordination no Ordination no Rubrick no Rubrick no Law He which opposes the word Priest onely does not oppose the thing and he which opposes not the thing opposes not the Rubrick and he which opposes not the Rubrick opposes not the Parl. establishing it it is sufficient that we oppose neither the thing Priest nor the word except onely in its Popish sense as it intimates reall Sacrifice to us I come now to such proofes as cleere antiquity from meaning of reall proper Altars And first wee read the word Altar sometines in the workes of antient Authors but that is no proofe that Altar was the common terme or word so used in common speech of that there is no proofe or colour at all it is ordinary to use Metaphors in studied discourses and as unusuall to use them in our ordinary language That the word Table was first in common use at the beginning is very credible that it is now wholly disused amongst Papists is evident therefore when we see the change but cannot perceive the certaine time or motion of that change as it happens in the shadow upon the Sun-diall we may well suppose that the mystery of inquity has had its secret operation upon it as upon divers other things We finde secondly in the most antient times that it was a common objection made against Christians by Jewes Pagans and renegado Christians that they had neither Churches Altars nor Images And to this common objection we finde that the greatest Apologetick and most learned Divines of those dayes did all unanimously yeeld that they had no materiall proper Altars nor no other but Metaphoricall onely Clesus objected to Origen that the Christians did avoid to raise {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Caecilius askes Octavius Cur nullas aras habent templa nulla nulla nota simulacra Arnobius sayes to his adversaries Nos accusatis quod nec templa habeamus nec imagines nec aras And Julian who had beene a Christian and knew their worship well enough and lived after the erection of Churches yet sayes to Cyrill offerre in altars sacrificare cavetis 't was strange if any Christian Altars then were that neither
is not as the Altar was to the Jewish Sacrifice for the Jewish Altar did sanctifie the Sacrifice but our Table borrowes its sanctity from the Sacrament We therefore honour the Table as a sacred Utensill but wee attract no honour from it we hold it a diminution to name the Sacrament by the Altar when we may more honourably name it by the body and blood of our Saviour For our Princes sake we bowe to his chair but we denominate not the Prince by his chaire or bowe to the Prince for the chaires sake neither doe we disgrace the word Table or Altar when we denominate not the Sacrament by them but contrary to the Papists we rather name the Sacrament by the body of Christ then by them as we stile Kings rather by Nations then Castles or Villages though they be equally Lords of both The Jewes had Sacraments more honourable in nature then meere Sacrifices and our Sacraments are farre more pretious then the Jewish and therefore the wrods Sacrifice and Altar must needs be lessening words to our Sacrament And were they not lessening words yet for other reasons wee see our Ancestors have disused them and chosen rather to nominate the Sacrament by the body of Christ then to descend to a community of name therein with Jewes Pagans and Papists And we may conceive that if our Ancestors had no respect to future abuse in abolishing the words Sacrifice and Altar yet they might have to former for Altars as they are Jewish are to be deserted as Paganish detested as Popish abhorred The brazen Serpent might have remained as free from abuse after Hezekiahs dayes as it had done before and yet though the sinne night have beene reformed the thing reserved that good King out of indignation as wel as prevention takes it away and defaces it We may read further of this Exod. 23. 13. For the same reason the Greek Fathers would not use the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nor the Latins aru but Altare because they would avoid community with Heathens though there was no sinne in the bare words And this kinde of detestation is commended as pious by Sir Francis Bacon even against words in themselves offencelesse where better choyce may be had and where great abuse has beene offered To conclude then if words may bee prophaned and made unchristian meerely by comming into the mouths of Pagans c. Surely much more impurity and offence is likely to stick upon the things themselves but in things abused by Papists wherein we ought to to elongue our selves from them I thinke we ought not to look upon them as the Primitive Christians did the Jewes but as the Jewes did Heathens For the Jewish Religion had beene true and was rather altered then abolisht and that in accidents rather then in substance and so we must not hold of the Popish schisme And it may be conceived that our Ancestors in the reformation did shun correspondence and conformity with Papists in some things and words otherwise indifferent not onely for conscience sake but also out of policie for my opinion is that our approaching towards Popery in some of their rites and traditions does the more obdurate Papists and make our cause seeme a weake and warping cause But this is a sic videtur onely Iobtrude it upon no man it may be the good worke which the piety of these warping times seemes so willing to incline to is more visible to Doctor Heylin then it is to me CHAP. III. Concerning the Altar posture AS for the posture of the Altar or Table it is not of it selfe of much consequence but our Innovators are now very strict in urging it upon us and that onely for innovations sake Doctor Pocklington in favour of this Posture takes great paines to prove that Christianity for the first two hundred yeeres was not so oppressed and persecuted but that Churches and Altars might have beene but 〈◊〉 those Heathen Emperours did not extirpate Religion this is no proofe that they did protect it and if they were some way indulgent to the persons of Christians this is no proofe that they were not adverse to the Religion of Christians we will rather admit with Platina that the Christians had no Churches for 150. yeares but onely Sacâ—â—â— abdita plerunque subterranea and though under Pius the first some meane Churches were yet under Dioclesian they were demolisht againe and therfore it is most portable as he sayes that during those times of uncertainty and calamity Altars were unfixt and probable or according to Strabo placed ad diversas plagas propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem and Gâ— Biel mentions a woodden Altar at which the Popes did officiate and it was removed from place to place Vbicâ—nque Romanâ—s Episcopus latuerit These descriptions agree rather with a Table then an Altar and rather with our 〈◊〉 thereof then theirs but it is a wonder since the Doctors would faine prove such toleration of Religion that Churches and Altars might have beene before Constantine that they make no proofe at all that any were but even since Constantines time Altar posture is but poorely maintained Doctor Heylin for his first proofe alleadges that the Primitive Christians prayed towards the East and that the reason thereof was because the Table was placâ—â— at the East end of the Church And sayes he if the Table was placed East-ward then doubtlesse in the most eminent part of the East that no man might have place beyond it for any man standing beyond the Table must either not pray towards the East or not towards the Table Be it granted that the Antient Christians had a custome to pray {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and that because our Sauiour hung upon the Crosse with his face West-ward as both may be questioned yet this we receive onely from writers which lived West from Judea where our Saviour was crucified and this justifies it not in the Westerne parts of Christendome and if it does yet what followes does the reason of this maintaine the Altar posture So is it therefore a sinne to take the wall of the Altar when we pray or if thiâ— be a sinne can it be no wayes avoided but by the Altar posture Amongst the Jewes the West was most honourable and yet the Arke was not so fixed to the West wall of the Oracle that the Cherubins might not stand betweene and therefore honour is not alwayes rigorously and superstitiously to be applyed Besides if our Saviours posture on the Crosse be the rule of our posture in our devâ—â—ions this rule extrudâ— not to all Christians but onely to such as lie West from Judea for those which lie East by the same rule if they will not turne their backs to our Saviour ought to turne their faces to the West but why should any certaine postures bee held so necessary when all nations cannot agree in the same
might be communicable without disorder So now it were disorder and the confusion of Corah for a secular man to usurpe the function of a Minister but it is not the same to challenge an equall prerogative in the spirituall empire of our Saviour In the like manner we say of places the sanctity of them is altered not destroyed we say God is now more extensively and universally present by his grace then hee was amongst the Jewes In Judea as to his terrestriall habitation he did confine himselfe within the wals of one Temple but now that of Malachy is verified where the Lord â—aith from the rising of the Sunne unto the going downe of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Iâ—cense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering Besides as God now inhabits amongst us more universally so also more amiably or else no Lay-men nor Priests but with such and such restraints might make any addresse at all into the Church or Câ—â—â—cell which the Papists themselves doe not maintaine To the Jewes God was more dreadfull as to servants to us he is more milde as to sonnes The Law was delivered with terror and so kept for it was made mortall to approach either the Moune where the Law was delivered or to touch the Arke where it was kept But when our Saviour came into the world to publish his Gospel he tooke not on the habit of a Lord but of a servant and as his entrance so his life and death was and as his soveraignty was acquired so it seemes to be maintained ever since In the like manner wee say also that there is a change of things Many externall rites and customes of reverence which consisted in the rigorous observations of times and in the lotions of their bodies and purity of garments and cleannesse of diet are vanished and yet some equity of these still remaines according to the rules of order and decencie but no further Though these rites were honourable to God and conducing to decencie and the pompe of Religion yet the strictnesse thereof is now relinquished according to the Heb. 3. 10. for there they are called carnall ordinances imposed on the Jewes only untill the time of reformation Wherefore let the Doctor conâ—ider if all the Jewish rites which were requisite to the externall honour of Religion bee not as properly vindicated and maintained by these arguments as the distinct sanctity of places in the Church and yet these no Papist will defend Neverthelesse I doe not speake against all pompe in Religion I onely say that simplicity seemes more sutable with these times of Christianity wherein wee worship such a Saviour as we doe And on the other side it is most apparent that our pompe addes nothing to God for Aaron in all his beauty Solomon in all his Majesty did retribute no more honour to God then Abraham or Isaack in their naked simplicity But it hath beene rather observed that when the Church had woodden Chalices it had golden Priests but God send us golden Priests and golden Chalices both After our Saviours death Saint Stephen and Saint Paul were accused amongst the Jewes for speaking against these Mosaicall distinctions in the Temple and here Doctor Lawrence sayes if the accusation were true it was just I will aske the Doctor this question Was the Temple at that time de jure Jewish or Christian was Moses or Christ to take place in it if he say Christ as he must then why should he thinke Saint Stephen and Saint Paul more unworthy to enter into the most honourable parts of the Temple then any of the Jewish priests It ought not to be presumed that these blessed followers of Christ did generally vilifie the honour of Gods house but their crime was that they did preach against the Mosaicall strictnesse of the limits and divisions of the Temple shewing that all places therein were approachable by the adorâ—â—s of Christ There can be no other charge probable and if the Doctor say that in this they were justly accused he is as wrongfull a judge over them as any of the Jewes whatsoever could be Now we come to Fathers and Antiquity The Primitive Christians sayes Doctor Lawrence distinguished their Oratories into an â—â—rium Sanctum and Sanctum Sanctorum and accordingly put more holinesse in one then in the other having an Altar here answerable to an Arke there and in signe of perpetuity poynted their Churches East looking towards the Temple In this conceit Doctor Laâ—rence goes not alone onely the other Doctors because the changing of the Scene from the Sanctum to the Sanctum Sanctorum from the Altar to the Arke upon the sudden would be too remarkable are more sparing of language But what an argument is this Because the Primitive Christians did build their Churches with some kinds of divisions resembling the Jewish Temple and because they did esteeme one place more holy then another therefore they did esteeme the very Jewish holinesse and distinctions in all things equally in force It should seeme the Altar was advanced to an higher dignity and removed out of the Sanctum to possesse the place of the Arke and the Mercie seate because this alteration suits with the Doctors purpose but in all other things the Jewish honour and holinesse remaines unchanged in our Churches The building of our Churches East also looking towards the Jewish Temple shewes the perpetuity of holinesse and although this be but a particular reason not to be extended to any Churches but such as stand West from Judaea yet for the Doctors benefit it must be taken for universall Neither must we make any use of this Doctors argument to any other purpose although it be as apply able to the Heathen Temples as to ours or the Jewish for they had the same divisions also whereof some were more holy and unaccessible then others But it is apparent that the Jewish sanctity in its strictnesse cannot be attributed to our Quire by our Doctors owne Tenet for he himselfe grants it accessible to Priests and all within Orders and we on the other side in an equitable sense allow it more reverence then other parts of the Church therefore what kinde of honour is it which the Doctor challenges both different from the Jewish and ours also If the Primitive Church stood wholly to the Jewish patterne then they may be produced against the Doctor as well as against us if not how are they produced against us in this point more then against the Doctor himselfe That antiquity did observe a difference betweene common and consecrated ground and also betweene one consecrated place and another and in the fashion of their buildings hold some complyance with Jewes and Gentiles both so farre as the rules of decencie and charity did require certainly it was piously and prudently done That which we say is onely this First we doe not perceive that antiquity did strictly adhere to the Jewish discipline
present what neede wee honour any thing else but that extraordinary presence it selfe or how can wee without indignity indeed in civill worship when the King is absent we doe our reverence to his chayre but when the King sits there in person what man is so infatuated and voyd of discretion as to doe any honour to the chayre and for the absence of God that cannot be pleaded But the Doctor sayes in the third place that in this Altar-worship wee worship God and the place together without abstraction as wee doe both natures of our Saviour This answer in my opinion of all others is the worst and I am perswaded there is scarce any Jesuite that would not bee ashamed to say the like In our Saviour the Godhead dwelt bodily {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and even the dead body of our Saviour lying breathlesse in the grave divided from his humane Soule was not separated wholly from the hypostaticall union of the Godhead and shall this stupendious union be a resemblance of Gods union with the Table or Table-place I am perswaded that Seraphins did attend the buried carkasse of our Saviour and adore it even resting in the Tombe and this by reason of its union with the Godhead but shall the Doctors imagination create the like inseparable relation betwixt God and the Table God deliver mee from such audacious thoughts But grant this and then where is the Doctors religious middle worship betwixt civill and divine how can he maintaine this and yet maintaine with Damascen too {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} In conclusion then the Doctors shete anchor is the old maxime that all relative instruments are to bee worshipt for Gods sake and since a worship saith he is due ex confesso then this worship is most proper I answer this rule of relation must needs be a very uncertaine fallible rule as to the manner of our worship and the degree thereof because wee can neither distinguish of the relations themselves as God values them neither can wee limit and proportion our respects accordingly In the Law nay before the Law Circumcision was a very venerable Sacrament and gratious league betwixt God and man and yet in the act of Circumcising there were no other Knives used but such as were common and so after accounted and valued So also the Passeover amongst the Jewes it was an ordinance more solemne and reverend then circumcision and yet in this great celebrity the Jewes used no other then common Tables and Dishes wherewithall to eate their Paschall Lambe the type of Jesus Christ Moreover even now under the Gospell in our baptizations of Infants our Ministers use consecrated Water and sometimes common Basons without any scruple or offence and yet wee cannot deny but that there is great honour due to that sacred ordinance as to the laver of regeneration it selfe Neither do these Doctors that fight so violently pro aris seme at all to regard what honour wee ascribe to any other kind of sacred utensil whatsoever nay I think if the Patin or chalice should bee unconsecrated wherein the Body and Bloud of our Saviour is offered they would thinke it little to bee regarded The honour and sanctity of the Lords day is of late much lessened as if there were not the same relation in times as in places and I feare that this swelling of Altar-worship in the Church may grow as fatall to Religion as the swelling of the Spleene does many times to the body But I desire these Doctors to consider that God ha's expressed himselfe to bee a jealous God in such cases as these more then in any other sinnes whatsoever nay in other offences hee proclaymes himselfe to be long suffering and patient but in the sole fruition of his worship and adoration he professes himselfe jealous over us and apt to take offence against us Does he not declare himselfe to the Israelites as if he did purposely forbeare to appeare to them in any outward apprehensible forme and similitude that they might not adore the same I pray what can be more worthy to bee adored in the whole world then such a representation what relative instrument can bee so holy as the ocular dispensation or sensible displaying of Gods most inscrutable Essence in what figure soever it was opened to the eye or eare yet God wee see was not delighted to be so worshipped by the meanes of any such externall instrument but he did rather avoyde and refuse such bodily worship and did deny gratious apparitions that they might not remaine in the mindes of men as instruments of devotion and if God did not affect to bee adored in any heavenly resemblance of his owne apprehended by any humane sense all such apprehension being utterly unworthy of this infinite Majesty why should wee imagine that it can be pleasing now to him to be adored in a Stone-Altar or wooden Table but all our Altar-Patrâ—â—s doe not make this their ground of worship that the Altar is the same now as the Arke was formerly or that the Table is solium Christi wherein Christ is supposed to sit majestically and gloriously for this will be very hard to bee proved and I thinke the Papists are scarce so grosse M Ironsides ground is not that God doth reside in the Table as in the Mercy-seate but that he is there strangely and efficaciously commemorated wee worship not saith he the Table nor any thing set upon the Table but Christ as the Messias slaine for the Table is only a memorative instrument unto which the assistance of grace is never fayling either to beget in our mindes thoughts of Christs death or to extract from us a worship of him if wee bee not wanting to our selves He cites Cajetan Thomas Aquinas and Gerson to prove that the learnedst of Papists hold no more So then Doctor Lawrence is confuted out of the Papists themselves if he worship the Table for Gods sake relatively or together with Christ without abstraction this is Idolatrous The ground of this opinion is that Consecratio non tantum est opus sed efficax God is in a speciall manner present in consecrated things and places to assist us and stirre up devotion in us if wee resist not his assistance so that though they have no reall quality of holinesse or vertue in them yet by their very consecration they gaine a certaine fitnesse to stirre up holy thoughts But in the first place if the meere act of consecration be so peremptorily vigorous ex opere operatio yet this concludes nothing for adoration The words of the Evangelists relating the Passion of our Saviour and the Sermons of good Divines have more then an aptnesse of commemoration in them yet wee worship not either the Gospells or the Preachers thereof It a meere memorative aptnesse bee maintained and that to bee all the ground of our worship then why shall not all things of the like nature procure from us the same adoration if I looke upon a Crosse or Picture or upon the Sunne or Moone c. and by that memorative aptnesse which is in them finde thoughts of reverence and piety begotten in mee why shall not I according to the Doctors advice embrace all occasions and furtherances of devotion and so fall downe before them And if more then a memorative aptnesse bee maintained and some higher vertue transfused into an Altar meerly by its consecration then into other things wee desire further proofe thereof Secondly if consecration bee admitted to bee so infallibly vigorous as to imply Gods holy presence yet this claymes worship not only to the Altar but also to the Font and to all other consecrated things places and times and this involves us in many doubts For if I must worship at the Altar more then at the Font or more then at the first view of the whole fabrick yet how much oftner how much more must I worship at the Altar then in other places The consecration of the whole building has vertue to beget pious thoughts in mee when I first approach it and I finde in mee a holy commemoration must I now stay my worship till I come to the Altar there to expect yet a more vertuous commemoration or must I bow at my entrance with lesse reverence and then bow more lowly at the Altar afterwards what must be the severall measures of my worship Thirdly this worship by way of motive is not agreable to that of the Jewes for Daniel in his worship remembers that house wherein God was dreadfully 〈◊〉 strangely present and so directs his posture â—â—â—â—dingly but the house of God is no motive instâ—â—ment to him to remember God and therefore 〈◊〉 relative object or occasion of his devotion If 〈◊〉 Papists had the same grounds for their adoraâ—â—â— as Daniel had they would worship their Altars 〈◊〉 Images at as great a distance as Daniel did the Jâ—â—ish Temple being a Captive at Babylon But now as the occasion so the nature of their worship is farre different from the Jewish and by their 〈◊〉 downe before present objects only it plainly appeares that they make those present things 〈◊〉 only the occasions of their posture but even the objects of their adoration it selfe I wish therefore our Doctors would not mingle so far with 〈◊〉 as they doe or if they will yet they would 〈◊〉 speak so upbraidingly of those which feare to 〈◊〉 the like I will not say they are in the gall oh bitternesse but their invectives witnesse too 〈◊〉 that the gall of bitternesse is in them 〈…〉 against Satan though all evill might 〈◊〉 beene said said none but Satan having nothing justly to object against Michael yet forbare 〈◊〉 evill I wish the Doctors hereafter would rather â—â—â—tate Michael then Satan Impriâ—â—â—â—Edw 〈◊〉 3. Iuly 1641. FINIS