The Name Altar, Section 3
SECTION III.
BUT there is one thing yet behind, by no meanes to bee forgotten in this Argument. That what I have hitherto ſpoken of the name Altar, is to be underſtood of foreign, not of foreign. 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 foreign (though it were the uſuall word in that language) but ever foreign. VVhichWhich difference they learned out of the Greek Bible; in all which the Altar of the true God is *Except onelyonly … the …. Book of Ma…c. whoſe ſt… gentiliſeth.no where termed foreign, but alwaies foreign. On the contrary, foreign 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 ſeene and confirmed by one paſſage in the firſt Book of Maccabees, c. 1. v. *al 62.59. where concerning the Miniſters of Antiochus Epiphanes, who had erected an Altar to Iupiter Olympius, upon the great brazen Altar in the Temple of the Lord, and ſacrificed thereon, the Greek expreſſeth it in this manner: foreign, They ſacrificed upon the foreign, which was upon the foreign,which our Tranſlation rightly renders, They ſacrificed upon the Idol-Altar, which was upon the Altar of God; the circumſtances of the place leading them thereunto. And that this teſtimony may not goe alone, take with it a like expreſſion or two in Saint Chryſoſtom, who in his 24. Homil. in 1. Ad Corinthios, brings in our Saviour thus ſpeaking; foreign· If thou deſireſt bloud, make not the Idols foreign ruddy with the ſlaughter of Beaſts, but my foreign, with my bloud. 'Tis upon that paſſage, The cup of bleſsing which we bleſſe, is it not the communion of the bloud of Chriſt? with the ſame ſtyle in the Hom. a little before quoted [demonſtrat quod Chriſtus ſit Deus] hee magnifies the ſpeedy propagation of the Goſpell, that in ſo ſhort a time foreign (Bomoi & Simulacra) were aboliſhed, and foreign were erected throughout the Romane Empire, yea among the Perſians, Scythians, Mores and Indians. To all which adde another obſervation, That foreign is a word not uſed by any Pagan Writer, but is a meer Eccleſiaſticall and Helleniſticall terme, firſt deviſed, (as *De vit. Moſis l…b. 3. foreign (Moſes …ēpegraeciſſans) foreign.Philo in his Vita Moſis would give us to underſtand) by the LXX. to expreſſe the Hebrew word foreign, and to diſtinguiſh the Altar of the God of Iſrael from the Altars of the Idol-gods of the Gentiles.
But you will aske me now, wherein the reall difference betweene theſe two conſiſted, which made them ſo nice to call the one by the name of the other? Or was it verball onelyonly? I anſwer, It was reall. For the Altar of the true God, foreign, was onelyonly (as the name implies) a Table for ſacrifice; viz. in the law, of thoſe bloudy ſacrifices which were then offered to God by fire and Incenſe: in the Goſpel, of the reaſonable and ſpirituall ſacrifice, ſent up unto God foreign, onelyonly by the word of thankſgiving and prayer. But foreign, or the Altars of the Gentiles were ſuggeſta, or Scabella ſculptilium & ſimulacrorum; Idol-ſtools, or foot-ſtools of their Images, in reſpect of the accommodation the one had to the other;Mark here, who they are, that have turned the Chriſtians foreign into the Gentiles foreign. which was ſuch, as their Idols were placed before, upon, or above their Altars. This may appeare in ſome ſort, by thoſe paſſages of St Chryſoſtom, which I now quoted; eſpecially in the latter. And by that of St Auſtin, Hom. 6. de verbis Domini, where he proves from this poſture, that the Gentiles took and worſhipped their Idol-ſtatues for Gods, becauſe they placed them upon their Altars. Nam illi (inquit) quod Numen habeant & colant illā ſtatuā, …ra teſtatur. And this alſo the name foreign fitly intimates, as properly importing a Baſis, whereon ſomething ſtandeth, quaſi foreign, of the word foreign, as Euſtathius notes; & accordingly uſed by Homer for the Baſes, whereon ſtood the gilded ſtatues of boyes holding lights at a banquet;
foreign
foreign.
So 2 Chron. 34.4. we reade, That Ioſiah cauſed the Altars of Baalim to be broken down, and the Images that were on high above them. Aaron whē he ſet up the golden calfe, is ſaid in like manner to have built an Altar before it, Exod. 32.5. This connexion between the Gentile-altars, and Idol-ſtatues or Images, may alſo be gathered out of that fore-cited paſſage of S. Cyprian, Epiſt. 55. where declaming againſt ſome lapſed Chriſtians, who having in time of perſecution ſacrificed unto Idols, would for all that, be admitted againe into the Church, without due ſatisfaction; If this be ſuffered (ſaith he) Quid ſupereſt, quàm ut ECCLESIA capitolio cedat, & recedentibus ſacerdotibus, ac Domini noſtri ALTARE removentibus in Cleri noſtri ſacrum venerandumque conſeſſum (i. in ſacrarium noſtrum, ſeu *Or, as this part of the Church is termed in a ſtory of the ſame time in Euſeb. foreign the name whereby the LXX. call the Sanctuary in the Old Teſt. Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. 7. cap. 18. de Marino Martyre, Adductum ad Eccleſiam ſtatuit intus prope foreign.foreign) SIMULACRA atque IDOLA cum ARIS ſuis tranſeant? In this not long paſſage are many things worthy obſerving. 1. Eccleſia uſed for the place of Holy aſſembly, and oppoſed to Capitolium, which ſtands here for any Gentile Temple. 2. The place of the Clergie next the Altar, and diſtinguiſhed from that of the Laity. 3. The coupling of Simulacra and Idola cum Aris ſuis, as individui comites, and the oppoſition thereof to Altare Domini noſtri, i. Chriſti. 4. That the Latine Fathers ſometimes imitated the Greek, in diſtinguiſhing as well as they could, the names of the Altars of Chriſt, & the Altars of Idols, calling foreign ALTARE, and foreign ARA. Which the Author of the vulgar Latine ſo farre obſerves, that, throughout the canonicall Scripture, he never calls the Altar of the true God ARA, but the Altars of Idols onelyonly, as the LXX. uſeth the name foreign.
I have proſecuted this obſervation of the difference between foreign & foreign the more largely, becauſe it wil help us through thoſe doubtfull and ſtumbling paſſages, which are found in Origen, Minutius Felix, Arnobius and Lactantius, in their diſputes againſt the Gentiles. Who although they lived, the two firſt in the 3. Century (after Tertullian) the two later about the beginning of the fourth ſeculum, in the dayes of Diocleſian and Conſtantine, 50. yeares after S. Cyprian: during all which time, it is apparent, confeſſed, and may be invincibly proved againſt ſuch as ſhall deny it, that Chriſtians had Oratories and Houſes of worſhip to performe the Rites of their Religion in; as alſo (by thoſe teſtimonies alledged) that they uſually called the HOLY TABLE there placed, by the name of ALTARE & foreign: yet theſe Authors afore-named, when the Gentiles object Atheiſme to the Chriſtians, as who had no Temple, no Arae, no Simulacra, are wont in their Apologies to anſwer by way of Conceſſion; not onelyonly, that they had none; but more, that they ought not to have. What ſhould this meane? why this: They anſwer the Gentiles according to the notion, wherein they objected this unto them: to wit, that they had no foreign, no Idol-ſtooles, or Simulacrorum ſcabella; not that they had no foreign. foreign. Therefore the word which Origen there uſeth is foreign. And in all thoſe paſſages you ſhall ever finde Arae and Simulacra to goe together. Origen, foreign· Celſus ait, nos Ararum & ſtatuarum, Templorumque fundationes fugere. Minutius Felix. Cur nullas Aras habent? Templa nulla? nulla nota ſimulacra? Arnob. In hac conſuêſtis parte crimen nobis maximum impietatis affigere— Quod non Deorum alicujus ſimulacrum conſtituamus aut formam, non Altaria fabricemus, *Perhaps hee addes this by way of correction of his word Altaria.NON ARAS. Lactantius. Quid ſibi Templa, quid Arae volunt, quid denique ipſa ſimulacra, &c.
And as for Temples, their meaning was, they had no ſuch clauſtra Numinum, as the Gentiles ſuppoſed Temples to be, and to which they *According to which ſtyle St Hierome Ep. ad Riparium ſaith de Iul. Apoſtat. Quod ſanctorū Baſilicas deſtruxerit, aut in Templa converterit. Ep. 10appropriated that name; viz. Places, whereunto the gods, by the power of ſpels and magicall conſecrations, were confined and limited; and, for the preſenceing of whom a ſtatue was neceſſary; places wherein they dwelt, ſhut up as birds in a cage, or as the Devill confined within a 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 aGalienus in ed. ap. Euſ. l. 7.foreign, no bApud eund. Hiſt. l. 7. c. 1, 2.foreign, or cIbid. cap. 3.foreign. For ſuch the ſtories and monuments of thoſe times expreſly inform us, they had; and the Gentiles themſelves that objected this defect, knew it too well, as may appear by their Emperours Reſcripts for demoliſhing them, and ſometimes for reſtoring them, when the perſecution ceaſed. All which he that will, may find in Euſebius his Eccleſiaſticall Hiſtory, before either Arnobius or Lactantius wrote: Whither I referre them that would be more fully ſatisfied; yea to Arnobius himſelfe in the end of his 4. Book adverſus Gentes, where he ſpeaks of the burning of the Chriſtians ſacred Books, and demolition of their Places of aſſembly. And thus I conclude my Diſcourſe.
FINIS.
End of the text · Joseph Mede, The Name Altar (1637)