A SOLVTION OF DOCTOR RESOLVTVS▪ His Resolutions for kneeling.

Ambrosius in 1. Cor. 11.

Jndignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest Devo­tus esse, qui aliter praesumit, quam datum est ab auctore.

He is unvvorthy of the Lord, vvho doth celebrate the mystery othervvayes, then as it vvas delivered by the Lord. For he can not be Devote, vvho presumeth othervvayes, then the author hath delivered.


Cyprianus ad Caecilianum, Lib: 2. Epist. 3.

REligioni nostrae congruit, & timori & officio sacer­dotij nostri custodire traditionis Dominicae verita­tem: & quod prius videtur apud quosdam erratum, do­mino monente corrigere, ut cum claritate sua, & maje­state caelesti venire caeperit, inveniat nos tenere quod monuit observare quod docuit, facere quod fecit.

It agreeth fitly with our religion, and the feare & dutie of our priesthood, to keepe the verity of the Lords tradition: and wherein any errour seeme to have been committed before, to correct the same, wher the Lord doth admonish ws, that when he shall begin to come with his brightnes and heaven­ly majesty, he may find ws to hold that which he commanded, to observe that which he taught, and to do that which he did.


WE are become so Apish in the imitation of the English patterne, that where we can­not imitate in substance, yet we will imi­tate in imaginary formes. Amongst other strange novelties, it behoved us to have Doctors of Divi­nity; whether they be sufficiently qualified or not. About five yeare agoe, some ministers aspiring to Bishopricks, were inaugurate Academicall doctors, as it pleased the Arch▪ bishop of St. Andrewes Mr. Spottiswood, that learned Rabbi, to admit or allow. Mr. David Lindsay, our master Doctor, so defended the article of kneeling at Perth Assembly, that he did save the credit of the rest of the Doctors, who had been all put to shame unles he had undertaken the burthen, as he himselfe gave out afterward. But how well did he plead the Kings cause, when he was driven to confes, they had neither scripture reason, nor antiquity, and that he condescended onely to avert the Kings wrath from our Kirk? But the Doctor baited with benefites, and hope of promotion to a Bishop­rick, which he doth now enjoy, hes since that time not­withstanding set forth in print a new light, revealing unto him both scripture, reason, and antiquity. Seeing the Doctor stileth arrogantly his reasons Resolutions; let him be called Doctor Resolutus for Scotland, as Iohannes de Baccone of old was so called for En­gland, that in this also we may be conforme. He mar­cheth under Dissipate, the martiall motto of the Con­stables [Page] Armes; but I will march under Colligite, the martiall motto of Christs standaad, and will encounter not with Goliah, but with Thraso, for so I hope the Reader shall finde him. The halfe of his book needeth no answer: I will answer therefore onely so much as concer­neth the matter of kneeling: let the judicious Reader con­ferre this answer with his Resolutions, and try boldly, if I have dealth faithfully. The Lord praeserve so many as do yet stand to their oath and profession, that they may continue constant, and not be carried away with every light wind of erroneous doctrine, nor cast down with terrors and threatnings. Such as are already fallen, the Lord give them remorse of conscience, and grace to reco­ver thetr fall. Let us all possesse our soules in patience, and cry to God for the dayes of old, and then he will re­turn and repaire the breaches made in our walles, and purge our Temples of the corruptions which are already entred.

CHAP. I. A table gesture is necessarie.

THe Doctor taketh needlesse paines to proue fitting in the act of recei­ving the Sacramentall elements of bread and wine, not to be necessary. For we hold not sitting in special ab­solutely necessary in the act of recei­ving, but a table-gesture in generall, whether sitting or standing about the table, we hold necessary; howbeit not to the essence, yet to the right ministration of the Sacrament. And of these two table gestu­res. VVe hold sitting most aggreeable to the institution: for Christ setting down before his Apostles, a patterne conforme where unto they should celebrate that holy action thereafter, celebrate the same sitting: and this gesture ougt not to be changed, no not in an other table gesture, without some urgent necessity. To stand at the ministers hand, or to take in passing by, we account no table-gesture; for there is no use in that case more of a table-gesture, then if it were a dressor, or cup-boord; and that kind of gesture taketh away the distribution of the communicants, which is not taken away by standing about the table.

CASAVBONVS, doth acknowledge the gesture of Christ and his Apostles at the Paschal supper, to have been not a section 1 simple lying, but a gesture consisting partly of sitting, and lying, Exercitat. 16. pag. 490. and alledged not onely the place of Ezkiel, 23.41. But [Page 6] also Onkelos the Chaldee paraphrast,Hic fitus ne­que plane ja­centis est, ne­que plane se­dentis: Idcir­co hebrei hoc dixerunt sede­re in lectis. expressing the sitting of Iosephs brethren, by a word which the Syrians use to expres­se, sitting with leaning: and Iosephus expressing it by the word Cataclisis, the proper word used to signifie the gesture recei­ved in Christs time: thereafter he alledgeth the phrase of the Rabbins, which they use to expresse sitting with leaning. Seeing therefore the Hebrew, Chaldaick and Rabbinical wri­ters do interpret the one word indifferently by the other, our vulgar translators have done right in expressing Christs ge­sture by the word, sitting. The Doctor himselfe at perth as­sembly, confessed that our gesture of upright sitting, and his Apostles gesture at the Paschal supper, were Analoga. If Christ had celebrated the Paschal supper in the dayes of DA­VID or SALOMON, before the custome of sitting at table in beds entred among the Iewes, he had used the gesture of up­right sitting, as the Iewes did then, and as the Iewes do at this day, when they celebrate the Paschal Supper.

section 2 His first argument against the necessity of sitting, the uncer­tainty argument 1 of Christs sitting, and the likelihood that they stood or kneeled at the blessing, and continued the same gesture throughout the whole action. The testimony of Athenaeus of the custom of the Naucracites, will not make it probable that Christ kneeled at the blessing. VVhat Ethnickes did on the birth day of Vesta, or festivitie of Apollo, Comaeus was no pattern to Christ to imitate. Neither was it Christ constant gesture to kneele in time of prayer or blessing. It was the cu­stome of the Iewes to sit in the time of the blessing of the bread, and the cup of praise in the last act of the Paschal Sup­per, and the words were summarie, that they were sooner pro­nounced, then they could conveniently change rheir gesture. Christ no doubt, at all the Pascall suppers before kept the or­dinary custome. If at other Paschal suppers, why not also at this? And if at this Paschal supper, why not at the Eucharisti­cal? except we will think that the one required kneeling more then the other. VVhile as the Disciples were sitting at table in Emaus, Christ gave thankes, and Math. 14. after the people were placed and set on the ground, Christ gave thankes loo­king up to heaven onely. This lifting up of the eyes to heaven was indeed familiar with Christ, even when he went about some miraculous or extraordinary work, Ioh: 11.41. VVhen [Page 7] he was to raise Lazarus, he gave thankes lifting up his eyes. And when he went out after supper to the garden, and prayed that prayer Ioh. 17. It is said onely that he lifted up his eyes. The Liturgie ascribed to Iames and Ambrose,De Sacra­ment: lib. 4. cap. 5. constantly af­firme, that he lifted up his eyes also when he gave thankes at the Eucharistical supper: no further do they affirme.

Put the case the Doctors conjecture were true, it will not follow that Christ and his Apostles continued the gesture of standing or kneeling throughout the whole action. They could not stand all the time: for their sitting with leaning on their left elbowes, and their breasts, towards the table, required the table to be so neere, that they might not stand betwixt the beds and the table. They could not stand upon their beds; for then their feet had been neerer to the table then their hands or their heads. Christ sayd, Arise, let us go hence, Ioh: 14.31. How could they arise if they wer already standing? It be­hoved them therefore eihter to sit or to kneele.

I prove they kneeleed not by the reasons following: 1. If there had been such a change from sitting to kneeling, the Evangelists would not have omitted it, seeing it had been so great a change from the accustomed and ordinary table-ge­sture used at all times before at the Paschal supper, unto a ge­sture of adoration, a gesture of a farre different nature and kinde. The Evangelists make mention of all other changes made in passing from the last act of the Paschall supper to the Evangelicall. There is no reason therefore to think that they omitted this. There is no circumstance of their texts that doth insinuate any such change, but rather the contrary, that while they were eating, and consequently while they were sitting still, Christ tooke bread and gave thankes. 2. If Christ chan­ged sitting into kneeling, then kneeling is a part of the institu­tion: & so all the Kirkes which have not kneeled since Christs his dayes, shall be guiltie of transgressing the institution. For this I hold as a ground; That whatsoever change Christ made, in changing the last act of the Paschal supper into the Eucha­risticall, was a part of the institution; namely when the change is made to a rite of worship or adoration For to what end els should the change have been made, if it was not to be practi­sed afterward as a part of the institution? Now our opposites do acknowledge, that kneeling is indifferent, & consequently [Page 8] not a part of the institution. 3. Christ at the delivery of the elements, spake in an enuncirtive form; This is my body that is broken for you: and not in form of a prayer, saying in the Gregorian stile; The body of the Lord preserve thee both body and soule to life everlasting, or in any other such forme of prayer. Therefore the Apostles kneeled not in the act of receiving. And this I hold as an other ground: That kneeling was never practised in the Apostolicall Kirk in time of divinine service, but in the action of publick prayer or thankesgiving, nor ought not to be practised but at the sayd times. Our opposites in our neighbour Kirk pretend that they kneele in regard of the prayer uttered at the delivery of the elements. The ministers of Lincoln denude them of this pretence: yet their alledgance confirmeth my assertion. 4. The elements were carried from hand to hand, and divided by the communicants amongst themselves. Now our opposites them­selves do not admit as compatible, the kneeling of the com­municants, and the distributing of the elements among themselves.

This last reason is proved at length in Perth Assembly, where unto I referre the Reader, I adde onely for further confirma­tion, the authorities both of Papists and Protestants, applying the precept Luk 22.17. Divide it amongst you, to the com­munion cup. Barradius Tom. 4. Lib. 3. cap. 1. followeth Augustine and Enthy­mius, because Luke subjoyneth to that precept, the same protestation that Mathew and Mark do subjoyne to the com­munion cup; to wit, that Christ would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, untill, &c. and that the cause of the anticipa­tion was, that the protestation of not drinking more might be joyned with the protestation of not eating more. Iansenius Concordia Evangelica, cap 151. is moved with the same reason, and because the thankesgi­giving mentioned in the 17. verse is omitted, when Luke re­turneth afterward to speake of the same cup, because it was al­ready expressed. Maldonatus In Math. 26.27. sayth, that when Christ gave the cup to one, least he should seeme to will him onely to drink, he sayd, Drink ye all of it, which Luke expressed in cleerer tearmes, cap. 22.17. saying, Divide it among you. VValterius De triplici coena. page [...]15. sayth likewayes, that the cup was carried from hand to hand. As for our own writers, Hospinianus Historie sa­cramentarie part. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. sayth, It is manifest, that Christ gave not the cup to every one seve­rally, [Page 9] but onely to the first, and the first reached it to the se­cond, & so forth. Erasmus in his paraphrase Luc. cap. 22 17. sayth, it is obser­ved by the Ancients, that Luke maketh twice mention of the communion cup. Piscator in his Analysis on Luke, sayth, Cap. 22.17 It is cleare that the words are to be understood of the cup of the Lords supper. Gualter In Luke 22 17. likewise beginneth the institution at the 17. verse. Mornaeus De Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 12 p. 154 in folio sayth, Christ gave the cup when he sayd, Drink ye all of it: Divide it among you. Sibrandus In cateches. palatino bel­glcā, quest. 75. spea­keth to the same purpose. Calvin in his Institutions Lib. 4. c. 17. sect. 43. Beza in his last annotations in the same place, VVislets,De Euchar. quest 4. p. 545 Bilson,Obedience pag 495 Ie­wel, Of private Masse, divis. 8 and many moe might be cited to the same effect howbeit Bellarmine is loath to grant that precept to be meant of the communion cup, because of the fruit of the vine, mentioned in the protestation subjoyned, which maketh against transub­stantion, yet he granteth the matter itselfe, to wit, that the cup was divided, De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25. & reached frō one to another. And Becanus the Iesuit De commu­nione sub utraque specie pag. 125. sayth, Drink ye all of it, is all one with take & divide it among you. Now as the cup was divided among the commu­nicants so was likewise the bread: for as Christ sayd, take ye in the plurall number, drink ye; so he sayd, take ye, eate ye, and not take thou, eate thou. Analogie requireth, that the bread should be divided among the communicants, as well as the cup. It were strange to see the minister remain in his own place when the cup is carried from hand to hand, and to goe along the ta­ble to dispense the element of the bread. Hospinianus, Mor­neus, Sibrandus and others, make the precept, divide it among you, common both to the bread and the cup. Cajetane In Math. 26. con­fesseth that Christ was so farre distant from some of them, that he could not deliver the bread to every one severally, more then the cup. The later confession of Helvetia subscribed not onely by the Tygurines, and their confederates of Bern, Sca­phusia, Sangallia, Rhetia; but also by the Kirkes of Geneva, Sa­voy, Polonie, Hungarie, and Scotland, anno 1566, hath these words, Chapt. 2 [...]: Outwardly the bread is offered by the minister, and the words of the Lord are heard, Receive, eate, This is my body: divide it amongst you, drink ye all of this, This is my blood. Suppose it were granted, that the Apostles divided onely the cup, and Christs precept concern the dividing of the cup onely, and not the bread, yet it is sufficient for our pur­pose, seeing the communicants must compasse the table with a [Page 10] table-gesture, to the end they may divide the cup among them selves. For if every one take the cup severally out of the mini­sters hand kneeling, Christs precept concerning the cup is transgressed. I thinke no man will be so absurd as to say, that we should kneele when we receive the bread, but not when we receive the wine. VVhen Mr. Stuthers was urged with this dividing of the communicants, he answered; Is it not better to take it out of the hands of the Minister, then of an adulte­rer? It was replied by the Minister proponer; vvhat if the mini­ster be a Iudas? I ask, if holy Sixtus and St. Laurence, gave the bread and cup out of their own hands, when the Arch Bishop of St. Andrewes, and Mr. Gladstanes his Arch-deacon gave them to the communicants, all the communicants are presumed to be penitent sinners, & holy persons, neither doth the vertue of the Sacrament depend upon the morall dignity of him that ministreth, or of him that distributeth. And this far for confirmation of the fourth reason, referring the reader for further satisfaction, to Pert Assembly.Pag. 41·42 43.44.

VVhen the bready god was adored in the time of most grosse superstition, the popish Doctors were not so shamelesse, as to deny Christ and his Apostles sitting, to maintaine their kneeling. The old verse, Rex sedet in coena, &c. was current among them. Iohannes de Turrecremata, calleth it, versum antiquorum, a verse of the De Summa Ecclesie, lib. 1 c. 39. ancients, and Thomas Aquinas, their Angelical Doctor, citeth it to prove that Christ took rhe Sacrament himselfe, 3. quest. 81 art. 1. unde et quidā metrice dixit. Rex sedet in cena, turba cinctus duo­dona. Se tenet in manibus se cibat ipse cibus. but our Doctor in another sence An­gellicall, is become so impudent to call in question that which no ancient or moderne writer did call in question before this last yeare. Mr. P. Galloway after the reading of Mr. Doctors Book, in wrir, became incontinently so profound a clark, that upon the reconciliation day before the last communion, when the body of the Town of Edinburgh were assembled with their Ministers, he would take in hand to prove a strange paradox, to wit, that Christ and his Apostles sat not at the supper. No, sayd Mr. Andrew Ramsay, say not that brother. O sayd Mr. Struthers, gybing and jesting at the people all the time; he sat this way & counterfeited Christs table-gesture, deriding them whom he ought in all lenitie & meeknes to have instructed. But the honest men received nothing at their hands that day to be a vvarrant to their consciences for kneeling, but threat­nings [Page 11] from Mr. Galloway, jests and derisions from Mr. Stru­thers and Mr. Sideserfe and aversnes from hearing their rea­sons from Mr. Ramsay, who did moderate that meeting.

It is the triviall argument of our opposites that we are no more bound to sitting, or any particular gesture, then we are argument 2 bound to the time, the place, the order of receiving after meate, the quality of the leavened bread: and that the sitting was occasionall, onely by reason of the Paschall supper special­ly of the last act thereof, which was changed in the new Sacra­ment, and that sitting was not chosen of purpose by Christ, or his Apostles. But B. Bilson can tell them Obedience▪ pag 489 that the Lord nei­ther in his speech nor actions, did comprise the time, place, or persons. And Paraeus In 1. Cor. 11 sayih, that the evening, the Inne, the number of twelve, by the consent of all, were not Sacramentall but accidentary circumstances. Christ celebrated in the eve­ning, because the Sacramēt of the new law behoved to succeed the passover, the Sacrament of the old Law, which was ordai­ned by God to be eaten in the ev [...]ning, and Christ was to be apprehended before the morning. The Paschal supper was or­dained to be eaten in Ierusalem, in severall companies and fa­milies, and therefore Christ celebrated in an Inne, and to a small company. The Iewes vvere expressely forbidden to have any leavened bread in their houses in time of the passeo­ver. It behoved therefore Christ to celebrate with unleavened bread. All these circumstances were occasionall and unavoy­dable, by reason of the paschall supper. But Christ might have easily changed into kneeling: for there vvas no [...]xpresse com­mandement given to the people to sit at the P [...]schall supper. If they stood in Egypt, that standing vvas onely for that time: vvhen they came to Canaan they sate, as Scaliger sayth De emend. temporum lib. 6. in the last Edition. in argumentum securitatis: or for the proportion and Analogy of other religious feasts, whereat they sate. Seeing Christ might have altered this gesture and did not, but retained as a gesture as fit for the Sacrament of the nevv Lavv as it vvas for the Sacrament of the old Lavv, vvhich is called the oblation of Iehova▪ Numb. 9 7. it▪ is evident that it was his will that it should be retained.

He sayth it shall not expressely be found, nor by reason de­monstrated, that sitting vvas received at any time after the first argument 3 institution, either by the Apostles, or any in the primitive or [Page 12] succeeding Churches. VVe may more safely presume that the Apostolicall churches followed Christs example, then he may presume the contrary, which he is never able to prove. The fathers expounding the breaking of bread at Emaus to be the communion, will not deny sitting after the first supper. B. Bil­son sayth, Obedience pag. 461. that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lors supper among the Corinthians, in that they would nei­ther at common meats, nor at the Lords table sit altogether, but sorted themselves together in factions and companies, as they favoured or friended each other. Beza sayth,Contra Har­chium. Aga­pas quidem ce [...]te constat vix ac me vix quidem genu­flexionem ad­misisse. that the Love-feasts did no wayes admit geniculation at the Lords supper in the act of receiving and no doubt, the Apostle com­paring their partaking of the table of the Lord and the table of divels together 1 Cor 10.21. did include the gesture with the rest, and oppose the sitting at the Lords table to sitting at table in Idols Chappel. 1 Cor. 8.10. Durandus Rational. lib. 4. cap. 1. sayth, that the Apostles celebrated as Christ did, Et formā observantes in ver­bis & materiam in rebus, observing both matter and forme: And he sayth, Lib. 6. c. 77 that in the first beginning of the Kirkes, the Apostles used no other words, but the words of the institution at the consecration: he sayth, that they added afterward the Lords prayer, but this is but an uncertain and unwritten tradi­tion. The VValdenses alledge out of Chronica gestorum, that the form of the institution was a long time observed in the Kirk, and that the communicants kneeled not, but sate.Apologia contra hinas titeras docto­ris Augustini. Ex isto mani­festum cit, quod primiti­va Ecclesia hanc fidem habuit, et illā confessa est et non secit reverentiam huic Sacramento, quia rilo tem­pore exemplo Christi sedentes statim ac­ceperunt et nihil retinue­runt, nec extra domum extu­lernt et hec institutio diu stetit, sicut Chronica ge­storum osten­dunt. v. Tydij Waldensia. Mor­naeus testifieth De Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 1. that there are some foot-steps that remain in the monasteries of St. Bennet, where they have no other masse for three dayes before Easter but this form following: The Abbot sanctifieth the bread & the wine, and the Monkes do communicate sitting, receiving the elements out of the Ab­bots hand. And this form is called by them mandatum, the commandement. Then in the account of the very Benedicti­nes, to sit at table and comunicate, is a commandement. VVe must not think the Apostles altered Crists precept, ordaining the communicants to distribute among themselves, but this could not be done but with a table-gesture. The Apostle in rehearsing the institution declareth, that the words of the pro­mise whereunto the seales are annexed of bread & wine, were uttered not in form of a prayer, but in an enunciative form. It followeth therefore according to the ground already layd [Page 13] down, that in the Apostles time the table-gesture, and not knee­ling was the gesture of the communicants. But put the case we were destitute of reasons for the sitting of Apostolicall Kirkes, yet as long as we have nothing to prove the contrary, we ought to adhere to the institution. For Calvin sayth, Institut. l. 4. cap. 37. sect. 35 that they who receive as is commanded without adoration, are se­cure that they depart not from gods commandement, then the which security there can nothing be better when we enterprise any thing. They have the example of the Apostles whom vve read not to have adored prostrate, but as they were sitting they received and did eate. They have the use of the Apostoli­call Kirk, where it is declared that the faith-full did communicate, not in adoration, but in breaking of bread.

VVe omit the washing of feet, why may we not likewayes,argument 4 sayth the Doctor, omit sitting? That Christ did wash his Disciples feet; was an extraordinary example, to teach the Disciples humility, who were contending for majo­rity. The Doctor his head had need to be washed also. But the washing itselfe was an ordinary custome betwixt the first and second service of the Paschall supper. Bernard of old, and Venator one of the Remonstrants of new Hommij controversie Bel­gice in art. 33 would have this Iewish ceremony made a Sacrament and the Do­ctor a Sacramentale, belonging to the holy communion, but none of them is worthy of confutation.

He reasoneth now in personam and not from the matter it­selfe:argument 5. and 6. for what if there be a fault to kneele in the time of the thankesgiving? followeth it that we should commit a greater fault in the act of receiving. Both minister and people have warrant from other scripture to kneele in time of prayer, but in the very act of banquetting and feasting, we have no war­rant at all. Seing a table-gesture is necessary: it is then most necessary and proper, when we are in the very use of the table eating and drinkinking at it: vve may praye and give than­kes before we sit down to our ordinarie repast, but when we begin to eate vve use the Table-gesture. Christ sate at the table all the time of the action. It is true. The Ta­ble vvas short, and the Company but small, and [Page 14] he had all his guests within his view. The Minister must act his part in the view of the whole congregation: and there­fore they may lawfully change sitting into standing for the edification of the hearers and beholders of the action. Sitting we thought never so necessary, but that it might be changed into another table-gesture when necessitie required.

argument 7 He reasoneth again in personam. It followeth not that vve may change sitting, because we conjoyn the blessing of the bread and cup in one blessing, which Christ severed. VVhat if we faile in this, should we faile in the other also? It is true Christ gave several thankes, according to the form of the last act of the paschal supper, but when we joyne them in one than­kesgiving, is any thing omitted which ought to have been done? Is not the cup blessed, when it is blessed with the bread? Next, is the frame of the institution broken when there is but one common thankesgiving. But when the table-gesture is changed into a gesture of adoration, the nature and kinde of the gesture is changed. Next, this change draweth vvith it an­other great change, to wit, of the order and frame of the insti­tution. The order and frame of the institution requireth that the words uttered at the delivery of the elements, be uttered in an enunciative form. For the vvords of the institution are not onely narrative, but directive, as the Doctor confessed a litle before. Next, the order and frame of the institution requi­reth, that the communicants compassing the table, shall divi­de, the elements among themselves: kneeling putteth all this frame act of joynt, and draweth with it a breach of Christs spe­ciall commandement, Divide amongst you. The conjunct thankesgiving draweth with it none of these changes.

argument 8 He proponeth their triviall argument of pauls rehearsall of the institution, and the Evangelists, where no mention is made of sitting▪ or any other gesture. By this reason neither a lawfull Minister, nor thankesgiving at the conclusion of the supper, nor a table be necessary for none of these are rehearsed by Paul in the rehearsall of the institution: but Paul presopposeth a lawfull Minister, a table, and a table gesture: for he hath made mention of them already, and here he reherseth onely the words uttered by the minister to the commu [...]i [...]ants planted about the table, and proceeding to the very a [...]tion itselfe. And in his rehearsall he uttered in an enunciati [...] form the vvords [Page 15] pronounced at the delivery of the elements, and not in form of a prayer: and therefore all gesture of adoration at the receiving was excluded, as we have often sayd. The Evangelists say, that while they were eating, Christ took bread: howbeit their ea­ting did not belong to the institution, yet it includeth their gesture, that while they vvere sitting, Christ took bread, &c. a gesture doth belong to the institution. Out of these vvords do all vvriters collect that they sate at supper.

Hovvbeit vve plead for a table-gesture in generall and not for the absolute necessity of sitting in particular, yet hovv vveakly hath the Doctor disputed against it? Sitting indeed vve think ought not to be changed, no not into another table-gesture, vvithout necessity: Iohannes à Lasco In Liturgia ecclesiatum peregrinatum Londini sub. Ed. 6. exhorted all the ministers in the Reformed Kirks, to remove according to their office and dutie, not onely geniculation, but also standing and taking in severall from the Minister en passant, and to re­store the sitting of the communicants at table, again, vvhere it is vvorne out of use.

CHAP. II. A table-gesture agreeth best with decencie.

THe Doctor goeth about to prove kneeling more de­cent in the act of receiving, then sitting or any other gesture▪ and so he carpeth not onely our former order vvhich he preferred before any other at Pert Assem­bly, but also Christ himselfe as not vvise enough to consider vvhat gesture vvas most decent for so holy an action. If an­other more commodious and better form could have been de­vised, out of all doubt, sayth Hospinian Historie Sa­cramenta [...]. 1. lib. 1. cap 5. Christ vvould have instituted it, and the Apostles vvould have recommended it to the Kirkes, and therefore vvilleth, [...] cap. 2. l. 1▪ that if any thing be [Page 16] found different either in the nature or proper sence of words, or in rite or external ceremony from this rule that it be amen­ded according to the same as the most excellent, most holy, most uncorrupted, most absolute, and most certain rule. If the­refore there be any gesture that shall put this rule out of rule: I say it ought not to be esteemed agreeable either to pietie, de­cency, or charity, let be to be preferred before other gestures.

The Doctor laieth down for a ground, that by the table of section 1 the Lord, 1. Cor. 10.21. is not meant a materiall table or the symbolical and externall part onely, but the body and blood of the Lord, because the Apostle sayth, the Corinthians could not partake both of the table of the Lord and of divels. VVhere­as a man may be partaker of both the materiall tables, and drinke both of the materiall cup of the Lord, and the material cup of divels. It is evident notwithstanding of the Doctors wrangling that the Apostle meaneth also of a materiall table, and the Sacrament by a kind of trope called Metonymia sub­jecti, is denominate from the materiall table whereat the com­municants did participate of the elements. The Apostles speaketh not of a natural, but a morall partaking of the Lords table. A man might not lawfully sit at the materiall table of the Lord, and drink of the materiall cup, and sit also at the materiall table of divels in the Idols chappels, and drink of ther materiall cups. for that we may do which we may do by Law or right. Now the communicant in sitting at both the mate­riall tables professed f [...]llowship both vvith god and the divell as Paul speaketh. for the two materiall tables were symboles of two contrary professions as Aretius in 1. Cor. 10.21. sayth. for he that eate of the meate of the sacrifice, partaketh of the sa­crifice, and he that participateth of the sacrifice, participateth of the religion vvhereunto it belongeth: he that participateth with the religion communicateth with the Idol and false god vvhose religion it is. The table of divels vvas a materiall table in the Idols chappell, whereat the Idolater feasted. See Beza In 1 Cor. 8.10. 1 Cor. 10 21., Tilenus▪ disput de coena. Caietanus,In 1 Cor 8.10. [...] 1 Cor. 10 21. VVillets. Sy [...]ops. pag. 414. Novv if the table of divels from vvhich the cursed feasts vvere denominate, vvere materiall tables, then the table of the Lord compared vvith them vvas also materiall. And Beza out of the same verse vvhich the Doctor hath alledged concludeth that in the pri­mitive Kirk there vvere materiall tables and not altars. The [Page 17] Christians offended their weake Brethren by feasting on the things sacrificed in private houses, but in feasting in the tem­ple there was both scandall and error. The Apostle findeth fault both with the one and the other. In a word all such me­tonymicall speeches do import the verity of the subject. The cup of the new Testament doth import that there was a mate­riall cup. To partake of the Altar, doth import that the Israe­lites had an Altar. I conclude with the ground laid down by Paraeus,In 1 Cor. 11. A quo ritu to­tam Euchari­stiam deno minaverat ec­ciesia Apo­stolica is proculdubio est sacramen­talis et neces­sarius. from whatsoever rite the Sacrament is denominate, it is Sacramentall and necessarie. He inferreth that Sacramen­tall breaking of the bread after thankesgiving, is necessary to the integrity of the Sacrament: and I inferr upon the same ground that a materiall table is necessary, seeing the Sacra­ment is denominate metonymically from a table, and called the table of the Lord, to distinguish it from other materiall tables.

His reason to prove kneeling more decent then sitting, is because it is a religious gesture, and more conform to other section 2. and 3. customes and fashions we use at the table of the Lord, which we use not at other tables. as we choose the day light rather thē the night, a sacred place, such as is the temple a reverend or­der such as to receive before meat, because it it not a common supper, but the Lords supper. The answer is very easie: Are not all these circumstandes and the same carriage observed for the hearing of the word, the day light, the sabboth day, the temple. Next all these customes are not in themselves simpliciter more decent for in the time of persecution the night was as decent as the day, and a desert or a cave as decent as a Kirk: for expediencie maketh decencie in these things. 3. In the primitive Kirk they communicated daily, and yet as decent­ly as on the Sabboth day. 4. The Iewes were more tied to sacred times and temples for celebration of their Sacra­ments, and keeping of their feasts, then we are, and yet they sate even at the paschall supper, the noblest feast that they had. 5. None of these customes or circumstances do overthrow the table, and take away the right use of it, but kneeling taketh away the right use of the table, and turneth it into an altar or cup-boord: but so doth not sitting. VVhether is a ge­sture that maketh a table no table more decent for a ta­ble, or the gesture that preserveth the use of the Table [Page 18] and all the rules of the feast? Our sitting applied to a holy pur­pose is sanctified for the time as all our actions are holy when they are done according to Gods will, and with a respect to his glory.

He sayth, that the gesture of the body is morall, voluntary, and changeable, and should be applied according to the nature of the action. It is true, the gesture is changeable, according to that facultie in man which the Philosophers call Locomotiva, but it is to be ordered by Lawes, both in civill and religious affaires.

VVe grant that our maniers and gestures must be composed according to the use use of the table, and not according to the matter or form; but all table whatsoever be their mater, form and use, do require a table-gesture, never one doth admit knee­ling. Men use not to kneele, no not at the table of Exchange. The table of exchange doth differ in use from the table ap­poynted for feasting, and therefore no wonder that they differ in the table gestures. But the table of the Lord agreeth with the feasting table in the analogicall use and end. Christ him­selfe hath taught us how to use the Lords table, and with what gesture.

VVe are silent, we sport not, we take nothing before we are commanded and instructed at this table, as we do at other ta­bles and feasts, because in so doing we should dicturb that holy action; but sitting is so farre from disturbing, that it ma­kes us more fit to attend to the commandement and instru­ctions given us.

VVe sit with our heads vncovered at this table, which we do not at common tables, but we do it for veneration and not for adoration. VVe sit with our heads uncovered when the word is read, but not when it is preached, to distinguish be­tween the voyce of God and the voyce of man. At this holy action the words, the symboles, the rites, are all divine, and Christs own words, rites, and symboles; his voyce soundeth through all the tables of the world: the symboles are the Prin­ces seales, and our celebration is nothing else but a repetition of the first institution, and the authentike instrument written over again. VVe use not kneeling civilly, wheresoever we use the uncovered head; but kneeling is the gesture of adora­tion both in civill and religious uses. The uncovering of the [Page 19] head doth noth spoyle us of the liberties and prerogatives of a table sociall admission to it, and familiar entertainment at it, nor breaketh not the order and frame of the institution, but kneeling is guiltie of all these enormities, as I have sayd.

If commodity make custome, and custome make decencie,section 4 then kneeeling must be condemned as an undecent gesture. The Doctor measureth the time of the celebration by his own form, when he dispatcheth the communicants with some few words, and not by the institution. But make the time of cele­bration never so short, yet kneeling is more painfull, then any other gesture, and consequently not so decent, because not so commodious. To what purpose serveth all this discourse, seeing kneeling is not urged as a table-gesture, but as a gesture of adoration. Swarez In Thomam tom. 1. pag. 764. genufle­xio que est nota adora­tionis potest esse actus pe­nitentic pro­pter pen alita­tem, quam ha­bet adjunctā. sayth, that kneeling which is a note of adoration, may be made an act of a penitentiarie, for the pain which is joyned with it. But we consider not now the pain, but the purpose of it, in this argument. For never man yet thought that kneeling was the fittest table-gesture, neither have we ever heard any nation never so barbarous, use it.

He sayth kneeling is more universally received in the refor­med Kirkes then sitting. If he meane of the Lutheran Kirkes, that universalitie is not to be regarded. The best reformed Kirkes as they have abandoned the opinion of the bodily pre­sence, so have they the gesture of kneeling: yea all the Luthe­rans do not consent to the adoration of Christ in the Eucha­rist as Illyricus and his followers, because they say Christ is to be adored onely where it is his will to be adored. As for the Anglican Kirk, I deny that the body of that Kirk doth ap­prove kneeling howsoever they be compelled by their Kirk representative to practise it. If we should follow examples, we must look to voluntaries.

It is no great commandation of kneeling, that it was practi­sed 400 yeares under the Antichrist: and howbeit we wer not able to designe some time, when another gesture was in use, it will not follow, that it was in practise in all ages before. VVe are not bound to shew the behinning of every corruption. VVhilest the husband man was sleeping, the evill one did sow his tares among the wheat, which he perceived not, till they were growen up. Yet we will be more liberall, and for fur­ther [Page 20] satisfaction, we use to give an instance of an other gesture which was in use, to wit, standing at the act of receiving, for the space of 500. yea an thousand yeare after Christ, and they cannot produce one expresse authentike testimony of knee­ling for the space of 500 yea of a 1000 yeare after Christ. And to testifie ancient standing, we have yet the custome of Chri­stians in the Orient. Morneus de Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 7. qua­re Ecclesie Orientales adorationem Sacramenti admiserunt nusquam: non que patriar­che codstanti­nopolitano obsequuntur, non quae An­tiocheno. Et in Abyssinis etiam ipsis hodie stantes Sacramenta participant nec eo minus reverenter.

Honorius it seemeth ordained not kneeling at the eleva­tion of the Masse, but a reverend inclination of the body: howbeit aftervvard it turned to kneeling. But vvhether Ho­norius ordained kneeling at the elevation, and whether knee­ling in the act of receiving went before kneeling at the eleva­tion or followed after, is not prejudiciall to our cause. seeing both vvere bred under the Antichrist, and no authentick testi­mony can be alledged of the gesture of kneeling for a 1000. section 5 Yeares.

section 6 He admitteth standing on the Lords day, and other dayes, wherein they did not kneele in time of publick prayer: but yet upon other dayes saith he, as they might pray kneeling, so they might communicate kneeling. But he doth not produce so much as one example out of all antiquity. The examples alledged by us for standing in the act of receiving, are gene­rall, and for every day as well as for the Lords day. The exam­ple alledged by himself doth not specifie any day. The te­stimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus,Pag. 59. and the vvords of Ter­tullian are confounded in Perth assembly through the Prin­ters fault, which by the vvay I vvish the Reader to mark.

The ancient Kirk changing sitting into standing, judged sitting not necessarie, It is true. Neither do we hold it absolu­tely necessarie, and as for the change vve are not to imitate them herein: for they adulterated the forme of the institution many wayes, mixing the vvine with water, giving the commu­nion to Infants, taking the Sacrament home to eate it in their private houses, as may be seen in the most ancient vvriters. VVe ought to take heed, not vvhat any hath done before us, sayth Cyprian,Lib. 2 epist. 3. quod si nec minima de mandatis do­minicis licet solvere quan­to magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum do­dominice pas­sionis, et no­stre redēptio­nis Sacramen­tum pertinen­tia fas non est infringere. but vvhat Christ vvho vvas before all, did: vve must not follow the custome of man, but the truth of [Page 21] God. And if it be not lawfull (sayth he) to break the least of the Lords commandements farre lesse is it lawfull to violate so great commandements belonging to the Sacrament of the Lords Passion, and of our redemption. Calvin Institut. lib 4. c. 18 sect. 11 findeth great fault with them, and sayth, that the ancients went neerer the Iudaicall manner of sacrificing, then Christs ordinance, and the course of the Gospel vvould permit. And a little after he saith, that if vve think this supper the supper of the Lord, and not the supper of men, let us not move a naile bredth from it, for any authority of mē, or prescriptiō of yeares. And Tossanus saith,Orat. de coe­na domini. principium erioris circa cocnam do­mini, nec mi­nima supersti­tionis occasio proculdubio fuit, immuta­tio ceremonia rum a Christo institutarum, et accumula­tio illarum, quas humana ethelethrescia successu tem­poris excogi­tavit. that the changing of ceremonies in the Lord supper in­stituted by Christ, and heaping up of other ceremonies divised by mans vvill-vvorship, vvas the beginning of error anent the supper, and vvas no small occasion of superstition.

The ancient Kirk judged not standing the fittest gesture for prayer: for if they had so judged then they vvould have en­joyned standing at prayer upon other dayes as vvell as upon the Lorde day. They stood on the Lords day, not because it vvas the fittest gesture for prayer, but for signification, to si­gnifie their joy for Christs resurrection, but kneeling they jud­ged the fittest gesture for prayer, as may be seen in the que­stions attributed to Iustinus. quest. 115. Genuum in­clinatio in precatione magis pecca­tores deo cō ­mendat, quam si stantes oret. The ancient Kirk standing at the receit of the Sacrament, ye see then, judged not the gesture of prayer, the fittest gesture in the act of receiving the Sacra­ment.

CHAP. III. Kneeling agreeth not best vvith pietie.

THe Doctor will now prove kneeling to agree best with pietie. But if it agree not best with the decencie of a table, but overthroweth the right use of it how shall it agree best with pietie. That gesture agreeth best with pietie, that agreeth best with the order and rules of the institution. For he cannot be devout sayth Ambrose In 1 Cor. 11. who presumeth to do otherwaise, then the author hath set down.

The consideration of the giver the gift, the manner of do­nation, section and receiving is not plainly set down by the doctor. The name of gift is ambiguous, as may be seen in Casaubonus. De Eucha­rist pag. 575.576. For the Fathers sometime called the inward grace of the Sa­crament the gift, and sometimes the symbolicall part, and sometimes they called it the gift, & somtimes giftes. If we were to receive a gift, if it were both a morsell of bread out of gods own hand immediatly, we ought, no doubt to adore, and so his similitude of a subject receiving a benefit out of the princes own hand, may illustrat the matter very well. But at the Lords supper we receive the elements of bread and wine not out of gods own hands immediatly, but out of the hands of the Mini­ster, who is our fellow-servant. 2. Our union with Christ, & participation of his body and blood is not begun at the Lords supper nether is it proper to it, but common to the word and to baptisme. By the ministerie of the word, and the Sacrament of Baptisme, we are made partakers of Christ and his benefites if we have the hand of faith to receive. Origen sayth, In numer. homil. 23. hoc quodmodo lo­quimur, sunt carnes Christi. that which we are presently speaking to you is the flesh of Christ. And in another place, In numer. homil. 16. we are sayd to drinke the blood of Christ not onely by the rites of the Sacraments, but also when we heare the word. And Hierome sayth In psal. 147 licet in my­sterio possit intelligi, ta­men verius corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo scriptu­ [...]um est. howbeit the words [Page 23] of Christ to eate his flesh and drinke his blood, may be under­stood in the mysterie, yet more truly the speech of the scriptu­res is the body and blood of Christ. Augustinus sayth, Epistola ad Bonifacium. there is no doubt but every one of the faitfull is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptisme he is made a mēber of Christ. Chrisostome sayth, In Marcum homil. 14. that in Baptism we ado­re the body of Christ. VVe receive then the very same benefits in the vvord and Baptisme which we receive in the Lords supper. Our union with Christ is begun by faith; faith is vvrought by the ministery of the vvord, and confirmed after­vvard by the same vvord, and strengthened also by the mini­sterie of the Sacraments, vvhich are seales and pledges to us of our union vvith Christ. 3. These benefites are common to the Sacraments of the old Lavv and the nevv: they had the same substance of the seales that vve have, did eate the same spirituall food, and drink the same spirituall drink that vve do, 1 Cor. 10.3.4. Augustine saith De utilitate penitent. cap. 1. quicunque in manna in­tellexerunt Christumeun­dem quem nos spiritua­lem cibum manducavc­runt. that vvhosoever in the Manna understood Christ, did eate the same spirituall meat that vve do. And yet the people of God in gathering the manna, hovv­beit not ministred to them by the hand of men, did not kneele. The Paschall Lamb vvas the same to the people of God, that the Lords supper is to us, and yet they sate at the Paschal sup­per. 4. The invvard grace is not given to all the communi­cants, but to the godly onely; neither do the godly ever find comfort at the instant of receiving the seale. Then according to the Doctors ovvn vvords, the action of donation not being perceived at the instant, it is then to be acknovvledged vvith thankesgiving vvhen it is felt aftervvard. But all the commu­nicants participate of the Sacrament, even the vvicked. Novv the Lord in setting dovvn the order of the institution, had res­pect to the Sacramentall manner of donation, vvhich is com­mon to all, and not to the spirituall vvhich is proper to fevv. Even the very vvicked eate the body and blood of Christ Sa­cramentally: and vvhen the godly eate spiritually, yet they par­ticipate not pure spiritualiter, as Cajetane In 3 quest. 79 80. speaketh, meerely spiritually, but Spiritualiter & Sacramentaliter. And this ma­ner of donation vvith solemne testification, vvhich is not pure­ly spirituall, but spirituall and sacramentall is common to the godly both under the Lavv and under the Gospell, & to Bap­tisme, alsvveill as the Lords supper.

[Page 24]The Apostle 1 Cor. 11. condemneth all manner of unwor­thy receiving, vvhether by hypocrisie, when we come without faith and repentance: or by prophannes, when we come like drunkards and factiously. But sitting the Apostle did never condemne, but rather approved as the ordinary table-gesture. The wicked, howbeit they partake not spiritually of the Lords body, yet they are guiltie in respect of abusing the seales, as Chrysostome sayth, he that polluteth the Princes purple robe offendeth the Prince himselfe.

As for our manner of receiving, the common manner is sa­cramentall, and according to that which is common to all should our carriage be. The Godly receive also with faith spiritually, but as I have sayd not purely spiritually, but Spiri­tually and Sacramentally. Faith is accompanied with humi­lity, it is true; but humilitie is an habit of the Soule, and not an act of adoration. Faith is accompanied with hunger and thirst, it is true; but hunger and thirst is not the prayer of the Soule, but a provoker of the soule to pray, as hunger and thirst provoketh a man to cry for meat and drink. Faith is accom­panied with joy, and joy resolueth in desires, it is true; but de­sires are not formallie prayers and praises. Faith is accom­panied with all other Christian graces: For every Christian grace is accompanied with the rest. But this concomitance of the habits of other graces, which is all times in a Christian, doth not import their actuall vvorking at all times. Faith is the chiefe vvorker in the act of receiving: the rest do assist, if there be need; but ought not hinder the meditation and ap­plication of faith. VVhen there do arise any short ejacula­tions of prayer or praise, they are onely occasionall as the cō ­municant doth find himselfe disposed, and Faith for to vvork. Next, they are subtile and swift, that there is not that agility in our hompish bodies, as to follow with our gestures these swift motions, ending perchance in twinkling of an eye. Thirdly, they are secret between God and the Soule, & therefore ought to be concealed rather then expressed by gestures of vvorship. In a word, seeing the manner of our receaving is not purely spirituall, but spirituall and Sacramentall, the spirituall must not disorder the Sacramentall manner set down by him that is the instituter. VVe are bound to heare the word vvith [Page 25] Faith, and Faith must be accompanied with humilitie, and other Christians graces. There vvill arise also from hunger, thirst, joy; desires, vvishes, mentall ejaculations of player and praise; but the hearer must not for all that cease from hea­ring, and fall dovvn to vvorship. Is there any thing here required, but the like vvas required under the Sacraments of the old Law, and is required at the hearing of the vvord.

The secret and hid covenant, made betwixt God and Man, is made at the time of effectuall calling. The first solemni­zation section 5.6.7. of it, is made at our entrie in the bosome of the Kirke, vvhen vve make personall profession on our part, and the Minister in Gods name admitteth us, as the mouth of the congregation. This is sealed by Baptisme. Thereafter the vvord preached to all the members of the congregation, is presumed to be delivered to beleevers and penitent persons, and Faith and repentance is presupposed into the hearers, vvhen the promises of the Gospel ar made unto them. So that after their first entry, Faith is presumed in the hearer, as vvell as in the communicant. Next, the Sacramentall vvord is generall, as the vvord Preached is. This is my Body vvhich is broken for you. This is the new Testament of my blood, vvhich is shed for the remis­sions of the sins of many. It is not delivered in the singular number, for thee Peter, or thee Paul, no more then then the vvord preached. The seales and elements are received seve­rally, and the Spirit vvorketh severally. The word is uttered generally, as the Sacramentall word is, but the Spirit vvorketh by it severally. If a man should kneele for the severall vvork of the Spirit, then he must kn [...]ele, as vvell at the vvord as at the Sacrament. As for the severall receiving of the seale, it is so received severally, at that it must also be received conjun­ctly, vvith other communicants, that is: that the communi­cants sitting at one table, communicate together, and distribu­te among themselves. The severall receiving of the outvvard seales, must not break the order of conjunct receiving, & com­municating enjoyned by Christ, & an actuall remembranc [...] of Christs death & passion▪ must not burst forth in vocall thankes­giving in the very act of receiving. That as the communica­ting was conjunct, so the thankesgiving may be commoun, [Page 26] and that the conjunct communicating be not intertubed. VVhen the history of the Passion is read, we are in actuall re­membrance of Christs death, but we burst not out in vocall praises. VVhen the seale is received, it is received from the hand of men, and it is no more but the outward seale, grace is not inclosed in it as a plaister in a box, or liquor into a vessel. The kirk in the time of Novatus, was gone frō the right form of administration, and therefore their example is no good ar­gument to prove severall thanksgiving. And we read of no­thing, that was answered then by the cōmunicants, but Amē. He that delivered sayd, The body of the Lord: he that recei­ved, sayd Amen. Novatus vvhen he delivered, sayd these words to the communicant, Sweare to me by the body of the Lord, that thou wilt not return to Cornelius, in stead of these words the body of the Lord; and likewise the recei­ver answered, in place of Amen, I will not return to Corne­lius. Baronius anno 57. nu­mero 146. Et anno 254. nu­mero 75. Bel­larminus de eucharistia, lib. 4. c. 13. Now for a custome of saying Amen at the receiving, as a particle of confirmation of the words uttered by the Mini­ster, to wit, the body of the Lord, vve cannot conclude knee­ling; for they sayd Amen standing. But as I sayd before, we are not to look to the formes of the anciēt kirke. For the very Papists themselves have thought shame of some of them, and the posterior ages abolished many of them. Let it be remem­bred here also, that all the D. discourse may be applied to the Sacraments of the old Law, as well as of the new. For there in their Sacraments the covenant was solemnized, and they re­ceived the seales, and actuall remembrance of the benefits re­ceived, and to be received was required, but kneeling was not required. The comparing of the Sacraments of the old Law and new Law, and of the word of God with the Sacraments, together with the order of the institution, may furnish answers to al the Doctors arguments.

This Sacrament is called the Lords supper, partly for honor section 8 of the first institution, partly to poynt out to us the liberalitie of the spirituall supper, as suppers were more liberall then din­ners of old. The spirituall part is called a Feast or supper metaphorically, & it is resembled by the symbolical part. It was not necessarie, that the symbolicall part should be like cōmon Feasts or suppers in all poynts. There are as many poynts in it, as may serve to resemble the spirituall supper. To which [Page 27] symbolicall representation of a supper, a table-gesture and spe­cially sitting was most correspondent and agreeable, and so Christ and his Apostles used it. Piscator sayth,In Math. 26.26. Pag. 757. it is evident in that the disciples did eat of the bread, and drink of the cup sitting together at table, that this action had speciem convivij, the shew or semblance of a banket: yea, that it was a banket indeed, but a sacred one. And Mornaeus sayth, De eucha­rist. lib. 4. [...]. 7. mitto sacram coenam olim convivij in­stat in quo discumbeba­tur celebra­tam, cujus et­iamnum in Benedictino­rum mandato vestigium. the like. It is true, the Doctor sayth the name of supper should not dimi­nish the estimation of it: but on the other side say I, no cere­monie should be brought in to take avvay speciem convi­vij the semblance of a banket or supper; but when the commu­nicants receive severally kneeling, as if there were no table not onely is that semblance of a banket or supper, which the Lord instituted taken away, but all forme of banket or Supper, that ever was used in any part of the world. As for the gi­ving and receiving at this supper, we have spoken already.

The washing of the Disciples feet, and Christ his sitting at section 9 table, are not rightly matched together. His washing of their feet before the last service of the Paschall supper was an ex­traordinarie example to teach his Disciples humilitie, but his sitting at table, was not a thing extraordinary, but ordinary & usuall. He sate with them at the Paschal suppers before accor­ding to the custome of the sacred Feast, and not to teach them humilitie: so did he at the Eucharisticall supper.

VVe never reasoned after this manner, The Apostles sate at table with Christ, therefore we may sit now with Christ. Christ is not bodily present now, that we may sit with him. To ask if we would sit at table, suppose Christ glorified would come down from heaven and sit with us, were a question not worthy scanning. But we reason after this manner, when Christ was bodily present, the Apostles kneeled not, but sate at table; farre lesse when he is not bodily present should we kneele.

That he was then in the state of a servant, will not help their cause. For howbeit he vvas in the state of a Servant, yet upon singular occasions he was adored. If I would discourse Rhe­thorically upon the present occasion they had to move them to kneele, then any man would grant that the occasion of ado­ration was singular, and yet they kneeled not, for other weigh­tie reasons and causes. It is also untrue, that the Doctor sayth, [Page 28] that he carried at this time onely the forme of a Servant, and Minister of the externall element. for he carried also in open view, the person of a Lord, in that he did institute the Sacra­ment.

VVe yet reason further from the example of Christ and his Apostles, not respecting adoration directed to Christ bodily present, and we say that Christ directed not his Apostles to adore and worship God the Father for the benefit of redem­ption, when they were in the act of receiving. Christs familiar presence should not have with holden them from directing their prayers and praises to God, if it had b [...]en a thing requi­site, no more then when they kneeled in their prayers to God at other times, no doubt notvvithstanding of Christs familiar presence in the carriage of a Servant. And Christ should have taught them so to do, if the reasons hitherto alledged by the Doctor were good. All his reasons are as good for the first sup­per as for the rest of the rest of the suppers which have follo­wed since. The words of the institution served to teach the Apostles, as wel as us, that he was their benefactor, testator, ado­pter, redeemer, and feeder.

Again, the form that Christ instituted, he appointed it not for that night onely, but to be observed to his comming again, & therefore the different state of Christ in humility or glory, did not alter it. And even after his ascension, when he was in the state of glorie, the Apostolicall Kirkes as we have sayd, sate at table. The rules of the institution and precepts generall & particular, admit no other gesture, but a table-gesture. Seeing these rules & precept are perpetuall & to be observed, whether Christ be in the state of glorie or humilitie, it is evident, that it was Christs vvill, that after his glorificatiō also, we should cō ­tinue the table-gesture, and the semblance of a supper till his comming again, when we shall sup with him in glorie.

section 10 VVhen the Apostle saith, Shew forth the Lord death, till he come again; the Doctor saith, he meaneth not verball prea­ching made by word, but reall preaching acted by taking, ea­ting, drinking. This is a Iesuiticall exposition very familiar with the Doctor throughout his book. The Rhemists so ex­pound the words, 1 Cor. 11.26. that this commemoration is nothing els but the representation of the death of Christ made by the elements & the action. But D. Fulk answereth that even [Page 29] according to the judgement of the Fathers, the Lords death must be shewed not onely by the action, but also by words that may stirre us up to remembrance and thankfulnes. Al­though saith he a long sermon as we take a sermon, is not ne­cessarie, yet at least a summarie and briefe declaration of the institution and use of the Sacrament, is necessarie. And there­fore saith VVillets,Of the sa­crament. quest. 1. the Sacraments cannot rightly be Mini­stred, unles there be a declaratiō & shewing forth of the Lords death, not onely in the visible action of breaking, distributing, but also in setting forth the end of the Lords death, with an exhortatiō to thankfulnes. Pezelius saith,Refutatio Catechismi Iesuitatum. P. 421. that to annunce or declare, is not to expresse by similitude of fact, but to inculcate the death of Christ & his benefites, & to teach the right use of the Sacramēt. This annunciatiō agreeth with the Hagadah, that is the declaratiō which was made at the passover, according to the cōmandement, Exo. 13.8. & thou shalt shew. This precept was givē not to be performed cōfusedly by al, but according to good order & comelines, & therefore at the paschall supper one made the declaration, expounding every coremony, in the own place; the meaninge of the Lamb, of the bitter hearbs, & so forth of the rest This hagadah & declaratiō of the Iewes, saith Casaubonus,Exercitat. Pag. 324. answereth to annunciate, 1 Cor. 11.26.

But admitting the Doctors interpretation, what would he in­ferre? He would inferre that this Sacrament is called Eucharist not onely for the thankesgiving, wherewith it beginneth & en­deth, but because the action itselfe is an actiō of thankesgiving. for as it is a memoriall of his praise, so it is a testimonie of our thankfulnes. It is true indeed that the name of Eucharist is at­tributed, not by scripture, but by the Fathers to the action, yea to the elements themselves. But it is unproper appellation to call the bread of the Sacrament Eucharist, that is thankesgi­ving. And therefore Iustinus Apolog. 2. calling it so, must expound it again by more proper speech, saying panis Eucharistetheis, the bread whereupon thankesgiving was made, so likewise the action of giving, receiving, eating, drinking, if at any time they be called Eucharisticall, it is unproper speech; For pro­perly thankesgiving standeth in words, and no other but verball thankesgiving is prop [...]rly Eucharistia. And from that which is properly thankesgiving, it should seeme most reasonable that the vvhole action is denominated Eucharist [Page 30] or thankesgiving. And Casaubonus saith, Exercitat. p. 517. Eulogia et Eucharistia utraque vox a parte una to­tam domini actionem de­signat. that the Sacrament is denominated both Eulogia, and Eucharistia from a part of the action, to wit, the proper thankesgiving and blessing.

The actions ar properly a representation, and consequently a memoriall of Christs death and Passion; but not properly a commemoration of his death and Passion. VVhen verball commemoration is made, of Christs death and Passion it is not formally, a rendring of thankes: farr lesse is the representation. VVe kneele not when verball commemoration is made of Christs Passion; should we kneele at the representation. The Iewish passover was to the People of God a memoriall of their by-past deliverance, and a type of the spirituall delive­rance to come; yet neither for the action, not nor for the de­claration made at the action did they kneele. To divine wor­ship, sayth Cyrillus, Contra Iulianum Lib. 4. belong sacrifices, hymnes, prayers, prai­ses, and thankesgivings, adoration and worship, sacred devo­tions, priesthood, temples, altars, offrings, confessions, solemni­ties. VVhere ye may see thankesgiving and adoration are distinguished from the rest. All these particulars belong to Gods honour in generall, but they are not adoration or praise in particular: honor is more generall then praise or adora­tion. He that adoreth, honoreth; but every one that hono­reth, adoreth not. The last Section containeth a conclusion of his former discourses, which are answered.

CHAP. IV. Kneeling standeth not vvith Charitie.

OF the gift, the giver, the manner of donation; and re­ceiving,section 1 and of the requisites of Faith, hunger, thirst, joy, humilitie in the communicants, vve spake be­fore.

The Pastor ministring the externall element, representeth section 2.3.4. Christ ministring the spirituall food to the soule. Our sitting at table, and communicating with the pastor doth resemble the soule admitted to the spirituall table, and Christ di­ning and supping with it, Apocalypsis. 3.20. Eating and drinkinking represent our union with Christ, as food to our soules, but do not represent our fellowship with him, as of guests with the master of the Feast. This is represented by a Table-gesture. VVhen I eate a great mans meat set before me, or reached to me, his meat is united to me, and turned in the substance of my body, and that may be done without a ta­ble, wheresoever I eate his meate. But when he admitteth me to sit at his table, he maketh manifest the fellowship, whereunto he hath assumed me at that time. Vnion is one thing, and societie and fellowship is another thing. The Doctor therefore reasoneth not well, from eating and drin­king against the table-gesture.

VVhen we speake of fellowship with Christ, at the spiri­tuall table, we do not so much as dreame of equalitie, no more then David and Ionathan thought themselves equall to Saul, when they sate at his table, or lame Mephibosheth to David, when he eate at his table.

As for standing of the communicants in ancient time, vve say it did not so well expresse this fellowship as sitting. As for kneeling, it altogether obscureth it.

Our union likewise among our selves in one body, it is true, [Page 32] as the Doctor saith, is sufficiently expressed by partaking of one bread: but our fellowship amongst our selves as guests at one table, is expressed by communicating the elements one with another, and consequently with a table gesture. The ea­ting of the guests feeding upon one meat, is one thing, for that may be done apart: and eating together at one table, distribu­ting each to other is another thing. The communicants are considered diversly: sometimes as members of one body, fee­ding upon the selfe-same food: sometimes as several guests fee­ding together at one table, and enterchanging token [...] of amitie amōgst them selfes. The first is union, the second is fellowship. This fellowship is not onely obscur [...]d, but taken away by kneeling and onely preserved by a table gesture.

The Apostle 1 Corinth. 10.17. doth meane Sacramentall communion of these who in one congregation ate together did eate of one Sacramentall bread, and not of the generall communion, which all the members of Christs body, wh [...]re­soever they be, have one with another. They who are joyned together by Sacramentall communion, have their spirituall communion also with the whole Kirke, sealed by this Sacra­mentall communion. The ancients did understand the Apost­le to speake of one Sacramentall bread; and therefore in some places and times they had but one Sacramentall bread indeed, to expresse the communion of the saints the more vively. Du­randus sayeth, Lib. 4. ca. 53. In the primitive Kirk, they offered one great bread sufficient for all which custom the Grecians are sayd yet to observe. And Honorius Augustodune [...]si saith, In Gemma animae cap. 58. that of old the Priests tooke floore out of every house and family, which the Grecians yet observe, whereof they make one bread which they distribute. Dionysius Areopagta Eccles. hie­rarch cap. 5, Ignatius,Ad phila­delph. & Anselmus In 1 Cor. 10. make mention likewise of one bread, and of one cup. Moulins Of the Lords Supper. 2. part. pag. 15. reporteth out of Franciscus Alvarez, that the Abyssins make a great Bunne, about a finger thick, where­in the Priest maketh five holes with his finger, in remembran­ce of the five vvounds of Christ, and this he doth consecrate in the Arabian tongue.

section 5 He sayth that all the significant ceremonies and actions, that belong to the nature of the Sacrament, are employed abo [...]t the elements, or to the use of them onely. If therefore a table-gesture be a Sacramental ceremony, the table whereunto [Page 33] the use of the gesture belongeth must also be the third sym­bole or signe representing Christ, and consequently as ne­cessarie, and essentiall, as bread and wine; and the gesture as necessarie, as eating and drinking. VVe ansvver, first, there is no necessitie, that euery ceremonie and rite be significant. for some may be ceremonies of order onely, yet serving to the right ministration of the Sacrament, that vvith out them the Sacra­ment can not be rightly administred, nor the order and frame thereof duelie observed; thē they are necessarie, suppose they haue no signification. But we haue demonstrated alreadie, that kneeling putteth al out of joynt, and a tablegesture onely doth keep the institution in order as Christ hath commanded. Next, the table-gesture is employed about the elements themselues: for it is not employed about a bare table, but a table with the elements set thereon, & for the elements. 3. Euerie significant ceremonie, is not of like necessitie. The breaking of bread after thankesgiuing, is a significant ceremonie & necessarie for the integritie & right ministration of the Sacrament, yet it is not equal with eating & drinking: which is necessarie to the essence of that actiō. VVhat reason therefore is theere to make a table and table-gesture suppose they be significant, as necessarie as bread and vvine, eating and drinking▪ 4. As for the signifi­cation of a table and table-gesture, vve admit not strange alle­gories, as to signifie the accomplishment of the ceremonies of the Law in Christ, yet such significations as arise of the proper use and end of table-gestures at ordinarie banquets we allow. The guests sit at ordinarie tables, appointed for ordinarie feasts, with greet personages, partly for ease, partly to signifie their fa­miliar admission to their tables, and sociall entertainment the­reat. Sitting is the ordinarie table-gesture chosen for theese respects. Our sitting at the Symbolicall part of this feast, re­presenteth the soule sitting vvith ease, and familiarly admitted by Christ to the spirituall feast. This signification is expres­sed in metaphoricall speeches and parables by Christ himselfe, vvhen he saith, many shall come from the east and from the vvest, and sit at table in the Kingdom of heaven vvith A­BRAHAM, ISAAC and IACOB, Math. 8.11. And LAZARVS is brought, in Luke 16.23. sitting at that heavenly table neere to ABRAHAM, leaning on his bosome.

[Page 34]As Iohn was neerest Christ at the Paschall supper, when he leaned in his bosome, that is, was neerest his bosome. For the second was neerest the first, and the third neerest the seconds bosome, who were in one bed. By one Lazarus is expressed the happie estate of all Gods Children, they shall be so deere to Abraham, as if everie one should sit neerest to him at his bo­some in heaven. See Beza in Luke 16, and Reynolds Censura De Lib. apoc [...]yphis. P. 942. and Barradius Tom. 4. Lib. 2 c. 12.. Seeing our repose and familiar entertain­ment at the heavenly table, is expressed by sitting, the repose & familiar entertainment at the spirituall table, whereof that is an accōplishiment, is very fitly resembled by sitting at the com­munion table. Christ signified so much before he arose from the supper Luk. 22.30. I have appoynted to you a Kingdome that ye may eate and drinke at my table in my Kingdome, and sit on seats, and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The Fathers in calling it a mysticall table, do understand that there is a spiri­tuall table answerable to it. Nazianzen saith, Orat. 13. Post reditum. that howbeit they thrust him from the altars, meaning the Lords tables, yet he knew another altar, whereof these were onely examplars, he will stand at that altar or table. Is it not our common custome to put the communicants in minde of another table, whereat the soule is to feed spiritually? If the table be mysticall, why may not the table-gesture be mysticall. Now sitting expres­seth this signification very well, standing not so well; kneeling not at all.

VVe require not ever of necessitie, to the right ministration of the Sacrament an artificiall table made of timber, but the form of a table vve require, vvhatsoever the matter be; timber or stone, or a peece of ground. As Mark. 6. vvhere the mulli­titude sate in rowes by fifties and fifties upon the ground to eate of the loaves; that peece of ground, vvhereabout they sa­te, vvas the form of a table, howbeit the matter vvas earth. So if the Turkes vvere converted, and did communicate after the same forme, sitting on the ground in companies with their feet and legs plett, the dimension and shape of the ground, where­about they sit, is their table, & their sitting their table-gesture. For the high table and the table on the ground, answer analo­logically one to the other. This kind of table and table-ge­sture, preserveth the vvhole order of the institution. For sitting in this manner, the communicants may distribute the elements [Page 35] among thēselves. The like we may say of the times of persecu­tion, where the artificiall table cannot be had, there the natural is sufficient. There is no divers fashion of nations, taketh away the form of a table, nor no different state of time prospe­rous or troublesome. VVine is one of the elements instituted by Christ to be a signe of his blood: but what if the commu­nion were celebrated in parts, wher there is no vvine to be got­ten, nor bread made of wheat, but of the rootes of hearbes; may they not use such things as they have, which come neerest to the use of our bread and wine? Calvin sayth they may, and Be­za approveth his judgement; Epist. 2 [...]. for they are to other Symbola analoga saith he.

The Doctor saith, there is no other table-gesture, necessarie, but that which the Apostle calleth Metechein to partici­pate of the table by eating and drinking, as onely prescri­bed in the institution. But we have already sayd, that there is such an order of the institution prescribed, as will not admit every kind of participation, but such as may stand with the rules and precepts of the institution, that is, with do this, and divide it among you. And therefore participation with the ge­sture of kneeling, is excluded. If to participate onely be requi­red, then let us take it by the mouth, and not by the hand, for greater reverence. As for feare of superstition the Doctor will free us of that; we are so well informed against transubstantia­tion, and the bodily presence.

He sayth all nations agree not in one forme of Table-ge­sture. VVhat then? do they not all agree in a table-gesture? And as for kneeling, no nation under the cope of heaven did ever use it for a table-gesture. Further, it is urged, not as the most decent table-gesture, but as a gesture of adoration.

To receive the Sacrament upon the Sabboth day after meat section 6 and vvith uncovered heads, is not to be compared with recei­ving kneeling. In the former vve symbolize vvith the pure Kirk, and have sufficient vvarrant from the word. In the last vvith the Roman Kirk, and have no vvarrant so to doe.

VVe received not the gesture of sitting from the Arrians, but from the first primitive and Apostolicall Kirk, and Christs example: therefore we cannot be sayd to symblize vvith Ar­Arrians. [Page 36] The 4 conclusion of Synodus Petricoviensis, cited by the Doctor, alledgeth, that sitting at table is no where used in Europe, which is false. For when that Synod was holden anno 1578▪ sitting at table was in use in the Kirkes of Scot­land, and the Low Countries and is yet still in use among them. That Synod consisted of sundrie sortes of protestants, some adhering to the Augustane Confession, some to the confession of Bohemia, some to the Confession of Helvetia. The Lutherans would not consent to sitting, because of the bodily presence: others adhering to the Helvetian confession, would not consent to kneeling; therefore that they might agree, it was permitted to every one to stand, or kneele. And so not onely for dispite of the Arrians or (as Synodus Craco­viensis calleth them) Arrianabaptists, did they discharge sit­ting: But also for their respects of common agreement a­mong themselves. VVe are not to follow the Canons of such confused Synods. Yet I vvish the Doctor had set dovvn the words immediately preceeding, where they say, qua quidem propter exter­nos ritus ho­mines pios fe­rire, neque est domini voluntas, neque pu [...]ioris Ec­clesiae mos. that it is neither the vvill of God, nor the custome of the purer Kirk, to smite men with Ecclesiasticall discipline for externall rites, and therefore permitteth every man to stand or kneele. Yee see the Lutherans notwithstanding of their opinion of the reall presence are not so hot for kneeling as our men, who out­vvardly professe othervvayes. This Synod would not have allowed office-men to be compelled to kneele under the pain of deprivation from their offices, whereunto they have right of their life rent, by the Lawes of the Land, and wherein ther livelihood doth stand. This mixt Synod would not have allowed our two pretended Archbishops Mr. Spottis­wood, and Mr. Law to sit in the court of high commission, where they sit without allowance of the Kirk and the States, and to exerce like Popes the power of both the Swords, sus­pending, depriving, fining, confining, and imprisoning. First they delate, and then they execute, as Doeg did. That mixt Synod would not have allowed the foure Ministers of Edinburgh aboue-named to incense his Majestie against the people with their calumnious and sycophanticall letters. Mr. Galloway professed openly in pulpit, that he would do good service to God, who vvould procure their punishment. Mr. Struthers declaimed against them, because they were not so [Page 37] pliable to his course, as he desired. Al the foure presse to extin­guish that spark of light & zeale yet remaing with the better sort; which was kindled by those worthies, who went before thē, shining as burning lāpes, Mr. Knox, Mr. Lowsō, Mr. Bruce, &c

It vvere strange if Calvin should be a favourer of kneeling, whose doctrine and perpetuable practise was against it. In the section 7 place alledged by the Doctor, he preferreth adoration in the supper before adoration in the streets, when the bread is car­ried in pompe or procession: he doth not allow it simpliciter in the supper. His vvords are generall, and may be applied to any part of the supper, as well as to the act of receiving, and to internall adoration as well as to externall. He recalleth us to the institution in the same section, and in the words vvhich I haue cited before, as the surest warrant for our conscience,Page, where he saith, the Apostles in the institution, and the Aposto­licall Kirkes afterward, kneeled not.

P. Martyr, wrot his treatise of the Eucharist, when he was Professor in Oxford, not many yeares after he had forsaken pa­pistry. Crammer, his speciall friend, Ridley and others who saw not all things in the dawning of the day, being moved with the stirres and out-cries of the papists, to appease them some what, enjoyned kneeling in the act of receiving, in the renewing of the booke of common prayer. P. Martyr, a stranger vvas loath to contradict his great friēds, & the received order; or it may be that thē he saw no further▪ his reason is very weak: for many do kneele devoutly sayth he, when they heare these words read; And the word was made flesh. VVhat was this, but to corfirm one superstition with another? for wherefore should we kneele at these words more then at the rest of the articles of our faith, or confortable passages of scripture? VVhē he was afterward in Zurich writing against Gardiner, he was forced to defend his former treatise, & through the importunitie of his adversarie, he was driuen to utter such speeches. As the papists worship their absent Saints in their images so do we worship Christs bo­dy being absent in the sacrament. And again,Pag. 67.176, 177. as the nobles & Citizens reverēce the Emperour in his purple robe & his seale, howbeit they know he is not contained in them: so do we in the Sacrament worship Christs body being absent. Yet this much we may perceiue, that he could never throughly digest it, for in the same part vvhere the Doctor doth cite him:Pag. 673. he doth twice vvish that all kinde of externall ado­adoration [Page 38] vvere abolished, whether prostration of the body, or kneeling. And when he was in Zurich, In his defence against Gardiner, [...] Pag. 7.179. he affirmeth plainly, that it was without any vvar­rant of Gods word, yea against the example of Christ and his Apostles. But not willing to insist long in scanning mens te­stimonies, I proceed.

VVe compare not the brasen Serpent vvith the bread in the section 8 Sacrament. It is the ordinance of God, and of perpetuall use even to his comming againe, according to Christs comman­dement, howbeit the Papists have made an Idol of it. The or­dinances of God should not be abolished when they are abu­sed & polluted by men, but ought onely to be restored to their right use. VVe compare the brasen Serpent with kneeling in the act of receiving. If Ezekias brake in peeces the brazen Serpent, which was reserved for 700 yeares as a monument of Gods mercie, because it was polluted with Idolatrie: Farre more should kneeling in the act of receiving, be abolished: seeing it is but the invention of man, and hath been abused to the vilest Idolatrie that ever was, the worship of the bready God. The brasen Serpent had no state in the worship of God, and yet Ezekias would not be curious in the carefull keeping of it, but brake it in peeces. Kneeling hath state in the worship of God, and cannot be hid from the eyes of men, therefore more dangerous then the brasen Serpent. Constantine the great clo­sed up the temples of Idols, Iulian opened them again: therefo­re Theodosius demolished them.

section 9 It is true the Doctor saith, that there is great difference be­twixt an Image, and the workes of God, the word and the Sa­craments. But yet it is Idolatrie to give Gods worship to any creature whatsoever, suppose to an Angell of heaven. It is lawfull to bow down if there be not some other just impedi­ment, when we have seen the workes of God, when we have heard the word, received the Sacraments, &c. But the Doctor frameth his words after this manner: To bow down when we have seen the workes of God, when we have heard the word, when vve receive the Sacraments: he sayth not when we have received as he sayd of the other two, and as he should have done. Or else if he had spoken to his purpose, he should have have said after this manner: It is lawfull to bow down when [Page 39] vve see the workes of God, heare the word, or receive the Sa­craments, which he vvould be loath to do.

He doth the like in the two examples following, vvhen the fire fell down and consumed the sacrifice of Elias, the people fell on their faces and cried the Lord is God. And the infidell, or unlearned Christian, convinced by the Prophets in his con­science falling on his face, adored God saying, God is among you. Here the Principall cause of their falling down vvas God, saith he, but the miraculous vvork of the fire, and the word of the Prophets, vvere instrumētal causes vvhereby they vvere vvakened and stirred up. Even so vvhen vve fall dovvn at the Sacrament, the principall cause that moveth us (sayth he) is God to vvhom vve kneele, but the Sacrament is the instrument, vvhereby vve are taught, and admonished to fall dovvn at that time, and in that place. If the Doctor had said of the first tvvo, that at the same time, and in the same place they fell dovvn also, he had said to the purpose. But he doth altogether suppresse the circumstance of time and place in the tvvo examples. And the truth is, that the people fell on their faces, after that the fire had consumed the burnt-offring, and the vvood, and the stones, and the dust▪ and licked up the vva­ter that vvas in the ditch, 1 King. 18.38.39. And the infidell, or unlearned Christian is brought in (upon supposition in ca­se such a thing fall out) falling on his face, and adoring God after that the Prophets had ended their Prophecying. For he is brought in speaking, vvhich could not be done vvithout confusion, if the Prophets vvere prophecying in the meane ti­me. So his examples do not serve his purpose, nor his com­parison in generall of the Sacraments vvith the vvord & vvor­kes of God. For if vve should fall dovvn at the time and place vvhen vve see the vvorkes of God, and feele our selves vvake­ned and stirred up by them, then shall vve fall dovvn before the vvhole host of heaven, and every thing that creepeth on the earth. Or vvhen vve heare the vvord, if every man as he findeth himselfe vvakened and stirred up, should fal dovvn and vvorship, hovvbeit he joyn not speaking vvith it, like the infidell, or unlearned, vvhat a confusion vvould be brought into Gods service? Next I say, suppose it vvere granted that the people fell dovvn in the meane time that the fire vvas vvor­king the vvork vvherefore it vvas sent, there is a difference [Page 40] betvvixt the customable beholding of Gods ordinary vvorkes, the Sacraments, and a miracle. For as Augustine De trinit. Lib. 3. c. 10. Honorem tā ­quam relligio­sa habere pos­sunt, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt. saith of the sacred Scripture, the Serpent, the Sacraments, they may be ho­nored as matters religious, but vvondred at as matters of mar­vel they may not be. The infidell or unlearned if he had fal­len dovvn in the mean time and spoken, it had been but his ru­denes, not yet vvell understanding the order of the Church. VVhat men do either amazed vvith the Majestie of God in a miracle, or of ignorance being but nevv couverts to testifie their conversion before the congregation as vvitnesses, doth not helpe the Doctors cause. Thirdly, suppose they had fal­len dovvn in the mean time, yet their falling dovvn vvas not for adoration of the fire, or the vvord, but of God, Kneeling at the Sacrament is for reverence of the Sacrament, as vve shal make manifest. But as I haue sayd, their falling dovvn vvas not in the meane time of the vvorking of the fire, or the pro­phesying of the Prophets, and so serueth not the Doctor to the very pretence of falling dovvn at the Sacrament.

He denieth that they bovv their knees at the Sacrament, for the religions respect and reverence vvhich they cary to the Sacrament, but to Christ, for the religions respect & reverence that by it they are taught to giue to him. I see men make no account vvhat they deny, providing they can insnare simple people, and bring them to the doing of the act. The Doctor sayd othervvayes, at the pretended assembly, and the act pen­ned by him and some others, vvhen it vvas reformed, the copie vvhereof subscrived by the clarke come in my hands speaketh as I have already alledged. It is there ordained, that vve kneele in reverence of so divine a Mysterie to vvit, as is the Sacra­ment, or holy communion, vvhereof mention is made in the vvords immediatly preceeding. And the vvords follovving, in remembrance of so mysticall an union, as vve are made par­tokers of thereby to vvit, by the mysterie, declare that by the vvord mystery,Pag. 54. is meant the Sacrament. The like speech he hath in this book, that the communion of the body and blood of Christ is offered to us by the sacred mysteries vvhich are given at the table. It is an usuall tearme of the ancients to call the Sacrament, sometimes mysteries in the plurall num­ber, sometime mysterie in the singular number, as the Doctor doth also varie the tearm in this book. And in the English [Page 41] Confession the bread and vvine are called the heavenly my­steries of the body and blood of Christ. To kneele then in religious reverence of the Sacrament, is to adore it. For all religious kneeling is a gesture not of ordinary and common reverence, but of adoration. Seeing therefore the publick in­tent of the inforced act is Idolatrie. vvhatsoever be the private intent of the communicant, he is guiltie of Idolatry in kneeling A man may go to Rome, and take the Sacrament at the Anti­christs hand, if private intention will save him from the guil­tines of Idolatry.

Our conformitie with our neighbour Kirk, doth also ma­nifest the intent of our act. The disputers against Mr. Rogers, Mr. Hutton, D. Cowel, and D. Spark, prove out of their vvri­ters, that the reverence of the Sacrament is intended. I vvill onely set down Mr. Huttons words. Our bowing at the Sacra­ment (saith he) is an outvvard reverence meet to be perfor­med because of that holy action in hand, namely our religious communicating; partly to stirre up in others a more religious estimation of those divine seales, partly to remove all propha­ne thoughts of Epicures and contemners, partly to put a diffe­rence between the ordinary bread & wine, & those Sacramen­tall, to which we give more reverence, because they are more thē ordinary bread & wine. That book of cōmon prayer, wher­to they are tied by the statute of Q. Elisabeth, giveth also to understand, that kneeling at the communion is enjoyned upon this ground, that the Sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation amongst us.

I heare that our men have put in another word to colour the matter. In reverence of God, and of so divine a mystery; but that will not help the matter. For God wil be the totall & onlie object of adoration, he will have no compartner, & he will have it to be directed to him alone immediatly.

But what if by the word mysterie be understood the action of celebration, that will not help the matter; For the action of celebration is nothing else but the mysticall rites and ceremo­nies employed about the elemēts, giving, receiving, eating, drin­king. I may not kneele in reverence of the mysticall rites, more then of the mysticall elements. I may not lawfully adore ac­tions more then substances. No action never so mysticall or holy, is the right object of our adotation.

Seeing therefore we kneele in reverence of the Sacramēt, & [Page 42] it is in part the object of our adoration, vve are sayd as pro­perly to bow before it, as the Papist to bow before his image. Yea, suppose a thing situate before us vvanting life, be not the object of our adoration, as a vvall or a tree, yet are we said pro­perly to bow before it in our vulgar language. howbeit spea­king Greeke we would not use the vvord Enopion to that purpose. David or Daniel may be justly sayd to bovv toward the Temple, they being farre removed from the sight of it▪ or toward the Ark, the Ark being out of sight in the holy of ho­lies. The elements are not onely in our sight, but are also the object of our reverend vvorship, as the crucifix is to the Papist. And admit that the speech were not proper to say we bow down before any dead element, the doctors phrase is suf­ficient for us. For we may not bow down toward a creature, as the object of our adoration. Yea and further, we may not bovv by direction and ordinance novv under the nevv Testa­ment, tovvard any place or creature, there to vvorship God, as the people of old, did tovvard the Ark, vvhere God manife­sted himselfe by a singular manner of presence, sitting betvyixt the Cherubins.

It is manifest then, that the publick intent of the act is Idola­trous, seeing the elements are made an object of our reverent kneeling. Yet let us examine the Doctors private, but preten­ded intent. 1. If vve kneele onely to Christ at that time and place, vvhen the elements, in the sight and use of them, as in­strumentall causes, vvaken and stirr us up to give that bodily worship; then at what time, and in what place soever, vve are moved and stirred up by any creature, work of God, word, Sa­crament, type, figure, monument to acknowledge our dutie of bodily worship to God, we should give it in that place, at the same instant time. For the Doctor did except onely Images and Idols, as not fitt to teach us any thing of God, and conse­quently, that we should not bowe before them. But of this purpose we spake a litle before.Pag. 50. See also Perth Assembly. 2. If I kneele onely in regard of the pretended prayer of the soule, and yet in the mean time of my kneeling, which is an externall worship. I perform an other action of divine ser­vice. I confound two parts of externall worship. I am praying, and in that regard, as is pretended, kneeling; and in the meane time I am beholding with mine eyes the mysticall actions, [Page 43] hearkening with the eares to the audible words, receiving the elements vvith my hands, eating and drinking vvith my mouth, and so one person at one time is [...] two sundry parts of externall vvorship. For these actions are not the actions and gestures of prayer and adoration. The diuers kindes of Gods vvorship should not be confounded vvith other; but specially none of them ought to be confounded with prayer and adoration for eschewing of Idolatrie. Did ADAM eate of the tree of life, the people of God eate of the Paschall supper, or the manna, the Priests eates of the things sacrificed, of the presence bread, or other holy meate, and ado­re in the mean time also? The Lord would have externall ado­ration superceeded during the use of the meanes, the vvord & the Sacraments, both for eschewing of Idolatrie, lest vve adore the meanes; and of confusion and distraction lest the parts of Gods worship should undecently be confounded, and our hearts distracted. And so kneeling in this action doth not best beseem this action, as the act would insinuate. Babylon is not so confused: for they think the actions of eating, drinking, ta­king, beholding, vvhen they are upon their knees, and in time of their prayer, are imployed immediatly about their God. 3. Either the soule is vvholly imployed in prayer during the time that the communicant is upon his knees, and then the actions of beholding, taking, eating, drinking, are idle, or rather hurtfull because they distract the soule, or the soule is not to­tally exercised in prayer, and then kneeling must be in regard of the actions and elements vvhereabout they are imployed, as well as of prayer, and this is Idolatry. 4. If the actions outvvard imployed about the elements, and the internall con­siderations and actions correspondent be the principall work of the communicant: and on the other part, the prayers be but mentall ejaculations, and occasionall, then is the gesture of kneeling principally for the actions, and the elements wherea­bout they are imployed. But so it is, that these actions implo­yed about the elements, and the internall actions correspon­dent, are the principall vvork of the communicant, the men­tall ejaculations of prayer and praise, are but occasionall and incident. Therefore kneeling is principally for the actions and the elements, wherbout they are imployed. 5. If mentall ejaculations give place to all other parts of Gods vvorship, [Page 44] and require no bodily adoration, as we may see at the hearing of the word, our mentall ejaculations require not kneeling. Thē it vvil follow, that kneeling is not at all in regard of these mentall ejaculations of prayer and praise, but of the publick worship commanded, that is, of the celebration of the actions, and signes whereabout they are imployed; and this is also Ido­latry. As for publick prayer in the act of receiving, they can­not pretend it. For no such prayer is set down by any Canon of our Kirk. The disputers foresayd have layd open the na­kednes of this pretence also.

So vve may see the carriage of every communicant, decla­reth that kneeling is for reverence of the elements, let the communicant pretend what he please. Next, let him pre­tend what he please, he is to be exponed according to the publick intent of the act injoyning him, which is Idolatrous. Make never so many respects besides, either in your private conceit, or in the act, this publick intent being one, doth marre all the rest. The Lord vvill not be mocked with rela­tions, but respecteth the act, and not the intention saith Bilson, Obedience, Page 347. howbeit to another purpose.

He denieth that our kneeling hardneth the Papist in his section 10 Idolatry, because we kneele not in that respect that they do: yea that they are no lesse vehement against our kneeling then against our sitting; but daily experience doth prove the con­trary of this allegeance, that the Papist is hardened in his su­periour sort of Idolatry, by our inferiour sort. The Papists are offended at us for not kneeling upon the conceit of transub­stantiation, but they are vvell content to see us kneele upon a religious estimation & reverence of the element, & the mysti­call actions. They are content to see us borrow ther rites to de­core our religion withal, to kneele at the same time, in the same place, after the same manner, & to the same general end of ado­ration, howbeit upon different respects. The Doctor would make men beleeve that there is no Idolatrous worship of a creature, except we take it for a God. VVhen as it is also Ido­latry to communicate religious knee-worship to that which we are perswaded is but a meere creature.

section 11 He denieth, that kneeling offendeth the weake brethren: yea many affirm that there is no gesture can sufficiently ex­presse [Page 45] the reverence and respect that in this action we owe to God, as the Doctor alledgeth. I understand not what the weak brethren be of whom he meaneth; but well I know, that all the Godly Professors of the Land are offended at it, & justly. They have heard our preachers these 60 yeares by past teach other­wise & in the subscribing, and swearing to the second confes­sion of Faith, require persons of all estates to abjure it. If they shall now heare the Preachers defend it, and urge the practise of the same, what shall they beleeve? may they not think that the rest of the doctrine which they have taught these many yeares by-past, they vvill recant, if they vvere but a little put at. I know none for mine own part content, but blind ignorants or superstitious people. The old vvives that knocked on their breasts, and glowred up to the bread, when Mr. Galloway delivered them the elements, were very well content. Vile atheists, and blasphemers of Christs name, can both buffet Christ rent his wounds, blaspheme his name, and yet kneele and say, Haile maister. Some politians indifferent in matters of religion, can be content to do any thing, whether they have delight in the matter, or no delight at all. Some, it may be, and I feare too many, think as the familists do, that they may law­fully present themselves to any vvorship which the prince or Magistrate shall enjoyn, suppose it were never so Idolatrous. A number did kneele because they were seduced by corrupt teachers, temporizing or seeking benefit or preferment. Many kneeled for Feare of loosing their offices, and estates, & some of them have been grieved in conscience for so doing. But the Feare of danger and trouble vvill not hold men excused. If the Doctor would obtain that no man should be urged, vve should then see what manner of men these be whom he alledged to be so well contented.

The determination of kneeling, when and where, and in what cases is to be used, is left to the determination of the kirk, saith the Doctor. Be it so, where the word hath not already determined. But. 1. The exemplary sitting of Christ. 2. The use of the Table. 3. The Sacramentall breaking of the bread after the thankesgiving. 4. The enunciative Form of deliverie of the Sacramental word. 5. The generalitie of the Sacramen­tall word. 6. The commandement 1 Cor. 11. to communicate [Page 46] together. 7. The precept, Divide it amongst you. 8. The sem­blance of a supper or Feast. 5. The discharge of vvil-worship. 10. The discharge of conformity in rites and ceremonies with Idolators. 11. The discharge of kneeling religiously in reve­rence of any creature. 12. The discharge of dangerous pro­vocations to the grossest Idolatry of the Papists, do all dischar­ge kneeling. See al those particulars treated in Perth Assembly.

Howbeit we differed before from the Kirke of France by our sitting, yet we do differ Further both from the Kirke of France, and from our selves by kneeling: yea, vve differ from all the well-reformed Kirkes round about us.

The Doctor saith, if the ancient Church might have law­fully interchāged kneeling, a gesture ordained by God himself into standing at prayer, touching which there is no precept, how much more may our Church interchange sitting never commanded, and never or very seldome practised in Gods pu­blick worship with kneeling a gesture commanded by God, and most agreeable to this Sacrament. VVe have already made manifest, that at the religious Feasts under the Law, at the Sa­crament of the Supper under the new Testament they did sit. In the time of the preaching or prophesying, it vvas likewise the ordinary custome to sit both in the Synagogue of the Ie­wes, and the Assemblies of Christians, 1 Cor. 14.30. Acts. 16.13. Act. 20.9. Luke. 4.28.29. Act. 13.16. Luke 10.39. I think no man vvill deny but the ministration of the Sacra­ments, and the preaching and hearing of the word, are parts of Gods publick vvorship. If by publick vvorship the Do­ctor do meane the solemne & publick prayers onely, then he speaketh not to the purpose. Neither doth Calvin say, that kneeling in time of prayer is simply a divine ordinance, but he sayth, it is so human a tradition that it is also divine. It is di­vine in so farre as it is a part of that comelines which is re­commended to us by the apostle. The Prophets upon sin­gular occasions as they were moved by the spirit, exhorted the people to come and bow down before the Lord. But these exhortations were not precepts. for then Christ had sinned if he had not kneeled in the times of thankesgiving; but we have already manifested that he sate. Then David likewise had sin­ned when he sate before the Lord. 2. Sam. 7.18. To expone sitting standing, were catachresticall indeed. To expone sit­ting [Page 47] remaining, vvill not agree with the text. To devise a mysterie for that sitting Peter Martyr sayth, it is without a warrant. If there had been a commandement to kneele in time of prayer, then Iehosaphat and all Iuda standing before the Lord with their yong ones, their vvives and Children in time of prayer, 2. Chron. 20 5.6.13. had sinned, and the ancient custome of the Iewes to pray standing, had been unlawfull. Of this custome see Perth Assembly.Page. 51. It was the office of the Le­vites to stand evening and morning to give thankes and praise the Lord, 2 Chron. 23.29. The tribe of Levi is sayd to be sepa­rated to stand before the Lord to Minister to him, and to blesse in his name. VVhat the ancient Kirk did in chan­ging kneeling in time of prayer into standing, insignification of their joy for Christs resurrection, and that so precisely, that it was accounted a great sin to do otherwayes, on the Lords day, & betwixt Pasce, and Pentecost, is nothing to us, who are not to follow them in such conceits. Paul kneeled betvvixt Pasce and Pentecost the time forbidden by the ancients, as vve may see Acts. 20.36. and had no minde of such devi­ses.

The Doctor alledgeth, that our first reformers established sitting onlie as a fit ceremony for the time, to abolish the opi­nion of transubstantiation. But this he alledgeth against his ovvn knowledge, and I am sure against the truth. For in the first book of discipline, in the second head thereof, it is ordai­ned as a perpetuall gesture because most agreeable to the in­stitution. In the parliament holden anno 1572. it was ina­cted, that if any man did communicate otherwayes with the Sacraments, then as they were then truely ministred in the re­formed Kirkes of this realme, should be holden infamous, un­able to sit or stand in judgement, persew or beare office, or to be witnesses or assisers against any professing the true religion. Shall vve now have a new act in the contrarie, for this English guise, or rather old Papisticall manner. In the second con­fession of Faith, vve detest all allegories▪ rites, signes and tradi­tions added to the true ministration of the Sacraments, with­out or against the vvord of God. Did any preacher preach otherwayes till now? And at Perth Assembly the Doctor confessed that yet still the former order vvas best, but he would please the King, and avert his Majesties vvrath from this [Page 48] Kirk. P. Martyr vvriting to the Polonian Ministers and Pro­fessors anno 1556. VVilled them to pluck up superstition & Idolatry by the roots, if othervvayes they plucked onely at the Leaves, the Fruits and the Flowers, it vvould spring up again as it had done in some places already. I know vvhat I speake sayth he. And this he spake vvhen our neighbour Kirk re­volted to Poperie in Queen Maries dayes. But chiefly he desi­reth them to make a syncere reformation in this Sacrament, vvhere there are, saith he, Loci com. p. 2111. quae porro nisi su­blata fuerint nunquam Ecclesia Christi puro sincero­que cultu erit ornata, etc. Pestilent seeds of Idolatry, which except they be taken away, the Kirk of Christ vvill never be decored vvith pure and sincere worship. And again he saith, as the Sacraments ought not to be contemned; so men ought not to give them greater honor then the institution will suffer. Bucer in his censure vvritten at the desire of Cranmer, sayth, Cap. 9. Ni­hilque loci vel invenient vel retinebunt apud nos eae res omnes verba, et ge­stus, in quibus vel appeateat esse aliquid euntis impie­talibus affine, aut ad uliam tapiatu [...] quā ­quam impro­be et absque data causa) harum suarum impietatum commenda­tionem et pic­turam. that if vve love God and our Saviour Christ none of these things, vvords, or gestures, vvill find or keepe place amongst us, vvhich have appearance of affinitie vvith the impieties & abhominations brought in by the Antichrist upon the holy mysteries, or vvhich may be taken hold of to make up, any any commendation of them, howbeit unjustly and vvithout just cause offred. A vvhole Synod did condemne this gesture for the danger of Bread-worship, as may be seen in Festus Hommius harmonie of the Belgick Sinods. Our first Re­formers upon the same considerations abandoned this gesture simpliciter, and not for a time onely.

He pretendeth a needlesse Feare of Prophanitie and con­tempt, which may by time creep in by our former order. If it creep in, it is to be amended, and the Form and order of the institution is not to be broken or adulterate for remedy of the same. For as Bucer saith, Ibid haec ut nulla nobis potest impro­rum vitiate perve [...]sitas, ita nec propter [...] us. neither the perversnes of the wic­ked, can vitiate the things which the Lord hath instituted, nei­ther ought vve to intermit them for their abuse. But I ap­peale to the consciences of all true Professors, if ever they did see any exercises so gracious, powerfull and heavenly, as were our communions It is vvell known what graceles, con­fused▪ cold & disordered communions vve had insundry parts this last Yeare, where kneeling was put in practise. Some complained for vvant of the Bread, some for vvant of the wine. Mr Galloway quarrelled some of the communicants for not kneeling, vvhen he vvas in the very act of delivering [Page 49] the element. Such prettie dialogues had we at the last com­munion, as was matter of much talk afterwardes.

He purged our Kirk in this book before of Arrianisme, and now he maketh much adoe as if the maintainers of a table-ge­sture did savour of Arrianisme, or plead for equalitie with Christ. VVhen the Arminians were like to prevaile in the Low-countries, then did the Doctor every where reason for them. This is the man vvho maketh a counterfeit out-cry, as if our Kirk vvere in danger of Arrianisme; howbeit he doth understand there is no appearance of any such matter more novv, then vvas from the beginning of the Reformation. Nei­ther did Christ ever institute any order vvhich should give just occasion to any malicious or perverse person to pretend such Feares.

VVhat a vain alledgeance is it to say, that kneeling vvill serve to declare our union vvith other reformed Kirkes; seeing the best Reformed Kirkes do abhorre kneeling. His other alledgeance is as Foolish, that kneeling vvill vvin some Pa­pists to our Profession. Is this the vvay to cure a man of the Fever, to fain a Fever? God set up a partition vvall of many rites and ceremonies betvvixt his people and Idolaters, and tooke not the course of conformitie with them to make pro­selites. P. Martyr sayth,Loci com­mun. p. 1111. In ritu Sacra­mentorum ad­ministrando­rum is ample­ctendus est qui fuerit quam simpli­cissimus, atque a Papisticis nugis et cere­moniolis ma­xime remo­tus: et ad puri­tatem qua Christus cum Apostolis usus est, quā pluri­mum accesse­lit. That rite in the administration of the Sacraments is to be imbraced vvhich is most simple, and fur­thest removed from Papistical toyes and ceremonies, and com­meth neerest to that puritie vvhich Christ and his Apostles used. This vvas his judgement after he had left England, & had experience what such matters meaned. Doth not daily experience teach us, that vvhere kneeling and the like cere­monies do flourish most, Papists do increase most? Are not our Papists already insulting upon us, and saying that▪ vve are returning home again to them?

There vvas an argument much made of be the D. in Perth Assembly, vvhich I find not in this Book of Resolutiounis. To vvit, vvhatsoever benefite vve may crave of God upon our knees, vve may receave it upon our knees. VVe may crave the Sacrament upon our knees. Ergo. Bot appearantlie the D. hath thought shame of it since that time. And indeed if the propositiovn vvere true, the King ought, or may kneele vvhen he receaveth homage from his subjectis: The Brid­groome [Page 50] vvhen he taketh his Brid by the hand: and everie one of us when vve receave food or phisike. Mr. Galloway wanting better reasons did notwithstanding with a little restri­ctioun use this same argument in the Great Kirk of Edin­burgh upon the Lords day before the last communion as the cheif reason that after studie, meditation and prayer gave him Resolution. VVhat spirituall blessing in Gods pu­blick vvorship I may ask of God upon my knees, I may receave upon my knees. VVhen N. denyed this proposition to the late Bishop of Galloway Mr. Cowper he could proceed no further. I demand wherfor should vve not kneele in the receat and fruitioun of temporall bene­fits and blessings alsweill as Spirituall, seing vve c [...]ave of God conforme to the perfite paterne of Prayer day lie bread and temporall benefits necessar for this our naturall life. VVill they not say, because Gods benefits temporall are presented to ws be sensible creatures, and therfore if vve did kneele, vve should kneele before creatures, Fire, VVater, VVine, Bread and so foorth of the rest. Do we not the like at the Sacrament, are not the seales of the Spirituall blessings presented to ws, be sensible creatures. If ȝe say the one sort is Holy and sacred and so is not the other: then first it vvill follovv that vve kneel not ratione doni in respect of a blessing or benefite bestowed, for then vve should kneele in the receat of the temporall blessing and benefite also: bot that vve kneele because that sensible pledge of the spirituall blessing is ane ho­lie thing or creature consecrated & set apart to a holy use. Bot to Kneele relligiouslie in that respect befor anie crea­ture whatsoever is Idolatrie. That conditioun which is ad­ded: In Gods publik VVorship, vvil not help the mater. For vvhether vve kneel in or out of Gods publik vvorship in the forsaid respect, it is still Idolatrie to kneel relligiou­slie in regard of the holines of any creature. Nixt ther is aequiuocatioun in this vvord vvorship. For some time vvorship of God is taken in a generall sence, for the fear and reverence of God, service of God, or any other relligious or Ecclesiasticall actioun, ROM. 1.9. MATTH. 15.9. ACT. 18.7. ACT. 18.13. [Page 51] ACT. 24.14. PHILIP. 3.3. DEVT. 10.12. COLL. 2.18.23. 2 SAM. 15.8. EXOD. 3.12. And so the vvord vvorship in our language serveth to ex­presse divers vvords in the originall latrevoo, doulevoo, threskevoo seboma [...], &c. In this generall sence the preaching of the vvord, the celebratioun of the Lords Supper, the Ministration of Baptisme, singing of Psalmes, &c. Ar publick vvorships of God. The Preacher Prayeth upon his knees for a blessing vvhen he shall Preach and consequentlie in Gods publick vvorship ROM. 1.9. ROM. 15.16. Shall he therfore Preach Kneeling, vvhen he findeth Gods blessing assisting him. The hearers do crave likewise a blessing upon their hearing▪ If the hearers as they are diverslie affected with good motiouns in time of Sermon shall kneele vvhen others do sitt: and the Sitters againe kneele vvhen others are risen, if at an other time they finde themselves moved, vvhat a sort of hearers should vve have. Gods publick should not be confounded vvith mens peculiar vvorship and devotioun. It is Gods Com­mandment, that the hearer should hear, vvhen the Preacher doeth speake. This Commandement should not be broken, for the privat motions and secret [...]ja [...]ulatiouns of the soule in the time of hearing. Even so at the Sacrament the communicant is to ob­serve the ordour, rules and rites of the institution, vvhich vvill not admit Kneeling as vve have often sayd. It is therfore unlawfull to kneele in the act, seeing that vve cannot kneele without making many breaches both in the secound Commandement in generall, and in the instition in particular. All vvhich are set down at lenth in PERTH ASSEMBLIE, the summe whereof I have sett down before PAGE 45. The vvord VVorship is taken againe and that most usua [...]lie for kneeling and prostratioun and serv [...]th in this sence to expresse the Greek vvord proskuneo as MATTH. 2.2. REVEL. 13.4. 1 COR. 14.25. MATT. 8.2, and the Hebrew vvord Histachavah; and this is performed in time of prayer or thankesgiving. To kneel in time of [Page 52] Gods publick vvorship in this strict sence, that is in time of so­lemne and publick prayers no man doeth call in question, & is not pertinent to this purpose. If Mr. Galloways pensions had not tempted him at his prayers studie and meditations, he might soone have come to better resolutions. He had ano­ther reason that same daye of as litle waight. To vvit, The people of Israel stood in Egypt at the passeover as they vver commanded: and sate in Canaan. VVhy may not vve likwise change sitting in kneeling as they did standing in sitting. First it is onlie conjecturall that they stood, it is not certaine. For no circumstance in the text Exod. 12, doeth enforce any such thing. Next, if it vvas commanded it vvas enjoyned onlie for that night as many other ceremonies vver peculiar to that time, as to eate in their houses vvher they had made their re­sidence in Egypt, the sprinkling of the side posts with blood, the eating in hast, the not going out of house. Christ and his Apostles went out of the house that same night to the Mount of olives Matth. Seing therfore the Lord did not set down a Law for standing at the Paschall supper, and the people of Israel had not the like reason to stand at other times as at the first passeover in Egypt: ther vvas nothing to hinder their sitting. That standing was onlie occasional, because of their hastie departure out of Egypt, bot sitting vvas the ordi­narie gesture at all relligious Feasts. Put the cace it vver cer­taine that they stood at the Paschall supper even to the capti­vitie, vvhich is denyed be Scaliger in the last edition of his book de Emendatione temporum: and that they took up sit­ting after that, yet that change of standing about the table in­to sitting is bot the change of one table-gesture into another. Bot to change sitting into kneeling is to chang a table-gesture into a gesture of adoration, and to bring in a change upon the institution as vve have sayd. VVhen D. Denisons book come in Mr. Galloway his hands, he made a new onsett in the pulpitt upon the Lords day following and caused sing after Sermon the 95 Psalme, as if he had bene singing the triumphe. Bot certanely he produced no new reason vvorthie the answearing howbeit he did flee vvith other mens vvings. I vvish that man sawe his one vveaknes and insufficiencie for such a place. Mr. Ramsay proponed an Argument at the meeting upon the [...]wesday before the last communion, which he bragged he [Page 53] would manteine against all the Theologues in Europe. To wit, wher the soul should necessarilie bow, the body may lawfully bow. In the act of receaving the Sacramentall elements the soul should necessarilie bow. For we should receave vvith humilitie. The answear is easie, first the proposition is to be de­nyed. The 3 children no doubt bowed ther souls, vvhen they vver presented before the golden Image. Bot ther bowed souls vver averse from the Image and looking upon God. For vve may not Imagine that the soul throweth about as the bo­die doeth. A man surprised vvith a suddaine tentation, when he is gazing on a crucifixe ought to bow his soule necessarlie bot he must not bow his bodie. Nehemias standing before King Artaxerxes Nehem. 2.4. bowed his soul, bot might not bow his bodie. A man ryding through a deep water, and in perill of drouning should necessarilie bow his Soul. In a word whatsoever vve be doing, or whatsoever thing be setr before ws, vve should bow our soul, when we ar assaulted with dan­ger either internall or externall, or vvhen vve have some pre­sent neid of Gods presence & blessing, whether vve be ryding, eating, lying, hearing the vvord, or participating the Sacramēt. As for the assumption; we bow the soul in the act of receaving if ther be neid, and as vve find our selves moved to begg grace to strenthen us, vvhen vve find our Faith weak, or in such like caces. Bot that bowing is nothing, but the mentall ejacula­tions of prayer and praise wherof vve have often spoken befor vvhich are occasionall onlie, subtile, svvift and secret. For to say that the soul should bow by vvay of internall adoration of prayer and praise during all the time of the action is to ex­clude the principal vvork of the soule, that is meditation, con­sideration of the analogie of the signes and thinges signified, and the application of Faith, as vve have sayd before. Humi­litie is not this bowing of the soul, vvhich is internall adora­tion, bot ane habite accompanieng us in all our relligious ex­ercises, in the hearing of the vvord alswell as in receaving the Sacrament. Farther it vvill not follow that we should bow the bodie, if vve bow the soule at that time as I have declared in the refutation of the proposition. All the 12 transgres­sions noted befor do hinder us to bow our bodie at that time. M. Struthers greatest arguments wer terrible knocks upon the pulpit. Mr. Sideserfe told the people of the threadbare rea­son [Page 54] drawen from the circumstances of time & place accessoir to the first institution: wherof se befor Page 11.

S [...]ing therfor kneeling in the act of receaving is not a thing indifferent, but unlawfull in respect of the manie transgres­sions committed by the same, it is the duetie of everie good Christian making conscience of his vvayes, speciallie in the solemne worship of God, to detest the same. Bot vvhat if li­bertie be offered to sitt, or stand, or kneel? Remember first that no particular person h [...]s power to make that offer. The enforced act of the pretendit assemblie tendeth onlie to uni­formitie. Next, remember the trick which the Ministers of Edimburgh played. VVhen they had allured some people with this offer to come to their communion, they wrought upon them divers vvayes to make them to kneele, and dashed the Sillie ones. Tempt not the Lord: take paines rather to seek abroade nor to cast your selves in a snare, or to counte­nance such confusions. Ye ought not so farr as in you lieth to depart one naile bredth from the institution, as I alledged befor out of Calvin. Thridlie consider that this offer vvill onlie serve for ane introduction to uniformitie in kneeling. For when that confusion shall take place, then shall they cry out as D. Spark hath done: [...] Page 17. that some moderate severi [...]ie must be used to remove that offensive diversitie, and to re­duce all men to uniformitie. The conclusion of Synodus Pe­tricoviensis alledged be them now against us, shall not serve then for a defence to us against them. And this moderate se­veriti shal prove sharpe persecution, which is already begun. If the observation of holy dayes be first urg [...]d it is the du [...]t [...]e likwise of everie good Christian making conscience of his oath, promise, subscription, former profession, and puritie of Gods worship, to vvithdrawe his countenance from the same. A day of rest vvithout relligious exercises is an idle day, not a holy day. Relligious exercises are the life of a holy day. And th [...] for our Kirk woul not approve the Confession of Helve­tia in that point, howbeit prophanitie and other accessorie abuses of poperie wer not allowed be that Confession. The ve­ri [...] [...]bservation itself of an [...] anniversarie F [...]st [...]v [...]ll day vvith cess [...]tion from work, and relligious exercises, the two cheif ele­ments of a Festivall day was judged superstition. As may be seene be the continuall abstinence of our Kirk from extraor­dinar [Page 55] Preaching upon these dayes, the censures acts and arti­cles of the generall assemblies, the Confession of Faith, the first Book of discipline. See Perth Assemb [...]e p. 63. Nixt by your countenancing of holy dayes ye countenannce the vitious constitution, and shameles proceedings of Perths Pretendit and Null assemblie. Th [...]dly ye open a door to kneeling and all the rest of the English ceremonies, vvhich will rush in, af­ter vve have given vvay to any one of them. And then when we shall be made fullie c [...]forme to our neighbour Kirk, we shall turne in a tr [...]ce to Papistrie, when it shall please autho­ritie by found of Trumpet to command us. For PETRVS CVDSENIVS a Iesuit viewing the state of the English Kirk Anno 1608. gave this judgement in his Book de despe­rata Calvinistarum causa, that the state of relligion in England was such, as that it might be easilie chāged to the Catholik Ro­man, & that they wer not properlie to be called heretiks, but schismatiks. This is recorded by Francis Mason in his book of the consecration of the Bishops of England. The terrible inquisition of the high commission is sett above our heads, wher the acts of some Psendosynods, corrupted, and slavish conventions are put in Execution by the two Archbishops, & all the ordinarie judicatories ecclesiasticall past by. If these two bone companions, prettie football men, sometimes fel­low-presbyters in one presbyterie, still brethren in evill, had bene casten foorth of the ministrie, when they were nere the point of suspensiō for prophaning the Lords day, they had not bene able instruments to cast out vvorthie men out of the mi­nistrie in thir times. To conclude the relligion of the best Re­formed Kirks round about ws is persecuted in our persones under the name of Puritanisme, and Papists do increase.

For M [...]thode it behoved me to follow the Doctors disorde­red stepps. For matter I have studied to brevitie, referring the Reader to Perth Assemblie for farther, if he be desirous. For I eschewed repetition, so farr, as I might.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.