Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A07384
|
The name altar, or thysiastērion, anciently given to the holy table A common-place, or theologicall discourse, in a colledge chappell more than two yeares since. By Joseph Mede B.D. and fellow of Christs Colledge in Cambridge.
|
Mede, Joseph, 1586-1638.
|
1637
(1637)
|
STC 17768.5; ESTC S103096
|
16,727
|
48
|
a common stone nothing differing from other slates but being consecrated to the service of God and having received the benediction it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 onely 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Hence also they may seeme to have learned to call the Bread and Wine in respect of this oblation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to accomplish supply or perfect them For this to be the meaning of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these two are not the same ΘΥΣΙΑΣΤΗ'ΡΙΟΠis 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it were the usuall word in that language but ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VVhich difference they learned out of the Greek Bible in all which the Altar of the true God is no where termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but alwaies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 59. where concerning the