A Quench-Coal, Argument
EDMOND REEVE His Reasons For bovving to Lords-Tables, and placing them Altar-vvise, related and refuted.
CHISTIAN READER, before I entertaine thee with a serious Epistle, give me leave to detaine thee a little with some late Paradoxes in Edmond Reeve, printed by License, to prove the necessity & Lawfulnes of bowīg to and towards the Altar and Communion. Table at our entring in and going out of the Church, to refresh thy spirits withall. His first reason is this.
aThe Communion Booke Catechisme expounded, p. 132.As the people of God being entred into Gods house (to wit, the Temple of Ierusalem) did worship towards the Sanctuary or mercy Seate from which he was heard speaking (not their Altars or Shew-bread-Tables) so now also ought EVERY ONE being come into Gods house, to prostrate himselfe, that is, make low obeysance towards Gods mercy Seare, being the uppermost part of our Temples, unto Almighty God there.
This reason is properly reduced into these two Logicall Arguments, point-blanke against his Conclusion.
1. The Jewes worshipped towards the Sanctuary and mercy Seate, from which God was heard speaking (a Type of our Pulpits and Reading Pewes, if of any thing;) not towards their Altars or Tables:
Ergo, EVERY ONE now also ought to bow to Gods mercy Seate, (the Pulpit and Reading Pew, from which he is heard speaking in his Word; not unto Altars and Tables.
2. Every one ought to prostrate himselfe towards the uppermost part of our Temples, unto Almightie God there: But the Roofes of our Temples, at least the East wall of them, in the Authors sence, not the Table or Akar (or our Pulpits standing higher then they) are the uppermost part of our Temples.
Ergo, we must prostrate ourselves towards them to God there; Not towards the Table or Altar.
But how then a prostration of the body towards the ground the lower part of the Temple, can be a prostration towards the Roofe or upper part of the Church, when as it removes the body further from it (unlesse Mr. Reeve can tell me how a man may prostrate himselfe upward) I cannot yet discerne.
2. His second Argument is this:Ibidem p: 134. The Divine wisdome of the Church calling the Communion-Table Gods Board, doth give us to understand, that that is to be accounted the peculiar Seat of God within the Temple. (For after a Church or Chappell is consecrated by a Bishop, Gods gracious presence is ever at his mercy Seate, saith the Margent) and therefore towards it unto God there, we are to make low obeysance, whensoever we come into Gods house, to pray. Also as the Chaire of State is alwayes to be honoured, though the person of the Royall Majesty be not seene there: So is GODS BOARD EVER TO HAVE DUE REVERENCE (therefore this bowing is done & due to the Board itselfe not God,) and God who is there perpetually, is alwayes to be prostrated unto, yea whē as the body & blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament is not upon the same, (So the Passage in Bishop Mortons too,) nor Divine Service in saying therein, or in any other place of the Holy Temple. For which cause it is prescribed, that ever the holy Communion-Table should be kept Sacred.
This I have else-where fully answered out of Shelford & Widdowes, who produce neither Scripture nor Reason for all this they say, nor any authority, but their owne.
1. First therefore let them prove: That God hath and ought to have a Seate in every Church.
2. Secondly, that this Seate is the Communion-Table only, not the Pulpit, Reading Pew, Bible, or any other part of the Church.
3. Thirdly, that God alwayes sits there by his grace, when there is no body in the Church, to beare him Company, no Service, no Sacrament of Christs body and blood.
4. Fourthly, that when there is Divine Service read in the Church, a Sermon preached in the Pulpit, or a Child Christned at the Font, and no Service or Sacrament at the the Table, that he yet sits still on the Table, and is there only specially present by his grace, and not at these other places in any of his Ordinances.
5. Fiftly, that God is alike present at the Table by his grace when there is no Communion as when there is one.
6. Sixtly, that men ought in point of duty to bow to every place where God is present: And to one part only off, or instrument in the Church, and not to the whole Fabricke:
Seventhly, that a Bishops consecration confines God close prisoner to his mercy Seate, the Table, so as never to suffer him to stirre one inch from thence, no not when there is no Sacramēt, no Divine Service, no person there to doe him homage, nor use of his speciall presence.
Till these bedlam Paradoxes be proved, which wilbe ad G…aecas Calendas, we may well demurre to this second reason. Of which more fully anon. Only to retort the reason, let me argue thus.
The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto.
But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven, in the Church-Bible, and midst of his people, not at the East end of the Church where none must sit neare him, as I bare else-where proved; And in every good Christians heart.
Ergo, these, not the Table, are to be bowed unto. As for his Chaire of State; That it ought alwayes to be bowed unto. (I thinke when it is in the ward-robe, Cart, Imbroy derers or upholsters shop, &c. should have been excepted,) he must shew us some Law or Statute for it, ere we can beleeve it.
And though some men bow unto it now and then, because the King sits some times personally in it: This Gentleman must prove, that God sits personally some-times on the Table, which he can hardly doe. But he and others tell us, that God sits alwayes there; Very good; Then I thus retort the similitude.
No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chaire of State when the King himselfe is sitting in it, but only when he is absent; For when the King his in it, they never doe it, but bow only and immediately to the King, without any respect to the Coaire.
Therefore since God is alwayes sitting on the Table, they ought not to bow or doe any reverence to it at all.
And so this Simitude cuts the throate of their cause if rightly paralleld and applied.
This will likewise overthrow hiscIbid. p. 136. 137. Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise, else-where at large refelled.
Here also (writes he) it is to be considered unto the honouring of Gods holy name (of his Table rather) in what place of the Chauncell Gods Board or Seat should stand.
Doth not nature itselfe teach us, that in every common house the Seate of the chiefest should be above every inferiour?
And should not Christianitie teach us, that no Seate of any person, much lesse of any of the Laity, (it seemes then the Cleargie may sit above God himselfe if they please) should be above Gods mercy Seate, the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chauncell? &c.
And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chauncell, is it not decent that the ends thereof (thus this Expositour and Patron of the Common-Prayer-Booke dares controll it) be towards North and South?
The Holy Ghost commaundeth all things to be done decently and according unto order, (Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South, against the expresse order of the Common-Prayer-Booke:) And if it ought so to be in all things, much more ought it to be in every thing about Gods house & especially in the standing of his Sacred Seate; As if this Seate stood very undece…tly and quite out of order, unlesse the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order.
But of this me…ry profound Divinity hereafter: This only by the way for a Breakfast: The Authour, having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners.
That we are all bound in conscience for to learne, believe and obey whatsoever is commaunded in the Commuuion-Booke, Homilies Booke and Constitutions or Canons Booke.
All which condemne his bowing to, and placing of the Table North and South: And so by his owne censure, not speaking according to the Communion Booke Doctrine. J may with a safe conscience before God affirme that there is no light of Gods holy spirit within him.
They are his owne words and censure, of all those who speake not according to the Communion Booke Doctrine, which himselfe professedly speakes against, in all these, and other passages.
But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus, who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly, in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops, whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise.
NOTE THIS.
It appeares by Num. 1. 50. &c. &c. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Campe of Israel, and the Levites were there commaunded to encampe ROVND ABOVT IT: To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. &c. 7. 11. hath relation, as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large.
It is also evident by Numb. 3. 26. c. 4. 26. (And the hanging for the dore of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROVND ABOVT, &c.) That the Passage in the Counsell of Constantinople where the same phrase is used, is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it, not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it, the words being the same both in Latine, Greeke and English in all places.