TWO DIALOGVES, OR CONFERENCES (ABOUT an old question lately renewed, and by the Schismatical company, both by printed Pamphlets, and otherwise to the disturbance of the Churches quiet, and of peaceable minds, very hotly pursued.)  
Concerning Kneeling in the very act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord.  
The former Between two Ministers of the word, the one refractory, and deprived; the other not so.  
The latter Between an humorous Schismatic and a settled professor.  1. COR. 1. 20. Where is the wise? where is the Scribe? where is the disputer of this world? 1. COR. 11. 16. If any man lust to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God. 
Printed by HENRY BALLARD. 1608.   

The points in the first Dialogue discussed.  
Whether in the ministering, and receiving the Communion, we are necessarily to imitate Christ. 
Objection 1.  Whether Kneeling at the receiving the holy Communion, hath an appearance of evil. 
object 2.  Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be a monument of Idolatry. 
object 3.  Whether Kneeling etc. be a just offence given to the weak. 
object 4.  Whether Kneeling etc. do strengthen the Papists in their bread-worship. 
object 5.  Whether Kneeling etc. be a mere institution of man. 
object 6.  Whether Kneeling etc. be a breach of the second Commandment. 
object 7.  Whether Kneeling etc. be urged above the commandment of God. 
object 8.  Whether no man that Kneeleth can have faith. 
object 9    

TO THE RIGHT Reverend Father in God, Thomas, by the divine providence, Bishop of London, his very honourable good Lord.  
Right reverend:  
IT is a most true and memorable saying of that ancient, eloquent & learned Father, Saluianus, B. of Massilia, that to fall into the error of a false opinion (though ignorantly) before a man doth know the truth, is a token of a mind rude and simple: but to persevere in error after one hath been told and admonished of the same, is an argument of a pertinacious & froward disposition. So S. Augustine: Aliquid aliter sapere, to relish a thing otherwise than it is, is an human tentation (and infirmity,) but for a man too much to be enamoured with his own conceit, or envying his betters to come unto the sacrilege even of renting asunder the communion (of the Church) and of erecting of schism, or heresy, it is diabolical presumption. And yet this frowardness or pertinacy, or devilish pride and presumption is so engraffed in the hearts of most men (as Erasmus hath observed, and experience doth prove unto us) as what once they have apprehended, they will ever hold; and what they have published, they will not revoke, be it never so offensive, and in their own conscience, erroneous, and untrue. Erasmus doth well note, how most natures be stiff in maintenance of their singular and selfe conceited fantasies. God be thanked, all men be not so. For of all professions, sects, and sorts of men (even from the beginning, since learning, and wisdom by writing or books hath been made known and obvious) there have never been wanting some, who have been inspired with such grace and good motions, as that they have very ingenuously acknowledged their 'scapes, and willingly submitted unto the truth, when it hath been revealed unto them, howsoever afore they were otherwise minded, and adversaries thereunto. So did Quintilian, yea and Tully too afore him change their judgements in points of Rhetoric; so did Hypocrates, that so renowned Physician in matters of Physic; so Cornelius Agrippa about his hidden Philosophy. Orpheus, that Polytheian sang a palinody, acknowledging one God at the length, who defended a multitude of Gods at the first: and S. Augustine too, when his grey hairs were grown, most conscionably, and to his eternal fame and honour, very wisely corrected, and retracted, what in his green years in considerately he had broached.  
Neither in the times long passed only, but in this latter age also of the world, wherein we live, have such good spirits appeared. Theodorus Gaza (for learning a rare man, & almost peerless) had his proper and peculiar errors, which when he saw, he was not ashamed to revoke them, and to alter his judgement upon the admonition of Trapezuntius. Yea, and Theodorus Beza (no mean man neither in his time) as he was not without his faults, so had he not the face to justify, or stand stiff in them, but very Christianly, and as one studious to keep a good conscience both before God and man, grew into an utter detestation of, and amended them, (
* Quiquid offendere potuit, damnavi, sustuli, iugulavi▪ saith Beza himself in his def▪ against Genebrard's accus. ) with points too of doctrine that gave offence, as our whitaker's doth say. Of whose mind had Heliodorus, Bishop sometime of Trice, been when it was, he had comfortably enjoyed still a fair and fat Bishopric, which fond he did forego, because he would not consent to the burning of certain amorous and profane inventions, penned by the said Heliodorus in his youth, but for their vileness, by an whole Synod, or Convocation of Bishops, and other clergy men condemned to the fire, as Nicephorus doth record. I spare to speak of Luther, Melancton, Calvin, and other learned men neither few, nor of mean account among all reformed Churches, and people, who preferring God's glory before popular praise, have satisfied good men, and made public amends for some things unadvisedly published.  
Neither have there been wanting some such among ourselves, God be thanked. Ah gentlemen (saith a late writer in this kingdom) that live to read my broken and confused lines, look not that I should (as I was wont) delight you with vain fantasies; but gather my follies together, and, as you would deal with so many parricides, cast them into the fire; call them Telegones, for now they kill their Father, and every line in them written is a deep piercing wound to mine heart: every idle hour spent by any in reading them; brings a million of sorrows to my soul. O that the tears of a miserable man (for never man was more miserable) might wash their memory out with my death! But sith they cannot, let this my last work witness against them with me, how I detest them. Black is the remembrance of my black works, blacker than night, blacker than death, blacker than hell. So he; and even in these very words: which would both Gentle, and all men well consider of and ponder, neither should the Press, and Stationer's shops be abused as they are, inventing such books (to the high dishonour of God, and discredit of our Church's discipline:) nor men and women, leaving better things, addict themselves so greedily to the perusal, if not study of vanities, which bring no good, but woeful repentance in the end. The man which this uttered was himself a good Scholar, but (even as his very words do import) a very vain and vicious man: yet even such persons with Publicans and Harlots sometimes do repent, and to the great joy of the holy Angels enter into the kingdom of heaven, as do Schismatics also now and then, but rarely yet, and as hardly as do rich men into the celestial paradise.  
Bolton (that first broached among us those opinions, which Browne afterward and his followers embraced as heavenly Oracles) he saw his error at the last, was ashamed of them and repent: but how? wanting grace to confess so much before God and his Church, like another judas he hung himself, and so desperately finished his days.  
Coppinger (that new prophet, and copartner in Hackets conspiracy for pretended reformation) he had a sight too of his errors and follies at the length, and an insight also into the truth, yea and after a sort repent; but being destitute of grace to retract his errors, and not able to abide the terrors of a troubled and guilty conscience, he famished himself to death, as the story of him doth report.  
On the other side, Arthington his example is memorable, he was vexed and pursued with the inward and most heavy judgements of God upon his soul, so long as he took Hacket (cursed Hacket) to be his sovereign King and Saviour: but he no sooner saw his errors, fell into a loathing of them, and made his recantation and revocation of them, but he found much peace and comfort in his soul, to his everlasting welfare (as himself confesseth in his book thereof unto the Lords of the late Queen's Counsel)  
Clapham (that out of England went first into the Low-countries; afterwards into Scotland; after that again into ihe Low-countries; then again into Scotland; and once more into the Low-countries, and all about the controversies between the Brownists and us) had a restless and perplexed mind, and could never be quiet till he fell into a detestation of Brownisme, and their founders the disciplinarians, whom before he highly accounted of, and had both returned home, and reconciled himself wholly unto the Church of England, from which he had estraied, as his Antidotum doth witness.  
Such another was Pet. Faire-lambe (as arrant a Brownist as ever lived, & one that for the propagating of that cursed sect, had travailed Sea and Land, tossed in body, troubled in mind) never quiet and at rest till God opened his eyes, as he did Saul's, that he might see, and given him power to embrace the truth; yea, and to testify the same by his public Recantation, extant and in Print, before God and the world.  
I am of mind (my good Lord) that there be among us not a few of the Sectaries of all sorts, which with Bolton and Coppinger do see their gross oversights and errors in the points controverted between them and us; but few there be which with Arthington, Clapham, and Faire-lambe have the face and grace to confess them to the world, deeming diabolical pertinacy to be godly constancy. Therefore that this their frowardness may appear, even as it is, both devilish and hellish, I have set down (best known to your wisdom) the examples premised of persons, whereof all & every of them have both openly retracted, yea and by permanent monuments commended unto the ages succeeding the revocation of their slips, and consent unto the truth, in which their doing they have purchased to themselves no discredit at all, but a very honest reputation among all good and wise men.  
But all men have not grace, yea of them which have it, few have the power openly, and under their own hands to reclaim and retract that which erroneously they once have held. And surely though it be necessary that all and every one which goeth astray from the truth, do repent, and leave his wicked opinions: yet that men should testify their conversion and coming home again, after one and the same fashion, it is not necessary and urgeable.  
And therefore do I commend mine Antagonist sometime, M. Seffray, who though he disliked, yea and depraved our Kneeling at the holy Communion, as much as any man could do (witness his objections following) choosing rather both to abide the censure of authority, yea and to be without the comforts, which they participate that with one heart and mind, brotherly and orderly come unto the table of the Lord, than so much as to bend his knees at the receiving that most blessed and heavenly Sacrament: yet notwithstanding after friendly and brotherly conference had with him thereabout, altered his mind, allowing that which before he condemned. He hath not the power (weak man) either to thank him, who after God hath opened his eyes, or publicly to disclaim his errors: but he hath the grace for to abhor them as monsters: and so much hath testified by his late orderly, and submissive kneeling in the very act of receiving the sacred bread and wine at the Communion the last Easter, in the place of his now most usual abiding. A worthy recantation not verbal to be heard, but real to be seen, or heard of: which I praise God for, and pray that he may do the like in other things ceremonial; which had he performed, he had still enjoyed a sweet and competent living (to the singular refreshing of many a Christian soul, having a very good gift in preaching: and to the temporal benefiting of himself and his) which he hath foregone, (as the forementioned Heliodorus did his Bishopric) choosing rather to leave it, then to condemn his vanities.  
Whose example (not in obstinate maintaining that which is erroneous and ill, but in yielding unto the truth discovered) if the other man (whose printed Pamphlet, or Proposition (accompanied, as himself thinketh, with arguments impregnable; as will appear with untruths, blasphemies, and impieties intolerable) about the foresaid Kneeling at the Communion, I have here answered, and confuted) will follow, I shall think my pains very well employed; if not, yet shall the world see and perceive the difference between a man simply and ignorantly erring, and a perverted and froward Schismatic; they being willing to hear and learn; the other stopping his ears, and hardening his heart against the truth: the one flexible, the other incorrgible: the one of ill becoming good; the other of bad proving worse, of a Schismatic at the first, an Heretic at the last. For no better shall I esteem him if he hold on; and the end of Schism is Heresy, if not Atheism. His cause is the very same, and none other than M. Seffrais was; his reasons the same too in effect, though more for number, yet not stronger in force. If therefore the said Seffray doth find in his judgement the truth to be with me (which is stronger than both, and what either they have broached, or any man can object against the same,) and thereupon hath yielded, and resigned himself thereunto, there is no cause the other man, whosoever he be, should frowardly and fond standout. Reason's ought, but if they will not, let this example move him to conform.  
The former of these Conferences hath been performed (as the truth is) both by mouth and pen: by mouth, authority nominating me thereunto, and M. Seffray calling for the same at my hands; and was had at mine own dwelling house in Suffolk the last Harvest: by pen, at the desire of the said Seffray immediately after our speeches, and that not only for himself (and peradventure for others too of the Brotherhood) better to consider of, but also for the satisfaction of him beside, who both motioned the same at the first, and desired it might be written for a further good.  
And being committed to writing had so continued private in few men's hands (for any thing that was in my thought (God he knoweth) touching the publication of the same) had not some persons (near and dear unto your Lordship: and for their virtues, learning, and judgement, of more than ordinary account in our Church and State) upon reasons both special and urgent, very earnestly moved me to make the same more common.  
The other was occasioned by a certain printed Libel, of not above two sheets of paper (of which bulk, or thereabouts, myself have seen divers treatises published by the Sectaries, An. 1605. and so made purposely, they knowing, and foreseeing, that books of that size, and of small price, are both more readily bought up on all hands, especially of the common people, whose favour they hunt and hawk after; & more greedily read, & more easily understood, then large, tedious, and dear discourses) published I wot not by whom, 
* Neither must any inquire after him, or guess who he was▪ Pref. to the propos.  and printed I know not where, but doubtless beyond the Sea (for the Printer wanted an English Corrector:) but wheresoever, and by whomsoever printed and published (which for my part I shall not be curious to inquire after, as the publisher would not have any man to be,) I have thought it my bounden duty to answer and confute the same, both because it is of the same very subject which the former is, namely, against kneeling at the communion, as against flat Idolatry; as also for that the same is purposely divulged, both to harden such persons among us (whereof the number is but too great) in their folly, as embrace and hold that error, and to allure so many of our Church as possibly may be, to be of that opinion.  
And therefore both for the further and fuller manifestation of the truth by answering what the adversaries hitherto have devised, and dispersed as well in papers privately, as publicly in print, against the said Kneeling, for the upholding of Schism, and faction in that point; and likewise for the preservation of many in the peace and unity of our Church, and delivery of others (so far as in me lieth) from this foul, and loathsome opinion; I have thought it expedient, yea very necessary, the times considered, to undertake this labour.  
Whereby whatsoever the author of the said Libel hath objected, is both answered and confuted; and what he hath written, verbally, and syllabicallie, (the order of a dialogue only considered, and observed) yea and without omitting so much as a letter, set down. This I speak of the book itself. For as touching the Preface, it being partly slanderous and reproachful, partly enticing all sorts of people unto an open rupture, schism, and forsaking of our Communions, because of the said Kneeling, I have not meddled therewithal, being for my part of all other men both most unwilling to spend good and precious hours about such matter, as cannot be stirred without offending the ears and stomachs of good men; and most heartily sorry that any men, pretending sincerity (as all Schismatics do) should either employ their pens, or think that even their cause can be blessed of the highest, which hath no better means than lies, slanders, diffamations, and abandoning the Union and Communion of God's people, to uphold and support itself withal.  
Now these my labours I very humbly desire your Lordship to accept at the hands of an old Oxford, and Christ-church man (to whom it is no small joy and comfort, that he liveth to see that University equal at least with any other place of Learning in the word, famously, and admirably to flourish; and of that University to observe men of Christ-church, for their rare and singular endowments, to be of such note and regard with the King, and State, as that the government of four chief and eminent places, and Dioceses in this land, is at this present, committed to their trust and inspection, as most worthy Patrons and pillars for the supporting both of the uncorrupt doctrine, and holy discipline in this Church established.) And though I doubt not, but I am known unto all your Honours in some sort, being sometime a poor member with you all, at one and the same time, of one and the same College, or Cathedral Church: yet do I acknowledge this, and what else I am able to perform due unto your Lordship more than unto any other man, partly for that which it hath pleased you of late to write both unto me, and touching me in your letters unto that all worthy, M. D. Tinley, archdeacon of Elie (my right worshipful good friend) which I have both seen, and read, and with a thankful mind recognize; partly for that which it hath pleased your Lordship to say & utter unto myself, since my coming unto London; and especially because you have vouchsafed to testify your well liking of what I have done, both by a more than ordinary approbation, and desire that it might come abroad, and also by commending of the same unto the press, for the furtherance of the work, and better publishing it unto the world. Acknowledging therefore these your manifold undeserved favours with a very thankful heart, and promising my best to deserve them, I erst and again very humbly desire your good Lordship to accept these treatises with the former, and same affections at my poor hands, in respect of my own handling, simple and slender be they I confess, but for their subject, and these times of Schism (wherein many writers, and spreaders of new and false doctrines may be seen, but few confuters of them; many disturbers of our Church, and underminers of the peace, and prosperity thereof by factious and Schismatical discourses, but few counterminers, or that stand in the breach, to keep these adversaries out of the City of God, and from the sheepfold of Christ) very necessary, and worthy your Lordship's patronage and protection: and so very humbly taketh his leave, the fourth of May, Anno. 1608.  
Your Lordships always to command, THOMAS ROGERS.   

THE FIRST DIALOGUE or conference for the finding out of the truth, touching kneeling in the act of receiving the Supper of the Lord.  

THE SPEAKERS.  
Seffray.  
Rogers.   
S. 
WE ought herein to imitate Christ.  R. 
That is not simply and absolutely true. For in the administration of the Lords Supper we are to imitate Christ, but only in things necessary, not accessory; and substantial, not circumstantial, and accidental.  
Christ is to be followed of us, not as he was God, but as he was man; and as man in his Moral ever, not always in his Ministerial actions.  
Our Saviour willeth us in the celebration of this Sacrament, and the delivery of bread, and wine, to renew the memory of his death and passion till he return again 
a Luke 22. 19 , but not to use his, or the Apostles gestures at the delivery of the elements. Hence the Apostle Paul did alter some things which our Saviour did, in the administration of the Lords Supper, promising also at his return to set other things in order 
b 1. Cor. 11. 34. , which Saint Augustine understandeth of the same form, and manner of ministering the same, which is now observed in our Churches reform 
c D. August. Epist. 118. .  
Lastly, if herein we be necessarily tied to the example of Christ, then are we to minister this Sacrament, not (as we do now) in the public Church, but in a private house, not in the morning, but in the night: not after dinner, but after supper: not unto women, but only unto men, and those Ministers too of the word. For all this did Christ, and we do not, and yet herein do nothing against the will of God.  S. 
Christ performed this action sitting. Mat. 26. 20. Mar. 14. 18. Luke 22. 14. john. 13. 12.  R. 
Mean you that the people should stand, and the Minister sit, because Christ performed this action sitting? Or would you have both Minister and people to sit, when the Sacrament is to be administered, because Christ performed this action sitting? What your meaning may be, when you say, Christ performed this action sitting, is very doubtful and uncertain.  
If you would have the people to stand, and the Minister to sit, because Christ performed this action sitting, you ask more than I ever yet heard demanded. If you would have the people to sit, and the Minister to stand, you serve from the imitation of Christ, who performed this action sitting. If you would that both Minister and people should sit, because Christ performed this action sitting, though you have some few Churches concurring with you in your desires: yet are you nothing near the example of Christ, which you would bind us unto. For Christ did not perform this action (after our manner) sitting. If you will imitate Christ in this action, then must you lie down on little pillows at the table, as he and his Disciples did 
d See Calvin, Beza, Vileriva, yea and the Geneva Bible annote▪ on joh. 13. 23. , and not sit, as you would have the Church.  S. 
That is no good consequent, no more than this, that we must in the supper use thin broad unleavened cakes, or loaves, because Christ did so.  R. 
If Christ did so, and yet we may use in place thereof usual and not unleavened bread at the Communion: then by this your own reason, you may further see the insoundnesse of your first position, which was, that in the administration of the Lords Supper, we ought to imitate Christ.  S. 
It sufficeth that we sit, according to the usual manner of our Country, as he did after the manner of his.  R. 
The manner of our Country is to receive our corporal food sitting; the order of our Church, that we receive the spiritual food of our souls at the Communion kneeling. It is as undecent a thing in mine eye, in the public Church, to receive the food of our souls at the Lords table, sitting; as it is in our own hall and houses to take our corporal meat, kneeling.  
It was in our Saviour his choice, to administer it lying, sitting, kneeling, and how he thought good: but it is not in our election (that be either Ministers or people) how we will minister, or take the same. For it ought by our Laws, and orders to be received kneeling; neither doth it suffice (in respect of Church policy) that we sit.  
The usual manner of our Country is, not only to sit, but to be covered also, when we are at our meat: ought we therefore to have our heads covered, when we are at the Lords Table? you may as well say this, as affirm the other.  
Wherefore I deny not your consequent (as perhaps you deem I will) but say (as erst I did) that we are no more bound to our Saviour his Sitting (if he did sit, as he did not) than we are tied to celebrate the Lords Supper in the Evening in a private house, to Men, and those Ecclesiastical Ministers, and neither to women, nor to the laity.  S. 
There is a reason of the change of those circumstances, as those which were incident properly to the first institution, which was immediately to succeed the last Passeover, which Passeover was to be eaten in the Evening, in a private family, being sufficient for a Lamb, Exod. 12. 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8. Now it tendeth to edification to celebrate the Supper in the day, and openly in the Congregation, consisting of believers, both men and women; and therefore the Church hath done well in changing these circumstances, according to the precept of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 14. 26.  R. 
You cross not me at all, but display still the unsoundness of your first assertion. The Church after Christ both well might, & lawfully did, both add & alter many things in the form, and manner of administration of the Lords Supper, which our Saviour either purposely omitted, or left to her determination.  S. 
But there can no reason be rendered of changing Sitting into Kneeling.  R. 
Changing of sitting? You cannot say, and prove, that Christ sat as we do, at his last supper, but otherwise you have said.  
But did he sit, why may not the same his sitting, by his Church be changed into kneeling, as well as other circumstances by you repeated? And what pre-eminence hath Sitting above Kneeling, that it may, and must be used at the Communion, and not that? what reason have you to the contrary?  S. 
Sitting is the most usual gesture in eating & drinking.  R. 
Think you we are to carry ourselves none otherwise in the Church of God then in our own houses; at the Lord's Table, then at our usual, and daily refeshing? when our refections be divers, be our actions to be the same?  S. 
Sitting is fittest for the ease of the body, best for signification of communion and fellowship both with Christ the head, and with Christians, the fellow members, and safest to prevent artolatry or Bread-worship, which Christ in his wisdom foresaw, and (it is likely) by the gesture of Sitting did meet withal, and prevent.  R. 
O (M. S). let it suffice us poor inferior persons, and Ministers that we know (o yet that we knew so much!) what is fit, and fittest; good, and best for ourselves, and ours: as for what is fittest, best, and safest to be done in the public assemblies of God's people, leave we that unto our betters to determine, unto whom it doth belong.  
Would we not so quickly resolve and conclude what is better and best; fitter, and fittest in these matters, it would go better with us, and the whole Church too, then alas it doth.  
Yet to tell you what I think, though Sitting as we use to sit at our common feastings, is both comely, and commendable: yet so to Sat at the Communion, carrieth not that show of humble reverence unto the al-holy God, as Kneeling doth. But to Lie, or Lean, or (if you will) to Sat at the Lords Table, as our Saviour, and his Disciples did, were very unseemly, and undecent among us.  S. 
This chargeth Christ and his Apostles with want of reverence, which is absurd.  R. 
Not a whit. For Christ, and his Apostles did that which the custom both of those times, and of their country made common, and usual (your self hath confessed.) And therefore both he and they did that which was both civil and comely.  
Again, our Saviour might do that surpassingly well, which we cannot. Any action beseemed his person, because without sin. He graced all his gestures, no gesture graced him. But we (alas!) we are sinful wretches, repairing unto the Lord's board, partly like supplicants, humbly suing for the remission of our sins; & partly to show our thankfulness for the comforts and benefits we have received, and hope to be partakers of through Christ. And therefore have just cause even most humbly to kneel, as we do.   

THE SECOND OBJECTION.  S. 
KNeeling in the receiving the Lords Supper, hath an appearance of evil.  R. 
From the commendation of Sitting, how quickly are you come to the open condemnation of Kneeling at the L. table? And a wonder it is, if he that once falleth into a debasing of holy & established orders in a church, come not to an utter detestation of them in the end. Take heed in time.  
If I should reason thus:  
Sitting in the receiving the Lords Supper hath an appearance of evil; therefore to be avoided: would you allow this argument for good? No more do I approve your kind of reasoning. And yet sooner will I justify mine, than you shall prove your Antecedent.  
M. Beza saith, that Kneeling in receiving the signs hath a show (not of evil, as you say, but) of godly and Christian veneration 
a Epist▪ 12. . And this saying is true.  
Did but an earthly King or Prince offer us pardon for our transgressing his temporal statutes, would it become us, or carried it a show of reverence to his Majesty, to receive it Sitting? And when grace and pardon for all our sins in the Sacrament of Christ his Supper, is offered unto us by the seals of bread and wine, carrieth it a show of evil to receive it kneeling? It is called the Sacrament of thanksgiving, even for most heavenly benefits unto Almighty God; and with what better action of the body can we testify our thankfulness, then on bended knees?  
We offer up ourselves, even our souls and bodies, an holy and lively sacrifice unto our God; and is there any gesture that better becometh such Priests then Kneeling?  
Is this mystery of so great weight, as the open contempt thereof brings damnation 
b 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. & ●. ; and shall the receiving thereof with the greatest show of reverence be counted, if not an apparent evil, yet an appearance of evil?  
May the knee be bend at the name of jesus 
c Phil. 2. 10. ; and may we not kneel at the receiving the holy Sacrament of his body and blood, but we either do ill, or seem so to do? Must we humble our hearts, which is the greater, & not bend our knees which is the less? Must we humble our hearts, and not express our inward humiliation by outward Kneeling?  S. 
We may not.  R. 
Why so?  S. 
For it carrieth an appearance of Bread-worship. Therefore to be avoided. 1. Thes. 5. 12.  R. 
You must judge of our Kneeling by our doctrine, as we judge of the Papists kneeling by their doctrine: we would not, neither could we justly condemn the Papists for their kneeling, were not their doctrine most heretical and blasphemous. Neither ought you to condemn our kneeling at the Communion, except you can show the doctrine of the church of England, is for the adoration of bread and wine.  
Suscipitur ab artolatris Eucharistiae Sacramentum flexis poplitibus: The Bread-worshippers receive the Sacrament Eucharistical on bended knees, and here in England the faithful take it with the same gesture of body, whereat some are offended, Sed meo judicio nullâ de causa, but in my judgement without cause (saith a learned man a stranger.) For both of them adore, they (that is, the Papists) the bread: these (viz. the faithful in England, not bread, but) Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father in the heavens 
d D. Seravia de diversi. minist. grad. p. 582 .  
I am sure there is not a syllable in the Communion book that importeth any show of this evil you speak of; and our doctrine is, (as all the world doth know) how to reserve, carry about, lift up, or worship the Sacrament of the Lords Sup. Supper, is contrary to the ordinance of Christ 
e Art. of Religion. Art. 28. .  S. 
Doctrine and practice must go together, otherwise we pull down with one hand, that we build with the other. As he that teacheth that an Idol is nothing in the world, and yet sitteth at Table in an Idols Temple, destroyeth with his act, that he built with his speech. 1. Cor. 8. 4. 10.  R. 
That the practice of our church concurreth not with her doctrine is a reproach laid very unjustly upon a most religious nation; & should much vex your heart that ever you had such a thought of a Church most famous & renowned throughout the world, for the purity of doctrine, which she doth profess, and accordingly practise. And therefore either make your words good, or confess your great overslip.   

THE THIRD OBIEGTION.  S. 
IT is a monument of Idolatry devised by man, of no necessary use in the service of God. Therefore to be removed. Deut. 7. 25, 26. & 12. 3. 2. King. 18. 4. Isa. 30. 32. 2. Cor. 6. 17. Jude 23.  R. 
Be entreated, I pray you, to mark whither your affections, not guided by discretion, have carried you. At the first you said not, that Kneeling at the Communion, was an evil action, but not the best; nor after that, how it was in itself evil, but An appearance of evil: But now forsooth, it is a monument of Idolatry, which is evil indeed. Thus one evil thought bringeth another. Take heed of them in time, else bring you to worse.  
Besides, this assertion is as void of reason among men, as it is of truth in religion. For as to Kneel at the holy Communion is no Idolatry, nor so much as appearance thereof in sound Divinity: so is Kneeling not in the predicament of substance, but of Site. And therefore no Monument by the rule of reason.  
But be it a Momument, is our kneeling a Monument of Idolatry? Kneeling at the Mass is gross, and palpable Idolatry. Is therefore kneeling also at the Communion a Monument of Idolatry?  
Last of all, let Kneeling be of never so impious and detestable use among Papists: yet is the same gesture of good & necessary use in our church. For hereby (as by the seemliest behaviour for so religious a service,) we testify the earnest, and most zealous devotion of our souls, when we do either pray, or praise God, as we do both at the receiving the sacrament.  
So that, were it a Monument of Idolatry (as it is nothing less) devised by man: yet because it is of so good and necessary use in our service of God, even in your own judgement, and conscience, and that from these your words, it is not to be removed.  
And so the consequent in this your Enthymeme, viz. Kneeling is to be removed from the supper of the Lord, is of no validity; both because it followeth not from the premises, and is forced and inferred against your conscience.   

THE FOURTH OBJECTION.  S. 
IT is an offence to the weak. Ergo. etc. Mat. 18. 6. & seq. Rom. 14. 20 21. 1. Cor. 8. 12, 13, & 10. 28, 29, 30.  R. 
It is an offence to the weak. Ergo, etc. What?  
Till I know your consequent, this shall be my answer unto the Antecedent; how our Saviour speaketh (Mat. 18, & seq.) of such defaults, as whereby other men, either by erroneous doctrine, or vicious conversation, be offended, or hindered from their proceedings, either in godliness, or good manners: now Saint Paul in all the places by you quoted, speaketh of not offending in matters and things in their own nature indifferent, neither prohibited by God in his word, nor by any lawful ordinance of man.  
He that openly any thing either doth or saith, forbidden of God, both sinneth against God, & giveth offence to man: and may expect, without repentance, a fearful and double punishment, both for his fact, which is ill, & for the example he thereby giveth, which is worse.  
Again, he that in things indifferent, and at man's liberty to do, or leave undone, hath not a tender care of weak Christians in his doing, showeth that there is not that charity in him, nor regard of his brethren which God requireth. But though God doth not; yet if his deputies, the Gods terrestrial, do enjoin any thing to be done, not opposite to God's word, and tending unto concord among men, order and comeliness, and we will not obey, nor fulfil their directions, for offending some persons, pretending themselves to be weak, then are we so far from doing well, as we do sin both against God, & man, in not fulfilling their commandments.  
If therefore charity, by the texts of Saint Paul, bindeth us in things vncommanded, or not forbidden, to respect the weak; much more piety and duty towards our governors should incite us to do the things enjoined by just laws. Disobedience to the lawful ordinances of godly governors, is not only scandalous for the present, but may prove very dangerous in the consequent. Wherefore a wise man should not regard these lesser scandals of little & weak ones, in comparison of the inconveniences, & great offences that arise & may follow through the manifest contempt of laws established.  
And in cases (such as this Kneeling is) wherein we cannot choose but offend, either by doing, or not doing that which is commanded, better is it to offend the less than the greater; a few private persons, than a whole State: and better barely to offend, then to offend and sin too, by fact and example, as by wilful, and open disobedience we do.  
In this point touching Kneeling, I know no weak ones that justly may be offended; and if there be, they are not much to be regarded, considering the long, and constant preaching of the truth in this land, touching these, and the like points in controversy.  
It is a notable saying of Zanchius, and approved by all learned and judicious Divines, that for a time some thing is to be yielded unto these weak ones (which you speak of) even till the truth may be taught them. But after that the truth (about these matters in question, and the like) hath been set forth, and laid open, so as nothing can justly be objected against the same, and yet purposely they will abide doubtful (and unresolved,) then is not their infirmity any longer, either by simulation or dissimulation to be nourished. Est enim pertinacia potius quam infirmitas: For it is rather to be counted frowardness then weakness. So Zanchius 
a Zanch. de leg●. fol 493. .  S. 
As there have been, so there is, and will be always weak ones in the Church of God, both because it is God's blessing (which he bestoweth when, and where he listeth) that maketh strong; and for that there be always some new borne babes succeeding one another.  R. 
Weak or strong; simple, or wise; young or old, whosoever, all must yield obedience to the orders of that church, whereof they are members, in all such matters as be indifferent, and not repugnant to the word of God.  S. 
Kneeling in the act of receiving, is not yet proved to be a thing indifferent.  R. 
I think yourself will not say, that Kneeling in it own nature, is either good, or evil; then must it needs be indifferent, even as Sitting is.  
Ista per se non sunt Idolatrica, (speaking among other things of this Kneeling now in question;) These are not things of themselves idolatrous, saith Beza 
b Epist. 12. . Therefore indifferent.  S. 
In things indifferent, those in authority must limit their precepts by the word of God, which willeth that the weak be not offended by any brother whatsoever.  R. 
Authority in making laws, must respect always the common and public good: not what will please this or that man  
If the Church should stay from making of Constitutions, till she can be assured that all her children will be pleased with her doings, hardly, if ever, shall she make any laws, and so would brawls and disorders without end or number increase & abound. And having once made them, to abrogate, or not to execute them for fear of displeasing the weak, what were it but either childish levity, or ridiculous lenity?   

THE fifth OBJECTION.  S 
IT strengthens the superstitious and idolatrous Papists in their Bread-worship. Ergo. 1. Cor. 10. 32.  R. 
The Papists they term the Table of the Lord, profane, and detestable, and deem of our Communion, as of Idolatrous and sacrilegious superstition 
a Test. Rhem: an. 1. Cor. 10. v. 31. ; they think it better to eat Ratsbane, then to participate of our bread, and to drink Dragon's gall, and Viper's blood, than our wine; this they termesacrilegious, that poisoned 
b Epist. to the Cath. Protest: at Antwerp. An. 1596. printed by jouch Trogny. . When they take offence at the very substance, are they strengthened at the accidents? When they abhor the matter, take they comfort at our form and manner of receiving the same? And be they strengthened thereby in their Bread-worship?  
Assure yourself it is all one to the Papists, whether we kneel, or sit, or walk, or amble, the whole action or ministration thereof, whatsoever it be, is to them a like vile and abominable.  
You cannot prove our Kneeling in the receiving the Supper of the Lord, to be a strengthening of the Papists in their Bread-worship: but our not Kneeling doth strengthen the licentious and lawless Brownists in their irreligious contemning of our Communions.  S. 
That Kneeling doth strengthen the Papists in their Bread-worship, may be proved both by reason and experience.  R. 
By reason? how?  S. 
For that superstition and idolatry being planted in our nature, as a most fertile soil, will not be destroyed if there be left behind so much as a string thereof.  R. 
You cannot think of, sure I am, you cannot name a Church wherein there be not, if not some branches, yet some sprigs, or at least strings of superstition and idolatry; will those strings in time prove springs of idolatry, and superstition, if utterly and altogether they be not rooted out? These are the thoughts of the brainsick Brownists; God forbid they should continue in your mind. For what have we almost in, and about our public service, which hath not served to some idolatrous and superstitious purpose or other in former days? must all such things therefore utterly be abolished & taken away? Is it necessary they should? is it possible they can be removed?  
But what makes all this for the proof, that either our Kneeling is superstitious, or the Papists to be strengthened thereby in their Bread-worship, and Idolatry? when by reason you cannot, prove it if you can by experience.  S. 
Since this Kneeling and other things devised or abused by the Papists have been so strictly urged, they have grown exceedingly in number, & in boldness, affirming that we are now come to sup of their broth, and ere it be long we will eat of their meat.  R. 
Lamentable experience doth tell us, how the Papists have but too exceedingly increased (the more is the pity:) but to ascribe the cause thereof so peremptorily unto the strict urging of conformity, and obedience unto our Church's orders, is more than he should do which is not of the counsel of God.  
I should rather, and peradventure do, think, that the obstinate refusing to Kneel, and keep the customs and manners of our Church, doth not only hold back many papists from joining with us, but also cause the number of Recusants to increase. For is it likely that they, being naturally but too strict & precise observers of outward ceremonies themselves, will ever brook that Church and people, where wilful and refractory men, either be not punished at all, or but lightly and loosely censured?  
Wherefore, though we cannot let them to increase, (which is the just punishment of God for our abusing the inestimable treasure of his word:) yet would, yet should they less abound, did either private persons yield more obedience to the lawful Injunctions of authority; or, (others being froward and incortigible) public officers more strictly urge them thereunto.  
And would you (which I wish you would) by yourself note & consider how these Papists do laugh in their sleeves to hear of the hot and eager contention that is among us about this kneeling, and such other matters, it would make you to weep, and doth cause me to sigh when I think thereof, as not seldom I do.  
Away therefore (brother S.) with this conceit, that the strict urging of conformity encourageth the Papists: this preconceit hath done much hurt, and not only keepeth back many from concurring with their brethren in due obedience, but also encourageth & increaseth the dangerous faction of our home Brownists. But this you will never put away, so long as you are of mind (which I pray God to alter) that this Kneeling of ours was either devised at the first, or abused afterwards by the Papists; and that nothing abused, though not devised by them, may either be well used of inferiors, or strictly urged by the superior power, when they are established.  
No Papists, I think, will affirm which you say, that in Kneeling at the holy Communion, we sup of their broth. Our Kneeling hath as much resemblance of their adoring, as our Communion affinity with their Mass. We sup not of their broth at our Communion, no more than they drink of the Lords cup at their Mass. There is as little hope (God be thanked) that we shall eat of their meat, as that they will feed of our Banquets.   

THE sixth OBJECTION.  S. 
IT is a worship of God devised by man. Ergo. Mat. 15. 9 Col. 2. 22. 23.  R. 
So is Sitting, so is Standing at the Communion a worshipping of God. Howbeit none can truly say of Kneeling at the Lords table, that it is a mere device of man, as Sitting among us, is. For it is so an human, as withal it is a divine institution.  
This gesture is of God (because it belongeth unto religious prayer unto God, and thanksgiving) though appointed by man, and from men; yet not from the idle sconce of man, but from men illuminated by the holy Ghost, & from men of God.  S. 
If you deny it to be a worship of God, I could prove it.  R. 
I do not deny it to be a worshipping, or that in kneeling we do worship God: yet how prove you so much?  S. 
Thus. It is a bowing of the knee for a religious use, namely, to show our inward reverence towards Christ, whose body and blood are represented by bread and wine. Ergo.  R. 
Ergo? What? Ergo no adoration is it, or show of adoration of bread and wine, (which afore you affirmed) say I  S. 
That is not my meaning: but, Ergo unlawful, and not to be done, say I.  R. 
Unlawful? Prove that.  S. 
The places of Scripture to that purpose are many.  R. 
Cite some of them.  S. 
Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. Exod. 20. 5.  R. 
By this kind of gesture all kind of service and worship unto idols is forbidden, 
a Geneva annot. Exod. 20. 5.  which being so, unless you can prove, (which you shall never do) the bread and wine at our Communions to be idol; and also that in kneeling we do service and worship unto bread and wine, you shall never make our kneeling at the receiving of those creatures, to be unlawful. What is the next place of Scripture to this purpose?  S. 
It is out of the 95. Psalm, where the Psalmist doth say: Come, let us worship, and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our maker. Psal. 95. 6.  R. 
This maketh for our kneeling, but proveth not the same unlawful. The Papists do say: that  
As often as any man seeth that body (viz. of their Lord and maker) at the Mass, or borne about to the sick, he shall kneel down devoutly, and say his Paternoster, or some other good prayer in worship of his sovereign Lord 
b Quatuor ser. fol. 169. b .  
Kneeled we down when we take the bread and wine with Popish thoughts, and devotion, imagining our Lord and Maker under the forms of bread and wine, really and locally to be there present: we than did against the express words of the Psalmist, who doth exhort us to worship, and fall down before the Lord our maker, and not before the works of our own hands: but coming thereunto with religious and Christian meditations, we worship, fall down, and kneel before the Lord our maker, even when kneeling we receive the Sacrament.  S. 
Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, even all the knees that have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him, saith the Lord. 1. Kings 19 18.  R. 
Why mention you this place? To prove us who at the Communion do kneel to be like the Baalites? Or why mention you this place? To prove yourselves that refuse to kneel, to be the seven thousand pure ones in England free from all contagion of idolatry and superstition?  
If to the former end, then judge you most badly of the whole State, as of Idolaters, Baalites, or Hypocrites; and very uncharitably of your brethren as of men-pleasers, Temporizers, and I know not what. For which I doubt not but your own conscience doth chide you, or will one time or other.  
If to the latter end, know you, etc. you shall never prove, either us that kneel to be time-servers, Men-pleasers, and idolaters; or those that will not stoop, or bow their knees, no not at the Lords table and Communion, to be the purest and best worshippers of God.  
Have you any more to say?  S. 
Yes, Mark what Naaman said unto the Prophet: Herein the Lord be merciful unto me (saith he) that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I do bow down (I say) in the house of Rimmon, the Lord be merciful unto thy servant in this point. 2. Kin. 5. 8.  R. 
What likeness between the house of Rimmon and our Churches; between the idol Rimmon, and the holy Communion; between Naamans' bowing unto, or before an idol, and our bending the knee at the Lords table? because the one was cursed and unlawful, must needs the other be so?  S. 
When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet, and worshipped him, accepted Peter of that adoration, or rather did he not reprove Cornelius for so doing? Acts 10. 25. 26.  R. 
Cornelius showed too much reverence, and far passing decent order, as though Peter had been a God. 
c Geneva annot. 10. 25.  When we give such adoration unto the bread and wine, blame us for committing idolatry, as Peter did Cornelius: you should prove that in worshipping God when we kneel at the Lords table, we do that which is unlawful; and to that end you beat your brains and try your wits, but to no purpose.  
And though you see it a very difficult thing, yea unpossible for you to effect; and know beside that our Church hath protested and published, that the Sacrament of the lords supper is not by Christ's institution to be worshipped; 
d Art of Reli. 28.  and neither directly nor indirectly imboldeneth any Communicant in Idolatry, or breadworshippe, but in adoring the Maker and Redeemer of us all: yet no remedy, in kneeling we are either Idolaters, Baalites, or Temporising Naamites in your judgement. O hard and heavy censure! Repent, repent, and change your uncharitable conceits.   

THE SEVENTH OBJECTION.  S. 
IT is a breach of the second commandment.  R. 
Whither now!  
No marvel that you liken us to Idolaters, Baalites, & Hypocrites, when you dare affirm our kneeling to be a breach of the second commandment. M. Calvin having perused our Liturgy, used in K. Edward's days; saith, that he therein spied multas tolerabiles ineptias, many tolerable imperfections: 
a Calvin. epist. ad Anglos Francofurt. fol. 158.  but none intolerable impiety at all.  
M. Cartwright (that pried into that book for all advantages to bring it into dislike) doth ingenuously confess how the gross errors and manifest impieties are taken away 
b T. C. 1. rep. 102. .  
And M. Gifford (writing against Barrow and Greenwood) saith directly, 
c Reply to Bar. and Gr. p. 19  I stand to justify by the word of God, that indeed there is neither idolatry, heresy, nor blasphemy in the same book. All these learned men (against whom I know you will not accept, though I could wish they had thought better of our Church) do show that what you here say, is slanderous and untrue.  
But why is it a breach of the second commandment?  S. 
In that kneeling is a worshipping of God, at or before a creature; namely, bread and wine.  R. 
May we not worship God at or before a creature? Then may we not in our private houses with our family; nor in God's house, with our even Christians, worship God any way, but it is a breach of the second commandment. For who can any where, or at any time worship God, but it is either at, or before some creature?  
Had you said it had been a breach of the second commandment to worship God at, or before an idol, I had gone with you. (For it is a worshipping of the true God after a wicked and false manner:) but saying it is a breach of the second commandment to worship God at, or before a creature (without exception of any) who can join with you that hath his right wits?  S. 
It is a breach of the second commandment, not only to worship an idol, but also God at, or before any thing not appointed by himself for such an use.  R. 
Then is it no breach of the second commandment to worship God at the participation of bread and wine at the holy Communion. For he hath appointed them for such an use: for who can receive them, or how can they be received otherwise?  
If what you say here be true, (as it is most false) you also that do sit when ye do participate of that heavenly repast, as well as we that kneel, are violaters of the second commandment. For ye, even in sitting worship God as well as we in receiving of the Sacrament, and that before bread and wine too, which are appointed of God for such an use. And he eateth and drinketh unworthily (whether he kneel or sit) who at the Lords table, and when he receiveth bread and wine adoreth not God.  
joshua fell down prostrate before the Ark of God; 
d josh. 7. 8.  the Shunamite at the Prophet Elisha his feet; 
e 2. King. 4. 37.  the Priests and people of Israel bowed themselves, and fell down on their faces to the earth upon the pavement, and worshipped and praised the Lord: 
f 2. Chron. 7. ver. 2, 3.  and yet was neither joshua nor the Shunamite, nor those holy Priests and people hitherto charged in these their actions to have broken the second commandment of the Decalogue.  
Cast your eyes, I pray you, upon the Communion book; & mark not only what every one at the receiving of the sacrament doth, but what the Minister also, at the delivery of the bread & wine saith; and you shall find (which you know well enough) that it well beseemeth all Communicants to kneel at the hearing and consideration of such holy and heavenly words. 
g The body of our L. jesus Christ, etc. preserve thy body and soul, etc.   S. 
That prayer is not according to Christ's institution.  R. 
Prove that, & our controversy shallbe quickly at an end.  S. 
Christ prayed only in the consecration of bread and wine, and not in the delivery of them.  R. 
Though he did well in praying at the consecration: yet do we not ill in praying at the delivery of the Elements. Neither can you show a commandment from God, either forbidding that we do, or enjoining the imitation of his example.  
It hath afore been proved by me, and acknowledged by you, that we are not necessarily, and precisely bound to follow the doings of Christ in all things, when we administer the Sacraments.  S. 
The prayer is ended before the receiving of bread and wine, and that some distance of time in great congregations, where the Minister maketh the prayer but once but to some 40. or 50. Communicants, who usually sit all the time of prayer, and after that fall down on their knees, when the bread and wine are offered unto them.  R. 
Impute not the disorders of some Ministers to the whole Church of England. And if some Communicants do sit all the time of prayer, and after fall down on their knees, when the bread and wine is offered them, such Communicants would be taught, & told, that as in this their Kneeling, they do that, which both the laws of our Church doth require, and also pleaseth God: so their not Kneeling all the time of prayer, is a most evident argument, how they neither approach unto the Supper of the Lord with such preparation as is requisite; nor being come, do be have themselves as they should.  
For sure I am, and you cannot deny (if advisedly you mark the order of our Communion book) that albeit the Minister is directed sometimes to Kneel, sometimes to Stand, and never to Sat: yet the people are by the said book to Sat never, but always to Kneel from the first to the last.   

THE EIGHT OBJECTION.  S. 
IT is urged, being an human invention, above the commandment of God.  R. 
Our Kneeling in the receiving of the Lords Supper, is not an invention proceeding merely from the wit & invention of man, but (as afore hath been said) is so from man, as withal it is the invention, and institution of God.  
Quaeritar (saith master Calvin, writing about Kneeling at solemn prayers, and may as well be referred to Kneeling at the solemn receiving of the supper of the Lord) it is demanded whether it be a tradition of man, which every man may lawfully refuse or neglect? Now mark his answer.  
I say (saith he) that it is so of man, as it is also of God. It is of God in respect that it is a part of that comeliness, the care and keeping whereof is commanded unto us by the Apostle. It is of man in regard that it specially betokeneth that which had in generality rather been pointed to, then declared. So Calvin 
a Institut. l. 4. c 11. §. 30. .  
And this the Church both lawfully may, and commendably doth urge and call for at our hands.  S. 
It is urged above the commandment of God. Ergo Math. 15. 3, 4, 5. 6.  R. 
How prove you the Antecedent?  S. 
I prove it thus: The Minister is to be suspended for giving the bread and wine to a communicant not Kneeling, but not for giving them to a Communicant, that neither can, nor will examine himself, before he eateth and drinketh at the Lords table. Ergo.  R. 
Your Antecedent is true in part, and in part not so.  
True it is, that the Minister is to be suspended for giving the bread and wine to a Communicant that can and will not kneel: and his punishment is deserved. For unworthy is he to minister, that refuseth to observe the orders of that Church whereof he is a Minister. Calvin himself was not only suspended, but also expulsed from the ministery at Geneva, and that for his stubborn refusing to administer the Lords Supper, according to the order of that Church 
b Beza in vita calvini. .  
There is no Church under the Sun, but will have the rites & ceremonies there established, to be inviolably kept, both of Minister and people.  
Again, the Antecedent is untrue. For though Ministers be not suspendable, for giving the Sacrament unto many that will not examine themselves afore hand (& why should they?) seeing neither God's word, nor man's law, doth impose such a charge upon any Minister, namely, to examine all Communicants, who are to examine themselves 
c Probet se unusquisque. 1. Cor. 11. 28. : yet some that will not themselves examine, as notorious offenders, Schismatics, & the like 
d Can. & Constitut. 26. 27. & Rubric afore the Communion. , they are not to admit unto the holy Communion, no more than they are to receive the profane Sitters; and if they do admit such, they are to be inquired after, and punished by the laws of our Church 
e Archb. Ban. in his visitation an. 1605. Art. 18. .  
Besides, Ministers be to admit neither ignorant idiots, nor, young Infants, or children that cannot examine themselves. For if they do, there is punishment by our laws appointed for them, as well as for those that allow the refractory Sitters to participate at the holy table, though the punishment be neither the same, nor so soon inflicted.  S. 
You will say peradventure, that the breach of the peace of the Church, is to be punished severely.  R. 
You know that where the offence is not small, the punishment should not be light; and where the disobedience is great, the correction should not be small.  S. 
They break not the peace of the Church, which cleave fast to God's word in every thing, with a meek and quiet spirit.  R. 
You shall never be able to prove either your Sitting to be a cleaning fast to God's word; or our Kneeling to be a swerving from the same. But I have shown (which me thinks you should see,) how the same Kneeling is the lawful and laudable ordinance both of God and man, even of men of God, or good men.  
And therefore in mine opinion, it can be no token either of meek spirits, highly to Sat when their brethren lowly do Kneel; or of quiet minds obstinately to deny obedience to the orders and constitutions of a most renowned, and reformed Church.  S. 
The peace of the Church is more broken by transgressing a manifest and substantial precept of God, then by not observing a ceremony, whose lawfulness is questionable; and therefore that should be punished more than this.  R. 
You that will not be censured by the Church, will, and here do censure the doings of a right Christian Church: but from what spirit this doth proceed, be yourself judge.  
What manifest and substantial precept of God there is, which you say here is transgressed, you have not yet shown, and I would fain see. And though you can name (as you cannot) any such commandment broken: yet let me put you in mind, how the violating even of the moral and substantial precepts of God, have sometimes, and that by God himself (in man's eyes and afore the world) with less rigour and severity been punished, than the contemptuous breach even of ceremonial ordinances.  
For what, I pray you, was Adam's eating the forbidden fruit 
f Gen 3. : the Bethshemites prying into the Ark of God 
g 1. Sam. 6. 19 : Vzza his touching of the same 
h 2. Sam. 6. ver. 6. 7. : Vzziah his offering of incense 
i 2. Chron. 26. ver. 19, 20. : the man's gathering of sticks upon the Sabbath day 
k Num. 15. 35 : but violations, or breaches of laws not absolutely moral in themselves, but either typical or ceremonial, and yet what sins were ever so punished as some of them? what more horrible in God's eyes then all of them?  
In the new testament, touching the Supper of the Lord (which we have now in hand) the Apostle saith, That whosoever shall eat this bread, etc. unworthily, shall be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, etc. & procureth weakness, sickness and bodily death 
l 1. Cor. 11. v. 27, 29, 30. : Now who were they in that Church, and at that time, which did eat unworthily, and therefore were so chastised? were they not such as transgressed, and would not obey, nor keep the received orders of God's people, and despised his Church 
m Ibid. v. 21. , even the public place appointed for God's worship? Like unto those that will receive Sitting, when by order established they should take the Communion Kneeling.  
Wilful & open Schismatics do more offend the church, than either privy heretics which secretly undermine the truth; or close malefactors, whatsoever their transgressions be: and therefore deserve the sharper castigation. Before Kneeling by authority was enjoined, it was lawful for us, and all men, to question about the lawfulness thereof: but being once appointed, now to refuse to bow, savoureth not of his spirit, which said: If any man be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God 
n 1 Cor. 11. 16 .  
And therefore he that shall say, how that should be more punished than this; (being no Prince, nor called to counsel) passeth the limits both of discretion, and modesty, finding fault with that which he cannot justly mislike, and aught rather with a meek and ready mind to perform, then masterly to control. For what are you, or I that we should condemn the public and allowed orders of our Church in matters indifferent, and ceremonial; and whose lawfulness, even by your last words is questionable?   

OBJECTION 9  S. 
IT is so doubtful and disputable (to say no more) that a man can not have faith in the doing of it. Ergo. Rom. 14. 22, 23.  R. 
He that shall mark your words considerately, will hardly think that you are of mind, how it is a thing questionable, doubtful, and disputable, whether to Kneel in the receiving the Supper of the Lord, be lawful or no. For you say expressly, that a man for his Kneeling cannot have faith, and so in Kneeling sinneth: which is the worst that can be said thereof.  
Besides, you insinuate, that having said your worst, you could yet say more against the same, which would be known.  
But whatsoever you either think, or have said, or can say, we would ye should know, that we are of mind, that our Governors do well, & have God's word for their warrant, ●n commanding us to Kneel; and that we do not ill, neither sin, in obeying their commandments. For we are verily persuaded in our consciences, that we please God in kneeling; & should sin, did we Sat, & not Kneel, as many do. For God's word is both for the approbation of all things making for order, comeliness, and edification in the Church (of which nature we are out of doubt, and have proved our Kneeling is;) and against all disorders, and undecent gestures, tending to the decay of godly devotion in Christian people, as the inreverent, I say not irreligious, Sitting at the Lords table, as at a common and profane banquet seemeth to be and is.  
Wherefore I do thus argue against you:  
That, for the doing whereof a man may have faith, is to be done.  
But for his Kneeling in the receiving the holy Supper, a man may have faith: Therefore it is to be done, (or we are to Kneel in the receiving the Supper of the lord)  
And against your Sitting, I do thus reason, and cut you with your own knife:  
That, for the doing whereof no man among us can have faith, is not to be done: but for his Sitting in the receiving the holy Supper of the Lord no man among us can have faith:  
Therefore it is not to be done or used.  
The proposition is your own, or rather S. Paul's. The Assumption is justifiable, for you have no warrant from God's word, nor man's law for Sitting, as we have for Kneeling; yea by this your Sitting a triple fault is committed. For first, Sitting at the receiving the Lords Supper is without ground of Scripture, yea, is flat against God's word, because it is against public order, undecent, and tendeth both to the nourishing of strife among brethren, and engendereth confusion among us all.  
Next, it is directly opposite to the public ordinance of our Church.  
And lastly, it is very offensive both to the whole State, and to millions of God's people, who like well and allow of Kneeling, and mislike of Sitting at the Supper of the Lord.  S. 
They which mislike of Kneeling in the act of receiving, both in England, and in other reformed Churches, are neither few, nor unlearned, nor ungodly.  R. 
Now reason you from examples, which kind of reasoning is of no validity. Be it you have ten thousand in this land; and of them a thousand, neither unlearned nor ungodly Ministers; yet are they but private men against an whole State.  
One singular man, bringing only the Scriptures of God for the maintenance of his opinion, is of regard, when all these are not, without God's word, conflicting with a whole Church.  
And as for Churches reform in other places, I know there be, that like better of their own Sitting, or Standing (according to the fashions of their several countries: 
a Sta●s communicate Lugdunensis, & sedens forte qui est Cracovij. (jezler. de diutur. belli Euchar. p. 97.) In other places they go and receive it for the more expedition. (T. C. admon. p. 84.) ) yet cannot you name any one of them all that mislikes of our Kneeling.  S. 
Your argument from the authority of the Church is only probable, not demonstrative, and so unable to breed faith.  R. 
I have proved the lawfulness of our Kneeling, by arguments more than probable, drawn and derived from the word of God, and so most forcible to engender faith: whereunto I will add (because examples do so pierce and prevail with you) the examples of D. Rainolds, sparks, M. Chaderton, and Knewstubs, who were not so wedded to their own opinions, and other men's examples at the first, but they afterwards upon better advisement, and conference with most godly and worthy men, altered their minds and promised conformity, even to all things required, 
b Con●er. at Hamp. p. 98. 103.  and so to this our Kneeling, whereof some of them have left most famous and public monuments both to their own high praise, and credit: and the singular benefit of God's people: to the serious and conscionable perusal whereof, and of the premises, I do very friendly refer you.  S. 
God reveal the truth in this controversy, and grant it may be embraced to his glory, and the peace of his Church, Amen.  R. 
A good conclusion, whereunto from my heart and soul I likewise do say, Amen. So be it.    

THE SECOND DIALOGUE about Kneeling in the very act of receiving the holy Communion.  
Between an humorous Schismatic, and a settled Professor.  Confes. Suevic. Cap. 14. Civilibus legibus, quae cum pietate non pugnant, eò quisque Christianus paret pomptiùs, quò fide Christi est imbutus pleniùs. 
That is: The more faith that any Christian is endued with, the more obedient is he unto all civil ordinances, which be not contrary unto godliness.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Ballard dwelling on Adling-hill. 1608.   

The contents of the second Dialogue.  
Whether Kneeling at the Communion be an institution of man, or no. 
Sectio 1.  Whether Kneeling be used without all respect of reverence unto God, in the Church of England. 
Sect. 2.  Whether Kneeling at the Communion be a wilworshippe. 
Sect. 3.  Whether Christ his example in every thing at the ministration of the Communion is necessary to be followed. 
Sect. 4.  Whether our Kneeling be Popish and Idolatrous. 
Sect. 5.  Whether Kneeling hindereth the sweet familiarity between Christ and his Church. 
Sect. 6.  Whether Christ sat of purpose. 
Sect. 7.  Whether Christ prescribed a special gesture for the Communion. 
Sect. 8.  Whether the prayer at the delivery of the bread and wine be justifiable. 
Sect. 9  Whether Kneeling at the Communion be a gesture indifferent. 
Sect. 10.  Whether Kneeling at the Communion as much is to be abhorred as the worshipping of Images. 
Sect. 11.  Whether Kneeling at the Communion be a show of evil, and the greatest scandal. 
Sect. 12.  Whether the King's commandment to Kneel, maketh Kneeling to be no sin. 
Sect. 13.    

❧ THE SECOND DIAlogue about kneeling at the holy Communion.  
BETWEEN AN HUMOROUS Schismatic, and a settled Professor.  Schis. 
THE proposition which I hold, and will maintain, is this: namely, that kneeling in the very act of taking, eating, and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine in the holy Communion, cannot be without sin.  Pro. 
What hear I? Cannot kneeling, no not in the very act, I say not of eating and drinking, but of taking, eating, and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine; and that not privately, but publicly; nor profanely, but in the holy Communion, be without sin? what uncouth, what horrible, what hellish assertion do I hear?  
Had you said how many both men and women, may, and some do sin, even in kneeling at the Lords table, and when they take, eat, and drink the Sacramental bread and wine in the holy Communion, you had said that which by lamentable experience we find to be too true: but that all persons whatsoever which receive that holy Sacrament Kneeling, do sin, yea even in kneeling cannot but sin; or that their said Kneeling cannot be without sin, who can so much as think this without great sin? who can speak it without offence? who can hear it without horror, and detestation? From what Africa came this monster? From what hell this error? Name the broacher, show the Auctor? If thou canst do neither of them, tell yet thy suggestions, Schismatic, which make thee to be of this mind.  

SECT. 1.  
Whether Kneeling at the Communion be an institution of man, and how.  Schis. 
IT is to be understood, that howsoever Kneeling may (in itself considered) be esteemed a natural gesture of the body, as Standing, Sitting, &c: yet in this case it is by institution of man. For neither nature, nor custom doth teach us ordinarily to kneel when we eat and drink; neither doth the word require Kneeling in this case.  Pro. 
Indeed Nature teacheth us, whether we eat, drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all things decently, and with good manners, but prescribeth no certain form and manner in eating and drinking, how we are to eat, or drink, judging all drinking and eating to be commendably, which is civilly done. And the God of Nature will have all things in his church decently, & in order performed, not setting down a manner how, but leaving the determination of forms to the discretion of his people; as deeming all things to be commendably, which are comely and orderly done in his Church.  
As than whatsoever the manner is of our eating and drinking commonly in private houses, and taking our corporal repast, if it be civilly taken, is by the direction of Nature herself: even so whatsoever the form and manner of our taking, eating and receiving the Sacramental bread and wine in the holy Communion, is, if it be orderly taken and decently done, is from God and his word.  
Albeit therefore neither Nature enjoineth us to Kneel, no more then to Sat or Stand, when we eat and drink; nor the word or holy Scripture, to Kneel, no more then to Stand or Sat when we receive the Sacrament: yet, as our common eating and drinking according to the laudable customs of our country where we live, is from Nature though instituted by man, or made usual by custom; even so our Kneeling in eating and drinking the sacramental bread and wine in the holy Communion, is from the word of God originally, though instituted by man, inasmuch as God is the fountain of all decent orders in his Church, as after God Nature is the author of all civility & good manners among men in the world.  
Think not then how Kneeling at the Communion is by Institution of man, or merely from man, not required by the word. For both man appointeth, and God approveth; and by authority from God man appointeth, and by the ministery of man God approveth our Kneeling. And so our said Kneeling is not so much the institution of man, as of God, and required in his word.  
So that in Kneeling, though sometimes, and some people may, yet always, and all persons do not sin, yea all Communicants, if otherwise they offend not, do serve and please God by kneeling.   

SECT. 2.  
Whether Kneeling be used without all respect of reverence unto God, in the Church of England.  Schis. 
IF it be by institution, it must be either in respect of a more reverend receiving, or not.  Pro. 
Of all reverend manners of receiving the holy Sacrament, Kneeling is the most reverend; and so, and none otherwise instituted, and used by us of the reformed Church in England.  Schis. 
But if the most solemn sign of reverence (used in these parts of the world) be without all respect of reverence, and that by institution of authority in so high a part of God's service, may not such Kneeling be judged, if not a gross 
Mat. 27. 29.  mocking of Christ, as was the soldiers bowing of Knees before him, yet a taking of the name of God in vain, seeing all significations of honour in God's service, aught to be to the honour of his name; & an oath not religiously intended (as in 
Mal. 1. 6. 7.  the nature thereof it ought to be) to the honour of God, is 
jere. 4. 2.  the taking of God's name in vain?  Pro. 
Is kneeling at the communion a sign, a solemn, yea the most solemn sign of reverence used in these parts of the world, by your own confession; and may not, yea cannot that solemn, that most solemn sign of reverence at the receiving of bread and wine at the Communion be expressed without sin? which is your proposition?  
Who observing & believing these your words, which are most true, but will fall into a loathing of the said assertion.  
But your said proposition is not more odious, than your saying (that the most solemn kind of reverence used in these parts of the world, is without all respect of reverence, and that by institution of authority) is false and slanderous. For neither do all Churches in these parts of the world, either use to kneel, or kneel without all respect of reverence, by institution of authority; neither if some do kneel without such respect, and that by institution of authority, be all churches to be charged, and blamed for this fault, but least of all the Church of England, where this sign, this solemn, this most solemn sign, with all possible respect of reverence is given to God, and that by institution of authority.  
Where therefore this sign of reverence is without all respect of reverence given, and that by institution of authority in so high a part of God's service, Kneeling there may rightly be judged both a gross mocking of Christ, as was the soldiers their bowing of Knees before him; and is the taking of the name God in vain.  
But what is this to our Kneeling here in England at the participation of the blessed Sacrament, where all things are by authority enjoined to be done, both respectively, reverently, and with due devotion, void of superstition?  Schis. 
Did Naaman newly brought to the knowledge of 
2. Kin. 6. 11.  God, attribute so much to the bowing in the house of Rimmon, when his master leaned on him, so that it was not his voluntary action; and shall we, who have had the Gospel long, Kneeling by institution, and determination, in a principal part of God's service, make no account whether we honour God, or no, by Kneeling?  Pro. 
Naaman the Assyrian, neither voluntarily would, nor forcible could be drawn to commit Idolatry: whose example may teach us all, (whether old Professors, or new Converts) to keep ourselves free from all Idolatrous pollutions.  
Naaman after his conversion came (if he did come) into the house of Rimmon, and bowed (as we come into our Churches and Kneel,) but yet neither be our Churches as the house of Rimmon, neither bow we so much as before Idols, much less idolatrously, when we participate of the sacred mysteries.  
And though by institution and determination of the Church when we take, eat, and drink, we Kneel: yet by our said kneeling we do honour God in this principal part of his service; yourself hath acknowledged the gesture of Kneeling to be the most solemn sign of reverence, we do say the same.   

SECT. 3.  
Whether Kneeling at the Communion be a will-worship.  Schis. 
IF Kneeling be instituted for a more reverent receiving, than it must be either in regard of God, or of bread and wine.  Pro. 
Not of bread and wine.  Sch. 
If in regard of God, then must we be well persuaded that such kneeling is an acceptable service unto his majesty.  Pro. 
We are so persuaded, or aught so to be, else in Kneelieg 
Rom. 14. 23.  we sin, yea, as you say, it cannot be without sin. For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.  Schis. 
That this may be, we must consider, whether such Kneeling be a will worship, or a service reasonable, and according 
Rom. 12. 2. & 14. 5. 23. Isa. 29. 13. Mat. 15. 9 Leuit. 10. 2, 3 1. Chr. 13. 10. & 15. 12, 13,  to Gods will, lest otherwise we find ourselves so far from honouring God, as that we provoke him: as did Nadab & Abihu, who offered incense, but not the very fire which God appointed, & were therefore devoured with fire. And as did king David, and the Priests, who carried the Ark otherwise than it ought to have been, and therefore Vzza died for it with a sudden death. For God will be sanctified (if not by, yet) in all them that come near him.  Pro. 
Our kneeling is no will worship, but a service reasonble, & according to Gods will, as be all the ecclesiastical ordinances whatsoever, not besides or contrary to the revealed will of God.  
Such constitutions I call not human tradition (saith Bullinger) 
Bulling. Dec. 2. Ser. 1.  because they are derived from the divine Scripture, not devised in the brain of man, and used of her (viz. the Church) which hearkeneth unto the voice of her only shepherd, acknowledging not the voice of others. For example, the Church cometh together to hear God's word, & unto public prayers, both in the morning & evening at appointed hours, as is commodious for every place & people: and that is in stead of a law (Again) the Church hath supplications, holidays, and (publque) fasts under certain laws. The Church (moreover) at certain times, in a certain place, and prescribed manner celebrateth the sacraments, & that according to the laws, and received custom of the Church. The Church (likewise) baptizeth infants, removeth not women from the Lords Supper: and this she hath for a law. By her deputed judges the Church determineth in causes matrimonial, and in these things hath certain laws. But all these & other like these she draweth from the (general) scriptures, and for edification sake applieth them to places, times, and persons, whereby we may indeed behold in sundry Churches a diversity (of forms) but no discord at all. So that worthy man.  
And agreeably hereunto the Church of Sweathland: Quae cum Scriptura consonant: those constitutions which agree with 
Confess S●●uica, in Har. confess. §. 17. p. 290.  the Scripture, & be ordained for the bettering of manners & benefit of mankind, albeit according to the very word, they be not expressed in the Scriptures: yet in as much as they proceed from the (general) precept of Love, which hath ordained all things in most comely order, they deserve to be esteemed divine, rather than human constitutions, etc. Many such truly the Church doth lawfully observe at this day, and as occasion also is ministered appointeth new, which whoso shall reject (the words are memorable,) he doth despise the authority not of men, but of God, whose tradition it is, whatsoever is commodious▪ And so they (whose words have passed uncensured by the publishers of the Harmony of the Church's confessions.)  
If you then can show no word of God to the contrary, we cannot but hold the order for Kneeling to be the ordinance of God.  
And therefore the example by you cited of Nadab, Abihu, and Vzza, trouble not us, who conscionably do Kneel, and keep the orders of a most reformed Church: but may pierce your heart, and the rest of our new Recusants, the separated brotherhood, who obstinately despise, and violate the ordinances of our Church; allowed, because no where disallowed in the book of God.   

SECT. 4.  
Whether Christ his example in every thing at the ministration of the Communion, is necessarily to be followed.  Schis. 
But Kneeling is contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles.  Pro. 
Well may kneeling differ, but surely it is contrary to none example of theirs.  Schis. 
They ministered, and received Sitting, or in such a 
Luk. 22▪ 14. 1. Cor. 11. 1.  gesture, as in those Countries was most used at eating.  Pro. 
The truth is, you cannot directly say, how the Lords supper was ministered or received in Christ and his Apostles days, and therefore you say how by them it was ministered and received Sitting.  Schis. 
From his example to differ without warrant from God's word, cannot be without fault.  Pro. 
Nay rather to bind us necessarily to the example of Christ in all ceremonial matters, without warrant from God's word, cannot be without great offence.  Schis. 
Examples of holy men, much more of Christ, are to be followed, except there be some reasonable cause to the contrary.  Pro. 
True.  Schis. 
The Apostle to reform an abuse which crept (even in their times) into Love feasts, which were immediately before, or after the Lord's Supper, did banish them thence, and reduced the manner of administering the Lords Supper to the first institution, saying, Shall I praise you in this? I praise 
1. Cor. 11. 22. 23.  you not. For I have received of the Lord, which I have also delivered unto you.  Pro. 
The Love-feasts, abused by the Corinthians, were spoken against by the Apostle, not because they were feasts, or feasts of Love, made after, or before the receiving the Communion, but for that they were abused; neither for their abuse were they quite banished out of the Church, as you untruly say, but only blamed, and yet continued in the Church of God.  
A fitter example could you not bring forth then this of Love feasts. For never did Christ (to whose example in celebrating of his Supper you would precisely bind us) institute, and minister the said Supper, either after, or before such a feast, as did the Churches in the Apostles times, and that commendably.  
This showeth how things of themselves indifferent, and tending unto edification, may be added without sin unto the sacred Supper; and being added, through man's corruption abused, may be reduced notwithstanding to their first and laudable institution, & continued in God's church, as were the Love feasts.  Schis. 
Nay hereby it is apparent, that that form of administration which differeth from the first institution, is worthy no praise, and therefore no acceptable service of God.  Pro. 
Not so apparent as you ween.  
The Apostle blamed the Corinthians (as I have told you) not for their Love feasts (a form among them of administering the Lords Supper) but for their abusing them to the dishonour of God, and offence of the world. Which feasts afore they were abused were well allowed, & counted both worthy of praise, & an acceptable service of God, differing but not contrary to his will▪ Which may tell and teach you: First, how the Church is not always and strictly bound to one and the same form of administering the holy Supper.  
Next, that what Christ did, and what he said, and instituted is to be considered: and that what he instituted is always and necessarily to be done, but not what he did. For his actions serve for our instruction always, but not for our imitation ever: his institutions be injunctions: his deeds personal, and circumstantial: his precepts substantial: his actions for a great part accessory, and arbitrary; his injunctions evermore necessary. Hence blame we the Papists for denying the Cup unto the common people; and the Artotorites for adding Cheese to the Lords Supper, contrary to the institution of Christ: but we blame neither the Corinthians, and primitive Church of old, nor the reformed Churches in these days, for swerving from the form of Christ's ministering the Sacrament in certain ceremonial, indifferent, accidental, and circumstantial points, whom we should and would blame, were their administering (how differing soever from the form of Christ his celebrating) the holy Supper, a service displeasing, and not acceptable to God.  
And here the wisdom of our Lord & Saviour showeth itself most admirable, who having prescribed and instituted what he would have done; hath not prescribed yet the form and manner how he would have the Sacraments administered, enjoining general things, as Take, Eat, Drink, etc. but leaving the special manner of taking and receiving the bread and wine unto the liberty and discretion of his elected spouse; thinking that praise▪ worthy, and acceptable unto his holiness, whatsoever in this matter is formally, decently, and to the edification of his church and children, done and performed.  Schis. 
If the Apostle would not tolerate an indifferent thing (as was a Love feast till then) to continue so near the Lords Supper when it was abused, how would they allow the change of Sitting into Kneeling, especially in these two considerations?  Pro. 
Saint Paul was not of your mind, who cannot brook but do condemn whatsoever unto Idolatry, or sin hath been abused. Therefore did he and his brethren the Apostles continue these Love feasts, whose reformation they sought after they were abused, never counting them because they were abused by some persons, to be utterly, and ever afterward to be unlawful, and for no use in God's Church. Hence the Apostles, Peter, and 
2. Pet. 2. 13. Jude ver. 12.  Jude, speak of Love feasts in use in their time, without condemning them for their abuse; and Tertullian reporteth how they were frequent in his days; and yet ever abused by some ill disposed persons or other. 
In Aprlog. ●●9.   
And therefore that the said Apostle would both less allow of, and more condemn Kneeling, which never was so abused in our Church as were the Love feasts in the primitive Church, and especially at Corinth, is very unprobable, I may say unpossible to be true. But because you are of mind that for two considerations the Apostles would condemn them, conceal not your reasons, that they may be considered of.   

SECT. 5.  
Whether our Kneeling be Popish and Idolatrous.  Schis. 
FIrst the abuse of Love feasts (viz. superfluity) was never so great, and scandalous in the Apostles times, as the abuse of Kneeling (viz. Idolatry) was, and is in the Synagogue of Rome.  Pro. 
It is well that you grant Love feasts, and Kneeling to be of one and the same nature, and of themselves indifferent. For you confess they have all been abused; and so imply that good use was made both of Kneeling, and of Love feasts afore they were abused: but neither could they be used well at the first, or abused afterward, had they or either of them simply been ill, and so unlawful.  
That as Love feasts, so Kneeling at the receiving the holy Communion and blessed Sacrament hath been abused, the whole world doth know, and may not be denied.  
Let it also be granted (which is most true) that the abuse of Love feasts was never so great, and scandalous in the Apostles times, as the abuse of Kneeling was, & is in the Synagogue of Rome: But what make you of all this? May we not therefore Kneel at any time, or in any reformed Church when we receive the Communion, because there was, and is such abuse of Kneeling in the Synagogue of Rome? And if we in our Churches do Kneel, is our offence greater than the abuse of Love feasts? or cannot that same thing be used without sin or offence at one time and place, which is abused in another? or well used, and to God's glory by some persons, which impiously and to the high dishonour of God is profaned by others?  
Kneeling in the very act of receiving, I confess, of some hypocrites in our reformed Churches may be abused, as were the Love feasts in the Apostles days; but so grossly; generally, and scandalously, as were either the Love feasts in the primitive Church, or is Kneeling in the Synagogue of Rome, me thinks you should blush to say, sure I am, you shall never prove.  
You say Love feasts were by superfluity (I add by sursetting also, drunkenness, pride, vainglory, contempt of the poor Christians:) Kneeling also among the Papists unto Idolatry (a most horrible sin) and superstition is abused: but so many ways, in so open sort, so impiously is Kneeling abused in no Church reform.  
love feasts by many, and that openly were abused by bad 
2. Pet. 2. 13. jud. ver. 8.  Christians, who at those Love feasts were as blots and spots, but was not the fault of the whole Church Christian; Kneeling at the Mass is the sin of all caco-catholics, yea and of their whole Church: but if Kneeling among us in or any other Church is abused, the blame is to be laid neither upon the whole Church, but upon some particular professors; neither is it an open and public scandal, at least not always, nor every where, but an hidden sin of some few hypocrites.  Schis. 
love feasts were either before, or after the Supper, whereas Kneeling is in the principal part of the holy Communion.  Pro. 
Whether these feasts of Love were celebrated afore or after the holy Communion it is uncertain, and not material. The most Divines notwithstanding do think, that after; but whether afore or after, they went together, the Love feasts with the holy Sacrament, the Sacrament not without the Love feasts.  
It is generally held, that among the jews there was a yearly 
Beza in Luc. 22. 20. Calvin▪ in 1. Cor. 11. 21.  custom, when they did eat their Paschal Lamb, to adjoin unto that Sacrament a ceremonial eating of bread, and drinking of wine. In imitation of these jews, and Banquets, 
Beza in Act. 2. 42.  the first Christians at the administration of the holy Sacrament, made feasts called Agaps, or banquets of charity.  
The jews for their feasting after the Passeover, had neither the precedent of Moses, nor the precept of God: nor the Christians any either precedent, or commandment of Christ for the Love feasts. 
Calvin. in Math. 26. 26. Conference at Hampt. p. 68 Beza in 2. Pet 2. 13. & in lud. 12. Tertul. in Apolog. c. 39   
Those Suppers and feasts of the jews notwithstanding were so liked of Christ, as he made of those Suppers the Sacrament of his body and blood. And Christians in the Primitive Church termed their Agapas their feasts of charity, the Supper of the Lord, Sacra convivia, sacra ecclesiastici coetus convivia, yea the Supper of the Lord.  
Who observing this, but must confess that God doth not, as you Schimatike do, condemn all Rites and Ceremonies about the Sacrament, which himself hath not instituted; and they therefore are much out of the way, which condemn every thing instituted by man about the worship of God, though never so orderly established, and decent, even for none other cause but for that God hath not expressedly appointed the form in his holy word. Whence our kneeling is so condemned, and that the more because it is to be done in the principal part of the holy Communion.  
But, sir, if Kneeling be as it is, and you have truly confessed, the most solemn sign of reverence, when I pray you, is it better to show this sign then at the receipt of the Sacrament of our redemption by the body and blood of Christ, signified by bread and wine, and the most principal of all outward worship which we can perform unto God?  Schis. 
If the Apostle banished Love feasts from the Lords Supper, and brought the Church to the simplicity of the first institution, is it not a tempting sin to retain the Idolatrous Kneeling of Papists, & reject the exemplary Sitting of our master Christ?  Pro. 
Not too fast. It is not granted that the Apostles Love feasts, either because they were of man's institution, or by ungodly persons abused unto sin, were banished.  
Those feasts growing to abuse, the Apostle seeketh to amend, 
Calvin in 1. Cor. 11. 21. Beza in 2. Pet. 2. 13. & in jud. v. 12.  saith Calvin, to correct, saith Beza: but neither Calvin, nor Beza, nor any other Divine ancient or neoterical doth say, that the Apostle for their abuse, did either banish or abolish them.  
But were they banished: yet were they afterwards and soon called home again from banishment, and received into grace: Antiquity beareth witness of the use, even the good use of them in, and after the Apostles days, which afore had been abused.  
Whence learn we either not to banish things for their abuse, but to amend them; or if we banish, to take them into favour again when they be reform, but never utterly to condemn them as unlawful, only because they have been abused.  
In imitation therefore of the Apostles, and other holy Fathers of the first, & best Churches, by using such things well (and namely Kneeling at the receipt of the sacred bread and wine) which had been abused, if you judge us to do ill, your sin is great; and the more if you suppose the reforming of the said Kneeling, and applying it to good and holy use, to be a retaining of the Idolatrous Kneeling of the Papists, and a tempting sin.  
And though we follow not the special gesture of our Saviour, and his Disciples in taking the sacramental signs: yet reject we not his example as ill, but like of ours, as in our judgement more meet and convenient for the times and country wherein we do live and reside.  
When you do prove our Communion to be a Mass, I will confess our said Kneeling to be Popish, yea, Idolatry: and so we in Kneeling to commit a tempting sin: which you know, and I dare say, you shall never do.  Schis. 
How can we imagine Christ to be honoured by Kneeling, we kneeling in that Sacrament, and in that part of 
1. Cor. 10. 17.  the Sacrament, which especially setteth forth our Communion with Christ and his Church, and is therefore called the Communion?  Pro. 
I had almost gathered from your speech, that baptism is no Sacrament of our Communion with Christ, and his Church, but marking the word, Especially, I see that Baptism is acknowledged to be a Sacrament thereof as well as the Lords Supper.  
But, I pray you, is it a sin, yea, attempting sin for any 
Math. 3. 6. Acts 8. 12. 10. 47. 48. 16. 33.  to be baptised Kneeling? When john baptised in jordan; Philip at Samaria: Peter at Caesarea: Paul at Philippos: these and the rest of the Apostles in other places, did none which received the Sacrament, Kneel? Can you say they did not; dare you affirm they might not without sin? Or in these days, in no Church and place, may no converted jew, Turk, or Pagan, renouncing his or their impieties, and false worshippings, embracing the Gospel, and desirous to be incorporated and baptised into the same body with us, may not these, I say, nor any of these without sin, yea a tempting sin receive these favours from God, and his Church, and be baptised Kneeling? And if some that can, may receive that Sacrament Kneeling, may none yet participate of the heavenly graces offered especially in the Lord's Supper to all worthy Communicants, Kneeling? And if in the special Sacrament of our Communion they may: yet may they not Kneel in that part of the Sacrament, which especially setteth forth our Communion with Christ? And if they so do, thereby tempt they and provoke they God to plague them, even for their very Kneeling, though never so reverently, and with all possible Faith, charity, and piety done, and performed? O strange divinity!  
No Sacrament, yea nothing so placeth before the eyes of our souls, either the wrath and justice of God upon man for sin, or his philanthropy, his tender & incomprehensible love towards makind in his Son Christ jesus, as the external elements of bread & wine consecrated at the holy Supper do; nor doth any part of the same Supper so affect the minds of the truly zealous and Christian, as the exhibiting before their eyes, and putting into their hands the pledges of God's pacification through Christ, the tokens of our atonement with God. And therefore is no Sacrament so reverently to be received as the Lord's supper on our part; nor any part of the same Supper to be performed with like ceremonies of zeal and devotion, as the very taking and receiving the bread and wine, neither can we so express and testify the same reverence, as by Kneeling. Yourself afore said (than which you never spoke truer words) how the most solemn sign of reverence is Kneeling.  
The Sacrament is called, you say, The Communion; be 
Luke 22. 29. 1. Cor. 11. 26.  it so. It is likewise called, The new Testament, and of the Fathers, The Sacrament Eucharistical, or of Thanksgiving: and can we better manifest our thankful hearts unto our heavenly father, then on bended knees? And can there be no Communion, even at the Communion, if we Kneel? Doth the external either Kneeling, Sitting, or Standing, further or hinder our Communion between Christ and his Church?  
These things duly considered, we ought not to imagine, but that Christ aswell is honoured and better, by Kneeling in the act of receiving, then by any other site or gesture of body whatsoever.  Schis. 
That cannot be, seeing it swerveth not only from his example, but also from the practice of all reformed churches, 
Concert. eccles. Cathol. in Arg.  except in England, which the Papists themselves call puritano-papistical, by retaining this, and other Popish corruptions.  Pro. 
The swerving from the example of Christ is no strong and true Argument that we dishonour God in so doing. For if that were true, no Curch should be pure from dishonouring God. You cannot name a Church or company of Christians in the whole world, which in the ministering and receiving the Supper of the Lord, varieth not from Christ his example, and that manifoldly; which yet in their ministrations do honour God.  
If England herein do serve from all reformed Churches, will you therefore conclude that the Church of England only doth dishonour God?  
We condemn not other Churches for their not Kneeling; neither doth any Church, nor should you Schismatics condemn ours for our Kneeling.  
And yet false is it that we Christians in England only, 
T. C. admon. to the Peo. of England, p. 84 M. Coverdale of the order of administration the Lords supper, E. 8. ●.  when we communicate, do Kneel. For all the Churches in Basill, Saxony, Denmark, and many in Germany, by the orders of their several Churches at the Communion, as well as we in England, do kneel. Either therefore those Churches be not in the number of Churches reform in your judgement; or they dishonour God by their said Kneeling, so well as we: the former of which you will not, I think, say, and if you should, all Gods faithful servants throughout the world will condemn you for your heady and uncharitable judgement; the latter you should not without blushing affirm, and we are so far from imagining that thereby we dishonour God, as we are of mind that God is by no external site or gesture of body, at the Communion, so honoured as by Kneeling.  
What the Papists think of, and term the Church of England, we are not ignorant, neither do regard. But how Popish they think our Kneeling at the holy 
W. Rainolds of the Sacrament, c. 3. p. 100 c. 10. p. 233. c. 3. p. 103.  Communion to be, judge by their words, expressing their thoughts of the holy Supper, which they term A peevish Supper, fitter for Pagans than Christians, more meet for dogs than men, proceeding directly from the Devil. Can any man think our kneeling to be a Popish corruption, either hearing these things, or reading them either in Popish writings, or truly cited out of Popish books?  
They abhor our bread and wine, as Schismatical, as heretical, as leading the high way to God's wrath and indignation, 
abide. c. 11. p. 242.  to hell & damnation. It is no Popish corruption which they so abhor, much less abhor they our Kneeling as Popish; yea, they abhor it because it is not Popish. They are simple and very strangers from the Papists opinions of our Church, and her ceremonies, which so think and speak.  Schis. 
Such Kneeling may be an argument (especially to a Papist, not understanding our tongue) that we have Communion with Antichrist, and his Synagogue, at least in the Idolatry of bread-worship, which our failng, or carelessness to avow our Communion with Christ and his Church, and not abhorring all Communion with Antichrist, and his Synagogue, cannot be without grievous sin.  Pro. 
If what last I said be true, as no right Papist (whether he understand our tongue, or not) cannot be doubtful of, our Kneeling cannot possibly be any Argument of Communion with Antichrist and his Synagogue in Idolatry.  
Besides, what Papist is there but knoweth that the bread & wine at the Altar once consecrated, by their doctrine, are 
Concil. Trid. ses. 13. can. 2. 6.  transubstantiated forthwith into the very body and blood of Christ; and being so transubstantiated, by and by, as the only begotten Son of God, both of Priest and people, under the pain of the Pope his curse, with divine honour and worship, to be adored?  
To have these thoughts, and to exhibit this adoration unto the elements, this is to communicate with Antichrist, and his Synagogue; but our reverend and humble Kneeling at the taking and receiving the bread & wine in a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ, and of all the benefits we are partakers of by his passion, & that without althought or show of adoring the bread and wine: this is no communicating with Antichrist, & his Synagogue. Having these cogitations, though we Kneel, we have Communion with Christ and his Church, and having not these thoughts, we have no Communion at all with his Church, though we Sat and Kneel not.  
As therefore it is not the Kneeling, but the impious conceits wherewith their hearts be possessed and replenished, when they approach to the Sacrament, that maketh the Papists to be Idolaters: so neither doth our Kneeling exclude us from all Communion with Christ, and his Church; nor your Sitting, that joineth you in fellowship with the same.  
As gross Idolatry may you commit in not Kneeling, as any persons ever did, or as the Papists now do in Kneeling. But we charge not you, as you do us (yet very uncharitably) whose part were rather to conceive better of them, whose doctrine in the most principal points of Religion, about the Sacrament especially, is one and the same with yours (light being not more contrary to darkness, nor heaven to hell▪ then what both ye which Sat, and we which Kneel, do hold therein, is opposite and contrary to the doctrine of the Synagogue of Rome.  
Wherefore as we say not that ye, differing from us that Kneel, have no Communion with Christ and his church, because ye Sat; and do commit a grievous sin (did ye not offend against public order) for that with us ye Kneel not: no more should ye have so much as an imagination, that we have Communion with Antichrist and his Synagogue, because we Kneel, and do commit a grievous sin, for that with you we Sat not when we do receive, especially seeing God doth not forbid, and Christian authority commandeth us to Kneel.  
Sittng & kneeling are but outward ceremonies, nothing to the substance of Religion, concerning the true communion with Christ and his Church at all, and of themselves indifferent, did not the godly Magistrate enjoin the one, and prohibit the other.  
Finally, as you which Sat, and we which Kneel differ in ceremonies, but not in the main points of doctrine, and in this latter respect hold communion all of us with Christ, and his Church, at least in external profession: so we which agree with the Church of Rome in some Ceremonies, disagree from the same in most material points of doctrine, and substance of true religion, have no fellowship at all, or communion with the Synagogue of Antichrist. For it is not the same Ceremonies, but the same profession of faith and doctrine that causeth the communion.  Schis. 
If we may Kneel, then did Paul sin, when he 
Gal. 2. 11, 12.  rebuked Peter for not holding Communion with the Gentiles converted.  Pro. 
This is no good consequent: If we sin not in Kneeling, Paul must sin in rebuking Peter for not holding communion with the Gentiles converted.  
No, sir, neither do we sin in kneeling, nor did Paul sin 
Act. 10.  in rebuking Peter.  
For that Paul had just cause, and performed the part of a faithful and worthy Apostle of Christ in rebuking Peter, the Scripture beareth witness, which telleth us, first that to Peter it was revealed, as to a man so notable, that he might converse with the Gentiles converted unto Christ: next that Peter had consented unto the ordinances of the 
Acts 15.  Apostles at jerusalem, namely, in discharging the Gentiles from the yoke of jewish Ceremonies: thirdly, that Peter notwithstanding (contrary to the vision of the Lord, and decrees of the Apostles) not only sequestered himself suddenly from the fellowship of the Gentiles professing Christ; but also joined with the jews, thereby, against his conscience, both confirming the blind jews in their erroneous conceits touching the law of Moses, and making the Gentiles to stand in doubt what they should do; so offending both God and good men, & drawing other Christians into the same sins through his halting and dissimulation. And therefore well might, and both rightly was Peter blamed of the Apostle Saint Paul.  
But what Communion have we that Kneel with Peter's sin, or ye with Paul's virtues that reprove us for kneeling?  
Have we either by revelation been told, that we may not Kneel, as Peter was that he might converse with the Gentiles? or have we at any Synod, or lawful Council, set God's people free from the observation of all ecclesiastical constitutions, especially used, or abused rather in the Church of Rome, as in the Council at jerusalem with other Peter discharged the Gentiles from the bondage of the Mosaical ceremonies? Or finally, have we abandoned at any time all Communion, even in Ceremonies, with the Synagogue of Rome, & yet to gratify, or rather to harden them in their superstition, entertained them again, and against our certain knowledge, and conscience, as Peter did the laws of Ceremonies by leaving the society of the Gentiles, to the high offence of Paul, and such as ●uly feared God?  
If these nor any of these faults appear in us, which were not obscurely in Peter, surely though Paul did not sin in reproving Peter, yet do you and the like Censurers very ill in reproving us like Paul's, seeing in us▪ there be none of the vices, and visible faults of Peter.  
Paul therefore might well blame Peter for halting, when you cannot without blame, and shame too reprove us for kneeling.  Schis. 
If we sin not in kneeling, Paul wrote without warrant, when he said, If any lust to be contentious, we have no 
1. Cor. 11. 16.  such custom neither the Churches of God.  Pro. 
These words of S. Paul when I consider, me thinks I see the holy Apostle looking sowrly, and speaking sharply; but against whom? Against peaceable men? No, but against 
Vt quisque est vir optimus, ita est m●xim● amans ordinis: The best man loves order best.  contentious persons. And whom deeming contentious? Orderly men, conforming themselves to the lawful and approved constitutions of the Church? No, but against such as would not yield obedience unto such decrees, but thought themselves free from all obedience unto public orders of the Church: which kind of men the Apostle loathed even from his soul; and others inspired with the holy spirit, have termed such persons men unmeet to live, or have 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  society with men in this life. The Anabaptists were such kind of men, saith Peter Martyr; and we know the same to 
Pet. Martyr. in 1. Cor. 11. 16.  be the fault both of our home or exiled Brownists, and of all you Sectaries, who will give none obedience to the impositions and institutions of the church, at least but to what you list (how orderly soever established, and making never so well to edification and order.)  
As therefore, hearing that some men in the Church, even of mere frowardness, and for none other cause, would not yield that either their wives, daughters, or other women should be covered, or themselves uncovered, though the Church had decreed they should; because to be covered, or not covered, was a thing indifferent, and they would not be brought into bondage about such matters by any power of the Church, when God had given no such express and particular commandment, the Apostle doth very roundly and angrily here take up such men.  
So me thinks you, and all others, walking in the very steps of those ancient perturbers of the Churches quiet, should take these words as truly, and severely to be spoken against you, as ever they were against the contemners of Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical authority in Saint Paul's time.  
Sure I am the meditation of these things addeth both comfort and encouragement unto us, which orderly do Kneel, and in Kneeling keep orders; but how they should alter our minds from performing this obedience, being uttered even by the chief masters and makers of order, and for continuance of good orders in the Church, he must be sharp sighted that can perceive.  
Wherefore the words touch not us at all that kneel, but you that will not kneel: neither sinned the Apostle in writing, but you in wresting those words to the nourishment of contention, which he penned for the continuance and increase of peace among the people of God.  Schis. 
The same Apostle to the same effect: What Communion (saith he) hath Christ with Belial? either must Saint Paul utter this without warrant, or in kneeling we do 
2. Cor. 6. 16.  grievously sin.  Pro. 
But if neither we sin in kneeling, nor the Apostle in writing of those words, what is to be thought of you that so charge the Apostle and us?  
That we sin not in Kneeling hath been demonstrated sufficiently before, by our not communicating thereby with Antichrist, though we do kneel. And therefore your fault must be heinous in an high degree, in charging the Apostle to have written without warrant, then with a greater reproach was never, nor could ever be laid upon the writings of S. Paul.  
What communion hath Christ with Belial, saith Saint Paul; the same, what communion hath Christ with Belial, saith God's Church? What is Belial, but one without 
Belial.  yoke, without law? meant principally of Satan, the author, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and father of all disobedience, misrule, and disorders. Hence is sin named anomy, as who says, a thing lawless, 
1. Tim. 1. 9 judg. 19 22.  without rule: and sinners in God's ●ies be as disordered, and lawless men, whom neither God's word nor man's law can rule or make obedient. Hence the Beniamites 
1. Sam. 2. 12.  which deflowered the levites wife, and the Prophet Helies children are called the Sons, or men of Belial. Hence the Papists abroad, whose chiefest religion is, man's tradition, and Schismatics at home, the authors, and abettors of confusion in the Church, be Belials sons.  
Christ hath no communion with Belial; nor Christians with the sons of Belial, either the idolatrous Papists, or the lawless Schismatics: these having separated themselves from us, because of our orderly Kneeling, and obedience: we having severed ourselves from the other, for their manifest impieties.  Schis. 
Come out, and touch no unclean thing, are the 
2. Cor. 6. 16. 17.  words of the Apostle, which either he wrote without warrant, or we must sin in Kneeling.  Pro. 
God be thanked, we have fulfilled the Apostles words, we are come out, we have left Babylon: and next, we do as little touch, taste, or see any idolatrous pollutions, or have communion with that which is unclean, in our Kneeling, as you or any others (in your own opinion never so pure, and reform) have either in Sitting, bowing or Standing, by which sites of body, idolatry hath been, and is committed, as well as by Kneeling.  
They which only, and always commit idolatry, be not they which Kneel, for than never should we Kneel but we commit idolatry: and never should any commit idolatry, but such as Kneel: both which to be false, our experience doth tell us, who find that both the most religious, 
Relat. of the west Churches.  most devout do Kneel when they serve their God; and the most idolatrous and superstitious (the Papists only excepted) do never Kneel at their chiefest exercises of their devotions.  
Think therefore judiciously of our Kneeling as it deserveth, and neither condemn any men for Kneeling, if they so do, not idolatrously, or superstitiously; nor appoove them which Kneel, if thereby they dishonour God. Blame the Papists, who by their Kneeling, do the greatest idolatry that can be: but blame not us, which most sincerely thereby do serve God; Christ not being more opposite to Belial, than is the Popish mass to our Communion, and the manner of administration of the same; albeit both the Papists, and we of the Church of England in receiving; they of their Mass, we of the Communion, in kneeling be like.  Schis. 
Doth not God straightly forbid us to serve him, as idolaters do their Gods?  Pro. 
You know, or should not be ignorant, how God had 
Deut. 11. 30. 31.  prescribed unto his people the Israelites, a certain form, and manner, how he would of them be worshipped, whereunto whosoever should add, or any thing take, or vary from the same, he was liable to God's heavy wrath and 
Deut. 4. 14. 15. etc. 12. 32.  displeasure. The Israelites were faulty herein: and therefore great and most grievous were the punishments not only threatened, but inflicted also by God upon the people of Israel 
Deut. 27. 15, 26. 1. Cor. 10. 7.  for their disobedience.  
But we Christians have only general rules; no special form of service given us by Christ, as the Israelites had: an assertion so true, as some of you Sectaries have a fancy, that 
Brownists 3. petit. posit. 7. as. 3. reas. 2.  because God hath set down none such in his word, the Church therefore should be bound to none at all, no not so much as to a form of prayer, and have even made prayers against ordinary and common prayers.  
When God therefore hath left us free, blame us not as Idolaters, 
God grant that in stead of ordinary forms of prayers, we may have preaching in all places. Lear. disc. p. 69.  if differing from Papists in their Idolatry, we be like unto them in some indifferent ceremony or other: and rather think though we be like them, and they like us in kneeling: yet as they cannot be said to be good Christians, and to serve God, though they kneel: so are not we to be counted Papists, and to be Idolatrous, though we kneel. For by one and the same gesture both they do worship their Idol, and we our Saviour: like in action, most unlike in affection; neither they by God's word justified because they are like us; nor we condemned, being in that ceremony like unto them:  Schis. 
These things considered, can kneeling wherewith Papists do honour their breaden God, be honourable to Christ, in his holy Sacrament?  Pro. 
Yea, these things rightly considered, even kneeling, wherewith the Papists do honour their breaden God, may be to the honour of Christ in his holy Sacrament. For by that gesture of body, whereby they do worship their false God, an idol, by the same do we worship the true God, our Saviour, sitting at the right hand of the Father in the heavens.  
Now let us know at the length what the other consideration is, why this kneeling is, or should be so hateful unto God and men.   

SECT. 6.  
Whether Kneeling hindereth the sweet familiarity between Christ and his Church.  Schis. 
SEcondly, whereas the end of a Sacrament is to inform the outward man by sensible demonstration, it pleaseth our M. Christ to use such gesture as agreeably with bread and wine, setteth out our Communion, and spiritual familiarity with him, and rejoicing in him. And therefore as he saith: If any hear my voice, and open the door, 
Revel. 3. 20.  I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me: so he saith, Many shall come from the East, and West, and shall sit with 
Mat. 8. 11.  Abraham, etc. By which places it appeareth that as by Supper, so by Sitting, familiar rejoicing, or rejoicing familiarity is expressed. In which respect the Communion is called the 
1. Cor. 11. 20. & 10. 21.  Lords Supper, and not a sacrifice; and we are said to be partakers of the Lords table, and not of an Altar. And therefore not Kneeling, but Sitting is for receiving.  Pro. 
The end of all Sacraments is to inform not the outward only, but the inward man also by sensible demonstrations; and therefore be they called Gods visible word, and seen, engendering and confirming Faith, and edifying the Soul as well as the Word audible and heard.  
And as the word heard and believed diversly doth affect the soul, and to divers blessed and good purposes: so doth the visible word, the sacraments, especially of the body and blood of Christ.  
For as Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of 
Rom. 4.  Faith, that is, a testimony confirming the Faith of Abraham: so to every one which worthily doth partake of the body, and blood of Christ, his very receiving is a sealing to his faith, that of Christ the body was given, and the blood shed for his sins.  
Next it teacheth them, how the Son of God took on him the nature of man, that by the oblation of his body and blood, he might take away the sins of the world.  
Besides, the memory of that sacrifice propitiatory is made perpetual, and thanks ascribed from time to time at the participating of those mysteries, unto the blessed duty.  
By communicating at this holy Sacrament, we learn moreover, and do believe, that as the benefits of Christ are ours, and do appertain unto us, in so much as neither the members to the body, nor the branches to the vine, are more inseparably conjoined, than we to him, he communicating unto us his vigour, and virtue.  
Furthermore we testify, and make it known to the world, how we are members of that Church, which professeth, and acknowledgeth how the Son of God, by the Sacrifice of his human body, hath pacified God for the sins of man.  
It admonisheth us in like sort, of the mutual love, and communion which is, and aught to be between the members of so sacred, and sanctified a body.  
Many other causes, and reasons may be alleged why this Sacrament was instituted at the first, and is frequented still of God's people; whereof though the setting out of our Communion, and spiritual familiarity with him, and rejoicing in him, be one; yet it is not the only end, but many being beside, many gestures in divers respects, and not one only, is required for the more seemly receiving the same externally.  
Again, there being many causes, and ends of our receiving the holy Supper, one, and the same site of body neither doth remember us, nor can present, and represent all those ends unto us and others. And therefore as sitting may note our communion, and familiarity: so kneeling our thankfulness unto God.  
But if this spiritual Communion, and comfort only be 
1. Cor. 12.  thereby signified (as nothing is more untrue) yet is the same expressed by the other Sacrament of Baptism, as well as by this; and represented as well by water, consisting of many drops, as either of wine, effected of many grapes, or of bread, made of many grains. Which Baptism yet is neither ministered, nor urged so to be, by Sitting, as the Supper is.  
Neither is our corporal food always, and every where, to the greatest comfort, and token of sweetest familiarity, received Sitting; but sundry writers have their several fashions in their friendly, and comfortable refresh; some taking the same one way, some another, not all Sitting, especially in the Eastern parts of the world. The ancient Fathers, some of them called this sacrament, as the Lords Supper; so a Sacrifice: and that which the bread and wine were set upon; as the Lord's Table, so an Altar. Whereof saith reverent, and most learned Zanchie, although that 
Zanch. de lege dei. fol. 444.  Altars serve rather, and be more meet for the offering, then for the ministration of the Supper: yet seeing neither Christ, nor his Apostles either prohibited Altars, or commended unto us the use of wooden tables, therefore is this also of (altars) to be numbered among things indifferent; and free for all, and every man to use tables either of wood, or stone at his discretion, provided that all superstition be removed. For what is an Altar (saith that holy and peaceable man) what is an altar but a table made of stones? about which would not I contend (saith he,) if so be otherwise there is a consent in the true doctrine and worship of God. All this hath Zanchie, which we say of Kneeling, and the like.  
And would to God you would so think of our Kneeing, and others Altars, and of all things else in good use in reformed Churches, that be indifferent. Then would, then could you never say, that not Kneeling, and Sitting is for receiving.  
It had been too much for you to have said, how not kneeling, but averring that Sitting is for receiving (as if none other gesture were for the commodious and meet receiving thereof, but Sitting) is very bad.  
The first admonitioners which so disliked Kneeling at the Communion, never urged their Sitting, as a thing necessary, as you do, saying, not Kneeling, but Sitting is for receiving. For, say they, we make not Sitting a thing of necessity 
Admon in the addit.  belonging to the Sacrament, neither affirm we that it may not be received otherwise.  
Therefore better judge they of these than you do, but they best of all, who take them as they are, things of themselves indifferent, and so except authority determine otherwise, like to be deemed, and that as good Communion and society they have with Christ and his Church (having on them the wedding garment of Faith) which receive Kneeling, as they which Sat, so as no man for the very act of kneeling, no more then of Sitting, sinneth.  Schis. 
We read not of any gesture of body prescribed or observed in Circumcision and Baptism, as in the Passeover and Supper.  Pro. 
Or observed? Had you not added these words I should have thought that by your reading you had found how thereiss a form of gesture prescribed unto Christians at their taking the holy Communion. And though I shrewdly conjecture you are of that mind: yet being not willing to take you at the worst, let us know the reason why a gesture was observed, though not prescribed at the holy Supper, which was neither prescribed nor observed at Baptism and Circumcision.  Schis. 
Because there needeth no natural regard to be had of any certain gesture in the two former Sacraments, so the foreskin were cut off, and water be used: but in the other two, a gesture answerable to the action is requisite.  Pro. 
It is requisite and necessary that we take, and eat bread and wine at the supper of the Lord, as it was requisite that the foreskin should be cut off at Circumcision, and water used, and none other liquor at Baptism: but that a certain gesture was either observed or requisite at the Communion, this reason showeth not.  Schis. 
God prescribed to his people, when they were to 
Exod. 12. 11.  fly out of Egypt, the gesture of loins girded, and staves in their hands, because the eating then of the Passeover was 
Numb. 9 3.  in haste. But the gesture being but for that time, as may appear by the omission thereof, when the observation of 
Mat. 5. 17.  the Passeover was established, our Master Christ, who 
Mat. 26. 20.  came not to break, but fulfil the Law, and knew what was fittest to be done, did eat the Passeover Sitting, a gesture more answerable to eating in peace, than the former used in Egypt.  Pro. 
Because God prescribed to the jews a form of taking, and eating the Passeover, hath he therefore prescribed a form to Christians of taking, and receiving the Lords Supper? The one you manifest, the other I would see proved.  
But had our God set down, (as he hath not) the manner how Christians should receive the Supper, as he ordained how the Passeover should be taken, and eaten of the jews: yet because you here confess, that this form of eating the Passeover, in process of time was altered, the jews now eating the same Sacrament for substance, but after a new manner, sitting in Christ's time, (for so you say) standing afore, and yet without sin: why may not we Christians, upon as good reasons, retaining the substance, change the manner after which the holy Supper was ministered, and received in the days of Christ?  
Before Christ his time, there were additions unto, (you heard afore) in Christ his time there were alterations of the manner of taking the passover (your self do say) yet all well liked and allowed of the Lord. Had the jews more liberty to add forms, even of admimistring the Sacraments, than Christians have? Or be Christians in more bondage this way, and restrained than the jews? And might the jews upon good considerations do these things, and may not Christians without sin do as they did?  
We take therefore what you acknowledge (though we will not acknowledge it to be true) namely, that the manner of taking, and receiving the passover, was altered: the jews taking it at the first standing, in process of time, sitting.  
What gather you thereof?  Schis. 
Hereby kneeling is convinced as being a gesture altogether unanswereable to eating.  Pro. 
Whereof is Kneeling convinced? Show: you have not yet declared. Or what maketh the jews sitting at the last, or standing at the first, to our Kneeling at the Communion?  
Kneeling differeth from Sitting, Standing, Walking, and the like; but answereth to eating, and drinking well enough. For we may eat to our mutual comfort (if the common guise were not otherwise) as well Kneeling, as Sitting, Standing, or any other way: which you cannot truly deny. If civilly we may so do at our common refresh, why not much more Ecclesiasticallie, and sacramentally at the Supper of the Lord?  Schis. 
Because (such Kneeling) it darkeneth the counsel 
job 38. 2. 1. Cor. 11. 25. 26.  of God, and being a sign of the greatest submission, obscureth the rejoicing familiarity, which the Lords Supper signifieth, and sealeth.  Pro. 
Kneeling at the Communion darkeneth (say you) the counsel of God, and obscureth the Rejoicing familiarity, which the Lords Supper signifieth, and sealeth.  
For the ratifying of these your assertions you quote Scripture, and bring a reason. The places of Scripture which you quote be two, the former out of job; the latter from S. Paul.  
Out of the book of job the place is this, Who is this that 
job. 38. 2.  darkeneth the counsel by words without knowledge? alleged only for the phrase sake, but concerneth the point in controversy not a whit. S. Paul's words be these: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new Testament in my blood, This do 
1. Cor. 11. 25. 26.  as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lords death till he come. Now what is this also against our Kneeling: They which worthily participate of the bread and wine, though they Kneel, do as comfortably, and familiarly Communicate in the blessings of God, as they which in any other sort receive the Sacraments.  
Your reason that it obscureth the rejoicing familiarity which the Lord's Supper signifieth and sealeth, because it is a sign of the greatest submission, is so far from obscuring, that it furthereth the same rejoicing familiarity nothing more.  
For who can receive either to God's glory more notably, or to their own souls joy more comfortably, than they which with the greatest sign of submission, and that unto the divine Majesty, repair unto the holy Supper?  
Afore you said, and truly, how kneeling was a sign of the greatest reverence; here you say, It is the greatest sign of submission. These are no reasons to drive us from it, but very forcible motives to make us with cheerfulness and alacrity to continue our Kneeling.  
Besides, you argue (me thinks) but from a particular, as though spiritual familiarity only, and not other things beside, and namely and especially a grateful remembrance, and thankful acknowledgement of all God's mercies and favours, which is best expressed by Kneeling, were to be in our thoughts.  
When there be many causes inducing us to receive the Sacrament; if we choose that gesture we above all may testify our true humiliation, and thankfulness unto God, rather than our rejoicing familiarity one with another; blame us not. And yet is this corporal submission, and submissive thankfulness at no time without much spiritituall joy; and it may be, more increaseth godly joy in them which Kneel, and in them too before whom they Kneel, than your acknowledged less reverent Sitting, as at a common feast.  Schis. 
Doewe not condemn the Papists for ministering the Communion in one kind, because such an administration is against Christ his example, and doth not lively demonstrate the Lords death?  Pro. 
The condemnation of the Papists is just for their such ministering. And therefore the Scripture which you point unto, serveth very aptly to display their impiety, which serve from Christ his institution by ministering the Communion in one kind, but not against us for Kneeling.  
And their blame is the juster, and the more, not so much because they serve by their said ministering from his example, (which in some cases, as afore hath been shown, is lawful to be done,) as for that very disobediently they transgress the manifest Commandment of God, which hath enjoined the said Sacrament to be administered in both kinds.  Schis. 
Hear a caveat is to be given, that none take occasion by this discourse (of mine) to justify the childish pedagogy of signifying ceremonies devised by man, seeing Sitting was used by Christ, & the signification thereof is found in Scripture. And therefore that childish pedagogy is not justified by that worthy servant of Christ, M. Cartwright his judgement, viz. that Sitting doth signify our rest in Christ jesus.  Pro. 
Those children which allow and like of significant ceremonies, may be your Fathers in sound Divinity.  
How, and by whom such ceremonies are justified, it is needless to set down; but that they are justified by most godly, and learned men, their judgement touching some ceremonies used even at the Communion, bear witness. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss, 
1. Cor. 16. 26.  saith Saint Paul. Erat elegans admonitio in osculo, There was an elegant admonition in the kiss. Nam coiunctionem intimam declarabat, for it signified a most inward conjunction. Also not only a consent, sed communionem sanctorum, but the communion of Saints which they 
Arctius in. 1. Cor. 10. ver. 10.  professed in doctrine and sacred ceremonies, saith Arctius.  
And of the same kiss, Nec est dubitandum (saith Peter Martyr) it is not to be doubted, how in the primitive 
P. Mart. in 1. Cor. 16.  Church, Christians gave one another the mutual kiss of peace and consent, before they went unto the holy communion, by which token their purpose was to admonish themselves of the communion of Saints celebrated in the mysteries. The marginal annotation from Geneva upon 
Geneva annota. on 1. Cor. 26. 20.  these words of the Apostle is: (How the Christians did so kiss) in token of mutual love, which thing was observed in the primitive Church when the Lords Supper was ministered.  
Mark these things advisedly, and you shall see,  
First, that to the administration of the Supper, ceremonies, as kissing (more than ever Christ, that we know, practised, sure I am, than he ever prescribed) were added.  
Secondly, how the said ceremonies were very elegant, and significant:  
And lastly, that the said addition, and ceremonies (no not for their mystical signification) were never deemed either unlawful or childish (as you childishly do call them) but very highly commended both by the Apostle, and worthy interpreters in the Church of Christ.  
But to proceed still in the sacred Supper still in hand. There be actions of the minister, and of the people, and yet all ceremonial, and significant.  
The action of the minister giving the bread and wine, representeth God's action in giving Christ, with his benefits to the particular communicants. Again, the action (whether by sitting, kneeling, or by whatsoever done) of receiving the bread and wine severally, resembleth another special action of the believing heart, which applieth 
T●at. of conscience. cap. 3. §. 3.  Christ unto itself for the pardon of sin, and life everlasting. This is M. Perkins judgement.  
Finally, among the actions of the Communicants, sitting (the ceremony which you so stand for, condemning all other sites, especialle Kneeling) doth it not in the opinion of the admonishioners, signify rest, that is, a full finishing 
1. Admon.  through Christ of all the ceremonial law, and a perfect work of redemption wrought, that giveth rest for ever? But that is a childish pedagogy, say you, not justified by that worthy servant of Christ, Master Cartwright. And yet, even you his disciple, Schismatic, which give us here a caveat not to take sitting to signify such arrest, even you take your sitting to be as childish a pedagogy, as significant a ceremony, maintaining the said sitting to be a sign and token of the rejoicing familiarity, and familiar rejoicing between Christ, and his Church; for to this end tendeth this whole section and discourse.   

SECT. 7.  
Whether Christ sat of purpose.  Schis. 
THat kneeling may be more sound convinced as a will-worship, objections are to be answered.  Pro. 
Convicted hitherto you have not, much less sound convinced Kneeling to be a will-worship; and therefore more sound you cannot, yea never sound shall ye convince the same to be a wilworshippe, though your will be good. But do your endeavour, invent objections, and set down your answers, that we may see how well you can effect that which you have in purpose.  Schis. 
Therefore where it is supposed that Christ and his Apostles ministered and received Sitting but by occasion, and not of purpose, because they were Sitting before in eating the Passeover, whereas if Christ had Satin down of purpose to administer the Communion, than all that is said is granted to be to some purpose.  Pro. 
Indeed that Christ did Sat at his holy Communion, is but a supposal. There is a marginal annotation in the Geneva Bible, which speaketh thus: Their fashion was 
Geneva annot. john 13. 23.  not to Sat at table, but having their shoes off, and cushions under their elbows, leaned on their sides, as it were half lying.  
If Christ did not Sat, as these men say: and again, if half lying be not to Sat, surely it must be more than half a lie, without all supposals to affirm our Saviour (as often as you have done) to have sat at the Sacred board. Yourself also at the first did but suppose our Saviour 
Supra sect. 4 P. 37.  to have Satin, when you said, He ministered Sitting, or in such a gesture as in those countries was most used.  
But without supposals, grant he did sit, and of purpose too when he administered the Communion: yet what by you hitherto hath been said to this purpose, ought not; sure I am will never be acknowledged by me to be spoken to any purpose, but idly.  
What say you hereto?  Schis. 
The answer is short, yet full.  Pro. 
Express it.  Schis. 
Christ did sit of purpose when he ministered his last Supper. For after the Passeover he rose, washed his disciples feet, and sat down again.  Pro. 
Surely what Christ did was purposely done.  
The original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Rursum discumbens, he lying down again. For Notum est (saith Beza) it is 
Beza & Viler. in joh. 13. v. 13  well known how men in old time (the jews especially) were wont at the table, Non sedere, sed recumbere, notto sit, but to lie, or lean themselves down.  
Besides, the example you bring of our Saviour Christ is of good regard. For, as the Evangelist hath described, Christ before this holy supper, & after the Passeover, laid aside his 
joh. 13. v. 4. 5.  upper garment, and took a towel, & girded himself. After that, he powered water into a Basin, and began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. And after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set (or laid) down again, he said unto them: Know you what I have done to you, etc. If I then your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought towash one another's feet.  
So did, and so spoke our Saviour Christ, thereby not only moving by his example, but also enjoining them by strong reason to do that which himself had done: yet is there not one among you (the most earnest urgers of this Sitting, and that after the example of Christ) that either do as our Saviour did before he administered this Sacrament, or regard his motion. Wherein if you do well, you may further see, that Christ his actions are not necessarily to be followed always in matters ceremonial especially, as afore hath been said.   

SECT. 8.  
Whether Christ prescribed a special gesture for the Communion.  Schis. 
IT may be demanded, why the church is not bound to the time of Evening, aswell as to the gesture of 
john 13. 12.  Sitting, sith Christ observed the one as well as the other.  Pro. 
You hold still the Church is bound to the gesture of Sitting. But you are to be put in mind, how this is but a mere fancy of yours. Your worthy master Cartwright dissenteth herein from you (as otherways sometime 
T. C. 1. rep. p. 131. §. 3.  he dissenteth from his well favoured Admonitioners.) For it is not of necessity (saith he) that we should receive the Communion Sitting. If otherwise the man had not erred, he should never have troubled, nor offended our Church, as like a most unworthy Minister thereof he hath done.  
But, I pray you, why are we bound to the gesture of Sitting, & not bound to the time of Evening? especially being sure that Christ administered his Sacrament in the night, but are not sure that he sat.  Schis. 
It may be answered, Time being a common circumstance to every action (for nothing can be done, but in some time) the particular time is not to be observed, 
Gen. 2. 2, 3.  except Christ had sanctified it to the Communion, as GOD sanctified the seventh day, on which he rested, or (at least) chose it of purpose, as he did Sitting.  Pro. 
A certain gesture (say you,) but no certain time was chosen by Christ; who appointing no time when, doth choose a manner how his Supper should be ministered, viz. in your opinion, Sitting. And yet the Scripture beareth witness (to nothing more plainly) that he instituted and celebrated his Supper in the night, choosing that special time for that purpose, as well as the Sitting you speak of.  
But if he chose no such time (as you would make the world believe) but left the time free, and at the liberty of his people to limit; then made he no more choice of Sitting, then of any other site. For he either chose both, or neither; and we are no more tied to the necessary observation of the one, then of the other. For he using both a special time, and a certain gesture, if he chose the one he chose both; and if his example be of us necessarily to be followed in the gesture, it is to be followed also in the time; we can no more alter the one, than we may change the other.  Schis. 
That followeth not. For it was upon special and necessary occasion, for the Passeover must be 
Mat. 26. 31. Luke 22. 53.  eaten before the Lord's Supper could be instituted in stead thereof, and presently after Supper, the hour came that Christ was to be betrayed.  Pro. 
Be this acknowledged: what hereof?  Schis. 
Therefore if the jews transgressed not the institution of the Passeover, by changing a gesture at the first prescribed by God, according to that their present occasion into another fitter for a time of rest, much less do Christians transgress the institution of the Lords Supper, by changing the time taken by Christ upon occasion, but not prescribed, into some fitter (in discretion) for the ordinary celebration of the Lords Supper.  Pro. 
You have twice now said, that the jews changed the gesture of Standing, prescribed even by God himself, at their eating the Passeover: if you had once proved your saying 
Mat. Flacius Illyr. I. Wigand. Mat. Index, Basilius▪ Faber: hist. eccles. Cent: 1. l. 1. c. 10. p. 329.  to make it out of doubt, you had done well. Other divines, not to be contemned, think clean otherwise, namely, that the jews, and even Christ himself kept the old custom of standing, & never changed the same into Sitting. Non autem dubium est (be some of their words) it is without doubt, that Christ performed that ceremony (of eating the Passeover) Stando amictus, & baculum tenens: Standing, his loins girded, and holding a staff in his hand.  
But it may not be acknowledged (which now the second time also you say) that their new Sitting was fitter for a time of rest, than their old Standing, God having prescribed this Standing for a perpetual memory (even till the real Passion of Christ) of their sudden and safe deliverance from the most grievous thraldom of theirs in Egypt.  
But did, or might the jews before the very and full time was come that the said Passeover was to take an end, alter the rite and site of eating the same, changing their Standing prescribed into Sitting, not enjoind by God, but devised by themselves, as fitter to represent their present and future rest, than their former troubles: may not Gods people in these days change the site of Christ's Sitting (if he did Sat,) which was never prescribed unto Christians, into Kneeling in their discretion?  
The jews transgressed not the institution of the Passeover (say you) by changing a gesture at the first prescribed of God: and do Christians transgress the institution of the Supper, by changing a gesture neither first, nor last, nor at all prescribed, if practised by Christ?  
And might Christians in former days lawfully change the time chosen by Christ, but not prescribed, into some other fitter (in discretion) for the ordinary celebrating of the Lords Supper: and do Christians now offend in changing a corporal gesture, no more enjoined than was the time, into some fitter (in discretion) for the celebrating of the Lords Supper in a public Church, at open public prayer, and thanksgiving?  
Have not Christians in these indifferent matters as great power as had the jews, and the now living Christians as their forefathers? And might both jews and Christians add and alter forms of administering the Sacraments, not changing their substance; and sin they now which in these days do use their liberty in these things, after the example both of the Christians and jews? See you not how your own weapons do wound yourself? Now among Christians who changed the time?  Schis. 
Probably the Primitive Church did.  Pro. 
You cannot then certainly say it, you do but probably conjecture that the Primitive Church made the change. What moveth you so to think?  Schis. 
For every first day of the week (viz. the Lords day) 
Act. 2. 42. & 20 7. 1. Cor. 16. 2. Revel. 2. 18.  the brethren came together to break bread, that is, to minister the Communion So that either they never met upon the Lord's day but in the Evening, or else they celebrated the Communion at some other times.  Pro. 
Be it that the first day, yea every first day of the week, namely, every Lord's day, the Christians came together to break bread, that is, to minister the Communion (which yet is not agreed upon among the learned:) yet that they so met every first day in the day time, and not in the night, is but conjectural; yea, that they met together in the night as well as in the day to that end, the twenty 
Beza in Act. 20. 7.  of the Acts doth show. Whereupon some do note how nocturnal meetings are not simply, and of themselves to be condemned.  
But let it be more than probable, and most certain, that the alteration of the time of ministering the Lords Supper came in while the Apostles lived: yet did this ministering thereof in the day vary from Christ his ministering the same in the night; and being done with good discretion, the Church thereby transgressed not the institution of Christ.  
So without sin was the gesture of our Saviour changed into Kneeling, whosoever were the authors thereof.  Schis. 
But for any alteration of the gesture of Sitting, especially into Kneeling, there is not the least probability.  Pro. 
When all the world knoweth, and seeth the gesture to be altered, how can you say it is not probable that it was altered?  
And though it be not apparent, and if you will too, not probable, that the Apostles altered the gesture, and that into Kneeling: yet it is most certain, and more than probable, that Apostolical men, endued with the holy Spirit, were both alterers at the first, and users afterward of that seemly gesture.   

SECT. 9  
Whether the prayer at the delivery of the bread and wine, be justifiable.  Schis. 
IT is further objected, that we may Kneel in regard of prayers to be used by prescription of authority, at the delivery of the bread and wine, viz. The body of our Lord jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life: and take and eat this, etc.  Pro. 
What is your answer?  Schis. 
Hereunto these answers may be returned.  Pro. 
Which be they?  Schis. 
(First) seeing we reject Christ his example of Sitting for Kneeling, we must not stand upon what we may do, but humbly consider what we must do.  Pro. 
Those Christians which Kneel, do no more reject Christ his example of Sitting, then do you reject it in ministering the Communion to women, privately, and many ways beside, otherwise than he did.  
If every action of Christ be a necessary injunction binding Christians to the imitation of the same, so as they may not vary therefrom in their discretion but they sin, that which you have said of the Christians celebrating of the Supper in the day, deserveth the same reproof which this Kneeling doth, both swerving from this example, but surely neither of them tending to God's dishonour, nor against his will.  
But what incenseth your stomach against these prayers, and maketh them unlawful to be used?  Schis. 
If there be not a necessary, and a justifiable cause both of those prayers, and of Kneeling in regard of them, do we not presume upon Christ his patience, in rejecting his example?  Pro. 
We reject no example of Christ as ill, but do some things at the Communion which he did not, as more meet and convenient for the times and places where we live, than were or his would be: and we have necessary and justifiable causes both of our prayers made at the holy Table, and of our Kneeling in regard of them. And therefore presume we not a whit upon the patience of Christ.  Schis. 
What necessity is there of those prayers, at that very time? seeing prayers go before, and follow after.  Pro. 
You can show no ill at all, either in the matter, or form of those prayers; & therefore not to be despised are they as you would have them to be.  
Besides, at that very time (whatsoever go afore, or follow after) the Minister not only prayeth for (which is very charitable;) but also putteth the Communicant in mind, both of God's mercy towards mankind in giving his Son Christ to the shameful death of the Cross for our redemption, and of his duty towards God, in being thankful for so great benefits: which are things necessary; but never more then at the very receiving of the signs, and pledges of God's favour.  Schis. 
Again, must we needs Kneel at every bit of a prayer?  Pro. 
Every bit (as you scoffingly do say) and modicum of prayer unto God, aught to be offered to the heavenly Majesty, with the worthiest gesture of submission, to whom we cannot make our prayers with reverence too much. A greater argument of submission, or sign of reverence is there not then kneeling.  
A base, beggarly, and contemptible bit of bread, and sup 
W. Rai. of the Sacra. c. 11. p. 238.  of wine, saith Rainolds the runagate of the Lords Supper.  
The world at the last now may see, and report to what height of spiritual pride, ye Sectaries are come, when with the Papists ye scorn and deride both our holy prayers, which ye cannot disprove or amend, as bits; and us for kneeling even when we offer up both our prayers and praises unto our God, and that for the chiefest benefit that ever was conferred upon mankind.  Schis. 
Is there more necessity to obey a needless direction to kneel at those prayers, then to follow the example of Christ in Sitting, when we take, eat, and drink things required in the same sentences?  Pro. 
Bits of prayers; Needless directions: these be your elegancies. Better ought you to think of our public both prayers and orders, then to term them being short, Bits; and the other not according to your mind, needless.  
Are these your proceedings (Schismatics) both in devotion towards God; and in obedience toward the Church, that you scorn the one and despise the other, regard neither further▪ then you list?  
Sweet are those prayers to our inward man, which you term bits; & necessary those directions, which it pleaseth you to phrase, needless: yea so necessary, as whereas we are not bound in every action of Christ, and all circumstances, necessarily to follow Christ in receiving the Communion, we are bound under the pain of his heavy wrath, to obey these directions of God made by his lieutenants.  Schis. 
And why must the people kneel when they hear those prayers, rather than the minister that pronounceth them?  Pro. 
The people when they communicate receive the pledges of God's love from the ministers hand, to the comfort of their souls. The minister when he so receiveth, and heareth such prayers, Kneeleth too, as well as do the people.  Schis. 
But it is a question whether those prayers be justifiable, or no.  Pro. 
disprove them if you can, why are they not justifiable?  Schis. 
For, besides that by reason of them, kneeling, devised and abused by Antichrist, doth cross the practice of Christ's, and his Apostles, and they may seem a vain repetition, even the adding of them to the words of institution, is contrary to the mind of Christ.  Pro. 
You have strange thoughts both of our Kneeling, and prayers at the Communion for our said Kneeling, and of our Kneeling for the said Prayers sake.  
Kneeling, say you, was devised and abused by Antichrist. But you cannot prove our Kneeling by Antichrist to be either devised, or abused.  
Antichrist, and Antichristians they do kneel, but it is at their Mass, and other prayers, both ungodly and superstitious: our kneeling at the Communion neither did he devise, nor doth abuse; and if he were the deviser of the same, yet use we that gesture well, and to God's glory, which he devised, or his members abuse unto idolatry.  
Again, Kneeling doth cross the practice of Christ (say you) and his Apostles: which is also untrue. For well may it differ, as do all forms of administering the holy supperused in the Church, one way or other, from the practice of Christ, but in nothing doth it cross, or contrary the same; or if it do, show wherein that we may see the fault, and amend it.  
And though we kneeled not: yet (in your opinion) should we cross the practice of Christ, and his Apostles, even for those prayers of ours. Which if you speak as you think, hereafter condemn us not for bending our knees (as very bitterly you have done, but as unjustly) but blame us for lending our ears attentively unto the prayers uttered when we receive; yea, blame us for saying those prayers, or Amen unto them.  
These prayers of ours you condemn as wicked, first, because there may seem a vain repetition, next, for that the adding of them to the words of institution, is contrary to the mind of Christ, wherein you plainly do manifest your detestation of the prayers, but show no word in them for all that, savouring of impiety and error.  
They seem, nay, they may seem (say you) a vain repetition.  
What they seem in your eyes, nay what they seem not, but may seem, is not material: if they seemed so, you would show it; if they were a vain repetition, you would say, and prove it. Your manner is not to extenuate faults, but to aggravate offences; yea to make faults where there be none, as in all your discourse hitherto you have done nothing else.  
Finally, be all additions to the words of institution contrary to the mind of Christ? This conference of ours hath shown, how both unto the Passeover, both words, and things were; and unto the Lord's Supper, first a Supper, even a Love feast, and at the same Love feast, holy Kisses (ceremonies most elegant, and significant) were added: and yet neither these, nor any other additions to this hour were ever deemed (but only of you Schismatics) contrary to the mind of Christ, howsoever crossing his practice.  
These additions of ours add nothing to the substance, but only to the form of ministering Gods Sacraments; and therefore not unlawful, nor contrary to the mind of Christ.  
But show, how is the addition of these words contrary to his mind?  Schis. 
For he did first bless or pray, and after gave the Elements in a Sacramental form of words, without any addition, saying, Take, eat, etc. which order of administration, and form of words, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
Mat. 6. 7. etc. 26. 26, etc. Mark 14. 21. Luke 2●. 19, etc. 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24.  Paul, do so constantly, precisely, and sincerely relate, that any may perceive the meaning of the Spirit to be, That the Sacramental form of words ought to be observed without any addition; and the rather because Paul beginneth his relation thus: I have received of the Lord that which I have also delivered, etc.  Pro. 
We stand against the Papists, we stand likewise against you Schismatics, that in the ministration of the holy Supper, we keep us most precisely to the institution of Christ; neither shall you, nor they ever prove that we serve therefrom.  
There be actions to be done of Pastors, after the example of Christ; there be actions of the people, after the example of the Disciples; there be things necessary, there be accessary; there be substantial, and unmutable, there be accidental, and changeable.  
After the example of Christ, Pastors are to bless the 
Beza in 1. Cor. 11. 23.  bread and wine by calling on the Name of God, and opening the institution with prayers; and to break the bread which is to be eaten, and the cup which is to be drunk, and to deliver both the bread and wine into the people's hands with thanksgiving. On the other side, it is the part of the flock to examine themselves, 1. To try both their knowledge, as also their faith and repentance; to declare the Lords death, that is, by a true faith to assent unto his word and institution: last of all, to eat the bread taken from the ministers hand, and to drink the wine with thanksgiving. This was Paul's and the Apostle liturgy, saith Beza: and is it not the liturgy of our Church at the administration of the Communion?  
The taking of bread is necessary (we take it;) thanksgiving, that is, the sacrifice Eucharistical is necessary (we 
zanch. de lege. fol. 446.  are thankful;) the breaking of bread is necessary (we break it;) the distribution (of bread and wine) is necessary (we distribute them;) and that it be given only to the Disciples of Christ it is necessary (we give the bread and wine unto none but Christians.) For all these things pertain unto the substance of the Supper, saith Zanchie. Now what of these necessary things either want we, or do we not in our Church?  
If any thing we add, it is but for the better setting foth of the Sacrament, and stirring up of good affections: which may be done very well, without offence to God, after the example of God's people, jews and Christians, as afore more than once hath been declared.  
Hence Master Calvin: so much (saith he) as concerneth 
Institut. l. 4. §. 43.  the outward form of doing (or ministering the Sacrament) whether the faithful receive it (viz. the bread) in their hand, or not; whether they divide it, or every one eat that which is given him; whether they put the cup in the hand of the Deacon, or deliver it to the next: whether the bread be leavened, or unleavened: whether the wine be red, or whit; I might add, whether we sit or kneel; whether our payers, and thanksgivings be long, or short (according to the times, and occasions) whether we use prayers, or no, at the delivery, and receiving the elements) it maketh no matter. These things be indifferent (saith Calvin) and left at the the liberty of the Church.  
Whereas therefore you say, that the very Sacramental form of words ought precisely to be observed without any addition (I say, not to the sense, and substance of matter, but to the very words) as if keeping us to the same sense we use other words, or more words, or in another form, though to the same holy end, and purpose) were unlawful, and an adding unto Christ his institution, and so a sin liable to the heavy curse of God, is doctrine strange, hitherto not witnessed by the Churches of God.  Schis. 
It may seem to be against religion and reason, that to a Sacramental form of speech, wherein the minister should only supply the person of Christ, there should be added a Prayer, as in the name of the Church. This confusion is fitter for Babylon, than for Zion.  Pro. 
That Christ said, Take, eat, this is my Body, the Scripture doth manifest: but either that Christ used no more words, tending to prayer, thanksgiving, exhortation, or instruction, or tied his ministers to those very, and only words, no scripture doth show, no writer saith, but yourself: neither doth it seem that any sound religion, and little reason is in him, that so saith, being fitter to come from one of the brats of Babylon, than from any child of Zion.  Schis. 
Why is not a short prayer, after other going before, as well joined to the Sacramental form of Baptism, viz. N. I. baptise thee in the name of the Father? etc.  Pro. 
The form of Baptism is but short, the prayers, and other good speeches, complementing the same both going before, and following after, (set down in the wisdom of the Church, without any special commandment of God) are neither few, nor confused, and hitherto unreproved, for aught I could ever yet hear: which may teach you not cynically to bark against forms and fashions of administering Gods Sacraments, when the matter uttered, and used, is good, godly, and justifiable.  Schis. 
If then this addition of prayer to the sacramental form of words be not of faith, how can we, with faith, and a good conscience, confirm or allow the same with our kneeling? 
Rom. 22. 20. 3.   Pro. 
But if this addition to the sacramental form of words, be no addition to the substance of the sacrament, but only in the Church's discretion added for the greater glory of God, and comfort of the receivers, then hath it God's words for the warrant thereof, and may be well uttered, and reverently heard, and assented unto even on our bended knees.  
And so if there be no fault in our kneeling, but because of those prayers, Kneeling cannot be faulty, because the prayers be justified.   

SECT. 10.  
Whether Kneeling at the Communion be a gesture indifferent.  Schis. 
LAstly, for justifying of Kneeling it is affirmed, that it is indifferent whether we Sat, Stand, or Kneel, seeing Christ did Sat, when he did eat the Passeover, whereas God commanded the children of Israel in Egypt to eat the Passeover Standing, and some reformed Churches receive Standing. Therefore the King may appoint kneeling as the most reverend gesture, and best beseeming so holy an action.  Pro. 
We deem kneeling to be a corporal site of itself indifferent, not because Christ did sit, when he should have stood, eating the Passeover. (For he did Stand, according to the first institution, and not Sit:) but because it is of the nature even of Sitting, and Standing, which I think yourself will not deny to be sites indifferent.  
Besides, yourself have acknowledged that Kneeling hath been abused as were the Love Feasts; and therefore might afore be well used as things indifferent may.  
Again, you have lately given us to note, how kneeling of itself is not evil, and so to be taken and counted, but because it is used at certain prayers, which in your conceit are evil, at least not justifiable. Therefore indifferent.  
Lastly, remember you not how you said of Kneeling, that it is the most solemn sign of reverence; and a sign of the greatest submission? Therefore not simply evil, and to be condemned.  
Nay, when you say this of Kneeling, why may not the King appoint the most solemn sign of reverence, the sign of the greatest submission, or (as you now say, whether in earnest, or sport, I weigh not (the most reverend gesture (for so is it) and best beseeming so holy an action, for the Lords Supper?  Schis. 
For answer whereunto, howsoever that which is already said, may suffice, yet it may be further considered, that though it be admitted, that it is indifferent to Sit, or to Stand: yet doth it not follow, that Kneeling is indifferent.  Pro. 
Do you but admit Sitting and Standing to be indifferent? are they so but by way of Concession? And though you grant Standing and Sitting to be so, yet doth it not follow that Kneeling is of the same nature indifferent? what reason have you that it is not?  Schis. 
For Sitting is the example, and Standing is a gesture sometimes used in extraordinary eating, (and in the objection) it is said to be prescribed at a Sacramental Feast.  Pro. 
Leaning and lying may show us how Christ ministered his Supper.  
Sitting is none example. For he sat not, if Beza, if 
See afore. §. 7. p. 67.  Vilerius, if the vulgar Geneva annotation afore cited, say true.  
And if, because standing in some Churches is prescribed at the sacramental feast, it is to be esteemed indifferent, then is kneeling so to be deemed, because the most and best reformed Churches appoint kneeling to be the seemliest gesture to be used at the sacrament.  
What have you more to say?  Schis. 
Again, it doth not follow, that because Christ used a gesture fitter for eating in his time, in stead of a gesture prescribed upon occasion, it is therefore lawful to use a gesture nothing answerable to eating, and that taken out of the synagogue of Antichrist (as though the 
1. Cor. 14. 36.  word of God came out of it, or to it only) instead of a gesture most answerable to eating, and purposely used by Christ at the institution of the Sacrament.  Pro. 
Will you not leave charging of Christ with violating and breaking of God's ordinance by using a gesture not fitter for eating in his time; refusing a gesture prescribed upon occasion, in God's eyes fittest for the jewish Church?  
Which thing though our Saviour neither might, nor would do: yet is it free for us Christians and all Churches, to use such gestures at the Communion, as are fittest for the days and countries, wherein, and where we live.  
England and many other Churches purged from the superstition of Popery, have made choice of Kneeling (a site though not answerable to our common eating (neither is it necessary it should be) yet seemliest in our eyes for our Eucharistical, Ecclesiastical, heavenly, and spiritual repast with Christ, and his members.  
Which Site or gesture, though Antichrist abuse, and Christ that we read, used not yet is it not therefore unlawful, except it can be shown, that either Christ did forbid it, or command another; or that Christians eithermay not at all, or cannot use that well, which in the synagogue of Antichrist hath been abused.  Schism. 
So that notwithstanding all that is said for Kneeling, his Majesty (upon whom the burden as of this gesture: so of other ceremonies is laid) may remember, that Hezekiah appointed Levites in the 
2. Chro. 29. 25.  house of the Lord with Cymbals, etc. according to the commandment of David, and Gad the kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet, for the commandment was by the hand of the Lord, and by the hand of his Prophets.  Pro. 
Whatsoever you have said, yet have you not hitherto proved, the Kneeling in question to be unlawful; and therefore cannot conclude the same to be not indifferent, nor to be enjoined by our King.  
As for his Majesty, like a worthy Hezekiah, he hath appointed Levites in the houses of the Lord, who do perform their duties together both at public prayer, hearing of God's word, ministering, and communicating in the Sacraments, according to the commandment of blessed Elizabeth, and the advice of her Seers, the Prelates and Clergy of the Realm, and all correspondent unto the revealed will and Counsel of God.  Sch. 
Withal, his highness is to consider, if kneeling were the most convenient gesture, & best beseeming the holy communion, our Lord and Master would not have Satin down of purpose at his last supper.  Pro. 
Yourself have acknowledged this Kneeling to be the most solemn sign of reverence, which what it doth differ from the most reverend gesture, he is sharp sighted that can discern, and so best beseeming the holy Communion in our judgement, and country.  
Howsoever our Lord and Master ministered this his Supper, he ministered the same in most decent, orderly, and reverend manner, yet not binding us to his example, as knowing that is comely in one Country, which is not so in another; and meet for the time wherein he lived, and instituted the Sacrament, which though lawful, is not so convenient for after times and all places where his Church, or part thereof should reside. When Christ therefore in these things hath left us free, let no man bring us into a new bondage.  Schis. 
And (let his Majesty remember and consider) that Ahaz was deceived in deeming the Altar at Damascus 
2. Kin. 16. 10, 12, 14, 15.  more honourable for God's service, than the Altar of Lord.  Pro. 
When you prove that God hath appointed the site of Sitting to be the only gesture for the receiving of the Communion in his Church, as Altars were prescribed by God for his worship at jerusalem; and that the site of Kneeling at the said Communion is as unlawful, as were the Altars at jerusalem, made after the fashion of the Altar at Damascus; and lastly that we in the Church of England commit Idolatry by our Kneeling, as did the jews upon their new made Altars, then let both King james be taken for an Ahaz, and his loyal and obedient Subjects for Idolaters: in the space you are to be taken for an egregious depraver both of his sacred Majesty, and of the Church of God under his Empire and Government   

SECT. 11.  
Whether Kneeling at the Communion as much is to be abhorred, as the worshipping of Images.  Schis. 
I Have said that which may be sufficient to a man reasonable, and not contentious against the institution of Kneeling for supposed reverence in regard of God.  Pro. 
You have said a great deal more then enough to the same purpose; but no whit for the satisfaction of any indifferent and reasonable man, studious of the Churches quiet, and desirous of the truth.  Schis. 
It remaineth that somewhat be said against the institution of kneeling, for reverence in regard of bread and wine; which need not be much.  Pro. 
Whatsoever you shall say, it is but too much in a needless contention. You have been told, that we Kneel not, neither be to Kneel in regard of bread and wine.  Schis. 
Verily no sound Protestant of any knowledge will affirm it, but rather presently consider, that if kneeling be instituted for reverence in regard of bread and wine, it must be either because they represent the body and blood of Christ, though remaining bread and wine touching their substance. And then for like reason, we may worship the crucifix, and image of God, as the Papists do.  Pro. 
True.  Schis. 
Or this reverence is done to bread and wine, because Christ is really, bodily, and locally, though invisibly present in them, either by transubstantiation, according to the mind of the Papists: or of consubstantiation, according to the heresy of the Lutherans.  Pro. 
The Church of England, and members of the same, have in equal detestation both of the Transubstantion of the Papists, and the Consubstantiation of the Lutherans.  Schis. 
Then it must needs follow that if we abjure these heresies of Papists, and Lutherans, we must also abhor idolatrous and superstitious Kneeling, their daughter and Nurse.  Pro. 
We abhor idolatrous and superstitious kneeling from our hearts, but not kneeling. Our kneeling is neither superstitious, nor idolatrous.  Schis. 
We never heard of kneeling before transubstantiation was hatched in the sygnagove of Antichrist: so that 
Relics of Rome. fol. 93. & 99 Ans. to M. jewels chal. fol. 110.  immediately after Pope Innocent decreed transubstantiation, Pope Honorius decreed kneeling. Therefore if Harding doth grant, that it is not well to kneel, but in regard of a real, and bodily presence, a sound Protestant should infer, But I detest your real presence: Therefore jabhorre your idolatrous kneeling.  Pro. 
We are to regard not so much who ordained kneeling at the first, or when it was established, and why: as who commands it now, and the use thereof, which we take to be very good, profitable, and necessary.  
What though Harding doth say, that we do not well to kneel, but in regard of a real, and bodily presence: do we therefore ill which kneel, having no such regard?  
And though you tell us a thousand times we do ill in kneeling, because the Papists in kneeling do adore the the bread, and wine: do we therefore ill, which abhor the Papists both doctrine, and adoration?  
Therefore whereas Harding doth grant, that it is not well to kneel, but in regard of a real, and bodily presence: and ye, Schismatics, do say, and maintain, that we do ill to kneel, not because we do, but for that the Papists (in regard of a certain persuasion they have of a bodily, and real presence) do adore Bread, and wine: we hold both them and you to be much out of the way; them for condemning our kneeling, because it is not in adoration of bread and wine; you, for condemning our said Kneeling, which is without all regard of such adoration.   

SECT. 12.  
Whether kneeling at the holy Communion be a show of evil, and the greatest scandal.  Schis. 
WE are to abhor kneeling.  Pro. 
What, all kneeling?  Schis. 
I mean kneeling at the Lords Supper; as in my proposition is expressed.  Pro. 
Why so? For hitherto have you given no sufficient, and satisfying reason, why we should abhor it.  Schis. 
Because we abhor the heresies of worshipping of Images, Transubstantiation, and Consubstantiation.  Pro. 
Though the heresies of worshipping Images, Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation be detestable: yet is not our Kneeling to be abhorred, unless you can prove us guilty of those heresies, or the like, which we abhor, no men more.  
Our gesture of Kneeling cannot be ill, when our doctrine is good; as the same gesture could not be good, if our doctrine were unsound, and savour of those heresies; which you cannot truly say it doth.  
You have afore been told, that the gesture of itself is neither good nor evil, but to be esteemed according to the doctrine which they profess, and hold, that use it; a site, as we use it in the Church of England, very comely, and commendable: a gesture as Papists abuse it, most horrable.  Schis. 
Not in respect of those heresies only, but also because it is the show of the greatest evils that ever were, it is to 
2. Thes. 5. 22.  be abhorred.  Pro. 
Those evils would be shown.  Schis. 
It carrieth a show first of Idolatry, in worshipping a God made of a piece of bread.  Pro. 
artolatry is the evil of the Romish Church: there is neither that evil, nor a show thereof among us, who acknowledge no breaden God, much less give any show of adoration unto bread and wine. The show of such evils we condemn; even as the evil itself we abhor.  
You have been answered again, and again, that our adoration in Kneeling is to our God in heaven, not to his creatures on earth, nor to Christ in them, or transubstantiated into them: which because we do not, the Papists afore mentioned, viz. Harding would not have us to Kneel, because we adore not what they do, which did you conscionably remember, would remove this uncharitable suspicion out of your head, that our Kneeling carrieth a show of artolatry, gross Idolatry. This therefore is but an unjust surmise of yours.  
What is the next evil, even the great evil, that it beareth a show of?  S. 
Even our communion with Antichrist rather than with Christ.  P. 
To communicate with Antichrist, is not reverently and religiously to kneel at the holy Communion; but to communicate in the doctrine, and superstitious worship 
Crusad● from Rome, Anno 1588.  professed, and used in the Church of Rome. Herein we communicate not with the Papists; nor they with us.  
They say that our Protestants are Amalakites, and Heretics; 
Test Rhe. an. Acts. 28. 22.  our doctrine, heresy; and that they which so call it, and that in the worst part that can be, and in the worst sense that ever was, doth rightly and justly; and that we 
Rossaeus, learnedly confuted by D. Sutcliff, in his decath. & art. Ec. l. 2. p. 454.  are Paganis & Turcis deteriores, worse than Turks and Pagans.  
We said of them, that their religion is rebellion; their faith is faction; their doctrine, false, and erroneous; their serving of God, superstitious and idolatrous; all their 
Pub. prayer 5 Novemb.  doctrine, and worship, blasphemous, and derogatory in an high degree to the glory of God.  
Hence have they separated themselves from us, and our Churches, by open recusancy; and we have departed from them, and their offices, which they call Apostasy, and us schismatics for so doing.  
These things were they duly considered as they ought seriously, me thinks it should be far from the thought of any man (professing the same doctrine with us, and detesting the religion of the synagogue of Rome) to imagine, that we in kneeling do communicate with that whorish Church, who are not so severed in doctrine, and worship, as for our worshipping of God, and doctrine, without all hope of atonement, or reconciliation, separated in body, but in affections much more.  
This notwithstanding, were their doctrine and worship as good, as the signs of their devotion, commendable, whom we do communicate withal in a dumb ceremony, and in different (if to kneel at our chiefest prayers, and praisings of God, be a communicating with the Church of Rome) we would also most willingly communicate withal in their worship and doctrine. And we wish and pray, that as we convert some of their usages to God his glory: so they may be converted unto the same doctrine, and worship among us, that with our heart, and form aswell of doctrine and worship, as ceremonies, we may glorify God together in this world.  
In the mean while we shall, and as much do dislike your sitting (who are like us in the main points of doctrine,) as we like of their kneeling (in it one nature considered) who are most unlike us in doctrine, and the true worship of God. For we hold it better to come near the superstitious Papists (who make shows of great devotion at Kneeling); than to profane persons in sitting at the communion (a sign of no devotion, or of very small) especially in these days, wherein we are to fear more, the overflowing of Atheism, than th'increase of superstition.  
When we have no communion with Antichrist in Idolatry and false doctrine; why should you refuse to communicate with us Christians, because of our kneeling?  S. 
It was the greatest scandal that ever was, or can be.  P. 
Kneeling, no not at the communion, is not any scandal in our Church; sitting is. And if Kneeling be, it is a scandal taken, not given: but your sitting is a scandal both given and taken; and therefore the greatest scandal, whereas the other is none at all.  
But seeing you have said it, show why kneeling is the greatest scandal that ever was, or can be?  S. 
It is so in regard of those evils it doth occasionally teach, or confirm.  P. 
If our doctrine (as it doth not) teacheth no such evils, and heresies, Kneeling of itself doth not so much as occasionably teach or confirm them. But our doctrine is most pure, and sound, no Papist can show; no Schismatic will say; no adversary whatsoever shall ever prove the contrary. You are answered for this point; have you no other thing to say, why our Kneeling is so scandalous, yea the greatest scandal that ever was, or can be?  S. 
Yes, it is so also in regard of multitudes (indeed the most part of the people) either not sufficiently instructed in the right understanding and use of the Sacraments, and therefore carried with a blind zeal, learned by tradition; or corrupted (more or less) with the leaven of Popery.  P. 
We are sure, and all the world will witness, that Puritas doctrinae viget in Anglia, true religion flourisheth in England, & the people at no time was ever so diligently and sound taught, both what to believe, & how to live, as they are at this day, and for these many years together have been in our Church. If multitudes notwithstanding remain yet blind, and ignorant, it is the fault either of their own dullness, that cannot; or negligence that will not; or sins, that they shall not profit by the word. The care of their governors hath been great and singular, that they might grow up and increase in all godly knowledge and affections, especially in the Sacrament.  
Therefore if any, or many, either be not sufficiently instructed in the right understanding and use of the Sacraments; or be corrupted (more or less) with the leaven of Popery, what is all this to the church of England, which both desireth and ordereth (so far as in her is) that all may be instructed, & that sufficiently in the right understanding, and use of the Sacraments; and also both teacheth the doctrine of Christ very substantially, and administereth the Sacraments, most sincerely?  
Lay not the faults, and corruptions of the multitude upon the Church of England, and her laws.  S. 
The vulgar people, for a great part, in regard of their weakness, are endangered by this gesture, either grossly to commit the idolatry of Papists, or to have a superstitious estimation of the outward elements.  P. 
The vulgar people would never have those thoughts did not either our adversaries the Papists, poison them with Popish conceits (clean contrary to the purport & meaning of the church of England); or you Schismatics inform them, that we either commit Idolatry, or make show that we so do, by our Kneeling: but all of you most falsely and slanderously.  
The gesture as it is appointed, doth endanger them no whit, but it is partly the Papists suggestions, that they must not Kneel, unless they do adore the Sacrament (which yet are the signs of the most ignorant among them); and partly our schismatical whisperings, that the people do adore, or make show of adoring bread and wine when they do Kneel, that doth endanger the people, and trouble us all, making the multitude for a great part, either open Recusants, because they may not adore; or dangerous sectaries, in that they will not Kneel, which they think to be idolatrous adoration.  S. 
The rather (incline the people to Popery) because by the 21. Canon it is provided, that no bread and wine newly brought, shall be used, but first the words of Institution shall be rehearsed, when the said bread and wine be present upon the Communion table. As if the words were incantations, and the table like an Altar which sanctifieth the sacrifice.  P. 
Kind and natural children will lesson, and extenuate their mother's fault, but never aggravate her offences, much less raise slanders of her when she deserves none. Ye are most unkind to your Mother, the church of England, which hath conceived, and tenderly fed you with the food of God's word, and refreshed you with the heavenly comforts of his Sacraments.  
This our mother and the holy Sacrament will have us put in mind, both who is the author of those holy mysteries; and why they are instituted, and all to raise up in us a more reverend respect of those sacred signs, when she doth nothing but well, and to our singular good, shall we unkindly turn her good directions, and instructions into evil, and say she is faulty, when she deserveth praise? she would have us to approach unto the holy Supper, as to an heavenly banquet; you belike would have us thither to repair as unto a common feast. Is she that inspireth us with divine thoughts, or you rather which receive, or would have us to resort unto the supper, as unto a common feast; she enjoying the divine words of institution, you leaving them quite out as if we were but at a civil, and homely dinner or supper, faulty?  
And what herein doth she contrary to God's word? or differing from the example of Christ, who took bread, and wine, and before he distributed them, or his Disciples did eat, gave thanks, and showed what they signified, and why instituted?  
Tell what in the words of our book, is erroneous? What in the form superstitious? If you cannot be ashamed to term such divine words Incantations, which are holy instructions, ministering necessary and divine meditations unto ourselves, and making the table, yea our Altar, (and all thereupon) most holy unto the Lord, without which, or the like, they differ not from things common, and profane tables.  
Your words be reproachful both to the holy, and to the Church of England.  S. 
May not this promise seem (at least to the simple) to make way at least to the Popish consecration?  P. 
You would belike have us blindly to come, and take the Sacrament, as we do our ordinary food; or if we use any words, though never so heavenly we do Popishly consecrate, in your opinion.  
The words and prayers uttered do make the bread, & wine, holy, which before were common: This is consecration, we acknowledge, yet not Popish but Christian  S. 
How grievous a sin it is to scandalise the weak, may 
Math. 18. 6.  appear by the words of Christ, Viz: whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea.  P. 
Our saviour speaketh against giving offence by open breach of God's holy commandments or any of them.  
If you can show any precept of God either by the Churches enjoining us to kneel; or by our kneeling violated, than you may justly conclude us to be subject to the mentioned curse. If you cannot, whosoever is or be offended, weak or strong, their offence rashly is assumed, not given; and they be more to fear the wrath of God, for being offended without cause, than we for kneeling, having no word of God to the contrary.  S. 
Saint Paul likewise doth say, if meat offend my 
1. Cor. 8. 13.  brother, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth that I may not offend my brother.  P. 
The like are you, and I, and all true Christians to say, touching all things in our power to do, or leave undone: but when by authority we are directed (as at the receiving of the Sacramaent we are) then are we not for offending of others (pretending themselves to be weak) to leave that undone, which we are enjoined to perform. Disobedience is as the sin of witchcraft, offensive to all good minds: obedience unto lawful Injunctions, may be offensive either to some weak, or wicked persons, but nevertheless to be yielded (except God say to the contrary) without scruple of conscience.  S. 
What an offence, or scandal is, the Apostle showeth in the same chap. viz. The occasion of falling to the weak.  P. 
As how?  S. 
The particular offence he speaketh of is this: Notwithstanding the Gospel was preached at convenient 
1. Cor. 13. 7. 10.  time, and that by the Apostles: yet many wanted knowledge, & even unto that time, did eat as a thing sacrificed unto an Idol: of whom if any should see a man endued with knowledge sit at table in the Idols Temple, his weak consciences might occasinatly be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to Idols.  P. 
This instance of yours is to be regarded.  
The Apostle speaketh of Idolatries, or meats not consecrated, but even sacrificed unto Idols. This meat so abused, the Apostle condemneth not, as unlawful to be eaten of Christians. But he blameth those Christians who in the Idols temple among Idolaters did eat the same meat, to the offence of all Christians, especially of the weak.  
Now be it that Kneeling (as the meat sacrificed unto Idols) hath been abused of Papists: yet as meat so sacrificed might be both sold in the market, and bought, and eaten of Christians privately, or without offence: so the gesture of Kneeling, abused by Idolaters may be well used of Christians.  
Which may show how far you schismatics are out of the way of truth, and from the mind of the first and primitive Christians; who think that nothing either devised, or abused by Papists, may or can be well used in reformed Churches; and therefore do utterly condemn among other things, this our Kneeling.  
But if you find us to kneel in the idols temple offending thereby the weak, and making them to fall, and confirming of Idolaters, then deserve we the blame which those temporizers at Corinth deservedly did incur. But this you charge us not withal, unless you think our Temples to be Idols houses, and all communicants to be idolaters.  
Besides, it was free for Christians to eat, or not to eat those meats, so it were not with offence to the weak: but it is not free for us of the Church of England, to Kneel, or not to Kneel at the holy Communion. For whether we please the weak, or offend them, we are necessarily to kneel: otherwise, if we kneel not, we may please the weak you speak of, but shall offend our governors, and peaceable men, whom we ought to please: and if we Kneel, we shall offend the weak, but please others, whom we are more to regard.  
In this case therefore wherein we cannot choose but offend some or other, we choose rather to offend the weak than the strong; private then public persons; a few, than an whole state; yea; we choose rather to do our duties conscionably, then to offend; for we offend not in obeying lawful directions; but they offend, whosoever they be, which take offence afore it is given.  S. 
If Saul would never eat flesh, rather than he would 
Ibid. verse 12.  offend in this case, because in so doing, he should sin against Christ; how dare a Christian having knowledge, Kneel in the presence of any, who for want of knowledge, receives superstitiously?  P. 
In his case (not in this case about Kneeling) Paul would not offend. This case of ours, is not Paul's case.  
For touching meats Paul was at liberty to eat, or not to eat; neither God, nor by his authority, man having forbidden meat, or any kind of meat▪ but lawful power hath imposed this order of Kneeling upon our shoulders: whereas he therefore was free, we are not.  
Where orders well were established, who ever was more pliant to observe them? who a greater adversary to those which would not obey, and fulfil them, than this Apostle Paul, without respect of any seeming to be weak?  
In this case, where orders be set down for the well ordering of Christians, said he ever he would never keep them, than thereby offend the weak? Nay, he both prescribed orders to be kept, not to be contemned; and reproved them which would not keep them, but were 
1. Cor. 11. 16.  contentious.  
Therefore not after the example only of the Apostle, but according to the commandment also of God, we may yield obedience to the higher powers, and their lawful Impositions, about matters in their own nature (till they be either prescribed, or prohibited) indifferent: such is our Kneeling at the holy Table, where in charity we are to think none superstitiously do receive; and if some do, it is their private offence, no public fault of the whole Church.  
Furthermore, when you grant that some persons very religiously receive, when others superstitiously do so: see you not how with one, and the same breath, you grant the said Kneeling to be a gesture indifferent (which before you denied) abused by some, well used, and without sin by others: Which over-throweth utterly your assertion, namely that Kneeling in the very act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and wine in the holy communion cannot be without sin.  
Say not then hence forward how dare a Christian man having knowledge kneel in the presence of any, who for want of knowledge receive superstitiously? for such a Christian dare kneel, & having good warrant for his so doing, may work much good thereby his exemplary Kneeling teaching both the weak to cast away their uncharitable, and rash suspicions of their neighbours, and brethren for Kneeling (who doubt less, if by none overt act or speech they declare the contrary (receive religiously); & superstitious Communicants (if any such repair unto the Communion) to convert their Kneeling unto the glory of God, which others (whom through ignorance & infirmity they do favour but too much) do superstitiously, & idolatrously abuse in th' Romish synagogue.  S. 
Of which sort of superstitious receivers, seeing there be so many even until this hour, and ever likely to be, that we know not when and where to Communicate without some such, either old or young: It followeth that if sitting at the Table in the holy Temple, could not be without sin in the Apostles time, so Kneeling cannot be without sin in these days, when the number of the faithful teachers be much decreased, but of Papists much increased, & by our Kneeling much confirmed in their bread worship.  P. 
Conceive better of the Communicants of our Church, then that the number of them which superstitiously do receive, should be so great, lest the same measure be ministered to you, Schismatics, which you offer to others, & men likewise take offence at your sitting, as at a gesture in our churches very unseemly & sign of no rightly devout, & religious, but profane persons; the number of which more apparently doth increase, then doth the number of superstitious Communicants. And so surmises being had by some that such & such be superstitious, because they Kneel; others be vain & profane for that they sit; & weakness of mind on either & both sides alleged for their recusancy to join either with those superstitions, or these profane; yea with them which be neither profane, nor superstitous, the union of our Church by this new recusancy and utterly refusing the Communion, be dissolved and broken.  
But did none give offence to weak consciences by their sitting, as you say (though you name no man) many do by Kneeling: yet doth it not follow, that because Christians could not sit lawfully at table in the Idols temple and sin not, therefore none can without sin kneel in our churches, and at the holy Communion. For our churches be not Idols temples; our Tables in them not Idols tables; our communicants, not the worst of them, no not so much as in show (but only by surmise, and unbrotherly suspicions) superstitions. If you think the contrary, great is your sin, and heavy the account you shall make for so thinking.  
That teachers, especially faithful teachers decrease, I hope not, sure I am is not so notorious as that Papists do increase, and the increasing of these to be the diminution of the superstitions you speak of. But that being increased, they are confirmed, yea much confirmed in their bread-worship, by our Kneeling, is soon said, but not proved, nor will ever be justified.  S. 
If his majesties judgement be sound that the surplice 
Sum of the confer. pa. 74.  is not to be worn, if Heathenish men were conversant among us, who thereby might take occasion to be strengthened in their Paganism: shall we by our corrupt practice of Kneeling, strengthen the Papists, who swarm among us, in their idolatry?  R. 
We doubt not of the soundness and sincerity of our King's judgement. He conceiveth better of Papists, though they be too bad, then of Heathens and Pagans. And therefore albeit he would not suffer the Surplice to be worn, if Heathenish men were conversant among us, lest they should be strengthened in their Paganism; yet doth he not only suffer but enjoin the said Surplice to be worn of the holy Ministers, albeit Papists do swarm in this kingdom. Thereby not strengthening them as by a Popish relic in their Popery, but letting them, and all men see that he condemneth 
Sum of the confer. pa. 75.  nothing in use among them, that may be well used. And yet had you marked what followeth (proceeding from the soundness, and profoundness of his most excellent judgment,) you might have seen that his Highness utterly condemneth not all the doctrine, and ceremonies in the Church of Rome taught, and used, but those ceremonies only, and doctrines, which are corrupt, savouring of error, and superstition, not of the purity and verity of the primitive Christians. There should you read and perceive his constant and resolute opinion to be, that no Church ought further to separate itself from the church of Rome either in doctrine, or ceremony, than she hath departed from herself, when she was in her flourishing and best estate, and from Christ, her Lord and head.  
Among which corruptions his Majesty never counted either the surplice, by you mentioned; or the Kneeling between us controverted, to be.  
But whatsoever corruptions have been either in Kneeling, or the surplice: yet the said corruptions being taken away, and these appointed, now reform to the service of God: with what face can you call either our practice in kneeling to be corrupt; or the Papists, swarming among us, to be confirmed in their bread worship by our kneeling which is nothing Popish?  S. 
If the State doth well, in ordering the Sacrament 
Rub. after the confer. sect. 5.  to be administered in usual bread, to tale away superstition, whereas Christ did by occasion, minister in unleavened bread; shall not we do ill, in teaching, or confirming superstition by kneeling, whereas Christ did of purpose minister sitting?  P. 
Doth the State well in changing the bread? speak Schismatic, for your words are equivocal? If well (therein yet varying from the purpose of Christ) then may you see the weakness of your fourth argument afore alleged, binding us necessarily to the example of Christ, as to a Persian law, which may not be broken. For he ministered with unleavened, & we solemnize the Supper with bread usual, and leavened, and yet in so doing sin not.  
The same State which changed unleavened into usual, and bread leavened, in place of your pretended sitting, hath appointed Kneeling at the Communion: changing the site by the same authority, which she did the bread, thereby doing well in both or neither.  
Which Kneeling also would the same State have altered into sitting, or some other seemly and comely gesture, had it been persuaded, that the same Kneeling, either had, or should offend the minds of Christian communicants, as it knew the sight of unleavened Waser Cakes would displease the godly, and be dishonourable to God.  
Finally, if we either teach, or confirm superstition by our kneeling, we do surely therein very ill: but that we so do is yet in question, not granted by me, nor will ever be proved by you.  
We serve no whit from the mind and purpose, whatsoever we do from the example of Christ by our Kneeling: and therefore in Kneeling do not sin.  S. 
Setting up of Images in Churches, only to be Lay men's books, is by authority condemned, because they are as stumbling blocks in the way of the blind.  
So that they have been, are still, and will be hereafter 
Hom against peril of Idol. p. 132. Leuit. 19 14.  worshipped by ignorant persons. Is not Kneeling as scandalous? How can it then be justified?  P. 
justly have Images (those laymen's books) by authority been condemned, I think you will affirm as much, God's word is directly against such Images. Now could you make good your words, that Kneeling is as scandalous now, as Images sometime were in our Churches, I would be of your mind, that it is to be condemned as Images were.  
That Images, the Images I mean, that you speak of, are such stumbling blocks, I do read both in the books of God, and otherwise in most godly and approved writers old and new: but that kneeling at the Communion is as scandalous as Images, and therefore to be condemned, is doctrine proceeding newly from the brain of of you Schismatics, never afore heard of among the people of God.   

SECTION. 13.  
Whether the King's commandment to Kneel maketh Kneeling to be no sin.  S. 
IT is said that the King's commandment taketh away scandal, in things indifferent.  P. 
What say you hereunto?  S. 
It may be averred, that this is a begging of a question, except it be proved by the word, that Kneeling may be without sin, & that though it be an institution of man, contrary to the example of Christ, a sign of communion rather with Antichrist & his synagogue of Rome, them with Christ, and his church, it have no proportion with Sacramental eating, and have been, is, and will be bread-worship.  P. 
That we may kneel at the Communion without sin; and that the said Kneeling is neither a mere institution of man; nor contrary to the example of Christ; nor a sign of any Communion at all with Antichrist, & his synagogue; nor hinders a whit the Sacramental eating of Christ; nor finally with us ever hath been, is, or (I hope) shall be any Bread-worship, hath sufficiently been proved by undeniable and strong arguments. And therefore go on, prove that it may not by the authority of the King be enjoined.  S. 
Suppose that in itself it were as indifferent, as was eating of flesh sacrificed to an Idol, not in the Idols temple, but at a private table, where no weak ones were, in the Apostles 
1. Cor. 10. 27. 28.  time: yet how doth the King's commandment take away scandal from Kneeling in public places? doth it make all so sure that none can be scandalised? or, if that cannot be, doth it take away guiltiness from the scandalizer, as if all the blame of scandalising were in the King's commandment▪ Surely it must be in the former, or else in the latter it cannot be.  P. 
Our Kneeling, even in the public churches, is no scandalising, but accidentally, as any good, even the best thing may be. And therefore neither doth the King offend in commanding, nor we offend in obeying; and so is there neither scandal, nor scandalizer, nor any justly scandalised by kneeling; for neither doth Kneeling, nor the Kneeler, nor the King commanding to kneel, deserve any blame. You take things for granted, which will not be confessed. Here is no offence given in any respect at all.  S. 
By scandalising a weak brother perrisheth: Of 
1. Cor: 811. Numb. 35. 3. 2. Sam. 11. 25. 16. 17.  whose blood the scandalizer is guilty, as joab was of Vriabs' blood, notwithstanding the King's commandment.  P. 
What of this? Insinuate you all Kneelers to be like bloody joabs? & our King commanding us to Kneel to like David when he commanded that Vriah should be murdered? O undutiful, ungodly, and inconsiderate imputations.  S. 
Here his Majesty, known to be of a gentle disposition, and to have learned, yea professed better things in Scotland, is mosthumbly prayed, to take the word (King) as spoken in imitation, and under-stood of Cantor: who known to be of a violent disposition, did carry matters in the convocation, and published Canons not orderly, and fully concluded, as some of his Suffragan Prelates reported.  P. 
His Majesty lived in Scotland a longwhile, and many years among Puritans, yet was never any Puritan himself.  
The mostreverend Father, whom you term in derision 
Sum▪ of the confer: P. 20. 72.  Cantor; did never any thing about the public affairs of the Church, but upon good advise, and lawful consent; nor published any Canons for the ordering of the Church, but the sovereign person of the kingdom, even his Majesty himself, and that according to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, and under his great Seal ratified them all.  
These reproachful words do but wound his Majesty in the sides of his officers.  
Go to your matter, leave them if you have any more to say.  S. 
It is impossible, that the King's commandment should make all so sure, that none can be scandalised, the general ignorance of the people, the dispotition of the ignorant unto superstition, the old leaven of Popery not purged, & the multiplying of Papists all well considered.  P. 
All these things considered, Kneeling at the communion, uses according to th'ordinance of the Church of England, and none otherwise, is no Scandal given.  S. 
Nay rather it is likely, that by the commandment, the Scandal should be the greater, especially in regard of the 27. Canon, where ministers are commanded, under pain of suspension, not wittingly to administer the Sacraments to any, but to such as Kneel.  P. 
The Canon is necessary, and to the preservation of unity, and the preventing of hateful confusions, which otherwise too-offensively would spring, & spread over the kingdom. Dangerous maladies, must have eating and biting medicines.  
God's ministers may thank you Schismatics for this severe discipline.  
They that will not receive God's sacraments but as they list, must by severity be driven to take them as they should.  
It is a good rule in Physic, stay the beginnings. The Philosophers do say how Mod●eus error in principio, fit maximus in fine. That error which at the last was greatest, at the first was but a little one: in Divinity we find the same to be most true. For the foulest, and most horrible heresies sprang but of petty Schismatics at the first.  
They must in time meet with, & cut of those Shismes, that would not have the Church pestered and molested with heretics.  
This very discourse of ours may put the world in mind, what hideous & horrible fancies this recusancy of yours to Kneel, & leaving the union of the Church, and Communion with us in the sacraments (because ye will not kneel) hath already engendered. Your errors hereabout are foul and monstrous, and yet worse are behind: for the preventing whereof we are on all sides, from the King to the lowest, and meanest subject, to set to our helping hands.  
Neither be you, nor any other men to think that punishment severe, which is rather necessarily, for a public good; then willingly inflicted.  S. 
May not simple and superstitious persons take occasion thus to argue? Why should Kneeling be thus urged by authority, if the sacramental signing of the body, and blood of Christ, be no more to be reverenced then water applied in Baptizing children? seeing that is also a sanctified sign of Christ his blood, that washeth away our sins and iniquity?  P. 
If they will by you be advised, the simple and superstitious shall so argue; and thereby fall into a loathing of our manner of receiving the sacrament.  
But you, and they must be answered, how the church of England hath the two sacraments in equal price and estimation, conceiving highly, and religiously of them both, but ascribing divine adoration, yea none adoration at all either unto the Bread, & wine of the one, or unto the water of the other: albeit the water signifieth Christ his blood that washeth away our sins & iniquity & the bread & wine, the body and blood of Christ, shed and given for man's redemption.  
But for-so-much as we are baptised infants, when we know not what we do; and are men, old or young when we partake of the other; also that the very Bread and Wine, exhibited to these, senses, and hands of all communicants, do sacramentally represent the body, and blood of our Lord; the Minister's delivery of them, Gods very offering his favours in Christ unto us; the bread broken, his body dead; the wine, his blood shed upon the Cross; lastly, the distributing both of the wine and bread, Christ his benefits, and Gods blessings imparted and communicated unto all Communicants, whereof they be remembered so oft as they receive, in all places of the world, and to the world's end: what Christian seeing, and seriously considering these and the like things, but will be excited with all due submission and religious reverence to come unto the participation, and receiving of such celestial favours? Not because it is either unlawful, or undecent with like reverence to receive the other Sacrament, but for that partly our tenderness is such, because of our years, that we cannot; and partly the necessity is not so urgent, that we need to Kneel. But doubtless were we of good years, and did know what we go about, when we are to be baptised, as we know what we do (such is my persuasion, and aught to be of us all, of all persons communicating at the Supper) when we come to the table of the Lord, doubtless the Lord would not be displeased, did we Kneel at Baptism, than our assured persuasion is, that he is not offended with our Kneeling at his Supper.  
Therefore whereas all worthy communicants, even in duty, and conscience are bound with this sign of reverence, to receive these holy and heavenly mysteries; and yet many persons, in one respect or other, will not bend, nor bow their Knees, but in no case Kneel; if authority do force such stubborn and wilful persons to do that necessarily, which of themselves voluntarily they should perform, neither doth authority transgress their bounds; nor do they sin, that obey their command.  
And so let this satisfy those simple and superstitious persons, and be an answer unto you.   

THE CONCLUSION.  S. 
TO conclude, if kneeling in the very act of taking, eating, and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine, in the holy Communion, be an institution of man.  P. 
It is no mere institution of man.  S. 
If it be the taking of God's name in vain, when it is without all respect of reverence.  P. 
It is done with all respect of reverence in the Church of England.  S. 
If God be not honoured thereby, except it be according to his will.  P. 
It is according to his will: and so God thereby is honoured.  S. 
If it serve from the example of Christ his sitting, and therefore deserveth no praise.  P. 
Though it serve from the example, yet is it against no commandment of Christ. And therefore not to be condemned.  S. 
If it be a provoking sin to reject the exemplary sitting of Christ, whereby we show ourselves to be in the Communion with Christ, and the reformed churches; and to retain Kneeling, which for bread-worship, aught to be banished, and whereby we seem to be in communion with Antichrist and his synagogue.  P. 
We reject not the exemplary sitting of Christ; neither should we sit, have we by it the more fellowship with Christ, and his Churches reform, whose fellowship (which without sitting, praised be God, we do enjoy) is in partaking of spiritual graces; in obeying and doing his precepts; and in professing of Christian religion, jointly and with one heart, and mind? neither by our Kneeling have we either the less with Christ, & his true churches, or the more familiarity and communion with Antichrist, and his synagogue. In which respect neither is Kneeling to be banished out of our churches, because of the Papists, bread-worship; nor do the kneelers by kneeling commit a provoking sin, yea any sin at all.  S. 
If it obscureth that rejoicing familiarity in, and with Christ, which the Lords supper signifieth.  P. 
At the Lord's supper Kneeling obscureth not, but furthereth our familiarity, and joy with Christ, and Christians.  S. 
If the argument from Christ his example be made the stronger in that he sat of purpose.  P. 
Christ his purposely sitting (whatsoever it was) maketh not our purposely kneeling to be unlawful.  S. 
If the lawfulness of choosing a fitter time than the evening, cannot justify our rejecting Christ his exemplary sitting.  P. 
By the same authority God's people may leave the example of Christ in sitting (if he did sit) whereby they left his example of ministering the supper in the evening, unless by some order and decree he had enjoined his example for our necessary imitation.  S. 
If the bits of prayer, joined with the words of institution do make Kneeling the more sinful.  P. 
Every bit, yea and every crumb of that prayer (used with sound faith and devotion) doth make our kneeling the more acceptable unto God.  S. 
If kneeling be not as indifferent, as standing, nor best beseeming the holy communion; and the King must appoint nothing but by the hand of the Lord.  P. 
It is as indifferent and more convenient than standing, and in our judgement and persuasion, best beseeming the communion, and appointed even by God himself by the hand of our Lord the King.  S. 
If we ought to abhor Kneeling as we abhor Images; transubstantiation, and consubstantiation?  P. 
Kneeling is a pure ceremony of our Church void of all superstition and Idolatry whatsoever; and our kneelers the most sincere worshippers of God; and neither themselves, nor their Kneeling to be abhorred.  S. 
If to scandalise be grievously to sin, and kneeling be a show of the greatest evils, and withal the greatest scandal.  P. 
There is no scandal given by kneeling; neither is kneeling evil; nor show of evil, much less of the greatest evils, or the greatest scandal.  S. 
If it be a begging of the question to affirm kneeling to be indifferent, and the King's commandment (so called) both rather increase, than lesson scandal by kneeling.  P. 
Kneeling hath not as yet been shown to be of itself unlawful; and otherwise hath been proved to be indifferent: in which consideration the King's commandment (so known) should rather increase our desire, than lesson our care, to receive the communion kneeling.  S. 
It may be averred, that Kneeling in the very act of taking, eating, and drinking this Sacramental bread and wine, in the holy Communion, cannot be without sin.  P. 
It hath, may, and will be averred, that Kneeling in the very act of taking, eating, and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine in the holy Communion, may be, and is used without sin, yea without all show of sin, God's name be praised.   
Amen.