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 fanaticks.

The SIN of ALTAR-WORSHIP, Or, Bowing to the COMMU∣NION-TABLE considered.

PROPOS. Solemn and Religious bowing to, to∣wards or before the Communi∣on-Table, is foolish and unlaw∣full.

BOwing or Religious bending towards the Communion-Ta∣ble, simply consider∣ed, is not to be condemned, no place or instru∣ment, being excluded from use, &

access unto, as conveniency shall direct; Bowing the body, or bend∣ing 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 scituate, ra∣ther than any other place in the Church; at the solemnization 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 pub∣lick Prayer, by the order of the Seats, may be directed towards the Chancel, and so without o∣ther change of gesture, they kneel towards the Table, which is an action natural, by accident di∣rected to, or towards that place,

having no ground or reason for the same, but the conveniency of the place, to the service to be per∣formed, and so hath neither prin∣ciple or form of solemn, supersti∣tious worship of the place, or in∣strument, to which such genu∣flection is directed. Therefore, I denominate, that Altar-worship concerning which we enquire, a solemn and religious bowing to, or towards the Communion Table; to denote, the Table to be the de∣signed object; and so, the ground, cause or reason, of that incurva∣tion, 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 ap∣proach to, recession from, or pas∣sing by the Table, when no acti∣on,

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, * 1.1 and that only (to use the dialect of the assertors of bowing to the Altar, as an holy duty) is motivum cul∣tus, 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 instru∣ment 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 af∣firm to be foolish, and unlaw∣ful.

SECT. II.

TO, towards or before the Ta∣ble, I add in the position, be∣cause, they who agree in the practise 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) affect∣ing this action, do pretend to do it, not to, * 1.2 but to∣wards the Table, not to the Table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the Table, admitting the Ta∣ble as a medium, and bowing to it as Pars Cultus, as a part of Worship, but yet look be∣yond it and direct their worship to God or Christ, as the ulti∣mate

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 Cruci∣fix, is to the Papists, who do pro∣fess 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 Gods presence than any other place, or instrument of Di∣vine Service; and yet we well know, that the Papists are con∣demned, as guilty of direct Ido∣latry, and breakers of the second Commandment, in worshipping God, by, before, or towards an I∣mage, or Crucifix, and how bow∣ing towards the Table, will be ac∣quitted

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 cozen their friends) do labor to shroud them∣selves under this difference in expression, we shall easily find it is a Cloak too short to cover their knavery; for, in scripture accep∣tation, 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 worshiping before, or towards Images or Altars is the same in Scripture language and account, with bowing, kneel∣ing, 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 An∣gel 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 sub∣verted mans redemption & salva∣tion. And all our Protestant Wri∣ters, and our own homilies against Idolatry, and Popish adoration of

Images, Crucifixes, or the Eucha∣rist, 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 en∣deavor to acquit themselves from the guilt of Superstition and Ido∣latry by this distinction and ex∣pression; do but spin a Spiders web, and can no more evade, than do the Papists, whilst they make in their own defence, no other plea, than the entangling distin∣ction of bowing towards the Image and Cruci∣fix, not to it: * 1.3 yet urge al kind of rea∣sons, which may e∣rect the Table, to be the Object of worship, as, that it is holy, Christs chair of State, where God is specially present. That the Table is a

memorative instrument, unto which the assistance of Grace is never want∣ing, 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 want∣ing to our selves; and that it is con∣secrated 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 re∣solved 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 pre∣sume in private exhortation, pub∣lick Sermons preached and print∣ed, and that cum privilegio, and open Professions to perswade 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 Widdows 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, Entitu∣led, 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 Al∣tar, but fall flat on our faces so soon as ever we approach the sight there∣of, 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 e∣stablished Bowing to the Table in the Univer. of Oxf. by Statute & Oath, & enforced it by Visita∣tion-Articles, High-Commission Censures, as did also Bish. Wren, and others, and at last commend∣ed it in their Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1640. Yet in these gross, plain and absurd terms, not only the Non-confor∣mists and kneeless Puritains, but all Protestants, and many of their own Confederates in that Rome-accomodating design, yea Pa∣pists themselves would condemn them, as the greatest Idolaters in the world, they transub∣stantiating 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 Joyners Frame, which they conclude to be wicked and un∣lawful: And mad Gybbons of

Canterbury would play with them as with the then Dean of Canter∣bury, at truss-a tray, if it were possible to laugh them out of this their folly and ridiculous act of Religion: and he and others a∣greeing in this action, though dis∣agreeing 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 Re∣ligious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table.

Religious, Solemn Bowing to, towards or before the Communi∣on-Table was never digitated by any Primitive or Catholick pra∣ctise or Prescript of the Church;

therefore it is a Novelty.

Religious Solemn bowing to, towards or before the Communi∣on Table is no way dictated by the nature or quality of the Ob∣ject; and therefore it is a Vanity.

Religious, solemn bowing to, towards or before the Communi∣on Table, is no where directed by Gods Word; and therefore it is an Iniquity.

Religious, solemn Bowing to, towards or before the Communi∣on Table, is an action in the use of it, dangerous, sinful and scan∣dalous; and therefore chargeable with Malignity.

These things considered, and cleared, will fully conclude, that solemn religious bowing to, to∣wards 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 Com∣munion 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 be∣ing granted by all men, Heathen or Christian, Civil or Religious.

Novelty is a disposition, not more vain and childish in its sub∣jects, than dangerous in its ef∣fects and operations, subjecting the most stable principles, and se∣rious practises to unsafe and un∣reasonable mutations; thereby proving the Mother of Sedition in

the Commonwealth, and Super∣stition in the Church, innovating vanities, good for nothing but to ingender strife and contention, verifying the Greek Proverb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Novelties are vanities, and are therefore in∣hibited by all Politicians or pru∣dent Legislators, not only by their Councels and Commands, but the Peoples Sacred and So∣lemn Oath. Lycurgus subjects himself to perpetual exile, that he may supersede the changes of his Lacedemonians; and Plato his Rule cannot but be by all receiv'd (especially in things of religious concernment) Ne quid in rebus ad Religionem attinentibus innovetur; That Novelties in Religion be not admitted: Serious and sin∣cere 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 Gods Worship: God doth no little aggravate Isra∣els Idolatry and Superstition by its Novelty: Hath a Nation for∣saken their gods, which are no gods? but my people have changed their glory, Jer. 2.11. And they sacrifi∣ced 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 an∣ticipateth their vanity by a plea of antiquity, Remember the daies of old, consider the years of many gene∣rations; ask thy Father, and he will shew 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 Bacons Aphorism, that an∣tiquity without verity, is a Cypher 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 Gods pure Worship and true Religion, with the false charge and loud clamour of No∣velty; thus the Heathen of old judged the first planting of Chri∣stian 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 Lu∣ther? pretending antiquity for their greatest Impiety and Idola∣try: * 1.4 As Paulus Sa∣mosatenus (that hor∣rid Heretick) cast the Scripture-Psalmes out of the

Church, as new-found figments of Late Writers; by reason where∣of Religious antiquity hath need∣ed to be asserted (with an haec novi∣tas non est novella vanitas, res enim est antiquae religionis perfectè fundata in pietate Christi, antiqua haereditas ecclesiae) as the ancient appointment of God, and inhe∣ritance of the Church: The same Method hath been, and yet is most exactly observed by Eng∣lands popishly affected Prelates, and their obsequious Chaplains in their Cassandrian accomodation, for bringing Rome to England, whilst England will not go to Rome; wherein they decline the Scripture (the only reason of Re∣ligion and Rule of Divine Wor∣ship) & pretend Antiquity, Catho∣lick, Primitive and Ecclesiastical practise and prescription in their in∣novation of humane Inventions, unto the obstruction of a due, ne∣cessary,

inchoated, and solemnly covenanted Reformation; though herein they are ordinarily mista∣ken and confounded; it hapning to them, as unto Tertullians Here∣ticks, 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 In∣stitutions prescribed and practi∣sed 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 befals them, as in other su∣perstitious rites, so in this of Al∣tar-worship, or bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, con∣cerning which, we shall first en∣quire, not so much what was the

command and institution from the beginning, which fals in its place to be considered; as what hath been the ancient custom or constitution of the Primitive and Catholick Church, which we in∣tend as an argument ad hominem, calculated for the clamorous pre∣tenders 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 Catholick practise of the Church; wherein we must confess it is more proper for us to deny, than to affirm, and put our asser∣tors and cotestors for this piece of devotion, on the proof of the primitive and catholick 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 an∣tiquity doth digitate it; for that though this practise 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 appare∣re, 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 spo∣ken it (from more mouthes and Pens than one) That bowing to the table is an ancient & commen∣dable practise and piece of reve∣rence, yea we are so told, and as such, have it commended to our practise, 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 Pro∣vinces, held by the two Arch-Bi∣shops

of York & Canterbury, cum privilegio Majestatis; in their Canons and Constitutions Eccle∣siastical, Anno Dom. 1640. where∣in they thus express themselves; We think it meet and behooful, and heartily 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 Chappels, according to the most an∣cient 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 lauda∣ble custom, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, without any intention to exhi∣bit any religious worship to the Com∣munion Table. I am not willing to break modesty so far, as to charge these Reverend Fathers

with a Lie and fallacious insinuati∣on, though the laxity of their au∣thority, commending what their Reasons might warrant, and pow∣er might authorize, affords a ground on which to suspect it: I shall therefore confess, that if Obeysance & 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 revi∣ving thereof: But for this anti∣quity, we have no evidence but their bare say-so, and although we are ready to own such assem∣blies 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 them∣selves

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 de∣position of any witness taken in private by themselves: We are sure this is not the usual method of the Church of England, * 1.5 or her Advocates, who in her Ho∣milies of the peril of Idolatry, spendeth the second part of the Homily in producing testimony to the matter of Fact, and an∣cient custom, and practise of the thing to which she perswades: Whilst therefore they expect our consent to an ancient custom, and tie us to believe as the Church be∣lieves, they raise our confidence

that they palliate an apparent In∣novation, 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 pra∣ctised in our Church; for then we must needs be ignorant of the Injunctions of Car∣dinal Pool's Visi∣tors, * 1.6 in the Visita∣tion of the University of Cam∣bridge, in the time of Queen Mary, who amongst other things, did order the Schollars how to bow to the Altars: And must needs be ignorant of the new Statutes made by Archbi∣shop Laud, * 1.7 the then Chancellor of the University of Oxford, print∣ed 1638. and directing all the Schollars in their Order ad men∣sam

Eucharistiae sacram cum debi∣ta reverentia oblationes faciant (w^ch by words and practises they inter∣preted to be a lowly bowing to, towards or before the Table) for omission whereof they were pu∣nishable at the pleasure of the Vice-Chancellor, and to pay five shillings: And must needs be un∣acquainted with the Visitation-Articles of Bishop Wren, Bishop Pierce, Bishop Lindsey, Bishop Skinner, Bishop Mountague, and others, who among other things, caused strict enquiry about every mans reverent behaviour at entring into the Church by bowing towards the Altar. But yet I must be bold to say, our Church is not the most Catholick or Primitive, nor yet the purest Church: that bowing to the table was never prescribed by the publick 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 chiefly practised in University Chappels, and advan∣ced in particular Diocesses: ac∣cording to the affections of sin∣gle Prelates, who enforced it with their personal authority: And yet it passed not without suspi∣tion and censure of Innovation and Novelty, by some of the Bishops, as Dr. Wright of Coventry and Litchfield, and Dr. Williams Bi∣shop of Lincolne, witness his Holy Table, Name and Thing: And lastly, this maketh no antiqui∣ty, it being the act of this age on∣ly, and not able to account 60. nay scarce 30 years towards a cu∣stom, in which time it hath been more than once arrested as an In∣novation, and as far from appear∣ing the ancient practise of the Primitive Church in the Purest

times: Nor do we observe the practise of it in the times of Qu. Elizabeth, either first or last, with any approbation or allow∣ance of the Church; though now again with much earnestness it be endeavoured to be revived: A∣gainst 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 authentick testi∣mony, to prove that the Primi∣tive 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 pro∣duce unto them, that they may reprove our censure of their No∣velty, by better informing our judgments; 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 Inven∣tors and contrivers of mischief, who are active in it, and cannot produce their author.

2. The Fathers and Ecclesiasti∣cal Historians (by whom all Rites and Ceremonies used in the Pri∣mitive Church, are most accurate∣ly set down) do make no men∣tion of solemn or religious bowing to towards or before the Communion-table, * 1.8 which of all other, had it been a thing of that moment, so anci∣ent and laudable a custom, and re∣verent acknowledgment of the Di∣vine Majesty, as it is recommend∣ed 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 shew of Antiquity, unlesse it be that which Nazianzen mentioneth of his Mother, * 1.9 quod ve∣nerandae mensae nun∣quam terga verteret, that she ne∣ver turned her back on the vene∣rable board, which cannot any way be understood of bowing to the table, but of never withdrawing from the Lords Supper when it was administred, 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 desi∣red

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. af∣ter 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 Christianitie, Inter equitandum, quoties-cun{que} tur∣res ecclesiarum inspexit, detracto pi∣leo, caput inclinavit, Deum qui co∣leretur, in Ecclesia veneratus: when he rode 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 di∣gitates

an adoration to the Stee∣ple of, not Altars in the Church, and that is no way commended, nor commanded to us by our No∣vellers.

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 tendred unto himself, without any such se∣condary helps as Images; the which is fully cleared in the Homilie of the peril of idolatry, * 1.10 and by all our Protestant writers, and by Dr. Usher, in his Answer to the Jesuites Challendge 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 Ta∣ble or Joyners frame, imagined to be the Symbol or Representa∣tion of his Majesty, and so of the very same nature with an Idola∣trous Image, I cannot con∣ceive.

4. Because the Christians in the primitive times, and many hundred years after Christ did prohibite the bowing the knee, * 1.11 or kneeling on a∣ny Lords day; & from Easter to Whitsont. they forbad 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 pas∣sing by the Communion-Table, to do reverence to it, or bow to∣wards it, who would not admit any genuflexion in any the most serious, submisse acts of worship, I cannot believe.

5. Lastly, that no kind of au∣thors, not so much as the very Pa∣pists, do make mention of bow∣ing to Tables, otherwise than as they were Altars; whence it un∣doubtedly comes to pass that the great sticklers for this Table reve∣rence, 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 according∣ly furnish it with Vessels, Can∣dlesticks, Tapers and holy Uten∣sils belonging to an Altar; as fancying that they may muster up many testimonies for Altar-wor∣ship

(such as they are) but not one for Table-adoration, which the Papists so much abhor, * 1.12 as that they con∣temptuously and scornfully call our communion-Tables, Oyster-boards & Prophane Tables, and yet this Altar-wor∣ship which our Novellers do af∣fect to render synonymous with Table-adoration, is so far from being the ancient & laudable cu∣stom of the primitive Church and purest times, * 1.13 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 primi∣tive Christians had no Altars be∣fore which to worship.

The third part of the Homilies against the peril of idolatry (con∣firmed by the statute, and by

the Articles of our Church) doth declare, * 1.14 all Christi∣ans in the primitive Church, (as Origen against Celsus, Ciprian also and Arnobius do testifie) were sore charged, and complained of, for that they had no Altars and Images.

And King Edward the Sixt proposing the primitive Church, and purest times for his example in Reformation, doth by his Let∣ter to Doctor Ridly Bishop of London, direct him to pull down Altars, and set up Tables, and enforceth his direction with reasons, * 1.15 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 affirm'd by Jewel against Harding, Reynolds against Hart, Fulke and Cartwright against the Rhemists,

and all our Protestant writers a∣gainst the Papists, which they could never yet answer or avoid; and Tho. Bacon, in his Reliques of Rome, doth declare his opinion that Altars were not used in the Church before the year of our Lord 590. * 1.16 when the Popish, Peevish, Private Masse 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) then there was not, nor could be any bowing to, towards, or before Altars. And when Al∣tars were brought into the Church; there is no probability that they were adored and wor∣shipped as are our Communion-Tables, for that they were conti∣nued in the middle of the Church, not enclosed, or placed at the East end of the Church, and advanced

above other parts thereof; for ma∣ny years after. Bishop Jewel in his answer to Hardings Preface, doth observe from many good Au∣thors, that, it is apparent that the Communion-Table, in the Apostles times, and Primitive Church for more then 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 Ca∣thedral Church of Rome, stood in the time of Masse, when the Pope received the Sacrament in the midst of the Quire; whereof he re∣ports himself to be an Eye-wit∣nesse; and probably the Altar was advanced to its high and ho∣ly inclosure 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 Masse of S••. James

the Apostle doth direct: or of Pe∣nitents when absolved, Bishops when consecrated, and Kings and Emperors when crowned, knee∣ling before the Altar: Of Gorgonia her prostration of her self in her sicknesse, before, or at the Foot of the Altar, whereupon she reco∣vered, 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 begin∣nings of superstition, and not found in the Primitive Church; yet we read not of any who men∣tion bowing to, or towards the Al∣tar, * 1.17 until Honorius Augusto-dunensis, who lived in the year 1120 (far e∣nough 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 No∣vellers: for the bowing he re∣ports, was to the Altar only at en∣trance into the Church, not at eve∣ry approach to, recession from, or passing by the Table; they bow∣ed East and West to testifie God eve∣ry 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 & honor max∣imus 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 de∣cree many things concerning Al∣tars, as for their scituation and inclosure, furniture with candle∣sticks, altar cloathes, and the like, yet it decreeth nothing for

bowing to the Altar: & the reser∣ved pix, or transubstantiated bread, adored by the Papists, do plainly plead for them, that they wor∣ship not the Altar, and reflecteth the Table-worship of the Pro∣testants (who deny the reservati∣on of Christs body on the Table) as a most foolish Novelty, ridicu∣lous and unlawful Idolatry, wor∣shipping a Joyners frame without any apprehension or acknowledg∣ment of Gods special presence; from which they ought to acquit themselves by good and sufficient reasons, before they innovate in∣to his Majesties Royal Chappell, Our Cathedral and Parish-church∣es, solemn and Religious bowing to, towards, or before the Com∣munion-Table, or can expect any conformity to their new fangled fancy, never used in the primi∣tive Church, nor in the Refor∣med Churches, nor alowed 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 pre∣tence to which they make so much noise; whilst they enquire into the nature of the object, and what reason therein can dictate this action and demeanour, honor and incurvation, ever charged (since first acted) to be an innovation.

SECT. IV.

OUr second evidence where∣by we charge solemn and religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion-Table, to be an action foolish & unlaw∣ful, is, the vanity thereof. I do denominate this action vanity,

because it beareth a shew of reli∣gion without any substance. Men that stand at a distance, and ob∣serve the solemn, grave, and seri∣ous deportment of those who bow to the Table, must needs imagine that they are ingaged in some special act of devotion, on some serious sence of holinesse in the object, which stirreth up, and engageth the same; whereas when the object is inquired into, it is found a plain simple Joyners frame, or work of some Artificer, without any innate cause, or rea∣son of solemn and sacred adora∣tion; and it befalls the serious spectators, as the Poet speaks of the husbandmans 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 em∣pty.

Sed illas expectata seges vanis il∣lusit 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 na∣ture, or quality of the Thing or Object, therefore it is a Vanity. If Scripture do not direct, right reason must needs expect the na∣ture of the Object to dictate the act. They are persons and po∣stures fit for Bedlam, that having no prescription from superiors, cannot plead some reason from the nature and quality of the Ob∣ject: It is possible for sober chil∣dren to demean themselves with all reverence and good manners towards Squire Dunne, but if they seem to be reproached for so ho∣noring

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, how∣ever 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 to∣wards it.

As it is a Table, none do make it the object of such adoration; being the work of mans hands, any that knew the nature of an Idol, must needs make the wor∣ship to, or towards it, to be plain, expresse Idolatry: Whatsoever therefore is fancied to dictate this worship to, or towards it, is in that it is the Communion-Ta∣ble, and in Scripture called the Lords-Table; and as such, and

under colour thereof, some ear∣nest Zealots for this adoration, do as from the nature and qua∣lity thereof, urge as reasons for this worship, that this Table is an Altar, an high Altar, an holy place or instrument, the best, choisest and holiest part of the church the place of Christs special pre∣sence, and his chair of state; Christs mercy seat, and the memo∣ry of the everlasting sacrifice, there made and presented to the Trinity; a signe of the place where our Savi∣our was most dishonoured and cruci∣fied. And lastly (which is inserted into Doctor Mortons writings.) The Testimony of the Communion of all the faithful Communicants there∣at. Thus Widdowes, in his Knee∣lesse Puritan pag. 34. 89. Doctor Duncon in his Lecture on bowing to the Altar. Shelfords Sermon of Gods house, pag. 2. 4. 18, 19, 20. Reve his Exposition of the Cha∣techism,

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 judge∣ment,) most vain and ridiculous, yet because they carry a shew of Holinesse, 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 worshiped. 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 pa∣gans and Jewish Altars, so deno∣minated from the fiers and Sacri∣fices burning on them, as Cale∣pin & Isidore do note on the word, whence the Papists fancying the Masse 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 as∣serting the Table to be an Altar, hath led some among us unto the subverting of the Sacrament, (Christs institution) by suggest∣ing the Bread and Wine thereon used, to be a Sacrifice: Again, an Altar in the nature of it was sa∣cred,

and did sanctifie the things that were offered thereon, as our Saviours expostulation with the Pharisees, plainly sheweth, Mat. 23.18, 19. But none will dare to say that the Communion Ta∣ble 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 be∣tween 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 Shew-bread was in the Temple distinct from the Al∣tar of incense: And under the Gospel attendance on the Altar,

and partaking of the Altar, was the sign of a Jew, or Infidel Gen∣tile, 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 Christs Church, that it knoweth no Altar. All the Fathers generally, all Commenta∣tors and Christian Writets do agree, that Altars were Types of Jesus Christ: Whence the Apo∣stles do call Jesus Christ himself our Altar, Heb. 13.10. Rev. 6.9. c. 8.3, 9, 13. As also our Expo∣sitors and Martyres, and our late King James in his Paraphrase on the Revelation, do agree: More∣over, 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 commemo∣ration, a Passeover, to be with fre∣quencie

celebrated, and this doth require a Table whereat to feed, and from whence they ought not to be excluded by a railed-in In∣closure.

The Communion-Table is no Al∣tar; in the apprehension of the Church.

Not in the apprehension of the Primitive Church, who were estranged unto Altars, and did de∣termine them to be expelled the Churches, as things unsuitable to Christians, and whereby we deny∣ed 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, Al∣tare sublatum est, the Altar was taken away, and therefore he di∣rects such as seem to want the Al∣tar, to look up to Heaven, Si

Altare videris destitutum, est in coelis: So also Paschalius Rhadber∣tus, 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 im∣pudent Jesuite (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 falshood thereof: Origen tells us, That 200 years after Christ the Christi∣ans were blamed by the heathen, for that they had no Altars; and Ar∣nobius after him declareth the same thing, all our Protestant writers have maintained it against the Papists, that the Primi∣tive Church never had, nor would endure Altars, but certainly they had Communion Tables, and used them.

It is an old shift and pittiful poor plea, to tell us, that the Fa∣thers 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 ma∣ny passages out of their own wri∣tings urged by the Protestants a∣gainst the Papists, by B. Jewel, Ba∣bington, Reynolds, and others, even as they denominate the heart of godly men their Altar, and Faith an Altar; So St. Jerom. Altare Fidelium fides est, and Altare Dei est cor bonum, and yet they will not be admitted to be proper Altars and objects of Adoration; How then can communion-Ta∣bles be so own'd.

Communion-Tables were not

Altars in the apprehension of the Re∣formed Churches, or of our own Church in promoting the Reforma∣tion of Religion, which did ever be gin, and proceed by pulling down Altars and placing tables in the Body of the Church, as contra-di∣stinct from the Papists Altars; Whosoever will observe our own Book of Martyrs (the best Eccle∣siastical History of the first begin∣ning and progress of Reformati∣on) shall find, that at Berea, Constance, Basil, Geneva, Aus∣burge, 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 Piemont covenanting the Refor∣mation, agreed to cast down the Altars, which they accordingly executed in the Church of Boby. And our Edward the Sixth, begin∣ning the Reformation, gave or∣der

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 Pauls, and other Churches in London: All which was enforced with this considera∣tion, That Altars were not used in the daies of the Apostles nor Primi∣tive Church, nor did agree with the Christians Sacrament and Professi∣on, that Christ their true and only Altar was come. And on the con∣trary, when this Reformation was stopped, and turned back in the Reign of Queen Mary, and Po∣pery again returned, it en••ered & proceeded by scorning, villifying, & pulling down Communion Ta∣bles, and preaching up, building and restoring Altars; which were again demolished and dri∣ven out, when the Reformation

revived, under Q. Elizabeth, and Communion-Tables were resto∣red, and fortified by Injunctions, Canons, and Statute-Law, and so continued untill 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 Pri∣mitive 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 falla∣cy: Should we grant (what our

table-cringers so much use, and affect to call the Communion ta∣ble) that it is an Altar, yet there is no reason for their bowing to, to∣wards, or before it; because Altars are no way the Object of adora∣tion, nor can be worshipped or bowed unto, without apparent I∣dolatry: 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 Sym∣bols of Divine Nature or Presence, for Altars have been, and may be without the presence of God: And the Jews were never ap∣pointed, 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 Jewes might worship before

the Arke, or the cloud which rest∣ed upon it, or towards the Tem∣ple; yet neither Priest nor peo∣ple 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 Al∣tars, as their own Poets, and Hi∣storians, and many of the Fathers do testifie: Saint Austin tells us, the Pagan Idols were placed ho∣norabili sublimitate, in an honou∣rable height, ut a precantibus at{que} immolantibus attendantur; that they might be regarded by them that sacrificed and prayed unto them: And the Scripture witnes∣seth, God for bad Israels bowing to the gods of the Gentiles, Numb. 25.2. Not to their Altars, which was not used: And when Josiah brake down the Altars, he brake also the Images of Baalim, 2 Chr. 34.3, 4. And these two were

joynt 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 be∣hind and over the Altar; know∣ing the Altar as such, to be no Object of Worship, because no Symbol of divine nature and pre∣sence. It is more then probable, that the sence hereof, brought the late Crucifix in the Glasse over, and in the Arras Hangings behind the Altar at Lambeth-Chappel, and in the Kings Royall Chappel, so ordered by the Late Archbishop Laud, the first that ever framed a Canon for bowing to, towards or before the Com∣munion Table: for which rea∣son will require some Symboll of Divine Nature and Presence: Its being an holy instrument of divine Service, being of no more

force for the Altar then for the Tongs, or Snuffers of the Taber∣nacle, or Aarons 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 e∣very street; but whether it be an holy instrument, is considered in the next reason, to which I op∣pose 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 sence and expressions, as speaking of the Table in its fixed form and scituation in the Chancel, at the upper end; under the wall, in the form of an Altar, and rail∣ed in, in which frame and posture

they deem it, not only an instru∣ment, whereon Divine Service is performed, but an holy place un∣to 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 holinesse of the Church-yard, more holiness of the Church, which must needs con∣clude most holiness of the Chan∣cel, to which the Table is con∣fined.

Holiness inherent cannot be i∣maged to be predicated of the Communion-Table, it being pro∣per to none but Rational Crea∣tures, Angels and Men.

And therefore Relative Holiness is that which must be understood of the Communion Table;

and this Holinesse according to the description of our Table crin∣ger, is nothing else but a state of relation and peculiarity to God, de∣dicated to his only service, and so alienated from all other usewhat∣soever, it is holy extra usum pub∣licum. 2. Sanctifying, or giving power and vertue to be more ef∣fectuall and acceptable to God, whatsoever is tendred in or by it. 3. The Object of some positive and speciall respect and reve∣rence.

That there have been such places and Instruments we cannot deny, whilst we remember the Tabernacle & Temple among the Jewes before the coming of Christ; but that the Communion Table is such an holy place or in∣strument, 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 prophan'd 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 moun∣tain, nor at Jerusalem (by peculia∣rity of relation to God) shall ye worship the Father; and the Spi∣rit in a Vision hath taught us, to call nothing unclean, and then e∣very thing and place must be as holy as the Communion Table with its railes.

2. There is no way or meanes 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 there∣upon, but the Communion Table is not made holy by God immedi∣ately, 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-wor∣shippers tells us they worship God by the Table, and the Lord of the Table, not the Table of the Lord, and call the Table Christs 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 there∣fore

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 en∣quiring whether Christ have a Pew in every Church, and his spe∣cial 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 Sa∣crament is not administred, as when it is; but to be more serious with them, I should enquire what kind of presence God affords us at the Communion Table, whereby it is made holy, and so rendred the ob∣ject of such speciall solemn wor∣ship.

There is recorded in holy writ a threefold special presence of God, two of which do sanctifie any place or instrument, and

make it the object of solemn a∣doration, so long as they, or ei∣ther of them exist; but the third doth not so do.

Gods presence may be, and hath been sensible to the bodily eyes of his people: Thus he ap∣peared to the Patriarchs, 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 speciall reverence, as the ground whereon Moses and Joshuah stood, Exod. 3.5. by reason whereof it is requi∣red, that they should put their shooes from off their feet. Joshuah 5.15.

This presence of God, or Christ on the Lords Table, can∣not 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 sence present on the Altar, we should not be∣lieve 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 untill the restitution of all things.

Reason apprehends it impossi∣ble for a humane person to have many bodies at one and the same time, one in Heaven, and one on every Altar; and sence 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 signe of his presence: Thus God was pre∣sent 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 pre∣paration, and by special washing, sanctifyng, and cloathing them∣selves, with sutable holy Gar∣ments; 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 ap∣peared 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 Christs 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, Cha∣lice or Elements in them the sign of his presence? Are the Can∣dlesticks 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 some∣times burned the Sacrifices: Sig∣nificancy of a thing or instrumēt, will make no symbol of Gods special presence: they must be notes, not shapes of Gods existing; the Ele∣ments 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 Symboles ascertaining a real special presence, from which he is not separated, but that he cometh and goeth, or tarrieth with it, unlesse every Communi∣cant

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 Cano∣nical Priests must continually cringe and bow; for Gods sancti∣fying presence & the Symbol never do divide; this was the reason why the Gentile Proselites under the Law, were constrained to travel from the utmost parts of the earth to Hierusalem, to enjoy fellow∣ship with, and appear before God: and Israel in Captivity were tyed to pray towards the Temple, if they would prevail; for that Gods pe∣culiar presence was there confi∣ned 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 reve∣rence; and the third cannot do it; for in this sense it sanctifieth not any thing or place, & that is,

His spiritual presence, by the assi∣stance and influence of his Grace & Spirit. This presence attends persons in solemn and sacred a∣ctions, but is not affixed to any place or Instrumēts, * 1.18 so as to know or make (in D. Dun∣cons Dialect) a best place in the Church, or a most holy of houshold∣stuff; 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 baptizing at the Font, as well as at the Table, in the ad∣ministration

of the Lords Supper; Nay, this spirituall presence is attendant on every of the people in every Pew, whilst hearing, sing∣ing or attending (in composed si∣lence) upon any Ordinance: Yea, it is in any private place, field or Chamber with any of Gods peo∣ple, praying or performing any holy duty, and is not tyed unto the Chancel or Church, or there existent, when the Ordinances and Duties are ceased and inter∣mitted; and can therefore stamp no holiness, or any way make the Table Gods Mercy Seat, or an holy Instrument to be the Object of special Reverence; And yet in which of these senses Dr. Dun∣con intended Christ his presence at the Commnion Table, the Translator of his Lecture on this Subject, or Dr. Gauden his Pa∣tron must explain; we not know∣ing how to refer and understand

his words [Nor can the Holy Ghost be thought to be so strictly conjoyned 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 sen∣sible or symbolical; for as to the spiritual influence and presence, the Holy Ghost (by specialty of sanctification) is more peculiarly and strictly tyed to Word and Sa∣craments, than is the Son of God who (sitting at the right hand of his Father) sends his spirit to ope∣rate 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 con∣sider how men can make any thing holy, and so the object of speciall solemn reverence and adoration: and they must do it one of these two wayes;

Men may make a place or in∣strument holy ministerially, but a formal consecration, by certain Rites, and in such order as God himself prescribeth, who chuseth the place or instrument, and char∣geth the Method Rites and Or∣der of its Consecration; from which his Ministers may not vary, by addition, abstraction or altera∣tion but use the same, very same which God hath appointed to the stamping of holiness; thus was the Tabernacle in the time of Mo∣ses, and the Temple in the time of Solomon, and all the Ʋtensils thereof consecrated according to divine direction, but since those places and instruments have been prophaned, as God never sanctified any other, so he no 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 simplici∣ty of the Gospell. I have indeed heard and read of the Consecrati∣on at Lambeth, Creed Church, Giles in the Fields, Woolver▪ham∣pton, and other places: And I have read some authors who urge it as necessary; for that the place or Instrument cannot be holy un∣less it be consecrated: But I read not of any Rites or Order prescri∣bed 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 deter∣mine such opinions to be notori∣ous Fallacies and Fancies. * 1.19

If any do pretend the Church to have any Judical power where∣by 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 pow∣er 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 lesse 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 instru∣ment; though they may in pru∣dence determine the conveniency or inconveniency of places or in∣struments, as to the Service there∣in, thereat or thereupon to be performed; yet they cannot with∣out superstitius vanity appoint the Cōmunion 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 a∣doration, but that our Altar-crin∣gers have found out a new way of sanctifying a place or instrument, and that is, by the particular holy Services there performed: there∣fore one saith, * 1.20 [in what place we have the most lively demonstration of Gods presence by something either done or said there, as in a place or at an Instrument appointed to that ser∣vice, there is the highest Court of, and for his holiness called the place of his Majesty,] Or by the privi∣ledges there conferred: and there∣fore saith another [Children wash∣ed in the Font do from thence obtain remission of sins, become the sons of

God, and are made Heirs of Heaven, * 1.21 large priviledges 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 priviledges 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 ob∣serve;

That duties done and privi∣ledges received on or at any place or instrument sanctifying that place or instrument, so as to be an object of speciall solemn wor∣ship 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 dreamed; Ye Fooles and blind, whether is greater, the Gold, or the Temple that sanctifieth the Gold? Ye Fooles 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 que∣stion; and onely note, the Altar was consecrated that it might san∣ctifie the Sacrifice among the Jews: That it was Folly and Blindness, to conceive otherwise: and that Folly and Ignorance are the co∣gent causes and constant conco∣mitants of superstition, though in the devout and learned Phari∣sees

2. If duties done and privi∣ledges received on or at any in∣strument or place, do make it ho∣ly, then every Instrument on or at which it is done must be holy and the object of speciall 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) administred to the sick man, in his Chamber, and he be∣ing poor, on his ordinary Table or Chest by his bed-side, that Chest or Table becomes holy, and must be no more prophaned, but reser∣ved and worshipped, bowed unto as a most holy Instrument: Fur∣ther, according to this Fancy, the Patten whereon the Bread, and the Flagons and Chalice wherein the Wine is served at the Sacra∣ment, become most holy Instru∣ments, and must be bowed unto, as more holy than the Table; for as much they more immediatly touch the Bread and Wine, by the vertue whereof they sanctifie 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 Sa∣crament, lest (by the touch of those holy Elements) they be∣come a burthen to the owners, by binding them when ever they see them, to bow before them: nay lest they be bound frō 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 Chap∣pell at Hammersmith, set his sil∣ver Flagons with Wine on the Communion Table, without any intent to bestow them; but Arch∣bishop Laud enforced him to part with them, saying, they were dedi∣cated to God, and it would be sa∣criledge to commit them to his pri∣vate use any more. Further, if the doing of the duty or receiving the priviledge 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 Priests hand and peoples mouths will avoid this sanctifying influence, so as not to be Objects of Adoration, and thē our Table-bowers will have bow∣ing enough, when they shall not go without an Altar, so long as they carry their own fingers a∣bout them.

3. According to this notion, there are degrees of holinesse in In∣strument, according to the qua∣lity of the Ordinances admini∣stred at or by them, and sacred Ordinances appointed by the same God, signifying the same thing, Christ crucified, and aim∣ing at the same end, Worship of God; and communicating the same substantiall priviledges, joy and peace in believing; only differ∣ing in their administration, accor∣ding to the capacity of the sub∣ject;

are differently holy, and of a different influence in sanctifying the Instruments whereat or wher by they are performed, so as that the Desk or Pulpit must have its reverence, the Font its holy re¦gard, but genuflexion or bowing must be only to the Table, as the most holy of Gods houshold-stuff; as if Christ preached, or his blood in baptism were not the same e∣qually to be adored, as when the memoriall of his body and blood is celebrated.

These things are so absurd, ir∣rational and irreligious, that they must renounce their Reasons, and resolve to believe as the Church be∣lieves, who will believe the Table to be sanctified by the duties done, or priviledges indulged at the same: and then they must do no less, who will affirm the Ta∣ble 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 meanes, not at all made holy: And yet,

If I should admit the Holi∣ness our Altar-worshippers Fancy, they have derived to the Table by their sinful Superstitious Con∣secration; I must desire them to produce their grounds, that will warrant their bowing before an holy Instrument, because sanctified Extra publicū usum, and dedica∣ted to the only service of God: Did the Jews ever perform such devotion to any of the Utensils of the Temple, which were warran∣tably 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 Syna∣gogues? Was he not served by the Vessels of the Temple? Where will they prove an adoration in

those places, or before those ob∣jects? 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 genu∣flection?

Must not that reason be charged with vanity in which neither an∣tecedent nor consequent can be allowed, as true, genuine, naturall, and of strength to conclude the Proposition? We see the Commu∣nion 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 e∣verlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to the Trinity, So saith Shelford, in his Sermon of Gods House, p 2.4, 19. The Table is a memorative Instrument unto which the assistance of Grace is never want¦ing, 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, repre∣sentation, application and exhibiti∣on of the most perfect Sacrifice, saith Dr. Duncon in his Determi∣nation de adoratione adversus Al∣tare, p. 22.

Whosoever reads this Reason, cannot, but see we were running very fast, and had made good pro∣gress towards a reconcilement with Rome, having admitted not only Priests and Altars, but a Sa∣crifice, an awful & most venerable Sacrifice, though we yet own it but as a memorable Sacrifice, yet it will soon appear nonsence, 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 ac∣knowledged, & 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, Widowes his Lawl. Kneel. Schis. Puritan, pag. 34, 89. And sure then there can∣not want a reason for most reve∣rent 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 dispence it, without arrogance and presumption; and then wor∣ship hereby extracted is so far from being acceptable to God, that it is abominable Superstition:

Though these things might som∣thing suit the Elements, they are absurdly predicated of the Table; and bowing to, towards, or before the one or the other, more ab∣surdly concluded; for that nei∣ther 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 e∣verlasting sacrifice is celebrated.

The fourth Reason for bowing to the Table, examined.

A Fourth Reason urged why we should bow to the Communi∣on Table, is this, The Table or Al∣tar is the sign of the place where our Saviour was most dishonoured, and crucified; so reasons Giles Wid∣dowes in the Book and Page before mentioned.

But by his leave, this is notori∣ously

untrue; for the Table is no sign of Hierusalem, Golgotha, the High Priests Hall, or of the Cross.

2. What Rule directs, or rea∣son dictates a bowing to the sign of the place where Christ was despis∣ed, dishonoured and crucified? If there be any, they may take bow∣ing enough at every Map of the holy Land, or Sign of Hierusalem, 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 maner of re∣verence

in bowing towards the Alt. for adoration of the Eucharist only, & ours in bowing as wel 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 testifie the Commu∣nion of all the faithful Communi∣cants thereat. Thus is Dr. More∣ton made to speak in the second Edition of his Learned Instituti∣ons 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 confiderable Reasons) not to have been spoken by himself being contrary to his known judgemēt, unsuitable to his Lear∣ning, Gravity, Acutenesse, and Dialect, but to have been foysted 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 testifie the Communion of all thè Faithful Cōmunicants at thè Ta∣ble? Who instituted this action unto that end? Or what natu∣rall aptitude hath this action to signifie such a thing? The joynt receiving of the Lords Supper doth indeed testifie 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 wor∣ship the Lord of thè Table, by bowing to their transubstantiated Host, and imagined real presence, than the Protestants can, who de∣ny the Lord to be present really, or

by his Ordinance, and yet bow to the Table on a most groundless, senceless imagination.

Wee see that the nature and qua∣lity of the Object doth no way di∣ctate 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 meer shadow, and Vanity is written on this action in characters no less le¦gible than those whereby we read the Novelty thereof: And there∣fore we must needs as yet cōclude it is a devotion foolish and unlaw∣ful, unbeseeming men of Reason, Learning and Piety to practice in themselves, or enforce upon o∣thers, whilst its best bottom is the pleasing of Superiours, & making Parish Churches conform to the Cathedral and Mother Churches, whom we must decline to follow further then they follow Christ.

SECT. V.

THough Bowing to the Communion Table be an action new and seemingly vain, yet Gods Institution and ap∣pointment will make it good and necessary; we are not so much to enquire the matter tendred unto God, as to observe the stamp that makes it currant: the most cōmon and contemptible Elements are most eminent parts of Gods wor∣ship, when used according to his own appointment: But alass, here∣in we are at the greatest loss of all, for the divine authority of our a∣doration to, towards or before the Communion Table, concerning which we charge it to be an Ini∣quity, and render for it this Rea∣son:

Solemn and Religious Bowing to, towards or before the Communi∣on Table, is no were directed in the Word of God, and is therefore an in∣iquity foolish and unlawful.

Nadab and Abihu bringing fire of their own kindling unto God, are made everlasting Monuments of Gods Jealousie, 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 danger∣ous thing in the service of God to deviate from his own instituti∣ons 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 nei∣ther

the add nor alter a pin in the Tabernacle, which God prescri∣bed; nor might Solomon decline the Pattern of the Temple which God had made known to his Father David. Bishop Hall contemplating the fatall chance of the Sons of Aaron, serving God with false fire, doth thus observe upon it; [When we bring Zeal without Knowledge, miscon∣ceipts of Faith, carnal Affections, the devices of our Will-worship, superstitious devotions into Gods Service, we bring common fire un∣to 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; pro∣duce divine prescription for your Devotion, and religi∣ous bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table, that you stand

not under the charge of iniqui∣ty, even an apparent Superstiti∣on, advancing as divine worship, what is not of divine appointment. But where shall we find a war∣rant for solemn and religious bowing to, towards or before the Communion Table: The Gospell of Jesus Christ, or Epistles, Ca∣nons, 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 rationall consideration, be found repugnant to the Se∣cond Command, which inter∣dicts all media cultus, externall Objects to be worshipped, though God be the ultimate ob∣ject to whom such worship is intended, and so it is much at one, as to worship God by or be∣fore an Image.

Yet lest our Zelots should

fall inevitably under the charge of Superstition, they will produce Scripture-proof to justifie 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 pave∣ment 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 your selves: 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 Gommu∣nion Table, even as the people of

God did in adoring him before the Arke his Footstool, Psalm 99.5. And in 1 Chron. 28.2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Chaldea, look∣ing towards the Temple at Hieru∣salem, where the Temple of Gods worship was, Dan. 6.10. And Da∣vid 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 Widdows, Psal. 99.5. Exod. 12.27. Isa. 36.7. and the like, which are the same, or to the same purpose with those before alledged: And shall we now say there is no direction from Scripture, for bowing to the Com∣munion 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 shew to Bedlam-Logick in irrational, theological inferences, by which they are improved and extorted to acquit the vanity of our Altar-worship frō the iniquity of humāe 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 argumen∣tation by these more general an∣swers:

First, Jewish practise before Christ came in the flesh, will make no warrant or give no direction for that worship which is to be now tendred unto God; because their practises bottomed upon speciall peculiar Reasons, are now expi∣red and abolished; serving to shew 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 Supersti∣tions 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 pra∣ctises were not particular to the Jewes? peculiar Types and Shadows, expired on the appear∣ing of the Substance, Jesus Christ our only Temple and Al∣tar? which if it could be de∣nyed, yet the case will be found different between this Adorati∣on and our Bowing to the Com∣munion Table; and therefore I would admonish our Altar-worshippers to consider whe∣ther they are not mistaken in

these Three Things, the Object, the Act, and Authority of Wor∣ship?

The Object of that Worship and adoration was either in ge∣neral, Gods Footstool, which some understand of the Earth in gene∣ral, Isa. 66.1. Or in special, the Arke, that Symbole of his pre∣sence, 1 Chron. 28.12. And in particular, the Temple at Hieru∣salem, and the Altar in that Temple, places and instruments sanctified by Gods especiall pre∣sence, and solemnly consecrated according to his own prescripti∣on; but these are so far from being Common Tables in every Common Church, in any Coun∣try, Place or City, that they are not Tables in any Syna∣gogue (the proper patern 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 Shew-bread and Silver Candlesticks; Me∣thinks they should give us some evidence of the Priests and Peo∣ple bowing to, towards or be∣fore that, which was also conse∣crated; for it is most irratio∣nall to inferr, the Jewes worship∣ped 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 per∣formed among the Jews, was no less different from our bow∣ing and cringing, than was the Object: This Act of Worship was a praying towards the Tem∣ple, or offering of Incense or Sa∣crifice upon the Altar, as is evi∣dent, Psalm 28.2. 1 Kings 8.20,

30, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 48. 2 Chron 26.20, 21. And by that of Dani∣el, who prayed towards the Temple, it was not a bare bow∣ing 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 sim∣ple bowing to the Altar or Temple without Prayer or Oblation was a single Act of Devotion and Worship.

3. There is not more of Falla∣cy 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 Rea∣sons, (viz.) The Holiness God had stamped on them by con∣secration. 2. The Special Pre∣sence

of God was confined to them, they were the stand∣ing Symboles 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 im∣mediately lights the Tapers which have so long stood on the Table. 3. They had a pro∣mise of speciall acceptance to en∣courage them to pray and wor∣ship towards the Temple, where soever and in what condition soever they were; when we find holiness stamped on, Gods speciall 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 per∣swaded to give solemn reverence

to God by religiously bowing to, towards or before Communion Table: till then we must de∣mand some clearer Testimony from Scripture to convince us of the same as a duty, or lawfull, or acquit thēselves from the charged Iniquity, for superstitiously inno∣vating into Christs Church, a way of Worship so vain and fivoulous in it it self, and with∣out Divine Warrant, and so apparently foolish and unlaw∣full.

SECT. VI.

OUR Fourth and Last Evi∣dence that Solemn and religi∣ous 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 danger∣ous 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 a∣voided and abhorred.

That Solemn and Religious Bowing to the Comunion-Ta∣ble is in the use of it sinful, hath been already manifested in the Novelty, Vanity, & Iniquity there∣of, 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 na∣ture a divine, not Civil Worship, a piece of Devotion, pretending to reverence God or Christ, as dire∣cted unto him, as the ultimate Ob∣ject 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 Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Testament, Apostles and Primitive Christians were never acquainted with, or did acknow∣ledge any such act of Adorati∣on of the Altar or Table, or meanes, method and way of worship of God: Altars (under which notion the Table is bowed unto) are utterly ceased and A∣bolished: all Christians and zea∣lous sincere Protestants have with∣stood 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, justifie and maintain, with a meer plea of antiquity inpoint of practice, which can be no warrantabl•• prescription of divine Worship; and that is only pretended & pro∣ved

by forged authorities, & false inferences, and most absurd Ri∣diculous Reasons, plain and palpa∣ble results of humane inventions, and is by themselves confessed to be but a thing indifferent, to be done, or not done without cēsure, 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 sinfull, scandalous and danger∣ous.

But if we well weigh the na∣ture of solemn and Religious bowing to, towards, or before the Communion Table, we should find it hard to acquit it from Ido∣latry: 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 de∣termineth, that not onely the ter∣minating and fixing di∣vine honour upon any crea∣ture, is idolatry, * 1.22 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 infor∣mans of Idolatry, & which is decla∣red 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-wor¦ship, 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 re∣presented by that stock or stone, & so stamped Holinesse thereupon.

Superstition in Gods Worship (much lesse Idolatry) cannot be used in the Church of God with∣out 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, rea∣dy to embrace Religion, devotion and reverence towards God, and run upō 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 re∣quired this at your hands.

But to strain Charity to its ut∣most bounds, and if it were possi∣ble to abate the malignity of this

table-worship by acquitting it from iniquity; we should yet find it scandalous and dangerous, & there∣in sufficiently malignant, whereby to render it foolish and unlawful, and that in these two respects.

First, Bowing to the Commu∣nion 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 Majesties Royal Chappel, Lambeth Chap∣pel, the Cathedral and many Pa∣rish Churches, whilst the Table must be made in the frame of an Altar, railed in, and advanced as an holy Inclosure; fixed at the East end of the Church; and fur∣nished with Altar-Furniture, and Coverings, 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 Crosse in some kind of hangings, as at the Abbey at Westminster: and so bowed unto, or bended be∣fore, when no duty in hand doth direct that genuflection, but it self 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 Vir∣gil, * 1.23 Ovid and Horace: by our reformed Di∣vines Dr. Rainold in his Treatise De Idolo∣latria Ecclesiae Roma∣nae lib. 2. cap. 3. sect. 46. pag. 432. Bishop Jewell 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, destru∣ction 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 inforce it with that known story, witnessing the full agreement of the Papists Priests & English Altar worship∣pers, as to this point: on Maunday Thursday, in the year of our Lord 1636. Mrs. Charnock (a gentle∣woman of good quality) with her daughter and some other friends, amongst whom one was a Papist, went to see the Kings Chappel, where they saw an Altar with Tapers and other furniture on it, a Crucifix over it: and presently

Dr. Brown of Faiths Church, one of his Majesties Chaplaines and a Dean in this Church with another Mini∣ster (after known to be his Curate) came into the Chappel; * 1.24 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 Kings Chappel, & use the self same bowings & gestures to the Altar & crucifix, as if they were both agreed; whereunto her Papist friend pre∣sently replyed, 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 re∣tained among the professors of Gods true worship, and not be obdurated in their vanity & folly? or can any conscientious Prote∣stants, convinced that God re∣quires 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 Religiō, more then humane invention, su∣perstitious devotion, will appoint, allow or defend?

Secondly, Solemn and Religi∣ous bowing to, towards, or before

the Communion Table is a spring of superstition and fountain of va∣nity, from whence it floweth in great abundance, Men do not ga∣ther Grapes of Thornes 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 Re∣ligious bowing, then it will fol∣low

First, That holiness of places and instruments (expired and aboli∣shed by the comming of Christ) is yet continued in, and to be regar∣ded and reverenced by the Church of God: and this is evident in Dr. Duncons notion, that the Lords ta∣ble is the most holy of Gods Hous∣hold-stuff, and in that the Asser∣tors of this Table Worship, do af∣fect to call the Table, the Altar, High Altar, the names of holy instruments: and must not this

obdurate the Jewes, who know holy places and instruments to be the Types of the Messiah, and of∣fend 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 prophane it; advancing it by steps, that it may be conspi∣cuous 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 Joyners frame, if it were left without wealt or guard: all which have been made legible by the Writings, Preaching and Practise of our Table-cringers, as the natural Inferences, Brood and Off-spring of solemn and religious Bowing to the Communion Table.

3. Then the Lord Jesus Christ one way dispensed to his people, doth stamp more holinesse, and make the Instruments of such mini∣stration 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 admini∣stred, 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 re∣verence: Baptism is a Sacra∣ment, an Ordinance of the same nature with the Lords Supper, signifying & sealing the Blood of Christ crucified, and shed as a Sa∣crifice for sin, though in a differēt administration, according to the different capacity of the Subject, yet the Table must be bowed unto, and not the Font; and so differ∣ent administrations of the same substance do stamp different de∣grees of holinesse, though never designed nor directed of God un∣to 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 externall Object, a Frame, Altar or Table, related unto God or Christ, and to him de∣dicated as the medium cultus, and then how shall we keepe out Images and Crucifixes, as like∣ly media cultus, as Tables or Al∣tars? and charge folly on the Primitive Christians and Prote∣stants, 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 circum∣scribe God, and confine Jesus Christ to the Communion Table as well when the Sacrament is not, as when it is administred; as to his peculiar Pew in eve∣ry Church, Throne, Chair of

State, Mercy-Seat among his peo∣ple, otherwise we bow to the Ta∣ble in the grossest way and degree of Idolatry, as a meer Joyners Frame, the work of Mans Hand.

Many absurdities of this na∣ture do naturally flow from this Act of Table Worship, rendring it a most reconciling Engine between England and Rome; but on that, among other Grounds, greatly scanda∣lous to all sincere Worshippers of God, and a dangerous stum∣bling stone for weak and wick∣ed Christians, being in it self an Hydra of Superstition, and setting open a Doore, nay Flood∣gate to many horrid Superstiti∣ons, and the very Sluce of Idolatry; and if the Subject of such Malignity, I may sure ra∣tionally conclude, That solemn and Religious Bowing to, to∣wards

or before the Communion Table, is an Action or Gesture foolish and unlawfull, and the ra∣ther because innovated by hu∣mane Invention, without Divine Prescription, or any considerable Reason.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Shelford 5 Treat. pag. 17, 18, 19, 20
• * 1.2

  Morton▪ Inst. of the Sacram. 2. Edit. lib. 6. cap. 5. Sect. 15. pag. 463.
• * 1.3

  Shelfords Ser∣mon of Gods House. pag. 2.4.19. Widdows Law∣less, kneelesse Puritan. pag. 34.89. Ironside 7. Quest. de Sabbat. pag. 279.
• * 1.4

  Euseb Hist. Lib. 7.29.
• * 1.5

  2 Book of Ho∣milies, p. 21.
• * 1.6

  Fox Acts dud Mon. p. 1781.
• * 1.7

  De Precibus solen. & Oblationibus in d••e Comitiorum, Sect. 1. p. 2.
• * 1.8

  Centic. Magdub. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. c. 6. de cere∣moniis & ritibus Eccles.
• * 1.9

  Nazianz. Ora. 8. de funere Pa∣tris, p. 472.
• * 1.10

  2 Book of Ho∣milies p, 21.
• * 1.11

  Die Dominica, jeju∣nium ne fas ducimus, vel de jemiculis ado∣rare, Tert. de corona militis, justin. Mar. Quest. 115. Gracian. de consecr. distinct. 3. Jerom de ecclesiasticis observa∣tionibus, c. 29.
• * 1.12

  Fox acts. Monu∣ments Ed. ult. p. 85. 95. 97.
• * 1.13

  Article. 35.
• * 1.14

  Homily 2. Tom. pag. 41.
• * 1.15

  Fox Acts and Mon. Pag. 1211.
• * 1.16

  Fol. 82. Of the or∣nament of Churches.
• * 1.17

  De antiquo ritu Missarum Lib. 3. cap. 30. de Incli∣nationibus.
• * 1.18

  Determ. de ado. adver. Alt. p. 20.
• * 1.19

  Aretii problem. tom. 2. fol. 15. de Euc.
• * 1.20

  Profauno∣mast.
• * 1.21

  Dr. Dunc. determ. de ador. versus Altare. p. 21, 22.
• * 1.22

  Institu. of Sac. lib. 7. Cap. 8. Sect. 1. pa•••• 47 Edit. 2.
• * 1.23

  Eneid. lib, 4. p. 171, 172. lib 5. p. 213. lib 8. p. 279, Ovid Fastor. lib. 5. p. 88. Horace Epi. lib. 2. Epist. 1.
• * 1.24

  Then Dean of Hereford.