HAVING made so long a Tractation about the Eucharist or Christian sacrifice, I hold it not un­fit, before I passe to ano­ther Theme, to speake somewhat of the seate or raised fabricke whereon this holy mystery hath beene ce­lebrated; [Page 2] as an appendix to my former dis­courses thereof: And the rather, because some questions and scruples are moved thereabout. And though others common­ly pronounce of these things according to vulgar opinion and hear-say, without fur­ther search and enquiry; yet it becomes not us, who live in the Schools of the Prophets, to doe so; but to give our verdict, when we doe give it, out of judgement and due examination.

To come then to the matter; The seat or raised fabrick, appointed for the setting and celebration of this holy mysterie, was The HOLY TABLE or ALTAR: for by both these names hath that sacred Biere (as I may call it) of the body and bloud of Christ bin ever promiscuously and indiffe­rently called in the Church. Of the name TABLE there is no question; it is granted by all: But concerning the name ΘΥΣΙΑ­ΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ, or ALTAR, many will not beleeve it. Let us therefore see, what may be alledged for the antiquity of the use of it, as well as of that of TABLE. And take [Page 3] notice, that I speake not here, either of the matter or form (wherewith men are wont to entangle this question) but of the name and notion onely, whatsoever the forme or matter were.

I will begin with Tertullian, Tertullian An. 200. the most ancient of the Latine Fathers now extant; who flourished about 100. yeares after the death of St Iohn the Evangelist, and 200. af­ter the birth of Christ. Hee in his booke De Oratione, in fine, See also c. 10. reprehending their scru­pulosity, who thought it not so lawfull to partake the Eucharist upon their station or weekly fast-dayes, lest their fast thereby should be dissolved, expresses himselfe af­ter this manner.

1 ‘Similiter de stationum diebus, (saith he) non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus in­terveniendum, quòd statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit statio tua, si & ad ARAM Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & re­servato, utrumque salvum est, & participatio sacrificii, & executio officii.’

[Page 4] 2 Againe, in his De exhortatione castitatis, c. 10▪ endeavouring to prove (though erro­neously) that a soule conscious of the act of the mariage bed, could not be fit for the duties of prayer and devotion, he speakes thus; ‘Si spiritus reus apud se sit, & conscien­tia erubescit, quomodo audebit orationem di­cere ad Altare?’

These two places shew, that in Tertulli­ans time, as the name sacrifice was used for the Eucharist; so was that of ALTAR for the HOLY TABLE: Besides that, the prayers of the Church used there to be of­fered up unto God.

Within 50. yeares after Tertullian lived S ^t Cyprian, Cyprian An. 250. B ^P of the same Church, where Tertullian was Presbyter: To whom this language was so familiar, that I have ob­served it ten times at least in his Epistles onely: but whether he ever useth the name TABLE, I know not. I will recite onely 5. or 6. of the most pregnant and evident places, and not easie to be eluded.

1 And first, that in his XLII. Epist. or 2, Ad Cornelium; where, to shew, that he fa­voured [Page 5] his part against Novatianus, at the beginning, though he was not fully enfor­med then of the lawfulnesse of his election; he relates, That, having read his letters in the Church assembly, he refused to publish those Libellous criminations against him, which Novatianus had sent by his messen­gers to be there read. ‘Honoris (saith hee,) communis memores, & gravitatis sacerdotalis ac sanctitatis respectum tenentes, ea quae ex diverso in librum ad nos transmissum congesta fuerant, acerbationibus criminosis, respuimus; considerantes pariter & ponderantes, quòd in tanto fratrum, religiosoque conventu, considen­tibus Dei sacerdotibus, & ALTARI POSITO, nec legi debeant, nec audiri?’ Tis a descrip­tion or periphrasis of an Ecclesiasticall as­sembly, or, as he calls it, religiosus conventus.

2 Likewise in his LV. Epist. where de­claming against some lapsed Christians, who in time of persecution having sacrifi­ced unto Idols, were yet so proud and inso­lent, as to endeavour by threats and vio­lence to be received again into the Church, without undergoing publique penance, [Page 6] and the satisfaction accustomed; he speakes on this manner: If such insolency as this be tolerated, and those who sacrifice unto Idols, once come to be received againe into the Church, without due satisfaction; ‘Quid superest, quàm ut Ecclesia Capitolio cedat, & recedentibus sacerdotibus, ac Domini nostri ALTARE removentibus, in Cleri nostri sa­crum venerandumque CONSESSUM Consessus here notes the place as in Greeke [...]. (i. e. in Presbyterium, seu [...]) simu­lachra atque Idola cum ARIS suis transeant?’

3 Againe, in his LXIV. Ep. against one For­tunatianus a Bishop, who having lapsed in the time of persecution, would neverthe­lesse returne to the office of a Bishop, hee hath these words: ‘Cum debeat satisfacere & ad Dominum exorandum diebus ac nocti­bus, lachrymis & orationibus & precibus in­cumbere; audet sibi adhuc sacerdotium, quod prodidit, vindicare, quasi post ARAS Diaboli accedere ad ALTARE Dei fas sit. And in the same Ep. Ne tales ad ALTARIS impia­menta & contagia fratrum denuo redeant, om­nibus viribus excubandum est.’ In these two last places note, 1. The name ALTAR used [Page 7] for the HOLY TABLE. 2. That those Fa­thers, when they would distinguish be­tweene the ALTAR of the true God, and the ALTARS of Idols, doe usually call the one ARA, and the other ALTARE; of which more hereafter.

4 A fourth testimony is to be found in his LXX. Epist. ad Ianuar. & caeteros, where to prove that Heretikes cannot give true Bap­tisme, he reasons thus; ‘Porro autem (saith he) Eucharistia, &, unde Baptizati ungun­tur, oleum, in ALTARI sanctificatur. Sancti­ficare autem non potuit olei creaturam, qui nec ALTARE habuit nec Ecclesiam. Vnde nec unctio spiritalis apud Haereticos potest esse, quando constet, oleum sanctificari, & Eucha­ristiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse.’

5 A fift testimony of this use of speech we may have in his LXIII. Epist. Ad Caecilium, where he saith, ‘Sed & per Salomonem Spi­ritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificii ante praemonstrat, immolatae hostiae, & panis & vi­ni; sed & ALTARIS, & Apostolorum faci­ens mentionem. Sapientia, inquit, aedifica­vit sibi domum, & subdidit columnas septem, [Page 8] mactavit suas hostias, miscuit in cratera vi­num suum, & paravit mensam suam, & misit servos suos, convocans cum excelsa praedicati­one ad crateram, dicens, &c.’

6 A like passage whereto is to be found also in his Testimoniorum adversus Iudaeos, Lib. 2. c. 2. ‘Quod sapientia Dei Christus, & de Sacramento incarnationis ejus, & passionis & calicis, & ALTARIS, & Apostolorum qui missi praedicaverunt [Testimonium extat] apud Salomonem in paroemiis: Sapientia aedi­ficavit sibi domum, & subdidit columnas sep­tem, mactavit hostias suas, miscuit in cratera vinum suum, & paravit suam mensam, &c.’

By which two passages it appeares, that the name Altar was so familiarly and ordi­narily used of the Holy Table in his time, that he interprets Solomons As Athana­sius likewise doth D [...]spu [...]. c [...]nt. Ar [...]ium in Con. Nic. p. 30. To. 1. [...] (inquit) [...]. Mensa by that name, tanquam per notius, as by the better knowne. Otherwise what need he have expounded Solomons mensa by Altare Christi? Mensa Christi would have served the turne. I have deduced these testimonies of Cyprian the more at large, because of those objecti­ons wont to be alledged out of Arnobius to [Page 9] the contrary, who notwithstanding lived 50. yeares after him. And out of Lactantius, who being Tutor to Constantines son Cris­pus, was yonger then he.

Not long after Cyprian, Zeno Vero­nensis An. 260. about the yeare 260. lived Zeno Veronensis, as appeares by himself in his book De Continentiâ. Casaubon calls him Scriptor vetustissimus & elegan­tissimus. This Author in the 9. of his Pas­chal Sermons Ad Neophytos, Invitatione ad Fontem tertia, sayes of the Church, then a child-bearing mother unto God of many sons by Baptisme, that shee broughe forth farre cleaner children, than a naturall Mo­ther useth to doe, being her selfe ‘non faetidis cunis, sed suave redolentibus SACRI ALTA­RIS faeliciter enutrita cancellis.’ Here it is not onely ALTARE, but ALTARIS cancelli, the septs whereby it was separated from the rest of the Church, or place of sacred assem­bly.

And for the dayes of Constantine (whose raigne began some 50. Euseb. yeares after) Eusebius hath left us a copy of a panegyrick Oration made at the dedication of a sumptuous and [Page 10] magnificent Church at Tyre: 1 the structure & garnishing whereof the Panegyrist de­scribing at large, and amongst the rest, the seats erected in the Sacrarium or Quire, for the honour (as he speaks) [...], of the Prelacy, and Priestly Order, he adds, ‘ [...], & sacrosancto ALTARI in medio collocato; ista rursus, [ [...]] ut à multitudinis accessu prohiberentur, [...], reticulati ope­ris cancellis ex ligno fabricatis circundedit, adeò ad summum solertis artificii elaboratis, ut mirabile intuentibus praebeat spectaculum. Loe here againe, ALTARE, and cancelli ejus.’

2 But the same Eusebius in his booke De laudibus Constantini, versus finem, hath a more full passage, and which shewes this lan­guage to have beene at that time common and usuall. For there, magnifying and set­ting forth the stupendious and unparalleled power of Christ our Lord and Saviour, testified abundantly by that wonderfull & never before exemplified change, which he [Page 11] had then wrought in the world; amongst other instances he hath this passage; ‘Quis alius, solo Servatore nostro excepto, coêpulonibus suis incruenta & rationalia sacrificia precibus & arcanâ [...] peragenda, tradidit? Gr. [...]. Quo­rum causâ tum ALTARIA in toto terrarum or­be constituta sunt, tum Ecclesiarum dedicatio­nes factae: solique omnium moderatori Deo, di­vina sacrificiorum, sola mente & ratione obe­un [...]orum, ministeria ab omnibus gentibus ex­hibita; sacrificia verò sanguine, cruore, & fumo peragisolita—vi quadam occulta & in­visibili, deleta & extincta sunt. Loe here ALTARIA in toto terrarum orbe constituta, for the offering of the Christian sacri­fice.’

Where I thought not good to omit, In Demon adv. Iudaeos & Gent. [...] ▪ Edit. Sa [...]il. Tom. 6. p. 635. that what Eusebius speakes here of the world in generall, S ^t Chrysostome affirms in particular of our British Ilands; ‘ [...] (saith he) [...]. The British Ilands, which lie out of this sea, and are in [Page 12] the Ocean it selfe, have felt the power of the Word: for even there also Churches and AL­TARS are erected.’

BUT will some say, Tis true in­deed, that from 200. years after Christ, and forward, the name of ALTAR was much frequen­ted, but before that time it cannot be shew­ed to have bin used by the testimony of any Authentique writer; and therefore nothing so ancient as that of TABLE. So some of ours affirme indeed; but they will be tryed by no other Authors, and records of those times, than such onely as themselves hold for genuine, as Iustin Martyr, Theophilus An­tiochenus, Irenaeus, or it may be another small Tractator or two (with whom this name is not found.) Of whom the works of the two principall, Iustin and Iren. the most like­ly to have enformed us, are neer the one half perished.

[Page 13]But before I make further answer to this exception, I would know, to what end it is made, and what advantage the Authors thereof doe hope to gaine by it. For the reason, I think why the name ALTAR is so much scrupled at, is, because it is thought to imply sacrifice. But Iustin Martyr and Ire­naeus are well enough knowne, to call the Eucharist both an oblation and sacrifice: yea the latter to dwell upon that theme. What gaine is there then, that the name AL­TAR is not to be found in those works of theirs, which remaine, if that of oblation and sacrifice (for which the name of ALTAR is disliked) be? Besides, what likelihood, that those who conceived of the Eucharist un­der the notion of a Sacrifice, should not call the place thereof, as well as their Successors did, ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ?

Secondly, I would know of the Authors & users of this exception, whether in those Writers and Fathers before the 200. yeare after Christ, w ^ch they acknowledged for ge­nuine, the name of TABLE be to be found, or not, given to that, whereon the holy [Page 14] Eucharist was celebrated. If it be not, then this exception of 200. yeares after Christ, (which yet is but 100. after the Apostles) makes no more against the one, than the o­ther, if neither be to be found in the works extant of the Fathers, which then lived For by this it will appear, they had no occasion to mention this sacred BOARD either by one name or other in those works of theirs which are left unto us. Now for my part, though I have with diligence sought to in­forme my selfe herein, yet hitherto it hath never been my hap to finde the Name of TABLE in any of them more then of AL­TAR. I have enquired of others, and yet they have not shewed it mee. And there­fore till I see it, I will beleeve it cannot be shewne.

But perhaps you will say, What matters it, whether the Fathers, we speake of, have it, or not, if the Scripture hath? For doth not Saint Paul say, ‘You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils?’ Tis true. There is this only place to be alledged to that purpose: I know no [Page 15] other. And yet this too, if the judgement of some of our owne Expositors be taken, is not sufficient to prove it neither. For Table here might signifie, not the instrument or seat, but the Epulum, or meat it self; it being the use of all Languages (I am sure of those learned ones) to expresse dyet by Table; yea whether it be set thereon, or not. And the matter of the Apostles discourse seemes to require this sense: For he speaks of Idolo­thyta, or meats sacrificed to Idols. And not to be out-vyed with Antiquity, I could like­wise (as some doe) parallel this place for TABLE, with another, of a much like na­ture, for the name ALTAR; namely, that Heb. 13. where the Apostle saith, Wee (i. e. wee Christians) have an ALTAR, whereof they have no right to eate which serve at the Taberna­cle. I know what you would be ready to except; namely, That by the ALTAR here named, is meant Christ, which I for my owne part should willingly admit, so it be understood with this caution; Christ as he is to be eaten in the Eucharist. For the Apo­stle speakes here of an ALTAR to be eaten [Page 16] of; which is not the materiall instrument, or seat, but the sacrifice used thereon. Thus if these two places capable of, if not requi­ring the like interpretation, be set the one against the other, we have not all this while found one jott more for the Antiquity of the name TABLE than of ALTAR.

Canones Apost.But now to answer more directly to the Question, Whether the name of ALTAR were used in the Church before 200. years after Christ or not? I answer, It was. For proofe whereof, why may I not alledge the Canons called the Apostles? Which though the Apostles compiled not, yet are more an­cient sure (at least many of them) than 200. years after Christ, being not improbably to be thought to have been the Codex Canonum, whereby the Church in those first ages (es­pecially of the Orient) was ordered and go­verned. And in Questions of use and cu­stome (such as this is) not genuineness of Titles onely, but whatsoever Antiquity, though masked under a wrong and untrue name, may be admitted, I think, to give evi­dence according to the age thereof. Besides, [Page 17] If it be credible, that the Apostles, or those to whom they committed the Churches, Apostolicall men, might leave unto the Church some rules of Order & Discipline, besides those mentioned in Scripture, (and whence otherwise should those Catho­lique and generally received traditions of the Church be derived?) why may not some of these, which beare that name, be of that number? And if any be, then none more likely then those which are first in order: namely, because collections of this nature are wont in processe of time like snow-balls to receive increase by new ad­ditions ever and anon put unto them, and yet notwithstanding continue still the name & Title of their first Authors; though sometimes not the one halfe of the con­tents wil be owned by them. Upon which supposition we have, for the resolving of the present question, as much advantage as can be; considering, that the Canon wee are to alledge, is the second, or at the most (according as some others divide them) but the third in order from the beginning; and [Page 18] so (howsoever the collection hath in time beene encreased) one of the first and most ancient of them. Let us therefore hear how it speaks.

‘ CANON APOST. II. Si quis Episcopus aut Presbyter praeter Domini de sacrificio or­dinationem [.i. praeter panem & vinum] alia quaedam [ [...]] ad ALTARE attulerit, sive mel, sive lac, sive vini loco liceram studiosè consectam, vel aves, vel animalia quaevis (praeter ordinationem) deponatur. Praeter Gr. [...] tritie g [...]ana sri­cta aut tosla La­tini Grancas d [...] ­xere. De significa­tione [...] vid. LXX. Lev. 2.14.16. Et ca. [...]3, 14 Casaub. in Athenaeum lib. 14.16. Mele hic balsamon et alij, Legu [...]ina. Confer Can. Syn. Carthag. que hab [...]t▪ [...]. nova farra, aut Vvam tempore opportuno, non licitum esto aliud quid ad ALTARE (quàm oleum ad luminare, & incen­sum) tempore sanctae Oblationis offerre.’

Here the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR is twice used for the HOLY TABLE. The latter part of the Canon the Greek hath thus: [...]. Where con­sider, whether it might not be read, [...], that is, sive oleum ad luminare, sive incensum: implying, that at another time [Page 19] they might be offered there, but not tempore sanctae Oblationis, at the time of the holy Eu­charist. For the better judgement whereof, and of the right meaning of the Canon (be­cause the readings, distinction, and transla­tions somewhat vary) take also a Canon of the Councell of Carthage under Aurelius (Anno 397.) very like unto it, and made un­doubtedly in imitation thereof.

‘ SYN. CARTH. CAN. APUD BAL­SAM. XL. Non licere praeter panem & vinum aqua mixtum, quidquam in sanctis my­steriis offere. Vt nihil ampliùs, quàm Corpus & Sanguis Domini offeratur, quemadmodum Dominus ipse tradidit, hoc est, Panis & vi­num aqua mixtum. Primitiae autem, sive mel, sive lac, offerantur, ut moris est, uno die consue­to, ad Infantium mysterium ( puta in Baptis­mo.) Etsi enim maximè ad ALTARE offe­rantur, propriam tamen suam habeant benedi­ctionem. Nihil autem amplius in primitiis [nimirum ad Altare, in sanctis mysteriis] offeratur quàm ex Vvis & frumento.’ Which onely were permitted to be offered at the time of the Eucharist (as may seeme) be­cause [Page 20] Bread and Wine are made of them.

But I will not set my rest upon a Pseud­epigraphall Testimony, but alledge a wit­nesse past exception, and for antiquity be­yond them all. And that is, that holy and blessed Martyr Ignatius, Ignatius Ep. Antioch. Bishop of that City, where the name of Christians was first gi­ven to the Disciples of Christ; who lived & saw the latter end of the Apostles times. This blessed Martyr in those Epistles of his (which none that are learned or judicious now make question of) thrice useth the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR for the Lords TABLE, in his Epistles Ad Philadelphenses, Trallenses, & Ephesios. In the first whereof Ad Philadelph. he speaks thus: ‘ 1 Scribo ad vos, moneóque ut una fide, una praedicatione, una Eucharistia utamini: una enim est caro Domini nostri Iesu Christi, unus illius sanguis, qui pro nobis effusus est, unus item panis omnibus confractus: & unus CA­LIX, qui omnibus distributus est; unum AL­TARE omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio, & Diaconis conservis meis.’ In this place P. 236 E [...]e [...]. 6. in Epist Ad Ephesus. Vedelius expresly acknowled­geth [Page 21] the name ALTAR to be used by Igna­tius for the HOLY TABLE (though other­wise he be no friend to that name) because he knew not how to elude it. I thought good therefore to put it in the head of the file, to leade on the rest which follow. Whereof

That Ad Ephesios shall have the next place; where exhorting them to be subject, and at unity with their Bishop and Presby­terie, hee enforceth it thus; ‘Nemo erret, (saith he) nisi quis intra ALTARE sit [Gr. [...]] privatur pane Dei. Si enim unius aut alterius precatio tantarum virium sit, ut Christum inter illos statuat, quanto plus Episcopi & totius Eccle­siae oratio consona ad Deum ascendens ( for this used to be presented at the Altar) exorabit, ut omnia quae petiverint in Christo, dentur ipsis?’ As if he had said, Be not deceived, but take notice, that as every one who is not at peace with his brother, is excluded from the Al­tar, [Mat. 5.] so much more, he that through disobedience, is in schisme & discord with his Bishop and spirituall Fathers, is exclu­ded [Page 22] thence; that is, hath no right to offer his gift thereat; and consequently is depri­ved of the Bread of God (the holy Eucha­rist) and of the benefit of those precious and efficacious prayers therewith offered up to God by the Bishop and Priestly Order, in the name of the whole Church. Which, how great a benefit it is, may appeare by this, That if the prayer of one or two be of that efficacie, as to place Christ in the midst of them; how much more shall the united prayer of the Bishop, & the whole Church be of force to prevail with the Divine Ma­jesty, to grant them all they shall aske in Christ's name? It followes, ‘Quis quis igi­tur ab his separatur, neque concurrit cum [...], & Ecclesia primogenitorum conscripto­rum in coelis, Lupus est sub ovina pelle faciem mentiens mansuetam:’ That is, An Infidell in a Christians coat. Where by [...], Con­cilium or Senatus sacrificiorum, hee under­stands the Bishop and his Clergie, who are Senatus rei Divinae, or sacris faciundis. There­fore Vedelius, who will needs here, without reason or copy, in stead of [...] reade [Page 23] [...] (the better to make way for his conceit, that the body of the Church in ge­nerall should be the Altar Ignatius here speaks of) did but correct the Magnificat, and pervert Ignatius his meaning, which he understood not. For that this which I have said, is the meaning of Ignatius in this place, appeares more plainly by the third testimo­ny I am now to alledge of his, viz.

3 ‘Ex Epist. Ad TRALLENSES ante med. Reveremini (inquit) Episcopum vestrum si­cut Christum, quemadmodum beati nobis prae­ceperunt Apostoli. Qui intra ALTARE est, mundus est; quare & obtemperat Episcopo & Presbyteris. Qui verò extra est, hic est qui sine Episcopo, Presbyteris & Diaconis quippi­am agit, & talis inquinatam habet conscienti­am, & Infideli deterior est.’ i. He is a woolf in a sheeps skin, as he said in the other Epi­stle. The places are twins, and the one is a glosse unto the other.

Now, by warrant of these testimonies, I think I may safely conclude, that the use of the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR (for ought that any hitherto hath shewed [Page 24] to the contrary) is no lesse ancient in Chri­stianity, then that of [...], of the Ho­ly TABLE or TABLE of the Lord. And that both have beene promiscuously used from the Apostles times.

Nor is it any marvaile it should be so; for these names are of an equivalent notion, and signifie one and the self same thing. For what is an Altar, but of those kind of things we call Tables? what Genus else can we re­ferre it to? The difference is, That an Altar notes not a common, but an Holy Table, a Table for an Holy Feast, such as I have hereto­fore shewed a Sacrifice to be, Epulum ex ob­latis, or a Feast of an Oblation made unto God. That is, there is no more difference between a Table & an Altar, then between another cup and a Chalice. An Altar is not every Table, or a Table for a common feast, but an Holy Table, and an Holy Table is an Altar. The difference is not (as many sup­pose) either in the matter, as of wood or stone: For an Altar may be of wood (as both the golden Altar, and that of burnt of­fering were in the Tabernacle, namely of [Page 25] Shittim wood) and a Table may bee of stone: nor in the posture or manner of standing, whether in the middle, or against a wall; (for the Altar of burnt offering stood in the midst of the Priests court, and the Altar of Incense up against the vail) but this is the true difference, that a Table is a common Name, and an Altar is an Holy Table. ‘This Holy Altar ( saith Gregory Nys­sene, Sermone de Baptismo) whereat we stand, is by nature a common stone, nothing diffe­ring from other slates—but being consecrated to the service of God, and having received the benediction, it is [...], an Holy Table, an Altar invio­lable.’ See hee makes one to be the exe­gesis of the other. For in times past (when men perhaps were as wise, as we are now) it was thought fit and decent, that things set apart unto God, and sacred, should be distinguished, not onely in use, but in Yea and in form and fashi­on too. See Maimon. apud Ai [...]sworth up­on Lev. 19.30. For both san­ctity and san­ctification con­sists in Discri­mination. name also from things common. For what is a Temple or Church, but an House? Yet distinguished in name from other Houses. What is a Sacrifice, but a Feast? [Page 26] yet distinguished in name from other Feasts. So what is an Altar, but a Table? yet distinguished in name from other Tables.

Well; let all this be granted, may some man say, that there is no greater difference betweene these two names, than as you af­firme; yet ought the language of the Church to be conformed to the style of the New Testament. But where in the New Testa­ment should those Ancients find any Text, whereon to ground the application of this name to the Holy Table? I answer, There, I am prone to beleeve, whence they derived the Oblation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and that Rite of Reconciliation at their entrance therunto; (where the Dea­con was wont to proclaime [...], Ne quis contra aliquem, or in some other words to like effect; and then every one to salute his brother in token of recon­ciliation and peace) and that was from that Ordinance of our blessed Saviour in his Ser­mon upon the Mount, viz. ‘If thou bringest thy GIFT unto the ALTAR, and there re­membrest that thy Brother hath ought against [Page 27] thee, leave thy GIFT before the ALTAR, and goe first, be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy GIFT.’ Which Scrip­ture they tooke to be an Evangelicall con­stitution, wherein our Saviour implied, by way of Anticipation, that hee would leave some Rite to his Church, in stead, and af­ter the maner of the Sacrifices of the Law, which should begin with an Oblation, as they did; and that to require this proper and peculiar qualification in the Offerer, to be at peace, and without enmity with his bro­ther: in so much as Irenaeus seemes to place that purity of the Evangelicall oblation, prophesied of by Malachy, even in this re­quisite. Vide l. 4. c. 34. c. 1.11. Hence also they may seeme to have learned to call the Bread and Wine (in respect of this oblation) [...], the holy Gifts, from the word our Saviour here useth.

For that they derived from this text that Rite of Peace and reconciliation before the Offertorie, appeares expresly out of Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 57. Iren. lib. 4.34. Edit. Fevar. Tertull. De Oratione c. 10. Eusebius De vita [Page 28] Constantini, Lib. 4. c. 41. Cyril of Ierusalem Catech. Myst. 5. Why then may I not be­leeve as well, that they might derive from the same text the Offertory it selfe, and the application of the name Altar to the Holy Table, seeing all three in the Text depend one upon another; and that there is not in the N. Testament any other passage of Scri­pture, whereon so ancient and universall a practice of the Church, as was in all these three particulars, could expresly be groun­ded. And, besides that the primitive practice of the Catholique Church is a good rule to interpret Scripture by; there may be good reasons found, from the circumstances of the text, and Sermon it selfe, to perswade it to be an Evangelicall Constitution.

1. Because there was no such thing commanded in the Law to such as came to offer sacrifice; nor any such deuterosis to be found amongst the traditions of the Elders. Now it is altogether improbable, our Savi­our would then annexe a new Rite to the Legall sacrifices, when he was, so soon af­ter, to abolish them by his sacrifice upon [Page 29] the Crosse; yea (if the Harmonists of the Gospell are not deceived) within lesse than two years after. For they place this Sermon between his second and third Passeover. Ergo he intended it for an Ordinance of the Kingdome of God (as the Scripture speaks) that is, for the Church of his Gospell.

2. Because the Sermon, whereof this was part, is that famous Sermon of our Sa­viour upon the Mount; which he read as a Lecture to his Disciples, to instruct them in the Mysteries of the Kingdome of God, a little before he sent them out to preach; and so, in all likelyhood, contained the summe of that they were to preach; which no doubt was Doctrine Evangelicall. In all other parts of the Sermon we finde it so: wherfore then should we not so esteem it, even in this also?

3. Because it is brought in (and that in the first place) as an exemplification of that righteousnesse, wherein the Citizens of the Kingdome of Christ were to outgoe the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees: ‘I say unto you (saith our Saviour) except your [Page 30] righteousnesse shall exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes & Pharisees, ye shall not enter in­to the Kingdome of Heaven.’ Then followes this text, shewing how farre we are to out­strip the Scribes and Pharisees, in our obe­dience to the precept, Thou shalt not kill.

4. This passage should be Evangelicall, forasmuch as it seemes, together with the rest that follow it, to be a part of that [...] or complementum legis, whereof our Saviour spake a little before, saying, ‘ Think not that I am come to dissolve the Law & the Prophets, (i. to abolish or abrogate the observation of them in my Kingdome) [...], but to accomplish, supply or perfect them.’ For this to be the meaning of that [...], the whole discourse following it, seemeth to evince: wherein namely our Saviour puts in pra­ctice, and makes good de facto, in seve­rall particulars, what he formerly said, hee came to doe.

BUT there is one thing yet behind, by no meanes to bee forgotten in this Argument. That what I have hitherto spoken of the name Altar, is to be understood of [...], not of [...]. For these two are not the same. ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ is the Altar of the true God; ΒΩΜΟΣ the Altar of an Idol. Wherefore the ancient Fathers and Christi­ans (which spake the Greek tongue) never used to call the Altar of Christ [...] (though it were the usuall word in that lan­guage) but ever [...]. VVhich dif­ference they learned out of the Greek Bi­ble; in all which the Altar of the true God is Except onely [...] the [...]. Book of Ma [...]c. whose st [...] gentili­seth. no where termed [...], but alwaies [...]. On the contrary, [...] never used (when it is used) but of an Idolatrous Altar, or Altar of an Idol. This diffe­rence of these two words may be evi­dently [Page 32] seene and confirmed by one passage in the first Book of Maccabees, c. 1. v. al 62. 59. where concerning the Ministers of Antio­chus Epiphanes, who had erected an Al­tar to Iupiter Olympius, upon the great bra­zen Altar in the Temple of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon, the Greek expresseth it in this manner: ‘ [...], They sa­crificed upon the [...], which was up­on the [...],’which our Transla­tion rightly renders, They sacrificed upon the Idol-Altar, which was upon the Altar of God; the circumstances of the place leading them thereunto. And that this testimo­ny may not goe alone, take with it a like expression or two in Saint Chrysostom, who in his 24. Homil. in 1. Ad Corinthios, brings in our Saviour thus speaking; [...]· If thou desirest bloud, make not the Idols [...] ruddy with the slaughter of Beasts, but my [...], with my bloud. 'Tis upon that passage, ‘ [Page 33] The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ?’ with the same style in the Hom. a little before quoted [ demonstrat quod Christus sit Deus] hee magnifies the speedy propagation of the Gospell, that in so short a time [...] ( Bomoi & Simulacra) were aboli­shed, and [...] were erected through­out the Romane Empire, yea among the Persians, Scythians, Mores and Indians. To all which adde another observation, That [...] is a word not used by any Pagan Writer, but is a meer Eccle­siasticall and Hellenisticall terme, first devi­sed, (as De vit. Mosis l [...]b. 3. [...] (Moses [...]ēpegraecissans) [...]. Philo in his Vita Mosis would give us to understand) by the LXX. to expresse the Hebrew word [...], and to distinguish the Altar of the God of Israel from the Al­tars of the Idol-gods of the Gentiles.

But you will aske me now, wherein the reall difference betweene these two consi­sted, which made them so nice to call the one by the name of the other? Or was it verball onely? I answer, It was reall. For the Altar of the true God, [...], was [Page 34] onely (as the name implies) a Table for sacri­fice; viz. in the law, of those bloudy sacrifi­ces which were then offered to God by fire and Incense: in the Gospel, of the reaso­nable and spirituall sacrifice, sent up unto God [...], onely by the word of thanksgiving and prayer. But [...], or the Altars of the Gentiles were suggesta, or Sca­bella sculptilium & simulacrorum; Idol-stools, or foot-stools of their Images, in respect of the accommodation the one had to the o­ther; Mark here, who they are, that have tur­ned the Chri­stians [...] into the Gentiles [...]. which was such, as their Idols were placed before, upon, or above their Altars. This may appeare in some sort, by those pas­sages of S ^t Chrysostom, which I now quo­ted; especially in the latter. And by that of S ^t Austin, Hom. 6. de verbis Domini, where he proves from this posture, that the Gentiles took and worshipped their Idol-statues for Gods, because they placed them upon their Altars. ‘Nam illi (inquit) quod Numen habe­ant & colant illā statuā, [...]ra testatur.’ And this also the name [...] fitly intimates, as proper­ly importing a Basis, whereon something standeth, quasi [...], of the word [...], as Eu­stathius [Page 35] notes; & accordingly used by Homer for the Bases, whereon stood the gilded sta­tues of boyes holding lights at a banquet;

So 2 Chron. 34.4. we reade, That ‘ Iosiah caused the Altars of Baalim to be broken down, and the Images that were on high above them. Aaron whē he set up the golden calfe, is said in like manner to have built an Altar before it, Exod. 32.5.’ This connexion between the Gentile-altars, and Idol-statues or Images, may also be gathered out of that fore-cited passage of S. Cyprian, Epist. 55. where decla­ming against some lapsed Christians, who having in time of persecution sacrificed un­to Idols, would for all that, be admitted a­gaine into the Church, without due satis­faction; ‘If this be suffered (saith he) Quid superest, quàm ut ECCLESIA capitolio cedat, & recedentibus sacerdotibus, ac Domini nostri ALTARE removentibus in Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque consessum (i. in sacrarium nostrum, seu Or, as this part of the Church is ter­med in a story of the same time in Euseb. [...] the name whereby the LXX. call the Sanctuary in the Old Test. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. cap. 18. ‘ de Marino Martyre, Ad­ductum ad Ecclesiam sta­tuit intus prope [...].’ [...]) SIMULACRA atque IDOLA cum ARIS suis transeant?’ In this [Page 36] not long passage are many things worthy observing. 1. Ecclesia used for the place of Holy assembly, and opposed to Capitoli­um, which stands here for any Gentile Tem­ple. 2. The place of the Clergie next the Al­tar, and distinguished from that of the Lai­ty. 3. The coupling of Simulacra and Idola cum Aris suis, as individui comites, and the op­position thereof to Altare Domini nostri, i. Christi. 4. That the Latine Fathers some­times imitated the Greek, in distinguishing as well as they could, the names of the Al­tars of Christ, & the Altars of Idols, calling [...] ALTARE, and [...] ARA. Which the Author of the vulgar Latine so farre ob­serves, that, throughout the canonicall Scri­pture, he never calls the Altar of the true God ARA, but the Altars of Idols onely, as the LXX. useth the name [...].

I have prosecuted this observation of the difference between [...] & [...] the more largely, because it wil help us through those doubtfull and stumbling passages, which are found in Origen, Minutius Felix, Arnobius and Lactantius, in their disputes [Page 37] against the Gentiles. Who although they lived, the two first in the 3. Century (after Tertullian) the two later about the begin­ning of the fourth seculum, in the dayes of Dioclesian and Constantine, 50. yeares after S. Cyprian: during all which time, it is appa­rent, confessed, and may be invincibly pro­ved against such as shall deny it, that Chri­stians had Oratories and Houses of worship to performe the Rites of their Religion in; as also (by those testimonies alledged) that they usually called the HOLY TABLE there placed, by the name of ALTARE & [...]: yet these Authors afore-na­med, when the Gentiles object Atheisme to the Christians, as who had no Temple, no Arae, no Simulacra, are wont in their Apo­logies to answer by way of Concession; not onely, that they had none; but more, that they ought not to have. What should this meane? why this: They answer the Gentiles according to the notion, wherein they objected this unto them: to wit, that they had no [...], no Idol-stooles, or Simula­crorum scabella; not that they had no [...]. [Page 38] [...]. Therefore the word which Origen there useth is [...]. And in all those passages you shall ever finde Arae and Simulacra to goe together. ‘Origen, [...]· Celsus ait, nos Ararum & statuarum, Templorumque fundationes fugere. Minutius Felix. Cur nul­las Aras habent? Templa nulla? nulla nota si­mulacra? Arnob. In hac consuêstis parte cri­men nobis maximum impietatis affigere— Quod non Deorum alicujus simulacrum consti­tuamus aut formam, non Altaria fabricemus, Perhaps hee addes this by way of corre­ction of his word Altaria. NON ARAS. Lactantius. Quid sibi Tem­pla, quid Arae volunt, quid denique ipsa simu­lacra, &c.’

And as for Temples, their meaning was, they had no such claustra Numinum, as the Gentiles supposed Temples to be, and to which they According to which style S ^t Hierome Ep. ad Riparium saith de Iul. Apostat. Quod sanctorū Basilicas de­struxerit, aut in Templa con­verterit. Ep. 10 appropriated that name; viz. Places, whereunto the gods, by the power of spels and magicall consecrations, were confined and limited; and, for the presence­ing of whom a statue was necessary; places wherein they dwelt, shut up as birds in a cage, or as the Devill confined within a [Page 39] circle, that so they might be ready at hand, when men had occasion to seek unto them: That Christians indeed had no such dwel­lings for their God as these; for that their God dwelt not in Temples made with hands: but not, that they had not Galienus in ed. ap. Eus. l. 7. [...], no Apud eund. Hist. l. 7. c. 1, 2. [...], or Ibid. cap. 3. [...]. For such the stories and monuments of those times expresly inform us, they had; and the Gentiles themselves that objected this defect, knew it too well, as may appear by their Emperours Rescripts for demoli­shing them, and sometimes for restoring them, when the persecution ceased. All which he that will, may find in Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall History, before either Arnobi­us or Lactantius wrote: Whither I referre them that would be more fully satisfied; yea to Arnobius himselfe in the end of his 4. Book adversus Gentes, where he speaks of the burning of the Christians sacred Books, and demolition of their Places of assembly. And thus I conclude my Discourse.