The works of the pious and profoundly-learned Joseph Mede, B.D., sometime fellow of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge

Of the Name ALTAR, OR 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anciently given to the HOLY TABLE. A Chappel Common-place, An. 1635.

GENTLE READER.

ALong Preface would not become a Treatise of so small abulk. Only therefore, in a word or two, thou art desired to take notice, That this Discourse was a private Exercise delivered in a Colledge Chap∣pel, * 2.1 above two full years since, and so before the present Controver∣sie about that Subject whereof it treats was commenced by any pub∣lick Writing; and therefore not to be suspected to aim at, or to have relation to, any mans opinion or person since interessed therein.

That it was never intended for the publick view, but, as thou mayest easily per∣ceive by the form it still carries unaltered, fitted properly to that private Auditory and time, wherein it was uttered. But when, by occasion of the late Polemicks, it was copied out, to communicate to some friends for their better resolution in the con∣troverted point; it chanced to fall into the hands of some, who so well liked it, as that they thought, the time of its composure especially considered, (which by way of caution was then prefixed in the front) it would, being made publick, conduce to peace, and setling of mens minds and judgments in this question.

The hope of so desirable a good prevailed with the Author (otherwise the most unwil∣ling of any man to come abroad) to permit it to the Press. For whom would it not grieve to see,* 2.2 that the very NAME of That, the approach whereunto was wont, and still should, dissolve all differences, should now become the occasion of so much quarrel?

Thus much I thought good to admonish thee: and so hoping thou wilt make a favour∣able and candid construction of what is presented unto thee, with no ill meaning, (I dare assure thee) I bid thee Farewel.

SECTION I.

HAVING made so long a Tractation about the Eucharist or Chri∣stian Sacrifice, I hold it not unfit, before I pass to another Theme, to speak somewhat of the Seat or raised Fabrick whereon this ho∣ly Mystery hath been celebrated; 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 do so; but to give our verdict, when we do give it, out of judgment and due examination.

To come then to the matter: The Seat or raised Fabrick appointed for the setting and celebration of this holy Mystery 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 been 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or ALTAR, many will not believe 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 notice, that I speak not here either of the matter or form, (wherewith men are wont to entangle this question) but of the name and notion only, whatsoever the form or matter were.

I will begin with Tertullian,* 2.3 the most ancient of the Latine Fathers now extant; who flourished about 100. years after the death of S. Iohn are Evangelist, and 200. after the birth of Christ.* 2.4 He, in his Book De oratione, in fine, reprehending their scrupulosity who thought it not so lawful to partake the Eucharist upon their station or weekly fast-days, lest their Fast thereby should be dissolved, expresses himself af∣ter this manner.

a 2.5

Similiter de stationum diebus, [unspec 1] (saith he) non putant plerique sacrifici∣orum orationibus interveniendum, quòd statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit, an magìs Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit statio tua si & ad ARAM Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reservato, utrumque salvum est, & parti∣cipatio sacrificii, & executio officii.

Again, in his De Exhortatione castitatis, [unspec 2] c. 10. endeavouring to prove (though er∣roneously) that a Soul conscious of the act of the marriage-bed could not be fit for the duties of prayer and devotion, he speaks thus;* 2.6

Si spiritus reus apud se sit, & conscientia erubescit, quomo∣do audebit orationem dicere ad Alta∣re?

These two places shew, That in Tertullian's 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. years after Tertullian lived S. Cyprian,* 2.7 Bishop of the same Church where Tertullian was Presbyter; to whom this language was so familiar, that I have obser∣ved it ten times at least in his Epistles only: but whether he ever useth the name TABLE, I know not. I will recite only five or six of the most pregnant and evi∣dent places, and not easie to be eluded.

And first, that in his 42. Epist. or 2. ad Cornelium; where, to shew that he favour∣ed [unspec 1] his part against Novatianus at the beginning, though he was not fully informed then of the lawfulness of his election, he relates, That having read his letters in the

Church-assembly,* 2.8 he refused to publish those Libellous criminati∣ons against him which Novatianus had sent by his messengers to be there read.a 2.9

Honoris (saith he) communis memores, & gravitatis sacer∣dotalis ac sanctitatis respectum tenentes, ea quae ex diverso in librum ad nos trans∣missum congesta fuerant acerbationibus criminosis, respuimus; considerantes pa∣riter & ponderantes, quòd in tanto fra∣trum religiosoque conventu, considentibus Dei sacerdotibus, & ALTARI PO∣SITO, nec legi debeant nec audiri.

'Tis a description or Periphrasis of an Ecclesiastical assembly, or, as he calls it, religi∣osus conventus.

[unspec 2] Likewise in his 55. Epistle; where declaiming 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, with∣out undergoing publick penance and the satisfaction accustomed, he speaks on this manner: If such Insolency as this be tolerated, and those who sacrifice unto Idols once come to be received again into the Church without due satisfaction, b 2.10

Quid superest, quàm ut Ecclesia Ca∣pitolio cedat, & recedentibus sacerdoti∣bus, ac Domini nostri ALTARE remo∣ventibus, in Cleri nostri sacrum veneran∣dúmque* 2.11 CONSESSVM (i. e. in Presbyterium, seu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) simu∣lachra atque idola cum ARIS suis transeant?

[unspec 3] Again, in his 64. Epist. against one Fortunatianus a Bishop, who having lapsed in the time of Persecution would nevertheless return to the office of a Bishop, he hath these words;c 2.12

Cùm debeat satisfacere, & ad Dominum exorandum diebus ac noctibus lacrymis & orationibus & pre∣cibus incumbere; audet sibi adhuc sacer∣dotium quod prodidit vindicare, quasi post ARAS Diaboli accedere ad ALTA∣RE Dei fas sit?

And in the same Ep. d 2.13

Nè tales ad ALTARIS impia∣menta & contagia fratrum denuo redeant, omnibus viribus excubandum est.

In these two last places note, 1. The name ALTAR used for the HOLY TABLE: 2. That those Fathers, when they would distinguish between the ALTAR of the true God and the ALTARS of Idols, do usually call the one ARA, and the other ALTARE; of which more hereafter.

[unspec 4] A fourth Testimony is to be found in his 70. Epistle ad Ianuar. & caeteros, where to prove that Hereticks cannot give true Baptism, he reasons thus;e 2.14

Porrò au∣tem (saith he) Eucharistia, &, unde Baptizati unguntur, Oleum, in ALTA∣RI sanctificatur. Sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam, qui nec AL∣TARE habuit nec Ecclesiam. Vnde nec unctio spiritalis apud Haereticos potest esse, quando constet oleum sanctificari & Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse.

[unspec 5] A fifth Testimony of this use of speech we may have in his 63. Epist. ad Caecilium, where he saith,f 2.15

Sed & per Solomo∣nem Spiritus Sanctus typum Dominici sa∣crificii antè praemonstrat, immolatae ho∣stiae, & panis & vini; sed & ALTA∣RIS

& Apostolorum faciens mentionem. Sapientia, inquit, aedificavit sibi domum, * 2.16 & subdidit columnas septem;* 2.17 mactavit suas hostias, miscuit in cratera vinum su∣um, & paravit mensam suam; & misit servos suos,* 2.18 convocans cum excelsa prae∣dicatione ad crateram, dicens, &c.

[unspec 6] A like passage whereto is to be found also in his Testimoniorum adversùs Iudaeos lib. 2. c. 2.a 2.19

Quòd Sapientia Dei Christus, & de Sacramento Incarnatio∣nis ejus, & Passionis & Calicis, & ALTARIS, & Apostolorum qui missi praedicaverunt [Testimonium exstat] apud Solomonem in Paroemiis: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, & subdidit co∣lumnas s••ptem; mactavit hostias suas, miscuit in cratera vinum suum, & para∣vit suam m••ns••m, &c.

By which two passages it appears, that the name Altar was so familiarly and ordi∣narily used of the Holy Table in his time, that he interprets Solomon's* 2.20 Mensa by that name, tanquam per notius, as by the better known. Otherwise what need he have expounded Solomon's mensa by Altare Christi? Mensa Christi would have served the turn. I have deduced these Testimonies of Cyprian the more at large, because of those Objections wont to be alledged out of Arnobius to the contrary, w••o notwith∣standing lived fifty years after him; and out of Lactantius, who, being Tutor to Constantine's son Crispus, was yonger than he.

Not long after Cyprian, about the year 260. lived Zeno V••ronensis,* 2.21 as appears by himself in his Book De Continentia. Casaubon calls him Scriptor vetustissimus & ele∣gantissimus. This Author in the 9. of his Paschal Sermons Ad Neophytos, Invitatione ad Fontem tertiâ, says of the Church, then a child-bearing mother unto God of many sons by Baptism, That she brought forth far cleaner children than a natural Mother useth to do, being her selfb 2.22

Non foeti∣dis cunis, sed suavè-redolentibus SA∣CRI ALTARIS feliciter enutrita cancellis.

Here it is not only ALTA∣RE, but ALTARIS cancelli, the septs whereby it was separated from the rest of the Church or place of sacred assembly.

And for the days of Constantine (whose reign began some fifty years after) Eusebius* 2.23 hath left us a copy of a Panegyrick Oration made at the dedication of a sumptuous and magnificent Church at Tyre; the structure and garnishing whereof the Panegyrist de∣scribing at large, and amongst the rest the seats erected in the Sacrarium or Quire, for the honour (as he speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Prelacy and Priestly Order, he adds, c 2.24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

& sacrosancto ALTARI in medio collocato; ista rursus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ut à multitudinis accessu prohiberertur, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] re∣ticulati operis cancellis ex lignofabricatis circumdedit, adeò ad summum solertis artifi∣cii elaboratis, ut mirabile intuentibus praebeat spectaculum.

Lo here again ALTA∣RE, and cancelli ejus.

But the same Eusebius, in his Book De laudibus Constantini, versùs finem, hath a more full passage, and which shews this language to have been at that time common and usual. For there, magnifying and setting forth the stupendious and unparall'd power of Christ our Lord and Saviour, testified abundantly by that wonderful and ne∣ver-before-exemplified change which he had then wrought in the world, amongst other instances he hath this passage: d 2.25

Quis alius, solo Servatore nostro ex∣cepto, coëpulonibus suis incruenta & rati∣onalia sacrificia precibus &* 2.26.] arcanâ

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 peragenda tradidit? Quorum causâ tum* 2.27. ALTARIA in toto ter∣rarum orbe constituta sunt, tum Ecclesia∣rum dedicationes factae; solique omnium moderatori Deo divina sacrificiorum, solâ∣mente ‖ 2.28 & ratione obeundorum, ministe∣ria ab omnibus gentibus exhibita. Sacri∣ficia verò sanguine, cruore & fumo peragi solita, vi quadam occultâ & invisibili deleta & extincta sunt.

Lo here ALTARIA in toto terrarum orbe constituta, for the offering of the Christian Sacrifice.

Where I thought not good to omit that what Eusebius speaks here of the World in general,* 2.29 S. Chrysostome affirms in particular of our British Islands;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The British Islands, which lie out of this sea, and are in the Ocean it self, have felt the power of the Word:

for even there also Churches and ALTARS are erected.

SECTION II.

BUT will some say, 'Tis true indeed, that from two hundred years after Christ, and forward, the name of ALTAR was much frequented; but before that time it cannot be shewed to have been used by the testimony of any Authentick Wri∣ter; and therefore nothing so ancient as that of TABLE. So some of ours affirm indeed; but they will be tried by no other Authors and Records of those times than such only 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 principal, Iustin and Irenaeus, the most likely to have informed us, are near the one half perished.

But before I make further Answer to this Exception, I would know to what end it is made, and what advantage the Authors thereof do hope to gain 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 known to call the Eucharist both an Oblation and Sacrifice; yea the latter to dwell upon that theme. What gain is there then, that the name ALTAR is not to be found in those works of theirs which remain, if that of Oblation and Sacrifice, (for which the name of ALTAR is disliked) be? Besides, what likelihood that those who con∣ceived of the Eucharist under the notion of a Sacrifice, should not call the place there∣of, as well as their Successors did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉?

Secondly, I would know of the Authors and users of this Exception, whether in those Writers and Fathers before the two hundred years after Christ, which they ac∣knowledged for genuine, the name of TABLE be to be found, or not, given to that whereon the holy Eucharist was celebrated. If it be not, then this Exception of two hundred years after Christ, (which yet is but one hundred 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 oc∣casion 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 dili∣gence sought to inform my self herein, yet hitherto it hath never been my hap to find the Name of TABLE in any of them more than of ALTAR. I have enquired of others, and yet they have not shewed it me. And therefore till I see it, I will be∣lieve it cannot be shewn.

But perhaps you will say, What matters it whether the Fathers we speak of have it or not, if the Scripture hath? For doth not S. 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 other. And yet this too, if the judgment of some of our own 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 express

* 2.30 diet by Table; yea whether it be set thereon or not.* 2.31 And the matter of the Apostle's discourse seems to require this sense; for he speaks of Idolothyta or meats sacrificed to Idols. And not to be out-vied with Antiquity, I could likewise (as some do) pa∣rallel this place for TABLE with another, of a much like nature, for the name ALTAR; namely, that Heb. 13. 10. where the Apostle saith, We (i.e. we Chri∣stians) have an ALTAR, whereof they have no right to eat which serve at the Taber∣nacle. I know what you would be ready to except, namely, that by the ALTAR here named is meant Christ: which I for my own part should willingly admit, so it be understood with this caution, Christ as he is to be eaten in the Eucharist. For the Apostle speaks here of an ALTAR to be eaten of; which is not the material in∣strument 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 jot more for the Antiquity of the name TABLE than of ALTAR.

But now to answer more directly to the Question, Whether the name of ALTAR were used in the Church before two hundred years after Christ or not; I answer, It was. For proof whereof, why may I not alledge the* 2.32 Canons called the Apostles? Which though the Apostles compiled not, yet are more ancient sure (at least many of them) than two hundred 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 custom (such as this is) not genuineness of Titles only, 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, if it be credible that the Apostles, or those to whom they committed the Churches, Apostolical men, might leave unto the Church some Rules of Order and Discipline, besides those mentioned in Scripture, (and whence otherwise should those Catholick and generally-received Traditions of the Church be derived?) why may not some of these, which bear that name, be of that number? And if any be, then none more likely than those which are first in order: namely because Collections of this nature are wont in process of time like snow-balls to receive increase by new additions ever and anon put unto them, and yet notwith∣standing continue still the name and Title of their first Authors; though sometimes not the one half of the contents will 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 we 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 so (how∣soever the Collection hath in time been encreased) one of the first and most ancient of them. Let us therefore hear how it speaks.

Canon Apost. 2.a 2.33

Si quis Episcopus aut Presbyter praeter Domini de sacrificio ordinationem [i. praeter Panem & Vi∣num] alia quaedam [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ad ALTARE attulerit, sive mel, sive lac, sive vini loco siceram stu∣diosè confectam, vel aves, vel animalia quaevis (praeter ordinationem;) depona∣tur. Praeter* 2.34 nova farra aut uvam tem∣pore opportuno, non licitum esto aliud quid ad ALTARE (quàm oleum ad lumi∣nare, & incensum) tempore sanctae Ob∣lationis offerre.

Here the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or ALTAR is twice used for the HOLY TABLE. The latter part of the Canon the Greek hath thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where consider whether it might not be read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is,b 2.35 sive oleum ad luminare, sive incensum; implying that at another time they might be offered there, but not tempore sanctae Oblationis, at the

time of the holy Eucharist. For the better judgment whereof, and of the right mean∣ing of the Canon (because the readings, distinction, and translations somewhat vary) take also a Canon of the Council of Carthage under Aurelins (Anno 397.) very like unto it, and made undoubtedly in imitation thereof.

Syn. Carth. Can. apud Balsam. 40. a 2.36

Non licere praeter panem & vinum aquâ mixtum quidquam in sanctis myste∣riis offerre. Ut nihil ampliùs quàm Cor∣pus & Sanguis Domini offeratur, quemad∣modum Dominus ipse tradidit; hoc est, Panis & Vinum aquâ mixtum. Primitiae autem, sive mel, sive lac, offerantur, ut moris est, uno die consueto, ad Infantium mysterium (putà in Baptismo.) Et si enim maximè [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ad AL∣TARE offerantur,* 2.37 propriam tamen suam habeant benedictionem. Nihil au∣tem amplius in primitiis [nimirum ad Altare, in sanctis mysteriis] offeratur quàm ex uvis & frumento.

Which on∣ly were permitted to be offered at the time of the Eucharist, (as may seem) because Bread and Wine are made of them.

But I will not set my rest upon a Pseudepigraphal Testimony, but alledge a wit∣ness past exception, and for antiquity beyond them all: And that is, that holy and blessed Martyr Ignatius, Bishop of that City where the name of Christians was first gi∣ven to the Disciples of Christ;* 2.38 who lived and 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or ALTAR for the Lord's TABLE, in his Epistles Ad Philadelphenses, Trallenses, [unspec 1] and Ephesios. In the first whereof ad Phi∣ladelph. he speaks thus:b 2.39

Scribo ad vos, moneóque ut unâ fide, unâ praedica∣tione, unâ Eucharistiâ 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* 2.40 Videlius expresly acknowledgeth 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 lead on the rest which follow. Whereof

[unspec 2] That Ad Ephesios shall have the next place; where exhorting them to be subject and at unity with their Bishop and Presbytery, he enforceth it thus:

Nemo erret; (saith he) Nisi quis intra ALTARE sit, [Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 ascen∣dens (for this used to be presented at the Altar) exorabit, ut omnia quae petiverint 〈◊〉〈◊〉 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. [Matth 5. 24.] so much more he that through disobedience is in schism and discord with his Bi∣shop and spiritual Fathers is excluded thence; that is, hath no right to offer his Gift thereat; and consequently is deprived of the Bread of God, (the holy E••charist,) 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 appear by this, That if the Prayer of one or two be of that efficacy as to place Christ in the midst of them; how much more shall the united pray∣er of the Bishop and the whole Church be of force to prevail with the Divine Majesty to grant them all they shall ask in Christ's name? It follows,c 2.41

Quisquis igitur

ab his separatur, neque concurrit cum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & Ecclesiâ primogenitorum conscriptorum in coelis, Lupus est sub ovi∣na pelle, faciem mentiens mansuetam:

that is, An Infidel in a Christian's coat. Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Concilium or Se∣natus sacrificiorum, he understands the Bishop and his Clergy, who are Senatus rei Di∣vinae, or sacris faciundis. Therefore Vedelius, who will needs here, without reason or copy, in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the better to make way for his con∣ceit, That the body of the Church in general should be the Altar Ignatius here speaks of) did but correct the Magnificat, and pervert Ignatius his meaning, which he under∣stood not. For that this which I have said is the meaning of Ignatius in this place, appears more plainly by the third Testimony I am now to alledge of his, viz.

Ex Epist. ad TRALLENSES ante med.a 2.42

Reveremini (inquit) Epis∣copum vestrum sicut Christum, quomad∣modum beati nobis praeceperunt Apostoli. Qui intra ALTARE est, mundus est; quare & obtemperat Episcopo & Presby∣teris. Qui verò extra est, hic est qui sine Episcopo, Presbyteris & Diaconis quippi∣am agit: & talis inquinatam habet con∣scientiam & 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 gloss unto the other.

Now, by warrant of these Testimonies, I think I may safely conclude, That the use of the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or ALTAR (for ought that any hither∣to hath shewed to the contrary) is no less ancient in Christianity than that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the HOLY TABLE or TABLE OF THE LORD; and that both have been promiscuously used from the Apostles times.

Nor is it any marvel 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 kinds of things we call Tables? what Genus else can we refer 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 and an Altar, than 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 Shittim-wood) and a Table may be 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 veil:) 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 Christi) whereat we stand, is by nature a common stone, nothing differing from other slates; but being con∣secrated to the service of God, and having received the benediction, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Holy Table, an Altar inviolable.

See he 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 sa∣cred, should be distinguished not only in use, but in* 2.43 name also from things com∣mon. Forwhat is a Temple or Church but an House? yet distinguished in name from other Houses. What is a Sacrifice but a Feast? 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 someman say, that there is no greater difference be∣tween these two names than as you affirm; yet ought the Language of the Church to be conformed to the Style of the New Testament. But where in the New Testa∣ment 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 believe, whence they deri∣ved the Oblation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and that Rite of Reconciliati∣on at their entrance thereunto; (where the Deacon was wont to proclaim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 2.44, Nè 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 thee; leave thy GIFT before the ALTAR, and go, first be reconciled to thy Bro∣ther, and then come and offer thy GIFT. Which Scripture they took to be an Evan∣gelical constitution, wherein our Saviour implied, by way of Anticipation, that he would leave some Rite to his Church in stead, and after the manner 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: Insomuch as Irenaeus seems to place that Purity of the Evangelical oblation prophesied of by* 2.45 Malachi, even in this requisite. Vide l. 4. c. 34. Hence also they may seem to have learned to call the Bread and Wine (in respect of this Ob∣lation) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Offertory, appears expresly out of Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 57. Iren. lib. 4. 34. Edit. Fe∣vard. Tertull. De Oratione c. 10. Eusebius De vita Constantini, lib. 4. c. 41. Cyril of Ie∣rusalem Catech. Myst. 5. Why then may I not believe as well that they might derive from the same Text the Offertory it self, 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 New Testament any other passage of Scripture whereon so ancient and uni∣versal a practice of the Church, as was in all these three particulars, could expresly be grounded? And, besides that the Primitive practice of the Catholick Church is a good Rule to interpret Scripture by, there may be good Reasons found from the circumstances of the Text, and Sermon it self, to perswade it to be an Evangelical Constitution.

• 1. Because there was no such thing commanded in the Law to such as came to offer Sacrifice; not any such Deuterosis to be found amongst the Traditions of the Elders. Now it is altogether improbable our Saviour would then annex a new Rite to the Legal sacrifices, when he was so soon after to abolish them by his sacrifice upon the Cross, yea (if the Harmonists of the Gospel are not deceived) within less than two years af∣ter; for they place this Sermon between his second and third Passeover. Ergo he in∣tended it for an Ordinance of the Kingdom of God, (as the Scripture speaks) that is, for the Church of his Gospel.
• 2. Because the Sermon, whereof this was part, is that famous Sermon of our Savi∣our upon the Mount, which he read as a Lecture to his Disciples, to instruct them in the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God, a little before he sent them out to preach; and so, in all likelihood, contained the Summe of that they were to preach; which no doubt was Doctrine Evangelical. In all other parts of the Sermon we find it so; wherefore 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 righteousness wherein the Citizens of the Kingdom of Christ were to outgo the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees: I say unto you, (saith our Saviour) except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,* 2.46 ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then follows this Text, shewing how far we are to outstrip the Scribes and Pharisees in our obedience to the Precept, Thou shalt not kill.
• 4. This passage should be Evangelical, forasmuch as it seems, together with the rest that follow it, to be a part of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Complementum Legis whereof our Saviour spake a little before, saying, Think not that I am come to dissolve the Law and the Prophets,* 2.47 (that is, to abolish or abrogate the observation of them in my Kingdom) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but to accomplish, supply, or perfect them. For this to be the meaning of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the whole discourse following it seemeth to evince, wherein namely our Saviour puts in practice and makes good de facto in several particulars what he for∣merly said he came to do.

SECTION III.

BUT there is one thing yet behind, by no means to be forgotten in this Argument, That what I have hitherto spoken of the name Altar is to be understood of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For these two are not the same. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the

Altar of the true God,* 2.48 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Altar of an Idol. Wherefore the ancient Fa∣thers and Christians (which spake the Greek tongue) never used to call the Altar of Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (though it were the usual word in that language) but ever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which difference they learned out of the Greek Bible; in all which the Altar of the true God is* 2.49 no where termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but always 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. On the contrary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 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 seen and confirmed by one pas∣sage in the first Book of Maccabees, c. I. V.* 2.50 59. where concerning the Ministers of Antiochus Epiphanes, who had erected an Altar to Iupiter Olympius upon the great bra∣zen Altar in the Temple of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon, the Greek expresseth it in this manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They sacrificed up∣on the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was upon the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 go alone, take with it a like expression or two in S. Chrysostom, who in his 24. Homil. in 1. Ad Co∣rinthios, brings in our Saviour thus speaking; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If thou desirest bloud, make not the Idols 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ruddy with the slaughter of Beasts, but my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with my bloud. 'Tis upon that passage, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ? With the same style in the Homily a little before quoted [Demonstrat. Quòd Christus sit Deus] he magnifies the speedy propaga∣tion of the Gospel, that in so short a time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Bomoi & Simulacra) were abolished, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were erected throughout the Roman Empire, yea among the Persians, Scythians, Moors and Indians. To all which add another observation, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a word not used by any Pagan Writer, but is a mere Ecclesiastical and Hellenistical term, first devised (as* 2.51 Philo in his Vita Mosis would give us to understand) by the Septuagint to express the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to distinguish the Altar of the God of Israel from the Altars of the Idol-Gods of the Gen∣tiles.

But you will ask me now, Wherein consisted the real difference between the two, which made them so nice to call the one by the name of the other? or was it verbal only? I answer, it was real. For the Altar of the true God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was only (as the name implies) a Table for sacrifice; viz. in the Law, of those bloudy Sacri∣fices which were then offered to God by Fire and Incense; in the Gospel, of the rea∣sonable and spiritual Sacrifice, sent up unto God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, only by the word of thanksgiving and prayer.* 2.52 But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Altars of the Gentiles were Suggesta or Scabella sculptilium & simulacrorum, Idol-stools or Foot-stools of their Images, in re∣spect of the accommodation the one had to the other; which was such, as their Idols were placed before, upon, or above their Altars. This may appear in some sort by those passages of S. Chrysostom which I now quoted, especially the latter. And by that of S. 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) quòd Numen habeant & pro Numine accipiant illam statuam, Ara testatur.

And this also the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fitly intimates, as properly im∣porting a Basis, whereon something standeth, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Eu∣stathius notes; and is accordingly used by* 2.53 Homer for the Basis whereon stood the gild∣ed Statues of Boyes holding lights at a banquet;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

So 2 Chron. 34. 4. we read, That Iosiah caused the Altars of Baalim to be broken down, and the Images that were on high above them. Aaron, when he set up the golden calf, is said in like manner to have built an Altar before it, Exod. 32. 5. This connexion be∣tween the Gentile-Altars and Idol-statues or Images may also be gathered out of that * 2.54 fore-cited passage of S. Cyprian, Epist. 55. where declaiming against some lapsed Chri∣stians, who having in time of Persecution sacrificed unto Idols, would for all that be admitted again into the Church without due satisfaction. If this be suffered, (saith he)

Quid superest, quàm ut ECCLESIA Capitolio cedat, & recedentibus saecrdotibus, ac Domini nostri ALTARE removentibus, in Cleri nostri sacrum venerandúmque consessum (i. in sacra∣rium nostrum, seu* 2.55 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) SIMVLACRA atque IDOLA cum ARIS suis transeant?

In this 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 Gen∣tile-Temple. 2. The place of the Clergie next the Altar, and distinguished from that of the Layety. 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 Latin Fathers sometimes imitated the Greek, in distinguishing, as well as they could, the names of the Altars of Christ and the Altars of Idols, calling 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ALTA∣RE, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ARA. Which the Author of the vulgar Latine so far observes, that throughout the Canonical Scripture he never calls the Altar of the true God ARA, but the Altars of Idols only, as the Septuagint useth the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I have prosecuted this observation of the difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the more largely, because it will help us through those doubtful and stumbling passa∣ges which are found in Origen, Minutius Felix, Arnobius and Lactantius, in their dis∣putes against the Gentiles. Who although they lived, the two first in the third Cen∣tury, (after Tertullian;) the two latter about the beginning of the fourth Seculum, in the days of Diocletian and Constantine, fifty years 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 perform the Rites of their Religion in; as also, by those Testimonies alledged, that they usually cal∣led the HOLY TABLE there placed by the name of ALTARE and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) yet these Authors afore-named, when the Gentiles object Atheism to the Christians, as who had no Templa, no Arae, no Simulacra, are wont in their Apologies to answer by way of Concession, not only that they had none, but more, that they ought not to have. What should this mean? why this; They an∣swer the Gentiles according to the notion wherein they objected this unto them; to wit, that they had no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no Idol-stools, or Simulacrorum scabella; not that they had no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Therefore the word which Origen there useth is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And in all those passages you shall ever find Arae & Simulacra to go together. Origen;a 2.56

O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Celsus ait nos Ara∣rum & Statuarum Templorúmque funda∣tiones fugere. Minutius Felix;b 2.57 Cur nullas Aras habent, Templa nulla, nulla nota Simulacra? Arnobius;c 2.58 In hac consuéstis parte crimen nobis maximum impietatis affigere—Quòd non Deorum alicujus simulacrum constituamus aut for∣mam, non Altaria fabricemus,* 2.59 NON ARAS. Lactantius;d 2.60 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* 2.61 appropriated that name, viz. Places whereunto the Gods, by the power of spels and magical consecrations, were confined and limited, and for the presencing of whom a Statue was necessary; places wherein they dwelt, shut up as Birds in a cage, or as the Devil confined within a 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 note 2.62a 2.63 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no b 2.64 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,c 2.65 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ord 2.66 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Emperors Rescripts for demolishing them, and sometimes for re∣storing them, when the Persecution ceased. All which he that will may find in Euse∣bius his Ecclesiastical History, before either Arnobius or Lactantius wrote: Whither I refer them that would be more fully satisfied; yea to Arnobius* 2.67 himself in the end of his 4. Book adversùs Gentes, where he speaks of the burning of the Christians sacred Books, and demolition of their Places of assembly. And thus I conclude my Dis∣course.

PSALM CXXXII. VII.

We will go into his Tabernacle, we will worship towards his Foot∣stool.

SO the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rightly rendred; and those who say Before his Footstool, imply the same, if it be rightly construed. The LXX. hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Toward the Place where his feet stand, which is a Periphrasis of a Footstool.

THE LORD'S FOOTSTOOL here mentioned was either the Ark of the Testimony it self, or the place at least where it stood, called DEBIR or the Holy of Holies, towards which the Iews in their Temple used to worship. The very next words following my Text argue so much, Arise, O Lord, into thy rest, thou and the Ark of thy strength. And it is plain out of 1 Chron. 28. 2. where David saith concerning his purpose to have built God an House, I had in mine heart to build an House of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the FOOTSTOOL of our God. Where the Conjunction [and] is Exegetical and the same with [that is.] According to this expression the Prophet Ieremy also,* 2.68 in the beginning of the second of his Lamentations, bewaileth that The Lord had cast down the beauty of Israel, (that is,* 2.69 his glorious Temple) and remembred not his FOOTSTOOL, (that is, the Ark of his Covenant) in the day of his wrath.

This to be the true and genuine meaning of this phrase of worshipping the Lord to∣wards his Footstool, besides the confessed Custom of the time, is evidently confirmed by a parallel expression of this worshipping posture. Psalm 28. 2. Hear the voice of my supplication when I cry unto thee, when I lift up mine hands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 towards thine HOLY ORACLE; that is, toward the most Holy place where the Ark stood, and from whence God gave his answers. For that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 DEBIR, which is here translated ORACLE, was the Sanctum Sanctorum or Most holy place, is clear out of the 6. and 8. Chapters of the first Book of Kings; where in the* 2.70 former we read, that Solomon prepared the ORACLE or DEBIR, to set the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord there: in the* 2.71 latter, that the Priests brought in the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord unto his place, into the Oracle of the House, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the Cherubims. Wherefore the Authors of the Translation used in our Litur∣gy rendred this passage of the Psalm, When I hold up my hands toward the Mercy-seat of thy holy Temple; namely, having respect to the meaning thereof. Thus you see that one of the two must needs be this Scabellum pedum or FOOTSTOOL of God, ei∣ther the Ark or Mercy-seat it self, or the Adytum Templi, the Most holy place where it stood. For that it is not the whole Temple at large (though that might be so called) but some thing or part to those that are within it, the first word•• of my Text [We will go into his Tabernacles] do argue. If then it be the Ark, (whose Cover was that we call the Mercy-seat) it seems to have been so called in respect of God's sitting upon the Cherubims, under which the Ark lay, as it were his Footstool: whence some∣times it is described,* 2.72 The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of Hosts, which sitteth upon the Cherubims. If the Ark, with the Cover thereof the Mercy-seat, be it self considered as God's Throne, then the place thereof, the DEBIR, may not unfitly be termed his Footstool. Or lastly, if we consider Heaven to be the Throne of God, as indeed it is, then whatsoever place or monument of Presence he hath here on Earth is in true esteem no more but his Footstool.

Thus the meaning of the Text is plain, which I thought good to make choice of for the Argument of my Discourse at this time, for our better information concerning the lawfulness of that practice of worshipping God towards the holy Table or Altar: For it becomes not us who live in such places as these, where Knowledge is taught, and should be derived to other parts of the Church, to be ignorant of the reason and quality of any thing, especially concerning the Worship of God, which either we do our selves, or see others do; lest in the first we be guilty of Imprudence, in the other

of Uncharitableness in miscensuring others. And in this particular, Information is so much the more needful, because many scruple at this kind of posture in God's Wor∣ship; esteeming it little better than Idolatry,* 2.73 as being of like nature with worship∣ping God by an Image: wherein how much they are deceived I shall make now to appear.

Know therefore, That to worship God by an Image, and to worship him towards some place or monument of his Presence, are things of a differing nature: For the first is absolutely forbidden by the Divine Law; the latter we find continually practised by the people of God in the Old Testament, and that with his allowance and appro∣bation. Thus in the Wilderness they worshipped him towards the Cloud, as the sign or monument of his Presence going with them, Exod. 34. 5, 8. In the Tabernacle and Temple they directed their posture toward the Ark of the Covenant, or most Ho∣ly place, as my Text (and that parallel place now alledged out of Psalm 28. for con∣firmation) witnesseth; namely, as to the place of his Throne and Footstool. Unto which I add for a third Testimony, that of Psalm 99. 5. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship towards his Footstool: There goes before it in the beginning of the Psalm, The Lord reigneth, let the people tremble; he sitteth between [or upon] the Cherubims. The same thing is meant or implied by that expression of worshipping the Lord toward his holy Temple, in the 5. and 138. Psalms; in the first whereof, v. 7. I will come into thine House (saith David) in the multitude of thy mercy, and in thy fear will I worship toward thy Holy Temple. Mark; I will come into thine House, and then worship, &c. This form the Iews at this day are wont to pronounce in the Adoration which they make at their entrance into their Synagogues, turning themselves at the same time toward an Ark or Cabinet, wherein they lay the Book of the Law, made and placed in imi∣tation of the Ark of the Covenant with the Two Tables. In the other Psalm like∣wise, v. 1, 2. the Psalmist saith, Before the Gods (that is, the Angels) will I sing praise unto thee: I will worship towards thy holy Temple; that is, toward the place of the Ark or Mercy-seat. For we are to take notice, that the people or Layety came no nearer than into the Courts of the Temple only, and the Priests themselves entred no farther but when they were to order the Lamps, and burn Incense evening and morning, or renew the Shew-bread; otherwise they also stood and officiated without in the Court appointed for them, called the Priests Court: so that both (the people especially) standing in the Court•• when they worshipped, they directed their faces toward the Temple or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strictly so called, where the Ark and Mercy-seat were. Hence comes this expression of worshipping the Lord toward his holy Temple: as much as to say, We will come into thy Courts, and worship thee toward the place where thy memor•• or monument of thy Presence is. With these places may be compared that of the 134. Psalm, where the Levites (standing namely in the Priests Court) are exho••••••d to lift up their hands toward the Sanctuary [LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Targ. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 toward his holy seat] and to bless the Lord.

Besides this, when they were absent from the Temple, yea though in a strange and forein Country, and that far remote, yet when they prayed or worshipped, they turned their faces thitherward: as appears by 1 Kings 8. 44, &c. in the prayer of So∣lomon at the dedication thereof; and the example of Daniel, Dan. 6. 10. who opened his windows towards Ierusalem, and kneeling upon his knees three times a day, prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he was wont; yea, even then when the Temple and holy City were burnt and destroyed, and the Ark of the Testimony not then there, but only the place where it was wont to be. Zorobabel also, 3 Esd. 4. 58. lifted up his face to heaven toward Ierusalem, and praised the King of Heaven. And this custom the Iews in their devotions still observe unto this day. Yea all this may seem (for ought that can be shewed to the contrary) to have been done out of the use of mankind, with∣out any special Precept to that purpose, which is no where to be shewn. For as for the prayer of Solomon (besides that Precepts are not wont to be given in prayers) it is there presupposed only as a rite of custom;* 2.74 Nature it seems having taught man∣kind, as in their addresses unto men to look unto their Face, so in their addresses unto the Divine Majesty to look that way, or toward that place, where his Presence is more demonstrated than elsewhere; whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (if I may so speak) as in the Heavens; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in Temples and like sacred places, where his Name and Pre∣sence either is, or is wont to be recorded. Hence it appears, that to worship God versùs locum praesentiae, towards the place where any sign or specification of his Pre∣sence is, is no Idolatry, nor forbidden by the Second Commandment: For surely

that which was no Idolatry in the Old Testament, is no Idolatry in the New; what∣soever fault otherwise it might have.

The reason of this difference, between worshipping God by an Image and wor∣shipping him towards some place where his Presence is specified, is this, Because in the first the Creature is used objectively to the act of Divine worship, (that is, as the thing worshipped;) but in the other as a local circumstance of worship only. For we are to know that a Creature may be used in the act of Divine worship by way of Object, by way of Local circumstance, or by way of Instrument. The first, by way of Object, that is, as that to which the Act of worship is directed and terminated upon, without question is Idolatry. For the Lord our God is a jealous God, and cannot endure that any created thing should partake with him by way of Object in the Act of his worship. But he that useth an Image in the act of Divine worship as an Image, that is, interposing it in the same as the representation of that he worshippeth, makes it not the term of his posture only (as any other Creature might be, and some always will be,) but the Butt (as I may so speak) or Object of his Act. For in the act of worship, to look or attend unto any thing as that which representeth unto him the Object unto which he is tendering his act, is to make it an Object representa∣tive; and consequently, such as in part and as by way of intervention receiveth the Act which by it is tendred to the Prototype. Which although it be no more but to be only relatively worshipped, and for the examples sake, and not absolutely and for it self; yet is it more than the jealousie of God can endure, as is manifest by his so strict prohibition and frequent detestation thereof.

But as for the two other ways of using a creature in the act of God's worship, by way of Instrument only, or Local circumstance, neither of them is impious or un∣lawful.

First, Not to use it therein as (or by way of) an Instrument whereby it is perform∣ed: For then it would be unlawful to use a Table or a Chalice in the celebration of the holy Eucharist, or the like; to use a Book when we pray, sing, or give thanks unto God; to praise him with Instruments of Musick, as David* 2.75 ordained; to use a Book to swear upon, when we take an oath; for to swear is as much an Act or Re∣ligious worship, and as much appropriated unto God in Scripture, as any other wor∣ship due unto him. Wherefore the Rites used therein (as to turn toward, lay our hands upon, and kiss the Book of the holy Gospels, as the Tables of the new Cove∣nant of God with men in Christ) if they be well examined, will afford much light toward the decision of this Question of posture in our adoration of God in the Church: especially if it be considered that the very same Rites, for the same purpose, have been anciently used upon an* 2.76 Altar. But this by the way.

Secondly, Neither is it impious or unlawful in God's worship to use a creature in way of a Local circumstance thereof; namely, as that whereby the place of our worship is determined: for then it would be unlawful to use Temples or Churches to worship God in, or to have any designed place there accommodated for the Priest to minister or officiate at. But this our practice shews we esteem and acknowledge lawful. Now if it be lawful to make use of a creature for the Vbi, or place where, of the worship we give unto God, why not as well for the place WHICH-WARD, or which-way we worship him? VBI & QVO Where and Which-way being both alike differ∣ences and relations of Place; and the worship of God no more communicated there∣by with the Creature, whereby we determine the one, than whereby we determine the other. Indeed the Creature by this means is honoured and dignified; but that honour the Creature receiveth lies only in this, in being chosen and preferred before any other for such sacred use. Which honour, I trow, is of no other or higher nature, than what any Sacred thing according to the fitness and propriety it hath may be re∣spected with.

Moreover, if it should not be lawful in Divine worship to direct our posture to∣wards a Creature, and that too in great regard of some special relation it hath to God-ward; it would be unlawful to set our faces and lift up our hands and eyes to Hea∣ven in our prayers and invocations tendered unto the Divine Majesty; which I know not any that makes scruple of. And yet if the determination of our posture only by a creature in Divine worship be Idolatry; why might we not justly scruple, lest this posture of our hands and faces to Heaven-ward at such a time might make us guilty of worshipping the Host of Heaven, that is, the Sun, Moon, Starrs and Planets, as the Gentiles and Israelitish Idolaters did? But for our warrant herein, our Blessed Saviour, in that Prayer he hath left unto his Church, hath taught us to say, Our Father

which art in heaven. For without doubt, if we may without impiety determine the Divine presence thus in our speech, we may also (yea fit, I think, we should) do the like at the same time with our posture; which is no more but to express that vi∣sibly by our gesture, which we utter vocally w••th our mouths. For not that which is before us only in our posture, but that which is the terminus of our Act, is the Ob∣ject of our Worship. Nor to determine our posture only by a creature, but to com∣municate the Worship we give unto God therewith, is that which the Divine Law forbiddeth. And that this difference must be admitted, is evinced by the severe and peremptory prohibition of the one, and the frequent examples of the other practised by holy men in Scripture. Besides that the admission thereof openeth the true way how to answer our adversaries, when they alledge the aforementioned places of Scripture in patronage of their Idolatrous worship.

Now then to apply all this to the Hypothesis: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the HOLY TABLE or ALTAR, (for the difference is but verbal) in our Christian Churches, answers unto the Ark or Mercy-seat in the Iewish Temple, being Solium Christi, and in the language of Antiquity the Christian* 2.77 Sanctum Sanctorum; where the Book of the Gospels (by ancient custom laid thereon) parallels the* 2.78 two Tables, the holy Eucha∣rist the golden Pot of Manna, that is, the sacred Monuments and Symbols of the new Covenant those of the old. Why may not then a like respect be had to it in the posture of our Christian adoration, which the Iews in their worship had, not only to the Ark of the Testimony, but to the Altars which stood before it, yea even to the Temple it self, when they could not come to perform their devotions therein; and that too (as I have already observed) when that Ark which Moses made by God••s appointment, with those two sacred Symbols (the two Tables and Pot of Manna) were no more there, as in the Second Temple they were not; but only the place or∣dained for them, or at the most (if that) some imitative Ark only with a Roll of the Law put therein, such as the Iews at this day are known to have in their Syna∣gogues, and to direct their posture toward it when they worship, as formerly they did to that in the Temple? See Buxtorf. Synagog. Iudaic. cap. 5.

Lastly, all Nations and Religions have been wont to use some reverential gesture when they enter into their Temples. And our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel would not have his Disciples to enter into a man's house without some salutation; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when ye enter into an house, salute it.* 2.79 Why should we not think it to be a part of Religious manners to do as much when we come into the house of God? Now of all Gestures, Adoration or bowing of the Body seems to be the most comely and ready for that purpose; and of all postures in the doing thereof (and some posture there must needs be) that which is directed to∣wards that which is the most sacred and of most preeminent relation to God in the Church; that, namely, where he is commemorated, and the blessed Symbols of his Body and Bloud reached forth unto us, (who is our* 2.80 Propitiatory through faith in his Bloud, and by whom alone and whose Sacrifice we have access unto his Father,) the HOLY TABLE or ALTAR. What place then so fit to be both in our eye and mind, when we make our addresses unto Him, as this?

Of the practice of Antiquity.

THAT the ancient Christians worshipped* 2.81 towards the East, (that is, the same way they did their first homage to God* 2.82 in their Baptism) is manifest to all that have but looked into Antiquity.

That their Altars also were usually placed toward the same in their Churches, is a Truth that can hardly be questioned.

It follows therefore that when they worshipped, they turned themselves or looked toward the Altar also.

If it be asked, Which of the two they respected in this their posture: I answer, they respected both; and therefore placed the Altar accordingly, to the Eastward, that both might be observed; even as the Iews placed their Altars both of Incense and

Burnt-offering toward the West, because they worshipped that way. But if they could not observe both, then they preferred the Altar; as in that Church at Antioch, where (if* 2.83 Socrates say true) the Altar, or place thereof, the Chancel, (for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifies) stood toward the West, contrary (as he there ac∣knowledgeth) to the manner of other Churches. Now he that considers well the Custome of Antiquity, and remembers that which Gregory Nazianzen testifies of his mother* 2.84 Nonna, will not think it credible they should either turn their backs upon the Altar, or their faces from the Priest, whilest he officiated thereat, as then he al∣ways did; which yet they must needs do, if, notwithstanding that situation of the Altar, they had worshipped toward the East. Howsoever, if the nature of the things be considered, there can be no difference given, for the point of lawfulness, between the one and the other; nor why this should more intrench upon impiety and Super∣stition than that.

Thus much we find of the Christians posture in general, when they worshipped God. But what reverential Guise, Ceremony or Worship they used at their ingress into God's House in the Ages next to the Apostles (and some I believe they did) is buried in silence and oblivion. The Iews before them (from whom the Christian Religion sprang) used, as I have already shewn, to bow themselves down with their faces toward the Testimony or Mercy-Seat. The Christians after them, in the Greek and Oriental Churches, have, time out of mind, and without any known beginning thereof, used to bow in like manner, with their posture toward the Altar, or Holy Table, saying that of the Publican in the Gospel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God be merciful to me a sinner; as appears by the Liturgies of S. Chrysostome and S. Basil, and as they are still known, both Laitie and Clergie, to do at this day. Which custome of theirs, not being found to have been ordained or established by the Decree or Canon of any Council, and being ••o agreeable to the use of God's people of the Old Testament, may therefore seem to have been derived unto them from very remote and ancient Tradition. Nothing therefore can be known of the use of those first Ages of the Church, farther than it shall seem probable they might imitate the Iews, God's people before them, or have given beginning to the custome of the Churches after them. And if kneeling, bowing or inclination of the head could be proved, or, for want of testimony, may be supposed to have been their gesture at their ingress; surely there were no reason why we should not believe they bowed, kneeled, or inclined their heads the same way then, which they used to pray and worship at other times.

In the Latin Church this gesture of bowing towards the Altar may seem to have been proper to the Clergy in their approaches to it, and recess from it, at least to such as came into the Quire; the Laity at their first entrance into the Church kneel∣ing only. Card. Bessarion, (a Greek) in his* 2.85 Epistle to the Tutor of the Sons of Tho∣mas Palaeologus, instructing them how to carry and behave themselves among the La∣tines, In Ecclesiam Latinorum (saith he) cùm ingredientur, in genua procumbentes pre∣ces dicant, ut Latinis mos est: When they shall enter into any Church of the Latines, let them kneel down and say their prayers, as the manner of the Latines is. For in Greece, as is aforesaid, their manner was to bow. Yet whether they used not some other gesture in Spain, would be enquired, because of those words of Isidorus Hispalensis, De Ec∣clesiasticis officiis lib. 1. c. 10. concerning those that came into the Church after the Ser∣vice or Lessons were begun; Si superveniat quisque (saith he) cùm Lectio celebratur, adoret tantum Deum, & praesignatâ fronte aurem solicitè accommodet: If any shall come into the Church when the Lesson is a reading, let him only adore God, and crossing his forehead attend diligently to what is read.

I will add here two the most ancient Testimonies, I think, extant of a Reverential respect used to be given to the Holy Table or Altar; and that, as I conceive, (if not both of them, one at least) of a more direct nature than that wherewith the same is honoured by being made the term only of our posture when we worship God.

One is out of Dionysius called Areopagita, (or whosoever were the Author, for sure ancient he is) Ecclesiast. Hierarch. cap. 2. De mysterio Baptismi, where he saith, That after the Hymn accustomed was sung, the Priest or Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having saluted or kissed (for either way may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be rendred) the Holy Table, he goes thence and questions the party to be baptized, &c.

The other is of S. Athanasius, in fine Sermonis adversùs eos qui Humanae in Christo Domino Naturae confessores spem suam in Homine defigere dicunt, Edit. Commel. tom. 2. pag. 255. in these words; Quid? quòd & nunc [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] qui ad sanctum Altare accedunt, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] illúdque amplectuntur, & cum timore & laetitia salutant (velosculantur,) non in lapidibus aut lignis, sed in Gratiâ per lapides, aut ligna piis commemoratâ animo insistunt. Understand here by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or GRATIA, the holy EVCHA∣RIST, for so the Fathers are wont to call it. See Casaubon. Exercit. 16. § 46. The meaning therefore is, That those, who when they approach the holy Altar, do with fear and joy embrace and kiss it, (as the manner then was) attend it not as wood and stones, but as that whereby the Body and Bloud of Christ is commemorated to his holy Ones.

Notes

• * 2.1

  An. 1635.
• * 2.2

  Matt. 5. 23, 24.
• * 2.3

  Tertullian An. 200.
• * 2.4

  See also c. 10.
• a 2.5

  And so for the Station or Fast-days, there are many so scrupulous as to think they may not be present at the prayers of the Christian Sacrifices, because their Fast would be dissolved (as they sup∣pose) upon their receiving the Lord's Body. But what? Does the Eucharist then dissolve that their Service devoted to God? Does it not rather the more strictly engage them to God and his Ser∣vice? Nay will not thy Station or Fast be the more solemn if thou shalt also stand at God's ALTAR, where thou mayest receive the Lord's Body, and reserve it to be eaten at home when thy Fast is end∣ed? And thus both shall be salved; thou mayest partake of the Sacrifice, and withal go on in the performance of thy Devotions.
• * 2.6

  If a Soul be conscious of its guilt, and there∣upon Conscience be ashamed, how shall it dare to pray at the ALTAR?
• * 2.7

  Cyprian An. 250.
• * 2.8

  Sect. I.
• a 2.9

  Being mindful of our common honour and dignity, and regardful of the Sacerdotal gravity and holiness, we have utterly rejected all that was raked up against you in a Writing that was sent us, full of a deal of provoking and reproachful stuff; seriously considering and weighing with our selves, that in so full and religious an assembly of the Bre∣thren, God's Priests being set, and the ALTAR placed, it was no way fit such libellous criminati∣ons should be either read or heard.
• b 2.10

  What then remains but that the Church should yield to the Capitol, and that the Priests withdrawing themselves, and taking away the Lord's ALTAR, Images and Idol-Gods together with their Altars should succeed and take possession of the place proper to the sacred and venerable Bench of our Clergy?
• * 2.11

  Consessus here notes the place, as in Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 2.12

  Whenas he ought to make due satisfaction, and with earnest supplications, prayers and tears both day and night intreat God's mercy; does he as yet dare to claim the Sacerdotal dignity which he had betrayed; as if it were a fit thing for one to come immediately from the Devil's Altars to the Altar of God?
• d 2.13

  We ought to use our utmost care and indu∣stry, that such laps••d and apostatiz'd persons do not return again to their charge, to the defiling of the ALTAR and the infecting of the Brethren.
• e 2.14

  And moreover we are to consider that as the Eucharist, so the Oile also wherewith the baptized ones are anointed, is consecrated on the ALTAR. But how can any such consecrate the Creature of Oile, as have neither ALTAR nor Church? And therefore there can be no spiritual unction amongst the Hereticks, since it is evident that neither can the Oile be consecrated nor the Eucharist celebra∣ted by such as are Hereticks.
• f 2.15

  But withall the Holy Ghost by Solomon doth foreshew the Type of the Lord's Sacrifice, the Oblation there offered, and the Bread and Wine; as also makes mention of the ALTAR and the Apostles, saying, Wisdom hath built her self an house, and hath set it upon seven pillars; She hath killed her Sacrifices, she hath mingled her Wine in her Cup, she hath also prepared her table, and sent forth her servants, calling with a loud voice and in∣viting all unto her Cup, saying, &c.
• * 2.16

  Prov. 9. ••, &c.
• * 2.17

  LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 2.18

  ••XX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 2.19

  That Christ is the Wisdom of God, as also concerning the mystery of his Incarnation, and of his Passion and Cup, and the ALTAR, and the Apostles who being sent preached the Gospel, there is a plain Testimony in Solomon's Proverbs, viz. Wisdom hath built her self an house, and set it upon seven pillars; She hath killed her Sacrifices, she hath mingled her wine in her cup, and prepared her table, &c.
• * 2.20

  As Athana∣sius likewise doth Disp. cont. Ar••um in Con. Nic p. 90. To. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••quit) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 2.21

  Zeno Veronen∣sis. An. 260.
• b 2.22

  Happily nourished and brought up (not in ill-sented cradles, but) within the pleasant Septs of the holy ALTAR.
• * 2.23

  Euseb. histor. Eccles. l. 10. c. 4.
• c 2.24

  And placing the most holy ALTAR in the middle; that the multitude might be hindred from pressing too near it, he compassed it about with a wooden rail of net-work, of so curious an artifice, as was admirable to behold.
• d 2.25

  Who else besides our Blessed Saviour did ever teach and appoint his Friends and followers to offer Unbloudy and Reasonable Sacrifices, such as were to be performed by prayer and the mystical service of blessing and praising God? And hence it was that ALTARS were erected, and Churches also consecrated, throughout all the world; as al∣so Intellectual and Reasonable Sacrifices were by all Nations offered up to God the King of the whole world. But as for the bloudy and smoaky Sacrifices, they are by a secret and invisible power quite extinguished, and are no more in use.
• * 2.26

  Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eusebius means the praising of God, appears by other passages in this Book (and elsewhere) where he saith, That the Invisible Powers or Angels 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (1. Deo) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—and again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 2.27

  Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• ‖ 2.28

  Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 2.29

  In Demon. adv. Iudaeos & Gent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Edit. Sa••. Tom. 6. p. 635.
• * 2.30

  Psal. 78. 19. Can God fur∣nish a TABLE in the wilder∣ness? See the verse after, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fl••sh or Food is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mensa a TABLE by the LXX. and Vul∣gar. So is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bread or Food ren∣dred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a TABLE by the LXX. twice in 1 Sam. 20. 23, 26. al. 24, 27. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meat is ren∣dred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 four times in Dan. 1.
• * 2.31

  Sect. 2.
• * 2.32

  Canones Apost.
• a 2.33

  If any Bishop or Presbyter shall bring to the ALTAR any thing besides what is appointed by our Lord concerning the Christian Sacrifice [that is to say, besides Bread and Wine,] be it Honey, or Milk, or in stead of Wine strong Drink prepa∣red with all possible cost and art, or Fowls, or any other Creatures besides what is appointed by our Lord; let him be deposed. Nor let it be law∣ful to offer any thing at the ALTAR in the time of the holy Oblation (or Eucharist,) besides new corn parched or baked, and grapes in their season; ex∣cept it be Oile for the Candlestick, and Incense.
• * 2.34

  Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tritici grana fricta aut ••osta, La••in•• Graneas dixe∣re. De signifi∣catione 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vid. LXX. Lev. 2. 14, 16. & ca. 23. 14. Casaub, in Athenaeum, lib. 14. 16. Malè hîc Balsamon & alii, Legumina. Couser. Can. Syn. Carthag. quaehabet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 2.35

  Whether Oile for the Candlestick, or In∣cense.
• a 2.36

  That it is not lawful to offer any thing but Bread and Wine mingled with water at the time of celebrating the holy Mysteries. Let nothing else besides the Lord's Body and Bloud be offered, as our Lord himself hath ordained; that is to say, Bread and Wine mingled with water. But as for the First-fruits, whether of Honey or Milk, let them be offered (as the manner is) upon one so∣lemn and accustomed day, at the Baptism of Infants. And though these (viz. Honey and Milk) more especially offered at the ALTAR, yet they are to have their proper and peculiar benediction, diffe∣rent and apart from the blessing of the Bread and Wine, or the consecration of the Lord's Body and Bloud. Nor let there be any thing presented as a kind of First-fruit-offering there (viz. at the Altar, at the time of celebrating the holy Mysteries) but Grapes and Corn.
• * 2.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 2.38

  Ignat. Ep. An∣tioch.
• b 2.39

  I write unto you and warn you that you use one Faith, one Doctrine, one Eucharist: For there is one Flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ, one Bloud of the same our Lord Iesus Christ which was shed for us; one Bread broken for us, and one Cup distributed to all; one ALTAR to every Church, and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons my fellow-Servants.
• * 2.40

  P. 236. Exer. 6. in Epist. Ad Ephesios.
• c 2.41

  Whosoever therefore separates himself from these, and joyns not with the Council of the Clergy, whose office it is to celebrate the Christian Sacrifices, nor with the Church of the First-born which are enrolled in heaven, (Heb. 12. 23.) Whosoever is thus in schism and discord with them, is a Woolf in a Sheeps skin, pretending meekness under that disguise.
• a 2.42

  Reverence the Bishop, as ye do Christ, as the blessed Apostles have commanded us. He that is within the ALTAR, is clean; and therefore obeys the Bishop and Presbyters. But he that is without, is he that does any thing without the Bi∣shop, Presbyters and Deacons: and such a one hath a defiled Conscience, and is worse than an Infi∣del.
• * 2.43

  Yea and in form and fashi∣on too. See Maimon, apud Ainsworth up∣on L••••. 19. 30. For both San∣ctity and San∣ctification con∣sist in Discri∣mination.
• * 2.44

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 2.45

  Chap. 1. 11.
• * 2.46

  Verse. 20.
• * 2.47

  Verse 17.
• * 2.48

  Sect. 3.
• * 2.49

  Except only Siracid••s, and the 2. Book of Maccab. whose style gentili∣zeth.
• * 2.50

  al. 62.
• * 2.51

  De vit. Mo∣sis i. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Mos••s n••mpe graecissan••) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 2.52

  Mark here who they are that have turned the Christians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into the Gentiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 2.53

  Odyss. H.
• * 2.54

  See Sect. 1. of this Treatise, pag. 384.
• * 2.55

  Or, as this part of the Church is ter∣med in a story of the same time in Euseb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 2.56

  Celsus affirms that we Christians decline the building or setting up of Altars, Images and Temples.
• b 2.57

  Why have the Christians no Altars, no Temples, no Images?
• c 2.58

  Herein ye are wont to charge us with hide∣ous impiety and irreligion, viz. that we do not make any Image or Representation of any God, nor build any kind of Altars at all.
• * 2.59

  Perhaps he adds this by way of corre∣ction of his word Altaria.
• d 2.60

  What can Temples and Altars mean? what do Statues signifie?
• * 2.61

  According to which style S. Hierome Ep. ad R••parium saith de Iul. Apostat. Quod sanctorum Ba∣silicas destruxe∣rit, aut in Tem∣pla converterit. Ep. 10.
• e 2.62

  Worshipping-places, Houses of Prayer, Churches.
• a 2.63

  Galienus in ed. ap. Eus. l. 7. c. 12. Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 2.64

  Apud eund. Hist. l. 7. c. 1, 2.
• c 2.65

  Eus. de laud. Constant.
• d 2.66

  Idem Hist. l. 7. c. 3.
• * 2.67

  See this pas∣sage of Arnobi∣us in the Dis∣course on 1 Cor. 11. 22. pag. 338
• * 2.68

  Verse 1.
• * 2.69

  As Isa. 60. 7. & 64. 11. Psal. 96. 6.
• * 2.70

  Verse 19.
• * 2.71

  Verse 6.
• * 2.72

  1 Sam. 4. 4.
• * 2.73

  Psal. 132. 7.
• * 2.74

  Plutarch, in Aristide de Paulania: L••∣crymis oppl••••us conver••it se ad ••anum Iuno∣nis, mani••sque ad coelum ten∣dens, precatur Citheroniam Iun••nem, &c. Varro l. 4. de lingua Lat. de Cu••io se de∣••ovente: Ad Concordia (sub. aedem) con••ersul, &c. Sic emendat Scalig, quem vide in Collestaneis, & quae ibidem ex Livio adducit ad ha•••• rem fac••ntia.
• * 2.75

  •• Chron. ••. 6. & ch. 29. •• 27.
• * 2.76

  See 1 King. ch. 8 v 31. Iurantes Aras 〈…〉〈…〉bant; C••••er Plautus Ru∣dent. Virg. 12. AEneid. Iuven. Sat. 14. Iustin. l. 24. Vid. Pont. p. 3. p. 146.
• * 2.77

  Orat. Paneg. ap. Euseb. Hist. lib 10. cap. 4. Di••nys. At. ep. 8 ad Demo∣philum.
• * 2.78

  May not our order of setting the Ten Com∣mandments over the Com∣munion. Table have had some reference this way? See Or∣ders Anno 1565. 7. Eliz. Artic. 7.
• * 2.79

  Matt. 10. 12.
• * 2.80

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 3. 25. the name whereby the Mercy-s••at is called in the old Testament. The Israelites worshipped towards the place of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which was a Type of ours; why may not we worship in like manner toward the place of our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Truth of theirs?
• * 2.81

  See the Au∣thor Quaest & Resp••••d orthod. in Iustin. Mart Quaest. 118. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. ants Med. Tertul Apol. c. 16. item ad nationes. l. 1. ••. 13. Origen, Hom. 5. in Numer. cap. 4. p. 210.
• * 2.82

  Dionys. Arcop. de Ecclesiast, Hier, 6. 2.
• * 2.83

  Lib. 5. Hist••r. Eccles. c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 2.84

  Namely, that meat no time turned hee back ••pon the Altar: that is, not so much as o••t of the time of worship.
• * 2.85

  Apud Meur∣sium & in Not i•• Pontan•• ad Protovesti∣arium.