The Name Altar

A Long Preface would not become a Treatise of so small a bulk. Only therefore, in a word or two, thou art desired to take notice, that this Discourse was a private Exercise, delivered in a College Chapel, above two full years since, and so before the present controversy about that subject, whereof it treats, was commenced by any public writing: and therefore not to be suspected to aim at, or to have relation to any man's opinion or person since interested therein.

That it was never intended for the public view, but, as thou mayst easily perceive by the form it still carries unaltered, fitted properly to that private Auditory and time, wherein it was uttered. But when, by occasion of the late polemicks, it was copied out, to communicate to some friends, for their better resolution in the controverted point: it chanced to fall into the hands of some, who so well liked it, as that they thought, the time of its composure especially considered, (which by way of caution was then prefixed in the front) it would, being made public, conduce to peace, and settling of men's minds and judgments in this question.

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

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

PErlegi eruditum hunc Tractatum, cui Titulus est [The Name ALTAR, or ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ, anciently given to the HOLY TABLE] in quo nihil reperio sanae doctrinae, aut bonis moribus contrarium, quo minùs cum utilitate publica imprimatur, ita tamen, ut si non intra tres menses proxime sequentes typis mandetur, haec licentia sit omnino irrita.

Of the Name ALTAR, OR ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ, anciently given to the HOLY TABLE. ✚ A Chapel Common-place. An. 1635.

SECTION I.

H AVING 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 hear-say, without further search and enquiry; yet it becomes not us, who live in the Schools of the Prophets, to do so; but to give our verdict, when we do give it, out of judgment and due examination.

To come then to the matter; The seat or raised 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 ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ, 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 St John the 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.

[ 1]

[ 2] Again, in his De exhortatione castitatis, 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 ^t Cyprian, B ^P of the same Church, where Tertullian was Presbyter: To whom this language was so familiar, that I have observed it ten times at least in his Epistles only: but whether he ever useth the name TABLE, I know not. I will recite only 5. or 6. of the most pregnant and evident places, and not easy to be eluded.

[ 1] And first, that in his XLII. Epist. or 2, Ad Cornelium ; where, to show, that he favored 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.

[ 2] Likewise in his LV. Epist. where declaming against some lapsed Christians, who in time of persecution having sacrificed unto Idols, were yet so proud and insolent, as to 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;

[ 3] Again, in his LXIV. Ep. 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:

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.

[ 4] A fourth testimony is to be found in his LXX. Epist. ad Ianuar. & caeteros, where to prove that Heretics cannot give true Baptism, he reasons thus;

[ 5] A fifth testimony of this use of speech we may have in his LXIII. Epist. Ad Caecilium, where he saith,

[ 6] A like passage whereto is to be found also in his Testimoniorum adversus 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, who notwithstanding lived 50. years after him. And out of Lactantius, who being Tutor to Constantine's son Crispus, was younger then he.

Not long after Cyprian, about the year 260. lived Zeno Veronensis, as appears by himself in his book De Continentiâ. Casaubon calls him Scriptor vetustissimus & elegantissimus. This Author in the 9. of his Paschal Sermons Ad Neophytos, Invitatione ad Fontem tertia, says of the Church, then a child-bearing mother unto God of many sons by Baptism, that she broughe forth far cleaner children, than a natural Mother useth to do, being her self

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 50. years after) Eusebius hath left us a copy of a panegyrick Oration made at the dedication of a sumptuous and magnificent Church at Tyre : [ 1] the structure & garnishing whereof the Panegyrist describing at large, and amongst the rest, the seats erected in the Sacrarium or Choir, for the honor (as he speaks) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Prelacy, and Priestly Order, he adds,

[ 2] But the same Eusebius in his book De laudibus Constantini, versus 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 unparalleled power of Christ our Lord and Savior, testified abundantly by that wonderful & never before exemplified change, which he had then wrought in the world; amongst other instances he hath this passage;

Where I thought not good to omit, that what Eusebius speaks here of the world in general, S ^t Chrysostom affirms in particular of our British Islands;

SECTION II.

B UT will some say, It is true indeed, that from 200. 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 Iren. 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, ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ?

Secondly, I would know of the Authors & users of this exception, whether in those Writers and Fathers before the 200. year after Christ, w ^ch 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 200. years after Christ, (which yet is but 100. after the Apostles) makes no more against the one, than the other, if neither be to be found in the works extant of the Fathers, which then lived For by this it will appear, they had no occasion to mention this sacred BOARD either by one name or other in those works of theirs which are left unto us. Now for my part, though I have with diligence sought to inform myself herein, yet hitherto it hath never been my hap to find the Name of TABLE in any of them more then 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 shown.

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 Saint Paul say,

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 Apostles discourse seems to require this sense: For he speaks of Idolothyta, or meats sacrificed to Idols. And not to be out-vyed with Antiquity, I could likewise (as some do) parallel this place for TABLE, with another, of a much like nature, for the name ALTAR; namely, that Heb. 13. 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 jott 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 200. 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 200. years after Christ, being not improbably to be thought to have been the Codex Canonum, whereby the Church in those first ages (especially of the Orient) was ordered and governed. And in Questions of use and 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 & 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 then 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 & 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.

Here the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ 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 Aurelius (Anno 397.) very like unto it, and made undoubtedly in imitation thereof.

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 Pseudepigraphall 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 & saw the latter end of the Apostles times. This blessed Martyr in those Epistles of his (which none that are learned or judicious now make question of) thrice useth the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR for the Lord's TABLE, in his Epistles Ad Philadelphenses, Trallenses, & Ephesios. In the first whereof Ad Philadelph. he speaks thus:

In this place Vedelius 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

That Ad Ephesios shall have the next place; where exhorting them to be subject, and at unity with their Bishop and Presbyterie, 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, [Mat. 5.] so much more, he that through disobedience, is in schism & 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 Eucharist) and of the benefit of those precious and efficacious prayers therewith offered up to God by the Bishop and Priestly Order, in the name of the whole Church. Which, how great a benefit it is, may 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, & 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 Christians 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.

[ 3]

i. He is a woolf in a sheep's 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 ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR (for ought that any hitherto hath shown to the contrary) is no less ancient in Christianity, then 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 kind 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 & an Altar, then between another cup and a Chalice. An Altar is not every Table, or a Table for a common feast, but an Holy Table, and an Holy Table is an Altar. The difference is not (as many suppose) either in the matter, as of wood or stone: For an Altar may be of wood (as both the golden Altar, and that of burnt offering were in the Tabernacle, namely of 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. For what 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 some man 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 〉 , Ne quis contra aliquem, or in some other words to like effect; and then everyone 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.

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: in so much 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 Offertorie, appears expressly out of Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 57. Iren. lib. 4.34. Edit. Fevar. 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 it self, and the application of the name Altar to the Holy Table, seeing all three in the Text depend one upon another; and that there is not in the N. 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 it self, 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; nor 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: wherefor 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 outgoe the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees:

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,

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.

B UT 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. ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ is the Altar of the true God; ΒΩΜΟΣ the Altar of an Idol. Wherefore the ancient Fathers and Christians (which spake the Greek tongue) never used to call the Altar of Christ 〈 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 〉 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. 1. 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:

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 Saint 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, with the same style in the Hom. a little before quoted [ demonstrate 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, Mores 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 Hellenisticall term, first devised, (as Philo in his Vita Mosis would give us to understand) by the LXX. 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-gods of the Gentiles.

But you will ask me now, wherein the real difference between these two consisted, 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 ^t Chrysostom, which I now quoted; especially in the latter. And by that of S ^t Austin, Hom. 6. de verbis Domini, where he proves from this posture, that the Gentiles took and worshipped their Idol-statues for 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; & accordingly used by Homer for the Bases, whereon stood the gilded statues of boys holding lights at a banquet; So 2 Chron. 34.4. we read, That 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 declaming 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; 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 Laity. 3. The coupling of Simulacra and Idola cum Aris suis, as individui comites, and the opposition thereof to Altare Domini nostri, i. Christi. 4. That the Latin Fathers sometimes imitated the Greek, in distinguishing as well as they could, the names of the Altars of Christ, & 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 LXX. useth the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I have prosecuted this observation of the difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 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 3. Century (after Tertullian ) the two later about the beginning of the fourth seculum, in the days of Dioclesian and Constantine, 50. 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 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : yet these Authors afore-named, when the Gentiles object Atheism to the Christians, as who had no Temple, 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 〉 . 〈 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 and Simulacra to go together.

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 gods, by the power of spells and magical consecrations, were confined and limited; and, for the presenceing of whom a statue was necessary; places wherein they dwelt, shut up as birds in a cage, or as the 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 〉 , 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 adversus Gentes, where he speaks of the burning of the Christians sacred Books, and demolition of their Places of assembly. And thus I conclude my Discourse.