CAP. 1. The definition of a Ceremonie. SIR,

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 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 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.

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 Mr. Cartwright ſaith, giue a ſpeedier wing vnto Praier: and it was an 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 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.Mr. 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 Mr. 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, 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.

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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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, 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.

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 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.

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 〈2 pages missing〉 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 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 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 Mr. 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 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 Dr. 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 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. 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 Mr. 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, yea ſometimes to occaſions which worke not, or to adiuncts as Mr. 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?

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 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 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 Mr. 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 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 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.

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?

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 owne heads tell vs, that the Feaſt of Purins was either only a merry meeting, of friends; as Mr. 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 Mr. Calvin, who in truth deſerveth the firſt honourable chaire of them all. When the Biſhop Morton had produced a Teſtimonie of his, ex Inſtit. 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 Mr. 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 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 Mr. Caluin, and Dr. 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 Edification by the ſignificancie of thoſe Rites. For ſeeing the outward ordering ſhould be ſuch, as may moſt edifie, as Dr. 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, 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 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, though they thinke (as I doe) the fewer the better, is manifeſt.Epiſt. 8. pag. 211. Tom. 3. opuſcul. 2.14.82. Onely Mr. 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 Mr. 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 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.

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. 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; 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 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 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 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. Mr. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 any part 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth ſignifie properly a geſture of the eyes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inclinatus, ſupplex. But, the compound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſhew it? Cleane contrary. For, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is erigere ſe, contrary to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So in Iohn 8.89. where the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſhould onely be [looking downe.]

Repl. And that Cyrill reſpecteth the geſture of the eye it is 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ?)

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, doth himſelfe indeed corrupt him, when he rendreth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which this is a declaration in what manner they ſhould 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 & 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 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 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 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) 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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.