A DISCOURSE Concerning the WORSHIP of GOD Towards the Holy Table OR ALTAR LONDON Printed by J.G. to be sold by James Good Bookseller in Oxon 1682. A Treatise shewing That the Adoration or Worship of God in his House towards the H. Table or Altar is neither Idolatry Superstition or Will-worship but on the contrary agreeable to the Scriptures and warranted by the Practice of the Saints in all Ages THey that go about to evince a Truth To remove prejudice and to demonstrate unto the apprehensions of such as have strongly opposed it before as an error will find it a hard task yea altogether impossible unless he can first perswade them to dispossess themselves of one Principle which is usually deeply rooted in the hearts of such as are already prejudiced with an ill opinion of this Doctrine to be evinced That is because they would not be thought to be so Impotent in Judgment as so long to have believed and maintained an Error or out of a self-conceit and opinion of their own infallibility that whatsoever they have once held must needs be Truth resolve absolutely and unmovedly to defend it never considering the connexion between the premisses and conclusion of their Adversaries Arguments or rather what agreement the whole Argument hath with the conclusion which they have formerly hardened themselves to defend unalterably therefore I intreat the Reader that he will for the time at least make himself a Third Person and degage himself from both Opinions as if he were Ignorant of both that so he may be a free and impartial Judge not weighing how my Arguments comply with his private perswasion but what necessary connexion there is between my Arguments and the Cause or Conclusion I have undertaken to prove The Order in handling whereof I will observe this Order 1. I will explain the Question and state it 2. I will prove it 3. I will clear it from all Objections and Aspersions But first Obj. from the word Altar I will remove one Objection against the word Altar What have we to do with Altars If Altars we must have Priests and Sacrifices too for these are Correlates and so we shall have Judaism up again Resp I grant the Antecedent Resp It doth not infer Judaism but deny the Consequent An Altar a Priesthood a Sacrifice I grant that this will infer Judaism I deny For those Altars Priests and Sacrifices were but Typical shadows of the true ones and therefore not so properly called but in reference to the true ones otherwise Christs offering himself was not a true and Real Sacrifice nor he a true and Real Priest nor his Cross a true and real Altar but this to be false is apparent by Scripture Hebr. 7. The Apostle makes a distinction of a double Priesthood one Typical the other Real that after the Order of Aaron this after the Order of Melchisedeck that to be abolished this to remain for ever that had no perfection this had of this Order was our Saviour a Priest so called for this very reason because he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin so Corinth the 9th and 10th he plainly disparageth the Sacrifices of the Law and makes our Saviours the only true and proper Sacrifice Therefore I invert the Argument thus we have an Altar a Sacrifice and Priesthood Ergo we abolish the Jewish Ceremonies for they were not such properly but typically these are so truly as being the substance of those Shadows Communion Service Besides our Church in the Prayer immediatlye before the Consecration calls our Saviours suffering on the Cross a full 1 Cor. 5.7 perfect and sufficient Sacrifice And 1 Cor. 5. Christ our Passover is Sacrificed c. For he indeed is the true Paschal Lamb of which the other was but the Type therefore the Church also calleth that Feast still and ever did Festum Paschatis and not the Feast of the Resurrection Pet. 2.5 Again Alms and Prayers and Praises are Sacrifices Hebr. 13.16 Prayers Psalm 141.2 They are called the Calves of our Lips And what more frequent than the Sacrifice of Praise These are called Spirituall Sacrifices in which respect we are called an Holy Priesthood This I speak to vindicate the word that it might not seem so odious which the Holy-Ghost himself still useth in the New Testament Obj. I grant that there are Spiritual Sacrifices and Priests and Altars viz. the Altars of Hearts but what is all this to the Communion Table Or though we allow Christ to be a Priest and his offering himself a true Sacrifice and the Cross a true Altar yet why should the Communion Table the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the Ministers of the Gospel be called by these Names By what I have before proved Resp it appears that these words do not necessarily infer Judaism but the contrary and so that part of the objection is satisfied To the other Quaeri what reason we have to call the Holy Table an Altar Ministers Priests Sacraments fitly called a Sacifice the Sacrament a Sacrifice I answer they are so and so called in Scripture and Ancient Fathers and all Churches to this time until some Mushroom Novil Puritans sprang up that out of Ignorance and blind Zeal would have suppressed them That they are so I prove thus If the Sacrifices of the Law and Paschal Lamb were such and so called by reason of the reference they had to the true Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross not yet exhibited then may the Sacramental Commemoration of this Sacrifice already exhibited be much more fitly so called The force of this Argument stands thus If the Shadow may be called by the name of the Antitype then much more may the true real and lively Commemoration of the thing it self already in act Now Sacrifices were but so called because they were Shadows the Sacrament is a true real exhibition and lively Commemoration of the Sacrifice it self and that by vertue of Christ's own words Do this as oft as you do it in remembrance of me Do this do what This ye have seen me do What 's that He took Bread gave Thanks brake it said this is my Body Take Eat He took Wine poured it out said drink ye all of this this is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins c. Mark it what was the breaking of his Body in the Bread the pouring out of his Blood in the Wine was it not a Sacrifice sure it was for it was for the Remission of Sins Now no Remission without Blood no Blood without a Sacrifice so the Apostle argueth to the Hebrews Again he saith not which shall be but which is broken and poured out as already done when as yet he was not Crucified which argues that this Sacrament was instituted in memory of Christ's Sacrifice already done though instituted before it was done Again do this in remembrance of me Sacrificed for you of me broken for you
those Antients that a place consecrated to God did hallow the whole Country and that the Land was unhallowed where there was no place set apart unto God Josh 22.19 Witness the story of the Altar built by Gad and Reuben and the half Tribe upon the Banks of Jordan which Joshuah supposed they had built for this cause least the Lord of their possession being cut off from Canaan where the Lord's Tabernacle was by the River Jordan so having no place consecrated therein to the Worship of their God might be an unclean and unhallowed Habitation For so saith Phineas and the Princes of the other Tribes sent to diswade them If the Land of your Possession be unclean c. 2. God would have such places to be reverenced And therefore to shew he hath as much care of the place of his Worship as of the time being both equally Holy Levit. 19.30 he enjoyns them both together ye shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuaries It remains that I prove places under the Gospel dedicated to God to be likewise Holy That such places under the Gospel are Holy proved though not with such legal Holiness and observations whereby the Temple of the Jews was hallowed yet with such Holiness as they might not be any ways prophaned or diverted to common uses This I prove by our Saviours scourging out the Prophaners of the Temple which that you may not think far fetched and from my purpose consider 1. What part of the Temple this was 2. The reasons why he did so 3. The time when 1. What part of the Temple our Saviour cleansed It was neither the Inner-Temple where the Priests alone came nor the middle where the Jews and Circumcised Proselites were permitted to bend but the outward which was common to all Nations that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Parkers defence agriast J. O. p. 154. Worshippers of the God of Israel though they did not tye themselves to legal observances This third the Jews scarce accounted sacred the other two they did and were so strict that no uncircumcised person might enter into it even at this time when our Saviour exercised his Authority And in this Court did they usually sell their Sheep and Oxen at the Feast of the Passover to such as came far off to Sacrifice and could not conveniently bring them with them You see our Saviour vindicates the prophanation of this outmost Temple And this is farther manifest by the place of Scripture quoted by our Saviour which otherwise would be impertinent My house shall be called a house of Prayer for all Nations but ye have made it a den of Thieves Now no part of this house was a house of Prayer for the Priests and Jews This then was the Gentiles Oratory 2. 2 The Reasons Why did our Saviour cleanse this Not because it was a place of Legal Worship or Service for so it was not but because 1. It was a place dedicated to God it was his house 2. Because it was a place destined to Prayer a Holy and Religious Act. 3. Consider the time The times or rather times that our Saviour did this It was not only once but twice The first time he went up to the Passover when he began his Prophetical Office and the second time he went up to the Passover to finish that and to enter upon his Priestly Office and to put an end to Jewish Ceremonies How unseasonable had it been to vindicate the violation of Typical and Legal Sanctity which within few days after he was utterly to abolish by his Cross unless he meant to leave his Church a lasting Lesson what reverence and Respect he would have accounted due to such places as this was which he thus vindicated For we find not in all the Gospel any other example of vindictive Authority used by our Saviour but only this in freeing his Fathers house from Prophanation 2. But if this Argument be not sufficient add here to what the Apostle saith He that defileth the Temple of God him will God destroy He speaks indeed of the Bodies of Christians which are Temples of the Holy Ghost or should be But the reason holds as well for other Material Temples as well as their Bodies which are so called Metaphorcally For why will God destroy him that prophanes the Temple of his Body Why but because God hath made it and Consecrated it to his own Use and Service 't is Gods Temple If this be the reason then it will hold for Churches likewise for they are given and set apart for God and for his alone use They are his not ours and therefore to esteem them as common is to provoke God to destroy us for such our Sacrilegious Prophanation Lastly The Apostle where he forbids those things to be done in the Church which may be done in private houses as for women to speak to be uncovered men to be covered as also to eat there their ordinary viands and to do other such common Actions what doth he therein but argue the Sanctity of them and their separation from Prophane and Common uses If you ask when this Sanctity or Holiness doth first begin to separate such places from common uses 2 When this Holiness begins I answer at what time they are at first dedicated For from that time they stand in relation to God This may appear from the story of Ananias and Saphyra who for purloyning part of that which they had only in their hearts vowed unto God were convicted of Sacriledge and for example struck dead immediately If you ask how long this Holiness lasts upon them 3 How long it lasts I answer so long as the Relation which makes them Holy remains upon them that is till God shall give up his Interest and Right in them Not only while Divine Duties are exercised therein but so long as the place is in order to such Holy use As a Priest doth not lose his Relative Holiness in regard of his Function after he is come out of the Church and there executed his Office so neither doth the Church For a Priest is even as Holy when he is out of the Church and hath finished his Ministery as when he is in the execution thereof And this to have been the Nature of all other Sacred things to retain their Sanctity as long as the Relation they have to God remained on them I shall prove hereafter Having spoken of the Lawfulness of outward Worship in God's House I proceed to shew the Lawfulness of specifying or determining this outward Worship towards some place therein more than others Secondly I will prove the Lawfulness of determining our Worship towards this place viz. the Altar or Holy Table The Lawfulness of both I will prove two ways 1. Negatively by proving them to be neither Idolatrous Worship nor Superstition nor Will-Worship 2. Affirmatively by proving this Specification of our Worship to be consonant to God's Word and
to the approved Practise of the Saints in all Ages First 1 It is lawful to determine our Worship towards some place It is lawful to specify or determine our Worship of God in his house to some place 1. Because it is necessary man should tender his Worship towards some place in special it being a bodily Act and he must look and bow one way either to the right or left to the upper or lower end unless he will turn round as he Worships or look nine ways at once that he might not be thought to adore the place he bows toward Secondly And to one place rather than another which is no Idolatry As our Worship must be done towards some place in special so it is lawful to do it towards one place rather than another 1. There is no Idolatry in it for unless we make the place the object of our Worship some ways it is no Worship of an Idol But we tender none of our Worship to the place You may as well say we cannot look up to Heaven when we say our Prayers but we must Worship the Heavens Besides if to Worship God towards one place rather than another be Idolatry then Daniel when he Worshipped God toword the Temple and the Jews when they worshipped toward the Altar and Ark committed Idolatry For if they could not Worship God toward one place more than nother but they must Worship the place Certainly ' God who is Jealous of his Glory in point of Idolatry would never have commanded or permitted it What was then no Idolatry cannot be now for Idolatry is the same thing now and then and the second commandment did alike concern them and us And as there is no Idolatry No superstition so there is no superstition in it For we no ways circumscribe God's Immensity or omni presence or confine it to a place hereby no more than Solomon did when he built a Temple for him or God himself did circumscribe himself when he commanded a Tabernacle to be set up for him to dwell in Neither was it in his heart that men hereby should have such a conceit of him as if he could be limited or contained in any place Nor indeed had they any such conceipt for saith Solomon The Heaven of Heavens is not able to contain thee how much less the house that I have built Now if we do not imagine that God cannot be confined to any Church why should any dream that we confine him to some place in the Church more than another Do you think God is confined in the Church when you go out of your Houses thither to worship him would you think well of them that should so judge of you Why should you then judge of us that we tye God to one place in the Church because we worship him toward one place rather than another Nor that it is Will-worship Nor Will worship I shall prove by shewing it consonant to God's word which thus I do That which is decent and orderly But Consonant to Gods word is not only Consonant to but Commanded by Scripture But to Specify our worship to one place is Decent and Orderly Ergo. If the promiscuous and in different Worship of God towards any place left to every ones discretion be indecent and disorderly and a confusion then the determining of it to one place is Orderly and Decent But c. Ergo. For tell me is there any Order where there is not Conformity and Uniformity Is there any Conformity or Uniformity that when Men come into the Church one should bow towards the Font another toward the Pulpit a third towards the Table a fourth towards the Windows one one way and another another Surely this is not Conformity or Uniformity and therefore not Decency and therefore a breach of the Apostles command and a disorderly Service of the God of Order If any think this various worship Orderly I ask whether he thinks it would be orderly for one to come into the Church creeping another going another reeling another dancing one Covered another bare If not Order in this neither in the other for the Ground of Order is Uniformity but there is no more Uniformity in such Worship than in such coming into the Church 2 It is Lawful to determine our worship toward the Altar or Holy Table Lawful to Adore towardsâ— the Altar proved Negâ—tively That it is neither Idolatry nor Superstition is apparent by what I said before for we neither tender any worship to the Table nor Circumscribe Gods presence there When a man pulls off his Hat at his coming into the Church he may as well be said to adore the Stones or Walls and to Confine Gods presence there for he doth not come into his own House in that manner And that it is not will-worship Affirmatively Rom. 12.1 I prove because it is agreeable to the analogy of Faith that requires our worship or service should be reasonable and such is this For if we adore Necessity enforceth us to bow to some place Decency requires to bow to one place and Reason would that place should be the that fittest place One place in the Church is more Holy then another Now the fitness of this place is to be judged by the Dignity and Excellency of it and that is to be measured by the Degree of Relation it hath to God and the Highness of the use whereunto it is appointed Now what part of all the Church or what thing in the Church hath so near a Relation to God as the Holy Table or what is appointed for so high and Holy an Use as that That which hath a nearer relation to God a higher use than other things must needs participate of more External Sanctity and Dignity than other things Else you may say the Belfry is as Holy as the Pulpit or Communion Table The H. Table more Holy then the rest and as excellent But the H. Table hath nearer relation unto God is destined to an higher use than any other thing in the Church Ergo it is more Holy excellent consequently the fittest place to tender our Devotions toward There is nothing likely to stand in competition with it Than the Pulpit but the Pulpit or the Font but neither of these have so near a Relation or so high an use First the Pulpits dignity proceeds from the Word of God therein read or preached but Gods Spirit hath not made so near a Union between the word it self as the Son of God hath done at the Sacrcement celebrated on the Altar As for the Font True it is Then the Fonâ— the Scripture calls it the Laver fo Regeneration the New-birth and that by the washing thereof we receive remission of Sins Baptisme the Analogy of it But the Analogy of that Sacrament is only thus that as in our first birth when we come out of our Mothers Womb we are