An ansvver to a book set forth by Sir Edward Peyton, knight and baronet carrying this title A discourse concerning the fitnesse of the posture necessary to be used in taking the bread and wine at the Sacrament / by Rodger Cocks ...

An ansvver to a book set forth by Sir Edward Peyton, knight and baronet carrying this title A discourse concerning the fitnesse of the posture necessary to be used in taking the bread and wine at the Sacrament / by Rodger Cocks ...

Table of contents

Title page

Scribimus indocti, docti que.

To Sir EDWARD PEYTON, Knight and Baronet. But I pray give me leave to close it up with that wish of Philip, a King of Macedon, to Menecrates, an over-weening Physitian, Health of mind.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

AN ANSWER TO A BOOK Set forth By Sir EDWARD PEYTON, KNIGHT and BARONET, Carrying this Title, A Discourse concerning the fitnesse of the Posture, necessary to be used, in taking the Bread and Wine at the SACRAMENT.

BY ROGER COCKS, Preacher of Gods Word.

Quàm diu per hanc lineam serram reciprocabimus, habentes observationem inveteratam, quae praeveniendo statum fecit? Hanc si nulla Scriptura determinavit, certè consuetudo corroboravit.

Tertul. de Coron. Militis, Cap. 3.

Ad quam fortè Ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi.

Sententia Ambros. in Aug. ut ipse refert, Epist. 118. Cap. 2.

LONDON, Printed for Nath. Butter. 1642.

Scribimus indocti, docti (que).

[Page]

[Page]

PAmphlets, like wild geese, fly up and downe in flocks about the Countrey. Never was more writing, or lesse matter. That of the Preacher, if ever it did reflect on any, may fitly suit with our times. There is no end of making many books. Eccles. 12. 12 For in many, in most, there is no end indeed; Nay, there is neither beginning nor ending; that is, neither head nor foot, as it is in the Proverb. I will not absolutely rank yours in the number of these, yet I conceive (and many, I presume, will be of my opinion) you should have shewne more wisdome, if you had taken lesse paines, and spared your Discourse. For though I commend your moderation, in not being affected with the Epidemicall disease of the times, Railing, yet I cannot approve your discretion, in acting that upon the publique stage of Printing, which might have passed better by private intercourse of writing. I was once about to have answered your Discourse with nothing but silence, (if so be that might have been reputed [Page] an Answer) and to this the perswasion of some friends had almost induced me, as well because the sleighting of some wrong, is the best way to overcome them, as because it is not an easie matrer for a Practicall Divine on the sudden to turne Polemicall. But I was diverted from these (to my thinking) by stronger considerations: As first, the giving of occasion unto the adverse side, to insult and triumph; and next to ours, the scandall of deserting my selfe; and which is more, the publique cause of the Church, at which (it is plain) you strike, though through the sides of me, an unworthy member of it. Over-swaid by these, I thought it better to shew my selfe (is the times now are) a foole in print among the rest, then that the Truth should suffer by my default, or that your pretending to invincible, unanswerable arguments, should conduce to the offending of others.

Before I enter upon your Book, I cannot passe by the Title; as a man that is to survey some new building, ere he enter the house, will cast his eye upon the Portall. Now this (me thinks) is not given with that advisednesse of judgement that should have been, for you call it A Discourse concerning the fitnesse of the posture, necessary to be used, in taking the Bread and Wine at the Sacrament. Had you left out [necessary,] it would have been a great deale better; for you change a matter of indifferencie, into a matter of necessity. You cannot (or at least, writing of that subject, ought not to) be ignorant, that Ceremonies, in their owne [Page] nature are but [...], indifferent things; your postures therefore being not yet enjoyned by authority, cannot be necessary. But a rough outside may have a smooth inside, and a jewell is not alwayes knowne by the case or casket that doth enclose it; I will therefore come to the discourse it selfe.

And this is composed in the forme of a Letter, I must therefore shape my Answer accordingly; onely I will adde a Superscription, lest I should not seeme to deale with a man of your fashion as I ought to doe.

To Sir EDWARD PEYTON, Knight and Baronet.
But I pray give me leave to close it up with that wish of Philip, a King of Macedon, to Menecrates, an over-weening Physitian, Health of mind.

THe reason that induceth me to this, is, because the elapsed time you speak of, hath brought forth the foule issue of a collapsed disposition, which (as you would seeme to pretend) my rudenesse hath made abortive, and caused it to come into the world before the time: But the truth is, (for so much I have heard you affirme your selfe) it was conceived many yeares before, though perhaps [Page] not altogether in the same shape it is produced. Who advisedly considering this will not argue you of much weaknesse, for being grounded in your opinion? why did you so often before take the Sacrament kneeling without question or scruple, if it were a matter against conscience so to doe? If it were not, why doe you now refuse it? I refer my selfe to the indifferent Reader, if in this you doe not render your selfe suspected to side more with the times then with the truth.

But to proceed. In the first place (though an easie apprehension may conceive it an impertinent introduction) you taxe my defect of manners: Indeed I was never bred in the schoole of complements, and may therefore haply commit a solecisme against ceremonious forme, but here (I presume) I may justly acquit my selfe. The irreverence was on your part, the affront on mine, I did but my duty, which you answered with indignity, and for my beseeching, returned a threatning. As for the satisfaction which you would seeme to have desired, you know well that I was not chiefe in the place, but (as you acknowledge me your self) subordinate, Curate. Therefore you should rather have sought it at his hands who was chiefe, especially being there resident, then at mine, and I make no doubt, he would upon the least intimation of this desire from you (so well I know his willingnesse and sufficiencie) have given you (if any thing could have done it) satisfaction.

Howbeit, had you requested as much of me (for [Page] it hath never been my custome to obtrude my labours upon another, especially where I had just cause to suspect the party possest with a prejudicate opinion, and so the matter in all likelyhood, to meete with derision instead of acceptation) I should as far as my meane ability, and my many occasions and interruptions would have given me leave, have done what I could. Let the discreet Reader now judge, whether there were more want of manners in me for not writing, or of civility in you, for taxing me in this kind.

Next, you affirme, that being to receive the Sacrament, you did stand, with just ground, and therefore I should not have denyed it unto you in that posture. I answer, you are no Pythagoras, or if you were, I am none of your Disciples, to be satisfied with an Ipse dixit. Who of sound judgment will not think that I was tyed in duty to comply rather with publique authority, then with your private, singular, irregular opinion: And whereas you say, I ought not to urge an imposed kneeling, though backt by the authority of the Ordinary, the Bishop, the Canon, because it is not confirmed by Act of Parliament; I answer, first, that your inference is not good: Are all things unlawfull, that are not confirmed by Act of Parliament? Surely then many indifferent actions must needs be unlawfully performed; Hath the King, hath the Church no authority in these things? what then shall become of government, if there be no Parliament? But it may be you desire such a time as the Israelites had when [Page] there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.Judg. 17. 6.

Secondly, I answer, that your assertion is not true, there is an Act of Parliament for that and other Ceremonies, entituled, An Act for the uniformity of Common Prayer, and prefixt as an Introduction to the Service Booke; but I beleeve you have taken little notice of it, because you are not much affected to the Booke it selfe. Againe, whereas you say, Kneeling is not commanded in the Rubrique: surely you doe but take the matter upon trust, and that hath deceived you; for the words are plaine, that the Receiver must take the Sacrament kneeling. I will repeat them, that the truth may the better appeare: Then shall the Minister first receive in both kindes himselfe, and next deliver it to other Ministers, if any be present, and after to the people in their hands, kneeling. What can be more plaine? Certainly, if you did not take the matter upon trust (as I said before) it must needs be, that either you did not looke so far, or overlooke it.

Your disallowing of the Canon cannot make it of no validity; for it is confirmed by the King, whom we acknowledge Supreame, in causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill; yea the power thereof is further ratified by a clause mentioned in the latter part of the Act made for the uniformity of Common Prayer; This three-fold cord then cannot be broken by you, strain a hard as you can. And yet let me advise you as a friend, [Page] not to strain too far, lest by this means you doe not onely forfeit your judgment, but your estate; for the Act being still in force, may lay hold upon you.

But to follow you, (as you proceed) you urge us next (as if we did we know not what) with many demands, concerning the object you should kneel unto, and some of them very poore and ridiculous; you cannot (without much prejudice to your own judgment) conceive us to be so simple as to require you to kneele to the creature, whether it be the Minister or the Sacrament; but what that should be which may hinder you from kneeling unto God, I am not (I confesse) quick sighted enough to perceive; yes, say you, for if that be required, why did not the Disciples kneele? I answer, first, it is not of absolute necessity that wee should in all things imitate the Disciples; next I affirme, that with all the skill you have, you cannot clearly and fully determine whether they did kneele or no.

Touching the forme of administration, what if we shall affirme (for all your negative) that part of it is a prayer? I doubt not we shall make it good well enough, doe you your selfe examine it a little better, and you cannot (if you will confesse a truth) but conclude it to be so; I will repeat the former part (for that only is materiall to the purpurpose) The Body of our Lord Iesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soule into everlasting life. The later part is by you vainly added, for who did ever conceive that to be a Prayer? [Page] But if it be a Prayer, say you, the words should run thus, I pray God to preserve thy body and soule to eternall life. Why so? I see no such necessity. Is not that of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim. 2. 7. The Lord give thee understanding in all things, a prayer for Timothy? because he doth not say, I pray the Lord to give thee understanding in all things. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you a better understanding.

Nor is it convenient (for all your cavill) that the Minister should kneele at the time of Administration, though the Receiver doe, seeing the former subordinately under Christ our Saviour, imparts the blessing; the latter takes it ministerially from him. Suppose the King (nay, let it be some Vice-gerent, or Generall under him) be to bestow the Order of Knight-hood, because he must kneele that takes the honour, must he doe so that gives it? Or, to come neerer to the present question, consider this in matter of Ordination, for though it be no Sacrament, it is a holy action: because he must kneele who receives Orders, must he doe so that doth ordaine him? who sees not the manifest absurdity of this consequence? It is sufficient that the Minister himselfe receiving first, according to appointment, doe take the Sacrament upon his knees. And why (I pray you) may you not kneele to Christ, when you receive? what necessity is there that your kneeling to him should make him to be corporally present in the Sacrament, when you take the holy Communion, more then he is at other times, when you pray unto him?

[Page] My Lord of Yorke (and it is much that you should vouchsafe to give him that title) confesseth no such thing as you quote him for; Yea, in the Page following, he is directly against you: For he affirmes out of approved Authors, that it is a matter of conveniencie for every Countrey to use such Ceremonies as they shal think fit.Pag. 133.

Your Proposition that we ought to follow Christ in all things, is too generall; S. Augustine will tell you otherwise, and so will all other Orthodoxe Divines; They will affirme we ought not to imitate him in his Miracles, but in his Morals; For though the one may entitle us to obedience, the other cannot acquit us from presumption.

In the next place you come upon me like a fencer: But (Venia tua) give me leave to tell you in a friendly manner, your Venies are but triflings in a cause so serious; I feare your sharp as little as your foils, for unlesse your weapons be (and I hope they are not) tincta Lycambaeo sanguine, I see no great danger in them, an indifferent judgment may easily blunt their point, and turn their edge. Howbeit, I thanke you for your friendly advertisement, for praemonitus praemunitus, forewarn'd forearm'd; and however you may seeme to your selfe an iuvincible Goliah, yet I a little David dare enter the lists with you.

First, you make a flourish, not with a two-handed, but with a two-edged sword; nay with that which is sharper then any two-edged sword,Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God: Such a weapon, I grant, as being [Page] well handled, is not to be resisted; but you doe onely flourish it, and make a shew of striking that which you doe not come neere.

Your Argument runs thus, That gesture is best which was used by the Apostles; but the Apostles used this gesture, therefore it is the best gesture. And here you fall into an error, for you doe not stand to your tackling, but goe from Standing to Sitting; Nay, you use the demonstrative this, before you mention Sitting at all. For the confirmation of that which you would prove, you cite many Texts of Scripture; among which, some are meerly impertinent, as belonging nothing to the Discourse in hand, because they imply an imitation, not in Ceremoniall, but Morall duties: Such are Ephes. 5. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 1. 1 Tim. 16. you meane (I conceive) 1 Tim. 1. 16. 2 Thes. 3. 7. The other conduce not rightly to your purpose, though they seeme to come nearer. For however you make much adoe with the Greek Text, and Latine Translation, where (by the way) you have occubuit, for accubuit, which I am willing to passe by, because but a literall error, and conclude that the posture used was Sitting, (howbeit no direct sitting neither, but such an one as did encline to leaning) yet I may say all this will not help you a jot: For we have two Bucklers to oppose against this sharp of yours, (as you call it;) the one, that all this proves nothing, but that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles sate at the celebration of the Passeover, not at the institution of the Sacrament; Nor can you by direct and evident [Page] Text of Scripture urge it further, as some of the learned have judiciously observed, however others for want of a due consideration, have given too much way to your assertion.

And surely if I among these should doe so too, yet it would fare with you, but as with him, qui suo se jugulat gladio, who striking fiercely at his adversary, wounds, yea kils his owne cause. Your pretence is to plead for Standing at the Communion; nay your offence was, (howbeit Scandalum acceptum non datum) because you might not receive it in that posture; and now you plead for sitting, nay affirme it is unlawfull to use other; concluding it to be, not indifferent, but necessary. Risum teneatis amici. Surely when you wrote this Discourse, you were either forgetfull of your former Position, or irresolute in your present opinion; So that if one Proverb will not hit you, You are a man sitting duabus sellis, yet another may fit you, Aliud stans, aliud sedens judicas, and thus you quite overthrow, what you seeke to establish; for if sitting onely be necessary, I do not see how you can stand more for standing, then we for kneeling.

Your bringing in of Calvin, makes nothing to the purpose; he writes against adoring the Host in the Sacrament; and what is that to our kneeling at the Communion? You might as well say, The Papists kneel to Images, and worship them, therefore we may not kneele to worship God. You presse further the sayings of Bullinger and Keckerman, who (if you cite them rightly) take that for [Page] granted, which remaines to be proved, namely, that Sitting was the posture used at the Sacramentall Supper. Indeed I should side with Chemnitius in his opinion, that the reverence of the Sacrament is to be taken from the Word of God, if there were any prescript forme, or certaine direction to be found in it. As for that which you quote out of the Centuries, namely, that Kneeling was never used in three hundred yeares after Christ; were it true, (which I shall hardly be induced to beleeve, without more pregnant testimony) yet it is not of sufficient force to infringe the lawfull use of this Ceremonie, no not though you could directly prove the Apostles did receive sitting.

For against this we lift up our second buckler of defence, which (I conceive) will be able to ward off the blow that you would give us, and that is this: In circumstantiall things which are indifferent, there is no absolute tye of necessity that we should follow our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, much lesse the practise of the Primitive Church; if there were any such necessity, why doe you not plead as well against the change of time and place, as that of gesture? Seeing you cannot be ignorant, that what the Apostles took in the evening, we take in the morning; what they received in a chamber, we receive in a Church; If the Church had power to alter these, why should it not have as much to doe the other? The instances which you produce for standing, (were they to the purpose, as they are not) would confirme as much. For if the Church in those times [Page] had power to varie from the order of sitting, and make use of standing in the place of it, why had not the Church afterward as much power to change that standing into kneeling?

But the truth is, the words of Tertullian, as S. Ierome In Epist ad Ephes. notes, have no reference to the Sacrament, but to the Resurrection: We stand then, saith the Father, (and it is not at the Lords Supper, but every Lords day) because it is Tempus laetitiae, quo nec genua flectuntur, nec curvamur, sed cum Domino ad coelorum alta sustollimur: A time of joy, in which we neither bow nor bend our knees, but are with the Lord lifted up (as it were) to the highest heavens. So S. Augustine, Propter hoc jejunia relaxantur, & orantes stamus, quod est signum resurrectionis: Epist. 119. Cap. 15. For this we give over fasting, and pray standing, which is a signe of the Resurrection. The Canon of the Nicene Councel is grounded meerly on the same reason, and so is also that which you cite out of S. Basil.

Howbeit did all these make to your purpose, they would yet but make good what I said before, that the change of things indifferent is in the power of the Church; and if so, why should not that power be obeyed now as well as in former Ages? S. Augustine is firme for it; That is (saith he) to be accounted indifferent, and to be observed, in respect of the society of those among whom we live, Quod neque contra fidem, ne (que) contra bonos mores injungitur 118. Epist. Cap. 2.: which being enjoyned, makes neither against faith, nor good manners. This truth the Reformed Churches in the Low-Countries [Page] doe acknowledge,Thes. Belg. 3. art. 6. and Beza likewise in his 24. Epist. Indeed if men should be suffered to doe what they list in this case, what would become of that which the Apostle requires,1 Cor. 14. 40. Decencie and Order? Surely it would breed in the Church horribilem [...], saith Paraeus In Rom. 14. 5, a horrible confusion; And from this confusion would arise no small seeds of contention, saith Calvin in his Institut. Li. 4. cap. 10 sect. 32. I have cited these, because I conceive this testimony to be of more validity with you, then that of the Fathers.

But you goe about to make kneeling no matter of indifferencie, because it tends (as you say) to Idolatry. What conformation hath kneeling, (say you) unlesse to conforme us to Transubstantiation? Since you doe not know, I will tell you; It serves to conforme you to Reverence, to Obedience, to Order; and I hope these are not Transubstantiation. Indeed could you prove what you pretend, that kneeling at the Sacrament is Idolatry, (though that would not necessarily bring in standing) you should doe something; but the instances you produce for that purpose, are sleight and triviall. That which you alledge concerning a reason before the Rubrique in the beginning of Queene Elizabeth is nothing probable; we have but your bare word for it: I may therefore say as S. Ierome doth in another case, Pari facilitate rejicitur qua recipitur Cent. Helvid.: I may as easily reject it, as you obtrude it. The rest I omit, as not worth the answeriug; and the rather, because you knit up afterward the full strength of all in an Argument. [Page] Onely I cannot passe by that speech of yours, It is an absurdity to kneele to Christs humanity. It should seeme you doe not either remember or regard what the Apostle saith, In him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God head bodily, Colos. 2. 9. and shall we not worship that wherein dwels the fulnesse of the Godhead? Doubtlesse we are to worship the Humane nature with the Divine, for our blessed Saviour is not divided,1 Cor. 1. 13. and we are to adore whole Christ.

I come now to your Argument, which you frame in this manner:

To bend the knee to a creature in divine worship, is Idolatry; but to bend the knee at the Sacrament, is to bend the knee to a creature:

Ergo, To bend the knee at the Sacrament is Idolatry.

In seeking to prove the major or Proposition, you spend more time, more paine then needs. For as when one would have made, or did make a long Oration in the praise of Hercules, another did put him off with this short answer, What needs all this? Who ever went about to dispraise him? So I may say to you, Who among us did ever bend the knee in divine adoration to a meere creature? Therefore you might have omitted this as granted, and have prosecuted the proof of your minor or assumption, which how weakly & poorly you doe, when you come at it, will easily appeare upon a due examination of it. In the meane time, you urge some things by the way, at which we may take just exception; as the definition of [Page] will-worship, [...], which you would fasten upon Perkins, but unjustly; for who of sound judgement would say, that Will-worship is a worshipping of God, with the intention of the heart, and goes no farther; how doth this distinguish it from true worship? No, he affirms it to be when God is worshipped with a naked and bare good intention, not warranted by the Word of God. Againe, you seeke an utter extirpation of all tradition that is humane, wherein you deale with too much inhumanity against it: For it may no doubt in some kind be lawfull, usefull, so long as it doth not oppose Gods Word: Nor doe any of the learned (as far as I could ever reade) deny it in this respect: Even Perkins himselfe doth in the place where you cite him, affirme as much: Nor is it any pollution of Gods worship, no addition or diminution of Scripture, (as you pretend) to make use of an indifferent Ceremonie. Lastly, your implicite conclusion from the perfect example of our Saviour Christ, (as you say) doth make explicitely against your selfe; for standing hath as little relation to sitting, as kneeling hath.

You proceed now to the Assumption, and seek to make good the proofe of it, because (as you affirme, but you doe not, indeed you cannot confirme, it) we reverence the actions, and the things in the Sacrament more then we ought. In this you are quite mistaken, and cannot be thought to write well, (though you applaud your self never so much in this worke) because you distinguish no better:qui bene distinguit, bene direct. for you confound using reverence in [Page] the actions, and of the actions, bowing the knee at the Sacrament, and to the Sacrament. Your Argument then is of no force, unlesse you can prove we worship the actions, or the Bread and Wine, which I am sure you will never be able to doe.

But lest all this should not availe to take away Kneeling, you urge an Argument of Bellarmines to doe that for you, which you cannot doe for your selfe: It should seeme the sword of the Scriture failing you, you are glad to borrow a weapon from your adversarie, and it is brandisht by you in this manner: If kneeling at the Sacrament may be as the Calvinists say, without sin, then it is not Idolatry to kneele before Images. To this I answer, first, that the case is not alike; for the Sacrament, though it be a representation, is not properly an Image. Besides, we may be without Images, we must not be without the Sacrament; The one is peremtorily commanded, the other onely in some sense permitted. Again, I answer, that to kneele before Images is not simply in it selfe unlawfull, that is, as the act hath no relation to the image, no more then it is to kneele before a pewe, or a pillar; for the command is not, that we should not bow before them, but bow to them.Exod. 20. 5.

As little availeable is your following reason, that we ought not to kneele, because the Sacrament is [...], a giving of thanks, and kneeling no fit gesture for thanksgiving. Certainly you have little ground for this opinion; for if thanksvc:\balbir\cptx\print\print\ing [Page] be a part of Prayer, (as who almost save your selfe will deny?) what fitter posture can there be for it then kneeling? Your instance of Solomon makes little to the purpose; for first, it is said, He made an end of praying; secondly, that he stood to blesse the congregation: 1 Kings 8. 55. So that it was not onely a thanksgiving unto God. And how unseemly it were in our publique prayers, when we are upon our knees, as soone as we come to a passage of thanksgiving, to start up suddenly upon our feet, let the Reader judge. Howbeit, if examples in this point may be availeable, it will be a matter of no great difficulty to produce some, who have kneeled in their giving of thanks. The Apostle tels the Philippians, that he thanks God upon every remembrance of them alwayes, in every prayer that he makes for them. Philip. 3. 4. Now it is not to be doubted, but in some of those prayers he was upon his knees. The Samaritane Leper when he was cured did expresse greater reverence; He fell downe on his face at the feet of Christ, and gave him thanks. Luke 17. 16. But what should I speak of these? Doe not the Angels and the Saints in heaven expresse their giving of thanks with all submission and reverence? we know they doe, for so we read,Revel. 7. 11. & 11. 16. And if kneeling be fit to be used in Prayer, it is so also in Thanksgiving, for that is to be joyned with Prayer.Colos. 4. 2. Continue in Prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving, saith the Apostle.

Besides, who will not confesse the gesture of kneeling in this action to be most becomming? For if the Israelites receiving onely a message of [Page] their corporall deliverance, by the ministery of Moses, bowed their head and worshipped, Exod. 4. 31. surely we have greater reason when we receive an undoubted pledge of our spirituall deliverance by the death and passion of our blessed Saviour, to humble our selves to Almighty God, and upon our knees to offer up the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving. We know that men doe many times upon their knees receive temporall favours from the hands of mortall Princes: Without doubt then it will become us to receive with all submission and reverence, this spirituall favour from the hands of immortall God, the great King of Kings.

That Epistle of S. Aug. by you cited for the abolition of indifferent Ceremonies, helps you little, unlesse you will say he doth (which he doth not) contradict what he had delivered in the Epistle immediately going before: For there he gives this rule to Ianuarius, Nulla disciplina est in his melior gravi prudenti (que) Christiano, quàm ut eo modo agat, quo agere viderit Ecclesiam, ad quamcun (que) forte devenerit. Epist. 118. Cap. 2. In these things no discipline can be better for a grave and wise Christian, then to demeane himself in that manner the Church doth, to which it is his hap to come: And he confesses he tooke this rule from S. Ambrose, Tanquam à coelesti oraculo, as from some heavenly Oracle. Therefore if you would be indeed, as you desire to be accounted, a grave and wise Christian, you must observe that discipline which is enjoyned by the Church wherein you live. And indeed in that Epistle you cite, he is so far from disallowing the rule before [Page] mentioned, that he doth highly commend it, affirming of it, that it is una & saluberrima regula retinenda, Aug. Epist. 119. Cap. 18. the onely wholsome rule to be observed.

Your last Argument to take away Kneeling at the Sacrament, is drawn from the avoiding of an inconvenience: It is (say you) an occasion of scandall and offence. I answer, The best actions may be so; but then the offence is in those that take it, not in those that give it. But I would fain know of you, if sitting or standing should be substituted in the place of kneeling, (for you seeme to be indifferent for either of these, and I think would not care what the posture were, so it were any other) how these could be used without scandall. For I perswade my selfe, that as they would give more occasion of offence, so they would give occasion of offence to more then kneeling doth. In this the greater number sure will side with us. To say nothing, that whereas you can pretend onely the bond of charity, we have besides this the bond of duty, even the command of Authority, which (as Beza observes) doth impose a kind of necessity.Epist. 24. Calvin also affirmes, that where the doctrine is sound and pure, and the Ceremonies tend to a civill decencie and honesty, it is fit rather to submit unto them, then to dissent about them,Epist. 254. especially if the greater number carry it. Now suppose all the congregations in the Kingdome were united into one, and the matter were to goe by votes, I presume I may safely affirm, that where you have ten for sitting or standing severally, nay for both joyntly, we for kneeling shall have an hundred. [Page] This reason therefore of yours is of no validity, seeing scandall would not be lessened, but encreased by this meanes.

You draw now to a conclusion; and so would I too, for I am even wearied with following you in such a confused course, but that I meet with one thing which will detain me a while. Indeede a good Christian, nay a good Subject, though a Heathen, could not passe by it without offence: Are the names of Kings (thinke you) fit things to be plaid upon, or to be stigmatized by the pens of private persons? if not, what meanes your new coind word Carolicall? Minutius records of Mercurius Tresmegistus, that even the Heathen, because he was a great Philosopher, would not use his name without great reverence: Is there not as much respect due to Kings, as to Philosophers? Suetonius reports of Augustus Caesar, he wrote to the Senate of Rome, to take order that his name might not absole fieri, be worn thread bare among the common people, by their frequent and triviall using of it; And can our King then take it wel at your hands you should abuse his name, and that in so serious and weighty a matter as Religion? Surely when I consider this, I cannot a little wonder at your inconsiderate boldnesse, nay, irreligious impietie. For if a Subject may not revile his Prince, no not in his thoughts,Eccles. 10. 20. much lesse is he to doe it in his words, especially in such as proceede not from suddain passion, but from mature deliberation, and being committed to the presse, are exposed to a publique view. I could [Page] never heare that his Majesty is any way tainted in Religion, you may justly be suspected, therefore I shall rether follow that Church, which is (if I may lawfully repeat the terme you use) Carolical, then that which is Peytonicall, that is, rather the Doctrine, and the Discipline of the Church of England, then the fancies and factions of some few Sectaries, and Schismaticks.

And now I will shut up all with an inversion of your conclusion. Seeing kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, is in it selfe a Ceremony that is indifferent; seeing it is as judicious Hooker terms it, the gesture of pietie;Ecclesiast. polit. lib. 5. nay, as Beza himselfe acknowledgeth, doth carry a shew of pious reverence;Epist. 12. seeing it is enjoyned by authority, and that of the King, of the Church, of the State; seeing it is practised by the generality; seeing it is refused only by some few out of singnlarity, Qui nisi quod ipsi faciunt nihil rectum existimant, as Saint Aug. speaks,Epist. 118. Cap. 2. who thinke nothing to be right but what they doe themselves, you ought not to require at my hands an administration of the Sacramen unto you standing, or to be offended with me or any other, who (rebus sic stantibus) shall refuse to satisfie your desire, that he may comply with the authority of the Church.

Mart. 15. 1642.

Imprimatur, Tho: Wykes.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

An ansvver to a book set forth by Sir Edward Peyton, knight and baronet carrying this title A discourse concerning the fitnesse of the posture necessary to be used in taking the bread and wine at the Sacrament / by Rodger Cocks ...

Cocks, Roger, fl. 1630-1642.

Edition statement

1642

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A33596

ID [STC]

Wing C4874

ID [STC]

ESTC R13366

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12594017

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12594017

ID [VID]

64002

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A33596)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64002)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 251:E141, no 12)

Source

— An ansvver to a book set forth by Sir Edward Peyton, knight and baronet carrying this title A discourse concerning the fitnesse of the posture necessary to be used in taking the bread and wine at the Sacrament / by Rodger Cocks ..., Cocks, Roger, fl. 1630-1642..

Extent

[2], 22 p.

Printed for Nath. Butter,. London :: 1642.. (Reproduction of original in Thomason Collection, British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.