CAP. 1. The definition of a Ceremonie.

BEfore I meddle with any your obje­ctions, or questions concerning our Church-Ceremonies, I hold it need­full to set downe certaine Heads, to which I may referre in answering, beginning with the Definition of a Ceremonie.

A Ceremonie is an outward action purposely done in reference to some other thing, of the substance whereof it is no cause or part.

1. Thus the recitall of the Creed at Baptisme, is a Cere­monie serving to shew, vnto what Faith every one is bound by the stipulation of Baptisme; whereas the recitall of it as a profession of our Faith to the honouring of God, is not a Ceremony, but an act of relig [...]ous worship and service to God in it selfe, for the substance of it.

2. The terme of Circumstance is not so fit for our vse, as that of Ceremonie. 1. Because it is more large; for though every Ceremony be a Circumstance of that matter to which [Page 2] it serveth as a Ceremony: yet is not euery circumstance a Ce­remony; for, some Circumstances are intrinsecall, and essen­tiall to actions, and specially making vp their nature. 2. Any casuall thing may be a Circumstance, but to a Ceremony it is essentiall, that it be purposely done.

Ceremonies which wee may call Religious, in distinction from meerely Civill, are Divine, or Ecclesiasticall which wee will call Humane.

The Sacraments, as touching the vse of the outward Ele­ments, in such maner as is prescribed, are Ceremonies, in re­lation to the things internal: yet are they of the substance of the Sacrament, quoad externū, in respect of the externall part thereof; & because of the divine Institution, the observance thereof is religious worship of God de se, of it selfe. The like be said of the Ceremonies of the Law of Moses, during the Obligation of the Law. Our disquisition is not of such, but onely of such as in suo individuo, in the very particular individuall, are of humane institution, or (which is to vs all one) application.

CAP. 2. The meaning of that phrase, [In the worship of God]

NExt, wee must state the meaning of this phrase [in the worship of God] For it may signifie that which is done to God for a piece of worship to him in and of it selfe, as is the blessing, breaking and delivery, of the Bread in the Lords Supper. Thus nothing can lawfully bee vsed or done in the worship of God, more then hee hath prescribed. Other­wise, a thing is done in the worship of God, which is not done as a part of the essentiall worship, but onely as an arbi­trary adjunct. Thus we vse our Ceremonies.

CAP. 3. How our Ceremonies may be called Worship of God, and how not.

WEe must also vnderstand one another, when wee af­firme or denie our Church-Ceremonies to be worship [Page 3] of God, lest we haue, as S. Aug. speakes, litem interminatum, an endlesse controversie, and seeme to assent or dissent, when wee doe not.

Any act internall or externall, done with intention to ho­nour God thereby, is Cultus, worship of God. This done to that which is not God, as if it were God, is Idolatry against the first Commandement.

When the honour is intended to the true obiect of religi­ous worship, God, it is either mediately done to honour him, as in the duties of the second Table, done in obedience to God; or more immediately, as in the duties of the first Ta­ble, done to God for his honour.

The immediate worship of God is either Internall and principall, or externall and secondary.

The internall consisteth in those actings of the soule, which as it were naturally arise out of the true knowledge of God, and may bee reduced to Dependance on him, or Ho­mage to him.

The externall worship of God, is some outward action done in relation to the internall worship of God, which gi­veth subsistence to it; and so, to the honouring of God.

This externall worship of God is either false, when it is framed meerely of the will of man, which is the thing for­bidden in the second Commandement. Or, wholly accor­ding to the will of God, and then is true worship externall.

The true externall worship of God is so, and so called Ra­tione medij, or modi, in respect either of the meanes, or man­ner of worship.

In respect of the Meanes, all true worship of God is grounded either on Gods speciall cammaund, to haue such a thing done to him; and this is properly worship ex se, in and of it selfe: Or vpon Gods allowance onely, as touching the particular; and this is worship of God ratione medij, as it is a meanes of performing it: but not ex se, in and of it selfe, but per aliud, by vertue of some thing else. Of this sort are the bodily gestures, whereby as by outward signes wee pro­fesse to giue honour to God, whereof no particulars are de­termined in the Word.

[Page 4]In respect of the Manner, the externall worship of God consisteth in the reverend vsage of his prescribed worship, and is conteined in those rules of the Apostle,1. Cor. 14.26, 40. Let all things bee done to edification, according to order and decencie. And to this belongs the third Commandement; which forbidding all irreverent vse of Gods Name in his Titles or Ordinan­ces, commandeth the contrary in generall.

Now because God hath not particularly prescribed those externall Rites which belong to the manner of his outward service, therfore the same are not properly, and in themselues religious worship.D. Ames Me­ [...]ll. part. 2. s [...]p. 1 [...]. thes. 23. And yet because the Genus; or generall nature of them, Order and Decencie; and immediate end, the edification of men is commanded, therefore reductiuely, and in their generall nature, in respect of their vtmost end, which is the honouring of God, they must bee vouchsafed, in that sense and notion, the title of Divine worship. And in this sense we affirme our Ceremonies to be worship of God, other­wise denie them to be worship.

Onely I would haue it considered, that the same humane Ceremony which hath rationem modi, respect vnto the man­ner, may haue also rationem medij, the respect of a meane in worship; but not medij per se, of a meane of and by it selfe, as namely, kneeling in prayer. That this distinction may ap­peare not to be devised for a shift, I will (in a Chapter by it selfe) confirme it by Witnesses, and otherwise.

CAP. 4. The same exemplified by Instances in divers other particulars.

THis the Scripture confirmeth, when it saith, that Han­nah serued God night and day, Luke 2 37. in fasting and prayer. It is plaine therefore, that her so frequent fasting was a service of God, and not onely her Prayers. And yet not a service as her Prayers, in and of it selfe, it not being so commanded of God,T. C. Answ to the Rhemists. but as a thing in generall commanded, and in that par­ticular manner allowed onely, because it did, as M^r. Cart­wright saith, giue a speedier wing vnto Praier: and it was an [Page 5] act of religious worship, yea and a meanes of it, not in and of it selfe, but per aliud, by another thing, or propter aliud, for another thing: yet it was worship in some sense, or else Saint Luke was deceived.

The second Commandement (saith M. Cartwright) con­demning all will-worship,Cartwright. p 96. with 98. and p. 100.101 requireth that we worship God as himselfe hath commaunded or allowed in his Word: which are also the words of Bullinger. The same M. Cart­wright divideth the Worship of God into Substantiall and Circumstantiall. The Circumstantiall hee placeth in bodily gestures, accommodated to the severall acts of instituted worship: Good, then (in his judgement) there is a worship which is commanded in particular, which is Substantiall: and there is a worship which is onely allowed in the particular, (though commanded in genere suo, in his kind) which is but Circumstantiall; and what is this, but a worship which [...]s so properly, in and of it selfe, and a worship which is not so simply in and of it selfe, which to the other is an adiunct, not a part of it.

Thus Chamier, To. 3. lib. 20. cap. 5. saith of Ʋowes arbi­trary, that they are Culius Dei, non per se, sed per accident, & propter aliud, Worship of God, not of themselues, but by ac­cident, and for some other thing.

Thus Iunius in Bellar. Cont. 7. cap. 10. an. 13. saith, Par­tem esse cultus Dei ambiguè dicitur. Si proprie interpreteris fal­sum est enunciatum, That it is a part of divine worship, is ambiguously said: If you meane properly, the assertion is false. (viz. which said that the observation of the Anni­versary feasts of the Nativitie and Easter, &c. was pars cul­tus divini, part of divine worship:) for (saith Iunius) Acci­dens contingens non est rei pars, sed adiunctum dicendum: A contingent accident is not to bee termed a part of a thing, but an adjunct: si figuratè, nulla est consequentia, if it be spo­ken figuratiuely, there is no consequence in it, viz. to proue that the Church might make Lawes binding the conscience of and by themselues, as Gods Lawes doe, which constitute proper necessary worship.

Thus Polanus, Syntag. p. 528. who (in Syntagmate) defineth the true wor­ship [Page 6] of God to bee the performance of what hee hath com­manded in obedience to him to his honour: yet in his Par­titions printed at London, See also Pag. 131, 132, 133, 134. 1591. pag. 128. hee saith, that An Ecclesiasticall Rite or Ceremony is outward Worship of God, Quo Deus externe colitur, whereby he is outwardly worshipped, not forgetting or crossing himselfe; but taking the name of Worship in the one properly considered, and improperly or re­ductiuely in the other; in which sense he in the other places calleth the Institution and Observance of Holy dayes, wor­ship.

Theol. printed at Lond. 1613. pag. 383.M^r. Fenner maketh bowing of the knee or head, modu­lation of the voyce, lifting vp of the hands or eyes, to bee parts of the externall worship of God: which M^r. Cart­wright (in his Catechisme on the second Commandement) calleth Circumstantiall worship, in distinction to that which hee calleth Substantiall.

Tilenus in Syntag. printed at Sedan, 1613. pag. 383. saith, that a vow of a thing commanded, is cultus Dei per se, wor­ship of God in and of it selfe; but of a thing not comman­ded, is cultus Dei per accidens, worship of God by acci­dent onely.

Bucan. Instit. pag. 566. saith, That Ecclesiasticall Rites may not be deemed or taken to be worship of God per se, & ex opere operato, of themselues, and as a worke done.

Melancthon in Corpore Theol. printed 1571. pag. 719. ha­ving shewed that no man may institute any worship of God, addeth, i. e. Workes that God so alloweth, that hee holdeth himselfe to bee honoured in them, ex se, of themselues. And pag. 52. Opera, workes whose immediate end is, that God may bee honoured [per illa] by them.

This difference of worship which is simply necessary, ra­tione praecepti, & medij ex se, in respect of precept, and as a meane of it selfe, and of worship, ratione medij, as a meane, non precepti, sed probati, not commanded, but allowed, must be acknowledged in sundry actes of holy men reported in Scriptures, as also that difference of medium, & modus cul­tus, of a meanes, and manner of worship. For in the Free­will offerings, when a man was left at libertie to offer a bul­locke, [Page 7] goat, or sheepe at his pleasure; if hee chose a bullocke to offer, that sacrifice in that particular, was not commaun­ded, but onely allowed. Indeed the Manner, because it was prescribed, was Cultus sub praecepto necessarius, worship by precept made necessary.1 Ki [...] [...] 2 Chro. 6. & [...]. Salomons peace offerings of 22000 bullocks, and 120000 sheep, at the Dedication of the Tem­ple, and burning some of the Sacrifices on the Brasen Altar, and some on the floore of the Court, and his Prayer, knee­ling on a scaffold, with his hands stretched out to heauen, were all worship of God; but not all of the same Considera­tion: For sacrifice to God was then necessary ex praecepts, by vertue of a commandement; the number of bullocks and sheep, was worship ex fine, in respect of the end, & of allow­ance onely: his prayer was worship ex se, of it selfe; the Ce­remonies of it, worship reductiue ad modum in genere suo, ha­ving respect to the manner in the generall kind thereof: the burning on the Altar was necessary in se, in it selfe; that in the Court onely lawfull, before the brasen Altar was conse­crated (which was but then in fieri, in the making) and vp­on the present necessitie.

That Princes should hold Gods people to him, was of command, and necessary, but that Ioshua should endeauour it by the Monitory stone set vp at Iosh. 24 2 [...]. Shechem, (2 Chron. 15.14. Asa by an oath, Nehe. 9. v. 10.1. Nehemiah by subscription) was onely of allowance, not of precept, and worship to God, not per se, of it selfe, but propter aliud, in reference to some other thing, and ex fine vltimo, with respect to the vtmost end.

The like is to be said of Salomons 14 dayes of Solemnitie vsed to the honouring of God, at the Dedication of the Temple1 Kin. 8.65.: Hezekiahs and his Princes designment of 7 dayes more2 Chron. 30.23.: Mordecaies Purim dayesHester 9., and a number such like, in which there was certainly some worship of God inten­ded, but not simply and in the things themselues, as in the observation of the Sabbath day, but reductiuely and propter aliud, in reference to some other thing, which was the soule of this worship.

This wil shew in what sense we may call our Ceremonies worship of God, and in what meaning wee deny them to bee worship.

[Page 8]And this will shew the difference betwixt vs and the Pa­pists,Bell To. 4. col 14. [...]5. for they professe all these Ceremonies to bee a part of the Divine worship, yea necessary and meritorious, such as euen extra casum scandali & contemptus, without the case of scandall and contempt, saith Bellar cannot be omitted with­out sinne, which is indeed to pronounce them divine wor­ship in themselues:Com. in Col. 2.23. whereas wee say with Zanchie, That whatsoever is added to the worship of God deliuered in his word, added (I say) by men as part of divine worship, is will worship; that is, as hee there also saith of Traditions of men, where­with the consciences of men are bound, and which are ioyned with an opinion of divine worship and merit.

CAP. 5. What is meant by Matters of meere Order.

THe next consideration may be of these words, Matters of meere order. For Order is sometimes taken strictly in opposition to Confusion; and as so, is a distinct thing from decency. Thus it is vsed, 2 Cor. 14.40. in which sense Order is but the timing, & placing of each thing afore or after other.

De Polit. Ec­clesiast. pag. 1.But Order is sometimes so largely taken, as to compre­hend the disposition and manner of handling any ordinance of God, and is as large (saith M. Parker) as Policy, and ta­ken Pro disciplina tota, for the whole discipline, so Col. 2.5. And so Paul vseth the verbe, 1. Cor. 11. vlt. Other things will J order when I come.

Yet wee take it not so very largely Pro disciplina tota, for the whole discipline in respect of the essentials thereof, pre­scribed of God to remaine in perpetuity, and not vnder the Churches dispose.

Whatsoeuer therefore in the worship of God, or gouern­ment of the Church, is not Essentiall or Diuine, but may bee varied and disposed of, according to the generall rules of the Word; that wee call Matter of meere Order in Contradis­tinction to matter of Simple Necessity, whereto the Consci­ence is bound; because in these things, nothing but Obedi­ence is left to the Church; but, a power of Disposing (which [Page 9] is to Order) is left to her in those things, to doe (according to the generall rules of the Word) therein, whatsoeuer, saith Master Calvin, The necessity of the Church shall require. That is, for Peace, Safety, Profit, Edification, and Aduantage in spirituall things.

Order in the strict sense, admits (as the Replier to Bp. Mor­ton faith) no New thing, but onely the disposing of things ordained in time and place. But Order, in the large sense, ad­mitteth all such things vnprescribed as belong to the Churches seruice, and furtherance in the seruice of God, and as Melancthon saith, ad ornandum ordinem, to adorne order.

In this larger sense it is [...], good or comely order,Iun. anim ad. in Bellar. de cultu sancte [...] [...] lib. 3. cap. 10. annotat. 13. Repl. 1. part. pag. 44. and thus Iunius taketh it, when, to Bellarmine objecting the Feast of Purim appointed by Mordecai, to proue thereby that the Church may make Lawes proprij nominis, properly so called, which in themselues doe bind the conscience: Iu­nius answereth, Praeceptum fuit politicum, (that is, as the Re­plier translateth it, It was a Precept of order:) Iunius addes, Ibid. annot. 34. De Rom. Pont. pag. 841. &c. Non sequitur ex dispari, But that which Bellarmine would thence inferre, being of a different nature, followes not. Ne­que enim negamus suam Ecclesiae politiamesse, sed imperium per se obligans conscientiam. Nor doe wee deny the Church her pollicy; but onely her imperiall authority, that of it selfe binds the conscience.

Thus Doctor Whitaker taketh it when hee saith, that All which the Church may determine off, belongeth ad [...], to good order, and by this he putteth off afterwards Bellar. ob­iections, as Iunius doth.

Thus the August. confession. Artic. 7. de Abusibus. Doce­mus pastores Ecclesiarum posse in Ecclesiis suis publico [...] ritus in­stituere, sed tantum ad finem corporalem, h. e. boni ordinis causa, viz. ritus vtiles ad docendum multitudinē, vt certas dies, certas lectiones, & siqua sunt similia; Sed sine superstitione, & sine opinione necessitatis, vt has ordinationes violare, extra casum scandali, non ducatur esse peccatum, &c. We teach that Pastors of Churches may institute publicke rites in their Churches, but only to a corporall end, that is, for good orders sake: viz. rites profitable to teach the people, as namely cer­taine [Page 10] dayes (to be obserued) certaine lessons (to be read) and such like: but without superstition, and without opinion of necessity; and that it should not be accounted sinne to vi­olate these ordinances, vnlesse in the case of scandall which might follow thereupon.

Instit. 4. cap. 10. sect. 28.For as Master Calvin saith, when a Law is once knowen to be made publicae honestatis causa, iam sublata est omnis Superstitio, for publicke comelinesse sake, all Superstition is taken away from it: and when it is knowne, Ad communem vsum spec­tare, euersa est falsa illa obligationis & necessitatis opinio, &c. To looke at common vse or benefit, that false opinion of ob­ligation and necessity, is ouerthrowne and remoued.

Whatsoeuer therefore is ordained in the Church, as an Arbitrary and moueable Rite or Ceremony, in the vse wher­of no Immediate or proper worship of God is placed, but the thing in it selfe still reckoned to bee indifferent; that is a matter of meere Order, sensu largo, in the large acception of Order.

CAP. 6. The scope of the second Commandement.

TO these I will adde something about the scope of the second Commandement.

The scope of the second Commandement is, by forbid­ding all will-worship, vnder the vsuall and grossest kind of it, to inioyne and tye vs to such meanes and wayes of worshipping God, as himselfe hath commanded or allowed, as Master Cartwright saith.

Whatsoeuer therefore is forbidden in this Commande­ment, is either Directly forbidden, or only by Consequence.

1. Things Directly forbidden, I call such as are Prohibi­ted either Expressely, or Analogically, as it were in recta lineâ, in a direct line.

1. In Expresse termes, two things. 1. The making of any Image or similitude (not simply, but) to be a representa­tion of a God-head to vs in the Essence, Properties, Speciall presence, or Dispensation of grace thereby. Of which the [Page 11] reason is, that all such fansied representations, speake no­thing but lies of the God-head. 2. The tendring of any ser­uice or honour to God, so much as outwardly, at, in and by such an Image made by the only will of man: all which ser­uice though by man intended to God, yea though to the true God, yet falleth short of him, and resteth in the Image, as if it were onely done to it; therefore is it said, Thou shalt not bow thy selfe to them, nor serue them.

2. Analogically, are forbidden: First, all false Imagina­tion, and conceits of the God-head, in respect of his Being, Presence, Dispensation of grace, or will. For all these doe falsifie the true God to vs, as doth an Image or outward shape, made for representation of him, at mans pleasure. And secondly, the Substitution or vse of any wayes and meanes of seruing God, meerely after the will of man, i. e. which God hath not either commanded in particular, or at least allowed in Generall.

2. By Consequent, all such things, as doe prouoke necessa­rily, vnto the breach of this Precept, are here forbidden.

On the contrary wee are inioyned to receiue such (as I may say) Images or representations, as God himselfe shall institute for declaration of his presence, Glory, Grace, or Will. For as Doctor Ames Medul. lib. 2. cap. 13. Thes. 11 well saith, tibi, in [non facies tibi] is not redundant as sometimes it is, but Emphaticall to shew that God restraineth men from doing that which hee reserueth to himselfe alone in that matter. And secondly he requireth all due respect and reuerent Adoration, to be per­formed to himselfe, by such wayes and meanes as himselfe hath either Commanded in particular, or in particular allow­ed, by commanding the Generall kind, to which that parti­cular belongeth. And by Consequence hee requireth such meanes to bee vsed as may further vs in this true worship of him.

CAP. 7. Of the Termes of Seruice, Worship, Adoration and Veneration.

1. WE sometimes vse these termes promiscuously and indifferently, yet is there a difference be­twixt some and others of them. For Seruice is more large then Adoration or Ʋeneration, which is Worship in our language. All Adoration is Seruice, but all Seruice of God is not Adoration, or Veneration.

[...]2. The Iewes had no word which directy answereth to Adoration, but vse the Termes which signifie some bowing, whether of the knee, head, backe; or prostration of the whole body, grouelling on the belly, and face to the ground. Hence in the Commandement; Thou shalt not bow downe, which is to say, thou shalt not worship nor adore them, nor Serue them, nec coles.

Adoration therefore, and Ʋeneration or Worship, strictly and properly vnderstood, signifie such Gestures and com­portment of the body, as serue for a signe and expression of Internall esteeme and respect of that, to which these ex­pressions referre. And yet are the wordes applyed and translated sometimes to Angels or other Creatures which can make no bodily expressions; And sometimes to the in­ward reuerence of the Heart, because the same is vsually a­mongst men, expressed by some bodily signes.

4. The outward Adoration consisteth in bodily signes, but the Seruice of God stands not in them simply. Hence our Diuines rightly deny any humane Ceremonies to bee partes cultus scil. in se, parts of worship to wit in themselues, but onely adjuncts to essentiall or proper worship, i. e. Ser­uice of God; who yet graunt them to be parts of the exter­nall Adoration: which externall Adoration is not Cultus in suo Individuo, worship in the particular indiuiduall, because not prescribed; but onely in suo genere, in the generall kind of it, and as it leaneth vnto some other seruice of God, to which it serueth as matter of Decency, or Order, which God hath in Generall required.

[Page 13]5. The outward Expressions of Adorations neuer were deuised or instituted of God, but taken from the customary vsage of men, which generally did vse some or other as ben­ding and bowing in signe of respect, reuerence or honour one towards another. And yet all the world neuer agreed in one fashion of shewing respect. But haue pleased them­selues in seuerall wayes.See Heylins History of the World. Edit. 4 pag 686.734.729.805.

The men of I [...]pall salute one another by putting off their shooes; as they of China by putting off their hatts one to ano­ther, as wee doe.

In Ethiopia the Subiects sit in the presence of their King in signe of Subiection, because Standing before him is there a token of greatest dignity.

The Negroes giue signe of reuerence to their King by sit­ting on their buttocks with their Elbowe on their knees, and hands on their faces, as not worthy to looke on him.

They of the Hands called Bucalaos shew their highest re­uerence to their King by rubbing their noses, and foreheads in his presence; perhaps to signifie their itching after his fauour.

Kissing of the King, was with the Iewes a signe of Ho­mage, and subiection with loue. Hence, they kissed Saul. 1 Sam. 10.1. Hence that phrase, Psal. 2.11 Kisse the Sonne: and from that recei­ved formalitie, came in Adoration of their representatiue gods, by kissing them: As, Kisse the Calues, in Hosea;Hosh. 13.2. and thus in Iob, If my heart haue kissed my hand in secret, for,Iob 31.27. if I haue so much as in my minde intended to worship the Moone. And from this, kissing of the Emperor or his gar­ments, and so of the Idols in reference to their Deities, came the Latine word Adoratio, and not from bowing or knee­ling, as some haue obserued.

The Iewes adored in prayer, with their heads and faces covered, in signe of awfull reverence; wee, by being vn­covered.

Some Nations worshipped sitting on beds before their I­dols, as Lib. de O­ratione. Tertull. sheweth. And by the same reason by which Altare Damascenum saith, that sitting cross-legged, as the Turkes doe at their meales, should be amongst them (if they were converted) a comely fashion of receiving the Lords [Page 14] Supper; by the same, any of the former fashions in the Na­tions aboue-said, should bee comely expressions of giving honour to God, because by vse and construction amongst them, they are vnderstood for signes of giving honour.

CAP. 8. That Adoration and Ʋeneration differ not, but by mens wills.

ADoration and Veneration haue no formall difference be­twixt themselues, either from the nature of the words, or common vsage of them; much lesse by any Scripture-li­mitation. Onely, because there is a difference of the su­preame honour due alone and aboue all to God, and that which in an inferiour degree, is allowed to Gods excellent Ordinances or Creatures, some men doe suppose such a dif­ference in these words: which yet is really no more in the words themselues, then the twelue Signes in the Zodiacke. Nor is this distinction any better then that of [...], and [...], by which men suppose a distinction of the Divine and supreame worship proper to God, and that inferiour re­gard which may bee shewed to the Creatures. In which the difference is just, as in casting Counters, wherein one is but one peny, another stands for one shilling, a third for one pound, without any difference made in the Counters themselues.

CAP. 9. Of Divine and Civill Adoration.

AS Adoration, and Ʋeneration differ not in the words, but onely by the intendments of men in vsing them; So Adoration of God is not differenced by any outward ex­pressions, which men vse in token of honour from Civill Adoration; but either by the intention of the minde, or by the ordinance of man. Hence it is, that we find all the same words which import bowing of the knee, head, trunke, or prostration on the face, familiarly given to such reverence, as was thereby signified, as well in civill respects vnto men, [Page 15] as religiously vnto God in his worship. And it is well ob­served by Buxtorfius, that the Iewes knew, or had no outward gesture which was appropriated to divine Adoration, saue onely prostration with their feet and hands spread and splayed out, as in a swimming frog, which might not bee vsed any where, no not in Gods worship, saue onely in the Sanctuarie. And this was made a distinctiue signe of supreme Adoration or Veneration, onely by the appoyntment and intendment of it. They are therefore much deceived, that thinke Kneeling to bee any more a signe of Divine adoration, then other ex­pressions of Veneration, as sitting bare-headed, though with vs it is a signe of greater respect then the other. But there are in Divine, as well as Civill veneration, divers degrees of intension, which vary not the kind one from another.

CAP. 10. Whether Kneeling bee any Divine Adoration by divine Institution, or Application of it to true Divine Worship.

1. THe last thing to be considered, is,Pag. 88. and 783. & 809. that God hath not fixed the gesture of Kneeling to any one act or other of his own externall worship or service, as Altare Damasce­num rightly observeth; no not to Prayer. For as for those words, Psal. 95.5. O come let vs worship, i. e. prostrate and bow downe our selues, and kneele before the Lord our Maker, it is not a Precept, as that Authour of Alt. Damasc. saith, but an Exhortation: and doth (say I) no more prooue that God required it necessarily in any act of his solemne wor­ship, then those words, [Praise him in the daunces] and [O clap your hand,] or [Shout out for joy,] doe proue, that God required them to dance in his solemne praises, to clap hands or shout. Onely it is true, that such Exhortations shew, that these were allowed of God, as they were vsed of godly men in his solemne Service, as expressions of joy in honouring of God.

2. And if that Scripture did intend an Injunction precep­tiue for Kneeling, yet no more then for bowing or falling flat, [Page 16] which we translate Worship. And if all these had been insti­tuted gestures of religious worship in the Temple, by ver­tue of that Exhortation, yet should not this of Kneeling bee assigned to any act of religious service more then other, see­ing all those three are put together conjunctiuely; Let vs Worship, Bow downe, and Kneele, &c. which will manifestly proue, that they were all three indifferently vsed, and to bee vsed in any duties of worship, when they came before God, and meant to expresse their holy reverence of their God.

3. Whence also it was, that (as August. obserueth) the holy servants of God, publikely or privately, even in prayer it selfe, sometimes stood, as did the Publican and Pharisies, who are blamed, not for standing in Prayer, but for praying to be seene of men; Some sate reverently before the Lord, as David, 2. Sam. 7. though commonly they vsed to kneele, or bow themselues downe. As also that they vsed all three sorts of bowing, or externall Adoration, both occasionally vpon any extraodinary message, or other signall of Gods presence or favour; or ordinarily in the seuerall acts of his worship, as well as kneeling in any of them, with free conscience, be­cause God in his wisdome had spared to enjoyne any one or other set fashion of externall gesture as fixed to the free­hold; God prouiding that hee which could not performe the gesture, might yet performe the seruice, yea and Adora­tion to him by such expressions as hee could well vse; as Dauid Adored in his bed, 1. King. 1.47. And that the con­sciences of men might not be snared by such a necessity; nor occasion giuen to superstition in matters of that Quality.

4. Neither are they well aduised which will needs haue Kneeling a gesture of religious Adoration, because it is as they say, a signe of the greatest reuerence or humbling of our selues; For if bowing the head and backe, be not grea­ter, yet surely prostration flat on the ground was: For as Saint Augustine saith, Hee that toucheth the earth with his knees may goe lower, but so cannot hee, who toucheth it with his belly and face. And yet euen that gesture of pros­tration was vsed in giuing ciuill honour and respect to men, and not onely in Adoration to God, as hath beene said.

[Page 17]5. Wherefore, as Calvin saith of Kneeling in prayer it selfe,Inst. 4.10.29. that though God haue not prescribed it in particular, yet in as much as it is a part of that Decorum which God requi­reth in his worship, It is so humane that wee may also call it diuine: euen so say wee of any gesture which is knowne to be a signe of reuerence and respect.

And valesse wee shall graunt this, wee will bee driuen to say, that they did not Adore the Idoll that kissed the Calues, as did they that bowed the knee to Baal, nor they that lifted vp their eyes or hands to the Idols of the Mountaines, as well as the man that bowed and humbled himselfe. Nor may wee any more say (as others haue, truely done) that Honorius the third was the first man that decreed Adorati­on to the Sacrament it selfe, because hee onely decreed that men should reuerently bow themselues to the Sacrament (not in receiuing it, but) when it (after the Consecration) was eleuated by the Priest, or caried in the streets. For this bowing (belike) was no gesture of Adoration, being vsually done in Ciuil reuerence to men. Only kneeling is Adoration.

Yea, and hence will follow, that neither Pope,Ordo Bon. nor Masse-priest adoreth either Christ or the Sacrament in the act of receiuing, seeing the Pope, for state, receiues it sitting, & the Masse-priest, by the Canon of the Masse, reuerenter stans ad Altare, reuerently standing: Nay, that they which refuse to receiue this Sacrament Kneeling, and will either stand, or sit bare headed reuerently, yet they Adore not Christ him­selfe or God in partaking the Sacrament, because they vse not that which is the proper gesture of Diuine Adoration, as they say, Kneeling.

6. That Christ the sonne of the liuing God is to be Ado­red both Internally and Externally, out of the Sacrament, and in the Sacrament, though not as conteined in the Ele­ments, or existent, quoad corpus, bodily in the place where was the substance of Bread and Wine, as they speake, hee is not a Christian that doubteth, as Chamier well saith. But An maior cultus propter Ritum? Is the worship of him the greater for the outw [...]rd Ceremonies? hee meaneth by the Question, that without question it is not. But it must bee [Page 18] greater, if this gesture were onely a gesture of Adoration and none other which are not altogether equall with it for signification of highest reuerence. I adde, that by this Di­uinity a man may be bare-headed or put off his hat, or make courtesie, or bend his body to the very Sacrament it selfe. without any reference of these signes of reuerence to God or Christ, and yet commit no idolatry, because he doth not giue to them any Diuine respect, or Adoration, in as much as hee doth not Kneele; which were a strange Paradox to bee taught.

7. Finally, I would haue men consider, to what extremi­ty (not so much ignorance, as) the desire of victory hath caried these men, who taking Kneeling to bee an instituted Ordinance of God, annexed to some duties of his externall worship; doe complaine of our translating of Gods owne or­dinances out of their proper place, by applying the vse of Kneeling to the receipt of the Sacrament,Course of Con­formitie wrir­ten by a Scot­tish-man vn­named. comparing this to that Impiety of Ieroboam, who translated the worship of God from Jerusalem to Dan and Bethell, and altered the day and moneth of Gods holy Feast, to another moneth and day deuised of his owne heart; As if they had, or could make it plaine, that God had nailed kneeling to prayer, or to some o­ther of his seruices, as wee are sure that God had confined all Sacrifice-worship, to the place that hee had then chosen to place his name there, and vtterly disallowed his people to al­ter the times of any his prefixed solemnities. Now come wee to the Arguments.

CAP. XI. The first Argument against Kneeling answered.

Arg. 1. NO humane Ceremonies which are more then mat­ters of Meere order, may lawfully be vsed in the worship of God.

But some of our Church-ceremonies are more then matters of meere Order. Therefore some of our Ceremonies cannot lawfully bee vsed in the worship of God.

[Page 19] Answ. What wee intend by these words vsed in the wor­ship of God, hath beene set downe, in Cap. 2. and also what different notion there is of the word Order, Cap. 5. Accor­ding to which I answer, That if you vnderstand Order in the strictest sense, the Minor is true, but the Maior is false; For then, no humane Ceremony which tendeth properly to Decorum, should be lawfull; which is contrary to the Text, 1. Cor. 14.40. which requireth all things to bee done Be­commingly or Decently, not onely according to Order. But if Order be taken in the larger sense, as it ought, then is the Maior true but the Minor false, which saith that any of our Ceremonies (viz. in the Churches Intendment and vse of them) are more then matters of meere Order. Let vs try that by the Argument brought to proue the Minor.

Whatsoeuer ceremonies are instituted and vsed to stirre vp men in respect of their signification, vnto the remembrance of their Duties to God, are in such vse matters of more then mere Order. But such is the intended vse of some of our ceremonies (as is plaine in that Publicke declaration of Ceremonies in expresse words affirming so much:) Therefore some of them may not lawfully bee vsed, &c.

Answ. I confesse the Minor to bee true of some our Ce­remonies; but deny the Maior Proposition which supposeth the vse of a Rite or Ceremony for Signification, to bee more then matter of meere Order, when it is not imposed or ob­serued as operatiue, or as necessary to bee obserued as a ser­uice of God in it selfe, or binding the conscience Ex se of it selfe, but with a free conscience. For this can be esteemed but a matter of meere Order sensu largo, in a large sense: The Maior therefore is faulty by opposing things Coordi­nate, if they were opposite. I shew it in the like.

Bellarmine would proue that the Church may make lawes to bind the conscience, the obseruation whereof shall bee a proper worship of God. To this end he thus dispu­teth: The Christian Churches obserued the Aniuersary feasts of Christs Natiuity and Resurrection &c. not for Or­der, but as Commemoratiue Ceremonies for Commemoration [...] [Page 22] man may bee holpen with two crutches, but hindred with three or foure: and more, with more.

2. Because, in sundry of them, they laboured to expresse the Mysteries and Historie of the Gospell, as Brentius ob­jecteth, which was (as I may say) to shut out the cleare Sun-light, and set vp a little candle: or, at the best, to set vp a Candle where the Sunne shineth, to giue light.

3. Sundry of them, (as the Churches Declaration of Ce­remonies saith) were vtterly vnprofitable, and others darke and dumbe.

4. Many of them consisted in the vse of consecrated Creatures, consecrated (as Bellarmine saith) to signifie and ef­fect supernaturall effects; which was to put vpon them the very nature of Sacraments.

5. Because they placed (as Calvin saith) ipsissimur [...] Dei cultum, the very worship of God it selfe in the vse of them. But that they were not refused for the very reason of signifi­cancie alone, appeareth both by the practise of all Churches, which retaine some or others of that kinde, as the Feasts of the Nativitie, and Easter: And Iudgements; for all that ever I saw,Perkins. Zanch. professedly allow some such; as namely, dipping vnder the water in Baptizing, as more significant then sprinckling: and euen the vse of the Crosse, as a meere significant Rite, as at the first vsage, yea and Kneeling at the Communion, as a token of godly reverence, which in all times before the Do­ctrine of the Reall presence, Beza himselfe judgeth to haue been of lawfull and profitable vse. And the Treatise called, Dialecticon Eucharistia, printed at Geneva, and set out with Beza his Workes and liking, saith, it might also bee now well reserved, when the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church is restored. And this the Dutch and French Chur­ches doe professedly allow, never thinking it either vnlaw­full, or inconvenient because of the signification, or more then a matter of Order; for they professe to leaue all Churches, (as, say they, is fit) to their owne liberties therein. All the exception which any of them taketh, is from respect of some inconveniences which they supposed it to bee subiect [Page 23] vnto; which are not such but that Master Cartwright him­selfe resolueth,Com. in Luke 22.14. that a man must not refuse to receiue the Sa­crament kneeling, when he cannot haue it otherwise. I con­clude therfore, that this exception against our Ceremonies, that they are Significant, is the child of that vnhappy civill warre, with which the Churches of England and Scotland, haue beene, and are vexed.

CAP. 12. The second Argument answered.

FRom the scope of the second Commandement, and the publike Declaration of the Church, touching our Cere­monies aforesaid, this Argument may be framed:

Arg. 2. All Ceremonies deuised by Man, or added to those which God hath prescribed, which are enioyned or vsed as meanes of minding vs of God, or helping vs in any part of his worship, or carying vs vnto him therein, are against the scope of the second Commandement.

But the Crosse and other our Ceremonies are devised by men, or added and applyed by men, to those Acts of worship which God hath prescribed, as meanes to carry our thoughts vnto God, and the duties which wee tender to him, as the Declaration aforesaid sheweth.

Therefore these our Ceremonies as wee intend and vse them, are against the scope of the second Commandement.

Answ. Before Answer to this Argument, some Phrases must be explained.

1. Added to those which God hath prescribed, is a doubt­full speech. For it may signifie, addition of them as actes of worship euen as the other, and made parts of it, and not one­ly adiuncts to it. And in that meaning the Maior Proposition is true, but the Assumption of our Ceremonies is false.

2. Againe, to bee meanes of carrying vs vp to God, or min­ding vs of God and our duties, &c. are ambiguous phrases, and may bee vnderstood two wayes. 1. So as these meanes are vsed and vnderstood as efficient and operatiue meanes, which worke by some vertue supposed to bee in them, as [Page 24] the Papists fancie of their hallowed trinkets; or else, as meanes onely occasionall, and obiectum à quo, objectiuely, which worketh at all nothing vpon vs, but presents vnto the senses an occasion whereby the mind worketh vpon it selfe: as was the case of Ioshuah his stone, set vnder an Oake in the Court of the Tabernacle. In the former Notion, the Maior is true, but the Minor false of our Ceremonies. In the la­ter sense the Minor is most true of our Ceremonies, but the Maior which saith, that the vse of such meanes for an helpe to vs, is against the scope of the second Commande­ment, is apparantly false.

For so farre is that commandement from bending against the devising and applying of such helpes, as helpes to vs in the worship of God, that it doth rather require some such. For,In his Cate­chisme on the 2. Commande­ment. as M^r. Cartwright saith, God in forbidding vs to bow downe to an Image or similitude set vp by mans will, doth on the contrary require, that we bow our selues in worship of him, and vse such gestures as agree to the worship in hand. Of which, seeing God himselfe hath not given any particular prescription, he hath left the devising or applica­tion thereof (vnder generall rules aforesaid) vnto men. And that such a thing is lawfull and vsefull,Exod. 13.16. Num. 15.38. Deut. 12.12. God (who vtterly forbiddeth any resemblance of himselfe to be made by man) hath witnessed by his owne Institution of Phylacteries and Fringes, as monitorie remembrancers vnto man.

Indeed, if God in that second Commandement had simply forbidden all Images and Pictures to be made, as the Turkes vnderstand that Law, then it would haue followed by Ana­logie, that men might not devise or vse any significant Ce­remonie at all. But when it is so, that he hath left free vnto man the picturing, engraving or expression of any visible creature, or history of things done, euen by God himselfe, so farre as it can bee well shadowed out by such workman­ship, to teach and to mind vs of things profitable, as M. Cal­vin. Justit. 1.11.12. sheweth, and all our Divines accord; It will bee impossible to bring our significant Ceremonies, intended not as an immediate meanes of worship vnto God, but immediately for an helpe and monitor to our [Page 25] selues, vnder the lash of that second Commandement.

For 1. the object is altered. 2. The immediate vse (when mans edification, and not the worshipping of God immedi­ately is sought thereby) is cleane altered from such vse of the forbidden Images, as that Commandement forecloseth.

All our Divines (I thinke) are of one mind in this, that Ceremonies ought to be Exercitia pietatis, exercises of pie­tie, which may serue to vs as expressions and incitements to dutie, as Calvin saith, which may edifie vnto the worship of God, as Paraeus speakes. Yea,Par. Com. in Rom. 14. euen those which simply con­cerne Order and Decencie, ought to bee to Edification, as D^r. Ames saith, and those of Decorum, such as may shew and breed in vs a Veneration of Gods ordinances. So as signifi­cant Ceremonies can not for such an intention of Edifying men, bee blamed more then other Rites; vnlesse it bee for speaking as it were to the same end, which others doe, onely more plainely: as touching which I referre to the last Chap­ter, and what I haue foresaid about the second Commande­ment.

CAP. XIII. The third Argument answered.

Argument. 3 WHatsoeuer worship of God is not commanded, is not ac­cepted of God. But Signing with the Crosse and kneeling are worships of God not commanded. Ergo Crossing and kneeling at the Sacrament are worships not accepted.

Answ. I referre to the fourth Chapter for the Notions of worship, and then Answer thus, that if you vnderstand worship which is properly so & ex se, of and in it selfe so re­puted, the Maior is true, but the Minor false of these our Ceremonies: if you vnderstand worship Improperly and per aliud, in reference to some other thing, the Minor is true of our Ceremonies, but then the Maior is vntrue.

For, as necessary and proper worship is commanded, so there is a Circumstantiall (as Master Cartwright calls it) or Reductiue worship, which is (as touching the particular) onely allowed. Now, though God doth more accept of the [Page 26] commanded worship, yet hee accepteth also that which hee alloweth.

All prescript formes of prayers to God, if they be found, are (as touching that externall forme) allowed worship only, but as touching their substance and internall forme, they are prescribed; and in that respect, otherwise acceptable then onely for the outward forme which is not worship in se & propter se, in it selfe and for it selfe as the other.

The vse of indifferent things saith Paraeus, doth please God, but non tanquam cultus, scil. in se: but not as worship, to wit, in and of it selfe.

But to proue our Ceremonies to be worship (suppose in se & ex se, in and of themselues) at least in our opinion and vse of them, you object to this effect.

Object. 4. Dedication is worship. Ergo, the Crosse in our vse of it.

Answ. I deny the Consequence, which if you will proue from the thirtieth Canon, your Argument must bee thus formed.

By whatsoeuer meanes a thing is dedicated to the seruice of God or Christ, by that meanes God is worshipped properly, and that meanes is made a proper worship of God in se, in it self. But by the signe of the Crosse the baptized Infant is dedicated to the seruice of him, that dyed for him, at the thirtieth Canon saith. Ergo, By that vse of the Crosse God is properly worshipped, and the signing with the Crosse is made of vs, a meanes of proper wor­ship to God. To this Argument thus framed I further an­swer, that the Maior is not found. For as Chamier saith of vowes to God, that euery vow to God is Formally wor­ship, but not so Materially in the matter voluntarily vowed: So I say, dedication of any thing vnto God, is worship For­mally, but not alwayes the matter dedicated Ex se, of it selfe, & much lesse the outward manner & Solemnity of dedicating.

I deny not but there may bee and is something done in Dedication of a thing to God, which ratione praecepti in se, in respect of Precept and in it selfe is worship Essentiall: But there bee annexed thereto, other things, which pertaine not Essentially to that Dedication, but onely to the outward so­lemnity. [Page 27] And though those Propter aliud, with reference to some other thing may be called worship, yet are they no proper worship, or meanes of it in themselues.

In the Dedication of the Temple there were Ingredients of both sorts. The sacrifices, prayers,1 Kings 8. and 2 Chron. 6. and prayses of God with joy, were Essentiall meanes of the Dedication and wor­ship; but Salomons kneeling on a brazen Scaffold before the Altar, and stretching his hands towards heauen in prayer; the set number of his Peace-offerings the lengthning of the So­lemnity vnto seuen dayes and 7. dayes, were meanes of the Dedication, not ad esse, to the being, but ad ornatum, to the ornament, partes of the solemnity and manner of worship, not worship ex se, but per aliud, in reference onely to some thing else, as they serued to expresse and further their holy rejoycing and thankefulnesse.

The like may be seene in Nehemiahs Dedication of the holy City, which was dedicated with prayses to God,Neh. 12.27, &c. offe­rings and prayers Really, but by a Perambulation about the wals and other solemnities there mentioned, Complemental­ly and in Ceremony. The former reallities were Essentiall meanes of the Dedication, the other only Accessory Ceremo­nies adjoyned to the reall things, and no meanes of worship in themselues, but per aliud, by way of reference and reduction.

The Iewes did Dedicate their owne houses with pray­ers, hymmes, feastings and other Solemnities, saith M^r. Aine­sworth, on Deut. 20.5.

If it seeme hard, That the Dedication is by the Canon refer­red to that vse of the Crosse. I answer, that the Canon doth not referre the Dedication to the Crosse simply, as though that were the sole or principall meanes; but onely, to that as a Ceremony. For thus goe the words. Esteeming it a law­full Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedi­cated, &c. And if I should say that Nehemiah dedicated the walls and Citie of Ierusalem, by going about the walls there­of in two diuided companies, you could not gainesay me, nor would mistake the matter. For it is vsuall to ascribe a thing done not alone the principall Agent, but to any Instru­ment, [Page 28] yea sometimes to occasions which worke not, or to ad­iuncts as M^r. Cartwright well obserueth in his Answer to the Remists vpon those words of 2. Cor. 4.17. where it is said that our light affliction worketh for vs a far more exceeding and eternall waight of glory; [Worketh] yea and it is an vsual kind of speech to say, a thing is done by such a means as worketh not at all to the doing, but only declareth what is done, or to be done. Thus Gen. 41.13. Ioseph is said to haue hanged Pharaohs Butler; The Priest to haue made Leuit. 13. cleane the Leper, the vers. 19. Sacrifices to make Attonement, the Ministers of the Gospell to Iohn 20 23. remit sins, Ieremy Iere. 1.10. to plant and plucke vp kingdomes, and to make them drinke of the Lords Cup of affliction. And thus wee say in Ma­riages With this ring I thee wedd, which is after expounded that they haue declared their consent of Mariage, by giuing and taking of a Ring. Nor could the Makers of that Canon other­wise vnderstand themselues in those words, vnlesse they would thereby crosse all that they haue said before in the body of that Canon, in which they deny to the Crosse any Operatiue vertue, and professe that the Sacrament is not bet­ter with it, or worse without it. That the child is fully bapti­zed before that bee vsed, and incorporated by the vertue of Baptisme into the mysticall body of Chri [...], that they vse it only as the Fathers in their best vse, as a Ceremony and Badge. All which must bee ouerthrowne, if Dedication bee other­wise ascribed to the Crosse, then as vnto a Ceremony, which signifieth the vse of the Dedication it selfe (which is Really made by Baptisme) which is, to professe the faith of Christ crucified, &c. And that they so meant, and no otherwise, my poore selfe, and others who haue stumbled at the Phrase, might haue assured our selues out of the body and words of the Canon, and the reference of their meaning to the Booke of Common prayer, which expresly sheweth that this Ceremony is vsed only in token, &c. And in sooth (had not the Popish abuse and Superstitions about the Crosse, made vs iealous of all vse of it) who would not haue thought this a decent Ceremony at the administration of Baptisme, to reminde all the congregation of their Christian profession, and warfare to which the Sacrament it selfe doth oblige them?

[Page 29]Wherefore if you were to subscribe to the letter of the Canon, as you are not, nor any man else, you need not feare to take that interpretation of Ceremoniall & only declaratiue Dedication. For without violence to the Canon or mistake of it, it is not possible to vnderstand it otherwise. And ther­fore I say, that as I would not let my Curate vse it, if I held it vnlawfull, so I will not forbeare the vse of it my selfe, now that in my conscience I thinke the intended vse thereof to bee lawfull.

CAP. 14. An Obiection vsed to strengthen the former Argument answered.

Object. THere is no man that doubteth whether Knee­ling bee worship or no. Ergo, At least that Ce­remonie of Kneeling when we receive the Communion, is not a matter of meere Order, but of Worship.

Answ. 1. It hath been shewed before, cap. 10.1. that the gesture of Kneeling is neither worship, nor signe of it, but when so meant. A Carpenter kneeles to driue a naile; doth any man thinke this to be worship? 2. That it is from com­mon vse, and by construction a signe of respect or reverence as well in Civill as Sacred vses. 3. That it is not in any acti­on of Gods solemne service, either vnlawfull, as prohibited of God; or necessary, as commanded of him: though in some Actions, more sutable to the kind of Seruice, and more com­modious to vs. 4. Lastly, that it never was fastened by diuine Ordinance to any one kinde of religious action, or other. Wherefore the Question, Whether God hath given man any power to mixe Actions of his worship, more then to devise new worship of God, may very well be spared. For it supposeth Kneeling to be a worship by it selfe, or at least ingraffed by the hand of God, into some one action of his service, which is not so.

2. Wee yeeld Kneeling in the act of receiving the holy Communion, to bee in our intention, largo sensu, in a large sense, a worship of God; that is, propter aliud, in reference [Page 30] to some other thing, not in, or ex se, in or of it selfe, but one­ly as all Circumstances observed as matters of Order and Decencie, and Edification, for the honouring of God in his services, are worship, and not otherwise. The publike De­claration of the Church is that which must assure vs of the intended vse, which because it is by some negligence left out of the later printed Bookes of Common Prayer, I will heere set downe, that I may be sure you shall know it. There, af­ter a Preamble it is said in these words:

The 5 Rubrick s [...]t at the end of the Commu­nion. It is ex­tant in all Books printed (as wel in octa­vo, as in fol) in 5. & 6. Edw 6 reestablished 1. Eliz. and still in force. Whereas it is ordained in the Booke of Common Prayer, in the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Commu­nicants kneeling, should receiue the holy Communion, which thing being well meant for a signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, giuen vn­to the worthy Receiuer, and to avoyd the prophanation and disorder, which about the holy Communion might otherwise ensue, lest yet the same kneeling might bee thought, or taken otherwise, we doe declare, that it is not meant thereby, that any Adoration is done, or ought to bee done, either vnto the sacramentall Bread and Wine, there bodily received; or vn­to any reall and essentiall presence there being of Christs na­turall flesh and blood. For as concerning the Sacramentall Bread and Wine, they remaine still in their very naturall substances, and therefore may not bee adored, for that were Idolatry to bee abhorred of all faithfull Christians: and as concerning the naturall body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven, and not here, for it is against the truth of Christs naturall Body, to bee in moe places then one, at one time.

3. To which I adde, that to take away all appearance of tendring any Adoration to the outward signes, then brought to the Communicants, the Church thought good after­wards 1 Eliz [...] to haue that short Prayer, The Body of our Lord, &c. then to bee made for each Communicant before he receiue, (which in King Edwards Booke was not appointed) to the [Page 31] end that the Kneeling might not so much as seeme to be vn­dertaken vpon the sight and respect of the Sacramentall signes, and in reference to them. Thus carefull haue our Fa­thers bin to shew vs their minds, and to take away all appea­rance of evill, and ground of suspicion.

4. And it is worth the marking, that this gesture is at that time onely appoynted as a signification of our humble and gratefull acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ, which (if it be not by our owne fault) we then receiue; and not at any other time, when it might be supposed to bee intended to the Sacramentall signes, or to Christ, in and by them.

For as that learned Author of the Treatise called Diale­cticon Eucharistia, printed at Geneva, and set out with the second Tome of Beza his Works, in his life time, saith, The Bread is to vs the Body of Christ when we adore and receiue it, not as they doe in Poperie at the Elevation, when they onely looke on, or Circumgestation, when it is carried in the streets, and they that Adore, receiue nothing. And for this cause M^r. Calvin in answering that objection of the Papists,Inst. 4.17.37. that they adore Christ in the Sacrament, saith, Si in Coena, &c. If this were done in the Supper, I would say, Eam demum Adorationem esse legitimā, quae non in signo residet, sed ad Chri­stum in coelo sedentem refertur, that were yet a lawfull adora­tion, which resteth not in the outward signe, but is referred to Christ himselfe sitting in heauen. And hee giveth, after, this reason, that they haue no promise of Christs presence in the Sacrament, not as signatum in signo, as the thing signi­fied in the signe, when it is consecrated to bee honoured and carried about as a pompous spectacle, and invocated; but when it is received. For our Lord that said, This is my body, sayd, Take, eat, this is my body. The Sacraments consist in their vse, and are not Sacraments out of their vse. The water in the Font is no Sacrament of Baptisme, but in the vse of it.

5. Our Church therefore by appoynting this gesture at that time when we receiue bodily the outward things, spiritu­ally the inward grace annexed (not by corporeall presence, but by institute Relation) to the same; hath not referred this Ceremony to the outward things received of the Mi­nisters [Page 32] hands, no nor simply to the benefits received of, by, and with Christ, as a signe of our partaking them, but onely to our humble and gratefull acknowledgement of those benefits received from Christ, as the Declaration sheweth. So that vn­lesse humble and gratefull acknowledgement of those benefits a­gree not to that very hint of time, when, by vertue of Gods Ordinance, we receiue them, the signification thereof by the gesture, cannot bee vnlawfull or vncomely, though it bee not simply necessary, but a matter of Order, not of proper worship in it selfe.

6. They therefore which spend their wits and time to prooue, either that wee ought not to giue Adoration to any sanctified creature; or, by adoring it, to transferre our ado­ration to God or Christ; or to perswade men that this ge­sture is vsed of vs, at least for Ʋeneration of the consecrated creatures, had (in my opinion) too much time to spare, and not either Iudgment or Charitie enough. For it is not done in relation to the Signes, or simply to the things signified, but only as an expression of our humble and gratefull acknow­ledgement of what we receiue, and is to the honouring of God and Christ by Consequent and reduction onely belonging, and that but as an outward and free Rite or formalitie.

7. But if in the Supper it selfe wee had respect vnto the sanctified creatures, as the ordinances of our Lord; and, by bowing our selues, not to them, but vpon occasion of them then brought to vs to bee received, not resting the honour or adoration in the elements themselues, though sanctified, but onely referring it to God and Christ the Son of God, not as carnally present in them, but sitting in heaven, and by his Spirit wonderfully communicating his body and blood to vs; you see wee should haue had M. Calvins approbation, as well as the ancient Fathers, S. Augustine and others which I could name, and not heerein deserue to bee matched with such of the learned Papists, as would haue no Adoration to determine in the Images themselues, but to be referred vn­to, and rest vpon the Prototype, or first Sampler.

8. For the Lords Sacraments and Word are, (as Calvin saith) the liuely images of God, and of his owne making, not [Page 33] ours. And therefore we may lawfully, and must haue such a respect vnto them, as we may not haue to any thing devised by man; and wee may by them, (as obiectum à quo, by an ob­ject from whence, and medium per quod, a meanes by which) tender our adoration to God, which by an Image of our own heads made, we cannot doe, without either breach of the 1 Commandement, if the adoration determine in the image, or prototype thereof being a meere creature; or breach of the 2 Commandment, though the adoration were referred only to God. For he hath said, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe, &c. but neuer meant to restraine himselfe from such representa­tion of himselfe, as he should like to giue; or, vs from wor­shipping him & serving him in the vse of them. See Cap. 9.

And hence it is, that the people of God, before and after the Law, haue taken notice of Gods presence or grace ma­nifested by message, as Exod. 4. or signes ordinary or extraor­dinary given them of God, and haue with free consciences thereupon kneeled or bowed downe themselues to God vp­on, at, or before those representations of Gods speciall pre­sence or grace. Wherein if any man shall match them with Durand, Occham and others that worship Images, made at the will of men onely in relation to that which is worship­ped, he shall be injurious to the Saints, and giue incourage­ment to that Popish conceit, without reason.

The Author of Altare Damasc. yeeldeth that the Iewes, at, or before the Arke, which was Gods instituted signe of his presence, or Temple in respect of the Arke, and so before the burning bush, Ex. 3. or armed man Iosh. 5. or cloud, Ex. 33.9. or other signe given of God as a signe of his speciall presence, might lawfully vpon sight or respect of such a signe, Adore God. But saith he, the Sacraments are not signes of Gods speciall presence but grace: and before, or respectiuely to such signes of grace Adoration is not lawfull, though onely referred to God.

But this man opposeth without reason, presence and grace, which both did often coincidere, fall both into one, as in the Arke, and cloud, and armed man, which were so signes of his presence, as they also were signes of his fauour and grace.

[Page 34]That Armed man in Ioshua, professeth to come as a Cap­taine of the Lords hoast. Paul saith, our Fathers were baptized vnder the cloud. The Arke is called the Arke of the Couenant; therefore Presence and Grace in these signes, are not oppo­site but conjunct.

2. Hee erreth when hee supposeth the Iewes to haue v­sed this Adoration only at, or before the signe of speciall pre­sence, and not of Grace. For they did it to God vpon occa­sion of his signes of fauour, as well as those of his speciall presence. See Pet. Mart. on 1 King. For when the fire came downe from heauen, to burne, and as it were to shew Gods acceptance of their Sa­crifices (which was not simply a signall of his Presence, but of his speciall fauour) the people fell downe and worshipped God as well as at his foot stoole the Arke, or Cloud, Levit 9. 24. and 2. Chron. 7.3.

Ezra 9.5 and 10 1. with 5.17. and 3.11.3. Hee mistaketh in saying they bowed and adored God at or before the Tabernacle or Temple, in respect of the Arke only (so hee meaneth) which was therein. Ezra knee­led and cast downe himselfe before the very place of the Temple, as the house God, though there was neither Arke a­ny more after the captiuity, nor Temple then standing, but only the place which God had chosen for his name to dwell in, and a foundation of the Lords house.

Chemnit. in exam. part. 2. pag 91. edit. 1578.It is much more sound which Chemnitius obserueth that the people of God, vpon any occasion representing Gods speciall Presence or fauour to them, whether it were only by a Gracious message (as in Ex. 4. and 12.) or Action (as in Gen. 24.26 48.) or signe thereof giuen from God, they A­dored and cast downe themselues, of which wee haue spo­ken much already, Cap. 10.

4. But if it were lawfull to Adore God onely at or be­fore his owne Signall of his speciall Presence, the Arke, why not at the Sacrament, referring all the Adoration to God in Christ? For was the Arke any better signe of Gods presence, then the Bread and Wine are of the body and blood of Christ, whose names hee himselfe hath honoured them withall, as the Arke was honoured with the title of Iehouah, i. e. for the representation and Sacramentall Relation sake?

[Page 35]Doth any man diuide Christ himselfe from the Graces of Christ? verely wee in the Sacrament haue no hope of par­taking the Grace of Christ, but by partaking himselfe his very body and blood, though not carnally or bodily, yet re­ally and in truth; not in at our mouthes, but into our soules as spirituall food.

The conclusion of all, is, that if our Church intended that wee, in receiuing the Communion, should looke vpon the Bread and Wine not simply as creatures, but as Sacraments of our Lords institution, and so beholding them, Non quâ sunt, sed quâ significant, not as they are in their owne nature, but as what they there signifie should tender a knee-worship or Adoration, not at all to them, but only to God or Christ his sonne, by occasion of them, we should therein doe no more then the ancient godly Fathers did before Poperie, as that learned tract Dialecticon Eucharistiae sheweth; I am sure no more then the godly Iewes did, as hath beene shewed. And yet euen this Ceremony, so vsed, should bee no proper worship of God, or worship of and by it selfe, because it is not then and so commanded of the Lord; but only, Improper and Reductiue worship, and though not commanded, yet al­lowed of Gods word: And therefore but a matter of meere Order in the sense aforesaid.

5. But I haue already giuen in our Churches (publicke) Declaration, by which appeareth, that shee goeth not so far; but vnderstandeth this gesture to bee only for Signification of our humble and gratefull acknowledgement of those benefits be­stowed of Christ in this his Ordinance vpon (not all men, but) the worthy Receiuers. And therefore they which con­demne this Church of a Will-worship, yea of flat Idolatry for this; and teach the poore people to forbeare the Communi­on, rather then to receiue it kneeling, haue more to answer for to God and his Church, then perhaps they thinke of.

6. For while they piously intending to sayle from (as I may say) the North-pole of the Popish Idolatry, not heeding the Aequator, haue sayled, though not home to the South-Pole, yet too neere it, into another extreame of Superstition and Disworship of God. Disworship, in turning their backes [Page 36] vpon the Lords table, for a gesture not forbidden of God: and Superstition in placing such a necessity in sitting or stan­ding, which are neither of them commanded of the Lord (as is confessed) that they thinke themselues highly to honour and please God in the choyse of those gestures, or else not to communicate. This is to worship God after the traditions of men; Or else the Iewes were not guilty of it, by forbea­ring out of conscience▪ and for feare of pollution, to eate their meate with vnwashen hands. Only this is so much the worse, as the spirituall food which they dare not touch nor taste, vnlesse they may take it sitting or standing, is better then the bodily from which the Iewes abstained. The Lord who hath given many of them godly desires, vouchsafe in mercy to cleare their judgements, and not to lay this errour to their charge.

CAP. 15. The first part of the fourth Argument Answered.

Arg. 4. THe Law, (i. e. the 2. Commandement) forbiddeth two things: 1. The devising any new wayes of worship. 2. The vsing of prescribed worship otherwise then they are directed. But some of our Ceremonies are devised new wayes of worship, or vsage of the prescribed worships otherwise then they are directed. Ergo, the Law forbiddeth them.

Answ. What things the Law of the second Commande­ment doth forbid, I haue said, and graunt the same, or, with it, the third Commandement to forbid these two things you mention. But I will consider these two apart, and so make two Arguments of one, for perspicuities sake.

The Law forbiddeth the diuising of new wayes of worship, But our Ceremonies are deuised new wayes of worship, Ergo.

I suppose you meane, that as the Deuising is forbidden, so the things deuised, &c. otherwise wee shall be vntouched, who onely vse these Ceremonies, but deuised none of them. And then I say, that the termes are ambiguous, and must bee made cleare before the Answer bee giuen to the Argument.

[Page 37]1. Worship of God (as hath beene preoued) is Proper or Improper, Ex se, or per accidens, of it selfe, or by accident, & per aliud, by reference to some other thing; As for exam­ple, saith Chamier. In Ieiunio nulla pietas est, Cham. Tom. 4. lib. 46. cap 1. nisi quatenus vtile interdum testandae internae poenitentiae & praeparationi ad preces, In fasting there is no worship, but as it is vsefull sometimes for testification of inward humiliation and for preparation to prayer. So wayes, (i e. meanes) of worship, are also ei­ther meanes by the vse whereof Immediately of themselues, Seruice is done or supposed to bee done to God; or meanes more remote, and not in themselues or by themselues any ser­uice, or reputed any seruice of God, but by accident, and per aliud, in reference to some what else, as in Chamiers instance, Fasting. By new wayes, you meane, not lately taken vp, but such as haue not their Prescription in the Word. For all sub­stantiall or proper worship, is new worship to God, which himselfe hath not Commanded. And then I answer, That of Proper and Immediate worship Ex se, of it selfe, or so estee­med, the Maior is true, but the Minor false of our Ceremo­nies, which being acknowledged things of indifferent na­ture, and such as the Church may at pleasure alter, cannot bee vnderstood to bee made, in that sense, any new worship, or wayes of worship. But if you speake of worship in a lar­ger meaning of the word; and, by wayes, vnderstand any meanes tending (at the long runne) to the honouring of God, and intended onely as Adiuncts to the proper worship of God, and for an helpe to vs in the same; Then is the Minor true of our Ceremonies, viz. that they are, in such a notion, new devised wayes of worship. But the Maior, which saith, that all deuised wayes of worship are euen in that sense forbidden, is manifestly false. For example, This or that prescript forme of prayer, is a new deuised way of worship, as touching the Set-forme, yet not forbidden. The Fasts of the fourth,See Zach. 8.19. and Iunius his Annot. fift, seuenth & tenth moneths, reminding the very moneths and speciall dayes of their calamities, that they might with more life and feeling humble themselues before God, in the [...]aptiuity, were such new deuised wayes of worship to God, in our sense, and not commanded of God, Zach. 7 4. yet not [Page 38] forbidden or condemned, as Master Cartwright confesseth. And the like is to bee said of all vnprescribed circumstances (considered in their particulars) which belong to Order, De­cency and Edification, that they are remote and accidentall wayes of worship, and deuised, or, (which is all one) so ap­plied and determined by the will of man; and yet, neither commanded nor forbidden, but only allowed in themselues.

Medul Theol. part 2. cap 14. Thes. 24.For to say, as Doctor Ames, Praecipiuntur in genere sub lege Ordinis Decori & Aedification is, they are commanded in ge­nerall vnder the law of order, comelinesse and edification, is not reasonable. For if these particulars bee commanded which fall vnder the generall heads, then must the obseruation of the particulars bee necessary, because commanded, and not things left to choise. Neither is it sound which hee saith, Habendae tamen sunt tanquam ex voluntate Dei praeceptae, Ibid. Thes. 27. they are to bee reputed as commanded out of the will of God. Or (as after) that, if they bee to all points well ordered, or that, Constitutio ita habenda sit quasi simpliciter Diuina, that consti­tution is to be taken as simply diuine; for the constitution is onely of the particulars, and is limited to things left of God Indifferent in themselues, and therefore cannot bee said to be simply diuine, but, after a sort; No not when the things are in kind such as necessarily follow of those things which God hath expresly commanded,Ibid. Thes. 24. which is Doctor Ames his se­cond reason. For example, the very particular place where, and hower when, we must meet vnto the publicke worship of God, are not in themselues particularly commanded in gene­re suo, vnder their generall, and the obseruance, euen of them, must bee with a conscience free from tye to the place or time, in regard of themselues; otherwise, there is a superstitious vse of them. So that that which in them may be called Di­uine and a commanded Circumstance of worship, is, a place, and a time as commodious as wee can; but not, this place or this houre. And if all conueniences require this very place, and this very houre, yet is not the place required propter se, for it selfe, but propter aliud for some other thing: It is therefore better to say, That the particulars deuised or determined by men, to be obserued as Ceremonies or outward Rites in the [Page 39] worship of God, are in all particulars, when they most agree to the generall Rules of the word, only Allowed. And yet, if by the neglect and contempt of such externall Rites, Viola­tur aliquo modo sanctitas cultus religiosi, the purity of religi­ous worship bee violated (as Doctor Amer saith,Ibid. Thes 23. and saith well) then the Obseruation of them must aliquo modo some way bee some worship of God, howeuer (as hee also saith) In ijs non proprie consistit cultus religiosus, religious worship consisteth not properly in them, not properly saith he; but yet, in a sort, say I.

And indeed if wee will admit no more into the worship of God then is commanded, as the Anabaptists require, wee shall, in baptizing, onely lay on water in the name of the Father, of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost, and not vse (lawfully) any of those set prayers, before or after, nor rehearse the summe of the Christian faith, nor haue any speciall witnesses, nor then giue the name as it were to shew that wee are as it were without a name, or being Lo-ammy till wee bee entred into professed Couenant with God; nor, any Scripture then read to shew the lawfulnesse of baptizing Infants, no Interroga­tories to expresse the conditions of our Couenant with god; and not onely, no signe of the Crosse as a monitorie Ceremo­ny to the congregation, forasmuch as God hath not com­manded any of these thus to bee done, in the vse of that Sacrament.

The like may bee said of all the Readings, Prefaces, Ex­hortations and Prayers (excepting that only which by re­peating the institution, and praying for the blessing of God on vs in that vse of them) are prescribed in our Leitourgy, euen till wee come to the breaking of the Bread and to distri­bution of it and the Cup. Namely, that these, so farre as by the will of man they are deuised, and determined thus to be done, They are not things in their particular thus com­maunded of God, and therefore Ex se, of themselues, are not proper worship of God, respectiuely to that ve­ry forme, Order, and time of vsing them; But either as they are in their owne Generall, as the prayers; or, referred to Order, Comelinesse and Edification, which God hath [Page 40] commanded to bee aimed at, and obserued in all actions of his worship, i. e. propter aliud, for some other thing. So then in themselues only allowed, and Improperly worship of God.

And if in such things thus devised and determined by men, which are not in themselues necessary, but onely law­full, there may be no respect at all of honouring God in the vse of them, though not simply for themselues; How hath the Apostle told vs that one man eateth; or, obserueth the day to the Lord, and another eateth not; or, obserueth not the day; and, this man eateth not; and, obserueth not the day, euen vnto the Lord? Or, what ground of faith could men haue in do­ing things so contrary, as eating and not eating; vnlesse it were, that God had allowed either, but commanded neither the one nor the other? For the Command of one must haue bin the Prohibition of the contrary. But in rebus medijs, in things indifferent,Quo supra in Rom. 14. saith Paraeus, not onely diuers, but euen contrary things please God: but non tanquam cultus, not as a worship in themselues. For in such things, no contrariety, yea no variance from the patterne giuen in the Mount (as I may say) I meane Gods Prescript, is tollerable.

A man is bound, at such a time, to pay an hundred pounds in current English money. In this case if hee pay it all in gold, or siluer; or, in both, at the time, the bond is dischar­ged, because it was onely for such a summe of current Eng­lish money.

But if a man be bound to pay the same summe at the same time, in good gold, siluer of that valew will not discharge his bond, because it was not onely for the value in current money, but for the species or kind of money. In this case there [...]ore, the specios, ex se and in se, the very particular kind, in and of it selfe, is part of the payment, as well as the value. But in the other case the Species or particular kind simply considered ex se, of it selfe is nothing to the paiment, saue on­ly in the Generall, as it is current money, and secondly as it a­mounteth to the Summe. So is our case. Where God him­selfe hath for his seruice determined the Circumstances; as, vnder the Law, The place of Sacrifice, and times of their three [Page 41] solemne Feasts, or Apparell of the Priests, or ought else in particular; Those very Circumstances were part of the pro­per and principall worship, as well as the maine Actions, be­cause of the Command of God. But where God hath com­manded only the maine substance of a seruice to him, and not prescribed the particular maners, but onely giuen rules of di­rection, those particular circumstances are not any worship or seruice of God in themselues, nor may without Supersti­tion be so esteemed, but only as they are parts of Order and Decency, and serue to the Edification of men, which God hath required in all the maine Actions of his prescribed ser­uice, i.e. the particulars are propter aliud, in reference to some what else a worship of God, and in themselues onely allowed not commanded meanes thereof.

I maruaile sometimes at some of our brethren, who, to proue that wee make our Ceremonies a very worship to God, tell vs that if the very same things were done to the very same end by Diuine institution, they must needs bee worship; and then true worship, because required of God, and therefore ours must needs bee worship of God; and not be­ing commanded, Will-worship. As if they had not yet learned, That the onely command of God doth make that to bee in it selfe, an Act of necessary and substantiall worship to him, which though to the same end, and in the same manner done voluntarily, nor was, nor is esteemed any part of the reall worship in it selfe, but onely per & propter aliud, by and for some reference to some other thing. As for example. The building and vse of Altars here or there, before God had chosen out the standing place for his Altar (though to the same end, for which the Lords instituted altar serued, i e. for Sacrifice) was not worship in respect of the place, or kind of stone vsed, or height, length, or breadth; But onely as an allow­ed Instrument of the necessary worship, not sanctifying the offering, as did Gods sanctified Altar, but sanctified, in a sort, by the offering.

To conclude, All that either in truth is, or may be estee­med a proper and necessary part of Diuine worship, and meanes of honouring God, euen in the thing so done, must [Page 42] bee so made by the will of God, or else is vaine and will-worship.

But such things as are not vnderstood, or vsed, as in them­selues necessary, immediate, and proper worship of God, but onely by accident, and propter aliud, in reference are worship but after a sort in themselues, and haue no Precept of God vpon themselues, in their particular, but onely an al­lowance or Generall warrant. And this is no otherwise a Will-worship, then was the worship of the freewill offerings, wherein the particular choise was left free to the men them­selues. Onely, if a man will enhaunce the value of this Im­proper and reductiue worship, and haue it goe currant at a higher rate, then God euer allowed, euen for proper seruice in it selfe, hee shall then make of his improper worship, a proper will-worship to Gods dishonour, in as much as hee will needs returne it to God at another rate, then God him­selfe set vpon it in his allowance. Which is as one should offer to pay the Kings Subjects in siluer or gold pieces, rated aboue the value, which the King himselfe hath set on them. This is a non-payment, though the Species or particular kind, bee currant, because the value is not right. And when men thinke to honour God by such meanes, so esteemed, they dishonour him, not simply in the meanes, but because of the misprizing and abuse. And so much for this Argu­ment now to the next.

CAP. XVI. The second part of the fourth Argument answered.

Argum. 4 pars 2 THe Law, secondly forbiddeth the prescribed worships of God, to bee vsed otherwise then they are directed. But, the Obseruance of our Ceremonies is an vsage of Gods prescribed wor­ship otherwise then the same is directed. Ergo. Forbidden of the Law.

Answ. If by [otherwise] you meane (in any other out­ward manner;) and, by [directed] vnderstand [commanded] the Maior is false. For the circumstances concerning the [Page 43] outward manner, (as touching their particular determination) are not commanded of God, but vnder the Generall rules of his Direction, left vnto the choyse of men, as is confessed in generall words by all men that oppose our Ceremonies, howeuer they pare this graunt afterwards, of purpose to ex­clude our Ceremonies from all releefe thereby.

But if by [otherwise] you meane so otherwise, as that, wee disioyne what God hath vnited, the outward worship from the Internall, i. e. the body from the soule; or, that wee alter that which God hath Ordered, as in the halfe-Communion of the Papists, &c. Or that the manner and externall fashion bee not framed to the generall rules of Gods direction, Order, Decency, and Edification; Then the Maior is true, that such things are forbidden by the Law, i. e. either by the second or third Commandement. But then the Minor, touching our Ceremonies, must be denyed to bee true, till it shall bee proued, which will not bee by this Argument, but must be, if at all, by some particular and iust exception against them.

CAP. 17. The defence of the Answers given to this fourth Argument.

THis Answer will not seeme to satisfie the Argument, till wee haue discouered and removed sundry petty en­gines, which haue been planted against it, and seeme to some men to batter it to the ground, and to make nothing of it, which I will, so farre as I can, set forth Ab ovo.

When the day of Mercy shined on the Church of God, and gaue men strength and spirit to withdraw themselues from that leprous Church of Rome, nothing was more ne­cessary, then to make the people know, that the vaine pompe and Stage-playes of human Rites which went then currant for an high seruice of God (while in the meane time his owne pre­scribed seruice, was either obscured and defaced, or annihi­lated and neglected) was no true seruice of God. Hence, you shall find the Diuines of that time labouring mainely vpon this point, That nothing may bee esteemed or vsed as a wor­ship [Page 44] of God, such as hee would reward, and men might not omit without sinne, (which was and is the rate of all the Popish Ceremonies in their accounts, from the greatest to the least of them) saue onely what God himselfe hath in his word prescribed. In the meane time they denyed not a li­berty to the Church, for ordaining of things for Order, De­cency, and Edification; and such, and so many, as the necessi­ty of the Church should at any time require. But not for a worship, vnderstanding worship as their aduersaries did, for such an act as in it selfe was pleasing to God, and so as he would bee offended if it were not so done to him.

Hereupon sundry well minded people began to thinke of all that in Popery was made part of the diuine worship, and vrged as necessary for conscience sake, to bee so obserued to the honour of God: And not considering warily, whether things were at all in themselues too blame, or only in respect of the superstitious vse and opinion of them, they concluded, that all was vnlawfull to bee vsed in any Act of religious ser­uice, which was not commanded (which, of seruice properly so to bee called, is true) and thereupon resolued, no Temples, Bels, Fonts, Gossips, &c. And because they found not a plaine command for an Oath in cases of Iudicature; no swearing: and, for the like reason, no Baptizing of Infants, No set formes of prayer, or Order of reading Scripture since it is not in the Bible; no habits, no gestures, but such as were necessary in common vse; nothing at all obserued which might haue any particular reference to any thing Diuine or Ecclesiasti­call, not so much as a Cloake or Gowne for a Minister as a dis­tinctiue garment, nor ought else which might bee called Ec­clesiasticall. And as men went with more or fewer sayles ca­ried along with this conceite, so haue they fallen short or gone further in their misapplication of the true ground of Diuinity, which our great Diuines had deliuered ex hypo­thesi, conditionally and in a strict sense of the termes [Wor­ship of God.]

From hence, in the first Admonition to the Parliament, they quarrelled at the frame and forme of our Church-or­ders; and, set downe this rule, whatsoeuer is not commanded [Page 45] of God in his word may not bee recieued in the Church. This, when Master Cartwright vndertooke to defend against the late Arch-bishop, Doctor Whirgife, hee (as hee was a man of a great wit and parts) found how that speech might bee mainetainable, and yet some liberty left vnto the Church in constituting matters of Order; namely, that in as much as the things left vnto the Churches determination, were limi­ted to certaine generall rules of the word which are Com­mandements, therefore the partioul [...]rs which according to these rules were appointed, might bee said to bee commanded, (iust as wee heard out of Doctor Ames, praecipiuntur in ge­nere suo, they are commanded vnder their generall) which was but a meere shift of his wit. For though those generall rules bee Precepts, yet the various specialties which fall vn­der them are not thereby commanded (not those, specially) but onely allowed.

But when this Answer was found too short to smite downe our Ceremonies, for which, this was pleaded, that they were not contrary but agreeable to the statutes of Gods word; and, as such, intended, and to bee vsed; and that, if they would disproue any thing they must insist vpon that particular, and not thinke to condemne it by a generall Sen­tence, as Master Hooker told them: Then they sought out a new way, i. e. That things left to the Churches dispose, are only Circumstances of time and place, and such things of Decorum as were as well receiued and practised for like ends in common vse, as in Ecclesiasticall. And by this rare deuise (which I take to bee Master Iacobs) they haue made a shift to rescue Church­es, Bels, Fonts, a Communion-table and Cloath, and Cup, and if need bee, a Church yard to bury in, and some few other matters from the sentence of the Rigid Anabaptists. But haue left all other things, which are (as they speake) stated in, i. e. appropriated to any actions of Gods externall seruice, to bee executed as guilty of some treachery against god, in his worship. Therefore (saith Master Iacob) God hath not left vnto the Churches liberty or determination, so much as our Eccle­siasticall Ceremonies. Which (a better man then hee, and one that from my heart I both loue and honour) Doctor Ames [Page 46] hath taken, as vpon trust from him or other such Author, as his words before alleadged may witnesse in part; and some others of like alleadgement; as namely, Partis 2. disp. 15. Sec. 25. where hee boundeth and restraineth all that is left of God vnto the choyse and disposition of men in this manner, Illa igitur qua pertinent ad ordinem & Decorum, non ita relinquuntur hominum arbitrio, vt possint quod ipsis libet sub illo nomine Ecclesiis obtrudere: sed partim determinantur genera­libus Dei praeceptis, partim natura ipsarum rerum, & partim circumstantijs illis quae ex occasione sese offerunt; These things therefore which pertaine to order and decency are not so left to the pleasure of men, that they may, vnder that name and pretext, obtrude what they list vpon the Churches; but are determined partly vnder Gods generall precepts, part­ly by the nature of the very things themselues, and partly by those circumstances which occasionally offer themselues. Of which sentence the former halfe is most true; the later, not so sound. For then nothing at all beyond meere necessity; as, a time, and place (which are his owne instances. Thes. 24.) or such, as the very nature of the things necessarily vrgeth; or, casualties; as for example, to meet in a wood, in time of persecution; or, when there is no helpe, to set the bread and wine vpon the bare ground; Nothing, I say, more then these, are left vnto the Churches ordering; nothing that may, by any signification, helpe to remember vs; Nothing that may serue to breed reuerence towards Gods ordinan­ces, and put some speciall outward markes of difference be­twixt common or sacred, Ciuill or Religious affaires; no­thing of gestures, habits, memoratiue dayes of Christs In­carnation or Resurrection; No prescript forme of prayers to bee vsed otherwise then as a Plat-forme, as Altare Damas­cenum; vnlesse perhaps sitting at the Communion in token of Co heireship with Christ, because in Ciuill vse it is a table gesture, and fashion of familiarity.

I will alleadge some few of our great Divines, and see whether they by Rites and Ceremonies left vnto the libertie of the Church, meane nothing but the same which our men vnderstand by Circumstances of time and place, common as well [Page 47] in Civill, as Religious vse, though I grant not few to be such. And because they are wont to name time and place, putting thereto a blind [&c.] or [et simitia,] we will see whether about Time and Place, the learned Divines, and they bee of one minde.

A speciall place destinated,Zanch. Tom. 4. pag. 764. and in respect of the vse sancti­fied, and called Sacred, which vnlesse in case of extreme ne­cessitie, should not be imployed to any other then the desti­ned vses, Zanchie alloweth and requireth as a thing comely. Will Altare Damascenum (trow you) permit this to the Churches libertie?

An Altar of Stone, or a Table of wood, pag. 485 Zanchie and others leaue to the Churches determination, as in se media, indiffe­rent in themselues, though a Table bee fitter. Will our men say so?

That the Communion Table should not (but in case of ex­treame necessitie) be put to common vse, Zanchie requireth.Ibid. Is this their rule?

That Table and Vessels for the Communion,pag. 785. hee calleth holy Vessels, as dedicated to holy vse. Is this all one with Ci­vill vse?

That one lawfull End of building Temples, is Significancie, Repl. to Bish. Morton, part. 1 cap. 3. sect. 32. to remind vs of our Communion with God, and his in hea­uen, Zanchie affirmeth. Then saith the Replier, Away with all mysticall Churches.

As touching Times of worship, besides the Lords dayes, Calvin. Inst. 4.10.31. Calvin putteth that vnder the Churches hand and determi­nation, as not determined in the World;Sect. 29. and on what dayes the Lords Supper should be administred.

And Zanchie saith of the Solemnities of Easter, Pentecost, Quo supra p. 676. the Ascension and Nativitie of our Lord, sanctified as of the Ancients; or kept holy, it could not bee disliked. Nay, that laudabile est, & honestum atque vtile, it is laudable, honest or seemely, and profitable, and proues it too.So in effect Iu­nius cont. lib. 4. pag 283. Will ours allow these Feasts in memoriall of the mercies on such dayes be­stowed, as a Circumstance of time, necessary as well in Civill as Religious vses; Doe they not condemne the Feast of De­dication, as rashly instituted by the Maccabees? And of their [Page 48] owne heads tell vs, that the Feast of Purins was either only a merry meeting, of friends; as M^r. Iacob, and Altare Damasc. Or, that Mordecei was a Prophet; as the Replyer, onely be­cause they would not have it thought that the Church may, by her authoritie, separate a whole day to the solemne wor­ship of God, vnlesse for Fasting perhaps. Not that the Church can make an hallowing Holy-day as is the Lords day, the Sabbath; but, hallowed dayes for the vse to be observed with free Consciences.

But beside Time and Place, the Divines referre to the Churches determination, whether the Publike Prayers shall bee all said, or sung; as Zanchie; what Psalmes on what dayes, Calvin quo supra Sect. 31. What habit shall be worne inad­ministring the Lords Supper, whether their common, or a peculiar garment, woollen or linnen. And Zanch (for the sig­nification) preferres the linnen, though in other respects hee saith; rectius reijcitur, it is better rejected of some Churches. Chem. exam. part. 2. pag. 36. Chemnitius alloweth some of the old significant Rites vsed anciently in Baptisme, while only so vsed. Iunius professeth that if we were agreed in Doctrine, and the superstition re­moued, we should not disagree with the Papists for the Rite or Ceremonie of Exorcisme. The like he saith of the vse of the Iunius cont. 2. pag. 1726. an. 23. pag. 1743. Crosse in sacris. But what doe I mention these or o­ther particular persons, such as Bucer, Melancthon, against whom and Lavater, Zanchie, and some others, there is a prae­munire Caveat added to the Replyers first part, That for­sooth some of them wrote in the dawsing of the day, others li­ved in England, as Martyr; Chemnitius was a Lutheran; Zanchie was of a timorous disposition; they were not well in­formed when they gaue approbation to our Church Rites, and such other geare: by which all men may know, that the judgements of those graue Divines sute not with theirs in this matter. And furthermore, that they had rather sinke the reputation of all the Lords Worthies, then yeeld them­selues to haue mistaken any thing. If any particular man be of waight with them, it is M^r. Calvin, who in truth de­serveth the first honourable chaire of them all. When the Bishop Morton had produced a Testimonie of his, ex Instit. [Page 49] 4.10.30. as full and direct as could bee, to shew what hee judgeth to be left vnto the determination of the Church in matters of Discipline & Ceremonies not determined in the Word. The Replyer (not reciting the text of Caluin) [...]elleth the Bishop, that there is nothing which without the aequi­vocation of the word Ceremonie will serue his turne; Cal­vin meant nothing but necessary Circumstances of Order, as time and place, &c. but no significant Ceremonies. Caluin saith, God hath giuen certaine generall Rules, vnto which must bee squared whatsoever the necessitie of the Church shall require of time and place, &c. for, there is no necessitie of our significant Ceremonies. Wherein he maketh a pret­ty shift of escape vnder the shadow of that word necessiti [...]. But in following the same matter, Caluin faith, what the v­tilitie of the Church shall require, counting that necessary to the Church, which is either of it selfe, or by accident neces­sary for the Churches Peace and building vp, as he hath be­fore in that Chapter said, and doth after.

The necessitie of the Church required that old Decree of Abstaining from blood and strangled, which in it selfe was not necessary, nor (as M^r. Sprint hath shewed) simply conuend­ent. Which for our vse of the Ceremonies instituted, is ar­gument enough; vnlesse there bee no need of our Ministery in the Church, or of the Churches quiet, on of obedience to our Prince in things not evill in themselues. But, there is yet no necessary vse of our significant humane Ceremonies in the Church. Simple necessitie there is none. But necessitie of vtilitie, Caluin acknowledgeth, when of Symbolicall Rites, he professeth himselfe to thinke some such to bee a profitable helpe to the weaker sort, Sect. 28. Which likewise in his Treatise of The Right way of Reforming the Church, he doth also professe: Denying himselfe at all to striue against Cere­monies, which are either for Order, or yet for Decencie, Ʋel etiam symbola sunt & incitamenta eius quam Deo debemus re­verentiae, or such as are signes of, and incitements to that re­verence which wee owe vnto God. And in his 78 Epistle to the Lord Protector, Ceremonias ad vsum captum (que) populi esse accomodandas, Ceremonies must bee accomodated to the [Page 50] vse and capacitie of the people; which must be vnderstood, in part, of some significant Ceremonies: else, why ad captum populi? must the peoples capacitie bee so much respected? Indeed Caluin requireth, that such significant Ceremonies be but few, and such as may not obscure Christ. But that hee alloweth some such to be instituted of the Church, euen for the helpe of signification, is as cleare as the Sunne at Noone-day. And he that will marke how the Replyer laboureth to hide the light of his Testimonies, shall finde, that his Reply thereto borrowed much from his wit, without asking leaue of his Conscience. But why doe I detaine you in the Sur­vay of particular men? The Harmony of Confessions, set out with th [...] Notes of the French and Dutch Churches, will best shew how much the Churches of Christ haue judged to be left vnto the determination of men. And how short of that allowance all those men come, who will not permit her to constitute so much as one meerely Ecclesiasticall Ceremony, but to containe her in the constitution of such things, as all men of themselues are bound to obserue, euen without any Constitution, and which no power of man can forbid.

You aske me, Where any such power is giuen to the Church? I answere out of M^r. Caluin, and D^r. Ames too; viz. where shee is enjoyned to doe all things of Gods prescribed wor­ship according to Order, Decencie, and to Edification. For what doth necessarily serue vnto those rules, shee is rather commanded, then simply allowed to consider and take care of. And sure I am, that though Order strictly taken, belongeth but to Vbi, quando, to place and time, &c. yet the determina­tion of that, belonging to each Church, requireth many things. Now, as Order and Decencie in the outward manner of handling all and the severall parts of Gods instituted ser­vice, is required of the Churches; so is it, that all bee done to Edification; which is not that all, that men lust to impose vnder the name of Order, Decency, and Edification, is com­maunded or allowed by that charge of the Holy Ghost; but that all, which shee is to dispose of, be such indeed, so farre as she can judge. Whence will follow, that in Rites serving to Order or Decencie, there should bee what helpe wee can to [Page 51] Edification by the significancie of those Rites. For seeing the outward ordering should be such, as may most edifie, as D^r. Ames saith, how can it bee but such a Rite as is Comely for the matter in hand, and agreeable to the vse and intent ther­of, shall be vnto men the more helpefull, if it carry some ma­nifest signification in the forehead? For this reason Zan­chius preferreth (and so doth M. Perkins) the ceremony of Immersion vnder the water, before that of sprinkling, or lay­ing on the water, as holding more Analogy to that of Paul, Rom. 6. that we are buried with Christ in Baptisme.

And the same Zanch. To. 4.601. Edit. 1613. Zanch, speaking of the Ceremonies vsed in taking a solemne oath, laying the hand vpon the Altar; or, as the Iewes, and we, vpon the Booke of the Covenant, or lifting vp the hand to heaven, saith, That none of these Ceremonies are to be disliked, because they all haue their, and those weighty signi­fications. And, in sadnes, when it is to vs so familiar a thing in all solemne actions, to haue something signified to vs by Ceremony; how can it bee blameable in a Ceremonie of the Church, that it is significant, I meane, simply eo nomine, in that very respect? For, if there be a surfet made of them, or any operatiue vertue supposed to bee in them, or any ne­cessitie or opinion of worshipping God by them ex se, as of and in themselues, such vse doth pollute them, and all that so vse them.

In gestures, it will bee acknowledged readily, that they may be fitted to the severall kinds of Gods prescribed Ser­vice, euen for signification, as M. Cartwright, and M. Fennor shew. But (saith Altare Damasc.) wee must not bee tyed to them. In which, if hee meant, not tyed by the conscience, as if it were a sinne, euen in it selfe, not to vse them in the publike service of God, I am fully with him: But either I foulely mistake him, or else his meaning is, that what wee will doe freely of our selues, this way, is good; but if once the Ma­gistrate or Church require it to bee done, then all is marred. Thinke of this, and thinke withall, whether the same men which refuse kneeling in receiving the Communion, (all or most of them) doe not also forbeare to kneele when the Com­mandements are read, to euery whereof, a prayer for pardon, [Page 52] and for grace to keepe that law, is subjoyned. Yea, and when Publike profession of the Faith is made, to stand vp: which is a most comely gesture, and without all exception. And tell me, in Conscience, what can bee the reason of such refusall, but because it is so appoynted by the Law, and Authoritie both of State and Church? otherwise, they would like well enough then, to stand.

Ob. But gestures (say they) signifie Naturally, or as it were Naturally, but our exception is against such things as signifie on­ly by appoyntment of men, as the Ring in Marriage, Surplice and Crosse; and these we condemne.

I answer. 1. That they question our kneeling, though it signifie giving of honour never so naturally; not onely as misapplied, but as a significant ceremony. 2. For the Surplice, that it is but a distinctiue garment, as the addition of Hoods, to be put on after mens Degrees, may shew. But, let it signi­fie the purenesse that ought to be in the Minister of God, in Gods sight and service. The Ring is meerely a civill signe of the Matrimoniall Contract, as is Ioyning of hands. The Crosse indeed would not signifie what it doth of it selfe, but by Institution. But as I haue shewed, the very bodily gestures doe not of themselues signifie; but, by the Intention and Cu­stomes of men, which is as by second Nature. And so doth putting off of the hat signifie a respect also; which, when they allow, though appoynted by men, at the Sacrament, the signi­fication notwithstanding, this is but a made quarrell, that our Ceremonies signifie, not but by Institution and long Cu­stome of men. And I pray you, what difference vpon the matter, whether by naturall light, or generall notice of the meaning, the Ceremonie bee significant? And, why not? Forsooth, this is to giue them part of the nature of Sacra­ments. Indeed, some in their heat call them Sacraments; as, Master Parker in his Treatise of the Crosse. But Doctor Ames checketh that over-shoot, and saith, they are but Sacramentalia, Sacramentals; not well vnderstanding, that Ceremonies were called Sacraments, scil. not from this, that they signified, for so did almost all Popish Rites, (witnesse Durandus) but because they were appertinent to some of [Page 53] their Sacraments, non ad esse, but ad ornatum, not to their be­ing, but to their comely being.

Take away, saith Saint Augustine, the Element, and there is no Sacrament; and, take away the thing signified, saith Zan­chie, and there is no Sacrament neither. Sacraments there­fore, are not simple signes; but Significantia, obsignantia & in­strumentaliter exhibentia quod significant, signes signifying, sealing and instrumentally exhibiting that which they signi­fie. The symbolicall Rites in Poperie, vsed to effect some su­pernaturall grace, by their vse, were indeed presumptuous and sawcy counterfeits of diuine Sacraments. But, that meere signification of a morall duty, should more then participate the proper nature of a Sacrament, I shall then beleeue when I shall perceiue the signe of the sunne in a shop-window, to partake the nature of the same; or of Baals Image, made to represent the same. The nature of the Sacraments consisteth not simply, in that they doe signifie, which is common to all signes; but, in that they signifie the Couenant of grace by diuine institution, and seale it to vs. Nor doe I beleeue that Ioshua pitched a Sacramentall signe in Shechem, though it was to reminde them of the Couenant of God, of which, Circumcision was the Sacramentall signe: I will now content my selfe onely to oppose this; that this Imagination, that significancy maketh a Ceremony to bee evill, doth not ap­peare to mee to haue entred the heart of any learned man, Iew or Christian, till it was of late taken vp against our Ce­remonies for a Couert; for this I am sure of,See in the Archb. Def. pag. 120. his words. that the Iewes had of their owne deuising aboue (as Master Cartwright saith) twentie for one, more then wee haue of Ecclesiasticall significant Ceremonies. Of the ancient Christian Churches, it is rather to bee lamented (as Augustine in his time did) that they ouerdid, in hauing so many; then needfull to bee proued that all Churches had some such significant Rites. And as for the later Churches of our Religion, some haue more, some as many, some fewer then wee; but all, some. And that the judgement of the Churches in their Confessions, and of the prime men which haue written, is for the allow­ance of some significant Ceremonies meerely Ecclesiasticall, [Page 54] though they thinke (as I doe) the fewer the better, is ma­nifest.Epist. 8. pag. 211. Tom. 3. opuscul. 2.14.82. Onely M^r. Beza hath a passage which seemeth to contrary this which I haue said, namely, That all symbolicall Rites ought to be abolished: Contrary to what we had of M^r. Calvin, that some such are to bee allowed, as a profitable helpe to the ruder sorte of men. But these two learned men differ not saue in shew; for Calvin, by symbolicall Rites, meaneth such onely as are vsed to signifie some dutie to bee done. And Beza meaneth such symbolicall Rites as were vsed not meerely for signification, but as hauing some operatiue vertue in them, either ex opere operato, vpon the very doing of them as the Crosse; or by meanes of their Consecration by prayers. This to bee so, I proue by Beza himselfe in his 8. and 12. Epistle; from one whereof this Obiection is taken. For Be­za confesseth the Aduersus fra­trem Baldwinū in opuscul. vol. 3. p. 324. E­pist. 12. Crossing to haue beene sometimes of (at least) tolerable vse; yea, and now, the Superstition being re­moued. Kneeling, sometimes a profitable signe Epist. 12. O­pusc. Tom. 3. p. 220. of Godly reuerence in receiuing the Sacrament. The vse of the Epist. 12. pa. 219. & Epist. 8. p. 212. Sur­plice, to bee ex se, res media, of it selfe a matter indifferent; yea, and so the other two. Wherefore, hee did not judge meere Signification to haue defiled or tainted them, for then their vse had neuer beene allowable or indifferent. There­fore this exception against our Ceremonies, that they are significant, was not verely the cause of the quarrell; but the quarrell of this exception. And now I returne, that the Church hath Commission to determine of Ecclesiasticall Rites, which in truth shall appeare to her vpon due consideration to be of necessary vse, whether per se or per accidens, of themselues or by accident, vnto the edification of it selfe, by Rites vsed for Order, and Decency: and when need is, significant. And thus much the very definition of a Ceremony,V [...]sin. Catech. impres. Ann. 1621. p. 772. which Paraeus hath, may witnesse; when, of Church Ceremonies, he saith, That they are externall and solemne Actions instituted in the ec­clesiasticall Ministery, Ordinis vel Significationis gratia, for order or significations sake, which he maketh, after, two sorts, Diuine and Humane. Now I come to your Questions, which I will answer to in short.

CAP. XVIII. Six Questions about Kneeling answered.

Quest. 1. WHether you allow kneeling to bee worship.

Answ. Worship is either Cultus Seruice, or Adoration or Veneration: kneeling is a part of externall Adoration per se in it selfe, as is the being bare-headed; but, not Cultus ex se, seruice or worship of it selfe, but per aliud, with reference to another thing, as it is a signe of true in­ternall reuerence acknowledged to God, and a part of that comelinesse which becometh men in partaking the seales of the Couenant of grace, done to his honour. It is in it selfe no more then a Circumstance of worship, like as Fasting is, of Humiliation and Prayer; in a word, Cultus reductiue non proprie dictus, worship reductiuely, not properly so called; law­full, not commanded, as before hath beene shewed.

Object. But, if this bee not worship, there is no worship of the body?

I Answer, yes; for the very bodily Action of Eating and Drinking in the Supper, is, on the Receiuers part, Cultus dei externus, externall worship of God, because commanded. So is the bodily speaking in preaching and prayer publickely. Howbeit I confesse, that, of the gestures, there is no bodily worship, i. e. Cultus Dei ex se, worship in and of themselues: Nor, religious Adoration, but ex intentione, in respect of in­tention onely: For, God hath not differenced Diuine and Ciuill Adoration by gesture; yet is ours, religious, in this vse.

Quest. 2. Whether, if it bee; it may be lawfull for men to pre­scribe any thing of it, to any other action of worship then is war­rantable, either by Precept, or Example.

Answ. That which all men might of themselues lawfully doe in the Action of Gods worship, the Gouernours of the Church and Magistrate may lawfully require to bee done of them all, i.e. So, as they might lawfully haue done it libera conscientia with a free conscience. Indeed if God had tyed it onely to some one ordinance of his, by Precept, neither men, nor Angels might translate it. Warrant by Example [Page 56] you haue before, from the vse of Gods people in seuerall sorts of his worship. And that the Eucharist it selfe is an Action of diuine worship, who dare deny? But I take no examples to bee warrants to vs further then they are war­ranted by the Word.

Quest. 3. VVhere the Church hath power giuen to it, to ordaine any Ceremony? Indeed it hath power to direct and take care for Decencie and Order, 1. Cor. 14.40. But order is no Ceremony, nor Action, but the accommodation of Vbi, Quando Prius, Posterius, and necessary circumstances to such actions as bee prescribed.

Answ. I haue immediately declared the Churches com­mission out of 1. Cor. 14.26.40. and shewed how, for the reason of Order, Decencie and Edification, the Church must needs ordaine some Ceremonies. For if at all there be none, Religion (as touching the solemnity of it) will come to bee as some haue said (which Chamier also obserues) as it were but a name. Vide Chamier To. 1. Panstrat. lib. [...]. cap. 19. n. 18. And if such things as need to bee done for Or­der, and Decencie bee not setled (as Calvin sheweth, Iust. 4.10.31.) all will be dissolued.

The late deuise of circumstances, I haue shewed before, euen the Place for publicke worship; and, houre of mee­ting (which men would haue to bee nothing but circumstan­ces, as they are designed to that speciall vse) are Ceremonies, not qua sunt, sed qua inseruiunt cultui sacro, as they are sub­seruient to diuine worship. Therefore doth Zanchie call them, Ceremonies. And if place and time, as they fall vnder such obseruation, bee no Ceremonies, then neither the Ta­bernacle nor solemne Feasts were Ceremonies. These were, I confesse, Diuine, as commanded; those, are, in their particu­lar determination, Humane; yet, Ceremonies, in their vse and reference to the worship then and there to be done to God.

Quest. 4. VVhether it bee any lesse then Idolatry to annex grace vnto any thing saue vnto Gods owne Ordinances, which our Declaration seemes to doe, acknowledging the Ceremonies profitable to Edification, and stirring vp of our dull mindes to minde holy duties; vnlesse wee say, Edification, and quickening of the heart bee no Graces.

[Page 57] Answ. It is Idolatria interpretatiua, interpretatiue idolatry to ascribe to any creature (yea, though sanctified by Gods ordinance) the efficiency of grace, which none can worke as a cause thereof, efficiently, but God. But it is neither idola­try, nor vnbeseeming vs, to acknowledge any meanes by which grace is wrought through the power of God, not wrapped in them, but resident in himselfe that freely gi­ueth the grace by the right vse of them. This wee ascribe to Gods Sacraments, but not to Church ceremonies.

The Declaration, you speake of, onely saith; that some of our Ceremonies are apt: it doth not say, able to stirre vp our dull mindes; and, not apt to doe that, by any vertue in them, or from God by them to vs; but onely, as externall obiects and occasions whereby our minds worke vpon themselues; for it is said, by some notable and speciall signification.

Chamier shall resolue this, who hath these words.Cham de Ca­none. lib. 9. cap. 20 s. 40. p. 337. Neque enim vllus sanus asseruit omnia in Scripturis contineri quae mo­mentum aliquod habent ad fide & pietate animos informandos, sed duntaxat omnia dogmata fidéi & pietatis. Praeter haec autem, plurima sunt, in quibus non est nullum eiusmodi momentum, nor did euer sound Diuine affirme all things to bee conteined in Scriptures which haue any vse at all for information of mens minds touching faith and piety; but onely that all doc­trines of faith and piety are there: But besides these (doc­trines) there are very many things which are not of no mo­ment vnto vs: Vt multa naturalia, in quibus authorem mundi licet agnoscere; in Ecclesia, Ritus & Ceremoniae, as many natu­rall things, in which wee may learne to acknowledge the Creator of the world; in the Church Rites and Ceremonies. Where you see that, as vnto Gods creatures, so vnto Eccle­siasticall Rite and Ceremonies not conteined in the word, hee graunteth some furtherance to faith and piety not efficienter, as an efficient, but obiectiue, by way of object. And Calvin requireth, that Ceremonies made for decorum, comelinesse,Calv. Inst. 4.10.28. should bee such as breed a veneration of Gods ordinances, to the end that talibus adminiculis ad pietatem excitemur, by such helpes wee might bee excited vnto piety. At whose words, any man that will, may quarrell as iustly, as at our De­claration. [Page 58] And indeed, all Ceremonies that some way are not apt to edifie vs are vnprofitable; and yet, the effecting of grace may not bee ascribed to any such.

Quest. 5. I desire to know whether our Ceremonies bee not within the compasse of those things that perish with the vsing (i. e. that leaue no grace, or ought else behind them) which are according to the commandements of men, and if they bee, how we can submit our selues to their bondage, contrary to the Apostles prescription?

Answ. I take not our Ceremonies to be within the com­passe of those things,Col. 2. of which the Apostle saith, they perish in the vsing (i.e. they come to no such vse or end as is aimed at in them) because those (as Zanchie sheweth) were such obseruances as men deuised, or vsed, with an estimation of worshiping God in them ex se as of themselues, and that the conscience is imbondaged to that superstition. For that, being downe right will-worship (when, to Gods owne pre­cept, other things were added by men, as necessary, and bin­ding the conscience, as Zanchie saith) could yeeld nothing to men but their labour for their paines. Like as, in Math. 15. In vaine they worship mee, teaching for doctrine (i.e. imposing vpon the conscience) mens Traditions; as if they could not be left, without sinne. For the tradition was, that to eat with vnwashen hands, defiled a man as much as whoredome.

But in vsing Rites and Ceremonies prescribed for order, decency and edification, nor as necessary in themselues at all, nor as any worship of God per se, by and of themselues, nor as binding the conscience, extra casum scandali & contemp­tus, without the case of scandale and contempt, wee attaine the end of our obseruance, which is, the discharge of our duties to our Gouernours, the peace of the Church, and our Ministery. And the Church obtaineth her end, that the ser­uice of God is outwardly so ordered. And if the ordinan­ces of God bee, by mens prejudice, not the more regarded, but rather the lesse; or, that they which need not the helpe of such externall Rites, shall despise them; or, others, through carelesnes or ignorāce shal make no vse of any such Monition, as is, by a Ceremony, presented to their remem­brance; [Page 59] yet shall the fruite remaine to vs, according to that which wee haue sowed.

Therefore to the second member of this fifth Question (which supposeth that which I will not graunt) I need not Answer. But, on the contrary, pray you to consider, if by the Tradition onely of men, without my word of God, wee shall say to our selues, weare not a linnen Garment in Gods ser­uice, make not the signe of the Crosse in B [...]ptisme, kneele not when you receiue the Communion; for, if you doe, God shall bee disho­noured and offended with you: for, such and such good men say so? I now demaund, if this bee not to imbondage our selues vnto the tradition of men, which say (as it is there) touch not, taste not, handle not; and so, bind our consciences where God hath left them free. Verely, I cannot see but such feare of God is in vaine, because, by, and from the onely precepts of men; and all that is so done, perisheth in the vsing; and though God in mercy may, and will forgiue this sinne of their ignorance; yet they can for this haue no reward of God; for, who required this at their hands? Standeth the kingdome of God in such things, or his seruice?Tom. 4. lib. 15. cap. 14. s. 16. I conclude in the words of Chamier, Nam quia noluit spiritus quicquam oneris imponere Ecclesiae, in rebus quidem indifferentibus, certe qui ijsdem siue vsurpandis siue cauendis legem ponit, because the spirit would not impose any burden on the Church in things indifferent, certainely hee that imposeth a Law touching either the vsing or shunning of those things: (i.e. as hee hath before interpreted, as binding the conscience) Hune no­cesse est per consequentiam contradicere legibus prius positis, viz. Deut. 4.2. and Deut. 12. Non addes, &c. It must needs bee that such an one by consequence doth contradict those lawes imposed of God, thou shalt not adde to, &c.

Quest. 6. I desire to know, whether wee may with good Con­science, suffer the making of Gods Commandements voyd by our owne Traditions, as wee doe in pressing these Ceremonies with so much violence, and inflicting such sharpe punishments on the neg­lect of them, and passing by Adultery and Drunkennesse, &c. as veniall sinnes.

Answ. I take your meaning to bee, by the Traditions of [Page 60] men, when you say [by our owne Traditions,] and that you meane [as they, or some doe,] when you say [as wee doe in pressing them.] For, wee that are called onely to the obser­vation, whether Private men or Ministers are pressed, but presse them not. And then I answer 1. That the pressing of lesser duties, more then greater, caeteris paribus is a sinne, which wee may not suffer to goe without Censure, or Re­proofe, when we haue opportunity. But that we should re­sist it by not observing the lesser dutie, because they sinne who presse it more then a greater, will not hold. For of those that did so, and are for so doing reprooved, our Lord saith, These greater things ye ought to haue done, and not to haue left the other vndone. Math. 23.23.

If you object, That tything of Mints and Cumin were du­ties contained in the Law, but ours bee Ceremonies institu­ted by men. I grant that difference; but yet say, that if they be such as haue allowance in the Word as lawfull, the obser­vance of them is a dutie on our part to bee performed for Conscience sake, though not of the thing for it selfe, (as in all things commanded of God) yet for Conscience sake of o­bedience to our Prince and Governours, whom, in lawfull things God hath commanded vs to obey. So I take it to be a dutie to doe this; though, a greater dutie (because imme­diately commanded) and simply necessary at all times, to ab­staine from whoredome and drunkennesse &c.

2. I answer, that a lesser fault in it selfe, may sometimes be justly more punishable then a greater; as when a greater is confessed, and a lesser defended; or, when hee that hath power to inflict grievous penalties in the lesser case, hath not Commission to doe so in the greater, which is our Bi­shops case,See D Ames his Booke of Conscience, pa. 304. s. 6. first Edition. wherein the fault is in the Lawes, not in the Iud­ges. And 3. That a thing which is in it selfe the lesser e­vill, may be for the consequence the greater; as, stealing of grapes in the Palatinate, is worse then Burglary, or breaking of an house in the night, though a man steale not to the va­lue of six pence, is more obnoxious then stealing an herd of cattell with vs. Which I speak not to excuse any man, who willingly doth pursue these lighter matters more eagerly [Page 61] then the more important; but to shew, that your rule of greater and lesser, must be vnderstood cateris paribus, with re­spect to circumstances, and not absolutely.

4. I answer, that though it be a sinne not to be suffered without reproofe, to presse the lighter things more eagerly then the more important; yet doth not that necessarily make voyd the Commandment of God, but onely misplace it. The making voyd of Gods commaund by mans Tradition, is, when men of themselues appoynt something to be done, which may discharge the conscience from the bond of that which God hath commaunded. And this was the case of which our Lord spake,Marke 7.11. Thus you make the Commandement of God of none effect; namely, because they taught, that if a man had once sworne by the Offering, that his father or mother should haue nothing by him. That this oath should free him from the Conscience of honouring (with my reliefe) his father or mother.

Indeed if our Ceremonies were so delivered vnto vs, we ought not to suffer them, but to reproue the tender of them, and reject the vse. Yea if at all they were delivered by our Church as necessary in themselues, or as proper parts of the service of God in which we vse them; or, not as meere Rites of indifferent nature, and mooueable at the Churches plea­sure, and such as (were it not for Order, Discipline, & Peace sake in the Church) we might, without any offence to God, as well leaue, as vse. For though this Condition, should not make void any one of the ten commandments as did that of the Iewes, yet because it is contrary to the Law which for­biddeth all addition to it selfe, that is, as Chamier saith, to bind the Conscience per se, by and of it selfe, we might not suffer that impietie to passe without contradiction; nor, by our Conformity countenance such a superstition.

And as this is true on that hand, so is it on the other, that if any man, how holy, learned, or good soeuer, shall deliuer this tradition to men (not hauing any word of God for him­selfe) You may not weare a Surplice in Gods Seruice, nor make the signe of the Crosse at Baptisme on the childs forehead, nor kneele in receiuing the Lords Supper; for if you doe, you shall [Page 62] sin against God, and dishonour him, and it will one day lye on your Conscience as a sinne: I may not suffer such a super­stition without reproofe, not yeeld any practise to the com­mand or direction of this humane Tradition, for the very same reason. For, as it is superstition de rebus medijs in v­tram (que) partē statuere, in things indifferent to make peremp­tory lawes on either hand, either that it must of necessitie be so done in obedience to God; or, it must not bee so done, for direct obedience to God, as the onely Lord of the Con­science: So it is my dutie, without partialitie on either hand, to shew my dislike of their contrary superstitions.

Nor can it bee said, that the one side doth vrge Confor­mitie more eagerly then the other doth Inconformitie. For they vrge Inconformitie directly for Conscience sake to God; and affirme, that it is Ignorance, or an ill Conscience in any man to vse them, or both: whereas the other vrge them not at all to be vsed for any Conscience sake, or necessitie in themselues, but onely for Conscience sake, because they are determined and imposed as matters of Order, and externall government by lawfull authoritie.

Indeed the Church-Officers inflict more grievous penal­ties vpon the refusall of these, as hauing authoritie of Law. But the other, at least some of them, inflict deeper wounds, by casting all men which conforme, out of the hearts & good opinion of all they can, as time-seruers, belly-gods, and what you will else that naught is. Nor is the Suspension of a Minister (in my conceit) a smarter stroake then the suspen­sion of the Lords Sacrament from being received, vnlesse the gesture of sitting or standing may be yeelded to them.

I lament the pressure of either side (if it could be holpen) with all my heart, and yet must remember this proverbe, Crudelem Medicum intemperans aeger facit, the intemperance of the Patient, puts the Physician vpon an harsh course of cure. The Lord God of Peace and Mercy, guide our hearts and minds in the way and study of truth and peace.

CAP. 19. The Objection from Christs example, answered.

Opp. THe Arguments against Kneeling, taken from Christs Example, Table-gesture, Idolatrous introduction, pro­hibition to fall downe before a consecrated creature, I confesse haue not mooued me much. That which I desire to be satisfied in con­cerning this gesture, is, First &c.

Answ. If you had said, these Arguments had not moved you at all. I would of them haue said nothing. But lest they might at all sollicite your thoughts, I will say something of each of them in order.

As for Christs Example, Vid. Raynold. in Censura de lib. Apochr. praelect. 79. which Altare Da. alloweth to be so, p. 74 [...]. and appeareth true ex Ioan. 13.23, 25. if it binde to that gesture which he vsed, then it bindeth to lying along. For what ever is to be done by paterne, must be cut iust to the paterne, or else it is not done so. For, that Christ did so eate the Passeouer with his Disciples; and the Disciples so partake the Com­munion in that gesture which our Lord non tam instituit quam retinuit in Coena, not which hee instituted, but rather continued, is by all the learned on that side confessed. Altare Damasc. p. 745. M^r. Ainsw. Annot. in Exod. 12. Amongst whom this is a rule, that such things as our Lord then did occasionally, are (Altar. Damasc. p. 741.) no examples to vs to binde vs to the like, and therefore (say they) wee are not tyed to the night, or to after supper; or to vnleavened bread; or to washing of feet, or to the sex, or number of Communi­cants: which is well sayd. But, say I,Vid. Tremel. in Math. 26 ex li­bro Talmudico-Scaliger. in E­mendat. tem­porum lib. 6. pag. 534. that gesture was as oc­casionall as the rest: for it was the custome and Ecclesiasticall Ordinance of the Iewes, to eat the Paschall-Feast so, lying a­long on beds, in token of the rest which God had now gi­ven them in their owne land, which being a profitable Ce­remony, our Lord himselfe observed it, and continued the vse of it in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, though it was a gesture vsed in the Passeouer; that he might teach vs, by his Example, not to bee scrupulous about gestures, but to conforme our selues to the lawfull customes of the people of God where we are. So, Christs Example is for vs.

CAP. 20. The objection from a Table-gesture answered.

2. THe Table-gesture vrged, doth crie downe the Argu­ment from Christs Example. For if the thing re­quired a Table-gesture, by nature of it selfe, then must we not ground it vpon any examples, but refer the examples to the Table gesture, as the ground thereof. Nor was that gesture of discubitus, lying along with the Iewes a common table-ge­sture, but vsed onely at the Sacrifice, or Sacred Feasts, saith Altare Damasc. which is much for vs,Altare Dam. pag. 743. as intimating that it is comely and convenient in our feasting before the Lord, euen in the gesture of the body, or manner of vsing it, to shew and witnesse, that wee are not at a common Table; for the Iewes vsed this gesture freely at their Sacrifice-Feasts, not at their common supper or meales; and tyed themselues to it strictly onely in the Paschall Supper, that no other might then bee vsed, without breach of their Constitutions. This our Lord followed.

Altare Dam. p [...]g 7 [...]6.They which vrge this Argument most, confesse that it is not fit or lawfull to vse all other Formalities of a common ta­ble at the Lords Table. And therefore the vse of a common table-gesture, vrged by some of them so far, as to say to Re­ceiue kneeling is not to receiue the Lords Supper, is a most vn­reasonable straine full of Faction, & not free of Superstition. For any gesture in case of necessitie, any comely gesture ac­companied with manifest signes of Reverence, is, no doubt, lawfull in publike; and no one, by any divine Law, necessary: therefore determinable by the Churches of God, as an indif­ferent Rite.Epist. lib. fol. 177. Doth Christ heed vs, whether wee take it sit­ting, standing, or kneeling? saith Oecolampadius.

CAP. 21. The Objection from Idolatrous introduction answered.

THe third Argument from Idolatrous Introduction, is a poore one; yea, if it were granted that Antichrist, euen [Page 65] in his height, had brought in this Rite of kneeling when we receiue, for adoration of the Sacrament. For his misapplying of that gesture to the honour of a creature, as if it were God, cannot make the vse of the like gesture vnlawfull to vs in the worshipping of the true God, who condemning all bowing before an Idoll, hath required it to himselfe in his externall seruice, though not with determination with what kinde of bowing. And if the Popes abuse of kneeling haue made kneeling vnlawfull, then the Arrians abuse of sitting at the Lords Supper in neglect of Christ, and to shew them­selues as it were his companions, should make sitting (not being instituted of Christ) to bee also vnlawfull. Yet the Councels of Cracovia, Ʋdislauia, Peterborne, and Seadan (cited in the Altar of Damasc. Latinè, pag. 751.) did not condemne sitting for this abuse of the Arrians, as vnlawfull to be vsed in the Lords Supper, but onely disswade all of their societie to vse it, leauing to them as indifferent standing or kneeling. And, till of very late, those which spake most against our vse of kneeling, were not so rash as to count it vnlawfull; but onely, for the abuse or perill which might possibly ensue, In­convenient. So Beza, so M. Cartwright.

2. But I deny that the gesture of kneeling when wee doe receiue the Communion, was brought into the Church by Antichrist, i. e. the Bishop of Rome, as is pretended; or had any Idolatrous introduction, whatsoever may, since the in­troduction, haue befallen it.

The Adoration of the Sacrament wee know to haue beene brought into the Romane Church,Lib. 3. Decret. tit. de Celebra­tione Missae. cap. Sanct. i. e Tit. 41. cap. [...] after the determination of Transubstantiation. For that Decree was at the Councel of Lateran, 1215. vnder Innocent. 3. But, Adoration, about the yeare of our Lord, 1226. But Honorius did not appoint the Adoration to be vsed in the act of receiuing, but at the Eleua­tion, when, say they, Christ is offered vp as an heaue-offering by the Priest; or, when it was carried through the streetes to the sicke. And to encrease the beliefe of Christs reall pre­sence vnder the Species of the Bread, the Feast of Corpus-Christi-day, and Indulgences were after graunted by two o­ther Antichrists succeding Honorius. But none of these [Page 66] made any Decree for Adoration of the Sacrament, at, and in the very time of receiuing it, but when it was Eleuated, or caried abroad to the sicke, or in Pompe.

2. Neither was the Decree of Honorius for Kneeling, to it or before it, but onely for bowing of the body to it reuerent­ly. As the Disputer against Kneeling, and Altare Damas­cenum doe rightly obserue.Alt. Damasc. p. 783. But that Altare Damascenum saith, this bowing to it was in signe onely of veneration, such as to Images, not of diuine Adoration; that is, without rea­son, said and conceiued onely in fauour of his fancied diffe­rence of Veneration & Adoration, made by the very outward signes or gestures. For the reason of decreeing bowing and not of kneeling to the Sacrament, could not bee because they would not giue diuine honour to that which they beleeued to bee God, but because the ancient Decree of not Adoring o­penly and solemnely on their knees, no not in prayer on the Lords dayes, and the Pentecost, would not permit the gesture of kneeling openly and solemnely to bee obserued in the Churches for Adoration of the Sacrament.

So that so long as that Decree for standing in their pub­licke seruice kept any life in it, there was no decree for A­doration of the Sacrament, by kneeling to or before it.

Indeed since that time the Church of Rome hath changed the gesture of bowing to that of kneeling: The Priest when hee hath consecrated each Species, and set them downe vp­on the Altar, must now by the Canon of the Masse adore the Sacrament Kneeling. And so all the people must now doe at the Eleuation, &c.

Thus wee confesse Kneeling before and to the Hoaste, to haue come in by Antichrist, when midnight was vpon the face of the world, and Antichrist in his height. But wee waite for some euidence to proue, first that Antichrist brought in the Rite or Ceremony of Kneeling in the Act of receiuing the Sacrament. And secondly, that Kneeling so brought in, was intended as any signe of Adoration of the Sacrament, or Christ as existent vnder the formes of bread and wine.

Pag. 788. Altare Damascenum boldly telleth vs, that with vs, Idem [Page 67] ritus, eodem momento, eadem forma, eodem actu vsurpatur, quo apud Pontificios, adeo vt externa specie ne hilum quidem diffe­runt, the same rite, in the same moment of time, in the same forme, in the same act is vsed, as is among the Pontificians; so that in respect of outward species or forme they differ not at all.

He forgetteth himselfe somewhat; for with vs, the Bps. or Ministers communicate Kneeling, See Ordo. Rom. apud Bibl. Pat. Col. To. 8. pag. 390. colum. 1. liter. B. Edic. Colon. 1618. as well as the people. But with them, the Pope, when himselfe performeth the office, receiueth sitting, as being a type of Christ, the Masse-priests receiue standing reuerently, by the Canon of the Masse. The people indeed receiue it Kneeling as wee doe. But be­fore the gesture of Kneeling can be proued to bee of Idola­trous introduction by Antichrist after the Transubstantiati­on, as is vrged, three things must bee shewed. First, that the Rite and gesture of Kneeling in the Act of receiuing, is, and hath beene in the Church of Rome it selfe alwayes Ido­latrous, i.e. done, or to bee done in Adoration of the visible Sacrament it selfe. Secondly, that some Pope did bring it in. And thirdly that, since the Transubstantiation: in all which, hee will be to seeke.

For graunting that the people doe Kneele in receiuing, (as did also the Priest, till such time as the doctrine of Transub­stantiation begot the Canon of his standing, for feare of shed­ding ought) I deny, that Kneeling in the very time of Recei­uing, was euer in the Church of Rome any Rite of, or for A­doration of the Sacrament it selfe, or any creature, and there­fore not Idolatrous. I deny not the errour of their mindes concerning that they receiued into their mouthes. But I de­ny, that they euer intended Adoration of the Species, at that moment of time when they tooke it in their mouthes: But then turned themselues to God rather, to giue him thankes, which was not vncomely.

My reasons are first, because it was neuer yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then Kneele. Nor is this ges­ture of Kneeling any of the Romane Rites, nor so mentioned by Bellar. de Missa. lib. 2. c. 15. Nor in the Rubricke of the Masse-booke, which telleth vs of standing, sitting, knocking, [Page 68] bowing and kneeling; and when they must bee. Nor euer menti [...]ned by Durandus, or Duranius, who write of all the Rites and Ceremonies which are of vse by any institution in that Church, or haue beene. Secondly, because so often as in the Masse, Adoration to the Sacrament is to bee performed by Priest, or people, it is in plaine termes said, let him or them then adore the Sacrament. But it is not said so at the time and moment of receiuing; but on the contrary, when it is carried to bee giuen to the sicke, the direction is, to let him haue a sight of it, that hee may first adore it, if hee will; which shew­eth that they doe not esteeme any signe of reuerence to bee giuen for Adoration of the Sacrament when it is receiued, but only when it is on purpose looked vpon. Thirdly, for that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition, to Adore a thing which is not higher then their polles when they adore it, because they cannot bee said to humble themselues to that which is lower then they can cast themselues. And hence Master Morison telleth of one in Sauoy, [...]prauatā Religionis O­ [...]igo, et incre­mentū. Eden­burgs. 1594. pag. 75. brought in daunger of punishment, for doeing his reuerence to the Hoast caried by, out at a window, when hee was higher then it, for this was despicere Sacramenium, to disregard or despise the Sacrament.

I conclude therefore, that it is impossible to proue, that the gesture of Kneeling at that moment of receiuing the Sa­crament, was in the very Church of Rome idolatrously inten­ded to the Sacrament.

And as touching the Introduction thereof by any Pope, I also deny that to bee proued, or probable (if meaning) of kneeling with respect to the Sacrament in the very moment of re­ceiuing it. For there is not to this day, any decree of any Pope or Councell, so much as that it should bee taken Knee­ling of all the Communicants, much lesse for Adoration of the Sacrament it selfe.

Pag. 723. Altare Damascenum alleadgeth out of the Romish Rituall, Postea ad communionem accedit, incipiens ab ijs qui sunt ad par­tem Epistolae, sed primo si sacerdotibs vel alijs ex clero danda est communio ijs ad gradus Altaris genu flexis tribuatur: vet si commode fieri potest, intra sepimentum Altaris sint a laicis [Page 69] distincti, sacerdotes vero tum soli communicent. Then hee goes to the Communion, beginning from those who are on the Epistlers side: but first, if the Communion bee to bee giuen to the Priests or others of the Clergy, let it bee ad­ministred to them kneeling at the steps of the Altar; or, if it may conueniently be done, let the Priests bee distinguish­ed from the Laicks by being within the railes of the Altar, but then let the Priests communicate alone. Such another I find alleadged by M. Morison Quo supra. pag 69.. And a third I remember in the Order of Salamanca for the Fryers. But all these concerne onely the Clergy, who comming to receiue so neere the Al­tar, are appointed to doe it kneeling on the greeces or steps of the Altar, which is done in veneration of the Altar, or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for Adoration to the Hoast when it is put into, their mouthes, and is not gi­uen as a rule to all the people whereuer they communicate, or when it is communicated to them.

But it will bee perhaps objected. That the people of all sorts doe receiue kneeling in their Churches. I graunt it, but I deny that euer it was by any Pope, since the Transubstantia­tion, deuised or imposed vpon them as a Rite or Ceremony to bee obserued in receiuing. For then, wee should surely ei­ther find when, and by whom; or, at least, that it was done, or had not beene so before, which I doe not beleeue that a­ny man can shew.

And the reason why there neuer was any constitution made in the Romane Church for this gesture, was, as I con­ceiue three fold. 1. Because if they had made, til of later ages, such a Law, they had openly crossed the ancient Rite and Ca­nons made against Kneeling on the Lords-dayes and Pentecost, in any their solemne worship of God. Therefore they ra­ther liked to winke at the closer breach of that Canon, by such as out of priuate deuotion should kneele, when their turne came to receiue, on those dayes of Station, then to crosse that by another Canon expresly. Secondly, because they found all men but of a generall deuotion and desire of honouring God in that Action, of themselues to kneele, they did not find any need, to require that to bee done, which [Page 70] was vniuersally done of the people, by an ancient Custome. And thirdly, because this which had beene obserued of old times, before their new conceit of a Reall presence, seemed to giue better testimony to that conceit, then if the Ceremony had been by themselues instituted. And indeed this we find, that when the doctrine of Reall-presence by Consubstantiation, began to get head, which was aboue 100 yeares before the Transubstantiation, the Patrons of that errour did plead the Adoration, which had beene generally obserued in the vse of the Supper before that (but with intendment of the same to Christ the Sonne of God, as sitting in heauen, and not as existent in or with the bread) to proue the Reall presence thereby. For In tertiam partem Thomae Tom. 3. pag. 781. Suarez saith, as the Reall presence proueth the Adoration a priori, so the Adoration proueth the reall presence a posteriori.

Thus Alger. de Sacram. Alta­ris. lib. 2. c 3. Algerus, who liued aboue a hundred yeares before the Transubstantiation, or voydance of the substance of bread was resolued of; but yet, when a Reall presence of Christs body, in, and with the bread was apprehended; vrgeth his matter, saying, Cassa est veneranda sedulitas Adorantium & venerantium, &c. the venerable sedulity of such as adore and worship is in vaine, if Christ bee not there: And after, wee Adore the Sacrament it selfe, Sacramentum ipsum adoramus tanquam diuinum quiddam, as a diuine thing, and speake to it as to a liuing and intelligent thing. O lambe of God that takest a­way the sinnes of the world, &c. Quia non quod videtur, sed quod vere est, Christum ibi esse credimus, because wee beleeue Christ to bee there, not in shew, but in truth. Wherein, howeuer hee doe peruert the customary fashion of the Church in receiuing this Sacrament Adorantes adoring it, re­ferring it to the Sacrament it selfe; and misinterpret those words of the Canon, O lambe of God, &c. which were inten­ded to Christ himselfe in heauen,W. Strabo in Bibl. patr. Co­lon. To. 9. p 961. i. e. cap. 23. de rebus Ecclesiasticis, &c. Florus, a Minister who liued ann. 860. in his Exposi­tion of the Masse, Bibl. Colon. To. 9. pag. 304. and not as locally in the Sa­crament, (as Strabo sheweth) vsed in the time of the brea­king of the bread for the Communicants; yet thus much is manifest, that before his time the Church, as hee speaketh, generally did vse Adoration of Christ himselfe in celebrating those mysteries. And in his time, and after, before the Tran­substantiation, [Page 71] they did Adore Christ as coexistent with the bread, which perhaps gaue occasion to Auerrois (who liued eightie yeares before Honorius) to say that Christians did adore their God, and then eate him. For, at that time, the er­rour of Consubstantiation had gotten strength, and they did as it were confine the locall presence of Christ to the bread once sanctified, at least in the Sacramentall vse of it, and did performe diuine honour to the Sonne of God as being ther­in. Not yet intending to adore that which was seene, but that which was taken to bee therein (vt contentum in continen­te) ineffably there, yet (ibi) there. The difference betwixt these and the former ages was, in this, That the former Ages did, in receiuing the Sacrament, Adoring, as Aug. said, not that which is seene and peri­sheth, but that which is belee­ved, &c.adore Christ as ther­in mystically, as the signified thing is in the Signe, without a­ny opinion of Christs bodily presence in the creatures them­selues, or of alteration made in the substance, nature or forme of the creatures; whereas, that Age dreamed of a Consub­stantiation, The following, did embrace that monster of Transubstantiation; and then, when all the substance of the visible creature was held to be gone, they did easily turne and entend the Adoration to the visible things, as if there had beene now no substance of any creature left therein, but only the appearances of familiar creatures, vnder which, Christ himselfe was substantially; but inuisible.

That there was this difference, the writings of the seue­rall Ages will manifest to any diligent Reader; and among other things, this cause (which is kept, I confesse, still; though stripped of the sense it had) that, in celebrating or consecrating, the prayer was not made, that the Bread and Wine might bee made the body and blood of Christ in themselues, as is now fansied; but, Vt nobis accipientibus fiant corpus & sanguis Domini, to vs receiuing of them they may become the body and blood of the Lord. Intimating that the Reall pre­sence of Christ (in a spirituall manner) is not effected in the visible signes; but, in and vnto the faithfull Receiuer of them. And that all the conuersion and changing of the Bread and Wine was only in their vse, in that they were mystically, and in type, the body and blood of Christ, as the Arke was [Page 72] Iehouah, as the Rocke was Christ, 1. Corinthians, 10.

The Adoration therfore of Christ in the vse of the Sacra­ment, hath alwayes beene in the Christian Church; First, without any reference of diuine honour to the visible things themselues as being really turned into Christ, or containing him within themselues. Afterwards, from the preuailing of Guilmund and other against Berengarine, and the truth, for a reall presence of Christs conioyned with the bread, they directed their Adoration to the creatures; but, not for the creatures or Elements sakes, but for Christs sake. At last came in the Adoration of the Sacrament or visible element of bread it selfe, as hauing no substance or materiall subsi­stence, but onely the naturall Body of Christ by vertue of Consecration, & by Concomitance wholly Christ, who is God to be adored for euer. In the first times and second, the ado­ration was onely in the vse. For out of the Sacramentall vse they did not beleeue such a Reall presence: but, after the abomination of Transubstantiation once got the field, be­cause there was then nothing of the creature supposed to be left, but the Accidents; and those, as Bellar. himselfe spea­keth, vnited to the person of the Sonne of God. Then fol­lowed, that wheresoeuer that appeared, Diuine honour was held fit to bee done thereto, as vnto the very Son of God in­carnate, and certainely existent vnder those Species of Bread and Wine, as euer he was on the Crosse, or in the wombe of his mother; onely (for feare of frighting vs) hee is pleased to bee there invisible, and as after the manner of a Spirit, but yet in his very true naturall body, the same that was crucifi­ed, say they. This most abominable Idolatrie followed in­deed the Transubstantiation. But the two other sorts of A­doration of Christ in the vse of the Sacrament went before this. The middle also was Idolatrous, not in obiecto, in the object, as the last, but interpretatiue, because they conceiued very Christ to be coexistent, then, with the sanctified Crea­tures; and as so, adored him, but not the visible creatures. The first Adoring was vndoubtedly lawfull, when the sanctified creatures were vnderstood to bee the Body and Blood of Christ, not in rei veritate, as being changed the one into the [Page 73] other, or one coexistent with the other, but in significante mysterio, in a signifying mysterie, as August. spake, made the Body and Blood of Christ, not by any alteration of their substance, forme, and nature, as Theodoret; but onely by their Institution and Deputation to that vse: and therefore were not the very Body and Blood of Christ, nor did exhi­bit the same (as was after dreamed) to the mouth and bodie of euery Receiuer of them, but onely to the soule of the true beleeuers, who receiued spiritually and by faith, rem sacra­menti, the thing signified by the outward elements. For all that while, the adoration or diuine worship was directed only to Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in heauen, and that in the act of Communicating.

Hence the 1. Nicene Councell exhorteth, that men should not bee humiliter intenti, humbly intent to the things before them, but looke vp higher. Hence came into the Lyturgie, Sursum corda, lift vp your hearts. Hence many plaine spee­ches of Saint August. Chrysost. and others, that the Recei­vers must, as Eagles, mount vp to heauen, and take hold of Chirst there: Prepare mentem non ventrem, fidem non dentes, their heart, not their stomacke; faith, not their teeth to re­ceiue Christ himselfe, and feed vpon him.

That Adoration preceded Transubstantiation, Ann. 1130. lib de Canonii observantia proposit: 23. prope finem. Tom 11. Bibl. Pat. Colon pag. 460. D. Col. 1. which was defined at the fourth Lateran Councell, Ann. 1215 I shew. In the 11 Centurie we haue in Radulpho Decano Tungrensi, the maner of receiuing the Sacrament set forth in these words: Inclinatus autem dicit antequam communicet, Domine Iesu Christe qui voluntate patris cooperante Spiritu sancto, per mor­tem propriam mundum viuificasti, libera me per hoc sacro-san­ctum corpus & sanguinē tuum ab omnibus iniquitatibus & ma­lis meis, &c. Cum distribuit, dicit, Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi proficiet tibi in vitam aeteruam, Amen. The Priest bowing himselfe before hee communicates, saith thus: O Lord Iesus Christ who by the will of the Father, and the conse­cration of the holy Ghost hast quickned the world through thine owne death, deliver mee by this thy most holy body, and blood from all mine iniquities and euills whatsoeuer, &c And when hee distributeth the Eucharist vnto others, he saith, The body and [Page 74] blood of our Lord Iesus Christ bee available to thee vnto eter­nall life.

Anno 1090. Extat. in Bibl Pat. To 11. pag. 383. lit. B. col. 1. about the yeere of our Lord, 1090In Micrologo de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus, cap. XVIII. these words, Orationem quam inclinati dicimus antequam communicemus, non ex ordine sed ex religiosorum traditione ha­bemus, scil. hanc: Domine Iesu Christe qui ex voluntate patris. Item & illud, Corpus & sanguis Domini Iesu Christi quod di­cimus cum alijs Eucharistiam distribuimus. Sunt & aliae mul­tae precationes, quas quidem ad pacem & communionem priua­tam frequentant: sed diligentiores antiquarum traditionum obser­uatores, nos in huiusmodi priuatis orationibus breuitati stucere docuerunt, potiusque publicis precibus in officio Missae occupaeri. That prayer which, bowing our selues, we vse to say before wee communicate, wee haue not by any order, but by tra­dition of religious men: to wit, this, O Lord Iesus Christ who by the will of the Father. And this also, The body and blood of the Lord Iesus Christ, which wee say when wee distribute the Eucharist. There are also many other prayers which indeed men vse at giuing the Pax and priuate communion: but such as are more diligent obseruers of the more ancient traditions, haue taught vs to study breuity in such priuate prayers, and to bee rather busied in the publicke prayers in the office of the Masse.

These two witnesses, and especially the elder of them, Micrologus, who dyed aboue a hundred yeares before Tran­substantiation was defined, tell vs these things. First, that beside the publicke solemne prayers, they had sundry pri­uate. Secondly, that they had a prayer which the Minister vsed to say Inclinatus, bowing himselfe immediately before hee receiued, and another for each Communicant, the same which wee haue. Thirdly, that those prayers were not ab aliquo ordine, by any appointment, but of the Tradition of deuout men. These testimonies doe proue that they recei­ued with Adoration, whether Inclinati bowing themselues in their bodies, or on their knees.

For men neuer knew till now (if any bee so blind to be­leeue it) that kneeling is any more a gesture of Adoration then bowing, Inclinate capita Deo, bow your heads to God, [Page 75] in Chrysostomes Leiturgy was taken to bee a posture of Di­uine Adoration, and not onely Kneeling. Vasquez de A­doratione lib. cap. 4. num. 36. Well-fare Vasquez yet, The externall tokens of Adoration, are bowing downe of the body, bending the knee, prostration, knocking of the brest, folding of the hands, baring the head, censing, kissing, setting vp lights, &c.

But Inclinatus may agree to Kneeling, or to bowing downe;Vide Synod. Turon. Can. 37. And like enough; that on the Station dayes, Lords dayes and Pentecost, they did rather bow, then kneele; I meane, the publicke Ministers; and kneeled on all other dayes when they were by Canon bound to pray Kneeling. In which dayes they also did communicate, and therefore must needs bee vnderstood to receiue it Kneeling; for when it was deli­uered, that prayer was said, The body of our Lord, &c.

Yea it is said by Amalarius, Anno. 800. Amalar. de Ordine Anti­phonarii cap. 52. apud Bibl. Patr. Colon. Tom. 9. part. 1. pag. 411. who liued eight hundred yeare before Berengarius his time, and therefore before the decree for Consubstantiation or Reall presence in, or with the Bread, That according to the Order of the Romane Church, in the end of the Psalmes they vsed to say a versicle before the prayer, Quam solemus facere genu flectendo siuè vultum declinando in terram, which wee are vsed to make kneeling, or casting down our face towards the earth, whereby is ma­nifest that at some prayers euen in Easter weeke (for of that hee speaketh) they did vse indifferently bowing downe of the head, or kneeling: and therefore did vnderstand the bowing to bee as much a signe of Adoration, as kneeling, and that wee may as reasonably say Inclinati kneeling, as it may bee said bowing, or bowed downe.

The story of Plegilis reported by Rabanus Maurus (which is botchingly peeced to Paschasius his booke,Anno. 830. de corp. & sang. Domini, cap. 41.) Though the thing reported bee like to be a fable, or else was a delusion of Sathan to helpe on the doctrine of the Reall presence, which was then in brew­ing; yet so much of it as serues our turne may bee well al­leadged; Namely, when it is said, that when hee was in ce­lebrating the Communion hee pro more procumbebat, accor­ding to custome felt on his knees, which sheweth plainely that after the consecration, and before the receiuing, the [Page 76] manner was that the Priest fell on his knees. For else would not Rabanus haue said, pro more procumbebat.

These witnesses may (I thinke) serue to assure vs, that at that time, when the Reall presence was come into dispute; and after that, till the way of Transubstantiation was defi­ned, They did vse to communicate with Adoration. And yet it cannot bee shewed that any Bishop of Rome did ap­point it so to bee.

CAP. XXII. That in the most ancient times, before corruption of the doctrine of the Sacrament began, the Sacra­ment was receiued with adoring Gesture.

NOw, for the more ancient times, in which the doctrine of the Sacrament was the same which ours now is, (as Orthodoxus Consensus most largely, and Duplessis de Missa and others doe manifest:) I say with that learned Treatise Dialacticon Eucharistiae confidently, that the Fathers did re­ceiue the Sacrament Adoring; Adoring, not the Sacrament but Christ; and to shew this, I will begin as high as I can, and come downe-wards.

Tertullian de oratione, Cap. 14. after Reproofe of other abuses a­bout prayer, cometh at length to say, Similiter de stationum diebus, non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interueni­endum, quod statio soluendo sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo, deuotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resoluit, an magis Deo ob­ligat? nonne solennior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reseruato vtrumque salvum est, & participatio sacrificij & executio officij. Si statio de militari ex­emplo nomen accipit (nam & militia dei sumus) vtique nulla lae­titia, siue (not as it is printed, sine) tristitia obueniens castris stationes militum rescindit. Nam laetitia libentius, tristitia soli­citius administrat disciplinam. Likewise on the dayes of Sta­tion most men thinke they should not be present, at the pray­ers [Page 77] of the Sacrifice, because the body of our Lord being ta­ken the Station is to be dissolued. Doth then the Eucharist dissolue the obseruance deuoted to God, or rather more ob­lige vnto God? Shall not thy station bee more solemne, if thou shalt stand even at the Altar of God? The body of our Lord being taken and reserued, each is safe, both the parti­cipation of the Sacrifice, and the performance of that obser­uance (viz. of standing in prayer.) If station take the name from the patterne of souldiers (for wee are Gods souldiery) verily neither joy or sorrow happening to the campe, dis­solues the stations of Souldiers, for joy obserues discipline more cheerefully, sorrow more carefully.

The place is darke, and must bee opened, before wee can make vse of that Testimony, wherefore first we must know, what the dayes of station doe meane. De la Cerda, the Iesuite vp­on this place, num. 143. and 151.152. Bell lib. 2. de bon. oper. cap. 22. alii (que). Some take them to be their set dayes of Fasting. But that cannot be. For Tertullian himselfe doth difference them one from another, lib. 2. c. 4. ad vxorem, where shewing the mischiefe and hindrances which a woman shall haue by taking an Infidell to bee her husband (as some then did in their second mariages) he saith, Ʋt si statio facienda sit, Maritus de die conducat ad Balneas: Si ieiunia obseruanda sunt, Maritus eadem die conuiuiun exerceat, &c. Where Ieiunia is not put as an explication of Statio, as if they signified one and the same thing: nor is statio put for the Ʋigils in the times of their fastings, as de la Cerda on that place, and Bell. lib. 2. de bon.operib. cap. 22. would haue it: for those Ʋigils (as the same Cerda and Bellarmine there con­fesse) were only de nocte of the night, not of the day; wheras Tertullian speakes expresly of station as an act proper to the day time, saying: if a station be to be performed, the husband may that same day leade her to the Bathes; if fastings be to be obser­ued, the husband may the same day hold a feast. That Glosse therefore of the Iesuites is but a dreame. It remaines then, that Station is vsed in a proper not figuratiue sense, to note some solemne act performed in the day time: and that Statio and Jeiunia are put for different things and the station is letted by carying her that day to the Bathes; Fasts, by her husbands appointing of a Feast that day. Besides fasting could not bee [Page 78] absolutely hindred by going to the Bathes: nor Vigils at all, by holding a feast in the day, if the Vigils were held onely in the nights. Stationum dies, therefore were those dayes wherein (by a Tradition vniuersally receiued) they stood in prayer, and at all the solemne worship of God: of which Tertullian saith,Tertull de Co­ron. Milit cap. 3. Edit. Paris. [...]an. 1674. Diebus dominicis iciunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare, wee hold it an heynous thing to fast on the Lords dayes; or, to adore on our knees: Eadem immunita­te a die Paschae ad Pentechostem vsque gaudemus, This immu­nity wee enjoy from Easter vntill Pentecost. This Ceremo­ny of standing on those dayes, and of not fasting on those dayes, serued to expresse their beleefe and joyfull remem­brance of our Lords Resurrection from the dead. This is that which Tertullian calleth, deuotum Deo obsequium, a de­vout dutie (or seruice) vnto God. And that Tertull. in this place, by Station, where hee saith, quod statio soluenda sit; meaneth the very posture or gesture of standing, in the place alleadged; appeareth yet further in the words themselues, when hee saith, Nonne statio tua solennior crit, si & ad aram Dei steteris? shall not thy station bee the more solemne; if thou stand at the Altar?

The Communion-table then is, after the phrase of that time, called the Altar. The Sacraments of Christs body and blood, the Sacrifices. The prayers vsed in that action, about the blessing or consecration of Bread and Wine to that vse, the prayers of the Sacrifices. All which, by the word [Eucha­ristia] there vsed, as it were expositiuely, are manifest. Wherefore there can bee no other meaning of Tertullians words alleadged, but this: That on those dayes on which the solemne worship of God, was (by a Tradition called A­postolicall) performed standing and not kneeling; Many men, or most men [plerique] withdrew themselues, when they came to the celebration of the Supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the Sacramentall bread, being taken of the Ministers hand, The station, i. e. standing must bee dissolued, or left. And because standing on those dayes might not be left (as they thought) therefore they rather left the Sacrament on those dayes, then they would breake the rule of standing [Page 79] on those dayes. Therefore they forbore: which can haue no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the Table standing; yet they vsed not to partake them, [i. e. eat the bread or drinke the wine] in any other gesture, then what was on the station dayes then forbidden, Kneeling.

And it is to bee marked that hee doth not say,Anno 200. accepto cor­pore Domini statio solvitur; but soluenda sit, i. e. when, after the taking of it (Tertul. de co­rona Milit. c. 3. Nec de aliorū manu quam praesidentium sumimus. Edit. Par. 1624. In Tertull. adorare is Ora­re lib. de Ora­tione: and the 1. Councell of Nice restrai­neth it onely to prayer. Canon 20. iuxta Binii Edit. 1618. as was then the manner) of the Ministers hands, they came to receiue it into their bodies.

If the gesture then vsed, had beene standing, this scru­ple could not haue come into their minds: no, nor if it had beene sitting, for that, was not forbidden in all the solemne seruice of God on those dayes, but vsed, as appeareth in Iustin Martyr, in hearing the word of God read and prea­ched. Onely kneeling was then restrayned, and that (say some) not onely in prayer, but in all the diuine seruice; Ter­tullian saith not, de geniculis orate, pray kneeling, but Ado­rate adore, as Altare Damascenum obserues: The people therfore, not daring to kneele, on those standing dayes, and not liking to receiue the mysteries in any other gesture, then that of Kneeling, whereby they might better shew their discerning of the Lords body, in the most humble gesture when they partaked the mysteries; chose on these dayes, on which they might not Kneele, to forbeare the Sacra­ment, and to take it on other dayes, when they might kneele in receiuing it.

That it was thus, the Remedies which Tertullian pro­poundeth, doe make yet more cleare. For hee, to perswade them not to absent themselues from the Sacrifice prayers made at the Altar (i e. the Communion-table) because of that; First telleth them, that their standing shall not bee ta­ken away, but made solennior, more remarkeable, if they shal stand at the Altar, & therfore they might come to those prayers as well as to others, and stand in them at the Altar, yea, and take the Lords body, i.e. as hee Tertull ad­versus Marci. lib. 4. cap. 40. elsewhere expoun­deth himselfe, the figure of his body, the bread; and not, assu­mere, not eat it at that time, but reserue it and carry it away with them, and eat it at home in priuate, where they might [Page 80] receiue it Kneeling. which in the publicke assembly they might not then doe, in the Station dayes. This hee saith, ac­cepto igitur corpore Domini & reseruato, vtrumque saluum est, & participatio sacrificij & executio officij. both are by this de­uise prouided for, both the partaking of the Sacrifice, i.e. the Sacrament of Christs sacrifice; and the performance of that duty of not kneeling in the publicke worship of God, on those dayes of Station.

And that they might see hee had no meaning to dissolue the station, or standing, he addeth, that if the name bee taken from Military fashion, (as wee are Christs Souldiers) then the standing must bee obserued, because Souldiers never left their stations, for any joy of good, or sorrow of ill successe: but still they kept their station, more chearefully if things went well, and more carefully, if ill. Nam laetitia libentius, tristitia solicitiùs administrabit disciplinum.

In summe, the people would not come to take the Sacra­ment, when they might not kneele in the Act of receiving or pertaking it, and therefore forbore to come vnto the Com­munion-Table, and prayer on those Station dayes. Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneele, and to take the Bread in publike standing at the Table, and reserue and carry it away with them, and receiue it at their owne houses, as they desired, kneeling. Thus should the Eu­charist bee receiued, and the tradition of standing on those dayes in the publike worship of God, be also obserued.

I allow not the deuise, but onely relate it: and out of it, doe (in my conscience) obserue, that the Christians then did, and before had vsed, assumere adorantes, to take it ado­ring,Anno 230. Origen Hom. on Diversos. Vide Euseb. E­missen. Hom. in 2. Domin. post. Epiphan. al­leadged in the Tract of knee­ling, p. 195. by Ro [...]hester. in reuerence, not to the visible signes, but the internall grace.

And this agreeth well with that aduise of Origen, giuen to euery man, that when the Lord commeth to him in the Sacrament, hee, humbling himselfe should say as did the Centu­rion, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter into my mouth: which words haue, (if not since that time, as Du­rantus affirmes, yet) for many ages, been vsed by the Com­municants immediatly before the receiuing; or some other [Page 81] such like prayer, to which the Communicant said, Amen.

Now, that from that time of Tertullian, it was a common fashion to take (i.e. accipere) the holy mysteries in the pub­like assembles on the Lords dayes and Pentecost, and to ca­ry them away, and vse them privately in their owne houses, or elsewhere euery day, ante omnem cibum, fasting, as Ter­tullian speaketh; or when they would, is manifest (if,Tertul. ad vx­orem. Cyprian. Heironym. any thing) in Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierome, and others. And, that they did in priuate, receiue the same kneeling, or prostrate, and that with the approbation of the then Pastors, appea­reth in the example of Gorgonia, and the applause of that famous Bishop who reporteth it, Greg. Nazian. who telleth,Anno 380. Greg. Nazian. Orat. in laudē Gorgoniae. Edit. Paris. 1609. how for recovery from her sicknes and paine, after all other helpes in vaine vsed, shee went to the Church and Altar in the night, and there prostate with faith before the Altar, &c. And hauing layd her head to the Altar, with like (that is, as is before expressed, with a great) crie and teares wherewith shee a­bounded, (like to that woman who of olde washed the feet of Christ) and professed that shee would not part thence, till shee had obtained cure, and afterwards had with this her medicine, (that is, of her teares, as Elias Cretensis expounds it) rinsed her whole body and that if her hand had any where hid (or layd up, [...] any part [...], of the signes of (Christs) precious body and blood, shee had mingled it with her tears (O admirable thing!) (shee presently felt her selfe cured of her disease, &c. Which place I vrge not, conceauing that at that time shee did receiue those holy mysteries from the hand of any Mi­nister then administring the same vnto her, it being in the night season when shee is said thus to haue done; but that shee (in case shee had any where reserued any part of the mysteries formerly administred to her, and intended now priuately to haue eaten and drunke the same in the night) could not but haue mingled them with her teares: and thence to shew, (as Billius also notes vpon the place) the an­cient custome of those times to haue been this: viz. to re­serue the Sacrament, and to eat it priuately, as (saith the same Billius) Tertull. lib. 2. ad vxorem testifieth. For, would Greg. Nazianzen haue supposed her to haue lyd vp any of those [Page 82] signes or Christs body and blood, to haue made vse of them at such a time when shee was priuately prostrate, and pray­ing with teares at the Altar, if such a thing had not then been in vse?

This reseruation might possibly bee begun before, by rea­son of persecution; or, for that reason the rather continued. But I conceiue, the either first or most prevailing occasion was this, that on the Lords dayes they might not receiue it kneeling, and their deuotion & ignorance together was such, that they held it not fit assumere, to take it, but kneeling or prostrate; not adoring that which was seene, as Augustine saith; and therefore not the Bread or species of Bread, but that which was not seene.

This abuse of Reseruation was after marked in the church, and thereupon all men condemned as accursed, who should accipere, and not sumere, take it in the Church, but not at all partake it. 1. Councell of Toledo. And, by the Caesar Augustan Councell, all men denounced accursed, that should take it, and not receiue (assumere) it (in Ecclesia) in their Church or place of their holy meetings.

The ancient Rite of not kneeling in their solemne or pub­like prayers or worship on the Lords dayes, or betwixt Ea­ster and Whitsuntide, still continued, often renewed by sun­dry Synods, and was in a manner vnniuersally obserued. The people therefore that might not still carry the holy things out of the Church as they had vsed, but must partake them there, were permitted, rather then appoynted to kneele, when they did sumere, and vse some priuate prayers: onely at the publike prayers they stood. And the Ministers, though on those dayes they might not kneele at the consecration Prayers, (I mean about the Sacramēt) yet they performed them incli­nati, bowing their faces towards the ground. And the cōmon people after they had taken the sacred things at the Altar or Communion Table, or otherwise, standing, betooke them­selues to their priuate deuotions, first on their knees, and so receiued the Sacrament kneeling in their owne places, till that afterwards it was carried to them where they were; as, in the Church of Rome was the manner, at least, Ann. 800. See Ordo. Rom.

[Page 83]That this is true,Sozomen. Hist. lib. 8. cap. 5. who liued, Ann. 430. appeareth in Sozomens Historie of that woman, who being tainted with the errour of Macedonius, yet to giue her husband content, (who threatned to leaue her if she would not receiue the Sacrament in Chrysostomes, the orthodox Church) went thither, hauing prouided her selfe of some other bread from home; This woman there­fore taketh the sacramentall Bread of the Pastors hand, and then kneeling downe as if it had been to prayer (saith Sozomen) convayed that away, and put her own bread into her mouth, which, when shee would haue chewed, was turned into a stone: By astonishment whereof, shee discouered to Chry­sostome all the matter. Let him that will and dare, censure the matter; namely, that there was no such miracle done; yet, that Sozomen hath so related it, no man can denie. And thence must needs appeare, that the manner of Communi­cants was so to doe, seeing shee that desired to bee thought to Communicate, did so no doubt, as others vsed to doe, outwardly, in Communicating. Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad popul. Antioch. And this agreeth with Chry­sostomes words, Adora & Communica, Adore and Com­municate. Nor can this of Chrysostome bee put off, by the ambiguous and different meaning of the word Adore, as if it might (perhaps) onely meane internall adoration, which all men confesse to be necessary in that action. For, Chrysostome sheweth of what kinde of Adoration hee speaketh vsually in this matter, namely, of Externall.

For in his seuenth Homily on Mathew, Anno. 400. he exhorteth (by the example of the Magi, or Wise men which came out of their owne countrey) to Adore, i.e. externally to come to the house of Bread. — But, to adore and honour the Sonne of God: warneth men, that they counterfet not as Herod, who said hee would come to adore, but meant to kill: and saith, that such like are they which hauing Mammon in their hearts, doe a­buse vnworthily the Communion of the mystery:—who seeme to adore, but as much as in them is, kill him whom they feigne them­selues to adore.—He concludeth, [...]. Timeamus igitur, Let vs feare therefore, lest when wee carry the shew of suppliants and a­dorers, we be indeed enemies. Let vs then when wee are about to adore, cast all things from vs &c. In which passage he pl [...]in [...] ­ly [Page 84] requireth so the outward adoration, as it should not bee se­parated from the inward; and shewes, that adoration, which euen Hypocrites might performe, must needs bee onely ex­ternall, and in the fashion (as he saith) of Suppliants.

The same Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. exhorting (as he doth in his seventh Hom. on Math.) by the example of the Magi, to come humbly to worship Christ, pleadeth that they haue more reason to honour his Body which is set before them on the Altar. For, that which is worthy of highest ho­nour (saith he) I will shew thee on earth. For, as in the Court of Kings, not the walls, nor the golden roofe, but the Body of the King sitting in his throne is the chiefest of all: So, in the heauens is that kingly body, which now on earth is set before thee to bee seene, &c. In which passage it is plaine, that hee calleth for such Adoration, as the Magi performed to Christ lying in the cratch; not, because hee thought the very natural body of Christ to bee locally there vpon the Altar, which hee, euen there, affirmes to bee enthronized in the highest Heauens: But because the Bread is the very body of Christ in a mystery onely; for he could not else say, It is to bee seene on the Altar-table. Nor was this Adoration which he calleth for, inten­ded terminatiue, to determine in the Sacramentall bread, or the species which appeared; or, in Christ as contained there­in; but onely before the same, and by occasion thereof vnto Christ himselfe sitting in glory as M. Perkins well saith.Perk Workes Ann. 1609. Vol. [...] p. 642. Aug. de Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 9. For, as Augustine saith, He that adoreth a profitable signe which God hath commanded, (marke well, that this makes no roome for Images which God hath not commanded) and vnderstandeth the signification, doth not adore that which is seene, and perish­eth,The baptized that were of [...]eeres did a­dore (whē they were baptiz'd) not Baptisme, but Christ. but rather that vnto which all such things are to be re­ferred, of which hee after giueth instance in Baptisme, and the Lords Supper. This will not hold in images, nor profit them who adore Christ as contained, and existent in the place, where had beene the substance of Bread and Wine, (as they say) indeed, is still; Iewel Artic. Defence pa. [...]9. Edit. pr [...]. any more then for adoration of water in Baptisme. The Sacraments (saith Bishop Jewell) in that sort, i. e. in respect of that which they signifie, and not in respect of that which they are in themselues, are the flesh of Christ and are [Page 85] so vnderstanded, and beleeved, and adored; but the whole honour resteth not in them, but is passed over from them to the things which be signified.

His meaning is, that no more is, or may be done, re­spectiuely to the Sacrament, then that which we call Venera­tion; that, which in strict sense, wee call Adoration or diuine worship, reserued to God; of which two, the difference (as I haue shewed) cannot alwayes, nor needeth to be shewed, in, or by the outward gesture, but is onely in the distinction, and intention of the minde.1 Chro. 29.20. The people worshipped (saith the Text) God and the King. Where the outward adoration was one, as the word by which it is expressed, is but one; but the Religious and Civill, were distinct in the minde, intention and reason of either.

Well saith Doctor Ames, D. Ames An­tibell. Tom. 3. disp. 37. art. 23. That veneration or reuerence is due to the Sacrament it selfe as Gods Ordinance, And that Christ is to be adored in the vse of it, though not as inclosed in the Bread and Wine, or existent in the place of their substance. This di­gression is to cleare Chrysostomes, and the other Ancient Fa­thers meanings. Now, returne we to the History.

CAP. 23. The same shewed to bee the practise of the Church, in the time of Theodoret, Saint Augu­stine, and Cyril.

THeodoret, Dial. 2. hath this passage:Anno 430.2 [...]. Coccius. Neque enim, &c. For neither after the Consecration doe these mysticall signes depart from their proper nature, for they remaine in their former substance, figure, and kind or species, and therefore are they both seene and felt as before. And yet are they vnderstood to bee that which they are made, and are beleeued and adored, as being the very things which they are beleeued to bee. This testimony sheweth plainely, that Theodoret beleeued neither Transub­stantiation, nor Consubstantiation. Not Transubstantiation, for he denieth any change to be made by Consecration, either in the substance, for me or species: nor Consubstantiation, for he saith not, that in, or with those mysticall signes is that [Page 86] which is beleeued and adored; but that the signes themselues ar [...] vnderstood to bee that which is beleeued and adored, id est, to be that in a Myste [...]ie: [...]or else how said our Lord, This is my body? How Paul, The rocke was Christ? And yet Theodoret plainely sheweth, that these; not, Elements, but signes, i. e. Sacraments of Bread and Wine sanctified by the will of Christ to that vse, are beleeued and adored; not meaning, that the adoration should at all rest in the visible things, in which no reall change was made, but was referred to what they are, in their signification and vse, the body and blood of Christ, insepa­rably knit to the person of the Sonne of God, or Deitie in that Person.

[...] adversus [...]um. [...]ialecticon [...]thar.Thus was God worshipped in the Bush, as Lyra saith; and in the Arke, as that learned man, forenamed; and it appea­reth, Psal. 95.6 to bee so. Thus Dauids dauncing before the Arke, was, before the Lord, 2. Sam. 6.

[...]g de Cate­ [...]hisan [...]s ru­ [...]ibus. cap. 3. The signes (saith Augustine) are visible things, but invisble things are adored in them. He saith, that invisible things which are in them are adored, not as if hee had once dreamed of Christs being (ibi) there contained in, or vnder the species (for he often professeth, that Christs naturall body, where it is, is visible, and occupieth a place, or else could not be a body; and is now, and shall be onely in heaven, till he come to Iudge­ment) but that the Adoration is intended not at all to the Signes themselues, as they are visible things; but to Christ hims [...]lfe, which is not seene; who is in the Signes onely, ut signatum in signe, by vertue of a Sacramentall Relation, not by any Locall inexsistence.

The same Theodoret, in Dialog. 3. reasoneth from the A­doration done outwardly to the Sacrament (though in Rela­tion to Christ) thereby to proue that the flesh of Christ it selfe, being the flesh of the Sonne of God, is to bee Adored, saying; How is the Architype it selfe base or contemptible, whose type is to be Adored and reuerenced? Where, first it is mani­fest that hee esteemeth and calleth the Sacrament but a type of the body and blood of Christ, which is the Archtype. and therefore fauoureth not any reall Carnall presence, but ex­cludeth that: And yet, seeing, from the Adoration done to [Page 87] the type in reference to Christ the Archtype, hee so dispu­teth; hee plainely sheweth, that it was vsuall and knowne to all men then, that such externall Adoration or veneration, was performed in the celebration of the mysteries vnto them as types, to bee passed ouer (as Iewell speaketh) to the Archtype, and not to rest in them. And hee that will inter­pret this Adoration to haue beene onely internall or mentall, must conclude, that to the very person of Christ, no externall Adoration must bee giuen. For how else will Theodorets Argument stand good?

That this was not alone in some places;Anno 400. or in the Easterne Churches, but in many or all; and in the West also take we the Testimonies of Saint Ambrose and S. Augustine. They both, led with the Latine Translation, Psal 94 6. Adora­te scabellum eius, in stead of ad scabellum; reading [worship his foot-stoole] for [worship at his foot-state] are troubled to thinke how that speech could bee right, when it was not lawfull to Adore any creature. And thinke you, these mea [...]t to Adore the consecrated Elements as if they were no crea­tures? verely no, for Ambrose saith, that they remaine the same that they were, and yet are turned to another thing: that is, in vse, and mysterie an other thing; but in their substance, still the same creatures. Vpon this, Ambrose first, and Aug. after him; and many others, after them, enquire what that same foot-stoole (in the Psalme) may bee, which men must A­dore. They find in Isay 61. That the earth is called the Lords foot-stoole. Well, then men must worship the earth. But this they also abhorre, lest they should offend him that is Lord of heauen and earth. They then remember, that Christs hu­mane body was earth of the earth, and that the same, as taken into the vnity of the person of the Sonne of God, was to be Adored for the Deities sake, to which it is inseperably vni­ted. Here is the ground. But then, how shall wee Adore that flesh which is not present with vs? Hence Augustine: And because he hath walked in that flesh, and hath giuen vs that flesh to bee eaten vnto Saluation, and no man eateth that flesh vnlesse he hath first adored it, It is found how such a foot-stoole of the Lord is adored, and we not only shall not sinne in Adoring it, but [Page 88] shall sinne in not Adoring. But doth the flesh quicken or giue life? Our Lord himselfe hath told, commending (to vs) the same earth. It is the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth no­thing. And, Ideo & ad terram quamlibet cum tu inclinas & prosternis, non quasi terram intuearis, therefore when thou bowest or prostratest thy selfe to any earth, thou oughtest to behold it, not as earth, but looke at that Holy one, whose foot-stoole that is which thou dost adore, for thou adorest for his sake; wherefore hee hath added here, Quia sanctum est, &c. In this large passage of Saint Augustine, it is manifest that his de­vise is, to forefend all Adoration of any meere creature, and to acknowledge the humanity of Christ only, though a crea­ture, to bee capable of diuine Adoration, in respect of the Deity to which it is personally vnited. Therefore Augustine was no Papist, nor will his Testimony at all serue their turne, which worship any thing, that is not also God, as the Man Christ is.

Beza therfore saith, that in Aug. time they did receiue, A­dorantes: hee meanes knee­ling, adversus H [...]s [...]us [...]ū p. 311But withall, the Text of August. doth manifestly shew, that Christ God and Man was adored of euery Communi­cant; before hee receiued the Sacramentall flesh of Christ in the Eucharist: And that this was, in Augustines iudge­ment, so farre from being a sinne, that it was a sinne not to doe it

But to this is Rep [...]y to Bi­shop Morrow, part. 2. cap. 22. to the testimo­nies of Aug. and Chrysost. Beza saith it ought to bee receiued both with internall and externall Adoration. Quest. & Resp. lib. Quest. 243. answered, that euery true Communicant must adore Christ before he partake him in the Sacraments, but that is internally by faith and loue, &c. This is true I confesse; but is so far from excluding the outward expression by some bodily signe of Godly reuerence, that it rather doth require it, that God may be worshipped in body and soule together.

But this must not bee pleaded, to void the Testimony of Aug. alleadged to proue externall Adoration before com­municating. For first, the Text of the Psalme speaketh of bodily worship, and therefore must bodily worship bee in Au­gustines eye, when hee would shew to what, or rather whom that worship, which the Psalme requireth, may bee tendred. Secondly, when hee saith Et ad terram quamlibet te inclinas & prosternas, to whatsoeuer earth, i.e. flesh of Christ thou bowest and prostratest thy selfe, looke not on it as earth, [Page 89] i.e. as flesh, but looke at that holy one whose foot-stoole it is that thou dost adore, i.e. Looke to the God-head of Christ whose flesh thou dost Adore in the mysteries. It cannot therefore bee denied with a good conscience, that Augustine speaketh of outward Adoration performed by the bowing or prostra­ting of the body before the mysteries; not, to them deter­minatiuely, but in Relation to Christ himselfe, and that for his Deities sake.Ambr. de S. san­cto lib. 3. c. 12. Which is also the same that Ambrose spea­keth of the flesh of Christ saying (which we adore in those mysteries) referring the Adoration not to the mysteries or signes, but to Christ which is represented to vs, and Sacra­mentally exhibited by them. One thing more I would haue to bee marked in Augustines words, that hee reckoneth Inclination of the body, as well as Prostration on the knee, to bee externall Adoration, as all men vse to doe; contrary to the new learning of Altare Damascenum which will haue kneeling a proper gesture of Adoration, not other bowings (such as wee vse in signe of reuerence to men;) contrary to Scripture and Common-sense.

And this of Augustine agreeth with Chrysostome, Chrysost. Hom. 3. de incompre­hensibili natu­ra Dei. who speaking of the adoration of Christ in the mysteries saith, that therefore the Deacon cryeth not, inclinate capita, bow your heads (which, in the Leitourgy bearing his name, wee find, inclinate capita Deo, bow your heads vnto God) after the consecration; not to God, as there contained, but represented.

To the Testimony of Augustine I adde this, that the Christians in his time were taxed by the Heathens for wor­shipping Ceres and Bacchus. From whence is manifest that something was then done, which gaue them colour of that calumniation: For the times were not now, with Christi­ans, as formerly, when the Heathens durst feigne any thing against Christ; as whom the Imperiall power did persecute. And to put the matter out of daunger, Augustine sheweth, that it was their manner, or Rite of receiuing the bread and wine of the Lords Supper.Aug. contra Faustum Ma­zichaeum lib. 20. cap. 13. A Cerere & Libero dijs Pagano­rum longe absumus, quamuis panis & calicis Sacramentum nostro ritu amplectamur, it a patres nostri longe fuerunt a Satur­niacis catenis, quamuis pro tempore prophetiae Sabbathi vacatio­nem [Page 90] obsernauerunt: Wee differ wide from Ceres and Bac­chus those Pagan Idols, although wee imbrace that Rite in receiuing the Sacrament of the Bread and Cup. So our An­cestors were farre from the chaines of the Saturnian heresie although for the time of prophecie, they obserued the rest of the Sabbath: whereby it is plaine, that like as the Iewes obseruation of their Sabbath called Saturnes day, was the oc­casion that moued the Gentiles, yea and Manichees, to say that the Iewes worshipped Saturne; So the Ritus, the manner or fashion of the Christians receiuing the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, occasioned the malicious Gentiles to say, that they adored Ceres and Bacchus, as their owne Gods.

Fulkes Answer to the Rhemists on 1 Cor. 11.It is true, I confesse, which Doctor Fulke saith, that the Pagans did neuer worship Bread and Wine: and it is as true that they did not challenge the Christians for worshipping Bread and Wine, for the very Cicero de na­tura Deorum, [...] such a [...] as to be­ [...]e [...]e that very thing which he eateth, to be God. Heathens counted it a madnesse in any man to worship that as God which hee did eat. This madnesse came into the world, with Transubstantiati­on. Wherefore the Pagans did conceiue, the Adoration v­sed in receiuing the Bread and Wine of the Lords Supper to bee intended and done to Ceres and Bacchus their owne imagina­ry Gods, Gods (as they thought) of Bread and Wine: like as they tooke the obseruation of Saturne-day the Iewes Sab­bath, to bee held in honour of Saturne their Idoll; as saith Augustine, the Manichees also did. And therefore this is a pregnant euidence, not for the Papists, that the Sacrament was it selfe adored, as being made a God, but onely for this, that they did then, Panis & vini Sacramenta suo ritu amplecti, receiue the Sacrament in that fashion and rite that the Gen­tiles used; which Ritus was, externall Adoration, referring it vnto Christ by them. [...]. Damasc. The Altare Damascenum would not haue vs thinke, that the Heathens had any more colour of occasion, then onely a solemne reuerent vsage of Bread and Wine. [...] But this is but a shift, when Augustine himselfe hath told vs, that no man did communicate, but hee first adored. And wee haue, out of his words, learned how.

I will adde one Testimony more out of the Mystagogick catechisme of Cyrill, either of Ierusalem, in whose name it [Page 91] commonly goeth, who liued An. 370. or Iohn of Ierusa­lem, vnder whose name, Master Robert Cooke saith,Cooke in Cen­sura. Du' plessis re­sponse a Le­ues (que) de Eu­roux, p. 422. vid Causab [...]a. it was marted, &c. and whole, that learned Duplessis taketh it ra­ther to bee, (as I for my parte doe not) who liued neere An. 600. In this booke, Catechis. 5. This Author after he hath shewed in what manner the Bread should bee taken, saith, Then come to the Cupp of the blood, not stretching out thy hand, Sed pronus & in modum Adorationis & venerationis, decens, but bowing downe, and after the manner of Adoration or veneration, saying Amen. Where it cannot bee denied that, some prayer was vsed at the deliuery, to which the Commu­nicant said, Amen, which wee find currantly to haue beene in vse long before, viz. An. 251. namely,Ann. 251. when Nouatianus the intruding Bishop of Rome, in administring the Sacra­ment to the people, Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 42. tooke euery mans hand betwixt his owne; adjuring him that hee should not returne to Cornelius (the Bp. (by right) then of Rome) and suffered no man to taste of the mysteries, till (in stead of that, he should haue said, Amen.) hee said, I will not returne to Cornelius. Secondly, we marke, in Cyrill, that the Cup was receiued by each Communicant with Adoration.

CAP. 24. A Vindication of Doctor Morton, that Reuerend Bishop of Coventrie and Litchfeild, quarrelled by a namelesse Replier falsely charging Doctor Morton with abusing of Cyrill, Au­gustine and Chrysostome in this point.

Reply 2. part. cap. 3. sect. 25. pag. 52. & 53. WEe are come to about the 600. yeare. Now be­fore I goe any further, I will take into conside­ration the Replie, made against some of those Testimonies, in a late in temperate and scoffing Libell, called a Reply to Doctor Mortons defence, &c. part. 2. cap. 3. Sect. 21. setting downe his words.

The learned Bishop of Chester, to proue that, the Sacra­ment [Page 92] was receiued with some adoration, by bowing of the body, before the time of Honorius, hath alleadged Cyrill, Augustine and Chrysostome. Let vs heare the Repliers Answer.

Repl. 1. I answer that the Question is here of Knee­ling not of other gestures.

Answ. To which I reply, that the Question is, of Knee­ling onely as a gesture of adoration; and therefore the proofe of bowing for adoration, cometh home to the cause, though not to the word. And, if bowing to the Sacrament, bee not a­doration, as well as kneeling, why doth himselfe cite and allowe Bale, Duplessis, Iewell, Hospinian, and Z [...]pper, affir­ming with one consent, that Honorius the third, was the Author of adoration of the Sacrament, who onely appointed the people reuerent bowing of themselues to it, at the Eleuati­on, &c. As is in this Section, alleadged by himselfe.

Repl. 2. Answer. It is not now either enquired, what was voluntarily either spoken, or practised by particular men, but what was inioyned vnto Churches.

Answ. I reioyne. The Question is, whether the Sacrament was commonly receiued with adoration, before Transubstantiation was knowen, or thought off? This when wee proue by Re­cords to haue beene so; Is it not a meere shift, to tell vs, that they enquire for a Decree, not voluntarie practise onely? As for that hee addeth [of some few] it is a blind. For, the Testi­monies alleadged shew the ordinary custome of the Christi­an Churches, then. And if nothing will serue for proofe but a Decree, then can they not proue Kneeling of the people in the act of receiuing, euer to haue beene in the Church of Rome. For they themselues, namely Costerus, Coster. En­ [...]r pag 353. Edi [...]. 1590. maintaineth it, not as a Decree, but as an ancient custome continued (saith hee) from the Apostles time.

Let vs haue our measure, and then will appeare, that ei­ther wee proue Kneeling; or, in stead of it, adoration by bow­ing, to haue beene in the Primitiue Church; though not, to the Sacrament it selfe; as, since: Or else, that they can not proue any Adoration, by kneeling in the act of receiuing the Eucharist, no not in the Church of Rome. For neither of vs can shew a Decree, but onely a Custome. For, as for that [Page 93] which is alleadged out of the Romane Rituall; that, to the Clergie-men, kneeling vpon the stayres of the Altar, the Eu­charist should bee deliuered, it doth not at all belong to the common people, who might not kneele there, at the Com­munion; and the kneeling in that case required,See before in Cap. 10. was respe­ctiuely to the Altar, or things thereon, not to the Sacrament as then receiued. That this kneeling respecteth the place, the Altar, Crucifix, or hoast thereon, and not the partaking of the Sacrament, may appeare by this, that the Priest himselfe is tyed by the Masse-booke, to receiue reuerentèr stans, reue­rently standing.

Repl. 3. Answer. These very places Cyrill, Augustine, and Chrysostome are vsually vrged by Papists for their Idolatry: the Defendant therefore doth not well in borrowing their Wea­pons to fight against vs withall, for the Borrower is a seruant to the Lender. But the Ceremonies themselues being borrowed of the Papists, it is no marvell if our Prelates bee beholding to the Papists for proofes to maintaine them by.

Answ. To this I rejoyne. 1. That the same testimonies are alleadged by the Papists wrongfully to proue their Ido­latry. For, that Adoration which the Fathers professedly re­ferred to Christ as sitting in heauen, the Papists transferre to the Sacrament it selfe, as being, in the substance, nothing but Christ, and whole Christ. 2. The Defendant borrowed not those Testimonies from the Papists, (who were not the Owners but Abusers of them;) but of the Fathers them­selues, to whom (it is not vncomely to say) wee are debtors, and to God for them. 3. There is, by vs, nothing here said for maintenance of our Ceremonies, which wee suppose to bee maintainable so far, as not to be vnlawfull by the Scriptures. The poynt herein hand, was onely matter of fact, viz. Whe­ther the ancient Churches receiued the Communion adoring, yea, or no? The salt-biting of the Bishop, (as borrowing proofs from the Papists maintenance of Popish ceremonies,) maketh nothing to the Answer of the evidence produced; but turneth the Readers mind, by a brackish gybe, from off the cause, to the persons of the Bishops, which is not plaine dealing.

Repl. 4. Answ. As for Cyril, 1 Doctor Fulke saith of one [Page 94] precept of Cyrils about the Sacrament, extant in the same page, one of which the Defendant citeth his, Verely I tooke it for a meere superstious precept, may not this bee also superstitious which the Defendant citeth? Sure I am, that about the Sacra­ments, and about the Crosse and Chrisme, there is much su­perstition taught in the Catechisines which goe vnder the name of Cyrill.

Answ. I reply, Something in Cyrill was superstitious, Er­go, this, is such an inference as the Replyer durst not affirme; and therefore onely asketh if it may not bee: which is an­swered with another [May it not bee no superstition?] But superstition, or not, is nothing (now) to the question, which onely is, Whether the thing was done or no? But this is the Replyers ordinary course, to let the cause alone, and fasten vpon something else; as if, to say any thing after a man, were to answere him. But the Replyer hath more to say about Cyrill.

Repl. 3. J say, Cyrill is corrupted, both by the Defendant, and by the Bishop of Rochester, p. 183. For 1. the Greeke word [...], Rochester translateth it, [ [...]alling on thy face,] ana the Defendant, [bowing of thy selfe] whereas, though the word be many times vsed in such a sense, yet as Stephen (in his great Treasurie sheweth) it signifieth properly a gesture of the eyes, which appeareth plainely by the words compounded of it, [...].

Answ. This Answer looks toward the matter. But what had the Replyer to doe with the Bishop Rochester? Surely nothing, by the taske of his Reply to Bishop Morton, but that he had a desire to giue him something of his good will. The Bishop of Rochester alleadgeth not the Greeke text of Cyril, which (perhaps) he saw not▪ but, the Latine transla­tion of him, which is, Sed pronus & adorationis & venera­tionis in modure, dicas Amen. If [...], be not well rendred, [pronus] in Latine, as it is yet pronu [...] may be turned (falling on the face) without corruption. For so Martial lib. 1.88. Fe bibis i [...]dam [...] [...]ane pronus aquam.

At least it doth signifie a bonding of the [...]a [...]e downewards, as Rober [...] Stephen obserues in his Latine Treasury, as contrary [Page 95] to supine. And this was enough to the Bishop of Rochesters turne; Vivorum cadauera supina fluttare faeminarum prona. Plin. l. 7. c. 17. But, the Bishop (then of Chester) turneth it, bowing thy selfe. What corruption is in that; vnlesse he should haue said bowing thy selfe with thy face downewards, which he meant, and so did Cyril: for this gesture is opposed to stret­ing out of the hand. [not stretching out thy hand, [...], but bowing thy face downeward,] and not (as the Replyer) loo­king with the eyes downewards, which is no impediment to stretching out the hand, as bowing, downeward is. But the word (saith hee) is many times vsed in such a sense. He should haue said, mostly: But if it be many times to vsed, why is the Bi­shop said to haue corrupted the Text? Forsooth, Robert Stephen saith, it signifieth properly a gesture of the eyes. Good, and doth not Rob. Stephen shew that it is frequently vsed for bowing downe of the face? And then, whether sense is fitter. the place must shew, not the word, mistake there might haue been, but not corruption. But it is vtterly vntrue, that Robert Stephen doth say, that [...] doth signifie properly a gesture of the eyes, [...] pronus sum, propendeo, inclino me, vel inclino ca­put, sum capite obstipo, demitto oculos, saith Stephen. Where, casting downe of the eyes, is the last, and onely made a secondary [...]ense of the word, as following vpon the bowing downe of the head; and not the p [...]imary, and proper. Therefore the same Robert Stephen, in his Greek Concordance, rendreth it incuruo me, and in his Treasury, [...] inclinatus, supplex. But, the compound [...], and [...] shew it? Cleane contra­ry. For, [...] is erigere se, contrary to [...]. So in Iohn 8.89. where the words [...] and [...] are both v­sed: the one not for looking downe, but for bowing downe to write one the ground; the other, not for looking vp, but lif­ting vp himselfe againe. As for [...], it doth signifie bowing downe, to looke into; as in Ioan. 20.11. So that the Replier hath falsified his Authour, to make good his chal­lenge: and the Bishop of Chester hath not corrupted Cyril. But, he will giue vs a reason why, in this place at least, [...] should onely be [looking downe.]

Repl. And that Cyrill respecteth the gesture of the eye it is [Page 96] very probable, because in receiuing of the Bread, hee biddeth the Receiuer first to sanctifie his eyes with it, and then to take it. In proportion whereof those words cited are vsed concerning the Cup, [...], &c.

Cham. de Ca­none lib. 9. c. 20. [...]. 1. Damasc. [...]. side [...], [...]. 4. cap. [...]3. Answ. I answer. This probabilitie is grounded vpon a mistaking of Cyrils words, which are not, that the Commu­nicant should sanctifie his eyes, by looking on it; but, per conta­ctum by touching of it, as Chamier saith, & the place it selfe. So Damasc. saith also, That they should put the mysticall Bread to their eyes, foreheads, and lips, &c. and then where is the Replyers ground? But he hath yet more to say.

Repl. And besides, Cyrill doth manifestly referre the Ado­ration and worship hee speaketh of, to the saying Amen. [...], [...]. i. e. Looking downe stedfastly vpon it, and saying Amen, in manner of A­doration and Veneration. What reason then had Rochester first, and Chester after, to apply the manner of worship and ado­ration vnto the bodily gesture signified in the word ( [...]?)

Answ. If the Adoration bee there referred to the prayer vsed at the deliuery of the Cup, in the very act of receiuing the same; Then was there Adoration vsed (and that by Order not voluntarily) in the act of receiuing, [...]. Al­ [...] [...] Damasc. which is the point for which Cyrill was alleadged. Let them, in receiuing, referr [...] their Adoration to Amen; that is, vnto the prayer vsed at the deliuery, who will question them? But they rather con­demne the vse of any such particular prayer for each Com­municant at that time; One, as a priuate worship in publicke; Another, as a mixing of seuerall worships; forgetting that eue­ry Communicant performeth his priuate worship, when hee receiueth: And, that Bread and Broath, Creame and Straw­berries, Wine and Sugar agree not better in our bodily meates, then some acts of worship with other some, though not all.2 Chron. 29. [...]8. The people adored, the Priests blew with Trumpets, the Leuites sang, and all this continued till the burnt offering was finished. Here is a mixture of priuate in publicke, and seuerall sortes of worship at the burnt offering.

2. The Replier hauing complained of two learned Bish­ops, that they had corrupted Cyrill, in their translations, [Page 97] doth himselfe indeed corrupt him, when he rendreth [...] [looking downe stedfastly vpon it] of which like sense of the word hee can giue no example, as if his griefe were not at mis-translation, but onely that any but himselfe should cor­rupt Cyrill.

3. The Adoration [...], must needs bee referred to the gesture, for it denoteth the same, as all men know. And therefore the Bishops did right in referring it to the gesture required in the word [...], of which this is a de­claration in what manner they should [...]. The Replier is forced to put the words out of their owne order, to re­ferre the Adoration to Amen, though it gaine him nothing.

Repl. 3. Seeing Cyrill hath no precept of bowing the body at the receiuing of the Bread, he cannot be so interpreted, concer­ning the Wine, without imputation of superstitious aduancing of the Wine aboue the Bread.

Answ. I haue shewed before, that the manner was, when they had taken the Bread, to cary it to their owne pla­ces (I meane) in the Churches, where they went to the Ta­ble for it; and then, to receiue it kneeling apart. And this was (as I thinke) the cause, why Cyrill requireth Adoration when they come to the Cup, which they might not cary a­way from the Table, as they did the other; and not so, for the Bread, because that custome had setled that, long before: viz. that men did sumere Adorantes.

Repl. 4. Seeing Cyrill had such leisure to appoint his Com­municants so many superstitious toies about the Sacraments, with particular description, as that hee should in taking the Bread, hold his fingers together, beare vp his right hand with his left, take it in the hollow of his hand so borne vp, taking great heed that no crume fall, &c. hee would surely more ex­presly haue spoken of Kneeling, if it had beene vsed in his time.

Answ. This followes not: for that being (as wee haue shewed) so ingrafted in the peoples hearts, to receiue the Bread into their mouthes, after some priuate prayers, Knee­ling; There was no need to instruct them in that at all, and therefore Cyrill insisteth in the newer Inuentions about the Bread, in the manner of taking it at the Table.

[Page 98] Cyrils Testimony (wee see) hath put the Replyer to many shifts, and will not bee shifted off. As for his Answer to those alleadged out of Augustine and Chrysostome, viz. that they speake onely of Internall Adoration, though it haue some countenance from some men of excellent learning, yet it cannot stand with their expresse words, as I haue shew­ed before. Wherefore I may now goe on with some o­ther witnesses of this point, That the Communion was re­ceiued with outward Adoration before the Transubstantiation, or Reall-presence (as they call it) was knowne.

CAP. 25. More Instances shewing the Antiquity of this gesture of Adoring or Kneeling.

Ann. 530. In Authentica de priuilegus dotis haere [...]cis mulieribus non praestanuis.ABout the yeare of our Lord, 530. Justinian the Empe­rour made a Decree, that hereticall women should haue no downe. In this, hee describeth such as shall bee held meet Iudges of this matter (among other things, by this) that they doe in the Catholicke Orthodox Church receiue sacr [...]-sanctum & Adorabilem communionem, which very terme of Adorable, i.e. venerable, was, no doubt, giuen vn­to it, because of their reuerend esteeme, and manner of recei­uing it, with outward Adoration, not simply (as often is said) to it; but, to Christ, in, and by his ordinance.

Ann. 580. a [...] Coccius, but possevine sets him higher, at 340. Bibl. Patrum Tom. [...]. part 3. pa 887 & 888. Anno 595. Ioannes Climacus grad. 23. thus, Nam simea sunt turpia illa & sceleratae verba, quid est quod dorum coeleste suscipiens A­doro? quomodo possm [...]n [...] & benedicere, &c. Which shew­eth in mine apprehension, that the manner was to take the Communion adoring. Remigius Rhemensi [...] (who liued in the end of the fifth Century, An [...]89. as Earonius saith) in his Commentaries on 1. Cor. 11.29 C [...]m timore & tremore de­bemus accedere ad illud terribile Sacramentum, vt sciat mens reuerentiam se debere praestare e [...], ad cuius corpus sumendum ac­cedit. Where, though wee haue not the name of adoration; yet, the reason of it, that by the very comportment of the bo­dy in comming to that dreadfull Sacrament, the mind might [Page 99] vnderstand what is the internall reuerence due to him that giueth his body, the Sonne of God: whether kneeling, or Bowing, comes to one.

CAP. 26. Instances of the practise of the Church about the eight hundred yeares af­ter Christ.

I will adde no more, saue onely these obseruations, that how euer in those dayes, the publicke prayers were ge­nerally performed on the Lords-dayes, and Pentecost, accor­ding to the twentith Canon of 1. Nicene councell,S. Germanus Arch Constāt. Rerum Ecclesiasticarum theoria. Bibl. patrum. Colon. Tom. 8. pag. 61. colum. 1. lib. C. standing and standing vpright. Yet when they came to the prayers a­bout, or at the consecration, the Ceremony was, that the Ministers did pray, inclinantes se, or bowing downe-wards with their heads and faces; Etenim quod pronus Sacerdos mystagogiam faciat, id declarat eum cum solo Deo colloqui, vn­de & diuinam lucis apparitionem cernit, & ad splendorem con­spectus filij Dei exhilarescit, & se subtrahit timore & verecun­dia, quemadmodum Moses quum Deum vidit in monte, ignis specie, perterrefactus recessit & eccultauit faciem suam, reuere­batur enim percipere a glor [...]a Dei faciem. For in that the Priest performes the mysteries bowing of himselfe, that shewes him to conuerse onely with God, whence hee sees a diuine apparition of light, and both cheeres vp himselfe at the splendor of the sight of Christ beholding him, and also withdrawes himselfe out of feare and modesty: Euen as Moses when hee saw God in the Mount, in the forme of fire, being afraid, retyred, and hid his face, because his mo­desty feared to looke vpon the glory of God face to face.

In the Romane Church (as appeareth in the Booke set out first about or before the yeare 800. mentioned by Amalar. de Offi [...]is Eccles. lib. 31. cap. 31. A­malarius who liued An 830 called Ordo Rom. in Bibl Patr. Co­lon. Tom. 8. pa. 397. & 401. Ordo Romanus) directi­on is giuen to the Bishop, when hee must inclinare se, bow himselfe downe in some part of the Canon, (as it was called) of the Masse, and when, the Deacons, and Subdeacons must stare inclinati, stand bowing themselues downe; when, se [Page 100] erigere, erect or raise themselues vpright. Amalar. de Ordine Anti­phonaris lib. cap. 52. in Bib. Pat. Colon. T [...]m 9. part. 1. [...]g. 4.1. Amalarius, de glorioso officio quod fit in Romana Ecclesia in Paschali hebdoma­da (in which the Canon was, that they should pray standing) mentioneth a prayer, Quam solemus dicere genua flectendo, si­ue vultum declinando in terram, which (saith hee) wee vse to say kneeling, or bowing our faces to the earth, as hath beene shewed.

CAP. 27. The former Instances were of times preceding those wherein the Doctrine of the Reall-pre­sence was hatched.

1. IT may not bee truely objected that, at this time, the doctrine of the Reall-presence was setled in the Church of Rome; and that therefore, they now began to vse this bowing at the Consecration. For this Booke doth not shew what was then made, but what was also before that time the receiued fashion of the Romane Church.

2. Neither was the Doctrine of Christs Reall-presence in his naturall body, then receiued of that Church, howeuer Amalarius himselfe muttereth something of it, whose error was then opposed and censured by a Synod held at Carisia­cum, as is shewed by that most reuerend and learned Answer to a Challenge p. 73 and [...]4. Arch­bishop of Armach. Doctor Vsher.

Yea, and Paschasius Radbertus, who liued somewhat later then Amalarius, viz. An. 880. and did indeed teach the Re­all presence of Christs naturall body, in and with the Bread, which is Consubstantiation. (For of the Bread it selfe, he saith that, the body digesteth it [Etsi Paschas. Radbertus in Mat. l. 12. Tom. [...]. Bib pat. Co­lin. part 2 pag. 1202. colum. 1. corpus digerit quod extra est] which bee calleth still Bread, as well after as before Conse­cration; and affirmeth, that alone to profit nothing) yet this man confesseth, Ibid p. 1201. [Audiui quosdam me reprehendere, &c.] that his opinion was reproued of others as excessiue and be­yond the truth, &c. Whereby is manifest, that, as yet, it was but an errour creeping into the Church, as appeareth by the confessed oppositions of Bertram, alias Ratranus, Ra­banus, and others mentioned in the learned Answer of that [Page 101] Reuerend Bishop, quo supra. To which I will adde the Testimony of Tom 9. Bibl. pat. Colon part 1. pag 934. co­lum. 1. D. Floruit & vi­xit. Ann. 870. Christianus Gramaticus, alias Druthmarus, in his exposition on Math. 16.26. [Deditque discipulis suis & aiit, accipite & comedite, hoc est corpus meum.] Dedit disci­pulis suis Sacramentum corporis sui in remissionem peccatorum & conseruationem charitatis, vt memores illius facti, semper hoc in figura facerent, quod pro ijs acturus erat, non obliuiscerentur, [Hoc est corpus meum] i. e. in Sacramento. & post. Sicut de­nique si aliquis peregre proficiscens, dilectoribus suis quoddam vinculum dilectionis relinquit, eo tenore vt omni die hoc agant, vt illius non obliuiscantur: Ita Deus praecipit agi a nobis, transfe­rens spiritualiter corpus in panem (vt in margine, panem in cor­pus) & vinum in sanguinem, vt per haec Deo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore & sanguine suo, & non simus ingrati tam amantissimae charitati. [And hee gaue it to his disciples, saying, take, eate, this is my body] ‘Hee gaue to his disciples the Sacrament of his body for remission of sinnes, and conseruation of charity, that so they being mindfull of his act, might alwayes doe this in a figure, which hee was a­bout to doe; and should not forget it. (This is my body) that is, in a Sacrament, or mysterie. And after, lastly as if one going a journey should leaue some bond of loue a­mong his friends, on condition that euery day they should doe such a thing, that they might not bee vnmindfull of him. So God hath charged vs to doe, spiritually chan­ging (the body into bread: for so the margent hath it) bread into his body, and wine into his blood, that by these wee might remember what Christ hath done for vs of his body and blood, and not bee vngratefull to a most louing charity.’

Florus Magister who liued An. 860, (as Coccius) wrote an Exposition of the Masse, wherein hee hath these words,Bibl. Pat. Tom. [...]. part 2 pag. 300. colum. 1. Cum panis & vini creatura in Sacramentum carnis & sangui­nis eius ineffabili spiritus sanctificatione, transfertur, manduca­tur Christus: Propterea manducatur in Sacramento, & manet integer totus in coelo, manet integer totus in corde tuo. When the creature of bread and wine is changed into the flesh and blood of Christ by the ineffable sanctification of the spirit, [Page 102] Christ is eaten: hee is eaten by parts in the Sacrament, and whole Christ remaines whole in heauen, whole Christ remaines whole in thy heart. Whereby is manifest that he beleeued not either Consubstantiation, or Transubstantiation, but a Sacramentall eating of Christ in the mysteries apart, and a spirituall Communication of whole Christ to the heart, euen as wee doe. Hence he there also saith, Totum hoc quod in hac oblatione corporis & sanguinis Domini agitur, mysterium est; aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur, quod videtur speeiem ha­bet corporalem, quod intelligitur (hee saith not quod inest) fructum habet spiritualem: All that is done in this oblation of the body and blood of the Lord, is a Mysterie: one thing is seene, another is vnderstood: that which is seene hath a bodily shape, that which is vnderstood (hee saith not which is in or vnder the bread) hath a spirituall fruit.

Yea, that then the Church of Rome did not beleeue any such Reall-presence, as after it did, may appeare by these Arguments.

1. That they did not vnderstand the Bread to bee made the very body of Christ by vertue of any words of consecration vsed by the Priest; but, by the ineffable working of the Holy Ghost, as Florus saith. And secondly, not the body of Christ in it selfe, but to the faithfull Receiuer, to whom the Holy Ghost doth communicate the true body and blood of Christ spiritually, vnto life. Therefore was the prayer in the Ro­mane order at the consecration (when Michrol. de Missa rite ce­lebranda c. 14. none were present, but Communicaturi such as were to communicate) vt oblatio fiat nobis corpus & sanguis Domini, that the oblation may bee made to vs the body and blood of the Lord: not, vt fiat, sim­ply that it may bee made, but (nobis, to vs) i. e. as is after ex­pressed, nobis accipientibus, to vs the Receiuers. They did not then, thinke the Bread to bee made the Body of Christ, in it selfe; and to gazers on but to the faithfull Receiuers, [Vt effi­ciatur fidelibus corpus & sanguis Christi,] that it may be made so to beleeuers saith Florus ibid. quo supra. Florus. Indeed the Romane Missall remaineth still the word [nobis] and the words quod sumpsi­mus;] and vse them when the Priest alone communicates, making a solecisme betwixt the old words and the new [Page 103] practise. Thirdly, they did not thinke, that which they saw to bee the Species of Bread and Wine; and to haue vnder that shew, the body of Christ; but that which they saw, to be the body of Christ, i.e. In a mysterie, Quo supra. cap. 18. Cuius corpus ibi confringi videmus & credimus, whose body wee see and beleeue to be there broken saith Micrologus. So it was the body of Christ as they saw it, and saw it broken, which could not bee said of his naturall body, but onely of the mysterie or Sacrament of his body.

4. They did not beleeue whole Christ to bee in either Species, as must needs haue beene beleeued, if they had con­ceited that his very naturall body had beene in, or with the Bread or Cup, or existent vnder the shewes of them: For Florus expresly saith, wee receiue him in the Sacrament per partes by parts. And therefore, to teach the people, that howeuer in the Sacrament they receiue the body and blood of Christ apart, as communicating with him in his death; yet, whole and liuing Christ is spiritually communicated to their soules to giue them life. The Romane Church obserued this Ceremony,Ordo Rom. quo supra. pa. 401. that at [Pax tecum] when the Bishop after the consecration, came to receiue, sitting in his Seate, he brea­king a piece of the Bread, and putting it into the Cup then held before him, said, Fiat commixtio corporis & sanguinis Christi nobis accipientibus in vitam aeternam, let there bee a commixtion of the body and blood of Christ to vs receiuing it, vnto eternall life: meaning thereby, to signifie the vniting of Christs body and blood in his Microl. de Miss. &c. c. 14. Amalar. de of­fic. Missae l. 3. c 31. Expositio Missae Edit. per Cocciū. pa. 142. Resurrection, and to pray, that by vertue of partaking of Christ raised from the dead to dye no more, they which partaked his body and blood a­part in the mysteries, might liue for euer. The words [Et Consecratio] are now found in the Romane Order aforesaid, but were not so (as it seemeth) in that co [...]ie, which Ama­larius then followed. For he, out of that Ordo-Romanus, re­porteth onely these words, Fiat commixtio corporis & san­guinis Christi nobis accipentibus in vitā aeternam; but no word of Consecration. Nor doth it fit the matter intended. For the Bishop did not meane to consecrate a Sacrament of Christs Resurrection. And both the Bread and Cup were consecrated [Page 104] before. The present Roman Missall observeth the Ceremo­ny of putting a parcell of the Hoast into the Cup, at that time of [Pax tecum:] but hath, without any great shew of change, altered the words, and to another meaning. For whereas it was onely said, Fiat commixtio corporis Christi, &c. which is in plaine termes, Let the Resurrection of Christ profit vs to eternall life, who receiue the Eucharist. They haue now made it, Haec commistio & consecratio corporis & sangui­nis Domini nostri Iesu Christi fiat nobis, &c. as meaning to teach that there is, in the very Sacramentall signes, or vnder them, a mixture of Christs Body and Blood made; and so a pre­sence of whole Christ in every drop of wine, and crumme of the bread by Concomitancie. Haec Commistio fiat.

Lastly, that the Romane Church did not then beleeue any Reall presence of Christ, as brought vnder the Species, by the Priests, and formall words of Consecration, appeareth by this, that when the Bishop did consecrate, there was but one Cha­lice, or cup of wine before him: of which a little was after powred into other vessels of wine, to consecrate that for the Communicants, Quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed san­guine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum, because the Wine that yet was not consecrated, but onely mixed with the Blood of our Lord, is sanctified by euery way by them vsed: whereas now, the Consecration is li­mited to certaine formall words, and to onely so much as the Priest intendeth to consecrate; because forsooth, no more can be made the Body or Blood of Christ then is at that in­stant, turned thereunto. Wherefore I now assume as mani­fest, that the Romane Church was not as yet, nor before the 900 yeere of our Lord, possessed of the dotages either of Consubstantiation, or Transubstantiation. And yet euen then obserued, vpon the Station dayes, when they might not kneele in publike prayer, yet at the Celebration of the Sacramens to bow downe themselues in those prayers (wherein they might not kneele) in token of their humble and reuerend ac­knowledgement of the speciall grace of God, signed, sealed and ex­hibited to them thereby. And, that they likewise had care, in the act of receiuing, to discerne the Lords Body reverentiâ [Page 105] singulariter debitâ, with reuerence then specially due to it,Rhemig vixit An. 590. habe­tur in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 5. part. 3 pag. 887 Colum. 2. A. as Augustine speaketh, no man can doubt. For therefore Rhe­migius the Bishop of Rhemes, in 1. Cor. 11.24. &c. coupleth the consecration and participation in that respect, saying, Quo­tiescunque accedimus ad consecrandum, vel percipiendum Sa­cramentum muneris aeterni, quod nobis Dominus pijssimus in me­moriam sui dimisit tenendum, cum timore & compunctione cor­dis, omnique reuerentia debemus accedere: So often as wee come to consecrate or partake the Sacrament, &c. we ought to come thereto with feare and compunction of heart,Treat. of knee­ling, pag. 195. and with all reuerence. So also before him Caesarius Arelaten­sis. hom. 12. alleadged by the Bishop of Rochester, sheweth that during that Action the people were required to abide in the Church, Humiliato corpore & compuncto corde, with humbled bodies and compunction of heart.Wall. Strabo de rebus Eccle­siasticis cap. 19 This reuerend carriage Wall. Strabo sheweth to belong to Decencie and to Order required of Paul, 1. Cor. 14. which Decorum or De­cencie being requisite In singulis sanctorum operibus, tamen e­tiam atque etiam in sanctissimi sanguinis & corporis veneratione seruari debet, &c. in all workes of the Saints, much more ought it to bee obserued with all veneration of the most ho­ly body and blood of Christ, &c and after, Secundum ordi­nem autem, vt sanctificationem eorum ae cibis caeteris longe dista­re sciamus, It is according to Order, that wee may know that the sactification of those doe differ farre from other meates. There hee treateth of the receiuing of the Commu­nion fasting, and proueth the fitnesse of it, from the respect of that Decencie and Order, in which it ought to bee recei­ued, and which requireth sober men. This man was so far from the thought of Table gesture, as he taketh it to belong to Order that the great distance betwixt this and common food, should be shewed in the bodily receiuing. Yea hee cal­leth the very Act of receiuing veneration, because it was receiued with veneration,Ephes. 3.14. like as Paul vnderstandeth Prayer by bowing of the knee, because that was the common gesture; For this cause doe I bow the knee to God, &c. So Stra­bo saith, in the veneration of the blood and body of Christ, in stead of [in the receiuing] because it was not receiued but [Page 106] with veneration; that is, Externall Adoration of Bowing or Kneeling.

CAP. 28. The second Observation in the practise of the Ancient Churches.

MY second Obseruation is, that to take it of the Ministers hands, and to partake, or receiue into their mouthes, was not alwayes the same; nor alwayes done at the same time, or in the same place. For they did for a long time take it at the Church, carry it home, and there receiue it. And after the Councels of Toledo, and the Caesar-Augustan Councell had ty­ed them to assumere in Ecclesia, receiue it in the Church, they did yet, in the Greeke Church, come vp to the Table, or Chancell, to take the Bread standing, but stayed not to eat it there, but carried it to their owne places, and there (after pri­uate prayer for themselues) did eat it kneeling, as (out of So­zomen) hath beene shewed. As for the Cup, because they could not take that away with them, as they did the Bread, they did receiue that Adoring, as hath beene shewed out of Cyrill.

Ordo Rom. quo supra. Tom 8 Bibl. Patr. pag. [...]0 [...]And in the Roman Church, the Priests and Deacons called Ministers of the Altar, came to the Bishop then sitting in his Seat, kissed him, tooke the bread of his hand, and then went away in sinistra parte Altaris communicaturi, to the left side of the Altar to partake it, where there can bee no doubt whe­ther they did kneele, or no, if we remember what hath been alleadged out of Micrologus. And as for the Sub-Deacons that were not allowed to goe to the Altar to Communicate, they came to the Bishops seat,Lib. Sacrar. Ceremon. 2. pag. 181. kissed his hand, and tooke it in thei [...] mouthes, but not in their hands, which any man must conceiue to be kneeling, as the Booke of Ceremonies expres­ly affirmeth. The Bishop, and others at his appointment, carried vnto the people, in their owne places, and put it in­to their mouthes, which I know not how they should well doe,Disput against Kneeling, and Al [...]are Da­masc. without that the Receiuers kneeled. So then the Testi­monies brought by some men, to proue that they did of ol­der times, receiue it standing, are true for the act of taking, [Page 107] in those times and places, of which their Authors speake; but not true of the act of receiuing or communicating. That the Priest now receiueth standing at the Altar, and not kneeling, as of old; I conceiue to be done for the feare of shedding. But it was not so before the Monster of Transubstantiation, I am sure.

CAP. 29. The third Observation in the ancient practises of the Churches.

THe third observation is, that besides the Solemne Com­mon Prayers, at which they might not kneele, but onely stand, in some of them inclinati, bowing themselues, as at the Celebration. Both the Priest and people, had sometimes their priuate deuotions, at which they might, and did vse to kneele, euen on those Station dayes, and such kneeling was not taken to bee any breach of the Canon made for standing on such dayes, in Prayer.

The Romane order aforesaid sheweth, how the Bishop, ad­dressing himselfe to the consecration, while the Quier sung. Glorie bee to the Father, &c. the hymme which giueth glo­ry to the Trinity, Pontifex concelebrat secreto orationem ante Altare inclinatus vsque ad repetitionem, the Bishop celebra­teth a prayer in priuate bowing himselfe at the Altar vntill the repetition: [...]ot stans inclinatus; but absolutely, Inclinatus bowing himselfe. And that the Priest likewise immediate­ly before his receiuing did so, Non ex aliquo ordine sed ex re­ligiosorum traditione, not by appointment but by tradition, wee haue before obserued out of Micrologus, de Off. Miss. c. 18.

This is (as I take it) the thing aimed at in that Decree of Alexander the third, who Poped Ann. 1159 somewhat be­fore Innocent the third, or Honorius; which Decree is pressed by Altare Damascenum, Alt. Damasc. pag. 786. Decret. Greg. lib. 2 Tit. 9 cap. quoniam. to proue that neither the Priest in consecrating, nor the people in receiuing were permit­ted, on those Festiualls to kneele. The Decree is this. Die­bus Dominicis & alijs praecipuis Festiuitatibus, inter Pascha & [Page 108] Pentecostem genu-flexio nequaquam fieri debet, nisi aliquis ex Denotione velit facere in secreto. In consecrationibus Episcope­rum, & Clericorū ordinationibus, consecrantes & consecratitan­tum genua flectere possunt, secundum quod consecrationis modus requirit. Vpon Lords dayes and other chiefe Festiuals, knee­ling ought not to bee vsed: vnlesse any dispose to doe it pri­uately. In the consecrations of Bishops, and ordination of Ministers both the consecrators and consecrated may kneele according to that which the manner of consecration requi­reth. You see (saith the Altar of Damascus) that the conse­crating and consecrated, in Ordinations are excepted; but not, the Consecrator, nor Recieuer of the mysteries, Exceptio firmat regudam in casibus non exceptis, an exception establisheth a rule in all cases not excepted. But this mans earnestnesse suffered him not to see, that there is an exception made, in this Decree, of kneeling our of Deuotion in priuate, which might haue, and I thinke had respect to those kneelings both of Priest and people at the receiuing of the Sacrament, when they vsed priuate prayers; The Priest for himselfe, and peo­ple euery one for himselfe, as hee receiued.

Ordo Rom Tom 8 Bibl. P [...]. pag [...]99. [...]. 2. li [...]. D.And this kneeling could not be vnderstood a breach of the Decree of the first Nicen councell, for standing on those dayes at prayer; for, that was vnderstood of their solemne publicke prayers, made when all the congregation, in (as it were) profession of Christs Resurrection, were injoyned to stand. For after they once came to the deliuery of the Sacra­ment, vntill it was all finished, the Antheme (as they called it) i.e. their singing by turnes, for the Communion was conti­nued. So as there was, for that time, no publicke office of pray­er in hand. And that the Decree of Alexander had respect vnto such priuate deuotionary prayers, is probable by the words of the Glosse in the title of the Decree, which is this. In praecipuis Festis, & intra Pascha & Pentecostem non fit solen­nis genu-flexio: In principall Festiuals and betweene Easter, and Whitesuntide,De rebus Ec­clesiasticis cap. 26. neere the beginning. there must be no solemne Kneeling▪ i.e. not of the whole congregation together. And this is yet made more probable, if not more then probable, by the words of Wall. Strabo, who saith, Quibus horis & temporibus, what [Page 109] houres and times, wee must pray without kneeling, Jnter publica officia, Canones ostendunt, in the publicke offices the Canons doe shew. In Dominicis Festis maioribus & quinqua­gesima iuxta quos Canones publice paenitentes semper genua flecte­re debent: Vpon more solemne Lords dayes and in the week before Lent, according to the Canons, the Penitentiaries do alwayes publickely kneele. Where we see, for our purpose two things. 1. That the restraint of Kneeling in prayer, is limited in publica officia, while they are performing pub­licke offices. 2. That open Penitentiaries were by Canon to kneele euen in those dayes, because that this gesture of one, two, three, or a few, was not held a breach of that other Canon which respecteth the assembly joyntly. And if, with­out breach of that Canon, the open Penitents might kneele then at the solemne publicke prayers, how could the priuate kneeling of each Communicant in his turne, bee vnderstood a breach thereof, when this was done while all the publicke solemne prayers ceased, and hymnes onely were sung?

CAP. 30. The fourth Obseruation touching the same.

THe fourth Obseruation is, that howeuer in the time of Iustin Martyr, An. 150. at least in some places, the Communicants appeare to haue come vp to the Table, and ta­ken euery man his portion: yet An. 200. in Tertullians time, they tooke it not, but ex Praesidentium manu, from the hand of the Pastors. And that euer since, for ought appeareth, it hath beene deliuered by the Minister onely, or by his hands the Deacons, though Altare Damascenum like it not: And, as hath beene shewed, was alwayes deliuered with a briefe pray­er forgoing it, which hee liketh not neither.

CAP. 31. The fifth Obseruation.

THe fifth Obseruation is, That in many (if not most) Churches through the world, they did celebrate the [Page 110] Communion, euery day. Which as a thing vndoubted of, I forbeare to proue.

CAP. 32. The last Obseruation together with Answers to the Obiections made against Kneeling.

Synod. Turon. cap. 37.THe last Obseruation is, That on all other dayes, saue the Lords dayes and Pentecost, they were, by Order, to make all their prayers, fixis in torram genibus, kneeling both in Tertullians time, and so along. Now, if by Order, they then prayed kneeling, and a prayer was made for each Commu­nicant at the time of deliuery; and he for himselfe, at the re­ceiuing had a short prayer; who can perswade himselfe, that they did not on all those dayes receiue it kneeling? And if it bee, (as Altare Damascenum saith it is) most like that they recei­ued it on those dayes; as they did, on the Lords dayes: Then say I, that on the Lords dayes also, they did receiue it kneeling; And, on the weeke dayes were bound so to doe, by that Decree which required them to kneele in all their pray­ers, consequently. That there is not to bee found any Decree for the gesture of kneeling in the Act of receiuing, no not in the Romane-Church, before, or after the Reall presence, nor yet in the Greeke Church (where yet they vsed to kneele) doth manifest both the Antiquity and vniuersality of this Cere­mony, which out of a common notion of all Christians (that in partaking of the body and blood of the Sonne of God, it was comely for them to expresse, reuerentiam singulariter de­bitam) did make it selfe a Law vnto them, without any De­cree, as out of Tertullian I have shewed before.

And therefore, against Altare Damasc. I say with Master Beza, that this gesture of Adoration in receiving, was in vse and state long before the Reall presence was hatched; and was taken vp by the brewers of the Dreame, and pleaded as an Argument for the Reall presence, as if the worship inten­ded to the person of Christ sitting in Heauen, had beene al­wayes meant to him as contained in the Bread and Wine, or [Page 111] shewes thereof; which is so professedly manifest in Algerus, Bibl. Patr. Co­lon Tom. 12. part. 1. pag. 435 colum 2. Vel de Sacra­mento lib. 2. c. 2 who liued anno 1060, as nothing can bee more. Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium, vel ado­rantium veneranda sedulitas, nisi ipsius Sacramenti longe maior crederetur, quam videretur veritas et vtilitas; Cum ergo exterius quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia, aut insensati sumus, aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis myste­ria: the venerable diligence of so many both administring and adoring this Sacrament, seemes vaine, vnlesse the truth and profit of the Sacrament were not beleeued to bee farre greater then can bee seene with the eye: Seeing therefore those things which appeare outwardly, are almost no­thing; either wee are senselesse in bestowing so much a­doration vpon it, or else wee doe looke vpon some internall mysteries of great saluation in it: which though it was no good argument, yet it was an Argument for defect of a better.

I therefore conclude, that Kneeling in the act of receiuing, was not brought into the Church by Antichrist; nor euer was yet strengthened with any Papall Decree; but hath been made a foot-banke vnto that Antichristian monster of Transubstantiation, onely by mis-interpretation of it, by such as sought out all meanes, and laid hold on any colourable thing, that might suckle the monster of their braine, when it was once borne. Beza therefore, and other Churches which liue pell-mell with the Popish, where Idolatry is openly in the streetes committed, in bowing to a piece of Bread, as if it were no­thing else but Christ himselfe shifted into a new suit of apparell, had reason enough to forbeare this gesture in their Churches: and to disswade it, as a thing which had beene, and therefore may bee dangerous.Beza Epist. 12 & adversus Heshusium in Opusculis pag. 311. & quest. & respons. Quest. 243. Edit. 1570. And therefore Beza doth no where condemne the vse of it as in it selfe vnlawfull, but onely defend the Churches which, in respect of the perill that might ensue, or out of a desire to roote the Bread-wor­ship out of the mindes of men, doe decline the vse of this Ceremony.

And this (what euer that fiery, though learned man, which compiled Altare Damascenum, say to the contrary) [Page 112] was the judgement of all those Diuines, who, in the name of the French and Dutch Churches, made certaine obseruati­ons vpon the Harmony of confessions set out at Geneua, in Be­za his time, An. 1581. for in their fourth Obseruation vp­on the confession of Bohemia. in Sect. 14. Confess. de Caena; and on these words,Herm Confess [...] [...]nea. [...] Sect 14. pag. 120. Populus autem fidelium, vsitatissime in genua procumbeus hoc accipit, the faithfull most vsually re­ceiue it kneeling on their knees; say thus: In hoc etiam ritu suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem saluam relinquendam arbitra­mur: non quod per se hunc morem damnamus, (cum hac, cauti­one de qua modo diximus obseruatione quarta) sed quoniam ad [...], ex animis euellendam, prestitit pleris (que). locis e [...]m ce­remoniam aboleri, in ipsorum signorum sumptione, de qua vid. su­pra obseruat. 1. ad Heluetiam priorem. In this rite also, we leaue each Church to her owne liberty; not that wee con­demne it simply as euill in it selfe (vsed with caution giuen in our fourth Obseruation) but for the rooting of B [...]ead-worship our of mens minds, it is better that in most places it were casherred, &c. Where is manifest that they judge this Ceremony, in it selfe lawfull; and therefore leaue all Churches to their owne liberty, only with caution, that it bee not vsed as any meanes to cherish the Bread-worship. For which, both the Articles of our Religion, and the Declaration related before, haue put in good caution. As for the rest, they doe rather make a good defence for such Churches as do forbeare it, then at all condemne any that vse it.

And Dialection Eucharistiae printed and published with the second volume of Beza his Workes, and in his life time, at Geneua, Ann. 1570. saith, Veteres Eucharistiam cum sum­mareuerentia & magno honore tutos tamen ab Jdololatria fuisse, quod nobis etiam, antiquâ disciplinâ reuocatâ, & catechismi for­mâ restitutâ, contingeret. The Ancients receiued the Eucha­rist with all reuerence and great honour (that is, as hee saith on the next page, adorantes, adoring it) and yet were free from all Idolatry, which also wee might doe, by recalling the ancient discipline, and restoring the forme of catechisme.

The Bread-worship was brought in by Antichrist indeed, and was as Cofter (though to another purpose) saith, the [Page 113] greatest idolatry that euer was in the world, if the Bread bee not turned into the true and naturall body of Christ; as, vpon my soule, it is not.

This Ceremony was not brought in by him, but turned from the Creator by an horrible blindnesse, to the creature; from which, if wee returne it to the true owners of all reli­gious Adoration, shall this bee our sinne, or theirs that will needs condemne vs? I lament to see the transport of Passi­on of such as say, the Formalists seeme to beleeue the Reall pre­sence in the Elements; which, if it bee true, God will judge vs; if not, hee that accuseth falsely is guilty of that which he objecteth as a slander; and by the law of God, to beare the same punishment.

Object. There remaineth the last Objection, viz. That it is not lawfull to kneele before a consecrated creature; Ergo, not to kneele in receiuing the Communion.

Answ. The Antecedent is not simply true. The consequence will not hold, if the Antecedent were absolutely true; there­fore, the Argument failes. The humane nature of Christ is a consecrated creature, and yet was it lawfull to bow before it, as the flesh of God.

The Arke of God, the Temple, the Holy Mountaine, the Altar of God, were meere creatures consecrated of God. So was the Bush, Cloud, the fire which came from heauen, for that present vse of them: yet the people of God (as hath beene said) bowed before them, worshipping not the creature, but the Creator; and that they did this lawfully (though it was not to commanded of God) wee haue heard out of Alta­re Damascenum, and are well assured, out of the Scriptures, Psal. 99.6.8. &c. The termes therefore of bowing be­fore must bee stated in some certaine meaning to make the Antecedent true.

1. Bowing before, is sometimes, onely bowing downe, when a thing is before vs and is in sensu diuiso, in a diuided sense; when the bowing hath no intendment to that thing which is before vs. And thus, when euer wee bow downe, wee must needs bow before some creature; consecrated, or not, maketh no difference in this Notion.

[Page 114]2. Bowing before a creature, is in sensu conjuncto, in a con­iunctiue sense; and is twofold, first when the creature is re­spected only as obiectum a quo, the object from which, not ad quod to which we take occasion to bow, by occasion wherof wee bow our selues not at all to the consecrated creature, but vnto God who hath sanctified the creature to bee a signe of his presence, or speciall grace, of which sort are the instan­ces giuen, and this is also lawfull.

3. Bowing before, is also sometimes bowing to the crea­ture, i.e. to determine the Adoration in the creature, whe­ther for it owne sake, or in Relation to something else, as the Papists mostly professe their bowing to bee done to their Images of Christ, &c. And to the very Species of bread and wine, as vnited or conjoyned to the person of Christ.Minutius Fae­tix in Oct. apud Arnobium. And thus to bow to any consecrated creature, or before it, is Idolatry; and so it is, to bare the head, or kisse the hand, as the old Idolaters did when the Image of Serapis pas­sed by them. He that shall charge this Church so to bow to the consecrated creature, either for it selfe, or for Christs sake, shall apparantly slander it. See before the Churches publike Declaration.

But suppose it were vnlawfull to bow before a consecrated Creature, respectiuely to it as an occasionall object onely: and so make the Antecedent thus; It is vnlawfull to bow downe to God before any Consecrated creature, respectiuely as an obiect, from whence wee take occasion to bow: yet will not the Con­sequence hold, that therefore it is vnlawfull to receiue the Sa­crament kneeling. For it is not ordayned, nor vnderstood in this Church, that the Kneeling hath any respect vnto the Consecrated Creature, so much as Obiectum à quo, but one­ly hath a respect vnto the Declaration of our humble ac­knowledging the benefits internally communicated to the worthy Receiuer. And therefore there is no shew of A­doration made before the Consecrated creatures, when they stand on the Table before vs, or at any time else; but one­ly we kneele in the act of receiuing them. Nor doth the Mi­nister come alwayes before, but more vsually on the one side of the Communicants disposed in their Seats. The Signes [Page 115] therefore are but accidentally before the Communicants, when they receiue; that is, for the reason of the Distribu­tion, and not of purpose brought before them, to take vp any Adoration by the sight of them vnto God.

Altare Damascenum, taking it for graunted, that Wee adore Christ before the holy signes occasionally as before obiects à quo, telleth vs, that this is all one with that Image-wor­ship, which some of the learned Papists, as Durandus and Holcot, &c. doe allow, who would not haue the Adoration at all referred to the Image, but to the Prototype: And, to maintaine his slaunder, is content to say, that their Ima­ges also are consecrated. Wherein, beside his mistaking of our Kneeling, hee commits two faults; one, when hee equi­vocateth in the tearme Consecrated, as it Gods consecra­tion, and that which is meerly of men, were alike. A se­cond, when he compareth Images of Gods making and in­stitution, with Images made by the lust of men against Gods forbidding.

One man, at the Baptisme of his Childe, will make a Prince to bee one of his Witnesses, or as wee say, Gossips; and without asking him leaue, hee sets out a Deputie, and obserueth him with State in reference to the Prince. Ano­ther hath the Graunt of the Prince of such a fauour, the Prince designeth his Deputie to represent his Person, that Person is served in State, as if hee were a Prince, not to honour him, but the Prince whom for that time hee per­sonates. Are these two Cases alike warrantable, or alike blameable? Such is our Case: the Papists without leaue make a Crucifixe; and, to the honouring, not of the Crucifixe, but of Christ crucified, doe suite and seruice thereto, or before it respectiuely to it as a type: wee haue the Image of Christ crucified in the Supper, by his owne appointment, wee doe our homage before them, not as Creatures, but as his deputies, Sacraments; nor, at all to them as they are Creatures, but by occasion of them, or by them to Christ whose they are. Is this all one? This I speake ex Hypothesi, supposing, not graunting that wee doe performe any Adoration to them in relation to [Page 116] Christ himselfe in our kneeling. Zanch. de vs. [...]is externi [...]. pag. 497. Edit. 1623 Heare Zanchius. Non in­epte ex hoc Apostoli loco. (1 Cor. 11 27.) colligi potest, Sa­cramenta enternis etiam honori & reuerentia signis esse efficien­d [...], non propter ipsa, sed propter illorum institutorem Chrostum. Nam etiam dominus in lege cum vetuit adorari imagines ab ho­minibus fabricatae, a contrario docuit, suas imagines Sacramenta minirum rerum coelestium symbola non sine aliqua reuerentia & honore esse perticipanda. Atque hoc obseruatum vidimus in ve­teri Ecclesia, tum Israelitica tum Christiana. It may not vnfit­ly bee collected from this place of the Apostle (1. Cor. 11.27.) that the Sacraments ought to bee honoured with euen external signes of honour and reuerence, not for themselues, but for their Institutor, Christ. For euen in the Law when the Lord forbad the adoring of Images of mens making, on the c [...]ntr [...]ary hee taught that his Images, the Sacraments, being symboles or signes of heauenly things, should be par­ticipated not without some reuerence and honour. And this wee see obserued in the ancient Church, as well Israe­litish as Christian.

Object. But God hath not appointed the Sacraments to bee Adored, (saith he) or himselfe to bee Adored before them?

Answ. Indeed the Sacraments consisting as well of Acti­ons ordained to bee done by vs: as the Blessing, Breaking, Receiuing▪ Eating and Drinking of the Bread, &c. as of the Elements which are sanctified, cannot bee said to be appoin­ted to bee Ad [...]red, vnlesse wee shall Adore our action of ea­ting the Bread, and drinking of the Cup of our Lord, which is so a part of the Sacrament, that without them it were no Sacrament to vs. That Christ hath not appointed vs to A­dore him in the receiuing of them, both Internally and Exter­nally, is an hereticall doctrine, though the expression [Exter­nall] bee not determined of him.

O [...]ject. But, Veneration of the Sacraments, saith Altare Damascenum wee allow; but not Adoration.

Answ. See now that all the strife shall bee about words, which haue (as I haue shewed) no formall difference of signi­fication, but onely by the designement of men in their vse, nor in the particular, outward gestures; which, by di­uine [Page 117] institution, shall difference the one from the other.

Object. But kneeling is onely lawfull in actions of Adorati­on, i.e. Diuine?

Answ. This is not true, for it is confessed to bee lawfull in Ciuill vse. And I pray you, what action of Gods publicke seruice is there, which is not an Action of Adoration, how euer the expression thereof bee not in euery action of his worship necessarily or conueniently one & the same.Zanch de cultu Dei externo l. 1. Thes 2. in fine p. 421. E­dit. 619. Ʋisibi­lis externaque venetatio & Adoratio ad omnes ferme actiones di­uini cultus concurrit, visible and externall veneration and A­doration concurres to almost all actions of diuine worship, saith Zanchius.

Thus wee kneele while the ten Commandements are read, party to expresse our respect of that Law giuen by the voice of God himselfe on Mount Sinai, with great state and terror, a Law fit to cast vs downe and humble vs; partly, for the prayer then subjoyned to euery precept for Grace to obserue it, and pardon for our failings,

Object. Geniculando excipere verba ex ore Lectoris aut Concionatoris proflata ratione sanctitatis, esset idololatria, Alt. Damasc. pag. 797. to re­ceiue the word kneeling, as coming from the mouth of a Reader or Preacher in respect of holinesse were idolatry.

Answ. This case commeth not home to that of receiuing the Sacraments, which, in that Action, wee doe not looke at as creatures, but as diuina symbola, signifying and sealing the Couenant of Grace to vs. But yet the Opponent durst not say it is idolatrie to heare the word, kneeling; but,Externa reue­rentia est, vt post actionem sacram, (viz. of preaching) coram ministro versium incli­nantes deum a­dorent. Ex 4.24 & 12 28. Neh 8. Apoc. 3.9 Fenner. Theol Edit. 1589. p. 88. when it is done ratione sanctitatis in respect of holinesse, which must needs carry in to the person of the Preacher, and not vnto God. When Moses and Aaron brought the message to the Elders of Israel, Exod. 4.31. they bowed their heads, no doubt before Moses and Aaron, and not at their backes, and worshipped, not the Messengers of God, for their holinesse, but God for sending by them that gracious Message. When wee shall professe to bow before, and to the holy mysteries, for re­spect of their holinesse, let vs be branded and not spared; till then it were fit that men spared to calumniate the Seruants and Churches of the liuing God.

CAP. 33. The Conclusion consisting of some priuate oc­currents, and requests of his Friend.

ANd thus Sir, to satisfie your desire, I haue too largely Answered to the objected Questions propounded in your letter; and almost within the time of three weekes which you limited. If you meet with needlesse repetitions, and find (as is like you may) many defaults, beare with mee. For I haue written this, as Ierusalem was builded, in a trou­blous time, yea verely in the most troublous time (all things considered) that euer yet came vpon mee, the very houre of darknesse and shaddow of death.

In this time therefore I had cause to looke about mee, and to consider what I had now in hand, which I also did. And if in all this time wherein I haue beene soaked and laide to steepe in so much tribulation, I had found any wauering or doubtfulnesse in my mind about these matters, I haue written of, assure your selfe I should haue desisted. But stan­ding fully perswaded as in the sight of the Lord, that I haue the truth with mee, and follow it. I did, as by starts and fits I could,His private letter contai­ned a requests: but because the first of the three concer­ned only some private sad af­faires of his own, & of som of his neere friends, that is here omitted, as not at all belonging to the matter here debated. proceed, knowing that the line of diuine light ought to sway our judgements, and not either the sun-shine of peace, or shadowes of the euening stretched out vpon vs. Yea and in truth I tooke this taske vpon me as a Medicine, to restraine (what I could) my troubled spirit from conti­nuall feeding vpon that very bitter herbe which had trou­bled it.

Now I haue two Requests vnto you, one for the Church of God; the other for my selfe.

For the Church of God, I beseech you by our Lord Iesus Christ, that if you thinke as I doe, that the Ceremonies in Question, howeuer they may seeme to vs Inconuenient in some respects; yet, are not vnlawfull, but such as men (not imprisoned with prejudice) may with good consciences ob­serue, [Page 119] as matters of externall Order, imposed on vs by law­full authority. Then sir, doe your best endeauour to hold those that stand wauering vnto their colours. And doe not yet make so much way to any euill affected, or open enemies to our Religion, nor weaken our party against the common Aduersaries of our faith by disunion of themselues. Let not, for these things in which the kingdome of God standeth not, those things in which it doth stand, bee abandoned. Let no man build vpon his former perswasion, which can ex­cuse no longer then till it bee better informed. Let no man walke after the Tradition of men, though good and learned. Nay let them consider that of graue and holy Zanchy, Epist. lib. p. 391. who writing one Epistle to Queene Elizabeth for Abatement of these Ceremonies, withall wrote another at the same time to that Reuerend and holy Bishop Iewell to perswade the Ministers not to leaue their functions for those things, if the Queene would not remoue them, or slacke the vrging of them. Tell them Beza opusc. in vitae Calui­ni ad Ann. 1538. p. 368. how Calvin, though hee disliked the re­ducing of wafer-bread into Geneua in the time of his exile, yet at his returne neuer liked to struggle for the change of it. Remember them of that praise which Master Fox gaue to that worthy Bishop and Martyr Fox, Martyr. p. 13 [...]1. Hooper, how for the pub­licke seruice of the Church he bare and suffered patiently the priuate contumely of his Conformity. And wish them to take heed that they regard, not too much mans day; For he that shall iudge vs, is God. As for you selfe, I hope there will bee no need to bid you looke vpon the wonderfull bles­sing of God vpon you and your Ministery, aboue many of vs, while you haue vsed these things with a good consci­ence. Sirre vp our brethren who haue some authority in the hearts of those godly people, who are vnhappily trans­ported to an vnutterable dislike of these things which they vnderstand not, and to file off that rough edge of their not so-much opinions, as detestation. And doe what you can to moue all such as need it, to consideration, whether it shall not bee better, and vpon their death-bed more cordiall, to beare (not being vnlawfull) the vse of these things, rather then to occasion the rending of the Church, the displeasure [Page 120] of our Gouernours, the stopping of our mouthes, the deso­lation (for ought wee know) of our flockes, the distresse of our families, and withall (which is not the least) the confir­ming of an errour (by our if not doctrine, yet example) in the hearts of all those, who are, or shall bee led to condemne as vntolerable, that which God will justifie as lawfull in vs; and so doth, as I am fully perswaded, by his Word.

Touching my selfe, I haue these requests to you; that you would remit this tract vnto meet againe, without giuing any copy of it, that I may (which I now could not) reuise, and amend it. And let me haue your free judgement of it; and if you take mee to bee deciued, set vp some cleere light before mee, and pray that mine eyes may bee opened. And I shall giue glory to God, who knoweth the vprightnesse of my heart in this matter.

For the rest, commend mee to my friends, more specially to my &c. Let mee yet, of the little patch of life remaining, haue some releefe of comfort in your loue continued. And aboue all, pray for mee that the Lord who chastiseth, would keepe me in his loue, burne out the drosse that is in mee, sanctifie mee wholly to himselfe, and the seruice of his Church, and keepe mee (as I hope hee will) fast knit vnto himselfe in Christ, and when the time commeth; yea, and till then, vouchsafe to honour his owne name in my life and death. Farewell.