The re-examination of two of the articles abridged: to wit, of the communicants gesture in the act of receaving, eating, and drinking: and The observation of festivall dayes

OF THE COMMU∣nicants gesture in the act of receaving.

BY the second head of the first book of discipline, drawn up in the first year of publick and universal refor∣mation, wee may perceive that our first reformers pre∣ferred sitting not only to kneeling, but also to standing and passing by, be∣cause they approached not so near to Christs acti∣on, and rested upon sitting not only because of the abuse of kneeling in former times, as is alleadged, but because most agreeable to the patern, which reason serveth for all times: Yea Master Knox in his admonition to England, printed anno 1554. ranketh kneeling among the superstitious orders, which profane Christs true religion: and in a let∣ter directed from Deep to Mastresse Anna Lock, anno 1599. he calleth the crosse in Baptisme: and this kneeling diabolicall inventions. In the ge∣nerall assemblie, holden anno 1562. it was ordai∣ned, that the order at Geneva, that is, of the En∣glish Kirk at Geneva, where Master Knox had been sometime Minister, bee observed in the mi∣nistration of the Sacraments: And anno 1564.

Ministers are referred to the order set down be∣fore the Psalmes in Meeter, which order is the order of Geneva, mentioned in the former act. This order was ratified by act of Parliament, anno 1567. and 1572. An act was likewise made anno 1567. that in times coming the King at his coro∣nation give his oath to maintain the true religi∣on then professed, and in speciall the due & right ministration of the Sacraments then receaved. This act was ratified anno 1581. and again 1592. No other gesture then sitting was used til the meeting above mentioned. Wee are then to de∣fend the gesture of sitting, and to impugne knee∣ling in the act of receaving.

Wee have the example of Christ and his Apo∣stles at the first supper, to warrant communicants to sit in the act of receaving: After the ordina∣rie washing of their hands they fate down to the first course of the paschall supper, thereafter they rose again to the washing of their feet, then they fate down again to the second course of the pa∣schall supper. Now while they were eating and consequently while they were sitting, Christ in∣stitute the Sacrament of the supper, and this is ac∣knowledged by Baronius the Cardinall, in his annalls, an. 34. num. 44. The Iesuit Baradas, in concord. Evangelist. tom. 4. lib. 2. Ancient and mo∣dern writers, popish and Protestant have recea∣ved this collection as certain truth. It was the

minde of the whole church of old, as we may see by the Ecclesiasticall hymnes, where Christ is brought in sitting with his disciples at table, when he institute the Sacrament.

Whereas some alleadge that Christ and the A∣postles kneeled: I answere, there is no likelihood at all: Christ fate when he brake bread, and gave thanks at Emaus. He blessed the bread when hee fate with the multitude which hee fed with five loaves and two fishes. Wee never reade that the Iewes kneeled when they blessed their meat. Master Paybodie granteth, that Christ and his A∣postles used that same gesture in blessing and gi∣ving thanks, which they did in receaving. Bel∣larmine acknowledgeth that they were sitting at table, when Christ said unto them, Drink yee all of this. We may gather from some circumstances and the forme of the celebration, that they fate for they could not stand upon beds, or between the tables and the beds, for their neerenesse to the table. If there had beene a change from sitting, which was the ordinarie gesture at the paschall supper, into kneeling a gesture of adoration at the Evangelicall supper, some of the Evangelists would have made mention of it, for they make mention of other changes. If there had beene such a change, then kneeling should have beene institute, which none of our opposits have ever maintained: for to what end should the change

have beene made, if not that that gesture might be observed afterward. Christ spake not prayer waies to the apostles, and the elements were car∣ried from hand to hand, and divided by the A∣postles among themselves, which is not compa∣tible with kneeling, when man is directing wor∣ship to God. Wee conclude then with Master Mouline, writing on the Lords supper, 1 part. pag. 136. that the apostles continued sitting at the table, to the very end of the action. It is true, Christ and his apostles sitting were not altogether upright as ours, but as a man may stand upright, or stand lea∣ning, so he may sit upright, or sit leaning. The He∣brew doctors call it sitting in beds: the English translators expresse it by sitting, and not by lying. Doctour Mortoun confesseth it was a kinde of sitting gesture. Master Paybodie, pag. 69. prote∣steth, that he holdeth the gesture of sitting at the Lords table in it self lawfull and commendable. What a madnesse is it then to drive poore soules from a sure, to a dangerous and doubtsome way?

The example of Christ and his disciples sitting at the first supper, is exemplarie for examples in setting down a patern, serve ordinarly for dire∣ction in times to come, if there be not some sin∣gular occasion to hinder him that setteth down the pattern to do otherwise. Bishop Mortoun in his late work of the institution of the Sacrament,

sayeth, that Christs example should bee a rule for us to observe, except in some circumstances, which only occasionaly and accidentally happened therein: and therefore taxeth the Iesuits, making light of Christs example, as if the example of Christ were no argument of proof at all. Mow∣line in his heavenly alarum, pag 56. sayeth, Christ and his apostles sate at the table without any kind of adoration, and that the first institution was gi∣ven for a patern; whereunto wee ought to con∣form. Now the washing of the disciples feet, the putting off, and on of Christs upper gar∣ment were ended before they sate down to the second course of the paschall supper, and con∣sequently a good space before the instituti∣on of the last supper. Time and place are commoun circumstances to all actions. The particular time and place when Christ insti∣tuted this Sacrament were occasionall. They might not eat the paschall supper but at evening, and therefore the Evangelical supper, which was to succeed to it, behoved to bee celebrate that night, seeing Christs suffering was so neer at hand. They behoved to eat the paschall lamb in a chamber in Ierusalem, and consequently the supper behooved to bee instituted in a cham∣ber, after the paschall supper. The number of such as did eat the paschall lamb, behooved to consist of few, betwixt ten and twentie, and

therefore they behooved to bee so few that night at the institution of the supper. Their man∣ner and kinde of sitting was a form observed a∣mong the Iewes at their commoun feasts, and at the paschall supper. Put the case that they stood at the first Passeover in Egypt, as it can not bee prooved, it were then extraordinarie, and for that night only, to signifie their hastie departure out of Egypt. Sitting was the ordinarie gesture used at all religious feasts: The Heathnicks sate at their feasts, made of the remainder of the sa∣crifices offered to their idoles, Amos 2.1 Cor. 8.10 to professe their communi•••• and societie with their idoll, or fellowship with devils, as the A∣postle calleth it, 1 Cor. 10.20. Our Lord institu∣ting his supper to bee the only religious feast to bee used in the Christian kirk, observed the same gesture which was used at the paschall supper, and other religious feasts. Christ might easily have changed sitting into kneeling, and very commo∣diouslie, seeing they fate upon beds, yet would he retain the same gesture which they used at the paschall supper. Time and place are meere cir∣cumstances, and the particular time and place were then only occasionall: But the gesture is more then a meere circumstance, as Master Pay∣bodie, pag. 34. confesseth. This supper was in∣stitute in form of a banquet, to represent not on∣ly our spirituall nuriture, but also our societie,

and familiaritie with Christ, who is to sup & feast with us. The Polonian Baroun Ioannes Alasco maintaineth further, that our sitting, eating, and drinking at the communiō table, is a figure and representation of our sitting at the heavenly table. So doth Musculus upon Matthow 26: and Aqui∣nas part. 3. quest. 60. make the Lords supper a type and fore-shewing sign of our glory to come. Christ himself expresseth our peaceable fruition of the joyes of heaven by sitting with Abraham, Isaac, and Iaakob in the kingdome of Heaven, Matth. 8.11. and by Lazarus resting in Abra∣hams bosome, Luke 16. that is, sitting at the hea∣venly table, and leaning upon Abrahams bosome, after the same manner that Iohn lay on Christs bosome when hee fate at this table, Iohn 16. and Christ himself at the institution promised to his Apostles, that they should eat and drink at his ta∣ble in his kingdome, and sit upon twelve thrones, Luke 22.30. Yea, this Polonian Baroun affirm∣eth, that they have slender affection to the glory of Christ, or our eternall felicitie, that would a∣bolish out of the kirk that image of our eternall felicitie in the celestiall glory to come, which is so much recommended to us by Christ himselfe, by the symbole of sitting at a banquet, to the un∣speakable comfort of all the faithfull. We see that at civill banquets, the time, the place, the number of persons, and other things are variable, but no

other gesture hath beene used but sitting, after one form or other, according to the custome of the nation. Even when men are invited by a king to a feast, they are honoured with sitting, in token of his familiar intertainment.

It appeareth by the practise of the Apostolicall kirks, observing still this gesture, albeit other cir∣cumstances of time and place, and other things which fell foorth occasionally at the first supper were not regarded, that the gesture of sitting is still to be retained. Christ himself, Luke 24, 30. sit∣ting at table in Emaus, tooke bread, blessed it, and brake it. This place is interpreted by sundrie ancients and modern writers of the ministration of the Sacrament: And Master Paybodie himself, pag. 86. is of that same judgement. The apostle, 1 Cor. 11. maketh not mention of sitting, because he presupposed a lawfull Minister, a table, and sitting at the table, and rehearseth only Christs actions and his words, uttered to communicants sitting at the table. Nor yet all his actions, and his words, as giving of the bread, blessing of the cup, either severally or conjunctly with the bread, and the precept to drink all of it: His chief pur∣pose was to correct the abuse of the Corinthiās, for not staying upon other: for the Lord that night hee was betrayed, said to all his disciples conveened together, Take yee, eat, yee, &c. The love-feasts and the Lords supper went together, the love-feasts in these times preceeding, and the Lords supper immedialy following. Doctor Bilson in his book

of obedience, pag. 653. sayeth, that whether they went before or after, they could not divide them¦selves each from other, but they must offer the same abuse, and disdain of the poor at the Lords supper, which was ministred to them as they sate at their tables, immediatly before or after their usuall or corporall refreshings. Master Paybodie pag, 86, and 94. thinketh, that together with the institution itself, after supper were grounded the love-feasts, by continued occasion, whereof his disciples might possibly for a time use sitting in the very act of receaving. Doctor Downam in his second sermon, pag. 61. confesseth sitting to receave the Sacrament, to have been used in the kirk in the apostles times.

Sitting in the act of receaving was continued at sometimes in the Christian kirk, evē to our times. Mornaeus in his first book of the masse, 1 cap. and 5 reporteth, that the Monks of St. Bennets order communicate sitting, for three dayes before Ea∣ster. Bullinger in his book de origine errorum, pag. 46 reporteth, that not only in their monastries, but also in cathedrall kirks they communicate sitting upon that day.

Now it was the custome of old, not only for the Monks, but also other Christians to communicat upon this day, and no doubt after the same form. The two thousand souldiours who were recon∣cealed to the Emperour Mauritius, about the year 1590. by the travell of Gregorius bishop of An∣tioch, receaved the Sacrament sitting upon the ground, as Euagrius reporteth, lib. 6. cap 13.

Doctor Lindesay in his defence, pag. 53, 54. alleadgeth the like done by the Scottish armie at Bonnokburn, in the dayes of King Robert Bruce. Socrates in his historie, lib. 5. cap. 23. reporteth of the Egyptians, who dwelt near to Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais communicated in the evening, after they had refreshed them∣selves with commoun meats upon other dayes al∣so: it is likely then they also sate. Alexander de Hales in the second part of his tractat. concer∣ning the masse, sayeth, the Pope communicateth sitting, in rememberance that the Apostles at the Lords supper communicated sitting. The Wal∣denses, who are justly called the pure seed of the ancient kirk, and have continued since the dayes of Pope Sylvester, or as some thought, from the dayes of the Apostles, sayeth Rainerius the inqui∣sitour, & their enemie, celebrated the communi∣on sitting, See Master Fox first volumn, pag. 209 edict. 1610. and their apologie against one Do∣ctour Augustine, which is extant in Lydii Wal∣densia. Luther exponing the epistle upon Saint Stevins day; sayeth, Christ so instituted the Sa∣crament, that in it we should sit at the Sacrament: but all things are changed, and idle ordinances of men are come in place of divine ordinances.

Zuinglius in expositione sidei Christianae, setting down the form of celebration used at Berne, Zu∣rick, Basile, and other neighbour townes, repor∣teth,

that they communicated sitting. The kirks of strangers at London, in Alascoes time commu∣nicated sitting: so do other kirks in the Low∣countries, even to this day. In Pol, such as adhe∣red to the confession of Helvetia communicated sitting, as we may see in consensus Poloniae.

By the gesture of standing is pretended more reverence, and thereby the gesture of sitting is indirectly taxed▪ and that lively representation of our familiar societie with Christ taken away, see∣ing it is not the usuall and ordinarie gesture at civill feasts.

As for kneeling in the act of receaving: First wee have not a warrant from the example of Christ and his Apostles, or the practises of the A∣postolick kirks after, and therefore they who receave adoration, they are secure, they have the example of the Apostles, whom wee read not to have adored prostrate, but as they were sitting, they receaved, and did eat: They have the practise of the Apostolicall kirks, where it is declared, that the faithfull did communicate, not in adora∣tion, but in breaking of bread, sayeth Calvin, Institut. lib. 4. cap. 37. sect. 33. Beza in his dispute against Iodocus Harchius, So like, as when the Lord truely to bee adored as God and man, at table did insti∣tute this holy supper, that the Disciples arose, to the end that falling upon their knees, they might receave that bread and wine out of his hand. And so like as the Apo∣stles were ignorant, how to deliver to the kirks the man∣ner

how to celebrate these holy mysteries, it is known well enough that the love-feasts could hardly or scarce at all admit geniculation. The Waldenses in the apo∣logie above-mentioned, say, that Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples, and his successours for a long time made no reverence, meaning adoration.

This holy action is denominate the LORDS table, and the Lords Supper: The use of a ta∣ble is not only to set meat on it, but also for the guests, or persons invited to sit at, and about it, and to partake of the meat set upon the table.

Wee require not of necessitie an artificiall ta∣ble of tymber: a Bul-hyde, or a plot of ground may serve in time of necessitie, and answereth analogically to a standing table, as the plot of ground did, whereabout the multitude sate in rowes, by fifties and fifties, Mark. 6. Neither do wee stand upon the fashion, whether it bee long or round; but wee require that the Communi∣cants alwayes sit table-wayes, so that they may observe the form of a feast or banquet: For in that this holy action is called a supper, it is im∣ported, that it was celebrate in the forme of a feast or banquet, as Piscator observeth in his ob∣servations upon Matth. 26. Wee do not require all the formes used at commoun feasts, but these which Christ the institutour, and Master of the feast thought sufficient.

Kneeling is not a gesture sutable with the forme of a banquet, or use of a supper table.

The termes, supper, and table of the Lord, very familiar with the Apostle Paul, seeme to require sitting rather then standing, kneeling, or passing by, sayeth Alasco. Kneling is not a gesture which hath beene used at feasts or banquets, but rather a gesture of supplicants. Plessie in his fourth book of Eucharist sayeth, that of old this holy Supper was celebrated in the forme of a banquet, whereat they did sit, a footestep whereof remaineth among the Benedictines. If these termes, the Table of the LORD, the Supper of the LORD, and breaking of bread had beene retained, and other new names not invented, as Sacrament Eucharist, then might easilie have been perceaved how harsh it were to use these phrases, They brake bread together kneeling, they compassed the table of the LORD kneeling, they celebrate the Supper of the LORD kneeling, which seemeth not so harsh, when wee say, they receaved the Sacra∣ment or Eucharist kneeling. Therefore the ancient Doctours, sayeth Mowline on the LORDS Sup∣per, part. 1. pag. 8. had done better, if they had hold themselves to the tearmes expressed in Gods word, &c.

The distribution of the elements by the com∣municants amongst themselves admitteth not kneeling in the act of receaving. Can the com∣municant bee both adoring GOD upon his knees, and at the verie instant bee reach∣ing the elements to his brother likewise knee∣ling

and adoringe. Yee have heard out of Cal∣vin before, that the faithfull in the Apostolical times did not communicate with adoration, but breaking of bread, as if adoration and breaking of bread could not consist together: But so it is that the Communicants ought to distribute, and reach the elements to other. Christ reaching the cup to his Disciples, commandeth them to divide it among themselves, Luke 22.17. This cup which hee commanded them to divide, was the Evangelicall cup, or, which is all one, the last paschall cup changed into the Evangelicall. Luke applieth Christs protestation, that he will drink no more of the fruit of the wine, &c. to the cup which hee commanded them to divide amongst themselves: but that protestation is applied to the com••••••on cup by Matth. and Mark who make mention only of this cup, in the verses immedi∣atly preceeding the protestation. If Christ was to drink incontinent after this protestation of the com••••••n cup, how could hee protest, that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the wine•• When the Schoolemen would prove, that wine was one of the elements at the Evangelicall sup∣per, they can not finde a proof in all the Evange∣lists, but in this protestation. Christ in this pro∣testation alludeth to the canon or custome of the Iewes, forbidding to taste any thing after the last cup, which was called the cup of praise. Now

the last cup was the Evangelicall or communion cup, or the last paschall cup, changed it into the Evangelicall. Further Christ gave thanks when he took the cup in his hand, which he cōmanded them to divide: and therefore Luke maketh no mention of this thanksgiving, when hee maketh mention of the cup the second time, because hee had made mention of it before. Luke then by way of anticipation bringeth in Christ, prote∣sting in the 17. verse, that the protestation of not drinking more, may bee joined with the prote∣station of not eating more, preceeding in the 16. verse: therefore when hee cometh to the order of the institution, verse 20. he omitteth the pro∣testation and thanksgiving, which are recorded by other Evangelists, because hee made mention before of them, verse 17. and 18. This anticipa∣tion, or inversion of order in the Evangelist Luke was observed by Augustine, and Euthymius, Ba∣••adius, and Suarez, Iesuits. Mewshius observeth other inversions in the same chapter. Christ gave ••ot the cuppe to every one out of his hand, which had been sufficient for dividing of it, ••f no further had beene intended. To drinke of one cuppe representeth fellowship in one commoun benefite, but not that communication of mutuall love and amitie which is represented by reaching the same cup to other The guests at ci∣••ill banquets of old, intertaining other courteously,

reached a cup of wine to other, which cup they called philotesia, metonimically, because it was a symbole of love or friendship, which name any man may justly im∣pose upon the cup of the holy supper of the Lord, sayeth Seuekius antiquitarum convivialium, lib. 3. cap. 10. If there were no more but reaching the cup from one to another, it were sufficient to exclude knee¦ling: for what reason were it to kneel at the re∣ceaving of the bread, and not at the receaving of the cup? Were it not also absurd to see the com∣municants reaching the cup to other, and the Mi∣nister to walk along to give every one the bread? Analogie requireth that the bread should bee di∣stributed among the communicants as well as the wine. Christ said in the plurall number, Take yee, eat yee, as well as drink yee, divide yee, and nor take thou, eat thou: therefore not only Piscator, Tessa∣nus, and Hospinian, but also Estius a popish wri∣ter, upon the 1 Cor. 10.16. gather, that they di∣vide the bread as well as the cup. Beza sayeth, that the manner of their sitting could not permit Christ to give every one the bread. Mouline on the Lords supper, 2 part. pag. 97. maintaineth, that Christ could not deliver the bread to every one of the disciples hands, especially considering that the parties lying half along upon beds at the ta∣ble, tooke up more rowme then they do now a∣dayes. This distribution of the bread, as well as of the cup is confirmed by the custome observed afterward. Master Paybodie, pag. 92.101, 104.

acknowledgeth, that the Communicants at the first supper did communicate the bread and cup one with another: as also in the Apostles times, pag. 95. Bullinger in the place above cited, repor∣teth, that in the Monastries of S. Bennets order, &c cathedrall kirks they communicated upon Maun∣day-thursday, panem azymum frangentes, & calicem invicem propinantes, & in tatum vetexis coenae vestigi∣um preferentes; that is, breaking unleavened bread, and reaching the cup to other. This was a footstep of the order observed universally before upon the anni∣versarie day, called the day of the Lords supper, which is now called Maunday-thursday. Frier Rainerius reporteth, that the Waldenses partici∣pate mutually, as was done at Christs supper. Bul∣linger in his 6. decad, sermon 9. that the supper of the Lord is then rightly celebrated, when the commu∣nicants distribute the bread and the cup among them∣selves. Gualter homil. 118. in Marcum, setting down the best form of celebration, requireth, that they break the bread to other, and distribute the cup. Tindall in his tractat upon the Lords supper, re∣quireth, that every man reach, and break to his neighbour. The latter confession of Helvetia, which is approved by many reformed kirks, and by our owne, recommendeth this breaking of bread. The Lords supper was denominate break∣ing of bread, from that rite or ceremonie of the breaking of the bread, Acts. 2. it is said, the di∣sciples continued in breaking of bread, and Acts.

20, that the disciples conveened to break bread, which is clearer then the former speach, and im∣porteth, that the disciples, or the faithfull them∣selves brake bread. Estius, a popish professour in Doway, writing upon 1 Cor. 10.16. sayeth, that in the primitive kirk they had the breaking of bread, which was first done by the Presbyteri•••• and deacons, and after them in smaller pieces, by the faithfull to whom it was given, that they might distribute the same among themselves. The Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16. sayeth, The bread which we break, is not the communion of the body of Christ? that is, the bread we break, distribute, and eat: For the breaking alone by the Minister is not the commu∣nion of the body of Christ. The Apostle rehear∣sing the words of the institution, sayeth not, Take thou, eat thou, but in the plurall number, take yee, eat yee: Yea, Durandus Rational. lib. 4. cap. 1. sayeth, that the apostles celebrated as Christ did.

The breaking of the bread serveth for two u∣ses: first, for the representation of Christs suffe∣rings; as also the pouring of the wine represented mystically the effusion of his blood. Bullinger sayeth, decad. 5. serm. 7. Wee break the bread of the Lord with our own hands, for we our selves are to bee blamed, that hee was bruised: our sins wounded him, wee crucified him, and wee believe, that not only hee suf∣fered for others, but specially for our selves. Gualtor in his homil. 295. on Matthew, sayeth, That eve∣ry one when they break the bread, acknowledgeth them∣selves to be the authours of his death and passion. The

other use is for distribution, and reaching to o∣ther, to testifie mutuall love and amitie. If two should drink out of one cup, and yet not teach to other, it might well be thought there were no great kindnesse betweene them. To divide the bread, and to eat together, in token of love and benevolence, was a custome observed in the ori∣entall countries, and yet still in sundrie countries of the West. Serranius in Iosuam, cap. 9. Of this use the reader may finde more in Bullinger, De∣cad. 5. and Gualter 118. in Marcum. Zuinglius in his exposition of the Christian faith, reporteth that some sitting together casuallie, and partici∣pating after this manner, were reconcealed, who before had beene at variance, and that this fell foorth often.

If none must give the sacramentall bread but the Minister, because hee acteth the person of Christ who gave his own bodie, by the same rea∣son they may not reach the cup to other, as the Apostles did at the first supper, where they re∣presented the faithfull, and communicated not as Pastours, but as disciples, as guests, as other Chri∣stians, as all our divines hold: and among the rest, Musculus cited by Doctour Lindesay, pag. 59. This Doctour confesseth the cup may bee reach∣ed from one to another, the Minister still acting CHRISTS person in his own place, pag. 61.62.

If none but the Minister must give the elements, because hee representeth Christs, person, then might not the Deacon in the ancient kirk do it, because hee represented not Christs person. Vas∣quez confesseth, that it is not forbidden by divine law, that the Sacrament bee ministred, or carried by a lay man, and applied to the hand of another Communicant, but by humane law. I would ask when the Minister cometh from his own place, and goeth along to deliver the elements, how doeth hee act the person of Christ, the Master of the feast? There can bee no other reason of this guise, but to nourish a superstitious conceat, that it is holier to receave it out of the hand of the Mi∣nister, who perhaps is a Iudas, then out of the hand of a faithfull brother, as if his hand profai∣ned or polluted it. Are not the peoples hands as holy as the Ministers, sayeth Master Paybodie, pag. 313. Superstition increasing at last, the com∣municants might not take the Sacrament in their own hand, to put it in their mouth, but it behoo∣ved the Priest to put it in their mouth: Such su∣perstitious conceats condemne Christ and his A∣postles, and the godly, who in their time distri∣bute to other, and deprive of the profitable uses of fraction, or breaking of bread. Neither is the representation or form of a feast or banquet ob∣served: it is rather like a dole of meat then a sup∣per. Further, this giving of the elements to eve∣ry

one severally, bringeth in confusion of actions, and private communions in the publick assem∣bly. For while the Ministers are giving the ele∣ments to every one, the people is in the meane time exercised in hearing the word red, or sing∣ing Psalmes, and heare not what the Minister say∣eth to the Communicants, nor do the Communi∣cants understand what is read, or sung in publick. Yea, sometimes two Ministers will bee speaking at once to sundrie communicants: so the commu∣nicants communicate apart, and might as well go aside, or to an Ile of the kirk to communicate, yea, and far better. The exercise is dead and cold, and they are forced to reading and singing in the mean time, to drive away tediousnesse, and so bring in confusion of actions. If Christ spake in the plurall number, Take yee, eat yee, when the communicants were so few, what would he have done if there had beene a great multitude pre∣sent? If the distribution of the communicants had beene observed by the ancients constantly, and at all times, as sometimes it was, kneeling had not entered in the kirk, the words outered by Christ at the deliverie of the elements had not beene changed, confusion of actions, and a private forme of communicating had not taken place, and the forme of a feast had beene preserved. Therefore suppose the distributing by the com∣municants were not recommended to us, nor

had any other profitable use, but that it is a bar to hold out so many corruptions, let us stand for di∣stribution. Our Lord was wise, and could devise the best form: Who can devise a better, sayeth Bul∣linger, decad. 5. serm. 9. then the Son of God himself? the supreme high Priest of his kirk: Yea Bellarmine sayeth, de Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 7. that it can not bee doubted, but that is better, & to be done which Christ did.

Kneeling in the act of receaving the sacra∣mentall elements is scandalous, and therefore to bee avoided. The papist is confirmed in his vile idolatrie, by our conforming with him in that gesture. Do they not vaunt, that wee are co∣ming home to them? The Ministers of Edinburgh in the instructions given to Master William Le∣vingstoun, subscrived also by them, when he was sent up to Court, have these words, The Papists seeing us in that gesture having some externall sym∣bolizing with them, are therby confirmed in their errour, as though that our practise were an approaching to them, and an ingrease to their idolatrie and bread-worship. Now we ought not to keep conformitie in the worship of God with idolaters in things other∣wise lawfull, if they bee not of necessarie use, and have beene abused. The Lord took this course with his own people of old, hee forbade them to round the corners of their heads, or marre the corners of their beard, or weare linsey-woolsey, or sow their field with mingled sead, or plant any groaves of trees neare the altar of the Lord, that they might bee unlike the Gentiles. The

Priests were forbidden to make their heads bald, or shave off the corner of their beard for the same cause. The ancients for the like reason re∣jected many customes of Ethnicks, Iewes, and he∣reticks, but were not constant in this course. As for the sun, the moon, the stars, and other crea∣tures, howbeit they have been abused, and ado∣red, yet because they are Gods creatures, and of necessarie use, they are still to bee used. Gold, silver, temples are profitable helps unto the ne∣cessitie of mans life. The gold, the brasse, and iron of Iericho taken into the Lords treasurie, were the civill goods of idolaters, and had no state in their idolatrous worship, as this kneeling hath. Wee should shun conformitie with pa∣pists in speciall, because the pope their head is the great Antichrist: and we are more troubled with rites, abused and polluted by him, then by any other: We dwell nearer to papists then to any other idolaters, & they dwell or converse among us. The equitie of this direction for not confor∣ming with idolaters, appeareth, first, in that wee show not as we ought our hatred and detestation of idolatrie, when wee retain any monument or memoriall of it. The brasen serpent it self a mo∣nument of Gods mercie, and benefite received 700 year before, was broken by Ezekias in pieces when it began to be abused and polluted with i∣dolatrie: far more ought the monument and me∣moriall of idols or idolatrie bee abolished.

It is true, kneeling of it self is not a humane invention, but in some kinds 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be lawful∣ly used, as in prayer: but kneeling in the act of re∣ceiving the sacramentall elements was never Gods ordinance, and therefore ought to bee for∣born, seeing in that act it hath beene abused to the vilest idolatrie that ever was, to the worship∣ping a piece bread, which the worshipper estee∣med to bee his god. To retain it therefore is to retain a memoriall or monument of that vile ido∣latrie, because wee use that same gesture in that same very act, and without necessitie. Next, in conforming with idolaters, we keep a stumbling block in the kirk, and both hardeneth the idola∣ter in his idolatrie, and lay a stumbling block both before our self, & our own brethren, by re∣taining such allurements and provocations, to commit the same kinde of fornication or idola∣trie. Wo bee to him that giveth offence, it were better that a milestone, &c. They ask what aptness•• there is in this gesture, to intise us to idolatrie? We an∣swere, it is the same form and fashion that idola∣ters used in that same very act, and for reverence as they did. Wee are more prone to idolatrie by nature then any other sin: therefore the greater diligence is to be used in avoiding of it. Doole∣full experience hath taught us how dangerous it is. The kirks in the Low-countries in their sy∣nods ordained, that the communion be not cele∣brated

kneeling, for the danger of bread-wor∣ship. The Polonian synods, holden anno 1573. and 1583. were grosely mistaken, in alleadging that none but Arrians or Anabaptists did sit: when as it is well known that this gesture of sitting was in use in sundrie kirks in Europe, of which wee have made mention before: yea, and Alasco be∣fore these times wrote more earnestly for sitting then any man else. But these Polonian synods were mixed, and consisted partly of Lutherians, partly of such as adhered to the Bohemian, partly of such as adhered to the Helvetian confess on: Yet they confesse, anno 1578. that it is neither the will of God, nor the custome of the purer kirk to smite men with Ecclesiasticall discipline, for externall rites. Our opposits pretend the re∣medie of preaching, and information of the peo∣ple, to direct their adoration aright. But it is better to fill up the pit in the way, then to set one beside, to warn the passengers that they fall not in. Watchmen are sometime negligent, some∣time blinde and ignorant, or corrupt and per∣verse: time should bee better spent, then in lea∣ding poore soules through dangerous wayes, which may bee forsaken. All are not alike capa∣ble of information: appearance of evill worketh more powerfully oft-times then the doctrine.

They alleadge that the command of the Magi∣strate, in things indifferent, taketh away the scan∣dall.

I answere, Can the supreme magistrate take away that aptnesse and fitnesse that any thing hath, to intise and provoke men to sin. The ma∣gistrates countenance maketh the scandall the greater, and hee strengthneth it by authoritie. Court-clawbacks tell us, we should rather offend the people then the supreme magistrate: but bet∣ter offend, that is, displease him, nor offend, that is, give occasion to the poorest soul, let be many thousands to fall into any sin, let bee so hainous a sin, as is the sin of idolatrie. The magistrate is not in danger of stumbling, or spirituall falling into any sin: for (yee put the case) hee esteemeth the matter indifferent. The Apostle had rather never eat flesh, nor offend a weak brother, for eating flesh offered to the idole, and sold in the mereat. And yet hee had greater authoritie in such mat∣ters, then any prince, or generall assemblie. The Belgick synods would not take so much upon them, but forbade kneeling, for fear of idolatrie. If the kirk to whom the rule for directing the use of things indifferent, in matters of religion, are laid down, to wit, that all things be done de∣cently, in order, to edification, without offence, may not presume so far, far lesse the magistrate.

Wee maintain that kneeling in the act of recea∣ving the sacramentall elements was not in use, or at the least authorized, till the great antichrist do∣minited. There can not be an authentick testimo∣nie

alleadged before the opinion of real presence & transubstantiation began to spread: or to come to a more certain date, for the space of a thousand years after Christ. There are some testimonies bearing the word adore, but the testimonies are ei∣ther counterfeit, or to bee understood of inward adoration, or of adoration in time of prayer, be∣fore they communicate: Or adoration is taken only for veneration: but of kneeling in the act of receiving we hear of no authentick testimony as yet alleadged. Doctour Burges is verie confi∣dent, that the communicants kneeled in Tertulli∣ans time, that is, about 200. year after Christ: for sayeth, he the people shunned to come to the communion table on the station dayes, because they might not kneel in the act of receiving, but it behooved them to stand on these dayes: and therefore, sayeth he, Tertullian in∣viteth them to come, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the bread standing at the table publictly, to reserve it, and carrie it home, and there receave it kneeling, and so both dueties should bee performed, the receiving of the Eucharist, and the tradition on these dayes observed. Tertullians testimonie is cited out of his book, de oratione, cap. 14. But the Doctour translated these words, Quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini, Because station or standing is then to be performed in receaving the bodie of the Lord: whereas hee should translate thus, because the station or fast is then to bee broken, after the recea∣ving of the bodie of the Lord.

For the word statio in Tertullians language is ta∣ken for fasting, or rather for some kinde of fa∣sting dayes. Wednesday and Friday were called station dayes, on which they fasted untill the third houre after-noone, and was distinguished from the other fasting dayes, whereon they fa∣sted of their own accord, as Pamelius observeth out of Rabanus Maurus; or rather as a late popish writer Albaspinaeus, bishop of Orleance, in his observations observeth, were distinguished from other fast dayes, which indured till the evening. The meaning of Tertullian is this, they were in an errour who thought that if they had receaved the Sacrament, their feast should bee broken, which should have continued to the set houre: Nay, saith Tertullian, Nonne solemnior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris? Shall not thy fust or sta∣tion bee the more solemne, if thou stand also at the altar of God, that is, tho comu••••on table, for so both are safe, both the participation of the sacrifice, and performance of thy service, that is, of the fast, sayeth Plessie in his answere to the Theologues of Bourdeaux: and in his answere to the bishop of Evereux, pag. 225. hee sayeth, that Tertullian would remove that scruple, that as soone as ever they had communicated, they thought their fast was broken. Albaspinaeus seemeth to come yet nearer to the sence, and sayeth, Tertullian would reprove these that would break the station or fast, as soone as ever they had receaved the Eucharist',

and not stay any longer in the kirk, howbeit the time was short, and some few prayers were outo∣red after the deliverie of the Eucharist, for they communicated about the ninth houre of the day, which was the third houre after noone, about the end of the fast on these station dayes: for on o∣ther fasting dayes which indured to the evening, they receaved not the Eucharist. As for standing at the communion table upon these station dayes, it was not because they stood only upon these dayes, when they receaved the Eucharist: Nam accepta Eucharistia, non licebat ex corum institutis, & ex veteri disciplina de geniculis orare, sayeth Albaspi∣naeus, that is, It was not leasome by the ordinances, and old discipline of these times to pray upon their knees, when they receaved the Eucharist. Further he pro∣veth, that upon these station dayes they stood not alwayes, but kneeled at their prayers: for the whole time was a time of mourning & afflicting of their bodies, but in these times it was a signe of joy, not to adore upon their knees. Erat apud antiquos, & nascentis Ecelesiae Christianos quaedum inum unitas, & quoddam genus goudiide geniculis non ade∣rara, see pag. 52, and 49. The ancients in these times thought kneeling not sutable with such an action, as the participation of the Lords supper, because it was an action of joy and delight.

Yee see then howbeit they kneeled other wayes upon the station dayes, because of their fasting and mourning, yet at the end, a little before their

dissolving they stood at the comm••un table. Now the reason why these dayes were called station dayes, was not according to his observa∣tion so called, because of the gesture of stand∣ing, but only by way of allusion to militarie stati∣ons, and watches at the gates of Princes palaces, that as they stayed in their watch, whether sitting or standing, so the Christians stayed in the kirk mourning, and praying, in these times of persecu∣tion, for peace and safetie to the kirk, till the third houre after-noon, at which time they com∣municate. It was the custome of the kirk, for a thousand year to stand upon the Lords day, and yet the Lords day was not one of their station dayes, which should have beene, if the gesture of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 only should make a station day, as Do∣ctour Burges would have it. It is grosse igno∣rance in the Doctour, to affirm that the station dayes were these dayes, wherein they stood in prayer, and at all the solemne worship of God, and to denie that they were set dayes of fasting. Further is nothing more evident, then that Ter∣tullian in sundrie other passages speaketh of sta∣tions, or station dayes, as dayes of fasting. Where as in the Re-examination it was given, and not granted, that they stood on these dayes, in time of divine service or prayer, now being induced by the observation of Albaspinaeus, Wee denie that they stood in time of prayer upon these

dayes, and therefore the argument is the more for∣cible for us; that notwithstanding of their humili∣ation, and kneeling upon these dayes of mourning and fasting, yet at the end, when they were neare dissolving, and ending their fast or station, they stood at the table of the Lord, and receaved the Sacrament standing. Howbeit this was not the right gesture, yet it is clear they kneeled not when they received the Sacrament. Tertullian maketh no mention of receiving the Sacrament in their houses kneeling. For a thousand years they stood even in time of prayer upon the Lords day, and therefore it can not bee imagined that they knee∣led, when they received the Sacrament.

But say our opposits, they used the same gesture in the receaving the Eucharist, which they thought fittest for prayer. I answere, they thought nor standing the fittest gesture for prayer, but kneeling, and stood upon the Lords day, to signifie their joy for Christs resurrection, which was a conceat taken up by them, not known to the apo∣stle: for they kneeled not for the like reason be∣twixt Easter and Pentecost, and yet wee see in the 20. of the Acts, the Apostle Paul kneeled. The custome yet observed to this day in the orientall kirks, to communicate standing, notwithstanding that other custome hath ceased, declareth, that they intended never geniculation in the act of re∣ceiving. If ever kneeling in the act of receiving had been in use among them, it had not beene left

off, considering mans pronnesse to idolatrie and superstition. It resteth then, that kneeling is only found in the kirks which were subject to the pope.

Howbeit this idolatrous gesture prevailed un∣der the reigne of the great Antichrist, yet there wanteth not faithful witnesses to stand out against it, as the Waldenses, and the Picardi. If at any time wee should not seeme to have communion with Antichrist we should most of all at this holy supper, which setteth foorth our communion with Christ and his kirk.

Yee see then, suppose that kneeling in the act of receiving were indifferent, yet in respect of the scandall, the danger, and inconvenients fall u∣pon it, we ought to oppose it. But we are now to prove, that it is not indifferent, but idolatrous, and therefore a hainous sin, whether we consider it as it is injoined by the act of the pretended assembly at Perth, or as the action may bee considered sim∣plie in it self.

Wee are directed by the act of Perth to kneel, in reverence of the Sacrament, which is idolatrie: for we are directed to kneel, in due regard of so divine a mysterie, to wit, as is the Sacrament, or as is the receiving of the body and bloud of Christ, to wit, in the sacramentall manner. Yee may also take up the intent of the act, by the intent of the Eng∣lish prelats, and their adherents, for conformitie with them is intended. Doctour Mortoun sayeth, that their kirk thought it fit, by outward reverence

in the manner of receiving the Eucharist, to testi∣fie their due estimation of such holy rites. Master Hutton sayeth, they kneeled, to put a difference between the ordinarie bread and wine, and the sa∣cramentall, to which they gave the more reve∣rence, because it is more than ordinarie bread and wine. Some of the formalists pretend, that they kneel because of the prayer outered at the de∣liverie of the elements: but that short bit of pray∣er, or wish, is ended before the minister offer the bread to the communicante, and bidde him take it, and yet the communicant is injoined to conti∣nue still upon his knees. Nor is kneeling injoined to them by statute, or their service book, in regard of prayer, but in regard of the Sacrament it self.

Master Paybodie pag. 334. doth freely confesse, that their prayer is not the principall respect of their kneeling, nor the principall respect upon which their kirk injoined it: And pag. 299. sup∣pose their bee no prayer used in time of receaving, hee thinketh never the worse of the gesture of kneeling. Doctour Mortoun, and Master Hutton, as yee have heard, professe they kneel, to testifie their due estimation of such holy rites, and more reverence to the elements then ordinarie bread and wine. Now to testifie more reverence to the elements by kneeling, is to testifie by adoration, which is idolatrie. Neither are wee directed by the act of Perth, to pray in the act of receiving, but to use that kinde of gesture in the act of

receaving, which becometh meditation, & lifting up of the heart, which also may bee done without prayer. But prayer can not consist with the act of taking, eating, and drinking. Wheresoever the publict intent of a kirk is to kneel, for reverence of the Sacrament, every communicant following her direction, is an idolater interpretativè, and so to bee construed both before God and man, what∣soever bee his own private intent. If any man re∣ceave the Sacrament upon his knees at Rome, or any other popish kirk, whatsoever bee his private intent, hee must bee interpreted to kneel, accor∣ding to the intent of that kirk.

But setting aside the act of the assemblie at Perth, which is only a null and pretended assem∣blie, we shall consider the action it self, wee will prove that it can not be done but for reverence of the Sacrament, or sacramentall elements.

The first reason shall bee this, The communi∣cant is tied, whether by direction of others, or his own resolution, all is one, to kneel with reve∣rence before dead and senselesse elements, when they are presented to him by the hand of the Mi∣nister. Wee can not kneel to God in prayer, but there are many things before us by casuall positi∣on, neither can wee choose to do otherwise. But if wee bee tied to kneel with reverence, when wee are to doe any religious exercise, suppone prayer, before such a creature, suppone but a tree, and is not likewise tyed when wee pray before

any other creature, our gesture of adoration can not bee without respect to the tree. God him∣selfe never appointed any creature to bee an ob∣ject to the eyes of man, when hee was to adore him upon his knees, but only directed his people to kneel toward a certaine place, where hee was present himselfe, in an extraordinarie man∣ner, or bound himselfe, by promise to heare from thence, as was the Arke, and Temple, where the Arke was. The Sacramentall bread is not a place of Gods extraordinare presence, or of the existing of Christs manhood substantiallie, or of promise to heare us from thence. It is i∣dolatrie, sayeth Perkinse, to turne, dispose, or direct the worship of God, or any other part thereof to any par∣ticular place, or creature, wi••hout the appointment of God, and more specially to direct our adoration to the bread, or the place where the bread is.

The uncovering of our heads is a gesture of re∣verence onely, and that only amongst some na∣tions, but not of adoration. Kneeling is a ge∣sture of adoration, either civill or religious, amongst all nations. I will not kneele civilly to everie one, to whom I uncover my head civil∣ly. Every one that standeth with his head uncove∣red, in presence of the king, is not adoring, as he is who is presenting his petition to the king upon his knee in their sight. Further our heads are no otherwise uncovered in the act of receaving, then in the rest of the time of the celebrati∣on, when wee are not neare the elements,

The Scripture is read, the words of Christ which he outered at the institution are still and often re∣peated, his actions which are divine and holy are reiterated; and sometimes we are singing psalmes. But adoration upon our knees can not consist with such varietie of actions.

The people 1 King. 18. fell on their faces, after the fite had consumed the burnt sacrifices, and the wood, and licked up the water, and not in the mean time: for it is not likely that they fell down, till they had seene what the fire had wrought. What suppose they had fallen down in the mean∣time, that they saw the fire fall down upon the sa∣crifice? Is it any wonder, that men amazed with Gods majestie in a miracle, fell down as astonish∣ed, to worship God? Charles the fift after his fare∣well to the wars, saluted the Spanish shore in such an affectionat and prostrat manner, as his meanest vassall could not ordinarly have saluted either him or it, without just imputation of grosse idolatrie▪ Doctour Iackson 〈◊〉〈◊〉 If there come into the kirk one that believeth not, and one that is un∣learned, and hear one after another prophesie, and finding himself convinced, and the secrets of his heart made manifest, were it any wonder, if he fell down on his knees, &c. 1 Cor. 14. yet if he fell down before them ordinarly, were it not idolatrous?

When it is said, 1 King. 8.54. that Salomon kneeled before the altar of the Lord, when hee prayed at the dedication of the temple. The altar

is not set down there as the object, toward which hee directed his countenance, when he was knee∣ling, but only as a circumstance of the place where hee was, when he prayed at that time. Hee kneeled upon the brazen scaffold, which was over against the altar, and spread his hands towards the heavens, not towards the altar. And suchlike, 2 Chron. 6.13. it is said, That he fell down upon his knees, before all the congregation of Israel, that is, in their sight and presence, and spread foorth his hands towards heaven: It is not said, that hee turned his face towards the altar. They turned their face ordinarly to that part where the Ark was, the place of Gods extraordinarie presence, which therefore in Scripture is called sometime God, sometime the Lord of hostes, the king of glory, the face of the Lord. Doctour Burges, pag. 7. sayeth, that the altar was not alreadie dedicated, but was in the doing. Likewise Micha 6.6. when it is said, Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and how my self before the high God? meaneth, that they bowed themselves before the high God, sitting between the Cherubins, not towards the Altar.

When they had offered their oblations, what if they had bowed towards the place where the Ark was, when they were offering to God? when wee are in the act of receiving eating and drink∣ing, wee are receiving, and not offering.

They pretend the sacramentall elements are on∣ly as objectum à quo significative, that is, an active ob∣ject

moving them to worship the thing signified or God. Put case that were true, it will not helpe them. Durandus, Holcot, and Picus Mirandula, and other papists professe, that they adored the prototype or samplar before the image, which put them in minde of the samplar, and spake in as ab∣stract a manner of their worship, as the formalist doeth, when hee pretendeth the purest intent hee can, in the manner of his adoration. And yet were accounted by other papists good catholicks. Vasquez proveth, that these Doctours made the image obiectum quod, the verie object passive of a∣doration, and that both the samplar and the image were adored together: For they used the same respect to the images, that other catholicks used, they uncovered their head to them, they bowed towards them, kneeled before them, and kissed them. And this hee defendeth to bee the right manner, when the image and samplar are adored with one adoration, the inward motion, and sub∣mission of minde being carried to the samplar, and outward signe of submission to the image, being transmitted by the spirit, or in thought and desire to the samplar.

This Iesuit reporteth, that in the time of the se∣venth synod, their were some enemies to images, who were content that images were brought in∣to the kirk, not only for decorement, but also to stirre up the remembrance of the samplar, that before them they might reverence only the sam∣plar,

but exhibite no signe of honour or submissi∣on before the image, for that (they said) was idolatrie: and therefore they would neither kisse them, nor bow before them; but standing up∣right before them, being stirred up to the re∣memberance of the samplar, they were carried only in their minde to it. These were called se∣miprobi, as wee would say mangrels. Yee see then that taking the image only as objectum à quo signifi∣cative, as instruments and meanes to stir up their remembrance, these mangrals would not kneel before them: for then, sayeth Vasquez, they should have adored them, which hee in his po∣pish judgement thinketh they should have done. So if the elements be used only as obiectum à quo sig∣nificativè, to stirre up their reverence, why kneele they before them. Nay, why are not the ele∣ments lifted up, as among the papists, after they have said, This is my bodie, (for, say they, it is made then a sacrament) that the people being stirred up at the elevation, with the sight of the signify∣ing object, may kneel in whatsoever part of the kirk it bee.

If our formalists used the Sacramentall ele∣ments, only as an active object to stir them up, they would not kneele before them in the meane time, more then when they are stirred up by the word, or works of God, by a toad, an asse, or a flie.

But say they, there is a great difference betwixt images, which are the inventions of men, and the work of God, or the Sacrament. But wee say, In the case of adoration there is no difference. If the historicall use of images bee lawfull, as some of them do now maintain, what doth the presence of the image hinder to fall down and worship, if their reason be good. And if the use of images to this end bee forbidden, so are also the creatures. Wee esteeme indeed more of the works of God, then of the work-man-ship of man. Wee owe more reverence at the hearing of the word, de∣cent and comely usage in the participation of the Sacrament, which wee owe not to images. Gods word and works are ordained by God for our in∣struction, and so are not images: But God never ordained them to this end, that in them, by them, or before them wee should adore him, or any o∣ther thing wee are put in remembrance of by them. The brazen serpent was set up upon a pole, that these who were stigned with the firie ser∣pents, looking upon it, might bee cured. Yet sayeth the Iesuit Vasquez, God commanded them to look upon it, standing upright, without any adoration, or signe of submission. The people of God of old kneeled not before their sacraments nor heard the word read, or exponed kneeling. God works are the book of nature, to teach us many things concerning God: But we must not therefore fall down before the Sun, or Moone, be∣fore

every greene tree, an asse, a toad, when they work at the sight of them upon our mindes, and move us to consider Gods goodnesse, wisdome, and power. When I am beholding a tree, an asse, a toad, and considering in them the goodnesse, power, and wisdome of God, I am reading upon the book of nature, contemplating, and gathe∣ring profitable instructions. I can not still bee contemplating, and in the meane time adore, kneeling in prayer, or praise, for that were a confusion of holy exercises. Nor yet after my contemplation, and preparatorie work to wor∣ship is ended, must I tye or set my self before that asse, toad, or tree to kneel, for then I should kneel for a greater respect to that creature, then to any other beside for the time, before which I might have kneeled casually without respect, and so the moving object shall participate of the externall adoration, my kneeling being convoyed by it to God, to whom it is directed by my spirit or affection, as Vasquez hath descrived the manner of adoration of images.

Where it is objected, that men bow before the chaire of estate, or the Princes seale, which are dead and senselesse creatures. I answere, Civill worship is conveyed ••••mediatly to the person of the Prince, by bowing before such senselesse cre∣atures, because men think it expedient to uphold the infirmitie of Princely majestie by such meanes. But God needeth none such, nor will have none.

Next, There is civill ordinances of the estate for the one, but their wanteth divine ordinance for the other. Francis Whit in his reply to Fi∣sher, pag. 228. sayeth, Civill and religious worship are of diverse beginnings and formes, and every thing that is possible, lawfull, and commendable in the one, is not so in the other. Augustine de civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4. sayeth, That great humilitie, or pestiferous flatterie, may bee the originall of many honours given to Princes, borrowed from the formes used in GODS worship.

Our next reason, Considering the action in it selfe, without respect to the act of Perth, to prove it idolatrous, is this, To adore upon our knees, when wee are performing an outward action, which is not directed to GOD immedi∣atly, and in that action are occupied about an ex∣ternall object, is idolatrie, unlesse that where∣about the action is imployed, bee worthie of di∣vine honour. Our taking, eating, and drinking the bread and wine at the Lords table, is not an action directed to God immediatly, as prayer, and thanksgiving is, not yet as Vasquez the Ie∣suit sayeth, is it an outward signe of adora∣tion.

Wee blesse and sanctifie the meat upon the ta∣ble for our commoun use, but then it is object passive, not of adoration▪ but of blessing and san∣ctification for our use. Next, Wee blesse sitting, or standing, but are not tied to kneeling: Yea, we read not in Scripture, that any blessed the meat

upon the table kneeling. Christ himselfe blessed sitting.

But to come nearer to the purpose, It were strange to see, after the meat is blessed, every one who is present to sit down upon his knees, with his countenance fixed upon the bread upon the table, or in the hand of the Master of the familie or feast, and to take, eat, and drink. Nature and custome teacheth us, it were rather a mocking of God, then a reverent adoration of him. But you will say, The sacramentall elements are holie bread and wine, the other commoun and extraordinarie. There yee betray your selfe, yee kneele then in taking, and eating the sacra∣mentall bread, because it is holie. Now to kneele in respect of the holinesse of bread, and wyne, is idolatrie. And the true cause of your religious respect, and bowing be∣fore it, is the holinesse of it. Wee are prone to conceat too highly of things set a part to holy u∣ses, as if they were of greater worth then our selves; for whose use they were instituted.

The papist thinketh hee taketh and eat∣eth the body of CHRIST, which by reason of the concomitance of the God-head hee adoreth. Neither would any reasonable man bee so absurd, as to take, eat, and drink, adoring; unlesse he be∣leeved, that which hee were taking, eating, and drinking, were worthie of divine honour.

It were absurd to kneel before an earthly king, and still to bee eating and drinking. But it may bee our kneelers bee grosse enough in the opinion of the reall presence, and wee heare too much of it.

They say, Wee may pray mentally in the act of receaving, eating, therefore wee may kneel or adore in the act of receiving, &c. I answere, first, Wee may not pray when wee are bound to ano∣ther exercise. In the act of receaving, eating, and drinking, wee should attend upon the audible words, the visible signes, and rites, meditate upon the analogic betweene the outward signes and rites, and the things signified, take, eat, drink mentally, and spiritually by faith. Our desires in the meane time are not prayers: Prayer is more than desire, it is a manifesting of our desires to God. The soule may send foorth short ejacula∣tions, like darts, in every ordinance, and these ejaculations may bee incident to all our actions, even civill, let bee religious, even when wee are eating and drinking our ordinarie meat & drink. But a set and continued prayer can not consist with other actions. In suddaine ejaculations no other gesture is required, then that wherein the motion of the Spirit of God shall finde them. If mentall prayer might bee permitted, it is secret before the Lord, and the signes of it before men should bee concealed. Thirdly, What necessi∣tie is it to pray kneeling in this act, more then at

other prayers at which yee doe kneel. It is clear then, yee kneel not in regard of that pretended prayer, but because yee are before such a crea∣ture. The like may bee said of thanksgiving. Ejaculations of thanks may agree with the proper exercise of the Soule, in the time of receaving, eating, and drinking, as it may also with our or∣dinarie eating, and drinking at our tables, but not a set thanksgiving, which should require the attention of all the powers of the soule, and can not bee done without diverting the Soule from the exercise proper for the time.

Prayer is a craving, our taking, eating, and drinking is not a craving, but a receaving. Thanksgiving is properly directed to God, so is not our act of taking, eating, and drinking. The Sacrament was called the Eucharist by the Anci∣ents, not for the act of taking, eating, and drink∣ing, but for the thansgiving preceeding, which was but a part of the action. The showing foorth of the LORDS death, by the act of eating and drinking, is but only a representation. The show∣ing foorth by word, is only a declaration o•• commemoration. Representation, or comme∣moration are to men, and not GOD, resemble preaching, and not prayer, or thanksgiving. The celebration of the action it self, is a profession of thankfulnesse before man for a great benefite, but not thanksgiving directed to God. God is honoured by preaching, prayer, singing, swear∣ring,

praising, and not by adoring only. To ho∣nour is more generall than to adore. It is yet ob∣jected, that in the act of receiving, wee receave an inestimable benefite. Ought not a subject to kneele, when hee receaveth a benefite from his Prince, to testifie his thankfulnesse? I answere, If wee were to receave a gift, suppose but a morsell of bread, out of Gods owne hand immediatly, we ought no doubt to adore upon our knees, but not, if by the hand of the creature. The person who receaveth the gift from the King, is supposed to receave it immediatly from the king: or suppose hee kneele receaving from his servant, mediat ci∣vill worship is not a rule for religious adoration, which should bee directed to God immediatly. Now wee receave the Sacrament out of the hand of the Minister, not out of Christs owne hand. Yea, the Apostles at the first supper adored not on their knees, when Christ himselfe ministred the Sacrament, howbeit upon occasion, and at other times they adored: Nor did they adore God the Father upon their knees, for the benefite they were receaving. The inward benefite Christs bo∣dy and bloud, is not the outward object, is recea∣ved by the soule, not by the body, by the godly only, not by all that receave the Sacrament, by faith imbracing Christ present by his Spirit in the soule. Now the act of faith, or believing, is not an act of adoration, nor is it expressed outwardly by kneeling. Wee receave, eat, and drink Christs

bodie and bloud, as soone as wee are effectual∣ly called, and begin to believe, and as oft as we believe the promises of the Gospel, when wee heare them read or exponed. CHRIST bodie is farre absent from us at the receaving of the Sa∣crament. We are united with Christ, and made members of his bodie, before wee come to the Sacrament, and doe not receave his bodie at e∣verie communion, as if wee had lost it since the former: and yet there is but one bodie re∣ceived at all the times. Wee are said then to take, eat, drinke Christs bodie and bloud at eve∣ry celebration of the Lords supper, because wee put foorth our faith in act at that time; and re∣newing the act of faith, wee take, eat, and drink by believing, that same bodie and bloud, which wee did before, our faith being strengthened by the outward signes and seales to that end, and so grow by faith in union with Christ. Further, the manner or forme of receaving a gift, should bee answereable to the manner of the offering, the nature of the gift, and the will of the giver. If a King call his Nobles to a banquet, it is his will that they sit at table. Howsoever then other∣wise, and at other occasions wee behave our selves as supplicants, wee are now according to our Lords will and pleasure, to observe that ex∣ternall forme of a feast, which hee hath left to his kirk, and to act thereat in our outward carri∣age

age the persons of guests, and friends, as hee cal∣leth us, Iohn 15.15. Therefore howbeit the in∣viter bee a great person, the manner of invitati∣on is familiar, to assure us of our preferment, and fellowship with him, howbeit there bee great inequalitie betweene us and him. Againe, if wee should kneele, because wee are receaving a gift, by this reason wee should kneele, when wee receave any gift or benefite from GOD: As for example, When wee are eating and drink∣ing our ordinarie meat and drink. If yee will say, the one is holy, the other commoun, then yee confesse yee kneele, because of the holinesse of it, and that is idolatrie. If yee will say, yee re∣ceave a greater gift, then when yee receave your ordinarie food, that is not more, but that then is a greater motive. Yet if it be called a gift, then whensoever, or whatsoever gift yee receave, yee ought to kneele. God deserveth thanks for the least of his benefits, because bestowed upon us by so great a Lord, and for his owne excellencie, which is the reason upon Gods part, that moveth us to adore him.

It is frivolous which is alleadged, that what we crave upon our knees, wee may receave upon our knees: For wee crave our dayly food, rayment, and other necessars upon our knees, and yet wee receave them not, nor use them upon our knees. It is as frivolous, That what wee crave of GOD

upon our knees in publict worship, wee may receive upon our knees. For wee may crave in the time of publick worship upon our knees, things necessarie for this temporall life, and so wee doe, when in the Lords prayer wee pray, Give us this day our dayly bread. By this kinde of reasoning, what I crave in private worship u∣pon my knees, I may receave upon my knees. But it is not the diversitie of the time and place where wee crave, or receive the benefite, more then the diversitie of the benefite it selfe, that is the ground of adoration, but Gods excellencie, as wee said before.

They consider not that these three things ought to bee distinguished, blessing, or sanctify∣ing the creature, or meane GOD hath appoin∣ted, either for our temporall or spirituall life, before the use of it, the use it selfe, and thanks∣giving after the use, the blessing before meat, the use of meat in receaving, eating, drinking, and thanksgiving after, blessing before the reading, preaching, or hearing of the word, the act it selfe, reading, hearing, preaching, and thanksgiving to GOD after, blessing before the receaving the sacramentall elements, the recei∣ving and participation it selfe, and thanksgi∣ving after.

They ask if humilitie and reverence bee not requisite in the act of receiving the sacra∣mentall

elements. I answere, Yes, in all reli∣gious exercises, hearing of the word, reading of the word, &c. But it followeth not, that there should bee humiliation upon our knees, because humilitie of minde is required: nor ado∣ration, because reverence is required. Is there no reverence nor humilitie, but in kneeling be∣fore dead and senslesse elements? Humilitie is an habit, adoration is an act. The act of humili∣tie is immanent, whereby any one resteth con∣tent with his owne ranke, and doeth not con∣ceat greater worth in himselfe then there is, specially in comparison with GOD. Adorati∣on is a transient act, whereby a man goeth out of himselfe, as it were, to direct some ho∣mage, and worship to GOD. Reverence is commoun to all the parts of GODS worship, and is not a distinct kinde of worship, as is ado∣ration. The pretence of reverence can not bee a suf∣ficient reason, for the altering the ordinance of Christ, and the opinion of reverence hath often beene the dame and nource of manifold superstitions, sayeth Bishop Mortoun upon the Lords supper, pag. 63.

Seeing kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramentall elements, eating, and drinking is idolatrie, and can not bee used but idolatrous∣ly, it followeth, that kneeling in the act of receaving brought not in artolatrie, or bread∣worship, as some mistaking counterfoot works

of old writers for genuin•• have imagined. The corrupting of the doctrine, with the opinion of the reall presence, the receiving in at the mouth from the hands of the priest, and ma∣ny other superstitious conceats, together with the worshipping of images, brought in kneeling. But it was ever idolatrous from the first beginning and birth of it, and can not possibly be pur∣ged of ido∣latrie.

FINIS.