THE RE-EXAMINATION of two of the articles abridged: TO WIT, Of the communicants gesture in the act of receiving, eating, and drinking: And The observation of Festival days.  
Printed anno 1636.   

TO THE READER  
YE have here, good Reader, the re-examination of two articles abriged, to wit, concerning the Communicants gesture in the act of receiving, and observation of festival days, for the information of such, as either have not leisure to peruse greater works, or are of weaker judgement. The other three articles, bishopping, private baptism, and private Communion are not pressed, and therefore it was needless to proceed any further. Accept of this information without prejudice of your standing to the liberties of the Kirk. We need no other exception against all the five articles, but that they were not concluded by plurality of voices of such as were authorized with lawful commission, and consequently not by a general assembly: But a number of Barons, pretended bishops, and ministers usurped the place of voters, and carried the business. I pass by terrors, circumveening, and unformall proceeding, howsoever others take liberty to practise and reason contrary to the order established in former times, as if we had never had a kirk, yet let this be your judicial defence. But because that alone is not sufficient to uphold your conscience, ye have here as much as may serve to confirm you in the truth, and to settle your judgement in the matter itself.   

OF THE COMMUnicants gesture in the act of receiving.  
BY the second head of the first book of discipline, drawn up in the first year of public and universal reformation, we may perceive that our first reformers preferred sitting not only to kneeling, but also to standing and passing by, because they approached not so near to Christ's action, and rested upon sitting not only because of the abuse of kneeling in former times, as is alleged, but because most agreeable to the pattern, which reason serveth for all times: Yea Master Knox in his admonition to England, printed anno 1554. ranketh kneeling among the superstitious orders, which profane Christ's true religion: and in a letter directed from Deep to mistress Anna Lock, anno 1599 he calleth the cross in Baptism: and this kneeling diabolical inventions. In the general assembly, holden anno 1562. it was ordained, that the order at Geneva, that is, of the English Kirk at Geneva, where Master Knox had been sometime Minister, be observed in the ministration of the Sacraments: And anno 1564. Ministers are referred to the order set down before the Psalms in Meeter, which order is the order of Geneva, mentioned in the former act. This order was ratified by act of Parliament, anno 1567. and 1572. An act was likewise made anno 1567. that in times coming the King at his coronation give his oath to maintain the true religion then professed, and in special the due & right ministration of the Sacraments then received. This act was ratified anno 1581. and again 1592. No other gesture then sitting was used till the meeting above mentioned. We are then to defend the gesture of sitting, and to impugn kneeling in the act of receiving.  
We have the example of Christ and his Apostles at the first supper, to warrant communicants to sit in the act of receiving: After the ordinary washing of their hands they fate down to the first course of the paschal supper, thereafter they rose again to the washing of their feet, than they fate down again to the second course of the paschal supper. Now while they were eating and consequently while they were sitting, Christ institute the Sacrament of the supper, and this is acknowledged by Baronius the Cardinal, in his annals, an. 34. num. 44. The jesuit Baradas, in concord. Evangelist. tom. 4. lib. 2. Ancient and modern writers, popish and Protestant have received this collection as certain truth. It was the mind of the whole church of old, as we may see by the Ecclesiastical hymns, where Christ is brought in sitting with his disciples at table, when he institute the Sacrament.  
Whereas some allege that Christ and the Apostles kneeled: I answer, there is no likelihood at all: Christ fate when he broke bread, and gave thanks at Emaus. He blessed the bread when he fate with the multitude which he fed with five loaves and two fishes. We never read that the jews kneeled when they blessed their meat. Master Paybodie granteth, that Christ and his Apostles used that same gesture in blessing and giving thanks, which they did in receiving. Bellarmine acknowledgeth that they were sitting at table, when Christ said unto them, Drink ye all of this. We may gather from some circumstances and the form of the celebration, that they fate for they could not stand upon beds, or between the tables and the beds, for their nearness to the table. If there had been a change from sitting, which was the ordinary gesture at the paschal supper, into kneeling a gesture of adoration at the Evangelicall supper, some of the Evangelists would have made mention of it, for they make mention of other changes. If there had been such a change, then kneeling should have been institute, which none of our opposites have ever maintained: for to what end should the change have been made, if not that that gesture might be observed afterward. Christ spoke not prayer ways to the apostles, and the elements were carried from hand to hand, and divided by the Apostles among themselves, which is not compatible with kneeling, when man is directing worship to God. We conclude then with Master Mouline, writing on the Lord's supper, 1 part. pag. 136. that the apostles continued sitting at the table, to the very end of the action. It is true, Christ and his apostles sitting were not altogether upright as ours, but as a man may stand upright, or stand leaning, so he may sit upright, or sit leaning. The Hebrew doctors call it sitting in beds: the English translators express it by sitting, and not by lying. Doctor Mortoun confesseth it was a kind of sitting gesture. Master Paybodie, pag. 69. protesteth, that he holdeth the gesture of sitting at the Lords table in itself lawful and commendable. What a madness is it then to drive poor souls from a sure, to a dangerous and doubtsome way?  
The example of Christ and his disciples sitting at the first supper, is exemplary for examples in setting down a pattern, serve ordinarily for direction in times to come, if there be not some singular occasion to hinder him that setteth down the pattern to do otherwise. Bishop Mortoun in his late work of the institution of the Sacrament, sayeth, that Christ's example should be a rule for us to observe, except in some circumstances, which only occasionaly and accidentally happened therein: and therefore taxeth the jesuits, making light of Christ's example, as if the example of Christ were no argument of proof at all. Mowline in his heavenly alarm, pag 56. sayeth, Christ and his apostles sat at the table without any kind of adoration, and that the first institution was given for a pattern; whereunto we ought to conform. Now the washing of the disciples feet, the putting off, and on of Christ's upper garment were ended before they sat down to the second course of the paschal supper, and consequently a good space before the institution of the last supper. Time and place are commoun circumstances to all actions. The particular time and place when Christ instituted this Sacrament were occasional. They might not eat the paschal supper but at evening, and therefore the Evangelical supper, which was to succeed to it, behoved to be celebrate that night, seeing Christ's suffering was so near at hand. They behoved to eat the paschal lamb in a chamber in jerusalem, and consequently the supper behoved to be instituted in a chamber, after the paschal supper. The number of such as did eat the paschal lamb, behoved to consist of few, betwixt ten and twenty, and therefore they behoved to be so few that night at the institution of the supper. Their manner and kind of sitting was a form observed among the jews at their commoun feasts, and at the paschal supper. Put the case that they stood at the first Passeover in Egypt, as it can not be proved, it were then extraordinary, and for that night only, to signify their hasty departure out of Egypt. Sitting was the ordinary gesture used at all religious feasts: The Heathnicks sat at their feasts, made of the remainder of the sacrifices offered to their idols, Amos 2.1 Cor. 8.10 to profess their communi●● and society with their idol, or fellowship with devils, as the Apostle calleth it, 1 Cor. 10.20. Our Lord instituting his supper to be the only religious feast to be used in the Christian kirk, observed the same gesture which was used at the paschal supper, and other religious feasts. Christ might easily have changed sitting into kneeling, and very commodiously, seeing they fate upon beds, yet would he retain the same gesture which they used at the paschal supper. Time and place are mere circumstances, and the particular time and place were then only occasional: But the gesture is more than a mere circumstance, as Master Paybodie, pag. 34. confesseth. This supper was institute in form of a banquet, to represent not only our spiritual nuriture, but also our society, and familiarity with Christ, who is to sup & feast with us. The Polonian Baroun joannes Alasco maintaineth further, that our sitting, eating, and drinking at the communion table, is a figure and representation of our sitting at the heavenly table. So doth Musculus upon Matthow 26: and Aquinas part. 3. quest. 60. make the Lords supper a type and foreshowing sign of our glory to come. Christ himself expresseth our peaceable fruition of the joys of heaven by sitting with Abraham, Isaac, and jaakob in the kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 8.11. and by Lazarus resting in Abraham's bosom, Luke 16. that is, sitting at the heavenly table, and leaning upon Abraham's bosom, after the same manner that john lay on Christ's bosom when he fate at this table, john 16. and Christ himself at the institution promised to his Apostles, that they should eat and drink at his table in his kingdom, and sit upon twelve thrones, Luke 22.30. Yea, this Polonian Baroun affirmeth, that they have slender affection to the glory of Christ, or our eternal felicity, that would abolish out of the kirk that image of our eternal felicity in the celestial glory to come, which is so much recommended to us by Christ himself, by the symbol of sitting at a banquet, to the unspeakable comfort of all the faithful. We see that at civil banquets, the time, the place, the number of persons, and other things are variable, but no other gesture hath been used but sitting, after one form or other, according to the custom of the nation. Even when men are invited by a king to a feast, they are honoured with sitting, in token of his familiar entertainment.  
It appeareth by the practice of the Apostolical kirks, observing still this gesture, albeit other circumstances of time and place, and other things which fell forth occasionally at the first supper were not regarded, that the gesture of sitting is still to be retained. Christ himself, Luke 24, 30. sitting at table in Emaus, took bread, blessed it, and broke it. This place is interpreted by sundry ancients and modern writers of the ministration of the Sacrament: And Master Paybodie himself, pag. 86. is of that same judgement. The apostle, 1 Cor. 11. maketh not mention of sitting, because he presupposed a lawful Minister, a table, and sitting at the table, and rehearseth only Christ's actions and his words, uttered to communicants sitting at the table. Nor yet all his actions, and his words, as giving of the bread, blessing of the cup, either severally or conjunctly with the bread, and the precept to drink all of it: His chief purpose was to correct the abuse of the Corinthians, for not staying upon other: for the Lord that night he was betrayed, said to all his disciples convened together, Take ye, eat, ye, etc. The lovefeasts and the Lords supper went together, the lovefeasts in these times preceding, and the Lords supper immedialy following. Doctor Bilson in his book of obedience, pag. 653. sayeth, that whether they went before or after, they could not divide themselves each from other, but they must offer the same abuse, and disdain of the poor at the Lords supper, which was ministered to them as they sat at their tables, immediately before or after their usual or corporal refresh. Master Paybodie pag, 86, and 94. thinketh, that together with the institution itself, after supper were grounded the lovefeasts, by continued occasion, whereof his disciples might possibly for a time use sitting in the very act of receiving. Doctor Downam in his second sermon, pag. 61. confesseth sitting to receive the Sacrament, to have been used in the kirk in the apostles times.  
Sitting in the act of receiving was continued at sometimes in the Christian kirk, even to our times. Mornaeus in his first book of the mass, 1 cap. and 5 reporteth, that the Monks of St. Bennets order communicate sitting, for three days before Easter. Bullinger in his book de origine errorum, pag. 46 reporteth, that not only in their monastries, but also in cathedral kirks they communicate sitting upon that day.  
Now it was the custom of old, not only for the Monks, but also other Christians to communicate upon this day, and no doubt after the same form. The two thousand soldiers who were reconcealed to the Emperor Mauritius, about the year 1590. by the travel of Gregorius bishop of Antioch, received the Sacrament sitting upon the ground, as Euagrius reporteth, lib. 6. cap 13.  
Doctor Lindesay in his defence, pag. 53, 54. allegeth the like done by the Scottish army at Bonnokburn, in the days of King Robert Bruce. Socrates in his history, lib. 5. cap. 23. reporteth of the Egyptians, who dwelled near to Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais communicated in the evening, after they had refreshed themselves with commoun meats upon other days also: it is likely than they also sat. Alexander de Hales in the second part of his tractat. concerning the mass, sayeth, the Pope communicateth sitting, in remembrance that the Apostles at the Lords supper communicated sitting. The Waldenses, who are justly called the pure seed of the ancient kirk, and have continued since the days of Pope Sylvester, or as some thought, from the days of the Apostles, sayeth Rainerius the inquisitor, & their enemy, celebrated the communion sitting, See Master Fox first volumn, pag. 209 edict. 1610. and their apology against one Doctor Augustine, which is extant in Lydii Waldensia. Luther exponing the epistle upon Saint Stevins day; sayeth, Christ so instituted the Sacrament, that in it we should sit at the Sacrament: but all things are changed, and idle ordinances of men are come in place of divine ordinances.  
Zuinglius in expositione sidei Christianae, setting down the form of celebration used at Berne, Zurick, Basile, and other neighbour towns, reporteth, that they communicated sitting. The kirks of strangers at London, in Alascoes' time communicated sitting: so do other kirks in the Low-countries, even to this day. In Pol, such as adhered to the confession of Helvetia communicated sitting, as we may see in consensus Poloniae.  
By the gesture of standing is pretended more reverence, and thereby the gesture of sitting is indirectly taxed▪ and that lively representation of our familiar society with Christ taken away, seeing it is not the usual and ordinary gesture at civil feasts.  
As for kneeling in the act of receiving: First we have not a warrant from the example of Christ and his Apostles, or the practices of the Apostolic kirks after, and therefore they who receive adoration, they are secure, they have the example of the Apostles, whom we read not to have adored prostrate, but as they were sitting, they received, and did eat: They have the practice of the Apostolical kirks, where it is declared, that the faithful did communicate, not in adoration, but in breaking of bread, sayeth Calvin, Institut. lib. 4. cap. 37. sect. 33. Beza in his dispute against jodocus Harchius, So like, as when the Lord truly to be adored as God and man, at table did institute this holy supper, that the Disciples arose, to the end that falling upon their knees, they might receive that bread and wine out of his hand. And so like as the Apostles were ignorant, how to deliver to the kirks the manner how to celebrate these holy mysteries, it is known well enough that the lovefeasts could hardly or scarce at all admit geniculation. The Waldenses in the apology abovementioned, say, that Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples, and his successors for a long time made no reverence, meaning adoration.  
This holy action is denominate the LORDS table, and the Lords Supper: The use of a table is not only to set meat on it, but also for the guests, or persons invited to sit at, and about it, and to partake of the meat set upon the table.  
We require not of necessity an artificial table of timber: a Bul-hyde, or a plot of ground may serve in time of necessity, and answereth analogically to a standing table, as the plot of ground did, whereabout the multitude sat in rows, by fifties and fifties, Mark. 6. Neither do we stand upon the fashion, whether it be long or round; but we require that the Communicants always sit table-wayes, so that they may observe the form of a feast or banquet: For in that this holy action is called a supper, it is imported, that it was celebrate in the form of a feast or banquet, as Piscator observeth in his observations upon Matth. 26. We do not require all the forms used at commoun feasts, but these which Christ the institutor, and Master of the feast thought sufficient.  
Kneeling is not a gesture suitable with the form of a banquet, or use of a supper table.  
The terms, supper, and table of the Lord, very familiar with the Apostle Paul, seem to require sitting rather then standing, kneeling, or passing by, sayeth Alasco. Kneling is not a gesture which hath been used at feasts or banquets, but rather a gesture of supplicants. Plessie in his fourth book of Eucharist sayeth, that of old this holy Supper was celebrated in the form of a banquet, whereat they did sit, a footestep whereof remaineth among the Benedictines. If these terms, the Table of the LORD, the Supper of the LORD, and breaking of bread had been retained, and other new names not invented, as Sacrament Eucharist, then might easily have been perceaved how harsh it were to use these phrases, They broke bread together kneeling, they compassed the table of the LORD kneeling, they celebrate the Supper of the LORD kneeling, which seemeth not so harsh, when we say, they received the Sacrament or Eucharist kneeling. Therefore the ancient Doctors, sayeth Mowline on the LORDS Supper, part. 1. pag. 8. had done better, if they had hold themselves to the terms expressed in God's word, etc.  
The distribution of the elements by the communicants amongst themselves admitteth not kneeling in the act of receiving. Can the communicant be both adoring GOD upon his knees, and at the very instant be reaching the elements to his brother likewise kneeling and adoring. Ye have heard out of Calvin before, that the faithful in the Apostolical times did not communicate with adoration, but breaking of bread, as if adoration and breaking of bread could not consist together: But so it is that the Communicants ought to distribute, and reach the elements to other. Christ reaching the cup to his Disciples, commandeth them to divide it among themselves, Luke 22.17. This cup which he commanded them to divide, was the Evangelicall cup, or, which is all one, the last paschal cup changed into the Evangelicall. Luke applieth Christ's protestation, that he will drink no more of the fruit of the wine, etc. to the cup which he commanded them to divide amongst themselves: but that protestation is applied to the com●●●on cup by Matth. and Mark who make mention only of this cup, in the verses immediately preceding the protestation. If Christ was to drink incontinent after this protestation of the com●●●n cup, how could he protest, that he would drink no more of the fruit of the wine● When the Schoolmen would prove, that wine was one of the elements at the Evangelicall supper, they can not find a proof in all the Evangelists, but in this protestation. Christ in this protestation alludeth to the canon or custom of the jews, forbidding to taste any thing after the last cup, which was called the cup of praise. Now the last cup was the Evangelicall or communion cup, or the last paschal cup, changed it into the Evangelicall. Further Christ gave thanks when he took the cup in his hand, which he commanded them to divide: and therefore Luke maketh no mention of this thanksgiving, when he maketh mention of the cup the second time, because he had made mention of it before. Luke then by way of anticipation bringeth in Christ, protesting in the 17. verse, that the protestation of not drinking more, may be joined with the protestation of not eating more, preceding in the 16. verse: therefore when he cometh to the order of the institution, verse 20. he omitteth the protestation and thanksgiving, which are recorded by other Evangelists, because he made mention before of them, verse 17. and 18. This anticipation, or inversion of order in the Evangelist Luke was observed by Augustine, and Euthymius, Ba●adius, and Suarez, jesuits. Mewshius observeth other inversions in the same chapter. Christ gave ●ot the cup to every one out of his hand, which had been sufficient for dividing of it, ●f no further had been intended. To drink of one cup representeth fellowship in one commoun benefit, but not that communication of mutual love and amity which is represented by reaching the same cup to other The guests at ci●ill banquets of old, entertaining other courteously, reached a cup of wine to other, which cup they called philotesia, metonimically, because it was a symbol of love or friendship, which name any man may justly impose upon the cup of the holy supper of the Lord, sayeth Sevekius antiquitarum convivialium, lib. 3. cap. 10. If there were no more but reaching the cup from one to another, it were sufficient to exclude kneeling: for what reason were it to kneel at the receiving of the bread, and not at the receiving of the cup? Were it not also absurd to see the communicants reaching the cup to other, and the Minister to walk along to give every one the bread? Analogy requireth that the bread should be distributed among the communicants as well as the wine. Christ said in the plural number, Take ye, eat ye, as well as drink ye, divide ye, and nor take thou, eat thou: therefore not only Piscator, Tessanus, and Hospinian, but also Estius a popish writer, upon the 1 Cor. 10.16. gather, that they divide the bread as well as the cup. Beza sayeth, that the manner of their sitting could not permit Christ to give every one the bread. Mouline on the Lords supper, 2 part. pag. 97. maintaineth, that Christ could not deliver the bread to every one of the disciples hands, especially considering that the parties lying half along upon beds at the table, took up more room than they do now adays. This distribution of the bread, as well as of the cup is confirmed by the custom observed afterward. Master Paybodie, pag. 92.101, 104. acknowledgeth, that the Communicants at the first supper did communicate the bread and cup one with another: as also in the Apostles times, pag. 95. Bullinger in the place above cited, reporteth, that in the Monastries of S. Bennets order, &c cathedral kirks they communicated upon Maunday-thursday, panem azymum frangentes, & calicem invicem propinantes, & in tatum vetexis coenae vestigium preferentes; that is, breaking unleavened bread, and reaching the cup to other. This was a footstep of the order observed universally before upon the anniversary day, called the day of the Lords supper, which is now called Maunday-thursday. Friar Rainerius reporteth, that the Waldenses participate mutually, as was done at Christ's supper. Bullinger in his 6. decade, sermon 9 that the supper of the Lord is then rightly celebrated, when the communicants distribute the bread and the cup among themselves. Gualther homil. 118. in Marcum, setting down the best form of celebration, requireth, that they break the bread to other, and distribute the cup. tindal in his tractat upon the Lord's supper, requireth, that every man reach, and break to his neighbour. The latter confession of Helvetia, which is approved by many reformed kirks, and by our own, recommendeth this breaking of bread. The Lord's supper was denominate breaking of bread, from that rite or ceremony of the breaking of the bread, Acts. 2. it is said, the disciples continued in breaking of bread, and Acts. 20, that the disciples conveened to break bread, which is clearer than the former speech, and importeth, that the disciples, or the faithful themselves broke bread. Estius, a popish professor in Douai, writing upon 1 Cor. 10.16. sayeth, that in the primitive kirk they had the breaking of bread, which was first done by the Presbyteri●● and deacons, and after them in smaller pieces, by the faithful to whom it was given, that they might distribute the same among themselves. The Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16. sayeth, The bread which we break, is not the communion of the body of Christ? that is, the bread we break, distribute, and eat: For the breaking alone by the Minister is not the communion of the body of Christ. The Apostle rehearsing the words of the institution, sayeth not, Take thou, eat thou, but in the plural number, take ye, eat ye: Yea, Durandus Rational. lib. 4. cap. 1. sayeth, that the apostles celebrated as Christ did.  
The breaking of the bread serveth for two uses: first, for the representation of Christ's sufferings; as also the pouring of the wine represented mystically the effusion of his blood. Bullinger sayeth, decad. 5. serm. 7. We break the bread of the Lord with our own hands, for we ourselves are to be blamed, that he was bruised: our sins wounded him, we crucified him, and we believe, that not only he suffered for others, but specially for ourselves. Gualtor in his homil. 295. on Matthew, sayeth, That every one when they break the bread, acknowledgeth themselves to be the authors of his death and passion. The other use is for distribution, and reaching to other, to testify mutual love and amity. If two should drink out of one cup, and yet not teach to other, it might well be thought there were no great kindness between them. To divide the bread, and to eat together, in token of love and benevolence, was a custom observed in the oriental countries, and yet still in sundry countries of the West. Serranius in josuam, cap. 9 Of this use the reader may find more in Bullinger, Decad. 5. and Gualther 118. in Marcum. Zuinglius in his exposition of the Christian faith, reporteth that some sitting together casually, and participating after this manner, were reconcealed, who before had been at variance, and that this fell forth often.  
If none must give the sacramental bread but the Minister, because he acteth the person of Christ who gave his own body, by the same reason they may not reach the cup to other, as the Apostles did at the first supper, where they represented the faithful, and communicated not as Pastors, but as disciples, as guests, as other Christians, as all our divines hold: and among the rest, Musculus cited by Doctor Lindesay, pag. 59 This Doctor confesseth the cup may be reached from one to another, the Minister still acting CHRIST'S person in his own place, pag. 61.62. If none but the Minister must give the elements, because he representeth Christ's, person, then might not the Deacon in the ancient kirk do it, because he represented not Christ's person. Vasquez confesseth, that it is not forbidden by divine law, that the Sacrament be ministered, or carried by a lay man, and applied to the hand of another Communicant, but by humane law. I would ask when the Minister cometh from his own place, and goeth along to deliver the elements, how doth he act the person of Christ, the Master of the feast? There can be no other reason of this guise, but to nourish a superstitious conceit, that it is holier to receive it out of the hand of the Minister, who perhaps is a judas, then out of the hand of a faithful brother, as if his hand profaned or polluted it. Are not the people's hands as holy as the Ministers, sayeth Master Paybodie, pag. 313. Superstition increasing at last, the communicants might not take the Sacrament in their own hand, to put it in their mouth, but it behoved the Priest to put it in their mouth: Such superstitious conceits condemn Christ and his Apostles, and the godly, who in their time distribute to other, and deprive of the profitable uses of fraction, or breaking of bread. Neither is the representation or form of a feast or banquet observed: it is rather like a dole of meat than a supper. Further, this giving of the elements to every one severally, bringeth in confusion of actions, and private communions in the public assembly. For while the Ministers are giving the elements to every one, the people is in the mean time exercised in hearing the word red, or singing Psalms, and hear not what the Minister sayeth to the Communicants, nor do the Communicants understand what is read, or sung in public. Yea, sometimes two Ministers will be speaking at once to sundry communicants: so the communicants communicate apart, and might as well go aside, or to an I'll of the kirk to communicate, yea, and far better. The exercise is dead and cold, and they are forced to reading and singing in the mean time, to drive away tediousness, and so bring in confusion of actions. If Christ spoke in the plural number, Take ye, eat ye, when the communicants were so few, what would he have done if there had been a great multitude present? If the distribution of the communicants had been observed by the ancients constantly, and at all times, as sometimes it was, kneeling had not entered in the kirk, the words outered by Christ at the delivery of the elements had not been changed, confusion of actions, and a private form of communicating had not taken place, and the form of a feast had been preserved. Therefore suppose the distributing by the communicants were not recommended to us, nor had any other profitable use, but that it is a bar to hold out so many corruptions, let us stand for distribution. Our Lord was wise, and could devise the best form: Who can devise a better, sayeth Bullinger, decad. 5. serm. 9 then the Son of God himself? the supreme high Priest of his kirk: Yea Bellarmine sayeth, the Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 7. that it can not be doubted, but that is better, & to be done which Christ did.  
Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements is scandalous, and therefore to be avoided. The papist is confirmed in his vile idolatry, by our conforming with him in that gesture. Do they not vaunt, that we are coming home to them? The Ministers of Edinburgh in the instructions given to Master William Levingstoun, subscrived also by them, when he was sent up to Court, have these words, The Papists seeing us in that gesture having some external symbolising with them, are thereby confirmed in their error, as though that our practice were an approaching to them, and an ingrease to their idolatry and breadworship. Now we ought not to keep conformity in the worship of God with idolaters in things otherwise lawful, if they be not of necessary use, and have been abused. The Lord took this course with his own people of old, he forbade them to round the corners of their heads, or mar the corners of their beard, or wear linsey-woolsey, or sow their field with mingled seed, or plant any groaves of trees near the altar of the Lord, that they might be unlike the Gentiles. The Priests were forbidden to make their heads bald, or shave off the corner of their beard for the same cause. The ancients for the like reason rejected many customs of Ethnics, jews, and heretics, but were not constant in this course. As for the sun, the moon, the stars, and other creatures, howbeit they have been abused, and adored, yet because they are Gods creatures, and of necessary use, they are still to be used. Gold, silver, temples are profitable helps unto the necessity of man's life. The gold, the brass, and iron of jericho taken into the Lord's treasury, were the civil goods of idolaters, and had no state in their idolatrous worship, as this kneeling hath. We should shun conformity with papists in special, because the pope their head is the great Antichrist: and we are more troubled with rites, abused and polluted by him, then by any other: We dwell nearer to papists then to any other idolaters, & they dwell or converse among us. The equity of this direction for not conforming with idolaters, appeareth, first, in that we show not as we ought our hatred and detestation of idolatry, when we retain any monument or memorial of it. The brazen serpent itself a monument of God's mercy, and benefit received 700 year before, was broken by Ezekias in pieces when it began to be abused and polluted with idolatry: far more aught the monument and memorial of idols or idolatry be abolished.  
It is true, kneeling of itself is not a humane invention, but in some kinds 〈◊〉 may be lawfully used, as in prayer: but kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements was never God's ordinance, and therefore aught to be forborn, seeing in that act it hath been abused to the vilest idolatry that ever was, to the worshipping a piece bread, which the worshipper esteemed to be his god. To retain it therefore is to retain a memorial or monument of that vile idolatry, because we use that same gesture in that same very act, and without necessity. Next, in conforming with idolaters, we keep a stumbling block in the kirk, and both hardeneth the idolater in his idolatry, and lay a stumbling block both before ourselves, & our own brethren, by retaining such allurements and provocations, to commit the same kind of fornication or idolatry. Woe be to him that giveth offence, it were better that a milestone, etc. They ask what aptness there is in this gesture, to entice us to idolatry? We answer, it is the same form and fashion that idolaters used in that same very act, and for reverence as they did. We are more prone to idolatry by nature then any other sin: therefore the greater diligence is to be used in avoiding of it. doleful experience hath taught us how dangerous it is. The kirks in the Low-countries in their synods ordained, that the communion be not celebrated kneeling, for the danger of breadworship. The Polonian synods, holden anno 1573. and 1583. were grossly mistaken, in alleging that none but Arrians or Anabaptists did sit: when as it is well known that this gesture of sitting was in use in sundry kirks in Europe, of which we have made mention before: yea, and Alasco before these times wrote more earnestly for sitting then any man else. But these Polonian synods were mixed, and consisted partly of Lutherians, partly of such as adhered to the Bohemian, partly of such as adhered to the Helvetian confess on: Yet they confess, anno 1578. that it is neither the will of God, nor the custom of the purer kirk to smite men with Ecclesiastical discipline, for external rites. Our opposites pretend the remedy of preaching, and information of the people, to direct their adoration aright. But it is better to fill up the pit in the way, then to set one beside, to warn the passengers that they fall not in. Watchmen are sometime negligent, sometime blind and ignorant, or corrupt and perverse: time should be better spent, then in leading poor souls through dangerous ways, which may be forsaken. All are not alike capable of information: appearance of evil worketh more powerfully ofttimes then the doctrine.  
They allege that the command of the Magistrate, in things indifferent, taketh away the scandal. I answer, Can the supreme magistrate take away that aptness and fitness that any thing hath, to entice and provoke men to sin. The magistrates countenance maketh the scandal the greater, and he strengtheneth it by authority. Court-clawbacks tell us, we should rather offend the people than the supreme magistrate: but better offend, that is, displease him, nor offend, that is, give occasion to the poorest soul, let be many thousands to fall into any sin, let be so heinous a sin, as is the sin of idolatry. The magistrate is not in danger of stumbling, or spiritual falling into any sin: for (ye put the case) he esteemeth the matter indifferent. The Apostle had rather never eat flesh, nor offend a weak brother, for eating flesh offered to the idol, and sold in the mereat. And yet he had greater authority in such matters, than any prince, or general assembly. The Belgic synods would not take so much upon them, but forbade kneeling, for fear of idolatry. If the kirk to whom the rule for directing the use of things indifferent, in matters of religion, are laid down, to wit, that all things be done decently, in order, to edification, without offence, may not presume so far, far less the magistrate.  
We maintain that kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements was not in use, or at the least authorized, till the great antichrist dominited. There can not be an authentic testimony alleged before the opinion of real presence & transubstantiation began to spread: or to come to a more certain date, for the space of a thousand years after Christ. There are some testimonies bearing the word adore, but the testimonies are either counterfeit, or to be understood of inward adoration, or of adoration in time of prayer, before they communicate: Or adoration is taken only for veneration: but of kneeling in the act of receiving we hear of no authentic testimony as yet alleged. Doctor Burges is very confident, that the communicants kneeled in Tertullia's time, that is, about 200. year after Christ: for sayeth, he the people shunned to come to the communion table on the station days, because they might not kneel in the act of receiving, but it behoved them to stand on these days: and therefore, sayeth he, Tertullian inviteth them to come, to 〈◊〉 the bread standing at the table publicly, to reserve it, and carry it home, and there receive it kneeling, and so both duties should be performed, the receiving of the Eucharist, and the tradition on these days observed. Tertullia's testimony is cited out of his book, the oratione, cap. 14. But the Doctor translated these words, Quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini, Because station or standing is then to be performed in receiving the body of the Lord: whereas he should translate thus, because the station or fast is then to be broken, after the receiving of the body of the Lord. For the word statio in Tertullia's language is taken for fasting, or rather for some kind of fasting days. Wednesday and Friday were called station days, on which they fasted until the third hour afternoon, and was distinguished from the other fasting days, whereon they fasted of their own accord, as Pamelius observeth out of Rabanus Maurus; or rather as a late popish writer Albaspinaeus, bishop of Orleans, in his observations observeth, were distinguished from other fast days, which endured till the evening. The meaning of Tertullian is this, they were in an error who thought that if they had received the Sacrament, their feast should be broken, which should have continued to the set hour: Nay, saith Tertullian, Nun solemnior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris? Shall not thy fust or station be the more solemn, if thou stand also at the altar of God, that is, though comu●●on table, for so both are safe, both the participation of the sacrifice, and performance of thy service, that is, of the fast, sayeth Plessie in his answer to the Theologues of Bourdeaux: and in his answer to the bishop of Evereux, pag. 225. he sayeth, that Tertullian would remove that scruple, that as soon as ever they had communicated, they thought their fast was broken. Albaspinaeus seemeth to come yet nearer to the sense, and sayeth, Tertullian would reprove these that would break the station or fast, as soon as ever they had received the Eucharist', and not stay any longer in the kirk, howbeit the time was short, and some few prayers were outored after the delivery of the Eucharist, for they communicated about the ninth hour of the day, which was the third hour after noon, about the end of the fast on these station days: for on other fasting days which endured to the evening, they received not the Eucharist. As for standing at the communion table upon these station days, it was not because they stood only upon these days, when they received the Eucharist: Nam accepta Eucharistia, non licebat ex corum institutis, & ex veteri disciplina de geniculis orare, sayeth Albaspinaeus, that is, It was not leasome by the ordinances, and old discipline of these times to pray upon their knees, when they received the Eucharist. Further he proveth, that upon these station days they stood not always, but kneeled at their prayers: for the whole time was a time of mourning & afflicting of their bodies, but in these times it was a sign of joy, not to adore upon their knees. Erat apud antiquos, & nascentis Ecelesiae Christianos quaedum inum unitas, & quoddam genus goudiide geniculis non aderara, see pag. 52, and 49. The ancients in these times thought kneeling not suitable with such an action, as the participation of the Lords supper, because it was an action of joy and delight.  
Ye see then howbeit they kneeled other ways upon the station days, because of their fasting and mourning, yet at the end, a little before their dissolving they stood at the commoun table. Now the reason why these days were called station days, was not according to his observation so called, because of the gesture of standing, but only by way of allusion to military stations, and watches at the gates of Prince's palaces, that as they stayed in their watch, whether sitting or standing, so the Christians stayed in the kirk mourning, and praying, in these times of persecution, for peace and safety to the kirk, till the third hour afternoon, at which time they communicate. It was the custom of the kirk, for a thousand year to stand upon the Lord's day, and yet the Lords day was not one of their station days, which should have been, if the gesture of 〈◊〉 only should make a station day, as Doctor Burges would have it. It is gross ignorance in the Doctor, to affirm that the station days were these days, wherein they stood in prayer, and at all the solemn worship of God, and to deny that they were set days of fasting. Further is nothing more evident, then that Tertullian in sundry other passages speaketh of stations, or station days, as days of fasting. Where as in the Re-examination it was given, and not granted, that they stood on these days, in time of divine service or prayer, now being induced by the observation of Albaspinaeus, We deny that they stood in time of prayer upon these days, and therefore the argument is the more forcible for us; that notwithstanding of their humiliation, and kneeling upon these days of mourning and fasting, yet at the end, when they were near dissolving, and ending their fast or station, they stood at the table of the Lord, and received the Sacrament standing. Howbeit this was not the right gesture, yet it is clear they kneeled not when they received the Sacrament. Tertullian maketh no mention of receiving the Sacrament in their houses kneeling. For a thousand years they stood even in time of prayer upon the Lord's day, and therefore it can not be imagined that they kneeled, when they received the Sacrament.  
But say our opposites, they used the same gesture in the receiving the Eucharist, which they thought fittest for prayer. I answer, they thought nor standing the fittest gesture for prayer, but kneeling, and stood upon the Lord's day, to signify their joy for Christ's resurrection, which was a conceit taken up by them, not known to the apostle: for they kneeled not for the like reason betwixt Easter and Pentecost, and yet we see in the 20. of the Acts, the Apostle Paul kneeled. The custom yet observed to this day in the oriental kirks, to communicate standing, notwithstanding that other custom hath ceased, declareth, that they intended never geniculation in the act of receiving. If ever kneeling in the act of receiving had been in use among them, it had not been left off, considering man's proneness to idolatry and superstition. It resteth then, that kneeling is only found in the kirks which were subject to the pope.  
Howbeit this idolatrous gesture prevailed under the reign of the great Antichrist, yet there wanteth not faithful witnesses to stand out against it, as the Waldenses, and the Picardi. If at any time we should not seem to have communion with Antichrist we should most of all at this holy supper, which setteth forth our communion with Christ and his kirk.  
Ye see then, suppose that kneeling in the act of receiving were indifferent, yet in respect of the scandal, the danger, and inconvenients fall upon it, we ought to oppose it. But we are now to prove, that it is not indifferent, but idolatrous, and therefore a heinous sin, whether we consider it as it is enjoined by the act of the pretended assembly at Perth, or as the action may be considered simply in itself.  
We are directed by the act of Perth to kneel, in reverence of the Sacrament, which is idolatry: for we are directed to kneel, in due regard of so divine a mystery, to wit, as is the Sacrament, or as is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, to wit, in the sacramental manner. Ye may also take up the intent of the act, by the intent of the English prelates, and their adherents, for conformity with them is intended. Doctor Mortoun sayeth, that their kirk thought it fit, by outward reverence in the manner of receiving the Eucharist, to testify their due estimation of such holy rites. Master Hutton sayeth, they kneeled, to put a difference between the ordinary bread and wine, and the sacramental, to which they gave the more reverence, because it is more than ordinary bread and wine. Some of the formalists pretend, that they kneel because of the prayer outered at the delivery of the elements: but that short bit of prayer, or wish, is ended before the minister offer the bread to the communicante, and bid him take it, and yet the communicant is enjoined to continue still upon his knees. Nor is kneeling enjoined to them by statute, or their service book, in regard of prayer, but in regard of the Sacrament itself.  
Master Paybodie pag. 334. doth freely confess, that their prayer is not the principal respect of their kneeling, nor the principal respect upon which their kirk enjoined it: And pag. 299. suppose their be no prayer used in time of receiving, he thinketh never the worse of the gesture of kneeling. Doctor Mortoun, and Master Hutton, as ye have heard, profess they kneel, to testify their due estimation of such holy rites, and more reverence to the elements then ordinary bread and wine. Now to testify more reverence to the elements by kneeling, is to testify by adoration, which is idolatry. Neither are we directed by the act of Perth, to pray in the act of receiving, but to use that kind of gesture in the act of receiving, which becometh meditation, & lifting up of the heart, which also may be done without prayer. But prayer can not consist with the act of taking, eating, and drinking. Wheresoever the public intent of a kirk is to kneel, for reverence of the Sacrament, every communicant following her direction, is an idolater interpretatiuè, and so to be construed both before God and man, whatsoever be his own private intent. If any man receive the Sacrament upon his knees at Rome, or any other popish kirk, whatsoever be his private intent, he must be interpreted to kneel, according to the intent of that kirk.  
But setting aside the act of the assembly at Perth, which is only a null and pretended assembly, we shall consider the action itself, we will prove that it can not be done but for reverence of the Sacrament, or sacramental elements.  
The first reason shall be this, The communicant is tied, whether by direction of others, or his own resolution, all is one, to kneel with reverence before dead and senseless elements, when they are presented to him by the hand of the Minister. We can not kneel to God in prayer, but there are many things before us by casual position, neither can we choose to do otherwise. But if we be tied to kneel with reverence, when we are to do any religious exercise, suppone prayer, before such a creature, suppone but a tree, and is not likewise tied when we pray before any other creature, our gesture of adoration can not be without respect to the tree. God himself never appointed any creature to be an object to the eyes of man, when he was to adore him upon his knees, but only directed his people to kneel toward a certain place, where he was present himself, in an extraordinary manner, or bound himself, by promise to hear from thence, as was the Ark, and Temple, where the Ark was. The Sacramental bread is not a place of God's extraordinare presence, or of the existing of Christ's manhood substantially, or of promise to hear us from thence. It is idolatry, sayeth Perkinse, to turn, dispose, or direct the worship of God, or any other part thereof to any particular place, or creature, without the appointment of God, and more specially to direct our adoration to the bread, or the place where the bread is.  
The uncovering of our heads is a gesture of reverence only, and that only amongst some nations, but not of adoration. Kneeling is a gesture of adoration, either civil or religious, amongst all nations. I will not kneel civilly to every one, to whom I uncover my head civilly. Every one that standeth with his head uncovered, in presence of the king, is not adoring, as he is who is presenting his petition to the king upon his knee in their sight. Further our heads are no otherwise uncovered in the act of receiving, then in the rest of the time of the celebration, when we are not near the elements, The Scripture is read, the words of Christ which he outered at the institution are still and often repeated, his actions which are divine and holy are reiterated; and sometimes we are singing psalms. But adoration upon our knees can not consist with such variety of actions.  
The people 1 King. 18. fell on their faces, after the fire had consumed the burnt sacrifices, and the wood, and licked up the water, and not in the mean time: for it is not likely that they fell down, till they had seen what the fire had wrought. What suppose they had fallen down in the meantime, that they saw the fire fall down upon the sacrifice? Is it any wonder, that men amazed with God's majesty in a miracle, fell down as astonished, to worship God? Charles the fifth after his farewell to the wars, saluted the Spanish shore in such an affectionate and prostrate manner, as his meanest vassal could not ordinarily have saluted either him or it, without just imputation of gross idolatry▪ Doctor jackson 〈◊〉 If there come into the kirk one that believeth not, and one that is unlearned, and hear one after another prophecy, and finding himself convinced, and the secrets of his heart made manifest, were it any wonder, if he fell down on his knees, etc. 1 Cor. 14. yet if he fell down before them ordinarily, were it not idolatrous?  
When it is said, 1 King. 8.54. that Solomon kneeled before the altar of the Lord, when he prayed at the dedication of the temple. The altar is not set down there as the object, toward which he directed his countenance, when he was kneeling, but only as a circumstance of the place where he was, when he prayed at that time. He kneeled upon the brazen scaffold, which was over against the altar, and spread his hands towards the heavens, not towards the altar. And suchlike, 2 Chron. 6.13. it is said, That he fell down upon his knees, before all the congregation of Israel, that is, in their sight and presence, and spread forth his hands towards heaven: It is not said, that he turned his face towards the altar. They turned their face ordinarily to that part where the Ark was, the place of God's extraordinary presence, which therefore in Scripture is called sometime God, sometime the Lord of hosts, the king of glory, the face of the Lord. Doctor Burges, pag. 7. sayeth, that the altar was not already dedicated, but was in the doing. Likewise Micha 6.6. when it is said, Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and how myself before the high God? meaneth, that they bowed themselves before the high God, sitting between the Cherubins, not towards the Altar.  
When they had offered their oblations, what if they had bowed towards the place where the Ark was, when they were offering to God? when we are in the act of receiving eating and drinking, we are receiving, and not offering.  
They pretend the sacramental elements are only as objectum à quo significative, that is, an active object moving them to worship the thing signified or God. Put case that were true, it will not help them. Durandus, Holcot, and Picus Mirandula, and other papists profess, that they adored the prototype or sampler before the image, which put them in mind of the sampler, and spoke in as abstract a manner of their worship, as the formalist doth, when he pretendeth the purest intent he can, in the manner of his adoration. And yet were accounted by other papists good catholics. Vasquez proveth, that these Doctors made the image obiectum quod, the very object passive of adoration, and that both the sampler and the image were adored together: For they used the same respect to the images, that other catholics used, they uncovered their head to them, they bowed towards them, kneeled before them, and kissed them. And this he defendeth to be the right manner, when the image and sampler are adored with one adoration, the inward motion, and submission of mind being carried to the sampler, and outward sign of submission to the image, being transmitted by the spirit, or in thought and desire to the sampler.  
This jesuit reporteth, that in the time of the seventh synod, their were some enemies to images, who were content that images were brought into the kirk, not only for decorement, but also to stir up the remembrance of the sampler, that before them they might reverence only the sampler, but exhibit no sign of honour or submission before the image, for that (they said) was idolatry: and therefore they would neither kiss them, nor bow before them; but standing upright before them, being stirred up to the remembrance of the sampler, they were carried only in their mind to it. These were called semiprobi, as we would say mangrels. Ye see then that taking the image only as objectum à quo significative, as instruments and means to stir up their remembrance, these mangrals would not kneel before them: for then, sayeth Vasquez, they should have adored them, which he in his popish judgement thinketh they should have done. So if the elements be used only as obiectum à quo significatiuè, to stir up their reverence, why kneel they before them. Nay, why are not the elements lifted up, as among the papists, after they have said, This is my body, (for, say they, it is made then a sacrament) that the people being stirred up at the elevation, with the sight of the signifying object, may kneel in whatsoever part of the kirk it be.  
If our formalists used the Sacramental elements, only as an active object to stir them up, they would not kneel before them in the mean time, more than when they are stirred up by the word, or works of God, by a toad, an ass, or a fly.  
But say they, there is a great difference betwixt images, which are the inventions of men, and the work of God, or the Sacrament. But we say, In the case of adoration there is no difference. If the historical use of images be lawful, as some of them do now maintain, what doth the presence of the image hinder to fall down and worship, if their reason be good. And if the use of images to this end be forbidden, so are also the creatures. We esteem indeed more of the works of God, then of the work-man-ship of man. We owe more reverence at the hearing of the word, decent and comely usage in the participation of the Sacrament, which we owe not to images. God's word and works are ordained by God for our instruction, and so are not images: But God never ordained them to this end, that in them, by them, or before them we should adore him, or any other thing we are put in remembrance of by them. The brazen serpent was set up upon a pole, that these who were stigned with the fiery serpents, looking upon it, might be cured. Yet sayeth the jesuit Vasquez, God commanded them to look upon it, standing upright, without any adoration, or sign of submission. The people of God of old kneeled not before their sacraments nor heard the word read, or exponed kneeling. God works are the book of nature, to teach us many things concerning God: But we must not therefore fall down before the Sun, or Moon, before every green tree, an ass, a toad, when they work at the sight of them upon our minds, and move us to consider God's goodness, wisdom, and power. When I am beholding a tree, an ass, a toad, and considering in them the goodness, power, and wisdom of God, I am reading upon the book of nature, contemplating, and gathering profitable instructions. I can not still be contemplating, and in the mean time adore, kneeling in prayer, or praise, for that were a confusion of holy exercises. Nor yet after my contemplation, and preparatory work to worship is ended, must I tie or set myself before that ass, toad, or tree to kneel, for than I should kneel for a greater respect to that creature, then to any other beside for the time, before which I might have kneeled casually without respect, and so the moving object shall participate of the external adoration, my kneeling being convoyed by it to God, to whom it is directed by my spirit or affection, as Vasquez hath descrived the manner of adoration of images.  
Where it is objected, that men bow before the chair of estate, or the Prince's seal, which are dead and senseless creatures. I answer, Civil worship is conveyed ●●mediatly to the person of the Prince, by bowing before such senseless creatures, because men think it expedient to uphold the infirmity of Princely majesty by such means. But God needeth none such, nor will have none.  
Next, There is civil ordinances of the estate for the one, but their wanteth divine ordinance for the other. Francis Whit in his reply to Fisher, pag. 228. sayeth, Civil and religious worship are of divers beginnings and forms, and every thing that is possible, lawful, and commendable in the one, is not so in the other. Augustine de civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4. sayeth, That great humility, or pestiferous flattery, may be the original of many honours given to Princes, borrowed from the forms used in GOD'S worship.  
Our next reason, Considering the action in itself, without respect to the act of Perth, to prove it idolatrous, is this, To adore upon our knees, when we are performing an outward action, which is not directed to GOD immediately, and in that action are occupied about an external object, is idolatry, unless that whereabout the action is employed, be worthy of divine honour. Our taking, eating, and drinking the bread and wine at the Lords table, is not an action directed to God immediately, as prayer, and thanksgiving is, not yet as Vasquez the jesuit sayeth, is it an outward sign of adoration.  
We bless and sanctify the meat upon the table for our commoun use, but than it is object passive, not of adoration▪ but of blessing and sanctification for our use. Next, We bless sitting, or standing, but are not tied to kneeling: Yea, we read not in Scripture, that any blessed the meat upon the table kneeling. Christ himself blessed sitting.  
But to come nearer to the purpose, It were strange to see, after the meat is blessed, every one who is present to sit down upon his knees, with his countenance fixed upon the bread upon the table, or in the hand of the Master of the family or feast, and to take, eat, and drink. Nature and custom teacheth us, it were rather a mocking of God, than a reverend adoration of him. But you will say, The sacramental elements are holy bread and wine, the other commoun and extraordinary. There ye betray yourself, ye kneel then in taking, and eating the sacramental bread, because it is holy. Now to kneel in respect of the holiness of bread, and wine, is idolatry. And the true cause of your religious respect, and bowing before it, is the holiness of it. We are prone to conceit too highly of things set a part to holy uses, as if they were of greater worth than ourselves; for whose use they were instituted.  
The papist thinketh he taketh and eateth the body of CHRIST, which by reason of the concomitance of the Godhead he adoreth. Neither would any reasonable man be so absurd, as to take, eat, and drink, adoring; unless he believed, that which he were taking, eating, and drinking, were worthy of divine honour. It were absurd to kneel before an earthly king, and still to be eating and drinking. But it may be our kneelers be gross enough in the opinion of the real presence, and we hear too much of it.  
They say, We may pray mentally in the act of receiving, eating, therefore we may kneel or adore in the act of receiving, etc. I answer, first, We may not pray when we are bound to another exercise. In the act of receiving, eating, and drinking, we should attend upon the audible words, the visible signs, and rites, meditate upon the analogic between the outward signs and rites, and the things signified, take, eat, drink mentally, and spiritually by faith. Our desires in the mean time are not prayers: Prayer is more than desire, it is a manifesting of our desires to God. The soul may send forth short ejaculations, like darts, in every ordinance, and these ejaculations may be incident to all our actions, even civil, let be religious, even when we are eating and drinking our ordinary meat & drink. But a set and continued prayer can not consist with other actions. In sudden ejaculations no other gesture is required, then that wherein the motion of the Spirit of God shall find them. If mental prayer might be permitted, it is secret before the Lord, and the signs of it before men should be concealed. Thirdly, What necessity is it to pray kneeling in this act, more than at other prayers at which ye do kneel. It is clear then, ye kneel not in regard of that pretended prayer, but because ye are before such a creature. The like may be said of thanksgiving. Ejaculations of thanks may agree with the proper exercise of the Soul, in the time of receiving, eating, and drinking, as it may also with our ordinary eating, and drinking at our tables, but not a set thanksgiving, which should require the attention of all the powers of the soul, and can not be done without diverting the Soul from the exercise proper for the time.  
Prayer is a craving, our taking, eating, and drinking is not a craving, but a receiving. Thanksgiving is properly directed to God, so is not our act of taking, eating, and drinking. The Sacrament was called the Eucharist by the Ancients, not for the act of taking, eating, and drinking, but for the thanksgiving preceding, which was but a part of the action. The showing forth of the LORDS death, by the act of eating and drinking, is but only a representation. The showing forth by word, is only a declaration o● commemoration. Representation, or commemoration are to men, and not GOD, resemble preaching, and not prayer, or thanksgiving. The celebration of the action itself, is a profession of thankfulness before man for a great benefit, but not thanksgiving directed to God. God is honoured by preaching, prayer, singing, swearring, praising, and not by adoring only. To honour is more general than to adore. It is yet objected, that in the act of receiving, we receive an inestimable benefit. Ought not a subject to kneel, when he receieth a benefit from his Prince, to testify his thankfulness? I answer, If we were to receive a gift, suppose but a morsel of bread, out of Gods own hand immediately, we ought no doubt to adore upon our knees, but not, if by the hand of the creature. The person who receieth the gift from the King, is supposed to receive it immediately from the king: or suppose he kneel receiving from his servant, mediate civil worship is not a rule for religious adoration, which should be directed to God immediately. Now we receive the Sacrament out of the hand of the Minister, not out of Christ's own hand. Yea, the Apostles at the first supper adored not on their knees, when Christ himself ministered the Sacrament, howbeit upon occasion, and at other times they adored: Nor did they adore God the Father upon their knees, for the benefit they were receiving. The inward benefit Christ's body and blood, is not the outward object, is received by the soul, not by the body, by the godly only, not by all that receive the Sacrament, by faith embracing Christ present by his Spirit in the soul. Now the act of faith, or believing, is not an act of adoration, nor is it expressed outwardly by kneeling. We receive, eat, and drink Christ's body and blood, as soon as we are effectually called, and begin to believe, and as oft as we believe the promises of the Gospel, when we hear them read or exponed. CHRIST body is far absent from us at the receiving of the Sacrament. We are united with Christ, and made members of his body, before we come to the Sacrament, and do not receive his body at every communion, as if we had lost it since the former: and yet there is but one body received at all the times. We are said then to take, eat, drink Christ's body and blood at every celebration of the Lords supper, because we put forth our faith in act at that time; and renewing the act of faith, we take, eat, and drink by believing, that same body and blood, which we did before, our faith being strengthened by the outward signs and seals to that end, and so grow by faith in union with Christ. Further, the manner or form of receiving a gift, should be answerable to the manner of the offering, the nature of the gift, and the will of the giver. If a King call his Nobles to a banquet, it is his will that they sit at table. Howsoever then otherwise, and at other occasions we behave ourselves as supplicants, we are now according to our Lords will and pleasure, to observe that external form of a feast, which he hath left to his kirk, and to act thereat in our outward carriage age the persons of guests, and friends, as he calleth us, john 15.15. Therefore howbeit the inviter be a great person, the manner of invitation is familiar, to assure us of our preferment, and fellowship with him, howbeit there be great inequality between us and him. Again, if we should kneel, because we are receiving a gift, by this reason we should kneel, when we receive any gift or benefit from GOD: As for example, When we are eating and drinking our ordinary meat and drink. If ye will say, the one is holy, the other commoun, than ye confess ye kneel, because of the holiness of it, and that is idolatry. If ye will say, ye receive a greater gift, then when ye receive your ordinary food, that is not more, but that than is a greater motive. Yet if it be called a gift, then whensoever, or whatsoever gift ye receive, ye ought to kneel. God deserveth thanks for the least of his benefits, because bestowed upon us by so great a Lord, and for his own excellency, which is the reason upon God's part, that moveth us to adore him.  
It is frivolous which is alleged, that what we crave upon our knees, we may receive upon our knees: For we crave our daily food, raiment, and other necessars upon our knees, and yet we receive them not, nor use them upon our knees. It is as frivolous, That what we crave of GOD upon our knees in public worship, we may receive upon our knees. For we may crave in the time of public worship upon our knees, things necessary for this temporal life, and so we do, when in the Lord's prayer we pray, Give us this day our daily bread. By this kind of reasoning, what I crave in private worship upon my knees, I may receive upon my knees. But it is not the diversity of the time and place where we crave, or receive the benefit, more than the diversity of the benefit itself, that is the ground of adoration, but God's excellency, as we said before.  
They consider not that these three things ought to be distinguished, blessing, or sanctifying the creature, or mean GOD hath appointed, either for our temporal or spiritual life, before the use of it, the use itself, and thanksgiving after the use, the blessing before meat, the use of meat in receiving, eating, drinking, and thanksgiving after, blessing before the reading, preaching, or hearing of the word, the act itself, reading, hearing, preaching, and thanksgiving to GOD after, blessing before the receiving the sacramental elements, the receiving and participation itself, and thanksgiving after.  
They ask if humility and reverence be not requisite in the act of receiving the sacramental elements. I answer, Yes, in all religious exercises, hearing of the word, reading of the word, etc. But it followeth not, that there should be humiliation upon our knees, because humility of mind is required: nor adoration, because reverence is required. Is there no reverence nor humility, but in kneeling before dead and senseless elements? Humility is an habit, adoration is an act. The act of humility is immanent, whereby any one resteth content with his own rank, and doth not conceit greater worth in himself then there is, specially in comparison with GOD. Adoration is a transient act, whereby a man goeth out of himself, as it were, to direct some homage, and worship to GOD. Reverence is commoun to all the parts of GOD'S worship, and is not a distinct kind of worship, as is adoration. The pretence of reverence can not be a sufficient reason, for the altering the ordinance of Christ, and the opinion of reverence hath often been the dame and nurse of manifold superstitions, sayeth Bishop Mortoun upon the Lord's supper, pag. 63.  
Seeing kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental elements, eating, and drinking is idolatry, and can not be used but idolatrously, it followeth, that kneeling in the act of receiving brought not in artolatry, or breadworship, as some mistaking counterfoot works of old writers for genuine have imagined. The corrupting of the doctrine, with the opinion of the real presence, the receiving in at the mouth from the hands of the priest, and many other superstitious conceits, together with the worshipping of images, brought in kneeling. But it was ever idolatrous from the first beginning and birth of it, and can not possibly be purged of idolatry.  
FINIS.   

OF FESTIVAL DAYS.  
THE observation of festival days hath been rejected by our kirk, from the beginning of the●● reformation, in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline, in the assembly holden anno 1566. where the latter confession of Helvetia was approved, but with special exception against these same days which are now urged. In the assembly holden anno 1575. the assembling of the people to preaching and prayers, upon festival day's w●● censured. An article was likewise form to be presented to the Regent, craving, that all days heretofore keeped holy in time of papistry besides the Lord's day, be abolished, and that a civil penalty be inflicted upon the observers.  
By ordinance of the assembly, in april 1577. Ministers were to be admonished, not to preach or minister the communion at Easter or Christmas, or other like superstitious times, or readers to read, under the pain of deprivation. The pulpits have founded from time to time, against all show of observing these days. But at the pretended and null assembly, holden at Perth, a number not having power to vote, presumed to bring in a contrary practice.  
Our first reason against these holy festivities, God hath only power to sanctify a day, and make it holy, that is, to separate it from commoun use to holy exercises yearly. God hath given liberty to man to work sex days. No man ought to be compelled to keep them holy, but when GOD himself maketh exception, as he did by the yoke of some anniversary days by the law.  
The second reason, None appointed holy festivities under the law, when the times were more ceremonious, but God himself. The days of Purim were called simply the days of Purim, not the holy days of Purim, or feast of Purim. No peculiar sacrifice was appointed, nor any holy convocation of the people enjoined. The ordinance required but fasting, joy, and sending of portions to other. The memorial days of the dedication were called the days of dedication, not the feast of dedication. They were not holy days, or festival solemnities, consisting of hooker's three elements, praises set forth with cheerful alacrity of mind, delight expressed by charitable largeness, more than commoun bounty; and sequestration from ordinary works. The times were corrupt, when these days were appointed. As for Christ's conference in the porch of the temple, in the days of dedication, it proveth not that he honoured that feast, as they call it, with his presence, only the circumstance of time is pointed at, when Christ had this conference. Christ come up to the feast of the tabernacles before, and stayed in jerusalem. In the mean time the days of dedication fell forth, and he went away immediately after his conference.  
The third reason, Neither Christ nor his apostles appointed festival days to be observed by Christians, but rather inhibited the observation of them, and changed only the old sabbath into the first day of the week. The anniversary solemnities were not changed, but altogether abrogated. The apostle having occasion to teach upon this subject, condemneth observation of days ceremonial, or of ceremonial nature. They were a rudimentary instruction of old, which beseemeth not the state of a Christian kirk, and clear light of the Gospel. Yea, the very days of Purim, and the days of dedication were of a ceremonial nature, saith Doctor Mortoun in his defence, pag. 64. To celebrate the memory of a particular act of Christ, at a set time in the year, with cessation from work, sermons, gospels, epistles, collects, and hymns belonging thereto, with joy and gladness, without admitting a fast at any time, is not to observe a day morally, but ceremoniallie. If there had been other festival days, which might have been observed by Christians, the Apostle having so fair occasion, when he was treating of the observation of days, he would not have spoken so generally, but directed Christians to the observing of these. If other days had been dedicat to Christ then the Lords day, they should all have been called the Lords days, but the scripture maketh mention of one day, called the Lords day. Socrates in his history sayeth, He is of the opinion, that as many other things crept in of custom in sundry places, so did the feast of Easter prevail among all people of a certain private custom and observation. If the Apostles had appointed it, they had agreed upon the day, seeing they were directed infallibly by the Spirit.  
Our fourth reason, If it had been the will of God, that the several acts of Christ should have been celebrated with several solemnities, the holy Ghost would have made known the day of his nativity, circumcision, presenting to the temple, baptism, transfiguration, and the like. But it is confessed, that the day of Christ's nativity, and consequently of the rest depending thereupon, are hid from mortal men. And this is sufficient to declare the will of God concerning other notable acts, which were known, that not the act or action upon such day maketh a day holy, but divine institution. No man denieth but the nativity of Christ should be remembered, and so it is, whersoever the gospel is preached. But we deny that the memory of it must be celebrated with the solemnity of a festival day, with cessation from work, feasting or forbearance of fasting, and a proper service.  
Our fifth reason, Suppose observing of holy days had been at the first a matter indifferent, yet seeing they have been abused, and polluted with superstition, they ought to be abolished. And therefore Zanchius approveth them who have abolished all other days, but the Lords day. Sure it is, that in former times holy days have been abused, not only with licentious ravelling and surfitting, but also with the opinion of worship and merit, and a judaical conceit, that the devil is not so bold to tempt men on these days, as at other times. Suppose observation were free of these abuses, yet it may degener after the same manner, as before: but the observation is not, nor can not be free of abuse and superstition. They say, they esteem them not holier than other days, but only keep them for order and policy, that the people may be assembled to religious exercises, and instructed in the mysteries of religion. But both are false. The papist confess themselves, that one day is not holier than an other, in the own nature, no not the Lords day, but in respect of the use and end: And so do our formalists esteem our festival days holier than other days, and call them holy days. And as for worship, If the observing of a day holy, for the honouring of a Saint, be a worshipping of the Saint, the observing of a day to the honour of Christ cannot be without opinion of worship. They are called mystical days, and appointed for the solemnity of some mystery of religion, and are ordered according to the known and supposed times, when such things fell forth, to wit, Christ's nativity, passion, ascension, etc. If only for order or policy, wherefore is there but one day between the passion and the resurrection, forty days between the resurrection and ascension, and then again, but ten betwixt the ascension and whitsunday. May not, and are not Christians instructed in the mysteries of religion, without the solemnities of days, and appropriation of service to them, after the jewish manner? Do we not appropriate to the day of Christ's nativity a peculiar kind of service, of epistles; gospels, collects, hymns, homilies, belonging to Christ's nativity, and think it absurd to perform the like service upon any other day, with cessation from work. To observe days after this manner, is not like the appointing of hours for preaching, or prayers on week days, or times for celebrating the comunion, according to the policy set down by every particular congregation. We use time then only as a circumstance, and for order, and do not appropriate these divine exercises to these times. Howbeit Christ rose upon the Lord's day yet was it not appointed to be observed after the jewish manner of observation of their festivals, for then every Lord's day, the matter of sermons, collects, hymns, gospels, etc. should have been only Christ's resurrection. But ye see the use and end is moral and general, for the instruction of the people of God in all mysteries of religion.  
FINIS.   

A passage of Master William Cowper pretended bishop of Galloway, his sermon delivered before the Estates, anno 1606. at which time he was Minister at Perth. On 2 Corinth. 6.3.4.  
AS to the giving of offences, our Saviour hath forewarned us, that there will be offences, but he hath pronounced a fearful woe upon them by whom offences come, It were better, sayeth our Saviour, that a milestone were put about his neck and he cast in the midst of the sea. And by the law of Moses he was accursed, that laid a stumbling block before the blind. The equity of that law yet remaineth under the gospel, binding the Christian, that no man put an occasion to fall, or a stumbling block before his brethren, but most of all a Christian preacher, his office is to edify others in the most holy faith, and to strengthen the brethren, he being converted himself. It should therefore be far from him, to give any that are weak an occasion to stumble and fall: generally he may do it by his evil life, for hardly can weak ones believe that the religion is good, where the life is evil: yea, by it they take occasion to blaspheme the truth of God, and to speak evil of his name. A preacher is compared by our Saviour to a candle, to shine to others; and again, to the salt of the earth, that should season others. A candle once lighted, if it dieth out, smelleth worse than if it had never been lighted, and salt that is made by concoction of salt matters, if again it return into water, becometh more unsavoury, and unpleasant to the taste then any other water: so, a preacher once separate by God, chosen out from the world, & entered into a holy calling, if again he return to be a worldling, if in his life he become profane, and suffer the light that is in him become darkness, falling away from his first love, of all the men in the world he becometh the greatest offence, and the latter end of that man shall be worse than his beginning. These are the words I spoke the last time, wherewith ye were offended, and now I repeat them, that others may see no cause of offence is in them. More specially a preacher giveth offence, by doing any of these two things: First, when a preacher of greater gifts and knowledge, howsoever he do it of a good intention, draweth on a weaker brother to follow him in a cause wherein he hath not a warrant from God. A notable example whereof we have 2 King. 13. where a prophet of juda being sent to Bethel, to denounce the judgements of God against jeroboam, for his idolatry, was commanded neither to eat nor drink in Bethel. jeroboam could not beguile him, for he gave the king this answer, If thou would give me the half of thy house, I would not goin with thee, nor eat bread; nor drink water in this place, for so I was charged by the word of the Lord. But an old prophet deceived him, saying, I am also a prophet as well as thou art, and an angel of God commanded me to bring thee into my house, and cause thee eat bread. Thus the authority, the age, the pretended light of an other prophet draweth either prophets in an evil course, whereunto otherwise they would not be easily induced. Hereby we that are of mean gifts in the ministry are admonished, never to depart from that immediate warrant of doingin our calling: we have of the word of God, for any mediate warrant brought out of the promptuary of man's wit, suppose it were covered with never so fair pretences: yea suppose an angel would come from heaven, and bring an other doctrine then that which is delivered us in the word, we are not to credit him, far less an earthly man that speaketh, but chose to hold him accursed.  
The other thing wherein the preacher may give offence, is, if he alter or change in any point of his calling, either in doctrine or discipline, departing from that which once he maintained. This rule is given us by the apostle, Gal. 2.18. If I build again these things I have destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. This is a rule by which ye can not refuse to be tried, and which necessarily binds you to stand to that truth of doctrine and discipline ye have once embraced, unless ye would be found trespassers, and such as give just cause of offence that our ministry should be reprehended. If ye have any new light ye had not before, communicate to other brethren, that we also may follow you. If not, I beseech you walk not in that course, wherein the light of GOD doth not allow you.  
FINIS.