Heathens nor apostate Christians should know thereof and yet the more sâ—â—ange that this being objected against Christians and not being true that Christians would not justifie themselves against so manifest an untruth Origen answers that the Christians Altar was his understanding and that prayers were his {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 corporeall agreeing with the former that they were mentall only And Cyrill gives not a deny all to Julian Is it not to be wondred at that so many men of severall places and times should all so farre prevaricate and make such fond answers if they could have advantaged their owne cause or satisfied their adversaries by affirming proper Altars and such reall Sacrifices as our Doctors now affirme How easie had it beene and how true how necessary was it to have made this direct answer Persecution suffers not Christians to build such sumptuous Churches and Altars as you doe but we have Altars as proper and would build Temples as stately as you doe if we had power and liberty we deny not al Sacrifices as you erroneously object we deny not true visible externall Sacrifices we deny only Jewish bloody and meerly corporeall Sacrifices so that the force of that objectioÌ„ is against our hard condition not against our worship or Religion But Mr. Mede sayes that these Apologeticall Divines denyed Altars under the Heathen name {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 meere cheaters and triflers not regarding whom they treated withall or the current sense of the words according to common acception but desiring to obscure truth and deinde their opponents this is to bee slighted as a toy Pocklington takes pains to prove Churches out of the Scripture antiquity sayes that those Churches had Altars to which none came without oblations and that with those oblations captives widowes orphans c. were relieved He also insists upon the great names of Thrones and Syndos but his proofes are most of them indefinite both to time place and thing We say that before Constantine few Churches were especially so formally built with Thrones and other divisions as he seemes to intimate and in respect of the vast surface of the earth scarce visible or considerable especially to severall men living in severall places and at severall times such as the Apologeticks were And yet the word Church is taken sometimes for any place where God was publikely worshipt and sometimes for the congregation it selfe of the faithfull named by such a Towne City or Country and in this sense and no other the Church of Rome is said to maintaine in it 1. Bishop 46. Priests 7. Deacons 7. Sub-Deacons 42. Acolythites Exorcists Readers Porters 52. Widowes 1500. Poore It is not meant that any locall materiall Church in Rome during the times of persecution was so rich capacious or stately for this would evince more then a meere toleration of christianity and yet we read not of so much Hospinian for the â—â—ace betwixt Christ and Constantine more reasonably collects that those Altars which were then were neither fixed nor of stone which sufficiently cleeres that they were woodden unfixed Tables not stone and fixed Altars for if Christians during Heathenisme had liberty to build and meete in such formall Churches and had such Synods Thrones Libraries Schooles Gazophylacies as the Doctor labours to prove they could not want power or opportunity to adorne or inrich Altars or to fix them and fashion them as they pleased And thus the ages before Constantine might be defective in Discipline by reason of persecution and we may suspect the ages after for their superstition Constantine was too pompous in Discipline and soone inclined to Arianisme and long deferred his owne Baptisme in his times the foundations of Popish usurpation beganne to be laid Then it was said hodie venenum infusum est Ecclesiae then it was said That there were as many Religions as opinions and opinions as men I ascribe not to antiquity such infallibility as some do and yet many things might fit those times which fit not ours and many things may be misreported misunderstood and mistaken by us in these times wch perhaps were not in such repute of old as we now beleeve Our third reason against materiall and proper Altars is grounded upon the Fathers Eusebius often cals that of Christians an unbloody and reasonable Sacrifice the word Unbloody is used in opposition to corporeall and sensitive things the word Reasonable to reall or vegetative things for if we conceive that Reasonable and Unbloody distinguish from Jewish Sacrifices we must understand notionall or mentall Sacrifices because the Jewish were not all bloody The same Eusebius also sayes that we are appointed to offer daily to God the commemoration of Christs Sacrifice {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Kings deputy is entertained as a King and its an honour to him but Kings are not entertained as deputies that 's derogatory so if this were a Sacrifice it were an undervaluing lessening word to say it were a meere commemoration or instead of a Sacrifice In another place also he cals it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that which is the representation of a proper Sacrifice is not it selfe a proper Sacrifice these things differ in predicament And to put all out of doubt Chrysostome by way of correction for more proprieties sake having call'd it a Sacrifice addes this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to shew 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 expresse great dislike of Altars and did remove and abollsh the same as Popish innovations We will therefore against Doctor Heylin make these two things cleere First that the Reformers were very adverse to Altars Secondly that they were so upon just grounds Constantines times though not so pure as the former yet were farre more pure then those which succeeded for Antichrists entrance is obscure he seemes likes Melchisedeck without pedegree as to some of his mysteries of tyranny He beganne to worke presently after the the infancie of the Church but as to his solemne inthronization at Rome he is much younger then Constantine Tantae mo'is erat Romanam condere gentem It appeares by Saint Ambrose his insulting over Theodosius that the Hierarchy was advanced in good times and that by the blinde zeale of some men otherwise very good Altars had gotten great adoration before St. Ambrose but that adoration was not wholly abused till the installment of Antichrist and then the Sacrament was soone turned into a present propitiatory Sacrifice and
but a slanderous consequent issuing out of his malice not out of our tenet for if the honour of the Sacrament doe not wholly consist in being a Sacrifice or the honour of Sacrifice in the externall worke done there is no more necessity of Altar then Table or that either Altar or Table should be held so essentially honourable to the Sacrament and this may be held by him which holds not all places equall and indifferent for divine services Wherefore as for Saint Cyprians rule Eucharistia in altari consecratur which Doctor Pocklington affirmes to be undenyable we say it must stand with our Saviours example who did administer the Eucharist upon a reall Table but upon an imaginary Altar and so we are not opposed to it but sayes Doctor Heylin further materiall Altars are very antient in the Church which if they were not erected for our Sacrifices certainely they were for Popish and this will prove Popery to be very antient I answer the Doctor has not proved formall stone Altars so antient but if he had he has not proved antiquity free from all error and superstition but we can easily prove the contrary but Doctor Heylin proceeds thus he which teaches that in the Primitive Church there was neither Priest Sacrifice nor Altar properly so called brings in confusion and ruine into the Church takes away all externall worship inables every man to the Priestly function and robs the Church of all due reverence This is a strange inference that I cannot sufficiently honour the Sacrament but under the name of Sacrifice nor Ministers but under the name of Priests nor the Communion-Table but under the name of Altar D. Heylins supposition herein of me must bee more weighty then my own certain knowledge of my self Doctor Pocklington also concurres herein for hee which denyes Altars sayes hee may as well deny Churches and he which denyes Churches may as well deny the Throne of Bishops in the Quire neere the Altar-place and he which denyes Thrones denyes the truth of Christian Religion by a strange dismembred deformed kinde of argumentation he makes Altars as necessary to be beleeved as Thrones of Bishops and Thrones as the succession of Bishops and the succession of Bishops as the rocke and foundation of all Religion Cartwright Ames and those of Geneva and all other Countreys which cannot derive their lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles are Puritanes and Heretiques though they scarce differ from us in any other point of consequence yet in this they are in worse condition then the Papists The Anchor of our Salvation is that my Lord of Canterbury is lineally descended from Saint Peter for no inthronization of Bishops no personall succession and no personall succession no derivation of faith can be from God to c. Were not this written against Puritans or by such as have an authority to prove quidlibet ex quolibet it would deserve laughter and not an answer but now we must be more serious The allegation is that there is the same evidence for Altars as Thrones and therefore since it is most impious to deny Thrones it is the like to deny Altars I wish Thrones had beene better proved for if Thrones doe prove Altars yet men of such ordinary faiths as mine may something scruple Thrones themselves Saint Aug. sayes that Thrones were remaining at Rome and Jerusalem till his dayes from the very Apostles times Saint Augustin might see thrones standing in both places but when they were first raised or by whom or for whom or for what reason he could not understand but by relation and what that relation might be he has not exprest neither doe I thinke that his maine hope of salvation was chained to that relation neither can I chaine mine to the same for my part I am so farre from making Thrones or Altars my soules anchorage that I beleeve neither to be Apostolicall and till the Doctor can better convince me of them I could wish hee would call in his Anathemaes or rather Epigrams against such Atheists as I am but sayes Doctor Pocklington further No Altar no Priest no Priest no Rubrick c. but we say in answer First that the relation betweene Priest and Altar is not inseparable as has beene proved Secondly that the word Priest derived from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} implyes not reall Sacrifice Thirdly if we did reject the word Priest utterly as lesse proper then Minister and lesse fit to be used as Sir Francis Bacon maintaines and as we doe not affect to use it yet we reject not the thing with the name the same Ministry the same sacred order we retaine and honour and hold it as revenerd as either Jew or Papist doe their sacrificing Priest-hood But what consequence is this no Priest no Ordination no Ordination no Rubrick no Rubrick no Law He which opposes the word Priest onely does not oppose the thing and he which opposes not the thing opposes not the Rubrick and he which opposes not the Rubrick opposes not the Parl. establishing it it is sufficient that we oppose neither the thing Priest nor the word except onely in its Popish sense as it intimates reall Sacrifice to us I come now to such proofes as cleere antiquity from meaning of reall proper Altars And first wee read the word Altar sometines in the workes of antient Authors but that is no proofe that Altar was the common terme or word so used in common speech of that there is no proofe or colour at all it is ordinary to use Metaphors in studied discourses and as unusuall to use them in our ordinary language That the word Table was first in common use at the beginning is very credible that it is now wholly disused amongst Papists is evident therefore when we see the change but cannot perceive the certaine time or motion of that change as it happens in the shadow upon the Sun-diall we may well suppose that the mystery of inquity has had its secret operation upon it as upon divers other things We finde secondly in the most antient times that it was a common objection made against Christians by Jewes Pagans and renegado Christians that they had neither Churches Altars nor Images And to this common objection we finde that the greatest Apologetick and most learned Divines of those dayes did all unanimously yeeld that they had no materiall proper Altars nor no other but Metaphoricall onely Clesus objected to Origen that the Christians did avoid to raise {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Caecilius askes Octavius Cur nullas aras habent templa nulla nulla nota simulacra Arnobius sayes to his adversaries Nos accusatis quod nec templa habeamus nec imagines nec aras And Julian who had beene a Christian and knew their worship well enough and lived after the erection of Churches yet sayes to Cyrill offerre in altars sacrificare cavetis 't was strange if any Christian Altars then were that neither
is not as the Altar was to the Jewish Sacrifice for the Jewish Altar did sanctifie the Sacrifice but our Table borrowes its sanctity from the Sacrament We therefore honour the Table as a sacred Utensill but wee attract no honour from it we hold it a diminution to name the Sacrament by the Altar when we may more honourably name it by the body and blood of our Saviour For our Princes sake we bowe to his chair but we denominate not the Prince by his chaire or bowe to the Prince for the chaires sake neither doe we disgrace the word Table or Altar when we denominate not the Sacrament by them but contrary to the Papists we rather name the Sacrament by the body of Christ then by them as we stile Kings rather by Nations then Castles or Villages though they be equally Lords of both The Jewes had Sacraments more honourable in nature then meere Sacrifices and our Sacraments are farre more pretious then the Jewish and therefore the wrods Sacrifice and Altar must needs be lessening words to our Sacrament And were they not lessening words yet for other reasons wee see our Ancestors have disused them and chosen rather to nominate the Sacrament by the body of Christ then to descend to a community of name therein with Jewes Pagans and Papists And we may conceive that if our Ancestors had no respect to future abuse in abolishing the words Sacrifice and Altar yet they might have to former for Altars as they are Jewish are to be deserted as Paganish detested as Popish abhorred The brazen Serpent might have remained as free from abuse after Hezekiahs dayes as it had done before and yet though the sinne night have beene reformed the thing reserved that good King out of indignation as wel as prevention takes it away and defaces it We may read further of this Exod. 23. 13. For the same reason the Greek Fathers would not use the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nor the Latins aru but Altare because they would avoid community with Heathens though there was no sinne in the bare words And this kinde of detestation is commended as pious by Sir Francis Bacon even against words in themselves offencelesse where better choyce may be had and where great abuse has beene offered To conclude then if words may bee prophaned and made unchristian meerely by comming into the mouths of Pagans c. Surely much more impurity and offence is likely to stick upon the things themselves but in things abused by Papists wherein we ought to to elongue our selves from them I thinke we ought not to look upon them as the Primitive Christians did the Jewes but as the Jewes did Heathens For the Jewish Religion had beene true and was rather altered then abolisht and that in accidents rather then in substance and so we must not hold of the Popish schisme And it may be conceived that our Ancestors in the reformation did shun correspondence and conformity with Papists in some things and words otherwise indifferent not onely for conscience sake but also out of policie for my opinion is that our approaching towards Popery in some of their rites and traditions does the more obdurate Papists and make our cause seeme a weake and warping cause But this is a sic videtur onely Iobtrude it upon no man it may be the good worke which the piety of these warping times seemes so willing to incline to is more visible to Doctor Heylin then it is to me CHAP. III. Concerning the Altar posture AS for the posture of the Altar or Table it is not of it selfe of much consequence but our Innovators are now very strict in urging it upon us and that onely for innovations sake Doctor Pocklington in favour of this Posture takes great paines to prove that Christianity for the first two hundred yeeres was not so oppressed and persecuted but that Churches and Altars might have beene but 〈◊〉 those Heathen Emperours did not extirpate Religion this is no proofe that they did protect it and if they were some way indulgent to the persons of Christians this is no proofe that they were not adverse to the Religion of Christians we will rather admit with Platina that the Christians had no Churches for 150. yeares but onely Sacâ—â—â— abdita plerunque subterranea and though under Pius the first some meane Churches were yet under Dioclesian they were demolisht againe and therfore it is most portable as he sayes that during those times of uncertainty and calamity Altars were unfixt and probable or according to Strabo placed ad diversas plagas propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem and Gâ— Biel mentions a woodden Altar at which the Popes did officiate and it was removed from place to place Vbicâ—nque Romanâ—s Episcopus latuerit These descriptions agree rather with a Table then an Altar and rather with our 〈◊〉 thereof then theirs but it is a wonder since the Doctors would faine prove such toleration of Religion that Churches and Altars might have beene before Constantine that they make no proofe at all that any were but even since Constantines time Altar posture is but poorely maintained Doctor Heylin for his first proofe alleadges that the Primitive Christians prayed towards the East and that the reason thereof was because the Table was placâ—â— at the East end of the Church And sayes he if the Table was placed East-ward then doubtlesse in the most eminent part of the East that no man might have place beyond it for any man standing beyond the Table must either not pray towards the East or not towards the Table Be it granted that the Antient Christians had a custome to pray {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and that because our Sauiour hung upon the Crosse with his face West-ward as both may be questioned yet this we receive onely from writers which lived West from Judea where our Saviour was crucified and this justifies it not in the Westerne parts of Christendome and if it does yet what followes does the reason of this maintaine the Altar posture So is it therefore a sinne to take the wall of the Altar when we pray or if thiâ— be a sinne can it be no wayes avoided but by the Altar posture Amongst the Jewes the West was most honourable and yet the Arke was not so fixed to the West wall of the Oracle that the Cherubins might not stand betweene and therefore honour is not alwayes rigorously and superstitiously to be applyed Besides if our Saviours posture on the Crosse be the rule of our posture in our devâ—â—ions this rule extrudâ— not to all Christians but onely to such as lie West from Judea for those which lie East by the same rule if they will not turne their backs to our Saviour ought to turne their faces to the West but why should any certaine postures bee held so necessary when all nations cannot agree in the same
for the same reason Whatsoever was formerly by some imagin'd we know that the East is named so from the rising of the Sunne and wee know the Sunne has neither rising not setting but comparative and so America is as properly East as China for if America lie West to us yet it lies East to China which lies East to us The Doctor tels as not certainely whether the Antients prayed East-ward because their Churches were so built or whether they built so because they prayeâ— so but both wayes he makes use of it for his owne posture although we may both wayes as probably thus retoâ—â—â— to the contrary If the Christians prayed Eastward onely because their Churches were so built then they held that posture of praying in it selfe indifferent and if they built so because they prayed so then they held the posture for building so to be indifferent and sure the proofe is very weake that the Primitives did put any vertue in all places of the world either in building or in praying Eastward since it is most apparent that private dwellings and Pagan Temples and Jewish Synagogues were at first converted into Churches and some new erections were not contrived in this Eastern posture For his second proofe the Doctor sayes that antiently according to Bishop Juell the Quire or Chancell was drawne with curtaines and this would be very unsightly he sayes if the Table should stand in the middle 〈◊〉 farre from the wall The Doctor here makes no difference betweene a Cathedrall and Parochiall Church for in Parâ—chials a curtaine may hang at the Chancell dore without incumbâ—ance and in Cathedrals it may be drawne in the middest of the Quire without any inconvenience though the Table stand not neere the wall In our Cathedrals the Quires are now so spatious that a third part of them may bee assigned to the {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 Pauls London the Altar wall were againe removed as it was in Ridleys time the Altar would be seene standing in the very middle of the Quire For his third proofe the Doctor cites the Altar in the Church of Antioch which not standing to the East is storied to have differed in posture from all other Churches If it be granted that all Churches in the West parts from Antioch nay all of the whole world had Altars standing towards the East this proves not that they touched the East wall and stood side wayes The Doctors fourth proofe is from the divisions in Churches for first occurred hee sayes the seates of the Presbyters and then above them the Episcopall throne and above all the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This is spoken onely of Cathedrals and in Cathedrals we see the same division still yet see withall that betwixt the Bishops throne and the Altar wall there is a great distance so that the Altar is not necessarily driven close to the wall The Doctors last and maine proofe is from the custome of Papists who since they retaine the old fashion of their buildings are not likely to innovate in the fashion of their Altars This proofe is no stranger for Altar posture then for the multitude of Pillar-Altars Chappell-Altars and Requiem-Altars and for a thousand other superstitions and yet we answer more over that it was not so easie for the Papists to alter in the fashion of Churches as Altars and therefore this is a very non-concludent argument I have now answered Doctor Heylin and I might proceed to confute him also but that is done to my hand by a Lin Minister in a booke called the Holy Table name and thing and hither I shall referre all that are unsatisfied in this point I shall note only of that learned Author that he puts his examples of the chiefest metropolies of Europe and Asia and in Rome it selfe his first instance is in the Catacombe the most antient and reverent Church there wherein Saint Paul and Peter first were buried and where none might officiate but the Pope yet even this Church was not canonicall in this Easterne Altar posture His next instance is in Saint Peters there the holy mother Church of the world for 〈◊〉 there that most reverent Altar which stood over the translated bâ—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 theâ— those of his foure Tables so pretious and richly adorned and inscribed round about which were dedicated at Constantinople Rome and S. Dennis If Altars were onely in use why was such incredible cost powâ—ed out upon Tables If the Altar posture was onely in use why were those Tables round about on 〈◊〉 side inscribed when the inscription had beene 〈◊〉 in part obliterated I come now to this later age and to our owne Nation In the time of Edwâ—â—â— we finde that Altars were taken downe that Hooker preached against them that Ridley tooke away the Altar wall in Pauls to destroy the posture of them that Bucer complained in Câ—orâ— tantum sacra representari And when at first things were not fully setled when the old posture was rejected and not any new one instead therof constantly 〈…〉 we find Huggaid deriding that incertainty and wee findâ— King Edwards second Liturgy ending that doubt by appointing the North side of the Table for the place whereat to officiate In the time of Queene Eliz. we finde an injunction to place the Table where the Altar stood saving when the Communion is to be administred and other things referred to the appointment of visitors And in the third of Queene Eliz the visitors set forth their order that the steps in the Chancell shall be decently 〈◊〉 and that there the Communion Table shall stand out of the time of receiving and we know no reason wâ—y they which indured not the forme of an Altar should indure the posture or why they which liked not that posture in time of receiving should like it at other times or why they should call that the North side which our Doctors now will needs understand the North end of the Table Lastly 〈◊〉 sanctorum be interpres praeoeptorum we must beleeve that the Altar posture had not beene so generally used in all Parochials in the whole Kingdome ever since the reformation and no care thereof taken by authority if it had beene irregular But the Doctor sayes that the Altar posture is retained in the Kings Chappell and in Cathedrals and that they ought to give Law and not to receive it from Parochials For answer we say that Chappels and Cathedrals have their own peculiar Statutes may differ sometimes from themselves therein and from Parochials but Parochials are all governed by the publike Canons besides we see there is a great difference in the very fabrick between Cathedrals Chappels and Parochials and therefore in Parochials
this doctrine then their adversaries doe or else I wish they did not more advance this doctrine then those which they call the seditious Corahs of the time But if the Doctors are so well wishing to temporall rulers how is it that they all alleadge the example of Ambrose and Theodosius so often without any kinde of detestation or dislike nay seeming rather to justifie and applaud it and how is it that they speake so pleasingly of Numerianus Numerianus sonne to Carus the Emperour comming into the Church at Antioch and desiring to behold their mysteries quasi per transennam peeping it is likely through the rayles or lattice dores of the Quire he was presently rebuked by Babylas for that attempt but this heinous prophanation was committed but by the sonne of an Emperour and so Babylas might be the more bold in his rebuke therefore let us rather see how Theodosius was used at Millaine Theodosius a penitent Emperour having beene long prohibited the Church and at last â—â—â—ceived againe and permitted to communicate yet he was thought unworthy after his offring made 〈◊〉 have any abode granted him within the bounds of the Quire It was not sufficient that he was an â—â—perour and a Christian Emperour and a 〈◊〉 Christian Emperour it was not sufficient that iâ—Constantinople and his Easterne dominions his 〈◊〉 was within the Quire but at the proud check of a Bishop of Millaine sent by one of the Deacons he must depart that sacred place This story the Doctors do all severally produce either once or 〈…〉 if it were not dishonourable to all Princes to have it mentioned at all or rather impious or ungâ—â—tious in all Priests to suffer the mention thereof 〈◊〉 passe uncensured from their lipps Here is a cleare authority cited againe and againe with the weight of Saint Ambrose his name to abet it that by the rules of approved antiquity the persons of Princes were not worthy to approach that part of the Church where the Altar was placed and where the Priestâ— and Deacons did officiate And if Saint Ambrose would so extrude an annoynted Emperour at Millâ—ine what would the Pope himselfe have done at Rome if such a pious Bishop would be so insolent and distoyall what would the Bishop of all Bishops have done The Doctors do not openly declare themselves in favour of this act of Saint Ambrose because I thinke it needs not for their opinion in sufficiently evident of itselfe and if they did not discover their consent by silence yet their scope in this whole busines would make it manifest For by what Law did Saint Ambrose confine the Emperour to the body of the Church it was not by the Law of God nor of the Emperour for it should seeme the Emperour had a contrary Law in his Easterne dominions it must needs be by this Altar Law and this only If the Levites table be so much dignified and hallowed meerly by bearing the body of our Saviour then certainly the Priest which conâ—ecrates the same and is more nobly and intelligently active in the celebration of the Sacrament must needs acquire much more dignity and holinesse and if so then Priests must needs be more excellent then Princes then whom the table is more excellent This must needs bee that which did convince Theodosius and this if it be yeelded to will still convince and confound and degrade all Christian Princes whatsoever for this is one of the most powerfull intoxications that the Inchantresse of Rome mingles for the princes of the earth The foundations of the Popish Hierarchy are not yet quite razed in many mens minds The Scripture is cleere that as Priests are dedicated to God and admitted to a nearenesse in holy affaires to serve and officiate at Gods Aâ—tar and doe thereby gaine a sanctity above meere Lay-men so also that Princes are sacred in a higher degree in that they are anoynted by God to feede governe and protect both Priests and Lay-men and to represent God himselfe in his power and majesty and to have nearest accesse in things of the highest and holyest nature Aarâ—n though the first and greatest of his order receives his solemne consecration from the hands of him which weilds the scepter and when the Law is to bee delivered the scepter-bearer is to bee admitted into the presence of God and higher to bee promoted in the dreadfull majesticall cloud then any of the house of Levi nay his next subordinate attendant obtaines a higher station in the smoaking Mountaine then any of the Priests Also when the Tabernacle and the Arke is to be framed and when the Temple is to be erected the modells are prescribed and committed to the charge of the Prince and when all is finished the Princes blessing and prayer presents the same as dedicated and separated to Gods service And in all the offices of Religion the Priests serve in the outward action but the Lawgiver superintends over the Priests in that service and when any great difficulty requires God is to bee consulted and approached at the command of the supreme Ruler so that the good or ill state of Religion depends chiefly upon the good or ill government of Gods immediate Lievetenant And thus Aaron is but as a mouth to Moses in some things but Moses is as a God to Aaron in all things and though Moses may not officiate at the Altar meerly out of contempt to Aaron and his function or out of enmity to all order and relation yet he may move uncontrolled in his own superiour first moving sphere It is a poore shift of our Doctors to pretend that Moses was within sacerdotall orders and to cite the 99. Psalme where it is sayd Moses and Aaron among the Priests for Moses had not Ecclesiasticall power because he was of Ecclesiasticall Order but he may therefore â—ee reckoned amongst men of Ecclesiasticall Order because he had more then Ecclesiasticall power What Moses had in the government of the Church over Church-men themselves the same David had and Solomon had and all the successors of David and Solomon ought to have Till the world was inslaved to Church-men under the pretence of Church policie the care of Temporall and Spirituall affaires was not divided neither was the one which is the basest given to the Magistrate and the most excellent attributed to the Priest as if the Prince was the body and the Priest the Soule of the State Miserable were wee sayes Doctor Pockington he meanes in poynt of Religion if my Lord of Canterbury could not derive his lineal succession from Saint Peter but I thinke if this bee all our stay wee are now most miserable for our Religion is the same as theirs is in Geneva and theirs in Scotland and theirs in the Netherlands and in the North parts of Germany where no Bishops are and if they are miserable wee cannot be happy Had wee beene Hereticks if in the reformation none of the Romish Clergy had had hand in our reformation if Cranmer