Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	ancient_a	church_n	see_v	1,231	5	3.8295	3	false

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

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 praye● so but both wayes he makes use of it for his owne posture although we may both wayes as probably thus reto●●● 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 Par●chials a curtaine may hang at the Chancell dore without incumb●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 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 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 pow●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 Edw●●● 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 C●or● 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 find● 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 w●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

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