A moderate, seasonable apology for indulging just Christian liberty to truly tender consciences, conforming to the publike liturgy in not bowing at, or to the name of Jesus, and not kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, according to His Majesties most gracious declaration to all his loving subjects concerning ecclesiastical affairs ... / by William Prynne, Esquire ...

SECTION II.

Whether these Passages in Bishop Andrews his Sermon at Whitehall, on Easter day 1614▪ on Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. concerning Bowing at the name of Jesus only, as a Duty of this Text, and his Reasons to evince it, be Orthodox or Heterodox?

His words and passages in that Sermon are these.

A Name he gave him; What name? not (inter) among the famous men on Earth, but (super om∣ne nomen) above them all; There is super upon super, another super to his name, no less•• then his Person: That, above all Persons, and This, above all names whatsoever: This name is named in the Vers••, and it is the Name of Iesus: But how is this name said to be above all names? What, above the name of God? We may say with the Apostle, when he saith, God did give it him, it is manifest, he is accepted that did give it him: But we need not so say; For, this is one of Gods own Names; I am (saith he) and besides me there is no Sa∣viour; How is it then given him? Accepit et ••omo quod quod habebat ut Deus: What as God he had, as man he received, with his nature his name, and the chief of all his names, the Name of a Saviour, for above all it is, above all to him, above all to us, &c.

To save, the highest Law, and the Name of a Saviour the highest Name, &c.

For the knee, two things. First, He would have it bow. Secondly, He would have it bow TO his Name; To bow the knee, and TO his name to bow it, this is

another Prerog••ative: He is exalted to whose person knees do bow, But he to whose Name only, much more: but the case is here otherwise, For his Person is taken out of our sight, all we can do will not ‖ reach unto it; But his Name he hath left behind to us▪ that we may shew by our reverence and respect TO IT, how much we esteem him, how true the Psalm shall be, Ho∣ly and Reverend is his Name.

But if we have much a doe to get it bow at all, Much more shall we have to get it done TO HIS NAME. 1. There be that do it not: What speak I of not doing it? There be that not only forbear to do it themselves, but put themselves to an evil Occupation, to find fault where none is, and cast scruples into mens minds, by no means to do it. Not to do it AT his name? Nay, at the Holy misteries themselves not to do it, &c. But to keep us to the name; This is sure, the words themselves are so plain, as [] they are able to convince any mans Conscience. And there is no Writer (not of the Antient) on this place, that I can find (save he that turns all into Alegories) but literally understands it, and likes well enough we should actually per∣form it. Yet will ye see what subtilties are taken up to shift this duty?

All knees are called for, and all have not knees: Here are three ranks reckoned, and two of them have none. What is that to us? we have, to us it is properly spo∣ken, and we to look to it; And if this were ought, that the Spirits in Heaven and Hell have no bodies, and so no knees: Why, they have no tongues neither pro∣perly, and then by the same Rule take away confessing to, and so do neither. But the Apostle, that in another place gives the Angels tongues, ( with the tongue of Men and Angels) might as well in this place give them knees, they have one as much as the other; And in both places, ‖ Humanum dicit, he speaks to us after the manner of men, that we by our own language might conceive what they do; For sure it is, the spi∣rits of both kinds, as they do yield reverence, so they

have their wayes and means to expresse it, by some∣what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the knee. They do it their way, we do it ours, and this is ours: Let us look to our own then, and not bu••ie our brains about theirs; but for us and our sakes, they are divers times expressed in the Revelation even doing thus, falling down before him.

Secondly, Why TO HIS NAME more then to the name of Christ? There want not reasons why: 1•• Christ is not, cannot be the name of God, God cannot be [ 1] annointed; But Iesus is the name of God, and the chief name of God, (as we have heard.) 2. The name of Christ [ 2] is communicated by him to others, namely to Princes; so is not Iesus, that is proper, Ego sum, & preter me non est alius; and ever that which is proper, is above that which is holden in common. 3. Christ is annointed, To what end? [ 3] to be our Saviour; that is the end then, and ever the end is above the means; ever the name of health, above the name of any Medicine. 4. But when we find expresly in [ 4] the Verse, this name is exalted above all names, and this act limited TO it in direct words, and so this name above them in this very particular, why seek we any further?

Thirdly, What? to the two syllables? or to the sound of them? What needs this? Who speaks of sound or syllables? The Text saith, Do it TO the name; the name is not the sound, but the sence: The cau∣tion is ea••ie then, Do it TO the sence, have mind on him that is named, and do his name the honour and spare not.

Fourthly, But it cannot be denyed, but there hath been Superstition used in it. Suppose there hath, and al∣most in what not? In hearing of Sermons now is there not Superstition in a great many? What shall we do then? Lay them down? Abandon hearing, as we do kneeling? I trowe not; But remove the Super∣stition, and retain them still; Do but so here and all is at an end. Indeed, if it were a taken-up worship, or some humane injunction, it might perchance be drawn within the

case of the ‖ Brazen Serpent. But being thus directly set down by God himself, in us, there may be superstition; in it, there can be none; and if it be in us, we are to a∣mend our selves, but not to stir the Act which is of Gods own prescribing. It was never heard in Divinity, that Superstition could ever abolish a duty of the T••xt.

That we set our selves to drive away Superstition, it is well, but it is well too that we so drive it away, as we drive not all reverent regard and decency away with it also; And are we not well toward it? We have driven it from our head, for we keep on of all hands; and from our knees, for kneel we may not; we use not I am sure. Sure, heed would be taken, that by taking heed we prove not Su∣perstitious, we slip not into the other extream before we be aware, which of the two extreams Religion worse endureth, as more opposite unto it: For believe this, As it may be superstitio••sly used, so it may be irreligi∣ously neglected also. Look to the Text then, and let no man perswade you, but that God requireth a reverent car∣riage even of the body it self, and namely, this service of the knee, and that TO HIS SONS NAME, ye shall not dis∣please him by it, ••ear not; Fear this rather for the knee, if it will not bow, that it shall be stricken with somewhat that it shall not be able to bow: And for the Name, that they that will do no HONOUR TO IT, when time of need comes, shall receive no comfort by it. And so I leave this point.

Thus far this Bishops words, whose great ••ame and estimation for learning, drew on many other Bishops, Deans, Prebends, Divines, Scholars, and Laymen to practise and promote this Bowing to or at the Name of Iesus, (formerly disused for the most part) as a duty of the Text, or a necessary Worship, or decent Cer••mony ground∣ed thereon, without any due examination of his words, Quotations or Reasons, which if soberly discussed, rather overthrow than ratifie his Conclusions. I shall therefore briefly survey them in the general, and then descend to discusse some particulars.

First, Be pleased to take notice of the mis-translati∣on of his Text, At the name, for In the name of Iesus every knee should bow, against the Original and all other English Translations extant, but that of Geneva; which corrupts both the English, sense, and meaning of the text; & renders it as incongruous English and Nonsence; as to translate these Scriptures, a Where two or three are gathered together IN my name; Receive one such Child IN my Name; Whatsoever ye shall ask IN my name; many shall come IN my name; Believe IN my name, &c. Into, where two or three are gathered together At my ••ame; Receive one such At my name; Whatsoever ye shall ask At my name; Many shall ask At my name; Be∣lieve, hope, trust At my name; O••, b sound IN the Faith, into ••ound AT the Faith, which is neither good English, Sense, nor Scripture.

2ly. Observe how he no lesse then ten times, or more changeth At his name, into Ad nomen, To the name of Iesus. He would have u•• bow To the Name; To his name to bow, &c. are Ten times repeated. Which, as it idolizeth the name Iesus it self, by giving divine honor and wor∣ship To I••, as a duty of this Text; so it justifies and makes much for the Iesuites and Romanists bowing to and adoring his name Iesus wherever they behold it written,c carved, painted, as well as hear it pronounced. Yea in some measure it subverts his pretended new Duty of his Text by this Nonsequitur: Every knee should bow To the name of Jesu••; Ergo, all Christians must bow their Knees To this Name Iesus, when ever it is pronoun∣ced in the Church, and they hear the sound thereof in reading of a Chapter, Epistle, Gospel, Collect, Prayer, Sermon, Homily, or administration of the Sacrament.

3ly. Consider his main Scripture cited to prove this bowing At and To this name Iesus, to thi•• Name only, not his Name God, Lord, Christ, or any other Name, is Psalm 111.9. Holy and Reverend is his Name. But is this name Iesus, the Holy and Reverend name, intended in that Text? Nothing lesse. For

first, this Psalm was compiled many hundred years be∣fore our Saviours incarnation, or his Name Iesus given unto him by the Angel, or imposed on him by his direc∣tion at his circumcision, Mat. 1.21, 25. Lu. 1.31. c. 2.21. What name was it then, which is so holy and reverend? the very Psalm it self resolves in direct terms, it was no other but Lord, four times repeated in it, v. 1, 2, 10. Praise the Lord, I will praise the Lord with my whole heart; &c. The works of the Lord are great, &c. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisedom; there being no other Name else used in the whole Psalm, nor in the Psalm next before and after it, viz. 110. & 112. That this title LORD is this holy and reverend Name, is further evi∣dent by the 1 Chron 16.7, to 12. & Ps. 105 1, 2, 3, &c. In that day David delivered this Psalm to thank the LO••D. O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his Name, Glory ye in his holy Name, Let the heart of them r••joyce that seek the Lord, Seek the Lord & his strength Seek his face evermore, &c. Ps. 103.1, 2. Bl••sse the Lord O my Soul, and all that is within me blesse his Holy name. Blesse the Lord O my Soul, &c. (Here is his Holy name above every Name; his Exal∣tation and Dominion over all Creatu••es thus follows) v. 19.20, 21: The Lord hath prepared his Throne in Hea∣ven, and his Kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the Lord ye his Angells that excell in strength, that do his commande∣ment, hearkning to the voyce of his word. (Here are things in Heaven bowing their Knees to him) Bless the Lord all ye his Hosts, ye Ministers of his that do his pleasure. Blesse the Lord all his Works in all places of his Do∣minion (in heaven, earth, and under the earth) agree∣ing with Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. and resolving LORD to be his holy Name above all Names, since every tongue should confess that Iesus Christ is Lord, in or to the glory of God the Father. Adde to this Psalm 142.21. My mouth shall speak the prayse of the Lord, and let all Flesh blesse his holy Name for ever and ever, Lu. 1.46.49 My Soul doth magnifie the Lord, &c. For he ••hat is Mighty hath magnified me, and holy is his Name. Therefore this

Name Lord, not Iesus, is the name that is holy and reve∣rend mentioned in Psalm 111. and the Name above eve∣ry Name in which every knee should bow, intended in the Phi••ippians, notwithstanding this Bishops and other Doctors fancies to the contrary; and the bowing of every kneee, a ‖ bowing of subjection of all Creatures to his Soveraignty, especially in the day of Judge∣ment, as I have already evidenced at large. Which I shall further demonstrate by these ensuing Scriptures,

Rev. 1.5, 6, 8, 18. Jesus Christ, the first begoten of the dead, the Prince of the Kings of the earth, &c. to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever, A∣men. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almightie. I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore Amen; and have the keyes of Hell and Death, Rev. 3.21. To him that overcommeth will I grant to sit with me in my Throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down in my Fathers Throne; Rev. 6.10 And they cryed with a loud voyce, how long O Lord holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our Blood, &c. And the Kings of the earth, and the Great men, and the rich men, and the chief Capt••ins, and the mighty men, and every bond-man and free-man hid themselves in the denns, &c. and said to the Moun∣tains fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. R••v. 11.15, 16, 17. And there were great voyces i•• heaven, saying, The Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the 24. Elders which sate before God o•• their seats fell down on their faces, and worshiped God, saying, We give the thanks Lord God Almightie, which art, and wast, and art to come, because thou hast taken unto thee thy great Power, a••d hast reigned. And the Nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and

the time of the dead that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy Servants and Prophets, and to the Saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great, and shouldest destroy them that destroy the earth, Rev. 15.3, 4. And they sung the song of Moses, and of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighy, ju••t and true are thy wayes thou King of Saints, &c. Who shall not fear thee O ••ord and glorifie thy name, for thou onely art holy, for all Nations shall come and worship before thee, for thy Judgments are made manifest, Rev. 16.7, 8, 9. And I heard the Angel say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and art to come, &c. And I heard another under the Altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgements, Rev. 18.8, &c. Shee shall be burnt with fire, for strong is the Lord God that judgeth her. Rev. 19.1, 2, 4, &c. After those things, I heard a great voyce of more people in heaven, saying Allelujah, salvation, ••nd glory, and honour, and power ••nto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are thy judgements, for he hath judged the great Whore And the 24. Elders, and the 4. Beast•• fell down and worshipped God that sat•• on the Throne, saying, Allelujah, &c. And I heard as it were the voyce of a great multitude, and as the Voice of many waters and mighty thundrings, say∣ing, Allelujah; For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth: Let us be glad, and rejoyce, and give ho∣nour to him, &c. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the Nati∣ons, and he shall rule them with a rod of Iron, ••nd he treadeth the winepresse of the wrath of God; and he hath on his vesture, and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, &c. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before GOD, and the Books we••e opened, &c. and they were judged every

man according to their works.

And then it will be mo••t clear, That the Names of God, Lord, Lord of Lords &c. not the name Jesus, (not once mentioned in all these Texts) is the name above every name; and the bowing, subjection of all Angels, Men, Spirits, great and small, good and bad before the Throne or Judgement seat of Jesus Christ, and his judging of them, the bowing of every knee; and their con∣fessions of him to be LORD, and GOD, in the glory of God the Father: the very same intended in Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. Isay 45.23. and Rom. 14

4ly Take notice of these his Hyperbolical expressi∣ons, which may prove very dangerous if not warily unde••stood, and quali••ied with some grains of charity and candor. Here is super up••n super: Another super to his Name, no l••sse then his Pe••son. That above all per∣sons (not excepti••g the Persons of God the Father, and God the holy Ghost) And this a••ove all names whatsoe∣ver: not excepting the Names of God, God the Fa∣ther 〈◊〉〈◊〉 HOLY SPIRIT, (no more then the other great and glo••ious names of Christ, Son of God, Lord, &c.) whose Persons and Names too are Co-aequal with the Person and Name of I••sus; Therefore to be equal∣ly adored, bowed to and honoured by all O••thodox Christians: whereas these his expressions, seconded with constant bowing•• only at and to the Name, Per∣son of Jesus, not of God the F••ther, or God the Holy Ghost, imply, yea make an inaequality in the very Trinity it self, and advance the Pe••son, Name of Jesus the Sonne, above the Person, N••me of God the Father; and Person, Name of God the holy Spirit; whose Deity the Eunomians, Macedonians, Samose∣tanus, Photinus, and their followers d••nyed of old (and Biddolph with others amongst us of late) as well as the Arrians denyed the Deity of Jesus Christ.

5ly. His words, That God requires this service of the knee, and that to his Sonnes name (Jesus) Ye shall not displease him by it, fe••r not, &c. They that will do no honour (he me••••s by this bowing at or to it, eve∣ry

time it is recited) when time of need comes shall have no comfort by it: Have mind on him that is named, and do his Name the Hono••r, and spare not, are such dangerous, bold assertion••, as never fell from any Protestant Di∣vines mouth or pen before his; and that in a Royal Court-Auditory; and cannot be justified by any of his Ad∣mi••ers; nor excused (as learned Bishop Morton con∣fessed to me when he had well considered them, and Archbishop Abbot too) from the censure of Name-worship, Will-worship; nor distinguished from the Papists worshipping of his Name, Cross, Body in the Eucharist, if compared with his former passages.

6ly. Observe this other collateral passage of his, Not to do it at his Name? Nay, at the holy Mysteries them∣s••lves not to do It. Which may have a harsh construction agreeable to the Doctrin and practise of the Chu••ch of Rome: Even to bow at, kneel to, adore the very Body of Christ in the consecrated Host, and Elements them∣selves (as the Papists do) which he hath left behind him in his Chu••ch (as the Bishop writes he hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Name) when he ascended into heaven, to shew forth his death till he come; This seems to be his meaning by his precedent words, His name he hath left behind to us, that we may shew by our reverence and respect to It, how much we esteem him. But to take them in the favoura∣blest sense, they import, That kneeling at or to the con∣secrated Elements of Christs body and bloud, in the act of receiving them in the Lords Supper, is a duty prescri∣bed by, or necessarily inferred from this Text of Phil•• 2.9, 10. as well as bowing at and to the name of Jesus, w^ch some Great Rabbies have thence concluded, with more confidence then judgement. For as there is not one syllable in the whole Text, Chapter or Epistle re∣lating to, or intended of the Lords Supper; and so not of kneeling, bowing at or to the sacred Mysteries in it; So doubtlesse things in heaven, and thing•• under the earth, did never yet receive or eat the holy Sacrament; much lesse adore or kneel thereat or thereto: Neither can this Text in any probability enjoyn the Posture of

kneeling at the Lords Supper, upon these considerati∣ons following:

1. It is most apparent, that Jesus Christ himself insti∣tuted his last Supper and admini••tred the consecrated bread and wine to all his Disciples as they sate at the Table, immediately after the Pascal Supper en∣ded in a Sitting, not Knéeling Posture; as all the E∣vangelist•• ••hus joyntly attest, Mat. 26.20. &c. Mar. 14.18; &c. Luke 14▪22. &c. Iohn 13.12. &c. When the ••ven was c••m•• H•• sate down with the Twelve, as Mat∣thew records it He sate down and the Twelve Ap••stles with him. So Luke•• And as They Sate and did eat, after∣ward Iesus took ••read, &c (So Mark,) And said, Take, ••at, this i•• my body, &c. Compar••d with Luke 22.27. Whether is gr••ater, He that si••teth at Meat, or he that serveth? Is not ••e that Sitteth at M••at? but I am among you as he that serveth (spoken by Christ to the Apostles at and while they sate receiving the Lords Supper, or apply∣ed by this Evangelist to that Season) And with Luke 24.30. (wh••ch some Protestants and most Papists ap∣ply to this Sacrament, after Christs Resurrecti••n) And it came to passe as he sate at meat with them; He took Bread, and blessed it, and brake and gave to t••em. Therefore Christ instituted, and the Apost••es received the Sacrament sitting, without all dispute.

2ly. It was the constant usage and custome of the Jewish Nation, yea the practise of Christ & his Apostles to Sit at all their Civil and Sacred Fe••sts, Suppers, Sacri∣fices, R••pasts, as is most evident by all these ensuing Texts, most express in point, Gen. 27.19. c 37.25. c 43.33. Exod. 16 3. ••ev. 32.6 Judg. 19.6. 1 Sam. 9.22. c. 16.11. c. 19••5, 24, 25 34. c. 20 24 Ruth 2.14. 1 Kings 10.4, 5. c. 13.19, 20. c. 15.35 2 Chron. 9.4. Ps. 26.4•• 5. Prov. 23. 1 Cant. 1.12. Ezech 44.3 Mich. 4.4. Neh. 8•• 7. Esther 3.15. c. 7.7. &c. Mat. 14.19, 20. c. 15 35. c. 26.6, 7. Lu. 14.7, 8, 9, 10. c. 17.7, 8. c. 7.36, 37 c. 9.14. Marke 2.15, 16. c. 13.3, 4. c. 6.39. &c. John 6.10, 11, &c. c. 12.1, 2. Act•• 10.41. Mar. 8.6. c. 6.

21, 22, 26. 1 Cor. 8.10. c. 10.9. Lu. 22.14, 27, 30. Therefore no doubt they all ••sed this Ge••tur•• of Si••∣ting, not kneeling at the eating and drinking the sa∣cred Mysteries of the Lords Supper, as well as of the Passeover, a Type only of the Lords Supper; whic•• the Jewes alw••ies received Sitting, after t••eir deliver∣ance ••rom the Ae••yptian bondage (though mo••t con∣jecture they did eat it St••nding in Aegypt when fir•••• in••tituted, though the Text doth not express it) as is proved at large by learned Francis Tremelius on Mat. c. 26.20. Gulielm. Stucki•••• Antiqu. Conv. l. 2. c. 34. and others, against the error of Chrysostom, ••heophilact, and others who thought the Jewes, and our Saviour Chri••t with his Disciples did eat it standing, not sitting.

4ly. The Jews and people of God, yea Heathens too, in their Solemn publick and private Fasts, Prayers, Sacrifices, Devotions usually SATE (not Kneeled) down before the Lord and his Prophets, witnesse Judg. 20.26. 1 Sam. 1.9 2 Sam. 7.18. 1 Chron. 17.16. Ezra. 9.4. Neh. 1.4. Ps. 137.1. Gen. 31.10 1. Kings 19.4. Isay 52.2. c. 3.26. c. 47.1, 5, 8. Job 2.8, 12. Num. 2.10. Ezech. 14.12. c. 20.12. c. 26.16 c. 33.31. Mich. 7.8. Zech. 4.8. Lu. 1.79. Lu. 10.13. c. 8.35. Mat. 27.61. Deut. 33.3•• 1 Cor 14 30. Jam. 2.3. Yea we read that Christ usually SATE when he instructed the people; Mat. 13.1, 2•• &c. 26.55. he said, I sate dai∣ly with you teaching in the Temple: yea he SITS now at his Fathers own right hand in heauen, making intercession for u••. Col 3.1. Ps. 110.1. Rom. 8.34. Hebr. 1.3 c. 10.12. Therefore it is more than probable (from this consideration) that Christ and his Apostle SATE nor kneeled at the Lords Supper, this gesture of Sitting be∣ing a gesture of humility (as St. Augustine defines) as well as Kneeling, and more frequently used in daies, duties of fasting and humiliation, than any other posture, a•• the premised Scriptures evidence, or than falling down up∣on the knees to pray on such daies as these, of which we find one onely President in Scripture, Ezra 9.5. and

that after long sitting down astonied, v. 3, 4. which suffi∣ciently refutes the error of those, who repute Kneeling the fittest, humblest gesture both in Prayer, and receiving the Sacraments, though they use it not in the Act of Bapti∣zing.

4ly. That Chrysostom, Theophilact, Calvin, Camerari∣us, Beza, and others on Mat. 26.20. Mar. 14.18, &c▪ Lu: 22.14. are of opinion, that Christ and his Apostles did eat the Pascal Supper standing; which being ended, Deinde recumbentes, & recumbentibus tradidit suum Sacramentum: Primum enim perfecit significatum, de∣inde verum perfecit: & recubuisse proprium Pascha traditurus. Peracto selenni Pascharitu, ut caenaret r••cu∣buisse interpretor: learned Gulielmus Stuckius, Antiqu. Convivinalium, l. 2. c. 24. De more Sedendi ad Mensam, de sedibus atque sellis, proves at large, that it was the general custom of the Iews, as likewise of the Grecians, Romans, and most other Nations in their Civil and Sacred Feasts, to sup and eat SITTING; and that Christ and his Disciples did institute and eat the Lords Supper Sit∣ting, which Buxdorfius, and Antonius Walaeus Com∣mentarie on Mat. 26.20. prove at large, to whom I refer the Readers for fuller satisfaction.

5ly. This truth of our Saviours and his Apostles Sitting at the Lords Supper, That Christ administred and his Disciples received the Lords Supper Sitting, is so apparent, that the Papists themselves (who, as most affirm) introduced Kneeling at the Lords Sup∣per to adore the Consecrated Elements, and that the Priests might with more ease put the Bread into the Receivers mouths, which themselves must not touch nor handle) in most of their Mass-books, aM••ssals, B••e∣viaries, Howers, and other Books of Devotion, picture our Saviour in their Masses and Festivall, De Caena Domini, sitting with his 12. Disciples round about a Table administring the Lords Supper to them SITTING, not Kneeling. And they have also compiled sundry Hymns, and Anthems, expressing this their posture

of Sitting at the Lords Supper, viz

Rex Sedet in Caena turba cinctus Duodena Se tenet in manibus, se cibat ipse cibus, &c And bIn supremae nocte caenae recumbens cum Fratribus Cibus turbae duodenae se dat suis manibus.

And some of their c Schoolmen debate at large, Whether his Body there present under the Elements after Consecration (as they hold) be not now SITTING, not lying on the Altar; because he first instituted it SIT∣TING? as they unanimously grant; and is now SIT∣TING at Gods right hand in heaven.

6ly. All foreign d Protestant Divines and Com∣mentators I have seen on the Evangelists, joyntly grant and assert, that Chist instituted, and his Apostles re∣ceived the Lords Supper sitting; and our own Martyrs, Writers, both used and writ for the use, continu∣ance, and revival of this gesture of Sitting, as Mr. Wil∣liam Tyndal, e Thomas Beacon, in their Workes, printed cum Privilegio long before Mr. Cartwright and others raised this Cont••ove••sie; and Mr. Hooker, Bp. Morton Dr. Iohn burges, with others who have writ in defence of kneeling at the Sacrament, acknowledge it for a truth. Whence f Dr. Boyes a Dean of Canterbury in his Pestil on St. Stephens day, thus argues for the change of this po∣sture used by Christ & his Apostles. Concerni••g Kneeling at the Lords Supper, If the Church have power and autho∣rity ••o change the time, commanding us to receive the Com∣munion in the morning, whereas Chirsts was in the g night; to change the place, whereas Christ ordained it in a h Private house, we communicate in a Temple.

To change the Number and quality of the Persons deli∣vering the Sacrament unto more than twelve, and to Women as well as Men; I see no reason but it hath au∣thority to change the Gesture. The Time was alte∣red, because for this Sacrifice the Morning is the most fit time; the Place was altered, because the Church

was the most fit place. The Gesture was altered also (being a matter not of the Sacraments essence, but of outward Order only,) because Kneeling is the most fit gesture, for Protestants especially, who deny the gross real presence, and hold the Lords Supper an Eucha∣rist or thanksgiving unto God, for the redemption of the World by the death of his Son; giving of thanks is a part of Prayer, and in Prayer no gesture so fit as Kneeling.

So that by this Doctors confession, Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians used the gesture of Sit∣ting, not Kneeling at the holy Mysteries; till the Church by her own Authority, in after ages, changed it into Kneeling. I wonder therefore much at Mr. Thomas Pay∣body hi•• bold assertion in his Iust Apology for the gesture of Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lords Supper, London 1629. part 2. p. 49. I do avow, that it is impos∣sible to demonstrate, so, as the Consci••nce may infallibly build thereupon, that either Christ or his Apostles Sate in the Eucharistical Supper: and at a Great Doctors as∣sertion, that they kneeled at it, and received only the Paschal Supper Sitting; when all the premised Scrip∣tures, Authors, and sundry more resolve the contrary.

What Church it was that changed this Gesture, and when, how, or for what cause she did it, Dr. Boyes defines not. But learned Thomas Beacon, Prebend of Canterbury, long before he was Dean, in his Catechism printed cum Privilegio with his Works, London 1563. (dedicated ••o all the Archbps. & Bp••. of England, and applauded with some of their Panygerick Verses in commendation of his Piety and Learning) gives us this account thereof, & of these Gestures of Kneeling & Sitting. Albeit I know & confess that Gestures themselves be indifferent, yet I could wish all such Gestu••es to be avoided, as have outwardly any appearance of evil, according to this saying of St. Paul, Abstain from all evil appearance. And forasmuch as Kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ at the receiving of the Sacrament, thorow the doctrin of the Papists, although of it self it be indifferent, yet

I could wish it were taken away by Authority of the Higher Powers. Why so? for it hath an appearance of evil. When the Papists had made of the Sacramen∣tal Bread and Wine a God, and had taught and commanded the People to worship it as God, than gave they commandement streightwaies, that all the People should with all Reverence Kn••el unto it, Worship and Heno••r it. And by this means the Gesture of Kneeling crept in, and is yet used in the Church of the Papists, to declare, That they Wor∣ship the Sacrament as their LORD GOD and SA∣UIOUR. But I would wish with all my heart that either their Kneeling at the Sacrament were taken away, or else that the People were taught, that that out∣ward Reverence was not given to the Sacrament or out∣ward sign, but to Christ which is represented by the Sacra∣ment. But the most certain and sure way is, utterly to cease from Kneeling, that there may outwardly appear no appearance of evil, according to the comman∣dement of St. Paul: lest the Enemies by the continuance of Kneeling should be confirmed in their Error, and the Weaklings offended and plucked back from the truth of the Gospel; Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due unto none but God alone. Therefore when Sathan l commanded our Saviour Christ to kneel down before him and worship him; he answered, It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. As concerning Sitting at the Lords Table, which is also used in certain refor∣med Churches, if it were received by Publick authority and common consent▪ and might conveniently be used in our Churches, I could allow that Gesture best. For as it is not to be doubted but that Christ and his Dis∣ciples Sate at the Table, where Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which use was also observed in the Primitive Church a long time after; so likewise is it most come∣ly, that we Christians follow the Example of our Master Christ and of his Disciples: nothing can

be unreverently done that is done after the example of Christ and of his Apostles: We come together to eat and drink the holy mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, we have a Table set before us, is it not meet and convenient that we sit at our Table? The Table being prepared who standeth or kneeleth at his meat? Yea rather who sitteth not down? When C••rist fed the people, he bade them not knee•• nor stand upon their feet, but he commanded them to sit down: which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eat and drink, which thing we do at the Lords Table: Neither doth the ••itting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her glory; for as the standing of the Iews at the eating of the Lords Passover, signified, that there was yet to come another Doctrine then the Law of Moses, even the preaching of the glorious Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Christ Iesus; and other Sacraments than Circumcision and the Passover, even the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords S••pper; So in like manner the sitting of the Christian Communicants at the Lords Table, doth signifie, preach and declare unto us, that we are come to our jour∣nies end concerning Religion, and that there is none other Doctrine, nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then these only, which we have received of Christ the Lord. And therefore we, sitting down at the Lords Table, shew by that gesture, that we are come to the perfecti∣on of our Religion, and look for none other Doctrine to be given unto us. Thus this antient Lea••ned Prebend. Mr. Roger Cutchud some years before him, in his first and second Sermons of the Sacrament, Anno 1552. printed Cum Privilegio 1560. determine•• the like in these words, Many comming to the Lords Table do mis-behave themselves, and so do the lookers on, in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling and bowing their bodies, and knocking their breasts, and with elevating of their hands: If it were to be elevated and shewed to the standers by, as it hath been used, Christ would have elevated it above his head; He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples, bidding them to eat it, and not to hold up their

hands; to receive it, and not to worship it: And so deli∣vered it to them Sitting, and not Kneeling. Only God is to be so honoured with this kind of ••everence, and no Sacrament; For God is not a Sacrament, neither is the Sacrament God: Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did; if thou wilt be more devout then they w••r•••• be not deceiv••d, but beware that thy Devotion be not Idolatry. So he.

As for Dr. ••oyes (with Bishop Andrews, and o∣thers) reason for the Churches changing Christs, his Apostles, and the Primitive Churches Sitting at the Lords Supper, into Kneeling; Because there is giving of th••nks in the Lords Supper, (which is there••ore stiled the Eucharist,) which is a part of Prayer; and in Prayer no g••stur•• so fit as Kneeling; this is very weak and unsatis∣factory to many judicious Christian••. 1 Because by this Reason all Christians and Kneelers at the Lords Sup∣per, ought not to sit, but kneel at their own Tables too, when they eat and drink, because they do, or ought to pray▪ and give thanks to God, before and after meat, and blesse their meat, as our Saviour did the Sa∣cramental bread and wine, in imitation of the Custom of the Iews consecrating and blessing their meat and drink at their Feasts, and Tables in their private houses, as Guliel. Stuckiu••, with others cited by him, & ‖ Walaeus, Ainsworth, Buxdorfius▪ prove most amply. But Christ, though be gave thanks and blessed the bread and wine at his last Sup∣per, did not kneel, but sate with his Apostles at the Table, both when he blessed and distributed the Ele∣ments, as the premises evidence: Yea when he so∣lemnly bless••d and distributed the Loaves and Fishes to the people, and th•• bread he did eat with his twelve Disciples, he made them sit down (not kneel) both before and whiles he blessed them, and gave thanks, and did eat sitting, Mat. 14 19. Mark 6.39.40, 41. chap. 8.6 Iohn 6.10, 11. Luke 24.30. and all Christians still do the like at their own Tables: This therefore can be no sufficient reason to change sitting into kneeling. 2ly. If Thanksgi∣ving

be a part of Prayer, and therefore to be performed kneeling, as the fittest posture, not sitting, or standing, pray why do these e Kneelers teach us, That we ought to stand up at Gloria Patri, and rise up from our knees and seats to repeat it? and some Popish Canons enjoyn all to stand up while it is repeated? Is it not a Thanksgi∣ving, a Blessing, and so a part of Prayer, as well as the Eucharist? They must therefore kneel at that for the future, or else disclaim this reason, and their standing up at it. 3ly. The Priests and others used to stand up to give praise and thanks to God, 2 Chron 20.19. 1 Kings 8.14, 15. Yea the Israelites more usually stood, then kneeled, when they prayed to God in publick or private, as is evident by 1 Kings 8.14 2 Chron. 20.5. chap. 9.13. Gen. 19▪27. Levit. 9.5. Deut. 10 8. chap. 29▪ 10. 2 Chron. 29.11. Ezech. 44.11, 15. Ier. 15.1. chap. 18 20. And not only the Pharisee, but humble Publican in the Gospel, stood not kneeled when he pray∣ed with a dijected face and spirit, Lord be mercifull to me a sinner, Luke 18.11, 13. yea Christs Disciples likewise stood when they prayed, and used the Lords Prayer, and that by Christs approbation, if not ex∣presse precept, Mark 11.25. When ye stand praying, forgive, &c. which relates to Mat. 6.14. immediately following the ••ords Prayer, which we never read the Apostles used kneeling, but standing only, and that by Christs approbation and command: How then can kneeling be the fittest gesture in Prayer, and for the Lords Prayer especially, which most Bishops and Mi∣nisters kneel down to say at the end of their own Prayers before their Sermons, which they make stand∣ing, not kneeling? Why stand or kneel they not a like at both, and contradict the Apostles practise as well in kneeling at the Lords Prayer, as at the Lords Supper, when as they stood at the one, and s••te at the other? Is not this to bid a Non-obstante to Christ and his Apostles? To controul and censure their practise, gesture, instead of imitating them? To Lord it

over Gods people and inheritance, and deprive them of that Christian Liberty which Christ himself hath purchased for them? 4ly. There is not one precept nor president in the Bible for Kneeling at the Lords Supper, but many direct Texts and Presidents that Christ and his Apostles received it sitting, whose ex∣amples we ought to imitate, rather then any Doctors Phantasmes. No precept in the Old Testament or New, and very few presidents in either for Kneeling in Prayer, especially in publick Prayer: There are many Presi∣dents for sitting and standing both in publick and pri∣vate Prayers, ••ast••, Humiliations, in the Texts foreci∣ted, and the Primitive Church, Christians for above 800. years after Christ, on all Lords dayes throughout the year, and from Easter till Whitsontide, constantly prayed stand∣ing, not kneeling, in honour and memory of Christs Resur∣rection, without bowing at his name Iesus, or kneeling at the Lords Supper, for ought appears by any Coun∣cil, Father, or Ecclesiastical History; the places of a St Ambrose, and b Aug••stine, produced by the Papists for Adoration of the Hostia, and by others for kneeling at the c Sacrament (grounded upon a mis∣translation and mistake of Psal. 99.5. Adore and wor∣ship his Foot-stool, instead of at his Foot-stool, interpreted his holy Hill, vers. 9. not the flesh of Christ) prove neither the Sacraments Adoration, (not there mentioned) nor Kneeling in the Act of receiving, much lesse the Monkish story of the Macedonian woman, recorded by d Nicephorus, e Sozomen▪ and the f Century Writers, (much urged of late) who after she had received the consecrated bread into her hand, (ac∣cording to the Custom then used) from St. Chrysostome, conveyed it away, and put other unconsecrated bread into her mouth, brought to her secretly by her Servant, from her house, for which end, P••rinde quasi orationi vacatura se inclinata summisit (••o Nicephorus) Mysterium sacro∣sanctum occuluit: Or, cum pan••m accepisset & jam prius∣quam

sumeret, quasi oratura in terram inclinaret, aliud quoddam domo ablatum, famula, quam ad eam rem instruxerat, subministrante, cum ori admovisset, ecce inter mandendum in lapidem induruit, as Sozomen records it. All Historians agreeing, that she received the consecra∣ted bread not kneeling (as g some Great Doctors mis∣take) but sitting or standing; she kneeling and bowing down as if she were about to pray, after she had recei∣ved it in her hand in another posture, to convey it away secretly to her servant only, not to eat it.

Finally, There is not one Canon to be found made by any General, National, Provincial, Council, or Synod from Christs institution of the Lords Supper, till above 1460. years after his Ascention: Not any one Rubrick in all the Liturgies, Writings of the Fathers, or Missals, Brevi∣aries, Offices, Pontificals, Ceremonials of the Church of Rome it self, that I could either find, upon my best search, or any other yet produce, enjoyning Communicants to kneel in the Act of Receiving.

This truth is acknowledged, and thus proved at large by our learned Dr. Iohn Burges, the best, eminent∣est Champion, for this Gesture of kneeling of all others. This gesture of Kneeling was never any constituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome, nor is it at this day. Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa, c. 14, 15. sets down all the Ceremonies of the Mass, and a never mentions Kneeling in the Act of Re∣ceiving, as one of them; no nor yet the Mass-book, which shews when the Priest or People must bow or kneel for adoration of the Crucifix, Altar or Sacrament. b Duran∣tus, writing of the Roman Ceremonies, not only names not this gesture for one in the act of receiving, but, on the contrary affirms, That it ought to be taken Standing, and proves it also. And so doth the c Pope himself receive or partake it; and when he celebrates the Office he receiveth Sitfing, as being a Type of Christ; and d every Priest by order of the Mass-book, reveren∣ter stans standing reverently at the Altar, and not kneeling there. The Bowing or Kneeling of the Priest at

the Mass, are to the Crucifix set on the Altar, to the Altar, or at the time of consecration, that is, immediately after it. e The People which ••eceive not, a•• well as those that do receive, are reverenter inclinari se, reverently to bow themselves to the Sacrament, not when they receive i••, but when the Priest doth elevate the Paten, or Chalice for Adora••ion, or when the Host is carried to any sick ••••rson, or in Procession. And this is that Ado∣ration which was first brought in by fPope Honorius the Third, and not any Kneeling or Ado••ation in the Act of Receiving. T••ue it is that the Receivers of the Host from ••he hand of the Priest do Kneel, not ••or A∣dora••ion, but of an antient Custom, (since tran••ubstantia∣tion) not by Order or Institution. Onely in some pla∣ces and occasi••ns they do it, but then not for Adoration, but either for reverence of the g Pope (as when he ad∣ministreth to the Sub-deacon, as they do also take hallowed Candle•• at his hand Kneeling, h genu flexo on Candle∣mas day) or else they do it to that end, that the Priest may put it more easily into the Mouth without dan∣ger of spilling, or shedding any of it. Hence in the i Miss••l of the Order of Predicants allowed by the Chap∣ter of Salamenca 1551. and by the Pope, p••inted at Ve∣nice, Anno 1562. two of the F••ee••s ar•• TO KNEEL on each side of the Priest, holding a clean napkin betwixt him and the receiv••r, and putting it under the Communicants chin, for fear of shedding. The Communicant hims••l•• is forbidden to prostrate (id est, to bow his Body) himself (which in the Act of Adoration, all but the Priest which celebrates ar•• th••rein command••d to do) or to kiss•• the ground, or Priests f••et. But k KNEELING upon one of the greeces he m••st hold all his Body upright, and open∣ing his mouth neither too much nor too little, without turning his eyes or countenance undecently aside, in comely order and r••verence he is to rec••ive the Sacrament. This KNEEL∣ING of the Communicant is not for adoration of the S••cram••nt, no more than the KNEELING of those which stand side-wayes to hold the Napkin. Yea prostration, or

bowing the trunk of the Body, is there forbidden them when they receive, which is in the same Chapter commanded for adoration to those that do not then communicate, but look on, ut stent super formas prostrati, and all before the Sa∣crificer himself, prosternant se adorantes. So that this Kneeling in the Receiving, was only for the conve∣niency of putting the Host into the mouth of the Receiver, and not for adoration of the Eucharist. And yet this is not any established Ceremony of the Church of ROME at this day. This may further ap∣pear not to be for Adoration, Because the Priest him∣self receives in both kinds standing. Nay it is against their rule that a man should adore any thing lower than himself; The reason with them is, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to worship or fall down, requireth position of the whole body lower than that which is worshipped. l Mr. Thomas Morrison reports of one in Savoy who escaped difficultly for looking downward at the Host, passing by his window in pro∣cession▪ It is therefore without question true, that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of ROME, nor never used when it was used with them for adoration of the Sacrament, as is falsly believed and talked of by many. Thus this learned Doctor, positively (and I conceive most truly) concludes in a Book d••dicated by him to King Charles the first, An. 1631. And he asserts the like almost in the same words, in his T••eatise o•• The law∣fullness of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, p••inted Lon∣don 1631. dedicated to the Lord Keeper Cov••ntry, ch. 21. p. 66, 67, 68. & ch. 32. p. 110, 111, where he con∣fesseth, likewise, That KNEEL••NG before and to the Host to have come in by Antichrist, when midnight was upon the face of the world, and Antichrist in his hight. Yet concludes, KNEELING in the ••ct of Receiving was not ever yet strengthened with ANY PAPAL DE∣CREE; but hath been since made a Footbanke unto that Antichristian Monst••r of Transubstantiation, only by mis∣interpretation of it, by such as sought out all means, and

laid hold on any colorable thing, that might suckle the mon∣ster of their brain, when it was once born. So this Doctor.

This kneeling then in the Act of receiving is acknow∣ledged by all its learnedest Advocates, to be introduced only by Custom, Vsage, after Transubstantiation, and Ado∣ration of the Host, (prescribed first by Pope Honorius about the year of Christ, 1226. promoted by the Feast of Cor∣pus Christi instituted by Pope Vrban; and confirmed for ever by multitudes of Pardons in the Council of Vienna by Pope Clement the 5. in the year 1310 as our learned i Bp. Iewel, and others affi••m) without any Canon imposing it on the people. The first Rubrick that ever I met with (except that of the Missal for the Friers Pre∣dicants, forecited) is that in the Common Prayer-book, set forth and confirmed by King Edward the Sixth, in the year 1552. used, continued in all Books of Com∣mon P••ayer ever since. Then shall the Minister first re∣ceive the Communion in both kinds himself, and next de∣liver it to other Ministers, if any be there present, that they may help the chief Minister; and after TO THE PEO••LE IN THEIR HANDS, KNEELING: Which Rubrick, as the words and manner of penning declare, is rather a Direction, than Injunction to the Peo∣ple to receive KNEELING; For it commands not in precise words, That the People shall all receive the Communion Kneeling, or only Kneeling, in the Affirma∣tive, not Sitting or Standing in the Negative; much lesse doth it threaten or inflict any penalty at all on the Minister if he give, or on the People if they receive it otherwise; nor enable the Minister to refuse the Lords Supper to such who scruple to take it KNEELING; for he is peremptorily enjoyned by the Statute of 1 E. 6. c. 1. Not without a Lawfull Cause (to wit, for the scandalous crimes conteined in the Rubrick or Exhortation before the Communion, and in case of Malice, or Hatred,) to DENY the Sacrament TO ANY WHO SHALL DE∣VOUTLY AND HUMBLY DESIRE IT, ANY LAW, CUSTOME OR ORDINANCE TO THE CONTRA∣RY

NOTWITHSTANDING: Onely it directs the Minister, to deliver it to the People in their hands KNEEL∣ING; and withall makes an Apology in another Rubrick in both King Edwards Books, to clear the use of kneel∣ing from any Superstition or intention of Adora∣tion of Christs Body in the Elements, or any justification of Transubstantiation, to which ends the Church of Rome had abused it. All which being duly pondered, and that the first Reformers of our Religion under King Henry the Eighth, in their Treatise concerning the Lords Supper, compiled in the year of our Lord 1533. (printed at the end of Mr. William Tyndal, our famous learned Martyr his Workes, p. 476, 477.) desired, That Christian Princes would command and establish a Forme of Administring the Lords Supper by them described, wherein ALL THE CONGREGA∣TION are ordered, TO SIT ROUND ABOUT THE LORDS TABLE, as Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians did. And then compared with these ensuing Confessions of Doctor Iohn Burges in his learned Treatises purposely written in his De∣fence of the Lawfullnesse of KNEELING in the Act of Receiving, dedicated to our late King CHARLES and the Lord Keeper Coventry: Namely, That the Church of England, holdeth sitting or standing to be as lawfull and holy as kneeling, putting no ne∣cessity or worship of God in any of these arbitrary Ceremonies. That there is not to be found any Decree for the gesture of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, no not in the Roman Church, before or after th•• ••eal presence, nor yet in the Greek Churches. That ‖ Beza and other Churches, which live pell-mell with the Popish, where Idolatry is openly in the streets committed, in bow∣ing to a piece of bread, as i•• it were nothing else but Christ himself, shifted into a new suit of apparell, had reason enough to forbear this gesture in their Churches, and to disswade it as a thing which had been and therefore might be dangerous. And there••ore Beza doth no where

condemn the use of it, as in it self unlawfull, but only de∣fendeth the Churches, which in respect of the perill that might ensue, or out of a desire to root out the bread-wor∣ship out of the minds of men, do decline the use of this Ceremony. And this was the judgement of all those Di∣vines, who in the name of the French and Dutch Chur∣ches, made certain Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions, set out at Geneva in Beza his time, Anno 1581. for in their fourth Observation on the Confession of Bohemia, sect. 14. they say thus, In this Rite of Kneel∣ing, we leave each Church to their own liberty; not that we condemn it simply, as evil in it self, (used with caution given in our fourth Observation;) But for the rooting of bread-worship out of mens minds, it is better that Ce∣remony in most places were abolished, in receiving of the signs themselves. May sufficiently perswade his Majesty, our Bishops, Lords, and Parliaments, to in∣dulge the liberty of sitting to those who scruple kneel∣ing at the Lords Supper, since the Church of Rome her self prescribes it not by any Canon or Rubrick in the act of receiving, and there hath been, is, and may be peril and scandal in its use.

Now whereas some conceit and object, That it is a great contumacy, irreverence, sawcinesse, boldnesse, for those who confesse themselvesa unworthy to gather the crums under Christs Table, at his Supper, to presume b to sit and eat the consecrated Bread, and drinks the Cup at or upon the Table it self; not KNEELING at a distance before, or prostrate under it. I desire such Objectors to ••ons••der. 1. That Christ himself out of his infi∣nite love, invites all Communicants, not to gather up the crums under this his Table like c Dogges, or as the d captive Kings did under Adonibezecks (the proud Tyrants) Table, but to sit down, eat, and drink the con∣secrated Bread, Wine, and this his Heavenly Ban∣quet at his Table. Therefore it is rather a high con∣tempt, disobedience, e voluntary sinfull Humility, or slighting, undervaluing of Christs love and grace, for

any invited Gue••ts like Dogges and Slaves to lye pro∣strate before or under his sacred Table, then with Faith and holy confidence to approach unto it, to sit, eat, and drink thereat as he enjoyns them. 2ly. That if it were no ill manners, presumption, or irreverence for the f Disciples, Lazarus, and others, to sit down with Christ himself, whiles on earth, at ordinary Tables, the Pascal Supper, and Lords Table too, or in g St. Iohn, to lean on his breast and bosome at it; or in the Primitive Church, Christians to sit, eat, and drink the consecra∣ted Elements at the Lords Table, for many hundred years after Christs Incarnation; then doubtlesse it can be no contempt, misdemeanor, irreverence, un∣mannerlinesse for any now to do the like, but rather it must be so in those who refuse to do it, upon such fancies, grounds, which either Christ, his Apostles, the Primitive Church, Christians knew not, or deem∣ed insufficient to induce them to change fitting into kneeling at the Lords Supper. 3ly. If the Objectors or other Subjects, or persons of inferiour quality, were invited to sit down and eat at the Kings, Princes, Lord Keepers, Lord Mayors, or any other Great Mans Table, at Dinner, or Supper, it would be reputed a strange singularity, folly, indecency, or contempt, (not re∣verence, decency, or good manners) in or for all or any of them, out of pretended modesty or unworthinesse, to kneel down only before, or lye prostrate under their Tables, but not to sit down at them, and eat toge∣ther with them, when commanded, as h all antiently, and at this day use to do, without kneeling, or prostra∣tion at or under the Table. Why should it not then be so in those invited by Christ himself, to eat and drink at his sacred Table? 4ly. Christ Jesus by his death, merits, and transcendent love, hath not only made us i Members of his body, of his bone, and of his flesh, k one in and with him, his own l Brethren, m Friends, yea n Sons and Children of God his Fa∣ther; but also o Heirs and joynt Heirs with Christ of

the Kingdom of God; yea p Kings and Priests unto God his Father; and promised q To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my Throne, even as I also overcame and am set down wi••h my Father in his Throne: and also appointed unto his Disciples, a Kingdom, as his Father hath appointed unto him, That they may eat and drink at his Table, in his Kingdom, and sit on Thrones, and in s Heavenly places, to∣gether with him, not pick up crums under his Table, or kneel, or lye prostrate at a distance from it. All which con••idered, may satisfie the Objectors, at least∣wise so far, as to disswade them from censuring their fellow Communicants who receive sitting, as irreve∣rent, proud, prophane, und••vou••, irr••ligious, or restrain∣ing this their Christian Liberty and posture of sitting in receiving, the only thing they contend for, leaving them to kneel, or use what gesture they deem best, for their own particular practise.

If any yet further object, (as they do) That in the Lords Supper we receive a Pardon of all our sins from God, under the Great Seal of Heaven; There∣fore we ought to receive it kneeling, as Malefactors use to receive their Pardons under Seal from the hands of their King, kneeling on their knees.

I answer, 1. The Lords Supper is not a Pardon un∣der Seal,t to all Communicants, since the unworthy eat and drink Damnation to themselves therein, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28, 29, 30. 2ly. It was instituted not as a Pardon Sealed, but in remembrance of Christs death and passion for our sins, and to shew forth his death till he come, Luke 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.24 25, 26. 3ly. It is received, only as spirituall meat and drink, to feed and nou∣rish our souls unto everlasting life; to u eat and drink as food; not to keep or reserve in a Trunk, Pix, or Box, as men keep their Pardon••, without eating them, I am sure without drinking them, when sealed only with hard Wax and Parchment: Therefore they rather ought to receive it sitting, as a sacred Feast and Supper,

at which all usually sit, not kn••el; not as a Pardon, w^ch. none ever received in a Patten or Chalice. 4ly. Though Malefactors receive Charters of Pardon from their Princes own hands now & then, kneeling; yet none use to receive them from their Officers or Ministers hands in that posture in our own or other Kingdoms; who e∣ver received a Pardon or Charter thus from the Lord Keeper at a Seal, or from the Hanaper Officers? Nor is the Lords Supper now received by any from Christ•• or Gods immediate hands, but only from their Mini∣sters; Therefore we ought not to kneel by their own comparison. 5ly. The Apostles when they received it from Christs own hands at its first institution, who best knew the nature of it, did not receive it kneeling, but sitting: Neither did any afterwards receive it kneeling, but sitting from the Apostles and primitive Fathers hands; why then should all now receive it from the Priests or Ministers hands only, kneeling, not sitting, since this reason prevailed not with them to give or receive it kneeling? 6ly. The chief cause of receiving it kneeling in the Church of Rome after Transubstantiation introduced, as Dr. Iohn Burgess confesseth, (& that on the steps near the Table) was, that the Priests might with more ease put it into the Receivers mouthes without spilling, who might not take or receive it with their own hands: which custom be∣ing exploded in our Church (all receiving it in their hands, and putting it into their own mouths) the rea∣son of the introduction and use of Kneeling ceaseth.

To close up this point, I shall seriously request all Protestant Kings, Nobles, Parliaments, and Layme•••• considerately to observe the sad effects and dangerous consequences of allowing any Church, Council, Con∣vocation of Clergy-men, (who usually monopoli••e both the Title and Power of the CHVRCH, though never so stiled in Scripture, or the Articles of our Church) a power to alter or innovate any Ceremony or Rite, used by our Saviour or his Apostles, in the Insti∣tution

and Celebration of the Lords Supper, upon pretext of Custom and lawfull Authority in the Church so to do; (the only Plea for changing sitting into kneeling, in the act of its receiving) by this one president of the ‖ Council of Constance. Upon a Petition and Complaint of some Bishops and Church-men in that Council, Anno 1414. Of the growth of Heresie and Schism in some parts of the world, by administring the Lords Supper to Lay-men in both kinds, and likewise after Supper, or else not Fasting, by some Priests, according to Christs own Primitive Institution, and the Apostles practise, who pertinacio••sly affirmed that they ought to do thus, against the laudable Custom of the Church, reasonably introduced. Hereupon this sacred Council (as they stile themselves) lawfully ass••m••led in the Holy Ghost, endeavouring to pro∣vide for the safety of the faithfull against this Heresie, by the mature deliberation of the Prelates therein assembled, and of many Doctors as well of the Divine as Humane Law, de∣clared, decreed; and defined, (by a special Canon therein ratified) Quod licet Ch••is••us post Coenam instituerit, &c. That although Christ instituted after Supper, and administred this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples un∣der both species of Bread and Wine, Tamen hoc non ob∣stante: Yet notwithstanding this the Authority of the sacred Canons (preferred before the Canon of the Scrip∣tures) the laudable and approved Custom of the Church, hath observed, and doth observe, That this Sacunrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper, nor to be re∣ceived of Christians who are not Fasting, (unlesse in case of Infirmity, or other Necessity, granted or admitted by the Law, or the Church.) And likewise, licet in Pri∣mitiva Ecclesia, &c. Although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithfull under both species. Tamen, &c. Yet notwi••hstanding to a∣void some Perils and Scandals, this ••••stom was in∣troduced afterwards, that it should be received by those who consecrated, under both spec••es, and by Laymen, only under the species of Bread: Since it is most firm∣ly

believed, and in no wise to be doubted, That the intire Body and Blood of Christ is truly contained as well under the species of Bread, as under the species of Wine: Wherefore seeing, this custom was rationally introduced and very long observed by the Church and Holy Fathers, it is to be reputed for a Law, which is not lawfull for any to reject or change at pleasure without Authority of ••he Ch••rch. Wherefore to say, that it is Sacrilegious, or unlawfull to observe this Custom or Law, ought to be reputed erroneous; & pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemiss••rum, &c. and those who peremptorily assert the co••trary, are to be banish∣ed, and grievously punished as Hereticks, by ••he Di∣ocesans of the places or their O••••icials, or by the In∣quisitors of Heretical pravi••y in Kingdoms and Pro∣vinces, in which any thing shall peradventure be at∣tempted or presumed against this Decree, according to the Canons and lawfull Statutes wholso••ly in∣vented in favour of the Catholick Faith, against He∣reticks.

Also this Holy Synod decreeth and declareth upon this matter, that processe shall be directed to all the most Reve∣rend Fathers in Chr••st, Lords Patria••ch••, Primates, Archbishops, Bishop••, and their Vicars in Spi••ituals, wherever constituted, in which it shall be committed and commanded to them, by Authority of this Council, under pain of Excomm••nication, that they effectually punish those offending against this Decree, who communi∣cate the people under both species of Bread and Wine, or that exhort or teach them that it ought to be done. And if they return to repentance, they may be re∣ceived to the bosome of the Church, wholsome Pennance being injoyned to them according to the measure of the ••ffence. But such of them who with obstinate minds shall not care to return to repentance, are to be restrained (and punish∣ed) by them, by Ecclesiastical censures, and the ayde likewise of the Secular Arme is to be invocated for this end, if need shall require.

Here this Popish Council sets up the late Custom, Pow∣er Canons of the Church. 1. To alter the very institu∣tion of Christ himself, the practise of the Apostles and primitive Church, Fathers, first in two particular Circumstances or Ceremonies observed by them in the celebration of the Lords Supper, to wit, 1. In the time of receiving it after Supper. 2ly. In the manner of receiving it, after meat, but not fasting; And ••rom these 2. Alterations in these Circumstances, proceeds in the third place, to make, justifie, decree •• Most sacrilegious alteration in the substance of it, in taking away one Part thereof, to wit, the Cup and Wine from all the Laity at one blow; upon this absurd heretical Whymsical Reason, and notorious untruth, laid down as a most certain undubitable truth, That the Body and Blood of Christ are (by way of concomitance) conteined and received under each species of Bread and Wine. 2ly. It sets up, justifies, decrees a direct contrary custome of receiving the Lords Supper, 1. only in the mo••ning, 2. only fasting, 3. for Priests only in both kinds, 4. for all Laymen, under the species of Bread alone with∣out the Cup; with a most a••dacious, blasphemous, peremptory NON OBSTANTE to Christ himself, the Apostles and primitive Churches Practise and In••titution. 3ly. It prohibites Priests and People too, either to imitate their examples, or institution for the future; or to say, preach, or affirm they ought to imitate them; or so much as to speak against any of those their late Cu••tomes and Antichristian Innovations, Errors. 4ly. They excommunicate, banish, punish all those as HERETICKS, and prosecute, persecute them with Ecclesiastical censures of all kinds, and the power of the secular arm, if they once presume in any place by words or deeds to follow the Precept or Pre••ident of Christ, his Apo••••les and the Primitive Church, or oppose or submit not to their Innovations, Inversi∣ons, and subversions of them. 5ly. If the terror of those Ce••sures prevail to force conformity to their

Innovations in any former Non-conformist, whether Priest or ••ayman, he must not be received into the bosome of ••he Chu••ch, without publick penitence, and Pennance proportinable to his offence.

What effusion of Christian blood, Martyrdomes, Wars, Schismes, Tumults, Controversies this Canon hath procured throughout Ch••istendome ever since, the Histories of Bohemia, G••rmany. France, Spain, Ita∣ly, England, the Netherlands, Mr. Fox his Acts and Mo∣numents, with other Martyrologies, and will abundantly inform us.

Our most gracious Lord God & Author of this ho∣ly Sacrament of love & unity, so in••pire, direct our Reli∣gious indulgent Sover••ign Lord the King, his Parlia∣ment, Council, Bishops, Ministers with the Spi••it of Wis∣dome, Clemency, Moderation, and Christian compas∣sion towa••ds the ••ender scrupulo••s consciences of ma∣ny thousand Ministers, and truly loyal, d••tifull pious Subject••, in this particular, that the Alteration of re∣ceiving the Lords Supper from its primitive, antient, usual gesture of sitting, practised by Christ, his Apostles, the primitive Church & Ch••istians for many hundred years to Kneeling, only by late Custome since Transub∣stantiation, and Adoration introduced by the Church of Rome, for the premised ends; the total abandoning of Sitting, and enjoyning the sole use o•• Kneeling to all Ministers and Communicants whatsoever; the suspending pious Ministers from their Ministry, Benefices, & inflict∣ing ••cclesiastical Censures on them as Non-conformists, Schismaticks, for not Kneeling, or delivering the Lords Supper to their People sitting; or writing, preaching in defence of this Ge••ture; practised heretofore; the de∣p••iving of those Laymen who refuse to receive Kneel∣ing (for the premised Reasons) not only of the conse∣crated Cup, as this Popish Council of Constance (with the Councils of Basil, Se••••io 30. & of Trent, Sessio 21. c. 1. si••ce that) did, but even of the Bread too, which Ro∣mis•• Priests indulge to all Laymen; and totally secluding

those from the Sacrament, who out of conscience re∣fuse to take it Kneeling, yea Members of Parliament themselves, and passing them by with publick con∣tempt, as of late when they were all enjoyned to re¦ceive the Lords Supper together; and that against the expresse words of his Majesties most gracious Declara∣tions to all his loving Subjects of the Kingdom of Eng∣land, and Dominion of Wales, concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, then newly published; That none shall be denyed the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though they do not receive it Kneeling in the Act of Recei∣ving; (Which hath given just ca••se o•• ••ear of greater seve••ity towards them and others, by over-rigid im∣periou•• Pr••lates, P••iest•• and ••lergy-men when the Par∣liament is not Sitting, Ecclesiastical Cou••ts and new Liturgies confirmed▪ resto••ed to their pristine Vigor;) and that barely upon p••etext, that the Custome of Kneeling was long b••••ore r••as••nably introduced, and Sitting prohibited only by the Authority of the Church, in such sort and ••or such reasons as are already mentioned in this Council of Constance; may not produce any fur∣ther Innovations in our Sacraments Administration and Doct••ine too by degrees, and engender N••w Schismes, ••ont••ntions, Disturbances, Excommunications, Pr••secutio••s, Pers••cutions of c••nscientious godly Ministers and L••yick••, to the great interruption of our Churches and Kingdomes peace, the total frustration of his Maje∣sties most Gracious Declarations and Intentions towards all hi•• loving Subjects to their general discontent. The prevention wherof, out of mere duty, loyalty, service to his Majesty, & unfeigned desire of our Churches future Unity, Prosperity, by just Dispensations & Indulgencies to all his Majesties consciencious Loyal Subjects, accor∣ding to his real, and royal Intentions in this particular, hath made me more copious in this just Apology for Sitting, without passing any over-rigid Censure upon Kneeling as utterly unlawfull in the Act of Receiving, or on those who practise it in ou•• Churches, out of

piety, humility and true Christian devotion. Mode∣rata durant. Let our Prelates, Churches, Parliaments moderation therefore (in these Particulars of Sit••ing, Kneeling and Bowing at the Name of Iesus) be known unto all men; and exercised towards each other; for the Lord i•• at hand. I shall close up this Discourse with the Evangelical Precept, Expostulation, and advise of God himself, and his Apostle St. Paul to the Church, Saints of Rome it self, and throughout the World in a like case, Ro 14 3, &c. Let not him that eateth (the Lords Supper kneeling) despise him that eateth not (kneeling) nor him that eateth not, (sitting, o•• standing, but kneeling) judge him that eateth (sitting) for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another mans Servant? to his own Master he standeth or falleth, (sitteth or kneeleth.) He that ••a••eth (sitting or standing) eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not (sitting or standing, but kneeling) to the Lord he eateth not (so) and giveth God thanks: Why dost thou judge thy Brother, or why dost thou set at nought thy Brother? (who receiveth sitting, stand∣ing or kneeling) We shall al•• stand before the Iudge∣ment seat of Christ Let us not therefore judge (or censure) one another (in these indiff••rent Gestures) any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in his Brothers way. Let us therefore follow a••ter things that make for P••ace and things whereby we may edifie (not crucifie, grieve, destroy, excommunicate, or discontent) each other. Destroy not him with thy meat (or thy gesture at it) for whom Christ died. All things indeed are pur••, but it is ill for that man who eateth with offence; or to impose any Gesture) whereby thy Brother stumbleth, or is off••nd••d, or made weak. Happy i•• he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth; for whatsoever i•• not of Faith is Sin to him that doth it.

But to leave this Collateral Discourse of Kneeling at the Sacrament, which some would enforce from this Text; and return to Bishop Andrews passages concern∣••ng Bowing AT and TO the Name of Iesus, as a duty of

the Text. I shall desire the Readers to take notice of these Mistakes and Errors (as I humbly conceive them) not onely couched, but clea••••y ••xpr••ssed in them.

His first Error is this, That the name Iesus is the name above every name intended in this Text, which Fathers and modern Exp••sitors gainsay.

His Second, That the name Iesus is above all names whatsoever, yea, above the name of God

His Third, That this name Iesus is one of Gods own names, and the chiefest name of God.

His Fourth, That this Text enjoynes men to bow TO (not in or at) this very name Iesus, and to this name only.

His Fifth, That our Saviour hath left this his name behind him, now his Person is ascended into Heaven, to this very end, that we might do reverence and bow unto it.

His Sixth, That the words of the Text are so plain, as they are able to convince any mans consci∣ence, that they ought to bow to the name of Iesus when rehearsed in the Church.

His Seventh, That there is no Writer of the An∣tients on this place (except Origen) but litterally un∣derstands it, and likes well we should actually perform this duty of bowing to the name of Iesus when pro∣nounced.

His Eighth, That Ambrose, Hierome, Cyril, and Theodoret (in their Quotations in his Margent) are of this opinion, and thus understand this Text.

His Ninth, That there want not Reasons why we should rather bow to the name of Iesus, than to the name of Christ.

His Tenth, That Christ is not, yea cannot be the name of God.

His Eleventh, That God cannot be annoynted.

His Twelfth, That Iesus is the chief name of God, and so by consequence, that Iesus could not be an∣noynted,

for therein consists the force of this Rea∣son.

His Thirteenth, That the name Christ was com∣municated by God to others, but the name Iesus, not, it being a proper name to our Saviour only.

His Fourteenth, That that which is proper, is a∣bove that which is holden in common.

His Fifteenth, That Christ is not so good as Iesus, because the end is better than the meanes, and he was annoynted that he might be a Saviour.

His Sixteenth, That we must bow to the name of Iesus with reference to the sence, That is, with ••eference to the Person of Iesus, as he is a Savi∣our.

His Seaventeenth, That this bowing is no taken-up worship, or humane invention or injunction, but a ••uty of the Text, directly set down by God himself, yea an Act which is of Gods own prescribing.

His Eighteenth, That the Brazen Serpent was not a thing enjoyned nor instituted by God himself, as this is.

His Nineteenth, That the Superstition occasioned by this bowing cannot abolish it.

His Twentyeth, That this bowing, as it may be superstitiously used, so it may be irreligiously neg∣lected too.

For the two first of these his Mistakes they are di∣rectly [ 1. & 2.] confuted by sundry Fathers, who make the ••ame here given to Christ, above every name, to be no other, but the name God, and that in truth and re∣ality, not mere appellation, as Verse 6. Who being in the form of GOD, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD, compared with Verse 11. That every Tongue should confesse that Iesus CHRIST is LORD to (or in) the glory of GOD THE FATHER, intimate. Witnesse likewise their ensuing Authorities.

Tertullian De Trinitate, lib. Tom. 2. p. 261, 262. Accepit enim nomen quod est super omne nomen, quod ut que non aliud intelligim us esse, quàm nomen D••i. Nam qu••m Dei sit solius esse super omnia, conse∣quens est, ut nomen illud sit super omnia, quod est ejus qui super omnia est Dei, &c. vid. Ibid.

Athanasius De Incarnatione Christi contra Apollina∣rium, p. 271. C. Et cum dicit, Ideo super-exalta∣vit eum Deus, et dona vit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, de Templo loquitur quod est corpus su∣um. Non enim qui altissimus est, sed ca••o ejus exal∣tatur, carnique suae altissimi nomen donavit, quod est super omne nomen. Neque verbum Dei donatitia ratione hoc nomen accepit ut Deus vocaretur, sed caro ejus cum ipso simul, Deus appellata est. Non enim dixit verbum Deus sactus est, sed Deu•• erat verbum: Sem∣per enim inquit, Deus verbum, ut ille ipse Deus ••actus est caro, ut ipsius caro ••fficeretur Deus verbum, quem∣admodum Thomas Palpator ipsius carnis proclamavit; O qui e•• & Dominus meus, & Deus meus; ut rumque simul Deum appellans, &c.

St. Hilarie, Enarratio in Psal. 2. p. 198. H. Et do∣navit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, &c In ••o••ma itaque Dei m••nens formam Se••vi accepit, Scilicet, ex Deo homo natus; ut post mortem Crucis in ••omen quod est super omne nomen exaltetur. In Deum nam∣que quia nullum ultra Deum nomen est, prov••hitur eique hoc potenti, id est, ut esset quod suerat ante, do∣natur.

St. Ambrose, Comment. in Phil. 2 9, 10. Et dona∣navit ei nomen quod est super omne nomen, &c. Videtur ergo donum Patris, hoc est esse Filium, & nomen ejus super omne nomen sit, hoc est, ess•• Deum. Nomen enim Dei; sed per naturam, non per solam appellation••m ••uper omne nomen est. Hinc est, ut in nomine I••su omne genu flictatur coelestium, terrestrium, & in••••rn••r••m; Sicut ad Romanos significat inter caete••a dicens. Ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, & super omnia benedictus Deus

in saecula, &c. Consideremus dicta, sic advertamus vim locutionis. Certe nomen quod super omne nomen est DEI NOMEN EST. Sed si per naturam non constat hoc nomen▪ non est super omne nomen. Appellativum enim nomen in solo vocabulo est, non in nobilitate naturae. Et adoptivo Deo non flectit creatura genu, sed vero, non concraeaturae. Et quomodo fieri potest homo sit in glo∣ria Dei Patris? non potest esse, nam ei hoc competit qui natus est ex Deo. In gloria enim Dei Patris ••sse, ni∣hil differre a Deo est, ut una gloria sit Patris & Filii per communem substantiam & virtutem, &c. With whom Iohannes Salisburiensis in Phil. 2.9, 10. Ms. in Bibl. Bod∣liana, accord.

Dionysius Alexandrinus, Epistola contra Paulum Sa∣mosatens. Bibl. Patr. Tom•• 3. p. 74, 75. Ti••us Bostren∣sis in Cap. 1. Evang. Lucae, Bibl. Patrum, Tom. 4. p. 339. e. Idacius advers. Varimadam loc. ibid. p 622. a. Caesarii Dialog. 1. p. 650. a. Basilius Magnus De Spi∣ritu sancto ad Amphyl. Cap. 8. Tom. 1. p. 180. Agobor∣dus ad Ludovicum Imperatorem, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 9. Pars ••. p 556 G.H. Pas••hatius Ratbertus in Math. Evang. l. 10. Bib. Patr. T. 9. Pars. 2. p. 1156. B.C. l. 11. p. 1177. B. exposit. in Ps. p. 1249. G. Et Paulinus Aquiliensis. Patr. contra Felicem Vigel•• Epist. l. 2. (thus expound this Name and Text) Et donavit illi nomen quod est su∣per omne nomen, ut in nomine I••su, &c. Nomen nempe super omne nomen solius VERI DEI EST, verique Filii Dei. Nuncupativum vero, vel adoptativum no∣men, non supra, ••ed infia. Cui inquam, nisi vero Deo omne flectitur genu? Cui Nuncupativorum D••orum, vel adoptativo rum Filiorum flectitur omne genu Coelesti∣um, Te••restrium, aut In••e••norum? aut quem ex illis omnis lingua confitetur in gloria esse Dei Patris? &c. Donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen; vir∣tutis scilicet & Divinatis quae in Christo corpor••liter in om∣ni plenitudine habitabat So the••e determine.

Aquinas, in his Summ••, 3. pars Quaest. 49. Artic, 6. Conclusio. Propter quod, &c. Et dedit illi nomen

quod est super omne nomen, thus expounds it, Ut scilicet ab omnibus nominetur Deus, & omnes ei reverenti••m ex∣hibeant sicut Deo: Et hoc est quod subditur, ut in no∣mine Iesu omne genu flectatur Coelestium, Terrestrium, & In ••••norum.

Alexander Alensis, Theologiae Summa pars 1. Quaest. 21•• Membr. 1. Artic. 4. thus interprets, Dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, &c. ut quod Deus dare, sit manifestare, pa••et; nomen quod est super omne no∣men, id est Honorificentiam quod vocatur Deus. Chytraeus Postill. in Dominica Palmarum, and Zanchius in Phil. 2.9, 10 with other Protestants, conclude, the name here meant to be GOD essentially; and the Bishops own words, Accepit ut homo quod habebat VT DEVS, admit it for truth. And that it is so, seems past all con∣troversie, if we compare this Text with Isaiah 45.23. and Rom. 14.11, 12. from whence it is taken, As I live saith the LORD, every Knee shall bow TO ME, and every Tongue shall confesse TO GOD; So then every one of us shall give an account of himself TO GOD: If then the name above every name be GOD, not IESVS, as all these define against Bishop Andrews, how is his bow∣ing to the name Iesus only, not to his name God, a duty of this Text? and his that all Antients thus inter∣pret it, true?

Other Fathers and Authors interpret this name above all names, to be the naturall only begotten Son of God, agreeing in substance with the former. Thus Hierom, Theodoret, Sedulius, Remigius, Beda, Haymo, Theophilact, Anselme, Oecumenius, Musculus, Aretius, Zanchius on Phil. 2.9.10. Sancti Procli. Sermo in Transfig. Christi Bibl. Patr. Tom. 5. pars 1. p. 536. C. ••••••eriis & Beatis l. 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 8. p. 342. C. D. ••. Augustinus Contr. Maximin. l. 2. c. 2. Basil. De spiritu Sancto, c 8. Tom. 1. p. 180. with sundry more resolve.

Others take this name to be the Glory, Majesty, and Power of Christ. So Chrysostom, in Phil. 2. Hom. 7. The∣odoret, in Phil. 2. Petrus Blesensis, Sermo 46. Bibl. Patr.

Tom. 12. pars 2. p. 907. with whom some modern Commentators accord.

Others expound it of the very name Iesus, only by way of Analogie, or Rhetorical flourish. So Origen Hom. 1. super Jesum Navae, Tom. 1. fol. 149. F. Chry∣sologus Sermo 144, 145. Remigius & Haymo in Phil. 2▪9, 10. Isychius in Levit. l. 7. c. 24. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 7▪ p. 108. B. Ethorius & Beatus, l. 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 8▪ p. 346. E. F. Agobardus De Picturis & Im••ginibus, lib. Tom. 9. pars 1. p. 598. C D. Lucas ••udensis, advers. Albigensium Errores, l. 2. c. 16. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 13. p. 267, 268. Alchuvinus Contr. Felicem Vigel. Ep. l. 2. Col 810 B. C. D. But yet none of all these speak a word of any bowing to, or at this name when read, mentioned, heard, or seen, the chief thing in debate, which the Bishop endeavours to prove and enforce.

Some others assert this name to be the name Christ; as Paschatius R••tbertus, Expositio in Psal. 44. p. 1246. G. Paulinus Epistola ad Augustinum, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 5. pars 1. p. 210. which verse 11. That every tongue should confesse that Iesus CHRIST is Lord, &c. seems to imply.

Others interpret this name, not to be any particu∣lar Title, but the very Person of Christ himself. So Brentius in Phil•• 2▪9, 10. Hence Hierom Comment. l. 3. in Isaiam 45. Greg. Nysson. de Anima & Resurrect. Disput. p. 194, 212. Ambrose Enar. in Psal. 118. Octon. 20. Hilare de Trin. l. 9. p. 64. Chrysostom Hom. 32. in 1 Cor. 12. Fulgentius Object. Arrianorum Discussio, p. 204. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, de Incarnatione unigeniti, cap. 11.26. Prosper. Expositio in Psal. 102. fol. 236. A. Paulinus Epist. ad Aprum Bibl. Patr. Tom. 5. pars 1. p. 187. B. Sancti Procli. Sermo in Transfig. Christi, Ibid. p. 535. E. Arnobius Comment in Psal. 64. Bibl. Patr. pars 3. p. 262. A. Agoba••du•• ad Ludovicum Im∣peratorem, Bibl. Patr. Tom 9. pa••s 1. p. 556. G. An∣gel••mi Stromata, in lib. Regum 2 c. 12. p. 740. E. Da∣mascen. Orthodoxae Fidei, l. 3. c 29. p. 433. C. S••meon

Th••ssalonicensis Archiepiscopus De Divino Templo, Bibl. Patr. Tom. 12. pars 1. p. 880. C. Petrus Blesensis De Tr••nsfig. Domini Ibid. pars 2. p. 915. B. Nicholaus Ca∣basila De Vita in Christo, lib. 6. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 14•• p. 127. A Papa Innocentius 5. In Circumcisione Domini, Se••mo. 1. Tom. 1. p. 95. De contemptu Mundi, l. 2. c. 15. p. 449. read it thus, Ipsi, Ei, Illi, or, Coram illo flec∣tetur omne geun, &c. Not, In n••mine, or Ad nomen Iesu.

Others interpret this name to be LORD (the usual name of God) of which at large before, Section 1.

[ 3] For the Third, That Iesus is the name of God, and the chiefest name of God. I answer, That though God the Father, and the Trinity in unity be stiled Saviour in the Scripture, as Isay 43.11. I am, and besides me there is no Saviour (the place which the Bishop quo∣teth) 2 Sam. 22.2, 3. Psal 106.21. Isay 45.15, 21. c. 49.26. c. 60.16. Jer. 14.7, 8 Hosea 13.4. Luke 47. 1 Tim. 1.1. c. 2.3. c. 4.10. Tit. 1.3. c. 3.4, 5, 6. Jude 25. To the only wise God OUR SAVIOUR, be Glory and M••j••sty, Domini••n and Power, now and ever Amen. Yet we ••ead not in all the Scriptu••e that God the Father was ever called Iesus, nor yet that the Trinity in unity, or Deity it self is stiled by this Name. Now Iesus and Saviour though they accord in signification, yet they differ in this. 1. In Time and Antiquity, Saviour being used in the Old Testament, long before Christs incarnation and Nativity; Iesus was impo∣sed on him after his Incarnation, Mathew 1.21, 24. Luke ••.31. c. 2 21. 2ly. One of them is a Title of Office or Honour, accruing from some gracious del••ve∣••ance, the other a proper personal Name imposed on our Saviour at his Circumcision (as our Names in Baptisme a••e) to distinguish him from other men•• 3ly. They differ in Ph••ases and Words, Iesus & Soter; Iesus & S••rvator; I••sus and Saviour. The words are different, and diff••••ently used in all Lan∣g••ages; and that they vary from each other, the very usual phrases in Scripture (Iesus Christ, our Saviour; a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord; our Saviour Iesus,

&c. coupled o••t together) testifie; For if they were Synonimaes it would be a kind of Tautology. And if they are both one and the same, then all men should and would cap and bow to both of them alike, especi∣ally since Bishop Andrews tells us, that Saviour is the name above every name, &c. in this Text, and one of GODS own NAMES. And if Saviour be the Name, then all must cap and bow to it as well as to the name Iesus; and that, when it is spoken or intended of God in the Trinity, or of God the Father as well of Iesus his only Son, which none now practise, neither doth the Bishop here urge them to it.

Again, as Iesus is not the name of God the Father, or of the Deity; so it denotes most properly and im∣mediately nought else but the humanity of our Savi∣our; it being a name imposed on him as Man at his Circum∣cision; rather to difference him from other men, than from the other Persons of the Trinity; whence Beda, Anselme, ‖ Alcuinus, Aquinas, and others conclude; Iesus est proprium nomen assumptae carnis, and Hoc nomen Jesus significat solam naturam humanam; not the Deity or Divine Nature of Christ, as this Bishop mistakes.

For the Fourth, That this Text enjoynes men to bow [ 4] not barely in or at, but TO the very name of Iesus, and to this name only. It is certainly a grosse Mistake; for first the words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In nomine, not Ad no∣men; In the name, not At or To to the name, as the ‖ antient English Translation•• of Trevisa, Tyndal, Co∣••erdale, Matthews, the Epistles and Gosples printed in English at Paris, 1558. the Common-Prayer-books of Edward the 6th. Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, and King Charles, (till altered of late by Doctor Cosens) in the Epistle on Palm Sunday, Bishop Alley, the Bishops Bible, Dr. Fulk, Mr. Cartwright, Bishop Iewell, and all our antient English Writers who cite it, read it. Now ••o bow in the name, and to bow to the name of Iesus, are two different things of various natures; Therefore this Injunction to bow in the name is no warrant for

any to bow to the name of Jesus, which this Text re∣quires not.

2ly. This bowing to the name of Jesus, as a divine worship, adoration and duty of the Text, is as great Idolatry as to adore and bow to his Cross, Picture, Body, or consecrated Bread in the Sacrament, &c. which we all cond••mn in Papists; yea, it makes our bowing at to be really TO the name of Jesus, and the very same with that of the Papist••, which our ‖ Prote∣stants condemn as Superstitious and Idolatrous in them.

3ly. The fore-alleged Fathers and Authorities prove, That the name Iesus is not the name above every name intended in this text; therefore there is no ground to bow to it, and it alone.

4ly. Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Hesaiam lib. 5. cap. 55. Tom. 1. p. 262. ••. In ••ohannis Evangelium, l. 11. c. 17. p. 666 A. De Incarnatione Unigeniti, cap. 11. Tom. 1.2. p. 114. E. & Dialogus de T••initate, l. 3. p. 270. A. reads it thu••. ••t dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine I••su Christi omne genu s•• flectat, joyning the name Christ with Jesus. Synodus Franco∣••urdiae ad Menam habita, sub Adriano Papa 1. thus, Cessate cum adoptivum nominare, qui verus Deus, & verus Dei Filius, in cujus nomine omne genu fl••ctatur coelestium, terrestrium, & infernorum. Dionysius Alexandrinus, E∣pistola contra Paulum Samosa••ensem, thus. Propter quod D••us exaltavit illum, & donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen; ut in nomine ejus omne genu fl••ctatur, &c. Ar••obius, Comment. in Psal. 88. ••hu••, Ego Pri∣mogenitum ponam eum, ut in nomine ejus omne genu fl••cta∣tur, &c. Angelomus in hi•• Str••mata in libr. Regum 3. cap 8 thus. Christo enim propter glor••fae m••ritum Pas∣••••onis datum est nomen, ut in nomine e••us omne genu flecta∣tur, coeles••ium, terrestrium, & inf••rn••rum. P••schatius Rat∣••ertus, in Mat. Evang. l. 10. thus. Et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomin•• D••mini omne genu flectatur ••oel••stium, t••rrestrium, & in••••rn••rum. Attributing this bowing of eve••y knee, not at all to the Name, but

Person, Deity of Christ expressed, represented by any name, as Isay 45.23. Rom. 14.9, 10, 11, 12. ex∣presly do, Every Knee shall bow TO ME, &c.

For the Fifth, That Christ hath taken his Person out [ 5] of our sight, but hath left his name Jesus behind to us, that we may shew by our reverence and respect unto it, how much we est••em him, &c. As it abstracts and severs Christs Person from his Name, and contradicts Mat. 28.20. And ••o I AM WITH YOU ALWAIES EVEN UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD; so it makes much for, and di∣rectly justifies the Papist•• Adoration of their Hostia, I∣mages, Crosses, and the Name Iesus carved, written, paint∣ed, or printed in a Book, Wall, Frontispiece of a Iesuites Works, or under or over a Crucifix, as well as to his Name, when barely pronounced. At the sight of which Name, n•• Prelates, nor Protestants, and I think few Papists usually bow.

2ly. It is not, yea cannot be grounded on that Text of Psalm 111.9. (Holy and reverend is his name) quoted by the Bishop to warrant it; That name being only the glorious name of LORD, there attributed to God himself, as i•• evident by Vers. 1, 2.11. &c. by sundry paralel Texts of Scripture, and the words themselves, which are spoken in the Present, not Fu∣ture Tense, H••ly and reverend IS his Name. Now this Name Iesus wa•• then neither holy nor reverend, because then not known, nor given to, or imposed on our Sa∣viour Ch••ist as God and Man; Therefore it could not be the Name which the Psalmist writes of.

3ly. Christ hath left behind him all his other Names, as Emanuel, God, Son of God, Lamb of God, Lord, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, King of Saints, Head of the Church, chi••f Shepheard of the sheep, God, &c. as well as this, he hath not carried them, or any of them quite away to Heaven with him, and left Iesus alone behind him on Earth; Therefore we should either reverence, bow to them or him, in and by them all alike, if this Reason proves good; or else give no special adoration, bowing,

or reverence unto this Name Iesus alone, since we do it not to any of the rest, he left behind him.

[] For the Sixth, That the words of the Text are so plain, as they are able to convince any mans conscience, that he ought to bow to the name of Iesus, when recited or uttered in the Church. It is an experimental un∣truth; We see they convince not the consciences of most men now; They convinced not the Consciences of any of the Fathers, primitive Churches, Christians, antient Expositors, or modern Protestant Commen∣tators on this Text heretofore, nor any forein Prote∣stant Churches at this day; Neither are they (I dare confidently a ver it) sufficient to convince any intelli∣gent Christians conscience, upon due examination, now, That this bowing at, or to the name of Iesus only, which the Bishop only contends for, is a duty of this Text; there being nothing either in the sence, or words, that can manifest it to be a Duty upon evi∣dent and infallible grounds, though all acknowledge that the same subjection, adoration, prayer, and divine worship are due to Christ as are to God the Father, and to the holy Ghost, but no other.

[ 7] For the Seaventh, That there is no Writer of the An∣tients on this place (except Origen) but doth litterally understand it, and likes well, that we should actually per∣form this Bowing now contested for. If we take it abso∣lutely in it self, it is a most apparent untruth, since not one of the antient Fathers or Expositors extant in P••int or Manuscripts hath so expounded it, or made any mention of this duty: But if we take his words as he hath qualified them, (And there is no Writer, no not of the Antients, on this place, that I can find, &c.) We must either conclude, That the Bishop, though very learned, never sought after any Antient•• Writers on this place; or at least, That he never found out any, or mistook their words or meaning, since there is not one of them extant that ever gave this his exposition of them.

For the Eighth, That Ambrose, Hierom, Cyrill, and [ 8] Theodoret, (the only Antients he mentions, in the places barely quoted in his Margent, not reciting their words at large) concur in judgement with him, in this kind of bowing at, or to his name, and thus un∣derstand this Text: It will appear far otherwise, if we survey their words. St. Ambrose his words are these. Quid de Officio pedum loquar, qui totum corpus sine ulla sustinent o••eris injuria? Flexibile genu quo prae caeteris Domini mitigatur offensa, ira mulcetur, gra∣cia provocatur. Hoc enim Patris summi erga Filium donum est, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu curvetur, Coe∣lestium, Terrestrium, & Infernorum, & omnium lingu•• confit••atur, quoniam Dominu•• Iesus, in gloria est Dei Pa∣tris. Duo enim sunt quae prae caeteris Deum mulcent, humilitas & fides▪ Pes itaque exprimit humilitatis affectum, & sedulae servitutis obsequium: Which place descipher∣ing only the principal uses and offices of the feet, vizt. to appease the Lords wrath, and procure Gods favour by bending the knee to him, (not Iesus) in the affection of humility, by Humble Prayer in the name of Christ, and diligent service and obedience, makes nothing at all for genu-flections, or bowings to, or at every recital of the name Iesus, (not here mentioned by Ambrose) much lesse when we are on our knees praying to him, when some superstitiously bow down their heads to and at this name. Neither doth St. Ambrose in his Commentary on Phil. 2.9, 10. or in any other place of his works, where he dilates upon it, make any such literal Exposition of this Text, or name as is pre∣tended, so as his Quotation is impertinent.

St. Hieromes alleaged authority, is far more imper∣tinent to his purpose. His words are these. Mihi in∣cur vabitur omne genu, & jurabit & confitebitur omnis lin∣gua Deo. On which words of Isaiah he thus descants. Sed & hoc jurat, quod idolis derelictis omne genu ei flectatur Coelestium, Terrestrium, & In••ernorum, & omnis per illum juret lingua mortalium: in quo perspicuè significatur, popu∣lus

Christianus: Moris est enim Ecclesiastici CHRISTO g••nu flectere Quod Iudaei mentis superbiam demonstrantes, omnino non ••aciunt. Sed & omnis lingua cunctarum genti∣um Barbararum, non in Synagogis, sed in Christi Ecclesiis consitetur De••m, &c. In all which passages, 1. The name Jesus is not so much as once mentioned, much less is there any intimation of bowing to it, when recited. 2ly. All the Argument the Bishop can hence collect, is but this. It is an Ecclesiastical custom for Christians to pray kneeling, or bow their knees to CHRIST, (not JESUS) in their publick and private Prayers; Ergo it was then an Ecclesiastical custom to bow the knee to and at the ••ecital of the name of Jesus only, but not to or at the name of Christ; whereas the contrary would better follow: Ergo it was then an Ecclesiastical use for Christians to bow their knees at, to the name of Christ, not to or at the name of Jesus, which re∣futes all his reasons and Arguments to the contrary. 3ly. Hi•• Text is only Omne genu El fl••ctatur, & moris est Ecclesiastici, Christo genu flectere•• not, ad nomen Iesu, or in nomine Iesu, or Christi: This Father he••e speaks only of the Person, not of the name of Christ, or Jesus: Therefore he gives no colour at all for any bowing to or at the name of Jesus, as the Bishop suggests, punctually against his words.

For St. Cyrills authority, it is only this. Quid est igitur quod annunciatum est? Salus & conversio omnium ••bique gentium: Mihi enim inquit, flect••t se omne genu, & jurabit omnis lingua p••r Deum. Flectet se genu Deo, & nomen ejus ab omnibus in juramento adhibebitur, quid aliud signi••i at, quam omnium conversionem & agnitionem & co••junctionis cum ipso patefactionem? Qui enim per con∣versionem ad Deum redeu••t, prorsus nec genu immundis spiritibus flectunt, n••que lingua illos ut Deos circumferunt. Non enim per ullum aliquem jurabunt tanquam per Deum sed unum natura & verè esse cognoscentes ejus jugo cervic••m supponunt & genu flunctunt; & si legitime jurare velint, ejus solius m••ntionem ••aciunt. Where observe, 1. That

in all this quotation, the word or name JESUS is not so much as once mentioned, much lesse any bow∣ing to or at his name Jesus. 2ly That the name and person only of God is mentioned, to whom all Nati∣ons leaving their unclean spirits, Idols, should in time be conve••ted, submit themselves, adore and swear by his name alone. Ergo it is a duty of the Text, for all to bow at eve••y recitall of the name Iesus, (not here mentioned) is a very Un-episcopal inferrence from this Fathers passage.

Theodorets words are as little to the purpose. Et donavit illi Nomen quod est sup••r omne nomen, &c. Non ergo ea accepit quae non prius habebat; sed accepit ut homo quae habebat ut D••us. Nomen autom quidam interpraetati sunt gloriam. Ego autem Ex ••pistola ad Hebraeos invenio aliam Apostolici dicti intelligentiam: Cum enim dixisset, ‖ Sedet ad dextram Majestatis in excelsis, tanto melior Angelis effectus, quanto excellentius p••ae illis nomen haeredita vit, interpraetatur nominis differentiam, & dicit: Cui enim dixit aliquando Angelorum, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te? Et rursus; Ego ero illi in pa∣trem, & ille erit mihi in Filium? Hic ergo hoc etiam dicit, quod eum seipsum humiliavit, non solum non p••r didit quod habebat ut Deus, sed hoc etiam accepit ut homo. Vt in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur Coelesti••m, Terrestri∣um, & In••ernorum. Coelestes appellat pot••states, quae sub ••••••p••ctum non cadunt; T••rr••stres autem, homines qui ad huc vivunt; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 autem▪ h••c est, eos qui sunt sub terris, illos qui sunt mortui. If then this name above every name, &c be not the name Iesus, but this name, the only be∣gotten Son of God, (as Theodoret expressely concludes from St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews) then here is no warrant for any bowing to or at the name of Je••us, or to or at this name alone•• or at every ••ecital of it, in these words of his. So that these four Fathers are all point-blank against (not for) the Bishop•• Exposition in the least degree, who therefore cau••elo••sly concealed what they writ, here truly and fully cited.

[ 9] For the Ninth, That there want not Reasons why we should rather bow TO the name of Iesus than of Christ. I an∣swer, that there can be no Reasons alleged for it out of Scripture, neither hath this Bishop, nor any other yet produced any reasons of this kinde; What reasons therefore he or others have coyned out of their own working Brayns, Fancies either without or against the Scripture, Why men should bow to or at the name of Jesus, not to or at the name Christ, are not wor∣thy the name of Reasons; And if the Bishops Reasons here produced be well examined, we shall find them both unreasonable and untrue, if not absurd, making wholly against his Conclusions, nothing for them, As the ensuing particulars will manifest.

[ 10. & 11.] His first Reason, why we should not bow to or at the name of Christ, is this, Because Christ is not, yea can∣not be the name of God; For God cannot be annoynted. In which there are two most grosse mistakes. First, That Christ is not, yea cannot be the name of God. Second∣ly, That God cannot be annoynted. The first of these is directly contrary, 1. to Athanasius his Creed, where it is twice repeated, So God and Man is one Christ. 2ly. to the 2d. Article of the Church of England, and the 29th. of Ireland, which thus resolve. The God∣bead and Manhood were joyned together in one Person, ne∣ver to be divided, WHEREOF IS ONE CHRIST, VE∣RY GOD AND VERY MAN. 3ly. To expresse Scrip∣ture, Rom. 9.5. Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came, who is over all, GOD BLESSED FOR EVER. 4ly. To all antient and modern Writers, who thus conclude, and positively affirm against the Arrians, Christus est Deus, That Christ is God, and that Christ is both God and Man; Which Propositions were false, if Christ were not the name of God. Certainly Christ is the name of the Sonne of God, of the second Person in the sacred Trinity: All Christians are to ‖ believe in Christ; to pray to God in the name of Christ. They are like∣wise baptized into Christ, and in the name of Christ; yea

they are named Christians from the name of Christ, not Ie∣suites, as the Jesuites name themselves from his name Iesus. Therefore Christ certainly is the name of God, and of our Saviours Divinity, as well as of his Humanity.

This verily Iraeneus testified of old, Adversu•• Haereses, l. 3. c. 20. p. 333. In Christi ••. nomine, sub∣auditur, qui unxit, & ipse qui unctus est; & ipsa unc••io in qua unc••us est. Et unxit quidem Pater: Vnctus vero est Filius, in Spiritu qui est unctio, quemadmodum per Isaiam; Sermo. Spiritus Dei super me, propter quod unxit me; significans & unguentem Patrem, & unctum Filium, & unctionem qui est Spiritus. The name there∣fore of Christ (in Irenaeus his Divinity) takes in the whole three Persons of the Trinity, and so is the name of God in his repute. This was Athanasius his As∣sertion in his Declaration, Quod Christus sit ve••us Deus, &c. p. 371. C. D. At qua ratione possit Christus vocari Christus, si nudus homo sit? contra idem ille si verbo coadunitus sit merito ponuntur Christus & Dei Filius, jam olim Propbetam paternam in ••o substantiam his verbi•• protestantem; & emittam Filium m••um Christum, &c. Missionem autem & declarationem idem esse cum unctione frequenter inveuiemus, &c. The same we shall find in Damascen, At nos Christum haud quaquam unius compo∣sitae natur•• esse ass••rimus, &c. Christi porrò vocabulum personae ess•• dicimus, ut quod unimodò vocatur, sed duplic••m naturam significet. Ipse e••enim s••ipsum unxit, corpus vi∣delicet divinitate unguens ut Deus, unctus autem ut homo, quandoquidem ille ••••e & illud est; unctio porrò humanitatis ••st divinitas. And Euchfoneus in his Commentarie, Ibid. ••. 266. D. Sanctorum Patrum concordi sententia. Chri••••us ••omen Hypo••••aseos est, & personae duarum natu∣r••rum ••••gnificativum, divinae scilicet & humanae: Hinc Christus neque solam humanitatem, sed utramque ••arum i•• unica persona hypostaticè unitam. Idcirco dicit liter••, nomen Christus non est unimodè dictum, id est, de un•• na∣••ura. Neque ••. id nomen Christus de s••la dicitur natur•• divina, neque solam notat humanam naturam, sed utram∣que

simul in uno supposito unitam. Nam ipse Christus est, hoc est illud, u••pote Homo & Deus, ‖ prout nomen illud singulariter, & unice Domino nostro attribuitur, Signifi∣ca••que ipsunt unctum excellentissima & divina unctione, carnent scilicet-ejus sacrosanctam Di••tatis ol••o ineffabiliter per••usam; quae s••ne super-divina est unctio & sol•• Domino nostro congruens. In qua, Divinitas est ungens; & sacra∣tissima Christi humanitas unctum, ipsa quoque divinitas un∣ctio est, et ejus humanitas quod ungitur. With which the Resolution of Aquinas, and others accords.

[] For the Second, That God cannot be annoynted: It is most ••alse; For God the Father annoynted God the Son, with God the Holy Ghost, witnesse P••al 45.6, 7▪ & Hebr. 1.8, 9. Thy Throne (O God) is for ever and ever, the Scepter of thy Kingdom is a right Scepter. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness, therefore God, thy God hath annoynted thee with the Oyl of Gladness above thy Fellows Thus the Fathers from these Texts inferred, resolved long ago, 1 Athanasius, 2. Hilarie, 3. Ambrose, 4. Augustine, 5 Primasius & others 6. Cyrillus Alexandri∣nus, 7. Venerable Beda, 8 Isychius, 9. Paschatius Ratbertus.

1. O••thodox Athanasius, Contr. A••ianos, l. 2. p. 80.

A. B. C. N••n ••n dixit, ideo unxit te, ut Deus, aut Rex, aut Filius, aut verbum fieres, nam & antea hoc ipsum erat, semperque est, sed potius prop••erea, quia & Deus, & Rex es, ideo inunctus e••. Non n. alteri∣us erat conjungere hominem cum Spiritu Sancto, quam tui ipsius qui es imago Patris, ad quam ab ini∣••io creati eramus, quoniam tuus est Spiritus. Caete∣rum, quia Deus est, quia Rex aeternus, & splendor, & character Pat••is, ideo ipse est qui expect•• batur Christus, &c. Quid igitu•• miri a••t qui•• in••redi∣bile, si Dominus qui Spiritus, ipse nun•• dicitur, Spiritu injungi?

2. St▪ Hilarie De Trinitate, l. 4. p. 21. F G. thus se∣conds him,

Ait••n in Psalmi••, Vnxit t•• De••s, Deus tuus, Discernat legentis intelligentia unctum & ungentem; distingue te & tuus; ad quem & qui sit

sermo demonstrat. Superioribus, n••dictis hic confessi∣onis ordo subjectus est. Dixerat namque, Sedes tua Deus in saeculum saeculi, virga directionis tuae virga regni tui, dilexisti justitiam & odisti iniquita∣tem, ••unc quoque his adjecit, propterea ••nxit te Deus D••us t••us. Deus ergo Regni aeterni ob meri∣tum dilectae justitiae & perosae iniquitatis a Deo suo unctus est. Nunquid intelligentiam nostram aliqua saltem nominum intervalla confundit. Nam discre∣tio tantum Personae in te & tuus, posita est, in nullo ••amen natu••ae distincta confession••. Tuus enim rela∣••ivum est ad autorem, & verò ad ejus qui ex autore est significationem. Est enim Deus ex Deo, Prop••eta eo∣dem ordine confitente; U••xit te Deus, Deus tuus, &c.

3. St. Ambrose De Fide l. 1 c. 2. adds his suffrage to the former, Denique habes in Psalmo quadrag••simo quart••, quod & Deum Patrem, dicit Propheta, & Deum Filium declaravit, dicens; Sedes tua Deus in seculum seculi; & infra, unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae con∣sortibus tuis: Deus est qui ungit, et Deus qui secun∣dum carnem ungitur, Deus Filius: Denique quos ha∣bet unctionis suoe Christus nisi in carne consortes? Vide igi∣tur qui•• Deus a Deo unctus, &c.

4. St. Augustin proves it is most fully and punctually in Psal. 44. Euarratio.

Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. Et vide quomodo ait, Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. DEUS UNGITUR A DEO. Ete∣nim in Latino putat idem casus nominis repetitus. In Greco autem evidentissima distinctio est, quia u∣num nomen est quod compellatur, & alterum ab illo qui compellat. Unxit te Deus, O tu Deus, un∣xit te Deus tuus; quomodo, si diceret, Propterea unxit te O tu Deus, Deus tuus. Sic accipite, sic intel∣ligite, sic in Graeco evidentissimum est. Ergo quis est De••s unctus a Deo? dic••nt nobis Judaei. Scrip∣turae ipsae communes sunt. Unctus est Deus a Deo, unctum audis, Christum intellige, etenim Christus à Chrismate. Hoc nomen quod appellatur Christus,

unctionis est, nec in aliquo alibi ungebantur Reges & Sacerdotes nisi in illo regno, ubi Christus pro∣phetabatur & ungebatur, & unde vent••rum erat Christi nomen. Nusquam est alibi omnino in ulla gente, in ullo regno. Unctus est ergo Deus a Deo. Quo oleo, nisi spirituali? Oleum n. visibile in signo est, O••eum invisibile in Sacramento est. Oleum Spi∣rituale intus est, Oleum visibile exterius est; Unctus est nobis Deus et missus est nobis, et ipse Deus ut ungeretur homo erat, ut Deus esset, ita Deus erat, ut homo esse ••on dedignaretur. Uerus homo, ve∣rus Deus, in nullo fallax, in nullo falsus, quia ubi∣que verax, ubique veritas. Deus ergo homo, et ideo unctus Deus, quia homo Deus et factus est Christus.

The like he asserts elsewhere.

5. So Primasius, Remigius, Haymo, Anselme, Theophi∣lact, Oecumenius on Heb. 1.9. read it thus, O Deus (Filius) unxit te Deus, (Pater) &c. all agreeing that God the Son is annointed by God the Father, with God the Holy Ghost.

6▪ Cyrillus Alexandrinus Contr. Julianum l. 8. Thus Comments on this Text. Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus prae omnibus consortibus tuis. Vides? Deus ungi∣tur Deo, &c.

7. Thus also our Venerable Beda resolves, Exposi∣tio in Psal. 44. & Heb. 1. O Deus verbum, Deu•• tuus, id est, Deus Pater unxit te, &c. Unctus Deus a Deo, often repeated.

8. Isycbius in Levit. cap. 8. concludes. Neque Christi Divinitas post unctionem ab humanitate dividitur, sed five ••ngi dicatur, five generari, five pati, five re••urgere, ••ive as∣••umi dicimus, hoc incarnatum verbum non dividentes, & dicentes hominem quidem unctum, Deum autem non unctum: Sed Deum cundem ••••mu•• ac hominem: Hoc N. & David. fine aliqua dubitatione approbat quum dicit: Sedes tua Deus in seculum seculi, virga recta est, virga regni tui, dilexisti justitiam & odisti iniqui∣tatem, propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus: Cernis

D••um dici qui unetus est, quia omnia carni•• suae moni∣festum est quod ••ibi metipsi qui incarnatus est vindicat.

9. Paschasius Rathertus Exposie. in Psal. 44. sings the same tune. Quid sequit••r? Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus t••u••: Primum Dei nomen vocativo casu in∣telligendum, sequ••us nominativo; Quia alius est Deus qu•• ••ngitur, alius ille a quo ungitur: T••us N. cum dicit, relativum est ad autorem per quem ungitur in Re∣gem, &c. Unde ait, Propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus: Deus erg•• in Regnum, ob meritum justiciae, dilectae, & perosae iniquitatis à Deo suo unctus ••st, id est, Filius a Patre: Non enim intelligentiam nostram ali∣quod confundit intervallum ubi discretio Personarum duo∣bus distinguitur prae••ominibus, videlicet, te & tuus; Non quod natura distinguatur deit••tis, cum dicitur, unxi•• te Deus, ac deinde additur, Deus tuus; Nam cum dicit, Deus et Deus, ostenditur una natura, una deitas, quia ille Deus qui ungitur ab ••o Deo est qui ungit; Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Deus a Deo est, nihil aliud quam Deus est: Pro∣pheta eo ordine narrante, Unxit te Deus Deus tu••s•• &c. What more punctual then ••ll these conc••rrent Fa∣thers, against th••s false, dangerous Paradox of Bp. An∣drews, That God the Son was not, yea cannot be anoin∣ted? I could adde a whole Grand ••ury more of other learned Writers to the same effect; but shall conclude with ••ulielmus V••sinus. Vnctio enim est, non tam d••norum acceptio, quae competit soli humanitati, sed & ordinatio ad officium M••diatoris, ••••ae competit et••am Divinitati: E••fi igitur sola humanitas potest acciper•• Spiritum sanctum, tamen non sequitur exclu••••o Divinitatis ab uncti∣one, quatenus est designatio ad officium, &c. Of which you may read much more there to the like effect.

And here we will next examine the Bishops Argu∣ment, [ 12] and retort it thus upon him. That name which is not the name of God, to it we must not bow. So the Bishop argues. But the name Jesus is not the name of God; Ergo to it we must not bow.

The Major is the Bishops own reason, words; The Minor is already proved. And it may thus be evinced by his own reason last refuted. That name which is ascribed to Christ, who is, and as he is an∣nointed, is not the name of God: For God (as the Bishop averrs and resolves) c••nnot be annointed. But the name Jesus is ascribed to Christ, who is, and as he is annointed, witnesse Acts 4.26, 27. For of a truth against thy holy Child JESUS, whom thou hast annoin∣ted, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Is••ael, were gathered together. And Acts 10.38. God annointed Iesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power: Therefore we must not bow at or to the name of Jesus, because it is not the name of G••d, since both the••e Texts resolve that God an∣nointed JESUS.

Invert we now the Argument against this Bishop, and then see what conclusion follows. That name which is the name of God, ••o and at that name we ought to bow: So the Bishop argues. But the name of Christ, as I have proved, (especially the names God, Iehovah, Lord, Emanuell, Spirit, Father, Holy Ghost, &c.) are the names of God: Ergo to and at them and every of them we ought to bow. Again, Every name receives its dignity from the Person who••e name it is: So the Bi∣shop. But every of these names of our blessed Savi∣our, is the name of that Person who is God as well as Man. Therefore to and at every o•• these his names we ought to bow, and not at his name Jesus only, which principally denotes his humanity.

[] For his Thirteenth Paradox, That the name Christ was comunicated by God to others, but the name Iesus not, for that is proper. It contains a double Falshood. For Fi••st, We re••d of no man or person who is stiled Christ, or The Christ, or Iesus Christ, in Scripture, but only our Saviour Christ; Neither find we this single title Christ, in our English or Latine Translations, applyed ••o any but ou•• Saviour; Nor yet the title of M••ss••as,

but to our annointed Lord and Saviour alone, who was annointed with the oyl of gladness above his fellows. Yea al∣though that antient Kings, Prists, and Prophets, might be called Christi, because annointed; yet none of them all were so annointed as the Lord Christ. For they were annointed with some graces only, in a measure, but Christ had the oyl of all graces, without measure▪ They were annointed some as King and Priest only, as Melchis••dech; some a•• King and Prophet only, as David, some as Priest & Prophet, as Samuell, but Christ only and alone was annointed as King, Priest, and Prophet; they all only with oyl; He with the D••••••y it self: so as the name Christ in this respect was peculiar to Christ alone. Thus he was annointed above his Fellows; so as the name•• Christ is as (yea more) proper to him, as the name Jesus, which meeteth with the next Argument of the Bishop. The name Jesus was comunicated to Ios••ah, and divers othe••s beside and before Christ, n••t appropriated to our Saviour only. ••hi•• the Bishop confesseth himself for a truth, which is evident by Hebrews 4.8 Acts 7.45. Collossi••ns 4.11. Wherefore I shall thus reto••t this hi•• p••ime A••gument against himselfe. That name of Christ which was comuni∣cated to others by God in Sc••ipture, at and to that we must not bow. But this name Iesus was communica∣ted to others by God in Scripture: Ergo, at and to it we must not bow. Again, That name which is proper to our Saviour only, at and to i•• we ought to bow•• So the Bishop. But the names of Christ, Messias, Ema∣nuell, Lamb of God, only begotten Son of God, &c. are pro∣per only to our Saviour, and not comunicated unto others, Ergo at and to them we ought to bow, and not at or to his name Jesus. Moreover,

That name which is prop••r, as the name of Iesus is, [ 14] (quoth the acute Bp.) is above that which is common, and to be bowed to. But•• the name Chri••t is as, ••ea more proper him as his name Iesus▪ for he was annointed above his Fellows: Ergo to be bowed to as well as the name Ie∣sus. Again, If this position of the Bishop be true, mark

the inevitable dangerous consequences, The names Ie∣sus, Christ, Emanuel, Father, Son, Spirit, Word, and Holy Ghost, are all personal and proper to each person of the Trinity, Ergo they are all to be bowed to, ••nd above the names Iehovah, God, Lord, and the like▪ or the Deity it self, which ••re common to all three per∣sons in the Trinity; as Athanasius Creed informs us at large. Pretty Divinity for a Bishop to assert; yea pretty Philosophy, Policy and Morality too; for then it will follow, Ergo Every mans private Person, Estate, Safety, Wellfare is above, and ought to be preferred before the Republick which is holden in common. Ergo private Prayers, Ceremonies, Scriptures in an unknown tongue, and private Masses, (which are proper to Mass Priests, who alone communicate,) are above publick Prayers, Masses, Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, and the Communion which is equally distributed unto all the Faithfull; yea private Conventicles are above, far better than our publick Church assemblies. Such are the consequences which will follow, from this new Epi∣scopal pa••adox & ratiocination if admitted orthodox

[ 15] Again, Christ (saith the Bishop) is annoynted, To what end? To be our Saviour, That is the end then, And ever the end is above the means: And what else? Ergo, Iesus is above Christ; the Deity annoynting inferiour to the Saviour annoynted; and to mans Salvation; and Christ the Head and Saviour of his Church & Members, inferiour to his Church, Members who are saved; strange hetero∣dox, untheological, if not heretical Consequences. To discover falseness, sophisme of this his illogical reason, we must observe, that Christs unction was that which authorised him to be a Saviour, without which he had been no Saviour. Now this is a ground in Logick and Phylosophy, Quicquid e••ficit tale est magis tale; et Omni•• causa est dignior suo effec••u; The Kings Power and Authority which makes a Man a Judge, or Offi∣cer, is greater, supremer, than the Judge or Officer made by him; the Deity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost anoynting, is greater than, is above the Humanity

annoynted; Therefore in this Case the Deity an∣noynting being the means, is better, is greater than the Humanity annoynted, or the end for which it was thus annoynted, that he might be a Saviour to his People; God being not only the Alpha but Omega, the end of all his own and our Works, Actions, Prov. 16.14. Rom. 11.36. Revel. 4.11. c. 1.8, 11. c. 21.6. all which Texts this Bishops Paradox contradicts.

Thirdly, What? to the 2. syllables or sound of them? What [ 16] needs this? Who speaks of sound or syllables? The Text sayth, Do it to the Name; The name is not the sound but the sence; The caution then is easie, Do it to the sence, have mind on him that is named, and, then do the Name the honor & spare not. If the Name be not the sound, or syllables, neither doth the Bishop speak of them; What means then his former Reasons, discourses, That we must bow at, and to the name Jesus, and that Name alone, not to or at the Name Christ? If not at or to the Name, but the Sence only: Then the Controversie is at an end by his own Confession, and so all his former discourses of the names Iesus and Christ, are to no purpose at all. Well, but we must bow to the Sence whenever the Name is mentioned, &c Excellent Divinity borrowed from the Papists sophistry, who worship the Name Jesus, the Crucifix, and Pictures of Jesus, the Body of Jesus in the consecrated Host, Bread, Wafer, Pix, only with reference to his Person; Which to do (say they) is no Idolatry. Either then the Bishop and his Fol∣lowers must approve the Popish Image-worship, Bread-worship, Iesu-worship, which Protestants con∣demn as grosse Idolatry, or else disclaim this Answer. But admit that the Name is the sense, not the sound, What (I pray) is the sence of the Name JESUS to which we must thus frequently bow at eve∣ry recital of it? Is it onely the Person of Jesus? Then why should we not bow to every of his Names as well as to this, since each of them representeth his Person to us as well as this? But the Person of our Sa∣viour is only the Denominatum, not the sence of the name

Iesus; The sence of this Name is, a Saviour, (or rather Salvation) he b••ing therefore stiled Iesus, because he shall save his People from their sins, Mat. ••.21. Luke 1.31. Well, admit it, Then Saviour being the sence, we must all henceforth bow at and to the name Saviour when reci∣ted, rather than the name Jesus. But who thus bows at or to the name Saviour, which is the sence of it? Not one; for none presse nor practise it as a duty, no not the Bishop himself. In a word, ‖ ••alvation, rather than Saviour is the sence of this Name, and who ever wor∣shipped Salvation in the abstract, when Jesus is pro∣nouned, by bowing at and to the name Jesus?

That this is no taken-up worship, &c. but an Act of Gods own pr••scribing, and a duty of the Text, directly set down by God himself, I•• but a mere Imposture. Had it been [ 17] so, I wonder that the ••postles, the primitive Christi∣ans, Churche••, An••ient Fathers, and those who have commented largely on thi•• Text, were so blind, as not to see this duty, so directly set down by God him∣self in the Text, for many hundred years together; Yea, I wonder much more that Popes, & Papists only were so quick-sighted as to be the fi••st De••••••iers of it, even in times of greatest darknesse! For my own part, since this duty was never discove••ed till of late, and that upon such slender evidence••, reason•• produced by the Bishop, which are sooner answered than propound∣ed, I shall crave leave to dissent, that it i•• a duty of the Text, till I see clearer proofs than any yet alleadged by this Bishop or hi•• Followers, so much mistaken in the Premise••. I s••all onely adde for a close, That if the bowing ••f every knee, and kneeling at or to the Name I••sus when ever mentioned in the Church, be a Worsh••p of Gods own prescribing, and a duty of the Text directly enjoyned by God himself, as this Bishop positive∣ly concludes, then by the self-same Text they must likewise kn••el and bow their knees when every tongue confesseth that I••sus Christ is Lord, in or to the glory of God the Fa••her, they being ••oth coupled

together in this Text, and to be performed with one posture of bowing the knee. Hence we read, Rev. 4.10, 11, 12 c. 7 10, 11•• 12 c. 14.3, to 9. c. 15.3.4•• c. 19.4. That when the 4. Beasts and others, gave glory, and honor, and thanks, and prayse to him that sitteth on the Throne, and cryed, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come; the 24. Elders, Angels and others did all fall down on their Faces and Knees before him that sate on the Throne, and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever, casting their Crownes before the Throne, and saying, Thou art worthy O Lord to receive Glory, Honor, Power and Blessing, for thou ••ast created all things; Bles∣sing, and Glory, and Wisedom, and Thanksgiving, and Ho∣nor, and Power, and Might be unto our God for ever and ever, Amen. The same in substance with Gloria Patri, &c. And at the Communion when the Minister and People say, Almighty and everlasting God, &c. through Iesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee (O Father) and the holy Ghost be all honor, and glory world without end, Amen. O Lord and heavenly Father, &c. through Iesus Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all glory and honour be unto thee O Father Almighty, world without end, Amen. Glory be to God on high, &c. We prayse thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we give thanks unto thee for thy great GLORY, O Lord God, heavenly King; God the Father Almighty. O Lord the only begotten Son Iesus Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, &c. have mercy upon us. For thou only art holy, thou only art the Lord; thou only O Christ, with the Holy Ghost art most high in the glory of Glory of God the Father, Amen. (the same with Phil. 2.9, 10, 11. and Gloria Patri in effect, if not in words.) They all use and are enjoyned by Rubricks to kneel down on their Knees, and repeat these Prayers, Thanksgivings kneeling In all which over-zealous bowers at the name of Iesus, usually bow their heads, bodies, whiles kneeling on their knees, when the name Iesus is men∣tioned only, not at any other of his names coupled

with it, nor at, to the names of the Father and Holy ghost rehearsed with it. With what color of Scripture, ••ence, reason do or can they then practise themselves, or prescribe to other Ministers and all th•• People, by N••w Rubricks, not joyntly to bow their Knees, or kneel and ••all down on them; but quite contrary, to rise up all together from their very Knees and Seats, and stand upright upon th••ir feet, without any bowing of their Knees or Bodyes at every recital,, Of Glory be to the Fa∣ther, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, As it was in the beginning, is n••w, and ••v••r shall be world without end, Am••n. (repeated at the end of every Psalm, Hymn, eight or ten times eve••y M••••ning and Evening Prayer, though no Sc••ipture, but a humane Invention of Pope Damasus, as all acknowledge, at least 376. yea••s after Christ) in direct opposition to the premi∣sed Texts of the Philippian••, Revelations, and practise o•• the twenty four E••ders, Angels, their own and our Chu••ches usage, af••er the Communion received, and in direct contradiction to Dr. Boyes his ••eason for kneeling in the Ac•• o•• R••ce••ving•• because Thanksgi••ing is a part o•• Prayer, ••••r which no g••sture is so fit as Kneeling? If standing up at G••oria Patri, &c. be a gesture whereby they and others are to glorifie, worship, adore the 3. Persons of the Trinity, and that equally without distinction, standing up at and to all their Names and Persons a∣like; then falling, kneeling down to, before them, in the use and recital of those other Prayses, Prayers, Dox∣ologies, and at the Eucharist, (quite contrary to, and in∣consistent with standing up, and bowing to the name of Jesus only when all three Persons are joyntly men∣tioned, worshipped, glorified, praysed, adored, can be no worship of Gods own prescribing, nor duty of the Text. Either therefore they must henceforth disclaim their bowing at the Name ••esus, and kneeling at the recited Prayers, Doxologies and Lords Supper; or else bow and fall down, upon their Knees, Faces; not stand up at Gloria Patri for the future, to reconcile these con∣tradictory

ge••tures, usages, prescriptions resuting, subverting one the other.

That the Brazen Serpent it self was a taken-up worship, [ 18. & 19] ••ere humane Injunction, (as the Bishops words imply) is a manifest untruth; For it was a thing of Gods own in∣stitution, Num 21.9. 2 Kings 18.4 John 3.14. As therfore tha•• Serpent was broken in pieces when the Isra∣elites began to worship, and to commit Idolatry with it; so ought this bowing at the Name of Jesus, which is idoliz••d, or superstitiously abused by many, to be abo∣lished too, And so much the rather, because it is but a tak••n-up wo••ship, a humane Injunction, introduced, pro∣pogated at fi••st by Popes, which hath no warrant at all f••om God, or this Text of the Philippians.

That this bowing to and at the name Iesus, as it may be [ 20] superstitio••sly used, so it may be irreligiousl•• negl••cted too. Though I belie••e the fi••st part of it to be absolutely true, Superstition being defined by Isiodor, Angelus de Cl••v••si••, and others•• to be, A rendering of another kind of worship to God or Christ, than he prescribes in his Word, or wo••shipping God in another mann••r, according to human inventions; I shall suspend my belief of the latter Clause, till this Bowing be proved a religious duty prescribed by God in Scripture, by stronger proofs and better evidences than any yet produced by this Bishop or his Followers. For my own part I yet think there is no Religion at all in it, and so, that it can be no Irreligion to omit it, That it is rather Su∣pe••stition than Religion to use it; and that many have used it, not only superstitio••sly, but idolatro••sly, by bow∣ing to and adoring the bare Name and Letters of Iesus, which occasioned this Discourse.

To evidence this, I shall in the last place present you with an Exact Chronological History of the true Ori∣ginal, Pedegree, and Progress of this Ceremony, un∣known (I believe) to most, even of those great Pre∣lates and Divines, who customarily use it; who if they had observed that Maxime o•• Aristotle, Scire est per

Causam scire; That rule they learnt in their Gram∣mars; Faelix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas; or that Gospel Precept, 1 John 4.1. Brethren, believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God, b••cause many false Prophets are gone out into the World: should have first examined, who were the original In∣ventors, Propagators of this pretended Duty or Cere∣mony, and upon what motives, grounds, designs they first introduced it, before they practised it themselves, or pressed it upon others Consciences; that so they might avoid that censure and danger denounced by our Saviour Christ himself against the Pharisees and their Disciples (who were guided more by ‖ tradition & custome of the Elders, than Scripture or right reason) Mat. 15.14. Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind: And if the blind lead the blind (as I fear they do in this particular as well as others,) both shall fall into the ditch. To avoid which danger, I shall now out of Con∣science and Christian compassion, endeavour to open their eyes, and discover that new light unto them, which God hath revealed unto me, upon my best In∣quiry after it, for my own private satisfaction and o∣ther•• instruction; which I hope will prove a satisfactory Apology for the Indulgence of Christian liberty to all scru∣pulous tender Consciences in this particular, according to his Majesti••s late Royal Declarations.

Notes

• He excepts not the two Per∣sons of the Trini∣ty, God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost▪ no more then their names which if intend∣ed and included in his words, they are little lesse then Heresie and Blasphemy.
• Note this.
• ‖

  Psal. 16.2.
• Ps••l. 111.9.
• Ambros. Hex∣am l 6. c. 9. Hierom C••m In Isai. 45. Cyrill. Alex. in Hesaiam l 4. c. 45 Orat 3.
• 1 Cor. 13.••.
• ‖

  R••m. 6.19.
• Rev 4.10•• c. 5.8.14. c. 7.11.
• 2ly.
• Isay 43•• 11.
• 3ly.
• Nota.
• 4ly.
• ‖

  Mark this.
• 2 Kings 18.4.
• Few then d••d it, & most since do it up∣on this Ser∣mons inst••ga∣tion, and Bi∣shops reputa∣tion.
• a

  Mat. 18.20.5. c ••4.5. Mat. 9.33, 41, Lu. 9.48 Iohn 14 13. c. 14 18 c. 15.16 c 16.23.2••, 26.
• b

  Tit. 1.13. c▪ 2.2.
• c

  see Section 3.
• ‖

  See Bishop ••ewels Reply to Harding. Artic. 8. p 379, 405.
• Page 3, to 20.
• See Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Au∣gustinus cont••a Haerese••, Al∣phonsus de C••∣stro, & Ephr••im P••git de Hae∣resibus.
• See 〈…〉〈…〉
• See 〈…〉〈…〉 ••ewell•• R••p•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Harding•• ••r∣t c. 8. of Ad••ra∣••••••n.
• 1 ••••r 11.••••.
• See here S••ct. 3.
• Among o∣thers Dr. G. in in his Sermon before the Commons House, May 20 1661.
• Luke 22.14, 21, 30. 1 Cor. 10.21. Iohn 13.2, 28.
• See Iohn 13: 13, 14, 15, 16.
• Calvin, Har∣mon Evang in Ma••. 26.20 p. 319. ••eza, Thomas Pay∣body, Apo∣logy for the Gesture of Kneeling, p. 50. to 60. Ains∣worth Anno∣••ations on Ex∣od. 12 Scaliger, De emendat. Temporum, l. 6. p. 534. Dr. Iohn Burgess his Lawfulness of Kneeling. c. 19.
• Ena••ratio in Ps 126 Sessio humilitatem significat.
• See Thomas Beacon his Ca∣techisme, f. 484, 4••1.
• a

  Alexander Alensis. Sum. Theol. Pars 4. qu. 11. Artic. 1. Qu An Christus suum met. corpus in Caena sumpse••i•••• p. 374.
• Alex A••ensis pars 4 p. 174.
• b

  B••eviatium Romanum Antuerpiae, 1621 p 26••.
• c

  Alexander Alensis, Pars 4. Quest. ••0 sect. 7 p. 358.
• d

  See A••etius, Beza, Beacon, Brentius, Cal∣vin, Cart∣wright, Chem∣nitius, Gual-Deodat, Maior, Os••ander, Scultetus, Tos••anus, Zuinglius, May ••rus, Marlorat. piscator, Wa∣laeus, Danaeus
• In his works p. 476.477.
• e

  Catechism, f. 48••.
• f

  In his works, London 1622 p. ••98.
• g

  1 Cor. ••1.23.
• h

  Mat. 2••.18.
• Vol. 1. of his Works, ••. 484, 485.
• 1 Thes. 5.
• Nota.
• Nota.
• l

  Mat. 4.
• Nota.
• Mat. 14 19. c. 15.35. Ma••. 6.39. c. 8.6. Iohn 6.20. Luke 9.14, 15
• Bp. Mor••••n, Dr Iohn 〈…〉〈…〉 Payb••dy
• 1 T••m. 4.5.
• Mat 26.26. 1 Cor. 11 24. Rom 14.20. Luke 22.19. c. 24 ••0.
• Antiq. Con••i∣valium l. 2. c. 36. De Conse∣cra••ione Mensae, qua Iudaei Chri∣stiani, & aliae ••entes olim usae sunt & h••die ••tuntur, p. 27••, &c.
• ‖

  In Mat 26 14. Mark 6 39, 40, 41. c. 8.6.
• e

  Dr. Boyes his Postills, p. 7. See My short Pacifique Exa∣mination, p. 8, to 24.
• Nota.
• See Walaeus on this Text.
• 1 Pet. 5 3.
• Tertul. de ••ejunio, & Co∣rona Militis▪ Cyprian de Oratione. Surius Concil. Tom 1. p. 447. Tom. 2. p. 1052. Tom. 3. p. 277. Cent. Magd. 3. to 8. c. 6.
• a

  De Spirita Sanct•• l. 3. c 12. Per scabellum te••ra intelligit••r, per terram autem caro Ch••isti, quam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••uo∣que in myste••••••s ADORAMVS, et quam Ap••st••li in D••mino Iesu ad••rarunt.
• b

  Ena••ratio in Ps••l. 98. Nemo ou••em carnem ill••m m••nducat nisi p••ius ADO∣RAVI••, Inven∣tum est quem adm••dum ad ••e∣tur ta••e sca••el∣••••m 〈◊〉〈◊〉 D••∣mini, & n••n s••∣l••m n••n pe••ce∣mu•• ad••rand••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 emus non ADORANDO.
• c

  ••ish••p 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reply to Ha••∣d••ng 8 〈…〉〈…〉
• d

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 l. 13. c. 7.
• e

  Hist. Eccl. l. 8. c. 5.
• f

  C••nt. Magd. l. 4. c. 6 col. 670.
• g

  Dr. Burges, his Lawfulnes of kneeling in receiving the Lords Supper, p. 83 & Dr. G. in his Sermon 1661.
• a

  Dr Burges his Answer re∣joyned to the Re∣ply of Dr. Mor∣tons general Defence, p 478, 479, 480. dedi∣cated to King Charles the first.
• b

  De Ritibus Eccles. Cathol. l. 2. p. 557. n. 29. c. 55.
• c

  Ordo Roman. Bibl. Patr. col. 1618. Tom. 8. p. 393. Sacrar. Cerem. l. 2. p. 181. Edit. Colen 15••8.
• d

  Missale Rom. in the Rubrick set out by Pius 5.
• e

  Durantus de Ri••ibus, p 443, ••43 l. 2. c. 11
• f

  In De••ret. Greg. I••••. 41.
• g

  Lib C••remon. 2 p 181
• h

  Id. p. 192.
• i

  Ca••. De s••cra Comm••n.
• One Supersti∣t••••n begets ano∣ther.
• k

  See Super ••r••da in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ap•••• flex•••• gen••∣b•••• tot•• al••o ••or∣p••r•• erecto••e disponent▪ &c.
• l

  Papatus sive depravatae Reli∣gionis o••i••o, p. 7••. Edenbu••g. 1594.
• i

  Repl•• to H••r∣ding, 8 A••t••cle of Ad••ra••••••on p. 381. &c. Dr. Iohn Bur∣ges his Lawful∣ness of Kneeling in the Act of Re∣ceiving, p. 65, 66.
• The Preface of the Answer••s, p. 25.
• The lawfull∣nesse of kneeling in receiving the Lords Suppe••. ch. 32. p. 110, 111, 112.
• ‖

  See his Epist. 12. & ••dvers. Hesh••s••um, O∣puscula p. 311. et Quaest. & Re••p. 243 Edit. 157••
• Harmon▪ Con∣fess Geneva. 1521 sect. 14. p. 120.
• a

  Mat 15.27. The Prayer at the Commu∣nion.
• b

  Lu. 22.14 29.27.30 1 Cor. 10.21. John 12.2. c. 13.12.23.
• c

  Mat. 15.26, 27. Mar. 7.2••, 28.
• d

  Iudges 1.7.
• e

  Col. 2.18.
• f

  Mat. 26.20. Mark 2.15, 16. ch. 6.39, 40. ch. 14.18. Luke 14.1, 8, 9, 10, 15, to 25 ch. 12, 14, 19, 27, 30. ch. 24.30. Iohn 12▪2. ch. 13.12.
• g

  Iohn 12.23, ch. 21.20.
• h

  Gulielmus Stuckius, Antiq. Convivalium, l. 2. c. 34▪
• i

  Ephes. 5.30. 1 Cor. 12.27.
• k

  Iohn 17▪ 2••.22, 23. 1 Iohn 5.20.
• l

  Hebr. ••: 11••
• m

  Iohn 15.14, 15.
• n

  Iohn 1.22. Rom. 8.14, 19. 1 Iohn 3.1, 2. ch. 5.2.
• o

  Rom. 8.16, 17. Gal. 3.26, 29. Iam. 2, 5.
• p

  Rev. 1.6 ch. ••0.6. 1 Pet. 2.••.
• q

  Rev. 3.21
• Luke 22.29, 30.
• s

  Ephes. 2.5, 6.
• Bish••p An∣d••ews P••ybody, and others
• t

  Mark 14.24. Mat. 26.28. This Cup is the New Testament of my blood which is shed FOR MANY, n••t all.
• u

  1 Cor. 11.24, ••0. Mat 2••.26, 27. Luk. 12.19, 20. Mark 14.••2, 23.
• See here p. 76, 77.
• Artic. 20. Acts 20.2••.
• See here p 68, 69, &c. 79, 80.
• ‖

  Concilium Constantiense, Sessio 13. Suri∣us Concil. Tom. 3. p 820, 821, 822. with Binius, & Crab. in ••heir Collection of Councils.
• M••t. 26 M••r. 14. Luk 2••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 q••oted ••n 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ma••gin.
• 5 October. 1660. p. 16.
• Altare Dama∣scenum, and o∣thers.
• Phil. 4.5.
• See Augusti••. ad Simplicia∣num, l. 2. qu. 4. Dr. Iohn Burgess of the lawfulness of kneeling in the Act of Recei∣ving. Thomas Pa••body his ••ust Apoligy for the gesture of Kneeling in the Act of Recei¦ving the Lord•• Supper, London 1629. & others.
• V. 10. Before me the••e is no GOD formed, &c V. 12. Ther∣fore ••e are my Witn••sses that I am GOD ••re∣cede and fol∣l••w, Besides me there is no Saviour.
• Act•• 1•• 23. Phil. 3.20. 2 ••im. 1.10. Tit. 1.3.4 c 2.13 c •• 6. 2 Pet 1.1, 11. •• 2. •••• c. ••.18
• Alcuinus con∣tra Felicem Vr∣gel. l. 2.
• See Mat. 1•• 21.25. Luk. 1.31. c. 2.21.
• Expo••it. &c. in Mat. c. 1•• Tom. 5.•• p. 1.
• ‖

  Divinis Of∣ficiis, c. 4. n. col•• 1147.
• ‖

  Here p. 2, 3, 4.
• See Dr•• Fulk, Mr. Ca••tw••ight, Dr. Willet, Bp. Iewel Bp Mor∣ton and others.
• ‖

  See here. p. 30, to 48.
• See Sect. 3.
• Deut. 28.58. Ps. 72.18, 19. Ps 99.3. Isay 57.15 Jer 10. •• c. 44.26. Ezek 39.1, 7•• 25. Mal 1.11•• 14 c. 2.2, ••.
• Hexam. ••on, l. 6. c.
• Comment. in Isai••m, l 1••. c. 45.
• In Hesaiam, l. 4. c. 45. Orat. 3.
• In Phil 2.9, 10, 11.
• ‖

  Heb. 1. Psal. 2. 2 Reg. 2.
• Aleuinus c••n∣t••a Feli••em Vr∣••el. ep. lib. 2. col. 106, to 810. & Proclus. Cassia∣nus, with o∣thers cited by him, & lib 3.
• ‖

  Gal 3.27, 29. c. 2.17.20, 21.
• Iohn 14.2.
• ‖

  Nota.
• Tract 7. in Evangelium se∣cundum Iohan∣nem, Se••mo. ••. & in Ma••••m. l 2. all cited by Beda Expo∣sit. in Hebr. 1.
• Operum Tom. 8. Col. 530, 531. Tom. 6. Col. 771, 772 •• most full-place
• On Psal 45. and Heb. 1. and on the Creed.
• Psal. 45.7. Hebr 1.8. an•• all Commenta∣tors ••n them.
• Bp. Iewel Reply to Har∣ding, Artic. 8. of Adoration. Dr. Reynolds De Idolatria Roma∣nae Ecclesiae. The Homily of the Peril of Idolatry. Bp. Morton of the Masse.
• Acts 4.12. Neither is there Salvati••n in any other, for the••e is none other name under heaven given amo••g men, wherby we must be saved
• ‖

  Lu. 1.69.77. c. ••.30 c. 3 6. c. •••• Acts 4 12. I••de 3 Isay 62.••••. M••. •• 7. Ps. 62.1, 2, ••.
• See Sect. ••.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, p 126.
• Mat W••stm. An 3••6. S••e My Pacif••que 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c p. 8, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 24.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 68.69.
• 2 Kings 18.4.
• See Section 3••
• See Summ•• Angel. & Ro∣sella, Tit▪ Su∣perstitio.
• ‖

  Mat. 5.21, to 38. c. 15.2, to 7. Mar 7.3, to 14. Gal. 1.14.