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 [Page 3] 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.

Tis 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 fore­signifie 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 [Page 4] 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 testimony of their owne finfulnesse. 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: [Page 5] 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. [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 g [...]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 [Page 8] Heylin) a Sacrifice whose nature is commemorative, here is in this Sacrifice an Hoe facite for Priests, dif­ferent from the Hoc edite, & bibite of Lay-men: and so here is proofe both for Sacrifice and Priest: by this proofe it seemes, that the life of the Sacrament consists in this that it is a Sacrifice, and that the life of the Sacrifice consists in this that the Priest con­secrates it, not that the people of God celebrate it; but I take this as a strange glosse of the Doctors, not agreeable to common understanding, or naturall to the text, or savouring of Protestantisme, and so I leave it as not worth an answer. He cites further, 13. Heb. Habemus Altare: and so he concludes that Saint Paul furnishes us both with Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar; if Saint Paul did here by Altar meane the Table, here is some authority for the name, not thing, but this is it selfe controverted: for first, it is plaine that the word Altar is taken for the epulum, not the thing upon which it was offered, for of this Altar, it is said that they may not eat which serve at the Tabernacle. Secondly, the Papists do not alwayes here by Altar interpret our Communion Table, and therefore sayes Bellarmine, Non urgeo hune loeum quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui interpretantur de cru­ce, vel de Christo ipso, &c. But sayes the Doctor, I am not the first of the Church of England, that so in­terpret it, for Bishop Andrews has it thus: The Al­tar in the Old Testament is called Mensa Domini, by Malachy, and of the holy Table the Apostle in 13. Heb. sayes, Habemus Altare. The Lev. Minister here rightly answers, that the Apostle here cals the Ta­ble, Altar no otherwise then as Malachy cals the Altar Table, and that must needs be improperly: for the Jewish Altar was not a proper Table, more then the Table whereon the Shew-bread stood was an Altar. [Page 9] It is certaine and plaine that the Syriack word, Luke 22. and the Hebrew in Saint Matthew is Table, and not Altar. And Saint Paul, Heb. 10. useth the word Mensa, and the word [...] is frequent, and not denyed to be proper, but the word [...] is seldome used for the Table, and not properly at all, if we doe grant it at all used for Table, as is que­stioned. And therefore Bellar. gives a reason why the Apostles all their time used no other word then Ta­ble, especially not Altar; to which opinion the Bishop of Durham agrees, though not to the reason of it. And we know also that the Romish pictures present Christ, and his Disciples in their Churches commu­nicating alwayes at a Table, not at an Altar.

We come now to the practise of the Antients, and they (as Doctor Heylin sayes) without scruple, or opposition, used the words Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar, not tying themselves only to those words; but not shunning the use of them: but the truth is, the Greek Fathers used the word Table more frequent­ly, the Latin lesse; but both Greek and Latins used the word Table more frequently then Altar. But up­on the reformation begunne by Luther, &c. both words beganne to be examined, and then the Pro­testants not allowing the Sacrament to be a Sacri­fice, rejected Altar as improper, but the Papists, though they pretend not to disallow the word Ta­ble, yet in their reformed Canon of the Masse, they used not at all the word Table: and yet still in the Roman Pontificall we finde the word Table used. Howsoever the dispute being not about the meere use, but sense of the word Altar, we come now to other arguments.

All metaphors (sayes Doctor Heylin) allude to something which has reall existence in nature, and [Page 10] therefore the Fathers in the word Altar, did allude to something existent. I answer, Metaphors must have some basis to support them, but that basis may be any thing past, or incorporeall: Christ may bee called the brazen Serpent, the sting of conscience may be called Ixions wheele, &c. Yet there is no such thing now as the one, nor ever was as the other; but (sayes Doctor Pocklington) those Altars which bore carpets, corporals, &c. could not be meer notionall, metaphoricall Altars, but such were those of the Antients, &c. Ergo. I answer, the same thing might be a notionall Altar, yet a materiall Table, and, as it was a materiall Table, it might support carpets, &c. That cursed Tree whereon our Saviour suffe­red, was a metaphoricall Altar; yet it did not truly beare our Saviour, as an Altar, but as a Crosse: but (sayes the same Doctor againe) these Altars were such as were frequented for oblations sakes, to which none came without Sacrifices of wealth, as well as of prayse. I answer, for presents and almes Tables are as proper as Altars; and such being but metaphoricall Sacrifices prove the Table to be the rather a metaphoricall Altar: but (sayes Doctor Heylin) some Sacrifices are meerely spirituall, and to such no materiall Altar is requisite, for such the heart is a sufficient Altar, and every man is a suffici­ent Priest: but the Sacrament is a Sacrifice, not one­ly spirituall and mysticall, but also externall and visible, and to such a Sacrifice, a visible Priest and materiall Altar is requisite. This is answered alrea­dy in the Paschall Lam [...], for that was a Sacrifice visi­ble and externall, yet it required no materiall Altar; and so it may be said of our Saviours crucified bo­dy: besides, we may make a difference with Saint August. betweene the Sacrament it selfe, and that [Page 11] which is visible in the Sacrament, and so deny any vi­sible Altar to be necessary; and for further instance, man is said to offer up his soule and body to God as a reasonable Sacrifice, and the body being materiall, does not require any materiall, grosse Altar: but, sayes D. Heylin, if the Sacrament be but an improper metaphoricall Sacrifice, then no more a materiall Table, then a materiall Altar is requisite. I answer, though in that exception of a Sacrifice it be meta­phoricall; yet as a Communion, it is a reall action, and requires a reall Table whence to communicate. So the Passion of our Savior, it was a tropical Sacri­fice, but a proper execution, and therfore though our Saviour was sacrificed without a proper Altar, yet he was not executed but upon a proper Crosse: but (sayes the same Doctor) if the Sacrament be an im­proper, immateriall Sacrifice; it may not onely be celebrated without a Table, but without a Church also: any place may serve for such a Sacrifice: the Pulpit, the Pewe, the Belfrie, the Chancell may bee as proper Altars as the holy Table, and what a pro­phane Doctrine is this? We doe say that any place may be as properly called an Altar, but not that any place may be as fitly and honourably imployed to communicate in. Our Saviour did communicate in a common roome upon a common Table for ne­cessities sake; and so we in case of necessity dare not despise such communicating, but we use not this ex­ample to prove a parity of all places: the Doctor knowes this is 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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, aud 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 [Page 14] 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 [...] 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. [Page 15] 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 [...] . 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: 'twas strange if any Christian Altars then were, that neither Heathens, nor apostate Christians should know thereof: and yet the more s [...]ange that this being objected against Christians, and not be­ing true, that Christians would not justifie them­selves against so manifest an untruth. Origen an­swers that the Christians Altar was his understan­ding, and that prayers were his [...] . Octavius answers that the Church Sacrifice was bo­nus animus, sincera mens, & pura conscientia. Arnobius [Page 16] confesses sacrifices, but not corporeall, agreeing with the former that they were mentall only. And Cyrill gives not a deny all to Julian. Is it not to be won­dred at, that so many men, of severall places and times, should all so farre prevaricate, and make such fond answers, if they could have advantaged their owne cause, or satisfied their adversaries, by affirm­ing proper Altars, and such reall Sacrifices, as our Doctors now affirme? How easie had it beene, and how true, & how necessary was it to have made this direct answer? Persecution suffers not Christians to build such sumptuous Churches and Altars as you doe: but we have Altars as proper, and would build Temples as stately as you doe, if we had power and liberty; we deny not al Sacrifices, as you erroneously object, we deny not true, visible, externall Sacrifices, we deny only Jewish, bloody, and meerly corporeall Sacrifices: so that the force of that objectiō is against our hard condition, not against our worship or Re­ligion. But Mr. Mede sayes that these Apologeticall Divines denyed Altars, under the Heathen name [...], not denying the Church word [...]: whereby he accounts them meere cheaters, and tri­flers, not regarding whom they treated withall, or the current sense of the words according to common acception, but desiring to obscure truth, and deinde their opponents, this is to bee slighted as a toy. Pocklington takes pains to prove Churches out of the Scripture, & antiquity, & sayes that those Churches had Altars, to which none came without oblations, and that with those oblations, captives, widowes, orphans, &c. were relieved. He also insists upon the great names of Thrones and Syndos: but his proofes are most of them indefinite, both to time, place, and thing. We say, that before Constantine few Chur­ches [Page 17] were, especially so formally, built with Thrones, and other divisions, as he seemes to intimate, and in respect of the vast surface of the earth scarce visi­ble, or considerable, especially to severall men, li­ving in severall places, and at severall times, such as the Apologeticks were. And yet the word Church is taken sometimes for any place where God was publikely worshipt, and sometimes for the congre­gation it selfe of the faithfull named by such a Towne, City, or Country; and in this sense, and no other the Church of Rome, is said to maintaine in it, 1. Bishop, 46. Priests, 7. Deacons, 7. Sub-Deacons, 42. Acolythites, Exorcists, Readers, Por­ters, 52. Widowes, 1500. Poore. It is not meant that any locall materiall Church in Rome during the times of persecution, was so rich, capacious, or stately: for this would evince more then a meere toleration of christianity, and yet we read not of so much. Hospinian for the [...]ace betwixt Christ and Con­stantine more reasonably collects, that those Altars which were then, were neither fixed nor of stone, which sufficiently cleeres that they were woodden unfixed Tables, not stone, and fixed Altars: for if Christians during Heathenisme, had liberty to build and meete in such formall Churches, and had such Synods, Thrones, Libraries, Schooles, Gazophyla­cies, as the Doctor labours to prove, they could not want power, or opportunity to adorne or inrich Altars, or to fix them and fashion them as they plea­sed. And thus the ages before Constantine might be defective in Discipline by reason of persecution, and we may suspect the ages after for their supersti­tion. Constantine was too pompous in Discipline, and soone inclined to Arianisme, and long defer­red his owne Baptisme; in his times the founda­tions [Page 18] of Popish usurpation beganne to be laid. Then it was said, hodie venenum infusum est Ecclesiae: then it was said, That there were as many Religions as opinions, and opinions as men. I ascribe not to an­tiquity such infallibility as some do, and yet many things might fit those times which fit not ours, and many things may be misreported, misunderstood, and mistaken by us in these times; w ^ch perhaps were not in such repute of old, as we now beleeve. Our third reason against materiall and proper Altars, is groun­ded upon the Fathers. Eusebius often cals that of Christians, an unbloody, and reasonable Sacrifice: the word Unbloody is used in opposition to corpo­reall and sensitive things, the word Reasonable, to reall or vegetative things; for if we conceive that Reasonable, and Unbloody distinguish from Jewish Sacrifices, we must understand notionall, or men­tall Sacrifices, because the Jewish were not all bloo­dy. The same Eusebius also sayes that we are ap­pointed to offer daily to God the commemoration of Christs Sacrifice [...]. A Kings deputy is entertained as a King, and its an honour to him; but Kings are not entertained as deputies, that's derogatory: so, if this were a Sacrifice, it were an undervaluing, lessening word, to say it were a meere commemoration, or instead of a Sacrifice. In another place also he cals it [...], that which is the representation of a proper Sacrifice, is not it selfe a proper Sacrifice, these things differ in predica­ment. And to put all out of doubt, Chrysostome by way of correction, for more proprieties sake, having call'd it a Sacrifice, addes this word [...], to shew that it is in propriety but [...]. It may be called a Sacrifice figuratively, but in truth it is rather the remembrance of a Sacrifice. Our fourth [Page 19] reason is taken from the acts of our Ancestors in the reformation, who did expresse great dislike of Altars, and did remove, and abollsh the same as Po­pish innovations. We will therefore against Doctor Heylin, make these two things cleere.

First, that the Reformers were very adverse to Altars.

Secondly, that they were so upon just grounds.

Constantines times, though not so pure as the for­mer; yet were farre more pure then those which succeeded; for Antichrists entrance is obscure: he seemes likes Melchisedeck without pedegree, as to some of his mysteries of tyranny: He beganne to worke presently after the the infancie of the Church, but as to his solemne inthronization at Rome, he is much younger then Constantine. Tantae mo'is erat Romanam condere gentem. It appeares by Saint Ambrose his insulting over Theodosius that the Hierarchy was advanced in good times, and that by the blinde zeale of some men otherwise very good. Altars had gotten great adoration before St. Ambrose, but that adoration was not wholly abu­sed till the installment of Antichrist; and then the Sacrament was soone turned into a present pro­pitiatory Sacrifice, and the forme of a Table being utterly rejected, a stone Altar was received into its place, and an immolating Priest ordained. Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, are now growne the common termes, and onely proper words, and though the instant creeping in of this factious change be not knowne, yet the change is now apparent, it is now is plaine, that these words are growne common, as it is that they were not so from the beginning. And for this cause our English Martyrs, were necessitated to use these words conversing with Papists at that time [Page 20] when no other words were current: and this is no proofe for the propriety thereof. Frith, Lambert, &c. mention their examination touching the Sa­crament of the Altar: and so must I now repeate the same name, and so must any man in the same case, but what? this mention or repetition proves not our approbation thereof. So that the Parlia­ment, 1. Ed. 6. use the name both in the act, and in the writ granted thereby: but what? neither was the tide of language yet turned, nor the reformati­on in any degree perfected: and so in the first Litur­gy, the word Altar for the same reason is usually mentioned: but in the second Liturgy we see the bet­ter judgement, and more setled practise of the State, by the utter rejection of the very names of Sacrifice and Altar. But the Doctor replyes that the second Liturgy was introduced upon no other just conside­ration, but onely to please the fond, pragmaticall, puritanicall humor of John Calvin. King Edw. 6. comming to the Crowne 1547. found the enter­prise of altering Religion very difficult and dange­rous, and not suddenly to be expedited. Young he was, and destitute of a competent number of trusty, potent, and learned Ministers, and his Father had altered nothing but in discipline onely, and his taske now was to extirpate a sensuall Religion of great antiquity, and yet within sixe months he sets out his injunctions, wherein he prescribes divers things tending to a reformation. Some few months after in Parliament, the Sacrament is commanded to be administrrd sub utraque specie, and a Writ therefore awarded; in both which Act and Writ, the vulgar common name is not yet disused. In 1548. Images are ejected, and a new celebration of the Sacrament ordered: The first Liturgy is now com­posed, [Page 21] and Bucer sent for, and as yet the word Altar is not quite relinquisht. In 1549. the King having thus farre adventured to countenance Protestan­tisme, he now adventures to strike at the heart of Popery, by pulling downe the Masse; but this hee does by Proclamation, not daring to put it to votes in Parliament. Upon this a great rebellion is raised in the West, the French King also bidding defi­ance at the same instant; and now Bucer first arrives. In 1550. great troubles hapned about the Protector, but the West being calmed, and the French threat­nings diverted, Bishop Ridly is commanded to take downe Altars in his Diocese, and in Pauls Church it selfe the Altar-wall was removed: by the Kings let­ters also to Ridly, it appeares that Altars had beene displaced in many other parts before, and the Act is allowed by the King to be good and godly, though our Doctors now terme it an horrible outrage: and by this it seemes that Bucer and Calvin were not the first instigators thereof. In 1551. we read of Bucers death, and the arraignment, commitment, and ex­ecution of the Protector; and now Hooper in his Sermon before the King, preaches against the re­mainder of Altars, yet standing as occasions of su­perstition. In 1552. a Parliament establishes the se­cond Liturgy in stead of the first, and finally, and generally demolishes Altars, not using so much as the name of Sacrifice, or Altar. And by such limits and degrees did the Kings power increase, and the re­formation ripen; but amongst these publike affaires we may take notice also that some other considera­ble passages did intervene. Bucer about Autumne, 1549. received advertisements from Calvin not to be mediis consilii [...] authorem vel approbatorem, and to be instant with the Protector for the taking away of [Page 22] superstitious ceremonies. The like counsell also Calvin had sent to the Protector to goe on in abro­gating all superstitions without regard of corre­spondence abroad, or peace at home, such cautions being onely requisite in civill, not divine affaires; for in these the word of God is the strict rule, and no­thing is more distastfull to God, then to alter; or mitigate divine precepts according to worldly wis­dome. His advise also was further that the Protector would hasten the compounding of ceremony dif­ferences, and to support Hooper, a man zealous a­gainst Altars, and ceremonies; and one that had in­terest in the Duke of Northumberland. In his let­ters also to Farellus 1551. it appeares that Calvin had written to the King, and that his letters had beene gratiously accepted both by the King and his coun­cell, and that the Arch-Bishop had wished him to write more frequently, and that the Arch-Bishop also had received letters from him; and that the State had received the like advertisements from Bul­linger also. These pious indeavours of Calvin secon­ded by Bullinger, &c. so honourably entertained by the King, and his Prelates and Counsellours of State; nay, and by the whole Parliament, Doctor Heylin traduces as the busie offices of his tampering, practising, and unhappy medling: and thus through Calvins sides our heavenly inspired Ancestors are wounded, and through their sides our Religion. 'Tis true, the first Liturgy had a Morall, though not a Mathematicall perfection in it; and so it was at­testated by Fox, &c. But this concludes not that ther­fore it was altered only to please Calvin; for though in the first Liturgy, nothing was introduced but what was good and godly, as might be well justified; yet that was more good and godly which was after­ward [Page 23] introduced in the second: the one might bee as Nehemiahs Temple, the other as Solomons, both beautifull, yet one more beautifull: He that rightly considers the Acts of Edw. 6. and his short raigne, will wonder to see so much, not so little done in such a space of time: especially since his Peeres was so factious, his people so ignorant, and his Clergy so Popish. Had not Divines also beene so averse at home to reformation, the consultation of for­rain Doctors was necessary, especially of such as had beene actors and spectators abroad in the like alte­rations: but such Doctors were now pretious in the world, the Harvest was farre too great for the Labourers, and the age also too queasie to endure their rigor. It is no wonder therefore if Bucer came not till two yeares after the beginning of the refor­mation, and if Calvin, Beza, and Bullinger, came not at all. Tantae molis erat Romanam extinguere gentem. Doctor Heylin supposes Calvin pragmaticall, because he was not sent for into England, though he prof­fered himselfe unsent for, and was so forward to ingage himselfe by his avisoes: but this is ill sup­posed, for Calvin was knowne to be a rigorous man against ceremonies, and the pompe of Prelates, and this made him terrible here in England. Hooper is a sure instance of this, for being a learned pious Bi­shop, his meere consent with Calvin cast him out of his Bishopricke, and scarce could he ever obtaine his reinvestment, though the King countenanced him, though Northumberland supported him, though the greatest of forraine Divines intreated for him. So tender a point, even in those dayes was it to touch upon ceremonies, the darling of Episcopacie, and so jealous were the holiest of our Prelates in a case of such concernment to Hierarchy. Certain­ly [Page 24] Hooper and Calvin had the same opposites, and friends; and therefore though the King and Coun­cell did not send for Calvin, Bullinger, &c. because the Popish and Episcopall faction hated them; yet they kindldy embraced their counsels, and (as farre as might be) put them into execution. The meere Popish faction could not have deterred, or retarded the King and his councell, we see greater matters carried against that side, some other more potent enemies both Hooper and Calvin had even in those zealous times; but in other ceremonies whatsoever difference might be, I doe not see but that in the a­moving and condemning of Altars, all sides did ful­ly agree, and that Ridly and Cranmer were as for­ward as either Hooper or Calvin. It is manifest also that Queene Eliz. in her restitution of Religion was as ill affected to them, as her brother had beene in his first reformation, abolishing both the name, forme, and use of them, and adhering wholly to the second Liturgy, and imitating in all things her bro­thers paterne. And it is as manifest, that in all the raigne of King James under any visitor whatsoever, there was no question ever moved concerning the name, nature, paterne, or adoration of any Altar, till these later yeares made them a ground of schisme. We may more probably guesse that Edw. the sixth, and the best of his Clegry would have followed Calvin further if they had had power, and further time to perfect their designes, then that they followed him too farre, being deceived by his P [...]ri­tanicall faction. But Doctor Heylin blames Calvin for being an enemy to middle counsels in perform­ing Gods strict commands: not to regard humane policie in such divine affaires, the Doctor cals going on without fear or wit. We know how far Saul de­parted [Page 25] from Gods command for politick respects when he would offer Sacrifice before Samuel came, and when he would reserve some of the Amaleki­tish spoyle for Sacrifice; yet this was not meere temporall wisedome: Sacrifice was his end, and the service of God in both, yet we know strict obedi­ence had beene better accepted then such uncom­manded Sacrifice: besides, though Saul was strictly commanded to destroy the Amalekites, yet he was not commanded to destroy the Amalekites without all preparation, consultation, or opportunity: Gods command did binde him from all mitigation in the execution of it, but not from all policie in effecting it. So King Edw. the sixth, received a com­mand from God to expell Popery; in this case for want of power, the King might awaite time and opportunity wherby to compasse his end, as he did; but being master of opportunity, he might not by a­ny dispensation depart from that end, or faile of executing his commission to the utmost. When Calvin dissuaded from middle counsels, he took no­tice withall of the ceasing both of forreine and civill warres, (as appeares by his letters) so that we may well suppose his counsell was chiefely touching the end, not the meanes: for the end is strictly defined by God in divine affaires, but the meanes are com­monly left to humane advise. Let the Doctor carp at Calvin, and at our Ancestors, for crediting so medling a fellow, let him disdaine that Elijah, or Baptist-like spirit wherewith God had so plenteous­ly anoynted him: but this is no warrant for us to doe the like. We may better imagine that Calvin was one of the blessedst instruments whom God fit­ted, and qualified for the most blessed imployment which was ever effected the redemption. Wee [Page 26] may [...] in Calvin and Luther, [...] two Testaments of God rose againe after they ha [...] beene slaine in Babell, and after that their [...] had laine unburied in the streets for so long a time, and that by their sacred testimony the sunne it selfe was relieved from a totall obseruation, and a greater, and more grosse darknesse was chased away from the face of Religion, then that which the Aegypti [...]ns groped with their hands. But (sayes Doctor Heylin) in Germany Altars are still retained; and there the reformation was complete: and so complete refor­mation, and Altars may well subsist together. I an­swer, Altars doe remaine in Germany: but it seemes in the first place Luther was no favourer of them, for he reproves it in Carolostadiue, that he did by force shew downe Altars, when by dispute hee ought to have expelled them. Secondly, it appeares by the same story that Altar were in many places very of­fensive. Thirdly, the Lutherans use and repute their Altars as meere Tables: and we admit that the for­mall relation of an Altar, is not the externall forme as its wood or stone, round, or square, &c. but its imployment for Sacrifice We allow Occ [...]pa­dius to say, that for peace sake we abhorre not from the title of Sacrifice, so no deceit be carried under it. But we say, if not for peace, and such as is [...] from deceit, wee doe abhorre the word Sacrifice, much more the thing. We allow with Zanchy also, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibuern [...] Al­taria, aut mondarunt, quod liguris mensis utantur: we allow both external forms in themselves indifferent made absit superstitio: nay Calvin himselfe (that man of rigor) did leave a stone Altar standing at La [...]sauna. But if Altars be not necessary causes, yet as they are possible occasions of superstition, with [Page 27] our Ancestors we reject them. The Fathers did use the words Altar, Sacrifice, &c. harmlesly as to them­selves, but not as to others, who have mistaken their meaning therein; but this very mistake is avoyded by our Ancestors. The Germans herein imitatethe Fathers, being not so scrupulous in a meere occasi­on of abuse; I doe not say that they doe ill, but I say they doe not so well as we, who avoid all misin­terpretation both in our selves and others; besides that which is not necessary to them by Law, is so to us, for we are bound to beleeve, that such a King and such a Councell as ours were in the reformati­on, being instituted also by such forraine Doctors, would not have abolisht Altars contrary to the di­sposition of those diffrents times, but upon very good and godly considerations. And certainely if the forme and name of Altar we [...] so considerable held to our sanctified illuminated Law-makers, then the reality thereof was of deeper consequence, and much more to be provided against. And there­fore it is sufficient to alledge, that in our Liturgy in force there is no mention of Altars, or Sacrifices, and that Sacrifice which is mentioned in the Sa­crament, is onely of spirituall praise, and that wherein other Hoste, but our soules and bodies are offered unto God. And so in our bookes of Ho­milies pub [...]ly authorized, we are warried not to make a Sacrifice, but a memory of the holy Com­munion: And in the booke of Articles it in main­tained [...] he Popish Lande is a blasphe [...] fig­ment, and per [...]ious imposture, and we are not supplyed with any other in [...] thereof; and yet if our Communion be at all a Sacrifice so properly called, how can it differ from the Popish Lande? So lastly in the [...] and inlarged [Page 28] by King James, 1603. The two Sacraments are there named, and called, one of Baptisme, the other of the Lords Supper; there is no mention made of Al­tar, as if the Communion might fitly still be called the Sacrifice, or Sacrament of the Altar, as the name in Popish times.

CHAP. II.
Concerning the propriety of the Name.

THus we see there is no Altar but tropicall, and the name cannot be proper, where the thing is improper: and yet we further say, that as the name Altar is lesse proper; so it is also lesse antient then Table, and in both these respects lesse convenient to be used. For antiquity, D. Pocklington affirmes, that Noah built an Altar, and Noah being a Christian, his Altar was a Christian Altar; and hence it results, that the Altar amongst Christians, is farre antienter then Table.

To this we reply, that if Noah was not a Jew, be­cause not descended of Judah, nor of the Mosaicall Religion, because he was many hundreds of yeares antienter then Moses, by the same reason he was not a Christian, being ancestor to Christ himselfe. And as for his Religion it does not appeare that hee had therein any nearer relation to Christ, then Moses, especially in Sacrifices, for as Moses had his bloody Sacrifices, so had Noah: and as Moses in his bloody Sacrifices did observe a distinction of cleane, and uncleane creatures; so did Noah. Wherefore it No­ah be no Jew, it followes not he was a Christian; and if a Christian, it follows not his Altar was a Christian [Page 29] Altar; and if a Christian Altar, it followes not that it is that Christian Altar, which we call the Communi­on Table. And surely Saint Ambrose is ill applyed, as to this purpose, to prove that the Christian is an­tienter then the Jew: as if that because Altars came in with Noah; therefore Tables came not in till under the Ceremoniall Law, or as if it concerned us to strive about the generall indefinite words of Altar, or Table, in this dispute of the Communion Table. Our dispute is about that Table, or other utensill where­upon our Saviour did eate both the old Passover, and his new one; and this Saint Matthew, and Saint Luke call a Table, using the same word as is used for that utensill whereon Dives his meate was served in; and the Papists deny not the proprlety of this word, nor the use of the thing, onely Doctor Pock­lington affirmes our Saviour to have supped upon the pavement, not that he can thereby averre his Altar, but that he may impugne our Table. If the Sacrament be a true Sacrifice, it followes not that Sacrifice ever implyes any Altar: but we have dispro­ved it to be a Sacrifice, we prove it to be [...], ra­ther a commemoration of a Sacrifice, nay even that Sacrifice which it does commemorate, was not sim­ply, it was but secundum quid a Sacrifice. Wee say our Saviours Passion as to its vertue was the most odoriferous Sacrifice that ever was, but as to its man­ner of oblation it might be as figurative a Sacrifice, as the Crosse was an Altar, or as the crucifiers were Priests; and if Christ did by way of proper Sacri­fice offer himselfe for us on the Crosse, yet its no ne­cessary result, that he so offers himselfe to us in the Sacrament: for the Sacrament, if it be any, it is but a commemorative Sacrifice at the most: but sayes Pocklington, he that admits commemorative Sacri­fice, [Page 30] admite Sacrifice. Ergo. I answer, when we al­low a two-fold Sacrifice, one of propitiation, a [...] ­ther of commemration; one reall, the other re­presentative of the reall onely, we intend the [...] to be proper, the other improper; the one truly so­called, the other as it represents the true. So we dif­ference a painted from a livingman, and a [...] from a true King; for ne [...]lict is the picture a [...], nor the Actor a King, but improperly, But sayes M. Mede, admitting no true Sacrifice, yet the Table is a true Altar; for Table and Altar both have the same genus: Altar and Table differ as Church and house, Altar is a holy Table, as Church is a holy house: so the difference is specified onely. I answer.

First, all Sacrifice is not offered: as [...], some things are offered neither edible, nor potable, a Incense, and by this it seems that the relative for [...] ­lity of an Altar is not meerely to support sacred re­pasts, as it should, if it were onely a sacred Table.

Secondly, this crosses the typicall intention of Sacrifice, for in this sense Christ was no proper Sacrifice, nor his Crosse as Altar.

Thirdly, in the Jewish Temple there was both a sa­cred Altar. & a sacred Table, and as they had severall names, so they were different in forme, and sitted [...] severall uses, although both their uses were sacred.

Fourthly, if we admit Table to be called Altar, in respect of the sacred food there pres [...]ed, not thereon sacrificed, this opposes not our opinion, but it regard that holy Table expresses as much as Altar in Master Mede [...] sense; but the word Altar does not alwayes e [...]presse so much as holy Table in our sense, as the vulgar now use it, for this reason it is not so fitly used in common speech.

Fifthly, Altar is more [...] and uncertaine [Page 31] then the holy Table; for as Sacrifice is appliable to all diuine services of Heathens, Jewes, and Papists; so Altar is as generall: but our Service here being more eminent and excellent, deserves a name as pe­culiar. A King is a man and more, hee is truly a man, yet his distinct name of King is more fit to be be used: for the title of King, includes the name of man; but the name of man does not include the title of King. The Doctors being so egar for the names of Sacrifice and Altar, ought to have proved those name [...] the most honourable; but of this they have made no proofe at all: for even amongst the Jewes, obedience, humiliation, and internall pro­stration of the soule was of more acceptation in the sight of God, then the flesh of Buls, or the fat of a thousand Rams. The Passeover also, which was both Sacrament and Sacrifice; yet was farre more reverent as a Sacrament, then as a Sacrifice: and they which did keepe that with the inward preparation of an humbled spirit without legall purity, were more accepted (as appeares by Hezekiahs Passe­over) then meere legall preparation could make any. Besides, the Table to our Sacrament 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, [Page 32] 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 [...], but [...], 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, [Page 33] &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 [Page 34] that Churches and Altars might have beene; but [...] those Heathen Emperours did not extirpate Religi­gion, 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 Sac [...] 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 G [...]. Biel mentions a woodden Altar, at which the Popes did officiate; and it was remo­ved from place to place, Vbic [...]nque Roman [...]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 plac [...] 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 [Page 35] Antient Christians had a custome to pray [...], 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 thi [...] 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 dev [...]ions, this rule extrud [...] 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 for the same reason? Whatsoever was formerly by some imagin'd, we know that the East is named so from the rising of the Sunne, and wee know the Sunne has neither rising not setting, but comparative, and so America is as properly East, as China, for if America lie West to us, yet it lies East to China; which lies East to us. The Doctor tels as not certainely whether the Antients prayed East-ward, because their Churches were so built, or whe­ther they built so, because they praye [...] so, but both wayes he makes use of it for his owne posture; al­though [Page 36] we may both wayes as probably thus reto [...] to the contrary. If the Christians prayed Eastward onely, because their Churches were so built, then they held that posture of praying in it selfe indiffe­rent, and if they built so because they prayed so, then they held the posture for building so to be in­different: and sure the proofe is very weake, that the Primitives did put any vertue in all places of the world either in building or in praying East­ward, since it is most apparent, that private dwel­lings, and Pagan Temples, and Jewish Synagogues were at first converted into Churches, and some new erections were not contrived in this Eastern posture. For his second proofe, the Doctor sayes, that anti­ently (according to Bishop Juell, the Quire or Chancell was drawne with curtaines, and this would be very unsightly (he sayes) if the Table should stand in the middle, [...] farre from the wall▪ The Doctor here makes no difference betweene a Cathedrall, and Parochiall Church, for in Par [...] ­chials a curtaine may hang at the Chancell dore without incumb [...]ance, and in Cathedrals it may be drawne in the middest of the Quire without any in­convenience, though the Table stand not neere the wall. In our Cathedrals, the Quires are now so spatious, that a third part of them may bee assigned to the [...], or Altar place, and yet all the congrega­tion may stand in the other division, nay, if in Saint Pauls London, the Altar wall were againe removed, as it was in Ridleys time, the Altar would be seene standing in the very middle of the Quire. For his third proofe, the Doctor cites the Altar in the Church of Antioch, which not standing to the East, is storied to have differed in posture from all other Churches. If it be granted that all Churches in the [Page 37] West parts from Antioch; nay, all of the whole world had Altars standing towards the East; this proves not that they touched the East wall, and stood side wayes. The Doctors fourth proofe is from the divisions in Churches, for first occurred (hee sayes) the seates of the Presbyters, and then above them the Episcopall throne, and above all the [...]. This is spoken onely of Cathedrals, and in Cathedrals we see the same division still; yet see withall, that betwixt the Bishops throne and the Altar wall, there is a great distance, so that the Altar is not necessarily driven close to the wall. The Do­ctors last and maine proofe is from the custome of Papists, who since they retaine the old fashion of their buildings, are not likely to innovate in the fashion of their Altars. This proofe is no stranger for Altar posture, then for the multitude of Pillar- Altars, Chappell- Altars, and Requiem- Altars, and for a thousand other superstitions; and yet we an­swer more over that it was not so easie for the Papists to alter in the fashion of Churches, as Altars, and therefore this is a very non-concludent, argument. I have now answered Doctor Heylin, and I might pro­ceed to confute him also, but that is done to my hand by a Lin. Minister, in a booke called the Holy Table, name, and thing; and hither I shall referre all that are unsatisfied in this point. I shall note on­ly of that learned Author, that he puts his exam­ples of the chiefest metropolies of Europe and Asia, and in Rome it selfe, his first instance is in the Cata­combe, the most antient and reverent Church there, wherein Saint Paul and Peter first were buried, and where none might officiate, but the Pope: yet even this Church was not canonicall in this Easterne Al­tar posture. His next instance is in Saint Peters there [Page 38] the holy mother Church of the world, for [...] there, that most reverent Altar, which stood over the translated b [...]nes of Peter and [...], stood some di­stance from the wall. Many other instances are gi­ven not fit to be repeated, and yet of all instances none can be more convincing the [...] those of his foure Tables so pretious, and richly adorned, and inscribed round about, which were dedicated at Constantinople, Rome, and S. Dennis. If Altars were onely in use, why was such incredible cost pow [...]ed out upon Tables? If the Altar posture was onely in use, why were those Tables round about on [...] side inscribed, when the inscription had beene [...] in part obliterated? I come now to this later age, and to our owne Nation. In the time of Edw [...] ▪ we finde that Altars were taken downe, that Hooker preached against them, that Ridley tooke away the Altar wall in Pauls to destroy the posture of them, that Bucer complained in C [...]or [...] tantum sacra repre­sentari. And when at first things were not fully set­led, when the old posture was rejected, and not any new one instead therof constantly [...] we find Huggaid deriding that incertainty: and wee find [...] King Edwards second Liturgy ending that doubt by appointing the North side of the Table, for the place whereat to officiate: In the time of Queene Eliz. we finde an injunction to place the Table where the Altar stood, saving when the Commu­nion is to be administred, and other things referred to the appointment of visitors. And in the third of Queene Eliz▪ the visitors set forth their order, that the steps in the Chancell shall be decently [...] and that there the Communion Table shall stand out of the time of receiving: and we know no reason w [...]y they which indured not the forme of an Altar, [Page 39] should indure the posture, or why they which liked not that posture in time of receiving, should like it at other times: or why they should call that the North side, which our Doctors now will needs un­derstand the North end of the Table. Lastly, [...] sanctorum be interpres praeoeptorum, we must beleeve that the Altar posture had not beene so generally used in all Parochials in the whole Kingdome ever since the reformation, and no care thereof taken by authority, if it had beene irregular. But the Doctor sayes that the Altar posture is retained in the Kings Chappell, and in Cathedrals, and that they ought to give Law, and not to receive it from Parochials. For answer we say that Chappels and Cathedrals have their own peculiar Statutes, & may differ sometimes from themselves therein, and from Parochials, but Parochials are all governed by the publike Canons: besides we see there is a great difference in the very fa­brick between Cathedrals, Chappels, and Parochials; and therefore in Parochials the Table is removed in time of administration, because the Chancel was not held so fit for the audience and accesse of the people, but in Cathedrals, and Chappels, no such removall is necessary. Chappels & Cathedrals [...] also other­wise, as in pompe, and in the intelligence of the congregation; and in this respect also ceremoni [...]s may be perhaps the more plausible in them, then they are in Parochials. The Doctor lastly cites Saint Gregories case, and sayes that their Altar posture was adjudged by the Kings owne decision. But I conceive otherwise, for these reasons.

First, because that Church of Saint Gregorie stood under the very wall of Pauls, and owed a filiall sub­jection thereunto.

Secondly, because that Church had no Chan­cell [Page 40] to officiate in, but was built Chappell wise, the East eud thereof being sufficiently visible to all the congregation.

Thirdly, because the King did not intimate in his order that he intended to make that case a precedent to other Parochials, and we know no reason why that pleasure should be concealed, which desires to be obeyed.

Fourthly, because many other visitors both wise and godly, have not taken it as an over-ruling Law in their Jurisdictions.

Fifthly, the King did onely settle the Table be­ing removed, and prevent further removals, but hee did not place it side-way to the East wall himselfe, and we know the Law would not have all things done, which it hinders from being undone. For these reasons it may be conjectured that the Kings aime was at uniformity onely, but not in all things, nor at all times where the like reason is not. And since B. Bilson sayes that the very word Altar so [...]nts superstition, and the Parliament adjudges that the forme of a Table shall more move from superstition, and there can be no reason why the posture of the Altar should not fall under the same, consideration, we conceive the Kings meaning to have beene mista­ken.

CHAP. IV.
Concerning the sanctity of the Altar, or its due ado­ration.

THe honour and sanctity of the Altar, and that adoration which is due thereunto, is now to be [Page 39] insisted upon. The name, nature, and posture of Al­tar has beene all this while so stifly vindicated, and maintained in behalfe of the Table; that a divine worship might be asserted and challenged as due to it: but now behold on a sudden, when the name of Altar will not serve, the name of Arke must supply that office. In the twinckling of [...] eye the scene is changed by our Doctors, and that which was an Altar before, is now become an Arke; and that which stood before in the Sanctuary is now remo­ved into the Propitiatory, and there shrowdes it self under the wings of Cherubins. The surest argu­ment now is, that as our Churches are to be accoun­ted holy, and reverenced as the Temple was amongst the Jewes; so in our Churches the holy Table (not Altar) stands responsible to the Arke of the Cove­nant, and the Mercie-seate. Doctor Micklethwaite sayes, that God may be worshipped in such places where his presence is truly specified: as it was in the Mount, in the Temple, &c. and if under the Law it was no idolatry to worship towards the pla­ces, and monuments of Gods extraordinary pre­sence, it is none in the Gospel. And thus it is law­full (he sayes) to lift up our hands and eyes towards heaven, and so vocally implore God, because in the act of such worship, we use heaven but as a meere circumstance, not as an object, no not relative, or mediate, and we direct our posture only, and not at all the act of our worship towards it. Hence he infers that the like respect may be used to our Table or Altar, which the Jewes used to the Arke or Temple, because ours answer to theirs, being according to antiquity, solium, Christi, and oculus Ecclesiae. So wee see his maine ground is that a reverentiall posture being due to any sacred place where Gods presence [Page 40] is specially manifested, as in the Church, &c. this po­is best directed to that place of the Church which is most sacred, and of most eminent relation to God; and that place is the Altar, or Table. God is in all places present, and yet the monuments, and specifications of his presence are not alike cleare and glorious in all places: his presence in heaven is not as it is in the Jewish Temple, nor in the Jewish Temple as in ours, nor in our Churches as in common places: Gods presence is sometimes in some places extraordinary, yet even his very extra­ordinary pre [...]ence is not alwayes to be alike honou­red in all places, and at all times. Heaven it selfe is not to be made the object, but onely the circum­stance of devotion, and that not of the act, but on­ly of the posture of our worship; and yet Heaven is indeed the true Throne of God, and can therefore the lifting up of our hands to God in Heaven, justi­fie the falling downe before an Altar? Had the Do­ctor first proved that the Table was solium Christi, and the Chancell oculus Ecclesiae, and that there was the same adoration now due to the Altar, as was once to the Arke; and that Gods presence is so now specified in our Churches as it was in Solomons Tem­ple, or as it is in Heaven; he had maintained enough for the meere posture of adoration. But since this maine [...] is still unproved, it will bee better worth my while to passe from hence to Doctor▪ Lawrence his Sermon upon Exod. 3. 5. where hee is more full, expresse, and direct in the point, then a­ny other of the Doctors. There was (sayes Do­ctor Lawrence) a holinesse acknowledged amongst the Jewes in places, in persons, and in things; and that according to degrees, some holy, some more holy, some most holy: according to the dispensati­on [Page 41] of Gods residence and grace, as that did more or lesse shine upon them. Not onely the Taberna­cle, the Mount, the Temple; but even the staming bush shewes this: for at a nearer distance Moses might not be at all, nor at a farther without unloo­sing his shooes. Hence the Doctor indeavours to conclude, that if Gods presence and grace was the cause of this holinesse amongst the Jewes; then the same reason of holinesse remaines still amongst us Christians, since no man can deny that God is still as present and gratious amongst Christians, as eve [...] he was amongst the Jewes. And in this hee does not depart from the same principles which Doctor Mi [...]klethwaite took before for granted, and which at first view carry a very specious colour of reason with them. To this therefore I make a fourefold an­swer.

First, It is true, God is now as present, and as gratious in his presence as ever he was amongst the Jewes: but he is not so visibly, nor so majestically present to us as to the Jewes. There is some kinde of opposition betwixt Majesty and love; and there­fore as the Poet affirmes, No [...] bene conveniunt, nec in una sede morantur: To us God descends in more love, to the Jewes in more Majesty, and wee hold that a severall entertainment is due accordingly. Majesty requires more externall prostration, and feare; love expects more internall joy, and confi­dence. Even in these dayes when we come to the Church of God; we ought to make our addresse with all possible humility and zeale: but if God should in the Church appeare in fire, or any fearfull similitude to us, as he did formerly, certainely we ought to clea [...]e to the dust, and to inwrap our selves externally in the more confusion; and yet God is [Page 42] not the more truly, or gratiously present, because of that apparition.

Secondly, when God did ocularly appeare a­mongst the Jewes, hee did not at all times, and in all places, and of all men require the same adoration: so that we may suppose that the manner of adoration given, was not meerely be­cause God did appeare; but brcause God would have his apparition so entertained. Moses here did worship, but God commanded the manner of his worship; and in many other interviewes in Scrip­ture, wherin God did grace both Patriarchs and Pro­phets, wee doe not read of any consecration of place, or any such distinct adoration, as this of Moses, either commanded by God or performed by man. Certainely Elijah, when God passed by him, and gave him the beatificall sight of his back-parts fell prostrate upon the ground, to humble, and de­base himselfe before that gratious presence: but that he performed any homage, or gratefull service to the place it selfe, we doe not reade. Besides, in this case of the blazing bush, there was a command, and that but temporall; and we doe not reade that any holinesse did remain in the bush after the command. So also the holinesse of the Mount, of the Taberna­cle, of the Temple, as it was created by the com­mand of God, so that command had its limits of time, by which we may observe in my opinion, that the honour was rather politicall then physicall (as I may so say) & without speciall command had not bin due in such a manner or degree. But (sayes D. Lawrence) after an apparition in Luz, Jacob anoyn­ted a Pillar, & built an Altar & changed the name of the place from Luz to Bethel. Jacob did so, and did religiously in doing so; but yet if we suppose Jacob [Page 43] had no especiall command to doe so, it is not con­sequent that Jacob had finned if he had not done so. Besides, Jacob did erect those Monuments of honour, not onely in celebration of that ground whereon he was reposed, when he beheld the An­gels ascending, and descending: but also of that ra­diant gate of Heaven which opened it self to him to inebriate his soule with such celestiall beautifull spectacles. And lastly, Jacob did chuse that place whereon to worship God, but this does not imply that Jacob did performe any reverence at all, or honour to the place it selfe; and so if he had done the like in another place, upon another occasion, he had done well.

Thirdly, the Jewish honour and reverence in re­gard of the manner of it was chiefely negative, and except in cases of divine worship, and civill worship, we read of no other. The Arke was so holy that it might not be approacht, or toucht but with such and such conditions: so the bush which Gods pre­sence inflamed, it was too holy for too neere accesse, a [...] the ground about it too pretious to be trod up­on with uncleane shooes: but who ever read of any bowing, or kneeling, or positive adoration attribu­ted to the Arke, or bush, or Temple, or any other thing under the Jewish discipline? Doctor Law­rence indeed does produce a third kind of worship betwixt divine and civill, which he cals reverentiall, or religious: but he does not fully prove what kind of conditions it had, whether it was positive, or ne­gative, internall, or externall, or how farre it did extend, or how farre it was due to [...] relative in­struments for Gods sake; wherefore, if the Doctor means this negative kind of worship which consists in distance and forbearance for reverentiall, it is [Page 44] most evident that this kinde of worship was never in use since Christs time, as to the rigor of it, nor cannot be now introduced without great absurdity, and superstition.

Fourthly, the honour and worship of God i [...] not to be weighed in humane ballances, and [...]s not great­er or lesse according to that proportion, which we call Arithmetical, or Geometricall. Moses being in the bosome of God, far above the sight of the people, is not to be supposed to honour or worship God lesse by his familiarity, then the meanest of the peopl w ^ch lay groveling & trembling at the feete of God, and durst not approach the very outmost, and lowest borders of the mountaine. Some resemblance wee have of this in Princes Courts, for it is not presum­ption in some favorites to be covered in the Kings presence, or to approach the bed-chamber, though it be almost capitall in others; and yet where Prin­ces are so familiarly honoured, they may be sincere­ly honoured without all saucinesse; and such fa­miliarity may stand as compatible with internall humility, as the most debafing subjection in [...] men. So if God doe admit Moses into familiarity, into such familiarity as abates of externall pro­stration, and distance, and feare; yet it is not con­sequent, that Moses is hereby transported beyond the limits of internall awe, and zeale, and humili­ation. And if it was so amongst the Jewes them­selves in those rigorous times, shall it not be so now amongst Christians, when Christs iron Scepter is tur­ned to a golden sheep-book in his hand? In the Jew­ish worship there was feare, but not without joy, in the Christian worship there is joy, but not without some feare: for as feare was more predominant in them, so joy is in us. Why is our Saviours raigne [Page 45] over us now called in the Scripture, the Kingdome of Heaven? Certainely, in comparison of that di­scipline which the Jewes lived under, for in compa­rison of the Jewish, which is more earthly, our wor­ship now is like that of the triumphant Saints in Heaven, where joy is predominant, and not feare; wherefore it is not rightly objected by Doctor Lawrence, when he expostulates thus. Shall God loose part of his honour from us, by sending his Sonne to us? must there be lesse [...]linesse in the Church where Christ is in truth sacrificed by him­selfe, then where he was sacrificed in a type or sha­dow by Aaron in the Temple? I answer, no: God loses no honour, the Church loses no holinesse, al­though the rigorous worship of the Jewes which consisted in distance and terror, and forbearance, be mitigated by the milde, sweete, and peacefull raign of our Saviour over us, we worship with more joy and confidence then Moses did, Moses then the Jewes, the Saints in Heaven then us; yet neither Moses, nor we, nor the glorified Saints diminish, but adde rather to the glory of God, and if any men now thinke that the most servile worship is not honoura­ble to God, even when they are most over-whelmed with 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 [...]lesti [...]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 [Page 46] 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 [...]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 [Page 47] 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 a hrist an 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? [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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 Pri [...] 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 [...]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 Vzzia [...] might not officiate as the Priest did: Vzziah had his offices distinct, and so had the Priest; and these offices might not be confounded [...]ontrary to decencie, al­though the sanctity of persons 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 [...]aith, from the rising of the Sunne, unto the going downe of the same, my name shall [Page 50] be great among the Gentiles, and in every place I [...] ­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 C [...]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 con [...]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 [Page 51] 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 ador [...]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 [Page 52] their Oratories into an [...]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 La [...] ­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 [Page 53] 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.

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, [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] with the Mercy seate, that dreadfull Thro [...] 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 [...] ­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 so [...]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, [...]nd with this condition our Table cannot [...]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 pr [...] ­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 dis [...]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 [Page 57] 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. Besides, among the Jewes the Altar, and the Altar instruments were of the same metall, in the same manner beautified, and with the same solemnity consecrated, and there­fore why our chalice and patin should not much rather be of the same honour and sanctity as the Table, I cannot discerne. For it is most certaine that our Table is more properly a relative instru­ment in our Sacrament, from whence it receives all its honour, then the Jewish Altar was, which lent ho­nor to Mosaical Sacrifices, rather than borrow' d any.

But (sayes Doctor Lawrence) we finde a kinde of Worship in Cyrill, a direct worship in Eusebius, Emissenus, Theodoret, Augustine, and Chrysostome. We have [...] in Ignatius, and adgeniculation in Tertullian, &c. I answer,

First, We our selves doe grant a reverentiall ho­nour [Page 58] due to all holy relative instruments for Go [...] sake, and therefore from all those Fathers which speake generally, and meane no other but [...], as Ignatius does, we doe not at all dissent.

Secondly, Where particular adgeniculation is required, or bodily prostration, so it be in the time of receiving, and tender'd for the Sacraments sake, and not to the very Table, wee doe practise, and allow it. And so wee agree with Saint Chrysostom that we ought to approach the Table, [...], &c. and cum prius adoraverimus with, Saint Austine.

Thirdly, At any time, as well when the Sacra­ment is not upon the Table, as when it is, we doe not alwayes censure of such a decent bowing before the Table, or towards the Table, as the Jewes did performe towards the Mount, or Tabernacle, so the Table it selfe be not the object, or held the onely occasion of our worship.

Fourthly, we say the Table may be called holy, venerable, and divine in a qualified sense, by reason of its relation, as the garments of Aaron, and the utensils of the Temple were, but this infers no duty of Worship.

Fifthly, We say that antiquity might erre, by way of superstition towards the Table, and this we beleeve the rather, because in some places they did ascribe inherent, physicall vertue to it, and at some times such rigor of holinesse, that Princes, and Em­perours might not be permitted to abide in the same division of the Church where it stood: if Tertullian say that bodily worship is due to the Altar, yet i [...] he prove it not out of Scripture, we answer out of Saine Augustine: Non credimus, quod non legimus.

Sixthly, it is not proved by any one humane au­thority or more, that Altar worship was in use in [Page 59] all parts of Christendome at one time, or in any one part at all times: much lesse is any thing brought out of Scripture to this purpose.

Seventhly, In the same manner, and by the same authority we finde Presbyteris advolvi due, as well as aris adgeniculari, and in antiquity also, it was part of penance Presbyteris, & aris advolvi. And we know moreover, that not onely excessive honours, but also all the revenues and treasure of Churchmen, was first raised and advanced by this Art. It is not to be wondred therefore, if ambitious and covetous Prelates did so much magnifie, and extoll that, which did so much magnifie and extoll them. Well may the Pope still in all consecrations hallow the Altar with most pompe, and ceremony, well may he anoynt that, which was the first cause of anoyn­ting him: well may he sacrifice to that net, which has made all Princes sacrifice to him: well may he claime divinity, and sanctity for that, which has promoted him to fit in the Temple of God, as God, nay above all that is called God. When the hornes of Antichrist first began to shoote forth, when the man of sinne, and the sonne of perdition first be­gan to be revealed, it had beene very unadvisedly ordered, if Psalmes of degrees had not beene sung at the ascending of those staires, whereby the Priest did mount to as much, or more exaltation himselfe as he did procure to the holy Altar. But this is a tender point, and if I speake any thing in disparage­ment of antiquity, especially the great Bishops of old times; I shall be fore-judged as a man ill-affe­cted to Truth, or Religion, and all which I shall say will be soone rejected, and easily refuted.

Therefore, to avoyd unjust imputations, I will confine my selfe to the meere point in question, and [Page 60] digresse no further then the Doctors arguments [...] me, and therein also my chiefe indeavour shall be to doe reason to Princes, not to detract at all from Priests. Two things I shall observe.

First, that this tenet of the Altar-doctrine, and Altar-worship doth naturally issue forth conclusi­ons that are very dangerous, and prejudiciall to Princes.

Secondly, that the Doctors have too farre co [...] ­tenanced, and maintained the same in their late Treatises concerning the Altar, contrary to th [...]se many pretenses of zeale and devotion, which they every where make to the name of royalty. By the Doctors grounds, meere relation to sacred things is of vigor, and honour sufficient to transfer revere [...]ce and dignity upon the instruments relatively used, for sayes Doctor Lawrence, God is not worshipped, if relative instruments be not worshipped for his sake. This being granted, it followes, that most ho­nour is to be transferred upon that instrument, which is most nobly relative, and so in the Sacra­ment the Priest being [...], and the Table or patin, being but insensible utensils, the Priest is to be accounted more holy, and honourable, then either the Table, or patin. If so, then what becomes of Princes? for they are as much inferiour to the Altars in sanctity, as Altars are to Priests. They are not holy enough to approach the rayle of the Altar, or to stay in the Chancell, therefore, how shall they demeane themselves towards Priests, who are farre more honourable, and venerable in their offices, then the Altars are in their imployments?

Besides, if the Altar be honourable for the Sacra­ments sake, and the Sacrament onely or chiefely, as it is a Sacrifice, then how honourable is he that [Page 61] makes this a sacrifice, for the Sacrament is not a sa­crifice by vertue of our hoc edite, but only by vertue of the Priests, hoc facite, so sayes Doctor Heylin very plainly. How many Kings ha's this doctrine for­merly dethroned? what warres and calamities has it imbrued the whole world withall? when it first brought Christians downe to the Clergies feete, how many heresies did it broach? withall, how ma­ny myriads of Soules did it at the same instant sinke into the Lake of Hell?

But will the Doctors say, if Popish Priests have made ill use of this doctrine, what is that to us, who honour and adore soveraignty above all other men? I wish the Doctors were as they pretend to bee, I wish they were not [...], as they taxe their opposites unjustly: I wish they did no more profit by 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 [Page 62] beene long prohibited, the Church and at last [...]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 [...] ­perour, and a Christian Emperour, and a [...] Christian Emperour, it was not sufficient that i [...] 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 ung [...] ­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 Priest [...], and Deacons did officiate. And if Saint Ambrose would so extrude an annoynted Emperour at Mil­l [...]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 [Page 63] 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 con [...]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 A [...]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. Aar [...]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 [Page 64] 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 [...]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 [Page 65] 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, Latimer, Ridly, Hooper, &c. had not turned Protestants, had we been utterly de­prived of the true and effectuall power of ordina­tion and imposition of hands? Could not God by the sacred hands of Edward the sixt, have derived his grace unto the Protestant Clergy, unlesse some from the Romish party had come over to doe those offices of consecration? Was the hand of Moses, Jo­shuah, &c. more gratious and effectuall in the offi­ces of ordination under the Law, then a Protestant Princes is under the Gospell? What is the reason of it, that the Gospell should bee introduced to the detriment and prejudice of temporall authority? Or else shall we thinke, that Aaron was as the Soule in Spirituall rule whilst the Jewish Law was in force, and that Moses had but a corporeall, subor­dinate, lesse excellent power under him? But I will follow this chase no further now, because the times are lately changed, and I believe the Doctors will easily yeeld to retreate of their owne accord. Praes­byteris & Aris advolvi, was the old penance as well [Page 66] for Princes, as people, now wee will bee content if they will leave out Presbyteris, and shew devotion Aris onely. My Lord of Canterbury, and Doctor Pocklington thinke it a good argument for Alta [...] ­worship, that 300. yeares agoe the Founders of the Garter did performe their Ceremonies with ado­ration before the Altar, and that the successors of that Order have continued the same adoration ever since. This is scarce worth an answer, for the times when this custome began, were blinde and superstitious, and the meere practice of a few Noble men was never yet thought a Canon in matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline. But I come now from precedents, to give answer to our Doctors Rea­sons. A difference of places (sayes Lawrence) re­quires a difference of respect, that honour may be sutable to merit, as justice requires. I answer, wee dispute not against degrees of internall reverence, whereby wee hold Churches more honourable then Barnes, &c. our exceptions are against the Jewish rigor of bodily adoration, or such externall ex­pressions of worship, as favour of too much terror, and consternation: but the Doctor further presses thus. It is but as justice requires, that that place should have the preeminence from which vertue is derived to the rest, for the word is not operative, but by the merit of that sacrifice, nor the streames of regeneration pure, unlesse first bathed in his bloud. I might deny that any one place in the Church de­riveth vertue to an other, but I will not stand upon [...]avills, for the Doctors meaning is no more then this, that the word is not operative, but by the merit of that sacrifice, &c. therefore that place, where the word is Preached is not so honourable, as that where Christ is sacrificed. To make com­parisons [Page 67] of honour betwixt the Ordinances of God is not so safe, and commendable, but grant the Sa­crament to be more operative, then the word, (for so the Doctor should have argued) is not the word therfore operative at all, but by the Sacrament? How does this conclude? may not Baptisme, and the Preaching make us partakers of Christs bloud, and merits, except wee actually receive the Eucha­rist? Is the vertue of Christs bloud only annexed to the Sacrament? and if so, is the vertue of the Sacrament affixed to the Altar place? and if so, must that place bee infallibly in the upper end of the Chancell? doth the Church of England so oblige it selfe to that place in all cases, that it will not have the Communion celebrated in any other part of the Church? and if so, is all the honour of the Sacrament in the consecration, and nothing in the distribution? is not the place where the people receive, of some sanctity, as well as that place where the Priest blesses it? And grant all, yet what doe all these Paradoxes conclude for any particular kinde of worship? or what wee are to worship, whether the Table, or Table-place, or both, or whether these as relatives only to the Sacrament, for the Sa­craments sake, or equally as the Sacrament it selfe? But let the Doctor goe on: why should any slave be more vile in the hight of his Lord, then wee be­fore God? &c. Nor is this grace greater then is ascribed by Ecclesiasticall writers to the parts which our Saviour conversed in, &c. to his spitle, to his garments, &c. Wee doe acknowledge a greater du­ty and distance, and humility to bee used towards God, then any slave can render to his Lord; wee de [...]y no kinde of honour to God, internall, or ex­ternall, only wee dare not present to him but ac­cording [Page 68] to his owne command. But for relative instruments which we are to hold sacred for Gods sake, such as the ground whereon our Saviour trod, or his Garment, or his spitle, &c. or the Altar, wee are uncertaine how to reverence them according to our Doctors opinion. The Jewish manner of distance according to strictnesse, is not to be main­tained by the Doctor himselfe, and wee know no other kinde of worship used by the Jewes; neither when the Arke was solemnly moved, or removed, doe wee read of any other reverence applied. And therefore to what purpose the Doctor does urge the Jewish example against us, wee doe not see: and if he will moderate his honour according to the equitable tenor of Christs Gospell, wee shall willingly be informed by him. In two things the Doctor leaves us unsatisfied, and very uncertaine of his meaning: first he does not cleerly and con­stantly nominate any distinct forme of reverence, which he would have us use; secondly, he does not certainly and fully instruct us in the grounds, and reasons of that reverence. First he sayes, adoration in the Law, which was a very strict time against superstition, was never without prostration, and to this purpose he cites examples, wherein men did civilly so fall downe before men, and religiously before God: but he gives us no instance at all wher­in any such prostrate manner of worship was given to any third, middle, holy relative instrument be­twixt God and man. Wee say that bodily adoration may be given to man, because it is but a meere civill act, and for civill reasons, and the mind is not sub­ject to be misled thereby into superstition, because the nature of man whom wee worship, and the manner of adoration wherewith wee worship, and [Page 69] the civill reasons for which wee worship, are so per­fectly knowne to us. Also wee worship God with bodily worship prostrating together our Soules be­fore him, acknowledging that the highest kinde of divine worship is not competent for his majesty, and herein also there is no feare of superstition, because wee cannot erre in the excesse: and there­fore the Doctor cannot either from divine, or civill worship, conclude any thing for his middle kinde of religious honour; because in these relative in­struments wee are to divide our Soules and bodies; not ascribing so much as to God, nor so little as to man: neither have wee any precept, or precedent for this third kinde of worship in Scripture, but rather the contrary: Where do wee read in Scrip­ture that the Iewes did bodily worship the Arke, or the Altar, or the Tabernacle, or Temple, or the Footsteps, or Garments, or Spitle, or Sweate of our Saviour, as our Doctor instances? or how can he prove that any Orthodoxe Doctors in the Primi­tive times did worship the Gospells, or Crosse of our Saviour? Is it sufficient for the Doctor to say, as things have beene in esteeme, so religious persons have ever esteemed them? how does this tautologie confute us? But, (sayes the Doctor) the constant obeysance of Israel in the Wildernesse was towards the Mount, Tabernacle, Fire, Cloude, Arke, &c. And Ezekiel saith, At the gate they shall worship God: for the gate of the Temple was over against the Mercy-seate, and so towards the Temple they did worship as well when they were farre distant in other Lands, as neere it. And so Saint Paul saith, the converted Gentile falling downe shall worship, &c. I answer, here the Doctor strives to prove re­ligious worship, by divine, as if they were both the [Page 70] same, and not to bee distinguished. Is there not a plaine difference betweene falling downe before the gates, or towards the gates of the Temple, and to the gates, or to the Temple it selfe? nay, there is a difference in falling downe before, or towards the house of God in mens mindes: and it is most evident that even to the Jewes did not fall downe before the house of God, as the Papists doe before their Images. The Papists say, they fall not downe to, but before the Picture, worshiping that which is represented, not the thing representing; but if so, if they have the same reason to worship God repre­sented in the Image, as the Iewes had really, and gratiously presentiall in the Temple, then why might they not fall downe towards their Pictures being a hundred Leagues distant, as well as holding them in their hands, for so the Iewes did? It was proper in Daniel to set open his casements towards Sion, and to worship God in that posture, and here­by hee made it evident that hee did not worship by reason of any motive arising from the meere buil­ding it selfe, but meerly for the presence of God himselfe there residing. How fond would it [...]ee if Papists now should doe the like to their deities, or if wee should doe the like to our Altars, except we did believe God to bee as presentiall in them, as the Jewes did in their Mercy-seate? This quite dashes the conceite of all memorative instruments, for they which worship Pictures, or Altars, as being memorative only, must needs confesse that they worship them otherwise, then as Daniel did the Mercy-seate, for he being absent was rather memo­rative of that for Gods sake which there inhabited, then that was memorative of God to him. Besides, if wee did believe that the glory, and face of [Page 71] God (as the Scripture sayes) did as majestically dwell in our Table, as it did betweene the Jewish Cherubins, yet the Jewish example will not guide us to the adoration of the Table only. Solomon in his consecration names, and blesses the whole house, and prayes God to be favourable to all sup­plicants extending their hands to the whole house, and so supplicants alwayes did extend their hands to the whole house. I know one part of the Church is more honourable then another, but the whole is sufficiently memorative, and so not the Table more then any other part, and if I must distinctly wor­ship according to the distinct degrees of holinesse, how shall I proportion my severall bowings in so many severall places? At my first entrance into the house of God, I fall downe and worship that bles­sed name of God which sanctifies that place, must I needs ascend by degrees unto the Table after­wards, there to worship in a higher degree? expe­cting there a greater blessing, or a perfecter memory of my Saviour? I doe not thinke that the Jewish Levites, and Priests did thus performe so many di­stinct worships: much lesse could the people by that Discipline. But in the second place, let the Doctor give us some certayne knowledge of the grounds, and reasons of our worship, and then wee shall guesse at the manner thereof the better. In this poynt the Doctor (in my opinion) is very much staggerd, and gives very uncertaine resolutions: Sometimes he saith, that wee worship not the Al­tar, but God towards the Altar: and he that so worships a house for the owners sake, worships not the house, but the owner. Sometimes, hee saith, that wee doe worship the Altar it selfe, but as Da­mascen saith, not [...], not equally with God him­selfe, [Page 72] and his reason why wee may doe this, is be­cause the Altar is for God, not an Idol, or against God. Sometimes, he saith, that wee adore God in the place without separation of God from the place, as wee adore whole Christ, the whole supposition in grosse, the humanity as well as the divinity, with­out abstraction of one from the other. Generally, the Doctors ground is, that wee are to worship the Table, as an holy relative instrument, for wee can­not worship God, except wee worship relative in­struments for his sake: but herein wee are left as uncertaine also, as ever, for all holy instruments, are not holy alike, nor to be reverenced alike, and therefore in what ranke wee are to place the Table, or with what height to adore it, is not described. To all these assertions something briefly must bee sayd; in the first place therefore, if no worship at all be given to the Altar, but to God towards the Al­tar, which is our owne acknowledgment, then why is the Altar so supereminently worshipt, before any other relative instrument whatsoever? At my entrance at the Church dore, I may so worship God, as well as at the Altar: and so when the Font appeares to mee after my first entrance, thus I may as lowly, as heartily adore God, by reason of his gratious presence in his whole house, or his par­ticular relation to the Font, as at the Altar; and if it be said, that God is not so highly present in any other part of the Church, or in all, or in any other relative instrument (which is a hard saying) as in the Table at all times: yet this doth not infirme my inference, for even before the Font (the same God being present by the same meanes of consecration) my devotion may be as intense, and as acceptable, as before the Altar. In the second place if it be con­fessed, [Page 73] that the Altar it selfe is worshipt, though not, as God himselfe, and that this is justifiable, because the Altar is no Idol, but a holy instrument, and not against God, but for God. I answer, first this is more then the Jewes ever did, or then a­ny precept in Scripture can warrant. Secondly, this is no more then the Papists alleadge for their Idolatry. Thirdly, this is contrary to reason, for if God bee there extraordinarily 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, [...], 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 Table­place? 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 [Page 74] 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 [...]. 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 [Page 75] 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, [Page 76] or wooden Table: but all our Altar-Patr [...]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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] that house wherein God was dreadfully [...] strangely present, and so directs his posture [...]dingly: but the house of God is no motive inst [...]ment to him to remember God, and therefore [...] relative object, or occasion of his devotion, If [...] Papists had the same grounds for their adora [...] as Daniel had, they would worship their Altars [...] Images at as great a distance, as Daniel did the J [...] ­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 [...] ­tate Michael then Satan.