Invocate and give thanks to his Father in the New-Testament are they not External Ceremonies and Services Did not the Apostles and the whole Church then and the whole Church after them supplicate God the Father by this Rite They continued breaking of Bread i. e. in the use of the Holy Sacrament and Prayers And Therefore in the Primitive Church they used to say all the Service at the Altar to Signify that they sent up their prayers in the Name of him whose Sacrifice the Ground of all attonement and Intercession was in that place Exhibited and Commemorated yet it seems very Novel to us to have part of our Service read there But least you might say the meaning is not that God will have no External Service but he will be worshipped by no External Gestures or Postures I say this also contradicts our Saviours Practise who himself lifted up his Sacred Eyes to Heaven when helprayed for Lazarus fell on his Face when he Prayed in his Agony c. What was Imposition of hands but an External gesture when God was invoked by way of benediction besides I see no reason why in the point of Evangelical worship Gesture should be more excepted against than Voice Is not Confessing Praying Praising an External Bodily worship as well as that of Gesture why then should the one derogate from the worship of the Father in Spirit and Truth and not the other In a word there never was yet in the World any Society of men that worshipped the Father in such a manner as this interpretation doth emply and therefore this cannot be the meaning Our Saviour intends here to reprehend the Idolatrous worship of the Samaritans The true sence who worshpped they knew not what Viz. God under the Representation of a Dove as the Israelites in Jeroboams time and long after under the similitude of a Calfe The Samaritans Idol This was the Object of the Samaritans worship as appears out of the writings of the Jewish Rabbies This was their Idolatry they worshipped God in a Bodily shape and the reason which our Saviour gives seems to emply this For God saith he is a Spirit i. e. he hath no body nor is he such therefore he must be worshipped as a Spirit for so indeed he is and not by any bodily Representatation So that the sense here is this The hour cometh and now is that the true worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit that is conceiving of him no otherwise than in Spirit and in Truth that is not under any Corporal or Visible shape for those that Worship under any Corporal similitude do indeed belye him For the Apostle saith of such as changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to Corruptible man Rom. 1. they changed the truth of God into a lye Hence Idols also are called Lyes Amos. 6.4 Some interpret these words the true worshippers shall worship God in Spirit that is no longer by Jewish Ceremonies but in and by Christ who is the substance of those shadows This sence though it be true and plausible yet it is not congruous to our Saviours reason For God saith he is a Spirit and must be c. If this be the reason then God should never have been worshipped with Jewish Ceremonies and Rites for God was a Spirit from the beginning and manifested himself so to be even to the Jews who Worshipped him with Rites and Ceremonies Therefore I adhere to my first sense Thus your main Fort is blown up The Second Objection drawn from Goos Protestation against Sacrifices Michel 6.6 7 8. Hos 6.6 Isaiah 1. Psalm 51. with the Answer Vid. In a word Religion as man hath both a Body and Soul the Soul of our Service is the Service of our Soul but the Body of that Soul is the Service of our Body one must inform the other and both make a compleat man of God For as the Body without the Soul is dead so the Soul without the Body is imperfect God loves no maimed Sacrifice God calls for the Heart because he knows it commands the whole Man and therefore if he have the Heart at his devotion he is sure of the Body also Obj. Suppose all this God is to be adored outwardly as well as inward ly Yet this manner of Adoration is Dangerous and may become many ways Evil. For 1. It is Scandalous to weak brethren who hereat are offended 2. It may be an occasion to some Ignorant Ones to Commit Idolatry by Adoring the very Table 3. It is a fair Introduction to Popish Superstition 1. Every Scandal or offence taken is not a Scandal given Therefore that is properly called Scandalous which in its own nature tends to give offence not that which through willfulness or blindness may by accident become such Resp Resp Was not Christ himself a Scandal and Rock of offence to the Jews a Stumbling-block to the Greeks foolishness was not his Cross a Scandal should not therefore Christ have come and been Crucified because this proved an occasion of Scandal but who are these weak Ones and how is this an offence For the weak Ones Who are the weak they are such as usually think themselves strongly grounded in the Faith and able to confute this Worship we here maintain Such as though they be Women and Weavers think they can teach twenty of us thred-bare Schollers for all our Learning These are the weak Ones forsooth weak I confess in their knowledge for they are blind and therefore the bolder but in their own conceipt strong enough But how are these offended Why are they offended Are they drawn to imitate us in our Worship waveringly and doubtingly not knowing through the weakness of their Judgment whether they sin or no Scandal but relying on the knowledge and conscience of him whom they imitate thereby ensnare their consciences in sin This is properly a Scandal 1 Cor. 8. as the Apostle shews expresly were he makes that a Scandal given when in a thing in it self indifferent as Eating of meat Sacrificed to Idols not as such but as bought in the Market by a man of knowledge who knoweth that meat commendeth not to God and takes no notice of the Idol to whom it was offered but Eats is as Common or Ordinary When I say this Act of him that hath knowledge doth occasion one weak in knowledge to Eat the same meat with conscience of the Idol grounding himself upon the example of him whom he imitates and so offends Thus then comes in the Scandal The strong Eat of that without conscience of the Idol among the weak or ignorant that know not how to make such a distinction They imitate the strongs example as thinking what is lawful for the strong is lawful for them and so Eat of it with conscience of the Idol or as devoted to an Idol which is Idolatry Thus the strongs knowledge is an occasion of Sandal to the weak that
or would not hear him any where else Or that Solomon thought God could not or would not hear any prayer but what was made in his Temple certainly he did not For the reason why he beseeched God to have respect unto the Place which he had made and to hear the Prayers of those that prayed in it or towards it was only this because it was built for the Memorial of Gods Name for the place of his special presence and God had promised to place his Name there And mark Gods Answer 2 Chr. 7.14 2 Chr. 7.14 If my People shall humble themselves and Pray c. Then will I hear and forgive Now mine eyes shall be open and mine ears attent to the Prayert that are made in this place Would you know the reason why God would hear in this place rather than in another Though God did not abridge himself of hearing in anyother place It is expresly set down in the next Verse For now I have chosen and Sanctified this house that my Name that is my Memorial or special presence might be there for ever and my Eyes and my Heart shall be there perpetually Is there not the same reason for Gods presence in our Churches as in their Temple if they be as much Sanctified to this end viz. Gods Memorial or Name to Inhabit in as that was And to what other end were these ever Consecrated Now unless you can shew this promise of Gods meeting and blessing men by a peculiar manner in all places where he recorded his Name was proper to the Jews or hath been since reversed by God then certainly our Churches have as much of Gods special presence as the Temple And God will there meet with us and bless us especially and we are to adore God as much towards our Memorial as the Jews towards theirs Thus I have proved the Lawfulness of Adoration towards the Altar out of Scripture Now for the Opinion and Pratise of the Church That it was the Opinion and Practise of the Old Church 1 Kings 8.22 2 Kings 19.14 2 Chr. 7.3 is apparent by what is said Hezekiah in his distress went into the Temple and their Prayed towards the Place of his presence Viz. the Mercy Seat and therefore compellates God by this Title Thou that dwellest between the Cherubims Might not the King have Prayed at home was not God present in his house or had he confined him between the Cherubims No but Hezekiah knew that God had more especially promised his Presence in this Place and therefore here he comes and prostrates himself before Gods Memorial How the Christians Esteemed ever and reverenced their Churches Vid. c. And how highly they regarded their Altars Chrisost Hom. 20. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Optatus in his 6th Book describing the Dignity of the Altar illustrates it from this Viz. That it was the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Alexander Bishop of Constantinople falling down at the foot of the Altar besought God that he would subvert the furious Plots and Endeavours of the Arrians the next day Arrius as he was exonerating nature withal voided his Guts and Bowels Nazians Or. p. 1. or in some 25. tells That his Sister Gorgonia being Sick applies her self to the chief Physitian of all mortals and casting her self down before the Altar and Invocating him who was Honoured upon the same she recovered her former health By which Examples it may seem that God by his miraculous benefits hath confirmed this Reverence Tertull tells how penitents after they are restored to the Church at their entrance into it were wont to cast themselves down before the Priests from whom they were to receive absolution and to bow themselves submisly before the Altar of God c. God cares not for any complements He requires the Heart Object and the Inward Devotion thereof and so our Saviour teacheth us to serve God John 4.23 The hour cometh and now is that they that worship the Father must worship him in Spirit and Truth This Text is much abused to prove that God in the Gospel allows not of External or Bodily worship or Service but requires this of the Spirit only and consequently to make this the main difference between Gods worship under the Old-Testament and the New Now first I will shew the absurdity of this meaning which they give of the words and then declare the true sense This sense is inconsequent from our Saviours Words The absurdities of the Puritance exposition for he did not speak any thing to the woman about Bodily worship but only about the place of worship and the Object For her question to our Saviour perceiving him to be a Prophet was about a main controversy between the Jews and Samaritans who were bitter Enemies about the Place of worship They mistake the Scope so whether Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem were the place appointed for Gods worship This you may see is nothing concerning the manner of worship whether it should be Outward or Inward But our Saviour in answering waves the question and tells her that was not so material a controversy but that there was a greater Question than that about the place Viz. about the object of their worship for you saith he worship you know not what but we Jews know what we worship After which follows the words cited But the hour cometh c. This is the first absurdity it hath not Consistance with the contest Secondly They add to the Letter Their interpretation addeth to the very Letter of the Text For our Saviour saith not we must worship him in Spirit only there is no such word This exclusive particle our Saviour useth not So that though he might mean that we must worship him cheifly or Principally in Spirit yet it follows not but we might worship him with our bodies also Subordinately for the Principal doth not exclude the Subordinate but include it And none dare say that outward worship is opposite to inward This is the Second Absurdity they add to the letter what our Saviour never said or thought Thirdly This Exposition is directly contrary to the words For our Saviour saith God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth but God is not nor yet can be worshipped in Truth without Bodily worship for his worship is not true 'T is conerary to the Doctrine and practise of Christ and of all Christians in all Ages unless it be entire and Universal as hath been shewen and entire it is not without the Joynt-worship of the Body Fourthly This Exposition contradicts the Ordinances of the Gospel expresly together with the practise of our Saviour his Apostles and the Church in all Ages For the blessed Sacraments are External Rites and Services Baptisme wherein we make our first Stepulation with God to become his Servants The Eucharist which is substituted in place of those Bloody Sacrifices of the Law to be a Rite and mean of our Address to
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-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