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 antiquity 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 Novelty thus the Heathen of old judged the first planting of Christian Religion the setting forth of new gods and the Papists of late reproach and retard Reformation with their clamorous demand Where was your Religion before Luther pretending antiquity for their greatest Impiety and Idolatry Euseb Hist. Lib. 7.29 As Paulus Samosatenus that horrid Heretick cast the Scripture-Psalmes out of the Church as new-found figments of Late Writers by reason whereof Religious antiquity hath needed to be asserted with an haec novitas non est novella vanitas res enim est antiquae religionis perfectè fundata in pietate Christi antiqua haereditas ecclesiae as the ancient appointment of God and inheritance of the Church The same Method hath been and yet is most exactly observed by Englands 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 Religion and Rule of Divine Worship pretend Antiquity Catholick Primitive and Ecclesiastical practise and prescription in their innovation of humane Inventions unto the obstruction of a due necessary inchoated and solemnly covenanted Reformation though herein they are ordinarily mistaken and confounded it hapning to them as unto Tertullians Hereticks viderint novum esse quod sibi est vetus representing Novelty to be Antiquity and Antiquity to be Novelty concluding some tract of time to be a sufficient plea for the Innovation of those things in divine Worship which must needs interfere with the Institutions prescribed and practised from the beginning and so expose themselves to the shame and guilt of folly and unlawful acting whenever the novelty thereof shall be detected the which befals them as in other superstitious rites so in this of Altar-worship or bowing to towards or before the Communion Table concerning which we shall first enquire 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 intend as an argument ad hominem calculated for the clamorous pretenders to antiquity for all their innovations and Superstitions in divine Worship and therein we affirm Solemn religious bowing to towards or before the Communion-Table was never digitated by the Primitive Catholick practise of the Church wherein we must confess it is more proper for us to deny than to affirm and put our assertors and cotestors for this piece of devotion on the proof of the primitive and 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 antiquity 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 apparere idem est it is all one not to be and not to be seen I must indeed confess that the Pulpit and the Presses have spoken it from more mouthes and Pens than one That bowing to the table is an ancient commendable practise and piece of reverence 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 Provinces held by the two Arch-Bishops of York Canterbury cum privilegio Majestatis in their Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical Anno Dom. 1640. wherein they thus express themselves We think it meet and behooful and 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 ancient custom of the primitive Church in the purest times and of this Church also for many years of the reign of Qu. El. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custom we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people without any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the Communion Table I am not willing to break modesty so far as to charge these Reverend Fathers with a Lie and fallacious insinuation though the laxity of their authority commending what their Reasons might warrant and power might 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 reviving thereof But for this antiquity we have no evidence but their bare say-so and although we are ready to own such assemblies as Objects of Reverence yet we are not resolved into such an implicit Faith as to apprehend their say-so a sufficient ground of credence until we are convinced of their infallibilities especially in a matter of fact which themselves can only know by report and testimonies they not so much as naming any Father Council or Ecclesiastical Historian whom we might examine as a witness unto this most ancient custom of the Primitive Church in the purest times Nor do so much as read unto us the examination and deposition of any witness taken in private by themselves We are sure this is not the usual method of the Church of England 2 Book of Homilies p. 21. or her Advocates who in her Homilies of the peril of Idolatry spendeth the second part of the Homily in producing testimony to the matter of Fact and ancient custom and practise of the thing to which she perswades Whilst therefore they expect our consent to an ancient custom and tie us to believe as the Church believes they raise our confidence that they palliate an apparent Innovation with the false pretence of ancient and laudable custom of the Primitive Ch. in the purest times We must confess we cannot say we never found bowing to the Table commanded and practised in our Church for then we must needs be ignorant of
the sake of the Vulgar who better understand plain positive Assertions than Polemical Debates Were I worthy to plead with our Rising Prelates I would demand Whether they are resolved to return us to Rome or run us upon our utter Ruine For otherwise they would call a Colledge of Casuists and resolve that great Case of Conscience Unto against what and how far the Solemn League and Covenant doth oblige our King and Kingdom lest they run themselves and occasion others to run upon the violation thereof We well know Perjury her Prop cannot but much pleasure Rome But if they will needs return into our Church the Romish Rubbish of Humane Inventions lately carried out I think they may fill their Wheel-barrows with enough pretending to be established by Law and need not take up the Novellous Vanities of Altars and Altar-Worship condemned by the Doctrine of our Church and excluded by the Laws of our Kingdom But Courteous Reader I have small hope of being heard by them May I entreat thee to read and regard this small Manual that by seeing the groundless ridiculous Vanity of this Superstitious Idolatrous worse than Popish Novelty thou maist be confirmed in the simplicity of thy Religion and kept from running into or contending for the Excesse thereof in a pompous Superstition not more attended with than tending unto a prophane Conversation wherein be assured of the Prayers of Feb. 8. 1660. Thine in the plainness of Gods Worship Z. C. The SIN of ALTAR-WORSHIP Or Bowing to the COMMUNION-TABLE considered PROPOS Solemn and Religious bowing to towards or before the Communion-Table is foolish and unlawfull BOwing or Religious bending towards the Communion-Table simply considered is not to be condemned no place or instrument being excluded from use access unto as conveniency shall direct Bowing the body or bending the knee is an action natural and may be directed as to the performance of it by some special duty requiring that gesture such as is Prayer which conveniency may dispose to be performed in or towards the place where the Communion-Table is scituate rather 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 publick Prayer by the order of the Seats may be directed towards the Chancel and so without other change of gesture they kneel towards the Table which is an action natural by accident directed to or towards that place having no ground or reason for the same but the conveniency of the place to the service to be performed and so hath neither principle or form of solemn superstitious worship of the place or instrument to which such genuflection is directed Therefore I denominate that Altar-worship concerning which we enquire a solemn and religious bowing to or towards the Communion Table to denote the Table to be the designed object and so the ground cause or reason of that incurvation genuflection bowing or bending which is purely an Act elective done by choice as sacred holy and solemn in its principle ground aim and intention therefore performed on sight of that place and instrument and as frequently as there is any approach to recession from or passing by the Table when no action duty or business is in hand or doth direct the same And so the bowing to or towards the Table is a distinct Act of worship done solemnly and with a composed mind as a piece of Religion to which the Table Shelford 5 Treat pag. 17 18 19 20 and that only to use the dialect of the assertors of bowing to the Altar as an holy duty is motivum cultus the provoking Dictator of this action as a duty not to be done in any other part of the Church nor to or towards any other instrument of divine Service such as is the Desk Pulpit or Font nor to or towards the Chancel if the Altar or Table were removed and not there and this bowing as a piece of Religion and point of devotion is that which I affirm to be foolish and unlawful SECT II. TO towards or before the Table I add in the position because they who agree in the 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 affecting this action do pretend to do it not to Morton Inst of the Sacram. 2. Edit lib. 6. cap. 5. Sect. 15. pag. 463. but towards the Table not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table admitting the Table as a medium and bowing to it as Pars Cultus as a part of Worship but yet look beyond it and direct their worship to God or Christ as the ultimate object of the same wherein they do not nor can deny the Table to be an object though not the ultimate of Adoration and that they worship the Table though they stay not at the Table but have respect unto the God of the Table and so the Table is to them as the Image Pix or Crucifix is to the Papists who do profess they worship God in and by them it being not to be denied that the Table is the next and immediate object of the worship as having more holiness and more of Gods presence than any other place or instrument of Divine Service and yet we well know that the Papists are condemned as guilty of direct Idolatry and breakers of the second Commandment in worshipping God by before or towards an Image or Crucifix and how bowing towards the Table will be acquitted from the same guilt when found to be an action of the same Nature I see not However some more nice than wise being willing to cheat their Consciences and cozen their friends do labor to shroud themselves under this difference in expression we shall easily find it is a Cloak too short to cover their knavery for in scripture acceptation to worship towards or before is nor imports no other than to worship to its Object so to kneel to bow to worship before God is nothing else but bowing kneeling praying to worshipping God as in Deut. 26.11 1 Sam. 12.15 16 17. 2 Chron. 20.18 Psalm 22.37 72.9 86.9 95.6 96.9 15.98.6 9. Isa 66.23 Dan. 6.10 11. Micah 6.6 Rev. 3.9 cap. 4. v. 10. cap. 5. v. 8. and many other places so bowing kneeling and falling down before men is all one with falling down to men Gen. 49.8 Exod. 11.8 1 Sam. 25.23 2 Sam. 14.33.24.20 1 Kings 1.16.23 2 Kings 2.15 So also bowing kneeling or worshiping before or towards Images or Altars is the same in Scripture language and account with bowing kneeling or worshipping to them 2 Chron. 25.14 Isa 44.15 17 19. Dan. 3.5 6. And it is worth observation that the good Angel would not suffer St. John
the Altar shadow and example was on the Earth but when Christ this truth came from Heaven to the earth Altare sublatum est the Altar was taken away and therefore he directs such as seem to want the Altar to look up to Heaven Si Altare videris destitutum est in coelis So also Paschalius Rhadbertus repulit Dominus Altare suum de Ecclesia in qua Christus Altare creditur esse The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of his Church in which Christ is believed to be the only Altar None save an impudent 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 Christians were blamed by the heathen for that they had no Altars and Arnobius after him declareth the same thing all our Protestant writers have maintained it against the Papists that the Primitive Church never had nor would endure Altars but certainly they had Communion Tables and used them It is an old shift and pittiful poor plea to tell us that the Fathers do often make mention of an Altar and denominated the Communion-Table an Altar the which was not done by any 260. years after Christ and then only in a figurative and improper speech in respect of the prayers and praises performed at the Lords Supper as appeareth by many passages out of their own writings urged by the Protestants against the Papists by B. Jewel Babington Reynolds and others even as they denominate the heart of godly men their Altar and Faith an Altar So St. Jerom. 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-Tables be so own'd Communion-Tables were not Altars in the apprehension of the Reformed Churches or of our own Church in promoting the Reformation of Religion which did ever be gin and proceed by pulling down Altars and placing tables in the Body of the Church as contra-distinct from the Papists Altars Whosoever will observe our own Book of Martyrs the best Ecclesiastical History of the first beginning and progress of Reformation shall find that at Berea Constance Basil Geneva Ausburge and other Cities at the beginning of Reformation in the year 1528. they proclaimed that all Altars should be abolished and in the year 1556. The Waldayes in Piemont covenanting the Reformation agreed to cast down the Altars which they accordingly executed in the Church of Boby And our Edward the Sixth beginning the Reformation gave order to pull down Altars and place Tables in Churches the which was earnestly practised pursued and pressed by Bishop Hooper in his Sermon before the King by Bishop Farrar in Wales by Bish Ridley in Saint Pauls and other Churches in London All which was enforced with this consideration That Altars were not used in the daies of the Apostles nor Primitive Church nor did agree with the Christians Sacrament and Profession that Christ their true and only Altar was come And on the contrary when this Reformation was stopped and turned back in the Reign of Queen Mary and Popery again returned it enâ—ered proceeded by scorning villifying pulling down Communion Tables and preaching up building and restoring Altars which were again demolished and driven out when the Reformation revived under Q. Elizabeth and Communion-Tables were restored and fortified by Injunctions Canons and Statute-Law and so continued 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 Primitive Christians and the Jews and Heathens and in latter time between the sincere Christian Protestant and the Jewish Pagan Rapist he must needs conclude the Communion Table is no Altar but a thing contradistinct from an Altar and therefore as such it can not be worshipped And as the Antecedent of this reason is apparently false so the Consequence wants not its fallacy Should we grant what our table-cringers so much use and affect to call the Communion table that it is an Altar yet there is no reason for their bowing to towards or before it because Altars are no way the Object of adoration nor can be worshipped or bowed unto without apparent Idolatry not materially for so they are but common stone or clay or wood contemptible creatures not Objects of Divine Worship Not Formally as Altars for as such they are indeed Instruments of Service to God but not Symbols of Divine Nature or Presence for Altars have been and may be without the presence of God And the Jews were never appointed nor did the Gentiles by nature apprehend it fit to bow down unto or worship any thing but the Symbols of divine nature and presence therefore though the Jewes might worship before the Arke or the cloud which rested upon it or towards the Temple yet neither Priest nor people did worship the Altar and the Gentiles ever had the Images of their Gods placed over their Altars and their bowings were to their Images not to their Altars as their own Poets and Historians and many of the Fathers do testifie Saint Austin tells us the Pagan Idols were placed honorabili sublimitate in an honourable height ut a precantibus atque immolantibus attendantur that they might be regarded by them that sacrificed and prayed unto them And the Scripture witnesseth God for bad 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 behind and over the Altar knowing the Altar as such to be no Object of Worship because no Symbol of divine nature and presence It is more 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 Communion Table for which reason will require some Symboll of Divine Nature and Presence It s being an holy instrument of divine Service being of no more force for the Altar then for the Tongs or Snuffers of the Tabernacle 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 every street but whether it be an
Table So that they must prove that a simple bowing to the Altar or Temple without Prayer or Oblation was a single Act of Devotion and Worship 3. There is not more of Fallacy in this Argument by the difference of Act and Object than the Authority of the same they worshipped towards the Temple and before the Altar on warrantable Grounds and Reasons viz. The Holiness God had stamped on them by consecration 2. The Special Presence of God was confined to them they were the standing 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 immediately lights the Tapers which have so long stood on the Table 3. They had a promise of speciall acceptance to encourage them to pray and worship towards the Temple where soever and in what condition soever they were when we find holiness stamped on 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 perswaded to give solemn reverence to God by religiously bowing to towards or before Communion Table till then we must demand some clearer Testimony from Scripture to convince us of the same as a duty or lawfull or acquit theÌ„selves from the charged Iniquity for superstitiously innovating into Christs Church a way of Worship so vain and fivoulous in it it self and without Divine Warrant and so apparently foolish and unlawfull SECT VI. OUR Fourth and Last Evidence that Solemn and religious Bowing to towards or before the Communion-Table is foolishand unlawful is the Malignity thereof which we charge upon it because it is sinful scandalous and dangerous in the use of it Sin cannot pass without scandal to the Spectator and danger to the Sinner it is of a most known malignant influence in respect of both these and therefore to be avoided and abhorred That Solemn and Religious Bowing to the Comunion-Table is in the use of it sinful hath been already manifested in the Novelty Vanity Iniquity thereof before discovered by which all that run must needs read that it is a ridiculous Superstition innovated into the Church Worship of God without any Reason in the Object or prescription of God being in its nature a divine not Civil Worship a piece of Devotion pretending to reverence God or Christ as directed unto him as the ultimate Object of the same whilst God never required instituted or prescribed any such worship nor intimated his mind that in such a way reverence should be done unto him The Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Testament Apostles and Primitive Christians were never acquainted with or did acknowledge any such act of Adoration of the Altar or Table or meanes method and way of worship of God Altars under which notion the Table is bowed unto are utterly ceased and Abolished all Christians and zealous sincere Protestants have withstood and condemned it as wicked superstitious and idolatrous in the Pagan and Papists and the most zealous assertors and observers of bowing to the Table do enforce justifie and maintain with a meer plea of antiquity inpoint of practice which can be no warrantablâ— prescription of divine Worship and that is only pretended proved by forged authorities false inferences and most absurd Ridiculous Reasons plain and palpable results of humane inventions and is by themselves confessed to be but a thing indifferent to be done or not done without ceÌ„sure 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 dangerous But if we well weigh the nature of solemn and Religious bowing to towards or before the Communion Table we should find it hard to acquit it from Idolatry by reason it is an apparent Relative worship of God in through or by reason of the Communion Table which is the formality of the worship of the Heathen and popish Images Crucifixes and Idols and determined to be idolatry by Dr. Morton who determineth that not onely the terminating and fixing divine honour upon any creature is idolatry Institu of Sac. lib. 7. Cap. 8. Sect. 1. paâ—â— 47 Edit 2. but when Latria or divine worship is given to an Image because of the relation it hath to God or Christ and it can not as I conceive vary if it be given to an Altar or Table because of this relation because it agreeth in that which is the forma informans of Idolatry which is declared so to be by our own Homilies and all our Protestant Writers against the Idolatry of the Papists and by Bellarmine himself in his book of Images Cap. 24. for that there is nothing pleaded by way of excuse to acquit this Table-worship from Idolatry which was not better pleaded and pleadable by the Pagans and Papists who ever denied to worship the stock stone or Idol but directed their worship to that which inspired or was represented by that stock or stone so stamped Holinesse thereupon Superstition in Gods Worship much lesse Idolatry cannot be used in the Church of God without sin so sinful and malignant in its influence that it must needs be a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence dangerous to the weak ready to embrace Religion devotion and reverence towards God and run upoÌ„ a divine worship without regard and examination because used by such as profess God rather than because instituted by God destructive to the wicked who are by a righteous God given over to offer him that service which must be rejected with and who hath required this at your hands But to strain Charity to its utmost bounds and if it were possible to abate the malignity of this table-worship by acquitting it from iniquity we should yet find it scandalous and dangerous therein sufficiently malignant whereby to render it foolish and unlawful and that in these two respects First Bowing to the Communion Table Symbolizeth with the worship of Pagans and Papists those known Idolaters especially in that order in which it was of late and beginneth a fresh to be used among us in his Majesties Royal Chappel Lambeth Chappel the Cathedral and many Parish Churches whilst the Table must be made in the frame of an Altar railed in and advanced as an holy Inclosure fixed at the East end of the Church and furnished 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 before when no duty in hand doth direct that genuflection but it self is done as a distinct piece of devotion in all which