A Solution of Doctor Resolutus Resolutions for Kneeling

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

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

It agreeth fitly with our religion, and the fear & duty of our priesthood, to keep the verity of the Lord's tradition: and wherein any error seem to have been committed before, to correct the same, where the Lord doth admonish ws, that when he shall begin to come with his brightness and heavenly majesty, he may find ws to hold that which he commanded, to observe that which he taught, and to do that which he did.

TO THE READER.

W E are become so Apish in the imitation of the English pattern, that where we cannot imitate in substance, yet we will imitate in imaginary forms. Amongst other strange novelties, it behooved us to have Doctors of Divinity; whether they be sufficiently qualified or not. About five year ago, some ministers aspiring to Bishoprics, were inaugurate Academical doctors, as it pleased the Arch▪ bishop of S ^t . Andrew's Mr. Spottiswood, that learned Rabbi, to admit or allow. Mr. David Lindsay, our master Doctor, so defended the article of kneeling at Perth Assembly, that he did save the credit of the rest of the Doctors, who had been all put to shame unless he had undertaken the burden, as he himself gave out afterward. But how well did he plead the Kings cause, when he was driven to confess, they had neither scripture reason, nor antiquity, and that he condescended only to avert the Kings wrath from our Kirk? But the Doctor baited with benefits, and hope of promotion to a Bishopric, which he doth now enjoy, hes since that time notwithstanding set forth in print a new light, revealing unto him both scripture, reason, and antiquity. Seeing the Doctor styleth arrogantly his reasons Resolutions; let him be called Doctor Resolutus for Scotland, as Johannes de Baccone of old was so called for England, that in this also we may be conform. He marcheth under Dissipate, the martial motto of the Constables Arms; but I will march under Colligite, the martial motto of Christ's standaad, and will encounter not with Goliath, but with Thraso, for so I hope the Reader shall find him. The half of his book needeth no answer: I will answer therefore only so much as concerneth the matter of kneeling: let the judicious Reader confer this answer with his Resolutions, and try boldly, if I have dealth faithfully. The Lord praeserve so many as do yet stand to their oath and profession, that they may continue constant, and not be carried away with every light wind of erroneous doctrine, nor cast down with terrors and threatenings. Such as are already fallen, the Lord give them remorse of conscience, and grace to recover thetr fall. Let us all possess our souls in patience, and cry to God for the days of old, and then he will return and repair the breaches made in our walls, and purge our Temples of the corruptions which are already entered.

CHAP. I. A table gesture is necessary.

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

CASAVBONVS, doth acknowledge the gesture of Christ and his Apostles at the Paschal supper, to have been not a [section 1] simple lying, but a gesture consisting partly of sitting, and lying, and alleged not only the place of Ezkiel, 23.41. But also Onkelos the Chaldee paraphrast, expressing the sitting of Joseph's brethren, by a word which the Syrians use to express, sitting with leaning: and Josephus expressing it by the word Cataclisis, the proper word used to signify the gesture received in Christ's time: thereafter he alledgeth the phrase of the Rabbins, which they use to express sitting with leaning. Seeing therefore the Hebrew, Chaldaick and Rabbinical writers do interpret the one word indifferently by the other, our vulgar translators have done right in expressing Christ's gesture by the word, sitting. The Doctor himself at perth assembly, confessed that our gesture of upright sitting, and his Apostles gesture at the Paschal supper, were Analoga. If Christ had celebrated the Paschal supper in the days of DAVID or SALOMON, before the custom of sitting at table in beds entered among the Jews, he had used the gesture of upright sitting, as the Jews did then, and as the Jews do at this day, when they celebrate the Paschal Supper.

[section 2] His first argument against the necessity of sitting, the uncertainty [argument 1] of Christ's sitting, and the likelihood that they stood or kneeled at the blessing, and continued the same gesture throughout the whole action. The testimony of Athenaeus of the custom of the Naucracites, will not make it probable that Christ kneeled at the blessing. What Ethnics did on the birth day of Vesta, or festivitie of Apollo, Comaeus was no pattern to Christ to imitate. Neither was it Christ constant gesture to kneel in time of prayer or blessing. It was the custom of the Jews to sit in the time of the blessing of the bread, and the cup of praise in the last act of the Paschal Supper, and the words were summary, that they were sooner pronounced, then they could conveniently change rheir gesture. Christ no doubt, at all the Paschal suppers before kept the ordinary custom. If at other Paschal suppers, why not also at this? And if at this Paschal supper, why not at the Eucharistical? except we will think that the one required kneeling more then the other. While as the Disciples were sitting at table in Emmaus, Christ gave thanks, and Math. 14. after the people were placed and set on the ground, Christ gave thanks looking up to heaven only. This lifting up of the eyes to heaven was indeed familiar with Christ, even when he went about some miraculous or extraordinary work, John: 11.41. When he was to raise Lazarus, he gave thanks lifting up his eyes. And when he went out after supper to the garden, and prayed that prayer John. 17. It is said only that he lifted up his eyes. The Liturgy ascribed to James and Ambrose, constantly affirm, that he lifted up his eyes also when he gave thanks at the Eucharistical supper: no further do they affirm.

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

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

This last reason is proved at length in Perth Assembly, where unto I refer the Reader, I add only for further confirmation, the authorities both of Papists and Protestants, applying the precept Luk 22.17. Divide it amongst you, to the communion cup. Barradius followeth Augustine and Enthymius, because Luke subjoineth to that precept, the same protestation that Matthew and Mark do subjoin to the communion cup; to wit, that Christ would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until, &c. and that the cause of the anticipation was, that the protestation of not drinking more might be joined with the protestation of not eating more. Jansen is moved with the same reason, and because the thankesgigiving mentioned in the 17. verse is omitted, when Luke returneth afterward to speak of the same cup, because it was already expressed. Maldonatus saith, that when Christ gave the cup to one, least he should seem to will him only to drink, he said, Drink ye all of it, which Luke expressed in clearer terms, cap. 22.17. saying, Divide it among you. Walterius saith likeways, that the cup was carried from hand to hand. As for our own writers, Hospinianus saith, It is manifest, that Christ gave not the cup to everyone severally, but only to the first, and the first reached it to the second, & so forth. Erasmus in his paraphrase saith, it is observed by the Ancients, that Luke maketh twice mention of the communion cup. Piscator in his Analysis on Luke, saith, It is clear that the words are to be understood of the cup of the Lord's supper. Gwalther likewise beginneth the institution at the 17. verse. Mornaeus saith, Christ gave the cup when he said, Drink ye all of it: Divide it among you. Sibrandus speaketh to the same purpose. Calvin in his Institutions Beza in his last annotations in the same place, Wislets, Bilson, Jewel, and many moe might be cited to the same effect howbeit Bellarmine is loath to grant that precept to be meant of the communion cup, because of the fruit of the vine, mentioned in the protestation subjoined, which maketh against transubstantion, yet he granteth the matter itself, to wit, that the cup was divided, & reached frō one to another. And Becanus the Jesuit saith, Drink ye all of it, is all one with take & divide it among you. Now as the cup was divided among the communicants so was likewise the bread: for as Christ said, take ye in the plural number, drink ye; so he said, take ye, eat ye, and not take thou, eat thou. Analogy requireth, that the bread should be divided among the communicants, as well as the cup. It were strange to see the minister remain in his own place when the cup is carried from hand to hand, and to go along the table to dispense the element of the bread. Hospinianus, Morneus, Sibrandus and others, make the precept, divide it among you, common both to the bread and the cup. Cajetan confesseth that Christ was so far distant from some of them, that he could not deliver the bread to everyone severally, more then the cup. The later confession of Helvetia subscribed not only by the Tygurines, and their confederates of Bern, Scaphusia, Sangallia, Rhetia; but also by the Kirks of Geneva, Savoy, Polonie, Hungary, and Scotland, anno 1566, hath these words, : Outwardly the bread is offered by the minister, and the words of the Lord are heard, Receive, eat, This is my body: divide it amongst you, drink ye all of this, This is my blood. Suppose it were granted, that the Apostles divided only the cup, and Christ's precept concern the dividing of the cup only, and not the bread, yet it is sufficient for our purpose, seeing the communicants must compass the table with a table-gesture, to the end they may divide the cup among them selves. For if everyone take the cup severally out of the ministers hand kneeling, Christ's precept concerning the cup is transgressed. I think no man will be so absurd as to say, that we should kneel when we receive the bread, but not when we receive the wine. When M ^r . Stuthers was urged with this dividing of the communicants, he answered; Is it not better to take it out of the hands of the Minister, then of an adulterer? It was replied by the Minister proponer; what if the minister be a Judas? I ask, if holy Sixtus and St. Laurence, gave the bread and cup out of their own hands, when the Arch Bishop of St. Andrew's, and M ^r . Gladstanes his Arch-deacon gave them to the communicants, all the communicants are presumed to be penitent sinners, & holy persons, neither doth the virtue of the Sacrament depend upon the moral dignity of him that ministereth, or of him that distributeth. And this far for confirmation of the fourth reason, referring the reader for further satisfaction, to Pert Assembly.

When the bready god was adored in the time of most gross superstition, the popish Doctors were not so shameless, as to deny Christ and his Apostles sitting, to maintain their kneeling. The old verse, Rex sedet in coena, &c. was current among them. Johannes de Turrecremata, calleth it, versum antiquorum, a verse of the ancients, and Thomas Aquinas, their Angelical Doctor, citeth it to prove that Christ took rhe Sacrament himself, but our Doctor in another sense Angellicall, is become so impudent to call in question that which no ancient or moderne writer did call in question before this last year. M ^r . P. Galloway after the reading of M ^r . Doctors Book, in wrir, became incontinently so profound a clark, that upon the reconciliation day before the last communion, when the body of the Town of Edinburgh were assembled with their Ministers, he would take in hand to prove a strange paradox, to wit, that Christ and his Apostles sat not at the supper. No, said M ^r . Andrew Ramsay, say not that brother. O said M ^r . Struthers, gybing and jesting at the people all the time; he sat this way & counterfeited Christ's table-gesture, deriding them whom he ought in all lenity & meekness to have instructed. But the honest men received nothing at their hands that day to be a warrant to their consciences for kneeling, but threatenings from M ^r . Galloway, jests and derisions from Mr. Struthers and Mr. Sideserfe and aversnes from hearing their reasons from Mr. Ramsay, who did moderate that meeting.

It is the trivial argument of our opposites that we are no more bound to sitting, or any particular gesture, then we are [argument 2] bound to the time, the place, the order of receiving after meat, the quality of the leavened bread: and that the sitting was occasional, only by reason of the Paschal supper specially of the last act thereof, which was changed in the new Sacrament, and that sitting was not chosen of purpose by Christ, or his Apostles. But B. Bilson can tell them that the Lord neither in his speech nor actions, did comprise the time, place, or persons. And Pareus sayih, that the evening, the Inn, the number of twelve, by the consent of all, were not Sacramental but accidentary circumstances. Christ celebrated in the evening, because the Sacrament of the new law behooved to succeed the passover, the Sacrament of the old Law, which was ordained by God to be eaten in the ev • ning, and Christ was to be apprehended before the morning. The Paschal supper was ordained to be eaten in Jerusalem, in several companies and families, and therefore Christ celebrated in an Inn, and to a small company. The Jews were expressly forbidden to have any leavened bread in their houses in time of the passover. It behooved therefore Christ to celebrate with unleavened bread. All these circumstances were occasional and unavoidable, by reason of the pascal supper. But Christ might have easily changed into kneeling: for there was no • xpresse commandment given to the people to sit at the P • shall supper. If they stood in Egypt, that standing was only for that time: when they came to Canaan they sat, as Scaliger saith in argumentum securitatis: or for the proportion and Analogy of other religious feasts, whereat they sat. Seeing Christ might have altered this gesture and did not, but retained as a gesture as fit for the Sacrament of the new Law as it was for the Sacrament of the old Law, which is called the oblation of Jehovah▪ Numb. 9 7. it▪ is evident that it was his will that it should be retained.

He saith it shall not expressly be found, nor by reason demonstrated, that sitting was received at any time after the first [argument 3] institution, either by the Apostles, or any in the primitive or succeeding Churches. We may more safely presume that the Apostolical churches followed Christ's example, then he may presume the contrary, which he is never able to prove. The fathers expounding the breaking of bread at Emmaus to be the communion, will not deny sitting after the first supper. B. Bilson saith, that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lors supper among the Corinthians, in that they would neither at common meats, nor at the Lord's table sit altogether, but sorted themselves together in factions and companies, as they favored or friended each other. Beza saith, that the Love-feasts did no ways admit geniculation at the Lord's supper in the act of receiving and no doubt, the Apostle comparing their partaking of the table of the Lord and the table of devils together 1 Cor 10.21. did include the gesture with the rest, and oppose the sitting at the Lord's table to sitting at table in Idols Chapel. 1 Cor. 8.10. Durand saith, that the Apostles celebrated as Christ did, Et formā observantes in verbis & materiam in rebus, observing both matter and form: And he saith, that in the first beginning of the Kirks, the Apostles used no other words, but the words of the institution at the consecration: he saith, that they added afterward the Lord's prayer, but this is but an uncertain and unwritten tradition. The Waldenses allege out of Chronica gestorum, that the form of the institution was a long time observed in the Kirk, and that the communicants kneeled not, but sat. Mornaeus testifieth that there are some foot-steps that remain in the monasteries of S ^t . Bennet, where they have no other mass for three days before Easter but this form following: The Abbot sanctifieth the bread & the wine, and the Monks do communicate sitting, receiving the elements out of the Abbots hand. And this form is called by them mandatum, the commandment. Then in the account of the very Benedictines, to sit at table and comunicate, is a commandment. We must not think the Apostles altered Crists precept, ordaining the communicants to distribute among themselves, but this could not be done but with a table-gesture. The Apostle in rehearsing the institution declareth, that the words of the promise whereunto the seals are annexed of bread & wine, were uttered not in form of a prayer, but in an enunciative form. It followeth therefore according to the ground already laid down, that in the Apostles time the table-gesture, and not kneeling was the gesture of the communicants. But put the case we were destitute of reasons for the sitting of Apostolical Kirks, yet as long as we have nothing to prove the contrary, we ought to adhere to the institution. For Calvin saith, that they who receive as is commanded without adoration, are secure that they depart not from gods commandment, then the which security there can nothing be better when we enterprise anything. They have the example of the Apostles whom we read not to have adored prostrate, but as they were sitting they received and did eat. They have the use of the Apostolical Kirk, where it is declared that the faith-full did communicate, not in adoration, but in breaking of bread.

We omit the washing of feet, why may we not likeways, [argument 4] saith the Doctor, omit sitting? That Christ did wash his Disciples feet; was an extraordinary example, to teach the Disciples humility, who were contending for majority. The Doctor his head had need to be washed also. But the washing itself was an ordinary custom betwixt the first and second service of the Paschal supper. Bernard of old, and Venator one of the Remonstrants of new would have this Jewish ceremony made a Sacrament and the Doctor a Sacramentale, belonging to the holy communion, but none of them is worthy of confutation.

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

[argument 7] He reasoneth again in personam. It followeth not that we may change sitting, because we conjoin the blessing of the bread and cup in one blessing, which Christ severed. What if we fail in this, should we fail in the other also? It is true Christ gave several thanks, according to the form of the last act of the paschal supper, but when we join them in one thanksgiving, is anything omitted which ought to have been done? Is not the cup blessed, when it is blessed with the bread? Next, is the frame of the institution broken when there is but one common thanksgiving. But when the table-gesture is changed into a gesture of adoration, the nature and kind of the gesture is changed. Next, this change draweth with it another great change, to wit, of the order and frame of the institution. The order and frame of the institution requireth that the words uttered at the delivery of the elements, be uttered in an enunciative form. For the words of the institution are not only narrative, but directive, as the Doctor confessed a little before. Next, the order and frame of the institution requireth, that the communicants compassing the table, shall divide, the elements among themselves: kneeling putteth all this frame act of joint, and draweth with it a breach of Christ's special commandment, Divide amongst you. The conjunct thanksgiving draweth with it none of these changes.

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

Howbeit we plead for a table-gesture in general and not for the absolute necessity of sitting in particular, yet how weakly hath the Doctor disputed against it? Sitting indeed we think ought not to be changed, no not into another table-gesture, without necessity: Johannes à Lasco exhorted all the ministers in the Reformed Kirks, to remove according to their office and duty, not only geniculation, but also standing and taking in several from the Minister en passant, and to restore the sitting of the communicants at table, again, where it is worn out of use.

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

THe Doctor goeth about to prove kneeling more decent in the act of receiving, then sitting or any other gesture▪ and so he carpeth not only our former order which he preferred before any other at Pert Assembly, but also Christ himself as not wise enough to consider what gesture was most decent for so holy an action. If another more commodious and better form could have been devised, out of all doubt, saith Hospinian Christ would have instituted it, and the Apostles would have recommended it to the Kirks, and therefore willeth, that if anything be found different either in the nature or proper sense of words, or in rite or external ceremony from this rule that it be amended according to the same as the most excellent, most holy, most uncorrupted, most absolute, and most certain rule. If therefore there be any gesture that shall put this rule out of rule: I say it ought not to be esteemed agreeable either to piety, decency, or charity, let be to be preferred before other gestures.

The Doctor layeth down for a ground, that by the table of [section 1] the Lord, 1. Cor. 10.21. is not meant a material table or the symbolical and external part only, but the body and blood of the Lord, because the Apostle saith, the Corinthians could not partake both of the table of the Lord and of devils. Whereas a man may be partaker of both the material tables, and drink both of the material cup of the Lord, and the material cup of devils. It is evident notwithstanding of the Doctors wrangling that the Apostle meaneth also of a material table, and the Sacrament by a kind of trope called Metonymia subjecti, is denominate from the material table whereat the communicants did participate of the elements. The Apostles speaketh not of a natural, but a moral partaking of the Lord's table. A man might not lawfully sit at the material table of the Lord, and drink of the material cup, and sit also at the material table of devils in the Idols chapels, and drink of there material cups. for that we may do which we may do by Law or right. Now the communicant in sitting at both the material tables professed f • llowship both with god and the devil as Paul speaketh. for the two material tables were symbols of two contrary professions as Aretius in 1. Cor. 10.21. saith. for he that eat of the meat of the sacrifice, partaketh of the sacrifice, and he that participateth of the sacrifice, participateth of the religion whereunto it belongeth: he that participateth with the religion communicateth with the Idol and false god whose religion it is. The table of devils was a material table in the Idols chapel, whereat the Idolater feasted. See Beza , Tilenus▪ Caietanus, Willets. Now if the table of devils from which the cursed feasts were denominate, were material tables, then the table of the Lord compared with them was also material. And Beza out of the same verse which the Doctor hath alleged concludeth that in the primitive Kirk there were material tables and not altars. The Christians offended their weak Brethren by feasting on the things sacrificed in private houses, but in feasting in the temple there was both scandal and error. The Apostle findeth fault both with the one and the other. In a word all such metonymicall speeches do import the verity of the subject. The cup of the New Testament doth import that there was a material cup. To partake of the Altar, doth import that the Israelites had an Altar. I conclude with the ground laid down by Pareus, from whatsoever rite the Sacrament is denominate, it is Sacramental and necessary. He inferreth that Sacramental breaking of the bread after thanksgiving, is necessary to the integrity of the Sacrament: and I infer upon the same ground that a material table is necessary, seeing the Sacrament is denominate metonymically from a table, and called the table of the Lord, to distinguish it from other material tables.

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

He saith, that the gesture of the body is moral, voluntary, and changeable, and should be applied according to the nature of the action. It is true, the gesture is changeable, according to that faculty in man which the Philosophers call Locomotiva, but it is to be ordered by Laws, both in civil and religious affairs.

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

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

We sit with our heads vncovered at this table, which we do not at common tables, but we do it for veneration and not for adoration. We sit with our heads uncovered when the word is read, but not when it is preached, to distinguish between the voice of God and the voice of man. At this holy action the words, the symbols, the rites, are all divine, and Christ's own words, rites, and symbols; his voice soundeth through all the tables of the world: the symbols are the Princes seals, and our celebration is nothing else but a repetition of the first institution, and the authentic instrument written over again. We use not kneeling civilly, wheresoever we use the uncovered head; but kneeling is the gesture of adoration both in civil and religious uses. The uncovering of the head doth noth spoil us of the liberties and prerogatives of a table social admission to it, and familiar entertainment at it, nor breaketh not the order and frame of the institution, but kneeling is guilty of all these enormities, as I have said.

If commodity make custom, and custom make decency, [section 4] then kneeeling must be condemned as an undecent gesture. The Doctor measureth the time of the celebration by his own form, when he dispatcheth the communicants with some few words, and not by the institution. But make the time of celebration never so short, yet kneeling is more painful, then any other gesture, and consequently not so decent, because not so commodious. To what purpose serveth all this discourse, seeing kneeling is not urged as a table-gesture, but as a gesture of adoration. Swarez saith, that kneeling which is a note of adoration, may be made an act of a penitentiarie, for the pain which is joined with it. But we consider not now the pain, but the purpose of it, in this argument. For never man yet thought that kneeling was the fittest table-gesture, neither have we ever heard any nation never so barbarous, use it.

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

It is no great commandation of kneeling, that it was practiced 400 years under the Antichrist: and howbeit we wer not able to design some time, when another gesture was in use, it will not follow, that it was in practice in all ages before. We are not bound to show the behinning of every corruption. Whilest the husband man was sleeping, the evil one did sow his tares among the wheat, which he perceived not, till they were grown up. Yet we will be more liberal, and for further satisfaction, we use to give an instance of another gesture which was in use, to wit, standing at the act of receiving, for the space of 500. yea an thousand year after Christ, and they cannot produce one express authentic testimony of kneeling for the space of 500 yea of a 1000 year after Christ. And to testify ancient standing, we have yet the custom of Christians in the Orient.

Honorius it seemeth ordained not kneeling at the elevation of the Mass, but a reverend inclination of the body: howbeit afterward it turned to kneeling. But whether Honorius ordained kneeling at the elevation, and whether kneeling in the act of receiving went before kneeling at the elevation or followed after, is not prejudicial to our cause. seeing both were bred under the Antichrist, and no authentic testimony can be alleged of the gesture of kneeling for a 1000. [section 5] Yeares.

[section 6] He admitteth standing on the Lord's day, and other days, wherein they did not kneel in time of public prayer: but yet upon other days saith he, as they might pray kneeling, so they might communicate kneeling. But he doth not produce so much as one example out of all antiquity. The examples alleged by us for standing in the act of receiving, are general, and for every day as well as for the Lord's day. The example alleged by himself doth not specify any day. The testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus, and the words of Tertullian are confounded in Perth assembly through the Printers fault, which by the way I wish the Reader to mark.

The ancient Kirk changing sitting into standing, judged sitting not necessary, It is true. Neither do we hold it absolutely necessary, and as for the change we are not to imitate them herein: for they adulterated the form of the institution many ways, mixing the wine with water, giving the communion to Infants, taking the Sacrament home to eat it in their private houses, as may be seen in the most ancient writers. We ought to take heed, not what any hath done before us, saith Cyprian, but what Christ who was before all, did: we must not follow the custom of man, but the truth of God. And if it be not lawful (saith he) to break the least of the Lord's commandments far less is it lawful to violate so great commandments belonging to the Sacrament of the Lord's Passion, and of our redemption. Calvin findeth great fault with them, and saith, that the ancients went nearer the Judaical manner of sacrificing, then Christ's ordinance, and the course of the Gospel would permit. And a little after he saith, that if we think this supper the supper of the Lord, and not the supper of men, let us not move a nail breadth from it, for any authority of mē, or prescriptiō of years. And Tossanus saith, that the changing of ceremonies in the Lord supper instituted by Christ, and heaping up of other ceremonies divised by man's will-worship, was the beginning of error anent the supper, and was no small occasion of superstition.

The ancient Kirk judged not standing the fittest gesture for prayer: for if they had so judged then they would have enjoined standing at prayer upon other days as well as upon the Lord day. They stood on the Lord's day, not because it was the fittest gesture for prayer, but for signification, to signify their joy for Christ's resurrection, but kneeling they judged the fittest gesture for prayer, as may be seen in the questions attributed to Justinus. The ancient Kirk standing at the receipt of the Sacrament, ye see then, judged not the gesture of prayer, the fittest gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament.

CHAP. III. Kneeling agreeth not best with piety.

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

The consideration of the giver the gift, the manner of donation, [section 1.2.3.4.] and receiving is not plainly set down by the doctor. The name of gift is ambiguous, as may be seen in Casaubonus. For the Fathers sometime called the inward grace of the Sacrament the gift, and sometimes the symbolical part, and sometimes they called it the gift, & sometimes gifts. If we were to receive a gift, if it were both a morsel of bread out of gods own hand immediately, we ought, no doubt to adore, and so his similitude of a subject receiving a benefit out of the princes own hand, may illustrate the matter very well. But at the Lord's supper we receive the elements of bread and wine not out of gods own hands immediately, but out of the hands of the Minister, who is our fellow-servant. 2. Our union with Christ, & participation of his body and blood is not begun at the Lord's supper nether is it proper to it, but common to the word and to baptism. By the ministry of the word, and the Sacrament of Baptism, we are made partakers of Christ and his benefits if we have the hand of faith to receive. Origen saith, that which we are presently speaking to you is the flesh of Christ. And in another place, we are said to drink the blood of Christ not only by the rites of the Sacraments, but also when we hear the word. And Jerome saith howbeit the words of Christ to eat his flesh and drink his blood, may be understood in the mystery, yet more truly the speech of the scriptures is the body and blood of Christ. Augustinus saith, there is no doubt but everyone of the faitfull is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a menber of Christ. Chrysostom saith, that in Baptism we adore the body of Christ. We receive then the very same benefits in the word and Baptism which we receive in the Lord's supper. Our union with Christ is begun by faith; faith is wrought by the ministry of the word, and confirmed afterward by the same word, and strengthened also by the ministry of the Sacraments, which are seals and pledges to us of our union with Christ. 3. These benefits are common to the Sacraments of the old Law and the new: they had the same substance of the seals that we have, did eat the same spiritual food, and drink the same spiritual drink that we do, 1 Cor. 10.3.4. Augustine saith that whosoever in the Manna understood Christ, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do. And yet the people of God in gathering the manna, howbeit not ministered to them by the hand of men, did not kneel. The Paschal Lamb was the same to the people of God, that the Lord's supper is to us, and yet they sat at the Paschal supper. 4. The inward grace is not given to all the communicants, but to the godly only; neither do the godly ever find comfort at the instant of receiving the seal. Then according to the Doctors own words, the action of donation not being perceived at the instant, it is then to be acknowledged with thanksgiving when it is felt afterward. But all the communicants participate of the Sacrament, even the wicked. Now the Lord in setting down the order of the institution, had respect to the Sacramental manner of donation, which is common to all, and not to the spiritual which is proper to few. Even the very wicked eat the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally: and when the godly eat spiritually, yet they participate not pure spiritualiter, as Cajetan speaketh, merely spiritually, but Spiritualiter & Sacramentaliter. And this manner of donation with solemn testification, which is not purely spiritual, but spiritual and sacramental is common to the godly both under the Law and under the Gospel, & to Baptism, alsweill as the Lord's supper.

The Apostle 1 Cor. 11. condemneth all manner of unworthy receiving, whether by hypocrisy, when we come without faith and repentance: or by prophannes, when we come like drunkards and factiously. But sitting the Apostle did never condemn, but rather approved as the ordinary table-gesture. The wicked, howbeit they partake not spiritually of the Lord's body, yet they are guilty in respect of abusing the seals, as Chrysostom saith, he that polluteth the Princes purple robe offendeth the Prince himself.

As for our manner of receiving, the common manner is sacramental, and according to that which is common to all should our carriage be. The Godly receive also with faith spiritually, but as I have said not purely spiritually, but Spiritually and Sacramentally. Faith is accompanied with humility, it is true; but humility is an habit of the Soul, and not an act of adoration. Faith is accompanied with hunger and thirst, it is true; but hunger and thirst is not the prayer of the Soul, but a provoker of the soul to pray, as hunger and thirst provoketh a man to cry for meat and drink. Faith is accompanied with joy, and joy resolveth in desires, it is true; but desires are not formallie prayers and praises. Faith is accompanied with all other Christian graces: For every Christian grace is accompanied with the rest. But this concomitance of the habits of other graces, which is all times in a Christian, doth not import their actual working at all times. Faith is the chief worker in the act of receiving: the rest do assist, if there be need; but ought not hinder the meditation and application of faith. When there do arise any short ejaculations of prayer or praise, they are only occasional as the cōmunicant doth find himself disposed, and Faith for to work. Next, they are subtle and swift, that there is not that agility in our hompish bodies, as to follow with our gestures these swift motions, ending perchance in twinkling of an eye. Thirdly, they are secret between God and the Soul, & therefore ought to be concealed rather then expressed by gestures of worship. In a word, seeing the manner of our receiving is not purely spiritual, but spiritual and Sacramental, the spiritual must not disorder the Sacramental manner set down by him that is the instituter. We are bound to hear the word with Faith, and Faith must be accompanied with humility, and other Christians graces. There will arise also from hunger, thirst, joy; desires, wishes, mental ejaculations of player and praise; but the hearer must not for all that cease from hearing, and fall down to worship. Is there anything here required, but the like was required under the Sacraments of the old Law, and is required at the hearing of the word.

The secret and hid covenant, made betwixt God and Man, is made at the time of effectual calling. The first solemnization [section 5.6.7.] of it, is made at our entry in the bosom of the Church, when we make personal profession on our part, and the Minister in God's name admitteth us, as the mouth of the congregation. This is sealed by Baptism. Thereafter the word preached to all the members of the congregation, is presumed to be delivered to believers and penitent persons, and Faith and repentance is presupposed into the hearers, when the promises of the Gospel ar made unto them. So that after their first entry, Faith is presumed in the hearer, as well as in the communicant. Next, the Sacramental word is general, as the word Preached is. This is my Body which is broken for you. This is the New Testament of my blood, which is shed for the remissions of the sins of many. It is not delivered in the singular number, for thee Peter, or thee Paul, no more then then the word preached. The seals and elements are received severally, and the Spirit worketh severally. The word is uttered generally, as the Sacramental word is, but the Spirit worketh by it severally. If a man should kneel for the several work of the Spirit, then he must kn • ele, as well at the word as at the Sacrament. As for the several receiving of the seal, it is so received severally, at that it must also be received conjunctly, with other communicants, that is: that the communicants sitting at one table, communicate together, and distribute among themselves. The several receiving of the outward seals, must not break the order of conjunct receiving, & communicating enjoined by Christ, & an actual remembranc • of Christ's death & passion▪ must not burst forth in vocal thanksgiving in the very act of receiving. That as the communicating was conjunct, so the thanksgiving may be common, and that the conjunct communicating be not intertubed. When the history of the Passion is read, we are in actual remembrance of Christ's death, but we burst not out in vocal praises. When the seal is received, it is received from the hand of men, and it is no more but the outward seal, grace is not enclosed in it as a plaster in a box, or liquor into a vessel. The kirk in the time of Novatus, was gone frō the right form of administration, and therefore their example is no good argument to prove several thanksgiving. And we read of nothing, that was answered then by the cōmunicants, but Amē. He that delivered said, The body of the Lord: he that received, said Amen. Novatus when he delivered, said these words to the communicant, Swear to me by the body of the Lord, that thou wilt not return to Cornelius, instead of these words the body of the Lord; and likewise the receiver answered, in place of Amen, I will not return to Cornelius. Now for a custom of saying Amen at the receiving, as a particle of confirmation of the words uttered by the Minister, to wit, the body of the Lord, we cannot conclude kneeling; for they said Amen standing. But as I said before, we are not to look to the forms of the ancient kirke. For the very Papists themselves have thought shame of some of them, and the posterior ages abolished many of them. Let it be remembered here also, that all the D. discourse may be applied to the Sacraments of the old Law, as well as of the new. For there in their Sacraments the covenant was solemnized, and they received the seals, and actual remembrance of the benefits received, and to be received was required, but kneeling was not required. The comparing of the Sacraments of the old Law and new Law, and of the word of God with the Sacraments, together with the order of the institution, may furnish answers to all the Doctors arguments.

This Sacrament is called the Lord's supper, partly for honor [section 8] of the first institution, partly to point out to us the liberality of the spiritual supper, as suppers were more liberal then dinners of old. The spiritual part is called a Feast or supper metaphorically, & it is resembled by the symbolical part. It was not necessary, that the symbolical part should be like common Feasts or suppers in all points. There are as many points in it, as may serve to resemble the spiritual supper. To which symbolical representation of a supper, a table-gesture and specially sitting was most correspondent and agreeable, and so Christ and his Apostles used it. Piscator saith, it is evident in that the disciples did eat of the bread, and drink of the cup sitting together at table, that this action had speciem convivij, the show or semblance of a banket: yea, that it was a banket indeed, but a sacred one. And Mornaeus saith, the like. It is true, the Doctor saith the name of supper should not diminish the estimation of it: but on the other side say I, no ceremony should be brought in to take away speciem convivij the semblance of a banket or supper; but when the communicants receive severally kneeling, as if there were no table not only is that semblance of a banket or supper, which the Lord instituted taken away, but all form of banket or Supper, that ever was used in any part of the world. As for the giving and receiving at this supper, we have spoken already.

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

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

That he was then in the state of a servant, will not help their cause. For howbeit he was in the state of a Servant, yet upon singular occasions he was adored. If I would discourse Rhethorically upon the present occasion they had to move them to kneel, then any man would grant that the occasion of adoration was singular, and yet they kneeled not, for other weighty reasons and causes. It is also untrue, that the Doctor saith, that he carried at this time only the form of a Servant, and Minister of the external element. for he carried also in open view, the person of a Lord, in that he did institute the Sacrament.

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

Again, the form that Christ instituted, he appointed it not for that night only, but to be observed to his coming again, & therefore the different state of Christ in humility or glory, did not alter it. And even after his ascension, when he was in the state of glory, the Apostolical Kirks as we have said, sat at table. The rules of the institution and precepts general & particular, admit no other gesture, but a table-gesture. Seeing these rules & precept are perpetual & to be observed, whether Christ be in the state of glory or humility, it is evident, that it was Christ's will, that after his glorificatiō also, we should continue the table-gesture, and the semblance of a supper till his coming again, when we shall sup with him in glory.

[section 10] When the Apostle saith, Shew forth the Lord death, till he come again; the Doctor saith, he meaneth not verbal preaching made by word, but real preaching acted by taking, eating, drinking. This is a Jesuitical exposition very familiar with the Doctor throughout his book. The Rhemists so expound the words, 1 Cor. 11.26. that this commemoration is nothing else but the representation of the death of Christ made by the elements & the action. But D. Fulk answereth that even according to the judgment of the Fathers, the Lord's death must be shown not only by the action, but also by words that may stir us up to remembrance and thankfulness. Although saith he a long sermon as we take a sermon, is not necessary, yet at least a summary and brief declaration of the institution and use of the Sacrament, is necessary. And therefore saith Willets, the Sacraments cannot rightly be Ministred, unless there be a declaratiō & showing forth of the Lord's death, not only in the visible action of breaking, distributing, but also in setting forth the end of the Lord's death, with an exhortatiō to thankfulness. Pezelius saith, that to annunce or declare, is not to express by similitude of fact, but to inculcate the death of Christ & his benefits, & to teach the right use of the Sacrament. This annunciatiō agreeth with the Hagadah, that is the declaratiō which was made at the passover, according to the commandment, Exo. 13.8. & thou shalt show. This precept was givē not to be performed cōfusedly by all, but according to good order & comeliness, & therefore at the pascal supper one made the declaration, expounding every coremony, in the own place; the meaning of the Lamb, of the bitter herbs, & so forth of the rest This hagadah & declaratiō of the Jews, saith Casaubonus, answereth to annunciate, 1 Cor. 11.26.

But admitting the Doctors interpretation, what would he infer? He would infer that this Sacrament is called Eucharist not only for the thanksgiving, wherewith it beginneth & endeth, but because the action itself is an actiō of thanksgiving. for as it is a memorial of his praise, so it is a testimony of our thankfulness. It is true indeed that the name of Eucharist is attributed, not by scripture, but by the Fathers to the action, yea to the elements themselves. But it is unproper appellation to call the bread of the Sacrament Eucharist, that is thanksgiving. And therefore Justinus calling it so, must expound it again by more proper speech, saying panis Eucharistetheis, the bread whereupon thanksgiving was made, so likewise the action of giving, receiving, eating, drinking, if at any time they be called Eucharisticall, it is unproper speech; For properly thanksgiving standeth in words, and no other but verbal thanksgiving is prop • rly Eucharistia. And from that which is properly thanksgiving, it should seem most reasonable that the whole action is denominated Eucharist or thanksgiving. And Casaubonus saith, that the Sacrament is denominated both Eulogia, and Eucharistia from a part of the action, to wit, the proper thanksgiving and blessing.

The actions ar properly a representation, and consequently a memorial of Christ's death and Passion; but not properly a commemoration of his death and Passion. When verbal commemoration is made, of Christ's death and Passion it is not formally, a rendering of thanks: far less is the representation. We kneel not when verbal commemoration is made of Christ's Passion; should we kneel at the representation. The Jewish passover was to the People of God a memorial of their by-past deliverance, and a type of the spiritual deliverance to come; yet neither for the action, not nor for the declaration made at the action did they kneel. To divine worship, saith Cyrillus, belong sacrifices, hymns, prayers, praises, and thankesgivings, adoration and worship, sacred devotions, priesthood, temples, altars, offerings, confessions, solemnities. Where ye may see thanksgiving and adoration are distinguished from the rest. All these particulars belong to God's honor in general, but they are not adoration or praise in particular: honor is more general then praise or adoration. He that adoreth, honoreth; but everyone that honoreth, adoreth not. The last Section containeth a conclusion of his former discourses, which are answered.

CHAP. IV. Kneeling standeth not with Charity.

OF the gift, the giver, the manner of donation; and receiving, [section 1] and of the requisites of Faith, hunger, thirst, joy, humility in the communicants, we spake before.

The Pastor ministering the external element, representeth [section 2.3.4.] Christ ministering the spiritual food to the soul. Our sitting at table, and communicating with the pastor doth resemble the soul admitted to the spiritual table, and Christ dining and supping with it, Apocalypsis. 3.20. Eating and drinkinking represent our union with Christ, as food to our souls, but do not represent our fellowship with him, as of guests with the master of the Feast. This is represented by a Table-gesture. When I eat a great man's meat set before me, or reached to me, his meat is united to me, and turned in the substance of my body, and that may be done without a table, wheresoever I eat his meat. But when he admitteth me to sit at his table, he maketh manifest the fellowship, whereunto he hath assumed me at that time. Union is one thing, and society and fellowship is another thing. The Doctor therefore reasoneth not well, from eating and drinking against the table-gesture.

When we speak of fellowship with Christ, at the spiritual table, we do not so much as dream of equality, no more then David and Jonathan thought themselves equal to Saul, when they sat at his table, or lame Mephibosheth to David, when he eat at his table.

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

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

The Apostle 1 Corinth. 10.17. doth mean Sacramental communion of these who in one congregation ate together did eat of one Sacramental bread, and not of the general communion, which all the members of Christ's body, wh • resoever they be, have one with another. They who are joined together by Sacramental communion, have their spiritual communion also with the whole Church, sealed by this Sacramental communion. The ancients did understand the Apostle to speak of one Sacramental bread; and therefore in some places and times they had but one Sacramental bread indeed, to express the communion of the saints the more vively. Durand saith, In the primitive Kirk, they offered one great bread sufficient for all which custom the Grecians are said yet to observe. And Honorius Augustodune • si saith, that of old the Priests took floor out of every house and family, which the Grecians yet observe, whereof they make one bread which they distribute. Dionysius Areopagta , Ignatius, & Anselmus make mention likewise of one bread, and of one cup. Moulins reporteth out of Franciscus Alvarez, that the Abyssins make a great Bunne, about a finger thick, wherein the Priest maketh five holes with his finger, in remembrance of the five wounds of Christ, and this he doth consecrate in the Arabian tongue.

[section 5] He saith that all the significant ceremonies and actions, that belong to the nature of the Sacrament, are employed abo • t the elements, or to the use of them only. If therefore a table-gesture be a Sacramental ceremony, the table whereunto the use of the gesture belongeth must also be the third symbol or sign representing Christ, and consequently as necessary, and essential, as bread and wine; and the gesture as necessary, as eating and drinking. We answer, first, there is no necessity, that every ceremony and rite be significant. for some may be ceremonies of order only, yet serving to the right ministration of the Sacrament, that without them the Sacrament cannot be rightly administered, nor the order and frame thereof duelie observed; thē they are necessary, suppose they have no signification. But we have demonstrated already, that kneeling putteth all out of joint, and a tablegesture only doth keep the institution in order as Christ hath commanded. Next, the table-gesture is employed about the elements themselves: for it is not employed about a bare table, but a table with the elements set thereon, & for the elements. 3. Every significant ceremony, is not of like necessity. The breaking of bread after thanksgiving, is a significant ceremony & necessary for the integrity & right ministration of the Sacrament, yet it is not equal with eating & drinking: which is necessary to the essence of that actiō. What reason therefore is theere to make a table and table-gesture suppose they be significant, as necessary as bread and wine, eating and drinking▪ 4. As for the signification of a table and table-gesture, we admit not strange allegories, as to signify the accomplishment of the ceremonies of the Law in Christ, yet such significations as arise of the proper use and end of table-gestures at ordinary banquets we allow. The guests sit at ordinary tables, appointed for ordinary feasts, with greet personages, partly for ease, partly to signify their familiar admission to their tables, and social entertainment thereat. Sitting is the ordinary table-gesture chosen for these respects. Our sitting at the Symbolical part of this feast, representeth the soul sitting with ease, and familiarly admitted by Christ to the spiritual feast. This signification is expressed in metaphorical speeches and parables by Christ himself, when he saith, many shall come from the east and from the west, and sit at table in the Kingdom of heaven with ABRAHAM, ISAAC and JACOB, Math. 8.11. And LAZARVS is brought, in Luke 16.23. sitting at that heavenly table near to ABRAHAM, leaning on his bosom.

As John was nearest Christ at the Paschal supper, when he leaned in his bosom, that is, was nearest his bosom. For the second was nearest the first, and the third nearest the seconds bosom, who were in one bed. By one Lazarus is expressed the happy estate of all God's Children, they shall be so deer to Abraham, as if everyone should sit nearest to him at his bosom in heaven. See Beza in Luke 16, and Reynolds Censura and Barradius . Seeing our repose and familiar entertainment at the heavenly table, is expressed by sitting, the repose & familiar entertainment at the spiritual table, whereof that is an accōplishiment, is very fitly resembled by sitting at the communion table. Christ signified so much before he arose from the supper Luk. 22.30. I have appointed to you a Kingdom that ye may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on seats, and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The Fathers in calling it a mystical table, do understand that there is a spiritual table answerable to it. Nazianzen saith, that howbeit they thrust him from the altars, meaning the Lord's tables, yet he knew another altar, whereof these were only examplars, he will stand at that altar or table. Is it not our common custom to put the communicants in mind of another table, whereat the soul is to feed spiritually? If the table be mystical, why may not the table-gesture be mystical. Now sitting expresseth this signification very well, standing not so well; kneeling not at all.

We require not ever of necessity, to the right ministration of the Sacrament an artificial table made of timber, but the form of a table we require, whatsoever the matter be; timber or stone, or a piece of ground. As Mark. 6. where the mullititude sat in rouse by fifties and fifties upon the ground to eat of the loaves; that piece of ground, whereabout they sat, was the form of a table, howbeit the matter was earth. So if the Turks were converted, and did communicate after the same form, sitting on the ground in companies with their feet and legs plett, the dimension and shape of the ground, whereabout they sit, is their table, & their sitting their table-gesture. For the high table and the table on the ground, answer analologically one to the other. This kind of table and table-gesture, preserveth the whole order of the institution. For sitting in this manner, the communicants may distribute the elements among thenselves. The like we may say of the times of persecution, where the artificial table cannot be had, there the natural is sufficient. There is no divers fashion of nations, taketh away the form of a table, nor no different state of time prosperous or troublesome. Wine is one of the elements instituted by Christ to be a sign of his blood: but what if the communion were celebrated in parts, where there is no wine to be gotten, nor bread made of wheat, but of the roots of herbs; may they not use such things as they have, which come nearest to the use of our bread and wine? Calvin saith they may, and Beza approveth his judgment; for they are to other Symbola analoga saith he.

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

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

To receive the Sacrament upon the Sabbath day after meat [section 6] and with uncovered heads, is not to be compared with receiving kneeling. In the former we symbolize with the pure Kirk, and have sufficient warrant from the word. In the last with the Roman Kirk, and have no warrant so to do.

We received not the gesture of sitting from the Arians, but from the first primitive and Apostolical Kirk, and Christ's example: therefore we cannot be said to symblize with ArArrians. The 4 conclusion of Synodus Petricoviensis, cited by the Doctor, alledgeth, that sitting at table is nowhere used in Europe, which is false. For when that Synod was holden anno 1578▪ sitting at table was in use in the Kirks of Scotland, and the Low Countries and is yet still in use among them. That Synod consisted of sundry sortes of protestants, some adhering to the Augustine Confession, some to the confession of Bohemia, some to the Confession of Helvetia. The Lutherans would not consent to sitting, because of the bodily presence: others adhering to the Helvetian confession, would not consent to kneeling; therefore that they might agree, it was permitted to everyone to stand, or kneel. And so not only for despite of the Arians or (as Synodus Cracoviensis calleth them) Arrianabaptists, did they discharge sitting: But also for their respects of common agreement among themselves. We are not to follow the Canons of such confused Synods. Yet I wish the Doctor had set down the words immediately preceeding, where they say, that it is neither the will of God, nor the custom of the purer Kirk, to smite men with Ecclesiastical discipline for external rites, and therefore permitteth every man to stand or kneel. Ye see the Lutherans notwithstanding of their opinion of the real presence are not so hot for kneeling as our men, who outwardly profess other ways. This Synod would not have allowed office-men to be compelled to kneel under the pain of deprivation from their offices, whereunto they have right of their life rent, by the Laws of the Land, and wherein there livelihood doth stand. This mixed Synod would not have allowed our two pretended Archbishops M ^r . Spottiswood, and Mr. Law to sit in the court of high commission, where they sit without allowance of the Kirk and the States, and to exerce like Popes the power of both the Swords, suspending, depriving, fining, confining, and imprisoning. First they delate, and then they execute, as Doeg did. That mixed Synod would not have allowed the four Ministers of Edinburgh above-named to incense his Majesty against the people with their calumnious and sycophanticall letters. Mr. Galloway professed openly in pulpit, that he would do good service to God, who would procure their punishment. M ^r . Struthers declaimed against them, because they were not so pliable to his course, as he desired. Al the four press to extinguish that spark of light & zeal yet remaing with the better sort; which was kindled by those worthies, who went before thē, shining as burning lāpes, M ^r . Knox, M ^r . Lowsō, Mr. Bruce, &c

It were strange if Calvin should be a favourer of kneeling, whose doctrine and perpetuable practice was against it. In the [section 7] place alleged by the Doctor, he preferreth adoration in the supper before adoration in the streets, when the bread is carried in pomp or procession: he doth not allow it simpliciter in the supper. His words are general, and may be applied to any part of the supper, as well as to the act of receiving, and to internal adoration as well as to external. He recalleth us to the institution in the same section, and in the words which I have cited before, as the surest warrant for our conscience, where he saith, the Apostles in the institution, and the Apostolical Kirks afterward, kneeled not.

P. Martyr, wrote his treatise of the Eucharist, when he was Professor in Oxford, not many years after he had forsaken papistry. Crammer, his special friend, Ridley and others who saw not all things in the dawning of the day, being moved with the stirs and out-cries of the papists, to appease them some what, enjoined kneeling in the act of receiving, in the renewing of the book of common prayer. P. Martyr, a stranger was loath to contradict his great friends, & the received order; or it may be that thē he saw no further▪ his reason is very weak: for many do kneel devoutly saith he, when they hear these words read; And the word was made flesh. What was this, but to corfirm one superstition with another? for wherefore should we kneel at these words more then at the rest of the articles of our faith, or comfortable passages of scripture? Whē he was afterward in Zurich writing against Gardener, he was forced to defend his former treatise, & through the importunity of his adversary, he was driven to utter such speeches. As the papists worship their absent Saints in their images so do we worship Christ's body being absent in the sacrament. And again, as the nobles & Citizens reverēce the Emperor in his purple robe & his seal, howbeit they know he is not contained in them: so do we in the Sacrament worship Christ's body being absent. Yet this much we may perceive, that he could never thoroughly digest it, for in the same part where the Doctor doth cite him: he doth twice wish that all kind of external adoadoration were abolished, whether prostration of the body, or kneeling. And when he was in Zurich, In his defense against Gardener, he affirmeth plainly, that it was without any warrant of God's word, yea against the example of Christ and his Apostles. But not willing to insist long in scanning men's testimonies, I proceed.

We compare not the brazen Serpent with the bread in the [section 8] Sacrament. It is the ordinance of God, and of perpetual use even to his coming again, according to Christ's commandment, howbeit the Papists have made an Idol of it. The ordinances of God should not be abolished when they are abused & polluted by men, but ought only to be restored to their right use. We compare the brazen Serpent with kneeling in the act of receiving. If Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen Serpent, which was reserved for 700 years as a monument of God's mercy, because it was polluted with Idolatry: Far more should kneeling in the act of receiving, be abolished: seeing it is but the invention of man, and hath been abused to the vilest Idolatry that ever was, the worship of the bready God. The brazen Serpent had no state in the worship of God, and yet Hezekiah would not be curious in the careful keeping of it, but brake it in pieces. Kneeling hath state in the worship of God, and cannot be hid from the eyes of men, therefore more dangerous then the brazen Serpent. Constantine the great closed up the temples of Idols, Julian opened them again: therefore Theodosius demolished them.

[section 9] It is true the Doctor saith, that there is great difference betwixt an Image, and the works of God, the word and the Sacraments. But yet it is Idolatry to give God's worship to any creature whatsoever, suppose to an Angel of heaven. It is lawful to bow down if there be not some other just impediment, when we have seen the works of God, when we have heard the word, received the Sacraments, &c. But the Doctor frameth his words after this manner: To bow down when we have seen the works of God, when we have heard the word, when we receive the Sacraments: he saith not when we have received as he said of the other two, and as he should have done. Or else if he had spoken to his purpose, he should have have said after this manner: It is lawful to bow down when we see the works of God, hear the word, or receive the Sacraments, which he would be loath to do.

He doth the like in the two examples following, when the fire fell down and consumed the sacrifice of Elias, the people fell on their faces and cried the Lord is God. And the infidel, or unlearned Christian, convinced by the Prophets in his conscience falling on his face, adored God saying, God is among you. Here the Principal cause of their falling down was God, saith he, but the miraculous work of the fire, and the word of the Prophets, were instrumētal causes whereby they were wakened and stirred up. Even so when we fall down at the Sacrament, the principal cause that moveth us (saith he) is God to whom we kneel, but the Sacrament is the instrument, whereby we are taught, and admonished to fall down at that time, and in that place. If the Doctor had said of the first two, that at the same time, and in the same place they fell down also, he had said to the purpose. But he doth altogether suppress the circumstance of time and place in the two examples. And the truth is, that the people fell on their faces, after that the fire had consumed the burnt-offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust▪ and licked up the water that was in the ditch, 1 King. 18.38.39. And the infidel, or unlearned Christian is brought in (upon supposition in case such a thing fall out) falling on his face, and adoring God after that the Prophets had ended their Prophecying. For he is brought in speaking, which could not be done without confusion, if the Prophets were prophesying in the mean time. So his examples do not serve his purpose, nor his comparison in general of the Sacraments with the word & works of God. For if we should fall down at the time and place when we see the works of God, and feel ourselves wakened and stirred up by them, then shall we fall down before the whole host of heaven, and everything that creepeth on the earth. Or when we hear the word, if every man as he findeth himself wakened and stirred up, should fall down and worship, howbeit he join not speaking with it, like the infidel, or unlearned, what a confusion would be brought into God's service? Next I say, suppose it were granted that the people fell down in the mean time that the fire was working the work wherefore it was sent, there is a difference betwixt the customable beholding of God's ordinary works, the Sacraments, and a miracle. For as Augustine saith of the sacred Scripture, the Serpent, the Sacraments, they may be honored as matters religious, but wondered at as matters of marvel they may not be. The infidel or unlearned if he had fallen down in the mean time and spoken, it had been but his rudeness, not yet well understanding the order of the Church. What men do either amazed with the Majesty of God in a miracle, or of ignorance being but new couverts to testify their conversion before the congregation as witnesses, doth not help the Doctors cause. Thirdly, suppose they had fallen down in the mean time, yet their falling down was not for adoration of the fire, or the word, but of God, Kneeling at the Sacrament is for reverence of the Sacrament, as we shall make manifest. But as I have said, their falling down was not in the mean time of the working of the fire, or the prophesying of the Prophets, and so serveth not the Doctor to the very pretence of falling down at the Sacrament.

He denieth that they bow their knees at the Sacrament, for the religions respect and reverence which they carry to the Sacrament, but to Christ, for the religions respect & reverence that by it they are taught to give to him. I see men make no account what they deny, providing they can ensnare simple people, and bring them to the doing of the act. The Doctor said other ways, at the pretended assembly, and the act penned by him and some others, when it was reformed, the copy whereof subscrived by the clarke come in my hands speaketh as I have already alleged. It is there ordained, that we kneel in reverence of so divine a Mystery to wit, as is the Sacrament, or holy communion, whereof mention is made in the words immediately preceeding. And the words following, in remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partokers of thereby to wit, by the mystery, declare that by the word mystery, is meant the Sacrament. The like speech he hath in this book, that the communion of the body and blood of Christ is offered to us by the sacred mysteries which are given at the table. It is an usual term of the ancients to call the Sacrament, sometimes mysteries in the plural number, sometime mystery in the singular number, as the Doctor doth also vary the term in this book. And in the English Confession the bread and wine are called the heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of Christ. To kneel then in religious reverence of the Sacrament, is to adore it. For all religious kneeling is a gesture not of ordinary and common reverence, but of adoration. Seeing therefore the public intent of the enforced act is Idolatry. whatsoever be the private intent of the communicant, he is guilty of Idolatry in kneeling A man may go to Rome, and take the Sacrament at the Antichrists hand, if private intention will save him from the guiltiness of Idolatry.

Our conformity with our neighbor Kirk, doth also manifest the intent of our act. The disputers against M ^r . Rogers, M ^r . Hutton, D. Cowel, and D. Spark, prove out of their writers, that the reverence of the Sacrament is intended. I will only set down Mr. Huttons words. Our bowing at the Sacrament (saith he) is an outward reverence meet to be performed because of that holy action in hand, namely our religious communicating; partly to stir up in others a more religious estimation of those divine seals, partly to remove all profane thoughts of Epicures and contemners, partly to put a difference between the ordinary bread & wine, & those Sacramental, to which we give more reverence, because they are more thē ordinary bread & wine. That book of common prayer, whereto they are tied by the statute of Q. Elisabeth, giveth also to understand, that kneeling at the communion is enjoined upon this ground, that the Sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation amongst us.

I hear that our men have put in another word to color the matter. In reverence of God, and of so divine a mystery; but that will not help the matter. For God will be the total & only object of adoration, he will have no compartner, & he will have it to be directed to him alone immediately.

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

Seeing therefore we kneel in reverence of the Sacrament, & it is in part the object of our adoration, we are said as properly to bow before it, as the Papist to bow before his image. Yea, suppose a thing situate before us wanting life, be not the object of our adoration, as a wall or a tree, yet are we said properly to bow before it in our vulgar language. howbeit speaking Greek we would not use the word Enopion to that purpose. David or Daniel may be justly said to bow toward the Temple, they being far removed from the sight of it▪ or toward the Ark, the Ark being out of sight in the holy of holies. The elements are not only in our sight, but are also the object of our reverend worship, as the crucifix is to the Papist. And admit that the speech were not proper to say we bow down before any dead element, the doctors phrase is sufficient for us. For we may not bow down toward a creature, as the object of our adoration. Yea and further, we may not bow by direction and ordinance now under the New Testament, toward any place or creature, there to worship God, as the people of old, did toward the Ark, where God manifested himself by a singular manner of presence, sitting betvyixt the Cherubims.

It is manifest then, that the public intent of the act is Idolatrous, seeing the elements are made an object of our reverent kneeling. Yet let us examine the Doctors private, but pretended intent. 1. If we kneel only to Christ at that time and place, when the elements, in the sight and use of them, as instrumental causes, waken and stir us up to give that bodily worship; then at what time, and in what place soever, we are moved and stirred up by any creature, work of God, word, Sacrament, type, figure, monument to acknowledge our duty of bodily worship to God, we should give it in that place, at the same instant time. For the Doctor did except only Images and Idols, as not fit to teach us anything of God, and consequently, that we should not bow before them. But of this purpose we spake a little before. See also Perth Assembly. 2. If I kneel only in regard of the pretended prayer of the soul, and yet in the mean time of my kneeling, which is an external worship. I perform another action of divine service. I confound two parts of external worship. I am praying, and in that regard, as is pretended, kneeling; and in the mean time I am beholding with mine eyes the mystical actions, hearkening with the ears to the audible words, receiving the elements with my hands, eating and drinking with my mouth, and so one person at one time is 〈◊〉 two sundry parts of external worship. For these actions are not the actions and gestures of prayer and adoration. The diverse kinds of God's worship should not be confounded with other; but specially none of them ought to be confounded with prayer and adoration for eschewing of Idolatry. Did ADAM eat of the tree of life, the people of God eat of the Paschal supper, or the manna, the Priests eats of the things sacrificed, of the presence bread, or other holy meat, and adore in the mean time also? The Lord would have external adoration superceeded during the use of the means, the word & the Sacraments, both for eschewing of Idolatry, lest we adore the means; and of confusion and distraction lest the parts of God's worship should undecently be confounded, and our hearts distracted. And so kneeling in this action doth not best beseem this action, as the act would insinuate. Babylon is not so confused: for they think the actions of eating, drinking, taking, beholding, when they are upon their knees, and in time of their prayer, are employed immediately about their God. 3. Either the soul is wholly employed in prayer during the time that the communicant is upon his knees, and then the actions of beholding, taking, eating, drinking, are idle, or rather hurtful because they distract the soul, or the soul is not totally exercised in prayer, and then kneeling must be in regard of the actions and elements whereabout they are employed, as well as of prayer, and this is Idolatry. 4. If the actions outward employed about the elements, and the internal considerations and actions correspondent be the principal work of the communicant: and on the other part, the prayers be but mental ejaculations, and occasional, then is the gesture of kneeling principally for the actions, and the elements whereabout they are employed. But so it is, that these actions employed about the elements, and the internal actions correspondent, are the principal work of the communicant, the mental ejaculations of prayer and praise, are but occasional and incident. Therefore kneeling is principally for the actions and the elements, wherbout they are employed. 5. If mental ejaculations give place to all other parts of God's worship, and require no bodily adoration, as we may see at the hearing of the word, our mental ejaculations require not kneeling. Thē it will follow, that kneeling is not at all in regard of these mental ejaculations of prayer and praise, but of the public worship commanded, that is, of the celebration of the actions, and signs whereabout they are employed; and this is also Idolatry. As for public prayer in the act of receiving, they cannot pretend it. For no such prayer is set down by any Canon of our Kirk. The disputers foresaid have laid open the nakedness of this pretence also.

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

He denieth that our kneeling hardeneth the Papist in his [section 10] Idolatry, because we kneel not in that respect that they do: yea that they are no less vehement against our kneeling then against our sitting; but daily experience doth prove the contrary of this allegiance, that the Papist is hardened in his superior sort of Idolatry, by our inferior sort. The Papists are offended at us for not kneeling upon the conceit of transubstantiation, but they are well content to see us kneel upon a religious estimation & reverence of the element, & the mystical actions. They are content to see us borrow there rites to decore our religion withal, to kneel at the same time, in the same place, after the same manner, & to the same general end of adoration, howbeit upon different respects. The Doctor would make men believe that there is no Idolatrous worship of a creature, except we take it for a God. When as it is also Idolatry to communicate religious knee-worship to that which we are persuaded is but a mere creature.

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

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

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

The Doctor saith, if the ancient Church might have lawfully interchāged kneeling, a gesture ordained by God himself into standing at prayer, touching which there is no precept, how much more may our Church interchange sitting never commanded, and never or very seldom practiced in God's public worship with kneeling a gesture commanded by God, and most agreeable to this Sacrament. We have already made manifest, that at the religious Feasts under the Law, at the Sacrament of the Supper under the New Testament they did sit. In the time of the preaching or prophesying, it was likewise the ordinary custom to sit both in the Synagogue of the Jews, and the Assemblies of Christians, 1 Cor. 14.30. Acts. 16.13. Act. 20.9. Luke. 4.28.29. Act. 13.16. Luke 10.39. I think no man will deny but the ministration of the Sacraments, and the preaching and hearing of the word, are parts of God's public worship. If by public worship the Doctor do mean the solemn & public prayers only, then he speaketh not to the purpose. Neither doth Calvin say, that kneeling in time of prayer is simply a divine ordinance, but he saith, it is so human a tradition that it is also divine. It is divine in so far as it is a part of that comeliness which is recommended to us by the apostle. The Prophets upon singular occasions as they were moved by the spirit, exhorted the people to come and bow down before the Lord. But these exhortations were not precepts. for then Christ had sinned if he had not kneeled in the times of thanksgiving; but we have already manifested that he sat. Then David likewise had sinned when he sat before the Lord. 2. Sam. 7.18. To expone sitting standing, were catachresticall indeed. To expone sitting remaining, will not agree with the text. To devise a mystery for that sitting Peter Martyr saith, it is without a warrant. If there had been a commandment to kneel in time of prayer, then Jehoshaphat and all Judah standing before the Lord with their young ones, their wives and Children in time of prayer, 2. Chron. 20 5.6.13. had sinned, and the ancient custom of the Jews to pray standing, had been unlawful. Of this custom see Perth Assembly. It was the office of the Levites to stand evening and morning to give thanks and praise the Lord, 2 Chron. 23.29. The tribe of Levi is said to be separated to stand before the Lord to Minister to him, and to bless in his name. What the ancient Kirk did in changing kneeling in time of prayer into standing, insignification of their joy for Christ's resurrection, and that so precisely, that it was accounted a great sin to do other ways, on the Lord's day, & betwixt Pasce, and Pentecost, is nothing to us, who are not to follow them in such conceits. Paul kneeled betwixt Pasce and Pentecost the time forbidden by the ancients, as we may see Acts. 20.36. and had no mind of such devises.

The Doctor alledgeth, that our first reformers established sitting only as a fit ceremony for the time, to abolish the opinion of transubstantiation. But this he alledgeth against his own knowledge, and I am sure against the truth. For in the first book of discipline, in the second head thereof, it is ordained as a perpetual gesture because most agreeable to the institution. In the parliament holden anno 1572. it was enacted, that if any man did communicate other ways with the Sacraments, then as they were then truly ministered in the reformed Kirks of this realm, should be holden infamous, unable to sit or stand in judgment, persew or bear office, or to be witnesses or assisers against any professing the true religion. Shall we now have a new act in the contrary, for this English guise, or rather old Papistical manner. In the second confession of Faith, we detest all allegories▪ rites, signs and traditions added to the true ministration of the Sacraments, without or against the word of God. Did any preacher preach other ways till now? And at Perth Assembly the Doctor confessed that yet still the former order was best, but he would please the King, and avert his Majesty's wrath from this Kirk. P. Martyr writing to the Polonian Ministers and Professors anno 1556. Willed them to pluck up superstition & Idolatry by the roots, if other ways they plucked only at the Leaves, the Fruits and the Flowers, it would spring up again as it had done in some places already. I know what I speak saith he. And this he spake when our neighbor Kirk revolted to Popery in Queen Mary's days. But chiefly he desireth them to make a sincere reformation in this Sacrament, where there are, saith he, Pestilent seeds of Idolatry, which except they be taken away, the Kirk of Christ will never be decored with pure and sincere worship. And again he saith, as the Sacraments ought not to be contemned; so men ought not to give them greater honor then the institution will suffer. Bucer in his censure written at the desire of Cranmer, saith, that if we love God and our Savior Christ none of these things, words, or gestures, will find or keep place amongst us, which have appearance of affinity with the impieties & abominations brought in by the Antichrist upon the holy mysteries, or which may be taken hold of to make up, any any commendation of them, howbeit unjustly and without just cause offered. A whole Synod did condemn this gesture for the danger of Bread-worship, as may be seen in Festus Hommius harmony of the Belgic Sinods. Our first Reformers upon the same considerations abandoned this gesture simpliciter, and not for a time only.

He pretendeth a needless Fear of Prophanitie and contempt, which may by time creep in by our former order. If it creep in, it is to be amended, and the Form and order of the institution is not to be broken or adulterate for remedy of the same. For as Bucer saith, neither the perverseness of the wicked, can vitiate the things which the Lord hath instituted, neither ought we to intermit them for their abuse. But I appeal to the consciences of all true Professors, if ever they did see any exercises so gracious, powerful and heavenly, as were our communions It is well known what graceless, confused▪ cold & disordered communions we had insundry parts this last Yeare, where kneeling was put in practice. Some complained for want of the Bread, some for want of the wine. Mr Galloway quarrelled some of the communicants for not kneeling, when he was in the very act of delivering the element. Such pretty dialogues had we at the last communion, as was matter of much talk afterwards.

He purged our Kirk in this book before of Arianism, and now he maketh much ado as if the maintainers of a table-gesture did savor of Arianism, or plead for equality with Christ. When the Arminians were like to prevail in the Low-countries, then did the Doctor everywhere reason for them. This is the man who maketh a counterfeit out-cry, as if our Kirk were in danger of Arianism; howbeit he doth understand there is no appearance of any such matter more now, then was from the beginning of the Reformation. Neither did Christ ever institute any order which should give just occasion to any malicious or perverse person to pretend such Feares.

What a vain alledgeance is it to say, that kneeling will serve to declare our union with other reformed Kirks; seeing the best Reformed Kirks do abhor kneeling. His other alledgeance is as Foolish, that kneeling will win some Papists to our Profession. Is this the way to cure a man of the Fever, to fain a Fever? God set up a partition wall of many rites and ceremonies betwixt his people and Idolaters, and took not the course of conformity with them to make proselytes. P. Martyr saith, That rite in the administration of the Sacraments is to be embraced which is most simple, and furthest removed from Papistical toys and ceremonies, and cometh nearest to that purity which Christ and his Apostles used. This was his judgment after he had left England, & had experience what such matters meaned. Doth not daily experience teach us, that where kneeling and the like ceremonies do flourish most, Papists do increase most? Are not our Papists already insulting upon us, and saying that▪ we are returning home again to them?

There was an argument much made of be the D. in Perth Assembly, which I find not in this Book of Resolutiounis. To wit, whatsoever benefit we may crave of God upon our knees, we may receive it upon our knees. We may crave the Sacrament upon our knees. Ergo. Bot appearantlie the D. hath thought shame of it since that time. And indeed if the propositiovn were true, the King ought, or may kneel when he receiveth homage from his subjectis: The Bridgroome when he taketh his Brid by the hand: and everyone of us when we receive food or phisike. M ^r . Galloway wanting better reasons did notwithstanding with a little restrictioun use this same argument in the Great Kirk of Edinburgh upon the Lord's day before the last communion as the chief reason that after study, meditation and prayer gave him Resolution. What spiritual blessing in God's public worship I may ask of God upon my knees, I may receive upon my knees. When N. denied this proposition to the late Bishop of Galloway M ^r . Cowper he could proceed no further. I demand wherfor should we not kneel in the receat and fruitioun of temporal benefits and blessings alsweill as Spiritual, seeing we c • ave of God conform to the perfect pattern of Prayer day lie bread and temporal benefits necessar for this our natural life. Will they not say, because God's benefits temporal are presented to ws be sensible creatures, and therefore if we did kneel, we should kneel before creatures, Fire, Water, Wine, Bread and so forth of the rest. Do we not the like at the Sacrament, are not the seals of the Spiritual blessings presented to ws, be sensible creatures. If ye say the one sort is Holy and sacred and so is not the other: then first it will follow that we kneel not ration doni in respect of a blessing or benefit bestowed, for then we should kneel in the receat of the temporal blessing and benefit also: bot that we kneel because that sensible pledge of the spiritual blessing is ane holy thing or creature consecrated & set apart to a holy use. Bot to Kneele relligiouslie in that respect before any creature whatsoever is Idolatry. That conditioun which is added: In God's public Worship, will not help the mater. For whether we kneel in or out of God's public worship in the forsaid respect, it is still Idolatry to kneel relligiouslie in regard of the holiness of any creature. Nixt there is aequiuocatioun in this word worship. For some time worship of God is taken in a general sense, for the fear and reverence of God, service of God, or any other relligious or Ecclesiastical action, ROM. 1.9. MATTH. 15.9. ACT. 18.7. ACT. 18.13. ACT. 24.14. PHILIP. 3.3. DEVT. 10.12. COLL. 2.18.23. 2 SAM. 15.8. EXOD. 3.12. And so the word worship in our language serveth to express divers words in the original latrevoo, doulevoo, threskevoo seboma • , &c. In this general sense the preaching of the word, the celebratioun of the Lord's Supper, the Ministration of Baptism, singing of Psalms, &c. Ar public worships of God. The Preacher Prayeth upon his knees for a blessing when he shall Preach and consequently in God's public worship ROM. 1.9. ROM. 15.16. Shall he therefore Preach Kneeling, when he findeth God's blessing assisting him. The hearers do crave likewise a blessing upon their hearing▪ If the hearers as they are diverslie affected with good motiouns in time of Sermon shall kneel when others do sit: and the Sitters again kneel when others are risen, if at another time they find themselves moved, what a sort of hearers should we have. God's public should not be confounded with men's peculiar worship and devotioun. It is God's Commandment, that the hearer should hear, when the Preacher doeth speak. This Commandment should not be broken, for the private motions and secret • ja • ulatiouns of the soul in the time of hearing. Even so at the Sacrament the communicant is to observe the order, rules and rites of the institution, which will not admit Kneeling as we have often said. It is therefore unlawful to kneel in the act, seeing that we cannot kneel without making many breaches both in the secound Commandment in general, and in the instition in particular. All which are set down at lenth in PERTH ASSEMBLIE, the sum whereof I have set down before PAGE 45. The word Worship is taken again and that most usua • lie for kneeling and prostratioun and serv • th in this sense to express the Greek word proskuneo as MATTH. 2.2. REVEL. 13.4. 1 COR. 14.25. MATT. 8.2, and the Hebrew word Histachavah; and this is performed in time of prayer or thanksgiving. To kneel in time of God's public worship in this strict sense, that is in time of solemn and public prayers no man doeth call in question, & is not pertinent to this purpose. If M ^r . Galloways pensions had not tempted him at his prayers study and meditations, he might soon have come to better resolutions. He had another reason that same day of as little weight. To wit, The people of Israel stood in Egypt at the passover as they wer commanded: and sat in Canaan. Why may not we likewise change sitting in kneeling as they did standing in sitting. First it is only conjectural that they stood, it is not certain. For no circumstance in the text Exod. 12, doeth enforce any such thing. Next, if it was commanded it was enjoined only for that night as many other ceremonies wer peculiar to that time, as to eat in their houses where they had made their residence in Egypt, the sprinkling of the side posts with blood, the eating in hast, the not going out of house. Christ and his Apostles went out of the house that same night to the Mount of olives Matth. 26.19.20.30. Seeing therefore the Lord did not set down a Law for standing at the Paschal supper, and the people of Israel had not the like reason to stand at other times as at the first passover in Egypt: there was nothing to hinder their sitting. That standing was only occasional, because of their hasty departure out of Egypt, bot sitting was the ordinary gesture at all relligious Feasts. Put the cace it wer certain that they stood at the Paschal supper even to the captivity, which is denied be Scaliger in the last edition of his book de Emendatione temporum: and that they took up sitting after that, yet that change of standing about the table into sitting is bot the change of one table-gesture into another. Bot to change sitting into kneeling is to change a table-gesture into a gesture of adoration, and to bring in a change upon the institution as we have said. When D. Denizens book come in Mr. Galloway his hands, he made a new onsett in the pulpitt upon the Lord's day following and caused sing after Sermon the 95 Psalm, as if he had been singing the triumph. Bot certainly he produced no new reason worthy the answering howbeit he did flee with other men's wings. I wish that man saw his one weakness and insufficiency for such a place. M ^r . Ramsay proponed an Argument at the meeting upon the • wesday before the last communion, which he bragged he would manteine against all the Theologues in Europe. To wit, where the soul should necessarily bow, the body may lawfully bow. In the act of receiving the Sacramental elements the soul should necessarily bow. For we should receive with humility. The answer is easy, first the proposition is to be denied. The 3 children no doubt bowed there souls, when they wer presented before the golden Image. Bot there bowed souls wer averse from the Image and looking upon God. For we may not Imagine that the soul throweth about as the body doeth. A man surprised with a sudden temptation, when he is gazing on a crucifix ought to bow his soul necessarlie bot he must not bow his body. Nehemiah's standing before King Artaxerxes Nehem. 2.4. bowed his soul, bot might not bow his body. A man ryding through a deep water, and in peril of drouning should necessarily bow his Soul. In a word whatsoever we be doing, or whatsoever thing be setr before ws, we should bow our soul, when we ar assaulted with danger either internal or external, or when we have some present neid of God's presence & blessing, whether we be ryding, eating, lying, hearing the word, or participating the Sacrament. As for the assumption; we bow the soul in the act of receiving if there be neid, and as we find ourselves moved to beg grace to strenthen us, when we find our Faith weak, or in such like caces. Bot that bowing is nothing, but the mental ejaculations of prayer and praise whereof we have often spoken before which are occasional only, subtle, swift and secret. For to say that the soul should bow by way of internal adoration of prayer and praise during all the time of the action is to exclude the principal work of the soul, that is meditation, consideration of the analogy of the signs and things signified, and the application of Faith, as we have said before. Humility is not this bowing of the soul, which is internal adoration, bot ane habit accompanieng us in all our relligious exercises, in the hearing of the word alswell as in receiving the Sacrament. Farther it will not follow that we should bow the body, if we bow the soul at that time as I have declared in the refutation of the proposition. All the 12 transgressions noted before do hinder us to bow our body at that time. M. Struthers greatest arguments wer terrible knocks upon the pulpit. M ^r . Sideserfe told the people of the threadbare reason drawn from the circumstances of time & place accessoir to the first institution: whereof se before Page 11.

S • ing therefore kneeling in the act of receiving is not a thing indifferent, but unlawful in respect of the many transgressions committed by the same, it is the duty of every good Christian making conscience of his ways, specially in the solemn worship of God, to detest the same. Bot what if liberty be offered to sit, or stand, or kneel? Remember first that no particular person h • s power to make that offer. The enforced act of the pretendit assembly tendeth only to uniformity. Next, remember the trick which the Ministers of Edimburgh played. When they had allured some people with this offer to come to their communion, they wrought upon them divers ways to make them to kneel, and dashed the Sillie ones. Tempt not the Lord: take pains rather to seek abroad nor to cast yourselves in a snare, or to countenance such confusions. Ye ought not so far as in you lieth to depart one nail breadth from the institution, as I alleged before out of Calvin. Thridlie consider that this offer will only serve for ane introduction to uniformity in kneeling. For when that confusion shall take place, then shall they cry out as D. Spark hath done: that some moderate severi • ie must be used to remove that offensive diversity, and to reduce all men to uniformity. The conclusion of Synodus Petricoviensis alleged be them now against us, shall not serve then for a defense to us against them. And this moderate severiti shall prove sharp persecution, which is already begun. If the observation of holy days be first urg • d it is the du • t • e likewise of every good Christian making conscience of his oath, promise, subscription, former profession, and purity of God's worship, to withdraw his countenance from the same. A day of rest without relligious exercises is an idle day, not a holy day. Relligious exercises are the life of a holy day. And th •• for our Kirk woul not approve the Confession of Helvetia in that point, howbeit prophanitie and other accessory abuses of popery wer not allowed be that Confession. The veri • • bservation itself of an • anniversary F • st • v • ll day with cess • tion from work, and relligious exercises, the two chief elements of a Festival day was judged superstition. As may be seen be the continual abstinence of our Kirk from extraordinar Preaching upon these days, the censures acts and articles of the general assemblies, the Confession of Faith, the first Book of discipline. See Perth Assemb •• e p. 63. Nixt by your countenancing of holy days ye countenannce the vicious constitution, and shameless proceedings of Perths Pretendit and Null assembly. Th •• dly ye open a door to kneeling and all the rest of the English ceremonies, which will rush in, after we have given way to any one of them. And then when we shall be made fully c •• form to our neighbor Kirk, we shall turn in a tr • ce to Papistry, when it shall please authority by found of Trumpet to command us. For PETRVS CVDSENIVS a Jesuit viewing the state of the English Kirk Anno 1608. gave this judgment in his Book de desperata Calvinistarum causa, that the state of relligion in England was such, as that it might be easily changed to the Catholik Roman, & that they wer not properly to be called heretics, but schismatiks. This is recorded by Francis Mason in his book of the consecration of the Bishops of England. The terrible inquisition of the high commission is set above our heads, where the acts of some Psendosynods, corrupted, and slavish conventions are put in Execution by the two Archbishops, & all the ordinary judicatories ecclesiastical past by. If these two bone companions, pretty football men, sometimes fellow-presbyters in one presbytery, still brethren in evil, had been casten forth of the ministry, when they were nere the point of suspensiō for profaning the Lord's day, they had not been able instruments to cast out worthy men out of the ministry in thir times. To conclude the relligion of the best Reformed Kirks round about ws is persecuted in our persons under the name of Puritanism, and Papists do increase.

For M • thode it behooved me to follow the Doctors disordered steps. For matter I have studied to brevity, referring the Reader to Perth Assemblie for farther, if he be desirous. For I eschewed repetition, so far, as I might.

〈1 page duplicate〉