Works

CHAP. VIII.

MY last task was to prove, That not only the whole Action of the celebration of the Eucharist, according to the Definition I gave thereof, but even the Rite of the Lord's Supper is indeed a Sacrifice, not in a Metaphorical, but a proper sense; and this, if the nature of Sacrifice be truly defined, no whit repugnant to the Principles of the Reformed Religion.

To evidence which I shown, That a Sacrifice was nothing else but a Sacred Feast, namely Epulum foederale, wherein God mystically entertained Man at his own Table, in token of amity and friendship with him: Which that he might do, the Viands of that Feast were first made God's by oblation, and so eaten of, not as of Man's, but God's provision.

There is nothing then wanting to make this sacred Epulum, of which we speak full out a Sacrifice; but that we show, That the Viands thereof were in like manner first offered unto God; that so being his, he might be the Convivator, Man the Conviva or the Guest. And this the ancient Church was wont to do; this they believed our Blessed Savior himself did, when, at the institution of this holy Rite, he took the Bread and the Cup into his sacred hands, and looking up to Heaven gave thanks and blessed. And, after his example, they first offered the Bread and Wine unto God, to agnize him the Lord of the Creature; and then received them from him again in a Banquer, as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of his Son. This is that I am now to prove out of the Testimonies of Antiquity, not long after, but next unto the Apostles times, when it is not likely the Church had altered the form they left her for the celebration of this Mystery.

I will begin with Irenaeus as the most full and copious in this point. He in his fourth Book cap. 32. speaks thus; Dominus Discipulis suis dans consilium Primitias Deo offerre ex suis Creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint; eum qui ex Creatura panis est accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est curpus meum; & Calicem similiter, qui est ex ea Creatura quae est secundùm nos, suum sanguinem confessus est: & Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitios suorum munerum in Novo Testamento: Our Lord counseling his Disciples to offer unto God the First-fruits ( or a Present) of his Creatures, not for that God hath any need thereof, but that they might show themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful; He took that Bread which was made of his Creature, and gave Thanks, saying, This is my Body; and he likewise acknowledged the Cup, consisting of the Creature which we use, to be his Blood: And thus taught the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world unto God, that feeds and nourisheth us, being the First-fruits of his own gifts in the New Testament.

And Cap. 34. Igitur E • clesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, & acceptum est ei; non quod indigeat à nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert, glorificatur ipse in co quod offert, si acceptetur. munus ejus: Per munus enim erga Regem honos & affectio ostenditur. Therefore the Oblation of the Church, which our Lord taught and appointed to be offered through all the world, is accounted a pure Sacrifice with God, and is acceptable unto him; not because God stands in need of our Sacrifice, but because the offerer is himself honored in that he offers, if his Present be accepted: For by the Present it appears what affection and esteem the Giver hath for the King he honoreth therewith. He alludes to that in Malachi 1. 14. I am a great King, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Ibid. Oporiet nos oblationem Deo facere, & in omnibus gratos inveniri Fabricatori Deo—Primitias earum quae sunt ejus Creaturarum offerentes: & hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola puram offert Fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum action ex Creatura ejus: It behooveth us to present God with our Oblations, and in all things to be found thankful unto God our Maker—offering unto him the First-fruits of his Creatures: and it is the Church only that offers this Pure Oblation unto the Creator of the world, while it offers unto him a Present out of his Creatures with thanksgiving.

In the same place, Offerimus autem ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agents Dominationi ejus, & sanctificantes creaturam: But we offer unto him, not as if he needed, but as giving thanks to his Sovereignty, and sanctifying the Creature. He alludes again to that in this Chapter of Malachi, v. 6. If I be Dominus, where is my fear, saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O Priests that offer polluted Bread ubon mine Altar?

My next witness shall be Justin Martyr, in time elder than Irenaeus, though I reserved him for the second place. He in his Dialogue with Tryphon, (the place before alleged) telling the Jew, That the Sacrifices of Christians are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Supplications and giving of Thanks; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that these are the only Sacrifices which Christians have been taught they should perform, in that thankful remembrance of their food both dry and liquid; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wherein also is commemorated the Passion which the Son of God suffered by himself. Here is a twofold commemoration witnessed to be made in the Eucharist: The first, as he speaks, of our food dry and liquid, that is, of our meat and drink, by agnizing God, and recording him the Creator and giver thereof; the second, of the Passion of Christ the Son of God, in one and the same food. And again, in the same Dialogue, Panem Eucharistiae in commemorationem passionis suae Christus fieri tradidit, Christ hath taught us that the Eucharistical Bread should be consecrated for the Commemoration of his Passion; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that withal we may give thanks to God for having made the world with all things therein for man, and for having freed us from that evil and misery wherein we were, and having utterly overthrown Principalities and Powers, by him that became passable according to his counsel and will. To which he immediately subjoins the Text, and applies it to the Eucharist, Thus Justin Martyr.

My third witness is Origen in his 8. Book Contra Cels. Celsus (saith he) thinks it seemly we should be thankful to Demons, and to offer them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but we think him to live most comely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that remembers who is the Creator: unto whom we Christians are careful not to be unthankful, with whose benefits we are filled, and whose Creatures we are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, And we have also a Symbol of our Thanksgiving unto God, the Bread which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Where note that the Eucharistical Bread is said to be a Symbol not only of the Body and Blood of Christ, but a Symbol of that Thanksgiving which we render to the Creator through him.

Again, in the same Book, where Celsus likewise would have mankind thankful unto Demons, as those to whom the charge of things here upon earth is committed, and to offer unto them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , First-fruits and Prayers; Origen thus takes him up, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let Celsus, as being void of the true Knowledge of God, render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Demons. As for us Christians, whose only desire it is to please the Creator of the Universe, we eat the Bread that was offered unto him with Prayer and Thanksgiving for his Gifts, and then made a kind of holy Body by Prayer. Mark here, Bread offered unto God with Prayer and Thanksgiving pro datis, for that he hath given us, and then by Prayer made a holy Body, and so eaten.

Thus much out of Fathers; all of them within less than two hundred and fifty years after Christ, and less than one hundred and fifty after the death of S. John.

The same appears in the Forms of the ancient Liturgies. As in that of Clemens, where the Priest in the name of the whole Church assembled speaks thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We offer unto thee our King and God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to his (that is, Christ's) appointment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this Bread and this Cup; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Giving thanks unto thee through him, for that thou hast vouchsafed us (he speaks of the whole Church) to stand before thee and to minister unto thee: And we beseech thee, thou God that wantest nothing, that thou wouldst look favourably upon these Gifts here set before thee, and accept them to the honor of thy Christ, &c.

Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For the Gift or Oblation that is offered to the Lord our God, let us pray that our good God would receive it through the mediation of his Christ to his heavenly Altar for a sweet-smelling savor.

Yea, in the Canon of the Roman Church, though the Rite be not used, yet the words remain still; as when the Priest, long before the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ, prays, Te, Clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus, ut accepta habeas & benedicas haec Dona, haec Munera: We humbly beseech and entreat thee, most merciful Father, Through Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord, to accept and bless these Gifts, these Presents: and other like passages, which now they wrest to a new-found Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, which the ancient Church knew not of.

But, of all others, This Rite is most strongly confirmed by that wont of the Ancient Fathers to confute the Heretics of those first times (who held the Creator of the world to be some inferior Deity, and not the Father of Christ,) out of the Eucharist: For, say they, unless the Father of Christ be the Creator of the world, why is the Creature offered unto him in the Eucharist as if he were? would he be agnized the Author and Lord of that he is not?

Hear Irenaeus, Adversus Haeres. lib. 4. cap. 34. Haereticorum Synagogae ( saith he ) non offerunt [Eucharisticam oblationem quam Dominus offerri docuit;] Alterum enim praeter Fabricatorem dicentes Patrem, Ideo quae secundùm nos Creaturae sunt offerentes ei, cupidum alieni oftendunt eum, & aliena concupiscentem: The Synagogues of the Heretics do not offer [the very Eucharistical oblation which our Lord taught and appointed to be offered;] for they affirming another besides the Creator of the world to be the Father of Christ, do therefore, while they offer unto him the Creatures which are here with us, represent him to be desirous of that which is another's, and to covet that which is not his: and a little after, Quomodo autem constabit eis eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt Corpus esse Domini sui, & Calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi Filium dicant, id est, Verbum ejus per quod lignum fructificat, & defluunt fontes, & terra dat primùm quidem gramen, post deinde spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica? How shall it appear to them that that Bread for which Thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord; and that Cup the Cup of his Blood, if they deny him to be the Son of the Creator of the world, that is to say, to be the word of him by whom the Tree brings forth fruit, Fountains send forth water, and the Earth brings forth first green corn like grass, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear?

From the same ground Tertullian argues against Marcion, Contra Marc. lib. 1. cap. 23. Non putem ( saith he ) impudentiorem quàm qui in all • ena aqua alii Deo tingitur, ad alienum Coelum alii Deo expanditur, in aliena terra alii Deo sternitur, super alienum panem alii Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur: I cannot conceive any one more impudent than he that is baptized to a God in a water that is none of his, that in prayer to a God spreads forth his hands towards an Heaven that is none of his, that prostrates himself to a God upon an Earth that is not his, that gives thanks to a God for that Bread which is none of his.

Origen against the same Heretic useth the same Argument, Dialog. adverse. Marc. 3. pauso ante finem: Dominus aspiciens in coelum gratias agit: Ecquid non agit conditori gratias? Cùm panem accepisset, & poculum, & benedixisset, quid? alterine pro Creaturis conditoris benedicit? an potiùs illi qui effecit & exhibuit? Our Lord looking up to heaven gave thanks. What? did not he give thanks to the Creator of the world? When he took the Bread and the Cup, and blessed; did he bless and give thanks to any other for the Creatures of God the Maker of the world, and not rather bless and give thanks to him who made them and gave them us?

Lastly, This Oblation of the Bread and Wine is implied in S. Paul's parallel of the Lord's Supper and the Sacrifice of the Gentiles: Ye cannot (saith he) be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils; namely, because they imply contrary Covenants, incompatible one with the other; a Sacrifice (as I told you) being Epulum foederale a Federal Feast. Now here it is manifest that the Table of Devils is so called, because it consisted of Viands offered to Devils, (for so S. Paul expressly tells us,) whereby those that eat thereof, eat of the Devil's meat; Ergo, The Table of the Lord is likewise called his Table, not because he ordained it, but it because consisted of Viands offered unto him.

Having thus, as I think, sufficiently proved what I took in hand, I think it not amiss to answer two Questions which this Discourse may beget. The first is, How the Ancients could gather out of the Institution, that our Savior did as hath been shown. I answer, They believed that he did as the Jews were wont to do: But they did thus. How, will you say, doth this appear? I answer, It may appear thus. The Passover was a Sacrifice, and therefore the Viands here, as in all other holy Feasts, were first offered unto God. Now the Bread and Wine, which our Savior took when he blessed and gave thanks, was the Mincha or Meat-offering of the Passover. If then he did as the Jews used to do, he agnized his Father and blessed him, by oblation of these his Creatures unto him, using the like or the same Form of words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, which bringest forth Bread out of the earth: and over the Wine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, which createst the fruit of the Vine. Moreover the Church ab initio applied that Precept of our Savior, Matt. 5. 23. If thou bring thy Gift to the Altar, &c. to the Eucharist; for they believed that he would not enact a new Law concerning Legal Sacrifices which he was presently to abolish, but that it had reference to that Oblation which was to continue under the Gospel.

The other Question is, If all this be so, how is not our celebration of the Eucharist defective, where no such Oblation is used? I answer, This concerns not us alone, but all the Churches of the West of the Roman Communion, who, as in other things they have depraved this mystery, and swerved from the Primitive pattern thereof, so have they for many Ages disused this Oblation of Bread and Wine, and brought in, in lieu thereof, a real and Hypostatical oblation of Christ himself. This blasphemous Oblation we have taken away, and justly; but not reduced again that express and formal use of the other. Howsoever, though we do it not with a set ceremony and form of words; yet in deed and effect we do it, so often as we set the Bread and Wine upon the Holy Table: For whatsoever we set upon God's Table, is ipso facto dedicated and offered unto him; according to that of our Savior Matt. 23. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Altar sanctifies the gift, that is, consecrates it unto God, and appropriates it to his use. In which respect it were much to be wisht that this were more solemnly done than is usual; namely, not until the time of the administration, and by the hand of the Minister, in the name and sight of the whole Congregation standing up and showing some sign of due and lowly reverence; according as the Deacon was wont to admonish the people in Ancient Liturgies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let us stand in an upright posture before God to offer with fear and trembling.

CHAP. IX.

[unspec VI] THE Sixth and last thing to be proved was, That Christ is offered in this Sacrifice Commemoratively only, and not otherwise.

Though the Eucharist be a Sacrifice, (that is, an Oblation wherein the Offerer banquets with his God) yet is Christ in this Sacrifice no otherwise offered than by way of Commemoration only of his Sacrifice once offered upon the Cross, as a learned Prelate of ours hath lately written, objective only, not subjective. And this is that which our Savior himself said when he ordained this sacred Rite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This do in commemoration of me.

But this Commemoration is to be made to God his Father, and is not a bare remembering or putting ourselves in mind only, (as is commonly supposed,) but a putting of God in mind: For every Sacrifice is directed unto God, and the Oblation therein, whatsoever it be, hath him for its Object, and not Man. If therefore the Eucharist be Sacrificium Christi Commemorativum, a Commemorative Sacrifice of Christ, as ours grant, then must the Commemoration therein be made unto God: And if Christ therein be offered objective, that is, as the Object of the Commemoration there made, (as that learned Bishop speaks,) if the Commemoration of him be an Oblation of him, to whom is this Oblation, that is, Commemoration, made but unto God?

Well then, Christ is offered in this Sacred Supper, not Hypostatically, as the Papists would have him, (for so he was but once offered,) but Commemoratively only: that is, By this Sacred Rite of Bread and Wine we represent and inculcate his blessed Passion to his Father; we put him in mind thereof, by setting the Monuments thereof before him; we testify our own mindfulness thereof unto his Sacred Majesty; that so he would, for his sake, according to the tenor of his Covenant, in him be favorable and propitious unto us miserable sinners.

That this, and no other Offering of Christ in the blessed Eucharist, the Ancient Church ever meant or intended, I am now to show by authentical Testimonies.

First, by the constant Form of all the Liturgies; in which, after the reciting of the words of Institution, is subjoined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , commemorantes, or commemorando, offerimus, Commemorating, or by Commemorating, we offer.

Clemens, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Therefore commemorating his Passion, and Death, and Resurrection from the dead, and ascension into Heaven—we offer to thee our King and God this Bread and this Cup. Mark here, Commemorating we offer, that is, We offer by Commemorating. But this Commemoration is made unto God to whom we offer. This is the tenor of all the Greek Liturgies, save that some, instead of We offer unto thee this Bread and this Cup, have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We offer unto thee this dreadful and unbloody Sacrifice; as that of Jerusalem ( called S. James his Liturgy:) others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this reasonable and unbloody Service; as that of S. Chrysostom: others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thine own of thine own; as that of Basil and of Alexandria ( called S. Mark's:) but all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Commemorantes offerimus, Commemorating we offer.

In the same form runs the Ordo Romanus, Memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed & Plebs tua sancta, ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini Dei nostri, tum beatae Passionis, nec non ab inferis Resurrectionis, sed & in Coelum gloriosae Ascensionis, Offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae, de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vitae aeternae & calicem salutis perpetuae: We, O Lord, thy servants, as also thy holy people, being mindful both of the blessed Passion and Resurrection from the dead, as also of the glorious Ascension into Heaven, of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, Offer unto thy excellent Majesty of thy own Gifts a pure Sacrifice, a holy Sacrifice, an immaculate Sacrifice, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting Salvation. Note here also Memores offerimus, Being mindful of,— or Commemorating, we offer.

Which Ivo Carnotensis explains thus; Memores offerimus Majestati tuae (id est, oblatam commemoramus per haec dona visibilia) hostiam puram—sanctam, immaculatam, &c. Et hanc veri sacrificii commemorationem postulat sacerdos ita Deo Patri fore acceptam, sicut accepta fuerunt munera Abel, &c. Remembering, or being mindful, we offer to thy Majesty a pure, holy, and immaculate Sacrifice, that is, ( saith he ) we commemorate the same offered unto God by these visible Gifts. And the Priest accordingly prays that this Commemoration of the true Sacrifice may in like manner be acceptable to God the Father, as the Gifts of Abel were accepted of him. Thus he.

Memores therefore in the Latin Canon is Commemorantes, which the Greek expresses better 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the sense whereof that we may not doubt, hear the explication of that great Council of Ephesus in this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Showing forth the Death of the only begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, as also confessing his Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, we celebrate in our Churches the unbloody Sacrifice or Service.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Commemorating therefore is Showing forth and Confessing: But unto whom should we confess but unto God? To him therefore, and not unto ourselves, is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Commemoration to be made which Christ commended to his Church, when he said, Do this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for my Commemoration, or in remembrance of me.

In this Council of Ephesus Cyril of Alexandria was chief Actor and President: and it is to be noted, that the Liturgy of the Church of Alexandria (usually called S. Mark's ) hath instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the self-fame words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , showing forth and confessing, which I now quoted out of the Council for an explication of the same: which argues, as I take it, Cyril to have been the pen-man of the Decree of the Council, and the Liturgy of his Church to have then run in this form.

I shall need allege no more of the Latin Liturgies; there is no material difference amongst them; so that if you know the form of one, you know of all. I will add only out of S. Ambrose an Explication following those words of the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me, expressed in this manner; Mandans & dicens ad eos, Quotiescunque hoc feceritis, toties commemorationem mei facietis, Mortem meam praedicabitis, Resurrectionem meam annuntiabitis, Adventum sperabitis, donec iterum adveniam: Commanding and saying to them, As often as ye shall do this, ye shall commemorate me, declare my Death, show forth my Resurrection, express your hope of my Coming, until I come again.

This may suffice for Liturgies. Now let us hear the Fathers speak.

I quoted heretofore a passage out of Justin Martyr affirming a twofold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Commemoration to be made in the Eucharist; the one of our Food, dry and liquid; (as he speaks) that is, of our meat and drink, by agnizing and recording him the Lord and Giver of the same; the other an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same Food 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Passion of the Son of God. The first of these Commemorations is made unto God; for to whom else should we tender our thankfulness for the Creature? Ergo, the second, the Commemoration of the Passion of the Son of God, is made to him likewise.

My next Father is Origen, Homil. 13. in Lev. cap. 24. where comparing the Eucharist to the Shew-bread which was every Sabbath • et for a Memorial before the Lord, Ista est (saith he, meaning the Eucharist) commemoratio sola quae propitium facit Deum hominibus; That's the only Commemoration which renders God propitious to men. Where note that both this Commemoration is made unto God as that of the Shew-bread was; and that the end thereof is to make him propitious to men: According to that of S. Augustine l. 9. c. 13. Illa quae in coena Christus exhibet, Fides accep • a interponi inter peccata nostra & iram Dei, tanquam satisfactionem & propitiationem: Those things which Christ exhibits in his Supper, Faith having received them, interposeth them as a Satisfaction and Propitiation between our sins and God's wrath.

My next witness is Eusebius, Demonst. Evan. lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After all other things done, ( saith he, speaking of Christ ) he made that so wonderful an Oblation and excellent Sacrifice to God for the Salvation of us all, appointing us to offer continually unto God a Remembrance thereof instead of a Sacrifice. And again, toward the end of that Chapter, having cited this place of Malachi which I have chosen for my Text, and alluding thereunto, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We offer the Incense spoken of by the Prophet. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We offer Sacrifice and Incense, while we celebrate the remembrance of the Great Sacrifice according to the mysteries given to us by him, and offer the Eucharist with holy Hymns and Prayers to God for the Salvation of our Souls; as also in that we consecrate ourselves wholly unto him, and dedicate ourselves both Soul and Body to his High Priest the Word.

But above all other, S. Chrysostom speaks so full and home to the point as nothing can be more; to wit, Hom. 17 an Epist. ad Hebraeos, upon these words cap. 9. v. 26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; What then? (saith he) Do not we offer every day? He answers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 We offer indeed, but it is by making a Commemoration of his death: And this Sacrifice is one, and not many.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; But how is it one, and not many? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Because it was once offered, not as that which was carried into the Holy of holies. That was the figure of this, and this [the Truth] of that. And a little after, O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He (that is, Christ) is our High Priest who offered that Sacrifice which purifieth us. The same do we also offer now, that then was offered, and is yet unconsumed. This is done in remembrance of that which was then done; For Do this, ( saith he ) in remembrance of me. We offer not another, not a different, Sacrifice, as the Jewish High Priest did of old, but still one and the same; or rather we perform the remembrance of a Sacrifice. What can be more express than this is?

Primasius is short, but no less to the purpose. Offerunt quidem, saith he, Sacerdotes nostri, sed ad recordationem mortis ejus, in 10. cap. ad Hebraeos: Our Priests indeed offer, but it is in remembrance of his death. S. Augustine calls it Memoriale sacrificium a Sacrifice by way of remembrance, in his Book against Faustus.

In a word, The Sacrifice of Christians is nothing but that one Sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the Cross, again and again commemorated.

Which is elegantly expressed by those words of S. Andrew, recorded in the History of his Passion, written by the Presbyters of Achaia: where AEgeas the Proconsul requiring of him to sacrifice to Idols, he is said to have answered thus; Omnipotenti Deo, qui unus & verus est, ego omni die sacrifice, non thuris fumum, nec tanrorum mugientium carnes, nec hircorum sanguinem; sed immaculatum Agnum quotidie in Altari crucis sacrificio; cujus carnes postquam omnis populus credentium manducaverit, & ejus sanguinem biberit, Agnus qui sacrificatus est integer perseverat & vivus: I sacrifice daily to Almighty God, but what? not the smoke of Frankincense, nor the flesh of bellowing Bulls, nor the blood of Goats: No, but I offer daily the unspotted Lamb of God on the Altar of the Cross; whose Flesh and Blood though all the Faithful eat and drink of, yet after all this notwithstanding, the Lamb that was sacrificed remains entire and alive still. This Riddle though AEgeas the Proconsul were not able to unsold, I make no question but you are. And here I conclude.

EZRA VI. X.

THE words of the Decree of King Darius, for the building and furnishing of the service of the Temple of God at Jerusalem; That (saith he) which they have need of for the burnt-offerings of the God of heaven, both young bullocks, rams and lambs, wheat, salt, wine and oil, let it be given them day by day without fail: That they may offer Sacrifices of sweet savor unto the God of Heaven, and pray for the life of the King, and of his Sons.

I have made choice of this Scripture, to show that Sacrifice was Species Orationis, or a Rite of Supplication unto God: Such a one, namely wherein the Supplicant came not with naked Prayer, but presented something unto his God whereby to find favor in his sight. The nature and quality of the thing presented was Munus foederale a Federal Gift, consisting of meat and drink; in the tender whereof, as a sinner agnized himself to be his God's vassal and servant, so by acceptance of the same he was reconciled and restored to his Covenant, by the atonement and forgiveness of his sin. Forasmuch as, according to the use and custom of Mankind, to receive meat and drink from the hand of another was a sign of amity and friendship; much more to make another partaker of his Table, as the sinner was here of God's, by eating of his Oblation: hence those who came to make supplication unto the Divine Majesty, whom they had offended, were wont by this Rite to make way for their suit, by removing the obstacle of his offense. For what hope of speeding could there be, whilst the party to whom we tendered our supplication should be at enmity with us? when God might say, What hast thou to do to take my Covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee? For the foundation of all Invocation is, Remember thy Covenant; and of Impetration, the Remission of our sin.

For this cause therefore was Sacrifice used as Medium deprecandi Deum, as a Rite of address unto God, when we were to make prayer and supplication unto him; yea or to bless or give thanks. But this is not to my present purpose, but the use for Prayer only; which to have been thus addressed as I speak, appears not only by the words of my Text, That they may offer, &c. and pray, &c. but sundry other places of Scripture; which I mean to rehearse.

As first, by that so often inculcated of Abraham and Isaac, that where they pitched down their Tents, they built also an Altar, and there called upon the Name of the Lord: But an Altar was a place for Sacrifice: Therefore Sacrifice must be a Rite whereby they called upon the Name of God.

The same appears by that speech of Saul, 1 Sam. 13. 12. when Samuel reproving him for having offered a Burnt-offering, I said, (saith he) The Philistines will come down upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced my self therefore, and offered a Burnt-offering: Therefore to offer a Burnt-offering was to make Supplication.

It is yet more plain out of 1 Sam. 7. 8. The Children of Israel said to Samuel, Cease not, (or be not silent) to cry unto the Lord our God for us, that he will save us out of the hands of the Philistines. And Samuel (saith the Text, v. 9.) took a sucking Lamb, and offered it for a Burnt-offering unto the Lord; and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel, and the Lord heard him.

It is further proved by that in the 116. Psalm, v. 13. I will take the Cup of Salvation and call upon the Name of the Lord: For this Cup of Salvation is the Libamen or Drink-offering annexed and poured upon the Sacrifice, at what time they used (as here you see) to call upon the Name of the Lord. 'It is a Synecdoche, where the part is put for the whole. Also [ to take ] is here to offer, by that Figure, quâ ex Antecedent intelligitur Consequence.

The same is implied by that of Micah 6. 6. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the most High? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old?

And by that Antithesis, Prov. 15. 8. The Sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the Prayer of the upright is his delight: For here the words of Sacrifice and Prayer are taken the one for the other: it being all one as if it had been said, for [ Prayer of the upright ] the Sacrifice of the upright, or for [ Sacrifice of the wicked] the Prayer of the wicked. Hence it follows, That Sacrifice was Species Orationis, or a Rite of Supplication unto God.

The like may be inferred out of Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple, and the Lord's answer to the same: For in that dedicatory prayer is no mention at all of Sacrifice to be there offered, but only that the Lord would be pleased to hear from heaven the Prayers of such and such as should be made in that Place, or towards it. Nevertheless, when God appeared to Solomon in the night, he saith unto him, I have heard thy Prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of Sacrifice, 2 Chron. 7. 12, plainly implying, That to be an house of Sacrifice was to be an house of Prayer.

Add to these that in 1 Mac. 12. 11. where the Jews in their Epistle to the Lacedaemonians speak on this manner; We at all times (say they) without ceasing, both in our Feasts and other convenient days, do remember you in the Sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for in our prayers at our Sacrifices. Certainly it may be gathered hence, that Prayers were annexed to their Sacrifices, and that Sacrifice was a Rite of Prayer.

The like we shall find in the first of Baruch, where we read that those who were carried Captive with Jeconiah made a Collection of Money, and sent it to Jerusalem, saying, Behold, we have sent you money to buy you Burnt-offerings and Sin-offerings and Incense; and prepare ye the Meat-offering, and offer upon the Altar of the Lord our God: And pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their days on earth may be as the days of heaven; just to that of my Text, that they may offer Sacrifices of sweet savor unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the King, and of his Sons.

Hence appears the reason why Josephus, when the Scripture mentions no more but that Noah offered a Sacrifice when he came out of the Ark, attributes unto him a Prayer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Noah fearing lest God (having adjudged men to a general destruction) should every year thus drown the earth, offered Sacrifices unto God, beseeching him that hereafter all things may continue in that good order and primitive state, &c.

I could be as plentiful in Profane Testimonies to this point as I have been in Sacred; and could allege the Testimonies of Homer, (where we have Examples of Sacrifices with the forms of Prayer,) of Herodotus, and others. But what need we the Testimonies of the Gentiles, save to know that in this point the Jews and they agreed? It is enough to have proved it out of Scripture, that this was the use and nature of Sacrifice: wherein I have been so much the longer, because though the thing be of itself most apparent and evident, yet it is very little taken notice of.

But you will inquire now, What profit hath this Discourse, or what use is there of this thing being known? I answer, Yes; it will help our conceit very much to understand in what sense and for what respect the ancient Church called the Eucharist or Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, and how harmless that notion was; namely, They took this Sacrament to have been ordained by our Blessed Savior to succeed those bloody Sacrifices of the Law, and to be a Medium deprecandi Deum, a mean of Supplication and address to God, in the New Testament, as they were in the Old, by representing the Body and Blood of Christ unto his Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to his appointment: Forasmuch as they saw them both to be Rites of a like kind, as consisting of Meats and Drinks; both Epulae foederales, Federal Feasts, those of the Old Covenant, this of the New, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This Cup is the New Testament, ] both Rites of atonement or for Impetration of Remission of sin, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith our Savior, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This is my Blood, which is shed for many for remission of sins. ] Besides, the Eucharist was by the time of its institution as it were substituted in place of the Passover, which was a Sacrifice of that kind called Pacifica. All these things considered how obvious was it for them to think, that it was in the Institution intended for the same End and Use the other were, namely, for a Commemoration, whereby to have access and find favor with God, when we address ourselves unto him in the New Testament?

And that this was no new device of later ages, but derived from the first times; may appear out of Cyril (or his Successor John of Jerusalem ) Author of the 5. Catech. Mystag. In the last whereof, relating and expounding the meaning of that which was said or done at the celebration of the holy Eucharist, according to the use of his time, (which was the Fourth Seculum current) amongst other things he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. [ See this passage quoted in the foregoing Discourse, Chap. 6. pag. 366.]

Yea that it was the use in the days of Constantine thus adhibere Eucharistiam ad preces, to use the Eucharist as a Rite of impetration in their prayers, appears out of Eusebius in his De vita Constantini, lib. 4. c. 45. where speaking of a great Synod of Bishops assembled at Jerusalem by the Emperor's Command, to celebrate the dedication of a Church erected over the place of our Savior's Sepulcher, and telling how the Bishops there met employed themselves during that Solemnity; Some (saith he) by Panegyric Orations set forth the Emperor's felicity; others were employed in preaching and expounding the Mysteries of Holy Scripture; another part 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , did propitiate God and sought his favor by unbloody Sacrifices, offering unto God humble Prayers for the public peace, for the Church of God, for the King the Author of so much good, and for his children beloved of God; namely, as the Jews in their Sacrifices prayed for the life of the King and his Sons, according to my Text.

But for the more full understanding the notion and practice of this Age, take also a passage of S. Austin: it is in his 22. Book De Civitate Dei, concerning one Hesperius, &c. [ See this passage quoted in the foregoing Discourse, Chap. 5. pag. 363.]

But some will suspect perhaps that this Custom began in the days of Constantine. No, it did not: It was in use in the days of Cyprian 60. years before, as appears in his 16. Epistle ad Mosen & Maximum. Nos quidem vestri memores, & quando in Sacrificiis precem cum pluribus facimus, &c. [ See this passage quoted in the foregoing Discourse, Chap. 5. pag. 362.]

Let us ascend a little higher yet unto the days of Tertullian, within 200 years after Christ. He, in his Book De Oratione, makes express mention of Orationes Sacrificiorum, Prayers that accompanied the celebration of the Christian Sacrifice, such namely as S. Cyprian (Bishop of the same City whereof Tertullian was Presbyter, to wit of Carthage ) even now spake of. And in his Book ad Scapulam, Sacrificamus (saith he) purâ prece, We sacrifice with pure prayer. But you will say, This is against me rather, because he saith purâ prece, implying their was nothing else. No, it is not: For by purâ prece he means not nudâ & solitariâ prece, bare and naked prayer, but prayer not defiled with shedding of blood and smoke of Incense, according to the manner of the Gentiles. And thus (as Sozomen in l. 2. c. 14. relates) Constantine writes to Sapores the Persian King in behalf of the Christians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that they did satisfy themselves and acquiesce in offering up Prayers without blood for the entreating of God's favor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for that the shedding of blood was no way acceptable to God, whose sole and chief delight was in a purified Soul.

And that it was the manner in Tertullian's time adhibere Eucharistiam ad preces, may be further confirmed by the promiscuous use of the words signifying the one and the other. For in his Exhort. ad Castitatem, Oratio and Offerre, Oratio and Sacrificium are interchangeably put the one for the other. It was observed before, how that Josephus attributes unto Noah a Prayer when the Scripture mentions only his offering a Sacrifice. And for that which is said ( Acts 6. 6.) in the story of the seven Deacons set before the Apostles to be ordained by them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and when they had prayed, &c. we have in Constit. Apostol. l. 8. c. ult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. We having offered (according to his appointment) a pure and unbloody Sacrifice, ordained Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in number seven.

[What remains in the Manuscript, consists of Testimonies quoted out of Justin Martyr his Dialogue with Trypho, and Ignatius his Epistle to the Ephesians, and Acts 2. 42. All which Passages are quoted at large in the foregoing Discourse, Chap. 5.]

SECTION I.

HAVING made so long a Tractation about the Eucharist or Christian Sacrifice, I hold it not unfit, before I pass to another Theme, to speak somewhat of the Seat or raised Fabric whereon this holy 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 hearsay, 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 Fabric 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 Blood 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 〉 or ALTAR, many will not believe it. Let us therefore see what may be alleged 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, the most ancient of the Latin Fathers now extant; who flourished about 100. years after the death of S. John are Evangelist, and 200. after the birth of Christ. 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 after this manner.

Again, in his De Exhortatione castitatis, [unspec 2] c. 10. endeavoring to prove (though erroneously) 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;

These two places show, 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, Bishop 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 only: but whether he ever useth the name TABLE, I know not. I will recite only five or six of the most pregnant and evident places, and not easy to be eluded.

And first, that in his 42. Epist. or 2. ad Cornelium; where, to show that he favored [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, he refused to publish those Libellous criminations against him which Novatianus had sent by his messengers to be there read.

'It is a description or Periphrasis of an Ecclesiastical assembly, or, as he calls it, religiosus 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 endeavor by threats and violence to be received again into the Church, without undergoing public 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,

[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;

And in the same Ep. 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 Heretics cannot give true Baptism, he reasons thus;

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

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

By which two passages it appears, that the name Altar was so familiarly and ordinarily used of the Holy Table in his time, that he interprets Solomon's 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 alleged out of Arnobius to the contrary, w • o notwithstanding lived fifty years after him; and out of Lactantius, who, being Tutor to Constantine's son Crispus, was younger than he.

Not long after Cyprian, about the year 260. lived Zeno V • ronensis, as appears by himself in his Book De Continentia. Casaubon calls him Scriptor vetustissimus & elegantissimus. 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 herself

Here it is not only ALTARE, 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 hath left us a copy of a Panegyric Oration made at the dedication of a sumptuous and magnificent Church at Tyre; the structure and garnishing whereof the Panegyrist describing at large, and amongst the rest the seats erected in the Sacrarium or Choir, for the honor (as he speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Prelacy and Priestly Order, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,

Lo here again ALTARE, and cancelli ejus.

But the same Eusebius, in his Book De laudibus Constantini, versùs finem, hath a more full passage, and which shows this language to have been at that time common and usual. For there, magnifying and setting forth the stupendous and unparall'd power of Christ our Lord and Savior, testified abundantly by that wonderful and never-before-exemplified change which he had then wrought in the world, amongst other instances he hath this passage:

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, S. Chrysostom affirms in particular of our British Islands;

for even there also Churches and ALTARS are erected.

SECTION II.

BUT will some say, 'It is 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 shown to have been used by the testimony of any Authentic Writer; 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 Justin 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, Justin 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 Justin 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 conceived of the Eucharist under the notion of a Sacrifice, should not call the place thereof, as well as their Successors did, 〈 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 acknowledged 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 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 inform myself 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 inquired of others, and yet they have not shown it me. And therefore till I see it, I will believe 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? 'It is true. There is this only place to be alleged 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 signify, not the instrument or seat, but the Epulum or meat itself; it being the use of all Languages (I am sure of those learned ones) to express diet by Table; yea whether it be set thereon or not. 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) parallel 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 Christians) have an ALTAR, whereof they have no right to eat 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 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 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 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 allege the 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 Catholic 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 notwithstanding 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 allege is the second, or at the most (according as some others divide them) but the third in order from the beginning; and so (howsoever the Collection hath in time been increased) one of the first and most ancient of them. Let us therefore hear how it speaks.

Canon Apost. 2.

Here the name 〈 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 〉 . Where consider whether it might not be read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, 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 meaning 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.

Which only 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 allege a witness 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 given to the Disciples of Christ; 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 〉 or ALTAR for the Lord's TABLE, in his Epistles Ad Philadelphenses, Trallenses, [unspec 1] and Ephesios. In the first whereof ad Philadelph. he speaks thus:

In this place Videlius expressly 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:

As if he had said, Be not deceived, but take notice, that as everyone 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 Bishop 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 prayer 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, that is, An Infidel in a Christian's coat. Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Concilium or Senatus sacrificiorum, he understands the Bishop and his Clergy, who are Senatus rei Divinae, or sacris faciundis. Therefore Vedelius, who will needs here, without reason or copy, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the better to make way for his conceit, 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 understood 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 allege of his, viz.

Ex Epist. ad TRALLENSES ante med.

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 〉 or ALTAR (for ought that any hitherto hath shown to the contrary) is no less ancient in Christianity than that of 〈 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 signify 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 shown 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.

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 sacred, should be distinguished not only in use, but in name also from things common. 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 between 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 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 believe, whence they derived the Oblation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and that Rite of Reconciliation at their entrance thereunto; (where the Deacon was wont to proclaim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , , 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 Savior in his Sermon upon the Mount, viz. If thou bringest thy GIFT unto the ALTAR, and there rememberest that thy Brother hath ought against thee; leave thy GIFT before the ALTAR, and go, first be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy GIFT. Which Scripture they took to be an Evangelical constitution, wherein our Savior implied, by way of Anticipation, that he would leave some Rite to his Church instead, 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 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 Oblation ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Holy GIFTS, from the word our Savior here useth.

For that they derived from this Text that Rite of Peace and Reconciliation before the Offertory, appears expressly out of Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 57. Iren. lib. 4. 34. Edit. Fevard. Tertull. De Oratione c. 10. Eusebius De vita Constantini, lib. 4. c. 41. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Myst. 5. Why then may I not believe as well that they might derive from the same Text the Offertory itself, 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 universal a practice of the Church, as was in all these three particulars, could expressly be grounded? And, besides that the Primitive practice of the Catholic Church is a good Rule to interpret Scripture by, there may be good Reasons found from the circumstances of the Text, and Sermon itself, to persuade 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 Savior 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 after; for they place this Sermon between his second and third Passover. Ergo he intended 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 Savior 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 Sum 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 Savior) except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then follows this Text, showing 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 〉 or Complementum Legis whereof our Savior spake a little before, saying, Think not that I am come to dissolve the Law and the Prophets, (that is, to abolish or abrogate the observation of them in my Kingdom) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but to accomplish, supply, or perfect them. For this to be the meaning of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the whole discourse following it seemeth to evince, wherein namely our Savior puts in practice and makes good de facto in several particulars what he formerly 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 〉 , not of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For these two are not the same. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Altar of the true God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Altar of an Idol. Wherefore the ancient Fathers and Christians (which spake the Greek tongue) never used to call the Altar of Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (though it were the usual word in that language) but ever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which difference they learned out of the Greek Bible; in all which the Altar of the true God is nowhere termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but always 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . On the contrary, 〈 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 passage in the first Book of Maccabees, c. I. V. 59. where concerning the Ministers of Antiochus Epiphanes, who had erected an Altar to Jupiter Olympius upon the great brazen Altar in the Temple of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon, the Greek expresseth it in this manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They sacrificed upon the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which was upon the 〈 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 Corinthios, brings in our Savior thus speaking; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If thou desirest blood, make not the Idols 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ruddy with the slaughter of Beasts, but my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with my blood. 'It is upon that passage, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? With the same style in the Homily a little before quoted [ Demonstrat. Quod Christus sit Deus ] he magnifies the speedy propagation of the Gospel, that in so short a time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( Bomoi & Simulacra ) were abolished, and 〈 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 〉 is a word not used by any Pagan Writer, but is a mere Ecclesiastical and Hellenistical term, first devised (as Philo in his Vita Mosis would give us to understand) by the Septuagint to express the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and to distinguish the Altar of the God of Israel from the Altars of the Idol-God's of the Gentiles.

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 〉 , was only (as the name implies) a Table for sacrifice; viz. in the Law, of those bloody Sacrifices which were then offered to God by Fire and Incense; in the Gospel, of the reasonable and spiritual Sacrifice, sent up unto God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , only by the word of thanksgiving and prayer. But 〈 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 respect 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 God's, because they placed them upon their Altars.

And this also the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fitly intimates, as properly importing a Basis, whereon something standeth, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Eustathius notes; and is accordingly used by Homer for the Basis whereon stood the gilded Statues of Boys holding lights at a banquet; So 2 Chron. 34. 4. we read, That Josiah 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 connection 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 declaiming against some lapsed Christians, 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) 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 Gentile-Temple. 2. The place of the Clergy 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 〉 ALTARE, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ARA. Which the Author of the vulgar Latin 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 〉 .

I have prosecuted this observation of the difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the more largely, because it will help us through those doubtful and stumbling passages which are found in Origen, Minutius Felix, Arnobius and Lactantius, in their disputes against the Gentiles. Who although they lived, the two first in the third Century, (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 alleged, that they usually called the HOLY TABLE there placed by the name of ALTARE and 〈 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 answer the Gentiles according to the notion wherein they objected this unto them; to wit, that they had no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , no Idol-stools, or Simulacrorum scabella; not that they had no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Therefore the word which Origen there useth is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And in all those passages you shall ever find Arae & Simulacra to go together. Origen;

And as for Temples, their meaning was, they had no such claustra Numinum as the Gentiles supposed Temples to be, and to which they appropriated that name, viz. Places whereunto the God's, by the power of spells 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 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For such the stories and monuments of those times expressly 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 restoring them, when the Persecution ceased. All which he that will may find in Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History, before either Arnobius or Lactantius wrote: Whither I refer them that would be more fully satisfied; yea to Arnobius 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 Discourse.

PSALM CXXXII. VII.

SO the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rightly rendered; and those who say Before his Footstool, imply the same, if it be rightly construed. The LXX. hath 〈 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 itself, or the place at least where it stood, called DEBIR or the Holy of Holies, towards which the Jews 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 Jeremiah also, in the beginning of the second of his Lamentations, bewaileth that The Lord had cast down the beauty of Israel, (that is, his glorious Temple) and remembered 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 towards 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 〉 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 〉 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 former we read, that Solomon prepared the ORACLE or DEBIR, to set the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord there: in the 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 Liturgy rendered 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, either the Ark or Mercy-seat itself, 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 something 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 sometimes it is described, 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 itself 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 anything, especially concerning the Worship of God, which either we do ourselves, 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 Worship; esteeming it little better than Idolatry, as being of like nature with worshipping 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 practiced by the people of God in the Old Testament, and that with his allowance and approbation. 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 Holy place, as my Text (and that parallel place now alleged out of Psalm 28. for confirmation) 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 Jews 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 imitation of the Ark of the Covenant with the Two Tables. In the other Psalm likewise, v. 1, 2. the Psalmist saith, Before the God's (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 entered 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 〉 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 〉 Targ. 〈 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 foreign 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 Solomon at the dedication thereof; and the example of Daniel, Dan. 6. 10. who opened his windows towards Jerusalem, 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. Zerubbabel also, 3 Esd. 4. 58. lifted up his face to heaven toward Jerusalem, and praised the King of Heaven. And this custom the Jews in their devotions still observe unto this day. Yea all this may seem (for ought that can be shown to the contrary) to have been done out of the use of mankind, without any special Precept to that purpose, which is nowhere 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; Nature it seems having taught mankind, 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 〉 , (if I may so speak) as in the Heavens; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as in Temples and like sacred places, where his Name and Presence 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 Presence 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; whatsoever fault otherwise it might have.

The reason of this difference, between worshipping God by an Image and worshipping 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 anything as that which representeth unto him the Object unto which he is tendering his act, is to make it an Object representative; and consequently, such as in part and as by way of intervention receiveth the Act which by it is tendered 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 itself; yet is it more than the jealousy 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 unlawful.

First, Not to use it therein as (or by way of) an Instrument whereby it is performed: 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 Music, as David ordained; to use a Book to swear upon, when we take an oath; for to swear is as much an Act or Religious worship, and as much appropriated unto God in Scripture, as any other worship 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 Covenant 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 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 shows 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 differences and relations of Place; and the worship of God no more communicated thereby with the Creature, whereby we determine the one, than whereby we determine the other. Indeed the Creature by this means is honored and dignified; but that honor the Creature receiveth lies only in this, in being chosen and preferred before any other for such sacred use. Which honor, I trow, is of no other or higher nature, than what any Sacred thing according to the fitness and propriety it hath may be respected with.

Moreover, if it should not be lawful in Divine worship to direct our posture towards a Creature, and that too in great regard of some special relation it hath to Godward; it would be unlawful to set our faces and lift up our hands and eyes to Heaven 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 Savior, 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 visibly 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 Object of our Worship. Nor to determine our posture only by a creature, but to communicate 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 practiced by holy men in Scripture. Besides that the admission thereof openeth the true way how to answer our adversaries, when they allege the aforementioned places of Scripture in patronage of their Idolatrous worship.

Now then to apply all this to the Hypothesis: 〈 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 Jewish Temple, being Solium Christi, and in the language of Antiquity the Christian Sanctum Sanctorum; where the Book of the Gospels (by ancient custom laid thereon) parallels the two Tables, the holy Eucharist 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 Jews 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 itself, 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 ordained for them, or at the most (if that) some imitative Ark only with a Roll of the Law put therein, such as the Jews at this day are known to have in their Synagogues, 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 Savior in the Gospel would not have his Disciples to enter into a man's house without some salutation; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when ye enter into an house, salute it. 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 towards 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 Blood reached forth unto us, (who is our Propitiatory through faith in his Blood, 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?

LEVITICI 19. 30.

QUALEM Philosophi Virtuti sedem posuerunt ab Extremis utrinque remotam, talem quoque Sacrae Scripturae stylus Pietatis laudat semitam; Viam nempe mediam, quâ neque dextrorsum iter neque sinistrorsum: Hanc qui tenent, viam rectam insistere, perfect coram Deo ambulare; qui vero ab ea aliquoversum deflexerint, tantundem dicuntur à recto deviâsse. Nos autem (heu miserum genus!) nescio quo naturae nostrae vitio, dicam? an fato, tantum fere ab aurea hac Mediocritate absumus, quantum ipsa ab Extremis suis Mediocritas. In arduo illo regulatae Pietatis jugo vix momento consistimus, quin, ut decantatum illud Sisyphi saxum, ad ima vitiorum relabimur inquieti.

Hoc eùm in aliis quamplurimis observatu est proclive, tum vel maxim in hac, de qua nunc agendum mihi est, Reverentia Saera. Quid enim? naufragium hîc multorum video, his Scyllae allisâ, illis Charybdi absorptâ nave; dum hi Venerationis praetex • u Idololatriam, illi hujus sugâ Contemptum inducunt omnis rei Sacrae.

Mihi, (Viri Patres Fratresque) dum rem istam altiùs paulo cogitatiùsque mecum expendo utrique horum videntur in extrema abiisse nimis, & terminos movisse ab antiquo positos: Quos ego, pace Vestrâ, Viri Ornatissimi) aliquatenus dignoscendi & reponendi spe, naviculâ meâ, tenui licet, audebo per hoc fretum; nullo (Deum testor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) aut Superstitionis amore, aut Christianae Simplicitatis odio, sed solius Veritatis investigandae studio; neque tam ut mores obsoletos revocem, qui nobis fortasse ex usu non fuerint, quàm ut decoram rebus Christianis Majestatem asseram, & opportunam de aliorum factis judicandi modestiam charitati & prudentiae Christianae subjiciam.

Quod ut fa • iam, duo mihi hodie explicanda su • t ad totidem hujus Scripturae Verba: Primum est De sanctuario Dei, alterum De Reverentia seu Veneratione Sacra. De Sanctuario duo dicam; primo Quid sit, deinde An locum usúmque habeat sub Evangelio. Est igitur Sansctuarium locus Sanctus, id est, Locus Deo consecratus ad usus Divinos. Sanctae autem quàm vere & quo sensu nuneupentur Loca hujusmodi, id vero ex diversa Sanctitatis notione ernendum est. Diversam dico, & quam triplici notâ disparaverim in Essentialem, Virtuosam & Relativam.

Essentiali Sanctitate Deus ipse Sanctus est, eujus Sanctitas non est aliud ab ipso. Virtuosâ nos debemus, id est, Pietate, imbui; qualitate nimirum sanctâ quam Virtutem viri pii, seu Virtutem finieris religiosam; cujusmodi Graecis proprie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur, Latinis Sanctimonia,

Atqui Locum, puta rem inanimem, neque hâc neque illâ Sanctitate vel Sanctum ducimus, vel dicimus Sanctuarium, sed tertiâ solâ Sanctitatis notione, quam dixi Relativam. Hanc autem definio Peculiaritatem rei versùs Deum à certo Praesentiae ipsius aut Dominii modo. Hujusmodi Sanctitatem Relativam appello: Qualitatis enim aut Virtutis nihil habet quod inhaereat, ut superstitiosuli multi credunt, sed pura puta Relatio est, cujus participes res Graeci 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Latini sacras nominârint; nec facile in hac verbi notione alternâ runt aut hi aut illi. Addo versùs Deum: neque enim quod euivis peculiare, neque si Angels ipsis, id Sanctum ullo modo est habendum, sed quod soli Deo vivo & aeterno. Postremo subjungo, à certo Praesentiae ipsius aut Dominii modo: quibus verbis geminam Sanctitatis hujus efficientem designare volui, simúlque innuere duos inde oriri Sanctitatis modos, naturâ quidem diversos, re saepenumero conjunctos, Praesentiae & Proprietatis. Priorem ostendit illud Dei ad Mosem, Exod. 3. 5. Extrahe calceamenta de pedibus tuis; Locus enim in quo stas, terra sancta est: propterea scilicet, quod Deus illic visibili specie apparuit, & singulari modo praesentem se exhibuit. Alioquin quid, quaeso, intereat inter istum Locum & reliqua illius Deserti loca? Sola Praesentia Dei singularis hunc locum singularem fecerat, & adhuc facit omnem locum ubicunque habet singulariter. Alterius modi sunt, ut omnes olim sub Lege Oblationes, ita sub Evangelio Bona (ut nunc loquimur) Ecclesiastica. Hinc enim (cùm in hominum Bonis ampliùs non sint) Deo peculiare illud jus & Dominium acquiritur à quo Sancta omnino sunt censenda.

Quamvis jam Loca praecipue sancta sunt ob Praesentiam; Templi tamen & Sanctuarii ratio utrumque Sanctitatis hujus modum comprehendit: quà enim Locus est, à Praesentiae modo; quà Domus est Deo Divinisque addicta, à Dominio peculiari sacrum est. Ita Templum Hierosoly • itanum utrâque ration suit sanctum; tum à Dominio Dei, nam Dei Domus dicebatur, & Templum Domini; tum à Praesentiae, singularitate, cùm Dei habitaculum audiret, eo quod ibi Deus cum hominibus colloqui, ibi homines Deum convenire, audire, orare, & de rebus obscuris consulere solebant: ut taceam, tot Sacrificia, tot rerum Typicarum Mysteria, totidem fuisse Dei praesentis Symbola.

Duplicem hanc Templariae Sanctitatis rationem mirum quàm pulchre Apostolus Paulus Fidelium corporibus accommodavit, primâ ad Cor. cap. 6. An ignoratis (inquit) corpus vestrum esse Templum Spiritûs sancti qui in vobis est, (audit Praesentiam) neque vos esse vestri juris? audit Propri • tatem. Item alibi, Vos (inquit) estis Templum Dei viventis. Quare autem? quia (inquit) dixit Deus, Habitabo in iis & inambulabo, (hoc Praesentiae est) deinde quia dixit, Et ero illorum Deus, & ipsi erunt mihi populus; hoc Dominii est.

ATQUE ita Locorum Sanctorum indolem & naturam explicavi: Cujusmodi sub Lege obtinuisse cùm nemo dubitet, restat porro inquirendum, an ulla Loca hujusmodi agnoscat Evangelium. Certe agnoscit Evangelium Ecclesias seu Templa Evangelica: habent Christiani & omnino habere debent sua Oratoria, sua (sic loquar) Eucharisteria, & Dei Domus, non ejusdem (fateor) cum Iudaico rationis; si tamen Typi rationem excipias, perinde atque illud sancta atque reverenda. Sancta (inquam) non à Dominio Dei solo seu Propritate, verùm etiam à Praesentiae peculiaritate. Anno enim in illis nos Deum quasi convenire solemus, & Deus nos Ministerii sacri ore compellare? Vbi sunt duo aut tres (ait Servator) congregati in nomine meo, ibi ego sum in medio illorum. Et vero, quod longe maximum est, ineffabili modo adest in mystico Panis & Vini Sacramento. Haud enim verebor dicere, in sacrosancta Eucharistia non minùs peculiariter & visibiliter nobis adesse Deum, quàm Mosi in ardenti Rubo: nec Templum aut Tabernaculum Iudaicum magis Christi Corpus praefigurâsse, quàm hunc Panem nobis exhibere. Locus igitur Rubo circumpositus sanctus erat; & non erit Sacra Mensa? Templum Iudaeorum, & non nostra Eucharisteria? Et quid si non ibi jugiter exhibeatur hoc Sacramentum? Locus tamen sanctus erit, ubi solet exhiberi. Filiae Pharaonis sas non erat habitare in domo Davidis, quia (ut dicitur 2 Chron. 8. 23.) Sancta sunt ista, in quae ingressa est Arca Iehovae. Annon multo magis nostra Eucharisteria sacra (de Sanctitate enim Relativa semper loquor) ubi vera Domini Arca exhibetur, cujus illa tantùm umbra?

Breviter igitur & uno quasi ictu sic concludo rem totam. Si ulla sint hodie usquam terrarum aut gentium Loca Deo magis peculiaria quàm omnia, aut vere haec omnia Sancta, id est Sacra, dixero, aut Sanctitatem Relativam nondum vere definivi.

AT vero inquiunt in Evangelio nulli loco alligatum esse Deum, neque nos ad Deum colendum. Id enim unius Legis fuisse proprium, ut in uno loco invocetur & adoretur Deus, in Typum Mediatoris unici; hodie non ita. De nobis & nostris temporibus vaticinari Malacbiam, in omni loco suffimentum offeretur Nomini meo, & munus purum; quia magnum Nomen meum erit in Gentibus, ait Dominus Sabaoth. Quin & Paulus ad Timoth. in omni loco jubet orare Christianum. Ecce igitur Christianis promiscue Deum colendum, non Templis, non Locis ad hunc usum Sacris: eodem illis loco habenda esse omnia omnino Loca. Secundo, (ut porro sciamus hoc Legis fuisse proprium) nulla primaeva illa Christianitas hujusmodi Loca sacra novit, non vidit Apostolorum aetas: Quinimo in privatis domibus obibant illi sua Sacra; non certis, non sanctis, sed quibusvis, ut occasio tulit, locis. Deni{que} palmarium illud est, quo vel ex Gentibus erant qui oppugnârunt Templa Gentium; ubique esse Deum, non habitare in Templis manufactis.

Videtis, ut in campum elicui & in aciem praecipuas Hieroclastôn copias: cum quibus nunc strenue mihi confligendum; & proterendae singulae eo quo produxi ordine. Aiunt, Legis fuisse proprium, ut loco certo, & peculiariter huc destinato, invocetur Deus; Evangelio liberum, ut in omni • Imo vero Legi fuit proprium, non tam ut certo, quàm ut unico Loco publice colatur Deus; Evangelio liberum ut in multis, impossible ut in omni. Quod igitur Paulus, omni loco orandum, de privata Oratione dixit, non de publica: Quod Propheta, in omni loco sussitum Deo offerendum, aut siquid simile ab aliis, de omnibus Locorum generibus aiunt, non de singulis omnium generum. Genera Locorum intelligo diversarum terrarum Loca; quasi dixislet Malachias. In omnibus terris erunt Loca ubi Gentes invocabunt nomen Dei. Nunquam enim futurum erat aut est ut in singulis singularum terrarum locis publico ritu invocetur Deus; sed tantùm in aliquibus omnis terrae locis.

Praeterea, Omnia Loca esse hodie aeque sancta, verum est de eo quod fas sit & liberum, non de eo quod sit actu. In Evangelio nullus Locus hoc privilegio gaudet, ut solus possit dicari in usum Praesentiae Divinae: & tamen multa hodie sunt Loca quae sola actu sacra sunt Praesentiae Divinae. Ut enim si quotamvis Bonorum partem liceat Deo consecrare, non idcirco dixeris omnes esse sacras; nec si quemvis Septimanae diem liberum sit sacris Conventibus obligare, ideo omnem diem esse diem Festum: idem hîc putate; Omni quidem Loco fas esse, omnem tamen non esse sanctum.

In Lege Ministerium sacrum erat uni Familiae adstrictum; Ecclesia uni Genti. In Evangelio utrumque est Catholicum & commune; omni Familiae Ministerium, Ecclesia omni Genti: nec tamen sunt ex omni Familia Sacrorum administri, nec in omni Gente Ecclesia Dei. Idem hîc puta: liberum esse apud Christianos Deo Templum in omni Loco poni, non tamen positum esse in omni Loco.

Pergunt, & Apostolorum (inquiunt) aevo Templa nulla aut Fana. Imo vos, inquam, Objectionum vani estis. Nam quid ingeritis mihi Tempora extraordinaria ad legem & mensuram ordinariorum? Sed non utar hoc effugio, quinimo fidenter aslevero, Christianis jam Apostolorum aevo fuisse Loca sua Sacra seu Sacella; neque in omni promiscue loco ad publicum Dei cultum convenisse. Sacella, inquam, habuerunt, in primis sorsan initiis occulta illa, neque adeo vulgo Gentium conspicua; quia aut partes aut intra ambitum essent privatarum aedium; ipsa tamen nequaquam privata. Fallunt enim & falluntur qui, quasi publicum non esset quod semotum à conspectu publico, nimis importune urgent, eo quod palàm Synaxes suas non celebrârint primi Christiani, ideo non publicis, & privatis convenisse Locis. At vero aliud omnino innuit Apostolus de Ecclesia Corinthiaca, 1 Cor. c. 11. De Ecclesiae notione in hoc loco non contendam, an nempe Coetum ipsum Paulus Ecclesiam dixerit, an Locum Coetûs; sed de re ipsa. Habuerunt, inquam, Corinthii Locum Sacris usibus peculiariter destinarum; non privati, sed publici juris. Quid enim? Annon objurgat eos Apostolus quod propriam quisque coenam sumeret in loco sacro? Enimvero, inquit, num domos non habetis ad comedendum & bibendum? aut Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis? Ergo Ecclesia Dei, seu mavis, Locus Ecclesiae, non erat domus ad comedendum & bibendum; ergo non privati juris, neque ad usus cujusvis privatos & communes. Iterum, Quod siquis esurit; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id est, domi, edat; ne ad condemnationem conveniatis: Ergo locus sacrorum Conventuum non erat ubi quispiam domi erat. Haec enim duo adeo adjungit Apostolus, ut contrarium ei significet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Loco ad Religions Conventum sacro.

Ultimum mihi restat sternendum agmen, quod sub Omnipraesentiae Vexillo. Ubique aiunt esse Deum, & ex Sacris Literis nos doceri non habitare eum in Templis manufactis. Recte. At vero idipsum sub Lege dictum aio, & de Templo Solomonis: non magis igitur nobis Templi rationem adimet quàm Iudaeis ademerat. Certe, inquies, apud Ieremiam dicit Dominus, Ego coelum & terram impleo. Fateor: At tu interim mihi expedias velim, quare Coelum speciatim vocetur Dei Habitaculum, quare ipsum Templum Domus Habitationis Dei, 1 Reg. 8. quorsum illi Iacobi spectat Bethele à Viso Divino evigilantis, Certe, inquit, Jehovah est in hoc loco; attamen ego nesciveram: Quid hîc putas? an ignorâsse Omnipraesentiam Dei? an nondum forte satis evigilâsse Patriarcham? Vide sis ego, quisquis es, Argumentator, quàm non privatim in nos tuum telum: imo, si te sequamur, quàm manifesta pugna, & indissolubilis plane nodus.

Nos idcirco totum hoc difficile hujusmodi expedimus responso: Nempe Deum in Templis habitare non dici inclusione Essentiae, sed specially Praesentia suae usu; apud Iudaeos quidem usu hoc ipsi loco astricto, & tantùm non sacramentaliter alligato; apud Christianos vero libero, singulari tamen: Quod ad Essentiam quidem, ubique esse; quoad specialem Praesentiae modum, non esse ubique: illâ coelum & terram implere, hoc in coelo singulariter habitare, in terra non adeo in Locis Sacris, non in omnibus adeo Locis. Idcirco Jacob, qui Essentiae Ubiquitatem probe didicerat, in Bethele tamen nesciverat praesentem fuisse Deum; nimirum tam specially Praesentiae modo. Enimvero hic est ill Praesentiae Divinae modus, quem Faciem Dei nuncupat Scriptura, hic ill peculiaris praesentiae Divinae usus, quo qui venerint, coram Deo venire, coram Deo stare dicebantur olim Hebraico & prisco usu loquendi. Quod quidem nos, quamvis non plane perinde atque illi, vere tamen & absque superstitione usurpemus de omni loco ubi sole • ni ritu Deum aut accedimus invocandum, aut convenimus audiendum.

ABSOLVI jam de Sanctuario. Transeo itaque ad alteram & longe maximam pensi mei partem, quae de Veneratione est seu Reverentia Sacra; re profecto, siquid aliud, perplexâ & obscurâ; sed & valde lubricâ: de hac una re tumultuatur Orbis, de hac scinduntur Ecclesiae. Unde siquid ego in re tanta ac tali ex mea stultitia protulero, & non ex Dei Verbo & Orthodoxae Fidei analogia, id omne pro non dicto haberi volo; adeóque nullius praejudicio exacerbari, sed omnium charitate tegi & emolliri cupio. Quâ spe fretus, libere dicam, sed breviter, & multa paucis. Quid enim vela pandam? hoc ipsum timide, quod pedem omnino pono in hanc cymbam.

Veneratio igitur universe mihi est Agnitio Eminentiae habita; eàque duplex, Interna & Externa. Internam finio, quam Men's & Affectus habent: Externam, quae ab illis foras oftenditur actu aliquo externo; ab illis dico, Mentem autem innuo & Affectum; idque jure, Omnis enim Externa Veneratio aut Significatio, utut operosa, intrinsecùs non oriunda, inanis est; nec Venerationem vere dixeris, sed larvam hujus.

Porro utraque harum adhuc trifariam mihi dispertienda, in Religiosam, Sacram, Civilem. Religiosam voco, quae Essentiali Sanctitati deferenda, & Eminentiae super omnia sublimi, id est, Deo vero & vivo; & hanc Adorationem proprie dicimus. Sacram appello, quae relative-Sanctis debetur; & hanc verâ & nativâ vi verbi speciatim Venerationem dicendam arbitror. Civilem, quae Civili ration eminentibus.

I am ex hac Venerationis triga Sacram solam destinavi hodierno sermon illustrandam. Nec id quenquam moveat, quod Sacram hanc dixi ad differentiam, quasi Religiosa etiam non esset Sacra: ad has enim angustias distinctionum cogit me verborum inopia; quam ut vos (Viri Ornatissimi) rectâ mente suppleatis, quaeso sic capiatis meam mentem, Nimirum, Religiosam Venerationem Sacram esse, sed & plusquam Sacram: hanc autem à me speciatim dici Sacram, quae sit nude Sacra, non etiam Religiosa.

Utcunque sit, Trichotomiam hanc aliorum in negotio isto Dichotomiis ptaetuli, ut tutam magis & illustrem. Horrui enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acroceraunia; Divisionem principio & ex se non malam, nisi eâ quidem usi male; nunc certe à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lubricam & perplexam. De altera quoque illa quorundam e nostris in Religiosam & Officiosam, vereor nimis ut illud Officiosum parùm absit à Civili: aut si Sacram admittat, non tamen pro bono aut claro hujus doctrinae futurum, ut Sacram Civili sic eamus confusum.

HACTENUS de Reverentia & Veneratione generatim dixi, deinceps de Veneratione Sacra in specie dicturus. Venerationem igitur Sacram definio Actum rem sanctam sancte habendi; vel, Quâ verenter habenius rem sanctam. Quid vero sit rem sanctam sancte habere, id ex Relativae Sanctitatis natura & ingenio sic demonstrabo. Tria sunt Sanctitati Relativae insita & nativa, Peculiaritas, Discretio, & Eminentia. Peculiaritas de essentia est Sanctitatis, ut ex Definitione est manifestum; duae reliquae Proprietates sunt. Discretio, quâ res in aliquo genere sanctae discriminantur ab aliis in eodem genere rebus. Eminentia dignitas est rebus sanctis à Sanctitate adscita. Differunt res lacrae à non sacris, & praestant res sanctae communibus. Unde tria haec simul complexus est Moses, Deut. 26. ver. 18, 19. Jehovah, inquit, stipulatus est à te sponsionem hodie; te fore ei populum peculiarem—ut efficiat te sublimem supra omnes Gentes quas fecit, laude, nomine, & gloriâ; & ut sis populus sanctus Iehovae Deo tuo. Audit hîc populum peculiarem, sanctum, sublimem: Peculiarem, ideo sanctum; Sanctum, ideo sublimem supra omnem populum. Hinc ergo apparet rem sanctam sancte habere nihil aliud esse quàm habere prout sanctitatem condecet, id est, peculiariter, differenter, & sublimiter. Et hoc demum est ad meam mentem rem sanctam revereri & venerari; nimirum tum interno animi sensu, tum externo agendi usu eam prae aliis peculiariter, ab aliis differenter, & supra res communes eminenter & sublimiter habere.

Proinde Spiritûs Sancti verbo veneranter habere rem sanctam, sanctificare dicitur. Sanctificabis diem septimum; id est, sancte leu veneranter habebis, vel sancte ages hunc diem. Ità 1 Reg. 8. ver. 64. sanctificavit internam partem atrii quae erat ante Domum Domini, eo quod parâsset ibi holocausta & munera; id est, non consecravit, (hoc enim jam ante sactum) sed sancte habuit, & quasi honoravit actibus ibi religiosis. Item sanctificare no men Domini eodem sensu est nomen ejus sancte & veneranter habere.

Sciendum tamen est, non semper hoc sensu usurpari sanctificandi verbum: Imo aliquando sanctificare est ex non sancto sanctum facere, id est, Deo addicere & consecrare; hoc Hebraeis, si recte observavi, est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in conjugatione Hiphil: Cùm vero significat, ut dixi, sancte habere, seu sancte uti, tum iidem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicunt in conjugatione Piel. Quo conjugationum discrimine observato, facile erit conciliare duo Mosis loca alioquin aperte pugnantia, quod unum idemque & sanctificari praecipitur & prohibetur. Primus, Exod. 13. 1. Allocutus est Jehovah Mosem, dicendo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sanctifica mihi omne Primogenitum—ex hominibus & jumentis; meum enim est. At contrà est locus alter, Levite. 27. 26. Veruntamen, inquit, Primogenitum quod primùm gignitur Iehovae ex bestiis, ne quis sanctificato ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) illud; Domini est. Hîc facilis, inquam, est conciliatio, si posterior locus de Consecratione loquatur, (non enim iterum consecrandum quod Deus semel sibi consecraverat;) prior de Sancto usu; sancte enim usurpandum quod Deus sibi sanctum fecerat. Differentia haec insignis est, ut minùs sit perpetua; & tamen ex iis quae haud putares ad eam flectas multa. Ego vero me ad id à quo deflexi.

Dixi Venerationem sacram positam esse in rem sanctam peculiariter & differenter habendo. Hoc quamvis sit de omni signification honoris etiam civili verum, specia • im tamen monstrabo de honor Sacro. Primo igitur de Sacro unguento praeceptum, Exod. 30. 31. ut veneranter & sancte haberetur. Oleum, inquit, unctionis sanctae est hoc mihi per generationes vestras; ideo vos usu peculiari illud sancte habebitis. Carnem enim hominis (inquit) ne quisquam eo ungito, aut secundum confecturam ejus ne facitote simile ei. Rationem subjungit; quia nempe res sancta est; id est, Totum hujus confecturae genus Deo & sanctis usibus addicitur; ideo (inquit) Res sancta esto vobis, id est, ideo vos sancte & reverenter habebitis, peculiariter & differenter ab aliis unguentis utendo.

Idem plane de Suffitu sacro legitur verse. 37.

Atqui omnium apertissime Ezech. 22. 26. Profanatio rerum Sanctarum per Exegesin exponitur non discernere inter sanctum & profanum, hoc est, promiscue habere utrumque. Et ut tandem testimoniorum desinam, hoc ultimum adducam ponderis non ultimi, Apostolum nempe Paulum profanationem Sacrae coenae non aliâ dictione expressisse quàm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id est, peculiariter non habere, neque discernere panem mysticum: Ut hinc discamus Discretionem rei Sacrae esse Venerationem ejus; discretim habere, venerari & sancte uti.

SATIS jam cognovimus quid sit & in quibus sita Veneratio sacra. At quî, inquies, patebit, hanc quam explicavi talem adhuc dum deberi rebus sacris? Quî, inquam, nisi quod adhuc in re Christiana sunt res sacrae; ergo & debitum sacrarum rerum? Objectum enim quamdiu manet, manebit etiam officium circa ipsum. Haec una ratio est, & firma; cui addo idipsum à Deo mandatum in Quarto Decalogi Praecepto.

In hoc enim Praecepto de Peculiis Dei agi affirmo, id est, de quibusvis rebus sacris, ut sanctificentur, id est, sancte & reverenter habeantur. At, inquis, sola hîc mentio de Sabbato, seu de Tempore Sacro; de reliquis omnino nulla. Mihi vero hoc satìs est. quod de Tempore sacro sanctificando praecipitur; cùm haec sit Synecdoche Decalogi propria, ut ex una specie intelligeremus omnes ejusdem generis species, ex una rerum sacrarum specie omnes omnino res sacras. Quod quidem ex hoc ipso, de quo ago, versu est manifestum, Sabbata mea Sanctifitate, & Sanctuarium meum reveremini. Quorsum enim hîc componitur Sanctuarium cum Sabbato, hujus Sanctificatio cum illius Reverentia, nisi quod idem sit de utroque praeceptum, & simile utriusque officium? Praeterea, Particularis propositio rationem annexam habens aequipollet Universali quae foret integri Syllogismi major. Ità hîc, Dies Septimus est Dei dies, Ergo, Dies Septimus est sanctificandus. Enthymema hoc si compleveris, Major propositio erit, Omne quod Dei est jure peculiari, id nobis sancte habendum est. I am assumo, non solùm Tempus sacrum, sed omnes res sacrae, Personae, Res, Loca, Dei sunt: Ergo, Unumquodque horum est sancte, id est, honorifice & veneranter, habendum.

ATQUE ita hactenus definivi, illustravi & asserui Venerationem Sacram: sed id promiscue & universe. Nunc ampliùs videndum, quid ea Specierum habet, quid Divisionum; quas certe geminas ostendit tum ex se, tum ex Objectorum varietate sumendas.

Per se dividitur, ut omnis universe Veneratio, ità speciatim Sacra, in Internam & Externam. Internam hic speciatim dico, cùm interne & animo rem sacram habemus peculiarem, differentem, sublimem, id est, uno verbo, sancte. Externam cùm idipsum externe praestamus actu aliquo externo, nempe Oris, Gesiûs, operis. Ore, cùm honorifice, & pro decoro sublimitatis Sanctae, si Res fuerit, loquimur; fi Persona, alloquimur. Gesiu, cùm corpus ipsum singulari & praecipuo quodam motu, fitu, habitu, quod intus est Venerationis effigiat. Opere denique, cùm item praecipuo tractamus modo, id est, Sanctis nec ut vulgaribus utimur, nec in iis quae vulgaria.

De Interna Reverentia aut nulla, aut modica lis est; idcirco sufficiat posuisse, non evolvisse. De Externa multa & magna: tum, An sit in Evangelio seu rebus Christianis ullo modo ferenda; tum, si hoc constabit, Quomodo sit facienda. Prior lis iniquissima est, & procul ab omni ration. Quae enim cogitare fas, & affectu intus concipere, cur non & proferre liceret Ore, Habitu, Opere? Certe quae istis ostentare & foras repraesentare nefas, etiam concipere, etiam cogitare impium est. Argumentatio haec solida est & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sed rem aliis porro argumentis evincam, cùm speciatim mihi ventum ad Venerationem Locis Sacris asserendam.

Altera de modo hujus Venerationis lis est, Quâ formâ, quo actuum externorum genere exhibenda. Eam quidem, ne cum Religiosa confundatur, ancipitem agnosco & magnis tenebris involutam: mihi quoque ut difficilem, ità nec adeo tutam explicatu. Quoniam vero mihi in integro jam non est ut sortem quam elegi diffugiam, libabo etiam hìc aliquid, sed suspenso pede &, Homeri verbo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Omnis itaque Externa Veneratio aut Personalis est, aut Realis. Personalem appello quae action transeunte absolvitur; idque vel motu gestúve corporis; ut inclinando, incurvando, demittendo, item caput aperiendo, vel certis compellandi & appellandi formulis. Realem Venerationem voco, quae praeter actionem ipsam, rem aliquam inter agendum adhibet, aut agendo efficit, in honoris quem significat symbolum; ut qui Principem aut Dominum suum munere honoraverit, non transeunte ceremoniâ, sed praeterea Reali honor ipsum afficit, quia Muneris rem adhibuit inter honorandum.

Ità Augurum more, partibus in hoc Venerationis coelo signatis, venio jam ad Augurium ipsum; dicóque Personalem Venerationem extrinsecus indifferenti usu posse & Deo tribui, & creaturis; aliâ quidem atque aliâ mente fateor, utrique tamen recte, si men's & intentio recta Venerantium. Ita Deo & hominibus promiscue genu flectimus, inclinamus, caput aperimus, supplices manus attollimus, alia de externa specie similia promiscue facimus.

At vero de Reali Veneratione alia ratio est; nam multa hîc deprehenduntur ingenio & indole esse ad Deum solum & unicum spectantibus. Quaecunque nimirum aut De • e fiunt, aut Ad Rem solius Dei propriam. De Re dico, id est, de Objecto in solius Dei potestate & jure: & Ad Rem, id est, ad finem ipsi peculiarem. In hoc genere est omnis Consecratio; est enim ad rem sacram faciendam. At res sacra Dei est solius, & ab respectu ad ipsum. Soli igitur Deo est consecrandum. In illo est Sacrificium; est enim Sacrificium de re Animae quae subjecta soli Deo: Soli igitur Deo est Sacrificandum. Eódem pertinet Primitiarum & aliarum quarumvis rerum oblatio; sive pro frugum & pecoris incremento, quae Eucharistica est oblatio; sive pro exauditione precum, quae Euctica & Votiva oblatio est: nam haec de rebus sunt in solius Dei potestate ad conferendum. Uniigitur & soli Deo est de his rebus & similibus offerendum.

Porro etiam illi Venerationis Externae modi, qui naturâ suâ sunt promiscue & Deo & creaturis communes possunt restringi causâ vel Circumstantiae, vel Moris. C • u • â Circumstantiae, Dei & sacrarum rerum fiunt propria quaecunque fiunt inter ipsa sacra. Causâ Moris, Dei fiunt propria quae more & instituto legitimo usurpantur erga solum Deum: rerum similiter humanarum quae in solis humanis rebus.

Ex hisce fundamentis quatuor duco Consectaria, quibus de Externa Veneratione quid fas, quid nefas, si mihi censere fas, ita censeo.

• 1. Qui Creaturis venerandis adhibet quod naturâ & ingenio suo ad Dei solius honorem spectat, purus & proprie dictus Idololatra est: & tales assevero omnes qui sacrificant, qui consecrant, qui vota faciunt Creaturis.
• 2. Quam Venerationis ceremoniam vel omnium Gentium publicus, vel alicujus privatus mos Deo fecit propriam, extra Deum usurpare Sacrilegium est, Ejusmodi forsan est (aliud in Gestu vix memini) Occulorum elevatio ad coelum. Sin minùs, tales certe dixerim istos Ecclesiasticae melodiae modos Psalms Deo cantandis peculiariter consecratos.
• 3. Quod naturâ alioquin adiaphorâ, Circumstantiae tamen causâ fit Dei aut rei sacrae proprium, qui tali circumstantiâ, si Dei fuerit, transfert ad creaturam; aut si rei sacrae, ad rem non sacram; in illo Semi-idolatra est, in isto profanator rei sacrae. Hoc Consectarium damnat Salutationes, honoris delationes & allocutiones civiles inter sacra & in loco sacro: Nam quae impietas est, cùm ad Deum coeperis, ad homines converti, misso Deo? Quodcunque feceris tali loco, tali tempore, aut ad Deum solum, aut circa rem solius Dei erat faciendum.
• 4. Quod naturâ pariter & usu indifferens est, aut instituto humano privatim humanis datum, illud sas est Deo & sacris adhiberi; si tamen non absuerit à decoro sacro. Ut si quae fuerit Gestûs decori ceremonia adhuc in civilibus tantùm usurpatâ, potest ea, si Ecclesiae videbitur, etiam Deo adorando & Sacris reverendis adhiberi.

ABSOLVI de Divisione prima: insequor alterum quae ex Objectis; unde quadruplex mihi exit Veneratio sacra, Personarum, Rerum, Locorum, Temporum; tot enim sunt Peculiorum Dei, seu rerum sacrarum, genera. Ubi in singulis, quae genere una, specie diversa est Veneratio, propter accommodationem diversam: idque de Veneratione tam Interna quàm Externa verum. Suus est Internae cuique in affectu modus; Externae in effectu mos venerandi. Virum Dei veneror; etiam mensam Dominicam verenter habeo; item alias res sacras. Atqui lapis est, qui eodem affectu lapidem veneratur quo debuit personam. Simile de Locis & Temporibus Sacris mihi cogitate.

Interim non negabo in Veneratione Interna, ut non facile animadverti, ita difficilime explicari quam indico differentiam: Et certe quanta quanta est, non aliunde eris discernendo, quàm ex mente recta & recto de re veneranda sensu. I am vero Externae Venerationis admodum clara sunt discrimina. Ut enim in rebus naturalibus Formarum differentias vix aut ne vix assequimur; Materiarum oculis usurpamus: eadem hîc ratio; latet quod intus est; quod foras prodit, varium se prodit & multiforme. Quod quidem manifestum erit ex ternis istis quas dedi Externae Reverentiae partibus, Oris, Gestûs, Operis. Ab ea quae Ore fit Reverentia incipiam. Ea duplex est, Loquendo, alloquendo. Loquendo cohonestamus cujusque generis res sacras; Alloquendo, personas solas: honorifice enim loqui oportet de omni re sacra; personas solas alloqui decet honorifice. I am vero Gestus sive Habitus aut totius corporis est, aut partium. Totius gestu, id est, incurvando, inclinando, procumbendo, gestu, inquam, ipso, aut fallor, aut personis solis exhibenda Veneratio: Partium vero sive gestu sive habitu, etiam non personis; ut Manuum lotione, quam in sacris reverenter tractandis usurpârunt veteres; & Pedum nudatione, quae solennis erat olim in calcandis locis sacris. At Tempori sancto honorando Gestûs ceremonia nequit adhiberi, nisi quis forte usitatum illud Festis diebus ornandi & vestiendi studium eo referat. Reverentia denique seu Sanctificatio Externa quae Opere fit, ea quidem, quod ad personas sacras spectat, in officio peculiari sita est, nempe aut ipsorum erga se, aut aliorum erga ipsos.

Quod vero ad Res, & reliqua sacrorum genera, Loca nimirum & Tempora sacra, eorum Sanctificatio & Veneratio sita est in usu eorum sacro; ita ut in omnibus hisce suus cuique proprius debeatur usus, opus proprium: Ut Personae sacrae sint sacris reverenter tractandis & administrandis; Res personis sanctis inservirent sancte; in Locis & Temporibus sacris Sacra fiant Locis & Temporibus digne, id est, sancte, decore, ordinate.

SED omnia haec non audeo sigillatim pertransire; adhuc littus tantùm legi. Faciam dehinc quod postulat hujus Scripturae scopus. Unicum mihi excerpam Locorum & Templorum Reverentiam sacram; in quam altiùs penetrabo, ut exquisite vobis renuntiem sensum mentemque horum verborum, Sanctuarium meum reveremini.

Primùm igitur hujus Reverentiae modos & genera indicabo: deinde muniam argumentis & autoritatibus tam Sacris quàm Ecclesiasticis.

Reverentia Loci sacri alia Rei est, alia Circumstantiae rei. Reverentia Rei est, cùm actio ipsa, seu res quae fit, ad Loci ipsius honorem fit immediate. Qualis apud nos est Capitis apertio; apud Orientales, praesertim Iudaeos, Pedum nudatio; ideo quod hae corporis partes videbantur maxim Locis reverendis accommodatae, quibus ipsa Loca insistimus & calcamus. Uterque ritus Locum spectat immediate, neque ullo praeterea respectu intuetur; unde mihi ex ipsa Re Veneratio est dicenda.

I am Reverentia Circumstantiae est; cùm Actio quidem ipsa Deum, eúmque solum; intuetur, Circumstantia vero agendi honorem loci. Hujusmodi sunt Preces, Sacrificia, Adoratio, & siqua praeterea sunt similia officia sacra, dum in Loco sacro fiunt, aut, ut olim Iudaeorum ritu, versùs ipsum. Nam ipsae quidem Preces, Sacrificia & reliquus cultus Religiosus Deum solum intuentur, & Deo soli fiunt, & ipso quidem cultu Deum veneramur solum: Circumstantia vero colendi, precandi, adorandi, quood nimirum hîc loci fiant, quod huc vel illo versus, illud ipsi Loco honori est, quod ex illo sancte habetur & reverenter.

Ut qui Coelum versus orat aut adorat, non idcirco coelum adorat, sed Dominum coeli: ita neque Locum, neque mensam Dominicam, aut mysticum Sacramentum, qui in illo, aut coram illis, aut versùs illa. Ut autem cùm ad coelum conversi adoramus, haec gestûs circumstantia in honorificam praelationem expetit coelo: idem hic putandum, ità honorifice, veneranter, & ex decoro sanctitatis haberi Loca & Mysteria sacra, cùm in ipsis habentur aut apud ipsa quos Deo soli praestamus actus religiosi. Cogitate mihi Tempus sacrum, ut invicem comparando illustrius fiat quod volo. Vult Deus ut sancte habeatur, id est, digne & veneranter agatur, Dies Septimus. At quì tandem hoc aut meliùs fiat, aut magis ex Dei voluntate, quàm solenni Religions exercitio & cultu publico? Atqui nemo idcirco vere dixerit ipsum Diem religiose coli, quin imo Deum in die. Idem hîc censete: Cultu ipso Deum, Circumstantiarum accommodatione in cultu & ipsum Locum sancte cohonestari; atque adeo debere, quia Dei locus.

Hinc ego (ut libere dicam) sententiae adeo feverae non sum, ut temere Superstitionis damnarem omnem precum etiam privatarum usum in locis sacris; mente modo rectâ & sanâ fiat, à recto & sano. Nam si quis ità utatur, Venerationis hujus quam ingero partem dixerim, & ab iis qui alterius forte negotii causâ opus habuerint Templorum ingressu vere ex decoro sacro usurpari. Non quod à Loco accedat precibus efficacia, sed quod Loco honor & reverentia à precibus. Actibus enim civilibus & alienis, etiam privatis, profanantur Templa: quidni ergo religiosis honorentur? Quod igitur Nuptiis conciones nuptiales, quod funeribus funebres, quod Martyrum coemeteriis Synaxes veterum Christianorum; id sunt Loco sancto preces: Singulae, inquam, singulis honori adjunctive (sic loquar) non objective; non à re facta, sed à circumstantia faciendi.

DIXI de Modis Sacrae Locorum Reverentiae. I am asseram ipsam argumentis specialibus & privatis; nam communibus feci, cum de Reverentia Sacra dixi communiter. Aio igitur Reverentiam etiam Externam esse Sacris Locis exhibendam. Idque primo probo ab impari. Quid enim? Regiae praesentiae (ut vocant) Cameram reveremur nos caput aperiendo, suo modo alii: quanto magis locum Divinae praesentiae sacrum? Imo Solium Regium veneramur vel absent Rege, eo quod ibi soleat Rex sese populo ostentare: quanto magis locum sacrum, etiam cùm non fiunt sacra, ideo quia solent ibi fieri?

At inquies, Praeceptum aliquod mihi volo e sacris literis. An vero quidquam potest disertiùs praecipi quàm hoc ipsum, Sanctuarium meum reveremini? Audi etiam e rubo Mosi praecipientem Dominum, Exod. 3. 5. Extrahe, inquit, calceamenta tua à pedibus tuis: locus enim in quo stas, terra sancta est. Quod ne aliorsum capias quàm de Loco ob praesentiam Dei sancto externâ ceremoniâ venerando, idem omnino scias à Gentibus factitatum, Iustino Martyr attestante, Apol. 2. Horsum spectabat tertium Pythagorae Symbolum, Discalceatus nudi sque pedibus sacrificato, adoratóque. Horsum illud Solomonis, Eccles. 5. Custodi, inquit, pedem tuum, cùm intraveris Dei domum. Cur autem pedem? ritum procul dubio indicat pedum excalceandorum; cujus usus etiam hodie manet apud Abissinos Christianos templa sua ingressuros: Et vestigia hujus moris hucusque cernere est in Synagogis Iudaeorum & Turcarum Moskitis. Quin & Ratio suprà Mosi allegata observanda est; nam, inquit Deus, locus in quo stas, terra sancta est: ergo, inquam, omnis locus sanctus (hic major erit Syllogismi) externâ ceremoniâ honorandus est. Non ego tamen hanc vel illam Externae venerationis formam urgeo, sed Externam tantùm urgeo quacunque formâ, modesta modo sit, & Gentis cujusque moribus accommodata, & rebus Christianis decora.

Si vero quis Exemplis ducatur magis, audiat mihi Iacobum Bethele à somno experrectum, timentem & talia referentem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Quàm reverendus hic locus! quare autem reverendus? quia, inquit, Jehovah est in hoc loco, Dei domus est & porta coeli. Verùm inquis, agnosco hîc Locum sacrum, agnosco Internae Reverentiae exemplum, Externae nondum video. Non vides? quid? in talia verba prorupisse, statuam erexisse, oleo imbuisse, aut Externa sunt dicenda, aut ego tantundem video.

Pergo, & Israelitarum omnium Exemplum attexo, Exod. c. 19. ubi eos Moses ex Dei praescripto instituit quemadmodum sese compararent ad Deum in monte Sinai conveniendum. Sanctifices eos hodie & cras, inquit, id est, Iubeas eos se sanctificare, ver 10. Estote parati, ver 15. primo interne proculdubio, deinde vero externe. Primo abstinentiâ, ne accedite ad uxores: Secundo munditie plusquam ordinariâ; Lavent (inquit) vestimenta, verse. 10. Tertio de gestu & habitu corporis singulariter sele & reverenter comparando, ver. 12. Cavete vobis ne ascendatis in hunc montem, attingatisve sinem ejus. Nimirum eo fine totum hoc factum est, ut mons ill, super quem Deus erat visibiliter descensurus, peculiariter, differenter, & sublimiter haberctur, seu, uno verbo, sanctificar • tur. Ita diserte Dominus ad Mosen, Terminum, inquit, pone huic monti, ut sanctiices illum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id est, ut sancte habeas seu reverearis ritu isthoc externo.

De altera jam Externae Reverentiae specie quam à Circumstantia dixi: ea duplex est, vel ab actubus • acris in loco sacro, vel ab iisdem versùs ipsum: posterioris exemplum adjungo de Israelites, qui cùm Nubis columnam aspexerint descendentem ad ostia Tentoriorum suorum, adorârunt; ipsam quidem Nubem nequaquam adorantes, sed Deum: at Nubem versùs, quod singulariter Deus in Nube. Ejusdem Reverentiae sunt quae apud Davidem in Psalms: Adorate ad Scabellum pedum ejus, Psal. 99. 5. Item, Adorabo versus templum tuum sanctum, Psal. 5. Item, Adorate versùs montem sanctum, Psal. 99. 9. Quou • que vero Christianis liceat hanc Venerationis formam imitari haud facile dixerim; vereor enim ut aliqua Typi ratio hîc latuerit: hoc tamen scio, Idolatriam non suisse viris sanctis apud Iudaeos solennem; neque Christianos olim ab hac sorma penitus abhorruisse, cùm apud Dionysium lego Hierarch. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. sacrum qui ingrediebantur locum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sacram salutâsse mensam; & nostros quoque sciam ad eandem tanquam quoddam presentiae Divinae solium conversos & Deum laudare, & fidem suam confiteri.

Nazianzenus refert de matre sua Nonna, eam quidem Templum Dei adeo esse reveritam, ut in eo ne quidem vocem emitteret, nisi de rebus mysticis & divinis; neque unquam tergum Altari obverteret, aut sacrum pavimentum conspueret: plane Pythagori • e, ita enim ill Symbolo 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Possunt forsan illa de pavimento & tergo Altari non obvertendo alicui aut levia aut superstitiosa videri; Nazianzeno tamen laudantur ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 penes alios judicium esto. Ergo Patrum Gangrensium Epilogo me defungar hâc pensi mei parte. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inquiunt illi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dei Domus, inquiunt, reveremur; non Templorum parietibus religionem includentes, sed omnem Locum in Dei nomine aedificatum, id est, Deo consecratum, honorantes: in qua sana & religiosa sententia nos acquiescimus.

PORRO Universam, quam Templis & sacris Locis assero Reverentiam, duplicem adhuc volo intelligi; Reverentiam nudam, & Ornatum. Reverentiam nudam appello quam hucusque exposui. Ornatum quoque sacrae Reverentiae speciebus accenseo; quod qui ornat, vel maxim videtur honorare. Ornatum id • irco requiro ad plenam locorum sacrorum Reverentiam; Ornatum quidem duplicem; unum ex Structura, Splendore & Magnificentia, ex Munditie alterum.

De Templorum Magnificentia dicturus, ut caveam quae in hac causa multi in hanc vel illam Ornatûs speciem importuni objiciunt, non simpliciter, sed comparate definio de modo & mensurâ Ornatûs sacri; nempe Dei domum esse debere aeque, imo magis quàm prosana magnificam. In urbe Templum aedificas? pulcherrimum id sit omnium in urbe Palatiorum. In villa? aequet, imo vincat, reliquas in villa aedes. Ratio mihi talis, Quia Deo non fuerit dignum quod non sit in quocunque rerum genere optimum & dignissimum: contrà si feceris, eandem apud Deum reportabis gratiam, quam qui claudum & caecum obtulerunt in sacrificium; vultum tuum non suscipiet coeli Dominus; imo nedum in honoris, sed contumeliae partem interpretabitur, quod tu Terrae hujus incola Deo teipsum anteposueris, coenum coelo, creaturam Creatori. Nam Deo sese meliorem & majorem facit, quisquis aut malum ei offert, aut minus suo bonum.

Satis mihi validum videtur hoc Telum, satis firmum Argumentum, quod à Dei ipsius excellentia est ad eorum excellentiam quae sunt Dei. Quod si, ut fit, per se validum, à jacientis tamen manu videatur imbecille; agite iterum dabo non à mea, sed à sacra manu jaculatum. 2 Sam. 7. Ego, inquit David, habito in Domo cedrina, dum Arca Dei habitat inter anlaea; quasi diceret prorsus indignam rem esse ut Dei domus magnificentiâ cederet vel ipsis Regum Palatiis. Simile est Hag. 1. An tempus est vobis desidere in domubus vestris contabulatis, cùm Domus haec mea vasta est? Eódem spectant Solomonis ad Hiramum verba, 2 Chr. 2. Domus quam aedificaturus sum, magna erit, (rationem audi,) quia major est Deus noster omnibus Diis. Cui consonum est illud 1 Chr. 29. Opus vero hoc (inquit, Templi scilicet) magnum est, (rationem adverte) non enim hominis istud Palatium, sed Dei est. Unde 1 Chron. 22. Domum Iehovae aedificandam (ait) oportet esse sum magnificam.

Alterum quoque Argumentum appono à Fine sumptum. Nam à Fine mensuram accipiunt media quae ad finem. Cùm igitur Finis sacer sit omnium Finium nobilissimus, & Loca huic Fini addicta debent esse aliis nobiliora Locis, id est, illustria magis & magnifica.

SED Fumi aliquot Objectionum mihi tollendi, qui obfuscant hunc splendorem. Typicum aiunt fuisle hanc Magnificentiam; útque ipsum Templum Christum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & Deum in carne habitaturum, ita & Ornatum figurâsse excellentiam & perfectionem hujus carnis seu humanitatis Christi. Audio; at vero neque omnis Templi finis Incarnationi sigurandae: quâ unicum, fateor, quâ sacrificiorum dom • s; non quâ Dei & orationum. Quid igitur tu Ornatum ad Typi solius partem refers? Apage conjecturas. Davide & Solomone arbitris decidatur lis ista; quos operis sui finem pervidisse haud negaveris. Davidem roga, quare Opus illud tam Magnificum: respondebit, Quia Dei illud palatium est, non hominum. Solomonem: Quia, inquit, major est Deus noster omnibus Diis. At hi fines ceremoniales non sunt: ergo praecipuus saltem Magnificentiae istius scopus fuit moralis condecentia, non verùm rei in Christo futurae umbra.

At magnam nobis invidiam conflatum eunt de pauperum indigentia: Indignum enim esse, ut Auro splendescant Templa haec externa, dum viva Spiritûs sancti Habitacula fame contabescant & inediâ; in paupers ut simus lapides, nimiùm in lapides profus • . Fatebor equidem, nec invitus, in Templa non insumendum quod alibi meliùs aut potiùs collocandum. Bonum enim quod efficit quo minùs fiat quod magis bonum, bonum mihi non videtur; malum censeo. At interim meminerint velim hujusmodi sermonis autores, nos non absolute sed comparate locutus de Templorum Ornatu, ut ne sint minùs quàm hominum aedes ornatae. Deinde sciant non Templa sola hoc quod intorquent ariete, sed & Regum conquassari Palatia, sed multas privatorum aedes. Pauperes egent? Quin igitur tu aedes tuas dirue, quin Regum & Nobilium palatia demolire. Pauperes egent? Quid igitur tibi tantus domi aulaeorum & tapetum apparatus? Quid tot contignationum & concamerationum deliciae? Quid reliqua supellex otiosa, ornatus supervacuus? Aufer, aufer haec, inquam, sine quibus & tibi satis erit domi, & pauperi inde multum eleemosynae. Postea si indigeant paupers, causam non dico quin Templis omnem auferas ornatum, imo ipsa: non enim pro Templis homines, sed pro hominibus Templa sunt condita, ut in re Sabbatica dixit Servator.

Ut enim David, si aliunde habuisset quod comederet, sanctos panes non comedisset; ita neque tu extra hunc casum spoliabis Sacra. Dum aliunde Veritas potest confirmari, Deus non est eo advocandus Iuramento; dum aliis res dubia disceptari modis, ad Sortes non est recurrendum: quippe hoc esset temere Dei nomen sumere, & profanare quod sanctum est. Idem hîc puta; nisi extrema urgeant, nec spolianda Sacra nec minuenda.

Sed pergunt nobis adversari, & Patrum quosdam aiunt in hunc quem nos tuemur Ornatum effatos multa. At vero Patrum dicta nihil ad nos, qui nullum Ornatum in specie ponimus, sed Sacra non sacris Ornatu & Magnificentiâ praeire volumus aedificiis. Nec Patrum istorum argumentis Templorum modo, sed etiam civilium aedificiorum ornamenta perstringi. Denique, nego Patres istos Templorum Ornatum simpliciter damnare, sed immodestum, sed indecorum, sed gravioris momenti rebus praelatum, sed superstitiosum & malâ mente susceptum. Ipsos videat cui otium est, & in verbis eorum diserte inveniet hoc ipsum. In summa; Quod Christus Pharisaeis menthae • & anethi decimationem satagentibus, & graviora Legis omittentibus, id illi ingerunt sui aevi Pharisaeis; Graviora illa praecipue facienda, sed minora haec non omittenda.

ATQUE ita jam plene absolvi de Magnificentia; transeo ad alteram quam feci Ornatûs Templarii speciem, Munditiem scilicet, rem cumprimis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & sacra decentem maxim.

Argumenta communia quae multa possem, taceo: propria tantùm ingero. Et Primo, Praesentiam Divinam minime decere Immunditiem. Id adeo verum est, ut Israelitarum Castris Munditiem mandaret Deus propter singularem suam in iis Praesentiam: Quia, inquit, Jehovah indefinenter ambulat in medio castrorum tuorum, eripiendo te; ideo Castra tua sancta sunto, neque conspiciat in te turpitudinem ullius rei, ne avertat se à te, Deuter. 23. 14.

Secundo, Templa honorifice habenda sunt; at Immundities contemptum maximum & vilissimam vilitatem arguit. Unde Jehu 2 Reg. 10. 27. AEdem Baalis contumeliâ quam potuit maximâ affecturus, in Latrinam vertisse dicitur. At ill Baalis Idoleum, nos Christi (proh pudor!) Domus in Latrinas vertimus. Adeo nobis in Deum ignominia non est, quâ Nebuchadnezzar majorem non invenit, quâ Dei nostri blasphematorum aedes conspurcaret, quàm ut in latrinas & sterquilinia redigantur?

Postremo, adeo Templis Munditiem convenire putavit magnus ill Gentium Doctor, ut Corpora fidelium Templis assimilans, argumentum inde duceret de iisdem morum & vitae impuritate non temerandis; Vos Templum estis Dei viventis—quapropter impurum ne attingite, 2 Cor. 6. Si imaginem Templi non deceat Immundities, certe non decebit ipsum.

PART I.

CHAP. I.

The dependence of the Text (in 1 Timothy Chap. 4. verse 1, 2.) upon the last verse in chap. 3. Why in the Description of the Mystery of Godliness those words [ Assumed into Glory ] are set last. A view of the several parts of the Text, containing the Method and Order of the ensuing Discourse. The Author's three Reasons for his rendering the Text differently from the common Translation.

pag. 623

CHAP. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scripture imports Revolt or Rebellion: That Idolatry is such, proved from Scripture. By Spirits in the Text are meant Doctrines. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are to be taken Passively, for Doctrines concerning Daemons: Several instances of the like form of Speech in Scripture.

pag. 625

CHAP. III.

Daemons (according to the Gentiles Theology) were, 1. for their Nature and degree a middle sort of Divine Powers between the Sovereign God's and Men. 2. For their Office they were supposed to be Mediators between the God's and Men. This proved out of several Authors. The Distinction of Sovereign God's and Daemons proved out of the Old Testament, and elegantly alluded to in the New, 1 Cor. 8.

pag. 626

CHAP. IV.

Daemons were for their Original the Souls of men Deified or Canonized after death. This proved out of sundry Authors. Baal or Bel or Belus the first Deified King: Hence Daemons are called Baalim. Another kind of Daemons, such as never dwelt in Bodies: These answer to Angels, as the other to Saints.

pag. 629

CHAP. V.

The manner of worshipping Daemons and retaining their presence, viz. by consecrated Images and Pillars. The worshipping of Images and Columns a piece of Daemon-doctrine, as was also the worshipping of Daemons in their Relics, Shrines and Sepulchers.

pag. 632

CHAP. VI.

A Summary of the Doctrines of Daemons: How these are revived and resembled in the Apostate Church. That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometime used in Scripture according to the Theology of the Gentiles: That it is so used in the Text, was the judgment of Epiphanius; an observable passage quoted out of him to this purpose.

pag. 634

CHAP. VII.

Why those words in the description of the Mystery of Godliness [ Received into Glory ] are set last. That praying to Saints, as Mediators and Agents for us with God, is Idolatry. To be prayed to in Heaven and to deal as an Agent between us and God, is a Prerogative and Royalty appropriate to Christ. How this was figured under the Law, by the High-priest's alone having to do in the most Holy place. That Christ purchased this Royalty by suffering an unimitable Death. That Saint-worship is a denial of Christ's Prerogative. How it crept into the Church.

pag. 637

CHAP. VIII.

That Idolatry is the main Character of the Church's Apostasy, proved by Three Arguments.

pag. 643

CHAP. IX.

That Pagan-Idolatry is not here meant, nor can the Saracen or Turk be the Antichrist meant in Scripture. An Answer to an Exception, viz. That Antichristianism cannot be charged upon those that acknowledge the true God and Christ. That Antichrist is a Counter-Christ, and his Coming a Counter-resemblance of the Coming of Christ; shown in several particulars.

pag. 644

CHAP. X.

The Great Apostasy was to be a General one. That the word [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Some ] does not (in the Text and several other places) imply a Few or a Small number. Wherein we and the Papists differ about the Church's Visibility. In what respects our Church was Visible, and in what Invisible, under the Reign of Antichrist.

pag. 648

CHAP. XI.

That the Last Times in Scripture signify either a Continuation of Time, or an End of Time. That the Last Times simply and in general are the Times of Christianity; the Last Times in special and comparatively, or the Latter Times of the Last Times, are the Times of the Apostasy under Antichrist.

pag. 652

CHAP. XII.

A more particular account of the Last Times in general, and of the Latter Times of the Last Times. That Daniel 's Four Kingdoms are the Great Kalendar of Times. That the Times of the Fourth or Last Kingdom (viz. the Roman