AN ANSWER TO A BOOK Set forth By Sir EDWARD PEYTON, KNIGHT and BARONET, Carrying this Title, A Discourse concerning the fitness of the Posture, necessary to be used, in taking the Bread and Wine at the SACRAMENT.  
BY ROGER COCKS, Preacher of God's Word.  
Quàm diu per hanc lineam serram reciprocabimus, habentes observationem inveteratam, quae praeveniendo statum fecit? Hanc si nulla Scriptura determinavit, certè consuetudo corroboravit.  Tertul. de Coron. Militis, Cap. 3. 
Ad quam fortè Ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi.  Sententia Ambros. in Aug. ut ipse refert, Epist. 118. Cap. 2. 
LONDON, Printed for Nath. Butter. 1642.   

Scribimus indocti, doctique.  
PAmphlets, like wild geese, fly up and down in flocks about the country. Never was more writing, or less matter. That of the Preacher, if ever it did reflect on any, may fitly suit with our times. There is no end of making many books. 
a Eccles. 12. 12  For in many, in most, there is no end indeed; Nay, there is neither beginning nor ending; that is, neither head nor foot, as it is in the Proverb. I will not absolutely rank yours in the number of these, yet I conceive (and many, I presume, will be of my opinion) you should have shown more wisdom, if you had taken less pains, and spared your Discourse. For though I commend your moderation, in not being affected with the epidemical disease of the times, Railing, yet I cannot approve your discretion, in acting that upon the public stage of Printing, which might have passed better by private intercourse of writing. I was once about to have answered your Discourse with nothing but silence, (if so be that might have been reputed an Answer) and to this the persuasion of some friends had almost induced me, as well because the slighting of some wrong, is the best way to overcome them, as because it is not an easy matter for a practical Divine on the sudden to turn polemical. But I was diverted from these (to my thinking) by stronger considerations: As first, the giving of occasion unto the adverse side, to insult and triumph; and next to ours, the scandal of deserting myself; and which is more, the public cause of the Church, at which (it is plain) you strike, though through the sides of me, an unworthy member of it. Overswayed by these, I thought it better to show myself (is the times now are) a fool in print among the rest, then that the Truth should suffer by my default, or that your pretending to invincible, unanswerable arguments, should conduce to the offending of others.  
Before I enter upon your Book, I cannot pass by the Title; as a man that is to survey some new building, ere he enter the house, will cast his eye upon the Portal. Now this (Methinks) is not given with that advisedness of judgement that should have been, for you call it A Discourse concerning the fitness of the posture, necessary to be used, in taking the Bread and Wine at the Sacrament. Had you left out [necessary,] it would have been a great deal better; for you change a matter of indifferency, into a matter of necessity. You cannot (or at least, writing of that subject, ought not to) be ignorant, that Ceremonies, in their own nature are but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, indifferent things; your postures therefore being not yet enjoined by authority, cannot be necessary. But a rough outside may have a smooth inside, and a jewel is not always known by the case or casket that doth enclose it; I will therefore come to the discourse itself.  
And this is composed in the form of a Letter, I must therefore shape my Answer accordingly; only I will add a Superscription, lest I should not seem to deal with a man of your fashion as I ought to do.  

To Sir EDWARD PEYTON, Knight and Baronet.  
But I pray give me leave to close it up with that wish of Philip, a King of Macedon, to Menecrates, an overweening physician, Health of mind.  
THe reason that induceth me to this, is, because the elapsed time you speak of, hath brought forth the foul issue of a collapsed disposition, which (as you would seem to pretend) my rudeness hath made abortive, and caused it to come into the world before the time: But the truth is, (for so much I have heard you affirm yourself) it was conceived many years before, though perhaps not altogether in the same shape it is produced. Who advisedly considering this will not argue you of much weakness, for being grounded in your opinion? why did you so often before take the Sacrament kneeling without question or scruple, if it were a matter against conscience so to do? If it were not, why do you now refuse it? I refer myself to the indifferent Reader, if in this you do not render yourself suspected to side more with the times then with the truth.  
But to proceed. In the first place (though an easy apprehension may conceive it an impertinent introduction) you tax my defect of manners: Indeed I was never bred in the school of compliments, and may therefore haply commit a solecism against ceremonious form, but here (I presume) I may justly acquit myself. The irreverence was on your part, the affront on mine, I did but my duty, which you answered with indignity, and for my beseeching, returned a threatening. As for the satisfaction which you would seem to have desired, you know well that I was not chief in the place, but (as you acknowledge me yourself) subordinate, Curate. Therefore you should rather have sought it at his hands who was chief, especially being there resident, then at mine, and I make no doubt, he would upon the least intimation of this desire from you (so well I know his willingness and sufficiency) have given you (if any thing could have done it) satisfaction.  
Howbeit, had you requested as much of me (for it hath never been my custom to obtrude my labours upon another, especially where I had just cause to suspect the party possessed with a prejudicate opinion, and so the matter in all likelihood, to meet with derision instead of acceptation) I should as far as my mean ability, and my many occasions and interruptions would have given me leave, have done what I could. Let the discreet Reader now judge, whether there were more want of manners in me for not writing, or of civility in you, for taxing me in this kind.  
Next, you affirm, that being to receive the Sacrament, you did stand, with just ground, and therefore I should not have denied it unto you in that posture. I answer, you are no Pythagoras, or if you were, I am none of your Disciples, to be satisfied with an Ipse dixit. Who of sound judgement will not think that I was tied in duty to comply rather with public authority, then with your private, singular, irregular opinion: And whereas you say, I ought not to urge an imposed kneeling, though backed by the authority of the Ordinary, the Bishop, the Canon, because it is not confirmed by Act of Parliament; I answer, first, that your inference is not good: Are all things unlawful, that are not confirmed by Act of Parliament? Surely then many indifferent actions must needs be unlawfully performed; Hath the King, hath the Church no authority in these things? what then shall become of government, if there be no Parliament? But it may be you desire such a time as the Israelites had when there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. 
b Judg. 17. 6.   
Secondly, I answer, that your assertion is not true, there is an Act of Parliament for that and other Ceremonies, entitled, An Act for the uniformity of Common Prayer, and prefixed as an Introduction to the Service book; but I believe you have taken little notice of it, because you are not much affected to the book itself. Again, whereas you say, Kneeling is not commanded in the rubric: surely you do but take the matter upon trust, and that hath deceived you; for the words are plain, that the Receiver must take the Sacrament kneeling. I will repeat them, that the truth may the better appear: Then shall the Minister first receive in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to other Ministers, if any be present, and after to the people in their hands, kneeling. What can be more plain? Certainly, if you did not take the matter upon trust (as I said before) it must needs be, that either you did not look so far, or overlook it.  
Your disallowing of the Canon cannot make it of no validity; for it is confirmed by the King, whom we acknowledge supreme, in causes as well ecclesiastical as civil; yea the power thereof is further ratified by a clause mentioned in the latter part of the Act made for the uniformity of Common Prayer; This threefold cord than cannot be broken by you, strain a hard as you can. And yet let me advise you as a friend, not to strain too far, lest by this means you do not only forfeit your judgement, but your estate; for the Act being still in force, may lay hold upon you.  
But to follow you, (as you proceed) you urge us next (as if we did we know not what) with many demands, concerning the object you should kneel unto, and some of them very poor and ridiculous; you cannot (without much prejudice to your own judgement) conceive us to be so simple as to require you to kneel to the creature, whether it be the Minister or the Sacrament; but what that should be which may hinder you from kneeling unto God, I am not (I confess) quick sighted enough to perceive; yes, say you, for if that be required, why did not the Disciples kneel? I answer, first, it is not of absolute necessity that we should in all things imitate the Disciples; next I affirm, that with all the skill you have, you cannot clearly and fully determine whether they did kneel or no.  
Touching the form of administration, what if we shall affirm (for all your negative) that part of it is a prayer? I doubt not we shall make it good well enough, do you yourself examine it a little better, and you cannot (if you will confess a truth) but conclude it to be so; I will repeat the former part (for that only is material to the purpose) The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life. The later part is by you vainly added, for who did ever conceive that to be a Prayer? But if it be a Prayer, say you, the words should run thus, I pray God to preserve thy body and soul to eternal life. Why so? I see no such necessity. Is not that of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, 
c 2 Tim. 2. 7.  The Lord give thee understanding in all things, a prayer for Timothy? because he doth not say, I pray the Lord to give thee understanding in all things. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you a better understanding.  
Nor is it convenient (for all your cavil) that the Minister should kneel at the time of Administration, though the Receiver do, seeing the former subordinately under Christ our Saviour, imparts the blessing; the latter takes it ministerially from him. Suppose the King (nay, let it be some vicegerent, or general under him) be to bestow the Order of knighthood, because he must kneel that takes the honour, must he do so that gives it? Or, to come nearer to the present question, consider this in matter of Ordination, for though it be no Sacrament, it is a holy action: because he must kneel who receives Orders, must he do so that doth ordain him? who sees not the manifest absurdity of this consequence? It is sufficient that the Minister himself receiving first, according to appointment, do take the Sacrament upon his knees. And why (I pray you) may you not kneel to Christ, when you receive? what necessity is there that your kneeling to him should make him to be corporally present in the Sacrament, when you take the holy Communion, more than he is at other times, when you pray unto him?  
My Lord of York (and it is much that you should vouchsafe to give him that title) confesseth no such thing as you quote him for; Yea, in the Page following, he is directly against you: For he affirms out of approved Authors, that it is a matter of conveniency for every country to use such Ceremonies as they shall think fit. 
d Pag. 133.   
Your Proposition that we ought to follow Christ in all things, is too general; S. Augustine will tell you otherwise, and so will all other orthodox Divines; They will affirm we ought not to imitate him in his Miracles, but in his Morals; For though the one may entitle us to obedience, the other cannot acquit us from presumption.  
In the next place you come upon me like a fencer: But (Venia tua) give me leave to tell you in a friendly manner, your Venies are but triflings in a cause so serious; I fear your sharp as little as your foils, for unless your weapons be (and I hope they are not) tincta Lycambaeo sanguine, I see no great danger in them, an indifferent judgement may easily blunt their point, and turn their edge. Howbeit, I thank you for your friendly advertisement, for praemonitus praemunitus, forewarned forearmed; and however you may seem to yourself an iuvincible Goliath, yet I a little David dare enter the lists with you.  
First, you make a flourish, not with a two-handed, but with a two-edged sword; nay with that which is sharper than any two-edged sword, 
e Heb. 4. 12.  The Word of God: Such a weapon, I grant, as being well handled, is not to be resisted; but you do only flourish it, and make a show of striking that which you do not come near.  
Your Argument runs thus, That gesture is best which was used by the Apostles; but the Apostles used this gesture, therefore it is the best gesture. And here you fall into an error, for you do not stand to your tackling, but go from Standing to Sitting; Nay, you use the demonstrative this, before you mention Sitting at all. For the confirmation of that which you would prove, you cite many Texts of Scripture; among which, some are merely impertinent, as belonging nothing to the Discourse in hand, because they imply an imitation, not in ceremonial, but moral duties: Such are Ephes. 5. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 1. 1 Tim. 16. you mean (I conceive) 1 Tim. 1. 16. 2 Thes. 3. 7. The other conduce not rightly to your purpose, though they seem to come nearer. For however you make much ado with the Greek Text, and Latin Translation, where (by the way) you have occubuit, for accubuit, which I am willing to pass by, because but a literal error, and conclude that the posture used was Sitting, (howbeit no direct sitting neither, but such an one as did incline to leaning) yet I may say all this will not help you a jot: For we have two Bucklers to oppose against this sharp of yours, (as you call it;) the one, that all this proves nothing, but that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles sat at the celebration of the Passeover, not at the institution of the Sacrament; Nor can you by direct and evident Text of Scripture urge it further, as some of the learned have judiciously observed, however others for want of a due consideration, have given too much way to your assertion.  
And surely if I among these should do so too, yet it would fare with you, but as with him, qui suo se jugulat gladio, who striking fiercely at his adversary, wounds, yea kills his own cause. Your pretence is to plead for Standing at the Communion; nay your offence was, (howbeit Scandalum acceptum non datum) because you might not receive it in that posture; and now you plead for sitting, nay affirm it is unlawful to use other; concluding it to be, not indifferent, but necessary. Risum teneatis amici. Surely when you wrote this Discourse, you were either forgetful of your former Position, or irresolute in your present opinion; So that if one Proverb will not hit you, You are a man sitting duabus sellis, yet another may fit you, Aliud stans, aliud sedens judicas, and thus you quite overthrow, what you seek to establish; for if sitting only be necessary, I do not see how you can stand more for standing, than we for kneeling.  
Your bringing in of Calvin, makes nothing to the purpose; he writes against adoring the Host in the Sacrament; and what is that to our kneeling at the Communion? You might as well say, The Papists kneel to Images, and worship them, therefore we may not kneel to worship God. You press further the sayings of Bullinger and Keckerman, who (if you cite them rightly) take that for granted, which remains to be proved, namely, that Sitting was the posture used at the sacramental Supper. Indeed I should side with Chemnitius in his opinion, that the reverence of the Sacrament is to be taken from the Word of God, if there were any prescript form, or certain direction to be found in it. As for that which you quote out of the Centuries, namely, that Kneeling was never used in three hundred years after Christ; were it true, (which I shall hardly be induced to believe, without more pregnant testimony) yet it is not of sufficient force to infringe the lawful use of this ceremony, no not though you could directly prove the Apostles did receive sitting.  
For against this we lift up our second buckler of defence, which (I conceive) will be able to ward off the blow that you would give us, and that is this: In circumstantial things which are indifferent, there is no absolute tye of necessity that we should follow our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, much less the practice of the Primitive Church; if there were any such necessity, why do you not plead as well against the change of time and place, as that of gesture? Seeing you cannot be ignorant, that what the Apostles took in the evening, we take in the morning; what they received in a chamber, we receive in a Church; If the Church had power to alter these, why should it not have as much to do the other? The instances which you produce for standing, (were they to the purpose, as they are not) would confirm as much. For if the Church in those times had power to vary from the order of sitting, and make use of standing in the place of it, why had not the Church afterward as much power to change that standing into kneeling?  
But the truth is, the words of Tertullian, as S. Jerome 
f In Epist ad Ephes.  notes, have no reference to the Sacrament, but to the Resurrection: We stand then, saith the Father, (and it is not at the Lord's Supper, but every Lord's day) because it is Tempus laetitiae, quo nec genua flectuntur, nec curvamur, sed cum Domino ad coelorum alta sustollimur: A time of joy, in which we neither bow nor bend our knees, but are with the Lord lifted up (as it were) to the highest heavens. So S. Augustine, Propter hoc jejunia relaxantur, & orantes stamus, quod est signum resurrectionis: 
g Epist. 119. Cap. 15.  For this we give over fasting, and pray standing, which is a sign of the Resurrection. The Canon of the Nicene council is grounded merely on the same reason, and so is also that which you cite out of S. Basil.  
Howbeit did all these make to your purpose, they would yet but make good what I said before, that the change of things indifferent is in the power of the Church; and if so, why should not that power be obeyed now as well as in former Ages? S. Augustine is firm for it; That is (saith he) to be accounted indifferent, and to be observed, in respect of the society of those among whom we live, Quod neque contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores injungitur 
h 118. Epist. Cap. 2. : which being enjoined, makes neither against faith, nor good manners. This truth the Reformed Churches in the Low-Countries do acknowledge, 
i Thes. Belg. 3. art. 6.  and Beza likewise in his 24. Epist. Indeed if men should be suffered to do what they list in this case, what would become of that which the Apostle requires, 
k 1 Cor. 14. 40.  decency and Order? Surely it would breed in the Church horribilem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, saith Paraeus 
l In Rom. 14. 5 , a horrible confusion; And from this confusion would arise no small seeds of contention, saith Calvin in his Institut. 
m Li. 4. cap. 10 sect. 32.  I have cited these, because I conceive this testimony to be of more validity with you, then that of the Fathers.  
But you go about to make kneeling no matter of indifferency, because it tends (as you say) to Idolatry. What conformation hath kneeling, (say you) unless to conform us to Transubstantiation? Since you do not know, I will tell you; It serves to conform you to Reverence, to Obedience, to Order; and I hope these are not Transubstantiation. Indeed could you prove what you pretend, that kneeling at the Sacrament is Idolatry, (though that would not necessarily bring in standing) you should do something; but the instances you produce for that purpose, are slight and trivial. That which you allege concerning a reason before the rubric in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth is nothing probable; we have but your bare word for it: I may therefore say as S. Jerome doth in another case, Pari facilitate rejicitur qua recipitur 
n Cent. Helvid. : I may as easily reject it, as you obtrude it. The rest I omit, as not worth the answeriug; and the rather, because you knit up afterward the full strength of all in an Argument. Only I cannot pass by that speech of yours, It is an absurdity to kneel to Christ's humanity. It should seem you do not either remember or regard what the Apostle saith, In him dwelleth all the fullness of the God head bodily, 
o Colos. 2. 9  and shall we not worship that wherein dwells the fullness of the Godhead? Doubtless we are to worship the human nature with the Divine, for our blessed Saviour is not divided, 
p 1 Cor. 1. 13.  and we are to adore whole Christ.  
I come now to your Argument, which you frame in this manner:  
To bend the knee to a creature in divine worship, is Idolatry; but to bend the knee at the Sacrament, is to bend the knee to a creature:  
Ergo, To bend the knee at the Sacrament is Idolatry.  
In seeking to prove the major or Proposition, you spend more time, more pain than needs. For as when one would have made, or did make a long Oration in the praise of Hercules, another did put him off with this short answer, What needs all this? Who ever went about to dispraise him? So I may say to you, Who among us did ever bend the knee in divine adoration to a mere creature? Therefore you might have omitted this as granted, and have prosecuted the proof of your minor or assumption, which how weakly & poorly you do, when you come at it, will easily appear upon a due examination of it. In the mean time, you urge some things by the way, at which we may take just exception; as the definition of will-worship, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which you would fasten upon Perkins, but unjustly; for who of sound judgement would say, that Will-worship is a worshipping of God, with the intention of the heart, and goes no farther; how doth this distinguish it from true worship? No, he affirms it to be when God is worshipped with a naked and bare good intention, not warranted by the Word of God. Again, you seek an utter extirpation of all tradition that is human, wherein you deal with too much inhumanity against it: For it may no doubt in some kind be lawful, useful, so long as it doth not oppose God's Word: Nor do any of the learned (as far as I could ever read) deny it in this respect: Even Perkins himself doth in the place where you cite him, affirm as much: Nor is it any pollution of God's worship, no addition or diminution of Scripture, (as you pretend) to make use of an indifferent ceremony. Lastly, your implicit conclusion from the perfect example of our Saviour Christ, (as you say) doth make explicitly against yourself; for standing hath as little relation to sitting, as kneeling hath.  
You proceed now to the Assumption, and seek to make good the proof of it, because (as you affirm, but you do not, indeed you cannot confirm, it) we reverence the actions, and the things in the Sacrament more than we ought. In this you are quite mistaken, and cannot be thought to write well, (though you applaud yourself never so much in this work) because you distinguish no better: 
q qui bene distinguit, bene direct.  for you confound using reverence in the actions, and of the actions, bowing the knee at the Sacrament, and to the Sacrament. Your Argument then is of no force, unless you can prove we worship the actions, or the Bread and Wine, which I am sure you will never be able to do.  
But lest all this should not avail to take away Kneeling, you urge an Argument of Bellarmine's to do that for you, which you cannot do for yourself: It should seem the sword of the scripture failing you, you are glad to borrow a weapon from your adversary, and it is brandished by you in this manner: If kneeling at the Sacrament may be as the Calvinists say, without sin, than it is not Idolatry to kneel before Images. To this I answer, first, that the case is not alike; for the Sacrament, though it be a representation, is not properly an Image. Besides, we may be without Images, we must not be without the Sacrament; The one is peremtorily commanded, the other only in some sense permitted. Again, I answer, that to kneel before Images is not simply in itself unlawful, that is, as the act hath no relation to the image, no more than it is to kneel before a pew, or a pillar; for the command is not, that we should not bow before them, but bow to them. 
r Exod. 20. 5.   
As little available is your following reason, that we ought not to kneel, because the Sacrament is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a giving of thanks, and kneeling no fit gesture for thanksgiving. Certainly you have little ground for this opinion; for if thanksuc: \balbir\cptx\print\print\ing be a part of Prayer, (as who almost save yourself will deny?) what fitter posture can there be for it then kneeling? Your instance of Solomon makes little to the purpose; for first, it is said, He made an end of praying; secondly, that he stood to bless the congregation: 
s 1 Kings 8. 55.  So that it was not only a thanksgiving unto God. And how unseemly it were in our public prayers, when we are upon our knees, as soon as we come to a passage of thanksgiving, to start up suddenly upon our feet, let the Reader judge. Howbeit, if examples in this point may be available, it will be a matter of no great difficulty to produce some, who have kneeled in their giving of thanks. The Apostle tells the Philippians, that he thanks God upon every remembrance of them always, in every prayer that he makes for them. 
t Philip. 3. 4.  Now it is not to be doubted, but in some of those prayers he was upon his knees. The Samaritane Leper when he was cured did express greater reverence; He fell down on his face at the feet of Christ, and gave him thanks. 
u Luke 17. 16.  But what should I speak of these? Do not the Angels and the Saints in heaven express their giving of thanks with all submission and reverence? we know they do, for so we read, 
w Revel. 7. 11. & 11. 16.  And if kneeling be fit to be used in Prayer, it is so also in Thanksgiving, for that is to be joined with Prayer. 
x Colos. 4. 2.  Continue in Prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving, saith the Apostle.  
Besides, who will not confess the gesture of kneeling in this action to be most becoming? For if the Israelites receiving only a message of their corporal deliverance, by the ministry of Moses, bowed their head and worshipped, 
y Exod. 4. 31.  surely we have greater reason when we receive an undoubted pledge of our spiritual deliverance by the death and passion of our blessed Saviour, to humble ourselves to Almighty God, and upon our knees to offer up the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving. We know that men do many times upon their knees receive temporal favours from the hands of mortal Princes: Without doubt than it will become us to receive with all submission and reverence, this spiritual favour from the hands of immortal God, the great King of Kings.  
That Epistle of S. Aug. by you cited for the abolition of indifferent Ceremonies, helps you little, unless you will say he doth (which he doth not) contradict what he had delivered in the Epistle immediately going before: For there he gives this rule to Januarius, Nulla disciplina est in his melior gravi prudentique Christiano, quàm ut eo modo agate, quo agere viderit Ecclesiam, ad quamcunque forte devenerit. 
z Epist. 118. Cap. 2.  In these things no discipline can be better for a grave and wise Christian, then to demean himself in that manner the Church doth, to which it is his hap to come: And he confesses he took this rule from S. Ambrose, Tanquam à coelesti oraculo, as from some heavenly Oracle. Therefore if you would be indeed, as you desire to be accounted, a grave and wise Christian, you must observe that discipline which is enjoined by the Church wherein you live. And indeed in that Epistle you cite, he is so far from disallowing the rule before mentioned, that he doth highly commend it, affirming of it, that it is una & saluberrima regula retinenda, 
a Aug. Epist. 119. Cap. 18.  the only wholesome rule to be observed.  
Your last Argument to take away Kneeling at the Sacrament, is drawn from the avoiding of an inconvenience: It is (say you) an occasion of scandal and offence. I answer, The best actions may be so; but then the offence is in those that take it, not in those that give it. But I would fain know of you, if sitting or standing should be substituted in the place of kneeling, (for you seem to be indifferent for either of these, and I think would not care what the posture were, so it were any other) how these could be used without scandal. For I persuade myself, that as they would give more occasion of offence, so they would give occasion of offence to more than kneeling doth. In this the greater number sure will side with us. To say nothing, that whereas you can pretend only the bond of charity, we have besides this the bond of duty, even the command of Authority, which (as Beza observes) doth impose a kind of necessity. 
b Epist. 24.  Calvin also affirms, that where the doctrine is sound and pure, and the Ceremonies tend to a civil decency and honesty, it is fit rather to submit unto them, then to dissent about them, 
c Epist. 254.  especially if the greater number carry it. Now suppose all the congregations in the kingdom were united into one, and the matter were to go by votes, I presume I may safely affirm, that where you have ten for sitting or standing severally, nay for both jointly, we for kneeling shall have an hundred. This reason therefore of yours is of no validity, seeing scandal would not be lessened, but increased by this means.  
You draw now to a conclusion; and so would I too, for I am even wearied with following you in such a confused course, but that I meet with one thing which will detain me a while. Indeed a good Christian, nay a good Subject, though a Heathen, could not pass by it without offence: Are the names of Kings (Think you) fit things to be played upon, or to be stigmatised by the pens of private persons? if not, what means your new coined word Carolicall? Minutius records of Mercurius Tresmegistus, that even the Heathen, because he was a great Philosopher, would not use his name without great reverence: Is there not as much respect due to Kings, as to Philosophers? Suetonius reports of Augustus Caesar, he wrote to the Senate of Rome, to take order that his name might not absole fieri, be worn thread bare among the common people, by their frequent and trivial using of it; And can our King then take it well at your hands you should abuse his name, and that in so serious and weighty a matter as Religion? Surely when I consider this, I cannot a little wonder at your inconsiderate boldness, nay, irreligious impiety. For if a Subject may not revile his Prince, no not in his thoughts, 
d Eccles. 10. 20.  much less is he to do it in his words, especially in such as proceed not from sudden passion, but from mature deliberation, and being committed to the press, are exposed to a public view. I could never hear that his Majesty is any way tainted in Religion, you may justly be suspected, therefore I shall rether follow that Church, which is (if I may lawfully repeat the term you use) Carolical, then that which is Peytonicall, that is, rather the Doctrine, and the Discipline of the Church of England, than the fancies and factions of some few Sectaries, and schismatics.  
And now I will shut up all with an inversion of your conclusion. Seeing kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, is in itself a Ceremony that is indifferent; seeing it is as judicious Hooker terms it, the gesture of piety; 
e Ecclesiast. polit. lib. 5.  nay, as Beza himself acknowledgeth, doth carry a show of pious reverence; 
f Epist. 12.  seeing it is enjoined by authority, and that of the King, of the Church, of the State; seeing it is practised by the generality; seeing it is refused only by some few out of singnlarity, Qui nisi quod ipsi faciunt nihil rectum existimant, as Saint Aug. speaks, 
g Epist. 118. Cap. 2.  who think nothing to be right but what they do themselves, you ought not to require at my hands an administration of the Sacramen unto you standing, or to be offended with me or any other, who (rebus sic stantibus) shall refuse to satisfy your desire, that he may comply with the authority of the Church.  
Mart. 15. 1642. Imprimatur, Tho: Wykes.  
FINIS.