A JUST APOLOGY FOR THE GESTURE OF KNEELING IN THE ACT OF RECEIVING THE LORDS SUPPER.  
Against the manifold exceptions of all opposers in the Churches of ENGLAND, and SCOTLAND.  
Wherein this Controversy is handled,  

Fully  
Sound.  
Plainly.  
Methodically.   
By T. 〈◊〉  
How forcible are right words? But what doth your arguing reprove?  job. 6. 25. 
LONDON, Printed by WILLIAM JONES, dwelling in Red-crosse-streete. 1629.   

TO THE RIGHT WOR ppfull SIR. Thomas Grantham, and S r. Thomas Hutchinson, Knights, all prosperity and Happiness.  
AMong the controversies of this time, Most worthy Knights, it is not of the lest importance, which some of the brethren of our Church have made about the gesture of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper. For as it universally concerns all, and every Christian must of conscience hold himself engaged therein the one way: so the manner and effect of opposing is such, as to him who considers the same in good earnest is admirable, and who considers not is incredible. To those cannot be unknown with what confidence, bitterness, & resolution this quarrel hath been maintained, & (though a spark) hath kindled such combustion amongst men, as God only knows how it is possible to be quenched. I remember what Solomon saith: A brother offended (defectione provocatus, as Tremel us reader it) is harder to be won●e than a strong City, and their contentions are like the bar of a Castle. I know it is much more to be lamented, that the beams of the heavenly truth seem to be clouded unto us by the obfuscation of worse errors than this. Alas! the lusts which war in our own members at home have made such war in all the members of humane society, that the Edomites seem to be heard again, down with it, down with it, even to the very foundation. And what e●se can we look for in this disjointing of the parts and tenants of our building, but woeful ruins in the end; without the timely and effectual repair of such, to whom this weighty care especially appertaineth. Truly the thunderbolts of Rome's cursing, the bloody attempts of foreign Princes, the devilish machinations and undermine of our Traitors at home, or what else hath happened to this Land, (since the Gospel hath been established) of most dangerous consequence, have not (any one of them) by the mercy of God, given such a wound to the Church of England, as the uncivil dissensions of her own children, whose doctrine (like that of Hymeneus & Philetus) eats like a Gangrone into the bowels of their dearest Mother. The thing is so plain & public, that as it cannot be dissembled: So there is cause therefore, that we should turn our mirth into mourning, and our instruments of music into the voice of them that weep. For my part I say with the Apostle, utinam abscindantur; or with the Prophet, Let them be ashamed o Lord, that have evil will at Zion. But whiles such as I can only wish and pray for jerusalems' peace, blessed shall He be, to the uttermost purts of the Earth, and all descents of posterity, by whose means it shall come to pass, that our eyes may see jerusalem a quiet dwelling place, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down, one 
Isai. 33. 20.  stake whereof shall not be removed, nor one cord broken. We cease not to pray for your honourable Assembly, that, that unguentum optimum, the choicest ointment of true peace, being poured upon the head, may fall unto the beard, not staying till it have descended, usque ad oram vestimenti Ecclesiae.  
Concerning the controversy of this book, sorry I am, that it is my hap to seem to be an adversary to them, whom I have ever had, and yet have in great estimation, and (I speak sincerely) so great, that if the singular evidence of the truth, and continual supply of divine assistance, (beyond expectation) had not supported my mind in all the skirmishes of this war● fare, I confess I should have laid down the buckler long since, and given over the cause, which I saw to be pressed with a world of preiudices. But now I must say of them as Aristotle of his friends, Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. God hath taught me to be content to pass through good and ill report for witness-bearing to his truth revealed. Nor am I discouraged with the common imputation of being a defendor of Popish Ceremonies; for besides that they unjustly call kneeling a Ceremony, more than standing or sitting; they do unworthily disgrace it by putting it into that rank, which God himself hath never warranted to his service, neither did I judge it enough to keep me back, that I am conscious to myself of so much infirmity, learned men being also so many; for as their worthier parts and abilities are fit for undertake of greater weight, wherein the Church hath need of them all▪ so for myself I have had more occasion perhaps then many others to be versed in this controversy, and considering our brethren teach, that every 
Abridg.  lawful Minister hath a voice for determining of Church orders, I cannot fairly be denied to tender my service, (such as it is) to God & his Church, for the defence of the public order established. Especially when I own the first-fruits of my some what more-mature understanding, for a due compensation of the error of my younger time, too flexible to the resolutions of wellmeaning ignorance, worthy, which I should repent of. I know it had been a quieter way for me to have reserved my thoughts to myself, & go in a more private course of serving God, for how hard measure I shall find of some that are contrary-minded, I do plainly foresee; but God will never cease to vindicate his glory & worship from the injuries which even his own servants shall offer thereunto with what pretext soever they labour to bear it down. And this advantage we have, that their opposing of kneeling to the Lord in his own ordinance, seems to be a great indecorum in them, which make profession of the greatest devotion & mortification. What would they say to blessed Bradford, of whom it is reported, that his continual study was upon his knees.  
Now (most noble Gentlemen) that I presume to present my thoughts to the world in the countenance of your worthy names, I had reason good enough: for besides some more private respects inducing, and that such Patrons I had need of who are able to judge of the cause which: I handle, and themselves plentifully defend it; (as in truth the countenance of learning and judgement is beyond the countenance of an eminent place) This in special I have desired, both to give some testimony to the world of mine honourable esteem of You, as likewise to congratulate those Countries you live in, for their happiness in You both; who are, (and let me speak it without the envy of any man) most worthy ornaments to Religion, Learning, & justice among them in these wretched times. Go on (ever honoured Knights) in seeking the glory of Almighty God, the good of the Church, the welfare of your Country: and grow (which is not ordinary in great men) in the exemplary practice of a godly life; the comfort whereof will be your own, both in your consciences at that day; and in your names, which shall be sweet and honourable by this means, as in other monuments of time, so in your noble posterity: Fox which shall ever pray▪  
Your Wor pps humble servant according to his profession, THOMAS PAYBODY.   

To the Christian Reader.  
GEntle Reader. I pray thee be advertized of the Books I have undertaken to answer, they are these. Abridgm. of Linc. Minist. Dispus. ag. kneeling, Perth assembly, written by some Scotchmen. Surveyed of the Books of Com. Pr. a certain Manuscript, which I light on, without the name of the Author (which because it is in the hands of many, and much esteemed of, I thought needful to be answered amongst the rest.) Centaine books of Mr. W. Bradsh. Reply to the defence of the three innocent ceremonues. In all which (with some others) I have answered that which they say, concerning the gesture of the Lords Supper, and further I meddle not with them. Therefore I let thee know, that I take not upon me to be the defender of the Reverend and learned Bp of Cov▪ and Lichfi●l, nor will my wrighting prevent the labour of any one; to whom his Lordship may perhaps have committed that task; if yet that Reply can be judged worth answering which is so scornful written. Only by the Evidence of his Lordship's book I could not well forbear to defend him against the grievous imputation of maintaining idolatry, wherein I hope I shall not seem to be arrogant.  
I will not trouble thee with the cause of my writing or publishing, since I have witnesses enough for my justifiable proceed in both. And for the latter it is known, how I have been urged with pressing reasons (some of which I have to show) from such as are of good place: and of great judgement and learning.  
For my sincerity in answering I have thus much to testify. 1. that I have used no carnal shifts or colourable evasions, but wholly grounded on the good word of God. 2. my method will testify, which wholly tends to the credit & advantage of our brethren's cause. 3 my fidelity will testify in producing all which they wr●t●, and making the best of all their arguments, whereby they shall see more put together against kneeling then (I suppose) any of them have seen. 4. the learned will testify, to whose judgement & correction I have already submitted myself. 5. my brethren may testify, in some part, whose conferences and disputations I have been so far from declining, that (upon their own appointments and offers) I have waited for them in vain. 6. the Lord will testify, to whom I have been careful, in all the proceed which I have made, in some comfortable measure to approve my conscience.  
For my plainness I need not much excuse myself. I deal with men who writ in the plainest manner; also the Argument (being of humble kneeling) is Argumentum humile. Besides I thought it needful, partly by reason of the ignorance, partly the disposition of the common sort, (despising any thing that is not within their own understanding, calling it braine-knowledge) to deal with them, as it were, by familiar communication.  
If any man think I have not written mildly enough, I say with Mr. Cart●r. They must not think much to be strucken with the back, who have stricken others with the edge. I say further, sometimes they deliver such silly or unchristian points, (as the Disp. about coheires, &c.) that it was needful to answer with some rebuke. Yet protesting, for our brethren, who are otherwise wise and godly men, I love them in the bowels of the Lord jesus Christ.  
Of my Reader I hearty request, that he would cover my oversights and infirmities with the mantle of love; and if he be scrupulous that he would not suffer himself to be forestalled: that he would please to take the pains to read through, not being discouraged with the rude and hasty generals in the first part: that he would set himself to consider what I reason or answer, and how the force of objections is taken away: that if he can be satified, he would not be ashamed of men, or afraid of disesteem of the world; but give God his glory, the Church her due, and gain unto himself the sweet advantage of frequent communicating, and finally make up the breach, to the end we may more sweetly join against the common Adversaries of the Gospel.  
The practice of two sorts of men I utterly abhor: 1. of them which being themselves vile and profane, should hence take occasion to reproach our brethren for professing to make conscience of their ways. I will be no encourager of such wretches whose case is miserable and damnable, whiles the infirmities (such as the best men have) of them which strive sincerely to know the truth, and walk according to their knowledge, shall never be imputed to their condemnation. 2. Of them who will be censurers though no readers, speaking evil of the things they know not; or if they read, read but to scoff and cavil, having not a spark of good judgement, discretion, or charity: I look for many such, but we must all stand before the judgement seat of Christ.  
Lastly, to those persons that can be contented to take it at my hands I would give this counsel. 1. To think as they would be thought of, to speak as they would be spoken of. to do as they would be done to. 2. To consider, that it is not known that any Christian since the world was created, hath suffered trouble in confession against kneeling to God in his holy ordinance.   

ERRATA.  
The first word noteth the error, the second the correction:  
The first number the page, the second the line.  
PIsculi Pisciculi 15. 3. Lawful, Unlawful. 15. 8) Gesture. No Gesture. 24. 12) Aims. Agrees 33 4) Thing Kinle. 38. 8) Orderly Ordered 39 7) Not all. Not at all. 42. 30) Your order. Our order 48. 23) Not one But one. 50. 28. It is to be. It is to be. 50. 37) Which are assured. They then which are assured. 53. 14 Deem Deny. 53. 17) Clear that discubimus. It as clear that discumbimus. 63 26) In a matter. in a manner. 64. 1. Purposed Proposed. 64. 15) Against another. One against another. 76. 36) Necessary Not necessary. 102. 9) Are you admitted. Are you not admitted. 149. 25) Methodical▪ Am●thotical. 158. 24) New. Word. 175. 10) Request. Regest. 228. 20. & 40 c. 19) Either O●h●r. 231. 10) Cannot Can. 233. 1) Adoration. Veneration. 302. 10. Deserve. Do serve. 302 24) Receiving. Reciting 349. 23) Answer Easy Answer 377. 31) Your Our. 391. 2) Teachers. Hearers. 489. 18) These Thirdly these: 91: 32.  
Margin. Opposite: Apposite: 2) josephus: joseph's. 64 Another in Repl● Another in a manner Repl. 143.  
It is true, the gesture. And where as you mention the Papists gesture. 412: 37.  
Some man hath dishonestly added a QUEEN in marg of 215, 281. against the text; that pawn 215. demands, as if our superiors were not to be obeyed in things otherwise indifferent. Let others look to that, in p. 281.  
Courteous Reader, other faults in poyntings, parentheses, letters, figures, or what else thou findest, I entreat thee to bear, and correct, for I could not attend the Press, and I hope thou mayst find my meaning.   

A Table of my order in this Book.  

In PART. 1.  
I have explained certain general prints concerning gestures, a● their nature and use, chap. 1. & manner how the word directeth in them, chap. 2. and then of things indifferent and God's worship, chap. 3.   

In PART. 2.  
I come to the Controverses itself and first I answer the Arguments against kneeling at Sacrament as it as considered in itself: and therein 

1. The general Argument, that kneeling i● a will worship, answered, chap. 1.  
2. The particular Arguments that, 

1. It is against God's express commandment, answered, chap. 2.  
2. That it is against the example of Christ, answered, chap. 3.  
3. That it is against nature. 

1. Moore generally, that it is ind●ce●s, answered, chap. 4.  
2. Moore specially, that it is against a Tablegesture, answered, chap. 5.    
4. That it is against the collections of holy Scripture, ●● 

1. Against the degnity of Christian Communicants, answered, chap. 6.  
2. Against the duty of the Communicants, answered, chap. 7.  
3. As a private worship during the public, answered, chap. 8.         

In PART. 3.  
I answer the Arguments against kneeling taken from certain accidental respects, for kneeling is said to be 

1. Against Christian liberty, answered, chap. 1.  
2. Against piety. 

1. Because it is impiously enjoined in our own Church, namely, 

1. As a significant gesture, answered, ch. 2.  
2. To be used idolatrously, answered, ch. 3.    
2. It is devised and polluted by Idolatrous Papists, answered, chap. 4.    
3. Against charity, ●● 

1. Being a scandalous gesture, answered, chap. 5.  
2. Condemning all other Churches since the Apostles, answered, chap. 6.        


A JUST APOLOGY FOR THE GESTURE OF of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper.  

CHAPTER 1.  
Sect. 1 WHereas I am about (Christ enabling) to speak of the Gesture which may be lawfully used in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine, it will not be amiss: first of all to prepare the way by explaining of certain general points, which will be of plentiful use to the due understanding of the particular controversy which followeth.  

Of Gestures in general.  
Sect. 2 ANd first because our principal business will be about bodily gestures, let us endeavour to be well acquainted with the nature, difference, and use of them: Now what I mean by bodily gestures, none (I suppose) is so ignorant as not to understand. That certain carriage or fashion (whatsoever it is) wherein the body of man either in respect of the whole, or of any member and part thereof, is externally situate, that self same behaviour & positure of the body, we call a bodily gesture. Gestures be of two sorts, namely principal and inferior. I call those principal, which be independent of other gestures, and they be four: first, standing: secondly; sitting: thirdly, kneeling: fourthly, lying along. Every one of which doth well consist, and is commonly used by itself, without the help either of inferior gestures, or else one of another. Yet it is to be observed, that kneeling and lying along have oftentimes in use one and the same consideration: That which falling upon the face was amongst the jews, the same is kneeling nowadays amongst us Christians: Thus the disputer very expressly determineth, 
a Disp. pag. 156.  and further inferreth thereupon in this manner : Therefore (saith he) what places of Scripture speak of prostrating ourselves, or of other forms of personal adoration, (which he also addeth) those I interpret a● meant also by the Holy Ghost of the forms and fashions of corporal worship, ●nterteined amongst us in this climate of the world, and so to conclude with as much pertinency and strength, for or against ours, as they do for or against those of the jews. Herein I think the disputer hath said very well; and if the Ministers and himself will stand to this learning, then is there greater liberty of proofs and testimonies of Scripture to the purpose of this Treatise ensuing: so that in effect we shall have but three contradistinct principal gestures; standing, sitting, and prostration, comprehending both kneeling and falling down.  
Sect. 3 But besides these principal, there be certain inferior gestures, which I call inferior, because they cannot consist without some one of the former, but on them do necessarily depend: And of this sort there be many gestures sometimes belonging to one member, as when the hands be lift up, spread forth, and smitten upon the breast; the eyes look upwards, or downwards, and such like, none of all which can be used, but either in the gesture of standing, or in the gesture of sitting, or in the gestures of prostration: and therefore are they not unfitly termed gestures of an inferior alloy; (having indeed a reserved use sometimes of their own, but) yet are always expressed under one of the great gestures, wherein the bulk of the whole body is situate, like the several colours of the rainbow without one fashion of an arch; or the particular situations of towns and places under one Horizon. Now of the use of all gestures in common, I lay down the three following rules grounded upon holy Scripture.   

The first rule of Gestures.  
Sect. 4 FIrst there is no set or solemn worship of God, but the body worshippeth as well as the soul; let the gesture be what it william. And my meaning is partly with implicit worship, when the body guided by the soul attends unto the service of God, without respect of its positure: partly when some one or other special gesture is of purpose applied, for the due performance of the holy ordinances of Christ. A worship-ordinance, wherein both soul and body stand bound, cannot be considered without a worshipping gesture: for as the service of the soul consists in inward faculties and their actions: so that of the body stands and is declared by the members and gestures. It is true, that the gesture both in the same and several whorships continually varieth, but the variation takes not away the respect of worship in the gesture; for as the gesture varies, the expression of worship varies, but so still worship-expression in other gestures remaineth. That which deceives the vulgar in this thing, is, that because standing and sitting, are (in ordinary use) civil gestures, they think therefore they cannot be gestures of worship. But they consider not; that kneeling itself is a civil gesture, as well as standing and sitting, if it be applied to civil occasions: and so, standing and sitting be religious gestures as well as kneeling, if they be 
b Though sitting be in it 〈◊〉 civil, yet a 〈◊〉 to an holy use, as in the Sacrament, it is not so Disput pag 50.  applied to religious exercises. And this is also true of the lesser gestures, so fare as they be intended, and referred to the worship of God; as lifting up of the hand, or eye, &c. when notwithstanding they be plainly civil, in a civil business.  
Sect. 5 But yet I will further distinguish of worship-gestures, that this matter may be rightly conceived of. Gestures are said to be gestures of worship in a general sense, on more special. First, some gestures be called gestures of worship only, because they be sitting pofitions of the body for receiving of God's ordinance: sitting in the exercise of the word is such: for look what gesture is by us at any time conveniently applied to the due celebration of holy duties, the same is doubtless a bodily worshipping; inasmuch as thereby the body joins with the soul in religious performance. It is true that the word [worship] in Scripture is frequently restrained unto prayer and thanksgiving; but that no more denies sitting or standing in the exercise of the word to be worship-gestures, than the exercise of the word itself to be a worship-ordinance. But, secondly, some gestures again be called gestures of worship in a more special respect of adoring; as by bearing or bowing of the head; by bowing of the body; either by inclination or prostration, &c. And where the Scripture makes mention of worship, it commonly means some such humble gesture, (as also the original signifles, which afterwards I will show.) Yea the Scripture sometimes expressly contradistin guisheth the word [worshipping] to the exercise of the word; as, one fourth part of the day they read and heard the word of the Lord; another fourth part of the day they confessed and worshipped, Nehemiah. 9 3. Now adoring gestures be more specially gestures of worship, both because they be distincter and deeper expressions of worshipping, and because God is more directly and 
* Not that any gesture o● action respects not God immediately, as it is worshipping, for even sitting in the exercise of the word, as (wo●sh●●●●●●) respecteth God immediately: but then also it hath an immediate respect: but that is no worshipping to the word, for the commodious receiving whereof it is purposely chosen and used. Now adoring gestures are first chosen & serviceable to worship God's Majesty, without any such immediate respect of being made opposite to the one receiving of the sensible matter of religious or Ec●lesiasticall businesses.  immediately served by them: therefore for distinction-sake I will call such humble gestures in God's worship, (as they be usually ca●led amongst Drums and others) by the term of [adoring] gestures; holding it certain (in a general sense) notwithstanding that other gestures of purpose chosen and used for performing of religious duties and exercises, are also expressions of outward worship.  
Sect. 6. Furthermore, we must know that gestures be either voluntary used, or upon constraint & necessity. They which lie in prison under locks and bolts, are sick upon their beds, have infirmities in their bodies, are letted by the company and place, &c. cannot choose that gesture which they may deem to be the fittest for them; but whiles their inward intents and desires be right in such case, the unfittest gesture countervailes such worship, as they would express, if they had the liberty of choosing the best, which is denied unto them. And so much of the first rule.   

The second rule of Gestures,  
Sect. 7 THough every gesture of purpose chosen & applied to God's worship, be a gesture of worship, (as I have said) yet is th●re not a little difference in the convenience o● gestures, (so as one may be chosen or refused before another,) arising from the nature of God's service in hand, & from the occasion which may lead us on unto it. Prostration upon the face is a commendable gesture, when the Christian perplexed in the sense of grievous extremities, as job was; or ravished with the wonderful experience of God's mercies, as was that Samaritane, casts himself down at the feet of his blessed God and Saviour, as both job and the Samaritane did, job. 1. 20. Luke 17. 15, 16. So in all ordinary occasions of laying open our vileness, of acknowledging of God's undeserved love unto us, or of soing and begging for pardon of sin, and relief in our necessities; prostration upon the knees is a sitting and beseeming gesture. Standing is a gesture fit for confession of our faith. Lastly, sitting is a gesture sitting to God's worship for meditation. And this discretion I find (says 
c Disp. Pag. 2.  the disputer) observed by the Church of England, as may appear by the directions to this purpose in the Communion book. Thus in several services of God, there is a convenient use of some gestures before other, as it is on both sides confessed. Yea, I will add one point more, that it seems not so fit, that occasional worship should command the kind of gesture from the main worship in hand, but rather that the main worship have a gesture answerable to itself. And this is the second rule.   

The third, and last rule of Gestures.  
Sect. 8 ALbeit there may be precedence of one gesture, (in this or that manner of service) before another, in the point of convenience; yet I do not found in all the holy Bible, that any one or more of all the gestures, is absolutely necessary to any one of all Gods holy worships, or ordinances. The disposition of the mind and heart, the state and condition of the body, the circumstances of the company, time, place, &c. do oftentimes either by necessity, or other allowance, change the bodily gesture unto us. The Scripture is plain in this point, as by induction it may appear.   

Instance of Prayer.  
Sect. 9 PRayer, first, is allowed with standing: when ye stand praying, forgive if ye have aught against any, Mark. 11. 25. So Abraham, and Solomon, and the Publican, &c. stood before the Lord in prayer, Gen. 18. 22, 23. 1 Kings 8. 55. Luke 18. 13. Secondly, It is allowed with sitting: King David went in, and sat before the Lord, and prayed, 2 Sam. 7. 18. Elijah sat down under a ●uniper tree, and prayed. Christ made the people to sit down, and then prayed for a blessing upon the creatures, Mark. 6. 39, 40, 41. So Luke. 24. 30. Thirdly, it is allowed with prostration, both upon the face and knees. jesus fell on his face, and prayed, Mat. 26. 39 jesus kneeled down, and prayed, Luke. 22. 41. So Abraham fell upon his face, and prayed, Gen. 17. 3. Daniel and Stephen kneeled down, and prayed, Daniel. 6. 10. Acts. 7. 60. Thus prayer is allowed in all the absolute gestures.   

Of Thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms.  
Sect. 10 Thanksgiving, even in singing of Psalms, first, is allowed with standing: the Levites were to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even, 1 Chron. 23. 30. Psal. 134. 1. 135. 2. Great multitudes stood before the Throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white Robes, and Palms in their hands, cried with a loud voice, saying; Salvation to our God, &c. Revel. 7. 9, 10. Secondly, it is allowed with sitting: when jesus and his Disciples had sung a Psalm, they went out into the Mount of Olives, Mat. 26. 30. Our brethren at lest will not deny (I suppose) this Psalm to have been sung in the gesture of sitting. Moreover jesus gave thanks, when the company was set down, john. 6. 10. Matth. 15. 35, 36. Thirdly, it is allowed with prostration both upon the face, and knees. The four Beasts, and four and twenty Elders, fell down before the Lamb, and they sung a new song, saying; thou art worthy, &c. Revel. 5. 8, 9 OH come, let us sing with thanksgiving-with Psalms, let us worship and bow down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker, Psal. 95. verse 1, 2, 6. Thus Thanksgiving even in singing of Psalms is allowed in all the absolute gestures.   

Of the exercise of the word.  
Sect. 11 HEaring of the word, first, is allowed with standing: ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, Deut. 29. 10. Ezra opening the book to read in it, (together with other Levites,) distinctly; to give the sense and meaning of it unto the people; all the people stood, Nehemiah. 8. 5, 7, 8. Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee; then Eglon rose up out of his seat, judg. 3. 20. Secondly, it is allowed with sitting: they sit before thee as my people, and hear thy words, but they will not do them, Ezechiel. 33. 31. while some of the Prophets be speaking; others that hear, sit by, 1 Cor. 14. 30.  
Sect. 12 Thirdly, it is allowed with prostration; not only that prostration is effected by the wonderful power of preaching; as the sinner convinced by the powerful preaching of the word, falleth down on his face, and worshippeth God, 1 Cor. 14. 25. but also that the word itself may be lawfully received with an adoring gesture. First the nature of the business doth in sound reason justify this, how can it be impiety to receive upon our knees a message from the God of heaven? And though God speak not immediately; yet he speaks, as if he spoke immediately, and is altogether as much present. Secondly Scripture is clear for bowing both of the head, and body, in hearing of God's word. Aaron spoke the word of the Lord to the children of Israel, and when they heard it, they bowed their heads and worshipped, Exod. 4. 30, 31. Moses called the Elders of Israel, and taught them the word of the Lord, than the people bowed the head, and worshipped, Exod. 12. 21, 27. jehaziel spoke the word of the Lord to jehesaphat, and all judah, than jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all judah, and the inhabitants of jerusalem fell before the Lord worshipping, 2 Chron. 20. 14. 18. When the Apostles heard that voice, (this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him) they fell upon their faces, Mat: 17. 6. One came unto Christ, and kneeled upon his knees, whom Christ instructed (as it appeareth) in that gesture, Mark. 10. 17. But Objections are made against these examples, as followeth.  
Sect. 13 First it is excepted against them that they be extraordinary. I answer, (besides that there is only that of the Apostles, which can to our case be justly called extraordinary) if they be such, yet they will prove as much as I desire; namely, that it is not in itself unlawful to hear God speaking unto us in the gesture of kneeling: but then Abraham's extraordinary example shall allow us for kill our-childrens. I answer, extraordinary examples be either contrary to the rule expressed, or according to it; from those to these it is absurd to reason: And you can show no expressed commandment, or absolute rule for the gesture of hearing, whereunto these examples be contrary. Secondly, again it is objected, that the adoration mentioned in these examples was performed when the word was spoken, not in the act of speaking. I answer, if it were so, yet so long as it was done by occasion of the word, it is enough for my purpose, if adoration may be used when the word is delivered in the end of the action for the words sake, why may it not (out of the case of scandal) be used in the beginning, or middle also? But except it be given you, it cannot be proved, that the bowing and worshipping was used in these examples, after the word was heard, and not also in some time of hearing it. And some of you confess on this manner, When they received the law of the Passever, they bowed the head, and worshipped, Exod. 12. 27. yet they did not so in the eating of it; they were more reverend and devout in hearing the law of it out of the mouth of Moses, then in the participation of ●●. 
e Perth. Assemb. pag 45.  In which words do you not compare the act of hearing, with the act of receiving, in that allowing there was adoration, in this denying? Now of adoration denied in the Passover it is to be spoken in due time; here it is confessed in the exercise of the word, and I seek no further in this place. Thirdly, it is objected, that all adoration mentioned in these examples is not kneeling. I answer, the Ruler at our Saviour's instruction was upon his knees: the Apostles, and jeboshaphat with his company fell upon their faces: The Israelites, which heard first Aaron, and then Moses, are said only to bow their heads, worshipping: but so long as they adored, it serves my turn; for who will grant adoration lawful in the time of hearing, and yet contend about the degree? especially, when from any one form of personal adoration, used among the jews, we may conclude with equal pertinency, and strength to any one used amongst us, so we must remember the true rule of the disputer mentioned before, Sect. 2. and so much for testimonies.  
Sect. 14 Thirdly, and lastly, where women kneel in their seats, (I say kneel, not only sit, but oftentimes plainly kneel) in the time of Sermon, who of you was ever heard to tax them for so doing? but than you will say, they kneel for their 
* Will you allow them to kneel at Sacrament for their case-sake also?  case-sake only: I answer, if you speak of a needful & lawful case, (and not of laziness, and mere satisfaction of the flesh; which surely you cannot always accuse our women of, when they kneel in Sermon time) it is sufficient to quit the gesture of kneeling in the exercise of the word from being damnable in itself: for out of doubt that gesture wherein a man or woman (without offence) can most comfortably 
* In this case kneeling is a gesture of general worship only.  serve God, is a fit gesture of the worship in hand; because it is nor used by godly persons merely for case, but respectively to the worship; that God (the body being eased) may be served of them the better. And this liberty was never condemned in any age, that I can tell of from the beginning. But let me ask you a question; suppose 
* In this case kneeling is a gesture of special worship or adoration.  that women (who may kneel in our assemblies without offence) do by their kneeling secretly in themselves intent (according as the word working in their hearts gives them occasion) to adore; will you say, that this adoration of theirs is unlawful: I am persuaded you will not say so, whiles the Lord is God, worthy to be worshipped, when he uttereth his voice and will to us in his Sanctuary. Then hence, and our of that which hath been said before, it followeth, that the gesture of kneeling, or other manner of adoration, is lawful in itself, in the act of hearing God's word read or preached. And thus hearing of the word is allowed in all the absolute gestures.   

Of Sacrifice.  
Sect. 15 Offering of sacrifice in the law first was allowed with standing: Every Priest standeth daily ministering and offering, Heb. 10. 11. Aaron offering incense, stood between the living and the dead, Numb 16. 47, 48. The Priests could not stand to minister by season of the cloud, 2 Chron. 5. 14. Their office was to stand before the Lord, and the congregation to minister both to the Lord, and to them, Deut. 10. 8. Numb. 16 9 But to be plain, I do confess, that the Priests employments and businesses did often require of them standing and walking. But was it lawful for the people to stand in the time of sacrificing? It was so: When the Priests and people were ministering, and offering, the gesture of all the congregation of Israel was standing, 2 Chron. 5. 14. chap. 6. 3. Also a Chron. 7. 4, 5, 6. You burn incense to Baal, offer meate-offerings to the Queen of heaven, and pour out drinke-offerings unto other gods, and will you then come, and stand before me in this house, (namely to offer sacrifice unto me?) jeremy. 7. 9, 10, 18, 21. Secondly, 
f 1 Sam. 9, 11, 22 Nehem. 8. 17. speaks not of sitting in the act of offering, which is the point in hand, but of eating only.  Offering of sacrifice was allowed with sitting: all the children of Israel came into the house of God, and sat before the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, judg. 20▪ 26. Thirdly, offering of sacrifice was allowed with the humble gestures of the body, both of inclination and falling down: Abraham going to offer his son said unto his servants, Abide you here with the Ass, and I and the ●ad will go yonder, and bow down, Gen. 22. 5. Thou shalt set thy offering before the Lord thy God, and bow down before the Lord thy God, Deut. 26. 10. Elkanah went yearly to bow down, and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh, 1 Sam. 1. 3. Bring an offering, and come before the Lord, bow down to him in the beauty of holiness, 1 Chron. 16. 29. 
f In these four first places our translation reads worship, for to bow down; but it is well known that the Hebrew word H●shtachvah signifies an express humble adoring worship of the body, and is, if not the only, yet the principal word which the jews had ●o signify prostration upon the face: (plura apud Habreos ho●o● is exhibendi verba sum, hoc vero totius cerporis prostrationem in terram significat, ex more ●●lentalium: Euxiorf lex Heb in Shachah) I or better evidence of this, see the translations of the Septu●gint, Tremel●us, and Moutanus. The Septuagint, is Proskune●●, which word in the new Testament is evidently used for kneeling or falling down, (and so granted by the Replyer, Repl. tar●ic. to Bp Mort. pag. 46.) he that pleaseth may see, (Mat 2. 11. 8. 29 18. 14. 13. 15. 25. 18. 26. 20. 20. 28 9 Mark: 5. 6. 15 19 Luke. 4. 7. john 9 38. Acts. 10. 25. 1 C●r 14 25 Hebr. 11. 21. Revel. 3. 9 4. 10. 5. 14. 7. 11. 11. 16. 19 verse 4, 10 21. 8.) Tremelius and Montanus do commonly translate the word by the Latin, In●urvare, and Montanus of purpose often puts Pagnines, Adorare, into his margin, and In●urvare into the place of it And if at any time this word be put procultu divinno, more largely, than it is by a Synechdeche: so jun. in Zechar. 14. 16. Therefore the proper signification hereof is bowing down or prostrating the body. Neither do these translatours allow any figure in the Scriptures which I have quoted: (Gen 22 Deut. 26. 1 Sam. 1. CITIZEN Chron. 16.) Nor is there good reason thereof, so long as with worshipping or adoring, the particular service of sacrificing is mentioned. And moreover, that we may see the force of the Hebrew word, let us further observe the same in the ordinary use of Scripture, even as it is rendered in our translation. Abraham bowed himself toward the ground. Gen 18. 2. Lot bowed himself with his sae●e to the ground, Gen 19 1. Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the Land, Gen. 23 12. Abraham's servant worshipped the Lord to the earth, Gen. 24. 52. Let Nations bow down to thee, let thy Mother's sons bow down to thee, Gen. 27. 29. When Esa● met him jacob bowed himself to the ground seven times, so the women and child en bowed themselves, Gen 33 3. 6: 7. joseph's brethren bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth, Gen. 42 6. 43. 26. And (for it is superfluous to mention any more places) thus the word is commonly used in the old Testament. Wherefore I dare say that my former quotations do prove, that adoring gestures were allowed in sacrificing.   
I will add 2 Chron. 29. where Hezechiah and the congregation are said to bow themselves down three several times, when they were offering sacrifices: verse. 28, 29, 30. Also Mica. 6. where the Prophet thus speaketh : Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, & c? verse 6. The Kings of Tarshish, and of the Isles shall bring presents, the Kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts, yea all Kings shall fall down before him, Psal. 72. 10, 11. When the fire consumed the burnt offering, (which was the principal instant in the circumstance of time, about all the business of the offering) all the people fell upon their faces, Levit. 9 24. The Prince shall stand by the post of the gate, and the Priests shall prepare his offerings, than he shall worship or bow down at the threshold of the gate, Ezech. 46. 2. The wise men fell down before the child jesus, and worshipped him, and presented unto him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Matth. 2. 11. The four Beasts, and four and twenty Elders fell down before the Lamb, having golden Vials, full of odours or incense, Revel. 5. 8. And thus much of humble adoration in sacrificing and offering. And thus then offering of sacrifice was allowed in all the absolute gestures.   

Of Circumcision.  
Sect. 17 NOw we will come lastly to the Sacraments; And first unto Circumcision, and that is allowed in what gesture soever the people of God thought fit to have it used with all. Concerning the gesture of children of eight days old, it were but childish to speak, when there is not so much as one syllable of direct on in all the Bible, either by rule or example, either expressing or importing, what gesture they which were at man's estate, and yet uncircumcised, should use in the act of Circumcision; though (if some special gesture had been necessary) God would probably have told Abraham of it, Gen. 17. both when Circumcision was instituted, as also when it was first of all to be received by men of years, especially, when the thing itself (for aught I conceive) might be performed in standing, sitting, or prostration: whether they kneeled or not, as it cannot be affirmed, so neither can it be denied. But this is the only certain thing concerning the gesture of Circumcision, that God spoke nothing in his word at all to his people of it; and therefore could not any gesture in that Sacrament in itself be unlawful and sinful unto them.   

Of Baptism.  
Sect. 18 FRom Circumcision we will descend to Baptism, which succeeds in the place of it. And verily God hath prescribed no more about the gesture of Baptism, than he did before concerning Circumcision. The new Testament says of some, They went into the water, and then being baptised came up out of the water again: whereof may be gathered, that it is a thousand to one, they did not sit in the time of Baptism; and inasmuch as they were immersed, head and body within the water, [where of Tertullian, nos pisculi secundum ikthun nostrum Iesu● Christumin aqua nascimur: lib. de Baptism. it is most likely they kneeled down: for standing would not be so fit for immersion of the body, except they went deep into the water, which is not to be imagined: howsoever it was not lawful to kneel in the act of baptising; the same being joined with confession of sins, (as Matth. 3 6.) and calling on the name of the Lord, Acts. 22. 16. Nay because Baptism is a real homage done unto our Lord, a yielding up ourselves to become his subjects, servants, soldiers; not only humble adoration at that time may very well beseem us, but also in this respect it is truly said, that Baptismus est maior adoratione, (Athanas. Serm. prim. Dialogist. contra Macedonianum:) for what adoration can be so great, as that same homage, worship, and subjection, which the only receiving of Baptism professeth, the due receiving performeth? But what need I make this remonstrance; there is nothing more certain, then that the gesture of the Scripture-examples of Baptism is altogether uncertain. Therefore whiles God commands no gesture, commends no gesture, dispraiseth no gesture in the act of baptising, there cannot be either necessity, or impiety, in standing, sitting, or kneeling; in themselves I mean, as if the nature of Baptism did simply either require, or refuse, either the one or the other. And now I will pass to the Passeover.   

Of the Passeover.  
Sect. 18 ANd in the Passeover, first two things there are which seem to make for standing: first, the Priests are said to stand in ministering, during the feast of the Passeover, 2 Chron. 30. 16. 35. 5, 10. Secondly, there is a strong probability of standing implied in that law. Thus shall ye eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staff in your hand, and ye shall eat it in haste; It is the Lords Passeover, Exod. 12. 11. Secondly, for sitting: jesus and his Disciples sat down at the Passeover, Mat. 26. 19, 20. Our brethren at lest will take this for a certain example of sitting. Thirdly, for humble adoring, and prostrating of the body, that perhaps may be referred hither, in john. 12. 20. and which is showed before in offering of sacrifice. But because I am resolved to rest in no uncertainties, or half proofs, I will take another view of the gestures of the Passeover again, and of the proofs which we have mentioned unto them severally. First, for standing at the Passeover, the practice of the Priests was no pattern for the children of Israel; for their standing was occasionally necessary for their attendance, and ministry about the Passeover itself, and the Passeover-offerings. And for that commandment, Exod. 12. 11. besides that no gesture is expressed, it is only meant of the Passeover in Egypt, before the people were gotten out thence, and not of their Passovers in the land of Canaan. And I think herein there will be no great controversy with 
g See Trem in Exod. 12 11 Bez in Mat. 26. Seal. de emendat temp lib. 6 pag. 534. Park. of the Cross, chap. 1. Sect. 20. Perth. Assemb. pag. 35.  you. Secondly, for sitting, let it be, that our Saviour, and his Disciples sat at the Passeover, what was that to the direction of any jew for the gesture of sitting, for the space of above fifteen hundred years together before that time? nay Christ's sitting was not useful unto the jews at all, who is never said to sit at the Passeover, till that time when he did quite and for ever abolish the use of it: So to them it was unlawful to eat a Passeover any more after this, which our Saviour is said to have celebrated in sitting. Thirdly, for prostration let it be, that the Scripture yields no particular instance of it, in the act of eating the Lamb; what followeth of all this? verily thus much; that the jews from the time that the Passeover was instituted, to the time that it was abolished, had no commandment, no example, no mention of any gesture in the Passeover but that of their Priests, which concerned them not, but was proper only to themselves, because of their office of Priesthood. Therefore if a jew had kneeled at Passeover, should he have sinned, (out of the case of scandal?) what commandment had he broken? what example could he have been reproved, or checked by? what place in all the old Testament did ever commend or condemn standing, or sitting, or prostration at the Passeover, either simply or comparatively? Nay, look upon the Law or ordinance of the Passeover, Exodus. 12. 43. &c. and you found not one word of the gesture. And in Numbers, 9 thus the LORD speaketh. The Passe-ouer shall be kept according to the Ordinance of it, and according to the manner of it, and according to all the Rites of it, and according to all the Ceremonies of it, Vers. 3. 14. And yet behold neither in that place, nor in any other, is there any thing appointed about the gesture. And so much of the Passeover; and of the Sacraments. And thus appeareth, that Circumcision, Baptism, and the Passeover, be not disallowed in any absolute gesture.   

An Observation added of all Divine worship under the Gospel.  
Sect. 20 YEt the Supper of the Lord is not mentioned; but that I reserve to it own special place. Notwithstanding, because Kneeling thereat is the gesture in Controversy, I will point at one general consideration of kneeling here, both concerning the Supper, and all the Divine worship of GOD under the Gospel. Namely, that GOD in the holy Scripture sometimes puts kneeling for all the worship of the Gospel, Psal. 72 9 11. 86. 9 Isa. 66. 23. 45. 23. Now it is true it doth not follow, that kneeling is the only gesture of Evangelicall worship therefore, but because kneeling is put (by a Synecdoche) for all expressions of outward worship, it seems strange, that any worship under the Gospel should abhor (in it very nature) from it, as if that gesture could not without impiety be thereunto applied. And this passage seems not unworthy consideration. Thus much of the liberty of Kneeling and of all other absolute gestures in the solemn, and public ordinances of Religion.  
Sect 21 For appendent gestures, as lifting or not lifting up of the eyes, lifting or not lifting up of the hands, leaning or not leaning, smiting on the breast or not smiting, &c. all men do hold surely, that a Christian may use them, or not use them (out of scandal) according to his inward, and outward occasion. This liberty is undoubted and unquestionable by authority of the Word, as (if it were needful) I might show in the whole farthel of lesser gestures. And hitherto be spoken in general of the bodily gestures.    

CHAP. 2. Of the manner how the Word directeth in gestures.  
Sect. 1 NExt let us examine, how things may be said to be according to God's word. God's word directeth for truth and falsehood; or for good, and evil. To this latter sort be referred all actions humane, which either aught, or aught not to be done; wherein Gods will is known by direction, either express or employed. Express is twofold; first, express commandment. Secondly, 
* Example is no opposite member but subordinate here, as I show after Sect. 6; only I take to this method, for better ordening my brethren's arguments in the is example.  express example. Implied also is twofold; 1. The light of Nature, which the word establisheth. Secondly, soured collections or inferences of good reason grounded upon the Scripture of truth. particular controversy of kneeling at Sacrament, one principal whereof  
Sect. 2 Of all these ways of direction in the Word, there is a general proposition laid down 
h Abridg pag. 44. ; that [That is condemned by the Word, not only, which is done against the warrant thereof, but that also which is done besides it.] Now by [warrant] the Ministers understand both the warrant of commandment, and the warrant of good example, and the warrant of nature, and also the warrant of collection, and consequence out of general grounds and rules.  
This last appeareth in the place of the abridgement, where the proposition is laid down; for the Minister's intent in bringing in such a proposition there, is to show, that no Ceremonies should be imposed and used, but which are according to the general rules of the Word. What then shall be said to the Proposition? Surely it is either very senseless, or very false, as thus appeareth.  
Sect. 3 First, if there be not one action (befalling in the life of man) but it is (though not in itself always, as things indifferent, yet to the doer always) either against, or according to God's word, at lest in respect of general grounds, and rules (as who can doubt this?) then are not the members of this distinction [Against, and besides] opposite; for that which is called [besides] is always either according to, or contrary.  
If neither commandment, example, nature, nor sound deduction doth make an action warrantable unto us, is not every such action forbidden by the word of faith undoubtedly, though it be not forbidden expressly? then this [besides] is just contrary. If neither commandment, example, nature, nor sound deduction doth condemn, and reprove an action unto us, is not every such action allowed by the word of grace undoubtedly, though it be not required expressly? and then [besides] the word is just according unto it.  
Sect. 4 Secondly the Ministers (I take it) will say, that that is besides the word, which in itself is neither required nor forbidden; then look upon your proposition. The word condemneth, what it neither requireth, nor forbiddeth. Divines (I confess) use the distinction of [besides and against the word] but your proposition they use not. They which say, that, that is besides the word, which is not forbidden, will hardly say (and speak wisely) that the word forbids that, which is besides it. Moreover, yourselves allow many things besides the word (as in the next chapter I will show, and you must allow them, whether you will or not; and how can they escape (I pray) the doom of your own proposition? you stand upon a negative argument from the scripture; nothing is to be done in God's worship, which himself requireth not. If you mean by [requireth] either simply commandeth, or generally alloweth, I assent willingly as to a sacred and impregnable truth; but otherwise I deny, in as much as Gods will directs us aswell for liberty of actions, as for the necessity of them. A Christian hath a liberty in the law, aswell as in the Gospel, this is from the servitude of something which did oppress us; but that is a liberty of actions in utramque partem; when of several things proposed I may lawfully do either one or other. And this I assume by inference of the word either in respect of its silence in such things, or speech without peremptory commandment; (nature and reason also, simply not prohibiting, or enjoining.) But that I may not relinquish my purpose, let us see, how Gods will is to be conceived of us for the bodily gestures.  

Of God's Commandment in Gestures.  
Sect. 5 FIrst. what is God's commandment for gestures in his worship? verily none at all, absolute and express. For either there is nothing said of gestures in some ordinances, or nothing by way of commandment, or if there be any commandment, it is determined upon the limitation of circumstances, inasmuch as the said ordinances may be used in other gestures 
i As is to be see no before ch. 1 of the third rule of gestures.  upon occasion. I will give an instance; if any gesture be commanded in any worship, in all the holy Scripture, it is kneeling in prayer. 
k The Abridg. says kneeling is commanded of God in prayer. Pag. 42.  The only general commandment of it (I suppose) is Psal. 95. 6. Which yet indeed is rather an exhortation, than a commandment; but let it be a plain commandment, as it hath th● force of one, and seems to be an universal direction for solemn acts of prayer and thanksgiving; will any body say now, that it absolutely binds the conscience, so as in public solemn thanksgivings it is a sin not to kneel always therefore? the Ministers be fare from this mind, who 
l Abridgem. Pag. 67.  say, That it is evident by Scripture, that kneeling is not the fittest gesture to be used in thanksgiving. Wherefore commandments of gestures in prayer, and other services much more, be limited to occasion; for like occasion ever happeneth not, and the judgement of such occasion is varied according to circumstances of ability, company, time, place, edification. Well there is no express and absolute commandment of any one gesture.   

Of good examples of Gestures.  
Sect. 6 COme we to examples; and when the holy Ghost pleaseth to commend the same, upon like occasion they may lawfully be imitated of us. Now whether they bind to a necessity, or warrant only to liberty, there is the question in hand. And I would define in this manner. Examples bind to a necessity, if they be of main and substantial duties; but then there is express commandment, or light of nature, or certain inference of good reason, of literal evidence, or unchangeable equity, whereupon they be grounded. In these cases they bind to a necessity of imitation: yet in truth, not they so much, as the other infallible directions, which they serve but to illustrate; and when the Scripture stirs us up to follow the steps of good men; it is but either that we might be drawn to the rule by them, as Augustine was by the Church; or else that their lives should be as real and visible commentaries of the law, for help of our ignorance; or lastly, that they might work upon our affections only, and so to be not rules, but motives for instigation of our dulness.  
Sect. 7 But of examples of circumstantial matters, and actions, I say otherwise. I will mention to my purpose the gestures. Examples of them bind us not to necessity; but declare our liberty only; even the actions of our Saviour Christ of that sort not excepted And this I prove these reasons.  
Sect. 8 First, because God's directions concerning gestures, admit of liberty and variety throughout the Bible. If I be generally left at liberty by the terms and tenor of the law, there is small reason that certain precedents should bind my conscience upon pain of damnation.  
Sect. 9 Secondly, because there is a mixed, and interchangeable use of example-gestures in God's service; as may appear by our Saviour Christ, and holy men, and women of old; who stood in the same worship sometimes, sat sometimes, kneeled sometimes, and so forth indifferently. And if you read of our Saviour sitting at Passeover but once, David sitting at prayer but once, &c. that takes not away the mixed use of gestures, but only shows, what one man did one time, another man another time upon occasion. So Historians must mention singular passages & occurrences, as the history (which they describe) leads them unto it.  
Sect. 10 Thirdly, if examples of gestures should bind us to necessity of imitation, how were we enthralled to obedience of impossibility, absurdity, and contradiction? Impossibility. For when examples of diverse gestures be proposed unto us in the same holy ordinance, who can possibly imitate them all at once? Absurdity; for where the Publican would not lift up his eyes, out smote himself upon the breast; Hezechiah being sick, turned to the wall, wept and prayed; must not dejected people look up to heaven now in confession, and prayer? Must they of necessity smite upon their breasts in confession, and prayer? are sick people bound to turn toward a wall in weeping and praying? Contradiction; for if one gesture be necessary, then cannot another be necessary in the same case. Add unto these, a miserable bondage inferred in all exemplary circumstances; wherein yet if our brethren grant unto us, and take to themselves liberty at pleasure, as in time, place, all gestures in some cases; can they pled prescription, in some singular example only, as they list themselves? Especially when the Scripture enjoining imitation of good men, speaks always of substantial duties, and not circumstances. Only they include some circumstances, and gestures, when they think good, secluding, and excepting others again at their own pleasure. And yet there is no sound reason betwixt that which is included, and excluded; but that the law of imitation should press all special gestures in Gods solemn worship or none. So much for example, and for Gods will expressed concerning gestures.   

Of Natural light in Gestures.  
Sect. 11 Employed direction is either light of Nature, or clearness of reason; for where express direction is wanting, sometimes nature itself teacheth. 1. Cor. 11. 14. sometimes reason itself convinceth. First, Nature hath no doubt respect in gestures, because they be natural gestures. Hereof I propose three points.  
Sect. 12 First, Gestures must not be put to other use then 
m Treatise of Diu. wor. pag. 13.  as nature hath fitted them. But how ridiculous is it to say, that Nature hath not fitted kneeling to worship God in any of his Ordinances, as the Author of 
n Ibid.  the Treatise of Divine worship affirmeth. When indeed Nature speaks for gesture so much, as for kneeling in this case of worshipping; but the nature that he speaks of, is not the created aptness and fitness of the gesture itself, but a certain decorum only grounded upon the fashions and manners of men in civil matters. We shall speak thereof particularly afterwards.  
Sect. 13 Secondly, though gestures were never commanded by the written Word, yet are they 
o To this purpose, Treat. of Diu. wor pa. 30  Not to be esteemed humane inventions, but God's ordinances, because they be Natural circumstances of worship. I pray let this truth be remembered full well. ☞  
Sect. 14 Thirdly, Heathen men by the light of Nature have used, and applied all manner of gestures to the exercise of their religions. I need to name no other service of theirs, than their sacrificing. And for standing and kneeling thereat, I suppose it will be superfluous to sand you to the Historians, when they describe the Gentiles usually to offer not only Beasts, but Bread, Wine, Oil, Honey, Cakes, &c. in false worship in those gestures; only fitting may see me to be doubtful here, and yet, even that 
p Mat●ob. salut. lib. 3. cap. 16.  was commonly used at the Sacrifices of Hercules.   

Lastly, of good Collections, or inferences for direction in gestures.  
Sect. 15 GOod collection enforceth no singular gesture absolutely, bu● so, as though it may provoke us to use some special gesture one time, it may some other time as effectually provoke us to use another. There seem to be four points, or rules in God's word, inferring for the general choice of gestures. First, they must be used in good order, and 
q 1. Cor. 14. 40  not out of order. Secondly, they must be decent, 
r Ibid.  not unbeseeming the worship, or worshipper. Thirdly, they must stand with peace, 
s Vers. 33.  and not Schismatically make a rent in the Churches. Fourthly and lastly, they must serve for edification 
t Verse 26.  and not be scandalous, to hurt another man's conscience.  
Sect. 16 Now for better understanding of these, I propose two cautions. As first, it is a difficult piece of business to judge, and practise the choicest gestures always for order, decency, peace, and edification. Sometimes diverse gestures may off●r themselves in equal balancing in the scales, sometimes one may be weighed down by his fellows; yet is it not to be esteemed a damnable gesture in such case, if there be any good (though less) measure of order, comeliness, peace & edification to be discerned in it.  
Sect. 17 Secondly, it is worthy to be marked, that order, decency, peace, and edification sometimes do well consent together, and sometimes cannot agreed; for both, that, which is orderly, and decent may be schismatical, and scandalous as the world judgeth; and also, that which is both disorderly, and uncomely may stand with peace, and be used without offence. But what must be done in such case. I answer first, we must respect the duty of Nature, that is, of order, and comeliness. Secondly, our eye must be upon the body of the Church for conservation of public peace. Thirdly, edification is last, which respecteth but private members; especially, when the gesture for it own nature is commendably applied; besides in some measure is orderly, and decent; and finally the offence taken thereat hurteth no man's soul in the fundamental respects of its welfare.    

CHAP. 3. Of things indifferent, and of Divine worship.  
Sect. 1 THirdly, I would say a word upon things indifferent, and of divine worship. Of things indifferent I lay down this ground; that they be such, and they only, which Gods word hath left free unto us, without appointment, or prohibition. Now indifferent things, or actions be of two sorts; some be indifferent in their nature; as all gestures are no man will deny: some indifferent in their use, and so gestures have a double consideration, first in the election, and choice of them to be made. Secondly, in adoring, or worshipping, when the choice is made, and they be applied. In the former sense, namely before, or for the choice of them, they may be indifferent: but not in the latter sense, that is in the very service of God itself, in the very time, and act of performance.  
Sect. 2 For the indifferency of them in choice the Ministers confess enough for my purpose. I will deliver their mind in their own words, as followeth. Christ 
u Reply general to Bishop Mort chap. 1. Sect. 5.  hath left unto his Church to dispose of such circumstances, as in their kind are necessary, but in particular determination do vn●●, as time, plaece, appointing of what Psalms to be sung, and such like circumstances of order, and comeliness, equally necessary, in civil and religious actions. And that it may appear, this replyer doth not deny gestures to be in the nature of such circumstances, he speaks this by occasion of interpreting of Caluin, and allows his saying and meaning to be only good; and yet if 
* Calu. In●t●t. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 30.  Calvin be looked into, it will be found, that he gives instance in geniculation, or kneeling in prayer. Again, another saith, 
x Treatise of Diu. worship. pag. 12.  In natural ceremonies, that is in gestures, there must be concurrence both of nature and will in the framing and use of them, and therefore are such, as may upon some special or particular occasion be omitted or suppressed. And this speech he intendeth and applieth to God's worship, as will appear by that which goes before and after to him which compareth. Especially, it being a rule among them, that natural and civil things, being used to God's worship, lose not their natural or civil properties. Again, 
* Manuscrip. chap. 2.  one gesture may be left in the Sacrament, and likewise in prayer, and another used instead of it, because sitting at Sacrament, and kneeling at prayer be but of an indifferent nature. Again, another saith, 
y Disp. pag. 47.  There be circumstances in our actions of an arbitrary, and indifferent nature (in God's worship he means) such as for use or disuse are left to discretion. So there be some personal, which determine in the person which useth them? some national, which are not common to all countries and times, but proper to the several nations and ages; wherein they received their birth, or allowance: and he speaks this of gesture purposely, as in the place quoted it will appear.  
Sect. 3 And if these general places were not clear enough, let their own practice help us out in this business; who do not only choose for themselves in God's worship the times, places, order, &c. which we all know; but even in gestures hold themselves unquestionably vnbound, as by their sitting, or standing at Table-blessing; by their standing or kneeling at prayer; by lifting, or, not lifting up their hands or eyes, and such like; it plainly appeareth. Will not outward gestures now be one sort of their variable circumstances? and so consequently in themselves, actions indifferent.  
Sect. 4 But let us observe, what notes they describe their circumstances of order by, to distinguish them from unlawful ceremonies. First, (they say) They be necessary in their kind, but according to particular determination they may be varied. Well. And is this note truer of any thing then of gestures, which be simply necessary to God's public worship, but the kind of gesture may be determined diversely, as themselves (out of the point of controversy) acknowledge as much as we?  
Sect. 5 Secondly, They be equally necessary (say they) in civil and religious actions; And such themselves do confess 
Treat. of diu. wor. 15.  the gesture even of kneeling to be. And this thing indeed is plainer, then that it stands in need of their testimony.  
Sect. 6 Thirdly, Lawful circumstances must be ordered by man (say they) not invented. But who was ever heard to say, that gestures were man's inventions, who had any spark of common light in him? 
* B Mort. Def. general, Ch. 4 Sect. 21.  When Bishop Morton had charged upon the Ministers, that by their own reason against the ceremonies; they condemned their own circumstances of order and decency; for what act is there of gesture (saith he) or any circumstance of worship: which may not be accused in like manner? The Replyer 
* Reply general to B. Mort. Ch. 4. Sect. 21.  answereth, that he doth all, to reason from Ceremonies devised by man, and of no necessary use, to those circumstances which are necessary in their kind, neither are mere inventions of man. Giving the gestures (whereof the instance was made) evidently to be such.  
Sect. 7 Fourthly, Another note they make is order, decency, &c. Such, as gestures most certainly have, or else there is no order▪ decency, &c. to be sound in God's solemn worship which cannot be performed without them. And if there be any other note besides, I assure myself the circumstance of gesture is capable thereof, which I refer to consideration. As for the Treatise 
a Printed 1605. by M. B  which is written Of th●ngs indifferent, there is nothing in it of any force against th● gestures, more than against eating, and drinking: so that, in a word, it cannot be denied, that gestures be acts indifferent in regard of our liberty for determining upon the election of them, as stands with convenience, and edification.  
Sect. 8 Indeed when the gesture is once actually set on work in God's worship, it is then by no means indifferent, but an holy or religious act, knit with, and subordinate unto the souls in devotion God's necessary service. And hereby seems to be answered that loud, and common outcry in every place, that there is nothing indifferent in God's service, and if we could not answer it; yet they themselves are as much in allowing of sundry things indifferent in Gods solemn worship, as we are.  

2. Of Divine Worship.  
Sect. 9 NExt, because we are to speak of worship also, it much concerns us to be well acquainted with the nature of it. Worship then in general is nothing else: but honour done unto another. Divine worship is when God's honour is done either to God himself, to whom, it should be done; or to some other thing; to which it should not. True worship of God is either largely taken, or with restraint. In the largest exception of it, whatsoever is done with respect to God according to his will we may call his true worship; but in stricter sense (and that also which is more common) the word is referred only to acts and exercises of religion. Thus it is restrained and used altogether in this present discourse.  
Sect. 10 Now of holy worship, this is an impregnable, and eternal truth, that it immediately respecteth God himself, and is likewise incommunicable, 
b Ma● 4 10.  both to distinguish from unlawful Image-worship; 
c 〈◊〉, 42. 8.  and besides, from the lawful reverence of holy things, 
d Leu 19 30.  which is not called worship, but veneration. And it worship be only and immediately to be performed to the Lord, it is most undoubted, 
e Mica. 6. vers. ●. 7. 8.  that he only can teach, and authorize, the due, and lawful both matter and manner.  
Sect. 11 Moreover, this religious worship of GOD is twofold; Material, and personal. I mean by material, God's spiritual Ordinances; as Prayer, Baptism, &c. which we commonly call worships; because, worshipping consisteth in the use of them. Personal; worship is that which is performed unto God in the use of Worship-ordinances, by them, that be worshipping; and that again is either principal; that is, the inward worship of God, performed by the principal part of man; or secondly, Subordinate, and inferior; that is, the outward worship of the body, which, when it is used in it 
* See Chap. 1. Sect. 5. before.  special sense, is termed Adoration. And this bodily adoration, is either implicit, or expressed. Implicit I mean, when the body, guided by the soul attends to God's service; although there be intended no special sign of worshipping by the site or positure of it. Expressed adoration is, when some such special gesture is used, which (according to the nature of the service of God in hand) betokeneth worshipping more distinctly. And that again, is either total, or partial. Totall. when the whole body is laid along before the Lord Partial, when some one part, or member by itself adoreth, as when the body is bended, the knee bowed, the hands, or eyes lifted up, &c.  
Sect. 12 Furthermore, worshipping is evermore an yielding unto God of something. And therefore personal worship hath in that respect a double consideration. First, when we yield unto God only ourselves. Secondly, when we also yield unto him the matter, in which the worship consisteth. This latter is again twofold. First, when we offer up to God the whole matter of the worship or service. Secondly, when we minister only some part thereof; the Lord (whom we serve, according to his faithful promise, by grace) answering the residue.  
[I speak not this, as if originally, we, and all we have and do that good is, were not of God, I only call that our doing in God's worship, which proceedeth and passeth from us, by the Lords enabling: our duty to him (by reason of his commandment) also engaging us.] Of the first sort of all, is the exercise of the Word, which (though it be Gods excellent ordinance, yet) is a worship no otherwise, but as we readily submit ourselves to receive the same, in obedience to him, whose word it is, and who reveals, and imparts it unto us. Of the second sort be Prayers, 
f See Perth. Assemb. p. 57  Vows, Sacrifices, singing of Psalms, &c. wherein we do not only offer ourselves to God, but the very matter also, wherein every one of the said Ordinances consisteth. Of the last sort be the Sacraments, the matter whereof is partly yielded, and presented by us, partly received, and dispensed from God, in the very act and instant of participation.  
Sect. 13 Again, God's special worship is either simple or mixed. Simple, when one worship is performed alone. Mixed, when one worship is diffused into another. For so Prayer, Thanksgiving, Vows may be performed by the mind in some other ordinance. And thereof springeth the distinction of main and occasional. Maine, which is the service of purpose taken in hand. Occasional, which is done in relation to the main, for the better performance of it.   

3. Of things indifferent and Divine worship jointly.  
Sect. 14 LAstly, because all external personal Worship standeth in gestures, and that gestures be both indifferent in themselves, and variable in religious exercises, it plainly followeth that the same thing may be both a personal worship, and a mutable 
g I take (Circumstance) in a general sense, as if I said Ceremony. I make no advantage (of th● term▪) call it what you will, it is mutable.  circumstance. And to make this plain we must know, that there be three sorts of things belonging to the service of God. First, some things which be merely and immutably worshipping; and such are the internal acts of the soul. Secondly, 
h Of these Circumstances, which are merely for decency, it is true which the Replyer speaks. There is no judicious Divine that useth to call circumstances of mere order and decency, Worship. Repl. general to B. Mort. chap. 2. Sect. 6. p. 19  some which be merely matters of order, and decency; And such be many civil things needful in God's worship; as Pulpit, Seats, Tablecloth, &c. Thirdly, some be middle things 
i Media participationis.  partaking of both the other, as gestures be; for, knit unto the inward actions of the soul, they be personal worshippings; yet notwithstanding being mutable, and expressions of comeliness, they may be called matters of order, and circumstance.  
And because there is Controversy in this thing, let us further consider of it:  
Sect. 15 Object. 1. 
k Reply general to B. Mort. ch. 2. Sect. 6. p. 20.  Worship is a necessary tribute of the Creature to the Creator, therefore is not in man's choice whether it shall be paid or no. I answer it is so. Personal worship in Prayer is necessary, personal worship in all holy Ordinances of God is necessary; but yet kneeling in prayer is not necessary, kneeling in all holy ordinances is not necessary therefore. And this is a clear case. But than you will say, if we can be satisfied with the necessity of worship, and ourselves choose the manner how to perform it, any indifferent thing may be brought into God's worship: I answer, by no means, because gestures be simple necessary for Gods outward worship in their kind, yea and some particular gesture necessary upon occasion. So gestures are not used by us in God's worship b●cause they be indifferent, but because they be necessary in their kind, necessary upon occasion, though indifferent for the determining of them.  
Sect. 16 Object. 2. 
l Reply general to Bp. Morton, ch. 2. Sect. 6. p. 19  Worship doth not vary according to man● opinion, but consisteth in the nature of the action is self. And what then? The nature of all natural gestures is such, as well aiimes with the nature of every religious worship of God, as I have proved before: so though worship in its spiritual nature, do never vary; yet the expression never is upon occasion not lawfully variable.  
Sect. 17 Object. 3. All worship which is the invention of man is unlawful. I answer, as if gestures were humane inventions, and not God's ordinances. There is nothing in all your books, that proves this; not not in the third Argument of the Abridgement. Nay I will not be so idle to think you would apply 
m These be the proofs of the proposition of the third arg. in the Abridg.  [Exod. 204 Deut. 1232. Isai. 1. 1. 12. Mat. 15. 9 Col. 2. 23] against gestures. Perhaps you will say, that gestures be Gods ordinances, and his worship consists them. but the varying of them may be man's invention. But, this would be objected to no purpose; for God who hath appointed his outward worship to stand in gestures, hath in like manner appointed the variable use of them, as I have sufficiently proved 
n Chap. 1. at the th●rd rule of gestures.  already. Indeed men, may sometime choose a gesture, that may be scandalous, and ill; and so such a particular variation may be unlawful by accident, as a good work may be; but neither gesture, nor variation of gesture doth the word or God simply disallow, but rather the contrary.  
Sect. 18 Now to make it more manifest, that gestures be both personal worship, and yet variable circumstances, I open in this manner. First, there is ●o note, either of circumstance of order, or of matter of worshipping, but the gestures be capable of it. The notes of circumstances may be examined 
o Sect 4. &c.  before. And for worshipping, gestures cannot be denied: for they be personal worships, or else God hath no outward worship performed.  
Sect. 19 Secondly, look into God● law, whereby he requireth his people to worship him with all their strength, even of their bodies; and behold there is no where to be found an absolute restr●in● of gestures, though outword worship necessarily stand in them: whereby appeareth, that the law of worshipping gives liberty for the expression of worship, (asoccasion is,) so long as God's necessary worship be performed by the body, and bodily gesture. And let my third rule of gestures (Chap. 1) serve to satisfy in this point; for if outward worship stand in gestures, it is clear as the Sun shineth, that outward worship may be variously expressed as occasion requireth.  
Sect. 20 Thirdly, you say, that 
p Treat of div. wor. pag. 6, 7, 8  outward worship is expression of inward, by signs, and vetes, which you call Ceremonies, and natural Ceremonies (you say) be gesturest And these gestures being personal outward worship (you 
q Ibid pag. 11.  say) must needs be varied. Again, You 
r Ibid pag. 16.  say, that Comeliness and decency may be safely reputed parts of divine worship. And can you then offirme, that worship gesture may not be changed and varied? Are you content to say that the comeliness and decency, although of mere circumstances, than which nothing is more variable, be parts of worship, and yet can deny that personal worship is variable in gestures, which are far more than mere circumstances? Perhaps you will say, decency and comeliness is one, and never varieth. I answer, so personal worship is one in divers gestures: but as although comeliness becomelinesse still, yet the circumstances may be changed, from which, applied to holy duties, comeliness doth arise: so worship is worship still, though the gestures be varied, whereby it is expressed.  
Sect. 21 Fourthly, Let Mr. Calvin give his sentence in this question: Kneeling (saith 
s Calu. Instit. lib. 4 cap 10. Sect. 30.  he) in prayer, (which is God's special worship) is a part of the Apostles decency: so that gestures (according to this testimony) may be called matters of order and decency, as well as gestures of worship.  
Sect. 22 Fifthly, and lastly, what saith your own practice to this point? Do not you use several gestures at several times in the very same ordinance of set, and solemn prayer? who knows it not? well, and is one of your gestures a personal worship, and not the other? so you might bring us into a maze, and turn all reasoning into Quodlibets: better is the judgement of the author of the Manuser. who speaks in this 
Manuseriag. kneel. ch. 2.  manner: The gesture of kneeling in prayer, though it be the best and fittest gesture of all other, yet (when it pnooveth inconnenient) may be lawfully changed into standing: because standing is a gesture of the same kind, and fit to express our reverence and hamiligy towards God. Well then, it kneeling be a personal worship, so is standing also. And so personal worship may be expressed in gestures, though they be variable circumstances But what do I spend so many words in such an easy case? let the judgement be now unto the godly Reader.  
And so much for the first part of this treatise, which shall serve for a general introduction to that which followeth. Now therefore (by God's gracious assistance) let us come to treat of the special gesture, in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, which is the gesture in controversy.     

WHAT GESTURE IS LAWFUL IN THE ACT OF receiving the Sacramental Bread, and Wine.  

CHAPTER 1.  
Sect. 1 IN searching out of this point; first, I inquire, what is to be thought of the gesture at the Communion, as it is considerable in itself. Secondly, I examine, what force accidental respects have to determine upon it. Mark my method (good Reader) and whilst I speak of the gesture in itself, object nor abuse of Idolatours, commandment of superiors, scandals, &c. against me; for I will take them all (by God's help) in their own place. In the mean time, is kneeling at Sacrament lawful in itself? Surely, if the Ministers would grant this, the conflict would be easier with them in other accidental respects: but they will not grant it; nay, they do all in a manner avow the contrary. The disputer says of kneeling without consideration of accidental respects, that it is 
a Disp pag. 13.  the committing of a sin, and a transgression against the Lord; and he indeanours to conclude it. Such in the most of his arguments expressly. Mr. W, B. 
b In the begin o● this 8, arg.  says, it is unlawful in itself; (so he speaks generally of it, and of other ceremonies.) Especially the Abridgement affirmeth, that kneeling is 
c Abridg p. 61.  contrary to the word every where▪ and at all times. And they say, i● is contrary to the institution, contrary to the second commandment, and use an heap of Arguments to prove it in itself unwarrantable; which Arguments therefore come now in place to be considered.  

Whether kneeling be will-worship?  
Sect. 2 ARguments be general or special. One general there is, which is much stood o●, and will make the way more open to the rest. It is this.  

d Manuscrip against kneeling Ch. 1. Arg. 1.  We are expressly forbidden to do any thing as a worship unto God, which he hath not appointed and commanded:  
But in this kneeling we shall do a worship, which he hath not appointed and commanded: 
1 arg. ag. kneeling.  Therefore.  
To the first Proposition I heartily yield, only explaining it by distinguishing upon worship: worship is either substantial, and spiritual, or ceremonial, and corporal. Substantial I mean, that of the heart: Ceremonial I mean in a large sense, 
e Treat. of di●. worsh. pag. 6, 7 warrant me so to speak.  whatsoever is performed in bodily expression. Now the inward worship of God must be appointed and commanded in every particularity; because it is unchangeable, and standeth in oneself same manner absolutely. The bodily expression must be commanded also; but this is done, either generally, when God commands the whole body to do him service; or specially, when he prescribeth and alloweth in his worship inter changeable gestures, of standing, kneeling, or falling down.  
Sect. 3 Now then the second Proposition I utterly deny in the latter part of it▪ for as I acknowledge, that kneeling is an outward worship: 〈…〉 untrue, that God hath not appointed it in his word, even in the Lord's Supper. And this I declare by these evidences.  
Sect. 4 F●rst, Yourselves affirm of circumstances of order, that it is enough they be required in their kind; and that in particular determination they may be varied: why then do you contradict the great rule of your side, which is the main refuge you have to save yourselves, when your own reasons against ceremonies be retorted upon you: for gesture is necessary in the thing, but variable and mutable in all religious exercises. My former Introduction (I hope) cleareth this, when you have answered that, something will be added to the strength of your general Argument. Therefore for proof of the lawfulness of our kneeling, it is enough, either that the word doth expressly appoint it in 
* As Psal. 95. 6  exercises of worship, or that it doth not except and forbidden it in any of them, and particularly in the Lord's Supper: and the force of this one answer you are not able to refel, if it had no other fellows to back and second it.  
Sect. 5 Secondly, I ask, how you can say, that kneeling in any part of God's worship, is not appointed by him, when of gestures (you 
f Treat. of div. wors●. pag. 30.  say) that nature stands in stead of a direction. And so undoubtedly it doth, although both divine law, and humane, had therein been altogether silent.  
Sect. 6 Thirdly, I desire to know, whether it be not a warrantable appointment, and allowance of kneeling, in the act of receiving in itself, that all the worship of the Gospel is signified thereby. Thus the disputer affirmeth upon [Isai. 45. 23.] We see ●ere (saith he) 
g Disp. pag. 157.  that the Lord makes the bowing of the knee a particular worship, and under the name thereof, signifieth the whole worship of the Gospel, whereunto the Gentiles should be called. Is it possible now, that this Sacramental worship of the Supper should be incompatible with bowing of the knee?  
Sect. 7 Fourthly, God allows in his word not only kneeling at prayer, but adoration, and kneeling at Circumcision, Baptism, Passeover: for a bodily rite being necessary, and God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plain liberty. Such allowance must by proportion be carried in the rite of the Lords Supper: (nay it cannot be said suddenly, how many things God hath left arbitrary in Sacraments, greater things than the gestures, which are orderly only by general rules.) Especially, look what allowance the jews had for any gesture in Circumcision, and Passeover, and we have now for Baptism, the like have we for our kneeling at the Lords Supper.  
Sect. 8 Fifthly, How will you answer for your standing in the Sacrament? O standing is a tablegesture (say you:) yea, but that must not serve the turn; I affirm, that standing, or sitting, is an external, personal worship in the holy Sacrament. I can easily prove it, of your own sayings. The proper nature of worship (saith 
h Reply general cap. 2. Sect 6.  one) ●● not in holiness, and justice; but i● honouring of God; and all external ceremonies, whose proper use is the honouring of God, are external worship, as all divinity showeth. Now if the proper use of your standing at Sacrament be for the honouring of Christ, a● lest as proper as of such ceremonies as you oppugn, then behold the same is an external worshipping by your own testimony. Again saith another, 
i Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 25.  All religious Ceremonies, or Ceremonies of religion are spiritual, that is, are ordained for spiritual uses, and ends and not for civil, or temporal; and therefore are outward notes and testimonies of th●se things that make us spiritual men; and they are parts of spiritual honour, due unto him, that instituteth the Sacrament. Now there is nothing more plain than that your standing is a ceremony, or rite of religion, that is ordained for spiritual uses, and ends, and not for civil or temporal; and so it is a part of spiritual honour due unto God; and consequently it is an outward worship. Again saith the same man, 
k Treat of div. worsh. pag. 5.  All special things done in God's worship, are worship. Now if standing or sitting at the Lords Supper, for which as for a matter of life and death, you so earnestly strive, be not a special thing. I am fare deceived: but that (say you) i● a special thing in God's worship, which hath no use out of his worship. What and not that also which hath use out of his worship? That is a strange rule ● for thereof it followeth, that no gesture is a special thing in God's worship; because all gestures have use out of his worship: that speaking in prayer is no special thing in God's worship, because we speak in civil use out of his worship: wherefore if standing be a special thing done in the Supper, as kneeling is a special thing done in prayer, it is according to your teaching to be, esteemed a bodily worship. Further more saith the Abridgement, 
n Abridg. pag 40  All Ceremnies ordained to teach by their mystical signification, are made parts of God outward worship. This is your Proposition; and yourselves also make the assumption unto it; namely, that standing or 
o Repl. partic. chap. 36.  sitting is a signifying part in the Lord's Supper: and signifies many things mystically, which in due place I will show. Therefore I will make the conclusion that the Sacramental gesture, which yourselves do stand on, is a part of God's outward worship.  
And unto these your saying, I add an argument of mine own.  
That main carriage of the body, which i● of purpose, and conscience, selected to voyne with the inward devotion of the soul i● God's religious; or worship ordinance, is a worship gesture, or a bodily worship.  
But such is your sitting, such is your standing in the Lord's Supper.  
Therefore either of them is an outward worship.  
There is no question in this reason, if the Proposition be sound: but let them, which can, add aliquid amplius to make up a bodily worship.  
Object. Why, there is no adoration in your sitting and standing? I answer, that there is virtually adoration; and suppose there were none, is there no worship, where adoration is not? That is a 〈◊〉 unto me: for so long ●s there is a worship-ordinance, and a worshipping soul●, there also the body worshippeth, if the body (as in Sacramental service) be employed and required. You will say, this is worshipping in a larger sense. I answer, it is not so large a sense, but your argument takes hold of it as well as of worship-gestures, which be expressly adoring: for (I pray) is it not true, that we are forbidden to do any thing (in this 
* Let the Reader mark this well, & I wish my brethren to consider.  sense) as a worship unto God, which he hath not appointed and commanded? But now God never appointed or commanded standing at Sacrament. ☞  
Sect. 9 Sixthly, But the great block whereat you seem to stumble is this, that though kneeling be lawful in other ordinances; yet is it not so in the Communion, because it is not prescribed; you mean mentioned, as sitting is mentioned. Which exception supposeth this ground; that every application or way of using of every worship-gesture must be grounded (at lest) in some particular and express instance. And then could they use no gesture at all in the Circumcision, Passeover, and Baptism, for therein is no instance of any gesture. Again, your exception supposeth historical acts to be adequate, and of as large extension as general rules; which is an absurdity not to be answered. And again you put an hard task upon Historians, and actors in story; for would you have those to set down, or these to use any more than one main gesture at one time? that which was done is storied, yet a variable act excludes not his fellows.  
Further will you stand upon the mentioning of the gesture of kneeling, when you accounted the most excellent gesture in the world to be but indifferent? Must indifferent things be prescribed, not only in their kind, but in their application particularly? for thus you speak: 
r Disp. pag. 2.  In prayer we kneel if we may conveniently, and in the sacrament of the Lords Supper, as the custom of the Country▪ or necessity requireth, standing or sitting is fittest. 
s Manuscrip. Chap. 2.  The gesture of sitting being being but a ●●●ter of circumstance, and not expressly commanded, but of an indifferent nature, may lawfully be left, (as all other indifferent things may) and an other gesture used in stead of it, that will better serve in the convenience and edification of the Church, and that by warrant of the Apostles rule, let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. 14. 26. 
t Mr. T. C. Repl. pag 131, 132. Admonit. to the Parliam.  It is not of necessity to receive the Communion sitting: Nay in the name of the rest T. C. speaketh thus; I admonish the Reader, that sitting at the Communion is not bolden to be necessary: so that this witness is instar omnium, if there were no more.  
Object. But these men do not say, that kneeling is indifferent at Communion, as are standing, and sitting? I answer, if it be not indifferent, it is not, because it is unmentioned in the new Testament, nor for any difference your assumption putteth betwixt it and other gestures, so that yourselves dull your own argument, which this exception will never sharpen again. And you must mark the force of my answer. If the best gesture at the Sacrament, (such as you say sitting is) be but indifferent, how may you condemn another gesture in comparison with sitting, in this respect, that it wants a particular warrant? Why should ye expect of a thing in it kind indifferent, an express direction, or sampler for every manner, or way, wherein it may lawfully be applied?  
Sect. 10 Moreover I add, if kneeling be damnable in the Supper, because it is not mentioned in the new Testament in the act of receiving, then are all expressions of worship condemned also in the Supper by that reason, which are not all mentioned: as first, religious lifting up the eyes is a gesture of worship, or bodily worship; but that is no more appointed or mentioned in the Supper, then kneeling. Sure you will not deny a religious lifting up of the eyes to be lawful in the act of receiving: Yet you may as well deny it as kneeling upon this reason, that it is not mentioned. Secondly, uncovering of the head is done of purpose (and I think) with immediate relation to God, as it is in prayer, therefore it is a fashion, or expression of worship; but God no where appoints it in his word in the act of receiving. Thirdly, In Baptism, what say you to the lawfulness of aspersion? the examples of the new Testament are all of immersion in Baptism; as (you say) they be all of sitting only in the Communion. By what law can you be allowed to sprinkle, when Scripture-examples expound the commandment of Baptism of immersing only? Specially immersing signifying to be buried to Christ, to be sanctified in the whole man, which significations are imported by the Apostle. And who doubts immersion in Baptism, in many material respects to over-weigh sitting at the Communion? If kneeling then in the Supper be damnable, because not mentioned in the new Testament, than aspersion in Baptism is much more damnable; especially when kneeling is instituted and sanctified expressly to other parts of divine worship in many places of holy Scripture; sprinkling is not heard of in the Scripture, but in the Ceremonial law, which I am sure, you would not be brought under the yoke of; yea also when kneeling is a natural gesture, but such is not sprinkling of water.  
Sect. 11 Seven, and lastly, let the proofs of your argument be examined in good earnest: first you bring forth the second commandment to condemn a gesture both natural, and instituted in God's worship, and service: but except you make a clearer exposition, such as will extend to the gesture by some other particular Commentary of the word, sure in vain do you tell us of the second commandment: we make to ourselves no worship of our devising; but use a gesture of Gods appointing in nature, of Gods sanctifying in exercises of his worship.  
Sect. 12 Then you reason from God's negative, which condemneth, whatsoever he commandeth not, Levit. 10. 1. Deut. 17. 3. Col. 2. 18. where in you reason most loosely from those things, whereunto God's commandment was punctually contrary, to that which his commandment, not only contradicteth not, but plainly warranteth. You argue from strange fit, which was unchangeable in those times, to a circumstance, which yourselves change at pleasure: from idolatrous worshipping of the host of heaven, and Angels, to worshipping of the true God in the gesture of kneeling; which nature, and the word both, do allow in his worship, as may not be denied. But it is the negative you bind upon. And I answer, that the negative is only of unchangeable and moral things, and so of them carrieth an unresistable force with it; (though the commandment be not always express, as of baptising infants, of keeping our Sabbath, of morning and evening prayer in families, &c) but you are not able to bring out a negative for a changeable circumstance, I dare say. If you could, all comes to one for my purpose; for the Lord commands gesture in kind, though it be sundrily determinable, Again, God commands kneeling in particular, though it be variously applicable, as conveniency, and edification permitteth.  
Sect. 13 Further you say, we must not add to God's word, nor diminish from it, Deut. 12. 32. I readily answer, this cannot be meant of gestures, which the Israelites must needs use in God's worship, and yet of them God gave no commandment by Moses. If it should be meant of gestures, kneeling is Gods general commandment: kneeling at the Sacrament cannot be said to add to, or diminish from God's commandment of the gesture, when there is no particular commandment given: If there were a commandment to sit upon occasion, kneeling adds or diminisheth no more than standing, or no more than another gesture adds to, or diminisheth from the commandment of kneeling in prayer.  
Sect. 14 But the Apostle says, whatsoever is not of saith is sin, Rom. 14. 23. Indeed this is a Scripture in every man's mouth, and urged with more vehemency, than reason in this case: for faith in bodily circumstance, and gestures, is built safely upon general grounds, as well as in moral, and unchangeable points, it is for the most part built upon plain & particular testimony. Fiath hath its assurance in 
* Phil. 4. 8:  general rules as well as particular come mands; so long as the selfsame author of truth speaketh in both. Sect. 15 To conclude, you compare our eating in the gesture of kneeling, with the Iewes washing, Mar. 7. & Popish fastings; which be condemned (you say) in their manner of using, though else washing and fastings be Gods ordinances. I answer, that their washing and fastings were, and are damnable, for no such respects, as condemn kneeling in the Supper; for they destroyed the very nature of God's ordinances, and set up (I may say) new washing and fastings in their stead; in which they placed necessity, holiness, and merit. Neither is there any variable circumstance (like the gesture) therein taxed in these; but only hypothetically, as the very washing and fastings themselves be supposed and condemned for abominable. But these comparisons you bring in only for illustration, & not for proof of any thing; and 
(x) I wonder what mood M. W. B. wa●●n, when he said, that kneeling hath not so much as a show of holiness in the use of ●●, i● treat of div. 〈◊〉. ●3, OH he●● of h●s side are con●●n● to give it a ●●ew of piety 〈…〉 at 〈…〉 applying Colos, 2. 2●. against it But be●ike Mr. W. B. could groove many things by logic, which his brethren (●●●er men than himself) durst no● s●●nd upon.  therefore I leave them as plain impertinencies. And so much for answer to the general argument against kneeling at the Communion. Only for further answer read and observe my general introduction in the former part: which itself well considered, I hope will satisfy the doubtful conscience in this point.  
Sect. 16 Now to this general argument, I will add two other general considerations, which the Ministers do stand on. First, To mingle profane things with divine is sin, (saith 
u Arg. 7.  M. W. B. & to use our ceremonies is so to mingle. But if he mean the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament, I deny, that ●he use of it is mingling that which is profane with divine. Contrarily, I affirm that kneeling is an holy gesture, joined with an holy ordinance. And against this (that I trouble not myself and others about dumb shows) Mr. W. B. says just nothing, nor any body else for him. Only let it be observed, that this reason assuming the gesture not to be holy, contradicts the former main argument which assumes it to be so holy, that it is no less than a part of divine worship.  
Sect. 17 Secondly, hither may be referred, that the Abridgement excepteth against kneeling, because (saith (w) it,) the same is not necessary; 
x Abridg: pag. 56. whereto agreeth propos. 2. of the modest oste● of conference.  
x Ibid pag. 44.  for no rites aught to be used in the Church, but such as are necessary things, by direction of that place, Act. 15. 28. I answer, that this place speaks of necessity, nor which is absolute of the things 
y Saving fornication, which is mortal.  themselves; but which was occasional only from that time, such as kneeling is to us under authority at this day. Else it is idle to say, that the Church can appoint no rites, but such as are necessary; that is, it can appoint nothing at all, or that kneeling or any other gesture is unlawful, except it be necessary, for so much) ourselves hold not even of kneeling in prayer. But if you mean [necessary) that, which in kind is such, but in particular determination may be varied; then kneeling at Sacrament is still safe, and your exception hurteth it not. And to this purpose, see the main argument refuted before.    

CHAP. 2.  
Sect. 1 NOw I descend to special arguments against kneeling at the Communion, and for sitting, and standing. And to keep the method noted 
z Part 1 Cham 2. Sect. 1  before; first, we must speak of God's commandment: secondly, of example: thirdly, of light of nature: fourthly, of deductions or inferences out of holy Scripture.  
Sect. 2 First, what express commandment is there for sitting? But some man may say, it was the former argument handled already, and therefore why do I speak of it again? I answer, that the word [commandemem] is generally taken there, for any manner of appointment, or warrant; but now I speak of express commandment for the very gesture. I will not trouble the Reader therefore, to show him that there is no absolute commandment of any gesture in any worship of God at all; but for the gesture of sitting, I will tell him, It is so fare, that God expressly commands the use of it in any part of his worship [absolutely,] that he expressly commands not the use of it, in any part of his worship [upon occasion.] It never came into the mind of the Lord, to bid his people expressly to worship him in the gesture of sitting, since the day, that he created man upon earth; where for other gestures he doth plainly, and expressly enjoin them upon occasion. It is false therefore that the Abridgement 
a Abridg. pag. 56.  would insinuate, that there is precept for receiving of some Sacrament sitting. But more to our purpose for sitting at the Communion, the matter is plain enough that there is no commandment: Christ bids his Church in the institution, to eat bread, and drink wine, in remembrance of his death, but not to receive those elements in the gesture of sitting.  
Sect. 3 Hereupon, I wonder much at their 
b Perth. Assem. pag. 39  impudence, that are bold to defend sitting by that commandment, Do this: as if Christ in so saying, did not institute a new thing, where sitting (you say) was used before in the Passeover: as if we can interpret the commandment to do, of that gesture which Christ is 
c See the next chap paragr 1.  not▪ said historically to do, in the institution of the Supper, ●● if any Grammatical concordance, any rhetorical figure can admit of this fancy. Thus are the words: jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying; This is my body, which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me, Luke 22. 19 But Paul clears the point sufficiently, 1 Cor. 11. for besides, that he remembers this commandment without mentioning of any gesture, he doth precisely restrain the commandment in this manner. First, jesus took bread, and said; Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: This do in remembrance of me, vers. 24. In like manner he took the cup, and said, This cup is the new Testament in my blood, this do (as often as ye drink in remembrance of me, verse 25. Whereby appeareth, that the commandment [this do] is restrained to the bread, and the proper actions belonging to that; then again to the wine, and the proper actions belonging to that; and this is a clear case. Further, what an absurdity were it to extend this commandment to circumstances? for by the same licence, the time, place, receiving after Supper, &c. were enjoined omnes ●d unum. But if Christ said, [hoc facite] that is sit; (which must be as full a mandamus, and as absolute, as for receiving the elements themselves:) how dare they change Christ's gesture into standing? they might as well turn the bread into jannocks, and the wine into Ale, or Beer, or Aquavitae, as presume to do so. But I am contented that wiser men be not charged for the rashness of those scots men. Let one speak who deserves to be heard the foremost. 
d Manuser. ch. 2.  The gesture of sitting is but a matter of circumstance, and not expressly commanded. Let this be considered, and so I pass from it.   

CHAP. 3.  
Sect. 1 SEcondly, I am now glad, that your order leads us so soon to the principal matter of all, which is the example of our Saviour jesus Christ, and his Apostles, I hope we be as much resolved as you be, that our Saviour did all things well; God forbidden you should incur so foul a sin, as to think otherwise of us, who have all the hope of our salvation laid in the shedding of his precious blood, whereof this holy Sacrament is an everlasting memorial, whiles the world endureth. To profane this ordinance therefore were to dally with, nay to despise and profane Christ's holy blood and merits. Be pleased therefore to judge of us, if we err, as offending of ignorance, who desire with you, to give our names for the testimony of JESUS, To come to the business itself; You say, Christ sat at Supper, and Christ's example is to be followed. For better order I will unfold this Controversy in three Paragraphs.  

The first Paragraph.  
Sect. 2 FIrst I do avow, that it is impossible to demonstrate, so as the Conscience may infallibly build thereupon, that either Christ or his Apostles sat in the Eucharistical supper. To this purpose I will describe the course and order of the Passeover, and Supper as the Evangelists set it down.  
Sect. 3 But first, I will touch upon the question, whether they had three suppers together, as many do think, viz. The Paschall a Common, and the Eucharistical Supper? Of the Paschall, and Eucharistical supper there is no doubt to be made; but all the doubt is, whether they did also eat of a common Supper betwixt the Paschall and Eucharistical. They which think that they did eat a common supper do ground 
e I see other grounds they have, but I think they are not worth answering.  principally upon joh. 13. as I take it. Where it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, john, 13. 2. Christ rose from Supper, Vers. 4. washed his Disciples feet; Vers. 5, &c. and after sat down again, Vers. 12.— And after all this was the eating of the sop, Vers. 26. compared with Math. 26. vers. 21, 22, 23. So they would make that eating of the sop, to be the common Supper, the Eucharist not being yet instituted. To speak my mind in this thing; I suppose a supper in our use of the word, is a competent meal, and to call them three Suppers to the common people, makes them to muse and marvel what should be the matter. I despise not what the Learned deliver out of the jews writings for instruction in this case; yet for understanding of the sop I cast mine eye rather to the institution of the Passeover, which was commanded to be eaten 
f Exod. 12. 8.  with bitter herbs, which this sop or sauce, or whatsoever it was, was probably made of. I do persuade myself, that our Saviour CHRIST and the Apostles did eat of this sop, before he rose from the Table to wash his Disciples feet, (though it be not mentioned before, nor had been at all, but by the occasion of Judas dipping) and that this eating after was but a continuation of the Paschall supper in eating both of the flesh and herbs; which stands with much better reason, then for the mention of a mere sop or sauce (which might very well be made (partly at lest) of the instituted herbs) to set up another common supper. Some call the latter a second service, but they might aswell call it a distinct supper, for no second service belonged to the Paschall supper. wherein the flesh, and the herbs were to be eaten together. I but what shall be said to john, 13. 2. Supper being done▪ he rose, and sat, and eat afterwards again. I would 
g I know there is other answer made by some, but this seems fairest and soundest to me.  think it better to use a mitigation of the phrase, than a middle, or common supper; in this manner; [supper being ended] that is, [supper being in a manner ended.] According to like manner of speaking in the story. As they were eating, JESUS took bread &c. that is, when they had done eating, as Luke and Paul expound it. Luke, 22. 20. 1. Cor. 11. 25. Besides it is said he took the cup after supper; than it seems, the foregoing supper was but one; and indeed Luke in the quoted chapter mentions no more, and then adds, he took the cup after supper. Also I see not the conceit of common suppers in the old testament so much as intimated; nay, the Paschal lamb was appointed to be supper enough of itself, for if it were too much for one family, neighbour houses might join, and if notwithstanding, any of it were left till morning, it was to be burned with fire, Exod. 12. vers. 4. 10. This order doth exclude a common Supper ex▪ suppositione. Moreover, it is to be thought, that a whole Lamb with bread and herbs enough might not suffice twelve, or thirteen men; especially, when they were to let nothing of it remain until morning? I add, that a just collation of the Evangelists will evince that there was but one Supper. And lastly, it was most like▪ that the Eucharistical supper was eaten next the Paschall, into whose room it immediately took place. And surely the distinction by a common Supper would darken to the Apostles the clearness of the succession of it. This obiter of this point, which I deliver (under correction of Learned men) to make my discourse following some what easier to be conceived, and not to advantage myself in the Controversy; wherein (I think) it doth neither help, nor hinder. And now I will show by the story of the Evangelists, that Christ and his Apostles are not said at any time to use the gesture of sitting in the Eucharistical Supper,  
Sect. 4 Thus then I put all the four Evangelists together from the beginning of the Passeover, to the institution of the Communion.  
 Math ch. 26 Mark. ch. 14 Luke. ch. 22 john. ch. 13  Verse Verse Verse Verse The Discip. did as Jesus had appointed them and they made ready the Passeover, ☞ 19 16 13  And when the even or hour was come, he 
a Mark.  comes with the twelve, and 
b Math. Luke.  sat down with them, ☞ 20 17 14  And he said unto them I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer, ☞   15  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. ☞   16  And he took the 
c This Cup I doubt not to be long to the Passeover.  Cup, and gave thanks, and said, take this, and divide it among yourselves, ☞   17  For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of 
All this seems to be occasioned by their strife, which of them should be greatest mentioned in Luke, 22. vers. 24. &c though i● be s●t after the institution of the Eucharistical supper. So is Christ's speech of the traitor which wa● used in the latter end of the Passeover. vers. 21, 23.  the vine, until the kingd, of God shall come.   18  Then Supper being ended (that is) [In a manner ended] ☞    1 jesus riseth from supper, laid aside his garments, took a to●ell, and girded himself.    4 After that he took water and washed his Disciples feet (using some conference thereupon) ☞    5 11 Then he took his garment, and when he was set down again [he persuades them to humility] ☞    12 17 Now as they sat, and did eate, he said. Verily I say to you, one of you shall betray me, &c. 21 2● 18 12 21 23 18 29 So judas having received the sop went immediately out, and it was night. ☞  They are said to sit only in Mark. at ver. 18.  30 Therefore, when he was go out, Jesus said. Now is the Son of man glorified [with other heavenly sayings.] ☞   31 35 Lastly, [after 
d Luke 22. vers. 20. 1. Cor. 11. 25.  Supper] Jesus took b●ead, and blessed, &c. ☞ 26 &c ●● &c 19 20   
Sect. 5 here it is said now that they sat at Passeover: and after jesus rising upon occasion is said to set him down again. And this was before the mention of eating the sop. But there is no word of the gesture, which was used by them at the institution, and participation of the Communion. And some of the Ministers do confess that it is but a probable thing, that they did not altar their gesture. I grant them no less, that it is more probable, than any other gesture. But what (I pray) am I worse for yielding a probability of their sitting, or you better? It is new logic, if probability should infer necessity. That is but a weak foundation of faith and comfort either for doing, or suffering. Which are assured that Christ sat without all doubt; finding it in his written word though here be not a word written to show it; what should I say to them, but reject their audeciousnesse? For as I will deem no thing, which in my conscience I judge to be likely, for to help myself in this controversy: So it is too much presumption in any, to avow for certain, that which cannot be defined. But the Evangelists (you 
m Perth. Assembls. pag. 39  say) mention not the supper gesture, because they writ as of a thing known. Notably helped out! The Communion-gesture was a thing more known, than the Communion itself was kowne I besides, was not the Passeover-gesture known? Yet the Evangelists do make mention of that, and if you will have a common supper; they make mention also of the gesture of it; and yet the only Communion-gesture might be known by imagination. Yea, but say you, a Tablegesture is undoubtedly employed. But this defence supposeth the country Tablegesture necessary to the supper, which I do forever 
n See 〈…〉 Ta●le-gesture, 〈…〉 ch. 5.  deny. But you deal somewhat roundly with us. For first you prove, that Christ sat, because sitting was a Tablegesture. After you will prove, that a Tablegesture is necessary, be use Christ sat. But I tell you, that you can infallibly assure no man's conscience, that Christ and his Apostles sat at the last supper. But you urge that the Evangelists say, as they did eat, jesus took bread, &c. 
o Perth. Assembls. pag. 36. Survey 185.  If whiles they did eat, then whiles they did sit; sitting and eating being conjoined. Mark. 14. 18. I answer, that this manner of pleading shuts the Scripture out from expounding itself. For, [as they did eat] is plainly expounded by 
p Luk. 22. ●0.  Luke and 
q 1. Cor. 11. 25  Paul [after they had done eating] and are you of mind that the suppers were mingled together? I do not think that in good earnest you are. Well then if you will read [whilst they did eat jesus took bread &c,] thus [after they had done eating jesus took bread &c.] Then your sequel may be proportioned in like manner: for in stead of saying [if whiles they did eat, then whiles they did sit] you might say as truly [if after they had done eating, then after they had 
r Namely, that sitting, which was used to the Passeover.  done sitting] and sure you would take no great content in the fruit of this reasoning. But you say learned men do grant they sat at the last supper. But I think they grant no otherwise then any body will grant; namely, that it is a probable thing they sat. It any do grant further I would not be discouraged by the name of learned men; let reason moderate amongst us all. In a word, durst you be sworn, (if you had a lawful calling to swear) that Christ and his Apostles sat, as if you had been an eye witness? Dared you lay down your life upon it? Can you give us any other proof, than your persuasion of his abiding in the gesture of the Passeover? It is good, not to be too resolved, except you had a word to build on: And I will back mine advice with some considerations, which I propose unto you.  
Sect. 6 You know, Christ did many things, which the Evangelists had neither power, nor purpose to set down. Joh. 21. 25. Nay many of the signs that jesus did, are not written. John. 20. 30. Partly it was impossible, partly unnecessary that they should be written. Might not now the gesture of the Sacrament be ommitted much more, of purpose omitted by the wisdom of the Spirit? Possible and easy was it for the historians to have expressed the gesture, but God did not appoint, it should be necessary to his Church? Who otherwise (if it had pleased him) could have dictated to his amanuensis or Penmen, this passage of the gesture in the Communion, aswell as in other services so many times in the Bible. Yet he did not, he would not do it.  
Sect. 7 2. Dare you avow definitively, that in Homogene all actions storied together the gesture expressed of the former, imports certainly the latter, unexpressed. What say you to Nehemiah, 8. The Priests stood, verse 4. and the people stood in their place, vers. 5. 7, so there was reading in the Book of the law distinctly, vers. 8. Can you now affirm that the Priests and people stood thus therefore, when immediately after, they read in the law day by day, vers. 18. It were (I think) not great wisdom so to determine. Again, all the congregation made booths, and sat under the booths, so as since the days of Joshua the Son of Nun, had not the children of Israel done so, and there was very great gladness. Nehem. 8. 17. Are you able to say now, that the people out of doubt changed not the gesture of sitting, whiles they were under the booths, any time of the day, I mean upon Homogeneal occasions; because it is said; at that feast of Tabernacles, they sat under the Booths. Again, Paul and the Christians sat down, and Paul preached unto the women, amongst whom Lydia. was one, who (as appears) at that preaching was converted, and Baptised. Acts. 16. Vers. 13, 14, 15. Now I ask, if you can make good, that this Company sat still after this preaching was broken off, also in the administration of Baptism? Perhaps I could give you many like examples, which I take to be parallel, and pertinent (namely in the main matter which I desire) to this our case of the two Suppers.  
Sect. 8 3. Observe the dealings of the Evangelists in relating the gesture of the Passeover. It is at three several points, or sections of time mentioned. As at first sitting down, Math. 26. 20. Then after washing of the disoiples feet sitting down again. John 13. 12. Lastly upon occasion of Christ's speech of Judas treason. Mark. 14. 18. [as they sat, and did eat, jesus said; verily, I say unto you, one of you, &c.] and yet it is not so much as once mentioned in the last Supper. If you say the Evangelists needed not to mention it in this. Much less (would one think) needed Mark to mention it in that, a third time. Let not the good providence of God be slighted in this passage, which worketh nothing in vain.  
Sect. 9 4. It weakens not a little your supposition, that there was a great intervalium, or distance of time betwixt the Passeover and the Supper. As may appear, joh. 13. 31. &c. Where our Saviour is said to preach an heavenly Sermon unto the Disciples, before the institution took place. And surely that which is written therefore is but an 
* The Disp. says Christ made a Sermon betwixt the consecration of the Elements and distribution. Disp. Pag. 116. he means only, because Christ sa●es. Take, eat, this is my body; which is given for ye, this do in remembrance of me. And yet thereupon he says more to show, what information, instruction, injunction, prediction, Christ used in that Sermon.  abridgement of that, which was spoken by Christ himself. And let the history of the Evangelists be considered in other places, who do remember many things, which at first sight one would think fell out together, which were yet fare sundered from one another in time; as exact comparing of them doth witness. And howbeit I will never deny that I think it likely our Saviour, next after the Passeover deseended to the institution of the Supper; yet I cannot be certain; that he so immediately descended thereto, as that he did not change his gesture in the mean while; except the Holy Ghost had expressly declared so much, and had not on the other hand expressly shown a great space of time spent in the interim, which might occasion greater changes (though unwritten) then of the gesture.  
Sect. 10 5. And this is the less hard to conceive, if we observe, that as there was a new action, so there might be new expressions taken in hand. For first, the Passeover must be utterly finished; and 
t Calu. in Mat. 26.  no doubt solemn Thanksgiving used after the manner, though it be not mentioned. And then after, a new blessing of a newordinance was to begin. And this note wants not it use, especially if we do mind that the bodies of Christ and his company were satisfied with the legal Supper; and therefore, the latter banquet of Bread and Wine required not a common and formal sitting, feeding, and filling, not being thereunto ordained; but rather to be used by the beholding of the Elements, taking, and tasting of them, for commemoration, and representation of Christ's death.  
Sect. 11 6. I think I may say, that there was as much likelihood of the jews standing at Passeover from Exod. 12. 11. as of the Apostles sitting at the Communion. Yet learned men deny, that, that can be proved certainly, because it is not expressed; therefore, why should there not be as much liberty in this case? Or if the gesture of the Passeover was first standing, surely Christ who varied from the Old gesture in 
* Yea in the very Passeover there (some part I read of it) Christ is said to seemo not to sit. Luk. 22. Psal. 27.  the same ordinance, might as well do it (I suppose) in the celebration of a diverse. Or, if we might admit the judgement of some men, whom yourselves do 
u Perth. Assembls. pag. 36. Survey, p. 184.  mention, (which yet indeed is contrary to the plain text) that Christ stood at the Passeoner, and afterwards sat down at the Communion: then the matter were clear enough, that the gesture was varied. But though I believe not, that Christ stood at Passeover, because it cannot be said without offering of violence to the text, yet the gesture of the last Supper might be varied; because, it may be said and thought without offering of any such violence. At lest you see, it is no new conceit of mine, that the gesture might be changed in the Suppers.  
Sect. 12 7. Lastly, because all the strength of your opinion that Christ sat at the Eucharistical Supper, lies couched within the narration of the Passeover-gesture; it is worth your meditation to observe, that the Holy Ghost sets it down in the Passeover, with no intent to instruct you in the supper. Doth not SAINT John make this to appear? He mentions the gesture of the Passeover as much as any Evangelist; and yet speaks not so much as a word of the Communion itself. Is it likely now, that his intent was by expressing the gesture in the Passeover, to notify the gesture of the Communion? Again, go to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, they set down the gesture in the Passeover also, and then they come to the Communion, but then they omit our Saviour's rising from Table, even as a thing which was not. I pray you they which say Christ sat at Passeover, and so pass to the Communion, is it their purpose to import the gesture of the Communion when they purposely omit how the gesture was so long changed between?  
Sect. 13 All this which hath been said doth certainly declare the uncertainty of the gesture of Christ, and his Apostles at the last supper. Therefore I cannot but much wonder at our learned brethren, who have diligently searched into these things, that they dare be leaders of the people in this opinion, as undoubted that Christ and his Apostles did sit; when the case is clear enough, that they cannot tell. But my brethren will say perhaps, that I would insinuate that Christ kneeled, and then they will please to jest upon me, as the Replyer 
* Repl. partic. to B. Mort. pa. 36.  doth. Far fall john of Rochester, who dares insinuate to his Reader, that for aught appeareth in the text, the Apostles might kneel. Truly, they may easier help themselves before the common people, or forestalled minds by jesting, then by sound reason. I am not ashamed to say as much as the R●plyer fiouteth at, that whereas all the Evangelists do of purpose, and as it were by common consent pass over the gesture in deep silence, and that the same cannot be determined by any supposal infallibly, which I do know, it might be either standing, or sitting, or kneeling. The Apostles might as lawfully fall down at this time, as it is no absurdity to say they worshipped Christ another time, when he made himself known unto them by breaking of bread. Luke, 24 30, 31. But I am fare from going about to prove they kneeled, only my meaning is to show, that no man by force of the story is able to disprove it. And so I say for the gesture of standing; I will say no less for sitting (which I deem most probable) and the Repliers charge of 
x Pag. 34.  audaciousness doth move me nothing at all. And because the Replier calls this audaciousness, I do challenge him for God's cause, and the instruction of many, who desire uprightly to learn; to bring us forth some demonstrative evidence, if he can tell what, that never heard of any to this hour, else he must give me leave to tell him, that he is the more audacious in so penurious a case, to give his tongue so much liberty. And so much for my first Paragraph, that it cannot be infallibly showed that Christ, and his Apostles sat in the Eucharistical supper.  
Sect. 14 Only this I may add, that if a word had been used by the Evangelists to note our Saviour and his Apostles gesture at the Eucharistical supper, yet (so as it might have been declared,) their precise gesture might have remained notwithstanding still uncertain. This is true that Scripture-speeches of gestures be many times one put for another; or two named together for one manner of carriage. See levit. 18. 23. Where standing and lying down be confounded together. So be standing, and kneeling also, 2. Chron. 6. Solomon stood before the Altar, and spread forth his hands, Vers. 12. Upon the scaffold he stood, and kneeled down upon his knees, and spread forth his hands, Vers. 13. So Mary stood at Christ's feet, whiles he sat upon a bed at Supper, Luke, 7. 38. Yet it is not incredible that then she was upon her knees, or sitting upon the outer side of the bed, specially if the bed (which is uncertain) were low, (whatsoever some 
f Perth. Assembls. pag 28  say to the contrary) for besides kissing, and anointing of Christ's feet, she washed them with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head. So sitting in ashes, which is said of Tire, and Sidon (affirmed also of job. job, 2. 8. and Nineveh. jon. 3. 6.) Calvin interprets to be no other than prostration or lying along; Verbum sedendi (saith 
g Calu. in Luk 10. Psal. 13.  he) (and note it is sedendi, and not discumbendi; for if sedendi, then discumbendi much more.) Significat prostratos humi jacere, quod miseris ad luctum suum testandum convenit, sicuti ex compluribus Prophetarum locis patet. Also, when I 
h Pag. 1 cap. 1. Sect. 9  allege David's sitting before the Lord in prayer, a reverend Minister 
i Mr. Nic.  tells me, that was no sitting, but only notes his presenting himself before the Lord So if, sitting had been mentioned at the Communion, I might say, it might be used either for presenting, or settling themselves at the table; as we say an Army sits down in such a place, that is, there it pitcheth and resteth. Or else, for some other gesture of the same kind, or like such a gesture as unto which used more or less it was only adjoined. But for my part I would not make the Scripture uncertain, in speaking of gestures, otherwise then as we must expound it, Quoad fidem historiae. And indeed I do not need to expound what Christ and his Apostles sitting might mean, because they are not said to sit at all at the Communion, as I have showed in this Paragraph.   

The second Paragraph.  
Sect. 15 IN the next place, granting for the present, which you so much desire, that Christ and his Apostles sat at the Communion; yet is not the strictest of you, a follower of their example, in their gesture of sitting. Their sitting in the position of the parts of the body was as fare f●om your sitting as from our kneeling. It was a very manner of lying along, which is used in those Eastern Countries even unto this day. Yet it pleaseth you to determine that 
y Manise. ch. 2  it was not a lying along, but a sitting, though leaningly. As if that leaning positure was not a kind of lying along; but the matter is not great whether you call it this or that; for the thing itself will appear to him that well considereth, that there was more lying in it then sitting; though the jews called it sitting, as they were wont for the most part to call such gestures as they used when they were eating at Table. Howsoever, to prove they sat but somewhat leaningly, you reason in this manner, For else (say you) what use could they have of Tables, yea of Tables of some height from the ground? I answer, the height of their Tables doth not deny their lying along, so long as their beds were also of some height equal unto them. Nay what if their beds were higher than their tables, sure than they might very well lie along. Let the Scotchmen speak what they have read, and observed. The beds (say 
z Perth Assembl. Pag. 38  they) of the rich and wealth were so high, that is behoved them to ascend by steps; whereby appears, if you will not call it lying along, it was much inclined to lying along. And I dare say, that the same gesture called fitting, among them, when they were eating at tables, was called no less among them then lying, if it were used, and applied to resting and sleeping; nay, it was called lying among them sometimes, when they were eating at tables. And for our parts we would call it lying without question in the use and opinion of our country-language and gestures. Which will better appear if we consider.  
1 The Greek words which be used of the gesture of our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles at the Passeover. The first is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Math. 26. 20. Mark. 14. 18. The second is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luk. 22. 14. joh. 13. 12. Now ●o pass the radical signification thereof, (which yet 〈◊〉 known to be lying or falling down) let us see how these words be expounded in the new testament itself. And one speech, whereunto both words be referred may suffice for this. One of the Disciples whom jesus loved [was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joh. 13. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, joh. 21. 20.] in jesusbosome. You cannot translate, he sat in jesus bosom. And in john, 13. 25. the meaning is declared plainly by [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] john was [lying on] the breast of jesus. And in several for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is an instance in Mark 5. 40. to show its signification to be some manner of lying, where is said, that jesus entered in (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) where the Damsel was lying. And thereiss great likelihood she sat nothing at all, (as we call sitting) for she was then dead.  
Sect. 17 2 See Amos 2. 8. They lay themselves down upon clotheses laid to pledge by every Altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their God. That is, they eat and drink at, and before their Altars, as they lie down upon beds pawned unto them. So Chap. 6. 4. they lie upon beds of I●orie, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the Lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall. And ver. 7. The banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed. I pray you look upon these places with an impartial eye, perhaps you will observe, that they were wont to say in those times, they lie at meat, as well as they sit at meat, though this latter be most used in Scripture.  
Sect. 18 3 They used in their feasting to pluck their shoes off, before they lay down; nay, it seems in the Passeover 
* As for the law of eating with their shoes on their feet, Ex. 12. 11. that was only forthat Passeover in Egypt which must be eaten in haste by the children of Israel, and as ready to departed.  Christ, and his Apost less did so, as appeareth, joh. 13. 5. Now this was done to keep their beds fair, which they laid their feet on, according to the fashion of those Countries, so Calvin in Joh. 13.  
Sect. 19 4 Their lying is punctually described to be in this manner. The foremost laid his feet along behind the b●cke of the second, and the second leaned into his bosom; and so in that fashion round about the table subordinately. This to be so appeareth, first, by your own 
b Perth. Assembls. pag. 38.  confession full enough. Secondly, by the harmony of 
c Calvin & Bez. in joh. 15.  learned men's judgement. Thirdly, by the testimony of of Scriptures; Mary is said to stand at Christ's fe●t behind him, as he sat or lay upon a bed at meat. Luks. 7. 38. Last; Reason helpeth also in this matter. For, 
d Psal. 128. 3. Incircuitu mensae tuae.  considering the roundness and circular winding of their tables and beds, and lying in one another's bosom, it was commodious both for room and ease to sit with their feet behind the backs of their fellows.  
Sect. 20 5 I will add what is said of the jews gesture in eating the Passeover, as yourselves 
e Perth. Assembls. pag. 35.  cite Scaliger producing it out of their rituals. The jews were wont to speak in this manner. Quam diversa haec nex a caeteris noctibus! quod in alijs noctibus semel tantum lavamus, in hac autem his. Quod in reliquis noctibus comedimus, sine, fermentum, sine Azimum, in hac autem omnino azima. Quod in reliquis noctibus vescimur oleribus omne genus, in hac autem intybis. Quod in reliquis noctibus tam edentes, quam bibentes vel sedemus, vel discumbimus, in hac autem omnes discumbimus. How fare different is this night from other nights? other nights we wash only once; but this night twice; other nights aswell eating, as drinking. we either sit [upright] or sit [leaningly, or lying along] but this night, we all (only) lean or lie alongby which words clear that discubimus can note no less than a great measure of leaning, or leaning in a manifest degree; being differenced from sedemus; and which they chose, as a distinct gesture, of purpose, yea of conscience it seemeth, and of greater fitness to an holy ordinance; and of purpose, conscience, opinion of unfitness avoided, and rejected the other.  
Sect. 21 Out of the premises I affirm, that their gesture at Passeover, was no other, than a kind of lying along. For what can it be else, I pray, laying once head in another's bosom (which bosom also is situated decliningly) and his feet again laid out at length over the bed, and withal his body bearing or resting upon one side in a matter, and not according as sitting hath its denomination with us. And consequently I dare infer and avouch that our Saviour jesus Christ intended not that his, & his Apostles example in their Eastern country (discubitus) should be imitated of us, or become to us an example to rule our gesture.  
Sect. 22 For first, he knew and fore-knew the gestures of all countries, and times. Discubitus was proper to some countries, but an upright sitting was and is common to all countries, even the jews themselves used it 
k In Ioseph●s time. Perth: Assembl. Pag. 38.  anciently altogether. And for later times, Scaligers speech out of their rituals before showeth; that in their feasts, or meals, they did use sometime discumbere, sometime to sit upright. If therefore Christ would have purposed an exemplary sitting, he would have used common sitting (which also the jews sometimes used) and not a special gesture of some Countries.  
Sect. 23 2 How could the gesture of Christ be a pattern of sitting, and not a pattern of lying along; if it must needs be a pattern? It was nearer to lying along, then to upright sitting; nay you cannot show, that it had any one point from the head to the foot of our formal sitting at all in it, the upper part of their bodies was bended quite down, their neither part lay out along, and the whole body rested upon the whole, as in lying along, and not upon some several part, as in the gesture of sitting. So out of the names of Languages, not the matter itself, you frame an example of imitation, but where an example is visible, reason teacheth that the imitation of it may be judged by the eye.  
Sect. 24 3 It is incredible that our Saviour should give such a gesture unto us for our pattern, which is justly esteemed 
* Calvin in joh. 13.  indecent amongst us; nay which is worse at this time, than other gestures (as yourselves determine) of our own choosing. To what purpose is this waist of a pattern then? Nay, I suppose you would think it a sin to use the precise gesture of our Saviour Christ, if you did throughly know it; verily such a pattern is little beholden to you: shall a sergeant adumbration carry the praise away from the prototype? And if you were lawmakers you would not allow by act the precise gesture of Christ; that were but 
l Perth ass. p 38.  apish imitation as the Scotsmen teach; and against common sense as 
m Disp. pag. 47  the disputer teacheth. Surely then why do you talk of Christ's example, the precise examplarship whereof your own mouth, and action destroyeth.  
Sect. 25 Fourthly, & lastly, yet for all this Christ's gesture is an example still; but wherein lies the mystery of it? Is it to be so lowed as lying, or leaning? you say, no. Is it to be followed only as a gesture? Simply, not; for then, ●o nomine, kneeling would thrust in. Is it to be followed as the jews tablegesture? no simply; for than it should be precisely retained. Is it to be followed as a gesture fit for divine worship, as the jews seemed to use it, which would not [sedere] but [discumbere] in eating the Passeover? Not, not, no. Then kneeling runs in amain: what then? Why, poor, this is all; 
n Disp. pag. 47, 48.  as a Prince is only tied to the equity of the laws judicial, so are we tied to imitate Christ out of regard to equity, not always for outward form, and circumstance. And what is that equity, I desire to know? I think they mean this, that as discubitus was a gesture used then at meat? so respectively such a gesture imitates it, which is used with us in eating of meat. But first, if equity be all, than the gesture itself is really voided, as are the temporary judicialls. Secondly, the equity of a tablegesture is not so great, as the equity of eating according to peace, eating for edification; which is the chaff of a Country table-fashion to this wheat. Thirdly, by this learning, standing may be an imitation of sitting, & lying; & so mutually each of every one in some case. Yea I grant it may be so, but so our kneeling will also be an imitation of Christ's sitting.  
Sect. 26 Fourthly, you know there is no warrant for such a fancie-loose imitation: why should you not follow Christ's example precisely in every point of the gesture, as much as you do understand it. You tell us, we have liberty to use a tablegesture: but I hear you to say nothing for proof of taking this 
* As for that of the Replyer, that this is, as if we should strive whether the bread and cup are to be taken with two fingers or more (R pl. partic to Bp. Mort. pag. 35.) I answer, if necessity of imitation were urged for the manner of the Apostles using their hands, then why should not the number and use of their fingers be urged also as necessary? but the truth is, that as taking with the hand is necessary, but it is not necessary which hand, or how many fingers we use: so main gesture is necessary, but it is not necessary which gesture, or what circumstances of the same gesture we use.  liberty. You allege against us: Be followers of Christ, and of good men. Well, and do these commandments (extending as you say to the gesture) reach but to the one half of it? Show (if you can) why ye are not commanded to follow the● in ipsissimo discubitu? You cannot show it but upon our grounds, and destroying the whole force of building upon his example. What? can a Country fashion pick the lock of a good example, and let the gesture lose out of Christ's teather? then why should not all go (I pray) as w●ll as any part? do not pull a poor gesture in pieces, let the head have his appurtenances. But methinks you might plainly ee, that by this shift of a Country ●a●hion, overweighing Christ's example, you make his gesture but a poor circumstance.  
Sect. 27 The short of all this, you do not stand or sit upright, because you have Christ's example, for it is manifest you have it not, but because you have private reasons of your own, which do allow the gestures you use not only good, but also for the present better to you then the gesture of Christ himself, so you toss and tumble Christ's sacred name (blessed for ever) up and down, and fill the ●i●e with the noise of his example, when in proof you be as fa●re from following of it, as we: you use gestures, which you deem meet to receive meat inwhen you sit or stand: and so do we when we kneel, Only you deem gestures meet, which are daily gestures at me●te, and we deem that good also in this spiritual feast, which differeth from the ordinary. This is agoodly issue: but this matter i● all go already into the argument of a table gesture. So according to the tenor of this Paragraph, it appeareth, that never a man in England doth imitate the precise example of Christ in the gesture of the Supper, neither was it his meaning to propose unto us, such his gesture, for an example to rule the Sacramental gesture unto posterity.   

The third and last Paragraph.  
Sect. 28 IN the last place granting for the present, that our Saviour Christ sat, even as you do, and that at the Eucharistical Supper; yet was it not the purpose and will of Christ, that we should make his example therein a●● everlasting rule; so as in the act of receiving the sacramental bread and wine, we should be bound to follow him and his Apostles in their bodily gesture. This I will prove by and by; only first I will prepare the way by the considerations following.  
Sect. 29 First, than the actions of good men mentioned in Scripture are of two sorts. First, some are moral and necessary, were such even to them. Secondly, some circumstantial and mutable, which they might have done, or left undone upon occasion. Now that cannot in itself be necessary unto us, that was not necessary to them in the same case; for a good man's example cannot make a mutable thing to become unchangeable, and necessary; for this would draw on a contradiction with it, that the same thing may be mutable and immutable, being diversely commended by good examples unto us: or a contrariety, when two men by practising of the same service with incompatible circumstances, do affronted one the other, by contrary determinations, which yet (like the M●des and Persians laws) may not be altered. If therefore the gesture was ever a mutable ceremony in God's service in general; and sitting in the Supper 
o I mean not in regard of Christ's sovereignty, but upon common reason.  mutable unto Christ, and his Apostles; then behold it remains still a mutable ceremony even to this day, they leaving it no otherwise unto us, but as they found it. Let no man be so vain, to object here the Sacraments which Christ instituted, for they be necessaries, and substantialls; the gesture is only a necessary means in its kind, but variously determinable, for the fitting celebration of them.  
Sect. 30 Secondly, Christ's binding pleasure cannot possibly be fetched from the historical relation of his using a variable gesture but one time; nay when it is used many times in one gesture, it bindeth not; as Christ sat daily 
p Matth. 26. 55.  teaching, yet the Preacher is not bound to sit in preaching at any time, by Christ's manner of preaching; much less are we bound, when it is storied of Christ, that he sat at Supper but once. If he had continued upon earth to receive this Sacrament among his Disciples, by itself, without the conjunction of any other meal, it is hard to say then, what gesture he might have used: he might have kneeled, or stood, as well as sat, for aught I know. No other gesture is storied but sitting, (supposing that in this Paragraph) because our Saviour received the Sacrament no other time but once. Verily if sitting were never so variable, no other main gesture could be practised with it at the same time. He must either stand, or sit, or kneel, or lie down. You will confess, in process of time he might have taught his Apostles and others to stand, and I will say likewise, he might have taught them to kneel. Well, this is all, I would propose to your thoughes, that our Saviour instituting the Sacrament could use but one gesture that time, but this excludes not other gestures, which had been mutually and interchangeably variable from the beginning. And mark this well, that no doubt our Saviour would have put a note of immutability upon his gesture, if he mean to put upon us the strict imitation of it; considering no gesture was obligatory in the Church by example, nay I say, not so much as (absolutely) by commandment from the creation of the world, that is for the space of 4000 years (plus minus) together.  
Sect. 31 Thirdly, a good example is followed two ways (I learned the distinction from you:) 1. according to the outward form. 2. according to the mystical meaning or spiritual instruction of it. So a translator follows his author, if he keep his true meaning, though he do not servily bind himself to his words. Now the meaning of mutable circumstances is fetched from the equity of them. Therefore I swerve not from Christ's example even in the gesture of kneeling, if kneeling hold proportion with the equity of his sitting. Thus you please to 
q Manuscrip. ch. 2.  pled for your standing; that the Church in using it, doth not swerve from the example of Christ & his Apostles: for though it be not the same gesture (you say) that they used, yet it is well known to be of the same kind theirs was [that is] for equity; and that equity, (as I noted before) is fitness to use a tablegesture.] But then if our equity be as good as yours (which must be tried in it own place) you will take us into your company of not swerving from the example of Christ, and his Apostles. And so kneeling is not a contrarying of their practice (as you 
r Ibid.  accuse) but a conformity unto it.  
Sect. 32 Fourthly, In the presence of the Lord I do protest, and witness unto the would by these presents, that I do hold the gesture of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles (whatsoever it was) yea the very gesture of sitting in itself lawful, and commendable. Shall I argue the gesture of our Lord and his Disciples of sin by kneeling? God forbidden. So I should charge upon my conscience the guilt of accusing their innocency. But doth one variable circumstance argue another of sin? do you argue the Apostles of sin, by your standing? Yea but (you say) there is special cause, why you charge▪ v● of arguing Christ's doing of sin, because 
s Ibid.  kneeling is enjoined for the most part upon this ground, that the Sacrament should not be profaned, & could not else be received reverently. I answer, upon what ground the gesture is enjoined in this Church, I will show 
In the third part of this Treatise.  in due time (God willing;) but it seems you confess that kneeling itself simply argues not Christ's sitting of sin, (that is comfort enough in this place) only you found fault w●th the ill tenor of their injunction, which press it upon you. I will interpret their injunction here in a word, as the place requireth, which you cannot reasonably gainsay. Kneeling is not enjoined, jest the Sacrament should be profaned by sitting; but jest it should be profaned by the profane and weak hearts of men in the gesture of fi●●ing. The profanation lies not simply in the gesture, (which in itself is lawful & innocent,) but in evil hearts, that accidentally might abuse it. For assuredly many people in the Church would be too subject to take from thence occasion to sleight sacred ordinances, whereof was yet no danger in our Saviour, and his inspired Apostles. And as they which kneel may receive too reverently, not because they kneel, but because their minds be superstitious and vain: so they which sit may receive too unreverently, not because they sit, but because their minds are not sufficiently possessed with God's fear, in his holy worship. Well, let this touch now suffice: so you may be pleased to see, that we be fare from condemning the doing of our Lord jesus Christ.  
Sect. 33 Nay for any self I have appealed to the Lord I●sus himself, that I have meant no more, but to defend that liberty which himself hath granted unto his people, and not to draw them off (God forbidden) from the required imitation of his example. [o thou whom my soul loveth, grant wisdom to discern, and grace to tread in those happy paths, which thy blessed foursteps have chalked ou● before us to walk in: Amen sw●●te Lord jesus.]   

Arguments of our brethren pressing the imitation of Christ's gesture.  
Sect. 34 HAving thus prepared our way, it seems to me the best order to bring in first such arguments as are alleged, to prove our imitation of Christ's gesture necessary in the act of receiving; and then to annex such reasons on the other part, as may seem effectual to sway the judgement according to the proposition and intent of this Paragraph.  
Sect. 35 Arg. 1. 
u Abridg. pag. 56. Perth. Assem. pag. 37. Manuscrip. ch. 2.  We are bound to imitate Christ and the commended example of his Apostles in all things, wherein it is not evident that they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us. Prou. 2. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 1. CITIZEN Cor. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 14. 33. Ephes. 5. 1. Phil. 3. 17. 1 Thess. 1. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 7. 2 Tim 3. 14. But no special reason can be imagined, why they should administer and receive the Sacrament sitting, rather than we, or why is should be decent and fit for us to receive it kneeling, rather than for them. I give ye three principal answers: first, your proposition or rule is vain: for inasmuch as you cannot deny, but some things be morals and essentials, some again be circumstantialls and mutables, and that in those we be bound simply to imitate good examples, it followeth that in respect of them your caution is extremely superfluous.  
Sect. 36 Then for circumstantialls and mutables, it is false and frivolous. For, first, general reason of nature's allowance sufficiently justifies many natural circumstances; and general reason of order, peace, edification, just fie sufficiently other convenient appendices to God's worship: [now if you meant these for special reasons, than your caution carries plain absurdity in it, as if the reasons of nature, order, peace, edification, might not concern us.]  
Sect. 37 Secondly, what speak you of special reason, when ●s there is never a man under heaven can always have in mind all circumstances of his business? and this is true of such special things in God's worship as fall out but occasionally. But how shall you do for special reason in gesture of prayer, when one good example commends standing, another good example commends kneeling in equal case? Is it not impossible to do the o●e, and leave the other, and both upon special reason? Again, sometimes you stand at table, before you dine or sup, and give thanks; sometimes you sit down first, and then crave a blessing. Our Saviour Christ always caused the people and company to sit down before he blessed the bread, Mat. 14. 19 15. 35, 36. 26. 26. Luke. 24. 30. I ask you therefore what special reason you have, which moves you to stand in blessing? If you say, we stand for reverence-sake, then must not your special reason sway at all times upon like convenience? But than you be worse, for if your special reason be for reverence in prayer, than also you may kneel; here I know not what you will say for leaving Christ's example either without special reason, or such a special reason as holds you bound equally to two gestures; or lastly, such a special reason, as shall not bind to either, but you will forsake your special reason at your own pleasure.  
Sect. 38 Thirdly, But truly I do not see, in matters of circumstance, that you do mean (if your meaning be bolted) any thing by special reason, but some particular convenience. For thus the disputer speaketh: 
w Disp. pag. 43.  It is an offence to refuse the following of Christ, and his Apostles, when we may conveniently do it, and with good allowance from all circumstance. If this be all your special reason, verily your caution (whereby you back so importants proposition, whereabout you make so great a do) will prove to very little purpose. And thus you have one principal answer.  
Sect. 39 Secondly, I answer, that there is never a one of your proofs, which hath any force to bind us to the imitation of Christ; and good men's gesture: let them be considered apart. Prou. 2. 20. Take heed of the whore, that thou mayst walk in the way of good men. Ephes. 5. 1. Be ye kind, tender hearted, forgiving one mother, as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you; be ye therefore followers of God as dear children. (I hope you will follow God in no gestures.) 1 Thess. 1. 6. Ye become followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word with much affliction, &c. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 7. Withdraw yourselves from every one that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition, which ye received of us; for you know how you aught to follow us, for we behaved not ourselves disorderly amongst you. All these Scriptures are specially restrained to moral matters. So 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be followers of me, as I am of Christ; that is in the ordinances which I have delivered unto you: verse. 2. So Phil. 3. 17. Brethren be followers together of me, that is walking with not by the same rule: verse. 16. So 2 Tim. 3. 14. Continued thou in the things which thou hast learned, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; that is in all divine truths of Scripture, notwithstanding persecutions; notwithstanding false 〈◊〉, and heresies: (compare the whole Chapter together.) As for 1 Cor. 11. 16. 14 33. they make against you, and not for you: for of covering or uncovering the head in holy assemblies of the Prophets; speaking orderly, one by one; the Apostle allegeth the custom used in the Churches of God, against men contentious in such things: If you say these orders are proved by the Apostle natural, and necessary; and then he presseth the Chruches' example; I am content: and so these two places are just like their fellows before. Thus your proofs meddle not with the authority of 
x See back p. 1 ch 2 sect. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  examples for matter of gesture, but only in things which the word shows to be necessary, if the examples had not been mentioned. And as for your caution, they do not give the lest glance unto ●t, because the matters they speak of, shall ever concern us, as well as the Apostles.  
Sect. 40 Thirdly, let your proposition pass this once; I deny your assumption, because we can allege special reason, why the Apostles sat, and special reason why we do not sit. Of the former this reason is plain, that their gesture in the Eucharistical Supper was but occasional from the Passeover; like as it was Luke 24. 30. as jesus sat at meat, with them, he took▪ bread, &c. Of the latter we have special reason in a Circumstance, or else I know not what special reason meaneth: As, first, the minds of m●n are prophanelier given now, than the minds of the Apostles were. Secondly, to us at this time, this is special reason, that sitting hath been disused in our Church, and kneeling used beyond, or almost beyond man's remembrance. Thirdly, the authority of the Magistrate is a special reason in a circumstance, which is variable in God's worship. Fourthly, it is a special reason that resistance of kneeling makes such a wonderful stir amongst us, to the hindrance of public men of their Ministers, and private men of the sweet liberty of the Communion. Lastly, what special reason you are able to allege, why the Apostles sat covered in receiving, and we fit b●re; I entreat you to give it leave to be referred hither if it will be. Thus much for the first, and principal argument.  
Sect. 41 Arg. 2. 
y Perth. ass. p. 44.  Whatsoever action is enclosed within the institution may not lawfully be broken. 
z Pag. 45.  Institution is ●n stead of a command, wherein nothing should be added nothing diminished, nothing altered, in matter, form, or order, because the institution is the rule, whereby to reform abuses; and 
a Pag. 39  Christ's example seconded with the practice of the Apostles is equivalent to a precept of institution. I answer, This objection (pag. 45.) speaks upon the Institution recited by Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11. 23. and of that affirmeth; nothing should be added, nothing diminished, nothing altered, &c. And yet S. Paul says not one word of the gestures. And I also largely, and evidently (I hope) prove afterward in this chapter, that the institution cannot comprehend the gesture. If therefore [enclosed within the institution] you mean every action used in the Supper when it was instituted; then it is false that every such action was therefore instituted, because it was used in 
See my reasons at the latter end of this cha. against the necessity of imitating Christ's example in the gesture.  the instituted Supper: then walking, standing, uncovering of the head, and sundry like, be altogether unlawful, as being breaches of the institution; nay then there would be left no ●ot of liberty in any circumstance whatsoever; where you say, that Christ and the Apostles example was equivalent to a precept, it is a palpable untruth: No example is equivalent to a precept in a variable point, except it were of a moral, and unchangeable matter; at the first institution of all Sacraments, there must have been some gesture used, yet you will not say surely, that the first example thereof was equivalent to a precept of institution. But let the Institution in the story be searched, and behold you shall find no gesture enclosed within the Institution according to the first paragraph, and so you cannot reform the abuse of the gesture by the historical tenor of the institution. Finally, he that says much, and doth not establish by proof any part of it, shall seem to say something to himself and his own scholars; but you might have left this usurpation to our masters of Paris, or some other magnificoes, that have an ancient charter for saying, and proving nothing.  
Sect. 42 Arg. 3. 
b Surveyed pag. 18.  Our Saviour sat of purpose. Answer, if we grant, he sat; we distinguish of sitting of purpose; for either he sat of purpose, that is voluntarily; or he sat of purpose, that is exemplarily. Sure in the former sense, there is no circumstance, but a man may use it of purpose. So our Saviour sat down of purpose, when he did preach: but that he used his sitting to be exemplary, you can say nothing to prove, neither must we stumble at the Evangelists setting down the gesture of the Passeover, as saying they set it down of purpose, for (beside that I might say they omitted the gesture then in the Communion of purpose) it is well known that the Evangelists, as all Historians, do usually describe ever and anon many confessed circumstances.  
Sect. 43 Arg. 4. 
c Abridg. p. 56.  We have no example for receiving of any Sacrament in all the Scripture, in the gesture of kneeling.  
Ans. Will you reason in matters of sact, negatively from Scripture, specially about a mutable circumstance? Again, suppose there had never been example yet really given, so that none could be set down, yet might kneeling be vied in the Sacrament, so long as the rule doth allow it. There is no example for a chilce to be baptised; there is no example for a prayer before and after the Sermon; and these be greater matters than the gesture. Lastly, there is no example of gesture in all the Sacraments of the holy Scripture at all, but one 
* Mat 26, 20.  [discumbebat] at our Saviour's Passeover; and therefore this exception wants teeth.  
Sect. 44 Arg. 5. 
d Disp pag. 43. &c.  It is unlawful to leave Christ's imitable gesture, and in li●u thereof to observe a worse. Ans. 1. This proposition is false, partly in variable circumstances, partly when (in comparison) the worsenesse stands not, in a respect which is sinful, but which is accidentally, in convenient: But the disputer for got standing at Sacrament, that it is confessed to be worse than sitting.  
Sect. 45 Secondly, I deny Mr. Disputer that kneeling to you, and me, is worse than sitting to you and me, Confideratis confiderandis. To that which you say for preferring of a tablegesture, before a personal worship, I answer (besides that it falls into the argument of a Capable-gesture, as a great part of your disputing discourse doth, and that if you prefer a tablegesture, because of the civil custom of eating) you prefer it unlawfully: this is to be specially minded, that a tablegesture in divine worship and a worship-gesture be all one: as I have proved and you have confessed 
* Chap. 1.  before: therefore you oppose them against another, against reason. Certes, you can call our Saviour's sitting at table (supposing it such) no more a tablegesture, than a worship-gesture: for the gesture is to be esteemed according to the business, whereunto it is applied: at lest it was a worship-gesture in the act of receiving, as much as in the act of blessing, giving of thanks, and singing of Psalms; for you must observe that Christ passed not from divine worship to an earthly business, but only from one part of divine worship unto another. If you say, that this is but worshipping in a general sense, and so still kneeling which is adoration is worse than it; you trifle in a serious business: for the betterness and precedence of gestures depends for the most part upon circumstances, that may be better to us which was not to the Apostles? Besides, if that which is not always the best gesture, be sometime used, it is not therefore impious, but inconvenient. In a word so long as God allow, kneeling in the Sacrament (though it be not always the better gesture) ●t is sufficient for us. Neither do we therefore condemn Christ's doing in the mean time, but only vary that which by his own direction hath been in all ages, and times lawfully variable. Against this the Disputer only tells us of the second commandment, and that God is the only Lawgiver in his Church, both which (rightly declared) make that good, which even I say. But for such general proofs so childishly applied. I refer you to the answer of the general argument, Pag. 2. Chap▪ 1. Sect. 2.  
Sect. 46 Arg. 6. 
e Abridg. pag. 56. urged in the Repl partic. to Bp. Morton, pag. 44.  It is gross hypocrisy for us to pretend more holiness, reverence, and divotion, in receiving of the Sacrament, than was in Christ and his Apostles. I answer, first, we acknowledge (I think I may speak in the names of all godly men that kneel at Sacrament throughout the Kingdom) that we be fare short in all personal qualifications or actual performance, (not to mention our Lord) even of the inspired Apostles.  
Sect. 47 Secondly, as we have it not▪ so we pretend it not by the gesture of kneeling, more than in many things you may be charged as well as we. Why do you kneel down in long prayers before and after Sermons, and Sacraments? are you more holy and devout than the Apostles were? why do you give thanks after meat in ordinary meals besides the blessing of the table? are you more thankful, and devout, then Christ, and his Apostles were? why do you receive uncovered? and you 
f Repl. party. pag. 70.  say you do it for reverence sake; and what are you more reverend and devout than the Apostles were?  
Sect. 48 Thirdly, difference may fall betwixt us and holy men in three respects: first, in the measure of substantialls: secondly, in circumstantial manner: thirdly, in some particular intention and end of either. For the first, one good man may pray longer, or shorter than another; and so of other parts of God's worship; for what bond is there of the precise measure? For the second, David and Elijah sat in prayer, others fell down upon their face: you will stand, or sit in table-blessing; and why may you not also kneel, if you be alone? for what absolute bond of the manner is thereof? For the third, one man may have some reserved and peculiar end to himself in holy worship, which another hath not; inward, in respect of particular disposition of heart, through the apprehension of some mercy received, some want unsupplyed, some lust unmortified; and outward, for edification of others, in regard of their persons; in regard also of times, and places; and other circumstances occurring. Do you look for an harmony of the Apostles themselves in these things? verily you shall not find it. It is enough, that we all consent in the substantialls, which are expressly manifested: as for measure, and outward manner, and some particular end, which to some man specially occurreth, you shall be forced to general rules in plain despite of you: now to apply this, the difference of circumstances is occasioned either from the state of the soul, (which like a seal maketh (as it will) impression upon our bodies;) or from the state of the Church whereof we be members; the 
g Cot. 11. u 14.  custom whereof hath not a little force to draw us to the conformity of it. For like as our Saviour and his Apostles framed themselves to the fashion of the jews, so we do frame our gesture to the custom of this Church, wherein godly men led the way unto us before we were borne. And are we more holy, reverend, and devout than they were therefore? By no means, no more than you may set all God's Saints in Scripture together by the ears, by odious comparisons for diverse using of bodily gestures in holy ordinances. It is not necessary that the holiness, reverence, and devotion of the heart be always a like declared.  
Sect. 49 Fourthly. When you say we pretend more holiness, &c. then the Apostles had, do you mean, we intent to pretend so, or the gesture of kneeling only (ipso facto) so pretendeth? The former (I suppose) you will not take to; you will be so good as to leave us to the gracious judgement of Christ himself; else we might justly think, you see and complain of our hypocrisy; as Diogenes did the pride of Plato; fastum fastu; or rather that our innocency (like a wall) would beat back this ball of stande● upon them, which do band it against us. If you should accuse us of hypocrisy, and want of inward truth in the use of this gesture, your accusation would not touch the cause; and yet for our persons we need not be much dismayed, being charged by them which cannot look fare into a millstone. As for kneeling itself to pretend more holiness &c. than the Apostles had, I understand not well what it might mean; the gesture itself is simple, and stands not in comparison. If you mean that others take offence, who can compare gestures together, (howbeit your assertion will not well admit of this commentary) then do you speak to your own disgrace: for as none do think there is o●●entation thereby, but such as do refuse, to use it, so it is strange, that their construction in this case can fasten gross hypocrisy upon us. But what if you mean, that kneeling is a devised gesture besides the gesture of Christ, and so is a pharisaical will-worship? If you do so mean, than your answer is to be had in its own 
h Chap. 1.  place. I will not trifle with you about the word [gross] which Divines are wont to contradistinguish to [formal] but take, that you understand a gross degree in formal hypocrisy: but whether you mean gross or formal I hope my former answer will suffice.  
Sect. 50 Arg. 7. (or rather amplification of the former) in if ever kneeling had been fit in the act of receiving, then verily it had been such to the Apostles. How so? First, 
i Abridg lordship 56. Manuscrip. ch. 2.  because Christ himself was present in person, when they received: and secondly, 
k Manuscrip. only.  because kneeling was not thou polluted with idolatry as it hath been since. I will make you a threefold answer. First, If I take unto it, that kneeling was fit in itself to the Apostles, it will be my gain and your loss in the Controversy: for what if I borrow these helps of you, and transfer them over to my first Paragraph, to show it is no ridiculous thing to say, that the Apostles might kneel.  
Sect. 51 Secondly, if they did not kneel, it was not because kneeling was in itself unfit for them, but because our Saviour preferred another gesture before it at that time; perhaps that he might conform himself and his Apostles to the Church of the jews in the gesture of the Passover: for the custom of the jews did not seldom sway with him, and them, even in changeable circumstances: as in closing the book, and giving it to the minister according as they say it was the manner of the Scribes, when they had read their text, Luke 4. 20. Sitting to teach, Mat. 23. 21. putting off their shoes afore they went to eat meat, as the jews manner was, having a sop in the Passeover, and many more.  
Sect. 52 Thirdly, have you such an opinion of your two considerations, that you think it impossible, that any thing can make the gesture of kneeling so convenient to us, as it was to the Apostles? Truly I see no reason of any such opinion of them; nay I am of opinion, that kneeling may be much more convenient to us, than it was to the Apostles notwistanding them. And let best reason determine in the consideration of them distinctly.  
Sect. 53 First, you say the Apostles received in Christ's presence, but whether is it to be thought in the point of worshipping, that there is greater respect to be had to Christ's presence in humility, or to his presence in glory? especially if you consider; that Christ made himself familiar upon earth with his Apostles, he lived like a man, and a companion of men, yea he was a servant to men, whiles he dwelled amongst them; and in all ordinary fellowship he was pleased from time to time to converse with his Apostles. It was the purpose of his incarnation 
l Mat. 20. 28.  not to be ministered unto but to minister. And the Apostle speaketh plainly, Phil. 2. 7. he made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a servant, the fashion of a man, and humbled himself, &c. Vers. 9 10. wherefore (now) God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that all knees should bow unto him, whereby is showed most evidently, that to prove adoration to be done unto him, his presence in the flesh hath no such force of concluding a● hath his glorious presence. Much less it is so much as probable, that that should be preferred.  
Sect. 54 As for that place which the Replyer 
m Reply parties to B Mort, sect. 14.  abuseth Heb. 1. 6. when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the Angels of God worship him, there is not a letter in it, which advantageth his defence of the Abridgement; for either the worship is to be referred to his 
n See Mr. 〈◊〉.  glorification, (for you may not expound, when the first begotten comes into the world, then let the Angel's worship: but then he saith, let the Angel's worship:) or else to the time of his being upon earth; and so as the Angels be spiritual, so they should worship Christ in the contemplation of his invisible excellency: and if you could affirm upon good ground, that the Angels were to worship his invisible body upon earth, yet you cannot reason from Angels to men: because whereas he was revealed unto the Angels, yet to men he was not, he would not be; not nor to his dearest Apostles; rather serving them, during his abode upon earth, then expecting to be served and worshipped by any of them: but now his body is invested with all honour, and now he commands all creatures to bow unto him, and worship him.  
Sect. 55 If you object (as 
o Perth. Assemb. pag. 37.  you do) that in the days of his flesh they were wont to fall down before him and worship him. I answer, first, you say 
p Ibid.  yourselves it was but upon extraordinary occasions; that is, when some miracle was either wrought or sought; as appears by all your places quoted : Matth. 8. 2. 9 18. 14. 33. 20. 20. joh. 9 38. Now there was no such matter either wrought or sought in the Lord's Supper: and it is questionable also whether the worship which they performed was divine or civil. Secondly, this is undoubtedly certain, that he was never worshipped in any solemn worship or public ordinance, when he dwelled upon earth, as a common object of joint adoration, that the holy Scripture mentioneth. Thirdly, nay his Disciples, that were as his servants and followers, never so much as kneeled down to him in prayer, whiles he remained alive: they worshipped him, confessing him to be the Son of God, when they were astonished at a miracle, Matth. 14. 33. So Simon Peter fell down at jesus knees, being astonished at the draught of fishes, which they had taken, Luke. 5. 8, 9 But they never in their lives (for aught we can tell) fell down or kneeled unto Christ in their ordinary prayers: you will show now the difference betwixt these two sequels if you can: if ever any should have kneeled to Christ, in the act of receiving, then surely the Apostles should; for they received in Christ's presence: (this is yours:) if ever any should have kneeled to Christ in the act of praying, then surely the Apostles should, for they they prayed full often in his presence: (this is ours:) if therefore though they kneeled not unto Christ in prayer, you will say, yet we may kneel unto Christ in prayer: so though they kneeled not unto Christ in receiving, we will say, yet we may kneel to Christ in receiving. Thus I do assert, that there is fare greater reason for us to kneel in the act of receiving, then was for the Apostles, they having only Christ's presence of humility, we his presence of glory; not to trouble you with other disparisons in this place.  
Sect. 56 Secondly, (you say) kneeling was not then polluted with idolatry, as it hath been since; you mean with the Popish artolatry, or bread-worship. I answer, first, it is untrue, that kneeling at Sacrament (qua tale) can be polluted as you say, a natural gesture which God in itself allows in his worship is incapable of pollution; and can be defiled no more then sitting, standing, and kneeling, in other cases, which have been abused to idolatrous use, shamefully and villainously from the beginning of the world: if you regest, that kneeling hath been polluted even in this same Sacrament by idolatours, which makes it worse: I answer, first, that it is no worse to you, which hold the Papists Sacrament of the Altar no Sacrament of Christ, but a carnal device or nullity: the worship of the popish idol is no more (in your opinion) to your Sacrament, (setting aside the usurpation of names) than the sacrifices of Bacchus. Secondly, let it be that this idolatry is worse to your case, because the Popish Sacrament is esteemed to be the true Eucharist; yet shall our kneeling be no more defiled thereby, than the sitting which the Pope hath a privilege to use at the Sacrament of the Altar, doth defile your gesture of sitting. (But this matter belongs to 
q See the third part of this Treatise.  another place to be opened more accurately.) This is my first answer than that idolatours are in a damnable case, which turn their eyes or hands or knees or feet &c. ●o any idolatrous service; but there is no gesture of these parts defiled unto godly men, from whom the idolatry is removed: what? shall we not lift up our hands or eyes, smite upon our breasts, kneel upon our knees in Gods true worship, because the Papists did so in false worship? fare be this learning from me and you too.  
Sect. 57 Secondly, I answer, take it you for granted, that the gesture is polluted with the Popish bread-worship, did the Apostles foresee this, or did they not? if you say they did foresee the bread-worship, and so they gave example of a gesture against kneeling of purpose; then the edge of your poor reason is quite go; for they foreseeing so much, you cannot say, that if ever kneeling was fit for any, it was fit for them, but rather just contrary way: especially when ●s their kneeling would carry authority with it, whereby the wicked might have helped bread-worship sooner into belief and practice, in the days, when Antichristianisme was a growing. If you say they did not foresee the bread-worship, than all advantage of comparing them and us together, in respect of that Popish bread-worship, is utterly taken away; for the gesture which they used, they did not intent for a confession against the gesture of bread-worship to come. In vain do you propose their example to condemn us at this day, except you could make appear, that they would have refused kneeling, because of that bread-worship, if they had been acquainted with it: but since they were not, whatsoever gesture they used, the respect of idolatours' gesture had not the lest stroke in the world for the disposing of it: so that as the case standeth, no more can be gathered from their practice, but this, that where all gestures were clear and free unto them, they used only that gesture as most fit (above other respects of fitness) whereby they might conform themselves to the Church of Israel. But suppose they might kneel better than we, in one only respect, because they knew not of the Popish bread-worship; sure we may kneel better than they again in many main respects, as the long custom of the Church since the reformation, the command of a Christian King in a variable circumstance, and lastly in Mr. Sprints case, which is indeed a case of wonderful importance God knoweth. So much for answer to the arguments, pressing the example of Christ and his Apostles.   

Grounds whereby it may appear, that the imitation of Christ's gesture is not necessary.  
Sect. 58 NOw I will give some reason to satisfy the conscience (as I persuade myself) that it is not the will of Christ, that we should imitate him in the bodily gesture. And first I lay down this distinction again, which the Replyer 
r Repl. partic to B. Mort. p. 36.  saith, he alloweth, that there were some acts of Christ in the Sacrament essential, some accidental: now that the gesture of Christ which he used was but accidental, and so variable, and by no means binding to imitation, I declare in this manner.  
The gesture is to be considered, as it respecteth the preceding history of the Passeover, as it respecteth the institution; as it respecteth other things in the Sacrament; lastly, as it respecteth all other Ecclesiastical ordinances.  
Sect. 59 First, as it respecteth the precedent history of the Passeover, who doth not see (if it continued the same gesture) that it was occasion all from the Passeover? sure the speech of the 
s Met. 26. 26. Mark. 14. ●●.  Evangelists, [as they were eating jesus took bread, &c.] if it show any thing in the world, as touching the connexion, (for the gesture as you say;) it is, that the gesture of the Communion was occasional from the gesture of the Passeover. It pleaseth the Replyer 
t Pag. supradict.  to say, he pitied the defendant, that he could show no occasion of the gesture of the Eucharistical Supper. Surely the defendant needed not to be pitied in that thing: sembled professions of pity are righter objects both of pity, and indignation. But I request the Replier to tell me, whether (inasmuch as he will have these words, [as they were eating jesus took bread &c.] to import the continuance of the gesture;) he can historically relate an occasional act by plainer words, if he would bond himself to do it, so that he use not the word [occasional?] Let other places of Scripture, (partly in the story of the Pass●over, and partly other where) and common reason, med●rate this disputation. In Mark. 14. 18. It is said, [as they sat and did eat, jesus said, Verily one of you shall betray me:] I ask now, whether Christ's gesture of sitting, when he spoke thus, was not occasional from the Passeover? so Ezech. 8. 1. As I sat in mine house, and the elders of Israel sat before me, the hand of the Lord fell upon me there saith the Prophet. Will you say that the Prophets sitting was purposed and required there, wherein the hand of the Lord should come upon him, or that it was merely occasional? So 1 King. 13. As the two Prophets sat together (at meat) at the table, the word of the Lord came to the Prophet that brought him back, vers. 20. was not the gesture here unto the coming of the Prophecy merely occasional? so, as Christ (after his resurrection) sat at meat with the Disciples, he took bread, &c. 
u Hereupon (I think) together with the institution itself aftersupper were grounded the love-feasts, by continued occasion whereof the Disciples might possibly (for a time) use sitting in the act of receiving  Luke. 24. 30. who can imagine, but this sitting at breaking bread (which is like to be Sacramental) was only occasional from the gesture of common eating? but what should I spend Scripture upon a point, which common reason of the phrase [as they were eating the Passeover, jesus took bread, &c.] evidently convinceth? especially if we consider two things: first, that if the Passeover had not then been needful to precede the Eucharistical Supper, I can upon as good reason think, that the Apostles might have stood or kneeled, as well as sit down, (if they sat) in receiving; no formal tablegesture seeming needful for eating one bit of bread, supping one taste of wine, & that also in spiritual use. 2. that the gesture of the Passeover itself was but occasional, and all your proof of the Suppergesture is but probability of the Passeover-gesture continued) & therefore the Suppergesture could be no more: and that the Passeover-gesture was but occasional, manifestly appeareth; for (be sides that 
w Perth. assem. pag. 38.  you say, Their manner of sitting was received among the jews, either from the Romans or Persians,) this is to be minded, that some gesture being needful to eat their meat in, God had neither prescribed nor prohibited any one unto them: and so they were left to their own choice, and they did choose the gesture used among them in ordinary meals: whereof also there was much more reason, then is now to us in the Sacrament as there was more use of tables: on which were set in the Passeover many dishes to make up a full and formal bodily meal; but with us, they be only used to set our bread and wine on, as decency doth require. Now if you be so pitiful to me as you are wont to be, I pray you declare your pity by kind and faithful instruction in these things, if you can reprove them: for else (rebus sic sta●tibus) it is as clear as the Sun shineth, that the gesture of our Saviour was only occasional, and so bindeth us not.  
Sect. 60 Secondly, consider the gesture, as it respecteth the institution of the Sacrament. Here then is a fit place to examine, whether the gesture be a Sacramental part of the institution 
x Reply part. to B Mort. pag. ●6. See also the Survey. p. 181.  as the Replyer would have it, & note that the Repliers meaning is according to the words of joh. Alasco, that sitting at the table of the Lord (est pars signi Canae Dominicae, that is) is a part of the very Sacram. sign. Against this opinion I reason thus. First, that which is instituted for a Sacramental part, is within the commandment, [do this in remembrance of me] else, where must this fancy be grounded? but that commandment includes not the gesture, as I have plainly showed 
y Ch. 2 sect. 3.  before.  
Sect. 61 Secondly, if sitting be pars signi, and so (you say) signifies our Communion, than you have some word that says as much, that gives you warrant so to believe and teach; but such a word hath not all the new Testament, which teacheth that sitting signifies our Communion with Christ, or with one another, partaking of the elements only signifies that unto us, according to the warrant of the Apostle: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? 1. Cor. 10. 16. for we being many are o●● bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, verse 17.  
Sect. 62 Thirdly, if sitting be a part of our Sacrament, than was the gesture likewise essential unto the Passeover; for that in like manner typically signified communion with Christ, and one with another: but there was no gesture instituted thereof at the first, or recorded thereof, all the while the law of the Passeover continued: and therefore how could any gesture be held essential unto the same? nay, if it were never heard, that a gesture was essential to any of all Gods holy Sacraments, or ordinances, than this is but an idle dream.  
Sect. 63 Fourthly, if sitting be sacramental and essential, than either ad esse Sacramenti, or ad bene esse. The former you do disclaim; the latter we will affirm of very circumstances, which tend to the well being of public and private duties of God's worship, and yet be variable.  
Sect. 64 Fifthly. All your notes of circumstances of order, which in the 
z Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 4, 5, 6, 7.  first part of this treatise I have observed, do belong most plainly to the gesture. If therefore it be essential, essentials will become circumstances, and circumstances will become essentials, and so all other mutual accidents in the Supper of Christ shall be essentials as well as the gesture.  
Sect. 65 Sixthly, is sitting a Sacramental part of the institution, as sitting, or else as a tablegesture? I suppose when you come to answer you will say the latter: But where did reason tell you that sitting is essential to any feast? much more it is a senseless conceit, to think, that sitting at the Sacrament is, pars signi: when all men know it is but a mean, (medium apprehendendi signum) whereby the sign may be apprehended of us.  
Sect. 66 Seventhly, let the Replyers own pen condemn himself, as you may see his saying transcribed 
a Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 2.  before; where in effect he acknowledgeth, that gestures be not of institution: the writer of the Manuscr. saying, that sitting may be left, as all other indifferent things may, giveth (I hope) that sitting itself was not of institution and essentially, and sacramentally necessary. As for 
b I have quoted him before p. 2. c. 1. Sect. 9  Mr. T. C. he admonisheth all men, that sitting is not holden to be necessary, and therefore he is fare from thinking that gesture to be essential, and of institution.  
Sect. 67 Lastly, I add, that essentials to his ordinance God hath infallibly showed, but so is not the gesture shown according to the proof and tenor of the first Paragraph. Will you have uncertain things to be essentially and sacramentally necessary? nay, not only the Evangelists be silent in the gesture, but also the Apostle Paul is silent, when he sets down the essentials of the Lords Supper. 1. Cor. 11. 23, &c. But here 
c Manuscrip. chap. 2. Disp saith, Paul did acquaint the Corinthians, that Christ sat pag. ●54. this is an unwritten verity.  it is answered, that Paul calls it the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. and the Lords Table: 1. Cor. 10. 21. by those very names, though not expressing, yet intimating a Table, and Suppergesture.  
Sect. 68 I answer three things. First, you can no more gather the gesture from the mention of supper, and table, then from the mention of bread and wine, nor so much neither; for the table hath its use, if the bread and wine be set on it: yet cannot the gesture be concluded from the mention of bread and wine, because the bread and wine be not properly called a corporal supper, but metaphorically and by allusion. Besides, who will say, that eating one bit of bread, supping or tasting once only of a cup of wine, doth necessarily intimate a solemn sitting. The Fathers, they of Geneva, yea we ourselves in this Church, do call this spiritual ordinance, the Supper of the Lord, and the table, the table of the Lord; and yet (I hope) this intimates no sitting either with them, or with us; if you say it intimated it in those times because they used to sit; you offend first, Petitione principij, you cannot proovee they sat in those times: than you offend in the Collier's logic; they sat because there is mention of suppers and tables, and suppers and tables be mentioned, because they used to sit.  
Sect 69 Secondly, I answer, that in the mention of the very public worship, even circumstances (that vary) in their kind are intimated: what mattereth the intimation of them? our question is upon things essentially, and sacramentally necessary.  
Thirdly, to what purpose do you tell us of Paul's intimations Sect. 70 other where? if they have any force, let them be proofs when their turn comes; there we affirm, that all essentials, sacramentals, necessaries of institution are plainly expressed in this place, 1. Cor. 11. 23. &c.  
But to this place there be three exceptions laid Sect. 71 down. First, the Apostle omits the gesture, 
d Perth. Ass. pag. 39  because he writes as of a thing known. Ans. This is a strange exception, was the gesture better known, than the institution of bread, wine, blessing, breaking, taking, eating, drinking, &c. so you said before, it was supposed in the Evangelists; but when did you ever hear of essentials supposed altogether? this exception is of no value, for you might allege that to any Scripture of any matter, and furnish us with Roman learning, as if essentials were left unwritten to posterity, because those times well knew of them.  
Object. 2. 
e Manuscrip. c● 2.  Paul saith not, verse 23. I deliver all that Sect. 72 I have received, but I deliver nothing else but what I have received. Ans. You restrain Paul too much, for he saith both; namely, that which he delivered he had received; and also that which he had received he did deliver, that is concerning the institution: and the rather is this so, if it may be thought, that Paul received this of the Lord, by miraculous revelation, immediately; as 
f See Parens in 1 Cor. 11.  wise men do judge; and again 
g Beza in 1 Cor 11. verse 23.  if Beza do call this institution the Liturgy of the Apostles, well; no doubt all essentials which bond both jews and Gentiles, even in remote parts of the world, may be expected from it, or else, how could all corruptions in the supper, whatsoever they be, be tried by this institution as a rule; whereas that it is such a rule the Perth-assembly 
b Pag. 45.  avoucheth? Wherefore this exception can gain you nothing.  
Object. 3. Paul omits many material things besides, as Sect. 73 well as the gesture in 1 Cor. 1. 23. Answ. If you mean, by material, essential, & instituted things, than I deny: first, you 
i Manuscr. ch. 2.  say he omits the blessing of the cup. It is not so: for thus he writeth-tooke bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, and said, &c. verse 24. after the same manner also he took the cup, &c. verse 25. so the blessing of the cup is mentioned in those words [he gave thanks] two ways; either by referring the same to both elements, and to the whole action, as we do 
k And as we do at the sacrament, I believe not that you think blessing of the cup after the bread to be essential.  at tables; or else by the plain word of assimilation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, verse 25. whereby the former blessing, or thanksgiving is evidently applied (by a several accommodation) unto the cup also; he took the bread and gave thanks, &c. after the same manner, he took the cup. Secondly, says the disputer, 
* Disp. pag. 154.  the giving of the bread and cup is unmentioned. Ans. still you will be a 
* In the same place he says, Paul omits the pouring out of the wine Alas good man, he had not searched the Evangelists, for they make no mention of any pouring out of wine.  ridiculous disputer, giving is not words to be repeated, but an action to be done, and that the said action is to be done, can you not prove out of this place: pray you look again; thus saith the Apostle: he broke it, and said, take, eat, this do, verse 24. this do as often as ye drink it, verse 25. Can not you prove from hence, that the bread and wine was undoubtedly distributed and communicated? other men can (I am sure) most infallibly: these words are omitted (you 
* Manuscrip.  say) drink ye all of this, and again, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins. Poor exceptions I must confess; for they are not omitted, except you go by the count of syllables at your finger's ends; for thus the Apostle rehearseth them, verse 25. This cup is the new testament (or covenant) in my blood; This do ye &c. if you mean the word [All] is left our, I may say your [Alderman] is nothing, as if the sounding of that word [All] were 
l The word (all) is of singular use in the doctrine of the Sacrament, against the Papists, who take away the cup from the people, but it is not necessary to name it in the Sacramental administration Christ teaching rather what the people should do, than what the minister should say.  essential to the administration of the Communion. Fourthly, you 
* Manuscr. ch. 2.  say, these words be omitted: I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine, till I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom: also the singing of a Psalm when the whole action is finished, is omitted by Saint paul. Ans. It is true, and why did you not add also, that speech omitted, which Christ useth, john. 14. 31. Arise let us go hence: who doth not presently see, that neither those words, nor that Psalm are essentials, and of institution, but occasional only; nay those words may no man use, they belong not to us; and for the Psalm you deny not, but it may be omitted; and yourself say enough, that it was used, when the whole action was finished: I conclude therefore that Paul mentions all essentials of the instution of the Supper in 1 Cor. 11. 23. &c. and therefore that the gesture is an accident only, and so may be varied.  
Thirdly consider the gesture, as it respecteth other matters in the Sacrament, of like force with itself▪ and Sect. 74 by them let be judged, whether Christ's example thereof bind us to imitation. Now those matters be either of the persons, or actions; or things, or circumstances of time, place, and gesture. First for persons, the number, the sex, the qualification and service are to be observed. For number, they were but twelve; for sex they were only men; for qualification, they were only ministers of the new Testament; for ministry or service, only one of them was employed, that did first communicate the bread and cup, than the communicants did communicate the same one with another. Secondly for actions, we shall not unprofitably consider something as (not to speak of mere civil ones, ●● putting off their shoes, and such like;) I mean, how the bread was blessed, and broken, In what manner the Disciples did divide it; what quantity of bread and wine they did receive; and how long they did in this action tarry together; and I might add the consideration of the kiss of charity, (specially if the speech be now of Apostolical example, aswell at other communions, as at the first institution) for 
m Calvin 1 Cor. 16. 20. facile ere diderim iam ab atate Apostolorum, 〈◊〉 administrationi coniunctum osculum fuisse.  Calvin judgeth, that same osculum sanctum to have been joined to the supper from the Apostles time. Thirdly for things, as what kind of bread both for matter and form was used, what kind of wine, what manner of cup, what manner of table, what covering for the table, are points not impertinent to our occasion. Fourthly for other circumstances; as the time was in the evening, and also after another supper, which had been a full meal. The place was a private chamber in a private house. Lastly for the gesture, though I grant the main position of their bodies to be such sitting, as is said was at the Passeover; yet there be some things concerning the same very remarkable for our purpose. They sat with their heads covered; they sat all that communicated at one time together at one table; the dearest friends sat next one another, as appears by the Disciples sitting in jesus bosom, whom jesus loved in more especial manner: They used the same gesture in blessing and giving thanks, that they did in receiving; he that administered or delivered the elements sat in the act of administering and delivering, aswell as the Disciples sat in the act of receiving. In all which considerations, if liberty do remain unto us, that we are not bound to the example of Christ and his Apostles, would not a man wonder, that so many otherwise godly minded men should for so many years together strive so vehemently (that I say not bitterly) about the example of the gesture?  
I have found in their writngs for answer to some of Sect. 75 these observations (for indeed they answer only to some, and say not a word to the greatest and strongest part of them,) four 
* I will pass the foolish answer of the disp. that says the Church hath changed none of the circumstances which Christ used▪ Disp. 122, 123. for what should be said to him who denies, that the Sun changeth shadow in the dial▪  things. First (they 
n Manuscrip. ch. 2. Disp. pag. 121.  say) some of these things were altered from the first institution by the Apostles themselves, as they administered the Communion to the 
o Act. 2. 42.  whole multitude of believers, and so it was not to be received only by twelve, men, ministers. Also the time was altered by the Apostle, Acts 20. 7. 11. who administered the Communion early in the morning. Answ. To pass the partial alleging of Acts 20. to prove the Communion administered in the morning, when as the text saith about midnight. Entichus fell down from a lof, and was taken up dead, whom when Paul had recovered, he broke bread among them, Ver. 7. 11. and after this he talked a long while, even until break of day, vers. 11 so that Paul administered in one part of the night, as our Saviour Christ did in another; and this helpeth you not. To pass also, that you speak of a confessed circumstance, that it was [altered] somewhat ca●achristically: for such a thing howsoever men may vary in the divers use thereof, according as Christian liberty doth allow, yet in itself still and ever remaineth statu quo prius. To pass these things, I answer.  
First they did not of purpose vary the circumstances of Sect. 76 Christ's supper, but what they did, fell out to be done occasionally, pro ratione temperum: this is nothing against the gesture of sitting, whereof perhaps they had no occasion given to change.  
Secondly, they might vary many other circumstances Sect. 77 out of doubt, the variation whereof is not expressed: (if you consider seriously of the circumstances, you will not over confidently deny this;) then by that proportion, the gesture might be varied (if occasion did fall out, which I know not, and you know not) as well as those other circumstances, though it be not expressed.  
Thirdly, many things the Apostles did not change, (which adds much strength to their continuance,) yet Sect. 78 for all that they be changeable unto us; as sitting covered, administering and blessing in the same gesture which they did receive in; holding Communions in houses; receivers communicating bread and cup one with another, &c. whereby appeareth, that if the gesture was never changed by the Apostles, yet that respect doth not take away the mutability of it unto us. Your answer importeth, that actions are made mutable, or immutable unto us, by the mere example of the Apostles, which is most untrue; for in morals their example supposeth a law; in mutables it only declareth Christian liberty, and asserteth no more. Now if I assume, that the gesture is circumstantial to the Sacrament, and so of the nature of other circumstances, which you grant be variable, I hope, I do not beg it of you. If I take it not, ex concesso; yet I take it, ex probate; as judge you: so that whiles you do tell us, that some circumstances were varied by the Apostles, what doth that hurt us concerning the gesture? Doth that make any thing dogmatically against the change of the gesture? you can tell us that the time &c. may be changed, because the Apostles changed it: but you cannot infer, that the gesture if it was not changed by them, is not changeable therefore.  
Lastly, In a word, mark how well you wipe away Sect. 79 the strength of our argument from those circumstances by this answer. We reason in this manner; because time, number, sex, &c. were changeable [yea changed by the Apostles, for so this is an illustration of our proof] then the gesture, which from the beginning of the world hath been varied aswell as other circumstances in all parts of God's worship, may be here varied aswell. To this you answer. [those circumstances were changed by the Apostles.] We know they were, and that is our advantage: why do you make a part of our proof, the whole of your answer? This is not very well carried, only it serves for an answer to them, which either will not, or can not examine it.  
Secondly, (they 
p Disp. pag. 48.  say) they do follow Christ in Sect. 80 these circumstances; for as Christ used that bread and wine, which the time then presented and allowed for fittest: so doth the Church use, according to Christ's example, such bread and wine, as fitteth best, (for the time present.) Answer notably defended against the gesture! I will reason in like manner, that we do follow Christ's example by kneeling, as well as they do those circumstances. For as Christ used that gesture which the time then presented and allowed for fittest: so do we use according to Christ's example, the gesture of kneeling, which the time present presenteth and alloweth for fittest. It is enough for me to set together (because they forget) things paralellable.  
Thirdly, (they 
q Abridg lordship 56. Repl. partic to B. Mort. p. 35. ● Manuscri. ch. 2. Disp. pag. 49.  say) our Saviour had special reasons, Sect. 81 at that time when he instituted the Communion, whereby he was moved to use and do some things, which may be used and done otherwise. I Answer. First if he had in many things special reason (as you say) yet so long as he had it not in them all, it makes not against the gesture, though there was no special reason for it. That he had not special reason in all the circumstances, (I think) you will not deny; as in the receivers communicating of the bread and cup one with another, in the quantity of bread and wine received by them; in sitting together (as you say) at one table; in sitting in the act of blessing; and in the act of delivering; &c. If therefore there be no special reason of Christ's gesture, yet the same may be changed, as well as these things are by yourselves.  
Secondly, If our Saviour had special reasons, by the necessity of the time, yet it concludeth not that without that necessity, he would have done otherwise: a man may be necessituted to do it some time, which also he will do, if he were at liberty; and so might our Saviour have done, for aught you can say to the contrary.  
Thirdly, in those things you mention special reason Sect. 82 of, the reason hath no such speciality, but our Saviour 
* I mean not by his sovereignty, but upon such respects as were i●●is 〈◊〉.  might have done otherwise at that time. As first you 
r Manuscr. ch. ●.  say, by the law every family was to celebrated the Passeover apart; therefore there might be but our Saviour's twelve with him. Now I should rather infer contrarily, that because our Sacrament was not to be like the Passeover in the celebration of it, by severed families, there might have been thereat many twelves with him as well as one. I say might, both lawfully, and by fore-appoyntment out of jerusalem very possibly at that time, so though there might be but his own company with him at Passeover, yet at the Communion others also might have been present, any order (which himself hath before or since given in the word,) or difficulties of getting other● to join at that festival time notwithstanding, true, Christ pleased to have with him no more company at that time, but (what I pray) was the cause of that? Verily because the number of his Disciples was sufficient at any time, and not expressly and merely for the necessity of the Passeover-occasion. You 
s Ibid.  add, that the Apostles were public persons, and so in receiving, represented the whole Church of Christ; wherein you seem to me to speak unfitly, for do you think they received the Sacrament, quatenus they were public Ministers of the Gospel? I know they represented the whole Church of Christ, but in no other respect, but as they were members of Christ, and believers in his name, called to the first celebration of that ordinance, wherein even private men & women too (if such had been present) would have represented the Church of Christ, full as much as they.  
Next 
t Ibid.  you give special reason of their unleavened bread, because there was no other to be had at that time. I Sect. 83 answer. First you do not know that our Saviour would have instituted the Supper with leavened bread rather than unleavened, if he had had either of them to make his choice of. Even Christians in the Primitive Church 
* Quall 〈◊〉 communicatione vs● si●● non exponitur. S● ●lac. Il●ius &c Ecclesiast. histor. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap 6.  perhaps used (sometimes) bread, in the Supper unleavened, when they might have used other. Consider how the Apostle alludeth; Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast, not with the leaue● of malice, and wickedest, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1. Cor. 5. 7. 8. Secondly. Howsoever your special reason will come to nothing: if our Saviour might indifferently take either the one or the other, which you cannot gainsay; nay 
u Disp pag. 49.  yourselves do say, you regard not greatly for your wine, whether it be Gasc●ing, or Rhemists, or judea, or Candy, white or read, so it be the fruit of the vine: and so you say likewise for the bread in question, namely, whether it be leavened or unleavened, so it be the bread of the country. Wherefore then would you tie our Saviour to use the unleavened bread, upon reason of necessity, because there was none other; when perhaps he would, I am sure, he might have used it, although there had been leavened bread at hand.  
Next you 
w Manuscrip. ch. 2. Disp. pag. supradict.  give special reason for the time, namely Sect. 84 the evening, wherein our Saviour celebrated the last Supper, and that is because the Passeover might not be celebrated at any other time, and jesus was that night to be betrayed; now it was not fit that the Communion should be celebrated before the Paschall Supper, that the Church might better understand how it cometh into the room of it. Hereunto I might answer, that our Saviour might have instituted the Communion before the Passeover was expired; if it had pleased him, as well as Baptism, before Circumcision was expired: but I grant unto you, that this was a special reason (as Christ would have it) of the time; and so of about twenty circumstances, and things variable mentioned before, you have poor one, that was done upon special reason; but what? was it a special reason of necessity? Not, but only 
* As that of Paul and the Christians receiving in the night was, Act. 20.  of convenience and fitness; and if all the three points which you name, were done upon special reason, the same answer sufficeth: nay, suppose they were plainly done upon special reason of necessity, yet you must be persuaded, that that can do no scathe to the mutability of the gesture more than of all the rest of the circumstances? and thus you have a particular, and just answer to your special reasons of some particular circumstance●▪ I might give you one general answer to them altogether, and say, these were no reasons, because Christ might have disposed otherwise for number of communicants, bread, and wine, without doing a miracle. I confess, I should borrow this answer of the wisdom of the Scotsmen; Some circumstances (say 
x Perth Assemb. pag. 36, 37  they) could not conveniently have been changed; but as for the gesture of sitting, Christ might have changed it in 
y Note that standing is in as ill case as kneeling.  standing or kneeling, if it had been his mind we should have left it, without working any miracle. But I disclaim the help of this answer, because it is some what absurd and ridiculous.  
Fourthly, I answer, let it be that all your circumstances Sect. 85 were used upon special reason, what then? why may not the gesture have been so used also? and like as we may change those circumstances, because we have special reason for changing of them, which Christ and his Apostles had not, as they had special reason for using them, which either we have not, or concerneth us not so much:) so we may change the gesture, because we have special reason for the changing of it, which Christ and his Apostles had not, (as they had special reason for the gesture which they used, which either we have not, or concerneth us not so much.) And this is our answer to your third exception taken against our reason for the mutability of the gesture, drawn from other mutable things & circumstances in Christ's supper. See more of this matter, sect. 35. to the end of 40. sect. before.  
Fourthly, (th●y 
z Disp pag 50. Hither may be referred, that whi●h you say, pag. ●21, 122. that such circumstances as the Church hath now lawfully changed from those which Christ used, are ordained by God, & so is not kneeling.  say) we cannot reason from circumstantial Sect. 86 things, and such as are of temporary use, to that which is substantial, and of perpetual use. I answer (to pass the fault of petition of the principle, which custom with the disputer makes ordinary) although I have said reasonable much to prove the gesture but a circumstance; yet because I will show the force of our reasoning from those circumstances of the first supper, which are undoubtedly mutable; I will prove that the gesture and they be (for our purpose) of equal consideration. First, those things which agreed together, (I say not in alique tert●●, but) in the point of Adiaphorisme, have in that respect a force of inferring one upon another. This proposition is clear enough: but I assume, that the gesture and those circumstances do agreed together in the point of Adiaphorisme: for proof whereof not to speak of the efficient, or general matter of things indifferent, which are bodily actions, things, ceremonies, &c. let us make the trial by the form and end of them. The form is ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or indifferency itself, as I may so speak: and this in gestures you cannot deny: of our Saviour's gesture of sitting you do openly 
a Manuser. ch. ●.  confess, that it was but a matter of circumstance, and of an indifferent nature, and may be lawfully left upon occasion, as all other indifferent things may, and another gesture used in stead of it. And thus you be enforced to say, partly by the liberty of all gestures in other ordinances, and partly by the liberty which you take yourselves of the gesture of standing in this Sacrament. Well, formadat esse. As for the end of things indifferent, which is order, decency, and edification, let Mr. disputer 
b Disp. pag. 37. williby.  bear witness, who condemns kneeling at Sacrament for want of decency and order, and avoweth the same of the gesture which was used by Christ and his Apostles. Then it followeth by one proof, that the gesture in the supper is no more substantial than the recited circumstances.  
Secondly, there was never people, time, service, from Sect. 87 the world's creation till this day, (setting aside the particular controverted) but the gesture hath been wont usually to be changed, and set at liberty, as well as other circumstances. This I have 
c P. 1. c 1 at the third rule of gestures.  proved sufficiently, and shall (by God's grace) ever be able to defend, as a clear doctrine of truth. Is it not then an hard case, that one only gesture, in one only ordinance, under one only time, (the time of the Gospel,) without also any special instruction given, should become damnable, & be no companion to its natural fellow-gestures, or any other circumstances? Surely it is incredible; if therefore gesture hold its hold, which it hath had in all services divine, in all Churches & times, it will still remain unto us a free denizon in the corporation of circumstances.  
Thirdly, that the gesture may be concluded changeable, Sect. 88 from other circumstances in the supper, may appear by its plain inferiority to many of them. As first, many other circumstances are punctually mentioned in the supper, and yet not a word said of the gesture 〈◊〉 ●●condly, many other circumstances were retained 〈◊〉 hundreds of years in the Church, after the Apostles time, and yet not the gesture of the Apostles, (if it was sitting.) Thirdly, some other circumstances in the supper were of purpose and choice, whereas the gesture (if it was the gesture of the Passeover) was evidently occasional. Fourthly, some other circumstances were peculiar unto the supper, and never applied to any other divine ordinance: (in which respect there was less liberty, at lest more cautelousness to be had for the changing of them) but standing, sitting, and kneeling, (which soever the Apostles used) were ever common and free gestures to any divine ordinances. Fifthly, some other circumstances have in other occasions been made immutable and bound, as the time and place, sabbath, and temple of the Law, &c. to the whole Church: so was never heard of a commandment given for the binding of any manner of gesture.  
Sixthly, and lastly, perpend diligently some circumstances Sect. 89 in the supper, and you will found that they come nearer to the nature of the instituted Sacrament then the gesture doth: (now Mr. disputer will cry out presently, a tablegesture for a feast:] but give me leave (Sir) you reason out of an imagined rule, I will reason out of the express tenor of the institution:) Take three mutables for example. First, what say you to the breaker of the bread? Do you imagine, that our Saviour divided the bread into twelve pieces, or that he only led the way for breaking unto his communicants? You 
d Perth. Assemb. pag. 4●.  allow the first book of discipline, penned. 1560. which ordeines that the Minister break the bread, and distribute the same to those that be next him, comm●nding the rest every one with reverence, and sobriety, to break with other, because it is nearest to Christ's action. Now is not the respect of the person breaking more to be noted then the gesture? yet is it not absolutely necessary that the people should break the bread. Secondly. what say you to pouring out of the wine, (if our Saviour used it, which is ind●ed uncertain,) is it not nearer the sacramental business, than the positure of the communicants bodies, yet is it necessary to be done. Thirdly, finally what say you to the administration of the supper? Is not the man of administration nearer to the institution, than the gesture of administration? yet is it not necessary that the same man administer the bread and wine both, as our Saviour Christ did: by all which disparisons it appeareth (I hope) that the gesture is inferior to many other circumstances in the supper; not to speak of the equality of the gesture and other circumstances, which I could show much more (I suppose) if need did require. Now I trust you will please to permit me to take the benefit of my third general respect of the gesture, namely, that we are no more bound to follow the example of Christ and his Apostles therein, than we be bound in other mutable circumstances. Fourthly, consider the gesture as it respecteth Sect. 90 all other ecclesiastical ordinances; & by them let it be judged further whether Christ's example of gesture do bind us to imitation: for let any man pick out of the bible one example of gesture in prayer, thanksgiving, singing of Psalms, exercises of the word, offering of sacrifice, in circumcision, in the passover, and 
e Here Christ's example is this, he was immersed, in a River, at thirty: three great points not to be imitated, much less an unknown gesture.  baptism, that ever absolutely bound the Church to the imitation thereof, and I will yield that Christ's example may bind us here: But if none such were ever heard of, than my brethren must show reason, why example binds rather in this worship, then in all other worships of God; rather in this Sacrament, then in all other Sacraments of either Law or Gospel. But I am of mind that he which looks into these things in good earnest, and with an impartial eye, will easily languish in his opinion, of the necessity of imitating Christ, and the Apostles bodily gesture.  
Thus I have showed that their gesture binds us not to imitation, Sect. 91 because it was but occasional, because it is not essential to the sacrament, because the rest of its fellow-circumstances do not bind us, and lastly, because there was never example of gesture known which bond the Church absolutely, but so as it might be changed upon oceasion.  
What remaineth now, but that I shut up this chapter Sect. 92 with pressing the practice and doctrine of our brethren, whereby they themselves make voided the example of our Saviour Christ in the gesture: First for their practice, I will omit that the number of your communicants differeth; that the people even women receive with you, that your bread is leavened: that in precise imitation you bless it not, as Christ did; that your wine, cup, table, &c. do all differ from those which Christ used; that you change night into day, one time of the year into all times indifferently, eating before a full meal into fasting, at lest abstaining a full meal of purpose; a private chamber into a public temple; and certain more. These I say I will omit, as whereunto you will reply either as I have alleged before and 
f Sect. 75 to the end of Sect. 89.  answered; or else that in many of th●se things, Christ hath not left direction and information unto us, which might be answered also as easily: for we know as well what wine, what fashioned cup, &c. Christ used; as we know his gesture, the story being indifferently silent both in this and them. But I will urge your practice against you in these particulars following.  
First, you swerve from Christ's example, who Sect. 93 himself alone administered the communion; whereas the administration with you is performed sometimes by more than one: you cannot: say the multitude of communicants requires this, for in a just congregation one minister dividing his company and times, may well perform it alone. I say well, if it were necessary to follow Christ's example.  
Secondly, you swerve from the example of our Saviour Christ, by giving the bread, and wine, singularly to Sect. 94 all your communicants, when our Saviour 
g Luk. 2●. 17.  bid his communicants divide it among them, you cannot say that you bid them to do in like manner, when you can and may, for sometimes you do otherwise, & if it were an absolute duty, Cancrone must be laid aside for the Pitcher.  
Thirdly, you swerve from Christ's example in cutting Sect. 95 and quartering the bread, and then opening your cuts, and so breaking you consecrated it; which manner our Saviour did not use.  
Fourthly, you swerve from Christ's example by sitting Sect. 96 bore, whereas he and his Apostles were covered; thus 
h john's. separate. Christian plea. treat. 3. cha. 10.  Mr. johnson chargeth you, yea, thus you charge your own selves, 
* Perth. Assem. pag. 48.  by yielding that the jews covered their heads in divine worship, as Drusins affirms and proveth.  
Fifthly, you swerve from Christ's example in being content Sect. 97 to sit from the table.  
Sixthly, why do you not pray, bless, and give thanks Sect. 98 in the same gesture of sitting, wherein you do receive? Why do you not aswell stand to Christ's gesture in the act of blessing, as in the act of eating and drinking? For he and his Apostles you will not deny kept in one gesture all the while.  
Seven, Christ who administered sat as well as they which received, where you be content to do otherwise. Sect. 99 So we reason thus, if the communicants be bound to receive the Sacrament sitting by Christ's example, them the Minister is by the same example bound to deliver also the Sacrament sitting. Here you break Christ's exaample again, and that is so much worse, (because if there be a bond of sitting) verily the Minister is rather bound, who is Christ's deputed and authorised instrument; whose act of administration carries authority with it.  
Eightly, You stand often in receiving, so (you confess) Sect. 100L did not our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, to the pretence of a table gesture, I answer a word in this place, that our Saviour (even when he sat at the Paschal Supper at lest) told his Disciples, that standing was a waiters carriage; and he doth of set purpose distinguish it from a table gesture. 
i Luk. 22. 27.  Whether is greater he that sitteth at meat, or he that (standeth and) serveth? But here we Sect. 101 must grapple with an idle answer of the replyer, 
k Repl. partic to B. Mort. p. 46.  telling us being pressed with Christ's example, that standing is better than kneeling, but sitting is simply the best of all. Truly a very childish answer. First, than it followeth that here's the the positive degree, comparative and superlative, that is, good, better, and best. Kneeling is good, standing is better, sitting is best. Here kneeling is undermined dangerously: if therefore standing is to be borne with, rather than kneeling; kneeling also may be borne, though the degree of inconvenience be greater. Secondly, if you say standing is better than kneeling, that is, an inconvenience is better than a sin, what is that to the Bishop's dilemma: [if standing be admitted, why do you press Christ's example of sitting? if Christ's sitting be necessary, why do you use standing?] where that kneeling is a sin must needs be begged in comparison with standing, when Christ's gesture was no more standing than kneeling: therefore this salve heals not your sore (common with us) of swerving from Christ's example: especially first, when you do commonly stand in many places, when you might sit, and in Geneva they stand altogether: this is strange magnifying of Christ's example. Secondly, when (you 
l Perth. Assemb. pag. 35.  say) kneeling breaks the institution by taking away the very gesture of sitting, used by Christ and his Apostles: then standing must needs break the institution also.  
Ninthly, what will you say to 
m At Geneva the elders reach the cup to the people so they do oftentimes with you▪  walking up and Sect. 102 down of your ministers for distributing, of the people in the very 
n So they do at Genera: so they do often with you.  act of eating? is not this a breaking of Christ's example, yea a palpable breaking of it? but let Mr. Replier 
o Repl partic to Bp. Merion, pag. 36.  help you at a dead lift: first, (saith he) walking is more agreeable to a supper then kneeling: but what doth he speak of kneeling without cause, he should defend that walking breaks not Christ's example of sitting: he only makes comparison with kneeling for an evasion: for what if walking be afar off agreeable to a supper, what is that to Christ's example, except that your sin of breaking his example may perhaps be lessened? and yet that is nothing to the very point. Now how agreeable walking is to a supper, that shall we show in its own 
p Afterwards chap 5.  place.  
Secondly, saith the Replier, walking was never abused to idolatry, as kneeling. Answer, still he evades by comparison Sect. 103 with kneeling, which in this matter is of no moment, to no purpose: for what if walking be less abused to idolatry, (which must be tried hereafter) what is that to Christ's example? It is as if you should have said in this manner: we may leave Christ's example for any gesture that is not idolatrous: and this is the true application of your comparative answer. You have brought the plea of Christ's example to a worthy good pass; for so kneeling itself is lawful you confess for all Christ's example in itself, if idolatry had not (as you say) polluted it. These two answers then serve only for filling up. Thirdly, the principal answer is to come, Sect. 104 that you do not use to walk where you can do otherwise; only when you cannot be suffered to sit, you come as near Christ's example as you can by walking, having no sin in it. This answer is both a false and a beggarly answer. First, false, for sometimes you use to walk when you might do otherwise, as you cannot well deny: howsoever you cast off the defence of Genevaes' fashion it seemeth. Secondly, beggarly: first, begging that walking is as near Christ's example as you can come. Secondly, but shamefully begging, that walking is no sin, is against Christ's example which was objected unto you. The Bishop 
q B. Mort. defence partic. chap 3. sect 7.  chargeth you with offending against Christ's example (if it be a sin not to follow it in gesture) by your walking up and down: you answer, forsooth, that you are forced to walk indeed, but you abstain in the mean time from that which is evil, that you do not sin in it. But I pray why did you not show and prove, that you sin not against Christ's example by walking, holding of the gesture of kneeling as you do. Lo, Sir, (pray you look again) that was the point, (and yet is) to be answered: as for your saying, you come as near Christ's example as you can, that satisfies nothing at all, if your gesture be a swerving from Christ's example; and so be a sin in itself unto you: your coming as near as you can, may excuse perhaps a tanto, but it doth not excuse and release (a tot●) from all blame of sinful, and so damnable aberration. When I scanned these answers of the replyer, as I was forced to think, he wanted either judgement, or eandour, (that I say not conscience) so I was sorry for poor people and Ministers too, led with prejudice, whose turn the name of a reply, and the numerous tale of particulars, in the handling of this controversy sufficeth.  
I offer these nine points of your practice to be better considered of: in the mean time javow, that you have Sect. 105 quite forsaken and made void Christ's example of sitting; and you take his name in vain grossly to talk of his example, when either in gesture (if Christ's gesture was sitting) or greater matters you do never imitate it, as you would seem to require us: nay (being put unto it) you fly from Christ's example to the reasons of idolatry, a table gesture, &c. altogether upon examination I see the mystery of it, where●●to with your practice, let your doctrine speak in the next place.  
This then is your judgement of Christ's example. The Sect. 106 question is not, (saith 
r Disp pag 144  the disputer) whether the Church may forbear to use Christ's tablegesture, but whether in leaving Christ's example it may observe such a gesture as is no tablegesture. Examples of gestures both in the supper and prayer (saith▪ 
s Manuscrip. ch. 2.  Manuscrip.) which otherwise we are bound to follow, when they prove inconvenient, and an hindrance to edification, may be lawfully changed into some other. I will name no more, having your actions so sufficiently to speak your mind, being the best expression of your inward thoughts that possibly can be.  
Thus (by God's gracious assistance) I have fairly considered Sect. 107 of Christ's example of gesture; having showed both, that it cannot be proved certainly what it was, and if it was the same with the Passeover-gesture, that it was a manner of lying along, yea, and if it was, as our sitting at tables is, that yet it bindeth us not absolutely to imitation. I hearty desire that wise, and learned men would judge me, I am resolved to be pertinacious in nothing, if they please to help me with their friendly corrections; for finding out of the truth, if I have miss it. At first I confess grave and learned men's talk of Christ's example so much oppressed my young, and immature conceptions, that I was afraid in myself lest I should offend. (For who would imagine that our brethren should make his example in the gesture, a mere spetimen to inflame forestalled minds, to scare tender consciences, and lastly, for countenance of their cause before the world, with such as take up the matter only by hearsay.) But Christ graciously opened his ear unto me; opened mine eye (I hope) unto him, who grant (reserved the lawful liberty of changeable circumstances, which himself alloweth,) that I and all his people may ever strive to tread in his most heavenly footsteps.   

An appendice to the argument of Christ's example.  
YEt I am enforced to speak in this place a word or Sect. 108 two further to the importunity of the Scotsmen: for they do bear us in hand, that Christ's example in the institution is broken diverse ways by kneeling, besides taking away the gesture of sitting.  
First say 
t Perth. Assemb pag. 39  they, kneeling takes away the use of a table from us: I answer three things: First, a formal table is not essential unto the Communion, neither know you what a one Christ and his Apostles did use. Secondly, if tables were made lower, and longer than ordinary, communicants might kneel before them; (nay they many as they are, as the minister is wont to do with us) and so come, and go, as you are wont to do in sitting and standing: so the use of the table would not be taken away, but only of forms and benches. Thirdly, tables have a proper and honourable use with us, for setting the bread and wine on, whence as in civil use a piece of bread and a cup of wine may be fitly brought unto then which be present. But see the next main argument of a tablegesture.  
Secondly (say 
n Page 40.  they) kneeling takes away breaking of the bread: how so? because our service-booke makes no mention of breaking of bread? I answer, first, that the service-book expressing it in the words of institution doth certainly import it. Secondly, is kneeling (I pray you) in cause that breaking of the bread is not mentioned? or is not bread broken in practice where kneeling is? or if it be not, is kneeling the cause it is not broken? This is new, strange, and ridiculous learning. Thirdly, if kneeling only take away breaking of bread for the respect of the service-booke, then in itself it can be charged with no such matter.  
Thirdly, (say 
m Page 41.  they) ●●●●ling takes away the distribution, that aught to be among the communicants. I answer, First, distribution by communicants one unto another is not proved essential to the Sacrament; I see what you say to it, and it is not of force enough. You tell us, this is a rite whereby the communicants should entertain communion amongst themselves. But behold there's great communion (including that) in the act of communicating together; else you say nothing, but what you crave impudently. Secondly, there may be distribution (in my understanding) by them which kneel together, as well as by them which sit or stand, if it be intended. Thirdly, you still err in putting non causam pro causa: kneeling was not the cause, that such distribution ceased at the first, or took not place with us in the Church of England.  
Fourthly, and fifthly, (say they) 
x Page 41.  kneeling altars the en●●●●atiue words of Christ, [This is my body which is broken for you] also it 
y Pag. 40.  restresnes the commandment [eat ye, drink ye] to▪ eat thou, drink thou.] O miserable exceptions! what will no prejudice make an argument for itself? as if the true meaning were not retained with us; or as if there were a fault, kneeling (forsooth) were to be charged with it: as if those speeches have not been applied also to them which have fit and stood; in a word, as if those speeches were not in former time so used, before (you say) that kneeling was used in the Church. I marv●ile you do not say that kneeling hath been the cause of all the sins at the Sacrament that ever were known, since it was used: you discredit your cause with such impertinencies, falsehoods, deliraments, as if you were not ministers of the truth.  
Sixthly, (say 
z Pag. 44.  they) kneeling divides communions, that so many cannot receive together. Answer, it is unreasonably false; nay it is truer of sitting about a table, where many cannot receive together at one time, except with tossing to and fro, with coming and going, that they much disturb (many times tread upon) one another.    

CHAP. 4.  
THirdly, our order brings us now to the consideration Sect. 1 of the arguments drawn from nature: and indeed the strength is good which the light of 
* Authority in another begetteth reverence in me, this reverence possessing and affecting my soul, breedeth in me a desire to manifest it to the party reverenced: but I cannot possibly do it, by any other means, but by some bodily shadow & sign; whereupon nature teacheth me to bow the body: Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 9  nature ministereth for the just defence of kneeling in the worship of God: yet it is said, that kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental elements, is contrary to the order of nature. Now nature hath three ways whereby she manifesteth herself: first, those natural principles, and notions of the mind, which arise, è dictamine rationis. Secondly, the natural inclination and propensity of things, whereby they are constantly moved and carried after some special manner. Thirdly, the necessity, and civil exigence of things themselves, whereby they are administered, and applied, as harmony, propriety, and lastly, sensible commodiousness and fitness do require. I am content that nature by these ways be moderatrix betwixt us. First, you cannot deny, that there is a principle in nature for worshipping God, and that a natural expression of worship is bowing or falling down. Secondly, you cannot deny that man is prove by nature to adore before the majesty of God in his ordinance, whose face he apprehends to be both present and glorious. Thirdly, for the necessary administration of God's worship, kneeling will be least condemned by nature among the gestures: for this I must admonish you of, that when we ask what gesture nature requireth in the Sacrament, it is not as if we asked what gesture nature requireth in eating & drinking: for thus you consider no more of the Sacrament, then of a civil supper at some. Therefore because nature knows not Evangelicall Sacraments in the particular accommodation of them, we can inquire no better than what gesture doth nature require, either in a Sacrament (which is a seal of a covenant betwixt our Creator and us) or more generally what gesture requires it in divine worship. So then first, Harmony allows the gesture of kneeling in the Sacrament well; posito, that nature doth simply & universally allow it in worshipping. Secondly 
a Preprietatum de●etio natura negatio est.  propriety (I mean that which belongs to the Sacrament in the formal and essential consideration of it) doth by no means exclude or condemn kneeling in the act of receiving, more than the same is excluded or condemned in Circuncision, Passover, and Baptism. Thirdly, all the matter you stand on, is the lest of all: and that is the commodiousness and fitness of sitting in the time of receiving, and the incommodiousness and unfitness of kneeling at that time: but it will prove (I hope) upon just trial, that kneeling is commodious and fit as well as are sitting and standing. That reason may sway, let your arguments be now examined; which I find to be two in number; one general, one special: though the general be nothing of itself, but either vanisheth into the special, or into other arguments. The general argument assumeth kneeling to be against the order of nature, because it is against Decency. Wherefore of decency we must say something.  

Of decency of the gesture of kneeling in the act of receiving.  
ANd first we must needs take notice of a lose distinction Sect. 2 of the demanders. Decency (say 
b Demand. p. 1 40.  they) is either divine, for allowance whereof plain and evident testimonies may be found in holy writ, that the same decency pleaseth God: or humane, for the which we have no other warrant then tradition or commandment of man, and so is only pleasing to man. For the divine allowance of the decency of kneeling I shall justify it by and by: for the commandment of man to make decency (besides that the speech is harsh and improper, I will take an order for you, that the case shall be tried between us, as if there were no magistrate in the Church. But perhaps you might have better distinguished thus. [There is a towfold decency, either that which you call decency, or that which we call decency] and this would have been somewhat more to the ●ery purpose. But two points I will not stick to yield you: first, that the gesture used in the Sacrament aught to be decent, for who is sovoyd of honesty to deny that Scripture, (CITIZEN Cor. 14. 40.) as well as nature, expressly imposing the necessity of ●t upon us? Secondly, that all gestures be decent in the Sacrament, pierce, I mean standing, sitting, and kneeling; the decency of sitting doth not exclude the decency of starding, nor doth the decency of both exclude the decency of kneeling, no the decency of kneeling exclude the decency of the o●●er. This (I am assured) will be current divinity with you, if I show that there is a decency in kneeling, which is the only gesture denied; for of that you 
c Perth. Assemb. Pag. 56.  say, comeliness will not suffer it in the Sacrament; and every one of you is of the same mind, for aught I can see to the contrary: but if I shall prove kneeling decent in the supper, than you cannot but confess, that any of the principal gestures may be decently applied unto it upon occasion. Your arguments against the decency of kneeling shall be brought forth first, and after ours produced, which tend to justify and maintain it.   

Arguments against the decency of kneeling.  
REason 1. 
d Repl. general cap. 1. ss. 16.  Nothing is left to our liberty pertaining to Sect. 3 God's worship, but to order the same in comely manner; but by the gesture of kneeling the Sacrament is not ordered in comely manner; because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted. Answer. But (passing whether order will not stand with the usage of a new thing) it is false, that you say, that kneeling at Sacrament is a new thing, and so that the Sacrament cannot be rightly ordered and disposed thereby. Is not the gesture necessary in its kind, and may not the particular determination thereof be varied? and why then do you tell us of a new thing instituted, which in its kind is absolutely necessary? and if this be not a good answer, how will standing at Sacrament be acquitted from being a new thing, and many things more, which I could name, that be variable, and yet necessary in their kind? would you have matters of order to be particularly mentioned? you would and also must have it so, if by this reasoning kneeling can possibly be condemned: but if by new thing you cannot mean any such thing whose kind is necessary to the Sacrament, it followeth, that this reason against kneeling is not worth a straw. And here I cannot but observe the simplicity of the demaunders,, who because the commandments and ordinances of the Lord are required to be done decently by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 40. do thereupon imagine that kneeling cannot come within the compass of the Apostles decency, because it is not the commandment of the Lord, reasoning in effect in 
e Demand. pag. 38.  this manner : [All the Lords commandments must be used decently: kneeling in the act of receiving is not the Lords commandment: therefore kneeling cannot be used decently.] O simplicity and want of judgement! you should have concluded in this manner: [All the Lords commandments must be used decently: the Sacrament is the Lords commandment, therefore the Sacrament is to be used decently:] scilicet in respect of circumstances, as place, gesture, and many more such like, whereof the Lord hath not given any commandment, but hath left the same to be ordered by man, as convenience, and edification require. Furthermore, whereas the Replyer saith, our Divines giving instances of order, are wont to instance in time, place, and such like circumstances; what doth he reprove the gesture of kneeling thereby, being one of these circumstances? So Mr. Calvin saith, 
f Calu. instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 3●  that kneeling in prayer is a part of the Apostles decency; and the Replier 
g Repl. general cap. 1. sect. 5.  affirmeth, that he speaks in that place only of circumstances of order. How then (I pray) can you condemn the gesture of kneeling for want of order, which tends to the right disposing of the Sacrament formerly instituted? But the truth is, this matter belongs properly to your general argument, 
h Before●h. 1. of this part.  where it is fully answered; and not to this place, where you should have better proved kneeling to be indecent, à proprijs requisitis decori, and not to rove, à genere ad genus, proving kneeling indecent, because it is instituted by man merely, which yet is begged most unreasonably.  
Reason. 2. Christ knew 
i Abridg. pag. 49.  what was most decent and fit, and yet neither he nor his Apostles did kneel: and 
k D 43. emand. pa.  Sect. 4 why should we be diss●yssed of the decency of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, and choose in stead thereof a decency of our own; 
l Pag. 42.  The decency of the Church than could not be but divine, whereunto other decency should give place; and 
m Abridg. a● before.  no good reason can be given, why kneeling should be more decent now, than it was to Christ and his Apostles. Answer. This reason supposeth there can be decency but in one gesture, where all gestures in themselves (for aught you can disprove) be capable of it. Secondly. This reason condemneth yourselves in many particulars, as in standing, walking, uncovering, &c. in the act of receiving. What? do you leave Christ's decency, and take to a decency of your own? Thirdly, You are certain that the Apostles did not kneel in the act of receiving, or else you cannot tell? And verily it is but unprofitable learning, to tell us of the decency of Christ, and his Apostles gesture, and yet know not his gesture itself. Fourthly, Suppose kneeling was as decent to Christ and his Apostles as to us, and yet he sat, and they also sat, what followeth of that? sure nothing, but they chose a more decent gesture, we a less decent, so some decency to kneeling still remaineth. Fifthly. But all the force of this reason is fully answered before in Christ's example, which (though it was undoubtedly decent, for who dare or can think otherwise) yet binds us not absolutely to imitation; except in the matter of equity, that our gesture should be a decent gesture as his was, and such kneeling to be I sha●l show by and by: much less may 
n Abridg p. 50.  you charge other Reform Churches upon us, whom our example may teach decency, as well as theirs may teach it us.  
Reason. 3. It is indecent to kneel, 
o Disp pag 36. at the 4. arg.  in the receiving Sect. 5 of the Lords Supper, because it is against the nature of a table-fashion. I answer, that kneeling is not against the nature of a spiritual feast, and though there be material bread and wine, yet is not formal sitting more necessary, then filling of the body is necessary. It is enough to answer words with words, for proof there is none of this argument, but Christ's example of a table gesture, which divideth itself partly into the argument of Christ's example, and partly into the argument of a table gesture. So then, Master Disputer made this one of his distinct main arguments, he was in a dream, or overwaked, or vain. And thus you have their stout arguments against the decency of kneeling; now remaineth our considerations for the defence of it.   

Proof, that kneeling is a decent gesture.  
THat must needs be a decent gesture in the Sacrament, Sect. 6 whereunto all the notes of decency do agreed.  
But all those notes do truly agreed unto the gesture of kneeling.  
Therefore kneeling is a decent gesture.  
Those notes I have observed to be five: three of them 
p Calu. instit. lib. 4 cap 10. sect. 2●, 19  Mr. Calvin giveth to my hand; and I will add a fourth; and you add a fifth unto them.  
First, saith M. Caluin, that shall seem most comely to Sect. 7 us, which shall be fit for procuring of reverence to the holy mysteries. I hope I shall not need to prove, that kneeling serves to procure reverence, it being (as yourselves allege) the reason of our Churches enjoining it, that the Sacrament might be received reverently.  
Secondly, saith M. Caluin, that shall seem most comely Sect. 8 to us, which shall be an exercise apt to show p●ety, apt to stir it up. Let the world in●g●, whether kneeling in the Sacrament, or sitting (backed only by the pretence of a civil fashion at tables) do more show piety and stir it up. They have I think small skill and experience in worshipping, that will deny this note of comeliness to belong to the most humb●e gesture.  
Thirdly, saith M. Calvin, that shall seem most comely Sect. 9 to us, which is an ornament to the action in hand. And why should it be denied, that kneeling is an ornament to the Sacrament; which both imports the excellent importance of it, and preserves it also from such contempt, as more familiar usage (though lawful otherwise) through men's wonderful weakness would certainly put upon it? when you shall show us what is an ornament, better, perhaps I shall give you better satisfaction.  
Fourthly, I add, that shall seem most comely to us, Sect. 10 which is answerable, and suitable to the action in hand▪ Now that kneeling doth very well become the Sacrament, will easily appear ●o him that weigheth, that in the Communion we receive a gift from the Lord; in the Communion there is liberty of prayer; the Communion itself is Eucharistical; It is a divine ordinance, or religious worship of God; also it is a spiritual sacrifice in some sense: again, inward humility and devotion well becomes the communicant; besides the soul may very well feed upon Christ by faith when the body kneeleth; and finally kneeling was never esteemed uncomely in any other action divine, since the world was created. And now (set will and prejudice a side) what I beseech you is a civill-fashion for defence of sitting, to these respects of kneeling, which be truly spiritual? How shall not kneeling be suitable to the Sacrament, which accords to such things in which the same is even it mysticall-selfe?  
Fifthly, Yourselves do add; That shall seem most Sect. 11 comely to us which is most natural. Comeliness (say 
q Treat. of div. worsh pag. 9  you) especially consists in bodily expressions; and 
r Pag. 10.  bodily expressions the more natural, the more decent. That this note may be applied to the gesture of kneeling; let us see what you treat further in the said Treatise, because (say 
s Pag. 11.  you) bodily gestures have their original, from the natural conceptions and motions of the mind and heart, (there being such diversity of natures, and dispositions, such divers degrees of the same inclinations, such a divers composition and mingling of affections) it cannot be, but nature must needs vary and be divers in them. Well, I am content out of your own dogmatizing to learn three notable lessons of bodily expressions or gestures. First, if it be more natural to kneel in divine worship (as I have proved it to be 
t Sect 1.  before) them sit, then kneeling is the more decent gesture; (I make this inference only out of your own principle.) Secondly, if kneeling be less natural than other gestures in the act of receiving, y●t it is but less decent, so it is not simply indecent therefore. Thirdly, That the soul (according to nature) doth vary bodily expressions, and gestures, and is divers in them; insomuch that both all gestures may be interchanged to the same man as his soul may be diversely affected at several times, and and also that divers men (diversely disposed) may use diversity of bodily gestures. [in all salv● decentia] To my knowledge I do not wrist or abuse your own words against you, but transcribe them truly, and conclude from them, as they do evidently bear out. Now let all our notes be tried by the judicious Reader.  
But give me leave, Mr. Disputer, to tell you, that you Sect. 12 are not a fit judge of the indecency of kneeling at the communion, who do affirm plainly of sitting in prayer, (though David sat, Eliab sat, &c. yourselves sit sometimes in prayer) that 
u Disp. pag 12.  sitting in prayer is an indecent and unreverent gesture, if we may conveniently kneel. For (that I may make some criticisms upon this learning,) first, have you so good opinion of sitting, when you come to God in prayer, that you count it unreverence, and rudeness; and can you be so hot for defence of it (as if there were none to it) when you come to God in some other divine ordinance? This seems not to cotton. Secondly, will you use a gesture that is indecent and unreverent in prayer, when you want (but ordinary) convenience to use a better? and will you not kneel though it were indecent and unreverent, in receiving, when you cannot conveniently, (and perhaps sometimes possibly) use a better? I suppose your answer will be to seek, (Sir.) Nay do you not by your speech quite destroy the force of your argument against kneeling, drawn from the indecency of it, in as much as an indecent gesture may be used sometimes, when convenience serveth not to use some other and better?  
Thus much I only annex for a postscript to show that if kneeling in the Sacrament (which indeed is a natural gesture, and a gesture from the beginning sanctifies to divine worship) were in decent and unreverent in the act of receiving, yet aught it not to be refused by the judgement of Mr. Disputer. But I need not that help, having proved (I suppose) before, that kneeling in the very act of receiving is a decent & a comely gesture. Thus much of their general argument drawn from nature, now follows the special argument, which is that of the tablegesture, in handling whereof I beseech the Lord to lead me by his holy Spirit, that I may faithfully and impartially answer the very truth.    

CHAP. 5. Of the argument of a Tablegesture.  
NOw for the more full and evident declaration Sect. 1 of this point, it is needful to be well acquainted with the ministers opinion, and judgement therein, that so I may not seem to use any confutation thereof in vain. Indeed, I confess my principal conflict in this business will be with Mr. Disputer, (such a one as he is) who presseth the necessity of a tablegesture with wonderful earnestness. And thus in general he determineth, 
w Disp pag 26.  that the Lords supper doth fully and in all accomplished sort represent, and exhibit, whatsoever m●y serve out of the nature of a banquet, to testify his lo●● to the guests and his society with them. Again 
x Pag. 27.  whatsoever liberty or prerogative a table of repast hath, for those that partake thereof, the same have communicants at the Lords table. And 
y Page▪ 28.  of the same things belonging to a table of repast in general, there is no exception at the Lords table. Again, 
z Pag. 31.  Christ aims to communicate with us, not a part only, but the whole entertainment, that the proper nature, intendment and carriage of a feast doth yield. Again, 
a Page 37.  kneeling is repugnant to the proper employment of a table of repast, and so consequently is repugnant to the law of nature. And wherefore need I to cite more places to show the meaning of the disputer, when he is ●hammering upon a tablegesture, in a great part of his book? and especially his four first arguments, and sixth have no footing but in a tablegesture. 1 Arg. Kneeling (saith he) suits not to us hearing the person of guests table. 2 Arg. Kneeling (saith he) hinders assurance of our coheirship with Christ, because it crosseth that which is a worthy mean to feed in us that assurance; now that worthy means is the carrying of ourselves in the person of guests and coheires with Christ at his table. 3 Arg. Kneeling (saith he) debars us from the liberties and prerogatives of a table. 4 Arg. Kneeling (saith he) is against decency, because it is repugnant to the carriage of guests at a table of repast. 6 Arg. Kneeling (saith he) is worse than sitting, because a personal worship in the act of receiving is worse than a tablegesture. (Fr●stra fit per plura, &c.) Whereby appears not only, what a learned, and logical disputer this is, but also what a mind he hath of a tablegesture. My desire is therefore in this place, to show that a tablegesture is no such necessary thing: as he idly imagineth. As for his vain collections and conclusions from thence, I shall take them into consideration as their turn cometh.  
But first I look you should yield me some unanswerable Sect. 2 reasons, to prove the necessity of a tablegesture: you that stand so much upon a tablegesture, that make many of your arguments to depend upon it; leave Christ's precise example, (if it was the discubitus of the Passeover. nay if it were ass●ssio, qualis apud nostrates) for the equity and reason of it; you that have taught all your disciples or scholars this plea (of all others) at their very fingers ends; should have methinks some demonstrative reasons to make it good, whereby gain sayers might be convinced to justify you. Who would not expect such reasons at your hands, that sees your books, that hears your discourse, specially if the profession which you make of conscience and Scripture (which is a worthy profession) be considered? but what is to be found now for proving of a tablegesture necessary? surely what I found I will show, and let wise men judge who are not partially led either one way or other.  
Reas. 1. 
b Disp. pag 28, 32, 37, 148.  You tell us, that our Saviour Christ and Sect. 3 his Apostles gave example of a tablegesture. To which I answer: first, and is it true, that when you sent us before, from the argument of Christ's example, to the argument of a tablegesture, you will now sand us back from the argument of a tablegesture to the example of Christ? In what argument is it possible to make you stay? This dealing is an argument (I think) of some uncertainty in your grounds; for if Christ's example be a distinct argument of force, and this argument of the tablegesture be such likewise, why do you confounded them together? why do you fly from the one of them to the other? if both make but one argument betwixt them, why do you then abuse the world to handle them as divers? Secondly, you say, Christ used a tablegesture: and yet you 
e Chap. 3. Pararr. 1.  cannot tell certainly what gesture Christ used. 
See back  Is the argument of a tablegesture built upon Christ's example, and yet you know not what that example was? There is never a disputer in the world ●n prove, that Christ used, (as you understand) a tablegesture in the celebration of the Communion. Let every Christian man and woman therefore see, what an imagined thing they trust on, wherein they can never get full assurance of faith. Thirdly, let it be granted, that Christ and his Apostles did sit at the last supper, I think yet, that I have truly, and 
d Chap. 3. Paragr. 3.  sound showed, that Christ & his Apostles gesture (whether it was a tablegesture or a worship-gesture, let it have been what you will) binds us not to imitation; and when you have fairly answered that place, you may have more cause to stand upon this example, In the mean time it is to be thought, you will hardly avoid, that which is said there, to prove the same example mutable & variable. Fourthly, where Sect. you are wont to tell us, when you leave the gesture which Christ and his Apostles used, that you follow Christ still in the equity of his gesture, which equity is to use a tablegesture as you say. I would ask you three questions to that purpose: first, where did Christ ever teach you, that that is the equity of his gesture, which aught for ever to be followed? In this thing you give us a conceit of your own mind without ground of holy Scripture. Secondly, how can you gather equity of a tablegesture, from Christ's gesture, (if it continued the fame which was before in the Passeover) so long as it was but 
e As I have proved, c. ●. sect. 46  occasional from the Passeover, where were divers joints of meat and feeding of a full meal? Thirdly, how can you make appear, that our Saviour's gesture was rather to carry an equity for a civil fashion, then for the point of worship? This question perhaps will puzzle any man but the disputer, who is so lost in his conceits of a tablegesture, that it is hard to pull him of them. But this matter will be some what better cleared in the answer to the next reason.  
Reason 2. Another reason many pages of the dispute Sect. 5 tender unto us, as a thing taken for granted, being so notorioussy known, that (forsooth) all the world at the first hearing cannot but presently yield to the infallibility of it. And what may that be? Why this it is: The Sacrament is a supper, a feast, a banquet, and therefore requires a supper, a feast, a banquet-gesture. And the Abridgement speaks in this manner. 
f Abridg. pag. 61.  In no Nation was it ever held comely to kneel at their banquets, or to receive their food kneeling. Now to this grand objection, I will make a double answer as followeth.  
First I answer, that you do ill to press a tablegesture Sect. 6 from those metaphorical terms, of supper, feast, banquet. For is it to be thought that a borrowed respect hath authority to command the gesture from that which is proper? For the Sacrament is improperly called by us, either a supper, or a feast, or a banquet. I know it is wont to be so called, for some little resemblance of bread and wine, to a supper, feast, or banquet; and for that little resemblance sake, I condemn not the liberty of alluding unto them: but to build the necessity of a tablegesture thereupon, I can by no means see reasonable, more than upon a similitude, or parobolicall manner of speaking: now that the Sacrament is called a supper, a feast, or banquet improperly, it seems easy to me to make appear. For, first, in all the new testament the sacrament is not at any time called by the name of feast, or banquet; but they be terms which be thereunto given merely by the pleasure of men. N●y where there be feasts of charity recorded of the Apostles and Christians, the same be evidently distinguished from the Sacrament by that name: and yet if the Sacrament were properly to be called a feast, why might it not be called a feast of charity? Let Mr. Disputer know then that he did not found his terms o● feast and banquet in God's word, and therefore he can prove, or persuade unto us, no manner of gesture by them. As for that the Sacrament is called the Lords supper (and it is so called only but once, 1 Cor. 11 20.) how can you dream, that it is called a supper properly therefore? For when our Saviour did eat a full supper, before he celebrated it, and is said to celebrated it after supper: how could it be a supper properly taken? I would rather 
g It is called a supper, because it was instituted at Christ's last supper, (that is the Passeover) and because it represents a supper. So latter confess. of Hel●etia.  believe, that it was called a supper, for 〈◊〉 reasemblance sake only, because there was eating a●d drinking in it, and that at evening: or because it was adjoined in a manner, and annexed to the Passeover, which indeed was properly the Lord's Supper. For hereupon the Sacrament among the Corinthians (after Christ's ascension) was called the Lords Supper, though they did celebrated it in the morning and that term is still retained in the Church unto this day; for the due remembrance of the time and occasion, when and whereupon it was at first instituted by Christ. But if it was properly a supper to the Apostles, and so was properly called the Supper of the Lord, than no doubt it is properly a dinner to us, (receiving it in the morning or midday,) and so may be properly called the dinner of the Lord But this kind of speaking who would not eschew, ●● not only improper, but withal unfavory and carnal? So that I suppose the terms of supper, feast, banquet, are improperly used, and can therefore have no sufficient force to conclude for a tablegesture.  
Secondly, Let us in good eat●est look upon the tenor Sect. 7 of the institution; and I am deceived i● any thing can be fetched from thence, to prove the Sacrament a feast or banquet. It is true, Christ instituted the corporal elements of bread and wine, and the actions pertaining unto them, but for what purpose I pray you? to make us a feast thereby? I say no: 
h The end is specified in Matth. Mark. Luke, Paul, and none other.  but for showing forth his death, and remembrance of his sufferings till he come, now his death is showed forth, and his sufferings remembered by the Sacramental breaking of bread, (whereof it is, that the whole action is called breaking of bread) whereas taking and eating be only apppointed to signify the communicants faith, and interest in the virtue and merit thereof.  
Thirdly, If any supper or feast can be imagined here, Sect. 8 it must be concluded either from the actions of taking, and eating, or from the signification of them: from bore taking and eating, it is hard to conclude feasting and banqueting; as who would say, that jonathan feasted and banqueted, when 
i 1 Sam. 14. 23.  he did but taste a little honey, with the end of the rod, that was in his hand? Who would ever say, that eating so much bread (as we be wont to ea●e in the Sacrament) in civil use, made a supper or banquet? and for the signification thereof, I need not trouble myself, the same being raised out of the elements and actions, which be visible to the eye, if therefore the receiving of bread and wine be improperly called a feasting, receiving of Christ spiritually (in the Sacramental course) must needs be improperly so called. And verily the actions of bore eating a piece of bread, and drinking a little wine, can properly conclude no dinner, or supper, no feasting, or banqueting; especially if it be observed, that this eating, and drinking, is not ordained to satisfy hunger and thirst, as the Apostle t●acheth: 
k 1 Cor. 11. 34.  If any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together to condemnation. Thus I am persuaded that the Sacrament is no supper, or banquet properly taken, and therefore it is a weak reason for sitting, to tell us of a feast or banquet, when I might tell you of many metaphorical names, which are, and might be lawfully applied unto the Sacrament, and coming at near both Christ's institution of it, and the spiritual nature of it, and yet the gesture dependeth net upon them: much more may I avoid your metaphorical names by the authority of names properly given, of both sorts, what would you say to worship, Communion, Testament, Eucharist, Sacrament, Sacrifice, &c. why should you not strive for a gesture, which these names allow, as well as for that alone which the name of supper alloweth? since some of these names be proper simply, others as proper as this of Supper to Christ's ordinance, yea, and some of them named in Scripture, both more, and more 
l I mean by Christ himself in the institution, Mat. 26. 26.  honourably? But five things are, and may be objected to prove the Sacrament a Supper or feast properly taken.  
Object. 1. The first objection I will make myself; and Sect. 9 take it from the Passeover; for inasmuch as that was a feast properly taken, why should not the Communion be such, there being eating and drinking in them both? Answer. The reason is at hand, for our Lord jesus hath taken away the ecclesiastical feasting of the body, (properly so called) which was commanded in the law, both in the Passeover, and all other sacrifices, that the Church might enjoy sacramental rites of more simplicity, and less corporal importment; as it is evident in the aspersion, or sprinkling of water, in stead of the cutting off the p●●puti●●m pudendi: and so is clear in our Saviour's order in this Sacrament; for whereas in the Passeover they had bread, wine, and a lamb, that is, a full meal, (for they were commanded to leave none of the lamb, and they were left at liberty to eat freely of the bread and wine as need did require) behold our Saviour takes away the lamb, takes away the liberty of eating and drinking of their bread and wine for satisfying of hunger and thirst; and instituteth bread & wine only for Evangelicall rites of commemoration.  
Object. 2. Next let Mr. Replyer speak. It is Sect. 10 false (saith 
m Rep. partic. to B. Mort. p. 37.  he) whosoever saith, there is no corporal banquet in the Lord's Supper. For as there is a bodily washing in baptism, so also a corporal banquet in the Lord's Supper. I answer, he should have showed three things. First that eating, and drinking of bread and wine is a banquet; then we would easily grant him it is corporal. Secondly, that sprinkling of water in Baptism is properly called washing and not by a trope. Thirdly, he should have showed some certain proof, whereby the case might be made alike betwixt washing and feasting in these two Sacraments, or else ipse dixit as good as nothing.  
Object. 3. Though the Sacrament be not a corporal feast, yet Sect. 11 it is a spiritual. Ans. I grant it in two senses, 1. in respect of some resemblance which the outward elements have to feasting, for according to the same resemblance, the soul may be said to feast 
n So Christ's flesh & blood be called meat and drink, joh. 6. 48. &c.  spiritually: so this is feasting still, but by translation. 2. in a larger sense, according as God communicates his graces (like so many spiritual dishes and dainties) unto the soul: So wisdom speaketh, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled, Prou. 9 5. A certain man made a great supper, and bade many, &c. Luke. 14. 16. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, joh. 6. 27. If any man open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me, Revel. 3. 20. Thus I freely confess, that Christ is an heavenly banquet to the soul of a communicant; but what will that do more or less for the bodily gesture?  
Obiect. 4 A table is necessary, & that implies feasting & banqueting. Sect. 12 For the necessity of a table M. Dis. thus reasoneth 
o Disp pag. 24 &c.  That which is requisite to decency, commodionsnesse, solemnity, representation of society, and kind entertainment, that is of a necessary use in the Lord's Supper: But, &c. Ergo. If I deny both your propositions, what proof is there to be found of them? Ne verbum quidem, that it may be thought, your assertions are not such to need proof. But I answer, first, when (as in asetled Church) a table may conveniently be had; who would not ever most desirously use the same? yet in days of ex●reme affliction of the Church, the very ground is decent, and commodious, in the want of a formal table; and I am of mind, if you were banished from Church and house, and forced to serve God retiredly in woods, and 
p Can he furnish a table in the wilderness, P● 78 19 table here seems to be put metonymically.  wildernesses, you would be glad (I should) to communicate upon the ground without an artificers table, so much you in a manner yield unto without urging, when in effect you 
q Disp pag. 25.  say, that all Apostolical Churches observed the use of a table, if the nature of the people, and times, would bear it; as for Christ's sitting (if he sat) at table, both it was occasional from the Passeover, as I have showed, and at other times he allowed eating and drinking without a formal table, Mat. 14. 19 15. 35. job. 21. 12. and so would allow it in the Sacrament upon occasion likewise, as you cannot well deny, because your best defence of the necessity of a table is the fashion of civil eating and drinking at it: and therefore you might please to let this satisfy you. As for that, solemnity, representation of society, and kind entertainment, should require the use of a table, I deem not to much behoof, except you had proved the Sacrament a feast properly taken first, yea if you had proved it such a feast properly taken, yet our Saviour Christ and his company (as in the places quoted) dined, feasted without such solemnity, representation of society, and kind entertainment, more than the immovable, and inartificial table of God's earth ministered to them.  
Secondly, I answer, granting a table necessary, that is Sect. 13 requisite for decency, and commodiousness, are you able to conclude the Sacrament a feast or banquet therefore? Can there be no use of a table without banqueting and sitting down at it? what will you say then to the table which 
r Exod. 25. vers. 23. &c.  God commanded Moses to make, which was appointed merely for the Shewbread, with Spoons, Dishes, Bowls, &c. to be continually set on? Also what will you say to the table, whereof the Lord 
s Ezek. 23. u 41▪  thus speaketh. Thou hast a table prepared before thee, whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil? Here a table is said to be prepared or furnished with very oil and incense, which were not (I suppose) appointed for a feast or banquet; but you say if it were not appointed for a table of repast to sit at, than it would not have been called a table, but rather an altar. I answer, that I would not explode the name of altar so fare, and in what sense the Sacramental service may be called a sacrifice. And this would take away the name & use of table never a whit more, insomuch as altars in the law be also 
t Ezek 40. vers. 39 40, 41, 42, 43 Chap. 41. vers. 22.  called tables. But because I observe, that though altars (whereon sacrifice was wont to be offered) be called tables, yet tables, (whereon sacrifice was never offered) are not properly called altars, the Sacrament being called a sacrifice but improperly; I would rather abstain from the ordinary term of altar, and call it a table: but than you say: 
u Disp. pag. 32.  why should it not be rather called a Courteupboard, or dresser, than a table? Answer, and why do not you find fault that the table whereupon oil and incense were set is called a table, and not a courtcupboard or dresser? Why do you not find fault, that the table of shewbread was called a table, & not a courtcupboard or dresser? and why I beseech you, is it not a table as fit a name for that which we use to set any thing upon, as for that which in eating and drinking we sit down at? I will tell you reason, why the name of table is better, because such Elements are set upon it as resemble a supper or meal, because a courtcupboard is wont to stand to a side, the table of Sacramental use, being fit in the middle of the communicants, because a courtcupboard is subordinate and serviceable to the table, there being no superior table in the Sacramental service, whereunto this (which the elements be set on) can be subordinated. Lastly, because a courtcupboard is an 〈◊〉 which better, and richer houses be only adorned withal, so as many of the vulgar know neither the na●e, nor the use, whereas tables be of universal both name and use to the poorest rustics and Cottiers. So that it doth appear out of all this plainly, 
Cottagers  that the commodiousness, and decency of a table, do not necessarily infer feasting and banqueting properly taken.  
Obiect. 5 The common prayer book calls the Sacrament Sect. 14 a banquet, a feast, and such like. I answer, that it only speaks so by a metaphor or allusion (as learned men do likewise speak in their wrighting.) This may appear by that passage, whereby refusers to communicate are reproved of unthankfulness; it is an unthankful part (saith 
x In the first exhortation.  the book) for guests invited to refuse to come, when a man hath prepared a rich feast, and decked his table for them with all kind of provision. Well, I commend to your consideration my first main answer to your second reason for the proof of a tablegesture, drawn from the nature of a supper, feast, or banquet. How I will pass to another principal unswere.  
Secondly, I answer, take your desire (for disputation Sect. 15 sake) that the Sacrament is a Supper or feast properly taken, will you affirm therefore, that it is a sin to kneel or not to use a common tablegesture. I pray you judge of these four considerations following.  

Consideration 1.  
First connider, whether it is to be thought a sin if Sect. 16 men in civil eating do sometime kneel at table, if either their artificial table be low, or near the ground, according to the fashion of many countries; or that their table be natural, that is to say, the very ground, such as is the table of workmen in the field, and many times of great Princes, and states, who being fare from tables, houses (either in the service of war or liberty of recreation) have had great feasts upon the very ground; or that they have used no table at all, as amongst women especially, not seldom cometh to pass upon occasion. I imagine no man will say that kneeling is a sin in such eases as they will be loath to say, that those nine thousand and seven hundred Israelites sinned, 
y judg. 7. 6.  who bowed down upon their knees to drink water. Therefore I would learn how kneeling in eating and drinking can be condemned from civil use, when civil use doth allow it in some case. I, but says Mr. 
z Disp pag. 2.  Disputer; such a gesture must be used as standeth with the custom of the Country.  
I answer you; that the custom of the Country alloweth Sect. 17 this fashion, which from time to time it alloweth in some case: and hereunto tends that which the 
a Reply partic. to B Mort. p. 37  replyer saith, that the tablegesture reason is brought in against kneeling because it agrees to no feast ordinary or extraordinary. If therefore kneeling is and hath been used in our Country in some case from time to time, behold then the custom of the Country allows it in the Lord's Supper.  
Secondly, suppose custom did not usually allow it in Sect. 18 civil eating; it is enough, that it is lawful to kneel in some cases (although such case should fall out but once in an age, nay if we never knew of an example of it,) for if there be any case, wherein civil kneeling at meat may be used lawfully, then kneeling at the Lords Supper in itself is equally, nay much more allowable, as the case is more important to move us to use it at this time, than any case ever was for kneeling in civil eating. And this consequence is sound according to the force of your own reason.  
Thirdly, but I desire to know whether a Country Sect. 19 custom may not be changed by the inhabitants? Yea the Country custom of a tablegesture? Mr. Disputer yields this in effect; for whereas he saith, 
b Disp. pag. 47.  there be some national circumstances. And again 
c Pag. 2.  that the table gesture is to be such, as the custom of the Country requireth; what doth he else but yield, that several Countries may have several table-gestures? (And indeed the thing is undoubted enough) but whence then comes the custom of a Country, but from the conceit, and will of the inhabitants? now what would you say, if our Countrymen did fall into a custom of ordinary eating upon their knees? then the argument of a tablegesture against sacramental kneeling, would be quite nonsuited, and it seems by that method you might be brought on to allow of it well enough. I hope you will consider, what a rotten foundation a Country custom is to build your faith upon. Is it possible that if the inhabitants of the land did use to kneel in ordinary eating, I might lawfully kneel at the Sacrament; and yet may not now lawfully kneel at it aswell, because the custom hath not made it yet actually warrantable to me? Do not you pin your faith upon men in this thing? But perhaps you will say, that I put a case of 
d If it never was nor will be it is not because Kneeling is a gesture of adoration: but because it is not naturally so easy & commodious for eating a full meal at other gestures: for if had been so, do you think, some nation would not have ●●ken it ap? certainly.  such a thing as never was nor will be: give me leave therefore to come nearer to you in a more special case: suppose the King, or any one in whose power you were, should not permit you to eat meat, except (for satisfying of his pleasure in making trial of your subjection in a civil action) you would kneel down in receiving of it, would you be contented rather to famish to death, then to kneel down at the King's commandment for civil use merely? If your divinity and conscience would not serve you to perish so, but would allow that the tablegesture of civil suppers might be changed into kneeling in this case: why then should kneeling at Sacrament be held unlawful in a case of much greater importances: wherefore if the custom of the Country either by the mind of the inhabitants, or else by authority of an earthly power may be turned into kneeling, as we may lawfully yield, surely it sinks not into my head, how kneeling in the Lord's Supper is unlawful in itself, that is in all cases; by force (I mean) of the table gesture reason, for if you will stand precisely to the force thereof, do not you see, that as much liberty and indulgence must be given to ecclesiastical eating as is given to civil? (But Mr. Disputer seems to 
c Disp. pag. 66.  reply here: the Lords Supper is a feast of the greatest solemnity, and not a cursory eating and drinking, such as is used but occasionally. I answer, that I have propounded the case before of set and solemn feasts and meals; and so if kneeling may be lawful sometime at them, namely, at any dinners or suppers, it is sufficient for me. For such eating and drinking (pray you observe) is not occasional, but the gesture is only occasional: so the Lords Supper is a set and solemn supper, say, but the gesture may be occasional likewise. And if occasion may happen such as men may lawfully kneel in civil meals, how can you deny (according to the argument of a tablegesture) that any occasion can betide that men may lawfully kneel in this spiritual? Thus I refer to you thoughts this my first consideration.   

Consideration. 2.  
SEcondly, consider if it were unfit in civil eating to kneel, yet how unreasonable it is to conclude absolutely Sect. 20 from civil to spiritual, what place of God's word makes that good divinity unto you? Mr. Disputer is the only spokesman almost in this place, therefore let him be heard. No substance (saith 
f Disp. Pag. 27  he) set apart to a spiritual use loseth his common or civil nature or properties for then it should be transubstantiated. (And one of these properties he means is the prerogative of sitting.) This is wonderful learning; I deny your enthymeme Sir: a table may lose such properties, and yet not be transubstantiated. I must needs tell you in this place, you are a ridiculous disputer; and that is my answer. Secondly, you (g) say, that Christ's table of repast (at Passeover and Communion) ●●teined still the properties, and prerogatives of a civil table, whereunto I have answered in the third sect. before, and in the three paragraphs of Chap. 3.  
Thirdly, you 
h Ibidem.  would prove by a similitude that Sect. 21 the table of the Lord loseth no more the civil properties of a table of repast, than an orator employed to preach loseth the employment of those faculties of his mind and body, which before he used in pleading of civil causes. If I deny your comparison, what have you said to make it good? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If I grant your comparison, what am I worse? For what is an orator, employment but elocution & pronunciation? And may not the preacher in these differ in much variety, and liberty from the orator I pray? So like as elocution and pronunciation are necessary in their kind, yet may be abundantly varied: so may the gestures of ecclesiastical eating, and civil. Besides action belongs to pronunciation in an orator, so that the comparison betwixt the orator and Ministers employment must needs partly stand even in gestures: now an oration may be made standing, sitting, or kneeling; will you say so of a Ministers gesture in the act of preaching also? if you will not then it plainly followeth that the Minister (according to you) loseth some liberty, and employment of a faculty of his body, which he had being an orator. And I could name many civil circumstances beside, which the preacher either leaves to the orator, or useth if he think good. Therefore your similitude is so fare from being for, that it is evidently against you.  
Fourthly, you 
i Page 149.  say, for I would give the reader all Sect. 22 your points of Rhetoric by tale. There is no more reason that spiritual use in the Sacrament should change the gesture of civil eating, then th●re is reason to use another mouth, and another stomach in spiritual refection then civil. O gross and childish Rhetoric: God by nature hath given but one mouth, and one stomach, whereas he hath given us feet to stand on, knees to kneel on, seats to sit on: we take that liberty which God hath given, we cannot take that liberty (it is no liberty) which God hath not given. You might aswell have said, if we altar the gesture of spiritual refection from civil, why s●ould we not altar the body too, and bring new bodies with us, leaving the ●●uld to meat at ho●e? you spoke a little ●ore wisely, when you said, we may as well have a different hand in receiving, as a different gesture● for as there is a liberty of either hand, so there is a liberty (in itself) of any gesture: likewise you say not fare amiss; 
k Ibidem.  the Lord hath no more appointed different gesture, than he hath different tables, different cups, different bread and wine. For the Lord hath left all these at liberty. It is (k) likewise true, (if it be rightly understood) that if spiritual, and civil communicants may vary gesture in eating, then spiritual and civil suitors may vary gesture in petitioning: for petition may be made (upon occasion in all gestures both spiritually, and civilly. But the point of error, whereabout you trifle in all these instances is this, that whereas we say▪ the gesture of spiritual and civil refection may be divers, you pervert our meaning therein, (either dishonestly, or indeed very ignorantly) as if we said, the gesture of spiritual and civil refections, must (absolutely must) be divers, nay as if all civility in religious actions, and exercises were utterly exploded by us: thereupon you argue in this manner▪ (k) ●● the diversity of things (being some civil, some spiritual) should [impose] upon us a different carriage and gesture, why should a Minister be allowed to use the same tongue & gesture in any spiritual exercise, that he doth in civil? Where by your word [impose▪ you would imponere lectori. For we do not think or say, that the respect o● spiritualty in the Lord's Supper doth impose kneeling upon us necessarily; but that the same is not therefore unlawful in spiritual eating, because it differeth from the gesture of civil refections. And so much (with reverence be it spoken to learned logicians) of this tr●●h. But the author of the treatise of divine worship hath given an excellent rule to direct us in this matter. That (saith 
l Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 36.  he) is undecent and unfit i● God's worship, which is undecent and unfit out of his worship, [if the same reason of undecency and unfitness remain] hereupon I give you 3 reasons to prove that the indecency of kneeling at civil meat remains not in the Lord's Supper.  
First, In the act of civil eating there is no divine worship, Sect. 23 but it is merely civil; whereas it is divine worship which moves us to use the gesture of kneeling in the Lord's Supper: and doth not that more provoke us lawfully thereunto, than the respect of a civil custom can take us off from it? nature tells us that sitting is a comely gesture in eating our meat; but doth nature make the inference; therefore it is necessary to sit eating likewise in Go●s worship? I think, nature will not teach you this. Therefore by this respect the unfitness of kneeling at civil tables is taken away in the Lord's Supper.  
Secondly, I set the custom of the Church for sacramental Sect. 24 eating against the custom of the Country for civil eating. Verily (the question b●ing merely upon the point of custom as it is) the custom of the Church in a Church-occasion sh●ll ever (and compare equally) sway with good men as much as the custom of the Country shall in a civil matter. So by this respect the unfitness of kneeling at civil tables is also taken away in the Lord's Supper.  
Thirdly, it is not impertinent to look in this case upon the present times; these be those last days, which Sect. 25 the Apostle 
m 2 Tim. ch. 3. vers. 1. &c.  foretelleth should be so perilous and mischievous: if ever it was true, now adays it is, that the wickedness of men is bend (c●●l● terram, tertae coelum, s●cra profanis misc●re) to mix and confounded heavenly and earthly things together: whereof I do judge, it is so fare from deserving blame and censure, to kneel in sacramental eating, that I do think (as the times are) it is convenient and commendable to kneel, to distingursh that holy ordinance from common and civil refections. so by this respect the unfitness of kneeling at civil tables is also taken away in the Lord's Supper. Thus I show, if it be an unfit thing to kneel in civil ●a●ing, yet you cannot absolutely conclude from civil to spiritual: and so I refer to your thoughts this my second consideration.   

Consideration. 3.  
THirdly, consider, if you might conclude from civil Sect. 26 to spiritual, wh●re one spiritual respect answereth to one civil, yet whether you can so conclude, when th●re be more respects than one as weighty or more weighty than that one; as manifestly falleth out in this case: for though the civil custom of a tablegesture be allowed to strike some stroke in a spiritual ordinance, where is eating and drinking; yet other respects in the Lord's Supper have a stroke also as well, if they be duly and impartially weighed as appertaineth: for whether you compare them with the spiritual respect of the souls banqueting, or whether with a civil respect of a Countrey-custome, I do not doubt but this will appear.  
First, if you compare spiritual with spiritual, it can Sect. 27 not be denied, but the respect of breaking the bread, comes closer to the end of the institution, than the respect of banqueting. Christ's passion is kept in remembrance chief by that action, which tends more immediately to his honour; and not by eating and drinking, (which like a feast as you say) more immediately concerns our own contentment and welfare. If therefore you will choose a gesture to the communicant at this ordinance, which answereth to the principal respect thereof, then ●he gesture, which the respect of banqueting may ●cquire, must of necessity give place.  
Again, the respect of worshipping is not less in this Sect. 28 ordinance, than the respect of banqueting: for worshipping looketh upon God in Christ immediately, banqueting more respecteth ourselves, as I said before: and therefore why should not that sway more than this with us for the choice of the gesture? verily if the sacramental service be worshipping, and worshipping be a greater respect then eating and drinking, then there seems to be more zeal than judgement shown in resisting an adoring gesture. And this will better appear i● it Sect. 29 be observed; first, that you cannot prove our Saviour's gesture to have been used relatively rather to feasting then worshipping. I may as well call it a worship-gesture, as you may call it a tablegesture, especially when (if it were sitting) it was but occasional sitting, and holy people have been wont to sit in prayer itself full often occasionally; and if more can be said of Christ's sitting in the Sacrament, then that it was occasional; more also may be said of sitting in prayer. 
n See more before ●h. 3. sect.   
Secondly, suppose Christ used a tablegesture, which answereth to one respect of the Sacrament, we a worship-gesture Sect. 30 which answereth to some other, yet still we hold fitting correspondence with principal respects thereof, which makes the variation warrantable unto us. Thus 
o Ez●a. ●. 12.  some wept with a loud voice▪ some shouted aloud for joy, when they saw the ●ound ●o● of God's house laid, as the same presented unto them diversity of consideration.  
Thirdly, the gesture which answereth to one respect hindereth and hurteth not the work and interest of the Sect. 31 soul in regard of another: so kneeling no more hinders the souls feeding on Christ; then sitting hinders the soul's inward worshipping of God. john's Disciples fasted, and Christ's Disciples fasted not, and both 
p Mat. ●. 18.  lawfully: yet no doubt the inward work of humiliation and mortification was performed by both of them. And cannot our souls feed as liberally, if they be duly prepared, in the gesture of kneeling, as in any other? verily if kneeling were against our spiritual profit and benefit, reason would that we should disclaim it; but even in civil feasting, who doth not know that a man may satisfy nature abundantly by feeding in any gesture? if I use no other proof in this place, than what the similitude administereth.  
Secondly, if you compare spiritual respects with civil, what then (trow you) with reasonable men sha●l become Sect. 32 of a Countrey-custome? as first, what is a civil custom in comparison with the Church's peace? how many customs of men should be despised for the spouse of Christ's sake? if jerusalem be preferred (as it 
q Psal. 137. 6.  aught) above our chiefest joy, how can we endure to set the peace thereof in contestation with a worldly custom? b●t 
r 1 Cor. 14. vers. 32, 33.  the spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets (in such things) because God is the author not of unquietness but of peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints. So speaks the Apostle. I am resolved it is better to rend a civil custom from the whole Church, then to rend the members of the Church one from another.  
Second●y, what is a civil custom to the loss of your Ministries? do you prise them at no greater price than Sect. 33 so, how many thousand souls do you undervalue to a ceremony of the body? Thi●ke you, that he who 
s 1 Cor. 9 22  said [I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some] would not for the liberty and benefit of his Ministry forego a civil custom? He made himselve as a jew to the jews, as a Gentle to the Gentiles, as weak to the weak, and this he did for the Gospel's sake; yea he disclaimed the liberty of a civil custom, namely of wages for work, for the same cause as he testifieth in that place. I protest it is a plain doctrine of Satan, that a man had better forego his Ministry, then forego to stand upon a civil custom. If you say, you loose your Ministries for greater matters, wholly, or principally. I answer, except you would likewise suffer yourselves to be silenced for the gesture, merely, why do you make semblance of it so long, so inflexibly? But the truth is you have declared your resolution (as on the house top) that you may lawfully suffer yourselves to be silenced rather than yield to the gesture of kneeling; and that upon the ground of the necessity of a table civil fashion : illic credul●●a●, illic ●en●erarius error.  
Thirdly, what is a civil custom to the liberty of the Sacrament it self? will you be contented never to eat, Sect. 34 except you have the liberty of a tablegesture to eat in? may you forego a spiritual substance for a civil circumstance? Is it good to go without the whole garment▪ of rich and princely excellency, except you have your own mind for the rural manner of putting it on? surely whiles you pretend and stand upon civility this seems to be fare from it, if you have earnest desire and appetite to this feast (as I doubt nor) we think you should not stand upon custom in the positure of the body, nay this water of the well of Bedlam deserves to be fetched through an army of the Philistines, and will you refuse it, when you come where it is, because you will not stoop down? I will not say Gideoni soldiers, but 
t Gen. 24. 11.  even Abraham's camels, may condemn you for so doing. But further put case (and it is no case of impossibility) that you might never be suffered to receive the Sacrament without kneeling all your life long, would you spend and end your days in the continual refusal of it? would that stand with the peace of your consciences on your deathbeds? Shall this be a good plea before the throne of Christ at that day; (Lord) I never are of thy Supper, because I would not kneel upon my knees at it: true (Lord) kneeling is a natural gesture, thou hast also instituted it 〈◊〉 worship, but in this worship, because it was not according to the Country fashion of eating, I ●●d accounted it abominable; and rather would have had thy death never remembered in breaking of bread, then that it should be remembered, without keeping of the civil custom. To whom Christ may answer as to the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath, 
u Mark. 2. 27.  my supper was made for man, and not man for it. Again 
w Sam 15. 22.  as Samuel to Saul: hath the Lord as great delight in civil fashions and customs, as in obeying the voice and ordinance of the Lord? here what could you be able to answer? yea what will you answer to the Lord speaking in those Scriptures at this time? Well, I can but thus refer to your thoughts these things belonging to my third consideration.   

Consideration. 4.  
FOurthly, consider lastly whether if the respect of a Sect. 35 supper, feast, and banquet, will conclude a necessity for a tablegesture, the same will not conclude for all other fashions and requisites to a supper, feast, or banquet as much, and much more conclude for them too, if they be more material to the nature of civil feasting then is the gesture of sitting at table. It is good that these other fashions and perquisites be judged of.  
First, I offer to your judgement and censure whether Sect. 36 there be in the Supper a necessity of a linen tablecloth. I suppose and am persuaded you would not loose or leave the Sacrament for want of such a cloth to cover the table. I think you will say no more but that it is a decent and needful ornament, if it may be conveniently come by. But why now shall not your reason of a civil feast conclude the necessity of it as well as the gesture? There is no feast of great solemnity (as you 
x Disp. pag. 26.  speak) celebrated without it. There be no guests of quality such as we be as the Lords supper, (as you 
y pag. 8.  say) that may b●e civilly entertained without it. It is not to be respected, (as you 
z pag. 26.  teach) what mean people do in this case, their manners being more barbarous and uncivil: but amongst person● of principal worth, i● would be challenged for a mockery, (as 
a Page 32.  you speak) to be invited to a supper or feast without it. I apply your speeches to a tablecloth, whereby you press the necessity of a tablegesture, whereof you have great store, which will puzzle your defenders, I doubt: for if a tablegesture must be used (needs) because of the solemnity of the feast, the worthiness of the guests, and the necessity of honourable entertainment, how shall not you be bound to leave your ministries and the Sacrament, rather than eat without a tablecloth; which, solemnity of the feast, worthiness of the guests, and honourable entertainment do full as much require: salve this if you can, nay your grounds would prove the necessity of trenchers, and many small appurtenances of feasts, which I spare to name.  
Secondly, I offer to your judgement and censure whether Sect. 37 your reasoning from a civil feast do not also infer the necessity of a table, that a table is not necessary, I have proved 
b Sect 12.  before; and yet there is as much necessity of a table, as of a tablegesture; and rather more manifest necessity, because you prove this 
c Disp. pag. 24. &c.  by that; not only as the more known; but for whose sake this is in a manner only used and urged.  
Thirdly, I offer to your judgement and censure whether Sect. 38 carving one piece of bread (such as is received in the Sacrament) doth stand with the nature of a ●●pper or feast: would not you think yourself abused, if you should be so dealt withal in a feast pretended of great solemnity? Can such a worthy guest as you endure such unfriendly and miserable entertainment? would it not be plain mockery in the invitant to offer it to his guests? your grounds do condemn it most manifestly.  
Fourthly, I offer to your judgement and censure Sect. 39 whether ones giving of the cup singularly to all his guests, whether eating and drinking successively, do stand with the civil custom of feasting, which you press so importunately.  
Fifthly, I offer to your judgement and censure, whether Sect. 40 it be not lawful to drink to one another, and pledge one another interchangeably in the Lord's Supper, 
d Reaching to, and taking the cup of one another, is, drinkking to, and pledging of one another in Repl. patric. to Bp. Mort. p. 38. then the Lords Supper is a feast, but in a manner: then if a man merely pass by another, he salutes him in a manner: then kneeling may be a tablegesture in a manner.  as in civil feasts. Doth it not stand with courtesy in the invitant and courtesy in the guests? your grounds must bring in that fashion also for aught I see. But perhaps you would have it so, as the Scotsmen do pled your cause, who like to take that fashion, which (say 
e Perth. Assem. pag. 43.  they) agreeth best with the nature of a feast, where signs and tokens of amity are interchanged.  
Sixthly, I offer to your judgement and censure, whether Sect. 41 it stand with the nature of a feast, that we do not, we may not eat a full and competent meal. The Lord's Supper (you 
f Disp. pag. 26.  say) doth fully, and in all accomplished sort, exhibits whatsoever may serve to testify the love of the invitant to his guests, out of the nature of a banquet. Behold, is this a testimony of love to feast a noble guest, or a Cottier either with a morsel of bread? is this full and most accomplished exhibition of love-tokens? what is the nature of a feast, if meat be not I pray? and what ●an be imagined more necessary for solemnity of a feast▪ worthiness of the guests, kind and noble entertainment, then to have meat enough? do you contend for the gesture of a supper or feast, and toward the feast itself are contented with a little piece of bread? here I must needs say. M. Disputers logic is senseless, and worthy to be hissed out of the schools.  
Sevently, I offer to your judgement and censure, whether, it be not lawful in the Sacrament, to eat Sect. 42 more than one eating, and to drink more than one drinking. Surely by your manner of disputing, ● Christian guest nay eat and drink again, and again, as it is wont to be done in civil feasts and meals, else there is small solemnity, pinching and miserable entertainment.  
Eightly, I offer to your judgement, and censure, Sect 43 whether it agreed with a civil feast or supper, that a man must neither eat, to please his appetite, nor to satisfy his hunger:) to please his appetite he may not eat in the Sacrament, because the Scripture gives it no room among those things, which have instituted signication. To satisfy his hunger he may not eat, because the Apostle 
g 1 Cor. 11. 34  says, if any man hunger let him eat at home.  
Ninthly, I offer to your judgement and censure, whether it agreed not with a civil feast to confer one with Sect. 44 another. It is but dull entertenment, cold communion of friends at a feast, if from the beginning to the ending thereof, not one word at all pass betwixt them. That which the Replyer saith; 
h Repl. party. Bp. Mort. pag. 38.  that talking in the time of communicating is good, and exemplifieth only in the Ministers saying some what to the communicants, is idle. For that speaking resembles table talk no more, than the ministers speaking in his sermon, or in ministration of baptism: nay, how strange a carriage would it be at a civil feast or supper; if when one man speaketh, none of all his friends should answer him one word from the beginning of the feast till it be finished.  
In this place I will bring in certain answers made by Sect. 45 our brethren unto all these particular points at once. First, The reason of a feast or banquet is not used, (saith the 
i Pag. 37.  Replyer) to infer all the fashions of a banquet, but to remove those fashions, which agreed not to any banquet. I reply two things. First, if you infer a banquet-gesture from the respect of a banquet affirmatively, you must infer other fashions of banqueting likewise; especially which are of as much force and use to a banquet as is the gesture. for else how will you make a syllogism for ●he proof of sitting? What mean will you make your conclusion out off? you cannot make an argument taken from feasts, which will conclude for sitting, and exclude such fashions of feasting as I have named before: As for Mr. Disputers [accomplished entertainment] solemnity of the feast [worthiness of the guests] [honourable entertainment] courtesy of the invitant as much as the nature of feasting requireth] and I know not how many more such like] what can Mr. Replyer say unto them? how shall not other fashions of feasts as well as sitting be enforced from them? Secondly, if you would remove all fashions which agreed not to a banquet, why do you, (or will you, if necessity should require) accept of such fashions as I have noted before, which would be counted shameful and vile, even in an ordinary supper? I pray you look back again unto them: whereby appeareth, (that I say no more) your answer is altogether voided of judgement.  
Secondly, Mr. Disputer would answer perhaps, that Sect. 46 some fashions of the supper are personal, and some are something else what he william. I gather so much out of him by his restraining of the liberties of a table (which he speaks of) by calling them 
k Disp. pag. 27, &c.  [personal] liberties, whereby he would seem perhaps to import, that though the liberties and fashions of a feast (as it were proper to the feast separately considered) do not bind us: yet the distinct liberties and fashions of his person who feasteth, and eateth, do. I am almost of opinion that he hammered at some such matter, when he speaks so often, and so confidently of [personal] liberties. Well, if he will make us such an answer, I reply three things: first, it is a devised shift, which hath no footing in the book of God: where will you make appear, that civil fashions are to be retained, not which belong to the feast properly, but which belong to the man feasting? Secondly, it is an unreasonable shift, which will bide no trial: for if the Lords Supper be a feast properly so called, and that the liberties and fashions of civil feasts are therein to be stood upon; shall the fashions of the person be teteined (propter convivium) for the feast sake; and shall not the fashions of the feast itself be retained much more? Thirdly, consider of those fashions which I have observed before, and you shall find it is a fruitless answer. For as in the Lord's Supper you like and take unto some liberty of civil [feasts themselves,] so again yourselves do refuse or omit some such liberty, which are [personal] as it seemeth good unto you: and therefore why would you blind our eyes by the name and pretence of personal liberties of civil feasts at the Lords table? These things I note against the flourish of [personal liberties] if you meant by [personal] to distinguish from other liberties of the supper itself. If you meant no such matter, to what purpose served that Epithet? good men should not use terms to import, or carry semblance before ignorant Readers of that which is not.  
Thirdly, both Mr. Replier and Mr. Disputer answer, 
l Reply partic. to B. Mort. p. 37 Disp. pag. 148.  Sect. 47 Though all fashions of a banquet may not here be used, yet those which may be justified by Christ's own example, aught not to be excluded. I answer, first, now you quite disclaim the proper force of the tablegesture reason, and only betake you to Christ's example; for such and such fashions must be used not which the nature of a feast warranteth, but which Christ's example only warranteth, let reasonable men judge what dealing and daubing this is. Secondly, the defence of Christ's example we have seen before fain to fly hither for refuge, I mean to the reason of a tablegesture: and how then shall that minister entertainment to this, when it seeks to be entertained and sheltered under the authority of it? I hope this hath been found true in its own place. Thirdly, why have you abused us all this while, to reason from a Country custom immediately, have you spent many sheets of paper about solemnity of the feast, worthiness of the guests, accomplished and honourable entertainment, courtesy of the in vitant, &c. and will you cast off the reason of civil eating and drinking now? nay moreover (you 
m Disp. pag. 28.  say) that Christ was 
n Good Reader mark this divinity, I pray.  tied to the fashions of feasts by three things: first, by a just expectance thereof on the part of the invited. Secondly, by the proper nature and intendment of a feast. Thirdly, by a direct intimation and profession from himself to perform them, in that he undertaketh the solemnising of a feast. And will you shake off this deep divinity now when you be put to shifted for answer. fourthly, where you fly to Christ's example for table-fashions, be mindful of this advertisement, that both you use some fashions of eating which Christ used not, and some which Christ used you be contented to let pass. This you cannot deny: and therefore to what purpose (because of Christ's example) do you strive about the necessity of a tablegesture.  
Thus I have satisfied (I suppose) such answers or shifts Sect. 48 you use, to save yourselves with, when other fashions of civil feasts be urged as well as a feasting gesture: and therefore still I offer my nine points named before to your judgement, and censure, nay what if I have more and more pertinent to add unto them? which indeed I have, and of purpose brought in your shifts before them, because they most fully refute the same altogether. And I say, they be more pertinent than the former, because they concern the matter of gesture in special manner. Thus than I proceed in my catalogue and say.  
Tenthly, (or first) I offer to your judgement and censure, Sect 49 whether kneeling in blessing, or giving of thanks, (which you use at the Sacrament) aught not to be refused as well as kneeling in the time of eating and drinking. Consider first that fashion agrees not to any banquet, and therefore you should by your own learning exclude it. Secondly, it is a personal liberty or fashion to sit or stand in blessing at civil meals, that I may speak as you do, and therefore you should hold yourselves bound to maintain it. Thirdly, Christ and his company sat at table in blessing of the elements as much as in eating & drinking of them: why then do you refuse that fashion here, which you will yield is justified plainly by Christ's example? and thus fare I apply further reply to your former answers.  
Eleventhly, (or secondly) I offer to your judgement Sect. 70 and censure, whether any civil feast doth allow of sitting from the table; let Mr. Disputers judgement be had in this carriage, because he hath spoken of it somewhat freely: At a civil banquet (saith 
o Disp. saith it is a mockery to sit from the table, pag. 32.  he) usage or carriage wou●d be challenged from a mockerit. Again (saith 
p Ibidem.  he) if we sit from the table some distance off, there to be ●ed as servants and strangers, shall we not think ourselves used without respect? is that usage according to the rule of common civility? Nay a Christian Communicant (saith 
q Pag. 16.  he) must not eat like a servant attending the reach of a morsel from the table. Is that honourable entertainment, accomplished entertainment, courtesy of the invitant? doth that stand with the worthiness of the guests, with the solemnity of the feast? Behold, I say again behold, nothing less. O absurdity and senselessness! will you needs have a tablegesture, and yet will you sit from the table; did ever man set his guest's on that fashion? here the Replier triflingly 
r Repl. partic. Bp. Mort. pag. 36  answereth, that since you cannot sir at the table as you desire, you come as near it as you can: nay 
s Disp. pag. 32.  the very Disputer is 
t Sir, can you be content to forsake all that you said of the unlawfulness of sitting from table, so casily?  contented to pled, that you sit as near the table as conveniently you may. But (not to except against you, that if you cannot sit at the table itself, private feats and retired pews are commonly desired more, than nearness to the table) this I reply, that neither can you avoid the force of your own urging of table-fashions so fleightly, which makes this your sitting from table a sin in you; nor if that be lawful to be done, because you come as near your desire as you can, shall kneeling be condemned in case we use it, when we can use no other: so this is but frivolous and childish trifling. Now consider, first, this fashion agrees not to any banquet, & cherfore you should by your own learning exclude it. Secondly, sitting at the table is a personal liberty of the table, and therefore you should hold your selves bound to maintain it. Thirdly, Christ and his company sat at the table, and not from it; why then do you exclude that fashion which you will yield is justified plainly by Christ's example. Thus I apply as before.  
12. (Or thirdly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether uncovering of the head be not a fashion Sect. 51 contrary to solemn feasting. Consider first, this fashion agrees not to worthy and fellowlike guests at feast of solemnity, and therefore by your own learning you should exclude it. Secondly, covering of the head is a personal liberties of the table, and therefore you should hold yourselves bound to maintain it. Thirdly, Christ and his company sat covered at supper; why then do you refuse that fashion, which you will yield is justified plainly by Christ's example? To this Mr. Disputer answers 
u Disp. pag. 146, 147.  like a Skilful man, that there is great difference betwixt sitting at a feast and uncovering: and what is that difference betwixt them? By sitting we are admitted really to the table saith he. It is false you are not admitted simply by sitting; for if you car to it by standing or any other gesture: you are admitted to the table; only by sitting you are admitted with more credit and convenience; So are you also by being covered. Again (saith he) by sitting we be socially admitted to the table, and o Sir, are you admitted socially by being covered? who but the Disputer would have put that for a difference? Again (saith he) by sitting we may feed at & on the table. But that exception cannot put difference betwixt sitting, and covering as concerneth our purpose, inasmuch as by very kneeling itself we may feed at and on the table if you say no more. Again (saith he) by sitting we give and receive entertainment at the table: and are you so uncivilly fashioned, or so unacquainted with the Country manner, that you do not know we do give, and receive entertainment at the table by the opportunity and commodity of our ha●●? Again (saith he) by sitting we may carry ourselves suitably to the person of guests, though we rest uncovered. Can you so? doth sitting bore at table stand with the solemnity of a feast; with honourable entertainment, with worthiness of fellowlike guests, with courtesy of the invitant? Surely the Disputer hath forgotten himself. Again (saith he) our society with Christ in glory is noted in Scripture by sitting at a table, so is it not by covering of the head: as if the Holy Ghost is ●bound to note our society with Christ by all equal fashions of civil tables because he notes the same by one; as if yourselves did not stand upon some civil fashion of feasts in the Lord's Supper beside sitting, which yet are never used to set forth our society with Christ in glory, more than covering of the head: as if those things which the fashion of being covered in feasts signifieth, might not metaphorically also be applied to the society of Christ and his Saints in glory, Again (saith he) some nations have a custom, that the servants waiting at table be covered aswell as their Masters: you instance in the French. I answer, first, if there be such a custom among them, what is that to us? we must be ruled by our own Country custom, not by theirs in our gestures at Sacrament, for so you say often enough, and if you will give leave to try the controversy by the liberty of all Country customs aswell as our own, I could show that your opinion is yet more fantastical. Secondly, but suppose our own Country fashion were, that waiters were covered aswell as those they waited upon, what's that to the point? It is enough that such as sit at table be covered, (which is only to the matter i● hand) I care not what they do, which wait upon them: yea but (saith he) the gesture of sitting puts a difference betwixt the guests and the servitors, so doth not the gesture of covering always. But I pray you Sir. Must you needs have a gesture to difference guests from waiters? Then (besides that it is on idle device of your own heart) what will you say to the gesture of standing, which you use in receiving sometimes, which is the notorious guesture of such as wait at table? nay how foolish is it to stand upon the difference, when at the Sacrament there be no waiters (properly so called from civil use) for they be all guests which be present? Lastly (saith he) in our Saviour Christ's time, there was no ornament for the head in use; that is strange when the Apostle 
w 1 Cor. 114. See Dan. 3. 21.  forbids men to be covered in the Church of Corinth so earnestly: but suppose there was not, yet so long as if it had been the fashion of the jews at meat (you will say) Christ would not then have refused it, it serveth enough for our turn. Besides, if Christ were uncovered it was occasional, and ●eerely civil; your uncovering is used of purpose and choice: and (as yourselves do say) for religious reverence. And yet there is no doubt but in those times they used cover unto the head, even our Saviour, and his Apostles did which the necessity of shelter from injuries both of cold and heat did bring into use from the beginning. Thus than I may still apply my three former points, for reply to your threefould general answer as before. Sect. 52  
Thirteenthly (or fourthly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether standing (to speak of it distinctly) aught not to be refused also at the Lords Supper as well as any of the former. Consider, first, this fashion doth not agreed to set and solemn 
x As for running banquets both the Disp. excepts against them pag. 26. also they are not always at a table when they might be; and howsoever are but a complemental & appendicall eating.  feasting. Object. But some men do stand at meat sometimes. I answer, so some do kneel also sometime at meat too. But why do they stand I pray? either for want of seats; or through infirmity that they cannot sit; or that haste and business will not permit settling to sit; or for some other respect which is upon the by. But shall I therefore call this atacticall gesturing a proper tablegesture, in civil and solemn eating? Secondly, consider that sitting is a personal liberty of guests at table, yea such a liberty, as that you 
y Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 36.  say, it is a sacramental and essential part of the institution. And therefore you should hold yourselves bound to maintain it, to the refusing of the Sacrament, to the loss of your liberty and life; specially against standing, which Christ 
z Luk. 22 v. 27  makes a note of a waiter at table, and contradistinguisheth that carriage, to the gesture of them which eat meat: yea when the Disputer 
a Disp. pag. 17, 30.  says, It is unlawful to receive the Sacrament in attending manner, and as a servant. Thirdly, consider that you avow Christ, and his company did sit down: why then do you exclude that fashion which you will yield is justified plainly by Christ's example; specially when you 
b Disp. pag. 148.  say, you entertain not the custom of the Country simply; but as it is according to the example of Christ and his Apostles. Thus I apply as before. Sect. 53  
Fourteen (or fifthly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether walking up and down aught not to be refused for unlawful, as well as kneeling. Consider first, this fashion agrees not to feasts of solemnity as Mr. Disputer knoweth, and therefore you should by your own teaching exclude it. But the Replier 
c Reply partic. to B Mort. p. 36  saith, walking is more agreeable to a supper then kneeling. I 
d See further answer before chap. 3. sect.  answer, if it be so, then thus it followeth, that it kneeling be a sin, because it swerveth from the custom of civil suppers, walking shall be a sin in a lesser degree, and that is all which can be gotten by that answer. But (I pray) in what respect is walking agreeable to a supper? because the body is higher in the air? or because it is good for digestion of meat? or because we come to supper by walking? or lastly, because the drudges of an house be wont to eat sometimes perhaps, whiles they go up and down a sweeping: or some servitors at table eat sometimes, as they go up and down, when they have changed a trencher? other agreeableness besides of walking to a feast or supper I know none. Secondly, consider, sitting at the table is a personal liberty of the table, and therefore you should hold yourselves bound to maintain it. Thirdly, consider, Christ and his Apostles (as you say) sat certainly at table, and in the eating of the eucharistical supper walked not: why then do you exclude that fashion which you will yield is justified plainly by Christ's example? Thus I apply as before. Sect. 54  
Fifteenthly, (or sixthly) I offer to your judgement and censure, whether it be not a sin simply for the Carver, (as I may so speak) or server in the eucharistical supper to stand and walk, and carry every one's part of the feast unto them from person to person, as well as kneeling. Consider, first, this fashion is a mockery at a civil feast. and therefore you should by your 
e See Disp. p. 3●  own learning explode it. Secondly, sitting together at the table is a personal liberty of the table both to carver and guests: and therefore you should hold yourselves bound to maintain it. Thirdly, Christ at the table gave unto his communicants bread and wine, they being there present: why then do you still exclude that fashion which you will yield is justified plainly by Christ's example? Thus I apply as before. Sect. 55  
And thus I ha●e put together (omitting some other) these 15 points, entreating you to judge of them indifferently, and either let the pretence of a tablegesture be taken away for defence of sitting, or let all other fashions of suppers and feasts, and specially of Christ's, come in by it as absolutely necessary to the Lords Supper: and then yourselves must turn over a new leaf, repenting (according to the former points) of all your errors in doctrine, exorbita●cies in practice. I hope you will not be still so idle now to ●ell us, that you are to be excused in your practice in many of the said points because you can do no better at this time: for look what force your argument of a tablegesture hath in kneeling against us; the same it h●th in these particulars against yourselves. What if you be urged in many things, that doth not altar the case, so long as you may lawfully yield unto them? And so I refer all these things to your thoughts belonging to my fourth and last consideration.   

Arguments against the necessity of a Tablegesture.  
NOw (besides the former discourse whereby in answer Sect. 56 of your reasons. I have plentifully shown the vanity of your great argument of a Tablegesture) I will now add by themselves a few arguments of mine own, for the further and clearer evidence of the truth. Thus than I reason with you.  
First, God stood not upon a tablegesture in the institution of the very Passeover, nay he plainly pulls his people off from the fashions of solemn feasts by express commandment: for first, he requires they should eat with a staff in their hands. Secondly, that they should eat in haste. Thirdly, as many of you have written, that they should eat in the gesture of standing: and though this fashion was appointed only for the first Passeover, yet it is of excellent use, to show, that the respect of a tablegesture had no necessary stroke in the Passeover: especially, forasmuch as the Lord never gave other direction afterwards for a tablegesture, and the change of the gesture that was made among the jews was plainly arbitrary, not necessary. Therefore here was no order given, ●o necessary respect had, to the Country fashion and gesture of civil tables.  
Secondly, there is no place in the new Testament, Sect. 57 which doth require us to use a tablegesture: show this and I yield; I say there is not one place. Wherefore I wonder at good men somuch the more, that they dare presume to obtrude upon us the authority of their own fancies, specially when none ever pretended the sole authority of the word more than they.  
Thirdly, the 
* See Treat. of div. worsh. p. 44  Apostle sa●es, the kingdom of God consists Sect. 58 not in meat and drink Rom. 14. 17. And the same Apostle reproves the Colossians, for placing religion in not touching, not tasting, not handling, Colos. 2. 21. I desire my brethren to consider whether the Apostle by these places do not condemn the placing of religion in civil fashions & customs as they do in the sacramental supper. I doubt not but such as are both judicious and ingenious will cast off the reason of a table-g●sture, when they have well considered what the Apostle meaneth.  
Fourthly, the Sacrament is a spiritual and heavenly ordinance Sect. 59 of jesus Christ; therefore so long as the body seemly serveth to the soul's devotion, what strive we about a Country-fashion? Again, so long as the meditating and believing soul can feed as much on Christ spiritually in kneeling as in the Country gesture, what is the benefit of a civil custom? I for my part do not see, did never feel, how the Country fashion helpeth either the soul's devotion, or its feeding upon Christ our Saviour; me thinks it should hinder the same exceedingly, when accidentally it deprives you of the Sacrament itself, and the liberty of your Ministries.  
Fifthly, if the Lords Supper must needs have such a gesture, Sect. 33 as is used at civil eating, why should not all other civil things (being applied to God's worship) be used in the same civil fashions also, as if they were merely civil? as why should not our Churches, or places at lest wherein we rec●●ue the Sacrament be unlawful hoc nomine, that they be built unlike our chambers, or parlours, or halls, or any other room which we civilly use to eat our meat in? Again what needed Moses a pattern to make many vessels of the Tabernacle by, when he might have made them according to the choicest fashion at that time of such do nesticall or civil utensils? Again, why should not that osculum pacis, (which also the new Testament alloweth, and commendeth) be retained in ecclesiastical communion, aswell as in civil: In a word if there be such a necessity, that civil things (applied to holy use) must be used still after the civil fashion, and manner, than there is an easy principle laid of divinity not readier to determine doubts, then dangerous to produce errors.  
Sixthly, it is not out of the way to cast a thought upon Sect. 61 the proportion which is betwixt holy and civil gesture: for if at a civil meal w● sit at prayer occasionally from the sitting to eat, why should we not in a spiritual meal kneel in eating occasionally from the kneeling to pray and worship? Nay I should think that if the gesture of divine worship, condescend sometimes to be framed like unto the civil, for a civil business, much more the gesture of a civil business will condescend to be framed like unto the spiritual for divine worship.  
seventhly, I ask you whether civil fashion is to be Sect. 62 applied unto the Lord's Supper, as it is civil, or as some new respect is put upon it? If the gesture loose the respect of civility, than your argument of a tablegesture loseth its force. But if you say you use it as it is civil, besides that you infer equally all other civil supper-fashions, you consider not that if it were possible, God's personal worship should have nothing in it, but that which is 
f I mean by spiritual, that which is contra distinguished to civil, not to corporal.  spiritual, yea civility itself should have no place there, if all could be spiritual, as divinity teacheth: why do you then contend for civility in God's worship, when your civility stands against spiritual worshipping, not against profaneness, you may not set civility in opposition against worship (in God's solemn ordinances) but only against that, where by both worship and civility be destroyed.  
Eigthly, and lastly, I wish to be considered the uncertainty of your reasoning in this argument of a tablegesture; Sect. 63 for are you not always flying from it to Christ's example, or some other refuge; when you are not able to defend it? This is most true in the Disputer, and of all others in him most shameful: did ever man say more for the necessity of a civil custom than he? o how he urgeth a tablegesture, that I wonder at his impudency! The gesture of the supper must be as the solemnity of a feast, courtesy, and dignity of entertainment, &c. requireth forsooth! at last (being put to his shifts in answering) he 
g Disp. pag 148  saith in this manner : sitting is not entertained with us simply upon this ground, in that sitting at meat is the received custom of our Country, but because it is such a custom; that is, (saith he) it is a gesture of necessary and worthy use, and there is Christ's example for it. Verily if the usefulness of the gesture in itself be the matter you stand on, quorsum est profusio hac? to what purpose is this argument taken from civil tables? And thus you have my reasons such as they are) against the necessity of a tablegesture; besides those which I used before in my answer to your reasons for the defence of it.   

A Recapitulation of my reasons against the necessity of a Tablegesture.  
NOw for conclusion, I will recapitulate all my principal Sect. 64 points of answering and reasoning together. If the Sacrament be improperly called a Supper; if a man 
Twelve points recapitulated.  may lawfully kneel at civil eating upon occasion; if it cannot be concluded from civil to spiritual; if there be as great respects in the Lord's Supper as feasting, and greater too, which may with as much reason and more sway the gesture; if there be a great many fashions of feasting which will be equally inferred with the gesture; if at the institution of the Passeover there was no respect to a tablegesture; if a tablegesture at the eucharistical Supper be no where required in the new Testament; if the Kingdom of God, namely his religion and ordinances stand not in civil fashions and customs; if kneeling hinder not the partaking of the duty or comfort of this feast; if it be a false assertion, that civil things applied to religious use must always be● used according to the civil manner; if there be as much reason to kneel in religious eating for worship-sake, as to sit at table in prayer for civil eating sake; if civility may not be defended in God's service against gestures of religion and worship, but only opposed to carriages of unseemliness and profaneness: lastly, (passing many points which I have observed upon the by) if there be nothing but miserable uncertainty in this argument; then I dare conclude that the said argument of a tablegesture, though it stand among your arguments like a noble star, is indeed no better than a foggy meteour; I mean the froth of inconsideration, and (in the Disp.) of precipitancy: so by the help of Christ I have finished the arguments against kneeling drawn from the light of nature.    

Arguments collected out of Scripture against kneeling, answered. CHAP. 6.  
FOurthly and lastly, our order brings us now to Sect. 1 the consideration of such collections, and inferences of reason, which are gathered out of God's word, for condemnation of kneeling, and defence of sitting. Now collections, or inferences of reason, be three; in serting them down, I will neither be so idle to ●e myself to the confused and methodical proceeding of the Disputer; nor be so injurious to my brethren to take advantage of such disorderly handling of the cause against them: but I will rank their arguments in the best order I can, and what I find scattered out of place, to the hindrance of the Readers edification; I will study, (as I have partly done already) to refer whither it specially appertaineth. And first you say, that kneeling at the Communion i● contrary to the dignity of the Communicants; for proof of this you have three main reasons to be examined.  

The first proof of this first Argument.  
FIrst (you say) kneeling is contrary to the dignity of the Communicants, because it is contrary to our Sect. 2 coheinship, and fellowship with jesus Christ. To the manifestation whereof two propositions you strive to maintain. First, that at the Communion we all a●t the person of coheires at Christ's table. Secondly, that kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental bread and wine is contrary to that person: for, as for that general supposition, that each man aught to carry himself according to the person which he sustaineth, who will make any question? let us see the proofs of your two propositions in order.   

Of the first Proposition.  
FOr the first, that we all act the person of coheires Sect. 3 with Christ at his table, you endeavour to show by certain considerations: but it will be good to explicate that speech, [we act the person of coheires with Christ at his table] before we come unto them: and the phrase hath three senses. First, 
a From a mayor in the third sen●e, and an assumption in the first s●nse, the vnlaw●u●ln●ss● 〈…〉 i● infe●●ed i● that 〈…〉 which 〈…〉 be seen This 〈…〉.  we act the person o● coheires at the Sacrament: that is, we receive th● Sacrament being coheires, but this is nothing to the present purpose: for in this sense we act the person of coheires not only in the Sacrament, but in every act (whatsoever it be) either of civility, or religion, which we do well, whiles we live upon earth. Secondly, we a●t the part of coheires, that is, we carry ourselves as becomes them which are heirs together with Christ, of his heavenly Kingdom. But this is no more to purpose then the former; for this is but according as the Apostle generally exhorts us, that (in all things) we should walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, Coloss. 1. 10. worthy of the calling wherewith we are called, Ephes. 4. 1. worthy of God, who hath called us to his kingdom of glory, 1 Thess. 2. 12. Thirdly, (a) we act the person of coheires: that is, we personate and act in gesture the representation of our inheritance: and this meaning only tends to your purpurpose. Now I observe in your dispute, that according to these three senses, you give us three considerations for confirming of your proposition.  
First, (say 
b Disp. pag 4.  you) that we bear the person of coheires Sect. 4 with Christ at his table, is a truth evident, and agreeable to the Scripture. Luk. 22. 29, 30. For our repair unto this holy feast doth presuppose thus much; that we are already coheires with him. And 
c Pag. 5.  again, we are presumptive and presupposed coheires, when we come to the holy Sacrament. And 
d Pag. 3.  our common prayer book supposeth us to be such. Answer, it is 
e The reason (saith the disputer) why we refuse kneeling at the Lords table, is not, because we are coheires with Christ, pag. 10. so that he is plainly against himself.  true, or else it were a miserable case. Even in prayer when we use the humblest gesture in all the world, we are presumed, and supposed for such: but what need I to speak of prayer? Who knows not that the children of God stand heirs to heaven all their life long, and are to be considered such in every employment, which they perform well? You show yourself a very wise man by this consideration as it appeareth. And this is to be referred to my first sense given before.  
Secondly, (say 
f Pag. 5, &c.  you) we should carry ourselves at the Lord's table as becometh his brethren and coheires. Answer, Sect. 5 is it most certain we should so, in my second sense; and not at the Sacrament only, but at all times, and in all businesses whatsoever.  
Thirdly, (say 
g Pag. 4, 5, &c.  you) the elements of bread and Sect. 6 wine represent our glory in heaven: our receiving of them represents our partaking of glory; therefore we must act the person of coheires in gesture. Answer, this consideration is only (somuch as) probable against the gesture of kneeling. But first I deny the antecedent, and then the consequence or argument itself.  
For the antecedent you can never prove that the Sacrament is a proper, and direct resemblance of heavenly glory; for in such a type or resemblance there be three points concurring. First, it must be immediate and not drawn in by dependence of one thing upon another. Secondly, it must be special and not general, for even every civil meal which we eat may hold some analogy with our feasting in heaven, aswell as the Sacrament. Thirdly, it must be instituted, for no man may device unto God's substantial ordinance, a typeship or signification, without warrant from himself. Now how well you will prove the bread and wine to resemble the glory of heaven, let us hear and consider.  
First, (says the 
h Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. lordship▪ 39  Replier) it is very probable, that Sect. 7 this supper is a type of the heavenly glory; because Christ often resembles the same by a supper: especially this supper being a type of something. Answer, this last clause is very childish and idle, in as much as Christ hath expressly pointed out unto us that thing which this supper is to represent. Again, the force of your reason is common to all civil suppers aswell as to the Sacrament, nay it is more for them then this; because they be suppers properly taken, whereas this is not, there being no accomplished point of a supper, or feast, to be found in it at all: moreover, this reason is delivered but as a conjecture, and I hope conjectures will sway no man's conscience; but what if there were never so great a fitness and correspondence of this supper to the heavenly, it could be yet no type either special, or instituted; this reasoning therefore is very shallow and fruitless, and this is more than probable.  
Secondly, (says 
i Ibidem.  the Replyer) our Saviour lead Sect. 8 his Disciples from the instituted supper to the heavenly, Mat. 26. 29. Answer, is it therefore a type of the heavenly? our Saviour lead the woman of Samaria. john. 4. verse. 9 13. From the water of jacob's well, to the water of life. Was jacobs well therefore a proper type of grace? is this the way rightly to find out, and judge of proper types? from my rising out of bed, I take occasion to think of the final resurrection of all flesh out of their graves. Is my rising therefore a proper type of the resurrection? If this reason can make a type, than any thing upon earth may be made a type, of some heavenly thing, if thence we can but raise our thoughts to the contemplation of some such thing which is heavenly.  
Thirdly, says 
k Pag. 40.  the Replyer, (for I am content to put his conceits together) the whole communion which Sect 9 me have and hope to have with Christ is represented in this supper; and unto this communion belongeth or pertaineth celestial joy. Answer, it is true that joy belongeth to the communion of Christ, and his Church; but that is personal joy of the heart, enjoyed in this present life in good measure: but the joy or happiness which concerneth your purpose in hand, is that matter of joy or glory, wherewith (as with a feast or dainties) we shall be comforted and delighted in God's kingdom. The comfort of our communion with Christ, stands in the mutual embrace and reflections of love and grace, at Christ 
l Reuel. 3. 20.  speaketh. If any man open the door I will come into him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Glory is no more perceining to this communion, then is a rich dowry to the communion of man & wife. Besides by this learning of yours you do plainly jumble together the signification of all types: therefore the same concludes not the Sacrament to be a type of heaven, either immediate, or special, or institued.  
fourthly (says 
m Pag. as before.  the Replier) In other Sacramen●● as Circumcision, Passeover, Baptism, there is a signification Sect. 10 of something which is to come; and why should there not be likewise in the Lord's Supper? Answer. I answer, first for the Passeover, and then jointly for Circumcision and Baptism. And for that I say, that the two significations therein of [past] and [to come] do in our Sacrament meet together in one; which is a remembrance of the Lamb already slain for our deliverance. Therefore if you would make any just analogy betwixt the Passeover, (concerning its signifying something to come) and the Eucharistical supper, you should compare the same in this manner: that as the Passeover signified the Lamb to be slain, our Supper signifies the Lamb already slain: and how is it possible, that the Supper must needs now signify something to come, because the Passeover signified Christ to come. Verily you do not reply with judgement, if you please to give me leave so to admonish you: nay because you can not show any glory to come, which the Passeover was a type of, it follows that the Supper is type of no glory to come; for there is as much reason, that, that should signify glory to come to the jews, as this should now unto us: yet I will give you that some thing to come is respected in both these Sacraments, whereby the receiver might and may (long after receiving take benefit, and comfort thereby, but this is still communion, which may be renewed, confirmed, increased, virtually from the Sacraments, having been used in an heavenly manner) but this will avail your cause nothing at all.  
Next for Baptism and Circumcision, how may it appear, Sect 11 that they signify any thing to come? O (saith 
n Pag. 41.  he) how should not Paptisme signify our perfect washing, which is the state of a glorious Church as well as our new birth? I answer, we need not be persuaded by interrogations, except the same included some effectual consideration to work upon our understanding. But suppose that Baptism signifies something to come, it is certainly nothing else but perfecting of our sanctification, or perfect sanctification. And this I may yield you without trouble to myself in the matter controverted: for as Baptism, which is the first sacrament, resembles our perfect sanctification, whereby we be fitted for perfect communion with Christ; so the Supper, which is the second Sacrament may represent that our perfect communion being perfectly sanctified. Here it you see fit and answerable significations of something to come in both these Evangelicall sacraments; but all this while here is nothing, which makes for proof, that any sacraments signify properly, and be types of glory, which is but an accessory both to sanctification, and communion; and yet belike the Replier would insinuate, that Baptism signifies glory, by saying, that the perfect cleansing, (which Baptism representeth) is the state of a glorious Church: as if this predication were tolerable. A gracious state is a glorious state, that is, grace is glory: for though they go together, yet they be divers things, and that which signifies y on, doth not therefore properly signify the other. But what now if I grant that all the sacraments do signify the glory of heaven in some sort, yet are they not types thereof; either special (for the representation which you would have is made from them all in common; where, as they be special types, they have each their peculiar accommodation. And what thing that is pleasant to us and good; may not in this manner signify heavenly glory?) or immediate, (for how many consequences must you bring this signification about by?) or lastly instituted; for the Lord never spoke a word, to give any man to wit of such a sacramental signification. Wherefore it was out a trick of outfacing that the Replier crieth ou●. This is a strange 
o pag. 40.  humour to think thus; for to think otherwise is a strange humour in himself. And indeed when all comes to all, he condemns his own opinion manifestly; for thus he conclude●; 
p pag. 41.  All parts, degrees, and circumstances of our communion with Christ, which may be shadowed out by those outward elements and actions used in the Sacrament are by the same represented: for glory is no part or degree of our communion with Christ, but a consectary thereof. As for circumstances thereof to be represented by the sacrament is learning which I do not understand. But note if glory were a part, or degree, or circumstance of our communion with Christ, he says those parts, degrees, and circumstances, are shadowed out by the outward elements, which can be shadowed by them; implying, that some are incapable of being shadowed by them; for what else may that clause or exception mean? nay he goes on, and speaks more plainly than all this: All consectaries, saith he, or things that do follow upon communion with Christ, are not, neither can be properly represented in the sacrament of the Communion, though they be all sealed up to the faithful: now if it be most true, that glory in heaven is a consectary of our communion with Christ, than he hath been pleased to yield his cause, for which he contended so much in the conclusion without bidding; so much to your Antecedent.  
Next I have denied your inference, [The Supper represents Sect. 12 heavenly glory, and therefore we must act the person of coheires in gesture] for is it to be thought that one remote and general representation (for at the best it is no more) hath the sole stroke to put upon us, what gesture we are to use? are there not many things more concerning the nature of the sacrament, which would command the gesture before it? sounder it were to say that the manifest employment, which the principal intent of the institution requireth puts upon the Communicants the person to be justeined: else mark how your reason will be retorted on you. He (say 
q Disp. pag. 4.  you) that taketh bread and wine as representations and pledges of his future inheritance with Christ, be in that respect acteth the part of a coheir with him to the said inheritance. So (say I) he that receiveth the sacrament to do his homage and worship to Christ, he in that respect acteth the part of a bondman or worshipper. The truth is, if the analogy should be extended to the gesture, to bind the conscience to the end of the world, the supper had need to have been not only an immediate, special, and instituted type, of gloris (none of which it is) but also to have had no representation so great as that is, in its whole institution and nature. And hitherto of the first Proposition, that we must act the person of coheires with Christ at his table.   

Of the second Proposition.  
NOw (supposing that we act the person of coheires in receiving the Supper) let us proceed to your Sect. 13 second Proposition, that kneeling is contrary to the person of coheires. Thus than you endeavour to prove the same. Kneeling (say 
r Disput. Arg. 1 pag. 6, &c.  you) imports our disfellowship with Christ, indignity, incongruity, inferiority, extraordinary abasement, and gross disparagement, therefore it is contrary to the person of coheires. So Sir, now you have spoken, and I am doubtful, whether I should give this reason any answer, but contempt: yet peradventure it will be thought fit, that both they which are more weak and ignorant, and others, who have not much considered of this matter, should have some light and help, (I hope by our poor endeavour some little shall be) afforded unto them. Wherefore I deny this Enthime●e: (Kneeling imports inferiority, therefore it is contrary to the person of coheires:) for do you dream of a coheirship whereby you stand not in inferiority to Christ? O proud ignorance! (I hope my brethren will pardon my zeal, I speak but to this arrogant Disputer.) Is there any promise which God ever made to sinful man, is there any reason can be imagined, was ever any example heard of, whereby it doth appear, that believing Communicants in respect of their coheirship, are preferred to be equals with jesus Christ? And the vileness of this conceit will better appear if these things following be considered.  
First, that you not only press this equality, in respect of interest hereditary to heaven, but also in regard of 
s Or else you would no● 〈◊〉 for a sociable gesture.  all familiar and sociable expressions of brothers: so Sect. 14 as (for aught I understand, and let it be judged by wiser men than I) thereof strange and miserable consectaries arise, to be detested of every godly heart. As namely, if that which imports inferiority be contrary to the person of coheires, then is it not at that time, when you take upon you the person of coheires, lawful to call or esteem Christ, your Lord or Superior. Consider what I say. Again it is not lawful at such a time for a Christian to cast up such an ejaculation as this is; o my sweet Saviour, I am not worthy so much as to gather crummy under thy table (perhaps you will say, o we are unworthy of ourselves; yet that serves not the turn, for at the sacrament we lay away the respect of our miserable estate and condition, which was, and only must consider the person, which we have taken upon us; which person admits no speech importing inferiority ●● you say.) Again saith must have no working at sacrament because it imports inferiority and dependence. Again, it is unlawful to be uncovered at that time, because it imports inferiority and disfellowship. Furthermore how may you stand at sacrament, that is, use a waiter's carriage, (as our Saviour calls it, the Disputer affirms of it) and yet act the person of coheires? In a word ●● you will press sitting, because Christ and you be equa●ll, then may you carry yourself like Christ's equal in all points; now ●f this be not learning of the bottomless pit I cannot judge.  
Secondly, your doctrine is the worse, because even at Sect. 15 table (where this person of coheirship is put upon us) the ●●●ver was, and will be superiority and inferiority. If a Noblen an invite a Countryman, or one that is mea●e to supper; and be pleased to set him at his own table, make him put on his ha●, talk with him familiarly; (and this is more than our case requireth) will you say this poor man is not therefore inferior to the Nobleman at his table: nay did not Christ at that very time, when he supped with his Apostles, 
t joh. 13. ver. 1.  tell them; ye call me master and lord, and ye say well, for so I am? wherefore though ye sit as coheires, it doth not follow that ye sit as equals.  
Thirdly, your doctrine is yet worse because the sacrment Sect. 16 is not a remembrance of Christ's sufferings without consideration of his 
u You say, we solemnize the Supper in remembrance of Christ's death, & prerogatives Royal, purchased for us thereby, Disp. p 13. Again, you say, if knee-worship were to be used in the sacrament, it aught rather to be tendered to the second person in the Trinity distinctly, then to God the Father in several, or jointly to the whole Trinity, pa. 15. Now to say so doth import, that Christ is considered in the sacrament as our superior. As superior, say I? Yea as God, who is only to be worshipped, Matth. 4. v. 10.  Kingly office. It is the folly of the votaries of Rome in their chamber of meditation, that they look upon Christ's sufferings barely in themselves, labouring to requited them with pity: the Lords Supper would be no honourable feast, as you speak, and as it is; not yet comfortable feast; except faith might respect in the act of eating, and drinking, Christ, as once crucified, so now conquering and glorious. Doth not Christ as our Lord, and King, invite us therefore to banqueting? must we not then needs carry ourselves like underlings, (though gracious with him) like subjects, like redeemed ones, to our Lord and King, and Captain? Is 
w Matt. 28. 18.  all power given to him in heaven and earth: and is there no administration of it to his coheires? shall every 
x Philip. 2 10.  knee bow to him, and shall not the knees of his coheires bow to him? I mean as coheires; for as coheires doth not Christ exercise government (that is superiority) toward them? else how is it that their coheirship is procured, maintained, and possessed unto them? Certainly if the sacrament consider not Christ's Kingly office, then must you cease to talk of coheirship at the participation of it: but if Christ be considered in his Kingly office there, than I pray will not a carriage of inferiority very well become you?  
Fourthly, let it be supposed, that in the act of receiving Sect. 17 the bread, and wine, there is no respect of Christ's Kingly office; yet I beseech you, is there not a necessrie respect of God himself? Is there any service divine done in obedience by the Church, but Almighty God is the object of it? if Christ and you be brothers and equals, yet therefore subjection is not to be denied to the sovereign Lord of all. If two brothers and coheires go hand in hand, expressing in the kindest manner, all testimonies of mutual equality and good will, is it at such time contrary to their coheirship, if both, or one, upon occasion expresseth himself in dutiful reverence to their common father? surely inferior relations are not destroyed by the duties of superior, unto which heaven and earth require they should give place. But Mr. Disputer hath here to say something: first, (saith 
y Disp pag 13.  he) the carriage of a Communicant is the carriage of a coheir, but kneeling (though it be performed to God) can never be made the carriage of a coheir. This is worthy stuff, so (say I) the carriage of a Communicant is the carriage of one that worshippeth God, but a tablegesture is not the carriage (as you 
z You distinguish betwixt a tablegesture and a personal worship, Disp. pag. 45.  say yourself) of one that worshippeth God. And Sir, this exception takes not away the force of my answer, because the carriage, which the relation of coheirs requireth may yield unto the carriage which the relation requires betwixt God and us. Besides, that kneeling may be made also the carriage of a coheir, I partly have, & further also shall endeavour to show you by & by.  
Secondly, (saith 
a Pag. 13, 14.  he) kneeling diverts our hearts from Sect. 18 being employed in the meditation of the point of our coheirship, (nay mark the wickedness of this answer, as it is further pressed as followeth.) Can we at the same time act two several and incompatible parts? Can we banquet with the second person in Trinity, and yet entertain an holy important negotiation with the first? If herein there be not a distraction of our hearts, I know not what can distracted them? Sure I am, if we perform meditation of Christ as we aught, our hearts will rest so absolutely possessed therewith, as they cannot bestow, and entertain themselves for that time in other service; (he means in service to God the Father.) O that the zeal of your own opinions should make you fall into such foul and ungodly sayings I two intolerable errors you teach here. First, that God the Father in Trinity or unity of person is by no means to be served [expressly in] the Lords Supper; neither aught the heart to entertain one poor cogitation of God our Father, but o●ely of Christ our Saviour. O abominable assertion! as if God in Christ were not the object of all religious duties and ordinances; as if there were any thing in the world more necessary in t●e Sacrament, than the consideration of God's love, who gave his Son to death for us, as if it were not impossible for a Christian heart during the whole Sacramental, action to meditate of Christ, without having any thing to do with the father of all mercy and comfort. But you give us to understand with what a heart you come, and teach others to come to the Lords table, namely God our eternal and merciful Father, is not in all your thoughts. Secondly, you ●each us, that the service of God the Father, and the due mediation of God the Son be incompatible action's. O bold Disputer incompatible? Behold they 〈◊〉 for ever inseparable, as the Christin religion maintaineth, But I will pass from these follies, partly because they be but the froth of your own heart, without all pr●o●e; partly because they must be further answered in their 
b In the next chapter.  own place again; (for here they come in but upon the by) and lastly, because they touch not the force of my former answer; for say the service of God and the meditation of Christ could not both be done at once, yet they may be performed successively, and the heart may still be free from being diverted from the sacrament all employment. Especially when the point of coheirship must needs respect the bestower of the inheritance: for must you use a gesture as a coheir and not as an heir much more? I should think there is more reason to use a gesture of respect to our heavenly Father, which bestows the inheritance upon us, then unto out brother, who is but 
c I say (but copartner) because in this argument of coheires, you consider no more than the precise point of coheirship o● copartnership.  copartner in that inheritance with us.  
Thirdly, (saith 
d Disp. pag. 14.  he) if kneeling ●e performed to God, yet it is not suitable to the corriage of a communicant, so, long as Sect. 19 God calls us to a feast, I answer. First, you should have said, it is not suitable to the carriage of a coheir; you say it is not suitable to the carriage of a coheir; you say it is not suitable to the carriage of a cofeaster or guest; so yo● answer not to the purpose, and in a manner yield the weakness of your argument of coheires. Secondly, to that kneeling is unsuitable to the carriage of spiritual guests at Christ table, I have spent 
e Chap. 5. before.  answer enough.  
Fifthly, let it be supposed that there is no respect in Sect. 20 in the Sacrament of Christ's kingly office, or of the majesty of God himself (which I durst not say without trembling and fear; but) let it be supposed I say, will it follow that we be equals with Christ at the Sacrament therefore? speak of nothing but the very point of coheireship, speak of nothing but of Christ humanity, are we his equals therefore? do you not please to consider that Christ's humanity is assumed, and doth consist in the second person of the Trinity, and is it not in that one respect incomparable with the whole creation of heaven, and earth; of men and Angels? Perhaps you will say, that Christ and we have this common and equal, that we be both heirs. Answer, a worthy defenced as if we must (forsooth) nearly consider Christ's coheireship in the abstract or appellation only, and not the quality of his person who is coheir with us. This were ridiculous, for except we consider the quality of his person expressly, we turn the Sacrament into a mockery, and have no more respect of Christ, then of the poorest Christian in all the world. Wherefore if you consider Christ-man your coheir, still you be inferior unto him: Inferior say I? Alas infinitely. There is unspeakably more difference betwixt him, and other coheires with him, then betwixt a King and the meanest of his subjects: you therefore which say, we be coheires, therefore equals, might say as well that worms be equal to Angels, because they be both creatures; that a noble Roman commander and the baggage of his army were equal, because they were, either in the field, or in triumph both together.  
Sixthly, and lastly, I entreat godly people to consider, Sect. 21 whether humility will not stand with the person of coheires; if you say humility is excluded at that time, I shall think the Lords people will soon cast you off, 
f Martyrolog. in the story of Austin.  as the Monks of Banger did Austin) as too proud to teach them the good way. But if humility be not contrary to the person of coheires, assuredly kneeling is not contrary. O humble Christian, tell me then, wilt thou not kneel because it will be gross disparagement, extraordinary abasement: I know thou wouldst be ashamed, and afraid, that such language should come out of thy mouth. Wretched man, (wilt thou say) disparagement to kneel; abasement to kneel? gross disparagement? extraordinary abasement? woe is me, hath God bestowed his graces upon me, that I should at any time think much to humble myself? doth he who gives grace only to such as are humble, mean, that the possession of grace should drive away that for whose sake it entered? when is the●e a fit time to humble myself to God, then when I have most cause to fasten mine eye upon the benefits I have received of him?  
But (o Disputer) tell me what is the cause that you Sect. 22 cry out against kneeling for disparagement and baseness? Is it because kneeling is baseness to be used unto men, when they please to do us the most good, and to be most familiar with us: Ruth in the sense of B●az his great kindness, in giving her come and meal; as ravished therewithal, 
g Ruth 2. 10.  fell upon her face before him. So Mephibosheth, when David professed kindness unto him, even to eat bread at his table continually, bowed himself, 
h 2 Sam. 9 7, 8.  saying, what is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead d●gg a● I am. And think you, that Ruth and Mephibosheth, would not have bowed themselves to B●az and David, upon occasion, in the very act of eating, and drinking also▪ would not you put off your ha●, declare some reverence, bow your body at table to an honourable invitant, upon the gracious profession and expression of his extraordinary kindness to you? And w●y then may not coheires in receiving the Sacramental bread and wine, cast themselves down at the feet of their Saviour, in contemplation of his infinite kindness unto them? Again, is kneeling baseness because it is an effect of sin? Verily, if it had been simply such, your exception had been less grievous. But is it not a natural gesture? Was not man made to use it in time of innocency? Was it honourable to innocent Adam; and is it baseness and disparagement unto you? Again, is kneeling baseness, because it looks back unto your former state, and remembers you of your baseness? Then I pray cast your eyes up to the Passeover, in receiving whereof the jews (you will acknowledge) acted the person of coheires, as well as we do in the Communion. Yet God 
i Exod. 12. 8.  commanded them to eat the same with bitter herbs, for remembrance of the Egyptian bondage, where by there lives had been 
k Exod. 1. 14  made bitter unto them, wherefore if kneeling at communion do remember us of our former baseness (which yet it doth not of itself) it is not therefore unlawful, more than an herb of bitterness was unto the jews, that being allowed to us, as a natural gesture, and a gesture of worship by general rules; as this was, by particular commandment. And indeed whether kneeling do remember us of our old estate yea or not, yet the remembrance thereof is altogether necessary in a worthy receiver. Again, think you, that it is disparagement and baseness, for coheires to kneel to Christ because they be heirs together with him of the dignity and glory of heaven? Then look upon the four and twenty Elders, coheires with him of glory, nay possessed (in part at lest) of there inheritance; yet in the sense and contemplation of his infinite love, fell down before him, 
l Reuel. 5. 8. 9  saving; thou hast redeemed us, thou hast made us Kings and Priests. M●rke that when they were made Kings, & possessed of their inheritance, than they fell down before Christ, as it were casting their crowns at his feet, of whom they did receive them. O mark the speech they used; thou hast redeemed us, thou hast made us Kings and Priests; as if it were the speech of communicants at the Lords table. And yet they fell down before jesus Christ  
In a word, if kneeling be a disparagement unto you, in respect of whom is it such a disparagement? What? is it a Sect. 23 disparagement in respect of Christ? That is strange learning. He that would 
l Did Christ wash their feet as a coheir? He did it in Supper time. joh. 13 ver. 4, 12, 17.  wash the feet of his own servants, and that in suppertime, to teach them humility to one another, which also then was but a by-action: would he reproach them for kneeling, a direct action of the sacramental employment, (for gesture is necessary in its kind,) in supper time; to declare their humility to himself, will he that 
m Mat. 11. 29.  says, learn of me, for I am meek and lowly, upbraid us for using a gesture of lowliness? Sure I am, Christ will upbraid men of pride, and stiffness, who hath 
n Isa. 45. 231  sworn by himself, that every knee shall bow down unto him. What then? Is the disparagement, which kneeling occasioneth in respect of men? But besides that, if it were, it condemns not an humble action. Nay we should labour to be more humble 
o 2 Sam. 6. 12.  with David, then less, more vile and base as he speaketh, then be discouraged by the imputation of men. Besides this I say, I do not see or hear, that any body talks of baseness in kneeling but yourselves: touching the Disputer, I doubt not to say, (without malice, as God is my witness) that he hath used many speeches arguing much more pride than the action of kneeling, would do baseness. So that in conclusion, when we consider aright in respect of whom kneeling is disparagement as you say, it will be found such in respect of none but your own hearts: which looking upon your great privileges by Christ (perhaps by reason of the greatness and sweetness thereof some what forgetting yourselves) do thereupon dream that an expression of humility will not stand with the Sacramental meditation of them.  
Finally, I cannot but think these bould-speeches about coheires, dangerous, and durst not use them without Sect. 24 horror; and heretofore when I have striven to confirm myself in the unlawfulness of kneeling, I have been plainly ashamed of them. As for that which the 
p Reply partic. to B. Mort. p. 38  Replyer trifleth, telling us, that there is a lawful familiarity with Christ, what's that for the Disputer. Indeed the Scripture knows not the new [familiarity] therefore you must expound your meaning, if you mean by familiarity, sweet and delightful communion of the soul with Christ, who will say to the contrary? If you mean such familiarity as men had with him upon earth, or as the wife hath with her husband? Then I partly deny, partly distinguish; I deny that such familiarity is lawful more, which men had with him upon earth, that is, which one man hath with another. For therein partly it is evident manifestation who he is, and partly his glorification makes difference enough. And as for the familiarity of man and wife, though Christ and and his Church be described as husband and wife in Scripture allegorically, yet it is only to be applied in spiritual things, and standeth not in corporal gestures. And besides such familiarity as is between Christ and his Church is common in all ordinances, especially in the word of grace, wherein he speaketh to her, and in prayer wherein she speaketh unto him again. And for prayer let me add a word more, doth ever Christian soul converse more familiarly with Christ, then when she communes with him in prayer? She enters into his chamber to him, solaceth herself in his love; 
q Cantic. 2. 14.  her voice is sweet unto his ear; her countenance comely in his eyes: words cannot be used to note greater familiarity of the soul with Christ, that is spiritual communion, than she hath with him in prayer. Therefore Mr. Replyer, what familiarity do you think upon? What? Such as kneeling upon the knees will not accord withal, are you of opinion that Christ, and the Church be never familiar in their mutual conferences? Verily (Sir) you are deceived if you think to salve the Disputers extravagancies with this plaster. I hope, it is large in our desires, partly in our experience and sense, through the grace of our bl●ssed Saviour, to solace our souls with his loves. 
r Cantic. 1. 2.  Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for his love is better than wine. Yet fare be it from us, be it ever fare from us to thrust out duty by love : wives must be in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord, (and I think there is fare greater subjection of the Church or soul to her Lord and husband, 
s 1. Pet. 3. 5. 6.  then of Sarah to Abraham.) What then shall become of the Disputers equality, which will not allow the wife's subjection (as a wife) in carriage and gesture? As for that it is against the person of coheires to kneel, because kneeling is an act of indignity abasement, disparagement, yea, extraordinary and gross abasement, and disparagement; I wish the Disputer (if he be alive) to judge himself, and warn good people to beware of such leaven. And now I will note some further grounds to discover the vanity of this reason against kneeling drawn from our coheirship.   

Reasons that Kneeling at Sacrament is not contrary to the person of a coheir.  
FIrst, it is a feigned device of man, that our coheirship should be declared by the gesture of sitting; if Christ had bidden us to sit for signification of our coheireship, than there had been cause for ever to press the same; since God appoints not sitting to signify our coheirship, nay commands not particularly sitting itself, the Disputer must not be obeyed.  
2ly, there is no ordinance in the Church, but the same Sect. 26 admitteth a divers person at the same time: for look how many considerations any service of God may have put upon it, and so many parts a Christian acteth in the celebration thereof. In prayer a Christian soul acteth the part of a beggar, knocking at the door of God's mercy; again he acteth the part of Christ's spouse, sweetly conferring with her Lord and husband. In the word, a Christian may act the part of a malefactor arraigned, convicted; of a servant, of a child, of a friend, yea of a real craver and beggar, holding out his hand for alms, though he say nothing; 
t Psa. 81. 8. 10  opening his mouth 28 it were, hungerly, and needily, that God may fill it. In receiving likewise he may act the part of a confessor, of a remembrancer, of an homager, of a feeder, of one that renders thanks, &c. and in all these ordinances, he acts the part of a worshipper: therefore to say kneeling is contrary to the person of a coheir, is to say, kneeling is contrary, and it is not contrary; it is lawful, and it is not lawful. For kneeling is no more contrary to our coheireship, than confession, homage, thanksgiving, worshipping, &c. (which do agreed to kneeling, as is manifest in prayer) be contrary to our coheireship: therefore also it is untrue to say, that a Christian acteth no part in the Sacrament, except he act it in outward gesture. Sure you think all Christian acting must be visible to the eye, like that of the Stage-players.  
Thirdly, if kneeling be contrary to our coheireship, than man's duty, and Gods graces be contrary; for let Sect. 27 the person you take upon you be what it can, still and ever duty hath a stroke. If duty have place, then hath subjection also; if subjection agreed, kneeling because it is an act of subjection cannot therefore be contrary.  
Fourthly, In the Sacrament, God gives jesus Christ Sect. 28 unto us, knitts him with us as coheir; and this is before the giving of heaven unto us; now kneeling is no more contrary to the receiving of Christ, even when we would personate and act the carriage of a receiver, than it is contrary to the person of a receiver to take a noble gift from the hands of an earthly Prince with bowing of the knee; or a malefactor to receive the grant of his life in the humble gesture.  
Fifthly, though a man act (namely by bodily gesture) Sect. 29 one person at one time in God's ordinance, yet at another time in the same ordinance he may act another. This you make plain in two places. First, 
u Disp pag 2. 3  you say, we act the person of a coheir in the Sacrament by sitting; in prayer the person of sutters by kneeling, in confession of our faith, the person of confessors by standing. Well, but in prayer, and confession, you will easily grant, that we may change the gesture of kneeling and standing, into any other gesture upon occasion; and why then not in receiving also? Secondly, 
w pag 8. 9  you illustrate the necessity of answering our carriage to the person we bear by, 1. Cor. 11. Where is required that they which did bear the person of men must be uncovered; of women must be c●xered: uncovering of the head in those times being a badge of superiority, and pre-eminence: covering of inferiority, and subjection. Now it is not necessary that they which do bear the person of men be uncovered in our public assemblies; this you will yield unto, therefore in God's ordinance, and in the Sacrament, a man may act by gesture one person one time upon occasion, which at some other time he is not bound likewise to do.  
Sixthly, in prayer, we act the person of coheires to Sect. 30 Gods heavenly kingdom, and yet their kneeling is not contrary to your coheirship. But you deny, that we pray as coheires; and it seems a very harsh denial unto me. First, he that prays as befriended and beloved of God, prays as a coheir. Secondly he that prays as a believer, prays as a coheir. Thirdly, he that prays in hope, prays as a coheir. Fourthly, he that prays as Christ's spouse, prays as much as a coheir. Fifthly, in a word, doth not he pray as a coheir, that prays thus; co●●s Lord jesus, come quickly? But the Disputer would say of all these, (as he says of 
x Pag. 11.  one of them, namely believing) that they be common, and general considerations, that fall out in all good actions at all times. I answer, if they do, then in all such good actions, where these considerations have due place, we in these respects act the part of coheires, though we do not act it in gesture; and why do you make such an exception at this? As if when you speak of acting the person of coheires in the Sacrament, you speak of acting such a part, as is to be acted in no other business, or service in his Church, or in private: truly if you had spoke only of acting the part of such as remember Christ's death by consecrated elements of bread and wine; than you had spoken of such a part as is common to no other service, or business in the world, (and yet that part might be acted in any outward gesture) but when you speak of acting the part of coheires, you speak of a part which may be common to all good service or businesses (spiritually considered) in the world. But what high strains and ●aptures the Disputer had, when he penned down his opinions, I cannot tell.  
seventhly, kneeling agrees with the proper spiritual Sect. 31 nature of a Communicant, therefore it agrees with him as a coheir. This argument is true according to your own manner of reasoning. Now for the antecedent, yourself also do teach us what is required inwardly of a guest at the Lords table, whereby the same is distinguished from that, which is required inwardly in other parts of divine worship, and what is that? 
y Pag. 17.  Meditation of the Lords death, and of the blessings purchased for us thereby; weighing the analogy betwixt the signs, and the thing signified. But this is not all, (Sir) I will help you out; for you name nothing but meditation, which a reprobate is capable of. This therefore is more, the soul openeth itself wider to receive the blessed beams and rays of Christ love, gains strength of mortification by the contemplation of his death, grows more confirmed and established by the power of faith, which comes to him more confidently, sticks to him more closely than it did before. What now? Can you imagine that kneeling is contrary to these? ●s if all these fall not our in prayer. I say, in prayer; not as helped by sacramental ●ites, (for as they stand in relation to these, so they are peculiar to the Lords Supper) but absolutely considered, for the things themselves [meditation, assurance, mortification, confirmation;] are to be found and enjoyed in prayer: wherefore kneeling agreeing with the spiritual employment of a Communicant, is not contrary to the person of a coheir.  
Eighthly, be it true, we receive the Sacrament as coheires Sect. 32 with Christ; must we needs be his fellows therefore? Rather 
z Gal. 4. 1.  that if the Apostle might admonish us better. The hair before he come to his inberitance differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all: Truly, there is not a little force to move us to use carriage of humility, in this, that we be yet in a state of humility, unglorified, for as our Lord jesus was pleased to make himself, as it were equal, with sinfulle man, whiles himself was in the state of humility with him; so much more (now Christ is ascended to glory) it may well become us to stay the time of assuming equality with him, (if it should e●er be) till we also be made glorious? Make you no difference in this thing betwixt the divers estate of humiliation and glorification? vereiy here is some cause you should.  
Ninthly, when Adam was in Paradise, acting the person Sect. 33 of an happy man always, was kneeling against his happiness? yea are not inheritors in heaven, who be ever acting the person of glorious wights, even of Kings, said 
a Philip. 2. 10 Reuel. 5. &c.  yet to fall down before jesus Christ? Is falling down against their comheriting with him? Is the same contrary to it? For my part I say, if kneeling were not contrary to the person of an happy man in time of innocence, if not contrary to the person of an inheritor in future glory, I dare not think, (miserable worm that I am!) that kneeling is against my dignity of coheirship in the Communion. And suppose that on the sitting were mentioned to be used in heaven, yet so long as it signifies nothing else but enjoying, and possessing of glory there, it followeth, that so long as the excellent benefits of the Supper be partaked of, it forceth not for the circumstance of the gesture.  
Tenthly, who bestows our excellent privilege of coheirship Sect. 34 upon us? doth not the Lord? and will it enter into your heart to think, that God would bestow such a privilege upon man, as in the profession and celebration thereof it should be damnable for man to worship him who bestows it? Did you ever read that God forbade his people to kneel to him in the celebration of his spiritual excellent honours bestowed upon them? I did not, neither did you.  
Eleventhly, put case, it stands not with your dignity Sect. 15 (forsooth) to kneel at Sacrament, were it not yet good to release a little a little of the expression of your dignity as coheires for reasons of greater weight? will you not come off with a gesture of dignity, for the substantial dignity of the Sacrament itself? for the dignity of your ministries? & of the Church, in the womb whereof you have gotten life, and breath? for his Majesty's crown and dignity? surely so long as it is but a personal, external dignity, should it not be for borne upon occasion? especially when your spiritual dignity will be never a whit the less, (nor outward, saving your own opinion) either in itself, or in your inward feeling of the contentment, and joy of it; or in the interpretation of others. And so much for answer to the first reason of your first main inference out of Scripture : Kneeling is against the dignity of a Communicant, because it is against the person of coheires with Christ.   

The second proof of the first Argument.  
SEcondly, kneeling is against the dignity of a Communi●cant, Sect. 36 because it debars him of the personal prerogatives of the Lords table: and those prerogatives (you 
b Disp. 3. Arg. pag. 22, &c.  say) be social admittance, and social entertainment at the Lords table. Now a●l that you dispute of this matter confusedly, I may reduce to four propositions: first, that a table of repast is necessary in the Lord's Supper. Secondly, that it is unlawful not to partake with Christ in the prerogatives of his table. Thirdly, that social admittance, and entertainment, are personal liberties and prerogatives of the Lords table. Fourthly, that kneeling debars us of this social admittance and entertainment.  
For the first, that a table of repast is necessary, you endeavour Sect. 37 to prove as well as you can; but I have answered all that you say concerning that point: chap. 5. sect. 12.  
For the second, that it is unlawful not to partake with Sect. 38 Christ in the prerogatives of his table, I grant; speaking of such prerogatives, as himself hath appointed for us, and speaking of such prerogatives, as we can come by: for if we be letted from some of our liberties, and prerogatives, it is better to enjoy those which we may, then willingly yield to loose all of them together.  
For the third, that social admittance and entertainment are personal liberties and prerogatives of the Lords table, Sect. 39 I deny. For first, you mean by social admittance and entertainment such as is used amongst companions and friends at civil tables, but even at civil tables, social admittance and entertainment are either not to be called liberties of the table, since the table is made for man and not man for it; or else such liberties, as are of perpetual and necessary use at tables: partly because many a time it falls out that one alone sitteth at table, yea when a great feast is prepared; partly also because where be many together, many times it is, that every man sits at the table of his own charge; as in Colleges, in the Inns of Court, and Chancery, &c. So in that there wanteth society, in this wanteth entertainment. [Wherefore you should have called social admittance and entertainment the prerogatives of invited guests, not of tables in general.] Secondly, but let it be so, that social admittance and entertainment are prerogatives of civil tables, are they therefore prerogatives of the Lords table? how do you prove that? Namely, 
c Pag. 27.  by a principle in reason, that what agrees to the general as it is such, the same agreeth to each special comprehended under it: so you apply what agrees to a table of repast in general, that is to all civil tables, the same agrees to the table of the Lord I answer, hereby you bewray yourself; you discover some ignorance. That which agrees to all civil tables, doth it agreed to tables in general? Surely the general comprehends both sacred and civil tables, which are the two kinds or specials of tables in general. Therefore when you say so often, that social admission and entertainment agreed to all tables in general, (and you show this only by their ordination in civil use) you do forget or not consider that. Sacred tables are one sort comprehended under the general. This is weak pleading your cause. Again you tell us, that the civil table is not changed in the properties of it. To that I have answered in sit place, namely Chap. 5. Consideration 2. And for answer to your co●ce●te of the necessity of civil liberties at the Lords table, the whole 5. chap, properly, and plentifully serveth.  
For the fourth and last, that kneeling debars us of this Sect 40 social admittance, and entertainment I answer, first, such social admittance and entertainment as is used at civil tables, is but a fantasy of your own, and it is con●u●ed manifestly there whither ●ven now Ident you. Secondly, yet there is an honourable entertainment of Communicants at the Lords table; but that standeth not in earthly fashions and compliments. In what then? Beholds, first, it stands in coming to the Lord; Supper at his own kind 
d Mat. 22. 9 Revel. 19 9  invitation; he is pleased to sand for them and call them. Secondly, in feeding upon his own delicacies, even 
e joh 6.  on himself; o merciful jesus that givest thyself to be ●aren of us! greater honour can not be had. Thirdly, in eating and drinking 
f Luk. 13. 26.  in Christ's presence. Fourthly, lastly, in feasting with his 
g Cantic. 5. 1.  own most pleasant, and honourable welcome: and these be spiritual privileges, and excellencies, which kneeling doth not debar us of. So I pass● to the last proof of your first argument of collection.   

The third and last proof of the first Argument.  
THirdly, kneeling is against the dignity of a Communicant, Sect. 41 because it is against the purpose of Christ; for his intention was to dignify us by sitting at table with him. This I find you endeavouring to prove two ways: first, you 
h Disp. pag. 23, 24.  say, that if Christ did not intent us to sit with him like brothers there wo●ld follow many absurdities and inconveniences.  
1 Absurd. Then it followeth, that he shewe● not the affection Sect. 42 of a brother according to the nature of an honourable feast; for by the law and purpose of a feast, the persons invited are to eni●y the rights and privileges of a feast. Answer, the sacramental feast is spiritual, and needs not the compliments of a civil feast, to approve Christ's love to the Communicants: this absurdity is begged without proof.  
2 Absurd. Then it followeth, that our Saviour shows Sect. 43 less respect to his brothers and coheires, than a civil symposiarch to his ordinari● gu●st●. Answer, truly so he doth, (as you mean respect in external fashions of ●easting,) in twenty things, more material for the most part than the gesture: but i● you speak properly, Christ shows not less respect to his guests, because he enterteines them not with outward fashions, which neither suit to the spiritual nature of his feast, nor to himself, who is invisible to us and glorious. The respect is unspeakable great and sweet, which he pleaseth spiritually to entertain us withal, standing in the points named before, sect. 40.  
3 Absurd. Then it followeth, that ●e makes offer of the Sect. 44 accomplished entertainment of a feast, and in the issue affords us but a part thereof. Answer, you speak of such entertainment as is outward at civil feasts, and so it is idle beggary, that Christ ever made any such offer.  
4 Absurd. Then it followeth, that ●e prepares a table, Sect. 45 and doth not use it to the whol● service whereunto it is prepared. Answer, still it is begged, th●t sitting at the table is a service, whereunto the table necessarily serveth: besides why then do you fit from the table to p●t an absurdity upon Christ?  
5 Absurd. 
i Pag. 2●.  Then it followeth, that ●e would cross Sect. 46 the expectation of such, whom ●e in●iteth contrary to the part of a friendly invitant, and therefore he would not do it: for the invitant i● tied to answer the first expectance of the invited. Answer, It is begged after your manner, that expectation of outward entertainment in sitting at the Lord● table is a just expectation as of a thing due unto them which be guests, and Communicants: except the thing itself be first proved due, the expectation thereof cannot be justified: you ●●ke a strange course to prove it is Christ's will, you should be dignified by sitting at table, because it pleaseth you to look for it.  
6. Absurd. Then it followeth, that 
k Pag. 24.  he would Sect. 47 fail to use a ready means to assure us of our coheirship with him. Answer, but this (if it dese●ue any answer) is to be answered in the next chapter.  
Now I would request the reader to refer the first five Sect. 48 absurdities back [to chap 5. Considerate. 4.] and consider (besides that which is there plentifully observed) whether they also do not avoidable bring in, the necessity of all requisites, whatsoever of civil feasts, that I may truly say, there was never any man argued more absurdly. And forasmuch as the said five objected absurdities be grounded in the supposed necessity of the civil tablegesture, the said chap. 5. serveth for full confutation of them all. And so much for one of your ways of showing that Christ intended to honour us by the gesture of sitting.  
Again, you show in this manner: Christ 
l Manuscrip. ch. 6.  aimed at this as a main end in the institution of this Sacrament, to express the high dignity, and favour he vouchsafeth us, in Sect. 49 admitting us to be guests at his table, and even to sit at table with him, Luke. 22. 27, 30. I answer the place quored is impertinently alleged. Christ speaking therein 
m Calvin mak● Luk. 22. ver. 24, 27 the same history with Mat. 20, 24. Mark. 10. 41: and handles it not in that place, the Evangelist doth record it. Therefore Calvin is far from your mind.  not upon the occasion of his sitting with his Disciples at Supper; (though then they were together as it is likely at the 
n See my table, ch. 3. sect  Passeover) but upon occasion of their strife, which of them should be greatest: he persuades them to humility, that they should not climb one above another; but rather that they should be as servants to one another, as servitors at the table. This he persuades unto them by two arguments. First, by h●s own example, for he though their master & lord, yet was pleased as it were to wait upon them, Verse. 27. Secondly, by the common glory which he did in heaven appoint unto them. They that were here as servitors and underlings, should sit at table with him in his kingdom. verse, 28. 29. 30. I think either Christ doth not speak of sitting, as it is contradistinguished to other gestures, but only of the place of sitting that the chiefest and uppermost seats should not be affected; or if Christ do speak of sitting as contradistinguished to other gestures, it is for the forbearing of it rather than using; as if he should say, It is enough for you to be as attenders and waiters, when I your master am such. Again, you may well be content to release this outward honour of sitting here, since it is enough for you, that you shall ●●it in heavenly glory hereafter. Whereby we may observe that in supper time (and for supper-sake, according to the force of your reasoning) he presseth, & preferreth gestures of humility, and attendance, before sitting.  
And that it may better appear, that it was not the Sect. 50 purpose and intent of our Saviour to honour us in the Sacrament by the gesture of sitting, let us consider. First, when Christ ●ate at table with his Disciples at Passeover (even then as it is likely) he schooled them for looking at honour in the outward sitting at table: 
o Luk 22. 26.  he that is ch●●fe among you, let him be as he that doth serve: I 
p Verse 27.  myself 〈◊〉 among you as he that serveth.  
Secondly, if the positure of the body be intended an Sect. 51 honour unto us, than Christ condemns them which stand at table as crossing his intention to honour them, when himself about the time of the Supper speaks of standing, as the gesture of one that humly waiteth.  
Thirdly, if external honour be intended us in Gods Sect. 52 worship, in respect of whom is it intended? You mean partly in respect of men, and so you teach 
q Disput. is 〈◊〉 external honour from men, when he saith, Do the elements deserve such regard, as to be set upon a table, and do not the guest's deserve to be set at table. p. 29 The (desert) of ●o●● guests to sit, is much ind●ede! but surely, because the elements be set on a tablecloth, you would not press the necessity in standing of a foot-cloth, or in sitting of cushions.  plainly, if I do not misinterpret, and then may we seek for honour from men, contrary to our Saviour Christ, john 8. 50. Moreover the Scripture forbidding us to seek honour to ourselves, forbids such seeking as either excludes God's honour, or at lest is not altogether referred, and subordinated thereto: but your external honour as coheires, (I speak to the Disputer) is incompatible with express seeking God's glory: because you have said, the service of God the Father, and behaviour as a guest to Christ at his table, be actions incompatible: but you should remember the 
r 1 Cor. 10. 31.  Apostle, whether you eat or drink (yea i● civilly, much more sacramentally,) do all to the glory of God.  
Fourthly, when Christ speaks of honourable sitting, Sect. 53 he speaks of sitting in a mystical or metaphorical sense, (as is evident 
s Mat. 8. 11. ●uk 22. 30. ●phes. 2. 6. Revel 3. 21.  in the Scripture) and never speaks of the honour of bodily sitting in religious ordinances in all the new Testament.  
Fifthly, when Christ admits us to the throne of grace in our poor prayers, is it not his intent to express his Sect. 54 high dignity and favour vouchsafed unto us? who can doubt of this? Nay was not Mary magdalen's 
t Luk. 7. 37.  practise in washing, wiping, kissing, anointing the very feet of Christ, her glory, and crown? how then can kneeling cross the purpose of Christ in doing us honour, when one main end of the institution of prayer (whereunto you grant, kneeling well agreeth) is to express the high dignity and favour he vouchsafeth us, in admitting us to be suitors at his mercy-seat; yea to confer with him most sweetly and (in some sort) familiarly vouchsafing both to hold our the golden sceptre of admittance to us and also ●o common with us spiritually as a man talketh with his friend face to face.  
Sixthly, and lastly, suppose Christ intended to Sect. 55 honour us in the Sacrament by the gesture, yet so long as that honour is but an appendice or accident to our spiritual honour, the Sacrament itself (no doubt) is not to be refused therefore; because we cannot enjoy the said outward honour sometimes as we do desire: actions of duty may be suspended upon us upon respect of greater duties befalling: how much more an outward expression of our own personal dignity, and honour? so much for your first main argument of collection.    

CHAP. 7.  
SEcondly, we proceed to another argument of Sect. 1 collection or inference out of Scripture, and it is this: That kneeling accords not with the disposition of heart, which is required in the act of receiving. Now this is declared by three things: first, kne●ling distracts our thoughts in receiving, and hinders meditation. Secondly, It is contrary to faith, and thankfulness, which be required in the act of receiving. Thirdly, it is an hindrance of assurance and joy, most ●it, and necessary at that time. I will examine them all apart by themselves, with as much indifferency, and integrity as I can, and leave th● judgement to the ●●ader.  

Object. 1. Kneeling in the act of receiving is said to distracted our thoughts, and hinder meditation, and so cannot accord with the disposition of heart required.  
FIrst, kneeling (●aith the Disputer) distracts, and hinders the meditation of the Communicants; but how Sect. 2 doth this appear? No proof is to be found, but bold 
a D●●p. pag. 1●. & 10.  affirmations without ground of the word, according to the conceits of his own understanding: but let him speak his mind; kneeling (saith he) if it can be performed with the meditation of Christ's death in t●● Sacrament, i● either performed as a worship to God, or else as a veneration of the elements. And whether of these ways it b●e considered, if it can be performed with meditation, that must be done either jointly, or apart, and successively. But (saith he) kneeling either as a worship of God, or as veneration of the elements cannot be ioy●●ea with meditation of Christ's death in the Sacrament; and it may not be used apart or success●uely without distraction, and sin. To this purpose you speak, now we expect you should teach us the truth of these things particularly.  
First, I say, that kneeling in the Sacrament is used as Sect. 3 a worship of God, and may be joined with the meditation of Christ's death, what say you to the contrary? Forsooth, worship to God, and receiving Christ preached to us in the elements, are two such opposite employments, that the one cannot but fi●strate the other. Can we without distraction employ ourselves upon different objects at the same time? Can we banquet with the second person, and yet interteive holy important 
b You use very learned and reverend terms!  negotiation with the first? are not these incompatible? Answer, surely no; for like as you cannot rightly look up to God the Father in worshipping without relation to Christ: so you cannot rightly look upon Christ you Rede●mer in receiving, without relation of God the Father: neither is it true, that they be as divers objects unto us; for like as we discern the light of the Sun upon the body of the Moon, when the Sun itself is not immediately seen: so we behold God the Father, by the beams of his mercy, by the light of his glory in the 
c 2. Cor. 4: 6:  face of Christ, when else we cannot immediately look up unto him; and like as in beholding the body of the Moon, we may praise and magnify the excellent Sun, from which its light shining in the midst of darkness doth originally descend upon us: so in the face and person of Christ in whom our minds and senses be delighted, we worship God the Father of lights, from whom every 
d Ia●. 1. 17:  good and perfect gift (even in the Sacrament tendered) cometh down unto us: but let it be that they be divers objects, can not the eye look upon divers objects together? any thing which is transparent betwixt us and the Sun we see, and also the Sun itself; nay many things situated one of from another in respect of us we can behold, (as namely several stars) uno intu●tu: but faith the eye of the soul can much more look upon God and Christ together in one act, considering that Christ is the medium, or mean, 
e joh. 1: 18:  by whom our sight passeth unto God himself; yea 
f Chap. 14. ver: 11.  that Christ is in the Father, and the Father is also in him. Nay I will go further; we may be employed in several corporal actions (as at feasts in eating & talking) at the same time; and why then should it be impossible by spiritual eating we feed on Christ, and by prayer to confer with him at the same time? Meditation of Christ, 
g A certain reformed common praier-book requires reading of scripture in the time of receiving according lie yourselves often use.  and hearing of the word will stand together, that is meditation will stand with Gods speaking unto us, and why then should not meditation of Christ stand with our speaking unto him again? especially (which must be observed) when the self same matter of meditation is also the very matter of prayer.  
And for worship without prayer, it is still more evident, Sect. 44 that it may be joined with meditation in the Sacrament: for whereas the Christian soul is taken up with deep and serious meditations of Christ's sufferings, of the unmeasurable lo●e of God and Christ in working her redemption out of eternal mischief; of the blessed enlargement she for ever possesseth contrary to desert, beyond expectation, behold now in these contemplations ravished, she worshippeth or adoreth before the majestic of her God, (from whose grace she deriveth all her comfort) in jesus Christ. And truly this is so fare from being impossible, that there is nothing either more possible, or more obvious. And so I pass from the first particular way whereof you put case.  
Secondly, I say, that kneeling in the Sacrament is used as a worship of God successively unto the 
h I mean bore or mere meditation else worship or kneeling excluds not the thoughts of Christ; death, as is showed in the former section.  meditation Sect. 46 of Christ's death; what have you to say against this? here you tell us, that by this meanus we shall be● pulled off from the business, which Christ inioynes us in these words, do this in remembrance of me; we shall not bestow the whole strength of our thoughts on that whereupon they aught to be employed, whereas we aught to be so absolutely possessed herewith, as we should not bestow and entertain ourselves for the present in any thing else. Answer, indeed if we went about to bring an action into the Sacrament, that was severed from the Sacramental employment, that which here you say were more likely to fasten upon us: but you might know, that all the worship which kneeling (as we teach) importeth in the Sacrament, is used for the Sacrament-sake; partly to further our comfort and happiness in receiving; and partly to express some part of duty to our heavenly father, when he pleaseth (as it were) to seal and deliver the charter of our redemption unto us: we speak of no worship but only that shall be used in reference to the Supper, the thoughts of the Communicant being ever kept close to that matter, which the said Supper directly presenteth unto him to consider.  
Thirdly, what if I say, (for disputation sake to dispute with the Disputer) that kneeling in the Sacrament Sect. 5 is a veneration of the elements, how are the thoughts of Communicants distracted thereby? (Alas, say you) how can we think on Christ's death, and yet entert●ine thoughts of the reverend estimation of the visible elements? Answer, I perceive you allow no thoughts of reverence toward the consecrated creatures in the Supper, toward water in baptism; toward the audible word in the exercises thereof; you can think no thoughts of reverence toward these without distracting your thoughts of insensiol● and spiritual things to be meditated in those ordinances. I must tell you that this Divinity is gross, and not to be controverted in the Church of Christ: worthy it is which all men should explode, and conculcate for the reverence of holy things. Are these outward elements set apart to holie use by Christ's ordinance? have they a sacramental virtue to do us a world of behoof, if they be rightly used? are they the ground and occasion of heavenly thoughts and joys? are they the matter wherein the very worship of the God of heaven to the end of the world in his Church partly consisteth? and aught you not (in the time of their use) to bear thoughts of reverence and estimation unto them? verily without such thoughts you shall never be able to make a comfortable use of them. Doth God who 
i Levit. 19, 30,  bids us to reverence his Sanctuary, mean, that we must not reverence it at any time, when we be employed in holy duties within it, jest our thoughts should be pulled off from the care of them? that were as much as to esteem our friend always, but when we use him, jest our minds should be taken from the business wherein he is useful to us: but I would be loath by reasons and arguments to refute such an idle & witless conceit, and yet I will not say, that kneeling is used in the Sacrament directly for veneration of the elements: if I did say so, or any body else, lo, how worthily this Disputer would reprove that opinion! I wish every good cause better defended. And somuch for the first way, whereby is showed, that kneeling accords not with the disposition of heart required in the act of receiving.   

Object. 2. Kneeling accords not with that disposition of heart, required in the act of receiving, which is of duty, namely, faith, and thankfulness.  
SEcondly, (saith the 
k Abridg. pag. 61.  Abridgement) the disposition of Sect. 6 heart, required in receiving is specially faith and thankfulness, and these are much better expressed by standing, then by kneeling, I answer, first by this speech, you contradict your own selves in another place; for whereas here you except against kneeling, because it agrees not with the sacramental employment, which is an act or disposition of thankfulness: elsewhere (to avoid an objection for kneeling) you 
l Abridg. pag. 66, 67 Manuscrip. ch. 2. arg. 4.  say, the said employment is not properly an act of thanksgiving, but of faith. If you can reconcile these things, it is because you see more than I do. Again in this speech of yours, you use two terms, which are of a doubtful understanding, namely, [Better, and standing] but except by [better] expressed by standing, you mean [only well] expressed by standing, excluding kneeling from expressing faith and thankfulness well a● all; you speak not to purpose: for what if faith and thankfulness be expressed by standing better than by kneeling, it hurts not the cause of kneeling, so long as by kneeling they may be expressed positively well. In like manner why do you say, fa●●h▪ and thankfulness ●e expressed by standing 
m Repl. finds fault that Bp. Mo●t. turned standing (which word the Abridg. useth) into ●itting. R●pl. parti● pag 42.  rather then by sitting? Is it your purpose to exclude sitting, or at lest, (for expression of faith and thankfulness) to prefer standing before it? There is a mystery in your arguments, whereof one sometimes magnifies sitting, and standing co●es in upon ba●e necessity; another magnifies standing, and sitting comes in upon bore necessity, like a lame man not able to stir without a crutch.  
Secondly, but to pass these things, and taking your Sect. 7 meaning to be ●s it aught to be, that maitland thankfulness are well expressed by standing, or sitting, and ●●t by kneeling. I answer to th● m●tt●r itself. And it is strange to me, that faith and thankfulness should be so expressed by standing and sitting, and so excluded or hindered by kneeling. But the Replier further t●a●heth us what is your meaning. Kneeling, (saith 
n Repl partic. pag. 42, 43.  he) being an a●t solemn expression of humility in particular, doth for that moment ●inder, or exclude an apt solemn expression of ●aith, and thankfulness; as w●rds solemnly, and professedly expressing humility, do for that moment hinder the same ●an from expressing by words his faithful, and cheerful thanksgiving. Now I will anatomize the secrets of this learning as I am able.  
First, you take for granted, that an apt and solemn Sect. 8 expression of faith and thankfulness severed from such an expression as is of humility, ●s required in the act of receiving: and this is but begged of you without reason: for if our Saviour Christ did ●it at Supper, it is ha●d for you to show, that he used sitting for expression of faith and thankfulness, as it were opposing, and professedly confessing against an expression of lowliness: many things you would make him and his Apostles to express by sitting. They sat (you say) to express their coheireship, they sat to express their faith and thankfulness, and many things more, which will afterward further appear: but the same are evidently devised of yourselves, and there is no proof of them to be found in the new Testament. I know not but the purpose of the Sacrament is for expression of humility as well as faith and thankfulness; it having outward resemblance of the most lamentable object, that ever man set his eyes on, the Lord of glory his ignominious and cruel putting to death, specially when the receivers wickedness was the cause of it. In the Passeover they 
o Exod. 12 8.  had bitter herbs; and 
p 2 Chron. 30. 22.  made confession of their sins, and it is 
q Ze●ha 12. 10. Rev●l. ●7. according to Mr. B●ight.  foretold that the people of God should 
r Where is it poss●ble to look upon Christ pierced, more ●iuely, then in the Lord's Supper?  ●●oke upon Christ whom they pierced, and mour●● for him. Yea Christ himself expressed and taught ●o express much humility, even at Suppertime: therefore I find no necessity of an apt solemn expression of ●aith and thankfulness severed from an expression of humility, in the time and act of receiving. But what do we contest about the opposing of thankfulness and humility, when indeed ●n expression of humility in this case is an expression of thankfulness, as I shall show by and by: and if it were not, y●t all dispositions, (I speak in your 
* Repl. partic. to Bp. Mo●t. pa. 69.  own words) which are required unto ●i●ht receiving, cannot distinctly and solemnly be expressed at the same time, by outward gestures, except we could use divers gestures together: therefore this variety of inward dispositions gives an outward liberty of the gesture, so it accord unto any principal one of them.  
Secondly, two things you assume: first, that standing Sect. 9 and ●itting be apt, solemns expressions of faith and thankfulness. S●condly, that kneeling▪ is not such an expression. For the former, how prove you, that sitting is an expression of ●aith and thankfulness: behold you say not o●e word. It seems upon the fifth of Novemb. and like extraordinary days, and times of thanksgiving, you do judge sitting to be the fittest gesture to express faith and thankfulness: but one proof for sitting would have done well. Let us pass to standing; how do you prove that standing is the fittest gesture to express faith and thankfulness? You deliver 
s Abridg p. 67.  only one place of Scripture, namely, 1 Kings. 8. 54. and to that place, as if it were unanswerable, you 
t Repl. partic. to B▪ Mort. p. 43.  stand upon it, that you are not answered. And I answer you thus, that the reason of Solomons standing was to bless the congregation of Israel; which blessing is divided into thanksgiving, verse 56. petition, vers. 57, 58, 59, 60. and exhortation, verse 61. and he stood up in this blessing, that all the people might hear him, to whom he spoke (as he had need) with a loud voice, verse 55. Now I commend to your consideration: first, that standing was not used by Solomon, because of thanksgiving unto God, but because of audible speaking to the people, and blessing of them. Secondly, this place will not commend standing in thanksgiving as the fittest gesture, but then also that it is much more fit in petition, (fare fit than kneeling even in petition) four to one.  
Thirdly, in Solomon's long prayer which he made upon his knees, 2 Chron. 6. 13. he used more words of thanksgiving, than he did at this time; as 1 Kings. 8. 23, 24. and yet I say he kneeled upon his knees: and more examples I shall add to it by and by. Verily this is poor doing, when all your strength lies wholly on such a place. But what needs all this? I am content to help you to better proofs for the fitness of standing, to express faith and thankfulness, upon occasion, as is likewise for the fitness of other gestures. Such as you may see, (Pag. 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 10.) But that standing in its fitness for expressing of faith and thankfulness should be opposed to a gesture of humility and reverence, I see no reason at all. Certain it is, that standing at meat is as well a gesture of humility as of faith, and thankfulness, yea, and out of mea●e is a gesture, and ever hath been of attendance, and duty, yea, in worship and prayer it in also such; for so you 
w Manuscrip. c●● 2.  say, that standing is a gesture of the s●●● kind with kneeling, fit to express reverence, and hostility towards God: and therefore standing is not, sitting is not the only ap●est expression of faith and thankfulness.  
For the latter, that kneeling is not a fit sodemne expression Sect. 10 of faith and thankfulness, how is that showed? Surely by no proof; but only the authority of your saying. Attend therefore to me and I will show you the contrary. Did not the 〈◊〉 aptly, and solemnly, express his faith, and thankfulness, when being healed of his leprosy, 
x Luk▪ v.  he fell down on his face at the feet of Christ, giving him thanks? Did not the Centurion aptly, and solemnly, express his faith and thankfulness by his humble acknowledgement 
y Mat. 8. vers. 8, 10.  of his unworthiness? Surely Christ doth testify that he expressed by that humble carriage an abundance of faith, when he says upon occasion of that expression be found not so great saith in Israel. (I will not allege, Apoc. 7. 11. 11. 16. Because there is 
z Repl. partic. to B Mort p. 43.  opposed, Apoc. 7, 9 In this the glorified creatures are said to stand in thanksgiving? as in the other they are said to f●ll down: yet by your favour those places do teach v● that both standing and kneeling are lawful gestures, and fit to express faith and thanksgiving. But) I will add. Psa. 95 Where we be provoked to kneel down before the Lord our maker, thereby to express faith and thanksgiving: look upon the Psalm and judge. Nay the illustration which you use condemns you in this point: for who doth not know that the same word may be an expression of humility, and thanksgiving 
a See Harmo. conf. Bohem. sect. 14. there the godly confess themselves to kneel and yet profess ●aith and thankfulness.  both? An● forasmuch as yourselves confess humility of the soul 
* Why then do the Scotchmen say, that kneeling is no more than a show & colour of humility, Per●●. Assemb. pag. 56●  will stan● with faith and thankfulness; why should not also humility of the body? specially when with God there is no respect of inward and outward, as there is with us. All is outward to him, as the carriage of the souls of others is inward to us, because we be not able to look into them.  
But the Replyer 
b as before.  speaketh again: ●e deny not Sect. 11 (saith he) humiliation in prayer, neither in petition, nor thanksgiving; but the outward acting of thankfulness, in such a business, whether prayer, for that moment hath no place is of another nature.  
Answer, this shift you might very ill make, if you consider, that your only Scripture 
1 K. 8. 54.  quoted for proof, that standing is the fittest gesture for expression of faith and thankfulness, is of an example, describing not a bore outward acting of thankfulness, but thanksgiving by voice in prayer. Secondly, this shift satisfies not, for the question is this, whether kneeling be a fit gesture solemnly to express faith and thankfulness? Not whether kneeling be a fit gesture in prayer? For if it be fit to express faith and thankfulness, in serves my turn, whether there be prayer, or no prayer. And ye● in that respect if you except against my former proofs, (which notwithstanding are full to the purpose) I will bring you forth dumb shows of bowing the body, where was no prayer to express faith and thankfulness : when 
d Exod. 33. 10.  all the people saw the cloudy pillar, 
e Whether they bowed the body, or bended the knee, makes no matter in our case, so long as bowing of the body is an apt solemn expression of humility.  they worshipped every man in his ten●●dor●; expressing their faith and thankfulness. Israel (worshipped, Heb. 11. 21. or) bowed himself upon the bed● head, Gen. 47. 31. expressing his faith, and thankfulness. And in these examples there was no prayer: so that if you would in receiving have an outward acting of thankfulness, is it possible you should exclude an humble gesture? Notwithstanding, it can by no means be liked, that in t●e act of eating the Supper, you say, there is no place for prayer. What? Not in the midst of so many sweet thoughts of God's love, meditation of our both unworthiness and wellfarre? Is there no place for any branch of ask or thanking to be allowed? No room for one poor ejaculation? It is fare otherwise, with your good leave, prayer intermixeth itself with every ordinance whatsoever, and consequently with the Lords Supper. You shall undertake a task too hard for you to prove the contrary, either in this, or in the rest. And for this ve●●ly sometimes it will have place, which I say not in respect of the weak only, whose hearts will be carried up to God in desire, when sense is wanting to them, but of the most faithful communicants, who by this occasion of the Supper, will be sweetly raised with the ravishment of Christ love, according to that menour: Com● Lord jesus. I cannot therefore found in my heart to refuse kneeling for this cause alleged, as if it were not a fit gesture to express the duty of faith or of thankfulness. And somuch for the second way, whereby is showed, that kneeling accords not with the disposition of heart required in the act of receiving.   

Object. 3. Kneeling accords not with that disposition of heart required in the act of receiving, which is of comfort, namely assurance, and ioyfullnesse.  
THirdly, (say you) kneeling accords not with that comfort which aught to possess the hearts of Communicants Sect. 12 at the Lords table. That comfort stands partly in assurance, and partly in 〈◊〉 effect thereof, which is rejoicing. First for assurance, and thereof the Disputer most foolishly argueth, for to prove that kneeling crosseth the assuring unto us of our coheirship with Christ, he gives us three mediums or reasons.  
First, 
f Disp. pag. 1●, 19  It directeth our 〈◊〉 to a● apprehension of disfellowship with Christ in our future ●state of glory, represented at the Lords table. Therefore i● crosseth and 〈◊〉 our assurance.  
First I deny the antecedent, and thus you endeavour to prove it: kneeling say you, is an act of inferiority, subjection, extraordinary abasement, and therefore it cannot but direct the heart to an apprehension of disfellowship with Christ: as if there were not an holy Communion and fellowship with Christ in case of inferiority; it is your gross mistaking to think, that fellowship and society necessarily imports equality: who knows not that the King and a me●ne man may be fellowlike and sociable, and yet remain 〈◊〉 unequalled But, secondly, since you place disfellowship in inferiority and subjection I deny your illation, that because kneeling directs our hearts to an apprehension of our inferiority to Christ, therefore it cr●sseth the assuring unto us of ●●●●●●ship: this is an argument of weak learning, faith it self directs our hearts to an apprehension of our subjection to Christ, therefore belike faith hinders our assurance unto us: prayer directs our hearts to an apprehension of our subjection to Christ, therefore belike prays hinders our assurance unto us. The glorified Saints profess by falling down their subjection to Christ, therefore belike their falling down before him hinders the assurance of their coheirship unto them. But this conceit is not worth of answering▪ yet it pleaseth you by a similitude to set a little counterfeit lustre upon it. As that (say you) which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive that I am sick, will not suffer any persuasion to gr●●● in me, of my being in health, for the present: so what directeth me to apprehended, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 with Christ in glori●, the same will not suffer me to be persuaded that I am 〈◊〉 with him of the said glory. Which comparison makes kneeling (needs) ●o mind us of our spiritual sickness: whereas that gesture was God's ordinance to be used, before sickness came in to the world whereas a Christian is never moved to conceive, he is in better health, then when he doth most of all rightly and religiously use it, whereas the glorified Saints are never moved by using of it to conceive, that they are not both in present and perfect health. You presume therefore in the Apo●●o●is or latter part of your comparison, a most palpable untruth and error; namely that kneeling directs us to apprehended debarrement from society with Christ, that is, to apprehended we be for the present using of it, in the state of damnation: for what else is it to be barred from communion with Christ? But because you mean by society, society of equality, (for such is your spirit, that there is no other society with you) I certify you that so your comparison hangs not together: for to apprehended I am debarred of such society, is not like as to apprehended myself to be sick, neither doth my being debarred of such society hinder me of being persuaded, that I am coheir with Christ. And this is your first reason, that kneeling is against assurance.  
Secondly, 
g Pag. 19, 20.  Kneeling diverts our hearts from being employed Sect. 13 on that subject, the meditation whereof is enjoined v● for the nourishing of our faith, therefore it crosseth assurance of our coheireship. The Antecedent is false, and sufficiently refu●ed before, Sect. 3  
Thirdly, Kneeling 
h Pag. 21, 22.  crosseth that, which is a 〈◊〉 Sect. 14 mean to feed in us the assurance of our coheireship; and what's that I pray? why forsooth it crosseth the carrying of ourselves in the person of guests and coheires with Christ 〈◊〉 his table. OH, by no means Sir: for the person of guests I have spoken enough, Chap. 5. and for the person of coheires enough is ●aid, Chap. 6. and thither I refer you, jest I should offend in answering such childish trifling about the same things again, as o●t as you give occasion.  
Fourthly, I may add to these reasons another of the Sect. 15 same reasoner, who 
i Pag. 24.  else where 〈◊〉 disputeth: T●● Supp●● of the Lord is instituted 〈◊〉 feal unto us 〈◊〉 evidence of our coheireship: now the personal liberties of a ●●●le be a● so many branches, and cleanses of our said evidence; therefore take away the liberty of a tablegesture, and our evidence will be shortened and mai●ed. But it is false and idle to say that the personal liberties of a civil table are as branches and clauses of our evidence, in the Sacrament sealed unto us. And this folly hath been discovered fully in its own place, namely in the argument of a tablegesture, Chap. 5. And these are the worthy reasons, which are used to prove, that kneeling crol●eth our assurance in the act of receiving. Now to answer them all together more perfectly, let us hear the Replier speaking. It is true (saith 
k Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag. 42.  he) that neither humility, (nor an 
l This also in effect he yields. See the place.  expression of humility) doth hinder the assurance of faith. And this is a truth so clear and evident, that it needeth not to fear a wiser adversary than the Dispu●r.  
Now I will pass from the matter of assurance to the Sect. 16 point of rejoicing, and of this the Ministers speak in this wise t● The heart (saith the 
m Abridg p. 61.  Abridgement) aught to be affected with theerefulnesse, which is not so well expressed by kneeling, a● by other gestures. Also the Disputer in effect 
n Disp. pag. 78.  saith, that kneeling i● repugnant to the rejoicing required in the Lord's Supper. Now that I may handle this controversy both in few words: and for best instruction of the Reader. It is to be confessed as a truth, which I think never any good man denied, that joy doth well accord with the Supper, and is a fit and sweet disposition of the heart of every godly Communicant, & this ●oy our liturgy (as you 
o Manuscrip. ch. 6.  truly say) requireth of them which come to the Lords table, by appointing the Minister to raise up their hearts in comfort and joy, by reading 
p Mat. 11. 28. joh. 3 16. 1 Tim. 1. 15. 1 joh. 2. 1. 2.  certain comfortable places of Scripture, before they do receive: so this inward joy is no controversy betwixt us: but the difference standeth in two points: first, whether the inward joy is ●o be expressed outwardly in the gesture. Secondly, if it must be so, whether standing and sitting be fitting gestures for expression of joy, ●nd not kneeling.  
For the former, that joy is outwardly to be expressed Sect. 17 in the Lord's Supper you 
q Manuscrip. chap 6. You allege also Levit. 10. 19, 20. saying, that Aaron excused himself for not eating of the sin-offering, because he could not eat it with joy: but it seems to be rather (paece tuae) because he had already polluted himself with mourning, by his Apology: Such things have befallen me. And if he complained that he could not rejoice in the act of eating, yet you cannot show it was outward joy, which he meant, but only inward cheerfulness of heart. Also you allege 1 Sam. 1. 7. Answ. Hannah wept, and ate not, because she wept of unbelief and discontentment: besides depth of grief would not suffer her to taste of meat, (as often it happeneth) else grief should not have kept her back: also her expressing grieving and vexing argued her heart voided of all inward joy at that time, therefore she did not eat. Lastly, from her outward weeping you can inserte the necessity of no contrary carriage outwardly, (for then you would infer laughin) only a middle composed countenance was needful, which might stand within the inward joy of her heart: and such a countenance will agreed to all main gestures of the body, as every one knoweth. Also you allege Deutr. 27. 7. which cannot be showed to be meant of outward joy. If it be, the same answer serves unto it, which is made unto 2 Chron. 30.  endeavour to prove by 2. Chron. 30. 21. 23, 25, 26. where the people of Israel are said to rejoice in ●ating the sacrifice of the Lords Passeover, and this place you mention for proving outward joy requisite in the Sacrament, or else it is quoted to small purpose; and besides indeed it doth speak of outward joy, as evidently appeareth. I answer unto it thus. The Israelites joy in eating the Passeover was either showed in the act of eating and drinking, or in the solemnity of the festival time: if it was showed in the solemnity of their feast time, it serveth nothing to the proving of outward joy in the act of oureating & drinking: and that it was so, appears by the story (me thinks) plainly enough in 2 Chron. 30. the phrases whereof be these: They kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness, verse 21. They kept also other seven days with gladness, verse 23. All the congregation of judah, with the Priests, Levites, and all that ●●me out of Israel, rejoiced, verse 25. So there was great joy in jerusalem, verse 26. And so in other places, where the Lord requires the people to rejoice, (as in the feast of weeks. Deut. 16. 11. Feast of T●bernacles; vers. 14, 15, &c.) it is plainly meant of outward joy in the solemnising of the feasts, and not so much of the time and instant of their eating, and drinking. But let it be, that there outward joy was showed in the act of eating and drinking: what followeth thereof? out of doubt it followeth, that those speeches of great gladness, verse 21. great joy, verse 26. could not be used, except they both talked and laughed together: for who could say that seethe a company of men eat together, that there is joy and gladn●sse among them, if they neither ta●ke nor laugh, but only eat and drink. And if I should grant, that they talked and laughed together in the act of eating their Passeover, and other sacrifices, yet kneeling (if it be no gesture of joy) in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper would be now no more condemned thereby, than a demure countenance joined with silence. And I think their outward joy in holy worship, or in relation thereto might be permitted, yea commanded unto them, as was other pomp of their outward ceremonies, being indeed typical of our spiritual joy in this Sacrament, and some other services of the Gospel: but he that therefore would go about to maintain an outward joy, in God's worship now, answerable to their outward joy in their sacrifices and feasts will set on foo●e many liberties much more troublesome than he is ware of: but in this thing I suppose you will not strive, only I will add this note, that the new Testament (which teacheth that God will now be served in spirit and truth, and consequently with inward joy) doth in no place require, that joy should be expressed by the bodily gesture: and so much for the general.  
Now supposing that a certain rejoicing is required to Sect. 18 be expressed externally, who ever gave sitting that charter, to be an expression of joy? who ever denied unto kneeling to be a gesture fit, and agreeable to an occasion and disposition of joy? Sure I am in both these, you say meet nothing (which I can find) for proof; only as you be wont, you give us to understand, what is your opinion. A little therefore will serve the turn for confutation of it.  
First, make it appear unto us, that our Saviour Christ Sect. 19 and his Apostles did refuse to kneel, because kneeling is not a fit expression of joy; or that they did ●it, because sitting is a fit expression of joy, then good reason we should yield the cause: but if this can never be showed, you must give us leave to rest vnbound, when Christ himself doth not bind us.  
Secondly, how can it be showed in reason that sitting Sect. 20 is an expression or signification of joy, which imports it not (even at meat) but so fare forth as the tongue or countenance speaketh.  
Thirdly, sitting and standing be used as much as kneeling Sect. 21 in actions and exercise of mourning; as, judg. 20. 26. Nehem. 1. 49. 4. Est●. 4. 1. Luk. 19 41. 23. 28. &c.  
Fourthly, consider aright of kneeling, that it is not Sect. 22 in itself a gesture of mourning, but a gesture of humility: now humility and joy do very well stand together: you may not divide them in your heart, & then no doubt they be not incompatible in the outward expression.  
Fifthly, suppose there were some little resemblance of Sect. 23 sorrow in kneeling, yet it were not unlawful therefore. In the Passeover they 
r 2 Chron 30. vers. 21, 22.  made confession of their sins, & rejoiced both. So that though they made themselves merry, yet their mirth excluded not the sense and meditation of their sins, which were matter of spiritual sorrow and bitterness; as their herbs were matter of outward bitterness as it were some sour sa●ce with their meat, yea our Saviour himself (by telling his Apostles, one of you shall b●ray me) of purpose in the Suppertime, wherein yet they were bound to rejoice, proposed and ministered matter of grief, and great grief unto them. So that in the Sacrament there is no doubt a lawful use of sorrowful sense of our sins: but that is not to take joy away, or to exceed it in measure, but to make it more, being indeed a singular mean to amplify and enlarge it.  
Sixthly, if you will stand upon an expression of joy, Sect. 24 there is great reason you should stand 
s Perhaps the 〈◊〉 would have it so, for they would have the guests to make merri●. Per●●, Assemb. pag. 40.  upon mirth making in talk, and laughter; especially since the same do agreed so well and requisitely to an excellent and comfortable feast.  
Seven, is there more joy to a Christian in receiceiving the Supper in the gesture of sitting, then in prai●r Sect. 25 to Christ in the gesture of kneeling? I do believe the so●l● is never more filled with joy, than often it is in very prayer, when the body kneeleth: and there is no doubt but ●our own experience will stand in stead of other proof in this matter? for el●e to this purpose testimonies of Scripture be oddious enough, you know, if it were n●edfull to allege the●: yea in the Sacrament such as have kne●led (I deem through the grace of Christ) have not come short sometimes of others who fit in spiritual comfort and joy. Su●e I another Churches profess no less for themselves in receiving upon their knees: we fall down on our knees (say 
t Harmon confess. sect. 14. Bo●●●.  they) receiving the Sacrament with thanksgiving and gladness.  
Eightly, lastly, let it be that kneeling is not, sitting is Sect. 26 an expression of joy, should not so small an expression of joy (even a small and slender piece of joy truly!) be let passed for respects of fare geater comfort and joy? As what say you to the joy of peace? What to the joy of obedience to the King in a circumstance? May you stand upon a circumstnace of joy, and destroy the substance both of peace, and obedience? This will be matter of small joy, if I be not deceived; nay what say you to the substantial joy of the Communion itself? Consider what an uncomfortable answer it would be to Christ, that you would rather be without the inward joy (which is great) of the holy Sacrament, than (forsooth) not express your inward joy by gesture: how much better were it to make melody in your hearts and eat, though without a gesture of joy! may how should you not earnestly suppress and conceal this personated joy rather than stand upon it on such miserable terms of grief, and lamentable affliction, especially when our inward comfort, and joy (I trust) shall not be by kneeling abated in the Lord And hitherto of the second main argument of collection.    

CHAP. 8.  
THirdly, another of your arguments against Sect. CITIZEN kneeling at Sacrament is this.  
It is unlawful (say 
a Disp. pag. 38. his 5. arg.  you) in perform a private worship, during 〈◊〉 and act of the public.  
But kneeling ●● the Sacrament is such a private worship, during the public.  
Therefore it is unlawful.  
Answ. For due understanding of this learned argument, we must in inquire what worship is a private worship, and what is not. Private worship is taken in two senses: first, that is called private, which is unseen and secret. Secondly, that is called private, which is severed, and distinguished from that which is general and common. Now your proposition cannot be understood of the formere for secret, and unseen worship is, and must be performed in the public, and that is the worship of the heart; which though it be invisible to man● eye, yet is both absolutely necessary, and principally excellent in all the public worship of God. And indeed you yourself do only mean your proposition in the latter sense, as appears by the reasons whereby you would justify and maintain it. For 
b Pag. 39  thus you reason: It is unlawful to perform a private worship, during the public, both because it is against the Lord's commandment, which requires us to join with his people in his public ordinances; and because it is against our own profession, which by our presence make semblance of joining, and yet forbear to 〈◊〉 with them. Truly I do willing lie yield that all private worship is unlawful which pulls us off from our duty in the public ordinance; but yet all private or severed worship doth not so; and I can name you ●t the lest four cases, wherein this will evidently appea●e: therefore your proposition must be expounded with four exceptions or limitations at the lest.  
First, the first limitation is of heart-worship of dependence; Sect. 2 that is, which is performed accasionally from the public worship in hand: lawful it is no doubt for a man during the act and time of public worship to look up secretly to the throne of grace, either for a blessing in general, or for any special grace, as occasion is given by the present sta●e and exercise of his soul, and by the present employment. What? when the soul is oppressed with the sense of ●inne, with the w●nts of grace, may it not raise up itself to God, in secret groans & desire●? when it is touched with the sweet delights & contentments of Gods love shed abroad upon it; may it not lift up itself to him in secret praises and thanksgiving? this worship of the heart now is not only private, that it is secret; but it is private, that is severed from the employment of the congregation: I mean so severed, as some singular man so worshipping, perhaps no man else at that very time worshippeth in like manner, yet is not this private worship unlawful: neither doth it hinder or draw us off from the public business of the congregation, both because it is a transient circulation, and because it doth altogether depend upon the public work in hand; nay the heart is so fare from being taken off from the public, that in truth it is thereby kept a great deal more profitably reserved unto it.  
The second limitation is of bodily worship of liberty, for may not one man stand in prayer, upon occasion, Sect. 3 when the congregation kneeleth upon their knees May not one man lift up his hands or eyes, when no man else doth at that time? Do these men perform a private worship in the time and act of the public? Who doth not know that in the substance of worship they do well agreed with the rest of the assembly, only they differ in circumstances of gesture? Which difference frequently occurreth among yourselves, and these exemplifications are so plain that the Disputer can say nothing to the contrary.  
Thirdly, the third limitation is of private worship of Sect. 4 succession, when by reason of successive performance of public worship several members of the congregation may seem to perform a severed worship from the rest, but it is only severed in the point of time and differeth not from the main worship celebrated with public consent. Thus the Apostles received the Sacrament into their hands and mouths, with some difference of time: for it is not likely, that they took into their hands and mouths bread all together. But for the cup it it is out of doubt that they received successively, inasmuch as they did all drink of the same cup, and had not every one a several cup by himself at the same moment. Indeed this is no private or severed worship, but that which is truly public, for what is the public, but the severed worship of all the people present either performed at once, if the nature of the service will admit, or successively, if it will not?  
Fourthly, the forth limitation is of private worship of Sect. 5 appropriation; whereby I do not only mean, that every man's worship may be called his properly, who performs it; but also that the very public administration may be used in respect of one singular man alone for a certain space of time, and this I shall make to appear.  
Now I descend to your assumption [that kneeling at the Sacrament is a private worship during the time and Sect. 6 act of the public] and will briefly examine what strength of confirmation and proof you have put unto it. First, (Say 
c Pag. 40.  you) the kneeler discovers not his conceptions, and how can the rest partake in that which they do not kn●w? Answer, do you mean, that he should ●ell the congregation by audible voice the thoughts of his heart? Surely if the nature of the service itself and of the gesture thereunto applied can discover, what aught to be the conceptions of the communicant, he doth discover his conceptions unto the rest: and (I pray) wherein doth the hearer of the word, the beholder of Baptism, the kneeler in praier-time discover the conceptions of your hearts by sitting or standing, yea by sitting and standing bareheaded? How did all the Israelit●● discover the conceptions of their hearts, when they bowed 
d Exod 33. u 10.  ●nd worshipped, and ye● said nothing ● It is the nature of the Sacrament (Sir) and the nature of the gesture which do discover what are (that is, what aught to be) the conception of the communicant. In goodsooth otherwise to discover the same is neither need: ●ll to the congregation, nor possible. It is enough that we join together in the public duties of worshipping 
c Therefore i● it but amplified by the Disputer no more, that is, childishly, that the kneeling of our Communicants, is like the meeting of several men accidentally in S. Paul's of Lo●d. and kneeling at the same time at several pillars to pray, pag. 41 Whereas godly receivers do come together to the Sacrament, with foreintent, and join together with express consent; in the public ordinance 〈…〉.  with common consent. Consent, I s●y, declared and discerned by the bodily presence and carriage.  
Secondly, say 
f Ibidem.  you, the minister diverteth his speech Sect. 7 from the congregation in general, and directs it to each kneeler particularly, and privately. Also the rest of the congregation (you say) are not bound to attend to the ministers voice, or to take notice what be doth; but are l●●t at liberty to employ themselves i● the singing of a Psalm, or other spiritual exercise. Also the rest (you say) are not appointed to knelt, when the receiver kneeleth. Answ. All this objection hath no force if there be in public ordinances a liberty both of succession and of appropriation. And in succession I will show you the fondness of it by these considerations: first, what can you say to the manner of your own eating of the bread; drinking of the cup successively? do not you in giving the same to some singular p●●son, divert yourself from the congregation in general, direct yourself to one particular man o● woman privately? are the rest bound to take notice, what the minister doth to one? alas, what poor exceptions are these?  
Secondly, what can you say to the fashion which you Sect. 8 use of admitting one table-full, after another is dispatched? ●s the rest of the congregation bound to the business of that table-full, that is actually receiving? are they bound to stand, if they stand? to sit if they sit? good Sir, bethink yourself of that which you have said again.  
Thirdly, what can you say to your singing of a Psalm, and reading of a chapter, which yourselves have sometimes Sect 9 appointed in the midst of the sacramental business? why do you forget at random to give your instance against us, in that thing which you use in common with us? doth not your singing of a Psalm, and other spiritual exercise argue, that the business of them, which during that while communicate binds not the congregation in general, to take notice what is done by them? wherefore succession in sacramental receiving is allowed by yourselves; and therefore when you do reprove and condemn it in us, you are to be blamed.  
Fourthly, I add, that succession is necessary to be used Sect. 10: in the Supper, whether you will or not: for if there be a succ●ssion of the main actions thereof, as of breaking, taking, eating and drinking, must there not also be a 
g How vainly do you the● tell us, that the Communicant kneeling cannot be the principal presenter of outward worship, & the rest his assistants: ergo, his worship is private, Disp. pag. 4: when all Communicants be co-kneelers, as they be co-receivers, that is, according to the respect of succession.  succession of the gesture, wherein the same actions be performed? there is no doubt thereof to any body, but this Disputer, as I suppose.  
But besides the respect of succ●ssion, what can you Sect. 11 say to the point of appropriation? may no● public actions be particularly applye●? may no● a minister speak to a judge, to an officer in the pulpit particularly? may not a particular man be comforted, in struct, exhorted in some particular case, publicly, by the 〈◊〉 of the speaker, by the construction of the party himself, and of the congregation? But you will say perhaps, this application con●●●nes all in some sort, and all are to make use of it● and so say I in some sort the actions of all Comm●nkants at the Lords table concern every one present as the Apostle teacheth: w● being many are 〈◊〉 bread, and one body, for we be all partakers of one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 17. But yet the giving and receiving of bread and wine to this and that singular person is truly severed, and proper to th●● one notwithstanding; as likewise it is in the application of the word of 〈◊〉. The swee●e comforts of the Gospel in the mouth of the minister belong not to an unregenerated company of hypocrites; (such as perhaps sometimes an auditory for the most part consist of;) but rather singularly to an humbled and broken spirit: and on the other hand the grievous terrors and comminations of God's wrath, belong not to an assembly of gracious people, but rather to some graceless person or other, sitting in the midst of them. And yet in Baptism the case i● more ●●●●re; for doth not the minister apply himself wholly to the child which is to be baptised? ●ay is not application to that singular person the present-publick-ordinance of the assembly? besides baptism, even prayer and thanksgiving be used in the public assembly for some particular persons either afflicted or else di●●ver●d: these you cannot deny to be used most lawfully; and yet there is special appropriation of the public worship to such particular persons for a certain season. But what need I to speak of other ordinances? necessity, institution, and your own practice in the Communion itself do warrant the appropriation o● proper bread and wine unto the several Communicants. So that in a word that which you call a private-worship, (by reason of succession, and appropr●●ion) is in effect the public worship of God, for the present time.    

THE THIRD PART OF THIS TREATISE, IN WHICH are answered the objections against kneeling, which are drawn from Christian liberty, piety, and charity.  

CHAP. 1.  
NOw that by the goodness of God I have answered my brethren's Sect. 1 exceptions against the gesture of kneeling, in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, whereby they do endeavour to prove it damnable in itself; I hope I have a ●●irer and easier passage made unto the residue of mine answer, which their other exceptions re●●ire, that are drawn from such respects of the said gesture, as in process of time, the will, and actions of men have accidentally put upon it. If therefore the Christian Reader can find satisfaction from mine answer to the former arguments, let him now put the case, whether that which in the Supper it lawful in it sell● by God's ordinance may ●e m●de altogether unlawful, by man's abusing or urging. Many arguments are used by them to justify the affirmative▪ which being scattered in their books without order, I will reduce to three principal heads: namely, that kneeling at the Sacrament is unlawful, as the case standeth at this day; because it is against Christian liberty; because it is against pi●ti●; and because it is against cha●itis; the first being our own due; the second the Lords; and the third our neighbours. Before I enter into them, I desire, and hope o● all the godly, that they will weigh, that which is said, by the balance of upright judgement, and not by the false and partial rule of affection and prejudice. Verily my prayer and trust to Almighty God, is, that he will vouchsafe of his infinite goodness and mercy, to teach, and lead me by his holi● hand, in every part of mine answer.  

Argum of Christian liberty.  
FIrst you teach, though kneeling be lawful in itself, yet Sect. 2 the imposition thereof, (such as in our Church) makes it unlawful unto us, because it deprives us of our Christian liberty, which Christ hath purchased for us. This argument may be form to this purpose.  
That which deprives men of their Christian liberty is unlawful: 
a Abridg p. 46.  1 Cor. 7. 23. Gal. 5 1. Coloss. 2. vers. 8, 18, 20. 
b Repl. gener. to Bp. Mor●. ch. ●. sect. 5.  Gal. 4. 10.  
Kneeling at the Sacrament as it is enjoined in our land deprives men of their Christian liberty.  
Therefore it is unlawful.   

Our first answer.  
I answer: first by showing wherein Christian liberty Sect. 3 in respect of things indifferent consisteth; and it standeth in three points. First, that a Christians mind be truly persuaded of things indifferent, as they are; and that he be not forced to any practice, contrary to that persuasion: this you will not deny. Secondly, that he use the liberty which God hath given him, not upon mere will, and at random, but for the glory of God, and for the good of others, both superiors and neighbours, and herein liberty itself is bound, as the Scripture showeth; for God's glory, the Apostle Paul sufficiently teacheth, for discoursing of single life and marriage, he persuades the Corinthians, (such as had the liberty) to choose to live single rather in those times upon this ground, 
c 1 Cor. 7. 35. 〈…〉  that they might attend upon the Lord without distraction. For our superiors, (whether they be Magistrates, Parents, Masters, &c.) the Apostle Peter also declareth; for exhorting all men to be obedient to Magistrates, he 
d 1 Pet. 2. 16.  warns them not to use their liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, 
e ●ide Be●. A●●●●. in bu●● l●cu●.  in casting off the bridle of government. For our neighbours there is a plain direction, Gal. 5. 13. Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, only use not your liberty for a● occasion to the flesh, but by ●oue serve one another. Thirdly, Christian liberty standeth either in doing that which is indifferent, or in restraining ourselves: in both there is the example of the blessed Apostle: 
f 1 Cor. 9 20.  he made himself as a ●●w to the jews; ●● under the law to them which were under the law, that he might gain them to Christ. And again, we have not used our power, (saith 
g Verse 12.  he) but suffer all things, le●t we should ●inder the Gospel of Christ.  
Out of the former points it appeareth. First, the Sect. 4 Christian liberty is 
* see Bp Mort. p gener. ch 6. sect 12. & the Replyers yielding.  not taken away by the necessity of doing a thing indifferent, or not doing; but only by that necessity, which takes away the opinion, or persuasion of its indifferency. Secondly, when the Magistrate commands something which is indifferent, it is not the part, or honour of a Christian to refuse to do it, because in himself he had liberty to do otherwise: but rather it is an excellent privilege which he hath, that having liberty of many things, he can make use thereof even in that one, to please, and satisfy him (unto whose authority, and government God himself hath subiectted him) without offence to his conscience. Thirdly, that a Christian is not absolutely bound by God to act, or suspend an indifferent action so much, or so much; (than it could not be indifferent in itself) but to do it always or refuse it always, to do it sometimes, or refuse it sometimes interchangeably, as occasion requireth. Thus I have showed you wherein Christian liberty consists in things indifferent, and this may stand for one answer to your argument, if you please to apply.   

Our second answer.  
SEcondly, I answer, that all the places of Scripture, Sect. 5 which you allege are utterly impertinent to your purpose, against the gesture, as perhaps you will easily see by a judicious review. The first place (1. Cor. 7 23.) forbids us to be servants of men, that is in 
h vide Calv. in hunc locum. i● So B●● cited by the Repl general to B. M●r ch. 6. sect. 5.  wicked, or (●) superstitious actions, according to their perverse commandments, or desires. There is no reason in the context to mean it of the practice of indifferent things, nay there is good reason on the contrary part. For (I pray) must not servants obey their Masters in things indifferent, then verily they may refuse to obey them at all, in as much as there is hardly any action in the calling of a servant, but therein be sundry respects of liberty and indifferency, rising from the nature of the employment, and other circumstances belonging.  
The other Scriptures, Gal. 4. 10. 5. 1. Col 2 v. 8, 18 20. do declare, the liberty which Christians have from the bondage Sect. 6 of jewish Ceremonies: of which I would ask you two questions. First, whether those jewish Ceremonies, which the Apostle meaneth, were indifferent; not only in their nature, but in their use also, being applied to Evangelicall worship? If they were not, than the proofs are not ad idem, because the gesture of kneeling i● indifferent in its use in the Sacrament. But Secondly, if they were indifferent in their nature and use (as indeed they were, for Paul himself used many of them, and others in those times without sin) I ask you whether therefore it be not a clear ●ase, that he condemns them, because they were urged and used, not as things indifferent, but as necessary for the doctrine, and opinion which they had of them? Look upon the places, and judge, and among other evidences enough, this consideration may be of use, that those Ceremonies were not prescribed by a civil Magistrate, but only by seducing teachers in the Church, who had no power of bringing a necessity in the outward practice, but by persuading, and possessing men's minds with an opinion of the necessity of su●h practice.  
Now let the Replyer object, First (saith 
k Reply to B●sh. Mort. ch. 6. sec. 5  he) Bellar mine will say as much. I answer, if he say so, so fare he Sect. 7 saith that which he may say, and you can never disprove. Indeed the matter is so evident, that a man with half an eye, Papist or Protestant cannot but see, (and if he will speak his conscience) cannot but confess it. Will you have us to renounce our answers which ●e ●ound & certain, because Bellarmine, or any other Papist hath acknowledged the truth of any part of them, yet it is your ordinary wont in the want o● reason of weight, to refute us by, to shape us this unprofitable answer. Bellarmine will say so. Why (Sir) I can pick a thousand points or saying out of Bellarmine, wherein he speaketh most truly: which ● say not for any mind I have to magnify Bellarmine; for what false teacher, or heretic, that hath written many volumes doth not deliver many truths, e●ther in dogmatic tenants, or in expounding of many places of Scripture? Secondly, saith he; The Apostle Paul speaks generally, of all Ceremonies of man's appointing, when the conscience is brought in subjection, and bondage unto them. I answer, this is true, if you mean by subjection of the conscience, as I have expounded before: for doubtless, the Apostles words may be applied generally, to such Ceremonies, as against which he applies them himself particularly, that is such, whereby the consciences of men in the Doctrine, and opinion thereof are subjected, and bondaged. But doth this altar the case, and cross our interpretation of Paul? What are you the better for such answering? if you mean by subjecting the conscience, to ceremonies, subjecting only of the outward man, the conscience being free to judge them, (and for any spiritual necessity) to use them as things indifferent, (supposing them to be such both in their nature, and use) then besides that you use such phrases, as no man useth it but your own dream, that I say not do●age, that the Apostle can possibly mean any such matter: so indeed you might shifted to thrust out of holy worship all your own variable circumstances, if the Magistrate but commanded the use of them, for the zeal of your Christian liberty.  
Hitherto is to be referred ●f you will, that which you Sect. infer, that then by our teaching it followeth, that Popish ceremonies do not take away Christian liberty. I answer, our teaching can infer no such matter: for, first, the Papists have a company of ceremonies, which you will deny can be indifferent in their use in God's worship. I am certain you will deny this, and yet you cannot justly deny it of the jewish ceremonies in the time of the apostle, because he judged it lawful to use them himself to win the jews by his conformity unto them.  
Secondly, besides the Papists put in the opinion and doctrine of them a bondage upon men's consciences, and take away the respect of their indifferency. Now this is a sure ground of truth, that whatsoever action or thing indifferent may be used in God's worship lawfully, and no opinion be put upon the conscience, which takes away the full respect of its indifferency, the same may be enjoined, our Christian liberty notwithstanding: but from such a one to infer to the Popish ceremonies, is as much, as from a good work to infarre either to bad works, or to good with respects of justification, and merit. And so you have a second answer to your argument, namely, an answer to the places of Scripture, which it wholly relies on.   

Our third answer.  
THirdly, now I will show that the gesture of kneeling Sect 9 in the Sacrament is not imposed in this Church otherwise then as a thing in itself plainly indifferent. It is true, the Church requires of all her Communicants to use that gesture, and so there is necessity of obedience; but it urgeth none of them to think, that the same is not in itself, and to Godward, (as Mr. Calvin 
l Calv instit. lib. 4 cap. 10. sect.  speaketh) left to man's choice and liberty: and so there is no necessity of conceit, or opinion put upon it, for enthralling any their consciences. This I declare in this manner. First, there is a profession in the book of Common prayer, that makes this good. Kneeling (saith 
m The book speaketh of ceremonies in general.  it) is not so required by us, but that upon just cause it may be changed. Again, we condemn not other Churches, where they do otherwise; for we think it meet, that each Country should use such a (n) gesture, as they think best for God's glory, and the common good without superstition. But the Replier speaks here: So also (saith 
n Repl gen. to Bp. Mort. ch. 2. sect. 15.  he) the Church of Rome can change her ceremonies if she william. I answer, the Church of Rome can change, and establish, place, and displace even substantialls at her own pleasure, as not only her definitive learning of her strange authority, but experience also hath evidently made to appear: her profession or practise therefore for changing her ordinances can fasten no ill dealing upon that Church, which in God's necessary worship holds herself bound wholly to the commandment of the word: but if you will speak to the matter, you must tell us, that the Church of Rome in lawful circumstances, professeth that upon just cause they may be changed. Verily, if she said no more, if she ●aught no worse concerning such circumstances, she were in so professing to be justified, as not infringing the liberty of the conscience, to be justified I say precisely in that thing, though not ex hypothesi, as the main worship, which she appointeth is such: and this seems a sufficient answer. Wherefore our Church declaring the gesture of kne●ling to be changeable upon occasion, and not condemning standing, or sitting in other Churches, doth give every man to be assured, that kneeling is enjoined, as a thing indifferent, without depriving us of our Christian liberty.  
Secondly, in K. Edw. 6. his time, before command of Sect. 10 kneeling was given, there was an authorised liberty of the practice of other gestures. This appears by the notes of explanation annexed to the Common prayer book of Edw. 6. Anno 2. These are the words: Kneeling may be used, or left, as every man's devotion serveth, without blame. First, thus yourselves 
o Perth. Assem. pag 48. Surveyed 173.  confess, that the gesture in the first reformation was left free: so that this Church hath admitted of variety of gestures successively; and howbeit kneeling hath been imposed last, and longest, the reason is not, (whatsoever it is, or was, which I shall speak of hereafter) because the Church doth or did condemn herself for judging aforetime other gestures indifferent, for she professeth, not to condemn the same as unlawful in other Churches at this present; 
* Surveyed at the Quer. of kn. toward the end  and you stand upon it, that the State in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign meant not to condemn, or exclude the liberty of other gestures: behold then an other evidence, that kneeling is commanded with us, without any opinion of the necessity of it, but as it is, in its own nature and use, a thing, or gesture indifferent. Sect. 11  
Thirdly, all our learned and judicious writers in this Church, that have propugned this gesture with the Church's authority, have determined with one consent, that it is, in its nature and use indifferent, and variable, and that the Church doth press it for none other. To this purpose you may consider if you please, 
p Surveyed 198. Disp. 131.  what you affirm of Archbishop Parker, how he administered the Communion at C●●terburi● to the people standing, a●d that her Majesty's Commissioners in causes Ecclesiastical did (now) above threescore years ago, establish in Coventry, standing in the act of receiving. What Bishop jewel saith, that 
q Art 1. div. ●. ag Hard.  standing, sitting, or kneeling, be indifferent circumstances. What Bishop Mor●on saith, than whom no man can utter words, that shall more expressly avouch kneeling indifferent in many places of his book, what yourselves 
r You speak of our Cerem. in general: Abridg pag. 53.  do say at once, of our chiefest defendours, that they do judge, the Church might well be without the bond of kneeling, as they do hold, that the Church may well also be with it. In a word, 
s Disp. pag 155  you say, that ●he defence of the gesture of kneeling by this reason, that the same i● indifferent is almost in every man's mouth.  
But this profession of the laws and governor's of our Sect. 12 Church is no sufficient answer you say. Why so? First, 
t Abridg. pag. 43.  because the Papists profess as much concerning their ceremonies; namely, that they ●olde their ceremonies necessary in no other respect, but because they be ordained by their superiors. I answer, as if you should not consider of their Ceremonies, both what they are in themselves, and with what opinions, and superstitions their Superiors do command them: for suppose their Church required nothing but lawful circumstances in divine worship, and those also without ●vill opinion (of any so●●) put upon them, do ye think she were to be condemned therefore? Take notice I pray you then of this inconsiderate reasoning of yours. To prove our Ceremonies we imposed more than as things indifferent, notwithstanding our Church's profession to the con●●ary; you ●ell us of the Romish Church, which imposeth her Ceremonies, with plain profession of evil opinions, and superstitions annexed. This is not a Mathematical parallel, it wants rule. I show you wherein the Papists do differ from us, wherein if they did not differ, I show you, that we are well contented to be like unto them. I expected, that the Abridgement should have presented us, with answer of reason, to satisfy conference. This silly answering [the Papists will say as much] might have remained to the superficial Replyer, who useth it, I would be loath to count, how often. Secondly, that the Profession of our Church sufficeth not in this case, another sheweth 
u Mr. Bradsh in his arg. 11. lat●●r 〈◊〉.  by a comparison. What (saith he) if the Church should decree that the King should hold the Archbishop's stirrup, withal protesting, that they do not require this, as a thing necessary, and with any evil, and superstitious opinion, but for decency, were not this a shameful sh●ft? I answer most shameful, because there is no decency in the thing itself; there would be injustice in the decree, God requiring that Cesar should haveth at which is Caesar's. Besides, the King is above all his subjects, and (he being the only agent whereof this comparison puts case) is not bound to the Decree of his subjects, but as he pleaseth to be a law to himself in arbitrary occasions, wherefore as this Rhetoric of yours, whilst i● speaks of decency hath none; for ill it doth become you: so there is more distance betwixt it, and our matter in hand, then is betwixt the two poles of the world.  
But you object further, that the Church doth not 〈◊〉 kneeling as a thing ind●ffere●e, but as necessary to s●lv●●●●, Sect. 15 as may appear (you ●ay) by many considerations. Which 〈◊〉 they I pray?  
Object. 1. King Edw. 
w Abridg. 42.  Common Prayer bo●●ke saith, kneeling is enjoined to avoid the pr●●anati●● of the Sacrament, importing, that el●e the Sacrament would be necessarily profaned; and so it makes an opinion, that kneeling is necessary. I answer, your gloss corrupteth the 〈◊〉, you force an evil meaning from those words of the book, and need not: the Church did not mean, that such profanation, as she provideth against by kneeling, ariseth from the nature of other gestures; but from carnal, and careless Christians, who by occasion thereof might fall to sleight and disesteem the holy Sacrament; so there is no doctrinal necessity of kneeling at Sacrament in itself, or opposed to other gestures to avoid profanation; but provision made against an accidental and probable inconvenience: and it is plain, that the Church in commanding to kneel at Sacrament, for avoiding of profanation, did not intent to infer spiritual necessity; for than she would condemn other Churches (using other gestures) of profaning the Sacrament; which she disclaimeth to do; neither would she profess to require the gesture, (as she doth) as a circumstance, which ●ay be changed upon due consideration. It is true, she requires all to kneel, that the Sacrament might not be profaned; but it followeth not therefore she judgeth all would profane the Sacrament, that kneel n●t. It is enough in laws which be made of things indifferent, that the benefit thereof be felt or needed generally, albeit no● universally. And to make the causecleerer, consider, that mutable circumstances, (which you judge) of order an● decency may be appointed to any ordinance or public worship of God for celebration thereof in such a manner, that it be not profaned. Deny this if you can: if you cannot, you may learn to interpret here in like manner.  
Object. 2. 
x Bradsh. arg. 11  All divine constitutions binding conscience Sect. are necessary to salvation.  
But kneeling at Sacrament is a divine constitution, (being commanded by the Church) and ●●ndeth conscience.  
Therefore as it is ●●ged it is necessary to salvation.  
I answer, constitutions are divine, either simply, or respectively; simply, when God immediately stamps them with his holy authority: respectively, when man ●et● that authority upon them, which God hath bestowed upon him, in things of liberty, and indifferency: 〈◊〉 this sense all constitutions may be called divine, wherein the general rules of the word be kept, whether they be of Ecclesiastical things, or civil●. Now such constitutions do● bind the consciences of men to a necessity of obedience, as the lawful ordinances of a man in his own house do bind the consciences of s●i● domestics; and such obedience as is is a course which pleaseth God, is the way to life and salvation; and yet here is no necessity to salvation, but what the most mutable circumstance, and thing indifferent in all the world is capable of: you might as ●ell say. when a man employs ●i● son or servant in an errand, or any other business, that such employment is enjoined as necessary to salvation.  
Object. 3. 
y Bradsh. ibid.  It is necessary to salvation, that men Sect. 15 should worship God in a d●●ent ●●d orderly manner.  
But by our doctrine the dece●●i● 〈◊〉 order of the Sacrament stands in the gesture of kneeling.  
Therefore it is held as necessary to salvation.  
I answer; you reason as he that would prove the way to Cales to be necessary by D●ver, because Dover is our ready way that leads unto Cal●s. But as the saying is, there be more ways to the wood then one. Decency of the Sacrament partly stands in kneeling, when that gesture is used; as it may in like manner stand with standing or sitting, when they be used, as I have showed, part. 2. chap. 3.  
Object. 4. 
z Ab●idg. p. 40.  Kneeling is an external act of religion, Sect. 16 and 
a Pag. 42.  the laws, and governor's of our Church urge it as a weighty part of God's w●rship: Yea 
b Ibid.  it is by all ●en confessed to be a chief part of religious adoration, and needs i● 
c Disp. pag. 156 &c.  must be so.  
Therefore it followeth that it is imposed as necessary to salvation, and not as a thing indifferent.  
I answer, as if it may not be both a thing in different, and yet a part of God's worship: kneeling at prayer is a thing indifferent, in itself, that is may be done, o● left undone as there is occasion, yet is kneeling at prayer a part of God's outward worship. You should remember that in as much as we call a gesture indifferent, it is for the liberty of choosing: as we call it a worship it is for the accepted use thereof, when it is chosen and applied, this i● so easy a case that I wonder any man of judgement did ever call it into question, only at the Disputer I do not wonder, that takes this for an impregnable proposition. 
d Disp. p. 155.  [Not action that is a part of the Lords worship is a matter indifferent.] This Proposition (saith he) will found no encounter true, no action is a part of the Lords worship, as it is a matter indifferent: but the said action may have more considerations than one. But see back of this matter page 1. ch. 4. Sect. 6, &c. Note here, that whensoever I call kneeling at Sacrament an indifferent thing, I must be taken to mean according to the foresaid distinction, which cannot be refused with reason.  
Object. 5. 
e Bradsh. arg. 1●.  The Lord Bishops be the pillars of the Church, and kneeling at the Sacrament is one of the supporters Sect. 17 of them,  
Therefore if the pillars of the Church be necessary, than this Ceremony is also necessary.  
Answ. Be it so, that they be Pillars, which you affirm but ironically, how can it be, that kneeling at Sacrament can be an upholder of them for aught I am able to consider, they are no more upheld by kneeling at Sacrament, then by standing at confession, kneeling at prayer, receiving bareheaded, all which you do well allow of. And if these be supporters of them, than is there so much said to their commendation; for it is an honour to be supported by lawful things. And yet these pillars might stand as fast in the judgement of wise men, if standing or sitting were generally used at the Lords Supper. But you have a desire to except poor exceptions, rather than you will be shut ou●.  
Object. 6. 
f Abridg: p: 39  Such as kneel not at Sacrament are accounted Sect. 18 schismatics and Puritans 
g Bradsh. arg: 11  worse then Idolatrous Papists,  
Therefore kneeling is accounted a thing most necessary to salvation.  
Answ. That for omission of kneeling you be counted worse than the Papists no good Protestant will say, if any man did ever so charge you, we need not regard, neither need you: men specially in flamed in these public contestations betwixt us will be sometimes speaking ex-travegantly. I am assured there be among yourselves, that will not stick to speak as bitterly against others. As for the imputations of Puritans and Schismariks', so fare forth as the same be cast upon you for refusing to kneel, it is because you refuse and oppose the Church in a matter indifferent. For to strive against a Nationall Church, and break the peace of it unjustly, (as to break it about such mutable gestures in God's worship as are truly indifferent both in nature, and use is to break them unjustly) was ever held for a Schismatical course. Whether it be or not, who knows not, that the imputation of Schismatics may be given, for contending about such things, and that takes away the force of in●erring, that kneeling is esteemed therefore as necessary to salvation. In the Primitive Church it was no less than a Schismatical action with public offence, against the Apostolical Decr●●. Acts 15. to ●ate blood, and yet no body could therefore conclude, that non-eating of blood was held by that Church necessary to salvation.  
Object. 7. 
h Abridg. 42:  Very many of the people in all parts of the Sect. 19 Land hold this opinion of kneeling, that the Sacrament cannot reverently, or worthily be received with any other gesture. Answer: as if (for sooth) I must interpret the Church by the fond opinion of some of our people, as if their conceits put upon me a necessity, that I must so conceive in like manner; as if there were not a greater number of people better informed to set against them: as if there were not many ignorant people over all the land, that hold evil opinions of main points of religion, that are ignorant, and will be ignorant still. What? whiles the Church enjoins kneeling as a thing indifferent in itself; the governor's of the Church do so urge it; all our writers do so defend it; informed Christians do so use it; shall I think it hath an opinion of necessity sticking to it for the surmises of certain ignorant people? If I should so think, I know not, whether their opinion, or mine, were to be blamed for the more ignorant, and ridiculous.  
Object. 8. Omission of kneeling is punished with 
i Abridg. 43. Repl. to Bp. Mort. general, ch 6. sect. 4. Bradsh. arg. 1.  suspension, 
k Abridg. 39 Bradsh. arg. 11. Repl. as before.  Sect. 20 excommunication, and 
l Abridg. 42. Repl. as before.  less of the Sacrament itself, yea in comparision it is more sharply punished, than either 
m Bradsh. arg. 11.  omission of preaching, and other substantial duties, yea then 
n Abridg. 42. To this exception of omission of kneeling in prayer, I will answer with the words of him that made the Queries, who speaketh in this manner: The 1● Canon setteth down particular directions for all due reverence to be used in every part of divine service; yea expressly directeth all manner of persons reverently to kneel, when the general con●ession, Litany, and other Prayers are read, and yet doth not require the people to kneel in the act of receiving. Surveyed, pag 169. I suppose you will be better content to hear one of your own side give you a reasonable answer.  omission of kne●ling in prayer; or than 
o Abridg. 39  commission of notorious, and scandalous sins committed against the law of God:  
Therefore it is urged as a thing of very great necessity, ●ven to salvation.  
Answer. This objection though it make a show of concluding effectually, yet performs it not, as will appear if it be soberly weighed. You say the reason, that such as kneel not at Sacrament are suspended, excommunicated, and debarred of the Sacrament is merely for omission of the gesture: (the Abridgement saith also 
p Ibidem.  though the same omission be made out of the case of scandal and contempt:) and that is most untruly said; for although the law do require the use of kneeling at all times, yet the true intent thereof is to 
* See Park. of the Cross, ch. ●. sect. 17.  punish REFUSAL, when a man professeth against the Church, and the general order of it, denying to use at all the gesture, which it enjoineth. But that I may show the error of your objection, I will reduce it into form as followeth.  
That the refusal whereof is punished with suspension, excommunication, &c. is urged as necessary to salvation.  
Refusal of kneeling at Sacrament is so punished.  
Therefore kneeling is so urged.  
The Major is false: for suppose a man, though otherwise allowing well of our assemblies, should refuse to join with them, because he will not worship God in our temples, would not suspension, (if he were a minister) and excommunication fasten upon him in this Church, trow you? you cannot make a question thereof: but should therefore the Church be charged for enjoining such or such particular temples as necessary to salvation? By no means; for the Church esteemeth place a circumstance which may be changed, as need and edification require. You will request peradventure, that these punishments be excessive: I answer, excess of punishment doth not infer opinion of spiritual necessity. It is a plain non sequitur. Refusal to kneel is punished with excess: therefore kneeling is enjoined for necessary to salvation. For all the world knoweth, that offences about indifferent things may be punished with excess, though the opinion of their indifferency do remain: yea for Ecclesiastical censures it is certain, that they have been wont from time to time to be inflicted for breaking of Ecclesiastical orders, although the Church imposing hath judged the same to be such as might be varied upon occasion. Wherefore it should not be regarded in the case of kneeling at the Sacrament what punishment is pronounced against them which refuse it. A man bids his servant to do such or such a business (say it be of no great moment) adding if he d● it not, he will turn him out of his service, may not the servant now lawfully, and safely perform his Master's commandment, because he backed it with a commination of greater severity, than he needed to have done, for any thing he seethe or knoweth? so if the Church be more severe in pressing her orders, and punishing the breach of them, than you can allow, that is nothing to the purpose, if the said orders may be obeyed. Saul 
q 1 Sam. 14. 24  forbade the people to eat meat upon pain of unreasonable extremity; could the excess of punishment threatened make abstinence unlawful to them, or put upon it opinion of necessity to salvation? This no body will affirm, except such as be led by a spirit of nothing but contradiction. I but, that which is commanded and pressed more than obedience to God's laws is held more necessary than it, and so held necessary to salvation. This is true, if the necessity of both looked the same way: if kneeling at Sacrament were pressed and urged by law, because it is necessary to salvation, and greater matters truly so necessary not so urged, than I confess this exception might seem to be just enough: but the reason why kneeling is urged in this Church, is known to be respect of Ecclesiastical policy, and not as if it were necessary to salvation: and for greater matters I make no doubt to say, that you do wrong to this Church and state in accusing the laws which (and that strictly) do serve for the punishment of gross and capital mischiefs: but now if all this while you have spoken only the fact●, I will be no defendor of men's remissness to execute the laws of God: I do heartily wish, and all good hearts do likewise wish and desire, that all our governor's would see performed, qu● sunt gravi●ra legis, i●dicium, et miseric ordiam, et fidem, haec op●rtuit facere, and yet kneeling not le●t undone.  
Thus than I have showed that this Church takes not Sect. 21 away Christian liberty by the commandment of kneeling at Sacrament; yet I will add for better persuading in this point, out of your own sayings something which may serve for testimony to this purpose. First, you 
r Bradsh. arg. 12  say, that the first appointers of kneeling appointed only a toleration of it, and that 
s Abridg. 42.  you be only bound by law to that which was appointed by them. Verily if this be true as you say, then kneeling is not enjoined with necessity to be don●, much less with opinion of such necessity. Secondly, you 
t Manuscrip. ch. 4.  say, no law binds us to the necessity of kneeling; if this be true as you say, than the same conclusion still followeth, that much less any opinion of necessity can by law be annexed unto it. Thirdly, you 
u Bradsh. arg 11  say, that the Church urgeth not kneeling at the Sacrament at all, but only three or ●oure Church-governors'. If this be true as you say, why do you challenge this Church for urging it as necessary to salvation? Fourthly, you 
w Disp p. 33.  say, the Common prayer book allows of sitting at the Communion. And again, 
x Demand p. 45 ●urvey p. 70.  It allows the minister to stand up. If this be true as you say, nothing can more acquit the Church of enjoining kneeling as necessary. For what I pray can acquit her better, than this, that (as you affirm) she alloweth of all gestures. These things I but mention to note your own repugnancies, and contradictions to yourselves, that whiles one while you say, the Church and laws thereof makes kneeling so necessary as infringeth Christian liberty, that is by necessity of opinion; another while you deni● that it requires kneeling, with any manner of necessity, so much as necessity of obedience. I would to God the consideration of your own uncertainties might admonish you to fly unto the unmoveable pillar of truth. So I conclude my third general answer, whereby I have vindicated this Church from infringing of Christian liberty in imposing the practice of kneeling upon Communicants at the Lords table.   

Our fourth, and last answer.  
FOurthly, and lastly, whereas you use the argument Sect. 22 of Christian liberty to condemn kneeling at Sacrament in our Church, let me proyoke you to take notice, and tell us upon what foundation you mean to build the same, that it may effectually serve against us: my meaning is this; in pressing of this argument is it your purpose, to suppose kneeling at Sacrament to be indifferent in itself, or else to suppose it to be plainly wicked and impious? It is not material, what you esteem of the gesture in the force of either arguments, but in what respect it is to be taken for the right managing of this, that the matter may be brought to an issue. Well then, first I ask you, if you urge your argument of Christian liberty, as supposing the gesture to be abominable? And this one while you professedly do, as the 
y Repl. gener. to Bp. Mort. ch. 6, ans. to sect. 3.  Replier showeth: The received state of this question (saith he) is of liberty from ceremonies, which are appointed unlawfully. (Indeed the Replier proves this out of the Abridgement by a silly reason, because the said Abridgement doth every where deny the ceremonies to be in their own nature indifferent: a reason without a spark of judgement; for it is not material in this question at all, that the Abridgement denies kneeling to be indifferent in other arguments: but upon what hypothesis it presseth this argument of liberty: but let this pass, let the Replier have the state of the question to be of liberty from kneeling, as it is supposed for a gesture which is commanded unlawfully) but let me entreat him to consider whether ever man used an argument more vainly and childishly, than he useth this of Christian liberty from a wicked action: You might as well use it to prove, that it is not lawful to swear, lie, steal, and commit adultery: for who of us was ever so voided of understanding, to deny that Christians have a liberty from sin purchased to them by Christ. Therefore besides your begging in this point you have bestowed your pains most superfluously: for inasmuch as your reason must (as you say) imply that kneeling at Sacrament is a sin in its own nature, where is any new force, which it addeth and bringeth of its owner you may behold it in this Tenor: Every sinful action is against Christian liberty. Kneeling at Sacrament is a sinful action. Therefore it is against Christian liberty. And thus your argument of Christian liberty is evidently of no use.  
But secondly, will you be content to suppose kneeling Sect. 23 at Sacrament to be a gesture in itself of indifferent choice, that so the reason of Christian liberty may come to a due and pertinent trial? That which is unlawful, (before Christian liberty be considered) is out of doubt to be rejected without delay; but the question aught to be, whether kneeling at Sacrament, though it be indifferent, (as that must be presumed, at lest whiles we be parling upon our Christian liberty) should not be refused for defence of our liberty, against the commandment of the Magistrate? Thus Christian liberty might seem to sway something on your side. And yet the truth is, in your writings, you do confess evidently enough, that if kneeling be indeed a gesture, which may be used, or not used, that is, if it be indifferent, that then you may lawfully observe the same, being commanded in this Church, your Christian liberty notwithstanding: and I will bring the places of your books themselves to bear witness. First, if kneeling (saith 
z Disp. p. 165.  the Disputer) at Sacrament can be proved to be a matter indifferent for the nature, and use of it, &c. I doubt not but such as now oppose against it, will with all readiness obey his Majesty's commandment, and the Church's direction in this behalf. Also the Abridgement 
Abridg. p. 44. ●o also Manuscrip, ch. 4.  teacheth in effect, that if the gesture be indifferent in its nature and use, (for to be such is to be according to the rules of the word) that then the Magistrate is to be obeyed. If it can●●● be proved (saith 
b Remove of certain imputations, &c. p. 5  another) that kneeling may be lawfully used, or not used in the Sacrament, considered without command of authority, then by the grace of Christ we will not be found to refuse it. If kneeling (say 
c Demand. p 6●  the Demaunders) be indifferent in its own nature, and use, than it may be used by them which be strong in ●aith, and have knowledge of its indifferency. Mr. Bradshaw 
d Treat of div. worsh pag. 19  allows the ordinance of the gesture if it be not imp●ty, and wickedness to use the same, without the Magistrates ordaining. Lastly, the Replyer is in many Sections willing to join with the rest; I will sand the Reader to one or two. In one place 
e Repl. gener. to Bp Mort. ch. 6. sect, 12.  he saith, that the liberty which Christ hath left unto us is from these bodily rites, which have not his own stamp upon them. Granting that the doing of such things commanded, as are authorised by Christ himself (and allowance of general rules in things indifferent is Christ's stamp, aswell as more particular direction) is by no means against our Christian liberty.) Again, when Bp. Morton had declared the profession of this Church, namely, that her Ceremonies are imposed as things indifferent: (and so Christian liberty shall not be infringed thereby) the Replyer 
f Repl gener. ch. 6. sect. 13.  answereth, that no profession can make human●-significant, (that is in his meaning as much as to say sinful) Ceremonies in God's worship agreed with Christian liberty. So that both this Replyer, and the rest do yield, that kneeling at Sacrament is not to be refused upon the reason of Christian liberty, provided, that the same kneeling be but presumed for warrantable in itself.  
And yet I will not dissemble, that notwithstanding the Sect. 24 former speeches, & professions of yielding upon supposal that kneeling is indifferent; yet (as if either you had forgotten what you said, or were resolved to oppose in one place, what by necessity you are enforced to confess ●n another) some considerations you give us tending to prove, that although kneeling at Sacrament be indifferent, yet are not Christians bound therefore to observe the same at this time. I will do you the courtesy to present them to view in this, (which seems to be the fittest) place, and I suppose an easy answer will suffice to satisfy the strongest of them. Now as fare as I can gather out of your books they will not exceed the number of three.  
First 
g Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 7. with whom agrees also Mr. Bradsh. arg. 1. & arg 3. where he saith, that, that which God leaves indifferent being imposed by man, is imposed Only by man's pleasure: which is not true; for the liberty of man in determining is authorised by Gods william.  you say, we may not do in God's worship any Sect. 25 thing (which 
h So Manuscrip. means, as appears by answering of an object. in the end of that arg. and besides else  is indifferent) upon the mere will of man, and so make the will of man the rule of our conscience. Answer. I grant it is unlawful to do in God's worship any thing upon the mere pleasure of man, but that which God makes indifferent, that is lawful to be done, before man's will or commandment meddles with it, is not done upon the mere will of man: yourselves say of mutable circumstances, which Gods will in general alloweth, that man's will in particular determination may vary them. I, but say you again, the Magistrate in commanding, and others in obeying, even in things indifferent, are bound to the rules of the word. True they are so, why did you mention no rules for instance, and apply them to the point of kneeling? If you mean the rule which forbiddeth scandal, besides that one rule, to them specially which be subject, must be compared with another, I shall examine (God willing) that matter in its own place. Therefore it is a mee●e slander, that we kneel at Sacrament upon the mere will of man, when the thing is lawful, and sometime, or always, (as occasion should be) fit, if the Magistrate appointed it not. that arg is the same with its arg. 1. which I have answered, part. ●. ch. 1.  
But others help in this matter. If (saith Mr. Bradsh.) Sect. 26 
i Treat of div. worsh p. 28. also arg. 8. Remove. p 6.  the Magistrate can bring one indifferent thing into God's worship, than he may bring in any indifferent thing: then he may bring in flesh, br●th, butter and cheese into the Lord's Supper; for these be indifferent things, and so be avoiding of the superfluities of nature; due benevolence between man and wife, spinning and carding, kill of oxen, and sheep, &c. I answer: You do ill to conclude from such things as are indifferent in nature and use by Gods own direction and allowance, to such things as are indifferent only in nature; whereas kneeling is indifferent, not only in nature, but also in Sacramental use; which difference you did (it seems) never consider. Belike such mutable circumstances as yourselves allow have no more right to religious worship, then have the natural actions you name, or then spinning & carding. This is learned logic which some wise men would have been ashamed of.  
But you further urge our liberty in things indifferent. Sect. 27 God (say 
k Manuscrip. ch. 4.  you) can only change the nature of things, and make that necessary which was before indifferent: it is he alone that can give laws to lay a necessity upon the conscience. Answ. I will answer you with your own words following, which be these: It cannot be denied, that the Magistrate, and the Church have power to make laws, to command or restrain the use of indifferent things, which no Christian without heinous sin against God may despise; only the power which those laws have to bind the conscience lieth in this, that they be made according to the rules of God's word. O●t of which words it is evident, that indifferent things may be commanded or restrained, that is, in outward performance or obedience made necessary for a time, (which is as much as we do maintain:) now this kind of necessity (not ensnaring the conscience) is warranted unto us by Gods own authority: where you speak of the rules of the word again, and neither apply them against kneeling at Sacrament, no● so much as name them at all, I know not to what purpose it serveth: such rules as in any of your books you give me occasion to examine, I shall not balk by the grace of God one jot, when due place requireth.  
But what shall be said to Mr. Bradsh. who affirmeth, Sect. 28 
l Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 19  That the Magistrate can only ordain such ceremonies, as without his ordinance were impiety not to observe. I answer, that Mr. Bradsh. may say what he will, but hardly ever man said more absurdly, except he mean by such ceremonies, only ceremonies of order, decency, edification, allowed under those general notions without determination of specialls; as if he should have said, the Magistrate can ordain no ceremony except it serve for order, comeliness, &c. for it is impiety not to observe order, comeliness, &c. Now if he understand in this sense, I have plentifully answered otherwhere: otherwise it is undoubted enough, that the Magistrate can appoint lawfully such special circumstances, as without his appointment, may without impiety be omitted: for else there is no liberty left unto us of one mutable circumstance in the world. Besides kneeling at the Sacrament is not ordained of the Magistrate oppositely unto God, but subordinately. Therein he doth not institute a new, but apply a gesture already by God himself instituted to divine worship.  
But against this the Disputer saith something: If (saith 
m Disp. p. 163. ●  he) applying to the Sacrament of a thing already instituted Sect. 29 to God's worship make the same thing therefore warrantably applied, than the Church may command us lawfully to read in the act of receiving, and to pray for the good estate of Christian Princes, and such like; because reading and praying to such purposes are already instituted and commanded by the Lord Answer: There is not the like reason betwixt the matter of religious employment & personal gestures: by that one ordinance is distinguished from another, and so it is not by gestures, which are in their kind not only useful, but necessary in all ordinances. Besides the force of this exception of the Disputers, (as himself 
n Page 164.  also further declareth) standeth in this, that (as God's institution of one thing in one part of his worship, doth not warrant the same in another, because it may be unsuitable thereunto: so) kneeling at Sacrament is not warrantable by God's institution of kneeling in his worship otherways, because it suits not to the nature of the Supper, as it is suitable to prayer and thanksgiving. Thus here is nothing said, but upon begging, that kneeling is unsuitable to the Supper, which I have handled before in the second part of this Treatise. And hitherto of your first reason, whereby you would show, that though kneeling at Sacrament be indifferent, yet are not Christians bound to obey the Magistrate in commanding it.  
Secondly, you 
o Manuscript. ch. 4. Suru. at large p. 168.  say, That Christians are at liberty in Sect. 30 this Land, and may lawfully refuse the gesture of kneeling, because there is no law of this land (whereunto they are bound to be subject) that doth by commandment impose the same upon them. Answ. This is a consideration, which men skilful in the Law be sitter to deal withal then I: but because I see nothing of it in your writings of such weight, but which it seems an easy matter to satisfy, I have thought good not to let it pass. I say then, there be four bonds, which impose upon us the practice of kneeling when we receive. First an Act of Parliament. Secondly our Ecclesiastical Canons. Thirdly, his Majesty's Sovereign authority. Fourthly and lastly those rules of the word, which require, that in things indifferent, we study to seek and further both the common peace, and edification of the Church. In these points let us confer together a little.   

Of the bond of kneeling by Act of Parliament.  
FOr the first, that we be bound to kneel by Act of Parliament appeareth by the Statute of Eliz. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 31 whereby the second Common prayer book of Edw. 6. is established. In which book before the words of distribution there is this Rubrique, which in manner remaineth in force unto this day. Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion in both kinds himself, and after deliver it to the people in their hands Kneeling. All that can be excepted in this case, is about the construction of the words; now that construction you would have to be both doubtful in Grammatical syntax; and probable, for the liberty of other gestures in the intent of the book, and of them which compiled it. For the Grammatical construction you say, 
p Surveyed p. 169  It is altogether doubtful, whether kneeling be referred to the Minister delivering, or the people receiving. Answer. This is to stumble at a straw; reason itself takes away the danger of all doubting in that thing; for who will be so forsaken of wit and sense, as ever to decree, that the Rubric should require the Minister to kneel, whiles he distributes to the people standing, or sitting: therefore the word kneeling must needs at lest be referred to the Communicants. But than you proceed, saying; 
q Pag. 170.  Suppose the word [kneeling] be immediately to be joined to the word [people] yet the Rubric may be expounded as showing indulgence to kneelers, rather than commanding them for to kneel, in this manner [and after deliver it to the people in their hands [kneeling] that is, though he find● them [kneeling.] I answer. This interpretation crosseth all the Rubrics, directing the Congregation for gesture, in the Book of Common Prayer; which no otherwise prescribe or commend the same, but as here by a participle. I will present you with some examples.  
☞ A general confession to be said of the whole Congregation 
☞ This is in the beginning of morn. prayer  after the Minister kneeling.  
☞ Then shall be said the Creed by the Minister, and 
☞ Before the Creed of morn. prayer.  people standing.  
☞ After that these prayers following shall be said all devoutly 
☞ Next the Creed aforesaid.  kneeling.  
☞ Then the minister shall rehearse distinctly all the ten 
☞ In the beginning of the order for administration of the Communion  commandments, and the people after every commandment shall ask God mercy, for their transgression of the same kneeling.  
☞ Then shall this general confession be made in the name 
☞ In the aforesaid order for administration of the Communion.  of all those, that are minded to receive the Communion, all kneeling upon their knees.  
Verily while● I compare these places with the Rubric in controversy, and find no Rubric in the whole book that may admit of your sense, I am plainly resolved, that the words of this Rubric are a direction to kneel; direction I say according to the manner of the book; and you that please to expound it for toleration, might expound●s much of all the former examples. Besides the book taketh notice of no other gesture at all in the act of receiving, but of kneeling. Also kneeling is prescribed (in the order of the Communion) unto all the people which do communicate, as the gesture to be used for a good space before, and till the distribution take place; therefore by that order the Minister should find them all kneeling upon their knees; for than they are not (as you 
r Pag. 174.  confess) suddenly to altar their gesture. Lastly, i●tellectus currit cum praxi, a law is to be expounded according to the general practice; and albeit certain men have made a stir against kneeling from time to time, yet kneeling is known to have been the settled gesture of this Church well near as fare as any man alive can remember.  
But you have much to say about the intent of the book itself, and the establishers thereof, after many Sect. 32 words and much a do to evince some thing, all it seemeth may be referred to three principal considerations. First, Certain 
s P. 171, 17●.  presumptions that the State would not in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign directly and plainly command the people to kneel. Secondly Certain 
t P. 17●, &c.  differences betwixt the former, and the latter books of Common prayer, which may seem to induce us to believe, that the latter book made better and fit, than the former did not directly, and plainly command to kneel. Thirdly, cert●ine reasons drawn from the ●ooke itself, whose intendment may seem to be 
u P. 179, &c.  to draw the people more nearly to follow Christ's example: and 
w pag 185. &c.  secondly more lively, and Sacramentally to set forth the death of Christ. If I have not rightly divided your matter, you may do well to lay the fault upon yourself, that presents it to v● something confusedly. For your presumptions, how the State in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign was minded, I leave them to yourself, as being the birth of your own brain. For your differences let the Reader note one which I will name to the very purpose, ●one of all yours being able to counterpoise it. You say the latter book was more reform, and it is true 
x Pag. 173.  yet in the former book, there was a note of explination, which saith of kneeling, that it might be used or left, as every man's denotion served without blame; and besides in that book there was no mention of kneeling in the Rubique next before the distribution of the Elements; whereas in the latter book of Edw. 6. the note of explanation was taken away (mark that) and the word [kneeling] added to the Rubric next before the distribution of the elements. Now how unprofitably do you tell us of many other matters upon the By, when this in the midst of them all evidently confuteth your purpose. For the intendment of the book to follow Christ's example, and lively to set forth his sufferings I grant; but doth that infer that it doth not therefore command the people to kneel: if you persuade any man, that such consequence sound followeth, it must be one, that is not one of the wisest. In short all in a manner that you say is either impertinent, or but conjectural, or begged, or miserably inconsequent. But to end this strife, let me request Mr. Surveyer to surveyed the writers of his own side, and see whether they do not confess plainly, that you be bound to kneel at the Lords Supper by act of Parliament, the Authors of the Abridgement speak in this manner: 
y Abridg. p. 4●. So Manuscrip. ●●ap. 1. Arg. 4.  King Edward's Comm●n Prayer Book is the (only) law, whereby we are bound to use the gesture of kneeling, (that book being established by Parliament.) Again they 
* Abridg. p. 37.  speak in these words in another place, that kneeling in the act of receiving the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is enjoined (as a significant ceremony) appeareth plainly by the Book of Common Prayer, authorised by act of Parliament, Anno 5. Edw. ●. [to the which book we are (in this point) precisely bound by the statu●e, 1. Eliz. fol. 97 a.] where it is said, that this gesture is commanded (for signification.) By what Queries and inducements now can you reconcile yourself with the Authors of the Abridgement? And thus it appeareth that an act of Parliament binds us to kneel in the act of receiving the Lords Supper.   

Of the bond of kneeling by the Canon.  
NExt we be bound to kneel by order of an Ecclesiastical Sect. 33 Canon. But against this you except. First, that 
z Manuscrip. ch. 4 Surveyed 202.  the Canons have not the force of a law, being never confirmed by act of Parliament. Answer. It is enough that the Canon which ord●reth for kneeling be contrary to no statute enacted by Parliament: for it is but begged which you say, that the Book of Common Prayer confirmed by Statute leaves kneeling at liberty, as in the former section I have showed: and then being contrary to no law of God, or Statute-law of this land, why should you speak thereof (as you be wont to do) so unworthily and contemptuously? Was there ever any Church since the times of the Apostles, but Synods have been thought to have authority in Ecclesiastical orders? And what may you mean, when you 
a Manuscrip. ch. ●.  say: It cannot be denied, but the Church hath power to ●ake laws, and constitutions, to command or restr●ine the use of indifferent things? Can the Church make laws and constitutions, except certain chosen men meet together? and hath not every Minister inducted a voice in choosing a Clerk, by whom he consenteth to the constitutions, which the Synod maketh? If you object, that the elections, or constitutions be partially swayed, I have not to defend personal delinquencies, (as I am utterly unacquainted with them) but therefore it followeth not, that in a thing indifferent in nature and use those Synodall constitutions are disannulled, more than laws of the Parliament house in lawful things are disannulled in such case.  
Secondly, you except, that 
b Survey. 168.  though the Canon (forbidding the Minister to give the Communion to any but Sect. 34 such as kneel) do bind the Minister as being perhaps subject to the constitution of the convocation, because by his ch●sen Clerk he is supposed to give consent, yet what is this to the people, who by no procurators, or substitutes, gave any consent to those Canons? Answer. A strange exception! is not as much to be referred by a congregation to their Pastor in choosing a Clerk for them as is referred by all the Pastors to the Clerk chosen in making laws for them. Also is it true that the people are bound to no constitutions of order, made without their consent? give us one example of a Council or Synod (in any age of the Church of Christ) to make this good by? Certain it is, that the Apostles ordained certain things to be observed by the Churches, Acts 15. without their knowledge and consent, and th●n certified the same unto them by letters. Furthermore if this be true, that the people be bound to no order, but what themselves were parties (by their substitution at lest) in the decreeing of, then is all authority of Pastors and Governors in mutable and yet necessary circumstances in God's worship quite taken away; (which as it cannot be affirmed without many absurdities) so is plainly contrary to your own opinion and doctrine of Ecclesiastical power in indifferent things, partly confessed (as I have showed) to this Church, partly defended for your Presbyteries. Sect. 35  
Thirdly, you 
c B●●●sh. a●g. 10. Treat. of div. worsh p. 24, 25 26, 27.  except, that by observing of this gesture, you shall yield obedience and homage to spiritual Lords, whose authority is usurped. Answer. I bring this objection in here, because I know no manner of pretence for the likelihood of your saying; that by kneeling we do homage to the reverend Bishops, but only in respect of the Canon, either for the making or executing. But for the former, neither did they by their sole authority make the Canons, nor if they did, is therefore the authority of lawful constitutions to be despised. And for the latter, it is not only lawful, but needful, that for the preserving of uniformity and peace amongst us a lawful order should be performed, and executed. In both if the authorit●e of the Bishops were usurped as you say, yet the answer which you make for justification of your callings received from them, will serve much more to justi●e the use of a warrantable gesture commanded by them. Namely, that we must reverence the Prince's power, and the Church's power, which be of God, though it be committed unto, and exercised by men that by the law of God are not capable of it. Now (say you) the Prince, and the Church of England by act of Parliament in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign have committed that power unto the Bishops, which they do rule by; and therefore we aught not to look so much at the men, as regarding with reverence the law, established by the Prince, and the Church assembled out of all parts of the Realm in Parliament, whereby their authority cometh unto them. What now will M●. Bradsh. answer to Manuscrip. and what will Manuscrip. answer to itself in this case? and what will become of the homage, which Mr. Bradsh. speaks of? you might as w●ll say that to do any thing by Canon, at lest in mutable orders, and place, and other circumstances of divine worship, especially to use the gestures prescribed, as to stand at Cree●e, to kneel at prayer, &c. is unlawful, because to do the same is to do homage to the Bishops: and this is a notable ground, where upon to build a Brownist, or Separatist. Beside, I ask Mr. Bradshaw, whether that which he saith will not be applied against any Church-governors' in Europe, say in Geneva, or in your own framed Presbytery? Is there any Church, where t●● Governors have not limited certain orders for their Assemblies, and worshipping? undoubtedly your doctrine takes hold upon them, which teacheth in this manner. All mere Ecclesiastical and Religious actions enjoined by an Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority, must needs be signs of spiritual homage to the same authority. Wherefore in that sense wherein you will justify other Churches, and Governors, be not so unkind as to condemn only your own. Especially if you consider, that though for disputation's sake we put the case, of our Governors, as you would have it, for satisfying some men if it be possible, that they may kneel at Sacrament; yet that their authority and place, is not Antichristian as you traduce, but manifestly intending, and effecting by God's goodness in plentiful experience the building of the Church of Christ. But it is an hard task, that a Christian cannot satisfy his conscience, whether it be lawful to kneel at Sacrament, until he have tried, whether the place and authority of the Bishops be warrantable. I must tell you, that this is a proof not only tedious, and fare about the bush, but unprofitable and to no purpose, if you possibly could evince the truth thereof as you do desire. Now I suppose it remaineth true, that an Ecclesiastical Canon of an Ecclesiastical circumstance (lawful to be used howsoever) hath force to bind upon us obedience, and so that we be bound to kneel at Sacrament by the Canon And the rather is this to be yielded, by that which you 
e Protest. of the KING Supremacy. Sect 14.  say of the authority royal, that the King hath power to ratify, and give life and strength to Ecclesiastical Canons, and Constitutions. For behold this authority Royal hath ratified those Canons, and so this of kneeling in controversy.   

Of the bond of the King's sole, and Sovereign authority.  
THirdly, suppose there were neither Act of Parliament, Sect. 36 nor Canon for kneeling, yet in as much as it is known that it is the will and pleasure of his Majesty (as it was of his immediate predecessors of famous memory) that his people should keep one Uniform order in receiving the Sacrament, therefore the said Order aught to be observed, I shall need to say the less in this point, because it is not gainsaid, nay your own opinion (I hope) will satisfy yourselves: where you 
f Protest. sect. 8  profess, We hold that Kings by virtue of their Supremacy ha●s power, yea also that they stand bound by the law of God to make Laws Ecclesiastical such as shall tend to the good ordering of the Churches in their Dominions.  
And again, 
g Sect 27.  The Supreme Magistrate aught by his Authority, not only to prescribe Canons of uniformity, and consent, in Religion and worship of God, unto all the Congregations in his Dominions; but also to p●●●ish the offences of any of them, that they shall commit against the Laws of God, the Policy of the Realm, and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions enacted by his Authority. Wherefore (to say no more) kneeling at Sacrament b●ing lawful in itself, it followeth, that we aught to observe it, by the bond of his Majesty's commandment.   

Of the bond of kneeling taken from the necessity of seeking the peace and edification of the Church.  
LAstly we are bound to kneel at Sacrament, for the Sect. 37 conservation of the Church's peace, and edification of God's people. Verily there is nothing more needful in the society of the Church, than peace, and quietness, nothing which a good heart will study more to advance than it. 
h Psal. 133.  O how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to devil together in unity! It is like the sweet and fragrant ointment on the head of Aaron, like the heavenly and fruite-begeting dew, that falleth upon the mountains. 
i Psal. 122.  Peace should be sought within the Church's walls, and prosperity within her Palaces. For your brethren's and companions sakes, you should now say, peace be within the Church of England. Why do you not hearken to the rule of the Apostle: 
k 1 Cor. 11. 16.  If any man seem to be contentions, (in a variable circumstance, in a thing indifferent (we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. I would to God, you did seriously think what a sin it is to make needless strife in the Church, and what miserable effects it produceth; and how yourselves be the offenders in this case. But what (I pray) shall be said for leaving of your ministries, forsaking of your flocks, which God hath called you to be overseers of, casting off the Communion of God's people and ordinances, and all this, for refusing to kneel at Sacrament; that is, to use a gesture plainly indifferent in nature and use? Alas, this is not only to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; but behold it is a kind of contempt, and shameful reproach of the Church and worship of Christ. I hope every godly mind will be provoked accordingly to consider. Thus I have showed, how many ways we be tied to use the gesture of kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental elements in this Church of England. So much for your second exception.  
Thirdly, you 
l Manuscrip. ●h. 1. arg. 8.  say, we are expressly forbidden in Gods Sect. 38 word to go backward, I●. 1. 4. and straight charged not so much as to stand at a stay, but to be led for ward to perfection, Heb. 6. 1. and to propound to ourselves, and labour to imitate the purest and best examples, Phil. 3. 17. Answer. But shall we go backward in religion by kneeling at Sacrament? How prove you that? First, say you, we shall leave the manner of receiving, which we have long used. A worthy reason! then it was a going backward in religion for the ancient Church to kneel at prayer upon the Sundays on which they used to stand, for above (as the Disputer 
m Disp pag 86.  affirmeth) the space of a thousand years together: than it is a going backward in religion, for this Church to betake unto standing or sitting at Sacrament, because she shall leave that manner of receiving which hath been long used. But secondly, say you, standing or sitting is better than kneeling. If it be, it is only better as one mutable circumstance is better than another, and this betterness stands only in respect of concomitant circumstances: and so this reason takes away the lawful liberty of changing gestures and circumstances. Kneeling in prayer is the best gesture of prayer, and is it a going back● in religion therefore to sit or stand in prayer upon occasion? But why is kneeling the worst of all gestures in receiving? because the other be more agreeable to the example of Christ and his Apostles, and all the best reformed Churches; whereby appears that if kneeling be not simply unlawful, yet is worse than they. I answer, first, here is contradiction, for you yield, and suppose kneeling to be otherwise lawful, and yet you say it is a going back in religion. Secondly, your examples cannot satisfy; that of Christ and his Apostles is not certainly known; if it were, it proves sitting better than kneeling no more, than his ●itting to preach from time to time proves standing wor●e then sitting in the act of preaching, or that standing in that act is a going backward in religion. As for other reformed Churches, let them look at our example as well as we at theirs: their examples will be a poor satisfaction to a man's conscience merely as it is opposed to the example of our own Churches. If this be all the proof of your betterness, you have said as much as comes to nothing. Thirdly, compare those Scriptures, which you quote immediately, with the gesture of kneeling, that is, with an allowed, and natural gesture in God's worship, and you may well conceive, how impertinently you allege them, how unreasonably you abuse the●, which evidently speak of falling back from the substan●iall ●●uth and worship of God.  
And thus I have (by God's goodness) answered all your three considerations, or reasons, tending to prove, that if kneeling at Sacrament be indifferent in its nature and use, and so also urged in this Church, yet are not Christians bound therefore to use it. And so much for your general argument, tha● kn●●ling at Sacrament in our Church deprives men of their Christian liberty.   

Reasons, or Considerations, to show further that Kneeling at Sacrament enjoined in this Church, is not against Christian liberty.  
Unto all which I have said for defending the lawfulness of kneeling in this Church, notwithstanding Sect. 39 our Christian liberty▪ I will add besides a few considerations of weight, whereby the Christian Reader may be further confirmed in his opinion and persuasion of the said lawfulness.  
I● 1. Acts. 15. There was a Council held by the Apostles and Elders, wherein they decr●● that the Churches of the Gentiles should abstain from meat offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled. This abstinence they imposed upon the●, (though it was a burden) as a necessary thing, which to observe accordingly they should do well: vers. 28, 29. Behold here is obedience, and necessity of obedience required of the Churches in things indifferent, though it was burdensome unto them. Run through all your Scriptures, and reasons, which I have answered before, and see if almost every one of them might not be used against this Council held at jerusalem, as infringing the liberty of the Churches, as well as the same have been used against the present order of the Church of England.  
Secondly, I ask you whether you allow of none of Sect. 40 all the Canons, and constitutions, of Ecclesiastical orders, which have been decreed in the Counsels and mee●●gs of the Church from generation to generation. If you do not, you cannot deny, but you are contrary to all the Doctors, and learned men that ever the Church had since the Apostles: If you do, alas must a Canon of a lawful thing be only despised in that Church, to which you own greater sewice, then to any of them all? But what will you say to all the reformed Churches at this day, which have constitutions of Ecclesiastical orders, within themselves, whereunto their own people be bound, Geneva itself not excepted? is your liberty greater than the liberty of all other Christians in the world, or do you better understand the matter, and tenor of it then they? I request you to think upon this point, which will be of special use in this disputation of liberty.  
Thirdly, in looking upon your own liberty, you Sect. 41 should consider how you hinder and oppose the liberty of others. First, you destroy the liberty of the Magistrate in making laws, concerning the ordering of the Churches and God's worship by determination of murable circumstances. Secondly, you destroy the liberty of the Church, and the privilege of Church-government, by contesting against the same in things indifferent, upon pretence of your liberty. Thirdly, you destroy the liberty of all Christians, by affirming that it is not lawful for them ●o forgo their power, to the end they may satisfy others, for their own● advantage, and comfort, nay not for the furtherance of the Gospel: whereas the Apostle requires that we should not please ourselves in things which ar● indifferent, but ou● neighbours in that which is good for their edification, Rom. 15. 1, ●.  
Fourthly, I would you did seriously take knowledge, and call to mind the unspeakable comfort, which God Sect. 42 hath bestowed upon you, under the happy Reigns of his Majesty, that now is, and his next most noble Predecessors: and may further bestow by them and their● upon yourselves and your posterity for many generations that are yet to come. O that love, (which if it be true and great, is strong as death, hot as fire, and more powerful than all other incentives) might persuade you to yield of your liberty in the smallest matter, to such by whom (under the Lord) you possess liberty in the greatest; and how many things do aggravate your unkindness in this case. First, there is nothing urged upon you, but what it pleaseth the King himself to perform in his own person: if such a task had been imposed, which the imposers would not have moved with one of their fingers, verily, there might have been some cause gived of reluctation and complaint, but now th●● you be incited only to consociation in one lawful manner of serving God, why should you hold yourselves unworthily dealt withal? Secondly, that which for charity and edification, you may deprive yourselves of, why should you not also deprive yourselves of at the command of the Magistrate? have you liberty to order your carriage in indifferent things, for con●enting and satisfying of private persons, and have you none to show in such things your due subjection to the higher powers? Also have you Christian liberty for satisfying of yourselves, in things indifferent, (for so a man's will is free to do, or leave them undone, as they be considered of themselves) and shall the Magistrate have no satisfaction at all in respect of his pleasure in them? Sure this is too rigorous, and harsh behaviour, not without the guilt of hateful ingratitude. Thirdly, you look your children and servants should obey yourselves in things indifferent, not only concerning civil things, but concerning the ordering of God's worship within your own doors; for the times, places, and many other circumstances thereunto belonging: Is not the King Pater Patriae, et nutricius Eccle●iae, the father of his Country, and foster father of the Church? 
n Isa. 49. 13.  Is he not a sovereign Lord, and are not you his servants, and incomparably more bound than any domestic servant can be to his Master? What unkindness is this therefore in you not to yield so much power to the King in the circumstances of God's worship in public, as you assume, (and will assume) to yourselves in the circumstances of his worship in private? you may do well to think upon these things in good earnest.  
Fifthly, what good reason are you able to give, why the Sect. 43 Magistrate, and Church's order for kneeling in prayer, standing in confession of faith, standing, or sitting in the word, (which you allow, and you say the Communion book also 
o Disp. p. 2,  alloweth:) why their direction for the times and places of divine worship, and appointment by you allowed of sundry matters more, (which being necessary in their kind are variable in particular determination) should not deprive us of Christian liberty, as well as the direction of kneeling at the Lords Supper? In those things you never complain, that I can hear of, that your liberty is wronged; only (forsooth) it is abridged, and abused in this one only gesture! If you must needs keep your old wont, and tell us that kneeling at Sacrament is unlawful in other respects, I have to entreat you to consider of mine answer to those respects in such arguments, where you will point us unto them. In this place you must stick to the sole respect of Christian liberty, wherein if I saw not the ignorance of some of your side, the childish trifling of you the defendours also, I should not need so often to call upon you. I press you therefore to keep close to the present point, and in good sooth ask your consciences, if Christian liberty block not up the way against the Magistrate, and Churches ordering in some gestures, and circumstances of divine worship; why it, (I say again Christian liberty) should block up the way against this gesture, and circumstance in the Lord's Supper? Why should you not either give the Magistrate and Church power in all things of indifferent nature, and use, or else in all these utterly take it away?  
Sixthly, One thing further I will urge against you, which will trouble you in this Argument of your liberty, Sect. 44 if I be not deceived! It is this. It is undoubted, that if yourselves had authority to appoint Ecclesiastical Orders in this Church, or they which have, would be ruled by you, among other things, you would be sure to forbidden kneeling at Sacrament, and suffer Communicants only to sit or stand. judge in yourselves whether we should have as much reason to cry out against you for infringing our liberty, as now you have against this Church, for we are persuaded upon sure ground of God's word, that it were lawful for us to kneel in the act of receiving, if kneeling were left at every man's liberty, as you are persuaded it is lawful to sit or stand, if sitting & standing were left at every man's liberty. Therefore if your own practice in forbidding the gesture of kneeling would not hinder our liberty, neither doth the present practice of this Church, in forbidding (for Uniformity sake for a time) to use the gestures of sitting, or standing, hinder your liberty: It is the rule of nature, of the Law, and Prophets, and of Christ himself 
f Luke 6. 31.  as ye would that men should d●● unto you, do ye also to the● likewise.  
Seven and ●astly, you talk of Christian liberty, and for that you earnestly strive, now you know that Sect. 45 which is indifferent and we have liberty in, we may do sometimes, and sometimes leave undone. But behold you will not kneel in receiving the Sacrament, I say, you will not kneel at all. If you would have been content to kneel sometimes, so that you might also sit or stand at some other times, as it were, to show and use your liberty which you have, it would have something more concerned the pretence of Christian liberty; but to oppose altogether against the order of Governors (upon opinion that you have liberty to do otherwise) is a perverse abusing of liberty, and a contempt both of the Magistrate, and Church. Truly, if you kneeled for the most part, and upon occasion varied your gesture but sometime, I am assured you would found some indulgence in so doing. But never to kneel, not one time, and yet make a noise about your Christian liberty, is very stubborn learning, as if Christ had given us this liberty in indifferent things to be a sconce against the commandments of authority. So much of the Argument of Christian liberty, and of all the limbs and parts thereof, which the cause in hand requireth us to consider. Now the judgement be to the understanding Reader.    

Objections against kneeling drawn from Piety, answered. CHAP. 2.  
IN the next place we are to come to those Arguments, Sect. 1 whereby you do endeavour to show, that kneeling at Sacrament is against piety. Now these are of two sorts. First, such as are builded upon the manner of our Churches enjoining. Secondly, such as are builded upon the practice of the Papists, whereby this gesture hath been defiled. Of the former sort I have observed these three. First that kneeling is enjoined in this Church as necessary to salvation, that it is pressed more than God's Laws, &c. (for so this may be said here against Piety, as well as it was said before against liberty) but (setting a side personal faults, which are not material to the question, whether it be lawful for me to kneel or not) so much as is objected pertinent to this place, together with the answer, may be noted and borrowed from the former Chapter: so that no more need to be said of that matter. Secondly, kneeling is made in this Church a significant gesture, and therefore you say it is impious. Thirdly, kneeling is appointed for adoration of the elements of bread and wine, and so must needs be idolatrous. Now these two latter (by God's gracious help) must be severally examined.  

Of the Argument of Kneeling drawn from the signification which the Church putteth upon it.  
THis than is one of your exceptions against kneeling Sect. 2 at Sacrament, that it is appointed by the Church to be a significant gesture, namely to signify humility, and grateful acknowledgement of God's love in Christ: and surely in this exception I find a mind rather to disgrace the gesture, then to disprove it. The Church doth not teach, that any thing is signified thereby, but which would be signified, if she had altogether held her peace: she appoints no signification, but that which is according to the 
q Treat. of div. worsh. pag. 10. Natural gestures have such light, that any of ordinary conceit may in the sign see the thing signified.  nature of the gesture applied to holy worship, as it signifies in prayer and thanksgiving; that is, that it signifies the inward humility, thankfulness, and devotion of the Communicants. And was there ever special gesture in God's worship, which was not significant? was not the Publicans smiting upon the breast an evident sign of an afflicted and dejected spirit? But what should I speak of one singular gesture? is not all outward worshipping a sign of inward devotion? or else all outward worshipping is pharisaical; neither can we at any time judge men to be truly serving the Lord, except that outward expressions be tokens and testimonies of inward worship.  
But that I may faithfully unfold the difficulties of Sect. 3 this point, which are imagined, we must distinguish of signs. Some 
r Nata, data.  do naturally signify something; and some again be instituted to signify: now of instituted signs you hold, that they be unlawful in God's worship, if their signification be put upon them by man. For you take for granted, that kneeling at the Sacrament is a sign instituted by man, and not natural. But both these propositions be false, either that kneeling, in this part of God's worship, signifying according to the general nature of it, is not natural; or if the signification were instituted by man, that therefore it were presently to be held abominable. Now let us examine by the rule of truth the main argument which you use for justification of this; for to the other you speak not a word: I suppose you did not think it needful. But this the Reader must be admonished, that whereas your reason is set down against all the 
s The Replier can tell you that you call the gesture, abusively a Ceremony. Repl. gener. against Bp. M●rt. p. 48.  ceremonies together, it only now concerns me to try what force it hath particularly, against the gesture; and that I justly may do, ● because out of your general ground you assume against the gesture, expressly, as well as against any other ceremony which is opposed. Thus than you reason.  

t Abridg. ●. arg ag. Cerem.  All humane ceremonies appropriated to God's service, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty by their mystical signification are unlawful.  
But kneeling at the Sacrament is such a ceremony, so appropriated, so orde●ned.  
Ergo.  
The Mayor Proposition must be explained for the Sect. 4 truths sake, le●t you hide the lustre of it by the fogginess of terms, which do not seldom darken the same unto us. First, what mean you by ceremonies humane? mean you such as the wit of man disposeth upon the grounds of the written word, and of nature, or such as wherein [humane] stands in opposition to [divine.] In the latter sense, you must only mean it, if you will speak to any purpose, and in that sense it will avail you nothing at all, as it will appear. Secondly, what may be meant by [appropriated to God's service?] what? appropriated necessarily and absolutely, or only appropriated upon occasion? for herein there is distinction to be made. Thirdly, what mean you by teaching by mystical signification? It is needful you teach us the meaning, jest you entangle us in a mystery. Sure you mean no other thing by [teaching] but what is carried in the word [signifying.] Now signifying is taken, either from the natural aptness of things to signify such or such matters to the representation whereof they be applied: or else it is merely taken from the mind of man, that feigneth such a signification, where the analogy of the things themselves doth not afford it. And the benefit of this distinction, as also the truth, will better appear by and by. Now prove your proposition.   

Reasons of your Proposition.  

* This reason says nothing to the limitation of your proposition, (appropriated to God's service.)  REas. 1. 
u Abridg. ibid.  The second commandment forbids all images, and 
w Repl. gen. to Bp. Mort. p. 4●.  so all religious similitudes, which are Sect. 5 homogeneal unto them. Significant ceremonies are external acts of religious worship, invented of m●n, and so are of the nature of images, so that such significant ceremonies which are by institution, must of necessity belong unto the second commandment, and an accurate distinction of the commandment will easily show this. Answer. It is pity we want such an accurate distinction of the second commandeto this day: to how small purpose do you still tell us of the second commandment, when you childishly beg the sense and interpretation of it? Is it possible that any man's conscience should be resolved with such presumptions of your own? It is true the second commandment forbids some significant ceremonies, not because they are significant, (for there is no lawful ceremony which can be 
x Calvin requires to such in significatione, dignitatem, Instit. lib. 4 c 10. ●. 14.  without a signification) but because either the things themselves be ill applied to God's worship, or because the signification suits not to the worship in hand, or else is forced & improper. Now that kneeling is not forbidden in the Sacrament, I have proved in its own 
y Part. 2. ch 1.  place: how then can the signification be forbidden, when a more suitable and proper cannot be imagined. And because you pretend so much the second commandment, let me pose you a little in bodily fashions, and gestures; (for unto them according to my purpose I will confine myself:) only first I will name such mutable circumstance, as yourselves allow in God's worship, (yet I mean such as are special) and ask you, forasmuch as they are significant, for whereunto can they serve, if there be no sense or signification to be made of them?) whether they be forbidden by the second commandment? Next I pass to the gestures of other Sacraments, as Circumcision, Baptism, &c. which were you cannot tell what, yet which soever the people of God used of old, the same was significant of something in those ordinances. Was all signification of those gestures then forbidden by the second commandment? Thirdly, renting of the garment which hath been anciently used in humiliation, and prayer, 
z E●ra. 9 5. 2 King 22. 19 Jerem. 3●. 24  had a manifest signification; and was that forbidden by the second commandment? Fourthly, lifting up 
a Calu. instit. lib. 3. c. 20 sect. 5.  of the hands, 
b Treat. of div. worsh. p. 15.  kneeling upon the knees, are significant in worshipping; is their signification forbidden by the second commandment? Fifthly, uncovering of the head in the Sacrament is significant, as cannot be denied; and is the signification of that forbidden in the second commandment? Sixthly, standing and sitting at Sacrament you make significant many ways, as I shall particularly show by and by; and is the signification of these then forbidden by the second commandment? Alas, it cannot be, that the second commandment should forbidden the signification of gestures; that it should forbidden the signification of kneeling in all Sacraments, or in any part of God's worship, whereunto it may lawfully be applied. And in these circumstances and gestures whereof I have given instance, you must note, that the signification was and is instituted and of choice as much as in the gesture of the Lords Supper, yea and the things themselves are as humane ceremonies as the gesture of kneeling in the Sacrament, and as much appointed to God's service. But if you be put to your answer, I imagine you mean that significant kneeling is forbidden, because kneeling itself is not appointed of God, and then you reason confusedly; for in that respect kneeling itself should be forbidden, but not (if kneeling otherwise were lawful) the signification which is made of it. So, that objection (as I said even now) belongs to another place, where it is fully answered.  
Reas. 2. 
c This reason says nothing to the limitation of your proposition, Appropriated to God's service. Abridg. ibid.  Christ is the teacher of his Church, and appointer Sect. 6 of all means, whereby we should be taught of any holy duty. Answer. First Christ hath taught us the lawfulness of kneeling upon occasion in the Sacrament, as I have showed: and he hath taught us in his word, and in nature, that kneeling in God's worship signifies reverence, humility, devotion towards God: therefore Christ himself is the teacher of this significant gesture. Secondly, since you condemn such admonishing as signification of kneeling ministereth, why do you pled for sitting by that respect, because it 
d Disp. p. 22.  doth remember and admonish us of our datil? Thirdly, but in truth you do mistake, when you think our kneeling to be appointed to teach and admonish the soul, when it is rather (that I may so speak) taught of the soul, which makes upon the body, like a seal upon the wax, an impression answerable to itself: for the signification of kneeling is not of some thing inwardly to be done, but an expression of something inwardly, and now actually done, that inward worship, wherein the body is now serviceable to the soul, being thereby only signified and testified, as it is in prayer and thanksgiving. As for Mark. 7. 4. 7. which the Abridgement allegeth for proof of this reason, what is there for condemning of significant gestures in God's worship? verily if you can make an argument from thence against them, I must confess you can see light at a smaller hole than other wise men can: but still your signification condemned there is built upon the supposal that kneeling is an humane precept, (as humane is opposed to divine) and that is but to show, that you can make the proofs of one of your arguments serve indifferently to any other. But the Replier would not 
e Repl to Bp. Mort. general, ch. 3. lordship 33.  have us here to make a stand upon this text, because for substance it hath been handled before. I wonder then that he himself made such an unprofitable stand at it, as to first, and second, and third about it, and yet give no reply to the main and plain matter.  
Reas. 3. 
f Abridg. ibid. This reason says nothing to your limitations, (humane ordinances) & (appropriated to God's service.)  This gives unto ceremonies a chief part of Sect. 7 the nature of Sacraments, when they be appointed to teach by their signification. Answer. There be three significations of a Sacrament: first, signification of duty from us: secondly, signification of grace from God: thirdly, signification of assurance to us in both the former. Note also that the signification of du●ie in a Sacrament, first, flows from the signification of grace, as it were by reflection: and secondly, is both operative, and obligatory, that is, both stirs us up, and helps us to do our d●●ie, and also binds us to the universal, and continual performance of it. Now I think this Divinity will not be refelled; but then the lest of all these specifications cannot truly be applied unto the gesture of kneeling: who then would except against kneeling, because it is too Sacramental, that would thus consider? It is not bore signification, that makes a thing to participate of the Sacraments nature, but [such] a signification, as is Sacramental, both in [what is signified] and [how] for if you take away these necessary restraints, you may make many things too Sacramental, not only in several parts of God's worship, but also in civil matters. Verily if every thing must be condemned as too Sacramental, that hath bore, and simple signification, than we shall lay● ground of condemning we cannot tell how many lawful things, for not only gestures, kneeling, uncovering, renting of garments, &c. but many other things signifying something unto us (yea of choice) should have the nature of Sacraments too much given unto them. Nay I am belief, we shall put you upon a troublesome defence, for your Sacramental sitting you are bold to affirm, that sitting signifies your coheireship & many things more, nay that it is (pars signican● Dominic●) a very part of the sign in the Lord's Supper. Behold then sitting hath a chief part of the Sacrament given to it, even to signify, both (ide●●, and ●ode●●●ode) the same thing and after the same manner, that the Sacrament doth, which is more than any man (I think) did ever say of the signification of kneeling to this day. I do wish that you would please among your thoughts, to make room for this consideration, as it deserveth.  
And against this which I have said, the Replyer hath not written any thing 
g Repl gen to Bp Mort. chap. 3. sect. 5.  in that place, where yet he would seem to defend the Abridgement, for that which he saith is either not intended by himself against the gesture o● kneeling, but other ceremonies; or else it buildeth upon supposals, both that kneeling is an humane invention & also that it signifies (because it is granted to signify) as the Sacraments do; so I am content to let him 
b As I shall do almost in all he writeth in 3. ch as saying no thing against the gesture.  alone, because I would neither waste paper, nor time.  
But what shall be said to Mr. Bradshaw, who 
i Bradsh. arg. 9  says outright, that kneeling at the Sacrament, is a Sacrament, Sect. 8 and confirms it by this reason, because being an outward rite, it edifies the soul in Christ, and because we say with one consent, that kneeling edifieth. And by this reason I should think the reasoner, better at making a Syllogism in form, then to conclude demonstratively. Nay here he●d●th not so much as conclude probably. I cannot think what deep matter was in his mind, sure I am, the expression is shallow, and absurd, who would think that men durst commit such Arguments to the world's censure? What (Sir) is every outward rite which edifies a Sacrament? Then the word and prayer be Sacraments, than all matters of Order be Sacraments, than all things are Sacraments, for all things aught to be done unto edifying. 1. Cor. 14. 26. I pro●esse, if I did conceive Mr. Bradshaws meaning, whereby this absurdity might be avoided, I would gladly take such his meaning, and frame mine answer accordingly; but now I can do no less then reject such an Argument, the folly whereof is as soon confuted as reported by every man.  
Reas. 4. 
k This Reason says nothing to your limitation (appropriated to God's service) Abridg ibidem.  In the time of the Law, no significant Ceremonies Sect. 9 might be received in the worship of God, but such only as the Lord did institute. Answer. Dare you turn the word [Ceremonies] into [gestures?] You know God did ●●st●tu●e no gestures to any Sacraments of the Law expressly, and particularly. So by this reason significant kneeling is as much allowed, as any significant gesture was in the Sacraments of the Law. This is (me thinks) presently against ●ou.  
Reas. 5. 
l Abridg. ibid. This Reason says nothing to your limitation (appropriated to God's service.)  God hath abrogated his own significant Ceremonies, Sect. 10 much less may man use such now, as himself hath devised. Answer. It is a plain case, both that gestures are not of man's devising, and Christ did abrogate no gestures by his death, to bring new ones into their place. Therefore the gestures used in God's worship under the Law, do still remain in equal force under the Gospel: and this reason also is vehemently against you.  
Reas. 6. 
m Abridg. ibid. This reason says nothing to your limitation, (appropriated to God's service) truly your limitation was to poor purpose.  To allow significant Ceremonies, would open Sect. 11 a gap to all other Ceremonies, if they shall be judged to teach as fitly by their signification as the other. Answer. For kneeling I say proportion it and them equally, in all things, and infer from it to them and spare not. First, let them be as lawful in themselves as kneeling is in worship, and sacramental worship. Secondly, let their signification be as fitly raised from them, as kneeling (which all the world knoweth) in God's worship fitly signifies humility and reverence: but if you take these two points along with you, what gap will be opened to other ceremonies? verily no gap, but what aught not to be shut against them, and it is a most unreasonable saying, that a gap should be opened to oil, images, cream, spittle, &c. by a significant gesture, when from it you can only reason to mutable circumstances, which be necessary in their kind, but in particular determination be variable, and of them specially to other main positions of the body in God's worship.  
Thus I have touched the grounds of the Abridgement, Sect. 12 against the signification of kneeling, which being so very weak, (as it appears they are) I would have passed over, saying that some would think, there is greater force and strength in them, than indeed there is, and the rather, if the same should be left unanswered. Nay such a one as the Replier to Bp. Mort. would make a great noise about [six reasons guilefully passed over:] which yet in truth do not so much as look at the gesture of the Sacrament: but this is to be observed, that in laying down general grounds against ceremonies, which do not like you, kneeling is condemned among other for company, only, as here appeareth. And so much for your proposition.  
Now your assumption hath three things to be made Sect. 13 good. First, that kneeling is an humane ceremony, a● humane is opposed to divine. And this you take for an undoubted truth; but 
n Part. ●. ch. 1.  I have sufficiently showed that kneeling is a natural gesture which God himself hath in his word hallowed and sanctified to his worship. But how do you prove it an humane ordinance? 
o Abridg. p. 35.  Because the use which it hath in the Sacrament is derived from the well of man. I answer, if this be a good reason, then kneeling in prayer is an humane ordinance, because it is in the choice of man's will to use it or not, so standing at prayer is an humane ordinance for the same reason; for man is not absolutely bound to stand or to kneel, but hath liberty of choice, as there is occasion: you should consider, that gesture by God's ordinance, is necessary in its kind, (in which respect it is divine) and is derived of man's will only for particular accommodation thereof; so the variation is man's, (and yet but after a sort neither, because it is according to the rule of the word) but the gesture itself let it be which you will in itself is Gods own blessed ordinance. But you deliver your minds further in the negative, saying, that is an humane ordinance, that is neither derived from nature, nor from the civil custom of our Nation. I answer, that kneeling in God's worship is derived from nature, who can have the face to deny: and for a civil custom it is ridiculous to say, that derivation from an humane custom, makes a divine ordinance, that kneeling is not a divine ordinance, because it is not derived from a civil and humane custom: and yet in truth kneeling is according to the civil custom of our Country, as in your next point is to be tried.  
Secondly, you must make good, that kneeling is appropriated Sect. 14 to God's service, and that it is not used any where else, but in the Sacrament, and divine worship. And what do you say to make this good? not one word. What then should I say to confute your shadow? to fight against words without matter and substance? who knows not that kneeling is used in civil matters out of God's worship? yea upon occasion is used in eating and drinking out of his worship? if it were not so used, yet it may be civilly so used without sin against God, without offence unto the Church; and therefore the Church by ordaining of kneeling in the Sacrament doth not appropriate kneeling unto Sacramental eating. And for worshipping, what should I t●ll men how kneeling is used in civil honouring, in petitioning, in receiving gifts, in tendering service, and such like, which they know generally as well, or better than I?  
Thirdly, and lastly, you must make good, that kneeling Sect. 15 is ordained to teach by its mystical signification: and how do you make that good I pray? Namely, 
p Abridg. p. 37.  by the book of Common Prayer, authorised by act of Parliament, Anno 5. Edw. 6. (to the which book we are in this point, (as you say) precisely bound by the Statute, 1 Eliz) where is said, that this gesture is commanded for a signification of the humble, and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver. But what mystical signification doth the Common Prayer book speak of? here is no more signification than would have been concluded out of the nature of the gesture, if the Common Prayer book had said nothing. I for my part understand not any fault in the words of the book, which you allege: for is it no● lawful in the act of receiving humbly and thankfully to acknowledge the benefits of Christ? also is it not lawful to signify that acknowledgement by our gesture? if the heart acknowledge, may not the 
q What ●vill you say to the significant standing in prayer on Sundays of the ancient Church for many hundred years? what to their osculum p●●is?  body acknowledge likewise? suppose the Common Prayer book commanded kneeling in prayer, might it not so command upon this reason and end, that kneeling might be a signification of the Christians humble suing for grace, in petition, humble acknowledgement of grace in thanksgiving? and might no● as much offence have been taken at that commandment of kneeling in prayer for that reason, as of kneeling in receiving the Sacrament for a like reason? And here let the Reader be pleased to mind, that when you go about to condemn kneeling in the Sacrament because of this signification, you must not think to save yourselves by taking for granted, and supposing, that it is a worship invented of man, or a will-worship: but this your argument should be itself of force to condemn kneeling in the act of receiving, so as although it were lawful in other respects, yet that it would be damnable for the signification, or else it is no argument, else the gesture of kneeling is to be exploded, because it is otherwise evil, and not for the signification, which is given unto it.  
Finally, one thing I cannot but press upon you in Sect. 16 special manner. I have already touched it here and there, but now especially I would urge it in this place, and it is a remarkable thing, wherein I cannot be satisfied. The Replier (as he 
r R●p● parti● to Bp Mort. p. 42.  saith) dare affirm, that the honour done unto Christ, ●lying in the manger, represented his honour now done to him in heaven; which saying in itself for my part I dislike not; but how can it stand with your grounds, that a gesture in the worship of Christ, must not be made significant by man, when God himself makes it not in his word. I hope you will not fly off by the word [representation] for if your mind pass from the Antitype to the type, the type is said to be a representation; but if from the type, to the Antitype, it is said to be a signification. But this is neither all, no● the principal, which I would say. You condem●e kneeling at Sacrament because it is a significant gesture, (and yet it is but significant according to the nature of the gesture) well. And yet you press sitting or standing earnestly for the signification sake. This I will show particularly. First, (you 
s Treat. of di●. worsh. p. 25.  say) that sitting, or standing be signs and testimontes of spiritual things, inasmuch as they are ord●●nea for spiritual uses. Secondly, that si●ting ●oth signify 
t Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 36.  sacramentally ●n the Supper, yea is even a part of the sacramental sign. Thirdly, that sitting signifies rest, 
u Admonit. to the Parliam.  that is a full finishing of ceremonies, and a perfecting of the work of our redemption. Fourthly, that sitting 
w These have been complete arguments to prove the necessity of sitting or standing.  at Table with Christ signifies, that we are guests with him, and we be coheires with him of heaven. Fifthly, (w) that sitting and standing do signify that we receive the Lords Supper cheerfully, thankfully, and joyful, &c. Sixthly, that sitting signifies our communion with Christ, and his Church: 
x Surveyed p. 182  and these be followed by you with great confidence.  
But what further if standing be pressed, not only as a significant, but also as an operative gesture? (and note that it is standing, not sitting, which themselves stand upon, that Christ used) these be their own words: 
y Abridg p. 61.  The assurance of faith and cheerful thankfulness is stirred up by the gesture of standing. Also the same 
z Disp. p. 22.  doth remember us and direct our hearts to conceive, and induce us to think aright of our interest and relation to our future inheritance. Dare you condemn now kneeling because it is significant, and make, (I say make) that is, institute sitting and standing to be so many 
a It is presumption without Christ's example or warrant to appoint sacramental representations, Surveyed pag. 193. In your own glass you may see the foulness of these significations, if you will allow it, and look in it.  ways significant? nay and give an efficacy to standing, (though it be divers from the gesture which was used by our Saviour Christ,) and not only significancy? I conclude that you keep not due order to satisfy doubtful consciences; and shall ever persuade myself, that kneeling in God's worship may and must be significant, and to speak properly, though the kind of gesture may be of man in the present determination: yet the signification is natural, so that man doth not so much attribute a signification to kneeling at Sacrament, as declare and establish it.    

Objections drawn from the manner of the Churches enjoining, answered. CHAP. 3.  
NExt I proceed to your argument against kneeling at Sacrament drawn from the manner of the Churches enjoining, and that is, that the Church enioynes, the said kneeling to be done with religious respect unto the elements of bread and wine, and so commands idolatry to be committed. And this argument is put in form on this manner.  

b Abridg. p. 66. Manuscrip. ch. 1 arg. 4. Disp. arg. 7. Perth Assemb. p. 46, &c. The Minister's argument.  We are expressly forbidden to bow down or kneel before any creature with a religious respect unto it, without God's commandment.  
But in this kind of kneeling, we shall bow down and kneel before the creatures of bread and wine, and with religious respect unto them, without God's commandment.  
Therefore this kneeling is forbidden.  
For answer, I will distinguish. In worship there be two things to be considered: first, the motive, or occasion of worship; and secondly, the object: so religious respect is either to the creature as an occasion, or else to the creature as an object. That in this latter consideration religious respect is idolatrous, and a breach of the second commandment, it cannot be denied; but in the former consideration, that is as religious respect is only to the creature as occasion of worshipping; such respect is most warrantable by the word of God. Now according to this distinction I will answer to your proposition and assumption in order.  

Answer to the Proposition.  
FIrst to the Proposition I answer, as you will like to Sect. 1 expound your meaning of it. If you say, that we are forbidden to kneel before a creature, with religious respect unto it, as an occasion of worshipping only, there is nothing more false: for not to speak of such things as in worship are before us merely by 
the Angels & servants of the Lord fell ●efore the throne & worshipped God Reu. 7, 11. 15.  casual position, as heaven, ●arth, men, buildings, &c. which do not at all occasion our worshipping, the Scripture and reason do plainly allow, and commend such kneeling before a creature, which the said creature occasioneth. But first observe that things which may minister occasion of worshipping are of two sorts, First, some things are such, ●s, ●●ough upon occasion they may provoke us to worship God, yet themselves have no religious state in divine worship. Secondly, some aga●ne are consecrated things, and have religious use in the worship in hand more or less, and of both these sorts Gods holy word alloweth us to take occasion of worshipping.  
Examples of the former sort, I shall need to mention Sect. 3 but few. Hezechiah kneeled before a Letter, and worshipped God, and the Letter was occasion of his kneeling, or worshipping, 2 Kings 19 14. Yea at that time he had had a religious respect unto the Letter. Laban, Bathuel, and Rebecca were before Abraham's servant, when he worshipped the Lord, bowing himself to the earth, (Gen. 24. 51. 52.) they were occasion of his worshipping and bowing, yea in his worshipping he had a religious respect unto them. The convinced sinner falls down on his face, and worshippeth God before the Ministers that preach to his conscience. 1 Cor. 14 25. They are occasion of his worshipping, and in the act of worshipping he hath a religious respect to them. If a man walk through standing corn, and in contemplation of God's goodness therein kneel down and worship him before it, is not the creature occasion of his bowing and worshipping, and hath not he in the act a religious respect unto it? If a man eat his meat all alone, is it not lawful to kneel down before it, in consecrating thereof, and giving of thanks? If it be, is not his meat occasion of worshipping, and hath not he in that act a religious respect unto it? It's true, these things themselves are civil in the act of worshipping, yet the respect of the heart unto them in the said act is religious, and this is so evident it cannot be denied.  
Yet if this sort of things seem less to purpose, let us Sect. 4 pass to such things as are not only occasion of worship, but themselves have a religious and sacred use (as bread and wine in the Sacrament) in the time and act of performance, & thereby we shall see the lawfulness of kneeling before holy creatures, with religious respect unto them. First, this is true of worshipping in the time of the Law, which the people of God were commanded, and were wont to use before, and with religious respect of holy things. As first, I instance in the Temple, & Ark : David worshipped towards the holy Temple. Psal. 5. 7. 1●8. 2. Worship the Lord at his holy hill. Psal. 99 9 He are me when I lift up my hands towards thine ●oly Oracle. Psal. 28. 1. Worship the Lord at his footst●le. Psal. 99, 5. We will worship at his footstool, Psal. 132, 7. I●shua and the Elders of Is●aell fell to the earth upon their fa●es, before the Ark of the Lord Ios. 7. 6. Secondly, I instance in the Legal Sacrifices, before which the people of God worshipped, and with religious respect unto them. When the fire consumed the the burnt offering, all the people ●ell before it upon their faces. Levit. 9 24. 2 Chron. 7. 3. Where with shall I c●me ●before the Lord, and how myself, shall I come before him with b●rnt offerings. Micha. 6. 6. When they were offering solemn Sacrifices. Heze●●iah and the Congregation ●owed themselves down. 2. Chron. 29. 28. 29. 30. Thirdly, I instance in other signs, and tokens of God's presence, which occasioned the people of God to kneel down before them. All the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the Tabernacle door, and all the people worshipped every man in his Tent door. Exod. 33. 10. When all the children of Israel saw the gl●ry of the Lord come down upon the house, they bowed themselves, with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped. 2 Chron. 7. 3.  
Secondly, This is true in things sensible to the ear, Sect. which are of 
d I confess (saith ●. Martyr) that many do godlily kneel and adore at the hearing of these words, (et verbum car● factum est.)  like force in this case, though transient with them which be sensible to the eye. Aaron spoke the word of the Lord to the children of Israel, and when they heard it they bowed their heads and worshipped, Exod. 4. 30, 31. Moses called the Elders of Israel, and taught them the word of the Lord, than the people bowed the bead and worshipped, Exod. 12. ●1 27. jehaziel spoke the word of the Lord to jehoshaphat, and all judah, than jehoshaphat bowed his head, with his face to the ground, and all judah, and the inhabitants of jerusalem fell before the Lord worshipping, 2 Chron. 20. 14-18. When the Apostles heard that voice, [this is my beloved Sonn●, &c.] they fell upon their faces, Matth. 17. 6.  
Thirdly, this is true in visible holy things in time of Sect. 6 the Gospell● first, God in his word leaves the gesture of kneeling free to Baptism: this you cannot tell how to disprove: than it followeth, that the baptised kneeleth before a sacred creature, with religious respect unto it. Secondly, you say for the Lords Supper 
e Manuscrip. chap. ●.  thus: The Apostles might verily lawfully in receiving the Sacramental elements from the hands of the Son of God, have kneeled down before him, and adored him. (Is not here as much allowed against the force of your proposition, as we desire to be allowed for our kneeling at the Sacrament?) Thirdly, in prayer for a blessing upon the Sacraments, we worship, or kneel down before the bread and wine, and water, (all hallowed things) out of a religious respect unto them present: even unto such prayer the terms of your proposition will be also applied.  
Perhaps you would except against all these examples Sect. 7 and testimonies, as speaking of such worshipping or kneeling before creatures, as God himself commanded, which your proposition expressly excludeth. I answer, God never forbade, but by general rules in all ages allowed his people, to take occasion from his creatures to worship him, though the creatures were present, and in such manner kneeling upon occasion of, and before, the sacramental bread and wine, is allowed also. But if you speak of special commandment to kneel down before, and by occasion of the creatures, I deny there was any commandment in my former examples. As there was no commandment to kneel down before the Ark before David's time, yet it was as lawful before, as it was then there was no 
f There was express commandment to worship, o● bow down in offering first first-fruits, in De●t. 26. 10. But the presenting of the first fruits is not among my forme● examples.  commandment to kneel, or fall down before, and by occasion of the sacrifices and fire: there was no commandment to worship before, and by occasion of the cloudy pillar: there was no commandment to bow down to the ground, when the glory of the Lord, (that is, some excellency visible to the eye) came down into the Temple: there was no commandment for the people to worship, bow down, and fall down, when they heard the word of the Lord from Aaron, Moses, and jehaziel: likewise no command for the Apostles to fall down, when they heard a voice sounding unto them. There is no commandment for men of years in being baptised, to kneel down before, and by occasion of the water of Baptism. There was no commandment for the Apostles to kneel down before, and by occasion of the Sacramental elements received from Christ, and yet you say, they might have lawfully done it. Lastly, there is no commandment to kneel down in prayer for blessing the Sacramental elements, before, and by occasion of them. Wherefore kneeling in the act of receiving is as much commanded, as upon any of all these occasions exemplified. Therefore there is a lawful bowing down, or worshipping before creatures, with religious respect unto them without special commandment: yet you would make us believe that your proposition were generally true, yea it is urged as if there were none to it.  
But if your proposition be only meant of kneeling Sect. 8 before a creature with religious respect unto it, a● a● object of worship, than I grant it is a most impregnable truth. But then why do you deliver your proposition in general terms? Belike you feared, if you should have mentioned, [Respect of a thing as object, and as occasion] men would have had a present help to keep kneeling at Sacrament out of the reach of one of them. The truth is, let your meaning be what it will of the terms of your proposition, your proofs only condemn kneeling before a creature, when the creature is respected as the object of kneeling: let this be considered, First, you 
g Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4. So others also.  say : The second commandment forbids to bow down before any creature, to worship God in or by it; that is when the creature is obiectum in quo, or per quod; for else the second commandment forbids not bowing down before any creature, when it is only respected as a just occasion of worshipping God himself, wholly and immediately. Again, you illustrate onward in this manner: upon this ground (say you) Peter forbade Cornelius, and the Angel john to fall down before them being but creatures, and accordingly the learned teach, that it is idolatry to direct the worship of God, or any part thereof, to any peculiar place or creature, without the appointment of God. But it is plain, that Cornelius, and john, would have given worship divine to Peter and the Angel. And our learned writers do never condemn worshipping God before the creatures, but in case the worship be directed, (obiective, more or less, I say directed) unto them, as yourselves also set their judgement down. And I suppose to these expositions so clear and undoubted, none even of yourselves will say contrary.   

Of Popish Image-worship.  
LAstly, you say, if it be lawful to worship before the creatures with areligious respect unto them, than we Sect. 9 cannot charge the Papists justly for worshipping of Images: And by this illustration no other religious respect in worshipping is condemned, then is by your former proofs; for the Papists do respect their images in worshipping as objects not only relatively, but absolutely. But in this matter I find you willing to contend, let the Reader judge upon consideration how truly, and then to what purpose in your own behalf.  
The ancient Papists (say 
h Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. ch▪ 3. pag. 61.  you) (for of the latter you yield, as whose image-worship is express and gross) were more moderate in their opinion of image-worship, than our modern Pontificians are. Well, and how moderate was their opinion of image-worship? They 
i Ibidem.  held the worship before an image, to be abusively, and improperly called worship; approved 
k Pag. 63.  of no adoration to be given to the image at all either inhaesive, or adhaesive, made not 
l Perth. Assemb. pag. 50.  the image in worshipping to be either objectum quod, or objectum in quo, or per quod, but only objectum à quo significative. This was (you s●y) the opinion of ancient Papists concerning image-worship.  
I answer, that all this hinders not, but they directed worship unto their images in some manner; for was this obiectum à quo, object of sense only, and not of worship? I pray you, let their own sayings be looked over again. First Durand says, By the image we have a remembrance of the person which is worshipped as well in the presence of the image, as if he were really present. Where he shows that properly the person of the prototype is worshipped, but behold it is in the very face of the image, the presence thereof answering for the presence of the said person signified. Bonaventure (relating (as you say) Durand, and the more ancient Papists opinion) saith, Cruce● Christ's non esse adorandam nisi in quantum in ●a adoratur Christus. Alexander Hal. saith also thus: Maior h●●or qui exhibetur crucirefert ad rom significatam, cuius est sig●um, non ad ips●● cruxes in so. Is not here divine worship given to the image in some sense manifestly? It is true, the same is performed unto the image, not for itself, but for the prototype, and therefore it is at length thereunto carried. But what then? Have you the forehead to say, that the worship according to this learning is not at all carried, first to the image, which being visible, and present, supplies the place of the prototype, and so partly by representation, partly by conveyance is an object in worshipping. Can you deny the evidence of this thing? If you can expound these speeches of those auncienter Papists so, as to acquit them from allowing any worship of the image directly, or indirectly, mediately, or immediately, permanently, or transiently; verily you have a singular gift, let us not strive about words, whatsoever special things they meant by their distinctions, this is certain, they meant to allow the directing of worship to the images some way, as appeareth. Let the Angelical Doctor, (who was coetanean with Bonaventure, &c.) help us with his testimony, who speaking of the institution of images in the Church, affirmeth expressly of the image of Christ, 
m Secund. 2. qu. 94. artic. 2.  institui in Ecclesiâ, ut ei cultus latriae exhibeatur, cuiratione divinitatis latria debetur: that it was instituted in the Church, that high divine worship should be given to it, being due by reason of the divinity of Christ, whose image it is. If this will not satisfy you, it is in vain to spend time in trifling. Furthermore except you be content to acknowledge that those Papists did give worship unto their images, how can their worship be condemned as idolatrous, as that which (according to your proposition) was forbidden to Cornelius, and john, and in like manner forbidden in the second commandment.  
But what if those auncienter Papists respected their images Sect. 10 in worship, no otherwise then as occasions thereof, what followeth of that? what help and advantage riseth to you thereby? Perhaps you will ask us, if we allow of worshipping of creatures with a religious respect unto them in that sense, how we can condemn their worshipping of images Very well, for though we may not condemn taking occasion to worship God ofrm his ordinances, yet we condemn and abhor their setting up and ordaining their images to be such an occasion, which God never hallowed or allowed to such purpose. But this is more than we need to answer: I beseech you look upon reason, and be satisfied. Finally, what if none of us understand the true meaning of those elder Schoolmen Than the vanity is yours to object against us, that which you know not: All is one to us, whatsoever was their opinion. If Durandus therefore, and his fellows had any mystical, or metaphysical conceit, let them, whom it concerns enjoy their own conceits, in divining what it might mean. For our parts we have nothing to do uviht it, if you did not force us to superfluous pains taking. Now I pass to your Assumption.   

Answer to the Assumption.  
THe Assumption is this [but in kneeling at Sacrament, Sect. 11 we shall bow down before the creatures of bread & wine, with religious respect unto them, without God's commandment.] for answer whereunto: First it is to be observed, that this last clause is only begged; for this kneeling is grounded upon the commandment of God, as I have showed in 
n part 1. & ●▪ chap. 1.  other parts of this Treatise. All the main matter lies in the religious respect, which kneeling hath to the Sacramental Elements, and that respect is according to my former distinction, either to them as an occasion of worshipping; or else as the object. Now I expect proof of your Assumption, that in kneeling at Sacrament we direct some worship divine unto the outward elements: and I found you declaring this. First by certain reasons without respect of the Church's Injunction. And secondly, and principally, by the Church's Injunction, which requireth (you say) the said kneeling to be directed unto the elements. Of these in order in two Paragraphs, for the more effectual and plain discovery of the truth.   

Paragraph. 1. Kneeling at Sacrament is not Idolatrous in itself.  
FIrst than I deny, that kneeling must needs be Idolatrous, Sect. 12 as it is absolutely considered; you say it is, because it cannot be merely occasioned from the elements, without some divine worship given unto them. Therefore let your reasons be weighed being these which follow. Reas. If the bread (says the 
o Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 64.  Replyer) be an object of sense, and no way of adoration, only moving us to adore, than the word moveth as well. I answer, if you speak of the gestures of the word, and Sacrament absolutely (without respect of the difference, which this Church useth at this time, whereof I shall speak with Gods help by and by) I grant, that as the Sacrament doth occasion us to adore, so the word might also: neither do we say, that kneeling at Sacrament is necessary in itself, but only lawful upon occasion, as upon other-like occasion it may be omitted. I will say as much of the word, whereat it is lawful to kneel, as well as at the Lords Supper; if we compare the ordinances themselves together, without respect of scandals, and customs of times. Further if we take occasion to kneel at one ordinance, and not equally at another, that infer not, that therefore we kneel at that one unlawfully. Many things may procure, and effect a difference among the people of God, though there be no commandment. I ask you, why you kneel in prayer; Doth the respect of God's presence, and the nature of the Ordinance move you If it do, why doth not the same presence, and ordinance move you as well in table-blessing? Why do we ever sit bore at the Sacrament, and not ever at the word preached? If the Sacrament move us to be uncovered, why doth not the word Preached move as well? In aword, why have God's people been wont to use gestures differing from othrrs, and from themselves too, both in the same ordinance, and in ordinances of like nature, herein never keeping one 
p See part 1. ch. 1. &c.  unchangeable course? You might object against them, that if they were moved at one time to use such, or such a gesture, in such or such parts of God's worship, why should they not be as well moved in some otherlike part, or in the same all ways, and let this last point be minded: for out of doubt, if a Christian may lawfully differ from himself in the same part of God's worship, concerning his gesture, much more may the gesture which is used in one part differ from that, which is used in another. Reas. 2. 
q Repl. pag praedict.  To bow down before the Sacrament in singular Sect. 13 manner, being no object of adoration, but an help unto it, (you must mean by help motive or occasion) is the same thing, that many Papists say they do, in kneeling before images. Ans. First, it is false, that they say so in our sense, that they used their images for helps, that is, for occasions, or motives of worshipping God only. They be much beholden to you for pleading their cause about image-worship, but as they would give you no thanks if they were a live, so I am assured, you will obtain little of the wiser sort of your own side, when they have considered, that you are a pleader for them, whose Idolatry cannot be excused. You bid us show a difference betwixt their kneeling before images, and ours at the Sacrament. The difference is at hand (Sir): they applied unto their Images directly, or indirectly divine worship, whereas we give none at all, more, nor less, properly, nor impro. perly, to the bread and wine. But the Abridgement objecteth Bellarmine against us, and what saith Bellarmine for sooth 
r Abridg. 66.  from the Protestants opinion of the lawfulness of kneeling at Sacrament, Bellarmine inferreth, that then it is not Idolatry to kneel before Images. Answer. That opinion from which Bellarmine inferreth must be considered: for is it the same opinion, that we hold in this Church, or is it not? If it be 
s As you seem to understand P. Martyr Rep. part. to Bi. Morton pa. 60. from whose words Bell▪ inferreth in the place quoted the Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 18.  not, what have we to do with his inferring from such an opinion of kneeling which we disclaim. But whereas we make the elements an occasion, and no object of kneeling, if Bellarmine hence infer, that it is lawful to kneel before images, what is that also to us? For as his authority is none with us, so the force of his inference is none at all, yea it is plainly ridiculous, & much more, considering his own opinion of image-worship, which is more gross than the auncienter Schoolmen allowed, but in urging against us Beauties inferring, why did the Authors of the Abridgement forget, what they cite out of Bellarmine in another 
t Abridg. p. 31. citing Bellar. de Eucharist lib. 4. cap. 29. art. 2.  place: Bellarmine (say they) having said, that we whom he calls Calvinists and Sacramentaries do not (as they and the Lutherans do) adore the Sacrament, neither (saith he) should any man marvel at that, seeing they die not believe, that Christ is really present, but that the bread is indeed nothing else, but bread that came out of the Ove●. Thus you may see how shrewdly (as the Replyer 
u Repl. partic. pag 64.  speaketh) Bellarmine concludeth for you, nay it is so fare, that he or any other can infer his image-worship, from our kneeling at Sacrament, that they cannot so much ●s conclude thereof the lawfulness of their ancient image-worship, yea though images were Gods ordinances, as I have showed before.  
here I cannot pass how the Replyer, abuseth that learned Bishop, against whom he dealeth most shamefully. Sect. 14 Doct Morton (saith 
w Repl partic. to Bp Morton pag 61. 62.  he) teacheth to an hair as much as Durandus his words carry. Indeed if you be the interpreter of both their words much may be pr●tended, let us compare them. Christ is worshipped (saith Durand) in the presence of the Image, as if he were really present. Whereby is plain he meaneth, that the presence of the Image answereth in the worship, for the real presence of Christ. What doth Doct Morton say now? Forsooth that these praepositions [by and in the Sacrament] are not simply to be excluded, as appeareth in Sect. 24. And if they be admitted in any sense, then in that which Durandus expresseth, when he saith, In the presence of the Image or Sacrament. By no means, Sir, the Bishop alloweth those words, We may kneel in presence of the Sacrament, but not in Durandus his sense, who teacheth, if you consider his meaning, that Christ is to be worshipped in the face or presence of an image, so as that presence answereth for the real presence of Christ himself. Observe then the difference [in presence] with the Bishop is no more than it is with you, when ye kneel down before the elements in prayer for a blessing: (I wish the Reader to see Sect 24. where he shall be satisfied in the Bishop's meaning) [in presence] with Durand is as when worship is performed to Christ mediately in the face of the image, as if his own face, and person, were really present: wherefore the Replier is a perverter of words, that he may seem to make a kind of replication.  
Secondly, but suppose it be true, that ancient Papists Sect. 15 gave no worship divine to their images at all, that they said no more, than we do of kneeling at the Lords Supper, (if their images were but God's ordinances, as the Sacrament is) we maintain, that they said well. You think still to dash us out of countenance with the name of the Papists. We confess we be ashamed of their company in that which is properly called Popery, but we should never be ashamed of the truth, though the Papists profess it. Now it is no Popery to take occasion from God's creatures to worship him, especially from such as are the matter of public worship by himself instituted: how idle is it then for pleasing of your own side, to be often saying, the Papists will say as much. Is not the Sacrament to be used for remembrance of Christ's sufferings, because the Popish Crucifix is used for a remembrance of them?  
Reas. 3. The Replier chargeth against Bishop Mort. Sect. 16 that he holds worshipping of the elements of bread and wine, as objects of worship, because (saith 
u Repl. partic. p. 65.  he) the adoration which he maintains is relative from the sign to Christ. Answer. You (I doubt wilfully) do misinterpret his words; for when he saith, that the relation is made from the sign, he means nothing less, than that adoration is made upon, or to the sign, but the kneeler adores the Lord in reference unto the sign, as an occasion, or motive of his adoring: and this himself teacheth so plainly, as words can be used, if yet words can suffice to satisfy you. Sect. 28. he says, A man in kneeling at Sacrament, upon sight thereof, should abstract his thoughts from the sensible object, and lift up his eyes and heart to heaven, adoring God and Christ. Again, Sect▪ 31. We use kneeling, (saith he) tanquam obiectum à quo, that upon sight of this Sacrament, as a visible word, (even as at the hearing of the audible words of God's book) our hearts may be moved to adore God. But what need I name any other place, than Sect. 35. (which the Replier builds his accusation upon) where (professedly setting down his mind in this thing, he says, that the sign doth but move us to that [sursum corda to lift up our minds to heaven in our adoring. Therefore you have wrested his words, that you might seem to partial Readers to say something, and that was not well done. And so much answer may suffice to these trifling objections, and cavillations, which you use to show, that kneeling at Sacrament is not used, cannot be, before the bread, and wine, without being directed unto them. Now I will subjoin some considerations, such as they are, to manifest the contrary.   

Considerations tending to show, that kneeling may be used upon occasion of the bread, and wine, without committing idolatry with them.  
AS by the weakness of your exceptions I am more Sect. 17 confirmed in the lawfulness of kneeling before the Sacramental elements, so long as we worship God immediately, and not them either absolutely, or relatively: So (besides also what I have said of the lawfulness of kneeling by occasion of creatures, in general, before 
y Sect. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.  in answer to your proposition) I am yet still more confirmed therein, by the consideration of these things following.  
First, if kneeling (ipso facto) is and cannot but be used to the bread and wine, than the Sacrament would be an idol to us, and to so many, as ever did receive it in the 
Will they not 〈…〉 of this?  gesture of kneeling, and so could be no Sacrament in its virtue, and comfort to such Communicants, no seal of the righteousness which is by faith, no means possible of growing in the grace of our Lord jesus Christ. But I doubt not, it hath been, and is better, both with our forefathers, and also with us, else not only the case were lamentable for us, but it would follow our Church's Sacrament is no Sacrament of Christ.  
Secondly, it is very worthy to be observed, that whereas Sect. 18 your imputation of idolatry is against our kneeling in the very act of eating, we cannot so much as worship before the bread at that time. Nay, how absurd, and ridiculous is it to put upon us the worshipping of the bread, when we be breaking, and tearing it with our teeth? If the question were of kneeling in the act of holding up the bread before us, your imputation were much more likely to fasten upon us; but when the question is of the act of eating, your charge of idolatry hath not so much as probability of truth. And it is a clear case, that the controversy betwixt us, is about the gesture, which is to be used in the act of receiving, and not in the act of beholding the bread, and wine. Perhaps, if you had considered of this matter, you would not have put confidence in this argument.  
Thirdly, if you say that kneeling before the consecrated Sect. 19 creatures, before they be received or eaten, is the idolatry which you mean, than it is not lawful for a man to kneel down, (though he be alone) to worship God, before the creatures of a civil table, for 
z See Bp. Mort. sect 42. in the chapped. of kneeling. See also the Repl. idle answer.  unto that practice your exception will equally be extended.  
Fourthly, if it be idolatry to kneel before the bread Sect. 20 and wine, because there is a religious respect unto them, than is the like idolatry committed in kneeling before the Minister, who is concurrent in occasioning the Sacramental worship, as he is a necessary man in the Sacramental employment. Indeed, he is no occasion either immediate or direct, yet so fare as he is an occasion, idolatry shall as well be committed with him, that is, remotely, and indirectly. And like as peradventure you would not allow kneeling before the Preacher, (of purpose and choice) of whom we receive the word, jest being used before a creature with religious respect thereunto, you should adore him in stead of Christ: so for that respect must kneeling be alike idolatrous, which is used before the Minister of whom we do receive the Sacrament. I think you can put no difference. So by this Logic it followeth, that the best Minister, as well as the bread and wine, is a very idol to the congregation of kneeling Communicants.  
Fifthly, will not you allow the heart in the Sacrament Sect. 21 while, to look upon God immediately? will not you expressly serve and worship him in your heart, (who is the object of all religion) any part of that time? will you allow no ejaculation of prayer? no bowing the heart in thankful acknowledgement? Verily, if you will not, worthy you are, whose (I will say) impiety all men should trample under foot. And yet I deem no such thing of any of you. I persuade myself you do, in your own practice allow of these things. Well, yet look what idolatry is committed by the body in worshipping, (as you say kneeling of the body is idolatrous, let the conceit of the soul be what it will) the same shall be much more committed by the soul in worshipping, (let the carriage of the body be sitting, or standing) especially when the body can be said to worship no more, than the stones of the pavement, or the picture of a man kneeling, but because it is acted by the soul, which understandeth, and willeth, and so is capable of the attribution of worshipping.  
Sixthly, what say you to the uncovering of the head Sect. 22 in the act of Sacramental eating and drinking, which is a distinct, and special fashion of worshipping as well as kneeling? Hereunto the Replier speaketh, 
a Repl. partic. to B. Mort. p. 70  Every man of reason may consider, whether Cornelius his falling dow●e before Peter, or john's falling down before the Angel, were no more than uncovering of the head before them. I grant their falling down was more, in degree of adoration, but still uncovering of the head is a fashion of adoration in some degree notwithstanding. But (saith he) should Cornelius and john have been reproved for uncovering their heads, as they were for falling down? I answer, uncovering of the head is to be considered whether religious, or civil; if they had uncovered their heads with religious respect unto them, who doubts but they had been worthy of reproof, as well as for kneeling down with religious respect unto them? But (saith he) men uncover their heads to others in civil reverence? I answer, first, so they may kneel to men in civil reverence, whereof the Scripture hath many commendable examples : Gen. 44. 14. Ruth. 2 10. 1 Sam. 20. 41. especially unto Princes: 2 Sam 14. 4. 18. 28. 19 18. and more specially to Prophets, (to whom such outward falling down resembled that of Cornelius before an Apostle:) 1 King. 18. 7. 2 King. 1. 13. 14. 27. Secondly, uncovering of the head, used for religious respect, is no fashion of civil reverence. And it is not to be doubted, but thereby idolatry may be committed as well as 
b 1 King▪ 19 18 Hos. 13. 2.  as by kissing, by 
c Ezech. 8. 14.  weeping and any other bodily gesture, if it be used either to an Idol, or else to Gods own creature with intention of divine worship. So that as all special gestures, even the chiefest in civil use are no more than civil: so all special gestures, even the meanest, in religious use can be no less, then religious.  
But let us hear the Replyers conclusion. The truth is (saith he) the uncovering of the head is a general, or common Sect. 23 gesture of reverence to be used with discretion in all religious exercises, but kneeling is proper unto adoration. Answer. And the truth is, this is a sleeveless answer. For first, that speech [with discretion in all re●●ious exercises] is to no purpose, for as much as all gestures in themselves may be used with discretion in all religious exercises, as I have showed, pag. 1. chapter first. Even kneeling in itself may be used with discretion in●all religious exercises, lifting up of the yes, may be used with discretion in all Religious exercises, yet are the gestures of adoration. Nay, if you speak of gestures not as they may be used, but as they be used presently by yourselves, behold it is false, that uncovering of the head is used with discretion in all religious exercises, you are ever uncovered in the act of receiving, out of a religious respect, You are never uncovered in the act of hearing the word preached (I think) out of a religious respect. You are ever uncovered in singing of Psalms, out of a religious respect. Where is your discretion now, to cover and uncover your heads in holy ordinances, when you use to do either, in the same manner unchangeably, yea more unchangeably, then to kneel? But suppose you used the liberty of being covered, & uncovered according to your discretion, yet so long as purposed, and religious uncovering is a fashion of worshipping, it is idle to affirm, that the respect of your liberty takes away the respect of worshipping in being uncovered, for that it doth not in kneeling in prayer: So much of your speech [with discretion in all religious exercises.] And that other part of your speech [uncovering of the head is a general or common gesture] hath the like answer, in as much as kneeling, and other gestures of adoration are as general, and common gestures in religious exercises, as uncovering of the head with religious respect is.  
Secondly, All the force of your answer standeth in Sect. 24 your distinction, of reverence, and of adoration. Kneeling (you say) is a gesture of adoration, uncovering of the head of 
d It is not civil reverence we give in the act of receiving the sacred elements the motive of our reverence is a matter of religion, it is therefore religious worship. Perth. Assem. p. 46. then the Repliers distinction is no distinction. Zanchy says, that anciently they were wont at the naming of jesus to uncover their heads in token of reverence and adoration: in Philip. cap. 2. 10. fol. 123. then still the Repliers distinction is no distinction.  reverence only. Answer. First I must tell you, that this is but begged of you. Did you not consider, that this is the question in hand? You should therefore have given us some little proof of your distinction more than the truth is. Dare you loose your life in opposition of one gesture, and can satisfy no better in another? Indeed (Sir) we cannot be so answered. But let me pose you, that say uncovering of the head in religious use is not worshipping, but reverencing: do you use it in reverence of God, or of the creatures? If you say, you use it to God, me thinks there should be no great controversy, of its worshipping. For do not we put off our hate to men in civil worshipping? Is it not a kind of worship, as well as bowing of the knee unto them? Is not also a worshipping in the act of prayer? Is it not worshipping in Papists, when they use to uncover their heads to their images? I see not, what you can answer. But if you say, you uncover your heads to the creatures of bread and wine; then I pray, how doth not the second commandment forbidden you so to do before a creature, and with religious respect unto it without God's commandment? How can you save that carriage from the stain of idolatry, according to the proposition of your own syllogism? And indeed the veneration of the elements stands not in special gestures directed 
e Yet out of such gestures directed to God reverence ariseth to the elements, as afterward I shall show, but this is no divine worship.  unto them, but only in comely, and decent using of them without lightness, slubbering, or incivility. So it being most certain, that uncovering of the head is used in the Sacrament with immediate respect to God, and so is a fashion of worshipping, if it be no idolatrous worshipping, then kneeling is not idolatrous. Surely, if that be lawful in God's service before the creatures of bread and wine, and with religious respect unto them, (that is, as the occasion of it) in that respect wherein it is lawful, kneeling cannot be condemned. Now I wish the Replier to help us with better answer, if he have any, and not (forsooth) to put us off with his own idle dreams.  
Seven, the gestures of sitting and standing be used Sect. 25 before the creatures of bread and wine, and with religious respect unto them, without God's commandment, And I have proved before 
f P●● 1. 2. c. 1. se. 8.  out of your own confession, that those gestures be gestures of worship, and be religiously used by you: therefore how shall not these come under the same condemnation, as doth kneeling? It is true, kneeling is a more full expression of outward adoring: but what if it be? that yields sitting to be idolatry, but kneeling only is in an higher degree such.  
Eighthly, what shall make kneeling idolatry in receiving Sect. 26 the Supper? shall the motion of kneeling, rising from beholding the elements? shall the hope of finding comfort, rather for worshipping before the elements then at another occasion? shall the kneeling before the creatures without voice? nay, none of these can make it idolatry, as I have showed before by many testimonies and examples; rather I would say for the creatures sake, bonum est adorare hîc, it is good to worship here, in good sooth, consider the elements but an occasion of kneeling, and it is beyond my skill to say, wherein lies the idolatry.  
Ninthly, when you pray for a blessing upon the bread, Sect. 27 and wine, you worship God relatively to the bread and wine, you kneel before them with religious respect unto them, without God's commandment: nay Gods commandment (according to your grounds) requiring to follow Christ's example, who kneeled not (you say) in blessing the bread, and wine, is rather against you.  
Tenthly, if the Apostles might lawfully kneel, (as Sect. 28 the Author of the Manuscript, (whom I have cited before) affirmeth) in receiving the elements from the hand of Chr●st, why may not we kneel in receiving likewise? especially if we mark, first, that Christ did not give the Sacrament as a Lord, but as a Minister. So the Replier plainly 
g Repl. partic. to Bp. Moat. p. 42.  affirmeth. He sustetned (saith he) the person of a Lord in instituting of this Sacrament, and in the authority of a Lord he saith, Do this in remembrance of me; but he sustained the person of a Minister in administering of it. Now show if you can, why you may lawfully receive it at the hands of Christ ministering, and not now of another man, at the worst the Minister is Christ's Deputy in that holy business. Secondly, that if the Apostles had received the Sacrament at the hands of Christ, kneeling; posterity might have imitated their example; for so the Scripture, (as you will say) evidently commandeth. Remember yourselves now. That which they might have done, (and so we have imitated them therein) we may as lawfully do, though they actually did it not, because, that which made it lawful to them, and imitable of us, implies reason of common interest. Thirdly, that the Apostles should have worshipped the bread and wine in the bodily presence of Christ, as much as we do in the corporal absence of him: and all the points of your proposition would have equally light upon them. Nay they were in danger, (being at that time so rude and ignorant of spiritual mysteries, even as we are) to worship (at lest some of the weaker of them) the very bread, or Christ in and by the bread, who spoke of it in this manner at that very present, This is my body; which I only note to show that if it were lawful for the Apostles to kneel to Christ before the creatures with religious respect unto them, than it cannot be in itself idolatry unto us.  
Eleventhly, what shall I say? What need I say? in Sect. 19 this place, but to profess, and likewise avow, (and I make no doubt, I may likewise profess in the name of all godly people in the Land) that we intent only to worship the Lord our God, when we kneel in the act of receiving, we worship not the bread and wine, we intent not our adoring or kneeling unto them: give us leave to avow our sincericie in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in God's worship. Adoration may be lawfully used to him before his creatures; (specially in public ordinances of worship) if your mind be rightly applied; namely, not 
h Pet. Mort. in def. ad Garden de Euchartst. part. 1 ob. 1. fol. 5.  applied unto the outward elements, but merely to God alone by 
i So saith Dr. Abbot, as he is cited by the Replier, Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag. 56.  intendment of our affection. The Lord of heaven ever keep our hearts close unto him, that we never give his glory and worship unto any of his creatures. As Moses said to the Israelites, Deut. 4. 19 Take heed jest ye lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the Sun, and the Moon, and the Stars, even all the host of heaven, ye should fall to worship them and serve them. So say I to my Countrymen: Take heed jest you lift up your eyes to the heavenly creatures of bread and wine, and when ye see bread and the wine, ye should fall to worship them and serve them. Assure yourselves, that such worshipping of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, of the bread and wine, is a vile idolatry, and hateful abomination in the sight of God, for which his fury is in danger to break out against a land without compassion, till it be laid desolate. See Ezech. 8. vers. 16, 17, 18.   

A Direction annexed showing upon what respects we may be lawfully moved to kneel down in the act of receiving the Sacramental elements, without idolatry.  
BEfore I pass to the next proof of your assumption, taken from this Church's manner of enjoining, I have thought good to help the Reader a little to understand how the Sacramental elements may be esteemed a just, and warrantable occasion of kneeling, when we do receive them. Now 
k Omitting the general respect that the celebration of the Sacrament is a divine worship  there be two sorts of respects, which are to this purpose observable. First, such as are principal and direct. Secondly, that which is only consequent, and derivative. Of the former sort, I will propose three special respects, which may lawfully occasion our kneeling down.   

First respect is the special presence of God in the Sacrament.  
FIrst, one respect is, that the Sacrament is a seal of Gods own impressing, and so a special sign of his Sect. 31 excellent presence. The children of Israel were wont to fall upon their faces, when God declared his special presence, by some singular, and illustrious symbol thereof; so the 
l Perth. Ass. p. 5●  Scotsmen teach us expressly; but yet they except, that there is not the like presence in the Sacrament, as the Jews had in the Ark, and Cherubims; and what if there be not, yet there is a special and singular presence, and such as in respect whereof, the jews adored in the exercise of the word, and of sacrificing. There is a special presence; and that is sufficient for me; for since the face of God, through Christ is in the Sacrament both present with us, and as it were in special manner presented unto us, it is most lawful to adore in the act of receiving upon that occasion.   

Second respect is, the humble, and thankful remembrance, which the Sacrament occaoneth of Christ's sufferings.  
SEcondly, another respect is, that the Sacrament is Sect. 32 appointed for commemoration of Christ's sufferings, which commemoration may most lawfully occasion in us expressions of thankfulness, and humility: hence kneeling most commendably ariseth. I doubt not, if a Christian be duly possessed with thoughts of the greatness of those sufferings, of the unmeasurable love of God in them, he can easily fall down and adore. What brethren, is it impiety to worship God upon this occasion, and motive? In celebrating the remembrance of the most wonderful grace, that ever the world heard the report of, is it a wickedness to cast ourselves down in humility and thankfulness? Alas, what Marble heart cannot be melted, and ravished, what melted, and ravished heart cannot be content to clean to the dust, in the apprehension of such undeserved kindness? If joyful news sometimes brings forth tears, why not sometimes humble expressions of thankfulness? One of the 
m Luke 17. ver. 15, 16.  Samaritans, when he saw, considered, that he was healed, with loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face (as a man astonished) giving thanks to the Lord jesus. God was in Christ 
n 2 Cor: 15. 19  reconciling us to himself, and making him unto us 
o 1 Cor. 1. 30  wisdom, & righteousness, & sanctification, & redemption. O 
p Ephes: 3. vers. 18, 19  the breadth, & length, & depth, & height of the love of Christ, which passeth the knowledge of all creatures! O 
q Psal: 31. 19  how great is thy goodness, which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men! Who shall abundantly utter the 
r Psal: 145. 4, 7  memory thereof from age to age with thanksgiving! Shall we be condemned for worshipping the name of the Lord in the commemoration of these things? Was ever, can ever be more excellent occasion thereof, than the due remembrance of our redemption wrought by the shedding of the blood of Christ? Surely, the love of Christ provoketh us, because we thus judge: God forbidden, that I should dare to say, this occasion sufficeth not.   

The third respect is the gracious gift which God communicates unto us in the very act of receiving.  
THirdly, the last respect is, that in the Sacrament the Sect. 33 Lord bestows upon us the most excellent treasure in the world, namely, the precious body and blood of Christ, wherewithal neither gold nor pearl is to be valued, and the price thereof is fare above rubies. Who did ever hear of a gift bestowed by a mortal man comparable to this? or among the gifts of God himself, any either more excellent in itself, or more gift-like in the manner of exhibition? And why then should it not be thought a just occasion of our kneeling down, when we do receive it? Is the best of us too good to take so rich, and inestimable a gift from the hands of Almighty God upon our knees? especially, when we hold it lawful, and no idolatry to receive gifts upon our knees at the hands of earthly Princes: also we hold it lawful, and no idolatry for children to receive upon their knees the blessing of the Parents: neither do the receivers kneel down to such gifts, but to the Princes, and Parents themselves, which graciously do bestow them.  
But against this you take some exception. The consideration Sect. 34 (say 
s Disp: pag. 132  you) of a gift to be received from the Lord is not to direct us for our gesture, but the nature of the gift we do receive, and the quality of the person we do bear. Answer. The lest gift in the world that we receive from the Lord may be a just occasion in itself of kneeling & worshipping, when we do receive it: then a spiritual gift, & that of all spirituals most excellent, and that exhibited also in divine worship may much more be such an occasion: where you speak of the nature of the gift, you mean, that it is a supper; and the quality of the person receiving, you mean, that he is a feaster, and guest, as if these respects hindered our kneeling down in receiving; so you sand us back to the argument of a tablegesture, where I have answered you to the full. I but (say 
t Perth-Ass p. 54  you) this consideration of a gift is common to all Sacraments. Answer. I grant, neither can you disprove the lawfulness of kneeling in receiving of any Sacrament, either of Law, or of Gospel, yea it is lawful to kneel in the very act of hearing out of the case of scandals, and customs of times overruling, as I have showed, p. 1. ch. 1.  
But you take further exception to the illustration of Sect. 35 the lawfulness of receiving gifts upon our knees from Princes and Parents. First, (you 
u Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. ch. 3. sect. 37.  say) Kings do allow of kneeling to them in receiving their gifts, so you bid us show, that God allows kneeling at receiving the Sacrament. Answer. A ridiculous exception! we show in this manner, men do lawfully kneel to Princes in receiving gifts of them, and therefore we may much more kneel to God in receiving the body and blood of Christ at his hands. You answer, men kneel to Princes, because Princes allow them so to do; but you cannot show that God doth allow kneeling to him, when we receive. This is to deny the conclusion, neither do we use this similitude, because Princes allow of kneeling unto them, but because it is by them lawfully allowed: we were not so foolish, to prove kneeling (in receiving a gift) to God lawful, by an illustration used to man unlawfully. This then is the force of our illustrating, we may lawfully kneel to a mortal man in receiving a gift, and therefore much more to Almighty God. It seems whatsoever we say, you are minded to keep the conclusion. I would you would please to look upon the simplicity of your answer.  
Secondly, you 
w Ibidem.  say, Kings admit of some flattering Sect. 36 observances sometimes, which are not fit to be offered unto God. Answer. If this exception be worth a rush to the purpose, it must imply, that receiving gift from Kings up-the knees is no other, than a flattering observance. But because yourself and your brethren, do grant the lawfulness of kneeling to Kings in such case, it appears you did insert this exception only for filling up. It is as if unto us showing that we must perform reverence to Kings, and therefore much more to the King of Kings, you should except, that Kings admit sometimes of unlawful reverence, and so that it follows not, that the Lord by that illustration is to be reverenced. Good Sir, look upon the simplicity of this answer also.  
Thirdly, You 
x Repl. ibidem, also pag. 65. Manuscript. ch. 6. Abridg. 68  say, that in kneeling at Sacrament there is danger of Idolatry, so there is not in kneeling before Princes Sect. 37 and parents. Answer. What can you do I pray, but there is danger of error and evil in it? Cornelius was not suffered to fall down before Peter, and yet in elder time they were usually wont to fall down before the Prophets. Besides, this exception affirming only danger of Idolatry in kneeling at Sacrament, doth not simply condemn it in itself. And for danger of Idolatry, it falls to be handled in another place: so the illustration still holds to the purpose, whereunto it is used: namely, that as in receiving gifts of Princes, so it is not Idolatry in itself to kneel unto God, before and by occasion of his gifts, povided that the gifts be considered, but as an occasion.  
But one speech of the Abridgement seems to be very Sect. 38 weak, which it useth to set out this exception. It is this. It hath been found in all ages the chief root of Idolatry, if it be not gross Idolatry itself, to give unto the gift the outward reverence, and adoration that is due to the giver himself. Is this speech meant of Prince's gifts, or of Gods? If you understand it of Princes gifts, than you think it is Idolatry itself, perhaps to kneel unto them when we receive their gifts, howsoever, that such kneeling is utterly unlawful, as being a chief root of Idolatry. And so the proportion will hold betwixt that kneeling to them, and kneeling to God, (as yourselves esteem of it) in the Sacrament, wherein yet you would declare difference. And yet still such an assertion is false. But if you understand it of God's gifts, you make an impertinent hypothesis, as if our kneeling at Sacrament, were given to the elements of bread and wine, and not unto God alone, and only occasioned by them. Therefore in this sense, your speech is altogether impertinent.  
Fourthly 
y Manusc. ch. 6. Disp. 134. Perth. Assemb. 54.  you say, in kneeling at Sacrament, we receive Sect. 39 a gift from God by the ministry of his servants, where as we kneel to Princes when their own hands bestow gifts upon us. Answer. Suppose this latter part of your exception were true, exclusive; (which it is not) yet is our illustration still remaining in force: partly, because we are bound unto God more for his Christ, howsoever he is bestowed upon us, than we can be to Princes of the earth, for their gifts though they be given immediately; partly because God is at the Sacrament, in his gracious countenance truly present, yea indeed, his own spirit, as it were his own hand doth immediately give the body and blood of his son to our souls. And lastly, because it mattereth not in the force and use of our illustration, whether we receive the gift mediately, or immediately, so long as the said gift is (howsoever) but an occasion of worshipping. If the respect of mediatenes, of receiving the gifts, did infer the kneeling of him, which receives the same to be directed unto it, than this exception were to some purpose. But we apply the illustration in this manner. It's lawful to kneel to God upon occasion of a gift, which we receive from him, as it is lawful to kneel to a Prince or parent, upon occasion of gifts received from them. It skilleth not, whether the receiving be like in both for the point of immediatnesse, considering it doth not altar the case, for the making of the gifts of either to be more than occasions of kneeling.  
Fifthly, You 
z Manusc. ch. 6. Disp. pag. 134.  say, Children and subjects kneel not down Sect. 40 at table to their Princes, or parents, though upon other occasions they may. Answer. First, the Sacrament is improperly called a Supper, and the body, and blood of Christ therein received is of that nature, that it may be compared with chains of gold, gems, or jewels, or any excellent gift, which Princes have to bestow as well, and much rather, then with sole Suppers. Secondly, even at suppers in case Princes be pleased to carve, or appoint in special and singular manner some special dainty to their subjects eating in their presence, they rise up, and receive it upon their knees. Neither is this unlawful, (as the Disputer 
a Disp. pag. 135  opineth) it being only civil honour which (with other like observance) tendeth to nourish in men's minds an awsull reverence of their Princely Majesties, whereby the world is ruled. But (saith he) if Princes do not carve to their subjects, then ordinarily they sit still. As if the special case were not enough, and more then enough to justify our use of the illustration taken from them. Besides 
b Perth. Assem. pag. 54.  the will of Princes is to be considered in this case, if they please to grace their subjects in sitting at table with them, it hinders not; but they may expect attendance, and reverence, all the while as much as necessity of eating, joined with comeliness will permit. But the Disputer is an endless jangler about eating, and drinking.  
Sixthly, and lastly, (say 
c Perth. Ass. p 54 Repl. partic. pa. 65.  you) Ceremonies of the Court are no rules of religious adoration. Answer. Such ceremonies Sect. 41 of the Court as depend of moral principles will give great light even in God's worship. Kneeling is a natural gesture, and a gesture of humble reverence. Reverence is due to the King at all times, specially when he conferreth some singular gift, or honour upon his servants. Reverence and the most humble expressions of reverence are much more due to God, then to earthly Potentates. Spiritual, and those the most excellent gifts are a better, and greater occasion, to move us to reverence the donour, then temporal, and transitory gifts can be. Upon these grounds it is tolerable I hope, to press, main a minore, humble reverence to God in his greatest gifts, from reverence done to Princes, in bestowing of small gifts in comparison. And so much for your exceptions, by the answer whereof appeareth, that one lawful respect to move or occasion us to kneel, is th● gracious and inestimable gift, which therein it pleaseth Almighty God to bestow upon us. And thus I have showed you three pricipal respects, upon which it is lawful to kneel down, and worship God in the act of receiving the holy Sacrament.  
Here I might answer two questions which offer Sect. 42 themselves to be considered. Quest. 1. Concerning the three former respects it may be asked, what kind of worship this kneeling is, which is occasioned by them, namely, whether it be bore, and mere adoration without prayer, or else worshipping, such as is in the exercise of prayer? Answ. There is no doubt, but as prayer is made in our Church in the delivery of the bread and wine, so it may be secretly made also (as the state of the Communicants soul requireth●) in the very 
d Disp says, it is impossible to feed at Sacrament, and pray both at once, pag 20. See Answ. before, part. 2. ch. 7. sect 3. & otherwhere  act of eating, and drinking. It is true, as 
e Manuscrip. ch. 7.  you say: First, it is not necessary always to kneel when we do pray, as in table-blessing we do not. Secondly, it is dangerous and unlawful to kneel in prayer, before an Idol, before the Breaden God, and in Market places, where we should be guilty of show of idolatry, and of scandal. Thirdly, it is not necessary we should pray or give thanks in the act of receiving. But what is all this to the purpose? Many things are lawful, which at all times are not expedient, as the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 6. 12. Yet, first, it is lawful to kneel at table-blessing itself, and may be practised by one, eating alone, and by many consenting together. Secondly, there is no similitude betwixt kneeling before idols, and kneeling at Gods own ordinance. Thirdly, it is lawful in itself to pray in the time of eating and drinking, as Esther made her humble petition to the King at the banquet of wine, Esth. 5. 8. and 7. 3. Yea there is no employment under the Sun, but therein the heart may be lawfully lifted up unto God. Therefore, where the Author of the Manuscript presently addeth, that it is not sit to pray in the act of receiving, he speaketh that which is not fit: for prayer doth help, (and not hinder, if it be rightly used) faith to receive aright, that which God in the Sacrament, doth offer, and exhibit unto us.  
But for my part, if there be no prayer used in the time Sect. 43 of receiving, I think never the worse of the gesture of kneeling: what if there be no more, but bore, and mere adoring without prayer? Sure I am, it is lawful to worship or adore before the majesty of God, without prayer, as I have showed in this Treatise 
f Part. 2. ch 7. sect 11.  already. It is enough that we have special occasions, or motives to provoke us unto it; for out of the said respects, (which I have named in number three) I conclude in this manner.  
At actions, be tokening Gods special presence, & which put upon us the person both of 
g Against this branch the Disput. trisleth, say ing, that Eucharissicall actions have been used in other gestures. pag 124, 125. Who doubts of this? Put not in kneeling (saith he) for that is incompatible with them. O ungodly speech which the Scripture condemneth, allowing of adoring and falling down in actions of praise: Gen. 47. 31. Exod. 33. 10. Gen. 24 52. 2 Chron 29. 28, 29, 30. Matth 2. 11. Revel. 5. 8. Secondly, in verbal praise: 2 Chron. 7. 3. Nehem. 8. 6. Perth. Assem. 48. Psal. 95. 6. Luke 7. 16. Revel. 5. 8. 9 &c. Thirdly, in all reason of faith, and humility, whether we look to God or ourselves. Wherefore this Disputer disputes against Gods own both right and claim.  thankful remembrancers, and humble receivers, we may take occasion to kneel down.  
This is an impregnable proposition.  
But the Sacrament, first, be tokens Gods special presence: secondly, puts upon us the person 
h Against this branch of the Assumption, the Disputer is also cavilling, telling us that the Sacramental employment is not an Eucharistical action, or an action of thanksgiving, because, (saith he) the actions of the Sacrament are consecrating, breaking, distributing, beholding, applying, &c. none of which can be called properly Eucharistical, inasmuch as we present nothing to God Disp. 126, 127, 128. Verily this man's conceit is wonderful gross, except the penury, and misery of that part he defendeth, put him upon hard straits Sir, all these actions are Eucharistical: Is not the whole ordinance appointed for a remembrance of Christ's sufferings? Is not the remembrance in the Church's part, and performance, most unquestionably intended for a thankful remembrance? Christ need not have his death remembered, jest himself should forget it. Christ his will is, that his people should thankfully celebrated the memorial thereof in his Church to the world's end. Alas, that the Disp. should so much over shoot himself, there was never action since the world began, that could be called an Eucharistical action, if this Sacramental employment be not such, that is, plainly appointed for a thankful remembrance. But, o Disputer, why did you forget yourself, or why did your brethren forget you so grossly, that do elsewhere mightily strive for the necessity of sitting, or standing, because they be only apt, and solemn expressions of faith, and thankfulness? See back good Reader, part. 2 chap. 7. sect. 6. &c.  of thankful remembrancers: and thirdly, the person of humble receivers.  
Therefore thereat we may lawfully take occasion to kneel down.  
So that adoring, or worshipping before the Lord, though without mental, or vocal prayer, is plainly sufficient to justify kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper. And this be spoken to the first question.  
Quest. 2. Again it may be demanded, concerning Sect. 44 the three former respects, whereby kneeling is justified, whether forasmuch as these respects may occasion us at all times, we should not always hold ourselves absolutely bound to kneel? I answer, by no means▪ Man is a voluntary, and free agent in mutable gestures, considered in themselves, I mean not only, in regard of the act of willing, but also in regard of the bond of will, and therefore he may suspend the use of a gesture, both, pro arbitrio, and lawfully before God, etiam datâ agends occasione. The respects which I have observed are only brought to justify kneeling, as respects may likewise be brought to justify standing, respects may likewise be brought to justify sitting; from them I would not infer necessity of kneeling in itself, but only show, that being used it is not an impious gesture, but that which will suit full well to the Sacramental business: and this matter is as clear in prayer, for there be respects to justify standing, respects to justify sitting, and respects also to justify kneeling in prayer: and it must be confessed to be so in all ordinances, wherein liberty is granted of several gestures, for how else shall the change and variety of them be allowed? nay the same respects may warrant several gestures, if they be of the same kind, and if they be never so indifferent, yet the respects which may warrant, and occasion one gesture, be not contrary to such respects, as may warrant and occasion another, more than the natural gestures themselves, (all ordained to serve▪ the Lord that ordained them) be contrary: nay the gestures, like the four elements do easily, and usually (as it were) pass into one another. And hitherto be spoken of the three principal, and direct respects, whence we take occasion to kneel in receiving the Sacramental elements.   

Of another respect of kneeling at Sacrament, which is only consequent from the principal respect beforenamed, namely, that the Sacrament may be received more reverently.  
WE come now to consider of another respect Sect. 45 of kneeling at Sacrament, and that is the reverend using, and handling of that holy ordinance. But what? is it tolerable to kneel for reverence of the Sacrament? You may not, (say the 
i Perth. Ass. 48.  Scotchmen) take the proper gesture of adoration, or worship, and apply it to veneration, or reverence. Truly I confess, that as you make kneeling to respect the Sacramental elements, you speak not without reason, but there is nothing, wherein you are more mistaken, then in this matter of reverence, if you will with patience give me the hearing, I will make you by God's grace understand a little better of that point. But I pray, let not conceit of prejudice forestall you before I have spoken. I declare my mind in these particulars following.  
First, the distinction of worship, and veneration is Sect. 46 such, as cannot be refused. Now both these are to be found both in civility, and religion. In religion you confess the same, namely, that worship is one thing, and veneration another. In civility the same is no less evident: for as in religion worship 
k Perth. Ass. 47.  belongeth to persons, and veneration to the things of persons, so in like manner is it in civil matters, that carriage of respect, which is expressly directed unto the person of any man is properly civil worship, whereas civil things pertaining to persons are by no means capable of civil worship, but only of that which we call adoration or reverence. Thus fare I hope we shall be soon agreed.  
Secondly, veneration, or reverence standeth in two Sect. 47 things: first, in the inward conceit, and estimation of the mind. Secondly, in the outward usage according to the nature of the thing, which is to be reverenced: thus yourselves do determine. I have sundry times, (says the 
l Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 69.  Replier) affirmed, that we stand as much and more for true reverence, both inward, and outward, in celebration of the Sacrament, than our adversaries do. Now outward reverence, is nothing else, but the using of things decently, and honourably, according to their kind, that is, when they are not used lightly, contemptuously, uncivilly, &c. but as the matter, place, and employment, whereunto the said things deserve, shall evidently require: and herein also you do fully agreed with us.  
Thirdly, outward reverence riseth to things two Sect. 48 ways: first, by immediate expressions primarily intended, and merely used to declare reverence, as in religious things, pulpit-cloth, tablecloth, beauty of books and seats, &c. and such other-like things, that are used for ornament: also washen hands for handling of the water, and bread in the Sacraments, and other like practices, tending only to show due account of God's holy ordinances. And in civil things a man both may and aught to use that which is his neighbours or friends, (according as it is for the kind and quality of it) respectively. Secondly, outward reverence cometh to things by such expressions as are directed to the person of another, whence ariseth some reverence, to that which is the motive of them. I will give instance in civil things. When a gift is received from a superior, special civil worship is done unto the donor, and yet it is plain, that some respect even from thence ariseth to the gift received. Again, if a Prince make an oration, the subjects declare worship to the person of the Prince, yet some respect and reverence is inferred thereby unto the speech itself; but in Ecclesiastical duties, and ordinances, there is nothing more clear: for what worship of God can you name, but some reverence ariseth to the matter, and motive thereof? Can you pray in a beseeming gesture, hear in a beseeming gesture, be baptised in a beseeming gesture, sing Psalms in a beseeming gesture, &c. but thence, (though God be the object of all divine worshipping, and so of all these exercises, as fare as you call them worshipping) yet I say thence will arise some comeliness, and ornament, esteem, and dignity unto the ordinances themselves.  
This will be yet more manifest, if you consider that gestures Sect. 49 in God's worship, 
m See back part 1. ch. 4. sect. 6. &c.  must needs have a double consideration. First, as they be worshipping. 2ly, as they be gestures of decency and comeliness. Kneeling in prayer is a gesture of worshipping directed to God alone, yet kneeling in prayer, is part of the Apostles decency, as Mr. Calvin teacheth. I beseech you now, is kneeling in prayer used or directed to the sensible matter of prayer? That cannot be; yet it brings reverence, that is, comeliness and ornament, esteem and dignity thereunto, which cannot be denied. How then riseth this reverence? Verily the reverence is consequent, and issues out of the gesture, for though it be directed only to God in heaven, yet all men see it is a comely ornament, and commendable respect of the prayer itself. Where is Idolatry in all this brethren? We say no more of receiving the Sacramental elements; our kneeling is directd to God alone. That reverence, that cometh to the elements riseth only out of this, that we come to God so reverently, when we do receive them. We hold firmly, that no adoring gestures are to be used for directing of reverence unto the creatures, and so if kneeling were not directed to the Lord, it aught not then to be used for reverence of the Sacrament, if it were, it could not be excused from being idolatrous.  
But yourselves are fowler overseen in the matter of Sect. 50 reverence, than we, and then (I suppose) you be well ware of. You 
n Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 70.  teach, that you uncover your heads not for adoration, but only for reverence in receiving the Sacrament. For reverence, and not adoration? whom, or what mean you to reverence I beseech you? God you cannot say, for than you could not exclude the respect of worshipping or adoring therein. It seems then you do reverence the Elements of bread and wine, with an express gesture of worship used unto them. Behold this is more than I durst say of the gesture of kneeling. But let me ask you. In civil use, you know we put off our hats to persons, as inferiors to their superiors, not unto bread and wine at our civil tables. This uncovering then in the Sacrament (in your sense) is to take a proper gesture of worship, (belonging to persons) and apply it to things in way of veneration only, which the Scotchmen have condemned before. You will not be content to worship God, by being uncovered, and so let a certain grace, and ornament issue to the ordinance which is in hand, but you will be uncovered out of mere reverence of sensible things. For my part I say as much of uncovering as I do of kneeling, that they be both fashions of worship directed only to God, yet consequently do yield a certain reverence to those things, that be the matter and motive of them, while by them we come to God so reverently in his ordinance: and the lawfulness of this reverence, you can never be able to take away, except you could take away all gestures of worshipping, that is, all outward worshipping utterly out of the Church; for even from those very gestures, a great part of the reverence of holy things, that is, the decency, and ornament, dignity and esteem of the said holy things, evermore ariseth. Here you must be entreated to judge uprightly betwixt you and yourselves, namely, your affections, and consciences.  
Fourthly, furthermore outward reverence of holy Sect. 51 things rising and issuing from the sovereign worship of God, admitteth degrees. When the Sacrament is received sitting, or standing, we do not surmise, that it must need: be received therefore unreverently, yet some gestures do procure more reverence unto it, than some other. And I doubt not to say, there be certain points wherein this may be considered of the gesture of kneeling. For, 1. it is a carriage importing the greatest importance of of the sacred mysteries. 2ly, it is a carriage of plain religion, and devotion, no gesture in itself seemeth more to show piety. 3ly, it is a carriage of plain humility, and seems as it were to utter for the Communicant, the voice of the Centurion: Lord, I am not worthy, thou shouldest come under my roof; or Lord, I am not worthy to come under thy roof, much less to fit at thy table. Fourthly, it is a carriage of special respect for the differencing of Sacramental eating from common. The convenience of which difference moved them in the primitive Church to take away common suppers from the holy Communion of Christ's body and blood, and the speech of the Apostle 
* 1 Cor. 11. vers. 29, 22.  seems thereunto to incline, whereby he taxeth them, for not judging of the Lords body, ask them, if they had not houses to eat and drink in. These points have their use to show, that as kneeling is applied to the sovereign worship of God, much reverence ariseth to the Sacrament from it, at lest to show, (I wots) that some degree of reverence ariseth undoubtedly.  
Fifthly, and lastly, this reverend usage of the holy Sacrament Sect. 52 crament is profitable for all or the most part of men in some measure. First for opinion, and that both in godly and carnal Communicants; those it stirs up to either consider or increase the due and needful estimation of the holy Sacrament: these it helpeth to suppress profane conceits, whereby their irreligious hearts are easily persuaded to despise the ordinance of Christ. Next for practice both for preparation, & use, inward, & outward, to good & bad; the mind will be stirred up to thoughts of our unspeakable unworthiness, and of Christ's love, the heart will be moved both to mount up to God in all sweet adherence and dependence, and secretly also to bless the blessed author of its everlasting welfare: in a word for the outward carriage, it will be as a monitour, giving every man a silent Cave, to beware of looseness, and sauciness. And especially all this in these last, and worse times, wherein men are so very carnal, and earthly in the judging, and handling of God's holy things. Now your objections against the foresaid doctrine will be of small value, as may be tried.  
Object. 1. 
o Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. sect. 25. of kneeling.  To fasten adoration upon God, that from Sect. 53 him it might be referred unto a creature, is worse than either Papish● or Heathens ever defended: this were to make God the deriving object, and the creature the last and chief. Answer. This collection out of the words of Bishop Morton might have been made either by Papists, or Heathens, it is unconscionably extorted. The Bishop teacheth no other kind of worship to come unto the Sacrament, then comes to the Temples, and Lords day, to the word, and prayer; that is none at all: for worship is only (as he teacheth) directed to the Lord, and there resteth; only a certain reverence riseth from them to the elements, as in all other ordinances, it is wont to do to holy things. It is fare from us to defend a worshipping of God, and then the creature. We maintain nothing to the creature but reverence, and that none other, but what in effect would follow from sovereign worship to holy things, if we said nothing. The Replier is licentious in perverting our meaning, because he cannot tell in the world how to answer.  
Object. 2. 
p Abridg. 67.  If the reverence due to the Sacrament require Sect. 54 that it be received with the gesture of kneeling, then doubtless, God would have given direction for it in his word. Answer. You make a false supposition here, as if we said, it is absolutely necessary to kneel, or else the Sacrament could not be received reverently. See before, sect. 51. For the objection itself, I ask you what you mean when you say, God hath not given us direction, for if you mean the gesture itself of kneeling, I have showed, that God hath given us direction for it, Part. 2. chap. 1. If you mean, that God hath not directed us in his word, that kneeling, (though it may be used) should tend to the reverence of creatures, you speak against common reason and sense, and I have refuted you before, Sect. 48. So these two points I have already spoken sufficiently of, for both I have showed, that God's word allows of kneeling first, then, that not only God's wo●● but common reason, and sense evince, that kneeling to God himself, whiles we be employed about any part of his worship, may, and will procure a certain reverence to the worship itself. What else needs to be answered?  
Object. 3. 
q Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 65.  No man can teach us the reverence of receiving, Sect. 55 better than Christ, and his Apostles. 
r Pag. 69.  We think meet to use no other guises of reverence, than Christ, and his Apostles have taught us. 
s Abridg. 67.  If this reverence were lawful, some of the Saints commended in holy Scripture, and specially the Apostles would have used it: Nay it is 
t Pag. 56.  great hypocrisy in us to pretend more reverence than was in the Apostles. Answer. What would you reprove by this objection I pray? worshipping of God, or idolatrous worshipping of the creature, or lastly, the reverence, which issues out of the sovereign worship? The first sendeth the Reader to the great argument drawn against kneeling from the example of Christ and his Apostles, Part. 2. chap. 3, The second we do disclaim. The last cannot be condemned by their example, partly, because examples of gestures be various, both used and left at liberty in all ordinances, see part. 1 chap. 1. partly because Christ and his Apostles gesture is not certainly known unto us; the Apostles, and Saints shown as much reverence in receiving as we for aught any body can infallibly tell to the contrary: and partly, because though they used only the gesture of sitting, (yet thence as from your own sitting, and standing, being duly applied) some reverence could not but reflect upon the Sacramental elements. It can be none other in all gestures of divine worship rightly used, albeit some procure more reverence by the kind, and manner of them, then others. This answer is enough in this place, only I request the Reader to see the answer, which is before, Part. 2. chap. 3. sect. 46. &c. and refer it hither so much as appertaineth. The truth is, inasmuch as you use this objection against our doctrine of reverencing the elements, which you charge for idolatrous, it is, as if you should say, that mere using of a gesture different from Christ and his Apostles, must needs be idolatrous, ipso facto, and also hoc nomine, which is false, and frivolous out of measure: did you not consider, that the proper consideration of this place, is of reverence of the elements, whether the same be idolatrous?  
Object. 4. 
u Repl. partic to Bp. Mort. pa. 51. Manuser, ch. 5.  By this reverence the wisdom of the Apostle Sect. 56 himself is impeached, who seeing profane behaviour to be used at the Communion among the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11. never thought of kneeling, but contented himself with the word, and censures. Answer. You build upon three ill suppositions, that the Corinthians never kneeled, and that other gestures are not gestures of reverence to the Sacrament as well as kneeling. And lastly, that gestures are not variable, but that difference therein from good men impeacheth the wisdom, and controlleth the practice of them which did otherwise. Three ill suppositions I assure you, and never to be granted as I believe. For the particular instance it maketh against yourselves: for whereas touching gestures there is altum silentium in 1 Cor. 11. yet there is direction for taking away civil fashions, (though lawful in themselves) when they are abused in the Lord's Supper. For it appeareth, that the profaneness of the Corinthians was in regard of the love-feasts altogether, 1 Cor. 11. 22, 23. which therefore the Apostle remooved utterly from the Sacrament. But you can infer nothing at all from such order as he took against that profaneness to a necessity, that he must needs have ordered for kneeling, if it be a lawful gesture of reverence: because there was enough ordered for their particular case, in utter abolishing of their love-feasts, the abuses whereof fell out before the Lords Supper began, and the reverence of the Sacrament may be maintained in other gestures, though that which ariseth from kneeling, (when it may be used) nay be very profitable in due time. Where you say, Paul never thought of kneeling I would ask ●ou, how you can tell? How come you to be so privy to his thoughts at this day? Those thoughts which he committed to writing you may be acquainted withal, but he committed to writing no thoughts it all of the necessity of this or that gesture in the Sacrament, nay, gave no particular order to the Churches, about gestures in any ordinance of God in any one of all his writings, that I remember. Where you add, that Paul contented himself with the word and censures, you would imply, that we hold kneeling to resist unreverence like the word and censures; whereas we hold it hath no other virtue in that case in the Sacrament, than it hath in all other ordinances. Again you speak absurdly in opposing the gesture to the word and censures, as if that Paul had ordered for kneeling in prayer, (or in the Lord's Supper) he had not done it by the word and censures. Finally, you tell us, that the Apostles knew well of all that proneness which is in man to esteem too lightly of holy things, and yet they appointed ●● kneeling. I answer. And therefore they forbade not kneeling because they knew man's proneness to evil so very well. I perceive we cannot say, that such or such a gesture or carriage tends to the reverence of holy things, except the Apostles did absolutely appoint it. You say, you use uncovering of the head, as a gesture of reverence, yet the Apostles did not appoint that fashion for reverence of the Sacrament, though he knew what proneness is in man to esteem of it too lightly.  
Object. 5. 
w Abridg. 67.  If our Saviour had intended that the outward Sect. 57 elements should have been thus reverenced, he would not have made choice of those that are so common and base. Answer. This objection makes a miserable nonsequitur, howsoever it be expounded. If you mean by [thus reverenced] as much as [worshipped with divine worship] it is utterly inconsequent; for if Christ did make choice of creatures to be so reverenced, (which he never did not will do) yet it follows not, that he would not make choice of the meanest, as soon as of the greatest, whereby his worship should be conveyed unto him: nay, it is likely in reason, if the Sun, and Moon, and host of heaven, and the most excellent things in nature should have been chosen for objects of relative worship, the blind world would sometimes deify them, (as it hath done heretofore) and wholly intent, and terminate worship unto them; whereas in base creatures the worship would be more probably conveyed unto God himself. But howsoever in this sense your objection is nothing ad rem, for we confess that worshipping of the outward elements is damnable idolatry. If you mean by reverence no other thing than I have before allowed, and which is distinguished from worship, than your objection is plainly idle, and vain. You might say as well, if our Saviour had intended the word to be reverenced, he would not have delivered it in such a manner as the world should esteem foolishness. If our Saviour had intended his Ministers to be reverenced, he would not have chosen such, as the world accounteth its refuse and offscouring. Yea you might say as well, if our Saviour had intended the outward means to be such admirable helps to heaven, and of such an honourable use in the Church, he would not have chosen such means as the supercilious world would despise for base, and contemptible. Indeed the word and Sacran ents are not to be judged by their outward excellency and lustre in the eye of natural man; but by their spiritual virtue which the institution of Christ hath added unto them. And further, the meaner, and base the same be to the judgement of sense, the 
x So you say, that God appointed common bread and wine for avoiding of the danger of committing idolalatry. Manuscr. ch. 6.  less danger is there of committing idolatry with them. So that Christ's choosing of common and base creatures to be Sacramental, did not exclude thereby such reverence, as all his ordinances aught to have, albeit some gestures procure a greater measure thereof. And let Mr. Replier observe, that I have answered to this objection, concerning [the choice of base, and common elements] that his 
y Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pa. 44.  trifling, and childish defence of the Abridgement may be refelled in a little room.  
Object. 6. If that gesture 
z Manusc. ch. 5.  be fittest to be used in the Sect. 58 act of receiving, which may best breed a reverend estimation of the Sacrament, then is the prostrating of the body, and falling upon our faces, (which we know hath been used in greatest show of reverence, and humiliation, Matth. 26. 39) a fit gesture than kneeling. Answer. This is an inconsiderate objection, that I say no more for the reverence of the Author; for (to pass that it builds upon an ill supposition, that we say kneeling is absolutely the fittest, for what need we care for comparing if it be fit in the positive?) this cannot be unknown to you, that if this objection be truly consequent, for the act of receiving, it is also consequent for the act of praying: and forasmuch as we aught to use the fittest gesture of reverence in prayer, (specially when all circumstances give us most liberty so to do) therefore we aught not to kneel even in prayer, but fall upon our faces, and that the rather after your teaching, because your proof in Mat. 26. 39 is only of falling upon the face in prayer. But further, why did you not please to compare the Evangelists? That which Matthew calls falling down, Luke calls kneeling upon the knees, Luke. 22. 41. If therefore either Luke shall expound Matthew, or that Christ according to both used both kneeling, and falling upon the face, then is the force of your proof manifestly none at all. Furthermore, you cross the Disputer, who teacheth, that 
a Disp. pag. 156  there are several brakches of corporal worship, and of them the same not used amongst all Nations, to express the same degree of adoration, and that branch thereof, which is in these parts by us usually observed, to represent, and testify an adoration of an high nature, is the casting of ourselves upon the knees; and if it be not the same for particular fashion and form, which the jews used, when they prostrated themselves, and would thereby set forth some high degree of humiliation, and reverence, yet for intent and use, it is to us the same. If the Disputer had not given you this reasonable answer, I should have given it myself, for you can hardly refuse that which he affirmeth, kneeling being now used with us as the fittest gesture of reverence both religious, and civil. Finally, we say that all gestures are in themselves lawful gestures of worshipping God, whence reverence (more or less) may arise to religious ordinances, and your objection, (if need were) would help us to conclude for the one of them. But against us it infers nothing. Yet I cannot pass a kind of illustration, (such as it is) which you use, saying; If a gesture of the greatest reverence be futest, than people should not presume to receive the Sacramental elements with their hands, but the same for greater reverence aught to be put into their months. Answer. I marvel that you do take for granted, that putting into the mouth is a fashion of greater reverence, then receiving the elements with the hands. If you be so minded, I do not see any great reason for it: are not the people's hands as holy as the Ministers, and if they were not, are they not as holy as their own mouths and stomaches? But if putting into the mouth be taken by you, and granted of us to be a gesture of greater reverence, then handling, than I say though it be unlawful in other respects, yet it cannot be condemned in that name. Besides, you cannot reason from an artificial usage of the elements to a main gesture of the body, which is natural, and by God himself appointed to his holy worship and service: belike, because the most reverend gesture is to be used in prayer, therefore it is not lawful to pray without an halter about our necks, without bowing of our backs as well as our knees, with gloves on our hands, or with the liberty of spitting.  
Object. 7. 
b Manuscrip. ch. 5. Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 69.  There hath been in all ages of the Church Sect. 51 much more proneness of people in this case unto idolarty, and superstition by giving too much reverence to the Sacramental elements, or any consecrated creatures, then unto profaneness by esteeming too lightly of them; as may be made evident both by the holy Scriptures, judg. 8. 27. 2 King. 18. 4. and by the history of the Church in all ages. Answer. Whether this be true or not, sure I am, the instances of Gideons' Ephod, and the Brazen Serpent are too few to show the space of above five thousand years: therefore if Iset two against them, they are answered to the full. In the old Testament look upon Malacby: It is in vain to serve God, what profit is it, that we have kept his ordinances, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts, and now we call the proud, (not the humble) happy, Mal. 3. 14, 15. In the new Testament the first scandalous sin, that defiled the Lords Supper itself, was unreverence, and profaneness, 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. And these two Scriptures are more perrinent, than your two, because Gideous Ephod was, (if you observe the place well, you will also think it was) devised of purpose to make an idol of; and neither that, nor the Brazen Serpent had any state in Gods own holy worship; but if your assertion be true, what can you infer? What? That reverence of holy things in divine worship is idolatry therefore? You will never conclude such a conclusion, it hangs together like ropes of sand. So your objection is to no purpose in this place, where you would make our reverence to be idolatrous: as for danger it is to be considered in another chapter. And yet I will not grant your assertion true at lest of our own time, and religion, for it is evident, that the people of our assemblies are generally more given to profaneness, than superstition. And herein I will call your own selves to be my witnesses.  
Object. 8. 
c Abridg. 67. Manuscr, ch. 5.  The reverence due to the holy mysteries, Sect. 60 stands in this, when the whole action is performed in that manner, as the Lord himself hath appointed. Answer. What need you to tell us this? who did ever doubt of it? We say accordingly, that no gesture is to be used, and directed to the elements; the reverence of the elements stands not in appointing gestures unto them; therefore the more to blame are you, that uncover your heads in reverence of the holy mysteries, without respect of worshipping God. We do not thus, (as you speak) out of a blind devotion, use this or that gesture of reverence to the elements. Not, we give sovereign worship to the Lord alone in his holy ordinance, (which his blessed word alloweth) and that reverence that cometh unto the elements doth only issue from the sovereign worship. For drawing near to his Majesty in receiving upon our knees, there is a certain reverence, and esteem, decency, and ornament from thence arising to the elements, which are received as being not only the matter of our employment, but occasion of our adoring, as in other ordinances it more or less falleth ou● in like manner: and if we said nothing concerning this reverence, the thing itself would notwithstanding declare it. This is so fare from idolatry, that there cannot be true worship performed in the public meetings without some degrees of it. And hitherto be spoken of such respects by which we may be lawfully moved to kneel in the act of receiving without idolatry, the discourse whereof I have inserted here betwixt my two Paragraphs, as that which will give excellent light, to see the error of your Assumption, that kneeling at Sacrament is idolatrous, whether we look unto your proofs, as kneeling is considered in itself, which have been examined in my former Paragraph, or as kneeling is enjoined by the Church of England, which now falls upon us to be examined in the next place.   

Paragraph. 2. Kneeling at Sacrament is not Idolatrous, as it is enjoined by this Church.  
FIrst, I must tell the Reader, that though in the first Paragraph, Sect. 61 I brought forth some reasons, or rather idle cavillations, (tending to confirm your Assumption, namely, that kneeling at Sacrament is idolatrous in itself) which I observed out of the Replier, yet those of your writers, that do lay down your argument in form, and at first hand, as a ground to rest your faith on, do use no other proof that kneeling is idolatrous, but only the Intention, and injunction of this Church: of whom therefore I would demand, if setting aside the injunction, they would be content to cast off this argument of idolatry? Verily then you make a great a do about the proposition of your argument all in vain, as if you would conclude kneeling to be flat idolatry in itself, if the Church had been silent. All bowing (say you) before a creature with religious respect, &c. it idolatry; now (say I) kneeling at Sacrament can never be used, but with religious respects to the bread and wine: and yet you prove your Assumption, only by the Churches enjoining to kneel unto, or worship before the creature. You might (in my simple opinion) have disputed a great deal more readily, and more perspicuously, and as pertinently in this manner. [Al● divine worship given to the creature is idolatry: But this Church gives (in kneeling at Sacrament) divine worship to the creatures of bread and wine: Therefore our kneeling in this Church is idolatry.] But if you meant to conclude out of your Proposition absolutely against kneeling, (that it is idolatry in itself being used before creatures with religious respect unto them) you did forget yourselves in your Assumption by foregoing a chief part of your advantage, and only taking to the Church's injunction. So that either your Proposition is more exact, and large than you needed, or your Assumption is stricter, and narrower in the proof, than your need of proof would, or might permit, specially in a matter of so great consequence, as the idolatry of kneeling absolutely considered. Well you give us occasion to believe, that if the Church enjoin not an idolatrous kneeling, then in itself you think it is not idolatrous unto us; and for mine own part I do believe, that the wiser sort of you think no otherwise. So I hope you, and we shall be reconciled if we can justly vindicate the Church from the guilt of to foul a crimination, as that she enjoins kneeling to be used idolatrously.  
Let us then without partiality make an equal trial of Sect. 62 this suit commenced against the Church. We will not here stand upon our own wellmeaning, but give the 
d Perth. Assem. pag. 49.  Scotchmen, that although our private intents, (in observing a variable constitution of the Church) may differ from the public, yet we should be guilty of the public error and sin materialiter, and interpretatiuè: therefore let the Church's integrity be considered. At first I confess I feared our Church had spoken dangerously in this thing; for I found in the 
e Abridg. p. 62.  Abridgement, (compiled by a company of grave Ministers) a bitter and grievous accusation in these words: This gesture seemeth to be enjoined even with a superstitious intent, & meaning to adore the Sacrament itself, as we shall show by and by. Verily, said I hereupon, show this, and my mouth is stopped for defending our Churches kneeling, by that intent not possible to be justified. Well, I turned over the Abridgement to that place, where it promised to show the same, yea I turned over all their books which I had to show this; and behold, I could not found them proving any such matter. Their conjectures, (for they will prove at first sight no other) are of two sorts either rising from affirmitive, and positive respects, or from negative. I find three conjectures of the first sort one depending upon another, and of the latter as many, to show the Church's meaning. I will lead the godly Reader to them in order, with mine answer annexed, heartily requesting him to arbitrate betwixt us as the evidence of the truth shall require.   

First conjecture whereby our brethren would show the Church's meaning to be idolatrous, because kneeling was enjoined at first to stop the mouths of the Papists.  
FIrst, 
f Perth. Ass. p. 48 Manuscr. ch. 1. arg 4.  you conjecture the meaning of the Church Sect. 63 to be idolatrous, because kneeling was in King Edward's time enjoined to quiet the Popish Rebels in Devonshire, who complained because the Sacrament was not received kneeling, that it was profaned, and also to stop the mouths of others, who reviled the Sacrament, terming the same, jack of the Box, round Robin, the Sacrament of the Halter, &c. Answer. 1. I am not bound to believe, that kneeling was merely brought in upon this occasion, except the first enjoyners had professed as much. I take notice of what is extant in the Ecclesiastical history, yet I can observe nothing absolutely to infer, that kneeling would not have been as much enjoined, if the Papists had been silent and quiet. I know that proceed of authority, in such cases as this are common taken and censured amiss. And the Replier is 
g Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag 50.  on my side against you, who (out of the words of johannes à Lasco, a learned man living then in England, and (as he saith) acquainted with the chiefest Protestants, and with their counsels) collecteth, that the reproaches of blackmouthed Papists were not such a motive to King Edward, and his Directours to enjoin kneeling, as is imagined. Yet I will not deny, that it is a probable thing, (for all the words of johannes â Lasco) that kneeling was enjoined partly at lest through the Papists. But when I inquire, what is the certain meaning of the Church, I cannot be satisfied from that which 
h The true reason of kneeling must not be fetched from vain conjectures. Repl. partic. p. 48.  is uncertain. Indeed that only can give satisfaction in this case, which the Church herself expressly declareth unto us. The conscience asks rather, what is the tenor of the law which binds to performance, than what motives stirred up the enjoyners to make it, which were either reserved in their own breasts, or else there wanteth full and express record, particularly asserting the same, and the knowledge thereof cannot now be gained, being almost fourscore years ago. Even this answer may serve to satisfy them which be reasonable.  
Answer. 2. Let it be presumed for certain, that the Sect. 64 gesture was enjoined to stop the mouths of the Papists, yet you cannot conclude, that the Popish worshipping of the elements was enjoined therefore. For you must 〈…〉 there be two things in the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament, namely, the gesture itself, which is an outward carriage, visible to the eye of the body, and spiritual intention, and application thereof: now except the Papists occasioning of kneeling to be enjoined, do 〈◊〉 imply that it is enjoined to be intended, and applied as they intent, and apply it, your conjecture comes to just nothing. The Papists gave us occasion to use the Temples, wherein we serve God, the Bells, &c. doth that imply now, that we intent & apply our Temples, Bells, &c. to the same idolatrous use whereunto they did intent and apply them? At Geneva the Papists gave them occasion to use wafercakes in the Supper, do they therefore esteem, and use the same as the Papists do their wafercakes, which they dream to be transubstantiated? Paul was occasioned from the jews importunity to practise certain jewish Ceremonies, yet it follows not that he used them, as they used them; he accorded with them in the things, which he did, yet dissented from the erroneous conceit, which they had of them. Wherefore Papists were an occasion of our kneeling as it is an outward act, which the bodily eye doth judge of, but they moved us not to kneel to the elements: yea for that outward act, they were occasion only at that time; for they moved us not to kneel, as if else we might not have kneeled, but only stirred us up to use the benefit of our liberty, as the times, and seasons seemed then to require. And this is a sufficient answer, as I suppose, inasmuch as the outward act of kneeling was it, which sufficed to stop the mouth of calumniation, which outward act God's word alloweth, and we might have lawfully used, if the Papists had never been heard of. So either of these two answers without more a do shows the vanity of this conjecture.   

Second conjecture, whereby they would show the Church's meaning to be idolatrous, is because King Edward's second Book professeth, that kneeling is enjoined, that the Sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverend, and holy estimation amongst us.  
SEcondly, we come to the greatest of all conjectures, Sect. 65 and that which our brethren both in writing, and talking stand upon more than a little. And what's that? Behold King Edward's second Book professeth, that kneeling at the Communion is enjoined upon this ground, that the Sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverend, and holy estimation amongst us. And what then? Therefore kneeling is enjoined, (you 
i Disp: pag. 59 Manuscr. ch 1. arg. 4.  say) for veneration of the elements. Answer. I grant you the conclusion, for veneration or reverence of the Sacrament is no idolatry: nay the gesture aught to tend to the reverence of the Sacrament, or else it is not used aright, let it be what gesture you william. May not an holy carriage be appointed (I pray you) in God's ordinance to avoid light and careless esteem thereof, but it might be idolatry? Verily then all mutable circumstances shall be idolatrous, of which as much may be said as of this gesture ●n question, that they be used to the end the Sacrament may not be profaned, but reverently handled. Therefore I entreat you to take into consideration both how reasonable our exposition is of the words of the book to clear the compilers from intent of idolatry, and how forced yours is, who in stead of milk, and equity, wring out blood.  
For the first, is there any thing more manifest, than Sect. 66 that the Sacrament may be profaned? that the Church may and aught to provide, (as much as she judgeth meet for the persons and times) against such profaneness? that sitting, and standing, (though they be warrantable in themselves, yet being the gestures of civil eating) may be 
k 〈◊〉 say not, that they be cau●es of profanes of themselues, 〈◊〉 Replie● would 〈◊〉 father's 〈…〉 28.  abused by weak, and carnal hearts, to the light esteeming, and negligent using of the Sacrament? That kneeling is an outward expression, or carriage of greater reverence than sitting, and standing? Neither is this to purge profaneness with superstition, 
l Ibidem.  as the Replier beggeth, and cavilleth, when out of sovereign worship to God, which is first lawful, and good, this reverence to the Sacrament only springeth and issueth: for who seethe not, that the said ordinance may have greater reverence procured unto it by the Communicants adoring before the God of heaven, in the celebration of it, as may be likewise procured to other ordinances by the like humble demeanour?  
For the latter, let us see how you can conclude against Sect. 67 the Church, that by those words of the Common Prayer book she intends to commit idolatry? First, it seems to be thought, because the Church appointed kneeling in the act of receiving for avoiding of profaneness, therefore no other gesture sufficeth in the mind and meaning of the Church, but that, for receiving the Sacrament reverently. Hereupon the Replier demandeth, 
m Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. pag 48.  whether due estimation of holy rites, cannot be sufficiently testified without kneeling? But let any man of common reason consider whether this exposition be not most unreasonable; for by this declaring it followeth, that the Magistrate or Church can appoint no matter of circumstance upon consideration of the fitness thereof, but forsooth all other circumstances are condemned by and by, as absolutely unfit. Put case the Magistrate or Church enjoined kneeling in prayer for avoiding of profaneness, (which might godlily be done) could any man justly say, that (in the mind and meaning of the Commanders) prayer could not be therefore used in other gestures reverently? when authority limiteth the time, and the place of God's public worship, and many other circumstances, (in kind necessary) that the same worship may be decently, and orderly performed, can any man therefore justly say that other times and places, and orders, are esteemed absolutely indecent? Some time must be set, some place must be had, some orders must be appointed; now of many times, and places, and orders, which may be decently applied to God's worship, such a time, and such a place, and such other orders are limited, which the judgement of Governors can observe most fit, according to the state of the Church and people. So it is for the Sacramental gesture. The ancient appointers of kneeling in this Church having all gestures before them to determine out of, for the due, and reverend handling of the holy Sacrament, pitched upon the humble gesture of kneeling, as which for that very purpose they judged then to be the meetest of all others, and accordingly did appoint it. But (to keep you to the matter) what's this to make idolatry? If the requiring of kneeling, that an ordinance might be handled reverently, must import idolatry, than such requiring of kneeling at prayer, of sitting bore at the Sacramental business for handling those ordinances reverently, must also be flat idolatry; and yet (I think) you would allow of constitution of either kneeling at prayer, or sitting bore at the Sacrament, for handling the said ordinances reverently. The case is clear, that this exception concludes no idolatry, so long as the reverence intended ariseth only out of the sovereign worship, which is given to God himself: and whether the words of the book make for other reverence then such must be presently tried.  
Again you except against the words of the book, Sect. 68 prescribing kneeling at Sacrament for avoiding profaneness, because kneeling cannot be a remedy against profaneness: for (say 
n Ibidem.  you) except intermission (if such had been) of kneeling had been a cause of profaneness, which it was not, how could kneeling be a remedy. Again, what is the cause that in other Churches, remedy can be found against profaneness without kneeling, and not in ours? Answer. Great and difficult demands I wots! to the first I tell you yet again, that intermission of kneeling is not in itself any cause of profaneness, but by accident through the weak and carnal hearts of Communicants; and there is nothing more known than that laws are made of restraining some indifferent things, not for the matter of the things themselves, (for then all indifferent things should be commanded alike, that is, every man should be left to do what he will) but from the condition of men, and circumstance of the time. Now it is clear that kneeling may be a remedy against the accidental profaneness, which is occasioned through the intermission of it by other gestures. To the other demand, I certify you, that other Churches are no rule to us, more than we be unto them; that some other Churches do use kneeling for handling of the Sacrament reverently, as well as ours; that the best learned, that have been in those Churches where kneeling is not used, condemn it not in this Church; that those Churches may have such Communicants as slight the Sacrament, by occasion of the common gestures of eating and drinking, which is not impossible, or improbable, whatsoever you say: lastly, we never thought that kneeling is simply necessary for handling the Sacrament reverently, but only that it is good and fit unto that end, when the same can conveniently be applied, as physical prescriptions may be good and fit to prevent diseases, whereof there is cause of fear, when yet there is no absolute necessity of them. But (say 
o Pag. 51.  you) physic is not given as food, to all persons, and at all times, whereas kneeling is so prescribed in this Church. I answer, you do ill press against us the metaphor in those points, because the disease of profaning the Sacrament is, (as other spiritual diseases are) incident to all persons at any time; God's word is compared to Balm in Scripture, and to other physical things; belike you will check the Spirit of God, for comparing the same to physic, when it is continually, and universally necessary: but if kneeling be not requisite to all Communicants at all times for avoiding of profaneness, it is sufficient that it is so for the most part, (for so laws respect what is needful generally, though not universally, as some where else I have already showed) and at lest if profaneness should not fall out by other gestures; yet kneeling opposeth profaneness, being a gesture of reverence in its own nature. But (to keep you still to the matter) what's all this to idolatry? for what if kneeling be no more a remedy against profaneness, then standing or sitting, doth that conclude that the use of it is therefore idolatry? Nay if kneeling were not at all opposed to profaneness, but were itself profane, and profaned the Sacrament, (as the Disputer 
p Disp. pag. 164.  contradicting himself affirmeth) I hope you would be ashamed to conclude it to be idolatry therefore.  
Lastly, if any consideration of the words of the book Sect. 69 can make the Church's intent therein idolatrous, it is this, that kneeling seemeth to be allowed, or directed to no other purpose, but that reverence may be given to the visible elements. Answer. With this exposition (I suppose) some of you please yourselves so much, as if you durst forsake your ministeries, endure imprisonment, exile, even death itself, for the infallibility of it alone A difficult war it is to fight against the strength of the imagination, yet considering truth can and will command obedience unto them which love it, I am in good hope to persuade you to be ruled by a better commentary. First, then what will you say to the rule of charity, which requireth, that all things be taken in the best sense, 
q This proof is thus used by some of you in a Catechism beginning, what aught to be the chief, and continual care of every man in this life, at exposition of the sixth commandment.  1 Cor. 13. 5, 7. Verily if this be a rule at any time, it specially should take place in expounding the words of that religious King of blessed memory, KING Edward 6. and of his Directours, who helped in reforming religion in this land, and some of them honourable by Martyrdom. Now the words of the book may not only be interpreted in a better sense than you make, but also take them in the letter as they lie, without conceits and surmises, and they be godly, not to be reproved: for kneeling (as I have sufficiently manifested) may be lawfully used, that the Sacrament may be reverently celebrated. Secondly, by what law of God am I bound to exclude sovereign worship in the Church's appointment, because it is not expressed. If those words of the book could not consist therewith, than I confess the way of coming to God in this kneeling enjoined, had been blocked up: but when the reverence which the words express will plainly stand with sovereign worship given to God, (though unmentioned) & opposeth it not, nay may very well issue forth from it, what an uncharitable construction is it to exclude the said sovereign worship in the Church's meaning to make idolatry? Thirdly, observe the tenor of the words themselves, as you do recite them, and it easily admits, yea supposeth sovereign worship; for it enjoins not to kneel unto the bread and wine, (nay our Church abhortes to speak so) but to use the reverend gesture of kneeling, that so the Sacrament may not be profaned, but held in a reverend and holy estimation amongst us. This context of words importeth, that this reverence of the Sacrament ariseth from kneeling by consequence, and comes not thereunto by the said kneeling immediately directed unto it. Fourthly, you tell 
r Surveyed p. 7●.  us, that the Attorney general reporteth it to be a resolution, according to a general rule in law, that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction may punish offences against the Communion-booke, otherwise then the statutes of 1 Eliz. c. 2. doth, because that statute only affirmeth one manner of punishing. and doth not deny another: where you gather, that by the same rule, though kneeling be affirmed, yet sitring, and standing are lawful, because they are not denied. But (whereas for denial of sitting and standing I have spoken otherwhere) it is a rule of force in the purpose of our Church appointing to kneel, that though reverence be affirmed, sovereign worship cannot be denied: and here you may see most evident application of it. Fifthly, let it please you to think of the reason which yourselves 
s Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4.  allege, why those words were used, and kneeling enjoined, namely to stop the mouths of Papists, who complained that the Sacrament was profaned. Surely if this be true, you might easily see that the compilers named outward reverence only, because there was strife about it. There is no doubt, but they would have named sovereign worship, much more, if strife had been about it, as was not. How many laws are there, which only mention such respects as the time (when they were made) gave occasion, pretermitting some other, (yet not to be excluded) wherein the state and exigence of the time pressed them not? Sixthly, in all the book of common prayer, you shall never find, (as I take it) that wheresoever kneeling is enjoined, (as it is enjoined often) God himself is at any time expressly mentioned, to whom the kneeling yet, (even in your opinion of the Church's judgement) is without question intended. Wherefore you might do well to measure kneeling enjoined in the Sacrament by all these: for though there are outward, and inferior respects mentioned rather in that, then in these, (through particular occurrence befalling) yet they be all alike set down in the order of the book, which always supposeth, (as a thing most unquestionable) that religious kneeling is directed to God being so notorious a gesture in the Church of sovereign worship. This consideration might have moved you something. Seven, how hard, and harsh an opinion is this, that whereas kneeling before the elements be received is evidently used to God, now being continued to the act of receiving the case is altered, & God is by no means to be worshipped thereby: either this opinion, and meaning is so fond, it cannot be fathered upon such wise men, as the ancient compilers were, or certainly we should have had a note of admonition to signify the ceasing of sovereign worship. Eighthly, and lastly, your own writings will witness, that kneeling is intended and used by our Church for worshipping of God: for to pass 
t Disp pag. 15.  these words of the Disputer, [whether our Communicants do direct their knee-worship at the Lords table, to God the Father in several, or jointly to the whole Trinity, who can define? It is a point not as yet resolved (for aught I know) by our Church] to pass I say these words, (which grant as a thing not to be disputed, that kneeling is directed to God, (either the first person, or the whole Trinity) and that noresolution of the Church is against that, I must specially put you in mind, that you contend by earnest argument our kneeling in this Church to be a worshipping of God. First, the aforesaid Disputer I boureth 
u Disp pag. 159 160.  earnestly to prove 
w Mark the intent & ground of this proof, from the beginning at pag. 155.  our kneeling a part of the Lords worship, and directed unto him: but especially the Abridgement speaketh in this 
x Abridg. p. 42.  manner, [kneeling in the act of receiving the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is esteemed, imposed, and observed as a part of God's worship.] Wherefore out of the premises I dare say, that though kneeling be appointed by King Edward's book for reverence of the Sacrament, yet sovereign worship is not excluded, but supposed, whence the external reverence of that holy ordinance celebrated in that gesture, ariseth. And this interpretation, which you aught to make of that book, you may do well to make of our learned writers, who though they pled for reverence of the Sacrament, yet ever do defend that kneeling serveth for adoring the majesty of God and Christ. So that according to them by kneeling sovereign worship is directed to God, and therefore the reverence which cometh to the Sacramental signs and business flows from thence as I have declared before. If any of the children of our Church speak more undistinctly than you can see to allow, you cannot therefore justly take advantage against their mother.  
And so much for your second conjecture taken from the Common Prayer Book of King Edward 6. tending Sect. 70 to show the Church's meaning to be idolatrous; except I should add, that the Abridgement which promised to show, that kneeling is enjoined with an intent to adore the Sacrament itself, yet cities not to that purpose the words of that Common Prayer Book, which makes me to marvel either at the Authors of the Abridgement, (which had those words in consideration, and whom it most specially concerned to make their promise good) or else at others of our brethren, who stand upon this conjecture with such confidence. Also I might add that those words of King Edward's Book do not perhaps concern us at all, herein I will only writ, what you do dictate. The state (say 
y Surveyed p. 171 See Park. of the Cross, chap 5. sect. 13. & sect. 17.  you) of 1. Eliz. c. 2. established the second Book of Common Prayer of King Edward 6. some few and those mentioned alterations only excepted; and the 4. Rubric next after the Communion in that Book, [which 
z Inquire this,  as I think is that, out of which the words are fetched which you so much stand on] declaring that Communicants should receive kneeling, hath been left out of the Book of Common Prayer, that hath been in use, ever since that statute was made. Verily this consideration may serve to take away the scruple about the meaning of the words themselves being taken out of the way, by order of the State in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.   

The third conjecture whereby they would show the Church's meaning to be idolatrous, is, because she ties all her Communicants to adore God before the creatures.  
THe last, and lest of all conjectures, (arising from Sect. 71 positive respects) to show, that kneeling enjoined in this Church is idolatrous, is this, because the Church ties all her Communicants to adore God before the creatures of bread and wine. The 
a Abridg. 66.  Abridgement, and the 
b Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. sect. 24.  Replier defending the same, make no small account (as it appeareth) of this consideration. Answer. I distinguish; Tye is to be considered: first, in respect of the thing whereunto we be tied: secondly, in respect of that, by which we be tied: thirdly, by the manner of tying. First, if the thing be lawful in itself whereunto we are tied, and then the authority be lawful whereby we are tied, and the manner be with no other opinion, than the word of God doth allow, you shall as soon make civil Magistracy, (which is God's ordinance) an idol, as make such a tying idolatrous. Indeed if the thing itself be unlawful, as religious, and purposed kneeling before an image; or it be put upon us by them which have nothing at all to do with us, as by the Pope, or the King of Spain; or have an opinion of necessity put upon it, or other superstitions, when it is but a mutable circumstance serving to order, and comeliness, than the second commandment must needs be transgressed by such a tying: but what is this to the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament? That in other respects, of itself it is lawful, I hope I have plentifully showed; that the authority of the Magistrate in enjoining is lawful, I hope will not be denied, that it is imposed a thing indifferent, I have cleared in the first chapter of this part of the Treatise. If the Magistrate command us before, and after receiving, to kneel down both before the Temple, and before the bread and wine, yet the thing being lawful, the authority lawful, and only requiring it as a mutable circumstance, it is fare from idolatry to be tied unto it. But what should we trifle in this point? the words of the Abridgement make this exception, that it is not idolatry to adore before the creatures, except it be without warrant of the word. Now if you suppose kneeling, which is used in the act of receiving, to be without warrant of the word, more than before or after the act of receiving, when we confess, pray for a blessing, and give thanks, (for these we also do before the creatures;) you do not only suppose the ground of the controversy to be granted unto you, (which is childish) but you do also yield, that if it be lawful in itself, this conjecture taken from tying to make it idolatry is utterly of no value. But the Scotchmen say, 
c Perth. Ass p. 51  that worship is tied no longer to any certain thing, or place upon earth, joh. 4. 21. Answer. You mistake the holy Scripture, at lest by the manner of your applying. Certain and unchangeable individuals there are none to be imagined, (as the Papists dream that infallibility, and Catholic truth is annexed to the Sea of Rome) ever since Christ: but there is no man can doubt, that we may tie ourselves, or be tied to worship before creatures lawfully, upon an indifferent, and interchangeable use of them: else why should you tie yourselves to pray, (and kneel if you will) before civil creatures daily, both at dinner, and supper? Why should you tie yourselves to kneel daily in such or such a room, morning and evening, as they offered morning and evening sacrifice in the Temple? Why should you tie yourselves to kneel before the elements of bread and wine, always before, and after the act of participation? The truth is, if your application of joh. 4. 21. be good against kneeling to God, the bread and wine being before us, it is not lawful to tie ourselves to kneel to God in any place all our life long; you should have put a difference betwixt the tye of inherent holiness, and the tye of external and circumstantial expedience. In that all persons were bound to accommodate their adoring to the places and things: In this they are free to accommodate places and things to their adoring. So much of your three conjectures, drawn from respects affirmative, to prove the Church's intent to be idolatrous. Now let us see what you are able to pick out of negatives.   

Of conjectures taken from certain negative considerations.  
NOw certain negatives you scatter up and down Sect. 72 your books to show the intent of our Church to be idolacrous. I will do you the benefit, as to bring them together, and make an induction of them in this manner.  
Kneeling, first, is not enjoined in this Church for a Tablegesture, Nor, secondly, for lawful reverence of the Sacrament, Nor, thirdly, for adoring the Lord himself, and no other probable respect can be given.  
Therefore it is enjoined in this Church for veneration of the elements idolatrously.  
For answer, not to dally about the consequence of this argument, I will only deny the Antecedent; and forasmuch as it propoundeth three several respects for exemplification, let us generally see, whether this Church's intent, (in enjoining to kneel at Sacrament) be denied of every one of them.   

First Negative. The Church enioynes not kneeling as a fit Tablegesture.  
FIrst, you 
d Disp pag. 160. ●● alibi.  say, kneeling cannot be enjoined as a fit Tablegesture? Sect. 73 Why so? Forsooth kneeling is unsuitable to the carriage of a guest, debars us of the liberties of a Table, &c. Answer. The question is not here, how suitable, or unsuitable kneeling is to the person of a guest, liberties of a table, &c. but whether the Church do respect it as a fit gesture for a spiritual table, and feast: and this it doth, as may appear, by the Book of Prayer, 
e See the order of the Communion.  appointing a Communion-table, calling the Sacrament according to the metaphorical speaking of the holy Scripture, a spiritual supper, feast, banquet; and the Communicants guests, &c. and yet notwithstanding it appointeth kneeling for the said guests, as a fitting gesture of that spiritual table, and feast: nay the Book takes notice of the gesture of civil feasts, and makes express 
f In the first exhortation.  mention of sitting; and yet appoint the gesture of kneeling at this feast altogether, because it is spiritual. Wherefore you cannot show that the Church enjoins not kneeling as a fit spiritual tablegesture: as for the Disputers old song, it hath been fully answered in the second part of this Treatise; most lawful it is to use a worship-gesture in a worship-ordinance; though this respect be but general, as I have noted before, Sect. 30. where (in setting down the respects, upon which we may be lawfully moved to kneel) I only pointed at it in the margin.) Even already then the Church is acquitted from intent of idolatrous kneeling.   

Second Negative. The Church enioynes not kneeling for any lawful, or convenient reverence, that is due to the Sacrament.  
SEcondly, say 
g Abridg. p. 68  you, it is evident, that this gesture is Sect. 74 not enjoined, in respect of any lawful, or convenient reverence, that is due to the Sacrament, for neither at the administration of Baptism, nor at the hearing of the word read or preached is any such gesture used, to both notwithstanding, there is every whit as much reverence due, as to the Supper of the Lord Answer. I retort in this manner. You do not uncover your heads in the time of receiving in respect of any lawful and convenient reverence, (which yet you pretend) that is due to the Sacrament, for at hearing of the word read, or preached, you use not any such gesture, to which notwithstanding there is every whit as much reverence due, as to the Supper of the Lord How can you possibly avoid this retortion? The children of. Israel erred in the dissimilitude as we do, as the Scotchmen do teach. When (say 
h Perth. Ass. 45.  they) they received the law of the Passeover, they bowed the head and worshipped, Exod. 12. 27. Yet did they not so in the eating of it; they were more reverend in hearing the law of the Passeover, then in the participation of it. Yet we are well, that the Church of England is but like the Church of Israel in a commendable performance. Again, sometimes you pray in divers fashions or gestures, doth it follow therefore that the same ordinance is more or less reverendly to be handled then itself? This reasoning of yours should import that the like reverence is to be declared always in all ordinances. Again, you might well have considered, that the Church may prescribe a gesture of greater reverence to the Sacrament, not because more reverence is due to it in itself, but because it hath been most abased by words, and deeds 
i See what anidle answer Repl. makes to this point, Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. ch 3. sect. 27. when he makes comparison betwixt the Sacrament and images, and the kneeling of both, belike he can prove religious kneeling before images lawful in itself; indeed he may prove any thing after his manner.  of vilifying unreverence. Lastly, you must be remembered, that the reverence of kneeling, (as it is appointed in this Church) doth only issue out of the sovereign worship; therefore if kneeling be lawfully appointed in the Sacrament for sovereign worship (though it be not so, in hearing of the word, and administration of Baptism) it may lawfully be appointed also consequently for reverence; and the trial of this belongs to the next negative. Wherefore for any thing, that is hitherto said, the Church is clear from intent of idolatrous kneeling. As for the absolute lawfulness of this respect of kneeling, namely, for reverence-sake, I have largely shown it, Sect. 45. to Paragr. 2.   

Third Negative. The Church enioynes not kneeling, for Adoration of the Lord  
THirdly, you say, that kneeling is not enjoined in this Sect. 75 Church for adoration of the Lord: and that it is not so, you endeavour to prove in this manner.  
If kneeling be appointed for adoring the Lord, then either for adoration in and upon occasion of prayer, or else for simple adoration without prayer.  
But it is not appointed for adoration in prayer, nor for adoration without prayer.  
Therefore not for adoration at all.  
I am contented to make the best of your several scatrerings, that the truth may appear. Let your points be now tried in their order.   

Of kneeling at Sacrament in respect of Prayer.  
COncerning prayer I do freely confess, that inasmuch Sect. 76 as it is but occasional, and not the principal exercise of the soul, (whether it be mental or vocal) in the Sacramental business, I do neither deem it the principal respect of lawful kneeling, neither have I reason to deem it the principal respect, upon which the Church enjoins it. Yet forasmuch again, as the Sacramental administration is a public worship of God, and the act of eating and drinking lasteth but a little while, to each Communicant in several, the greatest part of the time by far being taken up with prayers, and thanksgiving, as it were enclosing the same about, I cannot see, that the retaining of kneeling so long and immediately used, and to be used, by occasion of them, can be justly charged with ungodliness. But for making your part better, you speak severally of that short prayer, which is appointed to be used by the Minister about the time of distributing the elements, as if all the consideration of kneeling at Sacrament for prayer-sake, depended of that alone, yet I am contented to let the Reader see what you have opposed even in that prayer.  
First, you tell us, that, That prayer is unlawful, and contrary Sect. 77 to God's word. And (though this be nothing to the present purpose) yet behold an heap of proofs are at hand. First, (saith the 
k Disp. p. 117.  Disputer) This prayer is contrary to the person of guests and coheires, directing us to an apprehension of our disfellowship with Christ. Therefore it can not be lawful. Answer. This ridiculous, and contemptible logic is used also against the gesture of kneeling, as well as against this prayer; the profaneness whereof I have abundantly showed before, Part. 2. chap. 6. by the same conceit all other prayers made before receiving are likewise unlawful, all secret ejaculations in the very act, yea the practice of faith, and all respects of humility, and dependence, and in a word, all intention, and cogitation of serving the Lord in the duties which he requireth at that time to be done by us; but I hope this learning will dye, and be buried with the Author it is so vile and detestable. Secondly, (saith the same 
l Pag. 65. 117.  man:) This prayer is a private worship during the public; therefore it is unlawful. Answer. This objection is also made against the gesture of kneeling, which I have clearly refuted before, part. 2. chap. 8. and thence the Reader may also be satisfied for this prayer. Thirdly, (saith he) 
m Ibidem.  This prayer is contrary to meditation necessary at that time. Answer. As much as if a man hearing the word should say in his heart The Lord bless his word unto me. Is there any more said in this prayer, then as it were a (profit tibi.) The holy Sacrament be effectual unto thy good. Is this contrary to meditation of the Sacrament. Alas Sir, every one sees, that nothing was ever said more falsely, and absurdly. Fourthly, (say the 
n Perth. Ass. p. 52  Scotchmen) This prayer is contrary to the second commandment, partly because it is made by direction before a creature, and partly because it is a rite which God hath not ordained, therefore it is not lawful. Answer. For the former reason, being also made against the gesture of kneeling, I have of purpose bend myself to answer it in this chapter already. And for the latter, it is wonderful strange Divinity to teach, that a particular prayer for sanctification of God's ordinance is not appointed by God: by this conceit, we must have no prayers appointed or used before, or after Sermons, Baptism, Supper of the Lord at all; for why be they lawful, and not this? It is evident, that the matter of this prayer is good, and also pertinent to the occasion, neither may you help yourself by saying, that it is a good prayer, but not used in fit place; for your reason plainly affirmeth the prayer itself to be a rite, which God hath not ordained. Fifthly, (saith 
n Surveyed p. 75.  the Surveyour) The pronouncing of these words, The body of our Lord, &c. The blood of our Lord, &c. in the act of ministering the elements, may occasion idolatry. What? Rather than the pronouncing of those words in the institution of Christ, nay not so much; for in the institution, the bread is called (sacramentally) the body of Christ, the wine is called his blood in plain terms, (and that in the act of ministration) whereas in this prayer is no such matter: belike you would not have the people think of the body, and blood, whiles the bread and wine are either seen, or felt by them for fear of idolatry, Sixthly, (says the Surveyour) 
o Ibidem.  It seems not warrantable by the word, that in the action of ministering the elements, the Minister should minister to Christ and the Church both. Answer. Where is that word I pray? The Priests in the law were appointed to minister both to the Lord and to the Congregation, Numb. 16. 9 Nay the very act of preparing and offering the people's offering which they brought, was a ministering both to the Lord and to them at the same time: and what will you say to the blessing of the Minister, after the Sacrament is ended, and to Deutr. 10. 8. The Lord separated the Levites, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name. And in truth this prayer is in the nature of a ministerial blessing of the communicants; besides doth not the Minister, even when he ministereth bread and wine, plainly minister as well to the Church as to Christ? At lest all Gods ordinances admit of interchange, and succession in respect of this double respect of ministering: wherefore who would let such an objection pass from his pen, that considered either that this twofold ministration may be conjoined in one act, or when they be disjoined, the disjunction is interchangeable. 7ly, lastly, (say they) 
p Perth. Ass. p. 52 Disp. 65. 119. Surveyed pa. 74.  This prayer of the Minister in the act of distribution, is flat against the institution of the Sacrament. How prove you that? It argues the institution defective: for what reason can be given, why we should not forbear the making of a prayer at the delivery of the elements as well as Christ did? Are we wiser than Christ, and more careful to perform a worship to God the Father than he? Answer. Alas Sir, wiser than Christ was? Christ grant us but a drop of his Ocean, in whom are all the treasure of wisdom, and knowledge, but are you wiser than Christ was, that will not forbear long prayers before, and after sermons, before and after the administration of both Sacraments? Moreover Christ is said to pray for a blessing upon the elements to the receivers, but what words, and how many they were you cannot tell, nor how long they did continued. Nay Christ's blessing might be as near his distributing, as this prayer is before our distributing for aught appeareth in the text; for if our Ministers should break every Communicant his piece, or portion of bread, when he comes unto him, and so breaking give it unto him, you can show no difference in the time. And in the administration of the Cup this is more manifest; for Christ is said to bless the Cup, and so gave it to his Apostles▪ Yea. But you will say, Christ did not pronounce a prayer singularly to each Communicant. I answer, if he did not, yet considering the common blessing of the table belongs to-every one, and a several application thereof is to be made by every one; here is nothing done in the particular, but what is done, and grounded in the common blessing; nothing done by the Minister in applying the said common blessing to the Communicant, but what every Communicant aught to do for himself: and this is truly subordinate to the rule of Christ's institution. Therefore it is too too foolishly said, that it seems as unlawful to add a prayer to the words of the institution, as to add love-feasts to the Lords Supper: for besides that prayer is at liberty in every ordinance even the tenor of the institution itself is partly prayer in the action of ministration. Now to the rest of the Disputers trash, upon this occasion, pag. 114. (wherein he is (as he is wont to be) larger then others in showing his vanity) this answer may be sufficient with the judicious. Only the Scotchmen must be spoken to, who tax us for turning the words of Christ, [This is my body] into a prayer; as if those words might not be inserted in the words of distribution, not withstanding this prayer: therefore if there be a fault in omitting the enunciative words [This is Christ's body] at the distributing, yet the prayer being godly in itself cannot be condemned, or blamed therefore: and yet the effect of them it touched even in the words of distribution. Christ spoke thus, [Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me] we speak thus, [Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died, or his body was given, as in the form of distributing the wine, it is said, in remembrance that his blood was shed] here is the same sense, and perhaps if (for avoiding such danger, as the Surveyour mentions before) there be liberty left of changing the terms, the sense remaining entire, herein there wants not matter of praise of the discretion of the compilers. Thus much of the lawfulness of prayer.  
Now indeed I might have spared the controversy of Sect. 78 this point, (but for your unreasonable importunity) for whether it be lawful or not, mattereth not in this place, where endeavouring to prove the Church's idolatry, you must show, that the Church enjoins not kneeling in the act of receiving with any respect to that, or other prayers, which are to the said act adjoined according to the public direction. Now therefore show us if you can, that kneeling is not enjoined in any respect of the prayer mentioned. That for other prayers I may forbear to press you, having spoken nothing of them, that I can found. In this one prayer I am not mindful of striving with you, yet he that looks upon the Rubric shall find in this manner, [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the people, kneeling, and when he delivereth the bread and wine he shall say, the body of our Lord, &c. the blood of our Lord, &c.] whereby there may be well some connexion of the kneeling, and praying together, especially when part of that kneeling enjoined necessarily falls into the time of the said prayer.  
First, (say 
r Abridg. 65.  you) Prayer is made without kneeling at Sect. 79 meals, and banquets, and therefore at this banquet we do not kneel because of the prayer. Answer. This is an evident nonsequitur, for you cannot reason from civil tables to this spiritual absolutely, as I have showed in answering your argument of a Tablegesture, Part. 2. ch 5. much less can you reason to the Church's appointment, which (whether well or ill) may appoint that in spiritual use which is not in civil. Again, what an heterogeneous instance is this, for in the act of civil eating we commonly kneel not at all, and what then can you proportionably collect for kneeling in religious eating? Again, do you not consider, that according to your reasoning it followeth, that the Church appoints not kneeling before the Communion for prayers sake, (wherein the book of prayer expressly confutes you) because we use not to kneel in civil blessing. Moreover you suppose, that the Church would not appoint a reason of kneeling contrary to ordinary civil use, wherein the thing itself confutes you without other help; for that Church that would appoint kneeling in Sacramental eating, without respect of gestures of civil eating, cannot be denied, to appoint it for reason, that is strange unto civil practice. If the main civil matter have been neglected, inferior respects could not be much esteemed of. Lastly, think you that the Church in the public and solemn worship of God may not step out step in gesture beyond the fashion (either in eating or blessing) of civil tables?  
Secondly, (say 
s Abridg. ibid. Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4. & ch. 7.  you) Our Church useth not always Sect. 80 to command kneeling at prayer or thanksgiving at other times therefore she enioynes not kneeling at Sacrament because of prayer. Answer. O noble reasoning, she appoints it not at all times, and every where. therefore at no time, and no where. I doubt not but you will acknowledge the weakness, and inconsequence of this argument: but the Manuscript delivers this reason thus; Our Church and Book of Prayer useth not to enjoin kneeling so strictly at any prayer. Answer. What strictness is used the fact perteines not to the purpose: sure I am that it is untrue which you say, that the Book useth not to enjoin kneeling so strictly at any prayer. See for example the Rubric before the general confession in the beginning of Morning prayer. And again the Rubric after the Creed in Morning Prayer: and compare them with the Rubric which is before this prayer in controversy, and you shall see them enjoined with equal strictness, and therefore I marvel that you would accuse the book so unjustly, and in so manifest a case. Where the Abridgement addeth, that the Book appoints not kneeling in those prayers and thanksgivings, which are appointed to be used both before and after the receiving of the Sacrament, it is evidently false. For at the first confession and prayer, appointed to be made at the Communion, next after the exhortations there is this Rubric, [Than shall this general confession be made in the name of all those that are minded to receive the holy Communion, all kneeling humbly upon their knees. How can you look upon this Rubric, and your consciences not check you for saying as you do▪ If you say, that that direction is not renewed at every prayer, you require a superfluous direction; for that which is set in the front of many prayers, is sufficient for all that are continued together. For whereas in the general confession of Morning prayer all are appointed to kneel down, do you think the book intends not the continuance of kneeling at the absolution, and the Lords prayer? Again, after the Creed of Morning prayer all are appointed to kneel down at saying a company of versicles, do you think the same kneeling is not intended to be continued at all other prayers which shall be continuated unto them? In a word it is not necessary that direction for kneeling should be renewed at every singular prayer, but one is enough for all such prayers as by one plain and continued concatenation are linked together. And this in reason and charity is to be judged the meaning of the book, for else direction would be given for one prayer, and none for twenty, which to think were to charge the compilers uncharitably with ba●ish and ridiculous misprision. And to make this to be the meaning better appear, it is to be observed, that the book is wont commonly to direct, for kneeling at the first prayer, where many prayers are together, and not at any other that follow; and though I know sometimes, (as at Evening prayer, &c. there is no express direction at all, because the same is understood in the main directions of Morning prayer, which imply the like to be done upon like occasions) yet commonly, where there is direction it is set at the first prayer, as in Morning prayer before the confession, and again after the Creed, again after the exhortations at the Communion, again before the versicles in the order of matrimony, again in the beginning of the order of visiting the sick, again in the beginning of the thanksgiving for women after childbirth, again before Psal. 51. in the commination, in all which places (besides other) there is express direction for kneeling down.  
Thirdly, (say 
t Abridg. 6●. Manuscr. ch. 1. arg. 4. & ch. 7.  you) The prayer that is used at the delivery of the Sacrament, is made by the Minister, who yet Sect. 81 standeth, and in his name not by the receiver, therefore the receiver is not required to kneel for it. Answer. A pitiful objection▪ ● is not the prayer made in the people's both be half and presence? Look into the common prayer book, and you shall found kneeling required even in such forms as this After the Creed of Morning Prayer, all are directed to kneel, and then followeth [The Lord be with you, and with thy Spirit] what say you to this one parallel? Nay I will give you others, wherein the Minister standeth, and the people kneel in such like forms; as after the the general confession following the exhortations in the order of the Communion, the Minister stands up, the people kneeling, and says thus, [Almighty God our heavenly Father, &c. have mercy upon you, &c. confirm, and strengthen you in all goodness, &c.] Again, before the vesitles in the order of macrimony, the man and woman kneeling down, the Minister standing up, and having his face toward them, shall say. OH Lord save thy servant and thine handmaid, &c. Again in the order of thanksgiving for women after childbirth, the woman is appointed to kneel, the Minister to stand, and say as followeth: [O Lord save this woman thy servant, &c. OH Almighty God which hast delivered this woman, &c. grant, &c. that she through thy help may, &c.] By which places it appears, that you cannot show, that the Church requires not kneeling for the prayer apappointed before the act of receiving, because of the form, nor because of the Ministers standing. Nay, where you say, that rather the Minister should kneel, than the receivers for that prayer, we might say as much against you, who tell us, that our kneeling is for reverence of the elements, be cause the Ministers reverencing should be exemplary to all the Communicants. But it is evident that the Ministers are occastioned to stand and walk, as the Priests in the law often were, in the administration of holy things. As for the want of Amen in this prayer, you do from thence with small reason infer, that the people are not enjoined to mind it, as their prayer, when there are above threescore prayers in the Communion Book besides versicles, without an expressed, and a vocal Amen, yet consent both in all these, and in the prayer before the delivery of the Communion is not more clearly employed, then universally known and yielded.  
Fourthly, (say 
u Disp. 61, &c. Perth. Assem. pag. 52.  you) That prayer hath no subsistence, Sect 82 and being in nature, during the whole action of the Communicants kneeling; for both it is begun before the prayer, and the prayer is finished before receiving. Answer. The former branch of this proof is foolish and idle, partly, because kneeling is appointed before this prayer for many other preceding prayers, which reach unto it, and partly because it is a needful thing in making of all public prayers, that the people kneel before the Minister begin, that they may be ready to begin with him, but will you say because it is used a little space of time before the prayer have being in nature, that it is not used because of the prayer? So you say in this case, but who sees not how ridiculously? Now except kneeling be used before receiving for one of the former respects there is no necessity that it should be used by any order of this book. But the latter branch you most of all stand upon, wherein others do likewise 
w Abridg. 66. Manuser. ch. 1. arg 4. & ch 7.  join, namely, because the prayer is 
x The Author of the Manuscript adds that there is an exhortation betwixt the prayer, and receiving. Answer. A consideration of no use here, for that exhortation is but a direction to take and eat, and so is joined with the action of receiving: you might as well object, that the receiver puts out his hand betwixt, for so he doth before the act  finished before the act of receiving, therefore kneeling in that act cannot be appointed because of the prayer. Answer. This reason doth not absolutely convince for the meaning of the Book; for sometimes it is that the gesture of kneeling is required by the Book in the reading of the word, for and by occasion of the prayer which is adjoined unto it. Look the order of the Communion itself, and this will be found true even there. Kneeling is required in rehearsing the ten commandments, because prayer is enjoined at the end of every commandment. Again kneeling is required of the people, whiles certain comfortable sayings be rehearsed of holy Scripture: [Hear what our Saviour saith, &c. Hear what S. Paul saith, &c. Hear what S. john saith, &c.] and this because of prayer that is adjoined unto them. True the Minister is appointed here to stand up, but since that is done for pronouncing of matters, and for that cause he is singularly directed, there is no cause to suspect that that implies the like direction to the people, especially when they are by name directed for themselves when is occasion a the like may be done in the act of receiving, for the prayer which is thereunto adjoined; and so much the rather when the soul in the act of receiving may be sweetly carried up to God in secret desires according to the matter and tenor of that prayer, which so newly sounded in the ear of the Communicant. And yet I would not stand upon that prayer alone, but rather the continued exercise of prayer, whereof that is but a part, to give occasion of kneeling to be continued in the act of receiving, especially when the time of receiving to one Communicant is very short, and as it were but a moment, in the midst of the said exercise of prayer, which the Church appointeth to be adjoined. And yet again as receiving is the principal employment, and the prayer is but occasioned thereby, it is to be understood, that still the business of receiving hath a principal stroke in occasioning such kneeling to be used, (though used immediately-by occasion of prayer) as causa causae est causa causati.  
So much may suffice for answer of your reasons, Sect. 83 whereby you would show, that the Church appoints not kneeling at Sacrament in any reference to the prayer adjoined. Truly I would have spared this pains, but that both you make so much a do about it, and with so much confidence, and because your intent thereby is to evince (which you are not able) that the Church's intent must be idolatrous. As for that which you also 
y Perth. Ass pag. 52. 53.  add of 
z Namely that which is merely mental.  mental prayer in the act of receiving, affirming that the Church enjoins not kneeling for that it is merely unprofitable, because though it may be joined with vocal prayers and add strength to my former considerations, yet there is no man was ever so simple to say that, that was of itself a reason of the Churches commandement. And now we will see how you can prove that, the Church enioynes not kneeling in the act of receiving for simple adoration without prayer. This is the chiefest consideration, and yet you say but a very little unto it in comparison of the former.   

Of receiving at Sacrament for adoring God without prayer.  
FOr simple adoration, there be three main respects in the holy Sacrament, which I named before. The Sect. 84 first is God's special presence, Sect. 31. The second is the humble and thankful remembrance of Christ sufferings. Sect. 32. The third is the gracious gift of Christ's body and blood, which is bestowed upon us, Sect. 33. &c. Can you show now that the Church enioynes not kneeling to be used for adoring or worshipping God in these respects, and so consequently enioynes it not for simple adoration or worshipping at all? I promise' you I will not balk any thing you say, that I know, and therefore I will examine, what you speak to each of them in order. For the first, you say not a word, and therefore I need not say a word for answer, unless I certify you that your proof of the Church's intent of Idolatry, by this, that it inioynes not simple adoration of God must needs be lame, because (whatsoever you say to the other respects) against this (the instance whereof was so necessary and plain) you say nothing.  
That the Church inioynes not kneeling for adoration upon the thankful remembrance of Christ's sufferings, Sect. 85 you give us four reasons. First say 
a Abridg. p. 67, Manuscrip. ch. 1. arg. 4.  you, The act of receiving is not properly an act of thansgiving but of faith. Answer, you contradict yourselves, that say otherwhere, that kneeling is not lawful in the act of receiving, because it is not a fit expression for the outward acting of thankfulness. See part. 2. chap. 7. sect. 6. 7. But why do you deny the act of receiving to be a thankful remembrance, when there is nothing more evident in the world? for is it not instituted for remembrance, and why for remembrance, but that it should be thankful remembrance? It is true, as we look only to our own good, it is a mere act of feeding in grace, but as we look unto Christ it is an 
b Perth. Ass. says there is no mental praise, therefore no thanksgiving, lordship 53. Sir, the action itself is Eucharistical and yet also there is mental thanksgiving, because the mind so esteemeth and useth it.  act of thanksgiving, and that is the principal looking by Christ's own order. Do this in remembrance of me: but i● both it is an act of faith, therefore is faith unsoundly opposed to thanksgiving. But what is your inference out of this antecedent? Therefore the Church appoints not kneeling for thanksgiving. This follows not, for suppose the Sacramental action be no action of thanksgiving properly, yet it is enough to cross your present purpose, that the Church doth judge it to be so. And that so it doth, appears plentifully in the order of the Communion, as he shall easily find that will search the same and consider. In the forms of distribution of the elements, it is thus prescribed Eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving-Drinke this in remembrance Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful. In the thanksgiving to be used next after the receiving is ended, it is thus said: OH Lord our heavenly Father, we thine humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Whereunto may be added that acclamation, Therefore with Angels, &c. we laud and magnify, &c. And in a word thanksgiving is mentioned and used continually, before, and after, and in the administration of this heavenly service. And you shall found no such passages in the order of Baptism, neither do I see what could be said more by any Church holding the Sacramental action to be a proper action of thanksgiving. Therefore your first consideration is false in the Antecedent, false in the consequence, both which yourselves cannot but evidently perceive.  
Secondly, (say 
c Abridg. p. 67.  you) If the act of receiving be properly called a thanksgiving, yet is not kneeling the fittest gesture Sect 86 to be used in thanksgiving, by 1 King. 8. 54. Answer. This assertion I have answered of purpose, and shown the falsehood of it at large, part. 2. chap. 7. sect. 9 10, 11. But suppose it were true, what follows upon it? What? Therefore the Church appoints not kneeling for thanksgiving. Surely this is a Nonsequitur, and gross in you, because you lay so many faults to the charge of this Church, especially intent of idolatry in receiving: for is it not absurd to go about to prove the Church to do that which she aught not to do one way, because she must do as she aught to do another. For thus you argue, Kneeling is not the fittest gesture for thanksgiving, therefore the Church would not appoint it as Sacrament for thanksgiving. You might as well have reasoned in this manner, and much better also. Kneeling for idolatrous reverence of the elements is an abominable thing, therefore the Church would not appoint it for such idolatrous reverence. Your part was to prove the Church's intent of kneeling not to be for thanksgiving, whether kneeling be fit in thanksgiving or unfit. And because you say nothing to that, I will give the godly Reader to consider of the Rubric directing to kneeling compared with the forms of distribution of the elements named before, The people shall have the bread and wine delivered unto them kneeling, says the Rubric, and then followeth-Take and eate-with thanksgiving-drinke this and be thankful. I desire that this consideration may be duly thought on.  
Thirdly, (say 
d Manuser. ch. 1. arg. 4.  you) Though kneeling should be a gesture Sect. 87 lawful, and fit to be used in a see thanksgiving, [I marvel you make a question of it] yet no man will think it needful or fit, that we should always kneel when we receive Gods blessings, because we must receive them thankfully. Answer. It is true, it is enough for us, that kneeling may be lawfully used, though not always necessarily, yet if any blessing of God require humble thankfulness, it is the blessing of Christ himself: also the Sacramental employment is Gods public & solemn worship, therefore as that blessing is not to be compared with continual, and ordinary mercies; so this employment gives free liberty of worshipping, than some occasions, times, places, (as you instance in market places, and worshipping before Nabuchadnezzar: idol, and the Breaden God, yea and I may add many others of another nature than they) would allow unto us. But what follows of this Antecedent? What? Therefore the Church appoints not kneeling for thanksgiving. This is a consequence like the former, nay worse because the Antecedent giveth kneeling to be fit and lawful in thanksgiving sometimes: and therefore the Church might more probably appoint it in this case.  
Fourthly, (say 
e Ibidem.  you) The Books of Common Prayer Sect. 88 commands us not to kneel at any other thanksgiving: therefore it requires not kneeling here for thanksgiving. Answer. I deny the Antecedent, which I show to be false by instances in the book. First all the thanksgivings at the end of the Litany, which are six in number are to be said in the gesture prescribed in the beginning of the prayers next after the Creed. Again the thanksgiving of women after childbirth is appointed to be performed in the gesture of kneeling, and this is a special and solemn thanksgiving. If you say the woman is directed only to kneel down, and not the Minister, you must consider the case is like in the gesture of receiving, where the Minister is not to kneel, when he is employed on the particular behalf of the Communicants, but they alone. So this is a clear and evident instance to refute you when you say that the book commands not to kneel at any thanksgiving. I may add that in the order of the Communion, the same direction that is for kneeling at certain confessions and petitions, is plainly of force for sundry thanksgivings that are inserted among them. And these instances may suffice, than your consequence is not sound, and convincing, because other thanksgivings in the book be vocal, and this Sacramental thanksgiving is real, or an acting of thankfulness, and if there be the same reason of both, yet that may be appointed once upon one occasion, that is not appointed again, though the same occasion fall out again: as standing is appointed at the Creed of Morning prayer, commonly called the Creed of the Apostles, and yet is not appointed at the same Creed in the order of the Communion, nor again at the Creed of Athanasius. So much for answer to your reasons, (such as they are) to show that the Church enjoins not kneeling at Sacrament for thankful remembrance of Christ's sufferings.  
In the next place, you endeavour to show, that the Church enjoins not kneeling at Sacrament for the excellent Sect. 89 gift that therein is bestowed upon us. Kneeling (say 
f Disp. 163. Demand. pag. 44. Manuscr. ch. 1. arg 4.  you) is not appointed for worshipping in respect of the gift, which we receive in the Sacrament, for than should we also be required to kneel in the time of Sermons, and in the administration of Baptism. Answer. First I might answer, that the Church condemns not kneeling at the hearing of the word, as in the receiving of the commandments, and other portions of Scripture, (which I noted before) by the Book of Common prayer appeareth, nay condemns it not even in Sermon time, namely in women, who kneel every where usually then, without so much as (I say not expostulation) but question once made or moved about it. And as much might be said of Baptism, that the Church condemns not kneeling in that ordinance, as it appointeth it not: and it might well have appointed it, if there had been occasion; for what occasion is there to prescribe a gesture unto such as are baptised amongst us; for when you say we are appointed to kneel at the Supper, and not at Baptism, you must not compare receivers in the one, with lookers on in the other, but Communicants at the Lords Supper with the Baptised in Baptism, such as are only children in our assemblies. Well then and do you not see, that the Church could dot limit a gesture for infants of a week old? Do you not see that no respect could or can be had unto the gesture in such? If this be evident, (as it is) your comparison of our Church's injunction of the Suppergesture with Baptism, (where no gesture can be enjoined) argues a great deal of inconsideration. I doubt not but this answer will give good satisfaction unto others, whatsoever it will do to you.  
But let it be, that there is an evident difference in the Sect. 90 Churches imposition, requiring kneeling at the Eucharist, and not in the exercise of the word and Baptism, what followeth of that? What? That the Church enjoins not kneeling at Sacrament for the gift which is bestowed upon the Communicants therefore? Make this inference good, and you shall do a great work of wonder. For there is no man so besides himself to think, that we are bound to kneel, whensoever we receive a gift from God, for than we should kneel continually; only we say that it is lawful to kneel upon that respect, when the circumstances do serve so to do conveniently. Now you know the times when kneeling was enjoined in King Edward's Reign, did give occasion that it should be imposed in the Supper, rather than in the exercise of the word and Baptism. It is true the respect of a gift may be common to the word and Sacraments, and therefore may warrant kneeling in itself in them all; but yet accidental occasion may make the gestures to differ. So when we kneel, we kneel for this respect of a gift, but we are not always bound to kneel upon this respect, as it is in the Lord's prayer, when we pray, Give us, it is lawful to kneel, yet not ever necessary, and if a man may leave such a gesture, which is used upon such respect as is permanent in the same ordinance; he may do it much more in that which is divers, as I have showed somewhere else before. Besides, though the word & Sacraments have all a consideration of being gifts, yet the Church might think the Eucharist a more special gift, then either the word or Baptism, not absolutely, but for the symbolical manner of communication. For behold the Eucharistical elements are not only a visible pledge of God's favour, and seal of his covenant, but also a visible offer and tender of Christ's own body and blood, which is the most express and lively Symbol of Christ, that the Church enjoyeth, yea and the same delivered unto us in a sensible manner, gift-wise, in the proper and outward guise of giving a gift, so as the word and Baptism are not. Now what if hereupon the Church enjoined difference in the gesture, I mean upon the apprehension of the difference of the gifts in the manner of exhibition, than your consequence is quite spoiled, verily as he which compareth the order of administration of the Eucharist, and Baptism together shall easily see, that the Church esteems of them unlike as gifts: So, that kneeling is enjoined at Sacrament to worship God for the gift of Christ's body and blood is evident, by that passage of the form of distribution, to be said, when the Communicant is upon his knees ready to receive the sign [the body of our Lord jesus Christ which was given for thee] which word is also used by our Saviour himself in the Institution.  
Furthermore, I must charge you with contradiction Sect. 91 to yourselves by making of this exception; for if it be true, that we be not appointed to worship God for the excellency of the gift, and yet (as your intent is to prove) to worship the excellent gift, than the Church would have have enjoined as much in the word and Baptism, that though not the giver for the gifts, yet those gifts should have been worshipped as well as the Eucharistical; nay because the Church appoints no Idolatrous worshipping of the word, and Baptism, which you say are as much to be honoured, as the Eucharist, according to your reasoning it must needs follow, that the Church intended not to give divine worship, unto the Eucharistical Elements, as if there were some intrinsical excellency therein, which did singularly require us to kneel down unto them. And so indeed kneeling falls to be apppointed with us in one Sacrament only, upon particular occasion of the present times, and yet in itself is lawful in the other also as well, so that if either that public occasion of kneeling at Eucharist had not been, or answerable occasion in 
g Supposing that men of years were baptised with us.  Baptism had been, the gesture in both might have been apppointed the same without difference. See more answer back Sect. 74.  
And now I have presented all your conceits together, Sect. 92 whereby you go about to show, that the Church enjoins not kneeling at Sacrament, for any other purpose then Idolatrous reverence of the bread and wine, unless I should add that the 
h Abridg. p 62.  Abridgement chargeth our kneeling to be Idolatrous, not only because it is enjoined with an idolatrous intent, but also practised so. Yea the 
i Disp: pag. 57  Disputer saith, that for one of the common sort, who doth it for other intent, there are a thousand that do it out of reverend and humble respect to it. What should be said to this, surely, if you speak of such a respect as is idolatrous, I marvel you are so bold. As if any man of ●rames would believe you, because you report a thing which you can never tell, how to justify. But what if it were so, let the Disputer answer himself for me in the next words to the former. We are here to consider (saith he) not what is done by a few in our Church out of a private opinion, but what is publicly intended and directed to be done by all, that communicate at the Lords table. To this purpose see chap. 1. Sect. 19 And here I make an end of my answer to your conjectures, for proving the intent of this Church Idolatrous in imposing the gesture of kneeling to be used at the Lords Supper.  
So then by God's gracious help I have justly vindicated Sect. 93 this Church, from your uncharitable, and unconscionable slander. And is this all that you can charge against the Church in this matter? Is this the part of godly men to accuse her so expressly in the face of the world, that her intent in imposing kneeling is Idolatrous, and make no proof other than a company of such trifling collections? If you had been as zealous on the other hand, you might and would have gathered many things to confute this imagination more clearly. What if you would have used the Homily against peril of Idolatry at this time? And if the meaning of the Church could not be known; what if you had said in such case you were at liberty to interpret, nay bound to interpret fairly? Yea if there had been some dissonant passages, which could make no good harmony in your ear, what if you had referred the same to humane infirmity of the compilers, and not forced their intention to be idolatrous therefore, when no such intention is expressed, specially the said compilers hating idolatry more than yourselves, to the losing, and spilling of their dearest blood. And yet in conclusion I will subjoin a few considerations further to clear the Church from intent of idolatrous kneeling, that I be not wanting to my poor power, in working the conscience to resolution in a matter of so great importance.   

Considerations tending to clear the Church (in imposing the gesture of kneeling) from intent of idolatry.  
FIrst, in King Edward's days there was a protestation Sect. 94 added in the Book of prayer, to clear the gesture from adoration: this Mr. Cartwright 
k Repl. to Dr. Whiteing p. 131.  affirmeth. Besides you 
l Repl. partic. to Bp. Mort. p. 49.  say, King Edward and his Directours would have taken kneeling away, but for the sway of the times, and yet they did not lay aside their purpose so to do, but waited a fit opportunity, and used the best means they could to compass, and accomplish the same. Put now both these assertions together, and it is evident the first compilers of the book were express adversaries to idolatrous reverence of the bread and wine: And though kneeling was appointed, as the time seemed then to require, yet their opinion and intent in imposing thereof was contrary to that which you please unchristianly to accuse them of. Moreover doth not (I speak in the words of the 
m Surveyed 182.  Surveyour) the 29. Article of Religion, (as it was published in King Ewards Reign, and whereunto subscription is required, by 13. Eliz. c. 12.) say, that the Sacrament of Christ's body is not by his ordinance to be worshipped. I add that in one of the Rubrics after the Communion it is said. To take away the superstition which any person hath or might have in the bread and wine, it shall be such bread, as is usual to be eaten at the Table with other meats. Yea the Surveyour 
n In the Quere of kneeling at the end of his book.  hath spent a great many leaves to show the godly intent of the state in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, how fare they were from purpose of imposing superstitious kneeling. Hitherto may be referred much that I have spoken chap. 1. of the Churches enjoining kneeling as a thing indifferent as other gestures are without any superstitious opinion put upon it. In a word the gesture is enjoined for no other reverence to the Sacrament, than such as other rites and gestures are in all holy ordinances, the same being intended in common for God's glory, and the edifying of the Church, and (intended in common) for the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries, and Sacraments, at appeareth, 1 Eliz. cap. 2. and I have fully cleared this in this chapter already.  
Secondly, besides the testimonies of the Church is Sect. 95 self, who cannot consider that kneeling in our Church cannot be appointed and directed to the bread and wine: for this is plain that the controversy betwixt us is of the gesture to be used in the act of eating and drinking, and therefore we have seen before, that you will by no means allow this kneeling in controversy to be used for any part of the prayer said in the time of delivering, because the prayer is ended before the bread and wine are received; but what speak I of this passage, all your arguments do import as much, the question is laid down by yourselves no otherwise but of the gesture in the act of eating, and drinking. Is it credible now that our Church appoints kneeling to be used for worshipping of the bread and wine, whiles the bread is torn with the teeth, and both bread and wine pass into the stomach, and are about to be swallowed? Is this worshipping possible? or is it not absurd? You may as well think our Church would stand upon worshipping of the elements, when they be passed into the body, as when they be thus in passing, at lest for a certain space of time, if you say the Church enjoins kneeling for idolatrous reverence of the elements, when they be before us, besides that you cast off the point of the controversy, who doth not see, that such kneeling before the act of receiving may godlily be referred to the prayer to be made by the Minister and Communicants, which are appointed to have continuance till the act of receiving take place? But for the act of eating and drinking, that the Church intends idolatrous reverence, then to be done to the elements in our mouths and stomaches, it seems too too harsh to affirm, the Disputer, 
o Disp. pag. 61.  defending for the Church, that she enioynes no absurdities, or impossibilities.  
Thirdly, if the Church's intent be idolatrous in her Sect. 96 kneeling at Sacrament, how can it be lawful for you to partake with her in the celebration thereof, when and where the same is done, according to her idolatrous intent and appointment? If the Minister commit idolatry, and most of the Congregation commit idolatry, and so the Sacrament is an idol to them, there is danger either, that you cannot say, The bread which we break is the Communion of the body of Christ, for we being many are one body, being all partakers of one bread, as 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. or else that you are partakers of the general idolatry of the Congregation in some measure. And then you must either pronounce yourselves to be guilty, or this Church to be innocent.  
Finally, I would I were worthy to request you to Sect. 97 look to your own selves a little in this point, for as whiles you call and accounted holy worship idolatrous which is not, you transgress the second commandment in a great degree: so when you lay the same idolatry to the charge of the Church to which you are so much bound, you violate the second table in a high degree, both by injustice and by unthankfulness. I pray God to persuade you, to repentance to himself ward, and to make some part of a mends unto the Church, (remembering that you aught to do it, if you had only sinned against a private person) especially having so publicly traduced the Church, as guilty of most abominable and detestable whoredom, when she is innocent: I am contented that her old accusers be now judges, and truly dare appeal to such of them, as are wise, and not led by prejudice. And hitherto of this chapter; and so of your arguments, tending to show that kneeling is against piety, taken from the manner of the Churches enjoining. Yet one tending to show the same thing doth remain, taken from the practice of the Papists who have so defiled this gesture, (as you say) that without impiety we cannot use it: hereunto therefore let us descend with hearts in writing, and reading so affected, as becomes both the truth itself, and them also which search into it: and the God of all wisdom and mercy direct me in handling the same with all faithfulness.    

Objections against kneeling, drawn from conformity with Idolaters, answered. CHAP. 4.  
NOw therefore we must examine, (as God shall Sect. 1 enable) your argument against kneeling at Sacrament taken from the pollution of the Papists. You tell us, that it is not lawful to hold conformity with idolatours, such as the Papists are, and to this purpose you are copious in alleging of Scripture, and therefore you make no doubt but kneeling, whereby we hold (as you think) conformity with them, is a gesture against piety, and abominable in the sight of God. Of all your books, the Abridgement is largest in this argument, and sets it also in the for most place, yea propounds it in the exactest form, and therefore I will be guided by them for my method in handling of it, bringing in what I find in other books, as due place shall require. Thus 
p Abridg. p. 17.  than the Abridgement reasoneth.  
It is contrary to God's word to use, (much more to command the use of) such ceremonies in the worship of God, as man hath devised, if they be notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry by the Papists, specially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church.  
But kneeling at Sacrament hath been devised by man, it notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto idolatry by the Papists, and is now of no necessary use in the Church.  
Ergo.  

Answer to the Proposition.  
I must begin with the Proposition, explicating the Sect. 2 parts and proofs thereof as need doth require, saving that in general. First so fare as the Scriptures which you quote will allow I distinguish of ceremonies.  
Ceremonies in God's worship are either ceremonious substances, or ceremonious actions, under which two heads I will range the proofs of your Proposition in order, whereby the Reader shall attain more clear and perspicuous insight into them.  
For ceremonious substances of idolatry, you 
q Abridg. p. 17, 18.  say, Sect. 3 God commanded to destroy them, as the melten, graved, and painted images of Idolaters, all their places, groves, altars, pillars. Numb. 33. 52. Deutr. 12. 2, 3. Isai. 27. 9 Vessels. 2 King. 234. Cover and ornaments. Isai. 30. 22. jewels worn in their honour. Gen. 35. 4. Meats sacrificed unto them. Apoc. 2. 14. 20. And even all the remnant of them. Zephan. 1. 4. Yea great detestation is to be showed in destroying these; they are to be hated, and abhorred utterly. jud. 23. Deut. 7. 26. Rejected as a menstruous cloth. Isai. 30. 22. Cut and broken to pieces. 2 King. 18. 4. Burned with fire. Deurr. 7. 26. 1 Chron. 14. 12. Yea Moses stamped the calf, and ground it as small as dust, and then scattered the dust into the water. Deutr. 9 21. So did josiah with the Grove. 2 King. 23. 6. Yea the very names and memory of idol was to be rested out. Exod. 23. 13. Deutr. 12. 3. Iosh. 23. 7. Zechar. 13. 2. And this aught to be done, partly because of the detestation, which the Lord, who is a jealous God, beareth unto idolatry. Exod. 20. 5, 6. Deutr. 7. 25, 26. and partly because we cannot be said sincerely to have repent of idolatry, whereby we, or our forefathers have provoked the Lord, unless we be ashamed of, and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it. 2 Chron. 33. 15. Isai. 1. 29. 2. 10. 30. 22. 2 Cor. 7. 11. [The Abridgement addeth also other reasons why idolatrous things should be rooted out, taken from scandal, but those I refer unto the next chapter, where God willing they shall be considered.] Thus much you say concerning Ceremonious substances of Idolatry.  
For Ceremonious actions (you 
r Abridg p. 1●. Manuser. ch. 1. arg 3.  saith) God commands Sect. 4 that we should not do after the works and doings of Idolatours. Exod. 23 24. Levit. 18. 3. Deut, 124. u 30. 31, That we should have no communion or fellowship with them, but come out from among them. 2 or. 614. 18. Apoc. 18. 4. And the holy Ghost mentioneth this as a chief sin in the ten Tribes, and the principal cause of their destruction, that in the matters of God's worship they went after the heathen, that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged, that they should not do like them. 2 King 17. 15. And to show his people how unlike, they should be to Idolators, he forbade sundry mixtures unto them; as of cattles of divers kinds, of divers seeds, and of linen and woollen in the same garment. Levit. 19 19 Yea he forbade them to make any balcnes upon their heads, or round the corners of them, to mar the corners of their beards, to make any cutting in their flesh for the dead, or print any marks upon themselves. Deut. 14 1. Levit. 19 27. 28. Thus much you say concerning Ceremonious actions of Idolatours, wherein it is unlawful to be conformable unto them.  
Now to the parts of your Proposition, I will say some Sect. 5 thing applying your proofs in order unto them. And first you lay it down of such ceremonies only which man hath devised. But what may be said to be devised by man? In substances, man deviseth only the form & use, but not the matter, which is the workmanship of God himself. In actions, bodily abilities, and performances are natural, and of God, in whom we live and mou●e; only the intent and respect, where on such actions are carried, may be man's devising. Look upon your proofs again, and judge what kind of devises are condemned by them. In substantial things, there was the Idolit self, which was the object of worshipping, and then those munericall, or individual compliments, that pertained unto it. The greatest part of your proofs do speak of the Idol itself only. The compliments were of two sorts, either ornaments of the Idols, or instruments of idolatrous worship. Some of which were no devises of men, but the good creatures of God, as the meats sacrificed to Idols; and therefore, what I beseech you make they among your proofs, that are excluded of purpose by the very first passages of your Proposition? Especially when the Lord evidently allows of them out of the case of scandal, notwithstanding idolatrous pollution. Rome, 14. 1 Cor. 8 ch. 10. 25 &c. And of this sort are the materials of Idols appurtenances, which are not forbidden unto us, as I shall show by and by. All the rest of your Scriptures speak of mere devises, and inventions of wicked men, of purpose intended for the acting of cursed idolatry; partly informing unlawful ornaments and instruments, which are called in Scripture the work of their own hands, and partly in the damnable application thereof, to the service of abominable idols; which could not be done, without profaning and destroying Gods own holy truth and worship. In the idolatrous actions, which the Scriptures quoted by you do condemn, what can you see, but that which all godly people will condemn, without question or hesitation? For there is no one of those Scriptures, that forbids to do such actions in God's worship as otherwise were lawful, but only to worship with heathenish and idolatrous worship: let the places be considered particularly. Thou shalt not bow down to their Gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works, but thou shalt utterly overthrew them, and quite break down their images. Exod. 23. 24. You shall overthrew their Altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire, and you shall hue down the graven images of their Gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place: You shall not do so unto the Lord your God. Deut. 12. 3, 4. Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee, and that thou inquire not after their Gods, saying, How did these Nations serve their Gods? Even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not dot so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination, which the Lord hateth, have they done unto their Gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their Gods. Deut. 12. u 30, 31. They rejected the Lords Statutes, and testimonies, and followed vanity, & become vain, and went after the Heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them. And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images, even two Calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal, and they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination & enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord to provoke him to anger. Therefore the Lord was very angry, &c. 2 King. 17. v. 15. 16, 17, &c. After the doings of the Land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelled shall ye not do, and after the doings of the Lond of Canaan, whither I bring you shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances, ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my judgements: you shall use no unlawful marriages, or lusts, nor suffer your seed to pass through the fire to Molech: for in all these things the Nations are defiled, and all these abominations have the men of the Land done: Therefore shall ye keep mine Ordinance, that ye commit not any of these abominable customs, which were committed before you. Levit. 18. 3, &c: read the whole chapter. Behold, it is an evident thing, that all these Scriptures (setting aside civil uncleannesses) only forbidden unto the people of God, heathenish and Idolatrous manner of worshipping, which manner doth respect both an Idol-obiect of worshipping, and also such performances, as are simply wicked, and could not otherwise be used to God himself. As for those Scriptures, which require us to come our from idolaters. 2 Cor. 6. 14. Revel. 18. 4 What else is meant, then that we must beware, and separate ourselves from the communion of their sins and idolatries. As for prohibition of divers mixtures, amongst other lessons, the jews were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and false worship; sundry fashions, and actions were, and will be indifferently used in both, but that which is at any time proper to false religions, aught not to be mingled with the pure and holy worship of God. Lastly, the Lord forbade his people to mar, and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, and to make marks and cutting in their flesh, not because the Heathen did so, (see the places, Deut. 14. 1. Levit 19 27, 28.) but because the practice agrees not to the faith and hope of a Christian, if the Heathens had never used it; so that all the devises that are to be observed in these places of Scripture, are no other but in themselves vile idolatries, and superstitions, which the Church was bound to abhor, if the Heathens wicked example thereof had never been set before it.  
Here I may not unfitly subjoin a certain amplification Sect. 6 you make of this first part of your Proposition in this manner : [God hath commanded, (say you, Abridg. pag. 17.) to cast away even such things, as had a good original and use when ence they are known to have been defiled by idolatry, &c. Levit. 26. 1. 2 King. 18. 4. Dan. 1. 8. Hos. 2. 16. 17.] But it were time ill spent to tarry upon this amplification, when three of your proofs are of no force to confirm it, and it is not material, as it is confirmed by the fourth. First, Levit. 26. 1. forbids not the use of pillars, but such as were figured, or fashioned to represent something, and of purpose set up to worship, Dan. 1. 8. is impertinent, but upon supposal of a false interpretation. Hos. 2, 16, 17. condemns not the name Baali, absolutely, but according to the customary usurpation thereof, as it was referred, and served for the honour of the filthy idol. Lastly, the Brazen Serpent had indeed a good original and use, but long before Hezechiahs' time, that use was laid down, and so to the jews in his time it was no better, than a jewish monument would be unto us at this day. And so their making of the said Serpent an idol was (in spiritual construction) as much as making it (in its outward form) to be an idol. And so this place of 2 King. 18 4. is equivalent to the rest of your quotations, used to confirm your Proposition, condemning images, groves, altars, and other appurtenances of fille worship; but to these Scriptures I need not make a further answer in this place, because the purpose of your amplification whereto they serve doth not require it.  
Secondly, your Proposition is only of such ceremonies, Sect. 7 which be notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused to idolatry by the Papists, whereat (passing other things) I take this exception, that hereunto none of all your proofs be pertinently alleged; they speak of such things only, as are formally idolatrous, and of such actions, as are applied to false worship in the instant thereof. Your assertion speaks of ceremonies, where the form whereby they were idolatrous is taken away, and are no otherwise faulty, but because they have been aforetime, or presently are by others, abused to idolatry, themselves being applied to Gods own lawful worship.  
Thirdly, your proposition is made of those ceremonies, Sect. 8 that are now of no necessary use in the Church: but what things do you mean to be necessary? I know no ceremony that is necessary with an absolute necessity; but all ceremonies, things, actions, fashions, (let them be what ceremonies you will) are variable at all times for ever. It is true, some ceremonies are necessary in their kind, though they be not necessary at all, in the determination of this or that particular, thereunto belonging; as place is necessary, but so is not such a particular Church or Chapel. Time is necessary, but so is not such a particular hour of the day. Water, and bread, and wine in the Sacraments are necessary, but so is not the particular water of such or such a spring or stream, the bread of such a manner of wheat, the wine of such a Country or manner. Clotheses are necessary, but so is not such a particular garment, of this or that fashion or colour. Now if your Proposition be meant of ceremonies, no necessary only in particular determination, it is a most false one, as you cannot deny. For there is hardly any manner of place, time, spring, or stream, grain, or grape, garment of whatsoever fashion or colour, which hath not been abused idolatrously even in our own land, and in this sense it is contrary to all the Scriptures, which you quote; for they can condemn no places of worship, altars, pillats, vessels, ornaments, jewels, meats, but that alone, which is idolatrously abused in the service of idols, and not any other. Wherefore your ceremonies, [of no necessary use] must needs be those alone, which are [not necessary in respect of the kind of them.]   

A Direction tending to show, that the former Proposition cannot be applied against natural gestures in God's worship.  
HAving more generally prepared the way, my special Sect. 9 desire is to come, and keep more closely unto the matter of gestures. And first I will try them by the three parts of your Proposition, and then by all the places of Scripture, which you quote. First therefore, it is a manifest thing, that man hath not devised natural gestures, but God in nature hath disposed, and ordained our bodies unto them. I hope you will easily consent unto this; only perhaps you will say, that although the Lord hath appointed natural gestures, yet the misapplying thereof may be man's devising. But that will prove a poor evasion, as it is easy to manifest: for first then, this passage in your Proposition, [as man hath devised] distinguisheth not from God's outward ordinances, the matter whereof may be applied, and handled amiss, as well as natural gestures. But I dare say you intended some further thing by that passage, when you laid it down. Secondly, than that passage is a surplusage in your Proposition, for your last clause would have sufficed, (not only because the mere devises of man cannot be of necessary use in the Church, which makes it more than needeth howsoever, but also because that cannot be misapplyed to this or that part of divine worship, that is of necessary use unto it, and may not be omitted. Thirdly, than your Proposition is granted to have no force against gestures, but as supposing the same to be misapplied. I hope the godly Reader will be careful to mind this. Lastly, although it be true, that gestures may be misapplied through certain occurrences, and circumstances, yet no main gesture, (for every such God hath appointed to be serviceable to himself) can be 
s As I have proved, part. 1 ch. ●  wickedly applied to any part of God's holy worship, in respect of the natures of both; as if there were a repugnancy betwixt material worship, and personal: now when you say, man may device gestures, that is, the application of them, you must mean of such application as is simply unlawful to be made unto such an ordinance; for else kneeling may be called the devise of man, when it is used even in prayer, forasmuch as it may therein be sometimes unlawfully used by circumstance; nay in this sense, your Proposition would be mere confusion. and nonsense; but the nature of all gestures will agreed with the nature of all parts of divine worship, as I have showed, therefore it is clear that this evasion of misapplying the gestures will not serve your turn.  
For the second part of your Proposition; There is no Sect. 10 gesture principal or inferior used in Gods own worship, but it is idolatrously abused by the Papists. You cannot take all gestures away, but you shall also take away all the outward worship of God, What shall be said then against the gestures? will the Popish idolatry make one gesture unclean unto us, a●d not another? In one ordinance, and not in another? Of this you can tender no reason: for if standing be polluted to us by their idolatry, than also is sitting, if sitting, then also is kneeling, and so consequently if any one be polluted, that we cannot use it, than also is every one; and if Popish idolatry can pollute those unto us in one kind of worship, than also in every kind. For so I am assured you make no doubt, that as the Papists have polluted all their worship with damnable idolatry, so they have accordingly defiled all the gestures by such their polluted worship. Nay unto their Sacrament of the Altar, all main gestures have been applied, both standing, (which the Priest doth use) and sitting, (which the Pope doth use) and kneeling, (which is the common gesture of the people.) If now you answer, that one gesture is allowed by God otherwise and not another, you renounce the force of the argument, taken from Popish idolatry: if such or such a gesture be unlawful in itself, how idly do you use this argument to condemn it? As if you should reason thus: [That which is abominable in itself we may not do when it is polluted with Popish idolatry:] which Proposition, if the same but understood itself, would be content (if it could) to blush in your behalf. You should make this argument taken from Popish idolatry to conclude effectually against a thing otherwise lawful of its own strength.  
Thirdly, the last clause of your Proposition concerneth Sect. 11 not bodily gestures, because they are of necessary use in the Church. First they are absolutely necessary, because outward worship cannot be performed without them, being made such by the Lords own ordinance in Scripture, and nature. Then they are respectively necessary, as being orderly, comely, and commodious. Now many times when we do urge the lawfulness of our Temples, Bells, Fonts, &c. continued from idolaters to us, your common 
t Demand. pa. 28, 29. Sic et alij.  answer is this, that such things may be continued notwithstanding Popish idolatry, as are either natural, or orderly, or decent, or profitable. What? and is there any thing, whereof this can be said more truly, then of natural gestures? Perhaps you will still be glad to say gestures are necessary in divine worship, but some particular gesture is not always necessary. Answer. If you speak of absolute necessity, no particular gesture is necessary by God's commandment at any time, and so the condition of all gestures is alike in that respect; if you speak of respective necessity, any particular gesture is necessary by God's allowance at any time, being natural, (and more or less) orderly, decent, and profitable in divine worship; and so the condition of all gestures is still alike in this respect also. See before, Sect. 7. Wherefore this last clause of your Proposition perteines not at all to natural gestures in God's worship, as standing, sitting, or kneeling, except as the same dependeth upon a false supposition, as the other parts of the Proposition do in like manner. Thus I have tried the gestures with the three parts of your Proposition; now let us try them by all the places of Scripture which you quote, and that the more mindfully, because all the foresaid parts of your Proposition do depend upon them.  
First, many of your proofs are for destruction of idols, and images themselves, which were objects of worship. Sect. 12 I hope you are not so forsaken of yourselves, from thence to conclude against gestures; this were a pretty inference: Idols and images must be destroyed, therefore it is unlawful to use such or such a gesture reasoning from the abolishment of a substantial idol-object of worship to natural gestures, which have ever been, and ever will be common to the worship of damnable idols, with that of the true God: I will not do you or myself so much wrong, as to go about to refute such a gross and senseless in consequence. Nay rather I will present you with an amphfication from the law of destroying idols and images. against yourselves. Look upon your quotations, and you shall observe them speaking of artificial objects, of idolatrous worship only: the images and idols to be destroyed were the works of men's hands, and not the natural and innocent creatures of God. See now, if ever any created thing should have been cashered, it should have been that same, which man had made an express idol of formall-worship, for a more abominable use, the creature cannot be put to. Yet created things, though worshipped thus idolatrously God would not to be destroyed, and therefore much less should a natural gesture be made vile, having been abused only as a means to worship the creature. If any think, that those creatures only should have been spared, which were partly out of man's power, and partly of durable necessity, as the Sun, Moon, Stars, &c. but nor such as increased or multiplied in the air, earth, or water, if they could be gotten, I will not now dispute; for though I yield that yet I shall not want the benefit of mine amplification against you, inasmuch as if a creature made an idol of worship was to be destroyed, yet other creatures of the same sort were not to be destroyed, but that singular one alone: whereas the gestures which are used in holy worship cannot be the same with the abused gestures of idolaters, but are only the same sort or manner that they were. Nay further gestures have the two respects, for which the Sun, Moon, and Stars are not to be destroyed; for as such gestures as are used by others already be out of our reach so gestures be of durable necessity to mankind for ever.  
Next, the rest of your proofs concerning Ceremonies substances, are of those compliments that partcined Sect. 13 unto the Idol: according to my division before sect. 5. I will first touch upon the ornaments of the Idol: and two places you quoute apperteining to them. Is. 30. 22. Thou shalt defile the covering of thy graved images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold, thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth: thou shalt say unto it, get thee hence. And Gen. 35. 4. They gave unto jacob all their earings [which they wore probably in their ears in honour of their strange Gods] and jacob hide them under an Oak. Give me now leave to demand of you, whether those cover, garment; and earings belonged to the service first of the true God? If they did not, than they make not against the gestures, which from the beginning universally thereunto belonged? whether those cover, garment, and earings, were not artificial things? If they were, than they make not against the gestures, which are plainly natural: whether those cover, garments, and earings, were not the individuals, which served unto the idol? If they were, they make not against our gestures, which are only of the same manner with the gestures of idolaters, and are not the same individuals, whether the Abomination of those cover, garments, and earings, stood not in this, that they served the idol, and were used for the honour thereof? If it was so, they make nothing against the gestures, of which the question is only made, as they are applied to Gods own worship, and are used for the honour of his own Majesty. And lastly, whether there be the same reason for an action, or carriage of common use to God's worship, as of a substance of proper use to some idol? If there be not, what are idols ornaments to God's worship-gestures? When you have pondered upon these demands, I am deceived of your judgement, if you think notwithstanding, by the Scriptures, which speak against the ornaments of idols, to make something against natural gestures. And the same answer also sufficeth for the instruments of idolatrous worship, which your other quotations condemn; namely idolatrous places, groves, Altars, and vessels: from which to gather any thing against gestures, in Gods own worship, is as much as from the stews of Italy, and all their instruments of uncleanness, to conclude against the singing of Larks in a Summer's morning.  
And yet I will give you a further answer: all the compliments Sect. 14 of idolatrous worship are condemned by God; but in what respects were they condemned? I suppose there are only two respects, that can be conceived, for which God condemns those compliments of Idolatrous worship, the one when or where the Idol itself stood in force, as they were actually serviceable to him and his worship, the other, when, or where the Idol itself was cashered, as they were monuments of idolatry; now it behoves us to see how the same condemnation in either of these ways, belongeth unto the gestures. The former can have no place in our disputation, because we speak of gestures (not which are used in false and idolatrous worship but) which are applied and used in the Lords own holy worship, and therefore I shall need to say no more unto that point. The latter gives us occasion to question, whether natural gestures can be truly said to be monuments of idolatry, and I disprove it in this manner. No ordinance of God can be a monument of Idolatry: but all gestures are Gods ordinances, and his outward worship consists in them, and therefore they cannot be monuments of idolatry. 
u Demand. p. 20, 21.  No creature of God can be a monument of idolatry, but all gestures are Gods creatures, or abilities whereunto man is disposed by creation, and therefore they cannot be monuments of idolatry. Nothing 
w Vessels of the Temple polluted were restored, Eur. 1. 7.  which is taken from God's worship, (whereunto himself had appointed, and allowed it) applied to false worship can be a monument of idolatry: but all gestures were transferred from God's worship to idolatry by plain theft, and unjust alienation of his title and interest: and therefore they cannot be monuments of Idolatry, nothing which is used commonly and indifferently in true and false worship both, can be a monument of false worship, or of Idolatry: but all gestures are used commonly and indifferently in true, and false worship both, therefore they cannot be monuments of Idolatry. Nothing which hath commodity, and needful use in God's worship can be a monument of Idolatry, but all gestures have commodity, and needful use in God's worship, therefore they cannot be monuments of idolatry. Nothing which Idolators never did defile, can be a monument of Idolatry, but the gestures which Christians use in the true Church, Idolaters never did defile, (for to the pure their own gestures are pure) therefore they cannot be monuments of Idolatry. Nothing the abolition whereof infers the destruction of God's outward worship, or of any part thereof can be a monument of Idolatry; but the abolishing of all gestures infers the destruction of God's outward worship, and the abolishing of one gesture infers the destruction of some part thereof, therefore they cannot be monuments of Idolatry. Finally, there is no place in the old or new Testament▪ that can be brought forth, so much as looking toward the proof of this, that natural gestures may be monuments of Idolatry.  
Nay I will say more, those very compliments of Idolatrous Sect. 15 worship condemned by God, were not absolutely condemned by him. I cannot understand but they were allowed upon 2 conditions. The first, if there were a needful use of them in God's worship. The other, if there were no wicked use of them to God's dishonour or man's own harm, and mischief. For the first, on this condition they might remain, if they were serviceable and needful to Gods own worship: this yourselves do like well of; for under this consideration, you shown the lawfulness of our Temples, Bells, &c. Because (say you) they be of needful use to God's worship, yea your Proposition makes exception (in all your proofs alleged) of such idolatrous things, as are of necessary use in the Church, and what is this against natural gestures, I pray? Are artificial things more necessary in the Church, then natural? Doth the law dispense with Temples, and Bells, &c. when they may be conveniently serviceable to true worship, and will it not much more dispense with standing, sitting, or kneeling? That is unreasonable Divinity.  
Now I will come to the other conditions, which concern Sect. 16 the evil use of Idols appurtenances; and the former of them is this, the same might be spared in case they were so altered and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the Idol and his damnable worship: for look into the tenor of the law, there the Lord commands to destroy Idolatours Pillars, Places, Groves, and Altars, to the end no honour might remain unto idols by the remembrance of them: Deut. 12. 3. Now it is not meant, that there should be no remembrance at all, (for the Calf which Moses ground to dust, and Baal, in the extirpation of whom great zeal was used by sundry men; and the Idols of many Nations are recorded unto posterity, and remembered unto this day) but this is meant, there aught to be nothing left of the idols which tended to the honourable remembrance of them. Mark therefore God commands to root out so much as the name or memorial of Idols, and what could be commanded more strictly? and yet that name or memorial of them is rooted out, by taking away from them every honourable remembrance with this condition, therefore, it was lawful to retain the appurtenances of idolatrous worship, namely that no honour at all were imparted, or conveyed unto the Idol thereby. Truly as an Idol is nothing in real excellency and virtue: so it is nothing at all to us, if either we destroy, whatsoever may tend to make it inestimation something, (whereof we may learn a lesson in Baal's Grove, which when Gideon had 
x By so doing he did destroy it according to the law, for now it was no honourable remembrance of Baal.  cut down the Lord appointed him to offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of it) or that the credit of the Idol being utterly decayed in our Country, or age, his appurtenances are either not known, or not minded: as if a stranger after jacob's time, (becoming Lord of that place, where jacob hide the earings) should accidentally found those earings, do●btlesse he might most lawfully possess the same; being either ignorant of their former use, or a despiser of the Idol, whereto they served. I think yourselves are of this mind, for out of Augustine you 
y Park of the Cross, ch. 1, sect 7. p. 10.  teach, though the appurtenances of the Idol be not destroyed, yet in the use the same must be so altered and changed, that all honour of the Idol be evidently turned upside down. With this caution I suppose you 
z Cartwr. Demand. p. 20.  allow the gold and silver of Idols garments; and 
a Demand, 21  that Idols garments may be sold in shops, & bought for man's service. This then seems to be agreed betwixt us, that appurtenances of Idols may be spared, so that all the honour of the Idol be quite destroyed. Now to apply, what (I pray) doth all this concern the natural gestures? Can they be for the honour of an Idol in Gods own worship? If this be possible, then either because the Idol set them in God's worship, or they are directed unto the Idol in some part, or they are such as are used in idolatrous worship in like manner; but the first is a notorious falsehood; the second is impertinent to our controversy; the third is absurd inasmuch as there is agreement betwixt true, and false worshippers in all gestures, and ever will be.  
The third condition, on which the appurtenances of Sect. 17 Idols might remain was if they were without certain danger of ensnaring people to idolatry; for so the Lord forbade the gold and silver of Images, jest they should be snares unto his people : Deut. 7. 25. But what is a snare according to the purpose of the law? For the best thing in the world, even the Sun, Moon, and Stars, may become a snare through the corruption of man. The word [snare] which the law doth use is a metaphor taken from artificial snares, which are of purpose made to catch something. The Lord therefore condemns those idolatrous things, which were snares only by their institution and nature: as first in respect of their idolatrous use continued, before their faces, for that was an abomination and snare. Secondly, in respect of their outward form, continued before their faces, (the things themselves being otherwise without necessity or profit) for that was a temptation, as the garish ornaments of an harlot are unto carnal uncleanness. Thirdly, if you deem that the materials themselves were forbidden, because they might become snares; I answer, suposing that, yet they were only the materials of such appurtenances of the Idols, as were proper unto it, and the same munerically, which adorned it. And this is clear in the law, as will appear unto you, if you please to make search. But what is this to bodily gestures? As for idolatrous use, we only speak of gestures as they are referred and applied wholly to Gods own worship: for idolatrous and artificial form, gestures have none, but what is natural, and of the making of God himself, and besides every one of these is needful and profitable, as I have showed. Lastly for materials of Idol-appurtenances, gestures have nothing to answer, except you would abolish gestures from all parts of God's worship, as well as from any one part. And moreover, what are the gestures of wicked idolatours to the gestures of godly people? Are not every man's gestures his own? In a word, ensnaring objects, (which the Lord condemned and forbade to his people) were always external matters without them it was never heard that standing, sitting, or kneeling, were called snares from the beginning.  
Thus I have showed three necessary conditions, on which it was lawful to to spare idolatrous appurtenances: Sect. 18 perhaps some man will object, that God's law was absolute without these conditions, because it runs in general terms without limitation. I answer. First, I take it, that is not true, for it cannot be proved, that the materials of Idols appurtenances were to be abolished: Groves indeed were to be burnt with fire. Deut. 12. 3. or cut down, Exod. 34. 13. Deut. 7. 5. except first they were to be cut down, and then burnt with fire in useful occasion; as Gideon cut down the Grove of Baal, and then used the wood to a burnt sacrifice, judg. 6. 26. High places were only to be pulled down, Numb. 33. 52. Altars only to be broken down, Deut. 12. 3. Ornaments of the Idol, as gold and silver were only forbidden unto private men's liberty: See Deut. 7. 25. Isai. 30. 22. though perhaps reserved to public use and devoted to the Lords treasury, (compare Iosh. 6. 17, 19,) and if they were to be, utterly abolished, no other 
b So the Manuscript expoundeth Deut. 7. 25. ch. 1. arg. 6,  gold or silver is meant, but that whereof the person of the Idol or Image, (as I may speak) did consist, and not such as was but an appurtenance to his person of which I only treat in this place. Secondly, suppose that God commanded all the idolatrous appurtenances to be destroyed, yet that commandment bound only the jews in the judicial strictness of it. I call that judicial strictness, which requires the abolishing of things, merely, because they have served the Idol, though they be otherwise lawful and good, and that all honour of the Idol be destroyed, and all danger of him utterly taken away. These points are of moral and durable consideration, and therefore when all honour, and danger of the Idol is taken away, what moral wickedness can be in retaining, (otherwise) good and lawful things, which had been only dead, and passive appurtenances unto it? Now it is evident, that the strictness of the law concerned only the jews, either in respect of the land of Canaan; (for so the Lord directs only, what his people should do in the land of Canaan, as may appear, Numb. 13 51, 52. Deut. 7. 1-25. Deut. 12. 1, 2, 3. and gave full liberty of taking all spoil of vanquished foreigners, as may appear, Deut. 20. 14. Numb. 31. 22. or howsoever in respect of the time, which dured no longer, then unto the end of the jewish Pedagogue: and this is confirmed by clear light of Scripture; for God had appointed special place for his worship, of his own; (the high place of Mount Zion, which he chose to place his name there;) also God had appointed Altars of his own, vessels of his own, ornaments of his own, &c. and therefore did expressly forbidden the Heathenish places, altars, vessels, ornaments, &c. as which opposed his institution in those times. Thus the Lord speaks in the law: You shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the Nations which ye shall possess served their Gods, but unto the place which the Lord shall choose out of all your Tribes, to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall you seek, & thither shalt thou come, Deut. 12. 2. 5. Now what is the strictness of the law upon these considerations to us? Are not you resolved, that the judicialls, (as we call them) of Moses be abrogated, so fare as they serve not to fence the law moral? I think it is hard to see any benefit of fencing the moral law in the destruction of such things as had been used to idolatry; if they be not only otherwise lawful, and good in themselves, but also be so cleansed of all their abuse and filthiness, that all both honour and danger of the Idol, or Idol-worship is quite taken away from them. Verily if these things be true, than all your places of Scriptures alleged to the proof of your Proposition concerning ceremonious substances of idolatry, are still further off from the condemnation of natural gestures.  
Now remaineth to try the gestures, by those your quotations, Sect. 19 which condemn ceremonious actions of idolatry. But what need I trouble myself about words? let the fifth section before be reviewed, and it will appear that your quotations do not come near to gestures in Gods own worship: yet if any of your proofs had concerned them, these would have been they, which speak of actions in false and idolatrous worship, but your own proofs sufficiently refute yourselves: we must not (say your quotations) serve God, as the Nations served their gods: yet the same quotations do say again, that the Nations bowed down to their gods. What? Must we not therefore bow down to the living God in his worship? Nay there is no doubt but the Nations used standing, sitting and kneeling in several parts of their public worship; and can you imagine that any of these gestures were unlawful to the jews in that name? Alas my brethren, you have mistaken your proofs in this point: did the law never take hold of agreement with Idolatours in gestures till our time? It is evident that you cannot bring forth any command or example in the book of God, whereby it may appear, that it is unlawful to agreed with them in the gestures of divine worship. Indeed herein the Church agrees not with them, because it would conform unto their practice out of an honourable respect of their false worship, (this were an ungodly respect or motive) but useth her liberty of gestures which the word alloweth, whatsoever they do according or contrary. And more (I think) I need not to add for answer or explication of your Proposition.   

Answer to the Assumption.  
NOw I have an answer to make to your Assumption, Sect. 20 for as much as I can foresee. This it is. [But kneeling at Sacrament hath been devised by man, secondly, is notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto idolatry by the Papists, thirdly, and is now of no necessary use in the Church.] Which Assumption, so fare as the terms thereof be, (as they aught to be) taken in the same sense with your Proposition, I do deny in all the parts of it. In discussing I will begin with the first part, wherein you assume, that kneeling at Sacrament is devised by man.   

Of the first branch of your Assumption. Whether kneeling at Sacrament be devised by man.  
I Confess in this passage, there is a great deal of force for you, if you can make good that which you Sect. 21 say. There are three things wherein the examination of this point consisteth. First, we must inquire, whether kneeling at Sacrament be allowed by God in his word, or no? Secondly, we must make an historical search by whom kneeling was first put in practice from the time that the Sacrament was instituted by our Saviour Christ. Thirdly, because you affirm that Antichrist first brought kneeling into the Sacrament, we must inquire whether their kneeling be the same with ours now in controversy? Truly, if kneeling was not first allowed by God's word, and was not first put in practice in the Lord's Sacrament by Gods own people, and lastly the Popish kneeling differ not, but is of the same sort with ours, I plainly yield, that kneeling at Sacrament is devised by man, But if in trial it appear, that all these be contrary, than it must needs follow that your assertion is contrary to the truth. Well, what have you to say for the proof of them in order? First doth not God allow kneeling at Sacrament in his word, by such rules & directions as he giveth for gestures in his worship, by such rules & directions as he giveth for gestures in Sacraments? Behold in this point, you are altogether silent, but you forgot yourselves when you passed it over. Is that which God allows in his word man's devise? or rather is it not God's ordinance? All gestures were man's devises by your conceit in the Sacraments of Circumcision and Baptism, because God commands no one gesture in particular absolutely, nay expressly no one at all. All gestures were man's devises in the Passeover among the jews, because there was no gesture expressly and particularly appointed: but who sees not that this is your devise without reason: for since the Sacraments must needs be celebrated, celebrated they could not be without gestures, which are of flat necessity, and great importance therein, and yet it pleaseth the Lord to prescribe no gestures in particular to be used in them, is it not an evident thing that liberty of gestures is God's ordinance, I say, his ordinance, for he appointed that liberty of purpose, and not forgetting (as man doth many things in making of laws) to make mention of them. What did you mean therefore to presume the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament to be man's devise without the trial of the word, which only can determine in this case; especially when yourselves speak other where in this manner: If kneeling came from better men than the Papists, yet that is nothing material, except it be proved lawful out of holy writ, which only can declare the good way, yea though it came from them, which were next and immediate successors to the Apostles. Demand. p. 66, 67. It is a gross and Popish course in questions of Religion, to ground, and infer upon the ancient use of a thing, the lawfulness of it, Disp. pag. 139. We must not look at antiquity, but follow the word of God, which is most ancient, Park. of the Cross, l. 2. p. 124. Kneeling at Sacrament is allowed if it be warranted by God's word, as kneeling is allowed in prayer, Disp. pag. 100 That which God hath by his word purified for his worship aught not to be accounted unclean, Demand. p. 20. Thus you should have go about to prove kneeling man's devise by the rule of God's word, and not as you do by the use, or practise thereof alone, which yourselves determine cannot serve the turn. Your other considerations without the word cannot be effectual to prove that you desire; for God's holy ordinance may sometimes 
* Disp. reasoneth thus, pag. 104. Kneeling bad no use before antichrist's time, therefore could have no good use Sir, I deny your argument.  be first put in practice by wicked Idolatours, as single as persion in Baptism 
c There is no mention of the public practice of sprinkling till about 1300 years a Christo nato: which was when (as you say) Antichrist was about his full height.  was, before the Church of Christ did receive it; therefore you are short of necessary proof already, whatsoever become of the other considerations which follow. Yet let us also pass over unto them.  
Secondly, therefore who did first put in practise the Sect. 22 gesture of kneeling at the Lords Supper? You say, 
d Disp. pag. 99  that the man of sin was the author and mother of it, that 
e Perth. Ass. 55.  the first act of kneeling, that ever was at the Sacrament is idolatrous; that 
f Abridg 30.  it grew first from the persuasion of the real presence, and this 
g Pag. 31.  when Antichrist was at his full height, and in the 
h Disp. pag. 99  grossest time of idolatry, that the eye of this Christian world hath seen. Verily if you were as substantial in proofs, as you are confident in your opinions, there were great reason the world should be led by you. But what infallible, and demonstrative evidences do you present us withal, that the man of sin first brought kneeling into the Sacrament? For soothe the Abridgement brings not forth one proof, but gives us bore affirmation that the thing was so. Alas I that wise men should be so much overseen! Did they not think, that opposing the practice of a famous Church, and so many learned men, (than whom no age hath known more, or more learned) the matter did require some manner of proof? Well. The Abridgement pleaseth to say (being opponent) and I deny, and so the Abridgement is answered; but if any body speak to the point, it is the Disputer, and yet he gives us only a company of conjectures, and some of them so simple, that they be worther to be hissed at then refuted. First, (saith 
i Disp p. 70. 73.  he) The first age of the primitive Church, being that wherein the Apostles lived, entertained not kneeling. And how can he tell that? Forsooth the Churches wo●ld follow the institution, and again in all probability they used the same gestures at the Supper, that they did at their Love-feasts, and at Idol-feasts, which was not kneeling. Answer. Besides an ungrounded hypothesis, all this is no more but conjectural; for the Disputer can conclude nothing convincingly, whether they retained the gesture of Christ, (whatsoever it was) or changed, whether they varied from the Love-feasts, and Idol feasts, or not, he and I can determine nothing; because it is left undetermined by the holy writings. Yea they might kneel in those times, for aught he can disprove, and therefore this possibility makes all his other conjectures weaker, and weaker, Secondly, (saith 
k Page 74.  he) In the first part of the second age of the Church can it be doubted, but such worthy Fathers and Churches as then lived would follow the steps of the worthies of the former age? Can it be thought that they would bring so soon a gesture in use, which might not be used, but with violating God's law? Can it be doubted, but you are an egregious trifler, that go about first to prove, they did not kneel, because their predecessors had not kneeled: and then they did not do such a thing, because they aught not (as you surmise) to do it. Are you not ashamed of all this childish froth? You beg that their predecessors kneeled not, and that they would not vary in their gesture from them, because kneeling was not a tablegesture. It seems you need no books to gather the history of times, you can gather it by reason from duty to practise: and so much to this idle trifling. But what may be said to the latter part of the second age of the Church? Why, (saith 
l Pag. 77.  he) if kneeling were used in the latter end of this age, than there were three several gestures used in the same age: but there were not three several gestures used in the same age. Answer. The sequel of the Mayor is false; for sitting cannot be proved in the second age of the Church: but what if sitting and standing were used both, what doth that hinder but kneeling might be used also; As if in this present age, there be not standing, sitting, and kneeling used, yea in the same Church at the same time. Thirdly, next he goes about to prove, that no gesture was used in the Church, from the middle of the second age, to each succeeding age before the year 1220 but standing only, and so he comprehends above ten ages together, let us see therefore what he produceth. If (saith 
m Pag. 78.  he) kneeling had been used all this while, in all likelihood some mention would have been made of it in the Church-writings. Answ. First, it is commended unto us in the Church-writings, as in due place I will will make appear. Secondly, if it were not, you cannot reason a non scripto ad non factum, specially in mutual gestures; nay you cannot reason negatively in a matter of fact from the story of Scripture itself; if you could, you might prove the jews used no gesture at all in their Circumcision, and Passeover; for none is recorded unto posterity. But what should I follow you in your dallying? Yourself confess that this reason is no more than a probability, and so kneeling might be used in the Church notwithstanding. Again he gives us another reason, (pag. 83. &c.) which (as fare as I can see, for I confess his proceeding and method is very confused) he afterwards brancheth into three arguments or considerations. Arg. 1. (saith 
n Pag. 93.  he) Standing was the gesture allowed, and used by the Church in all public prayers on every Sabbath throughout the year, and so at the consecration of holy mysteries, from Anno 150. till Anno 1220. therefore it was their gesture allowed at the receiving of them. Answer. Your consequence is unsound, inasmuch as one gesture may be used at consecration of mysteries, and another at the receiving of them. You see the example of so much at this day, and though it seem some what harsh in your ear, that they should stand at praying, and kneel down at receiving, yet if you consider those times well, you shall find that Christians did think it highly needful to worship, or adore at the Sacrament, and you must not inquire what was fittest to be done, but what they did or might possibly do, according as the stream of their devotions and judgements did then carry them. Sure I am they allowed and used many things more unreasonable, and improbable, then to kneel at the Sacrament, and stand at their prayers and blessings. But what if your conclusion be yielded, what harm will follow? I grant that standing was allowed in the act of receiving, I deny, that kneeling was disallowed; for as for the custom of standing in some Churches upon the Sabbaths at prayer, you know it was not, because kneeling might not be used at prayer, but standing was used only in respect of the Sabbaoths, so that neither was kneeling condemned in itself on the Sabbaoths, nor at all condemned upon the week days: yea, and upon the Sabbaoths, that standing at the Altar, which is spoken, is meant of the Ministers rather than of the people, and the proofs which you bring speaking of standing at the Altar will avow no more. Nay lastly, your own testimonies do condemn you, many of which do confess, that standing was in many Churches laid down, and not universally received in all places and times, neither may you say that the public order and custom was for the most part otherwise, for perhaps the better sort striven against that bond of standing, as you do now against kneeling in this Church, and therein I doubt not but you would have taken their parts, if with these resolutions you had been then a livesman among them. Mark now this argument of yours. It shows not, that they concondemned kneeling on the Sabbaoth, as being unsuitable to the Sacrament, or prayer, but as they thought unsuitable to that day. It shows not, they condemned kneeling at Sacrament any week days at all excepting the days of Pentecost. It shows not that the people stood, but the Ministers only at the Altar. In a word it shows not, that the custom of standing was accepted without exception, but rather that it found from age to age, great, (and me thinks in your esteem also commentable) resistance. Arg. 3. 
o Page 97.  is in effect the self same with this and therefore I need to give it no other answer. Arg. 2. He reasoneth in 
p Page 94.  this manner. If when Honorius made his decree for adoring the Sacrament, kneeling were not in use, then in all probability kneeling at the Communion was not received into practice, in any age preceding the days of Honorius: But when Honorius made his decree for adoring the Sacrament, kneeling was not in use. Answer. The Assumption here is not current, for kneeling might be used in the time of Honorius, notwithstanding his decree which might suppose it, and by the act of bowing divert, and direct it for a new adoring of the visible mysteries. So Honorius might mention bowing only, because the same should plainly distinguish, and signify adoration to be directed unto the bread, and likewise increase the degree thereof; and he that observeth shall see, that both the clearest evidence, and the highest degree & perfection of idolatrous grossness in the Popish gestures in their Sacrament at this day, is the sensible and express moving or bowing of the body to the Wafer-cake made an Idol. And therefore it is a thing probable enough, that Honorius enjoined inclination or bowing down unto them 
q Neither hath Bishop Morton said any thing of this decreed 〈◊〉 which may not stand 〈…〉 supposed. See Def. partic. ch 3. S. 21. He says ne more than that the 〈◊〉 of the decree are only for bowing the body and not kneeling: and so the Relier hath not outshot the Bishop, (as he saith) in his own bow, but outgone himself with precipitancy, making trusty inferences of these words which he but surmiseth the meaning of, and understandeth not.  which kneeled already, and so kneeling was settled in the Church by tradition, before Honorius decree, and his decree doth partly direct for the certain applying of worship unto his new Idol of bread. (for if kneelers must bow to the bread, kneeling also would be carried to the bread under and with bowing, which demonstrates the object worshipped, as if one should point at it with the finger) and partly also adds unto the degree of their adoration, for who will not easily think that the highest degree, and not the lest and lowest was intended by the will of Honorius. And indeed when else was kneeling added to the Romish Bread-worship? Strange it were that none of the Historians, or Schoolmen, or Canonists mentioned how it came in the Sacrament, and by what authority through all Christendom, if it came into practice so lately: neither find we that any Popes or Counsels made any decree since Honorius to bring it into the Church: behold then how your Assumption is sick to death, except you can cure it by some infallible testimonies. But for your Proposition, that certainly is but a simple patch of your learning. If kneeling say you was not in use, when Honorius made his decree, then in all probability it was not in use in any age proceeding the days of Honorius: a pretty sentence, if kneeling was not in use in Honorius time, than it was not in use above a thousand years before. Now I put upon you to prove this sequel if you can, that we may all wonder at your profoundness. First, you say, Standing at all public prayers and thanksgivings was yet in force. Answer. Thus you make all your three arguments to hung upon one medium, and I have given answer before. Secondly, say you, Shall we think that kneeling found place in the purer times of the Church, and no grace in the corruptest age thereof. Answer. Shall we think, but you wanted a little depth? And why (I pray) should kneeling rather be in the corruptest times then the purest? I confess kneeling to a false God finds best entertainment in the corruptest times, (for that is it, whereby the times are corrupted) but kneeling to God in his ordinance becomes the purest times of the Church: belike you thought your words would leave an impression with men, which could not abide kneeling already, but it was not wisely disputed with your adversary, (Sir) who thinks of kneeling as honourable thoughts, as you do of standing. But now the Reader hath seen the substance of all, which is said tending to prove, that the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament was first brought in by Antichrist. Here I must give the Reader to take notice of a matter or two. First I have of purpose suppressed the mention of Ecclesiastical testimonies in this place, (which I have reserved to the last chapter if God permit) and only answer unto the force of such reasons, as the Disputer produceth. Again in all this sweeting Disputer, you shall not find one testimony, which is express for sitting in all this length of a thousand two hundred years, and more. Hereunto let be added, that if the ancient custom of standing at prayers drew standing at Sacrament upon the Sabbaoths with it, in some ages or places, yet that standing was not used because of Christ's example, or that it was a Tablegesture, but as the Supper had a reason common with it to prayer, and so the Ancients setting these together in one gesture have given us example to set them together in another.  
Thirdly, if you will show our kneeling to be devised Sect. 23 by Antichrist, than you must prove that his kneeling and ours be of the same nature. This it seems you made no question of, or else you were to blame to pass it over in silence: but I will help you to consider the difference. First, antichrist's kneeling is directed unto the bread, and so is an idolatrous kneeling. This application of kneeling I grant was first devised by that man of sin, and grew first from the persuasion of the real presence, yea and the special point of time of the Popish kneeling, is when 
r Honorius decree was of bowing at elevation of the host and that was of bowing unto the host elevated, as the applying of kn. at the instant of elevation, together with the doctrine and received practice of the Roman Church thereupon doth evidently import. O but then (says the Replier) you confess that bowing of the body before the bread lifted up is to adore it. Repl. partic. ch. 3. sect. 21. Alas good man! we expound the decreeundoubtedly by the doctrine of real presence in the time of Honorius, general practice of Bread-worship thereupon received, and applying of kneeling to the act of elevation. I warrant you (Sir) there is no danger of concluding therefore that all bowing before the elements is adoring of them, you have not outshot your adversary then, but outrun good reason, and plain dealing.  the consecrated host is lifted up, and it is against the rule in the Church of Rome for the people to worship any thing, that is not higher than themselves. What is this kneeling now unto ours I pray, whereof the question is of the act of receiving, and not elevation? We worship only the living God, and detest that abominable bread-worship perhaps as much as you do. Can you make kneeling to God, and kneeling to an Idol to be of like nature? This you cannot deny, that gestures and actions are principally distinguished by their objects and ends. Papists and we do agreed in the use of all gestures of worship; but they apply the same to idolatrous use, and we apply them to the service of the Lord in his own worship. Wherefore there is as much difference betwixt our kneeling at Sacrament, and the Papists kneeling to their Breaden God, as is betwixt our kneeling in prayer, and their kneeling unto Images. I would fain learn, how any people can be more contrary to Idolaters, or more just then to give unto God that which is Gods, when they had given it unto the Devil. Lo here is a difference betwixt their kneeling and ours, wider than the heaven is from earth. Secondly, let me press you with your opinion of the Papists Sacrament of the Altar, for I am persuaded you are resolved it is no Sacrament of jesus Christ, why will you object unto us kneeling thereat, more than the kneeling of any other Idolaters in false worship? Have wicked pagan abused kneeling a thousand ways? Those we pass, and kneel unto God notwithstanding without doubt; and why should this idolatrous kneeling of the Papists be more unto us then all they? Show us if you can out of God's word, that this kneeling is liker out kneeling then the kneeling of all other Idolaters? For if their Sacrament be no Sacrament, if their Breaden God be an Idol to them, if their adoration be the worst idolatry that the world hath heard of, why should their abomination come nearer to our kneeling at the Lords table then the like committed by the brutish pagan? Thirdly, our gesture which we use is our own, and the Papists never had the command thereof. To the pure, (saith the Apostle) all things are pure; we kneel not out of subjection to the will of Antichrist, but out of the allowance of God's word: nay our kneeling at Sacrament unto God alone is a confession against Antichrist and his idolatry. Fourthly, if our kneeling at Sacrament be the same of nature with the Popish, then is your sitting and standing, of the same nature with their sitting and standing. Behold the Pope himself sits at Sacrament; the Priests do stand at Sacrament, (and these are the principal Idolaters in the Bread worship) and therefore sitting and standing be in the same case with kneeling. Perhaps you will say, Kneeling was devised by the Papists, sitting and standing were not. Answer. So fare as he devised kneeling, (that is to worship an Idol) so fare he devised sitting, and standing; but as sitting or standing were or might be used in the Sacrament, before the Breaden God was borne, lawfully, and according to Gods own order; so kneeling was and might be so used also. Then the Papists at length, when Bread-worship came up abused them altogether: and so how are they not every one of them in the same case? Thus I have examined the first branch of your Assumption, and I do not doubt but the Christian Reader will think all that you say too weak to prove our kneeling at Sacrament to be man's devise. Nay notwithstanding all that you say, the same may be God's ordinance, practised in the ancient Church, and quite of another nature from the Romish kneeling in their Breaden Idolatry. Now I pass to the second branch of your Assumption, that kneeling is notoriously known to have been of old and still to be abused to Idolatry by the Papists.   

Of the second part of your Assumption, that kneeling at Sacrament is notoriously known to have been of old and still to be abused unto Idolatry by the Papists.  
THis part of your Assumption carries three errors Sect. 24 in it which I will remember you of, the one, that the kneeling of the Papists is kneeling at the Lords Sacrament such as ours is; then that our kneeling, (as if every man's gestures were not his own) hath been abused to Idolatry by them; and lastly, (which is somewhat more) that our kneeling is a conformity to them, and a monument of their idolatry, and this last you dare 
s Perth. Ass p. 55.  affirm plainly, that our kneeling is a conformity to the Papists, and a monument of Popish idolatry. Well thus you say, but how can you make it good? Truly I find nothing material in any of your books, except I should refer hither all those scattered sayings of yours, whereby you link us with, and condemn us by the idolatrous Papists.  
First you say, 
t Abridg. p. 62. Disp. pag. 108.  at the same time in the same action, we use the same outward gesture that the Papists do. Answer. Our action is not the same. But what if all be true, which you say, yourselves do as much in all gestures as the Papists do throughout all divine ordinances. You kneel, and they kneel; you stand, and they stand; you sit, and they sit. So you agreed likewise with the worshippers of Baal, and all idolatrous Gentiles in standing, sitting, and kneeling: know ye not that the public doctrine and worship, which any people embraceth or professeth, distinguisheth public gestures? Thus it is in all religions, thus it is in the true. Secondly, you 
u Bradsh. arg. 2.  say, It is an honour to Antichrist to leave the practice of Reform Churches and follow him. Answer. Reform Churches are divers in outward orders, and gestures, and there is liberty so to be; reformation consisting not in leaving any gestures of God's worship, but in referring them to his glory, as they aught to be, and separating the abuses from them. Now is it no honour to Antichrist to use the gesture which he useth, wherein reformation stands not; for all gestures are common to all false, and idolatrous worship with the true worship of God: neither have those Churches, who have cast off the yoke of Antichrist made a reformation in the gesture of the Sacrament by taking kneeling away, but by taking abuses of kneeling away. As for kneeling itself, it is certain they took that away only to remove scandal and danger in the first change, when they saw needful to settle some one gesture among many. Furthermore, I must tell Mr. Bradshaw that his speech supposeth a grievous falsehood, namely that we chose to kneel of purpose to side with Antichrist, and to differ from the reformed Churches, when there was as it were a competition, which of them should have our company: for it is manifest ●●ough we did not refuse standing, or sitting, because other Churches used the same, nor again did we kneel, because we honoured the Romish abon ination; but upon other reasons looking upon neither of both. You would make the world believe, that in setting before us these two divers parternes, we striven rather to be conformable to the Romish; wherein to blessed King Edward 6. with many Martyrs, and worthies of his time, besides the state in the beginning of blessed Queen Elizabeth's Reign, (not to speak of more) you do manifest wrong, who studied to provide, and appoint what gesture they could judge the fittest in their times, as become so wise governor's; having their eye rather upon the state of their Citizens, and domestics, then beyond Seas either upon Rome or Geneva: and howsoever, the conformity now of singular persons is to the Church of England itself alone. Thirdly, you 
w Manuscr. disp. 105. Surveyed p. 73. 80.  say, It is notoriously known, that this gesture of kneeling was borrowed from them, and was enjoined for their sakes in King Edward's time. Answer. That it was not continued from them is evident by this that there was in the beginning of King Edward's Reign a certain space granted of liberty; and truly herein was the providence of God declared, that the kneeling of former days was not continued but intermitted for a time; and other borrowing of kneeling to God in this holy Sacrament could be none, for they had none such to lend us. Again where you say, that kneeling was brought into this Church for their sakes, it is true no otherwise but according to the Apostles practise, who become all things to all men, (Jews, Pagan Idolatours, and the weak) that he might, (if it were possible) persuade and save them, but by no means for any honourable respect to their Bread-worship, against which some of the first enjoyners of kneeling confessed in the flames of devouring fire. Also to this objection I have answered more largely otherwhere.  
Fourthly, you say, Kneeling is a note of Antichrist. Answer. As washing was a note of the jewish Church to distinguish it from Christ and his Apostles. It were wonderful strange if the true Church could be distinguished from the false by bodily gestures, which are common unto both. Verily if our kneeling to God be a note of the Church of Rome, I will begin a new Catechism. Indeed kneeling to the bread-made-god is a note of a Papist, and the bread-made-god is a note of Antichrist, and kneeling to God alone in his own ordinance is a note of a true worshipper, but kneeling simply is a note of neither one nor other. Hither may be referred that you say, that 
y Disp pag. 110, 111.  the kneeling of Papists and Lutherans witness their faith. Answer. As if every special gesture in divine worship did not as much: and your mentioning of the Lutherans spoils all; you may add the Church of England unto them; for all these witness divers faith by kneeling at Sacrament. That is to say, there are divers a● he publicly known and believed, and then each sort of people refer, and apply kneeling accordingly.  
Fifthly, you 
z Disp. pag. 104 107.  say, Kneeling hath an unmovable abuse sticking to it, whereof it cannot be purged: as, first, it can never be purged from being a will-worship, being so lately brought into God's service by Antichrist, without all warrant of the word. Answer. All this is begged, and I have refu●ed abundantly in this Treatise. Secondly, It can never be purged from being a gesture devised by Antichrist; all preaching to the contrary will never prove it to have any other author. Answer. This is but your confidence; for all your disputing hath not yet proved the gesture to have no other author, than Antichrist. Then if Antichrist first used the gesture of kneeling to his Sacrament, before the orthodox Church used it at the Lords table, all your disputing cannot prove, that he is the author of kneeling to God in his own ordinance therefore: feed us not with the wind of your words, but give us reasons and proofs that are convincing, or else be entreated to hold your peace. Thirdly, It can never be purged from being an idolatrous gesture in that actions, 〈◊〉 the members of Antichrist, therefore we must not use it, for we are forbidden to walk in the ordinances of Idolaters, and to do so to the Lord as they do to their Idols. Answer. Idolaters bow down to their Idols, must not we therefore bow down to the Lord? See you not that gestures are not, cannot be forbidden, which are common to Idolaters and true worshippers. Wherefore it appears not that there is any suc● immooveable abuse sticking unto the gesture as the Disputer imagineth, nay he 
a Disp pag. 101  confesseth, that if the original were good, that is, if it had the warrant of the word at first it may be purged by reducing it to his original. Sixthly, you 
b Dialogue be●vixt old Protestant, & new formalist, pag. 17, 18, 19, 20. Disput, 100  say, that kneeling i● defended by Popish arguments. Answer. Some of the arguments which you make your new formalist to use are none of your arguments, and indeed the rest of them are not full arguments at all, but considerations that are on our side pertinent to the controversy; but if there be any thing, which we observe out of God's word, taken up by the Papists, what great fault can you find with us? Know you not that Papists have done the truth that wrong in some degree in all their damnable heresies? But the truth is, if the Papists say any thing to prove that sitting or standing are not necessary, so it is, assure yourself, that which they say to prove adoration of the Breaden God lawful, we make none of our arguments. Seven, you 
c Abridg p. 3●.  say, That kneeling is an evident sign of Bread-worship in the judgement of the very Papists: for their conceit of Transubstantiation by their practice of kneeling. Answer. Do they speak of kneeling to the Sacrament, or to God in heaven? If they speak of kneeling to God, and from thence do prove Transubstantiation, they were quite besides themselves; but if they speak (as they did) of kneeling to the Sacrament, they might say so more tolerably, though they concluded not effectually; for they might as well prove their images to be transubstantiated, but what is that to us, who do abhorr● kneeling unto the Sacramental elements: you see their reasoning touches us not, their authority doth touch us as little. You add that Bellarmine says, he marvailes not that the Calvinists adore not the Sacrament, because they believe not that Christ is really present. Answer. And doth not Bellarmine speak for us in these words, as well as for any other, whom he calls Sacramentaries, and Calvinists, who adore the Sacrament no more than they do? Alas what ●eeble conceits be these of yours to condemn us withal? But you must mark here that if Bellarmine and his followers did reason contrary to us in this thing, than it followeth that Popish arguments, which you objected before are not our supporters, neither serve our turn for de●ence of ●ur kneeling. Thus I have gathered together such scartered objections, as I find in your books, and are ●●th●r to be referred, if they be of use any where, and have likewise given reasonable answer unto them. Now therefore the second part of your Assumption is utterly false, if it be taken according to the necessary sense of your Proposition whereon it dependeth; for the Papists h●ue not abused kneeling at the Lords Supper: again, they have not abused our knee, ling: and lastly, kneeling to God Almighty is no honour to their wa●er-idolatry, but rather a disgrace and condemnation thereof, as that which is contrary.  
Whereas you amplisie this second part of your Assumption by telling us, 
d Abridg. p 31.  That there is no action in all Antichrists service, so idolatrous a● their kneeling at Sacrament: But 
e Surveyed p. 182.  this of all Popish rites is most idolatrous, and so 
f Abridg p. 31.  no action in Popery can be termed so properly Popish and Antichristian as this, and 
g Surveyed p. 177  that [in 
h This cause makes your assertion false, also implies contradiction (in itself) say you, (in respect of Transubstantiation) such a speech have the Scotchmen, Pert● Ass pag. 55. who affirm, that it is unlawful to conform with the Papists in the act of kneeling, wherein the life and soul of their idolatry standeth. Then it followeth, that forasmuch as we conform not with them further than in the bore act, abhorring their idolatry, that wheresoever kneeling is, there is the life and soul of Popish idolatry: Zeal makes you speak sometimes great mysteries,  itself] it was and is the principal part of Popish idolatry in regard of Transubstantiation. And moreover, (i) That it is daily used by them [in that idolatrous manner] To what purpose serves it I pray? For if our gesture at the Lords table was never abused by the Papists at all, have no spiritual acquaintance, or kindred with their kneeling at all, serves not to honour their damnable idol at all, what is the matter how frequent, and how vile is their idolatry? First you must give your accusation a groundwork, before you must set it out with amplification. That is the work of Logic, and this of Rhetoric, except you would have Rhetoric without reason.   

Of the third branch of your Assumption, whether kneeling at Sacrament be now of necessary use in the Church?  
TO this last point you speak not any thing, but Sect. 29 only affirm, that among other ceremonies, kneeling at Sacrament might well be spared, Abridg. 27. But what a negligent and perfunctory proving is this? Think you that you have said enough to settle a man's conscience? Verily you do wrong unto the people of God to abuse them with such weak and slender st●ff, that cannot possibly ab●de trial, without discovering itself. I will give you three things to consider. First, that what you say against kneeling at Sacrament may as well be said against standing or sitting, which may be also spared in the Church of God. It were ridiculous here to say that sitting or standing are lawful by God's word, and so is not kneeling; for besides that it is a begged falsehood, it is an utter relinquishing of the present purpose, which only concerneth the necessary use of gestures, and behold you cannot deny, but standing may be spared, sitting may be spared, and for company in that sense I will not deny but kneeling may be spared also.  
Secondly, kneeling at Sacrament is necessary as much as our Churches, Bells, Ropes, Ringing, Fontes, Seats, Pulpits, Tables, Table-cloths, Chalices, &c. which you do 
k Demand. p. 28, 29.  allow notwithstanding they have been defiled unto idolatry, yet these are not absolutely necessary: for if such or such Churches were beaten down, as have been abused to idolatry, (as the Christians here in England at their conversion served the heathenish Temples. Mr. Fox Martyrol. pag. 96.) and others built in their stead, the Church I warrant you would not want the same; but you allow these things, because partly they be absolutely necessary in their kind, and partly the particular things themselves be respectively necessary, namely, orderly, comely, and commodious to God's worship. Thus kneeling is necessary inasmuch as gesture is necessary in it its kind: yea even kneeling is a gesture that is orderly, comely, & commodious in the Lord's Supper, (which I have made plain in this Treatise already where your contrary reasoning gave me occasion.) Thirdly, as kneeling in respect of its nature hath a necessary use in the Sacrament, so it is necessary to singular persons in this Church by the commandment of superiors. Is it necessary to preserve the liberties of your Ministeries? Then kneeling at Sacrament is necessary, for resistance whereof the said liberty is restrained unto you. Again is it necessary to receive the Sacrament, and feed upon the body and blood of our Lord jesus? then kneeling is necessary, without which that Communion with the Church is denied unto you. You grant meats sacrificed unto idols might be eaten, because they served for the private use of man's life, (Demands. pag. 20.) And shall not the food of our souls be broken, (in the ministry of the word) and received, (in the Lord's Supper) when the same hath never been sacrificed to idols; but only the natural gesture, (which serves for private use of man's life, and public use of God's worship both) hath been (as it were) sacrificed to idols, and yet not the self same numerical gesture (as the Idols things were the self same) neither. So that if kneeling may be spared in other respects, yet forasmuch as Popish pollution is but accidental unto it, and that it is no sin formally, as blasphemy, witchcraft, lying, &c. behold as the case stands (brethren) it cannot ●e spared, because the word and Sacrament cannot be spared. jadde that the peace of the Church cannot be spared, and your resistance is against the peace. Your contentions may be spared, your idle arguments against k●e lin●●ay be spared, b●t the p●a●e of the Church ●s necessary ●nd c●●●ot be spared, but with the grief o● all good heart's, yea and the grief of God's ●●ne Spirit, who is the author and worker of peace in all the Churches of the Saints. The Lord make you willing to admit into your minds the consideration of these things, and verily I do not doubt, but the wise and humble sort of you will so do, and receive some fruit not to be despised, as for the rest who have of● in their 
l Some of them have reproached me, that I have pleaded for Ba●l: I hope this answer will be my defence, ●ay I have pleaded against Baal, only I have resigned unto God his gesture of worship, which he authorizeth, although defiled by Baal, as Gideon did wood, and offering.  mouths, A Popish Relic, an idolatrous Relic, and such like grievous invectives, I think they had more need to look at, and cry out against the relics of old Adam within themselves, which are Pride and Ignorance. And thus I have answered all the parts of your Assumption. In all which together I would request the Christian Reader specially to apply and consider all gestures which are used both in all parts of divine worship, and in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Standing, sitting, and kneeling in prayer, &c. and standing, sitting, and kneeling in the Communion, for as it is true, that they be God's ordinances, and of necessary use in the Church: so they have polluted of old, and are polluted at this day, all and every one of them unto vi●e idolatry of the P●pists. Thus by God's gracious goodness I have answered your argument against kneeling at Sacrament taken from pollution of the Papists, and so have answered all your arguments tending to prove that kneeling, which is at this day used at Sacrament is impiety.   

An Appendice to the former Answer.  
Give me leave to altar the subject of your Assumption, and in stead of kneeling at Sacrament, insert tithes impropriate in this manner.  
But Tit●es impropriate are devised by man, are notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused to idolatry by the Papists, and are now of no necessary use in the Church.  
Is this a true Assumption or is it no●? If it be true, that Tithes be man● device now in the time of the Gospel, are notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused to idolatry of the Papists, and are of no necessary use in the Church, (which last your action avoweth in allowing, possessing, and using impropriations) then let them be ashamed, which can be content to hold Church-livings in their private clutches, and yet forsooth cannot find in their hearts to kneel at Sacrament. But if the Assumption be false, (as it is setting aside your own opinion and practice, and manner of reasoning) namely tithes are not devised by man, our tithes have not been idolatrously abused by the Papists, and they are also of necessary use in the Church at this time; then let them be more ashamed to deprive the Church of her due, and yet make scruple of kneeling at Sacrament. This is an act of Pharisaical hypocrisy, streining at a g●at, and swallowing a Camel. Alas, (good brethren, and sisters) which of you is afraid either of polluting your hands with idolatrous tithes, crying, away from me, get you hence, or of detaining the lawful and needful tithes from the Churches of Christ, whose they are, and which do suffer grievous things in the want of them. The Lord amend you.    

Objections against kneeling drawn from the breach of the bond of charity, answered. CHAP. 5.  
AT length by God's gracious help, I am come to answer your reasons against kneeling at Sacrament, taken from the breach of the bond of charity. And the same I find to be two; one, that kneeling causeth evil in others, and is an offence to their souls: the other, that it judgeth others for doing evil, that have practised other gestures. I will begin with the former in the first place, and in both I could h●ue wished, that our brothers had had some more charity themselves, when they complained of our want, and then I doubt not but these reasons would have been smothered in the birth of them.  

Of Scandal.  
FIrst, than we may not do (you say) indifferent things, when we cannot do them without scandal. To this purpose 
m Manuser. ch. 1. a●g. 5. Abridg p. 45 Demand pag. 53, 58.  you cite, Rom. 14. 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21. chap. 15. 1, 3. CITIZEN Cor. 8. 7. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. chap. 10. 23, 28, 32. Matth. 18. 10. Ezek. 13. 22. 
n Abridg. p. 1●.  chap. 16. 54. And you assume, That kneeling at Sacrament cannot be used without scandal. Answer. That I may clear these Scriptures according to the just, and necssary meaning of them, I must distinguish. Scandal is either active or passive, that which is given, or that which is taken; all scandal is not condemned in him, that useth indifferent things, but that only, wherein he becomes a willing offender, by the evidence of manifest circumstances: and I will give you this matter in four particular considerations.  
First, all the Scriptures which you quote condemning the scandalising of others in things indifferent, speak only of scandalising them which are weak, in Rom. 14. This appea●ech by verse 1. Him that is weak in saith receive you: and by chap. 15. 1. We then that are str●ng aught to ●eare the infirmities of the weak. In 1 Cor. 8. it is express in this manner. Their conscience b●ing weak is de●iled, verse 7. Take ●e●d your liberty become not a stumbling block to them that are weake● verse 9 If any man see thee which hast knowledge ●it at meat in the Idols Temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak to be emb●●ldened to eat: verse 10. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish: verse ●●. But when y● sin so against the brethren, and wound there weak conscience, ye sin against Christ: verse 12. In 1 Cor. 10. 23, 28, 32. the same matter is handled, of not offending another man's conscience, which is weak, by eating meat offered in sacrifice unto Idols. In Mat. 18. our Saviour speaks only, and purposely of his little ones: (As for Ezek. 13. 22. and chap. 16. 54. you quite outrun your matter, when you made them your proofs, which complain of wicked men only for offending others by their lying divinations, and detestable whoredoms: we are now upon indifferent, and not wicked things, if you do remember:) well the Scripture condemn▪ scandal of the weak, but who are they? They are such as are weak in knowledge and certainty of the truth; for if they be full of knowledge, and established in religion, they are not weak ones, as your quotations do mean. For in the want of settled knowledge, it comes to pass, that they be so easily apt to take offence at lawful actions, and change their opinions and resolutions so suddenly; and this is an evident case. And this their weakness further implieth two things. First, willingness to be instructed in the good way. They which are so flexible, that the beholding of an example can make an impression, and change upon them, will much more be contented to hearken to sound reasons, and be overruled by them. But such as are wilful and perverse, either in ill opinion or practice, with an avowed confidence against all the world, are by no means to be taken in the phrase of Scripture for the weak, or little ones of Christ. Secondly, want of means of throughinstruction in the good way; for so when any people have been throughly taught the truth by preaching, conference, or otherwise, they are not to be esteemed for weak, whom we should fear to offend by example; nay rather we be bound to confess against their error by practice before their eyes, which by plentiful reason we have refuted to their hearing. But the Replier 
o Repl. gen ch. 5. ●●g. 77.  says, That Paul after sufficient information of the doctrine of Christian liberty, yet abstained, and so counselled others for fear of scandell. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 9 Answer. It is false that Paul had throughly informed those particular weak ones for whose sake he did, and counselled others to abstain, or any body else for him. As for his Epistles, he wrote them for the Church's direction, when they had to do with such weak ones, not that these (newly converted to the saith) could receive all the doctrines of them at once. For their sakes therefore, forbearance was to be used for the present time, but not so for men of ancient profession, for whose instruction, or leaving inexcusable, the common teaching of the Church should suffice; for so Paul himself, and other Apostles and Christians, feared not to 
p And thus the Abridgement teacheth, p. 48.  offend the I●wes about Circumcision, and other jewish Ceremonies, when they had publicly declared, and shown out of the word of God the doctrine of their rem●●vall by Christ● death. And truly if means of information suffice not to take scandal away in respect of such, there is a licence given to private persons upon pretence of taking offence to keep off for ever all Ecclesiastical orders, without which yet no Church can be established upon earth.  
But says the 
q Ibidem.  Replyer, N●●● c●n set a certain time, wherein others can be sufficiently taught. Answer. Wisdom ●ay judge this by the consideration of the go●dnesse of means, and willingness to receive the truth without prejudice, and how can it else be in public pr●ceedings? How else will you judge of, and deal with 〈◊〉 in your Presbyteries in question for error; I pray you be not wilful Mr. Replyer, the Truth doth not rest upon your shoulders. But our brethren say further, That was must not offend them, which are strong, ●● well as not the weak. I answer, that such as are strong, will not b●offended at the use of indifferent things, and therefore that exception might have been spared in this controversy. It is men's weakness and want of strength, that they take offence at that, which is lawfully done of other●● But you also add, we must not scandaliz●●he wicked in things indifferent, whether profane, or superstitio●●. Ans. There is not any word of God, requiting us to avoy d● the offence of such men ●● such things. For since we must no● care to offend them in the substantialls of divine worship, shall we be tied to their minds for the manner of administration, and outward ordering? would you have thi● to be the Church's rule, for appointing the circumstances of God's worship? Nay, is there not evident word of God to the contrary, which the Abridgement ●●so declareth in this 
r Abridg. p. 48.  manner. The Apostles did never s●●ke to winn● the Gentles by using Ceremonies, which would 〈◊〉 them, neither would they use th● Ceremonies of Moses to please the jews, when they had sh●●ed 〈…〉 to be obstinate. Yea our Saviour hath taught us in this case by his own example (very many times) to make light account of alienating the minds of such persons. And thus much in the first place, for explication of the Scripture, for avoiding of scandal in things indifferent, taken from the the persons offended, and and other explication I shall further add in the particulars following.  
Secondly, all Scriptures which you quote, condemns only the scandal of the weak, which is made at tha● time, when we know they will be scandalised, in Rom. 14. and Mat. 18. We are forbidden to despise our weak 〈◊〉; where our Saviour and the Apostles show, that we must know the weak to be such, yea and plainly see, how they will stumble, or else we cannot be said to set at naught, or despise them: And in 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle speaks in like manner; but in 1 Cor. 10. he declareth this point more expressly, saying, Whatsoever is set before you eat, ask no question for consciencesake, but if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto Idols, eat not for his sake that she●ed it: vers. 27, 28. where the knowledge of scandal is said to arise out of the information and admonition of the weak themselves. But what do I stand upon this: the Author of the Manuscript delivereth the Proposition in these terms : We are forbidden to 〈◊〉 an indifferent thing, when we know we cannot do it without scandal. And the Abridgement in like manner. No such Ecclesiastical orders should be ordained or used as are known to cause offence, and hindrance to edification. Indeed if this caution were not necessary, no man could use his liberty before others at all, when (some or other) might take offence, though himself knew not so much.  
Thirdly, all the Scriptures which you quote condemnne only that offence of another in things indifferent, which is made by him, who is at liberty, and not bound. They speak not of the case (of our Church) of using, or refusing those things, as men are tied by the commandment of authority, but as they are free in themselves to do what they william. This you cannot but see. We must not please ourselves saith the Apostle, but our neighbours for their edification. Rom. 15. 1, 2. But what is this I pray to those things which are done, not for pleasing of ourselves, but to obey the Magistrate by Gods own appointment? I will give you two equal considerations, to make this more evident: first, except authority aught to be obeyed in things indifferent notwithstanding that some take offence thereat sometimes, cannot possibly stand. There is no action publicly done, but some among many will be sure to mistake, and stumble at it. Must not a servant or child do a business (though otherwise indifferent) at the commandment of Master or Father, if others will be offended thereby? Shall a soldier for the offence of his ●ellowes lawfully presume to break the commandment of his General in a thing indifferent? Shall the laws of Cities, and Corporations, of Manors, and Tow●es, of Statutes, and Kingdoms pass upon the condition of men's not taking offence at them? Than not only every man that will pretend scruple may deny obedience, but also all others must decline obedience for satisfaction of the disobedient. And it is to be observed, that a thousand commandments of Commonwealths, families, and other societies, do stand upon things indifferent; indifferent I say for the singular accommodation of them, though necessary in their genus, and species. Verily, in the Church, the mischieve is greater, then in all other societies. Is it possible to establish a Church without some constitutions, & orders of things indifferent? Is it probable, among infinite millions of that people, of divers humours, & dispositions, none should be offended at such constitutions, & orders? Shall an wholesome Ecclesiastical law be always revoked upon information, & complaint that some be scandalised? Then belike for times, places, gestures, &c. of God's public worshp, every man must be left at his own liberty, and this will bring the Church to a speedy confusion without remedy.  
Secondly, obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent is a greater duet●, then pleasing of a private person in such a thing. The case is equal in this, that the comparison stands in that which is indifferent, and as in such a thing God commands me not to offend my brother: so in such he commands me not to disobey the Magistrate; but how must not you needs grant, in many respects, that obedience to the Magistrate fare exceeds the satisfaction of some scrupulous persons? First, if you compare the person of the Magistrate with private person, you know the Magistrate fare excelleth. Secondly, you know the content of some private persons cannot equal or answer unto a law of general 
s The Replier says, Repl. gen. ch●p 5 pag. 76. Superiors have no power given them for destruction, but for ●edification. True Sir, and that is the purpose of all lawful commandments, which we speak of therefore, how ●dle are you to take it, as if we would or need affirm that their end is or may be to command scandals.  edification, or fitness. Thirdly, whereas the Magistrate commands before the scandal ariseth; equity requires, that a lawful commandment be not disannulled for that, by which it could not be prevented, the same positive reason of it re●aining. Fitter it seems to be, that the scandal, which was uncertain, and comes, and goes like tempests in navigation, should be appea●ed rather than the commandment should be abolished. Fourthly, the Magistrates commandment is just without the exception of the weak, the weaks exception is unjust whether with or without the Magistrate's commandment; now I am a subject enquiring what I must do? I consider, that the commandment is just and lawful in its own nature, and what? Shall I then refuse obedience to that which is lawful, for surmises (of certain men) which are unrighteous, and unlawful? Shall the beauty (which is ● thing indifferent) of an honest woman be defaced, and not rather the evil eye plucked out that is scandalised at the beholding of it? Fifthly, the weak who are offended at a thing indifferent commanded by the Magistrate's authority are therein bound to obey the Magistrate also themselves. What think you now? Must not I obey that which is commanded, (I mean actively) because another thinks he may not, who should. Sh●ll I be bound rather to do, as he doth, (who aught not to do so) then to do that, which both of us, aught to do for conscience together? What conscience is there in this? Sure if taking offence set a man at liberty, and acquitted him from the sin of disobedience, (a toto) than it were more likely a great deal; but now that that the weak himself offendeth against God, by being offended against a lawful command of the Magistrate, there is small reason, that I should make myself a voluntary partaker. Sixthly, and lastly, the effect of scandal of private persons in a thing indifferent is nothing so great, as the effect of disobedience to the law and Magistrate, as experience of all times declareth. And all these considerations do plainly show that obedience to the Magistrate in a thing indifferent is a greater duty, than the contenting of a private person; especially, if it be added, that a Christian Magistrate understanding himself, doth not only impose things to be done, but provide that the lawfulness thereof be showed, that so convenient me●nes of instruction being had, no scandal may rise at all, (I say not from the people, whose obedience gives none howsoever, but) even from himself, but what is taken, and not given.  
But you object, first, 
t Mr. Brad. at arg. 12.  That the greatest good cannot countervail the lest evil. Answer. You do mistake yourselves in comparing, why do you set sin against duty, and not rather sin, against sin, duty, against duty. I may as well request, that because (as you say) the greatest good cannot countervail the lest evil, therefore I must not disobey the Magistrates command in the lest measure, for pleasing my neighbour in the greatest. You aught to compare the evil of scandal, with the evil of disobedience, and then you wou●d do well. Besides your assertion is utterly false; for I pray, must not I profess the truth, and perform the several duties thereunto belonging, because I am sure, (by Scripture, by man's nature, by experience, by presumptions, and signs already manifested) that some will hate, some will deride, some otherwise persecute me therefore? Every man must do the duty of his place, though (as Mr. Br. contradicting himself affirmeth) the world go to wreck for it. Secondly, you say, 
u Ibid.  You contemn not the Magistrate's authority; but meekly submit yourselves to his mercy, that you might perform an office of lo●e to your brother's soul. Answer. This is as much as if the child should say, he contemns not the lawful commandment of his father; but submits himself to his mercy; for the love of his brothers or sister's soul, who would be offended at him, if he did perform it. It is strange also, you could not see, that we may say as much by interchanging the persons. For, for conscience of obeying the Magistrate, (according to God's commandment) I contemn not the we●ke brother, God forbidden) but pray for him, inst●u●● him, exhort him, and what else I can do to keep him from stumbling at my lawful obedience. O, but says the Replier, (Repl. gen. ch. 5. pag. 76) May saperiours appoint, how fare I shall show my charity towards my brother's soul? Ans. They may not m●ke a commandment to restrain necessary charity, yet in things indifferent, they may appoint charity to give place to p●ety; or in that which tends to common edification, they may command, though scandals arise, and we are bound rather to be obedient, then charitable, as I shown before: what need we say more to this profound man, whose best proof is a silly ask, for when we lo●ke for proof, we find none. Thirdly, you say, 
w Ibid. also Manusccr. ch. 1 arg. 2.  A thing is not indifferent, but evil, when it causeth scandal. The Apostle says it is sin, it is evil to ●ate with offence, and can any humane authority warrant a man to do that which is evil? Is it not at all times, and in all places, better to obey God then man? Answer. Here you present us with a service of great learning, and skill, by this last passage you would make us believe, that by pleasing our neighbour we obey God, but not by obeying the lawful command of the Magistrate. To the objection itself I retort in this manner: a thing is not indifferent: but a necessary duty, (according to the relation we stand in) when it is imposed by the commandment of a lawful Magistrate. The Apostle says, it is sin, it is evil not to be subject unto such a one, who is sent of God: and can any private persons warrant a man to do that which is evil? Alas brethren! who cannot see, that sees but with half an eye, that when an an indifferent thing is scandalous, (that otherwise is lawful) that is, is scandalous, not ex natura suay, but only by accident, it cannot be thereby made unlawful, when there is a superior reason, The practice of the Apostles, and other Saints of God in Scripture do every where make this good, neither will any reasonable man deny this, except, such a one, whose eye of reason, affection and partiality have put out. In this objection therefore you do abuse us by the outward bark or pill of words, and names without substance. Fourthly, you 
x Manuscrip. and Mr. Br. as before.  say, The Apostle gives this reason against the use of a thing indifferent in the case of offence, that thereby, we shall destroy our brother's soul, and 'cause him to perish, shall we then do that at the command of an earthly power, which shall procure the damnation of our brother's soul? Nay rather w●●●ght to s●ffer our lives to be taken from us. Answer. What mean you by destroying our brother's soul? What? Actually to plunge it into hell, fire? Then i● would follow, that a brother's soul may be indeed destroyed; yea that a thing indifferent can set the same into the state of damnation. Nay but also he destroyeth his brother's soul, that makes him to commit any manner of sin, tending (as every sin tendeth in its nature) unto destruction. For, is it to be thought that all offences which the Apostle condemneth w●re ●ffectually damning I pray? Nay there is no doubt, but if a weak Christian were made to stumble but an hour, were induced to think but an ungodly thought, were provoked but to surmise, and suspect an evil surmising, though it suddenly vanished again: such a scandal is also meant by the Apostle to destroy his soul and cause it to perish? for so it is evident that he speaks of every scandal, whereby a brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak, (Rom. 14. 21.) whether it be more, or less, continued a longer or shorter space of time. This objection therefore is answered in the answer which is made to the former. But the Replyer is not contented with reason. A Scandal (saith he, p. gen. ch. 5. pag. 67.) in the nature of it, is spiritual murder; now suppose a superior should command a thing in itself indifferent, whereupon murder were like to follow, as to run an horse, or a cart, when and where little children were playing, (though unwitting to him) would any ●ans conscience serve him to do it. Answer. I think not, except his conscience were feared with an hot iron, and his heart harder than the neither millstone, but what means this man to make the case equal betwixt wilfulll murder, and scandal taken of a thing indifferent? He should put case of a man, not a child, out of misconstruction of something indifferent done at the Magistrate's commandment, hurting himself, not hurt by another, as he impertinently propoundeth. His understanding was sure a sleep, when he penned this comparison: for scandal taken unjustly is a murdering of one's self, another is not to be blamed therefore, who doth but the duty of his calling, and place. Indeed scandal given may be called murder of another's soul, as when a man runs an other through with a rapier, or rides his horse over little children to kill them. Again, you go about to darken the truth with your ●ermes, for albeit scandal may be referred to the sixth commandment, and so is murder, yet there is great difference in kill a man out, and offending the mind but in some certain degree. If a man be but provoked to sinful anger, there is murder committed against his soul, will you say then that the Magistrates commandment must not be obeyed in things indifferent, if any man be but angry? (now all such anger would be sinful, because the things themselves might be lawfully done) yet you cannot deny but by opposing the gesture of kneeling at Sacrament yourselves provoke many unto anger: (now you will say, that such anger is without cause, that is, is unjust anger) then behold you are also murderers of their souls, for angering another is spiritual murder, and that also is yet worse in you, because therein you do oppose also the commandment of the Magistrate in a word, was ever indifferent thi●● appointed in public, think you, but (according to your speaking) some were murdered thereby? Therefore, if you meant simply, you did simply to put no difference betwixt the needless, and uncurable destruction of the person, and such infirmities, which are unavoidable, and remediable. This my answer therefore would perhaps be yours, if the Magistrate commanded sitting at Sacrament, for would not many be scandalised, and provoked to sin thereby? Who can doubt of that? But first you would say, they stumbled against a lawful course, and hurt themselves perhaps against admonition, and information too. Secondly, no order can be appointed but such murders will follow through the corruption of men's hearts. Thirdly, those wounds and hurts are curable by the balm of God's word, which must accordingly be applied. I add that the offence of some in our case is set against a general benefit, and better it is, that one, or some be in danger, than a mischief brought into the whole Church, nay ut peer at unus, quàm unit as. Finally, it is too childish, that you are crying out so mu●h of [Damnation] and [Murder] of another's soul, as if the words [Damnation] and [Murder] without the true interpretation thereof would beaten all down before them. But I beseech you hear, and mark the Apostles own counterpoise, Rom. 13. 2. They which resist the higher powers, shall receive to themselves damnation, and in all the Scriptures, which you quote, as I said, the Apostle speakee against those scandals only, which arise from the use of indifferent things, when they are in our own liberty, and not commanded by the authority of the Magistrate. And so much of this point.  
Fourthly, all the Scriptures which you quote condemning Scandal, must needs especially condemn that which is 
y So Abridgm. teacheth, pag. 48▪  greatest. Peter and his companions coming to Antioch were in danger of a double scandal, either of the jews by eating with the Gentiles, (which was the less) or of the Gentiles, in refusing their company as if they had not been brethren (which was far●e the greater) now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for avoiding of the lesser scandal, he and his companions fell into the greater, Gal. 2 12. and I think all men are of this mind, that when because of things indifferent, divers scandals do offer themselves, the greatest is to be eschewed notwithstanding others do happen, and not the less without respect of the greatest; except it were good divinity, that men might strain at a little Gnat, and swallow down a great Camel. I hope therefore I shall need to enlarge no further in this point.   

Of the Assumption, that kneeling at Sacrament is scandalous.  
But let us pass to the Assumption of this Argument taken from scandal, and that I may help you out in making the best of your cause, hither may be referred two considerations, you give us in your books, which properly do serve for grounds of showing, that kneeling at Sacrament is a scandalous gesture. Those two grounds we will first consider, and then descend to that which you say for showing the truth of your Assumption by the exemplification of daily experience.   

Whether kneeling at Sacrament be an appearance of Idolatry, such as for which the Lord therefore condemneth the use of it.  
FIrst, than 
z Abridg. 62. Disp. pag 108. Manuscr. ch. 1. arg. 5.  you affirm, That kneeling at Sacrament is an appearance of idolatry. For the outward act of kneeling (so fare as the eye of man can judge) is the same with that of the Fapists worshipping the bread▪ now the Apestle requires us to abstain from all appearance of evil. 1 Thess. 5. 22. Answ. I cannot but wonder, that some of you especially should expound and apply the words of the Apostle, as if the same were to be extended to all appearances of evil whatsoever. Had not jacob's laying of rods before the stronger cattles. Gen. 30 a manifest appearance of injustice, and fraudulent dealing? Had not the Altar of testimony, Ioshu. 22. a manifest appearance of rebellion against the Lord, in regard of his Altar, and worship? Had not jaels' friendly invitation of Sisera, judg. 4 18. a manifest appearance of dissimulation, and guile? Had not Ruths coming in the night to the bed of Boaz, and willing him to spread his skirt over her, a manifest appearance of immodesty, and dishonesty? Had not Husha's abiding in the City with Absalon, 2 Sam. 15. 34. a manifest appearance of double dealing and treachery? Had not jonadabs' charge to his sons, jerem. 35. 67. a manifest appearance not only of cruelty to them, but of superstition in forbidding for ever unto them that which God had sanctified and allowed? Had not falling down on the face to mortal men (such as we read of in the holy Scripture) some appearance of idolatry, specially when it was used unto the Prophets of God, and also when civil worship was joined with divine, as when 
a Chron. 29. 20  the people worshipped the Lord and the King? Had not the Apostles observing the Sabbath, Circumcision, and ceremonies of the jews a plain appearance of judaisme; and that those things were not abrogated by Christ? What shall I say? David's leaping, and dancing before the Ark, 2 Sam. 6. 20. was an appearance of baseness and vainess. Mordoca●'s refusing to bow to Haman was an appearance of pride. The Apostles plucking the ears of corn, Mat. 12. 1, 2. was an appearance of prosaning the Sabbath day. The impropriations, which some who will not kneel at Sacrament hold, cannot be less in your own judgement, than a manifest appearance of sacrilege, & Church robbery, and a thousand things more might be added in like manner: and yet forlooth we must abstain from all appearance of evil, without any manner of restraint or modification? What manner of expounding is this: How do you abuse the world, specially those, who are content to take all for current divinity which comes from you?  
Wherhfore if I might deliver my opinion, I would say that the appearance of evil, which the Apostle binds us to abstain from is not in respect of others, but of 
b Mr. Calvin is of this mind, referring the words to matters of doctrine especially see him upon this place.  our own selves we aught to abstain from that, which appears to us to be evil. For when the Apostle had said, Prove all things; some man might ask, and when we have proved, what must we then do? Behold therefore he directeth what must be done both for good things, and for evil: Hold fast, that which is good, abste●ne from all appearance of evil. This interpretation seems very clear and evident of this place, especially, when an utter abstaining from that which appears to us to be evil, hath easy confirmation in other parts of the word: let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 5. 23. But on the other hand, any utter abstaining from that, which we know to be good when it appears to be evil to others, hath no footing in any place of the Bible especially, forasmuch as the Apostle here speaks not of indifferent things, at lest nor more than of such, as are not indifferent, it would follow of your exposition, that we may not do good duties at any time, if the same have (as they may and will have oftentimes) an appearance of evil to some other. But set aside the meaning of this text, must we not abstain from appearance of evil in some case? Truly I grant, when there is a communion in professed evil, say idolatry. As if the three noble jews, Deu. 3. reserving their hearts to God, should have fallen down before the Image of Nabuchadnezzar, or Protestants in Popish Countries, when they see the Breaden God carried through the streets, and hear the sacring Bell ring before it, reserving their hearts to God, should fall down, as others do; or should so do at Mass in Elevation-time: but behold, here is not appearance of evil only, but manifest evillat self, by holding communion in the outward man with idolaters in the profession of their idolatry, against which they should bear witness. Again, I grant, when there is an unseasonable practice against the seemliness or suitableness of public places or businessee; as if in market places, or public meetings, or civil occasions, a man should fall on his knees and pray: but also behold this outward worshipping is contrary to the wisdom of the word, which appoints every thing to be done in due season. But what is all this to kneeling at Sacrament; for neither is there idolatry professed in, (but exploded from) our Sacrament by God's great mercy, neither is personal worship unseasonable to material worship, as other where I have plenteously showed.  
But if in other respects kneeling at Sacrament were an appearance of evil to some men, yet being lawful in itself it is warranted unto us by three respects overruling. First, the public doctrine deers the practice of godly Christians in this ease, than which there cannot be a better clearing under the Sun. But what say you to this? Forsooth, Neither Papists, nor we do profess in what belief or respect this gesture is used in the act of receiving. A poor evasion! were it not for our public doctrine all our worship might be as well an appearance of gross idolatry: for men might suspect us to worship the Sun, and Moon, or Mahomet, or pictures in the windows, or what they would, if the public doctrine did not determine it. 〈…〉 the gesture as well as ours, you make theirs and ours equal in show of idolatry, so either making the appearance of ours as bad as theirs, or the appearance of theirs no worse than ours, for the gesture of neither can speak, if that be all the rule of comparing. The truth is, you may well be ashamed of such a tristing exception in a serious matter. Verily if the public doctrine take not away the show of using our gestures as Idolaters do use them, then are all our gestures shows of all manner of idolatry Popish and Heathenish, for in gestures, there is no difference to be discerned betwixt us and them. Secondly, if a thing indifferent have a show of evil, it makes it not unlawful to him who hath a calling to do it; Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God. 1 Cor. 7. 24. we are called to kneel at Sacrament being children, and servants of the Church and Magistrate, we must obey: he that is called in the Lord being a servant, is a freeman of the Lord jesus, verse 22. Thirdly, we must not refuse any gesture, because it hath a show of evil, except we can use another without having such a show: for in so doing, whiles we shall eschew the rocks, we fall upon the sands. Now I ask you in respect of whom is kneeling like to be a show of idolatry? You 
c Disp. pag. 201  say, we seem to commit idolatry to the simple at lest: and I say, to the same simple, your standing, and sitting are like also to be a show of profaneness: yea more your refusing to kneel is a show of atrogancy, and pride; and in this Church of faction, and disobedience. Nay yet more, when you will loose your Ministeries and the Communion itself rather then kneel, you make show of vile hypocrisy, that will part with the greatest good things in the world, for avoiding of evil, such in misconstruction, and outward appearance to some people only. And yet inconclusion I add, that as fare as I can perceive, kneeling at Sacrament hath not so much as appearance of idolatry, whatsoever you say to the contrary. For to pass, that simple people, (such as you speak of) do not lightly suspect us to worship the bread as the Papists do, whose manner they never saw or understood, this is evidently improbable, that any should suspect us to worship the bread and wine, when we receive them into our mouths, and be eating, and drinking of them, for thereof is our controversy at this time. But here I cannot pass one unkind speech of the Abridgement. It is (saith 
d Abridg. p. 66.  it) a fare less sin, and not so gross an appearance of idolatry to bind us to kneel before a Crucifix, then to bind us, as it is with us, to kneeele before the bread and wine. Answer, For the consideration of tying and binding I have satisfied in another place: to the comparison you make hither pertinent, I say it is incredible that kneeling before an Image, (that is you mean to it some way, for else we innocently kneel before the Images and Crucifixes in our glass windows) which is an expressed idolatry forbidden in the word, is a less appearance of idolatry, then kneeling before the bread and wine according to the Lords own ordinance. I will not deny the worship of the Breaden God to be a worse idolatry, than the worshipping of a Crucifix, but you mistake of your aim a mile, when you would make that which is an appearance of idolatry, which it therefore appearance because it is expressedly such, a less appearance, then that which is appearance only, and is not at all such. Besides if you said truly, yet you should have considered, that the best action may have sometimes an appearance of being worse than that which is bad. For it is plain, that look what sin is adjudged and suspected of any excellent action, (as a great sin may be adjudged, and suspected) the appearance of that sin must needs be worse, (whiles you speak of nothing else but mere appearance) than the appearance of any real sin, which is not so great as it, though it be a great one. Therefore as my first answer is sufficient to show this speech of yours to be false, if you compare mere appearance of idolatry with the appearance of real idolatry: so this latter shows it out of doubt to be most reproachful, if you compare mere appearances, (I say mere ones) together. And so much to show that kneeling at Sacrament is no appearance of idolatry, at lest, that it is not such appearance, as in respect whereof it is not lawful for us to use it in this Church.   

Whether kneeling at Sacrament be an occasion of Idolatry, such as for which the word therefore condemneth the use of it.  
NExt 
e Abridg. 62. Manuscr. ch. 1. arg 6.  you affirm, that kneeling at Sacrament is ●●ke to prove an occasion of idolatry, now we must b●●●are of every occasion, or provocation unto any sin, as to adultery: Prou. 6. 27, 28. Rom. 13. 13. wrong and unrighteous dealing. Exod. 23. 7. And so to other sins, specially to the sin of idolatry, to which we are naturally so prove. 1 Cor. 10. 14. Deut. 7. 25. job. 31. 26. The 
f Abridg. p. 17.  second commandment forbidding all provocations unto spiritual fornication, as the seventh doth unto that which is carnal. Answer. Still as if you could not abide the clear light of the Scripture you confounded us in generalities, without necessary distinguishing: doth not your own conscience tell you, that any thing may become an occasion of evil by accident, ex defectu nostro? You should have showed therefore, what things the Spirit of God means to condemn the use of, when they are occasions and provocations to evil, specially, when all these Scriptures might have easily led you to have put a difference. Be pleased therefore to take notice I pray you, that (setting aside Deutr. 7. 25. which I have purposely answered in another place,) all the rest of your Scriptures condemn no occasions of evil, but which are evil themselves, if they were not occasions. Chambering, and wantonness, Rom. 13. 13. with the harlot, Prou. 6. 27, 28. is itself a kind of adultery. Not keeping fare from a false matter, Exod. 23. 7. is in some degree to become accessary. Not flying from idolatry, 1 Cor. 10. 14. is in some measure to yield unto it. Looking upon the Sun, and Moon in their bright shining, yea with admiration, job. 31. 26. is by no means unlawful, except it be with idolatrous intention or cogitation. Wherefore I distinguish in this manner, some things provoke us unto evil of their own nature, as the magnetical stone draws iron unto it; some again are only abused by us, which easily can abuse the best of all God's creatures and ordinances, to make them occasions, and provocations to evil. The hope of heaven may be, & hath been occasion of idolatry. The law may be occasion of all manner of concupiscence. The Gospel, and all comforts in Christ are occasion 
Rom. 7. 5. 8.  of stumbling to wicked men, occasion of their persecution and blasphemy; nay any indifferent thing, even the times, and places, and all gestures, &c. of God's public worship (prescribe what you can) are like to prove occasions of evil to some, in some respect or other. The truth is, sinful man can meddle with nothing in the world, but there is danger he should abuse it, whether it be a necessary duty, or a thing indifferent.  
How now can kneeling to God at Sacrament be condemned, because it is likely to be occasion of some idolatry? Perhaps you will say, that actions of liberty and indifferency may and aught to be suspended for danger, though not necessary duties. But I must tell you, that if there be danger of idolatry by kneeling, it is none other, than what riseth out of the appearance, that, that gesture is idolatrous. Therefore my former answer concerning the appearance thereof may plentifully suffice: as, first, the doctrine of the Church is sound concerning the Sacrament, and therefore they which practise according to the said doctrine, like good children of the Church give no occasion to any to fall into idolatry, and especially if the people be helped therein by the benefit of the word preached. But to this, you answer, First, that such 
g Pers. Ass. p. 55 Repl. gen. ch. 5. p. 77.  ceremonies must be appointed, which by their goodness, and edification may help the preaching of the word, and not such as the word must daily have need to correct. As if every ceremony, or gesture whatsoever it be, must not be corrected by the preaching of the word. For I pray, which way shall any gesture, say sitting or standing at Sacrament, be used aright without the instruction of the public Ministry: you would make us believe that your ceremonies should be so good, and full of edification that the people need not to be directed or corrected at all for the right and comfortable use of them; but such ceremonies were never known in rerum natura. Secondly, you 
b Abridg, lordship 68, Perth. Ass. as before.  ●ay, many want the doctrine of the word, and how can they be instructed thereby? A● if the same case would not fit to sitting, and standing, for not preventing the danger of unreverence, and profanes. 3. you 
i Abridg pag as before.  say, there is that danger of kneeling th●t preaching cannot suffice to pres●rue from it, such is man's pro●es to superstition. 
k Manuscr ch. 2 arg. 6.  The doctrine of the Romish church is clear, that Images are not to be worshipped with that worship which is due to God, yet the people cannot be kept from committing Idolatry toward them; because they are allowed to show such outward reverence unto them, as kneelling down. 
l Perth. Ass. as before.  Meat doth not nourish so fast as poison death corrupt. How many faults are here? what, is not the doctrine of the Romish Church clear, for the people's committing Idolatry with Images? are we allowed at Sacrament to kneel unto the bread and wine; or to use, any reverence directed unto them as they do to their Images? Is there the same reason betwixt Idolatours who are given up, doing that (in worshipping Images at all) which the Lord abhors of all other sins: And Gods own people, who come unto himself alone, and that in his own holy ordinance? Is kneelling poison in it own nature? In a word, if there be such danger of kneelling as you say, that preaching cannot suffice to preserve from it, such is man's proveness to superstition, Is there not also danger of sitting or standing, that preaching cannot suffice to preserve from it, Such is man's proneness to unteucrence, and profanes? Fourthly, you 
m Abridg. as before. Hither I may refer those two Scriptures quoted by the Abridg. p. 62. namely Exod. 21. 33, 34. Deur. 22. 8.  say, It is neither safe, nor lawful, for a man wilfully to dig a pit or break a bridge or lay a log in the way, and then cry out, and say, OH take heed you fall not. As if kneelling at Sacrament were a pit or a log, or bridge broken, and standing or sitting were a safe, plain, and perfect way! what beggary is this? If any fall into Idolatry by our kneelling, it is not because kneelling is a pit, but their hearts are a deep pit of error and deceit: It is no log, but they like mellancholik persons, carry the block in their own idle imagination. Yet therefore because there is danger in it by the corruption of men's hearts, as there is in all things we can do; give us leave to tell men, that we kneel only to the God of heaven, as we would have them to know the doctrine of our Church, that there is but one God, one Faith, and one Baptism. Thus therefore the doctrine, and preaching of our Church acquits us from being guilty, by kneelling, of giving others occasion of Idolatry. Secondly, we have an honest calling to kneel, the commandment of authority, and that also acquits us. Thirdly, sitting, and standing are as much occasion of unreverence and profaneness; as kneelling is of superstition, refusing to kneel is an occasion of trouble in the Church, heartburning, and dissensions amongst brethren, loss of your Minnisteries, and of the liberty of the Communion. Do you tell us of occasion of evil? Behold brethren, in these things, your refusing to kneel is an occasion of a whole world of mischief.  
And yet I add, that I do not perceive, that kneelling proves an occasion of Idolatry in our Church. Danger there is you 
n Manuscr. ch. ● arg. 6  say, because such reverence is not used at the word, and Baptism. Ans. nay therefore men will rather judge, God is worshipped only, when the word & Sacraments are (in reason) likely to have an equality in the due (if any such were) of worshipping, and in Baptism the Baptised might worship with us perhaps, if he were not a little infant. In the hearing of the word, all men, (even the simplest) do easily allow, an indulgence for sitting, or standing, when they are upon consideration to try the spirits, and discern the truth, and so they see the exercise of the word is not in so special manner an exercise of devotion as prayer, singing of psalms, and the Sacraments. Besides by your reasoning, your sitting bore is as much an occasion of Idolatry, which is not used in the exercise of the word preached. Again you 
o Abridg: p: 63:  say, If men kneeled to Ministers, there were danger of falling unto Idolatry, much more there is there. Ans. why so? Do you reason from kneeling to the Ministers to kneeling before the bread and wine? If you had compared justly, you should have spoken of kneelling only before the Ministers, and have showed, that they be dangerous for Idolatry: but then that would evidently help us, and not you; for we kneel before the Minister in all our public worshipping, or adoring, and yet without danger of falling into Idolatry. Lastly, 
p Ibidem:  (you say) The Idolatrrus original kneelling had at first, and use it hath had ever since among the Papists, shows, it cannot choose but breed, nourish, and maintain superstition, wheresoever it is used. Ans. It shows no such thing, you might aswell reason from sitting bore, which is used among the Papists to show our sitting bore necessarily to breed, nourish and maintain superstition. Can this be a good consequence, Papists have abused kneelling, therefore kneelling must needs abuse Protestants, do you not consider that kneelling did not make the Papists hearts Idolatrous, but their Idolatrous hearts did make kneeling such. And truly if there be any among us that use kneeling superstitiously, I do not believe, that they were thereunto brought by kneelling, but their minds were first leavened with superstition, and then how can it be, but they will use that gesture accordingly, and why th●n should kneelling itself be faulted for that? if superstitious people offend likewise in kneelling in prayer, by secret reference unto Saints departed (as they may very well do among us) will you thereupon affirm, that their kneelling is occasion of their Idolatry. Alas, alas! some men will turn all gestures into sin; it is enough for us in such case, that the word allows them, we have a calling unto them, and that we should occasion worse effects by fare, by the profane refusing of them.  
Here I may annex, that you 
q Abridg p. 18  propound this danger somewhat more generally, as if kneelling at Sacrament would not only occasion a superstitious conceit of the Sacrament, but also corrupt us in the true religion, and make us ever fall backward to the Popish. Your conceit may beformed in this manner. Such popish ceremonies are unlawful, whereby we shall be in danger to fall again to popery (this proposition you prove by Exod. 34. 12. 15. Deut. 7. 4. 25. 26. judg. 2. 13. Gal. 2. 5. and illustrate by this, that the Pope is revealed to be that great Antichrist; and his Idolatry troubleth the Church at this day more than any other, and our people converse more with Papists, then with any other Idolatours:) but kneeling at Sacrament is a popish ceremony, whereby we shall be in danger to fall again unto popery. Ergo. Ans. (to pass the abusing of judg. 2. 13. they forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashteroth, which is nothing to your proposition) your whole proposition must be expounded in the former part as I have showed in the former chapter, and in the latter part as I have expounded in the former sections. Your Assumption is false as in the former part I have showed also in the former chapter, and in the latter part no body will believe you. Hath exerience taught you, that kneelling at Sacrament hath brought us back to popery. In the whole Church thanks be to God there is no such matter, and for the errors of particular persons, that they are fallen into them, because they kneel at Sacrament is a thing which we all know you can never make good: rather the want of love to the truth, the want of the fear of God, self-opinion, and trusting to men's own learning, the base depending of men's opinions upon humours and times, the spirit of contradiction, and envy, which will ever make a part against their judgements, whose persons, and practise it cannot endure: and lasty, the providence of God for men's exercise, that the faithful may be tried and manifested, and the unfound left to the punishment of their unfaithfulness. Rather I say these are in cause that errors spring in the Church in all ages; and for evidence, that kneeling doth not cause errors in this Church, you might consider, that of such as are sound (as you accounted soundness of religion) there are in this Church a greater number without comparison that kneel at Sacrament, than such as do not. Moreover know you nor that your adversaries may object unto you all your opinions uttered in your books, which they accounted for errors, and especially the errors of them of the separation? Shall we say, that zeal against kneeling at Sacrament hath made both yourselves and them to run into a labyrinth of errors? We may say it as well as you accuse the errors of certain in our Church to rise of kneeling or defence of kneeling at the Lords Supper.   

Of the scandal of Papists by kneeling.  
Having cleared these two grounds, I hope it is an easy matter now to answer all the exemplifications you use to confirm your assumption, only that kneeling at Sacrament is a scandalous gesture. And first you affirm, that the said gesture is scandalous to the papists, because it will be a means to 
r Abridg p. 18 p. 62., Manuscr. ch 1. arg. M. Brad. arg. 12.  harden, and confirm them in their Idolatry, and superstition, for they seeing us to 
s Abridg. lordship, 25 and lordship: 49.  borrow this ceremony of them, do justify their own Church and religion, yea, their Idolatrous conceit of Transubstantiation, 
u Abridg. p. 25  insult over and condemn our religion and 
t pag, 21 Manuscrip. as before. Dis. pag 46.  Church, and good 
w Mr. Brad. as before  reason they have so to do, for if the b●oth be good that the Devil is s●d in, sure the Devil himself must needs be good also. In a word hereby 
x Abridg p. 49.  they increase in their hope of the full restoring of popery again. Ans. It is undoubtedly, but your conceit, that the papists are scandalised it this manner. I will not deny but they may (according to their manner) make a great noise about a colour for disgracing our cause, and countenancing their own: but that they are indeed more confirmed in their Idolatry, upon private consideration, and judgement of our practice, you can never make us believe. All men do know, that they are wont to triumph against us in manifold changes of our own practice, not because they are more hardened in their religion thereby, but because being already hardened they seek, and make occasions to themselves of our reproach and discredit. For how can you reasonably think, that they will be more hardened in their own religion by our agreement with them in a matter of gesture (which is common to all religions) when they know we have disclaimed their doctrine, (doctrine being it, which in all religions determines the use and end of all gestures.) Besides, think you, that the papists esteem of us so much, and of our judgement, and practise, that they will better like, and more firmly stick unto their judgement, and practise, because in any measure they gain some countenance from our. Churches? nay rather they strive as much, as possibly they can (as it were by an Antiperistasis) to like, and stick unto that which is most contrary. And this the Authors of the Abridgement (quite forgetting themselves) affirm; 
y Abridg, p. 26.  saying, that they are very precise in shunning all agreement with us, in the lest thing, that concerns the profession of our religion. What think you now? Will they be more confirmed in their religion, because we partake with them in some things, when the lest thing (which concerns the profession of our religion) is eschewed, and very precisely eschewed by them, therefore, because we perform it. I but this is an encouragement unto them, that we have borrowed the practice of our kneeling from them. I answer, (passing that he have not borrowed it as I have showed otherwhere) there is no encouragement thereby given, which makes them, but what follows, after they are already hardened. And also the insulting and boasting which they use, is rather in pretence, then in good earnest: for who of them can be so utterly ignorant, as in his conscience to think his own to be the true Church, because we agreed with it in a natural gesture in divine worship, when we agreed with all religions in all gestures; or our Church to be false, becave we use the same gesture with theirs, which they are resolved is the true; or because we kneel in the act of receiving, therefore it is a justifiable opinion, that the bread is transubstantiated, or that there is hope Popery will get in again, because kneeling (which is in all religions, as it is applied) is also used with us, as with the Papists in the bore outward gesture, when they know we do not only not apply it as they do, but a quite contrary way. They cannot but see, that they might as well hope for popery to return, by our sitting bore in the Sacrament, by the continued use of our temples, yea, by our kneeling in prayer, standing at Creed, and such like, which are things of common use; as hope for the return of popery from our agreement with them in the gesture of the Sacrament. Therefore whatsoever some of them think good against their own reason, to say out of zeal to the Catholic cause, yet in their consciences it is to be thought, they judge or say no such matter. As for Mr. Br. reason, why they should so judge, namely because, (according to the Proverb) the Devil is good, if the broth be good he is sod in, implying belike, that kneeling at Sacrament is like broth to the flesh of Popish religion: what should a man say? Doth Mr. Br. think that, the Papists will reason for their religion by such an hateful resemblance? O● if they would, doth he think, they know not, there be divers things to make pottage, and not only? Will not water, and other ingredients also make good broth, if whole some flesh be boiled therein? And can any body dream●, that our broth is the same with their●, which is made with none of their stinking carrion, but is wholesome, and good by strength, and virtue of the true religion? I add, that our kneeling is so fare from confirming Papists against us, that they are rather persuaded to come unto us, knowing that we handle the holy Sacrament so reverently. But take it for granted that kneeling at Sacrament is scandalous to the Papists: what then? First; we are not bound in ordering of God's worship to be guided by them, but rather we must lightly accounted of alienating such persons as they are by the example of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles. Secondly, what knowledge have we, that they will be offended at our kneeling? I speak of singular Communicants; Shall such abstain for the offence of the Papists, which never was nor will be taken at them in particular, but only at the Church in general, the custom whereof is not in their power to change! What for such offence as is neither increased nor lessened, nor made more or less by them, nay whose kneeling is not so much as once taken notice of? This learning sounds not; besides it is unknown to us, that the Papists take any offence at the Church itself, except we will believe your saying, which we have no reason to do in this controversy, specially, when these respects, on which you say so, we have seen to be of no moments. Thirdly, shall we set the commandment of a Protestant Magistrate, and a Christian maintainer of the Gospel, behind the offence of the professed enemies of the Church? Will you be so unthankful, where you are so much bound; and so kind to those to whom you profess the greatest opposition? If you will not, why do you talk of the offence of the Papists, and are not rather swayed with the commandment of the Magistrate? Alas brethren! shall we square our obedience by the Papists humours? Verily then we shall perform none, for if they apprehended such a thing, they will pretend offence in all things that we may perform obedience in nothing. But I will not urge this, because I hope, you will be contented to yield of your old strains for shame I say not, but conscience, when you shall better consider. Lastly, the scandal, which you give the Papiste by standing, and sitting, and refusing to kneel is greater, than the scandal of our kneeling. For, first, they are more persuadible to enter into those Churches, where special reverence is used in receiving the Sacrament, then where it is not: and howbeit God's word is effectual to convert Papists in those places, where kneeling is not used, (as the Replier 
z Repl. gen. to Bp. Mort ch. 5. Sect. 89.  saith to no purpose, for whou doubted of that?) yet take the Papists as they are in their judgements remaining such: (for is not this the true point?) and there is no doubt but they are more inclinable to our Church, in respect of our authorised kneeling, then to those that reject it. Now judge fairly, whether i● worse to incline them to our religion, or further alienate them? to make them worse, or please them for their edification, which to do we are commanded, Rome, 15. 2● Secondly, Such as the Papists be are not so to be respected, that for winning them, we should grie●e or offend the brethren. This is the answer of the 
a Abridg. 4●.  Abridgement to us, objecting, that rejecting of kneeling would further alienate the Papists; and could they b● ignorant, that it served more against them for them? for thereof it followeth, that though Papists be offended at us, yet we must more look to avoid the offence of the Church, it being a greater scandal to offend the Church, than the Papists, as indeed it is without comparison. Thirdly, will you rather scandalise the Papists, by refusing the benefit of the Communion, and the liberty of your Ministeries, then in a gesture? You tell us of offending the Papists in a gesture, and yet in greater matters you make the Papists rejoice, yea scorn and reproach the Gospel's ●ory our sakes Fourthly, I answer: Some things you allow, which gives more offence to the Papists, then kneeling at Sacrament; I will name our Churches, which all our Papists are always reproaching us withal, that those Churche●, which their Catholic Ancestors builded, we are glad to turn to the use of our religion: and I will nam● the impropriations which some of you hold, you are so fare from building of Churches, that you can be content to devour the maintenance of them. It is well known that the Papists take you for vile Church-robbers, that so do. What say they; You are not hotter in fight against the ceremonies, then in holding Church-livings, your religion is a sacrilegious religion. It is certain, that this thing is a great scandal unto them. And yet for all this dare you not kneel at the Communion for scandalising of them; whose zeal cannot be kindled against such a zeal; It is well for you if your consciences be as voided of hypocrisy, ●● you are bold in charging the same upon other men's.   

Of the scandal of ignorant persons by kneeling.  
NExt you tell us, That the gesture of kneeling is scandalous to such as are ignorant, and popishly affected a●●ngst us: For, first, at breedeth in them an opinion of the necessity of it with a 
b Disp. 46. and 103. Abrid 63  superstitious conceit, and reverence of the outward elements, and also 
c Abrid 49. 62 Surveyed pag. 73.  confirmeth i● them, the persuasion, and superstition there have of it already. Secondly, 
d Abridg pag. 62.  Church Papists, and such as are popishly, and superstitiously minded in this matter of the Sacrament, ar● thereby allowed to commit the outward act of their idol● 
b Survey. pag. 73.  ●ry; and all this especially of they s●e the same 
Mr. Brad. at arg. 12.  more urged, then kneeling at prayer; and also (f) see the Rulers of the Church curse and excommunicate all such a● refuse it. Answer. It is no● true that our kneeling in the act of receiving breedeth a●d confi●meth in ignorant people such superstition: for those Popish people you speak of hold by tradition the old Popish opinion of Transubstantiation, and that is the ground of their superstitions conceit and reverence of the bread: And indeed such ignorant people as otherwise are free from Popery, have also continued unto them, (for want of instruction, and Catechism) Popish phrases of eating their maker, and such like, whereby their minds are ill possessed in that matter. This, this begets superstition in their kneeling: kneeling begets not superstition itself. But what object you the offence of ignorant people, which misinterpret all things in the Church both necessary and indifferent through their ignorance? Must the Church frame her constitutions to the will and satisfaction of such as are ignorant? That were a● much, as if a wi●e man should order his best actions according to the minds, and conceits of them which are plainly foolish; and what can be more foolishly affirme● or imagined? Besides, what if such ignorant people be in the world, must we abst●●ne from the gesture of kneeling without particular knowledge of them ● Suppose I know none such in the congregation where I receive, must I abstain for avoiding offence (which also will be none at all) of them which are in other congregations. O simple divinity! But what ● Must I refuse obedience to the King, and Church for their sakes? Did you ever read in God's word, that, that should be denied for the blindness of ignorant people? In a word, the scandal of refusing to kneel is greater to them, than the scandal of kneeling: are they not at their wit● end in conceits of religion, when for a gesture they see men so hit, as to turn their backs upon the Sacrament, to forsake their Ministeries, to distracted the Church to disobey the Magistrate, also is not the scandal of the wisest men in our Church greater than of such as are ignorant? Those taking offence upon considerations of judgement, these upon simple surmising only without ground or reason. Also it is well known, that ignorant people are ●ighly offended at sitting as a gesture (in their judgement) of great unreverence; also it is notorious, that they take great offence, that men are so scrupulous to stand against kneeling at Sacrament, and yet for their worldly profit without doubt can found in their ●eart● to hold Church-livings in their hands from those, to whom they conceive them to be due. Moreover, much of that misconceit which is in way of kneeling unto the bread is wrought, or confirmed in them, by yourselves, who bear all men in hand, our Church's doctrine to be, that kneeling aught to be used unto the bread, which when ignorant people do hear, in their simplicity they do accept, and so your own slanders are the scandal of them, and not the gesture of kneeling. I add that where the word is plainly taught (as where it is not so people are ignorant in substantials) it is as easy to inform, and persuade the ignorant people, that kneeling aught to bruised to God alone, as it i●, that the Sacrament all ●read i● not transubstantiated. Every Minister therefore shall do well in his own charge to lift up the people to God, and draw the simple off from their Popish conceits, that offence may be removed: and that let a man in the pulpit speak according to his duty for their instruction in this case, and behold of all things you cannot abide to hear it. So the same men, who blame us for the offence of ignorant persons, deny us to use the ready means which we have for the cure and remedy. And so much be answered to the former part of your exeoption, that kneeling breedeth, and c●nfirmeth superstition among ignorant people. Next, where you say, that Church-papists, and such as are popishly, and super stitiously minded concerning the Sacrament are allowed by kneeling to commit the outward act of their idolatry. I answer, you cannot speak here of instructed Papists; for they do hold our Sacrament to be no Sacrament, and our Consecration to be worth nothing. And as for such ignorant persons you spoke of before, it is not true, that they be allowed to comm●t an outward act of idolatry. They be allowed to kneel, but kneeling as it is allowed is not an outward act of idolatry; truly by your learning we allow all the outward idolatry of Papists and pagan also. O, but being idolatrously minded, they abuse kneeling to an idolatrous end in their secret, and reserved intention. Ans. so they may abuse kneeling in prayer by directing their heaarts therein vn●o the Virgin Mary, or some other Saints, though the Church's direction, and practise be to God alone. So they may abuse the fashion, or carriage of sitting bore in the act of receiving unto superstitious reverence of the outward elements, so they may abuse all the circumstances of divine worship established among us, which no skill of man is able to prevent. Alas, what is this to the doctrine or practice of our Church? Call you suffering of lawful fashions, and gestures, because ignorant people may apply them amiss, a scandalising of them? Behold than we must have none at all in the Church, no worship at all, forasmuch as all things are subject to men's unknown and reserved abusing of them, yea we may report concerning your standing or sitting in this manner, that profane persons, and such a● are carnally minded concerning the Sacrament, are by those gestures, allowed to commit the outward act of their profaneness. See how an ill cause puts upon you most absurd, and pitiful inconvenience. As for your illustration, that ignorant people are more offended by seeing kneeling in the Sacrament to be more urged then kneeling at prayer, yea urged upon pain of excommunication, I see no such matter, for an ignorant person understandeth that no Church ●an be without orders, and no orders without government, and discipline, yea and so much as respecteth the upholding of those order's discipline, is more to be showed against contempt and opposition, then neglect, and security. But you never consider that Country people have an eye upon you aswell as us, for do they not see, that you urge sitting or standing at Sacrament more than kneeling in prayer? Nay do they not surmise ● worse thing, that you urge sitting, or standing, at Sacrament, more more than the duty or comfort of receiving the Sacrament itself, more than preaching of God's word, more than the peace of the Church, obedience to his excellent Majesty, & to the law enacted by the high Court of Parliament. Here, here they stand amazed, and cannot tell (in their simplicity) what to think of religion, for whiles that standing, and sitting seem but small in their eyes, and yet they see all divine ordinances set at six, and seven for the love of them; God knows what lamentable effects Satan works in their hearts by that means toward their destruction.   

Of scandal of profane persons by kneeling.  
IN the next place we are to answer for our kneeling at Sacrament against the deposition of scandalising profane persons: but who would have looked for this deposition of all others? Is it so indeed, that we provoke profane ones to sin by kneeling, which is a gesture both in its nature in special manner, and also in the purpose of the Church enjoining opposed against their profaneness; Belike, when our brethren were among seandalls, they meant to multiply many, to present their Readers with ta●e at lest, though there were no truth in them, for who sees not this charge to be notoriously false, and to argue in them much partiality, or inconsideration; What ordinary conceit will not easily judge, that profane minds are not hurt, but helped by beholding us to come to the Lord in his holy ordinance most reverently; But what is it you say; The pr●ph●●● (say 
g Abridg. pag. 59  you) will draw many arguments to bless ●●●selfe in hi● contempt of all r●ligi●●. What Arguments ● pray you will they draw from serving the God of heaven with an humble and reverend gesture; But let the Replier show us from whence, for he is ● ready man, and of a special gift in dissolving such a knot as this, but I know not whether he do it with more folly or impudency: I answer (saith 
h Repl. gen. to Bp. Mort ch. ●. Sect. 11.  he) from whence; 1. That religious rites are invinted by men, and appointed to ●e used in God's worship, as God's ordinances are. Answer. As if profane men took kneeling at Sacrament to ●● man's device, and not an ordinance of God: and though they did in some sense yet they cannot be ignorant that gestures are determinable by man, out of knowledge of your practice, who stand or sit at Sacrament at your own pleasure.  
Secondly, profane men see trifles urged to the increase of contention. Answer. As if profane persons took kneeling at Sacrament to be a trifle! O trifling Replier! then assure yourself they take sitting and standing to be trifles much more: truly this latter is freely enough uttered by thousands. Again, do profane men think contemions to arise from them which urge kneeling, or them which oppose it? Alas whose ears cannot give in testimony, that every where they take you to be the contentious.  
Thirdly, Profane men see much holiness put in kneeling at Sacrament, which they know to be man's devise. Answer. What holiness do they see? then whiles the members of the Church come to God (as they should com●) in an ho●y ma●ner in his holy worship's they judge rather profaneness to be among yourselves in sitting, for so they are conscious to their own profaneness, and by reaso● of that most of all condemn (in their conscience) that carriage which seems to themselves to represent, or come nearest to it. Again, they cannot see so much holiness put in kneeling, as they see in your contempt, and stubborn opposition against it: now whether is worst offence unto them, to see a lawful (●o they judge it to be) and religious gesture to b●e ●oli●y used, and applied, or the same to be despi●●d and ●roden under foore? And suppose they 〈◊〉 some ●x es●e of opinion thereof among simple people, they can easily acquit religion in such case, and not condemn the glory of the Sun, for the hard conceits and ●vill mistake of Batts and Owletts.  
Fourthly, Profane men see other gestures cried down. which are every whit as good as this. Ans. Do profane men see them every way to be as good as this? that is begged against manifest evidence of the contrary; also do profane men see them cried down, as vile in their own nature, or for uniformity in the Church? Further do they not see that you do earnestly cry down the gesture of kneeling even to the pit of hell, and would utterly explode it from sacramental worship for ever.  
Now harken good Reader. The Replyer says, profane persons will contemn all Religion, because we cry down sitting and standing, and yet themselves cry down kneeling so much, as that they cry down Preaching, the Communion of the Church, the Sacrament itself, the authority of government, the peace of jerusalem, in a word they cry down all public, both comforts and duties rather than kneeling shall not be down among them. judge now whether this Replyer be not a weak and partial man, and worthy who should be the guide of them who will not kneel at Sacrament.  
Fiftly, Profane men see Religious men more molested for toys, than they are for their profaneness, Answ. As if profane men did not know that the Law is good against their profaneness, as if such also thought Gods outward worship to be but a toy, as if such (being ●arnall) did not think it more needful to look to those faults, which they rather conceive to be intended for the destruction of government, as if they saw not yourselves to make more a do against kneeling, and also to molest yourselves a great deal more for atoye (as they do judged) then for the loss of the Sacrament, for the leaving of your ●locks, the giving over of preaching, and such like, wh●ch they judge irreligious profaneness.  
Besides you are off from the matter Mr. Replyer. For it matters not what offence it is to profane ones. that you are molested more than they, but whether our kneeling do cause them to contemn all Religion. Thus the learned and judicious Replyer may be pleased to take thus much for an answer at this time.  
But let us go● further, what if some profane ones take offence at our lawful kneeling, must we not therefore use it? are we bound to relinquish the gestures of public worship, if they distaste the same? if we were, must we refuse, except we knew particularly, they will take offence at us? nay, may we disobey authority to give them content, especially when the same by enjoining kneeling, intended to prevent profaneness, whereupon they are incessantly carried? lastly, whether there be not greater scandal taken by them at your standing and sitting, & refusal of kneeling; for contemning the public worship of God, for disesteeming the Sacrament itself, for slighting the Magistrate, and Church's authority, for undervaluing the preaching of the Gospel, for rejecting the communion of God's people; in a word, for despising, and deriding your own persons, which sometime you complained against them of, I leave either to yourselves, or to wise and ingenuous men to consider.   

Of Scandals of Separatists by kneeling.  
NOw we are to pass to the examination of your charge against us for them of the separation, a proud and fantastical brood they are, and yet we would be sorry to do them wrong to our knowledge. Howbeit, forasmuch as you declare against us, it behoves us to put in our answer.  
Now your declaration is to this purpose. 1. Some (say 
i Abridg. 49.  you) by kneeling will be driven out of the Church to the separation of the Brownists. And those that are 
k Mr. Bradsh. Arg. 12.  separated, will thereby be confirmed in their schism, and separation from us. And that upon this ground, that we mingle with diuin● worship this, and other base and vile inventions of Antichrist, 
l Disp. p 46.  preferring the same before the practice of Christ, and his Apostles.  
Ans. I answer: first by denying that which you say, and then supposing it to be true. I deny, that ever man made a separation from our Church, by reason of our kneeling at Sacrament. The Replyer is of that mind almost, who speaketh in this 
m Repl. gen to Bishop M●rton. ch. 5. Sect. 28.  manner. The dislike of Ceremonies is not the chief cause for which separation is made, but the intolerable abuses; which are in Ecclesiastical Courts, yea (saith he) the thing is plain enough to all indifferent men, that obtruding and urging of Ecclesiastical corruptions, is the proper occasion of separation. He should have said, the true cause of their separation is their pride, and ignorance, joined with anger and discontentment, but yet he acknowledgeth that kneeling at Sacrament is hardly any cause, or occasion thereof at all.  
And why did the Replyer lisp a truth so well known? for if there had been nothing else which they disliked, but kneeling at Sacrament, would they have have rejected us for a false Church? It is plain by their books, that they allow a Church, though it have greater corruptions, than they take kneeling at the Communion to be; only ours (they say) was never hitherto yet rightly constituted, I confess they make kneeling one corruption of the Church, as yourselves likewise do, but it is false that thereby they be driven out of the Church (as the Abridgement saith) and induced to renounce our public assemblies. And indeed, except they had been out of their right wits, they would never separate from us for ●sing only one gesture for another. But suppose it be true that they separate from us by occasion of our kneeling at Sacrament, is it a sin in us therefore to kneel? First, they have showed themselves not as weaklings in the meaning of Scripture, but in this particular as obstinate opposers, and adversaries to the truth: therefore we are bound to confess against them, as well as they hold themselves bound to confess aguinst us. Secondly, shall I abstain from kneeling, for avoiding of that offence which I have no cause particularly to surmise? perhaps one separates in many shires once in many years, (blessed be God the number is small) must all England therefore abstain, and ever abstain from a lawful gesture for that ones sake, unsuspected? Truly the rule of such a practice could be observed in no order in the world, inferring upon the Church an impossible, and infinite vassalage. Thirdly, but is the Magistrates command to be neglected for satisfaction of obstinate Brownists? Nay is not his authority to be obeyed for opposing, and resisting them in all their follies and errors? We think, you should not doubt of this, except you had in you, (which I am well enough persuaded you have not) the spirit of Anabaptiss. Lastly, the truth is, you do scandalise them more than we do, as evidently is seen; for if they be offended at our kneeling, it is upon 
n The Replyer asks if any separate from Churches, where Images are retained, who is the cause, they that dislike of Images, or they that retain them? Repl. gen. ch. 5. Sect. 18. Ans. Taking you to speak of unlawful retaining of Images. I answer, they that enjoin unlawful images. If the case were put of any lawful thing: then I answer, they that dislike them upon unjust grounds, if on those coming from them the Separatist buildeth himself. A difficult question, to what purpose I pray you?  those grounds which you have furnished them withal against us. You have 
o Replyer asks, if Odious had separated from the Church, wherein Diotrephes lived, whether john condemning his abuse of excommunication had been cause of that separation: Repl. gen. ch, 5. sect. 18. Ans. Ye● an outward cause, if john had slandered Diotrephes, and upon that slander (supposing it for a truth) ●aius had separated. Another difficult question ● to what purpose also?  slandered the Church to enjoin kneeling with an Idolatrous intent: you have cried out with full mouth against the gesture, that it is a will-worship, that it is a Popish relic, and such like, and hereupon they have grounded their fantastical resolutions. Let w●●e men judge now, whether you give them scandal, or we; nay I dare say, they take more offence at your joining with us at Sacrament, though you sit or s●and, and other parts of God's worship, then at our kneeling when we receive. Further, you know they take as much offence at our Temples, and diverse things, which you allow of as well as at our said gesture of kneeling. I pray let a natural gesture be as innocent toward them, as artificial Temples are.  
Moreover if you look to the Church, the offence of it is more to be declined then of them, now the same is as much offended by refusal of kneeling, as they are by conformity to it. I might add, that if sitting or standing were in use in this Church, not only would the Brownists be as averse as they are from us, and our assemblies, but men of another strain would be like to take as much offence at us, by conceit of unreverence. In a word, it is plain, we give them no more occasion of separating by kneeling, than we give to you. And therefore except you will say, we give to you thereby occasion to be go, you cannot charge us to be faulty towards them. Now what offence we give unto your sel●es, follows in order to be tried in the next place.   

Of Scandal of non-conformers by kneeling.  
TO yourselves therefore 
p Abridg 49 Manuser. ch. 1. arg. 2.  you say, we are scandalous many ways. For first, it cannot but grie●e many of the godly to see this kneeling brought into the service of CHRIST, which hath been so defiled by Antichrist (and you mean by godly such as are strongly persuaded of the unlawfulness of the gesture, as Manuscript plainly speaketh:) Secondly, you say, we may by our example embolden some who have been persuaded of the unlawfulness of it, without further ground to use it, to the wounding of their consciences.  
Thirdly, hereby some will grow to a dislike of such Ministers as yield unto it, to the great hindrance of their Ministry.  
Fourthly, we shall give many good Christians, who are strongly persuaded, occasion to call in question the truth and sincerity of our profession.  
Fiftly, especially 
q Abridg. 50.  if kneeling shall be brought back again to those congregations where it hath been long out of use, and practised by such Ministers, as are known to have refused it heretofore; for whereas the Minister is bound to lead his people forward unto perfection, 2. Cor. 13. 9 Hib. 6. 1. and to provide by all good means, that his Ministry be not despised, Tit. 2. 15. By this means he shall draw them back again to the liking of superstition, or at lest not to dislike it so much as they have done, and give them evident occasion to blame his Ministry, and to call in question the truth of all his doctrine. Ans. I may not deny that which you speak of yourselves to be true, so far as you have had, and found experience thereof either in your Preachers or hearers; yet that which you affirm only upon probability, is not presently to be granted, without some little deliberation. But what you can be taken as it were dogmatically to determine, as that kneeling gives occasion to some to call in question the truth of all our Doctrine, is worthy to be called in question as that which is against the common light of every man's understanding: for is it possible to find such a man, who in truth by such occasion hath called in question all the doctrine of his Religion, even to the principles and foundations of Catechism.  
But what if all be true which you tell us at large concerning your own selves, shall it follow therefore the kneeling at Sacrament is unlawful in this Church? you must consider that if the conclusion were sound, the Church could have no orders at all. Make what orders you can device, appoint what gestures, or circumstances of divine worship you can think the fittest, and some will be grieved, some emboldened without ground, and some dislike their Ministers, and others, whom they see conformable to them. Besides kneeling being lawful and convenient unto the Sacrament, why will you not allow us the same answer, which you make yourselves in opposing it? if 
r So in effect the Replyer speaketh for their opposing of kneeling, when offence thereat is objected. Repl. gen. Ch. 5. Sect. 17.  men be offended because ●ee kneel that is their sin; I am sure a gesture of divine worship, of pure, and undefiled worship hath no fi●nes in it to work suspicions and jealousies of Christian profession and doctrine; nay, it is so fare that any scandals are produced by the nature thereof, as that the same must needs rather be contrary to it directly tending to edification.  
Especially, when we have to answer. First, that you are not weak ones in the sense of holy Scripture, nor do you take yourselves so to be. For whereas there be among you of two sorts, either such as are guiders, and leaders of others, or such as are guided and led; For those I am sure, you take them not only for strong Christians, but also for the strongest in all the Land: and what should we think of them, who with so much confidence have 
* Yet the Replier says, that they have had enough to do to teach the people the main points of religion. Rep. gen Ch. 5. Sect. 12. I confess. but some of them have done more, to make the people to be refractory against lawful orders. Besides there are persons who kneel at Sacrament: who have taught the people the main points of religion (by the grace of Christ) as much as ever he did, if I be not deceived.  opposed against kneeling, by preaching, writing, talking, and suffering, for so many years together? who is so foolish, as to imagine these men to be Paul's weak ones, or our Saviour Christ's little ones? may we not, nay are we not bound to confess against those, who by all the means in the world confess against the Church, and truth? for the rest of your professors against kneeling; they also are such as are set on work either by humour and prejudice, or by grounds of conscience seeming good unto them. Let not our brethron be offended that I say, many of their professors, are set on work by humour and prejudice, for Mr. Bradstaw hath taught us 
s At arg. 12.  a pretended scandal in humour way easily be discerned, I doubt not to make appear, that the same humour is to be found in many of them. For first, they which profess in great resolution without grounds, or reasons, that is, which merely profess in imitation of certain men of note, or for company of the best sort of Christians (as they judge opposers to be) or out of ill opinion conceived of conformable persons, or Church government, are led by humour and prejudice. Secondly, they which cannot abide to be instructed, or directed by them of contrary judgement, despising the words and writings of such before they know them, are led by humour and prejudice. Thirdly, they which upon discourse hearing many things which they cannot satisfy their consciences in, do yet never seek to have their doubts resolved, but rest in one song say what one can to the contrary, are led by humour and prejudice. Fourthly, they which dare avow the necessity of confessing against kneeling upon pain of eternal damnation, charging other men in the deepest obligation, that may be to stand out, and yet upon some other man's declaration of the lawful liberty of kneeling at some time, can be content without gainsaying to profess they never studied the point, are led by humour, or prejudice. Fifthly, they which make no conscience of slandering, backbiting, usury, holding Church-livings from their Minister (making him to take up with a service at their own admeasurement) conformity to the world in vanities of apparel, pleasure, and most scandalous covetousness, unfaithfulness in their callings, unjustice in their dealings, and such like, in opposing against kneeling at Sacrament are led by humour and prejudice. Sixthly, in a word, they which have confessed themselves to be convinced, that it is lawful to kneel, and yet will not, or would but for their discredit in the world, specially among the persons of that side, are led by humour and prejudice. But (I assume) that there is nothing more manifest, then that many of your professors are thus, and thus disposed, and carried, which (if it shall concern for God's glory) I doubt not but I can particularly maintain so fare as outward expressions can discover the inward meaning, or purpose. Now I know you would not have us bound to abstain from kneeling for avoiding of the scandal of such persons. Yet I am not so ill conceited of you (brethren) but I assure myself there be among you, that strive only in this thing to follow the (persuaded) direction of God's word. But are they weak ones I speak of? nay, they are such as are resolved upon so clear and evident ground, as no man in their judgement can hold any opinion with better assurance. But if besides all these, you say there be some weak in knowledge and * otherwise, behold unto them we 
How the Repl. will, who thus speaketh after long teaching and sufficient knowledge, there may be still a weakness in regard of some things: though many circumstances required unto strength beside bore knowledge. Rep. gen C●a. ●. Sect. 12  offer the doctrine of our Church, the direction of our preaching, the instruction of our books, the edification of our conference, to take away the danger of scandalising of them. Also we forbidden unto you, that are guides, and strong Christians to trouble their consciences without cause (as indeed their scruples in this particular do only rise from your teaching or practice; for you must think, that we cannot well allow the exception of those scruples for your nonconformity, which yourselves have both begun, and increased in them. For how weakly do you refuse to kneel for their sakes; who are scrupulous, when your teaching and practice goeth before, and makes them to be so scrupulous, I add, that there is not any Christian in this Church, (carrying himself soberly as becomes him) who hath not indulgence of time enough to be informed in the truth, for justifying the Church in urging him to be conformable both to a lawful order, and to lawful authority. Secondly, if there be weak Christians, that may be hurt by kneeling, yet I hope you will not have us culpable of that offence, which we could not foresee. For my part I know not such a weakling in all the Shire I devil in▪ must I therefore confess against the Church, because by kneeling I should not offend a weakling? Nay, must the Church confess against herself, for the private infirmities of such unknown w●eaklings? Truly then sarewell all Ecclesiastical orders, how necessary soever they be in kind; for what can be ordained of man, at which some weak ones will not in likely hood ●ee offended? Thirdly, show us some reason of weight to prove if you can, that for avoiding scandal which ariseth to a few such weak ones in our Country, the Magistrates (otherwise lawful) command aught to be resisted and disobeyed, not, no. You can never show it, except withal you bring an universal Anarchy into both Ecclesiastical State. and civil. Specially, you shall be lest able to show it against our worthy Magistrates, and State, of whom yourselves give this testimony, that in making orders there 
t Surney. Pa. 176.  was in them an holy, and noble fear of scandalising the weak. But here I cannot pass the noting of Mr. Bradsha●s arrogancy in one 
u Argum, 12  place, who saith, that in other things besides Ceremonies he, and his fellows are more obedient to the Magistrate than any other of his subjects. We will take this as a fruit of the spirit of one man, for the wiser sort of them would be ashamed to say so, & the humbler to think so, it were better that their life and action commended their goodness in silence, than their own tongues and pens should proclaim it. Especially, by a comparison which were odious if it were true, much more when it is notoriously false and slanderous. It is well known, that as in lawful conformity we yield obedience, where he and they do deny. So in all other points of due obedience to our knowledge we do equal at lest in loyalty, and fidelity the very best of them. 4. While you object scandal arising to yourselves, why do you never take into consideration the scandal which ariseth to others from you? you are too partial that can see and complain of no bodies h●rt but your own. If you would bestow a little time in meditation thereof, you might possibly observe that there is a greater scandal which you give then which you suffer. For first the greater dishonour is done to God and to his Gospel, and the greater is the scandal, but in the leaving of your flocks, forsaking of your Ministeries, turning your backs upon the Lord's ordinance, there is incomparably more woeful dishonour done unto God, then in our commanded kneeling is or possibly can be. Therefore the scandal is greater. Secondly, Where one is offended with our practice of kneeling; twenty, I may say ten thousand are offended with your refusal. Nay we are persuaded (be you judges yourselves) that if all gestures were le●t at liberty, there would be greater offence by sitting in this Church, then by kneeling, at lest for a ●●●ne. Now the scandal of a ●ew most not sway us▪ in a thing not ●●pugnant to God's word, ubi mayor number us per●●cit, 
w ●alu. Epist. 379.  as Mr. Caluin ●●●cheth. Thirdly, the scandal which you commit it is evident contempt both of the peace of the Church, and of the authority 
x Authority scandalizeth us, (say you) because differences in matters of circumstance are not wont to breed scandal, till u deformity be enjoined by authority, as we ●ay see in the primitive Churches. Rep. 〈…〉 chap. 5. Sect. 7. 〈…〉 and all Churches. No scandal 〈◊〉 i● no 〈◊〉 Think you it would be so in this Church if all gestures 〈…〉 is therefore guilty of scandal no more in 〈…〉 then of that which is taken at any lawful 〈…〉 you may lay fault 〈…〉 you to go to Church such 〈…〉 when you pray, and 〈…〉  of government Partly whiles upon the pretence of scandal you will not kneel at ●t a●y time Or place. Partly, whiles 
y 〈…〉 and there will be small scandal, I 〈◊〉  you● study to make and increase such scandals with your utmost endeavour; partly whiles you yield not one lot of your ●eale for the reverence of the Magi●●tate or peace of the Church. And in a word 〈◊〉 you can be content not only to love them the worse, but also to de●p●●e, ●●out and 〈◊〉 them that do obey, and satisfy 〈◊〉 in this case. Fourthly, are there not weak ones also with us, whom you scandalise by your standing and sitting, and by your 〈◊〉 of kneeling ● a great number, God knows, whose souls are distracted and wounded thereby many ways. I wish you had cast an eye of some compassion and indulgence upon them. Fifthly, you do not consider, that if we should leave our kneeling, as you desire, we should confirm in you an ungodly opinion, if kneeling at Sacrament is ungodly; and nourish exceedingly that corruption from which your violence against the same doth proceed. Sixtly, I add that in refusal to kneel we should be guilty of greater scandal to our own souls, as the time now is, when for fear of others offence in a circumstance, we depri●e ourselves of the substance of the Lords supper; the due partaking whereof is not only a badge of the true Church, but a blessed conduit pipe to convey both grace and comfort into the souls of faithful Communicants.  
But I will pass to the particular scandals which you charge against us, in respect of yourselves. First, you say Kneeling at Sacrament cannot but gree●e you. Ans. You are grieved without cause, and this is a sufficient answer unto those who are strongly persuaded. Then (me thinks) you aught to be grieved more, at the loss of the communion and greater matters. Again, it seems, you c●nt not of the grie●e of many of us (which is perhaps neither small nor seldom) at your unreasonable opposing. But the truth is, in stead of grieving for the most part, we can sooner hear of your anger, scoffing, and contemptuous, both words and carriage. Secondly, you say by your kneeling you fear to embolden some to knelt (who have thought it unlawful) against their consciences.  
Answ. So you give us to understand the state of some of your Professors, who can be content to follow your examples▪ though it ●e against their consciences. I think also, that such whom your example would sway to kneeling, are especially such whom it swayeth against kneeling. No mer●aile therefore if they which follow you in standing or sitting, did with the same consciences follow you also in the other. Besides might not this exception fall against sitting and standing as well as kneeling; yea or against any lawful circumstance of divine worship? I will do my duty which I know and see, that inconvenience which is secret in other men, must be referred to God who knows all; and we must give account that doth wrong. Thirdly, say you, by kneeling at Sacrament some of you will grow to a dislike of those Ministers which use i●. Answ. So some may grow to a dislike of those Ministers also, which refuse to use it. But whence is it they are so forward to dislike their Ministers who kneel? is it not of their privy pride, ignorance, and other like distemper? and this we may truly say of them which in an unrighteous cause are so extremely censorious. Besides whether is more to be blamed, the Minister who doth his duty, or the people who will not do it? should the Minister refuse to kneel, that he might not be disliked of some of his people, or the people rather be contended to kneel, that they might not be disliked of their Minister? judge impartially, I pray you betwixt the Minister and his people. Only you do well to speak the truth of your people's disposition, which both they and you may be ashamed of. I am hearty sorry, that men and women professing the fear of God, should carry themselves so fare out of good order. Are we not the Messengers of the Lord jesus? have we not approved our faithfulness and diligence in our Ministries to God and the Church as well as the best of you? Are we to stand or fall to our hearers, & not rather to our Master in Heaven? is there a necessity for the comfort of our Ministries that we only use what gestures some of our timorous people think well of? O brethren, call upon your followers in good earnest that they despise not the Ministers who are contrary minded. Let them not make our reproach and disgrace their common talk among themselves in their reserved meetings. Bid them to lay their hands upon their mouths, when they are ready to utter bitter censures against us. Admonish them to be willing to hear the word of the Lord without Partialities. These Counsels are good I suppose n●● only from you to them, ●ut from me to you. I know you are too dull and remiss in calling upon them; nay many of you (I speak what I know) do lend a glad and willing ear to those who do backbite and calumniate, But your cause against kneeling at Sacrament (naught o● itself) prospers the worse through such unjust and irregular managing. Fourthly, you say, some of you who are strongly persuaded may be occasioned by others kneeling at Sacrament to call in question the truth and sincerity of their profession. Answ. And do not all men see that by this opposing of kneeling you give as much occasion to us, to call in question the truth and sincerity of your profession? nay more; because affecting of an unlawful singularity is a dangerous ●ote of hypocrisy; and especially when it is of a matter of circumstance, in the neglect of God's substantial worship, of love and justice to men, and of your scuered vocations. Only again you are trumpeters of your own shame, and, as if experience could not teach us the ra●●nes of your professors sufficiently, you thought good to certify the world by writing. True it is, it is an ordinary thing with your ●ide to judge and call us formalists, tim● servers. Hypocrites, and such like; whereby appears if God had committed our ●udgement to some of you, we should be sure to found hard measure at your hands. But blessed be God, that all ●udgement is 
z joh. 5. 2●▪  committed unto the Son, that so judgement may be soyned with justice. Yea, says the 
a Rome 14. 10  Apostle, why dos● thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou ●●t at naught thy Brother? We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. Truly in this consideration (I hope) we labour 
b 2●2. Cor. 5. 9 10.  to be accepted of him, and 
c ●s Paul passed not 1. Cor. 4. 34.  need not pass to be judged with man's judgement. I add also, that in thousands who have kneeled at 〈…〉 hath proved the sincerity and truth of their profession; and I hop● will still prove, though there have be●ne and will be dissemblers both with us and you, whose hypocrisy we cannot hinder I beseech you for the love of Christ (by whose blood we believe to be saved as well as you) look into your own hearts, since you have no windows to look into ours, and if you will not encourage us in a Christian course, do not discourage us. Weaken not our hearts and hands (at the best weak ●nough) in the profession of the Gospel, jest the guilt of a scandal (incomparably worse than you complain you suffer) lie heavy upon your own souls.  
Lastly, you say especially it will be hurtful, that Ministers and people should conform to Kneeling, who have long disused and refused it heretofore, because by so doing where the people should gr●w forward to perfection, they will grow backward to poperic and superstition; and also the Ministers shall expose all their doctrine to the danger of being called in question for the truth of it. Answ. If I ask you here, why kneeling at Sacrament is not in the way to perfection, as well as sitting or standing, you give no reason at all for it, as though your authority and saying would serve our turn. I hope it hath appeared by this Treatise, that kneeling is not a going backward, but forward in the way to Heaven. And for your charge that the same is a declining to Popery or superstition, I have answered in this Chapter at large already. Besides may not we except against their standing and sitting, who have kneeled heretofore, in like manner; namely, that they go back from a gesture of devotion and humility, to a more unreverend carriage, and more answering and serving to men's profaneness? But the chiefest thing you seem to fear is the discredit of your Ministeries. I know that a Minister aught to his power to preserve the credit of his Ministry, partly by the grace and authority of his Preaching, and partly by fidelity in his Calling, and an unblameable life; as the Apostle commandeth Timothy. Let no man despise thee, but ●ee thou a● example of the believers, in w●rd, in conversation, in charity, in Spirit, in faith, in purity; and give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to Doctrine. 1. Tim. 4. 12. 13. But did ever the Apostle require a Minister to preserve the credit of his Ministry by contending against a lawful gesture; and therein against the custom of the Church, and the authority of the Magistrate? Again, it seems you accounted it no discredit to your ministries to oppose the gesture of Kneeling, though you open the mouths of thousands against you therefore. But if you aught to have a good report among them which are without, 1. Tim. 3. 7. I am sure you aught much more to have declined the discredit of your persons and ministries, among the true (though conforming) members of the Church of God. Strange it is, you should regard no discredit, but with people of your own side! Again, you speak of discrediting your Ministries, and do not you, de industria, lay the ground of such your discredit? For if before the people you had not discredited a lawful gesture, yourselves should not have been discredited among them for all the practice of it. Again, who are you, that you should stand upon your credit in this manner? Do the people take you, for men inspired as were the Apostles? Would you by no means be seen to acknowledge an infirmity, or revoke an error, before them? Alas, poor Bats that we are! (that I may use the words of that 
d Bishop Mort. Defence. gen. ch. ●. Sect. 14  learned Bishop;) Why should we presume, that the credit or discredit of the Ministry of the Gospel should rely or depend upon us? Have we seen Christ in the flesh? Or came the word of the Ministry from us, that we should assume to ourselves the Apostolical honour of not erring in any thing? Again, do you set the credit of your Ministries in a gesture, before the liberty of your said Ministries? That is, as if a man should rather be contented to lose a great Lordship, then walk up and down in some part thereof, least envious beholders take thence occasion to dispraise both him and it. Is it not a woeful pretence, not to kneel for discrediting your Ministries, when yet by that respect you expose your Ministries, not to contempt alone, but confusion. Again, you must consider that all the comfort of your preaching and pains dependeth upon God's blessing. Wherefore so long as you go on therein 
e Perhaps here and in many other places, you will be opposing according to the old wont, ●hat kneeling at Sacrament is unlawful in itself, but lo●k whatsoever you have said tending to prove that, I have refuted in proper place; let us not dally therefore, the case is now of scandal in a thing indifferent, such as the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament is; at lest in this place must be supposed to be; esse what force shall your arg. taken from scandal have of it own to prove the unlawfulness of that gesture? if it have none your trifling about it, is shamefully childish & ridiculous. You see I am fain often to call you from an old haunt and refuge.  according to truth and a good conscience, you have no cause to fear the discredit of your persons and Ministries. I say further, that you have discredited this Church by an unlawful resistance against kneeling; not only the Convocation-house, (as the scornful 
f Repl. gen. to B. Mort. ch. 5. pag. 82.  Replyer saith,) but also the Parliament house, yea all degrees of men, all conformers to kneeling in all the kingdom. Alas! how much, and how earnestly you seek our shame, your books and speeches and practice do give infallible testimony. Now aught you not to make amendss, where you have done wrong? Should you not speak for the peace of the Church for fear of some disparagement with her contentious members? have you discredited kneeling, and will you not of conscience do it right again, for fear of your private discredit? what a strange kind of perverseness is this, in those which would be thought to excel others in wisdom and honesty? Furthermore, take notice I pray, that God of his great goodness hath maintained the credit of such as kneel at Sacrament, and of their Ministries, as much as ever he did (for aught we are able to see) the credit of the worthiest man that ever graced your non-conformity. Yea of those, who after refusal of conformity have upon riper judgement yielded unto it, this Church hath had excellent lights to God's glory; when some of your Preachers persisting in their nonconformitie (as Master 
g In his Epi. to the Reader.  Sprint hath observed) have notwithstanding fallen into plain profaneness and wickedness. So that whiles they have endeavoured to shun a less disgrace in an evil manner, by God's justice they have fallen upon a worse. And sometimes it hath happened, that they for whose sake some Minister hath opposed against the practice of ceremonies, have proved afterward either bitter enemies, or at lest no better than enemies to himself. Finally, you confess (nothing at all to your credit) still, that which we believe to be true, that many of you do refuse kneeling at Sacrament, for avoiding of discredit among the professors of your own side. And in my conscience I am persuaded, and so are many more, (upon strong presumptions) that were it not for such and such, a great many of you would be contented to kneel. Sure I am in our conformity, we have suffered many aspersions of reproach and disgrace (of which I have not had the lest portion myself) that we 
b So the Replyer chargeth many of us, in the beginning of his Preface to conform upon unknown motives, his purpose is to gird by that speech, yet it is his shame to gird against that which he confesseth to be unknown. jud. Epist. vers. 10.  conform upon evil motives, that we have lost the power of our Ministries, and such like: but we are well content to wait the time which God hath set, for full disconerie, both of our hearts and our cause. In the mean time according to our talon by the grace of God in some measure labouring to serve him, not with the flesh of men's humours and fancies, but with the spirit of truth and holiness, in the Gospel of his Son jesus Christ. And so much be answered to your former argument against kneeling at Sacrament, taken from the breath of the bond of charity, kneeling breaks the bond of charity, because it causeth scandal and sin unto the souls of others. Now remaineth the other, whereby you endeavour to show the said kneeling to break the said bond of charity. The God of all wisdom and grace guide my heart and hand, to the setting forth of his glory in such answer thereof, as duly appertaineth.    

CHAP. 6.  
YOur other argument to show, that kneeling at Sacrament breaketh the bond of charity, is this, because Sect. 1 it judgeth and opposeth all the Churches of Christ, for doing evil, who have practised other gestures: you give us the sum and effect of this argument in a scattered fashion here and there in your books; and it may be form in this manner. All actions, which cross the Catholic Church of Christ; that is, the Church of all ages and places, break the bond of charity: but kneeling at Sacrament is an action which crosseth the Catholic Church of Christ, that is, the Church of all ages and places. Ergo: My meaning is not by this form to wrong your cause, for (as I said) the sum and effect thereof is in your own books, as i● the process of this Chapter, (God willing) I shall ma●e appear.  
I will not stand upon the proposition at this time. The Sect. 2 assumption I do deny in two respects. 1. If other Churches and persons have used a different gesture from ours, it followeth not therefore, that we cross or oppose, judge or censure any of them. There is a liberty of gestures by God's Word granted unto the Church; and accordingly there hath ever been, and ever will be great variety in practice; yea in the same age, country, and person; and at the same ordinance. We are not therefore irregular to the Catholic Church in gestures, whiles the rule allows a liberty herein to all the members thereof, as circumstances require. 2. Is it not true, that we do vary from the judgement and practice of the Catholic Church of Christ, in our particular gesture in controversy; nay it is contrarily true, that we do not vary. For either particular Churches and persons have kneeled as well as we; or they have used adoration in he art of receiving, which is of the same kind with kneeing; or they have allowed kneeling in their professed judgements, though according to the present time they have practised some other gesture; or lastly, they have not condemned it, as being unlawful, and impious in its own nature.  
Now for the more effectual finding out of the truth, Sect. 3 I have in other parts of this Treatise in a manner passed over all the testimonies of Christian Churches and writers, that I might as it were in one view, muster the same together in this place, by God's grace I will not pervert the meaning of any Author, but sincerely stri●e (as well as I can) historically to describe the judgement and practice of all ages and Churches concerning kneeling at Sacrament, from the Apostles unto this day. First, running through so many centuries of years, as reach to the decreeing of Transubstantiation; and so pass onward till from the reformation of Luther, we may descend to our own time. I will reckon the Centuries, as the Magdeburgian Divines do; and so the first century beginning at the birth of Christ, shall end with the death of his beloved Disciple john, who survived all the rest of the Apostles. And at every period of several either times, or places, or persons; first I will set down what you do say thereof, (if I found you to say any thing) and then I will deliver my own mind, as much as good reason shall lead me to judge, pertinent to the purpose, and agreeable to the truth.  
First, than we must begin with the Primitive Church, Sect. 4 and of that the disputer hath taken upon 
a Disp. pag. 69.  him to prove that kneeling was never used before the days of Honouring. In like manner the Abridgm. 
b Abridgm. pag. 58.  affirms, that the Primitive Churches for sundry hundred of years, after the Apostles never used to receive the Sacrament kneeling. But before we pass to the particular centuries, it is not a misle, that we take some needful things into consideration. As,  

Consideration 1. for Stating of the question.  
1. What our brethren do mean, when they deny Sect. 5. 1. kneeling to have been used in the Primitive Churches I find when they cannot answer the instances which are given for kneeling and other gestures of adoration, they have a threefold refuge to help themselves. First (say 
c Repl. part. pag. 52.  they) the question is not of bowing, or any other fashions of adoration, but only of kneeling. But let all men judge, whether this be an equal stating of the question betwixt us; for if other adoring gestures be of the same kind with kneeling, and we can prove such like to have been used in the Primitive Church in the act of receiving, have we not the effect of our desire? hath not the disputer given us a rule, 
d Disput. pag: 156.  that from one form of personal adoration, we may reason for any one? surely, if the Christians in the Primitive Church did bow, and otherwise adore in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, (though kneeling be not expressed, yet) their example is evident against you, and for us; for all the grounds whereby you defend sitting and standing, and condemn kneeling, do in like manner oppose and condemn other such adoring gestures; for kneeling is condemned by you, because it is a gesture of adoration, as sitting and standing are defended, because they are not such; so that kneeling and other forms of personal adoration, being of the same kind and use, do stand or fall all together. Therefore you do us wrong to pitch the question upon the name and word, kneeling rather then upon the sense and purpose thereof, which is humility and adoration, especially when yourselves in stead of sitting, prove altogether by standing, (as supposing it to be of the same kind) yea and endeavour to prove standing also at the Eucharist, by the custom of standing at prayer. Secondly, (say 
e Disp. pag. 13.  they) the question is not, whether there be any record, that kneeling was used at the Sect. 6 time of communicating, but whether it was used, as the received and allowed carriage of a Communicant.  
But this is a hole provided only to creep out at. What if we can prove, that good Christians did use kneeling at Sacrament, will not that serve the turn? is it not as good a testimony, as if our posterity should prove standing or sitting to have been used in this Church in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and K. james? yet that I am sure, you will judge, would be a good testimony for the praise of standing and sitting, and for an historical continuation of times catalogue; behold therefore if we can produce out of Antiquity examples and testimonies for kneeling, so long as the persons were godly Christians, though private persons, there is no reason, why we should be tied to bring forth any record of the public allowance of them. Is it not enough that kneeling was used by them, who were as well as yourselves true believers in jesus Christ?  
Thirdly, (say 
f Repl. partic. to Bish. Mort pag. 52.  they) the question is not, what was Sect. 7 done or spoken by particular men, but what was enjoined to whole Churches. But this is both an unlearned and an unreasonable shift. For know you not, that many 
g Mr. Baines gives you instance in sundry particulars and some of great importance. Diocles. trial, pag. 42.  things were taken up, and generally practised in the ancient Church, before any Council did enact or enjoin them? besides is it so. that there is no rule for the trial of a Church's practice, but the Canon of some Ecumenical or Synodical assembly? must we now reject Historians, when reporting of some fashions in such or such a country, or place, they tell us only; This, or this was the manner there; Again, doth not custom obtain in time vi● legis, the force 
h Mr. Baines expounds, Decre●um est, of a father, to import no more than it was taken up for a custom, which (saith he) is elegantly said to be a decree Dio ●●triall, pag. 44. I say not so much here.  of a decree? and why then do you stand so much upon the voice of a Council, if we can acquaint you with the voice of custom? Further more, a decree doth not always infer, either a general practice, or practise of the best people; at lest this latter, you will easily believe of yourselves, in opposing the decrees of the Church of England. I add, that decrees are many times laid asleep, so that howsoever they may determine for the practice of the present time, yet cannot speak for scores and hundreds of years afterward. Therefore if we be able to give you custom for kneeling in the ancient Church, be contented I pray, and show yourselves men of equity, in captivating your wills to right reason.  
Now concerning all these rules which you have given, Sect. 8 for restraining of the question, I request (my brethren) leave to admonish you of some things.  
First, that you cannot reasonably limit the question so much, if you but consider how largely you have spoken against the antiquity of kneeling, for you 
i Disp. to the Reader.  affirmed, that Antiquity is wholly against us, and the Primitive Churches never so much as heard of kneeling, and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations, and gave no entertainment unto it, for the space of 1200. years. What are these but flourishes and vaunts, before the world to disgrace our kneeling withal, which you will not stand to?  
Secondly, you can much less limit the question, if Sect. 9 you consider, that by any instance of kneeling or adoring gestures, our purpose is plentifully attained. For why do you search into the ancient Church in this controversy, but partly to show the consent thereof against the practice of our Church, and partly to show, that kneeling was not brought into the world, before the man of sin brought it in; and therefore you have taken upon you the proof of a Negative, in these 
k Disp. pag. 67, &c.  words; That kneeling to receive the Sacrament was not used at the institution of the Lords Supper, nor after in any age of the Church, before the time of Honorius the third, about the year 1220. Now who doth not see, that one plain instance of kneeling at Sacrament in the ancient Church quite overthrows this great Negative; specially if the same be approved by the writings of such as were principal Doctors in the Church, for that implies the like and answerable allowance of multitudes, who were led undoubtedly of them.  
Thirdly, you can least of all limit the question as you Sect. 10 do, if you consider, that by so doing you tie yourselves in like manner unawares; for according to your own order we expect, that you should prove that sitting was used for the first twelve hundred years, and not another gesture of the same kind; yea and that it was also publicly allowed and decreed in the Church. But alas, you bind a burden on our shoulders, without pity, which would break your own back, if you were put to it. Again, giving you the liberty of standing (so fare as it is of the same kind with sitting) to prove upon, according to your own order, we expect, that for the ages before the time of Honorius, you shall prove that standing was allowed and decreed by the Church at the Lords Supper: In all these things, both on your part and ours, what can be done, will (I suppose) in some degree appear by and by. And so much for the first needful point of consideration.   

Consideration 2. for instruction about the proof.  
NOw that we have spoken to the stating of the question, let us next observe something about the Sect. 11 proof. Concerning your proof I must tell you: First, it is impossible to prove your Negative, being of that latitude, in a matter of fact, if all the wits on your side, were thereunto set on work. This you cannot deny: Secondly, all your proofs look quite off ●rom sitting, as if it were an utter stranger in ancient times; and those testimonies you allege for standing, are nothing to your just purpose, because that standing they speak of, is not to be considered of the same sort with sitting, that is, as a tablegesture. This you cannot fairly deny: Thirdly, your proofs leave the mind suspending, because they are but probabilities, as the doubtful construction of words in Grammar; the concluding from one ordinance to another; the report of some late writers of Antiquity without certain record, and such like: bold and bore conjectures satisfy not.  
Touching our proof, if the same appear to be effectual Sect. 12 and plain, I ent●eat you, as you love the truth, that you fly not off, as some of you are wont to do, in this manner. First, that The 
l Repl. parti●. to Bp. Mort. pag. 52.  places which we allege for adoration or kneeling out of the Fathers, the Papists pled for their idolatry; for all men know a difference between kneeling unto God, and to the ●lements of bread and wine: and though our testimonies do prove their practice of the ●or●er, yet the latter they prove not; and if the Papists do pervert the sa●e, with their false and unfaithful interpretations, shall that prevent the lawful use of the testimonies, and take our right in them quite away from us? Secondly, fly not off, by saying, 
m Disp. pag 66.  That the adoration which the Father's sp●ke of, was inward only and not corporal: why did you not show reason to evince, that this was their undoubted meaning? Such is the vanity of man contending, that he pleaseth himself in any shift, whereby he may ●lude, what his adversary produceth. But what if they spoke of adoration internal, truly they which allow of that in the act of receiving, will not disallow the external: but as the word Adoration both in Scripture and the Ecclesiastical writers, is commonly used for outward worshipping: so in our testimonies of the Fathers, the sa●e will manifestly appea●e. Thirdly, fly not off by saying, 
n Disp. pag. 65.  That the Fathers did sometimes speak of the Sacrament in a Rhetorical manner: for though they speak rhetorically sometimes, yet than they use some evident trope or figure, which doth show as much: but in a matter of fact, in a thing affirmed or persuaded to be done, to say they rhetorize, is to make them abusers of the people, or yourselves rather abusers of them, that I may be admitted so to speak in a rhetorical manner. Fourthly, fly not off by slighting of the ancient Fathers, and godly people of their times: what if kneeling were used in the Church before Honorius time, what then? If the 
o Treat. of div. worship pag. 40.  Fathers used that gesture, it was not well done; and howsoever 
p pag. 39  kneeling cannot be proovea before Popery, because some Popery was in the Apostles time. Alas! what judgement and understanding is in such arguing as this? what edification redounds to other men, from these idle vagaries? Lo, we make no man's practice a rule to build our faith on, we hold the holy writ all-sufficient for our guidance in very gestures. Only with the eye of reason, look upon your own intentions, in searching into Antiquity, and upon ours in this place; and stick close to the matter in h●nd, which is de facto of our agreement and disagreement with the Ancient Church in the gesture of the Lords Supper. And so let us friendly join together in this issue; all other objections having been fully answered already. Now your reas●ns against kneeling in the Ancient Church are either general and more large, or else restrained to the several Ages and Centuries. Those first I must tak● out of the way, and then (I hope) I shall b●at liberty to take the particular Conturies in their order without more ado●.   

First general reason against kneeling in the Ancient Church, taken from the gesture appointed at prayer on the Lords days.  
YOur first general reason (and the great one in your account) is this : Ther● was (say you) 
q Disput. arg 4  a general Sect. 13 order in the A●ciens Church for standing at prayer on the Lord's day. The principal ground was in the fourth Centurie, Can. 20. of the first and great Council of Nice, in these words. Quoniam sunt in D●minica die qu●dam ad oratione● gen●a flectentes, et in diebus Pentecostes, pr●pterea utique; statutum est a sa●ct● Syno●o, qui● cons●na et c●nveni●ns per omnes Ecclesias custod●●nda consuet●do est ut starts ' ad oration●m vota Domino redd●mus, because th●re are some which how their knees upon the Lord's day, and in the days of Pe●tecost, therefore the holy Synod ordaineth, that when we pay our vows unto the Lord in prayer, we do it standing, ●o the end a convenient custom may be kept alike in all Churches. This Canon you say was in the next Centurie, 
r Disp. pag: 87 saith, that this Council made a ●anon ●or standing in prayer; where it only decreed Can●●●s Nic●ni ●n●●y ●e●os. (which are there repeated 20 in number) esse obser ran●●s: the man was mistaken a little.  confirmed by the sixth Council of Carthage; and by one held at Rome under Hilarity then Bishop. Also you say in the seventh Century the same Canon was in eff●●t confirmed by the sixth general Council● at Constan●●●ople; and in the ninth Centurie by the Synod of Turon.  
Moreover you quote for standing at prayer in several Sect. 14 times the testimonies of particular men; a● justin Martyr and Te●tullian in the second Century. Cyprian in the third. Basil and Ier●● in the fourth. Chry●stome and Augustine in the fifth. And for want of more witness you skip over to A●selme, who lived in the eleventh: and 
s This the Scotchmen Perth ass. 58. borrow cut of the ●p. of R●ch pag. 161: and so add it to the Disp. number.  so to Hug●d● sancto victore in the twelfth. And further you think you need not go, because in the thirteenth you fall upon Honorius the third, who is your Terminus ad quem.  
Now from all this, you infer in this 
t abridge, p. 89.  manner. That Sect 15 either the primitive Church used a gesture of greater reverence and humility at the receiving of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, than they did at prayer; or they never received the Sacrament on any Lord's day, or one any other day betwixt Easter a●● W●●●so●tide, (all which were absurd to affirm or imagine) or else it m●st needs be granted, that they used to receive the Communion you might insert sometimes for that is all your conclusion will bear] with so●● other gesture t●en kneeling.   

Our Answer.  
SOmething I have answered to this matter, chap. 4▪ Sect. 16 but now I will endeavour to show the impertinency & weakness of it more fully. Some pains indeed you taken in citing authors for standing at prayer, which (I confess) was needful for the countenance of your cause; for having nothing in a manner expressly for standing at the Communion, it was discreetly done to make a show of antiquity, for standing at an other ordinance. But how little the same is to purpose, is so easily perceived, that I should greatly marvel at this stir you make about it, but that I see you have nothing else to pretend. But before I make particular answer, I will take into consideration the truth and force of testimonies, which you have produced for standing at prayer.  
There was a decree (it cannot be denied) in the Church, for standing at prayer on the Lords days, Sect. 17 yet was not that decree in all either times or places in force. In the first three hundred years there was no decree at all, in the fourth Centurie when the Fathers of Nice made the Canon for standing at prayer, kneeling was in common practice, as the Canon itself declareth. In the fifth Centurie the Council of Carthage cvinceth not much; for that Council did not the industria fasten their thoughts and care upon the particular matter of standing at prayer; but so it was, that the Popes at that time, Zozimus, Bonifac●●s, and Celestinus, one after another, most vehemently urged the Council, with the privilege of appealing to Rome, which they said was granted by a Canon of the Council of Nice, which indeed Zozimus had wickedly counterfeited. Hereupon the Fathers of the Council of Cart●age, were put to it, to find out the true Canons of the Nice● Council. But when after diligent search made, and no copies could be found greeks or latin, which had therein that Canon of appealing to Rome, they rejected the Pope's both unreasonable demand and abominable fraud, and established the true Canons only wherein their copies agreed. So that their purpose was not (as is plain) to pitch upon the 
u Here the Disput pa. 87. was mistaken, for the Canon he mentioneth was the N●c● repeated.  gesture of prayer in particular, but by searching and finding out the true Canons, to withstand that which was false and supposititious, by the pretence whereof the Popes had contested for the privilege of Appeals. Sure here was not much for particular standing at prayer. And unto like purpose may it be said concerning the Roman Council under Pope Hilarius; for as it establisheth only in general words the Canons of the Council of Nice: So the occasion of that Council is said to be i●cumbens necessi●as, de confirmandis Concili● Nic●●i stat●●is d● ordinatio●e. See what great respect was particularly had to standing at prayer. And indeed the general reviving of old decrees includes oftentimes some particular things, which the Revivers thought not upon; n●y which peradventure they would have condemned or corrected, if present occasion had brought the same into public demurment and agitation. It is a small countenance therefore, which the Councils of Cart●age and Rome seem to give you for standing at prayer, when they established only the Canons of Nice, the one for asserting the true against the Pope's sergeant, the other for reviving those Decrees which concerned ordination. Sure I am Augustine who lived in this Centurie, speaking of the custom of standing at prayer 
w August. Epist. 119. sub finem, cap. 17.  professeth, he was not able to affirm, that the same was used in his time used through the whole Church. And we know that Augustine was as likely to know the custom of his own time, as you living in this age can possibly be. In the seventh Centurie, though the sixth general Council of Constantinopl● revived the old Decree of standing at prayer, yet it was, (which you also confess) because that custom was in many Churches neglected at that time, In the ninth Centurie the Synod of Turo● under Charles the great made a (x) decree for kneeling at prayer, excepting the Lords days, and some other solemnities, whereon (saith the Canon) the universal Church useth to stand. And this testimony I confess doth declare the practice of the Church in those days, though their testimony would have had more strength, ●f the Council had been general, which it was no●, for it consisted only of the Bishops and Abbats of Turon.  
Now I will add a word of your testimonies of particular men: Sect. 18 justin Martyr says, After the exercise of the word, they rose up and prayed. What followeth? Verily this they might do, and yet kneel down. Tertull●an indeed is clearer, That standing at prayer on the Lords days, and the days betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide was a custom in his time: (yet it was the Disputers ●rrour, that dies Stationum were put by Tertullian for the Lords days, which I let pass.) So take this testimony for the second Centurie. For the third, you bring Cyprian, saying, Cum stamus ad ortaio●e●●, as if this would prove, that kneeling was not used at prayer, on the Lord's day, throughout the year, in the whole Church, for the space of an hundred years: this Disputer regarded not weight, so he could get tale. For the fourth Century Basils' testimony and Iero●s are needless, for the authority of the Nicen Council in that age might suffice; yea and Basil de Spiritu sancto, specially that latter p●rt which you allege for your purpose, is a counterfeit, as Mr. Cook in his censure showeth. For the fifth Century Chrysostom's testimony is weak for you, who speaks only of the Ministers or Deacon, standing at the Altar, and calling upon the people to pray. Indeed Augustine speaks plainly that they stood at prayer, but he doubted, whether they did 〈◊〉 in all Churches, as I have noted before. For the eleventh Century Anselme (like Cyprian) is cited for saying, Cum st●m●s ad orationem. For the twelfth Century Perth Ass borrows Hugo de sancto victore, out of the Bishop of Roch. discourie, where 
y Pag. 161.  he might have seen how little it is for the generality of standing only at prayer on the Lords days; for there he is showed, that in Hugo's time, they stood at prayer, but till the collect [Domine Deus Pater q●inas ad prircipium, &c.] was said, which is the last Collect of our first service; yea that this h●th been the practice of the Church aforetime may seem by the end why they stood in prayer, namely to confirm their Catechimeni in the point of Christ's resurrection. Therefore, doing that service which they called Missan Catechumenorum ●hey might stand in prayer, yet not at the other which they called Missam ●idelium, when the Catechumeni were dismissed. This then is the sum of your pertinent allegations and testimonies: for Centurie 2. you have Tertullian. Centur. 4. you have the Council of Nice with jerom. Centur. 5. you have Augustine: (the Councils of Carthage and Rome are little to your behoof.) Centur. 7. you have the sixth general Council of Constantinopie: and for Centur 9 you have the Synod of Turon. And this is all that you have said of any moment, as you may plainly see. And now I will deal with you, with application of some particular answers.  
First, of the 12. hundred years and more, you have no certain proof of 7. hundred, and more: for of Centuries Sect. 19 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12. no material testimony is found: and those testimonies you bring for the other five Centuries, do not show each the practice of the universal Church through a whole Century; nay in those years it appears that standing was laid down in many places of the Church. If you say there was a decree made, and so it is not to be enquired what was done, as what should have been done by that order, I answer: first, there was no decree in the first three hundred years. Secondly, the decree of Nice could not be an absolute bond to posterity, but as the same was approved by them, whose it was for the present to govern the Church of Christ. Old decrees of indifferent things do not sempiternally bind, but Christians may use their liberty therein, non renit●●te Magistratu, Praesectisque Ecclesi●. Thirdly, yourselves no doubt think that Canon of Nice to have been an unlawful decree; and so the practice of them which did otherwise out of conscience, to have been commendable and good. Upon which ground the decree is not so good a testimony of the ancient Church, as the practice of those, whom yourselves in confessing against this Church do resemble. Fourthly, but why should you once pretend a decree when from the differing practice of the Church in many age● and places, your purpose of quite condemning us by all antiquity must quite fail. So then let the Reader observe, that if you ●ould conclude, from the gesture of prayer on the Lord's day to the gesture of the Communion, yet you were little helped thereby, because you cannot show us, what was done at all for 700. years, nor what was certainly done in all the Churches in the other 500 Thus far already the wing of your argument is clipped in my first particular answer.  
Secondly, it will be further clipped, if ou● of that Sect. 20 time, to which your testimonies do serve, all the week▪ days be excepted (saving in the feast of Pentecost, through the whole year. Whereby still your argument is brought into stricter bound, of time, and to your great disadvantage, inasmuch as in the ancient Church, they had Communions frequently on the week days, (to pass, that even upon the Saboths' themselves, Huge testifies that they kneeled down at some prayers, (see Bp. of Roch. discourse, pag, 162.) and again that standing was only used at the former service, if yet you will yield Huge to expound the Synod of Turon which was not long before him. Howsoever) the week days you must be contented to leave unto us.  
Thirdly, your reason follows not from their standing Sect. 7 at prayer unto the Communion, indeed the Abridg. says, it were absurd to think or speak, that the ancients used a gesture of greater reverence and humility at the Lords Supper, than they did at prayer; and the Disput. says, it is to make the Fathers and Counsels senseless, ridiculous, and in●erters of the order of nature: but with their leave it is no more to think or speak this of them than it is to think or speak it of our own selves; for how do we use our liberty of standing at prayer, though we kneel in receiving the Lords Supper, and so might they, who had as high a conceit of the holy Sacrament, as we have, as appears by the Father's writings, setting out the excellency there of in a hyperbolical manner, and we can not judge of ancient times so well, by your presumptions and rules, as by the opinions and strains of them, which were then the principal lights of the Church. They saw not with the disputers eyes, the doctrine of a Tablegesture was not then on foot. Adoring gestures were not then conceived more unlawful for a Communicant, then for a suppliant. Besides in the strength of your own opinion you do weakly beg, that because custom and Counsels had led the Church to stand at prayer, upon a severed respect, it was therefore absurd, senseless, ridiculous, and against nature to kneel at the Lords Supper: for if there was a fault, it was in prohibiting the gesture of kneeling on the Sabbath prayers, and not in practising the gesture of kneeling on the Sabbath Sacraments, which might lawfully be done, whether the other was or was not; and I pray you mind, that their standing was used for commemoration of Christ's resurrection, but the Sacrament is appointed for commemoration of his death. Also there appears no reason out of the ancients, why they should receive the Sacrament in the same gesture, wherein they used to pray.  
This be added, that the tenor of the Counsels Canons condemneth you, if you please to mind it, ask them at what times, and in what ordinance standing must be used, and they will tell you, for times, only on the Sabbeth days, and the feast of Pentecost: for ordinance, only at prayer. Now that which is de iure speciali (so as this decree of standing at prayer was) aught not be extended further, then is specified in the letter of the decree; think you any body would hold themselves bound to stand at receiving the Lords Supper, by the Canon which was made for standing at prayer? were it not absurd and ridiculous to think so? you might as well say that the decree reached to other days besides those which were mentioned as to other duties besides prayer. The Canon of Nice is only for standing at prayer? so that of Constantinople and Turon. So 
z Tert. & jer. (as Perth. ass. 58.) either in one place say, the custom war to stand on the Sa●boths without menti●●●irg of prayer: bu● (besides that no Supper is expressed) no doubt Can 20. of the Nicen Council must clear both: for as that Canon by Tert. testimony and the custom of many Churches seems to be set on foot: so the same become a law unto jer. who lived after. So that as the Canon spoke what Tertul. meant. In like manner, ●er. meant wh●● the Canon spoke And this is a reasonable exposition.  Basil and Augustine, so your impertinent allegations, as of Cyprian, Chrysostome, Anselme, and H●go, all only for standing at prayer. What now? was in so many ages the gesture of standing by no Council, Father or Writer expressly referred to the Communion; and yet must we believe, that the Church used that gesture. because it was required in prayer? Be it known unto you therefore. that the Canons of Counsels, and Write of Fathers, mentioning standing only at prayer, are so fare from concluding for the Lords Supper, that they exclude it, for Exceptio firmat regulam, and the constant omitting in all antiquity of standing at Supper, in the constant expressing of it in the order of prayer, in so many ages, in so great a distance, is in stead of an exception, and strong against your manner of reasoning.  
Fourthly, but what if we should yield, that the ancients used such a gesture at the Communion which they used at prayer? verily it would neither condemns Sect. the gesture of kneeling at the said Communion, nor advantage you for any sitting or standing. For first, they condemned not kneeling at Sacrament absolutely, because they condemned it not in prayer. Nay at other times than commanded kneeling in prayer, as besides the testimonies of Fathers, your Synod of Turon doth bear witness, therefore they condemned it not at Sacrament in itself. Secondly, if they used the same gesture at prayer and Communion, they justify us, for behold so do we, if you say, we use another gesture in both than they did, I answer as we have actually changed, so they knew they had liberty to do likewise, you will grant they had liberty for kneeling at prayer, and then for the Sacrament your own manner of reasoning will infer it also: for if such an order had been made in the Church, that all should have kneeled (even on the Sabboths) in prayer, (which might well have been) than we might have concluded as you do; therefore also they kneeled in the act of receiving. Thirdly, let the reader observe, that sitting by this reason taken from the gesture of prayer, is so much more condemned by all antiquity, as the same hath judged it of all the gestures, the most unfit to pray in. For as their practice in the Primitive Church was 
a Surgi●●● 〈…〉, & 〈◊〉 ●ationes 〈◊〉. Iust. Mar●. Apol. 2.  to rise from sitting (which in the exercise of the Word they had used) when they went to prayer: So their doctrine was, that to fit before God in prayer, was an 
b Fact●● istu● irrel●g●sis 〈◊〉 est. Tert. de Orat●●●.  unreverent, and unchristian carriage, therefore the ancient Church refusing & condemning sitting at prayer, refused as much (after your manner of proving) and condemned sitting at the Communion. Fourthly and lastly, if standing was used in the ancient Church at the Supper, because it was used at prayer, yet that is nothing to your standing I trow: for as the Fathers never thought (as fare as we know) kneeling at supper a will worship, or not decent enough or against the dignity and duty of a Communicant, or a private worship in a public place, or against Christian liberty, piety, or charity: so did they never stand, because standing was commanded in the institution, or because they would imitate Christ's example, or because they would use a tablegesture. Not, not, the reason is clear, that if they stood at Sacrament, because of the bond of standing at prayer, they did it for respect of the time; namely, the Sabbath, and the feast of Pentecost, when by standing, they would remember the resurrection of Christ. So the same respect that set up standing at Sacrament, pulled kneeling away from prayer itself, for the time, to set up standing also. It was not, it was not any proper or severed respect of the Supper itself, that standing was so used; for out of the times appointed, the consideration, on which such standing was used by the Church, utterly ceased; and so your standing and theirs are not of the same use and signification, Wherefore (my brethren) you are to blame to trouble the world with such pretences of antiquity against us. But, o Disputer, worthy you are to be noted for a wise man, that spend so many leaves, in thus disputing after your manner, to no purpose, except to mock ignorant people. And so much be answered to your first general argument, which is the captain of your whole troop.   

2. General reason against kneeling in the ancient Church, taken from the silence of some Ancients in their Treatises of Ceremonies.  
NExt you urge in this manner, 
c Abridgm. pag. 60.  Justin in his Sect. 24 Apologit. maketh no mention of kneeling. In that little book● of Orders, which is fathered upon Clemens, there is not the lest inkling given of kneeling in the act of receiving: yea, many of the Fathers have purposely set down Liturgies and forms of administering the Saraments used in their times, and therein mentioned even the lest of the Ceremonies, that were then in use, but where shall we found any mention of kneeling, before Antichrist grew to his full height.  
Aus. This reason deserves not an answer, because it is taken à non scripto, and that in certain designed books, concerning a matter of fact. Besides, I retort in justins Apologit. in that little book of Orders fathered upon Clemens; in other books wherein the Fathers purposely set down such Liturgies and forms of administering the Sacraments; we found not a word of sitting, till Antichrist grew to his full height, and that the Pope himself took that liberty. Again, in all these books you mention, we found not a certain word of standing at Sacrament, till Antichrist grew to his full height, and the Popish sacrificers used it; and therefore you may see the falsehood of your assertion, for how can Justins' Apologit. and Clemens book, and the rest, mention the lest ceremonies that were then in use, when there is mention of no gestures at all; But it is better with us, for to answer your Negative, you will expect, we should give you instances: Suspend then a little, and I hope, not only an inkling, but declaring of other gestures, then either sitting or standing are to be found, before Antichrist grew to his full height. Thus much may suffice for this place.   

3. General reason against kneeling in the ancient Church, taken from the general opinion and testimony of some late Writers.  
WE pass to your last general reason, taken from Sect. 25 the general opinion and testimony of some late Writers: First, you 
d Abridg. pag. 59 60.  say, Master Fo●e affirms the use of the Primitive Church to have been sitting at supper, or standing after Supper, and the Writers of the Centuries affirm, that the custom of standing was very ancient, and used by many Churches. Answ. You mistake the Writers of the Centuries. See after in Centur. 2. Master Fox speaks only of the Apostles times, and grounds upon 1 Cor. 11. where no mention is made of any gesture, and therefore his testimony must needs be uncertain.  
Secondly, you say 
e Disput. page 111.  out of the Lord of Bless. de Eucharistia, Sect 27 that the East Churches of Grecia and Asia, did never admit of adoration. Ans. The Lord of Bless means adoration of the bread, as he saith, they never received the doctrine of transubstantiation, otherwise some testimonies of the Fathers of the Eastern Church, shall be brought tending to show, that adoration was used to God himself.  
Thirdly you say 
f Abridgm. page 59  the dialogue betwixt custom and Sect. 28 truth in Mr. Foxes Martyrol, pag. 126. 4 compiled out of Peter Martyr, and other learned men's writings, affirmeth, that the old Counsels forbade all men to kneel down at the time of the Communion, fearing that it should be an occasion of Idolatry. Answ. This dialogue moves us not, for neither can we found such a thing in Peter Martyr. or other learned men's writings of his time, nor is the thing truly affirmed. There is no old Council forbade kneeling at Sacrament: for as for that decree which forbade, that Communicants should be humiliter intenti erga propositum panem, that makes nothing against kneeling at Sacrament, as I shall show by and by in Centur. 4. of that forbidding which was of kneeling in prayer, I have said enough before, but this dialogue should mean some express forbidding of kneeling at Sacrament, because it expresseth this to have been the reason, lest Idolatry should be committed: but there was no such Council; perhaps the Surveyor was misled 
g Survey pag. 177.  by this Dialogue▪  
To these general testimonies of yours, I will also subioyne some common answer: for what if all this be true, Sect. 28 yet is not our kneeling at Sacrament therefore condemned absolutely in itself, and though we yield you the Primitive Church and Eastern also; yet, where kneeling might be used, you leave us (at worst) a little inch of time, namely, before Honorius 3. a thousand years, and also some little pittance of place in the Western part, namely half the globe of the earth.   

A Counterpoise of general considerations for kneeling in the Ancient Church.  
FIrst what say you to the four beasts, and 24. Elders, Sect. 29 Apoc. 4. and 5. which fell down before the Lord, and before the Lamb, in the celebration of his praise for their redemption? Master Brightm. says, this is meant of the Church militant, namely the Ministers and people in the public assemblies, which if it be true, then is there no time, when the Church could express this more fitly, then at the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Where can Christ be more honoured, then where the disgrace of him is most lively represented? for he wil● not his sufferings to be remembered, that he should still suffer, but that he might now be honoured, having overcome. Consider therefore the Revelat. in that same sense, and it cannot be denied, that the adoraration there mentioned holds plain correspondence with that thankful commemoration, which symbolically presents the blessed Lamb slain before our faces.  
Secondly, what say you to the phrases, which you Sect. 30 know the Fathers do commonly use in speaking of the Lords Supper? that the Sacramental signs are reverend, dreadful. terrible, venerable, precious, and honourable mysteries, that the Communicants 
h Such like speeches they use also of Baptism.  should come with weeping and wailing, with sighing and sobbing, with fear and trembling, with confessions, and deprecations, with prayers and thanks giving, with contrition and compunction, with shame and sorrow, with humility and reverence. Think you that men thus speaking, and thus thinking, would esteem kneeling in the act of receiving, contrary either to the nature of the Sacraments, or to the dignity and duty of the Communicants, or in a word, in itself abominable to be used?  
Thirdly, it is not amiss to tell you, that you say 
i Perth. ass. pag. ●5.  Sect. 31 kneeling hath brought many abuses into the supper, as amongst others it hath taken away, 1 Sitting: 2. I he use of a Table: 3. The enunciative words of Christ: 4. Communicants distribution among themselves: 5. The nature of the Sacrament, that it is not used as a Supper or feast. But if this be true, then kneeling was used in the ancient Church, for they used not sitting more than we do; nor a table, nor the enunciative words of Christ, nor distribution, but as we do; nor did they stand upon civil fashions of suppers and feasts more than we do in this Church, none of this can be denied, and therefore it followeth that the ancient Church used to observe kneeling, which you say brought these abuses among them, which you call the breaches of the institution.  
Fourthly, it was worth the observing, that was objected Sect. 32 to the Christians in the Primitive Church, 
n Aug contra Faust lib. 20. cap. ●3.  Nonnulli eos propter panem & calicem, Cecere●● & liberum colere existimabant: and yourselves 
o Perth. ass. page 59  allege, how Auerroes objected, that the Christians adored that which they ate. Whence isit likely, that this objection should rise. but from the humble and reverend receiving of the Lords Supper? You say the pagan mistook the Christians, and who can doubt of that? all that I affirm, is, that something was in the carriage of receivers, when in the Sacrament they came before the Lord, that is, adoration in some degree; whereof the pagan took occasion to charge them for worshipping bread and wine.  
Fifthly, lastly, will you give me leave to tell you, what Sect. 33 Erasmus saith, namely, 
p Erasm. de amab-concerd.  That in ancient times of the Church of Rome, the people did not gaze upon the Sacrament, but animie in coelum erectis, they praised God for their redemption upon their knees. Also what Doctor john White saith, 
q Way to the true Church, pag. 397  That kneeling was in use at the Lords Supper before the real presence came in. To whom I will add Bishop jewel, 
r Artic. 8. of adoration, Divis. 22.  saying, That the old learned Fathers taught the people, at the Sacrament, to adore Christ sitting in heaven. And these witnesses carry greater authority, when they testify that of the ancient Church, which yourselves do confess might have been therein expediently used. Because 
s Perth. pag: 5●.  saith the Perth Assembly, the Arians debased the Son of God, if it bade been otherwise lawful for the ancient Church to kneel in the act of receiving, it had been expedient. Then Mr. Beza goes further, 
t Bez. Epist. 12. pag. 100  saying, kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, speciem quidem habet pia & Christiane venerationis, ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu usurpari, hath a show of godly and Christian reverence, and therefore might profitably be used in the old time. But now it is high time, to examine in order the particular Centuries.   

Of the first Century, or hundred of years.  
Of that which belongs to this Century we have considered in other places of this book, because it Sect. 34 is of that time, wherein our Saviour Christ himself, and his Apostles lived. I have showed and all men do know, that after the first institution, (where also the gesture of the Communion was uncertain, or such as condemned not our kneeling) the New Testament is silent in the gestures of the Apostolical Church.   

Of the second Century.  
IN this Centurie our brethren have cited 
u Disput. pag. 75, 76.  justin Sect. 35 Martyr Apol. 2. ad Anton, saying thus, After the exhortation of the word we rise up and pray, afterward is brought forth Bread and wine, and water, than the Pastor giveth thanks, and the people say Amen to it, and so the consecrated elements are delivered to every one. Ans. 1. That which justin speaks here is of their manner on the Saboth days when if they stood, it was in regard of the day, as I have answered before. 2. For other days justin shows a little before the reason why they called the Sacrament Eucharistia in these words, Non enim ut vulgarem panem, et vulgare poculum hoc sumimus: for we use not to receive it as common bread and wine. Which speech may be both referred to their opinion of the consecrated Bread and cup, that there was more in it then in common meals as also to their different manner of communicating. 3. But take your quotation, and read it over again, and you found not a word of the Suppergesture, and think you in so few words all the carriage in their assemblies in justins' time is fully described? Besides the word Afterwards brings in a several description of the supper-employment, I say several from that which had preceded of rayper, how is it then possible to conclude, that the gesture was common? 4. Take your desire, that the gesture of prayer was continued unto the supper, truly yet the same might be kneeling for all that is said here. For in this Church after exhortation of the word, we rise up (namely from sitting,) and so go to prayer, and afterward we receive, and yet notwithstanding we kneel down. And indeed Clemens 
w Clemen. vitim. Strom.  showeth plainly that in their prayers, they were wont to prostrate themselves to the earth. who can be persuaded now, that justin Mort. condemns kneeling at Sacrament?  
Next 
x Disput. p. 91.  is brought in Clemens of Alexandria; Strom. Sect. 36 1. speaking thus. When certain (as the manner is) have divided the Eucharist, they licence every one of the people to take his part. Now saith the Disputer, to take a part, without being reached to them by the hand of others, implies sitting or standing at the table. Ans. two childish conceits, 1. doth taking a part immediately, imply sitting or standing at the table? As if Communicants cannot kneel at a table, and take their part. Behold we do so in the Church of England. 2. Doth licensing every one to take his part, import the taking of it immediately? No such matter, specially of Clemens time it is conjectured ill, for doth not justin 
y justin Apol. 2.  tell you, that, The Deacons gave to every one of them that were present their part of the bread and wine. Diaconi, quos vocamus, daunt singulis present thus partem panis & calicis. And doth not Tertullian tell you, 
z Tertul. de corona mill.  Eucharistia Sacramentum nec de aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus. Then here is poor proving. But the Disputer grounds upon some further speech out of Clemens, (though it be but imagined) and so doth the Abridgement both mistaking the Centuries. The said Clemens (saith the 
a Disp. p. 75, 91  Disputer) maketh mention of the custom of standing at the Communion, as of a custom at that time received into many Churches, as is witnessed, Centur. 3. cap. 6. So also the Abridgement 
b Abridg. p. 60  saith, That the writers of the Centuries affirm, Centur. 3. pag. 133. (upon Clemens words) that this custom was ancient and used by many Churches. But if the Centuries be consulted, it will appear, that you are mistaken: for speaking of the manner which the people used in receiving, namely to put out their hands to receive the Sacrament, (which their intent is to press against the Popish niceness of putting it into the people's mouths) they add, that this was an ancient custom in many Churches, quod & Clemens Alex. quem admodum in superiori Centuria ostendimus, eius meminit. Now look back to the former Centurie, and the foresaid speech of Clemens [of licensing every one to take his part] is only to be found, and not a word of standing or sitting. Therefore you have mistaken the Centuries, whether willingly you yourselves can best tell. Now good Reader see, whether Clemens spoke half a word against kneeling, or for standing or sitting in the Lord's Supper.  
Next is brought in 
c Disp. pag. 77 Perth. Ass: p: 59  Tertullian, flourishing at the Sect. 37 very latter end of this Centurie, who speaks (lib. de oration) of the station which they used at the Altar, where they received the Lords body. Ans. First, it is plain that their station was used in respect of prayer, yea was a solemn day kept in watching to prayer, ad vesperam 
d Tertul: l: de jeiunio  usque: and therefore though the same for more solemnity, (as is said) was made at the Altar, yet nothing follows thereof concerning the gesture of the holy Sacrament, whether it was received, or not. Secondly, suppose the stationary prayer infer for the gesture of the Communion, what doth that show, but only that they stood in receiving in a certain special case: what's this to the Church's judgement against kneeling in itself, or practise against kneeling in ordinary; Thirdly, Tertullian speaks as plainly for kneeling, at Sacrament, as this place seems for standing, where he shows how 
e Libr: de penitentiae  penitent Christians should come unto God, namely, by weeping, wailing, fasting, and per ad geniculationem ad Aras, by kneeling down before the Altar; as he likewise requires in him that is about to be 
f Libr: de Baptism  baptised, Prayers, fasting, kneeling, and confession of all his sins. Fourthly, I add that tertullian's testimony of the stations testifies properly the practice of the Montanists whose they were, and describes not the practice of the orthodox Christians of his time. These answers I hope will satisfy wise men. Wherefore to all that is hitherto objected, what need any further Counterpoise.   

Of the fifth Century.  
IN this Centurie you 
g Abridg. p: 60 Disput. pag 75. The Authors of those books (the one it seems misleading the other) have placed Dionysius about the year 175. for 275  quote a speech of an Epistle Sect. 38 of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, which Eusebius mentioneth (lib. 7. cap. 9) where speaking of one that bade received the Communion, he says, that he had stood at the table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof the writers of the Centuries gather, that the manner in those times in the act of receiving was mensae assistere, to stand at the table. Ans. First, one singular example is a weak direction for the custom of the Church in all the world for an hundred years; besides condemns not kneeling in the lest degree, more than he that should say, Abraham stood in prayer, and Solomon, and Christ, should condemn or show the practice of the Church in their times to have been against kneeling at prayer: you consider not, that we have some advantage of you in this controversy; for we need not be asraid of some singular example of standing, because both we hold it lawful in itself; and some singular example denies not either an answerable or more general practice of kneeling. Secondly, but what is standing to sitting? or what was their standing to yours? or where is the decreeing and allowing of this man's standing by the Church? Let the Disputer look upon this instance, and his own answer to ours of Gorgonia afterward, and blush for shame. Thirdly, but we need not yield you, that this man stood at all, for the Greek word signifies only presence oftentimes, and not gesture. See 2 Tim 4. 17. Act. 1. 3 Rom. 13. 1. where no regard is to be had of the gesture. In Mark. 14. 69. a maid said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Matthew describes thus; A maid said to them that were there, Mat. 26. 71. Yea the word sometimes notes presence, though in kneeling, or what humble carriage possibly may be used as Luk. 1. 19 Rom. 14. 10. And thus the Latin Assistere is also used sometimes, and Astitit mensa may be applied to a Minister in our Church, who post●is genibus received the Sacrament at the Table. And this must be marked, that the force of Dionysius speech consisteth in this, that such an one as he speaks of, was present at the table, and so received the Communion, the consideration of the gesture not being material or pertinent.  
Next the Scotchmen 
h Perth-Ass. 59  bring us another speech of Dionysius Sect. 39 out of this Epistle, Nun soleunior erit statio tua, &c. But they mistook, for this speech is tertullian's, answered before; and no such words are in the Epistle of Dionysius: whereby appears, that our brethren have not written out of the chair of infallibility, as some zealous people imagine.  
Lastly, the Disputer tells us, 
i Disp. pag. 92  Out of i●e writers of Sect. 40 the Centuries, Centur. 3 Cap. 6. it was the custom of Rome, that when the Bishop administered the Communion, all the Priests stood by. Answer. I will recite the words out of the Centuries as they lie. Fuit in Romana Ecclesia hic mes, ut patina● vitreas Ministri Sacerdotihus praeserrent, et Episcope celebrante Sacerdotes omnes assisterent. Now, 1. at most Assisterent can prove no more, then before it did, in the Epistle of Dionysius. This answer might perhaps suffice. 2. but Assisterent here may signify, Did assist: for that service which inferior Ministers did to the Priest, Sacerdote celebrante, the Priests themselves were to do to the Bishop, Episcope celebrante. 3. I answer, say the Priests stood by, during the celebration of the Sacrament, so it is in our Church commonly done, yet kneel notwithstanding in the act and instant of their own several communicating. Take which answer you think good. These be your doughty proofs in this Century.   

Our further Counterpoise.  
PAssing the high esteem which this age had of the Sect. 41 Sacrament, calling it the Sanctum Dei, dreading, yea not 
k As Cyprl●● shows of one, Se●m. de lapsis  daring to touch it Indignis manibus, and holding it an 
l Tertul. speaking of prayer, lib de 〈◊〉: he flourished also in this Century.  irreligious thing to sit before God when reverence and honour was done unto him, I say passing these and the like, that I may speak more effectually, let us consider. 1. They were wont to humble themselves in the act of receiving as the Centurion humbled himself unto Christ. When thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord, (saith 
m Orig. in Homil 5 in diversos locos.  Origen) Tunc Dominus sub tectum ingreditur, et tu ergo humilians teipsum; imitare hunc Centurionem, et dicito, Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum. What do we (I pray) persuade more to our Communicants in the Church of England? The Scotchmen say, 
n Perth-Ass. 60.  This work is sergeant; but I find none, that so saith of this Homily. Again they say, Origen requireth the same reverence, when the Preacher entereth into our house, as when we receive the Sacrament. But that seems not true, for this last enforcement, Tu ergo, &c. depends properly on that which precedeth immediately, when thou eatest and drinkest, &c. As the other matter of the preacher hath also a several enforcement by itself. See the place. 2. They were wont to abstain from the ordinary gestures of civil tabes, as appears by their taxing those which come to the Communion, and yet 
o Auth. libr. apud Cypr. de cardinal. Christi operibus; Tractas, de Caena.  nec se indicent, nec Sacramenta diiudicant; sed sicut cibis communibus irreverenter sacrisutuntur muneribus. 3. Such as had fallen into sin, were wont to kneel down at the Altar, where after confession thereof and absolution they received the Lords Supper. 
* See Magd. Centur. 3. cap. 6.  Their manner was, Presbyteris advolvi, & aris Dei adgeniculari: and there were they absolved with imposition of the Presbyters hand, and so Absolutis dabatur Eucharistia. 4. That reverence which they used in their prayers and thanksgiving about the holy Communion, they were to continued to the act of receiving. Now they prayed 
r Tertulin Apologet.  capite undo, 
t Tertul. de cer●● mill.  and (excepting the Sabbath days, and the feast of Pentecost) genibus flexis. show if you can, that they left in receiving those gesture● of praying. Nay you will be content to yield, that they continued uncovered, surely then (besides that adoration is granted so fare) you may as well yield that they continued to kneel, there ●eing no historical evidence to the contrary: especially when kneeling agrees so well to that which they judged the Sacramental service to be common with prayer, namely 
n Te●●●l. lib. de ●●lsn ●aminar●m Cypr. Epis●. 1●. Sacrifice of praise not of propitiation.  offering ●p of a Sacrifice. Let the Reader judge of this little.   

Of the fourth Century.  
IN this Century, first you tell us of Basil 
w Abridg. p. 60  that ●e saith Sect. 42 in his time every man wa● bound by Apostolical tradition at prayer and the Communion to stand upright. Answer, If Basil said so, you see his time no more condemned kneeling at the Communion, then kneeling at prayer. But you show not where Basil said so of the Communion by name, nor I think, can you show; but of kneeling in prayer, where of we have said enough before.  
Next you 
x Abridg. p. 60  tell us, that in those times the Communion table was made of boards, and so placed that men might stand Sect. 43 round about it. Answer. What then, is not ours also so made and placed? Yet we use the gesture of kneeling. You should have showed, that they st●●d about the table, and not, that they might stand. Yet whether this was the common manner of placing their table, I leave to the judgement of learned men. The Church of A●tioch in Syria (saith 
y S●r●●. lib: 5, cap. 22  S●crates) i● scitnated contrary to other Churches, for the Altar stands not ad orientem, sed ado●cidente●●; showing that other Churches had every one an Altar unto the East-side, as that of the Church of A●tioch was disposed Westward: and this Altar is the same which Theod●r●t 
z Theod●res lib: 5, cap: 18  calls the holy table; and whereof Optatus Milevitanus 
a Opiate. lib. 6. ●●●●ra Parm●●i●●●●▪  thus speaketh, Quid est Altar, ●is● s●des & corp●ris & sanguinis Christi? Howsoever this observation of yours concludes nothing against us.  
Next the 
b Disp. pag. 91, 92.  disputer furnisheth with an idle and Sect. 44 empty collection out of Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 17. where speaking of a certain sect of Philosophers, and of their maker of feasting, he affirmeth, that Philo judaeus in their description hath noted, that they used the same custom, which was used at the festival day of the blessed passion by Christians, in the days wherein himself (the said Eusebius) lived;) and that was sitting, as Philo sheweth.  
Answ. It grieves me to take up so much paper with such a childish observation. Eusebius says nothing about the Sacrament more or less. They did use (saith Eusebius out of Philo, and Eusebius takes them to have been the Christians in the Primitive Church, whom Philo speaks of) some thing 〈◊〉 yet are in use among us, and specially such as 〈◊〉 use a ou● the festival day of the blessed passion, on ou● just 〈…〉, and reading of Scripture. And (after saith Event) 〈◊〉 ●●●eth, how in the foresaid days they lay vp●● green pallets, tasting no wine or other creature, but clear water, bread with salt, and Hysop●. Here is all. Eusebius saith not, those people used all the customs, which they did in his time, about the feast of the passion, but such as himself mentioneth, and I have here recited. Now if the comparison of the Christians in Eusebius time, with those men Philo describeth, were about the Lord's Supper, it only shows the custom of the fostivall day of the Passion, which differed from other days, as appears by Eusebius singling it out. But here is no comparison about the Supper, but the fastings, vigils, and reading of Scripture. Nay the comparison (if it continued to those words, which you seem to ground on, where he speaks of lying or sitting upon pallets) plainly excludes the Lord's Supper, except salt and hyssop, and not wine, were in Eusebius time, and by him thought also to be in the Primitive Church, the materials of the Lords Supper. I add, you have before striven to show that standing in Eusebius time (and many hundreds of years, before and after him) was the allowed & accustomed gesture of the Church in receiving the Sacrament, and was it now a sitting upon mats, and bassocks, after the manner of those whom P●il● describeth? behold then a ridiculous and senseless collection of the disputer, that neither agrees with himself, nor with the common wit of a cobbler.  
Next, a certain Canon of the Nicen Council is 
c Disput. 80. 92.  Sect. 45 urged, providing that Communicants should not be humiliter intenti erga propositu● pa●em. Answ. Here the disputer is blind, and cannot understand, that all artolatry is by us undoubtedly held for Idolatry. That Canon only forbids to fasten our devotion or worship upon the visible elements, but would have us with elevated minds to look upon jesus Christ. So this is an excellent Canon against Popish Idolatry, but toucheth not them, which are humiliter intenti towards God himself in his holy ordinance. The disputer mistakes us; This Canon or the like might be made in our Church (I would to God it were) and yet kneeling nevertheless continued. Nay this Canon maketh on our side, as I shall touch presently in my Counterpoise.  
Lastly, the disputer 
d Disput. pag: 92.  brings in the Canon of the Apostles: Sect. 46 forbidding all worship in the Lord's Supper, but which himself hath appointed. I answer, the Lord in his Word allows of kneeling, as I have abundantly showed. But the truth is, I still find this disputer to have been a silly Doctor, for that which he takes for a Canon of the Apostles (of the Canons so called) is only the title of one of those Canons, which the writers of the Centuries collect themselves out of the new Testament. This was an ignorant and simple mistake Master Disputer. Thus much be answered to these poor testimonies of yours, affording against kneeling, or for standing or sitting in this Centurie, not so much as an evident syllable.   

Our further Counterpoise.  
FIrst, though Athanasius say nothing of the suppergesture expressly, yet 
e At●anas. Apol. 2.  he presseth the Order of the Church. Nos pro Canone ecclesiastice accipimus, and sanguini Christi cont●melia● facit, qui praeter ecclesiasticam constitutionem calice mystice ab●titur: yea, his speeches may be applied to the defence of the adoration at the Sacr: 
f Athanas. Ep●. ad Adelph.  Si recte fecerint I●daei, &c. If the jews did well to adore the Lord where the Ark and Cherubin's were, shall we refuse to adore Christ where his (mystical) body is present: shall we say, ●bsi●●e a corpore, (or à Sacramento corporis) ut te adercmus, Lord if thou wouldst be worshipped, thou must be pleased to keep thee from the Sacrament, for there worship we dare not. Sect. 48  
Secondly, Epiphanius 
g Epiphan. lib. 3. Ho●. ●. de v●ra fide● formula.  describing the manners of the Christians in his time, says thus, Quartâ & pros●bb●t● jeiunium statutum est usque ad horam no●am, this is constant except in Pentecost, quâ genna non flectuntur, and ad ●oram ●onam Communiones fiunt, and prayers are poured forth, cum omnisedulitate prolixitate & geniculation●, whereby no other gesture but kneeling appears to have been accustomed diebus ordinatis, in the exercises of prayer and fasting, and receiving the Lords Supper. Sect. 49  
Thirdly, Cyril of jerusalem 
h Cy●il in Ca●●●●. 〈◊〉. 5.  describing the manner of celebrating the Eucharist, comes at last to show the Communicant what to do, when he should receive the mysteries in this manner, Accede●non extendens manus, sed pronu● adorationis in mod● & venerationis, dicens, Amen. Come thou not stretching out thy hands, but falling on thy face, after the manner of adoration and reverence, and saying, A●en. Many answers are made: First 
* Perth. pag. 60.  This is a sergeant Cyril; Ans. Why did you show no reason of this charge? Mr. Cook says nothing to prove it to be such in his censure. H●are what your Centuriators 
i C●ntur. 4. cap, 10 in vita 〈◊〉.  of Magdeb. say, Hier. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●b eo in adol●scentia conscript as ●uo tempore extitisse scripsit. Secondly, 
k Repl. part: to Bish. M●rt. ch. 3. sect. 21.  this may be a superstitious precept of Cyril. Answ. A posse ad esse non valet. Sure I am, a precept may be given without superstition in these terms, pronus adorationis in modum, if Cyril meant somewhat superstitiously, it forceth not in our disquisition of historical passages. What practise of the Fathers will you take upon you to justify in all respects? Thirdly, the Greek 
l Ibid.  word 〈◊〉 translated by Pronus, properly signifies a gesture of the eyes, and so Cyril understandeth of the Cup, by proportion to his direction of sanctifying his eyes with the bread. Answ. This seems a harsh exposition, and devised for a shift; for would not Cyril have his Communicant to look down upon the bread also? and did you ever read in any of the Fathers, that they sanctified their eyes with the cup by looking upon it? besides, thus you make Cyril idolatrous indeed, for adorationis in modum, is referred to the same thing that Pronus is. Again, the context of words is against you, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joined with adorationis in modum, yea seems to be expounded thereby. Moreover, what if Pronus were not, adorationis in modum would serve our turn? Lastly, there is no object of sight specified, so that after your translating, it must not be looking down upon the cup, but looking down and adoring, say Amen. Therefore here you you seem to have dallied. Fourthly, 
m Perth as. pag, ut supra.  but for all this at the most, Pronus signifies not, falling on the face, but bowing of the body. Answ. It is enough that pronus adorationis in modum, signifies either prostration or a carriage of the same nature: but whether (I pray are our kneeling Communicants in England, or your ●itters in the act of receiving, proni adorationis in modum) ●e like indeed these words mean a Tablegesture▪ But you press this 
n Repl. pag, ut supra.  Cyrils' precept ●s only ●er the cup, and not for the bread, and therefore we cannot interpret him of falling down, without imputation of superstitious advancing the wine above the bread.  
Answ. S●e you not, that if nothing but ●owing be meant, as much may be objected as this is. But the truth is, the Cup in the Fathers (so fare are they from taking it from the people) is many times put for the whole mystery. So Athanasius cited before, runs only upon the poculum mysticum ●alic●m mysticum; to not● you no more at this time. But you press yet further, saying 
o ●bidem.  Cyril in the quoted place, nameth small matters in taking the Elements, and therefore would have named kneeling, if it had been used. Answ. Was there a necessity to name the word kneeling? Truly he would sufficiently distinguish our kneeling in England, that said of us no more; but that we received pro●s adorationis in modum, and Cyrils' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly used for a gesture of Prostration, as I have showed in the first part of this Treatise. Therefore Cyrils' testimony is clear.  
Further Gregory Nazianzen 
p Gregory Nazian: Orat: infunere Gorgon.  describing the practice Sect. 50 of his sister Gorgonia; says of her, that in her sickness in the night alone aunt altar procubuit, having consecrated mysteries before her, and called on him, who wa● honoured at the Altar. Gregory testifies that so the Lord was wont to be honoured, and himself approveth both her fact and faith. But our Brethren except here, 1. God 
q Perth. assem● Pag. 60.  is honoured at the altar (by them which sit●er stand) by the administration of the Sacrament to his honour. Answ. This is not a just interpretation, for Gorgonia's practice, on occasion whereof those words are used, urgeth us to expound them of honouring; ante altare procumbendo. Besides, you may see in these times they were wont to worship before the Altar; yea, jacentes sub altari, as Ruffi●us gives example, in 
r Ruff. lib. 1. cap. 12  Alexander, and 
s Lib. 2. ●, 16.  Ambrose. ●. Gorgonia was not in the act of receiving at this time. Answ. That is not a probable thing, for did she religiously bring the mysteries to use, without feeding upon them? specially when the manner was to receive them sometimes alone, and then specially when they were sick as Gorgonia was, & at the Altar also. But what if she did not receive, yet while she fell down before the Altar and mysteries, yea of purpose used them there; doth it not argue, there was some ground and occasion given her from the public practice, specially Gregory commending her for it? 3. Gorg. was 
t Perth. assem ut supra.  sick in body, and sick in mind. Answ. I allow not her error, I show the practice of her time; yet her worship was not directed to the Elements, but to God himself, that's plain. Yourselves are sick in mind in this controversy. Lastly, her 
u Ibidem.  fact was private, and 
w Markethis' Disp. pag. 82.  what if Gregory and many more Fathers and Doctors report, that Gorgonia and many others, prostrated themselves in the act of receiving, when such their carriage was disagreeable with the received and allowed practice of the Church. Ans. If this last clause were true, yet the consent of their practice being good Christians, aught not to be despised, more than yours (in your conceit) aught to ●ee to posterity against the practice of the Church of England. Also it followeth, that kneeling to God was used, before transubstantiation was believed or allowed. But was Gorgonia her practice disagreeable with the Churches? Where is that to be found I pray you? the disputer is an impudent beggar in this saying. Truly if she did vary from the Church, it followeth not, that the Church condemned her practise in itself. But (good Sir) what testimonies would you have to satisfy? Was not that which Gorgonia and many others did practise, a received gesture in the Church? and was not that which Gregory and many more Fathers and Doctors should report and approve, an allowed gesture in the Church? therefore Nazianzens' testimony is against you.  
Fifthly, 
x Ambros de Sy●rit. Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12.  Ambrose upon the words of the Psalm Sect. 51 [adorate sc●bellum pe●um eius] saith, per scab●llum terra intelligitur, per terram Caro Christi, quam bodiè quoque inmysterij● adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Domino Ie●u adcra●unt. W●ere he speaks of outward adoraiton & the mysteries of the Sac●am. That which the Apostles adored in the person of Christ himself, we adore in the Sacramental mysteries. And again 
y Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11.  when we come to the Communion, we must take the body of Christ with fear, devotion and reverence.  
Sixthly, I allege the Council of Nice, which whiles Sect. 52 it forbiddeth communicants to be humiliter intenti erga propositum panem, shows that in the act of receiving they were wont to be humiliter intenti. Only he forbids to be so erga propositum panem.  
Lastly, I wish you to consider that Communicants in those times 
z Ba●il de Spirit. Sancto cap. 27. Hilar. in Ps. 6●.  also kneeled down in prayer, belonging Sect. 53 to the Supper, and therein making answer denote confessionis, and the change of gesture afterward is not mentioned. Yea there were three times, in which they were by tradition to kneel, in which when the Sacrament was administered, the same tradition stood to them in force. 
a Hier●n in Daniel.  Tria sunt tempora quibus Deo ●lectenda sunt genua. Tertia●●oram sextam, & nonam Ecclesiastica traditio intelligit. Again in Baptism their custom was 
b Basil Exhor. ad Baptis.  genua adorando flectere. In hearing of the word they used so much reverence, that it is said of Constanti●e himself, 
c Euseb. de vita Const●●tin●, l. 4. cap. 33  Conciones stans reverenter audierit. Again the Sacrament is called by the Fathers of this age, an oblation or Sacrifice. I add what 
d Arnob. contragentes. lib: ●.  Ar●●bins saith, we are all Worshippers of Christ, nihil aliud invenies inista religione versari, ●ic proposi ●us term ●●s officiorum di●i●orum, hic ●ini●, k●ic omnes ex more profternimur. Furthermore they were wont to receive, secundum aliquam propriam dis●●plinam, as the Canon of the Synod at Antioch, under Constantius declareth. So Ambrose (in 1. Cor. 11.) says, we must receive cu● disciplina, for so (mark this) gratias videbimur reddere redempt●rs. I will not omit that it was only lawful for Ministers, ingredi ad altar, & ibidem communicare, as was 
e Canon 19 of the Synod of La●●icea.  decreed in another Synod. Where 
* Cannon 28  again it was decreed in this manner. Non oporte● in Basilic●s 〈◊〉 Ecclesiis accub●tus s●ernere: Behold (my brethren) decrees one forbidding the Communicants so much as to come to the Table. The other feasting in the Church, and sitting down at the Table. And how be it this last forbids love ●easts by name, yet no doubt there would have been an exception, if the Church had either used or allowed Christians Accubitus sternere for the Lords Supper. To conclude their Books afford not any respect in the Sacramental gestures of Christ's example, of a Tablegesture, of dignity of the Communicants, &c. It is easy to see their strains are quite contrary. As for standing or sitting at the supper, there is not a fair picbabilitie, or half a footstep for them in this whole Centurie.  
And now, be admonished (good Reader) that my 
☞  Book growing great, beyond my expectation, and against my desire, I am enforced to be very brief in all that followeth; It is my grief I cannot say so fully for latter times, specially as I meant; wherefore if God permit, I shall undertake this province another time, if it be judged needful, and now request thee to take in good part, if I only point at the Authors remaining. And I am the better content, because I am passed all the troublesome shallowss of our Brethren, and have also in this Centurie plainly declared the use of that kneeling, which no man that is acquainted with the state of the Church can once imagine to be less accepted in the ages following.   

Of the fifth Centurie.  
IN this Centurie you cite Chrisostome 
f Dis●. Page 87, and 92. Perth, ass. Pag: 59  in Ephes. Ser. 3. frustra sta●●s ad Altar, and in 2. Cor. ●omil. 18. the Deacon stood up at the holy Mysteries, and said, let us all pray together, and in homil. in E●ceni●s stemus trementes & timidi d●●issis oculis, &c. Answ. Besides, this last quotation overthrows your own grounds, it cannot be restrained to the act of receiving. For thus Chrysostome speaketh. Let us not be absent from the Church, nor talk of impertinent things, but s●a●●● trementes & timidi, &c. And moreover Chrys●st●●●s intent is not to note gesture, but as if he had said, 〈◊〉 trementes & timidi, &c. I aode that the very Popish Communicants at this day have as big a word said of them. So But speaking of Transubstantiation, says, 
a ●i●l. ad ●erb● Hoc est ●uim, in 〈◊〉 ●● Cano●●●  It cannot be evidently certain, neque celebrante, neque populo circumsta●ti, that the bread is ●●●ned into Christ's b●ay. As for frustra 〈◊〉 ad A●t●re, the very Priests in Italy may say as much, yea Hard●●g refers the Priests eating alone to the ●lacknesse of the Communicants: and do not our Ministers stand and wait for the people to come up together, who mind to receive. As for the Deacons calling to prayer, standing up that he might be heard, it is too childishly alleged. O Chrysostome thou art beholden to these men.  
Next Augustine 
x Disp. pag. 92.  is brought, on john, Ser●. 42. in Sect. 55 the●e words What is the cause, OH my 〈◊〉 that you see the table, and come not to it. T●●s (saith the Disputer) ●ust be meant of sitting or standing thereat, for they might not kneel in his time. Answer. But (good Sir) what doth 〈◊〉 place quoted prove to your desire of ●● self? Truly you might with the same force have brought a thousand places out of Augustine. You have a notable pa●e for depth! Much ado for a man to contain at the mystery of this quotation. but I pray you when you print your Dispute again, let Augustine here be left ou●.  
Next (●aith the 
y Disp. pag. 93.  Disputer) I pass by the fifth Council Sect. 56 of Constanti●●ple, though is also maketh for this custom. And I pass by the answer, because there is no such ●atter. He add●, That the Council● under Hilariu● then Bishop, confirm●th the C●●●● (of Nic● n●●ely) which forbiddeth ●●be ●●●●iliter intenses: which I ha●e answered before. Now I bid my brethren farewell, till we meet again about fifteen hundred years after Christ.   

Our further Counterpoise.  
CHrys●st●me. Si excluserimuseos, qui non possunt esse Sect. 57 participe● sa●ct● mensae, oratio faciend● est, et ●mnts super terr ●miacemus: and in i●sdem borrendissi●is mysteri●s bene precatur Sa●erdos popule, & pop●lus Sacerdoti. 
a Ch●●sist. ad popul. Antioch. Homil. 61.  Adora & Communica. Again, 
b Homil. 7. in Matth.  be not like Herod pretending to adore Christ, when thou wouldst kill him: say not, ut & ego venicus adorem, cumque veneri● interimere co●eris; but domum spiritualis pacis ingredere adoraturai atque honoraturus Dominum. Again, 
* Homil. 24 in 1 Cor. 10.  Hoc corpus Barbari cum timore & tremore plurimo adoraverunt. Imitemur salte●● Barbaros nos, qui non in praesepe id, sed in altar videmus: quod enim summo henore dignum est, id tibi in terra ostendam; ●am quemadmod●m in Regus, non parietes, non tectum apr●um, side Regium corpus, in throne s●dens, omnium prestantissimum est, ita quoque in cali● Regium corpus, quod nunc in terra videndum tibi proponitur.  
Augustine 
c August. in Psa. 98.  debating with himselve what should Sect. 58 be meant by Scabellum pedum eius, finds that the earth is called his footstool; but how then may the earth ●● adored? Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, & invento quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra: suscipit de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, et de carne Mariae carnem accepit: & quia ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedis, namo autem carnem illam mandu●at, nisi prius adoraverit, inventam est quem admodum adoretur scabellum pedum Domini, & non selum peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando: ideo & ad terram quamlibet, cum te inclinas & prosternis, non quasi terram int●earis, sed illum fanctum. Again, 
d Epist. 120.  Proud men adducti sunt ad mensam Christi, & accipiunt de corpore & sanguine eius, sed adorant tantum, non etiam saturantur ut pa●peres.  
A 
e S●z●m Lib. 8. Cap. 5. Nicepher. Lib. 3. Cap. 7.  certain woman is said to come to the Communion, Sect. 59 where sicut ●●s erat, pa●e● accepit, and before she a●e it, perinde atque or ationi v●cat●r a in terram se inclin●●● summi●it: bewed herself the ground.  
Theodoret speaking 
f Th●●d●ret. D●●l●g. 2.  of the Sacrament, says, That Sect. 60 which is believed, there, is adored. To pass (both here and hereafter) that which might be noted of the gestures of prayer, of Baptism, and such other like considerations, observed in some former Centuries.   

Of the 6 th'. 7 th'. 8 th'. 9 th'. 10 th'. 11 th'. 12 th'. 13 th'. Centuries.  
IN all these Centuries you bring forth nothing. Indeed Sect. 61 the times were corrupt, yet in matter of history some testimonies would have done well. I will not therefore trouble myself much in vain, but remember you of some of those, which are (yet to be answered) in the discourse of the Reverend Bishop of Rochester; adding some other briefly which I have observed.  
In the sixth Century 
a Pag. 195.  the Bishop of Rochester quotes against you Casari●s Arelatensis, who says, we must celebrated the Sacrament, compunct● cord, humiliate corp●re. In the seventh Century, 
b Pag. 198.  Eligins Novio●ensis, who says, We must come to the table of the body and blood of Christ, humiliter cum Centurion●, also complexions mentis, omnique reverentia. In the eighth Century, 
c Ibide●●.  Damascen, who says, We must come to the Lords Supper with all fear, and veneration of Christ. (I add the Fathers of the Synod of Francofort, in answer to the Image▪ mongers all dging the Psalm [worship his footstool] denying the same to make for Image-worship, and expound in this manner; By his footstool is mean● the flesh of Christ, quam ●odie in mysteriis adoramus, & qua● Apostoli in Domino jesu adorarunt.) In the ninth Century I cite 
d In Psal. 33.  Remig●us, who says, When ye receive understand what y● do: for ye receive in exemplum humilitatis, imitantes h● militatem Christ's, therefore sumito cum tim●r● & reveren●ia: (this is outward humility and reverence of the body, which must be exemplary:) Can. 37. of the Synod of Tur●● serves for proof of kneeling at the Sacramental solemni●es, because divers do show, that they communicated 
e Bertram. p●af. ad Carol. mag. Raba●. lib. 4. de Serm. propr. ca 10. H 〈◊〉 lib. 1. in Apoc, ca 2.  quotidie. And Leo 4. decreed, 
f Sige●ert. Anno D●m. 847.  Ne quis ex Laicis in Presbytery stet, aut sedeat, dum sacra Missarum sole●nia celeb●ent●r. And it is said of one Plecgilis a Priest, that 
g Raban. de Eucharist. ●. 39  c●lebrans pié sole●●a Missarum, more solito procumberet genibus. And Ha●m● 
h Haims. ●n 1 Cor 11.  says, cu● timore & trem●re, &c ●punctione cordis, omnique reverentia debemus accedere ad illud Sacramentum terribile, ut sciat mens reverentiam se d●bere praestare ●i ad cuius corp●s sumendu● accedit. In the eleventh Century the Bishop of reach. 
k Pag. 201.  quotes Algerus, saying, Cassa videretur to● homin●● adorantiu● ve●eranda sedulitas, ●isi ipsi●s Sacramenti longa maior credere●ur, quam ●ideretur verita● & utility, cum erg●●xteriūs nulla sint, quibus t●nta impodi●●tur obsequia, ad inti●a mittimur magn● sal●tis mysteria. In the twelfth Century I find Lombard, 
l L●br. 4. dis●. 4.  saying, The Sacrament must be received with discipline, with fasting, and must be discerned from other meats singulari reverentia. Patrus Clu●iacensis says, 
m Lib●. 1. Ep. ●.  Christ gives us hi● body and blood, non solu● ad adorandum, sed●tiam ad manduca●du● & bibendum. And it is reported 
n See Magd●b. Centur. 1●. cap. 6.  of one Vicelin●s, Ad Altare pronum in terrâ adorâss●: that he adored in falling down before the Altar. Now let not the Reader think it strange that kneeling in the act of receiving is not more evidently express; for 1. In all these ages sitting was never heard of, nor the people's standing in the act of receiving at the Lords table. 2. Considering the doubtful doctrine of those ages about Transubstantiation, (even before the time of I●nocentius 3) and the degrees whereby the practice of religion (though otherwise good) w●re superstitiously turned to the setting up their great Idol, and that in Honoriu● time there was bowing only enjoined to the host in Elevation time; which the Priest's of Ro●e observe at this day in the gesture even of standing, it is incredible, that kneeling was not used at the Sacrament in these times before Hon●rius obtained the Papal sea. Let a man of reason and judgement without partiality consider of this. 3. These phrases of receiving with humility, devotion, adoring and such like, mentioned before, import no less than kneeling, if they be compared with the age of Innocentius and Honoriu●: for in the thirteenth Century, when Transubstantiation had been decreed, and adoration had been enjoined to the host, how do the Doctors still speak I pray? Two things you shall observe: 1. that they still speak only such phrases as the former writers had done. 2. That they speak of adoration, as of a thing accustomed aforetime. Take for instance these testimoni●●. Alexander. 
o P. 4. q. 38. m. 1.  There be many reasons, why the bread is transubstantiated: and this is one : s●●●. sub sacrament●●●●●ret p●nis, f●rtasse quoque adoraretur indistincte cum Domin●. Thomas exactly describing all the business of the Mass, 
p 3 Su●. q. ●3. a. 4.  at length sets down what is done about consecration, and therein prim● excitatur populus ad devotion●●, ●nde & movetur sursum cor da ●abere ad Dominum. And I take it, you cannot found in all this Century, concerning kneeling more plains, though you believe yea and contend, that the gesture was now in practice.  
But I hasten to latter times, and therein I am first to Sect. 62 show what you produce for yourselves, and then subjoin both our answer and Counterpoise. Let the Re●der therefore understand, first, that you cite many modern writers for confirmation of general grounds, out of which you infer the unlawfulness of kneeling. Indeed in the same course you cite many ancients also. But I suppose no body will be much persuaded by your collections which you make ou● of general speeches against the Authors own meaning; many of whom practised kneeling themselves, or at lest allowed it in express words to be practised by others. Secondly, th●se Authors you cite speaking of kne●ling in particular, are these: first, you tell us of the Churches of Ergate, and the Low Countries, the Waldenses, and scholars 
See for these Authors, Abrid. 31. 51, 56, 57, 58, 64, 65. Disp. 106, 107, 109, 110, 111. Something is in Perth-Ass. 36, 54, 55. anuscrip. ch. 5. Brad. at arg 5.  of john-husse, all the Reform Churches, which have cast away the real presence, the Church of England, (that is, the learned and diligent Pastors, and well instructed and conscionable professors thereof restorers of religion, assemblies of Parliament) also the Church of Seutland, to whom may be added the Muscovites, and the Abyssenes. Then you press against us, P. Martyr, Bucer, Bullinger, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Beze, Keckerman, Bucan, Mor●ey, Sz●ged●●, Chemnitins; and of our Countrymen, Bishop Hooper, Bishop Pilkington, Th. Beacon, Dr. Sutelisse, and Dr. Willet. Lastly, you tell us, (and prove neither where nor when) that divers Synods provide against kneeling and national constitutions have condemned it: Manuscr. ch. 4. And if you add any other testimony of moment, I wish I could have informed the Reader, though I think there is none. But what shall be answered to this multitude? Verily this, that you go about to outface us with the authority of mere names and number, and abuse us as you have abused your Authors. I assure the Reader, that none of all these testimonies (so fare as I can judge) I say not one of them simply condemns kneeling in the act of receiving: for either your saying of them is false, or else that which you quote out of them, speaks only of standing and sitting, affirming them to be indifferent or lawful without affirming kneeling to be unlawful, or delivers their opinions only what gesture Christ and his Apostles did use at the Institution, or else only condemns kneeling unto the bread, or kneeling at first reformation for fear of Idolatry and scandal, or lastly, this opinion of kneeling, that the Sacrament cannot be reverently received without it- If the Reader think it worth his labour, let him please to take the pains to examine whether I say true. It's clear, that these learned then which you quote condemned not kneeling in itself, nay many of them were wont to kneel at Sacrament in their own practice. As for your arrogating, that the Church of England is for you, is somewhat strange. Suppose our religious Parliaments, Ministers, people, restorers of religion have desired the remoovall of the bond of kneeling for the Churches quiet, do you think they condemned as unlawful therefore that gesture, which themselves have been wont and still continued to use? but that you cannot think, except you think withal that they were all of them timeservers and hypocrites. Noither is it disparagement to our cause that other Churches use a different gesture from ours, for whiles we all agreed in the substance, it is best for us to vary in such variable things, for the right understanding of them as they are. As for some opposers in Scotland, they are parties with you in this present controversy. Longer answer would perhaps be superfluous, when as this is just. I will end with a short Counterpoise now, promising to make a liberal amendss (if God so please, and the same shall be needful) at an other time.   

Our further Counterpoise.  
To pass that which is 
* Damian á Goes de Aethiop monb. they never confess their sins before their Ministers, but they kneel down. & quotescunque consitentur assumunt carpus Domins.  said of the Aethiopic Church, and come nearer to home, I will first note the testimonies Sect. 63 of sorraigne Churches, and they are either common, or of singular men. Common are confessions and Council. Confessions, of Auspurge, of Sueveland, and of Belgia, allow great and singular Reverence. Of Basil worshipping Christ in heaven: of Bokemia, falling upon the knees, which also is expressly justified by the Churches of France and the Low Countries For Councils; see Petricovital. Synod. gener. 15. 8. conclus. 4. And Wlodistvuiens. Synod. gener. conclus 6.  
Particular men. 1. 
* Def of Admon. of T C. sol. 84 Disput. 111.  Luther and Lutherans in all the world you yield unto us. 2. For Divines of sounder judgement I will point you to a few of those whom you most esteem of, as 
a Instit. lib 4. cap. 17. sect. 3●.  Calvin, 
b Epist: 8 & 12  Beza, 
c In jud. cap: 11  P. Martyr, 
d 〈…〉  Bucer, 
e 〈◊〉 Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 6.  Morney, 
f 〈◊〉 part. 2. fol. 835, &c.  〈◊〉, 
g L●t. 48. ●ris. 96.  〈◊〉, 
h De 〈…〉. 2. cap. 7.  〈◊〉, 
i Polit. Eccles. ●● 1 Cor. 11.  Z●pp●ru●●, (k) Parent.  
For our own Church I will not enlarge at this time; Sect. 64 because (if (as I said) it be needful) I will not refuse to present a full Catalogue of our principal worthies. Only in general thus much now. We do appeal, first, to the first restorers of true religion in this 〈◊〉▪ and the whole state in the beginning of the Raign●● of blessed K. Edw. and Q. Eliz. Secondly, to the gl●●● ou● 〈…〉 in the persecutions of Q. Mary. Third●● to all the great propugners of the religion established in this Church. Fourthly, to our most excellent Ca●●ists, and such as have been of principal note for cases of conscience. Nay fifthly, to those that have been the most noted men of your own side; some of which never made scruple of kneeling at Sacrament at all▪ others that did, either repent of their former judgement, (as a great many godly & learned men have done in this Church,) or else stood not upon unlawfulness of kneeling absolutely, though they preferred sitting and standing before it. And for all these, if you stand upon tale, with God's gracious leave I can make the same plenteously to appear. Only of this last sort I will conclude with Mr. Baines, who to one ask his advice whether it was lawful to kneel, answered in this manner, as I would answer to any one that should ask me the same question. When there is no apparent scandal you may kneel: latent things which cannot with moral certainty be presumed must not hinder us. My reasons, first it is a gesture sanctified of God, to be used in his service. Secondly, it is not vn●oseeming a feaster, when our joy must be mingled with reverend trembling. Thirdly, it neither as an occasion, nor by participation Idolatry: kneeling ●●ver ●ead bread-worship: And our doctrine of the Sacrament 〈◊〉 to all the world, doth free us from suspicion of adoration in it.     
FINIS.