IT was or [...]in [...]d in the g [...]nerall assemblie hol [...]en at E [...]inburgh the yeere 1564.Sitting at ta­ble, and distri­buting by the cōmunicants, was not a Church con­stitution. that minist [...]rs in ministration of the sacra­mē [...]s should use the order set down in our psalme b [...]oks. This order requireth that the communicants sit at table, and breake bread with other. This order hath beene universal­lie, and perpetuallie observed in our kirk from the first yeere of reformation and some yeeres before, not as an order depending upon the varieties of times, places, persons, or the like circumstances, as doe church orders, and constitutions, but as most agreeable to the pat­tern of the first supper celebrated by Christ and his Apostles, as may be seen in the first booke of discipline, and in two Rubricks in our psalme bookes. In the last of the two Rubricks it is said, that Christ commanded, that the communicants divide the elements among th [...]ms lues In the booke of discipline it is said. That it is plaine Christ Iesus sat at table with his disciples, Christ & his Apostles knee­led not but sate at the first supper. and therefore doe we judge that sitting at a table is most convenient for that action.

Christs usual gesture in blessing bread at ta­ble was sitting, as we may see at Emaus Luk. 2 [...]. [Page 4] and when he was to worke the miracle of the five loaves Matt. 14.13. while the disciples were eating, and consequentlie sitting, as the most learned among the Iesuites themselves confesse, Christ tooke bread, and after he had given thanks, brake it. If they kneeled not at the thanksgiving, or blessing, there is no like­lihood, that they kneeled in the act of recei­ving. If there had been anie change from one table gesture to another, from sitting at the paschal supper into standing about the table, as the Israelites did at the first paschal supper in Egypt, wold not the Euangelists have made mention of it? farre more, if there had been a change from all kinde of table gesture into kneeling a gesture of adoration, yea kneeling should then have been the only lawful gesture i [...]stituted by Christ. For to what end also should the change have been made. And so al that communicated sitting either in the primitive kirk, or in the reformed should have sinned in so doing. When Christ gave the bread he said, This is my bodie. The formalist wil not utter these words to the kneeler, when he delivereth the bread. When Christ gave the cuppe to the neerest, he badde them divide it among themselves. They could not then be kneeling. For how could kneeling, a gesture of adoration, consist with dividing, which is not an act of adoration. As it is cleere that they kneeled not, so likewise that they stood not, for how could they cōvenientlie stand in the places, where they sate leaning upon beds? Farther the Euangelists make no mention of standing, but onlie say, that while they were [Page 5] eating, Christ took bread.On the Lords supper 1. part. pag. 136 Even Pierr du Mou­lin sayeth that the Apostles continued sitting at the table to the verie end of the action. Who ever said otherwise in anie age til this time?

Examples in setting down of a patterne serve ordinarilie for direction in times to come,Christ rati­fied sitting the ordinarie ge­sture at reli­gions feasts. if there be not some singular occasion of the same, which will not agree to other times. But there was no singular occasion of sitting at the first supper. The washing of the disci­ples feet, the putting on, and off of Christs up­per garment preceeded the second service of the paschal supper, when as Christ was not yet come to the celebration of the euangelical. The eventide, the unleavened bread, the par­lour, the number of twelve, and other like ad­juncts, and circumstances were but onlie occa­sional, & accidentarie to the Euangelicall sup­per, because the legall supper to which they properly belonged, was celebrated immediatly before, and the last act of it changed into this supper. But sitting was not a table gesture pro­per to the paschal supper, and so occasional, or accidentarie to the Eucharistical. It was the common, and ordinarie gesture used at all re­ligious feasts both among the true worship­pers of God, and Idolaters. To the feasts after the sacrifices the Apostle compareth this Chri­stian feast 1. Corint. 10. So, to speake properlie Christ did not so much institute this gesture at this supper, as ratifie and approve the ordi­narie, and usual. Yee wil say, that if we ought to follow this exemple we should sit leaning. It followeth not. Their gesture was a kinde of sitting gesture, as Doctor Morton confesseth. [Page 6] And not onlie the English translaters expresse it by the word sitting but also the holie ghost in the holie language. A man may be said to stand whether he stand upright, [...]or l [...]aning to a wal, so sitting. Our sitting, and the Turk [...]s, and their si [...]ting at the paschal supper answ [...]re analogicallie to other, and the diff [...]rence is onlie national. Farth [...]r to sit was the ordina­rie gesture at religious feasts, but to si [...] lea [...]ing was onlie occasional, and acciden [...]arie to the Euangelical supper by reason of [...] canon which was made before the day [...]s of Ch [...] st, wherin manie diff [...]rences were made betwixt the pas [...]hal feast, and other r [...]ligious feasts, and among [...]he rest to s [...]t forth the s [...]lemnitie of this feast above others, it was ordained that they should sit after his maner a [...] this feast, and not at other except they pl [...]ased. Quod in omnibus noctibus tam edentes qu [...]m bibente [...] vel sedemus, vel disc [...]mbimus, or accum [...]imus, in hac autem omnes d sc [...]mbimus, or accumbimus. They sat of old even when the cuppe of praise was caried from hand to hand, and the cake of bread broken at the concl [...]sioun of the supper, And yet the conclusion of the pasch [...]l supper where they did eat to the quātitie of an olive, and lesse then the quantitie of an egge was as short, as the euangelical supper wherunto it was changed. Christ ledde the Apostles fr [...]m their sitting at table to the consideration of their sitting upon thrones, whereby we may not onlie collect that their gesture was a kind of sitting gesture, but also that the end and use of their sitting at table with him, was to note their fellowshippe they had with him, [Page 7] and the dignitie, wherunto he had exalted them. Christ was as Ierome sayeth both Con­viva & convivium, the foode that they eate, and a banqueter with them. By eating him as food is represented our union with him, as foode is united with the feeder, but by sitting is de­clared our fellowship with him, as of ghuests with the master of the feast.

Howbeit sitting had not bene the ordinarie table gesture at religious feasts,The Aposto­lick churches satt at table. but a new ex­ample of Christ, and his Apostles, yet seeing it was an example not occasional, or accidentarie but of free choise in setting down the patterne, it is a direction for our imitation, and the A­postles themselves tooke it so, they continued this gesture after the first supper as a gesture most sutable with the forme of a feast. When they cal this feast the table of the Lord, & the supper of the Lord, it may very well be collec­ted, that they used that gesture which was fit for a supper table. And beside that a table is requisite whatsoever be the matter of it, a boord, a bull hide, a plott of ground, whe­ther high, or low, round, long, or square. The love feasts conjoyned with the Lords sup­per could hardlie admitt the gesture of knee­ling, sayeth Beza. The Corinthians fault was,Contra Ha [...] ­chium. that neither at common meates,Obed. pag. 461. nor at the Lords table they wold sit together, but sorted themselves in factions, and companies,Secund serm pag. 61. sayeth Doctor Bilson Doctor Downame confesseth sitting to receave the S [...]crament to have been vsed in the churches in the Apostles times.

Howbeit the supper of the Lord soon after the dayes of the Apostles be ganne to be defi­ledsitting con­tinued after the dayes of the Apostles Calv. insti­tut. lib. cap. 17. Homil. 27. in 1. cor. 11. [Page 8] with some rust, as Mr. Calvine observeth, yet was this gesture continued in manie pla­ces, and at some times vniversallie observed. Chrysostome maketh mention of sitting at Christs table Augustine insinuateth no lesse, Epist. 118. where he sayeth that some mixed this feast with their other repasts. M. Foxe thus writeth of the Waldenses, whom Beza calleth the pure seede of the ancient church. Concerning the supper of the Lord, Acts, and mo­nument 1. Volum. pag. 209. edit. 1610. their faith was, that it was ordained to be eaten, and not to be shew­ed, and worshipped; for a memoriall, and not for a sacrifice; to serue for the present ministrati­on and not for reservation; to be receiued at table, not to be carried out of doores, according to the vse of the primitive church, when they vsed to commu­nicate sitting. And this they prove both by an old chronicle, called Chronica gestorum, as also by ancient Origen. When the manner of celebrati­on after the pattern of the first supper beganne to be neglected almost everie where, and, as Mr. Calvine sayeth, was changed into a Iew­ish forme of sacrificing, it was appointed, that the supper of the Lord should be celebrated according to the institution vpon the thurs­day before Easter, which the ancients called Caena Domini, and is now called Maundi Thurs­day because vpon that day the Lords supper was first celebrated. Al faithful Christians (ex­cept offenders) were wont to cōmunicate upon this day,De consecrat Dist. 2 cap. 17. as may be seen in Gratians Decree. In caena Domini a quibusdam perceptio euch. tristia negligitur, quae quoniam in eadam die ab omnibus fidelibus (exceptis ijs quibus pro gravibus crimini­bus inhibitum est) percipienda sit, ecclesiasticus [Page 9] vsus demonstrant. Now the glosse vpon that place that hath these words, Sic olim, modo sic est, sed monachi faciunt. It wont to be so of old, it is not the custome now, the Monkes onlie ob­serue it. The monks speciallie of Sanct Bennets order retain the ancient custome. The two thousand souldiers, who were reconciled to the Emperour Mauritius about the yere 590. by the travelles of Gregrorius Bishop of An­tioch, Euagrius lib. 6. cap. 12. and had accepted againe Philippicus to be their general captaine, receaved the Sacra­ment upon this day sitting upon the ground. Whereby we may see that this custome con­tinued to that time among the faithfull, and not among the monkes onlie. Pope Vrbane the fourth about the yeere 1264. instituted the feast of Corpus Christi to supplie the de­fects, which had, escaped through negligence or humane frailtie in the celebration of the masse, and to make amends for anie misse: Quatenus in eo, Bulla Vrba­ni. 4, quod in alijs missarum officiis circa solennitatem est forsitam praetermissum, de­votâ diligentiâ suppleatur, & fideles festivitate ip­sa instante intra se praeterita memorantes, id quod in ipsis missarum solenniis, secularibus forte agen­dis impliciti, aut alia ex negligentia, vel fragilitate humana, minus plenè gesserunt, tunc attentè in humilitate spiritus & animi puritate restau­rent. But as Hospinian justlie taxeth the Pope, the defects, or omissions should haue beene supplied ratione a Christo praemonstrata, by that maner which Christ himself had shewed be­fore, and not by carying the Sacrament with procession through the streets. It appeareth that the celebration of the Lords supper upon [Page 10] Maundie thursday after the paterne of the first supper was appointed for the same end, to wit, to supply all defectes and omissions, which had happened at other times. For the Pope sayeth, he was moved to choose this day for this end ra [...]her thē Maundy thursday, be­cause that thursday was spent in washing of feete, making of Chrisme, and reconciling of peniten s. In die namque coenae Domini, quo die Christus hoc Sacramentum instituit, vniversalis ecclesiae pro paenitentium reconciliatione, sacri con­fectione chrismatis, ad impletione mandati circa lotionem pedum, & alijs plurimum occupata ple­nè vacare non potest celebrationi huius maximi sa­cramenti. Christs ordinance behooved to give place to everie toy invented by man.

Sitting onlie is not sufficient for anie to communicate with kn [...]elers.The question is now, whether it being per­mitted to me to sitt, I may communicate with others, where some do kneele, and al doe re­ceaue severallie, and immediatlie out of the Ministers hand. It seemeth strange to manie, that this should be denied to be lawful. It see­meth as strange to me, that it should be gran­ted, what if all the rest with whom I com­municate did kneele, is it enough that I sitt. Is this the communion of Saincts we pro­fesse, not to have a regard to the standing, or falling of others, the dignitie, and honour of that action, and the libertie of this reformed Kirk, wherof we stand members. I will sett down the innovations which ar sensible to the eyes and eares of everie man, that the answer to the question may bee the better understood in the particulars, and it may be seene where [Page 11] we are either actors, or accessory in communi­cating after this manner. Some things I must of necessitie repeate alreadie treated at length in sundrie treatises both in English and la­tine, which I will illustrate, and whereunto I will adde.

THe first innovation, is that libertie,The elements distr [...]buted by the Apostles among them­selves. is denied to the communicants to divide the elements among them­selves. Howbeit it be permitted to us to sitt. The cuppe after which Christ protested he would drinke no more, was the com­munion cuppe, or the last paschall cuppe, which was changed into the Communion cuppe, and consequentlie one, and the same. It was the custome of the Iewes to abstaine that night from tasting anie thing after the last paschal cuppe. Christ alluding to that cu­stome changing this cup, into the eucharisti­cal, protested he would drinke no more wine in this life. The Evangelists Matthew, and Mark expresly subjoyne this protestation to the communion cuppe. Luke inverteth the order, as the Iesuites themselves do con­fesse, rendering this reason, that the pro­testation of not drinking more might be joyned with the protestation of not eating more. Now Christ bad the communi­cants divide this cuppe among themselues. [Page 12] And howbeit he had not commanded in expresse termes, yet it may be collected of the forme of his speach, when he biddeth them, speaking in the plural number, drink al, of it, and sayeth not, take thou, drinke thou; as if he had beene delivering it to everie one severally. It was divided among the Apo­stles by themselues, reaching it from hand to hand, as the last paschal cuppe, which was changed into this eutharisticall, was carried from hand to hand. Fuit per proprias Aposto­lorum manus ab uno ad alium delatus: Tom. 3. pag. 861. sayeth the Iesuite Swarez. It were ridiculous to sette downe the cuppe upon the table, that the nearest might take it up, as I haue seene some where done. Nay, I should say su­perstitious, as if the cup were prophaned, if it be reached out of the hand of a lay man (as they call him) but a Christian Brother, as they should call him, & that it were holie to take it from off the table. If we will then divide the cuppe, as the Apo­stles divided it, and shewe our selues nei­ther ridiculous, nor superstitious, wee must divide it by reaching from hand to hand. The bread is not holyer then the wine, and Christ saide in the plurall num­ber, Take yee, Eate yee, as he sayde, Drinke yee, Divide yee, and not take thou, eate thou, as, if hee had been speaking to everie one severally. Therefore right­ly doe Beza,Beza epist. 12. Tossan. in Mat. 26. Pisc. in Mat. 26. Tossanus, Piscator, and o­thers, gather that Christ gaue onely to the nearest, and they to the nexte and so forth.

But yee will say,The objecti­on of represē ­tation of Christs per­son answered. the minister representeth Christs person, therefore he should giue the elements out of his owne hands. It fol­loweth not: For as M. David Lindsay sayeth, He in whose name the command is uttered, is properly the giver, and propiner, because by his authoritie it is given, and by the warrant of his word it is received. When the King drinketh to any of his subjects, Proceedings at P [...]rth assem­blie. pag. 60. 61. and sends it by the hands of his servant, the servant is not properly the giver, and propiner, but the deliverer of the gift and propine. And therefore concludeth, that it may be delivered from hand to hand by the communicants amonge them­selues, which could not be, if the former sequel were good. It is said, Gen. 39. that all that they did, Ioseph was the do­er of it, because what was done, was done by his appointment. Pilate gaue the bodie of Christ, that is, commanded to be gi­ven. Mark. 15.45. Matth. 27.17. Mat­thew sayeth, that Christs Disciples gaue the fiue loues, and two fishes to the fiue thou­sand, Matt. 14 19. And yet the Euangelist Marke sayeth 6.41. that Christ gaue them to the Disciples to set before them. Christ himselfe, whose person, yee say, the mi­nister representeth, when he was present in person, gaue not to everie one severally, but bade them eate, drink, & divide among them­selues. The Apostles at that last Supper repre­sented not Christs person, for he was there present in person himself, but al faithful com­municants to the end of the world.Proceedings pag. 59. The A­postles, sayeth M D. L. were in that supper not [Page 14] as dispensators of the mysteries of God, but as ghuests, as the faithfull, as disciples, and as com­municants. But what Christ bad his Apostles doe as communicants, when he was present in person, hee biddeth all c [...]mmunicants doe, when there is another to represent his person. It when there was so few communicants, he commanded them to divide, what would he haue d [...]ne if he had celebrate to fiue thou­sand? When ministers are receivers [...]mong o­ther communicants, they differ nothi [...]g from other Christians.Chrysost. in 2 Cor. hom. 18. Nihil differt sacerdos a subito, quando fruendum est horrendis mysterijs, sayth Chrysostome. They are not then ministers in actu exercito, but simple communicants. The Deacons about Iustinus Martyrs time, that is in the next age after the Apostles, gaue both the bread and wine to the communicants in the quarters he remained, whereas before the Deacon carried onely the vessels wherein the elements were contained, as appeareth in the L [...]turgie ascribed to S. Iames. They uttered no words at the delivery, neither were they yet made halfe Priests, as they are now in the Popish and English Church. Now the Dea­cons represented not Christs person, but onely the minister, or as he calleth him, the Presi­dent of the brethren. It was not then thought necessarie that the Pastor should deliver the elements out of his owne hand, which ought to haue been done, if none but he who repre­sented the master of the feast should deliver. Yea long after Iustinus time the Deacons dis­pensed the wine. Sometimes the Eucharist was sent to the sick by a Lay man, as we may see in [Page 15] the historie of Serapion. Euseb. hist. In. 6. cap. 36. The Monks of S. Ben­nets order retaining the ancient forme of cele­brating upon Thursday before Easter, com­municate sitting breaking bread, and reaching the cuppe to other, Panem azy num frangentes, De origine ex­rorum circa coenam. cap. & calicem in vlcem propinantes, & in totum vele­ris coenae vestigium prae se ferentes, as testifieth Bullinger. Frier Rainerius testifieth likewise of the Waldenses, of whom I made mention before,Rainerius in summa. that as for the sacrament of the Eucha­r [...]st in conventiculis suis celebrant, verba illa Evan­gelij recitant [...]s in mensa sua, sibique mutuo partici­pantes, sicut in Christi coena, that is, the Leonists (for so he caleth the Waldēses) celebrate the sa­crament of the Eucharist in their conventicles (so it pleased the Popish Frier to call the as­sembly of the persecuted) rehearsing the words of the Gospell at their table, and divi­ding to other, as was done at Christs supper. Ye see then this superstition had not so farre prevailed, but the Lord had some who were not carried away with the stream, but kept in the Spoonke in the time of darknes. To say that the breaking of the bread is a mysterie, & ought therefore to be performed onely by the minister, it followeth not: for the taking, eat­ing, drinking of the communicants are myste­ries. And Augustine sayth, that when the Wine is powred into the mouths of the faith­full, the shedding of Christs bloud is represen­ted. Next it is to be considered, that fraction or the breaking of the bread is not onely my­sticall, signifying the torments and renting of Christs body, but also serveth for distributi­on. And because bread was distributed by [Page 16] breaking, to break in the Scripture signifieth to distribute by breaking, or to break and di­stribute, when the word giving is not added. As Esay 58.7. Break thy bread to the hungry, that is, distribute breaking, or break and distribute thy bread to the hungry. Lament. 4.4. The lit­tle children asked bread, and there was none to break to them, that is, to breake and distribute to them, or to distribute breaking, Mark. 8.19. Christ sayth, When I brake the fiue leaues a­mong the fiue thousand, that is, brake and gaue to the disciples to set before the fiue thousand to be further broken and eaten. Hence it is, that in the Scripture to break is taken for to eate, or to take foode, as Ierem. 16. ver. 7. Neither shall men break bread for them, that is, they shall not celebrate a funerall banquet for them, nor reach unto them the cup of consolation. And Act. 2.46. They brake bread frō house to house, that is they celebrated love feasts. But manie interpreters vnderstand the 42. ver. and Act. 20.7. of the celebration of the sup­per. And so after this figure of speech is meant sometime, not onlie the act of brea­king, but also the end to distribute and eate. Siclyke the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ? That is, the bread which we breake, distribute, and eate, is a signe, and seale of the communion of Christs bodie, as is well observed by the interpreters. Panis quem Frangimus, 1. Cor. 10.6. idem est atque inter nos dividimus. Glossa in Math. 26. The bread which we breake, that is, the bread, which we diuide among us, say­eth Robertus Stephanus. Humbertus in his [Page 17] Book written against Nicetas a Monke sayeth, that in the Apostles times the faithful brake bread dayly, and had not a perfect masse two dayes in the weeke onlie. Quotidie perseverantes in templo, & frangentes Panem circa domos. Ec­ce verax Evangelista testatur sub Apostolis fide­lis quotidie orasse, & panem fregisse. Et vos, qui estis, qui dicitis duobus tantum diebus hebdoma­de missam perfectam fieri debere, reliquis imper­fectam? I will now retort the objection dra­wen from the representation of Christs per­son. Who ever saw a great Lord, or King in­viting inferiors to his table to sit with him, rise, and goe alonge to serve, and minister. Christ before he sate downe to supper recom­mending humilitie to his Disciples aspiring to preferment, washed their feete, but when he came to the table again he sate among thē, and kept his place, as master of the feast: for now they were in the act of feasting. When the minister cometh from his owne place, and goeth along delivering the Ele­ments, how doth he act in the meane time the person of Christ the Master of the feast. There can be no reason for this guise, but that the Minister must breake order, and put off the person, which he should act in his owne place, and take vpon him an other office, least the Sacrament should be polluted by the deliverie of the communicants, or as if the cuppe had greater vertue, when Iohn who lay in Christs bosome receaved it out of his hand, then when Bartholemew receaved it from Thomas, or some other. In this order then yee may see great misorder, and grosse [Page 18] superstition. Iustlie therefore was that igno­rant woman rebuked by one of the Ministers of Edinburgh not manie yeeres agoe for stri­ving to be neerest him, at table.

We have yet farther to consider, to wit, the end,The end, and vse of distri­buting by the communi­canst. and use of the distributing of the com­municants. To drinke of one cuppe represen­teth a communion in one common bene­fite, but not that communication of mutuall dueties of love, and freindship, as doth the rea­ching of the cuppe from one to another. The ghuests of old intertaining others cour­teouslie at civill banquets reached a cuppe of wine to other, which they called Phitotesia, because it was a symbole of love, and freind­ship, which name a man may justlie impose vpon the communion cuppe, sayeth Stuck­lius. Antiqui. con­vivialium lib. 3. cap. 10. Chrysostome recordeth, that the commu­nicants kissed one another, when the Sacra­ment was celebrated. Osculum pacis porrigere, tempore quo celebrantur Sacramenta, Lib. 1. de compunct. cordi, in vsu eccle­siae est: and to embrace other, propterea & mi­sterijs, alter alterum amplectitur ut vnam multi fi [...]mus. Ierome making mention of kissing, and joyning of hands.Homil. 51. ad populum Antioche­num. Quisquam ne tibi invi­tus communicat, quisquamne extensa manuvertil faciem, & inter sacras epulas Iudae osculum por­rigit. Paulinus also making mention of joyn­ing hands, Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus. Ad Theoph. Alexandri­num. The kisse was the common form of salutation among the Orientall people as with vs the striking of hands, or embracing. The men kissed the men & women kissed others at the communion.Paul corm ad Cithe [...]am. This kisse was lest of, and in stead therof hath succeeded the kissing of [Page 19] the Pax at the masse. Seing signes & protesta­tions of love were thought requisite at this banquet of love, ought we not to be the more careful to retaine that signe which Christ him­self hath recommended to vs at the insti­tution.

Yee are guiltie of this innovation for your part, howbeit it be permitted to you to sitt.The commu­nicant guiltie where there is want of the right manner of distribu­ting. For yee concurre with your Minister as actor to thrust out this dividing, and distributing of the Elements by the communicants, and to bring in misorder in turning the Minister out of his proper place, to vphold supersti­tion in deliverie of the Elements out of his owne hands. The resetter intertaineth the thiefe. The Minister giveth, thou receivest, and both concurre to spoile the Kirk of her liber­tie, in this day of controversie, when she is striving to hold fast her possession. When o­thers shall be eyther moved by thy example, or forced to quite this libertie, then shall the Kirk be spoiled of it, and the posteritie shall never recover this libertie againe for anie thing man can see. Yee will say, your Mi­nister will not give it other wise, but out of his owne hand. But I say againe, that hee would not giue it at all, if hee had not a a receiver. What if hee would not giue it into your hande, but in at the mouth, or clothed it with hoode, and belles, or a surplice, ought yee to receave it, and follow your Minister, and assist him to bring in innovations into your particular congrega­tion, contrarie to the receaved order of the [Page 20] whole church which yee are bound to defend by your profession, and the confession of our faith.

Two exercises ar confounded in the assem­blie by the want of the old forme of distributing.THe second innovation is a confu­sion of two actions, and parts of Gods worship in one assemblie and one time. The Reader is reading, the congregation hearkening to the Reader, or following him in singing of Psalmes in the meane time, when the Minister hard beside is speeking to the communicants, and deli­vering the Elements. If the like were done at the solemnization of mariage, it would be thought an intollerable abuse. Yee will say, the people will otherwise wearie, and the action become gracelesse, and cold. It is true, and late experience hath let men see this inconvenience. But the right way to amend it, is not to bring in confusion. For that is to cure a disease with a remedie worse then the disease. Of the two the first standeth better with reason. For there is no reason, that when the Minister is spea­king,De rebus ec­cles. cap. 22. another voice should be heard in the assemblie Walafridus Strabo sayeth, Wee be­leeve that of old, the holie Fathers did offer [Page 21] and communicate with silence, which we yet observe vpon the holie Sabboth (or Saturday) of Easter. Chanting was brought in after­ward to keepe the people from wearying. So now it is restored to the same end.

To returne againe to the right way en­tereth never in Mens hearts. Forward they will goe, notwithstanding of anie incon­venience which rancountereth them, till the angel of the Lord meete them in the way, as he did Balaam. The like remedie is used in other Kirks, where the want of this manner of distribution is, wherunto they never attained. And therefore cannot serue for a pretence against us, and that comfortable manner of celebration, which we had. Christs manner, which we practised, needed not such remedies. The hearts of all the hearers were stirred up by comfortable exhortation, and speeches of the Minister, and together, as it were with one heart, they applied them­selues to the meditation of that which was spoken joyntlie to all, whereas by this deliverie in severall, mens mindes are withdrawen, and lose that fervencie, and constancie in the word of apprehension, and meditation, as Master Fenner hath well observed, in his treatise of the Sa­crament. Yee are guilty of this confu­sion. in that yee are partaker in both the actions.

There is yet further to be considered, by rea­son [Page 22] of this confusion the publike communion is turned into a private.The publike communion is turned into a private by cō ­founding two actions, The exercise of the congregation is publike, but the exercise of the Minister with the communicants is pri­vate. For it is not ynough to make an action publike to performe it in a publike place, or in sight of the congregation. If a man kneele down at a pillar to his prayers in sight of the people, his prayers are never the lesse pri­vate. Yea the congregation is not bound to behold, when they can not heare distinctlie, what is spoken, but are bound to sing or hear­ken to the reader. The minister may as wel go to the end of the kirk, as I know somewhere is done, or to some close Ile, or Consistorie house neere by. Yea it were farre more decent then to communicate in the bodie of the Kirk, where the one action can not but disturbe the other. Ye are not onlie guiltie of the confusion by partaking in both the actions, but also your communicating is onlie a private communicating where there is such confusion.

The vtilities of distributing by the com­municants.Put the case Christ had not recommended the distributiō which we practised, but had left it indiff [...]rēt, yet should that order of distribu­ting better agree with the general rules, where­by thing indifferent ought to be ruled, order, decencie, edification, and avoiding of scan­dall. For so neither confusion of exercises on the one side, nor tediousnes on the other side, nor superstitious conceits of the Mini­sters deliverie nor private communions would have pla [...]e. It would be a barre also to hould [Page 23] out kneeling. For religious kneeling in ado­ration, and dividing of the elements cannot consist together, where as now by this com­municating in severall, there resteth no more, but to perswade thee, or compel thee to kneel. But suppose kneeling were never to be feared, yet the abuses, & corruptions before mention­ed are sufficient matter to moue thee to stand to the libertie of this kirk, if thou haue anie spoonk of zeale to Gods glorie, to the puritie of his worship, and the beautie of his house. If any kirk in Europe had enjoyed this precious libertie, as long as we haue done, would they haue quite it so easilie, as we are like to doe. It is defection in us to descend, although not in them who never ascended to this degree of perfection. The question is not now, whether we shall quite the libertie, or quite the bene­fite of the sacraments for ever. There is no such tyrannie professed. Quite not a certaine libertie for an uncertaine daunger, doe that which is required on your part, and commit the event to God. The grace of God is not ty­ed to the sacraments. The Lord promised to be a little sanctuarie to the godly remnant of his people, when they should be scattered in other countries, and want the benefit of the temple, and worship appropriated to that place. Ezeck. 11.16. It is not the wante of the sacrament, but contempt that maketh a man guiltie, sayeth Bernard: Non potest autem videri sacramenta contempsisse, Epist. 77. cui non licet ea ita percipere uti sunt a Domino constituta, & absit ut ullos necessitatis casus imaginemur, in quibus li­ceat ordinationem Domini violare, sayeth Beza in [Page 20] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24] his confession: that is, he cānot be said to haue contemned the sacraments,Cap. 4. to whom it is not permitted to partake them, as they are establi­shed by the Lord, & far be it from us to ima­gine anie cases of necessitie, by the which we may violate the Lords ordinance. But what needeth all this feare: for I am sure, three, or four yeeres abstinence would constrain them to restore unto us our libertie again, & to suf­fer the communion to be celebrated after the old forme, rather then the people should be defrauded of it. This is the least duty we owe. But we are bound further to defend, and op­pone, if we did professe as we avow in the con­fession of our faith. The meanest professor in the kirk o [...] Scotland is bound to maintain this libertie, & poss [...]ssion Otherwise if he quite, & r [...]er himselfe, he is a deserter of Christs cause.

The sacra­menta words are not utter­ed demon­strat [...]uely.THE third innovation is, that the word of promise, This is my bodie, This cup is the new testament, &c. is not uttered demonstratiuely, when the elements are delivered to everie communicant. It is not enough that the words of the institution were rehearsed before by way of historie narratiue­lie, or materiallie. This sacrament is an imi­tation of Christ not a recitall of his words, & actions, it is to do, as he did, and not to report [Page 25] what he did, sayth Pierr du Moulin. Pag. 95. The re­hearsal doeth no more, but let us see what warrant there is to use bread, and wine in the celebration of this sacrament, rather then anie other elements, and to assure us that bread, & wine in general are appointed to this use. But it can not be said demonstratiuelie de individuo signato of this bread, and wine in particular set on the table, that it is the bodie and blood of Christ. For first it must be blessed, & sancti­fied by prayer, and thanksgiving to this use, that the minister may say, Thi [...], that is, this sanctified bread is my bodie. The rehearsal of the word of promise euen after the sanctifica­tion serueth onely for a general warrant. The words then must be uttered after the blessing demonstratiuely not to God in a prayer, or forme of oblation, as the popish or English priest doeth. For Christ uttered them to the disciples. nor yet by holding, or pointing out the bread to the whole congregation, saying This is my bodie, as in the bastarde leiturgies ascribed to Basil [...], and Chrysostome, where the bread is holden up after the pronouncing of these words, & the people answer Amen, or in the Ethiopian masse, where the people answer Amen, Amen, Amen we beleeue it is the bodie of the Lord, which were ridiculous, & hath ben the original of manie errors. For what if the elements be not delivered, shal they be sacramen­tally Christs bodie and blood; or the remains? This is a common axiome of the Divines Ele­menta extra usum non sunt sacramenta. The ele­ments out of the use are nor sacraments. For howbeit it be not essential to bread to be deli­vered, [Page 26] yet it is essentiall to sacramentall bread to be delivered, taken, and eaten. Christ said not, This is my bodie to all in generall, & then to everie one in particular take thou, eate thou, as the papist and formalist doth, but first Take eate, and then, This is my bodie, or actu con­tinuo both bade them take, and eate, and signi­fied what it was he was giving to them. The promise is annexed to the commandement, as conditionall. The promise hath no other­wise eff [...]ct then if the condition take place. Si quis separat promissionem a mandato discedit ab in­stitutione Christi. In Mat. 26. N [...]n aliter igitur habet effectum promissio, quam s [...] condit [...]o etiam locum habeat. sayth Robertus Stephanus It fareth with the sa­cramentall elements, as with pawnes, & pledg­es in contracts, and bargains. A ring may be appointed for a pledge in matrimonie, yet is it not actually a pledge, without consent of the other partie, but on [...]ly a meere ring. A stone chosen to be a signe of a Marche is not actual­ly a marche stone, but in the use, when it is sett with consent of parties in the marche for that end. So the elements are consecrate, and sett apart by prayer and thanksgiving, to this use, yet are they not actually Christs bodie, and blood till they be received and eaten. And therefore a sacrament properly is defined to be a ceremonie or action. By a figuratiue kinde of speech the bread may be called the sacra­ment of Christs bodie, because it is appointed to that ende, as when Isaack said to Abraham. where is the sacrifice, that is, the ramm or the lambe appointed for the sacrifice. But Christ called the bread his body not in that sense, but [Page 27] in the deliverie and use, when it was verilie a signe and seale of Christs bodie. It followeth therefore that the word of promise must be uttered demonstratiuely onely in the time of deliverie, receiving, and eating, and to everie one severally, if he will needs giue severally. For otherwise he shal utter them demonstra­tiuely to some, and not to others. The sacra­mentall signes are like seales hanging at the charter. The word of promise is the special, & solemn clause of the Charter. If at any time it should be uttered, it should be uttered when the seale is delivered, seeing the sacramentall words carie the promise, & refer the signes to their sacramental use. What would we thinke, if the minister rehearsed Christs command to baptize in name of the father, sonne, & the ho­lie ghost, but when he come to the sprinkling would not say, I baptize thee in the name of the father, sonne, and Holie ghost, but utter some other words of his owne framing. What is the reason the formalist wil not utter demō ­stratiuely the words when he delivereth. It is not feare that the kneeler apprehend Christs bodie to be under the bread, or the accidents of the bread, for he uttereth them not to the sitter, more then to him that kneeleth, and is not affraide to constraine ignorant people to kneele, although he should conceiue Christs bodie to be present under the bread, when he hath uttered other words. But here is the my­sterie of the matter, they place the vertue of consecration in these words, as the Papist doth. And therefore because he hath uttered them alreadie, he will not repeate them again; [Page 28] least he should seem to consecrate them again. For Mr. Lindsay saith, That after the sacrament is made by the sacramentall word, the Pastor useth other words in delivering the elements.Proceedings pag. 57. Mr. Michelson sayth the like. And yet haue they not uttered these words before the delivery, but onely narratiuely, or by way of recitall, which, as I haue sayd, doth onely shew a war­rant in generall. If demonstratiuely, it must be in the time o [...] prayer, after the Popish or English maner. For they confesse they utter them not demonstratiuely to the communi­cant. If consecration be taken for sanctificati­on, then it is placed in the prayer, or blessing. For by prayer, or thanksgiving, the elements are sanct [...]fied and consecrated to this use. If you will distinguish betwixt sanctification & consecration, as Popish Divines doe, then say we, that the blessing and sanctifying is but a part, and that consecration, that is the making of them a sacrament, consisteth in the whole action, as our Divines doe well ob­serue. For except there be receiving, eating & drinking, they are not seales of Christs body and blood. Sacramenta perficiuntur usu. By the way I obserue that as the formalists utter not Christs words demonstratiuely, so agree they not upon a prescript form of words, but frame them as they please, whether in form of praier or otherwise as they thinke good. The com­municant is accessorie to this innovation, be­cause hee receiveth from him who changeth the words, and giveth the seale without the word of promise.

THE fourth innovation is the kneel­ing of some ministers, and some com­municants in the act of receiving. First we are to prove the kneeler guilty. Next, the sitter communicating with him, al­though not in the same degree.

Suppose kneeling were indifferent,Kneeling in the act of receiuing is idolatrous. yet the kneeler is guiltie of scandall: for it is a shew of conformitie with the Papists in a ceremo­ny, which hath been abused by them to the vilest idolatry that ever was in the world, the worship of the bready God, yea invented by the Antichrist to that end. The formalist can not produce one authentick testimony for kneeling for a thousand yeares. The Papist is hardened in his superstition and idolatry, for he thinketh that we are drawing toward him, and that our religion cannot be graced with­out his rites, or manner of worship. The weak brother is offended, & stumbleth upon one sort of idolatry or other. We see the out­ward gesture of an idolater, and who knoweth but their intentions may be bad enough. Yee will say the offence is taken, not given. But if it be a thing indifferent, as yee say, and not ne­cessarie, but may be omitted, then the offence is given. For you are not ignorant into what evils it may induce the simple and ignorant. You say the command of the Magistrate tak­eth [Page 30] away the scandall, and that it is better to offend a brother then to offend a Magistrate. The word Offend is ambiguous. Better it is to offend, that is to displease the Magistrate, for then I edifie him, vvhereas otherwise I should harden him in his course, then to offend, that is, lay a stumbling block before the poor­est soule in the kirk, and so destroy him for whom Christ died. Rom. 14.15. We are com­manded to abstaine from things in their own nature indifferent, if the vveake brother shall offend vvith the use of them. Rom. 14.15.21. The Magistrate hath not power to abolish this law. Obedience to the magistrate ought not to be the rule of my loue to Gods glory, or sal­vation of my brother, vvhich when it is neg­lected, Gods glory is trampled under foot. You will say, that we are bound to obey the Magi­strate. It is true, we are bound in conscience to be subject to the magistrat, but not to obey him but in the Lord, that is, we are bound to passiue obedience, but not to actiue, except in things lawful. A scandal is not lawful. Further, know you not that the magistrate may abuse a thing indiff [...]rent, as well as a private man, and make all Israell to stumble, for he is a sinfull man Know yee not that it often falleth out accor­ding to the old saying, Quo volunt Reges, vadun leges, the lawes must sing as will the King Know yee not that the Magistrate may hau [...] his owne private respects, and under colour o [...] things indifferent bring in a corrupt religion I need not insist upon this point, it is sensibl [...] enough to men of meane iudgment. Say no therefore with Cain, Am I my brothers keeper [Page 31] The Lord wil say to thee, Thy life for his life if he be missing. 1. King 20.39. How careles, alas, are many, although thousands fall at their right hand, and ten thousand at their left, so that they can either win or retaine the favour of their superiours. But looke how vile the soule of thy brother was in thine eyes, thine shall be in the eyes of God, except thou repent and amend.

I am now to proue it idolatrous,Kneeling in the act of re­ceiving is I­dolatrous. first in re­spect of the publick intent of our superiours: Next, simply, wha [...]soever intent men can pre­tend. That we may know what is the publick intent, we are to consider the intent of the English Church: for conformitie with that Church is intended. Next, the act of Perth Assembly which is urged.

The kirke of England intendeth kneeling for reverence of the sacrament:The publick intent of the English Kirk is idolatrous. for in the booke of common prayer, whereunto they are bound by the statute, 1 Elizab. kneeling is enioyned upon this ground, That the sacra­ment might not be prophaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation. D. Morton an­swereth, Are yee then of opinion, either that the sacrament cannot be prophaned, or that the Church had not reason to prevent, or avoid the prophanati­on of this sacrament of the Eucharist. And again, to stop the mouths of blasphemous papists vi­lifying our sacrament with the ignominious names of Bakers bread, Vintners wine, profane elements. Ale-cakes, and such like reprochfull termes, did hold it fit that wee by our outward reverence in the manner of receiving the Eucharist, might testifie our due estimation of such holy rites, [Page 32] which are consecrated to so blessed an use, as is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and that thereby we might repell the staine and ignomi­nie which such virulent and unhallowed tongues did cast upon them. The Replyer to Doctor Morton refelleth this allegeance of stopping the mouthes of Papists,Re [...]ly 2. part. pag. 50. and telleth us, that some close dissembling adversaries did hinder the worke of reformation so much as they could, and that they haue done so ever since, and doe so still to this day. Howsoever it is, yee see they kneele to testifie their due estima­tion of the holy rites. Mr. Hatton saith, they kneele to put a difference between the or­dinarie bread and wine, and these sacramental, to which they giue the more reverence, be­cause it is more then ordinary bread and wine.Book 2. a­g [...]nst the [...]inisters of Cornwall & Devonshire. What can be sayd more plainly. Master Rogers in his second Dialogue hath some words to the same effect. Now to kneele for reverence of the elements, because they are more then ordinarie bread and wine, or to te­stifie our due estimation of the holy rites, which are imployed about the elements, is I­dolatry.

The publick i [...]tent of our Church is idolatrous.We are next to try the publick intent by the act of Perth Assembly ratified in Parliament, the tenor whereof followeth, as it is published after fining and refining.

The act of Perth a [...]nt kneeling. Since we are commanded by God himselfe, that when we come to worship him, wee fall downe and kneele before the Lord our Maker, and considering withall, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spirituall, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our [Page 33] Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverent gesture of the body in our meditation and lifting up of our hearts, be­cometh well so divine and sacred an action, There­fore notwithstanding our Church hath used since the reformation here, to celebrate the holy Com­munion to the people sitting, by reason of the great abuse used in the Idolatrous worship of Papists, Yet now, since all memorie of bypast superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praysed be God, in reverence of God, and in due regard of so divine a mysterie, and in remembrance of so mysti­call an union, as we are made partakers of thereby, the assemblie thinketh good, that the blessed sacra­ment be celebrated hereafter to the people humblie, The false & superfluous clauses of the act. and reverently kneeling upon their knees.

We haue here two lyes enclosed in the pa­renthesis. It is untrue, that al memorie of by­past past superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people, as the countrie wel knoweth, & the behaviour of some ignorant people, when they were kneeling, hath alreadie bewrayed. Next it is untrue, that the abuse in time of papistrie was the onely and principal cause of restoring the gesture of sitting at the begin­ning of reformation. If they had aimed only at the reformation of that abuse, they needed not to haue restored sitting, standing or tak­ing en passant would haue served the turne. Both sitting, and distributing of the elements by the communicants were restored at the re­formation, because most agreeable, and neare to the pattern of the first supper.

We haue three reasons in this act, wherefore we shold kneel, as M. Lindsay hath analyzed it.

The first rea­son for kneel­ing in the act refuted.The first reason in the narratiue is this, Since we are commanded by God himselfe, that when wee come to worship him, we fal down and kneel before the Lord our maker. Relatiue to this in the con­clusion we haue these words. Therefore in reve­rence of God, the assemblie thinketh good that this sacrament be celebrated to the people kneeling upon their knees. For the confirmation of this reason is alledged th [...] 9 [...] Psalm verse 7. By this rude reason it is a sin not to kneele in the act of re­ceiuing, Christ & his Apostles, & al who fol­lowed their example since, haue sinned. For if we be cōmanded by God, it is a sin to violate his commandement. Next the word worship is not taken here for anie kinde of religious, and divine service, or action expressed by the word Cultus in latine, but more strictly for adorati­on, or rather that gesture of prostrating the whole body. The people of God used four ge­stures of the bodie, as signes of honour: first a bending or bowing down of the head, which they expressed by the word Cadad, this was the least degree. Next a bending or bowing of the superiour bulke of the body, which they ex­pressed by the word Carang. The third kneel­ing, which they expressed by the word Barach. The fourth falling down prostrate with their hands & feet spread, which they expressed by the word Histachaveh. The last three are all mentioned in the 6 verse of the 95 Psalme. If there were any command here included to fal down, when we receiue the sacrament, we should be commanded not onely to bowe the superior bulke of the bodie, as Pope Honorius commanded to be done at the elevation, or to [Page 35] kneele, as we are now commanded to doe, but [...]lso to prostrate our selues upon our face, with our hands and feet spread, for so do some in­terpret the manner. But there is here onely an [...]nvitation and exhortation, not a commande­ment, not to kneel, when they come before the Lord to worship, but [...]o [...]me before the Lord, that is before the arke, which is called the face of God, and worship, that is prostrate them­selues, kneele, and bow themselues before the Lord their maker in token of thanksgiving. It is great ignorance to infer hereupon, that we are cōmanded to kneel in the act of receiuing the sacramental elements in the act of preach­ing and hearing the word, which are al acts of divine service, or worship in a larger sence. The words relatiue in the conclusion taken simplie are not true. For we are not bound at al times to kneel in reverence of God. For af­firmatiue precepts bindeth us ever, but not to practise at everie time. For then we should ne­ver be off our knees, because we ought ever to carie with us reverence to God.

The second reason in the narratiue of the act is this, And considering with al, The second reason in the act for kneel­ing refuted. that there is no part of divine worship more heauenly and spirituall, then is the holy receiuing of the blessed bodie and blood of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Rela­tiue to this reason we haue in the conclusion these words: And in regarde of so divine a myste­rie the assemblie thinketh good, that that blessed sa­crament be celebrated to the people humblie and re­verently, kneeling upon their knees. Mystery (say­eth he) is not taken here for the elements, be­cause it is not said Mysteries, but Mysterie, and [Page 36] by Mysterie is meant the holy receiving of th [...] body and blood of Christ, which is mentio­ned in the narratiue. When the acte was firs [...] formed, the copies that we saw, had the word Mysteries. It is now refined, and yet they are not a whit farther off. For what reason is there to refer it to the remoter words of the narra­tiue, when i [...] may be referred to the nearer words of the coclusion, to wit the celebration of the holy cōmunion, & the words following, that blessed sacrament. But the truth is, it is relatiue to al the three, as we shal make evident in the owne place. But admit his interpretation. If we should kneel, when we receiue Christs bo­dy and blood in regard of so divine a myste­rie, then should we doe it whensoever we eate Christs flesh, and drinke his bood. But so it is, that as oft, as the promises of the gospell are read, exponed, or in anie part of the sermon rehearsed, and the hearer beleeueth, he receiu­eth and eateth Christs flesh, and drinketh his blood. But then we must be attentiue hearers, and not speake to God, when God is speaking to us. Attentiue hearing, and the work of ap­prehending, considering, discerning, trying what is spoken, cā not consist with presenting our prayers upon our knees. Neither is knee­ling urged in this part of divine service. It is not then simplie in due teg [...]rd of so divine a mysterie, as is the receiving of Christs body and blood, that kneeling is intended (for the spirituall, and inward receiuing is common both to the word and sacraments) but in re­gard of so divine a mysterie, as is the receiuing of Christs body and blood in the sacrament, [Page 37] or which is all one, in regard of the mysticall or sacramentall manner of receiving, and con­sequently in regard of the symbols or symbo­lical rites employed about the symbols. It is cleare then, that in the narratiue of the act, by the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is meant a sacramentall receiuing, and to that manner of receiuing is the word Mysterie relatiue in the conclusion.

The third reason, sayeth he,The third rea­son in the act for kneeling refuted. is the cor­respondencie betweene the outward gesture of our body, and the meditation and lifting up of our hearts, when we remember, and con­sider the mystical union betwixt Christ and us, and among our selues, whereof we are made partakers by the receiuing of Christs blessed body and blood. This reason depending up­on the former shall receiue the like answer. Are we not made partakers of that mysticall union, when at the hearing of the promi­ses of the Gospell, we eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood? Many haue been partakers of this mysticall union, who were never par­takers of this sacrament.

But the words of the narratiue,The right meaning of the third rea­son. and the con­clusion cannot sorte together after that man­ner. Therefore he shunneth to set down the words of the narratiue, and of the conclusion relatiue to them. For in the narratiue is no mention made of the mysticall union, neither is it said in the narratiue, that the most hum­ble and reverent gesture of the bodie well be­commeth our meditation, and the lifting upp of our hearts, when we consider the mysticall union betwixte Christ and us: but that [Page 38] the most humble and reverent gesture of our b [...] ­dy in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts becommeth wel so divine and sacred an action as is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Now this reason receiueth the like answer that the two former. For it may be asked, why becommeth that humble gesture of me­ditation and lifting up of our hearts, the re­ceiving of Christs body and blood, in the act of rec [...]iving the s [...]cramentall elements, more then in the hearing of the promises of the gospell, if it were not in regard of the sacra­mentall elements. Next, what h [...]mble gesture is that, which is so suteable with m [...]ditation. Men doe meditate walking, si [...]ting, lying, but not kneeling. For by me [...]tation a man doth speak to himself, holding a soliloqu [...]e in his own soule. Againe what humble gesture is that, which best becommeth t [...]e lifting up of the heart, s [...]eing the heart may be lifted up without prayer, and in prayer kneeling doeth signifie rather the submission and humiliati­on, then the lifting up of the heart. The lift­ing up of the eyes or hands are the outward signes of lifting up of the heart.

In the conclusion, the words which he maketh relatiue to the former are these:To remem­ber is not to lift up the heart by pray­er. In remembrance of so mysticall an union, as we are made partakers of by so divine a mysterie. In remembrance, that is, in memorie: for so runne the words, In reverence, in due regard in remembrance. But least I should seeme to cavill at words, let it be in remembring. I [...] there be any force in this reason, we should kneele, whensoever we remember so [Page 39] mysticall an union. If this clause in the con­clusion were relatiue to the former in the nar­ratiue, then by lifting up of the heart is not meant prayer. For to remember, or as he ad­deth, to co [...]sider is not to pray. Howbeit there by pondering, remembring, considering, and momentanie meditations, are ejaculations of meditation in prayer, as there are momen­tanie petitions, and ejaculations of prayer, in­cident to our meditations, yet to pray is not to meditate, nor to meditate to pray, nor n [...] man of sound judgment ever defined them so, but are two diverse exercises of the soule, and require divers employments of the bodie, divers times, and divers denomination [...] from the principall worke, and not from the inci­dent ejaculations. So that by the lifting up of the heart can not be meant prayer. For one humble gesture of kneeling is not sutable both to meditation and prayer, both to speaking unto God, and to our selues.

We are not directed by the act to meditate,We are not directed by the act to me­ditate, or pray in the acte of receiving. and lift up our hearts, when we remember, and consider this mysticall union, whereof we are made partakers by receiving Christs body and blood, but only to use that humble ge­sture when we receiue Christs bodie and blood, which we use in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearte, although we be not then meditating, or lifting up our heart. But put the case, that we be so directed, and that by lifting up of the heart be meant prayer, yet it must be meant a mentall prayer, not a vocall: for that is a lifting upp of the voice. The mental prayer must either follow [Page 40] the vocall prayer of the Minister, or must be conceaved by the kneeler.

Mentall pray­er following the vocall of the Minister in the act of receaving was not enjoyned.The Lords, over-rulers of that assembly meant not a mental prayer following the vocal pray­er of the Minister. For then they would have ordained some prayer to be vttered by the Minister, or els that every Minister should con­ceave a prayer as he thought good. But no such thing was done. Some, who are said to have beene penners of the act themselves, vse not a forme of prayer at the deliverie of the Elements, nor yet anie other, so farre as I know. Everie man was left to his owne free choise of words, whether in form of prayer, or otherwise. Kneeling therfore should not be vr­ged til in another like assembly they have dres­sed all the appurtenances. They were so glad of kneeling, that they forgot all the requi­sites, and so they brought forth a shapelesse birth, like the beares whelpe, which wanteth eyes, and is a rude deformed lumpe when it is brought forth, and must be cherished, and licked a long time before it be brought to a perfect forme. But suppone that a vocall prayer had beene ordained, yet is not knee­ling enjoyned in regard of anie vocall prayer. For the communicant kneeleth both before, and after the receaving, and the Minister en­deth if he follow the English forme, his wish, or request of three or foure words, a short ejaculation of the tongue sooner then the communicant can addresse himselfs to his knees, and before he eate, the other endeth his prayer, biddeth him eate, and be thankful, which is an admonition, or exhortation, not a [Page 41] prayer, and so leaveth him, and goeth to an­other. Next, if kneeling were intended in re­gard of anie vocal prayer of the Minister, then where there is no vocall prayer at the delive­rie, kneeling is not intended, and they have greatlie failed, who have kneeled. But that is done almost everie where, where there is kneeling. Thirdlie, if in regard of the vo­call prayer of the Minister, then if a Minister vtter demonstrativelie Christs owne words, the communicant must not kneele, but if h [...] vtter the words of mans framing he must kneele. So Christs order must be overthrown that kneeling may have place. Fourthlie sup­pose vocall prayer had beene enjoyned, and the communicant to follow it mentallie, what can be the reason to vrge kneeling in regard of that vocal prayer, rather then anie other, if there were no further intended, then to kneele in regard of the vocall prayer of the Mi­nister. At a convention holden at Sainct An­drewes before Perth assemblie, it was thought good that people should either stand or kneele in time of prayer, at other times. What need I insist vpon this point, seing there was no di­rection for a vocall prayer, farre lesse a decla­ration, that kneeling was intended in regard of that prayer.The mentall prayer of the communi­cants owne framing not enjoyned not kneeling in re­gard of it.

If by lifting vp of the heart could be meant the mentall prayer of the communcants owne framing, and cōceiving, it must be either a set & continued prayer, or short ejaculation & momentanie petitions. The set and continued prayer, which may be called Oratio instructa, a prayer set in order according to Davids [Page 42] phrase Psal. 5. Mane instruā coram te, & sum spe­culiturus, cannot consist with the exercise of receaving, eating, drincking, and the men­tall actions answering analogicallie to them. Eyther the minde must be abstracted from meditation, and consideration of these out­word rites, whereabout the senses, and mem­bers are employed, or els it must be distra­cted, and divided betwixt two exercises. A Prince would not be content to be so vsed by a poore supplicant, to see him employed in another action, athough lawful and honest, when he is preferring his petition to him.Dist. 49. cap. sacer. It is then the sacrifice of fooles. Offer it now to thy Governor, wil he be pleased with thee, or ac­cept thy person Malach. 1.8. Indignum est dare Deo, quod dedignaretur homo. If we make petition but to some earthlie Prince we fixe the eye both of bodie, and minde up [...]n him, and scare least some incongruous, or vnseem­lie word move him to aver [...] his countenance. Tot [...]m in cum menti [...] & corporis aciem defigi­mus, & de nutu ej [...]s tr [...]ida expectatione pende­mus, C [...]llat. 23. cap. 27. non mediocrit [...] f [...]rmid [...]ntes, ne quod forte incongruum verbum audientes misericordiam a­vertat sayeth Cassianus. The like incongruity of confoūding two exercises receaving, eating, drinking in time of sett prayer, and adoration vpon our knees was never heard among the verie barbarians, and I thinke would never have beene heard among Christans, if they had not imagined falsly that they were eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of their God. Next, if by lifting vp of the heart be meant the sett mentall prayer of the communicant, [Page 43] it will follow, that kneeling cannot be far­ther vrged, then the sett mentall prayer it self. But I beleeve that the communicant, if he be well exercised in the mentall actions, answering analogicallie to the outward, com­municateth worthilie, howbeit he conceave not a set mental prayer. Thirdlie if kneeling be enjoyned in regard of sett mentall prayer to be conceaved by the communicant, then a secret, or private prayer is commanded in a publ [...]k assemblie, without a vocall, either of the Minister, or of him that prayeth, even then, when the Minist [...]r, and congregation is not praying. He concurreth not with the congregation, nor the congregation with him. And beside, the signes, and gestures of secret, and mentall prayer, where there is not vocall, should be concealed in pub­lick, far lesse should they be extorted.

They may as well enjoyn the communicant to lift up his eyes or knock on his b [...]e [...]st, that we may know he is praying, as to enjoyne kneeling, if it were intended in regard of this secret prayer. For kneeling, lifting up of the hands, eyes, knocking on the breast, are naturall adumbrations of the inward motions, and passions of our soule, which ought not to be extorted. It must be there­fore for some other regard, that knee­ling is intended, then in regard of anie sett mentall prayer. For whether he pray, or not, mentallie, he is urged to kneele.

Kneeling not intended in regard of the eiaculations of the heart.If by lifting up of the heart be meant the mo­mentanie petitions, and short ejaculations of the soule, that lifting up may very well con­sist with set meditation, and not onely with this action of receiving, eating, drinking the sacramentall elements, but also with the recei­ving of our ordinary and daily foode, eating and drinking at common tables. In a word, with all our actions whether civil or religious, and may be incident to my passing by a Cru­cifixe, at which time I may not kneele, how­beit I detest the Image. I may very well passing by with neglect or contempt, groane to God for the blindnesse of the people, or lift up my hand, or my eyes, because these gestures may well expresse our inward e­jaculations. But kneeling attendeth not up­on ejaculations, but upon set prayer, or thankesgiving purposely intended. It was therefore a silly tale of one of our ministers, to say that wee granted they might lift up their eyes, but we envied the poore knee. Will any man inferre, that I may kneele at eating of daily food, because I may then lift up my eyes? These ejaculations, and holy motions of the heart may be, and are often incident at hearing of the word, and sometimes more fervent then at the recei­ving of the Sacrament It is not therefore in regard of that lifting uppe of the heart by short eiacalations of prayer that knee­ling is intended.

What hath beene sayd against the pre­text of prayer,The pretence of mentall & reall thankesgiving an­swered. let it be applyed to thanks­giving vocall, or mentall, set, and contin­ed, or iaculatorie, and momentanie. If they will say, that the action of eating and drink­ing is a reall thankesgiving, and shewing forth of the Lords death, the Apostle sayth not so, but requireth a declaration by words of the Lords death as oft as we communi­cate. But put the case the Apostle had sayd, by eating and drinking yee shewe forth the Lords death, yet is not the action a reall thanksgiving, but a reall commemoration to speake so, of Christs death and passion, and consequentlie of the nature of preach­ing, and shewing forth of the Lords death and passion, and not of the nature of thanks­giving. It is one thing to professe and pub­lish Gods mercies before men for the re­demption of man, and another thing to of­fer up thankes to God by way of adoration. God may be honoured many wayes, but every honour is not adoration. Praise and thanksgi­ving differ. Augustine sayth,Homil. 26. Tom. 10. Christum praedi­cari per linguam, per epistolam, per sacramentum corporis & sanguinis ejus.

Having examined all the reasons of the Act according to Maister Lindsayes owne interpre­tation,A question to discover the nakednesse of the Act. that the Reader may the better conceiue how rude they are, I propone this question. Seeing vvee receiue the same benefite invvardlie and severallie, vvee eate the flesh, and drinke the blood of Christ as oft as wee beleeue the promises of the Gospell read, exponed, or in any part of the [Page 46] sermon rehearsed, and may haue the heart then lifted up, yea sometimes more fervent motions then when we receiue the sacramen­tall elements of bread and wine; Why are we enioyned to kneele at the one time more then at the other, if it be not in regard of the outward signes and rites, which is idolatry? Nay, I should urge further. Seeing there was onely a voyce at the delivery of the word, and here is a visible obiect set before the eye, how­beit it were urged there, wherefore should it bee urged here? Yee heard the voyce of the words, but saw no similitude, onely yee heard a voyce. Deut. 4.12. According to his private interpretation I forme another act mutatis mu­tandis like the act of Perth, that it may be the better understood.

Another act f [...]rmed to discover the mystery and meaning of th [...] [...]ct of Perth. SInce we are commanded by God himselfe, that when we come to worship him, we fall downe and kneele before the Lord our maker, and con­sidering withall, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spirituall, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverent gesture of the body in our me­ditation, and lifting up of our hearts, becommeth well so divine and sacred an action. Therefore not­withstanding our Church hath used, since the re­formation of religion here, to heare the promises of the Gospell read, exponed, or in any part of the sermon rehearsed sitting, by reason of some great a­buse in former times; yet now, seeing all memory of by-past abuse is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praised be God, in reverence of God, and in [Page 47] due regard of so divine a mysterie, and in remem­brance of so mysticall an union. as wee are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinketh good, that the promises of the Gospell being read, expo­ned, or rehearsed in any part of the Sermon, that the people hearken reverently kneeling upon their knees.

Is there any reason in the act of Perth, which may not sort with this?Three or foure phrases in the Act signifying one thing. May not the reader here perceiue, that by receiving of the body and bloud of Christ in the narratiue, is meant a mysticall receiving of the sacrament, and relatiue to this phrase in the conclusion are these three following, the holy communion, divine mysterie, & blessed sacrament, so that al the foure signifie one thing, and without cor­respondencie to other, they cannot cohere in any tollerable construction of words. Let the act then bee formed, as it should runne in right construction in maner following.

SInce we are commanded by God himselfe, that when we come to worship him, The Act rightly for­med. we fall downe and kneele before the Lord our maker, and con­sidering withall, that there is no part of divine wor­ship more heavenly and spirituall, then is the holy receiving of the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverent gesture of the body in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts becommeth well so divine and sacred an action. Therefore notwithstanding our Church hath used, since the reformation of re­ligion here, to receiue the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ sitting, by reason of the great abuse used in the idolatrous worship of [Page 48] Papists, yet now since all memory of by-past super­stition is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praised be God: in reverence of God, and due regard of so divine a mysterie, and in remembrance of so mysticall an union as wee are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinketh good that the people receiue the body and blood of our Lord and Savi­our Jesus Christ humbly and reverently kneeling upon their knees.

By the word Mysterie is meant the sa­crament, or sacramentall receiving.May not any man here see evidently, that by Divine Mystery is meant the receiving of the body and blood of Christ in the mysterie of the Supper, or the mysticall and sacramen­tall receiving which standeth in signes & rites, wherein it differeth from the spirituall. By the word Mystery in the singular number, as well as by the word Mysteries in the plurall number, is meant the sacrament very fre­quently among the ancient Writers. Diony­sius Areopagita entituleth the chapter of the Lords Supper,De eccles. Hierarch. The mystery of the Synaxis or holy communion. Ambrose sayth, Indignus est Domin [...], qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quàm ab eo traditum est, that he is unworthy in the Lords account who celebrateth the mystery other­wise then hee hath delivered it.In 1 Cor. 11 Oecamenius saith, that the Apostle Paul calleth the myste­ry of our master the Lords Supper.Hieron. in Psal. 47.7. Ierome sayth, Licet in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen ve­riùs corpus Christi, & sanguis eius sermo scriptu­rarum est, that howbeit it may be understood of the mystery, that yet more truly the words of the Scripture may bee called the body and blood of Christ. What need many testimo­nies?Exercit. pag. 550. Casaubone sayth of this sacrament, [Page 49] Dicitur etiam antonomasticè to mysterion, aut numero multitudinis ta mysteria. In the En­glish confession the bread, and wine are cal­led. The holie, and heavenlie mysteries of the bodie, and blood of Christ. In the service booke the word Mysterie is vsed in the singular number. Master Lindsay himself vseth some time the word Mysterie, and sometime the word Mysteries in his Resolutions. The word Mysterie is often vsed in the singular number because both the signes, and the rites em­ployed about them are referred to one Christ signified.

This act may passe among both Papists and Lutherans,The act of Perth may passe among Lutherans & Papists. this clause (Notwithstanding our Church hath vsed, since the Reformation here, to celebrate the holie communion to the people sit­ting, by reason of the great abuse vsed in the Ido­latrous worship of Papists, yet now since all me­morie of by-past superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people praised be God) being blot­ted out, as justlie it ought: for it is false, as I have alreadie said. It is superfluous. For the act is whole, and entire without it, the conclusion answering to the narrative. And it is insert for a mocke. For immediatlie af­ter, and before they condemne our Church for want of reverence and due regard to this Sacrament, which ought to have prevailed above all other respects, if their reason were forcible. This false, superfluous, and mocking clause being blotted out, yee have the whole act, as followeth.

SInce we are commanded by God himselfe, that when we come to worship him,The Luthe­ran or popish [...]we fall downe and kneele before the Lord our maker, and con­sidering withall, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spirituall, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverent gesture of the body in our me­ditation, and lifting up of our hearts, becommeth well so divine and sacred an action. Therefore in reverence of God, and due regard of so divine a mysterie, and in remembrance of so mysticall an union, as wee are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinketh good, that blessed sacrament be celebrated to the people humbly and reverently upon their knees.

This act I say may passe among Papists, and Lutherans.C [...]doration, or ells respe­ctive adora­tion of the e­lements is in­tended in the [...]ct. For they maintaine that all the communicants, even the verie wicked, and hypocrits receave the verie bodie, and blood of Christ in at their mouth, the Papist vnder the accidents of bread, and wine, the Luthe­ran vnder or within the elements of bread, and wine. For the Papist and Lutherane hath beside the spirituall receaving, which they grant onlie to the godlie, a Sacramentall but essentiall, and reall receaving of the verie bodie, and blood of Christ in at the mouth, which they grant also to the wicked. The act of the communicants receaving is no o­therwise expressed here, then by the recea­ving of the bodie and blood of Christ. May wee not therefore justlie suspect the Sacra­mentall reall receaving of Christs bodie, and blood to have been intended by the first pen­ners [Page 51] of the act, wheresoever it was first for­ged, seing there is nothing contrarie to this meaning in the act, it is damned as curio­sitie to enquire after what manner Christ is present in the Sacrament of the supper. Yea it is plainlie avouched that Christs blood is after a more sublime manner present in the Sacramentall wine, then it is in the water of Baptisme. So in this sense to kneele in re­gard of the divine mysterie is to kneele in re­gard of Christs bodie reallie present, and the signes together, conjunctlie as the totall object of adoration, and so the signes shal be worshiped by way of coadoration. So the Papists worship the bodie of Christ, and the species, or accidents togither. Non solum Christus sub speciebus existens, sed etiam to­tum Sacramentum visibile, vt ex Christo & spe­ciebus constat vnico latriae actu adorandum est, sayeth Swarez. And againe,Tom. 3. disp. 65. sect. 1. simpliciter hoc Sacramentum adorandum esse adoratione latriae ab­soluta, & perfecta, qua per se adoretur Christus. coadorentur autem species, quia hoc Sacramentum in re est vnum Constans ex Christo & speciebus. If no man can be perswaded that there is anie such intent, yet the other respect is at least in­tended, to wit, to kneel in regard of the myste­rie, that is, of the mystical rites, and elements, which is Idolatrie. For to kneele in regard of the elements, is to adore them. Because kneeling in Religious vse is ever a gesture of adoration, and soveraine worship, which belongeth onlie to God, and by it is designed some times the whole worship of God. Ip­sam proskunesm, quae hominibus propter analogi­cam [Page 52] cum Deo similitudinem legitimè tribuitur, ita Deo propriam censeo, cum Religiosa est, ut totus cultus divinus illa sol [...] designetur, Christus illam Diabolo, Di [...]put. pag. 233. & Angelus sibi abjudicet, hoc argumen­to quod Dei propria sit, sayeth Arminius. Yet I cannot see how the word Mystery can be other wise taken in the act, then for the receaving of the signes, and the thing signified together Sacramentallie. It is true God offereth the thing signified as oft as the outward signes are presented vnto us, but the fail is vpon the part of the receaver, who wanteth faith and recea­veth onely the outward signes.

W [...]e have examined the publick intent, which wee find to be idolatrous.The private intents of the cōmunicants examined. And there­fore whatsoever be the privat intent of the communicant he must be interpreted accord­ing to the publik intent. Otherwise a man may goe to Rome, and kneele. But we will exa­mine also what the communicant can alledge for his private intent. The pretence of men­tall prayer, or thanksgiving we have alreadie discussed.

The pretence of receauing a precious gift, the body and b [...]ood of Christ.First yee say, ye are receaving a precious gift, the bodie, and blood of Christ. Will not anie man doe reverence to the king, when he receaveth a gift out of his hand? This pretence hath beene alreadie answered. For we receave the same benefite at the hearing of the word. But farther it may be doub­ted whether thou be receaving such a gift, howbeit God be offering it. Next the man­ner of the offer is to be considered, to wit, not immediatlie, but mediatlie by the Mi­nistrie of the word, and Sacraments. Third­lie [Page 53] we must not imagine that Christs bodie is offered vnto us in the Sacrament, as if we had never receaved his bodie before. Did we not receave his bodie at the Sacrament in former times, did we receave, and then loose againe? Yea we receave the bodie of Christ at our first conversion, we receave his flesh, and blood in the word, before we receve them in the Sacrament. We are in Christs bodie before we eate of Christs bodie,De civit. de [...] l. 2 [...]. c. 25. sayeth Au­gustine. Dicendum non est eum comedere corpus Christi, qui non est in corpore Christi. And a­gaine he sayeth, that we are made partakers of Christs bodie in Baptisme. Nulli aliquate­nus est dubitandum, vnumquemque fidelium cor­poris, & sanguinis tunc esse participem, quando in Baptismate membrum efficitur Christi. And the Apostle sayeth. By one spirit we are all Baptized into one bodie. 1. Cor. 12.13. That we are graffed in Christ, that we putt on Christ. Rom. 6.35. Galat. 3.27.Vide de Con­secrat dist 1, Quia passus. Tertullian sayeth of baptism, that we are not baptized that we may cease from sinning, but because we have left off to sinne, and have our hearts washed, and clensed. Non ideo abluimur, De poenitentia ut desinamus de­linquere, seà quia des [...]imus, & corde loti sumus. The table is ever spread for the soule, when the word is preached, and the Sacrament ministred.

We bring with us actuall faith to feede upon him, whom by habituall faith we retain dwelling alreadie in us. Familiaris loquendi modus est ut fieri dicatur quod factum obsignatur. It is a familiar kinde of speaking [Page 54] to say that a thing is in doing, which alreadie done is sealed and confirmed,De sacram. pag. 68. sayth Whitakers. Fourthly, the nature of the gift is to be consi­dered. Any man will behaue himself other­wise when he receiueth a Iewell out of the princes hand, nor when he is receiving a sup­per, & is in the act of feasting with him. Christ and his Apostles knewe after what maner we should behaue our selues at this banquet, that we neede not to goe learn courtesie at the court.

You will say, that men bow to the chair of estate,The argumēt drawn from ceremonies of court answer­ed. or the Princes letter, or seale, without injurie done to the Kings person. Yea the honour is conveyed to the Prince by the chair of estate, or the seale. Doctor Abbots an­swer to Bishop in another purpose may serue here verie well.pag. 1215. It should seeme strange that formalities observed to Princes in th [...]r courts, for maiestie and royall estate should be made patterns of religious devotions to be practised in the Church. De civit. dei. l. 2, cap. 4. Augustine sayth that civill courtesies often are grounded upon base hu­militie, or pestiferous flatterie. Hence it is that some countries mislike the courte­sies of other countries. Conon an heathen refused to adore Artaxerxes after the manner of the Persians.

Next the bowing to the chair of estate or to the seal of the prince, is but a civil worship for a politick end, to testifie homage & allegiance. Doctor Abbots in defence of Perkins, sayeth It is holden for a matter of princely Maiestie, that there be a reverence performed to these things which serue in a speciall manner for the Princes use. [Page 55] On the other side, Pag. 121 [...]. no such duetie is done to the Princes Image. It is thought good by the State, that the Maiestie of Princes be uphol­den by such meanes, because they are but weake mortall men. But God needeth not any such props to hold up his maiestie, nei­ther wil he haue any worship conveyed to him mediatelie by anie creature never so holy, or of whatsoever use. The sacraments are com­pared to seales, but not in every respect. The sacraments haue all their force and power from the word, so hath not the Kings seale from the Charter. The word is of it selfe firme and sure without the sacraments, so is not the Charter without the seale. A seale maketh things authenticall, as measures, clothes, grants, or the like. The sacraments are annexed to the word, not to make the w [...]rd more authenticall, but to confirme our faith. The outward signes of the sacra­ment are made for us, not we for them. And as one sayth, as they are the plainest part of Divinitie, so they come lowest to our ne­cessitie, and capacitie. When we heard the word, we were sealed with the Spirit, Ephes 1.13. The holy Spirit is the seale or signet sea­ling us to redemption, the graces of the Spi­rit are the seales sealed, or printed upon us. The holy Spirit sealeth unto us Christ, and all his benefites, and properly assureth us of them, sometime by the word, and sometime by the sacrament as outward meanes. The outward meanes are to bee reverenced, but not to be adored.

The argumēt taken from bowing before the arke an­swered.It is alledged that we may bow before the Sacramental bread, and wine, because the peo­ple of God bowed before the ark. We answer, they bowed not for reverence of the arke, but to God dwelling, or sitting in the arke be­tweene the Cherubims. God was after an extraordinarie, and singular manner present in the arke, delivering oracles. For this sin­gular presence of God in the arke the Temple was built, and al the implements therof made. God promised to heare his people, when they should turne them toward this Temple. So they bowed toward the arke, toward the Temple, wherein the arke was, toward the mountain wheron the Temple was situate, be­cause of Gods presence in the ark, in the Tem­ple wherein the arke was, & which was situate vpon the mountaine. They bowed toward the Temple, not as toward a particular thing, but as toward a particular place of presence. The bread is a particular thing, not a particu­lar place of presence, wherein God may be said to sitt, or dwell, or from whence he promiseth to heare our prayers.

There is no such place of presence now under the New testament. The arke where­in God dwelt or sate, was a type of Christs manhood, not yet existing, and of the Godhead dwelling in the manhood. The Temple also, Iohn the second chapter and the nineteene verse. But now under the new Te­stament we are directed to direct our worship to that place where the Godhead is dwelling, in the Manhood existing, that is, to the heauen where Christs Manhood is.

Yee will say,Improper ad­oration is idolatrous. we may reverence the bread as a signe of Christs body by way of representa­tion, that is, as if his body, howbeit absent were present in the bread, or under the acci­dents of bread, and all the honour that wee would doe to the body of Christ, as if it were present, we doe before, and about the bread, as in a Comedie, all the honour done to him that representeth the King, is accounted done properly to the King, not to him that repre­senteth, but improperly. Sicklyke to an Em­bassadour: and after the same maner to an emptie coffin at funeralls. We answer, that we owe no adoration to any creature either properly, or improperly. A representation of Christs body actiuely to the communicant, that is to represent his body to be received, we acknowledge: but a representation of Christs body passiuely, that is to stand in Christs roome to receiue adoration from the com­municant, as a Vicegerent of Christ absent, we doe not acknowledge. For that were to giue a portion of divine honour to the crea­ture, to make it Christs Vicegerent when wee worship him. By this reason wee might not onely kneele, but kisse the sacrament, and di­rect our speech and prayer toward it, as the Iesuite doth, when fixing his eyes upon a Crucifixe in his Sermon, hee directeth his speech to Christ. To this kinde of worship many referre the convey of civill worship to the Prince, by the chaire of estate. But it is li­mited to one particular, to wit, bowing.

Coniunct a­doration, or proper respe­ctiue of the signes are intended in the act, and both are idolatrous.Yee will say, yee intend not this represen­tation, but consider Christ as present, as the Papist considereth the samplar, or person re­presented as present, as clothed with the I­mage, or shining in the Image, that is, present Secundum esse representativum, non secundum esse reale, that is, by meere representation onely. This coniunct adoration is like the coadorati­on of the purple robe wherewith the King is clothed, or of the Popes shooe, when the Pope is adored, or any submission, or supplication made unto him. But God will not bee wor­shipped according to our apprehensions. We make an idoll of him if we apprehend him o­therwise then he is. The sacrament cannot be the robe of that body which is in the heavens and not in the bread: and therefore the bread cannot be worshipped concomitanter with the body of Christ upon a meere apprehension. There is no adoration of any created thing with the Godhead, but onely of the manhead of Christ united personally to the Godhead. Therefore Nestorius, an old heretick, concei­ving the manhead of Christ to be a distinct person from the Godhead, and notwithstand­ing averring that the manhead should be a­dored with the Godhead, was condemned in the Councell of Ephesus. The body it selfe of Christ were not to be adored if it were not personally united to his Godhead. I know the understanding Formalist denieth in words both the improper and coniunct adoration. But we are now examining the private intent of the communicants, and who doubteth but many apprehend Christs, body to bee either [Page 59] present in apprehension, or represented as ab­sent, or really present in the bread when they kneele. Did not one of our Barons protest, that he kneeled not for reverence of the bread, but because it was a signe of Christs body? What was that to say, but that he would not adore the simple bread, but that hee would a­dore the sacramentall bread? but after what manner? whether improperly, or coniunctly, or respectiuely? I thinke he could scarce tell himselfe. What may we then iudge of many in the land? The formalist kneeling accord­ing to the intent of the act in regard of the divine mysterie, that is, of the sacramentall receiving of Christs body and blood, adoreth either the body of Christ and the signes con­iunctly, as obiectum quod, totale & adaequatum, or els disiunctly the signes, as the material ob­iect, obiectum quod, and the body of Christ onely by consequence, as obiestum quo, the reason wherefore he adoreth the signes pro­perly and directly in recto, as they speake, and the samplar but indirectly, in obliquo. There is no other regard either of praier, or any o­ther like thing expressed in the act, which may lead us to thinke that improper adoration was intended. And of the two last I cannot see how the proper respectiue can be intended, seeing they are then using the signes to the end whereunto they were appointed, and con­sider them in actu exercito, as they are then re­presenting Christs body. Whereas the proper respectiue is given to the signes, as to things sacred. As when the Papist passing by the I­mage, uncovereth his head considering it only [Page 60] generaly and confusedly, as a thing sacred. But when he considereth the Image, as it is an I­mage actu exercito representing the thing signi­fied, and intendeth to adore in it, or before it the samplar or person represented, then hee kneeleth: for their proper respectiue adorati­on they call veneration, such honour as they giue to the book of the Gospell, or sacred ves­sels, sayth Swarez, who calleth it adoratio ve­neraria. Howsoever it is with them, kneeling is ever a gesture of adoration, and never to bee used, but to God directly in absolute adorati­on. Absolute adoration we call that which is given to persons, or intellectuall creatures for some intrinsick excellencie in them. Respe­ctiue we call that which is determined in sens­lesse and dead creatures, resteth in them, and is properly given them which are honoured per se by themselues, howbeit propter aliud for some extrinsick excelencie out of thēselues & inherent in the samplar, or thing represented, and consequently honour redoundeth to the samplar by consequence.

The pre­tence of Obiectum a quo signi­ficative answered.Put the case the Formalist were free of the former two intentions, that is, to adore signes, either coniunctly or respectiuely, and that it were true whereunto he fleeth, as unto his last refuge, that the bread and wine are obiectum à quo significativè, that is, an actiue obiect moving us to worship the thing signified: which dif­freth not from the adoration which Durandus Holcot, and Pic [...]s Mirandula giue to Images: for they adore not images the obiect of their adoration; but only in their presence, or be­fore them worship the samplar. Their adoratiō [Page 61] is as abstract from the image as theirs can be from the elements, neither can Doctor Mor­ton shew any difference. The outward action is exercised materially before the image, the intention of worship is directed to the samplar in their understanding. So the image was only obiectum a quo significative to them in regard of the inward aff [...]ction. And yet we condemne them for exercising the natural action of out­ward adoration before the image, or at the presence of the image.Resolut. pag. 161. M. Lindsay sayeth that there is a difference between images the inven­tion of men, & the works of God, the word of God, and the sacraments. But manie of the English formalists approue images as lawfull obiects to stirre up the memorie, as the Re­plyer to Morton doth testifie. And they haue reason: for if they condemned images, as signes invented by men, unfit, and unlawfull for wakening up of the memorie, and putting them in minde of some pious dutie, they must also condemne the signe of the crosse, the sur­plice, and other significant rites invented by man. Now if they may be lawful obiects to stirr up the memorie, what can hinder adora­tion before them, more then before other mo­ving obiects. Si exemplaria ipsa per se sint digna adoratione, quid obstare potest praesentia imaginis, Tom. 3. pag. 798. quo minus adorari possint, saith Swarez. So in the case of adoration there is no difference. In the case of estimation, or veneration, & instructiō they differ. We esteem more of Gods works then the workmāship of men. We owe vene­ration, a decent & comly usage to Gods word & sacraments, which we ought not to images. [Page 62] They are also ordayned by God for our in­struction, and so are not images. But to ad­ore God in them, by them, or before them by direction, is forbidden as well as adoration be­fore images. Otherwise we should fall downe before everie green tree, before an asse, or a toade, or any other vile creature, when they worke as objects upon our minds, and moue us to consider Gods goodnes, wisdome and power. We haue to consider, that when a man is considering the invisible things of God in the workmanship of an asse, tree, toade or any other creature, he is not then praying, or praysing except by ejaculations, which may occurre in al our actions, but he is meditating, and contemplating. For if I should adore, that is pray, or praise God upon my knees in the meane time, when I am poring with the eyes both of body & minde upon a tree, or a toade, I should cōfound two exercises, or be thought to adore the asse, the toade, or the tree, or God in,De adoratio­ne lib. 3 disp. 1. cap. 2. & 3. or by the asse, toade or tree. Vasques the Ie­suite doubteth not to averre, that not an image onely, or an holy thing may be worshipped, with the same adoration that is given to God, but also any thing in the world, the sunne, the moone, the stars, a stock, a little stone, or a straw. We are not far from this horrible er­ror, if we fall down to worship God before his creatures, when they put us in remembrance of him, or when we contemplat his properties in them.Resolutions p [...]g. 162. M. Lindsay himself changeth the phrase of speech to shun this absurditie. For he sayth, To bow down when we haue seen the works of God, when we haue heard the word, and when we [Page 63] receiue the sacraments to adore him, when by his works the word and sacraments we are taught to ad­ore, is neyther to bow downe to an Idoll, nor to worship God in an Idol. Why doth he not say, when we haue received the sacraments, as he sayd of the other two, when we haue seene the workes of God, when we haue heard the word, or why doth he not say, when we see the works of God, when we heare the word, and when we receiue the sa­craments, as he should haue done, if he would haue showen the difference betwixt images, the works of God, the word of God, and the sacraments. For the works, and word of God are objects significant, when we see and heare the same. So if we may fall down to worship God, when we see the sacrament, because it is obiectum a quo significative, we may do the like when we hear the word, or in private worship, when we see the creatures, and consider the workmanship of God in them: for these are not images or inventions of men. The ground of this error is the confounding of two exer­cises, prayer, or praise, and meditation, or con­templation. If I were reading a passage of scripture, and meditating upon it, I adore not then upon my knees, because I am then appre­hending, and considering what is read, and adore not till that exercise be ended. When it is ended, if I finde my self moued to pray or to giue thanks, I pore not stil with the ey [...]s of my minde, and body upon the book, but turn me to a wall, or a chair, or a bed, or any other thing casually placed before me, yea perhaps before the book it self, but casually, as before any other thing. For I am not then gathering [Page 64] lessons or instructions. For that exercise is en­ded, and this time it is not fit. As it fareth with the book of grace, so doeth it with the booke of nature. When I am reading in the booke of nature beholding an asse, a tree, or a toade, or any other workmanship of God, and considering in it his goodnes, power, wisdome, it is an object moving me to praise, & thanke God, but not in that exercise. For th [...]n I shal both still behold and adore. Now, if we may not do this with the works of God in private worship, we may not do it with the word read or preached, or the sacramental signes in pub­like worship. For when we are hearing, be­holding, and considering, we are receiving in­struction from the objects of the eye and the eare, and we are then in another employment then when we are adoring. Farther the ele­ments are objectum a quo significative immedi­atly after the consecration, as the papist and formalist both hold. Therefore all that are in the kirk should kneel at the sight of the con­secrated elements, euen long before they re­ceiue, or approach to receiue, and the elements should be lifted up, as the bread is among the papists at the elevation, to the ende they may be moued to inward devotion, and outward adoration by this obiectum a quo significative. for now is the time of publick worship, and after their consecration they haue gottē their vertue to signifie. This adoration before a significant object instructing the minde, or stirring up the memorie wil be found nothing different from improper adoration, which is by way of representation. For I exercise the [Page 65] outward acts of adoration before that obiect, as a Vice gerent of the thing absent signified by the same. For the Iesuites say, they wor­ship an image improperly, when they take it obiective, and make it the Vicegerent of the thing considered, as absent, or distant. Swarez reckoning all the sorts of adoration of images reduceth them to three, the improper worship of Durandus, and Holcot, Tom. 3. disp. 51. 52. 53. when the image is obiectum a quo significatiue: the conjunct adora­tion of the image with the samplar: the proper respectiue of the image for the samplars sake. So the improper by representatiō must be re­duced to the first sort. To adore then by direc­tion before a creature, because it is obiectum a quo significative, is to adore it by way of repre­sentation of the thing signified, and to per­forme all that service before and about it, which I would performe, if the samplar were present, which kinde of adoration the under­standing Formalist denyeth. And in deed the act of Perth beareth no such thing: for to kneel in regard of so divine a mysterie, to wit, as is the receiuing of the body and bood of Christ sacramentally is not to adore before the elements as obiectum a quo significative the samplar, but to adore the elements themselves with the thing signified. Thirdly, the el [...]ments are not set before us, as obiectum a quo signifi­cative only, to be presented to the eye out­wardly, and by the eye to moue the minde,De eucharist. lib. 4. c. 23. but we take, eate, drink. Therefore sayth Beller­mine, Iste fructus melius obtinetur videndo eucha­ristiam in mensa, quam eam manducando. Nam dū manducatur continuo peril significatio. At dum [Page 66] cernitur, & attente confideratur, semper represen­tat, & significat promissiones Dei, etiamsi per an­num integrum eam quis cernere vellet. Praeterea significatio melius apprehenditur per oculos, quam per gustandi sensum. The meate set before us at table, before it be used is an obiect moving us to praise God for his beneficence, but withall it is a subiect, whereupon we craue a blessing to be powred, because we are to use it. Next we blesse, or giue thanks, not kneeling: but in the verie use and act of eating and drinking, none did ever say grace, as wee use to speake, farre lesse kneele, no not among the most bar­barous, or yet the most superstitious. These three things are ever to be distinguished in the benefits of God, & not to be confounded, preparation before the use, by prayer and thanksgiving, the use it self, and thanksgiving after the use.

There are some other shifts scarse worth the answering, therefore I doe but lightly touch them. From the uncovering of the head, a ge­sture of simple reverence, & that among some nations onelie, can no good argument be drawen for kneeling,A fardel of pretences an­swered. which is a gesture of ad­oration among all nations, neither in civil, nor religious use. I wil not kneel to everie one to whom I uncover my head. A provincial sy­nod at London 1603 ordained the head to be uncovered, when their service is read in the church, yet I think they would not haue en­joyned kneeling. And are not the words of Christ, which he uttered at the first supper, as much to be reverenced? For that same voice soundeth through all the tables of the world [Page 67] Siclyke when they reason from the respectiue veneration of the name of Iesus, by lifting the tap, or making a leg, which beside that it is superstitious in giving more reverence to the name of Iesus, then to the name of Christ, Sa­viour, Redeemer, so is it not an argument for kneeling, which is a gesture of adoration. Whereas it is said, we may receiue upon our knees, that which we may craue in Gods pub­like worship upon our knees, is untrue. For the preacher may craue a blessing upon his knees, and yet when he findeth and feeleth the blessing in his preaching, he may not a­dore upon his knees. Siclyke the hearer may craue a blessing to his hearing, and yet in the act of hearing may not adore upon his knees. Further, if I may receiue kneeling in publike worship, that benefit which I craved in pub­like worship, then in privat worship I may re­ceiue a benefit upon my knees, which I craved in private worship upon my knees: for the difference of the place, publike and private, altereth not the nature of worship. For the place is but a circumstance, common to all our actions. So in whatsoever place he re­ceiue the benefit, he may receiue it upon his knees; and so because he craved daylie food, by this reason he ought to adore upon his knees, when he receiueth his food, and is en­ioying the benefite, eating, and drinking, which grosse absurditie the grossest may per­ceiue. Humilitie of minde is required not one­ly in all religious exercises, the hearing of the word, receiving of the sacramenss, executiō of the censures of the church, but also in all our [Page 68] actions. It will not follow therefore, that hu­miliation of our body, or adoration is requi­red where humility of mind is required, To conclude, as I asked before, when I examined the publick intent, so now I aske at the com­municants pretending many private intents, what is the reason that they kneele, when they reciue, eate, Christs flesh, and drink his blood in the Lords Supper, more then when they re­ceiue, eate his flesh, and drink his blood at the hearing of the word, everie one severally, as they beleeue and finde the like, and some­times more fervent motions, if it be not in re­gard of the elements, or of the thing signified, and the elements, which is idolatry? Remem­ber beside, that whatsoever be thy private in­tent, thy action must be construed according to the publick. If the publick be idolatrous, thy gesture is idolatrous. Ex voluntate iubentis pendet intentio exequentis, lib. de praecep. & dispen. sayth Bernard. Yee haue seen my reasons, and answeres, and ther­fore alledge not the naked and bare assertions of some Divines, who haue not written so hardly of this gesture of kneeling, because they haue not been troubled with it, as the Divines in our neighbour Church, who haue been for­ced to examine and consider it more narrow­ly: but let reason meet reason. Ratio cum ra­tione concertet. For even a Iesuite Maldona [...] doth confesse, that Rationum efficatia est prae­stantior omni authoritate, nisi divina. Mortoni Apologia part. The sitter is accessarie to the sin of the kneeler. 2. lib. 2. cap. 17.

The sitter is accessorie to the sinne of the kneeler. First, he endureth the kneeler by his presence, and maketh him think, that his knee­ling [Page 69] is neither scandalous nor idolatrous. You say, your sitting condemneth his kneeling. No such matter. But in communicating with him, you approue it as indifferent, as when ye sit in time of prayer after sermon, when ano­ther is kneeling, or standing. For shall you communicate with an idolater in the very act of his idolatry, and not be accessorie in coun­tenancing it with your presence. If you doe damne it as scandalous, or idolatrous, why communicate you with him? If you build up that which you destroyed, you make your selfe a trespasser. The Apostle forbiddeth the Corinthians to converse, or eate with a brother idolater, 1 Cor. 5. and yet you will eate and drink with him, when hee is commit­ting the very act. The Apostle forbiddeth not societie with him in publick Assemblies, but onely in private, & where he committeth the act, till he be reclaimed. Next, the com­municant with the kneeler casteth himselfe into tentation, by setting before him an evil example, which may enduce him to doe the like, specially if the kneeler be a person of any credit and countenance. Many are disquieted with the sight of a monster, or carcasse many moneths after. It is an evill token when you can be so well content to see such a monster in our kirk, and your heart not rise within you. If you should present your selfe to the masse in the same manner, and with the same liber­ty, custome would so harden the heart, that in the end you would halt with the lame, and conforme in every point. It will creepe like a Ring-worme: feemeth it now tollerable, [Page 70] the next day it will seeme holy, and the third day necessarie. So bewitching sinnes are ido­latry and superstition. Thirdly, you are partaker of an Idoll feast. Start not at this I say: for the sacrament of the Lords Supper may be turned into an idoll feast, and hath been a more abhominable feast then ever was any among the heathens. And howbeit there may be some difference betwixt the formalists and the papists, arising upon the diversitie of inward opinions and conceits of Christs reall presence in the elements, yet if both their ge­stures be idolatrous in their owne kindes, the Lords supper is made an idoll feast. Non ad Diabolum pertinet quis isto, August. hom­de pastor. vel illo modo erret, omnes errantes vult quibuslibet erroribus. It is no­thing to the Divell whether a man erre this way or that way, whatsoever way they erre, all that bee in error, hee seeketh to bee his. Fourthly, the communicant advanceth this innovation, and setteth forward this grosse corruption by his presence and communica­ting with the kneeler. For if the kneelers were left to themselues, they would be ashamed of themselues, wheras now they are comforted & hardened in their sin, & some follow their ex­ample.Hieron. ad Ioannē Hie­rosol. Fides pura morā non patitur ut apparuerit scorpius, illico conterendus est. Pure faith suf­fereth no delayes. As soon as the scorpion ap­pears, it is to be bruised saith Hierom. Fourth­lie a confusion of gestures lawfull, and vnlaw­full is brought into the Lords table, some sit­ting like ghuests at a feast, as Christ, and his Apostles sate, others like supplicants kneeling, and adoring vpon their knees. This confusion [Page 71] is not like that varietie of gesture in time of prayer, when some sitt, some stand, some kneele. For all the three gestures are there in­different. But not so heere, This confusion of gestures at the Lords table now is permitted onlie for a snare to bring thy feete, within the grin. For when all are brought in, then wil the formalists crie out. Confusion of gestures is intollerable, vniformitie, and conformitie is necessarie, as Doctor Sparke doeth in his per­swasion to vniformitie.The act of Perth, and act of Parliament no warrant for the com­municant.

Yee will pretend the act of Perth, and the act of Parliament ratifieng the same. But know yee not, that the decrees of councels, or as­semblies are not Gospell, or determinations Evangelicall, as the Papists doe esteeme them, who build their faith, and worship vpon the authoritie of the church. Is it not also well known, what were the proceedings of that as­semblie, how the sounder part was born down by the corrupter. If we ought to receave, whatsoever assemblies should determin, be the proceedings never so vnjust, then wer we to be blamed, who rejected the councell of Trent, not onlie for their wicked decrees, but also for the nullities, and informalities in their proceeding. The Father of lies himself is not able to justifie that assemblie, and it cannot be defended, but with calumnies, and lies, which manie eye & ear witnesses can testifie. Though we sitt not formallie, and judiciallie in a con­sistorie as Iudges over wicked, and vnlawfull assemblies. Yet, if we have anie judgement, we may, and ought to judge of assemblies, both of their procerdings, and determina­tions [Page 72] least vnder colour of Councels we suffet our selves to be ledde like a calfe by the nose. Patientia asinina est non curare, quid ei imponatur, aurum, an lutum sayeth Peraldus. Farther I have cōcurring with me, the bodie of the church of Scotland, at least three parts of the whole num­ber of the particular congregations within the realme standing out against the decrees of that assemblie, and adhering to their former practise which is according to the paterne, and to the confession of faith, wherin this church professeth the right vse of Ministration of the Sacraments, and a detestation of all rites, and ceremonies, brought in by Antichrist, or not warranted by the word of God. The bodie of the Kirk is of greater authoritie, then an assemblie, athough lawful, it being onlie a re­presentative bodie, not the collective, or co­augmentatiue body. Lex vigorem habet cum mo­ribus utentium approbatur. As for the act of Parliament, it is onely a ratification of the Act of Perth in favours of the kirk, as all ratifica­tions of church acts are pretended to be. If the assemblie of Perth it self, be not acknow­ledged by the kirk of Scotland for one of her lawfull assemblies, nor the decrees and ordi­nances thereof iudged agreeable to the word of God, then the act of ratification is no bene­fit or favour to the kirk. The kirk of Scotland refuseth such a benefit. Invito beneficium non datur. What freedom and libertie was in that Parliament, and how matters were caryed I doubt not, but ye haue sufficiently painted forth in that booke, which is intituled. The course of conformitie. Esay pronounceth a woe [Page 73] upon them that make heavie lawes. cha. 10.1. Seing Councels and parliaments may be cor­rupt, either in their proceedings or decrees, let us stick to the word,Enarrat. 2. in Psal. 31. which must be the rule of our fayth and worship. Stet regula, & quod pravum est corrigatur ad regulam, sayth Augus­tine.M. Knox cō ­demned knee­ling as diabo­lical, which is now commen­ded by his successors as cō ­mendable.

M. Knox, that worthy instrument of refor­mation in our Church in a letter written to Matresse Anna Lock dated at Deepe the sixt of April 1559, calleth the crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the Lords table Diabolical inven­tions. In his admonition directed to England, and printed Anno 1554, he ranketh kneeling at the Lords table, among the superstitions,Pag. 31. which prophane Christs true religion. When light did striue with darknes in this realme, yet the Lord enlightened that worthie man for our benefit beyond his fellowes. Now we are turning light in darknes, & commending that as most comely, & commendable, which he condemned as diabolicall. There are yet some of his successors in his station aliue (M. R. Bruce, that faithful servant of God (who foretold, that the time would come, when the least kitchin lasse or ladd in Edinburgh would be tryed, and that by their own teachers, which we see come to passe this day. As his successors haue forewarned us of these times of tryall, so haue they of iudgments. Heare, what that meeke man of God M. Robert Rol­lock said.