Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56149
|
The altar dispute, or, A discovrse concerning the severall innovations of the altar wherein is discussed severall of the chiefe grounds and foundations whereon our altar champions have erected their buildings / by H. P.
|
Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.
|
1642
(1642)
|
Wing P393; ESTC R21276
|
49,491
|
88
|
The Altar Dispute OR A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING THE SEVERALL INNOVATIONS OF THE ALTAR Wherein is discussed severall of the chiefe grounds and foundations whereon our Altar Champions have erected their buildings By H. PARKER Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to eate which serve the Tabernacle LONDON Printed by R. Cotes for Samuel Enderby and are to bee sold at his Shop at the Signe of the Starre in Popes-head-Ally 1641. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE WILLIAM LORD Viscount SAY and Seale Master of his Highnesse Court of Wardes and Liveries and one of his Majesties most Honourable privie Counsell MY LORD THe severall concurrent attempts which were made of late upon the setled doctrine and discipline of our Church begot jealous conceits in mee that either our Religion had been hitherto erroneous or was likely to prove unsure for the future Some blame me thought was due either to former times that they had not beene wise in receding from Rome so far as they had done or to the present for not being sincere in returning so fast back againe To excuse both 〈…〉 secure in points of so great concernment 〈◊〉 and tendernesse of conscience would not permit and to be rash in my censure without search and diligent study seemed unjust and unchristian wherefore that I might purchase to my selfe being thus perplexed just and fayre satisfaction and exâ—ricate my selfe out of the mischieves of stupidity and temerity both I did seriously addict my selfe notwithstanding the dissuasions of my owne particular profession interest and want of 〈…〉 debate ventilate and examine the novelties of the time And verily as to my selfe my indeavours were not long successesse for I did at last perceive that there was more danger in our innovators then depth in our Innovations and as to some others not injudicious I found them concurring with mee in opinion and incouraging mee withall to make my observations more publick My Lord I know none more desirous to diffuse good then your Honour nor scarce any better meane whereby to diffuse it to others then your 〈…〉 wherefore I beseech this as an addition to 〈◊〉 former favours that I may 〈…〉 Honoured Name whereby to make more acceptable to all good men thesepoore indeavours of Your most gratefully devoted servant and Allies-man H. P. Errata Page 8. l. 30. for Lev Min: read Lincolnshire Mr. p. 11. l. 9. for exception r. acception p. 12. l. 9. for opposed r. opposite p. 26. l. 22. for trnd r. round p. 27. l. 13. for instituted r. instructed p. 30. l. 14. for specified r. speciphicall p. 34 l. 12. for portable r. probable l. 14. probable r. portable p. 35. l. 7. for Western r. Eastern p. 37. l. 16. for stranger r. stronger p. 40. l. 1 for po r. posture p. 45 l. 23. for not r. most p. 54. l. 10. read of Peter p 72. l. 5. for supposition r. suppositum p. 74. l. 27. for consecrated r. unconsecrated THE ALTAR DISPVTE OR DISCOVRSE CONCERNING THE SEVERALL INNOVATIONS OF THE ALTAR Of ALTARS A Great Faction of Church-men has of late yeares by many severall innovations attempted to alter our Religion and to new reforme that Reformation of it which was begunne by Edw. 6. and further matured by Queene Eliz. The pretence was that our Ancestors in the Reformation did depart too farre from Popery out of favour to Puritanicall Calvin and so the designe was to have brought in Popery againe but with a muzzle upon it at first as Sir Ben. Ruddlard sayes which muzzell would soone have falne off or beene taken off as is generally conceived Amongst other innovations much care was had of Altars many bookes were printed and set forth by authority in favour of them but no man was suffered to say do or write any thing in answer or prejudice thereof The times are now a little more propitious and that audaciates me beyond my learning or profession to enterprise at this time something for the better clearing of the truth in this case concerning Altars If I faile not for want of learning and judgement I shall not for want of ingenuity and modesty and I wish that our Altar-Patrons had not beene so scurrilous and bitter as they have beene for it seemes to me that the venemous raylings and distempers of men within sacred Orders when they are treating of matters of Religion cast a great disgrace upon the age we are borne in the Countrey we are bred in the Religion we are Baptized in In this Altar-dispute foure things come into question 1 Concerning the reality of Altars 2 Concerning the propriety of the names 3 Concerning the Altar posture 4 Concerning the sanctity of the Altar or its due adoration CHAP. 1. 1 Concerning the reality of Altars AS for the maintaining of reall and proper Altars Doctor Heylin layes these grounds Hee sayes that the Passion of our Saviour as it was prefigured to the Jewes in the legall Sacrifice a parte ante so by Christs Institution it is to be commemorated by us Christians in the holy Supper a parte post A Sacrifice it was in figure a Sacrifice in fact and so by consequence a Sacrifice in the commemoration or upon the post fact He sayes further that if a Sacrifice be there must also be both Priest and Altar Yet he assignes these differences that the former Sacrifices were bloody as this is not that the former Priests were from Aaron ours from Melehisedeck that the former Altars were for Mosaicall ours for Evangelicall Sacrifices To shew the weaknesse of these grounds we answer that the word Sacrifice taken in a generall sense for any sacred office or divine service performed does not inferre any propriety of either Priest or Altar and if we take Sacrifice in that serise as the Patriarchs Jewes or Heathens did or as Papists now doe we grant Priests and Altars are necessarily implied thereby but such a Sacrifice we deny our Communion to be T is true the Passion of our Saviour was prefigured in Sacrifices a parte ante but very darkly and if Cain Abel Noah or Aaron did sacrifice to fore-signifie the death of Christ yet their maine or their meere end was not to make any such type or figure Sacrifices were from the beginning as well before Aaron as after but the knowledg of our Saviors death was obscure under Aaron but much more before the most knowing times under the Law did not expect such a suffering dying Redeemer as God had ordained much lesse did those more cloudy times before the Law The Rock in the Wildernes the Manna and divers other things were typicall yet no Sacrifices and Sacrifices may as well be not typicall and euen those Sacrifices which are typicall are not typicall qua Sacrifices more then Types are Sacrifices qua Types By the very light of nature all Nations did agree in all ages in presenting their God both with free will-offerings in testimony of his goodnesse and with expiatory Sacrifices in
might be communicable without disorder So now it were disorder and the confusion of Corah for a secular man to usurpe the function of a Minister but it is not the same to challenge an equall prerogative in the spirituall empire of our Saviour In the like manner we say of places the sanctity of them is altered not destroyed we say God is now more extensively and universally present by his grace then hee was amongst the Jewes In Judea as to his terrestriall habitation he did confine himselfe within the wals of one Temple but now that of Malachy is verified where the Lord â—aith from the rising of the Sunne unto the going downe of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place Iâ—cense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering Besides as God now inhabits amongst us more universally so also more amiably or else no Lay-men nor Priests but with such and such restraints might make any addresse at all into the Church or Câ—â—â—cell which the Papists themselves doe not maintaine To the Jewes God was more dreadfull as to servants to us he is more milde as to sonnes The Law was delivered with terror and so kept for it was made mortall to approach either the Moune where the Law was delivered or to touch the Arke where it was kept But when our Saviour came into the world to publish his Gospel he tooke not on the habit of a Lord but of a servant and as his entrance so his life and death was and as his soveraignty was acquired so it seemes to be maintained ever since In the like manner wee say also that there is a change of things Many externall rites and customes of reverence which consisted in the rigorous observations of times and in the lotions of their bodies and purity of garments and cleannesse of diet are vanished and yet some equity of these still remaines according to the rules of order and decencie but no further Though these rites were honourable to God and conducing to decencie and the pompe of Religion yet the strictnesse thereof is now relinquished according to the Heb. 3. 10. for there they are called carnall ordinances imposed on the Jewes only untill the time of reformation Wherefore let the Doctor conâ—ider if all the Jewish rites which were requisite to the externall honour of Religion bee not as properly vindicated and maintained by these arguments as the distinct sanctity of places in the Church and yet these no Papist will defend Neverthelesse I doe not speake against all pompe in Religion I onely say that simplicity seemes more sutable with these times of Christianity wherein wee worship such a Saviour as we doe And on the other side it is most apparent that our pompe addes nothing to God for Aaron in all his beauty Solomon in all his Majesty did retribute no more honour to God then Abraham or Isaack in their naked simplicity But it hath beene rather observed that when the Church had woodden Chalices it had golden Priests but God send us golden Priests and golden Chalices both After our Saviours death Saint Stephen and Saint Paul were accused amongst the Jewes for speaking against these Mosaicall distinctions in the Temple and here Doctor Lawrence sayes if the accusation were true it was just I will aske the Doctor this question Was the Temple at that time de jure Jewish or Christian was Moses or Christ to take place in it if he say Christ as he must then why should he thinke Saint Stephen and Saint Paul more unworthy to enter into the most honourable parts of the Temple then any of the Jewish priests It ought not to be presumed that these blessed followers of Christ did generally vilifie the honour of Gods house but their crime was that they did preach against the Mosaicall strictnesse of the limits and divisions of the Temple shewing that all places therein were approachable by the adorâ—â—s of Christ There can be no other charge probable and if the Doctor say that in this they were justly accused he is as wrongfull a judge over them as any of the Jewes whatsoever could be Now we come to Fathers and Antiquity The Primitive Christians sayes Doctor Lawrence distinguished their Oratories into an â—â—rium Sanctum and Sanctum Sanctorum and accordingly put more holinesse in one then in the other having an Altar here answerable to an Arke there and in signe of perpetuity poynted their Churches East looking towards the Temple In this conceit Doctor Laâ—rence goes not alone onely the other Doctors because the changing of the Scene from the Sanctum to the Sanctum Sanctorum from the Altar to the Arke upon the sudden would be too remarkable are more sparing of language But what an argument is this Because the Primitive Christians did build their Churches with some kinds of divisions resembling the Jewish Temple and because they did esteeme one place more holy then another therefore they did esteeme the very Jewish holinesse and distinctions in all things equally in force It should seeme the Altar was advanced to an higher dignity and removed out of the Sanctum to possesse the place of the Arke and the Mercie seate because this alteration suits with the Doctors purpose but in all other things the Jewish honour and holinesse remaines unchanged in our Churches The building of our Churches East also looking towards the Jewish Temple shewes the perpetuity of holinesse and although this be but a particular reason not to be extended to any Churches but such as stand West from Judaea yet for the Doctors benefit it must be taken for universall Neither must we make any use of this Doctors argument to any other purpose although it be as apply able to the Heathen Temples as to ours or the Jewish for they had the same divisions also whereof some were more holy and unaccessible then others But it is apparent that the Jewish sanctity in its strictnesse cannot be attributed to our Quire by our Doctors owne Tenet for he himselfe grants it accessible to Priests and all within Orders and we on the other side in an equitable sense allow it more reverence then other parts of the Church therefore what kinde of honour is it which the Doctor challenges both different from the Jewish and ours also If the Primitive Church stood wholly to the Jewish patterne then they may be produced against the Doctor as well as against us if not how are they produced against us in this point more then against the Doctor himselfe That antiquity did observe a difference betweene common and consecrated ground and also betweene one consecrated place and another and in the fashion of their buildings hold some complyance with Jewes and Gentiles both so farre as the rules of decencie and charity did require certainly it was piously and prudently done That which we say is onely this First we doe not perceive that antiquity did strictly adhere to the Jewish discipline