IT is a dangerous thing to make Innovations, if but in the Circumstances of God's Worship; those humane Additions which would seem to grace the Institution of God deprave it: the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men; Idolatry and Falsehood is commonly more gaudy and plausible than Truth, Bishop Hall, Contemplate. on the Altar of Ahaz, lib. 20. p. 1286. Altar-Worship, Or BOWING to the Communion Table Considered, As to the Novelty Vanity Iniquity Malignity charged upon it. In an Antithesis to the Determination of Dr. Eleazar Duncon, Lately translated, and sent into the world in a Romish Dress, with a Cross in the Front and Fine. By Z. Crofton Presbyter, but proved Enemy to all fanatics. Levit. 26.1. You shall not set up any Image in your Land to bow down unto it. London, Printed for J. R. at the Fountain in Goldsmiths-Row in Cheapside. 1661. HOdie tepidi sunt qui Christum cum Belial in side, Ceremoniis & moribus conciliare satagunt: qui cum ex Babylone se egressos glorientur, bonique evangelici haberi velint; exuvias tamen papatus, dignitates, ordines, vestes, stolas, infulas, casulas, cruces, Imagines, Statuas, Altaria, Cereos, Lampades, Calices, & id genus supellectilia Babylonica; pro a diaphoris in Templis & cultu Dei, mordieus tuentur. Pareus expos. in Apocalyps. cap. 3. v. 15. The Epistle to the Reader. Christian Reader, REligion (man's Glory) like Moral and Divine Virtues, is attended and often enervated by two Extremes, profaneness and Superstition; equally odious unto God, incident unto men, and too commonly concomitant, and that (which is strange) ordinarily prevalent in the same Subjects; sinking Religion by Profaneness the Defect, and at the same time subverting it by Superstition, the Excess thereof. Such is man's propensity to both these, that nothing will restrain many, until they run themselves on their own Ruin; and when the judgements of a Jealous God hath bid a stand to their furious course; hedged up their way, turned them by weeping Cross, and bound them against the same by the sacred Bonds of most Solemn Oaths; yet mercy is no sooner returned on them, but like backsliding Israel, they forget God, deal falsely in his Covenant, and go a whoring after their own Inventions. Of this evil, England is become a most sad and sensible Emblem; concerning whose present carriage towards Religion, we may expostulate as the Ten sometimes (on a bare Jealousy) did with the Two Tribes of Israel, in Josh. 22.16, 17, 18, 19 What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the Lord; in that you have builded you an ALTAR, that ye might rebel this day against the Lord? Is the Iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed this day? (although there was a Plague in the Congregation of the Lord) but that you must turn away this day from following the Lord: and it will be, seeing ye rebel to day against the Lord, to morrow he will be wroth with the whole Congregation of Israel: Wherefore rebel not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, to build you an ALTAR besides the Altar of the Lord. How Gods Sabbaths have been profaned, and his Sanctuary polluted in our Land, we cannot forget: and how our Kings, Princes and People have been visited by a Jealous God, our yet bleeding wounds cannot but mind us: How his Hand hath brought our Nation under a most Solemn League and Covenant (from which no Power, Pope, Prince or Parliament can absolve us) for the Reformation of Religion according to his Word, all the Christian world could not but observe; yet wretched we, not only forget, but with a fretting violence cast off, yea, break through those Sacred bonds, returning like Dogs to our Vomit; which is woefully witnessed by that Deluge of Profaneness and Superstition which doth overspread our Land, unto the again profane neglect of God's Sabbath, and polluting his Sanctuary, by the whole Mass of Humane Inventions, and Idolatrous dregs continued among us at our first Reformation, or innovated by our late Prelates, in their pursued accommodation and Union with Rome (that Mother of Whoredoms) for which, notwithstanding we have sharply smarted, yet we find the same Spirit (according to its power) forward to appear: Amongst which, Solemn and Religious Bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table is not the least, though by many the least regarded. This Ceremony (for such they would have us account it) is afresh taken up by our now-rising Prelates, and their old Superstitious Clergy, not only in Cathedral, but some Parish Churches: But as yet hath obtained (that I observe) few Advocates, who openly plead for this irreligious, irrational Adoration; only one I. D. hath (with a daring Impudence and Jesuitick boldness) translated Dr. Eleazar Duncon his Determination De Adoratione Dei adversus Altar, delivered some years since in Latin, at public Commencement in the University of Cambridge, and that as he professeth to make plain the Catholic Paths unto Vulgar Devotion: The Epistle Dedicatory to the translation of Dr. Duncon his Determination. & lest you should mistake the meaning of his Term Catholic, he hath affixed to the Front and end of his Book, the Cross, that Catholic Mark of the Romish Church: on whose Score, as his holy Mother-Church, (I conceive he would be understood) he doth presume to cast the Boldness of Dedicating this Translation to Doctor John Gauden, (one of our now active rising Prelates) whom he applauds for his Late Signal Endeavours to vindicate her Honour, and restore her Glory. I cannot but (in Charity) hope to see the indignation of this Reverend Patron expressed against this Translators Boldness; for that his Nonconformity (in this Point (at his Late Consecration, giveth me cause to think his Name is knavishly prefixed to this Book; because his Late unhappy works may (I wish only so) by accident prove serviceable to England's sinful shameful return to the Holy-Catholick-Mother-Church of Rome to which the coming abroad of this Book in a Popish Form and Dialect, seems to be a Praeludium. I heard that a Fool of late seeing the now Altar and Crosses over it at Westminster-Abbey, and meeting with a Person of Honour, saluted him with a foolish embrace, and this homely Compliment, God bless you my Lord, you are reforming Religion to the Purity it was in, in Queen Mary's days: Fools and Children do commonly speak truths: If ALTARS be erected and adored, without, nay, contrary to Law, and that under Honourable countenance, and be pleaded for in plain English, under our Prelate's Patronage, we can expect our Reformation to be resolved into no other Mode. That England may have a seasonable warning, and the Vulgar a timely Antidote to poison thus prepared; I have opposed unto Dr. Duncons' Thesis a plain Antithesis, and explained and enforced it with those Considerations, which run counter to the Arguments of the Doctor, and his contemporary Contestors: I have chosen this Method for the sake of the Vulgar, who better understand plain positive Assertions, than Polemical Debates. Were I worthy to plead with our Rising Prelates, I would demand, Whether they are resolved to return us to Rome, or run us upon our utter Ruin: For otherwise they would call a College of Casuists, and resolve that great Case of Conscience, Unto, against what, and how far the Solemn League and Covenant doth oblige our King and Kingdom? lest they run themselves, and occasion others to run upon the violation thereof: We well know, Perjury her Prop, cannot but much pleasure Rome: But if they will needs return into our Church the Romish Rubbish of Humane Inventions, lately carried out, I think they may fill their Wheel-barrows with enough, pretending to be established by Law, and need not take up the Novellous Vanities of Altars and Altar-Worship, condemned by the Doctrine of our Church, and excluded by the Laws of our Kingdom. But (Courteous Reader) I have small hope of being heard by them: May I entreat thee to read and regard this small Manual; that by seeing the groundless ridiculous Vanity of this Superstitious, Idolatrous (worse than Popish) Novelty, thou mayst be confirmed in the simplicity of thy Religion; and kept from running into, or contending for the Excess thereof, in a pompous Superstition, not more attended with, than tending unto a profane Conversation, wherein be assured of the Prayers of Feb. 8. 1660. Thine in the plainness of God's Worship, Z. C. The SIN of ALTAR-WORSHIP, Or, Bowing to the COMMUNION-TABLE considered. PROPOS. Solemn and Religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion-Table, is foolish and unlawful. BOwing or Religious bending towards the Communion-Table, simply considered, is not to be condemned, no place or instrument, being excluded from use, & access unto, as conveniency shall direct; Bowing the body, or bending the knee is an action natural, and may be directed, as to the performance of it, by some special duty requiring that gesture, such as is Prayer, which conveniency may dispose to be performed, in, or towards the place, where the Communion-Table is situate, rather than any other place in the Church; at the solemnisation of Marriage, or celebration of the Lords Supper, the Minister, and persons to be married kneel at, or before the Table for conveniency sake: or the people in the body of the Church, in time of public Prayer, by the order of the Seats, may be directed towards the Chancel, and so without other change of gesture, they kneel towards the Table, which is an action natural, by accident directed to, or towards that place, having no ground or reason for the same, but the conveniency of the place, to the service to be performed, and so hath neither principle or form of solemn, superstitious worship of the place, or instrument, to which such genuflection is directed. Therefore, I denominate, that Altar-worship concerning which we inquire, a solemn and religious bowing to, or towards the Communion Table; to denote, the Table to be the designed object; and so, the ground, cause or reason, of that incurvation, genuflection, bowing or bending, which is purely an Act elective, done by choice, as sacred, holy, and solemn in its principle, ground, aim, and intention, therefore performed, on sight of that place and instrument, and as frequently as there is any approach to, recession from, or passing by the Table, when no action, duty, or business is in hand, or doth direct the same. And so the bowing to, or towards the Table, is a distinct Act of worship, done solemnly and with a composed mind, as a piece of Religion, to which the Table, Shelford 5 Treat. pag. 17, 18, 19, 20 and that only (to use the dialect of the assertors of bowing to the Altar, as an holy duty) is motivum cultus, the provoking Dictator of this action, as a duty not to be done, in any other part of the Church, nor to, or towards any other instrument of divine Service, such as is the Desk, Pulpit, or Font, nor to or towards, the Chancel, if the Altar, or Table were removed, and not there; and this bowing as a piece of Religion, and point of devotion, is that, which I affirm to be foolish, and unlawful. SECT. II. TO, towards or before the Table, I add in the position, because, they who agree in the practice of, and pleading for the act, do disagree in the expression of it. Some (whose consciences are more livelily touched with a sense of Idolatry, and would gladly shift off the guilt thereof) affecting this action, do pretend to do it, not to, Morton▪ Inst. of the Sacram. 2. Edit. lib. 6. cap. 5. Sect. 15. pag. 463. but towards the Table, not to the Table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the Table, admitting the Table as a medium, and bowing to it as Pars Cultus, as a part of Worship, but yet look beyond it and direct their worship to God or Christ, as the ultimate object of the same, wherein they do not, nor can deny, the Table to be an object, (though not the ultimate) of Adoration, and that they worship the Table, though they stay not at the Table, but have respect unto the God of the Table; and so the Table is to them as the Image, Pix, or Crucifix, is to the Papists, who do profess they worship God in, and by them; it being not to be denied, that the Table is the next, and immediate object of the worship, as having more holiness, and more of God's presence than any other place, or instrument of Divine Service; and yet we well know, that the Papists are condemned, as guilty of direct Idolatry, and breakers of the second Commandment, in worshipping God, by, before, or towards an Image, or Crucifix, and how bowing towards the Table, will be acquitted from the same guilt, when found to be an action of the same Nature, I see not. However some (more nice than wise, being willing to cheat their Consciences, and cousin their friends) do labour to shroud themselves under this difference in expression, we shall easily find it is a Cloak too short to cover their knavery; for, in scripture acceptation, to worship towards or before, is, nor imports no other than to worship to its Object: so to kneel, to bow, to worship before God, is nothing else, but bowing, kneeling, praying to, & worshipping God, as in Deut. 26.11. 1 Sam. 12.15, 16, 17. 2 Chron. 20.18. Psalm 22.37. 72.9. 86.9. 95.6. 96.9, 15.98.6, 9 Isa. 66.23. Dan. 6.10, 11. Micah 6.6. Rev. 3.9. cap. 4. v. 10. cap. 5. v. 8. and many other places; so bowing, kneeling, and falling down before men, is all one with falling down to men, Gen. 49.8. Exod. 11.8. 1 Sam. 25.23. 2 Sam. 14.33.24.20. 1 Kings 1.16.23. 2 Kings 2.15. So also bowing, kneeling, or worshipping before, or towards Images or Altars is the same in Scripture language and account, with bowing, kneeling, or worshipping to them, 2 Chron. 25.14. Isa. 44.15, 17, 19 Dan. 3.5, 6. And it is worth observation, that the good Angel would not suffer St. John to worship, or fall down at his feet, or before him, Rev. 19.10.22.8. Whilst the Devil demanded no more of our Lord & Saviour, then fall down and worship before me, Lu. 4.7. which he well knew would have been sufficient to have subverted man's redemption & salvation. And all our Protestant Writers, and our own homilies against Idolatry, and Popish adoration of Images, Crucifixes, or the Eucharist, do make bowing to, or towards them, the same Act in the nature of it, and to leave the same guilt on the Agent; so that such as endeavour to acquit themselves from the guilt of Superstition and Idolatry by this distinction and expression; do but spin a Spider's web, and can no more evade, than do the Papists, whilst they make in their own defence, no other plea, than the entangling distinction of bowing towards the Image and Crucifix, not to it: Shelfords' Sermon of God's House. pag. 2.4.19. Widows Lawless, kneelesse Puritan. pag. 34.89. Ironside 7. Quest. de Sabbat. pag. 279. yet urge all kind of reasons, which may erect the Table, to be the Object of worship, as, that it is holy, Christ's chair of State, where God is specially present. That the Table is a memorative instrument, unto which the assistance of Grace is never wanting, either to beget in our minds such thoughts of the death of Christ, or to abstract from our persons such a Worship of him, if we be not wanting to ourselves; and that it is consecrated to that end, and such like: But we must remember, that this table-worship doth no more tend than it was intended, to reconcile (I had almost said, return) us to Rome. Others there are in this design (whose Consciences are seared with an hot Iron, and being resolved to bring Rome to us, whilst they could not bring us to Rome) are less sensible or more daringly resolved for downright Idolatry, wave all kind of modesty, and presume in private exhortation, public Sermons preached and printed, and that cum privilegio, and open Professions to persuade to bow to the Altar (as they affect to call the Communion-Table) as they do themselves, and that as an eminent point of Devotion, and special piece of Worship: Thus did Giles Widows in his Lawless, Kneeless, Schismatical Puritan: Mr. Robert Shelford in his 5 Treatises, P. 17, 18, 19, 20. and The coal from the Altar: But especially Dr. John Pocklington, in his Visitation-Sermon, Entitled, Sunday no Sabbath: wherein he runs to this height, and if we do not only bow or bend our bodies to this Blessed Board or Holy Altar, but fall flat on our faces so soon as ever we approach the sight thereof, who would condemn us for it? He might indeed in that age, well cry Who? For Archbishop Laud would not condemn him for it; whose grand Index expurgatorius, Dr. Bray, had passed his Sermon without control or correction, nay with his Imprimatur, who had established Bowing to the Table in the Univer. of Oxf. by Statute & Oath, & enforced it by Visitation-Articles, High-Commission Censures, as did also Bish. Wren, and others, and at last commended it in their Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1640. Yet in these gross, plain and absurd terms, not only the Non-conformists and kneeless Puritains', but all Protestants, and many of their own Confederates in that Rome-accomodating design, yea Papists themselves would condemn them, as the greatest Idolaters in the world, they transubstantiating to their fancy, the Bread in the Box, and keeping it placed on the Table or Altar, lest they should give Divine Worship to a Joiner's Frame, which they conclude to be wicked and unlawful: And mad Gybbons of Canterbury would play with them as with the then Dean of Canterbury, at truss-a trey, if it were possible to laugh them out of this their folly and ridiculous act of Religion: and he and others agreeing in this action, though disagreeing in the expression, must give me leave to condemn them in it, as acting and advancing an action Foolish and unlawful, as it will appear to be, to all that shall seriously observe and consider the Novelty, Vanity, Iniquity, Malignity, Of Solemn and Religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table. Religious, Solemn Bowing to, towards or before the Communion-Table was never digitated by any Primitive or Catholic practice or Prescript of the Church; therefore it is a Novelty. Religious Solemn bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table is no way dictated by the nature or quality of the Object; and therefore it is a Vanity. Religious, solemn bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, is not where directed by God's Word; and therefore it is an Iniquity. Religious, solemn Bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, is an action in the use of it, dangerous, sinful and scandalous; and therefore chargeable with Malignity. These things considered, and cleared, will fully conclude, that solemn religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, is Foolish and Unlawful: Let us therefore consider them in their Order. And First, of the First: The Novelty thereof. SECT. III. THE First Demonstration of the Folly and Unlawfulness of solemn and religious Bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, is, the Novelty thereof. That Novelties in Religion, and matters of Divine Worship are Foolish and Unlawful, I presume I need not stand to prove; it being granted by all men, Heathen or Christian, Civil or Religious. Novelty is a disposition, not more vain and childish in its subjects, than dangerous in its effects and operations, subjecting the most stable principles, and serious practices to unsafe and unreasonable mutations; thereby proving the Mother of Sedition in the Commonwealth, and Superstition in the Church, innovating vanities, good for nothing but to engender strife and contention, verifying the Greek Proverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Novelties are vanities, and are therefore inhibited by all Politicians or prudent Legislators, not only by their Counsels and Commands, but the People's Sacred and Solemn Oath. Lycurgus' subjects himself to perpetual exile, that he may supersede the changes of his Lacedæmonians; and Plato his Rule cannot but be by all received (especially in things of religious concernment) Ne quid in rebus ad Religionem attinentibus innovetur; That Novelties in Religion be not admitted: Serious and sincere is the observation of Dr. Hall, in his Contemplations, on Ahaz his new made Altar, Pag. 1286. It is dangerous presumption to make innovations, though but in the Circumstances of God's Worship: God doth no little aggravate Israel's Idolatry and Superstition by its Novelty: Hath a Nation forsaken their gods, which are no gods? but my people have changed their glory, Jer. 2.11. And they sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods, that came newly up, Deut. 32.17. And obviateth their folly, and anticipateth their vanity by a plea of antiquity, Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy Father, and he will show thee; thy Elders, and they will tell thee, Deut. 32.7. Have ye not known, have ye not heard, hath it not been told you from the beginning? Isa. 40. from v. 21. to the end of c. 41. I cannot but own antiquity as a good witness in matter of fact, though it want the authority of a Dictator in point of duty. I subscribe readily to Sir Francis Bacon's Aphorism, that antiquity without verity, is a cipher without a Figure. Yet none can deny Novelties in Divine Worship to be real vanities: The sense whereof hath in all ages acted the Devil and his Instruments to raise up scorn, contempt, and enmity against God's pure Worship and true Religion, with the false charge and loud clamour of Novelty; thus the Heathen of old judged the first planting of Christian Religion the setting forth of new gods: and the Papists of late reproach and retard Reformation with their clamorous demand, Where was your Religion before Luther? pretending antiquity for their greatest Impiety and Idolatry: Euseb Hist. Lib. 7.29. As Paulus Samosatenus (that horrid Heretic) cast the Scripture-Psalmes out of the Church, as newfound figments of Late Writers; by reason whereof Religious antiquity hath needed to be asserted (with an haec novitas non est novella vanitas, res enim est antiquae religionis perfectè fundata in pietate Christi, antiqua haereditas ecclesiae) as the ancient appointment of God, and inheritance of the Church: The same Method hath been, and yet is most exactly observed by England's popishly affected Prelates, and their obsequious Chaplains in their Cassandrian accommodation, for bringing Rome to England, whilst England will not go to Rome; wherein they decline the Scripture (the only reason of Religion and Rule of Divine Worship) & pretend Antiquity, Catholic, Primitive and Ecclesiastical practice and prescription in their innovation of humane Inventions, unto the obstruction of a due, necessary, inchoated, and solemnly covenanted Reformation; though herein they are ordinarily mistaken and confounded; it happening to them, as unto Tertullia's Heretics, viderint novum esse quod sibi est vetus, representing Novelty to be Antiquity, and Antiquity to be Novelty; concluding some tract of time to be a sufficient plea for the Innovation of those things in divine Worship, which must needs interfere with the Institutions prescribed and practised from the beginning, and so expose themselves to the shame and guilt of folly and unlawful acting, whenever the novelty thereof shall be detected; the which befalls them, as in other superstitious rites, so in this of Altar-worship, or bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, concerning which, we shall first inquire, not so much what was the command and institution from the beginning, which falls in its place to be considered; as what hath been the ancient custom or constitution of the Primitive and Catholic Church, which we intent as an argument ad hominem, calculated for the clamorous pretenders to antiquity for all their innovations and Superstitions in divine Worship, and therein we affirm; Solemn, religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion-Table was never digitated by the Primitive Catholic practice of the Church; wherein we must confess it is more proper for us to deny, than to affirm, and put our assertors and cotestors for this piece of devotion, on the proof of the primitive and catholic use thereof, which may acquit them from the charge of novelty laid against them, it being to us a sufficient evidence, that no authority of antiquity doth digitate it; for that though this practice doth pretend to be set by this Dial, yet the Dial is obscure, & no ways made obvious by the innovators of this Devotion: and that rule must be our reason, non esse, & non apparere, idem est, it is all one, not to be, and not to be seen. I must indeed confess, that the Pulpit and the Presses have spoken it (from more mouths and Pens than one) That bowing to the table is an ancient & commendable practice and piece of reverence, yea we are so told, and as such, have it commended to our practice, as fit to be revived, (which implies it to have been in use, though then almost buried and forgotten) by the grave, learned and judicious Suffrages of the Convocation of both Provinces, held by the two Arch-Bishops of York & Canterbury, cum privilegio Majestatis; in their Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, Anno Dom. 1640. wherein they thus express themselves; We think it meet and behooful, and hearty commend to all good and well affected people, members of this Church, that they be ready to tender it unto the Lord, by doing reverence and obeisance at their coming in and going out of the said Churches and Chapels, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many years of the reign of Qu. El. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custom, we hearty commend to the serious consideration of all good people, without any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the Communion Table. I am not willing to break modesty so far, as to charge these Reverend Fathers with a Lie and fallacious insinuation, though the laxity of their authority, commending what their Reasons might warrant, and power might authorise, affords a ground on which to suspect it: I shall therefore confess, that if Obeisance & Reverence expressed by bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, were the most ancient custom in the Primitive Church, in the purest times, it were well worth the serious consideration of good people in order to the reviving thereof: But for this antiquity, we have no evidence but their bare say-so, and although we are ready to own such assemblies as Objects of Reverence, yet we are not resolved into such an implicit Faith, as to apprehend their say-so a sufficient ground of credence, until we are convinced of their infallibilities, especially in a matter of fact, which themselves can only know by report and testimonies, they not so much as naming any Father, Council or Ecclesiastical Historian, whom we might examine as a witness, unto this most ancient custom of the Primitive Church in the purest times; Nor do so much as read unto us the examination and deposition of any witness taken in private by themselves: We are sure this is not the usual method of the Church of England, 2 Book of Homilies, p. 21. or her Advocates, who in her Homilies of the peril of Idolatry, spendeth the second part of the Homily in producing testimony to the matter of Fact, and ancient custom, and practise of the thing to which she persuades: Whilst therefore they expect our consent to an ancient custom, and tie us to believe as the Church believes, they raise our confidence that they palliate an apparent Innovation, with the false pretence of ancient and laudable custom of the Primitive Ch. in the purest times. We must confess, we cannot say we never found bowing to the Table commanded and practised in our Church; for than we must needs be ignorant of the Injunctions of Cardinal Pool's Visitors, Fox Acts dud Mon. p. 1781. in the Visitation of the University of Cambridge, in the time of Queen Mary, who amongst other things, did order the Scholars how to bow to the Altars: And must needs be ignorant of the new Statutes made by Archbishop Laud, De Precibus solen. & Oblationibus in d●e Comitiorum, Sect. 1. p. 2. the then Chancellor of the University of Oxford, printed 1638. and directing all the Scholars in their Order ad mensam Eucharistiae sacram cum debita reverentia oblationes faciant (which by words and practices they interpreted to be a lowly bowing to, towards or before the Table) for omission whereof they were punishable at the pleasure of the Vicechancellor, and to pay five shillings: And must needs be unacquainted with the Visitation-Articles of Bishop Wren, Bishop Pierce, Bishop Lindsey, Bishop Skinner, Bishop Montague, and others, who among other things, caused strict enquiry about every man's reverend behaviour at entering into the Church by bowing towards the Altar. But yet I must be bold to say, our Church is not the most Catholic or Primitive, nor yet the purest Church: that bowing to the table was never prescribed by the public authority of this Church, the Convocation in 1640. did only commend it as laudable, not command it as necessary; but left it at liberty as indifferent; it was never universally practised by our Church, being chief practised in University Chapels, and advanced in particular Dioceses: according to the affections of single Prelates, who enforced it with their personal authority: And yet it passed not without suspicion and censure of Innovation and Novelty, by some of the Bishops, as Dr. Wright of Coventry and Litchfield, and Dr. William's Bishop of Lincoln, witness his Holy Table, Name and Thing: And lastly, this maketh no antiquity, it being the act of this age only, and not able to account 60. nay scarce 30 years towards a custom, in which time it hath been more than once arrested as an Innovation, and as far from appearing the ancient practice of the Primitive Church in the Purest times: Nor do we observe the practice of it in the times of Qu. Elizabeth, either first or last, with any approbation or allowance of the Church; though now again with much earnestness it be endeavoured to be revived: Against which, I think I may be bold to say, that we have many just and considerable reasons to believe they cannot produce one honest witness or authentic testimony, to prove that the Primitive Church in its purest times, did ever practise or prescribe solemn and religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, the which we shall not fear to produce unto them, that they may reprove our censure of their Novelty, by better informing our judgements; and they are these; 1. The zealous assertors of, and contestors for this reverence, do not produce such testimony, however men boast and brag they have good evidence and substantial witness, they must be cast in their actions, and condemned as guilty, if they do not produce them: they must be taken for first Inventors and contrivers of mischief, who are active in it, and cannot produce their author. 2. The Fathers and Ecclesiastical Historians (by whom all Rites and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church, are most accurately set down) do make no mention of solemn or religious bowing to towards or before the Communion-table, Centic. Magdub. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. c. 6. de ceremoniis & ritibus Eccles. which of all other, had it been a thing of that moment, so ancient and laudable a custom, and reverend acknowledgement of the Divine Majesty, as it is recommended to be, would not have been passed over in silence by them: Nor is there in all the writings of the Fathers which I have read (or men of more reading than my time or affairs will afford me to attain) any passage which may so much as seem to palliate this Novelty, with the least show of Antiquity, unless it be that which Nazianzen mentioneth of his Mother, Nazianz. Ora. 8. de funere Patris, p. 472. quod venerandae mensae nunquam terga verteret, that she never turned her back on the venerable board, which cannot any way be understood of bowing to the table, but of never withdrawing from the Lords Supper when it was administered, and so she turned not her back by neglecting to communicate, the Table being put for the Sacrament, as it is in many of the Fathers: but should we admit what sense can be desired of it, yet it is but one single example, and one Swallow makes no Summer; this one example was not till after the year 370. after Christ, and can scarce come within the computation of purest times, or Primitive Church; Nor yet is it plain for bowing to the Table, though it might plead for not turning the back upon it. I read indeed that Uladislaus King of Poland after his conversion from Paganism to Christianity, Inter equitandum, quotiescunque turres ecclesiarum inspexit, detracto pileo, caput inclinavit, Deum qui coleretur, in Ecclesia veneratus: when he road abroad, he pulled of his Hat, and bowed his head as oft as he saw the towers of the Church, worshipping God, who is adored in the Church: But this example will very little avail, because it was far from the primitive and pure times of the Church, and digitates an adoration to the Steeple of, not Altars in the Church, and that is no way commended, nor commanded to us by our Novellers. 3. Because the Fathers in the Primitive and Pure times of the Church, for more than 400. years after Christ, condemn all bowing to, towards or before Images, or any external Symbal or representation of God, and all worshipping God in, by, through or towards the same, affirming and teaching, all divine worship to be a thing peculiar to God alone, and to be immediately tendered unto himself, without any such secondary helps as Images; the which is fully cleared in the Homily of the peril of idolatry, 2 Book of Homilies p, 21. and by all our Protestant writers, and by Dr. Ʋsher, in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge of Images and praying to Saints: How therefore they should indulge or allow a worshipping or adoring God, in, by, to, towards or before a Table or Joiner's frame, imagined to be the Symbol or Representation of his Majesty, and so of the very same nature with an Idolatrous Image, I cannot conceive. 4. Because the Christians in the primitive times, and many hundred years after Christ did prohibit the bowing the knee, Die Dominica, jejunium ne fas ducimus, vel de jemiculis adorare, Tert. de corona militis, justin. Mar. Quest. 115. Gracian. de consecr. distinct. 3. Jerom de ecclesiasticis observationibus, c. 29. or kneeling on any Lord's day; & from Easter to Whitsont. they forbade kneeling on any day, and that in the very act of adoration or prayer, much more in the time of receiving the Lords Supper: and that to them it should be a custom and ordinary practice, in coming in, or going out, or passing by the Communion-Table, to do reverence to it, or bow towards it, who would not admit any genuflexion in any the most serious, submiss acts of worship, I cannot believe. 5. Lastly, that no kind of authors, not so much as the very Papists, do make mention of bowing to Tables, otherwise than as they were Altars; whence it undoubtedly comes to pass that the great sticklers for this Table reverence, do affect to call the Table an Altar, and contend to have it so called, and placed at the East-end of the Church; under the wall as an Altar, and accordingly furnish it with Vessels, Candlesticks, Tapers and holy Utensils belonging to an Altar; as fancying that they may muster up many testimonies for Altar-worship (such as they are) but not one for Table-adoration, which the Papists so much abhor, Fox acts. Monuments Ed. ult. p. 85. 95. 97. as that they contemptuously and scornfully call our communion-Tables, Oyster-boards & Profane Tables, and yet this Altar-worship which our Novellers do affect to render synonymous with Table-adoration, is so far from being the ancient & laudable custom of the primitive Church and purest times, Article. 35. that the Articles of our Church, (to the verity of which the Table-Adorers have subscribed) do teach us to believe, that for more than 250 years after Christ, the primitive Christians had no Altars before which to worship. The third part of the Homilies against the peril of idolatry (confirmed by the statute, and by the Articles of our Church) doth declare, Homily 2. Tom. pag. 41. all Christians in the primitive Church, (as Origen against Celsus, Cyprian also and Arnobius do testify) were sore charged, and complained of, for that they had no Altars and Images. And King Edward the sixth proposing the primitive Church, and purest times for his example in Reformation, doth by his Letter to Doctor Ridly Bishop of London, direct him to pull down Altars, and set up Tables, and enforceth his direction with reasons, Fox Acts and Mon. Pag. 1211. the fifth whereof is, it is not read that any of the Apostles or Primitive Churches did ever use any Altar in the Ministration of the Holy Communion; the same is affirmed by Jewel against Harding, Reynolds against Hart, Fulke and Cartwright against the Rhemists, and all our Protestant writers against the Papists, which they could never yet answer or avoid; and Tho. Bacon, in his Relics of Rome, doth declare his opinion that Altars were not used in the Church before the year of our Lord 590. Fol. 82. Of the ornament of Churches. when the Popish, Peevish, Private Mass began first to creep in; and certainly if there were no Altars in the Primitive Church, and pure times thereof (as good authority assureth us there was not) than there was not, nor could be any bowing to, towards, or before Altars. And when Altars were brought into the Church; there is no probability that they were adored and worshipped as are our Communion-Tables, for that they were continued in the middle of the Church, not enclosed, or placed at the East end of the Church, and advanced above other parts thereof; for many years after. Bishop Jewel in his answer to Hardings Preface, doth observe from many good Authors, that, it is apparent that the Communion-Table, in the Apostles times, and Primitive Church for more than 1300 years after Christ, stood in the middle of the Church: And William Thomas testifies in his History of Italy, that in the year 1547. The Altar in the Cathedral Church of Rome, stood in the time of Mass, when the Pope received the Sacrament in the midst of the Choir; whereof he reports himself to be an Eyewitness; and probably the Altar was advanced to its high and holy enclosure before it was adored; moreover although we read of many expressions of affection to the Altar, as of going up to the Altar, Praying and Trembling, as the spurious Mass of S●. James the Apostle doth direct: or of Penitents when absolved, Bishops when consecrated, and Kings and Emperors when crowned, kneeling before the Altar: Of Gorgonia her prostration of herself in her sickness, before, or at the Foot of the Altar, whereupon she recovered, as Nazianzen reports; Oratio 25. and of Malefactors pag. 443. flying to the Altar in time of danger, and such like carriages which were the beginnings of superstition, and not found in the Primitive Church; yet we read not of any who mention bowing to, or towards the Altar, De antiquo ritu Missarum Lib. 3. cap. 30. de Inclinationibus. until Honorius Augustodunensis, who lived in the year 1120 (far enough from the Primitive pure times of the Church (he is the first undoubted Writer, who giveth us any account thereof; in respect of which very practice our bowers to the Table are Novellers: for the bowing he reports, was to the Altar only at entrance into the Church, not at every approach to, recession from, or passing by the Table; they bowed East and West to testify God every where present, but our men must bow to the East, and to the East only. And after this, though Odo Bishop of Paris in a Synod about the year 1206 did order, summa Reverentia & honour maximus sacris Altaribus exhibeatur, that Reverence be done to the Altar, yet he doth not direct it to be done by bowing to, or towards the Altar: and the Synod of Akens held 1583. though it decree many things concerning Altars, as for their situation and enclosure, furniture with candlesticks, altar , and the like, yet it decreeth nothing for bowing to the Altar: & the reserved pix, or transubstantiated bread, adored by the Papists, do plainly plead for them, that they worship not the Altar, and reflecteth the Table-worship of the Protestants (who deny the reservation of Christ's body on the Table) as a most foolish Novelty, ridiculous and unlawful Idolatry, worshipping a Joiner's frame without any apprehension or acknowledgement of God's special presence; from which they ought to acquit themselves by good and sufficient reasons, before they innovate into his Majesty's Royal Chapel, Our Cathedral and Parish-churches, solemn and Religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table, or can expect any conformity to their new fangled fancy, never used in the primitive Church, nor in the Reformed Churches, nor allowed by the constitutions of the Church of England, before the year of our Lord 1640. in which it is recommended with an argument which appeareth to be an apparent fallacy, whom we shall leave to search ancient records, with pretence to which they make so much noise; whilst they inquire into the nature of the object, and what reason therein can dictate this action and demeanour, honour and incurvation, ever charged (since first acted) to be an innovation. SECT. iv OUr second evidence whereby we charge solemn and religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table, to be an action foolish & unlawful, is, the vanity thereof. I do denominate this action vanity, because it beareth a show of religion without any substance. Men that stand at a distance, and observe the solemn, grave, and serious deportment of those who bow to the Table, must needs imagine that they are engaged in some special act of devotion, on some serious sense of holiness in the object, which stirreth up, and engageth the same; whereas when the object is inquired into, it is found a plain simple Joiner's frame, or work of some Artificer, without any innate cause, or reason of solemn and sacred adoration; and it befalls the serious spectators, as the Poet speaks of the husbandman's expectation when he comes to reap his field, which he apprehendeth to have flourished with full ears of Corn, but finds at Harvest to be empty. Sed illas expectata seges vanis illusit avenis. And therefore I urge against this Novelty, the Vanity thereof on this account and consideration. Solemn and religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table, is no way dictated by the nature, or quality of the Thing or Object, therefore it is a Vanity. If Scripture do not direct, right reason must needs expect the nature of the Object to dictate the act. They are persons and postures fit for Bedlam, that having no prescription from superiors, cannot plead some reason from the nature and quality of the Object: It is possible for sober children to demean themselves with all reverence and good manners towards Squire Dunne, but if they seem to be reproached for so honouring the Hangman, they can easily plead, we knew him not to be the Hangman, he was in a Scarlet cloak, and seemed to us a Gentleman of good note, however they say he is an Esquire by his place, and so to be reverenced by our betters; let us therefore see what reasons are pleaded, or can be imagined in the nature of the Communion-Table, which can dictate this bowing to, or towards it. As it is a Table, none do make it the object of such adoration; being the work of man's hands, any that knew the nature of an Idol, must needs make the worship to, or towards it, to be plain, express Idolatry: Whatsoever therefore is fancied to dictate this worship to, or towards it, is in that it is the Communion-Table, and in Scripture called the Lords-Table; and as such, and under colour thereof, some earnest Zealots for this adoration, do as from the nature and quality thereof, urge as reasons for this worship, that this Table is an Altar, an high Altar, an holy place or instrument, the best, choicest and holiest part of the church the place of Christ's special presence, and his chair of state; Christ's mercy seat, and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice, there made and presented to the Trinity; a sign of the place where our Saviour was most dishonoured and crucified. And lastly (which is inserted into Doctor Mortons' writings.) The Testimony of the Communion of all the faithful Communicants thereat. Thus Widows, in his Kneelesse Puritan pag. 34. 89. Doctor Duncon in his Lecture on bowing to the Altar. Shelfords' Sermon of God's house, pag. 2. 4. 18, 19, 20. Reve his Exposition of the Chatechism, Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament. Edit. 2. Lib. 6. cap. 5. Sect. 15. page 463. All which are to any serious, sober Christian-man (although of slender judgement,) most vain and ridiculous, yet because they carry a show of Holiness, and seem to bespeak devotion from such as are willing to believe, as the Church believes, I shall oppose them, by denying, both antecedent, & consequence, that the Lords Table is any such thing as is suggested, and if any such thing, yet that it is to be bowed unto, & worshipped. And thus then we proceed. 1. The Communion-Table is no Altar, or high Altar, nor as such to be worshipped. The Communion-Table is no Altar; not in the name and appellation, for herein they apparently differ, and that in all languages; nor yet in use and nature, for an Altar is, an holy Instrument, consecrated for the offering of Sacrifices unto God: this was the only use and nature of pagans and Jewish Altars, so denominated from the fires and Sacrifices burning on them, as Calepin & Isidore do note on the word, whence the Papists fancying the Mass to be an unbloody Sacrifice offered to God, do affect to call the Ministers Priests, and to turn the Tables into Altars, justly laughing at such Christians as own Altars, but deny a Sacrifice; well knowing that a Table may suit a Sacrament, but an Altar doth in the very nature and notation of it suppose a Sacrifice, and the asserting the Table to be an Altar, hath led some among us unto the subverting of the Sacrament, (Christ's institution) by suggesting the Bread and Wine thereon used, to be a Sacrifice: Again, an Altar in the nature of it was sacred, and did sanctify the things that were offered thereon, as our Saviour's expostulation with the Pharisees, plainly showeth, Mat. 23.18, 19 But none will dare to say that the Communion Table sanctifieth the Bread and Wine which is used on it; but on the contrary, the Adorers of the Table teach us, that it is sanctified by the consecrated Elements and holy Service thereat performed: And therefore the difference between an Altar and Communion-Table, appeareth to be no less in nature and use, than in name and appellation. A Communion-Table is no Altar, in or by divine account and appointment, the word of God doth no where so denominate it: The Table of Shewbread was in the Temple distinct from the Altar of incense: And under the Gospel attendance on the Altar, and partaking of the Altar, was the sign of a Jew, or Infidel Gentile, contradistinct from the Christian, whose Character was, to partake of the Table of the Lord; Whence Christians of old, and protestants of late, have ever made it a note of Christ's Church, that it knoweth no Altar. All the Fathers generally, all Commentators and Christian Writets do agree, that Altars were Types of Jesus Christ: Whence the Apostles do call Jesus Christ himself our Altar, Heb. 13.10. Rev. 6.9. c. 8.3, 9, 13. As also our Expositors and Martyrs, and our late King James in his Paraphrase on the Revelation, do agree: Moreover, Christians have no proper Sacricfies or burnt offerings to tender unto God, for which God should appoint an Altar; they have indeed a Feast of commemoration, a Passeover, to be with frequency celebrated, and this doth require a Table whereat to feed, and from whence they ought not to be excluded by a railed-in Enclosure. The Communion-Table is no Altar; in the apprehension of the Church. Not in the apprehension of the Primitive Church, who were estranged unto Altars, and did determine them to be expelled the Churches, as things unsuitable to Christians, and whereby we denied Christ the true and only Altar, to have been offered unto God, Thus Origen doth determine, the truth was in Heaven, but the Altar, shadow and example was on the Earth, but when Christ, this truth, came from Heaven to the earth, Altar sublatum est, the Altar was taken away, and therefore he directs such as seem to want the Altar, to look up to Heaven, Si Altar videris destitutum, est in coelis: So also Paschalius Rhadbertus, repulit Dominus Altare suum de Ecclesia in qua Christus Altare creditur esse: The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of his Church, in which Christ is believed to be the only Altar. None save an impudent Jesuit (like Harding) will dare to say that there have been Altars even from the Apostles times; and our Jewel hath told him full well of the falsehood thereof: Origen tells us, That 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the heathen, for that they had no Altars; and Arnobius after him declareth the same thing, all our Protestant writers have maintained it against the Papists, that the Primitive Church never had, nor would endure Altars, but certainly they had Communion Tables, and used them. It is an old shift and pitiful poor plea, to tell us, that the Fathers do often make mention of an Altar, and denominated the Communion-Table an Altar, the which was not done by any 260. years after Christ, and then only in a figurative and improper speech, in respect of the prayers and praises performed at the Lords Supper, as appeareth by many passages out of their own writings urged by the Protestants against the Papists, by B. Jewel, Babington, Reynolds, and others, even as they denominate the heart of godly men their Altar, and Faith an Altar; So St. Jerom. Altar Fidelium fides est, and Altar Dei est cor bonum, and yet they will not be admitted to be proper Altars and objects of Adoration; How then can communion-Tables be so owned. Communion-Tables were not Altars in the apprehension of the Reformed Churches, or of our own Church in promoting the Reformation of Religion, which did ever be gin, and proceed by pulling down Altars and placing tables in the Body of the Church, as contra-distinct from the Papists Altars; Whosoever will observe our own Book of Martyrs (the best Ecclesiastical History of the first beginning and progress of Reformation) shall find, that at Berea, Constance, Basil, Geneva, Ausburge, and other Cities, at the beginning of Reformation in the year 1528. they proclaimed that all Altars should be abolished; and in the year 1556. The Waldayes in Piedmont covenanting the Reformation, agreed to cast down the Altars, which they accordingly executed in the Church of Boby. And our Edward the Sixth, beginning the Reformation, gave order to pull down Altars, and place Tables in Churches, the which was earnestly practised, pursued and pressed by Bishop Hooper, in his Sermon before the King, by Bishop Farrar in Wales, by Bish. Ridley in Saint Paul's, and other Churches in London: All which was enforced with this consideration, That Altars were not used in the days of the Apostles nor Primitive Church, nor did agree with the Christians Sacrament and Profession, that Christ their true and only Altar was come. And on the contrary, when this Reformation was stopped, and turned back in the Reign of Queen Mary, and Popery again returned, it en●ered & proceeded by scorning, vilifying, & pulling down Communion Tables, and preaching up, building and restoring Altars; which were again demolished and driven out, when the Reformation revived, under Q. Elizabeth, and Communion-Tables were restored, and fortified by Injunctions, Canons, and Statute-Law, and so continued until the attempted accommodation with Rome, did again turn our Tables into Altars. If any therefore will observe the nature of an Altar, and how Altars and Tables have ever been the contradislinct notes of true or false worship, between the Primitive Christians and the Jews and Heathens, and in latter time between the sincere Christian Protestant, and the Jewish Pagan Rapist, he must needs conclude the Communion Table is no Altar, but a thing contradistinct from an Altar, and therefore as such, it can not be worshipped. And as the Antecedent of this reason is apparently false, so the Consequence wants not its fallacy: Should we grant (what our table-cringers so much use, and affect to call the Communion table) that it is an Altar, yet there is no reason for their bowing to, towards, or before it; because Altars are no way the Object of adoration, nor can be worshipped or bowed unto, without apparent Idolatry: not materially, for so they are but common stone, or clay, or wood, contemptible creatures, not Objects of Divine Worship. Not Formally as Altars, for as such, they are indeed Instruments of Service to God, but not Symbols of Divine Nature or Presence, for Altars have been, and may be without the presence of God: And the Jews were never appointed, nor did the Gentiles by nature apprehend it fit to bow down unto, or worship any thing but the Symbols of divine nature and presence; & therefore though the Jews might worship before the Ark, or the cloud which rested upon it, or towards the Temple; yet neither Priest nor people did worship the Altar: and the Gentiles ever had the Images of their Gods placed over their Altars; and their bowings were to their Images, not to their Altars, as their own Poets, and Historians, and many of the Fathers do testify: Saint Austin tells us, the Pagan Idols were placed honorabili sublimitate, in an honourable height, ut a precantibus atque immolantibus attendantur; that they might be regarded by them that sacrificed and prayed unto them: And the Scripture witnesseth, God for bad Israel's bowing to the gods of the Gentiles, Numb. 25.2. Not to their Altars, which was not used: And when Josiah broke down the Altars, he broke also the Images of Baalim, 2 Chr. 34.3, 4. And these two were joint acts in one and the same Command, Exod. 34.13. And therefore the Papists themselves do keep God in a Box, the bread fancied to be transubstantiated on their Altar, or hang a Crucifix behind and over the Altar; knowing the Altar as such, to be no Object of Worship, because no Symbol of divine nature and presence. It is more than probable, that the sense hereof, brought the late Crucifix in the Glass over, and in the Arras Hang behind the Altar at Lambeth-Chappel, and in the King's Royal Chapel, so ordered by the Late Archbishop Laud, the first that ever framed a Canon for bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table: for which reason will require some Symbol of Divine Nature and Presence: It's being an holy instrument of divine Service, being of no more force for the Altar then for the Tongues, or Snuffers of the Tabernacle, or Aaron's breeches under the Law, or for Surplices, Organs, Chalices, Patens, and Canonical coats and girdles, which are made instruments of Holy Service, by our Altar-Adorers; and if on that reason they must be bowed unto, we shall abound in cringing not only in every Church, but in every street; but whether it be an holy instrument, is considered in the next reason, to which I oppose and say. 2. The Communion Table is not an holy place or instrument. In this Anithesis I understand our Altar-Adorers in the latitude of their sense and expressions, as speaking of the Table in its fixed form and situation in the Chancel, at the upper end; under the wall, in the form of an Altar, and railed in, in which frame and posture they deem it, not only an instrument, whereon Divine Service is performed, but an holy place unto which Christ is confined as his Chair of State, and Mercy Seat, nay a most holy place, into which not the best of Christians, none but the Priest may enter, all others must humbly and reverentlykneel at the rail; and thus many of them do bespeak themselves, by proclaiming holiness of the Churchyard, more holiness of the Church, which must needs conclude most holiness of the Chancel, to which the Table is confined. Holiness inherent cannot be imaged to be predicated of the Communion-Table, it being proper to none but Rational Creatures, Angels and Men. And therefore Relative Holiness is that which must be understood of the Communion Table; and this Holiness according to the description of our Table cringer, is nothing else but a state of relation and peculiarity to God, dedicated to his only service, and so alienated from all other usewhatsoever, it is holy extra usum publicum. 2. Sanctifying, or giving power and virtue to be more effectual and acceptable to God, whatsoever is tendered in or by it. 3. The Object of some positive and special respect and reverence. That there have been such places and Instruments we cannot deny, whilst we remember the Tabernacle & Temple among the Jews before the coming of Christ; but that the Communion Table is such an holy place or instrument, we must and do deny. 1. Because the holiness of places and instruments, allowed under the Law, is abolished under the Gospel; those special places and instruments, the Tabernacle or Temple, and its utensils, have been profaned and made common, and no other place or Instrument hath been appointed in the stead thereof; the typical use of such holy places and things is expired in the appearance and existence of the Antitype Christ Jesus, who is no more to be shadowed by them; and Jesus Christ the King and Prophet of his Church hath expreslyabrogated all such holiness of place and Instruments, John 4.21. Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem (by peculiarity of relation to God) shall ye worship the Father; and the Spirit in a Vision hath taught us, to call nothing unclean, and then every thing and place must be as holy as the Communion Table with its rails. 2. There is no way or means by which the Communion Table can be made holy, or set in such a state of peculiar relation to God; For the cause, way, or means of making it holy, must be from God, or from man, or (as our Altars-adorers teach us) from the holy services which are done therein, or thereupon, but the Communion Table is not made holy by God immediately, for his presence is not tied to this place or instrument, and the presence of God, is the only way by which any place or instrument is made holy: Our Table-worshippers tells us they worship God by the Table, and the Lord of the Table, not the Table of the Lord, and call the Table Christ's Mercy Seat, or chair of State; and so suggest his presence in this place, and on this Instrument; and that more than his omni presence, which is every where, and therefore they sometimes tell us he is specially present there, as in his chair of State, and Mercy Seat, which the Author of the Quench-coale will not believe, wittily enquiring whether Christ have a Pew in every Church, and his special presence be so chained to the Table, that he is not at the Font, Desk, or Pulpit? Or never stirs from thence; that every time men come into the Church, they must bow to the Table, as well when the Sacrament is not administered, as when it is; but to be more serious with them, I should inquire what kind of presence God affords us at the Communion Table, whereby it is made holy, and so rendered the object of such special solemn worship. There is recorded in holy writ a threefold special presence of God, two of which do sanctify any place or instrument, and make it the object of solemn adoration, so long as they, or either of them exist; but the third doth not so do. God's presence may be, and hath been sensible to the bodily eyes of his people: Thus he appeared to the Patriarches, and to Moses and Joshuah and others, and this presence will (for the time of its continuance) make a place or thing holy as Bethel to Jacob, and the object of special reverence, as the ground whereon Moses and Joshuah stood, Exod. 3.5. by reason whereof it is required, that they should put their shoes from off their feet. Joshuah 5.15. This presence of God, or Christ on the Lord's Table, cannot be pretended to, unless by a Popish Transubstantiation & real presence, which yet is affirmed to lie latent under the accidents of Bread and Wine, but when they have made their God, and put him prisoner in a Box, and place him on the Table, if they tell us, he is in this sense present on the Altar, we should not believe them, for in this case seeing is believing; this presence is as obvious to others, (having eyes) as to them; Faith assureth us the Heaven of Heavens must contain him until the restitution of all things. Reason apprehends it impossible for a humane person to have many bodies at one and the same time, one in Heaven, and one on every Altar; and sense satisfieth us that a body cannot exist in its full proportion, but it must be seen. Yet I must confess this fancy is a better fence for bowing to the Table than any other framed by its adorers. But secondly, God is present symbolically by some certain and special sign of his presence: Thus God was present to Israel by the Cloud, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the Ark, the Mercy Seat, or the like, before which the Priest or people bowed and did approach on singular preparation, and by special washing, sanctifing, and clothing themselves, with suitable holy Garments; for such things were signs inseparable from the peculiar presence of God ascertaining, not assimulating Divine presence; convincing that God was now specially near them, not that he did bear any such shape as appeared to them. Sure our Altar-adorers will not say God or Christ is Symbolically present on the Table, yet this is that they must mean when they call the Table Christ's chair of state and Mercy-Seat; but if so, they must tell us what is the Symbol of this peculiar presence? Is it one thing or many? And how do they know this or that to be the sign of his presence? Is the Paten, Chalice or Elements in them the sign of his presence? Are the Candlesticks or Candle the sign thereof? The last is most likely, for Christ is the light of the world: But I wonder then his presence doth not light them, as it sometimes burned the Sacrifices: Significancy of a thing or instrument, will make no symbol of God's special presence: they must be notes, not shapes of Gods existing; the Elements in the Sacraments with the Actions thereto pertaining, are signs of the body and blood of Christ, and of his Passion; but they are not Symbols ascertaining a real special presence, from which he is not separated, but that he cometh and goeth, or tarrieth with it, unless every Communicant must be concluded to eat his God, who must then pass through his body, or abide really present in him, with this Symbol which would make all our streets full of moving Altars, to whom Canonical Priests must continually cringe and bow; for God's sanctifying presence & the Symbol never do divide; this was the reason why the Gentile Proselytes under the Law, were constrained to travel from the utmost parts of the earth to Jerusalem, to enjoy fellowship with, and appear before God: and Israel in Captivity were tied to pray towards the Temple, if they would prevail; for that God's peculiar presence was there confined as to his habitation. These two kinds of Divine presence (though sanctifying in themselves) confer no holiness to the Communion table, because neither of them doth thereupon exist, whereby to make it holy, and the object of special solemn reverence; and the third cannot do it; for in this sense it sanctifieth not any thing or place, & that is, His spiritual presence, by the assistance and influence of his Grace & Spirit. This presence attends persons in solemn and sacred actions, but is not affixed to any place or Instruments, Determ. de ado. adver. Alt. p. 20. so as to know or make (in D. Duncons' Dialect) a best place in the Church, or a most holy of householdstuff; the promise of it is in Mat. 18.10. to persons in any, in every place: Where two or three are met together in my Name, THERE am I in the midst of YOU: This is with the Minister in praying or reading in the Desk, praying or preaching in the Pulpit, him and others baptising at the Font, as well as at the Table, in the administration of the Lords Supper; Nay, this spiritual presence is attendant on every of the people in every Pew, whilst hearing, singing or attending (in composed silence) upon any Ordinance: Yea, it is in any private place, field or Chamber with any of God's people, praying or performing any holy duty, and is not tied unto the Chancel or Church, or there existent, when the Ordinances and Duties are ceased and intermitted; and can therefore stamp no holiness, or any way make the Table God's Mercy Seat, or an holy Instrument to be the Object of special Reverence; And yet in which of these senses Dr. Duncon intended Christ his presence at the Commnion Table, the Translator of his Lecture on this Subject, or Dr. Gauden his Patron must explain; we not knowing how to refer and understand his words [Nor can the Holy Ghost be thought to be so strictly conjoined to the word of God, as the Son of God to the blessed Sacrament.] Which sure must be differenced by some reality of presence, whether sensible or symbolical; for as to the spiritual influence and presence, the Holy Ghost (by specialty of sanctification) is more peculiarly and strictly tied to Word and Sacraments, than is the Son of God who (sitting at the right hand of his Father) sends his spirit to operate by his Ordinances, and to rule the hearts of his chosen, and to convince the world of sin. But if the Communion Table be not sanctified by God, it may be by men: Let us therefore consider how men can make any thing holy, and so the object of special solemn reverence and adoration: and they must do it one of these two ways; Men may make a place or instrument holy ministerially, but a formal consecration, by certain Rites, and in such order as God himself prescribeth, who chooseth the place or instrument, and chargeth the Method Rites and Orders of its Consecration; from which his Ministers may not vary, by addition, abstraction or alteration but use the same, very same which God hath appointed to the stamping of holiness; thus was the Tabernacle in the time of Moses, and the Temple in the time of Solomon, and all the Utensils thereof consecrated according to divine direction, but since those places and instruments have been profaned, as God never sanctified any other, so he not where in scripture hath directed any method or order of consecration, whereby to stamp holiness on them: nor do we find any practised by Christ or his Apostles, or any primitive Christians professing the simplicity of the Gospel. I have indeed heard and read of the Consecration at Lambeth, Creed Church, Giles in the Fields, Woolver▪ hampton, and other places: And I have read some authors who urge it as necessary; for that the place or Instrument cannot be holy unless it be consecrated: But I read not of any Rites or Orders prescribed by the Lord, or in any part of the New Testament, or any other Books, the Roman, Ritual, Pontifical, or Breviaries excepted. And I am sure our own Pilkington and Aretius do determine such opinions to be notorious Fallacies and Fancies. Aretii problem. tom. 2. fol. 15. de Euc. If any do pretend the Church to have any Judical power whereby to stamp holiness on any place or thing, and make it the object of special solemn reverence, we must desire they will produce her Commission; that we may read it, and understand when this power was to her committed, and how far it doth extend: I am much mistaken if time and place as to their holiness be not of the substance of divine worship: And I am no less mistaken if ever God committed the Substantials of his Worship, unto the judgement of men; and if God hath prescribed no form of Consecration, and men have no Judical Authority, to stamp holiness of place or instrument; though they may in prudence determine the conveniency or inconveniency of places or instruments, as to the Service therein, thereat or thereupon to be performed; yet they cannot without superstitius vanity appoint the Communion Table to become the object of reverence or adoration or as an holy place or instrument. Seeing the Communion Table is not made holy by God or men, we might take it for granted that it is not holy at all, and ought not to be owned as the Object of adoration, but that our Altar-cringers have found out a new way of sanctifying a place or instrument, and that is, by the particular holy Services there performed: therefore one saith, Profaunomast. [in what place we have the most lively demonstration of God's presence by something either done or said there, as in a place or at an Instrument appointed to that service, there is the highest Court of, and for his holiness called the place of his Majesty,] Or by the privileges there conferred: and therefore saith another [Children washed in the Font do from thence obtain remission of sins, become the sons of God, and are made Heirs of Heaven, Dr. Dunc. determ. de ador. versus Altar. p. 21, 22. large privileges indeed, and such as beget honour and sanctity in the holy Font from which they flow: But as for the Altar, far greater and divine privileges do enable it, for on it is celebrated that awful and most venerable Sacrifice. I must not stand to observe the several exceptions to which these reasons are liable, but against their conclusive power, for which they are produced, I cannot but observe; That duties done and privileges received on or at any place or instrument sanctifying that place or instrument, so as to be an object of special solemn worship is, Contrary to the order and method of Sanctification used under the Law, and urged by our Saviour, as an argument to convince them of folly, who so dreamt; Ye Fools and blind, whether is greater, the Gold, or the Temple that sanctifieth the Gold? Ye Fools and blind, whether is greater the Gift, or the Altar that sanctifieth the Gift? Matth. 23.17, 19 I shall leave our Altar-Adorers to resolve the question; and only note, the Altar was consecrated that it might sanctify the Sacrifice among the Jews: That it was Folly and Blindness, to conceive otherwise: and that Folly and Ignorance are the cogent causes and constant concomitants of superstition, though in the devout and learned Pharisees 2. If duties done and privileges received on or at any instrument or place, do make it holy, than every Instrument on or at which it is done must be holy and the object of special reverence and adoration; so the Desk, Pulpit, and Font must be bowed unto: And so if the Lords Supper be once (as it is directed by our Lyturgy to be ordinarily) administered to the sick man, in his Chamber, and he being poor, on his ordinary Table or Chest by his bedside, that Chest or Table becomes holy, and must be no more profaned, but reserved and worshipped, bowed unto as a most holy Instrument: Further, according to this Fancy, the Patten whereon the Bread, and the Flagons and Chalice wherein the Wine is served at the Sacrament, become most holy Instruments, and must be bowed unto, as more holy than the Table; for as much they more immediately touch the Bread and Wine, by the virtue whereof they sanctify the Table; and quod Efficit tale, magis est tale: And certainly then men will have a care how they lend Cups or Flagons to be used in the administration of the Sacrament, lest (by the touch of those holy Elements) they become a burden to the owners, by binding them when ever they see them, to bow before them: nay lest they be bound from ever using them in common use any more, and be deprived of their goods, as was Sir Nicholas Crisp, who at the consecration of the Chapel at Hammersmith, set his silver Flagons with Wine on the Communion Table, without any intent to bestow them; but Archbishop Laud enforced him to part with them, saying, they were dedicated to God, and it would be sacrilege to commit them to his private use any more. Further, if the doing of the duty or receiving the privilege make the Instrument holy, men must forbear to use their hands in the Sacrament, and let the Priest put the Pix into their mouths, and yet then I see not how the Priest's hand and people's mouths will avoid this sanctifying influence, so as not to be Objects of Adoration, and them our Table-bowers will have bowing enough, when they shall not go without an Altar, so long as they carry their own fingers about them. 3. According to this notion, there are degrees of holiness in Instrument, according to the quality of the Ordinances administered at or by them, and sacred Ordinances appointed by the same God, signifying the same thing, Christ crucified, and aiming at the same end, Worship of God; and communicating the same substantial privileges, joy and peace in believing; only differing in their administration, according to the capacity of the subject; are differently holy, and of a different influence in sanctifying the Instruments whereat or where by they are performed, so as that the Desk or Pulpit must have its reverence, the Font its holy regard, but genuflexion or bowing must be only to the Table, as the most holy of God's householdstuff; as if Christ preached, or his blood in baptism were not the same equally to be adored, as when the memorial of his body and blood is celebrated. These things are so absurd, irrational and irreligious, that they must renounce their Reasons, and resolve to believe as the Church believes, who will believe the Table to be sanctified by the duties done, or privileges indulged at the same: and then they must do no less, who will affirm the Table to be an holy Instrument, the object of special solemn worship, and yet find it not sanctified by God, by men, or by holy Ordinances, and so by no means, not at all made holy: And yet, If I should admit the Holiness our Altar-worshippers Fancy, they have derived to the Table by their sinful Superstitious Consecration; I must desire them to produce their grounds, that will warrant their bowing before an holy Instrument, because sanctified Extra publicum usum, and dedicated to the only service of God: Did the Jews ever perform such devotion to any of the Utensils of the Temple, which were warrantably holy? Did they (that we read of) ever bow when Gods sensible or Symbolical presence did not call for it? Was not God spiritually present in their Synagogues? Was he not served by the Vessels of the Temple? Where will they prove an adoration in those places, or before those objects? Nay do not the Heathen place their gods over their Altars? and the Papists reserve their god in a Box on their Altar, as knowing that the Holy Altar, (if these be absent (is not a sufficient object of special solemn worship or genuflection? Must not that reason be charged with vanity in which neither antecedent nor consequent can be allowed, as true, genuine, natural, and of strength to conclude the Proposition? We see the Communion Table is no Altar nor other holy Instrument, not Christ his Chair of State, or Mercy-Seat, to which his special presence can be confined, and as such, is not to be bowed to: But there are other reasons why we must bow to the Table; it is well they give us number, for it is apparent that we want of weight. The Reasons which followed are so ridiculous, that to mention them, is to refute them; yet such as they are, we will consider them; and they are these: The third Reason from bowing to the Table, examined. The third Reason is, Because the Table is the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to the Trinity, So saith Shelford, in his Sermon of God's House, p 2.4, 19 The Table is a memorative Instrument unto which the assistance of Grace is never wanting, either to beget in our mind such thoughts of the death of Christ, or to extract from our persons such a worship of him: So saith Ironside, 7. quest. of Sabbath, p. 279. On the Table is celebrated that awful and most venerable Sacrifice, which our Lord himself did institute of old, for the commemoration, representation, application and exhibition of the most perfect Sacrifice, saith Dr. Duncon in his Determination the adoratione adversus Altar, p. 22. Whosoever reads this Reason, cannot, but see we were running very fast, and had made good progress towards a reconcilement with Rome, having admitted not only Priests and Altars, but a Sacrifice, an awful & most venerable Sacrifice, though we yet own it but as a memorable Sacrifice, yet it will soon appear nonsense, that the Lord of old instituted a Sacrifice the memory of a Sacrifice, and will necessitate us to know the nature of a Sacrifice is propitiatory, and as such it must next time be acknowledged, & therefore though these seem to mince the matter, another (contemporary with them, and managing the same contest) speaks out, and tells us plainly, it is a propitiatory Sacrifice to reconcile us unto God offended with our daily sins, Widows his Lawl. Kneel. Schis. Puritan, pag. 34, 89. And sure then there cannot want a reason for most reverend bowing to the Table. 2. Who ever made the Table the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice? When did the Lord of old institute it? Or how doth it appear that it is a memorative instrument, to which the assistance of grace is never wanting? I read no more of promise for the one, than precept for the other: I think the assistance of Grace must be the assurance of God, not appointment of Man, who cannot presume to dispense it, without arrogance and presumption; and then worship hereby extracted is so far from being acceptable to God, that it is abominable Superstition: Though these things might something suit the Elements, they are absurdly predicated of the Table; and bowing to, towards, or before the one or the other, more absurdly concluded; for that neither the Jews, Christ, his Apostles, Primitive Churches, Fathers or Councils did ever think or teach it a duty, to bow and worship before the place where the memory of the everlasting sacrifice is celebrated. The fourth Reason for bowing to the Table, examined. A Fourth Reason urged why we should bow to the Communion Table, is this, The Table or Altar is the sign of the place where our Saviour was most dishonoured, and crucified; so reasons Giles Widows in the Book and Page before mentioned. But by his leave, this is notoriously untrue; for the Table is no sign of Jerusalem, Golgotha, the High Priests Hall, or of the Cross. 2. What Rule directs, or reason dictates a bowing to the sign of the place where Christ was despised, dishonoured and crucified? If there be any, they may take bowing enough at every Map of the holy Land, or Sign of Jerusalem, hanged at many Taverns, in many streets of the City, and will find a necessity of restoring Crosses and Crucifixes, the most proper signs of the Instrument whereon Christ was most dishonoured and crucified. The fifth Reason for bowing at the Table, examined. The Last Reason I shall take notice of, and I need but note it, is this, The like difference may be discerned between your manner of reverence in bowing towards the Alt. for adoration of the Eucharist only, & ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table, as when there is; which is not to the Table of the Lord, but the Lord of the Table; to testify the Communion of all the faithful Communicants thereat. Thus is Dr. Moreton made to speak in the second Edition of his Learned Institutions of the Sacrament, Lib. 6. ca 5. Sect. 15. I say he is made to speak, because it was not spoken in his first Edition, and is conceived (on very considerable Reasons) not to have been spoken by himself being contrary to his known judgement, unsuitable to his Learning, Gravity, Acuteness, and Dialect, but to have been foisted in by some zealous Altar Adorer that desired the authority of so Learned an Advocate, as is at large declared in the Quench-coal, p. 289, 290, 291. But be it as it will, it is a reason most vain, and carrying in it the least of reason, of any yet produced: For, How can bowing to the Table testify the Communion of all thè Faithful Communicants at thè Table? Who instituted this action unto that end? Or what natural aptitude hath this action to signify such a thing? The joint receiving of the Lords Supper doth indeed testify Communion, and is appointed thereto; But to think that bowing to the Table when there is no Communion, should so do, is a most ridiculous Fancy, to be derided by the very Papists who do more really worship the Lord of thè Table, by bowing to their transubstantiated Host, and imagined real presence, than the Protestants can, who deny the Lord to be present really, or by his Ordinance, and yet bow to the Table on a most groundless, senseless imagination. We see that the nature and quality of the Object doth no way dictate any colourable reason for bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, and that how devout soever men seem to be in this act of Religion, it is a mere shadow, and Vanity is written on this action in characters no less legible than those whereby we read the Novelty thereof: And therefore we must needs as yet conclude it is a devotion foolish and unlawful, unbeseeming men of Reason, Learning and Piety to practice in themselves, or enforce upon others, whilst its best bottom is the pleasing of Superiors, & making Parish Churches conform to the Cathedral and Mother Churches, whom we must decline to follow further than they follow Christ. SECT. V THough Bowing to the Communion Table be an action new and seemingly vain, yet God's Institution and appointment will make it good and necessary; we are not so much to inquire the matter tendered unto God, as to observe the stamp that makes it currant: the most common and contemptible Elements are most eminent parts of God's worship, when used according to his own appointment: But alas, herein we are at the greatest loss of all, for the divine authority of our adoration to, towards or before the Communion Table, concerning which we charge it to be an Iniquity, and render for it this Reason: Solemn and Religious Bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, is no were directed in the Word of God, and is therefore an iniquity foolish and unlawful. Nadab and Abihu bringing fire of their own kindling unto God, are made everlasting Monuments of God's Jealousy, preaching to all the world, that it is all acase to offer false worship to the true God, as to offer true worship to a false God: As God will admit no Corrivals in the honour due to him, so he will receive no homage that is not directed by him: It is a dangerous thing in the service of God to deviate from his own institutions whilst we have to do with a power which is wise, to prescribe his own worship; just, to require what he hath prescribed: and jealous, to revenge that which is offered unto him, he having not required it: Moses might neither the add nor alter a pin in the Tabernacle, which God prescribed; nor might Solomon decline the Pattern of the Temple which God had made known to his Father David. Bishop Hall contemplating the fatal chance of the Sons of Aaron, serving God with false fire, doth thus observe upon it; [When we bring Zeal without Knowledge, misconceipts of Faith, carnal Affections, the devices of our Will-worship, superstitious devotions into God's Service, we bring common fire unto his Altar; these flames were never of his kindling, He hateth both Altar, Fire, Priest and Sacrifice] Let me therefore say to our Altar-Adorers, To the Law and the Testimony; produce divine prescription for your Devotion, and religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, that you stand not under the charge of iniquity, even an apparent Superstition, advancing as divine worship, what is not of divine appointment. But where shall we find a warrant for solemn and religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table: The Gospel of Jesus Christ, or Epistles, Canons, Acts or Traditions of his Apostles, afford us none; and it being a Relative Worship of God, in the nature of it, by an outward frame or similitude, will on a rational consideration, be found repugnant to the Second Command, which interdicts all media cultus, external Objects to be worshipped, though God be the ultimate object to whom such worship is intended, and so it is much at one, as to worship God by or before an Image. Yet lest our Zelots should fall inevitably under the charge of Superstition, they will produce Scripture-proof to justify their Table-Adoration, and thus they rally them; That the Jews admonished by the Oracles of their Prophets and Priests, were accustomed to worship the true and living God with their bodies prostrate on the ground, and their head bowed down to the pavement of the Temple, before the holy Altar, is plain from the Testimonies of holy Scripture, out of 1 Kings 8.22. 2 Kings 18.22. Where the most pious King Hezekiah, saith, Before this Altar bow yourselves: Out of 2 Chron. 7.3. And again, 2 Chron 32.12. Before one Altar shall ye worship; So Dr. Duncon Determ. And Dr. Morton in the place before quoted, is made thus to speak, We bow before the Gommunion Table, even as the people of God did in adoring him before the Ark his Footstool, Psalm 99.5. And in 1 Chron. 28.2. As daniel's bowing at prayer in Chaldea, looking towards the Temple at Jerusalem, where the Temple of God's worship was, Dan. 6.10. And David would be known to have done, saying in Psalm. 5.7. I will worship towards thy holy Temple: Unto these are added by Shelford, Reeve, Pocklington and Widows, Psal. 99.5. Exod. 12.27. Isa. 36.7. and the like, which are the same, or to the same purpose with those before alleged: And shall we now say there is no direction from Scripture, for bowing to the Communion Table: to which I say in general; If I should say nothing by way of reply, who so readeth these Scriptures, will soon see, that he must strain his Reason, if from any or all these Texts he infer a direction for Altar-worship: I shall not stand to examine each Text particularly, and to show to Bedlam-Logick in irrational, theological inferences, by which they are improved and extorted to acquit the vanity of our Altar-worship from the iniquity of human Invention, but refer my Reader to the Quench-coal, supposed to be Mr. Prins, where he shall find them exactly examined, pag. 240. 241, 242, 243, 244. I shall only detect the fallacy of this argumentation by these more general answers: First, Jewish practice before Christ came in the flesh, will make no warrant or give no direction for that worship which is to be now tendered unto God; because their practices bottomed upon special peculiar Reasons, are now expired and abolished; serving to show us how God was worshipped, not how he is to be worshipped; among which, the Temple, and Altar, and Adoration towards them, was not the least, nay, these were the chiefest; and this way of Judaizing hath not been the least spring of the Superstitions sprung up in the Church of Rome: Before therefore these Scriptures will make any warrant for a conform carriage in us, we must know whether these practices were not particular to the Jews? peculiar Types and Shadows, expired on the appearing of the Substance, Jesus Christ our only Temple and Altar? which if it could be denied, yet the case will be found different between this Adoration and our Bowing to the Communion Table; and therefore I would admonish our Altar-worshippers to consider whether they are not mistaken in these Three Things, the Object, the Act, and Authority of Worship? The Object of that Worship and adoration was either in general, God's Footstool, which some understand of the Earth in general, Isa. 66.1. Or in special, the Ark, that Symbol of his presence, 1 Chron. 28.12. And in particular, the Temple at Jerusalem, and the Altar in that Temple, places and instruments sanctified by God's especial presence, and solemnly consecrated according to his own prescription; but these are so far from being Common Tables in every Common Church, in any Country, Place or City, that they are not Tables in any Synagogue (the proper pattern of our Churches) not so much as the Holy Tables in the Temple; I presume our Table-Cringers cannot but know, there was in the Tabernacle and Temple a Table, on which stood the Shewbread and Silver Candlesticks; Methinks they should give us some evidence of the Priests and People bowing to, towards or before that, which was also consecrated; for it is most irrational to infer, the Jews worshipped towards the TEMPLE and ALTAR, when they cannot make our Table an Altar, or Chancel a Temple, holy place, or holy thing, as I have before noted. 2. The Act of Worship performed among the Jews, was no less different from our bowing and cringing, than was the Object: This Act of Worship was a praying towards the Temple, or offering of Incense or Sacrifice upon the Altar, as is evident, Psalm 28.2. 1 Kings 8.20, 30, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 48. 2 Chron 26.20, 21. And by that of Daniel, who prayed towards the Temple, it was not a bare bowing before it when no duty was in hand, or did direct the same, and that at coming in, or going out, or any time passing by the Temple or Altar, as is the devoir done to our Table; So that they must prove that a simple bowing to the Altar or Temple without Prayer or Oblation was a single Act of Devotion and Worship. 3. There is not more of Fallacy in this Argument by the difference of Act and Object, than the Authority of the same; they worshipped towards the Temple and before the Altar on warrantable Grounds and Reasons, (viz.) The Holiness God had stamped on them by consecration. 2. The Special Presence of God was confined to them, they were the standing Symbols from which it was not separated; the fire came from the Lord upon the Altar, and consumed the Sacrifices, and then indeed the people bowed themselves to the Pavement; so may we do, when God immediately lights the Tapers which have so long stood on the Table. 3. They had a promise of special acceptance to encourage them to pray and worship towards the Temple, where soever and in what condition soever they were; when we find holiness stamped on, God's special Presence confined to our Tables, or (as they affect to call them) Altars, and have a clear and undoubted promise of peculiar acceptance on such a Performance, we may be persuaded to give solemn reverence to God by religiously bowing to, towards or before Communion Table: till than we must demand some clearer Testimony from Scripture to convince us of the same as a duty, or lawful, or acquit themselves from the charged Iniquity, for superstitiously innovating into Christ's Church, a way of Worship so vain and fivoulous in it itself, and without Divine Warrant, and so apparently foolish and unlawful. SECT. VI OUR Fourth and Last Evidence that Solemn and religious Bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table, is foolishand unlawful is, the Malignity thereof, which we charge upon it, because it is sinful, scandalous and dangerous in the use of it. Sin cannot pass without scandal to the Spectator, and danger to the Sinner; it is of a most known malignant influence, in respect of both these, and therefore to be avoided and abhorred. That Solemn and Religious Bowing to the Comunion-Table is in the use of it sinful, hath been already manifested in the Novelty, Vanity, & Iniquity thereof, before discovered; by which, all that run, must needs read, that it is a ridiculous Superstition, innovated into the Church & Worship of God without any Reason in the Object, or prescription of God: being in its nature a divine, not Civil Worship, a piece of Devotion, pretending to reverence God or Christ, as directed unto him, as the ultimate Object of the same; whilst God never required, instituted or prescribed any such worship, nor intimated his mind that in such a way, reverence should be done unto him. The Patriarches and Prophets of the Old Testament, Apostles and Primitive Christians were never acquainted with, or did acknowledge any such act of Adoration of the Altar or Table, or means, method and way of worship of God: Altars (under which notion the Table is bowed unto) are utterly ceased and Abolished: all Christians and zealous sincere Protestants have withstood and condemned it as wicked, superstitious, and idolatrous in the Pagan and Papists, and the most zealous assertors and observers of bowing to the Table, do enforce, justify and maintain, with a mere plea of antiquity inpoint of practice, which can be no warrantabl● prescription of divine Worship; and that is only pretended & proved by forged authorities, & false inferences, and most absurd Ridiculous Reasons, plain and palpable results of humane inventions, and is by themselves confessed to be but a thing indifferent, to be done, or not done without censure, which cannot be the property of Divine Worship; all which do most clearly conclude it to be in the use of it superstitious, and so sinful, scandalous and dangerous. But if we well weigh the nature of solemn and Religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion Table, we should find it hard to acquit it from Idolatry: by reason it is an apparent Relative worship of God, in, through or by reason of the Communion Table, which is the formality of the worship of the Heathen, and popish Images, Crucifixes, and Idols, and determined to be idolatry by Dr. Morton who determineth, that not only the terminating and fixing divine honour upon any creature, is idolatry, Institu. of Sac. lib. 7. Cap. 8. Sect. 1. pa●● 47 Edit. 2. but when Latria or divine worship is given to an Image because of the relation it hath to God or Christ, and it can not as I conceive vary, if it be given to an Altar or Table, because of this relation; because it agreeth in that which is the forma informans of Idolatry, & which is declared so to be by our own Homilies, and all our Protestant Writers against the Idolatry of the Papists, and by Bellarmine himself in his book of Images, Cap. 24. for that there is nothing pleaded by way of excuse, to acquit this Table-worship, from Idolatry, which was not better pleaded and pleadable by the Pagans and Papists, who ever denied to worship the stock, stone or Idol, but directed their worship to that which inspired, or was represented by that stock or stone, & so stamped Holiness thereupon. Superstition in God's Worship (much less Idolatry) cannot be used in the Church of God without sin, so sinful and malignant in its influence, that it must needs be a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence, dangerous to the weak, ready to embrace Religion, devotion and reverence towards God, and run upon a divine worship without regard and examination, because used by such as profess God, rather than because instituted by God: & destructive to the wicked, who are by a righteous God given over to offer him that service, which must be rejected with, and who hath required this at your hands. But to strain Charity to its utmost bounds, and if it were possible to abate the malignity of this table-worship by acquitting it from iniquity; we should yet find it scandalous and dangerous, & therein sufficiently malignant, whereby to render it foolish and unlawful, and that in these two respects. First, Bowing to the Communion Table Symbolizeth with the worship of Pagans and Papists; those known Idolaters, especially in that order in which it was of late (and beginneth a fresh to be) used among us, in his Majesty's Royal Chapel, Lambeth Chappel, the Cathedral and many Parish Churches, whilst the Table must be made in the frame of an Altar, railed in, and advanced as an holy Enclosure; fixed at the East end of the Church; and furnished with Altar-Furniture, and Cover, and Candlesticks with Candles in them placed therein; the Images of God, or Christ, or the Holy Ghost placed over them in the glass window, or some stately Crucifix in Arras hanged behind, and above them, or some Cross in some kind of hang, as at the Abbey at Westminster: and so bowed unto, or bended before, when no duty in hand doth direct that genuflection, but itself is done as a distinct piece of devotion; in all which there is a most full conformity to the heathen worship of the●r gods, by bowing before their Altars placed in the East, and prepared according as is here described; all which is declared by their own Poets Virgil, Eneid. lib, 4. p. 171, 172. lib 5. p. 213. lib 8. p. 279, Ovid Faster. lib. 5. p. 88 Horace Epi. lib. 2. Epist. 1. Ovid and Horace: by our reformed Divines Dr. Rainold in his Treatise De Idololatria Ecclesiae Romanae lib. 2. cap. 3. sect. 46. pag. 432. Bishop Jewel and Bishop Morton, and by our own Homilies in the third part of the Homily of the peril of Idolatry, as also by the Fathers of old, and the plain suggestions of the Scripture, coupling together the Altars and Images of the Gentiles in their Erection, destruction or Adoration. And for the conformity of this practice unto the Papists, it is so legible that all may run and read it; and I shall only enforce it with that known story, witnessing the full agreement of the Papists Priests & English Altar worshippers, as to this point: on Maunday Thursday, in the year of our Lord 1636. Mrs. Charnock (a gentlewoman of good quality) with her daughter and some other friends, amongst whom one was a Papist, went to see the King's Chapel, where they saw an Altar with Tapers and other furniture on it, a Crucifix over it: and presently Dr. Brown of Faith's Church, one of his Majesty's Chaplains and a Dean in this Church with another Minister (after known to be his Curate) came into the Chapel; Then Dean of Hereford. and turning themselves towards the Altar, bowed Three Times: and then performing some private devotion departed: and immediately came Two Seminary Priests, and did as the Doctor and his Curate had done before them, on which Mrs. Charnock, speaking to her friends, said, I never thought to have seen such a sight in England, that our own Ministers and Popish Priests should thus repair into the King's Chapel, & use the self same bowings & gestures to the Altar & crucifix, as if they were both agreed; whereunto her Papist friend presently replied, There is no such odds or difference between you and us, as is conceived; And one of the Priests seconded her, and said, Gentlewoman you need not wonder at our bowing and kneeling to the Altar and crucifix; for you see that Ministers of your own Religion do the same. Can Idolaters find their foolish superstitions followed by, and retained among the professors of Gods true worship, and not be obdurated in their vanity & folly? or can any conscientious Protestants, convinced that God requires his people to avoid the Symbol or similitude as well as substance of false worship, and not be offended, grieved, scandalized, at this apparent conformity with Pagans and Papists, in an action that neither Reason, nor Religion, more than humane invention, superstitious devotion, will appoint, allow or defend? Secondly, Solemn and Religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion Table is a spring of superstition and fountain of vanity, from whence it floweth in great abundance, Men do not gather Grapes of Thorns and Figs of Thistles, such as is the Tree, such must be the fruit, such as are the premises, must be the conclusion: If the Communion Table must be bowed unto with solemn and Religious bowing, than it will follow First, That holiness of places and instruments (expired and abolished by the coming of Christ) is yet continued in, and to be regarded and reverenced by the Church of God: and this is evident in Dr. Duncons' notion, that the Lords table is the most holy of God's Householdstuff, and in that the Assertors of this Table Worship, do affect to call the Table, the Altar, High Altar, the names of holy instruments: and must not this obdurate the Jews, who know holy places and instruments to be the Types of the Messiah, and offend the Christian, who knoweth that Christ our Altar is in Heaven and hath laid common all holy places and instruments? 2. Then Communion Tables must have holiness stamped upon them, and be signally distinguished from other places and instruments, above which they must be signified by she solemn, special, peculiar reverence: So we see a necessity of removing the Table out of the Body of the Church into the Chancel (the most honourable place) and placing it close to the Wall, lest any should sit behind it, above Jesus Christ, (saith Shelford) railing it in, lest common people come nigh and profane it; advancing it by steps, that it may be conspicuous at coming into the Church: and consecrating it by a solemn and Religious Rite or Order of stamping holiness; and of furnishing it with Candlesticks, Tapers, Crosses and Crucifixes, lest we should seem to worship a simple naked Joiner's frame, if it were left without wealth or guard: all which have been made legible by the Writings, Preaching and Practice of our Table-cringers, as the natural Inferences, Brood and Offspring of solemn and religious Bowing to the Communion Table. 3. Then the Lord Jesus Christ one way dispensed to his people, doth stamp more holiness, and make the Instruments of such ministration Objects of more Honour and Reverence than the same Christ dispensed another way doth or can do: The substance and matter of the Word read, preached and sensibly administered, is one and the same, Christ crucified; all is Verbum Dei, or Deus Verbum, although one be visible, and the other audible; and yet the Table only not the Desk or Pulpit, must have solemn and religious reverence: Baptism is a Sacrament, an Ordinance of the same nature with the Lords Supper, signifying & sealing the Blood of Christ crucified, and shed as a Sacrifice for sin, though in a different administration, according to the different capacity of the Subject, yet the Table must be bowed unto, and not the Font; and so different administrations of the same substance do stamp different degrees of holiness, though never designed nor directed of God unto that end. 4. Then Relative power is an eminent piece of Religion and Christian Devotion: who must not be bound to go to God immediately in their solemn and religious adoration, but making him their ultimate Object, may direct their Reverence toward an external Object, a Frame, Altar or Table, related unto God or Christ, and to him dedicated as the medium cultus, and then how shall we keep out Images and Crucifixes, as likely media cultus, as Tables or Altars? and charge folly on the Primitive Christians and Protestants, and on our own Church, who charged papists and Pagans with Idolatry, for worshipping God by external media and with relative worship. Lastly, Then we must circumscribe God, and confine Jesus Christ to the Communion Table as well when the Sacrament is not, as when it is administered; as to his peculiar Pew in every Church, Throne, Chair of State, Mercy-Seat among his people, otherwise we bow to the Table in the grossest way and degree of Idolatry, as a mere Joiner's Frame, the work of Man's Hand. Many absurdities of this nature do naturally flow from this Act of Table Worship, rendering it a most reconciling Engine between England and Rome; but on that, among other Grounds, greatly scandalous to all sincere Worshippers of God, and a dangerous stumbling stone for weak and wicked Christians, being in itself an Hydra of Superstition, and setting open a Door, nay Floodgate to many horrid Superstitions, and the very Sluice of Idolatry; and if the Subject of such Malignity, I may sure rationally conclude, That solemn and Religious Bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, is an Action or Gesture foolish and unlawful, and the rather because innovated by humane Invention, without Divine Prescription, or any considerable Reason. FINIS.