A DISCOURSE Concerning the WORSHIP of GOD Towards the Holy Table OR ALTAR.  
LONDON: Printed by J.G. to be sold by James Good, Bookseller in Oxon: 1682.   

A Treatise, showing, That the Adoration or Worship of God in his House towards the H. Table or Altar, is neither Idolatry, Superstition, or Will-worship: but on the contrary agreeable to the Scriptures, and warranted by the Practice of the Saints in all Ages.  
THey that go about to evince a Truth, 
To remove prejudice.  and to demonstrate unto the apprehensions of such as have strongly opposed it before as an error, will find it a hard task, yea altogether impossible, unless he can first persuade them to dispossess themselves of one Principle, which is usually deeply rooted in the hearts of such as are already prejudiced with an ill opinion of this Doctrine to be evinced: That is, because they would not be thought to be so Impotent in Judgement, as so long to have believed and maintained an Error; or out of a self-conceit, and opinion of their own infallibility, that whatsoever they have once held, must needs be Truth, resolve absolutely and unmovedly to defend it; never considering the connexion between the premises and conclusion of their Adversaries Arguments: or rather, what agreement the whole Argument hath with the conclusion which they have formerly hardened: themselves to defend unalterably: therefore I entreat the Reader, that he will for the time, at least make himself a Third Person, and degage himself from both Opinions, as if he were Ignorant of both, that so he may be a free and impartial Judge, not weighing how my Arguments comply with his private persuasion, but what necessary connexion there is between my Arguments and the Cause or Conclusion I have undertaken to prove; 
The Order.  in handling whereof I will observe this Order.  
1. I will explain the Question and state it.  
2. I will prove it.  
3. I will clear it from all Objections and Aspersions.  
But first, 
Obj. from the word Altar.  I will remove one Objection against the word [Altar] What have we to do with Altars? If Altars, we must have Priests, and Sacrifices too, for these are Correlates, and so we shall have Judaisme up again.  
Resp. I grant the Antecedent, 
Resp. It doth not infer Judaisme.  but deny the Consequent. An Altar, a Priesthood, a Sacrifice, I grant; that this will infer Judaisme, I deny. For those Altars, Priests, and Sacrifices, were but Typical shadows of the true ones; and therefore not so properly called, but in reference to the true ones; otherwise Christ's offering himself was not a true and Real Sacrifice, nor he a true and Real Priest, nor his Cross a true and real Altar: but this to be false is apparent by Scripture, Hebr. 7. The Apostle makes a distinction of a double Priesthood, one Typical, the other Real; that after the Order of Aaron, this after the Order of Melchisedeck: that to be abolished, this to remain for ever: that had no perfection, this had: of this Order was our Saviour a Priest, so called for this very reason, because he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin; so Corinth. the 9th. and 10th. he plainly disparageth the Sacrifices of the Law, and makes our Saviour's the only true and proper Sacrifice. Therefore I invert the Argument thus, we have an Altar, a Sacrifice and Priesthood; Ergo, we abolish the Jewish Ceremonies, for they were not such properly, but typically; these are so truly, as being the substance of those Shadows. 
Communion Service.   
Besides, our Church, in the Prayer immediately before the Consecration, calls our Saviour's suffering on the Cross, a full, 
1 Cor. 5.7.  perfect and sufficient Sacrifice. And 1 Cor. 5. Christ our Passover is Sacrificed, etc. For he indeed is the true Paschal Lamb, of which the other was but the Type; therefore the Church also calleth that Feast still, and ever did, Festum Paschatis, and not the Feast of the Resurrection. 
Pet. 2.5.   
Again, Alms, and Prayers, and Praises are Sacrifices, Hebr. 13.16. Prayers, Psalm. 141.2. They are called the Calves of our Lips. And what more frequent than the Sacrifice of Praise? These are called Spiritual Sacrifices, in which respect we are called an Holy Priesthood. This I speak to vindicate the word, that it might not seem so odious, which the Holy-Ghost himself still useth in the New Testament.  
Obj. I grant that there are Spiritual Sacrifices and Priests, and Altars, viz. the Altars of Hearts, but what is all this to the Communion Table? Or though we allow Christ to be a Priest, and his offering himself, a true Sacrifice, and the Cross a true Altar, yet why should the Communion Table, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and the Ministers of the Gospel be called by these Names?  
By what I have before proved, 
Resp.  it appears that these words do not necessarily infer Judaisme, but the contrary, and so that part of the objection is satisfied.  
To the other Quaeri (what reason we have to call the Holy Table an Altar, Ministers Priests, 
Sacraments fitly called a Sacifice.  the Sacrament a Sacrifice) I answer, they are so, and so called in Scripture: and Ancient Fathers, and all Churches to this time, until some Mushroom Novil Puritan sprang up, that out of Ignorance and blind Zeal would have suppressed them. That they are so I prove thus.  
If the Sacrifices of the Law and Paschal Lamb were such, and so called by reason of the reference they had to the true Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, not yet exhibited, then may the Sacramental Commemoration of this Sacrifice already exhibited, be much more fitly so called. The force of this Argument stands thus: If the Shadow may be called by the name of the Antitype, then much more may the true, real and lively Commemoration of the thing itself, already in act. Now Sacrifices were but so called, because they were Shadows; the Sacrament is a true real, exhibition, and lively Commemoration of the Sacrifice itself, and that by virtue of Christ's own words, Do this, as oft as you do it in remembrance of me. Do this, do what? This ye have seen me do. What's that? He took Bread, gave Thanks, broke it, said, this is my Body, Take, Eat: He took Wine, poured it out, said, drink ye all of this, this is my Blood which is shed for many, for the Remission of Sins, etc. Mark it, what was the breaking of his Body in the Bread, the pouring out of his Blood in the Wine, was it not a Sacrifice? sure it was, for it was for the Remission of Sins. Now no Remission without Blood, no Blood without a Sacrifice, so the Apostle argueth to the Hebrews. Again, he saith not which shall be, but which is broken and poured out, as already done, when as yet he was not Crucified: which argues that this Sacrament was instituted in memory of Christ's Sacrifice already done, though instituted before it was done. Again, do this in remembrance of me, Sacrificed for you, of me broken for you, of my Blood poured out for you, that is, of my Sacrifice for your sins. For, for what else could our Saviour be remembered, or what else do the Elements represent or commemorate but that Sacrifice?  
Thus than you see that as the old Jewish Sacrifices were Typical Sacrifices, so the Christian Sacrament, is a memorative Sacrifice: And that one and the same thing might be both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice, none will deny that considers the Paschal Lamb was both: Yet that was but a Typical Sacrifice, and a Typical Sacrament; this both a true Sacrifice and Sacrament. For although that Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, was performed once for all, yet the Commemoration of it was to be often iterated in the Church, till Christ's second coming.  
Again, why should we not as well call it a Sacrifice in memory of Christ's, which it signifies, as a Sacrament in token of his which it Seals, or in token of a Covenant which it ratifies. The Scripture, I am sure, no where calleth it by the name of Sacrament, 
Sacrament, the word not found in the Bible.  for there is no such word in the Bible. And therefore they that will have a Proof out of the Scripture for every thing they say, 
'Tis a Seal to the Covenant, and therefore a Sacrifice.  and give no respect to the Custom and Language of the Church, must desist by their own principles from the use of this word; for they can have no Authority for it, but the constant and unanimous tradition of the Church.  
Moreover, God never made Covenant with man, but with Sacrifice. For a Covenant since the fall, was always made for the redintegration of our peace with God, violated by sin: Now there was no peace, that is, no Covenant renewed, where there was not first remission of sin past; and no remission of sin without satisfaction of Justice; no satisfaction without the blood of a Sacrifice, viz. Christ's Sacrifice. For that is the ground of our Covenant with God, and therefore wheresoever it is renewed, that Sacrifice is withal commemorated; in virtue whereof it was at first made, and ever since renewed.  
Besides, as in Sacrifices, God in token of Covenant and Atonement, with man, did as it were eat with him, and Feast him at his own Table (eating and drinking, having been always esteemed tokens of Peace and Friendship) (For the Sacrifices were first presented, and given up unto God, consecrated unto him in Recognition of his Lordship over all Creatures, than afterwards Slaughtered and Offered, part whereof was consumed, the other part was for the Sacrifice to Feast withal in token of Reconciliation with God) so also is the Sacrament a Foederal Rite of our Address unto God, to renew a Covenant. The Bread and Wine are first Consecrated and made the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, a memorial of that Sacrifice which is the ground of our Covenant, and then are given as meat from God's Table, to be a Sacrament sealing unto us his Reconciliation, in virtue of his Son's Sacrifice there commemorated. You see then, that this Sacrament is, how it is, and why it is a Sacrifice.  
Now if it be truly a Sacrifice, 
Holy Table may fitly be called an Altar.  the Holy Table may fitly be called an Altar: For as the Cross was the Altar of our Saviour's Sacrifice corporally offered; so is the Table the Altar of his Sacrifice mystically offered in the Supper. And as a Cross did suit to his Body, so a Table to the Bread. As he did not institute any Carnal Body and Blood to be the memory of his Sacrifice, but Bread and Wine; so he did not institute a Cross for an Altar, but that which was proportionable to the signs which he instituted. As in the Old Law, it was not necessary that the Type should in every thing be so Analogal, as to have a man Crucified for a Sacrifice, and a Cross for an Altar, to represent the Sacrifice of Christ; but a Beast for the one, and a Table for the other: so neither is it necessary in the New Testament, the substantial Body of a Man should be the sign of Christ's Sacrifice, or a Cross of an Altar for the memory thereof. And this I have the more fully enlarged, to answer those, who will perchance confess our Saviour's Cross to have been an Altar, but not our Tables.  
Furthermore, 
Table and Altar promiscuously used.  what great material difference is there between an Altar and a Table, that we are so scrupelous? were not the Altars of the Old Law Tables? else what means the promiscuous use of these words, 
Mal. 1.7.  Ye offer polluted Bread upon mine Altar (mark it) and ye say, wherein have we polluted thee? The answer of God by his Prophet, is in that ye say the Table of the Lord is contemptible. That which in the beginning of the Verse is called an Altar, in the end is called a Table.  
Obj. 
The word doth not infer Popery.  What's this but by little and little to b●ing in Popery underhand, when we begin to use their Language? for so Popery came in, and got head at first.  
Resp. No such matter, Let the Papist take away their Doctrine of Transubstantiation or Corporal presence, and we shall not differ from them in the use of this word; for it is not theirs, but the Speech of the Scripture and the Primitive Church. The Papist may with as good reason say, that the Table is transubstantiated into a Cross, as the Bread into the Body. For if our Saviour by those words (This is my Body) did mean to exhibit substantially that once offered Sacrifice, even that very Body Crucified, every time the Eucharist should be administered, and so to make it a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead, than it is necessary that he should mean also to turn the Table into the Cross. For that was the real Altar of his real Sacrifice. And therefore if they will have the true Body and Blood, literally understood to be then Crucified and Offered: I see not how they can avoid the inferring of a true Cross, whereinto the Table must be likewise turned. For a Table was not the Altar of Christ's Bodily Sacrifice, but a Cross. I know no reason why I should imagine the same Indentical, Numerical, real bodily Sacrifice, and not the same Indentical, Numerical real Altar. The same Numerical Sacrifice (say they) was offered on the Cross; nay, his Crusifying was his Sacrificing; but no Crucifying but on a Cross: therefore if his Numerical Sacrificing be there, his Numerical Crusifying is also there; if his Numerical Crusifying, than his Numerical Cross. These things do necessarily result one from another, and all jointly show the absurdity of the Popish Error.  
But now, because they mix falsehood with truth, shall we relinquish the truth? Because they make the Sacrament a real Corporal Sacrifice, shall not we hold it to be a commemorative one, as Christ teacheth us? Because they say in the Sacrament Christ is Bodily, shall we therefore deny that he is there really? So neither must we deny the Table to be an Altar, because they hold Transubstantion and say Mass at it. For this is to refuse Gold because of Dross, Wheat because of Tares, Corn because of Chaff, which is mere folly.  
But come we now to show the use of these words out of Scripture. 
The use of the word Altar in Scripture. Hebr. 13.10.  The Apostle saith expressly we have an Altar, we under the Gospel; for he makes an Antithesis or Opposition between the legal Altars and this, in that those who Minister at the Tabernacle, have not right to eat of things offered upon this. And why so? Because while they retain the Ceremonical observances, now abolished, they argue Christ the true Sacrifice not to be exhibited, and therefore have no right to eat of the Sacrifices of our Altar, which commemorate Christ already Sacrificed; or else I know no reason but the Jews should have as much interest in Christ as the Gentiles, and be as much partakers of this Altar, would they believe in him as we do. But to wait at the Tabernacle, that is, to observe legal Rites, cannot consist with our eating of Christ in the Sacrament, or participating of our Altar, because the one makes Christ not come, the other commemorates him already come. That this is the meaning of the Apostle is evident, because in the following verses, he compares the Type with the Antitype, and shows how Christ did answer and fulfil all the Jewish Sacrifices, and instead thereof appoint his own, and consequently abolish the former, together with the Ministry of the Jewish Priests, which the Apostle makes the reason of this Speech, We have an Altar, whereof they have not right to eat, etc.  
Besides, 
And that Altar is the Communion-Table.  what other thing can be meant hereby, but the Communion-Table? For it is an Altar from which some thing is eaten that was Sacrificed; for nothing was eaten on the Altar but what was offered to God in Sacrifice. But what other Altar can that be but the Holy-Table, whereat we eat the Lords Supper, and commemorate his Sacrifice? You see by this than that the Holy-Table was thus called even by Saint Paul. If you say, he called it so improperly, and Anologically in reference to the Jewish Altars, This I have disproved, in showing that those were rather improperly termed Altars and Sacrifices in reference to ours, whereof they were but Types.  
Now having proved an Altar, by your own consequence we must have a Sacrifice too, and a Priesthood, for these you say infer one another as Correlates. But I will not be beholden to you to make this my Argument, but will prove out of Scripture, 
The word Sacrifice to be applied in Scripture to our Sacrament. Matt. 1.10.  the word Sacrifice to be applied to our Sacrament.  
God by his Prophet foretells the Jews, that whereas they had polluted his Altars, he had also rejected them and their Sacrifices, and would appoint himself a new People, and new Sacrifice. In every place (that is not in Jerusalem only, and in one place) Incense shall be offered unto his Name, and Sacrificium Purum, a pure Sacrifice or Offering, for so the word signifies in the Hebrew. Now what other Incense have we but Prayer? What other Sacrifice but the Lord's Supper? Which he calls a pure Sacrifice or Offering, which God hath appointed to commemorate the Death and Sacrifice of his Son, instead of the Jewish Sacrifice which only Typified it.  
This is the Interpretation of the most, and most Ancient Fathers. For among all the Ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, there is nothing more frequent than the use of these words Sacrifice, Priests, Altar, when they speak of the Sacrament, Holy-Table, and the Ministers of the Gospel. No man can deny this, that hath but cast his Eyes upon their Writings, who are every where full of these expressions. He that shall vilify their Authority in this, let him give me better for the contrary, or I shall conclude him ignorant and impudent.  
Add the constant use of these words in the Church even to this day, both of the Eastern Church of the Greeks, who have no Communion with the Church of Rome, and the Western Churches besides the Roman, i. e. the Reformed Lutheran Churches and our own, wherein these words were never out of use; but that of late some novelists who love to antiquate all things that are Ancient, that their own modern intentions might be more in credit, have laboured to possess men with an ill opinion of them, by telling them they were Popish names, a simple reason. For if these names be therefore naught because the Papists use them, then, seeing a quatenus ad de omnis valet consequentia (as Logicians speak) then all other names which the Papists use are naught, and we must not call the Lords Supper a Sacrament because of them, nor Christian onr Children, John, Thomas, Robert, etc. because they do so. Must we run from the Papists in every thing, because they err in many things? This is to run from Sense and Reason.  
Thus have I shown how the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a Commemorative Sacrifice, and the Holy Table an Altar' that it is so called in Scriptures, Fathers, and all Churches. Now why are the Ministers of the Gospel called Priests?  
The word Priest (if we look to the Notation and Original of it) is the only proper word for the Ministers of the Gospel; 
Priest the proper name of the Minister of the Gospel. 1 Pet. 5.1.  for it is nothing but the contraction or corruption of the word Presbyter, which signifies an Elder. So that Priest and Elder is all one, and wheresoever we read the word Elder, we may as well read it Priest; as the Elders I exhort, that is, the Priests I exhort who am also a Priest. Now Christ would have the Ministers of the Gospel called Priests or Elders, not in respect of their Age, but in regard of their Function and Pre-eminence over the People, as being their Teachers and Instructors, in which respect also the People, though for their Age they may be Elder than the Priest; yet in regard of their subordination to him, are called Younger.  
Again, 
Ministers of the proper name, of the Priests of the Law.  as the word Priest is the term proper to the Ministers of the Gospel; so is the word Minister proper to those whom we call Priests of the Law. For the word in the Old Testament which the Translators were pleased to render Priest (not observing this notion which I have told you) doth not indeed signify any such thing, though that also be a word of Dignity; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Priest, signifies one that Ministers about Holy things, and therefore the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin sacerdos do more truly express the meaning of that word, than our English Priest; for we should rather render it a Holy Minister, or a Minister about Holy Things; or one that attends about holy service;) 
Neh. 10.36. Esay 61.6. Jer. 33.21.  and therefore Scripture itself gives this interpretation of their names in very many places. For though there were divers Offices in the Jewish Hierarchy, as the Highpriest, the Priests, the Levites, Nethemims, Porters, Singers, etc. yet were they all Ministers about Holy Things, though some in a higher, others in a lower rank. For the Levites Ministered immediately to the Priests, the Priests to the High Priest, and he immediately to God: as in our Church, the Deacon (whose name signifies a Minister) Ministers to the Priest, and the Priest immediately to God. Therefore Priest, Levite, 
Ezr. 7.24.  Nethemims, etc. are all summed up in this name of Ministers, see Joel. 1.9. and 13. where they are all called Ministers of the Altar. So Joel 2. Ezech. 46.24, etc.  
Thus you see what the Hebrew word signifies, which we turn Priest, and what the Greek word Priest signifies, which we would not have the Clergy called by, and yet it is the very word given them by the Holy Ghost, in the New-Testament, viz. Elders.  
Now I pray, 
The Dignity of the Priests.  if they who waited on the Altar, were called Ministers of God, or of the Sanctuary, or of the Holy Things, why may not we of the Gospel be so called, that is, Priests, for that the Interpreters meant when they translated the Hebrew Cohen? which word likewise signifies a Prince, to intimate the great Dignity of that Function which consisted in Ministering unto God about Holy Things. And of no less Dignity is the word Priest or Elder. And therefore these terms were premiscuously given to the Jewish Clergy, and an Elder with them sometimes signifies a Prince. So the Elders of the People, of the City, of the Congregation, signifies Rulers and Governors.  
To be God's Ministers is to be the People's Elders; 
We are the Ministers of God, not men. 2 Cor. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2 Cor. 3. 6. Rom. 13. 6.  for we are not the Ministers of men, but of God, and so we are styled, Ministers of Christ, Ministers of the Spirit, God and Christ set us on work, he sends us forth, to him we Minister, though for you. When we administer the Holy Word, the Sacraments, we are not therein your Ministers, but his Dispenser's or Steward's: For we do it, not at your appointment or command, or by your Authority, but by Gods, from whom we have our Calling and Commission. As the King is not his Subject's Minister, though he doth administer Justice to them, and therefore he is called God's Minister. Angels likewise Ministering Spirits to God, even then when they are sent out for the good of them, who shall be Heirs of Salvation. 
Psal. 103.21: 104.4.  For though the material Object of their Ministry, or that whereabout their Ministry is conversant, be men, yet the formal Object, or he in reference to whom this Ministry is executed, is God. Hence ye Priests, ye Ministers of his that do his pleasure; and he maketh his Ministers a flame; and Daniel, saith of them thousand thousands Ministered unto them.  
Thus you see then whose Ministers we are, Gods, 
Dan. 1.10.  not mens. Secondly, What a Dignity this is, it is no less than what is attributed to Kings and Angels. You see likewise that what the Interpreters translated Priests, signifies that which you call us, Ministers, and the executing of their Office, Ministering or Ministration. As also that the word Elder, 
Luk. 1.23.  that the Holy Ghost calls us by, is all one with the word Priest. And therefore if you be so much against the Jewish terms, you should rather call us Priests than Ministers: but indeed we are both, and the Holy Scripture useth both words promiscuously, as well in the Old as the New Testament. For we are Elders in respect of the people, Ministers in respect of God, and we Minister to God about Holy Things; unless you will say that our Gospel is not so Holy as their Law, our Preaching as their Expounding, our Prayers, and Service, and Sacraments, wherein is the Body and Blood of our Saviour, are not as Holy as their Incense, Oblation and Sacrifice; for about these things are our Ministers conversant.  
Now I come to the main Question, concerning Adoration or Worship of God before, or towards the Altar, in our ingress into his house, or at any other time when we shall approach thereunto. Where first, I will show you what is meant by Adoration or Worship, Secondly, what is meant by the House of God,  
1. By Worship, 
What is meant by Worship.  I do not understand here in the Latitude of the word, the whole Act of Religion, the whole Duty of Man, which sometimes is generally so called, the Worship of God, the Fear of God, nor yet only or primarily the inward Reverence and Devotion of the heart, but in special, the outward expression of Reverence and Humility in the posture or gesture of the Body, not excluding, but implying the inward worshipping of the mind. In this sense the word is often taken in Holy Scripture, as in the second Commandment, Thou shalt not bow down to them, 
Gen. 24: 26.48.5. Rev. 19.10.  nor Worship them. So Saint John fell at the Angel's feet to Worship him: but the Angel refuseth it, and biddeth him worship God, that is, give the outward Worship that he was ready to do to him, to God, to whom alone it was due. For had not the outward Worship been an Act of Religion in regard of Saint John's intention, and inward Reverence, the Angel needed not to have refused it; for outward Worship if it be only Civil, is such as one man may give to another, a Subject to his Prince, much more to an Angel.  
You see then the Holy Scripture by the name of Worship, doth oftentimes mean in special the outward Adoration of the Body in visible gestures; and so do I here. Now this Act of outward Worship, I make a part of Religion, which that you may the better conceive, I will tell you the Nature and Parts thereof: For it is not generally believed that outward Worship is due unto God, and consequently that it is part of Religion.  
Religion, 
Religion, the Nature and Parts.  which is derived from a word that signifies binding, Implies three things: 1. An Act of Duty. 2. The Object of that Act, God. 3. The Bond or Tye imposed upon us for the performance of such a Duty to such an Object.  
The Object of Religion is God, most Infinite, most Glorious, most Excellent and Perfect, and therefore our Act of Duty, in reference to such an Object, aught to have three Properties: 
3 Properties of it.   
1. It must be an universal Act, or Act of the whole Man, 
1 Universal of Soul and Body.  Soul and Body, of all the Faculties of the Soul, and of all the Members of the Body. All are to concur in this Act of Duty to God, and that for these Reasons:  
First, Because God is to be worshipped by us as men; now, Men we are not without our Bodies; nor our Actions, the Actions of Men without our Bodies, Actiones sunt suppositorum, say the Schools, Christ had not been true Man without a Body.  
Secondly, Our Bodies as well as our Souls are Liable to rewards and punishments, and therefore with them must God be worshipped, if we expect they should be Blessed; and with them we should be Damned, if we deny God's Worship by them.  
Thirdly, 
Bond of Religion.  The common Bond which ties us to this Act of Duty to this Object, requireth outward Worship of the Body, which Bond is the right which God hath to require this Duty of us, which is grounded upon his absolute Dominion and Sovereignty, and that is founded on his Communication of Essence or Being unto us. He made both Body and Soul, and wherefore, but that both should serve him? Again, 
2 Cor. 6.20.  Again, his continual preservation of both, Entitles him to the Service of both; Lastly, his Redeeming of both, multiplies his claim of Obedience and Worship of both.  
Fourthly, 
Mark 12.30.  Our Saviour commands this universal Act, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy Soul, and with all thy Strength. i e. with thy Body also, for there is strength in that. Thus you see the Act of Religion must be an universal Act, and consequently outward Worship and Reverence is comprehended under it.  
2. The Act of Religion must be the most excellent, 
2 Intense.  most intense, and perfect we can perform, so that all other Actions must be hereunto subordinate; For he is most excellent and perfect, and therefore deserves our best performances. So that as he is to be worshipped with all of man, so with the intensest Devotion, Zeal and Reverence of that All: The whole Activity of all must be taken up in this Act of Duty or Service.  
3. 
3 Constant.  It must be a constant, continued, uninterrupted Act, because Gods Right and Dominion over us is constant and permanent. Not that we must always be conversant in every part of Divine Worship, always bowing the Body, always Praying, or praising with the Tongue, always hearing, always meditating of him in our hearts, always at Church: But so as all our Actions, whither we eat, or drink, sleep or wake, talk, walk, work or play, should be to his Glory, all should tend to him as to the Centre, all ordered and governed by his Will, all should be subordinated unto Piety, and that always.  
Thus I have shown what Religion is, and that outward Worship is a part of it. Now I come to a more precise and special consideration of outward Worship in itself; 
What outward Worship is.  And this is nothing else but an expressing and testifying of the mind. For though I do consider these Acts of outward and inward Worship in the explication of them distinctly, yet I deny them to be separated in the true use and practise: For the whole Act of Adoration, concretely taken, doth imply both; 
The defination.  whence it is defined, a yielding of Honour to the thing worshipped, by the Recognition of its Dignity and Excellency, and by a religious submission of Body and Soul, viz. by inward motion of the Will, and outward testimonies and expressions of the Body.  
Where note, 
The parts.  three Acts concur to the complete Act of Religious Worship. 1. The Act of the Understanding, 
1 Estimation.  whereby we apprehend the excellency of the thing we Worship: For the Will cannot incline itself with a reverential esteem towards that which the Understanding doth not first conceive excellent, and worthy such reverence. 2. The Act of the Will, 
2 Affection.  which, upon the preceding Act of the understanding, apprehending the Object excellent, doth inwardly incline itself thereto, in its affections of Love and Reverence. 3. 
3 Outward expressiion.  The Act of the Body, whereby we do by some outward tokens of respect and honour agnize the excellency thereof, which we conceive in our minds, and reverence in our hearts, by a submission of our wills thereto. Both which inward Acts are not only testified by the outward, but intended, increased, and consummated thereby.  
All these three Acts must concur in one Worship or Veneration; For if the first be wanting, we shall Worship with the Athenians, an unknown God. If the second, our Worship will be Hypocritical. If the third, it will be maimed and imperfect. Now this third and last Act of bodily Worship, which is the thing in Question, being the Effect of the two former Acts, and the witness of them, is by a Synecdoche more especially called Adoration. 
Adoration and its kinds. Nudatio.  Of which there are reckoned up four species or sorts: 1. Nudatio Capitis, uncovering the head. 
Geniculatio.  2. Geniculatio, bowing of the knee. 3. Incurvatio, 
Incurvatio.  bowing of the body. 4. Prostratio, Prostration, 
Prostratio.  or falling down. The first of these is proper only to the Western part of the World, where the fashion is to testify our Worship to any body by uncovering the head, (I speak of men). In the Eastern Countries they never were wont to bare their heads, nor is it the fashion there to this day: But the other three have been always used in the Service of God, by Jews, Greeks, Christians, and all Nations of the World.  
It is observable, 
Very frequently mentioned in Scripture. Gen. 24. 26. Exo. 4.32. and 2.27. and 34.8. 2 Cor. 7.8. and 29.29. Esay 44.47. Dan. 3.6. Job 1.20. Matt. 2.11. and 20.26.  you seldom read of Worshipping in Holy Scripture, but there is some Gesture expressed with it, as bowing the head, falling down, bowing to the ground. The Jews in derision of our Saviour, could not mock a Worship, without expressing it by bowing, Matth. 28.9. Did not Saint Paul Worship, when he bowed his knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Eph. 3.14. And what is our Saviour's reward now he sits at the Right Hand of his Father, which the Holy Scripture expresseth by bowing the knee at his Name, is it not worshipping him? that you may see how little, or no Worship, was used by the Saints of God in the Old or New Testament without external Adoration or Bowing, Abraham's Servant, the Israelites, Jacob their Father, Moses, Job, David, Come let us Worship, and fall down and kneel, etc. (as if no worshipping without these Demonstrations). And the wise men, and the Leper, and Mary Magdalen, and Saint Paul, all these could not worship without bowing, or kneeling, or some bodily testification of their inward Reverence, Submission, and Humility.  
Thus you see the meaning of the word Worship or Adoration, the necessity of it, being an Act of Religion, and the commendation of it, in that it is the continual practice of God's Saints recorded in Scripture.  
Come we now to consider, 
2 Of the house of God.  what is meant by the house of God, by which I mean the Christian Oratories and Churches, places devoted and set apart for the solemn and public Worship of Almighty God. And first, I will show the necessity of such places, and then the Holiness of them, which two things, many will hardly believe.  
The necessity I prove, 
1 The necessity of Churches proved.  because it is a principle in Nature; the very Common-Law of Nature did ever suggest unto men, that God was to have a place set apart in peculiar manner to his Worship. This I will demonstrate first by reason, and then confirm it by example.  
1. 
1 By reason.  I suppose none will deny, but that it is a main Principle in Nature, 1. That there is a God. 2. That he is to be worshipped. 3. That there must be some time set apart for his Worship. Now if we hold (as who doth not?) that it is part of the Moral Law, that God must have a distinct and peculiar time consecrated and set apart for his Worship, which is the Effect of the fourth Commandment; it will then also follow, by the same Law of Nature, that he must have a place Sanctified unto him. Therefore the fourth Commandment doth (though not directly,) yet by necessary consequence enforce and enjoin a Holy-Place, as well as a Holiday, or time: For time, and place are both alike necessary Circumstances of Divine Worship: And he can no more be worshipped without a place, than without a time; And therefore if the time ought to be consecrate and solemn, so must the place likewise.  
2. 
2 By examples of the Old Testament.  This may be confirmed from the example of God's Saints, approved by God himself from the beginning. Before ever there was a Tabernacle or Temple made by God's special appointment, 
Gen. 8.20. Gen. 12.7.  Noah built an Altar so soon as he came out of the Ark, and there called upon God with Sacrifice. Abraham builds an Altar (that is a special place to invocate at) in the place where God appeared to him: 
c. 13.4.  and wherever he came in his Journeys, he still erected an Altar, or place of Worship; and when ever he came into any of tose places afterwards, there he still worshipped God at the place where he had formerly dedicated. The same I might show of Isaac and Jacob, who still erected Altars in the place where they Pitched their Tents, and that without any special appointment of God. Jacob vowed a place for Divine Worship, by the name of God's house, where he would pay Tithes of all that God should give him. Yea Moses, 
Gen. 20.22.  before the Ark and that glorious Tabernacle were made, pitched a Tabernacle for the same purpose, without the Camp, whither every one that sought the Lord, was to go; 
Ezek. 33.7.  which he called the Tabernacle of the Congregation, or rather of Meeting, because God meets with man there, as I shall show hereafter.  
Thus you see men naturally were wont to accommodate the Worship of God from the beginning, with consecrate places, as well as times: Yea, before the Law was given of any set or precise time; for that was not until the Decalogue was given by Moses: Which argues, that Nature likewise had taught them that the work was honoured and dignified by the peculiarness of the place appointed for it: And that such a place best beseemed the Worship of God, the most peculiar and incommunicable Act.  
In the New Testament it is likewise apparent, 
Of the New Testament.  that Christians had their peculiar Oratories, and set places for their Assembling and Meeting to celebrate God's Worship: 
1 Cor. 14.8.  For Saint Paul gives Rules of behaviour how to carry ourselves in such places, Let the Women keep silence in the Church: which that he understands not of the Company only gathered together, but of the place likewise where they were met; it is evident, because he puts a distinction between this and other places: If they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands at home; for 'tis not permitted a Woman to speak in the Church. where you see, he puts a plain difference between their own Houses, and the places of public meeting for God's Service, which he could not do, if there had been no such places. So likewise, 
1 Cor. 11.22.  have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, or despise ye the Church of God? He chides them for their Irreverent receiving of the Lord's Supper, and puts a difference between their houses, and the places where they met for that purpose.  
Thus much to evince the necessity of Houses and Oratories for God's public Service. 
The Sanctity of Churches.  Come we now to prove the Sanctity and Holiness of them, where we will consider, 1. What it is. 2. Where it is. 3. How long it is.  
1. There is a double Holiliness, one Positive, the other Relative: 
What this Holiness is.  The Positive is either essential, as God is, whose Holiness is his essence; or communicated, as is the Holiness of Saints and Angels, which consists in positive habits of Holiness inherent in them, and imparted to them by God, the fountain of Holiness. 
Relative.  Relative Holiness is so called, because all such Holiness consisteth only in the Reference and Relation the things invested therewith, have to God, who is Holy, and to the Holy end whereunto they are destined. 
Common to persons and things.  And this Holiness was not only proper to men, but common to all other things that might be dedicated and consecrated to God. In this sense men are often called Holy, either in regard of their Function, or some State and Condition which puts them in peculiar relation unto God.  
In the first respect, three sorts of people were called Holy, Kings, Priests, and Prophets: Who therefore were solemnly Consecrated with Holy Oil, and termed God's anointed. In the other respect, all the first born of men and beasts, all votaries, as Nazarites, were likewise Holy unto the Lord. Nor were men only thus Holy, but all other things that might be dedicated unto God, and were so, as all Places, Vessels, Garments, Times; all things, as Holy Oil, Tithes, Incense, Sacrifices, Oblations, Vows, etc. which were in special order to God's Service, and thereto devoted; this is plain in the Old Testament.  
Now this Holiness did not make the persons, or the things Holy, by any positive Inherent Holiness, by any Sanctifying Graces infused (for a man might be Holy in regard of his Function, and yet unholy in his life; witness Hophny and Phineas) but by reason of the Holy Object, and the Holy end and use whereunto they had relation. This latter Holiness we ascribe to Churches, and to all other things whatsoever given to God, and set apart for his Service.  
Now that Churches have this Holiness, 
Churches are relatively Holy proved.  I prove, 1. That places in the Old Testament, dedicated to God's Worship, were Holy, all will grant: For 'twas a received maxim among those Ancients, that a place consecrated to God, did hollow the whole Country, and that the Land was unhallowed where there was no place set apart unto God. 
Josh. 22.19.  Witness the story of the Altar built by Gad and Reuben, and the half Tribe upon the Banks of Jordan, which Joshuah supposed they had built for this cause, lest the Lord of their possession, being cut off from Canaan (where the Lord's Tabernacle was) by the River Jordan, so having no place consecrated therein to the Worship of their God, might be an unclean and unhallowed Habitation. For so saith Phineas, and the Princes of the other Tribes, sent to dissuade them, If the Land of your Possession, be unclean, etc.  
2. God would have such places to be reverenced. And therefore to show he hath as much care of the place of his Worship, as of the time, being both equally Holy, 
Levit. 19.30  he enjoins them both together, ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuaries.  
It remains that I prove places under the Gospel dedicated to God, to be likewise Holy, 
That such places under the Gospel are Holy, proved.  though not with such legal Holiness and observations whereby the Temple of the Jews was hallowed; yet with such Holiness as they might not be any ways profaned or diverted to common uses.  
This I prove by our Saviour's scourging out the Prophaners of the Temple, which that you may not think far fetched, and from my purpose, consider, 1. What part of the Temple this was. 2. The reasons why he did so. 3. The time when.  
1. 
What part of the Temple our Saviour cleansed.  It was neither the Inner-Temple, where the Priests alone came; nor the middle, where the Jews and Circumcised Proselytes were permitted to bend; but the outward, which was common to all Nations that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Dr. Parker's defence agriast J. O. p. 154.  Worshippers of the God of Israel, though they did not tie themselves to legal observances. This third, the Jews scarce accounted sacred, the other two they did, and were so strict, that no uncircumcised person might enter into it, even at this time, when our Saviour exercised his Authority. And in this Court did they usually sell their Sheep and Oxen, at the Feast of the Passover, to such as came far off to Sacrifice, and could not conveniently bring them with them.  
You see our Saviour vindicates the profanation of this outmost Temple: And this is farther manifest by the place of Scripture quoted by our Saviour, which otherwise would be impertinent: My house shall be called a house of Prayer for all Nations; but ye have made it a den of Thiefs. Now no part of this house, was a house of Prayer for the Priests and Jews: This than was the Gentiles Oratory.  
2. 
2 The Reasons  Why did our Saviour cleanse this? Not because it was a place of Legal Worship or Service, for so it was not; but because, 1. It was a place dedicated to God, it was his house. 2. Because it was a place destined to Prayer, a Holy and Religious Act.  
3. Consider the time, 
The times.  or rather times that our Saviour did this; It was not only once, but twice. The first time he went up to the Passover, when he began his Prophetical, Office; and the second time he went up to the Passover to finish that, and to enter upon his Priestly Office, and to put an end to Jewish Ceremonies. How unseasonable had it been to vindicate the violation of Typical and Legal Sanctity, which within few days after he was utterly to abolish by his Cross, unless he meant to leave his Church a lasting Lesson, what reverence and Respect he would have accounted due to such places as this was, which he thus vindicated. For we find not in all the Gospel, any other example of vindictive Authority used by our Saviour, but only this, in freeing his Father's house from Profanation.  
2. But if this Argument be not sufficient, add here to what the Apostle saith, He that defileth the Temple of God, him will God destroy. He speaks indeed of the Bodies of Christians, which are Temples of the Holy Ghost, or should be: But the reason holds as well for other Material Temples, as well as their Bodies, which are so called Metaphorcally. For why will God destroy him that profanes the Temple of his Body? Why, but because God hath made it, and Consecrated it to his own Use and Service; 'tis God's Temple. If this be the reason, than it will hold for Churches likewise; for they are given and set apart for God, and for his alone use. They are his, not ours: and therefore to esteem them as common, is to provoke God to destroy us, for such our Sacrilegious Profanation.  
Lastly, The Apostle, where he forbids those things to be done in the Church, which may be done in private houses, as for women to speak, to be uncovered, men to be covered, as also to eat there, their ordinary viands, and to do other such common Actions, what doth he therein but argue the Sanctity of them, and their separation from Profane and Common uses?  
If you ask when this Sanctity or Holiness doth first begin to separate such places from common uses: 
2 When this Holiness gins.  I answer, at what time they are at first dedicated: For from that time they stand in relation to God. This may appear from the story of Ananias and Saphyra, who for purloining part of that, which they had only in their hearts vowed unto God, were convicted of Sacrilege, and for example struck dead immediately.  
If you ask how long this Holiness lasts upon them; 
3 How long it lasts.  I answer, so long as the Relation which makes them Holy remains upon them; that is till God shall give up his Interest and Right in them. Not only while Divine Duties are exercised therein, but so long as the place is in order to such Holy use. As a Priest doth not lose his Relative Holiness in regard of his Function, after he is come out of the Church, and there executed his Office; so neither doth the Church: For a Priest is even as Holy when he is out of the Church, and hath finished his Ministry, as when he is in the execution thereof. And this to have been the Nature of all other Sacred things, to retain their Sanctity, as long as the Relation they have to God remained on them, I shall prove hereafter.  
Having spoken of the Lawfulness of outward Worship in God's House; I proceed to show the Lawfulness of specifying or determining this outward Worship towards some place therein, more than others Secondly, I will prove the Lawfulness of determining our Worship towards this place, viz. the Altar, or Holy Table. The Lawfulness of both I will prove two ways; 1. Negatively, by proving them to be neither Idolatrous Worship, nor Superstition, nor Will-Worship. 2. Affirmatively, by proving this Specification of our Worship to be consonant to God's Word, and to the approved Practice of the Saints in all Ages.  
First. 
1 It is lawful to determine our Worship towards some place.  It is lawful to specify or determine our Worship of God in his house, to some place. 1. Because it is necessary man should tender his Worship towards some place in special, it being a bodily Act, and he must look and bow one way, either to the right, or left; to the upper or lower end; unless he will turn round as he Worships, or look nine ways at once, that he might not be thought to adore the place he bows toward.  
Secondly, 
And to one place rather than another. which is no Idolatry.  As our Worship must be done towards some place in special, so it is lawful to do it towards one place rather than another. 1. There is no Idolatry in it; for unless we make the place the object of our Worship some ways, it is no Worship of an Idol: But we tender none of our Worship to the place. You may as well say we cannot look up to Heaven when we say our Prayers, but we must Worship the Heavens. Besides, if to Worship God towards one place rather than another, be Idolatry, than Daniel when he Worshipped God toword the Temple, and the Jews when they worshipped toward the Altar and Ark, committed Idolatry. For if they could not Worship God toward one place more than nother, but they must Worship the place, Certainly ' God, who is Jealous of his Glory in point of Idolatry, would never have commanded or permitted it. What was then no Idolatry, cannot be now; for Idolatry is the same thing now and then, and the second commandment did alike concern them and us.  
And as there is no Idolatry, 
No superstition.  so there is no superstition in it: For we no ways circumscribe God's Immensity, or omni presence, or confine it to a place hereby, no more than Solomon did, when he built a Temple for him; or God himself did circumscribe himself, when he commanded a Tabernacle to be set up for him to dwell in. Neither was it in his heart, that men hereby should have such a conceit of him, as if he could be limited or contained in any place. Nor indeed had they any such conceit, for saith Solomon: The Heaven of Heavens is not able to contain thee, how much less the house that I have built? Now, if we do not imagine that God cannot be confined to any Church, why should any dream that we confine him to some place in the Church more than another? Do you think God is confined in the Church, when you go out of your Houses thither to worship him? would you think well of them that should so judge of you? Why should you then judge of us that we tie God to one place in the Church, because we worship him toward one place rather than another?  
Nor that it is Will-worship, 
Nor Will worship.  I shall prove by showing it consonant to God's word, which thus I do:  
That which is decent and orderly, 
But Consonant to God's word.  is not only Consonant to, but Commanded by Scripture. But to Specify our worship to one place is Decent and Orderly. Ergo. If the promiscuous and in different Worship of God towards any place, left to every one's discretion, be indecent, and disorderly, and a confusion, than the determining of it to one place is Orderly and Decent. But etc. Ergo. For tell me, is there any Order where there is not Conformity, and Uniformity? Is there any Conformity or Uniformity that when Men come into the Church, one should bow towards the Font, another toward the Pulpit, a third towards the Table, a fourth towards the Windows, one one way and another another? Surely this is not Conformity or Uniformity, and therefore not Decency; and therefore a breach of the Apostles command, and a disorderly Service of the God of Order. If any think this various worship Orderly, I ask, whether he thinks it would be orderly for one to come into the Church creeping, another going, another reeling, another dancing; one Covered, another bare? If not Order in this, neither in the other; for the Ground of Order is Uniformity: but there is no more Uniformity in such Worship, than in such coming into the Church.  
(2) It is Lawful to determine our worship toward the Altar, or Holy Table. 
Lawful to Adore towards● the Altar, proved Negatively.  That it is neither Idolatry nor Superstition is apparent by what I said before; for we neither tender any worship to the Table, nor Circumscribe God's presence there. When a man pulls off his Hat at his coming into the Church, he may as well be said to adore the Stones or Walls, and to Confine God's presence there; for he doth not come into his own House in that manner.  
And that it is not will-worship, 
Affirmatively Rom. 12.1.  I prove, because it is agreeable to the analogy of Faith, that requires our worship or service should be reasonable, and such is this. For if we adore, Necessity enforceth us to bow to some place; Decency requires to bow to one place, and Reason would that place should be the that fittest place. 
One place in the Church is more Holy than another.  Now the fitness of this place is to be judged by the Dignity and Excellency of it, and that is to be measured by the Degree of Relation it hath to God, and the Highness of the use, whereunto it is appointed. Now what part of all the Church, or what thing in the Church hath so near a Relation to God, as the Holy Table? or what is appointed for so high and Holy an Use as that? That which hath a nearer relation to God, & a higher use than other things, must needs participate of more External Sanctity, and Dignity than other things. Else you may say the Belfry is as Holy as the Pulpit, or Communion Table, 
The H. Table more Holy than the rest.  and as excellent. But the H. Table hath nearer relation unto God, & is destined to an higher use than any other thing in the Church, Ergo it is more Holy & excellent, & consequently the fittest place to tender our Devotions toward.  
There is nothing likely to stand in competition with it, 
Than the Pulpit.  but the Pulpit, or the Font; but neither of these have so near a Relation or so high an use First the Pulpits dignity proceeds from the Word of God therein read or preached; but God's Spirit hath not made so near a Union between the word & itself, as the Son of God hath done at the Sacrcement celebrated on the Altar.  
As for the Font, True it is, 
Then the Fon●  the Scripture calls it the Laver fo Regeneration, the New-birth, and that by the washing thereof we receive remission of Sins. 
Baptism the Analogy of it  But the Analogy of that Sacrament is only thus, that as in our first birth, when we come out of our Mother's Womb, we are washed from the pollutions thereof with water; so in our second, or new birth, they that were born into the Church, and made Members of the same, were washed from the pollutions of their Sins, by the Sanctifying of the Holy Spirit, who in Holy Scripture is frequently Signified under the name of Water. John 7.38, 39  
Now though our blessed Saviour's death and bloodshed be the ground of that Sacrament, yet it is not his Blood that is represented by the water, but the Sanctifying of the Holy Spirit; whence our Saviour said to Nicodemus Vnlhss a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit. &c  
Besides Baptism is the Sacrament of our Initiation, the Lords Supper, of our Conformation; Baptism might be Administered to Infants; the Lords Supper, only to men of Ripe years. By Baptism we have only the beginning of our Spiritual Life; by the Lord's Supper we have our Conservation in it, and Continual food and nourishment; This is the Commemoration, Representation Exhibition, and Application, of that one most perfect Sacrifice of our Lord, once offered upon the Cross; So that upon this Table is prepared God's Heavenly Banquet for our Souls, our Manna, the Bread of Life, in Comparison whereof, all Earthly Feasts and Dainties are but poor, Course, and despicable. From hence we drink the Cup of Salvation, and Heavenly Benediction; yea, we eat and drink the very Body and Blood of our Saviour in a Mystery; Whence the Ancient Fathers are wont to call them Reverend and Dreadful Mysteries, the Viands of Immortality, the earnest of our Inheritance; and the place in Reference thereto, The Holy Altar, the Sacred Table, the Seat and Throne, and Chair of Estate of our Lord Christ Jesus.  
Thus I hope I have proved this Table to be the Highest and most Honourable part of the Church, and therefore the fittest, towards which our Devotions to God should be tendered. Now I shall prove it to be Consonant to Scripture, and approved by the Constant practice of the Saints in all Ages.  
Perhaps you expect some place of Scripture containing this Proposition in express terms; But this Demand were unreasonable; For if we should believe no more than what we have express words of Scripture for in the New-Testament, Then we shall be never able to prove our Baptising of Infants, 
The Analogy of the H. T. a Rule in many things.  or our substituting the Lords day in place of the Jewish Sabbath, which are two points of main Consequence; and yet we have no Rule given expressly concerning them in the New-Testament: Nor was it needful; for in such things where God hath not given, or prescribed to us any new Rule to guide us, 
In Tithes.  he hath refered us to the Analogy of the Old, This the Apostle teacheth us, where he proves the due of the Ministers, miantainance under the Gospel from the Analogy of the Old Law, Do ye not know that they that Minister about Holy things live of the Holy things of the Temple, 
1 Cor 9.13.  and they that waitat the Altar, are Partakers of the Altar? even so hath the Lord Ordained that they that preach the, Gospel, would live of the Gospel. But where hath God Ordained that, but in the Old Law, whence the Apostle proveth this? for what need God give a new Commandment concerning Tithes, in the New-Testament, while the Reason and Ground of the Commandment first given, doth as much concern us as them? It was reason that they who waited at the Altar, should live of it: It is as much reason that they who Preach the Gospel, should live by it. God hath reserved to himself the Tithes to bestow upon his Ministers, in the Old-Testament, for their maintenance; and it was not needful he should give any new Command for Tithes under the Gospel, seeing he never abolished them; that he hath not abolished them, is plain, because he hath not abolished the cause for which he did at first Ordain them, viz, the mainitainance of his Ministers, as the Apostle here shows. Thus you see the folly of those, that will admit of no proofs out of the Old-Testament, for any thing, even there where is the same ground and reason which the Apostle confutes here by his own practice, and by citing a place out of Deuterinomy 25.4. Thou shalt not muzzel the mouth of the Ox which treadeth out the Corn. which, saith the Apostle, God spoke altogether for our sakes that are Ministers of the Gospel.  
And whence arose the Ancient practice of the Church in Baptising Infants, 
I Pedo Baptiand the Lord's day  but from the Analogy of Circumcision? or the Hallowing of every first day in the week, as one in seven, but from the Analogy of the Jewish Sabath? By the same reason it was not necessary for God or Christ in the Gospel to give us any new rule for the manner of our worship of him in his house, 
Euseb. line 3. line 14 Ir. line line 3. line 3.  or to specify the place towards which we should Adore him, in express words, having therein left us to the Analogy of the Old Law, there being the same reason to tie us to worship God towards this place, that there was to tie the Jews, to worship him towards the Altar; I might allege to this purpose a place out of Clemens (a man of the Apostolic age, and whose name, saith St. Paul, was written in the Book of Life) in his true and genuine Epistle to the Corinthians We p. 52. where he saith, aught to do all things rightly, and orderly, which our Lord hath Commanded us to Celebrate, our oblations and Lyturgyes at appointed times; for he would not have these things done rashly, and out of order, but at set times and hours. He hath likewise defined by his most High will, where and by whom he would have these things performed. But where I pray do we find any of these things Specified by God, unless he hath left us to the Analogy of the Old-Testament?  
For the only reason that moved the Jews to worship toward the Ark was the Memorial of his Name, that is, 
The same Reason ties us to workship God towards the Altar, that tied the Jews to worship towards the Ark.  of his Special presence. The whole Temple was the Place of God's Special Presence, but the Ark was (as it were) his Front or Face, where he did most chief testify his Presence, 
Simil.  as the whole Chamber, where the King manifests himself to his Subjects, is called the Presence Chamber, but the Chair of Estate doth most principally represent the King's Person.  
But first I will show that places in the Old Testament, set a part for God's Worship, were places set a part for the Memorial of his Name, and therefore Sacred; and also that God did promise a special Exhibition of his presence and blessings in those places. This I prove out of Exod. 20.24. where God, after the promulgation of the Decalogue, forbidding the People, by Moses, to make with him gods of Silver and Gold, but that they make him an Altar of Earth (such as their Condition then permitted, while they were journeying into the promised Land, afterwards of Stone) and thereon Sacrifice their  Offerings; he adds, In all places where I Record my Name (that is, where I cause the memorial, monument or remembrance of my Special presence to be) thither will I come to thee, and Bless thee. The memorial or monument of His Name is a Token or Symbol whereby he testifies his presence, Covenant and Commerce with man. Of these the Jews had two in special; First, the Altar with their Sacrifices on it, whereat God did often manifest himself by Consuming the Sacrifice, and was always present. For this promise, here spoken of, was made before ever the Ark was in being, or before there was any Command for making of it; And therefore before the Ark of the Testimony was made, they did Exhibit their Reverence and Worship towards the Altar. Afterwards, when the Ark was made, as a standing monument and memorial, they tendered their worship toward that, and the Altar jointly; For the Ark was within the Veil, 
Exod. 30.6.  and the Altar before the Veil, without: And that the Sacrifices upon the Altar was called likewise the Memorial is apparent by the 2.5.6. and 24. Chapt. of Leviticus, But the chief Memorial, after it was appointed and made by God, was the Ark of the Covenant or Testimony, which was therefore set within the Veil. 
Things are Capable of different degrees of Relative Holiness.  (which by the way, Argues that things are capable of deffrent degrees of Relative holiness thereafter, as they shall have a nearer, or farther Relation to God; and participate a less, or more holy use; whence the distinction was of Holy, and most Holy in the Temple and Tabernacle) Again, so especial a memorial of God was the Ark, that it was called by God's very Name. Hence the Philistines, when they heard that the Ark, 
1 Sam. 4.7.  was brought into the Camp of Israel, by the shouting of the People, they said, God is come into the Camp, meaning the Ark, which was the Symbol of Divine presence. But more epecially, it is thrice called by the Name of Jehovah, 
2 Sam. 6.5.14.21.  where David is said to dance before the Lord, before Jehovah, when yet it was but before the Ark. 
Psal. 47.6. 2 Sam. 6.15.  So likewise God is gone up with a shout, and the Lord with a sound of a Trumpet, when the Ark was carried up out of the Land of the Philistines, and brought into the City of David, by David, with the shouting and the sound of the Trumpet. Phinehas wife called it the Glory. i e. The place of God's Glorious presence. The Glory is departed from Israel, 
1 Sam. 4.22.  for the Ark of God is taken.  
Now that God hath as eminent a Memorial of his Name among us in our Churches, as the Ark, I shall easily prove. For did not Christ ordain the Eucharist to be a Memorial of his Name among us Christians, when he saith, This is my Body, do this in Rimembrance of me? Did God ever say more to the Jews, to argue his special presence, either at their Altar or their Ark, than what our Saviour hath said of the Sacrament, This is my Body, i. e. My Person is mystically united to the Sacrament, and therefore Expressly calls it his Memorial. 
Our Memorial more Eminent than their.  Why should not the places then appointed for the Station of this Memorial under the Gospel, have as great Sanctity as that, whereby Gods Name was recorded in the Law? What had the Jewish Memorial to make it Holy, which is not Comprehended, nay, excelled by the Christians? Is not Christ's Body better than their Manna? Are not our Gospel's better than their Tables? Ask Saint Paul, Who makes a comparison between the Law and the Gospel, and from the Excellency thereof, concludes the dignity of our Ministry above the Jewish, in as much as they were Ministers only of the Letter, we of the Spirit. Now what had the Ark to make it so Holy, more than the Manna, and the two Tables? and why then should not our Gospels, and our Sacrament placed on the Altar far surpass them, and dignify the Table above the Ark.  
Our Sacrament, 
Our Memiral Obj. all is vos ever present upon the Altar.  the Christian's Memorial is not present upon the Table, as Manna, and the Tables were in the Ark.  
Resp. It is not necessary it should be, it is sufficient, they are wont to be there, and that the place is appropriated thereto. As the Chair of State loseth not its Relation to the King, and respect is done to Him towards it; though he be absent Moreover note, that the Ark of the Covenant was not then in Jerusalem, when Daniel opened his window to pray thitherward, and that the sacred Cabinet, with the things contained therein was wanting all the time of the Second Temple, instead whereof they made another to represent it.  
You see then, that according to the Analogy of the Old Testament, we are as much bound to Adore God towards our Holy Table, as they toward their Altar or the Ark: The only reason, that they tendered their devotion that way, being, for that it was God's Memorial or place of special presence: And because we have as Sacred a Memorial of God's presence and Covenant, as they had, we have the same, nay, greater reason to oblige us to Worship towards this place, this being far more holy than theirs.  
Again, as God promised to meet the Jews at such places, where he did record His Name, and there bless them. The same promise is made to us by our Saviour ', 
Math. 18.22.  Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there I will be in the midst of them. Where take notice of a special prensence; For Christ is every where, in Him we live, we move, and have our being; He is never from us, and therefore if there were not a promise of a special presence, what great matter had there been in our Saviour's words? And to what purpose were that presence, but to meet with them and bless them? Now if Christ hath promised this in every place, where men are assembled in his Name, that is, to Praise and Glorify his Name in Public, how much more in that place where his Name is perpetually recorded, and that by his own appointment? For a special promise of God's blessing and meeting us when we call upon him, and bow to Him towards this place, doth not confine God's blessing to the place no more than that promise to the Jews, did hinder God's blessing them in the House, 
Deut. 28.  and in the field, in their going out and coming in, which he promised, if they obeyed.  
Or think you, when David said, Hear the Voice of my Humble Petition when I cry unto thee, when I hold up my hands towards the Mercy Seat of thy Holy Temple, That he thought God could not, or would not hear him any where else? Or that Solomon thought God could not, or would not hear any prayer but what was made in his Temple? certainly he did not. For the reason why he beseeched God to have respect unto the Place which he had made, and to hear the Prayers of those that prayed in it, or towards it, was only this, because it was built for the Memorial of God's Name, for the place of his special presence, and God had promised to place his Name there. And mark Gods Answer, 2 Chr. 7.14. 
2 Chr. 7.14.  If my People shall humble themselves and Pray, etc. Then will I hear and forgive. Now mine eyes shall be open and mine ears attended to the Prayert that are made in this place. Would you know the reason why God would hear in this place rather than in another? (Though God did not abridge himself of hearing in anyother place) It is expressly set down in the next Verse, For now I have chosen and Sanctified this house, that my Name, (that is my Memorial, or special presence) might be there for ever, and my Eyes and my Heart shall be there perpetually. Is there not the same reason for God's presence in our Churches, as in their Temple? if they be as much Sanctified to this end, viz. God's Memorial, or Name to Inhabit in, as that was? And to what other end were these ever Consecrated?  
Now, unless you can show this promise of God's meeting and blessing men by a peculiar manner, in all places where he recorded his Name, was proper to the Jews, or hath been since reversed by God, then certainly our Churches have as much of God's special presence as the Temple; And God will there meet with us, and bless us especially; and we are to adore God as much towards our Memorial, as the Jews towards theirs.  
Thus I have proved the Lawfulness of Adoration towards the Altar, out of Scripture. Now for the Opinion, and Pratise of the Church.  
That it was the Opinion, and Practise of the Old Church, 
1 Kings 8.22. 2 Kings 19.14. 2 Chr. 7.3.  is apparent by what is said Hezekiah in his distress went into the Temple, and their Prayed towards the Place of his presence, Viz. the Mercy Seat, and therefore compellates God by this Title, Thou that dwellest between the Cherubims. Might not the King have Prayed at home? was not God present in his house? or had he confined him between the Cherubims? No, but Hezekiah knew that God had more especially promised his Presence in this Place, and therefore here he comes, and prostrates himself before God's Memorial.  
How the Christians Esteemed ever and reverenced their Churches, Vid. etc. And how highly they regarded their Altars, Chrisost. Hom. 20. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Optatus in his 6th. Book, describing the Dignity of the Altar, illustrates it from this, Viz. That it was the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, falling down at the foot of the Altar, besought God that he would subvert the furious Plots and Endeavours of the Arrians; the next day Arrius, as he was exonerating nature, withal voided his Guts and Bowels, Nazians. Or. p. 1. or in some 25. tells, That his Sister Gorgonia, being Sick, applies herself to the chief Physician of all mortals, and casting herself down before the Altar, and Invocating him who was Honoured upon the same, she recovered her former health. By which Examples, it may seem that God, by his miraculous benefits, hath confirmed this Reverence. Tertull, tells how penitents, after they are restored to the Church, at their entrance into it, were wont to cast themselves down before the Priests (from whom they were to receive absolution) and to bow themselves submisly before the Altar of God, etc.  
God cares not for any compliments, He requires the Heart, 
Object.  and the Inward Devotion thereof, and so our Saviour teacheth us to serve God, 
John. 4.23.  The hour cometh, and now is, that they that worship the Father, must worship him in Spirit and Truth.  
This Text is much abused, to prove that God, in the Gospel, allows not of External or Bodily worship or Service, but requires this of the Spirit only, and consequently to make this the main difference between God's worship under the Old-Testament and the New. Now, first, I will show the absurdity of this meaning which they give of the words, and then declare the true sense.  
This sense is inconsequent from our Saviour's Words; 
The absurdities of the Puritance exposition.  for he did not speak any thing to the woman about Bodily worship, but only about the place of worship, and the Object. For her question to our Saviour (perceiving him to be a Prophet) was about a main controversy between the Jews and Samaritans (who were bitter Enemies) about the Place of worship; 
They mistake the Scope.  so whether Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem were the place appointed for God's worship? This you may see is nothing concerning the manner of worship, whether it should be Outward or Inward. But our Saviour, in answering, waves the question, and tells her, that was not so material a controversy, but that there was a greater Question than that about the place, Viz. about the object of their worship; for you, saith he, worship you know not what, but we Jews know what we worship. After which, follows the words cited, But the hour cometh, etc. This is the first absurdity, it hath not Consistence with the contest.  
Secondly, 
They add to the Letter.  Their interpretation addeth to the very Letter of the Text; For our Saviour saith not, we must worship him in Spirit (only,) there is no such word. This exclusive particle our Saviour useth not: So that though he might mean, that we must worship him chiefly, or Principally in Spirit, yet it follows not, but we might worship him with our bodies also Subordinately, for the Principal doth not exclude the Subordinate, but include it: And none dare say, that outward worship is opposite to inward. This is the Second Absurdity; they add to the letter what our Saviour never said or thought.  
Thirdly, This Exposition is directly contrary to the words; For our Saviour saith, God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth; but God is not, nor yet can be worshipped in Truth without Bodily worship; for his worship is not true, 
'Tis conerary to the Doctrine and practice of Christ, and of all Christians in all Ages.  unless it be entire and Universal, as hath been shown: and entire it is not, without the Joynt-worship of the Body.  
Fourthly, This Exposition contradicts the Ordinances of the Gospel expressly, together with the practice of our Saviour, his Apostles, and the Church in all Ages; For the blessed Sacraments are External Rites and Services. Baptism, wherein we make our first Stepulation with God, to become his Servants; The Eucharist which is substituted in place of those Bloody Sacrifices of the Law, to be a Rite and mean of our Address; to Invocate and give thanks to his Father in the New-Testament are they not External Ceremonies and Services? Did not the Apostles, and the whole Church then, and the whole Church after them, supplicate God the Father by this Rite? They continued breaking of Bread (i. e. in the use of the Holy Sacrament) and Prayers: And Therefore in the Primitive Church, they used to say all the Service at the Altar, to Signify that they sent up their prayers in the Name of him, whose Sacrifice, the Ground of all atonement and Intercession, was in that place Exhibited and Commemorated; yet it seems very Novel to us, to have part of our Service read there.  
But lest you might say, the meaning is, not that God will have no External Service, but he will be worshipped by no External Gestures or Postures, I say this also contradicts our Saviour's Practice, who himself lifted up his Sacred Eyes to Heaven; when helprayed for Lazarus, fell on his Face when he Prayed in his Agony, etc. What was Imposition of hands, but an External gesture, when God was invoked by way of benediction? besides, I see no reason, why, in the point of Evangelical worship, Gesture should be more excepted against than Voice; Is not Confessing, Praying, Praising, an External Bodily worship, as well as that of Gesture? why then should the one derogate from the worship of the Father in Spirit and Truth, and not the other? In a word, there never was yet in the World, any Society of men, that worshipped the Father in such a manner as this interpretation doth imply, and therefore this cannot be the meaning.  
Our Saviour intends here to reprehend the Idolatrous worship of the Samaritans, 
The true sense  who worshpped they knew not what, Viz. God under the Representation of a Dove, as the Israelites in Jeroboams time, and long after, under the similitude of a Calf. 
The Samaritans Idol.  This was the Object of the Samaritans worship, as appears out of the writings of the Jewish Rabbis. This was their Idolatry, they worshipped God in a Bodily shape; and the reason which our Saviour gives, seems to imply this; For God (saith he) is a Spirit, i. e. he hath no body, nor is he such, therefore he must be worshipped as a Spirit, for so indeed he is; and not by any bodily Representatation.  
So that the sense here is this, The hour cometh, and now is, that the true worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit, (that is, conceiving of him no otherwise than in Spirit) and in Truth, that is, not under any Corporal or Visible shape; for those that Worship under any Corporal similitude, do indeed belie him: For the Apostle saith of such, as changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God, into an Image made like to Corruptible man, 
Rom. 1.  they changed the truth of God into a lie. Hence Idols also are called Lies, Amos. 6.4.  
Some interpret these words (the true worshippers shall worship God in Spirit that is, no longer by Jewish Ceremonies, but in and by Christ, who is the substance of those shadows. This sense, though it be true, and plausible, yet it is not congruous to our Saviour's reason; For God (saith he) is a Spirit, and must be, etc. If this be the reason, than God should never have been worshipped with Jewish Ceremonies and Rites; for God was a Spirit from the beginning, and manifested himself so to be, even to the Jews, who Worshipped him with Rites and Ceremonies. Therefore I adhere to my first sense, Thus your main Fort is blown up.  
The Second Objection drawn from Goos Protestation against Sacrifices, Michael. 6.6, 7, 8. Hos. 6.6. Isaiah 1. Psalm 51. with the Answer, Vid.  
In a word, Religion, as man hath both a Body and Soul, the Soul of our Service is the Service of our Soul; but the Body of that Soul, is the Service of our Body; one must inform the other, and both make a complete man of God. For as the Body without the Soul is dead, so the Soul without the Body is imperfect. God loves no maimed Sacrifice, God calls for the Heart, because he knows it commands the whole Man, and therefore if he have the Heart at his devotion, he is sure of the Body also.  
Obj. Suppose all this, God is to be adored outwardly as well as inward ; Yet this manner of Adoration is Dangerous, and may become many ways Evil. For, 1. It is Scandalous to weak brethren, who hereat are offended. 2. It may be an occasion to some Ignorant Ones to Commit Idolatry, by Adoring the very Table. 3. It is a fair Introduction to Popish Superstition.  
1. Every Scandal or offence taken, is not a Scandal given; Therefore that is properly called Scandalous, which in its own nature tends to give offence, not that which through wilfulness or blindness, may, by accident, become such.  
Resp. 
Resp.  Was not Christ himself a Scandal and Rock of offence? to the Jews, a Stumbling-block? to the Greeks foolishness? was not his Cross a Scandal? should not therefore Christ have come and been Crucified, because this proved an occasion of Scandal? but who are these weak Ones? and how is this an offence?  
For the weak Ones, 
Who are the weak.  they are such as usually think themselves strongly grounded in the Faith, and able to confute this Worship we here maintain: Such as though they be Women and Weavers, think they can teach twenty of us threadbare Scholars for all our Learning. These are the weak Ones forsooth, weak I confess in their knowledge, for they are blind, and therefore the bolder; but in their own conceit strong enough.  
But how are these offended? 
Why are they offended.  Are they drawn to imitate us, in our Worship waveringly, and doubtingly, not knowing, (through the weakness of their Judgement) whether they sin or no, 
Scandal.  but relying on the knowledge and conscience of him whom they imitate, thereby ensnare their consciences in sin? This is properly a Scandal, 
1 Cor. 8.  as the Apostle shows expressly, were he makes that a Scandal given, when in a thing in itself indifferent, as Eating of meat Sacrificed to Idols, not as such, but as bought in the Market by a man of knowledge; who knoweth that meat commendeth not to God, and takes no notice of the Idol to whom it was offered, but Eats is as Common, or Ordinary. When, I say, this Act of him that hath knowledge, doth occasion one weak in knowledge, to Eat the same meat with conscience of the Idol, grounding himself upon the example of him, whom he imitates, and so offends, Thus then comes in the Scandal. The strong Eat of that without conscience of the Idol, among the weak or ignorant that know not how to make such a distinction; They imitate the strongs example, as thinking what is lawful for the strong, is lawful for them, and so Eat of it with conscience of the Idol, or as devoted to an Idol, which is Idolatry. Thus the strongs knowledge is an occasion of Sandal to the weak, that is, it makes the weak offend in doing that without faith and know ledge, which the strong do withfaith and knowledge. But do these weak ones imitate us there in, and Worship God in this manner? They had rather run to New England, than make a leg towards the Altar in the Old. How are they then offended? I'll tell you, they are vexed at it, they Rail upon us for it, they Calumniate us for Idolaters, they Scoff at us as Superstitious and Foppish, and thus they are offended.  
Again, there is a great deal of difference between Adoring God towards the most fitting place in his House (which I have already proved a necessary part of Divine Worship) and a thing indifferent, which in its own nature may prove a Scandal, as the Eating of meat Sacrificed to Idols, and the like. For than we should do no part of Divine Worship, lest some should imitate us to do it amiss: We should not come to the Lords Supper; because some that are ignorant come thither only for fashion, because they see others do it, and understand not what it is, and wherefore: They think it lawful for them to do as their betters and wiser do, and so they Eat unworthily and ignorantly, which others do worthily and in faith, and so offend in and by others knowledge. What then? Is the Sacrament and the Eating thereof a Scandal? No, what's the reason? because in itself, it tends not to make men offend by unworthy receiving. 2. It is no matter of indifferency. 3. Because those that are ignorant and weak, are so wilfully, having means to be better instructed and informed. So is it in this case, this Worship of God, I have proved a thing Necessary, not Arbitrary. 2. In itself it tends not to make any offend, either by Worshipping the Table, or the place we worship towards: For then God should have done all, in permitting and approving such Worship amongst the Jews, whom he would by no means put upon any ocoasion of committing Idolatry, to which they were to prove of themselves. 3. There are none but have means to be better instructed; therefore if any be offended, God forgive them, and send them more wit.  
The Ignorant may be seduced or misled to worship the Table, 
The Ignorant may be seduced:  or place itself, or to tie God to one place more than another.  
Answ. This Objection is partly answered in my discourse of Scandal. Now I say, 1. A good and necessary Duty must not be omitted, because some may make ill use of it. 2. 'Tis a thing very unlikely, that any should think we Worship the Table, when we Bow before it, and so imitate us in that, any more than they should think, when we put of our Hats coming into the Church, that we Adore the Stones or Walls.  
It was the Ancient reproach of the Gentiles to the Christians, that they worshipped the Sun, because they Adored God towards the Altar, which was set at the East end of their Churches: As also, that they Eat man's flesh, and drank man's blood, because they did Eat and Drink the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Sacrament. Should the Christians have left of these Duties, because malice or ignorance might make such constructions thereof? But what if it be granted, some ignorant men will Adore the Table? To what purpose serve we that are Ministers, but to instruct them better, and to inform them how, and in what manner they ought to serve God both in Body and Soul? what else is our Errand? what the end of our Preaching? Is it not to teach men the difference between Good and Evil? Right and Wrong? and to do Bonum vene? Those that may be seduced, are to be better instructed.  
Obj. 3. 
This opens a door to Popery.  They tend to bring in Popery, and lead us unto other things that are Popish and Superstitious.  
Answ. 1. 
'tis not Popish in itself.  There is not the least Popery in this. 2. There is no just fear of bringing it in by this. 1. The Papists do not Adore God before the Altar, but the Host and Crucifix set upon the Altar, and make that the Immediate and formal Object of Adoration, viz. Their God Almighty in a Box, or piece of Wafer-Cake, which they say is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Moreover, when they Adore Images, they say, They do not Adore them, but those whom the Images Represent, 
Image worship.  and put them in mind of. Now, they grant that they Adore the Image relatively, or transitively, though not ultimately or chiefly: and therefore they Worship the thing represented in and by, and with the Image. This I speak, because some say the Papists have as good excuse for their worshipping of Images, as we have for our Adoration before the Altar. Whereas we utterly disclaim any kind of Worship to the Altar any ways, we make it no Object of our Worship either Relative or Transitive; We make it no Representation of God, we Worship not God in it, nor by it, nor with it, but only towards and before it, because it is the fittest place for us to tender our Service of God towards, being the place of his Memorial in a special manner, and consequently of his presence. We disclaim all Popish destinctions, and in no wise make the Table the Object of our Worship: Nor herein is our Protestation contrary to our Action; for if the Action, in its own nature, were Idolatrous, it had been so in the Jews.  
2. Neither doth it introduce Popery. For the Lutherans, 
Not apt to Introduce it.  who are bitter Enemies to the Papists, and the Papists to them, do observe this sacred Rite: Nay, the Papists love and like us the worse for it. For they basely belying us, say, we Adore the Table, which they do not, but God who is upon it; and so accuse us of worse Idolatry than we do them; as if we worshipped a Table, and made that our God. But they Slanderously and Maliciously traduce us against their own● knowledge. To Idolise the Table, we abhor and detest, and no man of common sense, except blinded with malice and prejudice, as they are, will believe them.  
You see how far this is from bringing in Popery. The truth is, 
This vain fear begets the other extreme.  this vain fear makes us to run into almost as great an absurdity; for we are all for extremes. Because men will not be Superstitious with the Papists, therefore we must be Profane, Sacrilegious and Irreverent with the Puritans. Because the Papists Worship God falsely, therefore we must not Worship him after a true and due manner agreeing to his Word. Because they Superstitiously adorn their Churches, therefore we must let them lie like Barns, Stables, nay, rather Flies. I am ashamed to think that Christians, People of worth and fashion, should esteem the Church, though never so squalid, ugly and deformed, the Windows broke, the Roof untiled and Leaking, the Walls hung with Cobwebs, broken, patched and ill-favoured, the Holy Table standing like an Alehouse Table, either with out a Carpet, or with such a one, as a man would scarce wipe his shoes withal, a Scurvy, Lousy, Motheaten tattered piece of Darnix, or other cloth: That men of worth should esteem this place handsome enough to serve God in, to Feast with God in, to be partakers of his Holy Supper in, who would think high scorn to be no better accommodated in their private Houses and Parlours. Would they think these things handsome at home? how then can they think them handsome in God's House? I appeal to the Reader, whether many gentlemen's Kichens be not handsomer and better adorned than many Churches? I wonder what slovenly god these men fancy to themselves, that can be contented to be no better accommodated in his House, than with that which they themselves in their own Houses count ugly and unseemly. If it were but for this one piece of slovenly Devotion, I should love nasty Puritanisme the worse while I lived. I pray God amend such horrible profaneness and abuse. 
Why we make Obeysence when we come into the Church.   
Why must we make courtesy when we come into the Church? can we not stay till we come to our Pews, and then fall down to our Prayers?  
Why do we when we come into our Neighbour's House, before we speak to him, put of our Hats, and then say by your leave? God's peace be here? Why did our Saviour command his Disciples when they entered into a House to salute it? is it seemly and comely to salute a man's House, when we come into it, and is it not much more seemly to express Reverence and Obeisance to God, when we ●es foot into his?  
Obj. 
But it troubles my Devotion.  But this will trouble my Devotions, distract my thoughts, and hinder my inward Reverence, while I am thinking of making a Leg or Courtesy.  
Answ. Tush, never fear it, I'll warrant you no such matter. Is there so much art to be used in making a Leg or Courtesy, that it must needs trouble your thoughts; and put out of your mind the inward Reverence and thought of God? This were strange! Let me ask one Question, doth Sighing and looking Sadly, and Weeping, hinder your Grief? Doth a merry countenance hinder your Joy? Doth paleness and trembling hinder your fear? Do your outward signs of Love hinder the Love of your Heart? Nay, rather, Do not these outward Actions increase and perfect the inward passions, which show forth themselves in them? why then should Reverence, which is likewise a Passion, being mixed of Love which looks at God as good; and fear which looks at his Greatness, why, I say, should this be hindered by the outward bowing of the Body, more than any other passion? Nay, why should it not rather perfect and increase it? Why should it not make us think and say, how dreadful and Reverend is this place? this is surely none other but the House of God, and Gate of Heaven.  
Doth it distract the inward respect of Children to their Parents, to give them outward Reverence? to kneel to to them and ask them blessing? Doth it not make them rather have an higher and greater esteem of them? Why then should it not be so between God our Heavenly Father and us? Nay, why should it distract our Devotion more to bow to God when we come into the Church, than to kneel in our Pews? I see no reason of the one more than the other.  
Were God to be seen with bodily eyes, or did he express some visible sign of Glory, as he did to the Jews, sometimes in a thick cloud, sometimes in a shineing light, than we would all fall down with fear and Reverence, and why, but because of God's Presence? who yet is no more in such a symbol or sign, than he is in our Churches. For God is not visible, nor were it lawful for us to worship such a sign, but him whose presence is manifested thereby; though we have no extraordinary sign of his Presence, yet as I have showed, we have a standing sign and Memorial of his presence, and he is as much to be seen in this as in that, for he is not visible in either. Is it not then our want of faith, who are wholly immersed and drowned in sense, that we will not worship God unless we see him with our Eyes, or else some extraordinary Amazing sign of Him?  
Obj. Yet for all this, what needs so much Cringing, 
Why bow to the Altar every time we come by it.  and Bowing, and Ducking, and Adoring when we come in, and when we come out, and and as oft as we come before the Holy Table?  
Answ. Why do Parents bring up their Children and Servants to show Reverence to them, as often as they come by them, or go in and out before them? Is there not as much reason that we should be as observant of God our Maker and Redeemer, in his House, by giving him humble and dutiful worship towards the place of his Holiness, Memorial and special presence? I appeal to yourselves, either it is Idleness in you to bring up your Children so, or no superstition in us to Reverence God in this manner, as oft as we come before him & approach near him. Whether you are more to be Reverenced by your Servants and Children, than God our Lord and Father by us his Servants and Children, speak you.  
Obj. 
Show it in the Canon or Rubric.  But why should we do that which is not commanded neither in the Canons, nor the Rubric.  
Resp. 
Although it be not Commanded any where, yet the 7th. Canon, of those made 1640. commends it to the practice of all good people.  Why should you rail at those for doing of that which was never forbidden either in Canon, or Rubric? But I answer, the Reason why this is omitted in our Liturgy is, because at that time when that was composed and Reform, our Church thought it superstitious, to make any such injunction, because it was then a Catholic and received custom so to do; and they did not think any Chistian would be so Reasonless as to refuse and dislike it.  
So likewise, there is no command of Organs in Cathedrals, for Anthems and Hymns, for the Rite of breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine when the Priest pronounceth the words of Consecration, yet all these are, and ever were piously done and used in our Church, without any explicit command or Injunction of the Church; and are sufficiently commanded by the alone force and Virtue of the Catholic custom of the Church, which carries with it the force of an Implicit Law.  
Besides, that our Church doth allow, and in a manner command it, doth appear both in that this was never expunged out of divers College Statutes, (which do expressly enjoin it) at that time when all our Statutes were purged and reform, and also because many Sacred Rites & Forms still used at the Coronation of our Kings, and by the Statutes of the Kingdom prescribed, do enjoin this Adoration: for in them the King himself, as also the Archbishop of Canterbury, is Commanded often humbly and lowly to adore God towards the Altar; and also may be further inferred from the prescibed forms of Service for the Knights of the Garter, at the time of their Installation, wherein they are enjoined lowly and reverently to Adore God towards the Altar at least Twenty times while the Sacred Solemnities are Magnificently transacted. 
The Ancianes Adored towards the East, but why to the Altar?  To this add the constant practice of almost all our Cathedral Churches ever since our Reformation, which doth argue at least an Implicit Command.  
Obj. If you stand so much upon Antiquity, the Ancients worshipped God towards the Orient; and this Justin Martyr in his Answer to 118th. Question, affirmeth to have been a Tradition received from the very Apostles. Why then should we tie our worship so much towards the Altar? 
Worshipping Towards the East. Why   
Answ. Then it follows that the Ancients did specificate their worship towards one place, which is much scrupled at. But they worrshipped towards the Orient, because the Altar stood there, and so they tendered their worship to God towards both jointly, and therefore towards the East because the H. Table stood there. Now the reasons why the scite of the Churches were East and West, and the East the upper End, were, both that herein they might differ from the Jews, and Ancient Heathen, who both worshipped towards the West, the Jews god, the Heathen gods Ape, the Devil: And also for other ends, as because our Saviour, in whose name we Christians worship the Father, is called the East, and the whole work of our Creation and Redemption was performed in the East, and many such Reasons they had why they should make the upper end of their Churches towards the East.  
Seeing then that the East was the upper end, Reason taught them to Place that which was most Sacred and worthy in the uppermost place, as we ourselves use to do with persons, and things which we account most excellent and worthy. So they did not adore towards the Altar, because it was set in the East, but therefore they adored towards the East, because the Altar was placed there, as in the highest and worthiest place. But in case some of the Churches were irregular, and stood not East and West, yet they still placed the Altar, in that place which was accounted uppermost, and thitherward did tender their Devotions, even towards the Altar, wherever placed. And this is plain out of St. Chrisostom's and St. Basill's Liturgies, yea, the Liturgies of all the Greek and Latin Churches and Fathers, which enjoin Adoration towards the Altar wherever placed.  
Obj. 
Conformists Lose in their Lives.  They that are so ceremonious, are commonly men that have no-Religion in their Lives, but are all Outsides.  
Answ. 'Tis no Argument, which is fetched from the wickedness of the Person against the unlawfulness of the Action; for by this way of Reasoning, to Administer the Holy Sacrament, to give Alms, etc. should be concluded evil Actions, because wicked men oft do them. If the Action in itself be not evil, 'tis no matter what the person is; indeed they that do a good Action ill, to them it becomes Sin; as to give Alms to be seen of Men: so to give God outward worship is good, but he that gives it Him without inward worship, and submission of his will to His command, he plays the Hypocrite, and so his worship becomes sin to him. Our Saviour forbids not his Disciples to do that Righteousness which the Pharisees did, but to do more to exceed it; Nor did he forbidden them to make clean the Outside, buthe forbade them to content themselves with that, and commands them to make the Inside clean in the first place. Nor did he forbidden men to do the less things of the Law, but commands them to be more careful of the Greater; not only to Tithemint, but chiefly to Respect Righteousness and Judgement. These ye ought to have done, and not leave the other undone.  
Besides, the Objection spoken in General, of all that outward Decorum in God's worship, is a false Slander; for there are a great number of Holy and Pious men which serve God entirely both with outward and inward worship; and there are many notorious Debauched livers that are not for outward worship. Our Saviour bids us Judge a Tree by the fruits; we can look no further than the outside; If I see a man worship God, with his body, devoutly and reverently, I shall rather think and believe he worships God with his Soul too, than he that pretends only to inward worship, and affords me no outward mark or sign of it. I shall rather judge that to be Gold which Glisters, than that which doth not.  
FINIS.