A Defense of our Arguments Against Kneeling in Receiving the Lords Supper

TO THE READER.

I Have found nothing (good Reader) in Mr. Michelsons confutation worthy of any answer, but that which is borrowed from D. Morton or D. Denison, and hath been already answered in Perth assembly. What is his own, is new, but so absurd, that just lie he hath deserved the change of his surname frō Michelsone to Nihilsone. The judicious Reader may find as much in Perth assembly untouched, as may serve for defense of that which he hath lightly touched: and may find further in the Solution of D. Resolutus his resolutions for kneeling. I have now added this defense of our reasons, not so much for reply to his confutation (for that was needless) as for illustration, and confirmation of that which hath been already written in the two former, and to obviat such cavillations, as perhaps may be used by some other of our opposites. I will keep the same order, which our Antagonist hath set down̄e: howbeit he hath divided our arguments, to make them seem the weaker, as Medea rent, and scattered the members of her brother, that there by she might the more safely flee: which fault Peter Martyr objected to Gardinerus. His arguments for kneeling shall be answered in the defense of our reasons, as occasion shall offer 〈◊〉 self: for his answers and arguments are all alike, and of equal strength. I will also, so far as I may, eschew repetition of anything already written in the two former treatises •• ent this argument: yet so that this Defense shall be, as I • ope, sufficient without them. Mr. Michelsone hath chosen a worthy Patron to his Pamphlet, my Lord of Scoone. The one keeped the door sometime, when the other did execute the ordinance of the high Commission. Such •• pps, such ••• tuce. He hath given so notable proof of profound knowledge in Divinity, and subtilitie in handling this controversy in this worthy work of his, that the Bishop of St. Andros, (a man as void of learning, as of good manners,) hath made him a Doctor. He hath been sorning at the Treasurers gates for his wages, but he will not rest contented, till he get that which he gapeth for, a fat bishoprik, the hope whereof will sharpen the wit of very mules and asses, lett be of so fine a wit, as Doctor Michelson hath.

P. A. for Perth assembly.

Sol. for Solution of Doct. Resolutus resolutions.

DEFENCE OF OUR I. ARGUMENT.

THE gesture of our Lord, and his Apostles, at the Paschal Supper, was a kind of sitting gesture. The same gesture was continued at the Eucharisticall Supper. For whilst they did eat, to wit, of the second service of the Paschal Supper (and consequently whilst they did sit) Christ took bread, and gave thanks, Math. 26. 26. Mark. 14 22. This collection is so clear, and evident, that the Papists themselves, hot persecutors for kneeling, do acknowledge the same. Cardinal Baronius; That Matthew saith, And as they were eating Jesus took bread, and blessed; and Mark saith, And as they did eat Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brak it, it is all one, as if they had said, whilst they were sitting. But Matthew and Mark, saith our new made Doctor, must be interpreted by Luke and Paul, who do say, that Christ did institute the Sacrament after they had supped, Luk. 22. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 24. I answer, that Paul and Luke speak of the cup, and not of the bread, Likewise after Supper, he • ook the cup, and blessed. Likewise, that is, he give thanks, as he had done before, when he took the bread. Neither Paul, nor any of the Evangelists do say, that after he had supped, he took the bread, as they do of the cup. This difference of speech made Bellarmine to follow their opinion, who thought, that Christ consecrated, and distributed, the bread, in the very time of the Legal Supper, whilst they were eating of it, and that after other actions intervening, and the Supper ended Christ took the cup. There is no necessity to collect such a disjunction of so heavenly a mystery; but the common opinion is to be retained, that this Mystery was instituted per modum 〈◊〉 signi, in one continued action. Always we may see, that the bread being consecrated, and distributed, and eaten, before Christ took the cup, justly it may be said, that after supper he took the cup, seeing now the first half of this holy action was ended, and had intervened between their eating of the Paschal Supper, and the taking of the cup. Put the case that Luke and Paul had said that after Supper he took bread, their words must so interpre • Matthew and Mark, as that there be no contradiction. Christ took bread whiles they were eating, and yet notwithstanding after they had supped, because they were now closing up their eating, and Christ entered in another act on. Barra •• us the Jesuit faith, Howb •• t the whole Sacrament was instituted after supper, yet it was instituted in the end of the supper, while as they were yet sitting, and eating: for they eat other meat, 〈◊〉 the time of the institution of the heavenly food▪ and therefore Matthew and Mark say, that the Sacrament was instituted, while as they were eating: for they were yet eating, when the Lord took bread, blessed, and brake. Thus much for the first collection of the sitting gesture of Christ and his Apostles at the Eucharisticall Supper, upon which all interpreters ancient and moderne have built. Suppose the first collection should fail, this second collection following will prove it. It behooved them either to sit, stand, or kneel. Stand they could not, for the beds joined to the table would not suffer that gesture. They did not kneel; for if Christ had changed the ordinary gesture of sitting at the Paschal supper, into kneeling at the Eucharisticall, a gesture of adoration, and no table gesture, then kneeling had been instituted and not left indifferent, and arbitrary: For to what end should Christ have changed the one in the other, except it had been his will to have it observed, as other changes made in passing from the last act of the Paschal supper to the Eucharisticall. But our opposites dare not say, that kneeling was instituted. If therefore they neither kneeled nor stood, it followeth that they • ate. Never man was so impudent as to call this in doubt, till within these two or three years by past, that two or three hirelings have done it.

In the Apostles times the gesture of sitting was continued in the Kukes: for the lovefeasts and the Lord's Supper were so near conjoined in time, how be it different in mystery, that Casaubone saith, the whole action consisting of the sacred and common banket, was calied by Paul the Supper of the Lord from the better part. Augustine affirmeth that the Corinthians not only conjoined, but also confounded them; and so doth Baronius the Cardinal understand him, when he saith; Augustine ad Januarium epist. 118. affirmeth, that the Corinthians used to take the Eucharist at supper, mixing sacred things with common, which the Apostle corrected. And afterward he saith, that the feasting described by Philo seemeth to have been mixed with sacrea purposes, like that of which Paul writeth in his epistle to the Corinthians. Now at that frugal feasting whereof Philo maketh mention, they sat on the ground upon mattes made of flagges, and their feasting was intermixed with hymns and praises. Howsoever the Corinthians abused this holy action other ways, yet this intermixing declareth the usual conjunction of the two parts, or actions. They being then in the Apostles time so nearly conjoined in time, and distinguished only in mystery, it behooved them to sit at the one part, as they sat at the other: and so doth Bishop Bilson affirm . The practice of many Kirks after the Apostles times, even till Augustine's days argueth, that they sat in the Apostles times. Bullinger, from the different manner of celebrating this holy Supper related by Augustine, observeth as followeth: Whence that rite is stowed unto us, by which even as yet in Cathedral Churches, and the Monasteries of the Benedictines on the day called The Supper of the Lord, before good friday, the Supper of the Lord is celebrated openly, and with great pomp: For the Gospel according to John is read publicly by the Deacon, and these most sweet conferences of Christ, which he being to depart had with his disciples are rehearsed. In the mean time the tables being set in order, the banketters sit down to them breaking unleavened bread, and reaching the cup to other, and so every way representing the trace of the ancient Supper. This footstep of the ancient custom yet remaining amongst the monasteries of S. Bennets order, and observed upon Maundy Thursday, Morneus also observeth. See the Solution of D. resol. resolutions. .

Our first Argument then against kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements is drawn from the example of Christ and his Apostles at the first institution; and the practice of the primitive Kirks following in the Apostles times. Their gesture was not a gesture of adoration in the act of receiving, but a Table gesture▪ for it was a sit • ing gesture they used, and not kneeling. Christ instituted Baptism, but we read not that he baptized in his own person. But in this Sacrament he was not only institutor, as Lord, but also celebrated as a Minister, and set down a most exact and perfect pattern of celebration. The practice of the Apostles following the same order is a direction to us to follow the same also.

We reason likewise from this example and practice, against any other gesture which is not a Table-gesture, howbeit not with the same force, as against kneeling. There is eating with walking (as Pios the Monk did, who said he would not make a work of eating his meat) but this is no tablegesture. To stand in the act of receiving, and then pass by, as in some Churches they do, is not a table-gesture. For there is no more use of a Table in this case, when the communicant standeth, & taketh out of the ministers hand, more then of a cupboard, or dressor, suppose it were never so long. For so it serveth only to the setting on of the elements, that from thence they may be reached by the hand of the Minister to the Communicant. A table of as short dimensions, may serve to that use, at the Papists require of necessity for their Altar to hold up the foot of the Chalice, and so much of the plate, as may keep it from falling, together with the Mass-book, and the candle.

We reason thirdly from the same example and practice, but with least vehemency, against other table-gestures also, as standing about the table; because it is not agreeable to the first pattern and practice. It was not coena stataria, aut ambulatoria, but accubitoria, which Christ and his Apostles celebrated: not a standing or walking, but a sitting supper. But to return to kneeling, I conclude with the words of Calvin, who saith, That they are sure that they swerve not from God's commandment, who take the sacramement as God hath commanded without adoration. They have the example of the Apostles, who prostrate not themselves but took sitting. They have the practice of the Apostolical Kirks, &c. And of Beza against Harchius, So like, as when the LORD truly to be adored as God, and as God and man at table did institute this holy Supper, that the disciples arose, to the end that falling on their knees, they might receive that bread and wine out of his hand: and so like as the Apostles were ignorant h •• to deliver to the Kirks the manner of celebrating these mysteries.

It is objected first▪ that if this argument be go • d then the minister should teach sitting, because Christ taught sitting. But the case is no alike. For the Lord's supper is a ritual action, and a visible object is presented before the communicant. Christ taught us by his example, how to behave ourselves in such a case. Next, Christ taught sometime standing, sometime sitting, according to the opportunity of time and place. He sat in the mount, Mat. 5. he stood in the plain, Luk. 6. Paul stood up and made his exhortation in the synagogue, Act. 13. He that prophesied stood up, 1. Cor. 14. 30. as Cajetan doeth collect. The original word signifieth, that the other prophet who was not in the act of prophesying, was sitting, not sitting by. Lastly, this objection may be retorted upon themselves, That seeing Christ and his Apostles and all teachers and hearers in all ages afterward, did not preach or hear preaching kneeling, we can have no warrant to do it. If not at delivery or receiving of the word, then also not at the delivery or receiving of the sacramental elements.

It is objected next, that Christ and his Apostles sat not at the pascal supper alter our manner of sitting, and that it was rather a lying then a sitting, as the original words anakeisthai and anapiptem do import? It hath been answered already that it was not totally lying, but partly sitting, partly lying, and translated sitting, not lying, by the English translators. Yea the holy Ghost doth express this same gesture also by the word sitting in the original language, Ezech. 23. 41. That kind of gesture, (whether brought in among the Jews by the Romans or Persians, or if it was as ancient as the days of David or Solomon, as some do collect out of 1. Sam. 9. 22. Prov. 7. 14. 16. Cant. 1. 12. it is not material) succeeded in the room of upright sitting, and hath given place again to the same, as answering analogically to it. It was in Christ's time the received manner of sitting, and no further is required of us but to observe the received gesture of the country, where we are. It is also to be observed that anakeisthai and anapiptein are not the proper vocables to express this kind of gesture, as Athenaeus doth testify. Beza in Math. 8. 11. saith, that anaclinesthai is put there for cataclinesthai the proper greek vocable of this gesture. Farther, howbeit in a private parlor a small number did sit after that manner at the first pascal supper, yet it is no way probable, that in the Christian assemblies afterward in Corinth, Jerusalem, or else where, they sat after the same manner. For howsoever there is mention made in ancient writers of houses of 60. 80. or 100. beds, that was not common, but peculiar to princes and great men. Plutarch noteth it as a vice in a man to build houses for 30. supping beds, or above. Shall we then think, that the Apostolical Kirks had the use of such houses for their meetings, or that the Lord's supper could be celebrated in such a form in their numerous assemblies.

It is thirdly objected, that if we be bound to the imitation of Christ, and his Apostles gesture by as good reason we shall be bound to the imitation of the time and place; that is, to celebrate after supper, and in a private house. It is answered that the circumstances of time and place of the first supper were only occasional, and the occasion of them was vnavoydable because of the law of the pass over. But the gesture might be easily changed by Christ without violation of God's law, namely seeing the pascal supper was ended. It was a easy to them to go to their knees, as to the Egyptian Naucratits after they were set down to their feasts, when they began to sing hymns to their gods. But our Lord would keep the same form at the Eucharisticall supper, which he kept at the pascal. Our Doctor saith, that the Apostles retained these circumstances, and changed them not. I answer, if that were true, we have no reason, nor warrant to do otherwise. Next, if the Apostles retained these circumstances upon occasion, and not for imitation, upon necessity, & not voluntarily, then he hath gained nothing. For we deny not, that in times of persecution, or when occasionally there falleth out any necessity, we may celebrate in the night, and in a private house, where the Church is assembled. The Apostles would not have been suffered to celebrate the supper in the temple, as sometime they were overseen to teach. Next, it was not so fit for the celebration of the Lord's supper, as for the preaching of the word. The first was ordained only for the believers: the last, to convert also unbelieving Jews. Thirdly, there is no likelihood that they celebrated ever at night. For howbeit at Troas Act. 20. it were granted to have been celebrated at midnight; as some do call it in question, yet who seeth not, that it was then d • laid to that time, not because it was the usual time, or for imitation of the institution but only upon occasion. The Apostle being to depart, did continue preaching, and so that action was continued. The Century writers do not affirm, that the Corin • hians did celebrate after supper, but only say videtur, that it seemeth so. But Chrysostom affirmeth the contrary, that they did celebrate in the morning. It is said Act. 2. 46. that they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking of bread from house to house. Pa • ae • s saith, that the Apostles did not adstrict themselves to the evening, but occasionally ministered the Supper, sometimes in the day time, as Act. 2. 46. sometimes late in the night, as Act. 20. whereby they show that the time of the Supper is indifferent.

Defense of our second Argument.

TO the due ministration of the Lord's Supper there is required a table, whereabout the communicants are to be placed. If a table, then also a table gesture; kneeling is not a table-gesture. Therefore kneeling is not a fit gesture for this Supper. A table is so requisite to this action, that from a table this supper hath received one of the scripture names, that is, to be called the Lord's table, to distinguish it from common tables. As it is called breaking of bread, because that rite was usual in the celebration of this sacrament. By this reason, saith the Doctor, it should be celebrated at evening, because it is called the Lord's Supper. It is true, that in our language, this word, Supper, signifieth only the evening meal, but not so in the original. For the word Deipnon in ancient Greek writers signifieth indefinitely the repast that a man taketh any time of the day, yea suppose it were before the rising of the sun, as may be seen in Ho •• er the Greek Poet. The banket or feast w •• ch Luk. 14. is called Deipnon, is called ••• th, 22. ariston. Cas • ubonus observeth 〈◊〉 of Photios, that Paul called this Sacramental • anket Deipnen, according to the 〈◊〉 of the word in Paul's time; meaning that all • an • ets were called Deipna, howbeit they were not 〈◊〉 the end of the day. He confirmeth this in the 〈◊〉 following, when he saith, that the • asts of idolaters in their temples were also called Deipna not Arista. Read Concilium Ancyranum, where ye shall also find these idolatrous feasts expressed by this word deipnon. The word which was ever used to signify that which we call Supper, is dorpos, or dorpon. Casaubonus giveth also this reason of the name, That it is called a Supper, rather then a dinner, because of old they dined sparingly and supped more liberally, to signify the plenty and liberality of this feast. Other allegorical reasons of this name I omit. To return then, not only was this feast called the table of the Lord, but also it had a table indeed, not only in the Apostles time, but also many ages afterward, both for consecration and distribution. Now it was not a money-changers, or writers table, but mensa conviv • alis a feasting table which Christ and his Apostles used, and not without some profitable consideration. For a Table was counted sacred of old by the Ethnics, and they thought the gods were present there at their feasts , and likewise the Poets bring in sometimes their gods feasting at a table. There is a notable sentence of Ben Syra Mensa parata, sive posita cententio tollitur, the table being prepared and set, contention ceaseth, signifying that the communion of one table betokened reconciliation▪ and love. The Jews say, that when some altercation arose in the house of Ishbosh •• h the son of Saul, the servant incontinen • spread the Table, and the altercation ceased If at profane feasts, a table was count • sacred, and a symbol of concord and fidelity, far more at this sacred feast, which is a banquet of Love. Musculus therefore is not to be commended for his saucy censure of the laudable custom of the reformed Churches, where are, and hath been so many worthies: I will forbear comparisons. Luther's testimony set down by Musculus in that same place is memorable. Therefore Christ so instituted the Sacrament that in it we should sit at Table. But all things are changed, and the idle ordinances of men are come in the place of Divine Ordinances. Musculus himself on Matth. 26. 23. observeth in the ancient Proverb Mensam & salem non transgred • , that the Table was counted sacred, and a symbol of friendship. And deploreth the corruptions of our times, wherein neither the fellowship at the profane, nor mystical Table, maketh us mindful of this duty. And in his Common Places he saith, that to a sacrifice belongeth an Altar, to the communication of the sacrifice a Table. A feasting Table then being granted, the gesture of Kneeling, being no Table-gesture, must be excluded in the act of banqueting, which is the proper use of the Table. The Christians under the ten persecutions, it is true, could not have the commodity of high tables, and seats a swerable. But it is neither the height, nor the matter that we stand upon. Whether the table be round, square, or extended in length: whether it be of timber, or stone; of a bull hide, or a plot of ground: whether it be high or low; the form and • ashion of a table ought to be observed, that the Communicants may communicate tablewise: Whether they convene in dens, or deserts; in Kirks, or houses. Wine is one of the Sacramental elements, and yet Volaterranus writeth that the Priests of Norway were permitted to consecrate in other liquor then wine, because wine could not be kept in that Northern Country. So a plot of ground whereabout men sit and feast, answereth analogically to the high • able. As for private consecrations in time of persecution, like that of Lucianus th • Martyr who used his breast for an Altar, when he was in prison: or for keeping the Sacrament, and communicating a part, belong to the controversy of private consecrations, and private communions, to be inquired, whether they did right or not. We are now speaking of Assemblies, and Congregations, whether in time of peace, or under persecutions. See further of this second Argument in the answer to D. Resolutus.

Defense of our third Argument.

CHRIST said in the plural number, Take ye, eat ye; not take thou, eat thou, in the singular number, as the minister speaketh to the communicant kneeling▪ He produceth Musculus, saying that Christ gave the bread to everyone of the Apostle • severally. But the same Musculus acknowledgeth that Christ gave the cup to the nee▪ rest, and not to everyone severally. Now as Christ said, take ye, drink ye all of this, so he said, Take ye, eat ye. Gabriel Bi • l Swarez the Jesuit, and Cajetan have devised another form, which will sort better with the phrase of the Evangelists. To wit, That Christ did break the bread in so many pieces, as there were communicants, laid them in a plate, and reached the plate to them, saying, Take ye, eat ye. And as for the cup, they acknowledge it was given only to the nearest, and that the words were so spoken generally to all. The D • ct. saith, that Christ speak first generally▪ Take ye, eat ye, and then he gave the bread to very one of them severally. Otherwise (saith he) Christ should have given the b • e • d before it was a Sacrament, meaning before he had said. This is my body. But I would demand, if Christ said first generally, Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, if he said again, Take thou, eat thou, this is my body, when he gave to everyone severally: as many of t • e schoolmen adstricting the power of cons • cration, as they call it, to the five words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, do feine, that Christ spake these words twice. Which Swarez refuteth; because it changeth the order of the •• xt set down with so • ull consent of Paul and the Evangelists, no reason enforcing them so to do. Or did Christ in giving severally, utter the Gregorian prayer, or what said he? Likewise when he gave the cup, • e behoo • ed according to his imagination first say generally▪ Take ye, drink ye all of this, This cup is the New Testament, &c. and then give it severally to everyone; and then what said he? Did he repeat the same words: or utter the Grego • ian prayer for the cup, or wha said he? Is not this Popish shifting of the Doctors, violence done to the t • x • . As if the text were not clear of itself, that Christ in the very act of giving did join the words of promise▪ this is my body, to the element consecra'ed before by prayer, and then they eat of it. Swarez without any violence done to the text, saith better, agreeing with his div • ce of distributing the bread, when he saith After the Lord had taken the bread, and blessed it, hec divided it insufficient number of pieces, and ordered them a the Plate, and reached them to his Disciples, saying the words of consecration, which being finished, everyone received his own part, and communicated. What is further alleged by the Doctor against this third Argument, shall be answered in defense of the fourth reason, as in a place more convenient.

The Doctor casteth by, in a dark corner, two of our reasons, as not worthy to be answered, or ranked in order, & number with the rest. First we say, that where kneeling is in use, the Sacramental breaking after that ksgiving is not enjoined, so far as we can find in their Service books, when as other rites invented by man are enjoined. And for practice, Pareus testifieth that the Lutheran Kirkis have it not, but have the bread cut in small pecces before it be brought to the hands of the Minister, which is not that Sacramental breaking instituted by Christ. The Doctor • aith that he and some other of his follows do break the bread. But I would demand, if that be the common order of the Kirks where kneeling is in use. Next if it be a breaking in the own time, and place, that is betwixt the thanksgiving, and giving with these words, This is my body, as Christ gave it. For the Papists have a kind of breaking after all the words are finished. For belike it is heresy to break it before they have said; Hoc est enim corpus meum.

The second reason disdainfully rejected by the Doctor, is this, that kneeling hath brought in a change upon the sacramental word, changing the enunciative form of the words, T • is is my body into a prayer uttered in the act of delivery of the el ments to the communicant, The body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for thee, prese • ve thy body and soul unto life everiasting. He bringeth in Perkins approring the m • tter of Doctrine contained in this prayer. So doth Perkins many other heads o • doctrine concerning this sacrament. But where doth Perkins allow this kneeling, or forming any such d • ctrinall point in a prayer, to displace the comfortable words of the promise conceived by Christ himself. He saith, that he and his fellows utter the words of promise before the giving of the • read, and in the act of giving use the prayer. But he speaketh without a warrant. Mr. • alloway said, we shall say, Take this as a pledge 〈◊〉 Christ's body, and that, said he, will hold out all idolatrous thoughts, suppose ye kneel. And who appointed that prayer to be uttered in the act o • giving? There is no such ordinance in our K •• k; The Doctor who will be conform to English • orma • ties, before ever he be enioynee, is not a rule to others. It is strange, that the worth • est preachers should be persecuted for kneeling before that all the rest of the forms belonging to it, or depending on it, b • brought in, without the which it cannot be put in practile, It agreeth not with the Scottish form, and the English hath not ye • been prescribed, But to come to the Doctor his form. That is ou • question; wherefore th • words of the promise are not uttered in the act of distributing, when the bread is given to the communicant, according to the order of the institution, a Christ himself did, but other words are put in their place. To reheare the words o • the institution, and the words of promise among the rest, may very well se • v • to show what warrant we have out of the word to minister that holy action, but it is not t • e ministration it self, as Christ ministered that action. I wish it were well observed, that in the English service-book the words of the institution are rehearsed in form of a prayer to God, in a contnuall tenor with the prayer begun in other words before, just according to the order observed in the Canon of the Mass. And so the words are reh • arsed not to the communicants as Christ uttered them to the Apostles, but prayerwise to God, as the Priest doth when he offereth the sacrifice of the Mass, which is a great absurdity, and abuse of holy Scripture. There the words of promise are uttered in an enunciative form, but to God; as if there could be no consecration before the rest of the celebration, except these words be pronounced with the prayer. I dare be bold to affirm, that the sacrifice of the Mass had never entered into the Kirk, if this double action, one of consecrating with rehearsal of the words of the institution all at once, without the rites correspondent to the words; another of distributing with other words, had not first entered. The first turned into sacrificing, the second only remained to be called the sacramental service, or communion.

Defense of our fourth Argument.

THE communicants ought to distribute the elements to others, according to Christ's precept, Divide it amongst you. This distribution cannot consist with kneeling. He alledgeth Fenner against this distribution, but impertinently: for he speaketh nothing against it. Beza is so far from den • ing that precept, Luk. 22. 17. to be meant of the communion cup, that he are be bold to conj • cture the verses to be transposed, and that this should be their order, 16, 19. 20. 17. 18. Luke applieth the protestation, that Christ will drink no more of the fruit of the ••• e, to that same cup which he commanded them to divide amongst themselves. But that protestation is applied to the communion cup by Matthew and Mark, Math. 26. 28. 29. Mark. 14. 24. 25. It was therefore the communion cup which Christ commanded to divide. He alledgeth against this reason, Piscator in Math. 26. 29. saying, that it is no absurdity to think that Christ made that protestation twice, once of the pascal cup, and again of the communion cup. But writing afterwards upon Luke, he saith, as being better advised, that there is inversion of order to be observed in Luke, in so far, as that part of the action, which concerneth the wine, is set down verse. 17. and 18. before the action concerning the bread. For that these words are to be understood of the cup of the Lord's supper, it is clear saith he, out of Mark. 14. 24. 25. who subjoineth immediately to the words pronounced of the cup of the Lord's Supper, these words, I will drink no more, &c. No Evangelist maketh mention twice of this protestation of not drinking more; how then can men so boldly conjecture, that it was spoken twice, once of the Paschal cup, and again of the Eucharistical' Matthew and Mark make this protestation to be spoken but once, and that of the communion cup. Again, if Christ had made this protestation concerning the pascal cup, how did he keep his promise, if he did drink after the pascal cup, of the Eucharisticall cup? He saith Musculus doubteth, if it may be assirmed, that Christ himself did eat, and drink, of the sacramental bread, and wine. But he doubteth without reason. Doth not Matthew and Mark say, that Christ protested • nene the communion cup, that he would drink no more of the fruit of the wine after that. It followeth then that he drank of it. When the Schoolmen are to prove that wine is one of the sacramental elements, they cannot find a proof in all the four Evangelists, but in this protestation, that he will drink no more of the fruit of the vine. Gabriel B • el groundeth his proof on this protestation, as it is set down by Luke, and collecteth, that neither the wine of apples, nor wine as it is in the berry, but as it is potable, is the matter of consecration in this sacrament. Doth not Musculus himself say, I think there is no man will deny, that wine was in the cup. seeing the Lord said, Math. 26. Luk. 22. that he would drink no more of the fruit of the wine, &c. Chrysoltome saith, Ipse quoque bibi • ex eo, ne •• it is illis verbis dicerent, Quid? ergo sanguinem 〈◊〉 , & carnem comedimus? & pertuba • entur. He drank also of it, lest hearing these words, they should say, What? Do we then drink blood, and 〈◊〉 ? and so should be troubled. And Jerome • aith, that the Lord was conviva, & con ••• um, comedens, et qui comeditur, the banketer, and • e banket it seife; he who did eat, and was eaten. Where to should I cite many old testimo ••• . The two ancient hymns, are suf ••• nt. He needed not to partake of this ••• meant for himself, yet for example sake, • o show, what others should do, he communicated with his Apostles. He needed • ot to have been baptized for himself, and 〈◊〉 he was baptized for the instruction of others▪ It becometh him, who inviteth others to a banket, to eat with his guests. Se • further in Buc • nus common places. Hes saith next, that Christ kept his promise, albeit he drank of the cup of the New Testament, after that he drank of the pascal cup, but letteth us not see, how that should be. He protested, that that passover should be the last, he should eat with them in this mortal life, and this he performed. He saith he protested the like of the pascal cup, Luk. 22. and yet drank after that of the communion cup, but that is the very thing we deny: and we have already made manifest, that there was but once protestation made anent the cup, and that it was the communion cup. Further, this protestation was made anent the last cup; but so it is, that the communion cup was the last cup. Christ alluded to the Canon, and custom, whereby it was not lawful to taste anything that night after the last cup, the cup of • praise. Christ foretelling his death, protests he will drink no more of it, not that night only, but not at all in this mortal life.

The obaldus Meuschius proveth that this protestation was once only spoken, and that of the Sacramental cup, by this same custom of the Jews. Inde concludi potest, quod Iudaei panem. & poculum soliti sint distribuere, prorsus in sine Paschatis quibus distributis quicquam porro gustare ea vespera nefas erat. He not only openeth up Hysteron proteres Lucae contin • um, the inversion of order i • Luk, and affirmeth the distribution of the cup ver. 17. to be meant of the communion cup: but also saith, therefore it is likely, yea almost necessary, that the verses 17. and 18. were taken out of the institution of the Supper which • odoweth, and were placed here by the negligence of W • uers. Howsoever it be, if there be not transposition of the verses, there is anticipation in the matter, and purpose it self. To the reasons and testimonies before alleged, and in Perth Assembly, and the answer to Doctor Resolutus, I add only the testimony of Swarez. ( z) Howbeit these words, I will not drink, be related before the consecration, yet it seemeth to be done by way of anticipation: for Matthew and Mark relate them after the consecration. Seeing • hen we have so many reasons, and such a cloud of witnesses, both of Papists and Protestants, the ancient Fathers, the Schoolmen, and moderne Writers, hat the Precept divide it amongst you, belongeth to he communion cup; Kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental elements cannot have place. It is true, when Christ said, drink ye a •• of it, he required that one should not drink out all that was in the cup▪ as the Priest doth in the Mass, but that everyone drink of it. But this precept, divide 〈◊〉 you, import •• h further, that they should divide, and distribute it among them selves. Christ saith not, Let it be divided, or, I w • d divide it, but, divide ye it amongst yourselves. When Christ gave the cup to th •• • rest, he took it not from him again, to d • l • v • r it to the next; n • r yet did everyone s • t down the cup on the Table, that the next might take it up from the Table, but they reached the cup to the other. So was the last Paschal cup carried frō hand to hand. This last Paschal cup was changed into the Eucharistical, & when it was changed, it was carried from hand to hand after the same manner. Piscator saith, that they reached the cup one to another, Bellarmine saith, Caiuem autem non fregit nec div • sit ipse discumbentibus. sed dedi • integrum ut unus alteri porrigeret, de Eucharist lib. 4. cap. 25. Christ brake not the cup▪ nor divided it himself to the • i • ters, but gave it whole, that one may reach to another. Swarez saith he applied not with his own hand the consecrated bread to the mouths of the Aposties, but only offered the plate to them, and t • ey took it with their own hands. which u more evident in the cup, in these words, Take it and divide it amongst you. It was carried therefore by the Aposties own hands from one to another. Seeing therefore this is acknowledged, not only by Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Bellarmine, Swarez, Walterius, and many moe both Popish and Protestant Writers, that, divide it amongst you, concerneth the communion cup, we may not hear without any gain-saying, that it is indifferent, whether the Ministers or the Communicants, distribute it. For if Christ commanded the cup to be distributed by the Communicants, who hath authority to make it indifferent? But when it is made indifferent to open a door to superstitious and idolatrous rites to enter in, then is Christ Precept most of all to be observed, If the cup should be divided by the Commumunicants, then is it like that the bread should be divided also, seeing Christ said of the br • ad, Take ye, eat ye, in the plural number. See Piscator in Matth. 26. He saith It is probable that the Lord brak the bread in two parts, and gave one of them to him that sa • e nearest to him on the right hand, the other to him, that sat on the left, and that they reached in order to the nearest. B • za, Tossan • s Hospin • anus, Tyndale say the like: Mornaeus, Sibrandus, and others, extend the Precept to the bread also. The reader will find them already all • dg • d in Per •• Assembly, page 41. 42. 43. and • he answer to Doctor Resolutus, page 8. 9. An • logie requireth that the Communicants should distribute the bread as well as th • cup. And it were not seemly to see the Communicants distribute the cup, and the Minister to go along to minister the bread. That the cup should be divided by the Communicants is sufficient for our Argument against kneeling. For it excludeth kneeling 〈◊〉 receiving the cup. If we may not kneel, when we receive the cup, should we kneel when we receive the bread? I bel •• v that there is no man so absurd, as to think it.

This rite of the Communicants dividing the elements, say we, hath a profi ••• le use, in that it is an interchange amongst the Communicants of tokens of l • ue and amity. He answereth that the Primitive Church had another mean, to entertain love, and friendship, to wit the Love-feasts. Let the taunt which he borrowed from Gardinerus be here retorted against himself. He hath his mind in patinis. Jude saith that the false Teachers were rocks, or spots in the feasts of charity feeding themselves without fear. They would have wished that world to last ever. Doeth he think that the Love-feasts were to remain, as long as the Sacrament of the Supper? They are worn • long since out of use, and no trace of them left, saving that when the solemnities of the Mass are ended some bread is distributed to the poor, as Bullingerus reporteth. There is also some footst • p of them, as some do think, at fu • erals. We point out a rite commanded, which should endure, seeing it was commanded, he leadeth us to another temporary custom. The guests in evil banquets of old, entertaining others courteously reached a cup of wine to others, which cup they called, Philotesia, Metonymicallie, because it was a symbol of love and friendship, which name a man may justly impose 〈◊〉 the cup of the holy Supper of the Lord, saith St •• k • us. There be other tokens of love in the Supper it self, without the Love-feasts; yet one token should not justle out another. We cannot be too much remembered of this duty. To drink of one cup betokn • th friendship, but to reach the same cup also to others expresseth this duty in a more lively manner.

Defense of our fifth Argument.

KNeeling, say we, maketh many communions in one Congregation, in the place of one, without any necessity: whereas if we keeped the right order, we needed not to do so. This addition without any necessity, he leaveth out, and impugneth the rest. We set to that addition without any necessity, because some Congregations are so populous, that they cannot communicate together in one day. Neither do I think that any reasonable man will allow Congregations to be so populous, that they cannot communicate together in one day. That P • rishes should be of so large extent, and Congregations so populous, is rather to be reformed as an abuse, then to be allowed. So the addition of that clause, without necessity, is only made in respect of the corruption of the times, not of that order which should be. Our Argument is grounded upon the Apostles precept, 1. Cor. 11. 33. Where 〈…〉 brethren when ye come together to eat, ta • 〈…〉 another. He saith, that this text is alleged impertinently, because the Apostle by these words would redress a certain abuse which was in the Church of Corinth at their love-feasts, willing the rich to • ary for the poor. This is just the answer of the Rhemists upon this place. He exhorteth them say they, to keep their said suppers or feasts in unity, peace, and sobriety, the rich expecting the poor, &c. I content me with Fulk his answer. The words that follow (if any be an hungered, let him eat at home) do declare manifestly, that this expectation, or tarrying one for another, is to receive the communion of the Lord's supper, and not to the eating of their love-suppers, which were ch • efly to relieve the poor, that were hungry. And bringeth the testimonies of Photios, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Primasius, Ambrose, and Jerome, to this purpose. Ambrose upon this text saith, He saith that they must tarry one for another, that the oblation of many may be celebrated together, and that all may be served, and if any be impatient, he may be fed with earthly bread at home. That you come not together to judgment, that is, that you keep not the mystery so, as you be worthy to be reprehended with offense, Jerome or some other under his name, upon this same place saith, Because none tarried for other, that the offering might be made in common, therefore they came together, not unto sanctification, but unto judgment. Bilson citeth Augustine to the same purpose: yea Augustine affirmeth, that the Apostle speaking of this sacrament, saith, For which cause brethren, when you assemble together to eat, expect one another. And again, he citeth these words of Chrysostom, Paul calleth 〈◊〉 the Lord's Supper, which is received in common, with one consent of all assembled together: for until all communicate and be partaker • of that spiritual food, the mysteries once set forth, are not taken away, but the Priests standing still, stay for all, yea for the poorest of all. The particle therefore knitting he 33. verse to the verses preceeding, maketh it manifest that this precept is to be referred to the Sacrament. See more of this point in Perth Assembly . He saith that we may communicate Sacramentally in divers Parishes, which I think no other man ever affirmed. For howbeit they communicate together spiritually, as all Christians do in the remotest parts of the world, receiving the same spiritual food signified in this Sacrament. Yet they do not communicate together sacramentally, but who receive the Sacrament together. Cartwright, writing against the Rhemists, speaketh well to this purpose The Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. 17. meaneth the communion of those that in one Congregation, or Church, eat together, and not of the communion of those that receive the Sacrament in another Church, it is evident, for that he placeth the seal of this communion in eating all of one bread, and at one table: whereas they that communicate in another Congregation, or Church, communicate not of one table or bread with them that are far removed, no more then they, that celebrated the Passover in divers houses, were partakers of one Lamb or Kid. For notwithstanding that Christ (who is the Lamb and the Bread) be but one, yet the outward matter of the Sacrament cannot be one but many, according to the number of places, wherein the Sacrament is ministered. See more in this place, and in 1. Cor. 10. 17. See also Fulk in these places. And whether only the twelve Apostles did communicate at the first Supper, see Cartwright and Fulk on Matth. 26. 20. This sacramental communion of one Congregation was expressed yet more lively, where they drank of one cup, and eat of one bread. The Doctor himself • alleged before a saying of Musculus, wherein he approved their form, who used but one cup to signify the Mystery of one and the same blood, whereof all the faithful do drink alike, yet not condemning the custom of those Churches, which use moe cups in the Lord's Supper, because of the multitude of the Communicants. Neither do I think on the other side, that others will condemn those who use but one cup. But to place a greater necessity in one cup, then in one bread, cannot be commended. They had of old, in some Churches, one bread, as well as one cup, one in number, of one mass, unum unitate numerica sive physus per partium continuationem, and not one in moral conjunction of many pieces, as many dishes are called but one banket. And this one mass or loaf was unbroken, or cut in pieces till the Minister had first blessed; and for this use they had a knife called Sacra • a • cea, as Jewel observeth. Where also the Reader may find many testimonies of t ••• one bread, whereunto I refer. This old custom declareth that sacramental communion cannot be extended so far, as the Doctor would have it. See more of this argument in the two former Treatises.

Defense of our sixth Argument.

KNeeling taketh away the resemblance of a 〈◊〉 : because • h • t guests invited to a banket kneel not in the act of ba • ketting no not at the banket of a Prince. It is called a Supper, and in what respect it is so called, we have already declared in the defense of the second Argument. He saith that the analogy betwixt the two feasts standeth chiefly in eating, drinking and making merry. It is standeth chiefly and not only in th • se, he reasoneth not to the purpose. He discourseth upon the perpetual feast which a Christian hath inwardly, and of that glorious and solemn feasting in heaven, which is not doubted of. He saith, that there is great difference betwixt the spiritual feast of the Sacrament, and a common corporal banket; this also is not de • yed. He saith, he who entertaineth▪ us at this banket is not a man, or earthly Prince, but God and man▪ and his entertainment is spiritual serving for the soul, that be giveth himself to be the food of the soul; that Calv • n will have us to think it the Supper of the Lord, and not of men. All this is true; and hath been already answered in the two former Treatises We acknowledge both the Giver and the Gift, but beside we acknowledge, that honor whereunto he hath advanced us, that so great a Prince will entertain us, not as servants any longer, but as friends; and this advancement he hath expressed in the Symbolical Supper, representing our spiritual advancement at the spiritual Supper. He who inviteth us, it is true, is not a simple man, like an earthly Prince, but God and Man; but that setteth forth the greatness of our dignity. The food whereon we feed is not earthly, it is true, but that ministereth matter of greater joy to us. But the manifestation of his will and pleasure, is not to be obstued in the outward resemblance of the feast, seeing it hath pleased his Majesty to set forth his nearness and communion with us by the forms of feasting. In the old Law, the Lord sat between the Cherubim, and eat of the sacrifice (to speak after the manner of men) at his Table, to wit, the Altar, which is so called, Malachi. • ▪ 12. Ezech. 41. 22. and the people eat of the remains of the peace-off • ings before the Lord at their Tables. Christ God and Ma • set forth our spiritual feasting, and communion with him in the form of a feast also yea, he took a part of the Paschal feast and translated it to that use. Whatsoever be the excellency of the spiritual feast the outward resemblance thereof being s •• forth, under the form of a banket, • o • under the Law and under the Gospel, gesture competent to the outward resemblance should be chosen; Kneeling was never used in any nation to this purpose. It to be observed also, that their Argument smell greatly of real presence, or of a g • n • rative force, and virtue in the Sacraments. They speak, as if we had never received Christ's body, but when we receive the Sacrament, and as if Christ's body were present. The holy Mysteries, saith Jewel, do not begin, but rather continue and confirm this incorporation. As soon as ever we began to believe Christ's body was given to us. The Symbols when they are added to the Word, while the Mysteries are celebrated, I doubt not, saith Martyr, serve very much for assurance; for they seal the promises. But that they make Christ more present to us, then hu Word and Promises do, I utterly deny. Christ hath set down a form, how we should conform our gesture at this Feast, to wit, according to the sacramental manner of taking, which is common to all. The spiritual is proper to the faithful. See more of this Argument, in the answer to Doct. Resolutus.

Defense of our seventh Argument.

THE seventh is almost coincident with the former. So it pleaseth him to divide and rank our reasons. Kneeling is not a fit gesture for a guest invited to a banket; It obseureth the fellowship, whereunto he is advanced. He perverteth our reason very perversely, against his own conscience, as if we smelled of Arianism; and meant that we are equals with Christ. A simple reader may smell in this stinking flower of his, gross popery, and in some points grosser then in a common Papist. Doth everyone invited to a Princes table, think himself equal with his prince. He gathereth as perversely, as if we thought, h • t we should not bow our knees to God the • acher, o • his son Jesus Christ: when as we say, that in the very act off a •• ing, we are acting the persons of guests, not o • supplicants: and therefore in the outward resemblance of the feast, a competent gesture should be used. In time of p • air we act he persons of supplicants, and then a fit gesture in such an act is used. His own instance re ••• eth himself▪ for the 24. Elders, who are said to • all down before him that sitteth on the throne, were seen at the first by John, sitting about the throne, clothed with white raiments, and crowns of god; Apoc. 4. He saith that Christ did not institute this supper to resemble to us that glory which shall be revealed. Musculus, whom he often citeth, but never for the main povnt, saith, And in our supper there is a type of the supper •• •• m • , and of the table of the Lord, whereof Luk 22. I app • ynt you a kingdom, as my father hath appointed me: that ye may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom, and sit on thrones. Iohann •• Alasco often maketh it figurative of that Supper of glory. The Bishop of Split saith the like. The Kirk speaketh this way of that mystery, saith Swarez the Jesuit, O sacred banket, in which Christ is received, the memory of his passion is celebrate, the mind is fi •••• with grace, and a piedge of our glory to come is given to us. Aquinas saith, that it is not only signum rememoratiuum, a sign forcommemoration of Christ's passion, which is past, demonstratiuum, demonstrative of a present benefit; but also prognosticum, id est, p • aenunciatiuum futurae gloriae, foretell • th our glory to come. Yet do we not urge any such type, as i • this supper were ordained to that end, or as if it were typus destinatus, but only we count it amongst typo • factos, because Christ alludeth to it, Luk 22. 29. when he promised another feast in heaven. But this all men do, they make it a figure of a thing present, to wit, of the spiritual feast whereat the soul is feeding, when we partake of the outward symbols. And when we ascrive any signification to our sitting, we say not, that it signifieth our sitting in heaven, but a present rest, and ease of the soul admitted familiarly to the spiritual table, where Christ dineth and suppeth with it.

Defense of our eighth Argument.

KNeeling before the sacramental elements is Idolatry. The Papist in his kneeling intendeth to adore Christ bodily present by transubstantiation. The Lutheran, by consubstantiation. The chiefest of our opposites will not have us to be curious to understand the manner of Christ's presence. For saith Hooker, All things considered, and compared with that success, which truth hath hitherto had by so bitter conflicts with errors in this point, shall I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate with silence what we have by the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how? The Bishop of Rochester commendeth the simplicity of the ancients, who disputed not whether Christ were present Con sub, in, or trans in the supper. What is this but to permit every man to adore upon what intention he pleaseth. But let the formalist be as free as may be, both of the Popish and Lutheran conceit, yet he is guilty of Idolatry two ways: First, in that he kneeleth by direction before a creature. Next, in that he doth kneel for reverence of the sacrament. As for the first, suppose it were true, that they kneeled not for reverence of the symbols, yet there is no difference betwixt them, and the more tolerable sort of Idolaters, Durand, Holcot, Alphonsus, Mirandula, and the rest in their worshipping of Images. The Doctor saith here, and again pag. 55. that they worship not Christ in the bread, nor by the bread, nor the bread it self, but directeth the worship of their hearts and bodies immediately to Christ in the heaven. So saith that finer sort of Papists, that the cruc • fix, or any other image is not either the material, or formal, the total, or partial object of their adoration, but that they direct immediately their worship to Christ, or the Saint. He bringeth in Martyr, pag 74. saying, For there both by words and visible signs, we are stirred up, both to acknowledge, and to worship Christ himself. So saith Swarez, that the image is not in their opinion, objectum quod, the object of their adoration, but only at the presence and sight of the image, the person represented by the image, is called to remembrance, that the image is an occasion, a mean and sign stirring up a man to adore the principal person represented, and that before it he worshippeth the principal after the same manner, as if he were present. For to direct worship by the image, is in their sense no other thing but to direct it immediately to the principal, before the image, as Bellarmine declareth. The •• mboles are then to the kneeler, objectum a quo s •• nificative, saith Doctor Morton, a signifying object to move the heart, and consequently the body to adoration. No more is the image to these Papists, and their adoration is as abstract from their object, as the kneeler is from his. But, saith the Doctor, there is difference betwixt images, and the sacramental symbols. The first, are the invention of men, and forbidden to be used in the worship of God, the other are God's own ordinance, and commanded to be used in his worship: and confirmeth this his saying with the testimonies of Martyr; which needed not. For we deny not, that they are commanded to be used in God's worship, as the worship of God is taken in a large sense, for his public worship, and all the parts thereof, the preaching of the word, ministration of the sacraments, &c. But they were not commanded to be used in the worship of God, as it is taken in a strict sense, in statu accommodato ad adorationem, for adoration properly so called, to fall down before them, and worship Christ absent. The force of this argument must be this. Whatsoever thing God hath commanded to be used in his public worship, we may lawfully fall down before it, and worship God by way of adoration properly so called. The sacramental symbols are commanded to be used in God's public worship: Therefore we may fall down before them and worship God. The weakness of this argument is seen in the proposition, which I hope, they will not maintain. If the Jews had fallen before every significant object commanded by God to be used in time of divine service, they had continually committed Idolatry.

P. Martyr professing in Oxford at that time, when kneeling was enjoined to pacify the Papists somewhat, who had made some stirs, pretending that the Sacrament was profaned; was loath, being a stranger, to contradict the prescribed order, and his great friends, who called him to that place. He was forced afterward to defend, what he had written before, and through the importunity of Gardener his adversary, was driven to plaster the English adoration, with such speeches as cannot be well allowed. But even then, when he was excusing, he was wishing it were not, and was ever warning them of the danger of it; and l • st, after the experience of the miserable revolt of England, he uttered his mind very freely in an Epistle to the Polonians. His testimonies shall be cited in the own place, howbeit in a part, some of them be already cited in the answer to Doct. Resolu • us, and therefore I proceed. When we allege a principle out of Perkins, That und •• the New Testament it is idolatry to direct our worship to any creature, or place; and in special to the bread on the Altar, or in the hand of the Minister: he granteth that Pareus saith in effect as much But saith he, they speak against the Papists. And so much the worse, say I, if others be guilty of the like fault. It is Papistry Superstition, and Idolatry, against which they write, wheresoever it be. And it is Papist • y, Superstition, and Idolatry, whereunto at this present, we oppose ourselves. He • aith that •• elcatius writeth, that Christ is to be •••• ed in the Mysteries. But doth he not tell how? To wit, that the eyes of our faith are • o be lifted up to heaven: and the same say we, and do more often inculcat • the same, then our opposites. What is this to the prostrating of our bodies, whereof T •• lcatius did not dream? He saith they k ••• l • not as the Papist doth, when the bread is carried in procession, or at the elevation, but when they receive the bread: when as it is notoir that they kneel a long space, before they receive. But let it be so, that they kneel only when they receive, do they not kneel before it, when they receive it? What matter of the length, or shortn •• se of the time; or the act of receiving? If it be unlawful at any time, even for a moment, or in any act. God never ordained, that any act of his service should be performed with any sin, but rather in case there lay such a necessity on a man, that he cannot perform service to him without sin, that he should omit his service. For God will not accept of sin in no case. Next, why will they make scruple to kneel at the elevation, seeing it is then consecrated; it is objectum a quo significative; it is in the ministration of the Mysteries, in the time of God's public worship. God forbid, that we see the day, wherein he and his fellows may do this without controulement. Suppose the Formalist did not commit Idolatry in bowing before the creature by direction, yet he committeth idolatry, in that he kneeleth for reverence of the creature. For to kneel before a creature, because of a reverent estimation of it, is to adore it. Because kneeling in religious worship, is ever the gesture of adoration. The formalist kneeleth for reverence of the Sacrament, and the sacramental actions, taking, eating, drinking. For kneeling is enjoined in the Kirk of England for reverence of the Sacrament, as the Ministers of Lincoln do prove in their Abridgment. Conformity with England is intended. Therefore kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament is intended. Next kneeling is enjoined by the act of Perth, for reverent and due regard of so divine a Mystery, as is the Sacrament. Seeing therefore the public intent is to kneel for reverence of the Sacrament, let no man deceive himself with his own private intent; for his act must be interpreted before men according to the public intent, and before God he shall be guilty, not only of idolatry, but also of dissimulation. Otherwise he may go to Rome, and take kneeling Corpus Christi, out of the Popes own hand. Thirdly, this private intent, must either be for reverence of the Sacrament, or else with profaneness, and mocking of God. For put the case he be praying in the act of beholding, hearing receiving, eating, drinking; he cannot, nor should not be praying all that time, and perform these actions also, as he ought to do, but sometimes he must have his senses, the members of his body, his mind exercised otherwise then in prayer, to wit, outwardly beholding, taking, eating, drinking; considering inwardly, what these signs, and ritual actions do mean. If in this time he be not praying, and yet kneeling, he is either mocking God, not caring for what respect he kneeleth; or else he kneeleth for reverence of these symbols, and actions, whereabout and wherein he is exercised. But the truth is, that the short • jaculations of the heart, whereof we shall speak afterward, may consist with any other actions, either civil or religious: but a set or continued prayer, cannot consist with any other actions, either civil or religious, except the gestures of prayer themselves, whether a man stand, sit, or kneel. If a man should be praying on his knees, and in the mean time be eating his meat, would ye not think, that that man were either mocking GOD, or kneeled for reverence of his meat, and made an Idol of it. Ye will say, the case is not alike: for the one is consecrated, and holv, the other is but common. Is not then, the kneeling at the one, and not at the other, for reverence, holiness being the reason, wherefor a man doth kneel. As the King is the person honored ut quae, and the Royal Dignity is the reason ut qua, whereby h • g • t • eth that honor. So the bread is objectum quod, the object which is adored; the holiness of it in that it is consecrate to signify his body, is quo the reason, wherefor we kneel before such an object. With what face then, can men say that they kneel not for reverence of the elements, and actions employed about the elements? And this is more then I think a Papist will do to the crucifix • : for except h • be a praying to Christ before it, he may well b • ck, but he will not kneel; but here he kneeleth because he believeth he is taking and eating Christ's very Body, and so he is consonant to himself: the Formalist is not so, but misapplyeth the Popish adoration.

It is objected first, that we uncover our head, why may we not also bow ou • knees: I answer, that we uncover our heads in the time of this action, as we do at the hearing of the Scripture read, which we do for veneration, not for adoration. For in this Sacrament CHRIST'S own words are heard, and his actions, which were divine and holy, reiterate, and therefore we owe reverence or veneration, but not adoration for reverence, no more then at the hearing of the scripture read. For as Chrysostom saith, As the words which Christ spake, are the same which the priests now pronounce, so is it the same oblation, the same baptism: all things do so consist together in the faith. And again, that voice was once pronounced, but it giveth firmness to this sacrifice through all the tables of the world to this day, and to his coming again. This veneration given to the word, and symbols in so holy an action, redoundeth to God himself, or Christ the author and institutor: for they are reverently respected for their sake, and therefore in the reverent usage of them, God is reverenced. As he that giveth alms to a poor man, is said to do it to Christ, because he doth it for Christ's sake, and honoreth Christ in the poor man. But in adoration God will have no mediate creature to go betwixt him and the worshipper, howbeit he would pretend, that it is done for his sake; as all Idolaters do pretend. Kneeling is the gesture of the high and divine worship, which the schoolmen call cultus latria, and never given in Scripture to any other, in religious worship: howbeit the Papists have given it also to inferior creatures, which is their vile idolatry. It is not sufficient to say that in our adoration, non sistendum est in symbo •• , we must not rest upon the symbols, when as our adoration should not light up •• the Symbols, or glance at them: for God will not have a glance of his worship bestowed upon any creature. It is objected next, that when the meat is set on our Tables, we uncover our heads, and do say grace. I answer, There is a relation here between God and the meat, but not a relation of worship, either from the meat to God, as if our worship did pass by the meat, and determine in God, or return from God, and determine in the meat. The meat is the subject whereupon we desire God's blessing to be bestowed before we use it. And therefore we use the gestures of prayer, which are used in blessing of other things, that is, we stretch out our hands over our meat, or use the like demonstrative sign of the creature, which we desire God to bless. Or sometimes without any such indicant sign, we express ourselves with these or the like words, Upon these thy good creatures, &c. When persons were blessed, or consecrated, if one, hands were laid upon that one: if many, then the Priest listed up both his hands, as high as his shoulders, toward or over them, and blessed all together. So is it in the blessing of the meat, o • any other creature. There is a relation o • a blessing from God to the meat, but no • of worship from God to the meat. Yea • say further, that in all these blessings, either of persons, or other creatures, we never read that the blesser kneeled down before that creature, when he blessed, but rather behaved himself as superior unto it, whether • was meat, or drink, or anything else. • know not one instance to the contrary in • the Scripture. Put the case there were, y • after the meat was blessed and sanctified t • our common use, in the taking, eating, drinking; what people never so barborous, did ever kneel? See more of this eighth Argument in the two former Treatises.

Defense of our ninth Argument.

WEE say, that we should eschew all show of conformity with the Papists and idolaters. But kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, we are in show conform to the Papists. He telleth us; that we are conform with them in many Articles of our faith; we and they agree in many points of doctrine • but therein we are conform to the truth, and true Apostolical Church. They possess some points of truth which we do, as a thief doth a true man's purse; or a Pi • ate the ship of an honest Merchant. He • aith they kneel for one end, and the Pa • ist for another. It is not the end, but the • ite; not identity, but likeness, whereof we • re now speaking. If Christians had decked their houses with Laurell, and green • oughes upon the festival days, whereon the Pagans decked theirs, against the 73. Canon of the Council of Bracara, how • eight there had been no intention to honor the gods of the Pagans, yet they could not • ave been excused; because they decked their • ouses after the same manner, and at the •• ne time. We might bring in a multitude of Jewish and Popish Rites, if the different intention might be a sufficient warrant for us. God made his people as unlike the idolatrous Nations as might be. And so should we be as remote from all Papistical ceremonies, as may be. P. Martyr in an Epistle to the Polonians saith, that rite in the administration of the Sacraments is to be embraced, which is most of all, and furthest removed from Papistical toys, and ceremonies, and cometh nearest to that purity, which Christ and his Apostles used. Further, we differ not in one general end, to wit, adoration, but we misapply that which they do. For they are employed about their God, as they think, when they are taking, eating, and drinking. And the Formalist is employed about bread and wine consecrate to an holy use: which are mere creatures even in his own conceit. It is conformity with all the true worshippers o • God to kneel in prayer: but not to kneel before the sacramental elements.

Defense of our tenth Argument.

WEE say that kneeling in the act o • receiving the sacramental elements, suppose it had been indifferent, or lawful at the first invention of 〈◊〉 ▪ yet seeing it hath been abused, and polluted with the vilest idolatry, that • ver was▪ it ought to be removed, and no monumen • thereof left; far less should it be restored where it hath been out of use these threescore years by past, and cast away as a menstruous clothe. He telleth us that the Ark was in the Philistines hands: that the gold, brass, and Iron of Jericho was taken into the Lord's treasure, and other like instances. The Ark was God's own ordinance. The silver, the gold, the brass, were not idolatrous, but the civil goods of idolaters. What God hath instituted, the abuse of men cannot take away: What belongeth to the idolater, not being idolatrous, not having state in the idolatrous service, if it may serve to some necessary, and profitable use, may be retained, the abuses being purged. But kneeling hath state in God's service, and both had, and hath state in idolatrous service, and is of no necessary use. When we say that Hezekiah brake the brazen Serpent in pieces, howbeit it was God's own appointed sign, and reserved for a monument of his mercy 700. years: and that kneeling was not appointed of God: He telleth us, we are not bound to imitate the fact of Hezekiah in the particular circumstances. It is not from the breaking of it in pieces, or the manner of abolishing it in particular, that we do reason, but from the abolishing of it in general. So that kneeling be abolished, and altogether removed out of that place of divine service, we shall not contend for the different manner. He saith, the use of the brazen Serpēt ceased: The use wherefore it was first instituted ceased, but the other use, to be a monument of God's mercy, ceased not, and might have continued longer, if it had not been abused. He saith kneeling shall have a profitable use so long as the world standeth. True: but not, kneeling before the elements of the Sacrament in the act of receiving. He saith Hezekiah brake the Idol, but reserved the burning of Incense to God: So they have broken in pieces, the idol of Real presence, but reserved kneeling to Christ. But we say, that he abolished the burning of Incense not simply, for it was a part of God's service, but burning of Incense before the brazen Serpent. So we crave not kneeling simply to be abolished, but kneeling before the elements in the act of receiving.

Defense of our eleventh Argument.

KNeeling in the act of receiving, is dangerous, being an occasion and provocation to idolatry. He saith, we called it before idolatry, and now only an occasion or provocation to it. We call it so now in a new argument: first giving and not granting that it were not idolatry. Next, we say, it is dangerous, because it is a provocation to another kind of idolatry, beside that we spake of before, to wit, the grossest sort of worshipping the transubstantiated bread, or Christ bodily present. He saith, we are prone to profaneness as well as idolatry. But we should not give dangerous provocations, either to the one, or to the other. He saith, the Belgic Kirks making a Canon against kneeling for fear of bread worship, feared where there was no need of fear: for it hath been used in the Kirk of England without any such danger. Mr. Cartwrights report in a matter of fact, will get credit even with his adversaries. He saith, That in divers places the people have knocked on their breasts, and holden up their hands, whilst the Minister was in giving of it, and not only those who received it, but also those who looked on, and were in the Kirk. Peter Martyr after the revolt of England in Queen Mary's days, writing to the Polonian Ministers. (a) Let the evil seed and rotten roots be plucked up at the first beginning: for if they be neglected at the first (I know what I speak) they are more hard to be taken away afterward. And this is to be seen unto, as in the sacraments, so specially in the Eucharist, that it be most sincerely done. For there are there, believe me, pestilent seeds of • dolatry, which except they be taken away, the Church of Christ will never be beautified with pure and sincere worship. Let not the sacraments be con • emned, as empty and void signs: and on the other 〈…〉 ▪ let not men give greater honor unto them, then their institution will suffer.

And before that time, even then when he wrote against Gardener, he often fore warneth of the danger of it. Vt, quod mihi videtur, dicam, ad evitanda superstitionum pericula nolim hoc tempore. adorationis externae signa in Eucharistiae perceptione adhiberi, utut non ad symbola panis & vini, sed ad ipsum Christum in coelis regnantem derigerentur. Howbeit they should direct their worship, not to the symbols, but to Christ; yet he saith there is danger of superstition in it. This was the best that ever Martyr could make of it, for thoroughly he could never digest it, and in that Epistle to the Polonians he is more free. Where he testifieth upon his own experience, what such pestilent seeds of idolatry have wrought. I know what I spake, meaning no doubt the revolt of England: and who knoweth if there were the like trial, what the formalists would do. So howbeit Papists are hardened, and increase to the feeling of all men, yet all the danger is not seen not felt, till the time of trial come. Beza saith, Adoration in the very act of receiving, how dangero 〈◊〉 it is, it being that which hath opened an occasion to breadworship, from whence at last Satan cast men down headlong to transubstantiation, the matter it self maketh manifest. And in his eight Epistle he saith, that the event, and lamentable face of the Kirk, doth more then sufficiently teach us, how hurtful it is; and commendeth these Churches which have abolished it, with no less care, then other apertas idolemanias manifest mad idolatry. What need I cite many testimonies, when as all the Divines in well reformed Kirks do think the same; and yet he will say, that the Belgic Kirks feared where there was no need of fear. At last he telleth us, that a Synod in Pole made standing or kneeling indifferent, but sitting they condemned. That Synod was a confused or mixed Synod of sundry sorts of professors, some adhering to the Augustine confession, some to the Helvetian, some to the Bohemian. Next, they thought that the Arians had been the first authors of sitting after the reformation, when as both the Scottish and Belgic Churches at that same time, and many years before, did use the gesture of sitting; and as worthy a Polonian, as that Church bred in his time, Johannes Alasco, a Polonian Baron, wrote before the holding of that synod many years more amply, and more earnestly for sitting, then any other man else, and did put it in practice in the kirkes, where he bare office. So it was in them a gross ignorance in a matter of fact, which was so public in the view of all men. Thirdly, howbeit there was at that mixed Synod a great number of Lutherans, yet they consent with the rest, that no man should be urged to kneel; because it was neither the will of God, nor custom of the purer Kirk to censure, or punish godly men for external rites. The Lutheran, ye may see, is more favorable in this point, howbeit he maintain Christ's bodily presence, then these who would seem to be of our own profession. It is to be marked, that in this place the Doctor esteemeth bread-worship to be no error in the foundation.

Defense of our twelfth Argument.

KNeeling in the act of receiving, say we, is will-worship. He saith it is no part of God's worship properly; and therefore it cannot be will-worship. This followeth not: for will-worship is of sundry sorts; as when a man inuenteth a new kind of service to God, which he never commanded; or when he misplaceth that which God hath commanded, and useth it where he will; or when that, which is not in the own nature worship, the user maketh it worship in his own conceit and opinion. Next, it followeth not, because that kneeling is a sign of worship, that therefore it is not worship properly; or because sometime we use it, and sometime not: for howbeit it be a sign of the internal adoration, yet is it the matter it self of external adoration; for by it we do not only signify the affection of our heart, but also honoreth God, either in secret, or before men. For he that adoreth, honoreth; and we honor. God not only with our spirit, but also with our body. As the Doctor himself said before; we direct to God, not only the worship of our hearts, but of our body: When we pray without kneeling we give spiritual worship, without determination of that particular bodily worship at that time: but when we pray kneeling, we cojoyne the bodily, and spiritual worship. Thirdly, it is not the kneeling outward only, that we call will-worship, but that also whereupon kneeling doth usually attend, that is set and continued prayer. For we say, that in the act of receiving, there is not the proper time and place of set and continued prayer; whereof we shall entreat in the own place. To pray then, is God's worship, but to pray in an unfit time, to displace any other part of God worship, is will-worship.

Defense of our thirteenth Argument.

WEE say, that kneeling entered into the Kirk under Antichrist: whether Honorius was the first deviser of it, or not, we regard not as a point material. It appeareth that Honorius decreed only an inclination, or bowing of the super our bulk of the body at the elevation, but not kneeling. If he ordained so much to be done at the elevation, it is likely that in the act of receiving, kneeling was either then also ordained, or come in a little after. But whether before, or after, is not the chief question. It is sufficient, that it was not in use in the Kirk of God for a 1000. years, or before the time at least, when the Antichrist was at his height. For there is not one express testimony in all the ancient Writers for kneeling in the act of receiving, except some counterfeit work; yea, not so much as in any counterfeit work, so far as we have yet seen alleged, except in one Cyrillus. The censure of Moulins upon these Catechisms of Cyrillus is marked and set down already in Perth Assembly . I add the censure of the Bishop of Split, who saith, that the Catechisms which go abroad under the name of Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, are to him greatly suspected, for they smell of far posterior times: and he setteth down the reasons of his judgment. Beza saith, that kneeling in the act of receiving, brought in Popish bread-worship, and transubstantiation, because, it may be, he gave some credit to Cyrillus; but it is very likely that it came in after the opinion of the real presence, and transubstantiation. For as I have said, there is not a testimony we can hear of, yet alleged for kneeling, within the space of a 1000. years. And suppose that kneeling went before the opinion of Real Presence, or Transubstantion, yet even then it was, (and no other ways it could be) the Formalists idolatry, preparing the way to, or rather drawing on the worshipping of Christ as bodily present, or the bread transubstantiated into his body. For I have already declared, that kneeling in the act of receiving, eating and drinking, cannot be but idolatrous. Many gross corruptions were in the Kirk before the opinion of the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation prevailed. Seeing then it came in under the Antichrist, whether should we follow the Antichrist, and his Laws, or Christ his holy Institutions.

Defense of our fourteenth Argument.

KNeeling in the act of receiving is scandalous to many. He saith that we ought to do our duty, though men be never so much offended, otherwise the scandal is not given, but taken: our duty is to obey the ordinance of the Kirk made anent kneeling, and not to offend the Kings Majesty. Here ye see first he opponeth offending, that is greeving or displeasing the Kings Majesty, to offending, that is, giving occasion to his brother to fall in a gross sin, and so to destroy him, for whom Christ died, so far as in him lieth. Next suppose that kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, were not a sin, both in disordering the right manner of celebration, and also in that it is idolatry; yet it is a matter of active scandal, in that it hath a show of evil, and giveth occasion to our brother to fall into that evil, whereof it hath a show, to wit in bread-worship. For a man's doing is the cause of another's fall, two ways, per se, of it self, or per accidens, through the default of another only, who is ill affected, and taketh occasion to offend, even at good things. The first is active scandal, the second is passive. In the active, sometime there is intentio operantis, an intention in the doer to draw another to sin: sometime there is without any such intention, only conditio operis, such a manner of doing, that of it self it giveth occasion to another to fail. As when a man doth such an act, which is an inducement to sin; as when a man committeth publicly a sin, or that which hath the show, or likeness of sin, saith Aquinas. This show of idolatry that is in kneeling, suppose there were no more, is an inducement and occasion to others to commit idolatry, & hardeneth the Papist in his idolatry; It is an active, not a passive scandal. We must not omit a necessary duty, suppose others unjustly take offense. But kneeling in the act of receiving is not a necessary duty, but such a deed as is inductive to scandal.

The Doctor' saith that it is a necessary duty to obey the ordinance of our Superiors, and not to withstand the Authority. No man denieth obedience to be due to the Magistrate, or Superior, suppose others should take offense, for that were mat • ris proxima scandali, the nearest and immediate matter of the scandal, to deny that lege cominum, by the common law, the law of God and men▪ Magistrates and Superiors should be obeyed. But lege particulari by a particular law made of any particular matter, we are not ever bound to active obedience; as when he commandeth to sin, or do anything that hath the show of sin, or is apt to breed scandal; like as kneeling in the act of receiving hath proved by the event, or experience both of the ages before and at this present. Neither is in this same case obedience passive denied; and so the Moral duty of obedience is fulfilled. Daniel would not desist from opening his windows toward Jerusalem not withstanding of the Kings edict. The commandment of the Magistrate cannot make a thing, which of it self is scandalous, and hurtful, not to be hurtful, but rather by the strength of his authority maketh it more scandalous and hurtful, then it would be. But none of our Formalists will deal in earnest with the supreme Magistrate, and tell him that he committeth active scandal in laying a stumbling block before the people, and therefore sinneth against the LORD. The Nurse that left a knife with the child found dead at her return, could not be free of blame; but the Nurse that layeth down the knife, is far less to be excused. Ez • kias removed a passive scandal, to wit, the brazen Serpent: For the brazen Serpent was not an active scandal. Seeing therefore there is passive scandal in this kneeling, it is sufficient cause to remove it, suppose there were no active. Will the flattering Formalist then be instant with the Magistrate to remove, or rather not to reinduce this passive scandal, and follow the example of good Hezekiah. For this invention of man, hath been, is, and is still likely to be abused superstitiously, giving and not granting that of it self it were not idolatry. But our flatering Formalists care more for their formal coats, then the hazard of many thousand souls. Again, it is to be remembered, that our superiors cannot free u • , or drive us from our oath taken by their own consent. Can they make us swear the one day, and drive us to perjury another day. Last, it is no lawful ordinance, which was made at Perth, as all our arguments do evince▪ neither was that meeting a lawful and free Synod, but a Null and pretended Assembly, which they are never able, do what they can, to defend. The Doctor faith, he feareth some Ministers do cause the people to take offense. Surely, if they were not constant in their doctrine, and practice, as they have professed these many years, they would cause the people take offense at the whole doctrine, which they have taught, and to call it in doubt. Let them alone saith he, they be blind leaders of the blind. Certainly, who will be lead by this worthy work of the Doctors, I affirm he is either a temporizer seeking a cloak for his backsliding, or else he is blind, led by a blind Doctor: or if he be not blind, he is blinded with avarice and ambition, or hath a part of both.

Defense of our fifteenth Argument.

HE maketh us an argument of everything, wherewith we exaggerate their fault. We say, that Bellarmine argueth a priori from the real presence for adoration▪ and again, a posteriori from adoration for the real presence. And if it be lawful to kneel at the receiving of the sacrament, it is lawful to kneel before images. He saith, We may fall down before the symbols, which we have already refuted. He saith, that the Papist worshippeth Christ, & the image with one worship, Christ and the Eucharist as being one. What is that to the purpose, that the idolatry of the Papist, and of the formalist, is not all one in every respect, seeing he misapplieth only the popish adoration, as I have said before. Bellarmine saith not, that Christ and the image is to be worshiped with one worship after one manner: for Christ is to be worshiped with that high worship called cultus latriae, and that properly, the image of Christ improperly, and per accidens; as he that adoreth the King, adoreth him and his purple robe at one time with one worship, but after a divers manner. So in the sacrament they adore Christ and the species together with the same worship, but not after the same manner: for they worship the accidents and species, only per accidens, with that worship which they give unto Christ, as in the coadoration of the Kings throne, or his robe, when the King is worshipped. But the formalist kneeleth for reverence of the elements, not per accidens, but perse, howbeit propter alium. Now to kneel for reverence is to adore with that gesture, which in scripture is used in religious and divine worship to be given only to God.

Defense of our sixteenth Argument.

THe ancient Kirk received not the communion kneeling. Upon the Lord's day it was the custom to stand, and that for a thousand years, even in time of public prayer. He saith, that howbeit in time of prayer they stood on the Lord's day, to testify their profession of Christ's resurrection, yet at the celebration of the supper they might have kneeled. I ask then, was it more needful to testify their profession of Christ's resurrection in time of prayer, then in the act of receiving the elements. It was that day, that they observed with such a rite, because Christ rose on that day, and not a part of the day. The Canons and testimonies for not kneeling on the Lord's day, some of them make mention of the time of prayer, because other ways at other times they kneeled in time of prayer. Some without any particular mention of prayer time, or more general. And therefore Zonaras writing upon the sixth Council holden in Trullo, Can. 90. forbidding to bow the knee from the •• ening service on Saturday, to the next evening tide on the Lord's day, saith, Medio illo tempore nullo modo in genu procumbendum esse denuntiat. It is intimate, that i • that mean time no ways they should fall on the • knees. When at any time mention is made of prayer in particular, it is because it was the proper and only time of kneeling on other days. Tertullian likewise saith, that it was counted unlawful to adore upon their knees on the Lord's day. Iustiuus Martyr saith, that when they were beginning this action, they arose, and stood; and when prayer was ended, did communicate. The Doctor saith, it may be, that how beit they arose, and stood on their feet, that they communicated kneeling. He hath not so much as any appearance out of Justinus words, and yet will answer, It might have been done with kneeling. Further, they cannot produce one testimony out of authentic antiquity, to prove that they kneeled; howbeit we produce testimonies for standing, as the ma • of who • Eusebius maketh mention. H • •• th, howbeit they kneeled not in the act • f receiving upon the Lord's day, yet it may be that they kneeled on other days. Y •• again it may be, and no presumption, no proof alleged. Our testimonies are general for every day. Eusebius example maketh mention of no day in particular. Chrysostom addeth a reason, which cannot agree with exception of times. Let us stand • embling and in fear, with our eyes cast, down, in • renewed soul, making a moan without a voice, ••• o •• ing in our heart. See you not these who stand beside a sensible, corruptible, temporal, earthly King, how immovable and unstirring they are, not • eaking, not casting their eye this way or that way, &c. Tertullian speaking of some, who • ought, that in case they took the Sacra • ent upon a fasting day, their fast was bro • en: he assureth them on the contrary, that their fast was the more solemn. Doth the Eucharist loose, or rather bind your devotion? Shall not your station be the more solemn, if ye • stand at the altar of God? For after ye have received and reserved the body of the Lord, both are kept whole, both the participation of the Sacrifice, and execution of your devotion▪ that is, your fasting, saith Pl • ssie, •• be that thereby it should be broken. And Baronius by S ••••• o in Tertullian, saith, is understood 〈◊〉 fasting Seeing they fasted not on the Lord day, as ye have already heard out o • Tertullian, it followeth that they stood 〈◊〉 the • ct of receiving upon other days also. The custom of the orien • all Kirks yet not d •• u •• d to this very same day 〈◊〉 a proof sufficient, that in the ancient Kirks they stood. As for the standing in time o • public pr • yer, it was not enjoined as 〈◊〉 fi •• est gesture of prayer (for upon other da •• they kneeled in time of prayer) but only upon the Lord's day were they appointed to stand in prayer, for signification of their • or for Christ's resurrection. The custom o • standing in the act of receiving, was not unversall for a long time▪ for in many places they • a •• , as well as they stood and w •• so fa •• e in imitation of the first Supper, that they communicated at evening, and • om • • 〈…〉 Th •• costome was observed by m • ny 〈…〉 day. At last it was restrained to the anniversary day (called Coena Domini 〈◊〉 the third Council of Carthage, which ••• • ome yet remaineth at th •• day, upon th •• anniversary day with the Monks of S •••• Bennets order. Chrysostom also speaketh of sitting, when he saith, And doist thou also this, when thou sittest at the table of the Lord, in that day, wherein thou wast deinzed to touch his flesh with thy tongue. In Justinus time, the Deacons dispensed both the bread and the wine, to the communicants. I would then demand two things: First, if they pronounced any words, when they delivered the elements. Long after Justinus time we know they did when as the Deacon said, The blood of Christ, the 〈◊〉 of life, which was an abuse authorizing the Deacon to speak to the commu ••••• in that act which was the duty of 〈◊〉 Minister. If they did not so in Justinus •• me, did the communicant kneel, when he received the elements from the Deacon, without any words pronounced. Next, seeing the Deacons dispensed the elements to the communicants, whether before that time in the Apostles days, did the Minister dispense the elements out of his own hands, or not. It is not likely, if that had been their office, that they would have transferred that office to Deacons Deacons ministering at tables for the love-feasts, were the s • on • r employed to minister to the communicants sitting at tables in the time of the holy action. And from ministering in common, they came to particular dispensing to everyone severally. Thereafter words were put in their mouths. At last they were made half Priests, and got power to teach and baptize. To conclude, howsoever the ancient kirk kneeled not in the act of receiving; their other customs, of standing, and turning the due celebration of the supper into a form of Jewish sacrificing, as Calvin saith, and many other corruptions, which entered in very soon, are not to be followed of us. Not long after the Apostles days, saith Calvin, the Supper of the Lord was defiled with some rust, but this is the malapertnesse of men, which cannot contain it self, but must ever play and toy foolishly in the mysteries of God.

Defense of our seventeenth Argument.

WEE say that in the act of receiving the Saciamentall elements; we should meditate, and consider the analogy of the sign, and the things signified; attend with our minds, exercise our senses, because of the external Symbols, and ritual actions, whereabout they are employed; and that it is not a fit time of solemn prayer, and thanksgiving, and consequently that in the ect of receiving we should not kneel. He formeth his second Argument flat contrariwise in this manner. In worshipping God with solemn prayer and thanks giving we may lawfully kneel. In the act of receiving the Sacrament we worship GOD with solemn prayer and thanks giving. Ergo, in the act of receiving the Sacrament we may lawfully kneel. We deny the assumption, for the reason already alleged, to wit, that it is not a fit time of solemn prayer and thanks giving when men have their outward senses, and members of their bodies outwardly, and the powers of their soul inwardly otherwise employed. He proveth his assumption, both here, and in his second Argument after this manner: We should meditate on Christ's death; We cannot remember of his death, except we remember also that by his death life cometh unto us; we cannot remember of this, without remembrance of our own misery. The remembrance of our misery ministereth matter of prayer: Therefore the remembrance of Christ's death causeth prayer and thanks giving: prayer, that by his death we may have life; thanksgiving, for the benefit of redemption. Ye see the whole force of his reason dependeth upon the duty of remembrance of Christ's death. Now Becanus the Jesuit saith That divers ways we may remember of the benefit of redemption, which Christ hath conquered to us by his death. First, in participation of the Sacrament of the Enchartist: Next, in reading the Gospel, where his death and passion is described. Thirdly, at the sight of an Image, which representeth him and his Passion. If therefore at the sight of a Crucifix the Doctor be put in remembrance of Christ's death, should he blot out so good a thing out of his mind? If not, how then can he remember of Christ's death, but he must also remember of his misery, & the benefit gotten by his death, and so burst forth in that very time, and act (for so doth he reason) into prayer, and that kelgiving. To say, that we are forbidden to perform that duty before a crucifix, is to grant that we ought not, and lawfully may not bow down, whensoever we remember of Christ's death: And it we may not do it before a ciucifix, by his own grant, we say we may not do it, when there is any other, or the like impediment, as there are many. For howbeit we remember of Christ's death when we are most busied in our worldly affairs, yet we must not burst forth into lelemne prayer and thanks-giving. When the history of the Passion is read, we are put in remembrance of his death; and yet in the act of hearing that Hysto • e read, we must not burst forth in solemn prayer and thanksgiving, and kneel; but he that hath ears to he are ought to hear. In the act of receiving the sacramental elements there is like wise impediments, that we may not burst forth in solemn prayer and thanksgiving, and kneel in the very act it selte of receiving. First, the solemn prayer and thanks-giving • ar not co • sill with our other employments of the senses and members of the body, and powers of the soul. Next, we cannot adore before a creature, how beit consecrated. For as we have said, the elements are not ordained of God to be used in statu acccmmodato ad adorationem, to that endtnat we should pray on our knees to God before them. When the crucifix, or any other image is condemned in the second commandment, all other creatures for the like use are condemned. He saith, if a man fall down on his knees where the Idol is, praying against the idolatry committed in that place, no man seeing him to take offense: or if he will turn his face from the Idol he doeh not unlawfully. He doth unlawfully three ways. First, in that be kneeleth where he needeth not to kneel; for kneeling is not a necessary a 〈…〉 ant on prayer. Next in that he cast th 〈…〉 lfe into a temptation willfully; for the Lord hath forbidden worship before Images, not only public, as if it were to eschew scandal; but also in private, because they are dangero is provocations, and enticements to idolany. 〈◊〉 a man should go and lie down in the bed with the Hariot, and give her the defiance, he sinneth notwithstanding. Thirdly, in so doing, he were but playing the fool, and offering but the sacrifice of a soole, how beit he had a Doctors hood. But we will not insist in this instance of his, seeing it is not pertinent to our purpose; for we are now speaking of a public and voluntatie worship without any protestation contrary to our fact. Against the impediment of our senses, and thoughts otherwise employed in the act of receiving, he object▪ th • that the mind may comprehend divers things together, and that the heart may be touched with divers affections at one time. There is no man doubteth of this, it being taken in a right sense. For the soul of man hath sundry powers and faculties, which concur to the mutual help of other: one power removing impediments out of the way, that another power may work the own operation the more easily: one power being subordinate to another; and the superior by some influence applying the inferior to some work. Sundry and divers powers of the soul, and Christian graces, are working together in our religious exercises. But our question is not of one action, or exercise, but whether the same power of the soul at one time, and yet durable, work in divers actions, and exercises. The Schoolmen dispute concerning Christ, whether in reaching and giving the bread to the disciples, he did both offer a sacrifice, uttering the words of consecration, as they call them, and reach to them the bread, without any distraction of mind. They say, that not, Physica duratione, & concomitantia metaphysica, sed mor • li tantum, that he first uttered the words and offered, before he gave the bread in their hands, and there was two actions one succeeding another according to physical consideration, howbeit morally both made but one action. There is in the act of receiving presupposed two actions, one of mental prayer, another of communicating, that is, taking, eating, drinking. Mental prayer is either a short ejaculation of the soul, which endureth for a moment, and is called by the Divines, transitoria vel jaculatoria oratio: or else it is durable and permanent, and is called oratio continua. As for the first, there is no action so laborious, or earnest, or worldly, let be religious, but it may consist with it, without distraction of the soul from that action, Etiam in medio strepitu, & clamore hominum, In the midst of the noise and clamours of men, saith Chrysostom. For these momentanean, and transient acts require not permanent attention. Not only momentanean petitions, but every godly motion, and elevation of the mind, is called by the divines, by this name of mental prayer. These require not, nor cannot, because of the action with which they are mixed, have geniculation to attend them. For geniculation during for a certain time must attend upon a permanent action of prayer, and not upon a transient, This transitory ejaculation may, and doth consist with the taking of the Sacramental elements, eating, and drinking, seeing it may, and doth consist with all other our actions, even taking, eating, drinking, at our common meals. It is the permanet action of mental prayer which we deny, can consist with the act of receiving, eating, drinking. The understanding cannot in one continued act be employed in a continued operation, about another action during the same time without distraction, and consequently without irreverent behavior.

If a man were speaking to a Prince, and mind all that time another thing, if it were possible, it were irreverent behavior especially if his behavior were manifested by some outward signs, and employment about other actions, howbeit other ways commendabl • . Our opposites must either confess, that during that act of receiving, eating, drinking I mean not only the soul, but one power of the soul, As for example the intellectual faculty is exercised by a permanent operation in the action of prayer during the time of their geniculation, and also at the same time, the same faculty of the understanding is exercised by a permanent operation in another action, considering the analogy of things sensible with things invisible, according as the symbols, and every rite ministereth occasion of meditation, which is the careful inquisition of the soul. And so confess that they do both a thing unpossible, and unseemly, or else, that one action succeedeth another, and that geniculation is in respect of both, which is idolatry. Ye suppose the first were supposed to be true and possible, that both the permanent actions must consist together, yet were it also idolatry. For mental prayer should be concealed at all times in public, and ought not to be expressed by signs and gestures of prayer outwardly: far less in the place, where it cannot be done without idolatry, or a show of idolatry: for otherwise the three children might have bowed before the golden image: and Nehemiah's, when he stood before the King.

Defense of our eightenth Argument.

KNeeling bringeth in a private worship, during the time, and act of another worship, which is public. He telleth us of the abuses of some places. For it is no good, and comely order, that whilst others are communicating apart, and the minister speaking to them, chapters should be read▪ & P •• lms song by the congregation, but the mi •••• er ought first to d • si •• from speaking. Wala •• dus Strabo saith, We believe, that of old • he 〈◊〉 fathers did offer, and communicate with s •• ence; which we yet observe upon Easter Saturday. Howb •• t all cannot conven •• ntly communicate at one table, yet when others do communicate, and reap their private and particular fruit, the action should be so ministered, that s • me public fruit may in the mean time re • ound to others who have not, or have already communicated.

Defense of our nineteenth Argument.

WE are bound by our oath to keep the purity of our profession, both in doctrine, and policy, and to withstand to the uttermost, all corruptions ••• n • d by our K •• k, either in the first or second confession of faith, the first or second • ook of discipline, acts of parliament, and • cts of general assemblies, under the danger of damnation in the fearful day of judgment. Let the temporizer and the formalist keep the next Christmas with this fearful execration. Discipline is changed, and the form of government to another kind of policy, and not acts of circumstances only. Our oath was not made of matters indifferent, but of things unlawful; and suppose indifferent, yet not as indifferent, but as scandalous, dangerous, and apt to provoke to superstition and idolatry. The oath is handled already at large in Perth Assembly.

Answer to his ten Arguments for kneeling

I Have no will to spend another sheet of paper on them, therefore I will be short. To the first: All our former arguments prove this kneeling not to be indifferent. Sitting we think not so necessary, as that there could not be a sacrament without it, but to the due ministration of the sacrament we think a table-gesture necessary. As for the gesture of sitting, we think that the example of the first supper, seconded with the practice following, should be equivalent to a precept, seeing it is so taken in other matters of policy. Howbeit to sit be not in the Categorie of actions, yet it necessarily presupposeth local motion, which is an action. And Christ commanding them in these words, Do this, comprehended not only deeds, but also words, and the whole form of the celebration, as if he hadisayd, celebrate this supper, is ye see we have now celebrated it The rest of the confirmation of this Arment hath been answered in the defense of our first, second and sixth arguments, and the two former treatises. His second and third arguments are answered in our seventeenth argument. The sensible manner of giving in the sacrament, is one of the chief reasons, wherefore we should not kneel; least we seem to adore the means when we are in the very use of them. And as for the spiritual manner, we receive these same things in the word one by one, as we do in the sacrament, howbeit outwardly the word sound generally to the ears of all. We uncover our heads, when the scripture is read not for adoration, but veneration, whereby we discern betwixt it, and the voice of men. To kneel when the word is read, is to adore in the time of another action, and confound them, or rather to omit the duty of hearing with such attention, as we are bound to; or else to adore the word it self, which is idolatry, or else to mock God, and his public worship. Of this we have spoken sufficiently in the seventeenth Argument. Yea, further, suppose it were lawful to kneel at the hearing of the Word read, it is not lawful to bow down before a creature in the Sacrament. To the fourth Argument: a table-gesture we hold necessary to the due ministration, suppose sitting in special be not so necessary, it followeth not kneeling is as necessary, as sitting, because kneeling is no table-gesture; the rest is answered in our 1. 2. 6. 7. Arguments. His fifth Argument is answered in our 1. and 2. Arguments. His six • is answered in our first Argument. The gesture of Christ at preaching and prayer, was variable; and therefore we may v • ry. His gesture at the Pa • chall suppers, and at this last Supper was one, and in a ritual action requiring some competent gesture. The seventh Argument is answered in our 16. Argument. That the Ancients changed sitting into standing, was done without good reason: Their liberty of changing that, and many other things in the Sacrament, drew on at last the abominabl Mass, and the breadie God. I • the Church now should take greater liberty, and change from siting or standing to kneeling, as they did, it were but to proceed from worse to worse. For there is great difference betwixt change of one Tablegesture into another, and a change of a Table-gesture into a gesture of adoration. The eighth Argument is answered in the 8. 9. 1 • . 11. Arguments. To the ninth, Howbeit the Lutheran thinketh that Christ is not to be adored in the bread, out of the use of the Sacrament; yet in the use and in the act of receiving, they kneel; because of their opinion of the real presence of Christ's body. The rest hath been answered in our 11. Argument. The tenth doeth not conclude for kneeling, and impugneth sitting as though • urged necessarily by us. When as we only ground upon Christ, and his Apostles sitting, and other rites, the necessity of a Tablegesture, not to the essence of a Sacrament, but to the due ministration of that action: that the rest of the commanded rites may be performed, which cannot be performed with a gesture of adoration. Sitting we think ought not to be changed, no not into standing, without some weighty consideration of some urgent occasion, because it was the gesture of Christ, his Apostles, and the Apostolical Kirks; it is the ordinary gesture of guests at feasts, and resembleth best the familiar access of the soul to the spiritual Table. As for types of our Supper in heaven, and sitting at it, we have answered in the defense of the seventh Argument.

Pag. 2. in the Marg. quosque for quo • sque. pag. 6. at for as. pag. 32. obstued for obscuted. pag. 60. or for are.