CHAP. IV.

Of Bowing to the Name of Iesus.
Of Sacrifice. Of the Name of
Altar. Whether an Altar is necessary
for all kinde of Sacrifices,
&c.

HE cannot not so much as to this
Discourse of the Altar, without Bowing;
which makes him fall upon this Preamble
so impertinently. But let him bow as often
as he pleaseth, so he do it to this blessed Name;
or to honour him (and him onely) in his holy Sacrament.
This later, although the Canon doth
not enjoyn, yet reason, pietie, and constant practice
of Antiquitie doth. The Church-men do it in
S. Chrysostoms Liturgie, and the Lay-men are
commanded to do it in S. Chrysostoms Homilies.
And if there be any proud Dames,
quæ
deferre nesciant mentium Religioni, quod deferunt
voluptati,
as S. Ambrose speaks, that practise all
manner of Courtesies for Masks and Dances, but
none (by any means) for Christ, at their approach
to the holy Table; take them Donatus for me: I

N2

shall never write them in my Calender for the
Children of this Church. But what is this to
Dionysius? Yes, it comes in as pat as can be. He
was serving his first Messe of Pottage, and the Bishop
(as the saying is) got into it, and hath quite
spoiled it, by warning a yong man (that was complain'd
upon for being a little fantasticall in that
kinde) to make his reverence humbly and devoutly,
that he might winne his people also to sympathize
with himself in that pious Ceremonie.
But this is to censure the heart. No, the Writer
goeth no further then the outward action: ut audio,
sic judicio. In that he had heard somewhat to
be amisse, and desir'd (in a friendly manner) it
might be reformed: But still according to the
Canon: Which requires it should be done, as it
hath been accustomed, saith our Canon, referring to
a former: As it hath been accustomed heretofore,
saith the Injunction, referring to a time out of
minde. It is not therefore enough to obey a
Canon in the matter, if we obey it not likewise
in the manner. Not to make a Courtesie, if it
be not a lowly Courtesie. Nor so neither, unlesse
it be as heretofore hath been acoustomed. If we
would preserve old Ceremonies, we must not taint
them with new Fashions; especially with apish ones.
That reverence which the Priests and Deacons
were wont to perform in this kinde, is call'd in
the Greek Liturgies, NoValue a modest and humble
Bowing of the body: such as in the primitive
Church, the Christians us'd in performing
their Publick penance. And if we may believe

their modern Divines, it was two-fold, a greater,
and a lesser Reverence. The greater, when they
bowed all their Body, yet without bending of
the knee, very lowly and almost to the earth.
The lesser, with the inclination and bending of
the Head and shoulders onely. Which or whether
any of these were used in the Western Churches,
and delivered over unto us, is not so certain.
An accustomed lowly reverence to this blessed
Name, we receiv'd from all Antiquitie, as
appears by the Canons and Injunctions. And good
reason we should entail it on our Posteritie. If
this yong man faulted therein, he was much the
better; If he faulted not, but was unjustly informed
against, he was not much the worse,
for being gently admonished. But behold this
judicious Censurer of the Censurer of the heart,
is now become himself a Censurer of the spirit.
Comparing (an angry man would say, Blasphemously)
the young mans Bowing, with Davids
dancing before the Ark. Do you know with the
rapture of what spirit David did this? Surely
S. Hierome seems to imply, that it was done with
no other spirit, then the very same, wherewith Christ
and his Apostles piped unto the Jewes, when they had
not danced. Besides that, the people were not
scandalized in him (which is supposed to be our
case) but Michol onely. And so much of your
Preamble, that is, your Pottage. Now to your
more solid Meat, if your Book have any of that
kinde.
The Writer of the Letter had said, that if

the Vicar should erect any such Altar, that is, a
close Altar at the upper end of the Quire, where
the old Altar in Q. Maries time stood, that then,
his discretion would prove the sole Holocaust should
be sacrificed thereupon. Not onely because his discretion,
being of a very airy and thin substance,
would quickly (as a Holocaust should do) vanish
into nothing; but by reason that therby he should
put himself into the very Case, that Isaac conceiv'd
his father to be in: Behold the Fire and
wood, but where is the Lamb for the burnt-offering?
Because the 31 Article having taken away the Popish
Lamb (for the which that old Altar had been
erected) as a Blasphemous figment and pernicious
imposture; the Homily had commanded us to
take heed, we should look to finde it in the
blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper: For there
it was not: There was indeed in the Sacrament
a Memory of a Sacrifice, but Sacrifice there was
none. And we must take heed of quillets and
distinctions, that may bring us back againe to
the old Errour reformed in the Church. Whereof
this was a principall part: That we should
not consecrate upon profane Tables (as the Rhemists
most profanely term'd them) which relate
to a Supper, but upon sacred Altars onely, which
referre to a Sacrifice. For so Cardinall Peron
observeth, that it is ever call'd a Table, when it
points to the Communion or Supper; and an Altar,
when it points to the Sacrifice. Now the Homily
stating in one sentence most of the Controversies
in this matter between us and the Church of

Rome, by an enumeration of opposit and distinct
species, (the one whereof, as in Logick the nature
of such is describ'd to be, if we make the Doctrine
of our Church, we cannot without implication
make the other) observes these foure contradistinguished
Tenets or Positions: We must make
the Lords Supper fruitfull to us that be alive, not
to the dead: both we of this Church cannot do.
We must receive it in two parts, not in one only:
both we of this Church cannot do. We must
make it a Communion, or Publick, not a private
eating: both we of this Church cannot do.
Lastly, we must make it a Memory, and not a
Sacrifice: both we of this Church cannot do.
And this is the passage cited by the Writer. We
must take heed, lest of a Memory it be made a
Sacrifice. What saith the Doctour to this? He
saith, that by these words the Church admits of
a Commemorative Sacrifice. Which is as much
as Peter Lombard and all his ragged regiment
admit of. I am (as K. James of famous memory
was wont to say) a Slave to reason, and must
yeeld when ever I am thus summoned by it. I
doe confesse the man hath found a true and reall
Sacrifice; but it is a Bull:

Taurum Neptuno, Taurum tibi pulcher Apollo.

A very strange and hideous Bull, which this Calf
makes the Church to speak unto her people in
her publick Homilies. As we must take heed,
good People, we apply not the Sacrament of the
Supper to the dead, but to the living; receive it
not under one, but under both kindes; Let not the

Priest swallow up all, but take our part with him:
So must we take especiall heed, lest of a Commemorative
Sacrifice, it be made a Sacrifice. Which
though it be not so fierce as Pius Quintus his, yet
is a kinde of Pious Bull. But the Church in her
Homily, or any other publick writing, never
speaks a word of any Commemorative Sacrifice, but
of the Memory onely of a Sacrifice, that is (as she
clearly interprets her self in the page before) of
the Memory of Christs death, which she there affirms
to be sufficiently celebrated upon a Table.
And I shall be able to shew unto you, that it is
call'd by S. Austin, a Sacrament of Memory; by
Eusebius, a Sacrifice of Memory: which is the
word in the Homily. You will not be able to
shew unto me out of S. Austin, or any of the
Fathers (although Cardinall Peron affirms it
to be sometimes used by them; which Bellarmine
utterly denies) no nor out of Peter Lombard
himself (upon whose old rubbish they
have built the distinction) and least of all (saith
Chemnitius, which Bellarmine also approves)
out of Scripture; that it is call'd punctually a
Commemorative Sacrifice. All that Peter Lombard
saith in a manner is [illegible] this, that it is call'd in
the Fathers an Oblation and a Sacrifice, Quia memoria
est & repræsentatio veri Sacrificii; not because
it is a true Sacrifice (for you see those two
terms are contradistinguish'd) but because it is
a Memory and representation of a true Sacrifice.
A true Sacrifice it is not (The Christian Church
hath but one in that kinde:) but a Memory onely

of a true Sacrifice. So likewise S. Chrysostom, when
he had call'd it NoValue, a Sacrifice, eats up his
word by and by, and addes (by way of explication,
yea, and correction too, as one observes;
correction of that excesse of speech, saith a Reverend
Prelate of this Church; That no man
might take offence at the speech, saith Archbishop
Cranmer) NoValue I should rather
have said, a Memory of a Sacrifice. You know
best, saith Casaubon to Cardinall Peron, what
weight and efficacie those little particles, NoValue
do carry with them I am sure, saith Mounsieur
Moulin, they vex the Pontificatian not a little.
Surely, if you put them in an even and unpartiall
ballance, the name of Sacrifice will prove
too light, and the Memory of a Sacrifice onely
will passe for the currant and lawfull money.
I know some few learned men of the reformed
Church do use the name of Commemorative Sacrifices:
but it is not with an intent to disturb
the Doctrine of Gods Church, as it is taught
now; but to give a candid and faire interpretation
to those words of Art, by which this self-same
Doctrine hath beene heretofore illustrated
by the ancient Fathers. Besides that, our truly
learned men do set down precisely, that a
Commemorative Sacrifice, is not properly a Sacrifice,
but as (K. Iames took it rightly) Commemoratio
Sacrificii, a Commemoration onely of a Sacrifice,
which differs in predicament (then the
which nothing can be more) from a true Sacrifice.
And yet the most learned in this Theme

O

of our late Divines, Archbishop Cranmer, doth
refuse to tie himselfe to Peter Lombard in the
Consequences, however he doth sometimes use
the terms of this Distinction. And therefore if
a Memory of a true Sacrifice bee all that he hath
gain'd, which can be celebrated upon a Table, as
well or better then upon an Altar, the Vicars discretion,
and his Champions to boot, are not quite
out of danger, to become the Holocaust of this
new Altar. And herein because you appeale unto [typeset-error]
the Homily, to it you shall go; little to your
comfort, I hope. The immediate words before
these we spake of, are those of S.Ambrose. That
he is unworthy of the Lord, that otherwise doth celebrate
that Mystery, then it was delivered by him.
Neither can he be devout, that doth otherwise presume
then it was given by the Author. We must therfore
take heed, lest of a memory, &c. Now there is
no one word in Christs Institution, that can probably
inferre a proper Sacrifice: As our reverend
Bishop proves at large. Nor was there extant
any one word of all these Collects of our own (or
of any other Liturgie whatsoever) from whence
you muster up your unproper Sacrifices, in the Apostles
times. In which Age, they consecrated the
Sacrament of the Supper with the short Canon of
the Lords Prayer onely; out of the which, you
must bestirre you well with your Logick, before
you can inferre all your unproper and spirituall Sacrifices.
And if you should wring them all out
of these six Petitions, yet will it not serve your
turn, unlesse you prove that the Lords Prayer cannot

be said in Pew or Pulpit, but at an Altar onely,
But to deal clearly with you, and to come to the
point. I do grant freely, that in the Scripture and
the ancient Fathers, we do meet with, not onely
those few which you reckon up, but a great many
more duties and vertues of Christian men, that
are usually term'd by the Names of Sacrifices;
howbeit (for the most part) they have (as
Bellarmine observes) their Sirnames also and
Additions put unto them. The learned Prelate
of our own Nation reckons up some six out of
Scripture, and a great many more out of the ancient
Fathers. And it is no marvell; For I could
fill a page or two, if I list, with the like Sacrifices,
out of the very heathen Writers. Hold this the
most glorious of all thy Oblations, if thou canst exhibit
thy self unto the Gods a most just and excellent
man, saith Isocrates. It were a pitifull case indeed
(saith Socrates in Plato) if the Gods should regard
the Perfumes onely, and not the Souls and Vertues of
mortall men. Lastly, I will adde that most admirable
passage of the Poet, applauded and commented
upon by Lactantius himself. Let us sacrifice
unto the gods
Compositum jus, fásq; animi, sanctóq; recessus
Mentis, & incoctum generoso pectus honesto.
I will likewise allow you, (which your indigested
Meditations forgot to call for) that all these
spirituall Odours, improperly called Sacrifices, are
not onely stirred up and made more fragrant with
the Meditation, but many times sown of seeds,
and engendred at first by the secret operation of

O2

this blessed Sacrament. Nay yet further; In contemplation
of all these rare and speciall Graces
of the Spirit, wrought in our soules by means of
the Eucharist, you shall not reasonably expect
any outward expression of reverence and submission
to the Founder of the Feast, any trimming and adorning
of the Room and Vtensils prepared for this
great solemnitie, which I will not approve of,
and bring the ancient Fathers along with me to
do as much. I will allow Nepotian to take especiall
care that things be neat and handsome in
that blessed Sanctuary. I will encourage Melania
to beautifie that place, with the forbearance
(if need be) of her chiefest Ornaments. I could
say in a manner with that Italian Prelate, that
God in that holy Table, which he finds ful of dust, doth
write down the sins of the carelesse Church-man. But
this I can by no means approve, which Protestants
and Papists do joyntly deny, that ever materiall
Altar was erected in the Church for the
use of spirituall and improper Sacrifices. The Sacrifice
which Malachy speaks of, being the Sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving, all people offer unto God, as
well as the Priest; be they at the blessed Sacrament,
at Prayers, or at some charitable work, at any time,
& in any place whatsoever; saith Archbishop Cranmer.
If question be asked, Is there then no Sacrifices
now left to be done of Christian people? yea truly,
but none other then such as ought to be done without
Altars. And these be of three sorts, &c.
For hee instanceth in three of those which
the Doctour doth instance upon in this Book;

Praise and Thanksgiving, our Soules and Bodies,
and Oblations for the poore: And then concludes;
Seeing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then
these, which may and ought to be done without Altars,
there should amongst Christians be no Altars;
saith Bishop Hooper. Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice
are Relatives, and have mutuall and unseparable dependance
one of each other. So he, and truly. But
you ought to take with you a necessary Caution, observed
by the same Cardinall, That an unproper Sacrifice
cannot inferre a proper Altar, saith the Lo. Bishop
of Duresme; when he had said a little before
(most truly and learnedly) that a Commemorative
Sacrifice cannot be a proper Sacrifice: and therefore
cannot inferre a proper Altar. Then for the
Pontificians, they are all of this opinion; I will
single out a few of the Prime. An Altar of Stone is
never erected to praise God or say our prayers at, saith
Salmeron. If not of Stone, neither of Timber; for
that makes not the difference. There is none so
blinde, but he may see that these Christian duties and
Ceremonies may be performed to God without an Altar,
saith Bellarm. And he quotes to confirm this
point, the testimonie of Calvin; They that extend
the name of Sacrifice to all Ceremonies and religious
Actio~s, I do not see what reaso~ they can produce for it.
To Sacrifices taken improperly & metaphorically, the
circumstances of Altars (which relate still to true Sacrifices)
are no way requisite, saith Cardinall Peron.
Would the Iews (who no doubt had Prayers and Oblations)
take them for Sacrifices, or build an Altar for
them? saith Dr. Kellison. Which puts me in minde

O3

of one Argument, wherewith I will conclude this
Passage. God would not suffer the first Age of
the world, for 1650 yeares, to passe away without
Prayers, Praises, and Thanksgivings unto him; but
he suffer'd it to passe without any Altars: That
of Noahs being the first that ever was built, as
learned men are of opinion. Therefore these duties
may be still performed without Altars. And
consequently, if after all this search in the Collects
of the Liturgie, you can finde the Vicar nothing,
but Prayers, Praises, Thanksgiving, and Commemorations;
the holy Table, in the place where it stood,
will serve for all these, without erecting or directing
this new Altar. But what if I finde you
severall Altars for all these spirituall Sacrifices, in
the ancient Fathers, will you promise not to disturb
the peace of the Church any more? Or if this
be too much for you to perform, will you have a
better opinion of the Writer of the Letter, and suffer
the poore man to procure, if he can, so poore a
Vicaridge as your friends was, to be quiet in? Is it
not a very little one? It is but a piece of a piece of a
piece of a Benefice: And therefore I will presume
upon your kindnesse therein, and set you up all the
Altars that God ever required for these kinde of
Sacrifices. The first, is the Councell of the Saints
and the Church of the first begotten; a most fitting
place for the pouring forth of these Christian duties:
And this is Ignatius his Altar. The second,
is NoValue, not the minde (as it is usually
translated) but the commanding and directing part
of the reasonable soule, from whence is sent forth

those Odours of sweet Incense, to wit, Vowes and
Prayers out of a good Conscience: And this is
Origens Altar. The third, is the Righteous Soul;
the Incense whereof, is holy invocation: And this
is Clemens Alexandrinus his Altar. The fourth, is
every place wherin we offer unto God the sweet-smelling
fruits of our studies in Divinitie: And
this is Eusebius his Altar. The fifth, is NoValue,
the clearnesse and sinceritie of the minde, smoaking
up the unbloudy and immateriall Sacrifices
of Prayers: And this is the Panegyrists Altar, quoted
in your Pamphlet under another name, pa. 53.
The sixth, is the heart of a man, Cor nostrum Altare
Dei, the true, proper, and literall Altar of all spirituall
Sacrifices: And this is S. Augustines
Altar. The seventh, is our Memory, and remembrance
of Gods blessings; a very fit and pertinent
expression: And this is Philo Iudæus his
Altar. The eighth, is the Sonne of God, become the
sonne of man; Altare sanctificans donum, The Altar
which sanctifieth all these spirituall Sacrifices, that
but touch that Altar: And this is S. Bernards
Altar. The ninth, is the Sonne of God now in Heaven;
that
Habemus altare
, Heb. 13. that Golden
Altar, Apoc. 8. upon which we offer to God the
Father all spirituall Sacrifices: And this is Aquinas
his Altar. The tenth and last, (for we
must make an end, and remember we are not now
at Paphos or Cyprus.
ubi Templum illi centumque Sabeo
Thure calent irae is our Faith, the Prothesis
or preparing-altar to that Altar going before.

Altare id est Eides, the immediat Altar of all these
spirituall Sacrifices, is the Faith of a Christian,
which elevates all these vertues up to Heaven,
(that otherwise would lie flagging about the
Earth.) And this is S. Hieromes Altar. Now
consider with your self, whether it were fitter for
you to make use of these Altars for your unproper
and Metaphoricall Sacrifices, and have all these
Greek and Latin Fathers to applaud you for the
same, rather then to rely upon some Miracle of
a good worke in hand, or some poore Dreame of the
pietie of the Times; especially when we are clearly
inhibited by the Canons of two Nationall
Councells, to erect any Altars upon Dreames or
Miracles.

CHAP.V.

Of the second Section. The Contents
thereof. Of Sacrifice of the
Altar. Tables resembling the
old Altars. Alteration not in
Bishop Ridley's Diocese onely,
and how there. Altar and Table
how applied. Altar of participation.
Of Oblation. No
Altars in the Primitive Church.
None scandalized with name
of the Lords Table. Altars of
old, how proved. Not taken
away by Calvin.

THis Section is a true Section indeed, divisibilis
in semper divisibilia, chop'd into a very
Hotchpotch, or minc'd pie, and so
crumbled into small snaps and pieces, that an Adversary
doth not know,
Quod ruat in tergum, vel quos procumbat in armos.

P

All the first part therof that relates unto any Laws
Canons, or Constitutions, made or confirmed by the
Kings & Queens of this Realm, concerning this yong
Controversie, I have already examined in the first
Chapter: It being a ridiculous thing for us to have
waded thus far into the Book, if we had received
but the least check fro~ any Law of God or the King.
In the remainder of this Section, there are some
things that concern the Question in hand, which
we may call his Sixth (as it were;) and some other
that are but NoValue certain skips and spurts
or Boutades of the man (when he thought what
Dignities hee might expect for this piece of service)
which wee will call his Extravagancies, and
see that they shalbe forth-coming (as Waives
in a Pinfold) to be surveied at our better leisure
in the next Chapter. And in the former part
now to be perused, you shall finde little that concerns
the Writer of the Letter, or any of us that
approved of the same. For this New-castle-Coal
is mounted up from the Kitchin to the Great
Chamber, and confutes no longer a private Monition
sent to a Vicar, but Archbishop Cranmer,
Bishop Iewel, Iohn Calvin (a greater stickler, then
ever I heard before, in our Upper and Lower
house of Parliament) the Acts of Counsell made for
the Reformation, the Lords spirituall and temporall,
with the Commonalty, that confirmed our present
Liturgie; not forbearing to jeere and deride
both them and King Edward (whom the
Iudicious Divine indeed doth call Saint Edward)
in a most prophane and abominable fashion.

First therefore he fall upon a solemne Act of
the King and Counsell, mentioned by Iohn Fox,
upon this occasion The writer of the Letter observes
that in Saxony and other parts of Germany,
the Popish Altars upon the Reformation, being permitted
to stand, were never esteemed (call them
by what name you will) any otherwise then as so
many Tables of Stone or Timber; the Sacrifice of
those Popish Altars being now abolished. Which
words, I perceive, the Writer had translated in a
manner from a learned Lutheran. And that
these sacrifices were abolished, D. Coal hath already
confessed, pronouncing him for no sonne of
the Church of England, that presumes to offer them. Yet
the Writer alleging the fourth Reason given by
the King and Counsell, for their taking away in
England, That the form of an Altar being ordained
for the Sacrifices of the Law, and both the Law and
the Sacrifices thereof now ceasing (in Christ) the
Form of the Altar ought to cease also; D. Coal makes
nothing of this Reason; but pities the simplicity
of the Times, as not being able to distinguish between
the Sacrifices of the Law, and the Sacrifices
of the Altar. I pray you good Doctour where may
we read of this Term of yours, Sacrifices of the Altar,
if we do not read of it in the Sacrifices of the Law?
For surely all Sacrifices that wee read of in Scripture,
none excepted, were necessarily to be destroyed.
And besides the Sacrifices of the Law, we reade of
no Sacrifice that was destroyed, but that one you
wot of, offered up upon the Crosse, and not upon
an Altar. Beside that, the Apostles and Writers of the

P2

New Testament, by the speciall instinct of the holy
Ghost, did purposely forbeare to insert into their Writings
the name of an Altar, if we may beleeve Bellarmine.
And in the ancient Fathers you shall not reade
your Sacrifice of the Altar, terminis terminantibus,
how ever you may have found it foisted into their
Indexes by some Priests and Iesuits. And Mornay
doth shew, with a great deale of probability,
that the ancient Fathers could not possibly take
any notice of this Sacrifice of the Altar. What then?
are you Christians to performe no manner of Sacrifices
at all? No, not at all, saith Arnobius. Not
any corporeall Sacrifice; but onely praise and hymnes,
saith Lactantius.And if some of the Fathers
had used those termes (as they have done others
of as high expressions) yet are there divers
reasons given by our gravest Divines, why wee
should forbeare in this kinde the terme of Sacrifice.
Christ and his Apostles did forbeare it, and
therefore our Faith may stand without it. The speaches
of the Fathers in this kinde are darke and obscure,
and consequently unusefull for the edifying of the people.
Lastly, we finde by experience, that this very expression
hath been a great fomenter of Superstition and Popery.
And all these inconveniences have sprung from the
words, not from the meaning of any of the fathers.
But the Doctour hath found it in the Bible for all
this, Hebr. 13.10. We have an Altar. And although
this be but one, and that (God he knoweth) a very
lame souldier; yet like an Irish Captain, he brings
him in in three severall disguises, to fil up his companie;
in front, in the middle, and in the end of

his Book. But in good faith, if S. Paul should meane
a materiall Altar for the Sacrament in that place,
(with all reverence to such a chosen Vessell of the
Holy Ghost be it spoken) it would prove the weakest
Argument that ever was made by so strong
an Artist. We have an Altar, and a Sacrifice of the
Altar, that you of the Circumcision may not
partake of. Have you so? And thats no great
wonder (may the Iew reply) when abundance of
you Christians, may not your selves partake thereof.
For in the old time, as one observes, they
were not borne, but made Christians. Made by
long and wearisome steps and degrees, and forced
NoValue, to creepe on with
time and leisure to the bosome of the Church,
saith the Generall Councell. They were
taught in some private house, the vanity of their
Paganisme, without so much as daring to peep into
the Church-porch. They were admitted to be
hearers onely, and that at a very far and remote distance.
They were licenced to bend the knee, and
to joyne in some Prayers with the Congregation.
They had leave granted them to become Competents,
suiters and petitioners for the Sacrament
of Baptisme. And then, after many months,
nay yeeres expectation, being baptized, they were
enrolled in the number of the Faithfull, and never
before admitted to the least interest of the Sacrament
of the Supper. And therefore for S. Paul
to frighten the Iewes with the losse of that, which
so many millions of Christians were themselves
bereaved of, had been a very weake and feeble dehortation.

P3

I am sure this fellow is a mighty weake
piece, to take up this leaden Dagger, which the
Papists themselves have throwne away, as of no
use in the day of Battell. And that you should
not build upon mine opinion alone, you shall
heare what others have printed in that kinde,
This place is brutisly abused, to prove that the Christians
have a materiall Altar, saith D. Fulk, Who
is of so shallow a brain, as not to discern the notorious
unconscionablenesse of your Disputers, who allege
the word Altar in the Text to the Hebrews, for proof
of a proper Altar? saith a Reverend Bishop.
And (for varieties sake) take you one of another
Sect: Let the Reader observe, how not childishly
onely, but absurdly also the Iesuites apply this place to
prove a reall Altar. But to put your mouth into
relish again, I will conclude with S. Ambrose:
That we have nothing visible in all this disputation
of S. Paul, neither Priest, nor Sacrifice, nor yet
Altar. And if these people be Brutes, brainlesse,
childish and absurd, who (grant them but their
suppositions; that here is an Hercules in a Lions
skins, seen of all, but discerned of non, as Cardinall
Richolieu; that here is a David representing his
former combat with Goliah, as Cardinall Peron;
that here is a King acting a battell hee attchieved
before, as Cardinall Bellarmine, or representing
a skirmish that was to come after, as Cardinall
Allan doth conceive it) have all the reason that

can bee to erect a stage for such representations:
If these (I say) be to bee so termed, what a Brute
is this wrangler then, who would have an Altar
he knows not for what! For he would have an
Altar, i.e, a Communion-Table; and a Sacrifice,
i.e. a Memory; and a Priest, i.e. not derived
from Sacerdos for all that. So that I doe not
know how to resemble this Doctrine fitter, then
to that which a Countrey Mountebank in France
was wont to give in writing to his Patients for
the curing of all diseases whatsoever:
Si vis curari de morbo nescio quali,
Accipias herbam, sed qualem nescio, nec quam;
Ponas, nescio quo; curabere, nescio quando.
Id est,
Your Sore, I know not what, doe not fore slow
To cure with Herbs, which, whence I do not know:
Place them (well pounc't) I know not where; & then
You shall be perfect whole, I know not when.
And yet for all that, if we talk of a Helena indeed,
this one place of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
is the Helena of all this sort of people. This they
hug and clip and kisse: And above all indeed, S.
Paul in his
HABEMUS ALTARE.
Lord
how the man melts upon it. And presently after
follow those patheticall words, Hæc est illa Helena
And yet, God knoweth, they have of theirs,
but as Paris had of his Helena (or rather of her
Statue onely, her person being seiz'd upon
by Proteus in Egypt) NoValue a most
cold and uncomfortable embracement, and as Gulielmus
Parisiensis speaks of a like fancy, Chimæram

21

Chimærissimam, the very Chimera of all Chimeraes.
For I will be bold (not without some premeditation)
to make all these severall observations
upon this passage.
First, that this is the first sonne of the reformed
Church of England, that hath presum'd openly
to expound this place, of a materiall Altar:
Yet not constantly neither: For he confesseth, for
all his love to this Text, that the Apostle may
meane there the Lords Table, or the Sacrifice it selfe,
which the Lord once offered. And so a great Scholar
indeed of this Church hath expounded it.
For the Altar in the old Testament is by Malachy
called
MENSA DOMINI.
And of the Table,
in the New Testament, by the Apostle it is
said,
HABEMUS ALTARE.
The Altar in
the old, the Table in the new Testament (if we will
speake with that great personage, properly and
Theologically.) And this is the exposition of
Peter Martyr, mentioned in the Letter, which this
squeamish Gentleman could by no meanes understand:
That as sometimes a Table is put for an
Altar, as in the first of Malachy; so sometimes
an Altar may be put for a Table, as in this Epistle
to the Hebrews. Than the which solution there
may be peradventure a more full, (for the Crosse
of Christ is more oppositely aim'd at in that Text,
than the holy Table) but there cannot be a more
plaine and conceivable Answer. And whereas it
is infer'd, that then at the least S. Paul conceiv'd the
name of an Altar neither to bee improper, nor impertinent
in the Christian Church; there is no man

ever made doubt thereof, so as it be taken, as S.
Paul takes it, Metaphorically, and by way of Allusion,
but not materially, for this Church-Vtensill;
which is the thing that lies before us upon the
Carpet at this time.
Secondly, I do observe, that (Sedulius onely
excepted) no writer before the beginning of the
Reformation, did literally, and in the first place,
but Allegorically onely, and in the second place of
their exposition, by way of use (as it were) and
accommodation, bend this Text to the Materiall
Altar. So Theophylact expounds it, first, of the
Tenets and Observations of the Christians; Remigius
and Haymo (who seem to be but two Friars
under one hood) of the bloud of the Passion; Anselme,
of Christ himself; Cardinall Contaren, of the
Passion: and in the second place onely, of the Eucharist:
making the debauchery of a Christian
man, to be the Service of the Tabernacle, which
hinders him from the worthy participation of
this spirituall Sacrifice. Which clearly implies
a continued Allegory.
Thirdly, setting by the Jesuites on the one side,
as Salmeron, the Rhemists, A Lapide,Haræus,Tirinus,
Gordon, and Menochius (and Cajetan, a kinde
of Controversie-man) who expound it pointblank
for a materiall Altar; and all the Reformed
Expositours, on the other side, aswell Lutherans
(who minister the Communion upon Stone-Altars)
as Calvinists, who utterly disallow of that
exposition; I do observe, that the most learned of
all the Romane Writers, even sithence the stirring

Q

of these Controversies, do expound it either of
Christ himself, his crosse, or his profession; as Bellarmine,
the Antididagma of Coleine, Catharinus,
and Estius: As you may see more at large in the
learned Bishop.
Fourthly and lastly, I do observe, that all Antiquitie,
besides these, do not in the exposition
of this Text, reflect in any kind upon the materiall
Altar. Chrysostome expounds it of NoValue,
of the things professed here amongst us; Oecumenius,
NoValue the Tenets, as it were, of Christian
men; Peter Lombard, of Christs Body; Aquinas,
of the Crosse; Gorran, of the Incarnation;
and Lyra, of the Passion of our Saviour. Not any
one ancient Writer (beside Sedulius) that
next his heart, as it were, and in his first exposition,
did ever touch upon this materiall Altar.
I do not except Oecumenius or Haymo, mistaken
herein by a learned Doctour. And therefore,
good Doctour (unlesse you mean to turn Jesuite)
leave off your cracking to your Novices of this
place, untill you be able to back it with better
Authoritie then your poore conceptions.
For above all indeed S. Paul in his
HABEMUS
ALTARE
is least of all for your materiall
Altars.