Selected quad for the lemma: truth_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
|
love to the Jewes in more Majesty and wee hold that a severall entertainment is due accordingly Majesty requires more externall prostration and feare love expects more internall joy and confidence Even in these dayes when we come to the Church of God we ought to make our addresse with all possible humility and zeale but if God should in the Church appeare in fire or any fearfull similitude to us as he did formerly certainely we ought to cleaâ—e to the dust and to inwrap our selves externally in the more confusion and yet God is not the more truly or gratiously present because of that apparition Secondly when God did ocularly appeare amongst the Jewes hee did not at all times and in all places and of all men require the same adoration so that we may suppose that the manner of adoration given was not meerely because God did appeare but brcause God would have his apparition so entertained Moses here did worship but God commanded the manner of his worship and in many other interviewes in Scripture wherin God did grace both Patriarchs and Prophets wee doe not read of any consecration of place or any such distinct adoration as this of Moses either commanded by God or performed by man Certainely Elijah when God passed by him and gave him the beatificall sight of his back-parts fell prostrate upon the ground to humble and debase himselfe before that gratious presence but that he performed any homage or gratefull service to the place it selfe we doe not reade Besides in this case of the blazing bush there was a command and that but temporall and we doe not reade that any holinesse did remain in the bush after the command So also the holinesse of the Mount of the Tabernacle of the Temple as it was created by the command of God so that command had its limits of time by which we may observe in my opinion that the honour was rather politicall then physicall as I may so say without speciall command had not bin due in such a manner or degree But sayes D. Lawrence after an apparition in Luz Jacob anoynted a Pillar built an Altar changed the name of the place from Luz to Bethel Jacob did so and did religiously in doing so but yet if we suppose Jacob had no especiall command to doe so it is not consequent that Jacob had finned if he had not done so Besides Jacob did erect those Monuments of honour not onely in celebration of that ground whereon he was reposed when he beheld the Angels ascending and descending but also of that radiant gate of Heaven which opened it self to him to inebriate his soule with such celestiall beautifull spectacles And lastly Jacob did chuse that place whereon to worship God but this does not imply that Jacob did performe any reverence at all or honour to the place it selfe and so if he had done the like in another place upon another occasion he had done well Thirdly the Jewish honour and reverence in regard of the manner of it was chiefely negative and except in cases of divine worship and civill worship we read of no other The Arke was so holy that it might not be approacht or toucht but with such and such conditions so the bush which Gods presence inflamed it was too holy for too neere accesse aâ—â— the ground about it too pretious to be trod upon with uncleane shooes but who ever read of any bowing or kneeling or positive adoration attributed to the Arke or bush or Temple or any other thing under the Jewish discipline Doctor Lawrence indeed does produce a third kind of worship betwixt divine and civill which he cals reverentiall or religious but he does not fully prove what kind of conditions it had whether it was positive or negative internall or externall or how farre it did extend or how farre it was due to 〈◊〉 relative instruments for Gods sake wherefore if the Doctor means this negative kind of worship which consists in distance and forbearance for reverentiall it is most evident that this kinde of worship was never in use since Christs time as to the rigor of it nor cannot be now introduced without great absurdity and superstition Fourthly the honour and worship of God iâ— not to be weighed in humane ballances and â—s not greater or lesse according to that proportion which we call Arithmetical or Geometricall Moses being in the bosome of God far above the sight of the people is not to be supposed to honour or worship God lesse by his familiarity then the meanest of the peopl wch lay groveling trembling at the feete of God and durst not approach the very outmost and lowest borders of the mountaine Some resemblance wee have of this in Princes Courts for it is not presumption in some favorites to be covered in the Kings presence or to approach the bed-chamber though it be almost capitall in others and yet where Princes are so familiarly honoured they may be sincerely honoured without all saucinesse and such familiarity may stand as compatible with internall humility as the most debafing subjection in 〈◊〉 men So if God doe admit Moses into familiarity into such familiarity as abates of externall prostration and distance and feare yet it is not consequent that Moses is hereby transported beyond the limits of internall awe and zeale and humiliation And if it was so amongst the Jewes themselves in those rigorous times shall it not be so now amongst Christians when Christs iron Scepter is turned to a golden sheep-book in his hand In the Jewish worship there was feare but not without joy in the Christian worship there is joy but not without some feare for as feare was more predominant in them so joy is in us Why is our Saviours raigne over us now called in the Scripture the Kingdome of Heaven Certainely in comparison of that discipline which the Jewes lived under for in comparison of the Jewish which is more earthly our worship now is like that of the triumphant Saints in Heaven where joy is predominant and not feare wherefore it is not rightly objected by Doctor Lawrence when he expostulates thus Shall God loose part of his honour from us by sending his Sonne to us must there be lesse â—â—linesse in the Church where Christ is in truth sacrificed by himselfe then where he was sacrificed in a type or shadow by Aaron in the Temple I answer no God loses no honour the Church loses no holinesse although the rigorous worship of the Jewes which consisted in distance and terror and forbearance be mitigated by the milde sweete and peacefull raign of our Saviour over us we worship with more joy and confidence then Moses did Moses then the Jewes the Saints in Heaven then us yet neither Moses nor we nor the glorified Saints diminish but adde rather to the glory of God and if any men now thinke that the most servile worship is not honourable to God even when they are most over-whelmed with
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