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
testimony of their owne sinfulnesse Howsoever all such oblations whether expiatory or gratulatory were equally Sacrifices though not equally typicall for all expiatory Sacrifices were not bloody onely nor all gratulatory unbloody We read of Cain and Abel before the institution of Aarons Order that the one presented to God his homage in part of his flocke the other in part of his graine the one did sacrifice upon an Altar as well as the other and that Sacrifice which was unbloody was typicall and expiatory as well as that which was bloody and that which was bloody might be graulatory as well as that which was unbloody or at least nothing appeares to the contrary We read also of Noah that he had a distinct notice of cleane and uncleane creatures and did sacrifice accordingly so that the Religion and Priesthood before the Law was not so farre different from that under the Law though pompe and ceremonies and some other accidentall parts were wanting as from ours under the Gospel or at least in matters of Sacrifice it was little or not at all different All Sacrifices also under the Mosaicall Law were not bloody for Incense was offered to God as well as flesh and there was an Altar for Odours as well as for blood and all Sacrifices whatsoever received their value and acceptation from the Passion of Christ as that did purifie them not as they did typifie that for it seemes else that other divine services should not be so valuable and acceptable as Sacrifices not those Sacrifices which were lesse typicall as those which were more and that no Sacrifices at all had beene admitted of by God from such men as did not understand their typicall nature as few did either before or under the Law Besides it does not appeare that the Passion of Christ was a proper reall Sacrifice in fact and therefore it was necessary that it should be prefigured yet no necessity is that it should be prefigured by Sacrifice a parte ante or commemorated by Sacrifice a parte post The death of our Saviour was rather a pious Passion then a divine action or service done to God and though our Saviour did not resist or shunne such a martyrdome wickedly inforced by other yet he was not so active in it as to imbrue his owne hands in his owne blood So that if our Saviours Passion was a Sacrifice it was but a figurative improper mentall Sacrifice in as much as the meritorious sanctity thereof did not consist in the act done but in the innocence patience and excellence of the party suffering We cannot more properly call the death of Christ a Sacrifice then we may the Crosse the Altar or God the Priest and we cannot properly say that God did sacrifice to himselfe upon an Altar of that forme and matter It is a very lame inference therefore that Sacrifice must now be to commemorate Christs Passion past because it was prefigured by Sacrifice being yet to come and because it was it selfe a proper Sacrifice in the act Doctor Heylin sayes once that Christ did not deprive us of all manner of Sacrifices but onely those which had beene before which might if continued have beene a strong presumption of his not comming in the flesh This seemes a weake reason for if our Saviours Passion were a proper Sacrifice it was a bloody one and if there be the same reason of representing it past as there was future by Sacrifice then bloody Sacrifices are no lesse proper now to represent it then they were before and if so why were former Sacrifices abolished at all Surely the best reason why Jewish Sacrifices were abolished is because those services were but shadowes of that body which in our Sacrament is really presented and exhibited If we doe acknowledge that the body of our Saviour is otherwise present in our Sacrament then it was in the Jewish Types we must acknowledge that the shadowes of that body are the lesse needfull for gianting that Jewish Sacrifices and ours differ not in nature but in circumstance as their signifie a thing future ours past I doe not see but that our Sacrament is as meere a shadow as their Sacrifice was and that beasts now slaine might as well commemorate our Saviours death past as they did prefigure it to come The Doctor sayes that the Jewish Sacrifices were bloody ours not that the Jewish Priests were from Aaron ours from Melchisedeck and these he puts as substantiall differences tomake our Sacrament no Jewish Sacrifice But these differences are not sufficient for his purpose because we know that all Jewish Sacrifices were not bloody nor does the order of Melchisedeck hinder from bloody Sacrifices for if Melchisedeck did sacrifice as it is most probable that he did it is as probable that his Sacrifices were not all unbloody So then his other difference also is as fond when he sayes that our Altars are for Evangelicall not Mosaicall offerings in as much as betwixt Evangelicall and Mosaicall offerings he has not yet proved any other difference but nominall or circumstantiall onely of the like reason and weight are the rest of the Doctors inferences for as he has proved yet no true proper Sacrifice so much lesse has hee proved any necessity of either Priest or Altar in a downe-right sense We may grant Sacrifice yet deny both Priest and Altar for we read that the Passeover was called the Lords Sacrifice yet we know it was not killed only by Priests nor eaten upon an Altar though it was the most honourable of Jewish Sacrifices and most neerely relating to the Passion of Christ So also the Passion it selfe of Christ if it was a proper Sacrifice yet it was offered up upon a woodden Crosse not a stone Altar and the Sacrificer thereof was not a Priest wherefore we see plainely that all the Doctors allegations hitherto are frivolous and altogether insufficient We come now from the Old to the New Testament and here Doctor Pocklington and Master Meade lay hold of these words of our Saviour Leave thy gift at the Altar and gâ—e and reconcile thy selfe to thy brother c. These words were spoken by our Saviour whilst the Altar was in use and before the Communion was instituted and may more properly be interpreted of such an Altar as men did repaire to with gifts and offerings then to our Tables where we come rather to receive then give yet our Divines now cite them to patronise the word Altar It would little advance the reality of Altars that they had beene so named once by our Saviour but here so much as the name used is not cleerely proved Doctor Heylin for his next evidence cites 1 Cor. 11. Doe this in remembrance of me c. As often as yee eate this bread and drinke this cup yee shew forth the Lords death till be come Here is sayes Doctor Heylin a Sacrifice whose nature is commemorative here is in this Sacrifice an Hoe facite for Priests different from the Hoc edite
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