THE gesture of our Lord, and his Apostles, at the Paschall Supper, was a kind of sitting gesture. The same gesture was continued at the Eucharisticall Supper. For whilst they did eat, to wit, of the second service of the Pas­chall Supper (and consequently whilst they did sit) Christ took bread, and gave thanks, Math. 26. 26. Mark. 14 22. This collection is so cleere, and evident, that the Papists them­selves, hote persecuters for kneeling, doe ac­knowledge the same. Cardinall Baronius; Annal. tom. 1. an, 34. num. 44. Vn­de quod dicit Matthaeus, coenantibus autem eis ac­cepit Jesus panem, & benedixit, & quod Mar­cus a [...], & manducanti­bus illis ac­cepit Iesus panem, & benedicens fregit: idem est ac si di­xisset, recum­bēubus illis. That Matthew sayth, And as they were ea­ting Jesus took bread, and blessed; and Mark saith, And as they did eat Iesus took bread, and blessed, and brak it, it is all one, as if they had sayd, whilst they were sitting. But Matthew and Mark, sayth our new made Doctor, must be inter­preted by Luke and Paul, who do say, that Christ did institute the Sacrament after they had supped, Luk. 22. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 24. I an­swer, that Paul and Luke speak of the cup, and not of the bread, Likewise after Supper, he [...]ook the cup, and blessed. Likewise, that is, hee give thankes, as he had done before, when hee took the bread. Neither Paul, nor any of the Evangelists do say, that after hee had supped, hee took the bread, as they doe of the cup. This difference of speech made Bellarmine De Eu­charist lib. 4. cap. 27. to follow their opinion, who thought, that Christ consecrated, and [Page 2] distributed, the bread, in the very time of the Legall Supper, whilst they were eating of it, and that after other actions intervee­ning, and the Supper ended Christ took the cup. There is no necessitie to collect such a disjunction of so heavenly a mysterie; but the common opinion is to be retained, that this Mysterie was instituted per modum [...] signi, in one continued action. Alwayes wee may see, that the bread being consecrated, and distributed, and eaten, before Christ took the cup, justly it may be said, that af­ter supper he took the cup, seeing now the first halfe of this holy action was ended, and had intervened between their eating of the Paschall Supper, and the taking of the cup. Put the case that Luke and Paul had said that after Supper he took bread, their words must so interpre [...] Matthew and Mark, as that there be no contradiction. Christ took bread whiles they were eating, and yet not­withstanding after they had supped, because they were now closing vp their eating, and Christ entred in another act on. Barra [...]us the Iesuit Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 2. Qua­vis autē [...]otū Sacramentū post coenam institutum fuerit, in ip­sius tamen coenae fine in­stitutum est, eum adhuc discumberēt, & mandu­carent. Nam manduca­runt [...]bos a­lios quosq [...]e ad institutio­nem [...]oelestes [...]bi ventum est. Ideoque Matth. & Mar. a [...]unt, mand [...]canti­bus ipsis ef­fectum esse hoc Sacra­mentū. Ad­huc enim in induca­bant, cum Dominus accepit panem, benedixit, & fregit. faith, Howb [...]t the whole Sacra­ment was instituted after supper, yet it was institu­ted in the end of the supper, while as they were yet sitting, and eating: for they eat other meat, [...] the time of the institution of the heavenly food▪ and therfore Matthew and Mark say, that the Sa­crament was instituted, while as they were eating: for they were yet eating, when the Lord took bread, blessed, and brake. Thus much for the [Page 3] first collection of the sitting gesture of Christ and his Apostles at the Eucharisticall Sup­per, upon which all interpreters ancient and moderne haue builded. Suppose the first collection should faile, this second col­lection following will proue it. It behoo­ved them either to sit, stand, or kneele. Stand they could not, for the beds joyned to the table would not suffer that gesture. They did not kneele; for if Christ had changed the ordinarie gesture of sitting at the Pas­chall supper, into kneeling at the Eucha­risticall, a gesture of adoration, and no ta­ble gesture, then kneeling had been institu­ted and not left indifferent, and arbitrarie: For to what end should Christ have chan­ged the one in the other, except it had been his will to have it observed, as other chan­ges made in passing from the last act of the Paschall supper to the Eucharisticall. But our opposites dare not say, that knee­ling was instituted. If therfore they neither kneeled nor stood, it followeth that they [...]ate. Never man was so impudent as to call this in doubt, till within these two or three yeares by past, that two or three hirelings have done it.

In the Apostles times the gesture of sit­ting was continued in the Kukes: for the lovefeasts and the Lords Supper were so neere conjoyned in time, how be it different in mysterie, that Casaubone Exercit. 16. p. 511. Paulus [...]o­tam illam Corinthiorū actionē, quae sacro & cō ­muni convi­vio consta­bat; a potiori parte vocat Coenam Do­minicam. Tom. 1. An. 57. Num. 130. Corin­thios autem inter coenan­dum miscen­tes sacra cō ­munibus, quod correx­it Paulus, Eucharistiā sumere con­suevisse. Au. epist. 118. ad Ianuariū af­firmat. saith, the whole action consisting of the sacred and common banket, was calied by Paul the Supper of the Lord from the better part. Augustine affirmeth that [Page 4] the Corinthians not onely conjoyned, but also confounded them; and so doth Baronius the Cardinall vnderstand him, when he saith; Augustine ad Januarium epist. 118. affir­meth, that the Corinthians used to take the Eucha­rist at supper, mixing sacred things with common, which the Apostle corrected. And afterward Num. 136. scriptū a Philone convivium sacris vide­tur admixtū quale illud Pauli ad Co­rinthios. he sayth, that the feasting described by Phi­lo seemeth to have been mixed with sacrea purpo­ses, like that of which Paul writeth in his epistle to the Corinthians. Now at that frugall feast­ing wherof Philo maketh mention, they sate on the ground upon mattes made of flagges, and their feasting was intermixed with hymnes and praises. Howsoever the Corinthians abused this holy action other­wayes, yet this intermixing declareth the usuall conjunction of the two parts, or acti­ons. They being then in the Apostles time so neerely conjoyned in time, and distin­guished onely in mysterie, it behooved them to sit at the one part, as they sate at the o­ther: and so doth Bishop Bilson affirme Obe­dience pag. 461.. The practise of many Kirks after the Apo­stles times, even till Augustines daies argu­eth, that they sate in the Apostles times. Bullinger, De ori­gine error▪ circa coenam cap. 4. Vnde nimirum ri­tus ille ad nos dimana­vit, quo vel bodie in Ca­thedralibus ecclesus & monaster [...]s Benedictino­rum in die Coenae Do­mini ante parasceuen Coena Do­mini palam & sp [...]endi­dius celebra­tur. Nam Evangelium Iohannis 4 Diacono publice prae­legitur, & dulcisstma il­la colloquia Christi, quae abiturus cu [...] discipulis ha­buit, recitan­tur: interim ordine dis­positis mensis convivae assi­dent, panem azimum fran­gentes, & calicem in­vicem pro­pinantes, & in totum ve­teris coenae vestigium praeferentes. from the different manner of celebrating this holy Supper related by Au­gustine, observeth as followeth: Whence that rite is stowed unto us, by which even as yet in Ca­thedrall Churches, and the Monasteries of the Be­nedictines on the day called The Supper of the Lord, before good friday, the Supper of the Lord is celebrated openly, and with great pompe: For the Gospell according to John is read publikly by [Page 5] the Deacon, and these most sweete conferences of Christ, which he being to depart had with his disci­ples are rehearsed. In the mean time the tables being set in order, the banketters sit down to them break­ing unleavened bread, and reaching the cup to other, and so everie way representing the trace of the ancient Supper. This footstep of the ancient custome yet remaining amongst the mo­nasteries of S. Bennets order, and observed upon Maundy Thursday, Morneus also ob­serveth. See the Solution of D. resol. re­solutions. p. 12. 27.

Our first Argument then against kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramentall ele­ments is drawn from the example of Christ and his Apostles at the first institution; and the practise of the primitiue Kirks follow­ing in the Apostles times. Their gesture was not a gesture of adoration in the act of receiving, but a Table gesture▪ for it was a sit [...]ing gesture they used, and not kneeling. Christ instituted Baptisme, but wee reade not that he baptised in his own person. But in this Sacrament hee was not onely institu­tor, as Lord, but also celebrated as a Mini­ster, and set down a most exact and perfect paterne of celebration. The practise of the Apostles following the same order is a dire­ction to us to follow the same also.

We reason likewise from this example and practise, against any other gesture which is not a Table-gesture, howbeit not with the same force, as against kneeling. There is eating with walking (as Pios the Monk did, who said hee would not make a worke [Page 6] of eating his meate) but this is no table­gesture. To stand in the act of receiving, and then passe by, as in some Churches they do, is not a table-gesture. For there is no more use of a Table in this case, when the communicant standeth, & taketh out of the ministers hand, more then of a cupboord, or dressor, suppose it were never so long. For so it serveth onely to the setting on of the elements, that from thence they may bee reached by the hand of the Minister to the Communicant. A table of as short dimen­sions, may serve to that use, at the Papists re­quire of necessitie for their Altar to hold up the foot of the Chalice, and so much of the plate, as may keep it from falling, together with the Masse-book, and the candle.

We reason thirdly from the same exam­ple and practise, but with least vehemencie, against other table-gestures also, as standing about the table; because it is not agreeable to the first paterne and practise. It was not coena stataria, aut ambulatoria, but accubitoria, which Christ and his Apostles celebrated: not a standing or walking, but a sitting sup­per. But to returne to kneeling, I conclude with the words of Calvin, who sayth, That (i) Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. S. 35. they are sure that they swarve not from Gods com­mandement, who take the sacramement as God hath commanded without adoration. They have the ex­ample of the Apostles, who prostrate not themselves but took sitting. They have the practise of the A­postolicall Kirks, &c. And of Beza against Harchius, Contra Harchium. Scilicet, quū ipse adstans ad mensam Dominus, ve­re adorandu [...] qua Deus, & qua De­ [...] & homo simul coenam instituebat, surrexerunt singuli discipuli, ut [...]genua procumbentes, panem illum & vinum illud ex ipsius ma­ [...] acciperent: & ignorabant scilicet ipsi Apostoli quo ritu dein­ceps celebranda mysteria ecclesijs traderent. So like, as when the LORD truely to be adored as God, and as God and [Page 7] man at table did institute this holy Supper, that the disciples arose, to the end that falling on their knees, they might receive that bread and wine out of his hand: and so like as the Apostles were ignorant h [...] to deliver to the Kirks the manner of celebra­ting these mysteries.

It is objected first▪ that if this argument be go [...]d then the minister should teach sitting, because Christ taught sitting. But the case is no alike. For the Lords supper is a rituall action, and a visible object is presented be­fore the communicant. Christ taught us by his example, how to behave our selves in such a case. Next, Christ taught sometime standing, sometime sitting, according to the opportunity of time and place. He sate in the mount, Mat. 5. he stood in the plain, Luk. 6. Paul stood up and made his exhortation in the synagogue, Act. 13. He that prophe­sied stood up, 1. Cor. 14. 30. as Cajetanus do­eth collect. Audien­tes sedere, prophetantes stare signifi­cat dicendo, Quod si alij sedenti. The originall word signifieth, that the other prophet who was not in the act of prophesying, was sitting, not sitting by. Lastly, this objection may be retorted upon themselves, That seeing Christ and his Apostles and all teachers and hearers in all ages afterward, did not preach or heare prea­ching kneeling, we can have no warrant to do it. If not at delivery or receiving of the word, then also not at the delivery or recei­ving [Page 8] of the sacramentall elements.

It is objected next, that Christ and his A­postles sate not at the paschall supper alter our manner of sitting, and that it was rather a lying then a sitting, as the originall words anakeisthai and anapiptem do import? It hath been answered already P. A. pag. 38. [...]ol. pag. [...]. 6. that it was not totally lying, but partly sitting, partly lying, and translated sitting, not lying, by the Eng­lish translators. Yea the holy Ghost doth expresse this same gesture also by the word sitting in the originall language, Ezech. 23. 41. That kind of gesture, (whether brought in a­mong the Iewes by the Romans or Persians, or if it was as ancient as the dayes of David or Salomon, as some do collect out of 1. Sam. 9. 22. Prov. 7. 14. 16. Cant. 1. 12. it is not ma­teriall) succeeded in the roome of upright sitting, and hath given place again to the same, as answering analogically to it. It was in Christs time the received manner of sitting, and no further is required of us but to observe the received gesture of the coun­trey, where we are. It is also to be observed that anakeisthai and anapiptein are not the pro­per vocables to expresse this kind of gesture, as Athenaeus doth testifie. Lib. 1. cap. 18. Beza in Math. 8. 11. sayth, that anaclinesthai is put there for cataclinesthai the proper greek vocable of this gesture. Farther, howbeit in a private par­lor a small number did sit after that manner at the first paschall supper, yet it is no way probable, that in the Christian assemblies af­terward in Corinth, Ierusalem, or else where, they sate after the same manner. For howso­ever [Page 9] there is mention made in ancient wri­ters of houses of 60. 80. or 100. beds, that was not common, but peculiar to princes and great men. Plutarch Sympo­sia 5. noteth it as a vice in a man to build houses for 30. supping beds, or above. Shall we then think, that the Apostolicall Kirks had the use of such houses for their meetings, or that the Lords supper could be celebrated in such a form in their numerous assemblies.

It is thirdly obiected, that if we be bound to the imitation of Christ, and his Apostles gesture by as good reason we shall be bound to the imitation of the time and place; that is, to celebrate after supper, and in a private house. It is answered that the circumstances of time and place of the first supper were onely occasionall, and the occasion of them was vnavoydable because of the law of the passe over. But the gesture might be easily changed by Christ without violation of Gods law, namely seeing the paschall supper was ended. It was a easie to them to goe to their knees, as to the Aegyptian Naucratits after they were set downe to their feasts, when they began to sing hymnes to their gods. But our Lord would keep the same forme at the Eucharisticall supper, which hee kept at the paschall. Our Doctor sayth, that the Apostles retained these circumstances, and changed them not. I answer, if that were true, we have no reason, nor warrant to doe otherwise. Next, if the Apostles re­tained these circumstances upon occasion, and not for imitation, upon necessitie, & not [Page 10] voluntarily, then he hath gained nothing. For we deny not, that in times of persecuti­on, or when occasionally there falleth out any necessity, we may celebrate in the night, and in a private house, where the Church is assembled. The Apostles would not have been suffered to celebrate the supper in the temple, as sometime they were overseen to teach. Next, it was not so fit for the cele­bration of the Lords supper, as for the prea­ching of the word. The first was ordeined onely for the beleevers: the last, to convert also unbeleeving Iewes. Thirdly, there is no likelihood that they celebrated ever at night. For howbeit at Troas Act. 20. it were granted to have been celebrated at mid­night; as some do call it in question, yet who seeth not, that it was then d [...]layed to that time, not because it was the usuall time, or for imitation of the institution but onely up­on occasion. The Apostle being to depart, did continue preaching, and so that action was continued. The Centurie vvriters doe not affirme, that the Corin [...]hians did cele­brate after supper, but onely say videtur, that it seemeth so. But Chrysostome Homil. 7. [...]n 1. Cor. 11. affirmeth the contrary, that they did celebrate in the morning. It is sayd Act. 2. 46. that they conti­nued daily with one accord in the temple, and brea­king of bread from house to house. Pa [...]ae [...]s sayth, De sym­bol. & ritib. eucharist. p. 152. Neque Apostoli ad tempus ves­pertinum sese adstrinxerūt, sed pro occa­sione caenam administra­runt, alias di­urno tēpore, ut legere est, Act. 2. 46. alias intēpes­ta nocte, ut act. 20. Quo sacto satis o­stenderunt tempus coenae per se esse indifferens. that the Apostles did not adstrict themselves to the evening, but occasionally ministred the Sup­per, sometimes in the day time, as Act. 2. 46. some­times late in the night, as Act. 20. whereby they shew that the time of the Supper is indifferent.

TO the due ministration of the Lords Supper there is required a table, where­about the communicants are to be pla­ced. If a table, then also a table gesture; knee­ling is not a table-gesture. Therefore knee­ling is not a fit gesture for this Supper. A table is so requisite to this action, that from a table this supper hath received one of the scripture names, that is, to bee called the Lords table, to distinguish it from common tables. As it is called breaking of bread, because that rite was usuall in the celebra­tion of this sacrament. By this reason, sayth the Doctor, it should be celebrated at eve­ning, because it is called the Lords Supper. It is true, that in our language, this word, Supper, signifieth onely the evening meale, but not so in the originall. For the word Deipnon in ancient Greeke writers signifieth indefinitly the repast that a man taketh any time of the day, yea suppose it were before the rising of the sunne, as may be seen in Ho­ [...]er the Greek Poet. The banket or feast w [...]ch Luk. 14. is called Deipnon, is called [...]th, 22. ariston. Cas [...]ubonus Exercita [...]. p. 511. Hoc▪ ut videtur, significans, priscu tem­porib. omni [...] convivia fuisse appel [...] la [...]a deipna, etiam quae non fierent, in fine di [...]i. observeth [...] of Photius, that Paul called this Sacra­mentall [...]anket Deipnen, according to the [...] of the word in Pauls time; meaning that all [...]an [...]ets were called Deipna, howbeit they were not [...] the end of the day. He confirmeth this in the [...] following, when hee sayth, that the [...]asts of idolatours in their temples were al­so [Page 12] called Deipna not Arista. Read Concilium Ancyranum, where yee shall also find these idolatrous feasts expressed by this word deip­non. The word which was ever used to sig­nifie that which we call Supper, is dorpos, or dorpon. Casaubonus giveth also this reason of the name, That it is called a Supper, ra­ther then a dinner, because of old they di­ned sparingly and supped more liberally, to signifie the plenty and liberality of this feast. Other allegoricall reasons of this name I o­mit. To returne then, not onely was this feast called the table of the Lord, but also it had a table indeed, not onely in the Apostles time, but also many ages afterward, both for consecration and distribution. Now it was not a money-changers, or writers table, but mensa conviv [...]alis a feasting table which Christ and his Apostles used, and not with­out some profitable consideration. For a Table was counted sacred of old by the Eth­nicks, and they thought the gods were pre­sent there at their feasts An [...]e focos olim longis consi­dere mensis Mos erat, & mensae [...]redere ad­esse Deos. Ovid. fast. 5., and likewise the Poets bring in sometimes their gods feasting at a table. There is a notable sen­tence of Ben Syra Mensa parata, sive posita cen­tentio tollitur, the table being prepared and set, contention ceaseth, signifying that the commu­nion of one table betokened reconciliation▪ and loue. The Iewes say, that when some altercation arose in the house of Ishbosh [...]h the son of Saul, the servant incontinen [...] spread the Table, and the altercation ceased If at prophane feasts, a table was counte [...] sacred, and a symbole of concord and fidelity, [Page 13] far more at this sacred feast, which is a banquet of Loue. Musculus therefore is not to be commended for his saucie censure of the laudable custome of the reformed Churches, where are, and hath been so ma­ny worthies: I will forbeare comparisons. Luthers testimonie set down by Musculus in that same place is memorable. Therefore Christ so instituted the Sacrament that in it we should sit at Table. But all things are changed, and the idle ordinances of men are come in the place of Divine Ordinances. Musculus himselfe on Matth. 26. 23. observeth in the ancient Proverb Men­sam & salem non transgred [...], that the Table was counted sacred, and a symbole of friendship. And deploreth the corruptions of our times, wherein neither the fellowship at the pro­phane, nor mysticall Table, maketh us mind­full of this dutie. And in his Common Pla­ces De coena Domini pag. 345. Sacrifi­cio competit ara, commu­nication [...] sa­crificu com­pet it mensa. he saith, that to a sacrifice belong­eth an Altar, to the communication of the sacrifice a Table. A feasting Table then be­ing granted, the gesture of Kneeling, being no Table-gesture, must be excluded in the act of banquetting, which is the proper use of the Table. The Christians under the ten persecutions, it is true, could not haue the commoditie of high tables, and seates a swerable. But it is neither the height, nor the matter that we stand upon. Whether the table be round, square, or extended in length: whether it be of timber, or stone; of a bull hide, or a plot of ground: whe­ther it be high or low; the forme and [...]ashi­on of a table ought to be observed, that the [Page 14] Communicants may communicate table­wise: Whether they convene in dens, or deserts; in Kirks, or houses. Wine is one of the Sacramentall elements, and yet Vola­terranus writeth that the Priests of Nor­way were permitted to consecrate in other liquor then wine, because wine could not be kept in that Northern Country. So a plot of ground whereabout men sit and feast, answereth analogically to the high [...]a­ble. As for private consecrations in time of persecution, like that of Lucianus th [...] Mar­tyr who used his breast for an Altar, when he was in prison: or for keeping the Sacra­ment, and communicating a part, belong to the controversie of private consecrati­ons, and private communions, to be enqui­red, whether they did right or not. Wee are now speaking of Assemblies, and Con­gregations, whether in time of peace, or un­der persecutions. See further of this second Argument in the answer to D. Resolutus. pag. 16. [...]8, 34. 35.

CHRIST said in the plurall number, Take ye, eat yee; not take thou, eat thou, in the singular number, as the mini­ster speaketh to the communicant kneeling▪ He produceth Musculus, saying that Christ gave the bread to every one of the Apostle [...] severally. But the same Musculus acknow­ledgeth that Christ gave the cup to the nee▪ [Page 15] rest, and not to every one severally. Now as Christ sayd, take ye, drink yee all of this, so he said, Take yee, eat yee. Gabriel Bi [...]l Lect 3 [...]. in Can. miss [...] Swarez Tom 3. p. 702. 90 [...]. the Iesuit, and Cajetanus In Mat. 26. have devised another forme, which will sort bet­ter with the phrase of the Evangelists. To wit, That Christ did breake the bread in so many peeces, as there were communicants, layd them in a plate, and reached the plate to them, saying, Take ye, eat ye. And as for the cup, they acknowledge it was given onely to the neerest, and that the words were so spoken generally to all. The D [...]ct. saith, that Christ speake first generally▪ Take ye, eat ye, and then he gave the bread to ve­ry one of them severally. Otherwise (saith he) Christ should have given the b [...]e [...]d be­fore it was a Sacrament, meaning before hee had said. This is my bodie. But I would de­mand, if Christ said first generally, Take yee, eat yee, this is my body, if he said againe, Take thou, eat thou, this is my body, when hee gave to every one severally: as many of t [...]e schoolemen adstricting the power of cons [...] ­cration, as they call it, to the five words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, do feine, that Christ spake these words twice. Which Swarez re­futeth; Tom. 3. p 702 vbi nu [...]la ratio cogit, non o­portet (ordi­nem tex us) mutare [...]rae­sert [...] cum ab Evange­listis. & Pa [...]lo tanta conse [...]sio [...]e observatus [...]it. because it changeth the order of the [...]xt set down with so [...]ull consent of Paul and the Evangelists, no reason enfor­cing them so to do. Or did Christ in giving severally, utter the Gregorian prayer, or what said he? Likewise when he gave the cup, [...]e behoo [...]ed according to his imagina­tion first say generally▪ Take ye, drink ye all [Page 16] of this, This cup is the new Testament, &c. and then give it severally to every one; and then what said he? Did he repeat the same words: or utter the Grego [...]ian prayer for the cup, or wha said he? Is not this Popish shifting of the Doctors, violence done to the t [...]x [...]. As if the text were not cleer of itself, that Christ in the very act of giving did joyn the words of promise▪ this is my bodie, to the element consecra'ed before by prayer, and then they eate of it. Swarez without any vi­olence done to the text, saith better, agree­ing with his div [...]ce of distributing the bread, when he saith Ibid. I. ta (que) postquā Christus ac­cepit & be­ned. xii pa [...]ē, illum insuffi­cientes par­tes distribu­it, & in pa­ [...]ina acc [...]mo­date posuit, ac po [...]rexit discipu. is, [...]t­cens verba cōsecrationis, quibus fi i [...] is singul [...] suam partem acce­peru [...]t & communica­runt. After the Lord had taken the bread, and blessed it, hec divided it in­sufficient number of peeces, and ordered them a the Plate, and reached them to his Disciples, say­ing the words of consecration, which being finish­ed, every one received his own part, and com­municated. What is further alledged by the Doctor against this third Argument, shall be answered in defence of the fourth reason, as in a place more convenient.

The Doctor casteth by, in a dark corner, two of our reasons, as not worthy to be an­swered, or ranked in order, & number with the rest. First we say, that where kneeling is in use, the Sacramentall breaking after that ksgiving is not enioyned, so far as we can find in their Service books, when as other rites invented by man are injoyned. And for practise, Paraeus testifieth that the Lu­theran Kirkis have it not, but have the bread cut in small pecces before it be brought to the hands of the Minister, which is not that [Page 17] Sacramentall breaking instituted by Christ. The Doctor [...]aith that he and some other of his followes doe break the bread. But I would demand, if that be the common or­der of the Kirks where kneeling is in use. Next if it be a breaking in the own time, and place, that is betwixt the thankesgiving, and giving with these words, This is my body, as Christ gave it. For the Papists have a kind of breaking after all the words are fi­nished. For belike it is heresie to breake it before they have said; Hoc est enim corpus meum.

The second reason disdainfully rejected by the Doctor, is this, that kneeling hath brought in a change upon the sacramentall word, changing the enunciative forme of the words, T [...]is is my body into a prayer uttered in the act of delivery of the el ments to the communicant, The body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for thee, prese [...]ve thy body and soule unto life everiasting. He bringeth in Perkins appro­ring the m [...]tter of Doctrine conteined in this prayer. So doth Perkins many other heads o [...] doctrine cōcerning this sacrament. But where doth Perkins allow this kneeling, or forming any such d [...]ctrinall poynt in a prayer, to displace the comfortable words of the promise conceived by Christ himselfe. He sayth, that he and his fellowes utter the words of promise before the giving of the [...]read, and in the act of giving use the pray­er. But he speaketh without a warrant. Mr. [...]alloway sayd, we shal say, Take this as a pledge [...] Christs body, and that, sayd hee, will hold [Page 18] out all idolatrous thoughts, suppose yee kneele. And who appoynted that prayer to be uttered in the act o [...] giving? There is no such ordinance in our K [...]k; The Doctor who will be conforme to English [...]orma [...]ties, be­fore ever he be enioynee, is not a rule to o­thers. It is strange, that the worth [...]est prea­chers should be persecuted for kneeling be­fore that all the rest of the formes belonging to it, or depending on it, b [...] brought in, with­out the which it cannot bee put in practile, It agreeth not with the Scottish forme, and the English hath not ye [...] been prescribed, But to come to the Doctor his forme. That is ou [...] question; wherefore th [...] vvords of the promise are not uttered in the act of distri­buting, when the bread is given to the com­municant, according to the order of the in­stitution, a Christ himselfe did, but other vvords are put in their place. To reheare the vvords o [...] the institution, and the words of promise among the rest, may very well se [...]v [...] to shew what warrant we have out of the word to minister that holy action, but it is not t [...]e ministration it selfe, as Christ ministred that action. I wish it were well observed, that in the English service-booke the words of the institution are rehearsed in forme of a prayer to God, in a contnuall te­nor with the prayer begun in other words before, just according to the order observed in the Canon of the Masse. And so the words are reh [...]arsed not to the communicants as Christ uttered them to the Apostles, but prayerwise to God, as the Priest doth when [Page 19] he offereth the sacrifice of the Masse, which is a great absurdity, and abuse of holy Scrip­ture. There the words of promise are utte­red in an enunciative forme, but to God; as if there could be no consecration before the rest of the celebration, except these words be pronounced with the prayer. I dare be bold to affirme, that the sacrifice of the Masse had never entred into the Kirk, if this dou­ble action, one of consecrating with rehearsal of the words of the institution all at once, without the rites correspondent to the words; another of distributing with other words, had not first entred. The first turned into sacrificing, the second onely remained to be called the sacramental service, or com­munion.

THE communicants ought to distribute the elements to others, according to Christs precept, Divide it amongst you. This distribution cannot consist with knee­ling. He alledgeth Fenner against this distri­bution, but impertinently: for he speaketh nothing against it. Beza is so farre from de­n [...]ing that precept, Luk. 22. 17. to be meant of the communion cup, that he are be bold to conj [...]cture the verses to bee transposed, and that this should bee their order, 16, 19. 20. 17. 18. Luke applieth the protestation, that Christ will drink no more of the fruit of the [...]e, to that same cup which he commanded them to divide amongst themselves. But [Page 20] that protestation is applied to the commu­nion cup by Matthew and Mark, Math. 26. 28. 29. Mark. 14. 24. 25. It was therfore the com­munion cup which Christ commanded to divide. He alledgeth against this reason, Pis­cator in Math. 26. 29. saying, that it is no ab­surditie to think that Christ made that pro­testation twice, once of the paschall cup, and again of the communion cup. But wri­ting afterwards upon Luke, he sayth, as be­ing better advised, Piscator in Luk. 17. 18. Ordinis inversio ali­qua, quate­nus pars ac­tionis circa vinum nar­ratur, v. 17. & 18. ante actionē circa panem. Nam verba illa de poculo coe [...] Domini [...] int [...]lligenda ess [...]l quet ex Ma [...]co, qui verba illa, dico me non bibitu [...]um, &c. verbis de poc [...]lo coe [...]ae Domi­ni [...] pronun­ciatis conti­nenter sub­ [...]ungit. that there is inversion of order to be observed in Luke, in so farr, as that part of the action, which concerneth the wine, is set downe vers. 17. and 18. before the action concer­ning the bread. For that these words are to be un­derstood of the cup of the Lords supper, it is cleare sayth he, out of Mark. 14. 24. 25. who subjoyneth immediatly to the words pronounced of the cup of the Lords Supper, these words, I will drinke no more, &c. No Evangelist maketh mention twice of this protestation of not drinking more; how then can men so boldly conjec­ture, that it was spoken twice, once of the Paschal cup, and againe of the Eucharistical' Matthew and Mark make this protestation to be spoken but once, and that of the commu­nion cup. Againe, if Christ had made this protestation concerning the paschall cup, how did he keep his promise, if he did drink after the paschall cup, of the Eucharisticall cup? Hee sayth Musculus doubteth, if it may be assirmed, that Christ himselfe did eat, and drink, of the sacramentall bread, and wine. But he doubteth without reason. Doth not Matthew and Mark say, that Christ protested [Page 21] [...]nene the communion cup, that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the wine after that. It followeth then that he drank of it. When the Schoolmen are to prove that wine is one of the sacramentall elements, they cannot find a proof in all the foure E­vangelists, but in this protestation, Lectio 3 [...] in Canon Missae. that hee will drink no more of the fruit of the vine. Gabriel B [...]el groundeth his proofe on this protestati­on, as it is set down by Luke, and collecteth, that neither the wine of apples, nor wine as it is in the berry, but as it is potable, is the matter of consecration in this sacrament. Doth not Musculus himselfe say, De coen [...] Domini, p. 348. Existi­mo neminem esse qui nege [...] vinum in po­eulo fuisse, cum dixerit Dominus Math. 26. Luk. 22. haud bibitu­rum se am­plius. Homil. 83. in Math. I thinke there is no man will deny, that wine was in the cup. seeing the Lord sayd, Math. 26. Luk. 22. that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the wine, &c. Chrysoltome sayth, Ipse quoque bibi [...] ex eo, ne [...]itis illis verbis dicerent, Quid? ergo sanguinem [...], & carnem comedimus? & pertuba [...]entur. He drank also of it, lest hearing these words, they should say, What? Doe we then drink blood, and [...]? and so should be troubled. And Hierom [...]aith, Ad He­dibiam. that the Lord was conviva, & con­ [...]um, comedens, et qui comeditur, the banketer, and [...]e banket it seife; he who did eat, and was eaten. Where to should I cite many old testimo­ [...]. The two ancient Se tenet in manibus, se cibat ipse ci­bus. Se nascēs de­dit socium, convescens in edulium. hymnes, are suf­ [...]nt. He needed not to partake of this [...]ment for himselfe, yet for example sake, [...]o shew, what others should doe, hee com­municated with his Apostles. Hee needed [...]ot to have been baptized for himselfe, and [...] he was baptized for the instruction of o­thers▪ It becommeth him, who inviteth o­thers [Page 22] to a banket, to eat with his guests. Se [...] further in De coena Domini q. 59. Buc [...]nus common places. Hes sayth next, that Christ kept his promise, al­beit he drank of the cup of the new Testa­ment, after that hee drank of the pas­chall cup, but letteth us not see, how that should be. He protested, that that passover should be the last, he should eat with them in this mortall life, and this hee performed. He sayth he protested the like of the paschall cup, Luk. 22. and yet drank after that of the communion cup, but that is the very thing we deny: and we have already made mani­fest, that there was but once protestation made anent the cup, and that it was the communion cup. Further, this protestation was made anent the last cup; but so it is, that the cōmunion cup was the last cup. Beza in Mark. 14. 25. Alludit ad morem, q. o nefas e­rat post po­culum illud apolyticon quicquam cibi in poste­rum diem ca­pere. Christ alluded to the Canon, and custome, whereby it was not lawful to tast any thing that night after the last cup, the cup of [...]praise. Christ foretelling his death, protests he will drinke no more of it, not that night onely, but not at all in this mortall life.

The obaldus Meuschius Defens. Harm [...]n. ge­neralis, cap. 4 proveth that this protestation was once onely spoken, and that of the Sacramentall cup, by this same custome of the Iewes. Inde concludi po­test, quod Iudaei panem. & poculum soliti sint di­stribuere, prorsus in sine Paschatis quibus distribu­tis quicquam porro gustare ea vespera nefas erat. He not onely openeth up Hysteron proteres Lucae contin [...]um, the inversion of order i [...] Luk, and affirmeth the distribution of the cup ver. 17. to be meant of the communion [Page 23] cup: but also saith, therfore Verosimi­le igitur est & prope necessarium hos versicu­los ex sacrae coenae institu­tione huc esse a scribis tra­jectos. it is likely, yea almost necessary, that the verses 17. and 18. were taken out of the institution of the Supper which [...]odoweth, and were placed here by the negligence of W [...]uers. Howsoever it be, if there be not transposition of the verses, there is anti­cipation in the matter, and purpose it selfe. To the reasons and testimonies before alled­ged, and in Perth Assembly, and the answer to Doctor Resolutus, I adde onely the testi­mony of Swarez. (z) Howbeit these words, I (n) Tim. 3. p. 909. Li­cet a Luca haec verba, non bibam &c. refe­rantur ante consecratio­nē, videtur tamen id fa­ctum esse per anticipatio­nem Nam Matthaeus & Marcus post conse­crationem ista referunt. will not drink, be related before the consecration, yet it seemeth to be done by way of anticipation: for Matthew and Mark relate them after the con­secration. Seeing [...]hen we have so many rea­sons, and such a cloud of witnesses, both of Papists and Protestants, the ancient Fathers, the Schoolemen, and moderne Writers, hat the Precept divide it amongst you, belongeth to he communion cup; Kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramentall elements can­not have place. It is true, when Christ said, drink yee a [...] of it, hee required that one should not drink out all that was in the cup▪ as the Priest doth in the Masse, but that eve­ry one drink of it. But this precept, divide [...] you, import [...]h further, that they should divide, and distribute it among them selves. Christ saith not, Let it be divided, or, I w [...]d divide it, but, divide yee it amongst your selves. When Christ gave the cup to th [...] [...]rest, he took it not from him againe, to d [...]l [...]v [...]r it to the next; n [...]r yet did every one s [...]t down the cup on the Table, that the next might take it up from the Table, but [Page 24] they reached the cup to the other. So was the last Paschal cup caried frō hand to hand. This last Paschall cup was changed into the Eucharistical, & when it was changed, it was carried from hand to hand after the same manner. Piscator In Math. 26. Ita sa­licet ut illud dederit alte­ri ex proxi­me accumbē ­tibus actum deinceps sin­guli ordine aljis cata cu­cloposiā istud porrexerint. saith, that they reached the cup one to another, Bellarmine saith, Caiuem autem non fregit nec div [...]sit ipse discumbentibus. sed dedi [...] integrum ut unus alteri porrigeret, de Eu­charist lib. 4. cap. 25. Christ brake not the cup▪ nor divided it himselfe to the [...]i [...]ters, but gave it whole, that one may reach to another. Swarez saith Tom. 3. p. 861. Quod in calice est ev [...]dentius ex illis verbis. Accipite & divid [...]e inter vos, fuit ergo per proprias Apostolorū manus ab u­no in alium delatus. hee applyed not with his own hand the con­secrated bread to the mouthes of the Aposties, but onely offered the plate to them, and t [...]ey tooke it with their own hands. which u more evident in the cup, in these words, Take it and divide it a­mongst you. It was carried therfore by the Aposties own hands from one to another. Seeing there­fore this is acknowledged, not onely by Cal­vin, Beza, Piscator, Bellarmine, Swarez, Walterius, and many moe both Popish and Protestant Writers, that, divide it amongst you, concerneth the communion cup, we may not heare without any gaine-saying, that it is indifferent, whether the Ministers or the Communicants, distribute it. For if Christ commanded the cup to be distribu­ted by the Communicants, who hath autho­ritie to make it indifferent? But when it is made indifferent to open a doore to supersti­tious and idolatrous rites to enter in, then is Christ Precept most of all to be observed, If the cup should be divided by the Commu­municants, then is it like that the bread [Page 25] should be divided also, seeing Christ said of the br [...]ad, Take yee, eat yee, in the plurall number. See Piscator in Matth. 26. He saith Probabi­le est Domi­num panem confregisse in duas partes, earum (que) al­teram dedisse illi qui pro­ximus ipsi ac­cumbebat ad dextram al­teram vero idi qui ad sinistram, ut isti deinceps proxime ac­cumbentibus porrigerent, donec singuli particulā sibi decerpsissent. It is probable that the Lord brak the bread in two parts, and gave one of them to him that sa [...]e neerest to him on the right hand, the other to him, that sate on the left, and that they reached in or­der to the neerest. B [...]za, Tossan [...]s Hospin [...]anus, Tindall say the like: Mornaeus, Sibrandus, and others, extend the Precept to the bread also. The reader will finde them already al­l [...]dg [...]d in Per [...] Assembly, page 41. 42. 43. and [...]he answer to Doctor Resolutus, page 8. 9. An [...]logie requireth that the Commu­nicants should distribute the bread as well as th [...] cup. And it were not seemely to see the Communicants distribute the cup, and the Minister to goe along to minister the bread. That the cup should be divided by the Communicants is sufficient for our Ar­gument against kneeling. For it excludeth kneeling [...] receiving the cup. If we may not kneele, when we receive the cup, should we kneele when we receive the bread? I be­l [...]v that there is no man so absurd, as to think it.

This rite of the Communicants divi­ding the elements, say we, hath a profi­ [...]le use, in that it is an interchange amongst the Communicants of tokens of l [...]ue and amitie. Hee answereth that the Primitiue Kirke had another meane, to entertaine love, and friendship, to wit the Love-feasts. Let the taunt which he borrowed from Gardinerus be here retorted [Page 26] against himselfe. He hath his mind in patinis. Iude saith that the false Teachers were rocks, or spots in the feasts of charity feed­ing(r) De Orig. error. circa coenam [...]ol. 201. Hinc fortassis ri­tus ille ad nos manavit, qui etiam hodie in usu est, ut finitis, Missarū so­lenn [...]s panes diuidantur pauperibus. themselves without feare. They would have wished that world to last ever. Doeth he think that the Love-feasts were to re­maine, as long as the Sacrament of the Sup­per? They are worn [...] long since out of use, and no trace of them left, saving that when the solemnities of the Masse are ended some bread is distributed to the poore, as Bullin­gerus reporteth. There is also some foot­st [...]p of them, as some doe think, at fu [...]erals. Wee point out a rite commanded, which should endure, seeing it was commanded, he leadeth us to another temporarie custome. Anti­quitatum cō ­vivialium li. 3. cap. 10. In jis enim amicitiae er­go humani­ter se mutuo excipientes vini calicem sibi invicem porrigebant, quent Philo­tesiam appel­labant, me­tonymice nimirum, quia symbolum erat amoris, & amicitiae, q [...] nomine verissime quis idud sacrosanctae Domini coerae poculum [...] signierit. See more of this 4. Argum. P. A. page 41. 42. 43. 44. Sol. pag. 8. 9. 10. The guests in evill bankets of old, entertai­ning others courteously reached a cup of wine to o­thers, which cup they called, Philotesia, Metony­micallie, because it was a symbole of loue and friendship, which name a man may justly impose [...] the cup of the holy Supper of the Lord, saith St [...] ­k [...]us. There be other tokens of love in the Supper it selfe, without the Love-feasts; yet one token should not justle out another. We cannot be too much remembred of this duty. To drinke of one cup betokn [...]th friendship, but to reach the same cup also to others expresseth this duty in a more lively manner.

KNeeling, say we, maketh many com­munions in one Congregation, in the place of one, without any necessity: wheras if wee keeped the right order, wee needed not to doe so. This addition without any necessity, he leaveth out, and impugneth the rest. We set to that addition without any necessity, because some Congregations are so populous, that they cannot communicate together in one day. Neither doe I thinke that any reasonable man will allow Congre­gations to be so populous, that they cannot communicate together in one day. That P [...]rishes should be of so large extent, and Congregations so populous, is rather to be reformed as an abuse, then to be allowed. So the addition of that clause, without neces­sitie, is onely made in respect of the corrupti­on of the times, not of that order which should be. Our Argument is grounded up­on the Apostles precept, 1. Cor. 11. 33. Where­ [...] brethren when ye come together to eat, ta [...] ­ [...] another. He sayth, that this text is alledged impertinently, because the Apostle by these words would redresse a certaine a­buse which was in the Church of Corinth at their love-feasts, willing the rich to [...]ary for the poore. This is just the answer of the Rhemists upon this place. Hee exhorteth them say they, to keep their sayd suppers or feasts in uni­ty, peace, and sobriety, the rich expecting the poore, [Page 28] &c. I content me with Fulk his answer. The words that follow (if any be an hungred, let him eat at home) doe declare manifestly, that this expectati­on, or tarying one for another, is to receive the com­munion of the Lords supper, and not to the eating of their love-suppers, which were ch [...]efly to relieve the poore, that were hungry. And bringeth the tes­timonies of Photius, Chrysostome, Theo­philact, Primasius, Ambrose, and Hierome, to this purpose. Ambrose upon this text sayth, He sayth that they must tarry one for ano­ther, that the oblation of many may bee celebrated together, and that all may be served, and if any bee impatient, hee may bee fed with earthly bread at home. That you come not together to iudgement, that is, that you keep not the mystery so, as you bee worthy to be reprehended with offence, Hierome or some other under his name, upon this same place sayth, Because none taried for other, that the offring might be made in common, therefore they came together, not unto sanctification, but unto iudgement. Bilson Obedi­ence, p. 461. citeth Augustine to the same purpose: yea Augustine affirmeth, that the Apostle speaking of this sacrament, sayth, For which cause brethren, when you assemble toge­ther to eat, expect one another. And againe, Obedi­ence p. 494. he citeth these words of Chrysostome, Homil. in dictum Pauli opor­tet hereses esse. Paul calleth [...] the Lords Supper, which is received in common, with one consent of all assembled toge­ther: for untill all communicate and bee partaker [...] of that spirituall food, the mysteries once set forth, are not taken away, but the Priests standing still, stay for all, yea for the poorest of all. The parti­cle therefore knitting he 33. verse to the ver­ses preceeding, maketh it manifest that this [Page 29] precept is to be referred to the Sacrament. See more of this point in Perth Assembly P. A: pag. 44.. He saith that we may communicate Sacra­mentally in divers Parishes, which I thinke no other man ever affirmed. For howbeit they communicate together spiritually, as all Christians doe in the remotest parts of the world, receiving the same spirituall food signified in this Sacrament. Yet they doe not communicate together sacramentally, but who receive the Sacrament together. Cartwright, writing against the Rhemists, speaketh well to this purpose In 1. Cor. 11. 24. The Apo­stle, 1. Cor. 10. 17. meaneth the communion of those that in one Congregation, or Church, eat together, and not of the communion of those that receive the Sacrament in another Church, it is evident, for that hee placeth the seale of this communion in eating all of one bread, and at one table: wheras they that communicate in another Congregation, or Church, communicate not of one table or bread with them that are farre removed, no more then they, that celebrated the Passeover in divers houses, were partakers of one Lamb or Kid. For notwithstan­ding that Christ (who is the Lamb and the Bread) be but one, yet the outward matter of the Sacra­ment cannot be one but many, according to the num­ber of places, wherein the Sacrament is ministred. See more in this place, and in 1. Cor. 10. 17. See also Fulk in these places. And whether onely the twelue Apostles did communicate at the first Supper, see Cartwright and Fulk on Matth. 26. 20. This sacramentall commu­nion of one Congregation was expressed yet more lively, where they dranke of one cup, [Page 30] and eat of one bread. The Doctor himself [...] alledged before Pag. 19. a saying of Musculus, wherein he approved their forme, who used but one cup to signifie the Mysterie of one and the same bloud, wherof all the faithfull do drink alike, yet not condemning the custome of those Churches, which use moe cups in the Lords Supper, because of the multitude of the Communicants. Neither do I think on the other side, that others will condemne those who use but one cup. But to place a greater necessitie in one cup, then in one bread, cannot be commended. They had of old, in some Churches, one bread, as well as one cup, one in number, of one masse, unum unitate numerica sive physus per partium continuationem, and not one in mo­rall conjunction of many peeces, as many dishes are called but one banket. And this one masse or loafe was unbroken, or cut in peeces till the Minister had first blessed; and for this use they had a knife called Sacra [...]a [...] ­cea, as Iewell observeth. Art. 11. Where also the Reader may finde many testimonies of t [...] one bread, whereunto I refer. This old custome declareth that sacramentall com­munion cannot be extended so farre, as the Doctor would have it. See more of this ar­gument(c) P. A. pag. 44. Sol. p. 32. in the two former Treatises.

KNeeling taketh away the resemblance of a [...]: because [...]h [...]t guests invited to a banket kneele not in the act of ba [...]ketting no not at the banket of a Prince. It is called a Supper, and in what respect it is so called, we have alreadie declared in the defence of the second Argument. Hee saith that the analogie betwixt the two feasts standeth chiefly in eating, drinking and making merry. It is standeth chiefly and not onely in th [...]se, he reasoneth not to the purpose. He discourseth upon the perpetu­all feast which a Christian hath inwardly, and of that glorious and solemne feasting in heaven, which is not doubted of. He saith, that there is great difference betwixt the spirituall feast of the Sacrament, and a common corporall banket; this also is not de [...]yed. He saith, hee who entertaineth▪ us at this banket is not a man, or earthly Prince, but God and man▪ and his enter­tainement is spirituall serving for the soule, that bee giveth himselfe to be the food of the soule; that Calv [...]n will have us to think it the Supper of the Lord, and not of men. All this is true; and hath been already an­swered in the two former Treatises P. A. pag. 54. [...] Sol. pag. 22, 25. 27. We acknowledge both the Giver and the Gift, but beside we acknowledge, that honour whereunto hee hath advanced us, that so great a Prince will entertaine us, not as ser­vants [Page 32] any longer, but as friends; and this advancement he hath expressed in the Sym­bolicall Supper, representing our spirituall advancement at the spirituall Supper. Hee who inviteth us, it is true, is not a simple man, like an earthly Prince, but God and Man; but that setteth forth the greatnesse of our dignity. The food whereon we feed is not earthly, it is true, but that ministreth matter of greater joy to us. But the manifesta­tion of his will and pleasure, is not to be obstued in the outward resemblance of the feast, seeing it hath pleased his Majestie to set forth his neerenesse and communion with us by the formes of feasting. In the old Law, the Lord sate between the Cheru­bines, and eat of the sacrifice (to speak af­ter the manner of men) at his Table, to wit, the Altar, which is so called, Malach. [...] ▪ 12. Ezech. 41. 22. and the people eat of the remaines of the peace-off [...]ings before the Lord at their Tables. Christ God and Ma [...] set forth our spirituall feasting, and commu­nion with him in the forme of a feast also yea, hee took a part of the Paschall feast and translated it to that use. Whatsoever bee the excellency of the spirituall feast the outward resemblance thereof being s [...] forth, under the forme of a banket, [...]o [...] under the Law and under the Gospell, gesture competent to the outward resem­blance should be chosen; Kneeling was ne­ver used in any nation to this purpose. It to be observed also, that their Argument smell greatly of reall presence, or of a g [...]n [...] ­rative [Page 33] force, and vertue in the Sacraments. They speak, as if we had never received Christs body, but when we receive the Sa­crament, and as if Christs body were pre­sent. The holy Mysteries, saith Reply to Harding art. 1, p. 136. Iewel, doe not begin, but rather continue and confirme this in­corporation. As soon as ever we began to beleeve Christs body was given to us. The Symbols when they are added to the Word, while the Mysteries are celebrated, I doubt not, saith Contra Gardin. col. 735. edit. Ba­sil. 1581. Tamen illa Christum no­bis praesentë mag [...]s consti­tuere, quant verba, aut promissiones constanter pernego. Martyr, serve very much for assurance; for they seale the promises. But that they make Christ more present to us, then hu Word and Pro­mises doe, I utterly deny. Christ hath set down a forme, how we should conforme our ges­ture at this Feast, to wit, according to the sacramentall manner of taking, which is common to all. The spiritual is proper to the faithfull. See more of this Argument, in the answer to Doct. Resolutus.(g) pag. 22. 23. 24.

THE seventh is almost coincident with the former. So it pleaseth him to di­vide and rank our reasons. Kneeling is not a fit gesture for a guest invited to a ban­ket; It obseureth the fellowship, whereun­to he is advanced. He perverteth our rea­son very perversly, against his own consci­ence, as if wee smelled of Arrianisme; and meant that wee are equals with Christ. A simple reader may smell in this stinking flower of his, grosse popery, and in some [Page 34] poynts grosser then in a common Papist. Doth every one invited to a Princes table, think himselfe equall with his prince. Hee gathereth as perversly, as if we thought, h [...]t wee should not bow our knees to God the [...]acher, o [...] his sonne Iesus Christ: when as we say, that in the very act off a [...]ing, wee are acting the persons of guests, not o [...] sup­plicants: and therefore in the outward re­semblance of the feast, a competent gesture should be used. In time of p [...]ayer we act he persons of supplicants, and then a fit gesture in such an act is used. His own instance re­ [...]eth himselfe▪ for the 24. Elders, who are sayd to [...]all down before him that sitteth on the throne, were seen at the first by Iohn, sit­ting about the throne, clothed with white raiments, and crownes of god; Apoc. 4. He sayth that Christ did not institute this sup­per to resemble to us that glory which shall(l) [...]om. 3. p. 8. O sacr [...]m convivium, in quo Chri­stus sumitur, recolitur me­mor [...]a passio­nis [...]ius, mens impletur gra­tia, et fu [...]ae gloriae nobis p [...]gnu [...] da­tur. be revealed. Musculus, whom he often ci­teth, but never for the main povnt, sayth, In Mat. 26. Et in no­stra coena ty­pus est futurae coe ae, ac m [...]nsae Do­mini [...]e qua Luc 22. 29 &c. And in our supper there is a type of the supper [...] [...]m [...], and of the table of the Lord, whereof Luk 22. I app [...]ynt you a kingdom, as my father hath ap­poynted me: that ye may eat and drink at my ta­ble, in my kingdom, and sit on thrones. Iohann [...] Alasco Liturg. e [...] ­ [...]les pereg. often maketh it figurative of that Supper of glory. The Bishop of Spalato sayth the like. lib. 5. de rep. eccles. cap 6 appendice ad Naz an. The Kirk speaketh this way of that mystery, sayth Swarez the Iesuite, O sacred banket, in which Christ is received, the memory of his passion is celebrate, the mind is fi [...] with grace, and a piedge of our glory to come is gi­ven to us. Aquinas sayth, Part. 3. quaest. 60. a [...]t. 3. that it is not on­ly [Page 35] signum rememoratiuum, a signe forcommemo­ration of Christs passion, which is past, demon­stratiuum, demonstrative of a present benefit; but also prognosticum, id est, p [...]aenunciatiuum futu­rae gloriae, foretell [...]th our glory to come. Yet doe we not urge any such type, as i [...] this sup­per were ordained to that end, or as if it were typus destinatus, but onely we count it a­mongst typo [...] factos, because Christ alludeth to it, Luk 22. 29. when he promised another feast in heaven. But this all men doe, they make it a figure of a thing present, to wit, of the spirituall feast whereat the soule is fee­ding, when we partake of the outward sym­boles. And when we ascrive any significa­tion to our sitting, we say not, that it signi­fieth our sitting in heaven, but a present rest, and ease of the soule admitted familiarly to the spirituall table, where Christ dineth and suppeth with it. See more Sol. 33. 34.

KNeeling before the sacramentall e­lements is Idolatry. The Papist in his kneeling intendeth to adore Christ bodily present by transubstantiation. The Lutheran, by consubstantiation. The chie­fest of our opposites will not have us to be curious to understand the manner of Christs presence. For sayth Hooker, All things considered, and compared with that successe, Eccl. Pol. l. [...]. sect. 6 [...]. which truth hath hitherto had by so bitter conflicts with errors in this poynt, shall I wish that men [Page 36] would more give themselves to meditate with silence what we have by the sacrament, and lesse to dispute of the manner how? The Bishop of Rochester commendeth the simplicity of the ancients, who disputed not whether Christ were pre­sent Con sub, in, or trans in the supper. What is this but to permit every man to adore up­on what intention he pleaseth. But let the formalist be as free as may be, both of the Popish and Lutheran conceit, yet he is guil­ty of Idolatry two wayes: First, in that hee kneeleth by direction before a creature. Next, in that he doth kneele for reverence of the sacrament. As for the first, suppose it were true, that they kneeled not for reve­rence of the symbols, yet there is no diffe­rence betwixt them, and the more tollerable sort of Idolaters, Durandus, Holcot, Alphon­sus, Mirandula, and the rest in their worship­ping of Images. The Doctor sayth here, and againe pag. 55. that they worship not Christ in the bread, nor by the bread, nor the bread it selfe, but directeth the worship of their hearts and bodies immediatly to Christ in the heaven. So sayth that finer sort of Pa­pists, that the cruc [...]fix, or any other image is not either the materiall, or formall, the totall, or partiall object of their adoration, but that they direct immediatly their worship to Christ, or the Saint. He bringeth in Martyr, pag 74. saying, Contra Gardin. par. 3. ibi enim, & verbis, & symbolis, visibilibus ex citamur ad Christum ip­sum & ag­noscendum, & adoran­dum. For there both by words and visible signes, we are stirred up, both to acknow­ledge, and to worship Christ himselfe. So sayth Swarez, Tom. 1. disput. 53. 54. that the image is not in their o­pinion, objectum quod, the object of their ado­ration, [Page 37] but onely at the presence and sight of the image, the person represented by the image, is called to remembrance, that the image is an occasion, a mean and signe stir­ring up a man to adore the principall person represented, and that before it he worshipeth the principall after the same manner, as if he were present. For to direct worship by the image, is in their sence no other thing but to direct it immediatly to the principall, before the image, as Bellarmine declareth. de mag­nib. cap. 20. The [...]mboles are then to the kneeler, objectum a quo s [...]nificative, sayth Doctor Morton, Defence pag. 285. a sig­nifying object to move the heart, and conse­quently the body to adoration. No more is the image to these Papists, and their adorati­on is as abstract from their object, as the kneeler is from his. But, sayth the Doctor, there is difference betwixt images, and the sacramentall symbols. The first, are the in­vention of men, and forbidden to be used in the worship of God, the other are Gods own ordinance, and commanded to be used in his worship: and cōfirmeth this his saying with the testimonies of Martyr; which needed not. For we deny not, that they are comman­ded to be used in Gods worship, as the wor­ship of God is taken in a large sense, for his publick worship, and all the parts therof, the preaching of the word, ministration of the sacraments, &c. But they were not comman­ded to be used in the worship of God, as it is taken in a strict sence, in statu accommodato ad adorationem, for adoration properly so cal­led, to fall down before them, and worship [Page 38] Christ absent. The force of this argument must be this. Whatsoever thing God hath commanded to be used in his publick wor­ship, we may lawfully fal down before it, and worship God by way of adoration properly so called. The sacramentall symbols are commanded to bee used in Gods publick worship: Therefore we may fall down be­fore them and worship God. The weak­nes of this argument is seen in the propositi­on, which I hope, they will not maintaine. If the Iewes had fallen before every signifi­cant object commanded by God to be used in time of divine service, they had continual­ly committed Idolatry.

P. Martyr professing in Oxford at that time, when kneeling was enjoyned to paci­fie the Papists somewhat, who had made some stirres, pretending that the Sacra­ment was prophaned; was loath, being a stranger, to contradict the prescribed or­der, and his great friends, who called him to that place. He was forced afterward to de­fend, what he had written before, and through the importunity of Gardiner his adversarie, was driven to plaister the Eng­lish adoration, with such speeches as cannot be well allowed. But even then, when hee was excusing, he was wishing it were not, and was ever warning them of the danger of it; and l [...]st, after the experience of the miserable revolt of England, he uttered his minde very freely in an Epistle to the Polo­nians. His testimonies shall be cited in the own place, howbeit in a part, some of them [Page 39] be already cited in the answer to Doct. Reso­lu [...]us, and therefore I proceed. When we alledge a principle out of Perkins, That un­d [...] the new Testament it is idolatrie to di­rect our worship to any creature, or place; and in speciall to the bread on the Altar, or in the hand of the Minister: he granteth that Paraeus saith in effect as much But saith he, they speak against the Papists. And so much the worse, say I, if others be guilty of the like fault. It is Papistrie Superstition, and Idolatrie, against which they write, wheresoever it be. And it is Papist [...]y, Su­perstition, and Idolatry, whereunto at this present, wee oppose our selves. He [...]aith that [...]elcatius writeth, that Christ is to be [...]ed in the Mysteries. But doth hee not tell how? To wit, that the eyes of our faith are [...]o be lifted up to heaven: and the same say we, and do more often inculcat [...] the same, then our opposites. What is this to the prostrating of our bodies, whereof T [...]lcatius did not dreame? He saith they k [...]l [...] not as the Papist doth, when the bread is carried in procession, or at the ele­vation, but when they receive the bread: when as it is notoir that they kneele a long space, before they receive. But let it be so, that they kneele onely when they re­ceive, do they not kneele before it, when they receive it? What matter of the length, or shortn [...]se of the time; or the act of re­ceiving? If it be unlawfull at any time, even for a moment, or in any act. God never ordained, that any act of his service should [Page 40] be performed with any sinne, but rather in case there lay such a necessity on a man, that he cannot performe service to him without sinne, that he should omit his service. For God will not accept of sinne in no case. Next, why will they make scruple to kneele at the elevation, seeing it is then consecra­ted; it is objectum a quo significative; it is in the ministration of the Mysteries, in the time of Gods publick worship. God forbid, that we see the day, wherein he and his fellowes may do this without controulement. Sup­pose the Formalist did not commit Idolatry in bowing before the creature by direction, yet he committeth idolatry, in that he knee­leth for reverence of the creature. For to kneele before a creature, because of a reve­rent estimation of it, is to adore it. Because kneeling in religious worship, is ever the gesture of adoration. The formalist kneeleth for reverence of the Sacrament, and the sacramentall actions, taking, eating, drinking. For kneeling is enjoyned in the Kirk of England for reverence of the Sacra­ment, as the Ministers of Lincolne do prove in their Abridgment. Conformity with England is intended. Therefore kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament is intended. Next kneeling is enjoyned by the act of Perth, for reverent and due regard of so di­vine a Mysterie, as is the Sacrament. Seeing therfore the publick intent is to kneele for reverence of the Sacrament, let no man de­ceive himselfe with his own private intent; for his act must be interpreted before men [Page 41] according to the publicke intent, and before God he shall be guilty, not onely of ido­latry, but also of dissimulation. Otherwise he may go to Rome, and take kneeling Cor­pus Christi, out of the Popes own hand. Thirdly, this private intent, must either be for reverence of the Sacrament, or else with prophannesse, and mocking of God. For put the case he be praying in the act of be­holding, hearing receiving, eating, drinking; he cannot, nor should not be praying all that time, and performe these actions also, as he ought to do, but sometimes he must have his senses, the members of his body, his mind exercised otherwise then in pray­er, to wit, outwardly beholding, taking, ea­ting, drinking; considering inwardly, what these signes, and rituall actions do meane. If in this time he be not praying, and yet kneeling, he is either mocking God, not caring for what respect he kneeleth; or else he kneeleth for reverence of these sym­bols, and actions, whereabout and wher­in he is exercised. But the truth is, that the short [...]jaculations of the heart, wher­of we shal speak afterward, may consist with any other actions, either civill or religious: but a set or continued prayer, cannot con­sist vvith any other actions, either civill or religious, except the gestures of prayer themselves, whether a man stand, sit, or kneele. If a man should be praying on his knees, and in the meane time be eating his meat, vvould ye not thinke, that that man vvere either mocking GOD, or [Page 42] kneeled for reverence of his meat, and made an Idoll of it. Ye will say, the case is not alike: for the one is consecrated, and ho­lv, the other is but common. Is not then, the kneeling at the one, and not at the o­ther, for reverence, holinesse being the rea­son, wherfore a man doth kneele. As the King is the person honoured ut quae, and the Royall Dignity is the reason ut qua, wherby h [...] g [...]t [...]eth that honour. So the bread is ob­jectum quod, the object which is adored; the holinesse of it in that it is consecrate to sig­nifie his body, is quo the reason, wherfore we kneele before such an object. With what face then, can men say that they kneel not for reverence of the elements, and acti­ons employed about the elements? And this is more then I think a Papist will do to the crucifix [...]: for except h [...] be a praying to Christ before it, he may well b [...]ck, but he will not kneele; but here he kneeleth be­cause he believeth he is taking and eating Christs very Body, and so he is consonant to himselfe: the Formalist is not so, but misapplyeth the Popish adoration.

It is objected first, that we uncover our head, why may we not also bow ou [...] knees: I answer, that we uncover our heads in the time of this action, as we doe at the hearing of the Scripture read, which we do for ve­neration, not for adoration. For in this Sacrament CHRISTS own words are heard, and his actions, which were divine and holy, reiterate, and therfore we owe reverence or veneration, but not adoration [Page 34] for reverence, no more then at the hearing of the scripture read. For as Chrysostome sayth, In 2. Tim. hom. 2. Quemadmo­dum enim verba, quae locutus est Christus ea­dē sunt, quae sacerdotes nunc quòque pronunciant­ita & obla­tio eadē est▪ eadem (que) bap­tismi ratio est, adeo om­nia in fide consistunt. As the words which Christ spake, are the same which the priests now pronounce, so is it the same oblation, the same baptisme: all things doe so consist together in the faith. And again, Homil▪ de proditio. Iu­dae. Et vox illa quidem semel dicta est, sed per omnes men­sas ecclesiae usque ad ho­d [...]rnum diē ▪ et usque a [...] ejus adventīe praestat sacri­ficio firmita­tem. that voyce was once pronounced, but it giveth firmnesse to this sacrifice through all the tables of the world to this day, and to his comming again. This vene­ration given to the word, and symbols in so holy an action, redoundeth to God himselfe, or Christ the author and institutor: for they are reverently respected for their sake, and therfore in the reverent usage of them, God is reverenced. As he that giveth almes to a poore man, is said to doe it to Christ, because he doth it for Christs sake, and honoureth Christ in the poore man. But in adoration God will have no mediate creature to goe betwixt him and the worshipper, howbeit he would pretend, that it is done for his sake; as all Idolaters doe pretend. Kneeling is the gesture of the high and divine worship, which the schoolemen call cultus latria, and never given in Scripture to any other, in re­ligious worship: howbeit the Papists have given it also to inferiour creatures, which is their vile idolatry. It is not sufficient to say that in our adoration, non sistendum est in sym­bo [...], we must not rest upon the symbols, when as our adoration should not light up­ [...] the Symbols, or glance at them: for God will not have a glance of his worship bestowed upon any creature. It is objected next, that when the meate is set on our Ta­bles, [Page 44] vve uncover our heads, and do say grace. I answer, There is a relation here between God and the meat, but not a rela­tion of vvorship, either from the meat to God, as if our vvorship did passe by the meat, and determine in God, or return from God, and determine in the meat. The meat is the subject vvherupon vve desire Gods blessing to be bestowed before vve use it. And therfore vve use the gestures of prayer, vvhich are used in blessing of other things, that is, vve stretch out our hands over our meat, or use the like demonstrative signe of the creature, vvhich vve desire God to blesse. Or sometimes vvithout any such indicant signe, vve expresse our selves with these or the like vvords, Vpon these thy good creatures, &c. When persons were blessed, or consecrated, if one, hands vvere layd up­on that one: if many, then the Priest listed up both his hands, as high as his shoulders, toward or over them, and blessed all toge­ther. So is it in the blessing of the meat, o [...] any other creature. There is a relation o [...] a blessing from God to the meat, but no [...] of vvorship from God to the meat. Yea [...] say further, that in all these blessings, either of persons, or other creatures, vve never read that the blesser kneeled down before that creature, vvhen he blessed, but rather behaved himself as superior unto it, vvhether [...] vvas meat, or drink, or any thing els. [...] know not one instance to the contrary in [...] the Scripture. Put the case there were, y [...] after the meat was blessed and sanctified t [...] [Page 45] our common use, in the taking, eating, drink­ing; what people never so barborous, did ever kneele? See more of this eighth Argu­ment(u) P. A. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Sol. p. 40. 41. 4 [...] ▪ 43. 23. in the two former Treatises.

VVEE say, that we should eschew all shew of conformitie with the Papists and idolators. But knee­ling in the act of receiving the sacramentall elements, we are in shew conforme to the Papists. He telleth us; that we are conforme with them in many Articles of our faith; we and they agree in many points of doctrine [...] but therein we are conforme to the truth, and true Apostolicall Church. They pos­sesse some points of truth which we doe, as a theife doth a true mans purse; or a Pi­ [...]ate the ship of an honest Marchant. He [...]aith they kneele for one end, and the Pa­ [...]ist for another. It is not the end, but the [...]ite; not identitie, but likenesse, wherof we [...]re now speaking. If Christians had deck­ed their houses with Laurell, and greene [...]oughes upon the festivall dayes, wheron the Pagans decked theirs, against the 73. Canon of the Councell of Bracara, how­ [...]eit there had bene no intention to honour the gods of the Pagans, yet they could not [...]ave bene excused; because they decked their [...]ouses after the same manner, and at the [...]ne time. We might bring in a multitude [Page 46] of Iewish and Popish Rites, if the different intention might be a sufficient warrant for us. God made his people as unlike the ido­latrous Nations as might be. And so should we be as remote from all Papisticall ceremo­nies, as may be. P. Martyr in an Epistle to the Polonians sayth, Loc. com. p. 1111. In ri tu Sacramen­torum admi­nistrandorū i [...] amplecten­dus est, qui fuerit quam s [...]p i [...]s [...] ­mus, atque a Papist [...]s nugis & ceremoniol [...] maxime re­mo [...]s: & ad puritatem, qua Christus cum Aposto­lis usus est, quam plu [...]i­mum accesse­rit. that rite in the admi­nistration of the Sacraments is to be embraced, which is most of all, and furthest removed from Papisticall toyes, and ceremonies, and commeth nee­rest to that puritie, which Christ and his Apostles used. Further, we differ not in one generall end, to wit, adoration, but we misapply that which they do. For they are employ­ed about their God, as they think, when they are taking, eating, and drinking. And the Formalist is employed about bread and wine consecrate to an holy use: which are meere creatures even in his own conceit. It is conformity with all the true worshippers o [...] God to kneele in prayer: but not to kneele before the sacramentall elements.

WEE say that kneeling in the act o [...] receiving the sacramentall ele­ments, suppose it had bene indif­ferent, or lawfull at the first invention of [...] ▪ yet seeing it hath bene abused, and pollu­ted with the vilest idolatry, that [...]ver was▪ it ought to be removed, and no monumen [...] thereof left; farre lesse should it be resto­red [Page 47] where it hath bene out of use these threescore yeares by past, and cast away as a menstruous cloath. He telleth us that the Ark was in the Philistimes hands: that the gold, brasse, and Iron of Iericho was taken into the Lords treasure, and other like in­stances. The Arke was Gods own ordi­nance. The silver, the gold, the brasse, were not idolatrous, but the civill goods of ido­laters. What God hath instituted, the abuse of men cannot take away: What belong­eth to the idolater, not being idolatrous, not having state in the idolatrous service, if it may serve to some necessary, and profi­table use, may be retained, the abuses being purged. But kneeling hath state in Gods service, and both had, and hath state in ido­latrous service, and is of no necessary use. When we say that Ezekiah brake the brazen Serpent in peeces, howbeit it was Gods own appointed signe, and reserved for a monu­ment of his mercy 700. yeeres: and that kneeling was not appointed of God: He telleth us, we are not bound to imitate the fact of Ezechias in the particular circum­stances. It is not from the breaking of it in peeces, or the manner of abolishing it in particular, that we do reason, but from the abolishing of it in generall. So that kneeling be abolished, and altogether removed out of that place of divine service, we shall not contend for the different manner. He saith, the use of the brasen Serpēt ceased: The use wherefore it was first instituted ceased, but the other use, to be a monument of Gods [Page 48] mercy, ceased not, and might have conti­nued longer, if it had not beene abused. He saith kneeling shall have a profitable use so long as the world standeth. True: but not, kneeling before the elements of the Sacra­ment in the act of receiving. He saith Eze­kiah brake the Idoll, but reserved the burn­ing of Incense to God: So they have bro­ken in peeces, the idoll of Reall presence, but reserved kneeling to Christ. But we say, that he abolished the burning of Incense not simply, for it was a part of Gods ser­vice, but burning of Incense before the brasen Serpent. So we crave not kneeling simply to be abolished, but kneeling before the elements in the act of receiving. P. A. p. 55. Sol. p. 38.

KNeeling in the act of receiving, is dan­gerous, being an occasion and provo­cation to idolatry. He sayth, we called it before idolatry, and now onely an occasi­on or provocation to it. We call it so now in a new argument: first giving and not granting that it were not idolatry. Next, we say, it is dangerous, because it is a provoca­tion to another kinde of idolatry, beside that we spake of before, to wit, the grossest sort of worshipping the transubstantiated bread, or Christ bodily present. He sayth, we are prone to prophannesse as well as idolatry. But we should not give dangerous provoca­tions, either to the one, or to the other. He [Page 49] sayth, the Belgick Kirks making a Canon a­gainst kneeling for feare of bread worship, feared where there was no need of feare: for it hath been used in the Kirk of England without any such danger. Mr. Cartwrights(z) 1. Part. p. 164. report in a matter of fact, will get credit e­ven with his adversaries. He sayth, That in divers places the people have knocked on their breasts, and holden up their hands, whilest the Minister was in giving of it, and not onely those who received it, but also those who looked on, and were in the Kirk. Peter Martyr after the revolt of England in Queen Maries dayes, writing to the Poloni­an Ministers. (a) Let the evill seed and rotten (z) Loc. com. p. 1111. A­verruncentur sub ipsis ini­tijs mala se­mina & pu­tres radices, nam si è principio negligantur (scio quod loquo▪) po­stea multo difficilius [...]lluntur, Idque providendum est ut in sacramentis, & praecipue in [...]ucharistia, quam sincerissime fiat. Ibi sint mihi crede idololatriae estifera semina, quae porro nisi sublata fuerint ecclesia Christi puro [...]ceroque cultu nunquam erit ornata. Non contemnantur sacra­menta ut inania & vana signa, rursumque non illis plus tribuant omines quam ipsorum institutio ferat. roots be plucked up at the first beginning: for if they be neglected at the first (I know what I speak) they are more hard to be taken away afterward. And this is to be seen unto, as in the sacraments, so speci­ally in the Eucharist, that it be most sincerely done. For there are there, beleeve me, pestilent seeds of [...]dolatry, which except they bee taken away, the Church of Christ will never be beautified with pure and sincere worship. Let not the sacraments be con­ [...]emned, as empty and voyd signes: and on the other [...] ▪ let not men give greater honour unto them, then their institution will suffer.

[Page 50]And before that time, even then when he wrote against Gardiner, he often fore warn­eth of the danger of it. Col. 160 Vt, quod mihi vide­tur, dicam, ad evitanda superstitionum pericula no­lim hoc tempore. adorationis externae signa in Eucha­ristiae perceptione adhiberi, utut non ad symbola pa­nis & vini, sed ad ipsum Christum in coelis regnan­tem derigerentur. Howbeit they should di­rect their worship, not to the symbols, but to Christ; yet he sayth there is danger of super­stition in it. This was the best that ever Martyr could make of it, for throughly he could never digest it, and in that Epistle to the Polonians he is more free. Where he testifieth upon his own experience, what such pestilēt seeds of idolatry have wrought. I know what I spake, meaning no doubt the revolt of England: and who knoweth if there were the like triall, what the formalists would doe. So howbeit Papists are harde­ned, and increase to the feeling of all men, yet all the danger is not seen not felt, till the time of triall come. Beza sayth, Quaest. 243. In ipsa panis sump­tione adora­tio apud nē ­sam quam sit periculosa, utpo [...]e quae artolatriae occasionem aperuerit, unde tandem homines ad metousian praecipitavit Satan, res ipsa demon­strant. Ado­ration in the very act of receiving, how dangero [...] it is, it being that which hath opened an occasion to breadworship, from whence at last Satan cast men down headlong to transubstantiation, the matter it selfe maketh manifest. And in his eight Epistle he sayth, that the event, and lamentable face of the Kirk, doth more then sufficiently teach us, how hurtfull it is; and commendeth these Churches which have abolished it, with no lesse care, then other apertas idole­manias manifest mad idolatry. What need I cite many testimonies, when as all the Di­vines [Page 51] in well reformed Kirks do think the same; and yet he will say, that the Belgick Kirks feared where there was no need of feare. At last he telleth us, that a Synod in Pole made standing or kneeling indifferent, but sitting they condemned. That Synod was a confused or mixt Synod of sundry sorts of professors, some adhering to the Au­gustane confession, some to the Helvetian, some to the Bohemian. Next, they thought that the Arrians had been the first authors of sitting after the reformation, when as both the Scottish and Belgick Churches at that same time, and many yeares before, did use the gesture of sitting; and as worthy a Polonian, as that Church bred in his time, Iohannes Alasco, a Polonian Baron, wrot before the holding of that synod many years more amply, and more earnestly for sitting, then any other man els, and did put it in practise in the kirkes, where he bare office. So it was in them a grosse ignorance in a matter of fact, which was so publick in the view of all men. Thirdly, howbeit there was at that mixt Synod a great number of Lutherans, yet they consent with the rest, that no man should be urged to kneel; be­cause it was neither the will of God, nor custome of the purer Kirk to censure, or pu­nish godly men for externall rites. The Lu­theran, yee may see, is more favourable in this poynt, howbeit he maintain Christs bo­dily presence, then these who would seem to be of our own profession. Sol. pag. 36. It is to be mar­ked, that in this place the Doctor esteemeth [Page 52] bread-worship to be no error in the founda­tion.

KNeeling in the act of receiving, say we, is will-worship. He sayth it is no part of Gods worship properly; and therfore it cannot be will-worship. This followeth not: for will-worship is of sun­dry sorts; as when a man inuenteth a new kinde of service to God, which hee never commanded; or when he misplaceth that vvhich God hath commanded, and useth it vvhere he will; or vvhen that, vvhich is not in the own nature vvorship, the user maketh it worship in his own conceit and opinion. Next, it followeth not, because that knee­ling is a signe of vvorship, that therefore it is not worship properly; or because some­time we use it, and sometime not: for how­beit it be a signe of the internall adoration, yet is it the matter it selfe of externall ado­ration; for by it we do not onely signifie the affection of our heart, but also honoureth God, either in secret, or before men. For he that adoreth, honoureth; and we honour. God not onely with our spirit, but also with our body. As the Doctor himselfe said before; we direct to God, not onely the worship of our hearts, but of our body: When wee pray without kneeling we give spirituall vvorship, vvithout determina­tion of that particular bodily vvorship at that time: but vvhen vve pray kneeling, [Page 53] vvee cojoyne the bodily, and spirituall worship. Thirdly, it is not the kneeling out­ward onely, that we call will-worship, but that also wherupon kneeling doth usually attend, that is set and continued prayer. For we say, that in the act of receiving, there is not the proper time and place of set and continued prayer; wherof we shall in­treat in the own place. To pray then, is Gods worship, but to pray in an unfit time, to displace any other part of God worship, is will-worship.

VVEE say, that kneeling entred into the Kirk under Antichrist: whether Honorius was the first deviser of it, or not, we regard not as a point materiall. It appeareth that Honorius de­creed onely an inclination, or bowing of the super our bulk of the body at the eleva­tion, but not kneeling. If he ordained so much to be done at the elevation, it is like­ly that in the act of receiving, kneeling was either then also ordained, or come in a little after. But whether before, or after, is not the chiefe question. It is sufficient, that it was not in use in the Kirk of God for a 1000. years, or before the time at least, when the Antichrist was at his height. For there is not one expresse testimony in all the ancient Writers for kneeling in the act of receiving, [Page 54] except some counterfeit worke; yea, not so much as in any counterfeit work, so farre as we have yet seen alledged, except in one Cyrillus. The censure of Moulins upon these Catechismes of Cyrillus is marked and set down already in Perth Assembly P. A. p. 60.. I adde the censure of the Bishop of Spalato, who saith, De rep. eccl. li. [...]. c. 6. append. ad Hilarium [...]umer. 69. that the Catechismes which go abroad under the name of Cyrillus Hie­rosolymitanus, are to him greatly suspected, for they smell of farre posterior times: and he setteth down the reasons of his judg­ment. Beza saith, that kneeling in the act of receiving, brought in Popish bread-worship, and transubstantiation, because, it may be, he gave some credit to Cyrillus; but it is very likely that it came in after the opinion of the reall presence, and transubstantiation. For as I have said, there is not a testimony we can heare of, yet alledged for kneeling, within the space of a 1000. yeares. And suppose that kneeling went before the opi­nion of Reall Presence, or Transubstantion, yet even then it was, (and no other wayes it could be) the Formalists idolatry, pre­paring the way to, or rather drawing on the worshipping of Christ as bodily present, or the bread transubstantiated into his bo­dy. For I have already declared, that kneel­ing in the act of receiving, eating and drink­ing, cannot be but idolatrous. Many grosse corruptions were in the Kirk before the o­pinion of the Reall Presence, or Transub­stantiation prevailed. Seeing then it came in under the Antichrist, whether should we [Page 55] follow the Antichrist, and his Lawes, or Christ his holy Institutions.

KNeeling in the act of receiving is scan­dalous to many. He saith that wee ought to do our duty, though men be never so much offended, otherwise the scan­dall is not given, but taken: our duty is to obey the ordinance of the Kirk made anent kneeling, and not to offend the Kings Ma­jesty. Here ye see first he opponeth offend­ing, that is greeving or displeasing the Kings Majestie, to offending, that is, giving occa­sion to his brother to fall in a grosse sinne, and so to distroy him, for whom Christ di­ed, so far as in him lyeth. Next suppose that(g) Quando ipsum factū est tale, quod de sui ratio­ne habeat, quod sit in­ductivum ad peccandum, puta cū ali­quis publice facit peccatū, vel quod ha­bet similitu­dinem pecca­ti. 2. 2. quest. 43. art. 1. ad 4. kneeling in the act of receiving the sacra­mentall elements, were not a sinne, both in disordering the right manner of celebrati­on, and also in that it is idolatry; yet it is a matter of actiue scandall, in that it hath a shew of evill, and giveth occasion to our bro­ther to fall into that evill, wherof it hath a shew, to wit in bread-worship. For a mans doing is the cause of anothers fall, two wayes, per se, of it selfe, or per accidens, through the default of another onely, who is ill affected, and taketh occasion to offend, even at good things. The first is actiue scan­dall, the second is passive. In the active, sometime there is intentio operantis, an inten­tion [Page 56] in the doer to draw another to sin: sometime there is without any such inten­tion, onely conditio operis, such a manner of doing, that of it selfe it giveth occasion to another to fail. As when a man doth such an act, which is an inducement to sinne; as when a man committeth pub­liquely a sinne, or that which hath the shew, or likenesse of sinne, saith Aquinas. This shew of idolatry that is in kneeling, suppose there were no more, is an induce­ment and occasion to others to commit ido­latry, & hardneth the Papist in his idolatry; It is an active, not a passive scandall. We must not omit a necessary duty, suppose o­thers unjustly take offence. But kneeling in the act of receiving is not a necessary duty, but such a deed as is inductive to scandall.

The Doctor' saith that it is a necessary duty to obey the ordinance of our Superi­ours, and not to withstand the Authority. No man denyeth obedience to be due to the Magistrate, or Superiour, suppose others should take offence, for that were mat [...]ris proxima scandali, the neerest and immediate matter of the scandall, to deny that lege com­inum, by the common law, the law of God and men▪ Magistrates and Superiours should be obeyed. But lege particulari by a particular law made of any particular mat­ter, wee are not ever bound to active obe­dience; as when he commandeth to sinne, or do any thing that hath the shew of sinne, or is apt to breed scandall; like as kneel­ing [Page 57] in the act of receiving hath proved by the event, or experience both of the ages before and at this present. Neither is in this same case obedience passive denyed; and so the Morall duty of obedience is ful­filled. Daniel would not desist from ope­ning his windowes toward Ierusalem not withstanding of the Kings edict. The com­mandement of the Magistrate cannot make a thing, which of it selfe is scandalous, and hurtfull, not to bee hurtfull, but rather by the strength of his authoritie maketh it more scandalous and hurtfull, then it would be. But none of our Formalists will deale in earnest with the supreme Magistrate, and tell him that he committeth active scandall in laying a stumbling block before the people, and therfore sinneth against the LORD. The Nurse that left a knife vvith the child found dead at her returne, could not be free of blame; but the Nurse that layeth downe the knife, is farre lesse to be excu­sed. Ez [...]kias removed a passive scandall, to vvit, the brazen Serpent: For the bra­sen Serpent vvas not an active scandall. Seeing therefore there is passive scandall in this kneeling, it is sufficient cause to re­move it, suppose there vvere no active. Will the flattering Formalist then bee in­stant vvith the Magistrate to remove, or ra­ther not to reinduce this passive scandall, and follovv the example of good Ezekias. For this invention of man, hath beene, is, and is still likely to be abused superstitiously, giving and not granting that of it selfe it vvere not [Page 58] idolatry. But our flatering Formalists care more for their formal coats, then the hazard of many thousand soules. Againe, it is to be remembred, that our superiours cannot free u [...], or drive us from our oath taken by their own consent. Can they make us sweare the one day, and drive us to perjury another day. Last, it is no lawfull ordinance, which was made at Perth, as all our arguments doe e­vince▪ neither vvas that meeting a lawfull and free Synod, but a Null and pretended Assembly, vvhich they are never able, doe vvhat they can, to defend. The Doctor fayth, he feareth some Ministers do cause the people to take offence. Surely, if they were not constant in their doctrine, and practise, as they have professed these many yeares, they would cause the people take offence at the vvhole doctrine, vvhich they have taught, and to call it in doubt. Let them a­lone sayth he, they be blind leaders of the blind. Certainly, vvho vvill be lead by this vvorthy vvork of the Doctors, I affirme he is either a temporizer seeking a cloake for his back-sliding, or els he is blind, led by a blind Doctor: or if he be not blind, he is blinded vvith avarice and ambition, or hath a part of both.

HE maketh us an argument of every thing, wherewith we exaggerate their fault. We say, that Bellarmine argueth [Page 59] a priori from the real presence for adoration▪ and againe, a posteriori from adoration for the reall presence. And if it bee lawfull to kneele at the receiving of the sacrament, it is lawful to kneele before images. He sayth, We may fal down before the symbols, which we have already refuted. He sayth, that the Papist worshipeth Christ, & the image with one worship, Christ and the Eucharist as be­ing one. What is that to the purpose, that the idolatry of the Papist, and of the forma­list, is not all one in every respect, seeing he misapplieth onely the popish adoration, as I have sayd before. Bellarmine sayth not, that Christ and the image is to be worshiped with one vvorship after one manner: for Christ is to be vvorshiped vvith that high worship called cultus latriae, and that proper­ly, the image of Christ improperly, and per accidens; as he that adoreth the King, adoreth him and his purple robe at one time with one vvorship, but after a divers manner. So in the sacrament they adore Christ and the species together with the same vvorship, but not after the same manner: for they worship the accidents and species, onely per accidens, vvith that vvorship vvhich they give unto Christ, as in the coadoration of the Kings throne, or his robe, when the King is wor­shipped. But the formalist kneeleth for re­verence of the elements, not per accidens, but perse, howbeit propter alium. Now to kneele for reverence is to adore with that gesture, which in scripture is used in religious and divine vvorship to be given onely to God.

THe ancient Kirk received not the com­munion kneeling. Vpon the Lords day it was the custome to stand, and that for a thousand years, even in time of publick prayer. He sayth, that howbeit in time of prayer they stood on the Lords day, to testi­fie their profession of Christs resurrection, yet at the celebration of the supper they might have kneeled. I ask then, was it more needful to testifie their profession of Christs resurrection in time of prayer, then in the act of receiving the elements. It was that day, that they observed vvith such a rite, because Christ rose on that day, and not a part of the day. The Canons and testimo­nies for not kneeling on the Lords day, some of them make mention of the time of prayer, because otherwayes at other times they kneeled in time of prayer. Some vvithout a­ny particular mention of prayer time, or more generall. And therefore Zonaras vvriting upon the sixt Councell holden in Trullo, Can. 90. forbidding Post ves­pertinum sa­cerdotum ad altare in sab­batho ingres­sum. ex cōsu­etudine quae servatur, ne­mo genu flec­tat usque ad sequentē ves­peram in die Dominico. to bow the knee from the [...]ening service on Saturday, to the next evening tide on the Lords day, sayth, Medio illo tempore nullo modo in genu pro­cumbendum esse denuntiat. It is intimate, that i [...] that meane time no wayes they should fall on the [...] knees. When at any time mention is made of prayer in particular, it is because it vvas the proper and onely time of kneeling on [Page 61] other dayes. Tertullian likewise sayth, De Cor [...] ­milit. die Do­minico jeju­nare, aut de geniculis a­dorare nefas est. that it was counted unlawfull to adore upon their knees on the Lords day. Iustiuus Mar­tyr sayth, that vvhen they vvere beginning this action, they arose, and stood; and vvhen prayer vvas ended, did communicate. The Doctor sayth, it may be, that how beit they arose, and stood on their feet, that they com­municated kneeling. He hath not so much as any appearance out of Iustinus vvords, and yet vvill answer, It might have been done with kneeling. Further, they cannot produce(k) Hist lib. 7. cap. 8. one testimony out of authentick antiquity, to prove that they kneeled; howbeit vve produce testimonies for standing, as the ma [...] of vvho [...] Eusebius maketh mention. H [...] [...]th, howbeit they kneeled not in the act [...]f receiving upon the Lords day, yet it may be that they kneeled on other dayes. Y [...] again it may be, and no presumption, no proofe alledged. Our testimonies are gene­rall for every day. Eusebius example ma­keth mention of no day in particular. Chrys­ostome Homil. de encenijs. Ste­mus tremen­tes & timidi demissis ocu­lis, renata au­tem anima gementes, sine voce, jubilan­tes corde. Annon vi­des eos, qui sensibili, cor­ruptibili, tem­porali & terreno regi assistunt, quā sint immobi­les, non lo­quentes, non oculos huc et illue mitten­tes, &c. addeth a reason, vvhich cannot agree with exception of times. Let us stand [...]embling and in feare, with our eyes cast, down, in [...] renewed soule, making a moane without a voyce, [...]o [...]ing in our heart. See you not these who stand beside a sensible, corruptible, temporall, earthly King, how unmoveable and unstirring they are, not [...]eaking, not casting their eye this way or that way, &c. Tertullian speaking of some, who [...]ought, that in case they took the Sacra­ [...]ent upon a fasting day, their fast was bro­ [...]en: he assureth them on the contrary, that [Page 62] their fast was the more solemne. De orat. cap 14 Er­go devotion [...] Deo obse­q [...] Eucha­ristia resol­vi [...], [...]magis Deo obligat? Noune [...]l [...]n▪ mor [...]rit sta­tio [...]ua, s [...] & ad [...] Dei st [...]s? Nō ­n [...] acce [...]to corpore Do­mini & re­servat▪ [...] qu [...] sa [...]vu [...]m est▪ & pa [...]i­ci [...] [...]o sacri­fi [...]ij & exe­cu [...] [...]ss [...]ij. Doth the Eucharist loose, or rather binde your devotion? Shall not your station be the more solemne, if ye [...] stand at the altar of God? For after yee have re­ceived and reserved the body of the Lord, both are kept whole, both the participation of the Sacrifice, and execution of your devotion▪ that is, your fasting, sayth Pl [...]ssie, [...] [...] ▪ [...] [...]. 65 [...] be that thereby it should be broken. And Baro­nius by S [...]o in Tertullian, sayth, is under­stood [...] fasting Seeing they fasted not on the Lord day, as ye have already heard out o [...] Tertullian, it followeth that they stood [...] the [...]ct of receiving upon other dayes also. The custome of the orien [...]al Kirks yet not d [...]u [...]d to this very same day [...] a proofe sufficient, that in the ancient Kirks they stood. As for the standing in time o [...] publick pr [...]yer, it was not enioyned as [...] fi [...]est gesture of prayer (for upon other da [...] they kneeled in time of prayer) but onely up­on the Lords day were they appoynted to stand in prayer, for signification of their [...]or for Christs resurrection. The custome o [...] standing in the act of receiving, was not un­versall for a long time▪ for in many places they [...]a [...], as well as they stood and w [...] so fa [...]e in imitation of the first Supper, that they communicated at evening, and [...]om [...] [...] [...] Th [...] costome was observed by m [...] ­ny [...] day. At last it was restrained to the anniversary day (called Coena Domini [...] the third Councell of Carthage, which [...] ­ [...]ome yet remaineth at th [...] day, upon th [...] anniversary day with the Monkes of S [...] [Page 63] Bennets order. Chrysostome also speaketh of sitting, when he sayth, Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. Et hoc facis, cum ad Chri­sti mensam dis [...]ubueris, in die illa, qua carnem eius linguae attingere dignatus es [...] And doist thou also this, when thou sittest at the table of the Lord, in that day, wherein thou wast deinzed to touch his flesh with thy tongue. In Iustinus time, the Dea­cons dispensed both the bread and the wine, to the communicants. I would then de­mand two things: First, if they pronounced any words, when they delivered the ele­ments. Long after Iustinus time we know they did when as the Deacon sayd, The blood of Christ, the [...] of life, which was an abuse au­thorizingSanguis Christs, c [...]lix vitae. the Deacon to speak to the com­mu [...] in that act which was the duty of [...] Minister. If they did not so in Iustinus [...]me, did the communicant kneele, when he received the elements from the Deacon, without any words pronounced. Next, see­ing the Deacons dispensed the elements to the communicants, whether before that time in the Apostles dayes, did the Minister dispense the elements out of his own hands, or not. It is not likely, if that had been their office, that they would have transfer­red that office to Deacons Deacons mini­string at tables for the love-feasts, were the s [...]on [...]r imployed to minister to the commu­nicants sitting at tables in the time of the holy action. And from ministring in com­mon, they came to particular dispensing to every one severally. Thereafter words were put in their mouthes. At last they were made halfe Priests, and got power to teach and baptize. To conclude, howsoever the ancient kirk kneeled not in the act of recei­ving; [Page 64] their other customes, of standing, and turning the due celebration of the supper into a forme of Iewish sacrificing, as Calvin sayth, Justit. lib. 4. c. 18, s. 11. and many other corruptions, which entred in very soone, are not to be followed of us. Not long after the Apostles dayes, sayth(p) Justit. lib. 4 c. 17. s 43. Quam non longe ab A­posiolorum aetate coena Domini tacta rubigine fuerit; sed isthaec scilicet humanae confiden­tiae procacitas est, quae se continere nequit, quin semper in Dei mysterijs ludat & lasciviat. Calvin, the Supper of the Lord was defiled with some rust, but this is the malapertnesse of men, which cannot containe it selfe, but must ever play and toy foolishly in the mysteries of God.

WEE say that in the act of recei­ving the Saciamentall elements; we should meditate, and consider the analogie of the signe, and the things sig­nified; attend with our minds, exercise our senses, because of the externall Symbols, and rituall actions, wherabout they are em­ployed; and that it is not a fit time of so­lemne prayer, and thankesgiving, and con­sequently that in the ect of receiving wee should not kneele. He formeth his second Argument flat contrariwise in this manner. In worshipping God with solemne prayer and thankes giving we may lawfully kneele. In the act of receiving the Sacrament wee [Page 65] worship GOD with solemne prayer and thankes giving. Ergo, in the act of receiv­ing the Sacrament we may lawfully kneele. We deny the assumption, for the reason al­ready alledged, to wit, that it is not a fit time of solemne prayer and thanks giving when men have their outward senses, and members of their bodies outwardly, and the powers of their soule inwardly other­wise employed. He proveth his assumpti­on, both here, and in his second Argument after this manner: We should meditate on Christs death; We cannot remember of his death, except we remember also that by his death life commeth unto us; we cannot re­member of this, without remembrance of our own misery. The remembrance of our miserie ministreth matter of prayer: Ther­fore the remembrance of Christs death cau­seth prayer and thanks giving: praver, that by his death we may have life; thanksgiving, for the benefit of redemption. Ye see the whole force of his reason dependeth upon the duty of remembrance of Christs death. Now Becanus the Iesuit saith De com­munione sub utra que spe­cie cap. 12. That di­vers wayes we may remember of the bene­fit of redemption, which Christ hath con­quered to us by his death. First, in partici­pation of the Sacrament of the Enchartist: Next, in reading the Gospell, where his death and passion is described. Thirdly, at the sight of an Image, which representeth him and his Passion. If therfore at the sight of a Crucifixe the Doctor be put in remem­brance of Christs death, should he blot out [Page 66] so good a thing out of his mind? If not, how then can he remember of Christs death, but he must also remember of his miserie, & the benefite gotten by his death, and so burst forth in that very time, and act (for so doth he reason) into prayer, and that kel­giving. To say, that we are forbidden to performe that duty before a crucifix, is to grant that we ought not, and lawfully may not bow down, whensoever we remember of Christs death: And it we may not doe it before a ciucifix, by his own grant, we say we may not do it, when there is any other, or the like impediment, as there are many. For howbeit we remember of Christs death when we are most busied in our worldly af­faires, yet we must not burst forth into le­lemne prayer and thanks-giving. When the historie of the Passion is read, we are put in remembrance of his death; and yet in the act of hearing that Hysto [...]e read, we must not burst forth in solemn prayer and thanks­giving, and kneele; but he that hath eares to he are ought to heare. In the act of re­ceiving the sacramentall elements there is like wise impediments, that we may not burst forth in solemne prayer and thanks­giving, and kneele in the very act it selte of receiving. First, the solemne prayer and thanks-giving [...]ar not co [...]sill with our other imployments of the senses and members of the body, and powers of the soule. Next, we cannot adore before a creature, how beit consecrated. For as we have sayd, the ele­ments are not ordained of God to be used in [Page 67] statu acccmmodato ad adorationem, to that end­tnat wee should pray on our knees to God before them. When the crucifix, or any o­ther image is condemned in the second com­mandement, all other creatures for the like use are condemned. He saith, if a man fall down on his knees where the Idoll is, praying against the idolatry committed in that place, no man seeing him to take of­fence: or if he will turne his face from the Idoll he doeh not unlawfully. He doth un­lawfully three wayes. First, in that be kneel­eth where he needeth not to kneele; for kneeling is not a necessary a [...]ant on prayer. Next in that he cast th [...]lfe in­to a temptation wilfully; for the Lord hath forbidden worship before Images, not one­ly publique, as if it were to eschew scandall; but also in private, because they are dange­ro is provocations, and enticements to ido­lany. [...] a man should go and lye down in the bed with the Hariot, and give her the defiance, hee sinneth notwithstanding. Thirdly, in so doing, he were but playing the foole, and offering but the sacrifice of a soole, how beit he had a Doctors hood. But wee vvill not insist in this instance of his, seeing it is not pertinent to our purpose; for vve are novv speaking of a publike and vo­luntatie vvorship vvithout any protestation contrarie to our fact. Against the impedi­ment of our senses, and thoughts othervvise employed in the act of receiving, he ob­ject▪ th [...] that the minde may comprehend divers things together, and that the heart [Page 68] may be touched vvith divers affections at one time. There is no man doubteth of this, it being taken in a right sense. For the soul of man hath sundry povvers and facul­ties, vvhich concurre to the mutuall help of other: one povver removing impedi­ments out of the vvay, that another povver may vvork the ovvn operation the more ea­sily: one power being subordinate to ano­ther; and the superiour by some influence applying the inferiour to some worke. Sun­dry and divers powers of the soule, and Christian graces, are working together in our religious exercises. But our question is not of one action, or exercise, but whe­ther the same power of the soule at one time, and yet durable, work in divers acti­ons, and exercises. The Schoolemen dis­pute concerning Christ, whether in reach­ing and giving the bread to the disciples, hee did both offer a sacrifice, uttering the words of consecration, as they call them, and reach to them the bread, without any distraction of minde. They say, that not, Physica dura­tione, & concomitantia metaphysica, sed mor [...]li tantum, that he first uttered the words and offered, before he gave the bread in their hands, and there was two actions one suc­ceeding another according to physicall con­sideration, howbeit morally both made but one action. There is in the act of recei­ving presupposed two actions, one of men­tall prayer, another of communicating, that is, taking, eating, drinking. Mentall prayer is either a short ejaculation of the soule, [Page 69] which endureth for a moment, and is called by the Divines, transitoria vel jaculatoria oratio: or else it is durable and permanent, and is called oratio continua. As for the first, there is no action so laborious, or earnest, or worldly, let be religious, but it may con­sist with it, without distraction of the soule from that action, Etiam in medio strepitu, & cla­more hominum, In the midst of the noyse and cla­mours of men, saith Hom. 79. ad populu [...]. Chrysostome. For these momentanean, and transient acts re­quire not permanent attention. Not one­ly momentanean petitions, but every godly motion, and elevation of the mind, is called by the divines, by this name of mentall prayer. These require not, nor cannot, be­cause of the action with which they are mixed, have geniculation to attend them. For geniculation during for a certaine time must attend upon a permanent action of prayer, and not upon a transient, This transitorie ejaculation may, and doth con­sist with the taking of the Sacramentall ele­ments, eating, and drinking, seeing it may, and doth consist with all other our actions, even taking, eating, drinking, at our com­mon meales. It is the permanet action of mentall prayer which we deny, can consist with the act of receiving, eating, drinking. The understanding cannot in one continued act be employed in a continued operation, about another action during the same time without distraction, and consequently with­out unreverent behaviour.

If a man were speaking to a Prince, and [Page 70] mind all that time another thing, if it were possible, it were unreverent behaviour espe­cially if his behaviour were manifested by some outward signes, and employment a­bout other actions, howbeit otherwayes commendabl [...]. Our opposites must either confesse, that during that act of receiving, eating, drinking I mean not onely the soule, but one power of the soule, As for example the intellectuall faculty is exercised by a permanent operation in the action of prayer during the time of their geniculation, and also at the same time, the same faculty of the understanding is exercised by a permanent operation in another action, considering the analogy of things sensible with things invi­sible, according as the symbols, and every rite ministreth occasion of meditation, which is the carefull inquisition of the soule. And so confesse that they doe both a thing un­possible, and unseemly, or els, that one acti­on succeedeth another, and that geniculati­on is in respect of both, which is idolatry. Yee suppose the first were supposed to be true and possible, that both the permanent actions must consist together, yet were it al­so idolatry. For mentall prayer should be concealed at all times in publick, and ought not to be expressed by signes and gestures of prayer outwardly: farre lesse in the place, where it cannot be done without idolatry, or a shew of idolatry: for otherwise the three children might have bowed before the golden image: and Nehemias, when hee stood before the King.

KNeeling bringeth in a private worship, during the time, and act of another worship, which is publick. He telleth us of the abuses of some places. For it is no good, and comely order, that whilest others are communicating apart, and the minister speaking to them, chapters should be read▪ & P [...]lms song by the congregation, but the mi­ [...]er ought first to d [...]si [...] from speaking. Wala [...]dus Strabo saith, De rebus ecclesiast cap 22. Cum ve­r [...] credamus pris [...]s tem­poribus pa­tres sanctos cum si [...]entio obtul sse, vel cōmunicasse [...] quod e [...]m hactenus in Sabbatho sancto pas­c [...]ae observa­mus. We beleev, that of old [...]he [...] fathers did offer, and communicate with s [...]ence; which we yet observe upon Easter Saturday. How­b [...]t all cannot conven [...]ntly communicate at one table, yet when others do communi­cate, and reap their private and particular fruit, the action should be so ministred, that s [...]me publick fruit may in the mean time re­ [...]ound to others who have not, or have al­ready communicated.

WE are bound by our oath to keepe the purity of our profession, both in doctrine, and policie, and to withstand to the uttermost, all corruptions [...]n [...]d by our K [...]k, either in the first or se­cond confession of faith, the first or second [...]ook of discipline, acts of parliament, and [...]cts of generall assemblies, under the danger [Page 72] of damnation in the fearfull day of iudge­ment. Let the temporizer and the formalist keep the next Christmas with this fearfull execration. Discipline is changed, and the forme of government to another kinde of policy, and not acts of circumstances onely. Our oath was not made of matters indiffe­rent, but of things unlawfull; and suppose in­different, yet not as indifferent, but as scan­dalous, dangerous, and apt to provoke to superstition and idolatry. The oath is hand­led already at large in Perth Assembly.