A DISPUTE UPON COMMUNICATING AT OUR Confused Communions.  If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Gal. 2.18. Ye did run well, who did hinder you, that ye should not obey the truth. This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Gal. cap. 5. vers. 7.8.9. Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do thy first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy Candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Revel. 2.5. As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. Gal. 6.12. 
Printed Anno 1624.   
CVrse ye, Meroz sayeth the Angel of the lord: curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the lord against the mighty, judg. 5.23. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to go out of the way, and all the people shall say Amen, Deut. 27.18. Who shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea, Matt. 18.6. Woe to the world, because of offences. For it must needs be that offences must come: But woe to that man by whom the offence cometh, Mat. 18.7.  

CHAP. I. Of sitting at the Lords table.  
IT was or ●●in●d in the general assembly hol●en at E●inburgh the year 1564. 
Sitting at table, and distributing by the communicants, was not a Church constitution.  that minister's in ministration of the sacraments should use the order set down in our psalm b●oks. This order requireth that the communicants sit at table, and break bread with other. This order hath been universally, and perpetually observed in our church from the first year of reformation and some years before, not as an order depending upon the varieties of times, places, persons, or the like circumstances, as do church orders, and constitutions, but as most agreeable to the pattern of the first supper celebrated by Christ and his Apostles, as may be seen in the first book of discipline, and in two Rubrics in our psalm books. In the last of the two Rubrics it is said, that Christ commanded, that the communicants divide the elements among thoms lues In the book of discipline it is said. That it is plain Christ jesus sat at table with his disciples, 
Christ & his Apostles kneeled not but sat at the first supper.  and therefore do we judge that sitting at a table is most convenient for that action.  
Christ's usual gesture in blessing bread at table was sitting, as we may see at Emaus Luk. 2●. and when he was to work the miracle of the five loaves Matt. 14.13. while the disciples were eating, and consequently sitting, as the most learned among the jesuites themselves confess, Christ took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it. If they kneeled not at the thanksgiving, or blessing, there is no likelihood, that they kneeled in the act of receiving. If there had been any change from one table gesture to another, from sitting at the paschal supper into standing about the table, as the Israelites did at the first paschal supper in Egypt, would not the Evangelists have made mention of it? fare more, if there had been a change from all kind of table gesture into kneeling a gesture of adoration, yea kneeling should then have been the only lawful gesture instituted by Christ. For to what end also should the change have been made. And so all that communicated sitting either in the primitive church, or in the reformed should have sinned in so doing. When Christ gave the bread he said, This is my body. The formalist will not utter these words to the kneeler, when he delivereth the bread. When Christ gave the cup to the nearest, he bad them divide it among themselves. They could not then be kneeling. For how could kneeling, a gesture of adoration, consist with dividing, which is not an act of adoration. As it is clear that they kneeled not, so likewise that they stood not, for how could they convenientlie stand in the places, where they sat leaning upon beds? Farther the Evangelists make no mention of standing, but only say, that while they were eating, Christ took bread. 
On the Lord's supper 1. part. pag. 136  Even Pierr du Moulin sayeth that the Apostles continued sitting at the table to the very end of the action. Who ever said otherwise in any age till this time?  
Examples in setting down of a pattern serve ordinarily for direction in times to come, 
Christ ratified sitting the ordinary gesture at religions feasts.  if there be not some singular occasion of the same, which will not agree to other times. But there was no singular occasion of sitting at the first supper. The washing of the disciples feet, the putting on, and off of Christ's upper garment preceded the second service of the paschal supper, when as Christ was not yet come to the celebration of the evangelical. The eventide, the unleavened bread, the parlour, the number of twelve, and other like adjuncts, and circumstances were but only occasional, & accidentary to the Evangelicall supper, because the legal supper to which they properly belonged, was celebrated immediately before, and the last act of it changed into this supper. But sitting was not a table gesture proper to the paschal supper, and so occasional, or accidentary to the Eucharistical. It was the common, and ordinary gesture used at all religious feasts both among the true worshippers of God, and Idolaters. To the feasts after the sacrifices the Apostle compareth this Christian feast 1. Corint. 10. So, to speak properly Christ did not so much institute this gesture at this supper, as ratify and approve the ordinary, and usual. Ye will say, that if we ought to follow this example we should sit leaning. It followeth not. Their gesture was a kind of sitting gesture, as Doctor Morton confesseth. And not only the English translators express it by the word sitting but also the holy ghost in the holy language. A man may be said to stand whether he stand upright, ●or l●aning to a wall, so sitting. Our sitting, and the Turk●s, and their si●ting at the paschal supper answer analogicallie to other, and the difference is only national. Farther to sit was the ordinary gesture at religious feasts, but to si● lea●ing was only occasional, and acciden●arie to the Euangelical supper by reason of 〈◊〉 canon which was made before the day●s of Ch● st, wherein many differences were made betwixt the paschal feast, and other religious feasts, and among ●he rest to s●t forth the solemnity of this feast above others, it was ordained that they should sit after his manner a● this feast, and not at other except they pleased. Quod in omnibus noctibus tam edentes qu●m bibente● vel sedemus, vel disc●mbimus, or accum●imus, in hac autem omnes d sc●mbimus, or accumbimus. They sat of old even when the cup of praise was carried from hand to hand, and the cake of bread broken at the concl●sioun of the supper, And yet the conclusion of the pasch●l supper where they did eat to the quantity of an olive, and less than the quantity of an egg was as short, as the evangelical supper whereunto it was changed. Christ led the Apostles fr●m their sitting at table to the consideration of their sitting upon thrones, whereby we may not only collect that their gesture was a kind of sitting gesture, but also that the end and use of their sitting at table with him, was to note their fellowship they had with him, and the dignity, whereunto he had exalted them. Christ was as Jerome sayeth both Conviva & convivium, the food that they eat, and a banqueter with them. By eating him as food is represented our union with him, as food is united with the feeder, but by sitting is declared our fellowship with him, as of guests with the master of the feast.  
Howbeit sitting had not been the ordinary table gesture at religious feasts, 
The Apostolic churches sat at table.  but a new example of Christ, and his Apostles, yet seeing it was an example not occasional, or accidentary but of free choice in setting down the pattern, it is a direction for our imitation, and the Apostles themselves took it so, they continued this gesture after the first supper as a gesture most suitable with the form of a feast. When they call this feast the table of the Lord, & the supper of the Lord, it may very well be collected, that they used that gesture which was fit for a supper table. And beside that a table is requisite whatsoever be the matter of it, a board, a bull hide, a plot of ground, whether high, or low, round, long, or square. The love feasts conjoined with the Lords supper could hardly admit the gesture of kneeling, sayeth Beza. The Corinthians fault was, 
Contra Ha●chium.  that neither at common meats, 
Obed. pag. 461.  nor at the Lords table they would sit together, but sorted themselves in factions, and companies, 
second serm pag. 61.  sayeth Doctor Bilson Doctor Downame confesseth sitting to receive the Sacrament to have been used in the churches in the Apostles times.  
Howbeit the supper of the Lord soon after the days of the Apostles be ganne to be defiled 
sitting continued after the days of the Apostles Calv. institut. lib. cap. 17. Homil. 27. in 1. cor. 11.  with some rust, as Mr. Calvine observeth, yet was this gesture continued in many places, and at some times universally observed. chrysostom maketh mention of sitting at Christ's table Augustine insinuateth no less, Epist. 118. where he sayeth that some mixed this feast with their other repasts. M. Fox thus writeth of the Waldenses, whom Beza calleth the pure seed of the ancient church. Concerning the supper of the Lord, 
Acts, and monument 1. Volume. pag. 209. edit. 1610.  their faith was, that it was ordained to be eaten, and not to be showed, and worshipped; for a memorial, and not for a sacrifice; to serve for the present ministration and not for reservation; to be received at table, not to be carried out of doors, according to the use of the primitive church, when they used to communicate sitting. And this they prove both by an old chronicle, called Chronica gestorum, as also by ancient Origen. When the manner of celebration after the pattern of the first supper began to be neglected almost every where, and, as Mr. Calvine sayeth, was changed into a jewish form of sacrificing, it was appointed, that the supper of the Lord should be celebrated according to the institution upon the thursday before Easter, which the ancients called Caena Domini, and is now called Maundi Thursday because upon that day the Lords supper was first celebrated. All faithful Christians (except offenders) were wont to communicate upon this day, 
De consecrat Dist. 2 cap. 17.  as may be seen in Gratians Decree. In caena Domini a quibusdam perceptio euch. tristia negligitur, quae quoniam in eadam die ab omnibus fidelibus (exceptis ijs quibus pro gravibus criminibus inhibitum est) percipienda sit, ecclesiasticus usus demonstrant. Now the gloss upon that place that hath these words, Sic olim, modo sic est, sed monachi faciunt. It wont to be so of old, it is not the custom now, the Monks only observe it. The monks specially of Sanct Bennets order retain the ancient custom. The two thousand soldiers, who were reconciled to the Emperor Mauritius about the year 590. by the travels of Gregrorius Bishop of Antioch, 
Euagrius lib. 6. cap. 12.  and had accepted again Philippicus to be their general captain, received the Sacrament upon this day sitting upon the ground. Whereby we may see that this custom continued to that time among the faithful, and not among the monks only. Pope Vrbane the fourth about the year 1264. instituted the feast of Corpus Christi to supply the defects, which had, escaped through negligence or humane frailty in the celebration of the mass, and to make amends for any miss: Quatenus in eo, 
Bulla Vrbani. 4,  quod in alijs missarum officiis circa solennitatem est forsitam praetermissum, devotâ diligentiâ suppleatur, & fideles festivitate ipsa instante intra se praeterita memorantes, id quod in ipsis missarum solenniis, secularibus forte agendis impliciti, aut alia ex negligentia, vel fragilitate humana, minus plenè gesserunt, tunc attentè in humilitate spiritus & animi puritate restaurent. But as Hospinian justly taxeth the Pope, the defects, or omissions should have been supplied ratione a Christo praemonstrata, by that manner which Christ himself had showed before, and not by carrying the Sacrament with procession through the streets. It appeareth that the celebration of the Lords supper upon Maundie thursday after the pattern of the first supper was appointed for the same end, to wit, to supply all defects and omissions, which had happened at other times. For the Pope sayeth, he was moved to choose this day for this end ra●her than Maundy thursday, because that thursday was spent in washing of feet, making of Chrism, and reconciling of peniten s. In die namque coenae Domini, quo die Christus hoc Sacramentum instituit, universalis ecclesiae pro paenitentium reconciliatione, sacri confectione chrismatis, ad impletione mandati circa lotionem pedum, & alijs plurimum occupata plenè vacare non potest celebrationi huius maximi sacramenti. Christ's ordinance behoved to give place to every toy invented by man.  

Sitting only is not sufficient for any to communicate with kn●elers.  The question is now, whether it being permitted to me to sit, I may communicate with others, where some do kneel, and all do receive severally, and immediately out of the Ministers hand. It seemeth strange to many, that this should be denied to be lawful. It seemeth as strange to me, that it should be granted, what if all the rest with whom I communicate did kneel, is it enough that I sit. Is this the communion of Saints we profess, not to have a regard to the standing, or falling of others, the dignity, and honour of that action, and the liberty of this reformed Kirk, whereof we stand members. I will set down the innovations which are sensible to the eyes and ears of every man, that the answer to the question may be the better understood in the particulars, and it may be seen where we are either actors, or accessary in communicating after this manner. Some things I must of necessity repeat already treated at length in sundry treatises both in English and latin, which I will illustrate, and whereunto I will add.   

CHAP. 2. Of the distributing of the elements.  
THe first innovation, is that liberty, 
The elements distributed by the Apostles among themselves.  is denied to the communicants to divide the elements among themselves. Howbeit it be permitted to us to sit. The cup after which Christ protested he would drink no more, was the communion cup, or the last paschal cup, which was changed into the Communion cup, and consequently one, and the same. It was the custom of the jews to abstain that night from tasting any thing after the last paschal cup. Christ alluding to that custom changing this cup, into the eucharistical, protested he would drink no more wine in this life. The Evangelists Matthew, and Mark expressly subjoin this protestation to the communion cup. Luke inverteth the order, as the jesuites themselves do confess, rendering this reason, that the protestation of not drinking more might be joined with the protestation of not eating more. Now Christ bade the communicants divide this cup among themselves. And howbeit he had not commanded in express terms, yet it may be collected of the form of his speech, when he biddeth them, speaking in the plural number, drink all, of it, and sayeth not, take thou, drink thou; as if he had been delivering it to every one severally. It was divided among the Apostles by themselves, reaching it from hand to hand, as the last paschal cup, which was changed into this eutharisticall, was carried from hand to hand. Fuit per proprias Apostolorum manus ab uno ad alium delatus: 
Tom. 3. pag. 861.  sayeth the jesuite Swarez. It were ridiculous to set down the cup upon the table, that the nearest might take it up, as I have seen some where done. Nay, I should say superstitious, as if the cup were profaned, if it be reached out of the hand of a lay man (as they call him) but a Christian Brother, as they should call him, & that it were holy to take it from off the table. If we will then divide the cup, as the Apostles divided it, and show ourselves neither ridiculous, nor superstitious, we must divide it by reaching from hand to hand. The bread is not holier than the wine, and Christ said in the plural number, Take ye, Eat ye, as he said, Drink ye, Divide ye, and not take thou, eat thou, as, if he had been speaking to every one severally. Therefore rightly do Beza, 
Beza epist. 12. Tossan. in Mat. 26. Pisc. in Mat. 26.  Tossanus, Piscator, and others, gather that Christ gave only to the nearest, and they to the nexte and so forth.  
But ye will say, 
The objection of representation of Christ's person answered.  the minister representeth Christ's person, therefore he should give the elements out of his own hands. It followeth not: For as M. David Lindsay sayeth, He in whose name the command is uttered, is properly the giver, and propiner, because by his authority it is given, and by the warrant of his word it is received. When the King drinketh to any of his subjects, 
Proceed at P●rth assembly. pag. 60. 61.  and sends it by the hands of his servant, the servant is not properly the giver, and propiner, but the deliverer of the gift and propine. And therefore concludeth, that it may be delivered from hand to hand by the communicants among themselves, which could not be, if the former sequel were good. It is said, Gen. 39 that all that they did, joseph was the doer of it, because what was done, was done by his appointment. Pilate gave the body of Christ, that is, commanded to be given. Mark. 15.45. Matth. 27.17. Matthew sayeth, that Christ's Disciples gave the five loves, and two fishes to the five thousand, Matt. 14 19 And yet the Evangelist Mark sayeth 6.41. that Christ gave them to the Disciples to set before them. Christ himself, whose person, ye say, the minister representeth, when he was present in person, gave not to every one severally, but bade them eat, drink, & divide among themselves. The Apostles at that last Supper represented not Christ's person, for he was there present in person himself, but all faithful communicants to the end of the world. 
Proceed pag. 59  The Apostles, sayeth M D. L. were in that supper not as dispensators of the mysteries of God, but as guests, as the faithful, as disciples, and as communicants. But what Christ bade his Apostles do as communicants, when he was present in person, he biddeth all communicants do, when there is another to represent his person. It when there was so few communicants, he commanded them to divide, what would he have d●ne if he had celebrate to five thousand? When ministers are receivers ●mong other communicants, they differ nothing from other Christians. 
Chrysost. in 2 Cor. hom. 18.  Nihil differt sacerdos a subito, quando fruendum est horrendis mysterijs, saith chrysostom. They are not then ministers in actu exercito, but simple communicants. The Deacons about justinus Martyrs time, that is in the next age after the Apostles, gave both the bread and wine to the communicants in the quarters he remained, whereas before the Deacon carried only the vessels wherein the elements were contained, as appeareth in the Liturgy ascribed to S. james. They uttered no words at the delivery, neither were they yet made half Priests, as they are now in the Popish and English Church. Now the Deacons represented not Christ's person, but only the minister, or as he calleth him, the Precedent of the brethren. It was not then thought necessary that the Pastor should deliver the elements out of his own hand, which ought to have been done, if none but he who represented the master of the feast should deliver. Yea long after justinus time the Deacons dispensed the wine. Sometimes the Eucharist was sent to the sick by a Lay man, as we may see in the history of Serapion. 
Euseb. hist. In. 6. cap. 36.  The Monks of S. Bennets order retaining the ancient form of celebrating upon Thursday before Easter, communicate sitting breaking bread, and reaching the cup to other, Panem azy num frangentes, 
De origine exrorum circa coenam. cap.  & calicem in ulcem propinantes, & in totum veleris coenae vestigium prae se ferentes, as testifieth Bullinger. Friar Rainerius testifieth likewise of the Waldenses, of whom I made mention before, 
Rainerius in summa.  that as for the sacrament of the Eucharist in conventiculis suis celebrant, verba illa Evangelij recitant●s in mensa sua, sibique mutuo participantes, sicut in Christi coena, that is, the Leonists (for so he caleth the Waldenses) celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist in their conventicles (so it pleased the Popish Friar to call the assembly of the persecuted) rehearsing the words of the Gospel at their table, and dividing to other, as was done at Christ's supper. Ye see then this superstition had not so fare prevailed, but the Lord had some who were not carried away with the stream, but kept in the Spoonke in the time of darkness. To say that the breaking of the bread is a mystery, & aught therefore to be performed only by the minister, it followeth not: for the taking, eating, drinking of the communicants are mysteries. And Augustine saith, that when the Wine is poured into the mouths of the faithful, the shedding of Christ's blood is represented. Next it is to be considered, that fraction or the breaking of the bread is not only mystical, signifying the torments and renting of Christ's body, but also serveth for distribution. And because bread was distributed by breaking, to break in the Scripture signifieth to distribute by breaking, or to break and distribute, when the word giving is not added. As Esay 58.7. Break thy bread to the hungry, that is, distribute breaking, or break and distribute thy bread to the hungry. Lament. 4.4. The little children asked bread, and there was none to break to them, that is, to break and distribute to them, or to distribute breaking, Mark. 8.19. Christ saith, When I broke the five leaves among the five thousand, that is, brake and gave to the disciples to set before the five thousand to be further broken and eaten. Hence it is, that in the Scripture to break is taken for to eat, or to take food, as jerem. 16. ver. 7. Neither shall men break bread for them, that is, they shall not celebrate a funeral banquet for them, nor reach unto them the cup of consolation. And Act. 2.46. They broke bread from house to house, that is they celebrated love feasts. But many interpreters understand the 42. ver. and Act. 20.7. of the celebration of the supper. And so after this figure of speech is meant sometime, not only the act of breaking, but also the end to distribute and eat. sicklike the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? That is, the bread which we break, distribute, and eat, is a sign, and seal of the communion of Christ's body, as is well observed by the interpreters. Panis quem Frangimus, 1. Cor. 10.6. idem est atque inter nos dividimus. 
Glossa in Math. 26.  The bread which we break, that is, the bread, which we divide among us, sayeth Robertus Stephanus. Humbertus in his Book written against Nicetas a Monk sayeth, that in the Apostles times the faithful brake bread daily, and had not a perfect mass two days in the week only. Quotidie perseverantes in templo, & frangentes Panem circa domos. Ecce verax Evangelista testatur sub Apostolis fidelis quotidie orasse, & panem fregisse. Et vos, qui estis, qui dicitis duobus tantum diebus hebdomade missam perfectam fieri debere, reliquis imperfectam? I will now retort the objection drawn from the representation of Christ's person. Who ever saw a great Lord, or King inviting inferiors to his table to sit with him, rise, and go along to serve, and minister. Christ before he sat down to supper recommending humility to his Disciples aspiring to preferment, washed their feet, but when he came to the table again he sat among them, and kept his place, as master of the feast: for now they were in the act of feasting. When the minister cometh from his own place, and goeth along delivering the Elements, how doth he act in the mean time the person of Christ the Master of the feast. There can be no reason for this guise, but that the Minister must break order, and put off the person, which he should act in his own place, and take upon him an other office, lest the Sacrament should be polluted by the delivery of the communicants, or as if the cup had greater virtue, when john who lay in Christ's bosom received it out of his hand, then when Bartholemew received it from Thomas, or some other. In this order than ye may see great misorder, and gross superstition. justly therefore was that ignorant woman rebuked by one of the Ministers of Edinburgh not many years ago for striving to be nearest him, at table.  
We have yet farther to consider, to wit, the end, 
The end, and use of distributing by the communicanst.  and use of the distributing of the communicants. To drink of one cup representeth a communion in one common benefit, but not that communication of mutual duties of love, and friendship, as doth the reaching of the cup from one to another. The guests of old entertaining others courteously at civil banquets reached a cup of wine to other, which they called Phitotesia, because it was a symbol of love, and friendship, which name a man may justly impose upon the communion cup, sayeth Stucklius. 
Antiqui. convivialium lib. 3. cap. 10.  chrysostom recordeth, that the communicants kissed one another, when the Sacrament was celebrated. Osculum pacis porrigere, tempore quo celebrantur Sacramenta, 
Lib. 1. de compunct. cordi,  in usu ecclesiae est: and to embrace other, propterea & misterijs, alter alterum amplectitur ut unam multi fi●mus. Jerome making mention of kissing, and joining of hands. 
Homil. 51. ad populum Antiochenum.  Quisquam ne tibi invitus communicate, quisquamne extensa manuvertil faciem, & inter sacras epulas judae osculum porrigit. Paulinus also making mention of joining hands, Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus. 
Ad Theoph. Alexandrinum.  The kiss was the common form of salutation among the Oriental people as with us the striking of hands, or embracing. The men kissed the men & women kissed others at the communion. 
Paul corm ad Cithe●am.  This kiss was lest of, and in stead thereof hath succeeded the kissing of the Pax at the mass. Seeing signs & protestations of love were thought requisite at this banquet of love, ought we not to be the more careful to retain that sign which Christ himself hath recommended to us at the institution.  
Ye are guilty of this innovation for your part, howbeit it be permitted to you to sit. 
The communicant guilty where there is want of the right manner of distributing.  For ye concur with your Minister as actor to thrust out this dividing, and distributing of the Elements by the communicants, and to bring in misorder in turning the Minister out of his proper place, to uphold superstition in delivery of the Elements out of his own hands. The resetter intertaineth the thief. The Minister giveth, thou receivest, and both concur to spoil the Kirk of her liberty, in this day of controversy, when she is striving to hold fast her possession. When others shall be either moved by thy example, or forced to quite this liberty, then shall the Kirk be spoiled of it, and the posterity shall never recover this liberty again for any thing man can see. Ye will say, your Minister will not give it other wise, but out of his own hand. But I say again, that he would not give it at all, if he had not a a receiver. What if he would not give it into your hand, but in at the mouth, or clothed it with hood, and bells, or a surplice, ought ye to receive it, and follow your Minister, and assist him to bring in innovations into your particular congregation, contrary to the received order of the whole church which ye are bound to defend by your profession, and the confession of our faith.   

CHAP. 3. Of confusion of two Actions in the time of celebration.  

Two exercises are confounded in the assembly by the want of the old form of distributing.  THe second innovation is a confusion of two actions, and parts of God's worship in one assembly and one time. The Reader is reading, the congregation harkening to the Reader, or following him in singing of Psalms in the mean time, when the Minister hard beside is speeking to the communicants, and delivering the Elements. If the like were done at the solemnisation of marriage, it would be thought an intolerable abuse. Ye will say, the people will otherwise weary, and the action become graceless, and cold. It is true, and late experience hath let men see this inconvenience. But the right way to amend it, is not to bring in confusion. For that is to cure a disease with a remedy worse than the disease. Of the two the first standeth better with reason. For there is no reason, that when the Minister is speaking, 
De rebus eccles. cap. 22.  another voice should be heard in the assembly Walafridus Strabo sayeth, We believe that of old, the holy Fathers did offer and communicate with silence, which we yet observe upon the holy Sabbath (or Saturday) of Easter. Chanting was brought in afterward to keep the people from wearying. So now it is restored to the same end.  
To return again to the right way entereth never in men's hearts. Forward they will go, notwithstanding of any inconvenience which rancountereth them, till the angel of the Lord meet them in the way, as he did Balaam. The like remedy is used in other Kirks, where the want of this manner of distribution is, whereunto they never attained. And therefore cannot serve for a pretence against us, and that comfortable manner of celebration, which we had. Christ's manner, which we practised, needed not such remedies. The hearts of all the hearers were stirred up by comfortable exhortation, and speeches of the Minister, and together, as it were with one heart, they applied themselves to the meditation of that which was spoken jointly to all, whereas by this delivery in several, men's minds are withdrawn, and lose that fervency, and constancy in the word of apprehension, and meditation, as Master Fenner hath well observed, in his treatise of the Sacrament. Ye are guilty of this confusion. in that ye are partaker in both the actions.  
There is yet further to be considered, by reason of this confusion the public communion is turned into a private. 
The public communion is turned into a private by confounding two actions,  The exercise of the congregation is public, but the exercise of the Minister with the communicants is private. For it is not enough to make an action public to perform it in a public place, or in sight of the congregation. If a man kneel down at a pillar to his prayers in sight of the people, his prayers are never the less private. Yea the congregation is not bound to behold, when they can not hear distinctly, what is spoken, but are bound to sing or hearken to the reader. The minister may as well go to the end of the church, as I know somewhere is done, or to some close Isle, or Consistory house near by. Yea it were fare more decent then to communicate in the body of the Kirk, where the one action can not but disturb the other. Ye are not only guilty of the confusion by partaking in both the actions, but also your communicating is only a private communicating where there is such confusion.  

The utilities of distributing by the communicants.  Put the case Christ had not recommended the distribution which we practised, but had left it indifferent, yet should that order of distributing better agree with the general rules, whereby thing indifferent ought to be ruled, order, decency, edification, and avoiding of scandal. For so neither confusion of exercises on the one side, nor tediousness on the other side, nor superstitious conceits of the Ministers delivery nor private communions would have pla●e. It would be a bar also to hold out kneeling. For religious kneeling in adoration, and dividing of the elements cannot consist together, where as now by this communicating in several, there resteth no more, but to persuade thee, or compel thee to kneel. But suppose kneeling were never to be feared, yet the abuses, & corruptions before mentioned are sufficient matter to move thee to stand to the liberty of this church, if thou have any spoonk of zeal to God's glory, to the purity of his worship, and the beauty of his house. If any church in Europe had enjoyed this precious liberty, as long as we have done, would they have quite it so easily, as we are like to do. It is defection in us to descend, although not in them who never ascended to this degree of perfection. The question is not now, whether we shall quite the liberty, or quite the benefit of the sacraments for ever. There is no such tyranny professed. Quite not a certain liberty for an uncertain danger, do that which is required on your part, and commit the event to God. The grace of God is not tied to the sacraments. The Lord promised to be a little sanctuary to the godly remnant of his people, when they should be scattered in other countries, and want the benefit of the temple, and worship appropriated to that place. Ezeck. 11.16. It is not the want of the sacrament, but contempt that maketh a man guilty, sayeth Bernard: Non potest autem videri sacramenta contempsisse, 
Epist. 77.  cui non licet ea ita percipere uti sunt a Domino constituta, & absit ut ullos necessitatis casus imaginemur, in quibus liceat ordinationem Domini violare, sayeth Beza in his confession: that is, he cannot be said to have contemned the sacraments, 
Cap. 4.  to whom it is not permitted to partake them, as they are established by the Lord, & far be it from us to imagine any cases of necessity, by the which we may violate the Lords ordinance. But what needeth all this fear: for I am sure, three, or four years abstinence would constrain them to restore unto us our liberty again, & to suffer the communion to be celebrated after the old form, rather than the people should be defrauded of it. This is the least duty we owe. But we are bound further to defend, and oppone, if we did profess as we avow in the confession of our faith. The meanest professor in the church o● Scotland is bound to maintain this liberty, & possession Otherwise if he quite, & r●●●er himself, he is a deserter of Christ's cause.   

CHAP. FOUR Of the words uttered at the delivery of the elements.  

The sacramenta words are not uttered demonstratively.  THE third innovation is, that the word of promise, This is my body, This cup is the new testament, etc. is not uttered demonstratively, when the elements are delivered to every communicant. It is not enough that the words of the institution were rehearsed before by way of history narrativelie, or materially. This sacrament is an imitation of Christ not a recital of his words, & actions, it is to do, as he did, and not to report what he did, saith Pierr du Moulin. 
Pag. 95.  The rehearsal doth no more, but let us see what warrant there is to use bread, and wine in the celebration of this sacrament, rather than any other elements, and to assure us that bread, & wine in general are appointed to this use. But it can not be said demonstrativelie de individuo signato of this bread, and wine in particular set on the table, that it is the body and blood of Christ. For first it must be blessed, & sanctified by prayer, and thanksgiving to this use, that the minister may say, Thi●, that is, this sanctified bread is my body. The rehearsal of the word of promise even after the sanctification serveth only for a general warrant. The words than must be uttered after the blessing demonstratively not to God in a prayer, or form of oblation, as the popish or English priest doth. For Christ uttered them to the disciples. nor yet by holding, or pointing out the bread to the whole congregation, saying This is my body, as in the bastard leiturgies ascribed to Basil●, and chrysostom, where the bread is holden up after the pronouncing of these words, & the people answer Amen, or in the Ethiopian mass, where the people answer Amen, Amen, Amen we believe it is the body of the Lord, which were ridiculous, & hath been the original of many errors. For what if the elements be not delivered, shall they be sacramentally Christ's body and blood; or the remains? This is a common axiom of the Divines Elementa extra usum non sunt sacramenta. The elements out of the use are nor sacraments. For howbeit it be not essential to bread to be delivered, yet it is essential to sacramental bread to be delivered, taken, and eaten. Christ said not, This is my body to all in general, & then to every one in particular take thou, eat thou, as the papist and formalist doth, but first Take eat, and then, This is my body, or actu continuo both bade them take, and eat, and signified what it was he was giving to them. The promise is annexed to the commandment, as conditional. The promise hath no otherwise effect then if the condition take place. Si quis separat promissionem a mandato discedit ab institutione Christi. 
In Mat. 26.  N●n aliter igitur habet effectum promissio, quam s● condit●o etiam locum habeat. saith Robertus Stephanus It fareth with the sacramental elements, as with pawns, & pledges in contracts, and bargains. A ring may be appointed for a pledge in matrimony, yet is it not actually a pledge, without consent of the other party, but only a mere ring. A stone chosen to be a sign of a March is not actually a march stone, but in the use, when it is set with consent of parties in the march for that end. So the elements are consecrate, and set apart by prayer and thanksgiving, to this use, yet are they not actually Christ's body, and blood till they be received and eaten. And therefore a sacrament properly is defined to be a ceremony or action. By a figurative kind of speech the bread may be called the sacrament of Christ's body, because it is appointed to that end, as when Isaac said to Abraham. where is the sacrifice, that is, the ramm or the lamb appointed for the sacrifice. But Christ called the bread his body not in that sense, but in the delivery and use, when it was verily a sign and seal of Christ's body. It followeth therefore that the word of promise must be uttered demonstratively only in the time of delivery, receiving, and eating, and to every one severally, if he will needs give severally. For otherwise he shall utter them demonstratively to some, and not to others. The sacramental signs are like seals hanging at the charter. The word of promise is the special, & solemn clause of the Charter. If at any time it should be uttered, it should be uttered when the seal is delivered, seeing the sacramental words carry the promise, & refer the signs to their sacramental use. What would we think, if the minister rehearsed Christ's command to baptise in name of the father, son, & the holy ghost, but when he come to the sprinkling would not say, I baptise thee in the name of the father, son, and Holy ghost, but utter some other words of his own framing. What is the reason the formalist will not utter demonstratively the words when he delivereth. It is not fear that the kneeler apprehend Christ's body to be under the bread, or the accidents of the bread, for he uttereth them not to the sitter, more than to him that kneeleth, and is not afraid to constrain ignorant people to kneel, although he should conceive Christ's body to be present under the bread, when he hath uttered other words. But here is the mystery of the matter, they place the virtue of consecration in these words, as the Papist doth. And therefore because he hath uttered them already, he will not repeat them again; lest he should seem to consecrate them again. For Mr. Lindsay saith, That after the sacrament is made by the sacramental word, the Pastor useth other words in delivering the elements. 
Proceed pag. 57  Mr. Michelson saith the like. And yet have they not uttered these words before the delivery, but only narratively, or by way of recital, which, as I have said, doth only show a warrant in general. If demonstratively, it must be in the time o● prayer, after the Popish or English manner. For they confess they utter them not demonstratively to the communicant. If consecration be taken for sanctification, than it is placed in the prayer, or blessing. For by prayer, or thanksgiving, the elements are sanctified and consecrated to this use. If you will distinguish betwixt sanctification & consecration, as Popish Divines do, then say we, that the blessing and sanctifying is but a part, and that consecration, that is the making of them a sacrament, consisteth in the whole action, as our Divines do well observe. For except there be receiving, eating & drinking, they are not seals of Christ's body and blood. Sacramenta perficiuntur usu. By the way I observe that as the formalists utter not Christ's words demonstratively, so agree they not upon a prescript form of words, but frame them as they please, whether in form of prayer or otherwise as they think good. The communicant is accessory to this innovation, because he receiveth from him who changeth the words, and giveth the seal without the word of promise.   

CHAP. V Of kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements.  
THE fourth innovation is the kneeling of some ministers, and some communicants in the act of receiving. First we are to prove the kneeler guilty. Next, the sitter communicating with him, although not in the same degree.  
Suppose kneeling were indifferent, 
Kneeling in the act of receiving is idolatrous.  yet the kneeler is guilty of scandal: for it is a show of conformity with the Papists in a ceremony, which hath been abused by them to the vilest idolatry that ever was in the world, the worship of the bready God, yea invented by the Antichrist to that end. The formalist can not produce one authentic testimony for kneeling for a thousand years. The Papist is hardened in his superstition and idolatry, for he thinketh that we are drawing toward him, and that our religion cannot be graced without his rites, or manner of worship. The weak brother is offended, & stumbleth upon one sort of idolatry or other. We see the outward gesture of an idolater, and who knoweth but their intentions may be bad enough. Ye will say the offence is taken, not given. But if it be a thing indifferent, as ye say, and not necessary, but may be omitted, than the offence is given. For you are not ignorant into what evils it may induce the simple and ignorant. You say the command of the Magistrate taketh away the scandal, and that it is better to offend a brother then to offend a Magistrate. The word Offend is ambiguous. Better it is to offend, that is to displease the Magistrate, for than I edify him, whereas otherwise I should harden him in his course, then to offend, that is, lay a stumbling block before the poorest soul in the church, and so destroy him for whom Christ died. Rom. 14.15. We are commanded to abstain from things in their own nature indifferent, if the weak brother shall offend with the use of them. Rom. 14.15.21. The Magistrate hath not power to abolish this law. Obedience to the magistrate ought not to be the rule of my love to God's glory, or salvation of my brother, which when it is neglected, God's glory is trampled under foot. You will say, that we are bound to obey the Magistrate. It is true, we are bound in conscience to be subject to the magistrate, but not to obey him but in the Lord, that is, we are bound to passive obedience, but not to active, except in things lawful. A scandal is not lawful. Further, know you not that the magistrate may abuse a thing indifferent, as well as a private man, and make all Israel to stumble, for he is a sinful man Know ye not that it often falleth out according to the old saying, Quo volunt Reges, vadun leges, the laws must sing as will the King Know ye not that the Magistrate may hau● his own private respects, and under colour o● things indifferent bring in a corrupt religion I need not insist upon this point, it is sensibl● enough to men of mean judgement. Say no therefore with Cain, Am I my brother's keeper The Lord will say to thee, Thy life for his life if he be missing. 1. King 20.39. How careless, alas, are many, although thousands fall at their right hand, and ten thousand at their left, so that they can either win or retain the favour of their superiors. But look how vile the soul of thy brother was in thine eyes, thine shall be in the eyes of God, except thou repent and amend.  
I am now to prove it idolatrous, 
Kneeling in the act of receiving is Idolatrous.  first in respect of the public intent of our superiors: Next, simply, whatsoever intent men can pretend. That we may know what is the public intent, we are to consider the intent of the English Church: for conformity with that Church is intended. Next, the act of Perth Assembly which is urged.  
The kirk of England intendeth kneeling for reverence of the sacrament: 
The public intent of the English Kirk is idolatrous.  for in the book of common prayer, whereunto they are bound by the statute, 1 Elizab. kneeling is enjoined upon this ground, That the sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverend and holy estimation. D. Morton answereth, Are ye then of opinion, either that the sacrament cannot be profaned, or that the Church had not reason to prevent, or avoid the profanation of this sacrament of the Eucharist. And again, to stop the mouths of blasphemous papists vilifying our sacrament with the ignominious names of Baker's bread, Vintner's wine, profane elements. Ale-cakes, and such like reproachful terms, did hold it fit that we by our outward reverence in the manner of receiving the Eucharist, might testify our due estimation of such holy rites, which are consecrated to so blessed an use, as is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and that thereby we might repel the stain and ignominy which such virulent and unhallowed tongues did cast upon them. The Replyer to Doctor Morton refelleth this allegiance of stopping the mouths of Papists, 
Re●ly 2. part. pag. 50.  and telleth us, that some close dissembling adversaries did hinder the work of reformation so much as they could, and that they have done so ever since, and do so still to this day. Howsoever it is, ye see they kneel to testify their due estimation of the holy rites. Mr. Hatton saith, they kneel to put a difference between the ordinary bread and wine, and these sacramental, to which they give the more reverence, because it is more than ordinary bread and wine. 
Book 2. against the minister's of Cornwall & Devonshire.  What can be said more plainly. Master Rogers in his second Dialogue hath some words to the same effect. Now to kneel for reverence of the elements, because they are more than ordinary bread and wine, or to testify our due estimation of the holy rites, which are employed about the elements, is Idolatry.  

The public intent of our Church is idolatrous.  We are next to try the public intent by the act of Perth Assembly ratified in Parliament, the tenor whereof followeth, as it is published after fining and refining.  

The act of Perth a●●nt kneeling.  Since we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, we fall down and kneel before the Lord our Maker, and considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body in our meditation and lifting up of our hearts, becometh well so divine and sacred an action, Therefore notwithstanding our Church hath used since the reformation here, to celebrate the holy Communion to the people sitting, by reason of the great abuse used in the Idolatrous worship of Papists, Yet now, since all memory of bypast superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praised be God, in reverence of God, and in due regard of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partakers of thereby, the assembly thinketh good, that the blessed sacrament be celebrated hereafter to the people humbly, 
The false & superfluous clauses of the act.  and reverently kneeling upon their knees.  
We have here two lies enclosed in the parenthesis. It is untrue, that all memory of bypast past superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people, as the country well knoweth, & the behaviour of some ignorant people, when they were kneeling, hath already bewrayed. Next it is untrue, that the abuse in time of papistry was the only and principal cause of restoring the gesture of sitting at the beginning of reformation. If they had aimed only at the reformation of that abuse, they needed not to have restored sitting, standing or taking en passant would have served the turn. Both sitting, and distributing of the elements by the communicants were restored at the reformation, because most agreeable, and near to the pattern of the first supper.  
We have three reasons in this act, wherefore we should kneel, as M. Lindsay hath analyzed it.  

The first reason for kneeling in the act refuted.  The first reason in the narrative is this, Since we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, we fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker. Relative to this in the conclusion we have these words. Therefore in reverence of God, the assembly thinketh good that this sacrament be celebrated to the people kneeling upon their knees. For the confirmation of this reason is alleged th● 9● Psalm verse 7. By this rude reason it is a sin not to kneel in the act of receiving, Christ & his Apostles, & all who followed their example since, have sinned. For if we be commanded by God, it is a sin to violate his commandment. Next the word worship is not taken here for any kind of religious, and divine service, or action expressed by the word Cultus in latin, but more strictly for adoration, or rather that gesture of prostrating the whole body. The people of God used four gestures of the body, as signs of honour: first a bending or bowing down of the head, which they expressed by the word Cadad, this was the least degree. Next a bending or bowing of the superior bulk of the body, which they expressed by the word Carang. The third kneeling, which they expressed by the word Barach. The fourth falling down prostrate with their hands & feet spread, which they expressed by the word Histachaveh. The last three are all mentioned in the 6 verse of the 95 Psalm. If there were any command here included to fall down, when we receive the sacrament, we should be commanded not only to bow the superior bulk of the body, as Pope Honorius commanded to be done at the elevation, or to kneel, as we are now commanded to do, but also to prostrate ourselves upon our face, with our hands and feet spread, for so do some interpret the manner. But there is here only an invitation and exhortation, not a commandment, not to kneel, when they come before the Lord to worship, but ●o ●●me before the Lord, that is before the ark, which is called the face of God, and worship, that is prostrate themselves, kneel, and bow themselves before the Lord their maker in token of thanksgiving. It is great ignorance to infer hereupon, that we are commanded to kneel in the act of receiving the sacramental elements in the act of preaching and hearing the word, which are all acts of divine service, or worship in a larger sense. The words relative in the conclusion taken simply are not true. For we are not bound at all times to kneel in reverence of God. For affirmative precepts bindeth us ever, but not to practise at every time. For than we should never be off our knees, because we ought ever to carry with us reverence to God.  
The second reason in the narrative of the act is this, And considering with all, 
The second reason in the act for kneeling refuted.  that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. Relative to this reason we have in the conclusion these words: And in regard of so divine a mystery the assembly thinketh good, that that blessed sacrament be celebrated to the people humbly and reverently, kneeling upon their knees. Mystery (sayeth he) is not taken here for the elements, because it is not said Mysteries, but Mystery, and by Mystery is meant the holy receiving of th● body and blood of Christ, which is mentioned in the narrative. When the act was firs● form, the copies that we saw, had the word Mysteries. It is now refined, and yet they are not a whit farther off. For what reason is there to refer it to the remoter words of the narrative, when i● may be referred to the nearer words of the coclusion, to wit the celebration of the holy communion, & the words following, that blessed sacrament. But the truth is, it is relative to all the three, as we shall make evident in the own place. But admit his interpretation. If we should kneel, when we receive Christ's body and blood in regard of so divine a mystery, then should we do it whensoever we eat Christ's flesh, and drink his blood. But so it is, that as oft, as the promises of the gospel are read, exponed, or in any part of the sermon rehearsed, and the hearer believeth, he receiveth and eateth Christ's flesh, and drinketh his blood. But then we must be attentive hearers, and not speak to God, when God is speaking to us. Attentive hearing, and the work of apprehending, considering, discerning, trying what is spoken, can not consist with presenting our prayers upon our knees. Neither is kneeling urged in this part of divine service. It is not then simply in due teg●rd of so divine a mystery, as is the receiving of Christ's body and blood, that kneeling is intended (for the spiritual, and inward receiving is common both to the word and sacraments) but in regard of so divine a mystery, as is the receiving of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, or which is all one, in regard of the mystical or sacramental manner of receiving, and consequently in regard of the symbols or symbolical rites employed about the symbols. It is clear then, that in the narrative of the act, by the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is meant a sacramental receiving, and to that manner of receiving is the word Mystery relative in the conclusion.  
The third reason, sayeth he, 
The third reason in the act for kneeling refuted.  is the correspondency between the outward gesture of our body, and the meditation and lifting up of our hearts, when we remember, and consider the mystical union betwixt Christ and us, and among ourselves, whereof we are made partakers by the receiving of Christ's blessed body and blood. This reason depending upon the former shall receive the like answer. Are we not made partakers of that mystical union, when at the hearing of the promises of the Gospel, we eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood? Many have been partakers of this mystical union, who were never partakers of this sacrament.  
But the words of the narrative, 
The right meaning of the third reason.  and the conclusion cannot sort together after that manner. Therefore he shuneth to set down the words of the narrative, and of the conclusion relative to them. For in the narrative is no mention made of the mystical union, neither is it said in the narrative, that the most humble and reverend gesture of the body well becometh our meditation, and the lifting up of our hearts, when we consider the mystical union betwixt Christ and us: but that the most humble and reverend gesture of our b●dy in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts becometh well so divine and sacred an action as is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Now this reason receiveth the like answer that the two former. For it may be asked, why becometh that humble gesture of meditation and lifting up of our hearts, the receiving of Christ's body and blood, in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, more than in the hearing of the promises of the gospel, if it were not in regard of the sacramental elements. Next, what h●mble gesture is that, which is so suitable with meditation. Men do meditate walking, si●ting, lying, but not kneeling. For by meditation a man doth speak to himself, holding a soliloqu●e in his own soul. Again what humble gesture is that, which best becometh t●e lifting up of the heart, s●eing the heart may be lifted up without prayer, and in prayer kneeling doth signify rather the submission and humiliation, than the lifting up of the heart. The lifting up of the eyes or hands are the outward signs of lifting up of the heart.  
In the conclusion, the words which he maketh relative to the former are these: 
To remember is not to lift up the heart by prayer.  In remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partakers of by so divine a mystery. In remembrance, that is, in memory: for so run the words, In reverence, in due regard in remembrance. But lest I should seem to cavil at words, let it be in remembering. I● there be any force in this reason, we should kneel, whensoever we remember so mystical an union. If this clause in the conclusion were relative to the former in the narrative, then by lifting up of the heart is not meant prayer. For to remember, or as he addeth, to consider is not to pray. Howbeit there by pondering, remembering, considering, and momentany meditations, are ejaculations of meditation in prayer, as there are momentany petitions, and ejaculations of prayer, incident to our meditations, yet to pray is not to meditate, nor to meditate to pray, nor n● man of sound judgement ever defined them so, but are two divers exercises of the soul, and require diverse employments of the body, diverse times, and diverse denomination● from the principal work, and not from the incident ejaculations. So that by the lifting up of the heart can not be meant prayer. For one humble gesture of kneeling is not suitable both to meditation and prayer, both to speaking unto God, and to ourselves.  
We are not directed by the act to meditate, 
We are not directed by the act to meditate, or pray in the act of receiving.  and lift up our hearts, when we remember, and consider this mystical union, whereof we are made partakers by receiving Christ's body and blood, but only to use that humble gesture when we receive Christ's body and blood, which we use in our meditation, and lifting up of our heart, although we be not then meditating, or lifting up our heart. But put the case, that we be so directed, and that by lifting up of the heart be meant prayer, yet it must be meant a mental prayer, not a vocal: for that is a lifting up of the voice. The mental prayer must either follow the vocal prayer of the Minister, or must be conceived by the kneeler.  

Mental prayer following the vocal of the Minister in the act of receiving was not enjoined.  The Lords, over-rulers of that assembly meant not a mental prayer following the vocal prayer of the Minister. For than they would have ordained some prayer to be uttered by the Minister, or else that every Minister should conceive a prayer as he thought good. But no such thing was done. Some, who are said to have been penners of the act themselves, use not a form of prayer at the delivery of the Elements, nor yet any other, so fare as I know. Every man was left to his own free choice of words, whether in form of prayer, or otherwise. Kneeling therefore should not be urged till in another like assembly they have dressed all the appurtenances. They were so glad of kneeling, that they forgot all the requisites, and so they brought forth a shapeless birth, like the bears whelp, which wanteth eyes, and is a rude deformed lump when it is brought forth, and must be cherished, and licked a long time before it be brought to a perfect form. But suppone that a vocal prayer had been ordained, yet is not kneeling enjoined in regard of any vocal prayer. For the communicant kneeleth both before, and after the receiving, and the Minister endeth if he follow the English form, his wish, or request of three or four words, a short ejaculation of the tongue sooner than the communicant can address themselves to his knees, and before he eat, the other endeth his prayer, biddeth him eat, and be thankful, which is an admonition, or exhortation, not a prayer, and so leaveth him, and goeth to another. Next, if kneeling were intended in regard of any vocal prayer of the Minister, then where there is no vocal prayer at the delivery, kneeling is not intended, and they have greatly failed, who have kneeled. But that is done almost every where, where there is kneeling. thirdly, if in regard of the vocal prayer of the Minister, then if a Minister utter demonstrativelie Christ's own words, the communicant must not kneel, but if h● utter the words of man's framing he must kneel. So Christ's order must be overthrown that kneeling may have place. fourthly suppose vocal prayer had been enjoined, and the communicant to follow it mentally, what can be the reason to urge kneeling in regard of that vocal prayer, rather than any other, if there were no further intended, then to kneel in regard of the vocal prayer of the Minister. At a convention holden at Saint Andrew's before Perth assembly, it was thought good that people should either stand or kneel in time of prayer, at other times. What need I insist upon this point, seeing there was no direction for a vocal prayer, fare less a declaration, that kneeling was intended in regard of that prayer. 
The mental prayer of the communicants own framing not enjoined not kneeling in regard of it.   
If by lifting up of the heart could be meant the mental prayer of the communcants own framing, and conceiving, it must be either a set & continued prayer, or short ejaculation & momentany petitions. The set and continued prayer, which may be called Oratio instructa, a prayer set in order according to David's phrase Psal. 5. Mane instruam coram te, & sum speculiturus, cannot consist with the exercise of receiving, eating, drinking, and the mental actions answering analogicallie to them. Either the mind must be abstracted from meditation, and consideration of these outword rites, whereabout the senses, and members are employed, or else it must be distracted, and divided betwixt two exercises. A Prince would not be content to be so used by a poor supplicant, to see him employed in another action, athough lawful and honest, when he is preferring his petition to him. 
Dist. 49. cap. sacer.  It is then the sacrifice of fools. Offer it now to thy Governor, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person Malach. 1.8. Indignum est dare Deo, quod dedignaretur homo. If we make petition but to some earthly Prince we fix the eye both of body, and mind up●n him, and scare least some incongruous, or unseemly word move him to aver● his countenance. Tot●m in cum menti● & corporis aciem defigimus, & de nutu ej●s tr●●ida expectatione pendemus, 
C●llat. 23. cap. 27.  non mediocrit●● f●rmid●ntes, ne quod forte incongruum verbum audientes misericordiam avertat sayeth Cassianus. The like incongruity of confounding two exercises receiving, eating, drinking in time of set prayer, and adoration upon our knees was never heard among the very barbarians, and I think would never have been heard among Christians, if they had not imagined falsely that they were eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of their God. Next, if by lifting up of the heart be meant the set mental prayer of the communicant, it will follow, that kneeling cannot be farther urged, than the set mental prayer itself. But I believe that the communicant, if he be well exercised in the mental actions, answering analogicallie to the outward, communicateth worthily, howbeit he conceive not a set mental prayer. thirdly if kneeling be enjoined in regard of set mental prayer to be conceived by the communicant, than a secret, or private prayer is commanded in a publ●●k assembly, without a vocal, either of the Minister, or of him that prayeth, even then, when the Minister, and congregation is not praying. He concurreth not with the congregation, nor the congregation with him. And beside, the signs, and gestures of secret, and mental prayer, where there is not vocal, should be concealed in public, far less should they be extorted.  
They may as well enjoin the communicant to lift up his eyes or knock on his b●e●st, that we may know he is praying, as to enjoin kneeling, if it were intended in regard of this secret prayer. For kneeling, lifting up of the hands, eyes, knocking on the breast, are natural adumbrations of the inward motions, and passions of our soul, which ought not to be extorted. It must be therefore for some other regard, that kneeling is intended, then in regard of any set mental prayer. For whether he pray, or not, mentally, he is urged to kneel.  

Kneeling not intended in regard of the ejaculations of the heart.  If by lifting up of the heart be meant the momentany petitions, and short ejaculations of the soul, that lifting up may very well consist with set meditation, and not only with this action of receiving, eating, drinking the sacramental elements, but also with the receiving of our ordinary and daily food, eating and drinking at common tables. In a word, with all our actions whether civil or religious, and may be incident to my passing by a Crucifix, at which time I may not kneel, howbeit I detest the Image. I may very well passing by with neglect or contempt, groan to God for the blindness of the people, or lift up my hand, or my eyes, because these gestures may well express our inward ejaculations. But kneeling attendeth not upon ejaculations, but upon set prayer, or thanksgiving purposely intended. It was therefore a silly tale of one of our ministers, to say that we granted they might lift up their eyes, but we envied the poor knee. Will any man infer, that I may kneel at eating of daily food, because I may then lift up my eyes? These ejaculations, and holy motions of the heart may be, and are often incident at hearing of the word, and sometimes more fervent then at the receiving of the Sacrament It is not therefore in regard of that lifting uppe of the heart by short eiacalations of prayer that kneeling is intended.  
What hath been said against the pretext of prayer, 
The pretence of mental & real thanksgiving answered.  let it be applied to thanksgiving vocal, or mental, set, and contined, or iaculatory, and momentany. If they will say, that the action of eating and drinking is a real thanksgiving, and showing forth of the Lords death, the Apostle saith not so, but requireth a declaration by words of the Lords death as oft as we communicate. But put the case the Apostle had said, by eating and drinking ye show forth the Lords death, yet is not the action a real thanksgiving, but a real commemoration to speak so, of Christ's death and passion, and consequently of the nature of preaching, and showing forth of the Lords death and passion, and not of the nature of thanksgiving. It is one thing to profess and publish God's mercies before men for the redemption of man, and another thing to offer up thankes to God by way of adoration. God may be honoured many ways, but every honour is not adoration. Praise and thanksgiving differ. Augustine saith, 
Homil. 26. Tom. 10.  Christum praedicari per linguam, per epistolam, per sacramentum corporis & sanguinis ejus.  
Having examined all the reasons of the Act according to Master Lindsayes own interpretation, 
A question to discover the nakedness of the Act.  that the Reader may the better conceive how rude they are, I propone this question. Seeing we receive the same benefit inwardly and severally, we eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ as oft as we believe the promises of the Gospel read, exponed, or in any part of the sermon rehearsed, and may have the heart then lifted up, yea sometimes more fervent motions then when we receive the sacramental elements of bread and wine; Why are we enjoined to kneel at the one time more than at the other, if it be not in regard of the outward signs and rites, which is idolatry? Nay, I should urge further. Seeing there was only a voice at the delivery of the word, and here is a visible object set before the eye, howbeit it were urged there, wherefore should it be urged here? Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice. Deut. 4.12. According to his private interpretation I form another act mutatis mutandis like the act of Perth, that it may be the better understood.  

Another act f●rmed to discover the mystery and meaning of th●●ct of Perth.  SInce we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, we fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker, and considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts, becometh well so divine and sacred an action. Therefore notwithstanding our Church hath used, since the reformation of religion here, to hear the promises of the Gospel read, exponed, or in any part of the sermon rehearsed sitting, by reason of some great abuse in former times; yet now, seeing all memory of bypast abuse is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praised be God, in reverence of God, and in due regard of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical an union. as we are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinketh good, that the promises of the Gospel being read, exponed, or rehearsed in any part of the Sermon, that the people hearken reverently kneeling upon their knees.  
Is there any reason in the act of Perth, which may not sort with this? 
Three or four phrases in the Act signifying one thing.  May not the reader here perceive, that by receiving of the body and blood of Christ in the narrative, is meant a mystical receiving of the sacrament, and relative to this phrase in the conclusion are these three following, the holy communion, divine mystery, & blessed sacrament, so that all the four signify one thing, and without correspondency to other, they cannot cohere in any tolerable construction of words. Let the act than be form, as it should run in right construction in manner following.  
SInce we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, 
The Act rightly form.  we fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker, and considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts becometh well so divine and sacred an action. Therefore notwithstanding our Church hath used, since the reformation of religion here, to receive the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ sitting, by reason of the great abuse used in the idolatrous worship of Papists, yet now since all memory of bypast superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people, praised be God: in reverence of God, and due regard of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical an union as we are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinketh good that the people receive the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ humbly and reverently kneeling upon their knees.  

By the word Mystery is meant the sacrament, or sacramental receiving.  May not any man here see evidently, that by Divine Mystery is meant the receiving of the body and blood of Christ in the mystery of the Supper, or the mystical and sacramental receiving which standeth in signs & rites, wherein it differeth from the spiritual. By the word Mystery in the singular number, as well as by the word Mysteries in the plural number, is meant the sacrament very frequently among the ancient Writers. Dionysius Areopagita entitleth the chapter of the Lords Supper, 
De eccles. Hierarch.  The mystery of the Synaxis or holy communion. Ambrose saith, Indignus est Domin●, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quàm ab eo traditum est, that he is unworthy in the Lords account who celebrateth the mystery otherwise then he hath delivered it. 
In 1 Cor. 11  Oecamenius saith, that the Apostle Paul calleth the mystery of our master the Lords Supper. 
Hieron. in Psal. 47.7.  Jerome saith, Licet in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen veriùs corpus Christi, & sanguis eius sermo scripturarum est, that howbeit it may be understood of the mystery, that yet more truly the words of the Scripture may be called the body and blood of Christ. What need many testimonies? 
Exercit. pag. 550.  Casaubone saith of this sacrament, Dicitur etiam antonomasticè to mysterion, aut numero multitudinis ta mysteria. In the English confession the bread, and wine are called. The holy, and heavenly mysteries of the body, and blood of Christ. In the service book the word Mystery is used in the singular number. Master Lindsay himself useth some time the word Mystery, and sometime the word Mysteries in his Resolutions. The word Mystery is often used in the singular number because both the signs, and the rites employed about them are referred to one Christ signified.  
This act may pass among both Papists and Lutherans, 
The act of Perth may pass among Lutherans & Papists.  this clause (Notwithstanding our Church hath used, since the Reformation here, to celebrate the holy communion to the people sitting, by reason of the great abuse used in the Idolatrous worship of Papists, yet now since all memory of bypast superstition is blotted out of the hearts of the people praised be God) being blotted out, as justly it ought: for it is false, as I have already said. It is superfluous. For the act is whole, and entire without it, the conclusion answering to the narrative. And it is insert for a mock. For immediately after, and before they condemn our Church for want of reverence and due regard to this Sacrament, which ought to have prevailed above all other respects, if their reason were forcible. This false, superfluous, and mocking clause being blotted out, ye have the whole act, as followeth.  
SInce we are commanded by God himself, that when we come to worship him, 
The Lutheran or popish 〈◊〉  we fall down and kneel before the Lord our maker, and considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. Like as the most humble and reverend gesture of the body in our meditation, and lifting up of our hearts, becometh well so divine and sacred an action. Therefore in reverence of God, and due regard of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical an union, as we are made partakers of thereby, the Assembly thinketh good, that blessed sacrament be celebrated to the people humbly and reverently upon their knees.  
This act I say may pass among Papists, and Lutherans. 
C●●doration, or else respective adoration of the elements is intended in the ●ct.  For they maintain that all the communicants, even the very wicked, and hypocrites receive the very body, and blood of Christ in at their mouth, the Papist under the accidents of bread, and wine, the Lutheran under or within the elements of bread, and wine. For the Papist and Lutherane hath beside the spiritual receiving, which they grant only to the godly, a Sacramental but essential, and real receiving of the very body, and blood of Christ in at the mouth, which they grant also to the wicked. The act of the communicants receiving is no otherwise expressed here, then by the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. May we not therefore justly suspect the Sacramental real receiving of Christ's body, and blood to have been intended by the first penners of the act, wheresoever it was first forged, seeing there is nothing contrary to this meaning in the act, it is damned as curiosity to inquire after what manner Christ is present in the Sacrament of the supper. Yea it is plainly avouched that Christ's blood is after a more sublime manner present in the Sacramental wine, than it is in the water of Baptism. So in this sense to kneel in regard of the divine mystery is to kneel in regard of Christ's body really present, and the signs together, conjunctly as the total object of adoration, and so the signs shall be worshipped by way of coadoration. So the Papists worship the body of Christ, and the species, or accidents together. Non solum Christus sub speciebus existens, sed etiam totum Sacramentum visibile, ut ex Christo & speciebus constat unico latriae actu adorandum est, sayeth Swarez. And again, 
Tom. 3. disp. 65. sect. 1.  simpliciter hoc Sacramentum adorandum esse adoratione latriae absoluta, & perfecta, qua per se adoretur Christus. coadorentur autem species, quia hoc Sacramentum in re est unum Constans ex Christo & speciebus. If no man can be persuaded that there is any such intent, yet the other respect is at least intended, to wit, to kneel in regard of the mystery, that is, of the mystical rites, and elements, which is Idolatry. For to kneel in regard of the elements, is to adore them. Because kneeling in Religious use is ever a gesture of adoration, and sovereign worship, which belongeth only to God, and by it is designed some times the whole worship of God. Ipsam proskunesm, quae hominibus propter analogicam cum Deo similitudinem legitimè tribuitur, ita Deo propriam censeo, cum Religiosa est, ut totus cultus divinus illa sol● designetur, Christus illam Diabolo, 
Di●put. pag. 233.  & Angelus sibi abjudicet, hoc argumento quod Dei propria sit, sayeth Arminius. Yet I cannot see how the word Mystery can be other wise taken in the act, then for the receiving of the signs, and the thing signified together sacramentally. It is true God offereth the thing signified as oft as the outward signs are presented unto us, but the fail is upon the part of the receiver, who wanteth faith and receaveth only the outward signs.  
W●e have examined the public intent, which we find to be idolatrous. 
The private intents of the communicants examined.  And therefore whatsoever be the private intent of the communicant he must be interpreted according to the public intent. Otherwise a man may go to Rome, and kneel. But we will examine also what the communicant can allege for his private intent. The pretence of mental prayer, or thanksgiving we have already discussed.  

The pretence of receiving a precious gift, the body and b●ood of Christ.  First ye say, ye are receiving a precious gift, the body, and blood of Christ. Will not any man do reverence to the king, when he receaveth a gift out of his hand? This pretence hath been already answered. For we receive the same benefit at the hearing of the word. But farther it may be doubted whether thou be receiving such a gift, howbeit God be offering it. Next the manner of the offer is to be considered, to wit, not immediately, but mediately by the Ministry of the word, and Sacraments. thirdly we must not imagine that Christ's body is offered unto us in the Sacrament, as if we had never received his body before. Did we not receive his body at the Sacrament in former times, did we receive, and then lose again? Yea we receive the body of Christ at our first conversion, we receive his flesh, and blood in the word, before we receve them in the Sacrament. We are in Christ's body before we eat of Christ's body, 
De civet. de● l. 2●. c. 25.  sayeth Augustine. Dicendum non est eum comedere corpus Christi, qui non est in corpore Christi. And again he sayeth, that we are made partakers of Christ's body in Baptism. Nulli aliquatenus est dubitandum, unumquemque fidelium corporis, & sanguinis tunc esse participem, quando in Baptismate membrum efficitur Christi. And the Apostle sayeth. By one spirit we are all Baptised into one body. 1. Cor. 12.13. That we are graffed in Christ, that we put on Christ. Rom. 6.35. Galat. 3.27. 
Vide de Consecrat dist 1, Quia passus.  Tertullian sayeth of baptism, that we are not baptised that we may cease from sinning, but because we have left off to sin, and have our hearts washed, and cleansed. Non ideo abluimur, 
De poenitentia  ut desinamus delinquere, seà quia des●imus, & cord loti sumus. The table is ever spread for the soul, when the word is preached, and the Sacrament ministered.  
We bring with us actual faith to feed upon him, whom by habitual faith we retain dwelling already in us. Familiaris loquendi modus est ut fieri dicatur quod factum obsignatur. It is a familiar kind of speaking to say that a thing is in doing, which already done is sealed and confirmed, 
De sacram. pag. 68  saith Whitakers. Fourthly, the nature of the gift is to be considered. Any man will behave himself otherwise when he receiveth a jewel out of the prince's hand, nor when he is receiving a supper, & is in the act of feasting with him. Christ and his Apostles known after what manner we should behave ourselves at this banquet, that we need not to go learn courtesy at the court.  
You will say, that men bow to the chair of estate, 
The argument drawn from ceremonies of court answered.  or the Prince's letter, or seal, without injury done to the King's person. Yea the honour is conveyed to the Prince by the chair of estate, or the seal. Doctor Abbot's answer to Bishop in another purpose may serve here very well. 
pag. 1215.  It should seem strange that formalities observed to Princes in th●●r courts, for majesty and royal estate should be made patterns of religious devotions to be practised in the Church. 
De civet. dei. l. 2, cap. 4.  Augustine saith that civil courtesies often are grounded upon base humility, or pestiferous flattery. Hence it is that some countries mislike the courtesies of other countries. Conon an heathen refused to adore Artaxerxes after the manner of the Persians.  
Next the bowing to the chair of estate or to the seal of the prince, is but a civil worship for a politic end, to testify homage & allegiance. Doctor Abbots in defence of Perkins, sayeth It is holden for a matter of princely Majesty, that there be a reverence performed to these things which serve in a special manner for the Prince's use. On the other side, 
Pag. 121●.  no such duty is done to the Prince's Image. It is thought good by the State, that the Majesty of Princes be upholden by such means, because they are but weak mortal men. But God needeth not any such props to hold up his majesty, neither will he have any worship conveyed to him mediately by any creature never so holy, or of whatsoever use. The sacraments are compared to seals, but not in every respect. The sacraments have all their force and power from the word, so hath not the King's seal from the Charter. The word is of itself firm and sure without the sacraments, so is not the Charter without the seal. A seal maketh things authentical, as measures, clothes, grants, or the like. The sacraments are annexed to the word, not to make the w●rd more authentical, but to confirm our faith. The outward signs of the sacrament are made for us, not we for them. And as one saith, as they are the plainest part of Divinity, so they come lowest to our necessity, and capacity. When we heard the word, we were sealed with the Spirit, Ephes 1.13. The holy Spirit is the seal or signet sealing us to redemption, the graces of the Spirit are the seals sealed, or printed upon us. The holy Spirit sealeth unto us Christ, and all his benefits, and properly assureth us of them, sometime by the word, and sometime by the sacrament as outward means. The outward means are to be reverenced, but not to be adored.  

The argument taken from bowing before the ark answered.  It is alleged that we may bow before the Sacramental bread, and wine, because the people of God bowed before the ark. We answer, they bowed not for reverence of the ark, but to God dwelling, or sitting in the ark between the Cherubims. God was after an extraordinary, and singular manner present in the ark, delivering oracles. For this singular presence of God in the ark the Temple was built, and all the implements thereof made. God promised to hear his people, when they should turn them toward this Temple. So they bowed toward the ark, toward the Temple, wherein the ark was, toward the mountain whereon the Temple was situate, because of God's presence in the ark, in the Temple wherein the ark was, & which was situate upon the mountain. They bowed toward the Temple, not as toward a particular thing, but as toward a particular place of presence. The bread is a particular thing, not a particular place of presence, wherein God may be said to sit, or dwell, or from whence he promiseth to hear our prayers.  
There is no such place of presence now under the New testament. The ark wherein God dwelled or sat, was a type of Christ's manhood, not yet existing, and of the Godhead dwelling in the manhood. The Temple also, john the second chapter and the nineteen verse. But now under the new Testament we are directed to direct our worship to that place where the Godhead is dwelling, in the Manhood existing, that is, to the heaven where Christ's Manhood is.  
Ye will say, 
Improper adoration is idolatrous.  we may reverence the bread as a sign of Christ's body by way of representation, that is, as if his body, howbeit absent were present in the bread, or under the accidents of bread, and all the honour that we would do to the body of Christ, as if it were present, we do before, and about the bread, as in a Comedy, all the honour done to him that representeth the King, is accounted done properly to the King, not to him that representeth, but improperly. Sicklyke to an Ambassador: and after the same manner to an empty coffin at funerals. We answer, that we own no adoration to any creature either properly, or improperly. A representation of Christ's body actively to the communicant, that is to represent his body to be received, we acknowledge: but a representation of Christ's body passively, that is to stand in Christ's room to receive adoration from the communicant, as a Vicegerent of Christ absent, we do not acknowledge. For that were to give a portion of divine honour to the creature, to make it Christ's Vicegerent when we worship him. By this reason we might not only kneel, but kiss the sacrament, and direct our speech and prayer toward it, as the jesuite doth, when fixing his eyes upon a Crucifix in his Sermon, he directeth his speech to Christ. To this kind of worship many refer the convey of civil worship to the Prince, by the chair of estate. But it is limited to one particular, to wit, bowing.  

Coniunct adoration, or proper respective of the signs are intended in the act, and both are idolatrous.  Ye will say, ye intent not this representation, but consider Christ as present, as the Papist considereth the sampler, or person represented as present, as clothed with the Image, or shining in the Image, that is, present Secundum esse representativum, non secundum esse real, that is, by mere representation only. This coniunct adoration is like the coadoration of the purple robe wherewith the King is clothed, or of the Pope's shoe, when the Pope is adored, or any submission, or supplication made unto him. But God will not be worshipped according to our apprehensions. We make an idol of him if we apprehend him otherwise then he is. The sacrament cannot be the robe of that body which is in the heavens and not in the bread: and therefore the bread cannot be worshipped concomitanter with the body of Christ upon a mere apprehension. There is no adoration of any created thing with the Godhead, but only of the manhood of Christ united personally to the Godhead. Therefore Nestorius, an old heretic, conceiving the manhood of Christ to be a distinct person from the Godhead, and notwithstanding averring that the manhood should be adored with the Godhead, was condemned in the Council of Ephesus. The body itself of Christ were not to be adored if it were not personally united to his Godhead. I know the understanding Formalist denieth in words both the improper and coniunct adoration. But we are now examining the private intent of the communicants, and who doubteth but many apprehend Christ's, body to be either present in apprehension, or represented as absent, or really present in the bread when they kneel. Did not one of our Barons protest, that he kneeled not for reverence of the bread, but because it was a sign of Christ's body? What was that to say, but that he would not adore the simple bread, but that he would adore the sacramental bread? but after what manner? whether improperly, or coniunctly, or respectively? I think he could scarce tell himself. What may we then judge of many in the land? The formalist kneeling according to the intent of the act in regard of the divine mystery, that is, of the sacramental receiving of Christ's body and blood, adoreth either the body of Christ and the signs coniunctly, as obiectum quod, totale & adaequatum, or else disiunctly the signs, as the material object, obiectum quod, and the body of Christ only by consequence, as obiestum quo, the reason wherefore he adoreth the signs properly and directly in recto, as they speak, and the sampler but indirectly, in obliquo. There is no other regard either of prayer, or any other like thing expressed in the act, which may lead us to think that improper adoration was intended. And of the two last I cannot see how the proper respective can be intended, seeing they are then using the signs to the end whereunto they were appointed, and consider them in actu exercito, as they are then representing Christ's body. Whereas the proper respective is given to the signs, as to things sacred. As when the Papist passing by the Image, uncovereth his head considering it only generally and confusedly, as a thing sacred. But when he considereth the Image, as it is an Image actu exercito representing the thing signified, and intendeth to adore in it, or before it the sampler or person represented, than he kneeleth: for their proper respective adoration they call veneration, such honour as they give to the book of the Gospel, or sacred vessels, saith Swarez, who calleth it adoratio veneraria. Howsoever it is with them, kneeling is ever a gesture of adoration, and never to be used, but to God directly in absolute adoration. Absolute adoration we call that which is given to persons, or intellectual creatures for some intrinsic excellency in them. Respective we call that which is determined in senseless and dead creatures, resteth in them, and is properly given them which are honoured per se by themselves, howbeit propter aliud for some extrinsic excellency out of themselues & inherent in the sampler, or thing represented, and consequently honour redoundeth to the sampler by consequence.  

The pretence of Obiectum a quo significative answered.  Put the case the Formalist were free of the former two intentions, that is, to adore signs, either coniunctly or respectively, and that it were true whereunto he fleeth, as unto his last refuge, that the bread and wine are obiectum à quo significatiuè, that is, an active object moving us to worship the thing signified: which differeth not from the adoration which Durandus Holcot, and Pic●s Mirandula give to Images: for they adore not images the object of their adoration; but only in their presence, or before them worship the sampler. Their adoration is as abstract from the image as theirs can be from the elements, neither can Doctor Morton show any difference. The outward action is exercised materially before the image, the intention of worship is directed to the sampler in their understanding. So the image was only obiectum a quo significative to them in regard of the inward affection. And yet we condemn them for exercising the natural action of outward adoration before the image, or at the presence of the image. 
resolute. pag. 161.  M. Lindsay sayeth that there is a difference between images the invention of men, & the works of God, the word of God, and the sacraments. But many of the English formalists approve images as lawful objects to stir up the memory, as the Replyer to Morton doth testify. And they have reason: for if they condemned images, as signs invented by men, unfit, and unlawful for wakening up of the memory, and putting them in mind of some pious duty, they must also condemn the sign of the cross, the surplice, and other significant rites invented by man. Now if they may be lawful objects to stir up the memory, what can hinder adoration before them, more than before other moving objects. Si exemplaria ipsa per se sint digna adoratione, quid obstare potest praesentia imaginis, 
Tom. 3. pag. 798.  quo minus adorari possint, saith Swarez. So in the case of adoration there is no difference. In the case of estimation, or veneration, & instruction they differ. We esteem more of God's works then the workmanship of men. We own veneration, a decent & comely usage to God's word & sacraments, which we ought not to images. They are also ordained by God for our instruction, and so are not images. But to adore God in them, by them, or before them by direction, is forbidden as well as adoration before images. Otherwise we should fall down before every green tree, before an ass, or a toad, or any other vile creature, when they work as objects upon our minds, and move us to consider God's goodness, wisdom and power. We have to consider, that when a man is considering the invisible things of God in the workmanship of an ass, tree, toad or any other creature, he is not then praying, or praising except by ejaculations, which may occur in all our actions, but he is meditating, and contemplating. For if I should adore, that is pray, or praise God upon my knees in the mean time, when I am poring with the eyes both of body & mind upon a tree, or a toad, I should confounded two exercises, or be thought to adore the ass, the toad, or the tree, or God in, 
De adoratione lib. 3 disp. 1. cap. 2. & 3.  or by the ass, toad or tree. Vasques the jesuite doubteth not to aver, that not an image only, or an holy thing may be worshipped, with the same adoration that is given to God, but also any thing in the world, the sun, the moon, the stars, a stock, a little stone, or a straw. We are not far from this horrible error, if we fall down to worship God before his creatures, when they put us in remembrance of him, or when we contemplate his properties in them. 
Resolutions p●g. 162.  M. Lindsay himself changeth the phrase of speech to shun this absurdity. For he saith, To bow down when we have seen the works of God, when we have heard the word, and when we receive the sacraments to adore him, when by his works the word and sacraments we are taught to adore, is neither to bow down to an Idol, nor to worship God in an Idol. Why doth he not say, when we have received the sacraments, as he said of the other two, when we have seen the works of God, when we have heard the word, or why doth he not say, when we see the works of God, when we hear the word, and when we receive the sacraments, as he should have done, if he would have shown the difference betwixt images, the works of God, the word of God, and the sacraments. For the works, and word of God are objects significant, when we see and hear the same. So if we may fall down to worship God, when we see the sacrament, because it is obiectum a quo significative, we may do the like when we hear the word, or in private worship, when we see the creatures, and consider the workmanship of God in them: for these are not images or inventions of men. The ground of this error is the confounding of two exercises, prayer, or praise, and meditation, or contemplation. If I were reading a passage of scripture, and meditating upon it, I adore not then upon my knees, because I am then apprehending, and considering what is read, and adore not till that exercise be ended. When it is ended, if I find myself moved to pray or to give thanks, I poor not still with the ey●s of my mind, and body upon the book, but turn me to a wall, or a chair, or a bed, or any other thing casually placed before me, yea perhaps before the book itself, but casually, as before any other thing. For I am not then gathering lessons or instructions. For that exercise is ended, and this time it is not fit. As it fareth with the book of grace, so doth it with the book of nature. When I am reading in the book of nature beholding an ass, a tree, or a toad, or any other workmanship of God, and considering in it his goodness, power, wisdom, it is an object moving me to praise, & thank God, but not in that exercise. For th●n I shall both still behold and adore. Now, if we may not do this with the works of God in private worship, we may not do it with the word read or preached, or the sacramental signs in public worship. For when we are hearing, beholding, and considering, we are receiving instruction from the objects of the eye and the ear, and we are then in another employment then when we are adoring. Farther the elements are objectum a quo significative immediately after the consecration, as the papist and formalist both hold. Therefore all that are in the church should kneel at the sight of the consecrated elements, even long before they receive, or approach to receive, and the elements should be lifted up, as the bread is among the papists at the elevation, to the end they may be moved to inward devotion, and outward adoration by this obiectum a quo significative. for now is the time of public worship, and after their consecration they have gotten their virtue to signify. This adoration before a significant object instructing the mind, or stirring up the memory will be found nothing different from improper adoration, which is by way of representation. For I exercise the outward acts of adoration before that object, as a Vice gerent of the thing absent signified by the same. For the jesuites say, they worship an image improperly, when they take it obiective, and make it the Vicegerent of the thing considered, as absent, or distant. Swarez reckoning all the sorts of adoration of images reduceth them to three, the improper worship of Durandus, and Holcot, 
Tom. 3. disp. 51. 52. 53.  when the image is obiectum a quo significative: the conjunct adoration of the image with the sampler: the proper respective of the image for the samplars sake. So the improper by representation must be reduced to the first sort. To adore then by direction before a creature, because it is obiectum a quo significative, is to adore it by way of representation of the thing signified, and to perform all that service before and about it, which I would perform, if the sampler were present, which kind of adoration the understanding Formalist denyeth. And in deed the act of Perth beareth no such thing: for to kneel in regard of so divine a mystery, to wit, as is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ sacramentally is not to adore before the elements as obiectum a quo significative the sampler, but to adore the elements themselves with the thing signified. Thirdly, the elements are not set before us, as obiectum a quo significative only, to be presented to the eye outwardly, and by the eye to move the mind, 
De eucharist. lib. 4. c. 23.  but we take, eat, drink. Therefore saith Bellermine, Iste fructus melius obtinetur videndo eucharistiam in mensa, quam eam manducando. Nam dum manducatur continuo peril significatio. At dum cernitur, & attente confideratur, semper representat, & significat promissiones Dei, etiamsi per annum integrum eam quis cernere vellet. Praeterea significatio melius apprehenditur per oculos, quam per gustandi sensum. The meat set before us at table, before it be used is an object moving us to praise God for his beneficence, but withal it is a subject, whereupon we crave a blessing to be poured, because we are to use it. Next we bless, or give thanks, not kneeling: but in the very use and act of eating and drinking, none did ever say grace, as we use to speak, fare less kneel, no not among the most barbarous, or yet the most superstitious. These three things are ever to be distinguished in the benefits of God, & not to be confounded, preparation before the use, by prayer and thanksgiving, the use itself, and thanksgiving after the use.  
There are some other shifts scarce worth the answering, therefore I do but lightly touch them. From the uncovering of the head, a gesture of simple reverence, & that among some nations only, can no good argument be drawn for kneeling, 
A fardel of pretences answered.  which is a gesture of adoration among all nations, neither in civil, nor religious use. I will not kneel to every one to whom I uncover my head. A provincial synod at London 1603 ordained the head to be uncovered, when their service is read in the church, yet I think they would not have enjoined kneeling. And are not the words of Christ, which he uttered at the first supper, as much to be reverenced? For that same voice soundeth through all the tables of the world Siclyke when they reason from the respective veneration of the name of jesus, by lifting the tap, or making a leg, which beside that it is superstitious in giving more reverence to the name of jesus, then to the name of Christ, Saviour, Redeemer, so is it not an argument for kneeling, which is a gesture of adoration. Whereas it is said, we may receive upon our knees, that which we may crave in Gods public worship upon our knees, is untrue. For the preacher may crave a blessing upon his knees, and yet when he findeth and feeleth the blessing in his preaching, he may not adore upon his knees. sicklike the hearer may crave a blessing to his hearing, and yet in the act of hearing may not adore upon his knees. Further, if I may receive kneeling in public worship, that benefit which I craved in public worship, then in private worship I may receive a benefit upon my knees, which I craved in private worship upon my knees: for the difference of the place, public and private, altereth not the nature of worship. For the place is but a circumstance, common to all our actions. So in whatsoever place he receive the benefit, he may receive it upon his knees; and so because he craved daily food, by this reason he ought to adore upon his knees, when he receiveth his food, and is enjoying the benefit, eating, and drinking, which gross absurdity the grossest may perceive. Humility of mind is required not only in all religious exercises, the hearing of the word, receiving of the sacramenss, execution of the censures of the church, but also in all our actions. It will not follow therefore, that humiliation of our body, or adoration is required where humility of mind is required, To conclude, as I asked before, when I examined the public intent, so now I ask at the communicants pretending many private intents, what is the reason that they kneel, when they receive, eat, Christ's flesh, and drink his blood in the Lord's Supper, more than when they receive, eat his flesh, and drink his blood at the hearing of the word, every one severally, as they believe and find the like, and sometimes more fervent motions, if it be not in regard of the elements, or of the thing signified, and the elements, which is idolatry? Remember beside, that whatsoever be thy private intent, thy action must be construed according to the public. If the public be idolatrous, thy gesture is idolatrous. Ex voluntate iubentis pendet intentio exequentis, 
lib. de praecep. & dispen.  saith Bernard. Ye have seen my reasons, and answers, and therefore allege not the naked and bare assertions of some Divines, who have not written so hardly of this gesture of kneeling, because they have not been troubled with it, as the Divines in our neighbour Church, who have been forced to examine and consider it more narrowly: but let reason meet reason. Ratio cum ratione concertet. For even a jesuite Maldona● doth confess, that Rationum efficatia est praestantior omni authoritate, nisi divina. Mortoni Apologia part. 
The sitter is accessary to the sin of the kneeler.  2. lib. 2. cap. 17.  
The sitter is accessory to the sin of the kneeler. First, he endureth the kneeler by his presence, and maketh him think, that his kneeling is neither scandalous nor idolatrous. You say, your sitting condemneth his kneeling. No such matter. But in communicating with him, you approve it as indifferent, as when ye sit in time of prayer after sermon, when another is kneeling, or standing. For shall you communicate with an idolater in the very act of his idolatry, and not be accessory in countenancing it with your presence. If you do damn it as scandalous, or idolatrous, why communicate you with him? If you build up that which you destroyed, you make yourself a trespasser. The Apostle forbiddeth the Corinthians to converse, or eat with a brother idolater, 1 Cor. 5. and yet you will eat and drink with him, when he is committing the very act. The Apostle forbiddeth not society with him in public Assemblies, but only in private, & where he committeth the act, till he be reclaimed. Next, the communicant with the kneeler casteth himself into tentation, by setting before him an evil example, which may induce him to do the like, specially if the kneeler be a person of any credit and countenance. Many are disquieted with the sight of a monster, or carcase many months after. It is an evil token when you can be so well content to see such a monster in our church, and your heart not rise within you. If you should present yourself to the mass in the same manner, and with the same liberty, custom would so harden the heart, that in the end you would halt with the lame, and conform in every point. It will creep like a Ringworm: seemeth it now tolerable, the next day it will seem holy, and the third day necessary. So bewitching sins are idolatry and superstition. Thirdly, you are partaker of an Idol feast. Start not at this I say: for the sacrament of the Lords Supper may be turned into an idol feast, and hath been a more abominable feast then ever was any among the heathens. And howbeit there may be some difference betwixt the formalists and the papists, arising upon the diversity of inward opinions and conceits of Christ's real presence in the elements, yet if both their gestures be idolatrous in their own kinds, the Lords supper is made an idol feast. Non ad Diabolum pertinet quis isto, 
August. homde pastor.  vel illo modo erret, omnes errantes vult quibuslibet erroribus. It is nothing to the Devil whether a man err this way or that way, whatsoever way they err, all that be in error, he seeketh to be his. Fourthly, the communicant advanceth this innovation, and setteth forward this gross corruption by his presence and communicating with the kneeler. For if the kneelers were left to themselves, they would be ashamed of themselves, whereas now they are comforted & hardened in their sin, & some follow their example. 
Hieron. ad joannen Hierosol.  Fides pura moram non patitur ut apparuerit scorpius, illico conterendus est. Pure faith suffereth no delays. As soon as the scorpion appears, it is to be bruised saith Hierom. fourthly a confusion of gestures lawful, and unlawful is brought into the Lord's table, some sitting like guests at a feast, as Christ, and his Apostles sat, others like supplicants kneeling, and adoring upon their knees. This confusion is not like that variety of gesture in time of prayer, when some sit, some stand, some kneel. For all the three gestures are there indifferent. But not so here, This confusion of gestures at the Lords table now is permitted only for a snare to bring thy feet, within the grin. For when all are brought in, then will the formalists cry out. Confusion of gestures is intolerable, uniformity, and conformity is necessary, as Doctor Spark doth in his persuasion to uniformity. 
The act of Perth, and act of Parliament no warrant for the communicant.   
Ye will pretend the act of Perth, and the act of Parliament ratifying the same. But know ye not, that the decrees of counsels, or assemblies are not Gospel, or determinations Evangelicall, as the Papists do esteem them, who build their faith, and worship upon the authority of the church. Is it not also well known, what were the proceed of that assembly, how the sounder part was born down by the corrupter. If we ought to receive, whatsoever assemblies should determine, be the proceed never so , then were we to be blamed, who rejected the council of Trent, not only for their wicked decrees, but also for the nullities, and informalities in their proceeding. The Father of lies himself is not able to justify that assembly, and it cannot be defended, but with calumnies, and lies, which many eye & ear witnesses can testify. Though we sit not formally, and judicially in a consistory as judges over wicked, and unlawful assemblies. Yet, if we have any judgement, we may, and aught to judge of assemblies, both of their procerdings, and determinations lest under colour of Counsels we suffet ourselves to be led like a calf by the nose. Patientia asinina est non curare, quid ei imponatur, aurum, an lutum sayeth Peraldus. Farther I have concurring with me, the body of the church of Scotland, at least three parts of the whole number of the particular congregations within the realm standing out against the decrees of that assembly, and adhering to their former practice which is according to the pattern, and to the confession of faith, wherein this church professeth the right use of Ministration of the Sacraments, and a detestation of all rites, and ceremonies, brought in by Antichrist, or not warranted by the word of God. The body of the Kirk is of greater authority, than an assembly, athough lawful, it being only a representative body, not the collective, or coaugmentative body. Lex vigorem habet cum moribus utentium approbatur. As for the act of Parliament, it is only a ratification of the Act of Perth in favours of the church, as all ratifications of church acts are pretended to be. If the assembly of Perth itself, be not acknowledged by the church of Scotland for one of her lawful assemblies, nor the decrees and ordinances thereof judged agreeable to the word of God, than the act of ratification is no benefit or favour to the church. The church of Scotland refuseth such a benefit. Invito beneficium non datur. What freedom and liberty was in that Parliament, and how matters were carried I doubt not, but ye have sufficiently painted forth in that book, which is entitled. The course of conformity. Esay pronounceth a woe upon them that make heavy laws. cha. 10.1. Seeing Counsels and parliaments may be corrupt, either in their proceed or decrees, let us stick to the word, 
Enarrat. 2. in Psal. 31.  which must be the rule of our faith and worship. Stet regula, & quod pravum est corrigatur ad regulam, saith Augustine. 
M. Knox condemned kneeling as diabolical, which is now commended by his successors as commendable.   
M. Knox, that worthy instrument of reformation in our Church in a letter written to Matresse Anna Lock dated at Deep the sixth of April 1559, calleth the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the Lords table Diabolical inventions. In his admonition directed to England, and printed Anno 1554, he ranketh kneeling at the Lords table, among the superstitions, 
Pag. 31.  which profane Christ's true religion. When light did strive with darkness in this realm, yet the Lord enlightened that worthy man for our benefit beyond his fellows. Now we are turning light in darkness, & commending that as most comely, & commendable, which he condemned as diabolical. There are yet some of his successors in his station alive (M. R. Bruce, that faithful servant of God (who foretold, that the time would come, when the least kitchen lass or lad in Edinburgh would be tried, and that by their own teachers, which we see come to pass this day. As his successors have forewarned us of these times of trial, so have they of judgements. Hear, what that meek man of God M. Robert Rollock said.  Rollocke on the Passion printed in English pag. 345. 
Woo to them, whom he forbiddeth his servants go unto: Woe to us, if we say once, go not to Edinburgh: Woe is them, and woe to that town, where the Lord forbiddeth his messengers to go. Beware of this, that the Lord say not to his messenger, go to the north, or south, but go not to Edinburgh. For than shall wrath, and destruction light on it.  Cyprianus lib. 2. Epist. 3. 
QVod si nec minima de mandatis Dominicis licet soluere, quanto magis tam magna, tam grandia tam ad ipsum Dominicae passionis, & nostrae redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere.  
FINIS.