A re-examination of the five articles enacted at Perth anno 1618.  
To wit.  
Concerning 

The communicants gesture in the act of receiving.  
The observation of festival days.  
Episcopal confirmation or bishopping.  
The administration of baptism in private places.  
And The supper of the Lord in private places.    
Printed anno 1636.   

To the Reader.  
YOu know (good Reader) if a man have a precious jewel, he will be exceeding careful to keep it from any tash. True religion is more precious than the most precious jewel, it should be the breath of our nostrils, and the ●oy of our hearts. We find that in all ages the preservation of religion in purity hath been dearer to the godly than their very lives. As the preservation of religion in purity hath been maintained, so hath the restauration to purity been purchased with the blood of Martyrs, and grievous troubles of many confessors. The reformation of the Church within this realm was not obtained without the martyrdom of some, and the hazard of the lives and estates of many other of our worthy predecessors. The temple was throughly built, and the headstone brought forth, with the acclamation of other reformed Churches, (the Church of England, which as Bucerus observed in histime, standeth in the midst betwixt the Roman and reformed, only excepted) crying Grace grace unto it. No where was the doctrine sounder, the divine worship purer, the government fitter for the building of God's house. But of late years the doctrine is leavened with Arminianism and popery, the worship of God defiled with superstition and idolatry, the joint government of Pastors in presbyteries, synodal and general assemblies, with subordination of presbyteries to synods, and synods to general assemblies, is changed into tyrannical oligarchy: So that it may be observed in our times to be true, which was noted by Aventinus, to have been done among the Popes in his time, that the same deeds are at one time branded with the mark of superstition; and at another time set out with the glorious title of piety, at one time attributed to Antichrist, at another time to Christ: at one time judged tyrannical and unjust, at another time just and righteous. That which before we rejected as superstitious or idolatrous, is now called truly religious: that which before was called Antichristian and tyrannical, is received now as ancient, and Apostolical.  
Is it not lamentable to see that government which maintained the kingdom of Antichrist in former times, and with much pains thrown forth, to be reestablished. Some idle ministers, deserting their own particular flocks, have taken upon them to be diocesan pastors, the principal and only pastors of all the congregations within an whole diocie, to plant and transplant Ministers without consent of presbyteries, to stay their proceedings against heinous offenders, to sit as Princes amongst priests at their diocesan synods, to suspend and deprive Ministers by the power of the high Commission, without the consent of any lawful, let be pretended assembly of the Church, to fine, confine, imprison Ministers, or other professors, without consent of the estates, to sit in the Chequer, Counsel, Session, and to bear offices of estate, to vote in Parliament in name of the Church, without consent of the Church, many of the Ministry repining, and none consenting, but upon conditions and cautions which are not regarded, to send Commissioners to Court, as directed from the Clergy or Church, who return with articles in favours of Papists, or for advancement of their estate: is not the office of Deane, and election of bishops by deane and chapter, rejected as Popish by our general assemblies, recalled again, without consent of the Church, or so much as a pretended assembly? Are not the best qualified exspectants debarred from entry to the Ministry, unless they subscrive such articles as the pretended bishops have devised, and others obtruded upon congregations to their great grief. Ministers are troubled by them with the acts of pretended assemblies, whereas themselves transgress the acts of many laudable assembly. Ministers are become dissolute, and erroneus doctrine is taught without controlment. We have cause to fear ere it be long, that sound and faithful Ministers shall become as rare as wedges of gold.  
Consider further, that soon after the government was changed, idolatrous, superstitious, and ridiculous ceremonies were introduced into the worship of GOD with the five famous articles, of which we are now to treat. More are intended in the cannos lately ●●blished, and yet more expected with the liturgle not yet printed: neither can we look for an end, till the whole worship of God be defiled. And yet these ceremonies are either commended as ancient, or slighted as matters indifferent.  
It is called in question, if not altogether denied, whether the Pope be the great Antichrist or not: the possibility of reconciliation with Rome is maintained, and to this end erroneous points of doctrine delivered in public, or defended in private, or our differences from the Romish church slighted as not fundamental. Books of this kind are printed with privilege in our neighbour church, and in private commended by such amongst us, as apprehend the maintenance of this course to be the easiest way to preferment. Doctor Francis White in his treatise of the Sabbath ranketh among the traditions of the church, the baptism of infants, religious observation of the Lords day, the administration of baptism, and the Lords supper in public assemblies and congregations, the delivery of the elements of the holy communion in both kinds, the service of the church in a known language. The Reader may find more of this stuff in Cousin's devotions, in Montague's Gag and Appeal, and in Shelfords' sermons. Have we not need to f●ar the burning of our own house, when our neighbour's house is in fire? Have we not greater cause to fear and bestir ourselves, when the fire hath seized upon the thack of our own house, and poisonable errors are vented amongst ourselves,  
Do we then complain without just cause, or for matters of no importance? The reconcilers cry peace, peace, but mean to peace, till we be at peace with Rome. The Prelates charge us with shisme and sedition, but they mean to peace without peaceable possession of their places, and obedience to their directions. They call us shismaticks, and yet cannot endure general assemblies, the ordinary remedy of division and shismes, as was acknowledged by the King's Commissioners, and such as were acquainted with his Majesty's mind at Linlithgow, anno 1606. To what end was it enacted with their own consent at Glasgow, 1610. that those who were called bishops, should be liable to the trial and censure of the general assembly, for their office and benefice, life and conversation, if we have not yearly or set general assemblies, to try them, or censure us, if we shall be found guilty of shisme. Grievances presented by Ministers to parliaments, which should be the chief sanctuaries of refuge to all distressed subjects, are suppressed, and not suffered to be read in public before the Estates: yea laws are made in parliament concerning matters Ecclesiastical, without the knowledge or consent of the general assembly, and acts of pretended assemblies are ratified, sometime made worse with omissions, additions, alterations. We want our assemblies to direct commissioners with articles, grievances, and petitions, to parliaments, conventions, court and counsel, and to treat of all the affairs of the Church: what wonder is it then that all be out of frame?  
But we are still charged with frowardness, that we ever except against assemblies when we have them. So did the Ubiquitars the Theologues in the Palatinat, Synodum appellatis, said they, & synodum detrectatis. The Theologues answered in their admonition, Hinc istae lachrymae, quod synodum ejusmodi vellent, qualem principibus praescripscrunt, in qui ipsi fuissent accusatores, ipsi judices, ipsi saltarent, ●c spectarent suam fabulam, & ipsi sibi plausum drowned. So do we answer to our Prelates, if they will suffer no assemblies, but such as they themselves overrule at pleasure, they can not pretend desire of peace. We call for no other assemblies than such as shall be constitute according to the order agreed upon with his Majesties own consent, in the general assembly holden, anno 1598., such as shall have liberty to conveen yearly, or at set times, and to treat of all affairs belonging to the Church, such as shall have freedom in their proceedings. It were dangerous to acknowledge every meeting, which claimeth to itself the name and authority of a general assembly.  
Can we acknowledge that convention at Perth, anno 1618. for one of our lawful general assemblies? The pretended pri●at occupied the place of the Moderator, without the election of the assembly, which was contrary to the order ever observedi●●●ur Church, even when we had Superintendents, and contrary to the cautions agreed upon at Montross, anno 1600, and at Linlithgow, anno 1606. These who were entitled bishops; wanting commission from presbyteries, where they should make residence, had place to vote contrary to the cautions agreed upon at Montrose, and notwithstanding they had put in practice before kneeling, and observation of festival days. Mo● ministers then three out of a presbytery were admitted, or rather drawn to that meeting to give their voice. Some moderators of presbyteries being the bishop's substitutes, were admitted without commission. No Baron ought to vote according to the act made at Dundie, anno 1598., but one out of the bounds of a presbytery having commission. But a number were present at this assembly, being only required by his Majesty's missives ' and their voices were numbered with the rest Some minister● were the King's pensioners, or looked for augmentation of stipends, or were threatened in private by their diocesan bishop with deposition, or were circumveened with promises, that they should not be urged with practice. Necessity of yielding was urged, under no less danger then of the wrath of authority, and utter subversion of the order and state of our Church. Such as had courage to oppose, were checked, interrupted, threatened: yea, it was plainly professed, that neither reasoning nor voting should carry the matter: All the five articles were put to once voting, with this certificate, He that denied one should be reputed to have denied all. Much more might be said to this purpose, but these few particulars are sufficient to justify our exceptions against that assembly, as null in itself.  
Because many are desirous of information concerning these five articles enacted at this assembly, and treatises formerly printed are become scarce, we were moved to press through many difficulties to the publishing of this Re-examination Here you shall find the abridgement of what was w●i●ten before, with a more particular reply to Doctor Lindseyes' defence, than that which is in Altar 〈◊〉, or to any objection of moment moved by Doctor Burges, or Master Pa●bodie. Doctor Forbes hath nothing but what he hath borrowed from our Doctors defence.  
I beseech you (good Reader) read and ponder without a mind preoccupied, either with fear of trouble, or hope of preferment, and submit your judgement to the light of the truth. For that is the way to apostasy to seek for shifts and figtree leaves, when the truth is born in upon us. What hath made so many so unsettled in religion this day, and prone to receive Poppy, as the defence of the late novations with frivolous cavillation? Men glory now to dispute like Sceptics upon the very articles of our faith, so that they are like to lose the sense of all religion. The detaining of the truth of God in unrighteousness bringeth men at last to a reprobat sense. Pity the case of our Church, which is more pitiful then in foreign parts, where the blonde: sword rageth. For howbeit their external peace be troubled, yet they hold fast without backsliding. If the Lord will spew the luckwarm out of his mouth, what may backsliders look for? Remember the words delivered by M. George Wishart, which he uttered a little before his martyrdom, God shall send you comfort after me, This realm shall be illuminated with the light of the gospel, als dearly as ever was any realm sins the days of the Apostles: the house of God shall be builded in it, yea it shall not lack, whatsoever the enemy imagine in the contrary, the kaipstone, meaning, that it should once be brought to the full perfection: Neither (said he) shall the time be long, till that the glory of God shall evidently appear, and once triumph in despite of Satan: there shall many not suffer after me. But, alas, if the people shall prove unthankful, fearful and terrible shall the plagues be, that shell follow.  
By our Doctor, or L. or D. L. I mean Doctor Lindsey: by B. or D. B. Doctor Burges. by P. or M. P. Master Paybodie.   

OF THE COMMUNICANTS GESTURE IN THE ACT of receiving, eating and drinking.  

The Introduction.  
MAster knox, one of the first and chief instruments of reformation of religion within this Realm, was called before the Counsel of England in the days of King Edward the sixth, anno 1553 and demanded, Why the kneeled not at the receiving of the Sacrament. He answered, Christ's action was perfect, that it was with sitting and without kneeling, that it was surest to follow his example. After hot reasoning, it was said unto him, That he was not called before them of any evil mind, yet they were sorry to find him of a contrary mind to the common order. He answered, I am sorry that the common order is contrary to Christ's ir●stitution. This I find in one of his manuscripts. Within a year after, being exiled after the death of King Edward, 
Admonition pag. 35.  in his Admonition directed to England, which was printed anno 1554, he ranketh kneeling at the Lords table among the superstitious orders; which profane Christ's true religion, and censureth the English reformation for retaining of it. When some of the English in the English Church at Frankford, where ●ee was Minister, contended for the receiving of the English Liturgy, he opposed stoutly to it. And when the contention was like to grow to some height, he and his Colleague Master Wittingham, with some others, drew forth of the English book a plat in Latin, and sent it to Master Calvin. Howbeit the description of the corruptions was favourably set down, yet kneeling at the receiving of the elements is noted up among the rest in that extract. Among his letters which are extant in writ, we find one dated the year 1559 at Deep, and directed to mistress Anna Lock, where he calleth the cross in Baptism, and kneeling at the Lords table Diabolical inventions.  
After his return to his native country, he ministered the Communion according to the order of the English church at Geneva, where he had been last Minister. This order was observed in all the reformed congregations, before the reformed religion was established by authority of Parliament, and is yet extant before the Psalms in meeter, with addition of the treatises of fasting and excommunication, some prayers, the form and manner of the election and admission of Superintendents. In the con●ession of faith prefixed and approved by our Church, we have these words, Neither must we in the administration of the Sacraments follow man's phant●s●●s, but as Christ himself hath ordained, so must they be ministered. In the order of celebrating the Lords supper we have these words, The exhortation being ended, the Minister cometh down from the pulpit, and sitteth at the table, every man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serveth. And again, The Minister breaketh the bread, and delivereth it to the people, who distribute and divide the same among themselves, according to our Saviour's commandment: And likewise giveth the cup.  
In the second head of the first b●oke of discipline drawn up in the first year of public and universal reformation, we have these words, The table of the Lord is then rightly ministered, when it approacheth ne●rest unto Christ's own action. But plain it is that at Supper Christ Jesus sat with his disciples; and therefore do we ●udge that sitting at a table is most convenient to that holy action. And again, That the Minister break the bread and distribute the same to these that be next to him, commanding the rest, every one with sobriety and reverence to break 〈◊〉 other, we think it nearest to Christ's action and to the perfect practise. Ye see our first Reformers preferred 〈…〉 kneeling, but also to standing, and 〈…〉 none of them approached so 〈…〉 When they rejected standing 〈…〉 man judge what they thought of kneeling. 〈◊〉 ye may perceive that they rested upon 〈◊〉, ●o only for a time, because of the abuse of kneeling, 〈…〉, because most agreeable to the pattern.  
It was ordained in the general assembly holden the year 1562, That the order of Geneva be of served 〈…〉 ministration of the Sacraments. By the order of Geneva was meant the order which was observed in the English Church at Geneva, where Master Knox had been of late Minister, which order is called in the first book of discipline, The order of Geneva, and The book of Common order. This order, as I have already said, is set down before the Psalms in meeter. In the assembly holden anno 1564 Ministers are referred to the order set do, 〈◊〉 before the Psalms, which is a renewing of the former act. In the Parliament holden the year 1567. it was declared, that whosoever refused to participate of the Sacraments, as they were then publicly administered in this reformed Church, were not to be reputed members of this Church. An act was likewise made concerning the King's oath to be given at his coronation to maintain the religion then professed, and in special the due and right administration of the Sacraments then received. This act concerning the King's oath was ratified again by acts of Parliament in the year 1581., and again in the year 1592. In the year 1572 it was ordained by act of Parliament, that such as did not communicate, and partake of the Sacraments as they were then truly ministered in the Church of Scotland, if they continue obstinate and disobedient, shall be reputed infamous, and unable to sit or stand in judgement, pursue, bear office, etc. When in the second confession of faith, which is commonly called the King's confession, we profess that we detest the ceremonies of the Roman Antichrist added to the ministration of the Sacraments, we profess we detest kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements of bread and wine.  
The order of celebrating the Lords supper, which hath been received and observed since the beginning of reformation, and acknowledged both by general assemblies and Parliaments, to be the due and right order, was perverted by a number of noble men, Barons, Ministers, and pretended Bishops convened at Perth, in the year 1618., either having no lawful commission, or terrified with threats, or corrupted one way or other. They in their full and pretended assembly to please King James, made this act following, as it is extant among the acts of Parliament:  
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 b●dy in our meditation and lifting up of our hearts best becometh so divine and sacred an action, therefore (notwithstanding that our Church hath used, since the reformation of religion, to celebrate the holy Communion to the people sitting, by reason of the great abuse of kneeling used in the idolatrous worship of the Sacrament by the Papists, yet now, seeing all memory of bypast superstition is passed) in rev●rence 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▪ the assembly thinketh good, that that blessed Sacrament be celebrated hereafter meekly and reverently upon their knees.  
This act, if the lying parenthesis were culled out, which is insert only to deceive, may pass among Papists and Lutherans. It is untrue that all memory of bypast superstition is past, and untrue that the abuse of kneeling among the papists was the only occasion that moved our first reformers to make choice of sitting, but the pattern of the first supper at the institution was the chief cause. And therefore they not only rejected kneeling, but also standing and taking in passing by, as we have showed before.  
We shall first defend the communicants sitting, and next impugn their kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements of bread and 〈…〉 we shall prove it first to be warrantable; next, 〈…〉 down our reasons whereupon we 〈…〉 instituted.   

THE FIRST PART CONCERneth the defence of sitting.  

CHAP. I.  
That the Communicants sitting in the act of receiving eating and drinking is lawful and warrantable.  
WE have the example of Christ and his Apostles at the first supper to warrant the communicants 
Sitting warrantable.  to sit in the act of receiving. No man ever doubted of it, till of late two or three wranglers hath called that in question, which hath been holden as an undoubted truth in all ages. After the ordinary washing of their hands they sat down to the first course of the paschal supper to eat the paschal lamb with the unleavened bread, than they rose again to the washing of their feet. Thereafter they sat down again to the second course of the paschal supper, and did eat of a salad made of sour herbs, which they dipped in a composed liquor as thick as mustard. This second course was a part of the paschal supper, 
Scaliger de emendat temporum lib. 6.  as Scaliger and others of the learned prove out of the Jewish writers, and not their common and vulgar supper. M. P. yieldeth to this, because the paschal supper was a sufficient meal of itself, and therefore they needed no other supper. It is clear that they sat howbeit not upright, yet leaning on their elbows at the paschal supper. Scaliger citeth out of a book set forth before Christ's time, entitled Kidd●sh pesach, a canon for twice washing, and that kind of sitting at the eating of the paschal supper. The Evangelists likewise make mention, that after they rose, and Christ had washed their feet, they sat down again. Now while they were eating after this sitting down to the second course of the paschal supper, and consequently while they were yet sitting, Christ took bread, and gave thanks, etc. that is, he instituted, and ministered the evangelical supper, Matth. 26. 26. Mark. 14. 22. Yea the very close or conclusion of the second course, or whole paschal supper was changed by Christ into the evangelical supper. Luke and Paul relate that Christ took the cup after supper. The consecrating, breaking, and eating of the bread had interveened between the second course and the taking up of the cup. Therefore they might well say, After supper he took the cup. Yea they might have said also after supper he took the bread, to wit after both the first and second course of the paschal supper, but than it must be meant immediately, and without any other action intervening, because Matthew and Mark say, While they were eating. Hear Ba●radius a Jesuit, 
Barradas in concor. evangelist. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 2  Howbeit the whole Sacrament was instituted after supper, yet it was instituted in the end of the supper, while as they were sitting and eating, for they did eat other meat, till the time of the institution of the heavenly food, and therefore Matthew and Mark say, That the Sacrament was institute while as they were eating, for they were yet eating when the Lord took bread, blessed, and broke. Quamvis autem totum sacramentum post coenam institutum fuerit, in ipsius tamen coenae fine institutum est, cum adhuc discumberent & m●nducarent, Nam manducarunt cibos alios quousque ad institutionem caelestis cibi ventum est. Ideoque Mattheus & Marcus aiunt, manducantibus ipsis effectum sse hoc sacramentum. Adhuc enim manducabant cum Dominus accepit panem benedixit & fregit. 
Barona●●al. ●om. 2. an. 34. num. 14.  Baronius the Cardinal collecteth that they were sitting, because Matthew and Mark say, they were supping or eating, Vnde quod dicit Matthaeus coenantibus autem iis accepit Iesus p●nom & benedixit, & quoth Marcus ait, & manduoantibus illis accepit Jesus panem & benedicens fregit, idem est acsi dixisset, 
Chrys. hom. de prodit. jud. And Pope Leo serm. 7. de passione Domini.  recumbentibus illis. Chrys●stome likewise, that wh●le they were eating and drinking, Christ ●ooke bread. The collection is so clear, that none either of the ancient or modern Writers, Popish or Protestant did call it in question. In steed of many testimonies therefore I content me with the old hymns. M John Mair on Matth. 26. bringeth in an old hymn to this purpose, as followeth, Rex sedet in coena turba cinctus duodena. Se tenet in manibus, Se cibat ipse cibus. And the like we have in the Roman Ritual, In supremae nocte coenae Recumbens cum fratribus, Observata lege plenè Cibis in legalibus, Cibum turbae ducdenae, Se dat suis manibus.  
But it is likely, 
That Christ and his Apostles kneeled not. Athenaens lib. 4.  say some, when Christ gave thanks, that he and the Apostles kneeled. I answer, There is no likelihood at all. What the Naucratits did at their idol feasts on the birth day of Vesta, or Apollo Cumaeus, is ●o matter. It is noted as singular in them, and not according to the custom of other Ethnics. It was the custom of the Jews to sit in time of blessing the bread and cup at the paschal supper. The words, which they used, were sooner uttered, than they could conveniently change sitting in kneeling and rise again. 
Luk. 24. 30. Mat. 14. 13. Mark. 6. 〈◊〉 7. Luk. 9 joh. 1. & 27.  We never read that the Jews kneeled when they blessed their meat. Christ sat when he broke bread and gave thanks at Emaus. When he sat with the multitude, which he fed with five loaves, and two fishes he blessed the bread.  
P. granteth that Christ and his Apostles used the same gesture in blessing and giving thanks that he did in receiving. Suppose they had kneeled in time of the blessing before the breaking of the bread, it would not follow, 
Pag. 39  that they continued kneeling, or received the elements with that gesture. All agree, ancient and modern that they were sitting, when Christ spoke to them, Haec verba (nempe bibite ex eo omnes) dicuntur solis Apostolis, 
De eucharist lib. 4. ca●. ●5  qui tum ad mensam cum Christo sedebant, saith Bellarmine, Becanus, and others, as ye may see in the testimonies cited in this and the chapter following. The Naucratits after they had supplicated upon their knees, sat down again upon their feasting beds, as Atheneus reporteth.  
We prove also by collection from some circumstances, 
That Christ and his disciples sat.  and the form of the celebration, that they sat. They neither stood nor kneeled. Therefore they sat. They stood not, for the beds upon which they sat leaning on their elbows, were so near to the tables, that they might reach to it, so that they could not easily stand betwixt. It were ridiculous to allege that they stood upon the beds. 
john 14. 31  And Christ when he had ended, sayeth to them, Arise, let us go hence. If they had been standing, he could not say to them, Arise. It may be gathered likewise that they kneeled not. 1. If there had been a change from sitting, which was the ordinary gesture at the Paschall 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. 2. If there had been such a change, then kneeling should have been institute, and all have sinned that have not kneeled since the first supper, which our opposites dare not affirm. To what end should the change have been made, if not that that gesture might be observed afterward. 3. The form of celebration could not comply with the gesture of kneeling: for Christ spoke in an enunciative form, and not prayerwise, and the elements were carried from hand to hand, and divided by the Apostles among themselves. The distributing of the elements by the Communicants among themselves is not compatible with kneeling, a gesture of adoration which should be directed to God. We conclude then with Mouline, that the Apostles continued sitting at the table to the ve●y end of the action. 
On the Lord's supper. 1 part pag. 136.   
But say they, the site or posture of Christ and his Apostles at the first supper was lying and not sitting. Therefore their example is no warrant for sitting. 
That their gesture was a kind of sitting gesture.  I answer, it was not lying altogether, but partly sitting, partly leaning, and therefore saith Casaubone the Hebrew doctors call that posture sitting on beds. Hic situs neque plane jacentis est, 
Exercit. pag. 490.  neque plane sedentis: idcirco Hebraei hoc dixerunt sedere in lectis. And to this purpose he allegeth also Ezechiel 23. 41. where the Prophet expresseth that posture by sitting in a bed. And where the scriptures speak of upright sitting as in Genes. 43. 33. Onkelos expresseth it by a word which signifieth sitting with leaning: and josephus in his history by a Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying the same, as if it were indifferent which of the expressions to use for any of the forms. Christ himself while he was at table expresseth it by another word, which expresseth upright sitting, Luke 22, 27, and alludeth unto it in the same word, verse 30. As a man may stand upright, or stand leaning, so he may sit upright, or sit leaning. There sitting, our sitting, and the Turks answer analogically to other. L. at Perth assembly confessed the two gestures were analoga. D. Mortoun confesseth it was a kind of sitting gesture. The English translators express it by sitting, and not by lying. Neither are the words used by the Evangelists the proper words which express that gesture, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Beza observeth on Matth. chap. 8. 11.  
M. P. pag. 69, protesteth and witnesseth to the world, that the holdeth the gesture of sitting at the Lords table in itself lawful and commendable. 
P. acknowledgeth sitting lawful.  What a madness is it then to drive poor souls from a sure way to a dangerous and doubtsome way: In dubiis animae insistendum est in via tutiori, In all doubts of the soul we should insist in the surest way. But we shall clear the doubts, and prove it pernicious.   

CHAP. II.  
That we are bound to sitting in the act of receiving eating, and drinking.  
THat the sitting of Christ and his Apostles at the first supper serveth not only for a warrant, but also for a direction to us to follow, appeareth by these reasons.  
First, 
Christ's example our direction.  Examples in setting down a pattern, serve ordinarily for directions in times to come, if there be not some singular occasion to hinder him that setteth down the pattern to do otherwise. D. Mortoun in his late work of the institution of the Sacrament, 
pag. 47.  while as he is maintaining Communion under both kinds, layeth down the same rule in these words, Were it not that we had no precept of Christ to do this, but only the example of his doing it in the first institution, this should be a rule for us to observe it punctually, except in some circumstances, which only occasionally & accidentally happened therein, and therefore dare not give a non-obstant against the example of Christ as your council of Constance hath done, and which your jesuit also teacheth, as if the example of Christ were no argument of proof at all. Ye see he acknowledgeth the force of Christ's example, even where there is not a commandment in express words, unless there be circumstances occasionally or accidentally happening therein.  
Moulius in his heavenly alarm, pag. 56. saith, 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. When our opposites object, that if we must imitate the pattern, than we ought to celebrate in an upper chalmer, exclude women, put off and on our upper garment, wash our feet, sit leaning on beds, eat unleavened bread, with twelve in number, in the eventide after supper. But these particulars were accidental and occasional, and therefore excepted in the rule, or were not in the time of the evangelical supper. 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 the second course interveened between and the evangelical supper. The evangelical supper being instituted after the paschal supper, to which it was to succeed, and Christ's suffering so near at hand, they might not lawfully eat leavened bread, nor at any other time eat the paschal supper, to which the evangelical supper was to succeed, but in the evening.  
The Jews were commanded to eat the lamb not in the temple, but in houses; and upper chalmers served for strangers that come to Jerusalem, as other private houses did to the inhabitants. There might not be fewer than ten for one lamb, but their number might amount to twenty, as ●eza upon Matth. 26. 20. observeth.  
They might not eat the passover but in one society, and if two societies were in one house, they might not mix together, as some have observed out of the jewish Doctors. Those who eat of one lamb together, were called the sons of society, as if we would say Communicants at one table. There ye see, wherefore they were so few. And yet seeing there might be twenty in one society, what warrant have we to affirm there were only twelve, to wit, the twelve apostles. The Canon of the mass sayeth, he gave to his Apostles and disciples. And by the same reason, what warrant have they to affirm that no women were present, seeing the jews among their precepts ordain that male and female celebrate the passover rightly, 
judeorum precept.  ut mas & faeminae pascha rite faciant. It can not be proved, saith Fulk, that no women were present. Ye may see his reason upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. 
Cassa●dri opera pag. 737  Cassander in his tractar. de baptismo infantium, saith, that it is sufficient that they are fit for the communion, seeing they appertain to the society of the members of Christ. Satis est quod eas aplas off 〈◊〉 communion● constet, cum & ipsae ad societatem membr●●●. Christi pert n●ant.  
But let it be gr●●●ed, that none were present, but the Apostles, 
Answer to the Rhemists. Matth. 20. 20.  the reason may be partly the number was sufficient to make up one society for the lamb, partly as M. Cariwright observeth, that as other things so the holy Sacrament should not come to the church but by the hands of the Apostles. Their manner and kind of sitting with leaning on the left elbow was the form observed among the Jews at their common feasts, and at the paschal supper, by reason of the paschal canons, because it was the most solemn time the Jews had. So all the particular instances above mentioned were only occasional and accidentary, falling out by reason of the paschal supper, which might not lawfully or conveniently be changed, yea at whatsoever time it had been celebrated, some circumstances might occur, which belong not to the action, as at every action there occur individual circumstances, as time and place, nothing belonging to that action except it be so appointed. The Rhemists (sayeth M. Cartwright) assign things done in the Lord's supper some impossible to be done by us, 
On. 1. Cor. 11. 23  some inconvenient to be done in our sacrament, which were necessarily done in that action of our Saviour Christ. Their sitting might easily have been changed in kneeling, and very commodiously, seeing they sat upon beds leaning on their elbows, yet Christ would retain the same gesture at the evangelical supper which they used at the paschal.  
But at the institution of the first passover the Jews stood, 
Standing at the passover changed.  and yet afterward they sat, as ye see here, Christ and his Apostles sat. As they changed their standing at the first supper, which was their pattern, why may not we likewise change sitting into kneeling? I answer, when standing is changed in sitting, it is not changed into a gesture of adoration, as when sitting is changed into kneeling, which is no gesture for a feast. Next, it cannot be proved, that the people of God stood at the first passover in the judgement of sundry of the learned; let be at the rest following as P. acknowledgeth, pag. 57 Howbeit L. pag. 68 affirmeth that they stood. There is neither express mention made of their standing, howbeit every ceremony be set down punctually, nor can it be collected by necessary consequence, 
Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 17.  saith Barradius. But let it pass as undoubted, yet it was extraordinary, and for that night only to signify their hasty departure out of Egypt. 
junius & Tremel. in Mat. 26. 20. in Exod. 12. 11. Scaliger.  All the Hebrew Doctors both ancient and modern with full consent deliver, that the commandment of sprinkling the door posts with blood, putting on shoes, girding up the loins, taking staves in their hands, and eating the lamb with h●ste, was not to be extended to the following ages, but belonged only to that night that they were to depart out of Egypt. If standing had been commanded, and that for times to come as well as for that night, the Jews had transgressed in sitting, and Christ would not have applied himself unto their custom.  
Next, 
Sitting suitable with the supper.  it appeareth that sitting was the ordinary gesture used at all religious feasts. The Gentiles no doubt borrowing their custom from the people of God, sat at their feasts made of the remainder of the sacrifices offered to their idols, Amos 2. 1 Corin. 8. 10. to profess their communion and society, with their idol, or fellowship with devils, as the Apostle calleth it, 1 Corin. 10. 20. The Ethnikes sat not at the altars of their Gods, but at tables in the idol chapel. Ethnicos insuis altaribus bibisse ne quidem fando auditum est, Alstedius in supplemento tom. 4. Paustrat●e cap. 10. The Lord instituting his supper to be the only religious feast to be used in the Christian Church, observed the same gesture, which was used at the paschal supper, and other religious feasts. So that the using of this gesture at the first supper, was as it were a ratification, that the common and ordinary gesture of religious feasts should not be altered at this feast. Further, seeing this supper was in form of a banquet, and represented another spiritual banquet, as sitting is the usual gesture at banquets or feasts, even when men are invited by kings, in token of that familiar society wherewith they are honoured, so it represents that which is answerable the familiarity of the soul with Christ at the spiritual banquet. Christ intended not only to represent unto us our spiritual nouritour, for than it had sufficed he had given the signs any way without a table, without dividing and distributing among themselves, without sitting, but in celebrating after this manner, 
Piscator in Matth. 26. 26.  in speciem convivii, as Piscator termeth it, he intended further than to represent spiritual nourishment, to wit society and fellowship with him, and that he was to sup and feast with us, as it is said, Revel. 3. 20. Coenam Domini esse convivium v●lepulum liquet exeo quod d●scipuli de pane illo ederunt, & de po●ulo illo biberunt acc●mbentes simul ad mensam, Piscator in Matth. 26. in observat in vers. 26. & seqq. Kneeling obscureth that familiarity and rejoicing, which the Lordwould have signified and sealed at that time. The Polonian Baron Johannes Alasco, maintaineth further, That our sitting eating and drinking at the communion table is a figure and representation of our sitting at the heavenly. 
In Matth. 26  Musculus saith, That this supper is a type of the supper to come. 
Aquin. par. quest. 60.  Aqu●nas saith, it is not only a sign commemorative of Christ's passion, which is past, and demonstrative of a present benefit, but also 〈◊〉 futurae gloriae; A foreshowing sign of our glory to come. Christ himself expresseth our peaceable fruition of the joys of heaven by sitting with Abraham, Is●ac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 8. 11. Alluding to feasts, where the feasters feasted at one table, sitting leaning on beds, as here at Christ's supper. In another place he bringeth in 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 sat at this table, john 16 And Christ himself while he was at table promised to his Apostles that they should eat and drink at his table in his kingdom, and sit upon twelve throns, Luke 22. 30. He hath slender affection to the glory of Christ, 
〈◊〉 form & maniere du ministre ecclsiastique. fol. 84.  or persuasion of his eternal felicity, that would abolish out of the kirk that image of our eternal felicity in the celestial glory to co ●e, which is so much recommended unto us by Christ himself our Lord, by the symbol of sitting at a banquet to the unspeakable comfort of all the faithful, saith Alasco.  
It followeth, that Christ precept Hoc facite, do this, comprehendeth sitting, 
Christ's precept, Do this.  as if Christ should have said, Celebrate this holy ordinance after the same manner as ye have now seen the pattern set before your eyes, that is as a feast or banquet with the forms ye have now seen, sitting, eating, drinking, distributing▪ etc. Time and place were not comprehended, because they were more circumstances or occasional. But gestures are mere then mere circumstances, as M. P. pag. 34. confesseth: and a a suitable gesture for a feast was chosen by Christ, whereunto he was not forced through necessity. john Alasco presseth this precept for sitting in special, both in the former work, and in book de ●acramentis. Hoc faci●e. Ad totam illam actionem hoc referendum est, 
De sacrament fol. 95.  ut qued tum Christus cum discipulis fecit, itidem nos in sacris coetibus factitemas, & quemadmodum discipul● in illa ipsa vespera dispositi ab ipso Christo hoc acceperunt sacramentum, ita & nunc d●sponam is, saith Marlorat. in. 1. Cor. 11.  
It appeareth thirdly by the practice of the Apostolical kirks, 
The Apostles continued sitting.  observing still this gesture, howbeit other circumstances of time and place and other things, which fell out occasionally at the first supper are not regarded. Their practice may be a commentary to the precept Do this, that we may take up what is comprehended under it. Howbeit Christ had not said Hoc facite, Do this, his example in setting down the pattern, and put in practice by the Apostles afterwards, is equivalent to a precept: Christi & Apostolorum exempla sunt n●strum exempla●●exemplar 
Amesius in Bellarm. enervato. tom. 3. p. 177.  autem rei faciendae probat rem esse praeceptam & necessariam. Christ himself after he was sitting at table in Em●us with the two disciples, Luke 24. 30. he took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave to them. This place is interpreted by sundry ancients and modern of the breaking of the sacramental bread, which may be granted without any vantage to the Papists for communicating in one kind, because the example is extraordinary: and by the Hebrew phrase of breaking of bread synecdochically may be meant the whole supper.  
M. P. thinketh likewise, 
pag. 86.  that it is like, this breaking of bread was sacramental: but, saith he, the sitting was only occasional. But there was no occasion to hinder him to use another gesture, when he come to that action. Ye see then in the judgemeut of all the interpreters, who expound this place of the sacrament of the supper, that Christ celebrate this sacrament, while he and his disciples were sitting, and used no other gesture, but that which they had used at their ordinary eating before.  
It is objected, 
The Corinthians sa●.  that the Apostle in the rehearsal of the words of the institution, 1 Cor. 11. maketh no mention of sitting. I answer, that the Apostle rehearseth not all that was requisite for the celebration of the supper. His chief purpose was to correct the abuse of the Corinthians, that is, their not staying upon other; For the Lord that night he was betrayed said to all his disciples convened together, 
1 Cor. 11. 19  Take ye, eat ye, drink ye all of this. Illa coena (Christi) omnes commun ver accumbentes habuit. That supper had all sitting in common together, saith chrysostom, rebuking such as neglected to communicate with the poor. 
In illud oportct haereses esse.  O●●umenius hath the like. This is not to eat the Lords supper, he meaneth that supper, wh●ch Christ delivered, when all his disciples were present. For in that supper the Lord and all his servants sat together. Hierom in 1 Cor. 11. The Lord's supper ought to be common to all, because he delivered the sacraments equally to all his disciples that were present. It was not the Corinthians fault that they sat ●t table, but that neither at their common meats, nor at the Lords table would they sit together, but sorted themselves in factions and companies, saith D. ●ilson in his book of obedience. 
Page 654. edit. in 40.  And again, Saint Paul, as Chrysistome thinketh, brought the table and supper, where the Lord himself was, and ●t which his disciples sat, for an example to show them, that that is rightly judged to be the Lords supper, [quae omn●bus simul convocatis concordi●er & commun●ter sumitur] which is received in common, 
Ibid.  and with one consent of all assembled together. The Apostle saith not, I deliver to you here all that I received of the Lord, but I have received of the Lord, that which I have delivered unto you.  
The Apostle presupposeth a lawful minister, a table, and sitting at the table, and rehearseth only Christ's actions, and his words uttered to communicants sitting at that table together, bidding them all eat, drink, etc. convened together. Not yet all his actions and 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. 
Decretal. l. 3. ●t. 41. cap. 6.  Ipsi et am Evangel stae mutuo inter se supplev●sse leguntur, quae ab e●rum aliquo vel aliquibus sunt om● ssa. The Evangelists themselses supply mutually, what is omitted by any of the rest, saith Innocentius 3 in the Decretals.  
There was but one action, saith Casaubon, which consisted of the holy and common banquet, 
Exercit. 16. pag. 511.  and from the nobler pa●t was called the supper of the lord Totam illam Corinth. orum actionem, quae sacro & communi convivio constabat, a potiori parte vocat coenam dominicam. The love-feast then and the Lords supper went together, the lovefeasts in these times preceding, 
Estius in 1. Cor. 11. 20.  and the Lords supper immediately following. For as Estius a professor in Douai reasoneth. It is likely that in imitation of Christ's example at the first supper, they celebrat after the love-feast. Next, they stayed not upon other at the commoun supper, which could not have been, if they had communicated together before, as the Greek fathers conceive, who are of the other opinion. Thirdly, the Apostle putteth them in mind of trial before, and good behaviour. If these abuses had fallen forth after, the Apostles exhortation had not been so pertinent. Fourthly, this opinion is confirmed by the custom, which was observed after in many Churches, even till Augustinus days. Will●ts in his synopsis. pag. 677. In the end of those feasts they used to receive the sacrament. 
●or. 11.  Cornelius a Lapide a Professor in Lovane affirmeth likewise, that the love-feast preceded the holy supper. Agape haec tempore Paule fiebat ante non post sacram synaxin. Druthmarus who wrote about the year 800. saith, that the Apostles celebrated after meat, as Christ did: Fe●●runt autem Apostoli multo tempore similiter post alium elbum dominicum fumentoes. D. Bilson saith likewise, by Saint Paul's words, it should appear, the communion was distributed to them after meals, 
Obek. pag. 653.  but (saith he) to us it is all one, whether before or after at their banquets and feasts it was ministered and even served at the●r t●bles, 
Pag  ●s Augustine noteth, epist. 118. And again, Because these brotherly repasts did either end or begin with the Lords supper, they could not divide themselves each from other, and disdain the poor at the●r common meat, but they must off●r the same abuse at the Lords supper, which was ministered to them as they sat at the●r tabl●s immediately before or af●er their usual and corporal refresh. 
M. P. pag. 86. and 94.  M. P. a la ●e champion for kneeling, thinking it likely that Christ ministered the sacrament at Emaus hath this observation. Hereupon I think together with the institution itself, after supper were grounded the lovefeasts, by continued occasion whereof, the disciples might possibly for a time use sitting in the very act of receiving. 
Second serm. pag. 61.  D. Downame Bishop of Derrie confesseth sitting to receive the sacrament to have been used in the Churches in the Apostles times.  
I pass by the names of Table, 
Other circumstances not continued.  and Supper, and breaking of bread, and the opposition made by the Apostle betwixt communicating at the Lords table, and sitting at the tables of Idols, which may import this gesture, because I will have occasion to treat of them in the second part. Only let it be observed that the occasional circumstances of the first supper were not followed as the gesture was, but upon special occasion. By the practice of the Apostles, we see the time was indifferent, Act. 2. and 20. 
Paraeus de symbolis & ritib. euchar. pag. 152.  Neque Apostoli ad tempus vespertixum sese adstrinxerunt, sedipro o● asione coenam administraru●t, alias d●urno tempore, 〈◊〉 legere est, Act. 2. 46. alias intempesta nocte ut, Act. 20. quo pacto satis ostenderunt tempus c●enae esse indi●●e●ens. As for the denomination of supper, it doth not import, that we should celebrat ever at night. It is true, in our language this word Supper signifieth only the evening meal, but the original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth indefinitely the repast that a man takes any time of the day. The proper Greek word for a supper is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I refer the Reader for further clearing of this point to C●saubon his exercitations. 
Exercit. pag. 511.  The like may be said of the number, the sex, the parlour, the manner of sitting, etc. They were not continued by the Apostolical Churches, as sitting was, which was also continued at some times, and in some places in the ages following.   

CHAP. III.  
That sitting in the act of receiving hath continued to our times.  
HOwbeit the supper of the Lord soon after the Apostles days began to be stained with some rust, 
Sitting continued in ages following.  as M. Calvine observeth, yet was this gesture of sitting continued at some times, 
Calvin. instit. l. 4. c. 17. s. 13.  namely upon the Thursday, which is now called Maundie thursday, the day of the Lords supper, because upon that day the Lords supper was f●rst celebrate, 
Mornaeus de missa lib. 1. c. 1. & 5.  and institute. Mornaeus reporteth that in the monasteries of S. Bennet, they have no other form of Mass for three days before Easter, but this following.  
The Abbot sanctifieth the bread and the wine, and the Monks do communicate sitting, receiving the elements out of the Abbot's hand, and this form is by them called Mandatum, the commandment. But Bullinger more plainly, that not only in the monasteries of the Benedictines, but also in the cathedral kirks upon this day the tables are set in order, they sit down, break bread, and reach the cup every one to other, every man following the footsteps of the ancient supper. Vnde nimirum ritus ille ad nos d●manavit, 
De origine error. pag 46  quo vel hodie incathedralibus ecclestis, & in Monasteriis Benedict ●orum ●n die coenae Domini ante parasceven, Coe●●a Do●i●● palam & splendidius celebratur. Nam Evangelium Iohannis à diacono publice praelegitun, & dulcissima c●llo ●uia Christ 〈◊〉 abiturus cum discipulis habuit, recita●●ur, interim or 〈◊〉 disposi is mensis convivae assident, panem azymum frangen es, & calioem invicem propinantes, & in to●um veteris coenae vestigium praeferentes. Now it was the custom of old, not only for the Monks, but also other Christians to communicate upon this day, except offenders, as appeareth evidently in Gratian'ss decree. And therefore the gloss both old and new upon that place, hath these words, 
Decreti part. 3. de consecrat. distat. ● cap. 17.  Sic olim, modo non sic est, sed Monachi faciunt, that is, It was so of old, that the faithful did communicate, but it is not so now, only the Monks do it. Augustine epist. 18. ad januarium reporteth, that in his time the custom was in many kirks to communicate after supper upon Thursday. And whereas there is sundry Canons for communicating fasting, yet that anniversary Thursday was excepted, as ye may see in Council. Carthag. 3. can. 31. Ne Sacramenta altaris, n●si a jejunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno die ann●versario, quo coena Domini celebratur.  
What the Monks of S. Bennets order retained, we may very well judge it to have been the ancient form of celebration upon that day. For no doubt in that other Christians celebrated after meat which they needed not, they neglected not sitting and distributing. The two thousand soldiers, who were reconciled to the Emperor Mauritius, about the year 590. by the travel of Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, received the Sacrament sitting upon the ground, 
Euagrius l. 6. cap. 13.  as Euagrius reporteth. Doctor Lindsay allegeth the like done to the Scottish army at Bannockburn, in the days of King Robert Bruce. 
L. his defence, pag. 53. 54.   
But beside this day, which was called Coena Domini, that all the faithful did communicate, we find that at other times also the people communicated in sundry places immediately after meat, as Socrates reporteth of the Egyptians, 
Hist. l. 5. c. 23  who dwelled near to Al●xandr●a, and the inhabitants of Thebais, Nam ubiepulati sunt, & vargis cibariis se satur●runt sub vesperam oblatione fact a mysteriis communicant, Ni●ephorus reporteth the same. 
Nicephor. l. 12. c. 34.  Balsamo upon the 90 〈◊〉 of Concilium Trullanum saith, the devoter sort upon Saturday at midnight fate in the kirk and communicate. Alexander de Holes in the second part of his tractat. concerning the Mass, sayeth, The Pope communicateth sitting in remembrance, that the Apostles at the last supper communicated sitting. Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa sed endo communicate, Potest dici quod hoc fit in recordation●m, quod ●eatus Petrus, & alii Apostoli, sedendo corpus Domini in coena ultima acceperunt.  
The Waldenses, who are justly called the pure seed of the ancient kirk, and have continued since the days of Pope Silvester, some think from the days of the Apostles, saith Rainerius the Inquisitor, and their enemy, celebrated the Communion sitting. Concerning the supper of the Lord their faith was, that it was ordained to be eaten, and not to be showed or worshipped, for a memorial, not for a sacrifice: 
First volume pag. 209. edit. 1610.  to serve for the present ministration, and not for reservation, to be received at table, and 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 by an old Chronicle called Chronica gestorum, saith Master Fox in his acts and monuments. His warrant I find in their apology against one Doctor Augustine, which is extant in Lydii Waldensia, Existo manifestum est, quod primitiva ecclesia hane fidem habuit, & illam, confessa est, & non fecit reverentiam hu●c sacramento, quia illo tempore exemplo Christi sedentes statim acceperunt & nihil retinuerunt, nec extra domum extulerunt, & haec institutio di●stetit, sicut Chronica gestorum estendunt. The like they have in the confession of their faith sent to Vladiflaus king of Hungary. Namque discipulis Christus discumbentibus dedie utendum.  
Luther expounding the epistle upon Saint Stephen's day, saith, Christ so instituted the sacrament, that in it we should sit at the sacrament. But all things are changed, and the idle ordinances of men, are come in place of divine ordinances. Zwinglius setting down the form of celebration used at Berne, 
Zwingl. expositio fidei Christianae edita Bu●ling. anno 1536.  Zurick, Basile, and other neighbour towns, saith, Sedentes & tacit auscultantes verbo Domini edimus & bibimus coenae sacramentum: Sitting and harkening with silence to the word of the Lord, we eat and drink the sacrament of the supper. Alas●o I have cited already. Not only the stranger's Churches at London in his time communicated sitting, but even to this day other Churches in the Low countries, etc. Other Churches as in Pole such as adheered to the confession of Hel●etia sat, as we may see in Confensus Poloniae. 
Standing not so convenient as sitting.   
Standing about the table may consist with the distribution of the elements by the communicants, but in regard by it is pretended more reverence, the gesture of sitting is indirectly taxed, and that pretended reverence taketh away that representation of familiar fellowship, whereof sitting is a more lively representation, seeing standing is not the usual and ordinary gesture at civil feasts. Communicating in passing by doth not only indirectly take sitting, but taketh away the foresaid distribution, Of which more afterward.    

THE SECOND PART.  
Concerning the unlawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving, etc.  

CHAP. I.  
Kneeling in the act, etc. not warranted by the example of Christ and his Apostles.  
WE should (as we said before) take us in all doubts to the surest way. 
Kneeling not warranted by the example of Christ.  Our warrant for sitting can not be doubted of. We have the example of Christ and his Apostles, and the practice of the apostolical Church for warrant to sit, but not to kneel. When Christ himself ministered and was present, the Apostles kneeled not. Though the Apostles did not always worship Christ while he was present, especially being occupied in cruel and common acts, yet upon extraordinary occasions they and others worshipped him, Matth. 8. 2. and 9 18. and 14. 33. and 20. 20. Luke 5. 8. joh. 9 38. Nor yet directed any outward adoration to God the Father. Though they were sitting at supper, yet they m●gh●s●on have changed their gesture, especially seeing the legal supper was finished, and Christ's Supper began, saith W●ll●ts, pag. 648. 
Instit. lib. 4. c. 37. sect. 33.  They who receive, as is commanded, without adoration, are secure that they depart not from God's commandment, than the which securit●e there can be nothing be●ter, when we intrepris● any thing. Th●y have the example of the Apostles, whom we read not to have adored prostrate, but as they were sitting they receav●d, a●d did eat. They have the practice of the Apostolic Churches, where it is declared, that the Faithful did communicate, not in adoration, but in breaking of bread, saith Calvine.  
Beza in his disput against jodocus Harchius saith, So l●ke, as when the Lord truly to be adored as God and man, 
Beza centra Harch. vol. 3. pag. 182.  at table did institute this holy supper, that the Disciples arose to the end, that falling upon their knees, they might receav● that bread and wine out of his hand. And so like as the Apostles were ignorant how to deliver to the Churches the mann●r how to celebrate these holy mysteries. It is known well enough, that the Love feasts could hardly, or sca●ce a●●ll admit geniculation. Agapa● quidem certe constat 〈…〉 quidem geniculationem admississe. 
Hist. sacrament. lib. 4. pag. 182.  Hospi●nsa 〈…〉 The Waldenses in the apology above 〈…〉 hujus testimonio est, quod Dominus noster Iesu● C●ristus sedentibus didst, & successores longo tempore per domos fregerunt panem, & acceperunt cibum cum benedictione, & non fecerunt reverentiam.   

CHAP. II.  
Kneeling in the act of receiving is not suitable with the form of a banquet, or use of a suppertable.  
THis holy action is denominate the Lords table, 
Kneeling not suitable to the Suppertable.  and the Lords supper, from the use of the one, and forms of the other. Wonderful is the subtility of our Doctor, 
L. pag. 51.  who answereth, that the sustaining of meat set on the table is the only use of a table, but of beds and furmes to sit upon. We say, this also is the use of a table, that the guests, or persons invited may sit at and about it, and partake of the meat set upon the table. Otherwise, if there be no use of a table but to set meat upon it, a dressour or a cupboard may be called a table. Whereas they say, the altar is called the table of the Lord Malach. 1. and yet none did sit at it. True and so do the Papists also call the lid of their altar a table. But it is plain we speak of a supper or feasting table.  
The Altar is called the Lords table, because the Lord's meat, (Levit. 22. 25.) that which was burnt with fire in oblation to GOD, was consumed on it. But the Lord's supper is called the Lords table, because our Lord and Saviour appointed it for his guests, whom he inviteth to it. So the table of the show bread might be called the Lords table, but not in our sense, not a supper or feast table, and therefore impertinently alleged by L. pag. 54. Kneeling is a gesture more agreeable to the Popish altar, where the Priests beside communicated kneeling, then with a feast table wherewith it agreeth not at all. We have put down altars, saith Alasco, and use a table, because it agreeth better with a supper, and the Apostle hath given the title of a table to denominate the Lords supper. And again, The terms Supper, and Table of the Lord, ver●e familiar with the Apostle Paul, seem to require sitting rather then standing, kneeling, or passing by.  
Where the Apostle saith, 
L. pag. 43. 44.  Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils: Our Doctor saith, there is no material and artificial table to be understood, but things offered to Idols in the one speech, and Christ's body and blood in the other. But both are to be understood: for meat offered to Idols can not be called the table of devils, unless there had been a material table, upon which the meat was set. The Apostle telleth us, that they sat at these tables in the Idols chapels, 1 Cor. 8. 10. The Idolaters had a table, whereon they eated the remainder of the sacrifice, which was offered upon the Altar, as the jews had, Habebant judiei primum altaria ubi sacrificabant, deinde mensa●, quas instr●ebant reliquiis ob●●i jam sacrificis, atque in illis mensis epulabantur, saith Zanchius, 
Tilen. synt. de sacrif. missae sect. 32. Wille●s synops pag. 478 edit. 1614  tom. 4. col. 466. See Tilenus, willet's, and Cornelius à ●ap●de, a Popish writer upon 1 Cor. 10. 21. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. So the by table of the Lord must likewise be understood, not the bare elements, or as the Doctor speaketh, the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, but with all a material table. And Beza out of the same verse, 1 Cor. 10. 21. inferreth, that in the primitive Church they had material tables, and not altars. willet's inferreth the like in his Synopsis. 
pag. 681.  The Lord's supper then is called the Lords table, by a trope called Metonymia subjecti, because the elements were set on the table, when Christ said, This cup (meaning the wine which was in the cup) Is the new testament in my blood, the metonymical speech importeth necessarily, that he had a material cup in his hand, when he uttered these words. But saith the Doctor it was possible for a man to sit at both the material tables. It is true, if ye look to ability and not to right or warrant, Ad possibilitatem facti non juris. Apostolis demonstrat. Corinthios bona conscientia non posse esse participes conviviorum idolatricorum, quip qui participes esse soleant coenae Domini, A●stedius in supplement. pag. 45.  
We require not of necessity an artificial table of timber consecrated, and set apart for that use only. A bull hide 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, whither it be long or round. We look to the use more than to the matter o● fashion, and require, that the Communicants always sit tablewise, that they may observe the form of a feast.  
The Ethnics of old thought the Gods were present, when they feasted at their ta●les.  
Ante foces ●lim longis consider mensis  
M●s erat & mensae credere ad●sse deus. 
Ovid. Fast. 5   
The Poets bring in sometime their Gods feasting 〈◊〉 their tables. The Jews say, That when some alter●a●●●n arose in the house of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, the servant incontinent spread the table, and the alteration ceased. There is a noble saying of Bensyra, Mensa parata sive posita contentio tollitur. Men●am & salem non transgredi, was an old proverbial speech importing, that the table, was, and should be a band of fellowship.  
The other denomination importeth, 
The Communion celebrate in form of a feast.  that this holy action was celebrat, as a supper or in form of a feast or 〈◊〉. Piscator saith, That the holy supper was so institued, and at the first time so celebrated by our Lord and his disciples, 
Piscator in Matth. 26. in observationi●bus in versu 26. & seqq.  while they sat together at table, that it had the ●●ew or resemblance of a banquet, Ita ut haec actio habuerit 〈◊〉 convivit, imò fuerit convivium, sed sacrum, & 〈◊〉 divin● ca●se, & ad piorum c●nsolationem institu●●m. Plessie saith likewise, 
Mornaeus de eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 7.  That of old, and not at the 〈◊〉 only, this sacred supper was celebrated in the for●e of a banquet. 〈◊〉 sacrum coenam o●im c●nvivii instar, in quo discumbeba●ur, celebratam, cujus etiamnum 〈…〉 norum mandato vestigium. The Waldenses 〈…〉 the supper in form of a banquet, saith their ene●● Hayneri●s. Now the form of a feast or banquet 〈…〉 not kneeling. None entertaineth men after that 〈…〉 Alasco, 
Forma min●●ster. ecclesia●ster.  that they who are invited to a banquet 〈…〉 standing, walking, or kneeling, but they will the 〈…〉 at table, that all may eat together with repose of 〈◊〉 ●nd mind. They use to cause servants stand, or walk ●●●hout the table, not these who are invited. Kneeling is not a gesture which hath been used at feasts or banquets, but ra●her a gesture of supplicants. Plessie, ye see, saith, Conviv●i instar in quo discumbebatur.  
They say, It may be called a supper in respect of the thing signified, whereof the souls of the faithful are partakers. This is just the Jesuits answer, for the bread without the cup; But is not the spiritual supper represented by the external resemblance of a supper. Sacramentu● hoc nego dici convivium ratione rei ipsius significatae, sed ratione significationis sumptae a rebus visbiilibus, saith Cham●er de eucharist. lib. 8. cap. 6. num. 26. It may be called a supper rightly, howbeit it resemble not a supper in all things. Neither do we require all the forms used at common feasts, but these which Christ the institutor and master of the feast thought sufficient. And this is likewise an answer to that which they allege for other religious feasts, that they kneeled not at the eating of the passover, because it was coena recta a full meal, and endured a good space, but the action of the communicant is soon dispatched. For it is not the length or shortness of time, that we consider so much as the form of a feast, whereunto the gesture of kneeling is not suitable. The same forms, which were used at the close of the paschal supper, were used at this, with a little change. Further, they kneeled not at any part of the paschal supper, no not when the cup of praise was reached from hand to hand, which was done in a very short time, or when the bread was eaten in the quantity of an olive, and less than an egg.  
We desire this to be observed throughout all this dispute, that if we will speak not in the terms invented by men, 
Observation upon the form of speech.  as to receive or give the sacrament or eucharist, but in scripture language, as to celebrate the Lords supper, to partake of the Lords table, to come together to break bread, Act. 2. 46. Act. 20. 7. the weakness of all arguments for kneeling will appear more clearly, and on the other side, the pith of our arguments for a table gesture, namely sitting.  
The ancient Doctors, 
On the Lord's supper, part. 1. pag. 8.  saith Moulins, had done better, if they had held themselves to the terms expressed in God● word: for they had not by this means (though besides their meaning) opened the door to this a buse, giving example to others which came after them, to invent other new names less proper, and to pluck away from this sacrament the inscrtption, which served to show the nature thereof, for the small●st faults can Satan manage with dexterity, and by the least sparks in a small time kindle a great fire. But, saith he, the manner of speech usual among the Apostles, to wit, to come together to break bread, is become foolish and vain in this age.  
It were harsh language to use these phrases; They broke bread together kneeling, they compassed the table of the Lord kneeling, they celebrate the supper of the Lard kneeling. To shu●t this harshness, the common phrases are, to receive the sacrament, or eucharist, or sacramental elements kneeling.   

CHAP. III.  
The distribution of the elements by the Communicants among themselves excludeth kneeling in the act of receiving.  
TO kneel for adoration, 
The distribution by the Communicants excludeth kneeling.  and to break and distribute the bread, and reach the cup from hand to hand, are not compatible. Nor was it ever heard that the like was practised in any part of the world, but where Doctor Lindsey hath been, that is, at Dundy, as appeareth, pag. 63. But what is absurd or gross in that man's eyes? Can the Communicant be both adoring God upon his knees, and at that very instant be reaching the elements to his brother likewise kneeling and adoring. Ye have heard out of Culvine before, that the faithful in the Apostolical Churches did not communicate with adoration, but breaking of bread, as if adoration and breaking of bread could not consist together. We shall have occasion again to treat more of confusion of actions, or different acts and parts of God's worship.  
Christ reaching the cup to his disciples, 
Christ commanded them to divide the cup.  commanded them to divide it among them, Luk. 22. 17. This cup is the evangelical cup, or which is all one, the last paschal cup changed into the evangelical. Luke applieth Christ's protestation, that he would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, etc. to the cup, which he commanded them to divide among themselves. But that protestation is applied to the communion cup by Matthew and Mark, who make mention only of the cup of the Lords supper, in the verses immediately preceding. If it had not been the communion cup, how could Christ protest, that he would drink no more of the fruit of the vine in this life, if he was to drink incontinent after of the communion cup, as they oppose the paschal cup to the evangelical. Cyprian by this protestation proveth that vine was in the cup, 
Hierom. epist. ad Hedibiam.  Epist. 63. ad Coecilium. Hierom saith, Christ was both Conv●va & convivium, the fellow-feaster, and the feast itself; commedens, & qui comedi ur, one who did eat, and was eaten. The old hymn beareth the same, Se nascens dedit socium, 
Clemens Alexan. in p●edagog. ●. c. 2.  convescens in edulium. See another hymn to the same purpose cited before. Clemens Alexandrinus disputing against the Euc●atits, who abhorred wine, proveth, that Christ himself drank wine, by this, that he drank of this cup. When the Schoolmen would prove, that wine was one of the elements at the evangelical supper, they cannot find a 〈…〉 all the Evangelists, but in this protestation. I think there is no man will deny that wine was in the cup, 
Muscul. de coena Domitum.  saith Museulus, seeing the Lord said, Matth. 26. Luk. 22. That he would drink no more of the fruit of the w●ne. Fulk 〈◊〉, The demonstrative pronoun This, Mat●h. 26. 29. declareth that he spoke of the wine in his hand, tha● is, of the communion cup. Dominus etiam in●nducavit, utest communis sententia, saith Bellarmine de euchar. ●t. lib. 4. cap. 16. Further Christ in his protestation alludeth to the Canon or custom of the Jews. forbidding to taste of any thing after the last cup, which was called the cup of praise. 
Annot. in Marc. 14. 25.  Alludit ad morem quo nefas crat post poculum illud apolyticon quicquam cibi in posterum diem 〈◊〉, saith Beza. 
Meuschii defence. harm. generalis cap. 4.  Theobaldus Meuschius proveth likewise by this custom of the Jews, that this protestation concerned the communion cup. To imagine that Christ protested twice, and that he bade divide the one, and not the other, is a fiction without any ground in the text. For none of the Evangelists make mention of two protestations, or to what end two, seeing the last paschal cup and the evangelical was all one, the one being changed in the other. Or to what end should he have bidden them divide the paschal cup more than the evangelical. And if there were two protestations for two several cups, the later should have crossed the former. Vasquez proveth by this protestation, that Luke meant only of one cup, howbeit he maketh mention of it twice, that it was in the communion cup, that the protestation containeth the cause, wherefore he willed them to drink of it, and divide it among them, because now at his last farewell, 
In 3. part. tom. 3. quast. 78. num. 41.  he would testify his love to them, and join them in mutual love to other. Ipsos inter●e mut●a charitate conjungeret, dum ex eodem calica eis propinaret. Another reason, that the cup, which Christ commanded them to divide, was the communion cup, is, that he gave thanks; when he took it in his hand. Matthew and Mark refer the thanksgiving to the communion cup. Luke therefore, maketh no mention of this thanksgiving, when he maketh mention of the cup the second time, because he had made mention of it before; But useth an article referring to that cup, of which he had made mention before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Euthymius hath observed. Luke then by way of anticipation, before he come to the order of the institution, 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 former verse. Therefore when he cometh to the order of the institution, vers. 20. he omitteth the protestation and thanksgiving, which are recorded by other Evangelists, because he made mention of them before, vers. 17. and 18. This anticipation or inversion of order in the Evangelist Luke, was observed by Augustine and Euthymius, Barradius the Jesuit, Jansenius, and Swarez. 
Swarez. in 3. part. tom. 3. p. 909.  Meuschius observeth other inversions in the same chapter. For Judas went out immediately after he got the sop, and consequently before the evangelical supper. And yet Luke maketh mention of his going out after he hath set down the evangelical supper. Beza conjectureth, that through the negligence, and caresesnesse of writers of manuscripts, the verses have been transposed, and not by the Evangelist himself, and that the 19 and 20. verses should be subjoined to the 16, and that the 17. and 18. verses should be subjoined to the 19 and 20. Me●schius saith, It is likely, yea, almost necessary to think, that the 17. and 18. verses were taken out of the institution of the supper which followeth, and placed here by the negligence of Scribes. Verisimile igiturest & prope necessarium hos versiculos ex sacrae coenae inst. tutione huc esse à scribis trajectos. I might, if it were needful, cite more testimonies, that the protestation concerned the communion cup, and consequently that Christ bade them divide it, but the reasons I have brought are of themselves snfficient to evince it. 
L. 62.  And L. doth not gansay it.  
But yet, saith he, Christ's meaning was not, that they should reach the cup to other, but that one should not drink all out. This silly shift he hath borrowed from Bellarmine de eu●haristia lib. 4. cap. 25. B●canus de 〈◊〉 sub utraque specie. c. 10. hath the same. Will he have the first set down the cup that the next may take it. But this is ridiculous or superstitious, not accipere, but sumere. Nor yet gave he to every one the cup out of his hand, which had been sufficient for parting of it, if no further had been intended, but only to the first, the first reached it to the second, 
Hospin. hist. sacra. l. 1. c. 1. & lib. 2. c. 1. p. 31.  and so forth, saith Hospinian. So saith Piscator on Matthew 26. So saith Swarez the Jesuit, speaking of the cup, Fuit per 〈◊〉 as Ap●stolorum manus ab uno ad al●um delatus. 
Swarez in 3. part. Thomae tom. 3. p. 861. Bellarm. de euchar. l. 4. cap. 25. Piscator in Matth. 26. v. 26. in schoilis.  And so saith Bellarmine, Calicem autem n●n fregit, nec d●v●sit ipse discumbentibus, sed dedit integrum ● unus alteri porrigeret. The last paschal cup itself; which was changed into the evangelical, was reached from hand to hand. Christ then divided it not, but bade them divide it among themselves, as the manner was at the paschal, and is usual at common feasts. To drink of one cup, representeth fellowship in one common benefit, but not that communieation of mutual love and amity, which is represented by reaching the same cup to other. The guests at civil banquets of old, entertaining others courteously, 
Antiquita●um convivialium lib. 3. cap. 10.  reached a cup of wi●e to others, which cap they called philotefia, metonymically, because it was a symbol of love or friendship, which name any man may justly impose upon the cup of the haul. supper of the Lord, saith Stu●kius. In iis eaim, amicitiae ergo humanite●se mut●● accipi●n●es, vini calicem sibi invicem porrigeb●●●, quem philo●esiam appella●an, metonym ce nimirum, quia symbolum erat amoris & amicitiae, quo nom ne ver●ssi● me quis illud sacrosancti Dom●ni coenae poculum insigni●rit. One of our Doctors saith, That they had in the primitive Church other tokens of love and friendship, as lovefeasts, and the kiss of peace, but one token should not justle out another. Beside that, both are worn out of use, and the kiss is turned into the kiss of the pax. So much the rather should that sign and token which was recommended by Christ himself, be preserved.  
If there were no more, 
They distributed not only the cup, but the bread.  but reaching of the cup from one to another, and deviding of it, it were sufficient to exclude kneeling, howbeit the communicants did not break and distribute the bread to other. For what reason were there 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 walking along to give to every one the bread. Is the bread holier than the wine? Analogy requireth, that the bread should be distributed by the Communicants, as well as the wine. When the Evangelists say, Christ gave the bread, they meant not to every one severally, more than when he gave the cup, or the disciples the bread to five thousand, Matth. 14. 19 for Mark 6. 4. they set the bread before five thousand. Pilat gave the body of Christ, that is commanded it to be given, Mark. 15. 45. Matth. 27. 17. Christ said in the plural number, Take ye, cadye, this is my body, as well as he said, 
Piscat. in Matth. 26.  〈◊〉 divide ye. It is probable (saith Piscator) that 〈◊〉 broke the bread in two parts, and gave one of them, ●o him that sate● arrest on the right hand, the other, to him that sat on the left, and that they reached in order to the near●st. Tossanus upon Matth. 26. saith the like, and Hospinian, and Estius a popish writer. Sit autem & Chr●sti discipulos in ul●ima coena fe●●sse nonest improbabile, ut quibus Chr●stus d●●erit, accipite & dividite inter v●s, Luc. 22. qu●d et side caliced●ctum sit, nihil tamen vetat d●pine similiter intell gi● Beza saith, 
Hosp. hist. facr●m. lib. 2. p. 31.  That the manner of their sitting could not permit Christ to give every one severally the Bread, 
Estius in 1 Cor. 10. 16 Beza epist. 2.  but as he gave the cup to the nearest, and the nixt reached to the nearest, so it is probable that those, who sat most remote, received the bread from the nearest. Moulins maintaineth, 
On the Lord's supper, 2. part pag. 97.  That Christ might with as good reason have said, Eat ye all of this, as drenke ye all of this; his reason is, Considering that being set at table among 〈◊〉 persons, he could not deliver the bread into every one of the disciples hands: especially considering that the parties, lying half a long upon beds at the table, took up more room than they do now adays. The Canon of the Mass hath, Drink ye all of this, 
Bellarm. de euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25.  Mand●cate ex eo omnis, which Bellarmine alle●geth, they have received by tradition from the Apostles. But to us there is the like force in the words, Eat ye, and Eat ye all of this; for speaking in the plural number, he spoke to all.  
The Apostolical Churches, 
The Apostles continued this distribution.  and such as in the ages following celebrated, as near as they could, to the ●●terne, continued this distribution. P. acknowledgeth page 92. 101. 104. that the Communicants at the first supper did communicate the bread and cup one with another, as also in the Apossles times, pag. 95. Of the Monks of Saint Bennets orders ye may see before, and that was a footstep of the order observed universally before upon the anniversary day, called the day of the Lords supper. 
Raynerius in summa.  Friar Raynerius saith, The Leonists, for so he calleth the W●ald●rses, celebrate the sacrament of the ●uchar●st in their conventicles (so it pleased the Friar to call the assembly of the persecuted) rehearsing the words of the Gospel at their table, and participating mutually as was done at Christ's supper; In conventiculis suis celebrant, verba illa evangeliis rec● an●es in mensasua, sibique mutuo participantes, sicut in Christi coena. Bull●nger saith, That the supper of the Lord is then rightly celebrated, when the communicants distribute the bread and the cup among themselves. 
Bulling decad. 6. serm. 9 fol. 364.  Idcirco legittime coenam Domini celebrantes, mu●●ò inter se panem Demin de manibus ministrorum Christi acceptum fran unt, distribu 〈◊〉 & manducant, poculum insuper Domini de manibus m●nistrorium Christi acceptum, inter sedistributam omnes pota●. 
fol. 364.  And again, Primogen●● simply tati & institutioni magis conven●t, & sedere & sacrament aln manus proper as accipere de man bus praesidentium, deinde verò frangere, percipere & alliis impertir. Vt en●m Dominus ad mensam cum discipulis accubui●, ita dixit porrectis symbolis, 
fol. 360.  〈◊〉 pite, dividite inter vos And again, Acconstat veteres non exhibuisse ca nantibus buccellas, sed mutuum fr gisse panem. It is well known (saith he) that the an●ien's gave no to the Communicants at the suppermorsels, but they broke bread one with another. 
Hom. 118.  Gualther in his homilies upon Mark setting down the best form of celebration, requireth that they break the bread to other, and distribute the cup, deinde cum solenni gratiarum actione panem inter se mutuò frangant, & poculum Demian distribute 〈◊〉 que in coetum illum convenorunt. And when he 〈◊〉, he saith, Est hic ritus simplicissimu●, & Christi 〈◊〉 nititur, quae sola nebis in omnibus sufficere debe●, This is the most simple for me, and is grounded upon Christ's 〈◊〉 which alone should be sufficient to us in all things. tindal in his tractat upon the Lord's supper pag. 477. requireth, that every man break, and reach forth to his neighbour. In the later confession of Holvetia, which was approved by many reformed Churches, and by our own, anno 1566. The bread is offered by the Minister, and the words of the Lord are heard, Receive it, this is my body, divide it amongst you, Drink ye all of this, This is my blood.  
The Lord's supper was denominate breaking of bread from that rite, or ceremony of breaking of the bread by the faithful: It is said, Act. 2. 42. that the Christians continued in breaking of bread. This place is interpreted of the sacrament breaking, not only by ancient, but also modern writers, both popish and Protestant, as also Act. 20. And the Syrian interpreter translateth it eucharist in both the places. But the breaking of the bread in both the places is attributed not to the Ministers or Pastors only, but to the people also, and is made common to the whole meeting. In the one place ●●is said, they continued in breaking of bread: and in the other place yet more clearly, the Disciples conveened to break bread, which is clearer than if Luke had said, 
Bellar. de eu. charist. lib. 4. cap. 24.  they conveened to the breaking of bread. Bellarmine saith, that Luke descriveth what the people did, not what the Apostles did. He might have said, both the Apostles, and the people.  
Estius a popish professor in ●●way acknowledgeth the same, 
Estius in 1 Cor. 10. 16.  and sayeth, Fiebat autem ●ujus panis fractio Tempore primitive Ecclesiae, primum quidem 〈◊〉 sbyter is & diaconis, deinde verò magisque particulatim à singulis fidelibus, quibus eucharstia, dabatur in manus ut ea n●, si porro ●nter se vel domi inter fuos distribuerent. In the primitive church (saith he) they had the breaking of bread which was first done by the presbyters and deacons, and after them in smaller pieces by the faithful to whom it was given, that they might distribute the same among themselves, or at home among their own. For Luke meaneth so much, when he attributeth this breaking to the faithful in general, Act. 2. For their distributing in the convention he allegeth Act. 20. For distributing at home, he allegeth Act. 2. 46. whereas the meaning is, that the faithful convened sometime in one house, sometime in another, for fear of persecution, or not having yet appointed, and certain places for meeting. The Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 16. sayeth, 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. For the breaking alone by the Minister is not the communion of the body of Christ, P●nis quem frangimus (1 Cor. 10.) idem est, atque inter nos dividimus: The bread which we break, that is, the bread which we divide amongst us, 
R. Stephan. glossa in Mat. 26.  saith Robertus Stephanus. Whereas the Apostle saith, the cup which we bless, the words may be spoken generally in the persons of all the faithful, who are present. Qui quidem omnes ●alici benedicunt, eo modo & sensu, quo omnes ibidem praesentes dicuntur unà cum sacerdote offer, 
Estius in 1 Cor. 10. 16.  videlicet animi consensu & devotioone, saith Estius. The Minister blesseth in name of the rest as their mouth: so the blessing may be attributed to the people likewise. The Apostle rehearsing the words of the institution, said 〈…〉 but in the plural number, 
Durand. Rationa●●●. c. 1.  Tak● ye●, eat ye. 〈◊〉 saith, that the Apostles celebrated as Christ did, e●ndem 〈…〉 teriam in rebus, & formam in verbis. It appeareth not then, that the Apostles gave to every one severally, saying to each one, Take thou, eat thou: but that speaking in the plural number to all at once, the Communicants brack and distributed among themselves. Now that rite from which the Apostolical Church denominate the whole action is sacramental and necessary, saith Paraeus in 1 Cor. 11.  
When the holy supper is called breaking of bread, it is not to be imagined, that there was only communicating in bread, but the whole is denominated from a part according to a custom of speech usual among the Jews, who used the phrase of breaking of bread to express their full meals, or common civil feasts, as jerem. 1●. 7. As the Grecians on the contrary, took the denomination sometime from the drinking, and called their feast symposium a drinking together. Yea, one of the names, which of old was given to this holy feast, was synaxis. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Casaub. oxercit. pag. 537.  saith H●sychius, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to drink with other.  
The breaking of the bread served for two uses: 
Breaking of bread for representation.  First, for representation of Christ's sufferings. If their pouring of the wine out of the cup into the mouth be a mystical representation of the effusion of his blood, their breaking may have the like use. We can well allow of a mystical shedding of Christ's blood in the supper, 
Against the Rhen●ists, or Mat. 26. 28.  faith Master Cartwright, for when the wine is poured out of the cup into the mouth, thereby mystically and sacramentally, is shed the blood of Christ out of his blessed body into the earth, that is the shedding of it is 〈◊〉. So saith Prosper in his book of sentences, Dum sangu●● 〈◊〉 sidelium sunditur, sanguinu de latere effusio defignatur Lanfranous, 
Lanfranc. de euchar. Alger. de sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 8. Chamierde cucharl. 7. c. 13. num. 14. Bullinger Decad. 5. serm. 7.  and A●gerus say the like. Solenne 〈◊〉 est cum frangitur panis, 〈◊〉 calix in●● fidelium funditu, tunc significari sacrificium illud quod in cruse immolatun est, saith Chamierus. The Communicants taking, eating, drinking, are mystical, why may not also his breaking of the bread. Bullinger saith, Ac nos ipsi quidem panem Domini proprits frangi●us manibus. Nos enim ipsi in culpa sumus quod ille ait●itus. That is, We break the bread of the Lord with our own hands: for we ourselves are to be blamed, that he was bruifed. Our sins wounded him, we crucified him. We reach not only the bread and cup to other, but partake ourselves. For we believe not only that he suffered for others, but in special for ourselves. 
Gualt. Homil. 295. in Matth.  Gualther in his Homilies upon Matth. Vt vero Christus panem accepit, & fregit, postquam gratias egisset, ita eundem discipulos quoque accipere & frangere voluit, ut ita singuli admonerentur hunc ad se privatim pertinere, se item necis illius authores esse, ad hac debitores omnibus ut eos in Christi, atque salutis que in eo habetur, societatem adducant. That is, As Christ had taken the bread, and after thanksgiving brack, so he would have his disciples to do the like, that thereby every one might be admonished, that he belongeth to every one of them particularly, that they were the authors of his death, that they are debtors to all, to bring them to the fellowship of Christ and the salvation which is to be found in him. And in his 118. homil. upon Mark, he saith, Fractio panis Christi passionem & mortem representat, & dum singuli panem ipsi frangunt, se ex corum numero esse fatentur, qui Christo mortis authores fuerunt, id quod peccatorum 〈…〉 servit, & animum ad punitentiam extimulat.  
The other use is for distribution, 
Breaking of bread for distribution.  and reaching to other, to testify mutual love and amity, which duty is expressed in a more lively manner, then if they should drink only of one cup together. Therefore L. his reason page 60. that it appertaineth only to the minister, be, cause it is mystical, is naught, for it serveth both for representation and distribution. Fractio non solum ad distribuendum, sedetiam ad significandum ordinatur, Bellarmine de missa, lib. 2. cap. 10. For the representation ye have heard already sundry Divines. If two should drink out of one cup, and yet not reach it to other, it might well be thought, there were no great kindness betwixt them, Communion in one common benefit is one thing, and the communication of mutual duties and tokens of love and friendship another. It is one thing to the guests to participate of the same dainties, which are to be united to their bodies, another to interchange and communicate with other tokens of love. Justly may the communion cup for this cause be called Philotesia, saith Stuckius. To divide the bread also, 
Se●rariu● in josuam 6. 9 quest 6.  and to eat together in token of love and been volence, was a custom observed in all the oriental countries, and is yet observed in ma●y countries of the west, say Lyra and Arias Montanas, as Serrarius the Jesuit relateth. 
Bulling 〈◊〉 decad. 5. serm. 7.  Facit ad amicitiam conciliandam, reparandam, & conservandam, quòd de uno pane participamus, quòd panem offerimus fratribus, quodque de manu fratrum poculum accipientes bibimus. Non enim aliam ob causam videntur veteres coenam appellasse synaxin, saith Bullinger. That is, It serveth for the procuring, repairing, and keeping of friendship, that we participate of one bread, that we offer bread to our brethren, and that we drink taking the cup out of the hands of our brethren. It seemeth for no other cause the ancients called the Lords supper Synaxis. And in the 9 sermon of the same decade, Quondam arctissima faed ra fractione panis consecrabantur. Of old, Leagues or covenants were confirmed by breaking of bread. 
Hom. 118. in Marc.  Gualther saith, Panem & peculum pii inter se distribuunt, quod illis charitatis officium commendat, & de conjunctione mutua eos admonet, ut se unum in Christo corpus esse intelligant, & sibi invicem officiis mutuis inserviant, quemadmodum in corporibus nostris membra facere videmus. The godly distribute the bread and wine among themselves, which recommendeth to them the duty of charity, and putteth them in mind of mutual conjunction, that they may understand that they are one body in Christ, and serve one another with mutual duties, as we see the members to do in our own bodies. Zwinglius in his exposition of the Christian faith, 
Expos. fidei Christian. ad Reg. Christian in 80. fol. 40.  setteth down a notable proof of this. How that some sitting together casually, and participating after this manner, were reconciled, who before had been at variance, and that this fell forth often. Deprehensum est saepenumerò, quòd quidam, qui tem●re consederant, quì tamen simultates & odiapriùs inter se exercuissent, ex hac participatione sive panis, sive potus, animi impotentiam deposuerunt. The ancients had the kiss, which was a familiar kind of salutation among the Orientals, as the striking of hands with us, they joined hands also, and embraced another at the communion. Seeing so many signs, and protestations of love were thought requisite at this banquet of love, ought we not to be the more careful to retain that sign, which was practised in the pattern.  
I end this section with a passage out of Lavaterus, descriving the form of celebration used in the Church of Zurich, to wit, with sitting, and the communicants distributing: posthac per totam ecclesiam ministri, 
De ri●ibus ecclesiae Tigurinae c. 13.  that is, those that serve, as mumpanem in ●●tinis circumserunt, at accipit quisque particulam de exhibito pane, & posteà reliquam partem dat proxime assidenti: Deinde sequuntur alii ministri cum poculis & cantharis, ac praebet alius alii poculum Dominicum, atque sit omnes de uxo pane participant.  
If none must give the sacramental bread, 
Not necessary that the minister dispense the elements.  but the minister, because he acts 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 communicate not as pastors, but as disciples, as guests, as faithful, as all our divines do hold, and among the rest Musculus himself cited by L. pag. 59 All that was done in prison, Joseph was the doer of it, because he was direct our, and commander of every thing that was to be done, Gen. 39 22. ●. confesseth the cup may be reached from one communicant to another. 
Proceedings at Perth asscmbly, pag. 60. 61.  For (saith he) he in whose name the commandment is uttered, is properly the giver and propiner, because by his authority it is given, and by the warrant of his word it is ceaved. When the King drinketh to any of his servants, 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. He granteth likewise, that the Communicants may deliver the cup to other, the minister still acting Christ's person in his own place. pag. 61. 62. So may we say, that Christ at the first supper, or the minister representing Christ's person, is properly the giver of the bread, because by his commandment or direction it is given. When I broke the five loaves among five thousand, that is, brake and gave to the disciples to set before them to be further broken. The disciples in setting the bread before five thousand, Mark 6. 41. gave the bread to five thousand, Matth. 14. 19 Christ gave the cup to his Apostles, say the Evangelists, because at his direction they reached one to another. Swarez saith, 
Swarez in ●. part. tom. 3. p. 861.  It is one thing to distribute as a dispenser, or as of power, another to touch, carry, or apply this sacrament to the mouth of the receiver. Aliud est dispensative, seu ex potestate distribuere hoc sacramentum, aliud verò illud tangore, defer, aut ad os sumentis applicare. Let them make of the word dispense what they will, we say the Communicant may carry the bread, and apply it to the hand of another Communicant. Again, if none but the minister might do it, because he represents Christ's person, then might not the deacon in the ancient Church do it, because he represented not Christ's person, yet his giving was called dispensing. 
Vazquez in part. 3. tom. 3. disp. 219. num. 12. & 13.  Vazquez confesseth, That it is not forbidden by divine law, that the sacrament be ministered, or carried by a layman, but by humane laws. Non quia jure divino vetitum sit hoc sacramentum per laicum ministrari aut deferri. But humane laws forbade laymen to touch it with their hands. 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 out of the h●nd of the minister, who perhaps is a Judas, then out of the hand of a faithful brother, as if his hands profaned or polluted it. Are not the people's hands as holy as the ministers? saith P. pag. 313. Nay superstition increasing, at last they 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 faithful in their time who distributed to other, and deprive us of the profitable uses of fraction, or breaking of bread, whereof we have already treated. The representation and form of a feast or banquet is not observed. It is rather Sportula, which is opposite to coena, then coena, that is, rather like a dole of meat, than a supper. For Sportula was a dole of meat distributed by the princes to the people, which was called Sportula, from the panier, or basket, in which it was brought.  
This giving of the elements to every one severally, 
The inconveniences following upon the ministers dispensing.  whither the communicants sit, stand, or kneel, bringeth in also 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 read, or psalms sung, and hear not what they say 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 a part, and might as well go aside, or to an I'll of the Church, to communicate, yea, and far better. For the minister can scarce know his own voice, when he speaketh to the commucant, being troubled with the exercise of the whole congregation, as one of the ministers of Edinburgh confessed publicly in pulpit. The exercise is dead, and cold, when the minister giveth to every one severally. Therefore they are forced to reading and singing in the mean time, to drive away tediousness, and so bring in confusion of actions. But if they would speak in the plural number to the communicants, as Christ did, saying, Take ye, eat ye, and not to every one, Take thou, eat thou, the action should be more comfortable. For the phrase of speech in the plural number, ●fittest (saith Fenner in the doctrine of the sacraments) to note ●ut the fellowship and communion of the Church in this work, the person of Christ by the minister bidding all his guests with one love, as from him, to be merry, and eat with faith one spiritual meat together. It setteth an edge upon us, when with one hear, as it were, and together we apply every one of us to ourselves, that which is uttered by the minister. But when the action is prolonged with speaking to every one, the minds of men languish and wander.  
Our Doctor saith, 
L. pag. 56. Christ spoke in the plural number at the delivery.  they utter the words in the plural number at the consecrating of the elements, he meaneth at the rehearsal of the words of the institution, at, or before the thanksgiving, but Christ uttered them at the delivery of the elements, which they do not. Next (saith he) they apply the general command to every one in particular, as if the Apostles, or other communicants, to whom the words were uttered in the plural number, did not apply to themselves particularly, when every one did take, eat, and drink. And the Doctor himself confesseth, that every worthy receiver ought to apply the words to himself in particular. If Christ spoke in the plural number, when the communicants were so few, what would he have done, if there had been a great multitude present. Another profound Doctor imagineth, that Christ spoke first to all generally in the 〈◊〉 Number, and after in the singular delivering to every one particularly. But this imagination is without any ground of appearance in the text. And Swar●z rejecteth this fancy, because it changeth the order of the text set down with so full consent of the Apostle Paul and the Evangelists, no reason forcing them so to do. 〈◊〉 rullairatio cogit, 
Suarez in ● part. tom. 3. pag. 702.  non oprte ordinem textus mutare, praefertim cum ab Evangelistis & Paulo tanta consensione obiervatus sit.  
This rate of fraction or breaking of bread after thanksgiving, 
Paraeus de symbolis pag. 166  either for representation or distributation, is not enjoined by the English service book. Paraeus reporteth, That the Lutheran Churches have it not, but have the bread cut in small pieces, before it be brought to the hand of the minister, which is not the sacramental breaking.  
The Doctor saith, 
Distribution continued in ages, following;  That in the ancient Church the sacrament was delivered by the pastor, or the deacon who helped him, and supplied his place, but not by any of the people. If so were, we ought to take h●ed, saith Cyprian, not what any before us hath done, but what Christ before all hath done, we must not follow the custom of men, 
Calvin. institint l. 4. c. 13. etc. s. 11.  but the truth of God. Calvin saith, That the ancients went nearer to a judaical manner of sacrificing, than the ordinance of Christ and course of the Gospel could suffer. They carried the ●read of the sacrament home to their houses in Tertullia's time, that is, about 200 years' 〈◊〉 Christ. The custom of giving the communion to infants continued for 600 years. Yet we have already produced some instances in the contrary, as of the Waldenses, and some footsteps of the ancient Church, howbeit declining, yet remaining among the Monks of Saint Bennets order, when they celebrated lebrated according to the pattern. The deacon, as I have said, represented not Christ's person, and therefore should not have ministered or delivered the elements, if that were true, that none should deliver them immediately but the pastor, because he representeth Christ's person. It is like at the first, that deacons ministering at tables in time of lovefeasts, served likewise at the communion, which was conjoined with them, and carried only the platters and cups, out of which the communicants themselves took the elements, and distributed. Olim ex patin● suis quisque ma●ibus suam sumpsit particulam, 
See Salme●on in Mor●on of the in●tution ●31.  ut morisfait ad sextam usque synodum, nempè Caesar angustanam, saith Salmeron. Thereafter they gave the elements themselves, both the bread and the wine, and did not help the minister going along. In process of time indeed the minister went along with the bread, and the deacon delivered the cup. And words were put in their mouth to be uttered at the delivery, as Sauguis Christi; calix vitae. At last they were made half priests, Clemens Alexandrinus saith, That the communicants took the eucharist themselves; 
Str●●at. l. 1.  Come eucharistiam quidam, ut mos est, diviserint, permittitur unicui que è populo partem sumere. In Tertullia's time it seemeth, that in afric they took the elements out of the hands of their rulers or precedents, that is, the bishop, elder, or deacon, when he saith, 
De corona militis c. 3.  Eucharisti ●m non aliorum qu●m de pr●es●. dentium in m●nu sumin●us. For so not only Ju●●us, but also ●●mel. us in his annotations expone that place. All these forms were aberrations from the right form, and opened a doreto let in many corruptions. For if the distribution of the communicants had been at all times continued, as it was at some times in the year, kneeling had not entered, the words uttered 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, the form of a feast, which is now changed into the manner of distributing a dole, had been preserved. Therefore suppose the distributing of the communicants were not recommended to us, nor had no other profitable use, make it only lawful, this is a most profitable use, that it is a bar to hold out so many corruptions. The first assault therefore was made upon it, at a meeting in Saint Andrewis, in the year preceding Perth assembly. But that meeting, neither was nor is acknowledged to be a free general assembly. For as long as we retain the distribution by the communicants, they perceive there was no place for kneeling. Therefore as we would stand for the preservation of that holy action, from being profaned with confusion of actions, and polluted with private communion, superstitious receiving out of the minister● hand, and the idolatrous gesture of kneeling, let us stand for this distribution. 
Homil. 118. in Marcum.  What shall we say then of those, who this day ●●ke away the chief parts of the Lords institution, to wit, the b●e k●ng of the br●ad, and distribution, and involve this most wholesome m●ster ew●th superstitious, and contentious 〈◊〉. They may perhaps have the pope's supper, or som● other men's, whom they prop●ne to themselves to be imitated, but they cannot have Christ's supper, till leav●ng the inventions of me●, they fol w●le first institution, ●aith Gu●lt●r. Quid ergo de illis hodièd cem●ts, qui praecipuas institution is dom n●ae parts, fractionem 〈◊〉 mirum, & distributionem tollunt, simulque mysterium 〈◊〉 saluberrimum superstitiosis, & contentiosis opini●nibus involvunt. Habent illi fortassis caenam Pape aut alterius cujusdam, quem sibi imitandum proponunt. At Christi Jesu caenam non habebunt, nisi relictis hominum ad inventionibus primam ejus institutionem sequantur.  
If any man then will ask, 
Christ's form the most perfect.  where is kneeling forbidden in the act of receiving? We answer, In the institution. For the whole frame of the pattern forbiddeth it, where magisterio vel exemplo; by precept or example, as Cyprian speaketh, we are directed to celebrat after the form of a feast or banquet, to fit, which is the usual gesture, and most suitable to a feast, and to break and distribute. Christ's form was most perfect (saith Bullinger) 
Bulling. Decad. 5. serm. 9  and to what purpose is it the Lord himself having devised a●●st simple and perfect form, and the Apostles receiving it, to devise another. Who can devise a better, than the Son of God himself, the supreme high Priest of his Church: Quorsum attine simpli issima, optima, perfectissima que illa coenandi formula, ab ipso Christo tradita, & ab Apostolis ejus accepta, comminis●i aliam? Quis enim m●liorem tradet ipso Dei filio pontifice catholiae ecclesiae summo? 
Hospin. histor. sacrament lib. 1. cap. ●. etc. 5.  If another more commedious and better form could have been devised, out of all doubt (saith Hospinian) Christ would have devised it, and the Apostles would have recommended it to the Churches; and therefore willeth, that if any thing be found different, either in the nature and proper sense of words, or in rite or external ceremony from this rule, that it be amended according to the same, as the most holy, most excellent, most uncorrupted, and most certain rule. 
Grat. de co●secrat. dist. 2. cap. 3.  Sed vide, frater charissime, si quis de antecessoribus nostris, velignoranter, vel siplmiciter, non hoc servavi● & tenuit, quod nos Dominus & magisterio & exemplo suo docuit, potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentiâ Domini venia concedi, nobis verò non poterit ignosci; qui nunc a Domino ●dmoniti & instructi sumus. But see, most dear brother, if any of our ancestors, either through ignorance or simplicity, hath not keeped or holden, that which the Lord hath taught us, both by precept and example, his simplicity may be pardoned of the Lords indulgence, but we cannot be forgiven, who now are admonished and instructed, saith Cyprian. The testimony ye may find in Gratian.  
Doctor Mortoun in his late work of the institution of the supper, 
pag. 49.  saith, It was good divinity in Cyprian, and pope julius' days, to argue from the example of Christ's institution negatively, by rejecting such acts, and accounting them as contrary to the institution of Christ, which accord not with his example, and which are not comprised within the Canon of Christ his hoc facite.  
Bellarmine himself putteth It out of all doubt, that that is best, which Christ did, and what he did is to be done, Neque enim dubita●i potest, quìn illud sit mel●us, & faciendum quod Christus feci●, De●ucharist. lib. 4. cap. 7. And yet Master Struther was not ashamed to aver, that Christ's form might be bettered.    

THE FOURTH PART.  

CHAP. IU.  
It maketh us conform to the Papists in a rite devised, by man horribly abused, and not necessary.  
WE ought not to keep conformity in the worship of God with idolaters, 
Conformity with idolaters forbidden.  papists in special, in any rite or ordinance devised by man, specially the man of sin, if after it hath been abused, or be still abused to idolatry or superstition, if the same be not necessary, though the original were lawful, far more, if the first use or institution of it was unlawful.  
The Lord forbade his people to round the corners of their heads, or mart the corners of their beard, Levit. 19 26. and 49. 32. The Egyptians and other Gentiles, saith Becanus, 
Becan. analogia vet. & novi testamenti.  thought the Gods delighted in the round figure, therefore they rounded their heads, and builded round temples to them, lest the Jews should seem to be like the Gentiles, they were forbidden to imitate them in this. The Lord would have his people to be dignosced by other people, by their very habits. Therefore they were frobidden to wear linsey-woolsey, because the Gentiles used such in the worship of their gods, 
Aqui●, 1. 2. quaest.. 100LS, ●●rt. 6. ad 6.  saith Aquinas. They were forbidden to sow their field with mingled seed. The priests were forbidden to make their heads bald, or shave off the corner of their beard for the dead, Levit. 21. 5. 5. These fashions were observed by Egyptians, Arabians, Syrians, Canaanites, and others, saith junius upon that place, The priests shall neither shave their head, nor suffer their locks to grow long, 
Bellarm. de monach. cap. 40.  they shall only poll their head, Ezech. 44. 20. Bellarmine saith, This shaving was not forbidden, because it was evil in itself, but lest they should seem to be like to the priests of the Gentiles, beside whom they dwelled, who sacrificed to their idols with their whole head shaved. junius saith, Howbeit the matter was free, the equity or reason remaineth. Ne vel sign●, vel specie quidem communicare nos cum superstitione piet iti adversa opertere. That is, We must not by any sign or show communi●te with superstition, which is contrary to piety. They might not plant any groves of trees near the altar of the Lord, Deut. 16. 22. the Gentiles did so, Exod. 34. 13. Say not how did these nation's serve their gods. so will I do likewise, thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God, Deut. 12. 30. After their doing ye shall n●t do, nor after their ordinances, Levit. 18. 3. the words are general, howbeit in that chapter be brought in some instances of their wicked and impious deeds: for he opposeth to that general, the judgements and ordinances of the Lord in general on the other side. And some instances, we have already brought of facts in themselves not abominal le. Although rounding or cutting the hair was in itself indifferent, yet God would not have it indifferent to his people, but will have them to be altogether unlike to the aliens and uncircumcised, specially in those rites, wherein religion was showed, Lyra on Leu. 18. ●. Intendit excludere e filiis Israelitum omnem Gentilem ritum: 
Calvin on 〈…〉  He intended to exclude from the children of Isra●l every rite of the Gentiles. The Gentiles worshipped their Gods in and by images, God would not be so worshipped, but expressly forbade it in the second commandment. And therefore saith Zanchius, That the sum of the second precept, 
Zanch. de redempt, l●. r. c. 14. circa initium.  is, that we must not devise of our own heads any thing in ceremonies, or the worship of God, nor borrow from the rites of idolatrous nations, but to be content with these rites and ceremonies, which God hath prescrived.  
Tertullian saith, That Christians might not wash their hands (meaning for a ceremony) or lay aside their cloaks before prayer, 
Tertul. de oratio. c. 12.  Sic enim adeunt ad idola nationes: because the Gentiles go after that manner to their idols. And such like, that they might not sit upon beds after prayer, meaning for a ceremony, Por●ò cum perinde faciunt nation●s adoratis sigillaribus suis residendo, vel prepterea in nobis reprehendi meretur, quod apud idola c●●e bretur: because the Gentiles do sit, after they h●ve adored their small images, it deserveth to be reproved in us, which is observed beside idols. When he hath rebuked Christians for observing some of the Ethnics days, 
De idol. cap. 14.  he cryeth out, That the nations have a greater regard to their own sect, who will claim to no solemnity of the Christians, not the Lord's day, nor pentecost, and if they know them, they will not communicate with them, in that observation, timerent enim ne Christiani viderentur, 
De corona militis.  for, they wou●d be asray●d last they should seem to be Christian. He standeth m●ch upon this, that a Christian man ought not to go which a laurel garland upon his head, because the Heathen used so to go. 
August. confess. l. 6. c. 2.  August ne saith, his mother Menica le●t bringing of wine and cakes to the church, for that she was war●ed, it was a resemblance of the superstition of the Heathen, Quòd superstitioni Gen ilium essent simillima. In the second council of Bracara it was decreed, 
Brac. 2. can. 73.  that Christians deck not their houses with laurel and green boughs upon the first day of the month, quia tota haec observatio paganismi est, because all this custom is heathenish. The ancients having the like reason, carried themselves after the same manner toward Jews and Heretics. Th●y would not keep Easter on that day that the Jews did. If they had carried themselves so constantly, both toward Jews and Gentiles, so much superstition had not entered into the Church, as we hear of this day. Because the Manichees fasted on the Lord's day, 
August epist. 86.  they forbore fasting on that day, saith Augustine. The fourth council of Toledo decreed, 
Tolled. 4. can. 5.  That once dipping in baptism only be used, not three, n● videantur apud nos qui tertio m●rgunt haereticorum approbare assertionem, dum sequuntur & morem; lest these who dip thrice, seem to approve the assertion of heretic, while they follow their custom. 
Brac. 1. can. 32.  The first council of Bracara forbade clergy men abstinence from eating of flesh, to cut off all suspicion of the Priscill●an heresy. To come to our own times. 
S●are● in 3. part. tom. 3. dis●. sect. 2.  Even Suarez the Jesuit saith, The Church shuneth all fellowship or appearant conformity with jews or other infidels in ceremonies and observances, as may be gathered out of Augustine epist. 119. and Epiphanius 3. book against heresies about the end.  
I said, That conformity is to be avoided not only in things impious, but even in things indifferent, when they are abused to idolatry or superstition, except they have some necessary uses, howbeit their first use or institution hath been lawful. 
Last ed●t. pag. 40●.  Zanchius hath this ground, writing upon the second precept. 
Rive●tus pag. 205.  Rivetus likewise writing upon the fourth precept of the dialogue, It is a rule, that things indifferent, not being necessary, if they be polluted with idolatry, are to be abolished. Adiaphora non necessaria, horrenda idolomania polluta esse adolenda. Nay the light of nature hath taught even a Pope to acknowledge this much, howbeit it hath not been put in practice, as oft, as occasion required. 
Distinct. 63. cap. Quia sancta.  Si non nulli ex praedecessoribus nostris fecerunt aliqua, quae illo tempere potuerunt esse sine culp●, & postea vert●ntur in enrorem & superstiti●nem, sine tanditate aliqua, & magna cum authoritate destruantur, saith Pope Stephen. That is, If some of our ancestors have done some things, which in the mean time might be without blame, and after are turned to error or superstition, let them be abolished without delay, for th●y have a good warrant, to wit, the example of Ez●kias, who broke the bra●en serpent in pieces. This is registered in Gratian'ss detree. And the gloss upon this place saith, Successories debere mutare facta & instituta 〈◊〉 ●essorum etiam bona, si vid rint ea ess pern ci●sa exempl●, Successors should change the deeds and ordinaries of the ●ancestours, howbeit good, if they see, they become pernicious by ill example. I added that clause, unless they be of necessary use, to answer to such, as object the abuse of God's creatures, and things profitable for the use of man. For the sun, moon, stars, and other creatures, have been abused and adored, but they are Gods creatures, and of necessary use. Gold, silver, temples, are profitable helps unto the necessities of man's life, as Tertullian speaketh, Certa subsidia necessi●atibus vite humanae procur●nt. The gold, 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 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, and they dwell or converse amongst us. 
Bellarm. d● Monach. cap. 40.  For this c●use perhaps, saith B●llarmine, priests were not shaved in Jerome and Ambrose time: for yet in their time the priests of Isis, were shaved. Is it not very frivolous which our Doctor answereth, 
pag. 116.  that by this reason, we should not pray kneeling, nor rest upon the Lord's day, because the papists pray kneeling to Saints, and rest on the Lord's day, seeing the one is allowed by God to himself, and the other commanded. Suchlike the burning of incense, howbeit abused to the worship of the brazen serpent, our question is of humane inventions. If ye would know, what rite or ceremony, to call popish, 
Cap. de tradition.  Musculus will tell you, I call these rites pepish (saith he) which either of the●r own nature, or by abuse do s●rv● unto popish impurity, superstition and blindness, allwhich, I am persuaded, are to be detested, as much as is possible. 〈◊〉 saith, 
Censura. c. 4.  That S●tan wrought powerfully and cunningly these many ages by his Roman Antichrist, to obtrude the bread upon us to be adored for Christ, therefore we should put to flight whats●ever may seem to nourish this bread worship in the minds of the simple. 
Censura. c. 9  And in the ninth chapter, That; if we love God and our Saviour Christ, none of these things, words, or gestures, will find or keep place among us, which have appearance of affinity with the impieties, and abominations brought in by antichrist upon the holy mysteries, or which may be taken hold of, to make up any commendation of them, howbeit unjustly and without cause offered. Nihilque loci vel invonient vel retinebunt apud nos, e●e●res omnes, verba, & g●stus, in quibus appareat esse aliquid tantis impietatibus affine, aut ad ullam rapiatur, quanquam improbe & absque data causa harum su●rum impi tatum commendationem.  
The equity of this rule or direction, 
The equity of none conformity with idolaters.  that we should not conform with idolaters in such rites and ordinances, as are above described, appeareth evidently, first, in that we show not, as we ought, our hatred and detestation of idolatry, when we retain any monument or memorial of it. God will not have us to utter with our lips the very name of the idol, with respect or any honour. The brazen serpent, after the miraculous use of it, for which it was set up, ceased, was keeped 700 years for a memorial of that miracle, and as a monument of God's mercy, and benefit received at that time. Yet, when it began to be abused, and polluted with idolatry, Ezekias broke it in pieces. far more aught the monuments and memorial of idols, or idolatry. We honour the idol and idolatrous worship, when we retain any monument or memorial of idolatry. Next, in so doing, we keep a stumbling block in the Church, and both harden the idolater in his idolatry, and lay a stumbling block and snare before ourself and our brethren, by retaining of such allurements and provocations, to commit the same kind of spiritual fornication and adultery, and so to fall in an heinous and most derestable sin. Woe be to him that giveth offence, it were better, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the deep of the sea.  
That kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament, hath been abused to idolatire, 
Kneeling a monument of idolatry.  can not be denied. Nay, it is confessed, that kneeling in that act hath been abused to the vilest idolatry, that ever was, to the worshipping of 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. For our opposites affirm, That all the main gestures are indifferent. 
pag. 370.  Master P. hath a poor shift, when he saith, No ordinance of God can be a monument of idolatry, gesturs are Gods ordinances, and his outward worship consists in them. Such like, that no creature of God can be a monument of idolatry, but all gesturs are Gods creatures or abilities, whereunto man is disposed by creation. 
pag. 118.  And our Doctor saith, That kneeling is not an humane invention, but a religious ceremony appointed by God. But they should first have made good, that kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements w●s God's ordinance, and then indeed the retaining of it had not been a retaining of a monument of idolatry. It is gross, that he calleth gesturs abilities. The power or ability is natural to man, but the gesture itself is volnntarie, free, and accidental. A man hath ability to stand upon one of his legs, or with his back to the elements, is such a posture of the parts of a man's body, therefore lawful in the act of receiving. Seeing neither by God's ordinance, nor any natural necessity we are bound to kneel in that act, the retaining of kneeling so horribly abused in that act, is the retaining of a vile monument of idolatry.  
How dangerous it is, 
Kneeling scandalous to papists.  consider it first in the papist. The papist is confirmed in his vile idolatry by our conformity with him in that gesture. Do they not vaunt, that we are coming home to them, and hope for the full restoring of popery again, because we kneel at the receiving of the eucharist as they do. It is confessed also by conformitants. The ministers of Edinburgh, after they had vexed the people ten years with their kneeling, and seeming to be wearied by contending with them, sent up a supplication to the king for dispensation with kneeling. In the instructions given to the bearer M. William Lev Lev●ngstoun, subserived also by them, they have these words, The Papists se●●g us in that gesture, having some external symbolising with them, are thereby confirmed in their errors, as though that our practice were an approaching to them, and an increase to their idolatry and bread worship. These instructions were subscrived by all the ministers of Edinburgh in April anno 1628. M. Struther, Sydserf, Maxwell, and the rest.  
It is a scandal given to the godly, 
Scandalous to the godly.  because it is not a necessary duty, and is a provocation and enticement to idolatry. We are forbidden all provocations and enticements to idolatry, as in all other precepts, we are forbidden, as well the provocations and enticements to evil, as the evil itself. 
In 2. precept. pag. 387.  If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, that is, whatsoever is an impediment unto us to hinder us to do good, and to worship God, though it were never so dear to us, is to be removed out of the way, much more if it be a cause or occasion to do evil, saith Zanchias. 
Last edit. de redempt. pag. 541.  Whatsoever be the intention of the doer, intent 〈◊〉 antiss, ye●, if the quality of the work itself conditio operis be inductive to scandal, it ought to be eshewed. They ask, what apinesse there is in the gesture to entice us to idolatry, We answer, it is the same in form and fashion that idolaters use in that same very act, and it is done for reverence as they also do. We are more prove by nature to idolatry, than any other sin. Therefore greater diligence is to be used in avoiding the occasions of this sin, then of any other, saith Zanchius. What needeth further proof, if it be true, which they seem to grant themselves, that adoration in the act of receiving the bread hath opened an occasion to breed worship or artolatry. Beza in his 8. epist. faith, The event and lamentable face of the Church, doth more than sufficiently teach us, how hurtful 'tis, and commendeth those Churches which abolished it with no less care than other manifest made idolatry, apert as idolomanias. Peter Martyr being a stranger, when he was a professor in Oxford, was loath to contradict the order, which was retained for the appeasing the papists, who were a strong party at that time, excuseth the matter the best he could, but with all, privy to the insuffiencie of his excusus, he wisheth it were removed. And writing against Gardener, 
Col. 160.  he wisheth, that it were not, howbeit the kneelers direct their worship not to the symbols themselves, but to Christ reigning in the heavens. But after the revolt of England in Queen Mary's days, when he was in Zurich, writing to the Polonian ministers, he saith, Let the evil seed, and rotten roots be plucked up at the first beginning, for if they be neglected at the first (I know what I speak) it is more difficile to take them away afterward: And this is wisely to be looked to, as in the sacraments, so specially in the eucharist, that it be most sincerely done. For there are there, believe me, pestilent seeds of idolatry, which unless they be taken away, the Church of Christ will never be beautified with pure and sincere worship. Let not the sacraments be contemned, as empty and vo●d signs; And on the other side, let them not give greater honour to them, than their institution will suffer. Averruncentur sub ipsis initiis mala semina, & putres radices. Nam si principio negligantur, (scio to quod loquor) pestea difficiliùs tolluntur. Idque providendum est, ut in sacramentis, & prae●ipue in encharistiae quam sincerissimè fiat, ibi sunt, mibi crede, idololatriae pestifera semina, que porr●, ●isis●i● lara suerint, ecclesia Christi puro sinceroque cul● nunquam erit o●nata. Non centemnantur sacramenta, ut in●nla & 〈◊〉 signa. Rursmque non illis plus tribuant homines, quam 〈◊〉 institutio ferat. This was his advice, after experience he had in England, and in the same epistle he 〈◊〉, That●ite in the ministration of the sacraments 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 which is most of all, and furthest remove 〈◊〉 from papistical toys and ceremonies, and cometh 〈◊〉 to that purity, which Christ and his Apostles used. 〈◊〉 in his S. sennon upon jenah saith, The outward gesthred and behaviour of the receiver should want all kind 〈…〉 show orinelination to idolatry. Wherefore seeing kneeling is a show and external kind of honouring and worshipping, and heretofore grieveus and damnable idolatry heath been committed by 〈◊〉 the sacrament, I could wish it were commanded by the magistrate, that the communicants might receive it sitting or standing. 
Reply 2 part pag. 164.  Master Cartamight reporteth, that in diverse places the people have knocked on their breasts, and holden up their hands, whilst the minister was in giving the bread, and not only those who received it, but also those who looked on, and were in the Church. In a national synod of the Belgic and French Churches in the Low-countries holden in Junie 1578. they concluded against geniculation. Genuflexionem non admittimus ob periculum adorations 〈…〉 admit not kneeling for peril of the adoration of bread worship. And in a national synod holden at Midleburgh, it was likewise concluded, Genuflexio omnino omittetur propter periculum superstitiosae adoratienis; Kneeling shall altogether be omitted, because of the danger of superstitious adoration. 
Homij specimen controy Belg. in fine.  Festus Homi●s out of these constitutions, ●●th set down their mind in the harmony of their synods, to the same effect, That the communionibe not celebrated kneeling for the danger of bread worship. 
pag. 123.  Our Doctor answereth, That they knew best, what served to the edification of their own Church, as if the Hollanders were more prone to bread worship, than Scots on English. P. acknowledgeth, 
pag. 70.  that they which kneel may receive too reverently. Cyprian answering to some maids, who walked with young men, talked with them, went to bed with them, and said, they abstained notwithstanding from the act, 
Cyprian. lib. 1 epist. 11.  saith, Non est locus d●ndus Diabolo●● more diu tutus periculo proxim●s; We should not give place to the devil: No man that is near danger can be long in surety.  
They allege a Polonian synod allowing kneeling or standing, 
The Polonian synods mistaking.  but not sitting. But they must know first, that they were far mistaken. For they thought in synodo Graconiensi anno 1573. and Vledislanitensi anno 1523. that none but the Arrians or Arrianabaptists among themselves did sit. It is strange, that they should thereupon exhort to the forbearance of sitting, seeing the Arrians did not sit upon conceit of par●ie, or equality with Christ. It is gross mistaking, saith P. that fellowship and society necessarily imports equality, 
pag. 200.  who knows not, that a king and a mean man may be fellowlike and sociable, and yet remainefarre unequals. Next, it is as strange, that they should be ignorant, that the gesture of sitting was in use even then, to wit 1573. 1578. 1583. in sundry Churches in Europe, as in the Low-countries, Helvetia, Scotland. Yea, as a worthy Polonian, as that Church hath bred in his time, that Polonian Baron johannes Alasco, wrote before the holding of that synod more amply, and more earnestly for sitting; then any man else; and put it in practice in the Churches where he had credit and authority. We are not therefore conform to Arrians in the gesture of sitting, for it is not their invention, nor is it approved only by them; It was in use before ever the name of Arrius was heard. Yet, howbeit their synods were mixed, and consisted partly of Lutherans, partly of such as adheared to the Boh●●mian, partly of such as adheared to the Helvetian confession, they would urge no man, fearing that urging would draw on censures, which they thought neither commendable nor expedient. For they confess, That it is neither the will of God, nor the custom of the pur●r Church, to smite m●n with ecclesiastical discipline for external rites. Propter externos ritus homines pios ferire, neque est Dom●ni v●tun●as, neque purioris ecclesiaemos. As ye may see in Synodus Petriconi insis, which was holden anno 1578.  
Their next shift is, 
The pretended remedy of preaching naught.  that ●he people may be taught and informed to direct ●he●r adoration internal and external to God, and so all erroneous opinion may be removed. But we have told them, that 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: meat doth not nourish so fast, as poison doth corrupt. Time should be better spent, then in leading poor souls through dangerous ways, which may be forsaken. Their strength should not be tried by bringing them to the brink of danger. Suppose information by doctrine were used at all times, and every where all are not alike capable, example and appearance of evil would work more powerfully, than the doctrine. 
Epist. 121.  Of the insufficiency of this remedy, see Calvin in his epistle to the protector of England.  
The third shift is, 
Commandment of the magistrate no just e●cuse. In 3 precept. col. 634.  that the command of the supreme magistrate in things indifferent taketh away the scandal. There are two sorts of indifferent things, saith Z●n●hius, some that are manifest occasions of sinning, others are not of that kind. Res adiaphorae duplices sunt. Quaelam su●t alicui aport●e occasiones peccatorum, ita ut exillis verè immineat p●ricul●m, pèceandi: alley vero non ita se habent. For the first sort, that we ought to abstain from 〈◊〉 evil, and all manifest occasion of evil: For who, saith he, will venture to pass along a ruinous bridge, if he perceive manifest danger of falling into the river. Can the supreme magistrate take away that aptness and fitness, that any thing hath to entice and provoke men to sin. The Apostle Paul saith, he had rather never eat flesh, then offend a weak brother for eating flesh offered to the idol, and sold in the market. And I think, he had greater, authority in such matters, nor any prince or general assembly.  
The Belgic synods, ye see, would not take so much upon them, but for add kneeling for fear of idolatry. If the Church (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 may the magistrate; for his power is cumulative to assist the Church, not privative, to deprive the Church of her power. The magistrates countenance maketh the scandal the greater, and he strengtheneth it by his authority, whereas he should remove scandals, and not lay stumbling-blocks in the way of the people. The brazen serpent was but a passive, 〈◊〉 active scandal, and yet Ezekias broke it in pieces: for more should active scandals be removed. These Cour●-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, for (ye say) he esteemeth the matter indifferent. Is not the supreme magistrate a sinful man? May he not make Israel to sin? May he not abuse things indifferent, and transgress the rules above mentioned? May he not be a secret friend to the pope, or an a bettor of superstition? Suppose he have no such intention, yet he can not by his authority alter conditionem operis, the quality of the work itself, and make a thing, which of itself is inductive to scandal not inductive. Doth his commandment make all so sure, that none can be scandalised? That is impossible, considering the show of evil in the deed itself, the ignorance of many thousands, the disposition of the ignorants to superstition, the proneness of men's nature to idolatry, and the increase of papists.  
joab was guilty of Vriahs' blood, notwithstanding of the King's commandment, so art thou of thy brothers falling, 
1 King 20, 39  Thy life for his life, if he be a missing. Say not therefore with Cain, Am I my brother's keeper? Active obedience to the magistrate ought not to be a rule of thy love to God's glory, and the salvation of thy brother. Passive obedience is not denied; but defences by laws aright first to be heard. Whereas they allege, that sitting is dangerous for breeding contempt and profanation. To pass by the institution, experience is a testimony in the contrary. Rusticity in the behaviour of simple ones, not acquainted with all the points of civili●●, is not profanation, but may be where the mind is in good order Horrible profane were the words of our blind bishop to a gentle woman in the offering of the elements, because she would not kneel.  
We maintain, 
Kneeling established by the Antichrist, and not by the ancient Church.  that kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements was not devised, or at least authorized, till the great Antichrist overruled. We need not to poin●● at the time when it first began: for there are many corruptions in the Roman Church, which can not be deduced 〈◊〉 a certain beginning, by the Romanists themselves. It is sufficient, that we point out a time, wherein it was not in use. There can not be an authentic testimony alleged for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, before the opinion of real presence yea, or of transubstantiation began to spread, or to come to a more certain date, for the space of a thousand years after Christ. I say, authentic testimony: for we regard not supposititions, or counterfite works. origen's first homily in diverse loca, is brought in, saying, Thou therefore humbling thyself, ●●itat the Centuries, ●nd say, Lord, I am not worthy, etc. but that works is acknowledged by the papists themselves to be counterfite. 
See Riveti specimen critici sacri. lib. 2. cap. 13. Bellarm. de script. pag. 84.  Suchlike counterfi●e Cyrillus of Jerusalem in his fifth catechism saith, Then come to the cup of the blood, not stretching out thy hand, sed pr●nus & in modum adorationis & venerationis, dicens Anten● But stowting downward, or with the face bended downward in manner of adoration or veneration, saying, Amen. He sayeth not, Cade pronu●, fall down on thy fa●e, sed accede pronus, but come inclining or bowing thy he●d, or upper part of thy body, as men use to do, when they make courtesy for men can not come falling flat. But what need we trouble ourselves with his words, seeing he is marked for a counterfite by Moulias' on the Lords supper, 
part. 2. pag. 65.  the bishop of Spalleto, and Plessie, who in his answer to the bishop of Evereux saith, 
Spalat. de rep. eccles. l. 5. c. 6. num. 69.  These catechisms of Cyrillus are supposititious, and come not to light, but in our time. M. Down in his treatise of transubstantiation. pag. 3●. 38. saith, 
Ad E●roicensem epist. pag. 241.  That these catecbeticall book are but of a very late edition, that Harding acknowledgeth, that in his time they were known to ve●ie few, and in ●rite, that they have been published since in print, and perhaps, to win more authority to them, misfathered upon Cyrillus of jerusalem. This cyril directs the Communicant to touch his lips, which are sanctified with the touch of Christ's body and blood, that by the touch of that finger he may sanctify his eyes, brow, and others. No authentic testimony can they produce bearing the word kneeling, which is an adoration not in a large, but strict sense.  
The testimonies bearing the word adore, are either counterfite, or to be understood of inward adoration, as Doctor Burges himself confesseth, sundry of the learned do construe them, or of adoration in time of prayer before they communicate: or adoration is taken taken only for veneration. See jewel in the article of adoration. Bilson in his book of obedience, and Mortoun the late defender of the ceremonies, in his latest work entitled, Of the institution of the sacrament. He bringeth in sundry exemples to prove the latitude of the word Adore. When Theodor●t saith, dialog. 2. that the mystical signs are adored, he should speak very grossly, if the word adore meant not only reverend usage. Moulines on the Lord's supper, 2. part. page 24. translateth Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reverenced, and disputeth against adored, as not agreeable to his meaning. And so Bilson expoundeth Theodoret, and to this purpose allegeth the gloss of the Canon law. In hoc sensu possumus q●am libet rem sacr●m adorare, id est, reveren●iam exhibere. Ana. stasius saith, 
De consecratio. dist. 3. cap. venera ●ilis. De consecratio. dist. 1. cap. Apostolica. Tertull. advers. Hermoginem.  Dominica verba attentè audiant, & si leliter adorent 1. venerantur, saith the gloss. Adore plenitudinem scripturae. I adore the fullness of the scripture, saith Tertullian. Doctor Burges is forced to construe the word adored, in this sense, when he would give a right sense to some words of jewel. The sacraments in that sort, in respect of that, which they signify, and not in respect of that which they are of themselves, are the flesh of Christ, and are so understood and believed and adored, but the whole honour resteth not in them, but is passed over from them to the things, which be signified, 
D. B. of kneeling. pag. 85.  saith jewel. His meaning is (saith the Doctor) that no more is or may be done respectively to the sacrament, then that which we call veneration, that, which in strict sense, we call adoration or divine worship is reserved to God. chrysostom meaneth spiritual reverence, in 1 Corin. 11. and therefore he useth emphatical speeches of ascending up to the gates of heaven, 
Fulk in 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18.  even the heaven of heavens, like eagles, saith Doctor Fulk. 〈◊〉 followeth not that they kneeled in Augustine's time, because the Ethnics objected, that Christians honoured Bacchus and Ceres. The reverene carriage of Christians at the participation of the sacrament all bread and wine, was sufficient to be an occasion of the mistaking. Averro the Arabian Spaniard, about 400 years since, objected, That Christians adored that which they did eat. It may be, that in his time they kneeled, and gave just occasion to Averro reproach. But his time is not within our date. In a word, look how old they can prove kneeling, we shall prove real presence.  
Doctor Purges hath found out a place which was never found out before, 
Tertullia's testimony vindicated.  wher●● he confidently concludeth, that the communicants kneeled in Tertullia's time, for (faith he) the people shunned to take the sacrament, when they might not kneel in the act of receiving or partaking of it, and therefore forbore to come to the communion table on the station days, because it behoved them the stand on these days. Tertullian, saith he, inviteth them to come, and take the bread standing at the table publicly, and to reserve and carry it away with them and receive it at home, as they desired, kneeling, and so both duties should be performed, the receiving of the eucharist, and the tradition of standing on these days observed. 
Lib. de oratione. c. 14.  Tertullia's words are, Similiter de stationum diebus, non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, qu●d statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Which last words he translateth, because station or standing is then to be performed in receiving the body of the Lord: whereas he should ●ranst●te, because the fast is then to be brocken after the receiving of the body of the Lord. For the word statio in Tertullia's language is taken for fasting, both in this place, and in his book De corona militis, cap. 11. and in his book De jejuniis, cap. 2. 10. 14. as Pamelius hath well observed upon that place, and after him Baronius in his annals. In his book De jejuniis he bringeth in for illustration Moses persevering in prayer, till the going down of the sun, when the people was fight against the Amalekits, Nun statio fuit sera, saith he. Did joshua dine that day, saith he, that he fought against the Ammorits, that commanded the sun to stand in Gibeon, and the moon in Askalon? That God gave such authority to Saul's commandment concerning fasting till even, that I●nathan for tasting a little honey was scarce delivered at the instant request of the people, Tantam authoritatem dedit edicto stationis Saulis, ut Ionathan filius, etc. H. bringeth in such exemples for the custom their own sect of the Mountanists had brought in, which was to keep these fasts till evening, whereas the custom of the Church was to keep them only to the ninth, that is, our third hour afternoon. In the 2. and 14. chapter he maketh mention of weddensday and f●yday: appointed for these fasts, Cur quartam & sextam sabbathi st●tionibus dicamus? speaking of the custom of the Church at that time. The meaning of Tertullian, in the place above cited, is, They were in an error, who thought that if they had received the sacrament, their fast should be broken, which should have continued to the set hour. For (saith he) d●th the encharist lose that service which we have devoted unto God, or rather doth it bind us more to God. Nun solennior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris; Shall not thy fast be the more solemn, if thou stand also at the altar of God; th●● is, the communion table. Accepto corpore Domini & reservata (as junius reade●●) id est stationis officio, (not reservato) that it may answer to the other member, both are safe, & participatis sacrificti & exc●utio off●cii, both the participation of the sacrifice ●nd performance of thy service, id est, jejunii, (saith 〈◊〉 his answer to the theologues of Burde●ux. 
pag. 54.  〈…〉 his answer to the bishop of Ever●ux, 
pag. 225.  he saith, That Tertullian would remove that scruple, that after they had communicated, their fast was broken, they thought, a● si particip●tio euch aristiae jejunium abrumpere● 〈◊〉 if the participation of the eucharist had broken up their fast: Ambrose giveth the reason, wherefore these set fasts were called Stationes, quod stantos & commarantes in eyes inimicos insidiantes repellimus; because standing and sta●ing in them we repel our enemies lying in wait for us, meaning spiritual enemies. The metaphor is borrowed from soldiers, who behoved to fast so long as they were in station; Metaphora à militi●m sumpta quod quamdiu in station erant, jejunare 〈◊〉 oportebat. See Pamelius upon both the places. Doctor Burges finding, that Tertullian lib. 2. ad uxorem, maketh mention of jejunia, fasts, after he had made mention of stationes, concludeth in his own fancy, that stationes were not fasts, whereas he might have seen stationes distinguished, à jejuniis in the former place also, but by the one he meaneth of such as fasted at any time of their owe free accord; by the other the set days of fasting. jejunium est indifferenter cujuslibet Di●i abstinentia, non perleg●m sed secundum propriam voluntatem, statio statutorum dierum vel temporum. And this difference Pamelius acknowledgeth, he hath out of Rabanus Ma●rus. The very phrase itself solvere stationem, might have guided him aright: For what more frequent a phrase for breaking of a fast, then solvere jejuniums. We deny not that they stood both these days, and other also, but that statio signifieth only standing in Tertullia's phrase, when he saith, Solennior statio, or solvere stationem. I have insisted the longer upon this testimony, because Doctor Burges doth so confidently gather out of it, which never man did before, that the Christians than did, and before had used to take the sacrament kneeling.  
This raw, 
Sitting or standing practised in the ancient Church. See Euseb. histor. lib. 7. cap. 9  but too confident antiquary, his collection may be refuted by other testimonies, witnessing, that sometimes they sa●e, of which we have alleged some before, or at other tim●s stood. Pionysius Alexandrinus writing to Xystus bishop of Rome, concerning one that was in sorrow, because he was baptised by heretics, saith, he dared not baptise him over again, because he had a long time stood at the table, and reached forth his hand to receive the holy food, and had been for a long time partaker of the body and blood of Christ. justinus telleth us, That the people rose, and the deacons gave to every one to partake of the bread and the wine. Is it likely, that they kneeled, when the deacons gave the elements? 
Homil. in oncoeniis.  In the homily which goeth under the name of chrysostom, Stemus trementes timidi & demissis ocutis; Let us stand trembling with fear a●d our eyes casten down. So ye see both before and after Tertullia's time testimonies for standing.  
There was an ancient custom in the Church (which, 
Bellarminus de cultu sanctor. cap. 11.  Bellarmine saith, was left off but about 500 year before his time) to stand upon the Lord's day even in time of prayer. Zovaras in synod 6. can. 90. s●ith, That no ways might they kneel betwixt the evening service on saturday and the Lords day at evening. 
Tertull. de Corona militis.  Die dominico de geniculis ad orarenesa●, saith Tertullian. And such like, betwixt easter and pentecost, not only upon the Lord's day, but no day of the week might they kneel. Yea, by the decree of Alexand●r the third, they might not kneel upon the Lord's day in public, 
Decretal. l. 3. tit. de celebrat. Missa. cap. sarct.  but only at the consecration of Bishops, and giving of orders▪ he that did consecrate, and he that w●s consecrated might kneel, and this was decreed about the year 1159. at which 〈◊〉 it seemeth this one exception entered in. Now will any man affirm, That they never communicated upon the Lord's day, for a thousand year, or 1159. or imagine as Doctor Burges doth, that because they might not kneel, that all this time they took the sacrament standing in the Church, and went home to their houses, where they eated kneeling, or to their seats in the Church, where they might not kneel. L. page 52. confesseth, That the communicants in the primitive Church stood at the table, when they received the sacrament on the Lord's day. Well, say they, seeing they prayed standing, they used that gesture in the receiving of the eucharist, which they thought fittest for prayer. I answer, they thought not that gesture fittest for prayer. The author of the questions extant in justinus, 
Quaest 1●5.  saith, Genu●m inclinatio in precatione magis peccatores Deo commendat, qu●m sistantes orent. He preferreth, ye see, kneeling in prayer before standing: But both are indifferent. They stood to signify their joy for Christ's resurrection, and not because they though it the fittest gesture for prayer. It was a conceit they took up, which entered not in the Apostle Paul's mind: for we find Acts 20. that he kneeled between Easter and Pentecost. Alwise by that custom, ye may see, they communicated standing. The testimonies above cited have not relation to any day, and the custom observed yet to this day in the oriental Churches, to communicate standing, notwithstanding, that other custom hath ceased, declareth that they intended never geniculation in the act of receiving.  
Ephraim Placit in his Christianography, descriving the manner of the administration of the Lords supper in the Greek Church, in the Churches of the Mengrellians, Circassians, Georgians, Muscovites, Melchits or Syrians, Armenian, jacobits, the Christians falsely called Nestorians, the Cophti or Egyptian Christians, the Abyssinos or Ethiopian Christians, produceth no instance for kneeling in the act of receiving, eating, drinking, which he would not have pretermined, being conform, and dedicating his book to the bishop of Elie. Cassander in his Liturgicks, descriving the order observed in the Churches of the Arm●n●ans, Muscovites, and in the kingdom of pressed john maketh no mention of kneeling, but of standing. Il●ssie in his 4. bo●ke of the Mass, trusseth up all in few words. Quarè orientales ecclesiae adorationem sacramenti admiserunt nusqu●m, non quae patriarchae Consta tinopolitano obsequuntur, n●n quae Antiocheno. Et in Abyssnis etiam ipsis hodie st●ntes sacramenta participant, nec ●●minus reverenter; The oriental Churches no where admitted edoration of the sacrament; not those which are obedient to the patriarch of Constantinople, or yet the patriarch of Antioch. And the Abyssins' themselves participate of the sacrament, standing, and yet not without reverence: Where by adoration he meaneth kneeling, whereunto be opposeth standing. 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, and delight to stick in the mire when he is wallowing in it. It resteth then that kneeling is only found in the Church's subject to the Pope, of old. or at the present. Other Churches, howbeit they followed not the pattern, using another form and gesture, not was suitable to this first, yet they degenerated not so 〈◊〉 as the Roman Church did, 
Synops. cuest. 8. of the mass, pag. 691.  The Muscovite Grecians, 〈◊〉 L●tine Priest chance to say Mass upon one of their altars, they forthwith break them down, as defiled and polluted. And they ●old the priests of the Latin Church to be no letter than heretics, and vouchsafe not to salute them. willet's out of Sacranus.  
We have not yet heard of any authentic testimony for kneeling, which is adoration in proper and strict sense, for the space of a thousand year after Christ, which is the date we set down. Nor yet till after the days of Pope Honorius the third, who lived ●bout the year 1220. And he decreed nothing, 〈◊〉 ●owing, not of the knee, but of the head or superior bulk of the body, at the elevation in ●he mass. The bowing of the knee at the elevation entered not till afterward, yea, prevailed not universally even in our days. For I find in Bochellus a decree made in a popish synod at Rheims, 
Bochel. decret. lib. 3. c. 140.  anno 1583. Quoriam apud omnes sere catholicos usus modo obtinuit, ut procumbentes adorent divin●● eucharistiam; Because the use 〈…〉 prevailed almost among all catholics, that falling 〈◊〉 they a●ore the divine eucharist, the holy synod exhorteth, that if there be any Church, useth another custom, a●d 〈◊〉 the body of Christ in this sacrifice standing, that they f●ll down hereafter, while the holy mysteries are set forth to be adored. Sancta synodus hortatur, ut si quae ecclesia altero more adhuc utatur, & stando Christi corpus i● hoc sacrificio adore●, proeumbat 〈…〉 sancta mysteria proponantur adorari. Where, by the way observe, that when ye find the word adore in the ancients, it followeth not, that ye must interpret i● kneeling. For ye see, they that stood are said to adore, which is not to adore in strict and proper sense. Whither kneeling at the receiving come in with that decree of Honorius, or after, which is more likely, and that no other gesture was used at the one, which was not used at the other, I cannot determine. Howsoever it entered under Antichrist reigning, and is the received gesture of all such as are wit●●● the bounds of his jurisdiction, where he is Pat●●●ch. The Churches under the patriarchs of Constantinople or Antioch, hath not received it, as ye have herd. If the priests, and others of the elergic, be directed to the Roman ri●all to kneel in receiving the eucharist, can we think any of the people had liberty not to kneel.  
Howbeit this idolatrous gesture prevailed under the reign of Antichrist, 
Opposite to kneeling.  yet there wanted nor faithful witnesses to stand out against it. Of the Walden●●● ye heard before. johannes Slechta a Bohemian, writing to Eras●● in the veare 1519, 
Erasm. epist. lib. 14.  telleth him, that there was among them a sect, of such as were called Pyghardi, because their first ringleader, who came to these parts in the days of Zisca, about four score and seventeen years before, that came out of Picardy, that they maintained, these committed idolatry, who kneeled before the bread in the sacrament of the eucharist, or bowed before it, or adored it. In sacramento eucharistie nihil esse divinitatis credunt, sed solum panem & 〈◊〉 consecratum signis quibusdam occultis mortem Christi 〈…〉 affirmantes, & propterea in idolola●riam cadere omnes quot quot coram illo genua flectunt, & incu●vant, vel illud adorant. All the Sacramentaries call it idolatry to kneel before the eucharist, 
〈…〉  saith Bellarmine. And yet so impudent is our Doctor, that he is not ashamed to affirm, that never any divine ancient or modern to this day, except Arrians and Anabaptists, hath doubted, but Christ may and should be adored externally in the act of receiving.  
Seeing therefore this gesture entered in under Antichrist, and is maintained by him with fire and faggot, ought we not to reject it, and retain the exemplary sitting of Christ and his Apostles. 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 Church.  
But put the case this gesture in the act of receiving had been devised by others, 
Kneeling to be rejected, because abused.  than the great Antichrist, or might have been used without blame, which is not possible, yet seeing it was not commanded by Christ, or his Apostles, but is the invention of man, hath been so horribly abused, and remains still in the own nature indifferent, as they allege, and not necessary by their own confession, it ought to be abandoned for the danger of many thousand weak souls, which may be brought on to bread worship. We may scandalise sometimes, even when the fact is neither evil in itself, nor hath appearance of evil. Etiamsi factum non fit se cundum se malum, neque secundum se habeas speci●m mali, tamen toterit esse aliquando scandalum infi●niorum, quia secund●m illorum opinione●● habet speciem male. Domine. ●s Bannes in 2. 2. 〈◊〉 43. in art. ●●. We might 〈◊〉 a score here, and proceed no further. For what we have said, is sufficient to restrain every man from kneeling. To offend one of Christ's little ones, is a heinous sin.   

CHAP. V.  
Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements of the supper is idolatry.  
WE prove it to be idolatry, first considering it, as it is enjoined by the act of that pretended assembly holden at Perth, next as the action is considered simply in itself.  
We are directed by the act of Perth to kneel in reverence of the sacrament, 
The act of Perth intendeth idolatry.  which is idolatry, as L. confesseth, if we do so. But we are directed to kneel in due regard of so divine a mystery, 
pag. 70.  to wit● as is the sacrament, or as is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, to wit, in the sacramental manner. We will examine the act by parts, according to L. his analysis, howbeit we acknowledge him not for the authentic interpreter of it.  
The first reason for kneeling in the narrative, 
The first reason of the act examined.  is set down in these words, 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 reason, we have in the conclusion this inference. Therefore in reverence of God, the assembly thinketh good, that the sacrament be celebrated to the people meekly, and reverently ●●●●ling upon their knee●. For the confirmation of this reason is alleged, Psal. 35. vers. 7. out of which verse the words are taken. By this reason, Christ and his Apostles, and all that have communicated sitting, or standing, or passing, since the days of Christ, have sinned. For if we be commended by God to kneel, we sin if we kneel not. Next, the word translated worship, Psal. 95. 7. is taken, not generally for any action, or service divine, or religious expressed by the word Cul●us in Latin, as it is taken here in the act, for than we should sin, if we kneel not, when we bear the word read or preached, but it is taken more strictly for a special kind of worshipping of God, to wit, adoring God by the gesture of prostration. And so we shall be commanded to prostrate our body with our hands and feet spread upon the ground, and not to kneel only. For the people of God under the law used four kinds of gestures in sign of honour: First, a bending, or bowing down of the head or face only, which was the least degree, and is expressed by the word Cadad: next, a bending or bowing of the superior ●uk of the body expressed by the word Carang: the third, kneeling, expressed by the word Barach: the fourth, prostrating the body with hands and feet spread, as I have said, expressed by the word Histachaveh. The last three are all mentioned in the verse alleged. Thirdly, we have not here a commandment from God, but David his exhortation, or invitation to the godly, not to kneel or fall down before the Lord, when they come to worship him, or as the word beareth to prostrate themselves, for that were as much as to desire them to fall down and kneel, when they come to fall down and kneel; but he exhorteth and inviteth them to come and prostrate themselves, bow and kneel before the Lord their maker in token of thanksgiving, that is, in the temples where the ark was, and where the Lord was present in a wonderful manner sitting between the cherubims. It is gross ignorance to infer hereupon, that we should, or are commanded to kneel at the receiving of the sacrament, more than at the hearing of the word, or at any of them, unless they think the sacrament the Lord their maker.  
The second reason in the narrative, 
The second reason of the act examined.  saith the Doctor, is this, And considering withal, that there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual, then is the holy receiving of the blessed body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Relative to this 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, (or as the act ratified in parliament hath, meekly) and reverently upon their knees. We have here no other description of receiving the sacrament in the narrative, but the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, which smelleth strongly of the real presence. For the like, and some other phrases hath Master Prinne discovered Doctor Cousin's to be popish in the survey of his private devotions. Then all that communicate, receive the body and blood of Christ in at their mouth good and bad. This shall please the Lutheran and Papist bookful well.  
But by mystery, 
L. p. 72, 73.  saith the Doctor, is no meant the elements, nor is it said mysteries, but mystery. It may well be the elements are not meant, because it may be, they think the elements vanish away, and nothing remain but the accidents, or that Christ's body and blood are substantially present with the elements, or some other unknown way, as the Doctor hath been mutering in private. And that is a mystery indeed. But by mystery must be meant the sacrament: for in the narrative we have no other phrase to express the sacrament, but the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, which is relative to this word mystery. And in the conclusion, the word sacrament both precedeth and followeth: So the words in the same sense may be framed thus, Considering, there is no part of divine worship more heavenly and spiritual then is the holy receiving of the blessed sacrament, therefore the assembly thinketh good in regard of so divine a mystery, or in regard of so heavenly a pa●t of God's worship, that that blessed sacrament be celebrated, etc. Whereas he saith, the word is mystery, not mysteries in the plural number, howbeit we find it so in the first copies, let it be mystery; The Doctor himself in his solutions for kneeling, useth sometime the word mysteries, sometime mysteries. 
Casaub. exercit. pag. 550.  Casaubone speaking of this sacrament, saith, It is called sometime m●sterie, sometime mysteries. Dicitur autono masticè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aut numero multitudinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionysius Areop●git a entitleth the chapter of the Lords supper, The mystery of the synaxis or holy communion, Ambrose saith, 
Ambrose in 1 Cor. 11. Hieron. in Psal. 147. Oecumen●us in 1 Cor. 11.  Indignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quam ab eo institutum est. Jerome saith, Licet in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen veriùs corpus Christi & sanguis ejussermo scripturarum est, Oecumenius saith, That the Apostle calleth the mystery of our Master, the Lords supper. A number of testimonies might be cited to this purpose. The reason of such speech is, because both the sacramental signs are referred to one Christ. It is but one action the celebration of the supper. Further, we receive the body and blood of Christ, when we hear and believe the promises of the Gospel, read, 
Origen in num. Homil. 23. & 16.  exponed, or rehearsed. Origen saith, Hoc quod modo loqu mur, sunt earnes Christi, that which we are presently speaking to you is the flesh of Christ. And in another place, We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only by the rites of the sacraments, but also when we hear the word. Jerome, as ye heard before, That more truly the speech of the scripture is the body and blood of Christ. If then in the narrative, be no me ●o me●nt then the spiritual receiving of Christ's body and blood, it is no more a reason for kneeling at the receiving of the sacrament, then at hearing of the promises of the Gospel read and exponed. The words therefore must be meant of the sacramental manner of receiving, and the words relative in the conclusion, In regard of so divine a mystery; must mean, In regard of the mystical o● sacramental receiving; and so the Communicant is directed to kneel, in regard of the sacrament.  
The third reason in the narrative, 
The third reason examined. L. p. 74.  is the correspondence between the outward gesture of our body, and then meditation, and lifting up our hearts, whe●● 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 body and blood. He shuneth to set down the words of the narrative, and of the conclusion answerable to them, as he did in the former two reasons, because he perceaved they could not be framed to his purpose. For there is no mention made in the narrative of mystical union, nor is it said in the narrative, that the most humble and reverend gesture of the body, well becometh the meditation, and lifting up of our hearts, when we remember and consider the mystical union betwixt Christ and us, but that the most humble and reverend gesture of our body in our meditation and lifting up of our hearts, becometh well so divine and sacred an action, to wit, as is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. We are not directed by the act to meditate and lift up hearts, but to use that kind of gesture, which becometh meditation and the lifting up of the heart; nor is kneeling a gesture well becoming meditation. We meditate sitting, lying, walking. Kneeling is a gesture well becoming prayer, but not meditation. By lifting up the heart, no necessity to mean prayer: for the mind and heart may be lifted up by faith and contemplation, without prayer. And to this lifting up the Communicants were exhorted of old with sursum corda, lest their hearts and minds should be grovelling and only bend upon the elements. And so the lifting up of the eyes may be a sign of lifting up of the heart and mind, in token that we look confidently to have our desires granted by God, who dwelleth in heaven, as the casting down of the eye as a token of humiliation for sin. Suppose by lifting up of the heart prayer should be meant, yet kneeling is not the humblest gesture for prayer, but prostration. Then we should prostrate ourselves when we receive the sacrament. Next, if the Communicant shall pray mentally, when he receieth the sacrament, and in that regard kneel, he shall be exercised other ways then the act of receiving requires. Further, a secret mental prayer shall be commended to him in public without a vocal, and the sign of it the humble gesture of kneeling, whereas the signs of secret and mental prayer in public should be concealed, so far as may be. The minister, when he delivereth the elements, is not directed to use a vocal prayer to be followed by the Communicant. And we see, the Conformitants are not uniform among themselves in the words uttered at delivery of the elements. If we may sit, or stand, or kneel in time of prayer, then kneeling is not enjoined in regard of prayer, but some other thing intended. But, as I have said, we are not direct, by the act to lift up our hearts or pray; and therefore I need not, as yet, to insist upon this pretext. Giving, that in the conclusion these words, In remembrance of so mystical an union, ●e answerable in the narrative, the meditation and lifting up of our heart; then by meditation and lifting up of the heart, is meant not prayer, but remembrance. And what is that, to say, to kneel in remembrance, that were to kneel for a memorial. But suppone it were thus, when we remember, and as he addeth consider, to remember and consider is not to pray. Shall we kneel, whensoever we are put in mind of that mystical union? And what is meant by this mystical union? It may mean as well a material conjunction, as they call it, or corporal union of the body of Christ, with the bodies of the Communicants, by touch in the mouth, swallowing down to the stomach, and mixture with the bodies of the communicants, as spiritual with the soul. O Lord, let thy body which I have taken, and blood which I have drunken, cleave uut● my guts and entrailss, saith a Roman missal. But the spiritual eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking of his blood, and the mystical union between Christ and us wrought by it, is as well done out of the sacrament, as in it, saith Master Down, 
pag. 46.  We are not united with Christ by receiving his flesh into our mouths, but by faith, which may be done without ever participat●ing the sacrament.  
That the Reader may perceive the better, how the act is contrived, let him read it without the two lies closed within the parenthesis, seeing the act is whole, and entire without them, and he shall see, that it may pass among Papists and Lutherans, not one word or syllable sounding against a real presence in the signs, and that we are directed to kneel not in regard of any prayer, but in due regard of so divine an action or mystery, as is the sacrament, or sacramental receiving of Christ's body and blood. 
The intent of the church of England in kneeling.   
We may also consider the intent of the Church of England, or rather of their prelates and adherents, that we may take up the better the intent of our act. For conformity with them is intended. At the first, Kneeling was left free in the days of King Edward the sixth. The Papists making a stir for want of reverence to the sacrament: at the second reviewing of the book of common prayer. Kneeling was enjoined upon this reason, That the sacrament might not be profaned, but holden in a holy and reverend estimation; this was done by the directours and contrivers of the book, partly to pacify the Papists, partly, because their judgement was not clear in this point. They could not see every thing throughly at the dawning of the day. Yet it was not altered, but by a statute 1. Elizabeth, that second book of King Edward's was confirmed. 
D. B. of kneeling, p. 30.  Doctor Burges bringeth in a passage to explain the matter, which, saith he, is left out by negligence of the printer. But it is more likely, that it hath been done of purpose by such as were directours. Doctor Mortoun saith, That their Church thought it fit by outward reverence in the manner of receiving the eucharist, to testify their due estimation of such holy rites, to stop the mouths of blasphemous Papists, vilifying the sacrament with the ignominious names of bakers bread, vintners wine, profane elements, ale-cakes. But Doctor Ames, in his reply to Doctor Mortoun, 
Reply 2. part pag. 50.  answereth, That it was not so much for the stopping of the mouths of Papists, but 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. It may be such pretended the scoffing of Papists; bu● what matter of any gloss, if kneeling be directed, that the sacrament be not profaned, but hold in reverend estimation. Then the sacrament is profaned belike, if we either sit, or stand, and kneel not. Master Hu●ton 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. What more plain? They say not, they kneel to God that the sacrament may not be profaned, but holden in reverence, etc. But simply, they are enjoined to kneel, that the sacrament be not profaned, etc. And suppose they were, it were no better shift than the Papists use, when they say they dedicate temples to God in honour of this or that Saint. And yet we kneel not to God, but in prayer and thanksgiving, which are not compatible with the act of receiving, eating and drinking, of which more afterward. A bare kneeling can not be presented without some sign of extraordinary presence, or apparition.  
Some of their formalists pretend, 
The pretence of prayer examined.  they kneel, because of the prayer uttered at the delivery of the elements, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. I answer, That it is already proved, that kneeling is enjoined for the sacraments fake. Next, Christ prayed not at the delivery of the elements, but in an enunciative form uttered the word of the promise, This is my body, This cup is the new testament. 2. The word of promise is the special clause of the charter. The sacramental signs, are like seals hanging at the charter. If at any time therefore the word of promise should be uttered, then specially when the seals are delivered. The Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Apostle Paul, repeat precisely and constantly that word, so that any man may perceive, the sacramental form of words ought precisely to be observed and uttered in the name of Christ, without change into a prayer in name of the Church. The sacramental form of words is observed in baptism, why not here. Our formalists forbear to to utter the word of promise to the Communicant. They say, They have uttered it before. It is not enough, that they were uttered before narr●iv●ly, or 〈◊〉 in rehearsal of the words of institution; For this sacrament is an imitation of Christ, not a recital of his words and actions. It is to do as he did, and not to report what he did, 
Of the eucharist. p. 95.  saith Mouline. The rehearsal of the words of the institution le●terh us see, what warrant we have to celebrate such an action, and in general of use I read and wine. But it can not be said demonstratively of this bread and wine in particular set on the table, that it is the body and blood of Christ, till it be first sanctified by prayer and thanksgiving to that use, and after delivered to the communicant, with command, to take, eat, and assurance if he so do, the bread shall be a pledge of his body, and the wine of his blood. Christ said not, This is my body, take, eat, but Take, eat, this is my body, or actu continuo, bade them both take and eat. The promise is annexed to the commandment as conditional, and hath no effect otherwise, but if the condition be performed. It is a received action among the Divines. Elementa extrausum non sunt sacramenta: The elements out of the use are no sacraments. And sacramenta perficiuntur usu. If the elements after the blessing be not delivered, shall they be sacramentally Christ's body and blood? or if delivered, and not eaten?  
It fareth with the sacramental elements, as with pawns and pledges in contracts and bargans: A ring may be set a part to be a pledge in matrimony, yet it is not actually a pledge, without consent of the other party, but only a mere sing. A stone chosen out from among many, 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 to that end. There was never a sign without the use wherefore it was appointed to be a sign. Never a march but that which divided land, nor a banquet but in eating and drinking, 
De eucharistia l. 8. c. 3. num. 22, 23.  saith Chamier. So the elements are sanctified, and set a part by prayer and rhanksgiving to this use, but are not Christ's body and blood actually till they be received and used. Panis nunquam est signum corporis Christi, nisi in edendo; nun quam vinum sanguinis, nisi in potando. And therefore this holy ordinance is properly defined a sacred action, consisting of so many rites. By a figurative kind of speech it is true, 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 lamb or the ram appointed for the sacrifice, but not properly. 
Doctor Lindseves proceedings at ●e th'. page 5●.  Now the Formalist presupponeth, that the sacrament is made already, before he come to deliver the elements, and therefore, he saith, he uttereth other words at the delivery. So ye see, they place such virtue in uttering these words, This is my body, in the rehearsal of the institution, as the papist doth, that they think the read already Christ's body, and therefore absurd to utter these words again at the delivery to the Communicants: for than they should seem to consecrate again. So gross popery is the ground of omitting the comfortable word of promise at the delivering, and snbstituting a prayer, 
page 336.  or ministerial blessing, as P. calleth it, in the room of it, and such a prayer as presupposeth the bread already to be Christ's body: and therefore they say, The body of the Lord preserve thy body and soul. here also is a will-worship: for howbeit prayer be of itself a pure of Gods worship instituted and allowed by God, yet to pray unseasonablie, and out of time, at the will and device of man, when you should be serving God in another form, it is will-worship: neither is there necessity of this, a prayer already preceding. And surely this their prayer is a senseless one, like that old prayer, Anima Christi sanctificaine, which is directed to Christ's soul, whereas we should direct our prayers to his person, not to his humanity by itself.  
Let it be observed by the way, that the words of the institution are rehearshed in the English service book, and among the rest these ords, This is my body, to God in a continual tenor with the prayer begun before, just according to the order observed in the Canon of the mass, when the priest offereth his sacrifice, which is an horrible abuse of the words of the institution, which Christ uttered to the Communicants, and not unto God. I dare be bold to affirm, the sacrifice of the mass had never enured in the Church, if the word of promise had been uttered at the delivery of the elements to the Communicants in an enunciative form, or demonstratively, as Christ did. Thirdly, if in regard of prayer, then, if Christ's sacramental speech be uttered without addition of a prayer, the Communicants must not kneel. Christ's form of speech than must be thrust out, that prayer and with it kneeling may enter in. Fourthly, suppose the prayer might be substituted in the room of the word of promise, kneeling should not be enjoined nor urged more precisely at that bit of prayer, then at other prayers. Yea, it is superstition to urge kneeling at one prayer more strictly, then at another, and absurd, in my judgement, to enjoin it at all in any. They may as well enjoin any man to lift up his eyes, to knock on his breast, to bow the head, or crouch, as to kneel: as they do in the popish service, which hath made it the more ridiculous. for kneeling, lifting up of the hands or eyes, knocking on the breast, are natural expressions and adumbrations of the inward motions of the soul, and proceed ex abundantia interni affectu, 
De sacram. lib. 1. c. 10. s. 7.  as saith Chamier, and therefore ought not to be extorted by injunctions, for that were to command men to play the hypocrites, and like comedians, to counterfite outward signs of such inward motions, as perhaps are not in them, so vehement as to stir them up voluntarily to such expressions. Yea, some of them may serve for ejaculations, as the lifting up of the eyes, to knock on the breast, and to bow the head, which bowing is finished in one instant, saith L. 
pag. 68  All undecent and unseemly gesture in prayer, aught to be forbidden, but no gesture ought to be commanded in special, but left free. Fiftly, that prayer above mentioned, is but a short ejaculation, and sooner ended then the Communicant can address himself to his knees. Sixtly, that prayer or short wish is ended before the Minister offer the bread to the Communicant, 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 mental prayer, for none such is enjoined. what suppose kneeling were enjoined in respect of prayer also, for if also, or principally for reverence of the Sacrament, it is sufficient for our purpose. for to adore any other thing but God, or with God, are both idolatrous. Master Paybodie saith, 
P. pag. 334.  Concerning prayer, I do freely confess, that in as much as it is but an occasion, and not the principal exercise of the soul, whither it be: mental or vocal, in the sacrament all business, I do neither deem it the principal respect of lawful kneeling, neither have I reason to deem it the principal respect upon which the Church enjoineth it. And again, 
pag. 299.  Suppose there be no prayer used in the time of receiving, I think never the worse of the gesture of kneeling. No wonder he say so, for he layeth down a ground, that any of the gestures may be used in any part of God's worship, which is a begging of the question, and yet he can not prove kneeling at the hearing of the word, let be in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, but out of a misprinted place in Perth assembly, pag. 45. where in is put for after.  
far less can our Formalists pretend the respect of prayer. 
No pretence of prayer in our act.  For we have no act enjoining either any vocal prayer to be uttered by the minister or mental by the Communicant, when he is to receive the elements. Nor do our Formalists observe one form of words at the delivery, either for prayer, or otherwise.  
Wheresoever the public intent of a Church is to kneel for reverence of the sacrament, 
The intent of the kneeler must be interpreted by the act.  every Communicant following her direction, is an idolater. Howbeit his private intent were diverse from the intent of the act, which is urged as the public intent of the Church, yet he is interpretatiuè an idolater, and to be so construed both before God and man. If any man receive the sacrament upon his knees at Rome, or in any other Popish Church, whersoever were his private intent, yet he must be interpreted to kneel according to the intent of the Church of Rome. The heart may be carried one way, and the outward action another way for fear, or other respects, but that outward action must be interpreted not according to the intention of the mind, but the intent of the enjoiner. If ye fall down before an idol in Spain, suppose for fear of the inquisition, ye commit idolatry, and honoureth that idol in the sight of men.  
If it be asked, after what manner the Communicant must be interpreted to adore, 
Of the manner of their adoration.  I answer, That upon better consideration of the act then before, I think the Communicant may according to the act kneel with a Popish intent, carring both the inward motion of his spirit, and outward submission of his body to the sacrament upon opinion of transubstantiation, or with the Lutherans intent upon opinion of consubstantiation, and that for two cases, first, because the words of the act make mention only of the body and blood of Christ, and of the blessed sacrament, but not one word of the elements of bread and wine. Next, because some of our ministers the chief urgers of kneeling are popish, and have taught in public in the pulpits of Edinburgh, that we ought not to contend, or descant curiously upon the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament, and that he is present after an unknown manner. To this purpose they cite a saying of Durandus. It is current among the English prelates. 
D. Ames 1. reply pag. 54. part. 2.  The bishop of Rochester in his defence of kneeling, commendeth the simplicity of the ancients, who disputed not whither Christ were present C●n, sub, in, or trans, 
Hooker. l. 5. s. 67.  in the supper. See Hooker likewise in his fifth book of ecclesiastical policy. And Sutton on the Lord's supper, in his appendix. They will talk more plainly, when they shall see their time. 
pag. 142, 145.  Our Doctor commendeth them for this. They would have us believe, that the manner of the presence of Christ's body at the sacrament is unknown, whereas we know very well, that Christ's body is present after a spiritual manner to the souls of the godly receiving by faith, ●ut to the sacrament, or elements only after a sacramental manner, that is, relatively, as things signified are to signs, howbeit far distant. That incomprehensible or unsearchable manner, whereof they talk, is a lurking hole for adversaries to the truth, 
Epist. 76.  as Beza can tell him.  
Our Doctor from Christ's personal omnipresence, inferreth, page 142. the flesh and blood of Christ may be worshipped in the sacrament, because, wheresoever his person is, his humanity is corjoyned with his divinity. By this Popish reason, Christ's flesh and blood may be worshipped in a stone, in the moon, the sun, or any other thing else. His argument is borrowed from the Rhemists note upon Heb. 1. 8. Our doctor rejecteth the Ubiquitaries conceit of Christ's humanity, extended and diffused through every place: yet notwithstanding of this personal omnipresence, he hideth himself in the lurking hole of the imperceptible manner of the sacramental presence. He acknowledgeth a spiritual presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. B●llarmine acknowledgeth as much, 
De Eucharis. lib. 1. cap. 2.  for saith he, Non habet Christus in Eucharistia modum existendi corporum, sed spirituum. If ye will bear the word Bodily, so will Bellarmine he content, because (saith he) Christ is not present after that manner, that bodies have existence of their own nature, unless the right explication be added: He commendeth the expression of the council of Tre●●, Verè, realiter, substantialiter, Truly really substantially, as the best and surest For the popish sense. When our doctors will not have us to contend about the manner of presence, whither by consubstantion, or transubstantiation, yet this taketh not away Substantially in general, but leaveth place to substantially in an unknown manner. But we proceed: If any will extend the words of the act to the elements of bread and wine, and interpret the receiving of Christ's body and blood, of the souls inward receiving, then howbeit he kneeleth not upon opinion of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, yet his adoration is terminated, and resteth someway upon the sacrament, or sacramental elements, otherwise he cannot be said to kneel for receiving of the sacrament.  
Now, as the papists agree not among themselves about the manner of worshipping their images, so the Communicants may differ in the manner and way of terminating that adoration or worship. Therefore suppose he believe not the real presence or existence of the body of Christ in the bread, yet he may in his apprehension and imagination unite them, as the papist doth his image with the prototype, and so adore the thing with the thing signified; as the purple rob with the King is coadored or adored per accid●ns: or he may consider the sign, as substitute in the room of the thing signified, howbeit absent, and performeth before it, or about it, that adoration which he would bestow upon the thing signified, and by it, or in it honoureth the thing, signified properly, but the sign improperly: As when a King's Ambassador or Vicegerent is honoured at some solemnity with the honour of his Master, but improperly; for the King is properly honoured. Or as Vas●uez will have images to be adored, to wit, with the inward motion of the mind to the thing signified the body of Christ, and the exterior or outward sign of submission to the sign, to be transmitted to the thing signified, or considering the signs as things sacred, and in relation to God, whom we are serving in the use of them. So howbeit the way and manner of terminating the reverence in the Sacrament be different, according to the conceit of the Communicant, all come to one end, to wit, to kneel for reverence of the Sacrament. Now to kneel for reverence, is a gesture of adoration, 
pag. 70.  and sovereign worship, as L. ackowledgeth. It is nothing to the devil, whether a man err this or that way. Howbeit the Communicants were not directed to kneel for reverence of the Sacrament, dare any man say, but they may easily fall upon it one of these ways.  
I might draw another score here, for it is enough that the Communicants are directed by the act of Perth to kneel, for reverence of the Sacrament: for seeing he kneeleth in obedience to that act, he must be interpreted to kneel for that end: otherwise he may go to Rome, and take Corpus Christi out of the pope's hand, reserving a secret intent to himself. Therefore howbeit kneeling in the act of receiving might he lawful, no professor in our Church can be excused, if he kneel.  
But we proceed, 
Kneeling in the act of receiving can not be free of idolatry.  and setting aside the act of P●rth, we consider the act or action itself, kneeling in the act of receiving, eating, drinking the 〈…〉 simply. We will prove it can not be done but for reverence of the Sacrament, or sacramental elements, and that by two arguments.  
The first argument shall be this, 
The first argument.  To be tied to kneel, whither by direction of others, or resolution of our own minds, to kneel with reverence, in any religious exercise 〈…〉 or senseless creature, can not be done but for 〈…〉 of that creature. The communicant is 〈…〉 by the direction of others, or his own 〈…〉 to kneel with reverence before dead and senseless creatures, when he is in the act of receiving the sacramental elements. Therefore he kneeleth for reverence of the sacramental elements. I say, by direction of others, or resolution of our own mind. for we can not kneel to God in prayer, but there are many things before us, a house, a wall, a tree, etc. but they are set before us only by casual position or situation ●●●ther can we choose to do otherwise, but we do not lie ourselves. I add with reverence: for if a person finding himself diseased at the hearing of the word, find himself eased with kneeling, that can not be called kneeling with reverence. If ye be tied to kneel with reverence, when you are to do any religious exercise, suppone prayer, before such a creature, suppone but a'tree, and is not likewise tied when you pray before any other creature, your 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 them from thence. He was present in the Ark after an extraordinary manner, sitting between the Cherubins, answered by a lively voice out of it to Moses, and vouchsafed to hear such as turned toward the Temple, when they called upon him. But there is no such place appointed under the Gospel, far less any creature before which he hath directed us to kneel. Our adoration is directed to that place, where we know the manhood of Christ, whereof the Ark and the Temple were types, doth exist naturally or substantially, that is, to the heavens The sacramental bread is not a place of God's extraordinary presence, nor of the existing of Christ's manhood substantially, or of promise to hear us from thence. It is idolatry (saith Perkinse) to turn, 
Treatise of idolatie●.  dispose or direct the worship of God, or any part thereof to any particular place or creature without the appointment of God, and more specially to direct our adoration to the bread, or the place where the bread is. The Theologues, and ministers in the Palatinat in their admonition, touching the book of Concord, teach us, that it is idolatry to worship God otherwise then he hath commanded: that they are guilty of this idolatry, that direct the adoration of God to any other place or creature, than God hath commanded: that for this cause only these worshipped God aright, who in their gesture turned their faces toward the ark, where he was, prefer●● after a singular manner, because God had commanded this ceremonial adoration, promising to hear such as worshipped him after that manner. But that under the new testament all ceremonial adoration by turning us to any certain place or thing, is damned.  
In the admonition above mentioned, therefore they condemn them as guilty of as gross idolatry, who adore Christ in, or beside, or before the sacramental bread; ●s if he were corporally there, as those who falling down before any common bread, a stock, or stone, would say, they adore Christ in it. Qui igitur Christum adorant in isto vel apud istum, vel coram isto pane, tanquam ibi corporaliter praesentem, aeque crassam ac Deo displicentem idololatriam admittunt, atque is qui coram quovis pane communi aut quovis trunco, aut quovis lapid: procidens, in eo Christum se aederarit dicat. They add, as corporally present, because these against whom they were writing maintained a corporal presence. Our doctor sayeth, It is no error to worship Christ's flesh there, 
pag. 142.  which must be understood as present there, whither in respect of his personal omnipresence, or by imaginary u●ion of the bread and his body, or that unknown manner of sacramental presence, with which they cloak perhaps a meaning, which as yet they think not expedient to profess. Kuchlinus' disp. theolog. pag. 597. inferreth out of jerem. 3. 11. and john 4. 23. likewise, that our adoration should not be directed, either in body or mind, to the altar, or the ministers hand. Ter Simecdochen enim tollit circumstantiam omnem verti loci; ad quem in terris dirigitur adoratio Dei, quod ostendit Antithesis manifestè, sed in spiritu & veritate. Ye see then, howbeit we are not tied to direct our adoration at all time to the place where the bread is, as the Jews were toward the ark, because it is not always fixed in a certain place, these divines condemn the like manner, at whatsoever time we adore before the bread.  
We uncover our heads, 
The uncovering of the head not like kneeling.  say they, when we receive the elements, why may we not also kneel? I answer, first, the uncovering of the head is a gesture of reverence only, and that only among some nations, but not of adoration. The Jews, Turks, and Mahometans pray with their heads covered. The Grecians and Romans of old, howbeit they walked in public with uncovered heads, except in rain, great heat, or mourning, yet in the service of their Gods, they had their heads covered. The Europeans this day uncover their heads when they are praying. Kneeling is a gesture of adoration among all nations, either in civil or religious use. Augustine saith, Honorat emnis qui adorat, no autem adorat omnes quid onorat; Every one that doth adore, doth honour, but not every one that honoureth, adoreth. Contraserm. Arian. c. 23. I will not kneel 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. A provincial synod holden at London, anno 1603: ordained the head to be uncovered, when their service is read in the Church, yet I think they would not have enjoined kneeling. We hear the canonical scripture read with uncovered heads, but yet we kneel not. The words of Christ, which he uttered at the institution, are still and often uttered; that same voice soundeth through all the tables of the world, his actions, which were divine and holy, are reiterate. In Gratian'ss decree, De consecrat. dist. 1. cap. 68 we have a superstitious direction of Pope Anastasius, that when the Gospel is read in the Church, those that are present, shall not sit, but stand venerabiliter curvi, bowing reverently, harken and adore. Wherefore more at the hearing of the Gospel, than the Epistle, which is also Evangelicall? Yet you see, howbeit that standing with bowing be more then to have the head uncovered, it was but veneration. And, whereas he saith, Et fideliter adorent, the gloss hath, id est venerentur, because the word adoring, is taken there in a large sense, as ye may see sundry places above cited, not for that which is in a strict sense called adoration. Adoration in strict sense is kneeling or prostration. Whereas Matthew saith, chap 8. ●. of the leprous man, That he worshipped Christ, or adored Christ, as the Latin translation hath according to the original, Mark 1. 40. He kneeled deuce to him, and Luke 5. 12. that he fell in his face. Suchlike, where it is said of the Cananitish woman, Matth. 15. 25. That she worshipped, or adored him: & adoravit eum. Mark 7. 25. it is said, That she fell at his feet. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth to fall down like a dog o●●whelp at the feet of another, as our Lord. Further, our heads are not other way uncovered in the act of receiving, then in the rest of the time of the celebration; when we are not near the elements. And thirdly, the uncovering of our head is compatible with the variety of actions in time of celebration, praying, singing, the words of the institution, and chapters read, but adoration directed, as they pretend to God, can not be without presenting● our petitions, and thanks to God, which requireth a several part of the action by itself.  
It is objected, 
Occasional. kneeling not warrant ●●r ordinary. ● pag. 88  that 1 King. 18. 39 when the people saw the fire fall upon the sacrifice, to consume it, the wood, the stones, the dust and lick up the water that was in the trench, they fell on their faces, and cried, The Lord is God. I answer, The people fell on their faces after the fire had consumed the burnt sacrifice, the wood, the stones, 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. Next, what suppose they had fallen down in the mean time, that the fire was working the work, wherefore it was sent. Is it any wonder, that men amazed with the presence of God's majesty in a miracle, fall down as astonished, to worship God. 
Levit. 9 23, 24. The original of unbe●eef. pag. 332.  Such a visible sign of God's presence is called the glory of the Lord. Doctor Jackson the Arminian hath this rule to be observed, Such actions as have been managed by God's Spirit suggested by secret instinct, or extracted by extraordinary and special occasions, are then only lawful in others, when they are begotten by like occasions, or brought forth by like impulsions. In matters of secular civility or morality, many things (saith he) will beseem one man, which are uncomely in another, and in one, and thes●●me man's deportment many things are decent and lawful, whiles they are drawn from him by special or rare occasions, whose usual practice upon dislike or no occasions, becometh according to the nature of the subject, ridiculous, or dishonest. That in the service of God, and matters spiritual, the least digression or declination from proposed patterns, is far more dangerous. To attempt the like enterprise unto Jonathans', upon warrant of his example, and upon like speeches of enemies inviting him to come up, would be a superstitious tempting of God. Every man may not use the like prognostication, that Abraham's servant made use of, when he was sent to bespeak for his young master Isaac a wife. Jacob expressed his tender affection to his son Joseph, whom he never looked to see again, by kissing his coat, but to have hanged it about his bed or table, that it might receive such salutations evening and morning, or at every meal's time, might have countenanced many breaches of superstition. Charles the fifth after his fyrewell to the wars, and safe arrival to Spain, saluted the spanish shore in such an affectionate and prostrate manner, as his meanest vassal could nor ordinarily have saluted, either him or it without just imputation of gross idolatry. These are Doctor jackson's examples, which he bringeth in for illustration of his rule. If there come into the Church one that believeth not, or one that is unlearned, and hear one after another prophecy, and finding himself convinced, and the secrets of his heart made manifest, falling down on his knees, he will report that God is in you of a truth, 1 Corin. 14. 24, 25. Yet if he fell down before: them ordinarily, were it not idolatrous? Thirdly, suppose they had fallen down when the fire was in working, yet it is not said, that they fell down with their eyes po●ing upon the fire, but upon their faces, and cried. The Lord is God, because he had manifested by his presence and power in such a miracle, that he was the true God, as 2 Chron. 7. 3. when the children of Israel saw, how the fire came down, and consumed the sacrifices, and that the glory of the Lord had filled the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped and praised the Lord, saying, etc.  
Solomon kneeled, 
Salomon's kneeling at the dedication of the temple.  say they, before the altar of the Lord, when he prayed at the dedication of the temple. For it is said, 1 King. 8. 54. that when he had made an end of praying all his prayer and application to the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lor●, from kneeling on his knees, and stood, and blessed the people. I answer, 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 praved at that time; for he had prepared a brazen scaffold; and set it in the midst of the court, over against the altar of the Lord, 2 Chron. 6. 13. He kneeled where he had been standing on the scaffold, and spread his hands toward the heavens, not toward the altar. It is said; 2 Chron. 6. 13. That he fell down upon his knees before all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands towards heaven. Neither is it said, That he turned his face to the altar. They turned their face ordinarily to that part of the temple, where the ark was the place of God's extraordinary presence. The ark was metonymically called God, 1 Sam. 4. 7. The Lord, 1 King. 9 25. The Lord of hosts, the King of glory, Psal. 24. The face of the Lord, Esa. 1. 12. for it the tabernacle was made, and the temple. It represented God's seat, and God delivered his oracles from the mercy seat above it. What likelihood then is there, that they kneeled ordinarily in their prayers looking toward the altar, or that they come never before the altar but kneeled before it; for the altar was but dedicated at this time. It was not already dedicated, but in fieri, saith D. B. Augustine lib. 
Of kneeling. pag. 7.  2. ad Simplicianum qui. 4. saith, David pr●yed before the ark, Quia ibi sacratior & commendatior presentia Domini erat; because the presence of the Lord there was more sacred and more to be respected. The like answer may be given to that place, Micha 6. 6. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God. They bowed themselves before the high God sitting between the Cherubims, not toward the altar, they bowed, when they had offered their oblations, not to their oblations. As when they presented the basket with first fruits; they first set it down, and after bowed themselves before Jehovah their God, and so went out, Deut. 26. 24. 10. What if they had bowed, when they were offering to God? When we are in the act of receiving, eating, drinking, we are receiving, and not offering.  
They say, 
The pretence of objectum a quo significative.  the sacramental elements are only as objectum à quo significative, that is, as an active object moving them to worship the things signified, or God. Put case that were true. So said Purandus, Holcot, and Picus Mirandula; 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 he manner of his adoration. And yet were they never ranked among the Iconomachi, but by the Papists counted good Catholics. It is true, Bellarmine and Suarez are not content with this adoration, which they call improper adoration, when any person or thing is honoured in place of another, as when the ambassador is honoured with the honour due and proper to the king, but for the king, or, as when all the ceremonies are celebrat about a statue in steed of the true corpse. 
De imaginibus. cap. 19 20. 21.  Bell irmine granteth notwithstanding that, Coram illa, vel in illa, aut per illam adoratur exemplar, that after their manner of worship the sampler is adored before the image, 
De cultu adorat. Disp. 108. num. 73.  or in the image, or by the image. Vazquez proveth, That these Doctors made the image objectum quod, the very object passive of adoration, and that both the sampler and the image were adored, simul cum imaginibus exemplaria proximè & ut quód adorari. For they used the same respect to the images, that other Catholics used, they uncovered their head to them, they bowed toward them, kneeled before them, and kissed them. And this he defendeth to be the right manner, when the image and the sampler are adored with one adoration, the inward motion and submission of the mind, being carried to the sampler, and the outward sign of submission to the image, being transmitted by the spirit, or in thought and desire, 
De adorat. disp. 108. num. 90. num. 132. 134. & disp. 110 num. 34. Disp. 109. num. 7.  to the sampler. That all the Catholics agree in this, that the kiss be so fixed upon the image, and the body be bowed before it, that the affection being inflamed with the remembrance of the sampler, be carried to it with inward reverence, Virtute cujus externum esculum in ipsum etiam veluti sagittam transmittat; by virtue or power whereof it transmitteth the outward kiss●, as an arrow, to the sampler itself. So kneeling before the image, prostration, or any other sign of submission is to be transmitted by the image to the sampler after the same manner. For, 
De adorat. disp. 106. num 2. & 6.  saith he, in the time of the 7. synod, there were some enemies to images, who were content, that images were brought into the Church, not only for decorement, sed etiam ad excitand●m f●delibus memoriam exemplaris, ut coram eis ipsum solum ven rentur, illis tamen nullum signum honoris aut submissienis, neque osculo, nec inclinatione corporis, nec alio modo exhiberent, id enim idolatriam esse dicebant, ●ut also to stir up the remembrance of the sampler, to the faithful, that before them they might reverence only the sampler, but exhibit no sign of honour or submission, either by kiss or bowing of the body, or any other way, for they said that was idolatry. Quare nec osculabantur imagines, neque ipsis corpus inclinabant, nec thurificabant, sed recti coram eyes, in memoriam ex emplaris exictati, in ipsum ment sola ferebantur. And therefore (saith he) they neither kissed images, nor bowed their body to them▪ nor offered incense, but standing upright before them, being stirred up to the remembrance of the sampler, they were carried only in their wind to it. In another place he saith, 
Disp. 108. num. 128.  Iconomachi, qui ad solam recordationem imaginibus utuntur, ante illas genua non flectunt, nec se prosternunt, sic enim ipsas nota extcriori adorarent, sed erecti absque ullo gestu corporis qui reverenti●m judicet, coram imagine, exemplaris recordantur & ipsum spiritu solùm adorant. That is, The adversaries to images, who use images only to put them in remembrance of the sampler, they neither kneel, nor prostrate themselves before them, for so they should adore them with the outward note or sign, but standing upright without any gesture of the body before the image, which might be a show of reverence, they remember the sampler, and adore it in spirit only. But these Doctors above mentioned, howbeit their inward reverence was directed to the sampler, yet the outward sign of submission was first directed to the image. Ye see then, that taking the images only as objectum à quo significatiuè, as instruments and means to stir up their remembrance, these mangrels who were called Semiprobi, would not kneel before them: for then, saith Vazquez, they should have adored them, which he in his Popish judgement, thinketh they should have done; but these Doctors did so. So if the elements be used only as objectum à quo significatiuè, to stir up their remembrance, 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 Church they be. And howsoever the Doctor seemeth to disallow the elevation, pag. 119. 120. 121. Yet he saith, we may kneel before the elements, having them in our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary means, signs, and memorial, to stir us up to worship God and our Saviour, pag. 88 92. what fault were there then to lift them up to be seen. Seeing then they kneel before such a signifying object, and are tied to kneel, the signification of the object doth not help, but rather be wrayeth, that they give that respect unto it, as by it to transmit the outward sign of worship▪ mediately to the thing signified, 
pag. ●5.  or to God, which L. confesseth to be idolatry, hypocrisy, and a mixture of worship: and yet this is at the least their worship. For if they used them only as active objects, 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 flee. And therefore it is not to the purpose, that he so often harpeth upon the use of stirring and moving. 
pag. 84. 85. 81. 92. D. B. of kneeling. pag. 33.  D. B. saith plainly, That objectum à quo significatiuè, is medium per quod, a means by which, and that by the sacrament, they tender adoration to God. Doctor Mortoun saith, The adoration is relative from the sign to Christ. If it be from the sign, it must first be carried to the sign, as a mean of conveyance unto Christ, 
Reply 2. part. pag. 65. No difference between images and the elements in the case of adoration.  saith Doctor Ames in his reply.  
But D. L. in his solutions, saith, there is a great difference between images, which are the inventions of men, and the works of God and the sacraments. But say we, in the case of adoration there is no difference. If the historical use of images be lawful, as some now maintain, quid obstat praesentia imaginis, saith Vazquez, what doth hinder you at the sight of a crucifix to fall down before it, and worship Crist. And if the use of images to this end be forbidden, so are also the creatures. We esteem more indeed of the works of God, then of the workmanship of man. We owe reverence at the hearing of the word, decent and comely usage in the participation of the sacrament, which we owe not to images, howbeit this reverend use be not properly a spece of adoration. 
L. pag. 77.  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. They are not commanded to be used, either in or out of the time of divine service, in modo & statu accomodato ad adorationem. We may, and do use the word and sacraments for means, occasions, instruments to stir us up to worship God, but it followeth not that we should or may worship God by kneeling before them. The general Council holden at Constantinople, anno 750. in condemning images, speaking by the way of this sacrament, hath these words, Ecce igitur vivificantis illius corporis imaginem totam, panis scilicet substantiam, quam mandavit apponi, ne scilicet humana effigie figura●a, idololatria intro duceretur; Behold therefore the whole or only image of that quickening body, the substance of bread, which he commanded to be set before them, lest if it had a humane shape, idolatry might have been brought in. The braz●n serpent was set up upon a pole, that these who were stinged with the fiery serpents, looking upon it, might be cured. Yet, 
De adorat. disp. 104. num. 24.  saith Vazquez, God commanded them to look upon it, standing upright without any adoration or sign of submission. The people of God had their sacraments, yet they kneeled not before them, nor yet heard they the word either read or exponed kneeling. When they heard the law of the passover, they bowed not their head, howbeit it might be finished in an instant, saith L. 
pag. 68  and far less kneeled, but after they had heard. God's 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, 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, power. For than we should fall into the horrible error of Vazquez, 
De adorat. disp. 110.  who doubted not to aver, that not only an image, or any holy thing may be worshipped in the same adoration with God, but also any thing in the world, the sun, the moon, the stirs, a stock, 
Solut. p. ●62.  a stone, a straw: Doctor Lindsey in his solutions, to shun this absurdity, 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 ador● 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. He durst not say, When we see the works of God, when we hear the word of God, as he should have done, if he would have shown the difference betwixt the word of God, the works of God, and images. Nor yet doth he say, When we have received the sacrament, as he said of the other two, When we have seen the works of God, when we have heard the word of God. But now he affirmeth boldly, that we may bow our knees to God before his creatures, if we use them only as means and instruments to stir us up to worship God, pag. 94. That this error grounded upon the significant object, may be the better perceaved, consider, that the book of nature is like the book of grace. If I were reading and meditating upon a passage of scripture, I am then considering what is read. When I have ended that work, if I find myself moved to pray, or give thanks, I poor not still with the eyes of my body, and my mind upon the book, but turn myself 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. I am not then gathering leassons or instructions, for that exercise is ended. So when I am beholding a tree, an ass, or toad, and considering in them the goodness, power, and wisdom of God, I am reading upon the book of nature, I am contemplating and gathering profitable instructions. I cannot 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 for worship is ended, must I tie or set myself before that ass, to ●d, 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 Vazquez hath descrived the manner of adoration by images. The manner is not different. If the old opinion of some Heathnike philosophers were their tenant, that the world was animated by God, as our bodies are by our souls, than they might with some probability conclude. Jupiter ●st quodcunque vides, All that thou seest is great Jupiter, and infer this worship before every creature. But Christian religion will not admit such gros●e opinions.  
They say, 
Mediate civil worship no good warrant.  men how before the chair of estate, or the prince's seal, which are dead and senseless creatures. I answer, civil worship is conveyed mediately 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 no mediate worship to uphold his majesty, nor will have none. Again, the ceremonies of Kings and Emperor's courts are no rules for religions worship. For, 
De civitat. Dei lib. 10. cap. 4.  as Augustine saith, Multa de cultu di vino usurpata sunt, quae honoribus deseruntur humanis, sive humilitate nimia, sive adulatione pestifera. That great humility or pestiferous statterie, may be the original of many honours given to princes, borrowed from the forms used in God's worship. Nazianzen saith, The Roman Euperours were honoured with public images. Their crowns, and diadems, and purple robes, many laws, tributs, and multitude of subjects were not sufficient to make sure their empire, but they behoved to be adored, not only in their own persons, but also in colours, and other works made with men's hands, that they might seem the more venerable. That is, 
Chamier de Imagine. c. 6. num. 9  as Chemier interpreteth, these images proceeded ab inexplebili fostum Imperatorum, from the insatiable ambition of Emperors. The statues of some Kings have had divine honours conferred on them. Doctor Abbots in his defence of Perkinse saith, It should seem strange, that formalities observed to princes in their courts for majestic and royal estate, should be made patterns of religious devotion to be practised in the Church.  
Francis Whit in his reply to Fisher saith, 
pag. 228.  Civil and religious worship are of diverse beginnings and forms, and every thing that is possible, lawful and commendable in the one, is not so in the other. There is civil ordinance for the one, but there wanteth divine ordinance for the other.  
But ye will say, 
God's extraordinary presence in the ark.  The people of God worshipped God by the ark. I answer, They worshipped God not by the ark, but in the ark. For God was present in the ark after an extraordinary manner. God was likewise in the temple after a peculiar manner hearing their prayers. 
De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 4.  Immo hic est modus qno Deus est in templo peculiaciter, nimirium quia ibi est per exauditionem, saith Bellarmine, which was true of Salomon's temple, but not rightly applied to ours. God is not in the sacramental elements after such an extraordinary manner, nor yet the body of Christ. Nay the body of Christ is not spiritually in the sacrament, to use the Doctors phrase, pag. 95. if by sacrament be meant the sacramental elements, as commonly it is taken, for so the meaning shall be popish as I have declared before. But there is a spiritual presence of Christ's body, not without, but within the hearts of the faithful. This presence of God by his spirit, or spiritual presence of Christ's body in the heats of the faithful, is not extraordinary, but ordinary, and common to all the godly, not exposed to the senses, but inward and invisible.  
Howbeit in words they deny a relative worship of Christ by the signs, 
Their relative adoration.  to gull the simple, yet we must look to their carriage before the signs, and their ground taken from the moving and stirring object, Yea, sometime words escape plain enough. The Lutherans worship Christ in the sacrament as we should do. Their error is only in the manner of presence, saith our Doctor, pag. 141. No error to worship Christ flesh and blood there, in respect of the personal presence of Ch●ists body, pag. 142. There then either really, or by imagination, as the Papist uniteth the image and the sampler, or as there, as when an empty coffin is carried at funerals, and all the solemnities observed, as if the corpse were present. Let him take his choice. And pag. 144. If ye except out of the number of reformed Churches all that think that Christ is present in the sacrament, and in the sacrament to be adored, I fear ye draw the number of the reformed Churches to a very small account, whom ye call the purer sort, such as Arrians, Anabaptists, and their followers. He abstaineth from clear speeches, that he may lurk under the word Sacrament, and forbeareth the expression of our divines for the manner of Christ's presence. D. Mourton, pag. 291. saith, that in the relative reverence, which is used in their Church, relation being made from the sign to Christ the thing signified, the sacrament is objectum à quo significatiuè. And what is that but reverence relative by the sign to Christ? And what hindereth adoration to be carried by a significant object, more than by a representative? The signs in the sacrament, notwithstanding of the want of humane shape, represent Christ to us.  
Ye may ask, What if ye keep not a constant course, but sometimes sit, sometime stand, and sometime kneel? I answer, Put case, ye kneel sometime for fear like a temporizer, or of your own accord, ye take liberty indeed to sit, stand, or kneel, but when and how oft ye kneel, ye adore, and tie yourself to adore at these times before such an object, after the same manner, and for the same respects, and considerations, which are observed by those who keep a constant course. For it is not here as in prayer. We may pray without external adoration, or with it, as in the petition of the mother of Zebedees' children, Matth. 20. she came to Christ, adorans & pe●ens, worshipping him, and petitioning. And 2 Sam. 14. 4. the woman of Tekoa fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, when she petitioned the King. For every gesture in praying to God, is no more a gesture of adoration, then in petitioning men. Now when ye adore in prayer, your adoration is directed immediately to God, having no object before you, but such as standeth casually before you, from which you may turn yourself in the very act of praying, to which you have no more respect than to other objects round about you. But here you 〈…〉 kneel before such an object, an object significant, and for that respect doth kneel, that that sign of outward worship may be convoyed to Christ's flesh and blood signified by that object.  
We have in the former argument considered the sacramental elements, 
The second argument.  as an object presented before us in the hand of the minister without any further use. We are now to consider them in the use, when we take, eat, and drink, and our next argument shall be 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, drinking the bread and wine at the Lords supper, is not an action directed to God immediately, as prayer and thanksgiving is, nor is it an outward sign of adoration, as kneeling is. 
De adoratione disput. 93. num. 45.  Susceptio & collatio sacramentorum, est cultus quidam sa●er, eum ea dignè tractantur, nullius tamen rei est adoratio: The receiving and giving of the sacraments is a kind of sacred worship, but it is not the adoration of any thing, saith Vazquez. And ye● our Doctor, to whom what is absurd, saith, that the sacrament is an act of real adoration, pag. 133.  
They allege commonly, that we may kneel before our meat set on the table, when we are to bless it. But they do not prosecute it to the point, because they see, it will not frame for their purpose: First, we are to consider the time of the blessing; The meat is to be considered not only as an object active, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  putting us in mind of a benefit, but also as passive, not of adoration, but of blessing and sanctification for our use, for the meat is not set upon the table merely to be gazed upon, but to be blessed and sanctified for our use. Next, we are not, nor can not be tied to bless kneeling. Yea, we read not in scripture, that any blessed the meat upon the tabl kneeling. Christ himself blessed sitting. Solomon kneeled, 1 King. 8. 54. when he prayed, and spoke to God: but when he was to bless the people, it is said, he rose and stood up. It is an incongruous thing among the Papists to adore a thing, which is not higher than their poles, when they adorer, because they can not be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than themselves, say D. P. and P. 
D. B. pag. 68 P. pag. 387.  It were incongruous likewise, and inexpedient to set the meat as high as our poles or above, 
Decret. pag. 366.  and adore before it kneeling, and looking up to in. Bochellus citeth a canon forbidding the priest to lift up the bread to be seen before the words of consecration be uttered, lest the people adore and commit idolatry. Thirdly, when we kneel, we are not bound to gaze upon the meat, but may turn ourselves to a chair, a wall, or a form, or any other thing set before us casually. Yea, when we sit at table, we are not bound at the blessing to gaze upon the meat, but may, and do ordinarily lift up our hands and our eyes to the heavens, as Christ lifted up his eyes. But if they would come to the purpose; and make a just comparison, they should consider next, that after the meat is blessed, it were strange to see every one who is present sit down upon his knees, with his countenance fixed upon the bread in the hand of the master of the family or feast. And after this sort we have considered already in the former argument, the elements holden in the hands of the minister. But now we are to consider thirdly, the act of taking, eating, drinking, our meat and drink. We may not take, eat, and drink our ordinary meat and drink upon our knees. Nature and custom teacheth us, it were rather a mocking of God, than a reverend adoration of him. You will say, there is a differences The sacrament all elements are holy bread and wi●e, the other common and ordinary. There ye betray your 〈◊〉 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 too prone to conceit too highly of things set apart to holy uses, as if they were of greater worth than ourselves, for whose use they were instituted. Next, suppose there be a difference, yet our ordinary bread is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, to our use. Therefore it is but a mocking of God, unless that which you eat and drink be worthy of divine honour. 
Lib. 3. de natura D●●rum.  Thinkest their any man so 〈◊〉 as to believe, that that which 〈…〉 Cicera. Yet the Papist is thus mad. Ave●roes said, My souls shall hold with the philosophers, since the Christians worship that which they eat. And this do our kneelers. Yet the Papist thinketh he taketh and eateth the body of Christ, which by reason of the concomitance of the Godhead, he adoreth. The Lutheran thinketh both the bread and the body are present: yet they are consonant to their erroneous grounds of the real presence, and unless Christ's body were there really and substantially, they would not take, eat, and drink, adoring upon their knees. Neither would any reasonable man be so absurd, as to take, eat, drink, adoring, unless he believed, that he were eating, were worthy of divine honour. It is otherwise so absurd to kneel before God after that manner. It were absurd to kneel before an eart●●ly king, ●est eating and drinking. But it may be our kneelers be gross enough in their opinion of the real presence. Suarez saith, 
Suarez in 3. part. tom. 3. p. 780. Bellar. de eschar. l. 2. c. 3. l. 4. c. 29. Alger. de sa●cram. altar. l. 2. c. 3.  That as real presence proveth adoration a priori, so adoration proveth real presence a postiriori. Bellarmine likewise proveth adoration by real presence, and real presence by adoration. Algerius writing in the eleventh century, that is between a 1000 an● 1100. year, condemneth it as a vain and senseless fancy to bestow so much reverence upon the sacrament, unless Christ's body be present there. 
Tarnov. de minister 10. l. 2. c. 31.  Tarnovius a Lutheran, Pre ermittendo hanc venerationem Christi externam, genuflexionem scilicet, communicantes presentiam Christi secundum corpus negare, & see Calvinians jungere. That is, By praetermitting this veneration, to wit, kneeling, the communicants should seem to deny Christ's bodily presence, and to join themselves to the Calvinians. They think, kneelers, who believe not the real presence, worship a piece of bread.  
They say, 
The pretence of mental prayer.  We may pray mentally in the act of receiving, therefore we may kneel or adore in the act of receiving. I answer first, We may not pray when we are bound to another exercise. In the act of receiving, eating, drinking, we should attend upon the audible words, the visible signs and rites, meditat upon the analogy between the outward signs and rites, and the things signified, take, eat, drink mentally, and spiritually by faith. And so meditation upon the analogy, is not the only work of the soul, 
pag. 102. 109. pag. 112.  as L. supposeth us to imagine. Our desires are not prayers, as L. dreameth. Prayer is more than desire. It is a manifesting of our desires to God. Desiderium non dum dicitur oratio, quousque pere intellectus loquertis cum Deo exprimatur, 
〈…〉 disp. 93. num. 11.  saith Vazqu●z. This exercise of the mind, correspondent to the outward exercise of the members and senses of the body outwardly, cannot consist with oratio continua & instructa; set prayer. The soul may send forth to the heavens short ejaculations like darts. Prayer intermixeth itself with every ordinance whatsomever, 
pag. 199. pag. 236.  s●ith P. He must mean ejaculatory prayer, for otherwise he confesseth, that one ordinance is to be distinguished from another. But these ejaculations may be incident to all our actions, even civil, let be religious, when we are eating and drinking our ordinary meat and drink, transitoriae, or ejaculatoriae orationes, as they call them, and therefore cannot be attended with kneeling. In sudden ejaculations no other gesture is required, then that wherein the motion of God's spirit shall find us, saith Master Down. Next, suppose ye might pray a set prayer mentally, yet ye should not kneel in public at your set mental prayer, when the congregation is at another exercise, nay, nor make any show by any other sign or gesture, that ye are praying. If it be mental, it is in secret before the Lord, and the signs of it before men should be concealed. Thirdly, it followeth, not, suppose ye may pray, that ye must pray kneeling: ●ee▪ use the one may sometime be without the other. The Jews prayed standing as well as kneeling, 
Drusti praeterita in Matth. 6.  and therefore, saith Drusius, of old prayers were called stations or standings. And Rabbi Jud● had a saying, Sine stationibus non subsisteret mindus; The world cannot subsist without stations or standings, that is, prayers. If ye will not, or may not pray but kneeling with reverence, when ye come before such a creature, it cannot be imagined to be done without respect to that creature. The like answers may be made to mental thanksgiving. Ejaculations of thanks may agree with the proper exercise of the soul in the time of receiving, eating, drinking, as it may also with the ordinary feeding, or any worldly business, but not a set thanksgiving, which should require the attention of all the powers of the soul, and cannot be done without diverting the soul from the exercise proper for that time. Next, the signs outward should be concealed, if it be but mental. Thirdly, what if ye must kneel, and no other gesture will serve the turn.  
But say they, 
The pretence of real prayer or thanksgiving.  the very action itself is a real prayer or thanksgiving, and we offer sacrifices. I answer, prayer is a craving, our taking, eating, drinking, is not a craving, but a receiving. Craving and receiving is not all one. But say they; 
L. pag. 107.  it is a real thanksgiving, and therefore called eucharist. It is a showing forth of the death of the Lord, till his coming again. I answer, it is not properly thanksgiving. For thanksgiving is properly directed to God, as prayer is, either mentally only, or also vocally and verbally, so is not our act of taking, eating, drinking. Neither was the name of eucharist given by the scripture, but by the ancients: and not for the act of taking, eating, and drinking, but for the thanksgiving preceding, for the same reason it was called Eulogia also, because of the blessing. For, he gave thanks, and he blessed, are used indifferently by the Evangelists. Denominatio non est semper 〈◊〉 quata subjecto. 
Exercit. p. 517.  From one part of the action the whole action is called Eucharist, saith Casaubon. Eulogia & eucharistia, utraque vox a parte una totam Domini actionem designat. Whereas the Apostle saith, So oft as ye shall eat, &c ye shall show forth the Lords death till he come again; is meant, say they, not verbal, but real preaching only acted by taking, eating, drinking. So say the Rhemists upon 1 Corinth. 11. 26. But Doctor Fulk answereth, that even according to the judgement of the fathers, the Lords death must be showed not only by the action, but also by words, which may stir up to remembrance, and thankfulness. So also Willers. 
willet's qu. 1. of the sacraments. Pezel. refutatio Catechismi jefuit. pag 421.  So ●ezel●us, and others. This kind of annunciation answereth to the Hagadah, that is the declaration which was made at the passover according to the commandment, Exod 1. 8. And thou shalt show. Therefore ●t the paschal supper one made the declaration, expounding every ceremony in their own place, the meaning of the lamb, of the bitter herbs, and so forth of the rest. 
〈…〉 cit. pag. 224.  This Ha●a●ah and declaration of the Jews, saith Casaula●us, answereth to that annunciate show forth, 1 Corinth. 11. 26. But be it so, that the act itself be called a declaration or setting forth of the Lo●ds death, yet that is not properly a declaration, or commemoration, nor yet representation of his death. Further, both representation and commemoration are to men, and not to God, resemble preaching and not prayer. The celebration of the action itself is a profession of thankfulness before men, for a great benefit, but is not thanksgiving directed to God. Bell●rmine himself exponing how the act of eating and drinking may be called a showing forth, gives this reason, that the partakers should remember with thanksgiving the death of the Lord, De euch. l. 4. c. 27. So the proper and principal end of the sacrament is a further confirming and sealing of our communion with Christ, and his benefits purchased to us by his death. The testification of our thankfulness by showing forth his death, and commemoration of the benefits received thereby is a secondary end. Neither is it directed to God immediately, as thanksgiving is, howbeit honour redound thereby to God, because his praise is proclaimed before men. 
De Missa. l. 1. c. 13. & lib. 2. c. 9  Non enim concionamur Deo neque sacramenta Domino dispersamus, sed populo. Domino ministrare dicuntur, quia ad ejus honorem id faciunt, saith Bellarmine. To honour God is more general than to adore, for God is honoured by preaching, praying, singing, swearing; praising, and not by adoring only. Neither can eating and drinking of bread and wine be called properly a sacrifice. For a sacrifice properly so called, importeth destruction of the thing sacrificed, by killing, burning, effu●●●. That cannot be called properly a sacrifice, which is only for commemoration, or representation of a sacrifice. The acting of a tragedy upon a stage, is not a true tragedy indeed, howbeit the object represented, was a true tragedy. Giving of alms may be called a sacrifice, yet we kneel not when we give alms. It is a sacrifice only improperly, and in some respect so called. The Gentiles are said to be sacrificed by the preaching of the Gospel, Rom. 15. 16. but figuratively. There is as great difference between a sacrament and sacrifice, as taking and giving.  
It is yet objected, 
The pretence of receiving a benefit.  that in the act of receiving, we receive an inestimable benefit. Ought not a subject kneel, when he receieth a benefit from a 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 are not rules for religious adoration, which should be directed immediately to God. Now we receive the sacrament out of the hand of the minister, not out of Christ's own hand. Multum interest inter actionem Filii Dei pierce, & per ministrum. Illa enim est actio immediatè producta à divino supposito, ista ab humano. Bellarm. de Missa. lil. 2. cap. 4. 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, not did they adore God the Father upon their knees for the benefit they were receiving. The inward benefit Christ's body and blood are 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. The godly under the law received the same gift, the same spiritual food, and drink, and yet kneeled not. The D. pag. 113. saith, that in the law they had but the shadow of the gift, a popish speech, whereas the Apostle saith, the same food. If the clearer revelation make the difference, which is without ground or reason, than adoration is not in respect of the gift. The godly take, eat, and drink Christ's body and blood by the act of faith and believing, Now the act of faith or believing is not an act of adoration, as the schoolmen acknowledge, nor is it expressed outwardly by kneeling, In a 〈◊〉 fidei non potest apprehendi aliqua submissionis nota propria religionis exhibenda ipsi excellentie Dei, 
In 3. tom. 1. 〈◊〉 p. 93. num. 20. & 21.  sicut nec ratio sacrificii aut laudis, saith Vazquez. Never man yet adored upon his knees, if his principal work was actual believing desire, Christ, short ejaculations of the soul, and the acts of other graces concur, as concomitants to remove impediments, that faith may put forth its act with greater strength, which is the principal work of the soul in the act of receiving the elements: All dispositions which are required unto right receiving, can not distinctly and solemnly be expressed at the same time by outward gestures, except we would use diverse gestures together, saith P. 195. The principal therefore must be considered. Next, 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 hear the promises of the Gospel read and exponed, and do believe. Christ's body is as far absent from us at the receiving of the sacrament, as at the hearing of the word. The symbols, when they are added to the word, while the myst●r●s are celebrated, 
Contra Gardiner. col, 735. edit. 1581.  I doubt not, saith P●ter Martyr, serve very much for assurance, for th●y s●ale the promise, tamen illa Christi nobis praesentiam magis constituere quam verba aut promissiones, constanter pernego. That is but that they make Christ more present to us, than the word and sacraments do, I utterly deny. The Formalist speaketh, as if Christ's body were present in the sacrament, or as if we had never received Christ's body, till we received this sacrament, or never but when we receive this sacrament. Whereas Augustine saith, 
De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. 56. & dist. 4. c. 131. Dist. 2 c. 47.  There is no doubt, but every one of the faithful is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in baptism he is made a member of Christ, as ye may see in Gratian'ss decree. Again he saith, Credere in eum, hoc est panem vivum manducare, to believe in him, is to eat the living bread. The gloss saith, Christ is eaten spiritually by faith without the sacrament. We are united with Christ, and made members of his body, before we come to this sacrament, and do not receive his body of new at every communion, as if we had lost it since the former; and yet there is but one body received at all the times. The celebration of the Lords supper is not a new institution of the testament, but a repetition of the same. This sacrament 〈◊〉 authentic instrument of the testament, and as of as it ●s ministered, the same authentic instrument is 〈◊〉 over ●gain, 
Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 1. cap. 11. Becan. de Coena calie. c. 11.  See this illustration in Bellarmine, and ●●●anus, We are said then, to take, eat, drink Christ's body and blood at every celebration of the holy 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 before, our faith being strengthened by the outward signs and seals to that end, and so grow in faith, 
Reply to Harding. art. 1. Whittakerus de sacram. pag. 68  and by faith in union with Christ, The holy mysteries do not begin (saith Jewel) but rather continue and confirm this incorporation. Whitaker saith, Familiarly loquendi modus est ut fieri dicatur, quod factum obsigna●ur; That is, It is a familiar kind of speaking to sa●● that thing is in doing, which being already done is sealed, and confirmed. Thirdly, the manner or form of receiving a 〈…〉 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. David and Jonathan sat at table with King Saul, as you may see, 1 Sam, 20. Such as were called the King's friends or companions (for the original word signifieth as well the one as the other, Sociu● ●s amicus) I take to have sitten ordinarily with Kings: as Zabud, 1 King. 4. 5. and Husha● the Archite, who is called, 2 Sam. 15. 37. David's friend, and 1 Chron. 27. 33. by the same translators, the King's companion. Such an one was Daniel to the Babyloniah Emperor, as the Apocrypha history of Susanna reporteth, cap. 14. 1. To this Christ alludeth, Joh. 15. 15. when he saith to his disciples at table, Hence forth I call you not servants, but I have called you friends. Abraham for his faith was called God's friend, Jam. 2. 23. By the same reason all the faithful are preferred to this dignity. As we are friends and fellow-heires with Christ, so hath he instituted this holy feast, the only feast in the Christian Church, to assure us of our preferment, and fellowship with him. 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 Church, and to act thereat in our outward carriage the persons of guests and friends. And therefore, howbeit the inviter be a great person, the manner of invitation is familiar, and our not acceptance the more offensive. chrysostom declaiming against such as were present, and did not approach to communicate, saith, 
Hom. 3. in epist add Ephesios'.  The King table is here, the King himself is present. Why standeth thou yawning? If thy garments be clean, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sit down and participate. In the English book of common prayer, there is an exhortation to be made to the people, when they are negligent to come to the table, where we have these words, Ye know how grievous and unkind a thing it is, when a man hath prepared a rich feast, decked his table with all kind of provision s● that there lacketh nothing, but the guests to sit down and yet these who be called (without any cause) most unthankefully refuse to come. The exhortation seemeth to ●ee dr●w●e out of that place of chrysostom, but they omit the 〈◊〉 words, Sat down and participate. For all the 〈…〉 the first part of the comparison, they bid not the Communicants sit down. But they must kneel and receive, that which is reached to them. So that there is no more use of the table, then if it were a cupboard or altar. Fourthly, if we should kneel, because we are receiving a gift, by this reason we should kneel, when we receive any benefit or gift of God, as for example, when we are taking, eating, drinking, our ordinary meat and drink. If ye will say, the sacramental is holy bread, the other common, than ye confess ye kneel, because of the holiness, that is, the setting a part of it to a holy use, and that is idolatry. If ye will say, ye receive a greater gift, then when ye receive your ordinary food, that is no more, but then there is a greater motive. Yet, if because a gift, then whensoever, or whatsoever gift ye receive, ye ought to kneel. God deserveth thanks for the least of his benefits, and is to be adored for whatsoever benefit spiritual or temporal received, in the time of divine service, or out of it. For this is the common doctrine of the school men, 
Vazquez de adorat. disp. 94. num. 7.  Eundem honorem adorationis, atque eodem modo Deo esse deferendum, etiamsi varia sunt ipsius beneficia & attributa. That is, That the same honour of adoration is to be given to God, and after the same manner, howbeit his benefits and attributes are diverse. For the reason upon God's part that moveth us to adore him, is the excellenie of his dignity. All his attributes concur to make up this excellency, whatsoever benefit move us, never so mean, he deserveth honour, because bestowed by so great a Lord, who is the fountain, & primum principium. When the Israelites were to be cured miraculously by looking up to the brazen serpent, 
If we may receive upon our knees, what we crave upon our knees.  a type of Christ, they kneeled not.  
It is a frivolous objection, and scarce worthy the answering, when they say, what we may crave upon our knees, we may receive upon our knees. They should conclude, we must receive upon our knees. But neither the one, nor the other doth follow. For we crave our daily food upon our knees, and raiment, therefore by their reasoning we should kneel with reverence, when we receive our food in at our mouth, or put on our doublet. Yet say they, what we crave of God upon our knees in public worship, we may receive upon our knees. But this is yet as frivolous. For we may crave in time of public worship upon our knees things necessary for this temporal life, and so we do, when in the Lord's prayer, we say, Give us this day our daily bread. Further, the difference of place and time, is but a difference in circumstances, and altereth, not the nature of worship, and so I may receive upon my knees, whatsoever I may crave of God in private worship upon my knees; if this kind of reasoning were good. But it is not the diversity of the time or place where we 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.  
Next, they consider not, that these three things are to be clearly distinguished, a blessing or sanctifying of the creature, or mean God hath appointed, either for our temporal or spiritual life (of which some are reckoned by L. pag. 85. 86.) before the use, the use itself, and thanksgiving after the use. Blessing before meat, the use of the meat in enjoying it be receiving, eating, drinking, and thanksgiving after, blessing before the reading preaching or hearing of the word, the act itself of reading, hearing, preaching, and thanksgiving to God after, blessing before the receiving of the sacramental. elements, the receiving and participation itself, and thanksgiving after.  
They ask, 
The pretence of humility and reverence.  if humility and reverence be not requisite in the act of receiving the sacramental elements. I answer, Yes, in all religious exercises, at the 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 creatures? There is a damnable humility, plausible to will-worshippers and idolaters, condemned, Coloss. 2. 23. Peter was censured, when he refused, that Christ should wash his feet. It is Christ's honour to command, obedience upon our part is true humility. Humility is an habit, adoration is an act. The act of humility is immanent, whereby a man resteth content, and well pleased with his own estate and rank, and doth not conceit greater worth in himself, than there is, specially in comparison with God. But adoration is a transient act, whereby a man goeth out of himself, as it were, to direct some homage, and worship to God. Such like reverence is a common adjunct to all sorts of worship, preaching, praying, praising, adoring, but is not a distinct kind of worship, 
Of the institution of the supper. p. 63.  as is adoration. The pretence of reverence cannot be a sufficient reason for altering the ordinance of Christ and the opinion of reverence, hath often been the dame and nour●e of manifold superstitions, saith Doctor Morto●n●●  
To concludes that because we must use reverend gesture in receiving the holy communion, therefore we must kneel in the act of receiving, is to condemn our own Church, and other reformed Churches of want of reverence. Unless ye will say, sitting is reverend for some, to take in passing for others, but kneeling for Scotland. So may the Monks conclude, saith Doctors Aims, we must have garments, therefore we must in one order have black, in another white, in a third grey, and so forth. If any judicious Reader will review all their reasons or pretences for kneeling, he shall find, they infer a duty to kneel, and consequently an indirect taxing of Christ, and his Apostles, and all others in ancient time, or in reformed Churches, who have not kneeled. And if there were no more, this alone may let them see the weakness of their reasoning.  
Seeing kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental element is idolatry, and cannot be used but idolatrously, it followeth, that kneeling in the act of receiving brought not in a●tolatrie or bread worship, as some divines construing charitably, some old Writers, or mistaking counterfeit works for genuing, have imagined. We may observe other ushers to have prepared the way for bread worship by kneeling. After that the virgin times of the first age or prime primitive, that is the apostolical times were passed, changes entered. They were not content to sit, but at some time, and more frequently stood. They left off distribution and breaking of bread with other, and received out of the minister or deacons hand. Other words were substitute in place of Christ's words. In process of time, the women might not receive the bread with their naked hand, but in a clean linen cloth or napkin. And in many places the cups had pipes, whereby they sucked the wine out of the cup. At length the Communicants were not suffered to receive with their hands, but in at their mouther. And this proceeded from a superstitious reverencing of the signs, which ended at last in bread worship, saith Vossius, 
Theses theolog. pag. 476.  Et san● consuetudo altera ing●r●ntli panem in os, circa annum sexc●nt simum demum ●●pisse videtur, neque id aliunde quam à superstitiosa veneration signorum, quae in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tandem evasit. Add also the corrupting of the doctrine with the opinion of the real presence, and worshipping of images, 
Of the Lord's supper. 1. part. pag. 40.  which entered both about one time. After the worshipping of images, which Master Moulins calleth the elder sister, followed breadworship.    

An advertisement to the Communicants.  
WE are all bound to maintain the purity and integrity of God's ordinances, which we had in possession since the reformation. And therefore cannot communicate, where the gesture is changed, and distributing of the elements by the communicants is wanting. No man will be so careless of his leg or arm, as to suffer them to be cut off, but will venture himself for their preservation, or preservation of the least joint of his fingers, howbeit they be not such noble parts of the body, as the head and the heart, without which the body can not subsist. far less ought we to tolerate such a horrible stumbling block, as kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramental elements, eating, and drinking. Whosoever countenanceth such communions, is accessory to that deformation and mutilation. For if none would communicate with the ringleaders and introducers, they would be forced to desist, had desisted long ago for shame, and had returned to our former practice. The kneeler is the thief, but the communicant is the recetter.  
Some think, they may, if they have liberty to sit themselves, and to reach to the nearest. But they should not look to their own personal privilege, but to the liberty of the whole Church and congregation, where they are members. If some citizen's would give way to the enemy, upon condition they enjoyed their own liberty, would they not be counted traitors and betrayers of the city. Next, that liberty shall be permitted only for a time, till others be drawn in after them, and then they shall be deprived of that liberty.  
But ye will say, shall I separate from a Church. I answer, when a congregation is divided, that part which doth not communicate is a part of that Church, as well as that which communicateth, and both maketh up but one congregation or Church, howbeit they be divided in that particular act. As both the parts of the house make up but one house, notwithstanding there be a rift in the wall. Next, the part which communicateth not, adhereth to the reformed Church of Scotland, of which every particular congregation is but a part. Now, the most part, if not the two parts of the congregations have admitted no alteration. And as for the number of kneelers, it is very small in comparison.  
Yet it is hard, say ye, to want the benefit and comfort of the sacrament. But what comfort or benefit can y●e find, if ye be accessory to the introduction of such alterations, and settling of such a stumbling block in the congregation. When we cannot communicate but by committing a sin, our forbearing is no contempt, and the Lord who hath promised to be a little sanctuary to his people, when they were to be scattered among the heathen, Ezech. 11. 16. will supply our want. Doctor featly saith, 
The great sacrilege of the Church of Rome, pag. 206.  That neither the only, nor principal thing to be regarded in the sacrament is our benefit, but God's glory, and the testification of our obedience to his ordinance. Non potest autem videri sacramenta contempsisse, cui non licet eaita percipere; ut sunt à Domino constituta, & a●sit ut ullos necessitatis casus imaginemur in quibus liceat ordinationem Domini viol●re. That is, We cannot seem to have contemned the sacraments, who a●e not permitted to partake of them, as they are appointed by the Lord. 
Confess. c. 4.  far be it from us to imagine any causes of necessity, by which we may violate the Lords ordinance, saith Beza. This answer may serve, if the case were so hard, that they could not have the occasion of the right and pure administration of the sacraments else where. But, praised be GOD, as yet they may have it not far from the doors. 
Nota. The 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. lines in the 33. page, are not Master Moulines words, but the authors.     


OF FESTIVAL DAYS.  
IN the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline penned anno 1560, 
Festival days abolished by our Church.  the first year of universal reformation, it was thought good, that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphanie, with the feasts of Apostles, Martyrs, and Virgin Marie, be utterly abolished, because they are neither commanded nor warranted by the Scripture, and that the obstinate maintainers of those and the like abominations be punished by the civil magistrate. Here utter abolition is craved, and not a reformation of abuses only, and that because observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word. In the general assembly holden at Edinburgh, anno 1566. the later confession of Helvetia was approved, but with special exception against the same five days, which are now urged upon us. It was not then the popish observation only, with the popish opinion of worship and merit, but simpliciter all observation, that was disallowed by them. In the assembly holden anno 1575., complaint was made against the ministers and readers beside Aberdeene, because they assembled the people to prayer and preaching upon certain festival days. Ye see not only profanity, but preaching and prayer of purpose upon festival days were judged rebukable. It was ordained likewise, that complaint be made to the Regent, upon the town of Dunfreis, for urging and convoying a reader to the Church with tabret and whistle, to read prayers all the holy days of Christmas, upon the refusal of their own reader. Item, an article was form to be presented to the Regent, craving that all days heretofore keeped holy in time of papistry beside the Lord's day, be abolished, and that a civ●ll penalty be inflicted upon the observers. In the assembly holden in April, anno 1577. it was ordained, that the visitor with the advice of the synodal assembly, shall admonish ministers, preaching or ministering the communion at Easter or Christmas, or other like superstitious times, or readers reading, to desist, under the pain of deprivation. Ye see reading, preaching, and ministering the communion at th●s● times was forbidden, and not only cessation from work, and excess of banqueting, playing, etc. In the ninth head of the first book of discipline, we have this reason set down against E●ster communion, Your honour's ar● not ●gnor an't how superstitiously the people run to that action it Pasche, even as if the time gave virtue to the sacrament, and 〈◊〉 the rest of the whol● year, they are careless and negligent as if it appertained not to them, but at that time only. And for this reason other times were appointed by that book for that holy action. In the general assembly holden anno 1590. King James praised God, that he was b●rne to be a king in the sincerest Church of the world, sincerer then the Church of England, for their ●ervice was an 〈◊〉 ●asse in English, sincerer ●hen Geneva itself; 
That is Easter and Ch●ist●●s.  〈◊〉 they observed Pasch and you'll, and what warrant, 〈…〉 for that? In the assembly holden anno 15●6. when the covenant w●s renewed, superstition and idolatry bre●●ing forth in keeping of festival days, setting out of bonfires, and singing of carols, are reckoned among the corruptions, which were to be amended. In the parliament holden anno 1592. we have acts to this purpose. The pulpits have founded from time to time against all show of observing these days. But in the pretended and null-assembly holden at Perth, anno 1618. it was concluded by a number, not having power of voice, or broken with threats or allurements, that every minister shall make commemoration of the birth, passion, resurrection, ascension of Christ, and sending down of the holy Ghost, upon the days appointed for that use, that they make choice of several and pertinent texts of scriptures, and fraime their doctrine and exhortations accordingly. This their conclusion was ●●tified by act of counsel, and proclamation was 〈…〉, upon the 26. of October following, commanding cessation from all kind of labour or 〈…〉 these five days, appointed to be dedicated 〈…〉, to the effect the subjects may the better at end the exercises, which are to be keeped in the Churches at these times.  

REASONS AGAINST THE FESTIVAL DAYS.  
WE shall consider these days, first as they are called holy, next as they are called festival.  

Our first reason.  
GOd only hath power to sanctify a day, 
The first rea●●●● against festival day's.  and 〈◊〉 it holy, that is to separate it from a common ●se ●o holy exercises. 
Zaneh●tom. 4. col. 655. Willet Synop. p. 501. Kuchili●us in Catechismo. Perkins. Galat. 4.  Zanchius affirmeth, that it is proper to God to choose any person, or any thing to consecrate and sanctify it to himself. willet's, that it belongeth only to the Creator, to sanctify the creature. Perkinse, Kuchlinus, and others, say the like. Master Cowper, pretended bishop of Galloway, confessed no King, no church could make an holy day. The like was acknowledged by Master Galloway, in one of his Christmas sermons. But so it is, that God hath permitted six days to man for the work of his calling, and selected the seventh to himself, to be spent in his service. Seeing therefore God hath given liberty to man to work six days, and counteth them common and profane, 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 under the law, or calleth us to a present humiliation or thanksgiving. The civil magistrate may command cessation from work for a politic end, as weapon-showing, exercise of arms, defence of a city or sort of the country, but that is not to enjoin a holy day, nor yet a mere idle day, but that economical and private work give place to public and politic. Paraeus in epist ad Romano cap. 14. dub. 4. Tametsi rectè quidem sacra quotidiana concionum & precum publicè instituuntur, tamen omnes ad ea adstringere durum esset.  
The Doctor saith, some days were made holy, not only because they were dedicated to the worship of God, but because a special worship was appointed by God, and appropriated to them, as the feast of the passover, or whitsunday. Other times were holy only by reason of the use or divine worship performed on them, and not for mystery or solemn worship appropriated to them. He saith, our divines mean only, that it is only proper to God, to make days holy after the first manner, but not after the second, which is false, as may appear by their description of sanctifying a day, which is generally to set it apart to an holy use, and not to a mystical only. Next, by such an answer men make holy days like the Lords day.  
His comparison with the temple of Jerusalem, and the synagogues and Christian churches will not help him, unless the synagogues and Christian churches answer in holiness to the sabbath and the Lords day, as he saith, the temple did to the anniversary feasts, which, I trust, he will not maintain. And this same comprison of time and place shall clear and confirm our argument. For as no man can sanctify a place, or make it holy but God, that is, set it so apart from all worldly uses, that it shall be a profaning of it to entertain any worldly purpose or ●riste in it, or carry a vessel through it, and to be bound to holy exercises in it, otherwise it cannot be said to be sanctified, and set apart to God, if it stand up like an idol, so no man can sanctify a day, that is, set it so apart to God, that when it recurreth weekly, monthly, or yearly, we must not use worldly, but must use holy exercises. But the first is true, none but God can appoint such a place, and under the new testament he hath appointed no such place. Christian churches or houses are builded for the commodity of God's people to defend them from the injury of the weather, to serve them to sit in commodiously, when they are convened to serve God, which use is civil, and is common to houses builded for civil meetings. The congregation may permit the use of their church to a civil meeting, without prejudice to their own liberty to meet when they have occasion. Nex●, the congregation is not bound to meet in that house, but may forsake it, and take them to another. But if it were sanctified and set apart to God, they should be bound to use it. Our churches then are dedicated to the communality of the faithfully, within such a precinct for the uses foresaid, as a statehouse or judgement hall may be dedicated to a city, but they are not sanctified and made holy to God. Our prayers are not more holy or better heard in this or that temple, then at home, 
Whittakers opera. pag. ●●.  saith Whittaker in his answer to Dur●us, but that God is more moved, when the faithful meet together to pray. Impertinently doth the Doctor allege the hours appointed for preaching in the week, or prayers morning and evening. For these are not hours sanctified, or consecrated to God's service, but the most convenient times men find in their wisdom, when most may resort to hearing of sermons and prayers, which m●y and aught to be changed, when occasions offer a more convenient time. So time is designed occasionally, not dedicat or sanctified. Time is made to serve God's people, and not God's people made to serve the time, or to serve God, because it is a holy time.  
After I had finished this work of reexamination, there came to my hands some unsound tractats upon the sabbath. Whereupon I thought good to insert in this place, as the most pertinent, this short discourse following,     

OF THE SABBATH.  
THe light of nature leadeth a man, 
What changeable, what unchangeable in the 4. precept.  acknowledging that there is a God, and to be worshipped, to acknowledge also, that tim●s should be set a part for his worship, and not only that, but also competent and sufficient times. But nature cannot lead us without further direction, to settle upon one of the seven days, more than upon one of eight, ten or twelve. The Lord set down one in the circle of seven to be observed perpetually, and universally by all that were to worship him. In his wisdom he could best discern what time might be spared. In respect of this perpetuity, and universality this determination participateth of the nature of a law moral. For this cause it was placed in the decalogue among the precepts purely moral, and participated with them of the same prerogatives. It was delivered by God himself, written in tables of stone, and preserved in the ark as the rest were. The determination of such a seventh day in particular, was made also by the Lord. Both the determinations are divine positive, the first unchangeable, the second changeable, but yet only by divine authority. The ten precepts of the decalogue, are called ten words, Deut. 4. 13. that is, as one expoundeth, ten sentences, or as Vossius addeth, Soultentiae praecipientes, preceptive sentences. And yet there are fourteen sentences for precepts in the decalogue. How then are there but ten words, he answereth, there are ten chief, and principal, the rest are secundary, and like appendicles. 
Theses Theolog. pag. 528.  Primum istud in confesso est, quam●is quatuiorde●im inveniantur sentent●● in decalogo, quibus aliquid praecipiatur, tamen dec●m esse duntaxat primarias & principes: Caeteras secundarias; & altarum quasi appendices. Vnde & Moses decem verba & Graci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellarunt. In the fourth commandment, there are three preceptive sentences. The first is the principal. Some reason after this manner. The Lord saith not, Remember thou, keep holy the seventh day, but Remember thou, keep holy the sabbath-day, and in the end, he sanctified the sabbath-day, he saith not that seventh day from the creation, howbeit it was so for the time. But that seventh was to be changed, and the sabbath was to be fixed upon another seventh day. But to come nearer to the purpose, that this commandment requireth not directly the seventh day from the creation, but the seventh day in general, appeareth by the reason, which enforceth not necessarily the seventh day from the creation, that we should rest the same day that the Lord rested, but that we should rest from our works the seventh day, as he rested from his. Which seventh, as under the law he appointed to be saturday, so under the Gospel, sunday, the substance of the commandment remaining. See Master Cartwrights Catechism. 
pag, 110.  But to come yet nearer. The Lord might have created the world in six hours, as easily as in six days. He might have done it in a moment, or have taken eight ten or twelve days. The Lord would do neither the one, nor the other, but conformed himself to that space of time, which in his wisdom he thought sufficient for man to do all manner of works of his own. This pattern doth not concern his peculiar people of the Jews only, but both Jew and Gentile, and not for a time only, but to the end of the world, as if the Lord would reason after this manner with mankind, What needed me to have spent six days in creating the world, for I might have done it in one? or wherefore stinted I myself at six, I might have taken ten? you may easily then consider wherefore I have done it. I did it, that thou may do the like: Do all thy works and business in six days, and rest the seventh. The imitation lieth in this then, not so much that we rest upon such a seventh day, as upon a seventh. There is equity in it indeed, that seeing the Lord hath granted us six days to work, we should rest the seventh, but the force of the reason lieth chiefly in this, that the Lord purposely took six days, and rested the seventh, to be a pattern to men, howbeit with all in setting down that pattern, he considered that equity.  
That the precept concerning the sabbath, concerned not the Jews only, but all mankind, appeareth also by this, that it was given to Adam in the beginning, Gen. 2. 2, 3. Whereas some would have here an anticipation, and the words to be referred to the time, when the Lord reigned Manna, and forbade his people to gather upon the seventh day, Exod. 16. as if the sabbath had never been institute or observed before. This were a strange anticipation, to make mention of the blessing, and sanctifying the seventh day, without so much as an inkling of the proper time, which is assigned by them, which fell not forth till 2453 years or thereabout, after the weak of the creation. Next, the words are knit together by the same copulative with the present history, He ended his work on the seventh day, and herested on the seventh day, and he blessed the seventh day, and he sanctified it. The blessing and sanctifying then were not destinate to be done 2453 years or thereabout afterwards, but presently when he had ended all his work of creation, he blessed and sanctified, that is, by blessing sanctified, that is, separate to a holy use, as the minister blesseth when he separateth bread and wine from a common to an holy use at the Lords suppe●. Or, he blessed and sanctified, that is, praised it, and sanctified. For the original word signifieth also praising or rejoicing, as Gomarus himself bringeth example of praising, out of Psal. ●8 27. And Philo Judaeus expresseth it by praising▪ Every days, works had the own commendation, but now looking upon the whole frame, the order and harmony of it, he rejoiced, and praised it, and sanctified that day. After he had perfited the work in six days, 
DE opificio 〈◊〉 undi in fol. pag. ●5.  he added honour to the seventh day following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Philo ●udaeus, that is, Which when he had praised or commended, incontinent he deinzed to call it holy, as Gelenius translateth. Further, there is no mention of blessing the seventh day, Exod. 16. Gomarus allegeth, that twice as much Manna fell on the sixth day, as upon any other day, there is no warrant for it, but only that they were commanded to gather twice as much that day. Suppose his conjectute were true, that were a blessing of the sixth day, and not of the seventh. But as I have said, there is no mention of blessing in that place. But so it is, th●t when he blessed, he sanctified▪ And seeing we read not that he blessed it, when he ceased from raining Manna, but when he had ended the work of creation, it followeth that then he sanctified. Consider again, that in Exod. 16. mention is made of the sabbath, as a time of rest appointed before, vers. 23. To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord. Vers. 25. To day is a sabbath unto the Lord. Vers. 26. But on the seventh day which is the sabbath. They had neglected, or were forced to neglect that day in Egypt, where they were not suffered to rest on that day, and therefore he putteth them in mind of it, and exacteth the observation of it, which was now neglected of other nations. Consider again, that soon after when the decalogue was promulgate upon mount Sinai, the reason given for the observation of the sabbath, was not, that the Lord reigned Manna six days, and desisted the seventh, which concerned only the jews, but that he created all in six days, and rested the seventh, which concerned all mankind. Were it not ridiculous to imagine, that God spent six days in creating the world, and rested the seventh, only for the jews, to whom he was to intimate the sabbath 2453. years after.  
But ye will say, what needed Adam a sabbath-day in the state o● innocence? I answer, because the dressing of the gard●n was committed to him, and he was to live an animal life, which would draw with it some distraction. Therefore the Lord would have a day appointed, wherein he might be wholly sequestrate from other affairs. Further, howbeit Adam was in the state of innocence, yet his state was mutable. Whereas it is alleged, that there was no positive precept given to Adam in paradise, but the eating of the forbidden tree, I answer, none merely positive, but that. But this is not merely positive, but determinative, of the indefinite time required by the law of nature, which urgeth a time for sequestration. Some think, that Adam fell the same day that he was created, and therefore that the sabbath was sanctified after his fall. But the imposing of the names upon the creatures, the precept concerning the forbidden tree, the tentation of Adam and Eve, etc. move others to think otherways. lid at agreeth not, either with too short time, or yet three years, which were too long, but with those who allege eight month wanting a week, that he might be the more sensible of his fall and defection, after he had for a certain space enjoyed the pleasures of that estate. But suppose Adam fell upon the sixth day, yet the sanctification of the sabbath after, was for all mankind, and not the jews only.  
But yet we have no mention made, 
The sabbath observed before Moses time.  that the Patriarches observed it. What then? It is sufficient, that it was instituted, howbeit the observation had been neglected. But we must judge more charitably of the holy Patriarches, that they were observant of the institution received by tradition from Adam. They received the law of sacrifices and other positive laws, by revelation, by oracle, and by d●vine inspiration, 
pag. 45.  saith Doctor Francis White in his treatise of the sabbath. Is it likely then, they observed not a set day, or wanted direction what day to observe, or that the Lord would hav● set any other day for ordinary. Some gather the observation from Noah's sending forth the dove the seventh day after her return, and again the seventh day. That it is likely, Noah was taken up with holy exercises, every seventh day he sent forth the dove, and that he sent it forth rather then, than any other time, because he was craving and expecting good success. But I will not stand upon this. Junius approveth the opinion of the Hebrew Doctors, who all agree, that there passed seven days between the going of the people out of Egypt, and the drowning of the Egyptians in the red sea, and therefore there were seven days appointed for the feast of the passover. He confirmeth their opinion with his own reckoning in his annot. upon Exod. 12. Upon Deut. 5. he noteth, that is was the sabbath, that day Pharaohs host was drowned, and the people of Israel sang that song of triumph, Exod. 15. The Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 4. proveth, that there is a sabbatisme me, or keeping of a sabbath yet remaining for the people of God, and all believers, whereinto the incredulous were not to enter, and to this purpose citeth a passage out of the psalms. There the incredulous are threatened to be excluded from rest, which was to come: For there were two rests already past in David's time, the one beginning at the rest of God from his works, which were finished from the foundation of the world, and the other, when Josue brought the people into the land of Canaan. The Apostles enumeration had not been sufficient, if the sabbath day had not been observed from the beginning: for he maketh not mention of another sabbatisme passed before David's time, but two, whereinto man entered. There was no other sabbath then in David's time, beside that rest in Canaan, except that which was from the beginning, and consequently the sabbath observed in his time, was all one with that which was observed from the beginning. The rest of the sabbath is called God's rest or sabbath, because God was the instituter of it, gave example himself to man, and appointed it for his own worship, Levit. 23. 1. and 28. 2. Jesa. 56. 4. Ezech. 20. 20. Exod. 16. 23. If the words of the Apostle were taken only for Gods own proper rest or sabbath, the Apostles reasoning had not been pertinent: for David maketh mention of a rest, whereinto men might enter, and were exhorted to enter in, but men cannot be said to enter in Gods own proper rest. The sabbatisme which is to come, is called God's rest, and yet men are said to enter in it. Further, if the first rest were so called only, because it was Gods own peculiar rest, it would follow, the thy sabbath enjoined to man had been omitted, and the Apostles induction had been unsufficient. 
〈◊〉 epist. ad 〈◊〉 Hebr. ●. 4. v. ●  Requies s●b●ati dicitur ● ei, tum fo● maliter, quia in die septimo qui● vit Peus à creatione, tum exempla●●ter & efficienter, qui● quies hominum in sabbato, & cultus sabbati institutus est à D●o ad exemplar quietis Dei in sabbato, saith Cornelius a Lapide, a professor in Louvain. And a little before, after he hath opened up the three rest●, the rest of the sabbath enjoined to man, the rest of the people of God in the land of Canaan, and the eternal rest in heaven, he inferreth, that the rest of the sabbath was in use before the law of Moses, even from the beginning of the world, or else the Apostles reasoning cannot hold. Hinc satis clarè elicitur & evincitur, sabbati cultum & requiem in us● f●isse apud homines ante le●em Mosis, ab origine 〈…〉 licet id neget Abulensis in c. 23. Levit. 4. 3.) ut s●●i e●diem septimum homines colerent, eoque à laboribus qui●s●r●nt, in memoriam & gratiarum actionem creationis, 〈◊〉 sui quam totius mundi, quam Deus complevit die septimo: alioqui enim vim non haberet discursus & argumentum Pauli, ut patet exdictis.  
Howbeit scripture be sufficient for confirmation of this truth, I will add for superaboundance some footsteps of the first institution, which were found among the Gentiles. Whence came the name of Septimane weeks to be received among the Ethnicles of old. Not from the Jews, for they abhorred their customs, and derided their sabbaths. Not from Astrologians, for distinction of days by weeks was more ancient, than the imposing of the names of the planets upon the days of the week. Or Ptolem●● his time, who wrote about the year of our Lord 140 as Rivetus proveth by the testimony of Georgius Syncellus, and Philoponus. The ancient Greek Poets cited by them for the name of week, I omit. 
De eme●●at temp. lib. 1.  I only add the testimony of Scalig●r. 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex diebus dicitur septimane, res omibus, quidem orientis populis, ab ultima usque antiquita●e us●ata, nobis autem Enrop eyes vix tandem post Christian●smum. recepta. He saith, from the upmost antiquity his system of days in a week, was in use among all the oriental nations. But that was the part of the world, which was first planted, and where the holy patriarchs lived. Whereas, he saith, this collection or distinction of days in weeks, was not received in Europe till Christiani 〈◊〉. entered, testimonies of Ethnic Poets, alleged by ●●vetus, make good, that the name of weeks was more ancient, even among the Latins. I add also that place in Genes. 29. 27. where Laban saith to Jacob, Fulfil her week. Whither he meant a week of days, or as others interpret, a week of years, it is all one. For seven years was never called a week of years, but where seven days was called a week of day's. Whence then could this so ancient a circuit, or circle of days come, but from the patriarchs, who observed that circle, because of the seventh-dayes-sabbath, or from the first week of the creation itself.  
We have not only the traces of weeks among the ancient Ethniks, 
Dissertatio ●e origine sabbathi.  but also of the seventh day in special. I pretermit the testimonies cited by Rivetus out of Homer, Linus, and Callimachus; who make mention of the perfiting of the work of creation the seventh day. I content me with the testimonies alleged for observation, in some sort, of the seventh day, by Casaubon, commencing upon that place of Suetoni●●●, 
Lib. 3. 32.  Diogenes grammaticus disputare sabbutis Rhodi solitus, vententem, ut se extra ordinem audiret, non admiserat! ac per servalu● suum in septim●● diem dis●ulerat. Where he bringeth in Lucian, making mention of resting days granted every seventh day to children who were at school: Vul●atius Gallicanus; that soldiers exercised themselves upon the seventh day in archery and arms: Dampridius, that Alexander Severus went up to the Capitol upon the seventh day, when he was in Rome, and frequented the temples: In this same place Suetonius reporteth of Diogenes the Grammarian, that if any were desirous o●heare declamation or discourse, he differred them to the seventh day. 
Euseb. de prepar. evangel. l. 13. c. 7.  Eusebius saith, That almost all, as well philosopher's as Poets, understood, that the seventh day was more sacred than other days. Phil● Jud●eus 〈…〉 cited saith, It was an holy day not of one 〈◊〉 region only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
De vita Mosis, l. 2.  but of all. And in another place he s●ith, Our law admonisheth all of duty, 〈◊〉, Grecians, the inhabitants of the ●les, and the continent, 〈◊〉 the oriental people, the Entrop●cans, and the 〈…〉 even the whole habitable world to the uttermost coasts: for who doth not honour that holy day returning every week. Buxtorsius telleth us, 
Buxtors. synag. judaica, c. 11. p. 287.  that the Jews at this day think, Christians and others shall be phnished, because they keep not their sabbath. And this I believe, they think not of their other holy days.  
I will close this point concerning the first, institution of the sabbath with pointing at the testimonies both of ancients and neoterics. 
Adversus judaeos, c. ●  Tertullian reporteth, that the Jews hold that the Lord sanctified the seventh day from the beginning, and that thereupon when the law was given, the Lord said, Remember. Gen 〈◊〉 ardus in his chronology affirmeth, that the Hebrew Doctors taught so. Peter Martyr citeth Rabbi Agn●●, Broughtoun in his consent allegeth Rambam and Aben-Ezra. 
In Gen. 2.  Philo Judaeus his consent ye had a little before. Cyprian de Spiritu sancto. chrysostom hom. 10. in Genes. 2. Epiphanius contra heresin Anoet● haeres. 51. The doretus 〈◊〉 est in Genesin. Augustine epist. 86. ad Casulannm. Waleus in his dissertatio de sabbatho, citeth Luther, Calvine, Zwinglius, Beza, P. Martyr, Bullinger, Zanchius, Vrsinus, Gualtor, Aretius, Bertramus Mercerus, Antoniu● Faius Juntus, Paraeus, Alstedius. Rivetus in his dissertatio de origaine sabbathi, addeth other Neoterikes. Dan●ws, Ho●pinian●s, Chimnitius, Gerardus, Marloratus, with some others, and popish writers, Eugubinus, Gen●brardus, Cornelius à Lapide, and Emanuel Sa. A diligent reader may easily find more, affirming that the sabbath was instituted at the beginning.  
Seeing the sabbath was observed from the beginning, it was not instituted in the wilderness, but only renewed to the people of God, and enjoined to them with solemnity, both because of their own neglect, or forced profanation in Egypt, as also, because it was neglected among other nations, who observed it not, or not in the right manner, but rather profaned then sanctified it. The question ariseth, whether it was then only moral, or partly moral, partly ceremonial. But the question should be stated other ways. For there is a difference between these two questions, whether the sabbath of the Jews was partly moral, partly ceremonial, or whether the fourth precept, as it standeth in the decalogue, was partly moral, partly ceremonial. That the jewish sabbath was partly moral, partly ceremonial, is the common and received opinion, which, for mine own part, I would be loath to contradict, even taking ceremonial for typical and profigurative of our 〈◊〉 purchased forus by Christ. But it followeth not, that the fourth precept, as it standeth in the decalogue, is partly moral, partly ceremonial in that scene, that is typical and prefigurative. There is nothing in the 〈◊〉 precept, as it was promulgat upon mount Sinai, ranked among the rest of the moral precepts; placed in the midst, and written with Gods own finger in ●ibles of stone, that soundeth any way to typical ceremony. At other times when the ceremonies of the law were intimated, then were typical and ceremonial precepts delivered. It is true, when the fourth precept was promulgated, it was accommodated to the state of man after his fall. ●or strangers within our gates must cease that day from all manner of works, which might give offence to God's people, which needed not to be enjoined in the state of innocence, or, if mankind had continued in the bosom of th● Church, and had not made defection falling in a second fall. But that specification of persons bound to 〈◊〉 work, was not a ceremony, but a needful 〈◊〉 in respect of the time. The reason in the precept is moral, and the end of the cessation and rest is moral, to wit, to sanctify, and keep holy the sabbath-day. To sanctify is taken in a general notion; and without reference to ceremonial exercises, or legal more than evangelical. The legal offices were commanded by other laws, which were positive. But White to prove that the word sanctify is taken in a particular notion, 
pag. 47.  allegeth Deut. 5. 12. Remember to sanctify the sabbath-day, as the Lord thy God ●ath commanded thee. This maketh nothing to the purpose; for the word sanctify may be still taken in a general notion, to sanctify the sabbath, as the Lord commanded before at the delivery of the law. Suppo●e the word were to be taken in a particular notion in that place, Moses applying it as an interpreter and expounder to that present time, it followeth not, that it was so taken at the promulgation and engraving in ●ables of stone, for at that time there was no sacrifices appo●●ed for the sabbath, but afterward, Numb. 28. and s●●●ing on the shewbread, Levit. 24. But these things were ceremonial, belonged only to the priests, and not to all and every one of the people, and were commanded afterward. So was the precept of kindly fire, which was but temporal, and that the sabbath be observed as a memorial of their delivery out of Egypt, Deut. 5. 15. which saith Master Ainsworth, seemeth to have fallen forth upon the sabbath day. To be a sign●, that the Lord did sanctify them, was also set down afterward, as one of the ends of the observation, Exod. 31. but yet that was not to be signum obsig●●ns, a sealing line or sacrament, but only a declarative sig●● or indicant, or document, that God was the santifier of his people, or an argument, as others call it, or a public note and sign of their profession, to distinguish between the observers of the sabbath, as a holy and sanctified people from others. But this may be common to jews and Christians. The mutabilatie of the seventh day from the creation, maketh it not ceremonial; for a thing may be mutable, and not ceremonial. To appoint the seventh day to be observed and sanctified, is not a ceremony, unless the word ceremony be abused, and taken more largely, then for a thing significant or typical. It is properly but a politic order, determining a time for the worship of God, To be a memorial of the creation, and Gods rest the seventh day followed indeed upon the observation of that day, but was not the only nor principal end of the institution; for than that should have been the chief or only exercise on that day, to contemplate and meditate upon the creatures. God propoundeth his work of creation, and resting the seventh day, not as the only subject to be mused upon, but as an example for the observation of a seventh day sabbath. 
De diebu●●estis. cap. 4.  Howbeit of the setting of that seventh day from the creation, the prerogative it had to be the day of God's rest from the work of creation, and therefore made choice of, yet pierce & directè, of itself and directly, as Suarez speaketh, it was not appointed for commemoration of such a work, but to worship God for himself, for his own majesty and excellency. To end this point, we must not confound precepts, concerning ob●ervancies and ceremonies, with moral. The ceremonials are only appendicles, and have their own positive laws for their ground. If because there be some ceremonial precepts concerning the sabbath, delivered afterward or apart from the promulgation of the decalogue, the fourth precept shall be holden, partly moral, partly ceremonial: by that reason other precepts also of the decalogue, shall be partly moral, partly ceremonial, for both the ceremonial and judicial law, saith Master Dow, have in them something, which is juris moralis, and so far forth are contained under the moral precepts. 
pag. 7. De festis, c. 1. num. 12.  Swarez likewise saith, Nihilominus tamen in illis ceremoniis seu observant i●s sunt quaedum rationes generales, que secundum se pertinent ad moralem rationam vir●utum, u● de se abitr●hunt à particulari significatione & ritu veteris legis. In a word, there is nothing ceremonial in the fourth precept, no positive worship, either legal or evangelical, enjoined, but only sanctification, in general without determination either of the one or other, 
De fest●s, c, 2.  no type or signification of things to come expressed, yea, or intended, saith Swarez, but only the institution itself renewed with accommodation to the state of man after his fall, of which I made mention a little before. All the determination, which is added over the natural and moral obligation, to see apart a time to holy exercises, is divine positive, not ceremonial or typical: for divine postive is more general, and comprehendeth also other laws imposed by God for order and policy in his Church.  
Howbeit we 〈…〉 distinguish betwixt in the fourth pre●ept concerning the sabbath, 
Differences betwixt the sabbath and anniversary feasts.  and the sabbath, as it was observed by the people of God upon the imposition of more precepts concerning ceremonies and observances, yet even in their observation we may observe some marks, whereby it might be discerned from their anniversary feasts, and to be ordained pr●marly for a moral use. The sabbath was observed every where throughout the land, and abroad, where they remained, in the wilderness, in the places of their captivity and dispersion. The ceremonial feasts on 〈◊〉 I●rusalem, whither jews and prose●i●s resorted from all countries, as at the Pentecost when the firle tongues were sent down, and whereat the Apostle Paul hastened to be present. Next, the ceremonial feasts had some sacrifices and ceremonies appropriate unto them, which might not be used at other times. The sabbath had only the doubling of the daily sacrifice at the appointed place, beside the ordinary exercises throughout the land. Thirdly, the sabbaths of anniversary feasts were transferred to the ordinary or weekly sabbath, if it was to follow immediately, because the dead corpse and meat prepared specially of herbs, 
See Cas●ub▪ exercit. pag. 482. Scaliger de 〈…〉.  could not be preserved without spilling or putrifying specially in those hot countries. Non facimus inqu●●●, duo contin a sabbatha propter olera & prophet mortuos. 〈…〉 restraineth this custom to the store month T●●ri. But the ordinary or weekly sabbath was not drawn to the sabbaths of these anniversary feasts. Fourthly▪ at the anniversary feasts they might not fast, they were days of joy and festivity which ●orreth not with mourning of f●sting. See Nehem. 8. 10. Exod. 12. 14. Num. 29. 15. And therefore these days were called Chaggim, which is derived from a word, signifying wheeling about, leaping or dancing. The most solemn day of these feasts was called jom tob, 
Exortat. pag.  a good or merry day. The ordinary sabbath-day was not called jom tob. See Casaubonus, nor yet Chag. They were not forbidden to f●st, yet they might fast. That injunction, Exod. 16. 23. was a permission, not a command, or for preparation only, not for eating the day following. Yea, they not only might fast, but did it usually, at lest to the twelft hour, as Hooker proveth by testimonies out of Josephus, Justinus, Suctonius, Balsam upon the 66. Canon, 
Epist. 86. ad Casulanum.  called the Apostles, saith, We fast not upon the sabbath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lest we should seem to imitate the Jews. Augustine saith, God spoke nothing concerning dining or fasting upon the sabbath, when he sanctified the seventh day, nor afterward, when he gave precepts concerning it to his people. Of these differences the reader may find more in Altar Damascenum, page 667, 668, 669.  
The Jewish sabbath which was the seventh day from the creation, 
The saturday sabbath changed.  was abolished at the resurrection of Christ, because it had types and ceremonies annexed to it, which were shadows of things to come. The ground ceasing, the observation of that day ceased also; for the shadows flee away when the body cometh in place. Yea further, I will yield, that the abrogation was meant by the Apostle, Coloss. 2. 17. and under the name of sabbath there, is to be meant only the weekly sabbath, which is more than White craveth. Not that I think, they answer sufficiently to those, who will have the word to be applied to the first and last day of anniversary feasts, which were also called sabbaths. But because I think these to be comprehended under the name of feasts, whereof these sabbaths were the principal, and most solemn days. So that here is a perfect division of all their solemn days, to wit, that they were either feasts, to wit, anniversary days, or new moons, which returned monthly, or the sabbath, which returned weekly. I so think the rather, because we have the like division, 1 Chron. 23. 31. where the Levits' office is set down, to offer burnt sacrifices unto the Lord, in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts. And again, in Esay 1. 13, 14. we have the like. As for that, that the word Sabbath is in the plural number, it crosseth not this sense: for so is the weekly sabbath usually expressed by the Greek translators of the old testament; and in the new testament also, Matth. 12. 1, 5, 10, 11, 12. Matth. 2●. 1. Mark. 1. 12. Mark. 2. 23, 24. Mark 3. 2, 4. Luk. 4. 31. Luke 6. 9 Luke 13. 10. Act. 13. 14. Act. 16. 13. In these places the word is taken either for one sabbath-day only, or for more. And so it may be taken in this place, Coloss. 2. and translated either sabbath, or as the late english translation hath, sabbath days. The sabbath-day is expressed in the plural number for the frequent and often returning. By the way observe, that the old sabbath was not reckoned among the Jewish festival days. 
Addenda prolegomenis in libro● de emendatione temporu●.  S●atiger saith, Manifestò sabbata distinguuntur (to wit Esay 1. 13, 14.) à magnis diebus. The sabbaths are ●early distinguished from the great days, which were all one with Chaggim. The jewish sabbath then, seeing it shadowed things to come, behoved to be abolished. Suppose it had not been a shadow, yet even as it was but a circumstantial point of the fourth precept, which is moral positive, it might have been changed for a greater reason, than was the occasion of the choice of the former. For the resurrection of Christ, and beginning of his triumph, after he had ended his course of humiliation, was a greater reason for making choice of the first day of the week, then resting from the work of creation was for the seventh day before. The first respect of necessity required abolition; The 〈…〉 congruity.  
The first day of the week succeeded in the room of the last day of the week, 
The Lord's day observed in and from the Apostles times.  and hath been observed in the Christian Church from her infancy to this day, without any change or contradiction. The Apostles were convened together that day, when the holy Ghost descended upon them, Act. 2. When Paul had stayed at Troas seven days, upon the first day of the week, being the seventh day of his abode, the disciples convened together to break-bread, and Paul preached and conferred with them till break of day, Act. 20. 7. 11. The original hath, upon one of the sabbath, but sabbath is put for week, because from the sabbath as the principal day, they numbered the rest of the days of the week to the next sabbath in order, first, second, third, fourth, etc. of the sabbath, and distinguished them not by the names of the planets. As when the pharisee said, I fast twice in the sabbath, that is, twice in the week, Luke 18. 12. When Jesus was risen early the first day of the sabbath, that is, of the week, Mark 16. 9 And Levit 23. 15. seven sabbaths shall be complete, that is, seven weeks. Likewise one, according to the form of speech familiar to the Hebrews, is taken for first. The evening and morning were one day, that is, the first day. This place cannot be translated one of the sabbaths: for the Apostle stayed but seven days, in which there was but one sabbath day. Nor yet is it likely, that the Christians did assemble upon the jewish sabbath to their exercises. Howbeit the Apostle went in to their synagogue, Act. 13. upon their sabbath, that was not for the observation of their sabbath, but because he could not find the jews assembled together at any other time or place, that he might have occasion to win them, as ye may see at that time he found occasion to deliver a word of exhortation. We have the first day of the week expressed with the like phrase, 1 Corin. 16. 2. where the Corinthians are directed to lay aside some thing for the poor the first day of the sabbath, that is, of the week, or every first day of the week. 
pag. 211. 212.  Now although this text of S. Paul maketh no express mention of Church assemblies this day, yet because it was the custom of Christians: And likewise it is a thing conv●nient to give alms upon the church-dayes, it cannot w●ll he gainsaid, but that, if in Corinth and Galatia, the first day of ev●ry week was appointed to be a day for alms, and charitable contributions the same was also the Christians weekly holy day for their religious assemblies, saith White, and to this purpose citeth chrysostom, in 1 Corin. hom. 43. where he showeth, that the time was fit for collections, because that day they had received many great benefits, and the first of the sabbath, he interpreteth the Lord's day. So do the translations of the Bible expound both the former and this place of the first day of the week, the Belgike, the French, the Italian, the Spanish, the late English, Beza's and Tremellius out of the Syriack. With frivolous cavillation do some few to their great discredit press to another sense, which is to the full overthrown by Wal●e●s and Amesius. This first day of the week, Revel. 1. 10. is called, not the day of the Lord, as sometime in the scripture, the time of some heavy judgement is called the day of the Lord, or because the Lord revealed to him upon a day these great mysteries, for that day had been uncertain, the sense ca●to logical, as if John should have said, I was ravished in the spirit that day I was ravished in the spirit. But John maketh mention of this day as a thing known before to the Churches, to design the time, when he saw th●se visions. And he calleth it not the day of the Lord, but the Lords day, or the dominical day, and so it hath ever been called in the Christian Church since the days of the Apostles. Justi●u● calls it Apoc. 2. Diem solis, Sunday, because the apology was directed to an ethnic, and in his dialogue with Trypho, the first day of the week, because Trypho was a Jew. It were superfluous to cite testimonies to prove that in every age this day hath been called the Lord day, and observed by Christians in every age.  
Notwithstanding it be clear and evident, that the Lords day was observed in the Apostles times, it is questioned whither it was instituted by Christ, or by the Apostles, or if by the Apostles, whither by them as ordinary pastors, or as extraordinary officebearers, assisted with the infallible direction of the spirit. 
Discourse pag. ●3.  Master Daw, It concerneth us little to know, whither it was delivered by the Apostles themselves, or their next after comers. Those who come after are equalled by him with the Apostles, who were assisted extraordinarly in laying the foundation wherein the Church was builded, and setting down the government and unchangeable policy of the Church. Either every Church had power to hollow a day like the Lords day, or else the Church universal. If every national Church, than they might have differed, and hallowed sundry days. If the Church universal, that could not be brought to pass but in the representative, an ecumenical council. None such could be had for 300 years after Christ. But so the hallowing of such a day had been suspended for 300 years. If the Church may institute such a day, it may abrogate it also, and change at pleasure. If the Church, or ordinary pastors may institute such a day, they may make laws binding the conscience. For we are bound in conscience to observe the Lords day, even out of the case of scandal and contempt, in secret as well as in public, with internal worship as well as external, or else we sin, howbeit the Church cannot take notice of it, or judge upon it. If there be no such day for the Lord, than we deny to him that which the very law of nature granteth to him, for the law of nature requireth such a day. Seeing no ordinary pastors may do it, it followeth, that if the Apostles did it, 
pag. 43.  they did it not by virtue of their pastoral power and office, which was common to them with their successors, as Master Dow speaketh, but by that power which was properly apostolical, and that it cannot be called an ordinance of the Church, as Master Dow allegeth it may. Even Bellarmine distinguisheth between traditions divine, 
De verbo Dei non script. cap 3.  apostolical, and ecclesiastical, and confoundeth not apostolical with ecclesiastical. The apostolical constitutions, may be also called divine, saith he, because they were not instituted without the assistance of the spirit, and divine may be called apostolical, not that they were instituted by the Apostles, sed quod ab eis primùm ecclesi● traditae sunt, cum ipsi seorsim eas à Christo accepissont, that is, that by them they were first delivered to the Church, after they had first received them apart from Christ himself. The observation of the Lords day is not like the Papists unwritten verities, for it is extant in the scripture, but the question is about the precept. We confess practice, say they, but where is precept? I answer, their practice was a pattern to us, and hath the force of a precept. Rivetue himself in his exercitations upon Genesis, 
● pag. ●2.  answers, In such things we need no express precept, if we have practice and example, namely of such as we know to be the first institutours of good order, by virtue of a special calling, such as were the Apostles, but chiefly where the practice is repeated, for than it is inculcat, if there be no necessary reason craving a change. Respondeo in talibus non opus esse praec●pto expresso, si habeamus exemplum, praesertim eorum quos scimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ecclesia fuisse, ex speciali vocatione primos institutores, quales fuerunt Apostoli. In talibus enim exemplum & praxis vim aliquam habet pracepti, praesertim ubi praxis illa repetitur, tum enim incul●atur, si nulla ratio necessaria mutationem requirat. Add also, that the observation was uniform in all the Churches, and constant, which presupposeth a precept, an ordinance, or institution. For what likelihood is there, that one began, and the rest every one after other followed the example of others that went before in practice, and that this way the observation crept in by example, and did grow to a custom. The places above cited make mention of the first day of the week, and the Lords day not as then begun, but as known and observed before, even at the Pentecost, before the holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles. And yet Rivetus inferreth a precept out of 1 Corin. 16. where the Corinthians are directed every first day of the week, to lay aside some thing for the poor, where, howbeit the chief intention of the Apostle is to give direction for the help of the poor, yet because he will have it to be done the first day of the week, it followeth that he willeth also, that they should dedicate the Lords day to the solemn assembling of the Church, for he that intendeth the end, intendeth also the midst, Vbi etsi prima intentio Tauli sit de collecta statuere, tamen quia vult eam primo di● hebdomadis fieri, inde sequitur voluisse etiam ut diem Dominicam solemni ecclesiae congregationl dedicarent. Qui enim vu●t finem, vult etiam media, si nihil in eyes sit illegitimum, aut verbo Dei prohibitum. Yet his words would be somewhat corrected; for the Apostle enjoineth them not to observe that day, as if they had never observed it before, but makes mention of it, as a thing known, and as chrysostom observed, would move them to be the more freehearted, because of the benefits which they had received that day. He enjoineth them no new thing, but concernidg the collection for the Saints, as he had given order to the Churches of Galatia. Yet this direction implieth a direction to continue in the observation of that day; for in directing them to do a little, far more would he have them to perform greater duties. Bellarmine giveth some rules to try genuine apostolical traditions, which, if ye will admit, howbeit they cannot be justly applied to their unwritten verities, yet very well to the observation of th● Lords day. 
De verbo Dei non ser●pto, p●o, c. 9  When the universal Church observeth any thing, that none might appoint but God, and yet nowhere is it found written, it behoveth to aver, that it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles. Another rule, What the universal Church hath observed at all ●●mes before, justly we may believe, that it was in 〈…〉 Apostles, howbeit it be of ●uch a quality, as 〈…〉 instituted by the Church. To this purp●se●● quoteth Aug●stine lib. 4. contra Donatist as cap. 23 These are the words, That which the universal Ch●rch 〈◊〉, and hath not been instituted by Counsels, but ever maintained, is to be beleev●d in all 〈◊〉 reason, not to have been ordained by o●her power, than the apostolic authori●●. Quod universate● eccle●●a nec conci●iis institu●●●, sed semp●r ●●tentum, non nisi authoritate ap●st●ica tra●ditu● certissime creditur. But seeing the ordinances of the Apostles were of two sorts. Some were temporary, and to endure only for a time, as abstinence from blood, and strangled, which was enjoined only for avoiding the offence of the weak Jews: others were to be observed constantly. Of this sort was the observation of the Lords day. Experience hath proved the perpetual observation of it hitherto, and no reason can be given, wherefore it should be changed hereafter, as I shall show. It were superfluous to cite the testimonies of divines, referring the institution of this day to the Apostles. Walaeus hath quoted a number, dissertat. pag. 165. After he hath laid down his reasons, consenting with them in judgement, he concludeth that the first day of the week was substituted to the sabbath by the Apostles, not only by an ordinary power, 
Dissert. pag. 172.  such as all pastors have to order rites merely indifferent in their Churches, but by a singular power, as by such as had inspection over the whole Church, and to whom, as to extraordinary officebearers, was concredit to be faithful, not only to deliver certain precepts of faith and manners, but also of comely order in the Church, Vt quis dies in septimana ex vi & anal gia quarti praecepti esset servandus, ne diss●nsio aut confusio ex eo inter ecclesias oriretur, omnibus ubique Christianis constaret; as that it might be known to all Christians, what day in the week is to be observed by virtue and analogy of the fourth precept, lest dissension or confusion should arise there about 〈◊〉 the Churches. He citeth other divines, concluding likewise that the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost, substituted the Lord's day in place of the Jewish 〈◊〉 bath. But others refer the institution to Christ himself, which is more likely: for after his resurrection he appeared sundry times, taught the Apostles things pertaining to the kingdom of God, that is, the instruction, and government of his Church, and gave them commandments, Act. 1. 23. These commandments, and instructions, they delivered after to the Churches, and set them down in their canonical writes. Next, Christ himself appeared, the day of his resurrection five times. At the third appearance, he appeared to the two disciples going to Emaus, at which time he celebrated the holy supper according to the judgement of great divines. At the fifth appearance, he appeared to all the disciples, save Thomas, who were convened together before. Then he gave them commission to go and teach all nations, and in conferring his spirit he breathed upon them, John 20. Mark. 16. Eight days after, that is, the eighth day after (as Luke 2. 21. when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child, that is, when the child was circumcised upon the eight day) Christ appeared again, and Thomas was present, at which time he cured his unbelief. It would appear, their meeting was not frequent at other times, and that Christ appeared purposely at that time. And therefore it is likely, that every eight day after ordinarily they conveened, and Christ appeared unto them, wherein that great divine Junius is confident. Die ipso resurrectionis, & octavo quoque die, 
Praelect. in Genes. cap. 2.  usque dum in coelos ascendit, apparuit disc●pulis, & in conventum eorum venit. At last upon the Pentecost, which fell upon the eight day, that is, the first day of the week that year, Christ sent down the holy Ghost in the likeness of fiery tongues upon the Apostles convened together. There is no special time noted for any of Christ's apparitions, but the first and eighth day, which seemeth to be done of purpose. Therefore Cyrillus lib. 12. in 〈…〉. 8. willeth us to observe, that the Evangelist is no● content with a simple narration, but addeth carefully, after eight days, and all being gathered together in one place. The Lord's day could not have been observed so long as Christ remained upon the earth without his direction. And this appeareth to be one of the commandments, which he gave them. Eusebius ascribeth the institution of this day to Christ, 
Orat. de laudib. Constantini.  advancing Christ above all the great pote●tats of the Gentiles, who could not prescrive to all the inhabitants of the earth to convene every week, and observe the Lords day, as Christ did. Athan●sius cited by White, pag. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Lord hath changed ●r translated it (meaning the sabbath) into the Lord's day. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well import, that it was so called, because the Lord was the author and institutor of it, as because it was instituted for the honour and worship of our Lord. As the Lord's prayer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lords prayer, because the Lord was the author of it. Zanchius is of opinion, that when the Lord blessed the seventh day, the son of God spent that whole day in instructing Adam and Eva, 
De operi●. Dei; part. 3. ●. 1. c. 〈◊〉. 539.  exercising them in the worship of God, and admonishing them to teach their posterity to do the like: for it beloved Adam to understand the sanctification of that day, which the Lord had blessed and sanctified. We have far greater reason to think, being certain that Christ was here on earth, appearing to his disciples at sundry times from the day of his resurrection, till the day of his ascension, and instructing them in things belonging to his Church, that he instructed them in this point also. Yea, ye see, he conveened with them, and in a manner observed it also.  
Whither Christ himself instituted the observation of this day, or the Apostles by the inspiration of the Spirit, the authority is divine: 
Syntag. lib. 1. cap. 47.  For howsoever Bellarmine distinguisheth traditions in divine and apostolical, the distinction is but imaginary, saith Junius in his answer; and Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth, that the apostolical traditions in respect of the assistance of the spirit, may be called also divine, howbeit they were not delivered immediately by Christ himself. Tratitiones verè apostolice sunt divinae, saith Polanus. Beza in his great annotations upon Apocal. 1. 10. calleth it, Apostolicam & verè divinam traditionem, Atradition truly divine, howbeit Apostolical. 
In Genes. cap. 2, 3.  Cornelius à Lapide joineth both together, Christ and his Apostles. Vnde à Christo & Apostolis festum à sabbato in dominicum est translatum.  
Some, 
The Lord's day substitute to the old sabbath.  saith Dow, ground the institution of the Lords day upon the fourth commandment, some upon the sanctification of the seventh day at the creation, other seek for authority out of the new Testament; but all these three agree in one. For the fourth commandment was but a renovation of the first institution after the creation. The substance of the commandment is to observe a seventh day, the renewing the appointment of that seventh day of the first week, was a circumstantial point, and therefore it was changeable, like as for some types and ceremonies annexed to it, it behoved to be changed. The institution of the Lords day, was but a substitution of another day to that which was, the substance remaining, to wit, that the seventh day of a week be sanctified. For, as I observed before, the force of God's example alleged in the fourth commandment, lieth in this chiefly, that God purposely took six days to create the world, whereas he might have done it in six hours, and rested upon the seventh; not in this, that he created in those six days, and rested upon that seventh day, which followed immediately after: for the Lord saith, for in six days, not, for in those six days. God made choice of that seventh day at that time to sanctify it, to be a memorial of his rest from the work of creation that seventh day. When Christ rose from the dead, and a new creation, as it were, of a new world was begun, there was greater reason to sanctify that day, howbeit there had been no types and ceremonies annexed to the former, far more seeing it behoved to be abolished. The seventh day in the precept is to be considered materially, as it were, or formally. As it is considered formally, and in general, it is of the substance of the command, but consider it materially, as the seventh from the creation, it is not of the substance of the commandment. The seventh day may be considered both the ways: 
S●arez de diebus festis cap. 1. nu. 15.  Septimu● autem dies intelligi potest, vel ille qui est septimus d●es à creatione numerando à primo die creationis, que dici potest velu●imaterialis numeratio, vel potest dici septimus, quasi generat●m, seu formaliter ille, qui est ultimus in septenario numero dierum, sicut Aristoteles dixit ultimam unitatem esse formam numeri. The institution then of the Lords day, is nothing else but a substitution of another seventh day to the former seventh day, considered materially. These are the common phrases of divines; that the old sabbath was changed into the first day of the week, that the glory and excellency of the old sabbath was translated into that day, that that day succeeded or was substitute to the old sabbath. What can these phrases import, but that vis praecepti the force of the precept yet remains, and only the material numbering for great respects was changed.  
Philo● Judaeus in his book de opificio mundi in the place above cited, 
The perpetuity of a seventh day.  upon occasion of the sabbath discourseth at large upon the mysteries of the sacred septenary, as he calleth it, or number of feven. Peter Martyr saith, that God delighteth in the number of seven, and hath closed up great and wonderful works, within the compass of the number of seven. Scaliger saith, that the number of seven days is instituted by a divine power, because it is so commodious for all the course of the year, called Solar, 
●●non. I●●●g. p. 198.  and hath into it some divine thing. Divinitus igitur institutus est numerus dierum septenarius, qui ad omnem civilis anni Solaris rationem commodissimus est, & ut dixi nescio qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habet. But in the institution of the sabbath, God had not an eye to the mysteries, or hid virtue which is in the number of seven, but to the ability of man. The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.  
Our reason then for the perpetuity of a sevenths' day sabbath to be sanctified, that this order cannot be changed, that it is of the substance of the fourth commandment, are these. First, if by virtue of the fourth precept of the decalogue, we be not bound to sanctify one day of seven, than we have no divine precept for any certain circle, or circuit of days for the sanctification of a certain day: for no where in scripture have we any precept for any other revolution of days to observe one of them. Without a certain and set system of days there would arise great confusion and division in the Church of God, some judging one of ten, others perhaps one of twenty, or thirty sufficient, etc. It behoved th● Lord therefore by his supreme authority to s●int the time, to exeme all Scruples out of men's minds, and to prevent all confusion and disorder. No humane authority could have bound men's conscience to the observation of it. The Lord no where hath done it, but in the fourth precept. Next, the reason in the precept concerneth us all, for as I have said before, the Lord took six days to create the world, no more, no fewer, and rested the seventh to be a pattern to man, many hundred years before the jews became a nation, and in that precept, which was a renewing of the institution, commandeth us to follow that pattern. Thirdly, the proportion between the six days for man to do his own business, and the seventh to be dedicated to God, is so just, that it cannot be altered without prejudice; for to give man but five, were an heavy burden, to give him seven, or eight, or more, the time set apart for God would not be sufficient. Unless we will think God exacted more than was sufficient, when he required the seventh. But we must acknowledge that God is good, and we profess equity in his precept, in that he hath given us six days, and taken but the seventh to himself. And who was so wise, as to find out this proportion without prejudice either to God or man. 
1. 2. quaest. 100 art. 1●  Aquinas distinguisheth moral precepts in three ranks: The first are such as natural reason doth yield to incontinent: The second are of such as need the more subtle consideration of the wiser sort, considering sundry circumstances: A third sort are of such as need divine instruction to help man's reason to judge, and condescend. These of the first rank are absolute de lege natura, simply or absolutely of the law of nature, the rest are attained unto by humane discipline and instruction as these of the second rank, or ●v●ne inse●uctio● as these of the third. And to this rank may this proportion be referred. But we are content to urge it only as divine positive, but unchangeable, as the rest of the moral precepts are. So that the fourth precept is partly divine natural, that God must have a time set for his worship, partly divine positive, that he must have one whole day of seven. Fourthly, Christ or the Apostles would not vary from this circle, when they changed the seventh day from the last to the first day of the week, but keeped themselves within that circle, which they might and would have done, if the fourth precept had been given only to the Jews, or the circuit had been ceremonial, and had relation only to the jewish sabbath. And this is an argument by the way, that this system of seven, or circuit of the week, was set from the beginning. The reason of the institution of the Lords day, saith Bellarmine, 
De cultu sanct. lib. 3. c. 11.  was, that it might succeed to the sabbath, for divine law required, that one day in the week should be dedicated to divine worship. Nam jus divinum requirebat, ut unus dies hebdomadae dedicaretur cultui divino. And seeing it was not convenient that the old sabbath should be still observed, it was changed into the Lord's day. For the perpetuity of one of seven, the testimonies of many divines may be alleged. 
Homil. 10. in gen. 2.  Chrysestome, Jam hinc ab ●nitio doctrinam hanc nobis insinuat Deus, erudiens in c● culo hebdomadae diem unum integrum segregandum & seponendum in spiritualem opera●ionem. Theodoretus, Septem d ebus circulum omnem dierum conclusit. Beza in Apocal. 
quaest. in Gen.  1. 10. Quartum praeceptum de septimo quoque die sanctificando, quo ad cultum De● a●●●net esse leg●● moral● & immotae. P. Martyr in his common places, that it is stable and firm, that one day in the week be dedicated to God. Zanchius upon the fourth precept, that it is moral, so far as it commandeth us to consecrate one day of seven to God's external worship. Junius saith, it is natural that the seventh day be consecrated to God. Praelecti in Genes. cap. 2. Suarez acknowledgeth, 
De festis c. 4. num. 9  that the dedication of the seventh day, howbeit he calleth it an ecclesiastical precept, cannot be changed by the ordinary, or ordinat as he calleth it, power of the Church. Because some ecclesiastical precepts are so near and like to divine institutions, so conform to the law of nature, fenced with so many reasons of honesty and religion, so ancient, and strengthened by universal custom, that simply, or by the ordinate power of the Church; they cannot be abrogated. Among which precepts, he ranketh that of the dedication of the seventh day. And therefore he inferreth that by the absolute power of the Church and the Popes, it may be abrogated, tamen practice & moralit●● dici posse aliquo modo immutabile, licet ecclesiasticum sit, that is, it may be said in some sort to be morally, and for practise unchangeable; Which is as much as to say, with little honesty or credit can it be put in practice. Such shifts are sophists driven unto, when they would advance the authority of the Church too high, as if the Church only in imitation of God had dedicated one of seven, and had not direction from God. Always ye see he acknowledgeth, that to observe holy one of the seven days, is conform to the law of nature.  
This seventh day, 
The Lord's day unchangeable.  to wit, the Lords day, cannot ●e changed as the old seventh day, which was the last of the week. It is not only unfit, and unconvenient, but it cannot be changed. Not because of the nature of the day, for it differeth not in nature from another day, more than the former sabbath. If the former sabbath had been holier in nature then other days, it could not have been changed. But the reason of the immutability of the Lords day is, that it was set down by divine authority, and therefore cannot be abrogated by humane authority of princes, pastors, or prelate's. We must not look for Christ till his coming again, nor for any to arise hereafter equal in power and authority to the Apostles. Next, the consideration taken in making choice of this day, cannot serye for another day. Christ is not to suffer death, and rise again at any other time. A weightier consideration to make a new change, will never fall forth, than the resurrection of Christ. And therefore nowbeit the Church had instituted it, it cannot be changed. 
De festis c. 4. num. 10.  At verò ecclesiasticum praeceptum ●ititur mysterio resurrectionis Chr●sti ●am fa● lo, quod ut sic, immutabile est: Nec enim potest C●ristus non resurrexisse, nec potest non vivere glories postquam resurrexit, saith Suarez. Seeing Christ's resurrection fell forth that day, it can never be true that Christ rose not that day. Therefore for the dedication of such day, to wit, the Lords day, Suarez saith, 
Num. 10, 11.  the reasons are perpetual and unchangeable, which have so fixed the determination, that this precept of the Church cannot reasonably be abrogated, and that the holy Ghost, which governeth the Church, will not suffer such a change to be made against reason and the utility of the Church. But if it be of divine institution, and not the Churches, it cannot be changed, but by the like divine institution. For what ever be the considerations in making choice of the day, the determination, or as they call it, taxatio diei, dependeth chiefly upon the will of the institutor. Of the divine institution I have treated a little before. I refer the Reader for more to willet's his Synopsis, Perkins cases of conscience, Fulke against the Rhemist, Apoc. 1. 10. and other worthy Divines.  
The places alleged Rom. 14. 
All difference of days not abrogated.  and Galat. 4. maketh not against all difference of days, but the ceremonial, or dead judaical. The weaker Jew's; Rom. 14. thought the holy days commanded by God in the old law, were still holier than other days. The Apostle willeth such to be borne with, till they come to the fuller knowledge of their Christian liberty. The Galathians had been converted from paganism, had begun in the spirit, but were now by the persuasion of the false apostles, like to end in the flesh, beginning to observe the days, months, and years, which the Jews observed of old: Days, that is, their weekly sabbaths; Months, that is, their new moons; Years, that is, their yearly days, or anniversary feasts; or times and years, that is, Statuta tempora annorum, the appointed times of the years. For by the same reason, that months may be taken for new moons, years may be taken for yearly days. I see no likelihood, that they observed the seventh or fifty year. This exposition agreeth with the division of the jewish solemnities, whereof I made mention before. The observation of such days, is taxed here, as were in some respect, of the quality of the new moons and yearly feasts. Now these were the sabbaths. This ceremonial difference was abrogated, but the moral use of a set holy day was not taken away. For 〈◊〉 the same time the Lords day was observed, and by the Galathians in particular, as ye may see 1 Corin. 16. 1. where the Apostle maketh mention of the Churches of Galatia. Now to set a day is not a shadowing ceremony more than to design a place for the congregation to meet in, but a matter belonging to order. But there was more required to this day. For it was not instituted only for order and policy, that the people might know what days to convene to public, exercises, howbeit it was one respect. Time's may be appointed for preaching and prayer on the week days by any particular Church. But there is more required here, a day to be obseved holy by the universal Church, not only for public worship, but also for private, not only for external, but also for internal, which could not be done but by divine authority, which is supreme, and only able to bind the conscience to internal as well as external, to private as well as to public worship, as I have said before.  
The last point which I am to touch, 
The manner of observation.  is concerning the strictness of the observation: Whither we be bound to as strict observation of the Lords day, as the Jews were of their sabbath. The superstitious observation of the jews we are not bound unto. For they observed that day more precisely, than God required. They found fault with Christ healing of the sick man upon the sabbath, and the sick man's carrying home of his bed. They have had, and have many foolish observations, as not to pull to an herb on the sabbath, nor to eat an apple which they pluck upon that day, nor claw with their nails in public, nor catch a flea unless it bite. Let us then see, what God hath forbidden them. They were bidden ●ake that which they had to bake upon the sixth day, and seeth that they had to seethe, Exod. 16. 23. and forbidden to kindle a fire upon the seventh day. But that which was baken and seethed upon the sixth day, a part of it was not reserved to the seventh day, but that which remained over unbaken and unsodden. The text importeth no further, for if it had been baken or sodden, they would perhaps have attributed the not putrifying upon the seventh day to the baking or seething. It was food that might be eaten without baking, like comfits or fruit. It seemeth then this injunction was given only during the time the manna reigned. If this direction had been to be observed afterward, they might not have eaten any thing which was baken two days before. Is it likely that Christ and others bidden to the Pharisees house upon the sabbath-day, had no meat dressed for them by baking of seething. The kindling of fire was forbidden, not simply, but for baking or seething the manna, as some think, and therefore endured only so long as the manna lasted, howbeit the most superstitious sort of the Jews in later times observed it. It is noted of the Essens, 
Drusius de tribus sectis, lib. 4.  a strict sect of the Jews, as singular in them, that they kindled no fire upon the sabbath-day. They were commanded, Exod. 16. 29. to abide every man in his place, and not to go out of their tents, at lest out of the camp. This was but temporary. Afterward they might take journey upon the sabbath to the Prophets or synagogues, 2 King. 4. 23. Levit 23. 3. Yea, if they were not to journey for that, the Scribes prescrived to them 2000 cubits, that is a mile or thereabouts, out of a town or city, which was called the sabbath-dayes-journey. But afterward they became more superstitious, not taking up the Lord's intent, in that place of Exodus, as the Jew that would not be drawn out of the jacks, wherein he had fallen upon the sabbath-day. So howbeit the jews should be superstitious now in not kindling fire, that is no warrant that the direction was not ●●●oratie. Some think, this prohibition served only during the workmanship of the tabernacle. But let it be granted, that both the one direction and the other were to endure during the policy of the jews, I deny that they were forbidden by virtue of the fourth precept of the decalogue. They would and might have kindled fire notwithstanding of the fourth precept. Their rest upon the sabbath was ceremonial and figurative. And because ceremonial and figurative, therefore, saith Bellarmine, 
pag. 31.  and Dow after him, with others, it behoved to be more strict, exact, and rigid. For the more exact the figure is, the better it representeth and signifieth. So granting, that dressing and preparing of meat by fire were not a temporary precept during the manna, yet it depended upon the ceremonial rest and typical state of God's people under the law. They abstained from the burial of the dead upon the sabbath-day, 2 Maccab. 12. 39 because if any touched the dead, or entered into the house where the dead lay, or touched a grave, was unclean seven days, Numb. 19 14. 16. and consequently they might not enter into the tabernacle. Here a duty forbidden for legal uncleanness, which bindeth not us. The profanation of the sabbath was a capital crime, Exod. 31. 14. but this law bindeth not us. The works depending upon the ceremonial rest, or any particular ceremony bindeth not us, but only the works inhibited in the fourth precept, wherein the ceremonial and iudicall precepts are not included, but only annexed to them, as peculiar unto that people, which was under the tutory, and pedagogy of the law. Aquinas saith, that the ceremonial and judicial precepts are not contained in the decalogue. 
Secunda, secundae qu●●st. 122. art. 1. a●● secundum.  Ad secundum dicendum, quod judicialia praecepta sunt determinationes moralium praeceptorum, prout ordinantur ad proximum; sicut & ceremonialia sunt quaedam determinationes praceptorum moralium, prout ordinatur ad Deum. unde neutra praecepta continentur in daecalogo. If then these works were not forbidden by virtue of the fourth precept, we are not bound to for bear them. If our observation of the Lords day praefigure that blessed and glorious life which we expect, as some do hold, than our rest should be also as exact and rigid, because figurative. Dominicus dies, 
D●civie. De lib. 22. c. 30.  qui Christi resurrectione s●●xat●●e, ●, ●e ernam requiem spiritus & corporis praefigurat, saith Augustine. But we will not build strictness of rest upon such a weak ground. It may be fill drawn to resemble heavenly and spiritual things, but that is not any end of the institution. It is not ●●pu●destinatu●, instituted for any shadow or signification, though ●t may befitly applied unto such an use, 
Synops. pag. 500  saith Willet. Our rest upon the Christian sabbath is only subservient to the sanctifying of the day. The strictness required of old by the virtue of the fourth precept, is required of us. As Whit maketh sunday an holy day only by the ordinance of the Church, pag. 109. 150. so the particular form and circumstances of resting are prescribed unto us, saith he, by the Church, pag. 135. meaning the Church governor's, the prelate's. So doth Bellarmine allow such works, as shall be permitted by the prelates, 
De 〈◊〉 sanc●. c. 10.  or have been used by long custom. Tertiopera concessa à pralatis. Quartò opera quae ex consuetudine sunt licita. Our holy fathers the prelates, patterns and patrons of the profanation of the Lords day, usurp dispensation with God's moral precepts. The very light of nature leadeth a man to acknowledge, that what time is set apart as holy, it should not be profaned with worldly business or exercises, howbeit this light hath been detained in unrighteousness among the Gentiles, who would not spend the time as they ought to have done, or were ignorant, and thought their games and plays were a hononring of their gods. I need not to reekon particular works, this general engraft in man's mind by nature, that a holy day should be spent in holy exercises, will direct every one in the particulars. This or that will be an impediment to the spiritual exercises, whereunto I am bound this day. In hoc pracepto est aliquid, quod est morale, ut vacare, id est, intendere Deo, orando, colendo, meditando, quae sunt in dictamine legis natura. Et ista hodie in lege Christiana magis manent in virtute, quam in lege veteri. Ex statutis synodalibus dioecesis Lingonensis anno 1404. Here ye see in the statutes of that diocie it is acknowledged moral in the fourth precept to pray, worship, meditate, that nature diteth this much, and that these duties remain more in strength under the Gospel, then under the old law. This statute with the rest was approved by a Cardinal, Ludovicus de Barro. In a council holden at Mascone 588, the people is exhorted to spend the Lords day in hymns and praises, prayers and tears. Sunt oculi manusque vestrae toto illo die ad Deum expanse: Let your eyes be bend, and hands spread toward God all that day. They require also spiritual exercises, in the night itself. In the synods holden in France, by the Pope's legates Galo and Simon, it was ordained under the pain of excommunication, that none grind at watermills, or any other mills, from saturday at evening till the Lord's day at evening. Cardinal Galo and Simon were sent legates to France about the year 1812. In a synod holden in Ange●●s 1282. the like ordinance was made against grinding at mills, notwithstanding of the abuse for a long time before, for that sins are the more heinous, the longer miserable fouls are bound to them, cumali qua praescriptio contra praecepta decalogi locum sibi vindieare non possit. Seeing no prescription can take place against the precepts of the decalogue. Ye see they ground their ordinance upon the fourth precept, and conclude ex vi quart● praecepti, that Christians may not grind at mills that day, from evening to evening. They inhibited also cutting or shaving of beards that day, or any other exercise of barber ●ra●t, under the pain of excommunication, but in case of imminent peril of death or grievous disease. This strictness then required of us, admitteth not lawful and honest games, shooting, bowling, wrestling, etc. farrelesse unhonest and unlawful, w●i●h aught at no time to be suffered. For honest games and pass-times, howbeit honest, may be impediment to spiritual exercises, and distract the mind as much as the lawful works of our calling. Refreshment by meat and thank was allowed by God himself, when he provided for the seventh day, and by Christ himself, who being invited, went to the pharisees house upon the sabbath to dinner. Aman may recreate himself with the free air of his garden or the fields, if family duties or the like hinder him not, providing he spend the time in holy exercises, or holy conference with some other. But games and pass- 〈◊〉 cannot consist with such holy exercises. Works of piety, as to travel to the places of public worship; or charity, as to visit the sick, and of necessity, as to preserve the life of man and beast in danger, are lawful. The Jews suffered themselves rather to be● killed, then take arms upon the sabbath-day, 〈◊〉 after better advice, they resolved to fight if any invaded them, 1 Maccab. 2. 41. The Hebrew Doctors have a saying, Periculum animae impellit sabbatum, the peril of the life driveth away the sabbath. Yet we should pray to be free of those necessities. Christ foretelling his disciples, Matth. 24. 20. the destruction of jerusalem, biddeth them, and in their name, other disciples, who were to follow after, pray, that their flight might not be in winter nor on the sabbath-day: wherefore not on the sabbath-day, but because it would be an hindrance of their holy and spiritual exercises upon that day. Now the destruction of Jerusalem fell not forth till forty years after Christ's ascension. But so it is, the jewish sabbath was one of the dead ceremonies, which obliged not to necessary obedience after the passion of Christ. Christ meant then of the Christian sabbath.  
I have exceeded far the bounds I set to myself, and therefore I am forced to end this discourse.   

THE DEFINITION OF A Festival day.  
Judicious Piscator defineth thus a festival day, 
Gala●. 4. 10.  ●●stum propriè loquendo est publica & folennis ceremonia mandata à Deo, ut certo anni tempore, cum singulari letitia obeatur, ad gratias agendum. Deo pro certo aliquo beneficio in populum suum collato. that is, A feast or festival day is a public or solemn ceremony, commanded by God to be executed at a certain time of the year, with singular gladness, to give God thanks for some certain benefit bestowed on his people. Hooker the master of ceremonies, 
Policy 5. book sect. ●2.  maketh festival solemnity to be nothing else, but the divine mixture, as it were, of these three elements, praises set forth with cheerful alacrity of mind, delight expressed by charitable largeness more than common bounty, and sequestration from ordinary works.  
The sabbath under the law was never called jom tob, 
The Lord's day not a festival.  a good, that is, a merry day, as were the solemn anniversary feasts. Other days also, which were not solemn feasts, were so called, as days of banqueting and feasting. Drusius in his annotations upon Ester 9 citeth Elias Thesbite to this purpose. Master Aiusworth in his annotations upon Exodus 16. citeth the Chaldee paraphrase, speaking of the sabbaths and good days, that is, the solemn feasts as distinct things. Puxtorsius also in abbreviaturis. So the Lords day succeeding to the old sabbath, should not be ranked among the festival days or feasts, as the word is taken in our common language. The definitions agree not to the Lords day. It is not an anniversary, but a weekly day. It is not instituted for the commemoration of a particular benefit, but for the worship of God at large, as the moral law requireth, and as the old sabbath did. For howbeit that day, was made choice of, which was the day of Christ's resurrection, yet it was not instituted only for the commemoration of that particular benefit, but for the worship of God in general. It hath no peculiar service of epistles, gospels, collects, or sermons and homilies for Christ's resurrection. The Church invented afterward a feast or festival day, to wit, Easter, for that purpose, which is called the feast of the resurrection. S●●rez having reckoned the many prerogatives of the Lords day, as that Christ rose that day, the holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, etc. he willeth us to observe, that howbeit all these prerogatives might have been considered in the determination of the day, yet the day of itself, and directly was not instituted for the peculiar commemoration of these ●●rkes of God, but to worship God for himself and his own excellency. 
De festis c. 4.  Nihilominus per se ac directè non referri vel istitui hunc diem ad peculiaerem commemorationem illorum operum Dei, sed ad Deumipsum propter se colendum, & propter suam excellentiam & majestatem. It we had no days but festival for some particular benefits, we should have no day for the worship of God in general. The Lord's day therefore may justly be called the schoole-day of Christians, as Petrus Ramus calleth it. Thirdly, as the sabbath of old was distinguished from the yearly feast, which were called good, that is, merry days, so is the Lords day from the yearly feasts, invented afterwards by men. Upon the anniversary feasts called good days, they might not fast as ye have heard before. Mirth and mourning could not stand together. But upon the sabbath they might lawfully fast. 
Epist. 86. ad Casulanum.  Ne quando sanctifica●it De is diem septimum, quia in illo requievit ab omnibus operibus suis, aliquid de jejunio vel prandio expressit, nec cum postea populo Hebra● de ipsius dici observatione mandavit, aliquid de alimentis sumendis vel non sumendis locutus, saith August●ne. that is, God enjoined nothing concerning fasting or eating, either the first time that he sanctified the seventh day, or afterward when he gave the manna. The Lord's day succeeding in the room of the old sabbath, as it standeth in the decalogue, is of the same quality. We may lawfully fast upon the Lord's day, which were absurd to dye upon our anniversary feast days. It is true, that in the ancient Church it was thought a heinous thing to fast upon the Lord's day. So did they also forbid to pray kneeling that day, to signify their joy for Christ's resurrection. This use of signification or testification was the fountain of much superstition, and brought in a heap of ceremonies, some of which the Papists themselves were ashamed of long since. The same ceremony of not kneeling in time of prayer upon the Lord's day, 
De cultu● sanctorum cap. 11.  is worn out of use nigh 500 years since, saith Bellarmine. If the reason of the institution had been solid, it should become us no less than them to pray standing upon the Lord's day. But the ground was naught. The like may be said of not fasting upon the Lord's day. Some reason they had indeed not to fast upon this day, when the Manichees and Priscillianists fasted; for the Manichees fasted ordinarily upon the Lord's day, lest they should seem to rejoice for the resurrection of Christ, which they believed not. The Priscillianists fasted likewise ordinarily upon the Lord's day, and the nativity day. But when there are no known Manichees, nor Priscillianists, there is not the like reason for not fasting. But the extremities should be avoided. To think it unlawful to fast that day, or unlawful to dine and break our fast, are both without warrant, and superstitious. But to fast upon occasion, or in time of any imminent judgement, is lawful. When Paul continued preaching upon the sabbath till midnight at Troas, before the tasted any thing, or the rest were refreshed with meat, this conceit of not fasting upon the Lord's day, had not entered in the Church. Was Paul a Manichaean, saith Jerome, because he and those who were with him fasted on the Lord's day. 
Di● 76. c. 11.  His words are extant in Gratian'ss decree, Atqui utinam omni tempore jejunare possimus; quod in Actibus Apostolorum diebus Pentecostes, & die dominico Apostolum Paictum, & cum eo credentes fecisse legimus. Non tamen Manicheae haereseos accusandit sunt. If any had resolved to fast seven days or more, he might have fasted upon the Lord's day included, as ye may see in Balsamo and Zonaras upon the constitutions falsely called apostolical, and Augustine epist. 86. ad Casulanum. Whitaker defending the occasional fasts of our Church, telleth Duraeus, that the respects the ancients had, concern not us. 
C●erum to●●●1. p. 227.  Etsi illîs temporibus die dominica jejunare nefas fuit, propter haerelices & Judaeos, qui Christi resurrectionem impugnabant, jam dudum tamen illa offensio nullum in ecclesia locum habet, ut planè nugatorum sit quod tu de nostris in Anglia & Scotia● 〈◊〉 calumniaris, quasi eò spectent, ut his cuniculis resur●●cti●●● fidem evertamus. In a pronounciall synod holden at Dort anno 1574 it was ordained, that there be three sermons on the Lord's day, 
Tom. 3. l. 29 cap. 6. num. 6  when a fast is to be keeped on ●. It is to observe a day, to say, the morn is the Lo●ds day, therefore it is unlawful to fast, 
Theolog polemica, p. 509  saith Chamter. Alstedius, Jejunandum etiam die dominica, si necessitas flagitet. What need I multiply testimonies, that is sufficient, which Augustine saith What days we ought to fast, and what not, I find it not defined by any precept given by our Lord, or any of the Apostles. Quibus diebus non oporteat jejunare, & quibus oporteat praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum non havenio definitum, epist. 86. But if the Lords day were a festival day, it should follow, that we should not not fast on it at all.  
Now we proceed in our reasons against festival days.  

THE II. REASON.  
NOne appointed holy festivities under the laws when the times were more ceremonious, but God himself.  
The days of Purim were called simply the days of Purim, 
The days of Purim  not the holy days of Purim. They were not called Chaggim● No peculiar sacrifice was appointed, nor any holy convocation of the people enjoined. The ordinance required but feasting and joy, and sending of portions to other. The rest mentioned Esther 9 was only from their enemies. So much work as might stand with a feasting day was not forbidden. Suppose they had rested altogether from work, that would only prove an idle day, but not an holy day. Our Doctor therefore hath no warrant to say, 
pag. 18.  that they were made holy days by Mordecay. Afterward, it 〈◊〉 true, wh●n the Jews become more superstitious, they read the book of Esthe●, after the reading whereof they sp●nt the rest of the day in revelling and riotousness. Next these days were instituted by Mordecai, and therefore were called Mordecai's days, 2 Maccahab. last chap. vers. 37. Sixtus Senensis saith, 
Biblioth li. p. 20.  he is thought to be the penman of the book of Esther, he was one of the 120. of which the great synagogue consisted, of which number were Zacharie, Daniel, Ezra, 
De sacram. pag. 206.  and Malachi. Whitaker thinketh Mordecai did this, God inspiring him, or perhaps by the advice or warrant of some Prophet, and doubteth not, but it was done by divine authority. Many things might have been done then by their direction, the like whereof we have not now. Thirdly, it appeareth Esther 9 28. that this custom was to be observed as long as the feasts appointed by the Lord himself. Holy days of ecclesiastical constitution are not of such a nature as Doctor Fulk acknowledgeth. Fourthly, it was not done without consent of the people of the Jews themselves, 
Against the Rhem. Apoc. 1. 10. Contr. 3. l. 4. cap. 17. 〈◊〉. 5.  as Junius observeth. The Jews took upon them and their seed to keep these two days, Esther 9 27. Howbeit they were not religious, but politic days, 
3 part. decree. ●i dist. 3. c. 2. De ●etal. titulo de Faeriis cap. Conquestus.  Mordecai would not impose them without their consent. The equity of this is seen in the Canon law, where bishops are forbidden to appoint any particular festival days within their diocies without consent of the people. And there is good reason, seeing they are to be withdrawn from their calling, I put now the case they had power to make a holy or festival day. Lastly, can any prince or state make the like ordinance for the posterity, to feast, and send portions and gifts one to other, or were it seemly to command feasting in a Christian commonwealth, howbeit allowed, and in a manner commanded to the Jews. 
Alstedii polemic. p. 399.  Alstedius denieth that the Christian Church can imitate the Jews in the like.  
The memorial days of the dedication mentioned, 
The days of dedication.  Joh. 10. 22. serve as little for their purpose, for first, they are not called, either 1 Macchab. 4. or here; the feast of dedication, howbeit the English translators without warrant have translated the word dedication so, which the Rhemists retain without such a supplement. If any supplement were needful, it may be translated the days of dedication, as the former were called the days of Purim. And so they are called 1 Maccab. 4. 59 and in the testimony cited by Junius out of the Talmud. Joh. 10. If ye will call them the feast of dedication, because of their bodily feasting, yet unless there was holy convocations to divine service upon them, and cessation from work, they cannot be made a precedent for holy festivities composed of hooker's three elements, nor a●e they anniversary holy days added to those the Lord himself appointed. There was offering of sacrifices, singing and playing upon instruments at the time of dedication of the altar eight days, but not enjoined at the yearly memorial. Thirdly, Judas Maccabaeus and his brethren, had the consent and assistance of the whole congregation of Israel to this ordinance, 1 Macc. b. 4. 59 which is wanting to our festival days, But Junius citeth a testimony out of the Talmud, bearing, that the wise men for the time instituted eight days of dedication, in memory, that a little quantity of oil, which was found in the temple scarce sufficient to enterta●ne the lamps one day, vet sufficed eight days, till new oil was pressed out of the olives. By the wise men are meant the Pharisees. 
〈◊〉 in Marc. 2. 18.  Nam sapientes & Pharisaei synomina sunt, saith Drusius. We are not to imitate the inventions of Pharisees, or of such corrupt times as those of the Maccabces. There was no yearly remembrance by solemnity of feast, not so much as of one for the dedication of the whole temple, either the first under Solomon, or the second under Zorobabel, nor for restoring of the temple by Ezekias, after it was profaned by Ahaz and Urias, or by Josias after it was polluted by Manasses and Amon. But now there was an annual memory appointed for renewing of the altar only, and other decayed places of the temple. 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 the time is pointed at, when that conference was, as the days of the shewbread, Act. 20. and of the fast, Act. 27. are mentioned, to note a circumstance of time, but not that Paul observed them. Christ came up to the feast of the tabernacles before, and stayed in Jerusalem. In the mean time the days of dedication fell forth, 
De emendat. temp.  as Scaliger hath observed. So Christ came not up to jerusalem for this feast, and went away in the time of it immediately after this conference. Further, Christ and his Apostles took occasion of frequent meetings to thrust their sickles in thick harvests.  
In a word the days instituted to God's people, beside such as God himself appointed, were either appointed by extraordinary warrant, or were not holy days, or were the inventions of the pharisees, and corrupter times.   

THE III. REASON.  
NEither Christ nor his Apostles appointed festival days to be observed by Christians, 
The third reason against. festival days.  but rather inhibited the observation of them, and changed only the old sabbath to the first day of the week. The anniversary solemnities were not changed but abrogated, because ceremonial.  
We find not the Apostles or Christian Churches in their time observed any festival or anniversary days. 
The Apostles observed no festival days. Bellar. de cultu sanctor. cap. 13.  That pentecost mentioned 1 Corin. 16. and Act. 20. was the jews Pentecost. Bellarmine himself dare not affirm, that it was the Christians. The Apostle having occasion to treat upon this subject, condemneth observation of days, Gal. 4. Coloss. 2. Suppose, which is more likely, that the Galatians embraced the observation of the jewish days, 
Whitak. cont. 1. quest. 6. cap. 12.  Galate potius Judaizabant quam astrologicas regidas servabant. Yet the Apostle reasoneth against all observation of such like days as judaizing. As if he had said, the observation of ceremonial days, months and years, was convenient for God's people under the law for their instruction, and to shadow things to come, because of their nonage, and was a pedagogical and rudimentary instruction, which beseemeth not the state of a Christian Church, and clear light of the Gospel. These days were all ceremonial, yea, the very days of Purim, and the days of dedication. Doctor Mortoun saith, 
Defence of the ceremonies. pag. 64.  were of a ceremonial ●a●re. To celebrate the memory of any particular act of Christ at a set time in the year with cessation from work, sermons, gospels, epistles, collect, and hymns belonging thereto, with mirth and gladne●e, without admitting of a fast at any time, is not to observe a day morally, but ceremonially. Not to fast when such a day of the year or week returneth, but to hold it festival, is to observe a day, as to fast yearly upon another day. No doubt the Galatians observed not these days with the jewish worship of sacrifices and oblations, or as shadows of things to come, for than they had denied Christ. Neither is it likely, that they neglected the jewish Easter and Pentecost, but yet the Apostle calleth it a returning to the jewish rudiments, that is, judaizing. He instructeth the Corinthians, how they shall observe Easter, to wit, all the year long with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, not after the judaical manner. If there had been other festival days, which might have been observed by Christians, the Apostle having so fair occasion, would have directed them to the observation of them, and not spoken so generally. Chamieraom. 3. l. 19 c. 6. embraceth a more general exposition, that the Apostle condemneth both jewish and Ethnic observation of days. 
Decanone lib. 9 cap. 21. num. 15.  Non est verisimile Apostol 'em adeo incaut● locutum, ut generaliter observationem damnare videtetur, si aliquam excipiebat, saith Chamierus. Or is it likely, that the days appointed by God himself being abolished, the Apostles would have brought in other in their room. Is it reason then, that others should bring them in. Zanchius confesseth, That it is more agreeable to the first institution and writings of the Apostles, that one day of the week only be sand ctified. 
●om●. col. 671.  Magis consentaneum est cum prima institutione & cum scriptis Apostolicis ut unus tantum dies in septimana sanctificetur. There was but one day observed in the Apostles times, and called the Lords day. If other days had been dedicated to Christ, they should all have been the Lords days. Beatus Rhenanus in his annotations upon Tertullian, De corona militis, observeth, that in the primitive times, the word Lord was more familiar and frequent in the mouths of Christians, than the name of Christ. So it was as much as to say, Christ's day. The Lord's day than was Christ's day, and Christ had no other days, of nativity, passion, etc.  
Eusebius treading unknown footsteps, as himself confesseth in the beginning of his story, filleth up his book with some old fables. Among the rest he maketh mention of an epistle of Polycrates bishop of Ephesus, to Victor bishop of Rome, 
●5. c. 24, 25.  wherein he reporteth, that he and his predecessors, even upward to John the Evangelise, celebrated Easter upon the fourteenth day of the moon. That epistle may be marked for a counterfite, for it beareth, that john was a priest, and bare in his forehead the petalum, that is, the golden plate like that of the high priests. The Doctor calleth such gay tales Rhetorical flowers. 
pag. 53. Elench. trihaeresi● c. 2●.  But saith Scaliger, Neutrum concedet, qui sciverit nullum Christi Apostol 'em sacerdotem fuisse & nulli praeterquàm summo sacerdoti petalum gestare licuisse. Augustine, who lived in the fifth age after the Apostles, could not resolve upon the original of our five festival days, but floated between two opinions, and not one of them sure. For they were neither instituted by the Apostles, nor by general Council. Socrates in his history cometh nearer to the point, 
lib. 5. c. 21.  I am of opinion (saith ●e) that as many other things crept in of custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among all people of a certain private custom and observation, in so much that not one of the Apostles hath any where prescrived so much as one rule of it to any man. A little after, They that keep Easter the fourteenth day of the month, bring forth john the Apostle for their Author. Such as inhabit Rome and the west parts of the world, allege Peter and Paul for themselves, that they should leave such a tradition: yet there is none of them that can show in writing any testimony of theirs for confirmation and proof of that custom. It hath been an old refuge, when any country or province could not find the beginning of their customs, to father them upon the Apostles. A notable example whereof we had in this same I'll, when there was hot contention about the forms of shaved crowns. Hier●●● himself saith, 
Epist. ad Luci●●um.  Vnaquaeque provincia pracept a majerum leges Apostolicas arbitretur. Let every province esteem the traditions or precepts of their forefathers to be Apostolical laws. It will rather follow, that the Apostles observed not, nor appointed Easter to be observed at all. For the Apostle being directed infallibly by the spirit, had agreed upon the day as well as upon the thing itself, and not left occasion of contention to the Christian world. 
Chamier. come. 3. l. 19 cap. 7. n. 37.  Quae aliter atque aliter observabantur non possunt ab Apostolis esse instituta, quorum ab eodem spiritu eruditorum non potuit non esse individuus consensus. Neque unquam piis fuit persuasum ab Iohanne institutum pascha decima qua ta Luna, à I etro autem post eam, quomodo jactabant veteres. It is well said in the preface to the harmony of confessions, that the old contention about the celebrating of Easter tossed very hotly the space of two hundred years or thereabout, betwixt the greeks and the Latins, was long since of us thought worthy of laughter. Whitaker wondereth at their frivolous contentions, 
Whitak. de scriptura quaest. 6. c. 9 Tom. 3. l. 19 c. 7. num. 9  and he saith, there was no necessity to observe it any day. Chamierus saith, Si institutum fuisset ab Apostolus eodem ubique modo fuisset institutum & observatum, quod falsum esse jam olim observavit, Socrates. Seeing they have no sooting for the Apostles appointing of the observation of Easter, far less will they be able to prove the Christians pentecost, and other festivities that came in after, as of Christ's nativity, ascension, etc. to have been instituted by the Apostles. justinus questions Clemens constitutions, some sermons ascrived to Cyprian, all suppositious works are the most ancient proofs they allege for them.   

THE FOUR REASON.  
IF it had been the will of God, 
The fourth reason against festival days.  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, presentation to the temple, baptism, transfiguration, and the like. For it is kindly, say they, to remember opus diei in die suo, the notable work of a day in the own day. Bellarmine saith, that Christ's acts did consecreate the days and times wherein they were wrought. Hooker saith, that the wondrous works of God did advance the days and times wherein they were wrought. There is not a day in the year, wherein some wondrous work of God hath not been wrought. All the days of the year, 
Epist. 4.  saith Leo, are full of Christ's miracles. If Christ's actions advance and consecrate the days where on they were wrought, they ought to have been made known, lest we keep holy such days as were never consecrated or advanced. But it is confessed, that the day of Christ's nativity, and consequently of the rest depending thereupon, as of his circumcision, presentation, baptism, have been hid from mortal men. And therefore the day of Christ's nativity was observed diversely of old, by some in one month, by some in another. The 25. of December was grounded upon an erroneous conceit, that Zacharie the father of john the Baptist was high priest, which error is yet fostered by observing that day. Ye see then, as God hid the body of Moses for avoiding of idolatry, so hath he the day of Christ's nativity for avoiding superstition. And this is sufficient to declare the will of God concerning other notable acts, which were known, to wit, that not the act, but divine institution maketh a day holy. God's resting upon the seventh day made it not holy, but his sanctifying of it, and instituting it to be observed as holy. Ratio convenientiae non fuisset sufficiens, nisi praecessisset mandatum divinum. Rivetus in Decalogum, pag. 167. Christ's actions did no more consecrate the times, wherein they were wrought, than his body did the manger, or the cross by touch. And suppose this might have been, it would not follow that all mangers and crosses are consecrated, no more would it follow that every 25. day of December should be consecrated and made holy, because that whereon he was borne (I put the case it were true) was consecrated. Verum etiam non est, dies illos fuisse consecratos per actiones aut passiones, quae talibus diebus acciderunt. Idenim si verum esset nullus fuisset dies, qui aliqua Christi actione non esset nobilitatus & consecratus, Rivetus in Decalogum, pag. 204. As for remembering of Christ's nativity no man denieth but it is needful, and so it is, wheresoever the Gospel is preached. But we deny that the memory of it must be celebrated with the solemnity of a festival holy day, with cessation from work, with feasting or forbearance of fasting, and a proper service.   

THE V. REASON.  
SUppose the observing of holy days had at the first been a matter indifferent, 
The fifth reason against festival day.  yet seeing they have been abused and polluted with superstition, they ought to be abolished. Upon this ground Z●nch● us inferreth, 
Tom. 4. col. 678.  Non ma è igitur f'cerunt, qui omnia pro●er diem dom nicum aboleverunt. They have therefore not done am●sse, who have abolished all other holy days but the Lord's day. If Ezekias' fact in breaking the brazen serpent belandable, by which he confirmeth that pule, than their fact is laudable also. But sure it is, that in former ages holy days have not only been abused with profane and licentious revelling and surfeiting, but also polluted with the opinion of worship, merit, necessity, and a judaical conceit, that the devil is not so bold to tempt men on these days as at other times. And therefore, saith Zanchius, 
Col. 679.  Magicians observe holy days to exercise their magical feats with the greater efficacy. The Lord's day itself may be abused, but because the observation is necessary in respect of divine institution, it cannot be removed for the abuses of men. But the festival days were not appointed by God. 
Col. 678.  The number, the abuses, the will-worships of feasts so increased, that there is nothing so unsavoury to God, so pernicious to men, as to sanctify such and so many days, faith the same Zanchius. Holy days devised for the honour of Christ, 
●resh 〈◊〉 2. ●art. pag. 84.  drew on holy days to saints. Easter brought on a superstitions lent to attend upon it, made baptism wait for her moon, conformed our Lord's supper unto the Jewish passover in unleavened bread. It was the first apple of contention among. Christians, the first weapon wherewith the bishop of Rome played his pr●ses against other Churches; and after flew so many Britons with, by Austin the Monk, saith Doctor Ames. Even in Chrysostom's time, the people would forbear to communicate at other times. But at Easter they would communicate, howbeit they had committed recently some heinous sin, 
Homil. 61. 2d populu●n Antioche●um:  whereupon he exclaimeth, O consuetudinem! o presumptionem! O custom! O presumption! Because people ran superstitiously to that holy action at Easter, as if the time gave virtue to the sacrament, and were careless the rest of the year, our reformers appointed other times free of superstition, as ye may see in the first book of discipline. pag. 58, 59  
Therefore seeing the observation of festival days is not commanded by God, and it cannot be denied, but it hath been much abused, it ought not to be continued, far less introduced where it hath been disused, suppose it might be now used without these abuses, because it may degener after the same manner as before. But what if it be not, nor cannot be free of abuse and superstition.  
They say, they esteem them not holier than other days, or place any worship of God in the observation of them, 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 that is false, howbeit an old shift. The Papists themselves confess, that one day is not holier than another in the own nature, no not the Lords day, but in respect of the use and end. And in this respect our Formalists esteem their festival days holier than other days, call them holy days, and maintain, as ye have heard before, that they may be observed as holy days. If the observing of a day holy for the honour 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. If the observing of the Lords day as a festival, as it is in their account, be worship, the observing of their holy days is worship. Whereas they allege, that it is not worship, because they hold not the like necessity in observing the one as the other, it will not help them. For that doth not alter the nature of worship, but maketh the one necessary, because God instituted it, the other arbitrary and voluntary, and consequently will-worship. The same matter, form, and end is in both, but God institute●h the one, and therefore lawful, the other is instituted at the pleasure of man, so it is worship, but a vicious worship. Further, some other Formalists have of late maintained the mutability of the Lords day itself. What our Doctor will do now, let any man judge who knoweth him to be temporizer and a sceptike. Master Dow, p. 58. saith, as other holy days, it goeth paripassu in their canons and ancient statutes, which require the same observances under the same penalty. Th●y are not only holy days but also mystical, howbeit the Doctor denieth it. For else he must disclaim his ancients, who call them so. Are they not appointed for the solemnitle of some mystery of religion? Do they not carry the names of Christ's nativity, passion, ascension? etc. Are they not ordered according to the known or supposed times, when such things fell forth? If it were for order and policy, they were observed, that the people may assemble and be instructed, wherefore is there but one day between the passion and the resurrection, forty betwixt the resurrection and ascension, and then again, but ten betwixt the ascension and whitsuntide. Wherefore follow we the course of the moon in our movable feasts, and observe not a certain day in the month, as we do for other. If we observed days only for order and policy, than we would not stick to days, as we do, for the commemoration of Christ's nativity; passion, 
pag. 18. 23.  ascension, etc. The Doctor saith, we do not observe festival days as the Jews did, which were holy, not only for the use whereunto they were appointed to serve as circumstances, but by reason also of their mystik signification, and of the worship appropriated to them, which might not be performed at another time. But that will not save the ma●ter. For a day is called mystic, not only for shadowing things to come, but also for the mysteries solemnly remembered. And as for appropriation, 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 another day, with the like solemnity of cessation from work, and superstitious forbearing of fasting. We think it likewise absurd to perform upon the nativity day that peculiar service which belongeth to easter. Yea, 
pag. 25.  the Doctor saith, the commemoration appointed to be made upon the five days, must not be omitted on these days. If it be absurd to celebrate another day after the same manner with the same service, and no other service will serve on these days; is there not a peculiar service appropriated to our festival days, as of old among the Jews? 
pag. 23. 18.  That shift is of no weight, that a minister may preach, or we may meditate upon Christ's passion another day, than the nativity. For that is not to celebrate with solemnity. To use another day with the like solemnity in the place of it, or both, would be thought very absurd. The Jews themselves without the service appropriated to their feasts, might remember these same benefits and mysteries upon other days, but not with the like solemnity and peculiar service. And so the solemnity is tied to the time. To observed days after this manner is not like the appointing of hours, for preaching or prayers on week days or times for the communion, according to the policy and order set down by every particular congregation, we tie not ourselves to them, not any peculiar service to any of them. We use time then only as a circumstance, and for order, and not as a sacred time, let be as a holy festivity. We observe days after the same manner that the Jews did, howbeit not the same days, nor with the same kind of worship. The change of the circumstance, the day and manner of wotship, doth not free us of Judaizing. Non sublata sed mutata est significatio dierum, saith Bellarmine. and so it is with the Formalists. We do not say that the anniversary revolution made the Jewish festivals ceremonial, for in the revolution of time there was no mystery, but the tying of such a peculiar service to the time of anniversary resolution with such solomnitie. To perform the same duty in substance upon the moral sabbath, as occasion served, had not been ceremonial.  
What then, they say, ought not Christ's inestimable benefits and notable acts to be remembered? I answer, Yes, and so they are, for where the gospel is preached, his acts are published. Christ is set forth crucified by the preaching of the word, every communion day, his passion and death is and will be remembered to his coming again. 
De eucharist. l. 3. c. 9  The Eucharist, saith Bellarmine, est memoriale omnium miraculorum & quasi compendium vitae, passionis, & resurrectionis Domini. In the written word, sermons, prayers, creeds, catechisms, his nativity, passion, ascension, etc. are remembered. It followeth not, they should be remembered, therefore their memory should be celebrated severally with the solemnity of a festival day. For the Lord hath appointed an holy day, which we call the Lords day, and may call Christ's day, as I said before, for publishing all Christ's acts and benefits. Pope Alexander the 3. gave this reason, wherefore the Roman Church doth not observe an holy day to the Trinity, to wit, because glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the holy Ghost, and other like things belonging to the praise of the Trinity, are published daily. 
Decretal. l. 2. tit. 9 cap.  Ecclesia Romana in usu non habet, quòd in aliquo tempore hujusmodi celebrat specialiter festivitatem, cum singulis diebus, gloria patri & filio & spiritui sancto, & catera similia dicantur ad laudem pertinentia trinitatis. The Pope's ground must be this. Whatsoever is treated on or remembered in the ordinary divine service, needeth not a special holy day to celebrat the memory of the same. I assume. The nativity, passion, resurrection, ascension of Christ, and sending down the holy Ghost, are not only remembered in private, but also in public, and in the ordinary service, specially on the Lord's day. 
Concil. Constantinop. 6. Can. 8.  If all be true that is affirmed by a council holden at Constantinopl●, that Christ was borne on this day, the star shined to the wisemen on it, Christ fed 5000. persons with five loaves and two fishes on it, that he was baptised, rose and sent down the holy Ghost on it, the light was treated on it, and which Pope Le● affirmeth, that the Lords day is consecrated with so many mysteries dispensed on it, that whatsoever notable thing was done on earth, was done to the honour of this day, it appeareth that the Lord would have us to observe only this day, as holy and sanctified by himself for the proclaiming of all his worthy acts, and not to presume to institute holy festivities upon our own heads. There is no danger but the memory of Christ's nativity, etc. will be preserved to the end of the world without observing such solemnities, and making holy days which lieth not in the power of man. This pretext of remembering and putting in mind, hath been a cloak to bring in crosses, images, surplices, and other popish garments, with much other superstition, and among the rest these memorial days.    

THE JUDGEMENT OF Foreign Divines.  
I Pass by the Petrobrusians, 
The judgement of foreign Divines.  the Waldenses, and Wicleffs followers, and come to later times. Luther in his book de bonis operibus, set forth anno 1520. wished, that there were no festival days among Christians, but the Lords day only were observed. And in his book to the nobility of Germany he saith, Consul●● nesse ut o●nia festa aboleantur, solo die dominico retent●. That is, It were expedient that all feasts were abolished, t●e Lords day only being retained. Farellus and Vi●et r●n●●ed all holy days out of the Church of Geneva, as Calvine epist. 118. testifieth. The same decree, which banished Farellus and Calvine out of Geneva, brought in other holy days. In a national synod holden at Dort anno 1578. of the Belgic, Almain and French Churches, we have these words. Optandum for●t nostros sex diebus laborare, & diem solum Dominicum celebrare. That is, It were to be wished, that our country people laboured six days, and celebrated only the Lords day. So ye may see festival days are rather tolerated by them, because of the wilfulness of the magistrates and people then commended or allowed. Among the articles agreed upon and concluded concerning ecclesiastical policy in the Palatina●, anno 1602. we have this following. Omnes Feri● per annum & festi dies tollendi è medio. All the festival days through the year are to be abolished. Ye see where they find the opportunity, they abolished them. Bucer, howbeit not one of the precisest reformers, upon Matthew 2. hath these words, as I find him cited by Amesius in his fresh suit, pag. 360. I would to God, that ev●ry holy day whatsoever, beside the Lord's day were abolished. That zeal which brought them first in, was without all warrant or example of the Scripture, and only followed natural reason, to drive out the holy days of the pagans, as it were to drive out one nail with another. Those holy days have been defiled with so gross superstitions, that I marvel if there be any Christian who doth not shake at their very names.  
Seeing then festival days have no warrant, we ought not to hear the sermons delivered on these days of purpose for the day: for that is the chief element of a festival day to use a peculiar kind of service proper to it. And without divine service, it were but an idle day, not a holy day. The word of God is good of itself, but may be abused to charming, and to foster superstition, whereof we should keep ourselves free, that we be not guilty of the profanation of the name of God. Our preachers went to rebuke the people when they con●eened more frequently to the Church npon any festival day, falling upon an ordinary day of teaching, howbeit neither time nor text was changed. But how far have both. preachers and professors, degenered without appearance of amendment. At the beginning of the late novations they were scar, but now many have digested that scruple.    

OF CONFIRMATION.  
OUr act, 
The act examined.  it is true, allegeth that the Papists have made of the trial of young children their education, and how they are catechised, a sacrament of confirmation, as if no such thing were aimed at but the said trial, yet in respect that by that act the pretended bishop shall cause them to be presented before him, that he may bless them with prayer for the increase of their knowledge and continuance of his heavenly grace with every one of them, and we know that they dare, and will take upon them the rest of the rites used in the English Church, laying of hands, etc. we reason, as before, against confirmation, as it is used in the English Church. Yet two things I perceive in the act as it standeth. The one is, that the bishop is not ●ound to try by himself every one that is to be presented before him, but only to try, whither the minister hath been remiss in catechising, and yet he must upon the report of others bless them with prayer, for the increase of knowledge, and continuance of grace. Next, that he must bless who hath not a calling to bless, that he must bless as if he were the pastor of all the souls within the diocie old and young, which charge that null and pretended assembly could not give him, seeing it hath been acknowledged before in free assemblies to have no warrant in the word of God, and hath been suppressed by our Church as a damnable office. Therefore his blessing is but a profanation with his fingers. But what language is this, to say, that the bishop shall bless them with prayer, for to bless is one thing, and to pray another. For prayer seeketh of God good things for us, but to bless is in God's name to assure us, that the blessing of God is upon us, and shall accompany us. But let us come to their pattern.  
That which now the Papists make the sacrament of confirmation, 
The original of the act of the sacrament of confirmation.  was of old a part of the solemnity of baptism. After the person was baptised, they laid on hands, that is prayed for increase and continuance of grace to the baptised, as we do now, but without laying on of hands, because it was a rite indifferent without any use, but to design the person for whom the prayer was made, and afterward abused to make up another sacrament. Afterward entered a superstitious device, to strike Chrism, that is, oil of olives tempered with balm, in manner of a cross upon the forehead of the baptised. This anointing in the form of a cross was called signation, or consignation, because of the sign of the cross made upon the forehead. This unction or consignation, and imposition of hands, became in the minds of superstitious men so necessary, that without them they thought they had not gotten their perfect christendom, that the sign of the oily cross perfited baptism, and conferred the spirit of God upon the baptised. T●●s consignation and imposition of hands at the closure of baptism was called confirmation, like as the giving of the cup to the communicants, after they have received the bread, 
Cassand. Liturg. p. 218.  was called also confirmation, as Cassander hath observed, but the 〈◊〉 controved only with the first. The bishops' arrogated to themselves the unction or consignation, and imposition of hands to advance their estate. They do that part which consummateth baptism, which maketh a fall and perfect Christian. But when it was found, that the bishop could not be present at every baptism, the priest was permitted after baptism to anoint the baptised in the top of the head with holy Chrism, but he must not cross the forehead. That must be reserved to the bishop's leisure. Then they were presented to the bishop to be confirmed, and get their perfect Christendom by rit●s, 
Chemier. tom 4. l. 4. cap. 11. Spalleto l 5. c. 5. Hooker. l. 5. p. 353.  which were appendicles, and ceremony of baptism before. Th● English at their rude reformation reserved imposition of hands to the bishop, and gave their priest power to make the sign of the cross upon the forehead of the baptised, but without chrism. Howbeit there be no greater antiquity for the crossing without it then with it, they call notwithstanding the bishop's imposition of hands only confirmation, and not their priests crossing of the forehead. And yet when the priest crosseth, he saith, We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the devil, and to continue Christ's faithful soldier, unto his life's end. Which words agree according to their doctrine better with confirmation▪ For do they not say, 
Hooker l. 5. p. 354. Hockwells ser●ron of confirmation.  that in baptism infant's 〈◊〉 admitted to live in God's family, but in conf 〈◊〉 they are rabled to fight in the army of God. That in baptism they believe the remission of sin unto justification, in confirmation they are emboldened to make open professon of this belief unto salvation. And this is just the doctrine of the Papists. So they have parted the rits of confirmation, or else they must acknowledge that they have two-confirmations, which is as absurd. But let us come to the last, and that which they call confirmation or laying on of hands.  
It is true in their articles set forth, anno 1562. they deny confirmation to be a sacrament, 
The Forma●ists hold confirmation to be a sacrament. De politera. l. 3. c. 16.  and acknowledge that it flowed from a naughty imitation of the Apostles. But Doctor Rainolds in the conference holden at Hampton court, alleged, that that article was contradicted by the rubric of confirmation in the book of Common prayer, as Parker hath well observed. In that rubrik it is said, That confirmation is ministered unto them that are baptised, that by imposition of hands and prayer they may receive strength a●d defence against all tentations to sin, and the assaults of the world and the devil. Bellarmine maketh imposition of hands and prayer but one sensible sign in confirmation, howbeit the Papists have no right imposition of hands. Master Hutton saith, that imposition of hands is one of the external means by which the holy Ghost is given, 
Parkerus de politeia l. 3. c. 16. l. 12.  and howbeit that prayer hath the chief force, yet imposition of hands hath some also, otherwise (saith he) what needed Peter and John to have traveled to Samaria, they might have prayed in Jerusalem for the holy Ghost to the Samaritans Downame likewise saith, that grace is conferred to the baptised for confirmation by imposition of hands. 
Defence l. 3. c. 4. l. 6.  In the prayer after the laying on of hands we have these words, We make our humble supplication unto the for these children, upon whom after the example of the Apostles we have laid our hands, to certify them by this sign of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them. Ye see then, they make imposition of hands a certifying sign of God's favour, and a mean, whereby grace and strength against tentations and assaults is conferred. Is it not then made a sacrament & derogatory from baptism and the Lords supper, as if by baptism we were not certified of God's favour, and entered not to God's army as well as his family. Our Christian valour and courage to resist the devil, and profess the truth, is a fruit of that regeneration and sanctification, which is sealed to us in baptism. Let him be a athema, who saith, that baptism is given to the remission of sins, and not also to the help of grace, Concilium Melevitan●m. 
Ordinary imposition of hands a gesture of prayer.  Is not the Lords supper a confirmation of our faith and often celbrated for that end.  
Because the example of the Apostles is alleged, we answer, that imposition of hands mentioned, Act. 8. was extraordinary. The Apostles by imposition of hands might confer the gifts of tongues, prophesying, healing, which Philip the Evangelist had not, and therefore Peter and John were sent to Samaria for that end. For they had need of some to prophesy, and to have the Gospel in these times confirmed to them by such wonders. The effects of this imposition of hands were sensible to these that were present. And therefore Simon Magus would have bought with money that gift which the Apostles had. Strength against tentations is a grace invisible, and given only to the faithful, whereas the gifts of tongues, prophesying, healing, might have been given to the unregenerat. The bishop of Spalleto saith, 
De rep. l. 5. c. 5. nun. 33.  That the imposition of the Apostles hands was but temporary, and for a sensible effect, which was to cease, and that it was not a stable and constant sacrament of the Church, nor was it properly sacramental. The confession of Wittenberg hath the like saying, 
cap. 11.  Of a temporal and personal fact of the Apostles, a general and perpetual sacrament cann●t be ordained in the Christian Church without the special command of God. And so saith Suarez also in 3. tom. 3. disput. 33. sect. 4. Their laying on of hands then in imitation of this extraordinary example of the Apostles is apish.  
As for that imposition of hands mentioned, 
Ordinary imposition of hands 2 ●esture of ●rayer.  Heb. 6. 1. I will let pass the different interpretation of Divines, who think, some that it was that extraordinary, whereof we have made last mention, others that it is that which was used in ordination of ministers. I will give; that it was an ordinary laying on of hands upon the faithful. But as it is joined with baptism in that place, so it seemeth to be that imposition of hands, which was used in the end of baptism, when the minister prayed for persons baptised, that the Lord would increase and continue his graces with them. The Apostle there opponeth the doctrine of the beginning, that is the catatheticall doctrine of repentance from dead works, faith, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgement, to the doctrine of perfection. The converted Jews and Gentiles behoved to be catechised in these grounds sufficiently, and tried before they could be baptised, and have hands laid upon them. These were called Catechument, till the time of their baptism. Others apply it to the children of the faithful, and think that when they come to age, and were fit for the communion, they were after trial in the grounds of religion admitted with imposition of hands into the society of communicants, in ecclesiam adultorum, as Paraeus calleth them. But we find that imposition of hands was used after, as a ceremony in the end of baptism, even in the baptising of infants; Yet this laying on of hands upon the baptised, was, as Augustine saith, gestus orantis, the behaviour of him that prayed for, or blessed any particular person, a gesture used both under the old and new testament. As ye may see, when Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph, Genes. 48. when Moses laid hands upon Josua, Num. 27, Such as had power, laid hands on these that were to be admitted to an office in the Church, Acts 6. 1 Tim. 4. The teachers and prophets at Antioch upon Paul and Barnabus, when they were separated for the work to which the Lord called them, Act. 13. Yea, the elders who were admitted to be Counsellors in the great Synedrion, and the Rabbins who were promoved to their degree of Doctourship were admitted and promoved with imposition of hands. So it was used in actions both civil and religious, and in religious it served to be an indicant sign of the particular person whom they were to pray for, or bless. For when they were to bless or pray for more, they lifted up their hands, Levit. 9 22. Luke 24. 10. See also Drusius. If it was only the gesture of him that prayed according to the form of the Jews, 
In pennate uc Fin. p. 370.  and did neither signify nor seal the grace which was prayed for, it could not be a sacrament. 
De confirm. cap. 7.  Bellarmine acknowledgeth, that the imposition of hands at the receiving of penitents, which was called Impositio manuum reconciliatoria, was not a consecration imprinting a character, but a ceremony furthering prayer, or a prayer upon the person. If it was no more at there-entrie, it was nothing else in the entry.  
Seeing imposition of hands was but the gesture of him that prayed, 
Imposition of hands used as a sacrament.  it might have been either used or omitted, which our Doctor, pag. 98. confesseth. And should be omitted, say we, seeing it hath been so abused, as to make it a sacrament without precept or institution, and without a promise. Farther, seeing it is but a gesture of prayer, 
〈◊〉 2 de baptism. c. 16.  it may be reiterate if it were in use. Manus autem impositio, non sicut baptismus, repeti non potest, quid enim est aliud quam oratio super hominem, saith Augustine. In the Catechism before confirmation it is said, That there are but two sacraments generally necessary to salvation. What then? 
Estius in l. 4. dist 7.  So will the Papists confess, that confirmation is not necessary to salvation, otherwise, they would minister it to the baptised at the point of death. The English book ordaineth, that the child shall be brought to the bishop by one that shall be his godfather, or that every child may have a witness of his confirmation. This the Papists observe in their confirmation. Thus also is a token, that of old, that which is now called Confirmation, was but an appendicle or closure of baptism, from which being afterward separated, it must not want the godfathers it had, when it was the appendicle of baptism. In the prayer before the laying on of hands, they pray that the child may be strengthened with the holy Ghost the Comforter. The Papists say, the Comforter promised by Christ, was bestowed in the sacrament of confirmation. The Papists say, that in confirmation they receive the sevenfold grace of the holy spirit, wisdom, counsel, strength, knowledge, understansting, godliness, fear. They crave the like in the prayer before the laying on of hands.  
But what suppose confirm 〈…〉 sacrament, 
The bishop not the proper minister of confirmation.  may not every pastor minister it. It appertaineth to the captain, say they to take up the roll of the soldiers, and furnish them with armour, the shepherd should mark his own heep, etc. As if every minister were not a captain in the Lord's army, and a shepherd feeding the flock concreded unto him. 
In lib. 4. dist. 7. num. 17.  Bonaventure confesseth such similes force not, but institution only maketh necessity. Our first reason then against them is the want of institution, or example in scripture, that bishops had this charge, and not presbyters. We now suppone only, not grant, that there were such office bearers in the Church. Peter and John were sent to Samaria, not only to lay on hands, but to advance the work begunnely Philip. Durandus saith, it is not clear, whither they laid on 〈◊〉 as bishops, 
In lib. 4. dist. ●. Quaest▪ Quaest 101.  or as presbyters. Augustine, 〈…〉 is the author of that book, entitled, Quest veteris & novi testamenti▪ saith, they did it as priests. But the truth is, they did it neither as bishops, or priests, and therefore neither the one nor the other succeeded unto them in it. For it was extraordinary, and extraordinary effects followed it. The second reason, bishops and presbyters, as themselves confess, are equal in the power of order. If the power be equal, who can hinder them to put it in execution. Hath Christ given them a power which they may not exercise. 
In 3. tom. 3. disp. 36. sect. 1. Synt. part. 1. disp. 25.  Suarez the Jesuit saith, If presbyters have sufficient power by virtue of their ordination to minister this sacrament, it were no reason that they should be wholly hindered. What God hath instituted, the Church cannot inhibit, 
De rep. l. 5. c. 12. num. 23.  saith Tilenus. If presbyters had not had that power by virtue of their ordination, neither Pope nor bishop might give them commission or licence to do it, 
Amach. l. 3. 〈◊〉 quaestionum lib. 11.  saith Spalleto. But so it is, that by dispensation of licence from the Pope, the Papists grant, they may. Our third reason, presbyters may impose hands in ordination of ministers, therefore they ●ay also in confirmation. 
Dist 45. c. 6.  So reasoneth Armachanus. Our fourth reason, they may celebrate and minister the Lords supper, therefore they may do this also. So reasoneth the author of that epistle, ad Rusticum Narbonensem. Our opposites are forced to confess, that this is not proper to bishops by virtue of their office, but reserved to them for the dignity of it. 
Adversus Luciferianos.  Jerome saith, that this was reserved to them not by necessity of any law, but for the honour of their priesthood. Yet not in all places, but multis in locis. The author of that epistle to Rusticus saith, it was the custom in the orient, in Illyricum, in Italy, in Africa, and in all places in the Apostles time, 
Decretal. l. 1. 〈…〉  that presbyters did confirm. In the decretals it is said, that simple priests at Constantinople according to the custom did minister the sacrament of confirmation. Turrianus reporteth, that the Grecians reprove the Latins, because they inhibit the priests to anoint the foreheads with chrism, as ye may see in Suarez. The bishop of Spalleto complaineth, 
De rep. l. 5. c. 12. n. 24.  that bishops are so rigid, that they will not permit the parish priests to confirm, the rather because they come seldom to visit their parishes, and thinketh, howbeit they refuse, the priests may, as for himself he might have suffered the priests in his diocie confirm, 
Suarez in 3. to n. 3. disp. 36. sect. 1▪  but he gave them not that liberty, because he saw no necessity of such a ceremony, and that it was not worthy the name of a sacrament. If there were any moment in it, should the bishop's honour, or lordly bishoping bee-preferred to the utility of it for the people. Jerome saith, 
Adversus Luciferianos;  If the holy Ghost should come down only at the prayer of the bishop, these were to be lamented, who in prisons or castles, or far places being baptised by priests and deacons, die before the bishop visit them. If it were a matter of moment, 
Institut. l. 4; c. 19 sect. 9  saith Master Calvin, wherefore do bishops suffer so many half Christians in their diocies. They betray by a tacit confession, that it is not a matter of such moment, 
Beda in ps; 26.  as they pretend. Beda is plain, that confirmation, as also many other things was not permitted to priests, 
Notae 〈◊〉 disp●●aboritrr. p. 28.  for the arrogancy of bishops. ●althasav Lydius saith, It was untolerable superstit on that the priest might anoint the breast and the shoulder, but it behoved all to abstain from the forehead, except only the bishop. Seeing this subject is already treated upon at large in another work, and both the sacrament itself, and the bishop who challengeth it as proper to himself are bastards, I will in fast longer upon this point.  
In their book of comm●● prayer it is required, that these who are to be confirmed be able to answer the qu●stions of a little catecat●●me, 
The pretence of catechising young children.  that with their own mouth and consent they may ●atifie and confirm openly before the church, what the godfathers and godmothers promise in their name, and promise to endeavour to observe and keep such things, as by their own confession they have assented unto. Is not this plain mocking of God, to require public profession before the Church of children, who cannot give a serious confession of their faith, howbeit they can utter some few words of a short catechism like parrots. They require that they be of a perfect age, but that is not observed, or else by perfect age they mean only years of discretion, as they call them in the same place, that is, when they come to the use of reason, that they can discern somewhat between good and evil: or as Hackwell interpreteth, when reason beginneth to break up. Is this a fit time for public profession of their faith, or to make them capable and fit for the Communion, whereof notwithstanding they do not partake many years after. Eucerus in his censure, 
Di polit. l. 3. c. 16. sect. 11.  censureth sharply this pretext of catechising. M. Parker telleth us, that for all this, they confirm them sometime in their own houses, and not openly, sometime in a Church distant many miles from the Church whereof they are members, sometimes in the same church, but without their advice or consent. It is not then either public profession of their faith, or fitness for the Communion, that they are so careful of, not their understanding of the qwestions of a short catechism, but to show their grandour, and what pre-eminence they have over other men's flocks, in making of half whole, and perfect Christians. Parents must bring their children many miles to them, to be confirmed or bishopped, as if the holy Ghost could breathe no where but upon their fingers. 〈◊〉 with the words of tindal.  
After that bishops had left off preaching, 
Obedience pag. ●52.  then falned they this dumb ceremony of confirmation, to have somewhat at the least whereby they might reign over their diocie. They reserved also to themselves the christening of bells, and conjuring or hallowing of Churches and Churchyards, of altars and superaltars, hallowing of chalices, and whatsoever is of honour and profit: which confirmations, and other conjurations also they have now commited to their suffragians, because they themselves have no leisure to minister such things for their lusts and pleasures, and abundance of all things, and for the cumbrance that they have in the King's matters and business of the realm. One keepeth the privy seal, another the great seal, the third is a confessor, that is a privit traitor, and a secret Judas. He is precedent of the prince his counsel, he is an ambassador, another is of the privy counsel. Woe is unto the Realms where they are of the counsel. As profitable are they verily unto the Realms with their counsel, as the wolves unto the sheep, or the foxes unto the geese.   

OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF the sacraments in private places.  
IN the book of common order set down before the psalms in meeter, 
The judgement of our church, concerning ad.  it is said, that the sacraments are not ordained of God to be used in private corners, as charmers and sorcerers use to do, 
Ministration of the sacrament in private places.  but left to the congregation, and necessarily annexed to God's word, as seals of the same. In the assembly holden at Edinburgh in October anno 1581. it was ordained, that the sacraments be not ministered in private houses, but solemnly, according to the good order hitherto observed. But in the late pretended assembly holden at Perth, anno 1618. it was ordained, that the minister shall not refuse to baptise infants in private houses, when great need compelleth the parents to crave it, but the great need is not specified, and therefore left to the judgement of every corrupt minister, who shall be willing to pleasure his parishoner upon pretence of any alleged necessity, as a rainy day, or the saving of some charges, as a dinner, etc. Such like the minister must not refuse to administrat the communion in a private house beside him, that for infirmity is unable to resort to the church to receive it, or if the sick person that shall declare upon his conscience to the minister, that he thinketh his sickness deadly. It is required only, that there be three or four of good religion and conversation present to communicate with him. But, which shaketh all loose, these must be free of all impediments. What if they be not free? What suppose there were forty, let be four, if it be not celebrated in the congregation, it is but a private communion.  
Tilemus, 
Reasons against povat administration. Ti●● insy●ag de ha●●● parte 〈…〉.  when he was found and orthedox, laid down this for a ground, A sacrament is a public action, to be performed publicly by public ministers, neither can any necessity or sufficient cause be alleged, wherefore a sacred and public action should pass in a private because God's ordie 〈◊〉 should be 〈◊〉 us a supreme law, and greatest necessity, which we ought to obey rather than foster the ignorance and infirmity of the people. He had been disputing before against the administration of baptism by lay-men and woman, but concludeth in end against administration also in a private place, and requireth, that all sacraments be administered, not only by public and lawful officebearers, 
pag. 110.  but also publicly. How can the Doctor then allege, that Tilenus' words were perverted? That the sacraments are actions of public nature, and therefore aught to be celebrated publicly in the congregation, appeareth by these reasons: 1. The sacraments are appointed not only to be signs and seals of invisible graces, but also to be testimonies of our piety towards God, and badges of our profession distinguishing true Churches; from false. All sacraments are kinds of protestation of our faith, 
Part 3. quest. 7 artic 5.  saith Quinae. Secret corners are not fit places for such protestations. 2. Visible communion in the holy things of God, is the end of our union and consociation with a particular Church. Because we cannot attain to a visible communion in the holy things of God, immediately with the whole Church militant, we enjoy it mediately by our communion in a particular congregation. Therefore the sacraments which are the holy things of God, aught to be administrated in common. 3. All other actions which concerned the whole Church, were done with consent and presence of the Church, as elections, ordinations, excommunications. By the same reason ought the sacraments to be administered in public, for the interest that all have in them, and the benefit and fruit may redound to all. 4. The sacraments ought to be preserved from contempt, neglect, and corruptions. Heretics take occasions to corrupt the pure administration of the sacraments, when they are administered in private houses. The public is the less regarded when people may have them in private, as they think they have need, nor yet are they so reverently used, as when celebrated in the public assembly. 5. It breedeth opinion of extreme danger of salvation, if any die without baptism, or the Lord's supper. We will have occasion to touch these reasons, when we descend to baptism and the Lords supper in particular.  
The Doctor in his answers useth often the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary, 
The distinction of ordinary and extraordinary frivolous.  that ordinary they should be administered in public, but extraordinarly and in case of necessity they may be administered in private, which is a begging of the question; for the reasons are directed against administration in private, in whatsoever case, and there is no necessity to violate the common order, unless it were the danger of men's salvation, for want of such a middle or mean, which is a gross and damnable opinion engendered and entertained by the administration in private.  
He wresteth also that place in Matthew, 
Where two or three are gathered, etc.  where Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three convened in his name, as if three or four convened to the administration of baptism or the Lord's supper, were a sufficient number to make up a lawful assembly. But this speech of Christ in the precise terms cannot be extented to the sacrament. For then where two only are convened, the communion may be administrated. The Priest then may celebrate mass, having none to bear him company, but the clerk to say Amen. Christ speaketh not there, as Master Cartwright hath already answered, of the public administering of the word and sacraments, but of the proceeding in the Church discipline against offences, and of that part which was done privately by two or three, and promiseth, that not only the proceeding of the Church should be ratified, but also that the admonition given by two or three, whereof he spoke before, with invocation of the name of God, should not be in vain, but have the own effect, either for the conversion of the offender; or to make him inexcusable. Or by two or three is meant only a few number, where a greater number cannot be had to make up a senate, with power to execute the censures of the Church, or a few but sufficient number, where a greater may not be had to make a visible Church. But where a sufficient number may be had, and of these a Church already constituted, two or three apart cannot bind and lose. And what they may do, other two or three may undo, or do the like, whereupon would follow great confusion. We reason against two or three convening in a private place to minister the holy things of God, where there is already constituted a Church, and a number consociate to that end, of which society these two or three are but members.  
We mean not that the sacraments may not be administrated at no time in a private place, but only in a private meeting of some few; for the congregation is not tied to, and some time hath not the liberty of material Churches, but is forced to retire to woods, caves, private houses, but their the administration is public, because in sight and presence of the congregation.  
Baptism is that initiatory sacrament, 
Against private baptism. Epist. 185.  whereby we enter into the bosom of some visible congregation, or is Calvine saith, it is a sacred or solemn introduction into the Church of God, a testimony of our heavenly burgesship, into which these are written, whom he hath adopted to himself. By baptism we became members of some society joined together, to make up one visible Church, as it were one body. Baptism therefore should be celebrated in the presence of that visible Church whereof we are to be members. The minister then, and the parents have not the only interest in this business, but the congregation also, and principally, because of their right to receive, or refuse, their concurrence to assist the minister in prayer to God for the infant, their testimony of his entry, and receiving, and the benefit they may reap to themselves, by remembering their own baptism, and the promises made to God, when they were baptised. The baptised must have communion with them in the holy things of God afterward. And therefore good reason, they enter in with their approbation, and acceptance. If a member may not be cut off by excommunication without their consent, 1 Corin. 5. none aught to be received without their consent, and after this manner of entry. Nature teacheth men, saith Bucer, that when any socieitie or corporation is to accept of one to be of their number, 
Censura c. 9 Reasons.  Id sacere cum collegae frequentiores convenerint, ut ita quasi ab omnibus illi in collegium recipiantur, & singuli office a collegarum eis deferant, ad eaque se●●ita publicè astringant; to do it when the fellows have convened in a frequent number, that so they may be received, as it were of all into the company, and every one may show the duty of fellows unto them, and bind themselves to the same after the same manner publicly. This promiscuous meeting of sundry out of sundry quarters and parishes to the morning and evening prayers in Edinburgh, is not that body or society whereof the bapti●ed is to be a member, nor y●t are these times appointed for the meeting of that society to that end. Was it not then a superstitious or foolish conceit in many of the ancients who delayed baptism, to the end of their life, or till they were overtaken with dangerous diseases, that being purged from all the sins of their former life, they might fly straightway to heaven. These were called Cliniei q. d. lecticularii.  
When we maintain baptism in public assemblies, we mean where there is a visible Church constituted, and an order established. Therefore the exemples of the Eunuch, the jailor, Cornelius, etc. make nothing for baptism in private and apart, where there is a visible Church constituted.  
The defence and practice of baptism in private, 
Private baptism hath bred the necessity of baptism.  hath bred an opinion of an absolute necessity of baptism, as if the infant could not be saved without it, and doth ●ill foster the fame damnable opinion. Neither cast any other necessity be p●tended. For there is no precept requiring baptism, when it cannot be had orderly. It is not the neglect, but the contempt which maketh not the infants but the parents guilty. It is not contempt or neglect, when the ordinary times of public meetings appointed for such ends are not neglected and co●●●ned. In the ancient Church, Easter and Pentecost eves were appointed to be the solemn times of baptism. Whereby it came to pass, that many died without baptism, as Socrates reporteth. 
Lib. 5. ● 21.  But that order, which was not commendable, is worn out of use many hundred years since. We have now weekly ordinary assemblies for the purpose, and yet these are neglected and contemned, specially by the wealthier sort, and the times of evening prayers are preferred before the times appointed for preaching in the morning, or upon the Lord's day, whereunto they were restrained by the first book of discipline.  
Whereas the sacraments should be celebrated with reverence, 
Baptism profaned by private administration.  and we see how solemn the baptism of john was, and of Christ at Jordan; this baptism in private is irreligiously, and unreverently ministered, and the public scarce attended unto; for upon the opinion of the necessity of baptism in private, hath followed the defence of baptism by women, baptism by a pagan, baptism with puddle water, baptism by supposition. For if the infant recover health, they baptism again in public, if they doubt it was baptised after the right manner in private, saying, It thou be not baptised N. I baptise thee in the name of the Father, etc. But what if the child was already baptised after the right manner, is not this public baptising rebaptisation. I know our Formalists do not defend baptism by laymen or women to be lawfully ministered by such persons, yet they esteem it valide and effectual, if the right form and manner was in substance observed, as ye may see in our Doctors grounds. 
Proceedings pag. 105.  That which our worthy divines have condemned as nullin itself, they account as valide, which no man would do, that were not infected with the opinion of absolute necessity of baptism to the salvation of the infant. For necessitas precepti, the precept to baptise cannot drive them to this absurdity, seeing none are commanded or have warrant to baptise but pastors or ministers. It is necessitas medii then, that driveth them to such courses. The English service book permitteth, in private baptism to omit the doctrine concerning the institution and use of baptism, and also to spare the Lords prayer, if the time will not suffer. That book supposeth likewise, that some things essential to this sacrament may be omitted in the private ministration, through fear or haste in such extremity. Is this reverend using of the holy things of God, or is it sure work, that forceth them to fly to a conditional baptism.  
The case of baptism and circumcision is not alike, 
The case of baptism and, circumcision different.  for the Lord appointed a precise time for circumcision, to wit the eight day, which in no cas● they might prevent, suppose the infant should die in the mean time. It might have been delayed, if there were some urgent occasion to hinder, as in the wilderness for many years, because they behoved to be in readiness to remove according to the moving of the cloudy rollar. But Moses had no urgent occasion, therefore the Lord chastised him, and Sephora circumcised the child Moses being sick. Her example was not imitated by the Jews themselves after, and the Church of God was yet in families. When synagogues were erected, and places for the public service of God, circumcision was ministered only in public, as some think, and so it is an this day in the synagogues, 
Bueanus lec. 46. Zepperus de sacram. pag. 251. Chamier. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 14. Barrad. tom. 1. l. 9 c. 2.  where a synagogue is to be had. Others hold that the Lord committed not the act or office of circumcision to the priests or Levits, but that the infants were circumcised at home, the family and nighbours being convened, because present remedy was to be provided for curing of the wound. Barraillus the Jesuit saith, that circumcision required not either a peculiar place, 
Suar. in 3. partem. tom. 3. disp. 29. sect. 2.  or a peculiar minister. Suarez saith, that at this day, he that is called the circumciseth, circumciseth indifferently in the house or the synagogue. But it is not so in baptism, as it cannot be ministered, but by a lawful minister, so likewise only in the public assembly. The make of circumcision was permanent, and by it the circumcised might be easily discerned whither they were counterfite professors or not. But it is not so in baptism The paschal lamb was eaten only in families, and small societies convened in some chamber on parlour, and might not be eaten in public assemblies. But who dare affirm, that the Lords supper howbeit it be the sacrament answerable to it, must be celebrated after the same manner. Different is the case between the sacraments of the old law which belonged to one nation, and the sacraments under the Gospel belonging to the whole Christian world.  
The Lord's supper is the sacred banquet of the whole Church assembled together, 
Reasons against private communion. Decad. 5. ferm. 9  saith. Bullinger in his Decades, and therefore, saith he, the Apostle requireth the Corinthians to assemble together to partake of this supper, 1 Corin. 1●. 32. It is a finew of public assemblies, a hadge of our profession, a band of love, and representation of 〈◊〉 communion and fellowship, which is and aught to be among the members of the congregation. It is not a part, or two, or three, but the whole body of the congregation which is compared to one bread, when the Apostle saith, We that are many are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers afore bread, Corin. 10. 17. Because it is not possible to us to celebrat a sacramental union with the whole Church militant, the Lord hath appointed us to keep a sacramental communion with some particular congregation or visible Church. The Doctor borroweth an absurd answer from Bellarmine and the Rhemists, 
pag. 117. 118.  that were have sacramental communion with the whole militant Church, howbeit it be not so visible, as with any one particular Church, and his reason is, because we are partakers of the same sacrament. I reply with Master 〈◊〉 answer to the Rhemists, 
On 1 Corin. 11. §. 14.  Although all the faithful, even those, that never received the sacrament, by faith communicate with Christ's body, yet do they alone communicate sacramentally which have their communion sealed by the outward action of eating of one sacramental bread. And that the Apostle meaneth of these, that in one congregation or Church eat together, and not of the communion of us with those, that receive the sacrament in another Church, it is evident, for that he placeth the seal of this communion in eating all of one bread, and of one table: Whereas they that communicate in another congregation, communicate not of one table or bread with them, that are so removed, no more than they that celebrated the passover in diverse houses, were partakers of one lamb or kid. It is the same sacrament in spece or kind, but not in number. We communicate in one fruit or effect, because we all receive the same Christ, but that is a spiritual, not a sacramental communion, 
Tom. 4. l. 7. c. 13. num. 33.  saith Chamier. For it was never heard, saith he, that these in Jerusalem communicate sacramentally with those in Alexandria. Otherwise what needed the bishop of Rome to send the eucharist to other bishops when they come to Rome. The Lord's supper then should not be celebrated, but in the assembly of the faith for united together in one body of a Church. A company conveened apart from the rest to communicate with the sick person is not unied by themselves into the body of a Church, far less three of four, asttake, the English service book meaneth to be a number sufficient, seeing they allow the communion to be ministered to three or four in the Church, and in the time of plague, sweat, or such other like contagious sicknesses, the minister may communicate with the person diseased alone. Ergo coena Domini non est privata, 
Dead. 5. serm. 9  sed publica nulli privatim danda. Et quoniam non est publicus vel generallis catus, quandò quatuor aut quinque cum agro communicant, nihil dicunt quia not apud agros coenam instrui p●sse, si alis quoque simul coenent saith Bullinger. That is, Seeing it is not a public or general meeting, when three or four communicate with the sick, they say nothing to purpose who say, that the supper may be celebrated beside the sick, if others also communicate. Suppose a company of the faithful in a family be called a Church, Rom. 16. 7. because the whole family consisting of Christians, and frequently exercised in religious exercises, resembleth in some sort a Church, and may be called ecelesiola, as it were, a little Church. Yet it is not that Church which hath the power and right to use the sacraments and censures, for then every family in a Christian commonwealth might celebrate the sacraments at home. So howbeit the name be communicated for the greater commendation of such a family, yet the definition doth not agree. And yet that place may be applied to the Church, which used to convene in Aquila and Priscilla's house In that same chapter Gaius is called the host of the whole Church. See Parcus in Rom. 16. 7. 1 Corin. 16. 19 Philemon. 2. The names also given to this sacrament, may teach us, that t● should be celebrated in the public assembly. The name synaxis importeth a ga●●ering or assembling together. Casaubon saith, synaxis and synagogue are all one, because derived from one word. Liturgy signifieth a public service or ministry; both the names import the celebrity of the assembly, and the solemnity of the administration before the assembly.  
The elements were sent to the absents in time, or immediately after the action in Justinus Martyrs time. 
The prete●●ded necessity of private communions.  Which was the first abuse we read of. After followed reservation of the eucharist for the use of the sick, which was a greater abuse, and carrying of it home to their houses. The opinion of the necessity of private communious did grow to such an height, that the eucharist was given not only to aged persons departing this life for their Viaticum, to be their voyage victual, as they call it, but also to infants and babes, and this endured for the space of 600. years. The Papists themselves are ashamed of it, and expressly inhibit it. Yea of old, in some parts, it was the practice, to use Master Perkins words, to cram the eucharist into the mouth of them that were deceased, or to lay it upon the breast; and bury it with the corpse. Such horrible profanations arose from the opinion of necessity engendered upon these reservations, and giving of the eucharist to the sick. The continuation of the like customs doth foster and entertain the same opinion of necessity. The ignorant are fostered in superstition, as if the grace of God were tied to the sacrament, and no comfort could be had by there receiving of it in former times, but they must have it now for their voyage victual, whereby they may be enabled to attain to life eternal without fainting in the way. Polyander after he hath concluded, that the Lords supper should not be celebrated in private, either for sickness of any person, or other case of necessity whatsoever, granteth that not long after the Apostles times, for condescending to the weakness of some, this custom prevailed to send to the sick the elements of bread and wine in the time of administration. 
Miscellan pag. 166.  Sed hoc medium atque adm●niculum, quod infirmioribus juvandis ac consolandis ex zelo irregulari absque Christi mandato patres exhibuerunt, paulatim in eam transiit idololatriam, ●nt aliqui non minùs administrationi sacra coena, quam baptismi, salutemex opere operato tribuerint. That is, The help and nemedie they used out of irregular zeal without Christ's precept, for the comfort and help of the weaker, ended at last into such idolatry, that they ascrived no less their salvation to the administration of the holy supper, then of baptism, and that by virtue of the work wrought or deed done. Therefore he adviseth us to beware, that we foster not men in a superstitious opinion, by private or domestic administration of the Lords supper. 
Epist 361.  Calvin saith, Difficillimum est hic cavere, ne alios superstitio, alios ambitio & vana●ostentatio ad petendum solliciter. That is, It is very hard to be avoided, that superstition stir not up some, ambition and ostentation others to crave it. Bullinger saith, 
Decad 5. serm. 9  If we be contentious in the defence of this viaticum, there will be bred again, that which we have seen received in some ages before, a relying npon the very receiving itself of the sacrament, as if for it we were acceptable to God, and departing out of this world, did fly straightway to heaven, and without it were carried straightway to hell. And many 〈◊〉 errors will spring up. Tilenus saith, in his syntagma, 
Disp. 61. thes. 36.  Whatsoever necessity be pretended, hardly cast any sufficient cause be rendered, wherefore the public action should pass in a private. Because he ordinance of God is supreme necessity, which we must obey rather then faster the infirmity of man. Illa enim infirmorum levamenta, ex ●●ordinem olim adhibita infirmitatem publicam totius ecclesia magis foverunt & auxerunt quam privatam agrotan ium sanarunt. That is, The ease tendered by the cont non order upon the infirm, d●d rather cherish and augment the public disease of the whole Church, then heal the private disease of the sick. As for the pretended necessity of comfort to the sick, that same answer may be given, that the English service book giveth, when none can be had to communicate with the sick, or for extremity of sickness, or other just impediment he cannot communicate. The carat shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe, that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the been sits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he doth not receive the sacrament with his mouth. May not the like b●e said to the sick in body, but ignorant or superstitious in mind, when the sacrament may not be celebrated at their bedside without breach of God's ordinance. The Rhemists do acknowledge, 
On Job. 6. 1. 8.  that they do eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, which join in hart and desire with the part 〈◊〉 of the sacrament. A man may die a martyr before he receive either baptism, or the Lord's supper. How many Catechumeni have died before they were baptised. The comfort and benefit we receive at any public communion, is not restrained to the present time, but serveth at all times for our use. We were but once baptised, yet the comfort and benefit endureth all our life long. Our spiritual communion with Christ, and to eat his flesh, and drink his blood by faith, is ever so necessary, that otherwise we cannot be safe, but so is not the participation of the Lords supper. Only we must beware of neglect and contempt of the public administration. The godly know in their agony, they never want shall, 
R●eti Cathol. C●thodo. tom. 2. pag. 198.  which is chief and only necessary, where in they so acquiesce, that they will not without the Lords institution, trouble the comeliness and order of the Church for their own private satisfaction. Norunt pij in agone nun qua●ijs dress, quod praecipuum est & so●ùm necessarium, in quo ita acquiescunt ut extra Dom ni institutionem, nolunt ecclesia ordinem & decorum turbare, ut sibi privatim satisfaciant.  
This pretended necessity grounded upon superstitious conceits, 
Private communion hath bred neglect and irreverence Ricti cathol. orthod. tom. 2. p. 199.  hath drawn on a neglect of the public communion, because in time of their need they look for it in private. Ab ista manducatione clinica, cui quisque in papatufidit, ortho est in plerisque communicandi contemptus, cum prospera valetudine fruuntur ad quod semel tantum in anno ex ecclesiae sua praescripto obligantur. The whole congregation hath interest in the celebration, and is bound to see it performed reverently and religiously, which they cannot see done, when it is administered in private. Nor can the private administration be performed with such reverence as is requisite. We read not that at any time it was the custom in the ancient church to celebrate at the bedside of the sick, but only to carry the eucharist to him, which notwithstanding was superstitious. The synod holden at Laodicea, cap. 58. ordained, Ne fierent in domibus oblationes ab episcopis aut presbyteris. And Justinian Novel constit. 57 hath the like. Not that I think the place of itself disgraceth the action, but the paucity of the communicants. If the congregation were assembled in a barn, or any like capacious place through want of a church, the action might be celebrated with no less grace. The sick man's chamber is not a fit meeting place for the congregation, saith Rive●is. Suppose it were, such assemblies could not but breed or foster the opinion of necessity. Beside the paucity, the pains of the patient might enforce sundry disorders. 
De eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 23.  Bellarmine allegeth, in defence of depriving the communicants of the cup, howbeit more comfort might be had by participating both the bread and the wine, that there is less ill, that men want some good thing not necessary, then that the sacrament be exposed to the hazard of irreverence. For it could not be, but the blood of Christ would be often split. That which he allegeth against the Lord's institution, we may far more justly allege against this private communion, which the Lord never ordained, that the reverend usage of the sacrament is to be preferred before the good, or rather preposterous pleasing of the sick, and feeding their ignorance and superstition.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
BLot out p. 11. last line, not. p. 12 l. 15. when 81. l. 27. that. 99 l. 11. not 122. l. lest. p. 56 lin. l. the fourth part. read p. 14. l. 4. canon. 17. 22. more. l. 23. mere 20. 28. Pauli. 23. l. 24. that thursday. 27. l. 25. Hospinian. 29. l. 26. then. 30. last line notable. 3. l. l. 29. Encrarits. 39 l. 2 sic. l. 25. eat ve all of this. 45. l. 14 great. l. 25. Montanus. l. 26. members. 47. l. 4. & l. 8. sic. 54. l. 30. simpliciter. 57 l. last, Israelitarum, 60. l. 18. decree. l. 19 successates. 6. l. 18 popule 6. ●. l. 13. of. 65. l. 18. excuses. 67. l. 24. Cracovieni. 6● l. als. 68 l. 4. all's. 69. l. 15. apertae. 74. l. 19 to stand. 76. l. 13. stantes & commorantes. 77. l. 30. Zonaras. 79. l. 14. praetermitted. 80. l. 24. quod ●. 9 l. 12 to these words. 98. l. 1. causes. l. 13 whither. 99 l. 11 if ye will bear. 122. l. 3. bewray. 128. l. 30. Christ. Desire, stort ejaculations. 135. d. l. 19 genuine. 154 l. 7. commenting. 157. l. 20. kindling fire. 158 l. 1. mutability. 159 l. 7. rationem. 160. l. 27. were not bidden fast. 164. l. 26. 〈◊〉 10. logical. 165. lin. 2. apolo. l. 19 whereon. 168. l. 5. makein. 190. l. 29. ●●gatorum. 202. l. 20 salve, 205. l. 23. ye observe. 217. l. 22. concredite. 220 lin. 30. questions. 22● lin. 12 suffragans. 226 l. 4. become.  
Lesser escapes I remit to the correction of the understanding reader.   

A PASSAGE OF MASTER WILLIAM Cowper, peetended bishop of Gallaway his sermon, delivered before the states anno 1606. at which time he was minister at Perth.  
On 2 Corin. 6. 3, 4.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostle wrote this epistle in his own name, and in the name of Timothy his brother, as ye may penceave by the first verse of this epistle. And now in both their names he directeth the exhortation. Preachers are workers together, brethren, and fellow-labourers. Here a worthy Apostle claimeth no superior style to Timothy an Evangelist, albeit justly he might, h●e b●ing an Apostle, the other an Evangelist, both which were temporary and extraordinary callings in the Church of God, but the one, namely the office of an Apostle more excellent than the other office of an Evangelist. This may serve to make these men ashamed, who being partakers of one office of pastorship with the rest of their brethren, will be separated from them by slately sitles. Order is good, I grant, but away with such order, as hath bred that I omane Hierarchy, the tyranny of the Antichrist. Always here our chief lesson is that ministers should work together. They should not work one against another. We are the servants of one Lord, we have all one city to build, we are fortifiers of the wall of one Jerusalem, what part of the wall we stand and into, that is no matter, the work and the waze is one to us all. Union among brethren is ay the forerunner of blessing, division again bringeth on the fall; for a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. In the primitive church S. Luke saith, The multitude of believers were of one heart. There upon followed a flourishing estate of the church, notwithstanding the powers of the world were enemies to them. Great things are always performed by union, yea suppeses of mean instruments. There is none, saith Job, can restrain the influence of the Pleyades, it is but a constellation of the seven stars, which we commonly call the seven sisters; yet do they bring with them the spring of the year. Thus a nature herself advanceth her greatest works by unin. A material building is made up by the uniting of stones and timber b●fore disjoined, and and the fall thereof is procured again by their renting and sundering one from another. I exhort you therefore brethren, in the name of the Lord, that as one man our hearts may be joined together to do the work of the Lord, and this division threatening a fearful decay of Christ his kingdom in the midst of us, may be eshewed.  
Where if it be objected to me, where is the blame or cause of division? For I know that as Solomon saith, every man's way seemeth good in his own eyes. I answer, I have not a deligh to make a sport of the nakedness of my father, and I desire not to be cursed with Chaent. If the division were not so evident that the most simpley perveaveth it, I could willingly also misknow it, but since the evil is manifest, the cause of the evil is also easily espied: for look what part of the wall is gagged from the o●●●ation, where upon the building stands, and from that policy we received from our fathers, let th●● be drawn in to the rest again, then shall arise a happy union, that may assure us of a continuance and increase of God's work in the midst of us.  
FINIS.