The Altar Dispute, OR A discourse CONCERNING THE several INNOVATIONS OF THE ALTAR, Wherein is discussed several of the chief grounds and foundations whereon our Altar Champions have erected their buildings.  
By H. PARKER  Hebr. 13. 10. we have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the Tabernacle. 
LONDON, Printed by R. Cotes for Samuel Enderby, and are to be sold at his Shop at the sign of the star in Popes-head-Ally. 1641.   

TO THE RIGHT honourable WILLIAM LORD Viscount SAY, and seal Master of his highness' Court of wards and Liveries, and one of his majesty's most Honourable privy counsel.  
MY LORD,  
THe several concurrent attempts which were made of late upon the settled doctrine and discipline of our Church begot jealous conceits in me, that either our Religion had been hitherto erroneous, or was likely to prove unsure for the future. Some blame, me thought, was due either to former times, that they had not been wise in receding from Rome so far as they had done, or to the present for not being sincere in returning so fast back again. To excuse both 〈…〉 secure in points of so great concernment, 〈◊〉, and tenderness of conscience would not permit, and to be rash in my censure without search, and diligent study seemed unjust, and unchristian: wherefore that I might purchase to myself being thus perplexed just and fair satisfaction, and ex●ricate myself out of the mischiefs of stupidity and temerity both, I did seriously addict myself notwithstanding the dissuasions of my own particular profession, interest and want of 〈…〉 debate, ventilate, and examine the novelties of the time. And verily, as to myself, my endeavours were not long successesse, for I did at last perceive that there was more danger in our innovators then depth in our Innovations: and as to some others not injudicious, I found them concurring with me in opinion, and encouraging me withal to make my observations more public. My Lord, I know none more desirous to diffuse good than your Honour, nor scarce any better mean whereby to diffuse it to others than your 〈…〉 wherefore I beseech this as an addition to 〈◊〉 former favours, that I may 〈…〉 Honoured Name, whereby to make more acceptable to all good men thesepoore endeavours of  
Your most gratefully devoted servant and Allies-man H. P.   

Errata.  
Page 8. l. 30. for Lev; Min: read Lincolnshire Mr. p. 11. l. 9 for exception r. acception, p. 12. l. 9 for opposed r. opposite, p. 26. l. 22. for trnd r. round. p. 27. l. 13. for instituted r. instructed, p. 30. l. 14. for specified r. speciphicall, p. 34, l. 12. for portable r. probable, l. 14. probable, r. portable, p. 35. l. 7. for Western r. Eastern p. 37. l. 16. for stranger r. stronger. p. 40. l. 1 for po. r. posture. p. 45 l. 23. for not, r. most, p. 54. l. 10. read of Peter, p 72. l. 5. for supposition r. suppositum. p. 74. l. 27. for consecrated, r. unconsecrated   

THE ALTAR dispute, OR discourse, CONCERNING THE several INNOVATIONS OF THE ALTAR.  
Of ALTARS.  
A Great Faction of churchmen has of late years, by many several innovations attempted to alter our Religion, and to new reform that Reformation of it which was begun by Edw. 6. and further matured by Queen Eliz. The pretence was, that our Ancestors in the Reformation did depart too far from Popery, out of favour to puritanical Calvin, and so the design was, to have brought in Popery again; but with a muzzle upon it at first (as Sir Ben. Ruddlard says) which muzzle would soon have fall'n off, or been taken off, as is generally conceived, Amongst other innovations, much care was had of Altars, many books were printed and set forth by authority in favour of them, but no man was suffered to say do, or write any thing in answer or prejudice thereof. The times are now a little more propitious, and that audaciates me beyond my learning, or profession to enterprise at this time something for the better clearing of the truth in this case concerning Altars. If I fail not for want of learning and judgement, I shall not for want of ingenuity, and modesty; and I wish that our Altar-Patrons had not been so scurrilous, and bitter as they have been; for it seems to me, that the venomous railings and distempers of men within sacred Orders, when they are treating of matters of Religion, cast a great disgrace upon the age we are borne in, the country we are bred in, the Religion we are baptised in. In this Altar-dispute, four things come into question.  

1 Concerning the reality of Altars.  
2 Concerning the propriety of the names.  
3 Concerning the Altar posture.  
4 Concerning the sanctity of the Altar or its due adoration.   

CHAP. 1.  
1 Concerning the reality of Altars.  
AS for the maintaining of real, and proper Altars, Doctor Heylin lays these grounds. He says, that the Passion of our Saviour, as it was prefigured to the Jews in the legal Sacrifice, a part ante: so by Christ's Institution it is to be commemorated by us Christians in the holy Supper a part post. A Sacrifice it was in figure, a Sacrifice in fact, and so by consequence a Sacrifice in the commemoration, or upon the post fact. He says further, that if a Sacrifice be, there must also be both Priest and Altar. Yet he assigns these differences, that the former Sacrifices were bloody, as this is not; that the former Priests were from Aaron, ours from Melehisedeck; that the former Altars were for Mosaical, ours for Evangelical Sacrifices.  
To show the weakness of these grounds, we answer: that the word Sacrifice taken in a general sense for any sacred office, or divine service performed, does not infer any propriety of either Priest, or Altar; and if we take Sacrifice in that serise, as the Patriarchs, Jews, or Heathens did, or as Papists now do: we grant Priests, and Altars are necessarily implied thereby, but such a Sacrifice we deny our Communion to be.  
'tis true, the Passion of our Saviour was prefigured in Sacrifices a part ante, but very darkly; and if Cain, Abel, Noah, or Aaron, did sacrifice to foresignify the death of Christ: yet their maine, or their mere end was not to make any such type, or figure.  
Sacrifices were from the beginning as well before Aaron, as after, but the knowledge of our saviour's death was obscure under Aaron, but much more before the most knowing times under the Law, did not expect such a suffering dying Redeemer, as God had ordained, much less did those more cloudy times before the Law. The Rock in the wilderness, the Manna, and divers other things were typical, yet no Sacrifices, and Sacrifices may as well be, not typical, and even those Sacrifices which are typical, are not typical, qua Sacrifices, more than Types are Sacrifices, qua Types. By the very light of nature, all Nations did agree in all ages in presenting their God both with free will-offerings in testimony of his goodness, and with expiatory Sacrifices in testimony of their own sinfulness. Howsoever, all such oblations, whether expiatory or gratulatory were equally Sacrifices, though not equally typical; for all expiatory Sacrifices were not bloody only, nor all gratulatory unbloody.  
We read of Cain and Abel before the institution of Aaron's Order, that the one presented to God his homage in part of his flock, the other in part of his grain; the one did sacrifice upon an Altar as well as the other: and that Sacrifice which was unbloody was typical, and expiatory as well as that which was bloody, and that which was bloody might be graulatory as well as that which was unbloody, or at least nothing appears to the contrary.  
We read also of Noah that he had a distinct notice of clean and unclean creatures, and did sacrifice accordingly, so that the Religion and Priesthood before the Law was not so far different from that under the Law, though pomp and ceremonies and some other accidental parts were wanting, as from ours under the Gospel: or at least in matters of Sacrifice, it was little or not at all different. All Sacrifices also under the Mosaical Law were not bloody, for Incense was offered to God as well as flesh; and there was an Altar for Odours, as well as for blood: and all Sacrifices whatsoever received their value and acceptation from the Passion of Christ, as that did purify them, not as they did typify that: for it seems else that other divine services should not be so valuable, and acceptable as Sacrifices, not those Sacrifices which were less typical, as those which were more: and that no Sacrifices at all had been admitted of by God from such men as did not understand their typical nature, as few did either before, or under the Law. Besides it does not appear that the Passion of Christ, was a proper, real Sacrifice in fact, and therefore it was necessary that it should be prefigured, yet no necessity is, that it should be prefigured by Sacrifice a part ante, or commemorated by Sacrifice a part post. The death of our Saviour was rather a pious Passion, than a divine action, or service done to God, and though our Saviour did not resist, or shun such a martyrdom wickedly enforced by other; yet he was not so active in it, as to imbrue his own hands in his own blood. So that if our saviour's Passion was a Sacrifice, it was but a figurative, improper, mental Sacrifice, in as much as the meritorious sanctity thereof did not consist in the act done, but in the innocence, patience, and excellence of the party suffering. We cannot more properly call the death of Christ a Sacrifice, than we may the cross the Altar, or God the Priest, and we cannot properly say that God did sacrifice to himself upon an Altar of that form and matter. It is a very lame inference therefore, that Sacrifice must now be to commemorate Christ's Passion past, because it was prefigured by Sacrifice being yet to come, and because it was itself a proper Sacrifice in the act Doctor Heylin says once, that Christ did not deprive us of all manner of Sacrifices, but only those which had been before, which might, if continued, have been a strong presumption of his not coming in the flesh. This seems a weak reason, for if our saviour's Passion were a proper Sacrifice, it was a bloody one, and if there be the same reason of representing it past, as there was future by Sacrifice, then bloody Sacrifices are no less proper now to represent it, than they were before: and if so, why were former Sacrifices abolished at all Surely the best reason why Jewish Sacrifices were abolished, is because those services were but shadows of that body, which in our Sacrament is really presented and exhibited. If we do acknowledge that the body of our Saviour is otherwise present in our Sacrament than it was in the Jewish Types, we must acknowledge that the shadows of that body are the less needful: for gianting that Jewish Sacrifices and ours differ not in nature, but in circumstance; as their signify a thing future, ours past, I do not see but that our Sacrament is as mere a shadow, as their Sacrifice was, and that beasts now slain might as well commemorate our saviour's death past, as they did prefigure it to come. The Doctor says that the Jewish Sacrifices were bloody, ours not; that the Jewish Priests were from Aaron, ours from Melchisedeck; and these he puts as substantial differences, tomake our Sacrament no Jewish Sacrifice. But these differences are not sufficient for his purpose, because we know that all Jewish Sacrifices were not bloody, nor does the order of Melchisedeck hinder from bloody Sacrifices, for if Melchisedeck did sacrifice, as it is most probable that he did, it is as probable that his Sacrifices were not all unbloody.  
So than his other difference also is as fond, when he says that our Altars are for evangelical, not mosaical offerings; in as much as betwixt evangelical and Mosaical offerings, he has not yet proved any other difference, but nominal, or circumstantial only: of the like reason and weight are the rest of the doctor's inferences, for as he has proved yet no true proper Sacrifice, so much less has he proved any necessity of either Priest, or Altar in a down-right sense. We may grant Sacrifice, yet deny both Priest, and Altar, for we read that the Passeover was called the Lord's Sacrifice, yet we know it was not killed only by Priests, nor eaten upon an Altar, though it was the most honourable of Jewish Sacrifices, and most nearly relating to the Passion of Christ. So also the Passion itself of Christ, if it was a proper Sacrifice, yet it was offered up upon a wooden cross, not a stone Altar, and the Sacrificer thereof was not a Priest; wherefore we see plainly that all the doctor's allegations hitherto are frivolous, and altogether insufficient.  
We come now from the Old, to the New Testament, and here Doctor Pocklington, and Master Meade lay hold of these words of our Saviour. Leave thy gift at the Altar, and g●e and reconcile thyself to thy brother, &c. These words were spoken by our Saviour, whilst the Altar was in use, and before the Communion was instituted, and may more properly be interpreted of such an Altar, as men did repair to with gifts, and offerings, then to our Tables, where we come rather to receive then give; yet our Divines now cite them to patronise the word Altar. It would little advance the reality of Altars that they had been so named once by our Saviour: but here so much as the name used is not clearly proved. Doctor Heylin for his next evidence, citys 1 Cor. 11. Do this in remembrance of me, &c. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show forth the Lord's death till be come. Here is (Says Doctor Heylin) a Sacrifice whose nature is commemorative, here is in this Sacrifice an hoc facite for Priests, different from the Hoc edite, & bibite of laymen: and so here is proof both for Sacrifice and Priest: by this proof it seems, that the life of the Sacrament consists in this that it is a Sacrifice, and that the life of the Sacrifice consists in this that the Priest consecrates it, not that the people of God celebrate it; but I take this as a strange gloss of the Doctors, not agreeable to common understanding, or natural to the text, or savouring of Protestantism, and so I leave it as not worth an answer. He citys further, 13. Heb. Habemus Altare: and so he concludes that Saint Paul furnishes us both with Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar; if Saint Paul did here by Altar mean the Table, here is some authority for the name, not thing, but this is itself controverted: for first, it is plain that the word Altar is taken for the epulum, not the thing upon which it was offered, for of this Altar, it is said that they may not eat which serve at the Tabernacle. Secondly, the Papists do not always here by Altar interpret our Communion Table, and therefore says Bellarmine, Non urgeo hune loeum quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui interpretantur de cruce, vel de Christo ipso, &c. But says the Doctor, I am not the first of the Church of England, that so interpret it, for Bishop Andrews has it thus: The Altar in the Old Testament is called Mensa Domini, by Malachy, and of the holy Table the Apostle in 13. Heb. says, Habemus Altare. The Lev. Minister here rightly answers, that the Apostle here calls the Table, Altar no otherwise then as Malachy calls the Altar Table, and that must needs be improperly: for the Jewish Altar was not a proper Table, more than the Table whereon the showbread stood was an Altar. It is certain and plain that the Syriack word, Luke 22. and the Hebrew in Saint Matthew is Table, and not Altar. And Saint Paul, Heb. 10. useth the word Mensa, and the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is frequent, and not denied to be proper, but the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is seldom used for the Table, and not properly at all, if we do grant it at all used for Table, as is questioned. And therefore Bellar. gives a reason why the Apostles all their time used no other word than Table, especially not Altar; to which opinion the Bishop of Durham agrees, though not to the reason of it. And we know also that the Romish pictures present Christ, and his Disciples in their Churches communicating always at a Table, not at an Altar.  
We come now to the practice of the ancients, and they (as Doctor Heylin says) without scruple, or opposition, used the words Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar, not tying themselves only to those words; but not shunning the use of them: but the truth is, the Greek Fathers used the word Table more frequently, the Latin less; but both Greek and Latins used the word Table more frequently than Altar. But upon the reformation begun by Luther, &c. both words began to be examined, and then the Protestants not allowing the Sacrament to be a Sacrifice, rejected Altar as improper, but the Papists, though they pretend not to disallow the word Table, yet in their reformed Canon of the mass, they used not at all the word Table: and yet still in the Roman pontifical we find the word Table used. Howsoever the dispute being not about the mere use, but sense of the word Altar, we come now to other arguments.  
All metaphors (Says Doctor Heylin) allude to something which has real existence in nature, and therefore the Fathers in the word Altar, did allude to something existent. I answer, Metaphors must have some basis to support them, but that basis may be any thing past, or incorporeal: Christ may be called the brazen Serpent, the sting of conscience may be called Ixion's wheel, &c. Yet there is no such thing now as the one, nor ever was as the other; but (Says Doctor Pocklington) those Altars which bore carpets, corporals, &c. could not be mere notional, metaphorical Altars, but such were those of the ancients, &c. Ergo. I answer, the same thing might be a notional Altar, yet a material Table, and, as it was a material Table, it might support carpets, &c. That cursed Tree whereon our Saviour suffered, was a metaphorical Altar; yet it did not truly bear our Saviour, as an Altar, but as a cross: but (Says the same Doctor again) these Altars were such as were frequented for oblations sakes, to which none came without Sacrifices of wealth, as well as of praise. I answer, for presents and alms Tables are as proper as Altars; and such being but metaphorical Sacrifices prove the Table to be the rather a metaphorical Altar: but (Says Doctor Heylin) some Sacrifices are merely spiritual, and to such no material Altar is requisite, for such the heart is a sufficient Altar, and every man is a sufficient Priest: but the Sacrament is a Sacrifice, not only spiritual and mystical, but also external and visible, and to such a Sacrifice, a visible Priest and material Altar is requisite. This is answered already in the Paschall Lam●, for that was a Sacrifice visible and external, yet it required no material Altar; and so it may be said of our saviour's crucified body: besides, we may make a difference with Saint August. between the Sacrament itself, and that which is visible in the Sacrament, and so deny any visible Altar to be necessary; and for further instance, man is said to offer up his soul and body to God as a reasonable Sacrifice, and the body being material, does not require any material, gross Altar: but, says D. Heylin, if the Sacrament be but an improper metaphorical Sacrifice, then no more a material Table, than a material Altar is requisite. I answer, though in that exception of a Sacrifice it be metaphorical; yet as a Communion, it is a real action, and requires a real Table whence to communicate. So the Passion of our saviour, it was a tropical Sacrifice, but a proper execution, and therefore though our Saviour was sacrificed without a proper Altar, yet he was not executed but upon a proper cross: but (Says the same Doctor) if the Sacrament be an improper, immaterial Sacrifice; it may not only be celebrated without a Table, but without a Church also: any place may serve for such a Sacrifice: the Pulpit, the pew, the belfry, the chancel may be as proper Altars as the holy Table, and what a profane Doctrine is this? We do say that any place may be as properly called an Altar, but not that any place may be as fitly and honourably employed to communicate in. Our Saviour did communicate in a common room upon a common Table for necessities sake; and so we in case of necessity dare not despise such communicating, but we use not this example to prove a parity of all places: the Doctor knows this is but a slanderous consequent, issuing out of his malice, not out of our tenet; for if the honour of the Sacrament do not wholly consist in being a Sacrifice, or the honour of Sacrifice in the external work done, there is no more necessity of Altar, than Table; or that either Altar or Table should be held so essentially honourable to the Sacrament, and this may be held by him, which holds not all places equal and indifferent for divine services. Wherefore, as for Saint Cyprians rule: Eucharistia in altari consecratur, which Doctor Pocklington affirms to be undeniable: we say it must stand with our saviour's example, who did administer the Eucharist upon a real Table, but upon an imaginary Altar, and so we are not opposed to it: but (Says Doctor Heylin further) material Altars are very ancient in the Church, which if they were not erected for our Sacrifices, certainly they were for Popish, and this will prove Popery to be very ancient, I answer, the Doctor has not proved formal stone Altars so ancient, but if he had, he has not proved antiquity free from all error, and superstition, but we can easily prove the contrary: but Doctor Heylin proceeds thus; he which teaches that in the Primitive Church there was neither Priest, Sacrifice, nor Altar, properly so called, brings in confusion and ruin into the Church, takes away all external worship, inables every man to the Priestly function, and robs the Church of all due reverence. This is a strange inference that I cannot sufficiently honour the Sacrament, but under the name of Sacrifice, nor Ministers, but under the name of Priests; nor the Communion-Table, but under the name of Altar. D. Heylins supposition herein of me, must be more weighty than my own certain knowledge of myself. Doctor Pocklington also concurres herein, for he which denies Altars (Says he) may as well deny Churches, and he which denies Churches, may as well deny the Throne of Bishops in the choir near the Altar-place, and he which denies Thrones, denies the truth of Christian Religion: by a strange dismembered, deformed kind of argumentation; he makes Altars as necessary to be believed, as Thrones of Bishops; and Thrones, as the succession of Bishops; and the succession of Bishops, as the rock and foundation of all Religion. Cartwright, Ames, and those of Geneva, and all other countries which cannot derive their lineal succession of Bishops from the Apostles are Puritans, and heretics: though they scarce differ from us in any other point of consequence, yet in this they are in worse condition than the Papists. The Anchor of our Salvation is, that my Lord of Canterbury is lineally descended from Saint Peter, for no inthronization of Bishops, no personal succession; and no personal succession, no derivation of faith can be from God to, &c. Were not this written against Puritans, or by such as have an authority to prove quidlibet ex quolibet, it would deserve laughter, and not an answer: but now we must be more serious. The allegation is, that there is the same evidence for Altars, as Thrones, and therefore since it is most impious to deny Thrones, it is the like to deny Altars. I wish Thrones had been better proved, for if Thrones do prove Altars, yet men of such ordinary faiths as mine may something scruple Thrones themselves. Saint Aug. says that Thrones were remaining at Rome and Jerusalem till his days from the very Apostles times. Saint Augustin might see thrones standing in both places, but when they were first raised, or by whom, or for whom, or for what reason; he could not understand but by relation, and what that relation might be, he has not expressed: neither do I think that his main hope of salvation was chained to that relation, neither can I chain mine to the same; for my part, I am so far from making Thrones or Altars my soul's anchorage, that I believe neither to be apostolical, and till the Doctor can better convince me of them, I could wish he would call in his anathemas; or rather Epigrams against such Atheists as I am: but (Says Doctor Pocklington further) No Altar, no Priest; no Priest, no rubric, &c. but we say in answer, First, that the relation between Priest and Altar is not inseparable, as has been proved. Secondly that the word Priest derived from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} implies not real Sacrifice. Thirdly, if we did reject the word Priest utterly as less proper than Minister, and less fit to be used (as Sir Francis Bacon maintains) and as we do not affect to use it, yet we reject not the thing with the name, the same Ministry, the same sacred order we retain, and honour, and hold it as revenerd as either Jew, or Papist do their sacrificing priesthood. But what consequence is this? no Priest, no Ordination; no Ordination, no rubric; no rubric, no Law. He which opposes the word Priest only, does not oppose the thing; and he which opposes not the thing, opposes not the rubric; and he which opposes not the rubric, opposes not the Parl. establishing it: it is sufficient that we oppose neither the thing Priest, nor the word, except only in its Popish sense as it intimates real Sacrifice to us.  
I come now to such proofs as clear antiquity from meaning of real proper Altars. And first we read the word Altar sometines in the works of ancient Authors, but that is no proof that Altar was the common term or word so used in common speech, of that there is no proof, or colour at all; it is ordinary to use Metaphors in studied discourses, and as unusual to use them in our ordinary language. That the word Table was first in common use at the beginning is very credible, that it is now wholly disused amongst Papists is evident, therefore when we see the change, but cannot perceive the certain time or motion of that change, as it happens in the shadow upon the sun-dial, we may well suppose that the mystery of iniquity has had its secret operation upon it, as upon divers other things. We find secondly, in the most ancient times, that it was a common objection made against Christians by Jews, Pagans, and renegado Christians, that they had neither Churches, Altars, nor Images. And to this common objection we find that the greatest apologetic, and most learned Divines of those days did all unanimously yield that they had no material proper Altars, nor no other but metaphorical only. Clesus objected to Origen that the Christians did avoid to raise {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Caecilius asks Octavius, Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra? Arnobius says to his adversaries, Nos accusatis quod nec templa habeamus, nec imagines, nec arras. And Julian who had been a Christian, and knew their worship well enough, and lived after the erection of Churches, yet says to Cyrill, offer in altars, & sacrificare cavetis: 'twas strange if any Christian Altars than were, that neither Heathens, nor apostate Christians should know thereof: and yet the more s●●ange that this being objected against Christians, and not being true, that Christians would not justify themselves against so manifest an untruth. Origen answers that the Christians Altar was his understanding, and that prayers were his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Octavius answers that the Church Sacrifice was bonus animus, sincera mens, & pura conscientia. Arnobius confesses sacrifices, but not corporeal, agreeing with the former that they were mental only. And Cyrill gives not a deny all to Julian. Is it not to be wondered at, that so many men, of several places and times, should all so far prevaricate, and make such fond answers, if they could have advantaged their own cause, or satisfied their adversaries, by affirming proper Altars, and such real Sacrifices, as our Doctors now affirm? How easy had it been, and how true, & how necessary was it to have made this direct answer? Persecution suffers not Christians to build such sumptuous Churches and Altars as you do: but we have Altars as proper, and would build Temples as stately as you do, if we had power and liberty; we deny not all Sacrifices, as you erroneously object, we deny not true, visible, external Sacrifices, we deny only Jewish, bloody, and merely corporeal Sacrifices: so that the force of that objection is against our hard condition, not against our worship or Religion. But Mr. Mede says that these apologetical Divines denied Altars, under the Heathen name {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not denying the Church word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: whereby he accounts them mere cheaters, and triflers, not regarding whom they treated withal, or the current sense of the words according to common acception, but desiring to obscure truth, and deinde their opponents, this is to be slighted as a toy. Pocklington takes pains to prove Churches out of the Scripture, & antiquity, & says that those Churches had Altars, to which none came without oblations, and that with those oblations, captives, widows, orphans, &c. were relieved. He also insists upon the great names of Thrones and syndoes: but his proofs are most of them indefinite, both to time, place, and thing. We say, that before Constantine few Churches were, especially so formally, built with Thrones, and other divisions, as he seems to intimate, and in respect of the vast surface of the earth scarce visible, or considerable, especially to several men, living in several places, and at several times, such as the Apologeticks were. And yet the word Church is taken sometimes for any place where God was publicly worshipped, and sometimes for the congregation itself of the faithful named by such a town, City, or Country; and in this sense, and no other the Church of Rome, is said to maintain in it, 1. Bishop, 46. Priests, 7. Deacons, 7. Subdeacons, 42. Acolythites, Exorcists, Readers, Porters, 52. Widows, 1500. Poor. It is not meant that any local material Church in Rome during the times of persecution, was so rich, capacious, or stately: for this would evince more than a mere toleration of christianity, and yet we read not of so much. Hospinian for the ●●ace betwixt Christ and Constantine more reasonably collects, that those Altars which were then, were neither fixed nor of stone, which sufficiently clears that they were wooden unfixed Tables, not stone, and fixed Altars: for if Christians during heathenism, had liberty to build and meet in such formal Churches, and had such Synods, Thrones, Libraries, schools, Gazophylacies, as the Doctor labours to prove, they could not want power, or opportunity to adorn or enrich Altars, or to fix them and fashion them as they pleased. And thus the ages before Constantine might be defective in Discipline by reason of persecution, and we may suspect the ages after for their superstition. Constantine was too pompous in Discipline, and soon inclined to Arianism, and long deferred his own baptism; in his times the foundations of Popish usurpation began to be laid. Then it was said, hodie venenum infusum est Ecclesiae: than it was said, That there were as many Religions as opinions, and opinions as men. I ascribe not to antiquity such infallibility as some do, and yet many things might fit those times which fit not ours, and many things may be misreported, misunderstood, and mistaken by us in these times; which perhaps were not in such repute of old, as we now believe. Our third reason against material and proper Altars, is grounded upon the Fathers. Eusebius often calls that of Christians, an unbloody, and reasonable Sacrifice: the word Unbloody is used in opposition to corporeal and sensitive things, the word Reasonable, to real or vegetative things; for if we conceive that Reasonable, and Unbloody distinguish from Jewish Sacrifices, we must understand notional, or mental Sacrifices, because the Jewish were not all bloody. The same Eusebius also says that we are appointed to offer daily to God the commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. A King's deputy is entertained as a King, and its an honour to him; but Kings are not entertained as deputies, that's derogatory: so, if this were a Sacrifice, it were an undervaluing, lessening word, to say it were a mere commemoration, or instead of a Sacrifice. In another place also he calls it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that which is the representation of a proper Sacrifice, is not itself a proper Sacrifice, these things differ in predicament. And to put all out of doubt, Chrysostom by way of correction, for more proprieties sake, having called it a Sacrifice, adds this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to show that it is in propriety but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It may be called a Sacrifice figuratively, but in truth it is rather the remembrance of a Sacrifice. Our fourth reason is taken from the acts of our Ancestors in the reformation, who did express great dislike of Altars, and did remove, and abollsh the same as Popish innovations. We will therefore against Doctor Heylin, make these two things clear.  
First, that the Reformers were very adverse to Altars.  
Secondly, that they were so upon just grounds.  
Constantine's times, though not so pure as the former; yet were far more pure than those which succeeded; for Antichrists entrance is obscure: he seems likes Melchisedeck without pedigree, as to some of his mysteries of tyranny: He began to work presently after the the infancy of the Church, but as to his solemn inthronization at Rome, he is much younger than Constantine. Tantae mo'is erat Romanam condere gentem. It appears by Saint Ambrose his insulting over Theodosius that the Hierarchy was advanced in good times, and that by the blind zeal of some men otherwise very good. Altars had gotten great adoration before St. Ambrose, but that adoration was not wholly abused till the instalment of Antichrist; and than the Sacrament was soon turned into a present propitiatory Sacrifice, and the form of a Table being utterly rejected, a stone Altar was received into its place, and an immolating Priest ordained. Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, are now grown the common terms, and only proper words, and though the instant creeping in of this factious change be not known, yet the change is now apparent, it is now is plain, that these words are grown common, as it is that they were not so from the beginning. And for this cause our English Martyrs, were necessitated to use these words conversing with Papists at that time when no other words were current: and this is no proof for the propriety thereof. Frith, Lambert, &c. mention their examination touching the Sacrament of the Altar: and so must I now repeat the same name, and so must any man in the same case, but what? this mention or repetition proves not our approbation thereof. So that the Parliament, 1. Ed. 6. use the name both in the act, and in the writ granted thereby: but what? neither was the tide of language yet turned, nor the reformation in any degree perfected: and so in the first Liturgy, the word Altar for the same reason is usually mentioned: but in the second Liturgy we see the better judgement, and more settled practice of the State, by the utter rejection of the very names of Sacrifice and Altar. But the Doctor replies that the second Liturgy was introduced upon no other just consideration, but only to please the fond, pragmatical, puritanical humour of John Calvin. King Edw. 6. coming to the crown 1547. found the enterprise of altering Religion very difficult and dangerous, and not suddenly to be expedited. Young he was, and destitute of a competent number of trusty, potent, and learned Ministers, and his Father had altered nothing but in discipline only, and his task now was to extirpate a sensual Religion of great antiquity, and yet within six months he sets out his injunctions, wherein he prescribes divers things tending to a reformation. Some few months after in Parliament, the Sacrament is commanded to be administrrd sub utraque specie, and a Writ therefore awarded; in both which Act and Writ, the vulgar common name is not yet disused. In 1548. Images are ejected, and a new celebration of the Sacrament ordered: The first Liturgy is now composed, and Bucer sent for, and as yet the word Altar is not quite relinquished. In 1549. the King having thus far adventured to countenance Protestantism, he now adventures to strike at the heart of Popery, by pulling down the mass; but this he does by Proclamation, not daring to put it to votes in Parliament. Upon this a great rebellion is raised in the West, the French King also bidding defiance at the same instant; and now Bucer first arrives. In 1550. great troubles happened about the Protector, but the West being calmed, and the French threatenings diverted, Bishop Ridly is commanded to take down Altars in his Diocese, and in Paul's Church itself the Altar-wall was removed: by the King's letters also to Ridly, it appears that Altars had been displaced in many other parts before, and the Act is allowed by the King to be good and godly, though our Doctors now term it an horrible outrage: and by this it seems that Bucer and Calvin were not the first instigators thereof. In 1551. we read of Bucers' death, and the arraignment, commitment, and execution of the Protector; and now Hooper in his Sermon before the King, preaches against the remainder of Altars, yet standing as occasions of superstition. In 1552. a Parliament establishes the second Liturgy in stead of the first, and finally, and generally demolishes Altars, not using so much as the name of Sacrifice, or Altar. And by such limits and degrees did the King's power increase, and the reformation ripen; but amongst these public affairs we may take notice also that some other considerable passages did intervene. Bucer about autumn, 1549. received advertisements from Calvin not to be mediis consilii● authorem vel approbatorem, and to be instant with the Protector for the taking away of superstitious ceremonies. The like counsel also Calvin had sent to the Protector to go on in abrogating all superstitions without regard of correspondence abroad, or peace at home, such cautions being only requisite in civil, not divine affairs; for in these the word of God is the strict rule, and nothing is more distasteful to God, then to alter; or mitigate divine precepts according to worldly wisdom. His advice also was further that the Protector would hasten the compounding of ceremony differences, and to support Hooper, a man zealous against Altars, and ceremonies; and one that had interest in the Duke of Northumberland. In his letters also to Farellus 1551. it appears that Calvin had written to the King, and that his letters had been graciously accepted both by the King and his council, and that the Archbishop had wished him to write more frequently, and that the Archbishop also had received letters from him; and that the State had received the like advertisements from Bullinger also. These pious endeavours of Calvin seconded by Bullinger, &c. so honourably entertained by the King, and his Prelates and counsellors of State; nay, and by the whole Parliament, Doctor Heylin traduces as the busy offices of his tampering, practising, and unhappy meddling: and thus through Calvins' sides our heavenly inspired Ancestors are wounded, and through their sides our Religion. 'Tis true, the first Liturgy had a moral, though not a mathematical perfection in it; and so it was attestated by Fox, &c. But this concludes not that therefore it was altered only to please Calvin; for though in the first Liturgy, nothing was introduced but what was good and godly, as might be well justified; yet that was more good and godly which was afterward introduced in the second: the one might be as Nehemiah's Temple, the other as Solomons, both beautiful, yet one more beautiful: He that rightly considers the Acts of Edw. 6. and his short reign, will wonder to see so much, not so little done in such a space of time: especially since his peers was so factious, his people so ignorant, and his Clergy so Popish. Had not Divines also been so averse at home to reformation, the consultation of foreign Doctors was necessary, especially of such as had been actors and spectators abroad in the like alterations: but such Doctors were now precious in the world, the Harvest was far too great for the Labourers, and the age also too queasy to endure their rigor. It is no wonder therefore if Bucer came not till two years after the beginning of the reformation, and if Calvin, Beza, and Bullinger, came not at all. Tantae molis erat Romanam extinguere gentem. Doctor Heylin supposes Calvin pragmatical, because he was not sent for into England, though he proffered himself unsent for, and was so forward to engage himself by his avisoes: but this is ill supposed, for Calvin was known to be a rigorous man against ceremonies, and the pomp of Prelates, and this made him terrible here in England. Hooper is a sure instance of this, for being a learned pious Bishop, his mere consent with Calvin cast him out of his bishopric, and scarce could he ever obtain his reinvestment, though the King countenanced him, though Northumberland supported him, though the greatest of foreign Divines entreated for him. So tender a point, even in those days was it to touch upon ceremonies, the darling of episcopacy, and so jealous were the holiest of our Prelates in a case of such concernment to Hierarchy. Certainly Hooper and Calvin had the same opposites, and friends; and therefore though the King and council did not send for Calvin, Bullinger, &c. because the Popish and episcopal faction hated them; yet they kindldy embraced their counsels, and (as far as might be) put them into execution. The mere Popish faction could not have deterred, or retarded the King and his council, we see greater matters carried against that side, some other more potent enemies both Hooper and Calvin had even in those zealous times; but in other ceremonies whatsoever difference might be, I do not see but that in the amoving and condemning of Altars, all sides did fully agree, and that Ridly and Cranmer were as forward as either Hooper or Calvin. It is manifest also that Queen Eliz. in her restitution of Religion was as ill affected to them, as her brother had been in his first reformation, abolishing both the name, form, and use of them, and adhering wholly to the second Liturgy, and imitating in all things her brother's pattern. And it is as manifest, that in all the reign of King James under any visitor whatsoever, there was no question ever moved concerning the name, nature, pattern, or adoration of any Altar, till these later years made them a ground of schism. We may more probably guess that Edw. the sixth, and the best of his Clegry would have followed Calvin further if they had had power, and further time to perfect their designs, than that they followed him too far, being deceived by his P●ritanicall faction. But Doctor Heylin blames Calvin for being an enemy to middle counsels in performing God's strict commands: not to regard human policy in such divine affairs, the Doctor calls going on without fear or wit. We know how far Saul departed from God's command for politic respects when he would offer Sacrifice before Samuel came, and when he would reserve some of the Amalekitish spoil for Sacrifice; yet this was not mere temporal wisdom: Sacrifice was his end, and the service of God in both, yet we know strict obedience had been better accepted than such uncommanded Sacrifice: besides, though Saul was strictly commanded to destroy the Amalekites, yet he was not commanded to destroy the Amalekites without all preparation, consultation, or opportunity: God's command did bind him from all mitigation in the execution of it, but not from all policy in effecting it. So King Edw. the sixth, received a command from God to expel Popery; in this case for want of power, the King might await time and opportunity whereby to compass his end, as he did; but being master of opportunity, he might not by any dispensation depart from that end, or fail of executing his commission to the utmost. When Calvin dissuaded from middle counsels, he took notice withal of the ceasing both of foreign and civil wars, (as appears by his letters) so that we may well suppose his counsel was chiefly touching the end, not the means: for the end is strictly defined by God in divine affairs, but the means are commonly left to human advice. Let the Doctor carp at Calvin, and at our Ancestors, for crediting so meddling a fellow, let him disdain that Elijah, or Baptist-like spirit wherewith God had so plenteously anointed him: but this is no warrant for us to do the like. We may better imagine that Calvin was one of the blessedst instruments whom God fitted, and qualified for the most blessed employment which was ever effected the redemption. We may 〈…〉 in Calvin and Luther, 〈◊〉 two Testaments of God rose again after they ha● been slain in Babel, and after that their 〈◊〉 had lain unburied in the streets for so long a time, and that by their sacred testimony the sun itself was relieved from a total observation, and a greater, and more gross darkness was chased away from the face of Religion, then that which the Aegypti●ns groped with their hands. But (Says Doctor Heylin) in Germany Altars are still retained; and there the reformation was complete: and so complete reformation, and Altars may well subsist together. I answer, Altars do remain in Germany: but it seems in the first place Luther was no favourer of them, for he reproves it in carolostadive, that he did by force show down Altars, when by dispute he ought to have expelled them. Secondly, it appears by the same story that Altar were in many places very offensive. Thirdly, the Lutherans use and repute their Altars as mere Tables: and we admit that the formal relation of an Altar, is not the external form as its wood or stone, round, or square, &c. but its employment for Sacrifice We allow Occ●●●●padius to say, that for peace sake we abhor not from the title of Sacrifice, so no deceit be carried under it. But we say, if not for peace, and such as is 〈◊〉 from deceit, we do abhor the word Sacrifice, much more the thing. We allow with Zanchy also, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibuern● Altaria, aut mondarunt, quod liguris mensis utantur: we allow both external forms in themselves indifferent made absit superstitio: nay Calvin himself (that man of rigor) did leave a stone Altar standing at La●sauna. But if Altars be not necessary causes, yet as they are possible occasions of superstition, with our Ancestors we reject them. The Fathers did use the words Altar, Sacrifice, &c. harmlessly as to themselves, but not as to others, who have mistaken their meaning therein; but this very mistake is avoided by our Ancestors. The Germans herein imitatethe Fathers, being not so scrupulous in a mere occasion of abuse; I do not say that they do ill, but I say they do not so well as we, who avoid all misinterpretation both in ourselves and others; besides that which is not necessary to them by Law, is so to us, for we are bound to believe, that such a King and such a council as ours were in the reformation, being instituted also by such foreign Doctors, would not have abolished Altars contrary to the disposition of those diffrents times, but upon very good and godly considerations. And certainly if the form and name of Altar we●● so considerable held to our sanctified illuminated lawmakers, than the reality thereof was of deeper consequence, and much more to be provided against. And therefore it is sufficient to allege, that in our Liturgy in force there is no mention of Altars, or Sacrifices, and that Sacrifice which is mentioned in the Sacrament, is only of spiritual praise, and that wherein other host, but our souls and bodies are offered unto God. And so in our books of Homilies pub●●●●ly authorized, we are warried not to make a Sacrifice, but a memory of the holy Communion: And in the book of Articles it in maintained 〈◊〉 he Popish land is a blasphe●●●● figment, and per●●●ious imposture, and we are not supplied with any other in 〈◊〉 thereof; and yet if our Communion be at all a Sacrifice so properly called, how can it differ from the Popish land? So lastly in the 〈…〉 and enlarged by King James, 1603. The two Sacraments are there named, and called, one of baptism, the other of the Lord's Supper; there is no mention made of Altar, as if the Communion might fitly still be called the Sacrifice, or Sacrament of the Altar, as the name in Popish times.   

CHAP. II.  
Concerning the propriety of the Name.  
THus we see there is no Altar but tropical, and the name cannot be proper, where the thing is improper: and yet we further say, that as the name Altar is less proper; so it is also less ancient than Table, and in both these respects less convenient to be used. For antiquity, D. Pocklington affirms, that Noah built an Altar, and Noah being a Christian, his Altar was a Christian Altar; and hence it results, that the Altar amongst Christians, is far ancienter than Table.  
To this we reply, that if Noah was not a Jew, because not descended of Judah, nor of the Mosaical Religion, because he was many hundreds of years ancienter than Moses, by the same reason he was not a Christian, being ancestor to Christ himself. And as for his Religion it does not appear that he had therein any nearer relation to Christ, than Moses, especially in Sacrifices, for as Moses had his bloody Sacrifices, so had Noah: and as Moses in his bloody Sacrifices did observe a distinction of clean, and unclean creatures; so did Noah. Wherefore it Noah be no Jew, it follows not he was a Christian; and if a Christian, it follows not his Altar was a Christian Altar; and if a Christian Altar, it follows not that it is that Christian Altar, which we call the Communion Table. And surely Saint Ambrose is ill applied, as to this purpose, to prove that the Christian is ancienter than the Jew: as if that because Altars came in with Noah; therefore Tables came not in till under the ceremonial Law, or as if it concerned us to strive about the general indefinite words of Altar, or Table, in this dispute of the Communion Table. Our dispute is about that Table, or other utensil whereupon our Saviour did eat both the old Passover, and his new one; and this Saint Matthew, and Saint Luke call a Table, using the same word as is used for that utensil whereon Dives his meat was served in; and the Papists deny not the proprlety of this word, nor the use of the thing, only Doctor Pocklington affirms our Saviour to have supped upon the pavement, not that he can thereby aver his Altar, but that he may impugn our Table. If the Sacrament be a true Sacrifice, it follows not that Sacrifice ever implies any Altar: but we have disproved it to be a Sacrifice, we prove it to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, rather a commemoration of a Sacrifice, nay even that Sacrifice which it does commemorate, was not simply, it was but secundum quid a Sacrifice. We say our saviour's Passion as to its virtue was the most odoriferous Sacrifice that ever was, but as to its manner of oblation it might be as figurative a Sacrifice, as the cross was an Altar, or as the crucifiers were Priests; and if Christ did by way of proper Sacrifice offer himself for us on the cross, yet it's no necessary result, that he so offers himself to us in the Sacrament: for the Sacrament, if it be any, it is but a commemorative Sacrifice at the most: but says Pocklington, he that admits commemorative Sacrifice, admite Sacrifice. Ergo. I answer, when we allow a twofold Sacrifice, one of propitiation, another of commemration; one real, the other representative of the real only, we intend the 〈◊〉 to be proper, the other improper; the one truly so-called, the other as it represents the true. So we difference a painted from a livingman, and a 〈◊〉 from a true King; for ne●●lict is the picture a 〈◊〉, nor the Actor a King, but improperly, But says M. Mede, admitting no true Sacrifice, yet the Table is a true Altar; for Table and Altar both have the same genus: Altar and Table differ as Church and house, Altar is a holy Table, as Church is a holy house: so the difference is specified only. I answer.  
First, all Sacrifice is not offered: as 〈◊〉, some things are offered neither edible, nor potable, a Incense, and by this it seems that the relative for●●lity of an Altar is not merely to support sacred repasts, as it should, if it were only a sacred Table.  
Secondly, this crosses the typical intention of Sacrifice, for in this sense Christ was no proper Sacrifice, nor his cross as Altar.  
Thirdly, in the Jewish Temple there was both a sacred Altar. & a sacred Table, and as they had several names, so they were different in form, and fitted 〈◊〉 several uses, although both their uses were sacred.  
Fourthly, if we admit Table to be called Altar, in respect of the sacred food there pres●●ed, not thereon sacrificed, this opposes not our opinion, but it regard that holy Table expresses as much as Altar in Master Mede● sense; but the word Altar does not always e●presse so much as holy Table in our sense, as the vulgar now use it, for this reason it is not so fitly used in common speech.  
Fifthly, Altar is more 〈◊〉 and uncertain than the holy Table; for as Sacrifice is appliable to all divine services of Heathens, Jews, and Papists; so Altar is as general: but our Service here being more eminent and excellent, deserves a name as peculiar. A King is a man and more, he is truly a man, yet his distinct name of King is more fit to be be used: for the title of King, includes the name of man; but the name of man does not include the title of King. The Doctors being so eager for the names of Sacrifice and Altar, aught to have proved those name● the most honourable; but of this they have made no proof at all: for even amongst the Jews, obedience, humiliation, and internal prostration of the soul was of more acceptation in the sight of God, than the flesh of bulls, or the fat of a thousand Rams. The Passeover also, which was both Sacrament and Sacrifice; yet was far more reverent as a Sacrament, then as a Sacrifice: and they which did keep that with the inward preparation of an humbled spirit without legal purity, were more accepted (as appears by Hezekiah's Passeover) then mere legal preparation could make any. Besides, the Table to our Sacrament is not as the Altar was to the Jewish Sacrifice, for the Jewish Altar did sanctify the Sacrifice, but our Table borrows its sanctity from the Sacrament. We therefore honour the Table as a sacred utensil, but we attract no honour from it, we hold it a diminution to name the Sacrament by the Altar, when we may more honourably name it by the body and blood of our Saviour. For our Prince's sake we bow to his chair, but we denominate not the Prince by his chair, or bow to the Prince for the chairs sake; neither do we disgrace the word Table, or Altar, when we denominate not the Sacrament by them, but contrary to the Papists, we rather name the Sacrament by the body of Christ, then by them, as we style Kings rather by Nations than Castles, or Villages, though they be equally Lords of both. The Jews had Sacraments more honourable in nature then mere Sacrifices, and our Sacraments are far more precious than the Jewish, and therefore the wrods Sacrifice and Altar must needs be lessening words to our Sacrament. And were they not lessening words, yet for other reasons, we see our Ancestors have disused them; and chosen rather to nominate the Sacrament by the body of Christ, then to descend to a community of name therein with Jews, Pagans, and Papists. And we may conceive, that if our Ancestors had no respect to future abuse in abolishing the words Sacrifice, and Altar; yet they might have to former: for Altars as they are Jewish are to be deserted, as Paganish detested, as Popish abhorred. The brazen Serpent might have remained as free from abuse after Hezekiah's days, as it had done before; and yet though the sin night have been reformed, & the thing reserved, that good King out of indignation, as well as prevention, takes it away, and defaces it. We may read further of this, Exod. 23. 13. For the same reason the Greek Fathers would not use the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, nor the Latins aru, but altar: because they would avoid community with Heathens, though there was no sin in the bare words. And this kind of detestation is commended as pious by Sir Francis, Bacon, even against words in themselves offenceless, where better choice may be had, and where great abuse has been offered. To conclude then, if words may be profaned, and made unchristian, merely by coming into the mouths of Pagans, &c. Surely much more impurity and offence is likely to stick upon the things themselves: but in things abused by Papists, wherein we ought to to elongue ourselves from them, I think we ought not to look upon them as the Primitive Christians did the Jews, but as the Jews did Heathens. For the Jewish Religion had been true, and was rather altered then abolished, and that in accidents, rather than in substance; and so we must not hold of the Popish schism. And it may be conceived, that our Ancestors in the reformation did shun correspondence and conformity with Papists in some things and words otherwise indifferent, not only for conscience sake, but also out of policy; for my opinion is that our approaching towards Popery in some of their rites, and traditions, does the more obdurate Papists, and make our cause seem a weak and warping cause. But this is a sic videtur only; jobtrude it upon no man, it may be the good work which the piety of these warping times seems so willing to incline to, is more visible to Doctor Heylin, than it is to me.   

CHAP. III.  
Concerning the Altar posture.  
AS for the posture of the Altar or Table, it is not of itself of much consequence, but our Innovators are now very strict in urging it upon us, and that only for innovations sake. Doctor Pocklington in favour of this Posture, takes great pains to prove that Christianity for the first two hundred years, was not so oppressed and persecuted, but that Churches and Altars might have been; but 〈◊〉 those Heathen Emperors did not extirpate Religion, this is no proof that they did protect it: and if they were some way indulgent to the persons of Christians, this is no proof that they were not adverse to the Religion of Christians; we will rather admit with Platina, that the Christians had no Churches for 150. years, but only Sac●●● abdita & plerunque subterranea; and though under Pius the first, some mean Churches were, yet under Dioclesian they were demolished again; and therefore it is most portable, as he says, that during those times of uncertainty and calamity, Altars were unfixt and probable, or (according to Strabo) placed ad diversas plagas propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem, and G●. Biel mentions a wooden Altar, at which the Popes did officiate; and it was removed from place to place, Vbic●nque Roman●s Episcopus latuerit. These descriptions agree rather with a Table than an Altar, and rather with our 〈◊〉 thereof then theirs: but it is a wonder, since the Doctors would fain prove such toleration of Religion, that Churches and Altars might have been before Constantine, that they make no proof at all that any were; but even since Constantine's time, Altar posture is but poorly maintained. Doctor Heylin for his first proof alleges, that the Primitive Christians prayed towards the East, and that the reason thereof was, because the Table was plac●● at the East end of the Church. And says he, if the Table was placed eastward, then doubtless in the most eminent part of the East, that no man might have place beyond it: for any man standing beyond the Table, must either not pray towards the East, or not towards the Table. Be it granted that the ancient Christians had a custom to prey {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and that because our saviour hung upon the cross with his face westward, as both may be questioned; yet this we receive only from writers which lived West from Judea, where our Saviour was crucified, and this justifies it not in the Western parts of Christendom, and if it does, yet what follows? does the reason of this maintain the Altar posture. So is it therefore a sin to take the wall of the Altar when we pray? or if thi● be a sin, can it be no ways avoided, but by the Altar posture? Amongst the Jews, the West was most honourable, and yet the ark was not so fixed to the West wall of the Oracle, that the Cherubins might not stand between; and therefore honour is not always rigorously, and superstitiously to be applied Besides, if our saviour's posture on the cross be the rule of our posture in our dev●●ions, this rule extrud● not to all Christians, but only to such as lie West from Judea; for those which lie East, by the same rule, if they will not turn their backs to our Saviour ought to turn their faces to the West: but why should any certain postures be held so necessary, when all nations cannot agree in the same for the same reason? Whatsoever was formerly by some imagined, we know that the East is named so from the rising of the sun, and we know the sun has neither rising not setting, but comparative, and so America is as properly East, as China, for if America lie West to us, yet it lies East to China; which lies East to us. The Doctor tells as not certainly whether the ancients prayed eastward, because their Churches were so built, or whether they built so, because they praye● so, but both ways he makes use of it for his own posture; although we may both ways as probably thus reto●●● to the contrary. If the Christians prayed Eastward only, because their Churches were so built, than they held that posture of praying in itself indifferent, and if they built so because they prayed so, than they held the posture for building so to be indifferent: and sure the proof is very weak, that the Primitives did put any virtue in all places of the world either in building or in praying Eastward, since it is most apparent, that private dwellings, and Pagan Temples, and Jewish Synagogues were at first converted into Churches, and some new erections were not contrived in this Eastern posture. For his second proof, the Doctor says, that anciently (according to Bishop Juell, the choir or chancel was drawn with curtains, and this would be very unsightly (he says) if the Table should stand in the middle, 〈◊〉 far from the wall▪ The Doctor here makes no difference between a cathedral, and parochial Church, for in Par●chials a curtain may hang at the chancel door without incumb●ance, and in Cathedrals it may be drawn in the midst of the choir without any inconvenience, though the Table stand not near the wall. In our Cathedrals, the Quires are now so spacious, that a third part of them may be assigned to the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or Altar place, and yet all the congregation may stand in the other division, nay, if in Saint Paul's London, the Altar wall were again removed, as it was in Ridleys' time, the Altar would be seen standing in the very middle of the choir. For his third proof, the Doctor citys the Altar in the Church of Antioch, which not standing to the East, is storied to have differed in posture from all other Churches. If it be granted that all Churches in the West parts from Antioch; nay, all of the whole world had Altars standing towards the East; this proves not that they touched the East wall, and stood side ways. The Doctors fourth proof is from the divisions in Churches, for first occurred (He says) the seats of the Presbyters, and then above them the episcopal throne, and above all the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. This is spoken only of Cathedrals, and in Cathedrals we see the same division still; yet see withal, that betwixt the Bishop's throne and the Altar wall, there is a great distance, so that the Altar is not necessarily driven close to the wall. The Doctors last and main proof is from the custom of Papists, who since they retain the old fashion of their buildings, are not likely to innovate in the fashion of their Altars. This proof is no stranger for Altar posture, then for the multitude of Pillar-Altars, Chappell-Altars, and Requiem-Altars, and for a thousand other superstitions; and yet we answer more over that it was not so easy for the Papists to alter in the fashion of Churches, as Altars, and therefore this is a very non-concludent, argument. I have now answered Doctor Heylin, and I might proceed to confute him also, but that is done to my hand by a Lin. Minister, in a book called the Holy Table, name, and thing; and hither I shall refer all that are unsatisfied in this point. I shall note only of that learned Author, that he puts his examples of the chiefest metropolies of Europe and Asia, and in Rome itself, his first instance is in the Catacombe, the most ancient and reverent Church there, wherein Saint Paul and Peter first were buried, and where none might officiate, but the Pope: yet even this Church was not canonical in this Eastern Altar posture. His next instance is in Saint Peter's there the holy mother Church of the world, for 〈◊〉 there, that most reverent Altar, which stood over the translated b●nes of Peter and 〈◊〉, stood some distance from the wall. Many other instances are given not fit to be repeated, and yet of all instances none can be more convincing the● those of his four Tables so precious, and richly adorned, and inscribed round about, which were dedicated at Constantinople, Rome, and S. Dennis. If Altars were only in use, why was such incredible cost pow●ed out upon Tables? If the Altar posture was only in use, why were those Tables round about on 〈◊〉 side inscribed, when the inscription had been 〈◊〉 in part obliterated? I come now to this later age, and to our own Nation. In the time of Edw●●●▪ we find that Altars were taken down, that Hooker preached against them, that Ridley took away the Altar wall in Paul's to destroy the posture of them, that Bucer complained in C●or● tantum sacra representari. And when at first things were not fully settled, when the old posture was rejected, and not any new one instead thereof constantly 〈…〉 we find Huggaid deriding that incertainty: and we find● King Edward's second Liturgy ending that doubt by appointing the North side of the Table, for the place whereat to officiate: In the time of Queen Eliz. we find an injunction to place the Table where the Altar stood, saving when the Communion is to be administered, and other things referred to the appointment of visitors. And in the third of Queen Eliz▪ the visitors set forth their order, that the steps in the chancel shall be decently 〈◊〉 and that there the Communion Table shall stand out of the time of receiving: and we know no reason w●y they which endured not the form of an Altar, should endure the posture, or why they which liked not that posture in time of receiving, should like it at other times: or why they should call that the North side, which our Doctors now will needs understand the North end of the Table. Lastly, 〈◊〉 sanctorum be interpres praeoeptorum, we must believe that the Altar posture had not been so generally used in all Parochials in the whole kingdom ever since the reformation, and no care thereof taken by authority, if it had been irregular. But the Doctor says that the Altar posture is retained in the King's chapel, and in Cathedrals, and that they ought to give Law, and not to receive it from Parochials. For answer we say that chapels and Cathedrals have their own peculiar Statutes, & may differ sometimes from themselves therein, and from Parochials, but Parochials are all governed by the public Canons: besides we see there is a great difference in the very fabric between Cathedrals, chapels, and Parochials; and therefore in Parochials the Table is removed in time of administration, because the Chancel was not held so fit for the audience and access of the people, but in Cathedrals, and chapels, no such removal is necessary. Chapels & Cathedrals 〈◊〉 also otherwise, as in pomp, and in the intelligence of the congregation; and in this respect also ceremoni●s may be perhaps the more plausible in them, than they are in Parochials. The Doctor lastly citys Saint Gregory's case, and says that their Altar posture was adjudged by the Kings own decision. But I conceive otherwise, for these reasons.  
First, because that Church of Saint Gregory stood under the very wall of Paul's, and owed a filial subjection thereunto.  
Secondly, because that Church had no chancel to officiate in, but was built chapel wise, the East eud thereof being sufficiently visible to all the congregation.  
Thirdly, because the King did not intimate in his order that he intended to make that case a precedent to other Parochials, and we know no reason why that pleasure should be concealed, which desires to be obeyed.  
Fourthly, because many other visitors both wise and godly, have not taken it as an overruling Law in their Jurisdictions.  
Fifthly, the King did only settle the Table being removed, and prevent further removals, but he did not place it sideway to the East wall himself, and we know the Law would not have all things done, which it hinders from being undone. For these reasons it may be conjectured that the King's aim was at uniformity only, but not in all things, nor at all times where the like reason is not. And since B. Bilson says that the very word Altar so●●nts superstition, and the Parliament adjudges that the form of a Table shall more move from superstition, and there can be no reason why the posture of the Altar should not fall under the same, consideration, we conceive the King's meaning to have been mistaken.   

CHAP. IV.  
Concerning the sanctity of the Altar, or its due adoration.  
THe honour and sanctity of the Altar, and that adoration which is due thereunto, is now to be insisted upon. The name, nature, and posture of Altar has been all this while so stiffly vindicated, and maintained in behalf of the Table; that a divine worship might be asserted and challenged as due to it: but now behold on a sudden, when the name of Altar will not serve, the name of ark must supply that office. In the twinkling of 〈◊〉 eye the scene is changed by our Doctors, and that which was an Altar before, is now become an ark; and that which stood before in the Sanctuary is now removed into the Propitiatory, and there shrouds itself under the wings of Cherubins. The surest argument now is, that as our Churches are to be accounted holy, and reverenced as the Temple was amongst the Jews; so in our Churches the holy Table (not Altar) stands responsible to the ark of the Covenant, and the mercy-seat. Doctor Micklethwaite says, that God may be worshipped in such places where his presence is truly specified: as it was in the Mount, in the Temple, &c. and if under the Law it was no idolatry to worship towards the places, and monuments of God's extraordinary presence, it is none in the Gospel. And thus it is lawful (he says) to lift up our hands and eyes towards heaven, and so vocally implore God, because in the act of such worship, we use heaven but as a mere circumstance, not as an object, no not relative, or mediate, and we direct our posture only, and not at all the act of our worship towards it. Hence he infers that the like respect may be used to our Table or Altar, which the Jews used to the ark or Temple, because ours answer to theirs, being according to antiquity, solium, Christi, and oculus Ecclesiae. So we see his main ground is that a reverential posture being due to any sacred place where God's presence is specially manifested, as in the Church, &c. this pois best directed to that place of the Church which is most sacred, and of most eminent relation to God; and that place is the Altar, or Table. God is in all places present, and yet the monuments, and specifications of his presence are not alike clear and glorious in all places: his presence in heaven is not as it is in the Jewish Temple, nor in the Jewish Temple as in ours, nor in our Churches as in common places: God's presence is sometimes in some places extraordinary, yet even his very extraordinary pre●ence is not always to be alike honoured in all places, and at all times. Heaven itself is not to be made the object, but only the circumstance of devotion, and that not of the act, but only of the posture of our worship; and yet Heaven is indeed the true Throne of God, and can therefore the lifting up of our hands to God in Heaven, justify the falling down before an Altar? Had the Doctor first proved that the Table was solium Christi, and the chancel oculus Ecclesiae, and that there was the same adoration now due to the Altar, as was once to the ark; and that God's presence is so now specified in our Churches as it was in Solomon's Temple, or as it is in Heaven; he had maintained enough for the mere posture of adoration. But since this main {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is still unproved, it will be better worth my while to pass from hence to Doctor▪ Lawrence his Sermon upon Exod. 3. 5. where he is more full, express, and direct in the point, than any other of the Doctors. There was (Says Doctor Lawrence) a holiness acknowledged amongst the Jews in places, in persons, and in things; and that according to degrees, some holy, some more holy, some most holy: according to the dispensation of God's residence and grace, as that did more or less shine upon them. Not only the Tabernacle, the Mount, the Temple; but even the staming bush shows this: for at a nearer distance Moses might not be at all, nor at a farther without unloosing his shoes. Hence the Doctor endeavours to conclude, that if God's presence and grace was the cause of this holiness amongst the Jews; then the same reason of holiness remains still amongst us Christians, since no man can deny that God is still as present and gracious amongst Christians, as eve● he was amongst the Jews. And in this he does not depart from the same principles which Doctor Mi●klethwaite took before for granted, and which at first view carry a very specious colour of reason with them. To this therefore I make a fourfold answer.  
First, It is true, God is now as present, and as gracious in his presence as ever he was amongst the Jews: but he is not so visibly, nor so majestically present to us as to the Jews. There is some kind of opposition betwixt Majesty and love; and therefore as the Poet affirms, No● bene conveniunt, nec in una sede morantur: To us God descends in more love, to the Jews in more Majesty, and we hold that a several entertainment is due accordingly. Majesty requires more external prostration, and fear; love expects more internal joy, and confidence. Even in these days when we come to the Church of God; we ought to make our address with all possible humility and zeal: but if God should in the Church appear in fire, or any fearful similitude to us, as he did formerly, certainly we ought to clea●e to the dust, and to inwrap ourselves externally in the more confusion; and yet God is not the more truly, or graciously present, because of that apparition.  
Secondly, when God did ocularly appear amongst the Jews, he did not at all times, and in all places, and of all men require the same adoration: so that we may suppose that the manner of adoration given, was not merely because God did appear; but brcause God would have his apparition so entertained. Moses here did worship, but God commanded the manner of his worship; and in many other interviews in Scripture, wherein God did grace both Patriarchs and Prophets, we do not read of any consecration of place, or any such distinct adoration, as this of Moses, either commanded by God or performed by man. Certainly Elijah, when God passed by him, and gave him the beatifical sight of his backparts fell prostrate upon the ground, to humble, and debase himself before that gracious presence: but that he performed any homage, or grateful service to the place itself, we do not read. Besides, in this case of the blazing bush, there was a command, and that but temporal; and we do not read that any holiness did remain in the bush after the command. So also the holiness of the Mount, of the Tabernacle, of the Temple, as it was created by the command of God, so that command had its limits of time, by which we may observe in my opinion, that the honour was rather political than physical (as I may so say) & without special command had not been due in such a manner or degree. But (Says D. Lawrence) after an apparition in Luz, Jacob anointed a Pillar, & built an Altar & changed the name of the place from Luz to Bethel. Jacob did so, and did religiously in doing so; but yet if we suppose Jacob had no especial command to do so, it is not consequent that Jacob had sinned if he had not done so. Besides, Jacob did erect those Monuments of honour, not only in celebration of that ground whereon he was reposed, when he beheld the Angels ascending, and descending: but also of that radiant gate of Heaven which opened itself to him to inebriate his soul with such celestial beautiful spectacles. And lastly, Jacob did choose that place whereon to worship God, but this does not imply that Jacob did perform any reverence at all, or honour to the place itself; and so if he had done the like in another place, upon another occasion, he had done well.  
Thirdly, the Jewish honour and reverence in regard of the manner of it was chiefly negative, and except in cases of divine worship, and civil worship, we read of no other. The ark was so holy that it might not be approached, or touched but with such and such conditions: so the bush which God's presence inflamed, it was too holy for too near access, a●● the ground about it too precious to be trod upon with unclean shoes: but who ever read of any bowing, or kneeling, or positive adoration attributed to the ark, or bush, or Temple, or any other thing under the Jewish discipline? Doctor Lawrence indeed does produce a third kind of worship betwixt divine and civil, which he calls reverential, or religious: but he does not fully prove what kind of conditions it had, whether it was positive, or negative, internal, or external, or how far it did extend, or how far it was due to 〈◊〉 relative instruments for God's sake; wherefore, if the Doctor means this negative kind of worship which consists in distance and forbearance for reverential, it is most evident that this kind of worship was never in use since Christ's time, as to the rigor of it, nor cannot be now introduced without great absurdity, and superstition.  
Fourthly, the honour and worship of God i● not to be weighed in human balances, and ●s not greater or less according to that proportion, which we call Arithmetical, or geometrical. Moses being in the bosom of God, far above the sight of the people, is not to be supposed to honour or worship God less by his familiarity, than the meanest of the people which lay grovelling & trembling at the feet of God, and durst not approach the very outmost, and lowest borders of the mountain. Some resemblance we have of this in Prince's Courts, for it is not presumption in some favourites to be covered in the King's presence, or to approach the bedchamber, though it be almost capital in others; and yet where Princes are so familiarly honoured, they may be sincerely honoured without all sauciness; and such familiarity may stand as compatible with internal humility, as the most debafing subjection in 〈◊〉 men. So if God do admit Moses into familiarity, into such familiarity as abates of external prostration, and distance, and fear; yet it is not consequent, that Moses is hereby transported beyond the limits of internal awe, and zeal, and humiliation. And if it was so amongst the Jews themselves in those rigorous times, shall it not be so now amongst Christians, when Christ's iron sceptre is turned to a golden sheep-book in his hand? In the Jewish worship there was fear, but not without joy, in the Christian worship there is joy, but not without some fear: for as fear was more predominant in them, so joy is in us. Why is our saviour's reign over us now called in the Scripture, the kingdom of Heaven? Certainly, in comparison of that discipline which the Jews lived under, for in comparison of the Jewish, which is more earthly, our worship now is like that of the triumphant Saints in Heaven, where joy is predominant, and not fear; wherefore it is not rightly objected by Doctor Lawrence, when he expostulates thus. Shall God lose part of his honour from us, by sending his son to us? must there be less holiness in the Church where Christ is in truth sacrificed by himself, than where he was sacrificed in a type or shadow by Aaron in the Temple? I answer, no: God loses no honour, the Church loses no holiness, although the rigorous worship of the Jews which consisted in distance and terror, and forbearance, be mitigated by the mild, sweet, and peaceful reign of our Saviour over us, we worship with more joy and confidence than Moses did, Moses then the Jews, the Saints in Heaven than us; yet neither Moses, nor we, nor the glorified Saints diminish, but add rather to the glory of God, and if any men now think that the most servile worship is not honourable to God, even when they are most overwhelmed with fear, and lie lowest upon the dust, the Saints in Heaven may upbraidingly say unto them, or rather triumphantly sing: Rent your hearts, and not your garments, Curvae in terras animae, at ●●lesti●inanes. But will D. Lawrence say, is not this the doctrine of the seditious Corah's of this age? does not this doctrine make all persons alike holy, and all places, and so confound all order in Religion? Our Saviour tells us in the Gospel, that the Temple is holier than the gold, and the Altar than the gift; and by expulsing those exchangers and hucksters beyond the utmost borders of the Sanctuary, both after his baptism, and before his Passion, when those legal Sacrifices were before ejected thence, where the Christian Church was best represented, their lasting devotion being performed here, their expiring types within, shows that this distinction should last. The Doctors first proof was, So it was amongst the Jews, therefore so it ought to be now: in this place the Doctor proceeds to show further, that by our saviour's own doctrine ●nd precedent the Jewish distinction of holiness in the Church ought still to remain. To the Jewish platform of Worship, it was in part answered before; that our Saviour had made an alteration thereof, inducing in its stead a more ingenuous confident manner of worship: but now this of the Doctors seems to cross that opinion. By this argument the Doctor would seem to prove that our Saviour was so far from violating the Jewish distinctions, that he did zealously preserve them and vindicate them from the violations of other men; and that also after the ejection of legal Sacrifices. I answer, It is confessed that our Saviour did purge the Temple from the profanation of those which bought and sold therein, as in a common place: but herein many things are considerable, which the Doctor passes over with silence.  
First, these buyers, and sellers, did not only exercise a common trade in that sanctified place, but it should seem their trading was full of fraud, and unjustice: for our Saviour says plainly that they made the house of prayer a very den of thieves.  
Secondly, it is not manifest whether legal Sacrifices were now de jure ejected or no, and so whether this profanation be to be considered as a trespass committed against the law of Moses, or as a violation of a Christian Oratory. Baptism was now in force by John's institution, but Circumcision was not disannulled by any act of our Saviour, nor disused by his Apostles, for we find the contrary even after Christ's Ascension. Besides, we find not that our Saviour, till his passion, did repeat, or oppose any Mosaical rites whatsoever, but we find apparently, that he did observe strictly many of them. He observed the Sabbath, he did eat the Passeover, he did refrain the lists of the inner courts, &c. and till his expiration he did not tear the veil of the Oracle in sunder: so that we see no reason why the Temple till then might not remain wholly Jewish.  
Thirdly, consider this act of profanation either way, and it is no wonder that our Saviour should reform it: for even in Christian Oratories at this day no such thing ought to be endured. He which denies any external positive adoration or genuflexion due to the Church itself, or any division of it, or utensil in it, does not deny internal, and such negative reverence as this, viz. that it should be free, & preserved inviolable from common, servile exercises, and offices, and much more from impious abuses. This unjust aspersion the Doctors everywhere labour to cast upon us, but as they want proof to confirm it, so I hope they will want auditors to believe it. But if we suppose this as Christian abuse, the Temple being now de jure Christian, why did not our Saviour coming with such unresistible authority purge the inner court, and Oracle also from Jewish ceremonious services, and destinate them to prayer, and preaching, as well as the outer court? Why did he not enter and draw the veil, and dissolve that partition as after he did? If the Jewish devotions had been now fully consummated, who had been more fit to enter into the Holiest, than He and his Disciples? or what Incense could have been more sacred in that place then his prayers? Certainly if his time had been come, he might have as well expelled the Priests and Levites usurping against him, as he did the chapmen of Doves and Oxen: and certainly he did not want boldness, for we know with what freedom he spoke at other times to the greatest of them. So than this is a very weak argument to prove that our Saviour did still preserve in force that terrible kind of holiness in the Church of God, which makes some parts thereof inaccessible to laymen, and others to Priests according to the Jewish pattern. But on the contrary what is more apparent than this truth, that our Saviour hath rent in sunder that veil of partition, which these Doctors would fain hang up again, that they might usurp a greater dignity to themselves, and their own Order, than the Gospel of Christ doth allow them? As to the approaching of the throne of grace, and that with boldness, we say we are all royal Priests now, and we are not to disclaim that prerogative, because the Doctor seems to jeer at it. It is true that the Nation of the Jews was also styled a Priestly kingdom to the Lord, and it was so in comparison of all other Nations which then lived: but whereas it is said now that we are a royal priesthood, it is said in comparison of the Jews themselves. Aaron might once a year approach the Oracle, but with fear and trembling, presenting Incense in one hand and blood in the other: but we may now approach that Throne which is more honourable than the Oracle, and that with boldness, and at all times whatsoever. Nevertheless, I do not say that the reign of our sovereign doth take away the holiness of persons, or places, or things, but it changeth that holiness which was in them, and maketh the manner thereof different. That holiness which was then in the High Priest, is now dispersed into all the people of God, for if we are all Pri●●● as Aaron was, certainly we are all Priests of a higher order than Aaron's was. Therefore the sin of Corah cannot justly be charged upon us under the Gospel (as the Doctor would have it) if we claim access into the Holiest, for Aaron's order is now dissolved, and so are the conditions of Aaron's order. Neither ●et the Doctor suppose that I make no difference now betwixt the person of a Priest, and of a layman as to all purposes: for all equality does not overthrow all order and decency. Uzziah had a person as sacred as the Priest, yet Vzzia● might not officiate as the Priest did: Uzziah had his offices distinct, and so had the Priest; and these offices might not be confounded ●ontrary to decency, although the sanctity of persons might be communicable without disorder. So now it were disorder and the confusion of Corah for a secular man to usurp the function of a Minister, but it is not the same, to challenge an equal prerogative in the spiritual empire of our Saviour. In the like manner we say of places, the sanctity of them is altered, not destroyed: we say, God is now more extensively, and universally present by his grace than he was amongst the Jews. In Judea (as to his terrestrial habitation) he did confine himself within the walls of one Temple, but now that of Malachy is verified, where the Lord ●aith, from the rising of the sun, unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place I●cense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering. Besides, as God now inhabits amongst us more universally, so also more amiably: or else no laymen, nor Priests, but with such and such restraints might make any address at all into the Church or C●●●cell; which the Papists themselves do not maintain. To the Jews God was more dreadful, as to servants; to us he is more mild, as to sons. The Law was delivered with terror, and so kept, for it was made mortal to approach either the Moune where the Law was delivered, or to touch the ark where it was kept: But when our Saviour came into the world to publish his Gospel, he took not on the habit of a Lord, but of a servant; and as his entrance, so his life and death was, and as his sovereignty was acquired, so it seems to be maintained ever since. In the like manner we say also, that there is a change of things. Many external rites, and customs of reverence, which consisted in the rigorous observations of times, and in the lotions of their bodies, and purity of garments, and cleanness of diet, are vanished; and yet some equity of these still remains according to the rules of order, and decency, but no further. Though these rites were honourable to God, and conducing to decency, and the pomp of Religion; yet the strictness thereof is now relinquished according to the Heb. 3. 10. for there they are called carnal ordinances imposed on the Jews only, until the time of reformation. Wherefore let the Doctor con●ider, if all the Jewish rites which were requisite to the external honour of Religion, be not as properly vindicated, and maintained by these arguments as the distinct sanctity of places in the Church: and yet these no Papist will defend. Nevertheless I do not speak against all pomp in Religion, I only say that simplicity seems more suitable with these times of Christianity wherein we worship such a Saviour as we do. And on the other side, it is most apparent that our pomp adds nothing to God: for Aaron in all his beauty, Solomon in all his Majesty, did retribute no more honour to God, than Abraham, or Isaac in their naked simplicity. But it hath been rather observed, that when the Church had wooden Chalices, it had golden Priests, but God send us golden Priests and golden Chalices both. After our saviour's death, Saint Stephen, and Saint Paul were accused amongst the Jews for speaking against these Mosaical distinctions in the Temple, and here Doctor Lawrence says if the accusation were true, it was just. I will ask the Doctor this question: Was the Temple at that time de jure Jewish, or Christian? was Moses or Christ to take place in it? if he say Christ, as he must, then why should he think Saint Stephen, and Saint Paul more unworthy to enter into the most honourable parts of the Temple, than any of the Jewish priests? It ought not to be presumed that these blessed followers of Christ did generally vilify the honour of God's house: but their crime was, that they did preach against the Mosaical strictness of the limits and divisions of the Temple, showing that all places therein were approachable by the ador●●s of Christ. There can be no other charge probable, and if the Doctor say that in this they were justly accused, he is as wrongful a judge over them, as any of the Jews whatsoever could be.  
Now we come to Fathers, and Antiquity. The Primitive Christians (Says Doctor Lawrence) distinguished their Oratories into an ●●rium, Sanctum, and Sanctum Sanctorum, and accordingly put more holiness in one then in the other, having an Altar here answerable to an ark there, and in sign of perpetuity pointed their church's East, looking towards the Temple. In this conceit Doctor La●rence goes not alone; only the other Doctors, because the changing of the Scene from the Sanctum, to the Sanctum Sanctorum, from the Altar to the ark, upon the sudden would be too remarkable, are more sparing of language. But what an argument is this? Because the Primitive Christians did build their Churches with some kinds of divisions resembling the Jewish Temple, and because they did esteem one place more holy than another, therefore they did esteem the very Jewish holiness, and distinctions in all things equally in force. It should seem the Altar was advanced to an higher dignity, and removed out of the Sanctum, to possess the place of the ark, and the mercy seat, because this alteration suits with the doctor's purpose▪ but in all other things the Jewish honour and holiness remains unchanged in our Churches. The building of our church's East also looking towards the Jewish Temple, shows the perpetuity of holiness, and although this be but a particular reason not to be extended to any Churches, but such as stand West from Judaea; yet for the doctor's benefit it must be taken for universal. Neither must we make any use of this doctor's argument to any other purpose, although it be as apply able to the Heathen Temples, as to ours, or the Jewish, for they had the same divisions also, whereof some were more holy and unaccessible than others. But it is apparent that the Jewish sanctity in its strictness cannot be attributed to our choir by our Doctors own Tenet, for he himself grants it accessible to Priests, and all within Orders: and we on the other side in an equitable sense allow it more reverence than other parts of the Church, therefore what kind of honour is it which the Doctor challenges both different from the Jewish, and ours also? If the Primitive Church stood wholly to the Jewish pattern, than they may be produced against the Doctor, as well as against us, if not, how are they produced against us in this point more than against the Doctor himself? That antiquity did observe a difference between common and consecrated ground, and also between one consecrated place and another, and in the fashion of their buildings hold some compliance with Jews and Gentiles both, so far as the rules of decency, and charity did require, certainly it was piously, and prudently done. That which we say is only this.  
First, we do not perceive that antiquity did strictly adhere to the Jewish discipline.  
Secondly, if antiquity in honouring of sacred places were more rigorous than we are now, we do imagine that in part it was erroneous, and in part that it had some reasons unknown to us at this time, and so vanished now, that they ought not to prescribe to us. All rude profanation of holy ground we do dislike as antiquity did, because it is opposite to the rules of decency and order, and if any man teach that the house of God is contemptible, or that there ought to be a community of places, or persons we wish the Anathema of Gangra to seize upon him. Howsoever we dare not in all things follow antiquity. If antiquity did think the Church too holy for justice to approach, when malefactors sought shelter there from the due execution of law, we dare not follow antiquity therein; if antiquity did think the choir so holy that the person of an anointed Emperor might have no place therein, we dare not in this follow antiquity: if antiquity did think the chancel ground too holy for any layman's bones to repose in, or the churchyard too unholy for a priest's interment, we dare not justify this usage: if antiquity did think fit to translate the bones Peter, Paul, Augustine, Aidan, &c. from one consecrated place to another for more holiness sake, as if it were profitable to the ashes of the Saints so to be translated, we dare not applaud this invention: if antiquity did place such holiness in the Altar, as if it had medicinal force in it to cure bodily diseases, and for that reason did fall down before it, as to a common physician, we cannot so far abuse our belief: if antiquity did exclude divers stations of Christians from divers partitions and limits in the body of the Church, we dare not now in these days practise this observation. We do not hold the judgement of antiquity to be in all things infallible, neither in these circumstances dare we strictly addict ourselves to their imitation: the Papists themselves being scarce devoted to all these observations at this day. But if we approve antiquity in all these things, yet how does it appear that it did sanctify the Altar in stead of the ark, and mercy-seat, or the chancel in the same manner as the Jewish Oracle was? and if it did, how could our Priests prove hence such worship as they now challenge due to the Altar? If we consider the ark and the Oracle, and compare them with our Table, and choir, we shall find that the parallel of honour cannot hold for many reasons; for, 〈…〉  
First, Those times were not as ours are, the sweet pacification of Christ had not then made God so indulgent to mankind, as now he is, so that he would be glorified then with more terror than now he is. God in those days did not admit of so much familiarity in his Servants, as now he does, yet to show that some familiarity might be without sauciness (which the Doctor seems unwillingly to grant) to some men he offered himself in the mild semblance of a familiar friend, even in those times. This, the examples of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, &c. sufficiently verify. Was Moses saucy, or Joshua, &c. when he ascended up into the Mount within the cloud, and brightness of God? or was the Congregation more reverent, and obsequious when they durst not so much as lift up their eye after Moses, because of the terror of God? certainly no: for God was more sanctified by the bold address of Moses, then by the awful distance of the people, and therefore, whilst their faces were black with fear, his face was arrayed in divine splendour, and Majesty. Neither was it the holiness of Moses his person, but the gracious indulgence of God, that made this difference betwixt him and the people: And so we say now of these days, mutatis, mutandis.  
Secondly, The Table is of itself much different from the ark, and Mercy seat. The ark was terrible, by reason of the Law of God, which was therein enclosed, that mortal Law, from whose condemnation no man living could escape of himself: But the Table presents us with the very marrow of the gospel, wherein is life, and health, and forgiveness of sins. Also, the ark was Canopyed with the Mercy seat, that dreadful Thro●● of God, where God did keep a strange residence, vocally ruling his people, and administering justice after a terrible manner: But the Table is an ●●●fill, wherein God is not so presential at all times, nor at any time merely by the means of that itself, but by the means of the Sacrament at some times supported by it. Also, the Sanctum Sanctorum itself was such a place, as was wonderfully terrible by reason of God's residence in it, after the loss of the ark, and the Mercy seat: And so●e do not repute our chancels; whose chiefest honour is borrowed from the holy table: and for these reasons we know the ark was not to be touched, even by a Priest, and that upon a godly consideration, but upon such penalty as Uzzah endured, ●nd with this condition our Table cannot ●uite, and we know that the Oracle also was not to be approached but once a year, and that by the High Priest only, & with this condition also our Quires cannot agree, for if these conditions were admitted, the Table might not be touched, or remooved, or altered for any reason whatsoever, or any other place designed for the administration of the Communion: or any other time appointed but once every year.  
Lastly, Neither the gospel written, nor the pr●ctise of antiquity do inform us, that ever the Altar and chancel were so honoured by Christians, as the ark, and Oracle were by the Jews, we see no probability that ever the Table was accounted any thing but a holy utensil, till Doctor Helyn dis●●yned ned that 〈◊〉, for why should the chalice and patin be utensils, and not the Table, they being more necrely employed about the body and blood of our Saviour, than the Table? if the Table be not as mere an instrument, and utensil as the Chalice is, than the Doctor must derive its honour from some other thing than the Sacrament, and design it for some higher use proper to itself, as the ark and mercy-seat was: but this the Doctor cannot do, and if he should attempt it, even so he would cross his own assertions. The ark with the Mercy-seat could not properly be said an utensil in the Jewish service, because they were ordained by God for no human office, but rather for a receptacle of the divinity, as a place where God would set the soles of his feet. But the Table is therefore placed in the Church, that it may be employed in the Communion, and if the Communion had not been instituted, no such thing had been necessary at all. Neither is it of any absolute necessity in the Communion, for in case of persecution, it is held, that for want of a Table, we may celebrate the Eucharist upon the ground itself. Besides, among the Jews the Altar, and the Altar instruments were of the same metal, in the same manner beautified, and with the same solemnity consecrated, and therefore why our chalice and patin should not much rather be of the same honour and sanctity as the Table, I cannot discern. For it is most certain that our Table is more properly a relative instrument in our Sacrament, from whence it receives all its honour, than the Jewish Altar was, which lent honour to Mosaical Sacrifices, rather than borrow'd any.  
But (Says Doctor Lawrence) we find a kind of Worship in Cyrill, a direct worship in Eusebius, Emissenus, Theodoret, Augustine, and Chrysostom. We have {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Ignatius, and adgeniculation in Tertullian, &c. I answer,  
First, We ourselves do grant a reverential honour due to all holy relative instruments for Go●● sake, and therefore from all those Fathers which speak generally, and mean no other but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as Ignatius does, we do not at all dissent.  
Secondly, Where particular adgeniculation is required, or bodily prostration, so it be in the time of receiving, and tendered for the Sacraments sake, and not to the very Table, we do practise, and allow it. And so we agree with Saint Chrysostom that we ought to approach the Table, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. and cum prius adoraverimus with, Saint Austin.  
Thirdly, At any time, as well when the Sacrament is not upon the Table, as when it is, we do not always censure of such a decent bowing before the Table, or towards the Table, as the Jews did perform towards the Mount, or Tabernacle, so the Table itself be not the object, or held the only occasion of our worship.  
Fourthly, we say the Table may be called holy, venerable, and divine in a qualified sense, by reason of its relation, as the garments of Aaron, and the utensils of the Temple were, but this infers no duty of Worship.  
Fifthly, We say that antiquity might err, by way of superstition towards the Table, and this we believe the rather, because in some places they did ascribe inherent, physical virtue to it, and at some times such rigor of holiness, that Princes, and Emperors might not be permitted to abide in the same division of the Church where it stood: if Tertullian say that bodily worship is due to the Altar, yet i● he prove it not out of Scripture, we answer out of Saine Augustine: Non credimus, quod non legimus.  
Sixthly, it is not proved by any one human authority or more, that Altar worship was in use in all parts of Christendom at one time, or in any one part at all times: much less is any thing brought out of Scripture to this purpose.  
Seventhly, In the same manner, and by the same authority we find Presbyteris advolvi due, as well as aris adgeniculari, and in antiquity also, it was part of penance Presbyteris, & aris advolvi. And we know moreover, that not only excessive honours, but also all the revenues and treasure of Churchmen, was first raised and advanced by this Art. It is not to be wondered therefore, if ambitious and covetous Prelates did so much magnify, and extol that, which did so much magnify and extol them. Well may the Pope still in all consecrations hallow the Altar with most pomp, and ceremony, well may he anoint that, which was the first cause of anointing him: well may he sacrifice to that net, which has made all Prince's sacrifice to him: well may he claim divinity, and sanctity for that, which has promoted him to fit in the Temple of God, as God, nay above all that is called God. When the horns of Antichrist first began to shoot forth, when the man of sin, and the son of perdition first began to be revealed, it had been very unadvisedly ordered, if psalms of degrees had not been sung at the ascending of those stairs, whereby the Priest did mount to as much, or more exaltation himself as he did procure to the holy Altar. But this is a tender point, and if I speak any thing in disparagement of antiquity, especially the great Bishops of old times; I shall be forejudged as a man ill-affected to Truth, or Religion, and all which I shall say will be soon rejected, and easily refuted.  
Therefore, to avoid unjust imputations, I will confine myself to the mere point in question, and digress no further than the doctor's arguments 〈◊〉 me, and therein also my chief endeavour shall be to do reason to Princes, not to detract at all from Priests. Two things I shall observe.  
First, that this tenet of the Altar-doctrine, and Altar-worship doth naturally issue forth conclusions that are very dangerous, and prejudicial to Princes.  
Secondly, that the Doctors have too far co●●tenanced, and maintained the same in their late Treatises concerning the Altar, contrary to th●se many pretences of zeal and devotion, which they everywhere make to the name of royalty. By the doctor's grounds, mere relation to sacred things is of vigour, and honour sufficient to transfer revere●ce and dignity upon the instruments relatively used, for says Doctor Lawrence, God is not worshipped, if relative instruments be not worshipped for his sake. This being granted, it follows, that most honour is to be transferred upon that instrument, which is most nobly relative, and so in the Sacrament the Priest being {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and the Table or patin, being but insensible utensils, the Priest is to be accounted more holy, and honourable, then either the Table, or patin. If so, than what becomes of Princes? for they are as much inferior to the Altars in sanctity, as Altars are to Priests. They are not holy enough to approach the rail of the Altar, or to stay in the chancel, therefore, how shall they demean themselves towards Priests, who are far more honourable, and venerable in their offices, than the Altars are in their employments?  
Besides, if the Altar be honourable for the Sacraments sake, and the Sacrament only or chiefly, as it is a Sacrifice, than how honourable is he that makes this a sacrifice, for the Sacrament is not a sacrifice by virtue of our hoc edite, but only by virtue of the Priests, hoc facite, so says Doctor Heylin very plainly. How many Kings has this doctrine formerly dethroned? what wars and calamities has it imbrued the whole world withal? when it first brought Christians down to the Clergies feet, how many heresies did it broach? withal, how many myriads of souls did it at the same instant sink into the Lake of Hell?  
But will the Doctors say, if Popish Priests have made ill use of this doctrine, what is that to us, who honour and adore sovereignty above all other men? I wish the Doctors were as they pretend to be, I wish they were not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as they tax their opposites unjustly: I wish they did no more profit by this doctrine than their adversaries do, or else I wish they did not more advance this doctrine, than those which they call the seditious Corah's of the time. But if the Doctors are so well wishing to temporal rulers, how is it that they all allege the example of Ambrose, and Theodosius so often without any kind of detestation, or dislike, nay seeming rather to justify, and applaud it? and how is it, that they speak so pleasingly of Numerianus? Numerianus son to Carus the Emperor coming into the Church at Antioch, and desiring to behold their mysteries quasi per transennam, peeping it is likely through the rails or lattice doors of the choir, he was presently rebuked by Babylas for that attempt: but this heinous profanation was committed but by the son of an Emperor, and so Babylas might be the more bold in his rebuke, therefore let us rather see how Theodosius was used at Milan. Theodosius a penitent Emperor having been long prohibited, the Church and at last ●●●ceived again, and permitted to communicate, yet he was thought unworthy after his offering made 〈◊〉 have any abode granted him within the bounds of the choir. It was not sufficient that he was an ●●perour, and a Christian Emperor, and a 〈◊〉 Christian Emperor, it was not sufficient that i●Constantinople, and his Eastern dominions his 〈◊〉 was within the choir: but at the proud check of a Bishop of Milan sent by one of the Deacons, he must depart that sacred place. This story the Doctors do all severally produce either once, or 〈…〉 if it were not dishonourable to all Princes to have it mentioned at all, or rather impious or ung●●tious in all Priests to suffer the mention thereof 〈◊〉 pass uncensured from their lips. Here is a clear authority cited again and again with the weight of Saint Ambrose his name to abet it, that by the rules of approved antiquity, the persons of Princes were not worthy to approach that part of the Church where the Altar was placed, and where the Priest●, and Deacons did officiate. And if Saint Ambrose would so extrude an anointed Emperor at Mill●ine, what would the Pope himself have done at Rome? if such a pious Bishop would be so insolent and distoyall, what would the Bishop of all Bishops have done? The Doctors do not openly declare themselves, in favour of this act of Saint Ambrose, because I think it needs not, for their opinion in sufficiently evident of itself, and if they did not discover their consent by silence, yet their scope in this whole business would make it manifest. For by what Law did Saint Ambrose confine the Emperor to the body of the Church? it was not by the Law of God, nor of the Emperor, for it should seem the Emperor had a contrary Law in his Eastern dominions: it must needs be by this Altar Law, and this only. If the Levites table be so much dignified and hallowed merely by bearing the body of our Saviour, then certainly the Priest which con●ecrates the same, and is more nobly and intelligently active in the celebration of the Sacrament, must needs acquire much more dignity and holiness: and if so, than Priests must needs be more excellent than Princes, than whom the table is more excellent. This must needs be that which did convince Theodosius, and this if it be yielded to, will still convince, and confound, and degrade all Christian Princes whatsoever: for this is one of the most powerful intoxications that the enchantress of Rome mingles for the princes of the earth. The foundations of the Popish Hierarchy are not yet quite razed in many men's minds. The Scripture is clear, that as Priests are dedicated to God, and admitted to a nearness in holy affairs, to serve and officiate at God's A●tar, and do thereby gain a sanctity above mere laymen: so also that Princes are sacred in a higher degree, in that they are anointed by God to feed, govern, and protect both Priests and laymen, and to represent God himself in his power and majesty, and to have nearest access in things of the highest, and holiest nature. Aar●n though the first and greatest of his order, receives his solemn consecration from the hands of him which wields the sceptre, and when the Law is to be delivered, the scepter-bearer is to be admitted into the presence of God, and higher to be promoted in the dreadful majestical cloud, than any of the house of Levi; nay his next subordinate attendant obtains a higher station in the smoking mountain, than any of the Priests. Also when the Tabernacle, and the ark, is to be framed, and when the Temple is to be erected, the models are prescribed and committed to the charge of the Prince, and when all is finished, the Prince's blessing and prayer presents the same as dedicated, and separated to God's service. And in all the offices of Religion, the Priests serve in the outward action, but the Lawgiver superintends over the Priests in that service, and when any great difficulty requires, God is to be consulted and approached at the command of the supreme Ruler: so that the good or ill state of Religion depends chiefly upon the good or ill government of God's immediate lieutenant. And thus Aaron is but as a mouth to Moses in some things, but Moses is as a God to Aaron in all things, and though Moses may not officiate at the Altar merely out of contempt to Aaron and his function, or out of enmity to all order and relation, yet he may move uncontrolled in his own superior first moving sphere. It is a poor shift of our Doctors to pretend that Moses was within sacerdotal orders, and to cite the 99 psalm, where it is said, Moses and Aaron among the Priests; for Moses had not ecclesiastical power, because he was of ecclesiastical Order, but he may therefore ●ee reckoned amongst men of ecclesiastical Order, because he had more than ecclesiastical power. What Moses had in the government of the Church over churchmen themselves, the same David had, and Solomon had, and all the successors of David, and Solomon ought to have. Till the world was enslaved to churchmen, under the pretence of Church policy, the care of temporal and spiritual affairs was not divided; neither was the one which is the basest, given to the Magistrate, and the most excellent attributed to the Priest, as if the Prince was the body, and the Priest the soul of the State. Miserable were we (Says Doctor Pockington; he means in point of Religion) if my Lord of Canterbury could not derive his lineal succession from Saint Peter: but I think if this be all our stay, we are now most miserable, for our Religion is the same as theirs is in Geneva, and theirs in Scotland, and theirs in the Netherlands, and in the North parts of Germany, where no Bishops are, and if they are miserable, we cannot be happy. Had we been heretics, if in the reformation none of the Romish Clergy had had hand in our reformation, if Cranmer, Latimer, Ridly, Hooper, &c. had not turned Protestants, had we been utterly deprived of the true and effectual power of ordination and imposition of hands? Could not God by the sacred hands of Edward the sixt, have derived his grace unto the Protestant Clergy, unless some from the Romish party had come over to do those offices of consecration? Was the hand of Moses, Joshuah, &c. more gracious and effectual in the offices of ordination under the Law, than a Protestant Princes is under the gospel? What is the reason of it, that the gospel should be introduced to the detriment and prejudice of temporal authority? Or else shall we think, that Aaron was as the soul in spiritual rule whilst the Jewish Law was in force, and that Moses had but a corporeal, subordinate, less excellent power under him? But I will follow this chase no further now, because the times are lately changed, and I believe the Doctors will easily yield to retreat of their own accord. Praesbyteris & Aris advolvi, was the old penance as well for Princes, as people, now we will be content if they will leave out Presbyteris, and show devotion Aris only. My Lord of Canterbury, and Doctor Pocklington think it a good argument for Alta●worship, that 300. years ago the Founders of the Garter did perform their Ceremonies with adoration before the Altar, and that the successors of that Order have continued the same adoration ever since. This is scarce worth an answer, for the times when this custom began, were blind and superstitious, and the mere practice of a few Noble men was never yet thought a Canon in matters of ecclesiastical Discipline. But I come now from precedents, to give answer to our doctor's Reasons. A difference of places (Says Lawrence) requires a difference of respect, that honour may be suitable to merit, as justice requires. I answer, we dispute not against degrees of internal reverence, whereby we hold Churches more honourable than Barnes, &c. our exceptions are against the Jewish rigor of bodily adoration, or such external expressions of worship, as favour of too much terror, and consternation: but the Doctor further presses thus. It is but as justice requires, that that place should have the preeminence from which virtue is derived to the rest, for the word is not operative, but by the merit of that sacrifice, nor the streams of regeneration pure, unless first bathed in his blood. I might deny that any one place in the Church deriveth virtue to an other, but I will not stand upon ●avills, for the doctor's meaning is no more than this, that the word is not operative, but by the merit of that sacrifice, &c. therefore that place, where the word is Preached is not so honourable, as that where Christ is sacrificed. To make comparisons of honour betwixt the Ordinances of God is not so safe, and commendable, but grant the Sacrament to be more operative, than the word, (for so the Doctor should have argued) is not the word therefore operative at all, but by the Sacrament? How does this conclude? may not baptism, and the Preaching make us partakers of Christ's blood, and merits, except we actually receive the Eucharist? Is the virtue of Christ's blood only annexed to the Sacrament? and if so, is the virtue of the Sacrament affixed to the Altar place? and if so, must that place be infallibly in the upper end of the chancel? doth the Church of England so oblige itself to that place in all cases, that it will not have the Communion celebrated in any other part of the Church? and if so, is all the honour of the Sacrament in the consecration, and nothing in the distribution? is not the place where the people receive, of some sanctity, as well as that place where the Priest blesses it? And grant all, yet what do all these Paradoxes conclude for any particular kind of worship? or what we are to worship, whether the Table, or Table-place, or both, or whether these as relatives only to the Sacrament, for the Sacraments sake, or equally as the Sacrament itself? But let the Doctor go on: why should any slave be more vile in the height of his Lord, than we before God? &c. Nor is this grace greater than is ascribed by ecclesiastical writers to the parts which our Saviour conversed in, &c. to his spittle, to his garments, &c. We do acknowledge a greater duty and distance, and humility to be used towards God, than any slave can render to his Lord; we de●y no kind of honour to God, internal, or external, only we dare not present to him but according to his own command. But for relative instruments which we are to hold sacred for God's sake, such as the ground whereon our Saviour trod, or his Garment, or his spittle, &c. or the Altar, we are uncertain how to reverence them according to our doctor's opinion. The Jewish manner of distance according to strictness, is not to be maintained by the Doctor himself, and we know no other kind of worship used by the Jews; neither when the ark was solemnly moved, or removed, do we read of any other reverence applied. And therefore to what purpose the Doctor does urge the Jewish example against us, we do not see: and if he will moderate his honour according to the equitable tenor of Christ's gospel, we shall willingly be informed by him. In two things the Doctor leaves us unsatisfied, and very uncertain of his meaning: first he does not clearly and constantly nominate any distinct form of reverence, which he would have us use; secondly, he does not certainly and fully instruct us in the grounds, and reasons of that reverence. First he says, adoration in the Law, which was a very strict time against superstition, was never without prostration, and to this purpose he citys examples, wherein men did civilly so fall down before men, and religiously before God: but he gives us no instance at all wherein any such prostrate manner of worship was given to any third, middle, holy relative instrument betwixt God and man. We say that bodily adoration may be given to man, because it is but a mere civil act, and for civil reasons, and the mind is not subject to be misled thereby into superstition, because the nature of man whom we worship, and the manner of adoration wherewith we worship, and the civil reasons for which we worship, are so perfectly known to us. Also we worship God with bodily worship prostrating together our souls before him, acknowledging that the highest kind of divine worship is not competent for his majesty, and herein also there is no fear of superstition, because we cannot err in the excess: and therefore the Doctor cannot either from divine, or civil worship, conclude any thing for his middle kind of religious honour; because in these relative instruments we are to divide our souls and bodies; not ascribing so much as to God, nor so little as to man: neither have we any precept, or precedent for this third kind of worship in Scripture, but rather the contrary: Where do we read in Scripture that the Jews did bodily worship the ark, or the Altar, or the Tabernacle, or Temple, or the Footsteps, or Garments, or spittle, or sweat of our Saviour, as our Doctor instances? or how can he prove that any orthodox Doctors in the Primitive times did worship the gospels, or cross of our Saviour? Is it sufficient for the Doctor to say, as things have been in esteem, so religious persons have ever esteemed them? how does this tautology confute us? But, (Says the Doctor) the constant obeisance of Israel in the wilderness was towards the Mount, Tabernacle, Fire, cloud, ark, &c. And Ezekiel saith, At the gate they shall worship God: for the gate of the Temple was over against the mercy-seat, and so towards the Temple they did worship as well when they were far distant in other Lands, as near it. And so Saint Paul saith, the converted Gentile falling down shall worship, &c. I answer, here the Doctor strives to prove religious worship, by divine, as if they were both the same, and not to be distinguished. Is there not a plain difference between falling down before the gates, or towards the gates of the Temple, and to the gates, or to the Temple itself? nay, there is a difference in falling down before, or towards the house of God in men's minds: and it is most evident that even to the Jews did not fall down before the house of God, as the Papists do before their Images. The Papists say, they fall not down to, but before the Picture, worshipping that which is represented, not the thing representing; but if so, if they have the same reason to worship God represented in the Image, as the Jews had really, and graciously presential in the Temple, then why might they not fall down towards their Pictures being a hundred Leagues distant, as well as holding them in their hands, for so the Jews did? It was proper in Daniel to set open his casements towards Zion, and to worship God in that posture, and hereby he made it evident that he did not worship by reason of any motive arising from the mere building itself, but merely for the presence of God himself there residing. How fond would it ●ee if Papists now should do the like to their deities, or if we should do the like to our Altars, except we did believe God to be as presential in them, as the Jews did in their mercy-seat? This quite dashes the conceit of all memorative instruments, for they which worship Pictures, or Altars, as being memorative only, must needs confess that they worship them otherwise, then as Daniel did the mercy-seat, for he being absent was rather memorative of that for God's sake which there inhabited, then that was memorative of God to him. Besides, if we did believe that the glory, and face of God (as the Scripture says) did as majestically dwell in our Table, as it did between the Jewish Cherubins, yet the Jewish example will not guide us to the adoration of the Table only. Solomon in his consecration names, and blesses the whole house, and prays God to be favourable to all supplicants extending their hands to the whole house, and so supplicants always did extend their hands to the whole house. I know one part of the Church is more honourable than another, but the whole is sufficiently memorative, and so not the Table more than any other part, and if I must distinctly worship according to the distinct degrees of holiness, how shall I proportion my several bowings in so many several places? At my first entrance into the house of God, I fall down and worship that blessed name of God which sanctifies that place, must I needs ascend by degrees unto the Table afterwards, there to worship in a higher degree? expecting there a greater blessing, or a perfecter memory of my Saviour? I do not think that the Jewish Levites, and Priests did thus perform so many distinct worships: much less could the people by that Discipline. But in the second place, let the Doctor give us some certain knowledge of the grounds, and reasons of our worship, and then we shall guess at the manner thereof the better. In this point the Doctor (in my opinion) is very much staggered, and gives very uncertain resolutions: Sometimes he saith, that we worship not the Altar, but God towards the Altar: and he that so worships a house for the owner's sake, worships not the house, but the owner. Sometimes, he saith, that we do worship the Altar itself, but as Damascen saith, not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not equally with God himself, and his reason why we may do this, is because the Altar is for God, not an Idol, or against God. Sometimes, he saith, that we adore God in the place without separation of God from the place, as we adore whole Christ, the whole supposition in gross, the humanity as well as the divinity, without abstraction of one from the other. Generally, the doctor's ground is, that we are to worship the Table, as an holy relative instrument, for we cannot worship God, except we worship relative instruments for his sake: but herein we are left as uncertain also, as ever, for all holy instruments, are not holy alike, nor to be reverenced alike, and therefore in what rank we are to place the Table, or with what height to adore it, is not described. To all these assertions something briefly must be said; in the first place therefore, if no worship at all be given to the Altar, but to God towards the Altar, which is our own acknowledgement, then why is the Altar so supereminently worshipped, before any other relative instrument whatsoever? At my entrance at the Church door, I may so worship God, as well as at the Altar: and so when the Font appears to me after my first entrance, thus I may as lowly, as heartily adore God, by reason of his gracious presence in his whole house, or his particular relation to the Font, as at the Altar; and if it be said, that God is not so highly present in any other part of the Church, or in all, or in any other relative instrument (which is a hard saying) as in the Table at all times: yet this doth not infirm my inference, for even before the Font (the same God being present by the same means of consecration) my devotion may be as intense, and as acceptable, as before the Altar. In the second place if it be confessed, that the Altar itself is worshipped, though not, as God himself, and that this is justifiable, because the Altar is no Idol, but a holy instrument, and not against God, but for God. I answer, first this is more than the Jews ever did, or then any precept in Scripture can warrant. Secondly, this is no more than the Papists allege for their Idolatry. Thirdly, this is contrary to reason, for if God be there extraordinarily present, what need we honour any thing else but that extraordinary presence itself, or how can we without indignity? indeed in civil worship when the King is absent, we do our reverence to his chair, but when the King sits there in person, what man is so infatuated and void of discretion, as to do any honour to the chair? and for the absence of God, that cannot be pleaded. But the Doctor says in the third place, that in this Altar-worship we worship God and the place together without abstraction, as we do both natures of our Saviour. This answer (in my opinion) of all others is the worst, and I am persuaded there is scarce any Jesuit that would not be ashamed to say the like. In our Saviour the Godhead dwelled bodily, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and even the dead body of our Saviour lying breathless in the grave divided from his human soul, was not separated wholly from the hypostatical union of the Godhead, and shall this stupendious union be a resemblance of God's union with the Table or Table-place? I am persuaded that Seraphins did attend the buried carcase of our Saviour, and adore it even resting in the tomb, and this by reason of its union with the Godhead: but shall the doctor's imagination create the like inseparable relation betwixt God, and the Table? God deliver me from such audacious thoughts. But grant this, and then where is the Doctors religious, middle worship betwixt civil, and divine? how can he maintain this, and yet maintain with Damascen too {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. In conclusion then, the doctor's shete anchor, is the old maxim, that all relative instruments are to be worshipped for God's sake, and since a worship (saith he) is due ex confesso, than this worship is most proper. I answer, this rule of relation must needs be a very uncertain fallible rule as to the manner of our worship, and the degree thereof: because we can neither distinguish of the relations themselves, as God values them, neither can we limit, and proportion our respects accordingly. In the Law, nay before the Law Circumcision was a very venerable Sacrament and gracious league betwixt God and man, and yet in the act of Circumcising there were no other Knives used, but such as were common, and so after accounted and valued. So also the Passeover amongst the Jews it was an ordinance more solemn and reverend than circumcision, and yet in this great celebrity the Jews used no other then common Tables, and Dishes wherewithal to eat their Paschall lamb, the type of Jesus Christ. Moreover, even now under the gospel in our baptizations of Infants, our Ministers use consecrated Water and sometimes common basins without any scruple, or offence, and yet we cannot deny, but that there is great honour due to that sacred ordinance, as to the laver of regeneration itself. Neither do these Doctors that fight so violently pro aris, seem at all to regard, what honour we ascribe to any other kind of sacred utensil whatsoever: nay I think if the Patin or chalice should be unconsecrated wherein the Body and blood of our Saviour is offered, they would think it little to be regarded. The honour and sanctity of the Lord's day is of late much lessened, as if there were not the same relation in times, as in places, and I fear that this swelling of Altar-worship in the Church may grow as fatal to Religion, as the swelling of the spleen does many times to the body. But I desire these Doctors to consider that God has expressed himself to be a jealous God in such cases as these, more than in any other sins whatsoever; nay in other offences he proclaims himself to be long suffering, and patient; but in the sole fruition of his worship and adoration he professes himself jealous over us, and apt to take offence against us. Does he not declare himself to the Israelites, as if he did purposely forbear to appear to them in any outward apprehensible form, and similitude, that they might not adore the same? I pray what can be more worthy to be adored in the whole world, than such a representation? what relative instrument can be so holy, as the ocular dispensation or sensible displaying of God's most inscrutable Essence, in what figure soever it was opened to the eye, or ear? yet God we see was not delighted to be so worshipped by the means of any such external instrument: but he did rather avoid, and refuse such bodily worship, and did deny gracious apparitions, that they might not remain in the minds of men as instruments of devotion; and if God did not affect to be adored in any heavenly resemblance of his own apprehended by any human sense, (all such apprehension being utterly unworthy of this infinite Majesty) why should we imagine that it can be pleasing now to him to be adored in a Stone-Altar, or wooden Table: but all our Altar-Patr●●s do not make this their ground of worship, that the Altar is the same now, as the ark was formerly, or that the Table is solium Christi, wherein Christ is supposed to sit majestically, and gloriously: for this will be very hard to be proved: and I think the Papists are scarce so gross. M Ironsides ground is, not that God doth reside in the Table, as in the mercy-seat, but that he is there strangely and efficaciously commemorated: we worship not (saith he) the Table, nor any thing set upon the Table, but Christ, as the Messiah slain; for the Table is only a memorative instrument, unto which the assistance of grace is never failing, either to beget in our minds thoughts of Christ's death, or to extract from us a worship of him, if we be not wanting to ourselves. He citys Cajetan, Thomas Aquinas, and Gerson to prove that the learnedst of Papists hold no more. So then Doctor Lawrence is confuted out of the Papists themselves, if he worship the Table for God's sake relatively, or together with Christ without abstraction, this is Idolatrous. The ground of this opinion is, that Consecratio non tantum est opus, sed efficax. God is in a special manner present in consecrated things and places to assist us, and stir up devotion in us, if we resist not his assistance, so that though they have no real quality of holiness, or virtue in them, yet by their very consecration they gain a certain fitness to stir up holy thoughts. But in the first place, if the mere act of consecration be so peremptorily vigorous, ex opere operatio, yet this concludes nothing for adoration. The words of the Evangelists relating the Passion of our Saviour, and the Sermons of good Divines have more than an aptness of commemoration in them, yet we worship not either the gospels, or the Preachers thereof. It a mere memorative aptness be maintained, and that to be all the ground of our worship, then why shall not all things of the like nature procure from us the same adoration? if I look upon a cross, or Picture, or upon the sun, or moon &c. and by that memorative aptness which is in them, find thoughts of reverence and piety begotten in me, why shall not I (according to the doctor's advice) embrace all occasions and furtherances of devotion, and so fall down before them? And if more than a memorative aptness be maintained, and some higher virtue transfused into an Altar merely by its consecration, then into other things we desire further proof thereof. Secondly, if consecration be admitted to be so infallibly vigorous, as to imply God's holy presence, yet this claims worship not only to the Altar, but also to the Font, and to all other consecrated things, places, and times, and this involves us in many doubts. For if I must worship at the Altar more than at the Font, or more than at the first view of the whole fabric, yet how much oftener, how much more must I worship at the Altar, then in other places? The consecration of the whole building has virtue to beget pious thoughts in me, when I first approach it, and I find in me a holy commemoration, must I now stay my worship till I come to the Altar, there to expect yet a more virtuous commemoration? or must I bow at my entrance with less reverence, and then bow more lowly at the Altar afterwards? what must be the several measures of my worship? Thirdly, this worship by way of motive is not agreeable to that of the Jews, for Daniel in his worship remembers that house wherein God was dreadfully 〈◊〉 strangely present, and so directs his posture ●●●●dingly: but the house of God is no motive inst●●ment to him to remember God, and therefore 〈◊〉 relative object, or occasion of his devotion, If 〈◊〉 Papists had the same grounds for their adora●●● as Daniel had, they would worship their Altars 〈◊〉 Images at as great a distance, as Daniel did the J●●ish Temple being a Captive at Babylon. But now as the occasion, so the nature of their worship is far different from the Jewish, and by their 〈◊〉 down before present objects only, it plainly appears, that they make those present things, 〈◊〉 only the occasions of their posture, but even the objects of their adoration itself, I wish therefore our Doctors would not mingle so far with 〈◊〉 as they do, or if they will, yet they would 〈◊〉 speak so upbraidingly of those which fear to 〈◊〉 the like. I will not say they are in the gall oh bitterness, but their invectives witness too 〈◊〉 that the gall of bitterness is in them. 〈…〉 against Satan, though all evil might 〈◊〉 been said, said none; but Satan having nothing justly to object against Michael, yet forbore 〈◊〉 evil. I wish the Doctors hereafter would rather ●●●tate Michael then Satan.  
Impri●●●●Edw : 〈◊〉. 3. July. 1641.  
FINIS.