A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.

CHAP. IV.

That the Ceremonies are Idols among Formalists themselves; and that kneeling in the Lords Supper before the Bread and Wine in the act of receiving them, is formally Idolatry.

MY fourth Argument against the lawfulnesse of the Cere∣monies, followeth: by which I am to evince that they are [Sect. 1] not onely Idolatrous reductivè, because monuments of by∣past, and participativè, because badges of present Idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists themselves, to be formally, and in respect of their owne using of them, Idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past, or present abusing of them by others. This I will make good: first, of all the Ceremonies in generall; then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our Opposites here, looke to themselves, for this Argument proveth to them the Box of Pandora, and containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen, before the opening.

First then, the Ceremonies are Idols to Formalists. It had been good to have remembred that which g Ainsworth noteth, that Ido∣lothyts and monuments of Idolatry should be destroyed, lest them∣selves at length become Idols. The Idolothyous Ceremonies, we se now, are become Idols to those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester taketh for his Sermon of the worshipping of imaginations, to wit, that the Deuill seeing that Idola∣trous Images would downe, he bent his whole device, in place of them to erect and set up diverse imaginations, to be adored and magnified in stead of the former; is, in some things abused and mis∣applied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand. For that the Ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, ado∣red, and Idolized, in stead of the Idolatrous Images which were put downe, thus we instruct and qualify.

First, they are so erected and extolled, that they are more look∣ed [Sect. 2] to, then the weighty matters of the Law of God; all good Dis∣cipline must be neglected, before they be not holden up. A cove∣tous man is a Idolater, for this respect among others, as h Davenant noteth, because he neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with the gathering of mony. And I suppose e∣very one will think, that those i Traditions, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the laying aside of the commandements of God, might vvel be called Idols. Shall vve not then call the Ceremonies Idols, vvhich are observed, vvith the neglecting of Gods com∣mandements, & which are advanced above many substantiall points of Religion? Idolatry, Blasphemy, Prophanation of the Sabbath, Perjury, Adultery, &c. are over looked and not corrected nor re∣prooved, nay, not so much as discountenanced, in these who fa∣vour and follow the Ceremonies; and if in the fellowes, and favou∣rites, much more in the Fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations, in certain abject poore bodies? Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. What will not a Episcopall confor∣mitane passe away with, if there be no more had against him, then the breaking of Gods Commandements, by open and grosse wicked∣nesse? But, O what narrow notice is taken of Non-conformity! How mercilesly is it menaced? How cruelly corrected? Well! the Cere∣monies are more made of, then the Substance. And this is so evi∣dent, that k D. Burgesse him self lamenteth the pressure of confor∣mity, and denieth not that which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are inflicted upon the refusall of the Cere∣monies, then upon Adultery and Drunkennesse.

Secoundly, did not l Eli make Idols of his Sonnes, when he spa∣red them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of Gods worship? And may not we call the Ceremonies, Idols, which are not onely spared and borne with, to the prejudice of Gods worship, but are likewise so erected, that the most faithfull Labourers in Gods House for their sake are depressed, the Teachers and Maintainers of Gods true worship, cast out? For their sake many Learned & Godly men are envied, contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they passe under the name (I should say the Nickname) of Puritans. For their sake, many deare Christians have been imprisoned, fyned, ba∣nished, &c. For their sake, many qualified and well gifted men, are holden out of the Ministery, and a doore of enterance denied to those, to whom God hath graunted a doore of utterance. For their sake, those whose faithfull and painfull Labours in the Lords Har∣vest, have greatly benefited the Church, have been thrust from their charges, so that they could not fulfill the Ministery, which they have received of the Lord, to testify of the Gospell of the grace of God. The best Builders, the wise Masterbuilders, have been by them over∣turned.

This is objected to m Ioseph Hall, by the Brownists: and what can he say to it? forsooth, that not so much the Ceremonies are stood upon, as obedience. If God please to try Adam but with an apple, it is enough. What doe we quarrel at the value of the fruit, when we have a probition? She∣mei is slaine: what? merely for going out of the Citie? the act was little, the bond was great: What is commanded matters, not so much, as by whom? Ans. 1. If obedience be the chiefe thing stood upon, why are not other Lawes and Statutes urged as strictly, as those which concerne the Ceremonies? 2. But what meanes he? what would he say of those Scottish Protestāts, imprisoned in the Caste of Scherisburgh in France, who n beeing commanded by the Captaine to come to the Masse, answered, that to doe any thing that was against their conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the King? If he approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will doe nothing which is against our consciences. We submit our selves, and all which we have to the King, and to inferior Governours we render all due subje∣ction, which we owe to them. But no mortall man hath domination over our consciences, which are subject to one onely Law-giver, and ruled by his Law. I have shewed in the first Part of this Dis∣pute, how conscience is sought to be bound by the Law of the Ce∣remonies, and here by the way, no lesse may be drawne from Hals words, which now I examine. For he implieth in them, that we are bound to obey the Statutes about the Ceremonies, merely for their Auctorities sake who command us, though there be no other thing in the Ceremonies themselves, which can commend them to us. But I have also proven before, that humane Lawes doe not bind to o∣bedience, but onely in this case, when the things which they pre∣scribe, doe agree and serve to those things which Gods Law pre∣scribeth: so that, as humane Lawes, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but onely by Participation with Gods Law. This ground hath seemed to o P. Bayne, so necessary to be knowne, that he hath inserted it in his briefe exposition of the fondamentall points of Religion. And beside all that, which I have said for it before, I may not here passe over in silence, this one thing, that p Hall himselfe calleth it superstition to make any more sinnes, then the ten com∣mandements. Either then, let it be shewed out of Gods word, that Nonconformity & the refusing of the English Popish Ceremonies, is a fault, or else let us not be thought bound by mens lawes, where Gods Law hath left us free. Yet we deale more liberally with our Opposites, for if we prove not the unlawfulnesse of the Ceremonies, both by Gods Word, and sound reason, let us be then bound to use them for Ordinances sake. 3. His comparisons are farre wide: they are so farre from running upon foure feet, that they have indeed no feet at all: whether we consider the commandements, or the breach of them, he is altogither extravagant. God might have comman∣ded

Adam to eate the Apple, which he forbade him to eate, and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evill: whereas the Will & Commandement of men is not regula regulans, but regula re∣gulata. Neither can they make good or evill, beseeming or not be∣seeming, what they list, but their commandements are to be exa∣mined by a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Ierusalem, and not to goe over the brooke Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required: for as n Peter Martyr noteth, he r was a man of the family of the house of Saul, and hated the Kingdome and Throne of David, so that relictus liber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israëlitis, vel cum Palesthinis. But what reason is there, for charging us with the Law of the Ceremonies, except the sole will of the Law-makers? yet say, that Solomon had no reason for this his commandement, except his owne will and pleasure, for trying the obedience of Schemei, who will say, that Princes have as great li∣berty and power of commanding at their pleasure, in matters of Religion, as in civill matters? If we consider the breach of the com∣mandements, he is still at randone. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet s Divines marke in his eating of that forbid∣den fruit, many grosse and horrible sinnes, as, Infidelity, Idolatry, Pride, Ambition, Self-love, Theft, Covetousnesse, Contempt of God, Prophanation of Gods name, Ingratitude, Apostasie, mur∣dering of his posterity, &c. But I pray, what exorbitant evills are found in our modest and Christian-like deniall of obedience to the Law of the Ceremonies? When Schemei transgressed King Solomons commandement, besides t the violation of this oath, and the dis∣obeying of the charge wherewith Solomon (by the speciall direction & inspiration of God) had charged him, (that u his former wick∣ednesse, and that which he had done to David, might be returned upon his Head, the Divine providence so fitly furnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment;) there was also a great con∣tempt and misregard shewed to the King, in that Schemei knowing his owne evill deservings, aknowledged (as the trueth was,) he had re∣ceived no small favour, and therefore consented to the Kings word as good, and promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion, as the seeking of two runnagat servants, he reckoned not to despise the Kings mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandement. What? is Non-conformi∣ty no lesse piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is bound to shew that it is so. And thus have we pulled downe the untempered mor∣tar, wherewith Hall would hide the Idolizing of the Ceremonies.

But thirdly, did not Rachel make Iacob an Idoll, when she ascri∣bed [Sect. 4] to him a power of giving children? Am I in Gods stead saith x Iacob? And how much more reason have we to say, that the Ce∣remonies are Idols, and are set up in Gods stead, since an opera∣tive

vertue is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sinne and tentation, and for working of other spirituall and super∣naturall effects? Thus is the Signe of the Crosse an Idoll, to those who conforme to Papists in the use of it. y M. Ant. de Dominis hol∣deth, Crucis signum, contra Daemones esse praesidium. And z that even ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles signi Crucis, etiam apud Infideles, ali∣quando enituerint. Shall I say, saith a Mr. Hooker, that the Signe of the Crosse (as we use it) is a meane in some sort to worke our preservation from reproach? Surely the minde which as yet hath not hardened it selfe in sinne, is seldome provoked thereunto in any grosse and grievous manner, but na∣tures secret suggestion, objecteth against it ignominy, as a barre. Which conceipt being entered into that palace of mans fancie (the Forehead) the Gates whereof have imprinted in them that Holy Signe (the Crosse) which bringeth forthwith to minde whatsoever Christ hath wrought, and we vowed against sinne; it commeth hereby to passe, that Christian men never want a most effectuall, though a silent Teacher, to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame. What more doe Papists ascribe to the Signe of the Crosse, when they say, b that by it Christ keeps his owne faith∣full ones contra omnes tentationes & hostes? Now if c the covetous man be called a Idolater, because, though he think not his mo∣ney to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it, (which con∣fidence and hope d we should repose in God onely) as e Rainoldes marketh, then doe they make the Signe of the Crosse an Idoll, who trust by it to be preserved from Sinne, Shame, and Reproach, and to have their mindes staied in the instant of Tentation. For, who hath given such a vertue to that dumbe and idle Signe, as to work that which God onely can worke? and how have these goodfel∣lowes imagined, that not by knocking at their braines, as Iupiter, but by onely signing their Foreheads, they can procreate some me∣nacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the Divell him∣selfe.

The same kinde of operative vertue is ascribed to the Ceremo∣ny [Sect. 5] of Confirmation or Bishopping. For the English Service Booke teacheth, that by it Children receive strength against Sinne, and against Tentation. And f Hooker hath told us, that albeit the Suc∣cessors of the Apostles, had but onely for a time such power as by Prayer and imposition of hands to bestow the Holy Ghost, yet Confirmation hath continued hitherto for very speciall benefites; and that the Fathers impute every where unto it, that Gift or Grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such, assisteth us in all vertue, armeth us against Tentation and Sinne. Moreover, whiles he is a shewing why this Ceremony of Confir∣mation was separated from Baptisme, having been long joyned with it, one of his reasons which he giveth for the Separation, is, that sometimes the parties who received Baptisme were Infants,

at which age they might well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the armie of God, to bring forth the fruits, and to doe the workes of the Holy Ghost, their time of hability was not yet come, which implie•…•…h, that by Confirmation men receive this habi∣lity, else there is no sence in that which he saith. What is Idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to Rites of mans devising, the power and vertue of doing that which none but he to whom all power in hea∣ven and earth belonges, can doe? And howbeit Hooker would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the Fathers, yet it is not unknowne, that the first Fathers from whom this Idolatry hath descended, were those auncient Heretikes, the Montanists. for as g Chemnitius marketh out of Tertullian & Cyprian, the Montanists were the first, who beganne to ascribe any spirituall efficacy or operation to Rites and Ceremonies devised by men.

Fourthly, that whereunto more respect and account is given, then God alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is pla∣ced, then God hath put into it, or will at all communicat to it, is an Idoll exalted against God: which maketh h Zanchius to say, Si Luthero vel Calvino tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, Idola tibi fingis. Now when i Hooker accounte•…•…h festivall dayes, for Gods extraordinary workes wrought upon them, to be holyer then other dayes, What man of sound Iudgement, will not perceive that these dayes are Idolized, since such an eminency and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no difference betwixt them, and any other dayes? k We have seene also, that the Ceremonies are urged as necessary, but did ever God allow, that things Indifferent should be so highly advanced, at the pleasure of men? And moreover, l I have shewed, that wor∣ship is placed in them; in which respect, needs they must be Idolls, being thus exalted against Gods Word, at which we are commanded to hold us, in the matter of worship. Last of all, they are Idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy misticall significations are given them, which are a great dea•…•…e more then Gods word allo∣weth in any Ri•…•…es of humane institution, as shall be shewed m after∣wards. And so it appeareth, how the Ceremonies, as now urged and used, are Idolls. Now, to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, which I will prove to be direct and formall Idolatry, and from Idolatry shall it never be purged, while the world standeth, though our Opposi•…•…es strive for it, tanquam pro aris & focis.

The question about the Idolatry of kneeling, be•…•…wixt them and us, [Sect. 7] standeth in this. Whether kneeling at the instant of receiving the Sacrament, before the consecrated Bread & Wine, purposely placed in our sight, in the act of kneeling, as Signes standing in Christs stead before which we the receivers are to exhibite outwardly religious adoration; be formally idolatry, or not? No man can pick a quarrell at the stating of the question thus. For, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of receiving he

Sacramentall Elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward adoration, in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore, by the inward graces of Faith, Love, Thankfulnesse, &c. by the holy and Heavenly exercise whereof we glorify God; so that the contro∣versy is about outward adoration. 3. No man will denie h•…•…t the consecrated Elements are purposely placed in our sight, when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that action only accidentally present before us, no otherwise then the Tabble-cloth, or the walls of the Church are. 4. That the Sacramentall Elements, are in our sight (when we knee•…•…l) as Signes standing in Christs stead; it is most unde∣nyable. For if these Signes stand not in Christs stead to us, the Bread bearing vicem corporis Christi, and the Wine vicem sanguinis; it follo∣weth, that when we eat the bread, and drink the wine, we are no more eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ, spiritual•…•…y and sacramentally, then if we were receiving any other Bread and Wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our Opposites aknowledge it, for n D^r. Burgesse calls the Sacraments the Lords images and deputies. And the o Archbishop of Spalato saith, that when we take the Sacrament of Christs body, we adore Christum sub hac figura figuratum. 5. That kneelers at the instant of receiving, have the consecrated Bread an Wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as things so stated in that action, that before them, they are to exhibite outward religious adoration, as well as inward; it is also most plaine. For otherwise they should fall downe and kneel, onely out of incogitancy, having no such purpose in their minds, nor choice in their wills, as to kneel before these Sacramentall Signes.

The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirme. Their ne∣gative [Sect. 8] is destroied, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons.

First, the kneelers worship Christ in or by the Elements, as their owne confessions declare. When we take the Eucharist, we adore the body of Christ, per suum signum saith p the Archbishop of Spalato. We kneel by the Sacrament to the thing signified, saith the q Bishop of Edinbrugh. r The Archbishop of Sanct-Andrewes, and s D^r. Burgesse, professe the adoring of Christ in the Sacrament. D^r. Mortoune mantaineth such an adoration in the Sacrament, as he calleth relative from the Signe to Christ. And t Paybody defendeth him herein. But u the replier to D^r. Mortoune particular defence, inferreth well, that if the adoration be relative from the Signe, it must first be carried to the Signe as a meanes of convoyance vnto Christ. x D^r. Bourgesse alloweth adora∣tion, or Divine worship, (as he calleth it,) to be given to the Sacra∣ment respectively: and y he alledgeth a place of Theodoret, to prove

that such an adoration as he there taketh for Divine worship, is done to the Sacrament in relation to Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to be passed over to the Ar∣chitype, which is the body and blood of Christ. Since then, that kneeling, about which our question is, by the confession of kneelers themselves, is Divine worship given by the signe to the thing signi∣fied, and done to the Sacrament respectively or in relation to Christ; he that will say, that it is not Idolatry, must acquit the Pa∣pists of Idolatry also, in worshipping before their Images: for they doe in like manner professe, that they adore prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem, or in imagine, and that they give no more to the image, but relative or respective worship. z The Rhemists tell us, that they doe no more but kneel before the creatures, at or by them adoring God. It availeth not here to excogitate some differences betwixt the Sacramentall Elements and the Popish Images, for what difference soever be betwixt them, when they are considered in their owne na∣turall beeing, yet as objects of adoration they differ not, because when they are considered in esse adorabili, we see the same kinde of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the Elements, which is by Papists before their Images. To come nearer the point, Papists professe, that they give to the outward Signes in the Sacrament, no other adoration, then the same which Formalists give to them. a Fran∣ciscus à Sancta Clara saith, that Divine worship doeth not agree to the Signes per se, but onely per accidens, and he alledgeth for himself, that the Councell of Trent Can. 6. de Euch. saith not that the Sacrament, but that Christ in the Sacrament, is to be adored with latria. To the same purpose I observe, that b Bellarmine will not take upon him to mantaine any adoration of the Sacrament with latria, holding onely that Christ in the Eucharist is to be thus adored, and that symbola ex∣terna per se & proprie non sunt adoranda. Whereupon he determineth, status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu l•…•…∣triae. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward signe of Christs body in the Eucharist, nothing else but the species or accidents of the Bread; yet c since they a•…•…tribute to the same, quod sub illis acciden∣tibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua Deitate con∣junctum, and since d they give adoration or latria to the species, though not per se, yet as quid unum with the body of Christ which they containe; hereby it is evident, that they worship Idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our Oppo∣sites dare say, that Papists commit no such Idolatry, as here I impute to them? Or, if they aknowledge this Idolatry of Papists, how make they hemselvs cleane? for we see, that the worship which Pa∣pists give to the species of the Bread, is onely relative to Christ, and of the same kynd with that which Formalists give to the Bread and Wine.

Secondly, religious kneeling before the Bread which is set before [Sect. 9] us for a signe to stand in Christs stead, and before which we adore whilles it is to us actually an e Image representing Christ; is the verie bowing downe and worshipping forbidden in the secound commandement. The Eucharist is called by the Fathers, Imago, Si∣gnum, Figura, Similitudo, as f Hospinian instanceth out of Origen, Na∣zianzen, Augustine, Hilarius, Tertullian, Ambrose. g The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed, that the Fathers expressely call the Sacra∣ment, an Image of Christs body: and well might they call it so, since the Sacramentall Elements doe not onely represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christs stead, in such sort, that by the worthy re∣ceiving of them, we are assured that we receive Christ himself, and in eating of this Bread and drinking of this Wine, we eate the flesh and drink the blood of Christ spiritually and by faith. Neither could the consecrated Elements make a Sacrament, if they were not such Images, standing in Christs stead. But what needeth any more? h Dr. Burgesse himself calleth the Sacraments the Lords Images. Now that a man who adoreth before the painted or graven Image of Christ, though he professe that he intendeth his wholle adoration to Christ, and that he placeth the Image before him onely to represent Christ, and to stirre up his mind to worship Christ, doth neverthe∣lesse commit Idolatry, I trust, none of our Opposites will deny. Nay, i B. Lindsey teacheth plainly, that it is Idolatry to set before the eyes of our mindes, or bodies, any Image as a meane or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be abstracted from the Image and not given unto it. Well then: will it please him to let us see, that kneeling before the actuall Images of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament, even though these Images should bee no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects, motives, and occasions which stirre up the mind of the kneeler to worship Christ, (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, thoug falsely, as we shall se afterward,) is not so great Idolatry as the other. All the difference which k he maketh, is, that no true worship can be properly occasioned by an Image, which is a Doctor of lyes teaching nothing of God, but falshood and vanities: but the blessed Sacra∣ment being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his death, &c. gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerfull and pregnant occasion of thanksgi∣ving and praise. l D^r. Burgesse intermedling with the same difference∣making, will not have the Sacraments, which are Images of Gods making and institution, to be compared with Images made by the lust of men. Two differences then are given us. 1. That the Sacra∣mentall Elements have their institution from God, Images not so. 2. That the Sacrament is an occasion of worship, an Image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the ordi∣nance and institution of God, makes the use of Sacramentall Ima∣ges

to be no will-worship, yet doeth it noth any whit availe to shew, that adoration before them is no Idolatry. May I not commit Ido∣latry with Images of Gods institution, no lesse then with those in∣vented by men, when (Caeteris paribus) there is no other difference be∣twixt them, considered as objects of adoration, but that of the or∣dinance and institution which they have? What if I fall downe at the hearing of a Sermon, and religiously adore before the Pastor, as the Vicarius signe of Christ himself, who stands there m in Christs stead, referring my adoration to Christ onely, yet in or by that Am∣bassad out who stands in Christs stead? If this my adoration should be called so great Idolatry, as if I should fall downe before a graven Image, to worship God in or by it, (for it is indeed as great every way,) our kneelers I perceive would permit me to answere for my self, that my worshipping of God by the minister, can not be called Idolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven Image, is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living Image, is no other,) since Images of Gods institution must not bee paralelled with those of mens invention. As to the secound difference, I answere, 1. Though the B. muttereth here, that no true worship can bee occasioned by an Image, yet belike he and his fel∣lowes will not stand to it, for many of them allow the historicall use of Images, and the B. hath not denied this though his Antagonist, objecteth it. n D^r. Mortoune plainly alloweth of Images for histori∣call commemoration. And herein he is followed by o D^r. Burgesse. 2. Whereas he saith, that the blessed Sacrament is instituted by Christ to call to our rememberance his death, this inferreth not that it is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the verie act of receiving, as we shall see afterward. Our question is onely about kneeling in the act of receiving. 3. We confesse, that the Sacrament is an occasion of Inward worship, in the receiving of it. For p in Eucharistia exerce∣tur summa Fides, Spes, Charitas, Religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum co∣limus & glorificamus. but the outward adoration of kneelling downe upon our knees, can be no more occasioned by the blessed Sacra∣ment, in the act of receiving it, then by a graven Image in the act of beholding it. The point which the B. had to prove, is, that whereas an Image can not be the occasion of outward adoration and knee∣ling to God before it, in the act of looking upon it; the Sacrament may be, and is an occasion of kneeling, when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any for him, shall ever make good.

Thirdly, kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, before [Sect. 10] the vicatious signes which stand in Christes stead, and are purpo∣sely set before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore; wanteth nothing to make up Idolatrous coadoration or rela∣tive worship. Our Opposites here tell us of two things necessary to

the making up of Idolatry, neither of which is found in their knee∣ling. First, they say, except there be an intention in the worshipper, to adore the creature which is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no Idolatry. What shall I say, saith q Paybody? What need I say in this place, but to professe and likewise avouch, that we intend onely to worship the Lord our God, when we kneele in the act of receiving? we worship not the Bread and Wine, we intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of Idolatry in Gods worship. Answ. I shewed before, that Paybody defendeth D^r Mor∣tone his adoration, which he calleth relative from the Signe to Christ: yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to the Signe; will this save their kneeling from Idolatry? Nay then, the three Children should not have beene Idolaters, if they had kneeled before Nebuchadnezars image, intending their worship to God only, and not to the Image. Our Opposites here, take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what saith r Calvine? Si isti boni sapientesque Sophistae, ibi tum fuissent, simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo cos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines istud quidem non est adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est Idololatria nisi ubi est devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda venerandasque adjunctio atque applicatio, &c. If Paybody had beene in Calvines place, he could not have called the Nicodemites Idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the Popish Images, when they kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest Idolaters that ever were, shall by this doctrine be no Idolaters, and s Paul shall be censured for teaching that the Gentiles did worship Divells, since they did not intend to worship Divells. Idololatrae nec olim in Paganismo inten∣debant, nec hodie in Papatu intendunt, Daemonibus offerre. Quid tum? Aposto∣lus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant, saith t Pareus.

The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of Idolatry, is, that the creature before which we adore, be a passive object of the adoration; whereas u say they, the Sacramentall Ele∣ments are no manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active onely of that adoration, which at the Sacrament is given to Christ, that is, such an Object and Signe as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification thereof, to lift up our hearts, and adore the onely Object of our faith, the Lord Iesus: such as the holy Word of God, his workes, and benefites are, by meditation and consideration whereof, we are moved and stirred up to adore him. Answ. 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of his owne booke I draw an Argument, which destroyeth it, thus: If the Sacra∣mentall Elements, were onely the active object of their adoration who kneele before them in the receiving, then their reall presence should be but accidentall to the kneelers. But the reall presence of the Elements, in the act of receiving, is not accidentall to the knee∣lers. Ergo. The proposition I drawe from his owne words: We can

neither (saith x he) pray to God, nor thanke him nor praise him, but ever there must be, before the eyes of our minds at least, something of his Workes, Word, or Sacraments, if not before our externall sences. He confesseth it will be enough, that these active objects of worship, be before the eyes of our mindes, and that their reall presence before our external sences is not necessary, but accidentall to us whose minds are by their mea∣nes stirred up to worship. And so it is indeed. For esse scibile or reme∣morativum of an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the minde to worship, so that the reall presence of such an object is but accidentall to the worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishops owne words. For y he saith, that we kneel before the Elements, having them in our sight, or object to our sences, as ordinary Signes, meanes, and memorialls, to stirre us up, to worship, &c. Now if we have them in our sight, and before our sences, for this purpose, that they may be meanes, signes, & memorialls to stirre us up to worship, then (sure) their beeing really before our sences, is not accidentall to us when we kneele. Since z Dr. Burgesse hath beene so dull and sottish, as to write that the Signes are but accidentally before the Communi∣cants, when they receive, he is to be ignominiously exsibilat; for making the Sacred Sacramentall Signes to bee no otherwise present, then the walls of the Church, the nailes and timber of the materiall Table whereupon the Elements are set, or any thing else accidentally before the Communicants. But, 2. put the case they did make the Elements onely active objects of worship, when they kneel in the act of recei∣ving them: What doe some Papists make more of their Images, when they worship before them? they hold, as a the Archbishop of Spalato noteth, that Imago est medium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo ex∣emplar occurrit suo honoratori, cultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar feratur. Will we have them to speake for themselves? b Suarez will have Imagines esse occasiones vel Signa excitan∣tia hominem ad adorandum prototypa. (c) Friar Pedro de Cabrera a Span∣jard, taketh the opinion of Durand and his followers, to be this, That Images are adored onely improperly, because they put men in mind of the persons represented by them: and he reasoneth against them, thus: If Images were onely to be worshipped by way of rememoration and re∣cordation, because they make us remember the samplares, which we doe so worship, as if they had beene then present, It would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same adoration, wherewith we worship God: seeing all of them doe leade us unto the knowledge and remembrance of God. Where∣by it is evident that in the opinion of Durand; and those who are of his minde. Images are b•…•…t active objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith d Becane the Iesuite? Imago autem Christi non est occasio Idolo∣latriae

apud nos Catholicos, quia non alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum Salvatorem, & beneficia ejus representet. More particu∣larly, he will have the Image of Christ to be honoured for two rea∣sons. 1. Quia honor qui exhibetur Imagini redundat in eum cujus est Imago. 2. Quia illud in pretio haberi potest, quod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, & est occasio ut pro e•…•… acceptis grati existamus. At Imago Christi per serevocat nobis in memoriam beneficium nostrae Redemptionis, &c. That for this respect the Image of Christ is honoured, he confir∣med by this simile. Quia ob eandem causam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt Sacra Biblia, itemque Festa Paschatis, Pentecostes, Nativitatis, & Passio∣nis Christi. What higher accoumpt is here made of Images then to be active Objects of Worship? for even whiles it is said, that the Honour done to the Image, resulteth to him whose Image it is, there is no Honour ascribed to the Image, as a Passive Object: but they who honour an Image for this respect, and with this meaning, have it onely for an Active Object which represents and calls to their minde the first samplar, as the e Archbishop of Spalato also observeth. Neither the Papists onely, but some also of the very Heathen Idolaters, f Norunt in Imaginibus nihil Deitatis inesse, meras autem esse rerum absentium repraesentationes, &c. And what if neither Heathens, nor Papists had been of this Opinion, that Images are but Active Objects of worship? yet I have before observed, that the B. himselfe aknowledgeth, it were Idolatry to set before us an Image, as the Active Object of our Adoration: though the wor∣ship should be abstracted from the Image.

Finally, to shut up this point, it is to be noted, that the using of [Sect. 12] the Sacramentall Elements as active objects of Worship onely, can not make kneeling before them in the receiving, to be no Ido∣latry? for then might we lawfully, & without Idolatry, kneel before every active object, which stirreth up our mindes to worship God. All the workes of God are such active objects, as the B. also resol∣veth in the words before cited. Yet may we not at the sight of eve∣ry one of Gods workes, kneele downe and adore, whiles the eyes both of body and minde are fixed upon it, as the meanes and oc∣casion which stirreth us up to worship God. The B. indeed holdeth we may: onely g he saith, this is not necessary, because when by the sight of the Creatures of God, we are moved privately to wor∣ship, our externall Gesture of Adoration is Arbitrary, and some∣times no Gesture at all is required. But in the ordinary Ministery, when the workes of God, or his benefits are propounded, or ap∣plied publikely, to stirre us up to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, then our Gesture ceaseth to be Arbitrary: for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the Church where we worship. Ans. 1. He shuffeleth the point deceitfully, for when he speaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any Creature, he means of

inward worship, as is evident by these words, sometime no Gesture at all is required; but when he speakes of being moved to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, by the benefites of God propounded publikely, (for example, by the blessed Sacrament,) then he means of outward worship, as is evident by his requiring necessarily a Ge∣sture. He should have spoken of one kinde of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward, for of no other doe we dispute. When we are moved by the Sacrament to adore God in the act of receiving, this can be no other but that which is inward, and thus we adore God by Faith, Hope, and Love, though neither the heart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (where∣of himselfe could not be ignorant,) is, that the Sacramentall Ele∣ments may be to us, in the receiving, active objects of outward a∣doration? or because they move us to worship inwardly, that there∣fore we should adore outwardly. 2. Whereas he teacheth, that knee∣ling before any Creature, when thereby we are moved to worship privately, is lawfull, but kneeling before the Sacramentall Elements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the Assemblies of the Church, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here: he knew; or else he made himselfe ignorant, that both these should be denied by us. Why then did he not make them good? kneeling before those active objects, which stirre up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the Church, it must first be proven lawfull, both in the Church, and out of it. Now, if a man meeting his L. riding up the street upon his blake Horse, have his heart stir∣red up to worship God, by something which he seeth either in him∣selfe or his Horse, should fall downe and kneele before him, or his Horse, as the active object of his worship: I marvell, whether the B. would give the man leave to kneele, and stand still as the active ob∣ject, before the mans sences? As for us, wee holde, that we may not kneele before every Creature, which stirreth up our hearts to worship God, kneele I say, whiles the eyes both of body and minde are fastened upon it as the active object of our Adoration.

The fourth Reason, whereby I prove the kneeling in question, to be Idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, [Sect. 13] for reverence to the Sacrament, is Idolatry. But the kneeling in question is such. Ergo. The Proposition is necessary. For if they ex∣hibite Divine Adoration (such as their kneeling is confessed to be,) for reverence of the Sacrament, they doe not onely give, but also intend to give Divine Adoration to the same. This is so undenia∣ble, that it dasheth h B. Lindsey, and makes him give a broad Con∣fession, that it is Idolatry to kneele at the Sacrament, for reverence to the Elements. The Assumption I prove from the Confession of Formalists. King Edwards Booke of common Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the Communion is injoyned for this purpose, that

the Sacrament might not be prophaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation. So doth i Dr. Mortone tell us, that the reason wherefore the Church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due estimation of such holy Rites. k Paybody makes one of the re∣spects of kneeling, to be the reverent handling and using of the Sa∣crament. The l B. of Winchester exclaimeth against such as doe not kneel, for not regarding the Table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all holies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy Symboles, and pretious memorials of our greatest de∣livery, even that reverence which is given to Prayer. Where, by the way I observe, that, when we kneel at Prayer, it is not to give reve∣rence to Prayer, but to God whom then most immediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament, receiveth no com∣mendatiō from kneeling at Prayer. The act of Perth about kneeling, when B. Lindsey had pollished and refined it as well as he could, or∣dained us to kneele at the Sacrament, in due regard of so Divine a Mistery. And what think we is understood by this Mistery, for reverence whereof we are commanded to kneele? The m B. ex∣poundeth this Mistery, to be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here, he either meanes the spirituall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the Sacramentall. If the spirituall: why did not the Synod ordaine us to kneele in hearing the Gospell? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood of Christ, and that as truly and really as in the Sacrament. Whereupon the n Archbishop of Armagh sheweth, that the spirituall & inward fee∣ding upon the body and blood of Christ, is to be found out of the Sacrament, and that diverse of the Fathers doe applie the sixth of Iohn, to the hearing of the Word also; as Clemens Alexandrinus, Ori∣gen, Eusebius Caesariensis, & others. o Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eate the flesh of Christ in his Word and Doctrine. This I am sure no man dare deny. The B•…•… then must mean by this mistery, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Now, the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is the receiving of the Sacramentall Signes of his body and blood. And as the p Archbishop of Armagh also observeth, the substance which is outwardly delivered in the Sacrament, is not really the bo∣dy and blood of Christ. Againe q he saith, that the Bread and Wine are not really the body and bloud of Christ, but Figuratively and Sacramentally: thus he opposeth the Sacramentall presence of the body and blood of Christ, not onely to bodily, but also to Reall presence: and by just Analogy Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is not onely to be opposed to a receiving of his body and blood, into the hands and mouthes of our bodyes, but likewise to the reall receiving of the same spiritually into our

soules. It remaineth therefore, that kneeling in due regard of the Sacramentall receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the Sacramentall Signes of Christs body and blood. And so Perths Canon, and the Bishops Commentary upon it, fall in with the rest of those Formalists ci∣ted before, avouching and defending kneeling for reverence to the Sacrament.

Those who speake out more plainely then Bishop Lindsey, doe here [Sect. 14] object to us, that reverence is due to the Sacrament, and that wee our selves doe reverence it, when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it. But r Didoclavius doth well distinguish betwixt Veneration and Adoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors and equals for the regard which we beare to them, yet doe we not worship them, as we worship the King on our knees. As then, in civility there is a respect and reverence different from A∣doration, so it is in Religion also. Yea s Bellarmine himselfe di∣stinguisheth the reverence which is due to holy things from Ado∣ration. (t) Paybody, and u D^r. Burgesse will by no meanes admit this distinction betwixt Veneration and Adoration. But since neither of them hath alledged any reason against it, I hope they will be weighed downe, by the Auctority of the x Archbishop of Spalato, and y the Bishop of Edimbrugh, both of which agree to this distin∣ction. So then, we give no Adoration at all to the Sacrament, because neither by any outward nor inward action, doe we per∣forme any worship for the honour of the same. z Burgesse himself hath noted to us, that the first Nicene Councell exhorteth, that men should not be humiliter intenti to the things before them. We neither submit our mindes, nor humble our bodies to the Sacrament, yet (a) doe we render to it Veneration, for as much as we esteeme high∣ly of it, as a most holy thing, and medle reverently with it, with∣out all contempt or unworthy usage. Res profecto inanimatae saith the b Archb. of Spalato, sint sacrae quantum placet, alium honorem à nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo, as that they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said, that we ought not to con∣temne the Word, yet hath it not that respect given to it, which the Sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this veneration given to the Sacrament, must be somewhat more then non Prophanatio: I answer, as honour in the Positive sence, so also in the Negative, hath various degrees: and according to the more or lesse imme∣diate manifestation of Divine Ordinances to us, so ought the de∣grees of our Veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood, as if one part of Gods sacred worship, were to be lesse contemned then another, (for none of Gods most Holy Ordinances, may be in any sorte contemned,) but that for the grea∣ter regarde of those things which are more immediately Divine, we

are not in the usage of them, to take to our selves so much Scope and Liberty, as otherwise we may lawfully allow to our selves, in medling with such things, as are not merely, but mixedly Divine, and which are not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention of means. And thus a higher degree of Venera∣tion is due to the Sacrament, then to the Word preached, not by ta∣king ought from the Word, but by adding more respect to the Sa∣crament then the Word hath. The reason hereof is c given to be this, because when we come to the Sacrament, nihil hic humanum, sed Divina omnia, for Christs owne Words are, or at least should be spoken to us, when we receive the Sacrament, and the Elements also are by Christs owne Institution, holy Symboles of his blessed body and blood. Whereas the Word preached to us, is but mixedly and mediately Divine, and because of this intervention of the Mi∣nistery of men, and mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scri∣ptures of God, we are bidden try the Spirits, and are required af∣ter the Example of the Baereans to search the Scriptures daily, whe∣ther these things which we heare preached, be so or not. Now wee are not in like sorte to try the Elements, and the Words of the In∣stitution, whether they be of God or not, because this is sure to all, who know out of Scripture the first Principles of the Oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the Sacrament gi∣ven according to Christs Institution, is more merely and imme∣diately Divine then is the Word preached. But others (I heare) object, that if a man should uncover his Head at the sight of a Graven Image, we would account this to be an adoring of the Image; and why then shall not we call our uncovering at the Sacra∣ment Adoration also? Ans. Though Veneration and Adoration be distinguished in holy things, to shew that Adoration given to them is Idolatry, but Veneration given to them is not Idolatry, yet in prophane things, such as Images are, Veneration given to them is Idolatry, as well as Adoration: and we are Idolaters for doing so much, as to respect and reverence them, as things sacred or holy. For as I touched before, and as d Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances, Idolatry is committed, when more estimation is had of any thing, more dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it, then God alloweth, or then can stand with Gods revealed will. For a thing thus regarded, though it be not ex∣alted, ut Deus simpliciter, yet it is set up, tanquam Deus ex parte.

Now fiftly, if the kneeling in question be not Idolatrously refer∣red to the Sacrament, I demand, whereunto is it specially intended? [Sect. 15] we have heard the confession of some of our Opposites, (and those not of the smallest note,) avouching kneeling for reverence of the Sacrament. Neither can the Mistery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof, we are ordained to kneel,) be any other nor

the Sacrament. Yet because B. Lindsey, and some of his kynd, who desire to hide the foule shape of their Idolatry, with the trimmest fairding they can; will not take with kneeling in reverence of the Sacrament: let them shew us, which is the object, which they doe specially adore, when they kneele in the receiving of the same, for this their kneeling at this time, ariseth from another respect, then that which they cōsider in other parts of Gods worship, let two of our Prelats tell it out? The e Archbishop of Sainctandrewes would teach us out of Mouline, that we ought to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ in the Eucharist. The f B. of Edinbrugh also, will have us to worship the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, because the huma∣nity of Christ is there present, beeing ever and every where joyned with the Divinity. But a twofold Idolatry may be here deprehen∣ded. 1. In that they worship the flesh and bloud of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in the Sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the man Christ with Divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flesh and bloud. 1. Be∣cause though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood is not God, and by consequence can not be honoured with Divine worship. 2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his hu∣manity help and save us: Idolaters are mocket by the spirit of God, for worshipping things which can not helpe nor save them. But the humanity of Christ, can not save us nor helpe us, because omnis actio est suppositi: whereas the humane nature of Christ is not suppositum. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with Divine worship, doe well and warrantably expresse their opi∣nion. First, some of the g Schoolmen have found no other respect, wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored, except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the Kings cloaths are adored by him who adores the King. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored onely per accidens. Ego vero, saith the h Archbishop of Spalato, non puto à quo∣quam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. And I pray, why doth he that worshippes the King, worship his clothes, more then any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a Hauke upon his hand, or a litle dogge upon his knee? There is no more but the Kings owne person, set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him. i Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of Christ may be said to be worshipped, namely, that as Divine worship agrees onely to the Godhead, and not personis Divinis praecise sumptis. i. e. sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum, quae est relatio: but onely as these relations iden∣tificantur with the essence of the Godhead: so the manhood of Christ is to be adored non per se praecise, sed pro ut suppositatur à Deo. I Answere, if by suppositatur they meane, (as they must meane) that the manhood

is assumed into the unity of the person of the Sonne of God. (for otherwise if they meane, that the manhood is made a person, they are Nestorians,) that which they say, can not warrant the worship∣ping of the manhood with Divine worship: because the manhood even after this assumption and hypostaticall union, & being con∣sidered by us as now assumed into this personall union, is still for all that, a creature & a distinct nature from the Godhead. (except we will be Eutychians;) so that it cannot yet be said to be worship∣ped with Divine worship. k Dr. Field layeth out a third way. For whiles he admitteh the phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively, that the man Christ is omnipresent but the humanity also; he forgeth a strange distinction. When we speake, saith he, of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we understand only that humane created essence of a man that was in him; sometimes all that, that is implied in the beeing of a man, as well subsistence as essence. By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other Divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the humane nature. But this distinction is no better, then if a man should say: by blacknesse sometimes we understand blacknesse, and sometimes whytenesse. Who ever confounded abstractum and Concretum, before that in Fields field they were made to stand for one? It is the Tenet of the Schoole, that though in God Concretum and abstractum differ not, because Deus and Deit as are the same, yet in creatures (where∣of the manhood of Christ, is one,) they are realy differenced. For l Concretum signifieth aliquid completum subsistens, and abstra∣ctum (such as humanity,) signifieth something, non ut subsistens, sed ut quo aliquid est, as whitenesse doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then, that Field makes humanity in the abstract to have a subsistence. m Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus, for saying that albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus: his reason is, because albedo dicitur esse, non cum pa∣riete, sed in pariete. An abstract is no more an abstract, if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sence remaining, which is Augustines, and theirs who speake with him. His sentence which our Opposites cite for them, is, that it is sinne not to adore the flesh of Christ: how∣beit very erroneously he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the Psalme, worship at his footstoole, taking this footstoole to be the flesh of Christ: Yet that his meaning was better then his expression & that he meant not that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead, whose footstoole the flesh is; it is plaine from those words which Burgesse n himself citeth out of him. To whatsoever earth i. e. flesh of Christ, thou bowest and pro∣stratest thy self: looke not on it as earth, i. e as flesh, but looke at that holy one whose footstoole it is that thou doest adore, i. e. looke to the God∣head

of Christ, whose flesh thou doest adore in the misteries. Wherefore if we would give any sound sence to their words, who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note with o A. Polanus, that cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari: non est propria, sed figurata enuncia∣tio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatus, seu Deus carne vestitus. But two things I will here advertise my Reader of.

1. That though this forme of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expoūded, receiveth a sound sence, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase, when such a meaning is drawne out of it. For how can we by the flesh of Christ understand his Godhead? the communion of properties, admitteth us to put the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And p Hooker teacheth rightly, that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a propertie of the Divine nature,) are imputed to the person only, in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature, really conveyed or translated into the other.

2. Yet our Kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, have no such Orthodox (though forced) meaning, whereby to expound themselves. For q B. Lindsey will have us in receiving the Sacrament, to bow our knees & adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of the personall union that it hath with the Godhead. Ergo, he meanes that we should, & may adore with Di∣vine worship, that which is personally united with the Godhead. And what is that? not the Godhead sure: but the created nature of the manhood: (which not being God, but a creature only, can not without I dolatry be worshipped with Divine worship.) I con∣clude therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in the Sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that created nature which is united with the Godhead.

But 2. as we have seene what is to be thought of worshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider, what may be thought [Sect. XVI] of worshipping his flesh in the Sacrament; for this was the other head which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, must either consider it, as present in the Sacrament, & in that respect to be there adored, because of the per∣sonall union of it with the Word, or else because of the Sacramen∣tall union of it with the outward Signe, which is a respect super∣venient to that of the ubiquity of it in the person of the Word. First then, touching the former of those respects, the personal union of the flesh with the word, can neither inferre the presence of the

flesh in the Sacrament, to those who worthily receive; nor yet can it make any thing for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former; for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it is ever and alike present with the Communicants, whether they re∣ceive worthily, or not, & with the Bread & Wine, whether they be consecrated to be signes of his body and bloud or not. There∣fore Divines rightly hold r presentiam corporis Christi in coena, non ab ubiquitate, sed a verbis Christi pendere. Not the latter neither; for (as I have shewed already) notwithstanding of the personall union, yet the flesh of Christ remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so can not at all bee worshipped with Divine worship. And if his flesh could be at all so worshipped, yet were there no reason for wor∣shipping it in the Sacrament, (in respect of its personall union with the Word,) more then in all other actions, and at all other times. For ever and alwayes, is the flesh of Christ personally united with the Word, & in that respect present to us. There remaineth there∣fore nothing but that other respect of the Sacramētall union of the flesh of Christ with the Sacramentall Signe, which they can have for worshipping his flesh in the Sacrament. Whereas s B. Lindsey saith, that it is no errour, to beleeve the spirituall powerfull & personall pre∣sence of Christs body at the Sacrament, and in that respect to worship his flesh & bloud there. He meanes (sure) some speciall respect, for which it may be said, that Christs body is present at the Sacrament, (so as it is not present out of the Sacrament,) and in that respect to be there adored. Now Christs body is spiritually and powerfully pre∣sent to us in the Word (as I shewed before,) yea as often as looking by faith upon his body broken, and bloud shed for us, we receive the sence & assurance of the remission of our sinnes through his merites: and as for this personall presence of Christs body, which he speaketh of, I have shewed also, that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the Sacramēt, can not be inferred upon it; Wherefore he can tell us nothing, which may be thought to inferre the presence of Christs flesh in the Sacrament, and the adoration of it in that re∣spect, save onely the Sacramentall union of it with the outwarde Signe. Now adoration in this respect & for this reason, must sup∣pose the bodily presence of Christs flesh in the Sacrament. Whereu∣pon t the Archb. of Spalato saith, that the Papists adore the body of Christ in the Sacrament, only because of the supposition of the bodily presence of it; and if they knew, that the true body of Christ is not under the species of the Bread and Wine, they would exhibite no adoration. And u elsewhere hee sheweth, that the mistery of the Eucharist can not make the manhood of Christ to be adored, quia in pane corporalis Christi presentia non est: implying, that if the flesh of Christ be adored in respect of the mistery of the

Eucharist, then must it be bodily present in the Signe, which is false; and hereupon hee gathereth truly, that it can not bee ado∣red in respect of the mistery of the Eucharist.

Further, it is to be remembered (which I have also before x noted out of Dr. Vsher) that the Sacramentall presence of the bo∣dy of Christ, or that presence of it which is inferred upon the Sa∣cramentall union which is betwixt it and the outward Signe, is not the reall or spirituall presence of it, (for in this maner, it is present to us out of the Sacrament, even as oft as by faith we apprehend it and the vertue thereof,) but it is figuratively only so called, the sence beeing this, that the body of Christ is present and given to us in the Sacramēt, meaning by his body the Signe of his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christs body in the Eu∣charist, & that in respect of the Sacramentall presence of it in the same, can not choose but hold that Christs body is bodily and re∣ally under the species of the bread, and so fall into the Idolatry of bread-worship; or else y our Divines have not rightly convinced the Papists, as Idolatrous worishppers of the bread in the Eucha∣rist, for as much as they attribute to it, that which it is not, nor hath not, to wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substan∣tially the true & living body of Christ, joyned and united to his Godhead. What can B. Lindsey now answer for himselfe, except he say with z one of his bretheren, that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, because Corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporali, comitatur Sacramentum Eucharistiae: And Christ is there present corporaliter, modo spirituali? But this man contradicts himself miserably; For we had him a little before, ackowledging that in pa∣ne, corporalis Christi presentia non est. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? he would say that Christ is not bodily present in the Sacrament after a bodily manner; but he is bodily present after a spirituall manner. Why should I blot paper with such a vanity, which implyeth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily, spiritually and not spiritually?

The sixt and last Argument, whereby I prove the kneeling in que∣stion to be Idolatry, is takē from the nature & kind of the worship [Sect. 17] wherein it is used. For the receiving of the Sacrament being a me∣diate worship of God, wherein the Elements come between God & us, in such sort, that they belong to the substance of the worship, (for without the Elements, the Sacrament is not a Sacrament,) and withall are susceptive of coadoration, for as much as in the act of receiving, both our mindes, and our externall sences, are and should be fastened upon them: hereby we evince the Idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship, wherein some crea∣ture is purposely set betweene God & us to have state in the same, it

is Idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whiles both our minds & sences are fastened upō it. Our Opposites have raked many things together, to infringe this Argument. First a they alledge the bow∣ing of Gods people before the ark, the Temple, the holy Mountain, the Altar, the Bush, the Cloud, the Fire which came from heaven. Answ. 1. Where they have read that the people bowed before the Altar of God, I knowe not. b B. Lindsey indeed would prove from 2. Chron. 6. 12, 13, and Mic. 6, 6. that the people bowed before the Altar and the Offering. But the first of those places, speakes no∣thing of kneeling before the Altar, but only of kneeling before the Congregation, that is, in sight of the Congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the Altar, yet the Altar had beene but occasionally and accidentally before him in his adoration, for to what end & use could he have purposely set the Altar before him, whiles he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah can not prove, that Gods people did kneel before the offerings at all, (for it speakes only of bowing before God,) farre lesse, that they kneeled before them in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and sences fixed upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the Sacrament, and at that instant when our minds and sences are fastened upon the signes, that we may discerne the things signi∣fied by them, for the exercising of our hearts in a thankfull medita∣tion upon the Lords death. 2. As for the other examples here alled∣ged, God was immediatly present, in and-with the Arke, the Tem∣ple, the holy Mountaine, the Bush, the Cloud, and the Fire which came from Heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his peo∣ple by his owne immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence: So that worshipping before these things had the same rea∣son which makes c the 24 Elders in Heaven worship before the Throne. For in these things, God did immediatly manifest his pre∣sence, as well as in heaven. Though there be a difference in the de∣grees of the immediate manifestation of his presence in Earth, and in Heaven, yet magn & minus non variant speciem. Now God is pre∣sent in the Sacrament, not extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not immediatly but mediatly. They must therefore alledge some commendable examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary worship, else they say nothing to the point.

Yet to no better purpose d they tell us, that when God spake, [Sect. 18] Abraham fell on his face. And when the fire came downe at Elijas prayen, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And how shall kneeling in a mediat and ordinary worship, be war∣ranted by kneeling in the hearing of Gods owne immediate voice, or in seeing the miraculous signes of his extraordinary presence?

Howbeit it can not be proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of seeing the fire fall, (when their eyes and their mindes were fastened upon it,) but that after they had seene the mi∣racle wrought, they so considered of it, as to fall downe and wor∣ship God.

But further, it is objected, e that a poenitentiary kneels to God pur∣posely before the Congregation, and with a respect to the Congregation, &c. When we come to our common Tables before we eate, tither fitting with our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and blesse, with a respect to the meate, which is purposely set on Table, &c. The Pastor when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set be∣fore him, purposely, upon the Table, and with respect to them, hee gives thankes, &c.

Answ. Though a poenitentiary kneele to God purposely in the presence and sight of the congregation, that he may make knowne to them his repentance for the sinne whereby he hath scandalized them; yet is the confessing of his sinne to God kneeling there upon his knees, a immediate worship, neither doth the Congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the substance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God, as well, and maketh confession of his sinne, when the Congregation is not before him. But I suppose our kneelers themselves will confesse, that the Elements come so betwixt God and them, when they kneele, that they belong to the essence of the worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not worship the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, if the Elements were not before them.

To be short, the case of a poenitentiary standeth thus, that not in his kneeling simpliciter, but in his kneeling publikely and in sight of the Congregation, he setteth them before him, purposely, and with a respect to them: Whereas our kneelers doe kneele in such sort, that their kneeling simpliciter, and without an adjection or ad∣junct, hath a respect to the Elements purposely set before them, nei∣ther would they at all kneele, for that end and purpose for which they doe kneele, namely, f for worshipping the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, except the Elements were before the eyes both of their mindes and bodies; as the poenitentiary doth kneele, for making confession of his sinne to God, when the Con∣gregation is not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the Sacrament he wor∣shippeth not the flesh and bloud of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same difference to be put betwixt his kneeling be∣fore the Elements, & the kneeling of a poenitentiary before the Cō∣gregation: For the very kneeling it self (simply considered) before the Elements, respecteth them as then purposely set in our sight, that we may kneele before thē: whereas in the case of the poenitentiary,

it is not his kneeling to confesse his sinne to God, which hath a re∣spect to the Congregation as set in his sight for that purpose; But some cirumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, When? At that time when the Congregation is assembled; And where? Publikely in sight of the Congregation. In regard of these circumstances, he hath the Congregation purposely in his sight, & so respecteth them; But in regard of the kneeling it self simply, the presence of the Congrega∣tion is but accidentall to him who kneeleth, & confesseth his sinne before God. As touching giving thankes before the meate set on our common Tables, though a man should doe it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in controversy, except a man so kneele before his meat, that he have a religious respect to it, as a thing separated from a common use and made holy, and likewise have both his minde & his externall sences of seeing, touching, & tasting fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if a man should thus kneele before his meate, he were an Idolater.

Lastly, giving thankes before the Elements of Bread & Wine, in the beginning of the holy action, is as farre from the purpose: For this giving of thanks, is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds & sences not upon the Bread & Wine, as upon things which have a state in that worshippe of the Lords Supper, & belong to the substance of the same, (for the very consecration of them to this use, is but then in fieri,) but we worship God imme∣diately by prayer and giving of thankes: Which is all otherwise in the act of receiving.

Moreover g it is objected out of Levit. 9. 24. 2. Chron. 7. 3. [Sect. XIX] Mie. 6. 6. 2 Chron. 29. 28. 29. 30. that all the people fell on their fa∣ces, before the legall Sacrifices, when the fire consumed the burnt-offering.

Whereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from God, and consumed the burnt offerings, was one of the miraculous Signes of Gods extraordinary and immediate presence, (as I have said before,) and therefore kneeling before the same, hath nothing to doe with the present purpose.

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we finde in the first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also ap∣peare in a more miraculous & extraordinary maner, Levit. 9. 23. The glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. 2 Chron. 7. 1. 12. The glory of the Lord filled the house. They are therefore running at ran∣dome, who take hold of those places, to drawout of them the law∣fulnesse of kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship.

The place of Micah I have answered before: And here I adde, that though it could be proved from that place, (as it cannot,) that the people both bowed before the offerings, & that in the very act of offering, yet how shall it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling,

they had the offerings purposely before them, and their minds & sences fixed upon them, in the very instant of their worshipping.

This I make clearer by the last place, 2. Chron. 29. out of which no more can be drawne, but that the people worshipped, whiles the Priests were yet offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally before the people in their worship∣ping, and only because it was offered at the same time when the song of the Lord was soung. Vers. 27. Such was the foreward∣nesse of zeale in restoring Religion, & in purging the Temple, that it admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the worke, till it was perfected, therefore the thing was done suddenly, Vers. 36. Since then the Song and the Sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the people worshipped at that time, not because of the Sacrifice which was a mediate worship, but because of the Song of the Lord, which was an immediat worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediat worship. But this can not con∣tent our Opposites, they will needs have it lawfull to kneel in the hearing of the Word, purposely and with a respect to the Word preached, (though this be a mediat worship only. h Their warrants are taken out of Exod. 4. 30. 31. Exod. 12. 27. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Matth. 17. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred, but that these hearers bowed their heads & worshipped, after that they had heard the Word of the Lord; Neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place we reade, that the Disciples fell on their faces when they heard Gods owne immediate voice out of the Cloud: What maketh this for falling downe to worship at the hearing of the Word preached by men? How long shall our Opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate worship?

Lastly, i it is alledged, that God in his Word allowes not only kneeling at Prayer, but also at Circumcision, Passeover, & Bap∣tisme. The reason of this assertion▪ is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary, God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plaine liberty. Ans Whether we be left at plaine liberty in all things which being in the generall necessary, & are not parti∣cularly determined in Gods Word; it shall betreated of else-where in this Dispute. In the meane time, whatsoever liberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an unlawfull and Idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of receiving a Sacrament, when not only we have the outward Signe purposely before us, & our mindes and sences fastened upon it, for discerning the signification thereof, & the Analogie betwixt it and the thing signified; but also looke upon it as an Image of Christ, or as a vica∣tious signe standing there in Christs stead. The Indifferency of such a gesture, in such a mediate worship, should have beene proved,

before such a rule (as this here given us for a reason,) had been applied to it.

But the kneelers would yet make more adoe to us, and be still [Sect. 20] stirring if they can doe no more. Wherefore k one of our Doc∣tours objecteth, that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and worship God, yet doe not worship the heaven: that a man going to bed, prayeth before his bed: that David, offered the Sacrifices of thanksgiving, in the presence of all the people, Psal. 116. that Paul having taken bread gave thankes, before all them who were in the ship Act. 27. 35. that the Israelits worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. 4, 31. Hereupon l another Dr. harping on the same string, tells us, that when we kneel in the act of receiving the Sacrament, We kneel no more to bread, then to the pulpit, when we joyne our prayers with the ministers. Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachfull to Doctours! All these things were and are acciden∣tally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before them, not respected as hauing a religious state in the worship. What? doe we worship before the bread in the Sacrament, even as before a Pulpit, a bed, &c? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speake off.

Another objection is, m what a man who is admitted to the office of a Pastor, and receiveth in position of hands, kneeleth still on his knees, till the ordination be ended the rest about him being standing or sitting.

Answ. Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joyned with prayer and invocation, hath nothing adoe with kneeling in a mediate worship, for in this case a man kneels, because of the imme∣diate worship of invocation: But when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel religiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which are before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may adore, which is the kind of kneeling now in Question,) or if any did so, there were more need to give him instruction then ordination.

It is further told us, that n he who is baptised, or he who offers him that is to be baptised, humbleth himself and prayeth that the bap∣tisme may be saving unto life eternall, yet worshippeth not the ba∣sen, nor the water. But how long shall simple ones love simplici∣ty, or rather, scorners hate knowledge? Why is kneeling in the im∣mediate worship of prayer, wherein our minds doe purposely res∣pect no Earthly thing, (but the o soule, p the heart, the hands, [q] the eyes, r the voice all directed immediatly to Heauen,) pa∣ralelled with kneeling in the mediate worship of receiving the Sa∣crament, wherein we respect purposely the outward signe, which is then in our sight, that both our mindes and our externall sences may be fastened upon it: Our mindes by meditation, and attentive

consideration of that which is signified, and of the representation thereof by the signe: Our sences by seeing, handling, breaking, ta∣sting, eating, drinking?

Thus we see that in all these examples alledged by our Oppo∣sites, there is nothing to prove the lawfullnesse of kneeling, in such [Sect. 21] a mediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the worship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally but purposely before us, upon which also our minds and sences in the action of worship are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament, (which I haue shewed before,) namely, that in the instant of receiving the Sacrament, the Elements are actually Images and vicarious Signes standing in Christs stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves with the rouing table of these impertinent allegations, which they have produced to prove the lawfullnesse of kneeling in a mediate worship, they have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needlesse, if they had not feared, that the former ground should faile them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the act of receiving they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God immediately. And if we would know, what a man doth then pray for, it is told us, s that he is praying and earnestly crying to God vt eum faciat dignum convivam. To us it seemes very strange how a man when he is actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating, can be made in any other sort a ban∣queter, then he is, for quicquid est, dum est non potest non esse. Where∣fore if a man in the instant of his receiving, be an vnworthy ban∣queter, he can not at that instant, be made any other then he is.

The truth is, we can not lawfully be either praying or praising in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and mindes should [Sect. 22] then be exercised in meditating vpon Christs death, and the inaestima∣ble benefites which comes to us thereby. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me.

This remembrance is described vers. 26. Ye doe shew the Lords death. Now one of the speciall wayes, whereby we remember Christ and so doe shew forth his death, is by private meditation vpon his death, as t Pareus resolveth.

This meditation is a speech of the soule to it self: and though it may stand with short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary & continued prayer purposely conceived, as v B. Lindsey would maintaine. For how can we orderly both speake to God by prayer, and to our selves by meditation at one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the souls exercise, in the receiving of the Sacra∣ment.

And by the contrary, if meditation be entertained, as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have place at that time. For it is wel x said, that Dum auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus exterius; auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei interius occupamur, orationem ceontinuam & durabilem, absque mentis diragatione ab opere praecepto & imperato, instruere non possumus.

But let us heare, how the B. proveth that we should be praying & praising, in the act of receiving the Sacrament. Whatsoever spiri∣tuall [Sect. 23] benefit y saith he, we should receive with a spirituall hunger & thirst, and with a spirituall appetite and desire after the grace and ver∣tue that is therein to salvation: The same we should receive with prayer, which is nothing else, but such an appetite and desire. But the body and bloud of Christ is such a benefit, &c.

Answ. 1. Why did he not prove his proposition? Thought he his bare assertion should suffice? Gods Word is a spirituall benefit, which we should receive with spirituall hunger and thirst, yet the B. will not say, that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore is false. For though prayer should goe before the receiving of such a spirituall benefit as the Word or the Sacra∣ment, yet we should not pray in the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend by serious consideration, what we heare in the Word, or what is signified and given to us in the Sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he, that prayer is nothing else but a Spirituall appe∣tite or desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all. z He said before, that every prayer is a meditation and here he saith, that prayer is nothing else but a spirituall desire. These are vncouth descriptions of Prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a communing with our owne soules, Prayer a communing with God: Nor yet can it be said, that Prayer is nothing else; but a spirituall desire; for Prayer is the sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.

He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the Sacra∣ment [Sect. 24] with thanksgiving. Whatsoever benefit; saith he, we should receive by extolling and preaching, and magnifying and praising the inaestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive with thanksgiving. But in the Sacrament we should receive the bloud of Christ with extolling and preaching, &c. The assumption he confirmes by the words of our Saviour: Doe this in remembrance of me. And by the words of S. Paul: So oft as ye shall eate this Bread and drinke this Cup, ye shall declare, that is extell, magnify, and praise the Lords death, till he come againe.

Answ. His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

First, we remember Christ in the act of receiving, by meditation, and not by praise.

2. We shew forth the Lords death in the act of receiving, by using the Signes and Symboles of his body broken and his bloud shed for us, and by meditating vpon his death thereby repre∣sented.

3. We deny not that by praise we shew forth the Lords death also, but this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be mar∣ked with a Pareus, that the shewing forth of the Lords death, must not be restricted to the act of receiving the Sacrament, because we doe also shew forth his death, by the preaching of the Gospell, and by private and publike celebration of it, yea by a perpe∣tuall study of sanctification and thankfullnesse. So that the shewing forth of the Lords death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying and praising the same, according to the 23. Sect. Of the Confession of faith, to which his Argument hath reference, may not be expounded of the very act of receiving the Sacrament. Neither doe the words of the Institution refuse, but easily admit another shewing forth of the Lords death, then that which is in the very act of receiving. For the word is not quando, but quoties. It is only sayd, as often as ye eat this breed and drinke this cup ye doe shewe &c. Which words can not be taken, only of the instant of eating and drinking.

Now having so strongly proved the vnlawfulnesse and Idolatry of kneeling in the act of receiving the holy Communion, let me adde, [Sect. 25] corolarij loco, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which B. Lindsey in the taile of his dispute about the head of kneeling, offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some moderne Doctours. For 1. What can humane testimony availe against such cleare truth? 2. We have moe testimonies of Dwines against kneeling, then he hath for it. And here, I perceiye b Dr. Morton fearing we should come to good speed this way would hold in our travel. We are not ig∣norant, saith he, that many Protestant Authours are most frequent in condemning the gesture of Kneeling, at the receiving of the holy Com∣munion.

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same Divines whom the B. alleadgeth for it. c For Didoclavius hath cleare testimonies against it, out of Calvine, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the B. taketh to be for it.

Neither yet need we here, to be moved with d D. Burgesse his adventurous undertaking to prove, that in the most auncient times, before corruption of the Doctrine of the Sacrament beganne, the Sacrament was received with an adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the marke. One place in Tertullian de oratione, he hammers upon: Similiter de Stationum.

Diebus non putant plerique sacraficiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistiae resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit statio •…•…ua, si & ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reservato, vtrumque salvum est, & participatio Sacrificij, & exec∣utio officij.

To these words the D. gives this sence; That many withdrew themselves, whē they came to the celebration of the Supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the Sacramentall Bread, beeing taken of the Ministers hand, the station. i. e. standing must be dissolved and •…•…elf: and because standing on those dayes might not be left (as they thought,) therefore they rather left the Sacrament on these dayes, thē they would breake the rule of standing on those dayes: therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the Table standing, yet they used not to partake them. i. e. eate the Bread or drinke the Wine, in any other gesture, then what was on the Station dayes then forbidden, kneeling: And that Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneele, and to take the Bread in publike, standing at the Table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at their owne howses, as they desired, kneeling.

Answ. The D. by this glosse puts a weapon in our hands against himself, for if when they had taken the Bread of the Ministers hand, their standing was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by com∣mending to them another gesture in eating of the Bread, not stan∣ding, then whether vrgeth he that other gesture to be used in the publicke eating of the bread, or in the private? Not in the private: for his advice of reserving and eating it in private, commeth after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in case they would not condeseend to this course in publicke, quod statio Solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Needs then, it must be understood of the pu∣blicke. Now, if in the publicke eating of the bread, Standing was to be left; Which gesture was to come in place of it? Not Kneeling.

For 1. Tertullian saith e elsewhere: Diebus dominicis Iejunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare: eadem immunitate a die Paschae ad Pentecosten usque gaudemus.

2. The Dr. himselfe saith, that upon these Station-dayes, Knee∣ling was restrained, not only in prayer, but in all Divine ser∣vice.

Wherefore if according to the Doctours glosse, the gesture of stan∣ding was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it, to be used in the partaking of the Sacrament, can hardly be ima∣gined to have been any other nor sitting.

well, the D. hath unhappily raised this spirit, to disquiet himself: let him bethinke how to lay him againe. If he can not, J wil assay to make some help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station dayes were not the Lords dayes, together with those 50 betwixt Easter and Pentecost, (on which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden,) as the D. thinketh, but they were certaine set dayes of fasting. For they appointed the fourth and fixt day of the weeke, (that is wednesday and fryday) for their Stations, as f Tertulian saith: whose words we may understand, by another place of g Epiphanius, who writeth that the Fast of the fourth, and the sixt day, was kept throughout all the Churches, and held to be an Apostolicall constitution. Howbeit herein they did erre: for to ap∣point a certaine time of fasting to be kept by the wholle Church, agreeth not with Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his Apostles, as h Osiander noteth. Alwayes we see, what was meant by Station dayes, to wit, their set dayes of 150 fasting, which were called Station dayes, by a speech borrowed from a military custome, as Tertullian teacheth. For as Souldiers kept those times and places, which were appointed for their wat∣ches, and fasted all the while they continued in these watches: so did Christians upon their station dayes, resort and meet in the place appointed, and there remained falting till their station dissolved. The Dr. taketh upon him to confute those, who understand by the Station dayes set dayes of fasting. But all which he alledgeth to the contrary, is that he findeth some where in Tertullian, Statio and Iejunia put for different things. Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that Statio, and Stata Iejunia are put for different things. For no man taketh the Stations to have beene occasionall, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning then of the words alled∣ged by the D. (to give him his owne reading of them, howbeit some read otherwise,) thus we take it. There were many who came not to the Sacrament upon the Station dayes, because (in their opin•…•…ō) the receiving thereof should break the Station i. e. the service of the day, and that because it should breake their Fast, a principall duty of the same. Tertullian sheweth, they were in an errour, because their partaking of the Sacrament should not breake their Station, but make it the more solemne and remarkable. But if they could not be drawne from that false persuasion of theirs, that the Sacra∣ment should breake their Fast, yet he wisheth them at least to come, and stand at the Table, and receive the Sacrament into their hands, and take it away to eate it after, (for permitting whereof he had no warrant,) So should they both partake the Sacrament, and also (according to their mind, and to their full contentment,) keep their Stations; which were often prorogated i till even, but ever and at least k till the ninth houre. Finally from this place, which the D. perverteth for kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture

or posture in receiving the Sacrament, used in that place, where Tertullian lived, was standing because speaking of the re∣ceiving of the Sacrament, he saith, si & ad aram Dei Ste∣teris.

As for the rest of the testimonies, l D. Burgesse produceth out of [Sect. 27] the Fathers for kneeling, I need not insist upon them; For either they speake of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct unto Christ, when we receive the Sacrament, (and this none of us denieth,) or else they speake of adoring the Sacrament: where by the word Adoration, we may not understand any Divine worship, inward or outward, but a reverence of another nature, called Venera∣tion. That this (which we denie not neither,) and no more is meant by the Fathers, when they speake of the adoration of the Sacrament. m Antonius de Dominis sheweth more copiously. And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the Doctours audacious promises, backed with a verball discourse, to goe softly by us Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu.

Finally, if any be curious to know what gesture the auncient Church did use in the receiving of the Eucharist. To such I say, first [Sect. 28] of all, that n Didoclavius maintaineth, that which none of our Op∣posites are able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be pro∣duced which may evince, that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the 3. neither is it lesse truely observed by the Au∣thour of o the History of the Waldenses, that bowing of the knees before the Hoste, was then only enjoyned, when the opinion of tran∣substantiation got place.

Next I say, the auncient gesture, where of we read most frequent∣ly, was standing. p Chrysostome complaining of few communicants, saith: Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio: Frustra stamus ad altare: nemo est qui simul participet. q The Centurie-writers make out of Dionysius Alexandrinus his Epistle to Xi•…•…us Bishop of Rome, that the custome of the Church of Alexandria in receiving the Sacra∣ment, was, ut mensae assisterent. It is also noted by r Hospinian, that in the dayes of Tertullian, the Christians stantes Sacramenta percipiebant.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know, that the Primitive Christians did take the holy Communion, mixedly and together with their Love-Feasts, s in imitation of Christ, who whileas he did eate his other Supper, did also institute the Eucharist. And since (as t it is observed from 1. Cor. 11. 21. 33.) there was a twofold abuse in the Church of Corinth: One in their Love-Feasts, whileas that which should have served for the knitting of the knot of love, was used to out the cords there of, in that every one (as him best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at Table with him (the other either not

tarried for, or shut out when they came, especially the Poore,) The o∣ther abuse (pulled in by the former,) was, for that those which were companions at one Table in the common Feast, communicated also in the sacred, with the same separation, and severally from the rest of the Church (and the poore especially,) which was in their former Ban∣quets.

Since also we reade; that the same custome of joyning the Lords-Supper together with common Feasts continued long after. For o Socrates reporteth, that the Aegyptians adjoyning unto Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebais, used to celebrate the Com∣munion upon the Sunday , after this manner: When they have ban∣queted, filled themselves with sundry delicate dishes in the evening af∣ter Service, they use to communicate. How then can any man thinke that the gesture then used in the Lords Supper was any other, nor the same which was used in the Love-Feast or common Supper? And what was that, but the ordinary fashion of fitting at Table? Since, the x Laodicean Canon which did discharge the Love-Feasts, about the yeare 368, importeth no lesse, then that the gesture used in them, was sitting. Non opportet in Ba•…•…ilicis seu Ecclesijs Agapen fa∣cere, & intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere. Now, if not only Divines of our side, but Papists also put it out of doubt, that Christ gave the Eucharist to his Apostles sitting, because being set downe to the preceeding Supper, it is said, whileas they did eate, he tooke bread, &c. (Of which things I am to speake afterward;) What doth hinder us to gather in like maner, that for as much as those Primi∣tive Christians, did take the Lords Supper, whiles they did eate their owne Love-Feasts, therefore they sate at the one as well as at the other? And so I close with this collection. Whatsoever gesture in processe of time, crept into the Lords Supper, otherwise thē sitting, of it we may truely say, from the beginning it was not so.

Notes

• g

  upon Gen. 35. 4.
• h

  Expos. in Col. 3. 5.
• i

  Mark. 7. 8. 9.
• k

  of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 18. pag. 62 Sect. 3.
• l

  1 Sam. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 29.
• n

  Histor. of the Church of Scotl. lib. 1. pag. 181.
• o

  part. 1. quest. 3.
• p

  lib. 2. Charact. of the superstit.
• n

  comm. in 1 Reg. 2.
• r

  2 Sam. 16 5.
• s

  A. Po∣lan. synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 3. D. Pareus ex∣plic. catechet. part. 1. quest. 7. 1. Schar∣pius curs. Theolog. de peccato cap. 8
• t

  1 Reg. 2. 43.
• u

  ib. v. 44
• x

  Gen. 30. 1. 2.
• y

  de Rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 88.
• z

  Ib. num. 89.
• a

  Eccl Pol. lib. 5. sect. 65.
• b

  Cornel. a Lapide com. in Hag. 2. 24.
• c

  Eph. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• d

  Ier. 17. 7.
• e

  confer with Hart. chap. 8. div. 5. p. 509.
• f

  Eccl. Pol. lib. 5 sect. 66
• g

  Exam. part. 2. de rit in admin. sacr pag. 32. Sect 6.
• h

  lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. Col. 505.
• i

  Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. sect. 69.
• k

  supra part. 1. cap. 1
• l

  supra cap. 1.
• m

  Infra. cap. 5.
• n

  Of the lawf. of kneel. pag. 115, 116.
• o

  De Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 126.
• p

  De rep. eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 138.
• q

  Pr•…•… in Perth. assem. part. 2. pag. 22.
• r

  Serm. at Perth. as∣semb.
• s

  Of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 10. p. 17.
• t

  Apol. part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 16.
• u

  Cap. 1. sect. 35.
• x

  Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 22. pag. 85.
• y

  ibid. cap. 23.
• z

  Annot. on Hebr. 11. 21.
• a

  Expos. artio. con∣fess. Angl. Art. 28.
• b

  De sacr. Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 29.
• c

  Zanch. lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 504.
• d

  Bell. ubi supra.
• e

  Cart∣wr. on 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18.
• f

  De orig. imag. pag. 245.
• g

  Ans. to the Ies. chall. of the reall pres. p. 74.
• h

  of the lauf: of kneeling, pag. 116.
• i

  Proc. i•…•… Perth. as∣semb. part. 2 pag. 92.
• k

  ubi su∣pra.
• l

  ubi su∣pra.
• m

  2 Cor. 5. 20.
• n

  g•…•…er. def. cap. 3. sect. 3.
• o

  Rejoind. pag. 296.
• p

  Cornel. à lapide com. in Mal. c, 11.
• q

  part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 29.
• r

  De f•…•…∣giend. idolo∣lat. homil. 1.
• Homines qui ex corpo∣re & Spiritis sunt cōstitu∣ti, corpore co∣lunt mate∣rialiter: Spi∣ritu forma∣liter, as Iu∣nius saith vpon Deut. 12.
• s

  1 Cor. 10. 20.
• t

  Com. in illum locum. Sect. 11.
• u

  Lindsey ubi supra pag. 81.
• x

  Ibid. pag. 92.
• y

  Ibid.
• z

  Of the lawf. of kneell. cap. 32. pag. 115.
• a

  De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 42.
• b

  Com. 1. disp. 54. sect. 3.
• See D^r Vsher. •…•…ans. to the Iesu. chall of Images pag. 499.
• Aliud est picturam a dorare: aliud per picturae historiam, quid sit adorandum addiscere, saith Durand Ration lib. 1. tit. de pictur.
• d

  manual. lib. 3. cap. 2. quast: 5:
• e

  ubi su∣pra.
• f

  Zanch. lib. 1. de vi∣ti ext. cult. Oppos. Col. 510.
• g

  ubi su∣pra pag. 88.
• h

  ubi su∣pra pag 69.
• i

  partic. def. cap 3. sect. 20.
• k

  part 3. cap. 3. sect. 45.
• l

  Serm. on Luke 1. 74 p. 991.
• m

  ubi su∣pra pag. 72. 73.
• n

  Ans. to the chall. of the reall pres. pag. 50. 51
• o

  Epist. 141. ad Cae∣sarian.
• p

  ubi su∣pra pag. 55.
• q

  ibid pag. 61.
• r

  alt. dam. pag. 809.
• Ea (vene∣ratio) potest esse etiam si∣ne cultu saith Scaliger de subtil. ad Card. exerc. 317. dist 3.
• s

  de sa∣cram. con∣firm. cap. 13
• u

  Of the lawfull. of kneel. cap. 8.
• x

  de rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6. num. 137. & lib. 7. cap. 12. num. 48.
• y

  ubi su∣pra pag. 70.
• (〈◊〉〈◊〉) part. 3. cap. 3. sect. 50.
• z

  ubi su∣pra cap. 21. p. 73.
• b

  de rep. Eccl lib. 7. cap. 12. n. 50.
• (1) Cartwr. on 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18.
• c

  Dido∣clav. ubt su∣pra pag. 808.
• d

  Lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. Col. 504. 505.
• e

  Serm. at Perth As∣semb.
• f

  ubi supra pag. 142.
• g

  Aquin. 3. q. 25. art. 2.
• h

  De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 12. •…•…. 43.
• i

  Franc. à S. Clara ex∣pos. artic. confess. Angl. art. 28.
• k

  Of the Church lib. 5. cap. 15.
• l

  Aquin. 1. q 13. art. 1.
• m

  Cent. Flosc. Tur. disput. Flosc. 26.
• n

  Of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 23 p. 88.
• o

  Synt. l. 6. c. 16. col. 125.
• p

  Eccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 55.
• q

  Vbi su∣pra.
• r

  Zanch. tom. 8. col. 521.
• We adore Christ as well in the prea∣ching of the Gospell and Sacra∣ment of Baptisme, as in the Sacrament of the Sup∣per, saith Cart∣wright on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18.
• s

  Vbi su∣pra.
• t

  De rep. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 11. num. 7.
• u

  Ostens. error. Fr. Suarez. cap. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13.
• x

  Supra Sect. 13.
• y

  Zanch. lib. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 504.
• z

  Marc Ant. de Dom. ostēs. error Fr. Suarez, c. 2. n. 13.
• a

  Burg. of the lawf. of kneel. cap. 32. p. 113. Pay∣body part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 4.
• b

  Vbi su∣pra. p. 94.
• c

  Apoc. 4. 10.
• d

  B. Linds. ubi supra, pag. 76.
• e

  Ibid. pag. 91.
• f

  Vbi su∣pra, sect. 15.
• g

  Paybody part. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 4.
• h

  Paybo∣dy ibid. Sect. 5.
• i

  Id pa•…•…t. 2 cap. 1. Sect. 7.
• k

  Dr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iren. lib. 1. cap. 1.
• l

  Ios. Hall. Apol. a∣gainst Brown Sect. 36.
• m

  D. Forb. ubi supra.
• n

  D. Forb. ibid.
• o

  Psal. 25. 1.
• p

  Lament. 3. 41. Psal. •…•…23. 1.
• r

  Psal. 5. 3
• s

  Dr. Forb. ubi supra.
• t

  Com. in 1 Cor. 1•…•…. 26.
• v

  Vbi su∣pra. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 104.
• x

  Didect. Alt. Dam. pag. 803.
• y

  Vbi su∣pra, p. 112
• z

  Ibid. p. 101.
• a

  Vbi su∣p•…•….
• b

  Partic. def. cap. 3. Sect. 38.
• c

  Alt. Dā. pag. 756. 782. 794. Sect. 26.
• d

  Of the lauf. of kneel. cap. 22.
• e

  De coro∣na militis.
• f

  de Iejun. cap. 2. & 14.
• g

  Haeres. 75.
• h

  hist. eccl. cent. 4. lib. 2 cap. 22. p. 150.
• i

  Magd. cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 135.
• k

  Epiphan. vbi supra.
• l

  Vbi su∣pra cap. 22 & 23.
• m

  Rep. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 6.
• n

  Alt. Dā. p. 784.
• o

  Lib. 1. cap. 1.
• p

  In Eph. 1 Serm. 3.
• q

  Cent. Magd. 3. cap. 6. col. 133.
• r

  De Orig. Templ. lib. 2. cap. 28.
• s

  Paréus in 1 Cor. 11. 21. & Calb. ibid.
• t

  Cartwr. in 1. Cor. 11. Sect. 6
• o

  Lib. 5. cap. 22.
• Quia Paulus has epulas sa∣cram C•…•…∣nam voca∣rit: Et quia scri∣ptum est apud Lu∣cam. Simi∣liter & ca∣licem post∣quam Coe∣navit. Quae etiā fuerunt ut arbitror causae, cur illi Aegyp∣tij de qui∣bus loqui∣tur Socra∣tes Lib. 5. priusquam ad miste∣ria acce∣derent laute coe∣narent, faith Ca∣saubone. Exerc. 16. 31.
• x

  Conc. Laod. can. 28.