Selected quad for the lemma: saint_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
|
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
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