A TREATISE OF THE CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH.  
Wherein the points in question Concerning Baptism, kneeling, at the Sacrament, Confirmation, Festivities, etc. Are plainly handled and manifested to be lawful, as they are now used in the Church of ENGLAND.  
Whereunto is added a Sermon preached by a Reverend Bishop.  1. Cor. 11.16. 
But if any man seem to be contentious, etc.  
LONDON, Printed for Ralphe Rounthwaite, and are to be sold at his shop, at the sign of the Golden Lion, in Paul's Churchyard. 1625.   

TO THE REVEREND AND GODLY BRETHREN, The PASTORS, and MINISTERS of the Church of SCOTLAND.  
AS in our Church (blessed be God,) touching the truth of Doctrine, there is no controversy, so there is no doubt (dear brethren) but in the controverted points of Policy, we would soon agree, if we did consider what is the power of the Church in these matters, the extent of her power, and the obedience that is due thereto: therefore concerning these, I have thought meet to 〈◊〉 this short Preface unto you.  
Albeit all things necessary to the worship of God, 
The power of the Church.  and man's salvation, be either expressly, or by necessary consequence, contained in the written Word, yet the particular circumstances of persons by whom, place where, time when, and of the form and order how the worship and work of the Ministry should be performed, are neither expressly nor by necessary consequence set down in the Word: but for determination of these, some general rules are given, according to the which the Church hath power to define whatsoever is most expedient to be observed, and done for the honour of God, 
The power of the Christian Church in electing Pastors.  and edification. This is a prerogative wherein the Christian Church differs from the jewish Synagogue, as is manifest in every one of the particulars above expressed. First, as touching the persons, in the jewish Church, they who were employed in the Ministry, were particularly designed to be Levies Tribe: 
Numb. cap. 3. 1. Tim. 3.  In the Christians Church neither Family, Nation, nor People, is separated for the work of the Gospel, but the qualities, graces, and gifts of men meet for the sacred service, are only set down, and it is in the power of the Church to try the persons particularly in whom these graces and gifts are, and accordingly to elect them. And albeit the function whereunto they are called be divine, yet the bounds within which, and the persons towards whom the same must be exercised, is limited by the Church, which hath divided national Churches in Provinces & Dioceses, and Dioceses in Parishes: so as both the election of Ministers, and the limitation of their jurisdiction, is from the power of the Church. This the Apostle calls the measure of the Canon, 
2. Cor. 10.  which God did measure out to him, beyond the which, he did not reach in his Apostleship: and such a rule, and measure should every Pastor in the Church have, beyond the which, he ought not to pass, entering upon other men's labour. As the Apostles had their measure distributed to them by God, so now every Pastor hath his bounds designed by the Church.  
Secondly, under the Law, 
Their power in consecrating places. Act. 15.21.  albeit the jewish Church had liberty to build Synagogues for their ordinary meetings on the Sabbath to prayer, and reading of the Law: yet the place, where the chief, and solemn worship of God was performed, was first the Tabernacle, and the Temple, both built by Gods own special direction, 
Deut. 12.4.  and having the principal parts of his worship so appropriated to them, that in another place, the same might not be performed. But as under the Gospel men shall neither worship God in this mountain (says our Saviour) nor in jerusalem, but the true worshippers shall worship him in truth and spirit, the Christian Church hath power according to that Apostolical Rule, 
1. Cor. 14.40.  Let all things be done decently, and in order, to make choice of a place convenient, within the bounds of each Parish, for the meeting of the faithful to perform all the points, and parts of God's worship: and this place being built, and dedicated to the worship of God, may not be condemned, neglected, nor profaned, but frequented, and kept for religious uses. Not that we esteem that there is any more holiness in it, then in another place, or that God's presence, and so his worship is annexed more to that place then to another, but to the end religious Service may be performed decently, and in order, this is done.  
Thirdly, 
The power of the Church in appointing times to God's worship. Levit. 23.  under the Law the chief parts of God's worship were astricted to certain set times, & festivities, & lawfully could not be performed on other days: but under the Gospel omnis dies Domini est, omnis hora, omne tempus habile est divinocultui, as Tertul. in his book de Baptismo witnesseth; and Esay prophesied in his 66.23. From one Sabbath to another, and from one New-moon to another shall all flesh appear before me, saith the Lord. Thus the Apostles ceased not to teach daily in the Temple, 
Act. 5. Act. 19  & from house to house, the Doctrine of Christ. S. Paul taught in the School of one Tyrannus for the space of 2. years daily, and as one of the Greek Editions hath it, from the fifth hour to the tenth. On the jewish Sabbath, 
Act. 13.14. Epitome. de ●●●e Catholica.  which is our Saturday, he taught often in the jewish Synagogues. And Epiphanius records, that Christians kept their conventions on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, by Apostolical tradition, and example. 
Epist. ad januar. 118.  S. Augustine affirms, That in his time men received the Sacrament every day. Our own Church, besides the Lord's day, hath appointed other hours and times for divine Service in great Towns, as hours for Morning and Evening Prayer every day, for Preaching, and interpretation of Scripture, such other times as they hold to be convenient. Thus is it manifest, that the Church hath power to appoint other set times besides the Lord's day, for his service, as well by the liberty which God hath given to his Church to come, and worship before him every day, as by the practice of the Apostolical, and Primitive Churches. Yea further, the Church hath power to appoint religious exercises, and certain special parts of divine Service to be performed in the times, which she thinks most expedient for edification. So hath our Church been accustomed to appoint particular Scriptures to be interpreted upon the days so called of Exercise; and by the first Book of Discipline, every Pastor is ordained to teach in his Congregation on the Sundays at afternoons certain heads of the Catechism: Likewise to minister the Sacrament of the Communion upon the first Sundays of March, june, Septemb. & December. It was the custom of the Church of Geneva, 
Caluin. 361. Epist.  in the days of I. Caluin, to celebrate that holy action upon the day of the Nativity, which we call Yule, and upon Easter day which we call Pasche. The ground of this power is first, the abolishing of the New-moones, Festival days, and Sabbaths by the coming of our Saviour, in whom the body of all these shadows is: and next, the liberty given by God to the Christian Church mentioned by Isaiah, as ye heard before. For as by the first we are freed from the bondage of the Law, and the observation of the set times therein prescribed; so by the second, all times are sanctified to the worship of God, in so fare, that the Christian Church may make choice of any time in the week, any day in the month or year for their public meetings to his worship. And as for the Lords Day, which hath succeeded to the jewish Sabbath, albeit God hath commanded to sanctify it by the public exercise of religion, yet neither is the whole pub like worship nor any part of it appropriated to that time, but lawfully the same may be performed upon any other convenient day of the week, of the Month, or of the year, as the Church shall think expedient. Upon this ground Zanchius affirmed, Ecclesiae Christi liberum esse, quos velit praeter dominic, dies sibi sanctificandos deligere. And by this warrant did the primitive Church sanctify these five anniversary days, of Christ's Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the Descent of the Holy Ghost. Where it is objected, that it is only proper to God to make holidays, I answer. That it is only proper to God, to make times, and places holy, by appropriating to them a divine worship, which may not be performed lawfully, but in these places, and on these times; such as the Tabernacle, and Temple, and the jewish Festivities under the Law were: for unto them was appropriated by God a worship, which might not be performed on another day: and so these days did not only belong to the worship as mere circumstances, but were proper parts or points thereof, and could not be omitted, without marring of the whole action: In which respect, these days were holier than other days, because a part of God's worship consisted in observation of them. Such holy days the Church cannot make. But to make times and places holy by consecration of them to an holy use, the Church hath power: for the days that she appoints are observed only for order, and policy; and have no relation to the worship performed on them, as any Rite or religious Ceremony belonging necessarily to the integrity thereof. The Nativity of our Saviour may be remembered, and public thankes given to God therefore upon any other time as well, as upon the twenty five of December; likewise the Passion, Ascension, and the rest of these benefits: yet we remember them at certain set times, not because the times require such a worship, or the worship such a time to the integrity and lawfulness thereof, but to the end the worship may be performed orderly once every year, in every place upon one day, that all people, wheresoever they be, at home or abroad, may be instructed, and admonished to praise and magnify the grace of God, and goodness of their Saviour. Herein the reformed Churches differ from the Papists, who judaize in observation of those Festivities, because they profess to observe them, not for order only, but esteem them to be sacratiores & sanctiores alijs diebus, 
Bellar. de cultu sanctorum, lib. 3. cap. 10.  & pars divini cultus, which we do not. For the Lords Day, it hath succeeded to the Sabbath, and is holy by divine Institution, having for evidence and confirmation thereof, both a moral Precept, and the exemplary practice of Christ, and his Apostles in Scripture. In the forth command, after the labour of six days, the seventh is appointed to be sanctified in memorial of God's rest from his six days work; and the particular day, not being expressed in the command, was notified to the people either by the exemplary practice of Moses, and the Church in the Wilderness, or by tradition of the Father's going before, if so it be, that from the Creation that day was observed. Now after the legal shadows are abolished, whereof the jewish Sabbath was one, if any will demand what day must be observed in the Christian Church, we answer, that questionless for the quotient of the number, the day cannot be altered, which by the Law is appointed. Heaven and Earth shall perish, but one jot of the Law shall not perish. Our Saviour came not to dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it. In the Law we hear that God rested the seventh Day, that he blessed and sanctified it, and there is a liberty given to labour six days, but the seventh is commanded to be kept holy: so howbeit the jewish Sabbath which was the shadow, be materially abolished as touching the particular Day, yet the Day commanded in the Law, formally must remain, and ever be the seventh after six days work. But if ye will ask, seeing the seventh Day in particular is not expressed in the Law, and that day which the jews observed, is abolished by Christ, as the shadow by the body, how the particular and material Day may be known, that the Christian Church should observe? Unto this we answer, that the particular Day was demonstrated by our Saviour's Resurrection, and his Apparitions made thereon; by the Apostolical practice and the perpetual observation of the Church, ever since that time, of the Day which in Scripture is called the Lords Day, as that, which the jews observed was called the Lords Sabbath; because as the one was appointed by the Lord, for a memorial of his rest, after the Creation, so the other was inflituted by the Lord for a memorial of his Resurrection after the Redemption. For this we must hold as a sure ground, whatsoever the Catholic Church hath observed in all Ages, and is found in Scripture expressly to have been practised by Christ, and the Apostles (such as the sanctification of the Lords Day) the same most certainly was instituted by the Lord to be observed, and his practice in that is exemplar, and hath the strength of a particular precept. Hereby it is manifest, that the sanctification of the Lords Day is of divine Institution, as well by reason of the divine Precept, commanding the seventh Day in general to be observed, as of the divine practice of Christ, and the Apostles their specifying the Day, which hath the force of a particular divine Precept. In respect whereof, the observation of this Day is a point of divine Worship, and is holy, not by Ecclesiastical Constitution, but by divine Institution. Moreover this Day is holy by appropriation of it to a certain religious use, whereunto no other Day can be applied, namely, to be a memorial of the Lords rest after the Creation, and of his Resurrection after the Redemption: As also to be a sign of our sanctification here, and of our glorification hereafter, as is manifest by the words of the holy Ghost, Exod. 31.13. It shall be a sign between me and you, that I the Lord do sanctify you: and that of the fourth to the Hebrews, A rest is left to the people of God, wherein we should study to enter. For this we must hold, that whatsoever use under the Law, was proper to the jews Sabbath, wherein now under the Gospel both jew and Gentile have interest, remains yet proper to the Lords Day that succeeded thereto: And in that respect, this Day differs from all other Days being observed not for policy and order only, but for divine institution, and the religious use whereunto it is appropriate, that is, to be a memorial, First of the Creation, as hath been said, because after our six days work, we rest on it, being the seventh, as God did from the works of the Creation: Secondly, of the Redemption, because on it the Lord arose, and perfected that work: and thirdly, to be a sign of our sanctification, namely, that God, who hath chosen and sanctified us to be his people, and whom we worship, is God the Creator, who in six days created the World, and rested the seventh; and God the Redeemer, who rose on this Day, and having abolished sin, and death, did bring in righteousness, and life; and God the holy Ghost, by whose power he did rise, and by whose power we hope also to be raised again. Unto this holy and religious use, this Day is appropriated, whereunto no other Day beside can be applied. That to conclude, the Church hath power to appoint times, for the public worship of God, and to appoint such a kind of worship, as she thinketh most expedient to be used on these times for edification; although she hath no power to make the observation of any time, a point of God's worship, or to appropriate thereto any part of his worship.  
Finally, to end this point of the power of the Church, when the people are convened in the ordinary place, and at the times appointed, the Scripture hath not set down, whereat the Pastor should begin, how he should proceed, and wherewith he should close up this Service: as whether he should begin with singing of Psalms, or praying, or reading, or preaching; and when he prays, with what petition he shall begin, what he shall subioyne next, and so forth: what order he shall observe in baptising and celebration of the Supper, in Marriage, in censuring of notorious offenders by Excommunication, in Absolution: and to be short, in all such other points of Doctrine, Discipline, and Divine Service, there is nothing particularly prescribed. Although the substance of all be in the Word, yet the order, disposition, form, and manner are left to be determined by the Church. Many of which points, are of fare greater moment, than any of the Articles concluded at Perth.  
Thus much for the power of the Church. We come now to the extent of this power. It is certain, that this power cannot reach to any thing essential or material in the worship of God: but to the decency, 
The Church hath power to determine general circumstances necessary for God's worship.  and order only, which is to be observed for edification in the circumstances above specified; Let all things be done decently, and in order, saith the Apostle. The things themselves that are to be done, are partly specified in that same Chapter where this rule is given, and in the word elsewhere, they are fully and particularly expressed, and not left to be prescribed according to the will and judgement of the Church, but by this Precept a power is given only to the Church to prescribe the decent manner, form, and order how they should be done. And so to determine the circumstances which are in the general necessary to be used in divine worship, but not particularly defined in the Word. So by warrant of this Precept, the Church hath no power to form new Articles of Faith, new Precepts of Obedience, new Petitions of Prayer, new Sacraments, or new Rites, and Ceremonies, such as Salt, Oil, Spittle, Chrism, Ashes, holy Water, Lights, and innumerable such other things; which cannot be reduced to any circumstances, that in the general are of necessary use: wherein the Church of Rome abusing her liberty, hath laid upon the Christian Church a burden of Rites no less intolerable than the Legal Ceremonies, yea, and have imposed them to be observed, not only as things belonging to policy, and order, but as parts of divine worship, which we of the reformed Church reject, esteeming all that to be will worship, which men impose to be observed, as necessary points of the service of God, which himself hath ordained in his Word.  
Further, 
The Laws that the Church makes in their matters are alterable.  because the Ceremonies and circumstances left to the determination of the Church, cannot always be one and the same, by reason of the diversity of Ages, Times, People, and Nations, touching them no constant Law can be set down, as is acknowledged in the one and twentieth Article of the Confession of our Faith confirmed by Parliament; but altered they may be, and altered they should be, when necessity requires: In which case Charity (says Caluine) can best judge, what is most expedient, Hanc si moderatricem patiemur, salua erunt omnia.  
The power of the Church being thus limited, 
The obedience due to the Ordinances of the Church.  it is without controversy, that the Canons made by her touching the circumstances that in the general are necessary for the worship of God, aught to be obeyed so long as they stand unchanged or abrogated: not because they contain in them any substantial or material part of Religion, or that they have in them any divine Authority, as the Commandments of God, which in conscience bind to obedience; but because in them an order is established tending to unity and peace, whereby confusion, scandal, and Schism is eschewed: and because the power of the Church, whereby these Laws are made, is the Ordinance of God, and confirmed by the authority of his Word, commanding us to obey them that are set over us in the Lord, the Canons of the Church must be obeyed, for reverence of the Ordinance and Commandment of God, which is the only direct and immediate object of our conscience, and the religious band that ties us to the obedience of every humane ordinance for conscience sake.  
But because many excuse their disobedience with a pretext of conscience, I will shortly set down the rules of conscience, that by the Word of God we are obliged to follow in our actions.  
The first is, whatsoever is commanded, 
The rules of Conscience.  or forbidden in the Word expressly, or by necessary consequence, aught to be obeyed. The next is, whatsoever is commanded or forbidden by the Laws and Ordinances of our Superiors Civil or Ecclesiastic, the same, if it be not contrary to God's Word, should be obeyed, by reason of his express command; Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, Heb. 13. And again, Submit yourself to every ordinance of man, for the Lords sake, 1. Pet. 2.13. To this appertains lawful customs having the force of a Law, where there is no written Law. Thirdly, touching things that are free, and are neither determined by Civil nor Ecclesiastical Constitutions, we have this rule: Let every man stand fully persuaded, in his own mind, that he may do or omit that which he intends, without the offence of God or his Neighbour, but he that doubts is damned, for whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, Rom. 14. These are the rules of conscience set down in the Word, concerning which it is to be observed, that the first rule is absolute, and the second and third subject to it. The Laws of men and their opinions must be tried, and judged by the Law of God; for as the Apostle says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. 5.29.  that is, We must obey God rather than men. As for the private judgement of every man's conscience, it is subject to both the two former rules. That the judgement of our mind must give place to God's Law, no man doubts: And that it ought to give place unto Constitutions Civil or Ecclesiastical, no man should doubt, that knows how God by his Word hath ordained, that every soul should be subject to superior powers. It may be objected, What if we doubt, whether the thing commanded in the law of man be lawful and expedient, may we obey thus doubting, seeing the Apostle says, that Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin? Unto this the answer is easy; first, touching the lawfulness of that which is commanded in a Law, no man ought to doubt, except he be able to prove evidently that the Law is unlawful by the Law of God; which if he do, he must follow the first rule, and rather obey God then men. Next, as for expedience, Rom. 14: The things committed to the judgement of our conscience, and which according to our faith and persuasion we ought to do, or omit, are not things determined or concluded by any divine or humane Constitution, but such things as are free and indifferent, which a man may freely elect or reject, 
In matters of expedience where a lawful Ordinance is set down, the same aught to be the rule of our conscience.  do or leave undone, without transgression of any Law Divine, Civil, or Ecclesiastical. In such things, the Apostle willeth every man to follow that which he thinks most expedient for edification, and eschewing of scandal. Where a man hath not a Law, his judgement is the rule of his conscience; but where there is a Law, the Law must be the rule. As for example, before that Apostolical Canon that forbade to eat blood, or strangled things, every man might have done that which in his conscience he thought most expedient, according to the circumstances of times, places, and persons. In presence of the jews he might have abstained from these things, if in his heart he thought it most expedient, for eschewing their offence: Contrariwise, in presence of converted Gentiles, he might have eaten, if he esteemed, that by his abstinence they would have taken offence, and doubted of their Christian liberty; but after the making and publication of the Canon that enjoined abstinence, the same was to rule their consciences. And therefore, after that time, albeit a man had thought in his own private judgement, that to abstain from these things was not expedient, because some by his abstinence might have taken offence as before; yet in that case he ought not to have eaten, because now the will of the Law, and not the judgement of his own mind, was the rule of his conscience. Neither was he now to respect the scandal, because it was removed by the Law: for, by obedience to a lawful Ordinance no man gives scandal, and if any take offence, both the cause and occasion thereof is the perverseness only of the person offended. Tertullian saith well, Res bona neminem offendit, nisi malam mentem, that is, A good thing (such as obedience) can offend no man, but an evil mind; which must be reform by good information, and not by disobedience, which confirmeth error, and causes rebellion. Caluin in his 363. Epist. written to Olevian, gives many reasons, wherefore the comfort of the Sacrament ought not to be refused to the sick in time of extremity, and declares that in his own judgement, he thought it expedient not to refuse the same; yet he subioynes, Scis, frater, alium esse apud nos morem: fero, quia non est utile contendere, that is, Ye know, Brother, we have another custom: I bear with it, because I think not good to make contention. Here Caluin preferreth the custom of Geneva to his own judgement, and will leave that undone which he thought expedient to be done, rather than by doing it, and infringing the custom of the Church, to make contention. What then, shall we do ill, that good may come of it? for is it not evil to omit that which we think expedient to be done, and that ought not to be refused, to the end good may come of it, namely, peace preserved, and contention eschewed? To this I answer, The evil which the Apostle forbids, is a thing simply unlawful in itself, and not that which in one respect may be expedient, and in another inexpedient: As to give the Sacrament to the sick is expedient for their comfort, but to give it contrary to the order of the Church, is not expedient. In things of this nature, Ex duobus malis, minus eligendum est, that is, Of two evils the least must be chosen. It is evil to refuse the comfort of the Sacrament to the sick, but it is worse to give it against the custom of the Church, and make contention. I must therefore in this case choose the least evil, and not give the Sacrament, because thereby the greater evil being eschewed, the less ceaseth to be evil, and becometh good. It is doubtless an evil thing to cast our goods in the Sea, but it is worse to lose our lives: Here the least evil is to be chosen, for the eschewing the greater, and in that respect it ceasses to be evil. Thus the rule holds in all things of this quality, when that which is evil is not unlawful and unhonest, but unexpedient and unprofitable. And so to return, Caluine for this cause prefers the custom of Geneva, to his own judgement in a matter of expediency: for it is ever more expedient to obey a Law, and keep a lawful Custom, then to do a thing thought more expedient, if it cannot be done, but by an open breach of the Law: because thereby the Law must be brought in contempt, private opinion preferred to public authority, and so confusion, contention and Schism brought in; and order, peace, and unity shoot to the door. To conclude, in matters of expediency, where a Law is set down, if we make not the Law the rule of our obedience and conscience, but our own private opinions and conceits, then must we with the Anabaptists disprove and condemn all sorts of Government, and live like lawless Libertines, every man following his own conceit; whereunto it is certain the perverseness of our nature carries us, that is always prone to rebellion, and therefore easily drawn thereto with any show of reason, pretext of conscience and religion: which the Penner of this pestilent Pamphlet considering, intends with Lies, Calumnies, Falsehoods, crafty Cavillations, Threaten and Terrors of Oaths, Promises, and Subscriptions, to deceive the simple, stir up the Seditious, confirm the Rebellious, & to bear down the Truth, his Majesty's Authority, the Power of the Church, and all that love Order & follow after peace.  
To obuiate this his seditious and malicious purpose, it was not only expedient, but necessary, that this answer should be made, which by the grace of God, shall give such satisfaction to all good and upright hearted men, as they shall prefer the judgement, determination, and lawful Constitutions of the Church, to the singularity of their own, and other private men's opinions; order to confusion, peace to contention, and unity to schism: aswell for the fear of God, who hath given power to his Church to set down Laws for order, and decency, and hath commanded us to submit ourselves thereto; as for obedience to the sacred will of our most gracious Sovereign, at whose instant and earnest desire these Articles being found lawful were concluded, and are now commanded to be practised. When David would have gone out against Absalon, he was stayed by the people, who esteemed his life more worth than a thousand of theirs: So should every good Christian esteem of the love and favour of the Prince towards the Church. Solomon says, that the wrath of a King, is the Messenger of Death, and like to the roaring of a Lion, which a Wiseman will pacify, and not provoke: and that his favour is as the cloud of the latter rain, and as the dew upon the grass. The truth of this is manifest in the Stories of the Church: what comfort the favour of Constantine the Great did give to the Christian Church, may be seen by the barbarous and cruel persecutions of the Emperors that went before.  
The evils, troubles, and calamities that the Church of England endured in the days of Queen Marie, declared what benefit they enjoyed by King Edward her Predecessor, and Queen Elizabeth her Successor. The beastly cruelty, and massacres used in France under the Government of the Predecessors of Henry the Great, hath made manifest to the World, what wrack and misery the discontentment, and offence of Princes; and how great blessing and felicity their love, and favour produces to the Church of God within their Dominions. What need we to go further than the Scriptures for examples to this purpose? therein we see, that as the Church decayed under wicked and idolatrous Governors, so did it ever revive, and flourish under religious and godly Kings. We stand much upon the offence of people, and esteem greatly of their favour, wherein I will not say we do evil; but should we put their favour and offence in balance with the favour, and offence of him whom God hath anointed and appointed to be the nursing Father of this Church? In whose love we have found by experience, and daily finds greater benefit and good for the advancement of true Religion, then can be expected from many thousands of our best Professors; let be at their hands, who in Religion like nothing well but contention, whereby they make their advantage one way or other, as they are inclined, delighting to fish (as the Proverb is) in troubled waters.  
It is often objected, that the chief cause of our yielding at Perth to the five Articles, was the respect we had to the favour of the Prince, and the fear of his wrath: against myself in particular it is falsely objected by the penner of this Pamphlet, that I confessed, we had neither Reason, Scripture, nor Antiquity for them, yet to divert the King's wrath from the Church, yielding was best. The truth is, at that time I spoke only of kneeling at the receiving of the Communion, and said no more than I have set down in print in that Treatise which I published for kneeling, in the last words of the first Section of the first Chapter, and in the first Section of the second Chapter at the beginning: this was, That neither Scripture, Antiquity, nor Reason do enforce any necessity either for lying, sitting, standing, or kneeling at the Sacrament; and that all these gestures being indifferent, I held it most expedient to yield, and not to strive with our gracious Sovereign for a matter of that nature, repeating this Verse, 
Cedere maiori virtutis fama secunda est:  
Illa gravis palma est, quam minor hostis habet.   
This I said at that time, and so yet I think, that to eschew the Prince his offence, and to keep, confirm, and increase his love and favour towards the Gospel and the Church, was a respect and cause great enough wherefore we should have yielded unto his Majesty's desire in matters indifferent; against the lawfulness whereof, nothing hath been, or can be objected, which is not, and may not be easily answered. Against the expediency, the fear of scandal was and is all that could be pretended; which if we were peaceably disposed, might have been, and yet may be very easily removed: and therefore such a sear aught neither to have impedite our yielding at that time, nor our obedience now. We are exhorted by the holy Ghost to fear God, and obey the King. Where obedience to the Prince may stand with God's fear, it ought to be preferred by every good Christian to all other respects, and especially by the Pastors of the Church, who should as lights go before others both in doctrine, and example, chief, when peace and unity may be procured and preserved in God's house by our obedience.  
For unity, we should be ready to lay down our lives, as well as for verity, which Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria writing to Novatus, affirmed, saying: Oportuerit etiam pati omnia, ne scinderetur Ecclesia Dei, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 34.  & erat non inferior gloria sustinere martyrium pro eo, ne scindatur Ecclesia, quàm est illa, ne idolis immoletur. Immo secundum meam sententiam, maius hoc put● esse martyrium: ibi enim unusquisque pro sua tantùm anima, in hoc verò, pro omni Ecclesia martyrium sustinet. That is to say; It behoved thee to have suffered all things, that the Church of God should not have been rend, & it had been no less glory to have sustained martyrdom for this, that the Church's unity might have been preserved, then for refusing to sacrifice unto Idols. Yea in my mind, this is a greater martyrdom▪ for in that every man suffereth for his own soul only, but here, he suffers martyrdom for the whole Church. This was the judgement of that holy Father. who esteemed it a glorious martyrdom to suffer for the unity of the Church. Contrariwise, the Donatists did glory in this, that by their sufferings, they entertained Schism and division, confirmed the hearts of the simple, and superstitious, in their errors; acquired to themselves the renown of Martyrs, and thereby brought upon the Church the imputation of persecution. To whom S. Augustine answers, That they complained most unjustly, that they were persecuted by the Church, because the Church was more heavily persecuted by them: and thereupon in the eleventh Tractate upon S. john says, Albeit Ishmael was cast out of his Father's house, for Isackes sake, yet the Apostle calls not Isaac, but Ishmael, the Persecutor. In his Book entitled, De Vnitate Ecclesiae, against Petilian the Donatist, he writeth thus: Gravius persequitur filius patrem male vivendo, quam pater silium castigando: & gravius ancilla Saram persecuta est per iniquam superbiam, quàm eam Sara per debitam disciplinam: & gravius Dominum persequebantur propter quos dictum est, Zelus domus tuae commedit me, quàm ipse eos, cum eorum mensas evertit, & eos flagello de templo expulit: that is to say, The son persecutes the father more grievously by his wicked living, than the father doth the son by inflicting due chastisement. And Agar the Handmaid did persecute Sara her mistress more spitefully, by her undutiful pride, than Sara did her by using due discipline. And they of whom it was said, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up, did persecute the Lord more cruelly, than he did them while as he overthrew their Tables, and driven them out of the Temple with scourges. And a little before in that same place, he affirms, that they were the persecutors of themselves by the Apostles words: Qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit: qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi iudicium acquirunt, that is, He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist draw punishment and judgement upon themselves: and often repeateth this sentence, Non poena, fed causa facit martyrem, It is not the punishment, but the cause that maketh martyrdom. To resist a lawful ordinance, is evil: to suffer contumeliously for disobedience is worse; but by disobedience and contumelious suffering to confirm People in their errors, and rend the bowels of the Church our common Mother, is worst of all. These things, I shall beseech you Brethren to ponder; and the Lord give us all in meekness, and humility, to try what verity requires; and holding that fast, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the band of peace. The God of verity and peace knit us together in his truth, by the Spirit of his Son jesus Christ our Peace. AMEN.  
David Brechen.   

To the Reader.  
THou hast here, gentle and courteous Reader, a true and simple narration of the proceed of the last general Assembly kept at Perth, opposed to the false and lying Discourse made by the Libeler against the same; with an answer to his Nullities; the Oath, and Arguments propounded against the five Articles there concluded. These pains are chief taken for thy information, that thou mayest know the truth and understand both the matter, and manner of proceeding in the said Assembly. Since that time, I hear they have put the Pamphlet in Latin, and set forth other Libels full of impious and reproachful lies against the principal men of our Church. These I have not seen, and if I had, I would not have deigned them any answer. For, when leaving the matter, they fall a railing at the persons of men, that are their betters in all respects, they show the weakness of their cause, & deserve nothing of wisemen, but contempt. This manner of doing is better replied with the Pillory, than otherwise. We know the ears of many are open to admit detractions, and he life's not, that is not hated by some, who will readily believe the most false things: yet, Wickedness hath not so generally prevailed in the world, nor are we so unknown in it, as we need any of us to fear their defamations. If thou, notwithstanding, dost think that such Libels require an answer, I ask thee, How shall it be done? I know no way myself, but either to use Apologies or recriminations. And this last were not difficile to do: for though the Writer goeth nameless, the Faction to whose pleasure he writes is known, and they that sport themselves with such libels, sending them from hand to hand, as matters of some worth. Their persons we could easily pay home, and repone true things unto them in stead of forged, telling them no other matters, then have been tried, confessed, and publicly acknowledged by those that are hottest in this business, of themselves: but these are the weapons of the vulgar, which we disdain to use, & ultio haec, Christiano homini maxime indecora. As for Apologies, the Wise man saith, That they leave suspicions in the Readers mind, & plures Sermones provocant, & plurium: The best Apology against calumnies, is, convitiatores factis refellere. Luther, Caluine, Beza, the great lights of the reformed Church, and our own Knox, had many foul aspersions cast upon them whilst they lived; yet did they not faint in their course, nor do they now hear the worse for them, with posterity. Fame is not at man's disposing: and if any amongst men have power of it, in nostra manu est, as one speaks, bene vel secus audire. We therefore resting in the goodness of our cause and conscience, will keep silence, and not understand such things, passing little with the Apostle to be judged of them, or of the day of man. He that judges is the Lord, who will lighten things that are hidden in darkness, and make the counsels of the hearts manifest: And then shall every man have praise of God. To his grace I commend thee for now and ever.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE DIRECTED TO THE READER.  THE PAMPHLETER. 
THE external worship of God, and the government of the Church (gentle and judicious Reader) are like Hypocrates twins; they are sick together; in health together; they live together; they die, and dwine together.  ANSWER. 
The external worship of God, and the government of the Church, are never matched in Scripture as one twin with another: But the government whereby the order, decency, and purity of the worship is preserved, is sometime compared to a Wall, or an Hedge; wherein breaches may be made, either by persecution of open enemies without, or by contention of seditious brethren within, and thereby the beauty of the worship defaced: Thus for a time they may be sick, and dwine together, but they shall never die till the world be done; all the enemies of God shall perish, but this Kingdom shall endure for ever: In this they differ from Hypocrates twins: and herein standeth the consolation of the Church against her fears without, and troubles within.  PP. 
As long as the government of the Church of Scotland stood in integrity, as it was established by Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical, according to God's Word, so long was the worship of God preserved in purity.  ANS. 
The government of our Church established by Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical, according to God's Word, standeth now, praised be God, in as great integrity, and the worship of God in as great purity as ever it did. Sed ructare licet cacostomacho, but a windy breast must have leave to belch: Non nostri faciunt tua quod tibi tempora sordent, Sed faciunt mores, Caeciliane, tui.  PP. 
Since the former government was altered, and the insolent domination of Prelates hath entered in by unlawful means amongst us; Popish Rites, and superstitious Ceremonies have followed, and are like to prevail universally.  ANS. 
The former government is not altered, that is, either corrupted or abolished, as you insinuate, but is perfited by accession of the ancient order, which hath been ever in the House of God since the Apostolical times, and was embraced at the reformation, in Anno 1560. and continued in our Church in the persons of Superintendents and Bishops, till the year of God 1581. after that time, it was borne down, till the year of God 1598. then it began to be restored, and hath entered in amongst us by the conclusions of general Assemblies, and Acts of Parliament, which none but lawless Libertines will esteem unlawful means; nor the function thereby established an insolent domination, but the licentious who delight in confusion, and detest order. The Rites and Ceremonies which have followed, shall be better cleared by the grace of God from Superstition and Popery, than this Pamphlet of yours from Schism and Heresy.  PP. 
They have verified in their persons their common tenant, No Ceremony, no Bishop.  ANS. 
The tenant is true, for where there is no Ceremony, there can be no external worship of God, more than a body can be without dimensions; and consequently where there is no Ceremony, there can be no Church, no Bishop, no Pastor.  PP. 
The liberty granted to our Church to indict, and hold general Assemblies from year to year, and oftener prore nata, was the chief bulwark of our Discipline; this bulwark was broken down, to the end a more patent way might be made for their exaltation.  ANS. 
So long as this liberty preserved the ancient Discipline, and Government of the Primitive and Reformed Church in the persons of Superintendents and Bishops, it was a good bulwark: but when it was licentiously abused, to overthrew that which it had formerly maintained, and to stop the way whereby it might be lawfully restored again, the licentious abuse was to be restrained, and order taken, that it should not impede, but further the work, for the which it was appointed.  PP. 
When vote in Parliament (the Needle to draw in the thread of Episcopal authority) was concluded to the great grief of the sincerer sort, many protestations were made, that no alteration in Discipline or Divine Service was intended.  ANS. 
That the Church, which hath ever represented the third Estate of the Kingdom, was restored in the persons of Bishops, according to the fundamental Laws to have vote in Parliament, could be a grief to none sincerely affected, either to the Weal of the Country or Church: and as protestations were made, that no alteration tending to corruption either in Discipline or divine Service was intended, so none hath followed, but such as tendeth to the confirmation and perfection of both.  PP. 
Many cautions and limitations were made to bond the power of the Minister voter in Parliament.  ANS. 
The limitations and cautions which were agreeable to reason, and might stand with the power of the person voter in Parliament according to Law, have been inviolably observed.  PP. 
They were ordained to be countable to the general Assemblies, for the manner of their entry, and behaviour in this new Office; but like Bankrupts, not being able to render account, they laboured that no account should be made at all: that is, that there should be no ordinary general Assembly to take account.  ANS. 
No man can be lawfully ordained to be countable to these of his entry and behaviour in his Office, who profess themselves enemies to the Office itself: Such were the general Assemblies, which ye call ordinary, consisting for the greatest part of the sincerer sort, to whose great grief you say, the power to vote in Parliament was concluded: reason therefore would, that to such a judicatory no account should have been rendered at all. Not because they were bankrupts, as you calumniously allege, but for the professed enmity and iniquity of the judge; whereof his Majesty having proof before, when the ancient Government of Bishops was abolished, did now prudently provide, that no general Assembly should be convocate without his Highness' special licence, lest thereby the restitution of that Government intended by his Majesty, and happily begun before his Majesty's preferment to the Crown of England, might in his absence be crossed and overthrown; by the which providence of his Majesty's wisdom, that plot was prevented, and your purpose disappointed: Hinc illae lachrimae: and this is that causeth you to rage and rail.  PP. 
Some few extraordinary Assemblies have been convocated of late years at their pleasures, and for their purposes, and according to their device constituted as they thought good: wherein they procured, or rather extorted with terror, and authority a sort of preeminency above their Brethren.  ANS. 
If ye call these extraordinary Assemblies, which by his Majesty's Licence and Authority were convocated, the Council of Nice, and the most famous Counsels of the Church, must be counted extraordinary. And in these Assemblies no pre-eminence was granted to Bishops, but such as Bishops had ever in the Primitive Church, and such as the Superintendents, and Bishops had before in our own reformed Church; which being lawful in itself, needeth neither by authority to be procured, nor by terror extorted from godly, prudent, and peaceable Brethren.  PP. 
They were Lords in Parliament, Council, Session, Exchequer, Lords of Regalities, Lords of temporal. Lands, Presenters to Benefices; Modifiers of Ministers stipends; grand Commissioners in the high Commission; was it wonder then if so great Commanders, commanded the Assemblies constituted, as is said, and carved to themselves a spiritual Lordship? when, etc.  ANS. 
The power, authority, and credit, which was expedient for the time to be in the persons of some Bishops, was neither employed, nor needed to be employed, to command these Assemblies, which were constituted of the most grave and godly brethren of the Church, who against Law and conscience would not have been commanded either by Prince, or Prelate. Neither in these Assemblies did they carve to themselves any spiritual Lordship, for they acknowledge no man to have spiritual Lordship over the Church, but the man the Lord jesus; him they preach the Lord, and themselves the Servants of the Church for him.  PP. 
When their worthy brethren were banished, imprisoned, confined, or detained at Court, that they might the more easily effectuate their purposes.  ANS. 
Their worthy brethren I may truly say, were banished, imprisoned, confined, and detained at Court sore against their wills: who wish that good brethren, than had been, and now were less addicted to singularity of opinion, and more inclined to the peace & unity of the Church: And that they would put difference, betwixt indifferent things in Discipline, and doctrinal points; and consider that in the one we must stand for verity, and in the other for expediency, which changeth with times, places, and occasions: That the form of government meet for a Parochial or Diocesian Church, such as Geneva or Berne, is not fit in all respects for the universal or for a Nationall Church: That at the beginning of the reformation, sundry circumstantial Ceremonies were changed, or abolished for Superstition, which now tending to edification, and preservation of God's worship from profaneness, and to make conformity and unity, both with the Primitive, and reformed Churches, may be lawfully and profitably received: That antiquity in such things, and universal consent not repugnant to verity, is fare to be preferred to new and recent conceits, and customs of private persons, and Churches. These things the Bishops would wish from their hearts had been, and were better pondered by brethren; and that for such matters, wilful contradiction, bitter contention, and disobedience had not brought them under the censure of the Laws, and power of authority.  PP. 
They have broken the caveats made with their own consent, violated their promises, and have sought pre-eminence both in Church and Commonwealth, with the ruin of others, and renting of their mother's belly.  ANS. 
Neither have ye, nor can ye allege any promise made by them violated, or caveat broken, that hath nor been abrogated by posterior Acts of lawful Assemblies, as being contrary to the lawful power of their calling. Neither have they sought pre-eminence in Church nor Commonwealth, but that which according to Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical, belongs to their Function. The restitution whereof, if they had not craved, they had been Traitors both to the Church and Commonwealth; against the which some brethren standing out too contentiously, have involved themselves in unnecessary troubles, and have pressed with you, to rend the belly of their Mother, the peace and unity of the Church with Schism.  PP. 
We have notwithstanding been so silent hitherto, that the World hath judged our silence, rather slumbering and slothfulness, then true patience.  ANS. 
If you be the man who is pretended to be the penner of this Pamphlet, your silence hath not been so great, as is here alleged, for both by writing and word, ye have been ever uttering your miscontentment with great acerbity against the persons, and function of your brethren; and his Majesty's good and godly intentions, wherein ye have studied more to please the World, then to procure the weal of the Church, with the honour of God, and obedience of your Prince.  PP. 
They are not satisfied with the wrongs already committed, but do still provoke us with new irritant occasions.  ANS. 
Many men of your humour are crabbed without cause, who being in the gall of bitterness, count right wrong, and good to be evil, and seek occasions where none are offered to spew out their choler.  PP. 
And specially by obtruding upon us superstitious will-worships, and polluted inventions of men.  ANS. 
What was concluded in a lawful Assembly, was not obtruded; and by God's grace in the answer to your Pamphlet, it shall be manifest, that the Assembly hath condemned all polluted inventions of men, and all superstitious will-worships; and that yourself is a very superstitious Dog matist of Will-worship.  PP. 
It behooveth us therefore to set pen to paper, and say somewhat for the surer stay and better information of Professors, tenderly affected to the sincerity of Religion; lest they be deluded with the glorious name of a pretended and new Assembly, or seduced with Temporizers, swallowing up all abominations or corruptions whatsoever.  ANS. 
Let the Christian, and gentle Reader consider, what information good and sincere Professors may expect from such a poisonable pen, that beginneth to fill up the paper with such venomous words, calling the lawful meeting of the Church, a pretended new Assembly; his brethren of the Ministry, Seducers, Temporizers, Swallowers up of all abominations, or corruptions whatsoever; for whom we answer: 
Multi sint licet impotentis irae,  
Pellem rodere qui velint caninam:  
Nos hac à scabie tenemus ungnes.   PP. 
The means of printing and publishing are to us very difficile.  ANS. 
The Quarter-masters and Collectors of the voluntary Contributions through Fyiffe, Lowthiane, Edinburgh, and other parts of the Land, for setting forth of this work, say that you have no cause to complain. And if in times coming, your pains be as well recompensed, this trade of penning, printing, and publishing, shall be more gainful, than your stipend was for your Ministry.  PP. 
We wish therefore every good Christian, to take in good part our mean travels.  ANS. 
Although your travels had no other fault, but that they were mean, yet your cessation from better business cannot be excused: but they being withal seditious and pernicious, no good Christian will take them in good part.  PP. 
And not impute to us, the want of good will, but of means, if they be not served hereafter continually after this manner. We shall be ready, God willing, for our own part, as need shall require, and opportunity will serve, to defend the cause we maintain, against any of our Opposites their Answers, or Replies whatsoever worthy of answer.  ANS. 
I hope no man who readeth this Pamphlet, will impute to you the want of good will to do evil, that is of a wicked will to furnish fuel to the fire of dissension in the Church. And if by your Thrasonical boasts and brags, you can persuade these, whom for want of sufficient knowledge and faith, ye delude, and seduce with subtle Sophisms, and superstitious fears; to furnish means, that is, money for penning and printing, as they have done profusely, for setting forth this rhapsody: there is no doubt, but Answers shall come forth upon Answers, Defences upon Defences, Replies upon Replies, until ye have wearied the World with your vanities.  PP. 
We have seen of late some Pamphlets, which have rather exposed their Authors to laughter and contempt, than deserved any serious confutation.  ANS. 
It is the nature of enuifull arrogance by contemning and laughing at others, to hunt her own praise, Sed facilis cuivis rigidi censura cachinui.  PP. 
In the Epistle before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Majesty protesteth upon his honour, that he misliketh not generally all Preachers, or others, who like better of the single form of policy in our Church, then of the many Ceremonies in the Church of England: and are persuaded that their Bishops smell of a Papal Supremacy; that the Surplice, the Corner-cap, and such like are the outward badges of Popish errors; and that he doth equally love and honour the Learned, and grave men of these opinions.  ANS. 
If ye had imitated this most Christian example of your gracious Sovereign, you would not for error of wilful opinion, have turned your love into battered, and your reverence into contempt of your brethren.  PP. 
His Majesty useth this provision, that where the Law is otherwise, they press by patience and wel-grounded reasons, either to persuade all the rest to like of their judgement; or where they see better grounds on the other part, not to be ashamed peaceably to incline thereunto, laying aside all preoccupyed opinions.  ANS. 
If ye approve this provision, as ye seem after to do, seeing a Law standeth in our Church neither reduced, nor abrogated against your opinion: why is your patience turned into passion, & your wel●grounded reasons into unreasonable raylings: And considering at the Assembly in Perth, the grounds whereupon the Law was made, were esteemed by the votes and judgements of more than double your number, better than any answer, or reason brought on the contrary, why are ye ashamed peaceably to incline thereunto, laying aside all preoecupyed opinions?  PP. 
We are able to prove, that no Ecclesiastical Law hath been made in any free and formal Assembly for the alteration bypast, or presently intended either in Government, or Ceremonies.  ANS. 
What you are able to prove, we know not, but until the time the probation be made, and the Church which made the Laws, being better informed alter or abrogate them, it it is the duty of every good and peaceable Christian to give obedience thereunto, except they be manifestly damned in the Word as impious: for there can be no peace nor unity in a Church, where there is not a Conformity observed according to Laws; for if one shall follow the Law, another his own opinion contrary to the Law, and the third, some conceit different from both, what can follow but contention and confusion in the Church?  PP. 
The ratification of civil Laws already made, or to be made, cannot rectify the Ecclesiastical, so long as we are able by good reason to impugn their authority; and to evince the vicious constitution, the informal, and unlawful proceed of those Assemblies, where the said Ecclesiastical Laws are said to have been made.  ANS, 
That which is right needeth not to be rectified; such the Estates of Parliament have found the Canons of the Church, which they have ratified: but yet forsooth so long as you are able to impugn their authority, evince them to be vicious, informal, unlawful: So long neither can the authority of the Parliament, nor Church make them to have force, but all must be suspended upon your skill and learning to prove, and improve as you list. Whereof this smelleth, whether of plain sincerity, or of Papal Supremacy, let the Reader consider.  PP. 
Put the case, that no exception might be made against the Law; his Majesty's provision permitteth us to persuade others with well grounded reasons.  ANS. 
If no exception might be made against the Law, what well grounded reason can be used to persuade the contrary? His Majesty's provision, is as fare contrary to the permission here alleged by you, as light to darkness: for although his Majesty wish these who are contrary minded to press by patience, and well grounded reasons to persuade all the rest to like of their judgement, yet he permitteth them not to persuade others to resist to the authority, to break the Law of the Country to stir up Rebellion and Schism, which you by this Pamphlet do only intent; but by the contrary, willeth them in these words (which you purposely omit) To content themselves soberly and quietly with their own opinions; not resisting to the authority, nor breaking the Law of Country, neither above all, stirring any Rebellion or Schism, etc. but to possess their souls in peace. If such licence were granted, as you allege, was given by his Majesty's provision, there should never be any settled order in Church or Commonwealth, a door being opened to seditious spirits, to disturb all with such persuasions, and disswasious as are used in this Pamphlet.  PP. 
The verity of our Relations, and validity of our Reasons, we refer to the trial of every judicious Reader, making conscience of his Oath, Promise, Subscription, and Purity of his Profession.  ANS. 
If the judicious Reader, holding the purity of his Christian Profession, lay aside all other prejudice, and be not moved with these Panic terrors of Oaths and Promises, which he never made, and of Subscriptions which he never gave, he shall try and find the greatest part of your Relations to be uttered out of passion, whereby the sincerity of the truth is corrupted; and in your Reasons such validity, as sophistical captions and cavillations can afford.   

A TRUE NARRATION OF THE PROCEED of the general Assembly holden at Perth, and begun the 25. day of August 1618. Opposed to the Libeler his Discourse thereof, in the Pamphlet lately Published.  
TO the end the true causes of this meeting may be understood, we must draw the occasion thereof somewhat further off, than the Proclamation mentioned by the Libeler. So it is, That his Majesty at his late being in this Kingdom, did propone to the Bishops, and principal Ministers, who were called to meet at S. Andrews for that effect, the tenth of july 1617. the five Articles now concluded, desiring they might be received in this Church, and an alteration made of the other customs that obtained before in these points. This proposition was made by his Malestie himself in the Chapel of the Castle, where then his Majesty remained. Upon the hearing whereof, humble petition was made by the Bishops and Ministers there assembled, that they should be permitted to confer amongst themselves, upon the said proposition, before they gave any answer. Which being granted, they went, and met together in the Session house of the Paroch Church, where after mature deliberation, it was concluded, they should put up one common Supplication, to his Majesty for liberty of a general Assembly, to advice and take conclusion in these points. It being signified unto them at the same time by the Archbishop of S. Andrew's, that his Majesty would take this for a shift, and not content with the Supplication, unless assurance were given, that the same Articles, should be yielded unto, in the Assembly; Answer was made by the whole number, That howsoever, they could not prejudge themselves of their free voices in an Assembly, by granting the said Articles beforehand, considering they were matters in themselves lawful, and of a nature indifferent; as they could not think but the whole Church would be ready to give his Majesty satisfaction therein, so for themselves, they would do what lay in them for passing the same. And this they all desired the said Archbishop in their names to answer. But he denying to promise any thing in the behalf of the Ministers, in regard of the seditious protestation, they had, against their promise, at least a number of them peoned to be given in the next Parliament, Master Patrick Galloway was by them desired to make the said answer, and concur with the Bishops in the foresaid supplication for a general Assembly.  
Thus, all returning to the said Chapel, petition was made in humble form to his Majesty by the Archbishop in the name of the whole, That they might be permitted to meet in an Assembly, where the said Articles should receive the answer, which was fit. His Majesty replying, that he could not suffer these Articles, which he counted both lawful and profitable for the Church, to be cast in the deliberation of an Assembly, where by reason of the multitude, matters went often doubtfully, except he had assurance, the same should be yielded unto; answer was made, That however they could not that were present, take on them to answer for the whole Church, yet because they did not conceive any of these Articles to contain in them, matters unlawful, they hoped all good Ministers would show themselves careful to give his Majesty satisfaction, and should for their own parts endeavour that the same should be done. This was promised by the Archbishop of Saint- Andrew's in name of all the Bishops, and by Master Patrick-Galloway in name of the Ministers, as was afore-agreed.  
Hereupon his Majesty was pleased to condescend upon the meeting of an Assembly at Saint- Andrew's, in the month of Nonember following, where the said Articles, being reasoned upon at length, it was found by universal consent, That they contained in them nothing unlawful, but in respect the sudden receiving of them might give offence to the weaker Professors, and encouragement to the enemies of Religion, it was thought meet to differ the taking of any conclusion, specially about the keeping of the Festival days, and kneeling at the Communion, unto another Assembly; And all the Ministers commanded, like as they who were present for themselves promised, to inform their people and Congregations, aswell of the lawfulness of the things desired, as of the necessity they had to receive the same, because of his Majesty's resolution so to have it; and by this means all offence being removed, in the next Assembly matters might take an end with uniform consent; in the mean time, lest his Majesty should offend with this delay, his Majesty's Commissioners, and the Bishops were earnestly entreated by the said Assembly to signify the true reasons of the present continuation, & beseech the same to be well interpreted, seeing no denial of the Articles was intended, but a care on their parts to remove all scruple and offence from amongst the people.  
This advertizement being made, his Majesty took the same so hardly, as forthwith he gave commandment to the Bishops to observe the days of Christmas, Passion, Resurrection, etc. And to cause all the Ministers of their Dioceses to observe the like, as also to alter the gesture of sitting at the holy Communion, into that of kneeling, which the Article required. And to sequestrate the stipends of so many as should be found disobedient.  
It grieved all the honest and truehearted Ministers to see his Majesty so offended, and many repent the delay made in the last Assembly: and because there was one mean only left to give satisfaction, to wit, That a new Assembly might be gathered to put end to the same; the Archbishop of Saint Andrew's was entreated to intercede with his Majesty for a mitigation of the rigour intended against the Ministers, and liberty for a new Assembly, to finish that which remained to be perfected. To this effect he dispatched his Servant unto Court with haste, writing in such humble sort as became, and for the purpose abovesaid; but received this Answer, That touching another Assembly his Majesty would never condescend unto the same, except better assurance were given of their reasonable conforming; therefore commanded him and the rest of the Bishops in their several Synods, to urge the receiving of the said Articles, and as they should find them inclining, to advertise; and for the sequestration of stipends, his Majesty would be pleased to remit that rigour for the present, so as the Bishops by themselves in their Sees, with so many others as they could persuade, should put in practice the said Articles according to the Letter, formerly directed vuto them.  
This Answer being communicated unto the Ministers of Edinburgh, and a great many others, that were attending at Edinburgh, for the settling of their Churches according to the Commission given in Parliament, they all advised the Bishops to give obedience in their own persons, and at their Synods, to labour the Ministers of their bounds in the best sort they could, to condescend unto the Articles proponed.  
The Bishops resolving to give obedience, for his Majesty's better satisfaction, and freeing the Ministers of his conceived wrath, agreed, after their Synods were ended, to meet at Edinburgh in May next; and as they should find by report of the Ministers inclination to yield to the said Articles, to follow their Supplication about a new Assembly.  
According to which agreement, they having met at Edinburgh, and understood that in the Synods kept in the April before, the Ministers were disposed to glue obedience and satisfaction to his Majesty: they by their Letters humbly entreated his Majesty's Licence, for the holding of an new Assembly, and obtained the same; which they signified by their Letters to the Moderators of their several exercises in the Country, willing them to elect and choose the most wise, learned and peaceable Ministers in their bounds, to be Commissionaries at the said Assembly.  
But contrary to this advice and direction, certain factious and unruly Ministers, that have loved always to keep stirs in the Church, and placed their glory in the opposing of his Majesty's lawful desires, used all the diligence they could, where they had credit, to purchase Commission to themselves, and others that favoured their opinions, for disturbing the said Assembly; and came thither at the day appointed in great numbers, & certain hopes to have carried matters otherwise then was intended; howbeit to little effect, as the success of the said meeting manifested. Upon these occasions the meeting was brought on; & not abruptly by a Proclamation, being made 20 days before, as the Libeler would have it to appear. The said Proclamation being made only to take away all excuse from such as might pretend ignorance of the day. Which being come, according to the custom of a long time observed, the first meeting was begun with prayer & fasting, whereof the Libeler grants that intimation was made in the Church of Perth the Sunday preceding, but complains that the fast was little regarded, & it may be by himself, & others of that Sect, whose dispositions were only to make strife: but he cannot deny, that in the first exercise of the morning, made by the Bishop of Abirdene, exhortation was given to all that were present, both to sanctify themselves, & by prayer to commend the success of the affairs unto God his blessing. The same was repeated in the second exercise made by the Archbishop of Saint- Andrew's, and nothing omitted on our parts, that was required to bring men to a due regard thereof. But the Libeler excepts against the second Sermon. First, that although the Text was pertinent, the Preacher ran quickly from it: Next that in his Discourse of Ceremonies, & the five Articles proponed, his best Arguments were testimonies cited out of Caluine, Martyr and Beza, all perverted. How the first can be made good, I see not, seeing if the Text was pertinent, as he confessed, to the time and matters there to be entreated, it is as clear, that in all his Discourse, he did so strictly keep himself to the purpose, as there was not so much as one digression made from it. And whether he brought no Arguments for proof, or perverted the testimonies of these learned men: Let the Reader judge, by the Sermon itself, which we have made here to be inserted word for word, as the same was then delivered.  

The Sermon preached by the Right Reverend Father in GOD, the Archbishop of Saint ANDREW'S, to the general Assembly, holden at PERTH the 25. of August, 1618.  1. COR. 11.16. 
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.  
MY Lords, and Brethren: the business for which we meet here, is known to you all: namely, to take some resolution in these Articles, which we are required to admit in our Church, by that power unto which we be all subject. Of the indifferency of these Articles, I think there is little or no question amongst us: The conveniency of them for our Church is doubted of by many, but not without cause; They are new and uncouth, such things as we have not been accustomed with; and novations in a Church, even in the smallest things are dangerous, Etiam quae utilitate adiwant, novitate perturbant. 
Aug. Epist. 118.  Saint Augustine spoke it long since, and we have tried it to be true this year past. I beseech God we feel no more of it hereafter. Had it been in our power to have dissuaded or declined them, most certainly we would; and if any of you think otherwise, ye are greatly mistaken: but now being brought to a necessity (I am sorry to speak, more sorry to think of the 
* This was the protestation that should have been presented to the last Parliament.  means that wrought the same) either of yielding, or disobeying him, whom for myself, I hold it Religion, to offend; I must tell you, that the evil of novations, especially in matters of Rite & Ceremony, is nothing so great as the evil of disobedience. That which is new this day, with a little use, will become familiar and old: ye know the proverb, A wonder lasts but nine nights in a Town. But how fare disobedience may go, what evils it may produce, God knows. As the Apostle speaks here of Contention, so I say of Disobedience, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. We leave that to Papists and Anabaptists, that carry no regard to authority: Our Religion teaches us to obey our Superiors, in all things, that are not contrary to the Word of God. So our Confession speaks, which is printed in the beginning of your Psalm books, 
Psal. Book, pag. 6.  So have we taught the people in former times, and God forbidden, we should now come in the contrary.  
Our case, as I think, at this time, is not fare different from that of the Corinthians, at the writing of this Epistle: The question was amongst them, of the behaviour of men, and women in holy Assemblies. What was most decent and beseeming, men to be uncovered, women to have their heads covered, or by the contrary. Saint Paul, after that he had showed his own mind in the matter, and given some reasons for it, as he doth in the Verses preceding, concludes now with this protestation: If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. As though he would say, I have said so much as may content calm and moderate spirits; as for contentious men, I trouble not myself with them; They will still be disputing, and say what ye will, they shall still find a reply, for they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lovers of Victory, not of Verity; men that seeketh not the Church's weal, but their own wills, and make it their credit to be always stirring: that is not my custom, saith the Apostle (he might speak it well, for he never cared for himself, or how he was counted of, so as he might be profitable to the Church, and an instrument of saving souls.) And as it is not my custom, no more is it the custom of the Churches of God; for they favour not contention, but follow the things which concern peace, wherewith one may edify, and make better another.  
Some of the Interpreters refer these words to the question in hand, and think that the Apostle is here opposing the custom of the Churches, to these that contended for men covering their heads in public meetings: but the better sort take this to be spoken against the study of contention, and think the Apostle his meaning here, is only to show, that it is not his fashion, nor the fashion of the Churches of God, to be contentious for matters of such indifferency as those were of. This is Caluines' interpretation amongst others, for he writing upon this place, after he had said, that contention in a Church, is of all evils the most pernicious, adds by way of admonition these words: Diligenter notemus locum istum, ne abripi nos super vacuis disputationibus sinamus: Let us carefully observe this place, saith he, that we suffer not ourselves to be carried away with unnecessary dispute. Now, these are unnecessary dispute, which are made, De rebus non magnis, of matters of light moment, Vel de rebus non ambiguis, that is, of matters in themselves clear and evident. Atqui tales sunt importuni quidam disputatores, qui artis esse putant, omnia in dubium vocare: Some there are that can find probabilities against the clearest Truth, and are still disputing about the lightest matters: Such are very troublers, and dangerous heads in a Church, of whom we should be wary.  
Brethren, to contend is not a fault, if so it be, for a weighty matter; but to be contentious in a light business, this is faulty, and reproved here by the Apostle. We ought to contend always for the Faith, and that earnestly, as Saint jude teacheth, 
jude 3.  not yielding to the Adversary, in the substance of Religion, one jot: There should our courage and spiritual zeal kindle itself; but for matters of circumstance and ceremony, to make business, and as much ado, as if some main point of Religion were questioned, it is to injury the Truth of God. By this means, men are brought to misse-regard all Religion, and we that are the Preachers of the Word, come to be despised.  
In the mean time it is not to be denied, but they are ceremonies, which for the inconvenience they bring, aught to be resisted; and if we be pressed with such, it is our part to expone our dislike of them in modesty, and by the best, wisest means we can use, to decline these which we esteem to be hurtful: Not (as our follies have been great in this kind) to run before the time, and seek to amend matters by declinators and protestations, whereby we have profited nothing; only we have incensed authority, and hastened upon ourselves the same things which we laboured to eschew. Well, these things cannot be made undone, yet, they should make us wise for afterwards. And now, Brethren, because the resolution we take at this time touching the Articles propounded, will give to the world a testimony what manner of men we are, whether such as rule their proceed by judgement, or are carried headstrong with conceits and opinions; that we be nor misled by ignorance (for that is the fault of many amongst us, we inquire not of matters, nor take pains to understand what hath been the judgement of the most wise and learned, but follow upon trust, the opinions we have been bred with, and of such as we affect) to help this, I say, I will, with your patience, spend some time in the question of Ceremonies, see what warrant they have, and how they should be appointed: then from the general descend to speak of our particulars, touching which I shall freely deliver my own mind, and so conclude.  
First, then concerning Ceremonies, howsoever some have imagined them to be superfluities, which might well be spared, and that the Church of Rome hath made the very name of them hateful, aswell because of the multitude of them, wherewith she oppressed Christians, as for the ridiculous choice she made of most of them: are such things, as without which no public action either Civil, or Ecclesiastic can be rightly performed.  
To this purpose a Politic Writer, hath said well, That as the flesh covereth the hollow deformity of the bones, and beautifieth the body with natural graces, so Ceremonies (such specially, as ancient custom hath made reverend) cover the nakedness of public actions, and distinguish them from private business, that otherwise should not be so well known. The neglect of this in any State, breeds confusion, and with confusion the ruin, and abolishment of the State itself; whereof the examples were easy to be given in the Roman Republic, and others, if that were our subject. But we are speaking of Church-Ceremonies, concerning which no man will deny this general truth: That in every public duty, which God craves at our hands, there is beside the matter and form wherein the substance of the duty consists, a certain external form required, to the decent administration of the same. As for example: God hath commanded his Word to be preached, and the holy Sacraments to be ministered, Baptism by the Element of Water, and in a prescript form of words, such as you know we use; and the Sacrament of his blessed Body and Blood, in the Elements of Bread and Wine, with certain mystical words added thereunto: here is the duty to be done, and the substance of it; yet for the ministration of the same in a due and decent manner, there is place, time, and other circumstances more required. The substance of the duty God hath given us in the Word, from which we may not go; but for these things that belong to the outward administration, Ecclesiastical wisdom hath to define what is convenient, what not; Neque tamen permisit Dominus vagam, effraenamque licentiam (says Caluine) sed cancellos, ut ita loquar, circudedit: That is, God hath not given his Church an illimited power, to establish what Ceremonies she lists, but hath enrayled her authority within borders which she may not pass; 
1 Cor. 14.  and these are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let all things be done honestly, and by order: Honestly, that is, after a good fashion in a decent sort, and to the right ends, namely, the advancement of God's honour, and the edification of his Church. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Then they must be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by order; that is, appointed, with deliberation, and by such as have the authority to ordain them; and being once appointed, and concluded by Constitutions, they must be kept and performed by all that are subject to the same.  
This, as one speaks well, is that great Ecclesiastical Canon, by which all other Canons must be squared; this is the true Touchstone of trying Ceremonies, and the balance wherein all Church Orders must be weighed. The Ceremonies of the Church must be decent and comely, without vanity, without all meretricious bravery, not superfluous, but serving to edification. They must also be done to God; honour, and not be idolatrous or superstitious; Generally in the Church, all things must be done in order, and no confusion be either of persons or proceed, for order hath proceeded from the Throne of the Almighty. This fabric of the World that we see, is upholden by it, States, and Kingdoms are maintained by it, and without it nothing can flourish or prosper. And if Order should have place in all things, sure the Church of God, should not be without Order; for our God, whom we serve, is the God of Order, and not of Confusion, as the Apostle speaks.  
These things will be easily condescended upon, I mean, that religious duties cannot be performed without external Rites: that these Rites should be qualitied, as I have said, established by Laws, and after they are established, obeyed by such as are subject; Si enim velut in medio positae, fingulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint, quoniam nunquam futurum est, ut omnibus idem placeat, brevi futura est rerum omnium confusio. This is Caluines' saying in the fourth Book of his Institutions, and tenth Chapter, which Chapter I would earnestly recommend to your reading, for these matters chief. In such generals, it may be we all agree; but when we come to particulars; Tanta moribus hominum inest diversitas, tanta in animis varietas, tanta in iudicijs, ingenijsque pugna: Such is the variety of men's minds and opinions, that scarce shall they ever be brought to agree upon any one thing. For the Ceremony, which to one will seem decent and comely, will to another appear not to be so. Now in this case what is to be done? Some would have us search into the Apostolic times, examine what then was in use to be done, and follow that. But this cannot well be the rule, seeing the Apostles have not delivered in writing all that they did; and diverse of the forms used by them, which by occasion we have recorded, are unfit for these times, and inconvenient: such as the assembling of people in close and secret meetings, their Christen in Rivers, the ministering of the Lord's Supper after meat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Church-Feasts, the abhorring of leavened Bread, abstaining from Blood, and that which is strangled, the arbitrary maintenance of Ministers, and other more particulars; which to bring again in use, were to alter and change in a sort the state of Christianity itself. So it being to us uncertain, what the forms of the Apostles were in every thing; and the dissimilitude of their times and ours being so great, they give no sure direction that send us to seek the resolution of our differences in matters of this nature from them. Read Beza his eight Epistle written to that Reverend Bishop Edmond Grindall, than Bishop of London, and you shall find this to be his judgement: His words are, Scio duplicemesse de Ecclesiarum instauratione opinionem: sunt qui Apostolicae ill● simplicitati, nihil adijciendum putant, ac proinde quicquid Apostoli fecerunt, faciendum; quicquid autem succedens Apostolis Ecclesia, ritibus primis adiecit, semel abolendum existiment. There are some, says he, who▪ think, that we should add nothing unto that first Apostolic simplicity, but do in every thing according as they did: And that, whatsoever the succeeding Ages added in matters of Rites, should be all abolished. Because his answer and discourse is somewhat long, I will remit you to the place, and give you the heads of it only; first, therefore he says, that the doctrine of the Apostles, is in itself so exact and perfect, as we ought not to derogate, nor add any thing unto it: but next for the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, we must not think so, because the Apostles at the first, could not set down every thing that was expedient for the Church, and thereupon they proceeded by little and little; and in such Rites as they instituted, they had a special respect to the time, places and persons, whereof many were afterwards by the Church worthily abolished. Having said this, he concludes, Itaque quicquid ab Apostolis factitatum est, quod ad ritus attinet, nec statim, nec sine aliqua exceptione sequendum existimo. And Caluine whom I often name, for the authority, which he deservedly carries with all Reformed Churches, in the tenth Chapter of his fourth Book of Institutions, which place I formerly quoted, hath to the same purpose these words. In his quae cultum Numinis spectant, solus Magister est audiendus; quia autem in externa disciplina & ceremonijs, non voluit sigillatim praescribere quid sequi debeamus, quòd istud pendêre à temporum conditione praevideret, neque iudicaret unam omnibus saeculis formam convenire, confugere hic oportet, ad generales quas dedit regulas, ut ad eas exigantur, quaecunque ad ordinem & decorum praecipi recessitas Ecclesiae postulabit: And after a few lines: Prout Ecclesiae utilitas requirit, tam usitatas mutare & abrogare, quàm novas instituere ceremonias, Ecclesiae licitum. His judgement is, that the power of adding, altering, innovating, and appointing Ceremonies, remains with the Church, to do therein as she in her wisdom shall think meet. And certainly, there is no other way to keep away differences for matters of Rites and Ceremonies, but this, That every man keep the custom of the Church wherein he life's, and observe that which is determined by the Governors thereof. For in things indifferent we must always esteem that to be best, and most seemly, which seems so in the eye of public authority. Neither is it for private men to control public judgement: as they cannot make public Constitutions, so they may not control nor disobey them being once made. Indeed authority ought to look carefully unto this, that it prescribe nothing but rightly; appoint no Rites nor Orders in the Church, but such as may set forward Godliness and Piety: yet put the case, that some be otherwise established, they must be obeyed by such as are members of that Church, as long as they have the force of a Constitution, and are not corrected by the authority that made them. Except this be, there can be no order, and all must be filled with strife and contention. But thou wilt say, My conscience suffers me not to obey, for I am persuaded, that such things are not right, nor well appointed. I answer thee, in matters of this nature and quality, the sentence of thy Superiors ought to direct thee, and that is a sufficient ground to thy conscience for obeying. But may not Superiors err? May not Counsels decree that which is wrong? This no man denies, and if they decree any thing against Scripture, it is not to be obeyed; for there that Sentence holds good, Molius obedire Deo quam hominibus. But if that which is decreed, be not repugnant to the Word, and that thou hast no more but thy own collections and motions of thy conscience, as thou callest it, how strong soever thy persuasions be, it is presumption in thee to disobey the Ordinance of the Church. And of this we may be sure, whosoever denies obedience to Church Ordinances in rebus medijs, the same will not stick to reject Gods own Word, when it crosses his fancy; Et videant isti, (says Caluine) qui plus sapere volunt quam oportet, qua ratione morositatem suam Domino approbent, Nobis enim satisfacere istud Pauli debet, nos contendendi morem non habere, neque Ecclesias Dei. With such a sentence I close all that I purposed to say of Ceremonies in general.  
Now having showed you, that Rites are necessary in a Church, the qualities they should have, and obedience that must be given unto the Constitutions of the Church once being made, I come to the particulars desired of us to be received: these must be severally considered, because they are not all of the like respect: some of them strike upon the duties of our calling, enjoining the practice thereof in places, and at times where usual solemnity cannot be kept; as to administrate Baptism in private houses in the case of necessity, and the Communion to these that are sick, and in dying: Others of them prescribe the observation of certain things not in use with us, as the confirming of Children, and the keeping of some Festivities throughout the year. And there is a fift Article that requires our accustomed manner of sitting at the Communion, to be changed in a more religious and reverend gesture of kneeling: ye shall not expect to hear all that may be said, or is at this time expedient concerning these, neither the time, nor the strength of any one man, I think, will suffice to say all without interruption. I know I speak to men of understanding, and my intent is to say no more of them, then may serve to justify the advice which I mind with Gods help to give unto you.  
I begin with the Communion to the Sick, because this Article passed in the late Assembly, with some limitations which his Majesty disliked. The mind that is offended hardly interprets any thing well, so fared it in this matter. The delay of our answer to the rest of the Articles, moved his Majesty to call our grant of this Article scornful and ridiculous. I was bold in a private Letter to show there was a mistaking, and justify that which was done; neither should I speak any more of it, but that it hath been complained, that some of our Ministry, being earnestly entreated by certain sick persons, for the comfort of that Sacrament, since that time have devyed the same. To justify therefore that which then was enacted, I say shortly, that by our calling we are directly bound to minister unto men in the last hour all the helps and comforts we possibly can: the natural terrors of death, and fearful doubts of conscience which at that time commonly perplex men, require this at our hands; therefore Visitation of the sick is earnestly commended to Ministers in their admission, that they be ready to attend the sick person, and as his estate craves, minister comfort unto him, by preaching the promises of grace and mercy to all penitent sinners. Why this Sacrament, that is the seal of God's promises, and a special means of binding up our Communion with Christ, should be denied to such as desire the same in that time, there can be no reason.  
Howbeit salvation depends not upon the Sacrament, and that they use it superstitiously that gives it for a viaticum to the dying, the end of a man cannot but be the more comfortable, and his death accompanied with the greater contentment and tranquillity of mind, when his desire is satisfied in this point. For this is to be considered, that it is not to all that die, nor to all that are sick, but to such only whose recovery is desperate, and urgently desire the comfort of this Sacrament, that the same is appointed to be ministered. Of which purpose Caluin delivers his opinion in his 52. Epistle, in these words: De Coenae administratione conseo, libenter admittendum esse hunc morem, ut apud aegrotos celebretur communio, quum ita res & opportunitas feret; Nec magnopere repugnandum esse, quin maleficis detur, qui plectendi sunt, si quidem postulent, & ad receptionem satis comparatos esse appareat: hac tamen lege, ut sit unà communio, hoc est, ut panis in coetu aliquo fidelium frangatur. And in his 361. Epistle, answering some one that had moved him in this matter, he begins on this manner: Cur coenam aegrotis negandam esse non arbitror, multae & graves causae me impellunt, as you may see in the place. Bucer, Bullinger, and Zepperus are of the same judgement; and the last of these three, putting the case, that none is by this sick man disposed to communicate, says, Quod ne sic quidem privandus est communione aegrotus. You may see his reasons in the twelft Chapter of his first Book, De Politia Ecclesiastica. Our own Church hath practised the same in former times, as was qualified in diverse particulars at the last Assembly. So where the reformed Churches have approved it, and we ourselves by our own practice, now to stand against it, when, by a special Canon it is appointed to be done, cannot but be thought obstinate disobedience.  
I come to the Article of Baptism: This craves that in the case of necessity, when a child without hazard may not be brought out of doors, it be lawful to the Minister to baptise in a private house. It was not long since, a custom amongst us, that no Minister would baptise, except upon the ordinary day of teaching; this same being complained of in the Assembly that was kept at Holy Rood-house, in the year 1602. an Ordinance was made, that whensoever a Parent should require baptism to his child, the Minister should not deny it, without delaying to the ordinary day of preaching. The question was then of the Time, now it is of the Place: Whereabout, this you all know, that in the institution of Baptism, the Lord jesus hath not tied us to any place, but his command binds all men to be baptised: And we, that are Ministers, by our calling are obliged to baptise, howsoever we do not think Baptism absolutely necessary unto salvation, and the child that wants it upon a necessity inevitable, nothing prejudiced that way; yet if the occasion present, there is no doubt, but the Minister hath a necessity lying upon him to baptise, although time, place, and other circumstances required for the due and solemn administration be not concurring. But this, ye will say, fosters the Popish opinion of the necessity of Baptism. Let Bucer answer it, To withhold Baptism for want of the due solemnities, says he, opens a door to the Devil, to bring in the contempt of Christ's Ordinance, and our whole redemption by him: We have a Commandment to baptise, and this to us is a necessary duty which we may not leave undone: As for inconveniences, we must meet them as wisely, as we may, by doctrine and diligent catechising, but in no sort neglect the Commandment that is given. Ye shall have Caluin his judgement also in this matter; being asked: Vbinam baptismus recte administrari possit? He answers, Fas non est administrare baptismum, nisi in coetu fidelium, non quidem ut templum requiratur, sed ut ubivis, numerus aliquis fidelium conveniat, qui Ecclesiae corpus efficient. Ye have this in his 185. Epistle. And thus much for Baptism.  
The third Article is of Confirmation, to be given to children, when they are come to the years of discretion, and that is one of the most ancient customs of the Christian Church, from the days of the Apostles it hath continued, and with them it began. Neither is there any thing more profitable, for it helps children to be seasoned with the principles of true Religion, lays a good foundation for the better direction of their whole life, preserves the seed of the Church sound, makes children more diligent to learn, and Pastors, and Parents more careful to instruct them. The neglect of this duty hath done much harm in the Church, and the restitution of that good custom, which Caluin in the fourth Book of his Institutions earnestly wishes, could not but bring with it an exceeding great benefit. It was in substance agreed unto in the Assembly at Abirdene; but two things his Majesty found deficient in the Act: One that there was no mention of laying on of hands upon the child confirmed: Another was, that the performance of it was not restricted to the Bishop's care. And for this last, it is clear by all Antiquity, that the power of Confirming appertained ever to Bishops; Not, that Confirmation is a Sacrament of greater dignity than Baptism, as the Papists teach (these were the thoughts of ignorance:) but as S. Hierome speaks, The Church thought fit, that seeing Baptism is given by Presbyters, lest children should be ignorant of the spiritual superiority of Bishops over them, they should attend the receiving of Confirmation by their hands; so, this was done for the honour of Prelacy, as he speaks. Now, if any man will envy this honour to Bishops, it is a silly and poor envy: for it increases their charge and burden; and if the conscience of their duty make them not careful of it, in this profane and irreligious age, the honour or credit it can bring them, will never work it: Touching imposition of hands, let Saint Augustine tell us what it means: He in his fift Book, De Baptismo contra Donatistas', cap. 23. says, Quid est manuum impositio, nisi oratio super hominem? that is to say, What is imposition of hands, but a prayer upon the man, that hands are laid upon? In all personal benedictions, from the very beginning of the world, it hath been used: Parents do yet confer their blessing in this manner to their children, and when spiritual blessings are given, there can be no offence to do it with the like ceremony. But I hear that some cannot abide to hear the word of Confirmation; the thing itself gladly they admit, but they would have examination, or some the like word put for it: Not only the abuse, but the very name of the thing abused, (so tender are the hearts of some men) must be put away. For this shortly, I say, that the Scriptures never taught us to place Religion in words. Saint Luke made no scruple, speaking of a street in Athens, to call it the street of Mars: And the ship that Paul sailed in, he names by Castor and Pollux, though both these were the Idols of Pagans. If names were to be stood upon, we should put ourselves to great business, & it behoveth to change the names of our Months, and Days, which some have pressed unto, but wise men know this to be folly. Besides, the word of Confirmation was used in the Church long before Popery was hatched, as is manifest by Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others. And thus much of Confirmation.  
The Festivities, which are the next, are impugned by this Argument amongst others, That hereby we conform ourselves to Papists in the keeping of holy days: But had this Argument been of any force, would the reformed Churches have agreed so uniformly in the observation of them? All of them, so fare as I know, keep holy the days of Christ's Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, with the Descent of the holy Ghost. The Churches of Bohemia, Vngarie, Polonia, Denmark, Saxony, and high Germany: The Helvetian Churches, the Belgic, and those of the low Countries; The French, English, and Geneva itself, in the beginning of reformation, observed them all. The day of Nativity they yearly celebrate, if I be rightly informed; the rest are abrogated, and by what occasion, read the 115. and 128. Epistles of Caluin, where after he had showed the occasion of their abolishment, he adds: Ego neque suasor, neque impulsor fui, atque hoc testatum volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc constitutum est, non fuisse pro sententia dicturum. For the opinions of the rest of our Divines in this particular, Bucer, Martyr, Bullinger, Zanchius, Aretius, Polanus, Paraeus, and Tilenus, with all that I have seen, speak manifestly for it. Tilenus' his words in his Systema, which came forth the last year, are these: Alios dies praeter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad peculiarium quorundam Dei beneficiorum, & Christi gestorum, solennem & anniversariam in Ecclesia commemorationem celebrari, nulla religio vetat: modò prudons cautio accedat, Ne videlicet vel ullius rei ereatae, cultui consecrentur, vel insitae diebus illis sanctitatis opinio foneatur, vel denique ignavo otio, foedifque voluptatibus hac occasione, fenestra aperiatur. I find in a Synod kept at Middleburgh, Anno 1584., a Canon there made, that all holy days should be abolished, except the Lord's day, and the day of Christ's Nativity, and Ascension. But if the Magistrates shall require more to be kept, than the Ministers shall labour by preaching, to turn the people's idleness into godly exercises and business. These be the words of that Canon, which I have cited, aswell to show you, what that Church ascribes to Magistrates, as because our case in this particular is very like. His Majesty, as you know, hath charged all his Subjects by Proclamation to abstain from servile labour in these times, and it should become us well as that Act speaks, to turn them from idleness to godly exercises. For to dispute of the lawfulness of the prohibition, neque huius fori, nor will any Subject that is in his right wits, presume to do it. I do not urge the testimonies of the Fathers in this point, because of them; you who were at the last Assembly, heard enough: And they who elevate the consent of antiquity in this matter, saying, That the mystery of iniquity was then begun to work, will reverence, as I trust, the judgement of these reformed Writers, who have laboured to discover that Mystery, and will think it no commendation to them, to be dissenting from all the Churches that have been, and are in the world.  
Of the last Article, which requires kneeling, as the most reverend gesture in partaking the holy Sacrament of the Communion, I have need to say much, seeing great stirs are made for this, and as I esteem without any cause. The Apostle when he professes to deliver unto us that which he received of the Lord, speaks not, either of sitting, or kneeling, or standing; by which it is cuident, That situs, vel positus corporis in coena, as Zepperus speaks, is not of the essence of the Sacrament, but to be numbered amongst these circumstances, which the Church may alter, and change at their pleasure. Where it is said, that we ought to conform ourselves to Christ's action, ye know it is answered, That if so were, it behoved us to lie along about the Table; to communicate with men, and not with women: And in the Evening after supper, receive this Sacrament, which things were ridiculous to affirm. Peter Martyr, an excellent witness of God's truth, In class secunda Locorum communium Cap. 4. speaks otherwise: Nihil interest, saith he, si coenae Dominicae sacramentum stantes, aut sedentes, aut genibus flexis percipiamus, modò institutum Domini conseruetur, & occasio superstitionibus praecidatur. And in his Defence of the doctrine of the Eucharist adversus Gardinerum, answering the same argument, which Bellarmine brings for real presence: Although in receiving the Sacrament, saith he, we adore the Lord by kneeling, we do not thereby testify the real and corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament: for adoration, the mind not being applied to the elements, but to the things signified, may lawfully be used. Peter Mouline in defence of his Majesty's Apology against the Friar Copheteau, where the Friar alleges some testimonies out of S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostome, to prove the adoration of the consecrated Host, answers, That the Fathers say nothing, but that which we willingly grant. Is there any amongst us, saith he, who ever denied, that we ought to adore the flesh of jesus Christ? Who ever doubted, that we ought to adore him in the Eucharist? But he that adores jesus Christ in the Eucharist, does not for all that, adore that which the Priest holds in his hand, but he adores jesus Christ who is in Heaven. These worthy men scorn (as ye see) Bellarmine's argument, howbeit we can take out of an enemy's mouth, and make somewhat of nothing, to bear out our own conceits. Th. Beza did not approve this gesture of kneeling, yet did he never esteem it Idolatry, as some of our Spirits do. In his 12. Epistle he writes thus Geniculatio dum symbola accipiuntur speciem quidem habet piae & Christianae venerationis, ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu usurpari, Tamen quoniam ex hoc fonte orta est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illa detestabilis, adhuc in animis multorum haerens, merito sublata esse videtur. Interea tamen, cum ista non sint per se idololatrica, idem de illis, quod de praecedentibus sentimus. And what was that? Propterea non esse deserendum ministerium: possunt enim, inquit, & debent multa tolerari in Ecclesia, quae recte non praecipiuntur. This was the judgement of that worthy and reverend man.  
But there came out a Pamphlet in the year 1608, written by some perverse Spirit in the English Church, of this argument, which finds too good entertainment in some of you my Brethren: Worse, and more desperate Blasphemies did never any Arriane cast out; for this directly he says, That in the receiving the holy Communion, we ought not use any right, that may signify our inferiority unto Christ, neither should we abase ourselves there, but acknowledge and think us his equals. I pray God keep us from this Divinity. Doubtless such conceits as these, brought the Church of Pole in that general Synod, which was kept anno 1578. simply to condemn sitting, as a ceremony unhonest, and unlawful for so holy an exercise: In the act concerning ceremonies to be used in the administration of the Supper, they have these words; Libertati christianae donamus ut stantes, vel genua flectentes pij Sacramentum corporis, & sanguinis Christi sumant: Sessionis verò ad mensam Domini, quia illi authores huius ritus extiterunt, qui à nobis ad Arrianismum, perfide transfugi facti sunt, hanc propriam ipsis, ut Christum & sacra eius irreverenter tractantibus, tauquam minus honestam & religinsam, simplicioribusque admodum scandalosam ceremoniam reijcimus. We may not think it was any light cause, which made that Church thus peremptory in their decree: Their troubles were great, and as I hear, yet are, by the Arrians: And believe me, Brethren, such as can away with the speeches of that Pamphlet, are not far from that side. We have learned otherways to honour the Son, as we honour the Father, and he that honours not the Son so in every place, especially in the participation of the holy Supper, should be to us as a jew or Pagan. I shall insist no louger in this purpose: It is an excellent passage that of Saint Augustine upon the 98. Psalm, Nemo carnem illam manducat, nisi prius adoraverit: That is, No man can eat that flesh unless first he have adored. For myself, I think sitting in the beginning, was not evilly instituted, and since by our Church continued; for we may adore while we are sitting, aswell as kneeling: yet the gesture which becometh adoration best, is that of bowing of the knee, and the irreligion of these times craves, that we should put men more unto it, than we do.  
Thus I have showed you the judgement of the best Reforformed Churches touching these Articles: Thereby you have seen that there is nothing impious or unlawful in them: they who show a dislike of some of them in the last Assembly, could not say other. And surely, if it cannot be showed, that they are repugnant to the written Word, I see not with what conscience we can refuse them, being urged as they are, by our Sovereign Lord and King: A King who is not a stranger to Divinity, but hath such acquaintance with it, as Rome never found in the confessions of all men a more potent Adversary: a King neither superstitious, nor inclinable that way, but one that seeks to have God righlty and truly worshipped by all his Subjects. His Person, were he not our Sovereign, gives them sufficient authority, being recommended by him; for he knows the nature of things and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better than we do all.  
But I hear some answer, That were it known, these things proceeded of himself, they would make the less question of them: but they are thought to come by the suggestion of some of the English Church, or them of ourselves at home. For the first, I will but remember you of his Majesty's own Declaration in the Chapel of Saint- Andrew's, where with a great attestation more than needed from a Prince to his Subjects, He declared that neither the desire he had for conforming his Churches, nor the soliciation of any person, did set him on this work, but his zeal for God, and a certain knowledge that he could not answer it in that great Day, if he should neglect this duty. His Majesty's Letter to the last Assembly bears so much also. Now any of us would take it evil, not to be believed after our solemn attestations: and I trust in all your confessions, his Majesty deserves some greater respect. As to that which is supposed of us at home, myself chief, if I shall believe the rumours that are going, I will borrow that notable man his speech in a case not unlike, Mihi hactenus propemodum fatale fuit, 
Caluine.  putidis his calumnijs quotidie onerari; ego autem ut sanctè testari possum me inscio, ac ne optante quidem haec proposita, ita ab initio in animum induxi invidiam potius tacendo lenare, quàm excusationes quaerere minus solicitas. This was my resolution, and I should not change it, but that I will not have a misconceit of my doings, to lead you into an offence: I therefore in the presence of the Almighty God, and of this honourable Assembly, solemnly protest, that without my knowledge, against my desire, and when I least expected, these Articles were sent unto me, not to be proponed to the Church, but to be inserted amongst the Canons thereof, which then were in gathering: touching which point I humbly excused myself, that I could not insert amongst the Canons, that which was not first advised with the Church, and desired they might be referred to another consideration. Neither did I hear after that time of them any thing, while that Protestation was form to be presented to the States of Parliament: at what time, his Majesty taking the advantage of their mis-behaviour, who penned the Protestation and proudly stood to the same, resolved to have these Articles admitted in our Church, wherein all my care was to save the Church her authority, and labour that they might be referred to an Assembly; which was obtained upon promise, that his Majesty should receive satisfaction, and the promise was not made by me alone, but ratified by yourselves, as you remember at Saint- Andrew's. In the Assembly that followed, howsoever my advice took no place, I joined after the dissolving thereof with my Lords the Bishops, to excuse the delay that was made at the time: but our Letter being evil accepted, and another returning full of anger and indignation, which divers of yourselves have seen, I traveled at the Ministers their earnest solicitation, by all the ways I could, to divert the troubles, which before this time most certainly ye would have felt. And all that hath proceeded since ye know. So as I spoke before, I would, if it had been in my power, most willingly have declined the receiving of these Articles. Not, that I did esteem them either unlawful or inconvenient, for I am so fare persuaded of the contrary, as I can be of any thing; but I foresaw the contradiction which would be made, and the business we should fall into. Therefore, let no man deceive himself; these things proceed from his Majesty, and are his own motions, not any others.  
I hear others say, they could agree with the Articles, but that they take them to be introductions of the rest of the English Ceremonies, wherewith they cannot away. To this I answer, That the ready way to have the rest imposed, is to offend his Majesty by our resisting; and the way to be freed of them, is to approve ourselves in the obedience of these. Thereby both ye and we shall find a more gracious hearing in any thing that concerneth the Church. Call to mind the courses of former times, and tell me if our oppositions did ever gain us any thing? If experience will not make us wise, what can?  
But this, others say, is hard to be done: because our preaching and practice have both been to the contrary, and a yielding now cannot but stain our credits. I will not reply, that it is no credit to be constant in evil, nor any discredit to change for the better; for this would sound harshly in the ears of many: only I shall wish those who stand so much for their credit, to lay before themselves Saint Paul's example, who became all to all, that he might save some. He had preached against Circumcision; against the keeping of the lewish Sabbaths, their new Moons, and other Rites: he had called them yokes, burdens, importent, and beggarly rudiments; and reproved Saint Peter for making the Gentiles conform to the jews in these things; yet after all this he circumcised Timothy, and practised himself diverse of their Ceremonies. The reason was, that he saw no other way to redeem the liberty of his Ministry, further the Gospel, and increase the Churches: In this he placed his credit, and so he did speed in that; he stood not much what men reported of him. If the zeal of God lead us, and the love of his Church, we will not look so much to ourselves and to our own reputation, as to the furthering of the work of the Gospel.  
It will be replied, I know, that not for themselves, but for the offence of the people, they fear to admit these things. For having preached against holy days, and the rest, and having defended the Constitutions of the Church, which now must be altered, there cannot but great offence ensue. I can make no other answer to this, then say, That, I trust, none of our Preachers have stood against the keeping of days simply; but against the superstitious keeping of them as Papists do, and against the lasciviousness of people, profaning those days by unlawful exercises: Nor have we taught at any time, sitting to be of the essence of the Sacrament, and a Rite that may not be changed; for in that case it is necessary for the Truth's sake to inform them otherwise, and make it seen that we love Truth more than our own reputation. If our judgements have been misled, and that we have misled others, it is good, that we being resolved of the Truth, help to resolve others also. But I do not suppose any such ignorance in my brethren; I know, people think many times we contradict ourselves, when there is nothing less; for they distinguish not well of things, and have many mistake. Always, this is sure, the framing of people's conceits lies much in our hands. The Days required to be observed, have been kept this last year in the chief Burghes by his Majesty's command, what offence thereof did we find amongst the people? The Communion hath been given and received in that reverend form, Who was scandalised? Some few, perhaps, that would seem singular for holiness by the rest, and others because they saw their Ministers forbear: but generally such as communicated, who were not a few number, professed that in their time they never found more comfort and better motions, which their tears and devout behaviour testified to all the beholders.  
But this, they say, takes not away the offence: for Papists will boast, that we are drawing back towards them, and the godly cannot but be grieved, that have a dislike of their Ceremonies. For Papists, first, we are not to regard them, It is their manner to make advantage of every thing: say or do what we will, they will still speak evil of the Truth. Are the Churches of England, Germany, and Bohemia in better terms with Papists, than we? Ye know not how things go in the world, if ye think so. Papists are not the fools we take them, to be pleased with shadows, they have other more substantial notes, by which they discern their friends, then by ceremonies. As for the godly amongst us, we are sorry they should be grieved, but it is their own fault: for if the things be in themselves lawful, what is it that should offend them? They say, these alterations can work no good. I answer, The alteration is necessary, if it be necessary for our Church to enjoy his Majesty's favour, and if it be necessary, it must also be profitable. Nam causa necessitatis, & utilitatis aequiparantur in iure. But if they think that we should regard their offence, and offence of other good Christians, let them know that the offence of our gracious Sovereign is more to us then theirs, and a thoufand more.  
Yet were it not better, that his Majesty should by his authority enjoin them, rather than the Church give any consent, and when the time shall grow better, we may then return to our old custom? for these are the motions of some. What they call better times, I know not, but our fathers saw never so good times, nor is it to be hoped that our posterity shall see the like. Continuance detracts from the worth of things, at least in our conceits: we have enjoyed peace and liberty so long, that we little know how precious they are. But had we been in the coats of our fathers, or could we remember the straits our first Reformers stood in, and were brought unto in the same City, when that good Earl Alexander came to their relief, we would think it no small blessing to have our Profession countenanced by Authority. As to that which they desire, that his Majesty should enjoin these things by Authority, I leave it to you to judge how dangerous the same may prove to the Church. If comformity be enjoined, be sure it will not be in these matters only, but in others that ye hate more: But I fear it be the purpose of many to rubbe this way upon his Majesty the imputation of tyranny: for what Christian King did ever determine in Ecclesiastical matters any thing without advice of his Clergy? And to impose Laws upon the Church without their consent, were as much as to say, the King imposes things unlawful: for if they be lawful, Why will we be dissenting? Brethren, his Majesty is styled, Defender of the Faith, and hath it by desert, aswell as by inheritance: It were a perverse course for us to make it seem otherways. When jesuites and Papists of all sorts, are by their infamous writings, belying his Majesty, and traducing his Highness' fame, only because he opposes them for the defence of the common Faith; if we should furnish them matter of new obloquy by our rebellion, we could never be excused of vile ingratitude. Rests but one objection that I have heard, which I will not omit: They say, the English Church hath been seeking of old times to have us wonder their government; and upon this, some have called our yielding unto a conformity in these points with them, a betraying of the liberty of our Church and Kingdom. This reason is so evil grounded, that though we should conform with them in every outward Rite, observed not only by them but by the whole Church of Christ, long before it was so infected with Popery: it would not infer the dependence of our Church upon theirs, but that there is that harmony and conformity amongst us, which ought to be amongst all the reformed Churches both in Doctrine and Discipline. And for our part in maintaining our right, ye may remember not long since, when that Noble man was absolved in England who was excommunicate by us, we ceased not to complain until a new command was given, that he should receive from us a new absolution. If matters should come thus to be contested for, which is not to be expected, we should not be found neglectful either of our Church or Country. But what is this we are jealous of? We lives under a King, that love's the kingdom's honour more than we all; there offers not one occasion, wherein his Majesty fails to express his natural affection towards his country. Even now that Mischant, sometimes one of your number, and unworthy to be named, did vomit forth his spite and unnatural malice against the whole Nation: And how did his Majesty resent it? As I have been advertised, he did solemnly declare, That albeit much had been said against his Majesty's own person, and nothing omitted in that kind, which the Devil could invent, yet all that did not so much grieve him, as that Mischants taxing of his Country and Nation: He is not worthy the name, I will not say of a Christian, but of a Scottish man, that will not, if need be, lay down his life to meet his Majesty's affection. I know ye are ready enough to make your protestations this way, but believe me, he shall never hazard willingly his life for his Prince, who stands against his pleasure in so just demands.  
I will say no more, for I have wearied both you and myself, out of a desire to give satisfaction to you all. How freely and plainly I have spoken, ye are my witnesses: with what an affection towards the Churches good, God he knows. Brethren, we have made too much business about these matters. The Kingdom of God consists not in them, but in righteousness and peace, and joy of the holy Ghost. Away with fruitless and contentious dispute. Remember the work we are sent for, is to build the Church of God, and not to destroy it; to call men to Faith and Repentance; to stir them up to the works of true piety and love, and not to make them think they have Religion enough when they have talked against Bishops and Ceremonies. If we shall go about this carefully, and all of us strive in our places, by fruitful preaching, honest living, and a wise governing, to approve ourselves unto the consciences of our people, we shall shortly find matters in a better estate than we have seen, and be all of us an acceptable people to the Lord our God; which that it may be, God for his Christ's sake grant to us all. Amen.   
THe Sermon ended, the Archbishop of Saint Andrew's came to the Table, at which his Majesty's Commissioners, Noble men, and other members of the Assembly, were sitting; and calling for the ordinary Clerk of the Assembly, was answered, That Master Thomas Nicholson, who formerly served the Church in that place, had dimitted his office in favour of Master james sandeland's Advocate; This he notified to the Assembly, as that which he had understood before, and shown that the said Master james was a man sufficiently qualified for the place, of good report, and one that by his advocation and pleading might further the particular business of Ministers before the Session. He desired the Assembly to consider what was fittest to be done, and advice whether they would receive the said Master james in the others place or not: The voices of his Majesty's Commissioners, the Noble men, Bishops, and diverse of the Ministers being asked, they all without exception agreed to his receiving. And the said Master james being recalled (for while the voices were asked, he was removed) had an oath ministered unto him, for his diligent and faithful discharge of that service.  
The Libeler observes here, first, That seats being appointed for Noble men, Barons, Burgesses, and Bishops, with the Doctors; the Ministers were left to stand behind them as if their part had only been to behold; Then says, that the choosing of Master james sandeland's to be Clerk, was done without formal voting or light. But to that, first, although it might be replied in a word, that the care of placing seats was only in the Magistrates hands of the Burghe, where the said Assembly was kept, and that the neglect thereof, if any was, cannot be thought purposely done; yet because no diligence was omitted on the part of the Magistrates, and the seats conveniently enough placed according as the house could bear, wherein the said meeting was kept; we must think this complaint proceeds of too much pride and sauciness. The man cannot abide to hear of degrees in the Church, and places according to degrees; but he must have patience. Presbyters must now content to sit and stand behind the Bishops, according to the degrees of the old Christian Counsels; for the time of confusion is expired, and Church men must learn now to live orderly. That there was not a light for election of the Clerk, he must remember that the dimission made by the former, was in favour of Master james only; and that the Assembly had not so much ado to choose a Clerk, as to advice, if they would accept him, in whose favour the dimission was made. Concerning which point, the voices of the most, that could be observed to be present, being asked, enough was done for making good his reception in the place, specially considering the Commissioners to the Assembly were not then known, nor a roll made whereby to call them, that had voice particularly. But this is his curiosity, who gladly would find a fault, even where none was committed.  
The said Master james sandeland's being admitted, command was given to all that had enteresse in the said Assembly, to give in their commissions to him before the next sitting, and nomination was made of certain for the Conference, according to the order kept in other Assemblies; in which besides the Bishops, Noble men, Barons, and Commissioners of Burrowes, the most wise and learned of the Ministry were named indifferently, without any respect had of their opinions and private inclinations.  
At this time it was moved by one, That the liberty of the Church might be kept in the choosing of a Moderator; which the Archbishop of Saint Andrew's repressed, saying to the proponer, That he did not expect him to be a troubler of the Church, and the business thereof; and that the Assembly was met within the bounds of his charge, wherein so long as he served, he trusted none would usurp; at which he kept silence; and straight ways arose another, who asked whether all the Noble men and Barons present should have voice, or not, and if the whole Ministers that were met there, should have voices also: The Archbishop of Saint Andrews answered, that the order observed in former Assemblies should here be kept, and no Ministers have voice that lacked a commission: But as for Noble men, and Barons who were come thither upon his Majesty's missives, he trusted none there would deny them voice, specially since in the Assembly that proceeded at Saint Andrew's, it was one of the reasons they made for differing the conclusion of matters, That none of the Noble men, or Barons were then present to assist the proceed of the Church.  
It was desired also, that the Articles to be entreated, might be extended in such form, as his Majesty desired them to pass, and that some might be set apart to collect the reasons that should be proponed, for, or against the Articles, that the whole Asiembly might have the clearer information. To this it was answered, that the conference was to consider of these things, and what might serve best to prepare matters for the whole Assembly.  
It appeared, that their drift was to perturb the Assembly with such motions in the beginning, therefore the Archbishop requiring them to keep silence, commanded his Majesty's letter which was presented by Doctor Young Deane of Winchester, and directed to the Assembly, to be publicly read, the Tenor of which Letter we have thoughr meet here also to insert.  
His Majesty's Letter to the ASSEMBLY.  
JAMES Rex,  
RIght reverend Fathers in GOD, Right trusty Cousins, and Coumsellos, and others Our trusty, and well-beloved subjects, We greet you well: We were once fully resolved, never in Our time, to have called any more Assemblies there, for ordering things concerning the policy of the Church, by reason of the disgrace offered unto. Us in that late meeting at S. Andrew's, wherein Our just and godly desires were not only neglected, but some of the Articles concluded in that scornful, and ridiculous form, as We wish they had been refused rather with the rest: Although at this time We suffered Ourself to be entreated by you Our Bishops, for a new Convocation, and have called you together, who are now convened for the selfsame business which then was urged; hoping assuredly, that you will have some better regard of Our desires, and not permit the unruly, and ignorant Multitude, after their wont custom, to oversway the better, and more judicious sort; An evil which we have gone about with much pains, to have amended in these Assemblies, and for which purpose according to God's Ordinance, and the constant practice of all well governed Churches in all ages, We have placed you that are Bishops, and overseers of the rest in the chiefest rooms. You plead much, We perceive, to have matters done by consent of the Ministers, and tell Us often, that, what concerns the Church in general, should be concluded, by the advice of the whole; neither do We altogether dislike your purpose: for the greater consent there is amongst yourselves, the greater is Our contentment. But We will not have you to think, that matters proponed by Us of that nature, whereof these Articles are, may not without such a general consent be enjoined by Our authority: This were a misknowing of your places, and withal a disclaiming of that innate power, which We have by Our calling from God, by the which, We have place to dispose of things external in the Church, as We shall think them to be convenient, and profitable for advancing true Religion amongst Our Subjects. Therefore let it be your care by all manner of wise, and discreet persuasions to induce them to an obedient yielding unto these things, as in duty both to God, and Us, they are bound: And do not think, that We will be satisfied with refuses, or delays, or mitigations; and We know not what other shifts have been proponed; for We will content Ourselves with nothing, but with a simple, and direct acceptation of these Articles in the form by Us sent unto you, now a long time past; considering both the lawfulness, and undeniable conveniency of them for the better furthering of piety and religion amongst you. And it should have rather becomed you, to have begged the establishment of such things of Us, then that We should thus need to be put to urge the practice of them, upon you. These matters indeed concerneth you of the Ecclesiastical charge chief. Neither would We have ealed Noblemen, Barons, and others of Our good Subjects, to the determining of them, but that We understand, the offence of Our people hath been so much objected; wherein you must bear with Us to say, That no Kingdom doth breed, or hath at this time, more loving, dutiful; and obedient Subjects, than We have in that Our native Kingdom of Scotland; and so if any disposition hath appeared to the contrary, in any of them, the same We hold to have proceeded from amongst you. Albeit of all sorts of men, ye are they, that both of duty were bound, and by particular benefits obliged, to have continued yourselves, and by your sound doctrine and exemplary life, kept others in a reverend obedience to Our commandments. What, and how many abuses were offered Us by many of the Ministry there, before Our happy coming to this Crown, though We can hardly quite forget, yet We little like to remember. Neither think We, that any Prince living could have kept himself from falling in utter dislike with the Profession itself, considering the many provocations that were given unto Us; But the love of God, and his truth still upheld Us; And will by his grace so do unto the end of Our life: Our patience always in forgetting, and forgiving many faults of that sort, and constant maintaining of true Religion against the adversaries (by whose hateful practices We live in greater peril than you all, or any one of you,) should have produced better effects amongst you, then continual resistance of our best purposes. We wish We be not further provoked, and God's truth, which you profess, of obedience unto Principalities and Powers, be no longer neglected, and slandered by such, as under the cloak of seeming holiness, walk unruly amongst you, shaking hands as it were, and joining in this their disobedience unto Magistracy, with the upholders of Popery. Wherefore, Our hearty desire is, that at this time, you make the World see by your proceed, what a dutiefull respect and obedience you own to Us, your Sovereign Prince, and natural King and Lord; that as We in love & care are never wanting unto you, so you in an humble submission unto Our so just demands, be not found inferior to others our Subjects in any of our Kingdoms; and that the care & zeal of the good of God Church, & of the advancing of Piety, and Truth, doth chief incite us to the following of these matters; God is our Witness: The which, that it may be before your eyes, and that according to your callings you may strive in your particular places, and in this general meeting to do these things which may best serve to the promoving of the Gospel of Christ, even our prayers are earnest unto God for you; requiring you in this and other things to credit the Bearer hereof, our trusty Servant and Chaplain, the Dean of Winchester, whom we have expressly sent thither, that he may bring unto us, a true relation of the particular carriages of all matters, and of the happy event of your meeting, which by God's blessing (who is the God of Order, Peace and Truth) we do certainly expect; unto whose gracious direction, we commend you now and for ever.  
Given at Theobalds' the 10. julij, 1618.  
THis Letter being once read, and again, as is the custom in all Letters of importance sent from his Majesty: The Archbishop resumed the heads of the same, showing how acceptable their acceptance would be, and on the otherside, what inconuenients their refuse might bring upon the Church; he declared also unto them, how they should be well advised before they thrust themselves wilfully in danger, because whatsoever forwardness, some amongst them seemed to have for suffering in such cases, they should or long forethink the same: and after they had tafled of the troubles of banishment a little, would, as others had done, seek home again; and acknowledge their oversights. Of this he told them, they had examples many, not one before their eyes; and because the very night before he had received a Letter from Master john Shairpe, who was exiled the Kingdom, for keeping that disordered Conventicle at Abirdene: containing an earnest request, to intercede with his Majesty for liberty to return into his Country, with assurance he would conform himself to all good orders in time coming, he made particular mention of him, and of the Letter, giving the young man his due commendation for his good behaviour, and the profit he had made in his Studies, since the time of his Banishment. Besought them to be wife, and not to commit any thing whereof afterwards they might repent, to the disgrace both of themselves and their Ministry.  
This was the effect of his first speech, which the Libeler so depraves, as he would make you think, that he lacked both judgement to conceive, and dexterity to utter that which was meet to be spoken in such an audience; but they are witnesses enough to confute his folly, and falsehood in that particular. The like imputation he goes about to lay upon Doctor Young, the Dean of Winchester, whom in one place he calls a Scottishman by birth, as if he were now degenerated, and had forgotten, or forsaken his Country: And in another place scornfully taxeth, for the manner of his speech where as his affection to this Country and Church, his care for the good of both, and reputation he hath justly purchased by his worthy parts, in the Church where now he life's, deserved better, and other acknowledgement.  
It is true, that by reason of the trust, and credit committed to him, by his Majesty in this business; the Archbishop of Saint- Andrew's desired him to speak, if so he had any thing to say for seconding the Letter, whereof he was Messenger, and his words received at that time, by one that stood by, were these that follows.  

MOst Honourable, most Reverend, right Worshipful, and dear beloved:  
It might well become me, according to the example of Elihu in the History of job, in the presence of so wise, so grave, so religious, and learnedan Assembly, to wait in silence till the more ancient in years had spoken: but that I know that the Sovereign Majesty of our gracious Lord and Master the KING, who hath regarded so much the lowliness of his Servant, as to send me unto you at this time, to be the Messenger of his will and pleasure, now openly read in your ears, will procure attention unto a few words, which shall be uttered with the uprightness and sincerity of a heart wholly devoted, as unto the glory of God, & honour of our great Master the KING: so to the happy, free, and flourishing Estate of this Church and Kingdom, unto which I am tied by so many strong bands; that Moses the friend of God, and Paul that chosen Vessel of Christ, who are recorded in the holy Scriptures to have exceeded in their affection to the people of Israel, their dear Country men, did not in that own more unto them, then that which you all well know I own unto you; and would to God I were as able to pay so just a debt as I am, and ever shall be most ready and willing to acknowledge it; Hic amor meus pondus meum: for from this love and duty I own unto this place of my first and second birth (God he best knows) how the sorrows of my heart, have been enlarged, since the time of the last general Assembly at Saint-andrewes', to hear such words of indignation, and just displeasure, so often to proceed out of the mouth of so good, and so gracious a Prince, like MOSES the meekest man upon the face of the Earth: Sed verendum etiam atque etiam quò exeat patientia tam saepe laesa: Words spoken against those that are called to be Ministers, Ambassadors of Peace, and patterns of Piety, and Obedience, uttered in the ears of them, who labour indeed as it becometh, so loyal and loving subjects by their humble and dutiful obedience unto his sacred Majesty to outstrip those that went before them; and albeit they have the last, yet not to have the least portion in our DAVID'S love. But as then with all good and well-affected men, I much grieved, so now I hearty rejoice and praise God, that notwithstanding of all that is passed, I have lived to see this day agenerall Synod once more of the Church of Scotland, called by the authority and express command and pleasure of our Sovereign Lord the KING, which is the only true and best means indeed, used in all Ages for extirpating of all Sects, Errors, & Heresies, & for the planting of truth, and good order in the Church of Christ. And I pray God, that all things at this meeting, may by the direction of God's good Spirit, & by your wisdoms be so carried, that you abridge not yourselves and posterity, of so great a blessing, and procure that not only these things which are now required: but that other things more difficult be enjoined and enforced upon you, upon strict penalty by Supreme Authority. And therefore I desire (as I am sent to that purpose) with the Apostle Titus 3. to put you in remembrance, that you be subject to Principalities and powers, and that you be obedient and ready to every good work: to put you in remembrance, that by the great blessing of Almighty God, you have to do with so wise, so potent, so religious, so learned a Prince, the matchless Mirror of all Kings, the nursing Father of his Church; that he whose Wisdom and Authority, is in the composing of all differences both Ecclesiastical and Civil, so much required, respected, and admired, not only by his own people of his other Kingdoms, but by all good Christians of foreign Nations throughout the Christian world may not seem to be neglected by you his native Subjects at home, and you especially of the Ministeric, who ought to be examples and patterns of obedience unto others; you whom he hath so infinitely obliged by his so great bounty and constant love: To put you in remembrance, that as with no small disreputation unto his Majesty, and diminution as it were of his Princely authority in the judgement and sight of the World, whose eyes are bend upon these proceed, he hath granted you so long time, by your Christian and godly endeavours with your several flocks (whom you are to lead, & not to be led by them) to remove (as you promised both to his Majesty being here amongst you, and again confirmed at your last general Synod,) all those scandals which might be taken by the more ignorant and unadvised sort of your people (to whom all innovations though to the better, may seem at the first somewhat strange:) so that now you would be careful, as much as in you lieth, to take away that more dangerous and open offence, and scandal, which by your delay, and refusal of obedience, you shall cast upon the sacred person of our Sovereign Lord the King; the most constant, and zealous Protector and Defender of that Faith and Truth, which we all profess, and for the which he hath suffered such open gainsaying of the Adversaries thereof, the limbs of Antichrist; as if he who hath laboured so much to exalt the glory of this Nation fare above all his Predecessors in the eyes of the World, now going about most of all to humble us unto our God, and in performance of the act of greatest devotion according to his own example to bring us unto our Knees, did in so doing any way urge his Subjects to any thing, which might savour of Superstition or Idolatry: To remove the scandal from those who are in authority amongst you, and are set over you in the Lord, who by their dutiful obedience unto God, and their Sovereign, have already both by their Doctrine, and practise, commended those things which now are required of you, to be both lawful, and expedient: To take away that scandal and aspersion, which by the seeming reasons of your former refusal, or delay, you have cast upon others so glorious reformed Churches, as if the holy Ghost, and Spirit of reformation had been given only, and solely rested upon you: To remove that notorious, and public scandal, which by the fiery and turbulent spirits of some few private men, lieth heavy upon the fervent and zealous Professors of the glorious Gospel of Christ, as if they also were disobedient unto Magistracy, and in this did seem to join hands with the main upholders, and pillars of Popery. It hath wounded the Spirits of good men to hear it often spoken, Nec dicatur, (utinam ampliùs) Gathi, & in plateis Aschelonis; Nay to see it in Print, that Herod, and Pilate, were now reconciled again, if not Contra Christum Dominum, yet contra Christum Domini. Lastly, to prevent that lamentable misery and calamity, which God in his justice might bring upon this Church, in that you regarded not the blessed time of your visitation, and despised the long suffering and great goodness of God, and of so bountiful and gracious a Sovereign. And so to conclude, (for to stand now upon the particulars were but actum agere, and you need no glean after so plentiful an harvest, or the light of a Candle being enlightened by the clear beams of the Sun,) with that of Naamans' servants, 2. King. 5. unto their Lord, and Master: Father, if the Prophet had commanded thee a greater matter, shouldest thou not have done it? etc. So, right reverend Fathers and Brethren in Christ, if our most gracious Sovereign Lord, who hath done so much for you, had commanded you greater things, so long as they might stand with the will of God, and in no ways be repugnant unto the same, (for in that case indeed, the Apostles rule holds inviolably true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That we must rather obey God, than men) should you not have been ready yourselves, and by your Doctrine, and practise, have induced others to obedience? much more then, when he requireth of you, but these few necessary things, necessary, and expedient for the glory of God, for the advancing of piety amongst you; for the honour and due satisfaction unto our Sovereign Lord the KING; for the happy establishing of order, peace, union, and love amongst yourselves, and in these united Kingdoms. Therefore let me beseech you in the bowels of Christ to give all their due, Quae Caesaris, Caesari, quae Dei, Deo. And as Constantine the Great, (as Eusebius hath it) wrote unto his Churchmen, that troubled his peace and other weighty affairs, with their contentious humours: So let me entreat you in the behalf of our CONSTANTINE, Qui dum regat, iubet, Date illi dies tranquillos, & noctes curae, & molestiarum expertes, That so he may with much joy and contentment of heart, yet once more, as he proposeth, if not often, visit your coasts and those places which his soul so loveth. And that this poor Church, and his native Kingdom, may be made ever more and more happy by his coming, and long, peaceable, and prosperous reign: And GOD and Men say Amen unto it.  
Amen, Amen.   
This Speech he delivered most gravely, and with great affection, to the contentment of all good and wise men: And how falsely the Libeler charges him with bringing in the Puritan, and Papist; like Herode and Pilate, conspiring together, we leave it to the Reader to judge. Thus ended the first Session of that Assembly.   

The second Session of the Assembly was differred to the morrow after, and the Conference warned to meet at three of the clock in the afternoon.  
IN the Conference, after Prayer made for a blessing to that meeting, his Majesty's Letter was read again, to put them in mind that were convened of the business in hand, at what time the Archbishop of Saint- Andrew's did remember them of the proceed that had been kept in these matters since his Majesty's first Proposition of them at Saint-andrewes': The promises made at that time to his Majesty for passing the said Articles: the delay made in the preceding Assembly upon pretext of satisfying the simple and ignorant sort touching the lawfulness of them: He toln them also of the offence which his Majesty had taken at that delay: the severe rer course that was intended against the disobedient Miinisters: and the mitigation which was procured by the humble intercession of himself and others: and hereupon besought them earnestly to do, as became wisemen; for howbeit as he perceived against the advice given in the particular Synods they were come thither almost all of them, who were disposed to resist the conclusion intended, and that they supposed to carry matters by voices without regard, what reason would crave of them, they would deceive themselves in that case, and find their numbers too weak, if they did not hearken, and submit themselves to reason. And in the end, showing them the end of their sitting apart was to consider, by what means matters might most easily be brought unto a point, he said that there appeared but two ways, one whereof was by disputing the Articles, which was likely to consume along time, and breed irritation, rather than any contentment else: The other was by a calm and wise consultation to consider how the said Articles might be received in all the Churches with least offence, and conclude the same; specially since they had promised in the last Assembly to resolve themselves and others, of the equity of the points required; and which they like best, he desires them to choose.  
The greater part esteeming, that such as were contrary minded, would never receive satisfaction, unless matters were first reasoned: and that it should bring a sore imputation upon the Assembly to conclude any thing, which had not been first debated by arguments, urged the disputing of the Articles, which was of the rest condescended unto. Then it being proponed, if they would take the said Articles in order, or begin with the most controverted, they agreed uniformly to treat of kneeling at the receiving of the holy Sacrament in the first place, hoping that satisfaction being given in that Article, the less scruple should be made of the rest.  
So according to the order, two were named to dispute that Arcicle, to wit, Doctor Henry Philip, and Doctor William Forbes for the one side; and Master William Scot, and Master john Carmichael for the other: these two last named, after a grave protestation made, of their unwillingness to be heard opposing to any matter, for the which his Majesty seemed so earnest, excused themselves by the necessity of the Commandment, and their own resolutions, which they held to be well grounded, wishing that no offence might be taken at their speeches, which they should be careful of, and say nothing, but with that reverence which become them in so honourable an hearing. And then adding, that the contrary order had been long time kept in this Church with great profit, and the comfort of many good Christians, if now any would press to abolish that which had been in force, and draw in things not yet received, they should be holden to prove, either that the things urged were necessary and expedient for our Church: or the order hitherto kept, not meet to be retained. And for this purpose they alleged a passage of Master Hooker, in his Preface before the Books of Ecclesiastical Policy, wherein he craves that such as seek the reformation of Orders Ecclesiastical in the Church of England, should content themselves with the Opponents part, and be subject to prove these two things mentioned. It was replied, that the difference of their case and ours, was great: for there a few private men desired the Laws publicly established to be inverted, and it was good reason that such should be put to their confirmation of what they proponed: but here the Prince, that by himself had power to reform such things as were amiss in the outward policy, required to have the change made. And therefore it concerned them to bring reasons, why his Majesty's Propositions ought not to be granted. This they declined for a great while, still protesting the reverence they bear to his Majesty's commandments; and without mentioning that which they would not oppose in Thesi, they wished this question to be reasoned: Whether kneeling, or sitting at the Communion were the fit gesture.  
It was answered that the question could be no otherways proponed then thus; His Majesty desires our gesture of sitting at the Communion to be changed into kneeling: Why ought not the same to be done? If it could be showed by the Word, or by any necessary consequent deduced out of the same, that his alteration craved, ought not to be granted, because impious or unlawful, that should be enough humbly to decline the desire; which we doubted not his Majesty would accept well: and if otherways, they could bring no argument to the contrary, a necessity lay upon us to obey.  
An hour, or more was spent in such speeches, they declining still to give any argument, and offering themselves to answer such reasons, as any man would propone for the alteration desired: whereupon the Archbishop of Saint- Andrew's said, that if none would reason, he would put the Articles to voices.  
Then they proponed that reasoning should be public, and in face of the whole Assembly: it was replied, that nothing should be in conference concluded to the prejudice of the Assembly; always matters must first be brought to some point in the conference, and thereafter proponed to the whole number, who should be heard to reason of new, if he listed.  
Hereupon they resolved to fall into the dispute, and first Master john Carmichael brought an Argument from the custom and practice of the Church of Scotland, which had been long observed, and ought not to be altered, except the inconvenience of the present order were showed, and the desired gesture qualified to be better. It was answered, that how ever the Argument held good against the motions of private men, yet his Majesty requiring the practice to be changed, matters behoved to admit a new consideration; and that because it was the Prince his Privilege, that had the conservation and custody, aswell of the Church, as of the Commonwealth, to call in question Customs and Statutes which he perceived to breed any inconvenience in the state even by himself, it could not be denied that in a Church Assembly, such as that was, his Majesty might lawfully crave an innovation of any Church Rite, which he esteemed not to be convenient for the time.  
From this Argument, they went to another of Christ and the Disciples sitting at the first institution, in discussing whereof, they were brought to acknowledge the gesture not to be of the essence of the Sacrament, but alterable at the discretion of the Church. Only they held the custom formerly received to be the better.  
This was the proceeding of the first Conference, wherein because matters could not be brought to any point, continuation was made to the morrow after, and they warned to meet again at eight of the clock in the morning. The Libeler affirms the Propositions made by them touching the order of dispute, and the rest to have been rejected by the Moderator, adding, that he determined by himself; and that the fewer Reasons proponed by the Ministers, were cut off by cavilling and quarrelling at men's persons: whereas a number are witnesses, and can well remember, that they were heard with patience, to allege what they could, and answered in that which they proponed till themselves could say no more, and that nothing was done, but according to the custom kept in such cases in all Assemblies.  

Wednesday the 26. of August.  
THe Conference being met as was appointed, after invocation of the Name of God, the Reasoners were desired to proceed where they had left the night before, and not to trifle time with speeches of small consequence; which was the effect of all the discourses the Libeler seems to complain of. The reasoning continued from eight unto eleven of the clock. And when the whole Reasons proponed, by the two forenamed, were in the judgement of all men satisfied, others were required, and had place given them to propone their Arguments also, which was done in good order, and with such modesty as could be wished.  
It were needless here to repeat the several Arguments and Answers, seeing they are all in the Disputation subsequent at large set down; only where the Libeler says. That reasoning was cut off, and the Article of kneeling put to voices: It is true, that nothing remaining to be said more in that head than was proponed, the Archbishop desired these of the Conference, to give their judgement in the matter reasoned. They opponed, that the custom was not to vote in Conference any matter, before it were brought to the full Assembly, but it was proved otherwise by these who had frequented the Assemblies, both of old and in the latter times; as likewise it was told them, that these Conferences resembled the meeting of the Lords of Articles in Parliament, where matters are accustomed to be prepared and put in order, before they be proponed to the whole State. And that the voting in Conference was by way of advice only, and not to determine: The power whereof belonged only to the Assembly. This being acknowledged by the whole number to be so, they offered that were present, to give their own judgement without prejudging the Assembly; as accordingly they did: The whole number, some ten or eleven excepted, declaring that by the Reasons proponed, or any thing else they conceived, they could not deny, but a change might be made of the gesture in receiving the holy Sacrament, and that it seemed to them convenient for the Church to embrace the Article proponed by his Majesty about kneeling, in regard of his desire and resolution to have the same form here established.  
The Libeler either forgetting himself or misse-informed (for by the whole Narration he makes, it would seem, he was not present himself) casts this in the afternoon's Conference, though the same was done in the morning; but this, any man may well think, is but a light error, yet it may appear by this, how little the Narration he makes is to be regarded; for he brings in the Moderator in that afternoon, saying to such as convened, That the Article of kneeling was concluded by the Conference: and immediately after says, That the same was put to voices; where it is strange, the Moderator should so forget himself, as to say a thing was voted, and incontinent propone the same to be voted again, but this we will pass. After the advice concluded to be given to the Assembly in this point, it was thought meet, that the Article presently reasoned, with the other Articles proponed by his Majesty, should all of them be form in the best and most agreeable words that could be devised, for removing all offence that might be taken at the same, and no advantage given to the Adversaries of the Truth; and to this effect were named some grave and wise Brethren, who were desired to have the same in readiness at four of the clock in the afternoon; it being thought meet, that the full Assembly should not meet before Thursday again, at which time all might be prepared.   

Wednesday at afternoon.  
ALbeit the meeting of the full Assembly was differred to the next day, yet that afternoon, the whole number thronging in, whether that they were not advertised of the delay, or that they desired to be present with the Conference, came thither; which the Archbishop perceiving, he took occasion to excuse the delay of meeting with them, declaring how fare they had proceeded, and that the Conference had committed the Articles to be form, unto certain Brethren, who were at that time to present them; and therefore desired they should have patience till the morrow, and leave the Conference for that time by themselves, which they did.  
How soon they were removed, these who were appointed to form the Articles, being inquired what they had done, answered, That they had form the Article about kneeling, but had no leisure to consider of the rest; This being read, which they had put in form, was well liked of, and they required to have the rest in readiness at the time of the Assemblies meeting the next day.  
The Libeler here remembers a word that escaped the Moderator, while as they resisted so importunately the voting of the Articles in Conference, saying, That he would commit twenty preiudices to please the King: whereas the truth is, that after many answers made to give them satisfaction, and show that no prejudice was either intended or done to the Assembly, when as nothing could content them, but still they talked of prejudice, he willed them to be quiet; for rather than his Majesty should offend with the Church, and these troubles come upon it, which were justly to be feared, he would commit twenty such preiudices as these were.  
The rest of that afternoon was spent in talking, as the Libeler says, upon Simony, etc. but in the devising some overture for the restraining of that abuse, to be proponed to the whole Assembly, which the next day after was by universal consent allowed: As likewise, the Commission for the planting of the Church of Edinburgh, and the forming of the book of Common Prayers, and extracting of the Canons of the Church. And thus ended this Conference.   

Thursday the 27. of August.  
THat day being an ordinary day of preaching, a Sermon was made by the reverend Father in God William late Bishop of Galloway, against which the Libeler excepts three manner of ways; First, saying that his Doctrine was fare contrary to that which he had taught before the Estates of Parliament Anno 1606. Secondly, that he set at nought, the ancient order of our Church, sometime highly commended by himself, extolling the new light; and thirdly, that he presumed to teach them a new kind of Catechism, under whom he himself might be yet catechised. To all which seeing he is now at rest, this much may be truly replied in his behalf, That however his opinion in these matters of the external government were sometimes other, his Doctrine was never contrary to that, which at any time he professed, and preached: but these men have been so accustomed in feeding the ears of people with matters belonging to order, neglecting the substantial points of Religion, which are, Faith and Repentance, as they dream of no other Doctrine but that; and counts the alteration of judgement in these points of outward discipline a sort of Apostasy, and falling from the truth. And where he is said to set at nought, the ancient order of our Church, it is a false and impudent lie; for neither he, nor any else, that seem most earnest for receiving these Articles, did ever contemn the orders, and rites formerly established, but while as they stood in force, reverently practised them, and were obedient to the ordinances of the Church made thereabout; but the circumstances of things now being changed, and these times requiring other fashions and manners, we think without the despising of these, they may be well admitted, and as commendably used, as ever the other were: For the third, of presuming to teach them, by whom he might be catechised, because this is spoken in despite, I pass it with this answer, That his Sermons, and works left behind him, which will continue with the posterity, will witness against all their malice, that he was inferior to none of the Opposites in preaching, yea, in many degrees superior to them all.  
But to return to our purpose; the Assembly being not in full number, to take some conclusion in the business, for which they were convened, after invocation of the Name of God, it was declared unto them, that by the labours of the Conference in their private meetings, the Articles proponed by his Majesty, were brought and reduced into that form, as it rested for the Assembly to consider, whether or not, the same should be received in our Church; and to move them the rather to condescend, his Majesty's resolution, to have the Articles received, was declared, and how no other answer could satisfy, but granting of the said Articles. They were likewise remembered of their promises made to his Majesty's self at Saint Andrew's and in the last general Assembly, and had the lawfulness, and indifferency of these matters at length of new exponed unto them: Neither was any of their common pretexts left unanswered, place being given to all, that would reason against any one of the Articles, to do the same. And while some of them insisted by long speeches to have a continuation made of matters to another Assembly, and a supplication sent to his Majesty for some longer delay, his Highness' Commissioners having urged a present answer, they were desired to cease, and not to trifle time, with unnecessary speeches, seeing matters should receive decision before they went forth of doors.  
And so some few making show to reason in the contrary, were permitted to speak, till they had no more to say, and had their reasons answered to the full. The Libeler says, the liberty was granted to a few, and that the reasons were checked, and borne down with authority; but how contrary this is to the truth, we leave it to be answered by such as were present. And now when they have set down in writing, all that then was said, or possibly they can invent, Let the Reader judge, if by the answers given, their objections be not sufficiently confuted.  
Doctor Lindsay his answer, being posed on conscience to declare his judgement touching kneeling at the Sacrament, is maliciously mutilated: His declaration was this, as all the Assembly can testify, in whose presence it was given: On my conscience I neither know Scripture, reason, nor antiquity that enforceth kneeling, sitting, standing, or passing, as necessary, but think them all indifferent, and therefore that any of them may be lawfully used, when it is found expedient. And considering nothing to be more expedient for the weal of our Church, then to keep peace with our gracious Sovereign, and not to contend for such matters, I judge, yielding to his Highness' desire, to be the only best.  
When all the reasoning was ended, his Majesty's Letter was again read, to the end the Assembly might see his earnestness about the same matters. And because of a Pasquil cast in, in the Pulpit of Edinburghe the Sunday before, which was delivered to the Archbishop of Saint Andrew's, the penners whereof had warned the Ministers not to yield to the Articles, giving them promises of satisfaction for their stipends, in case they should be taken from them, and to fight in the defence of them, & that cause: He dissuaded them to lean unto such suggestions, or be moved with them, for that they would prove nought in the end, as the experience of the seventeen days work might teach them. And added, which he is not ashamed of, nor will deny, That were there no other to take employment against these Mutineers, and seditious persons, he could wish, that he were honoured therewith.  
These are the great blasts, and terrors, which the Libeler mentions; otherways they can take exception at nothing justly that then was vittered.  
As matters were then proponed, to be voted, one of that number gave in writing some particular reasons, for dissuading the grant of the said Articles, which they have now writ, and imprinted in this Pamphlet; which being suspected, as the Libeler speaks, to be some seditious protestation, the Preferrer thereof was advertised to take heed to his doing, and give in no Libels, which he did not set his hand unto: This while he offered himself to do, the Archbishop of Saint-andrewes' being loath to bring him that way in danger, took back the said Writing, and desired the Clerk of the Assembly to read the same: And when they were perceived to contain no matter of moment, or any new thing, which had not been before talked of, they were cast by, as not deserving any consideration.  
Thus the question was made, Whether they would receive or refuse the Articles. Here the Libeler perverts the question, and says it was this, Whether ye will consent to the Articles, or disobey the King? which is a question of his own devising; And could not agree, neither with the matter, nor with the persons. It was desired by some, That the Articles might be severally voted, pretending that many would agree to some of them, who would not accept of all: But that no subterfuge might be left or given to those that gladly would hang between parties, & strive to please all, it was thought meetest to vote them in Cumulo, because the denying of one, would be to his Majesty, as the denying of all.  
The Archbishop of S. Andrew's taking the roll of names in his own hand, as it was meet, he should do, though the Libeler think otherwise, (for the office of the Clerk is to mark the voices, where they agree, or disagree, which he cannot easily do, as any may may judge, if he himself read the Roll; neither is that customable in any iudicatory consisting of so many persons, as did this Assembly) And called the names as they stood in the roll, where they were found 86. that answered affirmative, granting to the said Articles; and one and forty only that denied, with four non liquets. The Libeler says, That some were called, who wanted Commission, in which he impudently lies, their Commissions being extant in the rolls: And that others having Commission of whose Negative we were assured, omitted to be called, whereas not any of the whole, was left unasked. Master john Murray, Minister at Dumfermline, excepted, who was passed by, for many reasons concerning himself, not needful here to be expressed.  
As for the order kept in calling of the Roll, it merits no answer: And where it hath been said, That the Noblemen, Barons, and Burgesses, were those that swayed the voices, the most of the Ministry being against it; by the rolls yet extant it is clear that the whole Laics that came to this Assembly were 31. of whom two were negatives as the Libeler confesses, and one departed from the Assembly before the voting; which whole number being laid aside, they were overswayed by the voices of the ecclesiastics to the number of eighteen at least.  
And this is the true Narration of all the Proceed in the said Assembly, by which, let any man judge of the Libelers Discourse, and how little credit is to be given to the same: For things are yet fresh in the memory of such as were present, and cannot be forgotten.    

Answers to the Exceptions made against the Assembly of PERTH, whereby the LIBELER would infer the nullity thereof.  PP. 
THe general Assembly hath usually met since the reformation of the Religion, according to the indiction of time and place made by the former Assembly; And if it happened, that any Assembly was to be holden pro re nata, premonition was made in due time by his Majesty, and the Commissioners of the Church, and the occasions set down expressly; to the effect Commissioners might be sent instructed according to the quality of the business to be entreated. Nevertheless, after diverse reports given out by such as stand in credit in Church affairs, that his Majesty was so incensed against the last Assembly holden at S. Andrew's, that there was no hope of any other Assembly. This Assembly beyond expectation was proclaimed to be holden within twenty days after the Proclamation made at the Market cross of Edinburghe, without any advertisement given to the Presbytries about the matters to be handled.  ANS. 
In this Assembly concurred all these things which ye require for the lawful indiction of an Assembly: first, it was indicted by the supreme Magistrate, who hath sufficient power to convocate general Assemblies, and without whose permission no such convocations can be made. Secondly, it had the consent of the former general Assembly at S. Andrews, which by a petition to his Majesty, most humbly required to grant a new Assembly, wherein these matters might be more fully considered, referring the time, and place to his Majesty's pleasure. Thirdly, the premonition was made in due time; first, because at Easter before in the particular Diocesian Synods, advertisement was made to the Brethren to have their Commissioners in readiness against the time to be designed by his Majesty. Secondly, the time designed after the Proclamation, was sufficient to have all the parts of the Country advertised. Thirdly, the Bishops besides the said Proclamation, gave lawful advertisement by their Letters to the Ministers of their Diocese. Fourthly, the occasion, and matters to be handled, were well enough known to all long before. For the occasion was by that petition made by the Assembly at S. Andrew's, wherein the same matters being handled, though not fully discussed, it was required, That it would please his Majesty to accept of a delay, and to indict another Assembly; to the end, that the Brethren having better leisure to consider the Articles proponed, they might be the better prepared to give his Majesty satisfaction.  PP. 
The act of Chapters of old were void, and of none effect, when the meanest member having vote, was neglected, contemned, or not lawfully warned: Such like the act of provincial Synods, when the meanest Suffragan was not regarded with lawful citation, according to the rule, Contemptus unius plus obest, quàm multerum contradictio. Nevertheless, for lack of lawful warning, and convenient space to provide, and prepare Commissioners, there was absent from that Assembly four Dioceses, viz. Orknay, Caithnes, Argile, & the Isles; besides diverse Presbytries, whose interest was as proper and necessary in the general Assembly, as of any suffragan in Synod, or particular member in the Chapter.  ANS. 
None was contemned that had interest to be there, because due premonition was made to all, as it is cleared by the answer to the former exception, albeit some were absent, it shows not that they were neglected; for first, the absence might have happened for diverse other occasions, some being impeded by sickness, some unwilling to travel in that Season of the year, and some loath to utter themselves in the matters questioned. Secondly, the absence of these makes not the Assembly null; for from these fare distant High-land Countries, as Orknay, Caithnes, Argile, and the Isles which are here mentioned, few Commissioners were ever accustomed to come to any Assembly heretofore; and to many Assemblies none of these Countries come at all: yet their absence did not annul the Assemblies. But in this Assembly there were at the least the Bishops of the Dioeeses, who might suffice to answer for the whole; one only excepted, who was absent, not for lack of advertizement, but because of disease. Thirdly, if we look to ancient general Counsels in the Primitive Church, we shall find, that the absence of Bishops or their Commissioners, who remained in Countries fare distant from the place where the Council was holden, did nothing derogate from the lawfulness thereof: as for example, in that first famous Council of Nice, there were present three hundred and eighteen Bishops, yet out of all the Occidental Countries, there are only named in the Catalogue sixteen Bishops, and two Presbyters Commissionaries for the Bishop of Rome; to wit, out of Spain, one; out of Egypt, eleven; out of Calabria one; out of Dalmatia one, out of Carthage one, and out of France one; so, in the first general Council at Constantinople, there were numbered an hundred and siftie Bishops, whereof only two or three are found to be out of all the Occidental Nations: In the first Council of Ephesus, there are numbered two hundred Bishops, and only three out of the Occident. In the Council of Chalcedone were three hundred Bishops, whereof, of the Occidental Countries only four, or five. In the second general Council of Constantinople, an hundred sixty five Bishops, and of these only ten or eleven out of the Occident. Now albeit in the Occidental Empire there were many large Kingdoms and Provinces wherein Christian Religion was professed, yet these Counsels (notwithstanding the absence of such) ceased not to be acknowledged as general: or if this might be esteemed a just cause to annul a Church Assembly, what a door should be opened to the Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychians, to reject the Decrees of these famous Countries, by the which their Heresies were condemned? Lastly, the obedience given by the Pastors of these Dioceses, which you allege to have been neglected, testifieth their consent to the Acts, and that they have ratified them for their own parts.  PP. 
The general Assembly, the highest judicatory Ecclesiastical within this Realm, hath ever after exhortation made by the last Moderator, lited, and lawfully elected a new Moderator according to diverse Acts, continuate Custom and Practice of this Church. The which Presbyters have been so regarded, that the convention holden at Perth by his Malesties' missive the last of Feb. 1596. although frequented by his Majesty's presence, with a great number of the Nobility, Barones, and Burgesses, with the Commissioners from every Presbytery, was for the defect aforesaid no further acknowledged to be a lawful Assembly, than the general Assembly holden at Dundy the year following, 1597. declared the same to be a lawful extraordinary Assembly. Nevertheless no Moderator was lawfully elected in this Assembly, but the place usurped by him, who had practised against the matter there proponed, and not as yet determined; and consequently who ought to have been secluded from any authority, in respect of the prejudice committed by him.  ANS. 
In this, as in all the rest almost of their exceptions against the Assembly, there is a false rule laid, whereby to try the lawfulness thereof: To wit, the Acts and Custom of the Church of Scotland under Presbyterial Government, which must not rule us now, seeing the true form of Church-government now restored is much different from the estate of these times. It is true, that when the Church was governed by a parity of Ministers, they choosed a Moderator by suffrage, though without any warrant or example, either out of Scripture or Antiquity, but being compelled thereto of necessity in regard of that form of Government, wherein no man had any ordinary prerogative above, or before others: but now the form of Government being altered, and each man knowing his own room and station we are not tied to observe that custom, but ought rather to follow the Constitutions and practice of the Primitive Church, which was ruled by the same form of Episcopal Government that now is established in this Land. And it is manifest, that ever, while the Pope of Rome did tyrannically arrogate unto himself and his Legates presidency in all Counsels, this course was observed, that either the Christian Prince himself, when he was present, was Precedent, as Constantine the Great, 
Sozom. l. 1. c. 9 Nic. l. 8. c. 14. 3. Tom. Con. 1. p. 6.  in the first Council of Nice, and Constantine called Pogonatus in the third Council of Constantinople; or else by the Prince his permission and appointment, the Bishop Metropolitan, or Patriarch of greatest authority in these bounds, where the Council was holden, who was always acknowledged Precedent, except he himself were indicted or condemned of Heresy; then by the Emperor's appointment, and not by Election of the Council a Precedent was appointed, as in the first Council of Ephesus, Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria was appointed Precedent by Theodosius the Emperor: because both the Patriarches of Constantinople and Antiochia, who were of chief authority in these bounds, were favourers of the Nestorian Heresy, which was there condemned. And if we look through the whole Ecclesiastic History, we shall find this ever to have been the order; yea, in that Apostolic Council, Act. 15. according to the judgement of the most learned, both old and new Writers, the Apostle james was there Precedent as Bishop of jerusalem, Euseb. li. 2. cap. 1. Theophil. in Act. 15. Lyranus ibidem, Dionysius Carthusianus, ibid. Whittakerus de Concil. Quaest. 4. And so is it probable out of the Text, because he pronounced the sentence in the conclusion of the action, which is the special duty of a Moderator, and according to the words of his sentence are the Synodical Letters written to other Churches. This exception therefore of not lyting or electing a Moderator, being grounded upon a Custom or Constitution now abolished, in the place whereof hath succeeded, the commendable order always observed by the Primitive Church in her purest times, is not to be respected, and the example ye bring to qualify this exception out of that Assembly at Perth, Anno 1596. is not only insufficient to prove, but likewise in many points false. First, because in the Acts of the Assembly, there is no mention made of any exception taken against the Election of the Moderator. Secondly, that Assembly was acknowledged to be a lawful Assembly by an express Act in the same Assembly. Thirdly, it was called extraordinary, not for any exception taken against the Election of the Moderator, but because of the time and place, to wit, that the time and place appointed by the  Assembly, was prevented upon an extraordinary occasion by his Majesty's missive. Fourthly, by the Assembly that followed at Dundy, Anno 1597. it is acknowledged to be a lawful Assembly, without the addition of (extraordinary) as appears by the Acts thereof, Session 7.14. Maij.  PP. 
By order established, Acts standing in force and continual Custom, free of all Controversy and Quarrel, all and every one of the ordinary members of a general Assembly, having place and power to vote, or capable of moderation, are, and should be authorized with lawful Commissions from inferior Assemblies viz. Presbyteries, Burgesses, and Universities, according to the Act made Anno 1573. Nevertheless the Bishops, a great number of Noblemen, and Barones, and some Ministers having no lawful Commission, presumed to carry themselves as lawful members of the said Assembly.  ANS. 
Because that which here is summarily said, is at greater length set down in the Articles following, I refer the Answer to that place.  PP. 
Whereas the proceeding of the Assembly, aught to be free without preoccupation either with terrors or allurements, this Assembly was preoccupyed with Sermons, Letters, Harangues, with allurements on the one side, and terrors on the other.  ANS. 
This is repeated in other words in the twelfth exception. For the Libeler making a great muster of Arguments to infer his nullity, commits many tautologies.  PP. 
No others ought to be chosen members of the privy conference, but such as are authorized with Commission to be members of the Assembly; nevertheless the pretended Moderator did nominate for the privy Conference, such as he pleased, before the Commissions were delivered, and consequently not duly informed who were the just members of the Assembly. According to the rule, Totum est maius sua parte: The Assembly is greater than the Conference, & according to another rule, Turpis pars omnis, totinon congrua. It is an absurd Conference, that disagrees from the whole Assembly. Nevertheless in that Assembly some few named by the pretended Moderator not chosen by the Assembly, not only according to the custom of the privy Conference concurred with the said Moderator, for preparing and digesting of matters to be proponed in due order, but took upon them to reason, vote, and conclude the matters properly belonging to the whole Assembly.  ANS. 
Against the privy Conference, there are four exceptions made, first, that others were nominate then these who were lawful members of an Assembly. That this is false, shall be cleared hereafter, when we speak of the lawful members of an Assembly. The second, that they were nominate by the Moderator: to this I answer, he used no other form in the nomination of them, than hath been heretofore used, in all other Assemblies; for the privy Conference was never chosen by suffrages, but the Moderator did nominate such of all parts of the Country, as were thought most meet, and so was done here. In the year of God 1579. in an Assembly kept at Edinburgh, and another in Anno 1580. at Dundy, this form of nomination being quarrelled, it was reasoned, voted, and concluded, that the Assessors of the privy Conference should be nominate by the Moderator, and therefore in the next Assembly after the names of the Assessors, it is added, All these were nominate by the Moderator. Thirdly, it is objected that they disagreed from the whole Assembly. Answer. The event proved otherwise, for that which was thought good by the Conference was concluded by the whole Assembly. Fourthly, that the Conference took upon them to reason, vote, and conclude matters: before they came to the Assembly. Answer. The end wherefore the privy Conference is institute, is to prepare matters for the Assembly, by clearing the points by reasoning, declaring what in their judgements and opinion was meetest to be done, without prejudice of the Assembly itself, and so was it done in this privy Conference.  PP. 
It hath been the commendable care of godly Emperors, and their honourable Deputies in general Counsels, to provide, that nothing be done violently, nor extorted by terror, but that time and liberty be granted for reasoning upon matters proponed; and that the Book of God be laid open for finding out the Truth. Agatho writing to the Emperor Constantine, advised him to grant free po●… of speaking to every one, that desires to speak for hi●…●…th which he believeth and holdeth; That all men may evidently see, that no man willing or desirous to speak for the Truth, was forbidden, hindered, or rejected by any force-threatning, terror, or whatsoever else might avert them from so doing. Conform to this advice, the Emperor answered as followeth: By God Almighty we favour no party, but shall keep ourself equal to all, no way making necessity in any point. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, the necessity of yielding was enforced under no less pangs, than the wrath of Authority, imprisonment, exile, deprivation of Ministers, and utter subversion of the estate and order of this Church; such as by the providence of God had their mouths opened to reason, were checked, quarrelled, rebuked, boasted, interrupted; and for their discouragement, it was plainly processed, That neither the reasoning, nor the number of voters, should carry the matter away. The party defender was forced to pursue. The collecting and putting in order of the Reasons of either side, was refused.  ANS. 
It is objected here, That necessity of yielding was enforced, contrary to the example of Constantine, who protested he would savour no party, but keep himself equal to all, no way making necessity in any point. To this we answer, first, The cause is different, for the question to be debated in that Council of Constantinople, was a substantial point of Doctrine in itself, not subject to his Imperial power, controverted betwixt the Greek and Latin Church, concerning the twofold will in Christ: and because, he being a Grecian himself, it might have been thought he would favour more the Greek Church; therefore he purges himself of partiality, referring the whole matter to the decision of the Council according to the Scriptures: But here the question is, of no substantial point of Doctrine, but of matters indifferent, not particularly determined by Scripture, but ●●pending upon the Prince, and Church's pleasure to have them practised, or not. In which the Prince might by his own authority impone a necessity upon all his Subjects to obey the same, except they could show evident proofs out of the Scripture, that the same were absolutely unlawful. And in case of disobedience, he might justly threaten them by his authority. Yet all these particular terrors and threatenings (which ye mention) with the wrath of Authority, imprisonment, exile, deprivation, etc. were directed only to such, as without reason should be found obstinate and refractory, who, by reason ought not only be threatened, but punished. For if men will not regard authority, but do as their conceit (which some falsely call conscience) leads them: if neither the Prince his command, nor acts of Synods, can bind them to obedience; may not these threatenings, yea, ought they not to be used towards them, as it hath ever been the practice in all Counsels? And to meet you with your own example, which ye allege that same Constantine who protests, he would impose no necessity in any point; in that selfsame Synod, perceiving the obstinacy of Macarius Bishop of Antiochia, and his followers, Stephanus, Polychronius, Constantius, and others: not only threatened them bitterly, but likewise in presence of the Synod, presently caused to deprive Macarius of his Bishopric, by taking his Episcopal cloak from him, and did cast him and his Associates forth of the Council by the necks, Ceruicibus eijcientes foras, as the words are. Vide Concil. Constantinop. 3. Act. 8.9, 15.16. & Binni Annotat. Then ye say, ye were threatened by the utter subversion of the Estate, and order of the Church. And is it not lawful to lay before your eyes the danger that may follow upon your disobedience? for look all the Letters and harangues of the godly Emperors, the general Counsels, and such as were special persons therein; ye shall find them ever lay before the eyes of such as were convocated, as the special motives, that might serve to induce them to condescend unto things that were proponed, and served to the good and peace of the Church. And to insist in the same example brought by yourself, read the Letter which Constantine writes to Agatho, and ye shall find the chief and only Argument almost he uses, to move him to condescend to an agreement with the Greek Church, is by laying before him the danger wherein the whole Church lies by their dissension. Tacere quippe hoc terribile existimamus, ut ne plebs quae ut sanctificetur accedit ad sanctas Dei Ecclesias, contrarijs cogitationibus occupetur, considerans Antistitum ad invicem dissonantiam. And again, Propter viles igitur inquisitiones, ne sit insinita contentio; Ne nobis insultent Pagani & Haeretici, neque in nobis usque quaque locum accipiant semina adversarij, etc. Look likewise that grave Harangue of Constantine the great, in the Council of Nice, where he says: Nolite ergo pati, ut denuo perditus Daemon, divinam Christi disciplinam & Religionem malevolorum obtrectationibus lacerandam obijciat, quandoquidem intestina seditio in Ecclesia Dei conflata, multo plus molestiarum, & acerbitatis, quam quoduis bellum, pugnave videtur mihi, in se complecti, etc. Finally, as to that ye object, That the party defendant was forced to pursue; It was not so, but the party refusing obedience was urged to obey, or then give sufficient reasons of their disagreement, which was most just and equitable. For by one Statute made in the Assembly at Dundie, Anno 1597. 14. Maij, Sess. 7. it is ordained, That he that sustains the negation with his vote, shall give rationem negandi. The rest of your Assertions are manifest lies and calumnies: For all the Contradictors were heard with great patience the space of two days, both in the privy Conference and face of the Assembly, while they had no more to object.  PP. 
In free and lawful Assemblies, private reasoning is not sufficient; but it is requisite, that there be also free reasoning in public, for the full information of all, who have the right of voting: Nevertheless, in this Assembly, public reasoning was hardly obtained, it was not full and free to propone, and pursue with replies.  ANS. 
Public reasoning was never refused, neither was any man hindered to speak freely, providing he spoke pertinently, but only by the Laws of disputation the Precedent controlled those who transgressed the Laws, when either they reasoned not formally, or not to the purpose, or repeated arguments unnecessarily, which had been already sufficiently discussed; and this is the power of the Moderator by the Assembly at Saint Andrew's, Anno 1571. in March. But the falsehood of this exception is cleared sufficiently, by the true Narration of the proceed of the Assembly.  PP. 
In all free and lawful Assemblies, humble requests for mature deliberation in matters of great importance hath been heard and granted, but in this Assembly humble supplication for continuation, till matters were more ripely considered, or till his Majesty's answer were returned to the Petition of the defenders of the established order, was peremptorily refused.  ANS. 
If these matters had never been proponed before, or if we had not known his Majesty's will by his Letters hereabout, perchance this exception might have had some force, but seeing some of these Articles had been discussed in an Assembly at Abirdene, and all proponed thereafter in an Assembly at Saint Andrew's, at the which time, the same request of continuation was proponed, and an humbly suit sent to his Majesty, to accept of this delay, to the end every man might consider the matters more deeply, with promise, that if it would please his Majesty to grant them leisure to advice, and instruct their flocks in the lawfulness of these Articles, they should do their best to give his Majesty satisfaction, a longer continuation could not be hearkened unto, especially since this Assembly was convocated, to try the effects of their promises; and that it was evident, how a number of them against their promise, were so fare from the instructing of their people in the lawfulness of the Articles, that in the contrary, they pressed most seditiously to stir up both their own flocks and others to disobedience. So at this time, that proposition of continuation could not be granted for three weighty reasons; first, because the former continuation was abused to the stirring up of discontentment amongst the popular. Secondly, the Moderator, and the Commissioners, could not grant it, because of his Majesty's peremptory declaration of his will, in his Highness' Letter directed to the Assembly. Thirdly, because they perceived by the disposition of the party, that a further continuance would have served for nothing, but to have augmented the Schism and division begun.  PP. 
Pope Leo excepteth against the second Council of Ephesus called praedatorie, that Dioscorus who challenged the chief place, kept not priestly moderation, and would not suffer the Synodall Letters of the west to be read. In all free, and lawful Assemblies good advisements have been heard, and followed; but in this Assembly some difficulties presented in writing to be considered, and removed, before the voting were peremptorily rejected.  ANS. 
That this rejection of these difficulties, is a just exception against the lawfulness of this Assembly, ye prove it by the example of Pope Leo, who excepted against the second Council of Ephesus called Praedatorie, because Dioscorus who was Precedent there, would not suffer the Synodal Letters of the West to be read in the Council, I will answer first to your proof, and then to the matter itself. The reason ye use is captious, for ye reason from a partial cause to a total rejection. The Council of Ephesus was justly rejected for diverse errors committed both in matter, and form, yet ye choose only one of the smallest, and apply it falsely to this Assembly. The errors in matter were, That first, it did approve heretical doctrine, perverting the grounds of our Faith. Next, it restored pernicious Heretics already condemned in a Council at Constantinoplo, as Eutyches, and his followers; and condemned reverend Fathers, for maintenance of the true doctrine, as Flautanus Archbishop of Constantinople, and others. The errors in the manner of proceeding were first, The Orthodox Bishops beaten by the soldiers, (whom Dioscorus had brought into the Council) fustibus, & gladijs, with swords and staffs, whereby some died of their wounds received, others were bound with chains, and others presently carried to prison. Secondly, the rest that remained were forced to subscribe a blank paper, wherein Dioscorus wrote, whatsoever pleased him; these were the causes, why this Council was called Praedatoria Synodus. It is true; The Pope of Rome alleged some other reasons for the nullity thereof, wherewith he was more offended, because the same seemed derogative to his authority, as that the Synod was not convocate by him, but by the Emperor's command: His Legates were not admitted Moderators therein: And his Letters containing his sentence and opinion were not publicly read, but suppressed. Ye, leaving all the rest of the weightier causes, chop only at this, as if therefore only, this Council was rejected: And to make this Assembly at Perth odious, compares it with that heretical and turbulent convention, betwixt the which, there is no similitude at all, no not in the point which ye chop at: For the Libel ye speak of, was not peremptorily rejected, but a part of it being read, the reading was interrupted for two causes; first, because it contained no new thing, but that which had been already heard, and sufficiently answered to. Secondly, because it contained some things, which could not but give just offence. The like was practised in that Council under Constantine, and Agatho, which ye alleged before for a pattern of orderly proceeding: In the eleventh Session thereof, we find that certain Libels of Macarius, who opponed himself to the Council, being presented to be read publicly, after they had proceeded a while in reading, they rejected the rest, for that they contained so absurd doctrine as would have offended the ears of the hearers: And in the twelfth Session, other Libels presented by him, to the Emperor, and offered by the Emperor to the Synod, after a part thereof was begun to be read, the Council finding that they contained no new reasons, but the same which had been heard, and discussed before, they caused stay the reading thereof: So, in this Assembly, to reject a Libel, foolish, and impertinent, could be no fault.  PP. 
In all free, and lawful Assemblies, public voting should be free from all terrors, according to the rule, Nihil consensui tam contrarium est, quàm vis, atque metus, quem comprobare contra bonos mores est. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, his Majesty's Letters were read the fourth time, immediately before the public voting, to move the Assembly. The pretended Moderator threatened to mark their names, who dissented, and breathed out many terrors, and threatenings, and so he made good in public, that which he professed in private, That he would commit twenty preiudices to further his Majesty's purpose.  ANS. 
If all men were alike peaceably disposed towards the weal and peace of the Church, there were no need of these means to draw them to their duties; but seeing some are wickedly set, seeking nothing but disturbance, others preoccupied by their own opinions; others abused, and seduced by the craftier sort, there is need sometimes to use terrors, that the unruly may stand in awe to offend, and the deliberations taken for the good of the Church, may not be hindered. As to the reading of his Majesty's Letter, directed to the Assembly, which the Libeler notes to have been four times read, and immediately before the voting of matters, to move the Assembly, I would ask him, What is the fault? The Assembly was called by his Majesty to give answer to the Articles proponed by himself: His Letter contained a Declaration of his pleasure, and therewith diverse reasons, why the Church ought to condescend to his Highness' desires: Such as opposed them, insisted still for a new continuation, and the delay of a long time. And it was needful they should hear his Majesty's own mind by his Letter, who otherwise could not consent upon the answers twice given by his Highness' Commissioners in that point. If the Letter should have been read at all the several Sessions of the Assembly, there could be no fault in it, and I am sure the time had been better spent that way, then in hearing many of their idle discourses. For I think in that short Letter, there be more good and solid stuff, then is in all this long Libel of the Pamphleteers; yet did it cost him many hours, and (as we hear) many nights and days to find out these particulars, at which he might carp. But I know it is not the consuming of time that troubles him: he is sorry, That the Assembly did regard the Letter so much, and was moved any way by it, as he speaks. Now we tell him plainly, it was read to move them to consent, and it wrought that, for which it was done: If any fault be, it is this, Their humours, and purposes, were crossed by the reading of the Letter, for we can see no more in it. Touching the terrors and threatenings breathed out by the Moderator of the Assembly, what they were, hath been showed in the Narration of the proceed; for the marking of the names of those that should be dissenting, it is most false: They were warned to speak in modesty, and abstain from intemperate words, such as many of that sort are given to, when reason fails them: And if they should transgress, warned of their danger. But, that it was threatened to delate the names of the voters, howsoever they should give their voices, it is most untrue. Yet is it nothing so unusual, as he would make it appear, in Counsels and Synods to threaten and terrify such as are unruly. In the first Council of Chalcedon, Martianus the Emperor forbore not to threaten such as should show themselves refractory against the Decrees of the Council, and amongst the instructions given to his Commissioner Elpidius, and others, this is one, Si quem videritis conturbationi & tumultui studentem, hunc custodiae mancipate, & ad nostram perferte notitiam. Which in effect is, To mark their names, and to delate them to the Emperor. Many the like are to be observed in the Books of the Counsels. And if such speeches may furnish any exception for the nullity of Counsels & Assemblies, we shall hardly find a lawful Council or Assembly at all. As to the Sermons, and harangues, wherewith he said in his first exception, that the Assembly was preoccupied; I would gladly know, what Church Assembly hath there ever been kept without Sermons and Harangues? In the old Counsels they were not neglected. And if these be preoccupations, how shall ye justify any Assembly kept from the beginning of our Church to this day? We have heard by some of you at times, strange Discourses, and more strange Sermons made at your Assemblies, containing bitter Inuectives against his Majesty, the whole State, and sometimes against the Ministers themselves. And then was it your ordinary custom to set up in Pulpit, not the wisest, or most learned Preachers, by whom the rest might have been instructed: but if there was any bold and impudent fellow that would not forbear to utter whatsoever was suggested to him in private, he was the man. And all that he spoke, was fathered upon the holy Spirit. These were your forms, in former times, worthy of reproof. And divers of the Assemblies ye count to have been free and uncorrupt, if they were well tried, would for this cause be seen most worthy to be rejected.  PP. 
In all free and lawful Assemblies, the estate of the question to be voted, aught to be so form that it carry with it no danger. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, the matter to be voted was proponed with sensible danger; agree, or be reputed disobedient to his Majesty: that is, either make a Constitution to bind all Ministers and Professors of this reformed Church, to return to these five Articles which they. have vomited, or else ye shall be reputed disobedient.  ANS. 
What the form of the question was, hath been showed in the Narration preceding, and thereby is your malice discovered, which ye have need to vomit, or it may be shortly, this poison consume yourself. Behold, in what reverence this man hath the religious Rites and Customs of other reformed Churches: Thou art a very Satan, the Lord rebuke thee.  PP. 
As the Acts which are to pass in voting, should be distinguished in number, clear in order particularly expressed from point to point, because they should contain directions of certain actions to be performed, etc. so the matters offered to voting, should be distinctly, clearly, and particularly proponed. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, all was shut up in a confused caption, A multis interrogatis, and voted at once voting in one Session. justly therefore may these Conclusions be called Leges Saturae.  ANS. 
In Saint Andrew's aswell as Perth, the Acts were distinguished, clearly, and orderly set down to the understanding of all; they were also severally reasoned and discussed: The number, order, and meaning of every Act made known. Why they were voted in Cumulo, hath been showed in the Narration, and they of your mind had therein the advantage; for whosoever refused any one of them, their voice was counted negative, and none taken to be affirmative, but these who consented to them all.  PP. 
In all free Assemblies, such order is observed, in calling the names of the Voters, that no public prejudice be committed. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, neither the accustomed order of Provinces, nor Presbyteries was observed, but such were called on first, as were known to be affirmative Voters, to discourage and disperse the negatives.  ANS. 
The calling of the Roll depends upon the writing of the Clerk, or the pleasure of him that presides in the Assembly; and there is no Constitution in our Church for this, upon the breach whereof ye may infer your nullity.  PP. 
Leo says, Epist. 25. That some that came to the Council of Ephesus were rejected, and others were brought in, who at the pleasure of Dioscorus were brought to yield captive hands to their impious subscriptions, for they knew it would be prejudicial to their estate, unless they did such things as were enjoined them: it is crimen falsi, in gathering of votes, either to pass by them, who have place and power to vote, or to admit such as are not lawfully authorized. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, not only were some past by, who were known resolved to vote negative: but diverse others also disposed to vote affirmative, were admitted, or rather brought in without commission.  ANS. 
In the Narration preceding, this is answered.  PP. 
In all free and lawful Assemblies, not only Ministers, but all others of whatsoever rank, aught to be authorized with commission, or else they have not the power of voting. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, persons of all ranks not authorized with commission, were admitted to vote, as may be seen by the induction following.  ANS. 
The Libeler gives us a rule here, which his Inductions will not make good: and thinks, that because it was the custom while the Presbyterial government stood in force, that all Commissioners, at least of the Ministry, should be chosen by the several Presbyteries, it should now be so: But he must remember that sort of government is changed, and now they must have place in Assemblies, that are authorized by their callings to sit there: aswell as by their Commissions. When the Church was governed by Superintendents, these Commissions were not known; only the Superintendents themselves, because of their place and pre-eminence, and such of the Ministers as they esteemed worthy to have voice in Assemblies, came thither: Now the Bishops on whom lies the burden of the Church affairs, have place by virtue of their callings to sit, and give voice in Assemblies; and Ministers by commission from their Countries and Dioceses, because all cannot be present, nor may the Parishes in the Country be left destitute of their Preachers at once. This was the form of the old Synods and Counsels in the primitive Church; and that first Synod of the Apostles was not otherwise held. If in that, or in any Council or Synod of the purest times, ye shall find Commissioners appointed to be brought, ye might seem to say somewhat: But your late orders we regard not, and tell you now again, that your Presbyterial and confused government is ceased.  PP. 
It hath pleased his Majesty, in former times, to send, but some few Commissioners in his Highness' absence, to concur with the Assembly, and to propone his Highness' desire thereunto, etc. Nevertheless, in this Assembly, not only his Majesty's Commissioners, but also their Assessors gave every one vote, whereas his Majesty's self being present, never claimed further than the power of one vote.  ANS. 
Whatsoever his Majesty in former times hath done, remitting of his own right, for causes known to himself, should be no prejudice to his Royal privileges; especially amongst these that have abused, and set themselves obstinately to cross his Royal and just designs. The practice of these famous Monarches and Kings, who were in their times nursing Fathers of the Church, shows that Princes are not tied to any number of Commissioners, but as it seems good to them, or as the business in hand requires, so they do: Thus in the Council of Chalcedon, where Constantinus Pogonatus (whom ye alleged before for example of equitable proceeding) was present and Precedent, there sat with him other thirteen judges and Senators, whose names are there expressed. And it is noted in every Session almost they sat there, ex iussione Imperatoris, and had definitive votes: Thereupon ye meet often with these words, Gloriosissimi edicunt, & gloriosissimi judices dixerunt: In that famous Council also of Chalcedon, called the fourth general, there were present for Valentinian and Martian, the Emperor's eighteen Commissioners, whereof six were judges, and twelve Senators, who, as it is most evident through the whole Acts, had the chief moderation of the Synod, and vote definitive therein: Neither was this plurality of Commissioners received only in general Counsels; but also in Nationall, as in the second Council of Orangue, Anno 529. where together with the Bishops, ten Praetors and Counsellors of France sat, and subscribed the Acts, sent thither by the King. Likewise in the eight Nationall Council of Spain, holden in Toledo, Anno 653. there sat and subscribed sixteen Dukes and Earls. In the twelft Nationall Council of Toledo, Anno 681. convocate by Eringius King of Spain, together with the Bishops did sit the King himself, and universi Seniores Palatij, The Ancients or Senators of the Court, fifteen in number; of whom, in his speech to the Council, he says; Quos interesse huic Concilio, delegit nostra sublimitas. In the thirteenth Council of Toledo, there sat, and subscribed six and twenty Dukes and Earls. In the fifteenth Council thereof, there sat, and subscribed seventeen Earls. In the sixteenth, there sat, and subscribed sixteen Senators, of whom the King says in his speech: Quos huic Concilio nostra serenitatis praeceptio vel opportuna inesse fecit occasio. I might bring a large Catalogue of examples; but these are sufficient to prove that which we have in hand, to wit, that the number of Commissioners sent by his Majesty, is warranted by the practice of all good Christian Princes in most ancient Synods: yea, it is certain, that Monarches and Princes had ever these privileges, until that the Pope's tyranny increasing, did bereave them of their right, and exclude them from all Church assemblies. And look we to the custom of our own Church; many Counselors and Noble men have had vote in Assemblies in name of his Majesty. In the Assembly holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1563. Decemb. 25. besides the Superintendents, Ministers, and Commissioners of the Churches, and Provinces, there were present nine Lords of the Counsel, Earls and Barons; and because thereafter, the Regent, his Counsel, and Nobility, did not assist the Assemblies so frequently as before, an earnest Petition was made by the whole Assembly convened in Edinburgh, Anno 1573. March 6. to the Regent his Counsel, and Nobility, to give their presence and concurrence with the Church in their proceed, because such had been the practice in Assemblies from the beginning of the reformation. The truth whereof is manifest by the inscriptions set before the Acts of many assemblies, wherein the Counsel and Nobility are ever distinguished from Bishops, Superintendents, Ministers, and Commissioners of Provinces and Churches. In the general Assembly holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1573. August 6. it was appointed, Sess. 1. as follows. Because it is understood that certain of the Nobility of this Realm, and secret Counsel, are to repair to this Assembly: Therefore these whole Brethren ordains, that the whole Nobility and Counsellors, with the Commissioners of Towns, Provinces, and Churches, having power to vote, shall sit within the inner bar of the Tolbuithe, and all others without. In the Assembly holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1567. were present ten Earls, and Lords of Baronies about the number of three and fifty, besides the ordinary Commissioners of Towns and Churches. Likewise in the Assemblies holden, Anno 1563. Decemb. 25. Anno 1566. Inn. 25. Anno 1567. jul. 21. Anno 1567. Decemb. 25. 1568. 1569. 1570. etc. the Earls, Lords, and Barons, are distinguished from Commissioners of Churches, Provinces, and Towns. And in the Assembly at Edinburgh 1563. Decemb. 25. the Lords of secret Counsel, with the whole Brethren of the Assembly, appointed Master john Woodlocke, Superinten dent of the West, Moderator. So as we see the practice of our own Church, hath ever esteemed this free, that his Majesty at his pleasure, or Regent's in his minority, should choose what number of Commissioners they liked.  PP. 
At Edinburgh in july 1568. it was ordained, that Barons should be chosen Commissioners in Synodall Assemblies. At Dundie in March 1597. after the full establishment of Presbyteries, it was appointed in presence of his Majesty, that Barons should be chosen Commishionerss with consent of Presbyteries; and that one Baron only should be directed out of the bounds of a Pres byterie. Nevertheless in this Assembly the Noble men and Barons had neither Commission according to the old act, nor according to the new. In the year of God 1568. it was ordained that Burgesses should be chosen Commissioners by the Counsel, and Church Session of their Burge coniunctly: And in the year 1597. that they should be chosen with consent of the Presbytery: Item, that every Barghe have power to direct but one Commissioner, except Edinburgh, to whom it was permitted to direct two. Nevertheless in this Assembly neither of the said Articles were observed.  ANS. 
The acts alleged, for choosing Commissioners of the Barons, and Burghes were never so precisely kept in our Church as to exclude any of them, that came thither without Commission from Presbyteries. But such regard was ever had to Noble men, and Barons of any note, that if they were present they had their places with the first, were allowed to give their advice, and voice in every matter proponed, and had thankes given them, that vouchsafed their concurrence; this is evident by all the Registers of our Assembly; and so well known, as none can deny it: It grieves the Lybeller, and the rest of that Sect, to see the Nobles, and Barons so ready at his Majesty's call; and that, that which sometimes served them to good purpose in their tumultuous meetings, is turned against themselves to wound them. And by all good order in Church Assemblies none of the Laical sort ought to have place, except they be called by the Prince his letters, or assured by the Bishops to give authority to the acts concluded. Read in Concilio Turracenens. act. 13. about the year 517. and Concil. Tolet. where the order of Counsels is set down, which order is prefixed to the first Tome of the Counsels, ye shall find this clear. For that which he says of the Commissioners of Burghes, let this be added, That otherwise then by the Counsel of their own Burghe they were never chosen, which we refer to the Towns themselves that know it.  PP. 
At Montrosse, 1600. it was statuted and ordained, that none of them who shall have vote in Parliament in the name of the Church, shall come as Commissioners to the general Assembly nor have any vote in the same, volesse they be authorized with Commission from their own Presbyteries to that effect. This Act was never repealed, no not at the pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow; but by the same Assembly they stand countable to every general Assembly for their proceed. Howbeit the Presbytories were spoilt of their authority in many things at the said pretended Assembly Yet of the power of election of Commissioners, they were not spoilt, neither is there any other order of Election of Commissioners, and Constitution of the members of the Assembly set down by any Act of our Church, than was established, Anno 1597. Nevertheless in this Assembly they not only presented themselves, without Commission, but sat as Lords overruling it; they had practised the Ceremonies against the established Laws, before they were proponed to the Assembly, they ought therefore to have been secluded, and sharply censured, but they usurped the place both of judge and party.  ANS. 
This Act of Montrosse Assembly, was past when these caveats were devised to restrain the immoderate power of Bishops in the Church, and was yielded unto, for satisfying the importunity of such as opposed to their restitution, and keeping them quiet in the time: but the Bishops now being restored by the Assemblies of the Church, and by Acts of Parliament to the exercise of that lawful power and lutisdiction, which ever they had in the Church, that Act nor any other of that nature cannot prejudice them. And that Bishops should have their Commissions from Presbyters men inferior to them in degree, it is so absurd, as the like hath not been heard is any Age. But the Libeler is in a dream, and thinks no Act, nor any order established to be of force, that he himself hath not approved. Where he says, that there was never another Constitution of the members of the Assembly set down by any Act of our Church, then that at Dundy, 1597. it is most false, for in Edinburgh, 1568. in julij, there is another Constitution, wherein the members of the Assembly are divided in two sorts, some are appointed to be ordinary, and perpetual, as Superinteudents, and Commissioners for visitation of Churches; others mutable, are Commissioners of Churches, Towns, and Provinces; The first needeth no special Commission to every Assembly, but being once admitted to the Office, were ever acknowledged thereafter as ordinary, and special members of the Assemblies. The second, were changed from Assembly, and behoved to produce a new Commission, before they were admitted. Yea in the Assembly holden, Anno 1568. at Edingburgh the first of julij, it was ordained, that no Minister should have voice in Assemblies general, nor leave their Parishes to attend thereat, unless they be choosed by their Superintendents, as men known able to reason, and of knowledge to judge in matters. But for the Bishops themselves, they have always been reputed ordinary members of the Assembly, and were ever first called in the Rolls, as is to be seen through the whole Registers. In Anno 1563. jul. 28. Sess. 4. it is ordained that every Superintendent should compeare the first day of the Assembly under such a pain, not as idle Spectators, but as having special interest and pours the same is evident by another Act at Edingburgh, 1568. julij 1. And by a third Act at Edingburgh in March, 1573. And by the admonition sent by the Regent his grace, whereby the Bishops are specially admonished to be present at all Assemblies, or to be reputed unworthy of the office. And in the Assembly at Edinburgh, A. 1575. Aug. 6. albeit there were present six Bishops, to wit, Glasgow, Dunkeld, Galloway, Brechin, Dumbline, and the Isles, and two Superintendents, Angouse, and Lowthian; yet because certain others were absent, it was thought good, that they should be called, and the absents noted. Yea after, that the jurisdiction of Bishops began to be quarrelled in the Assembly, 1579. jul. 7. Sess. 9 this Statute was made that follows.  
ABout the Bishops and Commissioners of Countries, who absent themselves from general Assemblies at the time appointed, the Church hath ordained the Act made, August 12. 1575. to be executed against them; and that same Act, to be understood, not only of Bishops, having office of Visitation appointed to them by the Church, but also of such as have not the said office: Likewise, when some Bishops were prohibited to exercise the power of Visitation, their presence not the less was thought necessary in all Assemblies, and they counted ordinary members thereof; neither was that Statute ever repealed by any Assembly afterwards; but even, Anno 1587. after the Presbyteries were erected, the Bishop of Saint Andrew's was summoned to compeare for his absence from the general Assembly; by all which it appears, that the Bishops had no need of any commission for sitting, and giving voice in Assemblies.  PP. 
At Saint- Andrew's, in April 1582. It was thought expedient, that Presbyteries should not be astricted to  their Moderator in Commission, but whom they judged fittest for the purpose: that constant Moderators should be constant members of the general Assembly, is a forged clause, forged in an Act of a pretended Assembly holden at Linlithgow the year of God, 1606. The which Assembly, neither the Church than did, nor will the Bishops now stand to; nevertheless in this Assembly, some Moderators of Presbyteries voted without Election, and only by virtue of the forged clauses of the Act fore said: if any Presbytery directed their Moderators in Commission upon ignorance and error, having respect to the foresaid clauses aforesaid, their ignorance, and error is no lawful consent. It is in the meantime to be remembered, that the present Moderators are not of the quality of these constant Moderators, but of a new Edition set out at Glasgow, viz. they are the Bishop's Deputies, placed by them in Presbyteries.  ANS. 
This reason will not infer a nullity: Presbyteries (ye say) were not astricted by the Act of Assembly at Saint- Andrew's, 1582. to send their Moderators in Commission; Ergo, the Moderators ought not to have come, notwithstanding of their Commissions from the Presbyteries: there is no consequence here: for it is, as if I would reason, The Presbytery of Saint- Andrew's was not astricted to have sent Master john Carmichael to the Assembly. Therefore he ought not to have had voice therein, notwithstanding of his Commission, Any man sees the inconsequence. But here ye add four things. First, that the Act of Linlythguow, 1606 bearing, that constant Moderatours should be constant members of the general Assembly, was forged. Next, that the Bishops will not stand to this Assembly now, more than the Church did at that time. Thirdly, that some Moderatours came to this Assembly without Election, by virtue of the said Act, and the Prebyteries that directed them, did the same upon ignorance, and error, which is not a lawful consent. Fourthly, that the present Moderatours, are not of the quality of these constant Moderatours; but of a new Edition set out at Glasgow, viz. the Bishop's Depuries in Presbyteries. I answer to the first, that there is no trust to be given to you in this business, wherein I have better reason to be believed, speaking for worthy and reverend men, whose same was never blotted: then such an one as you are, that did not fear to deny the authority of our Sovereign Prince in his own presence, and immediately after forswear it to the Brethren. Master james Nicolsone now with God, did moderate that Assembly at Linlythguow, a man for his Wisdom, Knowledge, and Holiness in greater reputation, then that thy calumnies can touch him. All the conclusions thereof were penned by himself, at least by his advice; and to have made a greater advantage, than that conclusion could bring with it, would not have altered a syllable in any Act, nor forged or foisted in any clause, as thou speakest. The Scribe of that Assembly was Doctor Henry Philip, yet Minister at Arbrothe, whose truth and fidelity, to speak nothing of his Learning, Prudence, and other gifts, is as well known, as is thy perfidle and presumptuous rebellions, for which now thou livest in Exile. And if thy sayings, or the speeches of the like of thee, might call such men's honesty in question, it should not go well. If I seem more bitter, in this Answer, to the Reader, than I am accustomed, let him consider, that he who neither spares dead, nor living, great, nor small, must be answered sometimes as he deserves. Now where ye say, that the Bishops will not stand to that Assembly now, more than the Church then did, I do not conceive, whom ye call the Church: except ye think a handful of mutinous persons, such as yourself, to be the Church: otherwise the Ministers generally in all the parts of the Country did consent and obey the Acts of that Assembly. And what if the conclusions taken therein yet stands, vnrepealed by other Assemblies that have followed? the Bishops do all acknowledge and stand to. For it is the Law of the Church, that rules them in matters of outward policy, and all other peaceable Ministers: ye, and the like of you stand to no Law, but the will of your own minds. Thirdly, where ye say, that some Moderatours were sent Commissioners by the Presbyteries upon an ignorant conceit, that they were bound by the Act of Linlythguow so to do, ye qualify no part of this by any particulars, and if ye did it would be replied, that in every convention, that is permitted for exercise through the Land, the fittest and choicest of a number is appointed to moderate: And that whether the moderation lay upon them, or not; their Brethren would have elected them, and no others to have been Commissioners to that Assembly. Lastly, where ye tell us, scoffingly, that the present Moderators are of a new edition, to wit, the deputies of Bishops, ye must know, That your changeable Moderators, were of that new edition ye speak of; for in no age was it seen ever before this, that indifferently every man was taken in his course, to rule and preside without consideration had of his gifts and qualities. And these we have now, are such as the Christian Church ever had, & used to keep order in their meetings, & conventions.  PP. 
The Assessors to his Majesty's Commissioners, the Nobility, Barons, Bishops, Burgesses, and Moderators imposed upon Presbyteries, with some Ministers voting without warrant, being substracted from the number of the affirmative voters, the negatives will not be found inferior in number to the affirmatives authorised with Commission; And suppose inferior in number, yet not in weight: for the negative voters adhered to the judgement of the Church, heard no reasons for the novelties proponed, were not overcome with persuasions, or terrors, as was the affirmatives.  ANS. 
It hath been sufficiently proved, that there was neither Nobleman, Baron, Burgess, nor Bishop, but had as good warrant to vote, as any of the negatives, & therefore should not be substracted from the number of the affirmative voters. This ye perceive, and fly to another shift, according to your custom. Ye grant your number were fewer, for so they were by more than another half: but their weight, ye say, was greater: for with them, as ye allege, there was three great over weights in the balance. First, they had no fear. Secondly, they were not overcome with persuasion: And the third, they adhered to the judgement of the Church. It is true indeed, that neither the fear of inconueniencies, and evils which might have ensued to the great hurt of the Church, and hindrance of the Gospel, did move them; nor could reason, whereby the change was manifestly proved both lawful, and expedient persuade them, but to the judgement of the Church (as ye call it) they adhered, without regard of good or evil, without respect to right or wrong. And this is the Idol which they still adore. Now let us consider this judgement whereunto they adhered. The judgement of our Church touching ceremonies and circumstances to be used in the worship of God, is twofold. There is one, that is particular: the other is general. The particular judgement determineth and defineth what ceremonies in particular the Reformers thought expedient to be received, and rejected. The general declares, what the Church, and every Christian should esteem, believe, and hold touching the particular order and policy which is set down for the use of ceremonies and circumstances to be observed in the worship of God. The former judgement is expressed in the first Book of Discipline, and some few Acts of the general Assemblies cited afterward by yourself. This other we have in the one and twentieth Article of the Confession of Faith, about the end thereof, and in the seventh Chapter of the second Book of Discipline; both which are afterwards cited in the examination of your Discourse, where ye profess yourself to discuss the oath. And it is that judgement whereunto the Swearers did oblige themselves by their oath. In this it is declared expressly, That no order, nor policy in ceremonies can be established for all times, ages, and places, but that it is temporal, and may and should be changed, when necessity require. This is the general and constant judgement of the Church, whereunto the negative Voters were bound, by their oath to have adhered, which they did not. That other, whereunto they adhered (as ye allege) is only temporal, and subject to change, according to the opportunities, and occasions of times, places, and persons: For if by occasion of any of these circumstances, the observation, which was profitable at one time, become hurtful at another, and that which served for reformation, breeds and fosters corruption, profaneness, or superstition; it is the constant and general judgement of the Church, that it should be changed, and altered, which formerly was observed. And to apply this to the purpose in hand: It is notoriously known, That sitting at the Communion, which at the reformation was judged most convenient to abolish the opinion of transubstantiation, & bread-worship, makes the Sacrament now to be contemned, and profaned by the common sort of Professors: That the want of divine exercise on the five holy-days, hath almost buried in oblivion the inestimable benefits of our redemption; the superstitious observation of these times not the less continuing still in our Church: That the withholding of Baptism from infants in times of necessity, and the holy Supper from others at the hour of their dying, hath been the grief of many good Christians. Lastly, that great ignorance is crept into the Church, by the neglect of the catechising of young children, and for lack of a particular trial of their profiting in knowledge, at the V sitations of Churches. And upon these, and the like considerations, who sees not, that alteration in these points was expedient? Add to this, our conformity with the greater part of the reformed Churches, which is to be preferred much, to the singularity of any private opinion, or custom of persons, and Churches. Then the showing of an unnecessary, undutiful, and  opposition, and contradiction to the most religious Prince on earth, who for the glory of God, and the edification of his Church, did urge this alteration. In this, if his Majesty had been gain-stand without right, or reason, what evils and inconueniencies might have ensued, it is not easy to say. Ye afterwards call it a matter uncertain, and depending upon God's providence; but we are not to pry in these secrets, and aught to follow his revealed will, who hath commanded us to fear him, and obey the King. This obedience should ever be performed, where it may stand with the fear of God These things have not been considered by the Negative voters: And evidently show that their pretext of adhering to the particular judgement of the Church, whereunto in such cases they ought not to have adhered, is no other, but a fair excuse, and spacious veil to cover their wilful opposition to his Majesty's will, and the well of the Church, which in the estimation of every prudent and peaceable Christian must elevate the authority of all their voices, and make the same of no weight.  PP. 
The affirmative voters authorized with Commission, either had their Commissions procured by their Bishops, or else were mercenary Pensioners; or Platseruers for augmentation of stipends: or gapers for promotion: or of suspect credit for benefit received, or hoped for; or had subscribed other private Articles, in private more dangerous than the present Articles: or had been threatened privately by their own Diocesian Bishops with deposition: or were not well informed in their judgement for lack of full and free reasoning: or were circumvented with promises made to them, by their Bishops, that they should not be urgéd with the practice, if they would only consent to make an Act to please the King: or were terrified with the public threatenings before mentioned. judge therefore whether these votes should be pondered, or numbered.  ANS. 
That he may be scene a perfect man in the art of Calumniation, he heaps ten calumnies together in one Section, whereunto in the order they are proponed, I answer; first he says, the affirmative voters had their Commissions procured by their Bishops. This is so false, as nothing can be more untruely said: for all the Bishops in their Synods kept before that Assembly, having acquainted the Ministers that a supplication would be sent to his Majesty, for liberty to convene a general Assembly, and exponed the necessity of their admitting the Articles, warned them to choose the most wise, learned, and peaceable of their number, to be their Commissioners, if so the liberty craved were obtained, but left the persons to be named by themselves, in their meetings at their Exercises: upon which advertisement, it is true, That certain of your factious sort employed all their means to procure Commission to themselves, and such others, as they knew would be of their mind; and prevailed so fare, as very few of the Ministry possessed with your humour were absent from the Assembly. And to manifest your falsehood in this particular: It is notoriously known, that at S. Andrew's, one day being apppointed for choosing Commissioners of that Exercise, the whole number of Ministers convened; albeit neither before that time, these ten or twelve years past, nor since, diverse of them were ever seen, either at Exercise, or Synods. Notice whereof being given to the Archbishop of S. Andrew's, who was at that time in the City, by certain that feared a trouble might fall out amongst them in the nomination, he comes himself to their meeting, and declared, how he, and all that were present, perceived they were come that day only, by plurality of voices, to choose their Commissioners. And howbeit they might justly be excluded from bearing Commission, or giving any voice in the choice of them that should be sent, who at other times vouchsafed not their presence to the Brethren, lest it should be said afterwards that the choice of their Commissioners were not free, he willed them to name whom they thought meetest. And his own voice being first desired, he named for two, Master john Carmichaell, and Master Alexander Henrysone, whom he knew to be set both of them against the Articles, that they might have place to reason, and give voice in the Assembly. So fare he was from plotting and preparing voices to bear forth that business. And as he uttered in the Assembly, at diverse times upon occasion since, we have heard him solemnly protest, that he did never open his mouth to solicit or persuade any to stand for receiving the Articles; but left every man to his own judgement, to do, and say, as he should find the force of reason to move him. And yet had it been so, that the Bishops had named them, and procured their Commission, there should nothing have been done, against the custom of the primitive Church: for no Presbyters were ever admitted to sit in Counsels, except they had been authorised by their Bishops, as we shown before. And during the space of many years after our reformation, while the Superintendents ruled Church affairs, no Minister might come to the general Assembly, except they had chosen and named him, as was qualified before out of their own Assemblies. This is our reply to the first.  
The second calumny is, That the affirmative Voters were mercenary Pensioners: If he had set down their names, and shown, whose Pensioners they were, we should have easily showed, that though they were Pensioners, yet they were not mercenary men. One may safely enjoy a benefice conferred upon him by his Prince, or some noble Personage in regard of his former services, yet be no mercenary. And they may be mercenaries who enjoy no pension at all; for even the disposition of a man will make him justly to be counted such: Neither to my knowledge was there in that Assembly any one that had pension of his Majesty, Master Patrick Galloway excepted, whom before ye scoffingly termed a man of many pensions. But ye are not I hope so fare past shame, as to say, that he enjoys any of his pensions, how few, or many so ever they be, upon paction, or promise to be yielding unto every thing, that his Majesty should be pleased to propone to the Church: yea it is known, that in these same matters he alone did more than ye all, to have diverted his Majesty by humble advice and persuasion from urging them further: And took the boldness to propone his reasons in writing, against the Festivities, and the Article of kneeling: which his Majesty was graciously pleased to Answer by himself for his better satisfaction. These five and forty years, or above, he hath lived a Minister in the Church of Scotland, and was his Majesty's own Chaplain, during the most of that time. And for his labours and continual travels taken for the benefit of the Church, deserved better reward, than all the pensions he enjoys. But when this age is gone, his just praise in despite of you all shall continue with the posterity. If I pleased, I could reply, that the chief of your Sect hath a pension of his Majesty, of greater worth than all his put together, and enjoys it with prejudice of many poor Ministers; and for no merit at all, except it be merit to work his Majesty perpetual vexation, and keep the Church with his conceits in continual trouble. And I could tell you in a word, that it is more fitting to be his Majesty's pensioner, than the pensioner of any Burgesses wife, or Lady in the Country, such as many of you are; and were not your purses filled by this means, we should not be troubled with your unruliness. These things you must patiently hear, for they are truths, seeing ye forbear not to lie of men more worthy, beyond all comparison, then is yourself.  
Your third calumny is, That they were Platseruers for augmentation of stipends: this is an evident untruth. The Commission for stipends expired in the Month of july before that Assembly, and further hope of augmentation they could not have: where ye shall suffer this to be told you, that the negative voters had greater benefit by that Commission, than the affirmative: And that according to your manner, you gave good attendance all that time, and many hopes of good behaviour, till your business was effected: Howbeit since, diverse of your have turned your Cloaks, as we use to say; Albeit the benefit is not lost, for it was not to you done, or for any of you, but to the Churches, at which ye presently serve.  
Ye say fourthly, That they were gapers for promotion: But how do you know that? Who made you a judge of your Brethren? Is this piety to judge of men's hearts and affections at your pleasure? None of you (forsooth) like to have promotions, and I warrant you would fly into deserts to hide yourselves, if ye knew yourselves to be sought to be placed in high rooms: but what means then your continual resort in the chief Towns, with the neglect and contempt of your own cures at home? Ye profess not to love the World, yet none follows it so much. Ye may not endure domination, yet will play the Lords over Kings, and the consciences of every man; and think while as ye declaim against ambition, wealth, and worldly honour, that ye are not perceived even then, and by that mean, chief to hunt after these things.  
Ye say fifthly, That they were of suspect credit; and I believe it well, with you, they were so: Nay, ye might say more, ye suspected they were Reprobates; for it is a thing familiar to your Sect, to pronounce of men's salvation, and condemnation, as they fancy. And yet that Book, which they say some of you have made up, to note therein, the names of the holy Society, is not the Book of Life. The credit of that Register is not committed unto you.  
Sixtly, They had subscribed, ye say, other private Articles, more dangerous than the present: I conceive your meaning to be, of the Articles offered unto them, that enter in the Ministry: If ye have not seen them, ye shall know, that these Articles bind such as enter, to the obedience of the present discipline, and of all, and whatsomever acts, and constitutions, that shall be lawfully made hereafter by the Church, in matters of outward policy, and order: whereunto I will not say, the falsehood, but the inconstancy of some of your number, gave the occasion, who after they had promised to live peaceable, and obedient to the Church, within a few days, having gotten what they sought for, became more turbulent and unquiet than any.  
Seventhly, They had been threatened, you say, privately, with deposition by their own Diocesian Bishops. And will ye qualify this of any one person, we shall grant all your informalities. But this is so untrue, as ye never shall be able to do it.  
Eightly, They were not well informed in their judgements, for lack, ye say, of full and free reasoning. Here ye construe other men by yourself, and some of your side; who being asked the reason of their negative voice, answered, That they had never studied the question well, yet that they followed the example of learned and godly men, with whom they had rather err ignorantly, then follow the Bishops with some show of reason. And one of your negative Voters professed publicly in the Assembly, That he saw no evident reason against the lawfulness of the Articles, yet he would refuse them, because his deceased father did mislike them. These were the best informations that the most of your negatives had; as to the affirmative Voters, when ye, or any man shall ask them, they will give reason sufficient for their judgement.  
Ninthly, they were circumvented with promises, ye say, made to them by their Bishops, that they should not be urged with the practice, if they would only consent to make an act, to please the King. But you should have named the Bishops that made such promises, for your saying deserves not that credit. It is true, that when foam of you acknowledging the matters to be lawful in themselves, complained only of precipitation, and that time was not given them to resolve, it was answered by some in private, That if they would cease from their business, and profess so much in public, which in conference they acknowledged of the lawfulness of the Articles, time should be granted unto them, before the practice were urged. But this they observed not, and did to the contrary what they could; and this I hope was no circumvention of any man, nor were any of the affirmative voters carried by these promises: for what they voted unto without any scruple, they have since that time practised. Your tenth and last calumny, that they were terrified with public threatenings, hath been answered before. And now when ye desire your Reader to judge, whether the voices should be pondered, or numbered; I trust it hath not appeared by any of your alleged motives, that there is such cause; on the other side, if your negative voters had equalled the affirmative in number, they might have been justly rejected; first, for the open prejudice they had committed in preaching, and public condemning the Articles that they knew were to be reasoned, as impious, Papistical, and Idolatrous. I know ye will oppose to this, the prejudice you mentioned before, committed by the affirmative voters in the practice of the Ceremonies before they were established. But what they did in this, was by the advice of the chief Ministers in the Kingdom, without condemning the former practice of the Church, and under protestation, that if the Church did not find the Articles fit to be received, their practice should not tie them in aftertimes, seeing they acknowledged the indifferency of all these matters. Next, the chief reasons which your negative voters gave at any time, were, the hazard of their credits amongst their flocks, and of fear to be reputed inconstant, if they should yield at the sudden to that, which they had so openly condemned: and what are their reasons being well sifted, but reasons of self-love, and a care to maintain your popular estimation, which is nothing so much to be regarded, as is his Majesty's satisfaction? Therefore to end this purpose, whether ye regard the weight, or the number of voices, the affirmatives were superior in both.  PP. 
In onmibus causis pro facto accipitur id in quo quis alium terrefacit, quo minus fiat: In this Assembly the affirmative voters confessed, that they assented not simpliciter to the Articles proponed as known truths, but only to avert the wrath of authority, standing in their own judgement against them, and not for them, in respect of the estate of this Church. Hence it may be clearly seen, that their votes were only affirmative, in respect of their fear, but negative, in respect of their judgement, and dutiful affection to this Church.  ANS. 
None of the affirmative voters approved the Articles for known verities; for when we speak of known verities, we understand the verities defined in Scripture, such as are the points of our faith, which no man ought to call in question: but that any man did give his voice otherwise, than his judgement led him, ye will hardly persuade us, much less, that any man would openly profess this: for that had been little better, than the resolution of Medea in the Tragedy: Video meliora, proboque; deteriora sequor. As to the fear, ye so oft mention, it was a fear not contrary to the dutiful affection we own to the Church; nor repugnant to the judgement which they had, that were moved therewith: but a fear commendable flowing both from their affection, and judgement, for they feared no particular hurt to their own persons, or punishment to have been inflicted upon themselves, but to irritate so gracious a King and a Prince so careful of the good of the Church; and to bring the Church into an unnecessary trouble by the obstinate refusing of lawful Articles, this we hope all good men feared, and still fear. And certainly, whosoever lacks this fear are not fit to serve in a Church, and more unfit to determine of Church-matters.  PP. 
Other informalities may be observed, but these are sufficient to prove the nullity of this pretended Assembly, whereby the established estate of this Church, is so far prejudged, or rather simple people for their facility endangered, if they upon the pretended authority of this Assembly, shall adventure to make defection from their former profession confirmed by so many, and well advised Assemblies, and blessed by the experience of God's great love in his best benefits; or to violate their solemn Oath and Subscription. The pretender may as safely profess, that he will alter his profession, or violate his Oath and Subscription, suppose there had been no Assembly at all. But to detain simple people in their begun revolt, it will be cried out, and inculcate, that some few persons (and to make them odious, they will be called Mal-contents, Troublers of the Estate, Seditious persons, and what not? for the which contumelies and reproaches account must be made one day) that they may not, nor should not judge upon the nullity of the Assemblies. It is true by way of jurisdiction, or Superordination as they call it, no private man should presume so to do, for that judgement belongs to another free and lawful Assembly; but by the judgement of discretion, every Christian man ought to judge, how matters of Religion are imposed upon him, and by what authority. If thou mayest not discern as a judge, thou mayest discern as a Christian. If ye shall admit indifferently whatsoever is concluded under the glorious name of an Assembly, then may we be brought to admit not only the English Ceremonies, but also Lutheravisme and Papistry. If Ministers give way to their Parochiners to practise the obtruded Ceremonies at their pleasures: If sworn Professors entangle themselves again, with the superfluities whereof the Lord hath made them free, let the one and the other take heed, how they defend themselves from the just challenge of back-sliding, and the rest of the inconveniences that may ensue on their change.  ANS. 
This Libeler being now to conclude the Nullity, which he intended to prove, pains himself to move the People, Ministers, Professors, and all to disobedience of the Acts concluded: and where the authority of the Assembly, might draw men to condescend, he labours to show them, that even the judgement of the lawfulness of Assemblies in some sort doth belong to every Christian; which if it should not, he lays down certain inconveniences; that thereby might grow upon them all; to which I answer, that this Assembly being convocated, in the Name of God, assisted in the proceed thereof by his blessed Spirit, and all the Informalities objected being now sufficiently cleared, we are persuaded every true Christian whether he be Minister, or Professor, will submit his judgement and affections both, to the conclusions taken therein. And if any will still oppose themselues thereto, we doubt not to call them troublers of the Estate, seditious Persons, schismatics, lovers of Division, and direct Enemies to the Weal, and peace both of the Church, and Kingdom. That ye would be called such men, ye might well prophesy, seeing ye be privy to your own intentions; but where ye adiect that account must be made one day of such contumelies and reproaches, I would but ask you, whether ye do think to pass free in the Day of that account, and not be brought to your answer, for calling the Servants of Christ, mercenary men, and thereby implying his Majesty, your Sovereign to be another Balak in giving the wages of iniquity, to hirelings: for condemning all, that are obedient to the voice of the Church in these matters, as men perjured, and without all conscience, and diverse others your malicious speeches, uttered in this Pamphlet: or if you think it no fault to make a rent in the body of Christ, which is his Church, which it appears evidently ye are only about; the answers following will clear to all men, that the estate of our Church is no way prejudged by any Act concluded in the Assembly at Perth, and that the obedience thereof, will not infer a defection from our former profession. But that distinction of twofold judgement serves little to this purpose: for howbeit lawfully every man may inquire of things concluded, and for his own information seek out the grounds and warrants thereof, yet whither soever his judgement incline, he must render himself obedient to the Constitutions of the Church in which he life's. And there is a great difference between decerning and discerning, though either ye or your Printer hath mistaken it; for it belongeth to the judge to decern, and Christians, as ye say, even in their private callings may discern, but this their discerning will never free them from the subjection of Laws imposed especially in matters of this nature, for we are now upon order, and policy only. And except ye could show some evident place out of the Word, or bring a necessary demonstration to warrant your contrary judgement, your disobedience will ever be faulty. The authority of the Church must yield to the written Word, but the judgements of private men, to the authority of the Church. Otherwise, we should open a door to all confusion, neither could there be order in a Church, if every man should be permitted to follow his own conceit, and do as his privy judgement did lead him. This our Church wisely foreseeing, in an Assembly kept at Edinburghe, anno 1583. 10. Octob. statuted, and ordained, That no Act concluded by a general Assembly, should be called in question by any particular brother, nay, not in another general Assembly, except some just cause might be seen for the change thereof. And if it be not lawful to call any of the constitutions of the Church in question, much less to impugn by writ, and print, the same so maliciously, as you have done, I omit the unseemly match which ye make of English ceremonies, and Lutheranisme, with Papistry: for this is your malice against the English Church, which it becomes you to reverence, and of whom, if ye did love the truth of God, ye would have spoken more honourably.  PP. 
If the Parliament by acts, authorise matters effected with such informalities, and nullities, matters of themselves so contrarious to our profession, their ratification of a vicious thing, cannot be a rule to a christian man's conscience. But it is to be hoped, that the Lord shall so dispose the hearts of Statesmen to the love of the truth, quietness of the Church, and Country, and peace of men's consciences, that no unreason able butthen shall be knit upon the members of Christ's Body, by any deed of theirs, under the name of a benefit to the Church. Inuito beneficium non datur.  ANS. 
Since the time that Kings and Princes became Christian, it hath always been the custom that Synodical Decrees were authorized by their Laws; not that the allowance or authority of Civil Laws is made a rule to a Christians Conscience, but that the external man might thereby be tied to the obedience of these things, which the Church hath found to be agreeable to the Word of God, that is the only rule of conscience: and it is to be hoped, that God shall so dispose the hearts of the whole Estate, to the love of his Truth, and the Peace, and quietness of his Church, that refractory and turbulent persons, such as ye are, shall be restrained of your unbridled licentiousness, and kept under the obedience of the Church, and the Orders by her lawfully established; which howsoever ye that love to live after your own minds, call an unreasonable burden, all true and peaceable Christians will esteem a benefit to the Church, and be thankful unto God for the same.  PP. 
Consider three things, first, the Nullity of this Assembly. Secondly, thy own Oath and Subscription, how it admits or abhors this change, suppose the Assembly had been lawful. Thirdly, if the particulars offered, can be made lawful or expedient by any Assembly whatsoever.  ANS. 
We have considered all these three as ye desire, and find the reasons proponed by you for the Nullity of this Assembly to be Nullities in themselves. Next, that the Oath and Subscription by you mentioned, admits the change concluded, and does not abhor it, the same change being a part of the Oath which we all gave, as in discussing of the Oath shall be cleared. Thirdly, that the particulars concluded, are things lawful, of their own nature indifferent, and most convenient for this time: in regard the general Church, who hath the place and power of determining the expediency of Rites and Ceremonies, hath interposed their authority to the same, which in the estimation of Wisemen is sufficient to make them be counted such.   

An answer to the Articles presented to the Assembly, AUGUST 27. and quotations added by the Pamphleter for confirmation.  PP. 
FOr so much as we have been debarred of access, and from hearing the proceed of the Conference, their Reasonings, Consultations, and Aduisements, about the Articles proponed to this general Assembly: whereof, all, and every one of them so nearly touches us in our Christian resolution, and offices of our Ministry; in most humble manner we present to your consideration the particulars hereafter specified, in the fear of God, entreating your favourable answer to the same.  ANS. 
Neither he who presented the Articles, nor they who penned them, can affirm truly, that they were absent from the Conference, and none were debarred, who were desirous to be present. The truth is, after long, and modest reasoning, and grave deliberation, when all had been heard, both in private at the Conference and in public before the Assembly, and all doubts and objections had been proponed, answered, and satisfied; these, or the like Articles were presented, not for resolution of those by whom they were proponed, who were already settled in this resolution, not to be resolved: but to perturb the minds of these who were prepared to vote, and conclude, and so to bring all in question again, that before had been discussed; and therefore were justly rejected by the Moderator as malicious and crafty dilatory exceptions, as shall be manifest by the answers following made to them, not as they were presented to the Assembly, but as they are proponed here, with your Additions, Quotations, and Confirmations.  

The first Article.  PP. 
THe Articles proponed, if they be concluded, they do innovate, and bring under the slander of change, the estate of this Church, so advisedly established by Ecclesiastical Constitutions, Acts of Parliament, approbation of other Churches, and good liking of the best reformed Christians without and within this Kingdom, and so evidently blessed with happy success, and sensible experience of God's greatest benefits, by the space of fifty eight years and above; so that we may boldly say to the praise of God, That no Church hath enjoyed the truth and purity of Religion in larger liberty. And upon some such considerations, it pleased his gracious Majesty to continue the Church of England in her established estate, as may be seen in the Conference at Hampton Court, and Thomas Spark his book written thereupon, Ipsa quippe mutatio, etiam quae adiwat utilitate, novitate perturbat: quapropter quae utilis non est, perturbatione infructuosa consequenter noxia est, saith Augustine, Epist. 118. that is, Even a change that is helpful for utility, perturbeth with the novelty. Wherefore, consequently, a change that is not profitable, is noisome through fruitless perturbation. Rather a Church with some fault, than still a change, it is said in the Conference at Hampton Court.  Answer to the first Article. 
IF the estate of our Church did consist in circumstantial alterable Ceremonies, the change of these might import a change of her estate: But such points and ceremonies as were concluded by the Assembly at Perth, have the like respect to the estate of the Church, that ornaments and vestures have to the body, serving only for commodity, order, and decency, to be kept in the worship of God: And therefore when occasion requireth, as a change should be made of apparel, and may be made without alteration of the constitution and health of the body: So the change of Ceremonies, necessary for the time, do not innovate and bring under slander of change the estate of the Church, as Augustine saith, Epist. 86. una fides est universae Ecclesiae, tametsi ipsa fidei unitas quibusdam diversis obseruationibus celebratur quibus nullo modo quod in side verum est impeditur, omnis enim pulchritudo filiae Regis intrinsecus: illae autem obseruationes quae variae obseruantur, in eius veste intelliguntur, unde illi dicitur in fimbrijs aureis circumamicta varietate: that is, The Faith of the universal Church is one, albeit the Unity of the Faith itself be celebrate with some diverse observations, whereby the Verity of the Faith is not impedit, for all the beauty of the King's daughter is within; but these observations, which are variantly observed, are understood to be in her apparel, therefore it is said of her, That she is clothed with variety in vestures of gold, Psal. 45. In this verity of Faith, whereby the Church standeth, her estate consisteth, this must be ever kept one and the same, albeit of the observations and ceremonies, wherewith it is clothed, it may sometime be said, as God said of JOSVA, Take away the filthy garments from him, I will cloth thee with a change of raiment. Tertull. de Virginibus Velandis. Regula quidem sidei una omnino est sola immobilis, & irreformabilis, etc. Hae lege sidei manente, caetera iam disciplinae, & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante scil cet, & proficiente usque in finem, gratia Dei. The rule of Faith is altogether one, only unchangeable, and such as cannot be reform, etc. This Law of Faith standing firm, the remanent things, that concern discipline and conversation, admit the novelty of correction by the grace of God, which worketh and maketh a profitable progress, even to the end. Augustine's sentence, which ye cite, is not repugnant to this, for in that place he speaketh not of such a mutation, as proceedeth from the instant, and lawful desire of a Prince, and after due deliberation, is concluded by the body of the whole Church; but of such a novation as is urged contentiously by some curious spirits, who being strangers to the Church, wherein they press to make the novation, would have the customs thereof changed, according to the forms of their own Country; or being traveled abroad, would make a reformation according to that, which they see in their peregrination, Aut quia in sua patria sic ipse consuevit, aut quia ibi vidit ubi peregrinationem suam, quo remotiorem à suis, eo doctiorem factam putat. In such a case, saith Augustine, the novation helpeth not so much by utility, as it hurteth by novelty; such was the alteration that was intended and urged by some Innovators at Hampton Court. Where notwithstanding some few particulars were explained in the Liturgy of the Church of England, as is set down in the third day's Conference by D. William Barlow, as followeth.  
1. Absolution or remission of sins in the rubric of absolution.  
2. In private Baptism, that a lawful Minister be present.  
3. Examination and Confirmation of Children.  
4. jesus said unto them twice, to be put in the Dominical Gospels, in stead of, jesus said to the Disciples.  
Thus his Majesty who had wisely said before in that Conference, Rather a Church with some fault, than still a change: declared that where the fault might be redressed, without change of the estate of the Church, the fault was to be mended, and the estate preserved.   

The second Article.  PP. 
The receiving again of these Articles so justly rejected, and so carefully and long kept forth of the CHURCH, grieveth reform Professors tenderly affected to our reformation, and giveth occasion to our Adversaries to reprove our separation from them of rashness, levity and inconstancy; and not only hindereth their conversion, but strengtheneth their hope of our further conformity with them, quoties non mutarunt suam quisque sententiam, etc.  ANS. 
The receiving again of these Articles never rejected as unlawful, giveth no just occasion of grief to any, who are not superstitioussy affected to external Rites and Ceremonies: and such are not to be followed, but should be better informed. And as for the Adversaries it grieveth them, that by this change their mouths are stopped, who before took occasion to slander our Church of profaneness for fitting at the Sacrament; of impious ingratitude for neglecting the solemn commemoration of the inestimable benefits of our Redemption: of contempt of the Sacraments, and cruelty, for refusing in cases of necessity Baptism to Infants, and the Supper of the Lord to these who desire the comfort thereof, at the time of their death: which things being now restored in our Church, they are afraid that many who before of their Sect, did not so much abhor our profession for the substance of doctrine, as for the precise excluding of these religious Rites, may now be moved to adjoin themselves to our Church. But to be short, what can be so well done by us, whereat they will not take occasion to slander us either of inconstancy, or profaneness, and impiety? Therefore our actions must not depend on their constructions, but we must do that which is most expedient and best for the estate of our own Church, and not regard their hopes, conceits, calumnies, and lies, whereby they maintain their Kingdom of darkness.   

The third Article.  PP. 
They cannot stand in one profession with brotherly kindness, peace, and love, which must be tenderly kept amongst the members of Christ's body, as the same consisteth of stronger and more infirm, as may appear in the Apostolical Rules following, etc. Things indifferent (put the case man's invention were of that nature) in the case of scandal, cease to be indifferent, and are as things moral. Perkins, Gal. 2.3.  ANS. 
Unto this Article Augustine answereth in his 118. Epistle to januarius, cap. 2. in these words; Saepe sensi dolens, & gemens multas infirmorum perturbationes fieri, per quorundam fratrum obstinationem, & superstitiosam timiditatem, qui in rebus huiusmodi, quae neque sacrae Scripturae authoritate, neque universalis Ecclesiae traditione: neque vitae corrigendae utilitate ad certum possunt terminum pervenire, etc. Tam litigiosas excitant contentiones, ut nisi quod ipsi faciunt nihil rectum existiment: I have often thought with sorrow and sighing, that the perturbations and offences of many weak ones, come by the contentious stubbornness of some Brethren, and by their superstitious fear, who for such matters, as neither by authority of the holy Scripture; nor by the tradition of the universal Church: nor by utility for amendment of life, can be determined and brought to some certain point, stir up contentions that they esteem nothing right but that which they do themselves. This is it that breaketh the bonds of kindness, peace and love amongst Brethren. As to things indifferent it is true indeed, that they become not only scandalous, and morally evil, as Perkins saith, but superstitious, and Rites of will-worship, when they are urged as necessary to be used for parts of God's worship instituted by himself, as ye urge sitting at the Table in the Sacrament of the Supper: or when it is urged, that they be rejected and excluded from the worship of God, as simply unlawful, and which may be used, without breach of some divine Ordinance, as you will have kneeling: and the commemoration of God's inestimable benefits, upon the five Anniversary days: the clebration of the Sacraments in cases of necessity in private places: and the examination, and blessing of young Children by the Bishop in his Visitation: the contentious maintenance of such points against the order of the Church can neither stand with Piety, nor Charity, nor with the Apostolical Rules, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Give no offence, neither to the lieu, nor to the Grecian: nor to the Church of God: Let all things be done honestly, and in order.   

The fourth Article.  PP. 
They give way to humane inventions, and bring the wrong key of man's wit within the house of God, whereby toys and trifling Ceremonies in number, and force are multiplied as men's wits are variable to invent; Who requireth those things at your hands?  ANS. 
The determination of the circumstantial Ceremonies, belonging to the forms, times places, and persons, by whom, where, when, and how God should be worshipped, concluded by the Assembly at Perth, give no way to humane invention, nor bring within the house of God any key, but that which God hath given to his Church, for piety and edification, and for establishing of order, and decency to be used in his worship, which things God requireth at our hands.   

The fift Article.  PP. 
The admitting of some openeth the door to the rest, & the multitude of such make us inferior to the jews in two respects. First, Their Ceremonies were all divine. Secondly, In number fewer than ritual Christians do observe betwixt the Pasche and Pentecost. Gerson complaineth, Quod multitudine levissimarum ceremoniarum vis omnis Spiritus sancti, quem in nobis vigere oportuit, & vera pietas sit extincta: that with the multitude of frivolous Ceremonies, true piety was extinguished, and the force of the Spirit which ought to be powerful in us. jewel. Apollog. p. 116. Sed quamuis hoc neque inveniri possit, etc. Aug. Epist. 119. Howbeit it cannot be found, how they are contrary to the faith; yet they press down Religion itself with servile burdens, so that the estate of the jews is more tolerable, who howbeit they did now acknowledge the time of their liberty, are subject notwithstanding to the burdens of the Law, not to the presumptions of man. Quanto magis accedit cumulo, etc. Confess. Orthodox. cap. 27. that is, The more, that the heap of Rites and Ceremonies in the Church increaseth, the more is derogated, not only from Christian liberty, but also from Christ, and his faith; learned & grave men, may like better of the single form of Policy in our Church, then of the many Ceremonies of the Church of England, Epist. before Basilicon Doron.  ANS. 
Some Ceremonies must be admitted, otherwise neither order nor decency can be observed, in the worship of God: and the admission of such as be lawful, and profitable, is not the cause of introducing unnecessary burdens: but when the Church extendeth her liberty, beyond the bounds assigned thereto, of order and decency; and moderateth not the use of her power, according to the Apostolical Rules of piety and charity, 1. Cor. 10.31. Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, 1. Cor. 14.26. Let all things be done to edification, Rom. 14.19. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another, Gal. 5.1. Stand in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. When these rules are not looked to, and thereby the power of the Church moderated, and keeped within the limits of circumstantial things belonging only to the manners, times, and places of divine worship, whereof some of necessity must be determined and appointed to be used in the worship of God; unnecessary burdens are laid upon the Church, as it was in Papistry. Against this abuse, the complaints of Gerson and Augustine are directed, which ye shall never be able to apply truly against the Ceremonies determined and concluded at Perth, which are all within the compass of the Apostolical Canons, and concern only circumstantial things; and there be fare more learned and grave men, who like better of them, then of our former order, as after shall be cleared in the dispute.   

The sixth Article.  PP. 
Matters of that nature bring inevitably with them disputations, divisions, contentions, as may be seen in all Churches, where such coals of contention get entry. The Pascha of the Primitive Church, etc.  ANS. 
It is not the nature of the matters, but the nature of contentious persons, that for such matters take occasion to make question and strife,   

The seventh Article.  PP. 
They hinder edification, for how much time and zeal shall be spent upon the inbringing and establishing of these, as much leisure and opportunity Satan getteth to sow and water the tares of Atheism, Schism, Popery, and Dissension. Consider the sentence following, Let us proceed by one rule, that we may mind one thing, etc.  ANS. 
This is a prophetical Article easy to be divined by these, who had already concluded by their opposition, and contradiction to hinder the peaceable inbringing thereof, & to open a gate of dissension whereby Satan might enter to sow the tares of Schism, Atheism, and Popery in the Church; yet obedient and peaceable Pastors, have in their Congregations brought in practice, all these things without loss of time, or travel. And Satan, Schism, Atheism, and Popery had been debarred, and the work had pleasantly and profitably gone forward, had the rest concurred with them, according to the golden sentences following. First, Let us proceed by one rule, that we may mind one thing. Secondly, Let us follow the truth in love. Thirdly, Give no place to the Devil. Fourthly, Let no root of bitterness spring up to trouble you. Fiftly, Fulfil my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord and one judgement, that nothing be done through contention, or vain glory, but that in meekness of mind every man esteem other better than himself. Sixtly, Do all things without murmuring, and reasoning.   

The eighth Article.  PP. 
They bring a sensible blot, either upon the happy memory of our godly, and wise Predecessors, in so fare as we depart from that reformation, so wisely brought in, appointed & established by them: or else upon ourselves, by resuming again of dangerous superfluities, without reason, rejected by them for weighty and necessary causes. Magnum est hoc Dei munus, etc. Beza Epist. to Master Knox. This is a great benefit of God, that ye brought into Scotland true religion, and good order, the bond that retaineth doctrine at one time; So I beseech and obtest that ye retain these two together, so that ye remember, that if the one be left, the other cannot endure long: and again he saith, Quam rectè illud, quod disciplinam, etc. How well was that done, that ye conjoined doctrine and discipline together! I beseech you, and obtest, that ye go forward, lest it happen to you, which is befallen to many that could not make a progress, having stumbled in the very entry. Yea sometime were not willing, which is most lamentable  ANS. 
Distingue tempora, & conciliabis Scripturas: What our Predecessors did, being agreeable to their times, was well done, and is approved of us: and by their example in these alterable ceremonies and circumstances, we should likewise conform ourselves to our times, by rejecting, or receiving, or of new ordaining what we find to be meetest for edification, according to the power given by God to the representative Church, both to make Constitutions for the good behaviour of all her members in their vocation, as also to abrogate and abolish all Statutes and Ordinances concerning Ecclesiastical matters, that agree not with the time, etc. as is affirmed in the Book of the Policy of our Church, cap. 7. registered amongst the Acts of the general Assembly, Anno 1581. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or good order of the Church of Scotland, which Beza praiseth as the band whereby doctrine is preserved, and which he exhorteth to retain carefully, is the use of this Ecclesiastical power in censuring of manners, called in the 74. Epist. Discipline, and in the 79. Good order; which being lost, he saith, The doctrine cannot be long preserved. This he proveth; First, by the nature of the thing itself, Quis enim leges satis recte seruari nisi constitutis earum custodibus, & vindicibus posse sperarit. Who can hope, that Laws can be well enough kept, except keepers and avengers' of them, be appointed? Here he compareth the doctrine to the Laws, good order, and discipline to the avengers' and keeper's of the Laws. Secondly, he proveth the same by experience; Et ipsa saltem stuitorum Magistra, experientia, earum gentium exemplo, docet quibus certum est hodie, ob hoc ipsum potissimum erratum, quod corrigi populi non sustinent, Euangelium ad iudicium potius, quam ad misericordiam promulgari: that is, Experience itself, the Schoolmaster of Fools, by the example of these Nations teacheth this, wherein it is certain this day, that chief for this error, namely, That the people will not suffer themselves to be corrected, that the Euangell is preached amongst them, rather for judgement, then for mercy. Here it is manifest, that by the good order and discipline, the points in controversy belong not: But ye, no sooner hear good order or discipline commended, but presently ye imagine, that your table gesture of sitting at the Sacrament; the abolition of Holidays, and celebration of the Sacrament in private places in cases of necessity, etc. are meant, as if without these Ceremonies and observations, the doctrine could not be preserved; for how was it preserved in Geneva, where they sit not at table, but stand, or pass at the receiving of the Sacrament? where the five Holidays are not discharged, but Christmas, and Pasche solemnly kept, and the Sacrament ministered on them. 
* Ep. 184. Ep. 51. Ep. 361. Ep. 363. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 29. Sect. 4. & 13.  Caluine holdeth in cases of necessity, That Baptism may be ministered in coetu alique, in some meeting without a Temple; That the Communion should be given to the sick; and wisheth that the examination of children, with the ancient form of blessing were restored in the reformed Churches: whereby it is manifest, that the discharge and abolition of these things is not in the judgement of Caluine and Beza, the band, whereby doctrine is retained, but the discipline which consisteth in censuring of manners, which you both here, and in discussing of the Oath following, take for the order and policy that consisteth in alterable Ceremonies. And by the ambiguity of the word, do purposely deceive your Reader.   

The ninth Article.  PP. 
They set lose the filthy minds and mouths of fleshly livers, to triumph against the most sound Professors, and to rejoice in their rotten opinions, and restored opportunities of sensual observations of guising, gluttony, careless, etc.  ANS. 
The sacred exercises of sound doctrine, appointed to be used on the five Anniversarie days, restoreth not, but most powerfully abolisheth the opportunities of sensual observations, rooteth out rotten opinions, and stoppeth the mouths of fleshly Libertines, not to triumph against sincere Professors.   

The tenth Article.  PP. 
They are declared by this Church to be contrary doctrine, as may be seen in the first, second, and third Chapters of the first book of Discipline, in these words: We judge that all doctrine repugnant to the Euangell, should be utterly suppressed as damnable to man's salvation, etc. By contrary doctrine, we understand whatsoever men by Laws, Counsels, or Constitutions, have imposed upon the consciences of men without the express Commandment of God's Word, as keeping of holy days commanded by men, the feast of Christmas, and other feasts, etc.  ANS. 
The judgement and declaration of our Church touching this point, is very sound; For whatsoever is imposed by men, or by Ecclesiastical Constitution upon the conscience to be observed, as parts of divine worship, that is not expressly or by necessary consequence contained in the Word, is contrary to the wholesome Doctrine; as the Papists did the observation of Christmas, and other festival days; which the reformed Churches, and the Assembly at Perth impose not on the conscience, but ordains only to be kept for order and policy, and therefore the imposing of sitting at the Communion, to be observed as instituted by God; and the discharging of the commemoration of Christ's inestimable benefits on the five anniversary days; the discharging of the administration of the Sacraments in private places, in cases of extremity, and the discharging of the examination of young children by the Bishop in his Visitation, are things simply unlawful, without express or necessary warrant of God's Word; are contrary to doctrine according to the declaration and judgement of our Church, set down in the first book of Discipline, as is above expressed, and by Saint Paul, Coloss. 2. is condemned for a doctrine of will-worship, in these words: Touch not, taste not, handle not, Verse. 21. Thus the imposing either of negative or affirmative positions touching points of Religion without warrant of the Word on the conscience of men, is will-worship, which you do wilfully maintain and urge throughout the whole Pamphlet.   

The eleventh Article.  PP. 
The Commissioners of Presbyteries have convened sufficiently; understand that neither the Presbyteries from whom they have their Commissions, nor the particular Churches of this Realm either require, are willing, or consent to admit these novations. Confitentur Theologi nihil esse per Synodos Ecclesijs invitis obtrudendum. The Divines confess, that nothing should be obtruded upon Churches against their will.  ANS. 
The Commissioners of Presbyteries were not astricted to the present opinions of the Presbyteries, & particular Churches of the Realm: but received a free, and voluntary Commission, to vote, as they should be moved, and persuaded by the motives, and reasons proponed at the Assembly; otherwise, they had met with prejudice. And therefore, what they concluded according to their Commission, was not obtruded upon the Churches against their will, but according to their wills contained in the Commission.   

The twelfth Atticle.  PP. 
The Commissioners of Presbyteries here assembled, understanding the alienation of them from whom they received commission, from these Articles, can by no warrant oblige their unwilling Presbyteries, and Congregations to their votes. Ecclesiam dissentientem & invitam obligare, quis potest? Who can bind a Church disassenting, and unwilling?  ANS. 
If the Commissioners had come to the Assembly without a free and unbounded Commission, to reason, vote, and conclude, in their names, they could not by their votes, and conclusions have bound the Churches, and Presbyteries from whom they come, if they had after dis-assented. But the general and unlimited Commission given to the Commissioners, to reason, vote, and conclude with this express clause, Firm and stable holding, and for to hold whatsoever their Coommissioners should conclude in their names, obliged the Presbyteries and Congregations by whom the Commission was given. And here I mark a contradiction betwixt this Article, and that which ye affirm in discussing of the Oath, pa. 30. Namely, that the Oath of the Church representative given An. 1596. did oblige them all who were living to the maintenance of the purity of Religion in Doctrine and Discipline. Hear ye acknowledge, that the Church representative hath power to oblige all living within the jurisdiction; therefore ye cannot allow of this Article according to your grounds.   

The thirteenth Article.  PP. 
There stand in force diverse Acts of Parliament in favours of our present order, jacob. 6, Parl. 1 cap. 8. james 6. Parl. 8. cap. 68 & cap. 69. Item, in the first Act of Parliament, Anno 1592.  ANS. 
None of the Acts of Parliament here cited is contrary to the alteration.   

The fourteenth Article.  PP. 
The Ministers of this Church, by order of the same printed and inserted before the Psalm Book, at their admissions respective, promise in the presence of God, and of his Congregation assembled, to abhor, and utterly refuse all Doctrine alleged necessary to salvation, that is not expressly contained in the old and new Testament, etc. Item, to submit themselves to all admonitions secretly, or publicly given.  ANS. 
Against this promise, nothing was concluded by the Assembly at Perth; but how this promise is performed by these who disobey the Ordinances thereof, let them advice with their own conscience.   

The fifteenth Article.  PP. 
The Subscribers of the Confession of Faith by their oath, therein contained, promise, and swear to continue in the obedience of the doctrine & discipline of this Church, & to defend the same according to their vocation and power all the days of their lives, etc. And to abhor and detest all contrary religions, but chief all kind of Papistry in general, even as they are now damned by the Church of Scotland: but in special the Pope's five bastard Sacraments; whereof Confirmation is one: with all Rites and Ceremonies, and false doctrines added to the Sacraments without the Word of God: his absolute necessity of Baptism, etc. which Confession is come to the eyes of the World in print: and solemnly renewed in the Covenant celebrated in the general and provincial Assemblies, Presbyteries, and Church Sessions in the year of God, 1596. and how shall any man be heard to speak against that, whereunto he hath formerly sworn and subscribed? For the better understanding of this last Article, I will set down a short discussion of the Oath.  ANS. 
There is nothing that the Subscribers of the Confession of faith did by their oath oblige themselves to observe and defend, that is contrary to any of the Articles concluded at Perth: and no man should be heard to speak contrary to that, whereunto he hath formerly sworn & subscribed. And therefore they who have sworn & subscribed in the 21. Article of the Confession of faith, confirmed in Parliament, Anno 1567. That no policy and order in Ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places, but that they may, & aught to be changed, when necessity requireth; should not now be heard affirming the contrary in this Pamphlet, that they may not be changed; wherein ye contradict your oath, and persuade others to do the same. Of the which oath the discussion set down by you, is a gloss that destroyeth the Text, as shall by God's grace be made manifest, by the examination thereof which followeth.    

The Examination of the Oath discussed.  
BEfore the Penner of this Pamphlet gins to discuss the oath, he sets down the articles controverted: then, five several obligations, whereby (as he allegeth) our Church is obliged to exclude, and abhor the particular acts concluded at Perth: Thirdly, he considers the Oath, which is the chief, of the slew obligations. Keeping his order, we shall severally examine his sayings, concerning them. And first touching the articles controverted, he says thus.  Pp. 
The Religion, Doctrine, and Discipline, received, believed, and defended by the Church of Scotland, namely, the public ministration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, sitting at the Table in the act of receiving the bread, and the wine of that Sacrament: The observation of the Lords day, and the examination of Children, for the first time at the ninth year of their age, for the second at the twelfth, for the third at the fourteenth; excluding and abhorring private Baptism, private Communion, kneeling in the act of receiving the Supper, Holy days, or Feasts of Christmas, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost; were brought in at the resormation of Religion, and enjoyed ener since in manner and form as followeth.  Answ. 
The Libeler hath forgotten to exclude Confirmation, but since it is understood, we answer to the rest. First, That the solemn ministration of the Sacraments appointed by the Church, especially, the act of the assembly holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1581. which forbiddeth the ministration thereof in private houses, excludes not the ministration thereof in private places, when as necessity urges; cases of necessity being ever esteemed as excepted from all ordinary rules of policy, in which the same is not expressed. Secondly, The observation of the Lords day was so appointed, as it did not exclude any of the Holy days now concluded to be observed, except Christmas only: and this our Church excluded not simply, but only so fare as it was imposed upon the consciences of men, to be observed as a part of divine worship, without warrant of the Word: as it is expressly declared in the first book of Discipline, penned by Master john Knox, anno 1560. both in the explication of the first head touching doctrine, and the second touching the Sacraments. Thirdly, Sitting at the Table, in the act of receiving the Sacrament, was never esteemed by our Church, either as a necessary point of doctrine, or discipline, which might not be altered, but only in the judgement of our Reformers held to be most convenient. Neither was kneeling ever excluded, except by way of consequence, where sitting is ordained to be used in stead thereof, as it is in the first book of Discipline: But neither in that book, nor in the second, which was approved by the general Assembly, holden anno 1581. nor by any Civil Law, or Ecclesiastical Canon, was kneeling condemned, or excluded as unlawful in the act of receiving the holy Sacrament: This shall suffice for the Articles in general. Now we come to the five Obligations, whereby our Church, as ye allege, is bound. The sum of that which ye say, is shortly, and truly this.  PP. 
The Obligatious whereby we are bound to exclude the Conclusions of the Assembly at Perth, and to obey, defend, and maintain the contrary, are first, The uniform judgement of the Church condemning the one, and allowing the other. Secondly, Ecclesiastical Canons, public confessions, and solemn protestations of lawful assemblies. Thirdly, acts of Parliament ratifying the Constitutions of the Cnurch. Fourthly, The prescription of 59 years: and fifthly, the Oath and subscriptions of the whole Estates of the Realm. By all these bands, the Church in general, and every member thereof in particular, are obliged to sit at the Communion, and to reject kneeling with the observation of the five Holy days, and other things concluded in the Assembly at Perth.  ANS. 
Ye are not able to produce any warrant for the uniform judgement of the Church, nor Canon of Assembly, nor act of Parliament, nor confession of faith, nor public protestation, which either condemns the points concluded at Perth, as unlawful to be used in the worship of God; or establisheth the contrary as things necessary, that cannot be altered in no time succeeding. And as for your 59 year's practice, it cannot change the vature of things indifferent, and make these forms and circumstances, which are of themselves alterable, become necessary and unchangeable: yea, by the contrary, the prescription of a long time gives just cause often of alteration, because either the things practised, which at the beginning were profitable, become hurtful, or that which was convenient in the time preceding, becometh inconvenient: or because the same things are abused to superslition and profaneness; or because an opinion is bred, by long custom, of necessity. This I make manifest by the one and twentieth article of the Coufession of our faith, confirmed in the first Parliament holden by his Majesty, anno 1567. Decemb. 15. which ye affirm yourself to have sworn and subscribed. The words of the article are these, about the end thereof. The other end of general Counsels was, for good policy, to be constituted and observed in the Church, whereas in the house of God it becometh all things to be done decently, and in order: not that we think, that any policy and order in ceremonies, can be appointed for all ages, times, and places; for as Ceremonies (such as men have devised) are but temporal, so may and ought they to be changed, when they rather foster superstition, then that they edisie the Church using the same. Likewise in the seventh chapter of the second book of Discipline, registered amongst the acts of the general Assembly, anno 1581. we have two conclusions to the same purpose, set down in these words: The final end of all Assemblies, is first to keep the Religion and Doctrine in purity, without error and corruption: Next, to keep comeliness, and good order in the Church. For this order's cause, they may make curtain rules and constitutions, pertaining to the good behaniour of all the members of the Church in their vocation. Secondly, they have power also to abrogate and abolish all statutes and ordinances, concerning Ecclesiastical matters that are found noisome, or unprofitable, or agree not with the time, or are abused by the people. Hereby it is evident; that seeing the matters controverted, are but matters of circumstance, form, and ceremony, as afterwards shall be proved, that neither the Church in general, nor any member thereof in particular, did, or might lawfully bind themselves by oath, subseription, or any other obligation, not to change or alter their practice and customs touching these things: for all they that subscribe the Confession of faith, and the second book of Discipline, did swear, that they thought these things should and might be altered when necessity required. This answer being made to the first four Obligations, we come to the Oath, about which ye spend many words, and before ye begin, move the question following.  PP. 
Quaritur, if one or more Preachers, or Professors in the Church of Scotland, standing to the Churches former judgement, and able to defend the same by good reason, at least, seeing no warrant in the contrary, may dispense with the said Oath, and follow the plurality of Preachers and Professors, dispensing with the same in the Assembly? Or what power may compel the alteration of judgement, and lose the said Oath, in any case aforesaid?  ANS. 
The former judgement of our Church, whereunto we did bind ourselves by our oaths was, that no policy, nor order in ceremonies could be appointed for all ages, times, and places; and that the same might, and aught to be changed upon great causes, and weighty reasons, as is evident by the former answer. To this judgement of the Church, the Assembly at Perth adhered, and according thereto altered some customs, touching circumstantial ceremonies formerly used in the Church, upon good and great reasons: neither did that Assembly lose the said Oath, or dispense with it in any sort, but hath confirmed it by their own practice. Wherefore I answer, That every Preacher and Professor in our Church, should stand to the former judgement thereof, whereunto he bond himself by his Oath, when he did swear to the Confession of faith, and that no power can compel the alteration of judgement, or lose the said Oath in any case. And that he who swore, That he did think that no policy, and order in ceremonies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places, but that the same may, and aught to be changed, when necessity requires; Did never, nor could swear without breach of this Oath, that the ceremony of sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament (esteemed by our Church, at the reformation, most convenient, but not necessary) could be appointed for all ages, times, and places; and that it might not, nor aught to be altered in any case: by the contrary all who swore to the Confession of faith, did swear, That the policy, and order of sitting at the Sacrament was such, as could not be appointed for all ages, times, and places, and that it might, and should be changed, when it did not so much edify the people in piety, as foster profaneness and superstition. And this sitting fosters in all theso that practise it, with a superstitious conceit and opinion, that the same was instituted by our Saviour as a point of divine worship, and by his exemplary practice commended to the Church, for an essential or integrant part of the Sacrament, which ye maintain in this Pamphlet.  
Now leaving this to be considered by such as are not partially affected, but love the truth, and hate contention: I proceed to the Oath, which ye consider first in the persons, takers of the same: Secondly, in the matter whereto they swear: Thirdly, in the form and manner, whereby they are bound: And fourthly, by the force and effect of that form, for making sure men's particular deeds. Touching the persons, ye say this.  PP. 
The Persons, takers of the Oath, are Christians come to perfect years, and free persons, who did not only know in general the doctrine and discipline, whereto they bond themselves by their oath, but in particular the points controverted, as followeth: First, That in the year of God, 1581. it was concluded, that the Sacraments should be solemnly ministered, and not in private houses: Secondly, That in the year 1560, it was declared by the Church, that Christ sat with his Disciples at Table, when he instituted the Supper, and that sitting at Table was the most convenient gesture to this holy action: Thirdly, That Confirmation was to be abhorred, as one of the Pope's five bastard Sacraments: Fourthly, That the keeping of Holy days, such as the Feast of Christmas, imposed upon the consciences of men, without warrant of God's word, was condemned by preaching, and corrected by public censures of the Church.  ANS. 
I will not answer you, as justly I might, that the first book of Discipline, whereby the most of these constitutions are warranted, was never known to our common Professors, nor acknowledged by our Church, to have the authority of Ecclesiastical Canons: but I say, The Assembly at Perth hath decreed nothing to the contrary thereof. For first, Touching the administration of the Sacraments, we fully agree to the ordinance made anno 1581., to wit, That the Sacraments should be solemnly ministered, and not in private houses: The occasion of making this ordinance was a misorder that fell out in the persons of two Ministers, namely, Master Alexander Mure, Minister at Falkland, and Master Alexander Forrester, Minister at Trenent, as is clear by the narrative of the act, which is relative only to the celebration of Marriage, and the ministration of the Sacraments, extra casum necessitatis, where, without any urgent necessity order may be kept. But our question is, whether in extraordinary cases the Sacraments may be ministered extraordinarily in private houses, as they were in the Primitive Church by the Apostles, and in the beginning of the reformation, by the Preachers of the Gospel? In these and the like cases, there is no act of any Assembly, that determines what should be done. Therefore put the case, our Church had sworn and subscribed that ordinance, yet hath she done nothing contrary to her oath, either by making, or obeying the acts concluded at Perth, which do only respect the cases of necessity.  
So, whether to sit at a Table in receiving the Communion, was most convenient, according as our Church esteemed at the time of reformation, is not the question: but whether to sit at a Table be necessary, as instituted and left by our Saviour's example to be observed, and that without breach of the institution, the same may not be altered? This question was never defined by any Canon of our Church: Therefore put the case, that our Church had sworn and subscribed, That to sit at the Communion was most convenient, according to the judgement of our first Reformers: yet, we have done nothing contrary to that oath, by interchanging sitting with kneeling, because kneeling at this time is found to be the more convenient gesture: for that which at one time is more convenient, may be less convenient at another. As to our Saviour's sitting (if so be he sat, nam adhuc sub iudice lis est) it was not exemplary, or appointed to be followed of us, as shall be afterwards proved; and his practice did only declare, that sitting might be lawfully used, not, that of necessity it must be used, and cannot be altered, when the Church finds the change expedient.  
Thirdly, whether Confirmation, as it was abused in Popery for a Sacrament, should be reinduced, is not the question, for that is condemned in the very narrative of the act made at Perth. But, whether the Bishop in his Visitation, aught to try the education of young children in the grounds of Religion, as in the first book of Discipline the Superintendent was ordained to do, whereof ye may read in the fift head touching the office of Superintendents. Therefore put the case our Church had sworn, and subscribed all the heads and Constitutions of the foresaid book, yet by the act made at Perth, she hath not violated her oath, by appointing Bishops in their Visitations to take this trial. For they are now the Superintendents of the Church.  
Fourthly, We contend not, whether the observation of Holy days, as that of Christmas, should be imposed upon the conscience, which in the explication of the first head of the foresaid book of Discipline is condemned, as also in the first words of the act made at Perth, touching the five days: but the question is, whether the Church may appoint the commemoration of Christ's inestimable benefits upon the said days, as all the reformed Churches do, and our Divines hold to be lawful. Of this our Church never defined any thing. Therefore the making & observing of the act touching this point, is not against her former oath. And to conclude, The Subscribers and Swearers unto our Doctrine and Discipline, know no Canon nor constitution of the Church made in former times, that is contrary to the Articles concluded at Perth. Thus much touching the perfons who did swear: The next thing ye consider, is the matter whereunto they did bind themselves by their oath, which ye set down as followeth.  PP. 
The matter whereunto they bind themselves by oath, is the Religion, Doctrine, and Discipline received, believed, and defended by the Church of Scotland; in respect of this matter, the Oath is partly assertory, and partly promissory, as ye say.  ANS. 
By that which already hath been said, it is manifest, that albeit our Church had sworn to all the heads and ordinances above specified, set down in the books of Discipline: yet there is nothing committed contrary to this Oath, by the acts made at Perth. But now since ye are come to the matter of the Oath, let us see if the points in controversy be any part of that matter. The matter, as ye affirm, is the Religion, Doctrine, and Discipline, received, believed, and defended by the Church of Scotland. This definition or description of the matter, is not so full and particular, as is set down in the Oath itself: neither have ye, in reciting the words, been so faithful, as ye are fervent for the cause ye maintain. For ye have pretermitted diverse things belonging to the limitation of the matter, by which all the particulars in question are clearly excluded. The words cited by you are these: We believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm before God and the world, That the Faith and Religion, received, believed, and defended by the Church of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three Estates of this Realm, etc. is only the true Christian Faith and Religion pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man. Hear ye omit many things that concerneth the limitation of the matter, which at that time were known to such as swore the same, and now must be expounded unto the Reader, that is to judge and consider our Controversy. Therefore I shall set down here the words of the Oath, as it was published in print by Robert Waldgrave, anno 1590. We believe with our hearts, etc. That this only is the true Christian Faith and Religion pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which is now by the mercy of God revealed to the world, by the preaching of the blessed Euangell, and received, believed, & defended by many & sundry notable Churches & Realms, and chiefly by the Church of Scotland, etc. In these words we have two limitations pretermitted by you: The first is, that the matter of the Oath, is the Doctrine and Discipline revealed to the world by the Gospel: This limitation excludeth all Ecclesiastical determinations and constitutions, which are not expressly, or by a necessary consequence contained in the written Word. The next is, That the matter of the Oath is the Doctrine and Discipline, which is received, believed, and defended by many notable Churches and Realms, and chiefly by the Church of Scotland. This limitation excludeth all these things, wherein the Church of Scotland hath not the consent of many notable Churches and Realms, who with her hath received, believed, and defended the same. By these two, are all the points in controversy excluded, and cut off from being any part of the matter, whereunto the Swearers by their oath did oblige themselves. And unto these two, if we add the third limitation, there can remain no more any doubt, touching the matter of the Oath. This is, that the Doctrine and Discipline, whereunto they swear, is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, established, and publicly confirmed by sundry acts of Parliament. This Confession is registered in the books of Parliament, at the year 1567. and is inserted amongst the Confessions of the Reformed Churches in the book called Syntagma Confessionum. But so it is, that in the Confession of our Faith established by Parliament, there is no mention made of the Articles controverted: neither hath many notable Churches and Realms received, believed, or defended the same, neither are they expressly, or by necessary consequence contained in the Gospel: And therefore they cannot by any point of our Religion, or part of the Doctrine and Discipline, whereunto the Swearers did oblige themselves by their assertory, and promissory Oath. By the Gospel it is not certain, That our Saviour and the Apostles did sit at the Supper, and albeit he had sitten, yet sitting is no more commanded to be observed in that sacred action, than the upper chamber where he sat, or the night season, when the Supper was celebrated, or the sex, and number of the Communicants, who were twelve men, and no women; or the quality of the element, which was unleavened bread, or the order finally after Supper. All these, howbeit they be certain, yet none of them are esteemed exemplary; far less can sitting, which is uncertain, be esteemed such. And for the rest of the points, Neither kneeling at the Communion, nor the administration of the Sacraments in private houses, when necessity requires, nor the commemoration of Christ's inestimable benefits, on certain set times of the year, nor the trial of young children's education by the Bishop at his Visitation: none of these, I say, are either expressly or by necessary consequence forbidden in the Gospel, nor are he●y condemned by many notable Churches and Realms, nor abjured in the Confession of our Faith, confirmed by acts of Parliament; and so cannot be counted the matter of this Oath.  
But to remove all scruple that may arise, touching the matter of this Oath: It is true, That in the promissory Oath, the Swearers thereof bind themselves to continue in the Doctrine and Disciplive of the Church of Scotland, and to defend the same according to their vocation and power all the days of their lives, under the pains contained in the Law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of the Lords fearful judgement. Hear, touching the Doctrine, praised be God, there is no controversy amongst us: all the doubt concerneth Discipline, and that is removed also, if it be taken only for that which is revealed in the Gospel, or received, believed and defended by many notable Churches and Realms, or that which is set down in the Confession of Faith, as is already declared: But because the Discipline of the Church may be extended beyond these limits, and made to comprehend all Ecclesiastical constitutions and determinations of general circumstances, forms and ceremonies belonging to the worship of God, and the decent ordering of his house; let us consider this point more particularly.  
If by the Discipline of the Church in the words of the Oath, 
A consideration of the Discipline whereunto the Swearers did oblige themselves:  that part of Ecclesiastical policy be meant, which concerns the censuring of manners: in which sense it is taken, in the order set down before our Psalm books, and in the seventh head of the first book of Discipline, entitled (of Ecclesiastical Discipline) and in the second book, wheresoever it is mentioned, and by all Ecclesiastical writers most frequently: Then it is certain, that the five Articles controverted, belong nothing to the Discipline, wherein the Swearers bind themselves by their oath, to continue to their life's end.  
But if thereby be meant the whole policy of the Church, in which sense it is sometimes taken, though rarely: then first, it contains all the precepts of policy prescribed in the Word, in which precepts there is no determination concerning these articles, as before we said. Next, it comprehendeth all the ordinances of the Church, touching forms, ceremonies, and order to be observed in Divine Service, and in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures, according as the circumstances of time, place, and persons. In this part of Discipline, it is true, that all the controverted points are contained: But as I shown before, it is manifest by the limitations of the matter of the Oath, that this part of the policy is excluded; for it is neither expressly, nor by necessary consequence contained in the Word, for is it received, believed, and descended by many notable Churches and Realms; nor is there any thing concerning it set down in the Confession of Faith, confirmed by acts of Parliament; only this general we have, that no constant order and policy can be set down in ceremonies, and that constitutions made by men, may and aught to be altered when need requires.  
Furthermore, in the book of Policy that was published after the Oath, anno 1581., and subscribed by sundry Ministers, there is no mention made of these five: Articles now in question. In the first book of Discipline penned anno 1560, there are some conclusions set down touching sitting at the Sacrament, the abolition of Holy days dedicated to Saints in Popery, and the Feast of Christmas, imposed upon the consciences of men; as also the administration of Baptism upon ordinary days of preaching, for removing the Papistical opinion of absolute necessity; and if by the discipline mentioned in the Oath, ye understand the conclusions of Policy set down in that book, and hold that the Swearers did by their Oath oblige themselves to obey all the conclusions thereof to their life's end: then I demand what is the cause, that ye and your followers do not only refuse to obey, but improve and impugn the most principal point of policy set down in that book, namely the office of Bishops, whose provision, jurisdiction, power and election, are particularly described in the first head of that book, under the name of Superintendents? But because the book is rare, and not at every man's hand, I will draw out of it only some few things, touching the jurisdiction and power of the Superintendents, that the posterity may see what was the judgement of their Predecessors, the Reformers of Religion, touching the Office-bearers, and government of the Church. And to begin with the bounds of their jurisdiction, the same is set down with this Title:  

The names of the places of residence, and several Dioceses of the Superintendents.  
INprimis, the Superintendent of Orknay, his Diocese shall be the Isles of Orknay, Caithnes and Strathnever: his residence in the Town of Kirkwall.  
The Superintendent of Rosse, his Diocese shall comprehend Rosse, Sutherland, Murray, and the North Iles, called the Sky, and Lewes with their adjacents: his Residence, the Chanonrie of Rosse.  
The Superintendent of Argyle, his Diocese shall be Argyle, Kintyre, Lorne, the South Iles, Arrane and Boot, with their adjacents, and Lowhaber: His Residence in Argyle.  
The Superintendent of Abirdene, his Diocese between Die and Spae, containing the Shirrefdomes of Abirdene and Banff: His Residence in old Abirdene.  
The Superintendent of Brechin, his Diocese, the whole Shirrefdomes of Mernis and Angouse, with the Brae of Marre to Die: His Residence in Brechin.  
The Superintendent of Fife; his Diocese, the Shirrefdomes of Fife and Fotthringham to Striviling, and the whole Shirrefdome of Perth: his Residence in Saint Andrew's.  
The Superintendent of Edinburgh, his Diocese, the Shirrefdome of Lowthian and Striviling, on the Southside of Forth, whereto is added by the consent of the whole Church, Merse, Lawderdale and Weddale: his Residence in—  
The Superintendent of jedburgh, his Diocese, Taviotdale, Liddisdale, Tueddale, with the Forest of Ettrick: his Residence in—  
The Superintendent of Glasgow, his Diocese, Cliddisdale, Renfrow, Monteith, Lennox, and Cunninghame: His Residence in Glasgow.  
The Superintendent of Dumfreis, his Diocese, Galloway, Carrick, Niddisdale, Annandale, with the rest of the Westdales: his Residence in Dumfreis.  
These were the bounds of their jurisdiction: their Office is described as followeth.   

The function and power of the Superintendents.  
THey must not be suffered to live, as idle Bishops hitherto have done; neither must they remain where gladly they would, but they must be Preachers themselves.  
Charge and command shall be given them, to plant and erect Churches, to set, order and appoint Ministers, as is prescribed, in their Countries.  
After they have remained in their chief Town three or four months at the most, they shall enter in Visitation, in the which they shall not only Preach, but examine the life, diligence and behaviour of the Ministers; as also they shall try the estate of their Churches, and the manners of the People.  
They must further consider, how the poor are provided, and the youth instructed: they must admonish, where admonition needs, and redress such things, as by good counsel they are able to appease,  
Finally, they must note such crimes as be heinous, that by the censures of the Church the same may be corrected. After all this, the order of election of Superintendents is set down, which we have more largely before the book of our Psalms in meeter.  
This being one of the chief points of policy concluded in that book: how is it, that ye have dispensed with your oath hereabout? And by what power is your oath loosed concerning this head? Shall men be tied by the Oath to the ceremonies prescribed in that book, and not to the substance of the policy? to alterable circumstances and forms of actions, and not to the power of government, whereby they should be disposed and ordered? What can be answered to this, by him that urges the Oath for the controverted points, consisting in ceremonies, gestures and circumstances, lot the indifferent Reader judge.  
But because it is true, that one man's fault excuses not another; leaving you to your consciences, we answer for ourselves, according to the one and twentieth article of the Confession of our Faith; That we think no policy, nor order in ceremonies can be established to endure for all ages, times and places; and that whatsoever things are appointed by men, they are all temporal, and may, and aught to be changed, when necessity requireth. Hereupon we say, That no man did by the Oath oblige himself, to obey and defend that part of Discipline which concerneth these alterable things, all the days of his life, but only that discipline which is unchangeable, and commanded in the Word. Yea, we further affirm, that every man who swore to the discipline of the Church in general; by virtue of that oath standeth obliged, not only to obey and defend the constitutions of the Church, that were in force at the time of making his oath, but also to obey and defend whatsoever the Church thereafter hath ordained, or shall ordain to be observed for edification, comeliness, and decency, whether thereby the former constitutions be established or altered, and abrogated: even as they who swear to obey the government of a Kingdom or City, are by their oath not only obliged to obey the present Acts and Laws, but all, which shall afterwards be made for the Commonwealth, howbeit the former be thereby discharged: as when Laws are made for exportation and importation of goods, for weights and measures, for fishing, cutting of woods, for peace, for war, and whatsoever constitutions they be that are made, such as have given their oath of obedience are thereby tied to reject the former, and obey the later. I conclnde this with the doctrine of that learned Divine, Master CALVINE, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 30. God would not (saith he) in external ceremonies and discipline prescribe particularly what we ought to follow, because he foresaw that, to depend on the condition of times, neither did he judge one form agreeable to all ages. Hear then (saith he) we must fly to the general rules which God hath given, that according to them may be defined, whatsoever the necessity of the Church requires to be appointed for order and deceneie. Finally, seeing God hath set down nothing of those matters expressly, because they are not necessary to salvation, and are diversely to be applied, to the manners of every age, and for edification of the Church; it is lawful, as the utility of the Church shall require, as well to change and abrogate these that have been in use, as to appoint new ceremonies. I confess indeed, that we should not run rashly and upon light motions, unto novation: but what may hurt, and what may edify, Charity can best judge, which, if we admit to be moderatrix, all shall be in safety, and go well. Thus fare Caluine, whereby he doth manifest, that the Church hath power to change and innovate, as necessity requireth, all the particular ordinances she maketh of things alterable: and they who in general have sworn to obey the Discipline of the Church, are all bound by their oath to kneel at the Communion, to observe the five Holy days, and to obey all the rest of the Articles concluded at Perth.  
That which ye afterwards subjoin, touching the form and force of the Oath we approve: only we wish you to consider, seeing it is a part of Ecclesiastical Discipline, as well to change and abrogate ceremoeys in use, as to appoint new: That ye by all these forcible forms of the Oath, which cannot be loosed, are obliged to follow the Church in the alterations she makes, and to defend and obey the Acts and Constitutions that concern the same; and that all, who disobey in their own persons, or by their exemplary practice and persuasions, induce others to disobey and rebel, to the disgrace of their Mother the Church, and the breaking of the bond of peace, whereby the unity of the Spirit is conserved, do assuredly lie tied under the foarefull cords and chains of perjury, except they seriously repent.  
The Libeler having ended his four Considerations, propounds some defences used by them, who submit themselves to the Acts of Perth, whom contumeliously he calleth Temporizers, and to other Defences maketh his own Replies. First, saith he, they make themselves freed of the Oath, because the novation was made by the King, and the Church, their Superiors: unto this he giveth a double answer: first, that this novation could not be lawfully made by the King, because he himself did swear the Confession of Faith: Next, that the Church could not make any such novation, because all of the Church did swear the Oath, either personally or really: Personally, all who subscribed the Confession of Faith, which he reckons to have been the general assemblies of the Church, Synods, Presbyteries, Scholars passing their degrees, and Burgesses, when they obtained their Liberties: Really, Children swear in the persons of their Parents, and all the particular members of the Church, in the Church representative. This his Assertion, being duly examined, will be found false, for the greatest part, touching the persons, whom he allegeth to have sworn: and as to their real obligation, it is frivolous; for no man can be really bound by an assertory oath, but only the person that swears. But passing by this, I answer, That when the King and Church swear the Confession of Faith, by that Oath, they did neither abjure any of the Articles concluded at Perth, neither did oblige themselves to maintain and obey the contrary: for it is manifest by the limitations set down in the beginning of the Oath, that all these particulars were excluded. And they who swear to continue in the Discipline of the Church of Scotland generally, and to defend the same all the days of their life, were so fare from tying themselves to continue in the obedience of every particular ordinance touching indifferent and alterable things; that by the contrary, the one and twentieth Article of the Confession of Faith above rehearsed, they stood obliged to obey every alteration, that should be concluded by the Church. The Church representative did swear in that Article, to alter all such constitutions, when it should be needful: and the particular members of the Church swear to obey her will and ordinance in the points altered and changed. For to obey the Discipline in general, is to obey every thing, that the Church by the power given her of God appointeth to be done, or not done, for order and policy: So, for any novation that is made, neither hath the King, nor the Church representative violated their Oath, nor have the inferior members been loosed and freed from their oaths, but in giving obedience to the points of Discipline concluded by their Superiors, they made their oaths and promises good, which otherwise by their disobedience they should have transgressed.  
As to the Oath which (as you say) the Bishop of Ely, now Bishop of Winehester, affirmeth his Majesty twice to have given, for maintaining that form and manner of God's worship established by the Laws of both Kingdoms, you might easily have perceived, that he did not by the form which he mentioneth, understand these indifferent points of policy, wherein some little disconformity there is, and cannot but be, in regard of the different estate of our Church and theirs; but by that form, her understood that same fashion and manner of worshipping God, as is prescribed to us in his Word, is proponed in the several Confessions of our Faith, which is one, and the same both with them and us. So you deprave that reverend Father's speech, and craftily insinuate his Majesty to be guilty of perjury, in that by his Highness' most lawful and earnest desire, the alteration of these indifferent things hath been wrought: but ye should know, that these are but things accessary to the essential form of God's worship, whereunto his Majesty did swear at his Coronation, which to this day constantly he hath maintained, and will by the grace of God for many years after, yea, even until that temporal Crown be changed with that eternal.  
Another defence ye allege is used by the Pastors, and Professors that live obedient to the Laws of the Church: They have not violated their Oath, they say, because the substance of Religion is kept, and only some indifferent points altered. And to this ye make three replies: First, saying, That we swore to keep the same form of worship, that was used in the Church of Scotland, and specially in the use of the Sacraments. Secondly, That the Oath was in a matter of Religion, which is not changeable, as are the Statutes of Republics and Corporations. Thirdly, Put the case, ye say, the points innovated were matters indifferent; yet seeing they were once abjured for their abuse, they may not be received again, except either we could prove, that our oath in the beginning was unlawful, or that our former forms are become unlawful, not expedient for edification of the Church, or less edificative, than the ceremonies presently urged.  
I answer to the first, That the form of worship used in the Church of Scotland is not altered; for still we hold that form of worship, which is prescribed to us in the Word, defended & received by many notable Churches and Realms, and particularly contained in the Confession of our Faith. As for the gesture and kneeling, and those other circumstances of times and places, where the Sacraments may be ministered in cases of extremity, there is no man, being in his right wits, that will think the form of God's worship consisteth in such things, or that they are any part thereof. Your second reply we admit, and affirm according thereto, That the matter of Religion, whereto we swore, is not alterable, nor can it be changed. And that the points questioned, being of their own nature indifferent, are excluded from the Oath, and are no part of the matter thereof.  
To your third reply, I answer, That we have not received any thing again in our Church, which ever was damned, and abjured for their abuse: for in the negative part of our oath, wherein Papistry is abjured, there is no mention of kneeling, nor of the commemoration of Christ's benefits upon the five anniversary days, nor is any of the other three Articles ever touched. It is true, that Popish dedication of days to other Creatures, and the observation of them, with an opinion of necessity, or that they were any part of God's worship, are abjured in that Confession, (and that also we have condemned in the Act made at Perth, concerning the observation of these times:) but to make commemoration of the benefits, that our Saviour by his Birth, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension hath brought unto us, we never held it unlawful, nor did count it a matter of abuse. Therefore it is not necessary, that either our oath be proved unlawful, or our former forms; it sufficeth, that they be proved less edificative, or not so expedient for the time, because they are abused by the people to superstition and profaneness, as afterwards we will make clear in their own place.  
Where ye say, That it was confessed in the Assembly, that they were not expedient for our Church, and that the same were yielded unto, for holding of some external inconveniences, a matter now denied, ye say, as importing tyranny, because you confess, you have this only by report; and it is the nature of all your sort to be too credulous, we pass it. In the mean time we will not deny, that to some, they appeared very inexpedient, for diverse respects, of the which the chief were, the discredit they feared to icurre with their people, that did esteem the condemning of the abuse of these ceremonies, to have been an absolute rejecting of them, as ceremonies idolatrous, which never was done by any prudent or wise Pastor: another respect was, because simple ones, that had not learned to make distinction between circumstances, and the substance of Religion, might take occasion by the alteration of these external things, to think that we began to change Religion in substance: and a third respect was, that by embracing these things, we did seem to symbolise with Papists, and were turning back again to their superstition and idolatry. These were and are the chiefest respects, for which they were not thought expedient to be received in our Church.  
To begin at the last whereof, that is, our conformity with Papists; It is needful that our people be taught, that the disconformity between them and us, is not so much in any external use of ceremonies, as in the substance of the Service, and object whereunto they are applied. In kneeling at Prayer, and receiving of the Sacrament, there is no disconformity between them and us, but in the obïect, whereunto our kneeling is directed: for the Papists in prayer kneel to an Idol, and in the Sacrament they kneel to the sign: we kneel in our prayer to God; and by the Sacrament, to the thing signified. So in our cessation from ordinary work on the Lord's day, and on the Holy days now appointed, there is no disconformity; but the difference is in the employment of the time, and in the exercise and worship, for which the cessation is commanded.  
For the simple ones; It is most expedient, to teach them to put distinction between the ceremonies, and the substance of Religion; between that, which is necessary to be observed as a part of God's worship, and that which is only ordained for order and decency: for it is a kind of superstition, to esteem indifferent ceremonies, and circumstances of Divine Service to be essential parts thereof; which may not be omitted or changed, without breach of God's institution: This is, to observe things, or abstain from them, with opinion of necessity, for conscience & Religion towards God. And seeing the Church ought to change and alter ceremonies, when they are thus abused by people unto superstition, this is one pregnant reason wherefore the alteration should have been made.  
As to that which they speak of the credit of Pastors, the same ought not to be maintained, by fostering an error in the hearts of people; namely, that the Ministers taught that which they never taught, or at least should not have taught: As by example, that the observation of the five Holy days, to the commemoration of Christ's benefits, is unlawful. This I am assured was ne-never done by any well advised Preacher, for it had been a condemning of the Primitive Church, and all the Reformed Churches now in the world, Likewise, to have taught that kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament is unlawful, were to have contradicted the best, and most learned Divines we have. Beza saith of it, Speciem habet piae, ac Christianae venerationis, ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu usurpari. That is to say, kneeling at the Sacrament hath a show of holy and Christian worship, and therefore of old might have been fruitfully used. Whereby ye see, he condemneth not simply the ceremony, but witnesseth that there was a time, when the same did edify and profit. Caluine, before him, called it Cultum legitimum, that is, a Lawful adoration, being used in the action of the Supper, and directed to Christ. Petrus Martyr saith, Multi piè genua flectunt & adorant, that is, Many in receiving the Sacrament do bow their knees religiously, and adore Christ's flesh. Paraeus speaking of the same gesture, esteems it an indifferent ceremony. And that which so great and learned Divines judged to be lawful, what are we to condemn?  
Next, I answer, That the credit of the Pastors should not be maintained with the discredit of the Prince amongst his Subjects: for if they who should be patterns of reverence and obedience to others, shall in their own persons withstand the lawful desires, & godly intention of a Christian Prince, the same cannot but breed disobedience, and a hard conceit of the Prince amongst his people, which we have already found and perceived. As for the inconveniences feared, they are frivolous, and should never fall out, if Pastors were peaceable and prudent: But when they are all put together that can be alleged, if they shall be laid in a balance, there is one commodity, which the alteration imports, that shall preponder them all, to wit, Our unity and conformity with the Primitive Church, and with the greatest number, and best Reformed Churches in Europe, in points of policy, that most assuredly tend to fare greater devotion, piety and edification, than our forms used in former times.  
This being his Majesty's principal design in urging these Articles, giveth to the world an evident testimony of his Princely zeal, to procure the peace and good of the Church, so fare as is possible; and therefore none will charge his Majesty with the unjust imputation of tyranny, but malicious and seditious spirits, whom by this pestilent Pamphlet ye travel to persuade, for fear of perjury, to perjure themselves, as is manifest in the words ye subioyne.  PP. 
Our assertory Oath is already past, and we become perjured, if we come in the contrary. This is an high degree of perjury, when not only we contravene our oath by practice, but make laws in the contrary, & thereafter inveigh against our oath as Puritanisme. If sincere and constant professors shallbe still pursued for their constancy in their Profession, and the conscience they make of the Oath: do we not expone the whole Nation to a woeful vengeance, and perpetual ignominy?  ANS. 
Our assertory Oath, touching the Articles controverted, condemneth those only in the guilt of perjury, who hold, that policy and order in ceremonies may not be altered when necessity requireth, and being altered, ought not to be obeyed. And indeed it is a profound point of infernal policy, not only by an exemplary practice of disobedience against the laws of Ecclesiastical Discipline, to contravene the Oath in your own Person, but also under pretext of constancy of Profession, and conscience of the Oath, to persuade others for fear of perjury, to perjure themselves: Whereby ye both expose yourselves to the fearful judgement of God's vengeance, and draw others with you to the same perdition.  
Your sophistic cavillations, whereby ye intent seditiously, to prove the unlawfulness of the Articles concluded at Perth, shall now be answered, and the truth cleared to the satisfaction of all men, who are not contentious.   

An answer to the arguments brought against kneeling in the act of receiving of the holy Communion.  PP. 
IT hath been the uniform, and constant order of this Church since the Reformation, that the Communicants should receive the Sacramental elements of Bread and Wine, sitting at the Table. In the second head of the first book of Discipline, are set down these words: The Table of the Lord is then rightly ministered, when it approacheth most near to Christ's own action: But plain it is, that at that Supper Christ jesus sat with his Disciples, and therefore we do judge, that sitting at that Table is most convenient to that holy action. In the general Assembly holden in Decemb. 1562, it was ordained, That one uniform order should be observed in the ministration of the Sacraments, according to the order of Geneva. And in December 1564, It was ordained, That Ministers in ministration of the Sacraments, shall use the order set down in the Psalm books. In the Assembly holden anno 1591., It was ordained, that an Article should be form, and presented to his Majesty, and the Estates, craving order to be taken with them, who give or receive the Sacrament after the Papistical manner. In the King's Confession of Faith, subscribed, and sworn by persons of all estates, are contained these words; We detest all the ceremonies of the Roman Antichrist, added to the ministration of the Sacraments: we detest all his Rites, Signs, and Traditions. This laudable order was altered at the pretended Assembly holden last at Perth, in August, anno 1618. The tenor of the Act followeth, as it was form by some of the Bishops, and their Followers. 
a The Libeler cities the Act of Perth most corruptly, which the Reader shall mend by the notes in the margin.  Since we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, we fall down and kneel before the Lordour Maker: and considering withal, that there is no part of Divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour lesus Christ: like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts, best becometh so divine and sacred an action. Therefore notwithstanding that our Church hath used, since thereformation of Religion, to celebrate the holy Communion to the people, sitting, by reason of the great abuse of kneeling 
b The Act saith, Used in the Idolatrous worship.  at the worshipping of the Sacrament by the Papists; yet now seeing all memory of bypast superstition is past, 
c These words ye have added of your own head to the Act.  and no peril of the same again is feared: in reverence 
d These words are to be read thus: In reverence of God, and in due regard of so Divine, etc.  of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partakers of, 
e The words in the Act, are not such, but thus it is: The Assembly thinks good, that, that blessed Sacrament, etc.  thereby do ordain that, that blessed Sacrament be celebrated hereafter weekly and reverently upon their knees. This alteration is to us unlawful; for that which hath been established by so many laws Civil and Ecclesiastical, by so long custom and prescription of time, confirmed by our oaths and subscriptions, we may not lawfully alter. But so it is, that sitting at the Table in the act of receiving hath been established by Laws, Customs, long prescription of time, and confirmed by oaths and subscriptions, as is evident by the former deduction. It is notwithstanding expedient to descend further in opening up the unlawfulness of kneeling. First, as it is a breach of the Institution. Secondly, as it is a breach of the second Commandment. Thirdly, as it is without the example and practice of the ancient Church. Fourthly, as it disagrees from the practice of the Reformed Churches.  ANS. 
After ye have laid down your grounds; some for sitting, and some against kneeling: ye subioyne the tenor of the act concluded at Perth, but most corruptly, as we have noted in the margin; and than ye form this argument: That which hath been established by so many laws Civil and Ecclesiastical, by so long custom, and prescription of time, and confirmed by oaths and subscriptions, we may not lawfully alter: But so it is, that sitting at Table, in the act of receiving, hath been established by laws, customs, long prescription of time, and confirmed by oaths and subscriptions.  
A man that had heard the proposition only, would expect some great matter in the assumption, belonging to some article of Faith, or precept of obedience set down in God's Word: and all resolves in an indifferent ceremony of sitting at the Sacrament. But yet to make simple people believe, that it were some necessary or substantial point of Religion, that might not be altered, ye make a great show of laws, customs, &c, which being examined, shall vanish as smoke before the wind. And where ye begin with a strong allegiance, that it was established with so many laws Civil and Ecclesiastical: I ask you first, by what Civil laws? Ye say, (so many) yet in your deduction, whereby you affirm the assumption to be evident, ye cite not one law, neither can ye, albeit ye are not ashamed to say (so many). For your Ecclesiastical laws, ye cite first, the words set down in the second head of the first book of Discipline; the Table of the Lord is then rightly ministered, etc. These words are not a law, for that book of Discipline was never received, nor confirmed, either by the Civil, or Ecclesiastical estate; some of the Nobility subscribed it, but others, who had the chief authority, as Master Knox complains in his History, rejected the same, calling it Devout imaginations. Next, ye cite the ordinance of the general Assembly, 1562, appointing the order of Geneva to be observed: this Act cannot establish your sitting, for in Geneva, they stand, or pass, as they Receive, and sit not at Table. The last Act, which ye cite in anno 1564, ordaineth Ministers in the ministration of the Sacraments, to use the order set down in the Psalm book. In that Act there is no mention of sitting, and by the order set down in the Psalm books, that may be meant, which before was called, the order of Geneva. How soever it be, there is no particular law for sitting, no Civil law at all: and none Ecclesiastical; but this only one, which is general.  
Your second probation is, That sitting is established by so long a custom and prescription of time: Who would not, when he hears (so long) look at least for a three or four hundred years? and all this length of time ye can allege to, is since the year of God 1560, not half an age: before which time, kneeling was in use many hundred years on the Lord's day, and on other days in the week, ever since the first Institution, as afterwards shall be proved, with better reasons, than any ye can bring for the necessity of sitting. This long custom and prescription for kneeling, ye esteem to be of no moment, albeit it was a gesture instituted by God: but for sitting, a gesture instituted by man; ye count eight and fifty years a long prescription. So men esteem their own Dwarves to be Giants, Nostrum sic nanum Atlanta vocamus.  
The last argument wherein ye glory most, is, that sitting is confirmed by oaths and subscriptions: This is a childish and false alledgeance: for there was never oath, nor subscription given in our Church, that by any consequence can import a confirmation of sitting, or of any other indifferent alterable ceremony for all times following. Seeing no man is astricted longer unto the observation of it, than the Ecclesiastical Constitution stands, which being altered by the Church that made it, their oath and subscription binds them to observe that, which in stead of the former, is ordained to be received. This is manifest by the Constitutions set down in the seventeenth chapter of the book of Discipline, received and confirmed in the general Assembly holden at Glasgow the 24. of April, anno 1581., the tenor whereof follows: The final end of all Assemblies, is first to keep the Religion and Doctrine in purity, without error or corruption. Next to keep comeliness and good order in the Church: for this order's cause, they may make certain rules and constitutions, pertaining to the good behaviour of all the members of the Church in their own vocation: They have power also to abrogate and abolish all statutes and ordinances, concerning Ecclesiastical matters, that are found noisome and unprofitable, and agree not with the time, or are abused by the people. And after a few words, it is subjoined: That it appertains to the Presbyteries, to cause the Ordinances made by the Assemblies Provincial and general, to be kept and put in execution. Hereby it is manifest, that when the Church altars indifferent thing in policy, that they who are astricted by their oaths to obey the Discipline of the Church, are tied, both not to practise these things, which the Church hath discharged; and to observe these things, which the Church, in stead thereof, hath established to be done. Whereupon I conclude, That so many as have sworn and subscribed, (after the form contained in the Oath) to continue in the obedience of the Discipline of the Church; are all obliged by their subscriptions, now not to sit, but to kneel at the Communion: because the Church hath found it meet, that sitting should be interchanged with kneeling? Thus I have answered your reasons, laws, customs, subscriptions and oaths, which ye bring for sitting.  
I come to consider the ordinances made, as ye allege, against kneeling: where first ye allege an Act made in the Assembly 1591., that an Article should be form, and presented unto his Majesty, and the Estates, for order to be taken with them, who give or receive the Sacraments after the Papistical manner; but by Papistical manner is meant, the giving of the Sacrament by a Mass Priest, and the receiving the same after the order of the Roman Church: which may be cleared by an Act of the Assembly, anno 1565. Decemb. 26. Sess. 2. The tenor whereof is this: Persons revolting from the profession of the Gospel, by offering their children to be baptised after the Papistical manner, or by themselves receiving the Sacrament of the Altar, after admonition, shall be excommunicate, if repentance intervene not. This showeth what is meant by giving, or receiving the Sacrament in a Papistical manner; for it was never our Churches meaning, to censure these that received the Sacraments after the manner of the Reformed Churches in France, England, or Germany, where many of our people have received the Sacrament of Christ's body kneeling: Nor did our Predecessors ever condemn their customs, and esteem sitting necessary, albeit for the estate of our Church, they held it in the beginning to be most convenient.  
Next, ye say, That in the King's Confession of Faith, etc. are these words contained: We detest the ceremonies of the Roman Antichrist, added to the ministration of the Sacraments, and we detest all his rites, signs, and traditions. This argument were good, if ye did prove kneeling to be a rite or ceremony added to the Sacrament, by the Roman Antichrist. But we know this ceremony to be divine, and not Antichristian, a ceremony allowed by God to be used in his worship: for he hath said expressly in his Word, Unto me all knees shall how: and again, In the name of jesus every knee shall bow. Neither will ye ever be able to prove the use of this ceremony, in receiving the Sacrament, to be Antichristian; or to have been instituted by the Antichrist of Rome: for albeit Honorius ordained that the people should kneel at the elevation, and circumgestation of the Host to those who are sick, yet he made no constitution for kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament: and there is as great difference between the elevation in the Mass, and the pompous circumgestation of the Host, and the celebration of the Sacrament, as is betwixt an idolatrous, and superstitious invention of man, and a lawful act of divine worship. Therefore to conclude the answer of this Section, unto the argument propounded by you, I oppone this.  

Every indifferent alterable ceremony, the innovation and abrogation whereof, is thought expedient by the Church, may be lawfully altered, notwithstanding of any laws, customs, oaths, or subscriptions formerly made, for observation thereof, for a time.  
But sitting at the Sacrament is an indifferent alterable ceremony, the innovation and abrogation whereof, is thought expedient by the Church.  
Ergo, Sitting at the Sacrament may be lawfully altered, notwithstanding of any laws, customs, oaths, or subscriptions formerly made for observation thereof, for a time.   
The Proposition is manifest by these Constitutions, which we have cited out of the seventeenth chapter of the book of Discipline, confirmed in the Assembly, 1581., and subscribed by many of the Ministry. Yea, the very nature of alterable ceremonies is such, that to the observation of them no man is longer astricted, than they stand in their integrity without change; but if for any corruption and abuse, or for some greater or better respect, they be altered by the Church, the obligation for observing of them ceases, and binds no more.  
As to kneeling, which the Assembly hath ordained in stead of sitting, as yet we have seen nothing against it, neither Law Civil or Ecclesiastical, nor custom, etc. And I hope the reasons ye bring hereafter shall be found as frivolous. But keeping your order, I will first consider, how ye qualify it to be a breach of the institution.  PP. 
p. 35. lin. 25.  
The first breach of the institution by kneeling, is, the taking away of that commendable gesture of sitting, used by Christ and his Apostles, at and after the Institution. That Christ and his Apostles sat at Table, ye labour to prove it, by the words of the Evangelist, Edentibus illis, whilst they did eat, Matth. 26.26. Mark. 14.22. Christ took bread, and blessed, etc. If whilst they did eat, say ye, than also whilst they did sit, as these two are conjoined, Mark 14.18. The phrase imports, that nothing intervened betwixt the eating, and the celebration of the Sacrament; it was therefore ministered unto them sitting. This is your reasoning, pag. 36. lin. 16. & seq.  ANS. 
Your argument is, a captione à fallacia consequentis: For albeit nothing intervened between the eating of the Paschall Supper, and the celebration of the Sacrament, yet it followeth not, that the Sacrament was ministered unto them sitting. For as ye say, their eating of the Paschall Supper and sitting were coniunct; and that eating of the Paschall Supper ceasing at the beginning of the institution of this Sacrament; how will it follow, that the gesture of sitting continued, and was not changed? For although nothing intervened between the Paschall Supper and the Sacrament, yet the gesture might have been changed, when the action was changed. And as the one action ceased when the other began, so the gesture of sitting might have ceased with the action, wherewith it was conjoined: and another gesture might have begun, and been used in the celebration of the Sacrament. Moreover, betwixt their eating of the Paschall Supper, and the administration of the Sacrament to the Disciples, there intervened diverse acts; as first, the taking of the bread: secondly, the thanksgiving▪ thirdly, the breaking▪ fourthly, the precept, Take ye, eat ye: fifthly, the word whereby the element was made the Sacrament. After this, the Sacrament was givenby our Saviour, and received by the Disciples, which ye call the ministration of the Sacrament unto them. Now albeit it were true, that between the time they sat eating of the Paschall Supper, and the time when the Sacrament began to be celebrated, nothing had intervened: yet betwixt that, and the ministering of the Sacrament to the Disciples, all these five acts intervened. In which time, the gesture of sitting might have been changed: for if they changed it not at the breaking of the bred by our Saviour, which was the first act, yet they might have changed it at the thanksgiving, which was the second; or at the breaking, which was the third; or at Christ's pronouncing of the words, whereby the element became a Sacrament. So upon this ground, that they were sitting, and eating, ye cannot conclude, that they received the Sacrament sitting; seeing betwixt the time of their eating of the Paschall Supper, so many acts intervened, wherein the gesture of sitting might have been changed, before they received the Sacrament. Thus it is not certain, that they sat, and received the Sacrament, or, as ye say, that the Sacrament was ministered unto them sitting. If it be replied, that it is not written, that they rose, and altered their gesture: I answer, à non scriptum, ad non factum est, non valet consequentia. It is not written, that they altered their gesture, therefore they did not alter it: it followeth not in Theologie, this consequence is ever good.  

Nothing that is not written, is to be holden and believed for an undoubted truth in the worship of God.  
But after the eating of the Paschall Supper, that the Apostles sat still at Table, and altered not their gesture, until they had received the Sacrament, is a thing that is not written.  
Therefore, after the eating of the Paschall Supper, that the Apostles sat still, without altering their gesture until they had received the Sacrament, is not to be believed, and holden for an undoubted truth in Goods worship.   
But ye subioyne lin. 20. eiusdem pag.  PP. 
This is so evident, that never man doubted of it, till this last year; even those who affirm, but against the truth, that they stood at the first service; confess, that they sat at the second, and at the celebration of the Sacrament. So doth Master john Mare, and the Bishop of Chester, etc.  ANS. 
That this is not so evident, as ye allege, is manifest by that which hath been said. But the cause, that hath moved us doubt since the last year, is the Paradox, which ye and your followers have undertaken to defend, since the last year, of which never Divine, either in the ancient or reformed Church, dreamt of before; namely, that we should believe without doubting: First, that the Apostles received the Sacrament sitting. Secondly, that this gesture of theirs was exemplary. Thirdly, that it was instituted by our Saviour, to be observed in all succeeding ages. Since ye after this manner urge sitting, with an opinion of necessity, and impose it upon the consciences of the weak, with such terrors and fears, that it cannot be omitted, without a manifest breach of the Institution; we can do no less, then try by the Scriptures, whether it be so, or not. The testimony of M. john Mare, or of any moral man, cannot tie our consciences to believe, or practise any thing in Religion, as an Article of Faith, or a necessary point of God's worship, whereof there is not a clear and undoubted warrant in the Word of God. And for the Bishop of Chester, 
Now Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.  he declareth his opinion only, but astricts no man to believe it, nor will he have any man to build thereupon, as ye do; that the Apostles sitting was exemplary: against the which, his arguments in the Treatise that ye cite, are such, as might have stayed you, or any other that reason could satisfy, from taking a pen in hand to the contrary.  PP. 
That sitting was instituted, I prove it by two reasons: first, the gesture, that Christ retained in passing from the conclusion of the Paschall Supper, That he did institute sitting he retained, Therefore he did institute sitting.  ANS. 
This is a Demonstration, whereupon the faith and obedience of the worthy Receivers must be grounded, touching the gesture they must use at Communion: yet the Libeler perceiving, that the proposition of this argument may be denied, and being denied, that it must be proved by this general; Whatsoever Christ retained, that he did institute: and considering withal, that Christ retained many things, as the place, the quality of the bread, and circumstance of time, which he dare not affirm to have been instituted; he makes exception of such things, as were retained of necessity, and could not conveniently be changed. And thereupon subioynes this saying.  PP. 
pag. 36. lin. vlt.  
But as for the gesture of sitting, he might have changed it in standing or kneeling, without working any miracle, if it had not been his mind, that we should receive the Sacrament of the Eucharistical Supper, with the same gesture, that the jews received the Paschall.  ANS. 
In this argument, he takes it for granted, that the Disciples sat at the Sacrament, which yet is in question, and by Scripture shall never be decided. And this is a Sophistic deception, called petitio principij. Next, the reason whereby he proves that sitting was instituted, and not the other circumstances, which were likewise retained; is because Christ might have changed it in standing, or kneeling, without working a miracle. But this reason, I hope, will not be found demonstrative; for our Saviour, without working a miracle, might have changed the upper chamber, wherein he eat the Passeover, & taken himself to some other room. Therefore by your argument his mind was, that we should only celebrate the Sacrament in an upper chamber. Likewise our Saviour, without working of a miracle, might easily have called his Mother, and other women to the Sacrament, and so have altered the sex, and number of the Communicants: therefore it was his mind by your reason, that twelve men sitting at once at Table, and no women, should receive the Sacrament. Finally, our Saviour might have celebrated the Sacrament without his upper garment, which he did put on, after he had washed his Disciples feet, before he celebrated the Sacrament. Therefore Baronius the Cardinal concludes well by your ground, That it was his mind the Priest should put on his Masse-clothes, which are his upper garment, before he celebrated the Sacrament. But that all men may see the vanity of this argument, I shall clearly prove by it, that sitting was not instituted: Christ, ye say, might easily have changed the gesture, which he used at the Paschall Supper, without the working of a miracle; in standing, or kneeling, if it had not been his mind, that we should receive the Sacrament of the Eucharistical Supper, with the same gesture that the jews received the Paschall. Now I assume, But the jews this night received the Paschall Supper, not sitting right up in chairs or forms as we do, but lying on beds; although that both the gestures might have been, and were used by them in other nights, as is manifest by the testimony which you cite yourself out of SCALIGER, De emendatione temporum, lib. 6. Quòd in omnibus alijs noctibus tam edentes, quàm bibentes, vel sedemus, vel discumbimus, in hac autem omnes discumbimus. That is to say, Other nights, eating or drinking, we either sit at table, or lie; This night we all lie (ye turn it, we all sup, that is, sit leaning.) Thus than I reason upon the ground of your own demonstration: The gesture of lying, used by our Saviour at the Paschal Supper, according to the custom of the jews, might have easily and commodiously been changed, without working a miracle, by turning about his face and body to the Table, and setting of himself right upon the beds, with his feet to the ground, as our custom is to sit at table. Therefore, according to your own principle, it was not Christ's mind, that we should sit upright at table, as we do, and all the jews in those days used to do at other times; but that we should lie at table, as the jews did at the Supper of the Passeover. Now let the judicious Reader consider, if this be a sure ground, whereupon to settle a certain and infallible point of God's worship. But I convert the argument.  

Nothing used at the Paschall Supper, and retained at the Sacrament, that is not expressed in the words of the Institution, was instituted.  
But sitting used in the Paschall Supper, retained, as ye allege, at the Sacrament, is a thing not expressed in the words of the Institution.  
Therefore sitting used at the Paschall Supper, and retained, etc. was not instituted.   
The Proposition is so evident, that against it ye are able to bring no instance, besides that which is in controversy, namely, the Table gesture of sitting. Ye afterward bring in the Table itself, whereunto we shall answer in the own place: always this is certain, that nothing was instituted, but that which is expressly set down in the words of the Institution, and such things as necessarily followeth thereupon.  PP. 
pag. 37. lin. 5.  
The second reason; we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of his Apostles, in all things, wherein it is not evident, they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us.  ANS. 
This is a rule of your own making, which I hope no wise Christian will receive as a principle of Faith, or Divinity, except it be confirmed with better reasons, than any alleged by you. The first argument, whereby ye labour to prove it, is in these words.  PP. 
It is gross hypocrisy for us, to pretend more reverence and devotion in the act of Receiving, than the Apostles did when Christ was present.  ANS. 
This particular will not prove the general rule: yet I answer, That if we kneel of purpose, to pretend more reverence than the Apostles had, it is gross hypocrisy: But if we kneel out of the simplicity of our hearts, to testify our reverence to Christ, whom we know, not only to be bodily present in heaven, but to be spiritually present with us at the Sacrament, it is an action of true piety, and not of gross hypocrisy: for I demand of you, what gesture used the Apostles at the thinkesgiving? If ye say they sat, is it not a gross hypocrisy for you to stand or kneel, and to command the people to humble themselves at the thanksgiving, wherewith the Sacrament gins? seeing in so doing, ye pretend, or show more reverence and devotion, than the Apostles did, who sat: but if ye say, they stood, or kneeled as we do; how know ye, that they sat at the Receiving, and retained not still the gesture, wherewith they gave thankes?  PP. 
Wherefore doth the Apostle propound the custom of the first Churches, 1. Cor. 11.16. 2. Tim. 3.14. 1. Cor. 14.33. if they did not oblige us to imitation?  ANS. 
More impertinent testimonies ye could not have brought, than the last two, and if they be rightly cited, let the Reader judge: to the first, wherein mention is made of the custom of the Churches, I answer: If the custom of the Church, and the actions and practices of Christ be moral, and of the nature of things commanded generally in the Decalogue, they oblige us indeed to imitation; but natural actions, such as eating, drinking, waking, sleeping, resting, talking, and such like done by them, with the circumstances thereof; namely, the manner, time, and place, of their eating, drinking, etc. do not tie us to the imitation of them, although there be no cause moving them thereto, which concerns us not. Therefore in all things we are not obliged to their imitation. Neither do the ceremonies and circumstances observed by them in the exercise of Religion, astrict us, except they be enjoined by some constant precept in the Gospel: as by example, john baptised at a river, and they who were baptised went down into the water, and came up out of it again: in some places the Church used a threefold immersion: in the Apostles time, they used to salute one another with a holy kiss: they kept their banquets of love at their meetings, and other more customs they had, which not being enjoined to us by a constant command, do no wise oblige us: as no more doth the circumstance of place, time, habit, persons, position, and site of body, as standing, sitting or walking. And in a word, in the actions of Christ, his Apostles, or the customs of the Church, there is nothing exemplary, and left to be imitated of us, but that which either being moral is generally commanded in the Decalogue, or being ceremonial and circumstantial, is particularly commanded by some constant precept in the Gospel. But I will ask you, that would have every action of Christ's to be imitated by us, which hath not a special exception of some cause, moving him, that concerns us not: what is the cause, that at the celebration of the Sacrament, ye bless not the Bread first, severally by itself, and the Cup severally by itself, after the distribution of the Bread? seeing Christ did so, as it is expressly mentioned, yet having no cause to move him, which concerns us not. This I am persuaded, if your ground be sure, is a more evident breach of the Institution, then is our not sitting at the Sacrament: for in the words of the Institution, there is no mention of sitting, but the giving of thankes twice is expressly set down; and there could be no cause to move Christ unto this, which doth not concern us. For sitting (if it be so, that Christ sat) there is a manifest cause moving him unto that, which doth not concern us, to wït, the Paschall Supper, by occasion whereof, he was sitting before. Therefore to conclude, if it be no breach of the Institution, once to give thanks, and bless the bread and cup at once, which Christ jesus in the Institution is said to have done at two several times, it is without all reason, to make that necessary, which is not expressed in the Institution; and call that a breach of the Institution, which never was instituted. Thus having showed the ground, whereupon you build your exemplary actions, to be a heap of sand, scraped together by yourself, without warrant of Scripture, Antiquity, or any modern Writer; the arguments ye bring afterwards from the sitting of Christ with some of the Disciples after his Resurrection, when he was at Emmaus; and the sitting of the Apostolic Church, after our Saviour's Ascension, are to no purpose: seeing your rule fails, and cannot prove the sitting of Christ, and his Apostles, at the Sacrament (if so they sat) to be exemplary, more than any of the other circumstances of time, place, order, and persons. But that the Reader may see, how uncertain your testimonies and reasons are, we will consider them particularly.  PP. 
Christ after his Resurrection, when he was in Emmaus with some of the Disciples, as he sat at meat with them, took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it unto them, as it is said; Luk. 24.30. This place is interpreted by Augustine, Paulinus, etc. But so it is, they were sitting when Christ gave them the bread: whatsoever be the interpretation of the Text, ye see, they acknowledge sitting at the Table.  ANS. 
I see not, that they did acknowledge the Disciples to have sat at Table, when they received: for as I said before, there intervened between the taking of the bread by Christ, and the receiving of the same by the Disciples, the act of thaukesgiving, breaking and giving the bread, in which time, the gesture of sitting might have been altered. Thus it is not certain, that they sat at the Receiving. If ye reply: it is not written that they did alter the gesture of sitting: to that I answer before, and it is the Papists argument against the giving of the Cup to the Layickes; it is not written, say they, that the Cup was given, in this place: Therefore, etc. Also ye know, that the time of Christ his sitting here with his Disciples at Emmaus, was the night season, the place, a private Inn: that the breaking and giving of that bread, was before or after another ordinary supper; and that only men were there present, and not women: all which points being certain, according to your first reason, whereby ye intended to prove sitting to have been instituted; it will follow, that all these circumstances, and things, were instituted to be observed as well as sitting, because our Saviour retained all these things, having no necessity at this time to celebrate the Sacrament. Thirdly, I say, if the Sacrament was here ministered, we have an express warrant for private Communion, which ye impugue: for jesus here ministered unto two only, and ye will not content to have it ministered to three. Lastly, it is the judgement of the learned Caluine, That there was no celebration of the Sacrament at that time, and that Christ was known to these Disclples by an ordinary prayer, which he used in blessing of the Table, and not by the celebration of the Sacrament: which opinion, he saith, although it seem plausible, is no more than a conjecture, which leans to no probable reason. Then ye see, that it is uncertain whether Christ gave this Sacrament at Emmaus; and if he did, that there sitting at the Receiving is also uncertain: And thereby your argument is nought, and serveth only to establish private Communion. Thus have you gained nothing by this testimony, but lost much.  PP. 
Last of all, after his Ascension and glorification in the heavens, the Apostolic Church sat at Table: The manner of the partaking of the table of Devils, was by formal sitting at table in the house of the Idol: jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast, Amos 2.8. interpreteth the garments, whereon the Usurer sat beside every Altar, to have been beds prepared in the houses of their gods, to sit on, when they feasted upon things sacrificed to Idols. The people of Israel sat down to eat and drink, at the jdolatrous feast of the golden Calf The Apostle compareth the partaking of the Lords Table, and the table of Diunels, 1. Cor. 10.21. Next, they sat at the Love feasts: we cannot think, that they rose from the Tables to receive the Sacrament.  ANS. 
To prove that the Apostolic Church sat at Table, you bring the comparison, that the Apostle makes between the partaking of the Lords Table, and the table of Devils: and the partaking of the table of Devils, you say, was by a formal sitting at table in the house of the Idol: for which ye allege jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast, upon the eight verse of the second chapter of Amos; but neither the Text, nor his interpretation proves the formal sitting ye speak of: for the text saith, they laid themselves down upon clothes by every Altar, and not, that they sat: And the Paraphrast, as Mercerus expounds him, saith, That those clothes were Parapetasmata, that is, coverings or mats, whereupon they laid themselves down, and not sat, by every Altar, and not in the Idols house. And for the place of the Apostle: Ye cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the table of Devils, there is no material or artificial table understood, either by the one Table or the other; and by participation, formal sitting is not meant. This is manifest by these words, Ye cannot be partakers: for certain it is, that they might have sitten formally at table in the house of the Idol, and eaten of their sacrifices, and might also have sitten at the Lords Table formally, and received the external elements. But the Apostle saith, That these two Tables, and the participation of them are so opposed, as they could not be partakers of both. Therefore by the table of Devils in that place we understand the sacrifices offered to Devils, and by participation, we understand the eating of these sacrifices, with a conscience toward the Idol, where ever it was done, whether in the Idols Temple, as 1. Cor. 8.10. or in the private houses of Idolaters, as 1. Cor. 10.27.28. And by the Table of the Lord, we understand the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament, and by the partaking of the Lords Table, the spiritual eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament, by a true and lively faith. These two Tables, and partake could not stand together. And so by the Table of the Lord, the Apostle means not a material table, at which the Communicants sat, but the body of Christ in the Sacrament. According to this Causabone in his Exercitations against Baronius, 16.36. citing these words, Non potestis mensae Dominiparticipes esse, etc. saith, Hîc mensa Domini, est ipsa Eucharistia, quam exemplo Pauli, Patresita saepè nominant. That is, The Table of the Lord in this place, is the Eucharist itself, which the Fathers often call by this name of the table, following Saint Paul's example. Now where ye add, that the people of Israel sat down to eat and drink at the feast of the golden Calf: I am assured, ye think not, that the Israelites had a material table, at which they sat in that feast, so as their sitting will make nothing for the formal sitting; which ye would conclude. And for that which ye tell us of the Love feasts, that people sat at them, and that ye cannot think they rose from the table to receive the Sacrament; ye must know, that your thoughts are no probation: and whatsoever ye think, it is the Apostles express mind, that they who discern not the body of the Lord from that, and all other carnal feasts, are guilty of his body. And if ye think these holy mysteries were worthily received, if after the same manner, and at the same time and table, they received without making discretion between the one feast and the other, ye think not according to the truth: Nam hîc coena à mysterijs toto genere diversa erat: as Causabone speaks in the same book of his Exercitations, 16.31. Then to conclude, neither have ye proved that the Apostles, or Apostolic Church received the Sacrament sitting formally at a table; nor if they sat, that their sitting was exemplary: for 

Whatsoever is exemplary in Christ his actions, or in the Apostles, or in the Apostolic Churches, is either moral, and commanded in the Decalogue generally; or than it is some action, or circumstantial ceremony of Religion, enjoined by precept in the Gospel.  
But sitting at the Sacrament is neither moral, and so commanded in the Decalogue; or is it an action or circumst antiall ceremony of Religion, enjoined by precept in the Gospel.  
Therefore sitting at the Sacrament is not exemplary, and left us to be imitated, by Christ, his Apostles, or the Apostolic Churches.    
And although ye had demonstrated, which neither by Scripture or antiquity, ye will ever be able to do, That Christ and his Apostles did sit at the receiving of the Sacrament, could it oblige us to the like, as I cleared before?  PP. 
It is objected, that the sitting of Christ and his Apostles was not upright, but sitting with leaning. If we imitate the example of Christ, we should sit after the same manner. Answer, It was the custom received amongst the jews before, and in the days of Christ, descending from the Romans, or as others allege, from the Persians, etc.  ANS. 
The reply ye make to this objection is long, and needeth not to be repeated; for the gesture being uncertain, wherewith the Apostles received; and sitting neither being instituted by Christ, nor exemplary to us; as I have before showed, whether they sat upright, or with leaning, none of the forms is necessary to be used. So all your following Discourse is idle, and to no purpose; specially where ye say, That sitting was a custom brought into the Church by Christ, whose example being seconded with the practice of the Apostles, is equivalent unto a precept; and that it is safer for a man's conscience to imitate Christ and his Apostles, then to departed from them, and imitate the custom of Churches which may err: for ye have neither proved sitting to be an Apostolic practice, not yet to be exemplary; and all your reasons brought for that purpose, have appeared to be of no force. Yet two things I note in this your answer: first ye say, That the jews did receive their form of sitting from the Romans and Persians; and in this ye err: for it is manifest, by the sixth of Amos, That before they conversed either with Romans or Persians, that form of gesture was used amongst them. Next, when ye say, that there is little difference between the one fashion of sitting, and the other, that is also false: for it differeth as fare from our form of sitting, as lying doth: as is cleared by these words of Amos 6.4. They jye upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches. And by that verse of IWENAL Sat. 1. Vacuisque thoris tantùm ipse jacebit. Look what difference there is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or between sedere and iacere; there is as great difference between their form of sitting, and ours: But because both belonged to one use, the Translators of the Bible for our capacity interpret both by Sitting.  PP. 
That this gesture may very well be comprehended under the express precept of Christ, in the Institution, hoc facite, do this, that is, hoc totum facite, do all this.  ANS. 
Where, I pray you, show me, what ye call (all this?) will ye have (all) to comprehend, not the actions only, which are set down in the Institution, as the taking, the blessing, the breaking, the giving, etc. but the circumstances likewise, as the time, the place, the order, the persons, the site and position of body, and the habit? Then (hoc facite) must import, do this in the night season, do it in an upper chamber, do it after supper, do it with an upper garment upon you, do it with fair clean washen feet, do it with unleavened bread, do it with men, and not with women; do it being thirteen persons in number, one Giver, and twelve Receivers; and do it with this gesture and position of body, which now ye use. Hear, all being certain, the gesture only is uncertain: some question is made of the number of the Receivers, because some think that judas went out, after he got the sop, before the Sacrament: all the rest are expressed in the story; but whether the Disciples sat, or stood, or kneeled, at the thanksgiving in the receiving, no man knows. We were accustomed, and still are, to kneel at the thanksgiving, if we did imitate the Apostles herein, they have also kneeled, and then it is very uncertain, whether they sat at the Receiving: But if we do not imitate their gesture in the thanksgiving, it is clear that we never esteemed the imitation of the Apostolic gesture at the thanksgiving, to be comprised in the precept, hoc facite, which ye interpret, do all this.  PP. 
We must not think that nothing belongs to the Institution, but that which is mentioned in Paul's narration, 1. Cor. 11. for then a Table could not belong to the Institution.  ANS. 
Whatsoever ye think, the faithful will believe, that the Apostle setting down, as he doth in that place, the true form of keeping the Lords Supper, would never have omitted the gesture, if the same had been a part of the Institution, and if he had received any thing touching that from the Lord, he had without all question delivered the same to the Corinthians. As for your instance of a Table, if ye understand thereby a material table, appointed for feasters to sit at, such a table is not necessary, as shallbe cleared in the answer to the second breach: but if by a Table ye understand a commodious part, whereon the elements must be placed, than the table must be reckoned amongst the necessary circumstancens, that accompany the action: for when Christ commanded to do this, the command did insinuate, That they must convene in some place to do it, that there must be a Pastor to give, and some persons to receive; that the elements which are given and taken, must be placed in some commodious part, on which they may be consecrated with thanksgiving, and blessing, where they may be broken, and where they may be given and received: such a table is necessary, yet, what the matter, the form, and quality of this table should be, is no where expressed in the Scripture, but as the time when, and the place where, and the particular persons to whom, and by whom the Sacrament shall be celebrated: so the particular matter and form of the Table is not mentioned in the Institution, but omitted with the rest of the necessary circumstances, and left to be determined by the Church, according to the rule of edification and decency, and is only insinuated, as a thing necessarily enjoined with the actions prescribed in the command: for when the Apostle saith, do this, albeit he saith not, do it at night, or in the morning, or in a private or public place, by such a person and congregation, and such a part or Table, or with such gesture: yet the command imports, that it should be done at a convenient time, in a convenient place, by meet and qualified persons, with a convenient gesture, and on a convenient Table, or on somewhat in stead of a Table. Now, what should be convenient in such things, it could not be defined; for conveniency changes, according to times, ages and nations: The specification thereof, is left to the wise judgement of the Church, according to charity, quam si moderatricem patiemur, saith CALVIN, salua erunt omnia, that is, Charity being the moderatrix, all shall go well.  PP. 
No doubt our Saviour instructed them how to discern the Lords body, how to eat and drink, before he commanded them to eat and drink. But the Evangelists and Paul writes of the Sacrament, as of a thing known to the Church by practice, presupposing a Table, and the Communicants convened, and sitting at the Table.  ANS. 
Ye appear in this place, to have forgotten that which you affirmed in the beginning of your dispute, to wit, That nothing intervened between the celebration of the Sacrament, and the eating of the Paschall Supper: for now you say, That our Saviour, no doubt, instructed them how to eat and drink, before they were commanded to eat and drink, that is, in your mind, he taught them to convene themselves, and set them down at Table: but I allege, he taught them to stand or kneel are the receiving, which we know certainly to have been the practice of the Churches thereafter: What warrant have you more for the one, than I have for the other? The Papists will say, that he taught them the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and all the ceremonies used at that action, which being after known to the Churches by practice, are omitted by Saint Paul and the Evangelists, when they wrote of the Sacrament; because, as ye say, they presupposed these things to be known. So fare are ye miscarried with the love of your darling, Table gesture, that for establishing and authorising the same, ye dare allege unwritten verities, whereupon the Church of Rome found'st all her heresies. But to conclude, against your false Assertion, I form you this reason: 

Whatsoever is of necessary use in the Sacrament, is expressed in the words of the Institution, or then is annexed unto that which is expressed, as a necessary circumstance belonging thereto.  
But sitting, is neither expressed in the words of the Institution, nor is annexed to that, which is expressed as a necessary circumstance belonging thereto.  
Therefore sitting is not of necessary use in the Sacrament.    PP. 
The second breach of the Institution made by kneeling in the act of receiving, is the taking away the use of a table. Christ and his Apostles sat at Table, 1. Cor. 10. Luk. 22. Wherefore serveth the name of a Table, if we keep not the proper use, and employment of it? The Fathers call it the Lords Table, the heavenly Table, the sacred Table, the mystical Table, the spiritual Table, the rational Table. Whereto serve all these commendations, if in the mean time it be not used as a Table, but rather as an Altar? if it be not used, as Christ and his Apostles used it, that is, by sitting at it, to receive the dainties set upon the Table? And a little after; The people of God had an Altar for the Sacrifice, and a Table for a Feast. Such like the Ethnics: so Christians have an Altar for a Sacrifice, to wit, Christ who is Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice, Heb. 13.10. And a Table for the Feast, after this Sacrifice once made, to wit, the Sacrament of the Supper. As the Israelites, and the Ethnics sat at the table of their feasts, so do we at our sacred Feasts, to distinguish between an Altar and a Table, a Sacrifice and a Supper made of the thing sacrificed; a dresser or cupboard may serve as well for the disposing of the elements, etc.  ANS. 
I must take pains here for clearing your mind, to draw your arguments together, which are set down, tanquam scopa dissoluta, as lose or evil knit besoms: ye prove that kneeling taketh away the use of a table, because the proper use of a table is for sitting. This ye qualify, because Christ and his Apostles sat at Table: And because the jews, and the Ethnics sat at their feasts made of things sacrificed. And this is your first argument: Your next is, because sitting makes a distinction between an Altar and a Table, between a Supper and a Sacrifice. For answer to your first argument, I say, it is a mere caption, à fallacia consequentis: for albeit that Christ and his Apostles, the jews and the Ethnics sat at their feasts, it followeth not, that the proper use of a table is sitting: The proper use of a table, is to hold and sustain the meat that is set thereon: beds in these days were ordained for sitting, forms, chairs, and bonkers in our times: the taking away of sitting, takes away the use of the beds, forms, and seats whereon they sat, but not the use of the table: this still remains, if the elements be placed thereon, and consecrate in the celebration of the Sacrament, albeit no man sit thereat. As to Christ and the Apostles, the jews and the Ethnics, they sat at their feasts, when they did eat their sacrifices, because these feasts were sufficient bodily repasts; at which they spent long time in eating, drinking, and conference: For the ease of their bodies, sitting, lying, or such like a gesture was necessary; but our Sacrament, which is wholly finished, by receiving a morsel of bread, and a very little wine, requires not a long time, nor such an easeful gesture for the body. It is uncertain, as I shown before, what kind of gesture our Saviour and the Apostles used; and if they sat, it was occasioned by the former Supper, and no wise requisite for the Sacrament, neither for ease of the body, the action being quickly ended; neither for conference, for there was none used thereat: neither for receiving the dainties, or the elements from the table, by stretching out their hands. As to the bread, Scaliger saith, that the custom was, of the Master of the feast, to break the bread in so many pieces, as the number of the feasters were: and unto every one a piece was given, as great as an Olive: or if ye reject his authority, whom ye formerly cited in the book of Discipline, 1560, which ye make the ground of your order, it is said, the bread was broken by our Saviour, and delivered to him who sat next, and that they broke, and delivered each to his neighbour: Likewise that they divided the cup amongst them, after our Saviour had given the same; so they stretched not forth their hands to take the elements from the table; and their sitting at table for these ends was needless.  
To your second argument I answer: the distinction of the Table from the Altar is not made by sitting, but by the employments proper to them: The Altar was ordained for the sanctifying of the oblations made to God, the Table to hold and sustain such things as are offered, and given to us, according to Christ's Institution. The Priest stood at the Altar when he offered, and the people when they prayed: so the Communicants in the Primitive Church stood at the Table, when they received the Sacrament on the Lord's day, and this conformity in gesture took not away the difference between the Altar and the Table, as no more doth kneeling, or any other gesture. But to come to the ground, whereupon ye build this reason, ye say, the people of God had an Altar for the Sacrifice, and a table for the feast: So Christians have Christ for the Altar and the Sacrifice, and a Communion Table for the Sacrament, which is their feast. This your comparison hath some show, but no solidity. There is a correspondence, I grant, between the jewish Altar, and Christ, who was the Altar that did sacrifice himself, to be a Sacrifice for the sins of the world; for the jewish Altar was the type, and Christ the verity. But what correspondence is there, between the tables whereon the jews did eat their sacrifices, and the Communion Table? The tables whereon they did eat their sacrifices, were not holy instruments, which appertained to the Tabernacle and Temple, but such as they had in their own private houses; and therefore were not types, which did either signify our Communion Tables, or whereunto our Communion Tables do answer, as antitypes; for it is to be observed, that in Christian Religion there is nothing which hath any necessary correspondence, or relation to the Legal ceremonies, but that which is either the verity of some type, or the antitype of some type. As for example, between Christ, and the Levitical Priest, the Altar, and the Sacrifice, there is relation as between the type and the verity: so between Circumcision and Baptism, the Passeover and the Lords Supper, there is relation, as between the type and the antitype; for our Sacraments have succeeded these, and are in their stead. But as to the Table, whereon the Passeover and other sacrifices were eaten, the same not being a sacred instrument, or type appointed by God, as hath been said, there is nothing in Christian Religion answering thereto, either as the verity itself, or as an antitype succeeding thereto. As therefore their tables were not necessary for eating of their sacrifices (for it is certain, the jews were not astricted by any divine ordinance to sit at Table, when they did eat the Passeover, and their other Sacrifices) but were only commodious receptacles devised by themselves, which they might have altered and interchanged as they thought meet: Even so, a material artificial table for celebration of this Sacrament, is not an instrument appointed by our Saviour, as the Altars and Tables of Shewbread, but the same is appointed by the Church, according to that power which she hath to determine circumstances for the actions of divine worship. To the disposing of the elements, some such receptacle and subject is necessary, as a table, and decency requires it, when, and where the same may be had; but it is not of such a necessary use, as the Altar under the Law, for without an Altar, a sacrifice could not be offered, but without any such table, the Sacrament hath often been ministered. Euagrius lib. 6. hist. cap. 13. records, That Gregorius Pastor of Antiochia did minister the Sacrament to the Soldiers on the grass, before the 600. year of our Lord: at Bannock-burne in the days of King Robert Bruce, the like was done to the Scottish army on the fields, and so at many other times, when a table commodiously could not be had. Finally, where ye add, That for disposing of the elements, a dresser or cupboard may serve, these speeches smell of profanity; as if to hold and sustain the elements were such a base employment, that the instrument whereon the Church thought meet they should be placed, should neither be a table, nor named a table. And yet all these religious Epithets, which ye allege the Fathers gave to the Communion, as when they called it the Lords Table, the heavenly Table, the sacred Table, etc. were given to it, not because the Communicants did sit thereat, or for any other gesture of body used by them, but because the Lord's body, the bread of heaven, the sacred, mystical, and spiritual food of our souls, were presented thereon in the holy Sacrament. Causabone Exercit. 16.36. saith, That by these appellations, the Eucharist itself was understood. But here it is manifest, that the Epithets interiected in your discourse, are not only impertinent, but repugnant to the opinion ye hold: For when ye ask, why is it called a table, if men sit not at it? they answer you, Because upon that table, the heavenly, sacred, and spiritual mysteries are set. In respect thereof, it is called a heavenly, spiritual, sacred, and mystical table. In the days of Chrysostome and Theodoret, by whom these Epithets were most frequently given to the Sacrament, there was not a table in the Churches, at which men did sit, but one only, on which the elements were placed, and consecrate: but ye never fall upon the name of a Table sooner, than ye imagine it was appointed for sitting. And what then think ye of the Table of Shewbread, at which no man did sit? Shall it not be called a Table, because it lacked your employment of sitting, or table gesture? In all Reformed Churches of Europe, (our Church and very few excepted) the Communion Tables have no employment, but only to hold, and sustain the elements: This is to be seen in the Churches of France, Germany, Hungary, Pole, and England. And in the Greek Church Causabone observes, that there are two Tables, one whereupon the elements are set before the Consecration, and another wherupon they are Consecrate. Thus have I sufficiently declared, that the only or chief use at least of the Communion Table, is for the setting and disposing of the elements, and the consecration of them, with the distribution of the same. Now, that by kneeling in the act of receiving, the use of the Communion table is not taken away, I prove by this reason. 

Whatsoever gesture taketh not away the comely placing, and decent consecration of the sacramental elements on the Communion Table, from which they may be given and received, that taketh not away the use of the Communion Table.  
But kneeling is a gesture, that taketh not away the comely placing, and decent consecration of the sacramental elements on the Communion Table, from which they may be given, and received.  
Therefore kneeling taketh not away the use of the Communion Table.    PP. 
The third breach of the Institution made by kneeling, is the taking away of that mystical rite representing Christ's Passion, to wit, the breaking of the bread, etc.  ANS. 
If your meaning be, that the Pastor breaketh not the bread before he give it, ye belly us. We know that it is the Pastor's part in the action, to represent Christ the breaking of his body on the Cross, with the sorrows of death for our sins; therefore we observe that rite religiously, But if your meaning be, that the people breaks not every one with another in reverence and sobriety, as is prescribed in the second Chapter of the first Book of Discipline set forth 1560, that shall be discussed in the answer to the sixth breach.  PP. 
The fourth breach of the Institution made by kneeling, is the change and restraint of the commandment, given to many in the plural number, Eat ye, drink ye? to one in the singular number, Eat thou, drink thou.  ANS. 
This is a calumny, we neither change the command, nor so much as a jot contained in the institution: For, first, we consecrate the Elements, using the words of Saint Paul, and the Evangelists, without altering a syllable. Thereafter, when we give the Elements severally to every person, we apply the general command to every one in particular, which if we did not, every worthy receiver ought to apply unto himself, else he cannot communicate in faith; for he that esteems not, that command to belong to himself in particular, hath no warrant for his taking, eating, and drinking. This application therefore made by the Pastor to every communicant, is not a breach, but a mean, serving to the right and precise observation of the Institution.  PP. 
The fift breach of the institution made by kneeling is, the altering of the enunciative words of Christ, This is my body which is broken for you: This is my blood which is shed for you, in a prayer, To bless our body and soul, saying, The body of our Lord jesus Christ, etc.  ANS: 
This also is a calumny, for these words we use not in stead of the sacramental words, because then there should be no Sacrament at all: for by the sacramental word, This is my body, the bread is made the Sacrament of Christ's body: and by this word, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, the Cup is made the Sacrament of his Blood; and without this word, whereby the will of our Saviour is declared, which makes the Sacrament, all our prayers and wishes should serve to no use. It is true, after the Sacrament is made by the sacramental word, these, or the like words are uttered by the Pastor at the delivery of the Elements, whereby the general prayer and blessing, wherewith the action begins, is applied particularly to every Communicant, and they admonished, and instructed to apply it to themselves. This is the duty both of the Pastor and of the people: for as in the prayer it is our duty to wish in general, that all who are to participate the body and blood of jesus, may be preserved thereby to everlasting life: so it is our duty to wish the same to each one severally at the instant when he is receiving. And as it is the People's duty, when the prayer is conceived for all, to wish that Christ's body and blood may preserve all the receivers thereof: so, when they receive severally, to wish, that themselves in particular may be preserved thereby: For, if this be one of the principal ends, wherefore they come to receive, can they receive worthily without this or the like wish? No man without blasphemy can call this an idle battology.  PP. 
The sixth breach of the Institution made by kneeling, is the taking away of the distribution that ought to be amongst the Communicants. When Christ said, Take ye, eat ye, he insinuates, that they should take and divide amongst themselves. [A little after.] In the first Book of Discipline, penned Anno. 1560. it is ordained, that the Minister break the bread, and distribute the same to those that be next him, commanding the rest, every one, with reverence and sobriety to break with other, because it is nearest to Christ's action: further, we have a plain precept, Luke 22.17. Divide it amongst you, etc.  ANS. 
If ye stand to that, which ye allege out of Scaliger, was the custom of the jews, and used by our Saviour in the Institution: ye have no cause to quarrel the distribution of the bread; for the Master of the feast ufed to break the berad in so many pieces as the number of the Feasters were, giving to every one a piece: neither did each person measure his own portion, giving the rest to his neighbour, according to our custom. But leaving this, if we shall consider by the Institution, what part is proper to the Pastor, and what to the People, we will find, that as it is the Pastor's part to take bread, to bless, and give thanks; so is it his part, first, to break the bread, then to give it with this precept, Take, eat; and so, that it is the People's part not to break it, but to take it broken: for, as it was the part of Christ, first, to give his flesh for the life of the World, when he did offer himself in a sacrifice for our sins, which he will have represented in the Sacrament by the Pastor in breaking the bread: so it was his part to give his flesh to the faithful, not to be broken and sacrificed by them, but to be eaten, after it was once broken & sacrificed by himself. If therefore it be not the part of the people, either to represent the oblation of Christ's body, or the donation thereof to us, but the part of the Pastor properly, who in these actions represents Christ, it cannot be the part of the people to break the bread, nor to give the bread one to another. For this cause, in the ancient Church, it was ever given, either by the Pastor himself, or by his Deacon, who supplied his place, and helped him in the action; but never by any of the people to others. And Clemens Alexandrmus in the place which yourself quotes, saith not, that the people divided the bread; but that it was permitted to every one of the people to take a part of the Eucharist, after that some (doubtless the Masters of the Church) had divided it in pieces, as their custom was. The learned Musculus in his common places, De coena Domini, pag. 444. speaking of this purpose saith; Fregit & dedit Discipulis suis, fregit ipse manusuapanem, ac fractum à se dedit Discipulis: non dedit integrum, & ab ipsis frangendum, fed à se fractum panem. Non dedit ut ipsi distribuerent, fed ut à se distributum acciperent & ederent. Erant Apostoli in ca coena Domini, non ut dispensatores mysteriorum Dei: sed ut convinae, ut fideles, ut Discipuli, ut Communicantes: Christus verò ut Conuivator, ut Dominus, eadem opera instituens, ac suiipsius manibus dispensans gratiae suae sacramentum. That is to say, Christ jesus broke, and gave to his Disciples: he broke the bread with his own hand, and when it was broken he gave it to his Disciples: he gave it not whole unto them, to be broken by them, but he gave them that which he had broken: he gave it not to them to be distributed by them, but that they should take it being distributed by him, and eat it. The Apostles were in that Supper not as dispensers of the mysteries of God, but as Guests, as the faithful, as Disciples, and as Communicants: but Christ was as the maker of the Feast, as the Master, at one time both instituting and dispensing with his own hand the Sacrament of his grace. Here you see, that Christ is the breaker, the giver, the distributer of the Bread, and not the Disciples: And so the Pastor is now the breaker, the giver, the distributer, and not the people. Let the judicious Reader consider, whether the judgement of this learned man doth better agree with the Institution, or the opinion of the Pamphlet penner: And whether the Pastor, who according to the Institution breaks the bread, and gives it with his own hands to the people, or they, who give the bread to the people in whole schaves to be broken, and distributed by themselves, comes nearer to Christ's appointment.  
But to come to the Cup: If our Saviour, in giving of the same, did imitate the custom of the jews, which Scaliger and others wrote to have been this; that the Master of the Feast, after he had blessed the Cup, did first drink thereof himself, and then gave it to him who sat next; so as it passed from hand to hand till all had drunken: it seems, that the Disciples did deliver the Cup one to another. But there is a great difference between the distribution of the Cup and the Bread: for the distribution of the Bread is not a dividing only of the Bread from hand to hand, but a breaking is conjoined with the distributing: for he that gives to his Neighbour, breaks before he gives. Now in this breaking we know there is a mystery, which signifies the breaking of the Lords Body; which is an act, as is before made evident, that only appertains to Christ, both in the verity, when he did offer himself on the Cross, and in the mystery, when he did represent his oblation, or the breaking of his body, by the breaking of the bread: and therefore is such an act, as aught only to be performed by him, who in the Sacrament acteth the part of Christ, and represents him sacrificing himself. In distribution of the Cup there is no such mystery: for the giving of it from hand to hand signifies not the shedding of our Saviour's blood, but the taking of the Cup by the Pastor, and the drinking thereof, doth represent that Cup which the Father propined to his Son, and the Son received and drank, when willingly he suffered his blood to be shed on the Cross for the remission of the sins of many, and for confirmation of the new Testament; which Cup, Blood, and Testament, is in the Sacrament delivered to the People by the Pastor in Christ's name, commanding them to take, and drink all thereof. He in whose Name this command is uttered, is properly the Giver and propiner, because by his authority it is given, and by the warrant of his word it is received. When the King drinks to any of his Subjects, and sends it by the hand of his servant, the servant is not properly the giver and propiner, but the deliverer of the gift and propine: and therefore, as in the Sacrament, the Pastor when he takes the Cup, and drinks, acteth the part of Christ, and represents him taking and drinking that most bitter Cup of his Passion and death for our sins: so, when he gives and commands the people to take, and drink all thereof, he acteth the part of Christ, applying his blood, and giving the New Testament confirmed thereby to every worthy receiver, whether the same be delivered immediately to every one by his own hand; or if it be sent by the hand of the Deacon, as is was in the Primitive Church, or if it be delivered from hand to hand by the Communicants amongst themselves. But without all question, if the Pastor may commodiously by himself make the delivery, it is most agreeable to the person which he carries in that holy action, who represents our Saviour, first, willingly undergoing death for us, then, most bountifully applying it to us with his own hand.  
O, but in the 22. of Luke, verse 17. our Saviour said, Take this Cup, and divide it amongst you: The word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Part it amongst you. Here you trouble yourself, and the Reader much with a long discourse, proving that in this place the Eucharisticke Cup, and not the Paschall is meant: Yet let it be so. What then? they are commanded to part it amongst them, ergo, to reach it from hand to hand. This follows not; for when every one takes his own part of that which is to be parted, they divide the whole amongst them, although every one deliver not with his hand to his neighbour the thing which is to be divided, or the remanent thereof: as by example; When the Manna, which was gathered in the Wilderness, was cast together in heaps, and the families came forth, and parted the same amongst them, every man taking his Homer, which was his part; the Families divided the whole amongst them, without reaching from hand to hand the heap which was divided: so when the Disciples were commanded to divide the Cup amongst them, if every one did drink no more than his own portion, & did leave the rest to his fellow, the command was obeyed: albeit when every one had drunken, the last had set down the Cup on the Table, or had delivered it into his hand, from whom he had received it; or if one or two had been maimed, and lacked the use of their hands, so that the Cup behoved to be holden to their heads; yet if they drank no more, but their own part, with respect to their neighbour, who was to drink after them, they divided the Cup: for the dividing is not the giving of the Cup, but the parting of the wine amongst them, that was in the Cup: So if they did drink with such moderation, that one, two, or three drank it not all, but that all did drink as our Saviour commanded; howbeit they did not deliver it one to another, but received it severally, every one from Christ's own hand, as we do out of the hand of the Pastor, they nevertheless divided the same amongst them. To conclude, the command given to the Apostles, importeth, that Poculum beneditionis, is not Poculum ebrietatis, fed charitatis, that is to say, The Cup of blessing, is not the cup of drunkenness, but the Cup of charity, which should not be carowsed by one, but should be parted amongst many. And therefore these two phrases, the one used by Saint LUKE, Divide it amongst you: and the other by S. MATTHEW and S. MARK, Drink thereof all, and they drank of it all, are equivalent. As to the giving and delivering of the Cup, whether it should be, by the hand of the Pastor, or by the mutual delivering of the people one to another, because it is not defined by the Scripture, it is indifferent, and left to be determined by the Church.  
These grounds being sure, let us consider your syllogism: Whatsoever action or command is enclosed within the Institution, may not lawfully be broken. But that the Communicants should distribute amongst themselves, was both an action at the first Supper, and a precept, as hath been proved; Therefore kneeling by consequence is discharged. By what consequence I pray you? Because, say you, that gesture, and this distribution, is no ways compatible. It is a manifest untruth; for he that kneels, may take as well his portion of the wine, and leave the rest to his neighbour, as he that sits; and if you think that one cannot reach, and deliver the Cup to his neighbour kneeling beside him, you are deceived: for I have seen at one day's service a thousand persons, who have reached the Cup one to another kneeling, as they were accustomed to do sitting at Table before: yet, as hath been said, that was not necessary, for the precept in the Institution is not, Give this Cup one to another, but divide it, or part it amongst you, or drink all thereof.  PP. 
The seventh breach of the Institution made by kneeling, is an unnecessary dividing of the Communicants, making populous congregations to receive on many days, where they may receive in one.  ANS. 
Where the Congregations are populous, as in Burghes, three, or two days at the least, were allowed them. And in those same places where kneeling hath been practised, the service hath been perfected in as short time, as ever it was before, which we know by experience.  PP. 
The eight breach of the Institution made by kneeling, is, the altering of the purpose of the Institution, or nature of this Sacrament. It was instituted to be a Supper, a spiritual Feast, etc. Therefore the Guests invited thereto, as you conclude, should not kneel.  ANS. 
To make good this your imagined breach, you have borrowed three arguments from your Master of table gesture. Thereof this is the first, to which I shortly answer, That a common banquet requires a common gesture, such as sitting, and the same is most fitting: but a spiritual banquet requires a spiritual gesture; yourself do acknowledge it to be a spiritual Feast, and the most religious gesture, is the most decent in this action: and that is kneeling.  PP. 
Guests invited to a banquet, even to a Prince's banquet, kneel not in the act of banqueting.  ANS. 
A Prince's banquet, is but a common carnal banquet, and therefore men should not use thereat a religious gesture, such as kneeling. Besides, the length of time, which must be spent at the banquet of a Prince, makes such a gesture inconvenient. But if you were to receive one morsel of bread, or one drink, from the hand of the Prince himself, you would be thought uncivil, if you did not receive it on your knees. And I marvel that you should use this argument, who say so often, that the customs of Courts are not rules of Theologies.  PP. 
The sacramental Supper should carry the resemblance of a Supper, in the forms and fashions thereof, or else it cannot rightly be called a Supper: for it is not only the matter, that is, the dainties and food that makes a banquet, but also the ordering of the guests, and kindly entertainment of them.  ANS. 
It is true, that it cannot properly be called a Supper, except it carry the resemblance of a Supper, both in the dainties, and in the forms and fashions of a supper; but it may be called a supper rightly, as ye speak, although it do not resemble a supper in all these things. For that which is properly called a supper, hath plenty and variety of meat and drink, at least it is a sufficient bodily repast. Secondly, at it so much time is spended, as is proportionable to the entertainment. Thirdly, the Guests do entertain one another by carving, and drinking, and other kindly and familiar communication. Fourthly, The time thereof is the evening or night season. I am assured, that the Sacrament, for any resemblance it hath in any of these things to a supper, cannot properly be called a supper, fare less in respect of ordering, and entertaining the Guests. For at ordinary suppers, Guests are ordered according to their qualities, but here there is no respect of persons: for entertainment, Guests are entreated prolixè, that is, largely and long; but here, more than sparingly, for the bodily part, with a morsel of bread, and a little wine. These being laid aside, what are your table and sitting thereat, but idle spectacles? Ye break, and give the bread one to another: that we have showed to be against the Institution; ye drink one to another, but we ought not to drink one to another, as the giver and propiner drinks to the receiver: for our Saviour only, who is represented by the Pastor, is the giver and propiner of the Cup externally, and of his own blood internally; and all the people are but receivers, not givers or propiners in any wise. And as to our Communion amongst ourselves, it standeth not in this, That we have any fellowship in dispensation of the sacred mysteries, but it standeth in the participation alonely: not in this, that we take the bread, break, and give it to one another: but in this, that we all receive the same bread, which is broken by the Pastor, and the same flesh which our Saviour did break upon the Cross: such like not in that we take the Cup, drink, and give it one to another; but in this, that we drink all of the same Cup, which the Pastor gives after thanksgiving; and the same blood which our Saviour shed for the sins of many; otherwise, if we confound the actions of the Pastor and the people, we break and violate the Institution, and disturb the whole action, making the people not only act their own part, but also take upon them the part of Christ, and the Pastor. We must not therefore seek the resemblance of the Supper in these things, that are manifestly repugnant to the Institution, but in such things, as are contained therein  
Go too then, and let us take a view of these: first, in the Institution a supper is resembled by a sufficient repast, not in the quantity, but in the nature and quality of the elements, the one being dry, the other wet; the one meat, the other drink, in which two kinds a perfect food consists; to teach us, that in Christ is all fullness: He that comes to me shall never hunger, And he that believes in me, shall never thirst. Secondly, a Supper is resembled in the Sacrament; by the blessing and distribution that is made by the Master of the feast, and by taking, eating and drinking of the Guests, which are the essential parts, and properties of a Supper. Thirdly, as a supper is not the repast of some few, but of the whole family and guests, who are present; for which cause it was called coena tanquam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was common: So is the Sacrament instituted for all that are present, who may, and will come and present themselves thereto. These are the things set down in the Institution, wherein the resemblance stands. Your table prerogatives, gestures, forms, fashions, ordering and entertainment of guests, we find not, and therefore dare not be so bold, as to affirm them to be necessary. As in extending the sense of Parables, a moderation would be kept, that it be not racked beyond the bounds and scope of the purpose, whereupon the Parable is inferred: so the parabolicke names given to these holy mysteries, should not be extended beyond the resemblance & similitude set down in Scripture, for which these names are imposed. Therefore when the Sacrament is called a Table, and a Supper, we must not think that every thing which is competent to an ordinary table, and supper, are to be found and observed there, but only such as have clear warrant in the Institution, either in particular, or by necessary consequence. In particular, the whole substantial things, actions, and ceremonies are expressed, from the which we should take nothing, and whereunto we should add nothing. The circumstances that do necessarily accompany such things, actions, and ceremonies, as the time when, the place where, the part whereon, the person by whom, and to whom, and the order, do necessarily follow the action: for some time and place must be, when, and where it must be done; some persons by whom, and to whom it must be celebrated; some part there must be, whereon the elements must be set, and from whence they must be given and received; some position and site of body must be used by the givers, and receivers, and some order must be observed for entering and proceeding in the action and finishing thereof: some things would go before, as Sermons or Service; and it is decent, that the celebration be closed with Psalms and blessings: but none of these circumstantial things are particularly defined by Scripture, therefore they are left to be determined by the Church, according to the rules of edification, order, and decency.  PP. 
The Sacrament of the Passcover was also a holy Supper, and the people of God used it so; they kneeled not in the act of receiving it.  ANS. 
The Passeover was an holy Supper, yet it was also coenarecta, that is, a full and perfect repast: The Sacrament is a Supper in resemblance only, as hath been declared, not instituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for filling of the flesh, but for feeding of the spirit; and therefore is not, to be received after a common and carnal manner, but with a spiritual and religious carriage.  
Lastly, where you say, that when the people received the Law of the Passeover, they bowed their heads, and worshipped, Exod. 12.17. and they did not so in eating of it: That they were more reverend in hearing the Law of the Passeover, then in the participation of it. I answer, They bowed not their head, whilst they did hear, but after they had heard; and this I hope you will not deny: but after the participation of the Passeover, they gave thankes with as great reverence and devotion, as they used after hearing of the Word. Further, at the participation they sat not, but stood all the time, wherein they show fare greater reverence, then bowing of the head, which is finished at one instant, could import. And after the first celebration, when the Passeover was slain, and sacrificed at the Altar, you cannot say, that the people did not bow: for Micheas testifieth, cap. 6. ver. 6. That when the people brought their oblations, they bowed. As to the eating of it, the same was in private houses, and did serve them for an ordinary supper; therefore was it to be received accordingly. Our Sacrament is not such, nor hath no such use, as hath been said; therefore our manner of receiving ought not to be conformed unto that, which was used at the participation of the Paschal Supper.   

An answer to the second head, wherein kneeling is considered, as a breach of the second Commandment.  PP. 
KNeeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, is not only a breach of the Institution in the Gospel, but also of the second Commandment of the Law. The first breach of the Commandment made by kneeling, is the sin of idolatry: idolatry is committed in this act diverse ways. The Papists kneel in the act of receiving, because they believe verily that the bread is Transubstantiate into Christ's body, and upon this supposition of Transubstantiation and bodily presence, they kneel: this is the grossest idolatry that ever was in the world. The Lutheran kneels upon his supposition of Consubstantiation, and Christ's Real presence by Consubstantiation: This also is idolatry, and a supposition false. A third sort kneel for reverence of the elements, not giving to the elements that high kind of worship, called commonly cultus Latriae, which the Papists give, but an inferior kind of worship, due (as they think) to consecrate creatures: This also is idolatry.  ANS. 
The penner of this Pamphlet takes it, pro confesso, that our Church, which he calleth the third sort, kneels at the Sacrament, for reverence of the elements; and to prove it to be idolatry, he makes a long confused, and idle discourse, touching the relative worship, which Papists give to their Idols. I call it confused, because he makes no distinction therein, between the proper, accidental, and improper honour, which Papists profess to give to their Images: without the knowledge whereof, the disputation following cannot be understood: Therefore it must be cleared in the own place. I call it idle, because he takes pains to prove that which is not controverted; namely, that it is idolatry to kneel to the elements, or for reverence of the elements, which we deny not; yet he confesseth, that a religious honour, which he calleth veneration, should be given to the elements, and thereupon moves, and answers an objection touching this point, pag. 47. as followeth.  PP. 
It may be objected, that holy things ought to be reverenced. Answer, True, but not worshipped; veneration is one thing, adoration another; adoration belongeth to persons, veneration to things pertaining to persons, and is nothing else, but a religious respect, or reverend estimation of things pertaining to the use of Religion; a preservation of them, that they be not lost, and a decent usage of them, according to their kind: this veneration or reverence, is a respective or relative reverence given to them for God's sake: kneeling for reverence of senseless creatures, is to take the proper gesture of relative adoration, and apply it to relative reverence: for religious kneeling in all the Scripture, is a gesture of adoration and sovereign worship, etc.  ANS. 
This all is sound, and touching it, we agree fully with you, that reverence which is done to the Sacrament should not be expressed by kneeling, which you truly call a gesture of adoration, and sovereign worship. Therefore should it neither be given to the book of the Euangell, nor to the elements of the Sacrament, but to him only, who is the Author, and matter of both. And yet if men fall down, and worship him at the hearing of the Gospel, or after, at the receiving of the Sacrament, or after, and before it be received, being moved thereto by contemplation of his grace, and glory in the one and other: this religious worship no man will deny to be lawfully performed, as well by the worthy receiver of the Sacrament, as by the reverend hearer of the Word; for as we bow not to the letters and syllables, and sounds of the words of the Gospel, but to him, whose mind and will is declared therein: So do we not bow to the elements of bread and wine in the Sacrament, but to him, whose body and blood we receive thereby. But you, to make the world believe, that the Churches of Scotland and England kneel to the elements of bread and wine in the Sacrament, at least have ordained so to be done: you allege against the Church of England, the Ministers of Lincoln their defence in the third part thereof, referring the Reader to their proofs; touching which part, I only reply this, that there be sufficient answers made to these proofs, by learned and reverend men in that Church, whereto also I remit the Reader. Against our Church, you lay a false imputation, and frame thereupon all your discourse against kneeling, as it is a breach of the second Commandment, which we will now examine.  PP. 
In the late act, we are ordained to kneel for reverence of the divine mysteries. I see not wherein this differs from the Bishop of Rochester's argument, that great and reverend dreadful mysteries, must be received with great and dreadful humility of soul, and humiliation of body: therefore in the act of receiving, we must kneel; if this argument were good, than the Sacraments, and sacrifices of the old Law, should have been thus worshipped: and if we will measure by the sight, the Sacraments and sacrifices of the old Law, were more dreadful, then are the Sacraments of the new: for the slaughter of beasts and shedding of blood, was more dreadful, than the pouring out of wine. The Ancients held the sight of this Sacrament, not only from Pagans, but also from the Catechumenists: this doing was not commendable, it made the mystery of this Sacrament both dark and dreadful. Augustine saith, they may be honoured as matters religious, but wondered at, as matters of marvel, they cannot. But to return to the purpose, to kneel for reverence of the mysteries, is nothing else but to worship the mysteries.  ANS. 
Hear you set yourself against three parties, the Bishop of Rochester, the Ancients, and the Assembly at Perth. For the Bishop of Rochester, I answer shortly, That he takes the mysteries with Chrysostome, for the body and blood of Christ, represented in the Sacrament by the elements of bread and wine. In which sense, they are truly called great and dreadful, and aught to be received with great humility of soul, and humiliation of body: Non enim peccatur adorando carnem Christi, sed peccatur non adorando; We sinne not, saith Saint Augustine, in adoring Christ's flesh, but we sin, if we adore it not in the Sacrament.  
That which you blame in the Ancients, of withholding the sight of the Sacraments, not only from Pagans, but also from the Catechumenists, Chrysostome justifies with great reason, Hom. 7. 1. Cor. on these words: We speak the wisdom of God, which is hid. Alia videmus, saith he, alia credimus, aliter afficior ego, aliter infidelis. Infidelis, si lavacrum audiat, aquam simpliciter cogitat, etc. ideo fidei arcana, non sunt temerè apud indignos evulganda: We see one thing, saith Chrysostom, we believe another. I who believe am otherwise affected, than an Infidel is: if an Infidel hear of washing in Baptism, he thinks there is nothing there but water, etc. For this cause the mysteries of our faith ought not rashly to be divulgate to the unworthy. This judgement of Chrysostom's is not crossed by S. Augustine's testimony, but confirmed rather: for if the Sacraments should be honoured, as matters religious, then as Chrysostom saith, Pretiosae margarita est à contemptu vindicanda, that is, a precious jewel ought to be preserved from contempt.  
Where you allege against the Assembly at Perth, that in the late act thereof, we are ordained to kneel, for reverence of the divine mysteries, you are guilty of manifest falsehood: for in reciting the words of the act, you blot our some, change others, and thereby corrupt purposely the whole sense and meaning of the act. You blot out these words, of God, and in due regard: you change the word mystery, in mysteries, & these you interpret to be the elements, whereas in the act, the word (mystery) signifies not the elements, but the receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. But that your deceit may be manifested, I will set down the act, as it is extracted forth of the Register of the Assembly, under the hand of the Clerk thereof.  
Since we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him we fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker: and considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ: like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body, in our meditation and lifting up of our hearts, becometh well so divine and sacred an action: Therefore notwithstanding, our Church hath used since the reformation of Religion here, to celebrate the holy Communion to the people sitting, by reason of the great abuse used in the idolatrous worship of Papists: yet now since all memory of bypast superstition, is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praised be God; in reverence of God, and in due regard of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinks good, that, that blessed Sacrament be celebrated hereafter to the people, humbly and reverently kneeling upon their knees.  
This is the true copy of the act, differing in many things from that which you set down. Pag. 34. in the narrative thereof, the reasons are set down, wherefore the people should kneel, when they receive the Sacrament, which are repeated orderly in the conclusion, as the causes of the same. The first reason is, Since we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, we fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker. Relative unto this, we have in the conclusion, Therefore in reverence of God, the Assembly thinks good, that the Sacrament be given to the people kneeling. The second reason in the narrative is, And considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. Relative to this, we have these words, And in due recard of so divine a mystery. We say not in regard of the divine mysteries, which you interpret the elements, but Mystery, that is, the holy receiving of the body and blood of jesus Christ, mentioned in the narrative. Our third reason is, the correspondence which ought to be between the outward gesture of our body, and the meditation, and lifting up of our hearts, when we remember and consider the mystical union between Christ and us, and amongst ourselves, whereof we are made partakers by receiving of Christ's blessed body and blood. This is expressed in these words, Like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts, becomes so divine and sacred an action. Relative to this, in the conclusion, we have these words; And in remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partakers of thereby: for this remembrance is a part of our meditation. So to conclude, we come to worship at the Sacrament the Lord our Maker, who hath not only made us by creation, but who by redemption hath made us his people, and the sheep of his pasture, Psal. 95.7. Psalm 100.3. that is, God manifested in the flesh. We come to receive his flesh and blood, and in reverence of him we are commanded by the act to kneel. As ye then infer upon your forgery and falsehood, that to kneel for reverence of the mysteries is nothing else, but to worship the mysteries: so I infer upon the very words wherein the act is conceived, That to kneel for reverence of God, in due regard of the divine mystery, that is, the receiving of Christ's body and blood, in remembrance of the mystical union, whereof thereby we are made partakers, first, with our Head and Saviour; and next, through him, with God, and amongst ourselves: to kneel, I say, at the Sacrament for the reverence and respects aforesaid, is to worship God rightly, and that is the due observation of his commandment.  PP. 
Wheresoever the public intent of a Church is to worship the Sacrament, every private man following that intent, is formally an idolater. If his private intent be divers from the public, yet he is still materially and interpretatiuè an Idolater, etc.  ANS. 
Ye begin now to manifest yourself; ye perverted the words of the act, to draw upon our Church the vile imputation of idolatry, and now ye seek to divide the Church, and persuade people to disobedience under that colour. But the public intent of our Church was never to worship the Sacrament, but was, and is, to worship the Lord jesus, of whose flesh and blood we are made partakers in the Sacrament. And they who follow the Church in this, are neither formally nor materially idolaters, but true and sincere worshippers of God.  PP. 
Kneeling directed to the bread and wine in the hands of the Minister, is idolatry, howbeit the inward motion of the mind, and affection of the heart, be directed only to God, or his Son Christ, as the only object of adoration:  ANS. 
Still you build upon the false ground you have laid, that kneeling is direct to the bread and wine in the hands of the Minister, which is a manifest calumny: for the act doth appoint no such thing. To direct our knees to the signs, and the affection of our heart to the thing signified, is not only idolatry, but a kind of hypocrisy, and mixture of worship, which God abhors. Neither did our Church ever allow it in our doctrine, prayers, and exhortations, which are used at the Ministration; this is condemned, and the very act ordaining, that we should kneel before the Lord our Maker, forbids the same.  PP. 
This immediate convoy of worship to the principal object, is nothing else, but that finer sort of idolatry, and relative worship, which Durandus, Holcot, Mirandula, Alphonsus, Petrus Cluniacensis, and others, give to their Images.  ANS. 
If we did kneel to the Sacrament, that by it our worship might be conveyed to God, our kneeling were such a relative worship as ye affirm: but we kneel at the Sacrament, and not to the Sacrament, as we kneel at ●…yer, and not to the words and oration of the prayer, but to God to whom we direct our prayer. When God spoke, Abraham fell on his face, not to the sound of words, which he heard, but to the Speaker. When the fire came down at Elias prayer, the people fell on their faces, not to the fire which they saw, but to God, who wrought the miracle. This kneeling and falling on the face before God in the act of prayer, in the act of seeing, in the act of hearing, is a worship done to God immediately; and so it is in the act of receiving the Sacrament.  PP. 
They say, Images are not otherwise adored, then that before and about them are exhibited the external signs of honour. The inward affection is directed only to the principal object: as the services done at a Funeral show to an empty Coffin, as if the corpse were present.  ANS. 
To make it appear that there is no difference between our kneeling at the Sacrament, and the kneeling of the Papists to their Idols, the Pamphleter (such is his malice) travels so fare as lies in him, to extenuate the idolatry of Papists, and to obscure their opinion and doctrine of kneeling to Images, which I will therefore set down distinctly and shortly out of their own Writers.   

The Doctrine of Papists, touching the honour of Images.  
THe Papists profess, that they give to their Images two kinds of honour: The one they call Proper, the other Accidental and improper. The proper, they say, is due to the Image, as it is an holy thing, such as the honour which is given to the Euangell, to holy Vessels and Vestures; and it is proper, because it rests in the Image, as in the proper object, and is not conveyed by the Image immediately to the principal and archetype, albeit it be given to the Image, for the respect and reverence which is carried to the principal, and so by consequence redounds to the principal. This honour they affirm to differ, not in specie, but in degree only from the honour which is properly due to the principal. Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 21. & 25.  
Before we proceed to the improper and accidental adoration of Images, we have here to consider, that albeit no honour, but contempt, and destruction only be due to Papistical Images, because they are not holy things, but detestable abominations: yet therefore we must not think, that to such things as are truly holy, and applied to religious uses, reverend and religious respect is not due, as to the holy Sacraments, and to the Euangell, which honour rests in them, and is given to them in respect of him, whose word and Sacraments they are, and so redounds to him consequently: such an honour I mean, as is the hearing of the Word reverently, and the handling of the Sacraments, with the preserving, and using of them decently. It is true, this honour is not properly a spece of adoration, but a religious reverence only, which we must not reject, because the Papists give the same, or the like, to their Idols: for they give to things which are not religious, but superstitious, and execrable, a religious honour: therefore this reason is a mere deception, wherewith ye abuse the simple. Papists give such honour to their Idols, and in so doing they commit idolatry: therefore sincere Professors in giving that honour to the Sacraments & the word, commit idolatry. It follows not, for Papists give the honour which is due to the Word and Sacraments unto their Idols, to which it no wise belongs: as by example; Papists use their Images for signs, means, and occasions to stir them up to worship God, and in this they commit idolatry, because they reverence, use, and handle them as holy things, which God hath not allowed to be done: but when a true Christian useth the Word of God, and the Sacraments for signs, middesse, occasions, and instruments to stir him up to worship God, and in that respect honours and reverences them as holy things, he doth not commit idolatry, nor breaks not the second Commandment: but by the contrary he observes that Commandment, in using the means, which God himself hath ordained to be used in his worship: and he observes the third Commandment, which binds all men to sanctify the Name of God, and such means as he hath vouchsafed to manifest himself by to us in his worship.  
Now I proceed to the accidental and improper honour, which Papists profess themselves to give to their Images. This is the point here most controverted, and therefore most expedient to be known.  
The accidental honour which they give to their Images is, an adoration of their Images coniunctly with the principal; as when the King is honoured, his Robe Royal, and all his Ornaments are honoured coniunctly with his person, and with the same signs of honour that are given to his person: Bellarm. ibidem cap 20. & 23.  
The improper honour is the adoration of the Image in place, and stead of the principal: as, when the Prince his Ambassador is honoured for the Prince himself; or, an empty Coffin or Image, for the person himself, whose Image it is; all the honour due to the Prince, is done in that case to the Ambassador or Image; as beckoning, kneeling, discovering of the head, prostration of the body, kissing, embracing, and burning of Incense, etc. Bellarm. ibidem.  
The improper, and accidental honour, or adoration, differs from the proper: first, because the proper, as they say, although it be the same in specie, with that which is given to the principal, yet it differs from it in degree; but this improper honour is the same, both in specie and in degree. Next, because the proper, as they say, terminatur, that is, ends and rests in the Image, and redounds not immediately to the principal, but by way of consequence. The improper, and accidental adoration, although it be done to the Image, non tamen terminatur, yet it ends not, and rests in the Image, but passes, and is immediately conveyed to the principal by the Image, and from the Image. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 21. & 25.  
This is summarily their doctrine, as may be seen in their Writings. To apply this to our purpose, ye labour to extenuate this adoration, which they profess themselves to give unto their Images accidentally and improperly, saying, that the external signs of adoration, such as kneeling, bowing, discovering of the head, etc. are only done before them, and about them. This is too sparingly and rashly spoken: for these external shows are not only done before and about them, but the external adoration is wholly exhibited to them. Bellarmine lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 23. writeth thus: Aliquando imago sumitur pro ipso exemplari, & eaquae fierent circa ipsum exemplar si adesset praesens, fiunt circa imaginem, ment tamen defixam exemplari: sic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi, eique dicunt, Tu nos redemisti, tu nos Patri reconciliasti. That is to say; The Image sometimes is taken for the exemplar itself, and these things which would be done about the exemplar itself, if it were present, are done unto the Image, or about the Image, the mind being always fixed upon the exemplar. So Preachers direct their speech to the Image of the Crucifiex, and say unto it, Thou redeemedst us, thou reconciledst us to the Father. And a little after, in the same place he saith; Aliquando non accipimus imaginem pro exemplari, nec consideramus solam imaginem, vel solum exemplar, sed confideremus exemplar, ut obiectiue relucet in imagine, & ipsum sic reprasentatum & quasi vestitum imagine veneramur: tunc autem neceffario adoramus imaginem, codem cultu, quo ipsum exemplar: That is to say, Sometimes the Image is not taken for the exemplar, neither consider we the Image by itself alone, nor the exemplar by itself alone: but we consider the exemplar as an object shining in the Image, and so we adore the exemplar itself represented, and clothed as it were with the Image: then of necessity we adore the Image with the same worship wherewith we adore the principal. In the 25. Session of the Council of Trent, De innocatione, & sacris imaginibus, it is enacted as solloweth: Imagines porro Christi, Deiparae Virgins, & aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas & retinendas, eisque debitum honorem, & venerationem impertiendum; non quod credatur inesse eis aliqua divinitas vel virtus propter quam sunt colendae, etc. Sed quonam honos qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant, ita ut per imagines quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum adoremus. That is to say; The Council, moreover, ordains, that the Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of other Saints, should be kept and retained chiefly in Churches, and due honour & veneration given to them: not because we believe, that there is in them any divinity or virtue, for the which they ought to be worshipped, but because the honour which is given to them, is referred to the exemplar, which they represent; so as by the Images which we kiss, and before the which we discover our heads, and fall down, we adore Christ. Hence it is manifest, that the signs of honour, which are done before them, and about them, are exhibited to them: they kiss them, they speak to them, they kneel, they fall down, they discover their heads to them, and all is done about them, that would be done about Christ; all is done to them, that would be done to Christ, as if he were present in person. This is the professed and avouched doctrine of the Papists, which ye, as a deceiver, go about to extenutae. So, to conclude this point, that by the act at Perth we are ordained to bow our knees to the Elements of bread and wine in the Sacrament, or that any such honour, or sign of adoration is done to the Sacrament by us, as Papists grant they give to their Images, is a most impudent lie.  PP. 
When it is said therefore, to varnish the second intent, that the Elements are not obiectum quod, the thing itself that is worshipped, nor obiectum in quo, or, per quod, in the which, or by the which; but obiectum à quo significatiuè the object or sign moving us upon the sight thereof, to lift up our hearts to the spiritual object of faith. This kind of relative worship will not be found different from the relative worship of Durandus, and the rest.  ANS. 
If we adore the sacramental Elements, whether we adore them, as the principal object, quod, that is chief to be worshipped; or as the coniunct, or mediate object in quo, and per quod, wherein, or whereby we adore the principal; or if we adore them as the object moving us a quo to adore the principal: if, in a word they be the passive object of our adoration, whether we adore them coniunctly with Christ, or in his stead, as the Papists do their Images, we cannot be excused of idolatry: but if they be no manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active only of that adoration, which at the Sacrament is given to Christ, that is, such an object & sign as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification thereof, to lift up our hearts, & adore the only object of our faith, the Lord jesus: such as the holy Word of God, his works & benefits are, by meditation & consideration whereof, we are moved and stirred up to adore him. The worship proceeding from such occasions and motives (as the bowing of our knees at the Sacrament to Christ, occafioned by the use and signification, which the sacramental Elements have in that action) differs as much from the relative worship, which Durandus, and the rest give to their Idols, as the fincere and right worship of God differs from detestable idolatry.  PP. 
Bellarmine and Suarez draw Durandus and the rest from in illa, & per illam imaginem, in and by the Image, to circum & coram, about, or before the Image.  ANS. 
Ye still continue to extenuate the idolatry of the Papists, and labour to deceive your Reader. Bellarmine never draws Durandus and the rest from in illa & per illam imaginem: that is, to worship the principal in the Image, and by the Image: for he affirms, Lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 27. Quemadmodum in die parasceves cum Crucifixus paulatim detegitur & ostenditur & adorandus proponitur, illa omnia per imaginem ipsi Christo verè exhiberi intelliguntur: that is, As on Good-friday, when the Image of Christ crucified is a little discovered and showed, & proponed to be adored, all these things are understood to be exhibited to Christ per imaginem, by the Image; he saith not, coram and circum, before, & about the Image, but per, that is, by the Image: and a little after, in the same Chapter, Aliquando consideramus exemplar, ut obiectiue relucet in imagine, etc. that is, We sometimes consider the exemplar, as set before our eyes in the Image, & we adore it, as clothed with the Image. Here he saith, the principal is adored in the Image, as the King in his royal Robe: this is the coniunct adoration, when the principal is adored in the Image, & the Image with the principal coniunctly. The place which I cited out of the Council of Trent, saith, Per imaginem Christum adoramus, that is, We worship Christ by the Image. Bellar. cap. 21.26. describes the improper adoration in these words; Si imago non est adoranda nisi improprie, quia nimirum coram illa vel in illa, vel per illam adoratur exemplar, etc. that is, If an Image should not be adored but improperly, to wit, because before it, or in it, or by it, the exemplar is adored. And Cap. 20. about the end, Fiunt ergastatuam omnia, qua circa corpus fierent. that is, All things are done to the Image, which would have been done to the body. So these words, per. in, circa, orga, are used by Bellarmine, and the Papistical Doctors, as coram, & circum. This was to be declared, because afterwards ye allege, that we kneel before the Sacrament: & to make it appear, that we match the Papists in their idolatry, ye would have the Reader believe, that the Papists do no more but kneel before their Images; and that they do not worship God, or our Saviour jesus Christ in, and by their Images.  PP. 
Suarez saith, that the Image is neither the formal, nor the material, the total, nor the partial object of adoration in their opinion: but that only at the presence of the Images the principal called to remembrance by the Image, is adored; that the Image is an occasion, a middesse, a sign, stirring up a man to adore the principal. Their adoration then was also abstract from the object, as they pretend theirs to be.  ANS. 
The Papists allege, yet falsely, that the Image is no ways the object of their internal adoration, but the principal only, whereupon their minds are fixed. Yet all of them in one voice, & the Council of Trent confess, that they exhibit to the Images all the external reverence & adoration which is due to the principal; and that they adore the Image, either in lieu of Christ, or coniunctly with him, as the robe and vesture wherein he is clothed, and shines. Their external adoration therefore is not abstract from their Images, but our external and internal both are abstract. For we are no more enjoined by the act to bow our knee to the sacramental Elements, then to fix our minds upon them, & worship them in our hearts. Also, when Suarez calleth the Image an occasion, a middesse, a sign, stirring up a man to adore the principal, he neither says, nor means, that the Image should not be adored externally with that same worship which is due to the principal. To be short, The Papists make their Images objects of adoration both actively & passively: actively, because they call men to remembrance of the principal, & as signs, middesse, & occasions, they stir up men to worship. Passively, because the same external worship, whereunto men are stirred up by the Image, is first exhibited to the Image, & by it conveied to the principal. So whatsoever use the Image hath beside, in their opinion, it is manifest by their doctrine, that it is externally to be adored with the same worship that is due to Christ.  PP. 
The bread and wine, or any other creature whatsoever, differs not in this present case: for howsoever they were ordained of God to be signs & seals of his graces, yet they are not in statu accommodato ad adorandum, they have not such state in the service of God, as that by them, or before them, God or his Son Christ should be adored.  ANS. 
I have showed, & shall presently show, by God's grace, the difference in this case to be as great, as is between idolatry, and the true worship of God. First, It is idolatry to use any Image in the worship of God, for a sign, an occasion, or a middesse to stir up a man to worship God; for they are prohibited in the second Commandment, and by the Prophet they are called Teachers of lies, because by them properly and truly, nothing can be brought to our remembrance, for which we should adore God: but on the other part, it is not possible that either our minds can be informed to know God, or our affections moved to worsh ippe him, except by the contemplation of the creatures, the meditation of the Word, and the consideration of the holy Sacraments: take these occasions, middesse, and signs away, ye abolish Religion, and all the worship of God out of the Word. I hope the Reader by this shall see the difference to be as great in this case, as is between a lawful means of God's worship, commanded by himself, and the invention of man prohibited by God.  
Next, the Papists will have these middesse, occasions, & signs not only objects of divine worship active, that is, serving to stir up, and move men to worship, which is the first degree of their idolatry: but they will have them likewise passive objects, such as are to be worshipped either in stead of the principal, or coniunctly with him; & this is a higher degree of idolatry. In this then they differ also from the Word, Sacraments, & creatures, that these being the ordinary objects & instruments whereby men must be stirred up to worship God, & so the objects of divine adoration actively, they neither are, nor should they be esteemed passive objects of adoration, that is, such as should be adored, either coniunctly with God, or in his stead. This we condemn & detest, yet must not run on with you to the other extremity, & say, that howsoever they were ordained of God to be signs & seals of his graces, yet they are not in statu accommodato ad adorandum: for although by them, & before them, that is, (to make the obcurities which ye affect, plain) albeit they should neither be adored in place of God & his Son; or coniunctly with God & his Son, as the Papists profess to adore their Images: yet certain it is, that there is nothing in nature, or religion fit & apt to stir men up to worship God, if the Sacraments be not meet. Shall our corporal food, when it is presented on table before us, be in such state, as is proper to stir us up to worship God with thanksgiving & prayer? Shall the consideration of the benefit which we have by the light of the day, & by our rest & sleep in the night, be esteemed motives of such moment, that he who is not thereby moved in the morning when he riseth, and at night when he goeth to bed, to pray, and give thanks, is esteemed a slothful and ingrateful Christian? Shall a seasonable seed time, shall the first and latter rain, and a fair harvest be pregnant occasions to remember us both in private and public to give thanks, and praise God for his goodness? And shall the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of jesus Christ, in the very act, when it is in giving and receiving, not be esteemed to be in proper state to move us, and stir up our hearts to pray, and give thanks for that inestimable benefit, even when our Saviour hath commanded that we should do this in remembrance of him? It is an absurd opinion. Then to conclude; If ye hold these two points which ye have propounded, to wit, that the Sacrament, and creatures of God should not be used as occasions, middesses, and signs to move us by the fight and meditation of them, to list up our hearts to the spiritual object of our saith, that is, to God in jesus Christ, because Suarce saith, that their Images have that use; then certainly, you must hold, that God should not be known nor worshipped in the World: for without this use of the Word, Sacraments, and Creatures, God cannot be known, nor worshipped. So whilst ye fly idolatry, ye fall into Atheism. Next, if ye hold, that the Sacraments in the very act of the administration, are not in statu accommodato adadorandum, you must take away the chief and principal end of the Sacrament commended to us by the Lord himself in these words, Do this in remembrance of me. Saiut Paul interprets these words thus; So often as ye eat this bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shall declare the Lords death, till he come again: that is, as the Confession of our faith, which ye have sworn and subscribed, explains it, Yet shall extol, magnify, and praise his death Now this is a real act of adoration, which both the Lord himself, and his holy Apostle would have us moved unto by this Sacrament. So by these your positions and assertions, ye mutilate the Sacrament of one of the most principal ends, for the which it was instituted. And generally ye take from the Creatures of God, and the holy Sacraments, the most excellent use, for which they were appointed: namely, to be means and motives to stir us up unto the worship of our Creator and Redeomer.  PP. 
If this kind of relative worship were to be allowed, than the holy signs both in the old and new Testament should have served to the same use; then they who are fare distant from the Table should kneel: for the Elements are to them obiectum à quo significatiuè: than at the sight of the Sun, or any beautiful Creature we should kneel, seeing they put us in mind of God's incomprehensible beauty: and seeing many of them allow the historical use of Images, we may fall down before the Crucifix, providing, the action of the mind be abstracted from the Image.  ANS. 
We allow no worship, whether it be relative, or absolute, that is either given to Sacrament or Creature. But it is a gross error to think that the worship which is only given to God immediately, or directly, is relative, because it is motioned, and occasioned by the consideration of God's Creatures, and blessed Sacraments: for so all the worship of God must be relative, because it is all occasioned either by the Word, the Sacraments, or the Creatures: whereas, indeed, there is no worship relative, but that which is given to some mediate thing, for the relation it hath to the principal: and as for us, we neither give to the Word, the Sacrament, or any Creature, divine worship, but only to God, whom by the Word, the Sacrament, and the Creatures we are taught and admonished to worship. The relative worship is only that which Papists give to their Idols, for the relation they have to the principal, which we detest, and condemn as much as yourself.  
Where you say, that the signs of the old and new Testament, and the sacramental Elements, when they are only seen, as likewise the Sun, or any beautiful creature, might then move us to adore: I answer, that although they be potentially obiectum à quo, objects whereby we may be stirred up to worship; yet are they not actually such, except they be applied, and accommodate to that use, either in the ordinary public ministry, or in a man's private meditation and devotion: or extraordinarily upon some present and great occasion; as when the fire came down at the prayer of Elias, and consumed the sacrifice. When the Signs, Sacraments, or Works of God, are after that manner propounded and insinuated, they are in statu accommodato adorandum, and then men ought to adore and worship God: yet it is not necessary that they should, upon all such occasions, fall down and kneel, as ye conclude: For when in our private meditation and devotion, or when by some present great occasion, we are inwardly moved and affected to worship; our external gesture of adoration is arbitrary, and lest to our own private election, to do what is most convenient & decent for that time: Sometime the discovering of the head is sufficient, sometime the listing up of the eyes only, and sometime no gesture at all is required; but in the ordinary Ministry, when the works of God, or his benefits are propounded, and applied publicly, to stir us up to worship in the assemblies of the Church, than our gesture ceaseth to be arbitrary: for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the Church, where we worship. So, when by the sight of the Sacraments only, or by the sight of holy signs, or creatures of God, we are moved privately to worship, we may use, or not use, what gesture we think meetest; yet when we come to the table ourselves, not to be spectators, but to communicate with others, we ought to receive, and worship after the form and custom of that Church in which we are. If they sit with their heads discovered, so should we: If they stand or pass by, so should we: If they kneel, so should we for uniformity and peace sake. Saint Angustine in his 118. Epist. Ad quam fortè ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serua, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo; nec quenquam tibi: that is, Keep the custom of the Church whereunto thou comest, if thou would be offensive to no man, and wouldst have no man offensive to thee: This Saint Augustine learned of Saint Ambrose, and as he saith, he did never think of it, but he esteemed it as an oracle, that he had received from heaven. As to those in the Reformed Churches, who allow the historical use of Images, they condemn with us, both the external and internal adoration of Images: Therefore, by their doctrine, we may not kneel before the Crucifix, because it is a sort of external adoration.  PP. 
All the parts of God's worship ought to be direct, and not obliqne. Perkins saith, It is idolatry to turn, dispose, or direct the worship of God, or any part thereof, to any particular place, or creature, without the appointment of God; and more specially, to direct our adoration to the bread, or to the place where the bread is, what is it less than idolatry?  ANS. 
If by the Act of Porth, we had been ordained to kneel to the Sacrament, either in stead of Christ, or coniunctly with him, you might call it an obliqne worship that were enjoined; but seeing we are commanded, in receiving the holy Sacramet, to bow our knees to God only, and to nothing with him, or in his stead, our worship is direct, and not obliqne; Therefore we subscribe to the judgement of Perkins. But I must tell you, that hitherto your disputation hath not only been obliqne, but impertinent, for you have impugned nothing set down in the Act; only you have set yourself against a position forged by yourself, in falsifying the Act. Thus while you have intended that you shall never be able to perform, namely, to prove, that by kneeling at the Sacrament, a breach is made of the second Commandment, you have made a manifest breach of your credit and honesty.  PP. 
Kneeling before the Elements, referred directly to Christ, is either a gesture signifying the humble submission of the mind in general, whereby we make obeisance, as if he were bodily present: or else it signifieth more particularly our humiliation in prayer: This is but a special, the former was a general; the like reasons serve against both. It is true, we cannot kneel to God in prayer, but there are many things before us, a Church, a house, a wall, a tree, a stair, etc. But we set them not before us purposely, we are by no direction tied unto them; they stand only before us by casual position, neither can we choose otherwise to do.  ANS. 
Your former dispute was founded on falschood, this runs all upon ambiguity of speech. To kneel before the Elements hath two senses, either it signifies to kneel to the Elements, as we are said to kneel before God, when we kneel unto him; and Papists before their Images, when they kneel to them. In this sense, it is a lie to affirm, that we kneel before the Elements. Next, to kneel before any thing, signifieth to kneel, having some things before our eyes, or in our sight, or object to our senses either by casual position, as you say, or purposely. To kneel to God before any thing, standing, or set casually before you, you do not condemn; but to kneel to God, having any thing purposely before us, as the sacramental Elements, that ye insinuate to be idolatry, but I hope you shall never prove it: for a Penitentiary kneels to God purposely before the Congregation, and with a respect to the Congregation; namely, that they may concur with him in prayer, he may testify to them his unfeigned repentance, and they being satisfied therewith, may receive him again into their fellowship. Hear is a kneeling to God before something purposely, and with respect, which is not idolatry. When we come to our common tables, before we eat, either sitting with our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bless with a respect to the meat, which is purposely set on table; yet this is not idolatry. And to draw somewhat nearer to the purpose: The Pastor, when he gins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set before him purposely upon the table, and with respect to them he gives thankes to God, for that it hath pleased him to institute the Sacrament in these Elements, that he might thereby communicate to us, the body and the blood of jesus. And thus he ought to bless the Elements, for which the Apostle saith, The Cup of his blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? Hear is a praying, a blessing, a thanksgiving to God before the Elements, purposely set before us, and not by casual position: And it is true, that if any may be said to kneel before the Elements, it is the Pastor in this part of though action, and not the people. For when they receive they do not set the bread before them, as Papists do the Crucifix, but presently they put it in their mouths, and whilst they are eating, they continue still kneeling, not before the bread, which is not then before them, but before the Lord jesus, unto whom they only kneel. In all this the Bastor doth imitate our Saviour himself, who first took the bread, and having it purposely before him, or holding it in his hands, Gave thankes, and after Supper took the Cup, which he did bless also. So to kneel or adore God before the Elements, that is, having them in our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary signs, means, & memorials to stir us up to worship God and our Saviour, directly, immediately, & only, and not the Elements, either in his stead, or coniunctly with him; is no idolatry, but the right and true form of God's worship.  
The cause of all this error is, you make no distinction between the abuse of Idols in the worship of God, and the right use of his works, Word, and Saciaments. To pray, or give thankes to God before an Image, with respect to it, is idolatry: but to pray and give thankes to God, having his creatures, or Sacraments before our eyes and minds, and being moved by the respects that we consider in them, is a most lawful and religious form of adoration. For we can neither pray to God, nor thank him, nor praise him, but ever there must be, before the eyes of our minds at least, something of his works, Word, or Sacraments, if not before our external senses; and that we must respect, consider, and be moved thereby. Contrariwise, to set before the eyes of our minds or body, any Image, as a mean or motive of adoration, is idolatry. For although the worship were abstracted, which is occasioned by the Image, and were not given unto it (as never any hath said, except yourself, of the external adoration) yet it is damned, because no true worship can be properly occasioned by an Image, which is a Doctor of lies, teaching nothing of God; but falsehood and vanities. But the blessed Sacrament being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his death, and the benefit we have thereby, gives us so oft as we receive it, a most powerful and pregnant occasion of thanksgiving and praise; which if we should neglect, and not adore, we should be guilty of the breach of the first Commandment, because we did not adore, when Christ purposely did offer the greatest occasion, that can be presented so to do. Therefore, when by that occasion, we adore our Saviour, both on the knees of our soul and body, we are no breakers, but due observers, as well of the first, as second Commandment.  PP. 
It is true likewise, that God directed his people under the Law, to bend and bow themselves towards the Ark, and the Temple wherein the Ark was, and the mountain whereon the Temple was situate: partly, lest that rude people should turn their worship another way; partly because of his promise to hear them, when they should pray towards the Temple, or Ark; partly because of his singular manner of presence in the Arko. He was said to dwell between the Cherubins, the Ark is called his footstool, and sometimes the face of God, the glory of God: It is reason, where God is present after an extraordinary manner, as when he spoke out of the bush, and the cloud, that adoration be directed to the place of his extraordinary presence: The Altars, the offerings, and other holy things, wanted the like presence and promise,: The Ark, and the Cherubins upon the Ark were not seen, therefore could not be readily abused to idolatry.  ANS. 
You make here an exception, and confess, that it was lawful to kneel before the Temple, the Ark, and Gods holy Möuntaine, because of God's direction, promise and presence. Likewise ye acknowledge that adoration may be directed to the place of extraordinary presence. And hereby it is manifest, that to worship God before a creature, or before the testimonies of his presence, although we have these things before us purposely and not occasionally only, doth not import a communion of his worship with the creatures, or means, before the which men may worship: for it is certain, that if the people under the Law, by bending, as you say, and bowing of themselves towards the Temple; Mountain, and Ark, had communicated any part of God's worship with the Temple, Mountain, and Ark, as the Papists do with their Idols, their worship had been idolatry, and a breach of the second Commandment, which God would never have appointed, for whatsoever respect, either of his ordinary, or extraordinary presence. Where ye say, That the Altars, and Offerings and other holy things, wanted the like presence, & that before these, they might not bow in that respect, it is utterly false: For Solomon first stood, and after kneeled before the Altar, and prayed, 2. Chron. 6.12. And he stood before the Altar of the Lord, in presence of all the Congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands, For SALOMON had made a brazen scaffold of fine cubits long, and five cubits broad, and three cubits high, and set it in the midst of the court, and upon it he stood, and he kneeled down upon his knees before all the Congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands towards heaven, and said, etc. Likewise it is manifest by the Prophet Micha. 6.6. That the people bowed when they offered their Oblation: Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the most high God? Hear we have Solomon kneeling before the Altar, and the people kneeling, when they offered their oblations. Where you say, that the Ark and Cherubins were not seen, towards which they bowed, it makes nothing for your purpose, for the Temple was seen, and the Mountain was seen, towards the which they also bowed: So was the Altar and the Oblations. Therefore this is but a dream, that you have fancied to yourself, to say, it is idolatry to bow our knees to God before his creatures, or holy mysteries, if so we use them only as means, and instruments, and memorial, to stir us up to worship God.  PP. 
The Sacramental Elements have neither the like presence, the like promise, nor the like commandment.  ANS. 
If ye do maintain this, it is an absurd heresy; for the holy Sacrament hath fare more evidence, and excellent promises, presence and command, than any type under the Law. Our Saviour before his Ascension, when he commanded his Apostles to teach and baptise, promised; that whilst they taught his people that which he commanded them, He would be with them to the end of the world. Amongst the observations which he commanded them to teach, this is one of the first and principal. Do this in remembrance of me. Is not Christ present then with Pastor and people, according to his promise, in this holy action? And in another place, he saith, Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Where so many Communicants are met together, is not our Saviour in the midst of them? Further, when he saith of the bread, This is my Body, and of the Cup, This is my Blood: doth it not import a conjunction between his Body and the Elements, and a spiritual presence of his Body in the Sacrament? And should not his body and blood be as present to the eyes of thy mind, thy knowledge and understanding, and to the hand of thy heart, thy faith and confidence, as are the Elements to thy external senses, and bodily hand? Have we not taught our people to this day, and yet should teach them, that in this action, there is an internal and external receiver, the hand and the heart: that there is an earthly and spiritual gift, the Elements of the Sacrament, and the body and blood of Christ? And should we not believe, that Christ, God, and Man, is as really present in the Sacrament, according to his Divinity, as we believe him to be bodily present in heaven, giving and applying the selfsame body which is in heaven, as really to the inward man, as the Pastor is giving the Elements to the outward? How dare you then affirm, that the Sacrament hath not such a presence of Christ, as the Ark, the Propitiatory, and the Cherubins had. O but he said, that he would dwell between the Cherubins; That dwelling was typical, but Christ hath promised to dwell spiritually and really in the hearts of the worthy receivers. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And saith he not of this communion? He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me, and I in him. God called the Ark his footstool, but Christ calleth the sacramental Elements, his body and blood. Sometime he called the Ark his face, and glory, because it was a type of his face and glory; but the Sacrament is not a bare type, but a powerful instrument, whereby Christ is communicate unto us, that we may be made partakers here of his grace, and hereafter of his glory. Finally, when we are commanded to do this in remembrance of him, we are commanded to adore him; for according to the interpretation, made in the Confession of Faith, confirmed by act of Parliament, which ye profess yourself to have sworn, To do this in remembrance of Christ, is to magnify, declare, extol, and praise his death till his coming again. And this is a real act of adoration.  PP. 
Worship is tied no longer to any certain thing, or or place on earth.  ANS. 
That is true, yet worship stands in certain actions, which must be performed in some convenient place, as Prayers, Supplications, Intercessions, Thankesging and Praises; wheresoever these actions are performed, in these places God must be worshipped: and if the blessed Sacrament be an action of that kind, in it God must be worshipped, and in the place where it is celebrated.  PP. 
Adoration is tied in the new Testament to the Manhood of Christ, the true Ark, and Propitiatory; and is carried to that place, in which we certainly know the said Manhood to exist substantially, saith Perkins; and therefore it is, that we lift up our eyes to the heavens, where he is, and direct our very external worship to him.  ANS. 
We do fully agree with Perkins in all this, for we neither direct our internal, nor external adoration to the sacramental Elements, nor to the place where they are, but to the Manhood of jesus, which we acknowledge, and believe to be locally only in heaven. Therefore in the ancient Church, when the people came to the Sacrament, the Deacon cried, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts, and the people answered, Habemus ad Dominum, We have our hearts lifted up to the Lord. But what is this to the purpose in hand? For the question is not, in whom God should be worshipped, or in what place Christ's Manhood is, wherein God should be worshipped; but the question is, whether at the Sacrament in the act of receiving the sacramental Elements externally, and the body and blood of jesus Christ, internally; we may bow our knees, and lift up our hearts, and adore that Manhood, by reason of the personal union, that it hath with the Godhead, and the Godhead dwelling in the Manhood corporally. This is the only true relative worship acceptable to God, in the Humanity to worship the Divinity, and the Humanity with the Divinity in one Person, the invisible God in his own essential and incarnate Image, the Lord jesus: That such worship may, and should be performed in receiving the blessed Sacrament, never any Divine, ancient or modern, hath doubted to this day, except Anabaptists and Arrians, who deny Christ's Divinity, and will neither adore him in the Sacrament, nor any other action of Divine worship.  PP. 
It is objected, and said, that we may pray in the act of receiving. Therefore we may kneel in the act of receiving. Ans. This Objection insinuateth, that kneeling is the proper and only commendable gesture of prayer: and therefore the Bishop of Rochester expounds the standing of the Publican, Luk. 18.11.13. to have been kneeling, because, saith he, the jewish custom was to pray kneeling. But if he had remembered the Lords own saying, jer. 15. Though MOSES, and SAMVEL stood before me, etc. he might have understood, that they prayed standing, as well as kneeling, etc.  ANS. 
The objection ye bring concludeth, that we may kneel, not that we ought to kneel: therefore no man will think; that the objection insinuateth kneeling to be the proper and only commendable gesture of praying, but that it is a very commendable gesture, & such as may be used: that which you ay me at in answering this objection, is to confute the Bishop of Rochester his opinion, that by standing kneeling, Luk. 18.11 13. is meant. But the Bishop's opinion is not so absurd, as you would have men to think: for by standing, in the Scripture any divine service is signified. Therefore the Lords Prophets, Priests, and Angels, are said to stand before him, that is, to serve him. In the first of the Kings 8.22. it is written, that Solomon stood before the Altar of the Lord, and prayed, but in the second of the Chronicles 6.13. It is said he kneeled down, and prayed upon his knees. So standing, in the book of the Kings, is taken for kneeling. But leaving this, I come to your next words.  PP. 
The prayer meant of, is either some public prayer uttered by the Minister, or the mental prayer of the Communicant.  ANS. 
This is a needless distinction, for the mental prayer of the Receluer should not be different from the prayer uttered by the Minister at the delivery of the Elements, and ought only to be an Amen to the Ministers prayer. The ancient custom of the Church was such; for in the days of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, anno 251. as Eusebius records, l. 2. c. 32. when Novatus gave the Sacrament to his people, he held their hands, & instead of the blessing which he should have used at the delivery of the Elements, he conceived an oath, & made the people swear by that which was in their hands, & instead of Amen, which they should have answered the blessing with, he made the people say, That they should not return to CORNELIUS. Whereby it is manifest, that the blessing used by the Pastor at the delivery of the Elements, differed not at that time from the mental prayer of the Communicant, neither ought it now to differ, but be the same in substance.  PP. 
As for the prayer of the Minister in the act of distribution, it is flat against the Institution, as I have already said. The Minister is ordained by the Institution, to act the person of Christ, and pronounce the words of promise; This is my body, and not change the promise into a prayer. Fenner in his Principles of Religion, layeth this down for a ground, that in the second Commandment we are forbidden the practice and use of any other rite, or outward means used in the worship or service of God, than he hath ordained, joh. 4.22. 2. King. 18.4. And that by the contrary, we are commanded to practise all these parts of his worship, which he in his word hath commanded, and to acknowledge only the proper use of every rite, and outward means, which the Lord hath ordained, Dent. 12.32. 2. King. 17.26.  ANS. 
It is false that ye say, we change the promise into a prayer: for at the Consecration we observe precisely the words of the Institution. In the delivery of the elements, we use a prayer that is not contrary, but most agreeable to the Institution, for directing the hearts of the people in the receiving, that they may worthily communicate. So do the Pastors in France at the delivery use a short speech: and it was the custom of late in our Church, to use some exhortations before the distribution at every Table; wherein neither we nor they did, or do practise any rite, or use any means, which God hath not ordained to be used in his worship. For although the particular form of speech used in the French Church, and the exhortations and prayers used by us, be not expressly set down; yet being agreeable to the Word, and the nature of the action in hand, they have sufficient warrant by these general precepts: Let all things be done to edification; Let all things be done decently and in order. And with these precepts Fenners grounds do agree: Otherwise, by what warrant is it appointed in the form set down before our Psalm books, touching the celebration of the Lords Supper, that during the time of the distribution, some place of Scripture should be read, which doth lively set forth the death of Christ; to the intent, that our eyes and senses may not only be occupied in these outward signs of bread and wine, which are called the visible word, but that our minds and hearts also, may be fully fixed in the contemplation of the Lords death, which is by this holy Sacrament represented. This ordinance is not contained in the Institution: yet I hope ye will not say, that it is flat contrary thereto, but that it hath sufficient warrant by the general Apostolic precepts before expressed: and so hath the prayer used by us in the act of distribution. But ye subioyne another reason to prove the prayer used at this time unlawful.  PP: 
Further, we are forbidden by the second Commandment to pray by direction before any creature.  ANS. 
Why do ye then pray at the table, when your meat is set before you, and at the Consecration having the sacramental Elements before you? And when you visit the Sick, why direct ye your face and senses towards the person, and the place where he lies, while ye are praying to God, for him?  PP. 
This public prayer is but a pretended cause of kneeling, as the Ministers of Lincoln make manifest in their Abridgement, etc.  ANS. 
To the Abridgement of these Ministers, sufficient answers are made by the learned Divines of that Church, and the Canons and Customs thereof, defended against their calumnies. Therefore let us come to our own, touching which ye say.  PP. 
As for our Church, no such prayer is ordained to be uttered by the minister, Therefore no such prayer can be pretended. In the late Canon it is said, That the most reverend and humble gesture of the body, in our meditation and lifting up of our hearts, best becometh so divine an action. Meditation is no prayer, and the heart may be lifted up by the act of faith and contemplation, aswell as the action of prayer. So that neither public nor mental prayer is expressed in our Act.  ANS. 
Albeit neither mental nor public prayer be expressed in the Act, yet prayer, thanksgiving, and praise, are all insiwated: for albeit all meditation be not prayer, yet every prayer is a meditation: and although in the act of faith and contemplation, the heart may be lifted up; yet, that elevation of the heart requireth not the most humble, and reverend gesture of the body, as kneeling. In the ancient Church, they were not accustomed to kneel, when they made confession of their faith, but to stand as Christian soldiers. Our act insinuateth such a meditation, and lifting up of the heart, as is used in actions of devotion, such as prayer and thanksgiving; which are practised by all, who give obedience to the act, or do worthily communicate. But, put the case, that by the act, no such thing were ordained expressly, yet upon this antecedent which ye use; namely, we are not ordained by any act of our Church, to pray at the receiving; this conclusion will not follow: Therefore we may not pray at the receiving. For we are not ordained by any act of our Church expressly, to discover our heads in the act of receiving; May we not therefore discover our heads? But any show of reason is good enough to deceive simple people.  PP. 
But let the words be interpreted of mental prayer, even mental prayer, is not the principal exercise of the soul, in the act of receiving the sacramental Elements; the mind attending on the audible words, the visible Elements, the mystical actions, and making present use of them, men should not be diverted from their principal work, and meditation upon the analogy between the signs, and the things signified.  ANS. 
The meditation upon the analogy between the sign, and the thing signified, cannot be the principal work of the soul, it being nothing else, but the consideration of the similitude, that is between the natual use of the signs, and the spiritual use of the thing signified: Namely, that as the Elements serve to nourish the outward man: so the body and the blood of Christ, hath a virtue to nourish the inward man; and by eating and drinking, the Elements are applied to feed the body: So by faith, the body and the blood of Christ are applied to feed the soul. Such a meditation, an Hypocrite and Reprobate may have at the Table, therefore it cannot be the principal work of the mind, which distinguisheth the worthy, from the unworthy Receiver. When we hear and read the Word, the principal work of our mind, should not be a meditation upon the form of the characters, the sound of the letters, the conjunction of them, their sounds in the syllables, the syllables in the words, or the force and virtue of the words to signify the matters; but the chief work of our mind should be to conceive, understand, and consider rightly what is spoken. So when we come to the Sacrament, the chiefe employment of our mind, should not be to consider the proportion that is between the natural use of the Elements, and the spiritual use of Christ's body and blood, but a meditation and spiritual action correspondent, and analogicke to the external sacramental actions. As therefore the principal external sacramental actions, are to take, eat and drink reverently the symbolic Elements, the bread and wine; so the principal work of the soul, correspondent by analogy thereto, is to remember the sacrifice of Christ, the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood: to consider the benefit that we have thereby, to put our confidence therein; and for all, to praise and magnify his name with thankfulness. This work and meditation, is proper to the worthy Receivers, and stirreth up in the soul, that most reverend estimation and affection towards our Saviour, with an humble submission of our minds unto him, which we call adoration: whereof the outward testimony and signe, is the humble and reverend gesture of the body, prescribed in the act, which is also a gesture most convenient for prayer. So this gesture prescribed in the act, doth not only attend the prayer uttered by the pastor, and conceived by the people in the act of receiving, but is proper to that, which is indeed the chief and principal exercise & work of the mind, in all worthy receivers.  PP. 
The soul may send forth in the mean time some short ejaculations, and darts of prayer to heaven, to strengthen her own weakness, and return to her principal work of meditation, and application of the benefits represented. These short ejaculations of the mind, are only occasional, as a Christian feeleth his own present estate; and are incident to all our actions, both civil and religious: in the act of receiving our earthly food, in going on the way, in hearing the Word. If a man be moved inwardly, when he heareth that the Word was made flesh, shall he kneel, as they do in the Roman Church? If a man should kneel at every inward motion of the mind, when he heareth the Word; what confusion would there be in the Congregation?  ANS. 
The verbal prayer uttered by the Pastor, and the mental conceived by the people, in the act of receiving, is not an ejaculation, but necessary to be used in the action by the worthy Receivers; for no man can receive the body and the blood of Christ worthily, without a spiritual hunger and thirst after the righteousness and life that is in him: which spiritual appetite and desire, being declared by the Pastor in these or the like words, when he delivereth the bread: Grant Lord, that by the virtue of thy body, which wereceive, we may have life eternal, and be raised up at the last day. And when he delivereth the Cup: Grant Lord, that by the virtue of thy blood, which we receive, we may be purged from our sins, and filled with thy Spirit. And the Receivers conceiving, and confirming the same, by saying with their mouths, as the custom was in the ancient Church, or in their hearts, Amen: They send not up occasional ejaculations, but necessary and ordinary prayers, such as the nature of the action requires. Therefore, as I said before, although occasional secret prayers may be offered to God, without any external gesture, or with such as the worshipper thinks meetest for the time; yet these, which are purposely conceived in the ordinary and solemn act of divine worship, should be presented to God, with such a gesture, as is conform to the order prescribed, and received in the Church.  PP. 
A man looking occasionally to a Crucifix, may remember Christ, and send up some ejaculations, shall he therefore kneel? The three children prayed mentally, no doubt, when they were brought before the golden Image, but lawfully, they might not kneel before it.  ANS. 
Here ye affirm again, that which ye falsely alleged before: namely, that the Sacrament, or any other creature, differs not in the case of adoration from the Papists Images: and therefore, as it is unlawful to kneel before the Crucifix, or Nebuchadnezzars golden Image, albeit we may pray mentally before them; so is it unlawful to kneel, and pray at the Sacrament, that is, having the sacramental elements before us, or object to our senses. This comparison is odious & false: for there is no worship more lawful than the prayers & blessings uttered by the Pastor, having the Elements disposed on the Table before him at the consecration: for this agrees both with the Institution, & hath our Saviour's example, as we said before. These comparisons serve to no other use, but to extenuate idolatry, and discredit the Sacrament.  PP. 
Perkins distinguisheth notably between public, private, and secret worship: The secret and mental worship must be yielded unto God, and the signs thereof concealed from the eyes and hearing of men, as Nehemiah, when he prayed in presence of the King, Nehem. 2.4. In a word, the Institution, and the second Commandment hinder kneeling at this time, suppose mental prayer were the principal exercise of the soul.  ANS. 
Perkins speaks rightly: for if the worship be secret and mental, it must be concealed from the eyes of men: but if it be mental, and public, such as are the prayers of the people in time of divine Service, who mentally follow the prayer publicly uttered by the Pastor, these mental prayers must be offered with such external signs of adoration, as are used in the Congregation. But in the act of receiving, say ye, that cannot be, because it is a breach of the second Commandment, and of the Institution: I answer, That reason of yours is the caption called Petitio principy, to take that for granted which is in question, and I may truly say, already confuted. So that there remains now no more question, but that we may both pray and kneel in the act of receiving, without breach of the second Commandment, and most agreeably to the Institution.  PP. 
I hear there is alleged a third sort of prayer, to wit, that the very act of receiving is of itself a real prayer. Is not this as much, as to say, That craving, and receiving is all one? Bellarmine saith, that prayer of itself, and of the own proper office, doth impetrate; and that a sacrifice hath the force and power of obtaining and impetrating, because it is quaedam oratio realis, non verbalis, a certain real prayer, not a verbal. We may forgive him to say this of the sacrifice of the Mass, where there is an offering of a sacrifice to God: but Bellarmine was never so absurd, as to call the act of receiving from God, a real prayer to God.  ANS. 
No man, I think, will allege, that the act of receiving is praying, or craving, although these two may agree well together. But it is true, that the celebration of this Sacrament is a real thanksgiving to God for the benefit of our redemption; and although it be not a propitiatory, or impetratory sacrifice, as Bellarmine saith, yet it is eucharisticke, and a commemoration of the propitiatory, and impetratory sacrifice of Christ: And in the very act of receiving, and by the act of receiving, we do openly acknowledge and confess before the world, that our confidence of salvation is only in the sacrifice of the Lord jesus Christ; which is, a real praising, magnifying, extolling, and preaching of his death until his coming again. Now to conclude, ye have made many long answers to a short objection, and notwithstanding the argument remains in force. Your objection proponed was this: We may pray in the act of receiving, therefore we may kneel.  
Your first answer to this objection was, That kneeling is not the only proper and commendable gesture of prayer, and thereupon concluded, we might not kneel. This, as we have showed, is not a good consequence.  
Next, ye answered, that to pray in the act of delivery is against the Institution. This we have confuted.  
Thirdly, you answered, that we ought not to pray before a creature: and therefore might not pray in the act of receiving. The antecedent of this is false, as we have showed: at least, as it is conceived, and the conclusion holds not.  
Fourthly, ye said, that we are not commanded by the act of Perth to pray; and therefore that we may not pray. This follows not.  
Fifthly, because the prayer of the people in the act of receiving is mental, ye inferred, that they might not kneel: and this is no good consequence.  
Lastly, ye said, we may not kneel before the Crucifix, and before Nebuchadnezzars Image, and therefore we may not kneel in the act of receiving the Sacrament. And this is most absurd, the Sacrament being a part of God's worship, instituted by himself: but the use of Idols and Images in his worship he hath expressly forbidden. So all your answers are mere sophistical captions and abductions from the purpose: yet ye proceed to answer some others, that ye frame against yourself.  PP 
Their other objection, that we may praise God in the act of receiving, therefore we may kneel, may be answered after the same manner. There is no public thanksgiving ordained to be made at the delivery of the Elements: mental praise therefore must be meant. Mental praise is no more the principal work of the soul, then mental prayer: what was said of the ejaculations of the one, let it be applied to the short ejaculations of the other.  ANS. 
If ye answer this objection as ye did the former, then let the reply used by me be here repeated. But I say further, that by the words of the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me, we are ordained, not only mentally to give praise, but also really, and publicly by the very action and celebration of the Sacrament itself: in respect whereof the learned Pareus calleth this remembrance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiduciae & gratitudinis, that is, a remembrance of faith, because by it our faith is confirmed: and a remembrance of thanksgiving, because by it we should praise and magnify (as he saith) the clemency of the Father, who gave the Son; and the benignity of the Son, who offered himself a sacrifice for us.  PP. 
The name of the Eucharist given to this Sacrament helps them nothing, for it is a name given by the Ancients, and not by the Scripture.  ANS. 
The Trinity is a name given by the Ancients, and not by the Scripture, to the three Persons subsisting in the unity of the divine nature, yet the truth of that which the word signifies, being found in Scripture, it helps to convince Heretics, that deny the same: so the name of the Eucharist given to the Sacrament, to declare the thankful commemoration of our Saviour's death, which thereby we perform according to the Scripture, helps us much against you and your followers, that spoil the Sacrament of the most principal end, for which it was instituted, that is, to the praise and honour of our Saviour; in respect whereof, it is called Sacrificium Eucharisticum, a Sacrifice of thanksgiving. This Sacrifice the Pastor really acts, in taking, blessing, breaking, and giving of the external Elements; for thereby the death of Christ, and the application thereof to the faithful is represented: and it is acted by the people, in their taking, eating, and drinking, for thereby they declare and testify the hunger, thirst, and desire of their souls after the righteousness and life of Christ, and the joy they have in the meditation thereof, with that assured confidence wherewith they rest, and repose themselves thereupon. And this representation and application of Christ's death, with the testification of our faith therein, and thankfulness therefore, by the celebration of the Sacrament, is a real extolling, preaching, magnifying and praising of the Lords death, from which, mental praise cannot be separated without hypocrisy; Therefore to praise God in the act of receiving, is a chief part of the principal work of the soul, and not your me, ditation upon the analogy between the sign, and the thing signified, which is only a catechetick preparation, that should precede the principal work. If ye had remembered the Confession of Fall'th, which ye profess yourself to have sworn and subscribed. I am assured ye could not have denied this; for in the 13. Sect. thereof about the end, ye have these words: The end and cause of Christ's Institution, and why the selfsame should be used, is expressed in these words, Do this in remembrance of me as oft as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shall show forth, that is, extol, preach, magnify, and praise the Lords death till he come. If this be the principal end, as ye see our Confession speaks, of Christ's Institution, then, not only may we praise him in the act of receiving, but we ought to praise him. In respect of this, the Sacrament is called the Eucharist, and not in respect of the thanksgiving, wherewith we begin the action, as ye would have it to be in your words following.  PP. 
Next, as it is called Eucharistia, so it is called Eulogia: for the words, He gave thanks, and He blessed, are indifferently used by the Evangelists. Some parts of this holy celebration stand in thanksgiving, as the beginning and the end: and therefore is the whole action denominated from a part. Saith Casaubone, Eulogia & Eucharistia, utraque vox à parte una totam Domini actionem designat: It follows not, that all the parts of this holy ministration, are actions of thanksgiving.  ANS. 
Although the name were taken, as Causabone saith, from one part of the action, yet it is given to the whole action, not by reason of this part only, but because it declares the nature and chief end of the action: and albeit all the parts of this holy ministration severally considered, are not actions of thanksgiving, yet the whole action, which consists of these parts, being performed Gratitudinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Paraus saith, that is, with a purpose of thankfulness to celebrate the death of Christ, is Eucharisticke, or an action of thanksgiving. The hand or foot being severally considered, is not the body, yet the whole, which consisteth of all the parts, is the body. So it is true, to take the bread is not an action of thanksgiving, nor to break it, nor to give it, being severally considered; but to take, break, bless and give, with intention by these actions to represent the death of Christ, and the application thereof to the faithful, for the praise of his glorious grace, is an action of thanksgiving. Therefore to conclude, as we come to the Sacrament to be made partakers of Christ's death by faith unto salvation; so we come to the Sacrament to celebrate the remembrance of his death to his glory. In respect of the first end, it is, The Communion of his body and blood, & in respect of the last, it is a real predication and celebration of his death, till his coming again; which should be often performed, because, as Paraeus speaketh, Mors Domini perpetuis laudibus celebranda est, that is, The death of Christ is to be celebrated with perpetual praises: these are specially offered at the celebration of the holy Sacrament, and in this respect it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  PP. 
Object. What we may crave of God upon our knees, we may receive on our knees. Answ. It is false, I may pray upon my knees, Give us this day our daily bread, but I may not receive it on my knees. The people of Israel prayed for food, yet they were not esteemed unthankful, for not kneeling when they received the Manna.  ANS. 
I never heard this objection used by any man, but by you in this place, therefore if it be false, yourself that forged it, is author of the falsehood. The Bishop of Galloway, who is now at rest, hath this objection in his Treatise, which is not yet answered, as he allegeth: 

Whatsoever spiritual benefit I may lawfully ask on my knees, the same I may lawfully receive upon my knees with thanksgiving.  
But I may lawfully with supplication, ask salvation by jesus Christ on my knees.  
Therefore I may lawfully receive it on my knees.    
Another argument was propounded in the Assembly at Perth, which neither at that time, nor since hath been answered, and it is this.  

Whatsoever spiritual benefit we should receive in a solemn act of divine worship, with thanksgiving and prayer, that we may receive on our knees.  
The body and blood of jesus Christ, in the Sacrament, is a spiritual benefit, which in a solemn act of divine worship, we ought to receive with thanksgiving and prayer.  
Therefore we may receive the body and blood of the Lord jesus Christ, in the Sacrament, upon our knees.   
The proposition of this argument, at that time denied, was proved thus: 

Whatsoever benefit we ought to receive with thanksgiving and prayer, that we ought receive with the gesture that is most agreeable to thanksgiving and prayer.  
Kneeling is such a gesture, etc.  
Ergo, etc.    
In the Assumption it is affirmed, that Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, should be received with prayer and thanksgiving: This we prove by this reason; 

Whatsoever spiritual benefit we should receive with a spiritual hunger and thirst, and with a spiritual appetite and desire after the grace and virtue that is therein to salvation: the same we should receive with prayer, which is nothing else, but such an appetite and desire.  
But the body and blood of Christ is such a benefit, etc.    
Next that it should be received with thanksgiving, I prove: 

Whatsoever benefit we should receive by extolling, and preaching, and magnifying, and praising the inestimable worth and excellence thereof, the same we ought to receive with thanksgiving.  
But in the Sacrament, we should receive the body and the blood of Christ, with extolling and preaching, etc.  
Ergo, etc.    
The Assumption is confirmed by the words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me, and by the words of Saint Paul, So oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this Cup, ye shall declare, that is, extol, magnify, and praise, The Lord's death till he come again. Because I find you fight against your own shadow, I thought good to set down the very objections, which were used in the Assembly at Perth, that as yet are not, nor I hope shall ever be answered.  PP. 
It is again objected, That in the act of receiving, we receive from Christ an inestimable benefit: ought not a Subject kneel, when he receiveth a benefit from a Prince, to testify his thankfulness? Answ. This relation from Christ to the Sacrament as between the Giver, and the gift, is common to all the Sacraments both of the old and new Law, ordinary, and extraordinary.  ANS. 
The relation between the Giver and the gift, in the old Testament is not so evident, because they wanted a clear and express Word to expound the mystery: Where have ye such a Word concerning Circumcision? This is the putting off of the body of sin, by the virtue of Christ's Death and Resurrection, COLOS. 2.11. or concerning the Passeover, This is the body of Christ, that is broken for you, this is his blood, that is shed for you? The Law had but the shadow, the Gospel hath the express Image of good things to come: In the Law they had the shadow of the Giver, and the gift, but in the Gospel we see him with open face. Now although to the shadow of the Prince men fall not down, nor do reverence, they are to be excused; but he must be reputed a contemner, who will not do homage at the presence of his Prince. Further, as I said before, the external actions of their Sacrament, could not be commodiously performed with such a gesture, as is kneeling, but the action of our Sacrament may.  PP. 
Next, we receive the mystical pledges, not out of the hands of God himself, or his Son Christ immediately, but out of the hand of the Minister. The person who receives the gift from the King, is supposed to receive it immediately: and suppose mediately, yet ceremonies of Court, and mediate civil worships, are not rules of religious adoration, which should ever be immediate.  ANS. 
We kneel not to receive the mystical pledges, but to receive the body and blood of jesus Christ, which the mystical pledges signify, and are delivered immediately, by the hand of the Lord jesus himself  PP 
Thirdly, the manner of delivery of the gift, and the will of the Giver, are to be considered. If the Prince call his Nobles to a banquet, it is his will that they sit at table with him, as jonathan and David sat at King saul's table. Christ hath declared by the Institution, after what manner he would have us to receive these mystical pledges. Kneeling cannot agree with the actions and precepts of the Institution.  ANS. 
If we consider the manner of delivery of the gift, and the will of the Giver, it favoureth kneeling, rather than sitting: for although we be invited to a banquet, yet it is not a bodily repast, such as jonathan and David received at saul's table. That required leisure and time, and such a site and position of body, as is most commodious for ease; but by the Institution it it manifest, that the banquet whereunto we are called, is the body and blood of jesus, given externally in a little quantity of bread, and one Cup divided amongst many, and ministered internally with Christ's own hand. Neither come we to this banquet to feed our bodies, but to feed our souls, and to extol and praise his death, as I have oft said before. Whereupon the Apostle inferreth, that we should receive worthily, that is, with such a reverence, both external and internal, as is worthy the Giver, and the gift, and is most meet to set forth the praise of the Giver, and the worth of the gift. In this respect, kneeling is most agreeable, both to the actions and precepts of the Institution.  PP. 
The second breach of the second Commandment, made by kneeling, is the show of conformity with the Papists. The Lord forbade his people to be like the Gentiles, Levit 18.3. and 19.27. and Deut. 12. The Christians were forbidden to decore their houses with Bayleaves and green bonghes, because the Pagans used so to do; or to rest from their labours upon the days that the Pagans did. If conformity in things not having state in idolatrous service, but only glancing at the honour of the Idol be condemned, fare more is conformity in the grossest act, wherein the life and soul of their idolatry standeth. Such is the gesture of kneeling amongst the Papists, this outward conformity tickleth the Papists, and offendeth the godly.  ANS. 
A show of conformity with the Papists in Idolatry, is a breach of the second Commandment: But to kneel at the Sacrament, our hearts being freed of the opinion of Transubstantiation, and our mouths confessing and professing, that we do only kneel to God, and our Saviour jesus Christ; is no more conformity with them in idolatry, then in the action of prayer to kneel, when we direct our prayers to God, and not to Angels or Saints, or other creatures. For example, To kneel, and say the Lords Prayer in honour of the Saints, and to offer it as a libel of request to be presented, and commended by their prayers to God, which Papists profess themselves to do, (Costeri Enchiridion de veneratione Sanctorum,) is idolatry; yet to kneel, and offer that prayer to God only, as we do, is not idolatry: although both in the gesture of kneeling, and in the substance of the prayer, there be a conformity, our Faith and profession being contrary to theirs, freeth us of all show of conformity with them in superstition and idolatry. But the Lord forbade his people (ye say) to be like the Gentiles, yet did he never forbidden them to knee, and lift up their hands to him in their prayers, although the Gentiles kneeled, and lifted up hands unto their gods when they prayed. The things wherein God forbade his people a conformity, were uncleanness, idolatry, superstition, witchcraft, etc. and not such ceremonies of divine worship, as are by himself commanded, yet abused by Idolaters. And where ye say, that Christians were prohibited to rest those days, on which the Pagans rested, I hope ye will not have us to work on the Lord's day, because the Papists rest that day. Finally, when ye say, that the life of Popish idolatry consisteth in kneeling, ye speak falsely; for the life of their idolatry consisteth in a professed adoration of the bread, with opinion of Transubstantiation, and not in the outward gesture of kneeling, which being lawful, and religious in itself, is only abused by them to idolatry. And do not all they who sit at the Sacrament, keep an outward conformity with the Arrians, who will needs sit, to declare, that they esteem Christ jesus to be only a mere man? By your argument, all they are transgressors of the first Commandment, that communicate with them in sitting. Now to that which ye add in the end, that this outward conformity tickles the Papist, and offends the godly: ye are greatly mistaken; it is your contentious opposition against the truth, and disobedience of the lawful ordinances of the Church, which tickles the Papist, and grieves all good men; and not our conformity, in a lawful and religious ceremony.  PP. 
The third breach of the second Commandment, made by kneeling, is the retaining the monument of vile idolatry; all human inventions polluted with idolatry, except they be of necessary use, aught to be removed from God's service. This gesture had a spot of profanation from the beginning, being at the first birth in this act dedicated to idolatry. The brazen Serpent set up at Gods own command, was not spared when it was abused: We detest the very garment of a thief, or a whore, though it be innocent: BEZA saith, many things may be tolerated for the weak, which may not be restored after they are taken away: he commendeth them, who abolished kneeling, amongst other things, Tanquam apertas idolomanias.  ANS. 
You make the third breach of the second Commandment by kneeling, the retaining of a monument of vile idolatry; and in this ye err, for kneeling is a religious ceremony appointed by God himself to be used in all actions of adoration, and was not of humane invention; therefore cannot be a monument of idolatry in this or any other act. If it be abused to idolatry, although abuse the thereof should be abhorred, yet the religious gesture itself, is not to be detested. Let the thief be hanged, and the whore drowned, yet the religious ceremony must be restored to the right owner, to whom all knees should bow. The burning of Incense was a part of the ceremonial worship under the Law, and abused to idolatry, when it was offered to the brazen Serpent; yet that part of worship was not abolished, but the Idol itself destroyed, and the ceremony restored to God, unto whom of right it belonged. Neither hath your comparison of the brazen Serpent, and kneeling, any force in it; for the brazen Serpent, in the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the virtue of the cure, that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling continueth always in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our thankfulness to God. And where you say, that kneeling from the first birth in this act, hath been dedicated to idolatry, I flatly deny it: for albeit Honorius a four hundreth years since, or there about, was the man that decreed kneeling to be used in the elevation, and circumgestation of the Host; yet it was not he, that brought in that gesture at the time of participation. In the elevation or circumgestation, the same, I grant, was abused to idolatry, but neither these, nor the Host in them, were the Sacrament; for when the bread or cup are not used according to the Institution, they cease to be the Sacrament; so kneeling directed to the bread at the elevation, etc. was not a profanation of it at the Sacrament, but a profanation of it in a superstitious, and idolatrous worship. In respect of this, Caluine and some other recent Divines, have disliked it; and yet they say, if kneeling in the action of the Supper, did not rest in the Elements, but were directed to Christ sitting in heaven, the same were a lawful sort of adoration. This Peter Martyr said, whose words are Neque externa adoratio esset mala, multi enim piè genua flectunt, & adorant, that is to say, Externall adoration in that case, were not evil, for many piously bow their knees, and adore. Beza in his twelsth Epistle, saith, That the bowing of the knee at the receiving of the Elements, is a sort of holy and Christian reverence, Ac proindè olim potuit cum fructu usurpari, that is, of old, it might have been used profitably. That testimony which you cite out of the eight Epistle, according to your custom, ye corrupt, to make it serve your purpose: for Beza commending them that abolished kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, saith not, tanquam apertas idolomanias, but non minus quam apertas idolomanias, and so distinguisheth it from idolatry: like as a little before in the same Epistle, he saith, That this gesture of kneeling being considered in itself, is not impious; and in his twelfth Epistle speaking of the same matter, he hath these words, Interim tamen eum ista per se non sint idololatrica, idem de illis, quod de proximè praecedentibus sentimus. So we have Caluine, Martyr and Beza, all of them contradictors to you in this, that kneeling at the Sacrament is a monument of vile idolatry. Where I mark further, that in Beza his judgement, kneeling was not at the first birth, in this act, dedicated to idolatry, for he saith of it, quòd olim potuit cumfructu usurpari, that of old time, it might have been used profitably, and the words he subioynes make this yet more manifest, Tamen quia ex hoc fonte orta est artolatria; If Bread-worship did spring from kneeling according to his mind, then kneeling at the Sacrament, was in use before Broad-worship, and so was not dedicated, as ye say, to idolatry in this act from the first birth thereof. But to the end, the weakness of your Achillean argument may appear, let us put it in form: Whatsoever ceremony in an act of divine worship, such as the Sacrament is, hath been dedicated to idolatry from the first time it was used, in that act, the same is to be removed from the act, as a monument of vile idolatry.  
To this I answer, that we must consider the ceremony itself, whether it be of humane or divine institution; if it be of humane institution, it may be removed, such as is the crossing of the bread and cup in the Sacrament: But if the ceremony be of divine institution, such as kneeling is, for the same is commended by God unto us in his Word: then we ought to consider, whether the abuse of that ceremony hath proceeded from the nature of the action, wherein it was used: for if it be so, it ought to be abolished in that action, because it can never be purged from the spot which it contracteth by the action; and in such a case, the action and gesture ought both to be abolished. But if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent; then the opinion being removed, the religious ceremony may be used without any profanation of idolatry: for example, The abuse, of kneeling in elevation, etc. proceeded not only from the opinion of the agent, but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and superstitious: kneeling in this action cannot be purged from the contagion of idolatry, because of the relation it hath to the idolatrous action: and therefore both the action and the gesture ought to be abolished. But the Sacrament of the Supper being an action instituted by GOD, and kneeling being of the own nature an holy, and religious ceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action itself may be rightly used, and kneeling therein, as being very agreeable to the nature of the action. For we cannot deny, that CHRIST in this action is to be adored, and of that we give evident testimony, even when we sit at Table; for our sitting bareheaded is a sign of adoration, as well as kneeling; and is no less idolatrous, if it be done for adoration of the bread. That to conclude, if we remove not the evil opinion, the superstition remains, and pollutes the action: but if the opinion be taken away, neither doth the action pollute the gesture, nor the gesture the action, both of them being religious, and of divine Institution, sorting and agreeing naturally one with another.  PP. 
The fourth breach of the second Commandment made by kneeling, is the continual danger, and occasion of idolatry. We are forbidden all occasions, and provocations of Idolatry. There is a natural proneness in all men to idolatry, great ignorance in the common people, and superstition rooted in the hearts of men: Papists daily increase, the idol of the breadie god is still in great account in the Roman Churches round about us, & in private corners amongst us: and yet men are not ashamed to say, that all memory of former superstition is past, and no peril is to be feared again. The Virgins in Cyprians time, granted they walked with young men, talked with them, went to bed with them, but when it came to the act, they abstained. Cyprian answers, Non est locus dandus Diabolo: nemo diu tutus periculo proximus: Place should not be given to the Devil: no man is long safe, who is near the point of danger. The Belgic Churches in their Synods permitted not liberty of kneeling, for the same respect of bread worship, as may be seen in the harmony of their Synods, set forth of late, by FESTUS HOMMIUS, Libernm est stando, sedendo, veleundo coenam celebrare, non antem geniculando ob artolatrias periculum: If a lawful use could be devised, yet this danger cannot be eschewed. Information by preaching is a sufficient remedy; meat doth not nourish so fast, as poison doth corrupt. The watchmen are sometime ignorant, or negligent, many want doctrine; it is better to fill up the pit, then to set one beside it, to warn the passengers, that they fall not in: such ceremonies ought to be appointed, which by their goodness and edification may help the preaching of the Word, and not such as the Word daily must have need to correct: the strength of many poor Christian souls, should not be tried by bringing them to the very brink of danger.  ANS. 
Your fourth breach is the occasion and danger of idolatry. But kneeling imports no more danger, nor occasion of idolatry, then sitting doth of profanation and contempt of the Sacrament: and with us there be many more profane Christians, then idolatrous Papists; and people are fare more ready by sitting to take occasion of despising the Sacrament, their senses leading them to esteem basely of it, then by kneeling, to think the bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ materially; the same being against sense and reason, and the doctrine of the Word, which teacheth them the contrary. The Virgins in Cyprians time, by walking and talking, and lying with young men, did expose themselves to uncleanness, and as Cyprian saith, gave place to the Devil; but the lawful use of a religious ceremony, can never be the occasion of idolatry, nor can the use of it give place to the Devil: Res bonae neminem scandalizant, saith TERTULLIAN de velandis Virginibus, nisi malam mentem. That is, good things give offence to none, but an evil mind. The judgement of the Belgic Churches, we reprove not, because they know best, what serves to the edification of their Churches; nor will they (I hope) reprove our judgement concerning kneeling, which is grounded upon reasons as expedient for our estate, as any can be alleged by them, for their own: but the liberty which they give to celebrate the Sacrament with the gesture of sitting, standing, or passing, condemns flatly your opinion, of the necessity of sitting, which never any Church or Divine, ancient or modern did hold, except yourself; yet pardon me for reckoning you amongst the Divines. As to the fear of Bread-worship, it will never be caused by the religious use of kneeling, but by some perverse disposition of the Receiver, which nothing can remedy sufficiently, but right information made by sound doctrine. It is true, that to the unclean, all things are unclean: a soul that is evil disposed, may like a Spider convert into poison the juice of the same flower which the Bee turneth into honey: out of the sacramental Word, This is my body, which is broken sor you, the Papist draweth the poison of Transubstantiation; but the true Christian, the sweet and spiritual participation of the body of our Lord. The word gives not to the Papist an occasion of his error, but he takes occasion at the Word, because of the perverse disposition of his mind; so kneeling being a religious ceremony, and commanded by God, when it is lawfully used at the receiving of the Sacrament, can never give occasion of Bread-worship, although superstitious men having corrupted their minds, may make it an occasion of that, and worse. The gesture of sitting is at this day abused by Arrians, and made a sign of their denial of the Godhead of Christ; and profane Christians have taken, and daily take occasion thereby, to fall into the pit of contempt, and profanation of this Sacrament, from which inconvenience, no ceremonies that can be chosen, will preserve them, except they be warned daily, and directed by the Word how to carry themselves; and if we neglect this, committing their safety to the ceremonies of sitting, standing, walking, or kneeling, we shall not only bring them to the brink of danger, but shall drown them in the depth, either of profaneness, or of superstition and idolatry. Now, if you think that there is greater danger of idolatry to be feared from kneeling, then of profaneness from sitting, you are much deceived: for if we consider the disposition of our people, amongst whom, some I confess have understanding, & yet are inclined to superstition & idolatry; the greater company are simple ones, that never did, nor ever will, as it is to be supposed, take occasion by kneeling, to think the bread the body of Christ, or yet to adore it for his body. This error was brought in by the Clergy and Scholastickes, whereof the people could never have dreamt, if it had not been daily inculcate into their ears, and they persuaded so to think, by the false interpretation of the words, This is my body. The right exposition of the same hath removed that error, and must still debar it, not the gesture of sitting; for thereby simple ones are ready, by their own inclination, to take occasion, as we have known in time past, of contemning the holy Sacrament, and so from superstition to run into a profanation of the Lords Body: from either of these extremities no thing can preserve them, but the travels of a faithful Pastor, in Catechising and Preaching. As to men of understanding they are in less danger, and howsoever they receive sitting, standing, or kneeling, they know the Elements in the Sacrament to retain their former substance, and that they are changed in the use only. Neither have such of them, as are inclined to Papistry, been converted a jot by sitting, from their former errors; but to the contrary, confirmed in their erroneous opinions, disdaining our profession for the irreverent celebration of the holy Sacrament. If at any time, by the doctrine of truth, they shall be converted from their errors, this gesture that is required of kneeling, shall be a means to preserve them in a constant profession; and as I have said, keep them also from the other extremity of contempt.  PP. 
The fisth breach of the second Commandment made by kneeling, is, a show of wisdom in will-worshippe and humility, Coloss. 2.23. This their pretended humility, is a natural humility, like unto Peter's, when he refused, that Christ should wash his feet. Obedience is better than sacrifice. FENNER, in the doctrine of the Sacraments, hath a notable saying: That the whole honour of the Sacraments is, that they remain within the Church of GOD in that simplicity he left them.  ANS. 
The fifth breach ye allege to be will-worshippe. The Apostle, Coloss. 2. defines will-worshippe to be wilful condemning, or thralling of men to the observation of such things in God's worship as necessary, whereof there is no certainty in the Word of God, the Authors of the said observation being rashly puffed up by the mind of the flesh, ver. 18. Now whether ye, that have no certainty in the Word for sitting at the Sacrament, but such reasons only, as we have clearly showed to be rashly forged out of the mind of the flesh, and yet do wilfully condemn and thrall men's consciences to the observation of that, as necessary; or we, who neither urge sitting nor standing, nor kneeling as necessary; but esteeming all indifferent, leave the choice unto the Church, upon whose judgement it becometh all men to rest in circumstantial indifferent things: whether (I say) ye, or we be guilty of wilworshippe, let the discreet and wise Christian judge. Your example of Saint Peter makes not for you: for if our Saviour had declared his will to us concerning kneeling or sitting, as he did to him touching the washing of his feet, it had been rebellion inexcusable in us, to have opposed thereto, upon whatsoever pretext. No more doth Fenners saying help you, to which we all subscribe.  PP. 
Obict. There is no new worship appointed, but an action already appointed for God's service is applied to the said Supper. Ans. The parts of God's worship may not be applied to other, when comeliness, commodiousness, institution, and command will not suffer. A man may not kneel in all the time of Sermon: he may not read in the act of receiving, etc. To be short, A rite sacramental, devised by man, pretending humility, and shouldering out other rites instituted by GOD, cannot be but presumptuous will-worshippe.  ANS. 
After ye have propounded these five breaches of the second Commandment excogitate by yourself, and never heard before in any Church, ye object, that kneeling is no new worship, but an action already appointed for God's service, and applied to the Supper. And ye answer, That the parts of God's worship may not be applied to other, when comeliness, commodiousness, institution, and command will not suffer. This answer no man will deny; yet, ye take pains, as Sophists are wont to do, to prove that which is not controverted. The point we deny is this, that comeliness, commodiousness, institution, and command, permitteth not kneeling to be used in the act of receiving. This ye have not proved, nor bring ye any argument now to prove it: but simple people will not perceive your cunning and fineness. In a word, kneeling is not, as ye affirm, a sacramental rite, but a religious ceremony flowing from the relics of that natural piety, wherein man was created; approved, and committed by God himself to be used in all such parts of his worship, as edification, order, and decency allows. To debar this from the Sacrament, by sitting, a gesture never commanded to be used in God's worship, yet urged by you, with opinion of necessity, pretending the humility of obedience, where ye have neither precept nor precedent; is indeed a subtle catching of the simple conscience in the yarn and net of will-worship.  PP. 
Object. The Eucharist is a part of God's worship, therefore we ought to kneel in the act of receiving. Answ. In a large sense every act whereby God is honoured, may be called the worship of God, as oaths, vows, and sacrifices, &c But adoration is the worship of God in a strict sense. Kneeling is the gesture of adoration, but not of every part of God's worship. Receiving, eating, drinking in the Sacrament, are parts of God's worship; but they are not gestures of adoration. All the Sacraments both of jews and Christians, were parts of God's worship, as well as the Eucharist, and yet they kneeled not in the act of participation.  ANS. 
Ye object here, That the Eucharist is a part of God's worship, therefore we ought to kneel: and ye answer, That kneeling is a gesture of adoration, but not of every part of God's worship. This answer is true; but it makes against yourself: for the Eucharist is an Eucharisticke action, that is, an action of thanksgiving and praise, which cannot be performed without adoration, the gesture whereof ye confess to be kneeling. As to the Sacraments of Circumcision and Baptism, the external acts of them (I speak of Baptism as it was used in these times, when men went down into the water, and were baptised) could not be commodiously performed with kneeling: But I think it were no sin, if a man of perfect years, coming to be baptised, should kneel: and contrariwise, it were undecent for him, not to kneel at the invocation of the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. As to the Passeover we have often answered, that it was a full repast, and could not be commodiously celebrated with kneeling: as no gesture is of necessary use, so none is to be chosen which is not commodious.  PP. 
Object. The Eucharist is a sacrifice, and congeries sacrificiorum, a heap of sacrifices, a commemorative sacrifice, a sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, of praise, of prayer, of alms: therefore this Sacrament should be received with kneeling, saith the Bishop of Rochester: and therefore the gesture of kneeling is rightly applied to such a kind of worship. Answ. The actions afore said are called Sacrifices only by analogy, and metaphorically. They are not proper sacrifices. The invisible sacrifice, by the which a man offers himself by contrition, inward devotion, mortification, is the daily sacrifice of a Christian, Rom. 12.1. We offer ourselves to be sacrificed when the Word is preached, Rom. 15. We kneel not when we give alms. These improper and metaphorical sacrifices are not acts of adoration. The Paschall Lamb was slain in the manner of a real sacrifice, and yet notwithstanding this immolation, they kneeled nor at the eating of the Paschall Lamb. The Sacraments of the old and new Testament were alike in representation, signification, and exhibition.  ANS. 
Howsoever the sacrifices aforesaid be metaphorical, as ye say, and no proper sacrifices, yet they are spiritual sacrifices, which men are accustomed to offer with kneeling. Although we kneel not when we give alms, yet we kneel when we pray & praise. The sacrifice of the Passeover, and other sacrifices under the Law, although when they were eaten in private houses, they did not kneel that eat them, because it could not be done conveniently, for the reasons  recited: yet it appears, when they were offered on the Altar, which was the public act of God's worship, that they bowed their knees. So Micheas, Cap. 6. vers. 6. and Saint Luke saith in his first, that when Zacharie was offering Incense, all the people continued praying: which they did not without kneeling, or some other external rite of adoration. Where ye affirm, that the Sacraments of the old and new Testament were alike in representation, signification, and exhibition; it is true, as touching the matter represented, but the manner was as fare different, as the shadow is from the express and perfect image of the thing itself. The sacrifices of the old Testament were but shadows of Christ: our Sacraments, by reason of the Word annexed to them, and the doctrine of the Gospel, whereby they are clearly expounded, are vive and perfect images of Christ, and of the benefits we have by him; therefore they are to be celebrated with greater adoration and devotion, both external and internal, than the sacrifices under the Law, because our devotion and adoration should be proportioned to the measure of our knowledge and faith.   

An Answer to the Section, entitled, Kneeling not practised in the ancient Church.  PP. 
THE two former breaches are sufficient of themselves, howbeit kneeling were otherwise warranted by the practice of the Church, etc.  ANS. 
I am assured, if kneeling be warranted by practice of the ancient Church, no good Christian will think for the frivolous reasons adduced by you, that they committed any of these breaches. But you labour to prove, that the ancient Church did not practise it: for ye say, that when the Arrians denied Christ's true divinity, the Orthodox Church, who acknowledged his divinity, kneeled not in the act of receiving, which had been expedient, if the same had been lawful: unto which I answer, That there be many things expedient to be done, which notwithstanding are not done, nor aught to be done; not because they are unlawful in themselves, but for some other respect, as some custom received, or some order formerly established, which upon every apparent expedience is not to be altered: for example, It was expedient, because of the same heresy, to have kneeled at all times, when public prayers were offered to Christ, or to the Father in his name: yet on the Lord's day, which was the most solemn time of worship, the ancient Church kneeled not at public prayer; not because it was unlawful in itself to have kneeled, but because there was an order received in the Church, that on the Lord's day the people should stand and not kneel.  
Next, when ye say, that the ancient Church did not kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament, and will prove it by this, that it was the custom of the Church to stand in the time of public prayer all the Lords days in the year, and on every day from Easter to Pentecost, because of the joyful memory of Christ's resurrection: for, say ye, this Sacrament, being a matter of great joy, far less would they kneel at the celebration of it. To this, I answer, That if the order of the Church could have permitted kneeling, the nature of the action, although it be a matter of great joy, would have sorted well enough with this humble gesture. In the 17. of Genes. 16. God promised to Abraham, that he would bless Sarah, and give him a son by her, and make her the mother of many Nations, and Kings to come of her: the Text saith in the next verse, that Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed Here ye see a matter of great joy, which made Abraham to laugh, joined with a gesture of greater humility than bowing of the knee is. The bowing of the body and the knee, is not as your Master of table gesture and ye here affirm, the gesture only of an humble Penitentiar; but it is the gesture also of these that give thanks. So the Leper gave thanks, Luke 17.16. And of these who joyfully sing praises to God, Psalm. 138. vers. 2. And of these who pray as our Saviour, Luk. 22.41. who kneeled and prayed, though he was no Penitentiar. And of these, who offered their gifts to God, Mich. 6.6. And of these with whom God talked, either immediately, as he did with Abrabam, Gen. 17.3. or mediately, as by Mayses, to the people of Israel, Exod. 12.27. And of these that were astonished at the works of God or his Word, 1. King. 18.39. 1. Cor. 14.25. To be short, if Abraham, when he did only receive the promise of the blessed seed, fell on his face, Gen. 17.17. how much more ought the faithful bow their knees, when they receive the performance of this promise, even the blessed Seed himself from the hand of God in this spiritual Banquet? So it is not the nature of the action that will enforce the gesture of standing to have been used in the Sacrament rather than at prayer, but the custom and order of the Church only; which if ye were able to produce as well for standing at the Sacrament, as at praying on the Lord's day, your argument were strong: but that ye shall never do, except ye grant according to the truth, that the Sacrament is an act of real adoration. In that case Tertullians' testimony, which you cite, would advance your cause mightily, who says, De geniculis adorare nefas ducimus.  
Two or three testimonies of Eusebius, Chrysostome, and Tertullian, for standing on the Lord's day at the Table, or Altar, when the Sacrament was received, will not prove a constant and universal practice of that gesture. Neither is the example of the Abyssines, and Muscovites, who stand to this day, able to counterpoise the practice of the universal Church, for the space of four or five hundred years preceding their days, wherein they kneeled at the receiving. Nor are you able to prove, that the gesture of kneeling was brought into the Church by the error of Transubstantiation, as ye confidently affirm in the last line of this Section. For Honorius, as we said before, did not decree kneeling to be used at the receiving of the Sacrament, but at the elevation and circumgestation which was a superstitious and idolatrous worship invented by man. And it is evident, at the time when that Decree was made, the people were accustomed to kneel at the receiving; and if it had not been the custom, there is no question, but the same would have been straight enjoined by the same Decree. But it is plain, that before that time, as ever since, this gesture is continued in the Church: for as Saint Augustine upon the 98. Psalm, testifies, No man doth worthily receive, but he that adores. And in the same places he saith, Non peccatur adorando carnem Christi, sed peccatur non adorando: that is, We sinne not in adoring Christ's body in the Sacrament; but we sin, if we adore it not. And Chrysostome in one of his Homilies hath these words, Ergo adora, & communica: that is, Adore then, and communicate: but unto these, and the rest of the testimonies, ye answer, That it followeth not, because they adored, that therefore they kneeled, because (say ye) their testimonies make mention of adoration, not of the Sacrament, but of Christ in the Sacrament: and we say the same, that at the Sacrament Christ only is to be adored, and not the sacramental Elements, which are the signs. So in this we agree; but because that maketh nothing against kneeling, ye subioyne, that their testimonies are to be understood of spiritual and internal adoration; and to confirm it, ye quote in the Margin D. Fulke, upon the first to the Cor. 11. Sect. 18. But let the Reader peruse the place, he shall find nothing in it against the gesture of kneeling, or any other religious sign of adoration; only he saith, that adoration, mentioned by the Fathers, is to be understood of the spiritual adoration of Christ, and not of the external adoration of the Sacrament. And if he had meant otherwise, Chrysostom's words in the 24. Homily, upon the first to the Corinth's, Cap. 10. cited by himself, would have controlled his saying: Hoc corpus, etiam iacens in praesepi, reveriti sunt Magi, etc. that is to say, The wisemen did reverence to this body. (he means the body of Christ,) lying in the Manger; and these wicked and barbarous men, leaving their houses and Country, having finished a long journey, and coming to the place, they adored with great fear and trembling. Let us therefore (sayeth he) that are Citizens of heaven imitate these Barbarians. Thus fare Chrysostome. Now to imitate them, is not to come with inward reverence only, but to show it also in outward gesture; for of them the Scripture saith, That falling down, they adored CHRIST. And it is manifest by the words following, that Chrysostome means not of the inward adoration only, but also of the outward; Non solum hoc ipsum corpus vides, sicut illi, etc. Thou dost not only see the same body as they did, but thou knowest both his power, and dispensation, and thou art ignorant of no thing done by him, as being exactly and accurately imitated in all mysteries. Let us therefore stir up ourselves with fear, Et long maiorem quàm illi Barbari ostendamus reverentiam: that is, Let us show forth much more reverence than these Barbarians. The word, Ostendamus, manifestly shows that Chrysostome exhorteth his people not to the inward adoration of Christ only at the Sacrament, but to the external also. The practice of all Churches since the days of Christ confirmeth the same: for there was never any Church, wherein the Sacrament was received without some external sign and gesture of adoration. To stand before the Lord in a solemn act of divine worship, is a gesture of adoration: and as ye observed before out of Drusius in the 51. Page of this Pamphlet, standing is taken for prayer, because it was the usual gesture at prayer. The discovering of the head in our Church is an external sign of adoration, otherwise our people, who are wont to sit at the reading of the Word, singing of Psalms, and public prayers, did use no external sign at all. And as in these actions, the discovering of the head is a sign of adoration, so is it in the receiving of the Communion; and was so even when we did sit at the receiving: for the reverence of the bare head was not given at that time to the external Minister, nor to the external Elements, but to Christ himself, his body and blood. Now it is certain, that the external reverence given to Christ in an act of divine worship, is divine: and therefore the reverence of adoration, as yourself affirmed, pag. 48. This conslant and universal practice, compared with the testimonies of the Ancients, cuidently shows the vanity of your answers against external adoration used in all ages at the receiving of the Sacrament. Leaving them therefore I come to your conclusion.  PP. 
The proofs already made for standing upon the Lord's day for 1000 years in the Church, do evince that geniculation had no place in the act of receiving all that time. It hath therefore followed upon bodily presence and transubstantiation.  ANS. 
Your proofs have evinced nothing, except ye grant, that to receive the Sacrament is an act of adoration; for all the testimonies ye bring run that way. And at most ye have only proved, that on the Lord's day they stood at the Sacrament: whereupon if ye conclude, that geniculation had no place, ye must upon the same ground, that sitting had no place: yea, it shall evince, that sitting had no place in the Church, unto the year 1560. at which time it was received in our Church: for after these 1000 years, wherein ye prove that standing was used, kneeling succeeded, and hath continued ever since in the Church, until the time of reformation. So sitting was never in use by your own argument. As to the gesture used by our Saviour at the Paschall Supper, which ye affirm was continued at the institution of the Sacrament, it was not sitting at a Table upon forms or chairs, but lying, and leaning upon beds: and it is uncertain, as I shown before, whether that gesture was continued or not; and albeit it had been continued, there was never Church or Divine, that thought it exemplary; for if they had done, they would never have used standing, or passing, or kneeling in stead of it.  
If we might be bold to conjecture, with what gesture the Apostles received the Sacrament, as ye are bold to affirm that they sat; or what gesture Christ would have us to observe; it were doubtless surest to think, that the Apostles received with that same gesture, which they used at the thanksgiving and blessing, wherewith the Institution gins: and therefore that the gesture, which the Church thinketh most meet to be used at the thanksgiving, is the gesture fittest for the people to receive; because the action itself is a real thanksgiving, and should have conjoined with it, the thanksgiving and blessing, wherewith the action begins in the mind and affection of the receivers: and because ever since the first Institution, we find the Church to have used the same gesture at the receiving, that they used at the thanksgiving and prayer. For when for the space of a thousand years, they stood and prayed, as you yourself affirm, and so doth your nameless Master of table gesture; then they stood, and received the Sacrament: and after that, when on the Lord's day, the Church began, in stead of standing, to use kneeling at prayer, they began also to receive the Sacrament kneeling, which form of receiving hath continued to our times.  
But to return again to your argument, where ye say, that the proofs made for standing do evince, that for the space of a thousand years kneeling had no place, I will let you see how futile your argument is. The Church stood on the Lord's day at the Sacrament, for the space of a thousand years: Ergo, say ye, they kneeled not for the space of a thousand years. May you not by the very same reason conclude? The Church laboured not, nor fasted on the Lord's day, for the space of a thousand years: Ergo, they neither fasted nor laboured at all, for the space of a thousand years. If during all that time, the Sacrament had been only celebrated on the Lord's day, your argument were probable: but seeing the Sacrament, as S. Augustine writes, was given every day, and to give it on the first, fourth, and sixth days of the week, was held to be an Apostolic constitution: Therefore, as on the rest of the week days, except the Lord's day, they prayed, fixis in terram genibus, with their knees close to the ground; so with that same gesture they received the Sacrament, for the Church did ever receive with the same gesture, which they used in prayer, as I have proved by induction. The Apostles received with the same gesture, which they used at the thanksgiving. This ye cannot deny, except ye overthrew all the grounds that ye laid, for the example and precept of Christ to be observed. The Church on the Lord's day, hath ever used to stand at the Sacrament, when they stood at prayer, and if you can produce one instance to the contrary, I shall pray you do it; or if not, suffer me to conclude against you; that as on the Lord's day, when they stood and prayed, they also stood and received: so at that same time on the week days, when they kneeled and prayed, they kneeled and received: and this is proved by all these testimonies of the Ancients, wherein the people are exhorted to humble themselves externally at the Sacrament, as by the most clear testimony of Chrysostons' I cited before. Hereby it is manifest, that the gesture of kneeling followed not the error of Transubstantiation, but was received and retained in the Church on the Lord's day, at public prayer and receiving of the Sacrament, as it had been used before on the weekdays, at these religious exercises. Thus following your own footsteps, and building on your own grounds, kneeling is proved to have been in use in all ages, and with your own hands, ye have thrust sitting to the door for the space of 1560. years.   

An answer to the last Section, entitled Kneeling, not practised in the Reformed Churches.  PP. 
THe Lutheran Churches do acknowledge real presence by way of Consubstantiation: it is no wonder therefore, that they approve kneeling. The Reformed Churches, as they damned bodily presence, so have they rejected the gesture of kneeling in the act of receiving. The Church of Bohemia hath retained this gesture since the days of john Husse. In their Confession exhibited to King Ferdinand, anno 1535. it is thus said, Ministriverò Dominicae coenae verba referentes plebem ipsam ad hanc fidem hortantur, ut corporis Christi praesentiam adesse credant. The Ministers are willed to stir up the people to believe, that the body of Christ is present: the purer sort amongst them, as they have rejected the error of real presence, so depart they from this gesture. In our neighbour Church, some of their defenders of kneeling, will not have us inquisitive of the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. And the Bishop of Rochester commends the simplicity of the Ancients, which disputed not, whether Christ was present, con, sub, in, or trans, in this Supper. Sutton in his Appendix to his Meditations on the Lord's Supper, condemns likewise this diligent search of the manner of Christ's presence. If the manner of Christ's presence be not determined, there can arise no other, but a confused worship, of such a confused and determinate presence. The Papists acknowledge that there ought to be no adoration, but where there is acknowledged a bodily presence in the Sacrament. Hence it is, that they prove mutually the one by the other.  
It will not follow, that we may change sitting into kneeling, because the ancient Church, and some Reformed Churches, have changed sitting into standing: because kneeling maketh so many breaches, both in the Institution, and in the second Commandment, and is no ways a table gesture. By standing, we accommodate ourselves to a table, to participate of the dainties set thereon: standing was never abused to idolatry, as kneeling hath been; we are not bound to imitate other Churches further, than they imitate Christ. Our sitting is not Scottish Genevating, but a commendable imitation of the Apostolical Churches, and obedience to Christ's Institution.  
They flee up at last to the Church Triumphant, and allege for kneeling, the four and twenty Elders falling down before the Lamb: but how conclude they this, that they that are called to the Supper of the Lamb kneel at the Supper of the Lamb? And seeing the blessed souls shall not be clothed with their bodies before the Resurrection, how can they conclude material geniculation of the blessed Saints in heaven? All creatures in heaven, in earth, or under the earth, are said to bow their knee at the name of jesus, that is, to acknowledge his Sovereign authority, howbeit the celestial Angels, blessed souls, and infernal spirits, have not knees to bow with. The everlasting felicity of the children of God, is the Supper of glory; Do they drink continually of that felicity upon their knees? Thousands, thousands stand before him; many shall come from the East, and from the West, and sit at the heavenly Table with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob: may we not then conclude sitting and standing, as well as they do kneeling, if we look to the letter of parables, visions, allegories and prophecies? but symbolical theology is not argumentative. Lastly, how will they prove evidently, that the falling of the four and twenty Elders before the Lamb, is to be interpreted of the Church Triumphant, rather than of the Church Militant?  ANS. 
To prove that kneeling is not practised in the Reformed Churches, ye cut off in the beginning from their number the Lutherans, because they acknowledge the Real presence by way of Consubstantiation. This I grant is an error, yet is it not directly fundamental. They abhor, as we do, the Bread-worship, and they worship Christ in the Sacrament, as we should do; their error is only in the manner of his presence, which error should not debar them from the Communion of the Reformed Churches: with them ye reckon the Church of Bohemia, because in their Confession exhibited to King Ferdinand, anno 1535. they say, Ministriverò coenae Dominicae, etc. Let the Ministers when they rehearse the words of the Lords Supper, exhort the people to this faith, that they may believe the body of Christ to be present there. By this ye conclude, that some of them held the error of Real presence in the Sacrament; and yet their Confession mentioneth neither real, nor corporal, nor local presence. And it is no error to believe the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament after some manner; as to believe that it is there obiective, that is, as the real object, whereupon we must fix and fasten our Faith: and to believe that it is there virtute, & efficacia, in virtue, and efficacy, to nourish and strengthen us in newness of life here, and raise us up unto eternal life hereafter: In respect whereof, Christ saith, That his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; and that he who eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath life eternal, and that he shall raise him at the last day. Lastly, to believe that the body of Christ is present in the Divine Person, wherein it subsisteth, albeit locally the same be in heaven, is no error: for wheresoever the person is, there both the Natures are present coniunctly. The Divinity is ever, and every where clothed with the humanity, wherein it dwelleth bodily, and aught to be considered so in all actions of divine worship: and the Humanity is ever, and every where conjoined with the Divinity, albeit the same be not extensiuè, or diffusè, as the Vbiquetars hold, through every place with the Divinity: As by example, wheresoever a man is personally present, there his head, his body, & all his members are present, albeit the foot or the hand be not in the place where the head is, yet they are coniunctly present with the head, where the person is; and so as Christ is personally present at the Sacrament, so is his Divinity and Humanity coniunctly present in the Person. That to conclude, it is no error according to the Confession above expressed, to believe the spiritual, powerful, and personal presence of Christ's body at the Sacrament, and in that respect to worship his flesh and blood there: yea, Saint Augustine saith, That it is sin, not to worship his flesh there. But you must be excused to exclude all from your Communion, that believe any such thing, because ye have denied before, that the Sacrament hath such a promise, and presence of Christ, as the Temple or Ark had under the Law, pag. 51. And pag. 50. ye denied, that it was a sign that should move us upon the sight thereof, to lift up our hearts to the spiritual object of Faith (I use your own words) or a means or occasion to stir up men to adore the Principal, that is, Christ: And so ye do acknowledge; that they are ordered of God to be signs only, and seals of his graces, without any promise, power, virtue, or presence of the body of Christ; that is the opinion of the Anabaptists. If these be they, whom ye call the purer sort amongst the Bohemians, I know not; this I know, that the Polonian Church esteems them Arrians, who sit at the Sacrament, whom I hope ye will not repute to be the purer sort, or reckon amongst the Reformed. Thirdly, if ye debar from the communion of the well reformed Churches, all who are of the Bishop of Rochester and Suttons' mind, who commend their simplicity, that believe Christ's presence, and are not inquisitive of the manner, but profess with Durandus, saying, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus; then shall ye excommunicate from your society, all that prefer the peace of the Church, to the love of contention and curious disputes, that have disquieted the Church, rend the body thereof asunder, and divided the same in factions.  
Where ye say, that if the manner of Christ's presence be not determined, there can arise no other but a confused worship of such a confused, and indetermined presence: your allegation is but rash and profane. Can ye determine the manner of Christ's presence in heaven particularly? or the manner of God the Father his presence in heaven and earth, albeit we believe that God is in essence and power every where, and that Christ is bodily in the heavens? These determinations are but general, and confused notions; yet God forbidden we should say as ye do, that the presence of the Father and the Son in heaven, and in earth, are confused, or that the worship is confused, that is given thereto according to God's Word.  
As to the Papists, who acknowledge (as ye say) that there ought to be no adoration, but where there is a bodily presence acknowledged in the Sacrament, although ye be of the same mind, and thereupon condemn all adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, yet we attribute no more to that their opinion, then to the rest of their errors; and therefore affirm with the learned and Divine Bishop IE WELL, That it is without doubt our duty to adore the body of Christ, in the word of God, in the Sacrament of Baptism, in the mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, and wheresoever any foot-step or sign of it appears, but chiefly in the holy mysteries, in which we have a living express I mage of all Christ's peregrination in the flesh. To conclude, if ye except out of the number of the reformed Churches, all that think that Christ is present in the Sacrament, and in the Sacrament to be adored; I fear ye draw the number of the reformed Churches to a very small count, whom ye call the purer sort, such as Arrians, Anabaptists, and their followers. But if by the reformed Churches, ye understand those, who distinguish between the signs and the things signified, giving to the signs the reverence due to them, and adoring only the thing signified, to wit, the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament; of these, some, I confess, do err in esteeming Christ's body to be really and locally present: and yet, seeing they agree with us in the chief and principal grounds of Religion, we must not excommunicate them from the number of the reformed. But let us lay aside these, whom ye call Vbiquetars: If ye hold the rest for Reformed Churches, that are in Germany, Polonia, Bohemia, Hungaria, Denmark, Norway, and great Britain, with the Church of Ireland; for one that sitteth at the receiving of the Sacrament in all these Churches, they are an hundred that kneel.  
I mention not the Church of France, where they stand, and sit not; whom ye condemn by your doctrine of breaking the Institution, and transgressing the Precept, and precedent of our Saviour; and with them, the ancient Church for the space of a thousand years, that stood and received, as also others of the Reformed, who follow their example: for when ye maintain sitting as necessary by institution, example, and precept; ye condemn all that do otherwise. Yet, ye could press here to excuse them, or rather to mitigate your censure of them, saying first, that by standing, men accommodate themselves to a table, to participate of the dainties set thereon. Next, that standing hath never been abused to idolatry, as kneeling hath been: but these abuses are frivolous, and nothing worth; for in the Church of France, where they receive standing, they do no more accommodate themselves to a table, than they who kneel; for neither do they reach their hand to the table, to take any thing to themselves therefrom, receiving all from the hand of the Minister; nor do they stand socially, as ye will have sitting to be used for society and familiar entertainment; but first one or two cometh, and having received, they pass to give place to others. Secondly, ye forget, or then are ignorant, that the Priest standeth, whilst he saith Mass, and receiveth, adoring the Elements. And therefore kneeling was never more abused by the people, then standing is by the Priest. So as by these your excuses, the reformed Churches of France, and others, that stand at the receiving of the Sacrament, are not liberate from the breach of the Institution, & second Commandment, wherewith ye charge those that kneel.  
In the end having condemned all for Idolaters, who kneel on earth at the Sacrament, ye ascend to heaven, and there ye deny that we are able to conclude, that they who are called to the Supper of the Lamb, kneel at the Supper of the Lamb: but if this be sure, that all who are in heaven bow their knees to the Name of jesus, it follows necessarily, that all, who are called to the Supper of the Lamb, kneel at the Supper of the Lamb; because all the Saints in heaven, that are called to the Supper of the Lamb, are continually, and without intermission at the Supper; and so if they bow their knees at all, they must kneel at that Supper: for as on earth a good conscience is a perpetual feast; so in heaven, the fruition of eternal felicity is the perpetual Supper of the Lamb. Then where ye say, that we cannot conclude a material geniculation of the Saints in heaven, because they have not bodily knees: I confess that is true; yet we conclude well a spiritual geniculation proportionable to the material: otherwise they could not be said to bow their knees, if in their humiliation, and adoration in heaven, there were nothing in substance answerable to that bodily geniculation of the Sains on earth.  
Ye demand, If they drink continually the felicity of heaven on their knees? I answer, Although they drink not on bodily knees, yet they drink with signs of greater humility and reverence to GOD, than any humane creature is able to express by any bodily gesture. The standing of thousands before God, which signifies service: sitting at Table with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, which signifies the fruition of pleasure; takes not away their humble adoration, and spiritual kneeling. They perform their service with humility; and with humility they enjoy their pleasures. And howsoever symbolical Theology cannot prove, that the forms of adoration used in heaven by the Saints, is a kind of bodily geniculation; yet it proves, that on earth that gesture properly should be used, and is most commonly used by the Saints in adoration, which is attributed to the blessed Spirits in heaven metaphorically; and therefore that on earth there is no gesture more proper to be used in adoration, than the reverend gesture of kneeling. Last of all, by the falling down of the twenty four Elders, it is evidently proved, that thanksgiving and praise may be offered to God on our knees, or in a gesture more humble, whether they be interpreted to be the Church militant, or triumphant.  
Now to conclude: When all your reasons and discourses shall be considered by the judicious Reader, he shall find, that they all tend to the contempt of the Sacrament, and to lead men to a profane estimation thereof: For first, ye maintain, that it is to be celebrated with no other gesture than a common banquet for bodily repast. Secondly, that it is not in statu accommodat● ad adorandum: that is to say, That it is not a sign or midst appointed to stir up the receivers to worship their Saviour. Thirdly, that Christ is either not present in the Sacrament at all, or that his body is not to be esteemed present after any manner. Fourthly, that at the Sacrament neither his person, nor his body and blood: that is, neither the giver, nor the gift is to be adored. Finally, that all, who at the Sacrament adore him by bowing of their knees, are Idolaters, breakers of the second Commandment, and violators of the Institution. These are assertions very contrarious to the judgement of the Primitive Church, touching the Sacrament, which of all the parts of God's worship, they esteemed the most principal; as Casaubone observes out of the Ancients in his 16. Exercit. Sect. 58. which he concludes with these words; Ex Augustini disputatione contra Faustum Mani●…aum, lib. 20. cap. 21. discimus veterem Ecclesiam in illa, quam sape diximus commemoratione passionis & sacrificij Christi, quae & ipsa sacrificium dicebatur, posuisse praecipuum Des cultum, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant. That is: By Saint Augustine his dispute with Faustus the Manichean, we learn, that the ancient Church did place the chief worship of God, which they called adoration, in the commemotation of the passion and sacrifice of Christ; which commemoration was also called a sacrifice itself. I shall now add the judgement of the reformed Churches, and Divines, touching adoration, and the external form thereof to be used in receiving the Sacrament.  

Confessio Bohemia, etc. Regi, Viennae Austria, Anno Domini 1535. oblata.  ARt. 13. De coena Domini. Ministri verè Dominicae coenae verbaresere tes plebem ipsam ad hanc sidem hortantur, ut corporis Christs praesentiam adesse credant, & procumbentibus in genua distribuant: 
that is, The Ministers rehearsing the words of the Lords Supper, exhort the people to believe the presence of Christ's body: and distribute the Sacrament to the people, kneeling on their knees.   

Sententia Petricoviensis Synodi generalis, Anno Dom. 1578. Conclus. 4. sub finem.  CEremonias libertati Christianae donamus, ac permittimus, ut stantes, vel genua flectentes, pij, sacramentum corporis, et sanguinis Christi sumant: sessionis verò ad mensem Domini quia prater ritus in omnibus per Europam Ecclesiis vulgo consuetos, illi internos primi auctores extiterunt, qui omnia temere in Ecclesia mutantes, et sine scientia Christum quasi imitantes, à nobis ad Arrianismum transfugae facti: quare hanc propriam ipsis, ut Christum, et sacra eius irreverenter tractantibus, tanquam inhonestam & irreligiosam, simplicioribusque admodum scandalosam ceremoniam reijcimus. 
That is, For Ceremonies we remit them to Christian liberty, and permit the godly to receive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood standing or kneeling: but because sitting at the table of the Lord, by, and besides the custom commonly used in the Churches of Europe, was first invented by these that changed all things temerariously in the Church; who counterfeiting Christ, without knowledge, have played the fugitives from us to Arrianisme: we reject this ceremony as unhonest, irreligious, and extremely scandalous to the simpler sort, leaving the same to them that handle the sacred things of Christ unreverently, as they do himself.   

Wlodislaviensis Synodi generalis, Auno. 1583. junij 19 Conclus. 6.  QVod attinet ad ceremonias coenae Domivicae, sententia iam olim in Sendomiriensi Synodo agitata, & conclusio in generali Cracoviensi, atque Petricoviensi Synodo facta, at repetita, in hoc etiam Wlodislaviensis Synodi consessu approbata est: nempe, Ne in usu sit sessio ad mensam Domini in ullis huins consensus Ecclesijs Poloniae & Lituania, etc. Nam haec ceremonia (licet cum cateris libera) Ecclesijs Christianis, & caetibus Euangelicis non est usitata; tantúmque infidelibus Arrianis cum Domino pari solio sese collocantibus propria: Hortamur itaque, ut administretur cana Dommi stantibus, vel genua flectentibus, cum protestatione contra artolatriam Papistis consuetam. 
That is; Concerning the ceremonies of the Lords Supper, the opinion agitated long ago in the Synod of Sendomire, with the conclusion taken in the general Synod of Cracovia, and Petricovia, now also repeated in this Synod of Wlodislavia, is approved: namely, That sitting at the Table of the Lord be not used in any of the Churches of Folonia, Lituania, etc. that are of our profession: for this ceremony (howbeit free and indifferent as other ceremonies are) is not received in Christian and Evangelic assemblies, but is only proper to the unfaithful Arrians, who place themselves with the Lord upon an equal Throne. Therefore we exhort and desire the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administered to the people standing or bowing their knees, with protestation against the bread-worship maintained by Papists.   

Paraeus 1. Cor. 11. Controversia 2. De fractione panis in sacra Eucharistia.  NEque convellitur instantijs quas quidam, alioqui eruditus Theologus, obijcit: quod si singula nobis imitanda essent, etiam prius agnum paschalem nos edere, in mensa sedere, duodenos tantum communicare, in domo, vel palatio, et nocte oporteret. Hasce enim peristaseis non sacramenti proprias, de quibus solis propositio haec (omnis Christi actio est nostra institutio) loquitur, sed accidentarias fuisse, iam modo ostensum est. 
That is; this proposition is not improved by the instances which a Theologue otherwise very learned objects, saying, If we should imitate all Christ's actions, than it behoved us first to eat the Paschall Lamb, sit at a Table, and twelve persons only communicate in a private house or Palace, and in the night season: for these circumstances are not proper to the Sacrament, but accidentary only, as we have showed. And it is of the proper actions of the Sacrament, that this proposition (Every action of Christ is our institution) speaks.   

Caluinus Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 17. Sect. 37.  CHristo, inquiunt, have venerationem deferimus. Primùm, si in coena hoc fioret, dicerem adorationem eam demum esse legitimam, quae non in signo residet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur. 
That is; We give this worship (say they) to CHRIST: First, if this were done in the action of the Supper, I would confess the adoration to be lawful, which resteth not in the sign, but is directed to Christ, sitting in heaven.   

Beza Epist. 12. pag. 100  GEniculatio denique dum symbola accipiuntur, speciem quidem habet piae, ac Christianae venerationis, ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu usurpari. 
That is, Kneeling at the receiving of the Elements hath a show and form of holy and Christian adoration; and therefore of old might have been used profitably.   

Petrus Martyr, Class. 4. locus 10. Sect. 49. & 50.  IN Sacramento distinguimus symbola à rebus, & symbolis aliquem honorem deferimus, nimirum ut tractentur decenter, & non abijciantur, sunt enim sacrae res, & Deo semel deputatae: quo verò vel res significatas, eas promptè, & alacriter adorandas concedimus: inquit enim Augustinus, hoc loco, Non peccatur adorando carnem Christi, sed peccatur non adorando. Adoratio interna potest adhiberi sine pericul●, neque externa suâ naturâ esset mala. Multi enim piè genua flectunt, et adorant. 
That is, In the Sacrament we distinguish the symbols from the things signified, and some honour we yield to the signs: namely, that they be decently handled, and not cast away; for they are sacred things and once dedicate to God. As to the things signified, we confess these should be readily and cheerfully adored, for Saint Augustine in this place says, That it is no fault to adore Christ's flesh; but it is a sin not to adore it. In the next Section: Inward adoration may be used without peril, neither is the outward evil of itself: for many bow their knees religiously, and adore.   

jewel in the 8. Art. of Adoration.  But they will reply: Saint AMBROSE says, We adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries: hereof groweth their whole error: for Saint AMBROSE saith not, We adore the mysteries, or, the flesh of Christ really present, or materially contained in the mysteries, as is supposed by Master HARDING: only he says, we adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries; that is, in the ministration of the mysteries And doubtless, it is our duty to adore the body of Christ in the Word of God, in the Sacrament of Baptism, in the mysteries of Christ's body and blood, and wheresoever we see any step or token of it, but especially in the holy mysteries; for that there is lively laid forth before us the whole History of Christ's conversation in the flesh. But this adoration, as it is said before, neither is directed to the Sacraments, nor requires any corporal or real presence. So Saint HIEROME teaches us to adore Christ's body in the Sacrament of Baptism. CHRYSOSTOME in MARK, Hom. XIV.    

An Answer to the reasons used by the penner of the Pamphlet, against the Festival DAYS.  PP. 
FRom the beginning of the Reformation, to this present year of our Lord 1618. the Church of Scotland hath diverse ways condemned the observation of all Holidays, the Lords day only excepted. In the first Chapter of the first Book of Discipline penned, Anno 1560. the observation of Holidays to Saints, the feast of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphanie, Purification, and others fond Feasts of our Lady, are ranked amongst the abominations of the Roman Religion, as having neither commandment, nor assurance in the Word. It is further affirmed, that the obstinate maintainers, and teachers of such abomination should not escape the punishment of the Civil Magistrate. The Book aforesaid was subscribed by the Lords of secret Counsel.  ANS. 
This Book was never authorised by Act of Counsel, Parliament, or by any Ecclesiastical Canon; and john Knox as we said before, complains of some in chief Authority, that called the same Devote imaginations: yet let us give unto it, the Authority which ye require, the same will not serve your purpose. For in the explication of that first head, which ye cite, we have these words, which ye have omitted: In the Books of old, and new Testaments, We affirm that all things necessary for instruction of the Church, and to make the man of God perfect, are contained, and sufficiently expressed. By the contrary doctrine we understand whatsoever men by Laws, Counsels, or Constitutions, have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the express commandment of God's word, such as be the vows of chastity, forswearing of Marriage; and keeping of Holidays of certain Saints, etc. By which words it is manifest, that the observation of days here condemned, is not that, which was in the Primitive Church, and now is used in the Refonrmed, Causa ordinis, & politeias, as our Divines speak, that is, for order and Policy sake: But such as are imposed upon the consciences of men, as a necessary point of Divine worship. This observation urged upon the people of God, and practised with opinion of necessity and merit, was utterly to be abolished. And to banish this opinion, together with the superstitious Idolatry and profaneness, which was otherwise conjoined, of banqueting, drinking, playing, quarrelling, and such like enormities; it was thought expedient, that on these days, the people should be discharged rest from their ordinary labours, and that no Divine service should be done, in places where there was not a daily Exercise of Religion; as well because of the rarity of Pastors, to inform people touching the lawful observation of days, and the eschewing of their Idolatrous, and superstitious abuse, as because it appeared, that extraordinary Exercises on these days, would rather foster superstition, then edify people in true godliness. Neither could there better order be taken, as matters than stood; but our Church did never presume to condemn religious Exercises upon these days, which now the Assembly at Perth hath appointed; for that had been to condemn both the Primitive Church, and all the Reformed Churches now in the World, who practised the contrary. And all the exceptions, Acts and complaints made, to Authority against Holidays, were rather against days dedicated to Saints, or against the profane and superstitious observation of Christmas, which we call Zule; or served to maintain the order taken by the Church for the same, as shall be made manifest in the particulars alleged by you.  PP. 
In the general Assembly holden at Edinburgh, Anno 1566. the latter Confession of Helnetia was approved, but with special exception against some Holidays dedicated to Christ: These same very days that now areurged.  ANS. 
By this exception the Assembly did not condemn the judgement, and practise of the Helvetian Church as unlawful, superstitious or profane: but only declared, that by their approbation, they did nothing prejudicial to the order and policy of their own Church.  PP. 
At the Assembly holden Anno 1575. complaint was made against the Ministers, and Readers beside Abirdene, because they assembled the people to Prayer and Preaching upon certain Patrove and Festival days.  ANS. 
This complaint was made for the contempt, and breach of the order of the Church, and the offence which people might take thereat; not for the religious Exercise used at the time.  PP. 
Complaint likewise was ordained to be made to the Regent, upon the Town of Drumfreis, for urging and conveying a Reader to the Church with Tabret and Whistle, to read the Prayers all the Holidays of Zule or Christmas, upon refusal of their own Reader.  ANS. 
This was a just complaint, because the Fact was not only contrarious to the order of the Church, but superstitious, and profane also in itself.  PP. 
Item, An Article was form to be presented to the Regent, craving that all days heretofore kept holy in time of Papistry, beside the Lord's day, such as Zule day, Saints days, and other like Feasts, might be abolished, and a civil penalty appointed against the observers of the said days.  ANS. 
In this Article, we must understand by Days, not the Time itself materially, for that cannot be abolished: but the superstitious cessation from labour on these days, with an opinion of necessity, and the profane excesses of banqueting, playing, etc. which the Act of Perth hath also condemned.  PP. 
In the Assembly holden in April, Anno 1577. it was ordained, That the Visitor with the advice of the Synodall Assembly, should admonish Ministers preaching, or ministering the Communion at Pasche, Zule, or other like superstitious times, or Readers reading, to desist under the pain of deprivation.  ANS. 
This Ordinance was made to withdraw people from the superstitious opinion they had of these times, as is manifest by the words, Or other like superstitious times: and this, our Pastors are also ordained still to rebuke.  PP. 
Dedicating of Days was abjured in the Confession of Faith, penned, Anno 1580. an Article was form in the Assembly 1581. craving an Act of Parliament to be made against the observation of feast-days dedicated to Saints, and setting out of Bonfires.  ANS. 
The dedicating of days abjured in the confession is in these words: We abjure his (to wit the Popes) canonisation of men, calling upon Angels, or Saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relics, and cross; dedicating of Churches, Altars, Days, Vows to creatures, etc. What is here? days dedicated by the Pope are abjured; but the five days concluded by the Church to be kept were not dedicated by the Pope, but observed long before his usurped authority above the Church: Neither are they observed in the reformed Churches, or ordained to be observed in ours, according to the intention of the Papal dedication of days, that is, as Bellarmine says, tanquam sanctiores, & sacratiores alijs diebus, & tanquam pars divini cultus, as more holy, and sacred, than other days, and a part of divine worship: but only as fit circumstances for the worship of God, appointed to be done upon them, ordinis & politias causa, for order, and policy. Further, by the words of the Confession, and by the Article form Anno 1581. it is manifest, that the days abjured are the days dedicated to creatures; but our days are dedicated to Christ, and therefore not abjured.  PP. 
In the Assembly holden in February, Anno 1587. it was humbly moved to his Majesty, that Pasche, and Zule were superstitiously observed in Fife, and about Drumfreis.  ANS. 
So would we complain, if any of these days were superstitiously observed: for by the act of Perth it is ordained, that Pastors in their Sermons upon these days should rebuke the superstitious observation, and licentious profanation thereof.  PP. 
In the Assembly holden 1590. his Majesty in open audience of the Assembly praised God, for that he was borne to be a King in the syncerest Church in the World: syncerer then our neighbour Church of England, syncerer than Geneva itself, for they observed Pasche and Zule.  ANS. 
His Majesty from his youth up hath ever kept these solemn times, and wished the same to be kept by all his Subjects without abuse: So who will believe you, that such a speech was uttered in that assembly? for at that time, neither were ye present yourself, not having passed at that time your degrees in the Schools; nor does it appear by the matters entreated in that meeting, that the occasion of any such speech was offered. And put the case, such a saying had been used by his Majesty at that time, a young King, and of less experience in matters; the same should not control the judgement of an old wise Monarch whom a long time and great experience hath taught incomparable prudence. You may remember that of the Apostle, When I was a child, I spoke as a child, and it is a true speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the latest cogitations are wisest.  PP. 
In the Parliament holden, Anno 1592. The act of King james the third about the Saturday, and other vigils to be kept holy, from Evensong, to Evensong, was annulled. Item the act made by Queen Regent, granting licence to keep Zule, and Pasche.  ANS. 
The licence granted by the Queen Regent, did authorize the Papistical, that is, the superstitious observation of Zule, and Pasche, therefore it was rightly annulled. But to what purpose allege ye the Act of vigils?  PP. 
In the Assembly holden Anno 1596. when the covenant was renewed, superstition, and idolatry breaking forth in keeping of festival days, setting out of Bonfires, and singing of Carols are reckoned amongst the corruptions, which were to be amended. The Pulpits have sounded continually against all festival days. The censures of the Church have been put in execution in all due form against the observers.  ANS. 
Yet the commemoration of the inestimable benefits of our redemption upon these five days, was not reckoned amongst the corruptions to be amended. Neither did Pulpits sound, nor were censures put in execution against preaching, prayers, and other holy exercises in these days: for, at that time, the Preachers gave all obedience to the acts of the Church made concerning these things. But do ye not see, by the regraite made at this Assembly, and by the acts, complaints, and ordinances by yourself rehearsed, that the abstaining from preaching, and reading at these times, hath not removed from people their superstitious opinions of the times, nor yet abolished the enormities, and abuses committed in them? Certainly, nothing is so powerful to abolish profaneness, and root on't superstition of men's hearts, as the exercise of divine worship in preaching, praying, and thanksgiving, chief then, when the superstitious conceits of merit, and necessity are most pregnant in the heads of people, as doubtless they are, when the set times of these solemnities return: for than it is meetest to launce the oposteme, when it is ripe. Upon these and such other reasons, it pleased his Majesty to require, and our Church to condescend, that commemoration of the benefits purchased to us by the Nativity, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Saviour, should be made solemnly on these days according to the practice of all other reformed Churches. And there is no question, the errors of the multitude, shall hereby, be fare more easily removed, then by any prohibition, that can be made to the contrary; and therewithal the people better instructed in the principal grounds of Religion, than they could by occasional Doctrine: as also, the honour of God more highly advanced, for we know, that ordinary services are performed with less regard, and more coldly, than these which come more rarely to be celebrated. Of all these, the hope is the greater, that now (we own it to our King, under God) the Churches are planted with able and sufficient Pastors, meet to discharge these duties. So by the Assembly at Perth there is nothing concluded either contrarious to any former constitution of the Church, or to any sound Doctrine, delivered from Pulpits in former times. Which that it may appear, I will set down the Act itself, as it was concluded.  

The Act about Festivities.  
AS We abhor the superstitious observation of festival days by the Papists, and detest all licentious and profane abuse thereof, by the common sort of Professors; so We think that the inestimable benefits received from God, by our Lord jesus Christ his Birth, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and sending down of the holy Ghost, was commendably and godly remembered at certain particular days and times by the whole Church of the world, and may be also now. Therefore the Assembly ordains, that every Minister shall upon these days have the Commemoration of the foresaid inestimable benefits, and make choice of several and pertinent Texts of Scripture, and frame their Doctrine and Exhortations thereto, and rebuke all superstitious observation, and licentious profanation thereof.  
In the narrative of this Act, the Assembly professes to abhor all that was condemned by any Ecclesiastical Constitution, touching the observation of these days. It is therefore consonant to former Acts.  
In the Conclusion, the Pastors are appointed to rebuke all superstitious observation, and licentious profanation thereof. This agrees with all the sound Doctrine delivered from Pulpits concerning this point.  
That which is interlaced in the Canon, Saint Augustine affirms to be Apostolic, Epist. 118. ad januarium: Illa autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quiden toto terrarum orbe obsernantur, dantur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Ap●stol●s, vel à plenarijs Concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima autoritas, commendata, atque statuta retinere, sicuti quod Domini Passio, & Resurrectio, & Ascensio in coelum, & ad●e●tus de coelo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria solennuate celebrantur, & si quid aliud tale occurreret, quod seruatur ab universa quacunque se diffundit Ecclesia: that is, Whatsoever things are not written, but by Tradition observed through the whole world, must be thought to have been prescribed by the Apostles themselves, or then to have been ordained by general Counsels, whose authority hath ever been great in the Church; as namely, The anniversary celebration of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord, with the descending of the holy Ghost, or any such like thing that is observed by the whole Church diffused through the world. And in the same Epistle, he affirms, that it is most insolent madness to doubt, if that should be observed, which the Church universally keeps. Similiter etiam si quid horum tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia; nam hoc quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. This conclusion of the Church his Majesty's pleasure was to ratify by Act of Council, and command cessation from labour upon these five days, to the end, the holy Exercises appointed to be done thereon might be the better attended.  PP. 
Piscator describes a festival day on this manner: Festum propriè loquendo, est publica, & solennis ceremonia, mandata à Deo, ut certo anni tempore cum singulari laetitia obeatur ad gratias agendum Deo, pro certo aliquo beneficio in populum suum collato: A feast in proper speech is a public and solemn ceremony, commanded by God to be celebrated a certain time of the year, with singular gladness to give thankes to God for some certain benefit bestowed on his people. Hooker entreating this Argument, entitules the subject, Festival days. He makes festival solemnities to be nothing else, but the due mixture, as it were, of these three elements: Praises set forth with cheerful alacrity of mind: Delight expressed by charitable largeness, more than common bounty; and sequestration from ordinary labours. By these descriptions we may see, that the Sabbath day is not properly a festival day. The ordinary Sabbath is weekly: The festival is Anniversary. We may fast upon the ordinary Sabbath, but we cannot fast and mourn upon a festival day, etc. Upon the ordinary Sabbath all the parts of God's worship may be performed: Upon festival days proper Texts, Epistles, Gospels, Homilies, and Sermons, are framed for the mystery of that day. So that the ordinary Sabbath is moral, and for the worship of God in general, the festival is mystical. Essentialia festi; the essential parts of a festival day are cessation from work, hearing of the Word, participation of the Sacraments: commemoration of divine mysleries may be performed upon the ordinary Sabbath, but to make up a festival day, Bellarmine requires a determination of day, signification, and representation of the mysteries wrought on such days.  ANS. 
The description made by Piscator, is proper only to the festival days prescribed in God's Word. hooker's is more large, and may be applied to the Ecclesiastical Festivities. The jewish Sabbath, according to these descriptions, is not properly festival, yet the Lords day was esteemed such by the primitive Church and ancient Divines, who held it not lawful for Christians to fast thereon. Proper Texts, Epistles, Gospels, etc. are not to be framed for the mystery of the festival day, as ye say, but for the benefit and divine action appointed to be remembered thereon. If by the ordinary Sabbath ye understand the jewish Sabbath, it was not only moral, but mystical, as their festival days were: and if by festival days ye understand the days observed in the Christian Orthodox Church, we deny them to be mystically. If by essentialia festi, ye understand the essential parts of the worship performed on the festival day, we deny cessation from work to be an essential part of the worship, but only concomitant and consequent thereto, because it cannot be commodiously performed without cessation from other business. As to Bellarmine's opinion, himself professes, that it is contrary to the judgement of our Divines. For they hold, as we do, that our Festival days are not observed for signification and representation of our mysteries, or memorable works wrought on these days, or as a part of divine worship; but for order and policy, as meet and commodious circumstances for commemoration of the works and benefits of God thereon, Bellar. de cultu Sanctor. l. 3. c. 10.  PP. 
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do. These words are either a command to do the works of our calling, as many both jewish and Christian Divines do interpret: or else a permission, as others do interpret: If they contain a command, no countermand may take it away. If a permission, no humane authority may spoil men of the liberty, that God hath granted unto them, as long as they have any manner of work to do, for the sustentation of this life. The Muscovites therefore say very well, that it is for Lords to keep Feasts, and abstain from labour. The Citizens and Artificers amongst them upon the Festival days, after divine Service to betake themselves to their labour and domestic affairs, as Gaguinus reports.  ANS. 
Whether the words of the command, be preceptine, or permissive, I will neither curiously, nor contentiously dispute, but it seems, they are not preceptive; for if we were commanded to spend the whole six days in servile labour, than times could not be lawfully appointed for public Prayers in Cities at morn & at evening: nor ordinary times for preaching on the week days, or for exercise, or for catechising; nor times for fasting upon urgent occasions without sin, and breach of the Precept. Next the precept touching labour belongs not to the first Table, but is comprised in the Command of the second Table, as Saint Paul gives us to vndestand in these words, Let him that stole, sleale no more, but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs, Ephes. 4.28. If therefore here any precept be contained, it is per accidens, by occasion only of the principal command, touching the sanctification of the Sabbath. Thirdly, if the words were preceptive, and had relation to the time, that is, if a certain time were prescribed during the which men should labour, it would be told quam diu, how long, or for what space we should labour; as the Precept of the Sabbath contains the space during the which we should rest from our labours, and not quando only, when we may labour. It is more probable therefore, that the words are permissive, like these in Genesis. Of all the Trees in the Garden thou shalt eat, which words did not aslrict Adam to eat of all the Trees, only they gave him liberty to eat of such as he should choose; so the words of this command astricts not the people of God, as slaves to labour still without intermission, during the whole space of six days, whether they be taken for a precept, or a permission: but they leave to their arbitrement, that have the dispensation of works and businesses, private, Economical, Civil, & Ecclesiastic, the choice of hours, days, and times which they shall think most convenient; and thus the private man may make choice of times to his labour, and to his refreshment: The Master of the Family may appoint times to his Servants and Children for their labour, and times for their relaxation: the Civil and Ecclesiastic Governors have power to ordain for Civil and Ecclesiastic actions, meet and convenient times; which power is rightly used, when as Superiors make choice of such times, as neither hurt nor hinder the necessary labours of their Inferiors, Like as private persons, and Inferiors must in the dispensation of the times whereof they have power, accommodate themselves to the order taken by Superiors for public actions, that by a mutual harmony, the weal of the whole body both temporal and spiritual may be procured. Otherwise if by this permission the liberty were granted to every person, which you imagine, to attend his own business without respect of order, or subjection to policy, there could be nothing but confusion amongst men. The general liberty granted to men touching the use of times, meats, clothing, talking, sleeping, watching, etc. takes not away the power of Civil & Ecclesiastic Governors, to set down Constitutions & Canons touching the Dispensation of these things for the weal of the Country. Neither do the Laws and Ordinances touching this Dispensation spoil men of their liberty, but directs them how to use it profitably and well. The Act therefore of Council and Proclamation made thereupon, commanding cessation and abstinence from all handie-worke upon the five days, that every one may the better attend the holy exercises appointed for these times; cannot be called a spoliation of the liberty which God hath given to men for labour; seeing, as hath been said, that liberty is not absolute, but subject unto order. Moreover, if we consider the matter itself, this which ye say, will appear to be a manifest calumny: For, if under the Law, God did not spoil his people of liberty, when he appointed them to rest two days at Pasche, one at Whitsonday, one at the Feast of Trumpets, one at the Feast of Expiation, and two at the Feast of Tabernacles; how can the King's Majesty and the Church be esteemed to spoil us of our liberty, that command a cessation from labour upon three days only throughout the whole year? for two of the days commanded, to wit, Easter, and Whitsonday, are Sundays. Last of all, he cannot be said to be spoilt properly, that makes a profitable interchange without any loss; but he that changes the exercises of the body, which are little worth, with the exercises of Piety which is profitable to all things, makes a profitable change without loss: therefore he who makes this change according to the Proclamation, is not spoilt of his liberty, but maketh vantage by the right use thereof.  
Here it shall not be amiss to recite Zanchius opinion in this purpose, who defending their opinion, that esteem the words to contain a command, moves a doubt, and answers it after this manner, Verùm enimuerò videtur cum hac sententia pugnare, etc. That is, But this fights against their opinion, that hold the words to be a command, that it was ever lawful to God's people to assemble themselves on other days beside the Sabbath, to hear God's Word, to be present at Prayers, to offer Sacrifices, and such other things belonging to outward worship, which fare less can be denied to us: and therefore beside the Lord's Day, other days are instituted in the Church, ad feriandum ab operibus seruilibus: to rest from feruile works, if not for the whole day, yet for the morning time. He answers, Facilis est horum conciliatio: sicut opera divini cultus praeponenda sunt operibus seruilibus, ita haec sunt omittenda, quando illis vacandum est, etc. that is, These things may be easily reconciled: as the works of God's worship are to be preferred to servile works, so these must be omitted, when those are to be performed. And a little after, We sinne not against this precept, says he, when we cease from our servile labour, to wait on God's worship, quoties ordo Ecclesiae, aut necessitas postulat, so often, as the order of the Church, and necessity requires. This is Zanchius judgement upon the fourth precept of the Law, in the six hundred sixty two page of that Worke. And if a precept cannot impede the appointing of solemn times for the worship of God, fare less can a permission.  
The Muscovites saying, that it is for Lords to make Feasts, and abstain from labour, is true: yet amongst them Festival Days are observed. That the Citizens after divine Service on these Days, betake themselves to their labour, we do not reprove, because it is agreeable to their policy.  PP. 
It may be objected, that Constantine the Emperor made a Law, that none but the Prince may ferias condere, erect an idle day: The Prince then may enjoin a day of cessation. Answ. The Laws of the God. are not Rules of Theology; A Prince may not enjoin cessation from Economical and Domestic works, but for weapon-shewing, exercise of Arms, defence of the Country, or other public works and affairs. But that is not to enjoin a day of simple cessation, but to enjoin apoliticke work in place of the Economical.  ANS. 
Though the Laws of the God. be not Rules of Theology, yet where they are not contrary to Scripture, they are good Rules of Government to Princes, and of obedience to Subjects. That the Prince may enjoin a day of cessation from servile work for the worship of God, is not only not contrary, but most agreeable to Scripture. The Festival Days of Purim kept by the jews, were confirmed by the Decree of Queen Esther, Esth. 9.32. It is written in the Book of jonah, the third Chapter and seventh verse: That ye the Decree of the King of Ninive, and his Nobles, a Fast was proclaimed. The Feast of Dedication, graced with the presence of our Saviour, was instituted by judas Machabaeus and the people, 1. Mach. 10. And if the King may command a cessation from Economical and private works, for works civil and public, such as the defence of the Crown, the liberty of the Country, etc. What reason have ye, why he may not enjoin a day of cessation from all kind of bodily labour, for the honour of God, and exercise of Religion? Is he not custos utriusque tabulae? If the one may be done, as ye grant, for the weal of the political body, much more may, and should the other be done for the weal of the Mystical, especially when the order of the Church so requires.  PP. 
What if the Church representative enjoin a weekly holy day as another Sabbath, ought the Church to be obeyed? What power hath the Church representative to enjoin an Anniversary day, more than a weekly, or hebdomary holy day?  ANS. 
I ask you again, what power hath the Church to appoint one hour or two in the day for public Prayer in Cities at morning and evening, more than six or seven hours? Or why may she appoint an hour or two in the week for preaching, more than a day or two? Is it not, because the one cannot stand with Charity, the inseparable companion of Piety, as the other may? The observation of these Anniversary days agrees with Piety and Charity; but to enjoin the observation of a weekly day besides the Sabbath, were against Charity and Equity. Is this a good Argument? The Church may not do that which is unlawful, therefore she may not enjoin that which is lawful, or this: The King may neither banish nor put to death an honest and peaceable Subject, therefore he may not execute a Traitor, or banish a seditious man. This kind of reasoning is more than childish.  PP. 
I say further, that the poor Crafts-man cannot lawfully be commanded to lay aside his Tools, and go pass his time, no not for an hour, let be for a day. And yet farther, that he ought not to be compelled to leave his work to go to divine Service, except on the day, that the Lord hath sanctified.  ANS. 
This is a strong argument confirmed with the great authority of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I say further, But what say ye to that which is ordained in the first Book of Discipline, out of which ye took your first argument in this dispute of days? In the ninth Chapter thereof we have these words: In every notable Town, we require, that one day beside the Sunday be apppointed to Sermon and prayers, which day●, during the time of Sermon, must be kept free from all exercise of labour, aswell to the Master, as to the servant. When ye discussed the oath, ye cited the ordinances of this Book, as points of Discipline sworn unto, and subscribed. If it be not lawful to command, and compel a man to go to divine Service, except upon the Lord's day, why did ye swear in the assertory oath, that it was lawful? But ye will say, I swore not that he might be compelled: but if he may be lawfully commanded to cease from his labour, during the time of divine service, he may be as lawfully compelled to obey the command. Necessity, ye know, excuses the breach of the Sabbath itself. But the precepts of this Book, ye use, or use not, as they may serve to your purpose. Such of them as ye allow, must all be observed under the pain of perjury; others, that are contrary to your opinion, must be reputed, & rejected as unlawful.  PP. 
It is the privilege of God's power to appoint a day of rest, and to sanctify it to his honour, 
The second Reason.  as our best Divines maintain, etc. If the special sanctification of a day to an holy use, depends upon God's commandment and institution, than neither King nor Church representative may make a Holy day.  ANS. 
Days are sanctified, and made holy, as are places, two manner of ways: some places were made holy, by annexing to them a peculiar worship instituted by God, which lawfully could not be performed in another place: such were the Tabernacle, and the Temple, which were also holy, by reason of the typicke and mystical signification wherewith they were clothed by divine institution. These places did appertain to the worship, not as mere circumstances only, but as essential parts and properties thereof. The worship which consisted in sacrificing, paying of vows, observation of certain festivities, was not perfect and acceptable, except in that place it were performed. Other places were holy for their use only, being dedicated to the service of God, but they had not the service so appropriated unto them, as that it might not be performed in another place; and such were the jewish Synagogues, and the Christian Churches. Even so some days were made holy, not only because they were dedicated to the worship of God, but because a special worship was instituted by God, and appropriated unto them. And because the observation of these times, with that worship was typical, and mystic, having in it the shadow of things to come: such were the Feasts of the Passeover, of the first green fruits, of Whitsonday, of the Trumpets, of Expiation, and of Tabernacles; all these days were holy, not only for the use, whereunto they were apppointed to serve, as circumstances, but by reason also of their mystic signifitation, and of the worship appropriated unto them, which might not at another time be lawfully performed. Other times were only holy by reason of the use or divine worship performed on them, and not for any mystery or solemn worship appropriated to them: such as these, which were appointed for solemn humiliation in the day of calamity. After the first manner our Divines hold, That it is only proper to God to make times, and places holy: but after the second manner, it is a prerogative and liberty of the Church, to make places and times holy, by dedication of them to the service of God. So the feast of Purim, and Dedication, were made Holidays by Mordecai, judas Macchabeus, and by the Church. So times are apppointed by our Church for Morning and Evening Prayers in great Towns; hours for preaching, on Tuesday, Thursday, etc. Hours for weekly exercises of prophesying, which are holy, in respect of the use, whereunto they are apppointed. And such are the five days, which we esteem not to be holy for any mystic signification, which they have either by divine or ecclesiastic institution, or for any worship which is appropriated unto them, that may not be performed at another time, but for the sacred use, whereunto they are apppointed to be employed as circumstances only, and not as mysteries. This ye know to be the judgement and doctrine of our best Divines, yet ye press to refute it, in the Section following.  PP. 
The observers of days will say, they count not their anniversary days holier than other days, but, that they keep them only for order and policy, that the people may be assembled to religious exercises. Ans. The Papists will confess, that one day is not holier than another in its own nature, no not the Lords day; But they affirm, that one day is holier than another in respect of the end and use: and so do we: They call them Holy days; and so do we: They use them as memorial signs of sacred mysteries, whereof they carry the names, as Nativity, Passion, Ascention, etc. and so do we.  ANS. 
Antiquum obtinet: ye keep still your old custom: for before ye did extenuate the Idolatry of the Papists in adoring Images, that with some appearance ye might prove these that kneel at the Sacrament, to be guilty of the same abomination; and now, ye travel to extenuate their superstition in observing days, that ye may involve us in the same impiety. Yet our act in the beginning says, We abhor the superstitious observation of the Festival days of the Papists. Thus we profess our disagreement from them in this point, which they also acknowledge. Bellarmine in the tenth Chapter of his third Book De culiu Sanctorum, rehearses the Doctrine of Luther, and Caluine, (to which we adhere) and reproves the same as erroneous in these words: Tertiò, docent dies determinatos ad feriandum, non debere haberi caeteris sanctiores, quasi mystery aliquid, vel piam significationem continerent: sed solum haberi tanquam determinatos, Discipline, & ordinis, ac politia causa, ita, ut cum hac determinatione, etiam consistat, aequalit as dierum, & in hoc nos accusant, quasi habeamus discrimen dierum judaico more. He says, that we teach the days apppointed for holy exercises, not to be holier than others, or to be esteemed, as if they contained any mystery, or divine signification, but only as determined for discipline, order, and policy, with which determination, the quality of days may consist. And he says, that we accuse them, for putting difference amongst days after the jewish manner, which is the doctrine indeed of our best Divines. Against this Bellarmine setteth down this proposition: Festa Christianorum non solùm ratione ordinis, & politia sedetiam ratione mysterij celebrantur, suntque dies festi, verè alijs saenctiores, sacratiores, & pars quaedam divini cultus, that is, The Festivities of Christians are not only kept for order, and policy, but also by reason of a mystery: and the Festival days are more holy and sacred than other days, and a part of divine worship. This is the Papists opinion, which we with all the reformed Churches abhor, as superstitious and idolatrous. But ye take part with Bellarmine against the Doctrine of Luther, and Caluine, labouring to prove, that the reformed Churches observe these days not only for discipline, order, and policy, but for memorial signs of sacred mysteries as Papists do.  PP. 
The presence of the Festivitie putteth a man in mind of the mystery, howbeit he have not occasion to be present in the holy Assembly.  ANS. 
It follows not of this, that we observe the days for signs of sacred mysteries, because they put us not in mind of Christ's birth, passion, etc. as ceremonies significant, or sacramental signs instituted by God, or the Church for that effect: but as circumstances only determined for celebration of the religious action, whereby the commemoration of these benefits is made. And there is nothing more usual, then by considering the circumstances of times, places, and persons, to remember the actions and business whereunto they are destinate.  PP. 
We are commanded to observe them in all point as the Lords Day, both in public Assemblies, and after the dissolving of the same.  ANS. 
This is manifestly false, for the Lords Day is commanded to be observed of necessity for conscience of the divine Ordinance, as a day sanctified, and blessed by God himself: These are commanded to be observed only for ecclesiastical order, and policy, and do not oblige men in conscience to obedience, but for eschewing scandal, and contempt. Secondly, the Lord's Day is to be observed, as the Sabbath of JEHOVAH, that is, not only for a day, wherein we are appointed to rest to God, but as a day whereon God himself did rest, after the Creation: So it is observed as a remembrance, and resemblance of God's rest. Thirdly, the Lord's Day is observed as is the Lords Supper; this, in remembrance of his death; that, in remembrance of his resurrection. Fourthly, the Lord's Day is observed as a pledge of that rest, wherein he that enters, shall rest from his labours, as God hath done from his. And fifthly, we observe the Lords Day, as a perpetual sign between God and us, to signify and declare that the God, who hath sanctified us to be his people, and whom we adore, as JEHOVAH the Father, who created the World in six days, and rested the seventh: JEHOVAH the Son, who redeemed the World, and rising that day to life, abolished sin and death, and brought life and immortality to light; and JEHOVAH the Holy Ghost, who on that day descended upon the Twelve Apostles, sanctifying them, and the whole World by them, with the truth of God's Word. In none of these five points, do we observe the Festival days as the Lords Day.  PP. 
It is left free to teach any part of God's Word on the Lord's day: but for solemnity of the festival, solemn Texts must be chosen, Gospels, Epistles, Collects, Psalms, must be framed for the particular service of these days; and so the mystical days of man's appointment shall not only equal, but in solemnities surpass the moral Sabbath appointed by the Lord.  ANS. 
If by the solemnity of the Festival, ye understand the honour done to the Day; we deny, that we are appointed to choose any Text, or frame our Doctrine and Exhortations thereto: but if by the solemnity of the Festival, ye understand the commemoration of the benefits made on these days, it is true, that every Minister is ordained to choose pertinent Texts, and frame his Doctrine and Exhortations thereto. But upon this, ye will never conclude, that these days, which ye falsely call mystical, do not only equal, but surpass the moral Sabbath in solemnity; for the whole solemnity hath only respect to the benefits, which on these times are remembered, and no respect at all to the Time: The solemnity not being observed for the Time, but the Time for the solemn remembrance of these benefits. The Lord's Day otherwise is not only observed for the divine service that is performed thereon, but the same service and public worship, which may be omitted on all the six days, must be performed on the Lord's Day, because God hath appointed it to be sanctified with these holy Exercises.  PP. 
If they were instituted only for order and policy, that the people may assemble to religious exercises; wherefore is there but one day appointed betwixt the Passion and the Resurrection? Wherefore forty days between the Resurrection and Ascension, and ten between the Ascension and the Pentecost? Why follow we the course of the Moon as the jews did, in our movable feasts, making the Christian Church clothed with the Sun, to walk under the Moon, as Bonaventura alludes? Wherefore is there not a certain day of the Month kept for Easter, aswell as for the Nativity? Does not Bellarmine give this reason out of Augustine, that the day of Nativity is celebrated only for memory, the other both for memory and for Sacraments?  ANS. 
Saint Augustine's opinion alleged by Bellarmine, 
Epist. 119.  is not received by the reformed Churches, as the reason moving them to observe these times: for they expressly deny, that they keep these times for any mystery or Sacrament that is in them, but only for order and policy, which directeth all things to be done to edification, and allows us to make choice of such circumstances, as are most meet to promove the spiritual business, whereunto they are applied. And this is a kind of Christian prudence and dexterity, for who knows not what moment there is in the opportunity of Times and Places to advance actions? Now, because no times can be found more convenient for a solemn commemoration of the Birth, Passion, etc. then these, which are either he same indeed by revolution, or in common estimation; they follow in this the judgement of the primitive Church, esteeming it piety to prefer unity with the Catholic church in things indifferent and lawful, to the singularity of any private man's opinion, or the practice of any particular Church. The allegation of Bonaventura his allusion in such a grave point is ridiculous; for if the Sun and the Moon be taken mystically, as they are in the Revelation, in this case the Church clothed with the Sun, that is, with the light of the Gospel, walks not under the Moon, that is, according to the opinions and fashions of the world; but treading these under foot, follows the rules of order and decency for edification. If by the Sun and Moon, these two Planets be understood, which God created for signs, seasons, days, and years: So long, as the Church is militant on earth, she must use the benefit of these Creatures in the determination of times for all her actions.  PP. 
If the Anniversary commemorations were like the weekly preachings, Why is the Husbandman forced to leave his plough at the one, and not at the other? Why did not Master Galloway curse the people for absence from the one, aswell as from the other?  ANS. 
I answer, Although the circumstance of Time, whereon the Anniversary commemoration is made, differs not in holiness, or any mystic signification from the weekly days of preaching, yet it differres in frequency and rarity, for the days of weekly preaching do return; and to astrict the Husbandman to leave his plough so often, were against equity and charity; but the times of these commemorations being so rare, to wit, three servile days only in the year, and the exercise so profitable, Reason would, if the Husbandman willingly did not leave his plough at these times, that by authority he should be forced, aswell for his own benefit, as for eschuing scandal and contempt. And Master Galloway had reason to curse these, who for contempt, and with offence of their Brethren absented themselves from the Sermons of Christ's Nativity. Lastly, the difference of the service on these days, from the weekly and ordinary, makes them not to differ in holiness or mystery from the weekly days, more than the difference in service, which is performed on the fift of August, and fift of November, makes these two days to be mystic, or more holy than other times.  PP. 
To make solemn commemoration of Christ's Nativity, upon any other day then upon the putative day of his Nativity, would be thought a great absurdity.  ANS. 
If ye have not fallen into this absurdity, ye must grant, that ye never made in your time any solemn commemoration of Christ's Nativity. And, I verily believe, that in this omission ye have many companions; by whose negligence God hath been defrauded of the honour due to him for this benefit, and the people lacked instruction in a principal Article of Faith. This Article is the ground of all the rest: for as Chrysostome says, If our Saviour had not been borne, he had neither suffered, nor risen again from the dead; and thereupon he calls the day of this commemoration, Metropolim omnium Festorum. Even for this it was expedient, that a certain time of the year should have been appointed for this commemoration, which otherwise would have been neglected, and, as ye say, thought absurd.  
But to return to your Argument, The commemoration of Christ's Nativitiy, is no more astricted to the 25. of December, then to any other time: for although the 25. of December, by ordinance of the Church, be dedicated to that religious service, yet the service is not astricted to the time, as the service of the jewish festivities, which lawfully might not be performed on any other days than the festival. The commemoration appointed by our Church to be made on these five days, may lawfully be performed at other convenient times, although on these days the same must not be omitted. For the service, are I have said, is not appointed for the Time, but the Time is appointed for the worship. So it is not absurd to remember Christ's Nativity so oft as occasion is offered with all convenient solemnity, as it may serve to his honour, and the edification of the Church. Thus we have seen, that according to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches, Anniversarie days are and may be observed, though not for any mystery or holiness that is in them, more than in other days, but for order and policy only. Against this, all the Reasons, which Bellarmine or ye have brought, or can invent, shall never prevail more, than the barking of a dog, against the Moon.  PP. 
Next it may be objected, that the people of God might have indicted days of fasting at their own determination, and an interdiction of all kind of work. Ans. They had a general warrant from God, joel. 2.15. to proclaim a general fast, according to the occurrence of their calamities, and other affairs of the Church. The light and Law of Nature leads a man to this observation of an occasional fast: The like may be said by analogy of thanksgiving, that we ought to praise God in the mean time, when we receive the benefit. But to make of the occasional days of fasting, or feasting, anniversary, and set festival, and fasting days, is without warrant. It remains therefore, that it is the Lords sovereignty to make, or ordain a thing to be holy. God first sanctifies by commandment, and institution, man sanctifies thereafter by observation, applying to an holy use the time sanctified by God.  ANS. 
The conclusion agreeth not with the premises: for if it be God's sovereignty to make, or ordain a thing to be holy, how may the Church make a thing holy by appointing an occasional feast, or fast, as ye grant she may do? The instinct of nature, and that command out of joel, is a general warrant only: The particular calamity or benefit, wherefore a fast, or feast should be proclaimed, is not expressed, neither is the time particularly determined, whereupon the solemn festivity, or fast, should be kept, but the one is left to the estimation, and the other, to the determination of the Church. So by that warrant, liberty is given to the Church to consider, and define the causes, for the which a fast should be proclaimed, and to determine the time, when the same should be observed; and to separate that time from common business, and consecrate the same to the spiritual exercise of preaching, hearing, praying, fasting, etc. as our Church hath used to do very often. Now, if the Church hath power upon occasional motives to appoint occasional fasts, or festivities, may not she for constant, and eternal blessings, which do infinitely excel all occasional benefits, appoint ordinary times of commemoration, and thanksgiving? Ye say that this hath no warrant, but ye speak without warrant: for there is as great warrant to appoint such days, as is for any other point of Ecclesiastical policy, touching the determination of times, places, forms, and order to be observed in the worship of God, according to these general grounds, Let all things be done to the glory of God. 1. Cor. 10. to edification. 1. Cor. 14. with order, and decency. 1. Cor. 14.16. The whole policy of our Church touching the use of these circumstantial things is ordered by these rules, and according to these did our Church in the first book of Discipline which ye cite often, ordain for the purpose now in hand, That in every notable Town a day beside the Sunday should be appointed weekly for Sermon: that during the time of Sermon the day should be kept free from all exercise of labour, as well by the Master, as by the servant. That every day, there be either Sermon, or prayers, with reading of the Scriptures. That Baptism be orderly ministered, either on the Sunday, or after Sermon, and the days of prayer. That at four several times of the year, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be ministered. viz. on the first Sunday of March, on the first Sunday of june, first Sunday of September, and the first Sunday of December. That in every town where Scholars are, and learned men repair, a certain day every week be appointed for the exercise of Ministers in prophecy. And the said book affirms, The dedication of times, and hours for such general and particular exercises of the Word, and Sacraments, and Prayer, to appertain to the policy of the Church. If the Church hath power after this manner to appoint times for Doctrine, and divine Service, and Doctrine, and divine Service for times, as the doctrine of the Catechism on Sunday at afternoon, (read the 9 Chapter of the said book) it cannot be denied, but the Church hath also power to appoint a certain time, day, and hour, for commemoration of Christ's Nativity, Passion, etc. For what more power had our Church at that time to appoint the Sacrament to be ministered the first Sundays of March, june, etc. then she hath now to appoint a Sermon to be made of Christ's resurrection upon Easter day, and a Sermon of the sending down of the holy Ghost upon Whitsunday? and does not the light of Nature teach us, that rare and great benefits, should be remembered with more than ordinary thankfulness? Hereby it is clear, that it is not the Lords sovereignty only to make or ordain a thing to be holy, but it is a prerogative, that God also hath given to the Christian Church. But to the end, this matter may be fully cleared, it is to be observed, as we said before, that times are made holy, and places two manner of ways; so things are made holy, either by some inherent quality of holiness, or by consecration of them to holy uses. After the first manner Angels and men were made holy in the creation, sinners are made holy by regeneration, and sanctification of the holy Ghost; and of this holiness, God only is the author. Next, things are made holy by consecration of them to holy uses, which uses are either mystical or political. The consecration of things to holy mystical uses, as of water in Baptism to be a sign of the blood, and Spirit of Christ; the elements of Bread and Wine in the Supper to be the Sacrament of his Body and Blood; the Sabbath to be unto the jews a memorial of the Creation, a type of signification, and a badge of their profession; the Temple, the Altars, the Sacrifices, and Priests, to be shadows of things to come: all these, and such like are made, and ordained holy by God; but the consecration of things to holy uses for policy, as for maintaining religion, or for order, and decency to be observed in the worship of God, is not only God's prerogative, but a privilege, and liberty granted by him to the Church; for example, to build, and consecrate places to be Temples, houses to be Hospitals; to give rend, lands, money, and goods to the Ministry & poor; to appoint Vessels, Vestures, & Instruments for the bublike worship, as Tables, Table-clothes, Napkins, Basins, Cups, and Lauers for the holy Sacraments, these things and the like are made holy by the dedication and consecration of men. After this last manner, the Church hath power to consecrate the five Anniversary days to the commemoration of our Saviour his benefits, to separate them from all other ordinary works, and so to make them sacred and holy days. It was I grant a part of Idolatry to proclaim a holy day unto the golden Calf, or to any Idol, or Creature, as ye affirm; but it will not follow that it is Idolatry to proclaim a holy day, for the honour and worship of the true God. And as it was one of jeroboams' sins, to despise the Festivities appointed by God for his worship, and instead of these to ordain a Feast after the devise of his own heert, so if we should despise the Lords Sabbath, and instead thereof appoint some other, as the Machomet hath done, it were a presumptuous sin. But this we are fare from, acknowledging the Lord's Day to be holy by his institution, and appointing the rest to be kept only for his worship.  PP. 
We come from privilege to fact, as de iure, none may, 
The third Reason.  so de facto none did appoint holy days under the Law, but God, and that either by himself, or by some extraordinary direction. Therefore none can be allowed under the Gospel without the like warrant. Seeing the times under the Gospel are not so ceremonious, as the times under the Law.  ANS. 
I answered before, that if holy days be taken for times, whereunto God did appropriate the exercise of some particular form of worship, or for times clothed with some relative and respective holiness, as to be signs, or types of things to come, God only may make days holy: but if by holy days we understand times dedicated to God's worship, and the commemoration of his benefits as me to circumstances for Discipline, Order, and Policy, such as our Divines hold, the holy days under the Gospel to be, I deny that either they might not, or did not lawfully appoint such days under the Law, or yet may not be appointed under the Gospel.  
The answers which you make to the days of Purim, instituted by Queen Estther and Mordecai, and the Feast of Dedication, instituted by judas Macchabaeus, are not solid. First, where ye say, that the observation was civil, because Hospinian says, they might have wrought upon the days of Purim, his opinion in that is not probable; seeing these days were instituted to be days of feasting and joy, and sending of portions one to another, and gifts to the poor, because on them God had given rest to his people from their enemies. It is not probable, when rich and poor did feast in remembrance of the rest, that God had given them from their enemies, that they did not rest, and observe the days according to the Institution: for the Text says expressly, Est. 9.17. That they rested and kept a day of feasting and gladness, with the which servile labour sorts not. Neither will it follow, that these days were not kept for holy Festivities, albeit in them, they might have wrought some kind of labour: for on the six days of the Passeover, and on the six days of the Feast of Tabernacles, servile work was not utterly prohibited, but on the first and eight only; yet all these days are called Festival and holy. Finally, days instituted for Documents, and Memorials of holy things, as of their Fasting and Prayers, by which they obtained deliverance, such as ye affirm these to have been, cannot be called nor counted Civil. And Willet compares them not evil with the fist days of August and November; but he does not say this as counting them Civil, but because they were not divina, sed Ecclesiasticae institutionis, non mysterij, sed politias: and if ye think the fift of August and November to be civil days in so fare as upon them Commemoration is made of his Majesty's Deliverances, with Preaching, Thanksgiving, and Prayer; you are in a manifest error: for a day which is dedicated to divine Service, and the honour of God, not to a civil use, cannot be esteemed civil, but sacred, and holy.  
Again, where ye say, that these days had more than humane warrant, because it is thought that Mordecai was the Penman of the Book of Esther, and consequently, a Prophet; and that it appears that these days might not have been altered by the jewish Church, which if they had been of Ecclesiastic Constitution, might have been done: thoughts, and appearances, are not sure probations to conclude a certainty as ye do, of a more than humane warrant. And if they had received from God, any particular direction concerning them, the Prophet of God would not have omitted the same in the History. A general warrant they had, such as the Church must have for the determination of circumstances in the worship of God, as that of the hundred and fifth Psalm, Give thankes to the Lord, call on his Name, make known his deeds amongst the people. Sing unto him, sing Psalms unto him, talk of all his wondrous works that he hath done. But to say, that they had any particular warrant, is to be wise above that which is written.  
As to the Feast of Dedication, ye answer first, that if it were Anniversary in Solomon and Zorobabels' time, judas Macchabaus followed the example of these who had Prophetical direction: and if it was not Anniversary, as first ye leave it uncertain, ye think the same was an addition of the pharisees, who enlarged the glory of this Feast, as they did their Phylacteries; but this is a frivolous conjecture, and the interpretation of junius words out of the Talmude is no better, to wit, that the Wisemen who decreed that the eighth days of that Feast should be yearly days of joy, were the pharisees, because they are called Sapientes Israelis; for it behoved these that appointed the Festivities not only to be Wisemen, but men of Authority also: And therefore it is more probable, that the Wisemen in the Talmude were the Masters of the great Synagogue, that had power to appoint such Festivities. But how would our Saviour, who censured the pharisees for enlarging their Phylacteries, and corrected the abuses of the Law, brought in by them, have omitted such a gross Error and Superstition, as the Institution and keeping of these holy days unrebuked, if it had been a Pharisaical Addition, and not a lawful Constitution? Then ye teach your Reader a great cunning to play fast and lose, in answering all the instances brought from the jewish Church: and that is, whether he grant, or deny them to be lawful, yet to eschew the dint of the Argument; for if he grant them to be lawful, than he may fly to this refuge, that the jews had extraordinary directions which we want; as Prophets who were only Prophets by the Spirit unto the days of Malachi; Vrim and Thummim under the first Temple, and in place thereof under the second, a slender voice sounding from Heaven, called Bathcoll. But if he deny the same to have been lawful, then to allege that they were Pharisaical Additions, and that we should not imitate the pharisees and fond jews. I assure myself, that no honest-hearted man will either follow the pharisees in their Superstition, nor you in using such sophistical evasions, of which, none will serve against the instances alleged: for if ye say, that the observation of the days of Purim, or Dedication, were Pharisaical Additions, the exact diligence of our Saviour in rebuking and correcting all such abuses and superstitious Novations, as were brought into the worship of God by the pharisees, will control you: And if ye say, that they had extraordinary directions, ye speak without warrant of Scripture, which is presumption in you to do. So it remains for any thing ye have said, that holy days were, and might be lawfully kept, under the Law without any particular warrant from God. But put the case, that the same might not have been done under the Law, it follows not, that the Christian Church hath not liberty to appoint days, and times for religious exercises without particular direction. For under the Law, God not only set down the substance of his worship, but all the circumstances also, as the persons in particular by whom, the place where, and the times when he should be worshipped, so fully, as little, or nothing was left to the abitrement of the jewish Church; and as ye say, these times were so ceremonious, that the greatest part of the external worship consisted in Ceremonies: under the Gospel it is not so, for in the Gospel, the substance of these Ceremonies, and of the worship of God is perfectly set down; but the circumstantial Ceremonies of time, place, persons, and forms, which are no part of the worship, but pertinences only, are left to be determined by the Church according to the general Rules of Order and Decency. It is true, because the jews had one place only appointed by God, for his worship, to wit, the Temple and Tabernacle, whereunto the people could not resort at all times, therefore to their own election, was permitted the appointing of other commodious places for their Synagogues. And now under the Gospel, there is one only Day of divine Institution, to wit, the Lords Day, whereunto to tie the worship of God, is a judaical pedagogy against the Christian liberty and practice. For the time is now come, that from one new Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come and worship before God, Isa. 66.23. According to the which Pro phesie, the Apostolic and Primitive Church did not only convene on the Lord's Day to worship God, but on such other times, as they thought commodious to observe. Saint Paul taught often on the jewish Sabbath, and at Ephesus daily for the space of two years, in the School of one Tyrannus. Saint Augustine testifies, that in some Churches they convened daily, not only to preaching, praying, and Lectures, but to the celebration of the Sacrament also. Epiphanius in his Epitome, or Abridgement of Christian Faith, affirmeth, Apostolos instituisse synaxes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, The Apostles to have instituted their holy meetings for divine Service on Wednesday, Friday, and the Lords Day. Socrates' witnesses, that on these days through the whole World, for the greatest part, the holy mysteries were celebrated. Hereby it is manifest, albeit the Church was tied to worship God solemnly and publicly on the Lord's Day, that yet they were not tied to that Day only, but that all days were sanctified by Christ, that the Church might choose, and determine of them for the Service of God as she pleased. So to conclude, the Church under the Gospel, hath power without any particular warrant of God, keeping the general Rules of Piety, Charity, and Decency, to dedicate times and places, and set down forms and orders for the worship of God. The Ceremonies in the jews Church, were not only Circumstantial, but Mystical for the greatest part, and a part of divine worship itself: such as the Church under the Law, and under the Gospel, hath no power to institute; but the Geremonies under the Gospel are merely Circumstantial, for the greater part, not Mystical, and a part of the worship itself, but only accessory thereto: these the Christian Church hath power to appoint. And such are the five days of old observed by the Primitive Church, and now restored again in our Church: and such were the days of Purim, and the Feast of Dedication, which were not observed as a part of religion instituted by God, but only for commemoration of God's benefits bestowed upon his people in these times.  PP. 
The observation of Anniversary days pertained to the Ceremonial Law: 
The fourth Reason.  but so it is, that the Ceremonial Law is abolished. Yet confirm the Antecedent, by the reasons following.  
First, The Anniversary Days were distinguished from the Moral Sabbath: many were the preeminences of the ordinary Sabbath above the Anniversary days.  
Secondly, The Apostle calls them weak, & beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4.9.10. The elements of the world, Col. 2.20. Shadows of things to come, Col. 2.16, 17. The Apostle says not the observation of judaical days, but, simpliciter, the observation of days served to the people of God for a typical use and rudiment of Religion. If the observation of some anniversary days was prescribed to the jews, as elements and rudiments for their instruction: it follows, that the observation of anniversary days is of itself a rudimentary instruction: Otherwise, the Apostles reason will not hold.  
Thirdly, Days and Meats are paralleled: therefore, as it is judaical to esteem some meats clean, and some , so to esteem one day holier than another, is judaical.  
Fourthly, To substitute other days in place of the jewish, as a Christian Pasche, and Whitsonday for the jewish, is to substitute rudiments to the jewish, and not to chase them away.  
Fiftly, The jewish anniversary days were not only abrogated as shadows of things to come, but as memorial of by gone benefits. In every respect, all their anniversary days are abolished: Therefore in every respect, they belong to the Ceremonial Law.  ANS. 
These arguments ye use, to prove the observation of anniversary days to be ceremonial. I answer them one by one. First, where ye say, that anniversary days in the Law were distinguished from the moral Sabbath, if ye will of this conclude, that the anniversary days were not moral, but typical, I will not deny it. But if ye conclude, anniversary days to be therefore simply ceremonial, I say it follows not, and that your argument is a caption à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. The observation of a weekly day, amongst the jews, was not only moral, but a typicallishadow of things to come: Is the Lord's Day then, because it is weekly, not only moral, but also typical? But, perhaps, ye reason thus: Anniversarie days are either ceremonial, or moral; but so it is, they are not moral, ergo. To this I say, that your division is not full nor perfect: for, there be anniversary days, that are natural, as the Equinoctial, and Solstitial: Others, that are civil, as days of Markets, and Weapon-shewings, etc. And there be days Ecclesiastical, which are neither moral, nor mystical, but merely circumstantial to the worship whereunto they are apppointed.  
To the second I answer, that anniversary days are not called by the Apostle, Elements, and Rudiments, otherwise then the New. Moons, which are monthly days, and Sabbaths which were weekly days: And therefore, if the Apostle had called days, Shadows, by reason of their yearly revolution, he could not have concluded, that Sabbaths and New-moones were Shadows. It is neither the weekly, nor monthly, nor anniversary revolution, that made these days ceremonial; for then civil, and natural, and all kind of days should be ceremonial; but it was the mystical signification which they had, and the ceremonial worship appropriated unto them. That the Apostle forbiddeth the observation of these days, and not simpliciter of days, is manifest, both by that which goeth before, vers. 9 and that which followeth, vers. 21. The days whereof he speaks, were Elements of the Law, from the which, that we might be delivered, Christ was made under the Law: And the observation of these days, was a remaining still under the servile yoke of the Law. But, there was never man before you, that did think the observation prohibited for any natural respect, such as the yearly, weekly, or monthly revolution is; but only for some legal consideration, or some heathenish superstition. And seeing for these respects only, the religious observation of days is discharged, it is a caption ab accidenti to conclude, that the observation of anniversary days is forbidden.  
I answer to the third, that to esteem one day holier, than another, for any inherent holiness they have by nature, is superstitious; and to esteem one day holier than another, for any sacramental holiness, that they have by divine institution, is judaical: but, for the use whereunto the day is applied, as a mere and commodious circumstance, so to esteem it is no more superstitious and judaical, then to esteem a Temple holier than a private house, and the instruments, vessels, and clothes that are used in the ministration of Sacraments, more holy than other common instruments and vessels. These we call holy, only by reason of their separation from a common use, to a religious. So this argument is a caption ab homonymia.  
I answer to the fourth, That one thing is properly said to be substitute to another, when it is applied to the same use. Our Pasche, and Pentecost, are neither applied to be memorials of the deliverance out of Egypt, nor testimonies of our thankfulness for the First-fruits of the earth, nor to be shadows of our spiritual delivery to come, and of the First-fruits of the Holy Ghost: neither do we offer the Passeover, nor the First-fruits, nor any legal sacrifice; and so in no respect are they substitute to these times: but they are dedicated to the commemoration of Christ's resurrection, and the coming down of the Holy Ghost, not as mystical, and sacramental ceremonies, and a part of the divine worship, which the Papists esteem them to be, but as they are fit and meet circumstancess only for these holy exercises.  
To the fift and last argument I answer, That the anniversary days of the jews are abolished in every respect, for which by them they were observed, and so are the weekly and monthly days: but, as the weekly and monthly course was not the respect for which the Sabbath and New-moons are abolished, no more is the anniversary revolution of the feasts, the respect wherefore they were abrogate, but because they were shadows of things to come, and remembrances of temporal benefits, as of their delivery out of Egypt, which was also typical. And because they had a legal worship appropriated unto them, which was likewise ceremonial. Now to conclude upon this, that the observation of anniversary days under the Gospel, is abolished, is a caption, à non causa, pra causa: For the anniversary days kept under the Gospel, are not observed as any part of divine worship, or as shadows of things to come, or as memorial signs and Sacraments of bypast, temporal, and typical benefits: but they are observed as commodious circumstances for the worship appointed to be done on them, to wit, the commemoration of the inestimable benefits of our redemption, which are not temporal, and peculiar to any People, or Nation, such as the deliverance of the jews out of Egypt, and their dwelling in Tents, remembered by their Pasche, and their Feast of Tabernacles; but eternal, and common to all Nations, and People. Neither is the worship performed on them legal, and ceremonial, but evangelical and spiritual. Thus the observation is wholly different. The time is appointed to be observed, not as a shadow, but as a circumstance only: the worship is not the sacrificing of beasts, or oblation of First-fruits, but the Preaching of Christ, who is the body, the verity, the yea, and amen, and end of the Law; and the Oblation of prayers, thanksgiving, and praises in his name to the Father: and the benefits which are remembered are not temporal, and typical, but eternal, and spiritual.  PP. 
The prerogative belonging to God in the Old Testament, 
The fift Reason.  was transferred to Christ, God and Man, the Lawgiver in the New-Testament, one that was faithful in all the house of God. But so it is, that Christ neither by his own commandment, nor by direction of his Spirit, inspiring the Apostles, instituted any other day, but the Lords Day, etc.  ANS. 
The Theology of your Preface or Proposition I understand not. I learn in the Scripture that the Prerogative of the Father is communicated with the Son, and that all power in heaven and in earth is given to our Lord jesus Christ. But I never read that God hath made any translation, and denuded himself of any prerogative in the New Testament, that belonged to him before in the old. That which ye subioyne, that Christ and his Spirit hath instituted no other day, but the Lords Day, we freely grant: for if it were evident that the five days had been instituted by Christ, than we behoved to observe and esteem them as necessary parts of God's worship, and not circumstances determined by the Church, to the worship of God, for order and policy, which we hold with our best Divines. And therefore we say in the very first words of our Act, We abhor the superstitious observation of Festival days. This superstitious observation is nothing else but an observation of them with opinion of necessity, that is, as necessary parts of God's worship instituted by Christ. So in this we agree, yet I do not allow of the reasons which ye use, for probation hereof.  
Your first argument is, If there had been any other days dedicated to Christ, the Apostle spoke unproperly, and obscurely, when he said, He was ravished in the Spirit upon the Lord's Day. For if there had been a day for his Nativity, and another for his Passion, he should have said, that he was ravished in the Spirit upon one of the Lords Days. This argument is frivolous. Although all the Festival days under the Law were dedicated to God, and were called Sabbaths, yea sometimes Sabbath Sabbathôn, yet none of them is called the Sabbath of JEHOVAH, or the Lord's Sabbath; that is reserved to the seventh day of the Week, and the seventh Year, which resembled God's rest: And although all the Synagogues were Houses dedicated to God, yet the Temple is not called one of God's Houses, but the House of God; even so, the Day of Christ's resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the excellency thereof, is called the Lords Day, albeit other times had been apppointed for his honour.  
Your next Argument is false: in it, ye affirm, That the Apostle condemns not only the observation of jewish days, and the jewish observation of the jewish days to a typical use: for the converted jews (ye say) did not observe them as shadows of things to come, for than they had denied Christ: but he condemns the observation of days as a Pedagogical and rudimentary instruction, not beseeming the Christian Church. But howbeit the converted jews did not observe the jewish days, as shadows of things to come, yet they might have observed them as memorials of bypast temporal, and typical benefits, and for present temporal blessings, as the benefit of their delivery out of Egypt, and for the Fruits of the earth, which use was also typical: Further, they did observe them with opinion of necessity, as things instituted by God for his worship, and their salvation, which sort of observation was Legal: but this proceeding from infirmity, and for want of sufficient instruction, was not a denying of Christ, as it had been, if the same had proceeded from pertinacy, after the knowledge of the Truth received. And this was it which the false Apostles urged upon the Galatians, and Saint Paul condemns in that Epistle written to them, and not simply the observation of any day; for, as after shall be made manifest, every observation of the jewish days is not damned by the Apostle, who did sometime observe them in his own person, after a most lawful manner. Neither can the observation of all days be a jewish custom and rite, and Pedagogical or rudimentary instruction, but the observation only of these days, which are prescribed in the Law: otherwise the Festivities appointed by jeroboam, and the festival days kept by the Heathen, should all be jewish Customs and Pedagogical instructions, which ye will not say, I hope.  PP. 
Zanchius speaks to this purpose, after this manner: Magis consentaneum est cum prima institutione, & cum scriptis Apostolicis, ut unus tantum dies in septimana sanctificetur; It is more agreeable to the first institution, and the writings of the Apostles, that one day of the week only be sanctified.  ANS. 
It is your custom, I perceive, to falsify, mutilate, and corrupt the Acts of Assemblies, and testimonies, both of the ancient and modern Divines. Beza his testimony ye adulterated in the dispute of kneeling; here ye mutilate Zanchius his testimony, and bring it directly against his own mind. He writing upon the fourth Precept of the Law, pag. 671. moves this question: An plures habere festos debeat Ecclesia Christi, etc. for answer to this question, he setteth down two Propositions, and confirms them at length, the first whereof is this: Tametsi magis consentaneum est cum prima institutione, & cum scriptis Apostolicis, ut unus tantum dies in septimana sanctificetur; cum scripturis tamen minime pugnat, si plures uno sanctificentur, modò omnis absit superstitio, & faciant ad aedificationem, that is, Albeit it be more agreeable to the first institution, and the Apostles writings, that one day only in the week be sanctified; yet it is not repugnant to the Scripture, if more than one be sanctified, providing that all superstition be avoided, and that they serve to edification. Having confirmed this by the testimonies of the Ancients, as, Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 4. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 8. & lib. 2. cap. 19 August. tom. 2. Epist. 118. Epiphan. Tertull. de Idololat. and the practice of the reformed Churches, he concludeth with these words; Dubitari igitur non potest, quin liceat Ecclesiae plures dies festos constituere & sanctificare, that is, It may not be doubted, but the Church may lawfully appoint and sanctify more festival days. His second position makes a full answer to the question: Quanquam Ecclesiae Christi liberumest, quos velit praeter Dominicum dies sibi sanctificandos deligere, honestius tamen est, laudabilius, atque utilius eos sanctificare, quos etiam vetus atque Apostolica, puriorque Ecclesia sanctificare solita fuit: that is, Howbeit the Christian Church hath liberty to make choice of days, to sanctify them, besides the Lord's Day: yet it is more honest, commendable, and profitable, to sanctify these which the ancient, and Apostolic, and most incorrupt Church hath been in use to keep holy. What days these were, he shows in the same place, numbering out the days of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and Pentecost, as principal days: and after their enumeration, subjoins; Atque hac sunt Festa, quae sicut à veteribus sanctificabantur, sic sinunc sanctificentur, non solùm improbari non potest, sed etiam laudabile est, honestum, atque utile, quemadmodum in thesi diximus: that is, These are the festivals which were kept holy by the Ancients, and if we should now observe the same, not only is it not to be improved, but also it were commendable, honest, and profitable, as we said in the Position. Thus Zanchius is directly contrary to your opinion; for where ye allege, that the Apostle condemns the observation of days simply, Zanchius affirms, the observation of some days, beside the Lord's Day, not to be repugnant to Scripture, as it behoved to be, if the same were condemned by the Apostle for a jewish rite and Pedagogical instruction. By this let the Reader judge, what credit ye deserve in the rest of your reports, where there is no prose, but your own affirmation.  PP. 
Against this Argument, it is first alleged, That the Apostle comporteth with the observation of days, Rom. 14.5, 6. Ans. The Apostle bears with the infirmity of the weak jews, who understood not the fullness of the Christian liberty. And the Ceremonial Law was not as yet buried. But the same Apostle reproves the Galatians, who had attauned to this liberty, and had once left off the observation of days. Next, the judaical days had once that honour, as to be appointed by God himself: but the Anniversarie days appointed by men, have not the like honour.  ANS. 
After ye have used two Arguments, to prove, That there is no day of divine institution, but the Lords Day, a point not controverted amongst us, ye labour to answer five objections, which ye propone against yourself; and the sum of your answer to the first is this: That the days wherewith the Apostle comported, were not the anniversary days appointed by men, but the judaical days, which had once that honour to be appointed of God, and therefore were to be tolerated in the weak jews, as long as the Ceremonial Law, wherein they were commanded, was not buried▪ the observation whereof, notwithstanding, he condemned and reproved in the Galatians.  
Out of this answer, I form this Proposition: All the days, whereof the Apostle condemned the observation, were judaical days, prescribed in the Ceremonial Law, tolerated by him in weak Christians, and that once had the honour to be appointed by God himself.  
This Proposition is yours, and is very true. I assume, But the five anniversary days, appointed by the Assembly of Perth, are not judaical, prescribed in the Ceremonial Law, tolerated by Saint Paul in weak Christians, and such as had once the honour to be appointed by God himself.  
The Assumption is likewise yours, set down in the last words of your Answer, and is true also. Therefore, I conclude, That the five anniversary days, are not the days, whereof the Apostle condemns the observation: Consequently, he condemns not the observation of days simply, as a judaical Rite and Pedagogical instruction, contrary to your former Assertion.  PP. 
It is secondly objected, that seeing the Lords Day was instituted in remembrance of Christ's resurrection, the other notable acts of Christ ought likewise to be remembered with their several festivities. Ans. It follows not; that because Christ did institute the remembrance of one benefit, therefore men may institute for other benefits. Secondly, Christ's resurrection was a benefit including the rest of his benefits. Thirdly, The Lord's Day was not appointed to celebrate the memory of Christ's resurrection only: for then, the resurrection should be the proper subject of Divine service every Lord's Day, and then it were unlawful to fast thereupon. Fourthly, It is called the Lords Day, either because the Lord did institute it, as the Communion is called the Lords Supper: or else because it was instituted to the Lords honour, and worship, as the jewish Sabbath is called the Sabbath of the Lord our God. Fiftly, Although it may be applied to the remembrance of Christ's resurrection, seeing he rose that day, and in some sort to be a sign of the heavenly rest, yet that is, but typus communis, & factus, a common type fitted to resemble such things, not typus destinatus, that is, appointed by God for that end. Finally, it was appointed for remembrance of all Christ's actions, and for his worship in general; not in a mystical manner, for the joyful remembrance of his resurrection only. So to divide Christ's actions, and appoint anniversary & mystical days for their remembrance, is superstitious will-worship, and a judaical addition to Christ's institution, in your mind.  ANS. 
Here only I have taken up the sum of your answer which is this: That Christ did not institute the Lords Day for a remembrance of his resurrection in a mystical manner, and therefore we have no warrant to appoint mystical days for remembrance of the Nativity, Passion, and the rest of his notable actions. Unto which I answer, first generally, That it is the judgement of some recent Divines, that the Lords Day was only instituted as Ecclesiastical days are, for order, and policy, and hath no further but a circumstantial use in the worship of God. Others following the Ancients, hold, that the Lords Day is not only appointed for order, and policy, but that it is a memorial of Christ's resurrection, and a sign of our eternal rest in heaven. Saint August. tom. 5. the civet. Dei. lib. 22. cap. 30. Dominicus dies Christi resurrectione sacratus, aternam non solùm spiritus, sed etiam corporis requiem praefigurat. That is, The Lords Day, which was made holy and sacred by the resurrection of Christ, prefigures not only the eternal rest of the spirit, but also of the body. Item, tom. 10. deverbis Apostoli. Serm 15. Domini resurrectio promisit nobis aeternum diem, & consecravit nobis Do ninicum diem, qui Dominicus vocatur, quia eo die Dominus resurrexit. That is, The resurrection of the Lord hath promised unto us an eternal day, and hath consecrated the Lord's Day unto us, which is so called, because the Lord rose upon that day. Item, Epist, ad januarium, Artic. 119. cap. 13. Dies Domini non Iudaeis, sed Christianis resurrectione Domini declaratus est, & ex illo, habere coepit festivitatem suam. That is, The Lords Day was declared, not to the jews, but to the Christians by the resurrection of the Lord, and from that time it began to be a festival day. & ibidem, cap. 19 Vita prima quae de peregrinatione redeuntibus, & primam stolam accipientibus redditur, per unam Sabbathi, quem diem Dominicum dicimus, figuratur. That is, The first or everlasting life, which is given to them that have ended their peregrination, and received the glorious robe, is figured by the first day of the week, which we call the Lords Day. Iust. Martyr, Apol. 2. ad calcem: Conuentus autem hos die Solis facimus, quia hac die primùm Deus depulsis tenebris, formataque materia mundum creavit: jesus Christus quoque noster seruator eadem die resurrexit a mortuis. That is, We keep these meetings on the Souday, because on this day first God dispelled darkness, and form the matter, whereof the world was created: our Saviour jesus Christ also rose again from the dead the same day. In the judgement of these Ancients, the Lords Day was not only instituted for the worship of God in general, and in that respect called the Lords Day, but because Christ rose upon that day, and by his resurrection stamped it to be a memorial as well of his resurrection, as of the eternal rest whereunto we shall be raised on the last day. In a word, it was not only instituted for order, and policy, but also for a mystery; and therein differs from Ecclesiastical days, which are only appointed for a circumstantial and not for a mystical use.  
These things being premitted, I come to answer the particulars. First, where ye say, that albeit Christ did institute a day in remembrance of one benefit, men may not for other benefits: I grant that men may not institute a mystical day to be observed as a part of God's worship, yet they may appoint a commodious day to a 〈◊〉 ●…rued, as a fit time for the worship of God and remem●… of his benefits.  
Next, where ye say, the resurrection includes the rest of Christ's benefits; it is true in some sense, that is either as the beginning or original of some, as the Ascension, and sending down of the holy Ghost; or as the perfection, and consummation of others, as of the Nativity, and Passion: And so generally, and virtute (as we say) in virtue the Resurrection contains the rest, but it contains them not distinctly and expressly, as it is necessary we should remember them; for than we should not need any more Articles of our Creed, but that one of the Resurrection. As the Articles are particular concerning the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, so they ought to be distinctly and severally remembered, both on the Sabbath, and on other convenient times, which the Church shall appoint.  
Thirdly, Although the Lords Day was not only instituted for a memorial of the Resurrection, yet, that was one of the principal causes wherefore it was sanctified, rather than any other day of the week. Saint Angustine says as before, Domini resurrectio consecravit nobis diem Dominicum, dies Dominicus sacratus est, & declaratus Christiresurrectione, & inde coepit habere festivitatem suam. And in Tertullian his time, it was indeed esteemed a thing unlawful, either to fast or kneel upon the Lord's Day, which custom was confirmed in the Council of Nice, Can. 20. When ye say, that if it were appointed for remembrance of Christ's Resurrection, all the divine Service done on the Lord's Day, should have relation only to the Resurrection; It is no consequent: for albeit God blessed, and sanctified the jewish Sabbath, because he rested thereon, there were yet other Scriptures read on their Sabbath, than the story of Creation, and God his rest from it.  
Fourthly, where ye allege, that it was called the Lords Day, because it was instituted by the Lord and for the Lord, we will not contend about this, providing it be not denied, that it is called the Lords Day principally, because the Lord rose thereupon, as Augustine, and other Ancients affirm everywhere. The Communion is called the Lords Supper, because he appointed it to be kept for a memorial of his death till his coming again. The jewish Sabbath was called the Sabbath of the Lord their God, not only because it was consecrated to his worship: for then the New-moones, and all the other Festival Days should have been so named, which they are not; but also because it was the sign and memorial of God's rest that Day. Therefore in the fourth Command, it is expressed as the reason, why the Lord did bless and sanctify the Sabbath, He rested the seventh Day, therefore (namely, because he rested on it) he blessed and hallowed it: even so is the Sunday sanctified and blessed by our Saviour, and called the Lords Day, because it hath imprinted in it by his Institution a perpetual memorial of his Resurrection, whereby he abolished all the sabbatical shed dove's of the Law; as first, the strict and precise bodily rest, by bringing in, the spiritual and eternal: Secondly, the memorial of their temporal deliverance out of Egypt, by bringing in the eternal and spiritual delivery from the tyranny of Satan, the slavery of sin, and the sear of death: and thirdly, the sign and mark of distinction which separated the jew and Gentile, and was a part of the partition wall, in respect whereof, the jews were called Sabbatarij; all these shadows Christ by his Resurrection ath a bolished, and by the observation of the Lords Day, they are declared to be abolished; which the observation of no other day of the week could have done, because Christ stamped none of them with the memorial of his Resurrection, but this Day only whereupon he rose.  
Against this ye allege, that it is not typus destinatus, but communis & factus, that is, a Type not instituted by God to be a memorial of Christ's Resurrection, but a common Type fitted to resemble such a thing: the contrary whereof is true. For nothing can be called a common Type, but that which hath in itself by nature, some respect, or quality, whereby it is fitted to make the resemblance of such a thing: As in Marriage, in the comunction of the head and members, there is a fitness natural to resemble our union with Christ: So in the Pismire there is a quality natural, to resemble the virtuous man; and in the Lion and Horse, to resemble the strong and stately: but in this day by nature, there is neither quality nor respect more, then in any other to make such a resemblance. Moreover, common Types are neither memorial & prognostical signs, but demonstrative only; & all memorial, & prognostical signs, which are not natural, are signs destinate either by God or by man. If ye affirm, that the Lords Day was destinate by man, to be a sign of Christ's Resurrection, than ye must grant, that it was instituted by man to be observed in remembrance of that benefit, and so it shall not be a day of Divine, but humane Institution. Lastly, all the times which God hath marked with some rare work or event, and hath therefore appointed to be observed solemnly, have ever been destinate by God to be memorative signs of these same things. So the seventh Day marked with God's rest, and therefore blessed and sanctified, is a memorial of God's rest, and is called the Sabbath of jehovah, and it is also a prognostical sign of the rest of God to be communicated with the faithful who resemble that rest by a corporal cessation. This the Apostle witnesseth, Heb. 4.9. There remains therefore a rest to the people of God, for he that enters into his rest, he also ceases from his own works, as God did from his. In like manner, the fourteenth day of the first Month marked with that rare deliverance from the destroying Angel, and their escape out of Egypt, and therefore appointed to be solemnly observed to the honour of God: was destinated by God to be a memorial of that their deliverance, and called the Passeover of the Lord. And even so the Lords Day being marked with that rare and incompatable benefit of the Resurrection, and consecrated in the judgement of all the Ancients to the worship of God instead of the jewish Sabbath, is a memorial sign of the Resurrection destinated by the Lord himself; a demonstrative sign of our spiritual Resurrection from sin, to newness of life; and a prognostical sign of our corporeal Resurrection unto everlasting life. This Saint Augustine expresseth in the words before cited: Dominicus dies Christi resurrectione sacratus, aeternam non solum spiritus, sed etiam corporis requiem praesigurat. In end where ye conclude, that the Lords Day was not appointed only for a remembrance of his Resurrection after a mystical manner, but for the remembrance of all his actions and worship in general, if your meaning be, that on the Lord's Day, all Christ's actions may and aught to be orderly remembered, as occasion requires, and not his Resurrection only, it is true that ye say: but if your meaning be, that the sanctification of the Lords Day was not ordained to be a memorial of Christ's Resurrection, I deny your assertion, & prefer to your opinion, the judgement of all the Ancients.  
Unto that which ye subioyne, that it is a superstitious will-worship, and a judaical addition to Christ's Institution, to divide Christ's actions, and appoint Anniversary and Mystical days for their remembrance; I reply, that it is a superstitious will-worship indeed, and a judaical addition to Christ's Institution, so to tie all the worship of God to the Lords Day, that no other day nor time may be appointed for preaching, praying or remembering any of Christ's benefits: seeing under the Gospel, as Tertullian speaks, De Baptismo, omnis dies Domini est, omnis hora, omne tempus habile est baptismo: that is, every day is the Lords, every hour, and every time is fit for Baptism. If for Baptism, why not for Doctrine, and Prayer, and Thanksgiving, and all other parts of God's Worship? For albeit the Lords Day be consecrated to the Worship of God, yet the Worship is not tied to it, but from one Sabbath to another, and from one New-moon to another, all flesh may appear before the Lord. That which ye speak of dividing Christ's actions, and the appointing of mystical days, is partly foolish, and partly false. Is it not a folly to think, that the actions of Christ ought not to be divided, and severally remembered in Lectures and Sermons, seeing the Spirit of God hath divided them in this Story, and that it is impossible at once to remember them all? And it is false also, because for remembrance of them no day is appointed to be kept mystically as a part of the worship, but only circumstantially for order, and commodity: which kind of observation is not a superstitious will-worship, but a lawful determination of commodious times for the worship of God, belonging to the power and policy of the Church.  PP. 
It is thirdly objected, that Paul kept the Feast of Pentecost, Act. 20.1. Cor. 16. I answer it was the jewish Pentecost, etc.  ANS. 
If it was the jewish Pentecost, than Saint Paul did not only observe an Anniversary Day, but such also, as was legal, and abrogated by the Gospel, and such as he discharges the Church to observe: Yet I hope, ye will not say, that his observation was Superstitious or Pedagogical, because he observed it not as a necessary part of God's worship prescribed in the Law, in respect whereof only, it was Pedagogical; but as a fit circumstance and opportunity for the work of his Ministry, like as he did often observe the jewish Sabbaths, which was not only lawful, but in those times very expedient to be done by him. Hereby it is manifest, that the observation of days, is not condemued by the Apostle, as a jewish Rite, because Anniversarie, Monthly, or Weekly; but because it was conjoined with opinion of necessity, and used as a Legal worship: therefore although upon the jewish Sabbath, or upon their Pentecost divine worship was performed, as the Euangell preached, the Sacraments celebrated, Prayers publicly conceived, etc. If these things were done, without any mystical relation, or respect had to the day, but only because the time was opportune and happily fit for Gods Work, the exercise was lawful and could not be condemned. So we find in some churches, that on every day the sacrament was ministered: that on the jewish Sabbath, they had an ordinary Fast, and no well advised Christian did ever think these to be unlawful, by reason of the day. For if to the clean, every thing be clean, all days are clean and sanctified to every lawful exercise of the man who is himself made clean by the blood of Christ: Consequently, every day, whether it be Weekly or Anniversarie, is clean, and sanctified by Christ, to the exercise of any part of his Worship, which shall be thought meet by the Church to be performed to his honour, and the edification of herself. The Legal Sabbath and Pentecost, which were abrogated, could not make the Evangelic Worship, which was performed on them by the Apostles, unlawful; fare less can the Lords Day, such as the Christian Pasche, and Whitsonday are, or any other day of the Week, Month, or Year, which were never legally observed, make the Doctrine, Prayers, and Sacraments administered on them, unlawful, and superstitious.  
To conclude, I find in this Objection a Solution to all your Arguments, for here I find, that there may be a lawful observation of days which are abrogated, let be of days which are not discharged, so the observation be not legal, with opinion of necessity, or of any mystery in the time: but Euangelicali, with knowledge of our Christian liberty, and for opportunity of time only, which both may be lawful and expedient. So Saint Paul keeped many Sabbaths, and the Pentecost, whereon Saint Peter also converted three thousand by his first preaching. This is the observation, for which only we stand; against which, ye have never concluded a contradictory, but either against the Legal of the jewish, or superstitious of the Gentiles. So all your Arguments fall under one form of Caption which we call ignorantia Elenchi, when a contradiction seems to be, where there is none, because the terms in the apparent contradiction are not taken in the same sense.  PP. 
It is fourthly objected out of the Epistles of Polycarpus and Polycrates, extant in the History of Eusebius, and out of Beda following Eusebius, that the Apostles kept the Feast of Easter. Answ. Beda was but a Fabler, and a follower of fabulous Reports: Eusebius was little better, etc.  ANS. 
Thus it pleaseth your pride to disdain these ancient, learned, and holy Writers, because they cross your Novelties by the truth of Antiquity; not unlike the Painter of whom Sadeel writes, Qui cum gallum gallinaceum infeliciter pingeret, verum gallum ● tabula abigebat: Having drawn a Cock unskilfully, that his error should not be perceived, he chased away the living Cock that stood by him; so the Papists forbidden the use of Scriptures, that their Errors should not be discovered, & Novators cannot sustain the authority of the Ancients. But ye make mention of Polycarpus Epistle extant in Eusebius, and in Eusebius there is no Epistle of Polycarpus; only Irenaeus in a Letter that he sends to Victor, mentions him. The Epistles of Polycrates ye affirm to be counterfeit, and upon what reason? Because, ye say, that it is said in the Epistles, that Saint john bore on his forehead pontificale petalum, that is, the golden plate, or the High Priests Mitre. Polycrates, ye think, would not have written so, because Scaliger says, that no man will grant, that either john or james did bear it, who understand that none of Christ's Apostles was a Priest; and that it was lawful to none, but the High Priest to bear the golden plate. It is true, that Polycrates in property of speech would not have written so; but what is more frequent amongst the Ancients then by such flowers & colours of Rhetoric to describe the evangelic Ministers, amongst whom, such as Polycarpus, Thrasias, and others by him named, john's authority was as great, as was the High Priests above the inferior under the Law? Therefore to distinguish him from them Polycrates attributes to him the name and ornament of the High Priest. So Tertullian de Baptismo, distinguisheth the Bishop from the Elder, and the Deaconcalling him the Highpriest, Dandi quidem habet ius summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus, dehinc Presbyteri, & Diaconi. Shall we esteem this Treatise of Tertullian counterfeit, because he calleth the Bishop an High Priest? This is too weak a warrant, whereon to build an improbation against so strong a party as Eusebius.  PP. 
The Bishop of Elie in his Sermon takes needless pains to prove the Antiquity of Easter, but when he proves it to be Apostolical, he shoots short: his eldest Antiquity, is the counterfeit Epistles before alleged. His proof out of Scripture, Psal. 118.8.1. Cor. 7.8. are very weak; for the first testimony is applied to every Lord's Day, & is not to be restrained to Pasche day. The other testimony imports not a Celebration of Easter Feast, upon any Anniversary day, but rather the Apostle teaches us to celebrate this Feast of the Passeover all the year long. His last proof is taken from the custom of Baptism, and the Eucharist ministered upon Pasche day, as if they had been ministered only upon that day.  ANS. 
Ye turn yourself now against the learned Sermon preached at White Hall by the Bishop then of Elie, now of Winchester, who proving the observation of Easter to have been an old custom observed in the Church since the Apostles days, yea by the Apostles themselves, hits the mark, whereat he shoots directly; while as ye will prove these Epistles of Polycrates and Irenaus counterfeit, ye shoot short indeed. The testimony of the 118. Psalm, ye say should be applied to every Lord's Day, but seeing he rose on the first day of them, as ye cannot deny, doubtless when that day returns by course once every year; unto it, all the prototype and architype of them all, of very congruity, says the Bishop, the Resurrection is to be applied somewhat more. This by example he makes plain. His Majesty's deliverance upon the fift days of August, and November being Tuesday's both, we keep for their remembrance a Sermon on Tuesday every week of the year: but when by course of the year in their several months, the very original days themselues come about, shall we not, do we not celebrate them in much more solemn manner? what question is there? weigh them well, ye shall find the case alike; one cannot be, but the other also must be Apostolic. These are the words of the learned Bishop, which prove his intent so clearly, that ye are forced to fly to another shift, as your custom is, & say, If the Prophecy should be applied to any precise day, it should be applied to the Lords day. But seeing the words are to be understood aswel of David as of Christ, the day is taken, ye say, for the time indefinitely, wherein David was made King, & the corner stone of God's people. This is your shift, which cannot avail you: for if it be taken indefinitely for the day wherein David was made the typick corner Stone, then much more must it be taken for the definite day, whereon Christ the Verity was made the true corner Stone of the Church of God. If of David's Coronation, it might be said, This is the day which the Lord hath made, Let us rejoice and be glad in it: much more is it to be said of that day, whereon CHRIST rose again from the dead, and was crowned with glory and honour, and set over the works of God's hands, and had all things put under his feet. For this day hath ever been esteemed since the resurrection of our Lord, a day made by God, not by creation only, but also by institution. Thus do ye not escape the Bishop's hand, fly where you can. When ye entered into combat with such an Antagonist, ye were not well advised. Infoelix puer atque impar congressus Achilli.  
In the other testimony, I grant with S. Augustine, that by the Feast, the course of our Christian Life is to be understood: yet the allusion would import, that a Paschall Feast was kept amongst them, and the Sacraments celebrated. The last proof that Baptism and the Eucharist were on this day solemnly ministered, ye cannot deny: And the Bishop affirms not, that they were only ministered on that day. Tertull. de Baptis. Diem Baptismo solenuiorem, Pascha praestat, cum & passio Domini, in qua tingimur adimpleta est, etc. Exinde, Pentecoste ordinandis lavacris laetissimum spacium est: quod & Domini resurrectio inter Discipulos frequentata est, & gratia Spiritus sancti dedicata, & spes advent us Domini subostensa, etc. Caeterùm omnis dies Domini est, omnis hora, omni tempus habile baptismo: Si de solennitate inter est, de gratia nihil refert: that is, Easter is the most solemn Day for Baptism, seeing the Passion of our Lord, wherein we are dipped, is thereon fulfilled; after that, Whitsonday is a most joyful time for the lavacre of Regeneration, because on that Day, the resurrection was frequently showed to the Disciples, the grace of the Holy Ghost dedicated, and the hope of Christ's coming again insinuated. Otherwise, every day is the Lords, every hour, and every time is meet for Baptism. The solemnity may be less, but the grace is not diminished. So that which ye say, that Baptism was tied of old to Pentecost and Easter, is false. But that which the Bishop says is true, that on these days, the Sacraments were lwaies solemnly ministered.  PP. 
I will now frame one argument against this conceit of Apostolical tradition, and observation of Pasche. The Apostles were led all their life-time by the infallible direction of the Spirit. If they had accorded on the observation of Easter, they had not disagreed on the day. But their most ancient Records, the bastard-Epistles above mentioned report, that Philip and john kept the fourteenth day of the Moon, as the jews did: And Peter, the Lords Day following the fourteenth day of the Moon.  ANS. 
In these Epistles there is no mention of Peter, and so by these Epistles, ye cannot prove, that john, and Peter disagreed on the day. It is said that Polycarpus and Anicetus disagreed on the day, yet they accorded in the observation of the Feast, which is directly contrary to your argument. But ye say, the Apostles who were governed by the Spirit, could not disagree on the day. Did not Paul and Barnabas agree in planting of the Gospel? yet they disagreed in choosing of their Fellow-Labourer. Paul & Peter agreed on this ground, that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of jesus Christ: yet in the practice of the works of the Law, they disagreed, Gal. 2. They agreed in the substance, yet in the matter of circumstance, and use of things in their own nature indifferent, they disagreed. But for these diversities of opinion, neither did they cast the substance away, nor broke they the bond of charity amongst themselves, as ye do, who can brook no man, but him who will be sworn to your opinions, as if they were Oracles. But to be short, this argument is answered by the learned Bishop in that Sermon so fully, as may give contentment to any that delights not in contention. His words are these, Pag. 25. james Bishop of jerusalem, and others who succeeded him, the sooner to win their Brethren, the jews, condescended to keep Easter 14. Luna, the 14. of the Moon, as they did. That which by them was done by way of condescension, was after by some urged as a matter of necessity. So we see S. Paul when he came up to jerusalem to the Pentecost, was counselled or not scandalising the jews, to carry himself as one that observed the Law, and practise some legal ceremonies to that effect: which he did, using them not as a part of divine worship, but as indifferent things, and means expedient to win him credit with the jews, that he might edify them in the truth. So himself says, He became all things to all men, that he might win some. The keeping of the 14. day by john and james, is not an argument that they disagreed from the rest in judgement, touching the set day (if any than was determined) more than the practice of other ceremonies proves their disagreeing from S. Paul in the point of Christian liberty: for this they did only by way of condescension. So the Apostles in these times might have kept Easter upon divers days, by the direction of the Spirit, because the solemn commemoration of our Saviour's resurrection, which we call Easter, is not to be kept at any set time for any mystery, that one day hath more than another by divine institution. The contentions therefore about the day were justly blamed by the reformed Churches, who acknowledge no day, except the Christian Sabbath, to have greater prerogative than anothen. But the greater part of the world keeping the solemnity of Easter upon the Lord's Day, which followed the 14. of the Moon, the Churches of Asia being a fewer number, did not well to prefer the singularity of their opinion and custom to unity and conformity with the greater part of Christendom in such a point. Again, Victor Bishop of Rome cannot be excused, who first did urge conformity, & pressed it by violence upon the Churches that were without his jurisdiction; and to excommunicate them, was an insolent tyranny, seeing they were not subject to his power. Yet after the Nicene Council had settled that controversy, and determined the day, these must justly be blamed, that contentiously troubled the Christian peace, disobeyed the Canon of the Council, and were disconforme to the rest of the Churches, not by mistaking the day as some were, but through wilfulness and pride, the parents of contention.  PP. 
Lastly, they reason with Augustive, a posteriori, That seeing the Lord's passion, resurrection, ascension, & coming down of the Holy Ghost is celebrated with anniversary solemnity through all the World, they must needs have been ordained either by the Apostles, or by general Counsels: But so it is, that these days were observed before there was any general Council. It must follow therefore, that the Apostles ordained them. Ans. Augustine's distinction is not necessary: for many customs crept in, and thereafter prevailed universally, which were neither ordained by the Apostles, nor general Counsels. Socrates in his History says, I am of opinion, etc.  ANS. 
Socrates, in the testimony which ye allege, lib. 5. cap. 22. for probation of your answer, says, that he is of opinion that the Feast of Easter hath prevailed amongst people of a certain private custom, and not by Canon. He confirms his opinion by this reason, that they who keep Easter on the 14. day of the Moon, bring john the Apostle for their author. Such as inhabit Rome, and the West parts of the World, allege Peter and Paul, and yet there is none of them can show in Writing any testimony for confirmation of their custom. First here it is to be marked, that Socrates in this testimony calls his allegation an opinion only, that is, a likely and probable conceit: but that is not sufficient to infringe Saint Augustine's rule, and the probations that he brings are of no force: for first, it makes nothing against Augustine's rule, that the Eastern Churches kept the solemnity on one day, and the Western on another: because Saint Augustine says not that the commemoration of these benefits was made upon one and the selfsame day: only he says, Anniversaria solennitaie celebrantur, that is, They are yearly celebrated after a solemn manner. The diversity of the day consuteth not this assertion, but confirms rather his saying: namely, that the solemnity was observed through all the World, seeing in one part it was celebrated for winning of the jews, according to the practice of S. john, and in the rest of the World, on Pasche Sunday, whereon our Saviour rose, according to the tradition of Saint Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles. So this same solemnity being kept through the whole Church, although not on the same day, Saint Augustine's rule remains good, that the solemn commemoration of Christ's resurrection, is Apostolic.  
The next probation is no better, to wit, that there is no testimony in writing for the confirmation of that custom: for by this reason it would follow, that the observation of Sunday in stead of the jewish Sabbath, hath prevailed by a private custom only: For in the Apostolic writings, we have no testimony for the confirmation of that custom. In Scripture we read, that our Saviour rose on that day, that on that day he appeared to his Disciples, that on that day the Apostle appointed collections to be made for the poor, that on that day at Troas the Disciples were assembled to break bread, and that S. Paul preached: All these actions make aswell for the observation of Pasche Sunday, and as the Bishop of Winchester saith, somewhat more, seeing it is after a sort, the same day by revolution, whereon our Saviour did rise: yet all these practices, exercises, and meetings on the Lord's day had not demonstrate the sanctification of it, if it had not been perpetually and universally observed afterwards by the Church. This constant and universal observation of the Church, hath declared these practices to be exemplary, and that our Saviour did consecrate that day by his resurrection, and apparitions, to be in stead of the Sabbath. Upon this ground S. August. Epist. ad januar. 118. says, Illa quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto Terrarum orbe obseruantur, dantur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs Concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retinere: Sicuti quod Domini Passio, & Resurrectio, & Ascensio in coelum, & adventus de coelo Spiritus Sancti, anniversaria solennitate celebrantur: that is, Those things which come to us by Tradition, and not by Writing, and yet are observed in the whole world, must be esteemed to have been commended unto us, and instituted either by the Apostles themselves, or by general Counsels, whose authority hath ever been wholesome to the Church: as by example, the Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the descent of the holy Ghost from heaven, which we solemnly keep every year. This rule of Saint Augustine, if it be not demonstrative, yet it is more probable than Socrates his opinion; for it is more like a custom received by the universal Church should proceed from the authority of the Apostles, or some general Council, rather than from a private observation, as Socrates thinks.  
Yet to confirm his opinion, ye say, that justine Martyr mentions no Holy day, but the Lords Day. What then? He had not the occasion: yet Tertullian, who flourished but forty years after him, in the second book directed to his wife, hath these words: Quis denique solennibus Paschae abnoctantem seeurus sustinet? And in his book, De Praescriptionib. adverse. Haereticos, mentions one Blastus, whom he calls an Heretic, for maintaining that Pasche should be kept on the 14. day of the Moon, as the jewish custom was. Tertullian flourished in the year of our Lord 183. and speaking thus of Pasche, not, as of a new Constitution, but as of a custom long before received in the Church, does confirm the Bishop of Winchester his judgement, That in all likelihood this observation was Apostolic. By Apostolic, I mean not a doctrinal point, which is to be observed as a substantial part of divine worship, or a condition necessary to salvation, but the imitation only of an Apostolic practice concerning order and policy: neither do I mean such a practice as is expressly set down in Scripture, and universally observed through the world, such as the Lords Day is, for such a practice hath the strength of a divine Precept: but I understand such a practice, as albeit it be not recorded in Scripture, to have been done by the Apostles themselves, or the Churches in their time, yet the same being universally received in the world, and observed since the Apostles days, is most probably presumed to have been practised in their times, and allowed by them. And in this, the Lords Day differs from Pasche, and the other three days mentioned by Saint Augustine, that the Lords Day hath not only the universal and perpetual observation of the Church, since the days of the Apostles, but also the practice of our Saviour, his Apostles, and the Church in their times expressly recorded in Scripture: The other have only an universal and constant practice of the Church, since the Apostles time, which not the less ought to be preferred to any private or late particular custom. And to return to the Act of Perth, it ordains none of these days to be kept for Divine and Apostolic, but only, that on them once in the year a solemn commemoration be made of the benefits of our Redemption; and therefore the Reasons ye bring to prove, that these days are not Apostolic, impugn no ways the lawfulness of the act. Where ye say, that the observation of the Passion day, hath brought into the Church set days of fasting, condemned by our Divines, I ask you, how ye do prove that affirmation? It is enough ye have said it. But to conclude this point, I do verily think, That to fast and pray at some set times, were less offensive to God, then to be often feasting and surfeiting, prattling, and lying, traducing our Brethren, and condemning the good order and policy of God's Church.  PP. 
If it had been God's will, 
The six Reason.  that the several acts of Christ should have been celebrated with several solemnities, the holy Ghost would have made known to us the days whereon they were done. Secondly, if the actions of Christ advance the days wherein they were wrought, as Hooker says, or consecrate them, as Bellarmine says, they ought to be known; otherwise it will fall out, that we shall keep the days holy that were never advanced, nor consecrated by Christ's action or institution. But so it is, the day of Christ's Nativity is hid from mortal men.  ANS. 
It is true, that if it had been Gods will to have advanced and consecrated the days of Christ's Nativity, Passion, etc. by annexing to them some particular exercise of Religion, such as the festival days of the jews had, and clothing them with some mystical signification, the holy Ghost had made the days known; otherwise they could not have been observed. But from the beginning, we have declared according to the judgement, not of Bellarmine but of our best reformed Churches and Divines, that these days are not kept for any relation, that the worship hath to them, as if by Christ's actions or institution they were to be honoured with some religious exercise; but for order and policy only, as the most meet and opportune occasions in the judgement of the primitive Church, and in our estimation most meet, for testifying our conformity with her, and with the whole Christian world ever since. The long discourse and dispute, which ye subjoin to prove the time of Christ's Natitutie to be uncertain, because it is not contradictory to the Act made at Perth, and the practice thereof in our Church; I pass it as superfluous. Only to your last words of the Section I answer.  PP. 
Nay, let us utter the Truth, December Christmas, is a just imitation of the December saturnal of the Ethnic Romans, and so used, as if Bacchus, and not Christ, were the God of Christians.  ANS. 
This protestation ye might have made and craved licence, if your custom were to lie: but to the purpose; If Christmas hath been thus abused, I am sure the abuse hath not come by preaching on that day, and the exercise of divine worship thereon: for that we have lacked these 57 years bypast in our Church; yet riot, profaneness, surfeit, and drunkenness, hath not been wanting. What hath been the cause hereof, and by what means the abuse may be best remedled, wise men will easily consider.  PP. 
It is commonly objected, That we may aswell keep a day for the Nativity, as for the Resurrection of Christ. We have answered already, That Christ's day or the Lord's Day, is the day appointed for remembrance of his Nativity, and all his actions and benefits, aswell as for the Resurrection. Next, the one is moral and weekly: the other, is mystical and anniversary. The Lord's Day itself, is no longer to us mystical but moral, says Willet, and therefore Pasche day is a mystical Sabbath and anniversary, whereas the Lords Day itself should be only moral.  ANS. 
The answer which ye have already made, is already confuted. The Lord's Day is generally appointed for remembrance of all his actions, therefore none of his actions may or should be remembered at any other set time. This consequence is not necessary: for than we may not remember his actions, in the morning and evening Lectures, we may not remember them in Sermons & Exercises on weekly days, nor may we remember them in Catechising the people. Your next answer is, That the day of the Nativity is mystical: This is contrary to that which ye cited out of Saint Augustine, pag. 68 Ille celebratur ob memoriam solùm, & ideo semper die vigesimo quinto Decembris: at iste celebratur ob memoriam, & Sacramentum. But, I pray you, How prove ye observation of the day of Nativity to be mystical? because it is anniversary, ye say: If this be your Argument (for I find no other here) it is not good: for in the revolution of time there is no mystery, but in the signification, and we have often said before, that we observe no day for signification, but the Lords Day only. The rest we observe as times meet and commodious, for the worship appointed to be done on them. As to Doctor willet's assertion, That the Lords Day is not mystical to us, I oppone to it Saint Augustine's judgement, who calls it, as ye heard before, a figure and type of life eternal, which is confirmed by the Apostle in the fourth to the Hebrews. But Doctor Willet, I hope, takes (mystical) for a dark and obscure shadow of things to come, such as the festival days under the Law were, kept in remembrance, not of spiritual and eternal, but of temporal benefits, which were shadows of spiritual and eternal benefits to come: And in this sense, the Lords Day is not mystical, for it is not kept in remembrance of temporal benefits, which are shadows of spiritual and eternal, but in remembrance of Christ's Resurrection, by whom we are put in present possession of our spiritual rest and life, and in hope of eternal. In respect whereof, as it is a memorial sign of the Resurrection of our Saviour, so is is a demonstrative sign of the benefit which we enjoy of spiritual rest, and prognostical of our eternal, and therefore is called a figure and type, by Saint Augustine. Thus taking a mystery in a large sense for any significant sign in Religion, it may be called mystical. The Sacraments of the new Testament are called mysteries by the Ancients, not in the sense that the Sacraments of the old Testament were called mysteries, for they were so called, because they were dark and obscure shadows of things to come; but our Sacraments are the lively Images of the things themselves, by reason of the plain and manifest Word of the Gospel annexed to them. By this distinction Saint Augustine and Doctor Willet may be agreed.  PP. 
It is still objected, The benefits of God ought to be remembered, specially Christ's notable benefits. Ans. It is one thing to remember, another thing to remember with solemn festivities. To remember, is a moral duty and perpetual: for we ought to keep, not only an anniversary, but also a weekly and daily remembrance, But to celebrate an Anniversarie solemnity, and to keep a Sabbath of rest in remembrance, it is a pedagogical ceremony of the jews, etc.  ANS. 
We think it sufficient to have made that objection once, because it hath never yet been answered: but ye propone it often to assay, if ye shall be able to fall on some  solution at last; yet like an evil Archer, the longer ye shoot, ye stray the further from the mark: Ye think an Anniversarie remembrance may be kept, but an Anniversarie solemnity should not be celebrated: ye hide your mind from simple people under a mystical solemnity of words, but to speak that plainly, which ye call the celebration of an Anniversarie solemnity, your meaning must be, if ye contradict the Act, that preaching should not be made, prayers, thanksgiving, and praises should not be offered on certain set times in the year, in remembrance of Christ's Nativity, Passion, etc. If ye will have no such exercise to be used, what Anniversarie remembrance is it that ye would have observed? Is it a privy meditation in our Chambers, whereunto neither God nor Man is privy, or some occasional remembrance in our Lectures and Sermons, as they fall out now and then? Is this the thankfulness that we are taught by the light of Nature and the Word of God, to render for the inestimable benefits of our redemption, which God hath universally and publicly bestowed upon all?  
Oh, but to keep a Sabbath of rest in remembrance, say ye, is a pedagogical ceremony. To keep a mystical rest, such as the rest of the Sabbath was, is pedagogical: but to keep a rest for the more commodious and solemn performance of a great and divine action, such as the commemoration of Christ's Birth, Death, etc. is not pedagogical, but necessary for the commodity, and celebrity of the worship, which cannot be well and worthily performed without cessation from other servile business. That this is the use of the rest commanded in his Majesty's Proclamation, is manifest by the reasons set down therein, in these words: That every one may the better attend the holy exercises, which are to be kept in the Church on these times. Ye are cunning to deceive the simple with ambiguity of words. There is a rest that is civilly kept, which is a cessation from our ordinary works for some other civil employment, as for marriages, triumphs, weapon-shewings, and such like; this rest is lawful, but it is not sabbatical. There is a rest kept superstitiously, as when men cease from their labours, for some foolish fears of ill success, by reason of the time: this is not called a Sabbath of rest, but a superstitious rest. There is a rest kept idolatrously for the honour of idols, as the Bacchanalia, Floralia, and the holy days proclaimed by the Israelites, for honour of their golden Calf: These are damnable rests. Finally, there is a rest that is kept religiously, and this rest is kept either for celebrity and commodity of the religious action only, or mystically: for commodity and celebrity of the religious service, a rest is kept in all the solemn times of fasting: a rest is kept in the hours of Prayers, or Preaching, and other divine Service. And such is the rest, that his Majesty hath appointed to be observed. The rest, kept mystically, was a significant rest of some thing bypast, present, or to come; such was the rest of the jewish Sabbath, and of the Legal Festivities, and such Augustine holds, and other many good Divines, our rest on the Lord's Day to be, from the fourth to the Hebrews. This is called a Sabbath of rest, such a rest his Majesty hath not commanded; but a rest for commodity and celebrity of the divine Service only, which in nothing is like to the jews Frontlet's, Phylacteries, and such other Legal shadows.  PP. 
Pope Alexander the third gave this reason, wherefore the Roman Church kept not a Holy day to the Trinity, Quoniam Ecclesia Romana in usu non habet, etc. Because, says he, Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the holy Ghost, and other such like things, belonging to the praise of the Trinity, are daily uttered. The Pope's reason is grounded upon this rule, Whatsoever is entreated or remembered in the divine service ordinary, ought not to have a special Holy day, to celebrate the memory of the same, beside the day already discerned by the Lord. We assume, Christ's Nativity, Death, Resurrection, etc. are not only the continual meditation of a Christian in private, but also a remembered, and entreated in the ordinary and public service. Every Communion Sunday is a Passion Holy day. Every Sabbath, that Christ's Nativity is preached, is a time of remembrance of his Nativity. But to ordain an Anniversarie day, or hour of rest, for commemoration of his Nativity or Passion, and specially upon a week day, is a jewish rudiment, and a prejudice to Christian liberty.  ANS. 
I answer to the Proposition first, and I grant, that whatsoever is remembered in the ordinary divine service, ordinarily and particularly, such as, Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, which was said in the divine service ordinarily and particularly, that needs not any particular commemoration upon some special time, says Pope Alexander: but the inestimable benefits and actions of our Saviour, which were not ordinarily and particularly remembered in the daily service, but only in the rehearsal of the Creed, where all the Articles of Religion are remembered; Pope Alexander thought, that for commemoration of these, a set time was necessary. So the Proposition, which is your ground, being taken according to the Pope's mind, is against you.  
Next, I answer, your Assumption is false: These benefits are not the continual meditation of Christians in private; for I am assured, if ye be a Christian, ye did not meditate on these things Christianly, when ye did meditate this Pamphlet against the honour of Christ his Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and against the power of the Church.  
Thirdly, where ye say, That they are remembered in the ordinary and public service, that falleth out sometimes, but not purposely. When it happens, it is by occasion, and generally that they are touched, because they occur in your Text perhaps. Otherwise, they may lie buried seven years before they be purposely remembered. And when ye say, That every Communion Sunday is a Passion Holy day, I would demand, whether it were lawful on the Saturday or Friday before that Communion Sunday, to make a Sermon on the Passion for preparation of the people to the Communion, as I hope, you have practised sometime yourself. Now, if this, which yourself and many others have done, be lawful, is it not lawful also to do the like on Friday before Easter, which is a Communion Sunday by the acts of our Church? And this is all, that they ordained by the Act of the Assembly at Perth, touching the remembrance of the Passion. Further, to that which ye say, That every Sabbath whereon the Nativity is preached, is a time of remembrance of his Nativity: I answer, That it is but occasional, and so falls out by the Text which the Minister teaches; but neither do the people resort purposely to Church to hear the Nativity entreated at that time, nor does the Minister entreat of it at large, as the same aught.  
Finally, ye conclude with that often repeated calumny, that to ordain a certain anniversary day, or hour of rest, for commemoration of these benefits, is a jewish rudiment, and a prejudice to Christian liberty. The first is false: For the appointing of hours and times weekly, monthly, or yearly, for preaching any part of the Gospel, is no jewish rudiment, but a lawful, good, and wise Christian policy, practised 1500. years before ye were borne, throughout the whole Christian world, and allowed by the best Divines both in the primitive and reformed Church. So fare is it from being a prejudice to Christian liberty, that herein a principal part of our liberty consists, that we are not astricted in the worship of God to Times, Places, or Persons, and others such circumstances by the Gospel, but have liberty to choose and appoint such as we think most expedient for the honour of God, and edification of his people: of the which liberty the purpose of your Pamphlet is to spoil us, in the Sacrament astricting us to the gesture of sitting only, and for God's public worship, to the Lords Day only; as if the Church had no power to appoint preaching, prayers, and divine service to be done at any other time, or the Sacrament to be received in any other fashion.  PP. 
As for the sift day of November, it is not an Holy day; it is not a day of cessation from work, which is one of the chief elements of an Holy day, etc. Anniversarie commemoration of a benefit, with a cessation from work, suppose for a part of a day, is jewish.  ANS. 
If an Anniversarie commemoration of a benefit with cessation from work, suppose for a part of the day, be jewish, than the sift of November (ye forget the sift of August) must be jewish: for on it, there is an Anniversarie commemoration of an exceeding great benefit, and a cessation from work, during the space of the commemoration, which is a part of the day: Therefore, according to your reason it must be jewish. Where ye say that cessation from works is one of the chief Elements of a holy day, it is true, if the cessation, and rest be a part of the worship; but if it be only accessory to the worship, and a circumstance thereof, it is no Element of a holy day. The rest of the jewish Sabbath, and jewish Festivities was a mystical part of the worship, but the cessation which is only appointed for commodity, & celebrity of the worship, such as that which is commanded to be kept by the Proclamation on these five days, and we are in use to keep at our weekly preaching, and Prayers, and upon the sift days of August and November, is only accessary, and serves for commodity, and celebrity of the worship, without which the same could not duly be performed.  PP. 
Grant the keeping of holy days to have been at the beginning a matter indifferent, 
The seventh Reason.  and setting aside all the former Reasons, yet ought they to be abolished, because according to the rule of the Fathers commended to us by Zanchius, Non male igitur fecerunt, qui omnia praeter diem Dominicum aboleverunt, Things indifferent when they are abused and polluted with Superstition, aught to be abolished.  ANS. 
If all things indifferent which have been polluted with Superstition ought to be abolished, than all the Parish Churches in Scotland should be demolished: for to preach or not to preach in them is a thing indifferent. Ringing of Bells in time of Popery was abused superstitiously, kneeling, (an indifferent Ceremony which may be used, and not used at Prayer) hath been most vilely abused to Idolatry in praying to Idols; singing was abused to Superstition, and Idolatry, for Hymns were sung to the Virgin Mary, yea, to her the hundred and fifty Psalms of David were diverted or perverted, and sung in a strange Language. Shall it therefore follow, that there should be no ringing of Bells, no kneeling at Prayer, no singing, or reading of Psalms? This is absurd to say.  
Albeit Zanchius says, non male fecerunt, etc. He says not simply, that they ought to be abolished; nor does he reprove them, who retained the days kept by the ancient Apostolic Church, Quanquam Ecclesiae Christi liberum est, says he, quos velit praeter Dominicum dies sibi sanctificandos deligere, honestius tamen & laudabilius, atque utilius est, eos sanctificare, quos etiam vetus, atque Apostolica, puriorque Ecclesia sanctificare solita fuit. Now, if ye demand what Zanchius understood by the Apostolic Church, he answers it himself: Nomine veteris & Apostolicae Ecclesiae, came intelligo, quae à tempore Apostolorum per annos fere quingentos duravit, usque ad Gelasium, qui praefuit Romanae Ecclesiae, Anno 495. I marvel how ye can cite Zanchius so confidently for you, as if he had disallowed the observation of these days. And if ye will stand to his doctrine and judgement, our controversy shall soon be at an end. For this he says expressly, that the Church hath power to make choice of the days she likes best, and sanctify them besides the Lord's Day. If ye will have us yielding to Zanchius, when he says, non male fecerunt, do ye also yield to him, when he says, Ecclesiae liberum est, quos velit dies sibi sanctificare. But to the end the singularity and novelty of your doctrine may be evident, and our defence may be seen to agree with the Primitive Church her practice, and the judgement of the best Divines amongst the reformed, we grant with Zanchius, that they who abolished all days did not ill, but well in respect of the time, and estate of their Church: As for example, it was not evil done by our Church, to discharge the observation of all Festival Days, because in the beginning, they could not be lawfully observed for the rarity of Preachers at least universally; for in Congregations where Pastors were wanting to inform the people, the observation of them should have entertained the superstitious conceit, which the Papists formerly had of them. Neither did they evil in Zanchius judgement, that retained the days observed by the Primitive Church; consequently in appointing on these 5 days Sermons to be preached and divine Service done, cannot be evil. Specially, if we shall consider, how notwithstanding of all the Acts, Civil, and Ecclesiastic made against the superstitious observation, and profane abuse of Zule day, our people could never be induced to labour on that day, and leave their idleness: and wheresoever divine Service was done that day, as in Towns that have always morning and evening Prayers, they were ever perceived to resort in greater numbers on that day than any other to the Church: So these days being spent profanely by the greatest sort and superstitiously by many, these evils could not be better removed, then by Doctrine and divine Service, whereby the time is well spent, and these conceits of the people driven away, and their opinions confuted in the time, when the same are most pregnant.  
Saint Paul took occasion by inscription of the Altar in Areopage, To the unknown God, to preach the true God to the Gentiles: thereby he did not authorise their Superstition, which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but refuted it with a divine Sermon: he also kept the jewish Sabbaths and Pentecost, which both were abolished; not to confirm the jews in the pedagogy of the Law, but to take the commodity of the time, and confluence of people in it, for preaching the Gospel, that he might draw them with time from the shadows to the substance, and truth in Christ. So we who have the like occasion by confluence of our people on that day to Church, have not done evil to appoint sermons to be made on the day of the Nativity, that the people may thereby be drawn from profaneness and superstition to the true worship of God, and to the religious exercises used in the Primitive Church on that day; whereof the Sermons preached by Saint Augustine and many others, yet extant in their Monuments, bear witness: as also that in observing this, and the remanent days, we might keep a conformity with them, which Zanchius holds to be honest, laudable, and profitable. Finally, that in so lawful a thing we might give odience to his Majesty our Sovereign, desiring an uniformity amongst the Churches of his Majesty's Dominions, in things which are neither against piety nor good manners, and have been observed universally throughout the World in the most pure Ages of the Church.  PP. 
The same Zanchius says in the place aforesaid, If any Feasts were celebrate before religiously, and holily, but thereafter were contaminate with Superstition and Idolatry, that worthily they were taken away by our Reformers, who imitated herein the example of Ezechias breaking to powder the brazen Serpent, when it was abused to Idolatry.  ANS. 
Zanchius in these words compares not the Brazen Serpent with the divine Worship, and Sermons appointed to be made by our Church upon the five days; for in them there is neither superstition, nor false worship, nor is there any burden laid upon the Church, but a profitable policy established: he only compares the Brazen Serpent abused to Idolatry, to the abuses, superstitions, false worships, will-worships, and the intolerable but thence laid on the Church in Popery, by the multiplication of Festival Days; which were indeed to be abolished, because the same did not only equal but surpass the Legal Ceremonies of the jews.  PP. 
We pretend that we place no part of God's Worship in the observation of days. But how can we observe a day to the honour of Christ, and not worship him, by that observation?  ANS. 
We worship not Christ by observation of the day, but by the observation of an evangelic and lawful worship done to him upon the day. With this ambiguity from the beginning, ye press to abuse the Reader: for the observation of a day is taken (as we said before) two ways; either for a sacramental and mystical observation, that is, when the day is observed as a type of some spiritual or eternal benefit to come: This observation of a day, is a part of the worship, and we condemn it as ye do: or it is taken for the observation of a fit occasion, and time, to the exercise of religious and divine Service, as we observe the days of fasting, hours of prayers, preaching, and exercise. This manner of observation is only accessory to the worship, and is no part thereof; and so we observe the five days.  
The Papists in dedicating days to Saints, appointed days to be kept mystically, and not circumstantially only: When we dedicate a day to Christ, we dedicate it not as a mystical sign, and make it a part of his worship, but as a meet circumstance for the worship to be performed to him. And whosoever he be that holds Christ may not be worshipped on these days, and on all days and times privately, and publicly, is a dogmatist and teacher of will. worship: for if the Apostle call this a Doctrine of will. worship, Touch not, taste not, such and such things as are in themselves indifferent; certainly by the same reason, he who out of the temereity of his singular, proud, and wilful opinion says, Teach not on such a purpose; Hear not such a purpose; Worship not after such a manner; Give not thanks for such a benefit upon such a day; not because the doctrine and worship is unlawful in itself, but by reason of the time, which is an indifferent circumstance, Non est verus Apostoli interpres, sed verè dogmatistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  PP. 
That which lawfully hath been abolished by civil and Ecclesiastical Laws, 
The eighth Reason.  and by consent, and uniform practice in the contrary without interruption, and beyond the prescription of time allowed to things movable (put the case that Holidays were things movable, and indifferent) and hath been borne down by Sermons of all the most reverend Preachers since the reformation, corrected with censures, and abjured by public oaths of Preachers, and Professors, cannot lawfully be received and put in practice again.  ANS. 
Your assumption must be this. But to make commemoration of the inestimable benefits of our redemption upon the five anniversary days, hath been abolished lawfully by civil and Ecclesiastical Laws, etc. This assumption is false, in all the parts of it; for first, as we have showed the, observation ordained by the Act at Perth was never abolished by Civil or Ecclesiastical Laws, nor yet by consent and uniform practice of the contrary: Only the superstitious observation of these days with opinion of necessity, as a part of divine worship, and the profane abuse thereof, with excessive banqueting, playing, and carroling was condemned. Secondly, to your prescription of time in things movable, I answer, that circumstantial ceremonies belonging to Religion, are always alterable, and neither can be abolished nor established by prescription: for if prescription had force in such things, than the space of 1200. years, during which time these fine days were observed universally throughout the whole Christian world, should have greater force to establish the observation of them, than the abrogation of seven and fifty years in durance only. Continuance of time does not establish without change such things, but gives occasion to alter them rather, when the alteration makes for the honour of God, the edification of his Church, and avoiding corruption. Thirdly, the Sermons of reverend Preachers condemned only, the superstitious and profane observation of these days, and not the observation made by the Primitive, and by the reformed Churches in our time, which is the observation only commanded by the Act of Perthe. Fourthly, If any were censured, it was not for any fault in the action itself, but for transgression of the Ecclesiastical order, and the scandal, which might have followed thereupon; as the censures which we now use against these, that refuse to perform the divine service apppointed to be done on these times, are not inflicted for any fault that is in omission, in regard of the time, but only in regard of the order and policy of the Church, which being contemned, gives offence to the simple, and breaks peace and unity. Fiftly, we never abjured with oaths public or private, the observation now required; the dedication of days imposed upon the conscience, with opinion that they are sanctiores, & sacratiores alijs diebus, & pars divini cultus, we detest, and abjure: for nothing can be imposed upon the conscience, but by the precept of God only. The Canons of the Church in matters indifferent, do not oblige the conscience ratione rei praeceptae quasi pars sit aliqua aivini cultus: sed ordinis & politias causa tantum. So the Canons of the Church made for observation of these five days, binds not the conscience to the observation thereof, as a part of divine worship, and as the commandment of God binds us to the observation of the Lords Day: for it is the will of God, that on the Lord's Day, we be religiously exercised, and therefore our obedience in that point, is a part of his worship: but to be exercised in God's public worship on another day, is not Gods express will, yet it is his will, that we should hear the Church, and obey her ordinances in all things that tend to edification, and serve for good order, whereof God is the Author. To conclude, seeing the observation of these five days, as the same is prescribed in the act at Perthe, is neither contrary to any Law, Civil, or Ecclesiastic; nor condemned by the practice, doctrine, and censures of our Church, nor abjured by oaths: And therefore may lawfully be restored, received, and put in practice again by our Church.  PP. 
Hooker, and Saravia, urged for maintenance of their ceremonies, Law, custom, prescription; and craves that the impiety and unlawfulness of their ceremonies be proved, or else let the Non-conformists, conform. May we not plead after the same manner for our former order so long established, that they prove it was impious, and unlawful, before we make a change?  ANS. 
Ye may not plead, because the change is already made in a lawful Assembly, which had power to abrogate all Statutes of Ecclesiastical matters, that are found noisome, unprofitable, disagreeing with the time, and abused by the people: as is set down in the confession of Faith, and seventh Chapter of the Book of Discipline, concluded anno 1581. Such were the acts made before concerning Holidays: for first, they were noisome, in that they were not conform to the practice of the Primitive Church, or yet of the later reform, and so in that point did break unity. Next, unprofitable, because they fostered profaneness and superstition in the hearts of the people, who by want of information of Doctrine, did superstitiously or profanely observe these days. Thirdly, they agreed not with this time, wherein it was expedient that the religious Commemoration of the benefits of Christ should be restored iure pastliminio: for it is not enough to dispossess idolatry and superstition, the violent eiecters and occupiers of the possessions of true Religion; but she ought to be restored to the old right and privileges of times, and places, lawfully and wisely dedicated to her before. Last of all, the discharge of divine Service, on these days was come into abuse amongst the people, the preciser sort counting it a part of God's worship, and obedience to his will, not to do service unto God on these days; and the profane taking thereby occasion to be more licentious: And therefore it was needful in a manner to restore the observation of these times.  PP. 
Our Oath by itself binds more than Law, Custom, and Prescription: fare more when it concurres with them. The assumption is evident, by that which I have set down in the beginning.  ANS. 
The assumption is already considered, I answer to the oath. Laws, Customs, Prescription, and Oaths in order and policy, touching indifferent alterable things such as these are, bind a man no longer to the observation, than the order remains unchanged. Your Oath bound you to the government of Superintendents set down in the first Book of Discipline, from which ye esteem yourself absolved, because that government was altered by that new Book of Discipline confirmed in the general Assembly, anno 1581. a year after the Oath was set forth. Now the order set down in the same first Book of Discipline touching the abolishing of Holidays, anno 1560. is altered by the late general Assembly holden at Perthe: and by the same Reason, whereby ye esteem yourself absolved from the government of Superintendents, ye should think yourself freed of the act touching the abolishing of Holidays, which ye would do, if ye were not contentious.  PP. 
If Zanchius approved the abolition of Holy-days in some Churches where they were, because they had been polluted, and grossly abused: much more would he and other Divines knowing the truth of our case, think it unlawful to reinduce them amongst us.  ANS. 
It is true, that in the Churches of Bearne, Matins and Euening-Song were abolished for the abuse thereof in Popery; and not many years since, there was great contention before these Churches could be induced to receive Morning and Evening Prayers in stead of them. So the Pope's cursing was abolished out of the Church of Geneva, and great contradiction made, as Beza testifies in Caluines' life, before excommunication could be established in place thereof: yet I hope, neither Zanchius, nor yourself will think that the reinducing of these was unlawful, although formerly excluded. If Zanchius understood the case of our Church, as I have set it down a little before, & how, we have not reinduced the Popish observation of days, but made choice of these times for special services to be performed on them, with a special direction to Ministers to rebuke superstition, and licentiousness; both he, and other Divines would approve the constitution of our Church, and condemn this your seditious Pamphlet, whereby the simple are abused, and the peace and quietness of our Church disturbed.   

The judgement of the Reformed Churches of Holidays.  PP. 
OF the ancient Church I have spoken before. Some excuse the Ancients with good intention, because to win the Gentiles, they converted their days into Christian Holidays. Others excuse them with the circumstance of time, that dwelling amongst Pagans, they made profession before their eyes of Christ's birth, passion, etc. by observing such days. But the wisdom of their intention hath proved folly, as the seventh reason maketh manifest. The like circumstance of time is not offered: therefore we may not be excused.  ANS. 
Before the penner of this Pamphlet bring the judgement of the reformed Churches, some reason he must pretend for his credit, why he rejects the doctrine and practice of the reformed Church, which stands wholly in his contrary. First he says, that he hath spoken before of the Ancient Church. But what hath he spoken before? that they observed Easter-day by custom, and not by tradition, this is all. What argument hath he brought against their doctrine, against their religious custom and practice of this point? He says, some excuse them with their intention: Who be these? he is ashamed of their names, and so he may be; for where there is no fault, to make an excuse is a sort of calumnious and secret accusation. But for their intention, who did acquaint him with their intention? In Tertullian, Chrysostome, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, who all make mention of these days, there is not so much as any conjecture to be found for that intention. In the end he concludes, that the intention of the Ancients hath proved folly, and this he says, is manifest by the seventh reason, because the observation of these days hath been abused to superstition. But so hath the Lord's Day been, so hath the Word, so have the Sacraments been abused, and all the other parts of God's worship: Shall therefore the intention of the Holy-Ghost, and his wisdom in prescribing these means to the Church, be esteemed folly? They who abuse the good intention of God and his Church to their own damnation, are fools indeed, but Wisdom is justified of her own children. And although the winning of the Gentiles was one good end, wherefore the Ancients observed these days, yet their principal end was the honour of God, and edification of his Church. These ends do still remain, and justify the observation of these days by the reformed Churches, which no man that love's the honour of God, and the weal of his Church, will condemn.  PP. 
It is gross ignorance to say, that Holidays were so many hundreth year before Papistry: for Papistry hath been in the Church ever since the days of the Apostles: yea the mystery of iniquity was working in their times. The errors of the Orthodox Church were the beginnings of Papistry, at length they grew to a great mass. So howbeit, the whole lump was not form, till the Antichrist came to his full strength, yet many particulars were entered before, and like brooks came into the great river. As the Antichrist was borne, and did grow in years, so did Papistry.  ANS. 
Here ye insinuate, that the observation of the five Days in the Primitive Church was Papistry, or else this Discourse is idle. But Papistry it could not be, before it was received, and confirmed by the Pope: so in these days it was not Papistry formally. And if it were not an error of the Orthodox Church, but a lawful order, as at length we have proved, it was neither materially nor formally Papistry. The observation of these days, with a superstitious and idolatrous worship, is Papistry: Such was not the observation of the Primitive Church, and such is not the observation of the Reformed. But as the lawful observation used in the Primitive Church was abolished by the introduction of a superstitious and idolatrous worship in Papistry, so is the superstitious and idolatrous observation in Papistry, abolished in reformed Churches by the restitution of the lawful and religious observation used in the Primitive Church, which of all reformations is the most perfect and profitable. jehn abolished Idolatry of the Heathen, but he restored not the true worship of God: therefore his reformation was imperfect. But the reformation made by Ezechias, and josias, was perfect, because Idolatry was not only abolished, but the true worship of God established in place thereof. This was not so sufficiently provided for at our reformation in this point, for the want of Pastors, and is well supplied by the Act made at Perth.  PP. 
As for the reformed churches, except our neighbour Church, they have abandoned days dedicated to Saints.  ANS. 
Now ye come to the judgement of the reformed Churches. And here I wish the judicious Reader to observe whether ye bring either the judgement of any reformed Church, or of any learned Divine, that consents with you in opinion; namely, that the observation of the five anniversary days with the lawful exercise of true Religion, is a judaical pedagogy, a rudimentary instruction, and a superstitious will-worship. And to the end all that ye say may be exposed to the view of the World, I shall set all fully down which ye bring to this purpose.  
First, where ye allege, that all the reformed Churches, have abandoned the days dedicated to Saints: In this, their practice is no way contrary to the Act made at Perth; for by it no day is ordained to be kept, which is or was dedicated to any Saint, except under the name of Saints ye reprehend him, who is the most holy.  
Next, the exception ye make of our neighbour Church, is calumnious, and false. It is a calumny, that they observe any day dedicated to Saints. All the days which they observe, are dedicated to the honour of God, either for the inestimable benefits that by our Saviour he hath bestowed upon the World, or in regard of the blessings that have come to man, by the Ministry of his servants, and Saints. And it is false, that all the reformed Churches, except they, have refused the observation of these days: For Bullinger in his Commentary upon the 14. to the Romans, affirms, that the Church of Tigurie observes the Feasts of the blessed Virgin, of S. john the Baptist, of Magdalene, of Stephen, and of the Apostles.  PP. 
Some admit days dedicated to Christ, some two, some five; but not with the full consent and liking of the learned, but either forced by the authority of the Magistrate or wilfulness of the people, or because remaining in the midst of their enemies, they are not permitted otherwise to do.  ANS. 
They in Geneva who observe the day of Nativity, and Easter, approve the practice and order of the Church of Helvetia, who observe all the five: and there is as great reason, why on the other three days, the Passion, Ascension, and sending down of the holy Ghost, should be remembered as the Nativity, and Resurrection. If by the learned ye understand these whom ye do afterwards name Farellus, Viret, and Caluine: I am persuaded no man will think, that either they or any other such Pastors of the Church would have been forced to practise that which was unlawful in itself, and a superstitious will-worship; either by Magistrate, or People.  PP. 
Farellus and Viret removed all Holidays out of the Church of Geneva, as Caluine testifies. The same decree, which banished Farellus and Caluine out of Geneva, brought in other Holidays. They were all again abrogate, except the Sabbath day: Howsoever after, came in the keeping of Pasche, and the Nativity.  ANS. 
The judgement of Caluine touching the abolition of the Festival days in Geneva, may be seen in his 118. Epistle, where he professes, that it was done se inscio, ac ne optante quidem. And a little after subioynes, Ex quo sum revocatus, hoc temperamentum quaesivi, ut Christi Natali● celebraretur vestro more, alijs autem diebus extraordinariae supplicationes tabernis mane clausis fierent; à prandio ad suas operas, & res agendas quisque abiret. And albeit in that place, he confesses, that the abrogation of the Festival days did not grieve him, yet he protests as follows, Hoc tamen testatum esse volo, si mihi delata optio fuisset, quod nunc constitutum est, non fuisse pro sententia dicturum. If Caluine had thought as ye do, that December Christmas is a just imitation of December saturnal of the Ethnic Romans, and that the observation of the rest of the Festival days, had been a superstitious kind of Will-worship, and a judaical pedagogy he would never have consented to the keeping of the Nativity; and would not only have abolished the holy days by his suffrage, if the same had been in his option, but also testified to the world his dislike of them by his Pen, and writing. But, that all may see, how different his judgement is from yours, he concludes with these words: Nectamen est, cur homines adeo exasperentur, si libertate nostra, ut Ecclesiae aedificatio postulat, utimur: quemadmodum nec vicissim praeiudicio esse morem nostrum aequum est: By these words it is manifest, that in Caluines' judgement, the observation, and abrogation of these days consists in the power and liberty of the Church; and that the observation of them in itself, is not unlawful, but a thing indifferent, to be used, and not used, as the edification of the Church requires; which judgement we embrace and follow.  PP. 
Caluine was so fare from liking of Holy days, that he was slandered of intention to abolish the Lords Day.  ANS. 
His Doctrine shows the last to be a calumny: his practice, and judgement declares, that he did not mislike the observation of the days used in the Primitive and other reformed Churches.  PP. 
The Belgike Churches in their Synod holden at Dort, Anno, 1578. wished that only the Lords Day might be celebrated. Luther himself in his Book De bonis Operibus, set forth, Anno, 1520. wished that there were no Feast Days amongst Christians, but the Lords Day. And in his Book to the Nobility of Germany, he says, Consultum esse, ut omnia festa aboleantur, solo die Dominicoretento.  ANS. 
This wish, Luther, and the Belgike Churches conceived out of their miscontentment at the number, corruptions, and superstitions of the Festival days, besides the Lord's Day, as ye do. The late Council holden at Dort, Anno 1618. did celebrate the Feast of Christ's Nativity most solemnly for the space of three days: so the practice of these Churches and of Luther shows that they agree in judgement with us touching the observation of the five days.  PP. 
Howsoever foreign Divines in their Epistles and Counsels speak sometimes sparingly against Holy days, when their advice was sought of Churches newly risen out of Popery, and greatly distressed: they never advised a Church to resume them, where they were removed.  ANS. 
If foreign Divines had esteemed the observation of these five days a judaical pedagogy, a rudimentary instruction, a superstitious will-worship, as ye do, they had spoken no more sparingly thereof, than they do of other like things in the Papistical Church. Where ye say, that they never advised Churches to resume them, who had once removed the same, Caluine in his one and fiftieth Epistle advices the Monbelgardens not to contend against the Prince for not resuming of all Festival days, but only such as served not to edification, and were seen to be superstitious, such as the Conception and Assumption of the blessed Virgin: In festis non recipiendis (says he) cuperem vos esse constantiores, sic tamen, ut non litigetis de quibuslibet, sed de eyes tantum, quae nec ad aedificationem quicquam factura sunt, & superstitionem prima ipsa facie prae se ferunt, etc. And in the end of the Epistle, answering one Objection, which is frequently used in our Church, he says; Quod autem vos terret offendiculorum periculum, si quam novamagendi formam receperitis, quae non sit nostris Ecclesiis usitata, id quidem meritò facitis: Sed quia non eò ventum est perfectionis, quin optemus adhuc progredi, hic timor vos impedire non debet ab ijs ritibus admittendis, quos alioqui non liceat ponitus improbare. What these Ceremonies were, whereof he speaks, ye will find in the same Epistle, to wit, the administration of the Communion to the sick, and to persons who are to suffer; Baptism by Midwives, which simply condemns, Rites in burial of the dead, and Festival days which they were urged by the Prince to resume, after they had been removed from amongst them. But this and such other peaceable and modest advices given by Caluine, and other Learned Divines, ye ascribe to want of consideration.  PP. 
They had not leisure to consider narrowly the corruption of every error that prevailed in their time, the work of reformation was so painful to them; I wish therefore that the judicious Reader would ponder their Reasons set down in this Treatise.  ANS. 
The ancient Divines Saint Chrysostome, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, ye have condemned of folly: now Caluine, Zanchius, Chemnitius, and the best Divines of the reformed Church ye esteem inconsiderate in this point. But if the Reader shall take leisure to peruse the Learned Dispute of Chemnitius against the Council of Trent, touching this head; & the profound Doctrine of Zanchius upon the fourth Command, he shall find that these Divines have considered the Question narrowly enough. Yet (I must confess) that neither they nor any other Divines have found out the errors set down by you in this Pamphlet, which if he take pains to ponder as ye wish, he shall find such things therein as no sound Divine in the Christian World did ever dream of before you.  PP. 
As for our Neighbour Church standing in the midst betwixt the Roman and reformed Churches, as Bucerus once said, they are more liberal in their Feasts, as in other Ceremonies, than the other reformed Churches, as Gretserus the jesuite hath observed. Caluino-papistae Angli ut in alijs, qua adritus, & Ceremonias pertinent, long liberaliores sunt, quàm Puritan in Gallia, Germania, Belgia; ita & in Festis retinendis longe largiores.  ANS. 
Hitherto ye have neither alleged the practice of any reformed Church, nor the judgement of any learned Divine for your opinion. Now ye begin unchristianly to inveigh against the renowned Church of England, and are not ashamed to bring the impure words of a Puritan Papist, wherein, as he utters his miscontentment on the one side, so do ye on the other; both standing for extremities, while as he will have all, and ye will have none: The Church of England keeping the middle course is condemned of both, for her moderation; but she regardeth little to be judged of you, or of man's day. What are ye that judge another man's Servant, who stands or falls to his own Master?  PP. 
They observe not only the five Holy days already mentioned, but other days also dedicated to Christ, etc. They keep also a number of Saints days: so that their days in number are more, than the jews themselves observed. The Reasons already alleged against days dedicated to Christ may serve also against days dedicated to Saints and Angels.  ANS. 
If ye have no stronger reasons to allege against days dedicated to Saints and Angels, than ye have used against the five days dedicated to Christ, the Papists who observe these days will not regard your enmity, much less the Church of England, which observeth no days, but such as are dedicated to the honour of God only, as we said before.  PP. 
We may look assuredly, that the five days presently urged will bring in all the rest, to make up our conformity with out Neighbour Church, which to us is not lawful. They were never removed from amongst them; we have abandoned and abjured them, etc.  ANS. 
This is an invidous Prophecy, contrary to the experience we have had of his Majesty, who for conformity with our Neighbour Church, hath never pressed us with any thing unprofitable for us to receive. The observation of the five days restored in our Church, makes us no more conform with the Church of England, then with the greatest number of the best reformed Churches in Europe, and with the Primitive Catholic Church, whilst she yet flourished in greatest purity of Doctrine and Discipline, in the days of Tertullian, Ghrysostome, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and such other notable Lights. And as long as it shall please almighty God to bless us with the continuance of his Majesty's most happy Government, we are assured to be preserved from Heresy, Superstition, Idolatry, and such like corruptions. I beseech God, that our ingratitude, murmuring, grudging, suspicions, and misconstructions, do not provoke God to stop the breath of our nostrils, and remove the Lords Anointed, under whose shadow we have enjoyed peace and quietness above all the Nations that are about us.  PP. 
To conclude then, to esteem one day above another, in respect of any mystery, certainly known, or commonly reputed to have been wrought upon that day; to testify this estimation, by cessation from work: To device a particular service to be done upon it, accounting that form or part of service acceptable to God, because it is performed on that day: is to observe a day. And in this manner do we observe the Anniversarie days. The same reason may be applied to an Anniversary hour.  ANS. 
The Proposition I admit, the Assumption I deny: for albeit any mystical or memorable work were certainly known to have been wrought upon such a time, yet to esteem above another, except it were sanctified by divine Institution, we count it Superstition. So albeit we certainly know the memorable works of his Majesty's deliverance to have been wrought upon the fist of August, and the fist of November; yet we do not esteem these days above other days, as if the service done on them, were more acceptable to God, in respect of the time: but we do only esteem them as meet circumstances for the thanksgiving appointed to be made on them to God. The same estimation we have of the five days, as we have  said before.  
That our Saviour was borne upon the 25. of December, no man (I think) knows certainly: the common reputation we hold as uncertain. Therefore we do not think, the commemoration of Christ's Nativity upon that day, and our thanksgiving therefore more acceptable to God by reason of the day; nor do we think cessation from work on that day a part of divine worship, at it was held in time of Papistry, and is yet by many of our common Professors that lack instruction: but the worship we do, is unto God for his honour, not for the day; and the cessation from work is for the commodity, and celebrity of the worship. The Act of Perth ordains the people to be thus instructed, and the superstitious conceit of the time rebuked. Finally, choice is made of this, and the other days, not for any mystery esteemed to be in them more than in other days, but for conformity with the Primitive Church, the reverence of whose authority in matters of this nature, must be of great force to draw Churches of diverse jurisdictions that agree in doctrine, to unity in points of external policy: which unity is far to be preferred to the private custom of any Church, or the singularity of any man's opinion and fantasy. And therefore ZANCHIUS said well, and wisely in the places cited before, That albeit the reformed Churches have liberty to sanctify what days they think good, yet it is more laudable, honest, and profitable, to sanctify these which the most pure, Apostolic, and Primitive Church sanctified. So to conclude, we observe no day for mystery, or with opinion of necessity, but only for commodity and policy. And this observation is approved by the judgement of the best Divines in the reformed Church.   

The consent of the Reformed Churches and Divines for keeping the five Holy Days.  

Heluetica Confessio de Ferijs, Art. 24.  PRaetera, si Ecclesiae pro Christiana libertate memeriam Dominicae Nativitatis, Circumcisionis, Passionis, & Resurrectionis, Ascensionis item in Coelum, & missionis sancti Spiritus in Discipulos, religiosè celebrent, maximoperè probamus: 
That is to say, If the Churches, according to their Christian Liberty do celebrate religiously the memory of the Lords Nativity, Circumcision, Passion, Resurrection, his Ascension to Heaven, and the sending down of the holy Ghost, we do exceedingly approve it. Beza speaking of this Confession in his first Epistle says, Dico Helueticam, & Gallicam Confessionem, cui innumerabiles paenè Ecclesiae subscripserunt, nullare prorsus differre: that is, The Church of Helvetia, and France differ in nothing, and have but one Confession, whereunto innumerable Churches have subscribed. All the reformed Churches did agree in this point of the Confession touching the observation of the five days, our Church only excepted; which now having condescended to a Conformity with the rest, by the Ordinance of the Assembly at Perth: the same will be allowed of all, that prefer the peace and unity of the Reformed Churches to the singularity of their own opinions.   

CALVIN. Col. 2.16.  ATque dicet quispiam, nos adhuc retinere aliquam dierum obseruationem. Respond. Nos dies nequaquam seruare, quasi in ferijs esset aliqua religio, aut quasi fas non sit tunc laborare, sed respectum haberi politiae, & ordinis, non dierum: 
that is, Some will say that we yet retain some observation of days. I answer, We keep not days, as if there were any Religion in the festival time, or as, if it were not lawful to labour on them, but a respect is had of Policy and Order, not of days.   

ZANCHIUS in the Confession which he made to be published, when he was seventy years of age, in name of himself, and his Family.  De Ferijs cap. 15. Sect. 30. POst diem Dominicum, non possumus non probare illorum quoque dierum sanctificationem, quibus memoria recurrit, celebrataque in veteri Ecclesia fuit, Nativitatis Domini nostri jesu Christi, Circumcisionis, Passionis, Resurrectionis, Ascensionis in Coelum, Missionisque sancti Spiritus in Apostolos: 
that is, Next unto the Lord's Day we cannot but allow the Sanctification of these days, wherein the memory returns of the Nativity of our Lord jesus, his Circumcision, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension into Heaven, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, which memory was celebrated in the ancient Church.   

CHEMNITIUS de diebus Festis in examine Concilij Tridentini.  ATque haec sunt, quae in Scriptura novi Testamenti ad festa pertinentia, tradita sunt: iuxta quam normam, ut devota, & religiosa Festorum celebratio ad augendam pietatem restituatur, nemo improbat, sed omnes pij optant: 
that is, These are the things which are delivered in the Scriptures of the new Testament concerning festival times: according to which rule, no man dislikes the devout, and religious celebration of festival days, but all the godly wish it, because it serves to increase godliness. To this he subioynes a long Narration of the days observed in the Primitive Church which he approves.   

BULLINGERUS ad Rom. 14.  APud Veteres quidem, Eusebium inprimis, & Augustinum, invenias memorias quasdam, pijs quibusdam institutas ●…sse hominibus, sed longè alia ratione, ac modo, nimirum parùm differente à nostroritu, quo adhuc in Ecclesia nostra Tigurina Nativitatis, Circumcisionis, Passonis, Resurrectionis, & Ascensionis Domini, Missionisque sancti Spiritus, Deiparae Virgins, joannis Baptistae, Magdalenae, Stephani, & Apostolorum Domini Festa celebramus: neminem eorum interim damnantes, qui post Dominicam, aliam nesciunt Festivitatem: videmus enim veterum monumenta perlustrantes, liberum hoc Ecclesiae semper fuisse, ut quisque quod hisce in rebus minutilis videretur optimum, & ad pietatem commodissimum sequeretur: 
that is, Ye shall find in the Ancients, specially in Eusebius and Saint Augustine, certain memorial instituted to some holy persons, but fare different from the Papal form and manner; not unlike the rite which we observe in our Church of Tigurine in the celebration of the Nativity, Circumcision, Passion, Ascension, Resurrection of the Lord, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost: of the Mother of God the Virgin, of john the Baptist, Magdalene, Stephen, and the Apostles of the Lord. In the meantime we condemn none of these, that keep no festival day, but the Sabbath. For when we look over the Monuments of the Fathers, we find this hath ever been in the liberty of the Church, to do that which seemed best, and most commodious for the advancing of Piety in these matter of little moment.   

PARAEUS cap. 14. ad Rom. hip. 4.  FEria Dominicalis, Nativitatis, Resurrectionis, Ascensionis Domini, & Pentecostes, rectè obseruantur à Christianis: 
that is, The Lords Day, the Feast of the Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension of the Lord, and Whitsonday are lawfully keeped by Christians.  Ibidem. Vtile institutum primitivae Ecclesiae ritè obseruatur, tale hoc est: utile enim est praecipuas Dei patefactiones, & beneficia in Ecclesiam collata, stato tempore publicè rep etere, & profiteri adversus haereticos & infideles, & populo inculcare, ut sint notissima, & in perpetua memoria; magis enim movent, & haerent in memoria iwentutis, & populi, quae solenniter anniversariè simul ab omnibus, & uno consensufiunt, quàm quae aliâs ab alijs fiunt, & dicuntur: 
that is, A profitable Statute of the Primitive Church is rightly observed, such is this of Holy days: for it is profitable to remember, and profess publicly on a set appointed time, the chief manifestations of God and his benefits bestowed upon the Church, against Heretics and Infidels, beating them in the ears of the people, that they may be familiar unto them, and keeped in a perpetual remembrance. For these things move more, and stick faster in the memory of youth, and common people, which are solemnly and yearly done, by all together, and with one consent, than these things, which are done at other times, by diverse persons severally.   

TILENUS' Praecep. 4. Th. 17.  PRaeter hunc Sabbatismum septimo quoque die recurrentem, alio● dies, non ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed ad peculiarem Dei beneficiorum commemorationem, de communi consensu in Ecclesia Christiana instituere, non arbitramur simpliter esse illicitum: 
that is, Besides this Sabbath which returneth every seventh day, we judge it not simply unlawful by common consent of the Church to institute other days, not for will-worship, but for a special remembrance of the benefits of God.   

PERKINS on the fourth Chapter to the Galatians.  Ecclesiastical observation of time, is when set days are observed for order's sake, that men might come together to worship God. These days are either days of thanksgiving, or days of humiliation: take the example of the jews, Ester 9.26. Who observed yearly the Feast of Purim, for a memory of their deliverance. In like manner, they observed the Feast of Dedication, and it seems, that Christ was present at jerusalem as an observer of this Feast, john 10.22. And thus for order's sake to observe certain days of Solemnity, is not forbidden.  

WILLET in his six-fold Commentary upon the fourteenth to the ROMANS.  THe Apostle reproves them for the superstitious observing of days, such as then the jews practised, and now the Papists: but to observe such Holy days as God hath appointed, such as the Sabbath, and others for order and policy, not for Religion's sake, is not within the Apostles reprehension. Item, The Apostle speaks of the jews Festivals, wherein they did clog their consciences, and one judged another; not of the Lords Day, which is of Christ's appointing, and of other Festivals for Order and Policy, and not for a part of the Service of God, to bind the Conscience.    

An answer to the dispute, entitled, OF CONFIRMATION, and of Bishopping.  
Wherein the Pamphlet penner pretends to impugn the third Article, concluded in the Assembly at Perth, touching the trial of young children's education; the tenor whereof follows.  
FOr as much as one of the most special means for staying the increase of Popery, and settling of true Religion in the hearts of the people, is, that a special care be taken in trial of young children their education, and how they are catechised: which in time of the primitive Church was most carefully attended, as being most profitable to cause young children, in their tender years, drink in the knowledge of God and his Religion, but is now altogether neglected in respect of the great abuse and errors, which crept into the Popish Church, by making thereof a Sacrament of Confirmation: Therefore, that all superstitions built thereupon may be rescinded, and that the matter itself being most necessary for the education of the youth, may be reduced to the primitive integrity, it is thought good, that the Minister in every Parish shall catechise all young children of eight years of age, and see that they have the knowledge and be able to make rehearsal of the Lords prayer, Belief, and ten Commandments, with answers to the questions of the small Catechism used in our Church: And that every Bishop in his Visitation shall censure the Minister, who shall be found remiss therein: And the said Bishops shall cause the said children to be presented before them, and bless them with prayer for the excrease of their knowledge, and continuance of God's heavenly graces with every one of them.  
In the narrative of this Act, the Sacrament of Confirmation is counted amongst the abuses, errors, and superstitions, which crept into the Papistical Church in stead of the profitable catechising, that the primitive Church used for the trial of young children's education: therefore the first part of the dispute, wherein the Pamphleter intends to prove that Confirmation is not a Sacrament, containing nothing that is contrary to the Act, shall be passed by.  
In the second part of the dispute, entitled, Bishopping, he contends that the Sacrament of Confirmation and imposition of hands, is not proper to Bishops, but common to all Presbyters. This contention is idle: for the Sacrament of Confirmation and imposition of hands, being refuted in the former dispute by himself, and condemned by the Act, why should he strive to have that common, which neither he nor we esteem to be lawful? But to the end, all occasion of debate, about this matter might be prevented, the Assembly at Perth ordained, that the Bishop after examination should bless the young children with prayer, and purposely omitted the ceremony of imposition of hands, as a thing indifferent to be used, or not used, as the Bishop should think most meet: Albeit in the primitive Church, this blessing was always given with imposition of hands, as Caluine affirms, Instit. lib. 4. sect. 4. wishing that it were restored to the first integrity in the reformed Churches. Yet the Pamphleter to make simple ones believe, that every thing concluded in that Assembly was erroneous, he gives out, that the Sacrament, at least the ceremony of Confirmation was there allowed, and appropriated to Bishops.  PP. 
We have abjured Episcopal government, and therefore we cannot lawfully admit Episcopal Confirmation; giving, and not granting their office were lawful, and that they have gotten a lawful calling by the Church to the said office. Thirdly, that we were free of our oath: and fourthly, That Confirmation were to be allowed, whether as a Ceremony or as a Sacrament, yet it is damnable presumption, to appropriate unto themselves the duty that belongs to all Paftors.  ANS. 
If by the Ceremony or Sacrament of Confirmation, ye understand the miraculous imposition of hands used by the Apostles, or yet the bastard Sacrament of Confirmation used in Popery, whereby Bellarmine, whom ye afterwards cire, says, That the Lord would honour Episcopalem dignitatem: neither of these are allowed by the Act, nor appropriated to Bishops. Therefore, your whole dispute following being directed only against these two points, is idle & superfluous. But if by Confirmation ye did understand according to the meaning of the Act, the duty which Bishops should perform in trying at their Visitation, the diligence of Pastors in catechising young children, and in causing them be brought before them to be examined and blessed: this part of Episcopal government ye have not abjured, but have approved by your assertory oath, and obliged yourself to maintain and obey by your promissory oath; if so be, ye did swear to the Policy set down in the first book of Discipline, Anno 1560. as ye have often professed. For the words in that book touching this point of Bishop's duty, are these: After the Superintendents have remained in their chief Towns, three or four months at the most, they shall be compelled (unless by sickness only they be retained) to re-enter in their Visitation. In which they shall not only preach, but also examine the life, diligence, and behaviour of the Ministers, as also the order of their Churches, and manners of their people: They must further consider, how the poor are provided for, and the youth instructed.  
By these words it is manifest, that it was not a thing common to every Pastor to visit Churches, and try the diligence of Ministers, specially concerning their instruction of the youth, but that it was proper to the Superintendent. Now, if ye have sworn that this is lawful in the person of the Superintendent, how can ye call it a damnable presumption in the person of a Bishop? whose function and name is the same, differing only in the origination of the word, the one being drawn from the Latin, the other from the Greek: for a Bishop in the Greek tongue is the same that a Superintendent is in the Latin. And in visiting of Churches, the trial of the education of children, which now is a duty belonging to the Bishop's function, is here set down as a special point of the Superintendents office.  
As to the blessing which the Bishop is appointed to give unto them, Caluine in the place above cited, says, That it should be used to the end, that grave and sacred action, may have the greater reverence and dignity. This examination of children in the ancient Church, had joined with it, not the blessing only, but the ceremony also of imposition of hands; and thereupon in the fourth Council of Carthage, Can. 85. It is called, Examinatio impositionis manus, and is appointed to be often used towards the Catechumenists before they were baptised. But this blessing and imposition of hands upon the Catechumenists, and upon the young children of Christians, was not the principal action, nor a Sacramental rite, as it was after esteemed; nor given to Bishops for honour of their Episcopal dignity, but accessory only, as Caluine rightly thinks, unto the examination, which was the Bishop's special duty in his Visitation. It is true, the omission of the principal duty, and the using only of the accessory, to wit, the imposition of hands, was the first corruption, that crept in: after that came in the crossing, the anointing of the forehead and the buffet given to the child in stead of the blessing, and so a Bastard Sacrament was instituted in the place of a most profitable point of the Episcopal function. Further, as it is the duty of every Pastor, to catechise the young children in his Parish, and try whether the Parents have kept their promise made at the Baptism of their Children, in which trial, if he shall find the child to have profited well, he ought to bless and pray for them: So is it the Bishop's duty in his Visitation to try if the Pastors have performed their parts, and after examination, to bless these same children. And as the examination, and blessing used by the Pastor, takes not away the power, that parents have to examine and bless their own children; so the examination and blessing of Bishops takes not away the power that Pastors have of trial, and blessing within their own Parish. Therefore to conclude, the Ordinance set down in the Act of Perth appropriates nothing to Bishops, that is common to Pastors and Parents, but preserves unto every one the prerogative of his own calling: Neither is there any thing ordained in the Act, but that which Caluine wished earnestly to be restored again in the Church.  
In the fourth book of his Institutions, cap. 29. sect. 4. & 13. De Confirmatione, he writes as follows. Hic mos olim fuit, ut Christianorum liberi postquam adoleverant, coram Episcopo sisterentur, ut officium illud implerent quod ab ijs exigebatur, qui se ad Baptismum adulti offerebant: high enim inter Catechumenos sedebant, donec ritè fidei mysterijs instituti, poterant fidei confessionem coram Episcopo, ac populo edere. Qui ergo Baptismo initiati erant infants, quia fidei confessione apud Ecclesiam tunc defuncti non erant, sub sinem pueritiae, aut ineunte adolescentia, repraesentabantur iterum à parentibus, & ab Episcopo examinabantur, secundùm formulam Catechismi, quam tunc habebant certam, & communem. Quò autem hac actio, quae alioqui gravis sanctaque meritò esse debebat, plus reverentiae haberet, ac dignitatis, ceremonia quoque adhibebatur manuum impositionis. It a puer ille fide sua approbata, cum solenni benedictione dimittebatur, etc. Talem ergo manuum impositionem, qua simpliciter loco benedictionis fiat laudo, & restitutam hodie in purum usum velim: that is to say, It was the custom of old, that the children of Christians, after they were grown up to some perfection, were brought unto the Bishop to perform that duty which was done by these that were of perfect years, before they came to be baptised▪ For these sat amongst the Catechumenists, while they were sufficiently instructed in the mysteries of Religion, and were able to give a confession of their Faith before the Bishop and the People. But such as were baptised in their infancy, because they had not given a confession of their Faith unto the Church, about the end of their childhood they were presented by their Parents of new, and examined by the Bishop according to a certain common form of Catechism, which they had in these times. And to the end, this action, that was in itself grave and holy, might have the greater reverence and dignity, the ceremony of imposition of hands was also used. Thus the child after approbation of his Faith, was dimitted with a blessing, etc. Such an imposition of hands which is used for a simple blessing, I commend, do and wish the sincere use thereof were restored.  
Et Sect. 13. utinam verò morem retineremus, quem apud Veteres fuisse admonui, priusquam abortiva haec Sacramenti larua nasceretur: non enimesset Confirmatio talis qualem isti fingunt, quae sine Baptismi iniuria nec nominari potest, sed catechesis, qua pueri aut adolescentiae proximi, fidei suae rationem coram Ecclesia exponerent. Esset autem optima catechizandi ratio, si formula in hunc usum conscripta esset, summam continens, & familiariter explicans omnium fere religionis nostra capitum, in qua universa fidelium Ecclesia consentire sine controversia debet. Puer decennis Ecclesia se offerret, ad edendam fidei confessionem: regaretur de singulis capitibus, ad singula responderet: si quid ignoraret, aut minus intelligeret, doceretur: ita unicam veram & synceram Fidem, qua unanimiter Deum unum colit fidelium populus, teste, & spectante Ecclesia profiteratur. Hac disciplina si hodiè valeret, profectò parentum quorundam ignavia acueretur, qui liberorum institutionem quasi rem ad so nihil pertinentem, securè negligunt, quam tunc sine publice dedecore omistere non possent: maior esset in populo Christiano fidei cousonsus, nec tanta multoruminscitia, & ruditas: non adeò temerè quidam novis & peregrinis dogmatibus abripereutur, omnibus denique esset quaedam velut methodus doctrinae Christianae: that is, Would to God, we did observe the custom, which I show, the Ancients used: For then (Confirmation) should not be such as the Papists fancy, which cannot be once named without the injury of Baptism, but it should be a catechising of children, whereby they should give account of their Faith before the Church. And the best manner of catechising were this; That a form should be penned for that use, containing the sum of all the heads of our Religion, and expounding them familiarly, unto which Faith and Religion the universal Church of the faithful should agree: that the child being ten years old, should present himself to the Church, to give a confession of his Faith: be demanded upon every Article, and made to answer severally to every one: and if he were ignorant of any point, or did not well understand the same, he should be instructed. Thus he should in presence of the Church, and under the testimony thereof make profession of that only true and sincere Faith, wherewith the Congregation of the faithful worships God. If this discipline were in vigour at this time, the sloth of some Parents should be corrected that securely neglect the instruction of their children, as a thing not appertaining unto to them, which then without a public shame they could not leave undone: a greater consent should be amongst Christian people in Religion, and the ignorance of many should be nothing so great: some would not be so hastily carried away with new and strange opinions, and in a word, all should have a method of Christian Doctrine. This was the mind of the most learned and worthy Divine that hath lived in this last age, wherewith, let the Reader judge, if the Ordinance of Perth be not agreeing.   

An answer to the last head, entitled, Of the Administration of the Sacraments in private places.  
TO the end the last Controversy touching the administration of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord in private houses, may be the better discussed, we shall premit some few grounds for clearing the question.  
First, The public actions of Christian Religion, are not tied to any certain time, or place by divine Institution, but may be lawfully performed at any time, and in any place, when necessity requires.  
Secondly, That the public actions may be lawfully performed, a public Minister, a lawful Assembly, and the form prescribed in the Word, must necessarily be kept.  
Thirdly, Howbeit some hold, that Baptism ministered by a private person is valide, and effectual, yet no man can hold truly, that it is lawfully ministered by such a person.  
Fourthly, Although the Communion Elements be duly consecrated by a public Minister in a most solemn and lawful Assembly, yet if he apply them only to his own private use, or to so me other particular person, making no distribution according to the Institution, the action is not lawfully performed.  
Fiftly, The lawful Assemblies, wherein the public actions may be performed, are either ordinary, or not ordinary. The ordinary are not defined in the word particularly, but are left to be determined by the Church, which according to the general Rules of Christian Policy, hath divided the Christian people in sundry Congregations called Parishes; whose meeting in the ordinary times and places appointed, are the ordinary Assemblies, wherein the puolike actions of Religion should be performed ordinarily.  
Sixtly, The Assemblies that are lawful, but not ordinary, are the meetings of two, or three at least in the Name of jesus Christ, wherein he hath promised his presence to hear their Prayers, and approve their lawful actions of piety. In such Assemblies, the Word hath been preached, and Baptism ministered, as in the 16. of the Acts, the Master of the Prison, and his Family were baptised by Paul. The Husband, the Wife, and a Servant make a Family, where there be no more. The Family of Priscilla and Aquila, are called a Church. This Pamphleter affirms with Saint Augustine, Paulinus, Esychius, Theophylactus, and others, That our Saviour at Emaus, did celebrate the Sacrament to the two Disciples, with whom he communed in the way. There the whole Assembly were but three: whether the Sacrament was ministered, or not at that time, this is certain; as many as hold, that the same was celebrated, must also hold, that three make the body of a Church, wherein the Eucharist may be lawfully ministered: and if the Eucharist, much more Baptism, which was ministered by Philip to the Eunuch, where there was no Christian Assembly convened. Yet doubtless, he was baptised in presence of his Servants who were witnesses to the action. For Baptism would be ministered in presence of some witnesses, and the Eucharist cannot be lawfully ministered without some communicants. Although a Temple be not necessary, at Caluine says in the 185. Epistle, yet the Insant should be baptised in coetu aliquo. Si enim infans clam baptizetur, nullis adhibitis testibus, illud neque respondet ordini à Dominoposito, neque Apostolorum exemplo: Likewise that there may be a Communion, conveniat coetus aliquis ex cognatis, familiaribus, & vicinis, says Caluine. These grounds being warranted by Scripture, and by the Ancients; first, we shall set down the Acts of the Assembly, which ye labour to resute, next your Refutation and Answer thereto.   

The Acts concluded at Perth, touching private Baptism, and Communion.  
THe Minister shall often admonish the people, that they defer not the baptising of Infants any longer, than the nexts Lords Day after the Child be borne, unless upon a great and reasonable cause declared to the Minister, and by him approved. As also they shall warn them, that without great cause, they procure not their Children to be baptised at home in their houses, but when great need shall compel them to baptise in private houses (in which case, the Minister shall not refuse to do it upon the knowledge of the great need, and being timely required thereto) than Baptism shall be administered after the same form, as it should have been in the Congregation. And the Minister shall, the next Lord's Day after any such private Baptism, declare in the Church; that the Infant was so baptised, and therefore aught to be received as one of the true Flock of Christ's Fold.  
Item, If any good Christian visited with long sickness, and known to the Pastor, by reason of his present infirmity unable to resort to the Church for receiving of the holy Communion, or being sick, stall declare to the Pastor upon his conscience, that he thinks his sickness to be deadly, and shall earnestly desire to receive the same in his house: The Minister shall not deny to him so great a comfort, lawful warning being given to him upon the night before, and that there be three or four of good Religion and conversation, free of lawful impediments, present with the sick person to communicate with him, who must also provide a convenient place in his house, & all things necessary for the reverend administration thereof, according to the order prescribed in the Church.  PP. 
In the ninth head of the first Book of Discipline, it was thought expedient, that Baptism should be ministered, upon the ordinary days of preaching, not that it is unlawful to baptise, whensoever the Word is preached: but to remove a gross error, wherewith many are deceived, thinking that Children be damned, if they die without Baptism, etc. In the order of Baptism set down before the Psalms in metre, it is said, that the Sacraments are not ordained of God to be used in private corners, as Charms, or Sorceries, etc. And in the Assembly holden, 1581. it was ordained that the Sacraments, should not be ministered in private houses, etc. This laudable order hitherto observed was altered, etc.  ANS. 
Cases of necessity are not subject to ordinary rules: Therefore the Acts made at Perth concerning necessary and extraordinary cases, altars not the laudable order hitherto observed. As it is an error, to esteem Baptism absolutely necessary, that is, a midst without which there is no salvation: so it is as great an error not to think it necessary, as an ordinary mean, whereby the Grace of God is communicate, and without the which, if it may be had, and be either contemned or neglected, there is no certainty that God will confer his grace. Therefore to astrict the ministration of Baptism to a humane order, touching time and place, which by the Word of God may be lawfully used at other times, and in other places, is great temereity, importing to the Child, no small danger of the loss of grace, and bringing upon the Parent and Pastor the guilt of his blood for contemning, at lest neglecting the ordinary mean of salvation.  PP. 
A Sacrament is a public action, to be performed publicly, by public Ministers: Neither can any necessity, or sufficient cause be alleged, wherefore any sacred and public action should pass in private: because God's Ordinance is to us a supreme Law and necessity, which we ought to obey rather, then foster popular ignorance and infirmity. These are Tilenus' words.  ANS. 
These words are not uttered by Tilenus against the administration of Baptism, at extraordinary times, and in extraordinary places: but only against the administration of Baptism by women, and private persons; which is the second Controversy in Baptism which he handles, beginning at the twelfth position, with these words, Altera Controversia de Ministro Baptismi, and ending at the eighteenth These. Where there is not so much as a syllable of the time, and place, when, and where Baptism may be ministered: all his positions concerning only the persons by whom. So in this ye are like yourself, perverting, and abusing the speeches of learned men against their own mind. And it is to be observed here, that ye perversely interpret his words: for where he says, Nullaque necessitas velidonea causa afferri potest, cur actio sacra, & publica transeat in privatam: ye, to make the Reader believe that Tilenus speaks of a private place, whiles he is speaking of a private action, translate it (pass in private) as if a public action could not be lawfully performed, when it is done by a public person, and in presence of such a number, as by the Ordinance of God are sufficient.  PP. 
The Sacraments are testimonies of our piety, thankfulness, profession, and protestations of our faith: therefore they ought to be conspicuous, and public.  ANS. 
It is most expedient, that they be both conspicuous and public, but in cases of necessity, it suffices that they be public.  PP. 
We have no external fellowship with the whole Church militant, in the public exercise of Religion, but a mediate Communion with a particular Congregation. This Communion ought not to be violated.  ANS. 
This Communion is not violated, when in cases of necessity men cannot resort to the Parish Church. If we communicate in these exercises of Religion with two or three convened in the Name of Christ, where a greater Assembly cannot be had, our Communion with the Church is not violated: for they are a particular Church, and a part of the universal, aswell as the Parishioners, although they be less.  PP. 
The Sacraments should be ministered with consent, and in presence of the Church; seeing they are works of public nature, and of public fruit belonging to all.  ANS 
Such works of public nature, and public fruit ought ordinarily to be ministered solemnly: but in cases of necessity, it suffices that they be lawfully ministered in caetu aliquo fidelium, as Caluine speaks, Epist. 185.  PP. 
The Sacraments ministered in private houses, make the Sacraments to be contemned, and neglected. Heretics take occasion to corrupt the pure administration of them by these privy practices. The imperial constitution in justinian forbiddeth that holy things be ministered in private houses.  ANS. 
The lawful administration prescribed in the Act preserves them from contempt, neglect, and corruption: And by the contrary, the omission of the Sacraments in the cases of necessity, make men to contemn, and neglect them as unnecessary. For Heretics, there is nothing so good, at which they will not take occasion of evil, yet the practice of good things must not therefore be omitted. To justinian's constitutions, ye were wont to answer, that the Laws of the Code are not rules of Theology: O, but this is a constitution of the Novels: that is true, yet it favours your novelties no more than the Code. This constitution forbids only the ordinary exercises of public worship, in private Oratories, whereby the Temples were deserted, as is manifest by the Preface: but it is so fare from forbidding the celebration of the Sacraments in private houses, in cases of necessity, that it reserveth privilege to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and to the Bishops in the Province, to give licence that ordinary service may be exercised in private Oratories, according to the 31. Canon of the Trulliau Council.  PP. 
The Sacraments are not tied to the material Churches made of dead stones, but the Church made of lively stones. If therefore the congregation be in a wood, a house, or a cave, the Sacraments may be ministered in a house, a wood, or a cave: but then the Sacraments are not ministered in private, but in public, because they are ministered in the sight of the whole Congregation.  ANS. 
Yet here the whole Congregation is not an ordinary Parishional Church, but an extraordinary Convention, wherein we affirm with you, that the Sacraments may and should be ministered. In this we agree, but in that which follows of the number which may make a Congregation, we disagree.  PP. 
Christ promise to be in the midst of two or three convened in his name, cannot be extended to the administration of the Sacraments: for then, where two only are convened, the Communion might be ministered, and so the private Mass defended. Christ reasons only from the less to the more: If he will hear the prayers, and ratify the censures of two or three, fare more of the whole Church.  ANS. 
If the less be true, namely, that Christ will ratify the Censures of two or three convened in his name, than two or three convened in his name, must make a lawful Church, that hath power to censure and excommunicate such as are subject to their jurisdiction; otherwise Christ would not have promised to ratify their censure. As to the Mass, it is not a private Mass, where distribution is made, but where the Priest receives alone: otherwise ye must grant, that it was a private Mass, that Christ celebrated at Emmaus, where two only did participate and receive from our Saviour. In a word, if in Christ's promise the number be not defined, which at the least may make a Church wherein the public actions of Religion ought to be performed, since it is no where else defined in Scripture, it must be left to the determination of the Church, which hath power to define what the least number is, that may make a lawful extraordinary convention, aswell as to divide a Nationall Church in Dioceses, and Dioceses in Parish Churches. So the Assembly at Perth having defined that three or four besides the Minister, and the sick person, are a sufficient number to make a lawful extraordinary convention, wherein the Sacraments may be ministered in cases of necessity, we ought to stand at their judgement, and obey the ordinance against the which in the Word of God there is nothing.  PP. 
Baptism is a ceremony initiatory of our entrance into the bosom of some visible Congregation, or (as Caluine says) It is a sacred and solemn introduction into the Church of God, and is a testimony of our heavenly Burgesship, in which they are written up, whom he adopteth to himself. It ought therefore to be public.  ANS. 
Caluine in the Epistle which ye quote, the 185. says not, that therefore it ought to be in a Parishional Church, but that it behoves the Infant, baptizari in coetu aliquo: and expressly, non quidem ut templum requiratur, Sed ut ubivis numerus aliquis fidelium conveniat, qui Ecclesia corpus officiat. Now if Baptism may be ministered in any place, where a number of the faithful do convene, then doubtless in a private house.  PP. 
Baptism is a sign of Christian Profession before the world, it ought therefore to be public.  ANS. 
As it is impossible that it can be public after such a manner as all the World may be witnesses thereto, so it is not absolutely necessary that it be before the whole Parish, when the Child is in such extremity that he cannot be brought unto the Church.  PP. 
The Congregation should make fruit of the Ministration of Baptism, in remembering their own Baptism, etc.  ANS. 
Ordinarily it ought to be public, in presence of the Parishiones; the extraordinary ministration serves for their comfort who are present. But if it were not ministered at all, in time of necessity, as ye would have it, than all should be deprived of that comfort, and the child of the benefit of the ordinary mean of Salvation.  PP. 
Not only the Parents, but the Church presents the Child before God, and concurs with the Minister in prayer for the salvation of the Infant.  ANS. 
Such as are present, conjoin their prayers with the Pastor: And the presence of some number, makes the action public, although less solemn.  PP. 
Private Baptism hath sprung of the opinion of the necessity of Baptism, and doth still foster the same damnable opinion. In the ancient Church, two solemn times were apppointed for Baptism, etc.  ANS. 
The opinion of absolute necessity, ratione medij, that is, of a midst, without which the Infant cannot be saved, is not to be allowed, yet the opinion of necessity, ratione praecepti, that is, of an ordinary mean commanded by God, to be used, when and where it may be had, is sound. And in that opinion the people ought to be confirmed, and admonished (as it is in the act) Not to defer the Baptism of their Infants, nor neglect it: But to persuade the people, that it is not necessary, as an ordinary mean, is as great an error as any ye allege hath sprung of the opinion of absolute necessity. These errors ought to be removed, not by refusing Baptism when it is required, which is a disobedience, no less dangerous than the errors are, but by the wholesome doctrine of the Word, which is the only powerful means to abolish all errors in Religion.  PP. 
In private Baptism, the doctrine of Baptism is omitted, for haste to save the soul of the Infant as is thought, and so the Sacrament is not ministered according to the dignity of it: and this hath bred a negligent ministration of Baptism in public. The Trullian Synod decreed, that Baptism Nullatenus in no case be ministered in a private Oratory. If it be done otherwise, let the Clergyman be deposed, the Laickes excommunicate. If in no case, where was then the case of necessity?  ANS. 
The necessary Doctrine ought not to be omitted, and the act ordains Baptism in private houses to be ministered after the same form that in the Congregation. Doctrine at the baptising of Infants, is not used for the instruction and comfort of the Infant, but for the instruction and comfort of the Parents and witnesses. Though it be abridged in times of extremity, it diminishes not the dignity of Baptism, but the Sacrament is rather highly advanced, when it is esteemed to be sufficient by itself as the ordinary mean of salvation to the infant. In the general Council of Constantinople, holden in the Emperor Constantinus his Palace in a room called Trullus, two Canons are set down, of which ye cite the 59 only: forgetting according to your custom, the Canon preceding touching Baptism, the words whereof are these: Clericos, qui in Oratorijs quae sunt intra domos ministrant, vel baptizant, hoc illius loci Episcopi sententia facere decernimus, qui hoc non sic seruaverit, deponatur. The Canon ordains these that baptise in private Oratories, to do it by the Bishop's appointment. And that cited by you is not contradictory to this, but concerneth the ordinary administration of Baptism, whereas upon extraordinary considerations of infirmity, and inability of persons, the Council acknowledges, that the same may be done upon the Bishop's special licence. So your Nullatenus includes not cases of necessity. If the Bishop in such cases may permit Baptism in private houses, much more might the Assembly at Perth, where so many Bishops and Pastors were present, set down an ordinance to that effect.  PP. 
Private baptism hath bred a new kind of baptism, that is, a baptism by supposition: for if the child baptised in private, convalesce, they baptise it over again, etc.  ANS. 
Baptism ministered in a private house, by a lawful Pastor, before a sufficient number of Christian witnesses, is not private, and needs not be supplied, by such a conditional Baptism.  PP. 
Baptism was solemn in the Primitive Church, as we may read of john baptised in jordan, and Christ's Disciples baptising, and the new Converts in the Acts: Some were not baptised in any Visible Church, because they had not the occasion, as the Eunuch, and the Centurion. No man will deny, but in the infancy of a Church, a private Baptism may be tolerated: but we speak of a Church constituted, etc. The Lord appointed a precise day of Circumcision, which might not be prevented. It was no wonder, if they had not ever opportunity of a solemn Convention, there is no precise day set down for Baptism, etc. The Church ought to be assured of the Baptism of such as are reputed fellow-heires with them, etc.  ANS. 
That the Church may be assured of the Baptism of the Child, it is ordained in the Act of Perth, That the Minister shall the next Lordsday after any such private Baptism, declare in the Church, that the Infant was so baptised, and therefore aught to be received, as one of the true Flock of CHRIST'S fold.  
In a constituted Church, Baptism should not be ministered ordinarily, but according to the constitutions of the Church: but extraordinatie cases, cannot be subject to ordinary constitutions, more in a constituted Church, then in the Infancy of it. And that which is lawful to be done, in the Infancy of the Church, is yet lawful to be done in a constituted Church, ratione rei praeceptae, & dininae institutionis. And it is unlawful only ratione ordinis, in regard of the order appointed by the Church, from which cases of necessity are always excepted. Also, that which might have been tolerated in the infancy of the Church for necessity, must ever be lawful, in the like case: for it was not the infancy of the Church that made the toleration lawful, but the necessity. Where ye think, that the jews were more strictly obliged to circumcision, than Christians are to Baptism, because a certain day was appointed for it, and to Baptism there is no day prefixed in the Word: We know by the Law, that he who is not obliged at a certain day to pay his debt, may be charged to pay it at all times, and therefore when God lays sickness on a child, a charge is given by God instantly to the Parent to perform his duty.  PP. 
The Lord's Supper ought to be public. We have a spiritual union with the whole Church; but because it is not possible to celebrate a sacramental Communion with the whole Church militant, the Lord hath appointed us to celebrate a sacramental Communion with some particular Church, We that are many are one bread, and one body, because we are partakers of one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. We cannot then be one body sacramentally, except we be partakers of one bread. Other Feasts may be private, in private houses, but the Lords Supper ought to be public, 1 Cor. 11.12. When ye convene to eate, tarry one for another, 1 Cor. 11 33. Synaxis, a word signifying as much as Synagogue, was one of the names given of old to this Sacrament.  ANS. 
As with the whole Church Militant we have a spiritual Communion, so have we an Evangelicall and Sacramental Communion: for as we are partakers of the same spirit, so are we partakers of the same Word and Sacraments. The Bread is one, which all receive, and the water one, wherewith all are baptised Sacramentally; for they are clothed with the same sacred mystery of signification, exhibition, and obsignation of salvation in Christ crucified. When the Apostle says, 1. Cor. 10.17. Because the bread is one, we who are many are one body, for we are all partakers of one bread: he speaks not of our Communion with a particular Church only, but with the Catholic; and by one bread, he means not one bread materially in number, for one bread in number materially, none but one particular person can receive: The bread which I receive materially, is not the same that thou receivest, but the Sacrament is one and the same in number. To be short, we have no more a Sacramental communion with these in the Parish, with whom we communicate, than we have with the whole militant Church, who are all partakers of the same Sacraments. And thus, as we have a spiritual, so we have a sacramental Communion with them. It is true, that our communion in the Word and Sacraments, is not visible, but with some particular Church, and therefore, as it is less or more public, so is it less or more visible: yet we do ever celebrate a Sacramental communion with the whole Church, when the action is lawfully performed.  
The other places which ye cite, 1. Cor. 11.22. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in; and, Vers. 33. When ye convene to eat, tarry one for another; of which, ye gather, that other feasts may be in private houses, but the Lords Supper should be in public: These places, I say, are relative to the ordinary meetings of those times, which were often in private houses. Caluine in his 363. Epistle to Olevian, answers this objection: Neque verò Paulus dum Corinthios admonet, domum suam cuique esse, in qua comedat, & bibat, coenam excludit à privatis adibus: tunc neque fidelibus patebant templa, nec permissum erat nova extruere, sed tantùm à communibus epulis discernit spirituale mysterium, ne cum illis misceatur: that is, When Paul admonishes the Corinthians, that every one hath his own house, wherein he may eate and drink, he does not exclude the Lords Supper from private houses: for in those day's Temples were not patent to Christians, neither had they liberty to build new Churches: but he discerns only the spiritual mystery from their common feasts, and will not have it to be mixed with them. So the mystery was called Synaxis, because it was ever celebrated in some Convention, less or more, ordinary or extraordinary.  PP. 
It is a badge of our public profession, it ought therefore to be public.  ANS. 
It should not only be public, but most solemn ordinarily: And in cases of necessity, when the same is ministered by an ordinary Pastor, to two or three, assembled in Christ's name, it ceases not to be public.  PP. 
The Communion was sent to the sick in the time, or mediately after the action, in justine Martyr his time. It became afterwards to be reserved for the use of dying persons, etc. Some put the Eucharist into the mouths of the dead, lest they should want their voyage victual. Yet in all Antiquity we read not, that the Communion was celebrated at the sick-man's bedside.  ANS. 
The corruptions that have flowed of men's erroneous conceit of the Sacraments, should not take away the lawful use of them when necessity requires. As to the sending of the Sacrament to the sick, it was a custom of the ancient Church, which Beza allows: and where the Communion was daily, at least weekly, celebrated in the ordinary Congregation, as that was the custom of those times, it was not necessary to celebrate the Communion at the sick-man's bedside.  PP. 
clinical Communions have not only bred and still do foster the opinion of absolute necessity, but also of Opus Operatum, of a preposterous confidence in the last voyage victual, of coldness in the public service of God when we are in health, of distrust of our salvation, if we want it at that time. Caluine says, Difficillimum est hic cavere ne alios superstitio, alios ambitio, & vana ostentatio ad petendum sollicitet.  ANS. 
Abeit Caluine thinks, that Superstition, Ambition, and vain glory, may follow the practice of giving the Communion to the sick, yet he concludes not as ye do; For in the same Epistle, a little before the words which ye cite, he says: Cur coenam aegrotis negandam esse non arbitrer, multae, & graves causae me impellunt: that is, Many great and weighty reasons move me to think, that the Communion ought not to be denied to the sick. He saw inconveniences might follow thereon, therefore he adds, judicio opus esset, ac delectu, ne quibus daretur nisi in magno vitae discrimine: that is, Providence and discretion would be used in this, that it should be given to none but those that are in extreme danger of their life.  
Where ye allege clinical Communion, to have bred the opinion of absolute necessity, before ye said, that it was bred by misse-constructing of the words in john 6. by Saint Augustine: yet we find this custom of giving the Communion to the sick, to have been at least two hundred years before Saint Augustine's time. How prove ye now that the practise bred the opinion? ye conjecture it was so. A good and lawful custom could no more have bred it, than the truth of Christ's words in Saint john 6. The opinion certainly, was bred by some misse-construction as ye say; and the way to remove it is neither the deleting the words out of the Text, nor the discharging of a lawful and comfortable practice of Religion, but the right interpretation of the words of our Saviour, and the clearing of the Church's custom.  PP. 
They say, the sick should not be left destitute of comfort: This reason arises of the opinion of necessity, as if there were no other means to comfort the sick, or as if the comfort of the public Communion endured only for the present time, and not for the time to come.  ANS. 
The reason arises not of the opinion of necessity, but of expediency: for albeit there be other means to comfort the sick, yet why should he want this, that is one of the most powerful, and aught to be iterated as oft as it is expedient, although the comfort once thereby received endureth for ever?  PP. 
There is a fair occasion offered, jam. 5. of private Communion, and yet there is no mention made of it in that place.  ANS. 
In that place Saint james sets down the means, whereby the sick may be restored to health, whilst the gift of healing was yet in the Church. The Sacrament was not any of these means, therefore of it no mention is made.  PP. 
If the vow and desire of Baptism may supply the want of Baptism, then may also the vow and desire of the Eucharist do the like.  ANS. 
The desire and wish of Baptism and the Supper, is not sufficient without participation, when and where they may be had.  PP. 
Some Divines condescend thus far, that the Communion may be sent to the sick in the time of the public action. But Tilenus says, Whatsoever necessity be pretended, scarce any sufficient cause can be rendered, wherefore the public action should pass in private, because the Ordinance of God is of supreme necessity. The comforts of the infirm ministered out of order, does rather foster the public infirmity of the Church, then heal the private infirmity of the sick.  ANS. 
Beza in his Questions, thinks that the Sacrament should be sent to the sick. Caluine holds that it should be celebrated at the sick-man's bedside, so both agree in this, that it should be given to the sick. And Caluines' saying, Epist. 363. may serve for an Answer to that, which ye allege out of Tilenus: Quamuis nulla sit legitima coena nisi communis, quae tamen aegrotis dabitur, quia privata non erit; adulterina non censebitur. Nam certe partem vel appendicem esse constat publicae actionis: that is, Albeit no Supper is lawful but that which is common, yet that which is given to the sick, because it shall not be private, is not to be counted unlawful, for it is either a part, or a pendicle of the public action.  
To conclude, to deny a necessary comfort unto the sick, which may be ministered without breach of any divine order, cures not the public infirmity of the Church, but grieves the sick, and fosters in these who are in health, a base opinion, and contempt of the Sacrament.  
I will subioyne to all this Caluines' judgement touching these matters.  

CALVINE  Epist. 184. INprimis autem obseruandum est, cùm istud Sacramentum complectatur sacram, & solemnem introductionem in Ecclesiam Dei, sitque testimonium coelestis nostri municipatus, in quem adscribuntur illi, quos Dominus adoptat sibi; fas non esse ministrare Baptismum, nisi in coetu fidelium. Non quidem ut Templum requiratur, sed ut ubivis, numerus aliquis fidelium conveniat, qui Ecclesiae corpus efficiat, etc. Oportet igitur infantem baptizari in coetu aliquo etc. Etiamsi, exiguus sit illorum numerus. Oro Deum ut rectum illum zelum ipsis adaugeat, quem iam contulit, ut se, & suos Deo Patri consecrent, & Domino nostro jesu Christo. EPIST. 51. DE Coenae administratione ita censeo, libenter admittendum esse sentio hunc morem, ut apud aegrotos celebretur Communio, quùm ita res, & oportunitas feret: hac tamen lege ut sit vera Communio, hoc est, ut panis in coetu aliquo fidelium frangatur. EPIST. 361. CVr Coenam aegrotis negandam esse non arbitrer, multae, & graues causae me impellunt. Video intereae quam proclivis in multos abusus sit lapsus, quibus prudenter seduloque occurrendum esset. Nisi enim sit Communio, perperam deflectitur à sacra institutione Christi. Conueniat ergo aliquis coetus oportet, ex cognatis, familiaribus, & vicinis, ut fiat distributio ex mandato Christi: Deinde coniuncta sit actio cum mysterij explicatione: Nec quicquam fiat à communi Ecclesiae ratione diversum. EPIST. 363. ETsi pridem meam de Coena aegrotis administranda sententiam rogasti, optime frater, etc. Scio rem in disceptatione versari, quia non desunt utrinque rationes. Mihi verò non est propositum, nunc eas sigillatim excutere, neque tempus suppetit. Ex natura quidem, fine, & usu mysterij probe mihi colligere videor, non esse tanto bono privandos, qui vel diuturno morbo laborant, vel de vita periclitantur. Ad fidei confirmationem valet, tesseram accipere quasi ex Christi manu, qua certiores fiamus, nos in eius corpore censcri, carne eius, & sanguine pasci in spem aeternae Vitae. Itaque coena perceptio, nos ad obeundas spirituales pugnas instruit. jam, si pius quispiam è mundo migrandum sibi videat, quia fieri non potest, quin oppugnetur, & vexetur multis tentationibus, meritò se armari cupiet ad sustinendos conflictus, An aripiendum est singulare adiumentum, quo fretus ad luctam alacrius descendat, & victoriam obtineat? jam prohiberi quo minus liceat profiteri, & testatum facere pietatis consensum cum Ecclesia, durum est, ac mali exampli, sive quis in lecto diviaceat, sive morti sit vicinus. Atque coena sanctae inter filios Dei unitatis est Symbolum. Quamuis breviter rem attigerim, agnoscis tamen, quibus rationibus adductus, aegrotos non esse arbitror à Communione arcendos. Neque tamen ea de causa velim turbas movere. Scis in hac Ecclesia alium esse morem. Acquiesco, quia utile non esset contendere, etc. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.