The Name Altar, Section 2
SECTION II.
BUT will ſome ſay, Tis true indeed, that from 200. years after Chriſt, and forward, the name of ALTAR was much frequented, but before that time it cannot be ſhewed to have bin uſed by the teſtimony of any Authentique writer; and therefore nothing ſo ancient as that of TABLE. So ſome of ours affirme indeed; but they will be tryed by no other Authors, and records of thoſe times, than ſuch onelyonly as themſelves hold for genuine, as Iuſtin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Irenaeus, or it may be another ſmall Tractator or two (with whom this name is not found.) Of whom the works of the two principall, Iuſtin and Iren. the moſt likely to have enformed us, are neer the one half periſhed.
But before I make further anſwer to this exception, I would know, to what end it is made, and what advantage the Authors thereof doe hope to gaine by it. For the reaſon, I think why the name ALTAR is ſo much ſcrupled at, is, becauſe it is thought to imply ſacrifice. But Iuſtin Martyr and Irenaeus are well enough knowne, to call the Euchariſt both an oblation and ſacrifice: yea the latter to dwell upon that theme. What gaine is there then, that the name ALTAR is not to be found in thoſe works of theirs, which remaine, if that of oblation and ſacrifice (for which the name of ALTAR is diſliked) be? Beſides, what likelihood, that thoſe who conceived of the Euchariſt under the notion of a Sacrifice, ſhould not call the place thereof, as well as their Succeſſors did, ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ?
Secondly, I would know of the Authors & uſers of this exception, whether in thoſe Writers and Fathers before the 200. yeare after Chriſt, wch 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. yeares after Chriſt, (which yet is but 100. after the Apoſtles) makes no more againſt the one, than the other, if neither be to be found in the works extant of the Fathers, which then lived For by this it will appear, they had no occaſion to mention this ſacred BOARD either by one name or other in thoſe works of theirs which are left unto us. Now for my part, though I have with diligence ſought to informe my ſelfe herein, yet hitherto it hath never been my hap to finde the Name of TABLE in any of them more then of ALTAR. I have enquired of others, and yet they have not ſhewed it mee. And therefore till I ſee it, I will beleeve it cannot be ſhewne.
But perhaps you will ſay, What matters it, whether the Fathers, we ſpeake of, have it, or not, if the Scripture hath? For doth not Saint Paul ſay, You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils? Tis true. There is this only place to be alledged to that purpoſe: I know no other. And yet this too, if the judgement of ſome of our owne Expoſitors be taken, is not ſufficient to prove it neither. For Table here might ſignifie, not the inſtrument or ſeat, but the Epulum, or meat it ſelf; it being the uſe of all Languages (I am ſure of thoſe learned ones) to expreſſe dyet by Table; yea whether it be ſet thereon, or not. And the matter of the Apoſtles diſcourſe ſeemes to require this ſenſe: For he ſpeaks of Idolothyta, or meats ſacrificed to Idols. And not to be out-vyed with Antiquity, I could likewiſe (as ſome doe) parallel this place for TABLE, with another, of a much like nature, for the name ALTAR; namely, that Heb. 13. where the Apoſtle ſaith, Wee (i. e. wee Chriſtians) have an ALTAR, whereof they have no right to eate which ſerve at the Tabernacle. I know what you would be ready to except; namely, That by the ALTAR here named, is meant Chriſt, which I for my owne part ſhould willingly admit, ſo it be underſtood with this caution; Chriſt as he is to be eaten in the Euchariſt. For the Apoſtle ſpeakes here of an ALTAR to be eaten of; which is not the materiall inſtrument, or ſeat, but the ſacrifice uſed thereon. Thus if theſe two places capable of, if not requiring the like interpretation, be ſet the one againſt the other, we have not all this while found one jott more for the Antiquity of the name TABLE than of ALTAR.
Canones Apoſt.But now to anſwer more directly to the Queſtion, Whether the name of ALTAR were uſed in the Church before 200. years after Chriſt or not? I anſwer, It was. For proofe whereof, why may I not alledge the Canons called the Apoſtles? Which though the Apoſtles compiled not, yet are more ancient ſure (at leaſt many of them) than 200. years after Chriſt, being not improbably to be thought to have been the Codex Canonum, whereby the Church in thoſe firſt ages (eſpecially of the Orient) was ordered and governed. And in Queſtions of uſe and cuſtome (ſuch as this is) not genuineneſs of Titles onelyonly, 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, Apoſtolicall men, might leave unto the Church ſome rules of Order & Diſcipline, beſides thoſe mentioned in Scripture, (and whence otherwiſe ſhould thoſe Catholique and generally received traditions of the Church be derived?) why may not ſome of theſe, which beare that name, be of that number? And if any be, then none more likely then thoſe which are firſt in order: namely, becauſe collections of this nature are wont in proceſſe of time like ſnow-balls to receive increaſe by new additions ever and anon put unto them, and yet notwithſtanding continue ſtill the name & Title of their firſt Authors; though ſometimes not the one halfe of the contents wil be owned by them. Upon which ſuppoſition we have, for the reſolving of the preſent queſtion, as much advantage as can be; conſidering, that the Canon wee are to alledge, is the ſecond, or at the moſt (according as ſome others divide them) but the third in order from the beginning; and ſo (howſoever the collection hath in time beene encreaſed) one of the firſt and moſt ancient of them. Let us therefore hear how it ſpeaks.
CANON APOST. II. Si quis Epiſcopus aut Presbyter praeter Domini de ſacrificio ordinationem [.i. praeter panem & vinum] alia quaedam [foreign] ad ALTARE attulerit, ſive mel, ſive lac, ſive vini loco liceram ſtudiosè conſectam, vel aves, vel animalia quaevis (praeter ordinationem) deponatur. Praeter *Gr. foreign tritie g…ana ſricta aut toſla Latini Grancas d… xere. De ſignificatione foreign vid. LXX. Lev. 2.14.16. Et ca. …3, 14 Caſaub. in Athenaeum lib. 14.16. Mele hic balſamon et alij, Legu…ina. Confer Can. Syn. Carthag. que hab…t▪ foreign.nova farra, aut Vvam tempore opportuno, non licitum eſto aliud quid ad ALTARE (quàm oleum ad luminare, & incenſum) tempore ſanctae Oblationis offerre.
Here the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR is twice uſed for the HOLY TABLE. The latter part of the Canon the Greek hath thus: foreign. Where conſider, whether it might not be read, foreign, 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 judgement whereof, and of the right meaning of the Canon (becauſe the readings, diſtinction, and tranſlations ſomewhat vary) take alſo a Canon of the Councell of Carthage under Aurelius (Anno 397.) very like unto it, and made undoubtedly in imitation thereof.
SYN. CARTH. CAN. APUD BALSAM. XL. Non licere praeter panem & vinum aqua mixtum, quidquam in ſanctis myſteriis offere. Vt nihil ampliùs, quàm Corpus & Sanguis Domini offeratur, quemadmodum Dominus ipſe tradidit, hoc eſt, Panis & vinum aqua mixtum. Primitiae autem, ſive mel, ſive lac, offerantur, ut moris eſt, uno die conſueto, ad Infantium myſterium (puta in Baptiſmo.) Etſi enim maximè ad ALTARE offerantur, propriam tamen ſuam habeant benedictionem. Nihil autem amplius in primitiis [nimirum ad Altare, in ſanctis myſteriis] offeratur quàm ex Vvis & frumento. Which onelyonly were permitted to be offered at the time of the Euchariſt (as may ſeeme) becauſe Bread and Wine are made of them.
But I will not ſet my reſt upon a Pſeudepigraphall Teſtimony, but alledge a witneſſe paſt exception, and for antiquity beyond them all. And that is, that holy and bleſſed Martyr Ignatius, Ignatius Ep. Antioch.Biſhop of that City, where the name of Chriſtians was firſt given to the Diſciples of Chriſt; who lived & ſaw the latter end of the Apoſtles times. This bleſſed Martyr in thoſe Epiſtles of his (which none that are learned or judicious now make queſtion of) thrice uſeth the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR for the Lords TABLE, in his Epiſtles Ad Philadelphenſes, Trallenſes, & Epheſios. In the firſt whereof Ad Philadelph. he ſpeaks thus: Scribo ad vos, moneóque ut una fide, una praedicatione, una Euchariſtia utamini: una enim eſt caro Domini noſtri Ieſu Chriſti, unus illius ſanguis, qui pro nobis effuſus eſt, unus item panis omnibus confractus: & unus CALIX, qui omnibus diſtributus eſt; unum ALTARE omni Eccleſiae, & unus Epiſcopus cum Presbyterio, & Diaconis conſervis meis. In this place *P. 236 E…e…. 6. in Epiſt Ad Epheſus.Vedelius expreſly acknowledgeth the name ALTAR to be uſed by Ignatius for the HOLY TABLE (though otherwiſe he be no friend to that name) becauſe he knew not how to elude it. I thought good therefore to put it in the head of the file, to leade on the reſt which follow. Whereof
That Ad Epheſios ſhall have the next place; where exhorting them to be ſubject, and at unity with their Biſhop and Presbyterie, hee enforceth it thus; Nemo erret, (ſaith he) niſi quis intra ALTARE ſit [Gr. foreign] privatur pane Dei. Si enim unius aut alterius precatio tantarum virium ſit, ut Chriſtum inter illos ſtatuat, quanto plus Epiſcopi & totius Eccleſiae oratio conſona ad Deum aſcendens (for this uſed to be preſented at the Altar) exorabit, ut omnia quae petiverint in Chriſto, dentur ipſis? As if he had ſaid, Be not deceived, but take notice, that as every one who is not at peace with his brother, is excluded from the Altar, [Mat. 5.] ſo much more, he that through diſobedience, is in ſchiſme & diſcord with his Biſhop and ſpirituall Fathers, is excluded thence; that is, hath no right to offer his gift thereat; and conſequently is deprived of the Bread of God (the holy Euchariſt) and of the benefit of thoſe precious and efficacious prayers therewith offered up to God by the Biſhop and Prieſtly Order, in the name of the whole Church. Which, how great a benefit it is, may appeare by this, That if the prayer of one or two be of that efficacie, as to place Chriſt in the midſt of them; how much more ſhall the united prayer of the Biſhop, & the whole Church be of force to prevail with the Divine Majeſty, to grant them all they ſhall aske in Chriſt's name? It followes, Quiſ quis igitur ab his ſeparatur, neque concurrit cum foreign, & Eccleſia primogenitorum conſcriptorum in coelis, Lupus eſt ſub ovina pelle faciem mentiens manſuetam: That is, An Infidell in a Chriſtians coat. Where by foreign, Concilium or Senatus ſacrificiorum, hee underſtands the Biſhop and his Clergie, who are Senatus rei Divinae, or ſacris faciundis. Therefore Vedelius, who will needs here, without reaſon or copy, in ſtead of foreign reade foreign (the better to make way for his conceit, that the body of the Church in generall ſhould be the Altar Ignatius here ſpeaks of) did but correct the Magnificat, and pervert Ignatius his meaning, which he underſtood not. For that this which I have ſaid, is the meaning of Ignatius in this place, appeares more plainly by the third teſtimony I am now to alledge of his, viz.
Ex Epiſt. Ad TRALLENSES ante med. Reveremini (inquit) Epiſcopum veſtrum ſicut Chriſtum, quemadmodum beati nobis praeceperunt Apoſtoli. Qui intra ALTARE est, mundus eſt; quare & obtemperat Epiſcopo & Presbyteris. Qui verò extra eſt, hic eſt qui ſine Epiſcopo, Presbyteris & Diaconis quippiam agit, & talis inquinatam habet conſcientiam, & Infideli deterior eſt. i. He is a woolf in a ſheeps skin, as he ſaid in the other Epiſtle. The places are twins, and the one is a gloſſe unto the other.
Now, by warrant of theſe teſtimonies, I think I may ſafely conclude, that the uſe of the name ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΝ or ALTAR (for ought that any hitherto hath ſhewed to the contrary) is no leſſe ancient in Chriſtianity, then that of foreign, of the Holy TABLE or TABLE of the Lord. And that both have beene promiſcuouſly uſed from the Apoſtles times.
Nor is it any marvaile it ſhould be ſo; for theſe names are of an equivalent notion, and ſignifie one and the ſelf ſame thing. For what is an Altar, but of thoſe kind of things we call Tables? what Genus elſe can we referre it to? The difference is, That an Altar notes not a common, but an Holy Table, a Table for an Holy Feaſt, ſuch as I have heretofore ſhewed a Sacrifice to be, Epulum ex oblatis, or a Feaſt of an Oblation made unto God. That is, there is no more difference between a Table & an Altar, then between another cup and a Chalice. An Altar is not every Table, or a Table for a common feaſt, but an Holy Table, and an Holy Table is an Altar. The difference is not (as many ſuppoſe) either in the matter, as of wood or ſtone: For an Altar may be of wood (as both the golden Altar, and that of burnt offering were in the Tabernacle, namely of Shittim wood) and a Table may bee of ſtone: nor in the poſture or manner of ſtanding, whether in the middle, or againſt a wall; (for the Altar of burnt offering ſtood in the midſt of the Prieſts court, and the Altar of Incenſe up againſt the vail) but this is the true difference, that a Table is a common Name, and an Altar is an Holy Table. This Holy Altar (ſaith Gregory Nyſſene, Sermone de Baptiſmo) whereat we ſtand, is by nature a common ſtone, nothing differing from other ſlates—but being conſecrated to the ſervice of God, and having received the benediction, it is foreign, an Holy Table, an Altar inviolable. See hee makes one to be the exegeſis of the other. For in times paſt (when men perhaps were as wiſe, as we are now) it was thought fit and decent, that things ſet apart unto God, and ſacred, ſhould be diſtinguiſhed, not onelyonly in uſe, but in *Yea and in form and faſhion too. See Maimon. apud Ai…ſworth upon Lev. 19.30. For both ſanctity and ſanctification conſiſts in Diſcrimination.name alſo from things common. For what is a Temple or Church, but an Houſe? Yet diſtinguiſhed in name from other Houſes. What is a Sacrifice, but a Feaſt? yet diſtinguiſhed in name from other Feaſts. So what is an Altar, but a Table? yet diſtinguiſhed in name from other Tables.
Well; let all this be granted, may ſome man ſay, that there is no greater difference betweene theſe two names, than as you affirme; yet ought the language of the Church to be conformed to the ſtyle of the New Teſtament. But where in the New Teſtament ſhould thoſe Ancients find any Text, whereon to ground the application of this name to the Holy Table? I anſwer, There, I am prone to beleeve, whence they derived the Oblation of the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt, and that Rite of Reconciliation at their entrance therunto; (where the Deacon was wont to proclaime foreign, Ne quis contra aliquem, or in ſome other words to like effect; and then every one to ſalute his brother in token of reconciliation and peace) and that was from that Ordinance of our bleſſed Saviour in his Sermon upon the Mount, viz. If thou bringeſt thy GIFT unto the ALTAR, and there remembreſt that thy Brother hath ought againſt thee, leave thy GIFT before the ALTAR, and goe firſt, be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy GIFT. Which Scripture they tooke to be an Evangelicall conſtitution, wherein our Saviour implied, by way of Anticipation, that hee would leave ſome Rite to his Church, in ſtead, and after the maner of the Sacrifices of the Law, which ſhould begin with an Oblation, as they did; and that to require this proper and peculiar qualification in the Offerer, to be at peace, and without enmity with his brother: in ſo much as Irenaeus ſeemes to place that purity of the Evangelicall oblation, propheſied of by Malachy, even in this requiſite. Vide l. 4. c. 34.c. 1.11. Hence alſo they may ſeeme to have learned to call the Bread and Wine (in reſpect of this oblation) foreign, the holy Gifts, from the word our Saviour here uſeth.
For that they derived from this text that Rite of Peace and reconciliation before the Offertorie, appeares expreſly out of Conſtit. Apoſt. l. 2. c. 57. Iren. lib. 4.34. Edit. Fevar. Tertull. De Oratione c. 10. Euſebius De vita Conſtantini, Lib. 4. c. 41. Cyril of Ieruſalem Catech. Myſt. 5. Why then may I not beleeve as well, that they might derive from the ſame text the Offertory it ſelfe, and the application of the name Altar to the Holy Table, ſeeing all three in the Text depend one upon another; and that there is not in the N. Teſtament any other paſſage of Scripture, whereon ſo ancient and univerſall a practice of the Church, as was in all theſe three particulars, could expreſly be grounded. And, beſides that the primitive practice of the Catholique Church is a good rule to interpret Scripture by; there may be good reaſons found, from the circumſtances of the text, and Sermon it ſelfe, to perſwade it to be an Evangelicall Conſtitution.
1. Becauſe there was no ſuch thing commanded in the Law to ſuch as came to offer ſacrifice; nor any ſuch deuteroſis to be found amongſt the traditions of the Elders. Now it is altogether improbable, our Saviour would then annexe a new Rite to the Legall ſacrifices, when he was, ſo ſoon after, to aboliſh them by his ſacrifice upon the Croſſe; yea (if the Harmoniſts of the Goſpell are not deceived) within leſſe than two years after. For they place this Sermon between his ſecond and third Paſſeover. Ergo he intended it for an Ordinance of the Kingdome of God (as the Scripture ſpeaks) that is, for the Church of his Goſpell.
2. Becauſe the Sermon, whereof this was part, is that famous Sermon of our Saviour upon the Mount; which he read as a Lecture to his Diſciples, to inſtruct them in the Myſteries of the Kingdome of God, a little before he ſent them out to preach; and ſo, in all likelyhood, contained the ſumme of that they were to preach; which no doubt was Doctrine Evangelicall. In all other parts of the Sermon we finde it ſo: wherfore then ſhould we not ſo eſteem it, even in this alſo?
3. Becauſe it is brought in (and that in the firſt place) as an exemplification of that righteouſneſſe, wherein the Citizens of the Kingdome of Chriſt were to outgoe the righteouſneſſe of the Scribes and Phariſees: I ſay unto you (ſaith our Saviour) except your righteouſneſſe ſhall exceed the righteouſneſſe of the Scribes & Phariſees, ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. Then followes this text, ſhewing how farre we are to outſtrip the Scribes and Phariſees, in our obedience to the precept, Thou ſhalt not kill.
4. This paſſage ſhould be Evangelicall, foraſmuch as it ſeemes, together with the reſt that follow it, to be a part of that foreign or complementum legis, whereof our Saviour ſpake a little before, ſaying, Think not that I am come to diſſolve the Law & the Prophets, (i. to aboliſh or abrogate the obſervation of them in my Kingdome) foreign, but to accompliſh, ſupply or perfect them. For this to be the meaning of that foreign, the whole diſcourſe following it, ſeemeth to evince: wherein namely our Saviour puts in practice, and makes good de facto, in ſeverall particulars, what he formerly ſaid, hee came to doe.