Of Gestures in generall.

Sect. 2 ANd first because our principall businesse will be a­bout bodily gestures, let vs endeavour to be well acquainted with the nature, difference, and vse of them: Now what I meane by bodily gestures, none (I sup­pose) is so ignorant as not to vnderstand. That certaine carriage or fashion (whatsoeuer it is) wherein the bo­dy of man either in respect of the whole, or of any mem­ber [Page 2] and part thereof, is externally situate, that selfe same behauiour & positure of the body, we call a bodily ge­sture. Gestures be of two sorts, namely principall and inferiour. I call those principall, which be independant of other gestures, and they be foure: first, standing: se­condly; sitting: thirdly, kneeling: fourthly, lying a­long. Euery one of which doth well consist, and is commonly vsed by it selfe, without the help either of inferiour gestures, or else one of another. Yet it is to be obserued, that kneeling and lying along haue of­tentimes in vse one and the same consideration: That which falling vpon the face was amongst the Iewes, the same is kneeling now-adayes amongst vs Christians: Thus the disputer very expresly determineth, Disp. pag. 156. and further in­ferreth thereupon in this manner: Therefore (saith he) what places of Scripture speake of prostrating our selues, or of other formes of personall adoration, (which he also addeth) those I interpret a [...] meant also by the Ho­ly Ghost of the formes and fashions of corporall worship, [...]n­terteined amongst vs in this climate of the world, and so to conclude with as much pertinency and strength, for or against ours, as they doe for or against those of the Iewes. Herein I thinke the disputer hath said very well; and if the Mi­nisters and himselfe will stand to this learning, then is there greater liberty of proofes and testimonies of Scrip­ture to the purpose of this Treatise ensuing: so that in effect we shall haue but three contradistinct principall gestures; standing, sitting, and prostration, compre­hending both kneeling and falling downe.

Sect. 3 But besides these principall, there be certaine inferi­our gestures, which I call inferiour, because they can­not consist without some one of the former, but on them doe necessarily depend: And of this sort there be many gestures sometimes belonging to one member, as when the hands be lift vp, spread forth, and smitten vpon the breast; the eyes looke vpwards, or downe­wards, and such like, none of all which can be vsed, [Page 3] but either in the gesture of standing, or in the gesture of sitting, or in the gestures of prostration: and there­fore are they not vnfitly termed gestures of an inferi­our alloy; (hauing indeed a reserved vse sometimes of their owne, but) yet are alwayes expressed vnder one of the great gestures, wherein the bulke of the whole bo­dy is situate, like the severall colours of the raine-bow without one fashion of an arch; or the particular situa­tions of townes and places vnder one Horizon. Now of the vse of all gestures in common, I lay downe the three following rules grounded vpon holy Scrip­ture.

The first rule of Gestures.

Sect. 4 FIrst there is no set or solemne worship of God, but the body worshippeth as well as the soule; let the gesture be what it will. And my meaning is partly with implicit worship, when the body guided by the soule attends vnto the service of God, without respect of its positure: partly when some one or other speciall gesture is of purpose applyed, for the due performance of the holy ordinances of Christ. A worship-ordinance, wherein both soule and body stand bound, cannot be considered without a worshipping gesture: for as the service of the soule consists in inward faculties and their actions: so that of the body stands and is declared by the members and gestures. It is true, that the gesture both in the same and severall worshipps continually varieth, but the variation takes not away the respect of worship in the gesture; for as the gesture varies, the expression of worship varies, but so still worship-expres­sion in other gestures remaineth. That which deceiues the vulgar in this thing, is, that because standing and sitting, are (in ordinary vse) civill gestures, they think therefore they cannot be gestures of worship. But they [Page 4] consider not; that kneeling it selfe is a civill gesture, as well as standing and sitting, if it be applied to civill occasions: and so, standing and sitting be religious gestures as well as kneeling, if they be Though sit­ting bee in it [...] civill, yet a [...] to an holy vse, as in the Sacrament, it is not so Dis­put pag 50. applied to religious exercises. And this is also true of the lesser ge­stures, so farre as they be intended, and referred to the worship of God; as lifting vp of the hand, or eye, &c. when notwithstanding they be plainly civill, in a ci­vill businesse.

Sect. 5 But yet I will further distinguish of worship-gestures, that this matter may be rightly conceived of. Gestures are said to be gestures of worship in a generall sense, on more speciall. First, some gestures be called gestures of worship onely, because they be sitting pofitions of the body for receiving of Gods ordinance: sitting in the exercise of the word is such: for looke what gesture is by vs at any time conveniently applyed to the due cele­bration of holy duties, the same is doubtlesse a bodily worshipping; inasmuch as thereby the body joynes with the soule in religious performance. It is true that the word [worship] in Scripture is frequently restrained vnto prayer and thanksgiving; but that no more de­nies sitting or standing in the exercise of the word to be worship-gestures, then the exercise of the word it selfe to be a worship-ordinance. But, secondly, some gestures againe be called gestures of worship in a more speciall respect of adoring; as by baring or bowing of the head; by bowing of the body; either by incli­nation or prostration, &c. And where the Scrip­ture makes mention of worship, it commonly meanes some such humble gesture, (as also the originall signifles, which afterwards I will shew.) Yea the Scripture sometimes expressely contradistin guish­eth the word [worshipping] to the exercise of the word; as, one fourth part of the day they read and heard the word of the Lord; another fourth part of the day they confessed and worshipped, Nehemiah. 9. 3. Now adoring [Page 5] gestures be more specially gestures of worship, both be­cause they be distincter and deeper expressions of wor­shipping, and because God is more directly and Not that any gesture o [...] acti­on respects not God immedi­ately, as it is worshipping, for even sitting in the exercise of the word, as (wo [...]sh [...]) re­specteth God immediately: but then also it hath an imme­diate respect: but that is no worshipping to the word, for the commodi­ous receiving vvhereof it is purposely cho­sen and vsed. Novv adoring gestures are first chosen & serviceable to vvorship Gods Maiesty, vvith­out any such immediate re­spect of being made opposite to the one re­ceiving of the sensible matter of rel [...]gious or Ec [...]lesiasticall businesses. im­mediately serued by them: therefore for distinction­sake I will call such humble gestures in Gods worship, (as they be vsually ca [...]led amongst Drumes and others) by the terme of [adoring] gestures; holding it cer­taine (in a generall sense) notwithstanding that other gestures of purpose chosen and vsed for performing of religious duties and exercises, are also expressions of outward worship.

Sect. 6. Furthermore, we must know that gestures be ei­ther voluntary vsed, or vpō constraint & necessity. They which lye in prison vnder locks and bolts, are sick vp­on their beds, haue infirmities in their bodies, are letted by the company and place, &c. cannot chuse that ge­sture which they may deeme to be the fittest for them; but whiles their inward intents and desires be right in such case, the vnfittest gesture countervailes such wor­ship, as they would expresse, if they had the liberty of chusing the best, which is denied vnto them. And so much of the first rule.

The second rule of Gestures,

Sect. 7 THough every gesture of purpose chosen & applied to Gods worship, be a gesture of worship, (as I haue said) yet is th [...]re not a little differen [...]e in the convenience o [...] gestures, (so as one may be chosen or refused before another,) arising from the nature of Gods service in hand, & from the occasiō which may lead vs on vnto it. Prostration vpon the face is a commendable gesture, when the Christian perplexed in the sense of grievous extremities, as Iob was; or ravished with the wonder­full experience of Gods mercies, as was that Samari­tane, casts himselfe downe at the feete of his blessed [Page 6] God and Saviour, as both Iob and the Samaritane did, Iob. 1. 20. Luke 17. 15, 16. So in all ordinary occasions of laying open our vilenesse, of acknowledging of Gods vndeserved love vnto vs, or of soing and begging for pardon of sinne, and reliefe in our necessities; prostra­tion vpon the knees is a sitting and beseeming gesture. Standing is a gesture fit for confession of our faith. Lastly, sitting is a gesture sitting to Gods worship for meditation. And this discretion I finde (sayes Disp. Pag. 2. the disputer) obserued by the Church of England, as may ap­peare by the directions to this purpose in the Communion booke. Thus in severall services of God, there is a conve­nient vse of some gestures before other, as it is on both sides confessed. Yea, I will adde one point more, that it seemes not so fitt, that occasionall worship should com­mand the kind of gesture from the maine worship in hand, but rather that the maine worship haue a gesture answerable to it selfe. And this is the second rule.

The third, and last rule of Gestures.

Sect. 8 ALbeit there may be precedence of one gesture, (in this or that manner of service) before another, in the point of convenience; yet I do not find in al the ho­ly Bible, that any one or more of all the gestures, is ab­solutely necessary to any one of al Gods holy worships, or ordinances. The disposition of the mind and heart, the state and condition of the body, the circumstances of the company, time, place, &c. doe oftentimes either by necessity, or other allowance, change the bodily gesture vnto vs. The Scripture is plaine in this point, as by induction it may appeare.

Instance of Prayer.

[Page 7] Sect. 9 PRayer, first, is allowed with standing: when yee stand praying, forgiue if yee haue ought against a­ny, Mark. 11. 25. So Abraham, and Solomon, and the Publican, &c. stood before the Lord in prayer, Gen. 18. 22, 23. 1 Kings 8. 55. Luke 18. 13. Secondly, It is allowed with sitting: King David went in, and sate before the Lord, and prayed, 2 Sam. 7. 18. Elijah sate downe vnder a [...]uniper tree, and prayed. Christ made the people to sit downe, and then prayed for a blessing vpon the creatures, Marke. 6. 39, 40, 41. So Luke. 24. 30. Thirdly, it is allowed with prostration, both vpon the face and knees. Iesus fell on his face, and prayed, Mat. 26. 39. Iesus kneeled downe, and prayed, Luke. 22. 41. So Abraham fell vpon his face, and prayed, Gen. 17. 3. Daniel and Stephen kneeled downe, and prayed, Daniel. 6. 10. Acts. 7. 60. Thus prayer is allow­ed in all the absolute gestures.

Of Thanksgiuing, and singing of Psalmes.

Sect. 10 THanksgiuing, even in singing of Psalmes, first, is allowed with standing: the Levites were to stand every morning to thanke and praise the Lord, and likewise at even, 1 Chron. 23. 30. Psal. 134. 1. 135. 2. Great multitudes stood before the Throne, and before the Lambe, clothed with white Robes, and Palmes in their hands, cryed with a loud voice, saying; Salvation to our God, &c. Revel. 7. 9, 10. Secondly, it is allowed with sitting: when Iesus and his Disciples had sung a Psalme, they went out into the Mount of Oliues, Mat. 26. 30. Our brethren at least will not deny (I suppose) this Psalme to haue beene sung in the gesture of sitting. Moreover Iesus gaue thankes, when the company was set downe, Iohn. 6. 10. Matth. 15. 35, 36. Thirdly, it is allowed with prostration both vpon the face, and knees. The foure Beasts, and foure and twenty Elders, fell downe before the Lambe, and they sung a new song, [Page 8] saying; thou art worthy, &c. Revel. 5. 8, 9. O come, let vs sing with thanksgiving-with Psalmes, let vs worship and bow downe, and kneele before the Lord our Ma­ker, Psal. 95. verse 1, 2, 6. Thus Thanksgiving even in singing of Psalmes is allowed in all the absolute ge­stures.

Of the exercise of the word.

Sect. 11 HEaring of the word, first, is allowed with stand­ing: ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, Deut. 29. 10. Ezra opening the booke to reade in it, (together with other Levites,) distinctly; to giue the sense and meaning of it vnto the people; all the people stood, Nehemiah. 8. 5, 7, 8. Ehud said, I haue a message from God vnto thee; then Eglon rose vp out of his seate, Iudg. 3. 20. Secondly, it is allowed with sitting: they sit before thee as my people, and heare thy words, but they will not doe them, Ezechiel. 33. 31. whiles some of the Prophets be speaking; others that heare, sit by, 1 Cor. 14. 30.

Sect. 12 Thirdly, it is allowed with prostration; not onely that prostration is effected by the wonderfull power of preaching; as the sinner convinced by the powerfull preaching of the word, falleth downe on his face, and worshippeth God, 1 Cor. 14. 25. but also that the word it selfe may be lawfully received with an adoring ge­sture. First the nature of the businesse doth in sound reason justifie this, how can it be impiety to receiue vp­on our knees a message from the God of heauen? And though God speake not immediately; yet he speakes, as if he spake immediately, and is altogether as much pre­sent. Secondly Scripture is cleere for bowing both of the head, and body, in hearing of Gods word. Aa­ron spake the word of the Lord to the children of Israel, and when they heard it, they bowed their [Page 9] heads and worshipped, Exod. 4. 30, 31. Moses called the Elders of Israel, and taught them the word of the Lord, then the people bowed the head, and worshipped, Exod. 12. 21, 27. Iehaziel spake the word of the Lord to Iehe­saphat, and all Iudah, then Iehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all Iudah, and the in­habitants of Ierusalem fell before the Lord worship­ping, 2 Chron. 20. 14. 18. When the Apostles heard that voice, (this is my beloved sonne in whom I am well pleased, heare ye him) they fell vpon their faces, Mat: 17. 6. One came vnto Christ, and kneeled vpon his knees, whom Christ instructed (as it appeareth) in that gesture, Mark. 10. 17. But Objections are made a­gainst these examples, as followeth.

Sect. 13 First it is excepted against them that they be extraor­dinary. I answer, (besides that there is onely that of the Apostles, which can to our case be iustly called extra­ordinary) if they be such, yet they will proue as much as I desire; namely, that it is not in it selfe vnlawful to hear God speaking vnto vs in the gesture of kneeling: but then Abrahams extraordinary example shall allow vs for killing our-children. I answer, extraordinary exāples be either contrary to the rule expressed, or according to it; from those to these it is absurd to reason: And you can shew no expressed commandement, or absolute rule for the gesture of hearing, whereunto these exam­ples be contrary. Secondly, againe it is objected, that the adoration mentioned in these examples was performed when the word was spoken, not in the act of speaking. I an­swer, if it were so, yet so long as it was done by occasion of the word, it is enough for my purpose, if adoration may be vsed when the word is delivered in the end of the action for the words sake, why may it not (out of the case of scandall) be vsed in the beginning, or mid­dle also? But except it be giuen you, it cannot be proo­ved, that the bowing and worshipping was vsed in these examples, after the word was heard, and not also in some time [Page 10] of hearing it. And some of you confesse on this man­ner, When they received the law of the Passever, they bow­ed the head, and worshipped, Exod. 12. 27. yet they did not so in the eating of it; they were more reverent and devout in hearing the law of it out of the mouth of Moses, then in the participation of [...]. Perth. Assemb. pag 45. In which words doe you not com­pare the act of hearing, with the act of receiving, in that allowing there was adoration, in this denying? Now of adoration denyed in the Passover it is to be spo­ken in due time; here it is confessed in the exercise of the word, and I seeke no further in this place. Third­ly, it is objected, that all adoration mentioned in these ex­amples is not kneeling. I answer, the Ruler at our Saviours instruction was vpon his knees: the Apostles, and Ie­boshaphat with his company fell vpon their faces: The Israelites, which heard first Aaron, and then Moses, are said onely to bow their heads, worshipping: but so long as they adored, it serues my turne; for who will grant a­doration lawfull in the time of hearing, and yet con­tend about the degree? especially, when from any one forme of personall adoration, vsed among the Iewes, we may conclude with equall pertinency, and strength to any one vsed amongst vs, so we must remember the true rule of the disputer mentioned before, Sect. 2. and so much for testimonies.

Sect. 14 Thirdly, and lastly, where women kneele in their seates, (I say kneele, not onely sit, but oftentimes plainely kneele) in the time of Sermon, who of you was ever heard to taxe them for so doing? but then you will say, they kneele for their Wil you allow them to kneele at Sacrament for their case-sake also? case-sake onely: I answer, if you speake of a needfull & lawfull case, (and not of [...]azi­nesse, and meer satisfaction of the flesh; which surely you cannot always accuse our women of, when they kneel in Sermon time) it is sufficient to quit the gesture of kneeling in the exercise of the word from being damna­ble in it selfe: for out of doubt that gesture wherein a man or woman (without offence) can most comforta­bly [Page 11] In this case kneeling is a gesture of ge­nerall worship onely. serue God, is a fit gesture of the worship in hand; because it is nor vsed by godly persons meerely for case, but respectiuely to the worship; that God (the body being eased) may be served of them the better. And this liberty was never condemned in any age, that I can tell of from the beginning. But let me aske you a que­stion; suppose In this case kneeling is a gesture of spe­ciall worship or adoration. that women (who may kneele in our assemblies without offence) doe by their kneeling se­cretly in themselues intend (according as the word wor­king in their hearts giues them occasion) to adore; will you say, that this adoration of theirs is vnlawfull: I am perswaded you will not say so, whiles the Lord is God, worthy to be worshipped, when he vttereth his voice and will to vs in his Sanctuary. Then hence, and our of that which hath beene said before, it followeth, that the gesture of kneeling, or other manner of adora­tion, is lawfull in it selfe, in the act of hearing Gods word read or preached. And thus hearing of the word is al­lowed in all the absolute gestures.

Of Sacrifice.

Sect. 15 OFfring of sacrifice in the law first was allowed with standing: Every Priest standeth daily mini­string and offering, Heb. 10. 11. Aaron offering incense, stood betweene the living and the dead, Numb 16. 47, 48. The Priests could not stand to minister by season of the cloud, 2 Chron. 5. 14. Their office was to stand before the Lord, and the congregation to minister both to the Lord, and to them, Deut. 10. 8. Numb. 16 9. But to be plaine, I doe confesse, that the Priests im­ployments and businesses did often require of them standing and walking. But was it lawfull for the people to stand in the time of sacrificing? It was so: When the Priests and people were ministring, and offering, the ge­sture [Page 12] of all the congregation of Israel was standing, 2 Chron. 5. 14. chap. 6. 3. Also a Chron. 7. 4, 5, 6. You burne incense to Baal, offer meate-offerings to the Queene of heauen, and powre out drinke-offerings vn­to other gods, and will you then come, and stand be­fore me in this house, (namely to offer sacrifice vnto me?) Ieremy. 7. 9, 10, 18, 21. Secondly, 1 Sam. 9, 11, 22 Nehem. 8. 17. speakes not of sitting in the act of offering, which is the point in hand, but of eating onely. Offe­ring of sacrifice was allowed with sitting: all the chil­dren of Israel came into the house of God, and sate before the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, Iudg. 20▪ 26. Thirdly, offering of sacrifice was allowed with the humble gestures of the body, both of inclination and falling downe: Abraham going to of­fer his son said vnto his seruants, Abide you here with the Asse, and I and the [...]ad will goe yonder, and bow downe, Gen. 22. 5. Thou shalt set thy offering before the Lord thy God, and bow downe before the Lord thy God, Deut. 26. 10. Elkanah went yeerely to bow downe, and to sacrifice vnto the Lord of hosts in Shi­loh, 1 Sam. 1. 3. Bring an offering, and come before the Lord, bow downe to him in the beauty of holines, 1 Chron. 16. 29. In these four first places our translation reads worship, for to bow downe; but it is well known that the Hebrew word H [...]shtachvah signifies an express humble adoring wor­ship of the body, and is, if not the onely, yet the principall word which the Iewes had [...]o signifie prostration vpon the face: (plura apud Habreos ho [...]o [...] is exhibendi ver­ba sum, hoc vero totius cerporis prostrationem in terram significat, ex more [...]lentalium: Euxiorf lex Heb in Shachah) I or better euidence of this, see the translations of the Septu [...]gint, Tremel [...]us, and Moutanus. The Septuagint, is Proskune [...], which word in the new Testament is evidently vsed for kneeling or falling downe, (and so grant­ed by the Replyer, Repl. tar [...]ic. to Bp Mort. pag. 46.) hee that pleaseth may see, (Mat 2. 11. 8. 29 18. 14. 13. 15. 25. 18. 26. 20. 20. 28 9. Mark: 5. 6. 15 19. Luke. 4. 7. Iohn 9. 38. Acts. 10. 25. 1 C [...]r 14 25 Hebr. 11. 21. Revel. 3. 9. 4. 10. 5. 14. 7. 11. 11. 16. 19. verse 4, 10 21. 8.) Tremelius and Montanus doe commonly translate the word by the Latine, In [...]urvare, and Montanus of purpose often puts Pagnines, Adorare, into his margin, and In [...]urva­re into the place of it And if at any time this word be put procultu divīno, more largely, then it is by a Synechdeche: so Iun. in Zechar. 14. 16. Therefore the proper sig­nification hereof is bowing downe or prostrating the body. Neither doe these translatours allow any figure in the Scriptures which I haue quoted: (Gen 22 Deut. 26. 1 Sam. 1. 1 Chron. 16.) Nor is there good reason thereof, so long as with wor­shipping [Page 13] or adoring, the particular service of sacrificing is mentioned. And moreo­ver, that we may see the force of the Hebrew word, let vs further obserue the same in the ordinary vse of Scripture, even as it is rendred in our translation. Abraham bowed himselfe toward the ground. Gen 18. 2. Lot bowed himselfe with his sae [...]e to the ground, Gen 19. 1. Abraham bowed downe himselfe before the people of the Land, Gen. 23 12. Abrahams servant worsh [...]pped the Lord to the earth, Gen. 24. 52. Let Nations bow downe to thee, let thy Mothers sonnes bow downe to thee, Gen. 27. 29. When Esa [...] met him Iacob bowed himselfe to the ground seven times, so the women and child en bo­wed themselves, Gen 33 3. 6: 7. Iosephs brethren bowed downe themselues before him with their faces to the earth, Gen. 42 6. 43. 26. And (for it is superfluous to mention any more places) thus the word is commonly vsed in the old Testament. Wherefore I dare say that my former quotations doe prooue, that adoring gestures were allow­ed in sacrificing.

I will adde 2 Chron. 29. where Hezechiah and the con­gregation are said to bow themselues downe three severall times, when they were offering sacrifices: vers. 28, 29, 30. Also Mica. 6. where the Prophet thus speaketh: Where­with shall I come before the Lord, and bow my selfe before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offe­rings, &c? verse 6. The Kings of Tarshish, and of the Iles shall bring presents, the Kings of Sheba and Se­ba shall offer gifts, yea all Kings shall fall downe before him, Psal. 72. 10, 11. When the fire consumed the burnt offering, (which was the principall instant in the cir­cumstance of time, about all the businesse of the offe­ring) all the people fell vpon their faces, Levit. 9 24. The Prince shall stand by the poste of the gate, and the Priests shall prepare his offerings, then he shall worship or bow downe at the thresholde of the gate, Ezech. 46. 2. The wise men fell downe before the childe Iesus, and worshipped him, and presented vnto him gifts, golde, frankincense, and myrrhe. Matth. 2. 11. The foure Beasts, and foure and twenty Elders fell downe before the Lambe, having golden Ʋi­alls, full of odours or incense, Revel. 5. 8. And thus much of humble adoration in sacrificing and offering. And thus then offering of sacrifice was allowed in all the ab­solute gestures.

Of Circumcision.

Sect. 17 NOw we will come lastly to the Sacraments; And first vnto Circumcision, and that is allowed in what gesture soever the people of God thought fit to haue it vsed with all. Concerning the gesture of chil­dren of eight dayes olde, it were but childish to speake, when there is not so much as one sillable of direct on in all the Bible, either by rule or example, either ex­pressing or importing, what gesture they which were at mans estate, and yet vncircumcised, should vse in the act of Circumcision; though (if some speciall ge­sture had beene necessary) God would probably haue tolde Abraham of it, Gen. 17. both when Circumcisi­on was instituted, as also when it was first of all to be received by men of yeeres, especially, when the thing it selfe (for ought I conceiue) might be performed in standing, sitting, or prostration: whether they kneeled or no, as it cannot be affirmed, so neither can it be de­nied. But this is the onely certaine thing concerning the gesture of Circumcision, that God spake nothing in his word at all to his people of it; and therefore could not any gesture in that Sacrament in it selfe be vnlawfull and sinfull vnto them.

Of Baptisme.

Sect. 18 FRom Circumcision wee will descend to Baptisme, which succeedes in the place of it. And verily God hath prescribed no more about the gesture of Baptism, then he did before concerning Circumcision. The new Testament sayes of some, They went into the water, and then being baptised came vp out of the water againe: where­of may be gathered, that it is a thousand to one, they [Page 15] did not sit in the time of Baptisme; and inasmuch as they were immersed, head and body within the water, [where of Tertullian, nos pisculi secundum ikthun nostrum Iesu [...] Christumin aqua nascimur: lib. de Baptism. it is most likely they kneeled downe: for standing would not be so fit for immersion of the body, except they went deep into the water, which is not to be imagined: howsoe­ver it was not lawfull to kneele in the act of baptizing; the same being joyned with confession of sinnes, (as Matth. 3 6.) and calling on the name of the Lord, Acts. 22. 16. Nay because Baptisme is a reall homage done vnto our Lord, a yeelding vp our selues to become his subjects, servants, souldiers; not onely humble adora­tion at that time may very well beseeme vs, but also in this respect it is truly said, that Baptismus est maior ado­ratione, (Athanas. Serm. prim. Dialogist. contra Macedo­nianum:) for what adoration can be so great, as that same homage, worship, and subjection, which the one­ly receiving of Baptisme professeth, the due receiving performeth? But what neede I make this remonstrance; there is nothing more certaine, then that the gesture of the Scripture-examples of Baptisme is altogether vn­certaine. Therefore whiles God commands no gesture, commends no gesture, dispraiseth no gesture in the act of baptizing, there cannot be either necessity, or impi­ety, in standing, sitting, or kneeling; in themselues I meane, as if the nature of Baptisme did simply either require, or refuse, either the one or the other. And now I will passe to the Passeover.

Of the Passeover.

Sect. 18 ANd in the Passeover, first two things there are which seeme to make for standing: first, the Priests are said to stand in ministring, during the feast of the Passeover, 2 Chron. 30. 16. 35. 5, 10. Secondly, there is [Page 16] a strong probability of standing implied in that law. Thus shall ye eate it, with your loynes girded, your shooes on your feete, your staffe in your hand, and ye shall eate it in hast; It is the Lords Passeover, Exod. 12. 11. Secondly, for sitting: Iesus and his Disciples sate downe at the Passeover, Mat. 26. 19, 20. Our brethren at least will take this for a certaine example of sitting. Thirdly, for humble adoring, and prostrating of the body, that perhaps may be referred hither, in Iohn. 12. 20. and which is shewed before in offering of sacri­fice. But because I am resolved to rest in no vncertain­ties, or halfe proofes, I will take another view of the gestures of the Passeover againe, and of the proofes which we haue mentioned vnto them severally. First, for standing at the Passeover, the practise of the Priests was no patterne for the children of Israel; for their standing was occasionally necessary for their atten­dance, and ministry about the Passeover it selfe, and the Passeover-offerings. And for that commandement, Exod. 12. 11. besides that no gesture is expressed, it is onely meant of the Passeover in Egypt, before the peo­ple were gotten out thence, and not of their Passeovers in the land of Canaan. And I thinke herein there will be no great controversie with See Trem in Exod. 12 11 Bez in Mat. 26. Seal. de emendat temp lib. 6 pag. 534. Park. of the Crosse, chap. 1. Sect. 20. Perth. Assemb. pag. 35. you. Secondly, for sitting, let it be, that our Saviour, and his Disciples sate at the Passeover, what was that to the direction of any Iew for the gesture of sitting, for the space of aboue fifteene hundred yeeres together before that time? nay Christs sitting was not vsefull vnto the Iewes at all, who is never said to sit at the Passeover, till that time when he did quite and for ever abolish the vse of it: So to them it was vnlawfull to eate a Passeover any more after this, which our Saviour is said to haue celebrated in sitting. Thirdly, for prostration let it be, that the Scripture yeelds no particular instance of it, in the act of eating the Lambe; what followeth of all this? verily thus much; that the Iewes from the time that the Passe­ouer [Page 71] was instituted, to the time that it was abolished, had no commandement, no example, no mention of any gesture in the Passeouer but that of their Priests, which concerned them not, but was proper onely to themselues, because of their office of Priest-hood. Therefore if a Iew had kneeled at Passeouer, should hee haue sinned, (out of the case of scandall?) what com­mandement had hee broken? what example could hee haue beene reproued, or checked by? what place in all the old Testament did euer commend or con­demne standing, or sitting, or prostration at the Passe­ouer, either simply or comparatiuely? Nay, looke vpon the Law or ordinance of the Passe­ouer, Exodus. 12. 43. &c. and you find not one word of the gesture. And in Numbers, 9. thus the LORD speaketh. The Passe-ouer shall bee kept according to the Ordinance of it, and according to the man­ner of it, and according to all the Rites of it, and according to all the Ceremonies of it, Vers. 3. 14. And yet behold neither in that place, nor in any other, is there any thing appointed about the gesture. And so much of the Passeouer; and of the Sacraments. And thus appea­reth, that Circumcision, Baptisme, and the Passeouer, be not disallowed in any absolute gesture.

An Observation added of all Divine worship vnder the Gospell.

Sect. 20 YEt the Supper of the Lord is not mentioned; but that I reserue to it owne speciall place. Notwith­standing, because Kneeling thereat is the gesture in Controuersie, I will point at one generall consi­deration of kneeling heere, both concerning the Supper, and all the Diuine worship of GOD [Page 18] vnder the Gospell. Namely, that GOD in the holy Scripture sometimes puts kneeling for all the worship of the Gospell, Psal. 72 9. 11. 86. 9. Isa. 66. 23. 45. 23. Now it is true it doth not follow, that kneeling is the onely gesture of Euangelicall worship therefore, but because kneeling is put (by a Synecdoche) for all ex­pressions of outward worship, it seemes strange, that any worship vnder the Gospell should abhorre (in it very nature) from it, as if that gesture could not without impietie bee thereunto applied. And this passage seemes not vnworthy consideration. Thus much of the liberty of Kneeling and of all other abso­lute gestures in the solemne, and publike ordinances of Religion.

Sect 21 For appendant gestures, as lifting or not lifting vp of the eyes, lifting or not lifting vp of the hands, leaning or not leaning, smiting on the breast or not smiting, &c. all men doe hold surely, that a Christi­an may vse them, or not vse them (out of scandall) according to his inward, and outward occasion. This libertie is vndoubted and vnquestionable by au­thoritie of the Word, as (if it were needfull) I might shew in the whole fardell of lesser gestures. And hitherto bee spoken in generall of the bodily ge­stures.

Of Gods Commandement in Gestures.

Sect. 5 FIrst. what is Gods commandement for gestures in his worship? verily none at all, absolute and expresse. For either there is nothing said of gestures in some ordi­nances, or nothing by way of commandement, or if there be any commandement, it is determined vpon the limita­tion of circumstances, inasmuch as the said ordināces may be vsed in other gestures As is to be see no before ch. 1 of the third rule of gestures. vpon occasion. I will giue an instance; if any gesture bee commanded in any worship, in all the holy Scripture, it is kneeling in prayer. The Abridg. sayes kneeling is commanded of God in pray­er. Pag. 42. The onely generall commandement of it (I suppose) is Psal. 95. 6. Which yet indeed is rather an exhortation, then a commandement; but let it be a plaine commandement, as it hath th [...] force of one, and seemes to be an vniuer­sall direction for solemne actes of prayer and thanksgi­uing; will any body say now, that it absolutely binds the conscience, so as in publike solemne thankesgivings it is a sinne not to kneele alwayes therefore? the Mini­sters be farre from this mind, who Abridgem. Pag. 67. say, That it is evident by Scripture, that kneeling is not the fittest gesture to be vsed in thanksgi [...]ing. Wherefore commandements of gestures in prayer, and other seruices much more, bee limited to occasion; for like occasion euer hapneth not, and the judgement of such occasion is varied according to cir­cumstances of abilitie, company, time, place, edificati­on. Well there is no expresse and absolute commande­ment of any one gesture.

Of good examples of Gestures.

Sect. 6 COme we to examples; and when the holy Ghost pleaseth to commend the same, vpon like occasion they may lawfully be imitated of vs. Now whether they binde to a necessity, or warrant onely to liberty, there is the question in hand. And I would define in this manner. Examples bind to a necessitie, if they bee of maine and substantiall duties; but then there is expresse commande­ment, or light of nature, or certaine inference of good rea­son, of literall euidence, or vnchangeable equitie, where­upon they be grounded. In these cases they bind to a ne­cessity of imitation: yet in truth, not they so much, as the other infallible directions, which they serue but to illu­strate; and when the Scripture stirs vs vp to follow the steppes of good men; it is but either that we might be drawne to the rule by them, as Augustine was by the Church; or else that their liues should be as reall and vi­sible commentaries of the law, for help of our ignorance; or lastly, that they might worke vpon our affections on­ly, and so to be not rules, but motiues for instigation of our dulnesse.

Sect. 7 But of examples of circumstantiall matters, and acti­ons, I say otherwise. I will mention to my purpose the gestures. Examples of them bind vs not to necessity; but declare our liberty onely; euen the actions of our Saui­our Christ of that sort not excepted And this I prooue these reasons.

Sect. 8 First, because Gods directions concerning gestures, ad­mit of liberty and variety throughout the Bible. If I bee generally left at liberty by the termes and tenour of the law, there is small reason that certaine presidents should bind my conscience vpon paine of damnation.

Sect. 9 Secondly, because there is a mixt, and interchangeable vse of example-gestures in Gods seruice; as may appeare by our Sauiour Christ, and holy men, and women of old; [Page 23] who stood in the same worship sometimes, sate some­times, kneeled sometimes, and so forth indifferently. And if you reade of our Sauiour sitting at Passeouer but once, Dauid sitting at prayer but once, &c. that takes not away the mixt vse of gestures, but onely shewes, what one man did one time, another man another time vpon occasion. So Historians must mention singular passages & occurren­ces, as the history (which they describe) leads them vnto it.

Sect. 10 Thirdly, if examples of gestures should bind vs to ne­cessity of imitation, how were we inthralled to obedience of impossibility, absurdity, and contradiction? Impossi­bilitie. For when examples of diuers gestures be propo­sed vnto vs in the same holy ordinance, who can possibly imitate them all at once? Absurdity; for where the Pub­lican would not lift vp his eyes, out smote himselfe vpon the brest; Hezechiah being sicke, turned to the wall, wept and prayed; must not dejected people looke vp to hea­uen now in confession, and prayer? Must they of neces­sity smite vpon their brests in confession, and prayer? are sicke people bound to turne toward a wall in weeping and praying? Contradiction; for if one gesture be ne­cessary, then cannot another be necessary in the same case. Adde vnto these, a miserable bondage inferred in all ex­emplary circumstances; wherein yet if our brethren grant vnto vs, and take to themselues liberty at pleasure, as in time, place, all gestures in some cases; can they plead pre­scription, in some singular example onely, as they list themselues? Especially when the Scripture enjoyning imitation of good men, speakes alwayes of substantiall duties, and not circumstances. Onely they include some circumstances, and gestures, when they thinke good, se­cluding, and excepting others againe at their owne plea­sure. And yet there is no sound reason betwixt that which is included, and excluded; but that the law of imitation should presse all speciall gestures in Gods solemne wor­ship or none. So much for example, and for Gods will expressed concerning gestures.

Of Naturall light in Gestures.

Sect. 11 IMplyed direction is either light of Nature, or cleernesse of reason; for where expresse direction is wanting, som­times nature it selfe teacheth. 1. Cor. 11. 14. sometimes reason it selfe conuinceth. First, Nature hath no doubt re­spect in gestures, because they be naturall gestures. Here­of I propose three pointes.

Sect. 12 First, Gestures must not be put to other vse then Treatise of Diu. wor. pag. 13. as nature hath fitted them. But how ridiculous is it to say, that Nature hath not fitted kneeling to worship God in any of his Ordinances, as the Author of Ibid. the Treatise of Di­uine worship affirmeth. When indeed Nature speakes for gesture so much, as for kneeling in this case of worship­ping; but the nature that he speakes of, is not the created aptnesse and fitnesse of the gesture it selfe, but a certaine decorum onely grounded vpon the fashions and manners of men in ciuill matters. We shall speake thereof particu­larly afterwards.

Sect. 13 Secondly, though gestures were neuer commanded by the written Word, yet are they To this pur­pose, Treat. of Diu. wor pa. 30 Not to bee esteemed hu­maine inuentions, but Gods ordinances, because they be Na­turall circumstances of worship. I pray let this truth be re­membred full well. ☞

Sect. 14 Thirdly, Heathen men by the light of Nature haue vsed, and applyed all manner of gestures to the exercise of their religions. I need to name no other seruice of theirs, then their sacrificing. And for standing and kneeling thereat, I suppose it will be superfluous to send you to the Histori­ans, when they describe the Gentiles vsually to offer not onely Beasts, but Bread, Wine, Oyle, Hony, Cakes, &c. in false worship in those gestures; onely fitting may see me to be doubtfull heere, and yet, euen that Mat [...]ob. salut. lib. 3. cap. 16. was common­ly vsed at the Sacrifices of Hercules.

Lastly, of good Collections, or inferences for direction in gestures.

Sect. 15 GOod collection enforceth no singular gesture abso­lutely, bu [...] so, as though it may prouoke vs to vse some speciall gesture one time, it may some other time as effectually prouoke vs to vse another. There seeme to be foure pointes, or rules in Gods word, inferring for the generall choise of gestures. First, they must bee vsed in good order, and 1. Cor. 14. 40 not out of order. Secondly, they must be decent, Ibid. not vnbeseeming the worship, or worship­per. Thirdly, they must stand with peace, Vers. 33. and not Schismatically make a rent in the Churches. Fourthly and lastly, they must serue for edification Vers 26. and not bee scandalous, to hurt another mans conscience.

Sect. 16 Now for better vnderstanding of these, I propose two cautions. As first, it is a difficult peece of businesse to judge, and practise the choysest gestures alwayes for or­der, decency, peace, and edification. Sometimes diuers gestures may off [...]r themselues in equall ballancing in the scales, sometimes one may be weighed downe by his fel­lowes; yet is it not to be esteemed a damnable gesture in such case, if there be any good (though lesse) measure of or­der, comelinesse, peace & edification to be discerned in it.

Sect. 17 Secondly, it is worthy to be marked, that order, decen­cy, peace, and edification sometimes doe well consent to­gether, and sometimes cannot agree; for both, that, which is orderly, and decent may be schismaticall, and scanda­lous as the world judgeth; and also, that which is both disorderly, and vncomely may stand with peace, and be vsed without off [...]nce. But what must bee done in such case. 1 I answer first, wee must respect the duty of Na­ture, that is, of order, and comelinesse.2 Secondly, our eye must bee vpon the body of the Church for conserua­tion of publike peace. 3 Thirdly, edification is last, which respecteth but priuate members; especially, [Page 26] when the gesture for it owne nature is commendably ap­plied; besides in some measure is orderly, and decent; and finally the offence taken thereat hurteth no mans soule in the sundamentall respects of its welfare.

2. Of Divine Worship.

Sect. 9 NExt, because wee are to speake of worship also, it much concernes vs to bee well acquainted with the nature of it. Worship then in generall is nothing else: but honour done vnto another. Diuine wor­ship is when Gods honour is done eyther to God him­selfe, to whome, it should bee done; or to some other thing; to which it should not. True worship of God is either largely taken, or with restraint. In the largest exception of it, whatsoever is done with respect to God according to his will wee may call his true worship; but in stricter sence (and that also which is more common) the word is referred onely to acts and exercises of religi­on. Thus it is restrained and vsed altogether in this pre­sent discourse.

Sect. 10 Now of holy worship, this is an impregnable, and eternall truth, that it immediately respecteth God him­selfe, and is likewise incommunicable, Ma [...] 4 10. both to distinguish from vnlawfull Image-worship; [...], 42. 8. and be­sides, from the lawfull reuere [...]ce of holy thinges, Leu 19. 30. which is not called worship, but veneration. And it worship bee onely and immediately to bee perfor­med [Page 30] to the Lord, it is most vndoubted, Mica. 6. vers. [...]. 7. 8. that hee onely can teach, and authorise, the due, and lawfull both matter and manner.

Sect. 11 Moreouer, this religious worship of GOD is two­fold; Materiall, and personall. I meane by materiall, Gods spirituall Ordinances; as Prayer, Baptisme, &c. which wee commonly call worships; because, worship­ping consisteth in the vse of them. Personall; worship is that which is performed vnto God in the vse of Wor­ship-ordinances, by them, that bee worshipping; and that againe is eyther principall; that is, the inward wor­ship of God, performed by the principall part of man; or secondly, Subordinate, and inferiour; that is, the out­ward worship of the body, which, when it is vsed in it See Chap. 1. Sect. 5. before. speciall sence, is tearmed Adoration. And this bo­dily adoration, is eyther implicite, or expressed. Impli­cite I meane, when the body, guided by the soule at­tends to Gods seruice; although there bee intended no speciall signe of worshipping by the site or positure of it. Expressed adoration is, when some such speciall gesture is vsed, which (according to the nature of the seruice of God in hand) betokeneth worshipping more distinctly. And that againe, is eyther totall, or partiall. Totall. when the whole body is laid along before the Lord. Partiall, when some one part, or member by it selfe ado­reth, as when the body is bended, the knee bowed, the hands, or eyes lifted vp, &c.

Sect. 12 Furthermore, worshipping is euermore an yeelding vnto God of something. And therefore personall wor­ship hath in that respect a double consideration. First, when wee yeeld vnto God onely our selues. Secondly, when wee also yeeld vnto him the matter, in which the worship consisteth. This latter is againe two-fold. First, when wee offer vp to God the whole matter of the wor­ship or seruice. Secondly, when wee minister onely some part thereof; the Lord (whom we serue, according to his faithfull promise, by grace) answering the residue.

[Page 31] [I speake not this, as if originally, wee, and all we haue and doe that good is, were not of God, I onely call that our doing in Gods worship, which proceedeth and passeth from vs, by the Lords enabling: our duty to him (by reason of his commandement) also enga­ging vs.] Of the first sort of all, is the exercise of the Word, which (though it bee Gods excellent ordinance, yet) is a worship no otherwise, but as wee readily sub­mit our selues to receiue the same, in obedience to him, whose word it is, and who reueales, and imparts it vnto vs. Of the second sort bee Prayers, See Perth. Assemb. p. 57. Vowes, Sa­crifices, singing of Psalmes, &c. wherein wee doe not onely offer our selues to God, but the very matter also, wherein euery one of the said Ordinances consisteth. Of the last sort bee the Sacraments, the matter where­of is partly yeelded, and presented by vs, partly re­ceiued, and dispensed from God, in the very act and instant of participation.

Sect. 13 Againe, Gods speciall worship is eyther simple or mixt. Simple, when one worship is performed alone. Mixt, when one worship is diffused into another. For so Prayer, Thankesgiuing, Vowes may bee performed by the mind in some other ordinance. And thereof sprin­geth the distinction of maine and occasionall. Maine, which is the seruice of purpose taken in hand. Occasi­onall, which is done in relation to the maine, for the bet­ter performance of it.

3. Of things indifferent and Divine worship joyntlie.

Sect. 14 LAstly, because all externall personall Worship stan­deth in gestures, and that gestures bee both in­different in themselues, and variable in religious ex­ercises, it plainly followeth that the same thing may [Page 32] bee both a personall worship, and a mutable I take (Cir­cumstance) in a generall sence, as if I said Ceremo­ny. I make no aduantage (of th [...] tea [...]me▪) call it what you will, it is mutable. cir­cumstance. And to make this plaine wee must know, that there bee three sortes of things belonging to the seruice of God. First, some things which bee meere­ly and immutably worshipping; and such are the in­ternall acts of the soule. Secondly, Of these Circumstan­ces, which are meerely for decency, it is true which the Replyer s [...]ea­keth. There is no judicious Diuine that vseth to call circumstances of meere order and decency, Worship. Repl. generall to B. Mort. chap. 2. Sect. 6. p. 19. some which bee meerly matters of order, and decency; And such be many ciuill things needfull in Gods worship; as Pulpit, Seates, Table-cloath, &c. Thirdly, some be middle things Media parti­cipationis. par­taking of both the other, as gestures bee; for, knit vnto the inward actions of the soule, they bee per­sonall worshippings; yet notwithstanding being mu­table, and expressions of comelinesse, they may bee called matters of order, and circumstance.

And because there is Controuersie in this thing, let vs further consider of it:

Sect. 15 Object. 1. Reply gene­rall to B. Mort. ch. 2. Sect. 6. p. 20. Worship is a necessary tribute of the Crea­ture to the Creator, therefore is not in mans choise whe­ther it shall bee paid or no. I answer it is so. Personall worship in Prayer is necessary, personall worship in all holy Ordinances of God is necessary; but yet knee­ling in prayer is not necessary, kneeling in all holy or­dinances is not necessary therefore. And this is a cleare case. But then you will say, if wee can bee satisfied with the necessity of worship, and our selues chuse the manner how to performe it, any indifferent thing may bee brought into Gods worship: I answere, by no meanes, because gestures bee simple necessary for Gods outward worship in their kinde, yea and some particular gesture necessary vpon occasion. So gestures are not vsed by vs in Gods worsh [...]p b [...]cause they bee indifferent, but because they bee necessary in their kinde, necessary vpon occasion, though indifferent for the determining of them.

[Page 33] Sect. 16 Obiect. 2. Reply general to Bp. Morton, ch. 2. Sect. 6. p. 19 Worship doth not vary according to man [...] o­pinion, but consisteth in the nature of the action is selfe. And what then? The nature of all naturall gestures is such, as well aiimes with the nature of every religious worship of God, as I haue proved before: so though worship in its spirituall nature, doe never vary; yet the expression never is vpon occasion not lawfully variable.

Sect. 17 Obiect. 3. All worship which is the invention of man is vn­lawfull. I answer, as if gestures were humane inventions, and not Gods ordinances. There is nothing in all your bookes, that prooues this; no not in the third Argu­ment of the Abridgement. Nay I will not be so idle to thinke you would apply These be the proofes of the proposition of the third arg. in the Abridg. [Exod. 204 Deut. 1232. Isai. 1. 1. 12. Mat. 15. 9. Col. 2. 23] against gestures. Perhaps you will say, that gestures be Gods ordinances, and his wor­ship consists them. but the varying of them may be mans invention. But, this would be objected to no pur­pose; for God who hath appointed his outward worship to stand in gestures, hath in like manner appointed the variable vse of them, as I haue sufficiently proved Chap. 1. at the th [...]rd rule of gestures. al­ready. Indeed men, may sometime chuse a gesture, that may be scandalous, and ill; and so such a particular vari­ation may be vnlawfull by accident, as a good worke may be; but neither gesture, nor variation of gesture doth the word or God simply disallow, but rather the contrary.

Sect. 18 Now to make it more manifest, that gestures be both personall worship, and yet variable circumstances, I o­pen in this manner. First, there is [...]o note, either of cir­cumstance of order, or of matter of worshipping, but the gestures be capable of it. The notes of circumstan­ces may be examined Sect 4. &c. before. And for worshipping, gestures cannot be denyed: for they be personall wor­ships, or else God hath no outward worship perfor­med.

Sect. 19 Secondly, looke into God [...] law, whereby he requi­reth his people to worship him with all their strength, e­ven [Page 34] of their bodies; and behold there is no where to be found an absolute restr [...]in [...] of gestures, though out­word worship necessarily stand in them: whereby ap­peareth, that the law of worshipping giues liberty for the expression of worship, (asoccasion is,) so long as Gods necessary worship be performed by the body, and bodily gesture. And let my third rule of gestures (Chap. 1.) serue to satisfie in this point; for if outward worship stand in gestures, it is cleere as the Sunne shineth, that outward worship may be variously expressed as occasion requireth.

Sect. 20 Thirdly, you say, that Treat of div. wor. pag. 6, 7, 8 outward worship is expression of inward, by signes, and vetes, which you call Ceremonies, and naturall Ceremonies (you say) be gesturest And these gestures being personall outward worship (you Ibid pag. 11. say) must needs be varied. Againe, You Ibid pag. 16. say, that Comlinesse and decency may be safely reputed parts of divine worship. And can you then offirme, that worship gesture may not be chan­ged and varyed? Are you content to say that the come­linesse and decency, although of meere circumstances, then which nothing is more variable, be parts of wor­ship, and yet can deny that personall worship is variable in gestures, which are sarre more then meere circumstan­ces? Perhaps you wi [...]l say, decency and comelinesse is one, and never varieth. I answer, so personall worship is one in divers gestures: but as although comelinesse be­comelinesse still, yet the circumstances may be changed, from which, applyed to holy duties, comelinesse doth a­rise: so worship is worship still, though the gestures be varyed, whereby it is expressed.

Sect. 21 Fourthly, Let Mr. Calvin giue his sentence in this que­stion: Kneeling (saith Calv. Instit. lib. 4 cap 10. Sect. 30. he) in prayer, (which is Gods speciall worship) is a part of the Apostles decency: so that gestures (according to this testimony) may be called matters of order and decency, as well as gestures of wor­ship.

Sect. 22 Fifthly, and lastly, what saith your owne practise to [Page 35] this point? Doe not you vse seuerall gestures at seuerall times in the very same ordinance of set, and solemne prayer? who knowes it not? well, and is one of your gestures a personall worship, and not the other? so you might bring vs into a maze, and turne all reasoning into Quodlibets: better is the iudgement of the author of the Manuser. who speakes in this Manuseriag. kneel. ch. 2. manner: The gesture of kneeling in prayer, though it be the best and fittest gesture of all other, yet (when it pnooueth inconnenient) may be lawfully changed into standing: because standing is a ge­sture of the same kind, and fit to expresse our reuerence and hamiligy towards God. Well then, it kneeling be a per­sonall worship, so is standing also. And so personall worship may be expressed in gestures, though they bee variable circumstances But what doe I spend so many words in such an easie case? let the judgement bee now vnto the godly Reader.

And so much for the first part of this treatise, which shall serue for a generall introduction to that which followeth. Now therefore (by Gods gracious assistance) let vs come to treate of the speciall gesture, in the act of receiuing the Lords Supper, which is the gesture in con­trouersie.

Whether kneeling be will-worship?

Sect. 2 ARguments bee generall or speciall. One generall there is, which is much stood o [...], and will make the way more open to the rest. It is this.

Manuscrip a­gainst kneeling Ch. 1. Arg. 1. Wee are expressely forbidden to doe any thing as a wor­ship vnto God, which he hath not appointed and com­manded:

But in this kneeling we shall doe a worship, which he hath not appointed and commanded: 1 arg. ag. knee­ling. Therefore.

To the first Proposition I hartily yeeld, onely explaining it by distinguishing vpon worship: worship is either sub­stantiall, and spirituall, or ceremoniall, and corporall. Substantiall I meane, that of the heart: Ceremoniall I meane in a large sense, Treat. of di [...]. worsh. pag. 6, 7 warrant me so to speake. whatsoever is performed in bodily expression. Now the inward worship of God must be appointed and commanded in every particularity; be­cause it is vnchangeable, and standeth in one selfe same manner absolutely. The bodily expression must be com­manded also; but this is done, either generally, when God commands the whole body to doe him service; or specially, when he prescribeth and alloweth in his wor­ship inter changeable gestures, of standing, kneeling, or falling downe.

Sect. 3 Now then the second Proposi [...]ion I vtterly deny in the latter part of it▪ for as I acknowledge, that knee­ling is an outward worship: [...] vntrue, that God hath not appointed it in his word, even in the Lords [Page 38] Supper. And this I declare by these evidences.

Sect. 4 F [...]rst, Your selues affirme of circumstances of order, that it is enough they be required in their kind; and that in particular determination they may be varied: why then doe you contradict the great rule of your side, which is the maine refuge you haue to saue your selues, when your owne reasons against ceremonies be retorted vpon you: for gesture is necessary in the thing, but va­riable and mutable in all religious exercises. My former Introduction (I hope) cleareth this, when you haue an­swered that, something will be added to the strength of your generall Argument. Therefore for proofe of the lawfulnesse of our kneeling, it is enough, either that the word doth expressely appoint it in As Psal. 95. 6 exercises of worship, or that it doth not except and forbid it in any of them, and particularly in the Lords Supper: and the force of this one answer you are not able to refell, if it had no o­ther fellowes to backe and second it.

Sect. 5 Secondly, I aske, how you can say, that kneeling in any part of Gods worship, is not appointed by him, when of gestures (you Treat. of div. wors [...]. pag. 30. say) that nature stands in stead of a direction. And so vndoubtedly it doth, although both divine law, and humane, had therein beene altogether silent.

Sect. 6 Thirdly, I desire to know, whether it be not a war­rantable appointment, and allowance of kneeling, in the act of receiving in it selfe, that all the worship of the Gospell is signified thereby. Thus the disputer affirmeth vpon [Isai. 45. 23.] We see [...]ere (saith he) Disp. pag. 157. that the Lord makes the bowing of the knee a particular worship, and vnder the name thereof, signifieth the whole wor­ship of the Gospell, whereunto the Gentiles should be called. Is it possible now, that this Sacramentall worship of the Supper should be incompatible with bowing of the knee?

Sect. 7 Fourthly, God allowes in his word not onely knee­ling at prayer, but adoration, and kneeling at Circum­cision, [Page 39] Baptisme, Passeover: for a bodily rite being ne­cessary, and God not determining man vpon any one, leaues him at plaine liberty. Such allowance must by proportion be carried in the rite of the Lords Supper: (nay it cannot be said sodainly, how many things God hath left arbitrary in Sacraments, greater things then the gestures, which are orderly onely by generall rules.) Especially, looke what allowance the Iewes had for any gesture in Circumcision, and Passeover, and we haue now for Baptisme, the like haue we for our kneeling at the Lords Supper.

Sect. 8 Fifthly, How will you answer for your standing in the Sacrament? Oh standing is a table-gesture (say you:) yea, but that must not serue the turne; I affirme, that standing, or sitting, is an externall, personall worship in the holy Sacrament. I can easily prooue it, of your owne sayings. The proper nature of worship (saith Reply general cap. 2. Sect 6. one) [...] not in holinesse, and iustice; but i [...] honouring of God; and all exter­nall ceremonies, whose proper vse is the honouring of God, are externall worship, as all divinity sheweth. Now if the proper vse of your standing at Sacrament be for the honouring of Christ, a [...] least as proper as of such ceremonies as you oppugne, then behold the same is an externall worship­ping by your owne testimony. Againe saith another, Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 25. All religious Ceremonies, or Ceremonies of religion are spirituall, that is, are ordained for spirituall vses, and ends and not for civill, or temporall; and therefore are outward notes and testimonies of th [...]se thing [...] that make vs spirituall men; and they are parts of spirituall honour, due vnto him, that instituteth the Sacrament. Now there is nothing more plaine then that your standing is a ceremony, or rite of religion, that is ordained for spirituall vses, and ends, and not for civill or temporall; and so it is a part of spiri­tuall honour due vnto God; and consequently it is an outward worship. Againe saith the same man, Treat of div. worsh. pag. 5. All speciall things done in Gods worship, are worship. Now if standing or sitting at the Lords Supper, for which as for [Page 40] a matter of life and death, you so earnestly striue, be not a speciall thing. I am farre deceived: but that (say you) i [...] a speciall thing in Gods worship, which hath no use out of his worship. What and not that also which hath vse out of his worship? That is a strange rule [...] for thereof it fol­loweth, that no gesture is a speciall thing in Gods wor­ship; because all gestures haue vse out of his worship: that speaking in prayer is no speciall thing in Gods wor­ship, because we speake in civill vse out of his worship: wherefore if standing be a speciall thing done in the Sup­per, as kneeling is a speciall thing done in prayer, it is according to your teaching to be, esteemed a bodily wor­ship. Further more saith the Abridgement, Abridg. pag 40 All Cerem­nies ordained to teach by their mysticall signification, are made parts of God outward worship. This is your Proposition; and your selues also make the assumption vnto it; namely, that standing or Repl. partic. chap. 36. sitting is a signifying part in the Lords Supper: and signifies many things mystically, which in due place I will shew. Therefore I will make the conclu­sion that the Sacramentall gesture, which your selues doe stand on, is a part of Gods outward worship.

And vnto these your saying, I adde an argument of mine owne.

That maine carriage of the body, which i [...] of purpose, and conscience, selected to voyne with the inward devotion of the soule i [...] Gods religious; or worship ordinance, is a worship gesture, or a bodily worship.

But such is your sitting, such is your standing in the Lords Supper.

Therefore either of them is an outward worship.

There is no question in this reason, if the Proposition be sound: but let them, which can, adde aliquid amplius to make vp a bodily worship.

Obiect. Why, there is no adoration in your sitting and standing? I answere, that there is virtually adoration; and suppose there were none, is there no worship, where adoration is not? That is a [...] vnto me: for so [Page 41] long [...]s there is a worship-ordinance, and a worshipping soul [...], there also the body worshippeth, if the body (as in Sacramentall service) be imployed and required. You will say, this is worshipping in a larger sense. I answere, it is not so large a sense, but your argument takes hold of it as well as of worship-gestures, which be expresly a­doring: for (I pray) is it not true, that we are forbidden to doe any thing (in this Let the Reader marke this well, & I wish my brethren to consider. sense) as a worship vnto God, which he hath not appointed and commanded? But now God ne­ver appointed or commanded standing at Sacrament. ☞

Sect. 9 Sixthly, But the great blocke whereat you seeme to stumble is this, that though kneeling be lawfull in o­ther ordinances; yet is it not so in the Communion, be­cause it is not prescribed; you meane mentioned, as sit­ting is mentioned. Which exception supposeth this ground; that every application or way of vsing of every worship-gesture must be grounded (at least) in some par­ticular and expresse instance. And then could they vse no gesture at all in the Circumcision, Passeover, and Baptisme, for therein is no instance of any gesture. A­gaine, your exception supposeth historicall acts to be ad­equate, and of as large extention as generall rules; which is an absurdity not to be answered. And againe you put an hard taske vpon Historians, and actors in story; for would you haue those to set downe, or these to vse any more then one maine gesture at one time? that which was done is storyed, yet a variable act excludes not his fellowes.

Further will you stand vpon the mentioning of the gesture of kneeling, when you account the most excel­lent gesture in the world to be but indifferent? Must in­different things be prescribed, not onely in their kind, but in their application particularly? for thus you speak: Disp. pag. 2. In prayer we kneele if we may conveniently, and in the sa­crament of the Lords Supper, as the custome of the Country▪ or necessity requireth, standing or sitting is fittest. Manuscrip. Chap. 2. The gesture of sitting being being but a [...]ter of circumstance, and [Page 42] not expressely commanded, but of an indifferent nature, may lawfully be left, (as all other indifferent things may) and an other gesture vsed in stead of it, that will better serue in the convenience and edification of the Church, and that by war­rant of the Apostles rule, let all things be done vnto edifying, 1 Cor. 14. 26. Mr. T. C. Repl. pag 131, 132. Admonit. to the Parliam. It is not of necessity to receiue the Commu­nion sitting: Nay in the name of the rest T. C. speaketh thus; I admonish the Reader, that sitting at the Communi­on is not bolden to be necessary: so that this witnesse is in­star omnium, if there were no more.

Obiect. But these men doe not say, that kneeling is indifferent at Communion, as are standing, and sitting? I answere, if it be not indifferent, it is not, because it is vnmentioned in the new Testament, nor for any diffe­rence your assumption putteth betwixt it and other ge­stures, so that your selues dull your owne argument, which this exception will never sharpen againe. And you must marke the force of my answer. If the best ge­sture at the Sacrament, (such as you say sitting is) be but indifferent, how may you condemne another gesture in comparison with sitting, in this respect, that it wants a particular warrant? Why should ye expect of a thing in it kinde indifferent, an expresse direction, or samplar for every manner, or way, wherein it may lawfully be ap­plyed?

Sect. 10 Moreover I adde, if kneeling be damnable in the Sup­per, because it is not mentioned in the new Testament in the act of receiving, then are all expressions of wor­ship condemned also in the Supper by that reason, which are not all mentioned: as first, religious lifting vp the eyes is a gesture of worship, or bodily worship; but that is no more appointed or mentioned in the Supper, then kneeling. Sure you will not deny a religious lifting vp of the eyes to be lawfull in the act of receiving: Yet you may as well deny it as kneeling vpon this reason, that it is not mentioned. Secondly, vncovering of the head is done of purpose (and I thinke) with immediate relation [Page 43] to God, as it is in prayer, therefore it is a fashion, or ex­pression of worship; but God no where appoints it in his word in the act of receiving. Thirdly, In Baptisme, what say you to the lawfulnesse of aspersion? the examples of the new Testament are all of immersion in Baptisme; as (you say) they be all of sitting onely in the Communion. By what law can you be allowed to sprinkle, when Scrip­ture-examples expound the commandement of Baptisme of immersing onely? Specially immersing signifying to be buried to Christ, to be sanctified in the whole man, which significations are imported by the Apostle. And who doubts immersion in Baptisme, in many materiall respects to over-weigh sitting at the Communion? If kneeling then in the Supper be damnable, because not mentioned in the new Testament, then aspersion in Baptisme is much more damnable; especially when knee­ling is instituted and sanctified expressely to other parts of divine worship in many places of holy Scripture; sprinkling is not heard of in the Scripture, but in the Ceremoniall law, which I am sure, you would not be brought under the yoake of; yea also when kneeling is a naturall gesture, but such is not sprinkling of water.

Sect. 11 Seventhly, and lastly, let the proofes of your argu­ment be examined in good earnest: first you bring forth the second commandement to condemne a gesture both naturall, and instituted in Gods worship, and service: but except you make a clearer exposition, such as will ex­tend to the gesture by some other particular Commenta­ry of the word, sure in vaine doe you tell vs of the second commandement: we make to our selues no worship of our devising; but vse a gesture of Gods appointing in nature, of Gods sanctifying in exercises of his worship.

Sect. 12 Then you reason from Gods negatiue, which con­demneth, whatsoever he commandeth not, Levit. 10. 1. Deut. 17. 3. Col. 2. 18. where in you reason most loosely from those things, whereunto Gods commandement was punctually contrary, to that which his commande­ment, [Page 44] not onely contradicteth not, but plainly warran­teth. You argue from strange fitt, which was vnchan­geable in those times, to a circumstance, which your selues change at pleasure: from idolatrous worshipping of the hoste of heaven, and Angells, to worshipping of the true God in the gesture of kneeling; which nature, and the word both, doe allow in his worship, as may not be denied. But it is the negatiue you bind vpon. And I answer, that the negatiue is onely of vnchangeable and morall things, and so of them carryeth an vnresistable force with it; (though the commandement be not al­wayes expresse, as of baptising infants, of keeping our Sabboth, of morning and euening prayer in families, &c) but you are not able to bring out a negatiue for a chan­geable circumstance, I dare say. If you could, all comes to one for my purpose; for the Lord commands gesture in kind, though it be sundrily determinable, Againe, God commands kneeling in particular, though it be va­riously applicable, as conveniency, and edification per­mitteth.

Sect. 13 Further you say, we must not adde to Gods word, nor diminish from it, Deut. 12. 32. I readily answer, this cannot be meant of gestures, which the Israelites must needes vse in Gods worship, and yet of them God gaue no commandement by Moses. If it should be meant of gestures, kneeling is Gods generall commandement: kneeling at the Sacrament cannot be said to adde to, or diminish from Gods commandement of the gesture, when there is no particular commandement given: If there were a commandement to sit vpon occasion, knee­ling adds or diminisheth no more then standing, or no more then another gesture addes to, or diminisheth from the commandement of kneeling in prayer.

Sect. 14 But the Apostle sayes, whatsoever is not of saith is sinne, Rom. 14. 23. Indeed this is a Scripture in every mans mouth, and vrged with more vehemency, then reason in this case: for faith in bodily circumstau [...], [Page 45] and gestures, is built safely vpon general grounds, as wel as in morall, and vnchangeable points, it is for the most part built vpon plain & particular testimony. Fiath hath its assurance in Phil. 4. 8: general rules as well as particular come mands; so long as the selfe-same author of truth speaketh in both. Sect. 15 To conclude, you compare our eating in the gesture of kneeling, with the Iewes washings, Mar. 7. & Popish fastings; which be condemned (you say) in their manner of vsing, though else washings and fastings be Gods ordinances. I answer, that their washings and fa­stings were, and are damnable, for no such respects, as condemne kneeling in the Supper; for they destroyed the very nature of Gods ordinances, and set vp (I may say) new washings and fastings in their stead; in which they placed nec [...]ssity, holinesse, and merit. Neither is there any variable circumstance (like the gesture) there­in taxed in these; but onely hypothetically, as the very washings and fastings themselues be supposed and con­demned for abominable. But these comparisons you bring in only for illustration, & not for proofe of any thing; and (x) I wonder what mood M. W. B. wa [...]n, when he said, that kneeling hath not so much as a shew of holines in the vse of [...], i [...] treat of div. [...]. [...]3, O he [...] of h [...]s side are con­ [...]n [...] to giue it a [...]ew of piety [...] at [...] ap­plying Colos, 2. 2 [...]. against it But be [...]ike Mr. W. B. could [...]rooue many things by logick, which his brethren ( [...]er men then himselfe) durst no [...] s [...]nd vpon. therefore I leaue them as plaine impertinencies. And so much for answer to the generall argument against kneeling at the Communion. Onely for further answer reade and obserue my generall introduction in the for­mer part: which it selfe well considered, I hope will sa­tisfie the doubtfull conscience in this point.

Sect. 16 Now to this generall argument, I will adde two other generall considerations, which the Ministers do stand on. First, To mingle prophane things with diuine is sinne, (saith Arg. 7. M. W. B. & to vse our ceremonies is so to mingle. But if he mean the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament, I deny, that [...]he vse of it is mingling that which is pro­fane with diuine. Contrarily, I affirme that kneeling is an holy gesture, ioyned with an holy ordinance. And against this (that I trouble not my selfe and others a­bout dumb shewes) Mr. W. B. sayes iust nothing, nor any [Page 46] body else for him. Onely let it bee obserued, that this reason assuming the gesture not to be holy, contradicts the former maine argument which assumes it to bee so holy, that it is no lesse then a part of diuine worship.

Sect. 17 Secondly, hither may be referred, that the Abridg­ment excepteth against kneeling, because (saith (w) it,) the same is not necessary; Abridg: pag. 56. whereto a­greeth propos. 2. of the mo­dest oste [...] of conference. Ibid pag. 44. for no rites ought to be vsed in the Church, but such as are necessary things, by direction of that place, Act. 15. 28. I answer, that this place speakes of necessity, nor which is absolute of the things Sauing for­nicatiō, which is mortall. them­selues; but which was occasionall onely from that time, such as kneeling is to vs vnder authority at this day. Else it is idle to say, that the Church can appoint no rites, but such as are necessary; that is, it can appoint nothing at all, or that kneeling or any other gesture is vnlawfull, except it be necessary, for so much) our selues hold not euen of kneeling in prayer. But if you meane [necessa­ry) that, which in kind is such, but in particular deter­mination may be varied; then kneeling at Sacrament is still safe, and your exception hurteth it not. And to this purpose, see the maine argument refuted before.

The first Paragraph.

Sect. 2 FIrst I doe avow, that it is impossible to demonstrate, so as the Conscience may infallibly build thereupon, that eyther Christ or his Apostles sate in the Eucharisti­call supper. To this purpose I will describe the course and order of the Passeouer, and Supper as the Euangelists set it downe.

Sect. 3 But first, I will touch vpon the question, whether they had three suppers together, as many doe thinke, viz. The Paschall a Common, and the Eucharisticall Supper? Of the Paschall, and Eucharisticall supper there is no doubt to bee made; but all the doubt is, whether they did also eate of a common Supper betwixt the Paschall and Eucharisticall. They which thinke that they did eate a common supper doe ground I see other grounds they haue, but I thinke they are not worth an­swering. principally vpon Ioh. 13. as I take it. Where it is said, [...], Iohn, 13. 2. Christ rose from Supper, Vers. 4. washed his Disciples feete; Vers. 5, &c. and after sate downe againe, Vers. 12.—And after all this was the eating of the soppe, Vers. 26. compared with Math. 26. vers. 21, 22, 23. So they would make that eating of the soppe, to bee the common Supper, the Eucharist not being yet instituted. To speake my minde in this thing; I suppose a supper in our vse of the word, is a competent meale, and to call them three Suppers to the common people, makes them to muse and maruell what should bee the matter. I despise not what the Learned deliuer out of the Iewes writings for instru­ction in this case; yet for vnderstanding of the sop I cast [Page 50] mine eye rather to the institution of the Passeouer, which was commanded to bee eaten Exod. 12. 8. with bitter hearbes, which this soppe or sauce, or whatsoeuer it was, was probably made of. I doe perswade my selfe, that our Sa­uiour CHRIST and the Apostles did eate of this sop, before he rose from the Table to wash his Disciples feet, (though it bee not mentioned before, nor had beene at all, but by the occasion of Judas dipping) and that this eating after was but a continuation of the Paschall sup­per in eating both of the flesh and hearbes; which stands with much better reason, then for the mention of a meere sop or sauce (which might very well be made (partly at least) of the instituted hearbes) to set vp another com­mon supper. Some call the latter a second seruice, but they might aswell call it a distinct supper, for no second seruice belonged to the Paschall supper. wherein the flesh, and the hearbes were to bee eaten together. I but what shall bee said to Iohn, 13. 2. Supper being done▪ he rose, and sate, and eate afterwards againe. I would I know there is other an­swere made by some, but this seemes fairest and soundest to mee. thinke it better to vse a mitigation of the phrase, then a middle, or common supper; in this manner; [supper being en­ded] that is, [supper being in a manner ended.] Accor­ding to like manner of speaking in the story. As they were eating, IESVS tooke bread &c. that is, when they had done eating, as Luke and Paul expound it. Luke, 22. 20. 1. Cor. 11. 25. Besides it is said hee tooke the cup after supper; then it seemes, the foregoing supper was but one; and indeed Luke in the quoted chapter men­tions no more, and then addes, he tooke the cup after supper. Also I see not the conceite of common suppers in the old testament so much as intimated; nay, the Paschal lambe was appointed to be supper enough of it selfe, for if it were too much for one family, neighbour houses might ioyne, and if notwithstanding, any of it were left till morning, it was to bee burned with fire, Exod. 12. vers. 4. 10. This order doth exclude a common Supper ex▪ suppositione. Moreouer, it is to bee thought, that a [Page 51] whole Lambe with bread and hearbes enough might not suffice twelue, or thirteene men; especially, when they were to let nothing of it remaine vntill morning? I adde, that a just collation of the Euangelists will euince that there was but one Supper. And lastly, it was most like▪ that the Eucharisticall supper was eaten next the Paschall, into whose roome it immediately tooke place. And surely the distinction by a common Supper would darken to the Apostles the cleerenesse of the succession of it. This obiter of this point, which I deliuer (vnder corre­ction of Learned men) to make my discourse following some what easier to bee conceiued, and not to aduan­tage my selfe in the Controuersie; wherein (I thinke) it doth neither helpe, nor hinder. And now I will shew by the storie of the Euangelists, that Christ and his Apo­stles are not said at any time to vse the gesture of sitting in the Eucharisticall Supper,

Sect. 4 Thus then I put all the foure Euangelists together from the beginning of the Passeouer, to the institution of the Communion.

[Page 52]

[Page 53] Sect. 5 Heere it is said now that they sate at Passeouer: and after Iesus rising vpon occasion is said to set him downe againe. And this was before the mention of eating the sop. But there is no word of the gesture, which was v­sed by them at the institution, and participation of the Communion. And some of the Ministers doe confesse that it is but a probable thing, that they did not alter their gesture. I graunt them no lesse, that it is more probable, then any other gesture. But what (I pray) am I worse for yeelding a probability of their sit­ting, or you better? It is new logicke, if probabilitie should inferre necessitie. That is but a weake foun­dation of faith and comfort either for doing, or suf­fering. Which are assured that Christ sate without all doubt; finding it in his written word though here be not a word written to shew it; what should I say to them, but reiect their audeciousnesse? For as I will deeme no thing, which in my conscience I iudge to be likely, for to helpe my selfe in this controuersie: So it is too much presump­tion in any, to avow for certaine, that which cannot bee defined. But the Euangelists (you Perth. As­sembl. pag. 39. say) mention not the supper gesture, because they write as of a thing knowne. Notably helped out! The Communion-gesture was a thing more knowne, then the Communion it selfe was kowne I besides, was not the Passeouer-gesture knowne? Yet the Euangelists doe make mention of that, and if you will haue a common supper; they make mention also of the gesture of it; and yet the onely Communion-gesture might be knowne by imagination. Yea, but say you, a Table-gesture is vndoubtedly implyed. But this defence supposeth the countrey Table-gesture necessary to the supper, which I doe forever See [...] Ta [...]le-gesture, [...] ch. 5. deny. But you deale somewhat roundly with vs. For first you prooue, that Christ sate, because sitting was a Table-gesture. After you will prooue, that a Table-gesture is necessary, bee use Christ sate. But I tell you, that you can infallibly assure no mans conscience, that Christ and his Apostles sate at [Page 54] the last supper. But you vrge that the Euangelists say, as they did eate, Iesus tooke bread, &c. Perth. As­sembl. pag. 36. Suruey 185. If whiles they did eate, then whiles they did sit; sitting and eating being conjoyned. Mark. 14. 18. I answere, that this man­ner of pleading shuts the Scripture out from expounding it selfe. For, [as they did eate] is plainely expounded by Luk. 22. [...]0. Luke and 1. Cor. 11. 25 Paul [after they had done eating] and are you of mind that the suppers were mingled together? I doe not thinke that in good earnest you are. Well then if you will reade [whilest they did eate Iesus tooke bread &c,] thus [after they had done eating Iesus tooke bread &c.] Then your sequell may bee proportioned in like manner: for in stead of saying [if whiles they did eate, then whiles they did sit] you might say as truly [if after they had done eating, then after they had Namely, that sitting, which was vsed to the Passeouer. done sit­ting] and sure you would take no great content in the fruite of this reasoning. But you say learned men doe grant they sate at the last supper. But I thinke they grant no otherwise then any body will grant; namely, that it is a probable thing they sate. It any doe grant further I would not be discouraged by the name of learned men; let reason moderate amongst vs all. In a word, durst you be sworne, (if you had a lawfull calling to sweare) that Christ and his Apostles sate, as if you had beene an eye witnesse? Durst you lay downe your life vpon it? Can you giue vs any other proofe, then your perswasion of his abiding in the gesture of the Passeover? It is good, not to be too resolued, except you had a word to build on: And I will backe mine aduice with some considerations, which I propose vnto you.

Sect. 6 You know, Christ did many things, which the Euan­gelists had neither power, nor purpose to set downe. Joh. 21. 25. Nay many of the signes that Iesus did, are not written. John. 20. 30. Partly it was impossible, part­ly vnnecessary that they should be written. Might not now the gesture of the Sacrament bee ommitted much more, of purpose omitted by the wisedome of the Spi­rit? [Page 55] Possible and easie was it for the historians to haue expressed the gesture, but God did not appoint, it should bee necessary to his Church? Who otherwise (if it had pleased him) could haue dictated to his Amanuenses or Penmen, this passage of the gesture in the Communion, aswell as in other seruices so many times in the Bible. Yet he did not, he would not doe it.

Sect. 7 2. Dare you avow definitiuely, that in Homogene all actions storied together the gesture expressed of the for­mer, imports certainly the latter, vnexpressed. What say you to Nehemiah, 8. The Priests stood, vers 4. and the people stood in their place, vers. 5. 7, so there was reading in the Booke of the law distinctly, vers. 8. Can you now affirme that the Priests and people stood thus therefore, when immediately after, they read in the law day by day, vers. 18. It were (I thinke) no great wise­dome so to determine. Againe, all the congregation made boothes, and sate vnder the boothes, so as since the dayes of Joshua the Sonne of Nun, had not the chil­dren of Israel done so, and there was very great gladnes. Nehem. 8. 17. Are you able to say now, that the people out of doubt changed not the gesture of sitting, whiles they were vnder the booths, any time of the day, I meane vpon Homogeneall occasions; because it is said; at that feast of Tabernacles, they sate vnder the Boothes. Againe, Paul and the Christians sate downe, and Paul preached vnto the women, amongst whom Ly­dia. was one, who (as appeares) at that preaching was conuerted, and Baptized. Acts. 16. Vers. 13, 14, 15. Now I aske, if you can make good, that this Company sate still after this preaching was bro­ken off, also in the administration of Baptisme? Per­haps I could giue you many like examples, which I take to bee paralell, and pertinent (namely in the maine matter which I desire) to this our case of the two Suppers.

[Page 56] Sect. 8 3. Obserue the dealings of the Euangelists in relating the gesture of the Passeover. It is at three seuerall points, or sections of time mentioned. As at first sitting downe, Math. 26. 20. Then after washing of the disoiples feet sitting downe againe. John 13. 12. Lastly vpon occasi­on of Christs speech of Judas treason. Mark. 14. 18. [as they sate, and did eate, Iesus said; verily, I say vnto you, one of you, &c.] and yet it is not so much as once mentioned in the last Supper. If you say the Euangelists needed not to mention it in this. Much lesse (would one thinke) needed Marke to mention it in that, a third time. Let not the good providence of God bee sleighted in this passage, which worketh nothing in vaine.

Sect. 9 4. It weakens not a little your supposition, that there was a great intervalium, or distance of time betwixt the Passeover and the Supper. As may appeare, Ioh. 13. 31. &c. Where our Sauiour is said to preach an heavenly Sermon vnto the Disciples, before the in­stitution tooke place. And surely that which is writ­ten therefore is but an The Disp. sayes Christ made a Sermō betwixt the consecration of the Elemēts and distributi­on. Disp. Pag. 116. he meanes onely, because Christ sa [...]es. Take, eate, this is my body; which is giuen for ye, this doe in remēbrance of me. And yet therevpon hee sayes more to shew, what in­formation, in­struction, in­junction, prediction, Christ vsed in that Sermon. abridgement of that, which was spoken by Christ himselfe. And let the history of the Euangelists be considered in other places, who doe re­member many things, which at first sight one would thinke fell out together, which were yet farre sundred from one another in time; as exact comparing of them doth witnesse. And howbeit I will neuer deny that I thinke it likely our Sauiour, next after the Passeover de­seended to the institution of the Supper; yet I cannot bee certaine; that hee so immediatly descended thereto, as that he did not change his gesture in the meane while; except the Holy Ghost had expresly declared so much, and had not on the other hand expresly shewed a great space of time spent in the interim, which might oc­casion greater changes (though vnwritten) then of the gesture.

[Page 57] Sect. 10 5. And this is the lesse hard to conceiue, if wee ob­serue, that as there was a new action, so there might be new expressions taken in hand. For first, the Passeouer must bee vtterly finished; and Calu. in Mat. 26. no doubt solemne Thankes-giuing vsed after the manner, though it bee not mentioned. And then after, a new blessing of a new­ordinance was to begin. And this note wants not it vse, especially if wee doe minde that the bodyes of Christ and his company were satisfied with the legall Supper; and therefore, the latter banquet of Bread and Wine re­quired not a common and formall sitting, feeding, and filling, not being thereunto ordayned; but rather to be vsed by the beholding of the Elements, taking, and ta­sting of them, for commemoration, and representation of Christs death.

Sect. 11 6. I thinke I may say, that there was as much likely­hood of the Iewes standing at Passeouer from Exod. 12. 11. as of the Apostles sitting at the Communion. Yet learned men deny, that, that can be proued certainly, be­cause it is not exprest; therefore, why should there not be as much liberty in this case? Or if the gesture of the Passeouer was first standing, surely Christ who varied from the Old gesture in Yea in the very Passeouer there (some part I read of it) Christ is said to seemo not to sit. Luk. 22. Psal. 27. the same ordinance, might as well doe it (I suppose) in the celebration of a diuers. Or, if wee might admit the iudgement of some men, whom your selues doe Perth. As­sembl. pag. 36. Suruey, p. 184. mention, (which yet indeed is contrary to the plaine text) that Christ stood at the Passeoner, and afterwards sate downe at the Communi­on: then the matter were cleere enough, that the ge­sture was varied. But though I beleeue not, that Christ stood at Passeouer, because it cannot bee said without offering of violence to the text, yet the gesture of the last Supper might bee varyed; because, it may be said and thought without offering of any such violence. At least you see, it is no new conceit of mine, that the ge­sture might be changed in the Suppers.

[Page 58] Sect. 12 7. Lastly, because all the strength of your opinion that Christ sate at the Eucharisticall Supper, lyes couched within the narration of the Passeouer-gesture; it is worth your meditation to obserue, that the Holy Ghost sets it downe in the Passeouer, with no intent to instruct you in the supper. Doth not S^t. John make this to appeare? Hee mentions the gesture of the Passeouer as much as a­ny Euangelist; and yet speakes not so much as a word of the Communion it selfe. Is it likely now, that his intent was by expressing the gesture in the Passeouer, to notifie the gesture of the Communion? Againe, goe to S^t. Mathew, S^t. Marke, and S^t. Luke, they set downe the gesture in the Passeouer also, and then they come to the Communion, but then they omit our Sauiours rising from Table, euen as a thing which was not. I pray you they which say Christ sate at Passeouer, and so passe to the Cōmunion, is it their purpose to import the gesture of the Communion when they purposely omit how the gesture was so long changed betweene?

Sect. 13 All this which hath been said doth certainly declare the vncertainty of the gesture of Christ, and his Apostles at the last supper. Therefore I cannot but much wonder at our learned brethren, who haue diligently searched into these things, that they dare bee leaders of the people in this opinion, as vndoubted that Christ and his Apostles did sit; when the case is cleere enough, that they cannot tell. But my brethren will say perhaps, that I would in­sinuate that Christ kneeled, and then they will please to jest vpon me, as the Replyer Repl. partic. to B. Mort. pa. 36. doth. Fare fall Iohn of Rochester, who dares insinuate to his Reader, that for ought appeareth in the text, the Apostles might kneele. Truely, they may easier helpe themselues before the common people, or forestalled mindes by jesting, then by sound reason. I am not ashamed to say as much as the R [...]plyer fiouteth at, that whereas all the Euangelists doe of pur­pose, and as it were by common consent passe ouer the gesture in deepe silence, and that the same cannot bee [Page 59] determined by any supposall infallibly, which I doe know, it might bee eyther standing, or sitting, or knee­ling. The Apostles might as lawfully fall downe at this time, as it is no absurdity to say they worshipped Christ another time, when hee made himselfe knowne vnto them by breaking of bread. Luke, 24 30, 31. But I am farre from going about to proue they kneeled, onely my meaning is to shew, that no man by force of the story is able to disproue it. And so I say for the gesture of stan­ding; I will say no lesse for sitting (which I deeme most probable) and the Repliers charge of Pag. 34. audaciousnesse doth mooue me nothing at all. And because the Replier calls this audaciousnesse, I doe challenge him for Gods cause, and the instruction of many, who desire vpright­ly to learne; to bring vs foorth some demonstratiue eui­dence, if hee can tell what, that neuer heard of any to this houre, else hee must giue me leaue to tell him, that he is the more audacious in so penurious a case, to giue his tongue so much liberty. And so much for my first Para­graph, that it cannot bee infallibly shewed that Christ, and his Apostles sate in the Eucharisticall supper.

Sect. 14 Onely this I may adde, that if a word had bin vsed by the Euangelists to note our Sauiour and his Apostles ge­sture at the Eucharisticall supper, yet (so as it might haue beene declared,) their precise gesture might haue remai­ned notwithstanding still vncertaine. This is true that Scripture-speeches of gestures bee many times one put for another; or two named together for one manner of carriage. See Leuit. 18. 23. Where standing and lying downe bee confounded together. So be standing, and kneeling also, 2. Chron. 6. Salomon stood before the Altar, and spread forth his hands, Vers. 12. Vpon the scaffold hee stood, and kneeled downe vpon his knees, and spread forth his hands, Vers. 13. So Mary stood at Christs feet, whiles he sate vpon a bed at Supper, Luke, 7. 38. Yet it is not incredible that thē she was vpon her knees, or sitting vpon the outer side of the bed, specially if the bed (which [Page 60] is vncertaine) were lowe, (whatsoeuer some Perth. As­sembl. pag [...]8 say to the contrary) for besides kissing, and anointing of Christs feet, shee washed them with her teares, and wiped them with the haire of her head. So sitting in ashes, which is said of Tire, and Sidon (affirmed also of Iob. Iob, 2. 8. and Nineueh. Ion. 3. 6.) Calvin interprets to be no other then prostration or lying along; Verbum sedendi (saith Calu. in Luk 10. Psal. 13. hee) (and note it is sedendi, and not discumbendi; for if seden­di, then discumbendi much more.) Significat prostratos humi jacere, quod miseris ad luctum suum testandum conve­nit, sicuti ex compluribus Prophetarum locis patet. Also, when I Pag. 1 cap. 1. Sect. 9. alledge Dauids sitting before the Lord in pray­er, a reuerend Minister Mr. Nic. tels me, that was no sitting, but onely notes his presenting himselfe before the Lord. So if, sitting had beene mentioned at the Communion, I might say, it might bee vsed eyther for presenting, or set­ling themselues at the table; as wee say an Armie sits downe in such a place, that is, there it pitcheth and re­steth. Or else, for some other gesture of the same kinde, or like such a gesture as vnto which vsed more or lesse it was onely adioyned. But for my part I would not make the Scripture vncertaine, in speaking of gestures, otherwise then as we must expound it, Quoad fidem hi­storiae. And indeed I doe not need to expound what Christ and his Apostles sitting might meane, because they are not said to sit at all at the Communion, as I haue shewed in this Paragraph.

The second Paragraph.

Sect. 15 IN the next place, granting for the present, which you so much desire, that Christ and his Apostles sate at the Communion; yet is not the strictest of you, a follower of their example, in their gesture of sitting. Their sit­ting in the position of the parts of the body was as farre f [...]om your sitting as frō our kneeling. It was a very man­ner of lying along, which is vsed in those Easterne Coun­tries [Page 64] even vnto this day. Yet it pleaseth you to deter­mine that Manise. ch. 2 it was not a lying along, but a sitting, though leaningly. As if that leaning positure was not a kind of lying along; but the matter is not great whether you call it this or that; for the thing it selfe will appeare to him that well considereth, that there was more lying in it then sitting; though the Iewes called it sitting, as they were wont for the most part to call such gestures as they vsed when they were eating at Table. How­soeuer, to prooue they sate but somewhat leaningly, you reason in this manner, For else (say you) what vse could they haue of Tables, yea of Tables of some height from the ground? I answere, the height of their Tables doth not deny their lying along, so long as their beds were also of some height equall vnto them. Nay what if their beds were higher then their tables, sure then they might very well lye along. Let the Scotchmen speak what they haue read, and obserued. The beds (say Perth As­sembl. Pag. 38 they) of the rich and wealthy were so high, that is behooued them to ascend by steps; whereby appeares, if you will not call it lying along, it was much inclined to lying along. And I dare say, that the same gesture cal­led fitting, among them, when they were eating at tables, was called no lesse among them then lying, if it were vsed, and applyed to resting and sleeping; nay, it was called lying among them sometimes, when they were eating at tables. And for our parts we would call it lying without question in the vse and opinion of our country-language and gestures. Which will better appeare if we consider.

1 The Greek words which be vsed of the gesture of our Sauiour Christ, and his Apostles at the Passeouer. The first is, [...]. Math. 26. 20. Mark. 14. 18. The second is, [...], Luk. 22. 14. Ioh. 13. 12. Now [...]o passe the radicall signification thereof, (which yet [...] knowne to bee lying or falling downe) let vs see how these words be expounded in the new testament it selfe. [Page 62] And one speech, whereunto both words bee referred may suffice for this. One of the Disciples whom Iesus loued [was [...], Ioh. 13. 23. [...], Ioh. 21. 20.] in Iesusbosome. You cannot translate, hee sate in Iesus bosome. And in Iohn, 13. 25. the meaning is declared plainely by [ [...],] Iohn was [lying on] the breast of Iesus. And in seuerall for [...], there is an instance in Mark 5. 40. to shew its signification to bee some man­ner of lying, where is said, that Iesus entred in ( [...]) where the Damsell was lying. And there­is great likelihood shee sate nothing at all, (as wee call sitting) for she was then dead.

Sect. 17 2 See Amos 2. 8. They lay themselues downe vpon clothes layd to pledge by euerie Altar, and they drinke the wine of the condemned in the house of their God. That is, they eate and drinke at, and before their Altars, as they lye downe vpon beds pawned vnto them. So Chap. 6. 4. they lye vpon beds of I [...]orie, and stretch themselues vpon their couches, and eate the Lambes out of the flocke, and the calues out of the midst of the stall. And ver. 7. The banquet of them that stretched themselues shall bee remoued. I pray you looke vpon these places with an impartiall eye, per­haps you will obserue, that they were wont to say in those times, they lye at meate, as well as they sit at meate, though this latter be most vsed in Scripture.

Sect. 18 3 They vsed in their feasting to plucke their shooes off, before they lay downe; nay, it seemes in the Passeouer As for the law of eating with their shoes on their feet, Ex. 12. 11. that was only forthat Passe­ouer in Egypt which must be eaten in hast by the children of Israell, and as ready to depart. Christ, and his Apost les did so, as appeareth, Ioh. 13. 5. Now this was done to keepe their beds faire, which they laid their feet on, according to the fashion of those Coun­tries, so Calvin in Joh. 13.

Sect. 19 4 Their lying is punctually described to bee in this manner. The formost layd his feet along behind the b [...]cke of the second, and the second leaned into his bo­some; and so in that fashion round about the table subor­dinately. [Page 63] This to be so appeareth, first, by your owne Perth. As­sembl. pag. 38. confession full enough. Secondly, by the harmony of Calvin & Bez. in Ioh. 15. learned mens judgement. Thirdly, by the testimony of of Scriptures; Mary is sayd to stand at Christs fe [...]t be­hind him, as hee sate or lay vpon a bed at meate. Luks. 7. 38. Lastly; Reason helpeth also in this matter. For, Psal. 128. 3. Incircuitu mensae tuae. confidering the roundnes and circular winding of their tables and beds, and lying in one anothers bosome, it was cōmodious both for roome and ease to sit with their feet behinde the backs of their fellowes.

Sect. 20 5 I will adde what is said of the Iewes gesture in eating the Passeover, as your selues Perth. As­sembl. pag. 35. cite Scaliger producing it out of their rituals. The Iewes were wont to speake in this manner. Quam diversa haec nex a caeteris noctibus! quod in alijs noctibus semel tantum lavamus, in hac autem his. Quod in reliquis noctibus comedimus, sine, fermentum, sine Azimum, in hac autem omnino azima. Quod in reliquis no­ctibus vescimur oleribus omne genus, in hac autem intybis. Quod in reliquis noctibus tam edentes, quam bibentes vel se­demus, vel discumbimus, in hac autem omnes discumbimus. How farre different is this night from other nights? other nights wee wash onely once; but this night twice; other nights aswell eating, as drinking. we either sit [vpright] or sit [leaningly, or lying along] but this night, we all (onely) leane or lye alongby which words cleere that discubimus can note no lesse then a great mea­sure of leaning, or leaning in a manifest degree; being dif­ferenced from sedemus; and which they chose, as a di­stinct gesture, of purpose, yea of conscience it seemeth, and of greater fitnes to an holy ordinance; and of purpose, conscience, opinion of vnfitnes avoyded, and reiected the other.

Sect. 21 Out of the premises I affirme, that their gesture at Passe­over, was no other, then a kind of lying along. For what can it be else, I pray, laying ones head in anothers bo­some (which bosome also is scituated decliningly) and his feet againe laid out at length over the bed, and withall his [Page 64] body bearing or resting vpon one side in a matter, and not according as sitting hath its denomination with vs. And consequently I dare inferre and auouch that our Sa­viour Iesus Christ intended not that his, & his Apostles ex­ample in their Easterne country (discubitus) should be imi­tated of vs, or become to vs an example to rule our gesture.

Sect. 22 For first, hee knew and fore-knew the gestures of all countreyes, and times. Discubitus was proper to some countreyes, but an vpright sitting was and is com­mon to all countreyes, euen the Iewes themselues vsed it In Ioseph [...]s time. Perth: Assembl. Pag. 38. anciently altogether. And for later times, Scali­gers speech out of their rituals before sheweth; that in their feastes, or meales, they did vse sometime discum­bere, sometime to sit vpright. If therefore Christ would haue purposed an exemplary sitting, he would haue v­sed common sitting (which also the Iewes sometimes v­sed) and not a speciall gesture of some Countries.

Sect. 23 2 How could the gesture of Christ be a patterne of sitting, and not a patterne of lying along; if it must needes bee a patterne? It was nearer to lying along, then to vpright sitting; nay you cannot shewe, that it had any one point from the head to the foote of our for­mall sitting at all in it, the vpper part of their bodies was bended quite downe, their nether part lay out along, and the whole body rested vpon the whole, as in lying along, and not vpon some seuerall part, as in the gesture of sitting. So out of the names of Languages, not the matter it selfe, you frame an example of imitation, but where an exam­ple is visible, reason teacheth that the imitation of it may be judged by the eye.

Sect. 24 3 It is incredible that our Sauiour should giue such a gesture vnto vs for our patterne, which is justly estee­med Calvin in Ioh. 13. indecent amongst vs; nay which is worse at this time, then other gestures (as your selues determine) of our owne chusing. To what purpose is this wast of a patterne then? Nay, I suppose you would thinke it a sinne to vse the precise gesture of our Sauiour [Page 65] Christ, if you did throughly know it; verily such a patterne is little beholden to you: shall a counterfeit ad­umbration carry the praise away from the prototype? And if you were lawmakers you would not allow by act the precise gesture of Christ; that were but Perth ass. p 38. apish i­mitation as the Scotsmen teach; and against common sense as Disp. pag. 47 the disputer teacheth. Surely then why doe you talke of Christs example, the precise examplar­ship whereof your owne mouth, and action destroyeth.

Sect. 25 Fourthly, & lastly, yet for all this Christs gesture is an example still; but wherein lies the mystery of it? Is it to be so lowed as lying, or leaning? you say, no. Is it to be followed onely as a gesture? Simply, no; for then, [...]o nomine, kneeling would thrust in. Is it to be followed as the Iewes table-gesture? no simply; for then it should be precis [...]ly retained. Is it to be followed as a gestur [...] fit for divine worship, as the Iewes seemed to vse it, which would not [sedere] but [discumbere] in eating the Passe­over? No, no, no. Then kneeling runs in amaine: what then? Why, poore, this is all; Disp. pag. 47, 48. as a Prince is onely tyed to the equity of the lawes iudiciall, so are we tyed to imi­tate Christ out of regard to equity, not alwayes for outward forme, and circumstance. And what is that equity, I de­sire to know? I thinke they meane this, that as discubi­tus was a gesture vsed then at meate? so respectiuely such a gesture imitates it, which is vsed with vs in eating of meate. But first, if equity be all, then the gesture it self [...] is really void, as are the temporary judicialls. Se­condly, the equity of a table-gesture is not so great, as the equity of eating according to peace, eating for edifi­cation; which is the chaffe of a Country table-fashion to this wheat. Thirdly, by this learning, standing may be an imitation of sitting, & lying; & so mutually each of every one in some case. Yea I grant it may be so, but so our kneeling will also be an imitation of Christs sitting.

Sect. 26 Fourthly, you know there is no warrant for such a fancie-loose imitation: why should you not follow [Page 66] Christs example precisely in every point of the gesture, as much as you doe vnderstand it. You tell vs, we haue liberty to vse a table-gesture: but I heare you to say no­thing for proofe of taking this As for that of the Replyer, that this is, as if we should striue whether the bread and cup are to bee taken with two fingers or more (R pl. partic to Bp. Mort. pag. 35.) I answer, if necessity of i­mitation were vrged for the manner of the Apostles vsing their hands, then why should not the number and vse of their fingers be vrged also as necessary? but the truth is, that as taking with the hand is necessary, but it is not necessary which hand, or how many fingers we vse: so maine gesture is necessary, but it is not neces­sary which gesture, or what circumstances of the same gesture we vse. liberty. You alledge against vs: Be followers of Christ, and of good men. Well, and doe these commandements (extending as you say to the gesture) reach but to the one halfe of it? Shew (if you can) why ye are not commanded to follow the [...] in ipsissimo discubitu? You cannot shew it but vpon our grounds, and destroying the whole force of building vpon his example. What? can a Countrey fashion picke the locke of a good example, and let the gesture loose out of Christs teather? then why should not all goe (I pray) as w [...]ll as any part? doe not pull a p [...]ore gesture in peeces, let the head haue his appurtenances. But me­thinks you might plainly ee, that by this shift of a Coun­trey [...]a [...]hion, overweighing Christs example, you make his ge [...]ture but a poore circumstance.

Sect. 27 The short of all this, you doe not stand or sit vpright, because you haue Christs example, for it is manifest you haue it not, but because you haue private reasons of your owne, which doe allow the gestures you vse not onely good, but also for the present better to you then the gesture of Christ himselfe, so you tosse and tumble Christs sacred name (blessed for ever) vp and downe, and fill the [...]i [...]e with the noyse of his example, when in proofe you be as fa [...]re from following of it, as we: you vse gestures, which you deeme meete to receiue meate in­when you sit or stand: and so doe we when we kneele, Onely you deeme gestures meete, which are daily ge­stures at me [...]te, and we deeme that good also in this spi­rituall fea [...]t, which differeth from the ordinary. This is agoodly issue: but this matter i [...] all gone already into [Page 67] the argument of a table gesture. So according to the te­nour of this Paragraph, it appeareth, that never a man in England doth imitate the precise example of Christ in the gesture of the Supper, neither was it his meaning to propose vnto vs, such his gesture, for an example to rule the Sacramentall gesture vnto posterity.

The third and last Paragraph.

Sect. 28 IN the last place granting for the present, that our Sa­viour Christ sate, even as you doe, and that at the Eu­charisticall Supper; yet was it not the purpose and will of Christ, that we should make his example therein a [...] e­verlasting rule; so as in the act of receiving the sacra­mentall bread and wine, we should be bound to follow him and his Apostles in their bodily gesture. This I will prooue by and by; onely first I will prepare the way by the considerations following.

Sect. 29 First, then the actions of good men mentioned in Scripture are of two sorts. First, some are morall and ne­cessary, were such even to them. Secondly, some circum­stantiall and mutable, which they might haue done, or left vndone vpon occasion. Now that cannot in it selfe be necessary vnto vs, that was not necessary to them in the same case; for a good mans example cannot make a mutable thing to become vnchangeable, and necessary; for this would draw on a contradiction with it, that the same thing may be mutable and immutable, being di­versly commended by good examples vnto vs: or a con­trariety, when two men by practising of the same service with incompatible circumstances, doe affront one the other, by contrary determinations, which yet (like the M [...]des and Persians lawes) may not be altered. If there­fore the gesture was ever a mutable ceremony in Gods service in generall; and sitting in the Supper I mean not in regard of Christs sove­raignty, but vpon common reason. muta­ble vnto Christ, and his Apostles; then behold it re­maines [Page 68] still a mutable ceremony even to this day, they leaving it no otherwise vnto vs, but as they found it. Let no man be so vaine, to object here the Sacraments which Christ instituted, for they be necessaries, and sub­stantialls; the gesture is onely a necessary meane in its kind, but variously determinable, for the fitting celebra­tion of them.

Sect. 30 Secondly, Christs binding pleasure cannot possibly be fetcht from the historicall relation of his vsing a variable gesture but one time; nay when it is vsed many times in one gesture, it bindeth not; as Christ sate daily Matth. 26. 55. teaching, yet the Preacher is not bound to sit in prea­ching at any time, by Christs manner of preaching; much lesse are we bound, when it is storyed of Christ, that he sate at Supper but once. If he had continued vp­on earth to receiue this Sacrament among his Disciples, by it selfe, without the conjunction of any other meale, it is hard to say then, what gesture he might haue vsed: he might haue kneeled, or stood, as well as sate, for ought I know. No other gesture is storyed but sitting, (supposing that in this Paragraph) because our Saviour received the Sacrament no other time but once. Verily if sitting were never so variable, no other maine ge­sture could be practised with it at the same time. He must either stand, or sit, or kneele, or lye downe. You will confesse, in processe of time he might haue taught his Apostles and others to stand, and I will say likewise, he might haue taught them to kneele. Well, this is all, I would propose to your thoughes, that our Saviour in­stituting the Sacrament could vse but one gesture that time, but this excludes not other gestures, which had beene mutually and interchangeably variable from the beginning. And marke this well, that no doubt our Sa­viour would haue put a note of immutability vpon his gesture, if he meane to put vpon vs the strict imitation of it; considering no gesture was obligatory in the Church by example, nay I say, not so much as (abso­lutely) [Page 69] by commandement from the creation of the world, that is for the space of 4000 yeares (plus minus) together.

Sect. 31 Thirdly, a good example is followed two wayes (I learned the distinction from you:) 1. according to the outward forme. 2. according to the mysticall meaning or spirituall instruction of it. So a translatour followes his authour, if he keepe his true meaning, though he doe not servily bind himselfe to his words. Now the meaning of mutable circumstances is fetched from the equity of them. Therefore I swerue not from Christs ex­ample even in the gesture of kneeling, if kneeling hold proportion with the equity of his sitting. Thus you please to Manuscrip. ch. 2. plead for your standing; that the Church in vsing it, doth not swerue from the example of Christ & his Apostles: for though it be not the same gesture (you say) that they vsed, yet it is well knowne to be of the same kind theirs was [that is] for equity; and that equity, (as I noted before) is fitnesse to vse a table-gesture.] But then if our equity be as good as yours (which must be tryed in it owne place) you will take vs into your company of not swerving from the ex­ample of Christ, and his Apostles. And so kneeling is not a contrarying of their practise (as you Ibid. accuse) but a conformity vnto it.

Sect. 32 Fourthly, In the presence of the Lord I doe protest, and witnesse vnto the would by these presents, that I do hould the gesture of our Saviour Christ and his Apost­les (whatsoeuer it was) yea the very gesture of sitting in it selfe lawfull, and commendable. Shall I argue the ge­sture of our Lord and his Disciples of sinne by kneeling? God forbid. So I should charge vpon my conscience the guilt of accusing their innocency. But doth one vari­able circumstance argue another of sinne? doe you ar­gue the Apostles of sinne, by your standing? Yea but (you say) there is speciall cause, why you charge▪ v [...] of arguing Christs doing of sinne, because Ibid. kneeling is [Page 70] enjoyned for the most part vpon this ground, that the Sa­cramēt should not be profaned, & could not else be recei­ved reverently. I answer, vpon what ground the gesture is enjoyned in this Church, I will shew In the third part of this Treatise. in due time (God willing;) but it seemes you confesse that kneeling it selfe simply argues not Christs sitting of sin, (that is comfor [...] enough in this place) onely you find fault w [...]th the ill tenour of their injunction, which presse it vpon you. I will interprete their injunction here in a word, as the place requireth, which you cannot reasona­bly gainsay. Kneeling is not enjoyned, lest the S [...]crament should be profaned by sitting; but lest it should be pro­faned by the profane and weake hearts of men in the gesture of fi [...]ing. The profanation lyes not simply in the gesture, (which in it selfe is lawfull & innocent,) but in evill hearts, that accidentally might abuse it. For assu­redly many people in the Church would be too subject to take from thence occasion to sleight sacred ordinances, whereof was yet no danger in our Saviour, and his inspi­red Apostles. And as they which kneele may receiue too reverently, not because they kneele, but because their minds be superstitious and vaine: so they which sit may receiue too vnreverently, not because they sit, but be­cause their minds are not sufficiently possest with Gods feare, in his holy worship. Well, let this touch now suf­fice: so you may be pleased to see, that we be farre from condemning the doing of our Lord Iesus Christ.

Sect. 33 Nay for any selfe I haue appealed to the Lord I [...]sus himselfe, that I haue meant no more, but to defend that liberty which himselfe hath granted vnto his people, and not to draw them off (God forbid) from the required i­mitation of his example. [oh thou whom my soule lo­veth, grant wisdome to discerne, and grace to tread in those happy paths, which thy blessed foursteps haue chalked ou [...] before vs to walke in: Amen sw [...]te Lord Iesus.]

Arguments of our brethren pressing the imita­tion of Christs gesture.

Sect. 34 HAving thus prepared our way, it seemes to me the best order to bring in first such arguments as are alledged, to prooue our imitation of Christs gesture necessary in the act of recei­ving; and then to annexe such reasons on the other part, as may seeme effectuall to sway the judgement according to the proposition and intent of this Paragraph.

Sect. 35 Arg. 1. Abridg. pag. 56. Perth. Assem. pag. 37. Manuscrip. ch. 2. We are bound to imitate Christ and the com­mended example of his Apostles in all things, wherein it is not evident that they had speciall reasons mooving them thereto, which doe not concerne vs. Prov. 2. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 14. 33. Ephes. 5. 1. Phil. 3. 17. 1 Thess. 1. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 7. 2 Tim 3. 14. But no speciall reason can be ima­gined, why they should administer and receive the Sacrament sitting, rather then we, or why is should be decent and fit for vs to receiue it kneeling, rather then for them. I giue ye three principall answers: first, your proposition or rule is vaine: for inasmuch as you cannot deny, but some things be mo [...]alls and essentialls, some againe be circumstantialls and mutables, and that in those we be bound simply to imitate good examples, it followeth that in respect of them your caution is extremely superfluous.

Sect. 36 Then for circumstantialls and mutables, it is false and frivolous. For, first, generall reason of natures allow­ance sufficiently justifies many naturall circumstances; and generall reason of order, peace, edification, just fie sufficiently other convenient appendices to Gods wor­ship: [now if you meant these for speciall reasons, then your caution carries plaine absurdity in it, as if the reasons of nature, order, peace, edification, might not concerne vs.]

[Page 72] Sect. 37 Secondly, what speake you of speciall reason, when [...]s there is never a man vnder heaven can alwayes haue in mind all circumstances of his businesse? and this is true of such speciall things in Gods worship as fall out but occasionally. But how shall you doe for speciall reason in gesture of prayer, when one good example commends standing, another good example commends kneeling in equall case? Is it not impossible to doe the o [...]e, and leaue the other, and both vpon speciall reason? Againe, so [...]etimes you stand at table, before you dine or sup, and giue thankes; sometimes you sit downe first, and then craue a blessing. Our Saviour Christ alwayes caused the people and company to sit downe before he blessed the bread, Mat. 14. 19. 15. 35, 36. 26. 26. Luke. 24. 30. I aske you therefore what speciall reason you haue, which mooues you to stand in blessing? If you say, we stand for reverence-sake, then must not your speciall reason sway at all times vpon like convenience? But then you be worse, for if your speciall reason be for reverence in prayer, then also you may kneele; here I know not what you will say for leaving Christs example either without speciall reason, or such a speciall reason as holds you bound equally to two gestures; or lastly, such a speciall reason, as shall not bind to either, but you will forsake your speciall reason at your owne pleasure.

Sect. 38 Thirdly, But truely I doe not see, in matters of cir­cumstance, that you doe meane (if your meaning be boulted) any thing by speciall reason, but some particu­lar convenience. For thus the disputer speaketh: Disp. pag. 43. It is an offence to refuse the following of Christ, and his Apo­stles, when we may conveniently doe it, and with good allow­ance from all circumstance. If this be all your speciall rea­son, verely your caution (whereby you backe so impor­tants proposition, whereabout you make so great a doe) will prooue to very little purpose. And thus you haue one principall answer.

Sect. 39 Secondly, I answere, that there is never a one of your [Page 73] proofes, which hath any force to bind vs to the imitation of Christ; and good mens gesture: let them be conside­red apart. Prov. 2. 20. Take heede of the whore, that thou maist walke in the way of good men. Ephes. 5. 1. Be yee kind, tender hearted, forgiving one mother, as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you; bee yee therefore followers of God as deare children. (I hope you will follow God in no gestures.) 1 Thess. 1. 6. Yee became followers of vs, and of the Lord, having received the word with much affliction, &c. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 7. Withdraw your selues from euery one that walketh dis­orderly, and not after the tradition, which yee receiued of vs; for you know how you ought to follow vs, for we behaved not our selves disorderly amongst you. All these Scriptures are speci­ally restreined to moral matters. So 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be followers of me, as I am of Christ; that is in the ordinances which I haue delivered vnto you: vers. 2. So Phil. 3. 17. Brethren be fol­lowers together of me, that is walking with not by the same rule: vers. 16. So 2 Tim. 3. 14. Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; that is in all divine truthes of Scripture, notwithstan­ding persecutions; notwithstanding false [...], and he­resies: (compare the whole Chapter together.) As for 1 Cor. 11. 16. 14 33. they make against you, and not for you: for of covering or vncovering the head in holy as­semblies of the Prophets; speaking orderly, one by one; the Apostle alledgeth the custome vsed in the Churches of God, against men contentious in such things: If you say these orders are prooved by the Apostle naturall, and necessary; and then he presseth the Chruches example; I am content: and so these two places are just like their fellowes before. Thus your proofes meddle not with the authority of See backe p. 1 ch 2 sect. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. examples for matter of gesture, but one­ly in things which the word shewes to be necessary, if the examples had not beene mentioned. And as for your caution, they doe not giue the least glaunce vnto [...]t, be­cause the matters they speake of, shall ever concerne vs, as well as the Apostles.

[Page 74] Sect. 40 Thirdly, let your proposition passe this once; I deny your assumption, because we can alledge speciall reason, why the Apostles sate, and speciall reason why wee doe not sit. Of the former this reason is plaine, that their ge­sture in the Eucharisticall Supper was but occasionall from the Passeover; like as it was Luke 24. 30. as Iesus sate at meate, with them, hee tooke▪ bread, &c. Of the latter we haue special reason in a Circumstance, or else I know not what speciall reason meaneth: As, first, the mindes of m [...]n are prophanelier given now, then the mindes of the Apostles were. Secondly, to vs at this time, this is speciall reason, that sitting hath beene disu­sed in our Church, and kneeling vsed beyond, or almost beyond mans remembrance. Thirdly, the authority of the Magistrate is a speciall reason in a circumstance, which is variable in Gods worship. Fourthly, it is a speciall rea­son that resistance of kneeling makes such a wonderfull stirre amongst vs, to the hindrance of publike men of their Ministers, and private men of the sweet liberty of the Communion. Lastly, what speciall reason you are a­ble to alledge, why the Apostles sate covered in recei­ving, and we fit b [...]re; I intreate you to giue it leaue to be referred hither if it will be. Thus much for the first, and principall argument.

Sect. 41 Arg. 2. Perth. ass. p. 44. Whatsoever action is inclosed within the insti­tution may not lawfully be broken. Pag. 45. Institution is [...]n stead of a command, wherein nothing should be added nothing dimi­nished, nothing altered, in matter, forme, or order, because the institution is the rule, whereby to reforme abuses; and Pag. 39. Christs example seconded with the practise of the Apo­stles is equivalent to a precept of institution. I answer, This obiection (pag. 45.) speakes vpon the Institution recited by Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 23. and of that affirmeth; no­thing should be added, nothing diminished, nothing al­tered, &c. And yet S. Paul sayes not one word of the ge­stures. And I also largely, and evidently (I hope) prooue afterward in this chapter, that the institution cannot [Page 75] comprehend the gesture. If therefore [inclosed within the institution] you meane euery action vsed in the Sup­per when it was instituted; then it is false that euery such action was therefore instituted, because it was vsed in See my reasons at the latter end of this cha. against the ne­cessity of imi­tating Christs example in the gesture. the instituted Supper: then walking, standing, vncove­ring of the head, and sundry like, be altogether vnlaw­full, as being breaches of the institution; nay then there would be left no [...]ot of liberty in any circumstance what­soever; where you say, that Christ and the Apostles ex­ample was equivalent to a precept, it is a palpable vn­truth: No example is equivalent to a precept in a variable point, ex [...]ept it were of a morall, and vnchangeable mat­ter; at the first institution of all Sacraments, there must haue beene some gesture vsed, yet you will not say sure­ly, that the first example thereof was equivalent to a pre­cept of institution. But let the Institution in the story be searched, and behold you shall finde no gesture inclo­sed within the Institution according to the first para­graph, and so you cannot reforme the abuse of the ge­sture by the historicall tenour of the institution. Finally, he that saies much, and doth not establish by proofe any part of it, shall seeme to say something to himselfe and his owne schollers; but you might haue left this vsur­pation to our masters of Paris, or some other magnifi­coes, that haue an ancient charter for saying, and proo­uing nothing.

Sect. 42 Arg. 3. Survey pag. 18. Our Sauiour sate of purpose. Answer, if we grant, he sate; we distinguish of sitting of purpose; for either he sate of purpose, that is voluntarily; or hee sate of purpose, that is exemplarily. Sure in the former sense, there is no circumstance, but a man may vse it of purpose. So our Sauiour sate downe of purpose, when hee did preach: but that he vsed his sitting to be exemplary, you can say nothing to prooue, neither must we stumble at the Euangelists setting downe the gesture of the Passeo­ver, as saying they set it downe of purpose, for (beside that I might say they omitted the gesture then in the [Page 76] Communion of purpose) it is well knowne that the Evangelists, as all Historians, doe vsually describe ever and anon many confessed circumstances.

Sect. 43 Arg. 4. Abridg. p. 56. We haue no example for receiuing of any Sacrament in all the Scripture, in the gesture of kneeling.

Ans. Will you reason in matters of sact, negatiuely from Scripture, specially about a mutable circumstance? Againe, suppose there had never beene example yet real­ly given, so that none could bee set downe, yet might kneeling be vied in the Sacrament, so long as the rule doth allow it. There is no example for a chilce to bee baptized; there is no example for a prayer before and af­ter the Sermon; and these be greater matters then the gesture. Lastly, there is no example of gesture in all the Sacraments of the holy Scripture at all, but one Mat 26, 20. [discum­bebat] at our Saviours Passeover; and therefore this ex­ception wants teeth.

Sect. 44 Arg. 5. Disp pag. 43. &c. It is vnlawfull to leaue Christs imitable ge­sture, and in li [...]u thereof to obserue a worse. Ans. 1. This proposition is false, partly in variable circumstances, part­ly when (in comparison) the worsenesse stands not, in a respect which is sinfull, but which is accidentally, in con­venient: But the disputer for got standing at Sacrament, that it is confessed to be worse then sitting.

Sect. 45 Secondly, I deny Mr. Disputer that kneeling to you, and me, is worse then sitting to you and me, Confideratis confiderandis. To that which you say for preferring of a table-gesture, before a personall worship, I answer (besides that it falls into the argument of a Capable-gesture, as a great part of your disputing discourse doth, and that if you prefer a table-gesture, because of the civill custome of eating) you preferre it vnlawfully: this is to be speci­ally minded, that a table-gesture in divine worship and a worship-gesture be all one: as I haue prooved and you haue confessed Chap. 1. before: therefore you oppose them a­gainst another, against reason. Certes, you can call our Sauiours sitting at table (supposing it such) no more a ta­ble-gesture, [Page 77] then a worship-gesture: for the gesture is to be esteemed according to the businesse, whereunto it is applyed: at least it was a worship-gesture in the act of receiving, as much as in the act of blessing, giving of thanks, and singing of Psalmes; for you must obserue that Christ passed not from divine worship to an earthly businesse, but onely from one part of divine worship vn­to another. If you say, that this is but worshipping in a generall sense, and so still kneeling which is adoration is worse then it; you trifle in a serious businesse: for the betternesse and precedence of gestures depends for the most part vpon circumstances, that may be better to vs which was not to the Apostles? Besid [...]s, if that which is not alwayes the best gesture, be sometime vsed, it is not therefore impious, but inconvenient. In a word so long as God allowe, kneeling in the Sacrament (though it be not alwayes the better gesture) [...]t is sufficient for vs. Neither doe we therefore condemn Christs doing in the meane time, but onely vary that which by his owne di­rection hath beene in all ages, and times lawfully varia­ble. Against this the Disputer onely tells vs of the second commandement, and that God is the onely Lawgiver in his Church, both which (rightly declared) make that good, which even I say. But for such generall proofes so childishly applyed. I referre you to the answere of the generall argument, Pag. 2. Chap▪ 1. Sect. 2.

Sect. 46 Arg. 6. Abridg. pag. 56. vrged in the Repl partic. to Bp. Morton, pag. 44. It is grosse hypocrisie for vs to pretend more holinesse, reverence, and divotion, in receiving of the Sacra­ment, then was in Christ and his Apostles. I answere, first, we acknowledge (I thinke I may speake in the names of all godly men that kneele at Sacrament throughout the Kingdome) that we be farre short in all personall quali­fications or actuall performance, (not to mention our Lord) even of the inspired Apostles.

Sect. 47 Secondly, as we haue it not▪ so we pretend it not by the gesture of kneeling, more then in many things you may be charged as well as we. Why doe you kneele [Page 78] downe in long prayers before and after Sermons, and Sa­craments? are you more holy and devout then the Apo­stles were? why doe you giue thankes after meate in or­dinary meales besides the blessing of the table? are you more thankefull, and devout, then Christ, and his Apo­stles were? why doe you receiue vncovered? and you Repl. partie. pag. 70. say you doe it for reverence sake; and what are you more reverent and devout then the Apostles were?

Sect. 48 Thirdly, difference may fall betwixt vs and holy men in three respects: first, in the measure of substantialls: secondly, in circumstantiall manner: thirdly, in some particular intention and end of either. For the first, one good man may pray long [...]r, or shorter then another; and so of other parts of Gods worship; for what bond is there of the precise measure? For the second, David and Elijah sate in prayer, others fell downe vpon their face: you will stand, or sit in table-blessing; and why may you not also kneele, if you be alone? for what ab­solute bond of the manner is thereof? For the third, one man may haue some reserved and peculiar end to him­selfe in holy worship, which another hath not; inward, in respect of particular disposition of heart, through the apprehension of some mercy received, some want vnsup­plyed, some lust vnmortified; and outward, for edifica­tion of others, in regard of their persons; in regard also of times, and places; and other circumstances occur­ring. Doe you looke for an harmony of the Apostles themselues in these things? verily you shall not finde it. It is enough, that we all consent in the substantialls, which are expressely manifested: as for measure, and outward manner, and some particular end, which to some man specially occurreth, you shall be forced to generall rules in plaine despight of you: now to apply this, the difference of circumstances is occasioned either from the state of the soule, (which like a seale maketh (as it will) impression vpon our bodies;) or from the state of the Church whereof we be members; the Cot. 11. v. 14. custome where­of [Page 79] hath not a little force to draw vs to the conformitie of it. For like as our Sauiour and his Apostles framed themselues to the fashion of the Iewes, so we doe frame our gesture to the custome of this Church, wherein god­ly men led the way vnto vs before we were borne. And are we more holy, reuerent, and devout then they were therefore? By no meanes, no more then you may set all Gods Saints in Scripture together by the eares, by odi­ous comparisons for diuers vsing of bodily gestures in holy ordinances. It is not necessary that the holines, reverence, and devotion of the heart be alwayes a like declared.

Sect. 49 Fourthly. When you say we pretend more holines, &c. then the Apostles had, doe you meane, we intend to pretend so, or the gesture of kneeling onely (ipso fa­cto) so pretendeth? The former (I suppose) you will not take to; you will be so good as to leaue vs to the gracious judgement of Christ himselfe; else we might justly thinke, you see and complaine of our hypocrisie; as Diogenes did the pride of Plato; fastum fastu; or rather that our innocency (like a wall) would beate backe this ball of stande [...] vpon them, which doe band it against vs. If you should accuse vs of hypocrisie, and want of inward truth in the vse of this gesture, your accusation would not touch the cause; and yet for our persons we neede not be much dismayed, being charged by them which cannot looke farre into a millstone. As for kneeling it selfe to pretend more holinesse &c. then the Apostles had, I vnderstand not well what it might meane; the gesture it selfe is simple, and stands not in comparison. If you meane that others take offence, who can compare gestures together, (howbeit your assertion will not well admit of this commentary) then doe you speake to your owne disgrace: for as none doe thinke there is o­ [...]entation thereby, but such as doe refuse, to vse it, so it is strange, that their construction in this case can fasten grosse hypocrisie vpon vs. But what if you meane, that [Page 80] kneeling is a devised gesture besides the gesture of Christ, and so is a Pharisaicall will-worship? If you doe so meane, then your answer is to be had in its owne Chap. 1. place. I will not trifle with you about the word [grosse] which Divines are wont to contradistinguish to [for­mall] but take, that you vnderstand a grosse degree in formall hypocrisie: but whether you meane grosse or for­mall I hope my former answer will suffice.

Sect. 50 Arg. 7. (or rather amplification of the former) (i)if ever kneeling had beene fit in the act of receiving, then verely it had beene such to the Apostles. How so? First, Abridg p 56. Manuscrip. ch. 2. be­cause Christ himselfe was present in person, when they recei­ved: and secondly, Manuscrip. onely. because kneeling was not thou pol­luted with idolatry as it hath beene since. I will make you a threefold answer. First, If I take vnto it, that kneeling was fit in it selfe to the Apostles, it will be my gaine and your losse in the Controversie: for what if I borrow these helpes of you, and transferre them over to my first Paragraph, to shew it is no ridiculous thing to say, that the Apostles might kneele.

Sect. 51 Secondly, if they did not kneele, it was not because kneeling was in it selfe vnfit for them, but because our Saviour preferred another gesture before it at that time; perhaps that he might conforme himselfe and his Apo­stles to the Church of the Iewes in the gesture of the Pass­over: for the custome of the Iewes did not seldome sway with him, and them, even in changeable circumstances: as in closing the booke, and giving it to the minister ac­cording as they say it was the manner of the Scribes, when they had read their text, Luke 4. 20. Sitting to teach, Mat. 23. 21. putting off their shooes afore they went to eat meate, as the Iewes manner was, hauing a sop in the Passeover, and many more.

Sect. 52 Thirdly, haue you such an opinion of your two con­siderations, that you thinke it impossible, that any thing can make the gesture of kneeling so convenient to vs, as it was to the Apostles? Truely I see no reason of any such [Page 81] opinion of them; nay I am of opinion, that kneeling may be much more convenient to vs, then it was to the Apostles notwistanding them. And let best reason de­termine in the consideration of them distinctly.

Sect. 53 First, you say the Apostles received in Christs pre­sence, but whether is it to bee thought in the point of worshipping, that there is greater respect to bee had to Christs presence in humility, or to his presence in glory? especially if you consider; that Christ made himselfe fa­miliar vpon earth with his Apostles, he lived like a man, and a companion of men, yea he was a servant to men, whiles he dwelt amongst them; and in all ordinary fel­lowship hee was pleased from time to time to converse with his Apostles. It was the purpose of his incarnati­on Mat. 20. 28. not to be ministred vnto but to minister. And the Apostle speaketh plainely, Phil. 2. 7. hee made himselfe of no reputation, tooke vpon him the forme of a servant, the fashion of a man, and humbled himselfe, &c. Vers. 9. 10. wherefore (now) God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name aboue euery name, that all knees should bow vnto him, whereby is shewed most evidently, that to proue adoration to be done vnto him, his pre­sence in the flesh hath no such force of concluding a [...] hath his glorious presence. Much lesse it is so much as probable, that that should be preferred.

Sect. 54 As for that place which the Replyer Reply parties to B Mort, sect. 14. abuseth Heb. 1. 6. when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the Angels of God worship him, there is not a letter in it, which advantageth his de­fence of the Abridgement; for either the worship is to be referred to his See Mr. [...]. glorification, (for you may not ex­pound, when the first begotten comes into the world, then let the Angells worship: but then he saith, let the Angells worship:) or else to the time of his being vpon earth; and so as the Angells be spirituall, so they should worship Christ in the contemplation of his invisible ex­cellency: and if you could affirme vpon good ground, [Page 82] that the Angells were to worship his invisible body vp­on earth, yet you cannot reason from Angells to men: because whereas he was revealed vnto the Angells, yet to men he was not, he would not be; no nor to his dea­rest Apostles; rather serving them, during his abode vp­on earth, then expecting to be served and worshipped by any of them: but now his body is invested with all honour, and now he commands all creatures to bow vn­to him, and worship him.

Sect. 55 If you object (as Perth. Assemb. pag. 37. you doe) that in the dayes of his flesh they were wont to fall downe before him and wor­ship him. I answere, first, you say Ibid. your selues it was but vpon extraordinary occasions; that is, when some miracle was either wrought or sought; as appeares by all your places quoted: Matth. 8. 2. 9. 18. 14. 33. 20. 20. Ioh. 9. 38. Now there was no such matter either wrought or sought in the Lords Supper: and it is questionable also whether the worship which they performed was di­vine or civill. Secondly, this is vndoubtedly certaine, that he was never worshipped in any solemne worship or publike ordinance, when he dwelt vpon earth, as a common object of joynt adoration, that the holy Scrip­ture mentioneth. Thirdly, nay his Disciples, that were as his servants and followers, never so much as kneeled downe to him in prayer, whiles he remained aliue: they worshipped him, confessing him to be the Sonne of God, when they were astonished at a miracle, Matth. 14. 33. So Simon Peter fell downe at Iesus knees, being astonish­ed at the draught of fishes, which they had taken, Luke. 5. 8, 9. But they never in their liues (for ought wee can tell) fell downe or kneeled vnto Christ in their ordina­ry prayers: you will shew now the difference betwixt these two sequells if you can: if ever any should haue kneeled to Christ, in the act of receiving, then surely the Apostles should; for they received in Christs pre­sence: (this is yours:) if ever any should haue kneeled to Christ in the act of praying, then surely the Apostles [Page 83] should, for they they prayed full oft in his presence: (this is ours:) if therefore though they kneeled not vnto Christ in prayer, you will say, yet we may kneele vnto Christ in prayer: so though they kneeled not vnto Christ in receiving, we will say, yet we may kneele to Christ in receiving. Thus I doe assert, that there is farre greater reason for vs to kneele in the act of receiving, then was for the Apostles, they having onely Christs pre­sence of humility, we his presence of glory; not to trou­ble you with other disparisons in this place.

Sect. 56 Secondly, (you say) kneeling was not then polluted with i­dolatry, as it hath beene since; you meane with the Popish artolatry, or bread-worship. I answere, first, it is vntrue, that kneeling at Sacrament (qua tale) can be polluted as you say, a naturall gesture which God in it selfe allowes in his worship is incapable of pollution; and can be de­filed no more then sitting, standing, and kneeling, in o­ther cases, which haue beene abused to idolatrous vse, shamefully and villanously from the beginning of the world: if you regest, that kneeling hath beene polluted even in this same Sacrament by idolatours, which makes it worse: I answere, first, that it is no worse to you, which hould the Papists Sacrament of the Altar no Sacrament of Christ, but a carnall device or nul [...]ity: the worship of the popish idoll is no more (in your opinion) to your Sa­crament, (setting aside the vsurpation of names) then the sacrifices of Bacchus. Secondly, let it be that this i­dolatry is worse to your case, because the Popish Sacra­ment is esteemed to be the true Eucharist; yet shall our kneeling be no more defiled thereby, then the sitting which the Pope hath a priviledge to vse at the Sacrament of the Altar, doth defile your gesture of sitting. (But this matter belongs to See the third part of this Treatise. another place to be opened more accurately.) This is my first answer then that idolatours are in a damnable case, which turne their eyes or hands or knees or feete &c. [...]o any idolatrous service; but there is no gesture of these parts defiled vnto godly men, from [Page 84] whom the idolatry is removed: what? shall we not lift vp our hands or eyes, smite vpon our breasts, kneele vpon our knees in Gods true worship, because the Papists did so in false worship? farre be this learning from me and you too.

Sect. 57 Secondly, I answere, take it you for graunted, that the gesture is polluted with the Popish bread-worship, did the Apostles foresee this, or did they not? if you say they did foresee the bread-worship, and so they gaue example of a gesture against kneeling of purpose; then the edge of your poore reason is quite gone; for they foreseeing so much, you cannot say, that if ever kneeling was fit for any, it was fit for them, but rather just contrary way: es­pecially when [...]s their kneeling would carry authority with it, whereby the wicked might haue helped bread-worship sooner into beleefe and practise, in the dayes, when Antichristianisme was a growing. If you say they did not foresee the bread-worship, then all advantage of comparing them and vs together, in respect of that Po­pish bread-worship, is vtterly taken away; for the ge­sture which they vsed, they did not intend for a con­fession against the gesture of bread-worship to come. In vaine doe you propose their example to condemne vs at this day, except you could make appeare, that they would haue refused kneeling, because of that bread-worship, if they had beene acquainted with it: but since they were not, whatsoever gesture they vsed, the respect of idola­tours gesture had not the least stroke in the world for the disposing of it: so that as the case standeth, no more can be gathered from their practise, but this, that where all gestures were cleere and free vnto them, they vsed onely that gesture as most fitt (aboue other respects of fitnesse) whereby they might conforme themselues to the Church of Israell. But suppose they might kneele better than we, in one onely respect, because they knew not of the Popish bread-worship; sure we may kneele better then they againe in many maine respects, as the long custome [Page 85] of the Church since the reformation, the command of a Christian King in a variable circumstance, and lastly in Mr. Sprints case, which is indeede a case of wonderfull importance God knoweth. So much for answer to the arguments, pressing the example of Christ and his Apo­stles.

Grounds whereby it may appeare, that the imita­tion of Christs gesture is not necessary.

Sect. 58 NOw I will giue some reason to satisfie the consci­ence (as I perswade my selfe) that it is not the will of Christ, that we should imitate him in the bodily gesture. And first I lay downe this distinction againe, which the Replyer Repl. partic to B. Mort. p. 36. saith, he alloweth, that there were some acts of Christ in the Sacrament essentiall, some acciden­tall: now that the gesture of Christ which he vsed was but accidentall, and so variable, and by no meanes bind­ing to imitation, I declare in this manner.

The gesture is to be considered, as it respecteth the pre­ceding history of the Passeover, as it respecteth the insti­tution; as it respecteth other things in the Sacrament; lastly, as it respecteth all other Ecclesiasticall ordinances.

Sect. 59 First, as it respecteth the precedent history of the Passe­over, who doth not see (if it continued the same gesture) that it was occasion all from the Passeover? sure the speech of the Met. 26. 26. Mark. 14. [...]. Evangelists, [as they were eating Iesus tooke bread, &c.] if it shew any thing in the world, as touching the connexion, (for the gesture as you say;) it is, that the gesture of the Communion was occasionall from the ge­sture of the Passeover. It pleaseth the Replyer Pag. supradict. to say, he pittied the defendant, that he could shew no occasion of the gesture of the Eucharisticall Supper. Surely the de­fendant needed not to be pittied in that thing: sembled professions of pitty are righter objects both of pitty, and indignation. But I request the Replier to tell me, whe­ther [Page 86] (inasmuch as he will haue these words, [as they were eating Iesus tooke bread &c.] to import the conti­nuance of the gesture;) he can historically relate an occa­sionall act by plainer words, if he would bond himselfe to doe it, so that he vse not the word [occasionall?] Let o­ther places of Scripture, (partly in the story of the Pass [...] ­over, and partly other where) and common reason, me­d [...]rate this disputation. In Mark. 14. 18. It is said, [as they sate and did eate, Iesus said, Verely one of you shall betray me:] I aske now, whether Christs gesture of sit­ting, when he spake thus, was not occasionall from the Passeover? so Ezech. 8. 1. As I sate in mine house, and the elders of Israel sate before me, the hand of the Lord fell vpon me there saith the Prophet. Will you say that the Prophets sitting was purposed and required there, wherein the hand of the Lord should come vpon him, or that it was meerely occasionall? So 1 King. 13. As the two Prophets sate together (at meate) at the table, the word of the Lord came to the Prophet that brought him back, vers. 20. was not the gesture here vnto the com­ming of the Prophecie meerely occasionall? so, as Christ (after his resurrection) sate at meate with the Disciples, he tooke bread, &c. Hereupon (I thinke) toge­ther with the institution it self aftersupper were grounded the loue-feasts, by continued occasion wher­of the Disciples might possibly (for a time) vse sitting in the act of receiving Luke. 24. 30. who can imagine, but this sitting at breaking bread (which is like to be Sacra­mentall) was onely occasionall from the gesture of com­mon eating? but what should I spend Scripture vpon a point, which common reason of the phrase [as they were eating the Passeover, Iesus tooke bread, &c.] evidently convinceth? especially if we consider two things: first, that if the Passeover had not then beene needfull to pre­cede the Eucharisticall Supper, I can vpon as good rea­son think, that the Apostles might haue stood or kneeled, as well as sit down, (if they sate) in receiving; no formall ta­ble-gesture seeming needfull for eating one bit of bread, supping one tast of wine, & that also in spirituall vse. 2. that the gesture of the Passeover it selfe was but occasionall, and all your proofe of the Supper-gesture is but probability of [Page 87] the Passeouer-gesture continued) & therfore the Supper-gesture could be no more: and that the Passeouer-gesture was but occasionall, manifestly appeareth; for (be sides that Perth. assem. pag. 38. you say, Their manner of sitting was receiued a­mong the Iewes, either from the Romans or Persians,) this is to be minded, that some gesture being needfull to eate their meat in, God had neither prescribed nor prohibited any one vnto them: and so they were left to their owne choice, and they did chuse the gesture vsed among them in ordinary meales: whereof also there was much more reason, then is now to vs in the Sacrament as there was more vse of tables: on which were set in the Passeouer many dishes to make vp a full and formall bodily meale; but with vs, they be onely vsed to set our bread and wine on, as decency doth require. Now if you be so pittifull to me as you are wont to be, I pray you de [...]lare your pit­ty by kind and faithfull instruction in these things, if you can reprooue them: for else (rebus sic sta [...]tibus) it is as cleere as the Sunne shineth, that the gesture of our Sauiour was onely occasionall, and so bindeth vs not.

Sect. 60 Secondly, consider the gesture, as it respecteth the in­stitution of the Sacrament. Here then is a fit place to exa­mine, whether the gesture be a Sacramentall part of the institution Reply part. to B Mort. pag. [...]6. See also the Suruey. p. 181. as the Replyer would haue it, & note that the Repliers meaning is according to the words of Ioh. Alasco, that sitting at the table of the Lord (est pars signi Canae Dominicae, that is) is a part of the very Sacram. signe. Against this opiniō I reason thus. First, that which is in­stituted for a Sacramentall part, is within the comman­dement, [do this in remembrance of me] els, where must this fancy be grounded? but that cōmandement includes not the gesture, as I haue plainely shewed Ch. 2 sect. 3. before.

Sect. 61 Secondly, if sitting be pars signi, and so (you say) sig­nifies our Communion, then you haue some word that sayes as much, that giues you warrant so to beleeue and teach; but such a word hath not all the new Testament, which teacheth that sitting signifies our Communion [Page 83] with Christ, or with one another, partaking of the ele­ments onely signifies that vnto vs, according to the war­rant of the Apostle: The cup of blessing which wee blesse, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break is it not the Cōmunion of the body of Christ? 1. Cor. 10. 16. for we being many are o [...] bread, and one bo­dy, for we are all partakers of that one bread, verse 17.

Sect. 62 Thirdly, if sitting be a part of our Sacrament, then was the gesture likewise essentiall vnto the Passeouer; for that in like manner typically signified communion with Christ, and one with another: but there was no gesture instituted thereof at the first, or recorded therof, all the while the law of the Passeouer continued: and therefore how could any gesture be held essentiall vnto the same? nay, if it were neuer heard, that a gesture was essentiall to any of all Gods holy Sacraments, or ordi­nances, then this is but an idle dreame.

Sect. 63 Fourthly, if sitting be sacramentall and essentiall, then either ad esse Sacramenti, or ad bene esse. The former you doe disclaime; the latter we will affirme of very circum­stances, which tend to the well being of publike and priuate duties of Gods worship, and yet be variable.

Sect. 64 Fifthly. All your notes of circumstances of order, which in the Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 4, 5, 6, 7. first part of this treatise I haue obser­ued, doe belong most plainely to the gesture. If there­fore it be essentiall, essentialls will become circumstan­ces, and circumstances will become essentialls, and so all other mutuall accidents in the Supper of Christ shall be essentials as well as the gesture.

Sect. 65 Sixthly, is sitting a Sacramentall part of the instituti­on, as sitting, or else as a table-gesture? I suppose when you come to answere you will say the latter: But where did reason tell you that sitting is essentiall to any feast? much more it is a senselesse conceit, to thinke, that sitting at the Sacrament is, pars signi: when all men know it is but a meane, (medium apprehendendi signum) whereby the signe may be apprehended of vs.

[Page 89] Sect. 66 Seuenthly, let the Replyers owne penne condemne himselfe, as you may see his saying transcribed Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 2. before; where in effect he acknowledgeth, that gestures be not of institution: the writer of the Manuscr. saying, that sitting may bee left, as all other indifferent things may, giueth (I hope) that sitting it selfe was not of institution and essentially, and sacramentally necessary. As for I haue quo­ted him before p. 2. c. 1. Sect. 9. Mr. T. C. he admonisheth all men, that sitting is not holden to be necessary, and therefore he is farre from thinking that gesture to be essentiall, and of institution.

Sect. 67 Lastly, I adde, that essentialls to his ordinance God hath infallibly shewed, but so is not the gesture shewed according to the proofe and tenour of the first Para­graph. Will you haue vncertaine things to be essential­ly and sacramentally necessary? nay, not only the Euan­gelists be silent in the gesture, but also the Apostle Paul is silent, when he sets downe the essentials of the Lords Supper. 1. Cor. 11. 23, &c. But here Manuscrip. chap. 2. Disp saith, Paul did acquaint the Corinthians, that Christ sate pag. [...]54. this is an vn­written verity. it is answered, that Paul calls it the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. and the Lords Table: 1. Cor. 10. 21. by those very names, though not expressing, yet intimating a Table, and Supper-ge­sture.

Sect. 68 I answer three things. First, you can no more gather the gesture from the mention of supper, and table, then from the mention of bread and wine, nor so much nei­ther; for the table hath its vse, if the bread and wine be set on it: yet cannot the gesture be concluded from the mention of bread and wine, because the bread and wine be not properly called a corporall supper, but metapho­rically and by allusion. Besides, who will say, that eating one bit of bread, supping or tasting once onely of a cup of wine, doth necessarily intimate a solemne sitting. The Fathers, they of Geneua, yea wee our selues in this Church, doe call this spirituall ordinance, the Supper of the Lord, and the table, the table of the Lord; and yet (I hope) this intimates no sitting either with them, or with vs; if you say it intimated it in those times because [Page 90] they vsed to sit; you offend first, Petitione principij, you cannot proouee they sate in those times: then you offend in the Colliars logick; they sate because there is menti­on of suppers and tables, and suppers and tables bee mentioned, because they vsed to sit.

Sect 69 Secondly, I answer, that in the mention of the very pub­like worship, euen circumstances (that vary) in their kind are intimated: what mattereth the intimation of them? our question is vpon things essentially, and sacra­mentally necessary.

Thirdly, to what purpose doe you tell vs of Pauls in­timations Sect. 70 other where? if they haue any force, let them be proofes when their turne comes; there wee affirme, that all essentialls, sacramentalls, necessaries of institution are plainely expressed in this place, 1. Cor. 11. 23. &c.

But to this place there bee three exceptions layde Sect. 71 downe. First, the Apostle omits the gesture, Perth. Ass. pag. 39. because he writes as of a thing knowne. Ans. This is a strange ex­ception, was the gesture better knowne, then the insti­tution of bread, wine, blessing, breaking, taking, eating, drinking, &c. so you said before, it was supposed in the Euangelists; but when did you euer heare of essen­tials supposed altogether? this exception is of no value, for you might alledge that to any Scripture of any mat­ter, and furnish vs with Romane learning, as if essenti­als were left vnwritten to posterity, because those times well knew of them.

Obiect. 2. Manuscrip. c [...] 2. Paul saith not, verse 23. I deliuer all that Sect. 72 I haue receiued, but I deliuer nothing else but what I haue receiued. Ans. You restraine Paul too much, for he saith both; namely, that which he deliuered he had receiued; and also that which he had receiued he did deliuer, that is concerning the institution: and the rather is this so, if it may be thought, that Paul receiued this of the Lord, by miraculous reuelation, immediately; as See Parens in 1 Cor. 11. wise men doe iudge; and againe Beza in 1 Cor 11. verse 23. if Beza doe call this institu­tion the Liturgie of the Apostles, well; no doubt all es­sentialls [Page 91] which bound both Iewes and Gentiles, even in remote parts of the world, may be expected from it, or else, how could all corruptions in the supper, whatsoe­ver they be, be tried by this institution as a rule; where­as that it is such a rule the Perth-assembly Pag. 45. avoucheth? Wherefore this exception can gaine you nothing.

Obiect. 3. Paul omits many materiall things besides, as Sect. 73 well as the gesture in 1 Cor. 1. 23. Answ. If you meane, by materiall, essentiall, & instituted things, then I deny: first, you Manuscr. ch. 2. say he omits the blessing of the cup. It is not so: for thus he writeth-tooke bread, and when he had given thankes he brake it, and said, &c. verse 24. after the same manner also he tooke the cup, &c. verse 25. so the bles­sing of the cup is mentioned in those words [he gaue thankes] two wayes; either by referring the same to both elements, and to the whole action, as we doe And as we do at the sacra­ment, I beleeue not that you thinke blessing of the cup after the bread to be essentiall. at tables; or else by the plaine word of assimilation, [...], verse 25. whereby the former blessing, or thanksgiving is evidently applyed (by a serverall accom­modation) vnto the cup also; he tooke the bread and gaue thankes, &c. after the same manner, he tooke the cup. Secondly, sayes the disputer, Disp. pag. 154. the giving of the bread and cup is vnmentioned. Ans. still you will be a In the same place he sayes, Paul omits the powring out of the wine A­las good man, he had not searched the Evan­gelists, for they make no men­tion of any powring out of wine. ridi­culous disput [...]r, giving is not words to be repeated, but an action to be done, and that the said action is to be done, can you not prooue out of this place: pray you looke againe; thus saith the Apostle: he brake it, and said, take, eate, this doe, verse 24. this doe as oft as ye drinke it, verse 25. Can not you prooue from hence, that the bread and wine was vndoubtedly distributed and cōmunicated? other men can (I am sure) most infallibly: these words are omitted (you Manuscrip. say) drinke ye all of this, and againe, which was shed for many, for the remission of sinnes. Poore exceptions I must confesse; for they are not omitted, except you goe by the count of sila­bles at your fingers ends; for thus the Apostle rehearseth them, verse 25. This cup is the new testament (or co­venant) [Page 92] in my blood; This doe yee &c. if you meane the word [All] is left our, I may say your [All] is nothing, as if the sounding of that word [All] were The word (all) is of sin­gular vse in the doctrine of the Sacrament, a­gainst the Pa­pists, who take away the cup from the peo­ple, but it is not necessary to name it in the Sacramentall administration Christ teaching rather what the people should doe, then what the minister should say. essentiall to the administration of the Communion. Fourthly, you Manuscr. ch. 2. say, these words be omitted: I will drinke no more of the fruit of the Vine, till I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome: also the singing of a Psalme when the whole action is finished, is omitted by Saint Paul. Ans. It is true, and why did you not adde also, that speech omitted, which Christ vseth, Iohn. 14. 31. A­rise let vs goe hence: who doth not presently see, that neither those words, nor that Psalme are essentialls, and of institution, but occasionall onely; nay those words may no man vse, they belong not to vs; and for the Psalme you deny not, but it may be omitted; and your selfe say enough, that it was vsed, when the whole acti­on was finished: I conclude therefore that Paul menti­ons all essentialls of the instution of the Supper in 1 Cor. 11. 23. &c. and therefore that the gesture is an acci­dent onely, and so may be varied.

Thirdly consider the gesture, as it respecteth other matters in the Sacrament, of like force with it selfe▪ and Sect. 74 by them let be iudged, whether Christs example thereof binde vs to imitation. Now those matters bee either of the persons, or actions; or things, or circumstances of time, place, and gesture. First for persons, the number, the sexe, the qualification and service are to bee obser­ued. For number, they were but twelue; for sexe they were only men; for qualification, they were only mini­sters of the new Testament; for ministrie or service, onely one of them was imployed, that did first commu­nicate the bread and cup, then the communicants did communicate the same one with another. Secondly for actions, we shall not vnprofitably consider something as (not to speake of meere civill ones, [...] putting off their shooes, and such like;) I meane, how the bread was bles­sed, and broken, In what manner the Disciples did di­vide [Page 93] it; what quantity of bread and wine they did re­ceiue; and how long they did in this action tarry toge­ther; and I might adde the consideration of the kisse of charity, (specially if the speech be now of Apostolicall example, aswell at other communions, as at the first insti­tution) for Calvin 1 Cor. 16. 20. facile ere diderim iam ab atate Apostolo­rum, [...] admi­nistrationi con­iunctum oscu­lum fuisse. Calvin iudgeth, that same osculum san­ctum to haue beene ioyned to the supper from the Apo­stles time. Thirdly for things, as what kinde of bread both for matter and forme was vsed, what kinde of wine, what manner of cup, what manner of table, what covering for the table, are points not impertinent to our oc­casion. Fourthly for other circumstances; as the time was in the evening, and also after another supper, which had beene a full meale. The place was a private chamber in a private house. Lastly for the gesture, though I grant the maine position of their bodies to be such sitting, as is said was at the Passeover; yet there be some things con­cerning the same very remarkable for our purpose. They sate with their heads covered; they sate all that commu­nicated at one time together at one table; the dearest friends sate next one another, as appeares by the Disci­ples sitting in Iesus bosome, whom Iesus loved in more especiall manner: They vsed the same gesture in blessing and giving thanks, that they did in receiving; hee that administred or deliuered the elements sate in the act of administring and delivering, aswell as the Disciples sate in the act of receiving. In all which considerations, if liberty doe remaine vnto vs, that wee are not bound to the example of Christ and his Apostles, would not a man wonder, that so many otherwise godly minded men should for so many yeares together striue so vehemently (that I say not bitterly) about the example of the gesture?

I haue found in their writngs for answer to some of Sect. 75 these observations (for indeed they answer onely to some, and say not a word to the greatest and strongest part of them,) foure I wil passe the foolish answer of the disp. that says the Church hath changed none of the circumstances which Christ vsed▪ Disp. 122, 123. for what should be said to him who denyes, that the Sun changeth shadow in the diall▪ things. First (they Manuscrip. ch. 2. Disp. pag. 121. say) some of [Page 94] these things were altered from the first institution by the Apo­stles themselues, as they administred the Communion to the Act. 2. 42. whole multitude of beleeuers, and so it was not to be recei­ved onely by twelue, men, ministers. Also the time was altered by the Apostle, Acts 20. 7. 11. who administred the Commu­nion early in the morning. Answ. To passe the partiall al­ledging of Acts 20. to proue the Communion admini­stred in the morning, when as the text saith about mid­night. Entichus fell downe from a lof, and was taken vp dead, whom when Paul had recouered, hee broke bread among them, Ver. 7. 11. and after this hee talked a long while, euen vntill breake of day, vers. 11 so that Paul ad­ministred in one part of the night, as our Saviour Christ did in another; and this helpeth you not. To passe also, that you speake of a confessed circumstance, that it was [altered] somewhat ca [...]achristically: for such a thing howsoever men may vary in the divers vse thereof, ac­cording as Christian liberty doth allow, yet in it selfe still and ever remaineth statu quo prius. To passe these things, I answer.

First they did not of purpose vary the circumstances of Sect. 76 Christs supper, but what they did, fell out to be done oc­casionally, pro ratione temperum: this is nothing against the gesture of sitting, whereof perhaps they had no occa­sion given to change.

Secondly, they might vary many other circumstances Sect. 77 out of doubt, the variation whereof is not exprest: (if you consider seriously of the circumstances, you will not over confidently deny this;) then by that proportion, the gesture might be varied (if occasion did fall out, which I know not, and you know not) as well as those other circumstances, though it be not exprest.

Thirdly, many things the Apostles did not change, (which adds much strength to their continuance,) yet Sect. 78 for all that they be changeable vnto vs; as sitting cove­red, administring and blessing in the same gesture which they did receive in; holding Communions in houses; [Page 95] receivers communicating bread and cup one with ano­ther, &c. whereby appeareth, that if the gesture was never changed by the Apostles, yet that respect doth not take away the mutability of it vnto vs. Your answer im­porteth, that actions are made mutable, or immutable vnto vs, by the meere example of the Apostles, which is most vntrue; for in moralls their example supposeth a law; in mutables it onely declareth Christian liberty, and asserteth no more. Now if I assume, that the gesture is circumstantiall to the Sacrament, and so of the nature of other circumstances, which you grant be variable, I hope, I doe not begg it of you. If I take it not, ex con­cesso; yet I take it, ex probate; as judge you: so that whiles you doe tell vs, that some circumstances were varied by the Apostles, what doth that hurt vs concerning the ge­sture? Doth that make any thing dogmatically against the change of the gesture? you can tell vs that the time &c. may be changed, because the Apostles changed it: but you cannot infer, that the gesture if it was not chan­ged by them, is not changeable therefore.

Lastly, In a word, marke how well you wipe away Sect. 79 the strength of our argument from those circumstances by this answer. We reason in this manner; because time, number, sex, &c. were changeable [yea changed by the Apostles, for so this is an illustration of our proofe] then the gesture, which from the begining of the world hath been varied aswell as other circumstances in all parts of Gods worship, may be here varied aswell. To this you answer. [those circumstances were changed by the Apostles.] We know they were, and that is our advantage: why doe you make a part of our proofe, the whole of your answer? This is not very well carried, onely it serues for an answer to them, which either will not, or can not examine it.

Secondly, (they Disp. pag. 48. say) they doe follow Christ in Sect. 80 these circumstances; for as Christ vsed that bread and wine, which the time then presented and allowed for fit­test: [Page 96] so doth the Church vse, according to Christs exam­ple, such bread and wine, as fitteth best, (for the time pre­sent.) Answer notably defended against the gesture! I will reason in like manner, that we doe follow Christs ex­ample by kneeling, as well as they doe those circumstan­ces. For as Christ vsed that gesture which the time then presented and allowed for fittest: so doe we vse accord­ing to Christs example, the gesture of kneeling, which the time present presenteth and alloweth for fittest. It is enough for me to set together (because they forget) things paralellable.

Thirdly, (they Abridg p 56. Repl. partic to B. Mort. p. 35. [...] Manuscri. ch. 2. Disp. pag. 49. say) our Saviour had speciall reasons, Sect. 81 at that time when he instituted the Communion, where­by he was moved to vse and doe some things, which may be vsed and done otherwise. I Answer. First if he had in many things speciall reason (as you say) yet so long as he had it not in them all, it makes not against the gesture, though there was no speciall reason for it. That he had not speciall reason in all the circumstances, (I thinke) you will not deny; as in the receiuers communicating of the bread and cup one with another, in the quantity of bread and wine receiued by them; in sitting together (as you say) at one table; in sitting in the act of blessing; and in the act of deliuering; &c. If therefore there be no speciall reason of Christs gesture, yet the same may be changed, as well as these things are by your selues.

Secondly, If our Sauiour had speciall reasons, by the necessity of the time, yet it concludeth not that without that necessity, he would haue done otherwise: a man may be necessituted to doe it some time, which also he will doe, if he were at liberty; and so might our Sauiour haue done, for ought you can say to the contrarie.

Thirdly, in those things you mention speciall reason Sect. 82 of, the reason hath no such speciality, but our Saviour I meane not by his soverain­ty, but vpon such respects as were i [...]is [...]. might haue done otherwise at that time. As first you Manuscr. ch. [...]. say, by the law every family was to celebrate the Passeover apart; therefore there might be but our Savi­ours [Page 97] twelue with him. Now I should rather inferre con­trarily, that because our Sacrament was not to be like the Passeouer in the celebration of it, by severed families, there might haue bin thereat many twelues with him as well as one. I say might, both lawfully, and by fore-ap­poyntment out of Ierusalem very possibly at that time, so though there might be but his own company with him at Passeover, yet at the Communion others also might haue bin present, any order (which himselfe hath before or since given in the word,) or difficulties of getting o­ther [...] to joyne at that festiual time notwithstanding, true, Christ pleased to haue with him no more company at that time, but (what I pray) was the cause of that? Verely because the number of his Disciples was sufficient at any time, and not expressely and meerely for the necessity of the Passeouer-occasion. You Ibid. adde, that the Apostles were publicke persons, and so in receiuing, represented the whole Church of Christ; wherein you seeme to me to speake vnfitly, for doe you thinke they receiued the Sa­crament, quatenus they were publicke Ministers of the Gospell? I know they represented the whole Church of Christ, but in no other respect, but as they were mem­bers of Christ, and beleevers in his name, called to the first celebration of that ordinance, wherein even private men & women too (if such had bin present) would haue represented the Church of Christ, full as much as they.

Next Ibid. you giue speciall reason of their vnleavened bread, because there was no other to be had at that time. I Sect. 83 answer. First you doe not know that our Saviour would haue instituted the Supper with leavened bread rather then vnleauened, if he had had either of them to make his choyce of. Euen Christians in the Primitiue Church Quall [...] communicatione vs [...] si [...] non ex­ponitur. S [...] [...]lac. Il [...]ius &c Ec­clesiast. histor. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap 6. perhaps vsed (sometime [...]) bread, in the Supper vnlea­uened, when they might haue vsed other. Consider how the Apostle alludeth; Christ our Passeouer is sacrificed for vs, therefore let vs keep the feast, not with the leaue [...] of ma­lice, and wicked [...], but with the vnleauened bread of sinceri­ty and truth. 1. Cor. 5. 7. 8. Secondly. Howsoeuer your [Page 98] speciall reason will come to nothing: if our Saviour might indifferently take either the one or the other, which you cannot gainesay; nay Disp pag. 49. your selues doe say, you regard not greatly for your wine, whether it be Gasc [...]ing, or Rhemists, or Iudea, or Candy, white or red, so it be the fruite of the vine: and so you say likewise for the bread in question, namely, whether it be leauened or vnleauened, so it be the bread of the country. Wherefore then would you tye our Sauiour to vse the vnleavened bread, vpon rea­son of necessity, because there was none other; when perhaps he would, I am sure, he might haue vsed it, al­though there had been leavened bread at hand.

Next you Manuscrip. ch. 2. Disp. pag. su­pradict. giue speciall reason for the time, name­ly Sect. 84 the evening, wherein our Saviour celebrated the last Supper, and that is because the Passeover might not be celebrated at any other time, and Iesus was that night to be betrayed; now it was not fit that the Communion should be celebrated before the Paschall Supper, that the Church might better vnderstand how it commeth into the roome of it. Hereunto I might answer, that our Sa­viour might haue instituted the Communion before the Passeover was expired; if it had pleased him, as well as Baptisme, before Circumcision was expired: but I graunt vnto you, that this was a speciall reason (as Christ would haue it) of the time; and so of about twen­ty circumstances, and things variable mentioned before, you haue poore one, that was done vpon speciall reason; but what? was it a speciall reason of necessity? No, but onely As that of Paul and the Christians re­ceiving in the night was, Act. 20. of convenience and fitnesse; and if all the three points which you name, were done vpon speciall reason, the same answer sufficeth: nay, suppose they were plain­ly done vpon speciall reason of necessity, yet you must be perswaded, that that can doe no scathe to the mutability of the gesture more then of all the rest of the circumstances? and thus you haue a particular, and just answer to your speciall reasons of some particular cir­cumstance [...] ▪ I might giue you one generall answer to them altogether, and say, these were no reasons, because [Page 99] Christ might haue disposed otherwise for number of communicants, bread, and wine, without doing a miracle. I confesse, I should borrow this answer of the wisdome of the Scotsmen; Some circumstances (say Perth Assemb. pag. 36, 37 they) could not conveniently haue beene changed; but as for the gesture of sitting, Christ might haue changed it in Note that standing is in as ill case as kneeling. standing or knee­ling, if it had beene his mind we should haue left it, without working any miracle. But I disclaime the help of this an­swer, because it is some what absurd and ridiculous.

Fourthly, I answer, let it be that all your circumstan­ces Sect. 85 were vsed vpon speciall reason, what then? why may not the gesture haue beene so vsed also? and like as we may change those circumstances, because we haue speciall reason for changing of them, which Christ and his Apostles had not, as they had speciall reason for v­sing them, which either we haue not, or concerneth vs not so much:) so we may change the gesture, because we haue speciall reason for the changing of it, which Christ and his Apostles had not, (as they had speciall reason for the gesture which they vsed, which either we haue not, or concerneth vs not so much.) And this is our answer to your third exception taken against our rea­son for the mutability of the gesture, drawne from other mutable things & circumstances in Christs supper. See more of this matter, sect. 35. to the end of 40. sect. before.

Fourthly, (th [...]y Disp pag 50. Hither may be referred, that whi [...]h you say, pag. [...]21, 122. that such cir­cumstances as the Church hath now law­fully changed from those which Christ v [...]ed, are ordei­ned by God, & so is not knee­ling. say) we cannot reason from circum­stantiall Sect. 86 things, and such as are of temporary vse, to that which is substantiall, and of perpetuall vse. I answer (to passe the fault of petition of the principle, which custome with the disputer makes ordinary) although I haue said reasonable much to prooue the gesture but a circum­stance; yet because I will shew the force of our reasoning from those circumstances of the first supper, which are vndoubtedly mutable; I will prooue that the gesture and they be (for our purpose) of equall consideration. First, those things which agree together, (I say not in alique tert [...], but) in the point of Adiaphorisme, haue in that respect a force of inferring one vpon another. This [Page 100] proposition is cleere enough: but I assume, that the ge­stu [...]e and those circumstances doe agree together in the point of Adiaphorisme: for proofe whereof not to speake of the efficient, or generall matter of things indifferent, which are bodily actions, things, ceremonies, &c. let vs make the triall by the forme and end of them. The form is ipsa [...], or ind [...]ff [...]rency it selfe, as I may so speake: and this in gestures you cannot deny: of our Saviours gesture of sitting you doe openly Manuser. ch. [...]. confesse, that it was but a matter of circumstance, and of an indiffe­rent nature, and may be lawfully left vpon occasion, as all other indifferent things may, and another gesture vsed in stead of it. And thus you be enforced to say, partly by the liberty of all gestures in other ordinances, and partly by the li­berty which you take your selues of the gesture of stand­ing in this Sacrament. Well, formadat esse. As for the end of things indifferent, which is order, decency, and edification, let Mr. disputer Disp. pag. 37. [...]lib [...]. beare witnesse, who con­demnes kneeling at Sacrament for want of decency and order, and avoweth the same of the gesture which was vsed by Christ and his Apostles. Then it followeth by one proofe, that the gesture in the supper is no more substantiall then the recited circumstances.

Secondly, there was never people, time, service, from Sect. 87 the worlds creatiō till this day, (setting aside the particu­lar controverted) but the gesture hath been wont vsually to be changed, and set at liberty, as well as other circum­stances. This I haue P. 1. c 1. at the third rule of gestures. prooved sufficiently, and shall (by Gods grace) ever be able to defend, as a cleere doctrine of truth. Is it not then an hard case, that one onely gesture, in one onely ordinance, vnder one onely time, (the time of the Gospell,) without also any speciall instruction gi­ven, should become damnable, & be no companion to its natural fellow-gestures, or any other circumstances? Sure­ly it is incredible; if therfore gesture hold its hold, which it hath had in all services divine, in all Churches & times, it will still remaine vnto vs a free denizon in the cor­poration of circumstances.

[Page 101] Thirdly, that the gesture may be concluded changea­ble, Sect. 88 from other circumstances in the supper, may ap­peare by its plaine inferiority to many of them. As first, many other circumstances are punctually mentioned in the supper, and yet not a word said of the gestur [...] [...] [...] ­condly, many other circumstances were retained [...] hundreds of yeares in the Church, after the Apostles time, and yet not the gesture of the Apostles, (if it was sitting.) Thirdly, some other circumstances in the supper were of purpose and choice, whereas the gesture (if it was the gesture of the Passeover) was evidently occasio­nall. Fourthly, some other circumstances were peculiar vnto the supper, and never applied to any other divine ordinance: (in which respect there was lesse liberty, at least more cautelousnesse to be had for the changing of them) but standing, sitting, and kneeling, (which soe­ver the Apostles vsed) were ever common and free ge­stures to any divine ordinances. Fifthly, some other cir­cumstances haue in other occasions beene made immu­table and bound, as the time and place, sabboth, and tem­ple of the Law, &c. to the whole Church: so was never heard of a commandement given for the binding of any manner of gesture.

Sixthly, and lastly, perpend diligently some circum­stances Sect. 89 in the supper, and you will find that they come nearer to the nature of the instituted Sacrament then the gesture doth: (now Mr. disputer will cry out presently, a table-gesture for a feast:] but giue me leaue (Sir) you reason out of an imagined rule, I will reason out of the expresse tenour of the institution:) Take three mutables for example. First, what say you to the breaker of the bread? Doe you imagine, that our Saviour divided the bread into twelue peeces, or that he only led the way for breaking vnto his communicants? You Perth. Assemb. pag. 4 [...]. allow the first booke of discipline, penned. 1560. which ordeines that the Minister breake the bread, and distribute the same to those that be next him, comm [...]nding the rest every one [Page 102] with reuerence, and sobriety, to breake with other, be­cause it is neerest to Christs action. Now is not the re­spect of the person breaking more to be noted then the gesture? yet is it not absolutely necessary that the people should breake the bread. Secondly. what say you to powring out of the wine, (if our Sauiour vsed it, which is ind [...]ed vncertaine,) is it not neerer the sacramentall busines, then the positure of the communicants bodies, yet is it necessary to be done. Thirdly, finally what say you to the administration of the supper? Is not the man of administration neerer to the institution, then the ge­sture of administration? yet is it not necessary that the same man administer the bread and wine both, as our Sa­viour Christ did: by all which disparisons it appeareth (I hope) that the gesture is inferiour to many other cir­cumstances in the supper; not to speake of the equality of the gesture and other circumstances, which I could shew much more (I suppose) if need did require. Now I trust you will please to permit me to take the benefit of my third generall respect of the gesture, namely, that we are no more bound to follow the example of Christ and his Apostles therein, then we be bound in other mutable cir­cumstances. Fourthly, consider the gesture as it res­pecteth Sect. 90 all other ecclesiastical ordinances; & by them let it be judged further whether Christs example of gesture do bind vs to imitation: for let any man pick out of the bible one example of gesture in praier, thanksgiving, sing­ing of Psalmes, exercises of the word, offering of sacrifice, in circumcision, in the passeover, and Here Christs example is this, he was immer­sed, in a River, at thirty: three great points not to be imi­tated, much lesse an vn­knowne ge­sture. baptisme, that ever absolutely bound the Church to the imitation ther­of, and I will yeeld that Christs example may binde vs here: But if none such were ever heard of, then my bre­thren must shew reason, why example bindes rather in this worship, then in all other worships of God; rather in this Sacrament, then in all other Sacraments of either Law or Gospell. But I am of mind that he which lookes into these things in good earnest, and with an impartiall [Page 103] eye, will easily languish in his opinion, of the necessitie of imitating Christ, and the Apostles bodily gesture.

Thus I haue shewed that their gesture bindes vs not to i­mitation, Sect. 91 because it was but occasional, because it is not essentiall to the sacrament, because the rest of its fellow-circumstances do not binde vs, and lastly, because there was neuer example of gesture knowne which bound the Church absolutely, but so as it might be changed vpon oceasion.

What remaineth now, but that I shut vp this chapter Sect. 92 with pressing the practise and doctrine of our brethren, whereby they themselues make void the example of our Sauiour Christ in the gesture: First for their practise, I will omit that the number of your communicants diffe­reth; that the people even women receiue with you, that your bread is leavened: that in precise imitation you blesse it not, as Christ did; that your wine, cup, table, &c. doe all differ from those which Christ vsed; that you change night into day, one time of the yeare into all times indifferently, eating before a full meale into fast­ing, at least absteining a full meale of purpose; a priuate chamber into a publicke temple; and certaine more. These I say I will omit, as wherevnto you will reply ei­ther as I haue alledged before and Sect. 75 to the end of Sect. 89. answered; or else that in many of th [...]se things, Christ hath not left directi­on and information vnto vs, which might be answered also as easily: for we know as well what wine, what fa­shioned cup, &c. Christ vsed; as we know his gesture, the story being indifferently silent both in this and them. But I will vrge your practise against you in these particu­lars following.

First, you swerue from Christs example, who Sect. 93 himselfe alone administred the communion; where­as the administration with you is performed sometimes by more then one: you cannot: say the multitude of cōmunicants requires this, for in a just congregation one minister dividing his company and times, may well per­forme [Page 104] it alone. I say well, if it were necessary to follow Christs example.

Secondly, you swerue from the example of our Saui­our Christ, by giuing the bread, and wine, singularly to Sect. 94 all your communicants, when our Sauiour Luk. 2 [...]. 17. bid his communicants diuide it among them, you cannot say that you bid them to do in like manner, when you can and may, for sometimes you do otherwise, & if it were an absolute dutie, Can must bee laid aside for the Pitcher.

Thirdly, you swerue from Christs example in cutting Sect. 95 and quartring the bread, and then opening your cuts, and so breaking you consecrate it; which manner our Sauiour did not vse.

Fourthly, you swerue from Christs example by sitting Sect. 96 bare, whereas he and his Apostles were couered; thus Iohns. separat. Christian plea. treat. 3. cha. 10. Mr. Iohnson chargeth you, yea, thus you charge your owne selues, Perth. Assem. pag. 48. by yeelding that the Iewes couered their heads in diuine worship, as Drusins affirmes and prooueth.

Fifthly, you swerue from Christs example in being con­tent Sect. 97 to sit from the table.

Sixthly, why do you not pray, blesse, and giue thankes Sect. 98 in the same gesture of sitting, wherein you do receiue? Why do you not aswell stand to Christs gesture in the act of blessing, as in the act of eating and drinking? For he and his Apostles you will not denie kept in one gesture all the while.

Seventhly, Christ who administred sate as well as they which receiued, where you be content to do other­wise. Sect. 99 So we reason thus, if the communicants be bound to receiue the Sacrament sitting by Christs example, thē the Minister is by the same example bound to deliver al­so the Sacrament sitting. Here you breake Christs exa­ample againe, and that is so much worse, (because if there be a bond of sitting) verily the Minister is rather bound, who is Christs deputed and authorized instru­ment; whose act of administration carryes authority with it.

[Page 105] Eightly, You stand oft in receiving, so (you confesse) Sect. 100 did not our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles, to the pre­tence of a table gesture, I answer a word in this place, that our Sauiour (even when he sate at the Paschal Sup­per at least) told his Disciples, that standing was a way­ters c [...]rriage; and he doth of set purpose distinguish it from a table gesture. Luk. 22. 27. Whether is greater he that sitteth at meat, or he that (standeth and) serveth? But here we Sect. 101 must grapple with an idle answer of the replyer, Repl. partic to B. Mort. p. 46. tel­ling vs being pressed with Christs example, that standing is better then kneeling, but sitting is simply the best of all. Tru­ly a very childish answer. First, then it followeth that here's the the positiue degree, comparatiue and superla­tiue, that is, good, better, and best. Kneeling is good, standing is better, sitting is best. Here kneeling is vn­dermined dangerously: if therefore standing is to be borne with, rather then kneeling; kneeling also may be borne, though the degree of inconvenience be greater. Secondly, if you say standing is better then kneeling, that is, an inconvenience is better then a sinne, what is that to the Bishops dilemma: [if standing be admitted, why doe you presse Christs example of sitting? if Christs sitting be necessary, why doe you vse standing?] where that kneeling is a sinne must needs be begged in com­parison with standing, when Christs gesture was no more standing then kneeling: therefore this salue heales not your sore (common with vs) of swerving from Christs example: especially first, when you doe com­monly stand in many places, when you might sit, and in Geneva they stand altogether: this is strange magnify­ing of Christs example. Secondly, when (you Perth. Assemb. pag. 35. say) kneeling breakes the institution by taking away the very ge­sture of sitting, vsed by Christ and his Apostles: then stan­ding must needes breake the institution also.

Ninthly, what will you say to At Geneua the elders reach the cup to the peo­ple so they do oftentimes with you▪ walking vp and Sect. 102 downe of your ministers for distributing, of the peopl [...] in the very So they do at Genera: so they do often with you. act of eating? is not this a breaking of [Page 106] Christs example, yea a palpable breaking of it? but let Mr. Replier Repl partic to Bp. Merion, pag. 36. helpe you at a dead lift: first, (saith he) walking is more agreeable to a supper then kneeling: but what doth he speake of kneeling without cause, he should de­fend that walking breakes not Christs example of sit­ting: he onely makes comparison with kneeling for an evasion: for what if walking be afarre off agreeable to a supper, what is that to Christs example, except that your sinne of breaking his example may perhaps be les­sened? and yet that is nothing to the very point. Now how agreeable walking is to a supper, that shall we shew in its owne Afterward chap 5. place.

Secondly, saith the Replier, walking was never abused to idolatry, as kneeling. Answer, still he evades by compari­son Sect. 103 with kneeling, which in this matter is of no mo­ment, to no purpose: for what if walking be lesse abu­sed to idolatry, (which must be tryed hereafter) what is that to Christs example? It is as if you should haue said in this manner: we may leaue Christs example for any gesture that is not idolatrous: and this is the true application of your comparatiue answere. You haue brought the plea of Christs example to a worthy good passe; for so kneeling it selfe is lawfull you confesse for all Christs example in it selfe, if idolatry had not (as you say) polluted it. These two answers then serue onely for filling vp. Thirdly, the principall answer is to come, Sect. 104 that you doe not vse to walke where you can doe other­wise; onely when you cannot be suffered to sit, you come as neere Christs example as you can by walking, having no sinne in it. This answere is both a false and a beggar­ly answer. First, false, for sometimes you vse to walke when you might doe otherwise, as you cannot well de­ny: howsoever you cast off the defence of Genevaes fashion it seemeth. Secondly, beggarly: first, begging that walking is as neere Christs example as you can come. Secondly, but shamefully begging, that walking is no sin, is against Christs example which was objected [Page 107] vnto you. The Bishop B. Mort. de­fence partic. chap 3. sect 7. chargeth you with offending against Christs example (if it be a sin not to follow it in gesture) by your walking vp and down: you answer, for­sooth, that you are forced to walke indeed, but you absteine in the meane time from that which is euill, that you do not sin in it. But I pray why did you not shew and prooue, that you sin not against Christs example by walking, hould­ing of the gesture of kneeling as you doe. Loe, Sir, (pray you looke againe) that was the point, (and yet is) to be answered: as for your saying, you come as neere Christs example as you can, that satisfies nothing at all, if your gesture be a sweruing from Christs example; and so be a sinne in it selfe vnto you: your comming as neere as you can, may excuse perhaps a tanto, but it doth not excuse and release (a tot [...]) from all blame of sinfull, and so damnable aberration. When I scanned these answers of the replyer, as I was forced to thinke, he wanted either judgement, or eandour, (that I say not conscience) so I was sorry for poor people and Ministers too, led with prejudice, whose turne the name of a reply, and the numerous tale of perticulars, in the handling of this controversie sufficeth.

I offer these nine points of your practise to be better considered of: in the meane time Iavow, that you haue Sect. 105 quite forsaken and made voyd Christs example of siting; and you take his name in vaine grossly to talke of his example, when either in gesture (if Christs gesture was sitting) or greater matters you doe neuer imitate it, as you would seeme to require vs: nay (being put vnto it) you flie from Christs example to the reasons of idolatry, a table gesture, &c. altogether vpon examination I see the misterie of it, where [...]to with your practise, let your doctrine speake in the next place.

This then is your judgement of Christs example. The Sect. 106 question is not, (saith Disp pag 144 the disputer) whether the Church may forbeare to vse Christs table-gesture, but whether in lea­ving Christs example it may obserue such a gesture as is no [Page 108] table-gesture. Examples of gestures both in the supper and prayer (saith▪ Manuscrip. ch. 2. Manuscrip.) which otherwise we are bound to follow, when they prooue inconuenient, and an hindrance to edification, may be lawfully changed into some other. I will name no more, hauing your actions so sufficiently to speake your minde, being the best expression of your in­ward thoughts that possibly can be.

Thus (by Gods gratious assistance) I haue fairely con­sidered Sect. 107 of Christs example of gesture; hauing shewed both, that it cannot be prooued certainly what it was, and if it was the same with the Passeouer-gesture, that it was a manner of lying along, yea, and if it was, as our sit­ting at tables is, that yet it bindeth vs not absolutely to imitation. I heartily desire that wise, and learned men would judge me, I am resolued to be pertinacious in no­thing, if they please to helpe me with their friendly cor­rections; for finding out of the truth, if I haue missed it. At first I confesse graue and learned mens talke of Christs example so much oppressed my young, and im­mature conceptions, that I was affraid in my selfe least I should offend. (For who would imagine that our bre­thren should make his example in the gesture, a meere spetimen to inflame forestalled mindes, to scarre tender consciences, and lastly, for countenance of their cause be­fore the world, with such as take vp the matter onely by hearesay.) But Christ gratiously opened his eare vnto me; opened mine eye (I hope) vnto him, who graunt (reserued the lawfull libertie of changeable circumstan­ces, which himselfe alloweth,) that I and all his peo­ple may euer striue to tread in his most heauenly foot­steps.

An appendice to the argument of Christs example.

YEt I am enforced to speake in this place a word or Sect. 108 [Page 109] two further to the importunitie of the Scotsmen: for they do beare vs in hand, that Christs example in the institution is broken diuers waies by kneeling, besides taking away the gesture of sitting.

First say Perth. Assemb pag. 39. they, kneeling takes away the vse of a table from vs: I answer three things: First, a formall table is not essentiall vnto the Communion, neither know you what a one Christ and his Apostles did vse. Secondly, if tables were made lower, and longer then ordinary, com­muni [...]ants might kneele before them; (nay they many as they are, as the minister is wont to doe with vs) and so come, and goe, as you are wont to doe in sitting and standing: so the vse of the table would not be taken a­way, but onely of formes and benches. Thirdly, tables haue a proper and honourable vse with vs, for setting the bread and wine on, whence as in civill vse a peece of bread and a cup of wine may be fitly brought vnto then which be present. But see the next maine argument of a table-gesture.

Secondly (say Pag 40. they) kneeling takes away breaking of the bread: how so? because our service-booke makes no mention of breaking of bread? I answer, first, that the service-book ex­pressing it in the words of institution doth certainly im­port it. Secondly, is kneeling (I pray you) in cause that breaking of the bread is not mentioned? or is not bread broken in practise where kneeling is? or if it be not, is kneeling the cause it is not broken? This is new, strange, and ridiculous learning. Thirdly, if kneeling onely take away breaking of bread for the respect of the service-booke, then in it selfe it can be charged with no such matter.

Thirdly, (say Pag 41. they) [...]ling takes away the distribution, that ought to be among the communicants. I answer, First, distribution by communicants one vnto another is not prooued essentiall to the Sacrament; I see what you say to it, and it is not of force enough. You tell vs, this is a rite whereby the communicants should enterteine com­munion [Page 110] amongst themselues. But behold there's great communion (including that) in the act of communi­cating together; else you say nothing, but what you craue impudently. Secondly, there may be distribution (in my vnderstanding) by them which kneele together, as well as by them which sit or stand, if it be intended. Thirdly, you still erre in putting non causam pro causa: kneeling was not the cause, that such distribution ceas­ed at the first, or tooke not place with vs in the Church of England.

Fourthly, and fifthly, (say they) Pag 41. kneeling alters the en [...]atiue words of Christ, [This is my body which is broken for you] also it Pag. 40. restresnes the commandement [eate yee, drinke yee] to ▪eate thou, drinke thou.] Oh miserable excep­tions! what will no prejudice make an argument for it selfe? as if the true meaning were not reteined with vs; or as if there were a fault, kneeling (forsooth) were to be charged with it: as if those speeches haue not beene applied also to them which haue fit and stood; in a word, as if those speeches were not in former time so vsed, be­fore (you say) that kneeling was vsed in the Church. I marv [...]ile you doe not say that kneeling hath beene the cause of all the sinnes at the Sacrament that ever were knowne, since it was vsed: you discredit your cause with such impertinencies, falshoods, deliraments, as if you were not ministers of the truth.

Sixthly, (say Pag. 44. they) kneeling divides communions, that so many cannot receiue together. Answer, it is vnreasonably false; nay it is truer of sitting about a table, where ma­ny cannot receiue together at one time, except with tos­sing to and fro, with comming and going, that they much disturbe (many times treade vpon) one ano­ther.

Of decency of the gesture of kneeling in the act of receiving.

ANd first we must needes take notice of a loose di­stinction Sect. 2 of the demanders. Decency (say Demand. p. 1 40. they) is either divine, for allowance whereof plaine and evident testimonies may be found in holy writ, that the same decency pleaseth God: or humane, for the which we have no other warrant then tradition or commandement of man, and so is onely pleasing to man. For the divine allowance of the de­cency of kneeling I shall justifie it by and by: for the commandement of man to make decency (besides that the speech is harsh and improper, I will take an order [Page 113] for you, that the case shall be tryed betweene vs, as if there were no magistrate in the Church. But perhaps you might haue better distinguished thus. [There is a towfold decency, either that which you call decency, or that which we call decency] and this would haue beene some­what more to the [...]ery purpose. But two points I will not sticke to yeeld you: first, that the gesture vsed in the Sacrament ought to be decent, for who is sovoyd of honesty to deny that Scripture, (1 Cor. 14. 40.) as well as nature, expressely imposing the necessity of [...]t vpon vs? Secondly, that all gestures be decent in the Sacra­ment, perse, I meane standing, sitting, and kneeling; the decency of sitting doth not exclude the decency of star­ding, nor doth the decency of both exclude the decency of kneeling, no the decency of kneeling exclude the decency of the o [...]er. This (I am assured) will be cur­rent divinity with you, if I shew that there is a decency in kneeling, which is the onely gesture denyed; for of that you Perth. Assemb. Pag. 56. say, comelinesse will not suffer it in the Sacra­ment; and euery one of you is of the same minde, for ought I can see to the contrary: but if I shall prooue kneeling decent in the supp [...]r, then you cannot but confesse, that any of the principall gestures may be de­cently applyed vnto it vpon occasion. Your arguments against the decency of kneeling shall bee brought forth first, and after ours produced, which tend to justifie and maintaine it.

Arguments against the decency of kneeling.

REason 1. Repl. generall cap. 1. s. 16. Nothing is left to our liberty perteining to Sect. 3 Gods worship, but to order the same in comely manner; but by the gesture of kneeling the Sacrament is not ordered in comely manner; because order requireth not the institution or vsage of any new thing, but onely the right placing and dispo­sing of things which are formerly instituted. Answer. But [Page 114] (passing whether order will not stand with the vsage of a new thing) it is false, that you say, that kneeling at Sa­crament is a new thing, and so that the Sacrament can­not be rightly ordered and disposed thereby. Is not the gesture necessary in its kind, and may not the particular determination thereof be varyed? and why then doe you tell vs of a new thing instituted, which in its kinde is absolutely necessary? and if this be not a good answer, how will standing at Sacrament be acquitted from being a new thing, and many things more, which I could name, that be variable, and yet necessary in their kinde? would you haue matters of order to be particularly men­tioned? you would and also must haue it so, if by this rea­soning kneeling can possibly be condemned: but if by new thing you cannot meane any such thing whose kinde is necessary to the Sacrament, it followeth, that this reason against kneeling is not worth a straw. And here I cannot but obserue the simplicity of the demaun­ders,, who because the commandements and ordinances of the Lord are required to be done decently by the A­postle, 1 Cor. 14. 40. do thereupon imagine that kneeling cannot come within the compasse of the Apostles decen­cy, because it is not the cōmandement of the Lord, reason­ing in effect in Demand. pag. 38. this māner: [All the Lords cōmandements must be vsed decently: kneeling in the act of receiving is not the Lords commandement: therefore kneeling cannot bee vsed decently.] Oh simplicity and want of judgement! you should haue concluded in this manner: [All the Lords commandements must be vsed decently: the Sacrament is the Lords commandement, therefore the Sacrament is to be vsed decently:] scilicet in respect of circumstances, as place, gesture, and many more such like, whereof the Lord hath not given any commandement, but hath left the same to be ordered by man, as convenience, and edification require. Furthermore, whereas the Replyer saith, our Divines giving instances of order, are wont to in­stance in time, place, and such like circumstances; what doth [Page 115] he reprooue the gesture of kneeling thereby, being one of these circumstances? So Mr. Calvin saith, Calv. instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 3 [...] that kneeling in prayer is a part of the Apostles decency; and the Replier Repl. generall cap. 1. sect. 5. affirmeth, that hee speakes in that place onely of circumstances of order. How then (I pray) can you con­demne the gesture of kneeling for want of order, which tends to the right disposing of the Sacrament formerly instituted? But the truth is, this matter belongs properly to your generall argument, Before [...]h. 1. of this part. where it is fully answe­red; and not to this place, where you should haue bet­ter prooved kneeling to be indecent, à proprijs requisitis decori, and not to roue, à genere ad genus, prooving knee­ling indecent, because it is instituted by man meerely, which yet is begged most vnreasonably.

Reason. 2. Christ knew Abridg. pag. 49. what was most decent and fit, and yet neither he nor his Apostles did kneele: and D 43. emand. pa. Sect. 4 why should we be diss [...]yssed of the decency of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, and chuse in stead thereof a decency of our owne; Pag. 42. The decency of the Church then could not be but divine, whereunto other decency should giue place; and Abridg. a [...] before. no good reason can be giuen, why kneeling should be more decent now, then it was to Christ and his Apostles. An­swer. This reason supposeth there can be decency but in one gesture, where all gestures in themselues (for ought you can disproue) be capable of it. Secondly. This reason condemneth your selues in many particu­lars, as in standing, walking, vncovering, &c. in the act of receiving. What? doe you leaue Christs decency, and take to a decency of your owne? Thirdly, You are certaine that the Apostles did not kneele in the act of receiving, or else you cannot tell? And verily it is but vnprofitable learning, to tell vs of the decency of Christ, and his Apostles gesture, and yet know not his gesture it selfe. Fourthly, Suppose k [...]eeling was as decent to Christ and his Apostles as to vs, and yet he sat, and they also sat, what followeth of that? sure nothing, but they chose a more decent gesture, we a lesse decent, so some [Page 116] decency to kneeling still remaineth. Fifthly. But all the force of this reason is fully answered before in Christs example, which (though it was vndoubtedly decent, for who dare or can thinke otherwise) yet binds vs not absolutely to imitation; except in the matter of equity, that our gesture should be a decent gesture as his was, and such kneeling to be I sha [...]l shew by and by: much lesse may Abridg p. 50. you charge other Reformed Churches vp­on vs, whom our example may teach decency, as well as theirs may teach it vs.

Reason. 3. It is indecent to kneele, Disp pag 36. at the 4. arg. in the receiuing Sect. 5 of the Lords Supper, because it is against the nature of a table-fashion. I answer, that kneeling is not against the nature of a spirituall feast, and though there be materiall bread and wine, yet is not formall sitting more necessary, then filling of the body is necessary. It is enough to an­swer words with words, for proofe there is none of this argument, but Christs example of a table gesture, which divideth it selfe partly into the argument of Christs ex­ampl [...], and partly into the argument of a table gesture. So then, Master Disputer made this one of his distinct maine arguments, he was in a dreame, or overwaked, or vaine. And thus you haue their stout arguments against the decency of kneeling; now remaineth our considera­tions for the defence of it.

Proofe, that kneeling is a decent gesture.

THat must needes be a decent gesture in the Sacrament, Sect. 6 whereunto all the notes of decency doe agree.

But all those notes doe truely agree vnto the gesture of kneeling.

Therefore kneeling is a decent gesture.

Those notes I haue observed to be fiue: three of them Calv. instit. lib. 4 cap 10. sect. 2 [...], 19. Mr. Calvin giveth to my hand; and I will adde a fourth; and you adde a fifth vnto them.

[Page 117] First, saith M. Caluin, that shall seeme most comely to Sect. 7 vs, which shall be fit for procuring of reuerence to the holy mysteries. I hope I shall not need to prooue, that knee­ling serues to procure reuerence, it being (as your selues alledge) the reason of our Churches enioyning it, that the Sacrament might be receiued reverently.

Secondly, saith M. Caluin, that shall seeme most come­ly Sect. 8 to vs, which shall be an exercise apt to shew p [...]ety, apt to stirre it vp. Let the world in [...]g [...], whether kneeling in the Sacrament, or sitting (backed onely by the pretence of a civill fashion at tables) doe more shew piety and stirre it vp. They haue I thinke small skill and experi­ence in worshipping, that will deny this note of comeli­nes to belong to the most humb [...]e gesture.

Thirdly, saith M. Calvin, that shall seeme most comely Sect. 9 to vs, which is an ornament to the action in hand. And why should it be denyed, that kneeling is an ornament to the Sacrament; which both imports the ex­cellent importance of it, and preserues it also from such contempt, as more familiar vsage (though lawfull other­wise) through mens wonderfull weaknes would certein­ly put vpon it? when you shall shew vs what is an or­nament, better, perhaps I shall giue you better satisfa­ction.

Fourthly, I adde, that shall seeme most comely to vs, Sect. 10 which is answerable, and sutable to the action in hand▪ Now that kneeling doth very well become the Sacra­ment, will easily appeare [...]o him that weigheth, that in the Communion we receiue a gift from the Lord; in the Communion there is liberty of prayer; the Communi­on it selfe is Eucharisticall; It is a divine ordinance, or religious worship of God; also it is a spirituall sacrifice in some sense: againe, inward humility and devotion well becomes the communicant; besides the soule may very well feed vpon Christ by faith when the body knee­leth; and finally kneeling was neuer esteemed vncome­ly in any other action divine, since the world was crea­ted. [Page 118] And now (set will and preiudice a side) what I be­seech you is a civill-fashion for defence of sitting, to these respects of kneeling, which be truely spirituall? How shall not kneeling be sutable to the Sacrament, which accords to such things in which the same is even it mysticall-selfe?

Fifthly, Your selues doe adde; That shall seeme most Sect. 11 comely to vs which is most naturall. Comelines (say Treat. of div. worsh pag. 9. you) especially consists in bodily expressions; and Pag. 10. bodily expressi­ons the more naturall, the more decent. That this note may be applyed to the gesture of kneeling; let vs see what you treat further in the said Treatise, because (say Pag. 11. you) bodily gestures haue their originall, from the naturall concepti­ons and motions of the minde and heart, (there being such di­versity of natures, and dispositions, such divers degrees of the same inclinations, such a divers composition and mingling of affections) it cannot be, but nature must needs vary and be di­verse in them. Well, I am content out of your owne dogmatizing to learne three notable lessons of bodily expressions or gestures. First, if it be more naturall to kneele in divine worship (as I haue proved it to be Sect 1. be­fore) them sit, then kneeling is the more decent gesture; (I make this inference onely out of your owne principle.) Secondly, if kneeling be lesse naturall then other ge­stures in the act of receiving, y [...]t it is but lesse decent, so it is not simply indecent therefore. Thirdly, That the soule (according to nature) doth vary bodily expressions, and gestures, and is diverse in them; insomuch that both all gestures may be interchanged to the same man as his soule may be diversly affected at seuerall times, and and also that divers men (diversly disposed) may vse di­versity of bodily gestures. [in all salv [...] decentia] To my knowledge I doe not wrest or abuse your owne words against you, but transcribe them truely, and conclude from them, as they doe evidently beare out. Now let all our notes be tried by the iudicious Reader.

But giue me leaue, Mr. Disputer, to tell you, that you Sect. 12 [Page 119] are not a fit judge of the indecency of kneeling at the communion, who do [...]ffirme plainly of sitting in prai­er, (though Dauid sate, Eliab sate, &c. your selues sit sometimes in prayer) that Disp. pag 12. sitting in prayer is an inde­cent and vnreverent gesture, if we may conveniently kneele. For (that I may make some criticismes vpon this learn­ing,) first, haue you so good opinion of sitting, when you come to God in prayer, that you count it vnreve­rence, and rudenes; and can you be so hot for defence of it (as if there were none to it) when you come to God in some other divine ordinance? This seemes not to cot­ten. Secondly, will you vse a gesture that is indecent and vnreuerent in prayer, when you want (but ordina­ry) convenience to vse a better? and will you not kneele though it were indecent and vnreverent, in re­ceiuing, when you cannot conveniently, (and perhaps sometimes possibly) vse a better? I suppose your answer will be to seeke, (Sir.) Nay do you not by your speech quite destroy the force of your argument against knee­ling, drawne from the indecency of it, in asmuch as an in­decent gesture may be vsed sometimes, when con­venience serveth not to vse some other and bet­ter?

Thus much I only annexe for a postscript to shew that if kneeling in the Sacrament (which indeed is a natu­ral gesture, and a gesture from the beginning sanctifies to divine worship) were in decent and vnreverent in the act of receiving, yet ought it not to be refused by the judgement of Mr. Disputer. But I need not that helpe, hauing prooued (I suppose) before, that kneeling in the very act of receiuing is a decent & a comely gesture. Thus much of their generall argument drawne from na­ture, now followes the speciall argument, which is that of the table-gesture, in handling whereof I beseech the Lord to lead me by his holy Spirit, that I may faithfully and impartially answer the very truth.

Consideration 1.

First connider, whether it is to be thought a sinne if Sect. 16 men in civill eating doe sometime kneele at table, if eyther their artificiall table be low, or neere the ground, according to the fa [...]hion of many countreys; or that their table be naturall, that is to say, the very ground, such as is the table of workmen in the feild, and many times of great Princes, and states, who being farre from tables, houses (either in the service of warre or libertie [Page 131] of recreation) haue had great feastes vpon the very ground; or that they haue vsed no table at all, as amongst women especially, not seldome cometh to passe vpon oc­casion. I imagine no man will say that kneeling is a sinne in such eases as they will be loth to say, that those nine thousand and seven hundred Israelites sinned, Iudg. 7. 6. who bowed downe vpon their knees to drinke water. Therefore I would learne how kneeling in eating and drinking can be condemned from civill vse, when ci­vill vse doth allow it in some case. I, but saies Mr. Disp pag. 2. Dis­puter; such a gesture must be vsed as standeth with the cust­ome of the Country.

I answere you; that the custome of the Country allow­eth Sect. 17 this fashion, which from time to time it alloweth in some case: and hereunto tends that which the Reply partic. to B Mort. p. 37 re­plyer saith, that the table-gesture reason is brought in a­gainst kneeling because it agrees to no feast ordinary or extra­ordi [...]ary. If therefore kneeling is and hath beene vsed in our Countrey in some case from time to time, be­hould then the custome of the Country allowes it in the Lords Supper.

Secondly, suppose custome did not vsually allow it in Sect. 18 civill eating; it is enough, that it is lawfull to kneele in some cases (although such case should fall out but once in an age, nay if we neuer knew of an exāple of it,) for if there be any case, wherein civill kneeling at meate may be vsed lawfully, then kneeling at the Lords Sup­per in it selfe is equally, nay much more allowable, as the case is more important to mooue vs to vse it at this time, then any case ever was for kneeling in civill eating. And this consequence is sound according to the force of your owne reason.

Thirdly, but I desire to know whether a Country Sect. 19 custome may not be changed by the inhabitants? Yea the Country custome of a table-gesture? Mr. Disputer yeelds this in effect; for whereas he saith, Disp. pag. 47. there bee some nationall circumstances. And againe Pag. 2. that the [Page 132] t [...]ble gesture is to be such, as the custome of the Country re­quireth; what doth he else but yeeld, that seuerall Coun­treys may haue seuerall table-gestures? (And indeed the thing is vndoubted enough) but whence then comes the custome of a Countrey, but from the conceit, and will of the inhabitants? now what would you say, if our Countreymen did fall into a custome of ordinary eating vpon their knees? then the argument of a table-gesture against sacramentall kneeling, would be quite non-suited, and it seemes by that method you might be brought on to allow of it well enough. I hope you will consider, what a rotten foundation a Countrey custome is to build your faith vpon. Is it possible that if the inha­bitants of the land did vse to kneele in ordinary eating, I might lawfully kneele at the Sacrament; and yet may not now lawfully kneele at it aswell, because the cu­stome hath not made it yet actually warrantable to me? Do not you pin your faith vpon men in this thing? But perhaps you will say, that I put a case of If it neuer was nor will be it is not because Kneeling is a gesture of adora­tion: but because it is not natu­rally so easy & commodious for eating a ful meale at other gestures: for if had been so, do you thinke, some nation would not haue [...]ken it ap? certainly. such a thing as neuer was nor will be: giue me leaue therefore to come nearer to you in a more speciall case: suppose the King, or any one in whose power you were, should not permit you to eat meat, except (for satisfying of his pleasure in making tryall of your subjection in a ciuill action) you would kneele downe in receiuing of it, would you be contented rather to famish to death, then to kneele downe at the Kings commandement for civill vse meerly? If your divinity and conscience would not serue you to perish so, but would allow that the table-gesture of ciuill suppers might be changed into kneeling in this case: why then should kneeling at Sacrament be held vnlawfull in a case of much greater importances: wherefore if the custome of the Countrey either by the mind of the inhabitants, or else by authority of an earth­ly power may be turned into kneeling, as we may law­fully yeeld, surely it sinks not into my head, how knee­ling in the Lords Supper is vnlawfull in it selfe, that is [Page 133] in all cases; by force (I meane) of the table gesture rea­son, for if you will stand precisely to the force thereof, do not you see, that as much libertie and indulgence must be giuen to ecclesiasticall eating as is giuen to civill? (But Mr. Disputer seemes to Disp. pag. 66. reply here: the Lords Supper is a feast of the greatest solemnity, and not a cursory eating and drinking, such as is vsed but occasionally. I an­swere, that I haue propounded the case before of set and solemne feasts and meales; and so if kneeling may bee lawfull sometime at them, namely, at any dinners or sup­pers, it is sufficient for me. For such eating and drinking (pray you obserue) is not occasionall, but the gesture is onely occasionall: so the Lords Supper is a set and so­lemne supper, say, but the gesture may be occasionall likewise. And if occasion may happen such as men may lawfully kneele in civill meales, how can you deny (ac­cording to the argument of a table-gesture) that any oc­casion can betide that men may lawfully kneele in this spirituall? Thus I referre to you thoughts this my first consideration.

Consideration. 2.

SEcondly, consider if it were vnfit in ciuill eating to kneele, yet how vnreasonable it is to conclude abso­lutely Sect. 20 from civill to spirituall, what place of Gods word makes that good diuinity vnto you? Mr. Disputer is the onely spokesman almost in this place, therefore let him be heard. No substance (saith Disp. Pag. 27 he) set apart to a spirituall vse loseth his common or ciuill nature or properties for then it should be transubstantiated. (And one of these properties he meanes is the prerogatiue of sitting.) This is wonderfull learning; I deny your enthymeme Sir: a table may loose such properties, and yet not be tran­substantiated. I must needes tell you in this place, you are a ridiculous disputer; and that is my answer. Second­ly, you (g) say, that Christs table of repast (at Passeover and Communion) [...]teined still the properties, and pre­rogatiues of a ciuill table, whereu [...]to I haue answered in [Page 134] the third sect. before, and in the three paragraphs of Chap. 3.

Thirdly, you Ibidem. would prooue by a similitude that Sect. 21 the table of the Lord loseth no more the civill proper­ties of a table of repast, then an oratour imployed to preach loseth the employment of those faculties of his mind and body, which before he vsed in pleading of ci­vill causes. If I deny your comparison, what haue you said to make it good? [...]. If I grant your compa­rison, what am I worse? For what is an oratour, em­ployment but elocution & pronunciation? And may not the preacher in these differ in much variety, and liberty from the oratour I pray? So like as elocution and pro­nunciation are necessary in their kinde, yet may be abun­dantly varyed: so may the gestures of ecclesiasticall eat­ing, and civill. Besides action belongs to pronunciati­on in an oratour, so that the comparison betwixt the oratour and Ministers employment must needs partly stand euen in gestures: now an oration may be made standing, siting, or kneeling; will you say so of a Mini­sters gesture in the act of preaching also? if you will not then it plainely followeth that the Minister (according to you) loseth some libertie, and imployment of a facul­ty of his body, which he had being an oratour. And I could name many civill circumstances beside, which the preacher either leaues to the oratour, or vseth if he think good. Therefor your similitude is so farre from being for, that it is evidently against you.

Fourthly, you Pag 149. say, for I would giue the reader all Sect. 22 your points of Rhetorick by tale. There is no more reason that spirituall vse in the Sacrament should chang the gesture of civill eating, then th [...]re is reason to vse a­nother mouth, and another stomack in spirituall refecti­on then civill. Oh grosse and childish Rhetoricke: God by nature hath giuen but one mouth, and one stomack, whereas he hath giuen vs feete to stand on, knees to kneele on, seates to sit on: we take that liberty which [Page 135] God hath giuen, we cannot take that liberty (it is no libertie) which God hath not giuen. You might aswell haue said, if we alter the gesture of spirituall refection from civill, why s [...]ould we not alter the body too, and bring new bodies with vs, leauing the [...]uld to meat at ho [...]e? you spoke a little [...]ore wisely, when you said, we may as well haue a different hand in receiving, as a different gesture [...] for as there is a libertie of either hand, so there is a liberty (in it selfe) of any gesture: like­wise you say not farre amisse; Ibidem. the Lord hath no more ap­pointed different gest [...]r [...], then he hath different tables, diffe­rent cups, different bread and wine. For the Lord hath left all these at liberty. It is (k) likewise true, (if it be right­ly vnderstood) that if spirituall, and ciuill communi­cants may vary gesture in eating, then spirituall and civill suiters may vary gesture in petitioning: for petition may be made (vpon occasion in all gestures both spiritually, and civilly. But the point of errour, whereabout you trifle in all these instances is this, that whereas we say▪ the gesture of spirituall and civill refection may be divers, you perver [...] our meaning therein, (eyther dishonestly, or indeed very ignorantly) as if we said, the gesture of spirituall and civill refections, must (absolutely must) be divers, nay as if all civility in religious actions, and exer­cises were vtterly exploded by vs: therevpon you argue in this manner▪ (k) [...] the diversity of things (being some civill, some spirituall) should [impose] vpon vs a diffe­rent carriage and g [...]sture, why should a Minister be allow­ed to vse the same tongue & gesture in any spiritual exer­cise, that he doth in civil? Where by your word [impose▪ you would imponere lectori. For we do not thinke or say, that the respect o [...] spiritualty in the Lords Supper doth impose kneeling vpon vs necessarily; but that the same is not therefore vnlawfull in spirituall eating, because it differeth from the gesture of civill refections. And so much (with reverence be it spoken to learned logicians) of this tr [...]h. But the authour of the treatise of diuine [Page 136] worship hath giuen an excellent rule to direct vs in this matter. That (saith Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 36. he) is vndecent and vnfit i [...] Gods worship, which is vndecent and vnfit out of his worship, [if the same reason of vndecency and vnfitnes remaine] here­vpon I giue you 3 reasons to prooue that the indecen­cy of kneeling at civill meate remaines not in the Lords Supper.

First, In the act of civill eating there is no divine wor­ship, Sect. 23 but it is me [...]rely civill; whereas it is divine wor­ship which mooues vs to vse the gesture of kneeling in the Lords Supper: and doth not that more provoke vs lawfully thereunto, then the respect of a civill custome can take vs off from it? nature tells vs that sitting is a comely g [...]sture in eating our meate; but doth nature make the inference; therefore it is necessary to sit eating likewise in Go [...]s worship? I thinke, nature will not teach you this. Therefore by this respect the vnfitnesse of kneeling at civill tables is taken away in the Lords Sup­per.

Secondly, I set the custome of the Church for sacra­mentall Sect. 24 eating against the custome of the Countrey for civill eating. Verily (the question b [...]ing meerely vpon the point of custome as it is) the custome of the Church in a Church-occasion sh [...]ll ever (and compare equally) sway with good men as much as the custome of the Countrey shall in a civill matter. So by this respect the vnfitnesse of kneeling at civill tables is also taken away in the Lords Supper.

Thirdly, it is not impertinent to looke in this case vp­on the present times; these be those last dayes, which Sect. 25 the Apostle 2 Tim. ch. 3. vers. 1. &c. foretelleth should be so perillous and mischievous: if ever it was true, now adayes it is, that the wickednesse of men is bent (c [...]l [...] terram, tertae coelum, s [...]cra profanis misc [...]re) to mixe and confound heavenly and earthly things together: whereof I doe judge, it is so farre from deserving blame and censure, to kneele in sacramentall eating, that I doe thinke (as the times are) [Page 137] it is convenient and commendable to kneele, to distin­gursh that holy ordinance from common and civill refe­ctions. so by this respect the vnfitnesse of kneeling at ci­vill tables is also taken away in the Lords Supper. Thus I shew, if it be an vnfit thing to kneele in civill [...]a [...]ing, yet you cannot absolutely conclude from civill to spiri­rituall: and so I referre to your thoughts this my second consideration.

Consideration. 3.

THirdly, confider, if you might conclude from civill Sect. 26 to spirituall, wh [...]re one spirituall respect answereth to one civill, yet whether you can so conclude, when th [...]re be more re [...]pects then one as weighty or more weighty then that one; as manifestly falleth out in this case: for though the civill custome of a table-gesture be allowed to strike some stroke in a spirituall ordinance, where is eating and drinking; yet other respects in the Lords Supper haue a stroke also as well, if they be duely and impar [...]lly weighed as apperteineth: for whether you compare them with the spirituall respect of the soules banquetting, or whether with a civill respect of a Countrey-custome, I doe not doubt but this will ap­peare.

First, if you compare spirituall with spirituall, it can Sect. 27 not be denyed, but the respect of breaking the bread, comes closer to the end of the institution, then the re­spect of banquetting. Christs passion is kept in remem­brance chiefly by that action, which tends more imme­diately to his honour; and not by eating and drinking, (which like a feast as you say) more immediately con­cernes our owne contentment and wel [...]fare. If therefore you will chuse a gesture to the communicant at this ordi­nance, which answereth to the principall respect thereof, then [...]he gesture, which the respect of banquetting may [...]cquire, must of necessity giue place.

[Page 138] Againe, the respect of worshipping is not lesse in this Sect. 28 ordinance, then the respect of banquetting: for wor­shipping looketh vpon God in Christ immediately, ban­quetting more respecteth our selues, as I said before: and t [...]erefore why should not that sway more then this with vs for the choice of the gesture? verily if the sacramen­tall service be worshippi [...]g, and worshipping be a grea­ter respect then eating and drinking, then there seemes to be more zeale then judgement shewed in resisting an adoring gesture. And this will better appeare i [...] it Sect. 29 be observed; first, that you cannot prooue our Saviours gesture to haue beene vsed relatiuely rather to feasting then worshipping. I may as well call it a worship-gesture, as you may call it a table-gesture, especially when (if it were sitting) it was but occasionall sitting, and holy peo­ple haue beene wont to sit in prayer it selfe full often oc­casionally; and if more can be said of Christs sitting in the Sacrament, then that it was occasionall; more also may be said of sitting in prayer. See more be­fore [...]h. 3. sect.

Secondly, suppose Christ vsed a table-gesture, which answereth to one respect of the Sacrament, we a wor­ship-gesture Sect. 30 which answereth to some other, yet still we hould fitting correspondence with principall respects thereof, which makes the variation warrantable vnto vs. Thus Ez [...]a. [...]. 12. some wept with a loud voice▪ some shouted a­loud for joy, when they saw the [...]ound [...]o [...] of Gods house laid, as the same presented vnto them diversity of consideration.

Thirdly, the gesture which answereth to one respect hindreth and hurteth not the worke and interest of the Sect. 31 soule in regard of another: so kneeling no more hin­ders the soules feeding on Christ; then sitting hinders the soules inward worshipping of God. Iohns Disciples fasted, and Christs Disciples fasted not, and both Mat. [...]. 18. lawfully: yet no doubt the inward worke of humiliation and mortification was performed by both of them. And cannot our soules feede as liberally, if they be duely pre­pared, [Page 139] in the gesture of kneeling, as in any other? veri­ly if kneeling were against our spirituall profit and bene­fit, reason would that we should disclaime it; but even in civill feasting, who doth not know that a man may sa­tisfie nature aboundantly by feeding in any gesture? if I vse no other proofe in this place, then what the simili­tude administreth.

Secondly, if you compare spirituall respects with ci­vill, what then (trow you) with reasonable men sha [...]l be­come Sect. 32 of a Countrey-custome? as first, what is a civill custome in comparison with the Churches peace? how many customes of men should be despised for the spouse of Christs sake? if Ierusalem be preferred (as it Psal. 137. 6. ought) aboue our chiefest joy, how can we indure to set the peace thereof in contestation with a worldly custome? b [...]t 1 Cor. 14. vers. 32, 33. the spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets (in such things) because God is the authour not of vnquietnesse but of peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints. So speakes the Apostle. I am resolved it is better to rent a civill custome from the whole Church, then to rent the members of the Church one from another.

Second [...]y, what is a civill custome to the losse of your Ministries? do you prize them at no greater price then Sect. 33 so, how many thousand soules do you vndervalue to a ceremony of the body? Thi [...]ke you, that he who 1 Cor. 9. 22 said [I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means saue some] would not for the libertie and benefit of his Ministrie foregoe a civill custome? He made himsel [...]e as a Iew to the Iewes, as a Gentile to the Gentiles, as weake to the weake, and this he did for the Gospels sake; yea he disclaimed the liberty of a civill custome, namely of wages for worke, for the same cause as he testifieth in that place. I protest it is a plaine doctrine of Sathan, that a man had better foregoe his Ministrie, then foregoe to stand vpon a civill custome. If you say, you lose your Ministries for greater matters, wholy, or principally. I [Page 140] answer, except you would likewise suffer your selues to be silenced for the gesture, meerely, why do you make sembl [...]nce of it so long, so inflexibly? But the truth is you haue declared your resolution (as on the house top) that you may lawfully suffer your selues to be silen­ced rather then yeild to the gesture of kneeling; and that vpon the ground of the necessitie of a table civill fashion: illic credul [...]a [...], illic [...]en [...]erarius error.

Thirdly, what is a civill custome to the liberty of the Sacrament it se [...]fe? will you be contented neuer to eate, Sect. 34 except you haue the liberty of a table-gesture to eat in? may you foregoe a spirituall substance for a civill cir­cumstance? Is it good to goe without the whole gar­ment▪ of rich and princely exellency, except you haue your owne mind for the rurall manner of putting it on? surely whiles you pretend and stand vpon civili­ty this seemes to be farre from it, if you haue earnest de­sire and appetite to this feast (as I doubt nor) we think you should not stand vpon custome in the positure of the body, nay this water of the well of B [...]h [...]hem deserues to be fetched through an army of the Philistines, and will you refuse it, when you come where it is, because you will not stoop downe? I will not say Gideoni soul­diers, but Gen. 24. 11. even Abrahams camells, may condemn you for so doing. But further put case (and it is no case of impossibility) that you might never be suffered to re­ceiue the Sacrament without kneeling all your life long, would you spend and end your dayes in the continuall refusall of it? would that stand with the peace of your consciences on your death-beds? Shall this be a good plea before the throne of Christ at that day; (Lord) I never are of thy Supper, because I would not kneele vpon my knees at it: true (Lord) kneeling is a naturall ge­sture, thou hast also instituted it [...] worship, but in this worship, because it was not according to the Coun­trey fashion of eating, I [...]d account it abominable; and rather would haue had thy death never remembred in [Page 141] breaking of bread, then that it should be remembred, without keeping of the ciuill custome. To whom Christ may answere as to the Pharisees concerning the Sabboth, Mark. 2. 27. my supper was made for man, and not man for it. Againe Sam 15. 22. as Samuel to Saul: hath the Lord as great delight in civill fashions and customes, as in obeying the voice and ordinance of the Lord? here what could you be able to answere? yea what will you answere to the Lord speaking in those Scriptures at this time? Well, I can but thus referre to your thoughts these things be­longing to my third consideration.

Consideration. 4.

FOurthly, consider lastly whether if the respect of a Sect. 35 supper, feast, and banquet, will conclude a necessity for a table-gesture, the same will not conclude for all o­ther fashions and requisites to a supper, feast, or banquet as much, and much more conclude for them too, if they be more materiall to the nature of civill feasting then is the gesture of sitting at table. It is good that these other fashions and perquisites be judged of.

First, I offer to your judgement and censure whether Sect. 36 there be in the Supper a necessity of a linnen table-cloth. I suppose and am perswaded you would not lose or leaue the Sacrament for want of such a cloth to cover the table. I thinke you will say no more but that it is a decent and needfull ornament, if it may be convenient­ly come by. But why now shall not your reason of a ci­vill feast conclude the necessity of it as well as the ge­sture? There is no feast of great solemnity (as you Disp. pag. 26. speake) celebrated without it. There be no guests of quality such as we be as the Lords supper, (as you pag. 8. say) that may b [...]e civilly enterteined without it. It is not to be re­spected, (as you pag. 26. teach) what meane people doe in this case, their manners being more barbarous and vnci­vill: [Page 142] but amongst person [...] of principall worth, i [...] would be challenged for a mockerie, (as Pag 32. you speake) to be invited to a supper or feast without it. I applie your spee­ches to a table-cloth, whereby you presse the necessity of a table-gesture, whereof you haue great store, which will puzzle your defenders, I doubt: for if a table-ge­sture must be vsed (needs) because of the solemnity of the feast, the worthinesse of the guests, and the necessitie of honourable enterteinment, how shall not you bee bound to leaue your ministries and the Sacrament, rather then eate without a table-cloth; which, solemnity of the feast, worthinesse of the guests, and honourable en­terteinment doe full as much require: salue this if you can, nay your grounds would prooue the necessitie of trenchers, and many small appurtenances of feasts, which I spare to name.

Secondly, I offer to your judgement and censure whe­ther Sect. 37 your reasoning from a civill feast doe not also in­ferre the necessity of a table, that a table is not necessa­rie, I haue prooved Sect 12. before; and yet there is as much necessity of a table, as of a table-gesture; and rather more manifest necessitie, because you prooue this Disp. pag. 24. &c. by that; not onely as the more knowne; but for whose sake this is in a manner onely vsed and vrged.

Thirdly, I offer to your judgement and consure whe­ther Sect. 38 carving one peece of bread (such as is received in the Sacrament) doth stand with the nature of a [...]pper or feast: would not you thinke your selfe abused, if you should be so dealt withall in a feast pretended of great solemnity? Could such a worthy guest as you indure such vnfriendly and miserable interteinment? would it not be plaine mockerie in the invitant to offer it to his guests? your grounds doe condemne it most mani­festly.

Fourthly, I offer to your judgement and censure Sect. 39 whether ones giving of the cup singularly to all his guests, whether eating and drinking successively, [Page 143] doe stand with the civill custome of feasting, which you presse so importunately.

Fifthly, I offer to your judgement and censure, whe­ther Sect. 40 it be not lawfull to drink to one another, and pledge one another interchangeablie in the Lords Supper, Reaching to, and taking the cup of one ano­ther, is, drink­king to, and pledging of one another in Repl. patric. to Bp. Mort. p. 38. then the Lords Supper is a feast, but in a manner: then if a man meerely passe by another, he sa­lutes him in a manner: then kneeling may bee a table-gesture in a manner. as in civill feasts. Doth it not stand with curtesie in the in­vitant and courtesie in the guests? your grounds must bring in that fashion also for ought I see. But perhaps you would haue it so, as the Scotsmen doe plead your cause, who like to take that fashion, which (say Perth. Assem. pag. 43. they) agreeth best with the nature of a feast, where signes and tokens of amity are interchanged.

Sixthly, I offer to your judgement and censure, whe­ther Sect. 41 it stand with the nature of a feast, that we doe not, we may not eate a full and competent meale. The Lords Supper (you Disp. pag. 26. say) doth fully, and in all accomplished sort, exhibits whatsoever may serve to testifie the loue of the invi­tant to his guests, out of the nature of a banquet. Behould, is this a testimony of loue to feast a noble guest, or a Cottier either with a morsell of bread? is this full and most accomplished exhibition of loue-tokens? what is the nature of a feast, if meate be not I pray? and what [...]an be imagined more necessarie for solemnitie of a feast▪ worthinesse of the guests, kinde and noble enter­teinment, then to haue meate enough? doe you con­tend for the ge [...]ture of a supper or feast, and toward the feast it selfe are contented with a little peece of bread? here I must needes say. M. Disputers logick is senselesse, and worthy to be h [...]ss [...]d out of the schooles.

Sevently, I offer to your iudgement and censure, whether, it be not lawfull in the Sacrament, to eate Sect. 42 more then one eating, and to drinke m [...]re then one drinking. Surely by your manner of disputing, [...] Christi­an guest nay eate and drinke againe, and againe, as it is [Page 144] wont to be done in civill feasts and meales, else there is small solemnitie, pinching and miserable enterteinment.

Eightly, I offer to your iudgement, and censure, Sect 43 whether it agree with a civill feast or supper, that a man must neither eate, to please his appetite, nor to sa­tisfie his hunger:) to please his appetite he may not eate in the Sacrament, because the Scripture giues it no room among those things, which haue instituted signi­cation. To satisfie his hunger he may not eate, because the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 34 saies, if any man hunger let him eat at home.

Ninthly, I offer to your iudgement and censure, whe­ther it agree not with a civill feast to conferre one with Sect. 44 another. It is but dull entertenment, cold communion of friends at a feast, if from the beginning to the ending thereof, not one word at all passe betwixt them. That which the Replyer saith; Repl. partie. Bp. Mort. pag. 38. that talking in the time of cō ­municating is good, and exemplifieth onely in the Ministers saying some what to the communicants, is idle. For that spea­king resembles table talke no more, then the ministers speaking in his sermon, or in ministration of baptisme: nay, how strange a cariage would it be at a civill feast or supper; if when one man speaketh, none of all his friends should answer him one word from the beginning of the feast till it be finished.

In this place I will bring in certaine answers made by Sect. 45 our brethren vnto all these particular points at once. First, The reason of a feast or banquet is not vsed, (saith the Pag. 37. Replyer) to inferre all the fashions of a banquet, but to re­mooue those fashions, which agree not to any banquet. I reply two things. First, if you inferre a banquet-gesture from the respect of a banquet affirmatiuely, you must inferre other fashions of banquetting likewise; especially which are of as much force and vse to a banquet as is the ge­sture. for else how will you make a sillogisme for [...]he proofe of sitting? What meane will you make your con­clusion out off? you cannot make an argument taken from feasts, which will conclude for sitting, and exclude [Page 145] such fashions of feasting as I haue named before: As for Mr. Disputers [accomplished interteinment] solemnity of the feast [worthines of the guests] [honourable inter­teinment] courtesie of the invitant as much as the nature of feasting requireth] and I know not how many more such like] what can Mr. Replyer say vnto them? how shall not other fashions of feasts as well as sitting be inforced from them? Secondly, if you would re­mooue all fashions which agree not to a banquet, why doe you, (or will you, if necessitie should require) accept of such fashions as I haue noted before, which would be counted shamefull and vile, even in an ordinarie supper? I pray you looke backe againe vnto them: whereby appeareth, (that I say no more) your answere is altogether void of judgement.

Secondly, Mr. Disputer would answere perhaps, that Sect. 46 some fashions of the supper are personall, and some are something else what he will. I gather so much out of him by his restreining of the liberties of a table (which he speakes of) by calling them Disp. pag. 27, &c. [personall] liberties, whereby he would seeme perhaps to import, that though the liberties and fashions of a feast (as it were proper to the feast separately considered) doe not bind vs: yet the distinct liberties and fashions of his person who feasteth, and eateth, doe. I am almost of opinion that he ham­mered at some such matter, when he speakes so oft, and so confidently of [personall] liberties. Well, if hee will make vs such an answere, I replie three things: first, it is a devised shift, which hath no footing in the booke of God: where will you make appeare, that civill fashions are to be reteined, not which belong to the feast proper­ly, but which belong to the man feasting? Secondly, it is an vnreasonable shift, which will bide no triall: for if the Lords Supper be a feast properly so called, and that the liberties and fashions of civill feasts are therein to be stood vpon; shall the fashions of the person be teteined (propter convivium) for the feast sake; and shall not the [Page 146] fashions of the feast it selfe be reteined much more? Thirdly, consider of those fashions which I haue obser­ved before, and you shall finde it is a fruitlesse answere. For as in the Lords Supper you like and take vnto some libertie of civill [feasts themselues,] so againe your selues doe refuse or omit some such libertie, which are [perso­nall] as it seemeth good vnto you: and therefore why would you blind our eyes by the name and pretence of personall liberties of civill feasts at the Lords table? These things I note against the flourish of [personall liberties] if you meant by [personall] to distinguish from other li­berties of the supper it selfe. If you meant no such mat­ter, to what purpose served that Epithete? good men should not vse termes to import, or carry semblance be­fore ignorant Readers of that which is not.

Thirdly, both Mr. Replier and Mr. Disputer answer, Reply partic. to B. Mort. p. 37 Disp. pag. 148. Sect. 47 Though all fashions of a banquet may not here be vsed, yet those which may be iustified by Christs owne example, ought not to be excluded. I answere, first, now you quite dis­claime the proper force of the table-gesture reason, and onelie betake you to Christs example; for such and such fashions must be vsed not which the nature of a feast warranteth, but which Christs example onely warrant­eth, let reasonable men judge what dealing and daubing this is. Secondly, the defence of Christs example wee haue seene before faine to flie hither for refuge, I meane to the reason of a table-gesture: and how then shall that minister enterteinment to this, when it seekes to be en­terteined and sheltered vnder the authority of it? I hope this hath beene found true in its owne place. Thirdly, why haue you abused vs all this while, to reason from a Countrey custome immediately, haue you spent many sheets of paper about solemnity of the feast, worthinesse of the guests, accomplished and honourable entertein­ment, courtesie of the in vitant, &c. and will you cast off the reason of civill eating and drinking now? nay moreover (you Disp. pag. 28. say) that Christ was Good Reader marke this di­vinity, I pray. tyed to the fa­shions [Page 147] of feasts by three things: first, by a iust expectancy there­of on the part of the invited. Secondly, by the proper nature and intendment of a feast. Thirdly, by a direct intimation and profession from himselfe to performe them, in that he vn­dertaketh the solemnizing of a feast. And will you shake off this deepe divinitie now when you be put to shift for answere. Fourthlie, where you flie to Christs example for table-fashions, be mindfull of this advertisement, that both you vse some fashions of eating which Christ vsed not, and some which Christ vsed you be contented to let passe. This you cannot deny: and therefore to what purpose (because of Christs example) doe you striue a­bout the necessitie of a table-gesture.

Thus I haue satisfied (I suppose) such answers or shifts Sect. 48 you vse, to saue your selves with, when other fashions of civill feasts be vrged as well as a feasting gesture: and therefore still I offer my nine points named before to your judgement, and censure, nay what if I haue more and more pertinent to adde vnto them? which indeed I haue, and of purpose brought in your shifts before them, because they most fully refute the same altogether. And I say, they be more pertinent then the former, be­cause they concerne the matter of gesture in speciall manner. Thus then I proceede in my catalogue and say.

Tenthly, (or first) I offer to your judgement and cen­sure, Sect 49 whether kneeling in blessing, or giving of thanks, (which you vse at the Sacrament) ought not to be refu­sed as well as kneeling in the time of eating and drink­ing. Consider first that fashion agrees not to any ban­quet, and therefore you should by your owne learning exclude it. Secondly, it is a personall liberty or fashion to sit or stand in blessing at civill meales, that I may speake as you doe, and therefore you should hold your selues bound to maintaine it. Thirdly, Christ and his company sate at table in blessing of the elements as much as in eating & drinking of them: why then do you refuse that fashion here, which you will yeeld is justified [Page 148] plainelie by Christs example? and thus farre I applie further reply to your former answers.

Eleventhly, (or secondly) I offer to your judgement Sect. 70 and censure, whether any civill feast doth allow of sit­ting from the table; let Mr. Disputers judgement be had in this carriage, because he hath spoken of it somewhat freely: At a civill banquet (saith Disp. saith it is a mockery to sit from the ta­ble, pag. 32. he) vsage or carri­age wou [...]d be challenged from a mockerit. Againe (saith Ibidem. he) if we sit from the table some distance off, there to bee [...]ed as servants and strangers, shall wee not thinke our selues vsed without respect? is that vsage according to the rule of common civility? Nay a Christian Communicant (saith Pag. 16. hee) must not eate like a servant attending the reach of a morsell from the table. Is that honourable enterteinment, accomplish­ed enterteinment, courtesie of the invitant? doth that stand with the worthinesse of the guests, with the solemnitie of the feast? Behold, I say againe behold, nothing lesse. Oh absurdity and senselesnesse! will you needes haue a ta­ble-gesture, and yet will you sit from the table; did ever man set his gu [...]sts on that fashion? here the Replier tri­flingly Repl. partic. Bp. Mort. pag. 36 answereth, that since you cannot sir at the ta­ble as you desire, you come as neere it as you can: nay Disp. pag. 32. the very Disputer is Sir, can you be content to for­sake all that you said of the vnlawfulnesse of sitting from table, so casily? contented to plead, that you sit as neere the table as conveniently you may. But (not to except against you, that if you cannot sit at the table it selfe, private feates and retired pewes are commonly de­sired more, then neerenesse to the table) this I reply, that neither can you avoid the force of your owne vrging of table-fashions so fleightly, which makes this your sit­ting from table a sin in you; nor if that be lawfull to be done, because you come as neere your desire as you can, shall kneeling be condemned in case we vse it, when we can vse no other: so this is but frivolous and childish trifling. Now consider, first, this fashion agrees not to a­ny banquet, & cherfore you should by your own learning exclude it. Secondly, sitting at the table is a personall li­berty of the table, and therefore you should hold your [Page 149] selues bound to maintaine it. Thirdly, Christ and his companie sat at the table, and not from it; why then do you exclude that fashion which you will yeeld is justifi­ed plainelie by Christs example. Thus I applie as before.

12. (Or thirdly) I offer to your judgement and cen­sure, whether vncovering of the head be not a fashion Sect. 51 contrary to solemne feasting. Consider first, this fashion agrees not to worthy and fellow-like guests at feast of so­lemnitie, and therefore by your owne learning you should exclude it. Secondly, couering of the head is a personall liberties of the table, and therefore you should hold your selues bound to maintaine it. Thirdly, Christ and his companie sat covered at supper; why then doe you refuse that fashion, which you will yeeld is justified plainely by Christs example? To this Mr. Disputer an­swers Disp. pag. 146, 147. like a Skilfull man, that there is great difference betwixt sitting at a feast and vncouering: and what is that difference betwixt them? By sitting we are admited re­ally to the table saith he. It is false you are not admitted simply by sitting; for if you carre to it by standing or any other gesture: you are admitted to the table; onely by sitting you are admited with more credit and conueni­ence; So are you also by being couered. Againe (saith he) by sitting we be socially admitted to the table, and oh Sir, are you admitted socially by being covered? who but the Disputer would haue put that for a difference? Againe (saith he) by sitting we may feed at & on the table. But that exception cannot put difference betwixt sitting, and covering as concerneth our purpose, inasmuch as by very kneeling it selfe we may feed at and on the table if you say no more. Againe (saith he) by sitting we giue and receiue interteinment at the table: and are you so vncivilly fashioned, or so vnacquainted with the Country manner, that you do not know we do giue, and receiue interteinment at the table by the opportu­nitie and commoditie of our ha [...]? Againe (saith he) by sitting we may carry our selues sutably to the person of [Page 150] guests, though we rest vncovered. Can you so? doth sitting bare at table stand with the solemnitie of a feast; with honorable interteinment, with worthines of fel­lowlike guests, with courtesy of the invitant? Surely the Disputer hath forgotten himselfe. Againe (saith he) our societie with Christ in glory is noted in Scripture by sit­ting at a table, so is it not by covering of the head: as if the Holy Ghost is [...]bound to note our societie with Christ by all equall fashions of ciuill tables because hee notes the same by one; as if your selues did not stand vp­on some civill fashion of feasts in the Lords Supper be­side sitting, which yet are never vsed to set forth our societie with Christ in glory, more then couering of the head: as if those things which the fashion of being co­vered in feasts signifieth, might not metaphorically also be applyed to the societie of Christ and his Saints in glo­ry, Againe (saith he) some nations haue a custome, that the servants waiting at table be couered aswell as their Masters: you instance in the French. I answere, first, if there be such a custome among them, what is that to vs? we must be ruled by our owne Country custome, not by theirs in our gestures at Sacrament, for so you say often enough, and if you will giue leaue to trie the controversie by the libertie of all Countrey cu­stomes aswell as our owne, I could shew that your opini­on is yet more fantasticall. Secondly, but suppose our owne Countrey fashion were, that waiters were covered aswell as those they waited vpon, whats that to the point? It is enough that such as sit at table be couered, (which is onely to the matter i [...] hand) I care not what they doe, which waite vpon them: yea but (saith he) the gesture of sitting puts a difference betwixt the guests and the servitours, so doth not the gesture of couering alwaies. But I pray you Sir. Must you needes haue a gesture to difference guests from waiters? Then (be­sides that it is on idle divice of your owne heart) what will you say to the gesture of standing, which you vse [Page 151] in receiuing sometimes, which is the notorious guesture of such as waite at table? nay how foolish is it to stand vpon the difference, when at the Sacrament there be no waiters (properly so called from civill vse) for they be all guests which be present? Lastly (saith he) in our Sauiour Christs time, there was no ornament for the head in vse; that is strange when the Apostle 1 Cor. 114. See Dan. 3. 21. forbids men to be covered in the Church of Corinth so earnest­ly: but suppose there was not, yet so long as if it had beene the fashion of the Iewes at meat (you will say) Christ would not then haue refused it, it serveth enough for our turne. Besides, if Christ were vncovered it was occasionall, and [...]eerely civill; your vncovering is vsed of purpose and choyce: and (as yourselues do say) for re­ligious reverence. And yet there is no doubt but in those times they vsed coverings vnto the head, even our Saui­our, and his Apostles did which the necessitie of shelter from injuries both of cold and heat did bring into vse from the beginning. Thus then I may still apply my three former points, for reply to your threefould gene­rall answere as before. Sect. 52

Thirteenthly (or fourthly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether standing (to speake of it distinct­ly) ought not to be refused also at the Lords Supper as well as any of the former. Consider, first, this fashion doth not agree to set and solemne As for run­ning bankets both the Disp. excepts against them pag. 26. also they are not alwayes at a table when they might be; and howsoever are but a com­plementall & appendicall ea­ting. feasting. Obiect. But some men doe stand at meate sometimes. I answere, so some doe kneele also sometime at meate too. But why doe they stand I pray? either for want of seats; or through infirmitie that they cannot sit; or that hast and businesse will not permit setling to sit; or for some other respect which is vpon the by. But shall I therefore call this a­tacticall gesturing a proper table-gesture, in civill and solemne eating? Secondly, consider that sitting is a personall liberty of guests at table, yea such a liberty, as that you Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 36. say, it is a sacramentall and essentiall part of the institution. And therefore you should hold your selues [Page 152] bound to maintaine it, to the refusing of the Sacrament, to the losse of your libertie and life; specially against stan­ding, which Christ Luk. 22 v. 27 makes a note of a waiter at table, and contradistinguisheth that carriage, to the gesture of them which eate meate: yea when the Disputer Disp. pag. 17, 30. saies, It is vnlawfull to receiue the Sacrament in attending manner, and as a servant. Thirdly, consider that you a­vow Christ, and his com [...]any did sit downe: why then doe you exclude that fashion which you will yeeld is ju­stified plainely by Christs example; specia [...]ly when you Disp. pag. 148. say, you enterteine not the custome of the Countrey sim­ply; but as it is according to the example of Christ and his A­postles. Thus I apply as before. Sect. 53

Fourteenthly (or fifthly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether walking vp and downe ought not to be refused for vnlawfull, as well as kneeling. Consi­der first, this fashion agrees not to feasts of solemnitie as Mr. Disputer knoweth, and ther [...]fore you should by your owne teaching exclude it. But the Replier Reply partic. to B Mort. p. 36 saith, walking is more agreeable to a supper then kneeling. I See further answer before chap. 3. sect. an­swer, if it be so, then thus it followeth, that it kneeling be a sinne, because it swerveth from the custome of ci­vill suppers, walking shall be a sinne in a lesser degree, and that is all which can be gotten by that answer. But (I pray) in what respect is walking agreeable to a sup­per? because the body is higher in the aire? or because it is good for digestion of meate? or because we come to supper by walking? or lastly, because the drudges of an house be wont to eate sometimes perhaps, whiles they goe vp and downe a sweeping: or some servitours at table eate sometimes, as they goe vp and downe, when they haue changed a trencher? other agreeablenesse besides of walking to a feast or supper I know none. Se­condly, consider, sitting at the table is a personall liber­ty of the table, and therefore you should hold your selues bound to maintaine it. Thirdly, consider, Christ and his Apostles (as you say) sate certainly at table, and [Page 153] in the eating of the eucharisticall supper walked not: why then doe you exclude that fashion which you will yeeld is iustified plainely by Christs example? Thus I apply as before. Sect. 54

Fifteenthly, (or sixthly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether it be not a sinne simply for the Car­ver, (as I may so speake) or server in the eucharisticall supper to stand and walke, and carry every ones part of the feast vnto them from person to person, as well as kneeling. Consider, first, this fashion is a mockerie at a civill feast. and therefore you should by your See Disp. p. 3 [...] owne learning explode it. Secondly, sitting together at the table is a personall libertie of the table both to carver and guests: and therefore you should hold your selues bound to maintaine it. Thirdly, Christ at the table gaue vnto his communicants bread and wine, they being there present: why then doe you still exclude that fashion which you will yeeld is justified plainely by Christs ex­ample? Thus I apply as before. Sect. 55

And thus I ha [...]e put together (omitting some other) these 15 points, entreating you to judge of them indif­ferently, and either let the pretence of a table-gesture be taken away for defence of sitting, or let all other fa­shions of suppers and feasts, and specially of Christs, come in by it as absolutely necessary to the Lords Sup­per: and then your selues must turne over a new leafe, repenting (according to the former points) of all your errours in doctrine, exorbita [...]cies in practise. I hope you will not be still so idle now to [...]ell vs, that you are to be excused in your practise in many of the said points because you can doe no better at this time: for looke what force your argument of a table-gesture hath in kneeling against vs; the same it h [...]th in these particu­lars against your selues. What if you be vrged in many things, that doth not alter the case, so long as you may lawfully yeeld vnto them? And so I referre all these things to your thoughts belonging to my fourth and last consideration.

Arguments against the necessitie of a Table-gesture.

NOw (besides the former discourse whereby in an­swere Sect. 56 of your reasons. I haue plentifully shewed the vanity of your great argument of a Table-gesture) I will now adde by themselues a few arguments of mine owne, for the further and cleerer evidence of the truth. Thus then I reason with you.

First, God stood not vpon a table-gesture in the insti­tution of the very Passeover, nay he plainelie pulls his people off from the fashions of solemne feasts by expresse commandement: for first, he requires they should eate with a staffe in their hands. Secondly, that they should eate in hast. Thirdly, as many of you haue written, that they should eate in the gesture of standing: and though this fashion was appointed onelie for the first Passeover, yet it is of excellent vse, to shew, that the respect of a ta­ble-gesture had no necessary stroke in the Passeover: es­pecially, forasmuch as the Lord never gaue other directi­on afterwards for a table-gesture, and the change of the gesture that was made among the Iewes was plainelie ar­bitrarie, not necessarie. Therefore here was no order given, [...]o necessarie respect had, to the Countrey fashion and gesture of civill tables.

Secondly, there is no place in the new Testament, Sect. 57 which doth require vs to vse a table-gesture: shew this and I yeild; I say there is not one place. Wherefore I wonder at good men somuch the more, that they dare presume to ob [...]rude vpon vs the authoritie of their owne fancies, specially when none ever pretended the sole au­thoritie of the word more then they.

Thirdly, the See Treat. of div. worsh. p. 44 Apostle sa [...]es, the kingdome of God consists Sect. 58 not in meate and drinke Rom. 14. 17. And the same A­postle reprooues the Coloss [...]ans, for placing religion in [Page 155] not touching, not tasting, not handling, Colos. 2. 21. I desire my brethren to consider whether the Apostle by these places do not condeme the placing of religion in civill fashions & customes as they do in the sacramentall supper. I doubt not but such as are both judicious and ingenious will cast off the reason of a table-g [...]sture, when they haue well considered what the Apostle mean­eth.

Fourthly, the Sacrament is a spirituall and heauenly or­dinance Sect. 59 of Iesus Christ; therefore so long as the body seemely serveth to the soules devotion, what striue wee about a Country-fashion? Againe, so long as the medi­tating and belieuing soule can feed as much on Christ spiritually in kneeling as in the Countrie gesture, what is the benefit of a civill custome? I for my part do not see, did neuer feele, how the Countrie fashion helpeth either the soules devotion, or its feeding vpon Christ our Saui­our; me thinkes it should hinder the same exceedingly, when accidentally it depriues you of the Sacrament it selfe, and the libertie of your Ministries.

Fifthly, if the Lords Supper must needs haue such a ge­sture, Sect. 33 as is vsed at ciuill eating, why should not all other civill things (being applyed to Gods worship) be vsed in the same civill fashions also, as if they were meerely ci­uill? as why shou [...]d not our Churches, or places at least wherein we rec [...]ue the Sacrament be vnlawfull hoc no­mine, that they be built vnlike our chambers, or par­lours, or halls, or any other roome which we civilly vse to eat our meate in? Againe what needed Moses a pat­terne to make many vessels of the Tabernacle by, when he might haue made them according to the choycest fashion at that time of such do nesticall or civill vtensills? Againe, why should not that osculum pacis, (which also the new Testament alloweth, and commendeth) be re­teined in ecclesiasticall communion, aswell as in ciuill: In a word if there be such a necessitie, that civill things (applyed to holy vse) must be vsed still after the ciuill [Page 156] fashion, and manner, then there is an easie principle laid of diuinitie not readier to determine doubts, then dange­rous to produce errours.

Sixthly, it is not out of the way to cast a thought vpon Sect. 61 the proportion which is betwixt holy and civill gestur [...]: for if at a ciuill meale w [...] sit at prayer occasionally from the sitting to eate, why should we not in a spirituall meale kneele in eating occasionally from the kneeling to pray and worship? Nay I should thinke that if the gesture of diuine worship, condescend sometimes to bee framed like vnto the civill, for a ciuill busines, much more the gesture of a civill busines will condescend to be framed like vnto the spirituall for diuine wor­ship.

Seuenthly, I aske you whether civill fashion is to bee Sect. 62 applyed vnto the Lords Supper, as it is civill, or as some new respect is put vpon it? If the gesture lose the respect of civility, then your argument of a table-gesture loseth its force. But if you say you vse it as it is civill, besides that you inferre equally all other civill supper-fashions, you consider not that if it were possible, Gods perso­nall worship should haue nothing in it, but that which is I meane by spirituall, that which is con­tra distinguish­ed to civill, not to corporall. spirituall, yea civility it selfe should haue no place there, if all could be spirituall, as divinity teacheth: why doe you then contend for civilitie in Gods worship, when your civilitie stands against spirituall worshipping, not against prophanesse, you may not set ciuilitie in op­position against worship (in Gods solemne ordinances) but onely against that, where by both worship and civili­tie be destroied.

Eigthly, and lastly, I wish to be considered the vncer­taintie of your reasoning in this argument of a table-ge­sture; Sect. 63 for are you not alwayes flying from it to Christs example, or some other refuge; when you are not able to defend it? This is most true in the Disputer, and of all others in him most shamefull: did ever man say more for the necessitie of a civill custome then he? oh how he [Page 157] vrgeth a table-gesture, that I wonder at his impudencie! The gesture of the supper must be as the solemnitie of a feast, courtesie, and dignitie of enterteinment, &c. re­quireth forsooth! at last (being put to his shifts in answe­ring) he Disp. pag 148 saith in this manner: sitting is not enterteined with vs simply vpon this ground, in that sitting at meate is the received custome of our Countrey, but because it is such a cu­stome; that is, (saith he) it is a gesture of necessary and wor­thy vse, and there is Christs example for it. Verily if the vsefulnesse of the gesture in it selfe bee the matter you stand on, quorsum est profusio hac? to what purpose is this argument taken from civi [...]l tables? And thus you haue my reasons such as they are) against the necessitie of a table-gesture; besides those which I vsed before in my answere to your reasons for the defence of it.

A Recapitulation of my reasons against the necessitie of a Table-gesture.

NOw for conclusion, I will recapitulate all my prin­cipall Sect. 64 points of answering and reasoning together. If the S [...]crament be improperlie called a Supper; if a man Twelue points recapitulated. may lawfully kneele at civill eating vpon occasion; if it cannot be concluded from civill to spirituall; if there be as great respects in the Lords Supper as feasting, and greater too, which may with as much reason and more sway the gesture; if there bee a great many fashions of feasting which will be equally inferred with the gesture; if at the institution of the Passeover there was no respect to a table-gesture; if a table-gesture at the eucharisticall Supper be no where required in the new Testament; if the Kingdome of God, namely his religion and ordinan­ces stand not in civill fashions and customes; if kneeling hinder not the partaking of the dutie or comfort of this feast; if it be a false assertion, that civill things applyed to religious vse must alwaies be [...] vsed according to the [Page 158] civill manner; if there be as much reason to kneele in religious eating for worship-sake, as to sit at table in praier for civill eating sake; if civilitie may not bee de­fended in Gods service against gestures of religion and worship, but onely opposed to carriages of vnseemeli­nesse and prophanesse: lastly, (passing many points which I haue observed vpon the by) if there be nothing but miserable vncertaintie in this argument; then I dare conclude that the said argument of a table-gesture, though it stand among your arguments like a noble starre, is indeede no better then a foggie meteour; I meane the froth of inconsideration, and (in the Disp.) of precipitancy: so by the helpe of Christ I haue fini­shed the arguments against kneeling drawne from the light of nature.

The first proofe of this first Argument.

FIrst (you say) kneeling is contrarie to the dignitie of the Communicants, because it is contrarie to our Sect. 2 coheinship, and fellowship with Iesus Christ. To the manifestation whereof two propositions you striue to maintaine. First, that at the Communion we all a [...]t the person of coheires at Christs table. Secondly, that knee­ling in the act of receiving the sacramental bread and wine is contrary to that person: for, as for that generall supposition, that each man ought to carry himselfe ac­cording to the person which he susteineth, who will make any question? let vs see the proofes of your two propositions in order.

Of the first Proposition.

FOr the first, that we all act the person of coheires Sect. 3 with Christ at his table, you endeavour to shew by certaine considerations: but it will be good to explicate that speech, [we act the person of coheires with Christ at his table] before we come vnto them: and the phrase hath three senses. First, From a ma­ior in the third sen [...]e, and an assumption in the first s [...]nse, the vnlaw [...]u [...]l­n [...]ss [...] [...] i [...] in­fe [...]ed i [...] that [...] which [...] be seene This [...]. we act the person o [...] co­heires at the Sacrament: that is, we receiue th [...] Sacra­ment being coheires, but this is nothing to the present purpose: for in this sense we act the person of coheires not onely in the Sacrament, but in every act (whatsoe­ver it be) either of civility, or religion, which we do well, whiles we liue vpon earth. Secondly, we a [...]t the part of coheires, that is, we carry our selues as becomes them which are heires together with Christ, of his hea­venly Kingdome. But this is no more to purpose then the former; for this is but according as the Apostle ge­nerally exhorts vs, that (in all things) wee should walke [Page 160] worthy of the Lord vnto all pleasing, Coloss. 1. 10. worthy of the calling wherewith wee are called, Ephes. 4. 1. worthy of God, who hath called vs to his kingdome of glory, 1 Thess. 2. 12. Thirdly, (a) we act the person of coheires: that is, we personate and act in gesture the representation of our inheritance: and this meaning onely tends to your pur­purpose. Now I obserue in your dispute, that according to these three senses, you giue vs three considerations for confirming of your proposition.

First, (say Disp. pag 4. you) that we beare the person of coheires Sect. 4 with Christ at his table, is a truth euident, and agreeable to the Scripture. Luk. 22. 29, 30. For our repaire vnto this holy feast doth presuppose thus much; that we are alrea­dy coheires with him. And Pag. 5. againe, we are presumptiue and presupposed coheires, when we come to the holy Sacra­ment. And Pag. 3. our common praier booke supposeth vs to bee such. Answer, it is The reason (saith the dis­puter) why we refuse kneeling at the Lords table, is not, because we are coheires with Christ, pag. 10. so that hee is plainly against himselfe. true, or else it were a miserable case. Euen in praier when we vse the humblest gesture in all the world, we are presumed, and supposed for such: but what need I to speake of praier? Who knowes not that the children of God stand heires to heaven all theire life long, and are to be considered such in every imploy­ment, which they performe well? You shew your selfe a very wise man by this consideration as it appeareth. And this is to be referred to my first sense giuen before.

Secondly, (say Pag. 5, &c. you) we should carry our selues at the Lords table as becommeth his brethren and coheires. An­swer, Sect. 5 is it most certaine we should so, in my second sense; and not at the Sacrament onely, but at all times, and in all businesses whatsoeuer.

Thirdly, (say Pag. 4, 5, &c. you) the elements of bread and Sect. 6 wine represent our glory in heaven: our receiuing of them represents our partaking of glory; therefore we must act the person of coheires in gesture. Answer, this consideration is onely (somuch as) probable against the gesture of kneeling. But first I deny the antecedent, and then the consequence or argument itselfe.

[Page 161] For the antecedent you can never prooue that the Sa­crament is a proper, and direct resemblance of heauenly glory; for in such a type or resemblance there be three points concurring. First, it must be immediate and not drawne in by dependance of one thing vpon another. Secondly, it must be speciall and not generall, for even every civill meale which we eat may hould some analogy with our feasting in heaven, aswell as the Sacrament. Thirdly, it must be instituted, for no man may devise vnto Gods substantiall ordinance, a typeship or significa­tion, without warrant from himselfe. Now how well you will prooue the bread and wine to resemble the glory of heaven, let vs heare and consider.

First, (saies the Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p▪ 39. Replier) it is very probable, that Sect. 7 this supper is a type of the heavenly glory; because Christ often resembles the same by a supper: especially this supper being a type of something. Answer, this last clause is very childish and idle, in asmuch as Christ hath expressly pointed out vnto vs that thing which this sup­per is to represent. Againe, the force of your reason is common to all civill suppers aswell as to the Sacrament, nay it is more for them then this; because they be sup­pers properly taken, wheras this is not, there being no accomplished point of a supper, or feast, to be found in it at all: moreover, this reason is deliuered but as a con­jecture, and I hope conjectures will sway no mans con­science; but what if there were never so great a fitnes and correspondence of this supper to the heavenly, it could be yet no type either speciall, or instituted; this reasoning therefore is very shallow and fruitles, and this is more then probable.

Secondly, (saies Ibidem. the Replyer) our Sauiour lead Sect. 8 his Disciples from the instituted supper to the heavenly, Mat. 26. 29. Answer, is it therefore a type of the hea­venly? our Saviour lead the woman of Samaria. Iohn. 4. verse. 9. 13. From the water of Iacobs well, to the water of life. Was Iacobs well therefore a proper type [Page 162] of grace? is this the way rightly to finde out, and judge of proper types? from my rising out of bed, I take oc­casion to thinke of the finall resurrection of all flesh out of their graues. Is my rising therefore a proper type of the resurrection? If this reason can make a type, then any thing vpon earth may be made a type, of some hea­venly thing, if thence we can but raise our thoughts to the contemplation of some such thing which is heauen­ly.

Thirdly, saies Pag. 40. the Replyer, (for I am content to put his conceipts together) the whole communion which Sect 9 me haue and hope to haue with Christ is represented in this supper; and vnto this communion belongeth or perteineth ce­lestiall ioy. Answer, it is true that joy belongeth to the communion of Christ, and his Church; but that is per­sonall joy of the heart, injoyed in this present life in good measure: but the joy or happines which concer­neth your purpose in hand, is that matter of joy or glo­ry, wherewith (as with a feast or dainties) we shall bee comforted and delighted in Gods kingdome. The com­fort of our communion with Christ, stands in the mu­tuall imbracings ond reflections of loue and grace, at Christ Reuel. 3. 20. speaketh. If any man open the doore I will come into him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Glory is no more perceining to this communion, then is a rich dowry to the communion of man & wife. Besides by this learning of yours you do plainely jumble together the signification of all types: therefore the same concludes not the Sacrament to be a type of heaven, either imme­diate, or speciall, or institued.

Fourthlie (saies Pag. as be­fore. the Replier) In other Sacramen [...] as Circumcision, Passeover, Baptisme, there is a signification Sect. 10 of something which is to come; and why should there not bee likewise in the Lords Supper? Answer. I answer, first for the Passeover, and then joyntly for Circum­cision and Baptisme. And for that I say, that the two significations therein of [past] and [to come] [Page 163] doe in our Sacrament meete together in one; which is a remembrance of the Lambe alreadie slaine for our de­liverance. Therefore if you would make any just analo­gie betwixt the Passeover, (concerning its signifying something to come) and the Eucharisticall supper, you should compare the same in this manner: that as the Passeover signified the Lambe to be slaine, our Supper signifies the Lambe already slaine: and how is it possi­ble, that the Supper must needs now signifie something to come, because the Passeover signified Christ to come. Verily you do not reply with judgement, if you please to giue me leaue so to admonish you: nay because you can not shew anie glorie to come, which the Passeover was a type of, it followes that the Supper is type of no glorie to come; for there is as much reason, that, that should signifie glorie to come to the Iewes, as this should now vnto vs: yet I will giue you that some thing to come is respected in both these Sacraments, whereby the recei­ver might and may (long after receiving take benefit, and comfort thereby, but this is still communion, which may be renued, confirmed, encreased, virtually from the Sacraments, having beene vsed in an heavenly manner) but this will availe your cause nothing at all.

Next for Baptisme and Circumcision, how may it ap­peare, Sect 11 that they signifie any thing to come? Oh (saith Pag. 41. he) how should not Paptisme signifie our perfect washing, which is the state of a glorious Church as well as our new birth? I answere, we neede not be persuaded by interro­gations, except the same included some effectuall consi­deration to worke vpon our vnderstanding. But sup­pose that Baptisme signifies something to come, it is cer­tainly nothing else but perfecting of our sanctification, or perfect sanctification. And this I may yeeld you with­out trouble to my selfe in the matter controverted: for as Baptisme, which is the first sacrament, resembles our perfect sanctification, whereby we be fitted for perfect communion with Christ; so the Supper, which is the [Page 164] second Sacrament may represent that our perfect com­munion being perfectlie sanctified. Here it you see fit and answerable significations of something to come in both these Evangelicall sacraments; but all this while here is nothing, which makes for proofe, that any sacra­ments signifie properlie, and be types of glorie, which is but an accessorie both to sanctification, and communi­on; and yet belike the Replier would insinuate, that Baptisme signifies glorie, by saying, that the perfect clen­sing, (which Baptisme representeth) is the state of a glo­rious Church: as if this predication were tolerable. A gracious state is a glorious state, that is, grace is glorie: for though they goe together, yet they be diverse things, and that which signifies y^e on, doth not therefore proper­ly signifie the other. But what now if I graunt that all the sacramen [...]s doe signifie the glorie of heaven in some sort, yet are they not types thereof; either speciall (for the representation which you would haue is made from them all in common; where, as they be speciall types, they haue each their peculiar accommodation. And what thing that is pleasant to vs and good; may not in this manner signifie heavenlie glorie?) or immediate, (for how many consequences must you bring this significa­tion about by?) or lastly instituted; for the Lord never spake a word, to giue any man to wit of such a sacra­mentall signification. Wherefore it was out a tricke of outfacing that the Replier crieth ou [...]. This is a strange pag. 40. humour to thinke thus; for to thinke otherwise is a strange humour in himselfe. And indeede when all comes to all, he condemnes his owne opinion manifest­ly; for thus he conclude [...]; pag. 41. All parts, degrees, and circumstances of our communion with Christ, which may bee shadowed out by those outward elements and actions vsed in the Sacrament are by the same represen­ted: for glorie is no part or degree of our communion with Christ, but a consectarie thereof. As for circum­stances thereof to bee represented by the sacrament is [Page 165] learning which I doe not vnderstand. But note if glo­rie were a part, or degree, or circumstance of our com­munion with Christ, he sayes those parts, degrees, and circumstances, are shadowed out by the outward ele­ments, which can be shadowed by them; implying, that some are incapable of being shadowed by them; for what else may that clause or exception meane? nay he goes on, and speakes more plainely then all this: All con­sectaries, saith he, or things that doe follow vpon communion with Christ, are not, neither can be properly represented in the sacramēt of the Communion, though they be all sealed vp to the faithfull: now if it be most true, that glorie in heaven is a consectarie of our communion with Christ, then hee hath beene pleased to yeeld his cause, for which he con­tended so much in the conclusion without bidding; so much to your Antecedent.

Next I haue denied your inference, [The Supper re­presents Sect. 12 heavenly glory, and therefore we must act the person of coheires in gesture] for is it to be thought that one re­mote and generall representation (for at the best it is no more) hath the sole stroke to put vpon vs, what gesture we are to vse? are there not many things more concer­ning the nature of the sacrament, which would com­mand the gesture before it? sounder it were to say that the manifest imployment, which the principall intent of the institution requireth puts vpon the Communicants the person to be justeined: else marke how your reason will be retorted on you. He (say Disp. pag. 4. you) that taketh bread and wine as representations and pledges of his future in­heritance with Christ, be in that respect acteth the part of a coheire with him to the said inheritance. So (say I) he that receiveth the sacrament to doe his homage and worship to Christ, he in that respect acteth the part of a bond­man or worshipper. The truth is, if the analogie should be extended to the gesture, to binde the consci­ence to the end of the world, the supper had neede to haue beene not onely an immediate, speciall, and insti­tuted [Page 166] type, of gloris (none of which it is) but also to haue had no representation so great as that is, in its whole institution and nature. And hitherto of the first Proposition, that we must act the person of coheires with Christ at his table.

Of the second Proposition.

NOw (supposing that we act the person of coheires in receiving the Supper) let vs proceede to your Sect. 13 second Proposition, that kneeling is contrary to the person of coheires. Thus then you indeavour to prooue the same. Kneeling (say Disput. Arg. 1 pag. 6, &c. you) imports our disfellowship with Christ, indignity, incongruity, inferiority, extraordinary abasement, and grosse disparagement, therefore it is contrary to the person of coheires. So Sir, now you haue spoken, and I am doub [...]full, whether I should giue this reason any an­swer, but contempt: yet peradventure it will be thought fit, that both they which are more weake and ignorant, and others, who haue not much considered of this mat­ter, should haue some light and helpe, (I hope by our poore endeavour some little shall bee) affoorded vnto thē. Wherfore I denie this Enthime [...]e: (Kneeling imports inferiority, therefore it is contrary to the person of coheires:) for doe you dreame of a coheirship whereby you stand not in inferioritie to Christ? Oh proud ignorance! (I hope my brethren will pardon my zeale, I speake but to this arrogant Disputer.) Is there any promise which God ever made to sinfull man, is there any reason can be imagined, was ever any example heard of, whereby it doth appeare, that beleeving Communicants in re­spect of their coheirship, are preferred to be equalls with Iesus Christ? And the vilenesse of this conceit will better appeare if these things following be considered.

First, that you not onelie presse this equalitie, in respect of interest hereditarie to heaven, but also in regard of Or else you would no [...] [...] for a socia­ble gesture. all familiar and sociable expressions of brothers: so Sect. 14 [Page 167] as (for ought I vnderstand, and let it be judged by wiser men then I) thereof strange and miserable consectaries arise, to be detested of every godly heart. As namely, if that which imports inferiority be contrary to the per­son of coheires, then is it not at that time, when you take vpon you the person of coheires, lawfull to call or esteeme Christ, your Lord or Superior. Consider what I say. Againe it is not lawfull at such a time for a Chri­stian to cast vp such an [...]ja [...]ulation as this is; oh my sweet Saviour, I am not worthy so much as to gather crumm [...] vnder thy table (perh [...]ps you will say, oh we are vnwor­thy of our selues; yet that serues not the turne, for at the sacrament we lay away the respect of our miserable e­state and condition, which was, and onely must consi­der the person, which wee haue taken vpon vs; which person admits no speech importing inferioritie [...] you say.) Againe saith must haue no working at sa­crament because it imports inferioritie and dep [...]ndance. Againe, it is vnlawfull to be vncovered at that time, be­cause it imports inferiority and disfellowship. Further­more how may you stand at sacrament, that is, vse a wai­ters carriage, (as our Saviour calls it, the Disputer af­firmes of it) and yet act the person of coheires? In a word [...] you will presse sitting, because Christ and you be e­qua [...]ll, then may you carry your selfe like Christs equall in all points; now [...]f this be not learning of the bot­tomlesse pit I cannot judge.

Secondly, your doctrine is the worse, because even at Sect. 15 table (where this person of coheirship is put vpon vs) the [...]ver was, and will be superiority and inferiority. If a Noblen an invite a Countreyman, or one that is mea [...]e to supper; and be pleased to set him at his own table, make him put on his ha [...], talke with him familiar­ly; (and this is more then our case requireth) will you say this poore man is not therefore inferiour to the No­bleman at his table: nay did not Christ at that very time, when he supped with his Apostles, Ioh. 13. ver. 1. tell them; ye call [Page 168] me master and lord, and ye say well, for so I am? wherefore though ye sit as coheires, it doth not follow that yee sit as equalls.

Thirdly, your doctrine is yet worse because the sacr­ment Sect. 16 is not a remembrance of Christs sufferings without consideration of his You say, we solemnize the Supper in re­membrance of Christs death, & prerogatiues Royall, purcha­sed for vs there­by, Disp. p 13. Againe, you say, if knee-worship were to bee vsed in the sacrament, it ought rather to be tendred to the second per­son in the Tri­nitie distinctly, then to God the Father in several, or ioin­tly to the whole Trinitie, pa. 15. Now to say so doth import, that Christ is considered in the sacrament as our superi­our. As superiour, say I? Yea as God, who is onely to be worshipped, Matth. 4. v. 10. Kingly office. It is the folly of the votaries of Rome in their chamber of meditation, that they look vpon Christs sufferings barely in themselues, labouring to requite them with pitty: the Lords Supper would be no honourable feast, as you speake, and as it is; not yet comfortable feast; except faith might re­spect in the act of eating, and drinking, Christ, as once crucified, so now conquering and glorious. Doth not Christ as our Lord, and King, invite vs therefore to ban­quetting? must we not then needes carry our selues like vnderlings, (though gracious with him) like subjects, like redeemed ones, to our Lord and King, and Captain? Is Matt. 28. 18. all power given to him in heaven and earth: and is there no administration of it to his coheires? shall e­very Philip. 2 10. knee bow to him, and shall not the knees of his coheires bow to him? I meane as coheires; for as coheires doth not Christ exercise government (that is superioritie) toward them? else how is it that their co­heirship is procured, maintained, and possessed vnto them? Certainly if the sacrament consider not Christs Kingly office, then must you cease to talke of coheirship at the participation of it: but if Christ be considered in his Kingly office there, then I pray will not a carriage of inferioritie verie well become you?

Fourthly, let it be supposed, that in the act of recei­ving Sect. 17 the bread, and wine, there is no respect of Christs Kingly office; yet I beseech you, is there not a necess­rie respect of God himselfe? Is there any service divine done in obedience by the Church, but Almighty God is the object of it? if Christ and you be brothers and e­qualls, [Page 169] yet therefore subjection is not to be denied to the soveraigne Lord of all. If two brothers and coheires goe hand in hand, expressing in the kindest manner, all re­stimonies of mutuall equality and good will, is it at such time contrary to their coheirship, if both, or one, vpon occasion expresseth himselfe in dutifull reverence to their common father? surely inferiour relations are not de­stroyed by the duties of superiour, vnto which heaven and earth require they should giue place. But Mr. Dis­puter hath here to say something: first, (saith Disp pag 13. he) the carriage of a Communicant is the carriage of a coheire, but kneeling (though it be performed to God) can never bee made the carriage of a coheire. This is worthy stuffe, so (say I) the carriage of a Communicant is the carriage of one that worshippeth God, but a table-gesture is not the carriage (as you You distin­guish betwixt a table-gesture and a personall worship, Disp. pag. 45. say your selfe) of one that worshippeth God. And Sir, this exception takes not away the force of my answer, because the carriage, which the relation of coheirs requireth may yeeld vnto the carriage which the relation requires betwixt God and vs. Besides, that knee­ling may be made also the carriage of a coheire, I partly haue, & further also shall endevour to shew you by & by.

Secondly, (saith Pag. 13, 14. he) kneeling diverts our hearts from Sect. 18 being imployed in the meditation of the point of our coheirship, (nay marke the wickednes of this answer, as it is further pressed as followeth.) Can we at the same time act two severall and incompatible parts? Can we banquet with the second person in Trinity, and yet enterteine an holy important negotiation with the first? If herein there be not a distracti­on of our hearts, I know not what can distract them? Sure I am, if we performe meditation of Christ as wee ought, our hearts will rest so absolutely possessed there­with, as they cannot bestow, and enterteine themselues for that time in other service; (he meanes in service to God the Father.) Oh that the zeale of your owne opini­ons should make you fall into such foule and vngodly sayings I two intolerable errours you teach heere. First, [Page 170] that God the Father in Trinitie or vnitie of person is by no meanes to be served [expresly in] the Lords Supper; neither ought the heart to enterteine one poore cogitation of God our Father, but o [...]ely of Christ our Saviour. Oh abominable assert [...]on! as if God in Christ were not the object of all religious duties and ordinances; as if there were any thing in the world more necessary in t [...]e Sacrament, then the consideration of Gods loue, who gaue his Son to death for vs, as if it were not impossible for a Christian heart during the whole Sacramental, action to meditate of Christ, without hauing any thing to doe with the father of all mercy and comfort. But you giue vs to vn­derstand with what a heart you come, and teach others to come to the Lords table, namely God our eternall and mercifull Father, is not in all your thoughts. Secondly, you [...]each vs, that the service of God the Father, and the due mediation of God the Son be incompatible [...]ctions. Oh bould Disputer incompatible? Behold they [...] for ever insepe­rable, as the Christin religiō mainteineth, But I will passe from these follies, partly because they be but the froth of your owne heart, without all pr [...]o [...]e; partly because they must be further answered in their In the next chapter. owne place againe; (for here they come in but vpon the by) and lastly, because they touch not the force of my former answer; for say the service of God and the meditation of Christ could not both be done at once, yet they may be performed successiuely, and the heart may still be free from being diverted from the sacrament all employment. Especially when the point of coheirship must needs re­spect the bestower of the inheritance: for must you vse a gesture as a coheire and not as an heire much more? I should thinke there is more reason to vse a gesture of re­sp [...]ct to our heavenly Father, which bestowes the inhe­ritance vpon vs, then vnto out brother, who is but I say (but co­partner) be­cause in this ar­gument of co­heires, you con­sider no more then the precise point of coheir­ship o [...] copart­nership. copartner in that inheritance with vs.

Thirdly, (saith Disp. pag. 14. he) if kneeling [...]e performed to God, yet it is not sutable to the corriage of a communicant, so, long as Sect. 19 [Page 171] God calls vs to a feast, I answer. First, you should haue said, it is not sutable to the cariage of a coheire; you say it is not sutable to the cariage of a coheire; you say it is not sutable to the carriage of a cofeaster or guest; so yo [...] answer not to the purpose, and in a manner yeeld the weaknes of your argument of coheires. Secondly, to that kneeling is vnsutable to the carriage of spirituall guests at Christ table, I haue spent Chap. 5. be­fore. answere enough.

Fifthly, let it be supposed that there is no respect in Sect. 20 in the Sacrament of Christs kingly office, or of the ma­jestie of God himselfe (which I durst not say without trembling and feare; but) let it be supposed I say, will it follow that we be equalls with Christ at the Sac [...]a­ment therefore? speake of nothing but the very point of coheireship, speake of nothing but of Christ huma­nity, are we his equals therfore? do you not please to con­sider that Christs humanitie is assumed, and doth consist in the second person of the Trinity, and is it not in that one respect incomparable with the whole creation of heaven, and earth; of men and Angells? Perhaps you will say, that Christ and we haue this common and equall, that we be both heires. Answer, a worthy defenced as if we must (forsooth) neerely consider Christs coheireship in the abstract or appellation onely, and not the quality of his person who is coheire with vs. This were ridi­culous, for except we consider the quality of his person expressely, we turne the Sacrament into a mockery, and haue no more respect of Christ, then of the poorest Christian in all the world. Wherefore if you consider Christ-man your coheire, still you be inferiour vnto him: Inferiour say I? Alas infinitely. There is vnspeak­ably more difference betwixt him, and other coheires with him, then betwixt a King and the meanest of his subiects: you therefore which say, we be coheires, there­fore equalls, might say as well that wormes be equall to Angells, because they be both creatures; that a noble Roman commander and the baggage of his army were [Page 172] equall, because they were, either in the field, or in tri­umph both together.

Sixthly, and lastly, I entreate godly people to consi­der, Sect. 21 whether humilitie will not stand with the person of coheires; if you say humilitie is excluded at that time, I shall thinke the Lords people will soone cast you off, Martyrolog. in the story of Austin. as the Monkes of Banger did Austin) as too proud to teach them the good way. But if humilitie be not con­trarie to the person of coheires, assuredly kneeling is not contrary. Oh humble Christian, tell me then, wilt thou not kneele because it will be grosse disparagement, extra­ordinary abasement: I know thou wouldst be ashamed, and afraid, that such language should come out of thy mouth. Wretched man, (wilt thou say) disparagement to kneele; abasement to kneele? grosse disparagement? extraordinary abasement? woe is me, hath God besto­wed his graces vpon me, that I should at any time thinke much to humble my selfe? doth he who giues grace one­ly to such as are humble, meane, that the possession of grace should driue away that for whose sake it entred? when is the [...]e a fitter time to humble my selfe to God, then when I haue most cause to fasten mine eye vpon the benefits I haue received of him?

But (oh Disputer) tell me what is the cause that you Sect. 22 cry out against kneeling for disparagement and basenes? Is it because kneeling is basenesse to be vsed vnto men, when they please to doe vs the most good, and to bee most familiar with vs: Ruth in the sense of B [...]az his great kindenesse, in giving her come and meale; as ra­vished therewithall, Ruth 2. 10. fell vpon her face before him. So Mephibosheth, when David professed kindenesse vn­to him, even to eate bread at his table continually, bow­ed himselfe, 2 Sam. 9. 7, 8. saying, what is thy servant, that thou shoul­dest looke vpon such a dead d [...]gg a [...] I am. And thinke you, that Ruth and Mephibosheth, would not haue bowed themselues to B [...]az and David, vpon occasion, in the ve­ry act of eating, and drinking also▪ would not you put [Page 173] off your ha [...], declare some reverence, bow your body at table to an honourable invitant, vpon the gracious profession and expression of his ex [...]raordinarie kindnes to you? And w [...]y then may not coheires in receiving the Sacramentall bread and wine, cast themselues downe at the feete of their Saviour, in contemplation of his in­finite kindnes vnto them? Againe, is kneeling basenes because it is an effect of sinne? Verily, if it had beene simply such, your exception had beene lesse greivous. But is it not a naturall gesture? Was not man made to vse it in time of innocency? Was it honourable to in­nocent Adam; and is it basenes and disparagement vn­to you? Againe, is kneeling basenes, because it lookes back vnto your former state, and remembers you of your basenes? Then I pray cast your eyes vp to the Passeouer, in receiving whereof the Iewes (you will acknowledge) acted the person of coheires, as well as we do in the Com­munion. Yet God Exod. 12. 8. commanded them to eat the same with bitter herbes, for remembrance of the Egyptian bondage, where by there liu [...]s had beene Exod. 1. 14 made bit­ter vnto them, wherefore if kneeling at communion do remember vs of our former basenes (which yet it doth not of it selfe) it is not therefore vnlawfull, more then an herbe of bitternes was vnto the Iewes, that being al­lowed to vs, as a naturall gesture, and a gesture of wor­ship by generall rules; as this was, by particular com­mandement. And indeed whether kneeling doe remem­ber vs of our old estate yea or no, yet the remembrance thereof is altogether necessary in a worthy receiuer. A­gaine, thinke you, that it is disparagement and basenes, for coheires to kneele to Christ because they be heires together with him of the dignitie and glory of heaven? Then looke vpon the foure and twentie Elders, coheires with him of glory, nay possessed (in part at least) of there inheritance; yet in the sense and contemplation of his infinite loue, fell downe before him, Reuel. 5. 8. 9 saving; thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast made vs Kings and Priests. M [...]rke [Page 174] that when they were made Kings, & possessed of their inheritance, then they fell down before Christ, as it were casting their crownes at his feete, of whom they did re­ceiue them. Oh marke the speech they vsed; thou hast redeemed vs, thou hast made vs Kings and Priests; as if it were the speech of communicants at the Lords table. And yet they fell downe before Iesus Christ

In a word, if kneeling be a disparagment vnto you, in respect of whom is it such a disparagement? What? is it a Sect. 23 disparagement in respect of Christ? That is strange lear­ning. He that would Did Christ wash their feet as a coheire? He did it in Supper time. Ioh. 13 ver. 4, 12, 17. wash the feet of his own serva [...]ts, and that in supper-time, to teach them humility to one another, which also then was but a by-action: would he reproach them for kneeling, a direct action of the sacramentall employment, (for gesture is necessary in its kind,) in supper time; to declare their humility to himselfe, will he that Mat. 11. 29. saies, learne of me, for I am meeke and lowly, vpbraid vs for vsing a gesture of lowli­nes? Sure I am, Christ will vpbraid men of pride, and stiffnes, who hath Isa. 45. 231 sworne by himselfe, that euery knee shall bow downe vnto him. What then? Is the disparagement, which kneeling occasioneth in respect of men? But be­sides that, if it were, it condemns not an humble action. Nay we should labour to be more humble 2 Sam. 6. 12. with Da­vid, then lesse, more vile and base as he speaketh, then be discouraged by the imputation of men. Besides this I say, I do not see or heare, that any body talkes of basenes in kneeling but your selues: touching the Dis­puter, I doubt not to say, (without malice, as God is my witnes) that he hath vsed many speeches arguing much more pride then the action of kneeling, would do basenes. So that in conclusion, when we consider a­right in respect of whom kneeling is disparagement as you say, it will be found such in respect of none but your owne hearts: which looking vpon your great pri­viledges by Christ (perhaps by reason of the greatnes and sweetnes thereof some what forgetting yourselues) [Page 175] do therevpon dreame that an expression of humility will not stand with the Sacramentall meditation of them.

Finally, I cannot but thinke these bould-speeches a­bout coheires, dangerous, and durst not vse them with­out Sect. 24 horrour; and heretofore when I haue striven to confirme my selfe in the vnlawfulnes of kneeling, I haue beene plainely ashamed of them. As for that which the Reply partic. to B. Mort. p. 38 Replyer trifleth, telling vs, that there is a lawfull fa­mili [...]rity with Christ, what's that for the Disputer. In­deede the Scripture knowes not the new [familiarity] therefore you must expound your meaning, if you mean by familiarity, sweet and delightfull communion of the soule with Christ, who will say to the contrary? If you meane such familiarity as men had with him vpon earth, or as the wife hath with her husband? Then I partly denie, partly distinguish; I deny that such fami­liarity is lawfull more, which men had with him vpon earth, that is, which one man hath with another. For therein partly it is evident manifestation who he is, and partly his glorification makes difference enough. And as for the familiaritie of man and wife, though Christ and and his Church be described as husband and wife in Scripture allegorically, yet it is onely to be applyed in spirituall things, and standeth not in corporall gestures. And besides such familiarity as is betweene Christ and his Church is common in all ordinances, especially in the word of grace, wherein he speaketh to her, and in prai­er wherein she speaketh vnto him againe. And for prai­er let me adde a word more, doth ever Christian soule converse more familiarly with Christ, then when shee communes with him in praier? She enters into his cham­ber to him, solaceth her selfe in his loue; Cantic. 2. 14. her voice is sweet vnto his ear; her coūtenance comely in his eyes: words cannot be vsed to note greater familiarity of the soule with Christ, that is spirituall communion, then she hath with him in praier. Therefore Mr. Replyer, what fa­miliarity do you thinke vpon? What? Such as knee­ling [Page 176] vpon the knees will not accord withall, are you of opinion that Christ, and the Church be never familiar in their mutuall conferences? Verily (Sir) you are de­ceiued if you thinke to salue the Disputers extravagan­cies with this plaister. I hope, it is large in our desires, partly in our experience and sense, through the grace of our bl [...]ssed Saviour, to solace our soules with his loues. Cantic. 1. 2. Let him kisse me with the kisses of his mouth, for his loue is better then wine. Yet farre be it from vs, be it ever farre from vs to thrust out duty by loue: wiues must be in sub­iection to their owne husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord, (and I thinke there is farre greater sub­jection of the Church or soule to her Lord and husband, 1. Pet. 3. 5. 6. then of Sarah to Abraham.) What then shall become of the Disputers equalitie, which will not allow the wiues subiection (as a wife) in carriage and gesture? As for that it is against the person of coheires to kneele, because kneeling is an act of indignitie abasement, disparage­ment, yea, extraordinary and grosse abasement, and dis­paragement; I wish the Disputer (if he be aliue) to judge himselfe, and warne good people to beware of such lea­uen. And now I will note some further grounds to dis­cover the vanitie of this reason against kneeling drawne from our coheirship.

Reasons that Kneeling at Sacrament is not con­trary to the person of a coheire.

FIrst, it is a feigned device of man, that our coheirship should be declared by the gesture of sitting; if Christ 5 had bidden vs to sit for signification of our coheireship, then there had beene cause for ever to presse the same; since God appoints not sitting to signifie our coheirship, nay commands not particularly sitting it selfe, the Dis­puter must not be obeyed.

[Page 177] 2ly, there is no ordinance in the Church, but the same Sect. 26 admitteth a diverse person at the same time: for looke how many considerations any service of God may haue put vpon it, and so many parts a Christian acteth in the cel [...]bration thereof. In prayer a Christian soule acteth the part of a begger, knocking at the doore of Gods mercy; again he acteth the part of Christs spouse, sweet­ly conferring with her Lord and husband. In the word, a Christian may act the part of a malefactour arraigned, convicted; of a servant, of a child, of a friend, yea of a reall craver and begger, houlding out his hand for almes, though he say nothing; Psa. 81. 8. 10 opening his mouth 28 it were, hungerly, and needily, that God may fill it. In receiving likewise he may act the part of a confessour, of a remembrancer, of an homager, of a feeder, of one that renders thankes, &c. and in all these ordinances, he acts the part of a worshipper: therefore to say kneeling is contrary to the person of a coheire, is to say, kneeling is contrary, and it is not contrary; it is lawfull, and it is not lawfull. For kneeling is no more contrary to our co­heireship, then confession, homage, thanksgiving, wor­shipping, &c. (which doe agree to kneeling, as is mani­fest in prayer) be contrary to our coheireship: therefore also it is vntrue to say, that a Christian acteth no part in the Sacrament, except he act it in outward gesture. Sure you thinke all Christian acting must be visible to the eye, like that of the Stage-players.

Thirdly, if kneeling be contrary to our coheireship, then mans duty, and Gods graces be contrary; for let Sect. 27 the person you take vpon you be what it can, still and ever duty hath a stroke. If duty haue place, then hath subjection also; if subiection agree, kneeling because it is an act of subiection cannot therefore be contrary.

Fourthly, In the Sacrament, God giues Iesus Christ Sect. 28 vnto vs, knitts him with vs as coheire; and this is be­fore the giving of heaven vnto vs; now kneeling is no more contrary to the receiving of Christ, even when we [Page 178] would personate and act the cariage of a receiver, then it is contrary to the person of a receiver to take a noble gift from the hands of an earthly Prince with bowing of the knee; or a ma [...]efactour to receiue the grant of his life in the humble gesture.

Fifthly, though a man act (namely by bodily gesture) Sect. 29 one person at one time in Gods ordinance, yet at ano­ther time in the same ordinance he may act another. This you make plaine in two places. First, Disp pag 2. 3 you say, we act the person of a coheire in the Sacrament by sitting; in praier the person of sutters by kneeling, in confession of our faith, the person of confessours by standing. Well, but in praier, and confession, you will easily grant, that we may change the gesture of kneeling and standing, into any oth [...]r ge­sture vpon occasion; and why then not in receiuing al­so? Secondly, pag 8. 9 you illustrate the necessity of an­swering our carriage to the person we beare by, 1. Cor. 11. Where is required that they which did beare the per­son of men must be vncouered; of women must be c [...]xered: vncovering of the head in those times being a badge of superiority, and preheminence: couering of inferiori­ty, and subjection. Now it is not necessary that they which do beare the person of men be vncouered in our publick assemblies; this you will yeeld vnto, therefore in Gods ordinance, and in the Sacrament, a man may act by gesture one person one time vpon occasion, which at some other time he is not bound likewise to doe.

Sixthly, in praier, we act the person of coheires to Sect. 30 Gods heavenly kingdome, and yet their kneeling is not contrary to your coheirship. But you deny, that we pray as coheires; and it seemes a very harsh deniall vnto me. First, he that praies as befriended and beloued of God, praies as a coheire. Secondly he that praies as a believer, praies as a coheire. Thirdly, he that praies in hope, praies as a coheir. Fourthly, he that praies as Christs spouse, praies as much as a coheire. Fifthly, in a word, doth not he pray as a coheire, that praies thus; co [...]s Lord Ie­sus, [Page 179] come quickly? But the Disputer would say of all these, (as he saies of Pag. 11. one of them, namely believ­ing) that they be common, and generall considerations, that fall out in all good actions at all times. I answer, if they doe, then in all such good actions, where these considerations haue due place, we in these respects act the part of coheires, though we doe not act it in gesture; and why do you make such an exception at this? As if when you speake of acting the person of coheires in the Sacrament, you speake of acting such a part, as is to be acted in no other busines, or service in his Church, or in private: truly if you had spoke onely of acting the part of such as remember Christs death by consecrated ele­ments of bread and wine; then you had spoken of such a part as is common to no other service, or busi­nesse in the world, (and yet that part might be acted in any outward gesture) but when you speake of acting the part of coheires, you speak of a part which may be common to all good service or businesses (spiritually considered) in the world. But what high streines and [...]aptures the Disputer had, when he penned downe his opinions, I cannot tell.

Seuenthly, kneeling agrees with the proper spirituall Sect. 31 nature of a Communicant, therefore it agrees with him as a coheire. This argument is true according to your owne manner of reasoning. Now for the antecedent, your selfe also do teach vs what is required inwardly of a guest at the Lords table, whereby the same is distin­gushed from that, which is required inwardly in other parts of divine worship, and what is that? Pag. 17. Meditation of the Lords death, and of the blessings purchased for vs there­by; weighing the anal [...]gy betwixt the signes, and the thing signified. But this is not all, (Sir) I will help you out; for you name nothing but meditation, which a repro­bate is capable of. This therfore is more, the soule o­peneth it selfe wider to receiue the blessed beames and raies of Christ loue, gaines strength of mortification by [Page 180] the contemplation of his death, growes more confirm­ed and established by the power of faith, which comes to him more confidently, sticks to him more closely then it did before. What now? Can you imagine that knee­ling is contr [...]rie to thes? [...]s if all these fall not our in praier. I say, in praier; not as helped by sacramentall [...]ites, (for as they stand in relation to these, so they are peculiar to the Lords Supper) but absolutely considered, for the things themselues [meditation, assurance, mor­tification, confirmation;] are to be found and enjoyed in praier: wherefore kneeling agreeing with the spiri­tuall imployment of a Communicant, is not contrary to the person of a coheire.

Eighthly, be it true, we receiue the Sacrament as co­heires Sect. 32 with Christ; must we needes be his fellowes therefore? Rather Gal. 4. 1. that if the Apostle might admo­nish vs better. The haire before he come to his inberitance differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all: Truly, there is not a little force to mooue vs to vse carri­age of humility, in this, that we be yet in a state of hu­mility, vnglorified, for as our Lord Iesus was pleased to make himselfe, as it were equall, with sinfulle man, whiles himselfe was in the state of humilitie with him; so much more (now Christ is ascended to glory) it may well become vs to stay the time of assuming equalitie with him, (if it should e [...]er be) till we also be made glorious? Make you no difference in this thing be­twixt the diverse estate of humiliation and glorification? vereiy here is some cause you should.

Ninthly, when Adam was in Paradise, acting the per­son Sect. 33 of an happie man alwaies, was kneeling against his happinesse? yea are not inheritours in heaven, who be ever acting the person of glorious wights, even of Kings, said Philip. 2. 10 Reuel. 5. &c. yet to fall downe before Iesus Christ? Is fal­ling downe against their comheriting with him? Is the same contrary to it? For my part I say, if kneeling were not contrarie to the person of an happie man in [Page 181] time of innocencie, if not contrarie to the person of an inheritour in future glorie, I dare not thinke, (miserable worme that I am!) that kneeling is against my dignitie of coheirship in the Communion. And suppose that on the sitting were mentioned to be vsed in heaven, yet so long as it signifies nothing else but enjoying, and pos­sessing of glorie there, it followeth, that so long as the excellent benefits of the Supper be partaked of, it for­ceth not for the circumstance of the gesture.

Tenthly, who bestowes our excellent priviledge of co­heirship Sect. 34 vpon vs? doth not the Lord? and will it en­ter into your heart to thinke, that God would bestow such a priviledge vpon man, as in the profession and ce­lebration thereof it should be damnable for man to wor­ship him who bestowes it? Did you ever reade that God forbade his people to kneele to him in the celebration of his spirituall excellent honours bestowed vpon them? I did not, neither did you.

Eleventhly, put case, it stands not with your dignitie Sect. 15 (forsooth) to kneele at Sacrament, were it not yet good to release a little a little of the expression of your digni­tie as coheires for reasons of greater weight? will you not come off with a gesture of dignitie, for the substan­tiall dignitie of the Sacrament it selfe? for the dignitie of your ministries? & of the Church, in the womb wherof you haue gotten life, and breath? for his Majesties crowne and dignitie? surely so long as it is but a personall, exter­nall dignite, should it not be for borne vpon occasion? especially when your spirituall dignitie will bee never a whit the lesse, (nor outward, saving your owne opinion) either in itselfe, or in your inward feeling of the con­tentment, and joy of it; or in the interpretation of o­thers. And so much for answere to the first reason of your first maine inference out of Scripture: Kneeling is a­gainst the dignitie of a Communicant, because it is against the person of coheires with Christ.

The second proofe of the first Argument.

SEcondly, kneeling is against the dignitie of a Communi­ [...]cant, Sect. 36 because it debarrs him of the personall pre­rogatiues of the Lords table: and those prerogatiues (you Disp. 3. Arg. pag. 22, &c. say) be sociall admittance, and sociall enterteinment at the Lords table. Now a [...]l that you dispute of this matter confusedlie, I may reduce to foure propositions: first, that a table of repast is necessarie in the Lords Supper. Secondly, that it is vnlawfull not to partake with Christ in the prerogat [...]ues of his table. Thirdly, that sociall admittance, and enterteinment, are personall liberties and prerogatiues of the Lords table. Fourthly, that kneeling debarrs vs of this sociall admittance and interteinment.

For the first, that a table of repast is necessarie, you en­deavour Sect. 37 to prooue as well as you can; but I haue an­swered all that you say concerning that point: chap. 5. sect. 12.

For the second, that it is vnlawfull not to partake with Sect. 38 Christ in the prerogatiues of his table, I graunt; speaking of such prerogatiues, as himselfe hath appointed for vs, and speaking of such prerogatiues, as we can come by: for if we be letted from some of our liberties, and pre­rogatiues, it is better to enjoy those which we may, then willingly yeeld to lose all of them together.

For the third, that sociall admittance and entertein­ment are personall liberties and prerogatiues of the Lords ta­ble, Sect. 39 I deny. For first, you meane by sociall admittance and enterteinment such as is vsed amongst compani­ons and friends at civill tables, but even at civill tables, sociall admittance and enterteinment are either not to be called liberties of the table, since the table is made for man and not man for it; or else such liberties, as are of perpetuall and necessary vse at tables: partly because many a time it falls out that one alone sitteth at table, [Page 183] yea when a great feast is prepared; partly also because where be many together, many times it is, that every man sits at the table of his owne charge; as in Colledges, in the Innes of Court, and Chancery, &c. So in that there wanteth society, in this wanteth enterteinment. [Wherfore you should haue called sociall admittance and enterteinment the prerogatiues of invited guests, not of tables in generall.] Secondly, but let it be so, that sociall admittance and enterteinment are prerogatiues of civill tables, are they therefore prerogatiues of the Lords table? how doe you proue that? Namely, Pag. 27. by a principle in rea­son, that what agrees to the generall as it is such, the same agreeth to each speciall comprehended vnder it: so you apply what agrees to a table of repast in generall, that is to all ci­vill tables, the same agrees to the table of the Lord. I an­swer, hereby you bewray your selfe; you discover some ignorance. That which agrees to all civill tables, doth it agree to tables in generall? Surely the generall com­prehends both sacred and civill tables, which are the two kindes or specials of tables in generall. Therefore when you say so oft, that sociall admission and enterteinment agree to all tables in generall, (and you show this one­ly by their ordination in civill vse) you doe forget or not consider that. Sacred tables are one sort comprehended vnder the generall. This is weake pleading your cause. Againe you tell vs, that the civill table is not changed in the properties of it. To that I haue answered in sit place, namely Chap. 5. Consideration 2. And for answere to your co [...]ce [...]te of the necessitie of civill liberties at the Lords table, the whole 5. chap, properly, and ple [...]tifully ser­veth.

For the fourth and last, that kneeling debarrs vs of this Sect 40 sociall admittance, and enterteinment I answer, first, such sociall admittance and interteinment as is vsed at civill tables, is but a fantasie of your owne, and it is con [...]u [...]ed manifestly there whither [...]ven now I [...]ent you. Second­ly, yet there is an honourable enterteinment of Commu­nicants [Page 184] at the Lords table; but that standeth not in earthly fashions and comple [...]ents. In what then? Be­ho [...]d [...], first, it stands in comming to the Lord; Supper at his owne kinde Mat. 22. 9. Revel. 19 9. invitation; he is pleased to send for them and call them. Secondly, in feeding vpon his owne delicacies, even Ioh 6. on himselfe; oh mercifull Iesus that givest thy selfe to be [...]aren of vs! greater honour can not bee had. Thirdly, in eating and drinking Luk. 13. 26. in Christs presence. Fourthly, lastly, in feasting with his Cantic. 5. 1. owne most pleasant, and honourable welcome: and these be spiri [...]uall priviledges, and excellenci [...]s, which kneeling doth not debarre vs of. So I pass [...] to the last proofe of your first argument of collect [...]on.

The third and last proofe of the first Argument.

THirdly, kneeling is against the dignitie of a Commu [...] ­ca [...]t, Sect. 41 because it is against the p [...]rpose of Christ; for his intention was to dignifie vs by sitting at table with him. This I finde you indeavouring to prooue two wayes: first, you Disp. pag. 23, 24. say, that if Christ did not intend vs to sit with him like brothers there wo [...]ld follow many absurdities and inconveniences.

1 Absurd. Then it followeth, that he shewe [...] not the af­fection Sect. 42 of a brother a [...]cording to the nature of an honourable feast; for by the law and purpose of a feast, the persons invi­ted are to eni [...]y the righ [...]s and priviledges of a feast. An­swer, the sacramentall feast is spirituall, and needes not the complements of a civill feast, to approoue Christs loue to the Communic [...]nts: this absurditie is begged without proofe.

2 Absurd. Then it followeth, that our Saviour sh [...]wes Sect. 43 lesse respect to his brethre [...] and coheires, then a civill symposi­ar [...] to his ordinari [...] gu [...]st [...]. Answer, truely so he doth, (as [Page 185] you meane respect in externall fashions of [...]easting,) in twenty things, more materiall for the most part then the gesture: but i [...] you speake properly, Christ shewes not lesse respect to his guests, because he enterteines them not with ou [...]ward fashions, which neither suite to the spiritu [...]ll na [...]ure of his feast, nor to himselfe, who is in­visible to vs and glorious. The respect is vnspeakable great and sweete, which he pleaseth spiritually to enter­teine vs withall, standing in the points named before, sect. 40.

3 Absurd. Then it followeth, that [...]e makes offer of the Sect. 44 accompl [...]shed interteinment of a feast, and in the issue affoords vs but a part thereof. Answer, you speake of such inter­tein [...]ent as is outward at civill feasts, and so it is idle beggerie, that Christ ever made any such offer.

4 Absurd. Then it followeth, that [...]e prepares a table, Sect. 45 and doth not vse it to the whol [...] service whereunto it is prep [...] ­red. Answer, still it is begged, th [...]t sitting at the table is a service, whereunto the table necessarily serveth: be­sides why then doe you fit from the table to p [...]t an absur­ditie vpon Christ?

5 Absurd. Pag. 2 [...]. Then it followeth, that [...]e would crosse Sect. 46 the expectation of such, whom [...]e in [...]iteth contrarie to the part of a fri [...]ndly i [...]vitant, and therefore he would not doe it: for the invitant i [...] tyed to answere the first expecta [...]ce of the invi­ted. Answer, It is begged after your manner, that expe­ctation of ou [...]ward en [...]erteinment in sitting at the Lord [...] table is a just expectation as of a thing due vnto them which be guests, and Communicants: except the thing it selfe be first prooved due, the expectation there­of [...]annot be justified: you [...]ke a strange course to prooue it is Christs will, you should be dignified by sitting at ta­ble, because it pleaseth you to looke for it.

6. Absurd. Then it followeth, that Pag. 24. he would Sect. 47 faile to vse a ready meanes to ass [...]re vs of our co [...]eirship with him. Answer, but this (if it dese [...]ue any answer) is to be answered in the next chapter.

[Page 186] Now I would request the reader to referre the first fiue Sect. 48 absurdities back [to chap 5. Considerat. 4.] and consider (besides that which is there plentifully observed) whe­ther they also do not vnavoidably bring in, the necessi­tie of all requisites, whatsoever of civill feasts, that I may truly say, there was never any man argued more absurd­ly. And forasmuch as the said fiue objected absurdities be grounded in the supposed necessitie of the civill table-gesture, the said chap. 5. serveth for full confutatiō of thē all. And so much for one of your waies of showing that Christ intended to honour vs by the gesture of sitting.

Againe, you shew in this manner: Christ Manuscrip. ch. 6. aimed at this as a maine end in the institution of this Sacrament, to expresse the high dignitie, and favour he vouchsafeth vs, in Sect. 49 admitting vs to be guests at his table, and even to sit at table with him, Luke. 22. 27, 30. I answer the place quored is impertinently alledged. Christ speaking therein Calvin mak [...] Luk. 22. ver. 24, 27 the same hi­story with Mat. 20, 24. Mark. 10. 41: and han­dles it not in that place, the Evangelist doth record it. Therefore Cal­vin is far from your minde. not vpon the occasion of his sitting with his Disciples at Supper; (though then they were together as it is like­ly at the See my table, ch. 3. sect Passeover) but vpon occasion of their strife, which of them should be greatest: he perswades them to humilitie, that they should not clime one aboue ano­ther; but rather that they should be as servants to one a­nother, as servitors at the table. This he perswades vnto them by two arguments. First, by h [...]s owne exampl [...], for he though their master & lord, yet was pleased as it were to wait vpon them, Verse. 27. Secondly, by the com­mon glory which he did in heaven appoint vnto them. They that were here as servitors and vnderlings, should sit at table with him in his kingdome. verse, 28. 29. 30. I thinke eyther Christ doth not speake of sitting, as it is contradistinguished to other gestures, but onely of the place of sitting that the cheefest and vppermost seates should not be affected; or if Christ do speake of sitting as contradistinguished to other gestures, it is for the for­bearing of it rather then vsing; as if he should say, It is enough for you to be as attenders and waiters, when I [Page 187] your master am such. Againe, you may well be content to release this outw [...]rd honour of sitting here, since it is enough for you, that you shal [...]it in heavenly glory here­after. Whereby we may obserue that in supper time (and for supper-sake, according to the force of your rea­soning) he presseth, & preferreth gestures of humility, and attendance, before sitting.

And that it may better appeare, that it was not the Sect. 50 purpose and intent of our Saviour to honour vs in the Sacrament by the gesture of sitting, let vs consider. First, when Christ [...]ate at table with his Disciples at Passeo­ver (euen then as it is likely) he schooled them for look­ing at honour in the outward sitting at table: Luk 22. 26. hee that is ch [...]fe among you, let him be as he that doth serue: I Verse 27. my selfe [...] among you as he that serveth.

Secondly, if the positure of the body be intended an Sect. 51 honour vnto vs, then Christ condemnes them which stand at table as crossing his intention to honour them, when himselfe about the time of the Supper speakes of standing, as the gesture of one that humly waiteth.

Thirdly, if externall honour be intended vs in Gods Sect. 52 worship, in respect of whom is it intended? You meane partly in respect of men, and so you teach Disput. is [...] exte [...]nall ho­nor from men, when he saith, Doe the ele­ments deserue such regard, as to bee set vpon a table, and do not the guest [...] deserue to bee set at table. p. 29 The (de­sert) of [...]o [...] guests to sit, is much ind [...]ede! but surely, be­cause the elements be set on a table-cloth, you would not presse the necessitie in standing of a foot-cloth, or in sitting of cushions. plainly, if I do not misinterp [...]et, and then may we seeke for ho­nour from men, contrarie to our Saviour Christ, Iohn 8. 50. Moreover the Scripture forbidding vs to seeke ho­nour to our selues, forbids such seeking as either ex­cludes Gods honour, or at least is not altogether refer­red, and subordinated thereto: but your ex [...]erna [...]l ho­nour as coheires, (I speake to the Disputer) is incom­patible with expresse seeking Gods glorie: because you haue said, the service of God the Father, and behaviour as a guest to Christ at his table, be actions incompatible: but you should remember the 1 Cor. 10. 31. Apostle, whether you eat or drinke (yea i [...] civilly, much more sacramentally,) do all to the glory of God.

[Page 188] Fourthly, when Christ speakes of honourable sitting, Sect. 53 he speakes of sitting in a mysticall or metaphoricall sense, (as is evident Mat. 8. 11. [...]uk 22. 30. [...]phes. 2. 6. Revel 3. 21. in the Scripture) and never speakes of the honour of bodily sitting in religious ordi­ [...]ances in all the new Testament.

Fifthly, when Christ admits vs to the throne of grace in our poore prayers, is it not his intent to expresse his Sect. 54 high dignitie and favour vouchsafed vnto vs? who can doubt of this? Nay was not Mary Magdalens Luk. 7. 37. pra­ctise in washing, wiping, kissing, anointing the very feete of Christ, her glorie, and crowne? how then can kn [...]e­ling crosse the purpose of Christ in doing vs honour, when one main end of the institution of prayer (where­unto you graunt, kneeling well agreeth) is to expresse the high dignitie and favour he vouchsafeth vs, in ad­mitting vs to be suiters at his mercie- [...]eate; yea to con­ferre with him most sweetly and (in some sort) famili­arly vouchsafing both to hold our the golden scepter of admit [...]ance to vs and also [...]o commune with vs spi­ritually as a man talketh with his friend face to face.

Sixthly, and lastly, suppose Christ intended to Sect. 55 honour vs in the Sacrament by the gesture, yet so long as that honour is but an appendice or accident to our spirituall honour, the Sacrament it selfe (no doubt) is not to be refused therefore; because we cannot enjoy the said outward honour sometimes as we doe desire: actions of dutie may be suspended vpon vs vpon respect of greater duties befalling: how much more an outward express [...]on of our owne personall dignitie, and honour? so much for your first maine argument of collection.

Argum of Christian libertie.

FIrst you teach, though kneeling be lawfull in it selfe, yet Sect. 2 the imposition thereof, (such as in our Church) makes it vnlawfull vnto vs, because it depri [...]es vs of our Christian libertie, which Christ hath purchased for vs. This argu­ment may be formed to this purpose.

That which deprives men of their Christian liberti [...] is vn­lawfull: Abridg p. 46. 1 Cor. 7. 23. Gal. 5 1. Coloss. 2. vers. 8, 18, 20. Repl. gener. to Bp. Mor [...]. ch. [...]. sect. 5. Gal. 4. 10.

Kneeling at the Sacrament as it is inioyned in our land de­pri [...]es men of their Christian libertie.

Therefore it is vnlawfull.

Our first answer.

I answer: first by shewing wherein Christian libertie Sect. 3 in respect of things indifferent consisteth; and it standeth in three points. First, that a Christians minde be truely persuaded of things indifferent, as they are; and that he be not forced to any practise, contrarie to that [Page 215] persuasion: this you will not denie. Secondly, that he vse the libertie which God hath given him, not vpon meere will, and at randome, but for the glorie of God, and for the good of others, both superiours and neigh­bours, and herein libertie it selfe is bound, as the Scrip­ture sheweth; for Gods glorie, the Apostle Paul suffi­ciently teacheth, for discoursing of single life and mar­riage, he persuades the Corinthians, (such as had the li­bertie) to chuse to liue single rather in those times vpon this ground, 1 Cor. 7. 35. [...] that they might attend vpon the Lord without distraction. For our sup [...]riours, (whether they be Magistrates, Parents, Masters, &c.) the Apostle Peter also declareth; for exhorting all men to be obedi­ent to Magistrates, he 1 Pet. 2. 16. warnes them not to vse their libertie as a cloke of maliciousnesse, [...]ide Be [...]. A [...] ­ [...]. in bu [...] l [...] ­cu [...]. in casting off the bridle of government. For our neighbours there is a plaine direction, Gal. 5. 13. Brethren, yee haue beene called vnto libertie, onely vse not your libertie for a [...] occasion to the flesh, but by [...]oue serue one another. Thirdly, Christian li­bertie standeth either in doing that which is indifferent, or in restreining our selves: in both there is the exam­ple of the blessed Apostle: 1 Cor. 9. 20. hee made himselfe as a [...]w to the Iewes; [...] vnder the law to them which were vn­der the law, that he might gaine them to Christ. And againe, wee haue not vsed our power, (saith Verse 12. hee) but suffer all things, le [...]t we should [...]inder the Gospell of Christ.

Out of the former points it appeareth. First, the Sect. 4 Christian liberty is see Bp Mort. p gener. ch 6. sect 12. & the Replyers yeel­ding. not taken away by the necessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing; but onely by that necessitie, which takes away the opinion, or per­suasion of its indiff [...]rency. Secondly, when the Magi­strate commands something which is indifferent, it is not the part, or honour of a Christian to refuse to do it, because in himselfe he had libertie to do otherwise: but rather it is an excellent priviledge which he hath, that having libertie of many things, he can make vse thereof even in that one, to please, and satisfie him (vnto whose [Page 216] authoritie, and government God himselfe hath subiect­ted him) without offence to his conscience. Thirdly, that a Christian is not absolutely bound by God to act, or suspend an indifferent action so much, or so much; (then it could not be indifferent in it selfe) but to doe it alwaye [...] or refuse it alwayes, to doe it sometimes, or re­fuse it sometimes interchangeably, as occasion requireth. Thus I haue shewed you wherein Christian liberty con­sists in things indifferent, and this may stand for one answer to your argument, if you please to apply.

Our second answer.

SEcondly, I answere, that all the places of Scripture, Sect. 5 which you alledge are vtterly impertinent to your purpose, against the gesture, as perhaps you will easily see by a iudicious review. The first place (1. Cor. 7 23.) forbids vs to be seruants of men, that is in vide Calv. in hunc locum. i [...] So B [...] cited by the Repl ge­nerall to B. M [...]r ch. 6. sect. 5. wicked, or ( [...]) superstitious actions, according to their perverse com­mandements, or desires. There is no reason in the con­text to meane it of the practise of indifferent things, nay there is good reason on the contrary part. For (I pray) must not servants obey their Masters in things indiffe­rent, then verily they may refuse to obey them at all, in asmuch as there is hardly any action in the calling of a servant, but therein be sundry respects of liberty and in­differency, rising from the nature of the imployment, and other circumstances belonging.

The other Scriptures, Gal. 4. 10. 5. 1. Col 2 v. 8, 18 20. doe declare, the libertie which Christians haue from the bon­dage Sect. 6 of Iewish Ceremonies: of which I would aske you two questions. First, whether those Iewish Ceremonyes, which the Apostle meaneth, were indifferent; not onely in their nature, but in their vse also, being applyed to Evangelicall worship? If they were not, then the proofes are not ad idem, because the gesture of kneeling [Page 217] i [...] indifferent in its vse in the Sacrament. But Secondly, if they were indifferent in their nature and vse (as in­deede they were, for Paul himselfe vsed many of them, and others in those times without sinne) I aske you whe­ther therefore it be not a cleere [...]ase, that he condemnes them, because they were vrged and vsed, not as things in­different, but as necessary for the doctrine, and opinion which they had of them? Looke vpon the places, and judge, and among other evidences enough, this consi­deration may be of vse, that those Ceremonyes were not prescribed by a civill Magistrate, but onely by seducing teachers in the Church, who had no power of bringing a necessitie in the outward practise, but by perswading, and possessing mens minds with an opinion of the ne­cessity of su [...]h practise.

Now let the Replyer object, First (saith Reply to B [...]sh. Mort. ch. 6. sec. 5 he) Bellar mine will say asmuch. I answere, if he say so, so farre he Sect. 7 saith that which he may say, and you can never disproue. Indeede the matter is so evident, that a man with halfe an eye, Papist or Protestant cannot but see, (and if he will speake his conscience) cannot but confesse it. Will you haue vs to renounce our answers which [...]e [...]ound & certeine, because Bellarmine, or any other Papist hath acknowledged the truth of any part of them, yet it is your ordinary wont in the want o [...] reason of weight, to refute vs by, to shape vs this vnprofitable answer. Bellar­mine will say so. Why (Sir) I can pick a thowsand poynts or sa [...]ings out of Bellarmine, wherein he speaketh most truely [...]: which [...] say not for any minde I haue to magni­fie Bellarmine; for what false teacher, or heretique, that hath written many volumes doeth not deliver many truthes, e [...]ther in dogmaticall tenents, or in expounding of many places of Scripture? Secondly, saith he; The A­postle Paul speakes generally, of all Ceremonyes of mans ap­poynting, when the conscience is brought in subiection, and bon­dage vnto them. I answere, this is true, if you meane by subiection of the conscience, as I haue expounded be­fore: [Page 218] for doubtlesse, the Apostles words may be applyed generally, to such Ceremonyes, as against which he ap­plyes them himselfe particularly, that is such, whereby the consciences of men in the Doctrine, and opinion thereof are subiected, and bondaged. But doth this alter the case, and crosse our interpretation of Paul? What are you the better for such answering? if you meane by subjecting the conscience, to ceremonies, subjecting onely of the outward man, the conscience being free to judge them, (and for any spirituall necessitie) to vse them as things indifferent, (supposing them to be such both in their nature, and vse) then besides that you vse such phrases, as no man vseth it but your owne dr [...]ame, that I say not do [...]age, that the Apostle can possibly meane a­ny such matter: so indeed you might shift to thrust out of holy worship all your owne variable circumstances, if the Magistrate but commanded the vse of them, for the zeale of your Christian libertie.

Hitherto is to be referred [...]f you will, that which you Sect. inferre, that then by our teaching it followeth, that Po­pish ceremonies doe not take away Christian libertie. I answer, our teaching can inferre no such matter: for, first, the Papists haue a companie of ceremonies, which you will denie can be indifferent in their vse in Gods wor­ship. I am certaine you will denie this, and yet you can­not justly denie it of the Iewish ceremonies in the time of the [...]postle, because he judged it lawfull to vse them himselfe to win the Iewes by his conformitie vnto them.

Secondly, besides the Papists put in the opinion and doctrine of them a bondage vpon mens consciences, and take away the respect of their indifferencie. Now this is a sure ground of truth, that whatsoever action or thing indifferent may be vsed in Gods worship lawfully, and no opinion be put vpon the conscience, which takes a­way the full respect of its indifferencie, the same may be enjoyned, our Christian libertie notwithstanding: but from such a one to inferre to the Popish ceremonies, is as [Page 219] much, as from a good worke to inf [...]rre either to bad workes, or to good with respects of justification, and merit. And so you haue a second answer to your argu­ment, namely, an answer to the places of Scripture, which it wholly relies on.

Our third answer.

THirdly, now I will shew that the gesture of knee­ling Sect 9 in the Sacrament is not imposed in this Church otherwise then as a thing in it selfe plainely indiffe­rent. It is true, the Church req [...]ires of all her Commu­nicants to vse that gesture, and so there is necessitie of o­bedience; but it vrgeth none of them to thinke, that the same is not in it selfe, and to Godward, (as Mr. Cal­vin Calv instit. lib. 4 cap. 10. sect. speaketh) left to mans choyce and libertie: and so there is no necessitie of conceipt, or opinion put vpon it, for enthralling any their consciences. This I declare in this manner. First, there is a profession in the booke of Common prayer, that makes this good. Kneeling (saith The booke speaketh of ce­remonies in generall. it) is not so required by vs, but that vpon iust cause it may bee changed. Againe, wee condemne not other Churches, where they doe otherwise; for we thinke it meete, that each Country should vse such a (n) gesture, as they think best for Gods glorie, and the common good without superstition. But the Replier speakes here: So also (saith Repl gen. to Bp. Mort. ch. 2. sect. 15. he) the Church of Rome can change her ceremonies if she will. I an­swer, the Church of Rome can change, and establish, place, and displace even substantialls at her owne plea­sure, as not onely her definitiue learning of her strange authoritie, but experience also hath evidently made to appeare: her profession or practise therefore for changing her ordinances can fasten no ill dealing vpon that Church, which in Gods necessarie worship houlds her selfe bound wholly to the commandement of the word: but if you will speake to the matter, you must tell vs, [Page 220] that the Church of Rome in lawful [...] circumstances, pro­fesseth that vpon just cause they may be changed. Veri­ly, if she said no more, if she [...]aught no worse concerning such circumstances, she were in so professing to be justi­fied, as not infringing the libertie of the conscience, to be justified I say precisely in that thing, though not ex hypothesi, as the maine worship, which she appointeth is such: and this seemes a sufficient answer. Wherefore our Church declaring the gesture of kne [...]ling to be change­able vpon occasion, and not condemning standing, or sitting in other Churches, doth giue every man to be assured, that kneeling is enjoyned, as a thing indiffe­rent, without depriving vs of our Christian libertie.

Secondly, in K. Edw. 6. his time, before command of Sect. 10 kneeling was given, there was an authorised libertie of the practise of other gestures. This appeares by the notes of explanation annexed to the Common prayer booke of Edw. 6. Anno 2. These are the words: Kneeling may be vsed, or left, as every mans devotion serveth, without blame. First, thus your selues Perth. Assem. pag 48. Survey 173. confesse, that the gesture in the first reformation was left free: so that this Church hath admitted of varietie of gestures successiuely; and how­beit kneeling hath beene imposed last, and longest, the reason is not, (whatsoever it is, or was, which I shall speake of hereafter) because the Church doth or did condemne her selfe for judging aforetime other gestures indifferent, for she professeth, not to condemne the same as vnlawfull in other Churches at this present; Survey at the Quer. of kn. toward the end and you stand vpon it, that the State in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne meant not to condemne, or exclude the libertie of other gestures: beholde then an other evidence, that kneeling is commanded with vs, without any opinion of the necessitie of it, but as it is, in its owne nature and vse, a thing, or gesture indiffe­rent. Sect. 11

Thirdly, all our learned and judicious writers in this Church, that haue propugned this gesture with the [Page 221] Churches authoritie, haue determined with one consent, that it is, in its nature and vse indifferent, and variable, and that the Church doth presse it for none other. To this purpose you may consider if you please, Survey 198. Disp. 131. what you affirme of Archbishop Parker, how he administred the Communion at C [...]terburi [...] to the people standing, a [...]d that her Majesties Commissioners in causes Eccle­siasticall did (now) aboue threescore yeares agoe, esta­blish in Coventry, standing in the act of receiving. What Bishop Iewell saith, that Art 1. div. [...]. ag Hard. standing, sitting, or knee­ling, be indifferent circumstances. What Bishop Mor­ [...]on saith, then whom no man can vtter words, that shall more expressely avouch kneeling indifferent in many places of his booke, what your selues You speak of our Cerem. in generall: A­bridg pag. 53. doe say at once, of our chiefest defendours, that they doe judge, the Church might well be without the bond of kneeling, as they doe hould, that the Church may well also be with it. In a word, Disp. pag 155 you say, that [...]he defence of the gesture of kneeling by this reason, that the same i [...] indifferent is almost in every mans mouth.

But this profession of the lawes and governours of our Sect. 12 Church is no sufficient answer you say. Why so? First, Abridg. pag. 43. because the Papists professe as much concerning their cere­monies; namely, that they [...]olde their ceremonies n [...]cessarie in no other respect, but because they be ord [...]ined by their superi­ours. I answer, as if you should not consider of their Ce­remonies, both what they are in themselue [...], and with what opinions, and superstitions their Superiours doe command them: for suppose their Church required no­thing but lawfull circumstances in divine worship, and those also without [...]vill opinion (of any so [...]) put vpon them, doe ye thinke shee were to be condemned there­fore? Take notice I pray you then of this inconsiderate reasoning of yours. To proue our Ceremonies we im­posed more then as things indifferent, notwithstanding our Churches profession to the con [...]ary; you [...]ell vs of the Romish Church, which imposeth her Ceremonies, [Page 222] with plaine profession of evill opinions, and superstiti­ons annexed. This is not a Mathematicall paralell, it wants rule. I shew you wherein the Papists doe differ from vs, wherein if they did not differ, I shew you, that we are well contented to be like vnto them. I expected, that the Abridgement should haue presented vs, with answer of reason, to satisfie conference. This silly ans­wering [the Papists will say as much] might haue remai­ned to the superficiall Replyer, who vseth it, I would be loth to count, how often. Secondly, that the Profession of our Church sufficeth not in this case, another sheweth Mr. Bradsh in his arg. 11. lat­ [...]r [...]. by a comparison. What (saith he) if the Church should decree that the King should hold the Archbishops stirrop, with­all protesting, that they doe not require this, as a thing necessa­ry, and with any evill, and superstitious opinion, but for de­cency, were not this a shamefull sh [...]ft? I answer most shame­full, because there is no decency in the thing it selfe; there would be iniustice in the decree, God requiring that Cesar should haueth at which is Cesars. Besides, the King is aboue all his subiects, and (he being the onely agent whereof this comparison puts case) is not bound to the Decree of his subiects, but as he pleaseth to be a law to himselfe in arbitrary occasions, wherefore as this Rhetorick of yours, whilst i [...] speakes of decency hath none; for ill it doth become you: so there is more distance betwixt it, and our matter in hand, then is betwixt the two poles of the world.

But you object further, that the Church doth not [...] kneeling as a thing ind [...]ffere [...]e, but as necessary to s [...]lv [...], Sect. 15 as may appeare (you [...]ay) by many considerations. Which [...] they I pray?

Object. 1. King Edw. Abridg. 42. Common Prayer bo [...]ke saith, kneeling is enioyned to avoid the pr [...]anati [...] of the Sacr [...] ­ment, importing, that el [...]e the Sacrament would be necessarily prophaned; and so it makes an opinion, that kneeling is ne­cessarie. I answer, your glosse corrupteth the [...], you force an evill meaning from those words of the booke, [Page 223] and need not: the Church did not meane, that such profanation, as she provideth against by kneeling, ari­seth from the nature of other gestures; but from car­nall, and carelesse Christians, who by occasion thereof might fall to sleight and disesteeme the holy Sacrament; so there is no doctrinall necessitie of kneeling at Sacra­ment in it selfe, or opposed to other gestures to avoid profanation; but provision made against an accidentall and probable inconvenience: and it is plaine, that the Church in commanding to kneele at Sacrament, for a­voiding of prophanation, did not intend to inferre spi­rituall necessitie; for then she would condemne other Churches (vsing other gestures) of profaning the Sacra­ment; which she disclaimeth to doe; neither would she professe to require the gesture, (as she doth) as a circum­stance, which [...]ay be changed vpon due consideration. It is true, she requires all to kneele, that the Sacrament might not be profaned; but it followeth not therefore she judgeth all would profane the Sacrament, that kneele n [...]t. It is enough in lawes which be made of things in­different, that the benefit thereof be felt or needed ge­nerally, albeit no [...] vniversally. And to make the cause­cleerer, consider, that mu [...]able circumstances, (which you judge) of order an [...] decencie may be appointed to any ordinance or publick worship of God for celebrati­on thereof in such a manner, that it be not prophaned. Denie this if you can: if you cannot, you may learne to interpret here in like manner.

Object. 2. Bradsh. arg. 11 All divine constitutions binding consci­ence Sect. are necessary to salvation.

But kneeling at Sacrament is a divine constitution, (being commanded by the Church) and [...]ndeth conscience.

Therefore as it is [...]ged it is necessarie to salvation.

I answer, constitutions are divine, either simply, or re­spectiuely; simply, when God immediately stamps them with his holy authoritie: respectiuely, when man [...]et [...] that authority vpon them, which God hath bestowed [Page 224] vpon him, in things of libertie, and indifferencie: [...] this sense all constitutions may be called divine, wherein the generall rules of the word be kept, whether they be of Ecclesiasticall things, or civil [...]. Now such constitutions do [...] binde the consciences of men to a necessitie of obe­dience, as the lawfull ordinances of a man in his owne house doe binde the consciences of s [...]i [...] domesticks; and such obedience as is is a course which pleaseth God, is the way to life and salvation; and yet here is no necessi­tie to salvation, but what the most mutable circum­stance, and thing indifferent in all the world is capable of: you might as [...]ell say. when a man imployes [...]i [...] sonne or servant in an errand, or any other businesse, that such employment is enjoyned as necessarie to salva­tion.

Object. 3. Bradsh. ibid. It is necessarie to salvation, that men Sect. 15 should worship God in a d [...]ent [...]d orderly manner.

But by our doctrine the dece [...]i [...] [...] order of the Sacrame [...] stands in the gesture of kneel [...]g.

Therefore it is held as necessarie to salvation.

I answer; you reason as he that would proue the way to Cales to be necessary by D [...]ver, because Dover is our readie way that leades vnto Cal [...]s. But as the saying is, there be more wayes to the wood then one. Decencie of the Sacrament partly stands in kneeling, when that ge­sture is vsed; as it may in like manner stand with stan­ding or sitting, when they be vsed, as I haue shewed, part. 2. chap. 3.

Object. 4. Ab [...]idg. p. 40. Kneeling is an externall act of religion, Sect. 16 and Pag. 42. the lawes, and governours of our Church vrge it as a weighty part of Gods w [...]rship: Yea Ibid. it is by all [...]en confessed to be a chiefe part of religious adoration, and needs i [...] Disp. pag. 156 &c. must be so.

Therefore it followeth that it is imposed as necessarie to sal­vation, and not as a thing indifferent.

I answer, as if it may not be both a thing in different, and yet a part of Gods worship: kneeling at prayer is a thing [Page 225] indifferent, in it selfe, that is may be done, o [...] left vn­done as there is occasion, yet is kneeling at prayer a part of Gods outward worship. You should remember that in as much as we call a gesture indifferent, it is for the liberty of chosing: as we call it a worship it is for the ac­cepted vse thereof, when it is chosen and applyed, this i [...] so easie a case that I wonder any man of judgement did ever call it into question, onely at the Disputer I doe not wonder, that takes this for an impregnable proposition. Disp. p. 155. [No action that is a part of the Lords worship is a matter indifferent.] This Proposition (saith he) will find no en­counter true, no action is a part of the Lords worship, as it is a matter indifferent: but the said action may haue more considerations then one. But see backe of this mat­ter page 1. ch. 4. Sect. 6, &c. Note here, that whensoever I call kneeling at Sacrament an indifferent thing, I must be taken to meane according to the foresaid distinction, which cannot be refused with reason.

Object. 5. Bradsh. arg. 1 [...]. The Lord Bishops be the pillars of the Church, and kneeling at the Sacrament is one of the supporters Sect. 17 of them,

Therefore if the pillars of the Church be necessary, then this Ceremony is also necessary.

Answ. Be it so, that they be Pillars, which you affirme but ironically, how can it be, that kneeling at Sacra­ment can be an vpholder of them for ought I am able to consider, they are no more vpheld by kneeling at Sacra­ment, then by standing at confession, kneeling at pra­yer, receiving bare-headed, all which you doe well allow of. And if these be supporters of them, then is there so much said to their commendation; for it is an honor to be supported by lawfull things. And yet these pillers might stand as fast in the iudgement of wise men, if standing or sitting were generally vsed at the Lords Supper. But you haue a desire to except poore excepti­ons, rather then you will be shut ou [...].

[Page 226] Object. 6. Abridg: p: 39 Such as kneele not at Sacrament are accoun­ted Sect. 18 schismaticks and Puritanes Bradsh. arg: 11 worse then Idola­trous Papists,

Therefore kneeling is accounted a thing most necessary to salvation.

Answ. That for omission of kneeling you be counted worse then the Papists no good Protestant will say, if a­ny man did ever so charge you, we neede not regard, ne­ther need you: men specially in flamed in these publick contestations betwixt vs will be sometimes speaking ex­travegantly. I am assured there be among your selues, that will not sticke to speake as bitterly against others. As for the imputations of Puritans and Schismariks, so farre forth as the same bee cast vpon you for refusing to kneele, it is because you refuse and oppose the Church in a matter indifferent. For to striue against a Nationall Church, and breake the peace of it vnjustly, (as to break it about such mutable gestures in Gods wor­ship as are truely indifferent both in nature, and vse is to breake them vniustly) was ever held for a Schi [...]maticall course. Whether it be or no, who knowes not, that the imputation of Schismatiques may be given, for conten­ding about such things, and that takes away the force of in [...]erring, that kneeling is esteemed therefore as nece­ssary to salvation. In the Primitiue Church it was no lesse then a Schismaticall action with publike offence, against the Apostolicall Decr [...]. Acts 15. to [...]ate blood, and yet no body could therefore conclude, that non-eating of blood was held by that Church necessary to salvation.

Object. 7. Abridg. 42: Very many of the people in all parts of the Sect. 19 Land hold this opinion of kneeling, that the Sacrament cannot reverently, or wor [...]ily be received with any other gesture. An­swer: as if (for sooth) I must interprete the Church by the fond opinion of some of our people, as if their con­cei [...]s put vpon me a necessi [...]ie, that I must so conceiue in like manner; as if there were not a greater number of people better informed to set against them: as if there [Page 227] were not many ignorant people over all the land, that hold evill opinions of maine points of religion, that are ignorant, and will be ignorant still. What? whiles the Church enjoynes kneeling as a thing indifferent in it selfe; the governours of the Church doe so vrge it; all our writers doe so defend it; informed Christians doe so vse it; shall I thinke it hath an opinion of necessitie sticking to it for the surmises of certaine ignorant people? If I should so thinke, I know not, whether their opinion, or mine, were to be blamed for the more igno­rant, and ridi [...]ulous.

Object. 8. Omission of kneeling is punished with Abridg. 43. Repl. to Bp. Mort. generall, ch 6. sect. 4. Bradsh. arg. 1. sus­pension, Abridg. 39. Bradsh. arg. 11. Repl. as before. Sect. 20 excommunication, and Abridg. 42. Repl. as before. lesse of the Sa­crament it selfe, yea in comparision it is more sharply pu­nished, then either Bradsh. arg. 11. omission of preaching, and other substantiall duties, yea then Abridg. 42. To this excep­tion of omissi­on of kneeling in prayer, I will answer with the words of him that made the Queries, who speaketh in this manner: The 1 [...] Canon setteth downe particular directions for all due reverence to be vsed in every part of divine service; yea expressely directeth all manner of persons reverently to k [...]eele, when the generall con [...]ession, Le [...]anie, and other Prayers are read, and yet doth not require the people to kneele in the act of rece [...]ving. Survey, pag 169. I sup­pose you will be better content to heare one of your owne side giue you a reasonable answer. omission of kne [...]ling in prayer; or then Abridg. 39. commission of notorious, and scand [...]l [...]us sinnes committed against the law of God:

Therefore it is vrged as a thing of very great necessitie, [...] ­ven to salvation.

Answer. This objection though it make a shew of con­cluding effectually, yet performes it not, as will appeare if it be sob [...]ly weighed. You say the reason, that such as kneele not at Sacrament are suspended, excommuni­cated, and debarred of the Sacrament is meerely for o­mission of the gesture: (the Abridgement saith also Ibidem. though the same omission be made out of the case of scandall and contempt:) and that is most vntruly said; for although the law doe require the vse of kneeling at all times, yet the true intent thereof is to See Park. of the Crosse, ch. [...]. sect. 17. punish REFVSALL, when [Page 228] a man professeth against the Church, and the generall order of it, denying to vse at all the gesture, which it enjoyneth. But that I may shew the errour of your ob­jection, I will reduce it into forme as followeth.

That the refusall whereof is punished with suspension, ex­communication, &c. is vrged as necessarie to salva­tion.

Refusall of kneeling at Sacrament is so punished.

Therefore kneeling is so vrged.

The Major is false: for suppose a man, though other­wise allowing well of our assemblies, should refuse to joyne with them, because he will not worship God in our temples, would not suspension, (if he were a mini­ster) and excommunication fasten vpon him in this Church, trow you? you cannot make a question there­of: but should therefore the Church be charged for en­joyning such or such particular temples as necessarie to salvation? By no meanes; for the Church esteemeth place a circumstance which may be changed, as neede and edification require. You will request peradventure, that these punishments be excessiue: I answer, excesse of punishment doth not inferre opinion of spirituall ne­cessitie. It is a plaine non sequitur. Refusall to kneele is pu­nished with excesse: therefore kneeling is enioyned for neces­sarie to salvation. For all the world knoweth, that of­fences about indifferent things may be punished with excesse, though the opinion of their indifferencie doe remaine: yea for Ecclesiasticall censures it is certaine, that they haue beene wont from time to time to bee in­flicted for breaking of Ecclesiasticall orders, although the Church imposing hath judged the same to be such as might be varied vpon occasion. Wherefore it should not be regarded in the case of kneeling at the Sacrament what punishment is pronounced against them which refuse it. A man bids his servant to doe such or such a businesse (say it be of no great moment) adding if he d [...] it not, he will turne him out of his service, may not the [Page 229] servant now lawfully, and safely performe his Masters commandement, because he backed it with a commina­tion of greater severitie, then he needed to haue done, for any thing he seeth or knoweth? so if the Church be more severe in pressing her orders, and punishing the breach of them, then you can allow, that is nothing to the purpose, if the said orders may be obeyed. Saul 1 Sam. 14. 24 forbade the people to eate meate vpon paine of vnreaso­nable extremitie; could the excesse of punishment threat­ned make abstinence vnlawfull to them, or put vpon it opinion of necessitie to salvation? This no body will affirme, except such as be led by a spirit of nothing but contradiction. I but, that which is commanded and pres­sed more then obedience to Gods lawes is held more ne­cessarie then it, and so held necessarie to salvation. This is true, if the necessitie of both looked the same way: if kneeling at Sacrament were pressed and vrged by law, because it is necessarie to salvation, and greater matters truely so necessarie not so vrged, then I confesse this ex­ception might seeme to be just enough: but the reason why kneeling is vrged in this Church, is knowne to be respect of Ecclesiasticall policy, and not as if it were ne­cessarie to salvation: and for greater matters I make no doubt to say, that you doe wrong to this Church and state in accusing the lawes which (and that strictly) doe serue for the punishment of grosse and capitall mischiefs: but now if all this while you haue spoken onely de fact [...], I will be no defendour of mens remissnes to execute the lawes of God: I doe hartily wish, and all good hearts doe likewise wish and desire, that all our governours would see performed, qu [...] sunt gravi [...]ra legis, i [...]dicium, et miseric ordiam, et fidem, haec op [...]rtuit facere, and yet kneeling not le [...]t vndone.

Thus then I haue shewed that this Church takes not Sect. 21 away Christian libertie by the commandement of knee­ling at Sacrament; yet I will adde for better persuading in this point, out of your owne sayings something which [Page 230] may serue for testimonie to this purpose. First, you Bradsh. arg. 12 say, that the first appointers of kneeling appointed onely a tole­ration of it, and that Abridg. 42. you be onely bound by law to that which was appointed by them. Verily if this be true as you say, then kneeling is not enjoyned with necessitie to be don [...], much lesse with opinion of such necessitie. Second­ly, you Manuscrip. ch. 4. say, no law binds vs to the necessitie of kneeling; if this be true as you say, then the same conclusion still followeth, that much lesse any opinion of necessitie can by law be annexed vnto it. Thirdly, you Bradsh. arg 11 say, that the Church vrgeth not kneeling at the Sacrament at all, but onely three or [...]oure Church-governours. If this be true as you say, why doe you challenge this Church for vrging it as necessarie to salvation? Fourthly, you Disp p. 33. say, the Com­mon prayer booke allowes of sitting at the Communion. And againe, Demand p. 45 [...]urvey p. 70. It allowes the minister to stand vp. If this be true as you say, nothing can more acquit the Church of enjoyning kneeling as necessarie. For what I pray can acquit her better, then this, that (as you af­firme) she alloweth of all gestures. These things I but mention to note your owne repugnancies, and contra­dictions to your selues, that whiles one while you say, the Church and lawes thereof makes kneeling so neces­sarie as infringeth Christian libertie, that is by necessitie of opinion; another while you deni [...] that it requires kneeling, with any manner of necessitie, so much as ne­cessitie of obedience. I would to God the consideration of your owne vncertainties might admonish you to fly vnto the vnmoveable pillar of truth. So I conclude my third generall answer, whereby I haue vindicated this Church from infringing of Christian libertie in impo­sing the practise of kneeling vpon Communicants at the Lords table.

Our fourth, and last answer.

FOurthly, and lastly, whereas you vse the argument Sect. 22 of Christian libertie to condemne kneeling at Sacra­ment in our Church, let me proyoke you to take notice, and tell vs vpon what foundation you meane to build the same, that it may effectually serue against vs: my mea­ning is this; in pressing of this argument is it your pur­pose, to suppose kneeling at Sacrament to be indifferent in it selfe, or else to suppose it to be plainely wicked and impious? It is not materiall, what you esteeme of the gesture in the force of either arguments, but in what re­spect it is to be taken for the right managing of this, that the matter may be brought to an issue. Well then, first I aske you, if you vrge your argument of Christian liber­tie, as supposing the gesture to be abominable? And this one while you professedly doe, as the Repl. gener. to Bp. Mort. ch. 6, ans. to sect. 3. Replier shew­eth: The received state of this question (saith he) is of li­bertie from ceremonies, which are appointed vnlawfully. (In­deede the Replier prooues this out of the Abridgement by a silly reason, because the said Abridgement doth e­very where denie the ceremonies to be in their owne na­ture indifferent: a reason without a sparke of judge­ment; for it is not materiall in this question at all, that the Abridgement denies kneeling to be indifferent in o­ther arguments: but vpon what hypothesis it presseth this argument of libertie: but let this passe, let the Replier haue the state of the question to be of libertie from kneeling, as it is supposed for a gesture which is com­manded vnlawfully) but let me entreate him to consi­der whether ever man vsed an argument more vainely and childishly, then he vseth this of Christian liberty from a wicked action: You might as well vse it to prooue, that it is not lawfull to sweare, lye, steale, and commit adul­terie: for who of vs was ever so void of vnderstanding, [Page 232] to denie that Christians haue a libertie from sinne pur­chased to them by Christ. Therefore besides your beg­ging in this point you haue bestowed your paines most superfluously: for inasmuch as your reason must (as you say) implie that kneeling at Sacrament is a sinne in its owne nature, where is any new force, which it addeth and bringeth of its owner you may behold it in this Te­nour: Every sinfull action is against Christian liberti [...]. Kneeling at Sacrament is a sinfull action. Therefore it is a­gainst Christian libertie. And thus your argument of Christian libertie is evidently of no vse.

But secondly, will you be content to suppose knee­ling Sect. 23 at Sacrament to be a gesture in it selfe of indifferent choyce, that so the reason of Christian libertie may come to a due and pertinent triall? That which is vnlawfull, (before Christian libertie be considered) is out of doubt to be rejected without delay; but the question ought to be, whether kneeling at Sacrament, though it be indif­ferent, (as that must be presumed, at least whiles we be parling vpon our Christian libertie) should not be refu­sed for defence of our libertie, against the commande­ment of the Magistrate? Thus Christian libertie might seeme to sway something on your side. And yet the truth is, in your writings, you doe confesse evidently enough, that if kneeling be indeed a gesture, which may be vsed, or not vsed, that is, if it be indifferent, that then you may lawfully obserue the same, being commanded in this Church, your Christian liberty notwithstanding: and I will bring the places of your bookes themselues to beare witnesse. First, if kneeling (saith Disp. p. 165. the Disputer) at Sacrament can be proved to be a matter indifferent for the na­ture, and vse of it, &c. I doubt not but such as now op­pos [...] against it, will with all readinesse obey his Maiesties commandement, and the Churches direction in this be­halfe. Also the Abridgement Abridg. p. 44. [...]o also Manu­scrip, ch. 4. teacheth in effect, that if the gesture be indifferent in its nature and vse, (for to be such is to be according to the rules of the word) that then the [Page 233] Magistrate is to be obeyed. If it can [...] be proved (saith Remooue of certaine impu­tations, &c. p. 5 another) that kneeling may be lawfully vsed, or not vsed in the Sacrament, considered without command of authoritie, then by the grace of Christ we will not be found to refuse it. If kneeling (say Demand. p 6 [...] the Demaunders) be indifferent in its owne nature, and vse, then it may be vsed by them which be strong in [...]aith, and haue knowledge of its indifferency. Mr. Bradshaw Treat of div. worsh pag. 19. allowes the ordinance of the gesture if it be not imp [...]ty, and wickednes to vse the same, without the Magi­strates ordeining. Lastly, the Replyer is in many Sections willing to ioyne with the rest; I will send the Reader to one or two. In one place Repl. gener. to Bp Mort. ch. 6. sect, 12. he saith, that the liberty which Christ hath left vnto vs is from these bodily rites, which haue not his owne stamp vpon them. Graunting that the doing of such things commanded, as are authorized by Christ himselfe (and allowance of generall rules in things in­different is Christs stamp, aswell as more particuler direc­tion) is by no meanes against our Christian libertie.) A­gaine, when Bp. Morton had declared the profession of this Church, namely, that her Ceremonyes are imposed as things indifferent: (and so Christian liberty shall not be infringed thereby) the Replyer Repl gener. ch. 6. sect. 13. answereth, that no profession can make human [...]-significant, (that is in his mean­ing as much as to say sinfull) Ceremonies in Gods worship agree with Christian liberty. So that both this Replyer, and the rest doe yeeld, that kneeling at Sacrament is not to be refused vpon the reason of Christian libertie, provided, that the same kneeling be but presumed for warrantable in it selfe.

And yet I will not dissemble, that notwithstanding the Sect. 24 former speeches, & professions of yeelding vpon suppo­ [...]all that kneeling is indifferent; yet (as if either you had forgotten what you said, or were resolved to oppose in one place, what by necessitie you are inforced to confesse [...]n another) some considerations you giue vs tending to prooue, that although kneeling at Sacrament be in­different, yet are not Christians bound therefore to ob­serue [Page 234] the same at this time. I will doe you the courtesie to present them to view in this, (which seemes to be the fittest) place, and I suppose an easie answer will suffice to satisfie the strongest of them. Now as farre as I can ga­ther out of your bookes they will not exceede the num­ber of three.

First Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 7. with whom a­grees also Mr. Bradsh. arg. 1. & arg 3. where he saith, that, that which God leaues indiffe­rent being im­posed by man, is imposed Only by mans plea­sure: which is not true; for the libertie of man in deter­mining is au­thorized by Gods will. you say, we may not doe in Gods worship any Sect. 25 thing (which So Manuscrip. meanes, as ap­peares by an­swering of an obiect. in the end of that arg. and besides else is indifferent) vpon the meere will of man, and so make the will of man the rule of our conscience. An­swer. I graunt it is vnlawfull to doe in Gods worship a­ny thing vpon the meere pleasure of man, but that which God makes indifferent, that is lawfull to be done, before mans will or commandement meddles with it, is not done vpon the meere will of man: your selues say of mutable circumstances, which Gods will in generall al­loweth, that mans will in particular determination may vary them. I, but say you againe, the Magistrate in com­manding, and others in obeying, even in things indiffe­rent, are bound to the rules of the word. True they are so, why did you mention no rules for instance, and ap­ply them to the point of kneeling? If you meane the rule which forbiddeth scandall, besides that one rule, to them specially which be subject, must be compared with another, I shall examine (God willing) that matter in its owne place. Therefore it is a mee [...]e slander, that wee kneele at Sacrament vpon the meere will of man, when the thing is lawfull, and sometime, or alwayes, (as oc­casion should be) fit, if the Magistrate appointed it not. that arg is the same with its arg. 1. which I haue answered, part. [...]. ch. 1.

But others helpe in this matter. If (saith Mr. Bradsh.) Sect. 26 Treat of div. worsh p. 28. also arg. 8. Remooue. p 6. the Magistrate can bring one indifferent thing into Gods worship, then he may bring in any indifferent thing: then hee may bring in flesh, br [...]th, butter and cheese into the Lords Supper; for these be indifferent things, and so be avoiding of the superfluities of nature; due benevolence betweene man and wife, spinning and carding, killing of oxen, and sheepe, &c. I answer: You doe ill to conclude from such things as [Page 235] are indifferent in nature and vse by Gods owne direction and allowance, to such things as are indifferent onely in nature; whereas kneeling is indifferent, not onely in nature, but also in Sacramentall vse; which difference you did (it seemes) never consider. Belike such mu [...]able circumstances as your selues allow haue no more right to religious worship, then haue the naturall actions you name, or then spinning & carding. This is learned logick which some wise men would haue beene ashamed of.

But you further vrge our libertie in things indifferent. Sect. 27 God (say Manuscrip. ch. 4. you) can onely change the nature of things, and make that necessarie which was before indifferent: it is he a­lone that can giue lawes to lay a necessitie vpon the conscience. Answ. I will answer you with your owne words follow­ing, which be these: It cannot be denied, that the Ma­gistrate, and the Church haue power to make lawes, to com­mand or restraine the vse of indifferent things, which no Chri­stian without heinous sinne against God may despise; onely the power which those lawes haue to binde the conscience lyeth in this, that they be made according to the rules of Gods word. O [...]t of which words it is evident, that indifferent things may be commanded or restreined, that is, in outward performance or obedience made necessarie for a time, (which is as much as we doe maintaine:) now this kind of necessitie (not ensnaring the conscience) is warranted vnto vs by Gods owne authoritie: where you speake of the rules of the word againe, and neither apply them a­gainst kneeling at Sacrament, no [...] so much as name them at all, I know not to what purpose it serveth: such rules as in any of your bookes you giue me occasion to examine, I shall not balke by the grace of God one jot, when due place requireth.

But what shall be said to Mr. Bradsh. who affirmeth, Sect. 28 Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 19. That the Magistrate can onely ordeine such ceremonies, as without his ordinance were impiety not to obserue. I an­swer, that Mr. Bradsh. may say what he will, but hardly ever man said more absurdly, except he meane by such [Page 236] ceremonies, onely ceremonies of order, decency, edifi­cation, allowed vnder those generall notions without determination of specialls; as if he should haue said, the Magistrate can ordeine no ceremonie except it serue for order, comelinesse, &c. for it is impiety not to obserue order, comelinesse, &c. Now if he vnderstand in this sense, I haue plentifully answered otherwhere: other­wise it is vndoubted enough, that the Magistrate can ap­point lawfully such speciall circumstances, as without his appointment, may without impiety be omitted: for else there is no libertie left vnto vs of one mutable circum­stance in the world. Besides kneeling at the Sacrament is not ordeined of the Magistrate oppositely vnto God, but subordinately. Therein hee doth not institute a new, but apply a gesture already by God himselfe insti­tuted to divine worship.

But against this the Disputer saith something: If (saith Disp. p. 163. [...] he) applying to the Sacrament of a thing already institu­ted Sect. 29 to Gods worship make the same thing therefore war­rantably applyed, then the Church may command vs lawfully to reade in the act of receiving, and to pray for the good estate of Christian Princes, and such like; because reading and pray­ing to such purposes are already instituted and commanded by the Lord. Answer: There is not the like reason betwixt the matter of religious employment & personall gestures: by that one ordinance is distinguished from another, and so it is not by gestures, which are in their kinde not onely vsefull, but necessary in all ordinances. Besides the force of this exception of the Disputers, (as himselfe Pag 164. also further declareth) standeth in this, that (as Gods in­stitution of one thing in one part of his worship, doth not war­rant the same in another, because it may be vnsutable thereun­to: so) kneeling at Sacrame [...]t is not warrantable by Gods in­stitution of kneeling in his worship otherwayes, because it sutes not to the nature of the Supper, as it is sutable to prayer and thanksgiving. Thus here is nothing said, but vpon beg­ging, that kneeling is vnsutable to the Supper, which I haue [Page 237] handled before in the second part of this Treatise. And hitherto of your first reason, whereby you would shew, that though kneeling at Sacrament be indifferent, yet are not Christians bound to obey the Magistrate in com­manding it.

Secondly, you Manuscript. ch. 4. Surv. at large p. 168. say, That Christians are at liberty in Sect. 30 this Land, and may lawfully refuse the gesture of kneeling, be­cause there is no law of this land (whereunto they are bound to be subiect) that doth by commandement impose the same vp­on them. Answ. This is a consideration, which men skil­full in the Law be sitter to deale withall then I: but be­cause I see nothing of it in your writings of such weight, but which it seemes an easie matter to satisfie, I haue thought good not to let it passe. I say then, there bee foure bonds, which impose vpon vs the practise of knee­ling when we receiue. First an Act of Parliament. Se­condly our Ecclesiasticall Canons. Thirdly, his Majesties Soveraigne authority. Fourthly and lastly those rules of the word, which requyre, that in things indifferent, we study to seeke and further both the common peace, and edification of the Church. In these poynts let vs conferre together a little.

Of the bond of kneeling by Act of Parliament.

FOr the first, that we be bound to kneele by Act of Parliament appeareth by the Statute of Eliz. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 31 whereby the second Common prayer booke of Edw. 6. is established. In which booke before the words of distri­bution there is this Rubrique, which in manner remain­eth in force vnto this day. Then shall the Minister first re­ceiue the Communion in both kinds himselfe, and after deli­uer it to the people in their hands Kneeling. All that can be excepted in this case, is about the construction of the words; now that construction you would haue to bee both doubtfull in Grammaticall syntax; and probable, for [Page 238] the libertie of other gestures in the intent of the booke, and of them which compiled it. For the Grammaticall construction you say, Survey p. 169 It is altogether doubtfull, whether kneeling be referred to the Minister delivering, or the people receiving. Answer. This is to stumble at a straw; rea­son it selfe takes away the danger of all doubting in that thing; for who will be so forsaken of wit and sense, as ever to decree, that the Rubrick should require the Mi­nister to kneele, whiles he distributes to the people standing, or sitting: therefore the word kneeling must needes at least be referred to the Communicants. But then you proceed, saying; Pag. 170. Suppose the word [knee­ling] be immediately to be ioyned to the word [people] yet the Rubrick may be expounded as shewing indulgence to kneelers, rather then commaunding them for to kneele, in this man­ner [and after deliver it to the people in their hands [kneeling] that is, though he find [...] them [kneeling.] I answer. This in­terpretation crosseth all the Rubricks, directing the Con­gregation for gesture, in the Booke of Common Prayer; which no otherwise prescribe or commend the same, but as here by a participle. I will present you with some examples.

☞ A generall confession to be said of the whole Congre­gation This is in the beginning of morn. praier after the Minister kneeling.

☞ Then shall be said the Creed by the Minister, and Before the Creed of morn. prayer. people standing.

☞ After that these prayers following shall be said all de­voutly Next the Creed afore­said. kneeling.

☞ Then the minister shall rehearse distinctly all the ten In the be­ginning of the order for admi­nistration of the Cōmunion commaundements, and the people after every commaunde­ment shall aske God mercie, for their transgression of the same kneeling.

[Page 239] ☞ Then shall this generall confession be made in the name In the a­foresaid order for administra­tion of the Communion. of all those, that are minded to receiue the Communion, all kneeling vpon their knees.

Verily while [...] I compare these places with the Rubrick in controversie, and finde no Rubrick in the whole booke that may admit of your sense, I am plainely re­solved, that the words of this Rubrick are a direction to kneele; direction I say according to the manner of the booke; and you that please to expound it for tole­ration, might expound [...]s much of all the former exam­ples. Besides the booke taketh notice of no other ge­sture at all in the act of receiving, but of kneeling. Also kneeling is prescribed (in the order of the Communion) vnto all the people which doe communicate, as the ge­sture to be vsed for a good space before, and till the di­stribution take place; therefore by that order the Mi­nister should finde them all kneeling vpon their knees; for then they are not (as you Pag. 174. confesse) sodainly to al­ter their gesture. Lastly, i [...]tellectus currit cum praxi, a law is to be expounded according to the generall practise; and albeit certaine men haue made a stirre against knee­ling from time to time, yet kneeling is knowne to haue beene the setled gesture of this Church well neare as farre as any man aliue can remember.

But you haue much to say about the intent of the booke it selfe, and the establishers thereof, after many Sect. 32 words and much a doe to evince some thing, all it seem­eth may be referred to three principall considerations. First, Certeine P. 171, 17 [...]. presumptions that the State would not in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne directly and plainely commaund the people to kneele. Secondly Cer­teine P. 17 [...], &c. d [...]fferences betwixt the former, and the latter bookes of Common prayer, which may seeme to induce vs to beleeue, that the latter booke made better and fit­ter, then the former did not directly, and plainely command to kneele. Thirdly, cert [...]ine reasons drawn [...] [Page 240] from the [...]ooke it selfe, whose intendment may seeme to be P. 179, &c. to drawe the people more neerely to follow Christs example: and pag 185. &c. secondly more liuely, and Sacra­mentally to set forth the death of Christ. If I haue not rightly divided your matter, you may do well to lay the fault vpon your selfe, that presents it to v [...] something confusedly. For your presumpt [...]ons, how the State in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne was minded, I leaue them to your selfe, as being the birth of your owne braine. For your differences let the Reader note one which I will name to the very purpose, [...]one of all yours being able to counterpoise it. You say the latter booke was more reformed, and it is true Pag. 173. yet in the former booke, there was a note of explination, which saith of kneeling, that it might be vsed or left, as every mans denotion serued without blame; and besides in that booke there was no mention of kneeling in the Rubique next before the distribution of the Elements; whereas in the latter book of Edw. 6. the note of explanation was taken away (marke that) and the word [kneeling] added to the Rubrick next before the distribution of the elements. Now how vn­profitably doe you tell vs of many other matters vpon the By, when this in the midst of them all evidently confuteth your purpose. For the intendment of the booke to follow Christs example, and liuely to set forth his sufferings I graunt; but doth that inferre that it doth not therefore commaund the people to kneele: if you persuade any man, that such consequence soundly fol­loweth, it must be one, that is not one of the wisest. In short all in a manner that you say is either impertinent, or but conjecturall, or begged, or miserably inconse­quent. But to end this strife, let me request Mr. Survey­er to survey the writers of his owne side, and see whe­ther they doe not confesse plainely, that you be bound to kneele at the Lords Supper by act of Parliament, the Authours of the Abridgement speake in this manner: Abridg. p. 4 [...]. So Manuscrip. [...]ap. 1. Arg. 4. King Edwards Comm [...]n Prayer Booke is the (onely) law, [Page 241] whereby we are bound to vse the gesture of kneeling, (that booke being established by Parliament.) Againe they Abridg. p. 37. speake in these words in another place, that kneeling in the act of receiving the bread and wine in the Lords Supper is enioyned (as a significant ceremonie) appeareth plainely by the Booke of Common Prayer, authorised by act of Parlia­ment, Anno 5. Edw. [...]. [to the which booke wee are (in this point) precisely bound by the statu [...]e, 1. Eliz. fol. 97 a.] where it is said, that this gesture is commaunded (for signification.) By what Queries and inducements now can you recon­cile your selfe with the Authours of the Abridgement? And thus it appeareth that an act of Parliament bindes vs to kneele in the act of receiving the Lords Supper.

Of the bond of kneeling by the Canon.

NExt we be bound to kneele by order of an Ecclesi­asticall Sect. 33 Canon. But against this you except. First, that Manuscrip. ch. 4 Survey 202. the Canons haue not the force of a law, being never confirmed by act of Parliament. Answer. It is enough that the Canon which ord [...]reth for kneeling be contrary to no statute enact [...]d by Parliament: for it is but begged which you say, that the Booke of Common Prayer con­firmed by Statute leaues kneeling at libertie, as in the former section I haue shewed: and then being contrary to no law of God, or Statute-law of this land, why should you speake thereof (as you be wont to doe) so vnworthily and contemp [...]uo [...]sly? Was there ever any Church since the times of the Apostles, but Synods haue beene thought to haue authoritie in Ecclesiasticall or­ders? And what may you meane, when you Manuscrip. ch. [...]. say: It can­not be denied, but the Church hath power to [...]ake lawes, and constitutions, to comma [...]nd or restr [...]ine the vse of indifferent things? Can the Church make lawes and constitutions, except certaine chosen men meete together? and hath not every Minister inducted a voice in chusing a Clerke, [Page 240] [...] [Page 241] [...] [Page 242] by whom he consenteth to the constitutions, which the Synode maketh? If you object, that the elections, or constitutions be partially swayed, I haue not to defend persona [...]l delinquencies, (as I am vtterly vnacquainted with them) but therefore it followeth not, that in a thing indifferent in nature and vse those Synodall con­stitutions are disanulled, more then lawes of the Parlia­ment house in lawfull things are disanulled in such case.

Secondly, you except, that Survey. 168. though the Canon (forbidding the Minister to giue the Communion to any but Sect. 34 such as kneele) doe binde the Minister as being perhaps sub­i [...]ct to the constitution of the convocation, because by his ch [...] ­sen Clerke he is supposed to giue consent, yet what is this to the people, who by no pr [...]curators, or substitutes, gaue any consent to those Canons? Answer. A strange exception! is not as much to be referred by a congreg [...]tion to their Pastor in chusing a Clerke for them as is referred by all the Pa­stours to the Clerke chosen in making lawes for them. Also is it true that the people are bound to no constitu­tions of order, made without their consent? giue vs one example of a Councell or Synode (in any age of the Church of Christ) to make this good by? Certaine it is, that the Apostles ordeined certaine things to be observed by the Churches, Acts 15. without their know­ledge and consent, and th [...]n certified the same vnto them by letters. Furthermo [...]e if [...]this be true, that the people be bound to no order, but what themselues were parties (by their substitution at least) in the decreeing of, then is all authoritie of Pastours and Governours in mutable and yet necessary circumstances in Gods wor­ship quite taken away; (which as it cannot be affirmed without many absurdities) so is plainely contrary to your owne opinion and doctrine of Ecclesiasticall power in indifferent things, partly confessed (as I haue shewed) to this Church, partly defended for your Presbyteries. Sect. 35

Thirdly, you B [...]sh. a [...]g. 10. Treat. of div. worsh p. 24, 25 26, 27. except, that by observing of this ge­sture, you shall yeeld obedi [...]nce and homage to spirituall Lords, [Page 243] whose authority is vsurped. Answer. I bring this objecti­on in here, because I know no manner of pretence for the likelyhood of your saying; that by kneeling we doe homage to the reverend Bishops, but onely in respect of the Canon, either for the making or executing. But for the former, neither did they by their sole authoritie make the Canons, nor if they did, is therefore the au­thoritie of lawfull constitutions to be despised. And for the latter, it is not onely lawfull, but needfull, that for the preserving of vniformity and peace amongst vs a lawfull order should be performed, and executed. In both if the authorit [...]e of the Bishops were vsurped as you say, yet the answer which you make for justification of your callings received from them, will serue much more to justi [...]e the vse of a warra [...]table g [...]sture com­maunded by them. Namely, that we must rever [...]nce the Princes power, and the Churches power, which be of God, though it be committed vnto, and exer [...]ised by men that by the law of God are not capable of it. Now (say you) the Prince, and the Church of England by act of Parliament in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne haue committed that power vnto the Bishops, which they doe rule by; and therefore we ought not to looke so much at the men, as regarding with reverence the law, established by the Prince, and the Church as­sembled out of all parts of the Realme in Parliament, whereby their authoritie commeth vnto them. What now will M [...]. Bradsh. answer to Manuscrip. and what will Manuscrip. answer to itselfe in this case? and what will become of the homage, which Mr. Bradsh. speakes of? you might as w [...]ll say that to doe any thing by Canon, at least in mutable orders, and place, and other circum­stances of divine worship, especially to vse the gestures prescribed, as to stand at Cree [...]e, to kneele at prayer, &c. is vnlawfull, because to doe the same is to doe homage to the Bishops: and this is a notable ground, where up­on to build a Brownist, or Seperatist. Beside, I aske [Page 244] Mr. Bradshaw, whether that which he saith will not be applyed against any Church-governours in Europe, say in Geneua, or in your owne framed Presbytery? Is there any Church, where t [...] Governors haue not limited cer­teine orders for their Assemblies, and worshipping? vn­doubtedly your doctrine takes hold vpon them, which teacheth in this manner. All meere Ecclesiasticall and Re­ligious actions enioyned by an Ecclesiasticall and spirituall au­thority, must needs be signes of spirituall homage to the same authority. Wherefore in that sense wherein you will iu­stifie other Churches, and Governours, be not so vn­kind as to condemne onely your owne. Especially if you consider, that though for disputation sake we put the case, of our Governours, as you would haue it, for sa­tisfiyng some men if it be possible, that they may kneele at Sacrament; yet that their authority and place, is not Antichristian as you traduce, but manifestly intending, and effecting by Gods goodnes in plentifull experience the building of the Church of Christ. But it is an hard taske, that a Christian cannot satisfie his conscience, whether it be lawfull to kneele at Sacrament, vntill he haue tryed, whether the place and authority of the Bi­shops be warrantable. I must tell you, that this is a proofe not onely tedious, and farre about the bush, but vnpro­fitable and to no purpose, if you possiblie could evince the truth thereof as you doe desire. Now I suppose it re­maineth true, that an Ecclesiasticall Canon of an Eccle­siasticall circumstance (lawfull to be vsed howsoever) hath force to bind vpon vs obedience, and so that we be bound to kneele at Sacrament by the Canon And the rather is this to be yeilded, by that which you Protest. of the K Supremacy. Sect 14. say of the authority royall, that the King hath power to ratifie, and giue life and strength to Ecclesiasticall Canons, and Constitutions. For behould this authority Royall hath ratified those Canons, and so this of kneeling in contro­versie.

Of the bond of the Kings sole, and Sove­raigne authority.

THirdly, suppose there were neither Act of Parlia­ment, Sect. 36 nor Canon for kneeling, yet in asmuch as it is knowne that it is the will and pleasure of his Maiesty (as it was of his immediate predecessours of famous me­mory) that his people should keepe one Vniforme order in receiving the Sacrament, therefore the said Order ought to be observed, I shall need to say the lesse in this poynt, because it is not gainesaid, nay your owne opini­on (I hope) will satisfie your selues: where you Protest. sect. 8 pro­fesse, We hold that Kings by vertue of their Supremacy ha [...]s power, yea also that they stand bound by the law of God to make Lawes Ecclesiasticall such as shall tend to the good orde­ring of the Churches in their Dominions.

And againe, Sect 27. The Suprea [...] Magistrate ought by his Authority, not onely to prescribe Canons of vn [...]formity, and consent, in Religion and worship of God, vnto all the Congre­gations in his Dominions; but also to p [...]ish the offences of a­ny of them, that they shall commit against the Lawes of God, the Policy of the Realme, and the Ecclesiasticall Constitutions enacted by his Authority. Wherefore (to say no more) knee­ling at Sacrament b [...]ing lawfull in it selfe, it followeth, that we ought to obserue it, by the bond of his Maiesties commandement.

Of the bond of kneeling taken from the necessity of seeking the peace and edification of the Church.

LAstly we are bound to kneele at Sacrament, for the Sect. 37 conservation of the Churches peace, and edificati­on of Gods people. Verily there is nothing more need­full [Page 246] in the society of the Church, then peace, and quiet­nesse, nothing which a good heart will study more to advance then it. Psal. 133. Oh how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in vnity! It is like the sweete and fragrant oyntment on the head of Aaron, like the heave [...]ly and fruite-begeting dew, that falleth vpon the mountaines. Psal. 122. Peace should be sought within the Churches walls, and pros­perity within her Palaces. For your brethrens and compa­nions sakes, you should now say, peace be within the Church of England. Why doe you not harken to the rule of the Apostle: 1 Cor. 11. 16. If any man seeme to be contentions, (in a variable circumstance, in a thing indifferent (we haue no such custome, neither the Churches of God. I would to God, you did seriously thinke what a sinne it is to make needlesse strife in the Church, and what misera­ble effects it produceth; and how your selues be the of­fendours in this case. But what (I pray) shall be said for leaving of your ministries, forsaking of your flocks, which God hath called you to be overseers of, casting off the Communion of Gods people and ordinances, and all this, for refusing to kneele at Sacrament; that is, to vse a gesture plainely indifferent in nature and vse? A­las, this is not onely to streine at a gnat, and swallow a camell; but beholde it is a kinde of contempt, and shame­full reproach of the Church and worship of Christ. I hope every godly minde will be provoked accordingly to consider. Thus I haue shewed, how many wayes we be tyed to vse the gesture of kneeling in the act of recei­ving the Sacramentall elements in this Church of Eng­land. So much for your second exception.

Thirdly, you Manuscrip. [...]h. 1. arg. 8. say, wee are expressely forbidden in Gods Sect. 38 word to goe backward, I [...]. 1. 4. and straitly charged not so much as to stand at a stay, but to be led for ward to perfection, Heb. 6. 1. and to propound to our selves, and labour to imi­tate the purest and best examples, Phil. 3. 17. Answer. But shall we goe backward in religion by kneeling at Sacra­ment? How prooue you that? First, say you, wee shall [Page 247] leaue the manner of receiving, which we haue long vsed. A worthy reason! then it was a going backward in religi­on for the auncient Church to kneele at prayer vpon the Sundayes on which they vsed to stand, for aboue (as the Disputer Disp pag 86. affirmeth) the space of a thousand yeares together: then it is a going backward in religi­on, for this Church to betake vnto standing or sitting at Sacrament, because she shall leaue that manner of re­ceiving which hath beene long vsed. But secondly, say you, standing or sitting is better then kneeling. If it be, it is onely better as one mu [...]able circumstance is better then another, and this betternesse stands onely in re­spect of concomitant circumstances: and so this reason takes away the lawfull libertie of changing gestures and circumstances. Kneeling in prayer is the best gesture of prayer, and is it a going back [...] in religion therefore to sit or stand in prayer vpon occasion? But why is kneeling the worst of all gestures in receiving? because the other be more agreeable to the example of Christ and his Apo­stles, and all the best reformed Churches; whereby ap­peares that if kneeling be not simply v [...]lawfull, yet is worse then they. I answer, first, here is contradiction, for you yeeld, and suppose kneeling to be otherwise law­full, and yet you say it is a going backe in religion. Se­condly, your examples cannot satisfie; that of Christ and his Apostles is not certainly knowne; if it were, it proues sitting better then kneeling no more, then his [...]itting to preach from time to time proues standing wor [...]e then sitting in the act of preaching, or that standing in that act is a going backward in religion. As for other refor­med Churches, let them looke at our example as well as we at theirs: their examples will be a poore satisfaction to a mans conscience meerely as it is opposed to the ex­ample of our owne Churches. If this be all the proofe of your betternesse, you haue said as much as comes to nothing. Thirdly, compare those Scriptures, which you quote immediately, with the gesture of kneeling, that is, [Page 248] with an allowed, and naturall gesture in Gods worship, and you may well conceiue, how impertinently you al­ledge them, how vnreasonably you abuse the [...], which evidently speake of falling backe from the substan [...]iall [...]uth and worship of God.

And thus I haue (by Gods goodnesse) answered all your three considerations, or reasons, tending to proue, that if kneeling at Sacrament be indifferent in its nature and vse, and so also vrged in this Church, yet are not Christians bound therefore to vse it. And so much for your generall argument, tha [...] kn [...]ling at Sacrament in our Church depriues men of their Christian libertie.

Reasons, or Considerations, to shew further that Kneeling at Sacrament enioyned in this Church, is not against Chri­stian libertie.

VNto all which I haue said for defending the law­fulnesse of kneeling in this Church, notwith­standing Sect. 39 our Christian libertie▪ I will adde besides a few considerations of weight, whereby the Christian Reader may be further confirmed in his opinion and persuasion of the said lawfulnesse.

I [...] 1. Acts. 15. There was a Councell held by the Apostles and Elders, wherein they decr [...] that the Chur­ches of the Gentiles should absteine from meate offered to idolls, from blood, and from things strangled. This abstinence they imposed vpon the [...], (though it was a burthen) as a necessarie thing, which to obserue accor­dingly they should doe well: vers. 28, 29. Behold here is obedience, and necessitie of obedience required of the Churches in things indifferent, though it was burthen­some vnto them. Runne through all your Scriptures, and reasons, which I haue answered before, and see if al­most [Page 249] every one of them might not be vsed against this Councell held at Ierusalem, as infringing the libertie of the Churches, as well as the same haue been vsed against the present order of the Church of England.

Secondly, I aske you whether you allow of none of Sect. 40 all the Canons, and constitutions, of Ecclesiasticall or­ders, which haue beene decreed in the Councels and mee­ [...]gs of the Church from generation to generation. If you doe not, you cannot denie, but you are contrary to all the Doctours, and learned men that ever the Church had since the Apostles: If you doe, alas must a Canon of a lawfull thing be onely despised in that Church, to which you owe greater sewice, then to any of them all? But what will you say to all the reformed Churches at this day, which haue constitutions of Ecclesiasticall or­ders, within themselues, whereunto their owne peo­ple be bound, Geneva it selfe not excepted? is your li­bertie greater then the libertie of all other Christians in the world, or doe you better vnderstand the matter, and tenour of it then they? I request you to thinke vpon this point, which will be of speciall vse in this disputati­on of libertie.

Thirdly, in looking vpon your owne libertie, you Sect. 41 should consider how you hinder and oppose the libertie of others. First, you destroy the libertie of the Magi­strate in making lawes, concerning the ordering of the Churches and Gods worship by determination of mura­ble circumstances. Secondly, you destroy the libertie of the Church, and the priviledge of Church-government, by contesting against the same in things indifferent, vpō pretence of your libertie. Thirdly, you destroy the liber­tie of all Christians, by affirming that it is not lawfull for them [...]o forgoe their power, to the end they may satisfie others, for their own [...] advantage, and comfort, nay not for the furtherance of the Gospell: whereas the Apostle postle requires that wee should not please our selues in things which ar [...] indifferent, but ou [...] neighbours [Page 250] in that which is good for their edification, Rom. 15. 1, [...].

Fourthly, I would you did seriously take knowledge, and call to minde the vnspeakable comfort, which God Sect. 42 hath bestowed vpon you, vnder the happie Raignes of his Majestie, that now is, and his next most noble Pre­decessours: and may further bestow by them and their [...] vpon your selues and your posteritie for many generati­ons that are yet to come. Oh that loue, (which if it be true and great, is strong as death, hot as fire, and more powerfull then all other incentiues) might persuade you to yeeld of your libertie in the smallest matter, to such by whom (vnder the Lord) you possesse libertie in the greatest; and how many things doe aggravate your vnkindnesse in this case. First, there is nothing vrged vp­on you, but what it pleaseth the King himselfe to per­forme in his owne person: if such a taske had beene im­posed, which the imposers would not haue moved with one of their fingers, verily, there might haue beene some cause gived of reluctation and complaint, but now th [...] you be incited onely to consociation in one lawfull man­ner of serving God, why should you holde your selves vnworthily dealt withall? Secondly, that which for cha­ritie and edification, you may depriue your selues of, why should you not also depriue your selues of at the commaund of the Magistrate? haue you libertie to or­der your carriage in indifferent things, for con [...]enting and satisfying of private persons, and haue you none to shew in such things your due subjection to the higher powers? Also haue you Christian libertie for satisfying of your selues, in things indifferent, (for so a mans will is free to doe, or leaue them vndone, as they be conside­red of themselues) and shall the Magistrate haue no sa­tisfaction at all in respect of his pleasure in them? Sure this is too rigorous, and harsh behaviour, not without the guilt of hatefull ingratitude. Thirdly, you looke your children and servants should obey your selues in things indifferent, not onely concerning civill things, [Page 251] but concerning the ordering of Gods worship within your owne doores; for the times, places, and many o­ther circumstances thereunto belonging: Is not the King Pater Patriae, et nutricius Eccle [...]iae, the father of his Countrey, and foster father of the Church? Isa. 49. 13. Is he not a soveraigne Lord, and are not you his servants, and in­comparably more bound then any domestick servant can be to his Master? What vnkindnesse is this therefore in you not to yeeld so much power to the King in the circumstances of Gods worship in publick, as you as­sume, (and will assume) to your selues in the circum­stances of his worship in private? you may doe well to thinke vpon these things in good earnest.

Fifthly, what good reason are you able to giue, why the Sect. 43 Magistrate, and Churches order for kneeling in prayer, standing in confession of faith, standing, or sitting in the word, (which you allow, and you say the Commu­nion booke also Disp. p. 2, alloweth:) why their direction for the times and places of divine worship, and appointment by you allowed of sundry matters more, (which being necessarie in their kinde are variable in particular deter­mination) should not depriue vs of Christian liberty, as well as the direction of kneeling at the Lords Supper? In those things you never complaine, that I can heare of, that your liberty is wronged; onely (for [...]ooth) it is a­bridged, and abused in this one onely gesture! If you must needes keepe your old wont, and tell vs that knee­ling at Sacrament is vnlawfull in other respects, I haue to intreate you to consider of mine answer to those re­spects in such arguments, where you will point vs vnto them. In this place you must sticke to the sole respect of Christian libertie, wherein if I saw not the ignorance of some of your side, the childish trifling of you the de­fendours also, I should not need so often to call vpon you. I presse you therefore to keepe close to the present point, and in good sooth aske your consciences, if Christian libertie block not vp the way against the [Page 252] Magistrate, and Churches ordering in some gestures, and circumstances of divine worship; why it, (I say againe Christian libertie) should block vp the way against this gesture, and circumstance in the Lords Supper? Why should you not either giue the Magistrate and Church power in all things of indifferent nature, and vse, or else in all these vtterly take it away?

Sixthly, One thing further I will vrge against you, which will trouble you in this Argument of your liber­ty, Sect. 44 if I be not deceived! It is this. It is vndoubted, that if your selues had authority to appoynt Ecclesiasticall Orders in this Church, or they which haue, would bee ruled by you, among other things, you would be sure to forbid kneeling at Sacrament, and suffer Communicants only to sit or stand. Iudge in your selues whether we should haue as much reason to cry out against you for infringing our liberty, as now you haue against this Church, for we are persuaded vpon sure ground of Gods word, that it were lawfull for vs to kneele in the act of receiving, if kneeling were left at every mans liberty, as you are perswaded it is lawfull to sit or stand, if sitting & standing were left at every mans liberty. Therefore if your owne practise in forbiding the gesture of kneeling would not hinder our liberty, neither doth the pre­sent practise of this Church, in forbiding (for Vni­formity sake for a time) to vse the gestures of sitting, or standing, hinder your liberty: It is the rule of nature, of the Law, and Prophets, and of Christ himselfe Luke 6. 31. as ye would that men should d [...] vnto you, doe ye also to the [...] likewise.

Seventhly and [...]astly, you talke of Christian liberty, and for that you earnestly striue, now you know that Sect. 45 which is indifferent and we haue liberty in, we may doe sometimes, and sometimes leaue vndone. But behold you will not kneele in receiving the Sacrament, I say, you will not kneele at all. If you would haue been con­tent to kneele sometimes, so that you might also sit or [Page 253] stand at some other times, as it were, to shew and vse your libertie which you haue, it would haue something more concerned the pretence of Christian liberty; but to op­pose altogether against the order of Governours (vpon opinion that you haue liberty to doe otherwise) is a per­verse abusing of liberty, and a contempt both of the Magistrate, and Church. Truely, if you kneeled for the most part, and vpon occasion varyed your gesture but sometime, I am assured you would find some indulgence in so doing. But never to kneele, not one time, and yet make a noyse about your Christian liberty, is very stub­borne learning, as if Christ had given vs this liberty in indifferent things to be a skonse against the commande­ments of authority. So much of the Argument of Chri­stian libertie, and of all the limbes and parts thereof, which the cause in hand requireth vs to consider. Now the judgement be to the vnderstanding Reader.

Of the Argument of Kneeling drawne from the signification which the Church put­teth vpon it.

THis then is one of your exceptions against kneeling Sect. 2 at Sacrament, that it is appointed by the Church to be a significant gesture, namely to signifie humilitie, and gratefull acknowledgement of Gods loue in Christ: and surely in this exception I finde a minde rather to dis­grace the gesture, then to disprooue it. The Church doth not teach, that any thing is signified thereby, but which would be signified, if she had altogether held her peace: she appoints no signification, but that which is accor­ding to the Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 10. Naturall ge­stures haue such light, that any of ordina­ry conceit may in the signe see the thing sig­nified. nature of the gesture applyed to holy worship, as it signifies in prayer and thanksgiving; that is, that it signifies the inward humilitie, thankfulnesse, and devotion of the Communicants. And was there e­ver speciall gesture in Gods worship, which was not sig­nificant? was not the Publicanes smiting vpon the breast an evident signe of an afflicted and dejected spirit? But what should I speake of one singular gesture? is not all outward worshipping a signe of inward devotion? or [Page 255] else all outward worshipping is Pharisaicall; neither can we at any time judge men to be truely serving the Lord, except that outward expressions be tokens and testimo­nies of inward worship.

But that I may faithfully vnfolde the difficulties of Sect. 3 this point, which are imagined, we must distinguish of signes. Some Nata, data. doe naturally signifie something; and some againe be instituted to signifie: now of instituted signes you holde, that they be vnlawfull in Gods wor­ship, if their signification be put vpon them by man. For you take for graunted, that kneeling at the Sacrament is a signe instituted by man, and not naturall. But both these propositions be false, either that kneeling, in this part of Gods worship, signifying according to the ge­nerall nature of it, is not naturall; or if the significati­on were instituted by man, that therefore it were pre­sently to be held abominable. Now let vs examine by the rule of truth the maine argument which you vse for j [...]stification of this; for to the other you speake not a word: I suppose you did not thinke it needefull. But this the Reader must be admonished, that whereas your reason is set downe against all the The Replier can tell you that you call the gesture, a­busi [...]ely a Ce­remony. Repl. gener. against Bp. M [...]rt. p. 48. ceremonies toge­ther, it onely now concernes me to try what force it hath particularly, against the gesture; and that I justly may doe, [...] because out of your generall ground you assume a­gainst the gesture, expressely, as well as against any o­ther ceremony which is opposed. Thus then you rea­son.

Abridg. [...]. arg ag. Cerem. All humane ceremonies appropriated to Gods service, if they be ordeined to teach any spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification are vnlawfull.

But kneeling at the Sacrament is such a ceremonie, so ap­propriated, so orde [...]ned.

Ergo.

The Major Proposition must be explaned for the Sect. 4 truthes sake, le [...]t you hide the lustre of it by the foggi­nesse of termes, which doe not seldome darken the same [Page 256] vnto vs. First, what meane you by ceremonies humane? meane you such as the wit of man disposeth vpon the grounds of the written word, and of nature, or such as wherein [humane] stands in opposition to [divine.] In the latter sense, you must onely meane it, if you will speake to any purpose, and in that sense it will availe you nothing at all, as it will appeare. Secondly, what may be meant by [appropriated to Gods service?] what? appropriated necessarily and [...]bsolutely, or onely appro­priated vpon occasion? for herein there is distincti­on to be made. Thirdly, what meane you by teaching by mysticall signification? It is needfull you teach vs the meaning, lest you intangle vs in a mysterie. Sure you meane no other thing by [teaching] but what is carryed in the word [signifying.] Now signifying is taken, either from the naturall aptnesse of things to signifie such or such matters to the representation whereof they be ap­plyed: or else it is meerely taken from the minde of man, that feigneth such a signification, where the analogie of the things themselues doth not afford it. And the benefit of this distinction, as also the truth, will better appeare by and by. Now prooue your proposition.

Reasons of your Proposition.

This reason sayes nothing to the limitati­on of your pro­position, (ap­propriated to Gods service.) REas. 1. Abridg. ibid. The second commandement forbids all i­mages, and Repl. gen. to Bp. Mort. p. 4 [...]. so all religious similitudes, which are Sect. 5 homogeneall vnto them. Significant ceremonies are externall acts of religious worship, invented of m [...]n, and so are of the nature of images, so that such significant ceremonies which are by institution, must of necessitie belong vnto the second commandement, and an accurate distinction of the comman­dement will easily shew this. Answer. It is pitty wee want such an accurate distinction of the second commande­to this day: to how small purpose doe you still tell vs of the second commandement, when you childishly begg [Page 257] the sense and interpretation of it? Is it possible that any mans conscience should be resolved with such presumpti­ons of your owne? It is true the second commandement forbids some significant ceremonies, not because they are significant, (for there is no lawfull ceremony which can be Calvin re­quires to such in significatione, dignitatem, In­stit. lib. 4 c 10. [...]. 14. without a signification) but because either the things themselues be ill applyed to Gods worship, or because the signification sutes not to the worship in hand, or else is forced & improper. Now that kneeling is not forbidden in the Sacrament, I haue prooved in its owne Part. 2. ch 1. place: how then can the signification be for­bidden, when a more sutable and proper cannot be i­magined. And because you pretend so much the second commandement, let me pose you a little in bodily fashi­on [...], and gestures; (for vnto them according to my pur­pose I will confine my selfe:) onely first I will name such mutable circumstance, as your selues allow in Gods worship, (yet I meane such as are speciall) and aske you, forasmuch as they are significant, for whereunto can they serue, if there be no sense or signification to be made of them?) whether they be forbidden by the second com­mandement? Next I passe to the gestures of other Sa­craments, as Circumcision, Baptisme, &c. which were you cannot tell what, yet which soever the people of God vsed of old, the same was significant of something in those ordinances. Was all signification of those ge­stures then forbidden by the second commandement? Thirdly, renting of the garment which hath beene aun­ciently vsed in humiliation, and prayer, E [...]ra. 9. 5. 2 King 22. 19. Jerem. 3 [...]. 24 had a mani­fest signification; and was that forbidden by the second commandement? Fourthly, lifting vp Calv. instit. lib. 3. c. 20 sect. 5. of the hands, Treat. of div. worsh. p. 15. kneeling vpon the knees, are significant in worship­ping; is their signification forbidden by the second com­mandement? Fifthly, vncovering of the head in the Sa­crament is significant, as cannot be denied; and is the signification of that forbidden in the second commande­ment? Sixthly, standing and sitting at Sacrament you [Page 258] make significant many wayes, as I shall particularly shew by and by; and is the signification of these then forbid­den by the second commandement? Alas, it cannot be, that the second commandement should forbid the signification of gestures; that it should forbid the significa­tion of kneeling in all Sacraments, or in any part of Gods worship, whereunto it may lawfullie be applied. And in these circumstances and gestures whereof I haue given instance, you must note, that the signification was and is instituted and of choice as much as in the gesture of the Lords Supper, yea and the things themselues are as humane ceremonies as the gesture of kneeling in the Sacrament, and as much appointed to Gods service. But if you be put to your answer, I imagine you meane that significant kneeling is forbidden, because kneeling it selfe is not appointed of God, and then you reason con­fusedly; for in that respect kneeling it selfe should bee forbidden, but not (if kneeling otherwise were lawfull) the signification which is made of it. So, that objection (as I said even now) belongs to another place, where it is fully answered.

Reas. 2. This reason sayes nothing to the limitati­on of your pro­position, Ap­propr [...]ated to Gods service. Abridg. ibid. Christ is the teacher of his Church, and ap­pointer Sect. 6 of all meanes, whereby we should be taught of any holie dutie. Answer. First Christ hath taught vs the lawfull­nesse of kneeling vpon occasion in the Sacrament, as I haue shewed: and he hath taught vs in his word, and in nature, that kneeling in Gods worship signifies reve­rence, humilitie, devotion towards God: therefore Christ himselfe is the teacher of this significant gesture. Secondly, since you condemne such admonishing as sig­nification of kneeling ministreth, why doe you plead for sitting by that respect, because it Disp. p. 22. doth remember and admonish vs of our dati [...]? Thirdly, but in truth you doe mistake, when you thinke our kneeling to be appointed to teach and admonish the soule, when it is rather (that I may so speake) taught of the soule, which makes vp­on the bodie, like a seale vpon the waxe, an impression [Page 259] answerable to it selfe: for the signification of kneeling is not of some thing inwardly to be done, but an expres­sion of something inwardly, and now actually done, that inward worship, wherein the bodie is now serviceable to the soule, being thereby onelie signified and testified, as it is in praier and thanksgiving. As for Mark. 7. 4. 7. which the Abridgement alledgeth for proofe of this rea­son, what is there for condemning of significant ge­stures in Gods worship? verily if you can make an argu­ment from thence against them, I must confesse you can see light at a smaller hole then other wise men can: but stil your signification condemned there is built vpon the supposall that kneeling is an humane precept, (as hu­mane is opposed to divine) and that is but to shew, that you can make the proofes of one of your arguments serue indifferently to any other. But the Replier would not Repl to Bp. Mort. generall, ch. 3. p 33. haue vs here to make a stand vpon this text, because for substance it hath beene handled before. I wonder then that he himselfe made such an vnprofitable stand at it, as to first, and second, and third about it, and yet giue no replie to the maine and plaine matter.

Reas. 3. Abridg. ibid. This reason sayes nothing to your limita­tions, (humane ordinances) & (appropriated to Gods ser­vice.) This giues vnto ceremonies a chiefe part of Sect. 7 the nature of Sacraments, when they be appointed to teach by their signification. Answer. There be three significati­ons of a Sacrament: first, signification of dutie from vs: secondly, signification of grace from God: thirdly, sig­nification of assurance to vs in both the former. Note al­so that the signification of du [...]ie in a Sacrament, first, flowes from the signification of grace, as it were by reflection: and secondly, is both operatiue, and obligato­rie, tht is, both stirres vs vp, and helpes vs to doe our d [...]ie, and also bindes vs to the vniversall, and conti­nuall performance of it. Now I think this Divinitie will not be refelled; but then the least of all these specificati­ons cannot truelie be applied vnto the gesture of knee­ling: who then would except against kneeling, because it is too Sacramentall, that would thus consider? It is [Page 260] not bare signification, that makes a thing to participate of the Sacraments nature, but [such] a signification, as is Sacramentall, both in [what is signified] and [how] for if you take away these necessary restraints, you may make many things too Sacramentall, not onely in seve­rall parts of Gods worship, but also in civill matters. Ve­rily if every thing must be condemned as too Sacramen­tall, that hath bare, and simple signification, then we shall lay [...] ground of condemning we cannot tell how many lawfull things, for not onely gestures, knee­ling, vncovering, renting of garments, &c. but many o­ther things signifiyng something vnto vs (yea of choyce) should haue the nature of Sacraments too much given vnto them. Nay I am beleife, we shall put you vpon a troublesome defence, for your Sacramentall sitting you are bold to affirme, that sitting signifies your coheireship & many things more, nay that it is (pars signican [...] Domini­c [...]) a very part of the signe in the Lords Supper. Behold then sitting hath a chiefe part of the Sacrament given to it, even to signif [...]e, both (ide [...], and [...]ode [...] [...]ode) the same thing and after the same manner, that the Sacrament doth, which is more then any man (I thinke) did ever say of the signification of kneeling to this day. I do wish that you would please among your thoughts, to make roome for this consideration, as it deserveth.

And against this which I haue said, the Replyer hath not written any thing Repl gen to Bp Mort. chap. 3. sect. 5. in that place, where yet he would seeme to defend the Abridgement, for that which he saith is either not intended by himselfe against the ge­sture o [...] kneeling, but other ceremonyes; or else it build­eth vpon supposalls, both that kneeling is an humane invention & also that it signifies (because it is granted to signifie) as the Sacraments do; so I am content to let him As I shal doe almost in all he writeth in 3. ch as saying no thing against the gesture. alone, because I would neither wast paper, nor time.

But what shall be said to Mr. Bradshaw, who Bradsh. arg. 9. sayes outright, that kneeling at the Sacrament, is a Sacrament, Sect. 8 and confirmes it by this reason, because being an out­ward [Page 261] rite, it edifies the soule in Christ, and because we say with one consent, that kneeling edifieth. And by this reason I should thinke the reasoner, better at making a Syllogisme in forme, then to conclude demonstratiuely. Nay here he [...]d [...]th not so much as conclude probably. I cannot thinke what deepe matter was in his minde, sure I am, the expression is shallow, and absurd, who would thinke that men durst commit such Arguments to the worlds censure? What (Sir) is every outward rite which edifies a Sacrament? Then the word and prayer be Sa­craments, then all matters of Or [...]er be Sacraments, then all things are Sacraments, for all things ought to bee done vnto edifiyng. 1. Cor. 14. 26. I pro [...]esse, if I did con­ceiue Mr. Bradshaws meaning, whereby this absurdity might be avoyded, I would gladly take such his mean­ing, and frame mine answer accordingly; but now I can doe no lesse then reject such an Argument, the folly whereof is as soone confuted as reported by every man.

Reas. 4. This Reason sayes nothing to your limita­tion (appropri­ated to Gods service) Abridg ibidem. In the time of the Law, no significant Ce­remonyes Sect. 9 might be receiued in the worship of God, but such onely as the Lord did institute. Answer. Dare you turne the word [Ceremonies] into [gestures?] You know God did [...]st [...]tu [...]e no gestures to any Sacraments of the Law express [...]ly, and particularly. So by this reason signi­ficant kneeling is as much allowed, as any significant ge­sture was in the Sacraments of the Law. This is (me thinks) presently against [...]ou.

Reas. 5. Abridg. ibid. This Reason sayes nothing to your limita­tion (appropri­ated to Gods service.) God hath abrogated his owne significant Ce­remonyes, Sect. 10 much lesse may man vse such now, as himselfe hath devised. Answer. It is a plaine case, both that gestures are not of mans devising, and Christ did abrogate no ge­stures by his death, to bring new ones into their place. Therefore the gestures vsed in Gods worship vnder the Law, do still remaine in equall force vnder the Gospell: and this reason also is vehemently against you.

[Page 262] Reas. 6. Abridg. ibid. This reason sayes nothing to your limita­tion, (appro­priated to Gods service) truely your limitati­on was to poor purpose. To allow significant Ceremonyes, would open Sect. 11 a gap to all other Ceremonies, if they shall be iudged to teach as fitly by their signification as the other. Answer. For knee­ling I say proportion it and them equally, in all things, and inferre from it to them and spare not. First, let them be as lawfull in themselues as kneeling is in worship, and sacramentall worship. Secondly, let their signification be as fitly raised from them, as kneeling (which all the world knoweth) in Gods worship fitly signifies humili­tie and reverence: but if you take these two points a­long with you, what gap will be opened to other cere­monies? verily no gapp, but what ought not to be shut against them, and it is a most vnreasonable saying, that a gap should be opened to oyle, images, cream, spittle, &c. by a significant gesture, when from it you can onely rea­son to mutable circūstances, which be necessarie in their kinde, but in particular determination be variable, and of them specially to other maine positions of the body in Gods worship.

Thus I haue touched the grounds of the Abridge­ment, Sect. 12 against the signification of kneeling, which be­ing so verie weake, (as it appeares they are) I would haue passed over, saying that some would thinke, there is greater force and strength in them, then indeed there is, and the rather, if the same should be left vnanswered. Nay such a one as the Replier to Bp. Mort. would make a great noise about [sixe reasons guileful [...]y passed over:] which yet in truth doe not so much as looke at the ge­sture of the Sacrament: but this is to be observed, that in laying downe generall grounds against ceremonies, which doe not like you, kneeling is condemned among other for companie, onelie, as here appeareth. And so much for your proposition.

Now your assumption hath three things to be made Sect. 13 good. First, that kneeling is an humane ceremonie, a [...] hu­mane is opposed to divine. And this you take for an vn­doubted truth; but Part. [...]. ch. 1. I haue sufficiently shewed that [Page 263] kneeling is a naturall gesture which God himselfe hath in his word hallowed and sanctified to his worship. But how do you prooue it an humane ordinance? Abridg. p. 35. Because the vse which it hath in the Sacrament is derived from the well of man. I answer, if this be a good reason, then knee­ling in prayer is an humane ordinance, because it is in the choyce of mans will to vse it or no, so standing at prayer is an humane ordinance for the same reason; for man is not absolutely bound to stand or to kneele, but hath libertie of choice, as there is occasion: you should consider, that gesture by Gods ordinance, is necessarie in its kinde, (in which respect it is divine) and is deri­ved of mans will onely for particular accommodation thereof; so the variation is mans, (and yet but after a sort neither, because it is according to the rule of the word) but the gesture it selfe let it be which you will in it selfe is Gods owne blessed ordinance. But you deliver your mindes further in the negatiue, saying, that is an humane ordinance, that is neither derived from nature, nor from the civill custome of our Nation. I answer, that knee­ling in Gods worship is derived from nature, who can haue the face to denie: and for a civill custome it is ridi­culous to say, that derivation from an humane custome, makes a divine ordinance, that kneeling is not a divine ordinance, because it is not derived from a civill and hu­mane custome: and yet in truth kneeling is according to the civill custome of our Countrey, as in your next point is to be tryed.

Secondly, you must make good, that kneeling is ap­propriated Sect. 14 to Gods service, and that it is not vsed anie where else, but in the Sacrament, and divine worship. And what doe you say to make this good? not one word. What then should I say to confute your shadow? to fight against words without matter and substance? who knowes not that kneeling is vsed in civill matters out of Gods worship? yea vpon occasion is vsed in eating and drinking out of his worship? if it were not so vsed, yet [Page 264] it may be civilly so vsed without sin against God, with­out offence vnto the Church; and therefore the Church by ordeining of kneeling in the Sacrament doth not ap­propriate kneeling vnto Sacramentall eating. And for worshipping, what should I t [...]ll men how kneeling is v­sed in civill honouring, in petitioning, in receiving gifts, in tendering service, and such like, which they know generally as well, or better then I?

Thirdly, and lastly, you must make good, that knee­ling Sect. 15 is ordeined to teach by its mysticall signification: and how doe you make that good I pray? Namely, Abridg. p. 37. by the booke of Common Prayer, authorized by act of Parlia­ment, Anno 5. Edw. 6. (to the which booke we are in this point, (as you say) precisely bound by the Statute, 1 E­liz) where is said, that this gesture is commanded for a sig­nification of the humble, and gratefull acknowledging of the benefits of Christ g [...]ven vnto the worthy receiver. But what mysticall signification doth the Common Prayer booke speake of? here is no more signification then would haue beene concluded out of the na [...]ure of the gesture, if the Common Prayer booke had said no­thing. I for my part v [...]derstand not any fault in the words of the booke, which you alledge: for is it no [...] lawfull in the act of receiving humblie and thankfullie to acknowledge the benefits of Christ? also is it not law­full to signifie that acknowledgement by our gesture? if the heart acknowledge, may not the What [...]vill you say to the significant standing in prayer on Sun­dayes of the ancient Church for many hun­dred yeares? what to their osculum p [...]is? bodie acknow­ledge likewise? suppose the Common Prayer booke commanded kneeling in prayer, might it not so com­mand vpon this reason and end, that kneeling might be a signification of the Christians humbl suing for grace, in petition, humble acknowledgement of grace in thank [...]giving? and might no [...] as much offence haue beene taken at that commandement of kneeling in pra­yer for that reason, as of kneeling in receiving the Sa­crament for a like reason? And here let the Reader be pleased to minde, that when you goe about to condemne [Page 265] kneeling in the Sacrament because of this signification, you must not thinke to saue your selues by taking for graunted, and supposing, that it is a worship invented of man, or a will-worship: but this your argument should be it selfe of force to condemne kneeling in the act of receiving, so as although it were lawfull in other res­pects, yet that it would be d [...]mnable for the significati­on, or else it is no argument, else the gesture of knee­ling is to be exploded, because it is otherwise evill, and not for the signification, which is given vnto it.

Finally, one thing I cannot but presse vpon you in Sect. 16 speciall manner. I haue already touched it here and there, but now especially I would vrge it in this place, and it is a remarkable thing, wherein I cannot be satisfied. The Replier (as he R [...]p [...] parti [...] to Bp Mort. p. 42. saith) dare affirme, that the ho­nour done vnto Christ, [...]lying in the manger, represen­ [...]ed his honour now done to him in heaven; which saying in it selfe for my part I dislike not; but how can it stand with your grounds, that a gesture in the wo [...]ship of Christ, must not be made significant by man, when God himselfe makes it not in his word. I hope you will not fly off by the word [representation] for if your mind passe from the Antitype to the type, the type is said to be a representation; but if from the type, to the Anti­type, it is said to be a signification. But this is neither all, no [...] the principall, which I would say. You con­dem [...]e kn [...]eling at Sacrament because it is a significant gesture, (and yet it is but sig [...]ificant according to the nature of the gesture) well. And yet you presse sitting or standing ea [...]n [...]stly for the signification sake. This I will shew particularly. First, (you Treat. of di [...]. worsh. p. 25. say) that sitting, or standing be signes and testimontes of spirituall things, [...]as­much as they are ord [...]nea for spirituall vses. Secondly, that si [...]ting [...]oth signifie Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 36. sacramentally [...]n the Supper, yea is even a part of the sacramentall signe. Thirdly, that sitting signifies rest, Admonit. to the Parliam. that is a full fin [...]shing of ceremonies, and a perfecting of the worke of our redemption. Fourthly, that [Page 266] sitting These haue beene complete arguments to prooue the ne­cessitie of sit­ting or stan­ding. at Table with Christ signifies, that wee are guests with him, and we be coheires with him of heaven. Fifth­ly, (w) that sitting and standing doe signifie that wee receiue the Lords Supper cheerefully, thankefully, and ioyfull, &c. Sixthly, that sitting signifies our communion with Christ, and his Church: Survey p. 182 and these be followed by you with great confidence.

But what further if standing be pressed, not onely as a significant, but also as an operatiue gesture? (and note that it is standing, not sitting, which themselues stand vpon, that Christ vsed) these be their owne words: Abridg p. 61. The assurance of faith and cheerefull thankefullnesse is stirred vp by the gesture of standing. Also the same Disp. p. 22. doth remem­ber vs and direct our hearts to conceiue, and induce vs to think aright of our interest and relation to our future inheritance. Dare you condemne now kneeling because it is signifi­cant, and make, (I say make) that is, institute sitting and standing to be so many It is presump­tion without Christs exam­ple or warrant to appoint sa­cramentall re­presentations, Survey pag. 193. In your owne glasse you may see the foulnes of these signi­fications, if you will allow it, and looke in it. wayes significant? nay and giue an efficacie to standing, (though it be diverse from the gesture which was vsed by our Saviour Christ,) and not onely significancie? I conclude that you keepe not due order to satisfie doubtfull consciences; and shall ever persuade my selfe, that kneeling in Gods worship may and must be significant, and to speake properly, though the kinde of gesture may be of man in the present deter­mination: yet the signification is naturall, so that man doth not so much attribute a signification to kneeling at Sacrament, as declare and establish it.

Answer to the Proposition.

FIrst to the Proposition I answer, as you will like to Sect. 1 expound your meaning of it. If you say, that we are forbidden to kneele before a creature, with religious re­spect vnto it, as an occasion of worshipping onely, there is nothing more false: for not to speake of such things as in worship are before vs meerely by [Page 268] the Angels & servants of the Lord fell [...]e­fore the throne & worshipped God Rev. 7, 11. 15. casuall position, as heaven, [...]arth, men, buildings, &c. which doe not at all occasion our worshipping, the Scripture and reason doe plainely allow, and commend such kneeling before a creature, which the said crea­ture occasioneth. But first obserue that things which may minister occasion of worshipping are of two sorts, First, some things are such, [...]s, [...]ough vpon occasion they may provoke vs to worship God, yet themselues haue no r [...]ligious state in divine worship. Secondly, some aga [...]ne are con [...]ecrated things, and haue religious vse in the worship in hand more or lesse, and of both these sorts Gods holy word alloweth vs to take occasion of worshipping.

Examples of the former sort, I shall need to mention Sect. 3 but few. Hezechiah kneeled before a Letter, and wor­shipped God, and the Letter was occasion of his knee­ling, or worshipping, 2 Kings 19 14. Yea at that time he had had a religious respect vnto the Letter. Laban, Ba­thuel, and Rebecca were before Abrahams servant, when he worshipp [...]d the Lord, bowing himselfe to the earth, (Gen. 24. 51. 52.) they were occasion of his worshiping and bowing, yea in his worshipping he had a religious respect vnto them. The convinced sinner falls downe on his face, and worshippeth God before the Ministers that preach to his conscie [...]c [...]. 1 Cor. 14 25. They are oc­casion of his worshipping, and in the act of worshipping he hath a religious respect to them. If a man walke through standing corne, and in contemplation of Gods goodnesse therein kneele downe and worship him be­fore it, is not the creature occasion of his bowing and worshipping, and hath not he in the act a religious res­pect vnto it? If a man eate his meate all alone, is it not lawfull to kneele downe before it, in consecrating there­of, and giving of thanks? If it be, is not his meate occa­sion of worshipping, and hath not he in that act a religi­ous respect vnto it? Its true, these things thems [...]l [...]es are civill in the act of worshipping, yet the respect of the [Page 269] heart vnto them in the said act is religious, and this is so evident it cannot be denyed.

Yet if this sort of things seeme lesse to purpose, let vs Sect. 4 passe to such things as are not only occasion of worship, but themselues haue a religious and sacred vse (as bread and wine in the Sacrament) in the time and act of per­formance, & thereby we shall see the lawfulnes of knee­ling before holy creatures, with religious respect vnto them. First, this is true of worshipping in the time of the Law, which the people of God were commanded, and were wont to vse before, and with religious respect of holy things. As first, I instance in the Temple, & Arke: David worshipped towards the holy Temple. Psal. 5. 7. 1 [...]8. 2. Worship the Lord at his holy hill. Psal. 99. 9. He are me when I lift vp my hands towards thine [...]oly Oracle. Psal. 28. 1. Wor­ship the Lord at his footst [...]le. Psal. 99, 5. We will worship at his footstoole, Psal. 132, 7. I [...]shua and the Elders of Is [...]aell fell to the earth vpon their fa [...]es, before the Arke of the Lord. Ios. 7. 6. Secondly, I instance in the Legall Sacrifices, be­fore which the people of God worshipped, and with re­ligious respect vnto them. When the fire consumed the the burnt offering, all the people [...]ell before it vpon their faces. Levit. 9. 24. 2 Chron. 7. 3. Where with shall I c [...]me [...]before the Lord, and how my selfe, shall I come before him with b [...]rnt offerings. Micha. 6. 6. When they were offering solemne Sacrifices. Heze [...]iah and the Congregation [...]owed themselues downe. 2. Chron. 29. 28. 29. 30. Thirdly, I in­stance in other signes, and tokens of Gods presence, which occasioned the people of God to kneele downe before them. All the people saw the cloudy piller stand at the Tabernacle doore, and all the people worshipped euery man in his Tent doore. Exod. 33. 10. When all the children of Israell saw the gl [...]ry of the Lord come downe vpon the house, they bowed themselues, with their faces to the ground vpon the p [...]uement, and worshipped. 2 Chron. 7. 3.

Secondly, This is true in things sensible to the eare, Sect. [Page 270] which are of I confesse (saith [...]. Mar­tyr) that many doe godlily kneele and a­dore at the hea­ring of these words, (et ver­bum car [...] factum est.) like force in this case, though transi­ent with them which be sensible to the eye. Aaron spake the word of the Lord to the children of Israel, and when they heard it they bowed their heads and worshipped, Exod. 4. 30, 31. Moses called the Elders of Israell, and taught them the word of the Lord, then the people bowed the bead and worship­ped, Exod. 12. [...]1 27. Iehaziel spake the word of the Lord to Iehoshaphat, and all Iudah, then Iehoshaphat bowed his head, with his face to the ground, and all Iudah, and the in­habitants of Ierusalem fell before the Lord worshipping, 2 Chron. 20. 14-18. When the Apostles heard that voice, [this is my beloved Sonn [...], &c.] they fell vpon their faces, Matth. 17. 6.

Thirdly, this is true in visible holy things in time of Sect. 6 the Gospell [...] first, God in his word leaues the gesture of kneeling free to Baptisme: this you cannot tell how to disprooue: then it followeth, that the baptized knee­leth before a sacred creature, with religious respect vn­to it. Secondly, you say for the Lords Supper Manuscrip. chap. [...]. thus: The Apostles might verily lawfully in receiuing the Sacra­mentall elements from the hands of the Sonne of God, haue kneeled downe before him, and adored him. (Is not here as much allowed against the force of your proposition, as we desire to be allowed for our kneeling at the Sacra­ment?) Thirdly, in prayer for a blessing vpon the Sacra­ments, we worship, or kneele downe before the bread and wine, and water, (all hallowed things) out of a re­ligious respect vnto them present: even vnto such prayer the termes of your proposition will be also ap­plied.

Perhaps you would except against all these examples Sect. 7 and testimonies, as speaking of such worshipping or kneeling before creatures, as God himselfe comman­ded, which your proposition expressely excludeth. I answer, God never forbade, but by generall rules in all ages allowed his people, to take occasion from his crea­tures to worship him, though the creatures were pre­sent, [Page 271] and in such manner kneeling vpon occasion of, and before, the sacramentall bread and wine, is allowed also. But if you speake of speciall commandement to kneele downe before, and by occasion of the creatures, I deny there was any commandement in my former ex­amples. As there was no commandement to kneele downe before the Arke before Davids time, yet it was as lawfull before, as it was then there was no There was ex­press comman­dement to wor­ship, o [...] bow downe in offe­ring first fruits, in De [...]t. 26. 10. But the presen­ting of the first fruites is not a­mong my for­me [...] examples. com­mandement to kneele, or fall downe before, and by oc­casion of the sacrifices and fire: there was no comman­dement to worship before, and by occasion of the clou­dy pillar: there was no commandement to bow downe to the ground, when the glory of the Lord, (that is, some excellencie visible to the eye) came downe into the Temple: there was no commandement for the peo­ple to worship, bow downe, and fall downe, when they heard the word of the Lord from Aaron, Moses, and Iehaziel: likewise no command for the Apostles to fall downe, when they heard a voice sounding vnto them. There is no commandement for men of yeeres in being baptized, to kneele downe before, and by occasion of the water of Baptisme. There was no commandement for the Apostles to kneele downe before, and by occasi­on of the Sacramentall elements received from Christ, and yet you say, they might haue lawfully done it. Last­ly, there is no commandement to kneele downe in pray­er for blessing the Sacramentall elements, before, and by occasion of them. Wherefore kneeling in the act of re­ceiving is as much commaunded, as vpon any of all these occasions exemplified. Therefore there is a lawfull bowing downe, or worshipping before creatures, with religious respect vnto them without speciall com­maundement: yet you would make vs beleeve that your proposition were generally true, yea it is vrged as if there were none to it.

But if your proposition be onely meant of kneeling Sect. 8 before a creature with religious respect vnto it, a [...] a [...] [Page 272] object of worship, then I graunt it is a most inpregna­ble truth. But then why doe you deliver your proposi­tion in generall tearmes? Belike you feared, if you should haue mentioned, [Respect of a thing as object, and as oc­casion] men would haue had a present helpe to keepe kneeling at Sacrament out of the reach of one of them. The truth is, let your meaning be what it will of the tearmes of your proposition, your proofes onely con­demne kneeling before a creature, when the creature is respected as the object of kneeling: let this be conside­red, First, you Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4. So others also. say: The second commandement forbids to bow downe before any creature, to worship God in or by it; that is when the creature is obiectum in quo, or per quod; for else the second commandement forbids not bowing downe before any creature, when it is onely respected as a just occasion of worshipping God himselfe, wholly and immediately. Againe, you illustrate onward in this manner: vpon this ground (say you) Peter forbad Cor­nelius, and the Angell Iohn to fall downe before them being but creatures, and accordingly the learned teach, that it is idolatry to direct the worship of God, or any part thereof, to any peculiar place or creature, without the appointment of God. But it is plaine, that Corneli­us, and Iohn, would haue given worship divine to Peter and the Angell. And our learned writers doe never con­demne worshipping God before the creatures, but in case the worship be directed, (obiective, more or lesse, I say directed) vnto them, as your selues also set their judge­ment downe. And I suppose to these expositions so cleere and vndoubted, none even of your selues will say contrarie.

Of Popish Image-worship.

LAstly, you say, if it be lawfull to worship before the creatures with areligious respect vnto them, then we Sect. 9 [Page 273] cānot charg the Papists iustly for worshipping of Images: And by this illustration no other religious respect in worship­ping is condēned, then is by your former proofs; for the Papists doe respect their images in worshipping as ob­jects not only relatiuely, but absolutely. But in this mat­ter I finde you willing to contend, let the Reader judge vpon consideration how truely, and then to what pur­pose in your owne behalfe.

The auncient Papists (say Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. ch▪ 3. pag. 61. you) (for of the latter you yeeld, as whose image-worship is expresse and grosse) were more moderate in their opinion of image-worship, then our moderne Pontificians are. Well, and how moderate was their opinion of image-worship? They Ibidem. held the worship before an image, to be abusiuely, and improperly called worship; approoved Pag. 63. of no adoration to be given to the i­mage at all either inhaesive, or adhaesive, made not Perth. Assemb. pag. 50. the image in worshipping to be either objectum quod, or obje­ctum in quo, or per quod, but onely objectum à quo sig­nificative. This was (you s [...]y) the opinion of auncient Papists concerning image-worship.

I answer, that all this hinders not, but they directed worship vnto their images in some manner; for was this obiectum à quo, object of sense onely, and not of worship? I pray you, let their owne sayings be looked over again. First Durand sayes, By the image we haue a remembrance of the person which is worshipped as well in the presence of the i­mage, as if he were really present. Where he shewes that properly the person of the prototype is worshipped, but behold it is in the very face of the image, the pre­sence thereof answering for the presence of the said per­son signified. Bonaventure (relating (as you say) Durand, and the more auncient Papists opinion) saith, Cruce [...] Christs non esse adorandam nisi in quantum in [...]a adoratur Christus. Alexander Hal. saith also thus: Maior h [...]or qui exhibetur crucirefert ad rom significatam, cuius est sig­ [...]um, non ad ips [...] cruce [...] in so. Is not here divine worship given to the image in some sense manifestly? It is true, [Page 274] the same is performed vnto the image, not for it selfe, but for the prototype, and therefore it is at length there­vnto carried. But what then? Haue you the forehead to say, that the worship according to this learning is not at all carried, first to the image, which being visible, and present, supplies the place of the prototype, and so part­ly by representation, partly by conveyance is an object in worshipping. Can you denie the evidence of this thing? If you can expound these speeches of those aun­cienter Papists so, as to acquit them from allowing any worship of the image directly, or indirectly, mediately, or immediately, permanently, or transiently; verily you haue a singular gift, let vs not striue about words, what­soever speciall things they meant by their distinctions, this is certaine, they meant to allow the directing of worship to the images some way, as appeareth. Let the Angelicall Doctour, (who was coetanean with Bonaven­ture, &c.) helpe vs with his testimonie, who speaking of the institution of images in the Church, affirmeth ex­pressely of the image of Christ, Secund. 2. qu. 94. artic. 2. institui in Ecclesiâ, vt ei cultus latriae exhibeatur, cuiratione divinitatis latria debetur: that it was instituted in the Church, that high divine worship should be given to it, being due by rea­son of the divinitie of Christ, whose image it is. If this will not satisfie you, it is in vaine to spend time in tri­fling. Furthermore except you be content to acknow­ledge that those Papists did giue worship vnto their ima­ges, how can their worship be condemned as idolatrous, as that which (according to your proposition) was for­bidden to Cornelius, and Iohn, and in like manner for­bidden in the second commandement.

But what if those auncienter Papists respected their i­mages Sect. 10 in worship, no otherwise then as occasions there­of, what followeth of that? what helpe and advantage riseth to you thereby? Perhaps you will aske vs, if we allow of worshipping of creatures with a religious respect vnto them in that sense, how we can condemne their [Page 275] worshipping of images Very well, for though we may not condemne taking occasion to worship God ofrm his ordinances, yet we condemne and abhorre their setting vp and ordeining their images to be such an occasion, which God never hallowed or allowed to such purpose. But this is more then we need to answer: I beseech you looke vpon reason, and be satisfied. Finally, what if none of vs vnderstād the true meaning of those elder School­men Then the vanity is yours to obiect against vs, that which you know not: All is one to vs, whatsoever was their opinion. If Durandus therefore, and his fel­lowes had any mysticall, or metaphysicall conceit, let them, whom it concernes enjoy their owne conceipts, in divining what it might meane. For our parts we haue nothing to doe wiht it, if you did not force vs to super­fluous paines taking. Now I passe to your Assumption.

Answer to the Assumption.

THe Assumption is this [but in kneeling at Sacrament, Sect. 11 we shall bow downe before the creatures of bread & wine, with religious respect vnto them, without Gods commande­ment.] for answer whereunto: First it is to be observed, that this last clause is only begged; for this kneeling is grounded vpon the commandement of God, as I haue shewed in part 1. & [...] ▪ chap. 1. other parts of this Treatise. All the maine matter lyes in the religious respect, which kneeling hath to the Sacramentall Elements, and that respect is accor­ding to my former distinction, either to them as an occa­sion of worshipping; or else as the object. Now I ex­pect proofe of your Assumption, that in kneeling at Sa­crament we direct some worship divine vnto the out­ward elements: and I find you declaring this. First by certeine reasons without respect of the Churches Iniunction. And secondly, and principally, by the Churches Iniuncti­on, which requireth (you say) the said kneeling to bee [Page 276] directed vnto the elements. Of these in order in two Pa­ragraphs, for the more effectuall and playne discovery of the truth.

Paragraph. 1. Kneeling at Sacrament is not Idolatrous in it selfe.

FIrst then I deny, that kneeling must needs be Idola­trous, Sect. 12 as it is absolutely considered; you say it is, be­cause it cannot be meerely occasioned from the elements, without some divine worship given vnto them. There­fore let your reasons be weighed being these which fol­low. Reas. If the bread (sayes the Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 64. Replyer) be an obiect of sence, and no way of adoration, onely mouing vs to a­dore, then the word moveth as well. I answer, if you speake of the gestures of the word, and Sacrament absolutely (without respect of the difference, which this Church vseth at this time, whereof I shall speake with Gods help by and by) I grant, that as the Sacrament doth occasion vs to adore, so the word might also: neither do we say, that kneeling at Sacrament is necessary in it selfe, but onely lawfull vpon occasion, as vpon other-like occasi­on it may be omitted. I will say as much of the word, whereat it is lawfull to kneele, as well as at the Lords Supper; if we compare the ordinances themselues toge­ther, without respect of scandalls, and customes of times. Further if we take occasion to kneele at one ordinance, and not equally at another, that inferre not, that there­fore we kneele at that one vnlawfully. Many things may procure, and effect a difference among the people of God, though there be no commandment. I aske you, why you kneele in prayer; Doth the respect of Gods presence, and the nature of the Ordinance moue you If it doe, why doth not the same presence, and ordinance moue you as well in table-blessing? Why doe we ever sit bare at the Sacrament, and not ever at the word preach­ed? [Page 277] If the Sacrament mooue vs to be vncovered, why doth not the word Preached mooue as well? In aword, why haue Gods people been wont to vse gestures differ­ing from othrrs, and from themselues too, both in the same ordinance, and in ordinances of like nature, here­in never keeping one See part 1. ch. 1. &c. vnchangeable course? You might object against them, that if they were mooved at one time to vse such, or such a gesture, in such or such parts of Gods worship, why should they not be as well moved in some otherlike part, or in the same all wayes, and let this last poynt be minded: for out of doubt, if a Christian may lawfully differ from himselfe in the same part of Gods worship, concerning his gesture, much more may the gesture which is vsed in one part differ from that, which is vsed in another. Reas. 2. Repl. pag praedict. To bow downe before the Sacrament in singu­lar Sect. 13 manner, being no obiect of adoration, but an help vnto it, (you must meane by help motiue or occasion) is the same thing, that many Papists say they doe, in kneeling before ima­ges. Ans. First, it is false, that they say so in our sence, that they vsed their images for helps, that is, for occasi­ons, or motiues of worshipping God onely. They bee much beholden to you for pleading their cause about image-worship, but as they would giue you no thankes if they were a liue, so I am assured, you will obteine little of the wiser sort of your owne side, when they haue con­sidered, that you are a pleader for them, whose Idolatry cannot be excused. You bid vs shew a difference betwixt their kneeling before images, and ours at the Sacrament. The difference is at hand (Sir): they applyed vnto their Images directly, or indirectly divine worship, whereas we giue none at all, more, nor lesse, properly, nor impro. perly, to the bread and wine. But the Abridgement ob­jecteth Bellarmine against vs, and what saith Bellarmine for sooth Abridg. 66. from the Protestants opinion of the lawful­nes of kneeling at Sacrament, Bellarmine inferreth, that then it is not Idolatry to kneele before Images. Answer. That [Page 278] opinion from which Bellarmine inferreth must be consi­dered: for is it the same opinion, that we hold in this Church, or is it not? If it be As you seeme to vnderstand P. Martyr Rep. part. to Bi. Mor­ton pa. 60. from whose words Bell▪ inferreth in the place quot­ed de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 18. not, what haue we to doe with his inferring from such an opinion of kneeling which we disclaime. But whereas we make the elements an occasion, and no object of kneeling, if Bellarmine hence inferre, that it is lawfull to kneele before images, what is that also to vs? For as his authority is none with vs, so the force of his inference is none at all, yea it is plainely ridiculous, & much more, considering his owne opinion of image-worship, which is more grosse thē the auncienter Schoolemen allowed, but in vrging against vs Bellarmins inferring, why did the Authors of the A­bridgement forget, what they cite out of Bellarmine in another Abridg. p. 31. citing Bellar. de Eucharist lib. 4. cap. 29. art. 2. place: Bellarmine (say they) having said, that we whom he cals Calvinists and Sacramentaries doe not (as they and the Lutherans doe) adore the Sacrament, neither (saith he) should any man maruell at that, seeing they die not belieue, that Christ is really present, but that the bread is indeed nothing else, but bread that came out of the Ove [...]. Thus you may see how shrewdly (as the Replyer Repl. partic. pag 64. spea­keth) Bellarmine concludeth for you, nay it is so farre, that he or any other can inferre his image-worship, from our kneeling at Sacrament, that they cannot so much [...]s conclude thereof the lawfulnes of their auncient image-worship, yea though images were Gods ordinances, as I haue shewed before.

Heere I cannot passe how the Replyer, abuseth that learned Bishop, against whom he dealeth most shameful­ly. Sect. 14 Doct. Morton (saith Repl partic. to Bp Morton pag 61. 62. he) teacheth to an haire as much as Durandus his words cary. Indeed if you be the inter­preter of both their words much may be pr [...]tended, let vs compare them. Christ is worshipped (saith Durand) in the presence of the Image, as if he were really present. Whereby is plaine he meaneth, that the presence of the Image ans­wereth in the worship, for the reall presence of Christ. What doth Doct. Morton say now? Forsooth that these [Page 279] praepositions [by and in the Sacrament] are not simply to be excluded, as appeareth in Sect. 24. And if they be ad­mitted in any sense, then in that which Durandus ex­presseth, when he saith, In the presence of the Image or Sa­crament. By no meanes, Sir, the Bishop alloweth those words, We may kneele in presence of the Sacrament, but not in Durandus his sense, who teacheth, if you consider his meaning, that Christ is to be worshipped in the face or presence of an image, so as that presence answereth for the reall presence of Christ himselfe. Obserue then the difference [in presence] with the Bishop is no more then it is with you, when yee kneele downe before the ele­ments in prayer for a blessing: (I wish the Reader to see Sect 24. where he shall be satisfied in the Bishops mea­ning) [in presence] with Durand is as when worship is performed to Christ mediately in the face of the image, as if his owne face, and person, were really present: where­fore the Replier is a perverter of words, that hee may seeme to make a kinde of replication.

Secondly, but suppose it be true, that ancient Papists Sect. 15 gaue no worship divine to their images at all, that they said no more, then we doe of kneeling at the Lords Sup­per, (if their images were but Gods ordinances, as the Sacrament is) we maintaine, that they said well. You thinke still to dash vs out of countenance with the name of the Papists. We confesse we be ashamed of their com­panie in that which is properly called Poperie, but we should never be ashamed of the truth, though the Pa­pists professe it. Now it is no Poperie to take occasion from Gods creatures to worship him, especially from such as are the matter of publick worship by himselfe in­stituted: how idle is it then for pleasing of your owne side, to be often saying, the Papists will say as much. Is not the Sacrament to be vsed for remembrance of Christs sufferings, because the Popish Crucifixe is vsed for a re­membrance of them?

Reas. 3. The Replier chargeth against Bishop Mort. Sect. 16 [Page 280] that he holds worshipping of the elements of bread and wine, as objects of worship, because (saith Repl. partic. p. 65. he) the adoration which he maintaines is relatiue from the signe to Christ. Answer. You (I doubt wilfully) doe misinter­pret his words; for when he saith, that the relation is made from the signe, he meanes nothing lesse, then that adoration is made vpon, or to the signe, but the kneeler adores the Lord in reference vnto the signe, as an occa­sion, or motiue of his adoring: and this himselfe tea­cheth so plainely, as words can be vsed, if yet words can suffice to satisfie you. Sect. 28. he sayes, A man in kneeling at Sacrament, vpon sight thereof, should abstract his thoughts from the sensible obiect, and lift vp his eyes and heart to hea­ven, adoring God and Christ. Again, Sect▪ 31. We vse kneeling, (saith he) tanquam obiectum à quo, that vpon sight of this Sacrament, as a visible word, (even as at the hearing of the audible words of Gods booke) our hearts may be mooved to a­dore God. But what neede I name any other place, then Sect. 35. (which the Replier builds his accusation vp­on) where (professedly setting downe his minde in this thing, he sayes, that the signe doth but mooue vs to that [sursum corda to lift vp our mindes to heaven in our adoring. Therefore you haue wrested his words, that you might seeme to partiall Readers to say something, and that was not well done. And so much answer may suffice to these trifling objections, and cavillations, which you vse to shew, that kneeling at Sacrament is not vsed, cannot be, before the bread, and wine, without being directed vn­to them. Now I will subjoyne some considerations, such as they are, to manifest the contrary.

Considerations tending to shew, that kneeling may bee vsed vpon occasion of the bread, and wine, without committing idola­trie with them.

[Page 281] AS by the weakenesse of your exceptions I am more Sect. 17 confirmed in the lawfulnesse of kneeling before the Sacramentall elements, so long as we worship God im­mediately, and not them either absolutely, or relatiuely: So (besides also what I haue said of the lawfulnesse of kneeling by occasion of creatures, in generall, before Sect. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. in answer to your proposition) I am yet still more confirmed therein, by the consideration of these things following.

First, if kneeling (ipso facto) is and cannot but be vsed to the bread and wine, then the Sacrament would be an idoll to vs, and to so many, as ever did receiue it in the Will they not [...] of this? gesture of kneeling, and so could be no Sacrament in its vertue, and comfort to such Communicants, no seale of the righteousnesse which is by faith, no meanes possi­ble of growing in the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ. But I doubt not, it hath beene, and is better, both with our forefathers, and also with vs, else not onely the case were lamentable for vs, but it would follow our Chur­ches Sacrament is no Sacrament of Christ.

Secondly, it is very worthy to be observed, that where­as Sect. 18 your imputation of idolatry is against our kneeling in the very act of eating, we cannot so much as worship be­fore the bread at that time. Nay, how absurd, and ridicu­lous is it to put vpon vs the worshipping of the bread, when we be breaking, and tearing it with our teeth? If the question were of kneeling in the act of holding vp the bread before vs, your imputation were much more likely to fasten vpon vs; but when the question is of the act of eating, your charge of idolatry hath not so much as probabilitie of truth. And it is a cleere case, that the controversie betwixt vs, is about the gesture, which is to be vsed in the act of receiving, and not in the act of behoulding the bread, and wine. Perhaps, if you had considered of this matter, you would not haue put con­fidence in this argument.

[Page 282] Thirdly, if you say that kneeling before the consecra­ted Sect. 19 creatures, before they be received or eaten, is the i­dolatry which you meane, then it is not lawfull for a man to kneele downe, (though he be alone) to wor­ship God, before the creatures of a civill table, for See Bp. Mort. sect 42. in the chapt. of knee­ling. See also the Repl. idle answer. vnto that practise your exception will equally be ex­tended.

Fourthly, if it be idolatry to kneele before the bread Sect. 20 and wine, because there is a religious respect vnto them, then is the like idolatry committed in kneeling before the Minister, who is concurrent in occasioning the Sa­cramentall worship, as he is a necessarie man in the Sa­cramentall imployment. Indeed, he is no occasion ei­ther immediate or direct, yet so farre as he is an occasi­on, idolatry shall as well be committed with him, that is, remotely, and indirectly. And like as peradventure you would not allow kneeling before the Preacher, (of pur­pose and choyce) of whom we receiue the word, lest be­ing vsed before a creature with religious respect there­unto, you should adore him in stead of Christ: so for that respect must kneeling be alike idolatrous, which is vsed before the Minister of whom we doe receiue the Sacrament. I thinke you can put no difference. So by this Logick it followeth, that the best Minister, as well as the bread and wine, is a very idoll to the congregation of kneeling Communicants.

Fifthly, will not you allow the heart in the Sacrament Sect. 21 while, to looke vpon God immediately? will not you expressely serue and worship him in your heart, (who is the object of all religion) any part of that time? will you allow no ejaculation of prayer? no bowing the heart in thankfull acknowledgement? Verily, if you will not, worthy you are, whose (I will say) impietie all men should trample vnder foote. And yet I deeme no such thing of any of you. I persuade my selfe you doe, in your owne practise allow of these things. Well, yet looke what idolatry is committed by the body in worshipping, [Page 283] (as you say kneeling of the body is idolatrous, let the conceipt of the soule be what it will) the same shall be much more committed by the soule in worshipping, (let the carriage of the bodie be sitting, or standing) es­pecially when the bodie can be said to worship no more, then the stones of the pauement, or the picture of a man kneeling, but because it is acted by the soule, which vn­derstandeth, and willeth, and so is capable of the attri­bution of worshipping.

Sixthly, what say you to the vncovering of the head Sect. 22 in the act of Sacramentall eating and drinking, which is a distinct, and speciall fashion of worshipping as well as kneeling? Hereunto the Replier speaketh, Repl. partic. to B. Mort. p. 70 Every man of reason may consider, whether Cornelius his falling dow [...]e before Peter, or Iohns falling downe before the Angel, were no more then vncovering of the head before them. I graunt their falling downe was more, in degree of ado­ration, but still vncovering of the head is a fashion of a­doration in some degree notwithstanding. But (saith he) should Cornelius and Iohn haue beene reprooved for vnco­vering their heads, as they were for falling downe? I an­swer, vncovering of the head is to be considered whe­ther religious, or civill; if they had vncovered their heads with religious respect vnto them, who doubts but they had beene worthy of reproofe, as well as for knee­ling downe with religious respect vnto them? But (saith he) men vncover their heads to others in civill reverence? I answe [...], first, so they may kneele to men in civill reve­rence, whereof the Scripture hath many commendable examples: Gen. 44. 14. Ruth. 2 10. 1 Sam. 20. 41. es­pecially vnto Princes: 2 Sam 14. 4. 18. 28. 19. 18. and more specially to Prophets, (to whom such outward fal­ling downe resembled that of Cornelius before an Apo­stle:) 1 King. 18. 7. 2 King. 1. 13. 14. 27. Secondly, vncovering of the head, vsed for religious respect, is no fashion of civill reverence. And it is not to bee doubt­ed, but thereby idolatry may be committed as well as [Page 284] 1 King▪ 19. 18 Hos. 13. 2. as by kissing, by Ezech. 8. 14. weeping and any other bodily ges­ture, if it be vsed either to an Idoll, or else to Gods owne creature with intention of divine worship. So that as all speciall gestures, even the cheifest in civill vse are no more thn civill: so all speciall gestures, even the mean­est, in religious vse can be no lesse, then religious.

But let vs heare the Replyers conclusion. The truth is (saith he) the vncovering of the head is a generall, or com­mon Sect. 23 gesture of reverence to be vsed with discretion in all reli­gious exercises, but kneeling is proper vnto adoration. Ans­wer. And the truth is, this is a sleevelesse answer. For first, that speech [with discretion in all re [...]ious exerci­ses] is to no purpose, for as much as all gestures in themselues may be vsed with discretion in all religious excercises, as I haue shewed, pag. 1. chapter first. Even kneeling in it selfe may be vsed with discretion in [...]all religious exercises, lifting up of the yes, may be vsed with discretion in all Religious exercises, yet are the gestures of adoration. Nay, if you speake of gestures not as they may be vsed, but as they be vsed presently by your selues, behold it is false, that vncove­ring of the head is vsed with discretion in all religious exercises, you are ever uncouered in the act of receiuing, out of a religious respect, You are neuer vncouered in the act of hearing the word preached (I thinke) out of a religious respect. You are euer vncouered in singing of Psalmes, out of a religious respect. Where is your dis­cretion now, to cover and vncouer your heads in holy ordinances, when you vse to doe either, in the same manner vnchangeably, yea more vnchangeably, then to kneele? But suppose you vsed the liberty of being co­vered, & vncouered according to your discretion, yet so long as purposed, and religious vncouering is a fashion of worshipping, it is idle to affirme, that the respect of your liberty takes away the respect of worshipping in being vncouered, for that it doth not in kneeling in pra­yer: So much of your speech [with discretion in all re­ligious [Page 285] exercises.] And that other part of your speech [vncovering of the head is a generall or common gesture] hath the like answer, in as much as kneeling, and other gestures of adoration are as generall, and common ge­stures in religious exercises, as vncouering of the head with religious respect is.

Secondly, All the force of your answere standeth in Sect. 24 your distinction, of reverence, and of adoration. Knee­ling (you say) is a gesture of adoration, vncovering of the head of It is not civill reverence wee giue in the act of receiving the sacred elements the motiue of our reverence is a matter of religion, it is therefore reli­gious worship. Perth. Assem. p. 46. then the Re­pliers distincti­on is no distin­ction. Zanchy sayes, that aun­ciently they were wont at the naming of Iesus to vnco­ver their heads in token of re­verence and a­doration: in Philip. cap. 2. 10. fol. 123. then still the Repli­ers distinction is no distincti­on. reverence onely. Answer. First I must tell you, that this is but begged of you. Did you not consider, that this is the question in hand? You should therefore haue given vs some little proofe of your distinction more then the truth is. Dare you lose your life in oppo­sition of one gesture, and can satisfie no better in ano­ther? Indeed (Sir) we cannot be so answered. But let me pose you, that say vncovering of the head in religious vse is not worshipping, but reverencing: do you vse it in reverence of God, or of the creatures? If you say, you vse it to God, me thinkes there should be no great con­troversie, of its worshipping. For doe not we put off our hate to men in civill worshipping? Is it not a kind of worship, as well as bowing of the knee vnto them? Is not also a worshipping in the act of prayer? Is it not worshipping in Papists, when they vse to vncover their heads to their images? I see not, what you can answer. But if you say, you vncover your heads to the creatures of bread and wine; then I pray, how doth not the second commandement forbid you so to doe before a creature, and with religious respect vnto it without Gods com­mandement? How can you saue that carriage from the stayne of idolatry, according to the proposition of your owne syllogisme? And indeed the veneration of the e­lements stands not in speciall gestures directed Yet out of such gestures directed to God reverence ari­seth to the elements, as afterward I shall shew, but this is no divine worship. vnto them, but onely in comely, and decent vsing of them without lightnesse, slubbering, or incivility. So it being [Page 286] most certaine, that vncovering of the head is vsed in the Sacrament with immediate respect to God, and so is a fashion of worshipping, if it be no idolatrous worship­ping, then kneeling is not idolatrous. Surely, if that be lawfull in Gods service before the creatures of bread and wine, and with religious respect vnto them, (that is, as the occasion of it) in that respect wherein it is lawfull, kneeling cannot be condemned. Now I wish the Re­plier to helpe vs with better answere, if he haue any, and not (forsooth) to put vs off with his owne idle dreames.

Seventhly, the gestures of sitting and standing be vsed Sect. 25 before the creatures of bread and wine, and with religi­ous respect vnto them, without Gods commandement, And I haue prooved before P [...] 1. 2. c. 1. se. 8. out of your owne confes­sion, that those gestures be gestures of worship, and be religiously vsed by you: therefore how shall not these come vnder the same condemnation, as doth knee­ling? It is true, kneeling is a more full expression of outward adoring: but what if it be? that yeeldeth sit­ting to be idolatry, but kneeling onely is in an higher degree such.

Eighthly, what shall make kneeling idolatry in recei­ving Sect. 26 the Supper? shall the motion of kneeling, rising from behoulding the elements? shall the hope of find­ing comfort, rather for worshipping before the elements then at another occasion? shall the kneeling before the creatures without voice? nay, none of these can make it idolatry, as I haue shewed before by many testimonies and examples; rather I would say for the creatures sake, bonum est adorare hîc, it is good to worship here, in good sooth, consider the elements but an occasion of knee­ling, and it is beyond my skill to say, wherein lies the i­dolatry.

Ninthly, when you pray for a blessing vpon the bread, Sect. 27 and wine, you worship God relatiuely to the bread and wine, you kneele before them with religious respect [Page 287] vnto them, without Gods commandement: nay Gods commandement (according to your grounds) requiring to follow Christs example, who kneeled not (you say) in blessing the bread, and wine, is rather against you.

Tenthly, if the Apostles might lawfully kneele, (as Sect. 28 the Authour of the Manuscript, (whom I haue cited before) affirmeth) in receiving the elements from the hand of Chr [...]st, why may not we kneele in receiving likewise? especially if we marke, first, that Christ did not giue the Sacrament as a Lord, but as a Minister. So the Replier pl [...]inely Repl. partic. to Bp. Moat. p. 42. affirmeth. He sustetned (saith he) the person of a Lord in instituting of this Sacrament, and in the authoritie of a Lord he saith, Doe this in remembrance of me; but he susteined the person of a Minister in admini­string of it. Now shew if you can, why you may lawfully receiue it at the hands of Christ ministring, and not now of another man, at the worst the Minister is Christs De­putie in that holy businesse. Secondly, that if the Apo­stles had received the Sacrament at the hands of Christ, kneeling; posteritie might haue imitated their exam­ple; for so the Scripture, (as you will say) evidently commaundeth. Remember your selues now. That which they might haue done, (and so we haue imitated them therein) we may as lawfully doe, though they actually did it not, because, that which made it lawfull to them, and imitable of vs, implies reason of common interest. Thirdly, that the Apostles should haue worshipped the bread and wine in the bodily presence of Christ, as much as we doe in the corporall absence of him: and all the points of your proposition would haue equally light vp­on them. Nay they were in danger, (being at that time so rude and ignorant of spirituall mysteries, even as we are) to worship (at least some of the weaker of them) the very bread, or Christ in and by the bread, who spake of it in this manner at that very present, This is my body; which I onely note to shew that if it were lawfull for the Apostles to kneele to Christ before the creatures with [Page 288] religious respect vnto them, then it cannot be in it selfe idolatry vnto vs.

Eleventhly, what shall I say? What need I say? in Sect. 19 this place, but to professe, and likewise avow, (and I make no doubt, I may likewise professe in the name of all godly people in the Land) that we intend onely to worship the Lord our God, when we kneele in the act of receiving, we worship not the bread and wine, we intend not our adoring or kneeling vnto them: giue vs leaue to avow our sincericie in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in Gods worship. Ado­ration may be lawfully vsed to him before his creatures; (specially in publick ordinances of worship) if your mind be rightly applied; namely, not Pet. Mort. in def. ad Garden de Euchartst. part. 1 ob. 1. fol. 5. applied vnto the outward elements, but meerely to God alone by So saith Dr. Abbot, as he is cited by the Replier, Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag. 56. in­tendement of our affection. The Lord of heaven ever keepe our hearts close vnto him, that we never giue his glory and worship vnto any of his creatures. As Moses said to the Israelites, Deut. 4. 19. Take heed iest yee lift vp your eyes to heaven, and when you see the Sunne, and the Moone, and the Starres, even all the host of heaven, ye should fall to worship them and serue them. So say I to my Coun­trimen: Take heede lest you lift vp your eyes to the heavenly creatures of bread and wine, and when yee see bread and the wine, yee should fall to worship them and serue them. Assure your selues, that such worshipping of the Sunne, Moone, and Starres, of the bread and wine, is a vile idolatry, and hatefull abomination in the sight of God, for which his furie is in danger to breake out against a land without compassion, till it be laid deso­late. See Ezech. 8. vers. 16, 17, 18.

A Direction annexed shewing vpon what re­spects wee may be lavvfully mooved to kneele dovvne in the act of receiving the Sacra­mentall elements, vvithout idolatry.

[Page 289] BEfore I passe to the next proofe of your assumption, taken from this Churches manner of enjoyning, I haue thought good to helpe the Reader a little to vnder­stand how the Sacramentall elements may be esteemed a just, and warrantable occasion of kneeling, when we doe receiue them. Now Omitting the generall respect that the cele­bration of the Sacrament is a divine worship there be two sorts of res­pects, which are to this purpose observable. First, such as are principall and direct. Secondly, that which is one­ly consequent, and derivatiue. Of the former sort, I will propose three speciall respects, which may lawfully occasion our kneeling downe.

First respect is the speciall presence of God in the Sacrament.

FIrst, one respect is, that the Sacrament is a seale of Gods owne impressing, and so a speciall signe of his Sect. 31 excellent presence. The children of Israell were wont to fall vpon their faces, when God declared his speciall pre­sence, by some singular, and illustrious symbol thereof; so the Perth. Ass. p. 5 [...] Scotsmen teach vs expressely; but yet they ex­cept, that there is not the like presence in the Sacra­ment, as the Jewes had in the Arke, and Cherubims; and what if there be not, yet there is a speciall and singular presence, and such as in respect whereof, the Iewes ado­red in the exercise of the word, and of sacrificing. There is a speciall presence; and that is sufficient for me; for since the face of God, through Christ is in the Sacrament both present with vs, and as it were in speciall manner presented vnto vs, it is most lawfull to adore in the act of receiving vpon that occasion.

Second respect is, the humble, and thankefull remembrance, vvhich the Sacrament occa­oneth of Christs sufferings.

[Page 290] SEcondly, another respect is, that the Sacrament is Sect. 32 appointed for commemoration of Christs sufferings, which commemoration may most lawfully occasion in vs expressions of thankfulnesse, and humilitie: hence kneeling most commendably ariseth. I doubt not, if a Christian be duely possessed with thoughts of the great­nesse of those sufferings, of the vnmeasurable loue of God in them, he can easily fall downe and adore. What brethren, is it impietie to worship God vpon this occa­sion, and motiue? In celebrating the remembrance of the most wonderfull grace, that ever the world heard the report of, is it a wickednesse to cast our selues downe in humilitie and thankfulnesse? Alas, what Marble heart cannot be melted, and ravished, what melted, and ravi­shed heart cannot be content to cleane to the dust, in the apprehension of such vndeserved kindnesse? If joyfull newes sometimes brings forth teares, why not some­times humble expressions of thankfulnesse? One of the Luke 17. ver. 15, 16. Samaritanes, when he saw, considered, that he was healed, with loud voice glorified God, and fell downe on his face (as a man astonished) giving thanks to the Lord Iesus. God was in Christ 2 Cor: 15. 19 reconciling vs to himselfe, and making him vnto vs 1 Cor. 1. 30 wisdome, & righteousnesse, & sanctification, & redemption. Oh Ephes: 3. vers. 18, 19 the bredth, & length, & depth, & height of the loue of Christ, which passeth the knowledge of all crea­tures! Oh Psal: 31. 19. how great is thy goodnesse, which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men! Who shall abundantly vtter the Psal: 145. 4, 7 memory thereof from age to age with thanksgiving! Shall we be condemned for wor­shipping the name of the Lord in the commemoration of these things? Was ever, can ever be more excellent occasion thereof, then the due remembrance of our re­demption wrought by the shedding of the blood of Christ? Surely, the loue of Christ provoketh vs, because we thus judge: God forbid, that I should dare to say, this occasion sufficeth not.

The third respect is the gracious gift which God communicates vnto vs in the very act of receiving.

THirdly, the last respect is, that in the Sacrament the Sect. 33 Lord bestowes vpon vs the most excellent treasure in the world, namely, the precious body and blood of Christ, wherewithall neither gold nor pearle is to be va­lued, and the price thereof is farre aboue rubies. Who did ever heare of a gift bestowed by a mortall man com­parable to this? or among the gifts of God himselfe, any either more excellent in it selfe, or more gift-like in the manner of exhibition? And why then should it not be thought a just occasion of our kneeling downe, when we doe receiue it? Is the best of vs too good to take so rich, and inestimable a gift from the hands of Almighty God vpon our knees? especially, when we hold it lawfull, and no idolatry to receiue gifts vpon our knees at the hands of earthly Princes: also we hold it lawfull, and no idolatry for children to receiue vpon their knees the blessing of the Parents: neither do the receivers kneele downe to such gifts, but to the Princes, and Parents them­selues, which graciously doe bestow them.

But against this you take some exception. The consi­deration Sect. 34 (say Disp: pag. 132 you) of a gift to be received from the Lord is not to direct vs for our gesture, but the nature of the gift we doe receiue, and the quality of the person we doe beare. An­swer. The least gift in the world that we receiue from the Lord may be a just occasion in it selfe of kneeling & worshipping, when we do receiue it: then a spirituall gift, & that of all spiritualls most excellent, and that exhibited also in divine worship may much more be such an occa­sion: where you speake of the nature of the gift, you [Page 292] meane, that it is a supper; and the quality of the per­son receiving, you meane, that he is a feaster, and guest, as if these respects hindred our kneeling downe in recei­ving; so you send vs back to the argument of a table-gesture, where I haue answered you to the full. I but (say Perth-Ass p. 54 you) this consideration of a gift is common to all Sa­craments. Answer. I graunt, neither can you disprooue the lawfulnesse of kneeling in receiving of any Sacra­ment, either of Law, or of Gospell, yea it is lawfull to kneele in the very act of hearing out of the case of scan­dalls, and customes of times over-ruling, as I haue shew­ed, p. 1. ch. 1.

But you take further exception to the illustration of Sect. 35 the lawfulnesse of receiving gifts vpon our knees from Princes and Parents. First, (you Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. ch. 3. sect. 37. say) Kings doe al­low of kneeling to them in receiving their gifts, so you bid vs shew, that God allowes kneeling at receiving the Sacrament. Answer. A ridiculous exception! we shew in this man­ner, men do lawfully kneele to Princes in receiving gifts of them, and therefore we may much more kneele to God in receiving the body and blood of Christ at his hands. You answer, men kneele to Princes, because Princes allow them so to doe; but you cannot shew that God doth al­low kneeling to him, when we receiue. This is to denie the conclusion, neither doe we vse this similitude, because Princes allow of kneeling vnto them, but because it is by them lawfully allowed: we were not so foolish, to prooue kneeling (in receiving a gift) to God lawfull, by an illustration vsed to man vnlawfully. This then is the force of our illustrating, we may lawfully kneele to a mor­tall man in receiving a gift, and therefore much more to Almighty God. It seemes whatsoever we say, you are minded to keepe the conclusion. I would you would please to looke vpon the simplicity of your answer.

Secondly, you Ibidem. say, Kings admit of some flattering Sect. 36 observances sometimes, which are not fit to be offered vnto God. Answer. If this exception be worth a rush to the pur­pose, [Page 295] it must imply, that receiving gift from Kings vp-the knees is no other, then a flattering obseruance. But because your selfe and your brethren, doe grant the law­fulnes of kneeling to Kings in such case, it appeares you did insert this exception onely for filling vp. It is as if vnto vs shewing that wee must performe reverence to Kings, and therefore much more to the King of Kings, you should except, that Kings admit sometimes of vn­lawfull reverence, and so that it followes not, that the Lord by that illustration is to be reverenced. Good Sir, looke vpon the simplicity of this answer also.

Thirdly, You Repl. ibidem, also pag. 65. Manuscript. ch. 6. Abridg. 68. say, that in kneeling at Sacrament there is danger of Idolatry, so there is not in kneeling before Prin­ces Sect. 37 and parents. Answer. What can you doe I pray, but there is danger of error and evill in it? Cornelius was not suffered to fall downe before Peter, and yet in elder time they were vsually wont to fall downe before the Pro­phets. Besides, this exception affirming onely danger of Idolatry in kneeling at Sacrament, doth not simply con­demne it in it selfe. And for danger of Idolatry, it falls to be handled in another place: so the illustration still holds to the purpose, whereunto it is vsed: namely, that as in receiuing gifts of Princes, so it is not Idolatry in it selfe to kneele vnto God, before and by occasion of his gifts, povid­ed that the gifts be considered, but as an occasion.

But one speech of the Abridgement seemes to be very Sect. 38 weake, which it vseth to set out this exception. It is this. It hath ben found in all ages the chiefe roote of Idolatry, if it be not grosse Idolatry it selfe, to giue vnto the gift the out­ward reverence, and adoration that is due to the giver him­selfe. Is this speech ment of Princes gifts, or of Gods? If you vnderstand it of Princes gifts, then you thinke it is Idolatry it selfe, perhaps to kneele vnto them when we receiue their gifts, howsoever, that such kneeling is vt­terly vnlawfull, as being a chiefe roote of Idolatry. And so the proportion will hold betwixt that kneeling to them, and kneeling to God, (as your selues esteeme of [Page 296] it) in the Sacrament, wherein yet you would declare difference. And yet still such an assertion is false. But if you vnderstand it of Gods gifts, you make an imper­tinent hypothesis, as if our kneeling at Sacrament, were given to the elements of bread and wine, and not vnto God alone, and onely occasioned by them. Therefore in this sence, your speech is altogether impertinent.

Fourthly Manusc. ch. 6. Disp. 134. Perth. Assemb. 54. you say, in kneeling at Sacrament, we re­ceiue Sect. 39 a gift from God by the ministry of his servants, where as we kneele to Princes when their owne hands bestow gifts vpon vs. Answer. Suppose this latter part of your exception were true, exclusiue; (which it is not) yet is our illustra­tion still remaining in force: partly, because wee are bound vnto God more for his Christ, howsoever he is bestowed vpon vs, then wee can be to Princes of the earth, for their gifts though they be given immediately; partly because God is at the Sacrament, in his gracious countenance truely present, yea indeed, his owne spirit, as it were his owne hand doth immediately giue the bo­dy and blood of his sonne to our soules. And lastly, be­cause it mattereth not in the force and vse of our illu­stration, whether we receiue the gift mediately, or im­mediately, so long as the said gift is (howsoever) but an occasion of worshipping. If the respect of mediatenes, of receiving the gifts, did inferre the kneeling of him, which receiues the same to be directed vnto it, then this exception were to some purpose. But we apply the il­lustration in this manner. Its lawfull to kneele to God vpon occasion of a gift, which we receiue from him, as it is lawfull to kneele to a Prince or parent, vpon occasi­on of gifts receiued from them. It skilleth not, whether the receiuing be like in both for the point of immediat­nesse, considering it doth not alter the case, for the ma­king of the gifts of either to be more then occasions of kneeling.

Fifthly, You Manusc. ch. 6. Disp. pag. 134. say, Children and subiects kneele not downe Sect. 40 at table to their Princes, or parents, though vpon o­ther [Page 297] occasions they may. Answer. First, the Sacrament is improperly called a Supper, and the body, and blood of Christ therein received is of that nature, that it may be compared with chaines of gold, gemms, or jewells, or any excellent gift, which Princes haue to bestow as well, and much rather, then with sole Suppers. Secondly, e­ven at suppers in case Princes be pleased to carue, or ap­point in speciall and singular manner some speciall dain­ty to their subjects eating in their presence, they rise vp, and receiue it vpon their knees. Neither is this vnlaw­full, (as the Disputer Disp. pag. 135 opineth) it being onely civill honour which (with other like observance) tendeth to nourish in mens mindes an awsull reverence of their Princely Majesties, whereby the world is ruled. But (saith he) if Princes doe not carue to their subiects, then ordinarily they sit still. As if the speciall case were not enough, and more then enough to justifie our vse of the illustration taken from them. Besides Perth. Assem. pag. 54. the will of Princes is to bee considered in this case, if they please to grace their subiects in sitting at table with them, it hinders not; but they may expect attendance, and reverence, all the while as much as necessitie of eating, ioyned with comelinesse will permit. But the Dis­puter is an endlesse jangler about eating, and drinking.

Sixthly, and lastly, (say Perth. Ass. p 54 Repl. partic. pa. 65. you) Ceremonies of the Court are no rules of religious adoration. Answer. Such ceremo­nies Sect. 41 of the Court as depend of morall principles will giue great light even in Gods worship. Kneeling is a naturall gesture, and a gesture of humble reverence. Re­verence is due to the King at all times, specially when he conferreth some singular gift, or honour vpon his servants. Reverence and the most humble expressions of reverence are much more due to God, then to earthly Potentates. Spirituall, and those the most excellent gifts are a better, and greater occasion, to mooue vs to reve­rence the donour, then temporall, and transitory gifts can be. Vpon these grounds it is tolerable I hope, to presse, maine a minore, humble reverence to God in his [Page 298] greatest gifts, from reverence done to Princes, in besto­wing of small gifts in comparison. And so much for your exceptions, by the answere whereof appeareth, that one lawfull respect to mooue or occasion vs to kneele, is th [...] gracious and inestimable gift, which therein it pleaseth Almighty God to bestow vpon vs. And thus I haue shew­ed you three pricipall respects, vpon which it is lawfull to kneele downe, and worship God in the act of recei­ving the holy Sacrament.

Here I might answer two questions which offer Sect. 42 themselues to be considered. Quest. 1. Concerning the three former respects it may be asked, what kind of wor­ship this kneeling is, which is occasioned by them, name­ly, whether it be bare, and meere adoration without prayer, or else worshipping, such as is in the exercise of prayer? Answ. There is no doubt, but as prayer is made in our Church in the deliverie of the bread and wine, so it may be secretly made also (as the state of the Communicants soule requireth [...]) in the very Disp sayes, it is impossible to feed at Sacra­ment, and pray both at once, pag 20. See An­sw. before, part. 2. ch. 7. sect 3. & otherwhere act of eating, and drinking. It is true, as Manuscrip. ch. 7. you say: First, it is not necessarie alwayes to kneele when we doe pray, as in table-blessing we doe not. Secondly, it is dangerous and vnlawfull to kneele in prayer, before an Idoll, before the Breaden God, and in Market places, where we should be guilty of shew of i­dolatry, and of scandall. Thirdly, it is not necessarie we should pray or giue thankes in the act of receiving. But what is all this to the purpose? Many things are lawfull, which at all times are not expedient, as the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 6. 12. Yet, first, it is lawfull to kneele at table-blessing it selfe, and may be practised by one, eating alone, and by many consenting together. Secondly, there is no simi­litude betwixt kneeling before idols, and kneeling at Gods owne ordinance. Thirdly, it is lawfull in it selfe to pray in the time of eating and drinking, as Esther made her humble petition to the King at the banquet of wine, Esth. 5. 8. and 7. 3. Yea there is no imployment vnder the Sunne, but therein the heart may be lawfully [Page 299] lifted vp vnto God. Therefore, where the Author of the Manuscript presently addeth, that it is not sit to pray in the act of receiving, he speaketh that which is not fit: for prayer doth helpe, (and not hinder, if it be rightly vsed) faith to receiue aright, that which God in the Sa­crament, doth offer, and exhibite vnto vs.

But for my part, if there be no prayer vsed in the time Sect. 43 of receiving, I thinke never the worse of the gesture of kneeling: what if there be no more, but bare, and meere adoring without prayer? Sure I am, it is lawfull to wor­ship or adore before the majestie of God, without pray­er, as I haue shewed in this Treatise Part. 2. ch 7. sect 11. already. It is e­nough that we haue speciall occasions, or motiues to provoke vs vnto it; for out of the said respects, (which I haue named in number three) I conclude in this man­ner.

At actions, be tokening Gods speciall presence, & which put vpō vs the person both of Against this branch the Dis­put. trisleth, say ing, that Eucha­rissicall actions haue beene vsed in other gestures. pag 124, 125. Who doubts of this? Put not in kneeling (saith he) for that is incompatible with them. Oh vngodly speech which the Scri­pture condem­neth, allowing of adoring and falling downe in actions of praise: Gen. 47. 31. Exod. 33. 10. Gen. 24 52. 2 Chron 29. 28, 29, 30. Matth 2. 11. Revel. 5. 8. Secondly, in ver­ball praise: 2 Chron. 7. 3. Nehem. 8. 6. Perth. Assem. 48. Psal. 95. 6. Luke 7. 16. Revel. 5. 8. 9. &c. Thirdly, in all reason of faith, and humilitie, whether we looke to God or ourselues. Wherefore this Disputer disputes against Gods owne both right and claime. thankefull remembrancers, and humble receivers, we may take occasion to kneele downe.

This is an impregnable proposition.

But the Sacrament, first, be tokens Gods speciall presence: secondly, puts vpon vs the person Against this branch of the Assumption, the Disputer is also cavilling, telling vs that the Sacramentall employment is not an Eucharisticall action, or an action of thanksgi­ving, because, (saith he) the actions of the Sacrament are consecrating, breaking, di­stributing, behoulding, applying, &c. none of which can be called properly Euchari­sticall, inasmuch as we present nothing to God Disp. 126, 127, 128. Verily this mans conceit is wonderfull grosse, except the penurie, and miserie of that part he defendeth, put him vpon hard straits Sir, all these actions are Eucharisticall: Is not the whole or­dinance appointed for a remembrance of Christs sufferings? Is not the remembrance in the Churches part, and performance, most vnquestionably intended for a thankfull remembrance? Christ need not haue his death remembred, lest himselfe should forget it. Christ his will is, that his people should thankfully celebrate the memoriall thereof in his Church to the worlds end. Alas, that the Disp. should so much over shoote him­selfe, there was never action since the world began, that could be called an Eucharisti­call action, if this Sacramentall imployment be not such, that is, plainely appointed for a thankfull remembrance. But, oh Disputer, why did you forget your selfe, or why did your brethren forget you so grossely, that doe elsewhere mightily striue for the ne­cessitie of sitting, or standing, because they be onely apt, and solemne expressions of faith, and thankfulnesse? See back good Reader, part. 2 chap. 7. sect. 6. &c. of thankefull re­membrancers: and thirdly, the person of humble recei­vers.

Therefore thereat we may lawfully take occasion to kneele downe.

So that adoring, or worshipping before the Lord, though without mentall, or vocall prayer, is plainely sufficient to justifie kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper. And this be spoken to the first question.

[Page 300] Quest. 2. Againe it may be demanded, concerning Sect. 44 the three former respects, whereby kneeling is justified, whether forasmuch as these respects may occasion vs at all times, we should not alwayes hold our selues absolute­ly bound to kneele? I answer, by no meanes▪ Man is a voluntary, and free agent in mutable gestures, considered in themselues, I meane not onely, in regard of the act of willing, but also in regard of the bond of will, and therefore he may suspend the vse of a gesture, both, pro arbitrio, and lawfully before God, etiam datâ agends occa­sione. The respects which I haue observed are onely brought to justifie kneeling, as respects may likewise be brought to justifie standing, respects may likewise be brought to justifie sitting; from them I would not in­ferre necessitie of kneeling in it selfe, but onely shew, that being vsed it is not an impious gesture, but that which will suite full well to the Sacramentall businesse: and this matter is as cleere in prayer, for there be respects to justifie standing, respects to justifie sitting, and re­spects also to justifie kneeling in prayer: and it must be confessed to be so in all ordinances, wherein liberty is graunted of severall gestures, for how else shall the change and variety of them be allowed? nay the same respects may warrant severall gestures, if they be of the [Page 301] same kinde, and if they be never so indifferent, yet the respects which may warrant, and occasion one gesture, be not contrary to such respects, as may warrant and oc­casion another, more then the naturall gestures them­selues, (all ordeined to serue▪ the Lord that ordeined them) be contrary: nay the gestures, like the foure e­lements doe easily, and vsually (as it were) passe into one another. And hitherto be spoken of the three princi­pall, and direct respects, whence we take occasion to kneele in receiving the Sacramentall elements.

Of another respect of kneeling at Sacrament, which is onely consequent from the principall respect before-named, namely, that the Sacrament may bee received more reverently.

VVE come now to consider of another respect Sect. 45 of kneeling at Sacrament, and that is the re­verent vsing, and handling of that holy ordinance. But what? is it tolerable to kneele for reverence of the Sacrament? You may not, (say the Perth. Ass. 48. Scotchmen) take the proper gesture of adoration, or worship, and apply it to vene­ration, or reverence. Truely I confesse, that as you make kneeling to respect the Sacramentall elements, you speak not without reason, but there is nothing, wherein you are more mistaken, then in this matter of reverence, if you will with patience giue me the hearing, I will make you by Gods grace vnderstand a little better of that point. But I pray, let not conceit of prejudice forestall you before I haue spoken. I declare my minde in these particulars following.

First, the distinction of worship, and veneration is Sect. 46 such, as cannot be refused. Now both these are to be [Page 302] found both in civility, and religion. In religion you confesse the same, namely, that worship is one thing, and veneration another. In civility the same is no lesse evi­dent: for as in religion worship Perth. Ass. 47. belongeth to per­sons, and veneration to the things of persons, so in like manner is it in civill matters, that carriage of respect, which is expressely directed vnto the person of any man is properly civill worship, whereas civill things pertei­ning to persons are by no meanes capable of civill wor­ship, but onely of that which we call adoration or reve­rence. Thus farre I hope we shall be soone agreed.

Secondly, veneration, or reverence standeth in two Sect. 47 things: first, in the inward conceit, and estimation of the minde. Secondly, in the outward vsage according to the nature of the thing, which is to be reverenced: thus your selues doe determine. I haue sundry times, (saies the Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 69. Replier) affirmed, that we stand as much and more for true reverence, both inward, and outward, in celebration of the Sacrament, then our adversaries doe. Now outward re­verence, is nothing else, but the vsing of things decent­ly, and honourably, according to their kinde, that is, when they are not vsed lightly, contemptuously, vnci­villy, &c. but as the matter, place, and imployment, whereunto the said things deserue, shall evidently re­quire: and herein also you doe fully agree with vs.

Thirdly, outward reverence riseth to things two Sect. 48 wayes: first, by immediate expressions primarily inten­ded, and meerely vsed to declare reverence, as in religi­ous things, pulpit-cloth, table-cloth, beautie of bookes and seates, &c. and such other-like things, that are vsed for ornament: also washen hands for handling of the water, and bread in the Sacraments, and other like pra­ctises, tending onely to shew due account of Gods holy ordinances. And in civill things a man both may and ought to vse that which is his neighbours or friends, (ac­cording as it is for the kind and quality of it) respectiue­ly. Secondly, outward reverence commeth to things by [Page 303] such expressions as are directed to the person of another, whence ariseth some reverence, to that which is the mo­tiue of them. I will giue instance in civill things. When a gift is received from a superiour, speciall civill worship is done vnto the donor, and yet it is plaine, that some re­spect even from thence ariseth to the gift received. A­gaine, if a Prince make an oration, the subjects declare worship to the person of the Prince, yet some respect and reverence is inferred thereby vnto the speech it selfe; but in Ecclesiasticall duties, and ordinances, there is nothing more cleere: for what worship of God can you name, but some reverence ariseth to the matter, and motiue thereof? Can you pray in a beseeming gesture, heare in a beseeming gesture, be baptized in a beseeming gesture, sing Psalmes in a beseeming gesture, &c. but thence, (though God be the object of all divine worshipping, and so of all these exercises, as farre as you call them wor­shipping) yet I say thence will arise some comelinesse, and ornament, esteeme, and dignitie vnto the ordinan­ces themselues.

This will be yet more manifest, if you consider that ge­stures Sect. 49 in Gods worship, See back part 1. ch. 4. sect. 6. &c. must needs haue a double consideration. First, as they be worshipping. 2ly, as they be gestures of decency and comelines. Kneeling in pra­yer is a gesture of worshipping directed to God alone, yet kneeling in prayer, is part of the Apostles decency, as Mr. Calvin teacheth. I beseech you now, is kneeling in prayer vsed or directed to the sensible matter of prayer? That cannot be; yet it brings reverence, that is, come­linesse and ornament, esteeme and dignity thereunto, which cannot be denyed. How then riseth this reve­rence? Verily the reverence is consequent, and issues out of the gesture, for though it be directed only to God in heauen, yet all men see it is a comely ornament, and commendable respect of the prayer it selfe. Where is Ido­latry in all this brethren? We say no more of receiving the Sacramentall elements; our kneeling is directd to [Page 304] God alone. That reverence, that cometh to the elements riseth onely out of this, that wee come to God so reue­rently, when we doe receiue them. We hold firmely, that no adoring gestures are to be vsed for directing of reverence vnto the creatures, and so if kneeling were not directed to the Lord, it ought not then to be vsed for re­verence of the Sacrament, if it were, it could not be ex­cused from being idolatrous.

But your selues are fowler ouerseene in the matter of Sect. 50 reuerence, then wee, and then (I suppose) you be well a­ware of. You Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 70. teach, that you vncouer your heads not for adoration, but onely for reverence in receiving the Sacra­ment. For reuerence, and not adoration? whom, or what meane you to reverence I beseech you? God you cannot say, for then you could not exclude the respect of wor­shipping or adoring therein. It seemes then you doe re­verence the Elements of bread and wine, with an ex­presse gesture of worship vsed unto them. Behold this is more then I durst say of the gesture of kneeling. But let me aske you. In ciuill vse, you know wee put off our hats to persons, as inferiours to their superiours, not vnto bread and wine at our civill tables. This vncovering then in the Sacrament (in your sense) is to take a pro­per gesture of worship, (belonging to persons) and ap­ply it to things in way of veneration onely, which the Scotchmen haue condemned before. You will not be con­tent to worship God, by being vncovered, and so let a certaine grace, and ornament issue to the ordinance which is in hand, but you will be vncovered out of meere reverence of sensible things. For my part I say as much of vncovering as I doe of kneeling, that they be both fashions of worship directed onely to God, yet consequently doe yeeld a certaine reverence to those things, that be the matter and motiue of them, while by them we come to God so reverently in his ordinance: and the lawfulnesse of this reverence, you can never be able to take away, except you could take away all gestures [Page 305] of worshipping, that is, all outward worshipping vtterly out of the Church; for even from those very gestures, a great part of the reverence of holy things, that is, the decencie, and ornament, dignity and esteeme of the said holy things, evermore ariseth. Here you must be intrea­ted to judge vprightly betwixt you and your selues, namely, your affections, and consciences.

Fourthly, furthermore outward reverence of holy Sect. 51 things rising and issuing from the soveraigne worship of God, admitteth degrees. When the Sacrament is recei­ved sitting, or standing, we doe not surmise, that it must neede: be received therefore vnreverently, yet some ge­stures doe procure more reverence vnto it, then some o­ther. And I doubt not to say, there be certaine points wherein this may be considered of the gesture of knee­ling. For, 1. it is a carriage importing the greatest impor­tance of of the sacred mysteries. 2ly, it is a carriage of plain religion, and devotion, no gesture in it selfe seemeth more to shew pietie. 3ly, it is a carriage of plaine humi­lity, and seemes as it were to vtter for the Communicant, the voice of the Centurion: Lord, I am not worthy, thou shoul­dest come vnder my roofe; or Lord, I am not worthy to come vnder thy roofe, much lesse to fit at thy table. Fourthly, it is a carriage of speciall respect for the diffe­rencing of Sacramentall eating from common. The con­venience of which difference moved them in the primi­tiue Church to take away common suppers from the ho­ly Communion of Christs body and blood, and the speech of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. vers. 29, 22. seemes thereunto to incline, whereby he taxeth them, for not judgeing of the Lords body, asking them, if they had not houses to eate and drinke in. These points haue their vse to shew, that as kneeling is applied to the soveraigne worship of God, much reverence ariseth to the Sacrament from it, at least to shew, (I wot) that some degree of reverence ariseth vndoubtedly.

Fifthly, and lastly, this reverend vsage of the holy Sa­crament Sect. 52 [Page 306] crament is profitable for all or the most part of men in some measure. First for opinion, and that both in godly and carnall Communicants; those it stirres vp to either consider or encrease the due and needfull estimation of the holy Sacrament: these it helpeth to suppresse pro­fane conceits, whereby their irreligious hearts are easily persuaded to despise the ordinance of Christ. Next for practise both for preparation, & vse, inward, & outward, to good & bad; the mind will be stirred vp to thoughts of our vnspeakable vnworthinesse, and of Christs loue, the heart will be mooved both to mount vp to God in all sweete adherence and dependance, and secretly also to blesse the blessed authour of its everlasting welfare: in a word for the outward carriage, it will be as a monitour, giving every man a silent Cave, to beware of loosenesse, and sawcinesse. And especially all this in these last, and worse times, wherein men are so very carnall, and earth­ly in the judging, and handling of Gods holy things. Now your objections against the foresaid doctrine will be of small value, as may be tried.

Obiect. 1. Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. sect. 25. of kneeling. To fasten adoration vpon God, that from Sect. 53 him it might be referred vnto a creature, is worse then either Papish [...] or Heathens ever defended: this were to make God the deriving obiect, and the creature the last and chiefe. An­swer. This collection out of the words of Bishop Mor­ton might haue beene made either by Papists, or Hea­thens, it is vnconscionably extorted. The Bishop tea­cheth no other kinde of worship to come vnto the Sacra­ment, then comes to the Temples, and Lords day, to the word, and prayer; that is none at all: for worship is one­ly (as he teacheth) directed to the Lord, and there rest­eth; onely a certaine reverence riseth from them to the elements, as in all other ordinances, it is wont to doe to holy things. It is farre from vs to defend a worshipping of God, and then the creature. We maintaine nothing to the creature but reverence, and that none other, but what in effect would follow from soveraigne worship to [Page 307] holy things, if we said nothing. The Replier is licenti­ous in perverting our meaning, because he cannot tell in the world how to answere.

Obiect. 2. Abridg. 67. If the reverence due to the Sacrament re­quire Sect. 54 that it be received with the gesture of kneeling, then dobtlesse, God would haue given direction for it in his word. Answer. You make a false supposition here, as if we said, it is absolutely necessarie to kneele, or else the Sacra­ment could not be received reverently. See before, sect. 51. For the objection it selfe, I aske you what you mean when you say, God hath not given vs direction, for if you meane the gesture it selfe of kneeling, I haue shew­ed, that God hath given vs direction for it, Part. 2. chap. 1. If you meane, that God hath not directed vs in his word, that kneeling, (though it may be vsed) should tend to the reverence of creatures, you speak against common reason and sense, and I haue refuted you before, Sect. 48. So these two points I haue already spoken sufficiently of, for both I haue shewed, that Gods word allowes of kneeling first, then, that not onely Gods wo [...] but common reason, and sense evince, that kneeling to God himselfe, whiles we be imployed about any part of his worship, may, and will procure a certaine reverence to the worship it selfe. What else needes to be answered?

Obiect. 3. Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 65. No man can teach vs the reverence of re­ceiving, Sect. 55 better then Christ, and his Apostles. Pag. 69. We thinke meete to vse no other guises of reverence, then Christ, and his Apostles haue taught vs. Abridg. 67. If this reverence were lawfull, some of the Saints commended in holy Scripture, and specially the Apostles would haue vsed it: Nay it is Pag. 56. great hypocri­sie in vs to pretend more reverence then was in the Apostles. Answer. What would you reprooue by this objection I pray? worshipping of God, or idolatrous worshipping of the creature, or lastly, the reverence, which issues out of the soveraigne worship? The first sendeth the Reader to the great argument drawne against kneeling from the example of Christ and his Apostles, Part. 2. chap. 3, The [Page 308] second we doe disclaime. The last cannot be condemned by their example, partly, because examples of gestures be various, both vsed and left at liberty in all ordinances, see part. 1 chap. 1. partly because Christ and his Apostles gesture is not certainly known vnto vs; the Apostles, and Saints shewed as much reverence in receiving as we for ought any body can infallibly tell to the contrary: and partly, because though they vsed onely the gesture of sitting, (yet thence as from your owne sitting, and standing, being duely applied) some reverence could not but reflect vpon the Sacramentall elements. It can be none other in all gestures of divine worship rightly v­sed, albeit some procure more reverence by the kinde, and manner of them, then others. This answere is e­nough in this place, onely I request the Reader to see the answer, which is before, Part. 2. chap. 3. sect. 46. &c. and referre it hither so much as apperteineth. The truth is, inasmuch as you vse this objection against our do­ctrine of reverencing the elements, which you charge for idolatrous, it is, as if you should say, that meere v­sing of a gesture different from Christ and his Apostles, must needes be idolatrous, ipso facto, and also hoc nomine, which is false, and frivolous out of measure: did you not consider, that the proper consideration of this place, is of reverence of the elements, whether the same be i­dolatrous?

Obiect. 4. Repl. partic to Bp. Mort. pa. 51. Manuser, ch. 5. By this reverence the wisdome of the Apo­stle Sect. 56 himselfe is impeached, who seeing profane behaviour to be vsed at the Communion among the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11. never thought of kneeling, but contented himselfe with the word, and censures. Answer. You build vpon three ill suppositions, that the Corinthians never kneeled, and that other gestures are not gestures of reverence to the Sacrament as well as kneeling. And lastly, that gestures are not variable, but that difference therein from good men impeacheth the wisdome, and controlleth the pra­ctise of them which did otherwise. Three ill suppositi­ons [Page 309] I assure you, and never to be graunted as I belieue. For the particular instance it maketh against your selues: for whereas touching gestures there is altum silentium in 1 Cor. 11. yet there is direction for taking away civill fa­shions, (though lawfull in themselues) when they are abused in the Lords Supper. For it appeareth, that the profanesse of the Corinthians was in regard of the loue-feasts altogether, 1 Cor. 11. 22, 23. which therefore the Apostle remooved vtterly from the Sacrament. But you can inferre nothing at all from such order as he tooke a­gainst that prophanesse to a necessitie, that he must needs haue ordered for kneeling, if it be a lawfull ge­sture of reverence: because there was enough ordered for their particular case, in vtter abolishing of their loue-feasts, the abuses whereof fell out before the Lords Sup­per began, and the reverence of the Sacrament may be maintained in other gestures, though that which ariseth from kneeling, (when it may be vsed) nay be very pro­fitable in due time. Where you say, Paul never thought of kneeling I would aske [...]ou, how you can tell? How come you to be so privy to his thoughts at this day? Those thoughts which he committed to writing you may be acquainted withall, but he committed to wri­ting no thoughts it all of the necessitie of this or that gesture in the Sacrament, nay, gaue no particular order to the Churches, about gestures in any ordinance of God in any one of all his writings, that I remember. Where you adde, that Paul contented himselfe with the word and censures, you would imply, that we hold kneeling to resist vnreverence like the word and censures; where­as we hold it hath no other vertue in that case in the Sa­crament, then it hath in all other ordinances. Againe you speak absurdly in opposing the gesture to the word and censures, as if that Paul had ordered for kneeling in prayer, (or in the Lords Supper) he had not done it by the word and censures. Finally, you tell vs, that the Apostles knew well of all that pronesse which is in man to e­steeme [Page 310] too lightly of holy things, and yet they appointed [...] kneeling. I answer. And therfore they forbad not kneeling because they knew mans pronesse to evill so very well. I perceiue we cannot say, that such or such a gesture or carriage tends to the reverence of holy things, except the Apostles did absolutely appoint it. You say, you vse vn­covering of the head, as a gesture of reverence, yet the Apostles did not appoint that fashion for reverence of the Sacrament, though he knew what pronesse is in man to esteeme of it too lightly.

Obiect. 5. Abridg. 67. If our Saviour had intended that the out­ward Sect. 57 elements should haue beene thus reverenced, he would not haue made choice of those that are so common and base. An­swer. This objection makes a miserable non-sequitur, howsoever it be expounded. If you meane by [thus re­verenced] as much as [worshipped with divine worship] it is vtterly inconsequent; for if Christ did make choice of creatures to be so reverenced, (which he never did not will doe) yet it followes not, that he would not make choice of the meanest, assoone as of the greatest, whereby his worship should be conveyed vnto him: nay, it is likely in reason, if the Sunne, and Moone, and host of heaven, and the most excellent things in nature should haue bin chosen for objects of relatiue worship, the blind world would sometimes deify them, (as it hath done heretofore) and wholly intend, and terminate worship vnto them; whereas in baser creatures the worship would be more probably conveyed vnto God himselfe. But howsoever in this sense your objection is nothing ad rem, for we confesse that worshipping of the outward elements is damnable idolatry. If you meane by reve­rence no other thing then I haue before allowed, and which is distinguished from worship, then your objecti­on is plainly idle, and vaine. You might say as well, if our Saviour had intended the word to be reverenced, he would not haue delivered it in such a manner as the world should esteeme foolishnesse. If our Saviour had [Page 311] intended his Ministers to be reverenced, he would not haue chosen such, as the world accounteth its refuse and off [...]couring. Yea you might say as well, if our Saviour had intended the outward meanes to be such admirable helps to heaven, and of such an honourable vse in the Church, he would not haue chosen such meanes as the supercilious world would despise for base, and contemp­tible. Indeed the word and Sacran ents are not to be judged by their outward excellencie and lustre in the eye of naturall man; but by their spirituall vertue which the institution of Christ hath added vnto them. And fur­ther, the meaner, and baser the same be to the judge­ment of sense, the So you say, that God ap­pointed com­mon bread and wine for avoi­ding of the danger of com­mitting idola­latry. Manuscr. ch. 6. lesse danger is there of commit­ting idolatry with them. So that Christs chusing of common and base creatures to be Sacramentall, did not exclude thereby such reverence, as all his ordinances ought to haue, albeit some gestures procure a greater measure thereof. And let Mr. Replier obserue, that I haue answered to this objection, concerning [the choice of base, and common elements] that his Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pa. 44. tri­fling, and childish defence of the Abridgement may be [...]efelled in a little roome.

Obiect. 6. If that gesture Manusc. ch. 5. be fittest to be vsed in the Sect. 58 act of receiving, which may best breed a reverent estimation of the Sacrament, then is the prostrating of the body, and fal­ling vpon our faces, (which we know hath beene vsed in grea­test shew of reverence, and humiliation, Matth. 26. 39.) a fit­ter gesture then kneeling. Answer. This is an inconside­rate objection, that I say no more for the reverence of the Authour; for (to passe that it builds vpon an ill sup­position, that we say kneeling is absolutely the fittest, for what need we care for comparing if it be fit in the posi­tiue?) this cannot be vnknowne to you, that if this ob­jection be truely consequent, for the act of receiving, it is also consequent for the act of praying: and forasmuch as we ought to vse the fittest gesture of reverence in prayer, (specially when all circumstances giue vs most [Page 312] libertie so to doe) therefore we ought not to kneele e­ven in prayer, but fall vpon our faces, and that the ra­ther after your teaching, because your proofe in Mat. 26. 39. is onely of falling vpon the face in prayer. But further, why did you not please to compare the Evange­lists? That which Matthew calls falling downe, Luke calls kneeling vpon the knees, Luke. 22. 41. If therefore either Luke shall expound Matthew, or that Christ ac­cording to both vsed both kneeling, and falling vpon the face, then is the force of your proofe manifestly none at all. Furthermore, you crosse the Disputer, who tea­cheth, that Disp. pag. 156 there are severall brakches of corporall wor­ship, and of them the same not vsed amongst all Nations, to expresse the same degree of adoration, and that branch there­of, which is in these parts by vs vsually observed, to represent, and testifie an adoration of an high nature, is the casting of our selues vpon the knees; and if it be not the same for particu­lar fashion and forme, which the Iewes vsed, when they pro­strated themselves, and would thereby set forth some high de­gree of humiliation, and reverence, yet for intent and vse, it is to vs the same. If the Disputer had not given you this reasonable answer, I should haue given it my selfe, for you can hardly refuse that which he affirmeth, kneeling being now vsed with vs as the fittest gesture of reverence both religious, and civill. Finally, we say that all ge­stures are in themselues lawfull gestures of worshipping God, whence reverence (more or lesse) may arise to re­ligious ordinances, and your objection, (if need were) would helpe vs to conclude for the one of them. But a­gainst vs it inferres nothing. Yet I cannot passe a kinde of illustration, (such as it is) which you vse, saying; If a gesture of the greatest reverence be futest, then people should not presume to receiue the Sacramentall elements with their hands, but the same for greater reverence ought to be put into their monthes. Answer. I marvaile that you doe take for graunted, that putting into the mouth is a fashion of greater reverence, then receiving the elements with the [Page 313] hands. If you be so minded, I doe not see any great rea­son for it: are not the peoples hands as holy as the Mi­nisters, and if they were not, are they not as holy as their owne mouthes and stomacks? But if putting into the mouth be taken by you, and graunted of vs to be a ge­sture of greater reverence, then handling, then I say though it be vnlawfull in other respects, yet it cannot be condemned in that name. Besides, you cannot reason from an artificiall vsage of the elements to a maine ge­sture of the body, which is naturall, and by God him­selfe appointed to his holy worship and service: belike, because the most reverend gesture is to be vsed in praier, therefore it is not lawfull to pray without an halter a­bout our necks, without bowing of our backs as well as our knees, with gloues on our hands, or with the liberty of spitting.

Obiect. 7. Manuscrip. ch. 5. Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 69. There hath beene in all ages of the Church Sect. 51 much more pronesse of people in this case vnto idolarty, and su­perstition by giving too much reverence to the Sacramentall e­lements, or any consecrated creatures, then vnto profanesse by esteeming too lightly of them; as may be made evident both by the holy Scriptures, Iudg. 8. 27. 2 King. 18. 4. and by the historie of the Church in all ages. Answer. Whether this be true or no, sure I am, the instances of Gideons E­phod, and the Brasen Serpent are too few to shew the space of aboue fiue thousand yeeres: therfore if Iset two against them, they are answered to the full. In the old Testa­ment looke vpon Malacby: It is in vaine to serue God, what profit is it, that we haue kept his ordinances, and that we haue walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts, and now we call the proud, (not the humble) happy, Mal. 3. 14, 15. In the new Testament the first scandalous sin, that defiled the Lords Supper it selfe, was vnreverence, and pro­fanesse, 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. And these two Scriptures are more perrinent, then your two, because Gideous Ephod was, (if you obserue the place well, you will also thinke it was) devised of purpose to make an idoll of; and nei­ther [Page 314] that, nor the Brasen Serpent had any state in Gods owne holy worship; but if your assertion be true, what can you inferre? What? That reverence of holy things in divine worship is idolatry therefore? You will never conclude such a conclusion, it hangs together like ropes of sand. So your objection is to no purpose in this place, where you would make our reverence to be idolatrous: as for danger it is to be considered in another chapter. And yet I will not graunt your assertion true at least of our owne time, and religion, for it is evident, that the people of our assemblies are generally more given to profanesse, then superstition. And herein I will call your owne selues to be my witnesses.

Obiect. 8. Abridg. 67. Manuscr, ch. 5. The reverence due to the holy mysteries, Sect. 60 stands in this, when the whole action is performed in that man­ner, as the Lord himselfe hath appointed. Answer. What need you to tell vs this? who did ever doubt of it? We say accordingly, that no gesture is to be vsed, and dire­cted to the elements; the reverence of the elements stands not in appointing gestures vnto them; therefore the more to blame are you, that vncover your heads in reuerence of the holy mysteries, without respect of wor­shipping God. We doe not thus, (as you speake) out of a blind devotion, vse this or that gesture of reverence to the elements. No, we giue soveraigne worship to the Lord alone in his holy ordinance, (which his blessed word alloweth) and that reverence that commeth vnto the elements doth onely issue from the soveraigne wor­ship. For drawing neere to his Majestie in receiving vp­on our knees, there is a certaine reverence, and esteeme, decency, and ornament from thence arising to the ele­ments, which are received as being not onely the mat­ter of our employment, but occasion of our adoring, as in other ordinances it more or lesse falleth ou [...] in like manner: and if we said nothing concerning this reve­rence, the thing it selfe would notwithstanding declare it. This is so farre from idolatry, that there cannot be [Page 315] true worship performed in the publick meetings with­out some degrees of it. And hitherto be spoken of such respects by which we may be lawfully mooved to kneele in the act of receiving without idolatry, the discourse wherof I haue inserted here betwixt my two Paragraphs, as that which will giue excellent light, to see the errour of your Assumption, that kneeling at Sacrament is idola­trous, whether we looke vnto your proofes, as knee­ling is considered in it selfe, which haue beene examined in my former Paragraph, or as kneeling is enjoyned by the Church of England, which now falls vpon vs to be examined in the next place.

Paragraph. 2. Kneeling at Sacrament is not I­dolatrous, as it is enioyned by this Church.

FIrst, I must tell the Reader, that though in the first Pa­ragraph, Sect. 61 I brought forth some reasons, or rather idle cavillations, (tending to confirm your Assumption, name­ly, that kneeling at Sacrament is idolatrous in it selfe) which I observed out of the Replier, yet those of your writers, that doe lay downe your argument in forme, and at first hand, as a ground to rest your faith on, doe vse no other proofe that kneeling is idolatrous, but onely the Intention, and injunction of this Church: of whom there­fore I would demaund, if setting aside the injunction, they would be content to cast off this argument of ido­latry? Verily then you make a great a doe about the proposition of your argument all in vaine, as if you would conclude kneeling to be flat idolatry in it selfe, if the Church had beene silent. All bowing (say you) be­fore a creature with religious respect, &c. it idolatry; now (say I) kneeling at Sacrament can never be vsed, but with religious respects to the bread and wine: and yet you prooue your Assumption, onely by the Churches en­joyning [Page 316] to kneele vnto, or worship before the creature. You might (in my simple opinion) haue disputed a great deale more readily, and more perspicuously, and as per­tinently in this manner. [Al [...] divine worship given to the creature is idolatry: But this Church giues (in kneeling at Sacrament) divine worship to the creatures of bread and wine: Therefore our kneeling in this Church is i­dolatry.] But if you meant to conclude out of your Pro­position absolutely against kneeling, (that it is idola­try in it selfe being vsed before creatures with religious respect vnto them) you did forget your selues in your Assumption by forgoing a chiefe part of your advan­tage, and onely taking to the Churches injunction. So that either your Proposition is more exact, and large then you needed, or your Assumption is stricter, and narrower in the proofe, then your need of proofe would, or might permit, specially in a matter of so great conse­quence, as the idolatry of kneeling absolutely conside­red. Well you giue vs occasion to belieue, that if the Church enjoyne not an idolatrous kneeling, then in it selfe you think it is not idolatrous vnto vs; and for mine owne part I doe belieue, that the wiser sort of you think no otherwise. So I hope you, and we shall be reconciled if we can justly vindicate the Church from the guilt of to foule a crimination, as that she injoynes kneeling to be vsed idolatrously.

Let vs then without partiality make an equall triall of Sect. 62 this suite commenced against the Church. We will not here stand vpon our owne well-meaning, but giue the Perth. Assem. pag. 49. Scotchmen, that although our private intents, (in observing a variable constitution of the Church) may differ from the publick, yet we should be guilty of the publick errour and sinne materialiter, and interpretativè: therefore let the Churches integrity be considered. At first I confesse I feared our Church had spoken dange­rously in this thing; for I found in the Abridg. p. 62. Abridge­ment, (compiled by a company of graue Ministers) a [Page 317] bitter and grievous accusation in these words: This ge­sture seemeth to be enioyned even with a supersticious intent, & meaning to adore the Sacrament it selfe, as we shall shew by and by. Verily, said I hereupon, shew this, and my mouth is stopped for defending our Churches kneeling, by that intent not possible to be justified. Well, I turned over the Abridgement to that place, where it promised to shew the same, yea I turned over all their bookes which I had to shew this; and behould, I could not find them prooving any such matter. Their conjectures, (for they will prooue at first sight no other) are of two sorts either rising from affirmitiue, and positiue respects, or from ne­gatiue. I finde three conjectures of the first sort one de­pending vpon another, and of the latter as many, to shew the Churches meaning. I will lead the godly Rea­der to them in order, with mine answer annexed, hartily requesting him to arbitrate betwixt vs as the evidence of the truth shall require.

First coniecture whereby our brethren would shew the Churches meaning to bee idolatrous, because kneeling was enioyned at first to stop the mouthes of the Papists.

FIrst, Perth. Ass. p. 48 Manuscr. ch. 1. arg 4. you conjecture the meaning of the Church Sect. 63 to be idolatrous, because kneeling was in King Ed­wards time enioyned to quiet the Popish Rebells in Devon­shire, who complained because the Sacrament was not recei­ved kneeling, that it was prophaned, and also to stop the mouthes of others, who reviled the Sacrament, terming the same, Iack of the Boxe, round Robin, the Sacrament of the Halter, &c. Answer. 1. I am not bound to belieue, that kneeling was meerly brought in vpon this occasion, ex­cept the first enjoyners had professed as much. I take no­tice [Page 318] of what is extant in the Ecclesiasticall history, yet I can obserue nothing absolutely to inferre, that kneeling would not haue beene as much enjoyned, if the Papists had beene silent and quiet. I know that proceedings of authoritie, in such cases as this are common taken and censured amisse. And the Replier is Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag 50. on my side against you, who (out of the words of Iohannes à Lasco, a lear­ned man living then in England, and (as he saith) ac­quainted with the chiefest Protestants, and with their counsells) collecteth, that the reproches of black-mou­thed Papists were not such a motiue to King Edward, and his Directours to enjoyne kneeling, as is imagined. Yet I will not deny, that it is a probable thing, (for all the words of Iohannes â Lasco) that kneeling was enjoy­ned partly at least through the Papists. But when I en­quire, what is the certaine meaning of the Church, I cannot be satisfied from that which The true rea­son of kneeling must not bee fetched from vaine conie­ctures. Repl. partic. p. 48. is vncertaine. Indeede that onely can giue satisfaction in this case, which the Church her selfe expresly declareth vnto vs. The conscience askes rather, what is the tenour of the law which bindes to performance, then what motiues stirred vp the enjoyners to make it, which were either re­served in their owne breasts, or else there wanteth full and expresse record, particularly asserting the same, and the knowledge thereof cannot now be gained, being al­most fourescore yeares agoe. Even this answer may serue to satisfie them which be reasonable.

Answer. 2. Let it be presumed for certaine, that the Sect. 64 gesture was enjoyned to stop the mouthes of the Papists, yet you cannot conclude, that the Popish worshipping of the elements was enjoyned therefore. For you must [...] there be two things in the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament, namely, the gesture it selfe, which is an outward carriage, visible to the eye of the body, and spi­rituall intention, and application thereof: now except the Papists occasioning of kneeling to be enjoyned, doe [...] imply that it is enjoyned to be intended, and [Page 319] applied as they intend, and apply it, your conjecture comes to just nothing. The Papists gaue vs occasion to vse the Temples, wherein we serue God, the Bells, &c. doth that imply now, that we intend & apply our Tem­ples, Bells, &c. to the same idolatrous vse wherunto they did intend and apply them? At Geneva the Papists gaue them occasion to use wafer-cakes in the Supper, do they therefore esteeme, and vse the same as the Papists doe their wafer-cakes, which they dreame to be transubstan­tiated? Paul was occasioned from the Iewes importuni­ty to practise certaine Iewish Ceremonies, yet it followes not that he vsed them, as they vsed them; he accorded with them in the things, which he did, yet dissented from the erroneous conceit, which they had of them. Wherefore Papists were an occasion of our kneeling as it is an outward act, which the bodily eye doth judge of, but they mooved vs not to kneele to the elements: yea for that outward act, they were occasion onely at that time; for they mooved vs not to kneele, as if else we might not haue kneeled, but onely stirred vs vp to vse the benefit of our libertie, as the times, and seasons seemed then to require. And this is a sufficient an­swer, as I suppose, inasmuch as the outward act of knee­ling was it, which sufficed to stop the mouth of calum­niation, which outward act Gods word alloweth, and we might haue lawfully vsed, if the Papists had never beene heard of. So either of these two answers without more a doe shewes the vanitie of this conjecture.

Second coniecture, whereby they would shew the Churches meaning to be idolatrous, is because King Edwards second Booke professeth, that kneeling is enioyned, that the Sa­crament might not bee profaned, but [Page 316] [...] [Page 317] [...] [Page 318] [...] [Page 319] [...] [Page 320] held in a reverent, and holy estimation amongst vs.

SEcondly, we come to the greatest of all conjectures, Sect. 65 and that which our brethren both in writing, and talking stand vpon more then a little. And whats that? Behold King Edwards second Booke professeth, that kneeling at the Communion is enioyned vpon this ground, that the Sa­crament might not be prophaned, but held in a reverent, and holy estimation amongst vs. And what then? Therefore kneeling is enioyned, (you Disp: pag. 59. Manuscr. ch 1. arg. 4. say) for veneration of the ele­ments. Answer. I graunt you the conclusion, for vene­ration or reverence of the Sacrament is no idolatry: nay the gesture ought to tend to the reverence of the Sacra­ment, or else it is not vsed aright, let it be what gesture you will. May not an holy carriage be appointed (I pray you) in Gods ordinance to avoid light and carelesse esteeme thereof, but it might be idolatry? Verily then all mutable circumstances shall be idolatrous, of which as much may be said as of this gesture [...]n question, that they be vsed to the end the Sacrament may not be pro­faned, but reverently handled. Therefore I entreat you to take into consideration both how reasonable our ex­position is of the words of the booke to cleere the com­pilers from intent of idolatry, and how forced yours is, who in stead of milke, and equity, wring out blood.

For the first, is there any thing more manifest, then Sect. 66 that the Sacrament may be prophaned? that the Church may and ought to provide, (as much as she judgeth meet for the persons and times) against such prophanesse? that sitting, and standing, (though they be warrantable in themselues, yet being the gestures of civill eating) may be [...] say not, that they bee cau [...]es of pro­phanes of thē ­selues, [...] Replie [...] would [...] fa­ther [...] [...] [...]8. abused by weake, and carnall hearts, to the light esteeming, and negligent vsing of the Sacrament? That kneeling is an outward expression, or carriage of greater reverence then sitting, and standing? Neither is this to [Page 321] purge profanesse with superstition, Ibidem. as the Replier beggeth, and cavilleth, when out of soveraigne wor­ship to God, which is first lawfull, and good, this reve­rence to the Sacrament onely springeth and issueth: for who seeth not, that the said ordinance may haue greater reverence procured vnto it by the Communicants ado­ring before the God of heaven, in the celebration of it, as may be likewise procured to other ordinances by the like humble demeanour?

For the latter, let vs see how you can conclude against Sect. 67 the Church, that by those words of the Common Pray­er booke she intends to commit idolatry? First, it seemes to be thought, because the Church appointed kneeling in the act of receiving for avoiding of prophanesse, there­fore no other gesture sufficeth in the mind and meaning of the Church, but that, for receiving the Sacrament reverently. Hereupon the Replier demaundeth, Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag 48. whether due estimation of holy rites, cannot be suffici­ently testified without kneeling? But let any man of common reason consider whether this exposition be not most vnreasonable; for by this declaring it followeth, that the Magistrate or Church can appoint no matter of circumstance vpon consideration of the fitnesse thereof, but forsooth all other circumstances are condemned by and by, as absolutely vnfit. Put case the Magistrate or Church enjoyned kneeling in prayer for avoiding of prophanesse, (which might godlily be done) could a­ny man justly say, that (in the mind and meaning of the Commaunders) prayer could not be therefore vsed in o­ther gestures reverently? when authority limiteth the time, and the place of Gods publick worship, and many other circumstances, (in kinde necessary) that the same worship may be decently, and orderly performed, can a­ny man therefore justly say that other times and places, and orders, are esteemed absolutely indecent? Some time must be set, some place must be had, some orders must be appointed; now of many times, and places, and orders, [Page 322] which may be decently applied to Gods worship, such a time, and such a place, and such other orders are limited, which the judgement of Governours can obserue most fit, according to the state of the Church and people. So it is for the Sacramentall gesture. The auncient appoin­ters of kneeling in this Church having all gestures before them to determine out of, for the due, and reverent handling of the holy Sacrament, pitched vpon the hum­ble gesture of kneeling, as which for that very purpose they iudged then to be the meetest of all others, and ac­cordingly did appoint it. But (to keepe you to the mat­ter) what's this to make idolatry? If the requiring of kneeling, that an ordinance might be handled reverent­ly, must import idolatry, then such requiring of knee­ling at prayer, of sitting bare at the Sacramentall busi­nesse for handling those ordinances reverently, must also be flat idolatry; and yet (I thinke) you would allow of constitution of either kneeling at prayer, or sitting bare at the Sacrament, for handling the said ordinances re­verently. The case is cleere, that this exception concludes no idolatry, so long as the reverence intended ariseth onely out of the soveraigne worship, which is given to God himselfe: and whether the words of the booke make for other reverence then such must be presently tryed.

Againe you except against the words of the booke, Sect. 68 prescribing kneeling at Sacrament for avoiding propha­nesse, because kneeling cannot be a remedy against prophanesse: for (say Ibidem. you) except intermission (if such had beene) of kneeling had beene a cause of prophanesse, which it was not, how could kneeling be a remedie. Againe, what is the cause that in other Churches, remedie can be found a­gainst prophanesse without kneeling, and not in ours? An­swer. Great and difficult demaunds I wot! to the first I tell you yet againe, that intermission of kneeling is not in it selfe any cause of prophanesse, but by accident through the weake and carnall hearts of Communicants; [Page 323] and there is nothing more knowne then that lawes are made of restreining some indifferent things, not for the matter of the things themselues, (for then all indifferent things should be commaunded alike, that is, every man should be left to doe what he will) but from the condi­tion of men, and circumstance of the time. Now it is cleere that kneeling may be a remedie against the acci­dentall prophanesse, which is occasioned through the intermission of it by other gestures. To the other de­maund, I certifie you, that other Churches are no rule to vs, more then we be vnto them; that some other Churches doe vse kneeling for handling of the Sacra­ment reverently, as well as ours; that the best learned, that haue beene in those Churches where kneeling is not vsed, condemne it not in this Church; that those Churches may haue such Communicants as sleight the Sacrament, by occasion of the common gestures of ea­ting and drinking, which is not impossible, or improba­ble, whatsoever you say: lastly, we never thought that kneeling is simply necessary for handling the Sacrament reverently, but onely that it is good and fit vnto that end, when the same can conveniently be applied, as physicall prescriptions may be good and fit to prevent diseases, whereof there is cause of feare, when yet there is no absolute necessitie of them. But (say Pag. 51. you) phy­sick is not given as food, to all persons, and at all times, whereas kneeling is so prescribed in this Church. I answer, you doe ill presse against vs the metaphor in those points, because the discase of profaning the Sacrament is, (as other spi­rituall diseases are) incident to all persons at any time; Gods word is compared to Balme in Scripture, and to o­ther physicall things; belike you will check the Spirit of God, for comparing the same to physick, when it is continually, and vniversally necessary: but if kneeling be not requisite to all Communicants at all times for a­voiding of prophanesse, it is sufficient that it is so for the most part, (for so lawes respect what is neeedfull gene­rally, [Page 324] though not vniversally, as some where else I haue already shewed) and at least if prophanesse should not fall out by other gestures; yet kneeling opposeth pro­fanesse, being a gesture of reverence in its owne nature. But (to keepe you still to the matter) what's all this to i­dolatry? for what if kneeling be no more a remedie against profanesse, then standing or sitting, doth that conclude that the vse of it is therefore idolatry? Nay if kneeling were not at all opposed to profanesse, but were it selfe profane, and profaned the Sacrament, (as the Disputer Disp. pag. 164. contradicting himselfe affirmeth) I hope you would be ashamed to conclude it to be idolatry therefore.

Lastly, if any consideration of the words of the booke Sect. 69 can make the Churches intent therein idolatrous, it is this, that kneeling seemeth to be allowed, or directed to no other purpose, but that reverence may be given to the visible elements. Answer. With this exposition (I suppose) some of you please your selues so much, as if you durst forsake your ministeries, endure imprison­ment, exile, even death it selfe, for the infallibility of it a­lone A difficult warre it is to fight against the strength of the imagination, yet considering truth can and will com­maund obedience vnto them which loue it, I am in good hope to persuade you to be ruled by a better commenta­ry. First, then what will you say to the rule of charity, which requireth, that all things be taken in the best sense, This proofe is thus vsed by some of you in a Catechisme beginning, what ought to bee the chiefe, and continuall care of every man in this life, at exposi­tion of the sixt commande­ment. 1 Cor. 13. 5, 7. Verily if this be a rule at any time, it specially should take place in expounding the words of that religious King of blessed memory, K Ed­ward 6. and of his Directours, who helped in reforming religion in this land, and some of them honourable by Martyrdome. Now the words of the book may not one­ly be interpreted in a better sense then you make, but al­so take them in the letter as they lie, without conceits and surmises, and they be godly, not to be reprooved: for kneeling (as I haue sufficiently manifested) may be lawfully vsed, that the Sacrament may be reverently cele­brated. [Page 325] Secondly, by what law of God am I bound to ex­clude soveraign worship in the Churches appointment, because it is not expressed. If those words of the book could not consist therewith, then I confesse the way of comming to God in this kneeling enjoyned, had beene blocked vp: but when the reverence which the words expresse will plainly stand with soveraigne worship gi­ven to God, (though vnmentioned) & opposeth it not, nay may very well issue forth from it, what an vncharita­ble construction is it to exclude the said soveraigne wor­ship in the Churches meaning to make idolatry? Third­ly, obserue the tenour of the words themselues, as you doe recite them, and it easily admits, yea supposeth sove­raigne worship; for it enjoynes not to kneele vnto the bread and wine, (nay our Church abhortes to speak so) but to vse the reverent gesture of kneeling, that so the Sacrament may not be profaned, but held in a reverend and holy estimation amongst vs. This context of words importeth, that this reverence of the Sacrament ariseth from kneeling by consequence, and comes not there­vnto by the said kneeling immediately directed vnto it. Fourthly, you tell Survey p. 7 [...]. vs, that the Atturney generall repor­teth it to be a resolution, according to a generall rule in law, that Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction may punish offences against the Communion-booke, otherwise then the statutes of 1 Eliz. c. 2. doth, because that statute onely affirmeth one manner of pu­nishing. and doth not deny another: where you gather, that by the same rule, though kneeling be affirmed, yet sit­ring, and standing are lawfull, because they are not deni­ed. But (whereas for deniall of sitting and standing I haue spoken otherwhere) it is a rule of force in the pur­pose of our Church appointing to kneele, that though reverence be affirmed, soveraigne worship cannot be de­nied: and here you may see most evident application of it. Fifthly, let it please you to thinke of the reason which your selues Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4. alledge, why those words were vsed, and kneeling enjoyned, namely to stop the mouthes of Pa­pists, [Page 326] who complained that the Sacrament was profaned. Surely if this be true, you might easily see that the com­pilers named outward reverence onely, because there was strife about it. There is no doubt, but they would haue named soveraigne worship, much more, if strife had been about it, as was not. How many lawes are there, which onely mention such respects as the time (when they were made) gaue occasion, pretermitting some other, (yet not to be excluded) wherein the state and exigence of the time pressed them not? Sixthly, in all the booke of com­mon prayer, you shall never finde, (as I take it) that wheresoever kneeling is enjoyned, (as it is enioyned often) God himselfe is at any time expressely mentioned, to whom the kneeling yet, (even in your opinion of the Churches iudgement) is without question intended. Wherefore you might doe well to measure kneeling en­ioyned in the Sacrament by all these: for though there are outward, and inferiour respects mentioned rather in that, then in these, (through particular occurrence be­falling) yet they be all alike set downe in the order of the booke, which alwayes supposeth, (as a thing most vnquestionable) that religious kneeling is directed to God being so notorious a gesture in the Church of sove­raigne worship. This consideration might haue mooved you something. Seventhly, how hard, and harsh an opi­nion is this, that whereas kneeling before the elements be received is evidently vsed to God, now being continu­ed to the act of receiving the case is altered, & God is by no meanes to be worshipped thereby: either this opi­nion, and meaning is so fond, it cannot be fathered vp­on such wise men, as the auncient compilers were, or certainly we should haue had a note of admonition to signifie the ceasing of soveraigne worship. Eighthly, and lastly, your owne writings will witnesse, that kneeling is intended and vsed by our Church for worshipping of God: for to passe Disp pag. 15. these words of the Disputer, [whe­ther our Communicants doe direct their knee-worship at the [Page 327] Lords table, to God the Father in severall, or ioyntly to the whole Trinitie, who can define? It is a point not as yet resol­ved (for ought I know) by our Church] to passe I say these words, (which graunt as a thing not to be disputed, that kneeling is directed to God, (either the first person, or the whole Trinity) and that noresolution of the Church is against that, I must specially put you in minde, that you contend by earnest argument our kneeling in this Church to be a worshipping of God. First, the aforesaid Disputer I boureth Disp pag. 159 160. earnestly to prooue Mark the in­tent & ground of this proofe, from the be­ginning at pag. 155. our knee­ling a part of the Lords worship, and directed vnto him: but especially the Abridgement speaketh in this Abridg. p. 42. man­ner, [kneeling in the act of receiving the bread and wine in the Lords Supper is esteemed, imposed, and observed as a part of Gods worship.] Wherefore out of the premises I dare say, that though kneeling be appointed by King Ed­wards booke for reverence of the Sacrament, yet sove­raigne worship is not excluded, but supposed, whence the externall reverence of that holy ordinance celebra­ted in that gesture, ariseth. And this interpretation, which you ought to make of that booke, you may doe well to make of our learned writers, who though they plead for reverence of the Sacrament, yet ever doe de­fend that kneeling serveth for adoring the majestie of God and Christ. So that according to them by kneeling soveraigne worship is directed to God, and therefore the reverence which commeth to the Sacramentall signes and businesse flowes from thence as I haue decla­red before. If any of the children of our Church speake more vndistinctly then you can see to allow, you cannot therefore justly take advantage against their mother.

And so much for your second conjecture taken from the Common Prayer Booke of King Edward 6. tending Sect. 70 to shew the Churches meaning to be idolatrous; except I should adde, that the Abridgement which promised to shew, that kneeling is enjoyned with an intent to adore the Sacrament it selfe, yet cites not to that purpose the [Page 328] words of that Common Prayer Booke, which makes me to marvell either at the Authours of the Abridgement, (which had those words in consideration, and whom it most specially concerned to make their promise good) or else at others of our brethren, who stand vpon this conjecture with such confidence. Also I might adde that those words of King Edwards Booke doe not perhaps concerne vs at all, herein I will onely write, what you doe dictate. The state (say Survey p. 171 See Park. of the Crosse, chap 5. sect. 13. & sect. 17. you) of 1. Eliz. c. 2. esta­blished the second Booke of Common Prayer of King Edward 6. some few and those mentioned alterations onely excepted; and the 4. Rubrick next after the Com­munion in that Booke, [which Enquire this, as I thinke is that, out of which the words are fetched which you so much stand on] declaring that Communicants should receiue kneeling, hath beene left out of the Booke of Common Prayer, that hath beene in vse, ever since that statute was made. Verily this consideration may serue to take away the scruple about the meaning of the words themselues being taken out of the way, by order of the State in the beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth.

The third coniecture whereby they would shew the Churches meaning to be idolatrous, is, be­cause shee tyes all her Communicants to a­dore God before the creatures.

THe last, and least of all conjectures, (arising from Sect. 71 positiue respects) to shew, that kneeling enjoyned in this Church is idolatrous, is this, because the Church tyes all her Communicants to adore God before the creatures of bread and wine. The Abridg. 66. Abridgement, and the Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. sect. 24. Re­plier defending the same, make no small account (as it appeareth) of this consideration. Answer. I distinguish; [Page 329] Tye is to be considered: first, in respect of the thing whereunto we be tyed: secondly, in respect of that, by which we be tyed: thirdly, by the manner of tying. First, if the thing be lawfull in it selfe whereunto we are tyed, and then the authority be lawfull whereby we are tyed, and the manner be with no other opinion, then the word of God doth allow, you shall assoone make ci­vill Magistracy, (which is Gods ordinance) an idoll, as make such a tying idolatrous. Indeed if the thing it selfe be vnlawfull, as religious, and purposed kneeling be­fore an image; or it be put vpon vs by them which haue nothing at all to doe with vs, as by the Pope, or the King of Spaine; or haue an opinion of necessity put vp­on it, or other superstitions, when it is but a mutable circumstance serving to order, and comelinesse, then the second commandement must needes be transgressed by such a tying: but what is this to the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament? That in other respects, of it selfe it is law­full, I hope I haue plentifully shewed; that the authori­ty of the Magistrate in enjoyning is lawfull, I hope will not be denied, that it is imposed a thing indifferent, I haue cleered in the first chapter of this part of the Trea­tise. If the Magistrate commaund vs before, and after receiving, to kneele downe both before the Temple, and before the bread and wine, yet the thing being lawfull, the authority lawfull, and onely requiring it as a muta­ble circumstance, it is farre from idolatry to be tyed vn­to it. But what should we trifle in this point? the words of the Abridgement make this exception, that it is not i­dolatry to adore before the creatures, except it be without warrant of the word. Now if you suppose kneeling, which is vsed in the act of receiving, to be without warrant of the word, more then before or after the act of receiving, when we confesse, pray for a blessing, and giue thanks, (for these we also doe before the creatures;) you doe not onely suppose the ground of the controversie to be graunted vnto you, (which is childish) but you doe al­so [Page 330] yeeld, that if it be lawfull in it selfe, this conjecture taken from tying to make it idolatry is vtterly of no va­lue. But the Scotchmen say, Perth. Ass p. 51 that worship is tyed no lon­ger to any certaine thing, or place vpon earth, Ioh. 4. 21. An­swer. You mistake the holy Scripture, at least by the manner of your applying. Certaine and vnchangeable individualls there are none to be imagined, (as the Pa­pists dreame that infallibility, and Catholick truth is an­nexed to the Sea of Rome) ever since Christ: but there is no man can doubt, that we may tye our selues, or be tyed to worship before creatures lawfully, vpon an in­different, and interchangeable vse of them: else why should you tye your selues to pray, (and kneele if you will) before civill creatures daily, both at dinner, and supper? Why should you tye your selues to kneele daily in such or such a roome, morning and evening, as they offered morning and evening sacrifice in the Temple? Why should you tye your selues to kneele before the ele­ments of bread and wine, alwayes before, and after the act of participation? The truth is, if your application of Ioh. 4. 21. be good against kneeling to God, the bread and wine being before vs, it is not lawfull to tye our selues to kneele to God in any place all our life long; you should haue put a difference betwixt the tye of inherent holinesse, and the tye of externall and circumstantiall expedience. In that all persons were bound to accommodate their adoring to the places and things: In this they are free to accommodate places and things to their adoring. So much of your three conje­ctures, drawne from respects affirmatiue, to prooue the Churches intent to be idolatrous. Now let vs see what you are able to picke out of negatiues.

Of coniectures taken from certaine nega­tiue considerations.

NOw certaine negatiues you scatter vp and downe Sect. 72 [Page 331] your bookes to shew the intent of our Church to be ido­lacrous. I will doe you the benefit, as to bring them to­gether, and make an induction of them in this man­ner.

Kneeling, first, is not enioyned in this Church for a Table­gesture, Nor, secondly, for lawfull reverence of the Sa­crament, Nor, thirdly, for adoring the Lord himselfe, and no other probable respect can be given.

Therefore it is enioyned in this Church for veneration of the elements idolatrously.

For answer, not to dally about the consequence of this argument, I will onely deny the Antecedent; and for­asmuch as it propoundeth three severall respects for ex­emplification, let vs generally see, whether this Chur­ches intent, (in enjoyning to kneele at Sacrament) be denied of every one of them.

First Negatiue. The Church enioynes not knee­ling as a fit Table-gesture.

FIrst, you Disp pag. 160. [...] alibi. say, kneeling cannot be enioyned as a fit Ta­ble-gesture? Sect. 73 Why so? Forsooth kneeling is vnsutable to the carriage of a guest, debarrs vs of the liberties of a Ta­ble, &c. Answer. The question is not here, how suta­ble, or vnsutable kneeling is to the person of a guest, li­berties of a table, &c. but whether the Church doe respect it as a fit gesture for a spirituall table, and feast: and this it doth, as may appeare, by the Booke of Pray­er, See the order of the Commu­nion. appointing a Communion-table, calling the Sa­crament according to the metaphoricall speaking of the holy Scripture, a spirituall supper, feast, banquet; and the Communicants guests, &c. and yet notwithstand­ing it appointeth kneeling for the said guests, as a fit­ting gesture of that spirituall table, and feast: nay the Booke takes notice of the gesture of civill feasts, and [Page 332] makes expresse In the first ex­hortation. mention of sitting; and yet appointe the gesture of kneeling at this feast altogether, because it is spirituall. Wherefore you cannot shew that the Church enjoynes not kneeling as a fit spirituall table-ge­sture: as for the Disputers old song, it hath beene fully answered in the second part of this Treatise; most law­full it is to vse a worship-gesture in a worship-ordinance; though this respect be but generall, as I haue noted be­fore, Sect. 30. where (in setting downe the respects, vpon which we may be lawfully mooved to kneele) I onely pointed at it in the margin.) Even already then the Church is acquitted from intent of idolatrous knee­ling.

Second Negatiue. The Church enioynes not knee­ling for any lawfull, or convenient reverence, that is due to the Sacrament.

SEcondly, say Abridg. p. 68. you, it is evident, that this gesture is Sect. 74 not enioyned, in respect of any lawfull, or convenient re­verence, that is due to the Sacrament, for neither at the ad­ministration of Baptisme, nor at the hearing of the word read or preached is any such gesture vsed, to both notwithstanding, there is every whit as much reverence due, as to the Supper of the Lord. Answer. I retort in this manner. You doe not vncover your heads in the time of receiving in re­spect of any lawfull and convenient reverence, (which yet you pretend) that is due to the Sacrament, for at hea­ring of the word read, or preached, you vse not any such gesture, to which notwithstanding there is every whit as much reverence due, as to the Supper of the Lord. How can you possibly avoid this retortion? The chil­dren of. Israel erred in the dissimilitude as we doe, as the Scotchmen doe teach. When (say Perth. Ass. 45. they) they received the law of the Passeover, they bowed the head and worshipped, [Page 333] Exod. 12. 27. Yet did they not so in the eating of it; they were more reverent in hearing the law of the Passeover, then in the participation of it. Yet we are well, that the Church of England is but like the Church of Israel in a commendable performance. Againe, sometimes you pray in divers fashions or gestures, doth it follow there­fore that the same ordinance is more or lesse reverendly to be handled then it selfe? This reasoning of yours should import that the like reverence is to be declared al­wayes in all ordinances. Againe, you might well haue considered, that the Church may prescribe a gesture of greater reverence to the Sacrament, not because more reverence is due to it in it selfe, but because it hath been most abased by words, and deeds See what an­idle answer Re­pl. makes to this point, Repl. par­tic. to Bp. Mort. ch 3. sect. 27. when he maks comparison be­twixt the Sacra­ment and ima­ges, and the kneeling of both, belike he can prooue re­ligious knee­ling before i­mages lawfull in it selfe; in­deede hee may prooue anie thing after his manner. of vilifying vnreve­rence. Lastly, you must be remembred, that the reve­rence of kneeling, (as it is appointed in this Church) doth onely issue out of the soveraigne worship; there­fore if kneeling be lawfully appointed in the Sacrament for soveraigne worship (though it be not so, in hearing of the word, and administration of Baptisme) it may law­fully be appointed also consequently for reverence; and the tryall of this belongs to the next negatiue. Where­fore for any thing, that is hitherto said, the Church is cleere from intent of idolatrous kneeling. As for the ab­solute lawfulnesse of this respect of kneeling, namely, for reverence-sake, I haue largely shewed it, Sect. 45. to Pa­ragr. 2.

Third Negatiue. The Church enioynes not knee­ling, for Adoration of the Lord.

THirdly, you say, that kneeling is not enioyned in this Sect. 75 Church for adoration of the Lord: and that it is not so, you endeavour to prooue in this manner.

If kneeling be appointed for adoring the Lord, then either for adoration in and vpon occasion of prayer, or else for simple adoration without prayer.

[Page 334] But it is not appointed for adoration in prayer, nor for ado­ration without prayer.

Therefore not for adoration at all.

I am contented to make the best of your severall scatre­rings, that the truth may appeare. Let your points be now tryed in their order.

Of kneeling at Sacrament in respect of Prayer.

COncerning prayer I doe freely confesse, that inas­much Sect. 76 as it is but occasionall, and not the principall exercise of the soule, (whether it be mentall or vocall) in the Sacramentall businesse, I doe neither deeme it the principall respect of lawfull kneeling, neither haue I rea­son to deeme it the principall respect, vpon which the Church enjoynes it. Yet forasmuch againe, as the Sacra­mentall administ [...]on is a publick worship of God, and the act of eating and drinking lasteth but a little while, to each Communicant in severall, the greatest part of the time by far being taken vp with prayers, and thanks­giving, as it were enclosing the same about, I cannot see, that the reteining of kneeling so long and immedi­ately vsed, and to be vsed, by occasion of them, can be justly charged with vngodlinesse. But for making your part better, you speake severally of that short prayer, which is appointed to be vsed by the Minister about the time of distributing the elements, as if all the considera­tion of kneeling at Sacrament for prayer-sake, depended of that alone, yet I am contented to let the Reader see what you haue opposed even in that prayer.

First, you tell vs, that, That prayer is vnlawfull, and con­trary Sect. 77 to Gods word. And (though this be nothing to the present purpose) yet behold an heape of proofes are at hand. First, (saith the Disp. p. 117. Disputer) This prayer is con­trary to the person of guests and coheires, directing vs to an ap­prehension of our disfellowship with Christ. Therefore it can [Page 335] not be lawfull. Answer. This ridiculous, and contempti­ble logick is vsed also against the gesture of kneeling, as well as against this prayer; the prophanesse whereof I haue abundantly shewed before, Part. 2. chap. 6. by the same conceit all other prayers made before receiving are likewise vnlawfull, all secret ejaculations in the very act, yea the practise of faith, and all respects of humility, and dependance, and in a word, all intention, and cogitati­on of serving the Lord in the duties which he requireth at that time to be done by vs; but I hope this learning will dye, and be buried with the Authour it is so vile and detestable. Secondly, (saith the same Pag. 65. 117. man:) This pray­er is a private worship during the publick; therefore it is vn­lawfull. Answer. This objection is also made against the gesture of kneeling, which I haue cleerly refuted before, part. 2. chap. 8. and thence the Reader may also be satis­fied for this prayer. Thirdly, (saith he) Ibidem. This prayer is contrary to meditation necessarie at that time. Answer. As much as if a man hearing the word should say in his heart The Lord blesse his word vnto me. Is there any more said in this prayer, then as it were a (profit tibi.) The holy Sa­crament be effectuall vnto thy good. Is this contrary to meditation of the Sacrament. Alas Sir, every one sees, that nothing was ever said more falsely, and absurdly. Fourthly, (say the Perth. Ass. p. 52 Scotchmen) This prayer is contrary to the second commandement, partly because it is made by di­rection before a creature, and partly because it is a rite which God hath not ordeined, therefore it is not lawfull. Answer. For the former reason, being also made against the ge­sture of kneeling, I haue of purpose bent my selfe to an­swer it in this chapter already. And for the latter, it is wonderfull strange Divinitie to teach, that a particular prayer for sanctification of Gods ordinance is not ap­pointed by God: by this conceit, we must haue no pray­ers appointed or vsed before, or after Sermons, Bap­tisme, Supper of the Lord at all; for why be they lawfull, and not this? It is evident, that the matter of this prayer [Page 336] is good, and also pertinent to the occasion, neither may you helpe your selfe by saying, that it is a good prayer, but not vsed in fit place; for your reason plainly affir­meth the prayer it selfe to be a rite, which God hath not ordeined. Fifthly, (saith Survey p. 75. the Surveyour) The pro­nouncing of these words, The body of our Lord, &c. The blood of our Lord, &c. in the act of ministring the elements, may occasion idolatry. What? Rather then the pronoun­cing of those words in the institution of Christ, nay not so much; for in the institution, the bread is called (sa­cramentally) the body of Christ, the wine is called his blood in plaine termes, (and that in the act of ministra­tion) whereas in this prayer is no such matter: belike you would not haue the people thinke of the body, and blood, whiles the bread and wine are either seene, or felt by them for feare of idolatry, Sixthly, (sayes the Sur­veyour) Ibidem. It seemes not warrantable by the word, that in the action of ministring the elements, the Minister should mini­ster to Christ and the Church both. Answer. Where is that word I pray? The Priests in the law were appointed to minister both to the Lord and to the Congregation, Numb. 16. 9. Nay the very act of preparing and offering the peoples offering which they brought, was a mini­string both to the Lord and to them at the same time: and what will you say to the blessing of the Minister, after the Sacrament is ended, and to Deutr. 10. 8. The Lord se­perated the Levites, to minister vnto him, and to blesse in his name. And in truth this prayer is in the nature of a mini­steriall blessing of the communicants; besides doth not the Minister, even when he ministreth bread and wine, plainely minister as well to the Church as to Christ? At least all Gods ordinances admit of interchange, and suc­cession in respect of this double respect of ministring: wherfore who would let such an objection passe from his pen, that considered either that this twofold ministration may be conjoyned in one act, or when they be disjoy­ned, the disjunction is interchangeable. 7ly, lastly, (say [Page 337] they) Perth. Ass. p. 52 Disp. 65. 119. Survey pa. 74. This prayer of the Minister in the act of distri­bution, is flat against the institution of the Sacrament. How prooue you that? It argues the institution defectiue: for what reason can be given, why we should not forbeare the ma­king of a prayer at the delivery of the elements as well as Christ did? Are we wiser then Christ, and more carefull to performe a worship to God the Father then he? Answer. Alas Sir, wiser then Christ was? Christ graunt vs but a drop of his Ocean, in whom are all the treasure of wisdome, and knowledge, but are you wiser then Christ was, that will not forbeare long prayers before, and after sermons, be­fore and after the administration of both Sacraments? Moreover Christ is said to pray for a blessing vpon the elements to the receivers, but what words, and how ma­ny they were you cannot tell, nor how long they did con­tinue. Nay Christs blessing might be as neere his distri­buting, as this prayer is before our distributing for ought appeareth in the text; for if our Ministers should breake every Communicant his peece, or portion of bread, when he comes vnto him, and so breaking giue it vnto him, you can shew no difference in the time. And in the ad­ministration of the Cup this is more manifest; for Christ is said to blesse the Cup, and so gaue it to his Apostles▪ Yea. But you will say, Christ did not pronounce a prayer sin­gularly to each Communicant. I answer, if he did not, yet considering the common blessing of the table belongs to­every one, and a severall application thereof is to be made by every one; here is nothing done in the parti­cular, but what is done, and grounded in the common blessing; nothing done by the Minister in applying the said common blessing to the Communicant, but what e­very Communicant ought to doe for himselfe: and this is truely subordinate to the rule of Christs institution. Therefore it is too too foolishly said, that it seemes as vnlawfull to adde a prayer to the words of the instituti­on, as to adde loue-feasts to the Lords Supper: for be­sides that prayer is at liberty in every ordinance even [Page 338] the tenour of the institution it selfe is partly prayer in the action of ministration. Now to the rest of the Dis­puters trash, vpon this occasion, pag. 114. (wherein he is (as he is wont to be) larger then others in shewing his vanity) this answer may be sufficient with the judicious. Onely the Scotchmen must be spoken to, who taxe vs for turning the words of Christ, [This is my body] into a prayer; as if those words might not be inserted in the words of distribution, not withstanding this prayer: there­fore if there be a fault in omitting the enunciatiue words [This is Christs body] at the distributing, yet the prayer being godly in it selfe cannot be condemned, or blamed therefore: and yet the effect of them it touched even in the words of distribution. Christ spake thus, [Take, eate, this is my body, which is given for you, this doe in remem­brance of me] we speake thus, [Take and eate this in re­membrance that Christ dyed, or his body was given, as in the forme of distributing the wine, it is said, in remem­brance that his blood was shed] hēre is the same sense, and perhaps if (for avoiding such danger, as the Survey­our mentions before) there be liberty left of changing the termes, the sense remaining intire, herein there wants not matter of praise of the discretion of the compilers. Thus much of the lawfulnesse of prayer.

Now indeed I might haue spared the controversie of Sect. 78 this point, (but for your vnreasonable importunity) for whether it be lawfull or not, mattereth not in this place, where indeavouring to prooue the Churches idolatry, you must shew, that the Church enjoynes not kneeling in the act of receiving with any respect to that, or other prayers, which are to the said act adjoyned according to the publick direction. Now therefore shew vs if you can, that kneeling is not enjoyned in any respect of the pray­er mentioned. That for other prayers I may forbeare to presse you, having spoken nothing of them, that I can find. In this one prayer I am not mindfull of striving with you, yet he that lookes vpon the Rubrick shall finde [Page 339] in this manner, [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the people, kneeling, and when he delivereth the bread and wine he shall say, the body of our Lord, &c. the blood of our Lord, &c.] whereby there may be well some connexi­on of the kneeling, and praying together, especially when part of that kneeling enjoyned necessarily falls in­to the time of the said prayer.

First, (say Abridg. 65. you) Prayer is made without kneeling at Sect. 79 meales, and banquets, and therefore at this banquet we doe not kneele because of the prayer. Answer. This is an evi­dent non-sequitur, for you cannot reason from civill ta­bles to this spirituall absolutely, as I haue shewed in an­swering your argument of a Table-gesture, Part. 2. ch 5. much lesse can you reason to the Churches appoint­ment, which (whether well or ill) may appoint that in spirituall vse which is not in civill. Againe, what an he­terogeneous instance is this, for in the act of civill ea­ting we commonly kneele not at all, and what then can you proportionably collect for kneeling in religious eating? Againe, doe you not consider, that according to your reasoning it followeth, that the Church ap­points not kneeling before the Communion for pray­ers sake, (wherein the booke of prayer expressely con­futes you) because we vse not to kneele in civill bles­sing. Moreover you suppose, that the Church would not appoint a reason of kneeling contrary to ordinary civill vse, wherein the thing it selfe confutes you with­out other helpe; for that Church that would appoint kneeling in Sacramentall eating, without respect of ge­stures of civill eating, cannot be denied, to appoint it for reason, that is strange vnto civill practise. If the maine civill matter haue beene neglected, inferiour respects could not be much esteemed of. Lastly, thinke you that the Church in the publick and solemne worship of God may not step out step in gesture beyond the fashi­on (either in eating or blessing) of civill tables?

[Page 340] Secondly, (say Abridg. ibid. Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4. & ch. 7. you) Our Church vseth not alwayes Sect. 80 to command kneeling at prayer or thanksgiving at other times therefore shee enioynes not kneeling at Sacrament because of prayer. Answer. Oh noble reasoning, she appoints it not at all times, and every where. therefore at no time, and no where. I doubt not but you will acknowledge the weaknesse, and inconsequence of this argument: but the Manuscript delivers this reason thus; Our Church and Book of Prayer vseth not to enioyne kneeling so strictly at any prayer. Answer. What strictnesse is vsed de facte per­teines not to the purpose: sure I am that it is vntrue which you say, that the Booke vseth not to enjoyne kneeling so strictly at any prayer. See for example the Rubrick before the generall confession in the begin­ning of Morning prayer. And againe the Rubrick after the Creed in Morning Prayer: and compare them with the Rubrick which is before this prayer in controver­sie, and you shall see them enjoyned with equall strict­nesse, and therefore I marvell that you would accuse the booke so vnjustly, and in so manifest a case. Where the Abridgement addeth, that the Booke appoints not kneeling in those prayers and thanksgivings, which are appointed to be vsed both before and after the receiving of the Sacrament, it is evidently false. For at the first confession and prayer, appointed to be made at the Communion, next after the exhortations there is this Rubrick, [Then shall this ge­nerall confession be made in the name of all those that are min­ded to receiue the holy Communion, all kneeling humbly vpon their knees. How can you looke vpon this Rubrick, and your consciences not check you for saying as you doe▪ If you say, that that direction is not renewed at every prayer, you require a superfluous direction; for that which is set in the front of many prayers, is sufficient for all that are continued together. For whereas in the generall confession of Morning prayer all are appointed to kneele downe, doe you thinke the booke intends not the continuance of kneeling at the absolution, and [Page 341] the Lords prayer? Againe, after the Creed of Mor­ning prayer all are appointed to kneele downe at saying a company of versicles, doe you thinke the same knee­ling is not intended to be continued at all other prayers which shall be continuated vnto them? In a word it is not necessary that direction for kneeling should be re­newed at every singular prayer, but one is enough for all such prayers as by one plaine and continued conca­tenation are linked together. And this in reason and charity is to be judged the meaning of the booke, for else direction would be given for one prayer, and none for twenty, which to thinke were to charge the compi­lers vncharitably with ba [...]ish and ridiculous misprision. And to make this to be the meaning better appeare, it is to be observed, that the booke is wont commonly to di­rect, for kneeling at the first prayer, where many pray­ers are together, and not at any other that follow; and though I know somtimes, (as at Evening praier, &c. there is no expresse direction at all, because the same is vnder­stood in the maine directions of Morning prayer, which imply the like to be done vpon like occasions) yet com­monly, where there is direction it is set at the first pray­er, as in Morning prayer before the confession, and a­gaine after the Creed, againe after the exhortations at the Communion, againe before the versicles in the or­der of matrimony, againe in the beginning of the or­der of visiting the sick, againe in the beginning of the thanksgiving for women after childbirth, againe before Psal. 51. in the commination, in all which places (besides other) there is expresse direction for kneeling downe.

Thirdly, (say Abridg. 6 [...]. Manuscr. ch. 1. arg. 4. & ch. 7. you) The prayer that is vsed at the delivery of the Sacrament, is made by the Minister, who yet Sect. 81 standeth, and in his name not by the receiver, therefore the receiver is not required to kneele for it. Answer. A pitifull objection▪ [...] is not the prayer made in the peoples both be halfe and presence? Looke into the common prayer booke, and you shall find kneeling required even in such [Page 336] [...] [Page 337] [...] [Page 338] [...] [Page 339] [...] [Page 340] [...] [Page 341] [...] [Page 342] formes as this After the Creed of Morning Prayer, all are directed to kneele, and then followeth [The Lord be with you, and with thy Spirit] what say you to this one parallell? Nay I will giue you others, wherein the Mi­nister standeth, and the people kneele in such like formes; as after the the generall confession following the exhortations in the order of the Communion, the Minister stands vp, the people kneeling, and sayes thus, [Almighty God our heavenly Father, &c. haue mercy vp­on you, &c. confirme, and strengthen you in all goodnesse, &c.] Againe, before the vesitles in the order of macrimony, the man and woman kneeling downe, the Minister stan­ding vp, and having his face toward them, shall say. O Lord saue thy servant and thine handmaid, &c. Againe in the order of thanksgiving for women after child-birth, the woman is appointed to kneele, the Minister to stand, and say as followeth: [O Lord saue this woman thy servant, &c. O Almighty God which hast deliuered this wo­man, &c. graunt, &c. that she through thy help may, &c.] By which places it appeares, that you cannot shew, that the Church requires not kneeling for the prayer ap­appointed before the act of receiving, because of the forme, nor because of the Ministers standing. Nay, where you say, that rather the Minister should kneele, then the receivers for that prayer, we might say as much against you, who tell vs, that our kneeling is for reve­rence of the elements, be cause the Ministers reverencing should be exemplary to all the Communicants. But it is evident that the Ministers are occastioned to stand and walke, as the Priests in the law often were, in the admi­nistration of holy things. As for the want of Amen in this prayer, you doe from thence with small reason in­ferre, that the people are not enjoyned to mind it, as their prayer, when there are aboue threescore prayers in the Communion Booke besides versicles, without an expressed, and a vocall Amen, yet consent both in all these, and in the prayer before the delivery of the Com­munion [Page 343] is not more cleerely implyed, then vniversally knowne and yeelded.

Fourthly, (say Disp. 61, &c. Perth. Assem. pag. 52. you) That prayer hath no subsi­stence, Sect 82 and being in nature, during the whole action of the Communicants kneeling; for both it is begun before the pray­er, and the prayer is finished before receiving. Answer. The former braunch of this proofe is foolish and idle, partly, because kneeling is appointed before this prayer for many other preceding prayers, which reach vnto it, and partly because it is a needfull thing in making of all publick prayers, that the people kneele before the Mi­nister begin, that they may be ready to begin with him, but will you say because it is vsed a little space of time before the prayer haue being in nature, that it is not v­sed because of the prayer? So you say in this case, but who sees not how ridiculously? Now except kneeling be vsed before receiving for one of the former respects there is no necessity that it should be vsed by any order of this booke. But the latter braunch you most of all stand vpon, wherein others doe likewise Abridg. 66. Manuser. ch. 1. arg 4. & ch 7. joyne, namely, because the prayer is The Author of the Manu­script adds that there is an ex­hortation be­twixt the pray­er, and recei­ving. Answer. A consideration of no vse here, for that exhor­tation is but a direction to take and eate, and so is ioy­ned with the a­ction of recei­ving: you might as well obiect, that the recei­ver puts out his hand betwixt, for so hee doth before the act finished before the act of receiving, therefore kneeling in that act cannot be appointed because of the prayer. Answer. This reason doth not ab­solutely convince for the meaning of the Booke; for sometimes it is that the gesture of kneeling is required by the Booke in the reading of the word, for and by occasion of the prayer which is adjoyned vnto it. Look the order of the Communion it selfe, and this will be found true even there. Kneeling is required in rehear­sing the ten commandements, because prayer is enjoy­ned at the end of every commandement. Againe knee­ling is required of the people, whiles certaine comfor­table sayings be rehearsed of holy Scripture: [Heare what our Saviour saith, &c. Heare what S. Paul saith, &c. Heare what S. Iohn saith, &c.] and this because of pray­er that is adjoyned vnto them. True the Minister is ap­pointed here to stand vp, but since that is done for pro­nouncing [Page 344] of matters, and for that cause he is singularly directed, there is no cause to suspect that that implies the like direction to the people, especially when they are by name directed for themselues when is occasion a the like may be done in the act of receiving, for the prayer which is thereunto adjoyned; and so much the rather when the soule in the act of receiving may bee sweetly carried vp to God in secret desires according to the matter and tenour of that prayer, which so newly sounded in the eare of the Communicant. And yet I would not stand vpon that prayer alone, but rather the continued exercise of prayer, whereof that is but a part, to giue occasion of kneeling to be continued in the act of receiving, especially when the time of recei­ving to one Communicant is very short, and as it were but a moment, in the midst of the said exercise of pray­er, which the Church appointeth to be adjoyned. And yet againe as receiving is the principall imployment, and the prayer is but occasioned thereby, it is to be vnder­stood, that still the businesse of receiving hath a princi­pall stroke in occasioning such kneeling to be vsed, (though vsed immediately-by occasion of prayer) as causa causae est causa causati.

So much may suffice for answere of your reasons, Sect. 83 whereby you would shew, that the Church appoints not kneeling at Sacrament in any reference to the pra­yer adjoyned. Truely I would haue spared this paines, but that both you make so much a doe about it, and with so much confidence, and because your intent thereby is to evince (which you are not able) that the Churches intent must be idolatrous. As for that which you also Perth. Ass pag. 52. 53. adde of Namely that which is meer­ly mentall. mentall prayer in the act of receiuing, af­firming that the Church enjoynes not kneeling for that it is meerly vnprofitable, because though it may bee ioyned with vocall prayers and add strength to my for­mer considerations, yet there is no man was ever so simple to say that, that was of it selfe a reason of the [Page 345] Churches commandement. And now we will see how you can proue that, the Church enioynes not kneeling in the act of receiving for simple adoration without pra­yer. This is the cheifest confideration, and yet you say but a very little vnto it in comparison of the former.

Of receiuing at Sacrament for adoring God without prayer.

FOr simple adoration, there be three maine respects in the holy Sacrament, which I named before. The Sect. 84 first is Gods speciall presence, Sect. 31. The second is the humble and thankfull remembrance of Christe suf­ferings. Sect. 32. The third is the gracious gift of Christs body and blood, which is bestowed vpon vs, Sect. 33. &c. Can you shew now that the Church enioynes not knee­ling to be vsed for adoring or worshipping God in these respects, and so consequently enioynes it not for simple adoration or worshipping at all? I promise you I will not balke any thing you say, that I know, and therefore I will examine, what you speake to each of them in or­der. For the first, you say not a word, and therefore I need not say a word for answer, vnlesse I certifie you that your proofe of the Churches intent of Idolatry, by this, that it inioynes not simple adoration of God must needs be lame, because (whatsoever you say to the other respects) against this (the instance whereof was so neces­sary and plaine) you say nothing.

That the Church inioynes not kneeling for adorati­on vpon the thankfull remembrance of Christs suffe­rings, Sect. 85 you giue vs foure reasons. First say Abridg. p. 67, Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4. you, The act of receiving is not properly an act of thansgiuing but of faith. Answer, you contradict your selues, that say o­therwhere, that kneeling is not lawful in the act of receiuing, because it is not a fit expression for the outward acting of thankfulnes. See part. 2. chap. 7. sect. 6. 7. But why do you deny the act of receiving to bee a thankfull remem­brance, [Page 346] when there is nothing more evident in the world? for is it not instituted for remembrance, and why for remembrance, but that it should be thankefull remembrance? It is true, as we looke only to our owne good, it is a meere act of feeding in grace, but as wee looke vnto Christ it is an Perth. Ass. says there is no mentall praise, therefore no thanksgiving, p 53. Sir, the action it selfe is Eucharistical and yet also there is men­tall thanksgi­ving, because the minde so e­steemeth and vseth it. act of thanksgiuing, and that is the principall looking by Christs owne order. Do this in remembrance of me: but i [...] both it is an act of faith, therefore is faith vnsoundly opposed to thanksgiving. But what is your inference out of this antecedent? Therfore the Church appoints not kneeling for thanks­giving. This follows not, for suppose the Sacramentall action be no action of thanksgiving properly, yet it is enough to crosse your present purpose, that the Church doth judge it to be so. And that so it doth, appeares plentifully in the order of the Communion, as he shall easily finde that will search the same and consider. In the formes of distribution of the elements, it is thus prescri­bed Eate this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee, and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving-Drinke this in remembrance Christs blood was shed for thee, and be thankefull. In the thanksgiving to be vsed next after the receiving is ended, it is thus said: O Lord our heavenly Father, we thine humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Whereunto may be added that acclamati­on, Therefore with Angels, &c. we laud and magnifie, &c. And in a word thanksgiving is mentioned and vsed continually, before, and after, and in the administrati­on of this heavenlie service. And you shall find no such passages in the order of Baptisme, neither doe I see what could be said more by any Church houlding the Sacramentall action to be a proper action of thanksgi­ving. Therefore your first consideration is false in the Antecedent, false in the consequence, both which your selues cannot but evidentlie perceiue.

Secondly, (say Abridg. p. 67. you) If the act of receiving be pro­perly [Page 347] called a thanksgiving, yet is not kneeling the fittest ge­sture Sect 86 to be vsed in thanksgiving, by 1 King. 8. 54. Answer. This assertion I haue answered of purpose, and shewed the falshood of it at large, part. 2. chap. 7. sect. 9. 10, 11. But suppose it were true, what followes vpon it? What? Therfore the Church appoints not kneeling for thanks­giving. Surely this is a Non-sequitur, and grosse in you, because you lay so many faults to the charge of this Church, especially intent of idolatry in receiving: for is it not absurd to goe about to prooue the Church to doe that which she ought not to doe one way, because she must doe as she ought to doe another. For thus you argue, Kneeling is not the fittest gesture for thanksgiving, therefore the Church would not appoint it as Sacrament for thanksgiving. You might as well haue reasoned in this manner, and much better also. Kneeling for idolatrous reverence of the elements is an abominable thing, there­fore the Church would not appoint it for such idola­trous reverence. Your part was to prooue the Chur­ches intent of kneeling not to be for thanksgiving, whether kneeling bee fit in thanksgiving or vnfit. And because you say nothing to that, I will giue the godly Reader to consider of the Rubrick directing to kneeling compared with the formes of distribution of the elements named before, The people shall haue the bread and wine delivered vnto them kneeling, sayes the Ru­brick, and then followeth-Take and eate-with thanksgi­ving-drinke this and be thankefull. I desire that this consi­deration may be duely thought on.

Thirdly, (say Manuser. ch. 1. arg. 4. you) Though kneeling should be a ge­sture Sect. 87 lawfull, and fit to be vsed in a see thanksgiving, [I mar­vell you make a question of it] yet no man will thinke it needfull or fit, that we should alwayes kneele when we receiue Gods blessings, because we must receive them thankefully. Answer. It is true, it is enough for vs, that kneeling may be lawfullie vsed, though not alwaies necessarilie, yet if any blessing of God require humble thankfulnesse, [Page 348] it is the blessing of Christ himselfe: also the Sacramentall employment is Gods publick & solemne worship, ther­fore as that blessing is not to be compared with conti­nuall, and ordinarie mercies; so this employment giues free libertie of worshipping, then some occasions, times, places, (as you instance in market places, and worship­ping before Nebuchadnezzar: idol, and the Breaden God, yea and I may adde many others of another na­ture then they) would allow vnto vs. But what fol­lowes of this Antecedent? What? Therefore the Church appoints not kneeling for thanksgiving. This is a con­sequence like the former, nay worse because the Ante­cedent giveth kneeling to be fit and lawfull in thanks­giving sometimes: and therefore the Church might more probably appoint it in this case.

Fourthly, (say Ibidem. you) The Books of Common Prayer Sect. 88 commaunds vs not to kneele at any other thanksgiving: there­fore it requires not kneeling here for thanksgiving. Answer. I deny the Antecedent, which I shew to be false by in­stances in the booke. First all the thanksgivings at the end of the Letanie, which are sixe in number are to be said in the gesture prescribed in the beginning of the prayers next after the Creed. Againe the thanksgiving of women after childbirth is appointed to be performed in the gesture of kneeling, and this is a speciall and so­lemne thanksgiving. If you say the woman is directed onely to kneele downe, and not the Minister, you must consider the case is like in the gesture of receiving, where the Minister is not to kneele, when he is employ­ed on the particular behalfe of the Communicants, but they alone. So this is a cleere and evident instance to re­fute you when you say that the booke commaunds not to kneele at any thanksgiving. I may adde that in the order of the Communion, the same direction that is for kneeling at certaine confessions and petitions, is plainly of force for sundry thanksgivings that are inserted a­mong them. And these instances may suffice, then your [Page 349] consequence is not sound, and convincing, because o­ther thanksgivings in the booke be vocall, and this Sacramentall thanksgiving is reall, or an acting of thank­fulnesse, and if there be the same reason of both, yet that may be appointed once vpon one occasion, that is not appointed againe, though the same occasion fall out againe: as standing is appointed at the Creed of Morning prayer, commonly called the Creed of the Apostles, and yet is not appointed at the same Creed in the order of the Communion, nor againe at the Creed of Athanasius. So much for answer to your rea­sons, (such as they are) to shew that the Church en­joynes not kneeling at Sacrament for thankfull remem­brance of Christs sufferings.

In the next place, you indeavour to shew, that the Church enjoynes not kneeling at Sacrament for the ex­cellent Sect. 89 gift that therein is bestowed vpon vs. Kneeling (say Disp. 163. De­mand. pag. 44. Manuscr. ch. 1. arg 4. you) is not appointed for worshipping in respect of the gift, which we receive in the Sacrament, for then should we also be required to kneele in the time of Sermons, and in the administration of Baptisme. Answer. First I might answer, that the Church condemns not kneeling at the hearing of the word, as in the receiving of the comman­dements, and other portions of Scripture, (which I no­ted before) by the Booke of Common prayer appea­reth, nay condemnes it not even in Sermon time, name­ly in women, who kneele every where vsually then, without so much as (I say not expostulation) but que­stion once made or mooved about it. And as much might be said of Baptisme, that the Church condemnes not kneling in that ordinance, as it appointeth it not: and it might well haue appointed it, if there had beene occasion; for what occasion is there to prescribe a ge­sture vnto such as are baptized amongst vs; for when you say we are appointed to kneele at the Supper, and not at Baptisme, you must not compare receivers in the one, with lookers on in the other, but Communi­cants [Page 350] at the Lords Supper with the Baptized in Bap­tisme, such as are onely children in our assemblies. Well then and doe you not see, that the Church could dot limit a gesture for infants of a weeke olde? Doe you not see that no respect could or can be had vnto the ge­sture in such? If this be evident, (as it is) your compa­rison of our Churches iniunction of the Supper-gesture with Baptisme, (where no gesture can be enjoyned) argues a great deale of inconsideration. I doubt not but this answer will giue good satisfaction vnto others, whatsoever it will doe to you.

But let it be, that there is an evident difference in the Sect. 90 Churches imposition, requiring kneeling at the Eucha­rist, and not in the exercise of the word and Baptisme, what followeth of that? What? That the Church en­joynes not kneeling at Sacrament for the gift which is bestowed vpon the Communicants therefore? Make this inference good, and you shall doe a great worke of wonder. For there is no man so besides himselfe to thinke, that we are bound to kneele, whensoever we receive a gift from God, for then we should kneele con­tinually; onelie we say that it is lawfull to kneele vp­on that respect, when the circumstances doe serue so to doe conveniently. Now you know the times when kneeling was enjoyned in King Edwards Raigne, did giue occasion that it should be imposed in the Supper, rather then in the exercise of the word and Baptisme. It is true the respect of a gift may be common to the word and Sacraments, and therefore may warrant kneeling in it selfe in them all; but yet accidentall occasion may make the gestures to differ. So when we kneele, we kneele for this respect of a gift, but we are not alwaies bound to kneele vpon this respect, as it is in the Lords prayer, when we pray, Giue vs, it is lawfull to kneele, yet not ever necessarie, and if a man may leaue such a gesture, which is vsed vpon such respect as is perma­nent in the same ordinance; he may doe it much more [Page 351] in that which is diverse, as I haue shewed somewhere else before. Besides, though the word & Sacraments haue all a consideration of being gifts, yet the Church might think the Eucharist a more speciall gift, then either the word or Baptisme, not absolutely, but for the symboli­call manner of communication. For behold the Eucha­risticall elements are not onely a visible pledge of Gods favour, and seale of his covenant, but also a visible of­fer and tender of Christs owne body and blood, which is the most expresse and liuely Symbole of Christ, that the Church enioyeth, yea and the same delivered vnto vs in a sensible manner, gift-wise, in the proper and out­ward guise of giving a gift, so as the word and Baptisme are not. Now what if hereupon the Church enioy­ned difference in the gesture, I meane vpon the appre­hension of the difference of the gifts in the manner of exhibition, then your consequence is quite spoiled, veri­ly as he which compareth the order of administration of the Eucharist, and Baptisme together shall easily see, that the Church esteemes of them vnlike as gifts: So, that kneeling is enioyned at Sacrament to worship God for the gift of Christs body and blood is evident, by that passage of the forme of distribution, to be said, when the Communicant is vpon his knees ready to receiue the signe [the body of our Lord Iesus Christ which was giuen for thee] which word is also vsed by our Saviour himselfe in the Institution.

Furthermore, I must charge you with contradiction Sect. 91 to your selues by making of this exception; for if it bee true, that we be not appointed to worship God for the excellency of the gift, and yet (as your intent is to proue) to worship the excellent gift, then the Church would haue haue enioyned asmuch in the word and Baptisme, that though not the giver for the gifts, yet those gifts should haue bin worshipped as well as the Eucharisti­call; nay because the Church appoynts no Idolatrous worshipping of the word, and Baptisme, which you say [Page 352] are as much to be honoured, as the Eucharist, according to your reasoning it must needes follow, that the Church intended not to giue divine worship, vnto the Eucharisticall Elements, as if there were some intrinse­call excellency therein, which did singularly require vs to kneele downe vnto them. And so indeed kneeling falls to be appoynted with vs in one Sacrament onely, vpon particular occasion of the present times, and yet in it selfe is lawfull in the other also as well, so that if ei­ther that publick occasion of kneeling at Eucharist had not been, or answerable occasion in Supposing that men of yeeres were baptized with vs. Baptisme had been, the gesture in both might haue been appoynted the same without difference. See more answere backe Sect. 74.

And now I haue presented all your conceits together, Sect. 92 whereby you goe about to shew, that the Church en­joyns not kneeling at Sacrament, for any other purpose then Idolatrous reverence of the bread and wine, vnlesse I should adde that the Abridg. p 62. Abridgement chargeth our kneeling to be Idolatrous, not only because it is enioy­ned with an idolatrous intent, but also practised so. Yea the Disp: pag. 57. Disputer saith, that for one of the common sort, who doth it for other intent, there are a thowsand that doe it out of reverent and humble respect to it. What should be said to this, surely, if you speake of such a re­spect as is idolatrous, I marvell you are so bold. As if any man of [...]rames would beleeue you, because you re­port a thing which you can never tell, how to justifie. But what if it were so, let the Disputer answer himselfe for me in the next words to the former. We are here to consider (saith he) not what is done by a few in our Church out of a private opinion, but what is publickly intended and directed to be done by all, that commu­nic [...]te at the Lords table. To this purpose see chap. 1. Sect. 19. And here I make an end of my answer to your conjectures, for proving the intent of this Church Ido­latrous in imposing the gesture of kneeling to be vsed at the Lords Supper.

[Page 353] So then by Gods gracious help I haue iustly vindica­ted Sect. 93 this Church, from your vncharitable, and vncon­scionable slander. And is this all that you can charge a­gainst the Church in this matter? Is this the part of god­ly men to accuse her so expressely in the face of the world, that her intent in imposing kneeling is Idola­trous, and make no proofe other then a company of such trifling collections? If you had bin as zealous on the other hand, you might and would haue gathered many things to confute this imagination more cleerely. What if you would haue vsed the Homily against perill of I­dolatry at this time? And if the meaning of the Church could not be knowne; what if you had said in such case you were at libertie to interpret, nay bound to interpret fairely? Yea if there had beene some dissonant passages, which could make no good harmonie in your eare, what if you had referred the same to humane infirmitie of the compilers, and not forced their intention to be idola­trous therefore, when no such intention is expressed, specially the said compilers hating idolatry more then your selues, to the losing, and spilling of their dearest blood. And yet in conclusion I will subjoyne a few con­siderations further to cleere the Church from intent of idolatrous kneeling, that I be not wanting to my poore power, in working the conscience to resolution in a matter of so great importance.

Considerations tending to cleere the Church (in imposing the gesture of kneeling) from intent of idolatry.

FIrst, in King Edwards dayes there was a protestation Sect. 94 added in the Booke of prayer, to cleere the gesture from adoration: this Mr. Cartwright Repl. to Dr. Whiting p. 131. affirmeth. Besides you Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 49. say, King Edward and his Directours would haue [Page 354] taken kneeling away, but for the sway of the times, and yet they did not lay aside their purpose so to doe, but waited a fit opportunity, and vsed the best meanes they could to compasse, and accomplish the same. Put now both these assertions together, and it is evident the first compilers of the booke were expresse adversaries to idolatrous reverence of the bread and wine: And though kneeling was ap­pointed, as the time seemed then to require, yet their o­pinion and intent in imposing thereof was contrarie to that which you please vnchristianly to accuse them of. Moreover doth not (I speake in the words of the Survey 182. Surveyour) the 29. Article of Religion, (as it was pub­lished in King Ewards Raigne, and whereunto subscrip­tion is required, by 13. Eliz. c. 12.) say, that the Sacra­ment of Christs bodie is not by his ordinance to be wor­shipped. I adde that in one of the Rubricks after the Communion it is said. To take away the superstition which any person hath or might haue in the bread and wine, it shall be such bread, as is vsuall to be eaten at the Table with other meates. Yea the Surveyour In the Quere of kneeling at the end of his booke. hath spent a great many leaues to shew the godly intent of the state in the be­ginning of Queene Elizabeth, how farre they were from purpose of imposing supersticious kneeling. Hitherto may be referred much that I haue spoken chap. 1. of the Churches enjoyning kneeling as a thing indifferent as other gestures are without any supersticious opinion put vpon it. In a word the gesture is enjoyned for no o­ther reverence to the Sacrament, then such as other rites and gestures are in all holy ordinances, the same being intended in common for Gods glory, and the edifying of the Church, and (intended in common) for the due reverence of Christs holie mysteries, and Sacraments, at appeareth, 1 Eliz. cap. 2. and I haue fully cleered this in this chapter alreadie.

Secondly, besides the testimonies of the Church is Sect. 95 selfe, who cannot consider that kneeling in our Church cannot be appointed and directed to the bread and [Page 355] wine: for this is plaine that the controversie betwixt vs is of the gesture to be vsed in the act of eating and drin­king, and therefore we haue seene before, that you will by no meanes allow this kneeling in controversie to be vsed for any part of the praier said in the time of delive­ring, because the praier is ended before the bread and wine are received; but what speake I of this passage, all your arguments doe import as much, the question is laid downe by your selues no otherwise but of the ge­sture in the act of eating, and drinking. Is it credible now that our Church appoints kneeling to be vsed for worshipping of the bread and wine, whiles the bread is torne with the teeth, and both bread and wine passe into the stomack, and are about to be swallowed? Is this worshipping possible? or is it not absurd? You may as well thinke our Church would stand vpon worship­ping of the elements, when they be passed into the bo­dy, as when they be thus in passing, at least for a cer­taine space of time, if you say the Church enjoynes kneeling for idolatrous reverence of the elements, when they be before vs, besides that you cast off the point of the controversie, who doth not see, that such kneeling before the act of receiving may godlily be referred to the praier to be made by the Minister and Communi­cants, which are appointed to haue continuance till the act of receiving take place? But for the act of eating and drinking, that the Church intends idolatrous reverence, then to be done to the elements in our mouthes and stomacks, it seemes too too harsh to affirme, the Dispu­ter, Disp. pag. 61. defending for the Church, that she enioynes no absurdities, or impossibilities.

Thirdly, if the Churches intent be idolatrous in her Sect. 96 kneeling at Sacrament, how can it be lawfull for you to partake with her in the celebration thereof, when and where the same is done, according to her idolatrous in­tent and appointment? If the Minister commit idola­try, and most of the Congregation commit idolatry, and [Page 356] so the Sacrament is an idol to them, there is danger ei­ther, that you cannot say, The bread which we breake is the Communion of the body of Christ, for we being many are one body, being all partakers of one bread, as 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. or else that you are partakers of the generall idolatry of the Congregation in some measure. And then you must either pronounce your selues to be guilty, or this Church to be innocent.

Finally, I would I were worthie to request you to Sect. 97 looke to your owne selues a little in this point, for as whiles you call and account holy worship idolatrous which is not, you transgresse the second commande­ment in a great degree: so when you lay the same ido­latry to the charge of the Church to which you are so much bound, you violate the second table in a high de­gree, both by injustice and by vnthankfulnesse. I pray God to persuade you, to repentance to himselfe ward, and to make some part of a mends vnto the Church, (remembring that you ought to doe it, if you had one­ly sinned against a private person) especially having so publickly traduced the Church, as guilty of most abo­minable and detestable whoredome, when she is inno­cent: I am contented that her old accusers be now jud­ges, and truly dare appeale to such of them, as are wise, and not led by prejudice. And hitherto of this chapter; and so of your arguments, tending to shew that kneeling is against pietie, taken from the manner of the Churches enjoyning. Yet one tending to shew the same thing doth remaine, taken from the practise of the Papists who haue so defiled this gesture, (as you say) that without impie­ty we cannot vse it: hereunto therefore let vs descend with hearts in writing, and reading so affected, as be­comes both the truth it selfe, and them also which search into it: and the God of all wisedome and mercy direct me in handling the same with all faithfulnesse.

Answer to the Proposition.

I must begin with the Proposition, explicating the Sect. 2 parts and proofes thereof as need doth require, saving that in generall. First so farre as the Scriptures which you quote will allow I distinguish of ceremonies.

Ceremonies in Gods worship are either ceremonious substances, or ceremonious actions, vnder which two heads I will range the proofes of your Proposition in or­der, whereby the Reader shall attaine more cleere and perspicuous insight into them.

For ceremonious substances of idolatry, you Abridg. p. 17, 18. say, Sect. 3 God commaunded to destroy them, as the melten, grauen, and painted images of Idolaters, all their places, groues, altars, pillars. Numb. 33. 52. Deutr. 12. 2, 3. Isai. 27. 9. Vessells. 2 King. 234. Coverings and ornaments. Isai. 30. 22. Iewells worne in their honour. Gen. 35. 4. Meates sacrificed vnto them. Apoc. 2. 14. 20. And even all the remnant of them. Zephan. 1. 4. Yea great detestation is to be shewed in destroy­ing these; they are to be hated, and abhorred vtterly. Iud. 23. Deut. 7. 26. Reiected as a menstruous cloth. Isai. 30. 22. Cut and broken to peeces. 2 King. 18. 4. Burned with fire. Deurr. 7. 26. 1 Chron. 14. 12. Yea Moses stamped the calfe, and ground it as small as dust, and then scattered the dust into the water. Deutr. 9. 21. So did Iosiah with the Groue. 2 King. 23. 6. Yea the very names and memorie of idole was to be rested out. Exod. 23. 13. Deutr. 12. 3. Iosh. 23. 7. Zechar. 13. 2. And this ought to be done, partly because of the detestation, which the Lord, who is a iealous God, beareth vnto idolatry. Exod. 20. 5, 6. Deutr. 7. 25, 26. and partly because we cannot bee said sincerely to haue repented of idolatry, whereby we, or our forefathers haue provoked the Lord, vnlesse we be ashamed of, and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it. 2 Chron. 33. 15. Isai. 1. 29. 2. 10. 30. 22. 2 Cor. 7. 11. [The Abridgement addeth also other reasons why idola­trous [Page 359] things should be rooted out, taken from scandall, but those I referre vnto the next chapter, where God willing they shall be considered.] Thus much you say concerning Ceremonious substances of Idolatry.

For Ceremonious actions (you Abridg p. 1 [...]. Manuser. ch. 1. arg 3. saith) God commands Sect. 4 that we should not doe after the works and doings of Idola­tours. Exod. 23 24. Levit. 18. 3. Deut, 124. v. 30. 31, That we should haue no communion or fellowship with them, but come out from among them. 2 or. 614. 18. Apoc. 18. 4. And the holy Ghost mentioneth this as a cheife sinne in the ten Tribes, and the principall cause of their destructi­on, that in the matters of Gods worship they went after the heathen, that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged, that they should not doe like them. 2 King 17. 15. And to shew his people how vnlike, they should be to Idolators, he forbad sundry mixtures vnto them; as of cat­tell of diverse kinds, of divers seeds, and of linnen and wol­len in the same garment. Levit. 19 19. Yea he forbad them to make any balcnes vpon their heads, or round the corners of them, to marre the corners of their beards, to make any cutting in their flesh for the dead, or print any markes vpon themselues. Deut. 14 1. Levit. 19. 27. 28. Thus much you say concerning Ceremonious actions of Idolatours, wherein it is vnlawfull to be conformable vnto them.

Now to the parts of your Proposition, I will say some Sect. 5 thing applying your proofes in order vnto them. And first you lay it downe of such ceremonyes onely which man hath devised. But what may be said to be devised by man? In substances, man deviseth onely the forme & vse, but not the matter, which is the worke-manship of God himselfe. In actions, bodily abillities, and perfor­mances are naturall, and of God, in whom we liue and mou [...]e; onely the intent and respect, where on such ac­tions are carried, may be mans devising. Looke vpon your proofes againe, and iudge what kind of devises are condemned by them. In substantiall things, there was the Idolit selfe, which was the obiect of worship­ping, [Page 360] and then those munericall, or individuall comple­ments, that pertained vnto it. The greatest part of your proofes doe speake of the Idoll it selfe onely. The com­plements were of two sortes, either ornaments of the Idols, or instruments of idolatrous worship. Some of which were no devises of men, but the good creatures of God, as the meates sacrificed to Idols; and therefore, what I beseech you make they among your proofes, that are excluded of purpose by the very first passages of your Proposition? Especially when the Lord evidently allows of them out of the case of scandall, notwithstand­ing idolatrous pollution. Rom, 14. 1 Cor. 8 ch. 10. 25 &c. And of this sort are the materialls of Idols appurtenan­ces, which are not forbidden vnto vs, as I shall shew by and by. All the rest of your Scriptures speake of meere devises, and inventions of wicked men, of purpose inten­ded for the acting of cursed idolatry; partly informing vnlawfull ornaments and instruments, which are called in Scripture the worke of their owne hands, and partly in the damnable application thereof, to the service of abominable idols; which could not be done, without prophaning and destroying Gods owne holy truth and worship. In the idolatrous actions, which the Scriptures quoted by you doe condemne, what can you see, but that which all godly people will condemne, without question or hesitation? For there is no one of those Scriptures, that forbids to doe such actions in Gods worship as otherwise were lawfull, but onely to wor­ship with heathenish and idolatrous worship: let the places be considered particularly. Thou shalt not bow downe to their Gods, nor serue them, nor doe after their works, but thou shalt vtterly overthrow them, and quite breake downe their images. Exod. 23. 24. You shall overthrow their Al­tars, and breake their pillars, and burne their groues with fire, and you shall hew downe the graven images of their Gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place: Ye shall not doe so vnto the Lord your God. Deut. 12. 3, 4. Take heed to [Page 361] thy selfe that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee, and that thou enquire not after their Gods, saying, How did these Nations serue their Gods? Even so will I doe likewise. Thou shalt not dot so vn­to the Lord thy God: for every abomination, which the Lord hateth, haue they done vnto their Gods; for even their sonnes and their daughters haue they burnt in the fire to their Gods. Deut. 12. v. 30, 31. They reiected the Lords Statutes, and testimonies, and followed vanitie, & became vayne, and went after the Heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not doe like them. And they left all the commandements of the Lord their God, and made them molten images, even two Calues, and made a groue, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal, and they caused their sonnes and their daugh­ters to passe through the fire, and vsed divination & inchant­ments, and sold themselues to doe evill in the sight of the Lord to provoke him to anger. Therefore the Lord was very angry, &c. 2 King. 17. v. 15. 16, 17, &c. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt, wherein ye dwelt shall ye not doe, and after the doings of the Lond of Canaan, whither I bring you shall yee not doe, neither shall yee walke in their ordinances, ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my indgements: you shall vse no vnlawfull marriages, or lusts, nor suffer your seed to passe through the fire to Molech: for in all these things the Na­tions are defiled, and all these abominations haue the men of the Land done: Therefore shall ye keep mine Ordinance, that yee commit not any of these abominable customes, which were committed before you. Levit. 18. 3, &c: reade the whole chapter. Behold, it is an evident thing, that all these Scriptures (setting aside civill vncleannesses) only for­bid vnto the people of God, heathenish and Idolatrous manner of worshipping, which manner doth respect both an Idol-obiect of worshipping, and also such per­formances, as are simply wicked, and could not other­wise be vsed to God himselfe. As for those Scriptures, which require vs to come our from idolaters. 2 Cor. 6. [Page 362] 14. Revel. 18. 4 What else is meant, then that we must beware, and seperate our selues from the communion of their sinnes and idolatries. As for prohibition of di­verse mixtures, amongst other lessons, the Iewes were taught therby to make no mixture of true and false wor­ship; sundry fashions, and actions were, and will be in­differently vsed in both, but that which is at any time proper to false religions, ought not to be mingled with the pure and holie worship of God. Lastly, the Lord for­bade his people to marre, and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, and to make markes and cuttings in their flesh, not because the Heathen did so, (see the places, Deut. 14. 1. Levit 19. 27, 28.) but because the pra­ctise agrees not to the faith and hope of a Christian, if the Heathens had never vsed it; so that all the devises that are to be observed in these places of Scripture, are no other but in themselues vile [...]dolatries, and supersti­tions, which the Church was bound to abhorre, if the Heathens wicked example thereof had never beene set before it.

Here I may not vnfitly subjoyne a certaine amplifi­cation Sect. 6 you make of this first part of your Proposition in this manner: [God hath commaunded, (say you, A­bridg. pag. 17.) to cast away even such things, as had a good originall and vse when ence they are knowne to haue beene defiled by idolatry, &c. Levit. 26. 1. 2 King. 18. 4. Dan. 1. 8. Hos. 2. 16. 17.] But it were time ill spent to tary vpon this amplification, when three of your proofes are of no force to confirme it, and it is not materiall, as it is confirmed by the fourth. First, Levit. 26. 1. forbids not the vse of pillars, but such as were figured, or fashi­oned to represent something, and of purpose set vp to worship, Dan. 1. 8. is impertinent, but vpon supposall of a false interpretation. Hos. 2, 16, 17. condemnes not the name Baali, absolutely, but according to the custo­mary vsurpation thereof, as it was referred, and served for the honour of the filthy idol. Lastly, the Brasen [Page 363] Serpent had indeed a good originall and vse, but long before Hezechiahs time, that vse was laid downe, and so to the Iewes in his time it was no better, then a Iewish monument would be vnto vs at this day. And so their making of the said Serpent an idoll was (in spirituall construction) as much as making it (in its outward forme) to be an idol. And so this place of 2 King. 18 4. is equivalent to the rest of your quotations, vsed to con­firme your Proposition, condemning images, groues, al­tars, and other appurtenances of fille worship; but to these Scriptures I neede not make a further answer in this place, because the purpose of your amplification whereto they serue doth not require it.

Secondly, your Proposition is onely of such ceremo­nies, Sect. 7 which be notoriously knowne to haue beene of old, and still to be abused to idolatry by the Papists, whereat (passing other things) I take this exception, that hereunto none of all your proofes be pertinently alled­ged; they speake of such things onely, as are formally idolatrous, and of such actions, as are applied to false worship in the instant thereof. Your assertion speakes of ceremonies, where the forme whereby they were i­dolatrous is taken away, and are no otherwise faulty, but because they haue beene aforetime, or presently are by others, abused to idolatry, themselues being applied to Gods owne lawfull worship.

Thirdly, your proposition is made of those ceremo­nies, Sect. 8 that are now of no necessary vse in the Church: but what things doe you meane to be necessary? I know no ceremony that is necessary with an absolute necessitie; but all ceremonies, things, actions, fashi­ons, (let them be what ceremonies you will) are vari­able at all times for ever. It is true, some ceremonies are necessarie in their kinde, though they be not necessarie at all, in the determination of this or that particular, thereunto belonging; as place is necessarie, but so is not such a particular Church or Chappell. Time is ne­cessarie, [Page 364] but so is not such a particular houre of the day. Water, and bread, and wine in the Sacraments are ne­cessarie, but so is not the particular water of such or such a spring or streame, the bread of such a manner of wheate, the wine of such a Country or manner. Clothes are necessarie, but so is not such a particular garment, of this or that fashion or colour. Now if your Proposi­tion be meant of ceremonies, no necessarie only in par­ticular determination, it is a most false one, as you can­not denie. For there is hardly any manner of place, time, spring, or streame, graine, or grape, garment of what­soever fashion or colour, which hath not beene abused idolatrously even in our owne land, and in this sense it is contrary to all the Scriptures, which you quote; for they can condemne no places of worship, altars, pillats, vessells, ornaments, jewells, meates, but that alone, which is idolatrously abused in the service of idols, and not any other. Wherefore your ceremonies, [of no ne­cessarie vse] must needes be those alone, which are [not necessarie in respect of the kinde of them.]

A Direction tending to shew, that the former Proposition cannot bee applyed against natu­rall gestures in Gods worship.

HAving more generally prepared the way, my spe­ciall Sect. 9 desire is to come, and keep more closely vn­to the matter of gestures. And first I will try them by the three parts of your Proposition, and then by all the places of Scripture, which you quote. First therefore, it is a manifest thing, that man hath not devised naturall gestures, but God in nature hath disposed, and ordei­ned our bodies vnto them. I hope you will easily con­sent vnto this; onely perhaps you will say, that although the Lord hath appointed naturall gestures, yet the mis­applying [Page 365] thereof may be mans devising. But that will prooue a poore evasion, as it is easie to manifest: for first then, this passage in your Proposition, [as man hath devised] distinguisheth not from Gods outward ordi­nances, the matter whereof may be applied, and han­dled amisse, as well as naturall gestures. But I dare say you intended some further thing by that passage, when you laid it downe. Secondly, then that passage is a sur­plusage in your Proposition, for your last clause would haue sufficed, (not onely because the meere devises of man cannot be of necessarie vse in the Church, which makes it more then needeth howsoever, but also be­cause that cannot be misapplyed to this or that part of divine worship, that is of necessarie vse vnto it, and may not be omitted. Thirdly, then your Proposition is graun­ted to haue no force against gestures, but as supposing the same to be misapplied. I hope the godly Reader will be carefull to minde this. Lastly, although it be true, that gestures may be misapplied through certain occur­rences, and circumstances, yet no maine gesture, (for e­very such God hath appointed to be serviceable to him­selfe) can be As I haue pro­ved, part. 1 ch. [...] wickedly applied to any part of Gods holy worship, in respect of the natures of both; as if there were a repugnancie betwixt materiall worship, and personall: now when you say, man may devise gestures, that is, the application of them, you must mean of such application as is simply vnlawfull to be made vn­to such an ordinance; for else kneeling may be called the devise of man, when it is vsed even in prayer, for­asmuch as it may therein be sometimes vnlawfully vsed by circumstance; nay in this sense, your Proposition would be meere confusion. and nonsense; but the na­ture of all gestures will agree with the nature of all parts of divine worship, as I haue shewed, therefore it is cleere that this evasion of misapplying the gestures will not serue your turne.

For the second part of your Proposition; There is no Sect. 10 [Page 366] gesture principall or inferiour vsed in Gods owne worship, but it is idolatrously abused by the Papists. You cannot take all gestures away, but you shall also take away all the out­ward worship of God, What shall be said then against the gestures? will the Popish idolatry make one gesture vncleane vnto vs, a [...]d not another? In one ordinance, and not in another? Of this you can render no reason: for if standing be polluted to vs by their idolatry, then also is sitting, if sitting, then also is kneeling, and so consequently if any one be polluted, that we cannot vse it, then also is every one; and if Popish idolatry can pollute those vnto vs in one kinde of worship, then also in every kinde. For so I am assured you make no doubt, that as the Papists haue polluted all their worship with damnable idolatry, so they haue accordingly defiled all the gestures by such their polluted worship. Nay vnto their Sacrament of the Altar, all maine gestures haue beene applied, both standing, (which the Priest doth vse) and sitting, (which the Pope doth vse) and knee­ling, (which is the common gesture of the people.) If now you answer, that one gesture is allowed by God o­therwise and not another, you renounce the force of the argument, taken from Popish idolatry: if such or such a gesture be vnlawfull in it selfe, how idly doe you vse this argument to condemne it? As if you should reason thus: [That which is abominable in it selfe we may not doe when it is polluted with Popish idolatry:] which Proposition, if the same but vnderstood it selfe, would be content (if it could) to blush in your behalfe. You should make this argument taken from Popish ido­latry to conclude effectually against a thing otherwise lawfull of its owne strength.

Thirdly, the last clause of your Proposition concer­neth Sect. 11 not bodily gestures, because they are of necessarie vse in the Church. First they are absolutely necessarie, because outward worship cannot be performed without them, being made such by the Lords owne ordinance [Page 367] in Scripture, and nature. Then they are respectiuely necessarie, as being orderly, comely, and commodious. Now many times when we doe vrge the lawfulnesse of our Temples, Bells, Fonts, &c. continued from idola­ters to vs, your common Demaund. pa. 28, 29. Sic et a­lij. answer is this, that such things may be continued notwithstanding Popish idola­try, as are either naturall, or orderly, or decent, or pro­fitable. What? and is there any thing, whereof this can be said more truely, then of naturall gestures? Per­haps you will still be glad to say gestures are necessary in divine worship, but some particular gesture is not al­wayes necessarie. Answer. If you speake of absolute ne­cessitie, no particular gesture is necessarie by Gods com­maundement at any time, and so the condition of all gestures is alike in that respect; if you speake of respe­ctiue necessitie, any particular gesture is necessarie by Gods allowance at any time, being naturall, (and more or lesse) orderly, decent, and profitable in divine wor­ship; and so the condition of all gestures is still alike in this respect also. See before, Sect. 7. Wherefore this last clause of your Proposition perteines not at all to na­turall gestures in Gods worship, as standing, sitting, or kneeling, except as the same dependeth vpon a false supposition, as the other parts of the Proposition doe in like manner. Thus I haue tryed the gestures with the three parts of your Proposition; now let vs try them by all the places of Scripture which you quote, and that the more mindfully, because all the foresaid parts of your Proposition doe depend vpon them.

First, many of your proofes are for destruction of i­dols, and images themselues, which were objects of wor­ship. Sect. 12 I hope you are not so forsaken of your selues, from thence to conclude against gestures; this were a pretty inference: Idols and images must be destroyed, there­fore it is vnlawfull to vse such or such a gesture reaso­ning from the abolishment of a substantiall idol-object of worship to naturall gestures, which haue ever beene, [Page 368] and ever will be common to the worship of damnable i­dols, with that of the true God: I will not doe you or my selfe so much wrong, as to goe about to refute such a grosse and senselesse in consequence. Nay rather I will present you with an amphfication from the law of de­stroying idols and images. against your selues. Looke vpon your quotations, and you shall obserue them spea­king of artificiall objects, of idolatrous worship onely: the images and idols to be destroyed were the workes of mens hands, and not the naturall and innocent crea­tures of God. See now, if ever any created thing should haue beene cashered, it should haue beene that same, which man had made an expresse idol of formall-wor­ship, for a more abominable vse, the creature cannot be put to. Yet created things, though worshipped thus i­dolatrously God would not to be destroyed, and there­fore much lesse should a naturall gesture be made vile, having beene abused onely as a meanes to worship the creature. If any thinke, that those creatures onely should haue beene spared, which were partly out of mans po­wer, and partly of durable necessitie, as the Sun, Moone, Starres, &c. but nor such as increased or multiplied in the ayre, earth, or water, if they could be gotten, I will not now dispute; for though I yeeld that yet I shall not want the benefit of mine amplification against you, inas­much as if a creature made an idol of worship was to be destroyed, yet other creatures of the same sort were not to be destroyed, but that singular one alone: whereas the gestures which are vsed in holy worship cannot be the same with the abused gestures of idolaters, but are onely the same sort or manner that they were. Nay fur­ther gestures haue the two respects, for which the Sun, Moone, and Starres are not to be destroyed; for as such gestures as are vsed by others already be out of our reach so gestures be of durable necessitie to mankind for ever.

Next, the rest of your proofes concerning Ceremo­nyes substances, are of those complements that partci­ned Sect. 13 [Page 369] vnto the Idol: according to my division before sect. 5. I will first touch vpon the ornaments of the Idol: and two places you quoute apperteining to them. Is. 30. 22. Thou shalt defile the covering of thy grauen images of silver, and the ornament of thy moulten images of gould, thou shalt cast them away as a menstrous cloth: thou shalt say vnto it, get thee hence. And Gen. 35. 4. They gaue vnto Iacob all their earings [which they wore probably in their eares in honor of their strange Gods] and Iacob hid them vnder an Oake. Giue me now leaue to demaund of you, whether those coverings, garment; and earings belonged to the service first of the true God? If they did not, then they make not against the gestures, which from the beginning vniversally thereunto belonged? whether those coverings, garment, and earings, were not artificiall things? If they were, then they make not against the gestures, which are plainly naturall: whe­ther those coverings, garments, and earings, were not the individualls, which served vnto the idol? If they were, they make not against our gestures, which are onely of the same manner with the gestures of idolaters, and are not the same individualls, whether the Abomi­nation of those coverings, garments, and earings, stood not in this, that they served the idol, and were vsed for the honour thereof? If it was so, they make nothing a­gainst the gestures, of which the question is onely made, as they are applyed to Gods owne worship, and are vsed for the honour of his owne Majesty. And lastly, whether there be the same reason for an action, or carriage of common vse to Gods worship, as of a substance of pro­per vse to some idol? If there be not, what are idols ornaments to Gods worship-gestures? When you haue pondered vpon these demaunds, I am deceived of your judgement, if you thinke notwithstanding, by the Scrip­tures, which speake against the ornaments of idols, to make something against naturall gestures. And the same answer also sufficeth for the instruments of idolatrous [Page 370] worship, which your other quotations condemne; name­ly idolatrous places, groues, Altars, and vessels: from which to gather any thing against gestures, in Gods owne worship, is as much as from the stewes of Italy, and all their instruments of vncleannesse, to conclude against the singing of Larks in a Summers morning.

And yet I will giue you a further answer: all the com­plements Sect. 14 of idolatrous worship are condemned by God; but in what respects were they condemned? I suppose there are only two respects, that can be conceived, for which God condemnes those complements of Idola­trous worship, the one when or where the Idol it selfe stood in force, as they were actually serviceable to him and his worship, the other, when, or where the Idol it selfe was cashered, as they were monuments of idolatry; now it behooues vs to see how the same condemnation in either of these wayes, belongeth vnto the gestures. The former can haue no place in our disputation, be­cause we speake of gestures (not which are vsed in false and idolatrous worship but) which are applyed and vsed in the Lords owne holy worship, and therefore I shall need to say no more vnto that poynt. The latter giues vs occasion to question, whether naturall gestures can be truely said to be monuments of idolatry, and I disproue it in this manner. No ordinance of God can be a monu­ment of Idolatry: but all gestures are Gods ordinances, and his outward worship consists in them, and therefore they cannot be monuments of idolatry. Demaund. p. 20, 21. No creature of God can be a monument of idolatry, but all gestures are Gods creatures, or abilities whereunto man is dispo­sed by creation, and therefore they cannot be monu­ments of idolatry. Nothing Vessels of the Temple pollu­ted were resto­red, Eur. 1. 7. which is taken from Gods worship, (whereunto himselfe had appointed, and allowed it) applied to false worship can be a monument of idolatry: but all gestures were transferred from Gods worship to idolatry by plaine theft, and vnjust alienati­on of his title and interest: and therefore they cannot [Page 371] be monuments of Idolatry, nothing which is vsed commonly and indifferently in true and false worship both, can be a monument of false worship, or of Ido­latry: but all gestures are vsed commonly and indiffe­rently in true, and false worship both, therefore they cannot be monuments of Idolatry. Nothing which hath commoditie, and needfull vse in Gods worship can be a monument of Idolatry, but all gestures haue commodity, and needfull vse in Gods worship, there­fore they cannot be monuments of idolatry. Nothing which Idolators never did defile, can be a monument of Idolatry, but the gestures which Christians vse in the true Church, Idolaters never did defile, (for to the pure their owne gestures are pure) therefore they can­not be monuments of Idolatry. Nothing the abolition whereof inferrs the destruction of Gods outward wor­ship, or of any part thereof can be a monument of Ido­latry; but the abolishing of all gestures inferrs the de­struction of Gods outward worship, and the abolishing of one gesture inferrs the destruction of some part there­of, therefore they cannot be monuments of Idolatry. Finally, there is no place in the old or new Testament▪ that can be brought forth, so much as looking toward the proofe of this, that naturall gestures may be monu­ments of Idolatry.

Nay I will say more, those very complements of Ido­latrous Sect. 15 worship condemned by God, were not absolute­ly condemned by him. I cannot vnderstand but they were allowed vpon 2 conditions. The first, if there were a needfull vse of them in Gods worship. The other, if there were no wicked vse of them to Gods dishonour or mans owne harme, and mischiefe. For the first, on this condition they might remaine, if they were serviceable and needfull to Gods owne worship: this your selues do like well of; for vnder this consideration, you shewed the lawfulnesse of our Temples, Bells, &c. Because (say you) they be of needfull vse to Gods worship, [Page 372] yea your Proposition makes exception (in all your proofes alledged) of such idolatrous things, as are of necessary vse in the Church, and what is this against na­turall gestures, I pray? Are artificiall things more ne­cessary in the Church, then natural? Doth the law dis­pense with Temples, and Bells, &c. when they may be conveniently serviceable to true worship, and will it not much more dispense with standing, sitting, or kneeling? That is vnreasonable Divinity.

Now I will come to the other conditions, which con­cerne Sect. 16 the evill vse of Idols appurtenances; and the for­mer of them is this, the same might be spared in case they were so altered and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the Idol and his damnable wor­ship: for looke into the tenour of the law, there the Lord commands to destroy Idolatours Pillars, Places, Groues, and Altars, to the end no honour might re­maine vnto idols by the remembrance of them: Deut. 12. 3. Now it is not meant, that there should be no re­membrance at all, (for the Calfe which Moses ground to dust, and Baal, in the extirpation of whom great zeale was vsed by sundry men; and the Idols of many Nations are recorded vnto posterity, and remembred vn­to this day) but this is meant, there ought to be nothing left of the idols which tended to the honourable re­membrance of them. Marke therefore God commands to roote out so much as the name or memoriall of Idols, and what could be commaunded more strictly? and yet that name or memoriall of them is rooted out, by taking away from them every honourable remembrance with this condition, therefore, it was lawfull to retaine the appurtenances of idolatrous worship, namely that no honour at all were imparted, or conveyed vnto the I­dol thereby. Truly as an Idol is nothing in reall excel­lency and vertue: so it is nothing at all to vs, if either we destroy, whatsoever may tend to make it inestima­tion someting, (whereof we may learne a lesson in [Page 373] Baals Groue, which when Gideon had By so doing he did destroy it according to the law, for now it was no honourable re­membrance of Baal. cut downe the Lord appointed him to offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of it) or that the credit of the Idol being vt­terly decayed in our Countrey, or age, his appurtenances are either not knowne, or not minded: as if a stranger after Iacobs time, (becomming Lord of that place, where Iacob hid the earings) should accidentally find those ea­rings, do [...]btlesse he might most lawfully possesse the same; being either ignorant of their former vse, or a despiser of the Idol, whereto they served. I think your selues are of this minde, for out of Augustine you Park of the Crosse, ch. 1, sect 7. p. 10. teach, though the appurtenances of the Idol be not de­stroyed, yet in the vse the same must be so altered and changed, that all honour of the Idol be evidently tur­ned vpside downe. With this caution I suppose you Cartwr. De­maund. p. 20. allow the gold and silver of Idols garments; and Demaund, 21 that Idols garments may be sold in shops, & bought for mans service. This then seemes to be agreed betwixt vs, that appurtenances of Idols may be spared, so that all the honour of the Idol be quite destroyed. Now to apply, what (I pray) doth all this concerne the naturall gestures? Can they be for the honour of an Idol in Gods owne worship? If this be possible, then either because the Idol set them in Gods worship, or they are directed vnto the Idol in some part, or they are such as are vsed in idolatrous worship in like manner; but the first is a notorious falshood; the second is impertinent to our controversie; the third is absurd inasmuch as there is agreement betwixt true, and false worshippers in all gestures, and ever will be.

The third condition, on which the appurtenances of Sect. 17 Idols might remaine was if they were without certaine danger of insnaring people to idolatry; for so the Lord forbade the gold and silver of Images, lest they should be snares vnto his people: Deut. 7. 25. But what is a snare according to the purpose of the law? For the best thing in the world, even the Sunne, Moone, and Stars, [Page 374] may become a snare through the corruption of man. The word [snare] which the law doth vse is a metaphor taken from artificiall snares, which are of purpose made to catch something. The Lord therefore condemnes those idolatrous things, which were snares onely by their institution and nature: as first in respect of their idolatrous vse continued, before their faces, for that was an abomination and snare. Secondly, in respect of their outward forme, continued before their faces, (the things themselues being otherwise without necessity or profit) for that was a temptation, as the garish ornaments of an harlot are vnto carnall vncleannesse. Thirdly, if you deeme that the materialls themselues were forbidden, because they might become snares; I answer, suposing that, yet they were onely the materialls of such appur­tenances of the Idols, as were proper vnto it, and the same munerically, which adorned it. And this is cleere in the law, as will appeare vnto you, if you please to make search. But what is this to bodily gestures? As for idolatrous vse, we onely speake of gestures as they are referred and applied wholly to Gods owne worship: for idolatrous and artificiall forme, gestures haue none, but what is naturall, and of the making of God himself, and besides every one of these is needfull and profitable, as I haue shewed. Lastly for materialls of Idol-appurte­nances, gestures haue nothing to answer, except you would abolish gestures from all parts of Gods worship, as well as from any one part. And moreover, what are the gestures of wicked idolatours to the gestures of god­ly people? Are not every mans gestures his owne? In a word, ensnaring objects, (which the Lord condemned and forbade to his people) were alwayes externall mat­ters without them it was never heard that standing, sit­ting, or kneeling, were called snares from the begin­ning.

Thus I haue shewed three necessary conditions, on which it was lawfull to to spare idolatrous appurtenan­ces: Sect. 18 [Page 375] perhaps some man will object, that Gods law was absolute without these conditions, because it runnes in generall termes without limitation. I answer. First, I take it, that is not true, for it cannot be prooved, that the materialls of Idols appurtenances were to be aboli­shed: Groues indeed were to be burnt with fire. Deut. 12. 3. or cut downe, Exod. 34. 13. Deut. 7. 5. except first they were to be cut downe, and then burnt with fire in vsefull occasion; as Gideon cut downe the Groue of Baal, and then vsed the wood to a burnt sacrifice, Iudg. 6. 26. High places were onely to be pulled downe, Numb. 33. 52. Altars onely to be broken downe, Deut. 12. 3. Ornaments of the Idol, as gold and silver were onely forbidden vnto private mens liberty: See Deut. 7. 25. Isai. 30. 22. though perhaps reserved to publick vse and devoted to the Lords treasury, (compare Iosh. 6. 17, 19,) and if they were to be, vtterly abolished, no other So the Manu­script expoun­deth Deut. 7. 25. ch. 1. arg. 6, gold or silver is meant, but that whereof the person of the Idol or Image, (as I may speake) did consist, and not such as was but an appurtenance to his person of which I onely treat in this place. Secondly, suppose that God commaunded all the idolatrous ap­purtenances to be destroyed, yet that commaundement bound onely the Iewes in the Iudiciall strictnesse of it. I call that Iudiciall strictnesse, which requires the aboli­shing of things, meerely, because they haue served the Idol, though they be otherwise lawfull and good, and that all honour of the Idol be destroyed, and all danger of him vtterly taken away. These points are of morall and durable consideration, and therefore when all ho­nour, and danger of the Idol is taken away, what mo­rall wickednesse can be in reteining, (otherwise) good and lawfull things, which had beene onely dead, and passiue appurtenances vnto it? Now it is evident, that the strictnesse of the law concerned onely the Iewes, ei­ther in respect of the land of Canaan; (for so the Lord [Page 376] directs onely, what his people should doe in the land of Canaan, as may appeare, Numb. 13 51, 52. Deut. 7. 1-25. Deut. 12. 1, 2, 3. and gaue full liberty of taking all spoile of vanquished forreigners, as may appeare, Deut. 20. 14. Numb. 31. 22. or howsoever in respect of the time, which dured no longer, then vnto the end of the Iewish Pedagogue: and this is confirmed by cleere light of Scripture; for God had appointed speciall place for his worship, of his owne; (the high place of Mount Zion, which he chose to place his name there;) also God had appointed Altars of his owne, vessells of his owne, ornaments of his owne, &c. and therefore did expresly forbid the Heathenish places, altars, vessells, ornaments, &c. as which opposed his institution in those times. Thus the Lord speake [...]h in the law: Ye shall vtterly de­stroy all the places, wherein the Nations which ye shall pos­sesse served their Gods, but vnto the place which the Lord shall chuse out of all your Tribes, to put his name there, even vnto his habitation shall you seeke, & thither shalt thou come, Deut. 12. 2. 5. Now what is the strictnesse of the law vp­on these considerations to vs? Are not you resolved, that the judicialls, (as we call them) of Moses be abro­gated, so farre as they serue not to fence the law morall? I thinke it is hard to see any benefit of fencing the mo­rall law in the destruction of such things as had beene v­sed to idolatry; if they be not onely otherwise lawfull, and good in themselues, but also be so clensed of all their abuse and filthinesse, that all both honour and danger of the Idol, or Idol-worship is quite taken away from them. Verily if these things be true, then all your places of Scriptures alledged to the proofe of your Pro­position concerning ceremonious substances of idola­try, are still further off from the condemnation of na­turall gestures.

Now remaineth to try the gestures, by those your quo­tations, Sect. 19 which condemne ceremonious actions of ido­latry. [Page 377] But what need I trouble my selfe about words? let the fifth section before be reviewed, and it will appeare that your quotations doe not come neere to gestures in Gods owne worship: yet if any of your proofes had concerned them, these would haue beene they, which speake of actions in false and idolatrous worship, but your owne proofes sufficiently refute your selues: we must not (say your quotations) serue God, as the Nations served their gods: yet the same quotations doe say againe, that the Nations bowed down to their gods. What? Must we not therefore bow downe to the living God in his worship? Nay there is no doubt but the Na­tions vsed standing, sitting and kneeling in severall parts of their publick worship; and can you imagine that any of these gestures were vnlawfull to the Iewes in that name? Alas my brethren, you haue mistaken your proofes in this point: did the law never take hold of a­greement with Idolatours in gestures till our time? It is evident that you cannot bring forth any commaund or example in the booke of God, whereby it may appeare, that it is vnlawfull to agree with them in the gestures of divine worship. Indeed herein the Church agrees not with them, because it would conforme vnto their practise out of an honourable respect of their false wor­ship, (this were an vngodly respect or motiue) but v­seth her liberty of gestures which the word alloweth, whatsoever they doe according or contrary. And more (I thinke) I need not to adde for answer or explication of your Proposition.

Answer to the Assumption.

NOw I haue an answer to make to your Assumpti­on, Sect. 20 for as much as I can foresee. This it is. [But kneeling at Sacrament hath beene devised by man, secondly, is notoriously knowne to haue beene of old, and still to be abu­sed [Page 378] vnto idolatry by the Papists, thirdly, and is now of no ne­cessary vse in the Church.] Which Assumption, so farre as the termes thereof be, (as they ought to be) taken in the same sense with your Proposition, I doe deny in all the parts of it. In discussing I will begin with the first part, wherein you assume, that kneeling at Sacrament is devised by man.

Of the first branch of your Assumption. Whether kneeling at Sacrament be de­vised by man.

I Confesse in this passage, there is a great deale of force for you, if you can make good that which you Sect. 21 say. There are three things wherein the examination of this point consisteth. First, we must enquire, whe­ther kneeling at Sacrament be allowed by God in his word, or no? Secondly, we must make an historicall search by whom kneeling was first put in practise from the time that the Sacrament was instituted by our Savi­our Christ. Thirdly, because you affirme that Antichrist first brought kneeling into the Sacrament, we must en­quire whether their kneeling be the same with ours now in controversie? Truely, if kneeling was not first allowed by Gods word, and was not first put in practise in the Lords Sacrament by Gods owne people, and last­ly the Popish kneeling differ not, but is of the same sort with ours, I plainly yeeld, that kneeling at Sacrament is devised by man, But if in triall it appeare, that all these be contrary, then it must needes follow that your asserti­on is contrary to the truth. Well, what haue you to say for the proofe of them in order? First doth not God al­low kneeling at Sacrament in his word, by such rules & directiōs as he giveth for gestures in his worship, by such rules & directiōs as he giveth for gestures in Sacraments? Behold in this point, you are altogether silent, but you [Page 379] forgot your selues when you passed it over. Is that which God allowes in his word mans devise? or rather is it not Gods ordinance? All gestures were mans de­vises by your conceit in the Sacraments of Circumcisi­on and Baptisme, because God commands no one ge­sture in particular absolutely, nay expressely no one at all. All gestures were mans devises in the Passeover a­mong the Iewes, because there was no gesture expresly and particularly appointed: but who sees not that this is your devise without reason: for since the Sacraments must needs be celebrated, celebrated they could not be without gestures, which are of flat necessity, and great importance therein, and yet it pleaseth the Lord to pre­scribe no gestures in particular to be vsed in them, is it not an evident thing that liberty of gestures is Gods or­dinance, I say, his ordinance, for he appointed that li­berty of purpose, and not forgetting (as man doth many things in making of lawes) to make mention of them. What did you meane therefore to presume the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament to be mans devise without the triall of the word, which onely can determine in this case; especially when your selues speake other where in this manner: If kneeling came from better men then the Pa­pists, yet that is nothing materiall, except it be prooved law­full out of holy writ, which onely can declare the good way, yea though it came from them, which were next and immedi­ate successours to the Apostles. Demand. p. 66, 67. It is a grosse and Popish course in questions of Religion, to ground, and inferre vpon the auncient vse of a thing, the lawfulnesse of it, Disp. pag. 139. We must not looke at antiquity, but fol­low the word of God, which is most auncient, Park. of the Crosse, l. 2. p. 124. Kneeling at Sacrament is allowed if it be warranted by Gods word, as kneeling is allowed in prayer, Disp. pag. 100. That which God hath by his word purified for his worship ought not to be accounted vncleane, Demaund. p. 20. Thus you should haue gone about to prooue kneeling mans devise by the rule of Gods word, and not [Page 380] as you doe by the vse, or practise thereof alone, which your selues determine cannot serue the turne. Your o­ther considerations without the word cannot be effectu­all to prooue that you desire; for Gods holy ordinance may sometimes Disp. reaso­neth thus, pag. 104. Kneeling bad no vse before Antichrists time, therefore could haue no good vse Sir, I deny your argument. be first put in practise by wicked Ido­latours, as single as persion in Baptisme There is no mention of the publick practise of sprinkling till about 1300 yeeres a Christo nato: which was when (as you say) Antichrist was a­bout his full height. was, before the Church of Christ did receiue it; therefore you are short of necessary proofe already, whatsoever become of the other considerations which follow. Yet let vs al­so passe over vnto them.

Secondly, therefore who did first put in practise the Sect. 22 gesture of kneeling at the Lords Supper? You say, Disp. pag. 99. that the man of sin was the authour and mother of it, that Perth. Ass. 55. the first act of kneeling, that ever was at the Sacrament is i­dolatrous; that Abridg 30. it grew first from the persuasion of the reall presence, and this Pag. 31. when Antichrist was at his full height, and in the Disp. pag. 99. grossest time of idolatry, that the eye of this Christian world hath seene. Verily if you were as substan­tiall in proofes, as you are confident in your opinions, there were great reason the world should be led by you. But what infallible, and demonstratiue evidences doe you present vs withall, that the man of sin first brought kneeling into the Sacrament? For sooth the Abridgement brings not forth one proofe, but giues vs bare affirma­tion that the thing was so. Alas I that wise men should be so much overseene! Did they not thinke, that op­posing the practise of a famous Church, and so many learned men, (then whom no age hath knowne more, or more learned) the matter did require some manner of proofe? Well. The Abridgement pleaseth to say (be­ing opponent) and I deny, and so the Abridgement is answered; but if any body speake to the point, it is the Disputer, and yet he giues vs onely a company of conje­ctures, and some of them so simple, that they be wor­ther [Page 381] to be hissed at then refuted. First, (saith Disp p. 70. 73. he) The first age of the primitiue Church, being that wherein the A­postles lived, enterteined not kneeling. And how can he tell that? Forsooth the Churches wo [...]ld follow the institution, and againe in all probability they vsed the same gestures at the Supper, that they did at their Loue-feasts, and at Idol-feasts, which was not kneeling. Answer. Besides an vn­grounded hypothesis, all this is no more but conjectural; for the Disputer can conclude nothing convincingly, whether they reteined the gesture of Christ, (whatso­ever it was) or changed, whether they varied from the Loue-feasts, and Idol feasts, or no, he and I can deter­mine nothing; because it is left vndetermined by the holy writings. Yea they might kneele in those times, for ought he can disprooue, and therefore this possibi­lity makes all his other conjectures weaker, and weaker, Secondly, (saith Pag 74. he) In the first part of the second age of the Church can it be doubted, but such worthy Fathers and Churches as then lived would follow the steps of the worthies of the former age? Can it be thought that they would bring so soone a gesture in vse, which might not be vsed, but with violating Gods law? Can it be doubted, but you are an egregious trifler, that goe about first to proove, they did not kneele, because their predecessours had not kneeled: and then they did not doe such a thing, be­cause they ought not (as you surmise) to doe it. Are you not ashamed of all this childish froth? You beg that their predecessours kneeled not, and that they would not vary in their gesture from them, because kneeling was not a table-gesture. It seemes you need no bookes to gather the history of times, you can gather it by reason from duty to practise: and so much to this idle trifling. But what may be said to the latter part of the second age of the Church? Why, (saith Pag. 77. he) if kneeling were vsed in the latter end of this age, then there were three severall gestures used in the same age: but there were not three severall gestures vsed in the same age. An­swer. [Page 382] The sequel of the Maior is false; for sitting can­not be prooved in the second age of the Church: but what if sitting and standing were vsed both, what doth that hinder but kneeling might be vsed also; As if in this present age, there be not standing, sitting, and kneeling vsed, yea in the same Church at the same time. Thirdly, next he goes about to prooue, that no gesture was vsed in the Church, from the middle of the second age, to each succeeding age before the yeere 1220 but standing onely, and so he comprehends aboue ten ages together, let vs see therefore what he produ­ceth. If (saith Pag. 78. he) kneeling had beene vsed all this while, in all likelihood some mention would haue beene made of it in the Church-writings. Answ. First, it is commended vnto vs in the Church-writings, as in due place I will will make appeare. Secondly, if it were not, you cannot reason a non scripto ad non factum, specially in mutuall gestures; nay you cannot reason negatiuely in a matter of fact from the story of Scripture it selfe; if you could, you might prooue the Iewes vsed no gesture at all in their Circumcision, and Passeover; for none is recor­ded vnto posterity. But what should I follow you in your dallying? Your selfe confesse that this reason is no more then a probability, and so kneeling might be v­sed in the Church notwithstanding. Againe he giues vs another reason, (pag. 83. &c.) which (as farre as I can see, for I confesse his proceeding and method is very confused) he afterwards brancheth into three argu­ments or considerations. Arg. 1. (saith Pag. 93. he) Standing was the gesture allowed, and vsed by the Church in all pub­lick prayers on every Sabbath throughout the yeere, and so at the consecration of holy mysteries, from Anno 150. till Anno 1220. therefore it was their gesture allowed at the receiving of them. Answer. Your consequence is vnsound, inas­much as one gesture may be vsed at consecration of my­steries, and another at the receiving of them. You see the example of so much at this day, and though it seeme [Page 383] some what harsh in your eare, that they should stand at praying, and kneele downe at receiving, yet if you con­sider those times well, you shall finde that Christians did thinke it highly needfull to worship, or adore at the Sa­crament, and you must not enquire what was fittest to be done, but what they did or might possibly do, ac­cording as the streame of their devotions and judge­ments did then carry them. Sure I am they allowed and vsed many things more vnreasonable, and improbable, then to kneele at the Sacrament, and stand at their pra­yers and blessings. But what if your conclusion be yeel­ded, what harme will follow? I graunt that standing was allowed in the act of receiving, I deny, that knee­ling was disallowed; for as for the custome of standing in some Churches vpon the Sabbaths at prayer, you know it was not, because kneeling might not be vsed at prayer, but standing was vsed onely in respect of the Sabbaoths, so that neither was kneeling condemned in it selfe on the Sabbaoths, nor at all condemned vpon the weeke dayes: yea, and vpon the Sabbaoths, that standing at the Altar, which is spoken, is meant of the Ministers rather then of the people, and the proofes which you bring speaking of standing at the Altar will avow no more. Nay lastly, your owne testimonies doe condemne you, many of which doe confesse, that stan­ding was in many Churches laid downe, and not vni­versally received in all places and times, neither may you say that the publick order and custome was for the most part otherwise, for perhaps the better sort stroue against that bond of standing, as you doe now against kneeling in this Church, and therein I doubt not but you would haue taken their parts, if with these resoluti­ons you had bin then a liuesman among thē. Mark now this argument of yours. It shewes not, that they con­condemned kneeling on the Sabbaoth, as being vn­sutable to the Sacrament, or prayer, but as they thought vnsutable to that day. It shewes not, they condemned [Page 384] kneeling at Sacrament any weeke dayes at all excepting the dayes of Pentecost. It shewes not that the people stood, but the Ministers onely at the Altar. In a word it shewes not, that the custome of standing was accepted without exception, but rather that it found from age to age, great, (and me thinks in your esteeme also commen­table) resistance. Arg. 3. Pag 97. is in effect the self same with this and therefore I need to giue it no other answer. Arg. 2. He reasoneth in Pag 94. this manner. If when Ho­norius made his decree for adoring the Sacrament, knee­ling were not in vse, then in all probability kneeling at the Communion was not received into practise, in any age prece­ding the dayes of Honorius: But when Honorius made his decree for adoring the Sacrament, kneeling was not in vse. Answer. The Assumption here is not current, for knee­ling might be used in the time of Honorius, notwithstan­ding his decree which might suppose it, and by the act of bowing divert, and direct it for a new adoring of the visible mysteries. So Honorius might mention bowing onely, because the same should plainly distinguish, and signifie adoration to be directed vnto the bread, and likewise increase the degree thereof; and he that obser­veth shall see, that both the cleerest evidence, and the highest degree & perfection of idolatrous grossnesse in the Popish gestures in their Sacrament at this day, is the sensible and expresse mooving or bowing of the body to the Wafer-cake made an Idol. And therefore it is a thing probable enough, that Honorius enjoyned incli­nation or bowing downe vnto them Neither hath Bishop Morton said any thing of this decreed [...] which may not stand [...] supposed. See Def. partic. ch 3. S. 21. He sayes ne more then that the [...] of the decree are onely for bowing the body and not kneeling: and so the Re­lier hath not outshot the Bishop, (as he saith) in his owne bow, but outgone him­selfe with precipitancy, making trusty inferences of these words which he but surmi­seth the meaning of, and vnderstandeth not. which kneeled already, and so kneeling was setled in the Church by tra­dition, before Honorius decree, and his decree doth part­ly direct for the certaine applying of worship vnto his [Page 385] new Idol of bread. (for if kneelers must bow to the bread, kneeling also would be carried to the bread vnder and with bowing, which demonstrates the object worshipped, as if one should point at it with the finger) and partly also adds vnto the degree of their a­doration, for who will not easily thinke that the highest degree, and not the least and lowest was intended by the will of Honorius. And indeed when else was knee­ling added to the Romish Bread-worship? Strange it were that none of the Historians, or Schoolemen, or Canonists mentioned how it came in the Sacra­ment, and by what authority through all Christen­dome, if it came into practise so lately: neither finde we that any Popes or Councels made any decree since Honorius to bring it into the Church: behold then how your Assumption is sick to death, except you can cure it by some infallible testimonies. But for your Propositi­on, that certainly is but a simple patch of your learning. If kneeling say you was not in vse, when Honorius made his decree, then in all probability it was not in vse in a­ny age proceding the dayes of Honorius: a pretty sen­tence, if kneeling was not in vse in Honorius time, then it was not in vse aboue a thousand yeeres before. Now I put vpon you to prooue this sequel if you can, that we may all wonder at your profoundnes. First, you say, Standing at all publick prayers and thanksgivings was yet in force. Answer. Thus you make all your three argu­ments to hang vpon one medium, and I haue given an­swer before. Secondly, say you, Shall we thinke that knee­ling found place in the purer times of the Church, and no grace in the corruptest age thereof. Answer. Shall we thinke, but you wanted a little depth? And why (I pray) should kneeling rather be in the corruptest times then the purest? I confesse kneeling to a false God finds best enterteinment in the corruptest times, (for that is it, whereby the times are corrupted) but knee­ling to God in his ordinance becomes the purest times [Page 386] of the Church: belike you thought your words would leaue an impression with men, which could not abide kneeling already, but it was not wisely disputed with your adversary, (Sir) who thinkes of kneeling as ho­nourable thoughts, as you doe of standing. But now the Reader hath seene the substance of all, which is said tending to prooue, that the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament was first brought in by Antichrist. Here I must giue the Reader to take notice of a matter or two. First I haue of purpose suppressed the mention of Eccle­siasticall testimonies in this place, (which I haue reser­ved to the last chapter if God permit) and onely answer vnto the force of such reasons, as the Disputer produ­ceth. Againe in all this sweating Disputer, you shall not finde one testimony, which is expresse for sitting in all this length of a thousand two hundred yeares, and more. Hereunto let be added, that if the auncient cu­stome of standing at prayers drew standing at Sacra­ment vpon the Sabbaoths with it, in some ages or pla­ces, yet that standing was not vsed because of Christs example, or that it was a Table-gesture, but as the Supper had a reason common with it to prayer, and so the Auncients setting these together in one ge­sture haue given us example to set them together in another.

Thirdly, if you will shew our kneeling to be de­vised Sect. 23 by Antichrist, then you must prooue that his kneeling and ours bee of the same nature. This it seemes you made no question of, or else you were to blame to passe it over in silence: but I will helpe you to consider the difference. First, Antichrists kneeling is directed vnto the bread, and so is an i­dolatrous kneeling. This application of kneeling I graunt was first devised by that man of sinne, and grew first from the persuasion of the reall presence, yea and the speciall point of time of the Popish kneeling, is [Page 387] when Honorius de­cree was of bo­wing at eleva­tion of the host and that was of bowing vn­to the host ele­vated, as the applying of kn. at the instant of elevation, to­gether with the doctrine and received pra­ctise of the Ro­mane Church thereupon doth evidently im­port. Oh but then (sayes the Replier) you confesse that bowing of the body before the bread lifted vp is to adore it. Repl. partic. ch. 3. sect. 21. Alas good man! we expound the decreevndoubt­edly by the do­ctrine of reall presence in the time of Honori­us, generall practise of Bread-worship thereupon re­ceived, and ap­plying of knee­ling to the act of elevation. I warrant you (Sir) there is no danger of concluding therefore that all bowing before the elements is adoring of them, you haue not outshot your adversary then, but out­runne good reason, and plaine dealing. the consecrated host is lifted vp, and it is a­gainst the rule in the Church of Rome for the people to worship any thing, that is not higher then themselues. What is this kneeling now vnto ours I pray, whereof the question is of the act of receiving, and not elevati­on? We worship onely the living God, and detest that abominable bread-worship perhaps as much as you doe. Can you make kneeling to God, and kneeling to an I­dol to be of like nature? This you cannot deny, that gestures and actions are principally distinguished by their objects and ends. Papists and we doe agree in the vse of all gestures of worship; but they apply the same to idolatrous vse, and we apply them to the service of the Lord in his owne worship. Wherefore there is as much difference betwixt our kneeling at Sacrament, and the Papists kneeling to their Breaden God, as is betwixt our kneeling in prayer, and their kneeling vnto Ima­ges. I would faine learne, how any people can be more contrary to Idolaters, or more just then to giue vnto God that which is Gods, when they had given it vnto the Divell. Loe here is a difference betwixt their kneeling and ours, wider then the heaven is from earth. Second­ly, let me presse you with your opinion of the Papists Sacrament of the Altar, for I am persuaded you are re­solved it is no Sacrament of Iesus Christ, why will you object vnto vs kneeling thereat, more then the knee­ling of any other Idolaters in false worship? Haue wick­ed Pagans abused kneeling a thousand wayes? Those we passe, and kneele vnto God notwithstanding with­out doubt; and why should this idolatrous kneeling of the Papists be more vnto vs then all they? Shew vs if you can out of Gods word, that this kneeling is liker out kneeling then the kneeling of all other Idolaters? For if their Sacrament be no Sacrament, if their Breaden God [Page 388] be an Idol to them, if their adoration be the worst idola­try that the world hath heard of, why should their a­bomination come nearer to our kneeling at the Lords table then the like committed by the brutish Pagans? Thirdly, our gesture which we vse is our owne, and the Papists never had the commaund thereof. To the pure, (saith the Apostle) all things are pure; we kneele not out of subjection to the will of Antichrist, but out of the allowance of Gods word: nay our kneeling at Sacra­ment vnto God alone is a confession against Antichrist and his idolatry. Fourthly, if our kneeling at Sacrament be the same of nature with the Popish, then is your sit­ting and standing, of the same nature with their sit­ting and standing. Behold the Pope himselfe sits at Sa­crament; the Priests doe stand at Sacrament, (and these are the principall Idolaters in the Bread worship) and therefore sitting and standing be in the same case with kneeling. Perhaps you will say, Kneeling was devised by the Papists, sitting and standing were not. Answer. So farre as he devised kneeling, (that is to worship an Idol) so farre he devised sitting, and standing; but as sitting or standing were or might be vsed in the Sacrament, be­fore the Breaden God was borne, lawfully, and accor­ding to Gods owne order; so kneeling was and might be so vsed also. Then the Papists at length, when Bread-worship came vp abused them altogether: and so how are they not every one of them in the same case? Thus I haue examined the first branch of your Assumption, and I doe not doubt but the Christian Reader will think all that you say too weake to prooue our kneeling at Sa­crament to be mans devise. Nay notwithstanding all that you say, the same may be Gods ordinance, practi­sed in the auncient Church, and quite of another na­ture from the Romish kneeling in their Breaden Idola­try. Now I passe to the second branch of your Assump­tion, that kneeling is notoriously knowne to haue been of old and still to be abused to Idolatry by the Pa­pists.

Of the second part of your Assumption, that kneeling at Sacrament is notoriously knowne to haue beene of old and still to be abused vnto Idolatry by the Papists.

THis part of your Assumption carries three errours Sect. 24 in it which I will remember you of, the one, that the kneeling of the Papists is kneeling at the Lords Sa­crament such as ours is; then that our kneeling, (as if every mans gestures were not his owne) hath beene a­bused to Idolatry by them; and lastly, (which is some­what more) that our kneeling is a conformity to them, and a monument of their idolatry, and this last you dare Perth. Ass p. 55. affirme plainly, that our kneeling is a confor­mity to the Papists, and a monument of Popish idola­try. Well thus you say, but how can you make it good? Truly I finde nothing materiall in any of your bookes, except I should referre hither all those scattered sayings of yours, whereby you linke vs with, and condemne vs by the idolatrous Papists.

First you say, Abridg. p. 62. Disp. pag. 108. at the same time in the same action, we vse the same outward gesture that the Papists doe. Answer. Our action is not the same. But what if all be true, which you say, your selues doe as much in all gestures as the Papists doe throughout all divine ordinances. You kneele, and they kneele; you stand, and they stand; you sit, and they sit. So you agree likewise with the wor­shippers of Baal, and all idolatrous Gentiles in standing, sitting, and kneeling: know ye not that the publick doctrine and worship, which any people imbraceth or professeth, distinguisheth publick gestures? Thus it is in all religions, thus it is in the true. Secondly, you Bradsh. arg. 2. say, It is an honour to Antichrist to leaue the practise of [Page 388] Reformed Churches and follow him. Answer. Reformed Churches are divers in outward orders, and gestures, and there is liberty so to be; reformation consisting not in leaving any gestures of Gods worship, but in re­ferring them to his glory, as they ought to be, and se­perating the abuses from them. Now is it no honour to Antichrist to vse the gesture which he vseth, wherein reformation stands not; for all gestures are common to all false, and idolatrous worship with the true worship of God: neither haue those Churches, who haue cast off the yoke of Antichrist made a reformation in the gesture of the Sacrament by taking kneeling away, but by taking abuses of kneeling away. As for kneeling it selfe, it is certaine they tooke that away onely to re­mooue scandall and danger in the first change, when they saw needfull to settle some one gesture among ma­ny. Furthermore, I must tell Mr. Bradshaw that his speech supposeth a grievous falshood, namely that we chose to kneele of purpose to side with Antichrist, and to differ from the reformed Churches, when there was as it were a competition, which of them should haue our compa­ny: for it is manifest [...]ough we did not refuse standing, or sitting, because other Churches vsed the same, nor againe did we kneele, because we honoured the Romish abon ination; but vpon other reasons looking vpon neither of both. You would make the world belieue, that in setting before vs these two divers parternes, we stroue rather to be conformable to the Romish; where­in to blessed King Edward 6. with many Martyrs, and worthies of his time, besides the state in the beginning of blessed Queene Elizabeths Raigne, (not to speake of more) you doe manifest wrong, who studied to provide, and appoint what gesture they could judge the fittest in their times, as became so wise governours; having their eye rather vpon the state of their Citizens, and dome­sticks, then beyond Seas either vpon Rome or Geneva: and howsoever, the conformity now of singular persons [Page 389] is to the Church of England it selfe alone. Thirdly, you Manuscr. disp. 105. Survey p. 73. 80. say, It is notoriously knowne, that this gesture of knee­ling was borrowed from them, and was enioyned for their sakes in King Edwards time. Answer. That it was not conti­nued from them is evident by this that there was in the beginning of King Edwards Raigne a certaine space graunted of liberty; and truly herein was the provi­dence of God declared, that the kneeling of former daies was not continued but intermitted for a time; and o­ther borrowing of kneeling to God in this holy Sacra­ment could be none, for they had none such to lend vs. Againe where you say, that kneeling was brought into this Church for their sakes, it is true no otherwise but according to the Apostles practise, who became all things to all men, (Iewes, Pagan Idolatours, and the weake) that he might, (if it were possible) persuade and saue them, but by no meanes for any honourable res­pect to their Bread-worship, against which some of the first enjoyners of kneeling confessed in the flames of devouring fire. Also to this objection I haue answe­red more largely otherwhere.

Fourthly, you say, Kneeling is a note of Antichrist. Answer. As washing was a note of the Iewish Church to distinguish it from Christ and his Apostles. It were wonderfull strange if the true Church could be di­stinguished from the false by bodily gestures, which are common vnto both. Verily if our kneeling to God be a note of the Church of Rome, I will begin a new Ca­techisme. Indeed kneeling to the bread-made-god is a note of a Papist, and the bread-made-god is a note of An­tichrist, and kneeling to God alone in his owne ordi­nance is a note of a true worshipper, but kneeling sim­ply is a note of neither one nor other. Hither may be referred that you say, that Disp pag. 110, 111. the kneeling of Papists and Lutherans witnesse their faith. Answer. As if every spe­ciall gesture in divine worship did not as much: and your mentioning of the Lutherans spoiles all; you may [Page 390] adde the Church of England vnto them; for all these witnesse divers faithe by kneeling at Sacrament. That is to say, there are divers a [...] he publick [...] knowne and be­lieued, and then each sort of people referre, and apply kneeling accordingly.

Fifthly, you Disp. pag. 104 107. say, Kneeling hath an vnmooueable a­buse sticking to it, whereof it cannot be purged: as, first, i t can never be purged from being a will-worship, being so lately brought into Gods service by Antichrist, without all war­rant of the word. Answer. All this is begged, and I haue refu [...]ed abundantly in this Treatise. Secondly, It can ne­ver be purged from being a gesture devised by Antichrist; all preaching to the contrary will never prooue it to haue any other author. Answer. This is but your confidence; for all your disputing hath not yet prooved the gesture to haue no other author, then Antichrist. Then if Anti­christ first vsed the gesture of kneeling to his Sacrament, before the orthodox Church vsed it at the Lords table, all your disputing cannot prooue, that he is the authour of kneeling to God in his owne ordinance therefore: feed vs not with the wind of your words, but giue vs reasons and proofes that are convincing, or else be in­treated to hold your peace. Thirdly, It can never be pur­ged from being an idolatrous gesture in that actions, [...] the members of Antichrist, therefore we must not vse it, for we are forbidden to walke in the ordinances of Idolaters, and to doe so to the Lord as they doe to their Idols. Answer. Ido­laters bow downe to their Idols, must not we therefore bow downe to the Lord? See you not that gestures are not, cannot be forbidden, which are common to Ido­laters and true worshippers. Wherefore it appeares not that there is any suc [...] immooveable abuse sticking vnto the gesture as the Disputer imagineth, nay he Disp pag. 101 con­fesseth, that if the originall were good, that is, if it had the warrant of the word at first it may be purged by re­ducing it to his originall. Sixthly, you Dialogue be­ [...]vixt old Pro­testant, & new formalist, pag. 17, 18, 19, 20. Disput, 100. say, that knee­ling i [...] defended by Popish arguments. Answer. Some of [Page 391] the arguments which you make your new formalist to vse are none of your arguments, and indeed the rest of them are not full arguments at all, but considerations that are on our side pertinent to the controversie; but if there be any thing, which we obserue out of Gods word, taken vp by the Papists, what great fault can you finde with vs? Know you not that Papists haue done the truth that wrong in some degree in all their damna­ble heresies? But the truth is, if the Papists say any thing to prooue that sitting or standing are not necessary, so it is, assure your selfe, that which they say to prooue a­doration of the Breaden God lawfull, we make none of our arguments. Seventhly, you Abridg p. 3 [...]. say, That kneeling is an evident signe of Bread-worship in the iudgement of the ve­ry Papists: for their conceit of Transubstantiation by their practise of kneeling. Answer. Doe they speake of kneeling to the Sacrament, or to God in heaven? If they speak of kneeling to God, and from thence doe prooue Tran­substantiation, they were quite besides themselues; but if they speake (as they did) of kneeling to the Sacra­ment, they might say so more tolerably, though they concluded not effectually; for they might as well prooue their images to be transubstantiated, but what is that to vs, who doe abhorr [...] kneeling vnto the Sacra­mentall elements: you see their reasoning touches vs not, their authority doth touch vs as little. You adde that Bellarmine sayes, he marvailes not that the Calvi­nists adore not the Sacrament, because they beleeue not that Christ is really present. Answer. And doth not Bellarmine speake for vs in these words, as well as for a­ny other, whom he calls Sacramentaries, and Calvinists, who adore the Sacrament no more then they doe? Alas what [...]eeble concei [...]s be these of yours to condemne vs withall? But you must marke here that if Bellarmine and his followers did reason contrary to vs in this thing, then it followeth that Popish arguments, which you objected before are not our supporters, neither serue our [Page 392] turne for de [...]ence of [...]ur kneeling. Thus I haue gathe­red together such scartered objections, as I finde in your bookes, and are [...]th [...]r to be referred, if they be of vse a­ny where, and haue likewise given reasonable answer vnto them. Now therefore the second part of your As­sumption is v [...]terly false, if it be taken according to the necessary sense of your Proposition whereon it depen­deth; for the Papists h [...]ue not abused kneeling at the Lords Supper: againe, they haue not abused our knee, ling: and lastly, kneeling to God Almighty is no ho­nour to their wa [...]er-idolatry, but rather a disgrace and condemnation thereof, as that which is contrary.

Whereas you amplisie this second part of your As­sumption by telling vs, Abridg. p 31. That there is no action in all Antichrists service, so idolatrous a [...] their kneeling at Sacra­ment: But Survey p. 182. this of all Popish rites is most idolatrous, and so Abridg p. 31. no action in Popery can be termed so prop [...]ly Popish and Antichristian as this, and Survey p. 177 that [in This cause makes your as­sertion false, al­so implies con­trad [...]ction (in it selfe) say you, (in respect of Transubstan­tiation) such a speach haue the S [...]otchmen, Pert [...] Ass pag. 55. who affirme, that it is vnlawfull to conforme with the Papists in the act of knee­ling, wherein the life and soule of their idolatry standeth. Then it followeth, that forasmuch as we conforme not with them further then in the bare act, abhorring their idolatry, that wheresoever kneeling is, there is the life and soule of Popish idolatry: Zeale makes you speake sometimes great mysteries, it selfe] it was and is the principall part of Popish idolatry in regard of Transub­stantiation. And moreover, (i) That it is daily vsed by them [in that idolatrous manner] To what purpose serues it I pray? For if our gesture at the Lords table was never a­bused by the Papists at all, haue no spirituall acquain­tance, or kinred with their kneeling at all, serues not to honour their damnable idol at all, what is the matter how frequent, and how vile is their idolatry? First you must giue your accusation a ground-worke, before you must set it out with amplification. That is the worke of Logick, and this of Rhetorick, except you would haue Rhe [...]orick without reason.

Of the third branch of your Assumption, whe­ther kneeling at Sacrament be now of necessary vse in the Church?

TO this last point you speake not any thing, but Sect. 29 onely affirme, that among other ceremonies, kneeling at Sacrament might well be spared, A­bridg. 27. But what a negligent and perfunctory proo­ving is this? Thinke you that you haue said enough to settle a mans conscience? Verily you doe wrong vnto the people of God to abuse them with such weake and slender st [...]ff, that cannot possibly ab [...]de triall, without discovering it selfe. I will giue you three things to con­sider. First, that what you say against kneeling at Sa­crament may as well be said against standing or sitting, which may be also spared in the Church of God. It were ridiculous here to say that sitting or standing are lawfull by Gods word, and so is not kneeling; for besides that it is a begged falshood, it is an vtter relinquishing of the present purpose, which onely concerneth the necessary vse of gestures, and behold you cannot deny, but stan­ding may be spared, sitting may be spared, and for com­pany in that sense I will not deny but kneeling may be spared also.

Secondly, kneeling at Sacrament is necessary as much as our Churches, Bells, Ropes, Ringing, Fontes, Seates, Pulpits, Tables, Table-cloths, Chalices, &c. which you doe Demaund. p. 28, 29. allow notwithstanding they haue beene de­filed vnto idolatry, yet these are not absolutely necessa­ry: for if such or such Churches were b [...]aten downe, as haue beene abused to idolatry, (as the Christians here in England at their conversion served the heathenish Temples. Mr. Fox Martyrol. pag. 96.) and others built in their stead, the Church I warrant you would not [Page 394] want the same; but you allow these things, because partly they be absolutely necessary in their kinde, and partly the particular things themselues be respectiuely necessary, namely, orderly, comely, and commodious to Gods worship. Thus kneeling is necessary inas­much as gesture is necessary in it its kind: yea even knee­ling is a gesture that is orderly, comely, & commodious in the Lords Supper, (which I haue made plaine in this Treatise already where your contrary reasoning gaue me occasion.) Thirdly, as kneeling in respect of its na­ture hath a necessary vse in the Sacrament, so it is neces­sary to singular persons in this Church by the comman­dement of superiours. Is it necessary to preserue the li­berties of your Ministeries? Then kneeling at Sacra­ment is necessary, for resistance whereof the said liberty is restreined vnto you. Againe is it necessary to receiue the Sacrament, and feed vpon the body and blood of our Lord Iesus? then kneeling is necessary, without which that Communion with the Church is denied vn­to you. You grant meates sacrificed vnto idols might be eaten, because they served for the private vse of mans life, (Demaunds. pag. 20.) And shall not the food of our soules be broken, (in the ministery of the word) and received, (in the Lords Supper) when the same hath ne­ver beene sacrificed to idols; but onely the naturall ge­sture, (which serues for private vse of mans life, and publick vse of Gods worship both) hath beene (as it were) sacrificed to idols, and yet not the selfe same nu­mericall gesture (as the Idols things were the selfe same) neither. So that if kneeling may be spared in other re­spects, yet forasmuch as Popish pollution is but acci­dentall vnto it, and that it is no sinne formally, as blas­phemy, witchcraft, lying, &c. behold as the case stands (brethren) it cannot [...]e spared, because the word and Sacrament cannot be spared. Iadde that the peace of the Church cannot be spared, and your resistance is against the peace. Your contentions may be spared, your idle [Page 395] argu [...]ents against k [...]e lin [...] [...]ay be spared, b [...]t the p [...]a [...]e of the Church [...]s n [...]c [...]ss [...]ry [...]nd c [...]ot be spared, but with the griefe o [...] all good h [...]arts, yea and the griefe of Gods [...]ne Spirit, who is the author and wor­ker of peace in all the Churches of the Saints. The Lord make you willing to admit into your mindes the consi­deration of these things, and verily I doe not doubt, but the wise and humble sort of you will so doe, and re­ceiue some fruit not to be despised, as for the rest who haue of [...] in their Some of them haue reproach­ed me, that I haue pleaded for Ba [...]l: I hope this answer wil be my desence, [...]ay I haue plea­ded against Baal, onely I haue resigned vnto God his gesture of wor­ship, which hee authorizeth, al­though defiled by Baal, as Gi­deon did wood, and offering. mouthes, A Popish Relique, an idola­tro [...] Relique, and such like grievous invectives, I thinke they had more need to looke at, and cry out against the reliques of old Adam within themselues, which are Pride and Ignorance. And thus I haue answered all the parts of your Assumption. In all which together I would re­quest the Christian Reader specially to apply and consi­der all gestures which are vsed both in all parts of divine worship, and in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Standing, sitting, and kneeling in prayer, &c. and stan­ding, sitting, and kneeling in the Communion, for as it is true, that they be Gods ordinances, and of necessa­ry vse in the Church: so they haue polluted of old, and are polluted at this day, all and every one of them vnto vi [...]e idolatry of the P [...]pists. Thus by Gods gracious goodnesse I haue answered your argument against kneeling at Sacrament taken from pollution of the Pa­pists, and so haue answered all your arguments tending to prooue that kneeling, which is at this day vsed at Sa­crament is impie [...]y.

An Appendice to the former Answer.

GIue me leaue to alter the subject of your Assump­tion, and in stead of kneeling at Sacrament, insert tithes impropriate in this manner.

But Tit [...]es impropriate are devised by man, are notori­ous [...]y [Page 396] knowne to haue beene of old, and still to be abused to idolatry by the Papists, and are now of no necessary vse in the Church.

Is this a true Assumption or is it no [...]? If it be true, that Tithes be man [...] devise now in the time of the Gos­pell, are notoriously knowne to haue beene of old, and still to be abused to idolatry of the Papists, and are of no necessary vse in the Church, (which last your action a­voweth in allowing, possessing, and vsing impropriati­ons) then let them be ashamed, which can be content to hold Church-livings in their private clutches, and yet forsooth cannot finde in their hearts to kneele at Sacra­ment. But if the Assumption be false, (as it is setting a­side your owne opinion and practise, and manner of reasoning) namely tythes are not devised by man, our tythes haue not beene idolatrously abused by the Pa­pists, and they are also of necessary vse in the Church at this time; then let them be more ashamed to depriue the Church of her due, and yet make scruple of knee­ling at Sacrament. This is an act of Pharisai [...]ll hypo­crisie, streining at a g [...]at, and swallowing a Camell. A­las, (good brethren, and sisters) which of you is affraid either of polluting your hands with idolatrous tythes, crying, away from me, get you hence, or of de [...]eining the lawfull and needfull tythes from the Churches of Christ, whose they are, and which doe suffer grievous things in the want of them. The Lord amend you.

Of Scandall.

FIrst, then we may not doe (you say) indifferent things, when we cannot doe them without s [...]andall. To this purpose Manuser. ch. 1. a [...]g. 5. Abridg p. 45 Demaund pag. 53, 58. you cite, Rom. 14. 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21. chap. 15. 1, 3. 1 Cor. 8. 7. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. chap. 10. 23, 28, 32. Matth. 18. 10. Ezek. 13. 22. Abridg. p. 1 [...]. chap. 16. 54. And you assume, That kneeling at Sacrament cannot be vsed without scandall. Answer. That I may cleere these Scriptures according to the just, and necssary mea­ning of them, I must distinguish. Scandall is either a­ctiue or passiue, that which is given, or that which is ta­ken; all scandal is not condemned in him, that vseth indifferent things, but that onely, wherein he becomes a willing offender, by the evidence of manifest circum­stances: and I will giue you this matter in foure parti­cular considerations.

First, all the Scriptures which you quote condem­ning the scandalizing of others in things indifferent, speake onely of scandalizing them which are weake, in Rom. 14. This appea [...]ech by verse 1. Him that is weake in saith recei [...]e you: and by chap. 15. 1. We then that are [Page 398] str [...]ng ought to [...]eare the infirmities of the weake. In 1 Cor. 8. it is expresse in this manner. Their conscience b [...]ing weake is de [...]iled, verse 7. Take [...]e [...]d your liberty become not a stumbling block to them that are weake [...] verse 9. If any man see thee which hast knowledge [...]it at meate in the Idols Temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weake to be emb [...]ldened to eate: verse 10. And through thy know­ledge shall the weake brother perish: verse [...]. But when y [...] sin so against the brethren, and wound ther weake conscience, ye sin against Christ: verse 12. In 1 Cor. 10. 23, 28, 32. the same matter is handled, of not offending another mans conscience, which is weake, by eating meate offe­r [...]d in sacrifice vnto Idols. In Mat. 18. our Saviour speaks onely, and purposely of his little ones: (As for Ezek. 13. 22. and chap. 16. 54. you quite outrunne your matter, when you made them your proofes, which complaine of wicked men onely for offending others by their ly­ing divinations, and detestable whoredomes: we are now vpon indifferent, and not wicked things, if you doe remember:) well the Scripture condemne▪ scandall of the weake, but who are they? They are such as are weake in knowledge and certainty of the truth; for if they be full of knowledge, and stablished in religion, they are not weake ones, as your quotations doe meane. For in the want of setled knowledge, it comes to passe, that they be so easily apt to take offence at lawfull acti­ons, and change their opinions and resolutions so so­dainly; and this is an evident case. And this their week­nesse further implyeth two thing [...]. First, willingnesse to be instructed in the good way. They which are so flexible, that the beholding of an example can make an impression, and change vpon them, will much more be contented to harken to sound reasons, and be over­ruled by them. But such as are wilfull and perverse, ei­ther in ill opinion or practise, with an avowed confi­dence against all the world, are by no meanes to be ta­ken in the phraze of Scripture for the weake, or little [Page 399] ones of Christ. Secondly, want of meanes of through­instruction in the good way; for so when any people haue beene throughly taught the truth by preaching, conference, or otherwise, they are not to be esteemed for weake, whom we should feare to offend by example; nay rather we be bound to confesse against their errour by practise before their eyes, which by plentifull rea­son we haue refuted to their hearing. But the Replier Repl. gen ch. 5. [...]g. 77. sayes, That Paul after sufficient information of the do­ctrine of Christian liberty, yet absteined, and so counselled o­thers for feare of scandell. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 9. Answer. It is false that Paul had throughly informed those parti­cular weake ones for whose sake he did, and counselled others to abstaine, or any body else for him. As for his Epistles, he wrote them for the Churches direction, when they had to doe with such weake ones, not that these (newly converted to the saith) could receiue all the doctrines of them at once. For their sakes therefore, [...]bearance was to be vsed for the present time, but not so for men of auncient profession, for whose instructi­on, or leaving inexcusable, the common teaching of the Church should suffice; for so Paul himselfe, and o­ther Apostles and Christians, feared not to And thus the Abridgement teacheth, p. 48. offend the I [...]wes about Circumcision, and other Iewish Ce­remonies, when they had publickly declared, and shew­ed out of the word of God the doctrine of their rem [...] ­vall by Christ [...] death. And truly if meanes of informa­tion suffice not to take scandall away in respect of such, there is a licence given to private persons vpon pre­tence of taking offence to keepe off for ever all Ecclesia­sticall orders, without which yet no Church can be e­stablished vpon earth.

But sayes the Ibidem. Replyer, N [...] c [...]n set a certaine time, wherein others can be sufficiently taught. Answer. Wisdome [...]ay judge this by the consideration of the go [...]dnesse of meanes, and willingnesse to receiue the truth without prejudice, and how can it else be in publicke pr [...]ceed­ings? [Page 400] How else will you judge of, and deale with [...] in your Presbyteri [...]s in question for error; I pray you be not wilfull Mr. Replyer, the Truth doth not rest vpon your shoulders. But our brethren say further, That was must not offend them, which are strong, [...] well as not the weake. I answer, that such as are strong, will not b [...]of­fended at the vse of indifferent things, and therefore that exception might haue bin spared in this controver­sie. It is mens weaknes and want of strength, that they take offence at that, which is lawfully done of other [...] But you also adde, we must not scandaliz [...] [...]he wicked in things indifferent, whether prophan [...], or superstitio [...]. Ans. There is not any word of God, requiting vs to avoy d [...] the offence of such men [...] such things. For since wee must no [...] care to offend them in the substantialls of di­vine worship, shall wee be tyed to their mindes for the manner of administration, and outward ordering? would you haue thi [...] to be the Churches rule, for appointing the circumstances of Gods worship? Nay, is there not e­vident word of God to the contrary, which the Abridge­ment [...]so declareth in this Abridg. p. 48. manner. The Apostles did never s [...]ke to winn [...] the Gentles by vsing Ceremoni [...]s, which would [...] them, neither would they vse th [...] Cere [...]yes of Moses to please the Iewes, when they had sh [...]ed [...] to be obstinate. Yea our Saviour hath taught vs in this case by his owne example (very many times) to make light account of alienating the minds of such persons. And thus much in the first place, for explication of the Scripture, for avoyding of scandall in things indiffe­rent, taken from the the persons offended, and and o­ther explication I shall further adde in the particulars following.

Secondly, all Scriptures which you quote, condem [...] onely the scandall of the weake, which is made at tha [...] time, when we know they will be scandalized, in Rom. 14. and Mat. 18. We are forbidden to despise our weake [...]; where our Saviour and the Apostles shew, that [Page 401] we must know the weak to be such, yea and plainly see, how they will stumble, or else we cannot be said to set at naught, or despise them: And in 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle speakes in like manner; but in 1 Cor. 10. hee declareth this point more expresly, saying, Whatsoever is set before you eate, asking no question for conscience-sake, but if any man say vnto you, this is offered in sacrifice vnto Idols, eate not for his sake that she [...]ed it: vers. 27, 28. where the knowledge of scandall is said to arise out of the infor­mation and admonition of the weake themselues. But what doe I stand vpon this: the Authour of the Manu­script delivereth the Proposition in these termes: Wee are forbidden to [...] an indifferent thing, when we know we cannot doe it without scandall. And the Abridgement in like manner. No such Ecclesiasticall orders should be or­deined or used as are knowne to cause offence, and hinderanc [...] to edification. Indeed if this caution were not necessary, no man could vse his liberty before others at all, when (some or other) might take offence, though himselfe knew not so much.

Thirdly, all the Scriptures which you quote condem­nne onely that offence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him, who is at liberty, and not bound. They speake not of the case (of our Church) of vsing, or refusing those things, as men are tyed by the com­mandement of authority, but as they are free in them­selues to doe what they will. This you cannot but see. We must not please our selues saith the Apostle, but our neighbours for their edification. Rom. 15. 1, 2. But what is this I pray to those things which are done, not for pleasing of our selues, but to obey the Magistrate by Gods owne appointment? I will giue you two equall considerations, to make this more evident: first, except authority ought to be obeyed in things indifferent not­withstanding that some take offence thereat sometimes, cannot possibly stand. There is no action publikely done, but some among many will be sure to mistake, [Page 402] and stumble at it. Must not a servant or child doe a bu­sinesse (though otherwise indifferent) at the comman­dement of Master or Father, if others will be [...]ff [...]nded thereby? Shall a souldier for the offence of his [...]ellowes lawfully presume to breake the commandement of his Generall in a thing indiff [...]rent? Shall the lawes of Ci­ties, and Corporations, of Mannours, and Tow [...]es, of Statutes, and Kingdomes passe vpon the condition of mens not taking offence at them? Then not onely e­very man that will pretend scruple may deny obedience, but also all others must decline obedience for satisfacti­on of the disobedient. And it is to be observed, that a thousand commandements of Common-wealths, fami­lies, and other societies, doe stand vpon things indiffe­rent; indiff [...]rent I say for the singular accommodation of them, though necessary in their genus, and species. Ve­rily, in the Church, the mischie [...]e is greater, then in all other societies. Is it possible to establish a Church with­out some constitutions, & orders of things indifferent? Is it probable, among infinite millions of that people, of divers humors, & dispositions, none should be offended at such constitutions, & orders? Shall an wholesome Ec­clesiastical law be alwaies revoked vpon information, & complaint that some be scandalized? Then belike for times, places, gestures, &c. of Gods publick worshp, eve­ry man must be left at his owne liberty, and this will bring the Church to a speedy confusiō without remedy.

Secondly, obedience to the Magistrate in a thing in­different is a greater duet [...], then pleasing of a private person in such a thing. The case is equall in this, that the comparison stands in that which is indifferent, and as in such a thing God commands me not to offend my brother: so in such he commands me not to disobey the Magistrate; but how must not you needs grant, in many respects, that obedience to the Magistrate farre ex­ceeds the satisfaction of some scrupulous persons? First, if you compare the person of the Magistrate with pri­vate [Page 403] person, you know the Magistrate farre excelleth. Secondly, you know the content of some private per­sons cannot equall or answere vnto a law of generall The Replier sayes, Repl. gen. ch [...]p 5 pag. 76. Superiours haue no power given them for destru­ction, but for [...]e­dification. True Sir, and that is the purpo [...]e of all lawful com­mandements, which we speak of therefore, how [...]dle are you to take it, as if we would or need affirme that their end is or may be to command scan­dalls. edification, or fitnesse. Thirdly, whereas the Magi­strate commands before the scandall ariseth; equity re­quires, that a lawfull commandement be not disanulled for that, by which it could not be prevented, the same positiue reason of it re [...]aining. Fitter it seemes to be, that the scandall, which was vncertaine, and comes, and goes like tempests in navigation, should be appea [...]ed ra­ther then the commandement should bee abolished. Fourthly, the M [...]gistrates commandement is iust with­out the exception of the weake, the weakes exception is vniust whether with or without the Magistrates com­mandement; now I am a subject enquiring what I must doe? I consider, that the commandement is just and lawfull in its owne nature, and what? Shall I then re­fuse obedience to that which is lawfull, for surmises (of certaine men) which are vnrighteous, and vnlawfull? Shall the beauty (which is [...] thing indifferent) of an ho­nest woman be defaced, and not rather the evill eye plucked out that is scandalized at the beholding of it? Fifthly, the weake who are offended at a thing indiffe­rent commanded by the Magistrates authority are there­in bound to obey the Magistrate also themselues. What thinke you now? Must not I obey that which is com­manded, (I meane actiuely) because another thinks he may not, who should. Sh [...]ll I be bound rather to doe, as he doth, (who ought not to doe so) then to doe that, which both of vs, ought to doe for conscience toge­ther? What conscience is there in this? Sure if taking offence set a man at liberty, and acquitted him from the sinne of disobedience, (a toto) then it were more likely a great deale; but now that that the weake himselfe of­fendeth against God, by being offended against a law­full command of the Magistrate, there is small reason, that I should make my selfe a voluntary partaker. Sixth­ly, [Page 404] and lastly, the effect of scandall of private persons in a thing indifferent is nothing so great, as the effect of disobedience to the law and Magistrate, as experience of all times declareth. And all these considerations doe plainly shew that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent is a greater duty, then the contenting of a private person; especially, if it be added, that a Chri­stian Magistrate vnderstanding himselfe, doth not one­ly impose things to be done, but provide that the law­fulnesse thereof be shewed, that so convenient me [...]nes of instruction being had, no scandall may rise at all, (I say not from the people, whose obedience giues none howsoever, but) even from himselfe, but what is taken, and not given.

But you obiect, first, Mr. Brad. at arg. 12. That the greatest good cannot countervaile the least evill. Answer. You doe mistake your selues in comparing, why doe you set sinne against duty, and not rather sinne, against sinne, duty, against duty. I may as well request, that because (as you say) the greatest good cannot countervaile the least evill, therefore I must not disobey the Magistrates command in the least measure, for pleasing my neighbour in the greatest. You ought to compare the evill of scandall, with the evill of disobedience, and then you wou [...]d doe well. Besides your assertion is vtterly false; for I pray, must not I professe the truth, and performe the severall duties thereunto belonging, because I am sure, (by Scripture, by mans nature, by experience, by presump­tions, and signes already manifested) that some will hate, some will deride, some otherwise persecute me therefore? Every man must doe the duty of his place, though (as Mr. Br. contradicting himselfe affirmeth) the world goe to wreck for it. Secondly, you say, Ibid. You contemne not the Magistrates authority; but meekely submit your selues to his mercy, that you might performe an office of lo [...]e to your brothers soule. Answer. This is as much as if the child should say, he contemnes not the lawfull [Page 405] commandement of his father; but submits himselfe to his mercy; for the loue of his brothers or sisters soule, who would be offended at him, if he did perform it. It is strange also, you could not see, that we may say as much by interchanging the persons. For, for conscience of o­bey [...]g the Magistrate, (according to Gods commande­ment) I contemne not the we [...]ke brother, God for­bid) but pray for him, inst [...]u [...] him, exhort him, and what else I can doe to keepe him from stumbling at my lawfull obedience. Oh, but sayes the Replier, (Repl. gen. ch. 5. pag. 76) May saperiours appoint, how farre I shall shew my charity towards my brothers soule? Ans. They may not m [...]ke a commandement to restreine necessary charity, yet in things indifferent, they may appoint charity to giue place to p [...]ety; or in that which tends to common edification, they may command, though scandalls arise, and we are bound rather to be obedient, then charitable, as I shewed before: what need we say more to this profound man, whose best proofe is a silly asking, for when we lo [...]ke for proofe, we finde none. Thirdly, you say, Ibid. also Manusccr. ch. 1 arg. 2. A thing is not indifferent, but evill, when it causeth scandall. The Apostle sayes it is sinne, it is e­vill to [...]ate with offence, and can any humane authority war­rant a man to doe that which is evill? Is it not at all times, and in all places, better to obey God then man? Answer. Here you present vs with a service of great learning, and skill, by this last passage you would make vs belieue, that by pleasing our neighbour we obey God, but not by obeying the lawfull command of the Magistrate. To the obiection it selfe I retort in this manner: a thing is not indifferent: but a necessary duty, (according to the relation wee stand in) when it is imposed by the com­mandement of a lawfull Magistrate. The Apostle sayes, it is sin, it is evill not to be subject vnto such a one, who is sent of God: and can any private persons warrant a man to doe that which is evill? Alas brethren! who cannot see, that sees but with halfe an eye, that when an [Page 406] an indifferent thing is scandalous, (that otherwise is lawfull) that is, is scandalous, not ex natura sua [...], but onely by accident, it cannot be thereby made vnlawfull, when there is a superiour reason, The practise of the Apostles, and other Saints of God in Scripture doe eve­ry where make this good, neither will any reasonable man deny this, except, such a one, whose eye of reason, affection and parti [...]lity haue put out. In this objection therefore you doe abuse vs by the outward barke or pill of words, and names without substance. Fourthly, you Manuscrip. and Mr. Br. as before. say, The Apostle giues this reason against the vse of a thing indifferent in the case of [...]ffence, that thereby, wee shall destroy our brothers soule, and cause him to perish, shall wee then doe that at the command of an earthly power, which shall procure the damnation of our brothers soule? Nay rather w [...]ght to s [...]ffer our liues to bee taken from vs. Answer. What meane you by destroying our brothers soule? What? Actually to plunge it into hell, fire? Then i [...] would follow, that a brothers soule may be indeed de­stroyed; yea that a thing indifferent can set the same into the state of damnation. Nay but also he destroyeth his brothers soule, that makes him to commit any man­ner of sinne, tending (as every sinne tendeth in its na­ture) vnto destruction. For, is it to be thought that all offences which the Apostle condemneth w [...]re [...]ffectu­ally damning I pray? Nay there is no doubt, but if a weake Christian were made to stumble but an houre, were induced to thinke but an vngodly thought, were provoked but to surmise, and suspect an evill surmising, though it sodainly vanished againe: such a scandall is al­so meant by the Apostle to destroy his soule and cause it to perish? for so it is evident that he speakes of every scandall, whereby a brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weake, (Rom. 14. 21.) whether it be more, or lesse, continue a longer or shorter space of time. This obiection therefore is answered in the answer which is made to the former. But the Replyer is not contented [Page 407] with reason. A Scandall (saith he, p. gen. ch. 5. pag. 67.) in the nature of it, is spirituall murder; now suppose a supe­riour should command a thing in it selfe indifferent, where­upon murder were like to follow, as to runne an horse, or a cart, when and where little children were playing, (though vnwitting to him) would any [...]ans conscience serue him to doe it. Answer. I thinke not, except his conscience were feared with an hot iron, and his heart harder then the nether millstone, but what meanes this man to make the case equall betwixt wilfulll murder, and scan­dall taken of a thing indifferent? He should put case of a man, not a child, out of misconstruction of some­thing indifferent done at the Magistrates commande­ment, hurting himselfe, not hurt by another, as he im­pertinently propoundeth. His vnderstanding was sure a sleep, when he penned this comparison: for scandall ta­ken vnjustly is a murdering of ones selfe, another is not to be blam [...]d therefore, who doth but the duty of his calling, and place. Indeed scandall given may be cal­led murder of anothers soule, as when a man runnes an other through with a rapier, or rides his horse over little children to kill them. Againe, you goe about to darken the truth with your [...]ermes, for albeit scandall may be referred to the sixth commandement, and so is murder, yet there is great difference in killing a man out, and offending the minde but in some certaine de­gree. If a man be but provoked to sinfull anger, there is murder committed against his soule, will you say then that the Magistrates commandement must not be obey­ed in things indifferen [...], if any man be but angry? (now all such anger would be sinfull, because the things themselues might be lawfully done) yet you cannot deny but by opposing the gesture of kneeling at Sacra­ment your selues provoke many vnto anger: (now you will say, that such anger is without cause, that is, is vn­just anger) then behold you are also murderers of their soules, for angring another is spirituall murder, and that [Page 408] also is yet worse in you, because therein you doe op­pose also the commandement of the Magistrate in a word, was ever indifferent thi [...] appointed in publick, thinke you, but (according to your speaking) some were murdered thereby? Therefore, if you meant sim­ply, you did simply to put no difference betwixt the needl [...]sse, and vncurable destruction of the person, and such infirmities, which are vnavoidable, and remedia­ble. This my answer therefore would perhaps be yours, if the Magistrate commanded sitting at Sacrament, for would not many be scandalized, and provoked to sinne thereby? Who can doubt of that? But first you would say, they stumbled against a lawfull course, and hurt themselues perhap [...] against admonition, and informati­on too. Secondly, no order can be appointed but such murders will follow through the co [...]ruption of mens hearts. Thirdly, those wounds and hurts are curable by the balme of Gods word, which must accordingly be applied. I adde that the offence of some in our case is set against a generall benefit, and better it is, that one, or some be in danger, then a mischiefe brought into the whole Church, nay vt pere at vnus, quàm vnit as. Finally, it is too childish, that you are crying out so mu [...]h of [Damnation] and [Murder] of anothers soule, as if the words [Damnation] and [Murder] without the true in­terpretation thereof would beat all downe before them. But I beseech you heare, and marke the Apostles owne counterpo [...]se, Rom. 13. 2. They which resist the higher powers, shall receiue to themselues damnation, and in all the Scriptures, which you quote, as I said, the Apo­stle speakee against those scandalls onely, which arise from the vse of indifferent things, when they are in our owne liberty, and not commanded by the authority of the Magistrate. And so much of this point.

Fourthly, all the Scriptures which you quote con­demning Scandall, must needes especially cond [...]mne that which is So Abridgm. teacheth, pag. 48▪ greatest. Peter and his companions [Page 409] comming to Antioch were in danger of a double scan­dall, either of the Iewes by eating with the Gentiles, (which was the lesse) or of the Gentiles, in refusing their company as if they had not beene brethren (which was far [...]e the greater) now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for avoiding of the lesser scandal, he and his com­panions fell into the greater, Gal. 2 12. and I thinke all men are of this mind, that when because of things in­different, divers scandalls doe offer themselues, the greatest is to be eschewed notwithstanding others doe happen, and not the lesse without respect of the grea­test; except it were good divinity, that men might streine at a little Gnat, and swallow downe a great Ca­mell. I hope therefore I shall need to inlarge no fur­ther in this point.

Of the Assumption, that kneeling at Sa­crament is scandalous.

BVt let vs passe to the Assumption of this Argument taken from scandall, and that I may help you out in making the best of your cause, hither may be referred two considerations, you giue vs in your bookes, which properly doe serue for grounds of shewing, that knee­ling at Sacrament is a scandalous gesture. Those two grounds we will first consider, and then descend to that which you say for shewing the truth of your Assumpti­on by the exemplification of daily experience.