THE LAWFULNESS OF KNEELING IN THE ACT OF RECEIVING THE LORDS SUPPER.  
Wherein (by the way) also, somewhat of the CROSS in Baptism.  
First Written for satisfaction of a Friend, and now published for Common Benefit.  
Bianca Dr. JOHN BURGES, Pastor of Sutton Coldfield.  
LONDON, Printed by Augustine Matthewes for Robert Milbourne, and are to be sold at his Shop in Paul's Churchyard at the Sign of the Grayhound. 1631.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS LORD COVENTRY, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, etc.  
RIGHT HONOURABLE,  
TO a rejoinder made by me in Answer of a Reply given to Bishop MORTON his Defence of our Church Ceremonies, and now, by his Majesty's Command, published, I have been persuaded to add (by way of Supplement) another little Treatise of like subject, first written in Answer of a Private Letter; because some hope is conceived that it may do some good for the stay of such as are yet but inclining, or satisfaction of others inclined already to a contrary opinion, but not yet fixed in the same. I know the hazards that I shall run, in this Work; expecting various Censures, and some (perhaps) bitter: My comfort shall be the sincerity of my heart before God, for whose Truth I have spoken.  
To your good Lordship whom God and the King have honoured with the highest place of judicature (under His Majesty) in this Land, & who have honoured God, the King, and your Place by matchless Diligence, & spotless Integrity (of which my poor self, among others, have tasted) in the discharge thereof: and unto whom myself, my prayers, and all the service I can do, are obliged, I have presumed to Dedicate this small Piece, in testimony of that thankfulness which mine heart yieldeth as a Tribute due to your Honour.  
Accept, I humbly beseech you, this Mite, pardon my boldness in this Dedication, and be pleased to think that, of the many thousands who truly honour your Lordship, and hearty pray for Your present and eternal happiness, there be not many more seriously Devoted thereto, then is  
Your Lordship's humble Servant JOHN BURGES.   

A Table declaring the Contents of this Treatise, in the several Chapters of it.  

CHAP. I. THe Definition of a Ceremony, pag. 1.  
CHAP. II. The meaning of that phrase, In the worship of God, p. 2.  
CHAP. III. How our Ceremonies may be called Worship of God, and how not, pag. 2.  
CHAP. IU. The same exemplified by Instances in diverse particulars, pag. 4.  
CHAP. V What is meant by matters of mere Order, pag. 8.  
CHAP. VI The scope of the second Commandment, pag. 10.  
CHAP. VII. Of the terms of Service, Worship, Adoration, and Veneration, pag. 12.  
CHAP. VIII. That Adoration and Veneration differ not, but by men's wills, pag. 14.  
CHAP. IX. Of Divine and Civil Adoration, pag. 14.  
CHAP. X. Whether Kneeling be any Divine Adoration by divine Institution, or Application of it to true Divine Worship, pag. 15.  
CHAP. XI. The first Argum. against our Ceremonies, answered, p. 18.  
CHAP. XII. The second Argument, answered, pag. 23.  
CHAP. XIII. The third Argument answered, pag. 25.  
CHAP. XIV. An Objection used to strengthen the former Argument, answered pag. 29.  
CHAP. XV. The first part of the fourth Argument, answered, p. 36.  
CHAP. XVI. The second part of the Fourth Argum. answered, pag. 42.  
CHAP. XVII. The Defence of the Answers given to the fourth Argument, pag. 43.  
CHAP. XVIII. Six Questions about Kneeling, answered. pag. 55.  
CHAP XIX. The Objection from Christ's example, answered, p. 63.  
CHAP. XX. The Objection from Table-gesture, answered. p. 64.  
CHAP. XXI. The Objection from Idolatrous Introduction, answered, pag. 64.  
CHAP. XXII. That in the most ancient times, before the Corruption of the Doctrine of the Sacrament began, the Sacrament was received with adoring gesture, pag. 76.  
CHAP. XXIII. The same shown to be the practice of the Church in the time of Theodoret. S. Augustine, and Cyril, pag. 84  
CHAP. XXIV. A Vindication of Dr. Morton, now Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, quarrelled by a nameless Replyer, falsely charging Dr. Morton with abusing of Cyril, Augustine, and chrysostom in this point, pag. 91.  
CHAP. XXV. More Instances showing the Antiquity of this gesture of Adoring, or Kneeling, pag. 98.  
CHAP. XXVI. Instances of the practice of the Church about the eight hundred years after Christ, pag. 99  
CHAP. XXVII. The former Instances were of times preceding those wherein the Doctrine of the Real presence was hatched, p. 100  
CHAP. XXVIII. The second Observation in the practice of the Ancient Churches, pag. 106.  
CHAP. XXIX. The third Observation in the practice ●f the Ancient Churches, pag. 107.  
CHAP. XXX. The fourth Observation touching the same. pag. 109.  
CHAP. XXXI. The fifth Observation, pag. 109.  
CHAP. XXXII. The last Observation, together with Answers to the objections made against Kneeling, pag. 110.  
CHAP. XXXIII. The Conclusion of the whole. pag. 118.    

Faults escaped in the Printing, to be thus corrected.  
PAge 4. line 4. & 5. read, and this belongs to lin. 14 r. and in respect. p. 8.28. for and not, r is not. 11 17. for in general, r in particular. 13.8 r. ldpan. 20. vlt. r. to reverence. 22.25 for in all, r. in old times. p. 25. l. 28. r. or so reputed. 31.12. r. Dialacticon, and so elsewhere. 38.17. deal or that. l. 18. for ita, r. illa. 45.36. for our, r. one. 37. r. ceremony. p. 52. 36. r. sacramentals. 54.36. r. of which. 68.18. for if meaning, r if meant. 70.30. deal it. 72.7. r. Guitmund, and Bereng arius. l. 14. r. whole Christ. 75.14. r. who lived in the year 800.79.17. orare to pray. 18. r. adorare to adore.  
In Marg. pag. 37. r. Chamier to. 3. lib. 19 cap 1. ● 10. where not the words, but the m●●ter is more fully. p. 91. l 12. read 21.  
Where D. Ames is quoted with reference to the number of Disputations, not of Chapters, the Author followed the first Impression of his Disputations, and not those latter Editions distinguished by Chapters.   

The Lawfulness of Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lords Supper, first written for the satisfaction of a Friend, and now published for common Benefit.  

CAP. 1. The definition of a Ceremony.  
SIR,  
BEfore I meddle with any your objections, or questions concerning our Church- Ceremonies, I hold it needful to set down certain Heads, to which I may refer in answering, beginning with the Definition of a Ceremony.  
A Ceremony is an outward action purposely done in reference to some other thing, of the substance whereof it is no cause or part.  
1. Thus the recital of the Creed at Baptism, is a Ceremony serving to show, unto what Faith every one is bound by the stipulation of Baptism; whereas the recital of it as a profession of our Faith to the honouring of God, is not a Ceremony, but an act of relig●ous worship and service to God in itself, for the substance of it.  
2. The term of Circumstance is not so fit for our use, as that of Ceremony. 1. Because it is more large; for though every Ceremony be a Circumstance of that matter to which it serveth as a Ceremony: yet is not every circumstance a Ceremony; for, some Circumstances are intrinsical, and essential to actions, and specially making up their nature. 2. Any casual thing may be a Circumstance, but to a Ceremony it is essential, that it be purposely done.  
Ceremonies which we may call Religious, in distinction from merely Civil, are Divine, or Ecclesiastical which we will call Humane.  
The Sacraments, as touching the use of the outward Elements, in such manner as is prescribed, are Ceremonies, in relation to the things internal: yet are they of the substance of the Sacrament, quoad externum, in respect of the external part thereof; & because of the divine Institution, the observance thereof is religious worship of God de se, of itself. The like be said of the Ceremonies of the Law of Moses, during the Obligation of the Law. Our disquisition is not of such, but only of such as in suo individuo, in the very particular individual, are of humane institution, or (which is to us all one) application.   

CAP. 2. The meaning of that phrase, [In the worship of God]  
NExt, we must state the meaning of this phrase [in the worship of God] For it may signify that which is done to God for a piece of worship to him in and of itself, as is the blessing, breaking and delivery, of the Bread in the Lord's Supper. Thus nothing can lawfully be used or done in the worship of God, more than he hath prescribed. Otherwise, a thing is done in the worship of God, which is not done as a part of the essential worship, but only as an arbitrary adjunct. Thus we use our Ceremonies.   

CAP. 3. How our Ceremonies may be called Worship of God, and how not.  
We must also understand one another, when we affirm or deny our Church-Ceremonies to be worship of God, lest we have, as S. Aug. speaks, litem interminatum, an endless controversy, and seem to assent or descent, when we do not.  
Any act internal or external, done with intention to honour God thereby, is Cultus, worship of God. This done to that which is not God, as if it were God, is Idolatry against the first Commandment.  
When the honour is intended to the true object of religious worship, God, it is either mediately done to honour him, as in the duties of the second Table, done in obedience to God; or more immediately, as in the duties of the first Table, done to God for his honour.  
The immediate worship of God is either Internal and principal, or external and secondary.  
The internal consisteth in those actings of the soul, which as it were naturally arise out of the true knowledge of God, and may be reduced to Dependence on him, or Homage to him.  
The external worship of God, is some outward action done in relation to the internal worship of God, which giveth subsistence to it; and so, to the honouring of God.  
This external worship of God is either false, when it is framed merely of the will of man, which is the thing forbidden in the second Commandment. Or, wholly according to the will of God, and then is true worship external.  
The true external worship of God is so, and so called Ratione medij, or modi, in respect either of the means, or manner of worship.  
In respect of the Means, all true worship of God is grounded either on God's special cammaund, to have such a thing done to him; and this is properly worship ex se, in and of itself: Or upon God's allowance only, as touching the particular; and this is worship of God ratione medij, as it is a means of performing it: but not ex se, in and of itself, but per aliud, by virtue of some thing else. Of this sort are the bodily gestures, whereby as by outward signs we profess to give honour to God, whereof no particulars are determined in the Word.  
In respect of the Manner, the external worship of God consisteth in the reverend usage of his prescribed worship, and is contained in those rules of the Apostle, 
1. Cor. 14.26, 40.  Let all things be done to edification, according to order and decency. And to this belongs the third Commandment; which forbidding all irreverent use of God's Name in his Titles or Ordinances, commandeth the contrary in general.  
Now because God hath not particularly prescribed those external Rites which belong to the manner of his outward service, therefore the same are not properly, and in themselves religious worship. 
D. Ames Me●●●ll. part. 2. s●●p. 1●. thes. 23.  And yet because the Genus; or general nature of them, Order and Decency; and immediate end, the edification of men is commanded, therefore reductively, and in their general nature, in respect of their utmost end, which is the honouring of God, they must be vouchsafed, in that sense and notion, the title of Divine worship. And in this sense we affirm our Ceremonies to be worship of God, otherwise deny them to be worship.  
Only I would have it considered, that the same humane Ceremony which hath rationem modi, respect unto the manner, may have also rationem medij, the respect of a mean in worship; but not medij per se, of a mean of and by itself, as namely, kneeling in prayer. That this distinction may appear not to be devised for a shift, I will (in a Chapter by itself) confirm it by Witnesses, and otherwise.   

CAP. 4. The same exemplified by Instances in diverse other particulars.  
THis the Scripture confirmeth, when it saith, that Hannah served God night and day, 
Luke 2 37.  in fasting and prayer. It is plain therefore, that her so frequent fasting was a service of God, and not only her Prayers. And yet not a service as her Prayers, in and of itself, it not being so commanded of God, 
T. C. Answ to the Rhemists.  but as a thing in general commanded, and in that particular manner allowed only, because it did, as Mr. Cartwright saith, give a speedier wing unto Prayer: and it was an act of religious worship, yea and a means of it, not in and of itself, but per aliud, by another thing, or propter aliud, for another thing: yet it was worship in some sense, or else Saint Luke was deceived.  
The second Commandment (saith M. Cartwright) condemning all will-worship, 
Cartwright. p 96. with 98. and p. 100.101  requireth that we worship God as himself hath commanded or allowed in his Word: which are also the words of Bullinger. The same M. Cartwright divideth the Worship of God into Substantial and Circumstantial. The Circumstantial he placeth in bodily gestures, accommodated to the several acts of instituted worship: Good, then (in his judgement) there is a worship which is commanded in particular, which is Substantial: and there is a worship which is only allowed in the particular, (though commanded in genere suo, in his kind) which is but Circumstantial; and what is this, but a worship which ●s so properly, in and of itself, and a worship which is not so simply in and of itself, which to the other is an adjunct, not a part of it.  
Thus Chamier, To. 3. lib. 20. cap. 5. saith of Vows arbitrary, that they are Culius Dei, non per se, sed per accident, & propter aliud, Worship of God, not of themselves, but by accident, and for some other thing.  
Thus junius in Bellar. Cont. 7. cap. 10. an. 13. saith, Partem esse cultus Dei ambiguè dicitur. Si proprie interpreteris falsum est enunciatum, That it is a part of divine worship, is ambiguously said: If you mean properly, the assertion is false. (viz. which said that the observation of the Anniversary feasts of the Nativity and Easter, etc. was pars cultus divini, part of divine worship:) for (saith junius) Accidens contingens non est rei pars, sed adiunctum dicendum: A contingent accident is not to be termed a part of a thing, but an adjunct: si figuratè, nulla est consequentia, if it be spoken figuratively, there is no consequence in it, viz. to prove that the Church might make Laws binding the conscience of and by themselves, as God's Laws do, which constitute proper necessary worship.  
Thus Polanus, 
Syntag. p. 528.  who (in Syntagmate) defineth the true worship of God to be the performance of what he hath commanded in obedience to him to his honour: yet in his Partitions printed at London, 
See also Pag. 131, 132, 133, 134.  1591. pag. 128. he saith, that An Ecclesiastical Rite or Ceremony is outward Worship of God, Quo Deus externe colitur, whereby he is outwardly worshipped, not forgetting or crossing himself; but taking the name of Worship in the one properly considered, and improperly or reductively in the other; in which sense he in the other places calleth the Institution and Observance of Holy days, worship.  

Theol. printed at Lond. 1613. pag. 383.  Mr. Fenner maketh bowing of the knee or head, modulation of the voice, lifting up of the hands or eyes, to be parts of the external worship of God: which Mr. Cartwright (in his Catechism on the second Commandment) calleth Circumstantial worship, in distinction to that which he calleth Substantial.  
Tilenus' in Syntag. printed at Sedan, 1613. pag. 383. saith, that a vow of a thing commanded, is cultus Dei per se, worship of God in and of itself; but of a thing not commanded, is cultus Dei per accidens, worship of God by accident only.  
Bucan. Instit. pag. 566. saith, That Ecclesiastical Rites may not be deemed or taken to be worship of God per se, & ex opere operato, of themselves, and as a work done.  
Melancthon in Corpore Theol. printed 1571. pag. 719. having showed that no man may institute any worship of God, addeth, i. e. Works that God so alloweth, that he holdeth himself to be honoured in them, ex se, of themselves. And pag. 52. Opera, works whose immediate end is, that God may be honoured [per illa] by them.  
This difference of worship which is simply necessary, ratione praecepti, & medij ex se, in respect of precept, and as a mean of itself, and of worship, ratione medij, as a mean, non precepti, sed probati, not commanded, but allowed, must be acknowledged in sundry acts of holy men reported in Scriptures, as also that difference of medium, & modus cultus, of a means, and manner of worship. For in the  offerings, when a man was left at liberty to offer a bullock, goat, or sheep at his pleasure; if he chose a bullock to offer, that sacrifice in that particular, was not commanded, but only allowed. Indeed the Manner, because it was prescribed, was Cultus sub praecepto necessarius, worship by precept made necessary. 
1 Ki●● 〈…〉 2 Chro. 6. & ●.  Salomons peace offerings of 22000 bullocks, and 120000 sheep, at the Dedication of the Temple, and burning some of the Sacrifices on the Brazen Altar, and some on the floor of the Court, and his Prayer, kneeling on a scaffold, with his hands stretched out to heaven, were all worship of God; but not all of the same Consideration: For sacrifice to God was then necessary ex precepts, by virtue of a commandment; the number of bullocks and sheep, was worship ex fine, in respect of the end, & of allowance only: his prayer was worship ex se, of itself; the Ceremonies of it, worship reductive ad modum in genere suo, having respect to the manner in the general kind thereof: the burning on the Altar was necessary in se, in itself; that in the Court only lawful, before the brazen Altar was consecrated (which was but then in fieri, in the making) and upon the present necessity.  
That Princes should hold God's people to him, was of command, and necessary, but that joshua should endeavour it by the Monitory stone set up at 
a Iosh. 24 2●.  Shechem, (
b 2 Chron. 15.14.  Asa by an oath, 
c Nehe. 9 v. 10.1.  Nehemiah by subscription) was only of allowance, not of precept, and worship to God, not per se, of itself, but propter aliud, in reference to some other thing, and ex fine ultimo, with respect to the utmost end.  
The like is to be said of salomon's 14 days of Solemnity used to the honouring of God, at the Dedication of the Temple 
d 1 Kin. 8.65. : hezekiah's and his Prince's designment of 7 days more 
e 2 Chron. 30.23. : Mordecaies Purim days 
f Hester 9 , and a number such like, in which there was certainly some worship of God intended, but not simply and in the things themselves, as in the observation of the Sabbath day, but reductively and propter aliud, in reference to some other thing, which was the soul of this worship.  
This will show in what sense we may call our Ceremonies worship of God, and in what meaning we deny them to be worship.  
And this will show the difference betwixt us and the Papists, 
Bell To. 4. col 14. ●5.  for they profess all these Ceremonies to be a part of the Divine worship, yea necessary and meritorious, such as even extra casum scandali & contemptus, without the case of scandal and contempt, saith Bellar cannot be omitted without sin, which is indeed to pronounce them divine worship in themselves: 
Com. in Col. 2.23.  whereas we say with Zanchie, That whatsoever is added to the worship of God delivered in his word, added (I say) by men as part of divine worship, is will worship; that is, as he there also saith of Traditions of men, wherewith the consciences of men are bound, and which are joined with an opinion of divine worship and merit.   

CAP. 5. What is meant by Matters of mere Order.  
THe next consideration may be of these words, Matters of mere order. For Order is sometimes taken strictly in opposition to Confusion; and as so, is a distinct thing from decency. Thus it is used, 2 Cor. 14.40. in which sense Order is but the timing, & placing of each thing afore or after other.  

De Polit. Ecclesiast. pag. 1.  But Order is sometimes so largely taken, as to comprehend the disposition and manner of handling any ordinance of God, and is as large (saith M. Parker) as Policy, and taken Pro disciplina tota, for the whole discipline, so Col. 2.5. And so Paul useth the verb, 1. Cor. 11. vlt. Other things will I order when I come.  
Yet we take it not so very largely Pro disciplina tota, for the whole discipline in respect of the essentials thereof, prescribed of God to remain in perpetuity, and not under the Church's dispose.  
Whatsoever therefore in the worship of God, or government of the Church, is not Essential or Divine, but may be varied and disposed of, according to the general rules of the Word; that we call Matter of mere Order in Contradistinction to matter of Simple Necessity, whereto the Conscience is bound; because in these things, nothing but Obedience is left to the Church; but, a power of Disposing (which is to Order) is left to her in those things, to do (according to the general rules of the Word) therein, whatsoever, saith Master Calvin, The necessity of the Church shall require. That is, for Peace, Safety, Profit, Edification, and Advantage in spiritual things.  
Order in the strict sense, admits (as the Replier to Bp. Morton faith) no New thing, but only the disposing of things ordained in time and place. But Order, in the large sense, admitteth all such things unprescribed as belong to the Church's service, and furtherance in the service of God, and as Melancthon saith, ad ornandum ordinem, to adorn order.  
In this larger sense it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good or comely order, 
jun. anim ad. in Bellar. de cultu sancte●● lib. 3. cap. 10. annotat. 13. Repl. 1. part. pag. 44.  and thus junius taketh it, when, to Bellarmine objecting the Feast of Purim appointed by Mordecai, to prove thereby that the Church may make Laws proprij nominis, properly so called, which in themselves do bind the conscience: junius answereth, Praeceptum fuit politicum, (that is, as the Replier translateth it, It was a Precept of order:) junius adds, 
* 
Ibid. annot. 34.  
De Rom. Pont. pag. 841. etc.   Non sequitur ex dispari, But that which Bellarmine would thence infer, being of a different nature, follows not. Neque enim negamus suam Ecclesiae politiamesse, sed imperium per se obligans conscientiam. Nor do we deny the Church her policy; but only her imperial authority, that of itself binds the conscience.  
Thus Doctor Whitaker taketh it when he saith, that All which the Church may determine off, belongeth ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to good order, and by this he putteth off afterwards Bellar. objections, as junius doth.  
Thus the August. confession. Artic. 7. de Abusibus. Docemus pastores Ecclesiarum posse in Ecclesiis suis publico● ritus instituere, sed tantum ad finem corporalem, h. e. boni ordinis causa, viz. ritus utiles ad docendum multitudinem, ut certas dies, certas lectiones, & siqua sunt similia; Sed sine superstitione, & sine opinione necessitatis, ut has ordinationes violare, extra casum scandali, non ducatur esse peccatum, etc. We teach that Pastors of Churches may institute public rites in their Churches, but only to a corporal end, that is, for good orders sake: viz. rites profitable to teach the people, as namely certain days (to be observed) certain lessons (to be read) and such like: but without superstition, and without opinion of necessity; and that it should not be accounted sin to violate these ordinances, unless in the case of scandal which might follow thereupon.  

Instit. 4. cap. 10. sect. 28.  For as Master Calvin saith, when a Law is once known to be made publicae honestatis causa, iam sublata est omnis Superstitio, for public comeliness sake, all Superstition is taken away from it: and when it is known, Ad communem usum spectare, eversa est falsa illa obligationis & necessitatis opinio, etc. To look at common use or benefit, that false opinion of obligation and necessity, is overthrown and removed.  
Whatsoever therefore is ordained in the Church, as an Arbitrary and movable Rite or Ceremony, in the use whereof no Immediate or proper worship of God is placed, but the thing in itself still reckoned to be indifferent; that is a matter of mere Order, sensu largo, in the large acception of Order.   

CAP. 6. The scope of the second Commandment.  
TO these I will add something about the scope of the second Commandment.  
The scope of the second Commandment is, by forbidding all will-worship, under the usual and grossest kind of it, to enjoin and tie us to such means and ways of worshipping God, as himself hath commanded or allowed, as Master Cartwright saith.  
Whatsoever therefore is forbidden in this Commandment, is either Directly forbidden, or only by Consequence.  
1. Things Directly forbidden, I call such as are Prohibited either Expressly, or Analogically, as it were in recta lineâ, in a direct line.  
1. In Express terms, two things. 1. The making of any Image or similitude (not simply, but) to be a representation of a Godhead to us in the Essence, Properties, Special presence, or Dispensation of grace thereby. Of which the reason is, that all such fancied representations, speak nothing but lies of the Godhead. 2. The tendering of any service or honour to God, so much as outwardly, at, in and by such an Image made by the only will of man: all which service though by man intended to God, yea though to the true God, yet falleth short of him, and resteth in the Image, as if it were only done to it; therefore is it said, Thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them.  
2. Analogically, are forbidden: First, all false Imagination, and conceits of the Godhead, in respect of his Being, Presence, Dispensation of grace, or will. For all these do falsify the true God to us, as doth an Image or outward shape, made for representation of him, at man's pleasure. And secondly, the Substitution or use of any ways and means of serving God, merely after the will of man, i. e. which God hath not either commanded in particular, or at least allowed in General.  
2. By Consequent, all such things, as do provoke necessarily, unto the breach of this Precept, are here forbidden.  
On the contrary we are enjoined to receive such (as I may say) Images or representations, as God himself shall institute for declaration of his presence, Glory, Grace, or Will. For as Doctor Ames 
* Medul. lib. 2. cap. 13. Thes. 11  well saith, tibi, in [non facies tibi] is not redundant as sometimes it is, but Emphatical to show that God restraineth men from doing that which he reserveth to himself alone in that matter. And secondly he requireth all due respect and reverend Adoration, to be performed to himself, by such ways and means as himself hath either Commanded in particular, or in particular allowed, by commanding the General kind, to which that particular belongeth. And by Consequence he requireth such means to be used as may further us in this true worship of him.   

CAP. 7. Of the Terms of Service, Worship, Adoration and Veneration.  
1. WE sometimes use these terms promiscuously and indifferently, yet is there a difference betwixt some and others of them. For Service is more large than Adoration or Veneration, which is Worship in our language. All Adoration is Service, but all Service of God is not Adoration, or Veneration.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  2. The jews had no word which directy answereth to Adoration, but use the Terms which signify some bowing, whether of the knee, head, back; or prostration of the whole body, grovelling on the belly, and face to the ground. Hence in the Commandment; Thou shalt not bow down, which is to say, thou shalt not worship nor adore them, nor Serve them, nec coals.  
Adoration therefore, and Veneration or Worship, strictly and properly understood, signify such Gestures and comportment of the body, as serve for a sign and expression of Internal esteem and respect of that, to which these expressions refer. And yet are the words applied and translated sometimes to Angels or other Creatures which can make no bodily expressions; And sometimes to the inward reverence of the Heart, because the same is usually amongst men, expressed by some bodily signs.  
4. The outward Adoration consisteth in bodily signs, but the Service of God stands not in them simply. Hence our Divines rightly deny any humane Ceremonies to be parts cultus scil. in see, parts of worship to wit in themselves, but only adjuncts to essential or proper worship, i. e. Service of God; who yet grant them to be parts of the external Adoration: which external Adoration is not Cultus in suo Individuo, worship in the particular individual, because not prescribed; but only in suo genere, in the general kind of it, and as it leaneth unto some other service of God, to which it serveth as matter of Decency, or Order, which God hath in General required.  
5. The outward Expressions of Adorations never were devised or instituted of God, but taken from the customary usage of men, which generally did use some or other as bending and bowing in sign of respect, reverence or honour one towards another. And yet all the world never agreed in one fashion of showing respect. But have pleased themselves in several ways. 
See heylin's History of the World. Edit. 4 pag 686.734.729.805.   
The men of Impale salute one another by putting off their shoes; as they of China by putting off their hats one to another, as we do.  
In Ethiopia the Subjects sit in the presence of their King in sign of Subjection, because Standing before him is there a token of greatest dignity.  
The Negroes give sign of reverence to their King by sitting on their buttocks with their Elbow on their knees, and hands on their faces, as not worthy to look on him.  
They of the Hands called Bucalaos show their highest reverence to their King by rubbing their noses, and foreheads in his presence; perhaps to signify their itching after his favour.  
Kissing of the King, was with the jews a sign of Homage, and subjection with love. Hence, they kissed Saul. 
1 Sam. 10.1.  Hence that phrase, 
* Psal. 2.11  Kiss the Son: and from that received formality, came in Adoration of their representative gods, by kissing them: As, Kiss the Calves, in Hosea; 
Hosh. 13.2.  and thus in job, If my heart have kissed my hand in secret, for, 
job 31.27.  if I have so much as in my mind intended to worship the Moon. And from this, kissing of the Emperor or his garments, and so of the Idols in reference to their Deities, came the Latin word Adoratio, and not from bowing or kneeling, as some have observed.  
The jews adored in prayer, with their heads and faces covered, in sign of awful reverence; we, by being uncovered.  
Some Nations worshipped sitting on beds before their Idols, as 
* Lib. de Oratione.  Tertull. showeth. And by the same reason by which Altar Damascenum saith, that sitting cross-legged, as the Turks do at their meals, should be amongst them (if they were converted) a comely fashion of receiving the Lords Supper; by the same, any of the former fashions in the Nations abovesaid, should be comely expressions of giving honour to God, because by use and construction amongst them, they are understood for signs of giving honour.   

CAP. 8. That Adoration and Veneration differ not, but by men's wills.  
ADoration and Veneration have no formal difference betwixt themselves, either from the nature of the words, or common usage of them; much less by any Scripture-limitation. Only, because there is a difference of the supreme honour due alone and above all to God, and that which in an inferior degree, is allowed to God's excellent Ordinances or Creatures, some men do suppose such a difference in these words: which yet is really no more in the words themselves, than the twelve Signs in the Zodiac. Nor is this distinction any better than that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which men suppose a distinction of the Divine and supreme worship proper to God, and that inferior regard which may be showed to the Creatures. In which the difference is just, as in casting Counters, wherein one is but one penny, another stands for one shilling, a third for one pound, without any difference made in the Counters themselves.   

CAP. 9 Of Divine and Civil Adoration.  
AS Adoration, and Veneration differ not in the words, but only by the intendments of men in using them; So Adoration of God is not differenced by any outward expressions, which men use in token of honour from Civil Adoration; but either by the intention of the mind, or by the ordinance of man. Hence it is, that we find all the same words which import bowing of the knee, head, trunk, or prostration on the face, familiarly given to such reverence, as was thereby signified, as well in civil respects unto men, as religiously unto God in his worship. And it is well observed by Buxtorfius, that the jews knew, or had no outward gesture which was appropriated to divine Adoration, save only prostration with their feet and hands spread and splayed out, as in a swimming frog, which might not be used any where, no not in God's worship, save only in the Sanctuary. And this was made a distinctive sign of supreme Adoration or Veneration, only by the appointment and intendment of it. They are therefore much deceived, that think Kneeling to be any more a sign of Divine adoration, than other expressions of Veneration, as sitting bareheaded, though with us it is a sign of greater respect than the other. But there are in Divine, as well as Civil veneration, diverse degrees of intention, which vary not the kind one from another.   

CAP. 10. Whether Kneeling be any Divine Adoration by divine Institution, or Application of it to true Divine Worship.  
1. THe last thing to be considered, is, 
Pag. 88 and 783. & 809.  that God hath not fixed the gesture of Kneeling to any one act or other of his own external worship or service, as Altar Damascenum rightly observeth; no not to Prayer. For as for those words, Psal. 95.5. O come let us worship, i. e. prostrate and bow down ourselves, and kneel before the Lord our Maker, it is not a Precept, as that Author of Alt. Damasc. saith, but an Exhortation: and doth (say I) no more prove that God required it necessarily in any act of his solemn worship, than those words, [Praise him in the dances] and [O clap your hand,] or [Shout out for joy,] do prove, that God required them to dance in his solemn praises, to clap hands or shout. Only it is true, that such Exhortations show, that these were allowed of God, as they were used of godly men in his solemn Service, as expressions of joy in honouring of God.  
2. And if that Scripture did intent an Injunction preceptive for Kneeling, yet no more than for bowing or falling flat, which we translate Worship. And if all these had been instituted gestures of religious worship in the Temple, by virtue of that Exhortation, yet should not this of Kneeling be assigned to any act of religious service more than other, seeing all those three are put together conjunctively; Let us Worship, Bow down, and Kneel, etc. which will manifestly prove, that they were all three indifferently used, and to be used in any duties of worship, when they came before God, and meant to express their holy reverence of their God.  
3. Whence also it was, that (as August. observeth) the holy servants of God, publicly or privately, even in prayer itself, sometimes stood, as did the Publican and pharisees, who are blamed, not for standing in Prayer, but for praying to be seen of men; Some sat reverently before the Lord, as David, 2. Sam. 7. though commonly they used to kneel, or bow themselves down. As also that they used all three sorts of bowing, or external Adoration, both occasionally upon any extraordinary message, or other signal of God's presence or favour; or ordinarily in the several acts of his worship, as well as kneeling in any of them, with free conscience, because God in his wisdom had spared to enjoin any one or other set fashion of external gesture as fixed to the freehold; God providing that he which could not perform the gesture, might yet perform the service, yea and Adoration to him by such expressions as he could well use; as David Adored in his bed, 1. King. 1.47. And that the consciences of men might not be snared by such a necessity; nor occasion given to superstition in matters of that Quality.  
4. Neither are they well advised which will needs have Kneeling a gesture of religious Adoration, because it is as they say, a sign of the greatest reverence or humbling of ourselves; For if bowing the head and back, be not greater, yet surely prostration flat on the ground was: For as Saint Augustine saith, He that toucheth the earth with his knees may go lower, but so cannot he, who toucheth it with his belly and face. And yet even that gesture of prostration was used in giving civil honour and respect to men, and not only in Adoration to God, as hath been said.  
5. Wherefore, as Calvin saith of Kneeling in prayer itself, 
Inst. 4.10.29.  that though God have not prescribed it in particular, yet in as much as it is a part of that Decorum which God requireth in his worship, It is so humane that we may also call it divine: even so say we of any gesture which is known to be a sign of reverence and respect.  
And valesse we shall grant this, we will be driven to say, that they did not Adore the Idol that kissed the Calves, as did they that bowed the knee to Baal, nor they that lifted up their eyes or hands to the Idols of the Mountains, as well as the man that bowed and humbled himself. Nor may we any more say (as others have, truly done) that Honorius the third was the first man that decreed Adoration to the Sacrament itself, because he only decreed that men should reverently bow themselves to the Sacrament (not in receiving it, but) when it (after the Consecration) was elevated by the Priest, or carried in the streets. For this bowing (belike) was no gesture of Adoration, being usually done in Civil reverence to men. Only kneeling is Adoration.  
Yea, and hence will follow, that neither Pope, 
Ordo Bon.  nor Mass-priest adoreth either Christ or the Sacrament in the act of receiving, seeing the Pope, for state, receives it sitting, & the Mass-priest, by the Canon of the Mass, reverenter stans ad Altar, reverently standing: Nay, that they which refuse to receive this Sacrament Kneeling, and will either stand, or sit bare headed reverently, yet they Adore not Christ himself or God in partaking the Sacrament, because they use not that which is the proper gesture of Divine Adoration, as they say, Kneeling.  
6. That Christ the son of the living God is to be Adored both Internally and Externally, out of the Sacrament, and in the Sacrament, though not as contained in the Elements, or existent, quoad corpus, bodily in the place where was the substance of Bread and Wine, as they speak, he is not a Christian that doubteth, as Chamier well saith. But An maior cultus propter Ritum? Is the worship of him the greater for the outward Ceremonies? he meaneth by the Question, that without question it is not. But it must be greater, if this gesture were only a gesture of Adoration and none other which are not altogether equal with it for signification of highest reverence. I add, that by this Divinity a man may be bareheaded or put off his hat, or make courtesy, or bend his body to the very Sacrament itself. without any reference of these signs of reverence to God or Christ, and yet commit no idolatry, because he doth not give to them any Divine respect, or Adoration, in as much as he doth not Kneel; which were a strange Paradox to be taught.  
7. Finally, I would have men consider, to what extremity (not so much ignorance, as) the desire of victory hath carried these men, who taking Kneeling to be an instituted Ordinance of God, annexed to some duties of his external worship; do complain of our translating of Gods own ordinances out of their proper place, by applying the use of Kneeling to the receipt of the Sacrament, 
Course of Conformity wrirten by a Scottish-man unnamed.  comparing this to that Impiety of jeroboam, who translated the worship of God from Jerusalem to Dan and bethel, and altered the day and month of God's holy Feast, to another month and day devised of his own heart; As if they had, or could make it plain, that God had nailed kneeling to prayer, or to some other of his services, as we are sure that God had confined all Sacrifice-worship, to the place that he had then chosen to place his name there, and utterly disallowed his people to alter the times of any his prefixed solemnities. Now come we to the Arguments.   

CAP. XI. The first Argument against Kneeling answered.  
Arg. 1. NO humane Ceremonies which are more than matters of Mere order, may lawfully be used in the worship of God.  
But some of our Church-ceremonies are more than matters of mere Order. Therefore some of our Ceremonies cannot lawfully be used in the worship of God.  
Answ. What we intent by these words used in the worship of God, hath been set down, in Cap. 2. and also what different notion there is of the word Order, Cap. 5. According to which I answer, That if you understand Order in the strictest sense, the Minor is true, but the Mayor is false; For then, no humane Ceremony which tendeth properly to Decorum, should be lawful; which is contrary to the Text, 1. Cor. 14.40. which requireth all things to be done Becomingly or Decently, not only according to Order. But if Order be taken in the larger sense, as it ought, then is the Mayor true but the Minor false, which saith that any of our Ceremonies (viz. in the Church's Intendment and use of them) are more than matters of mere Order. Let us try that by the Argument brought to prove the Minor.  
Whatsoever ceremonies are instituted and used to stir up men in respect of their signification, unto the remembrance of their Duties to God, are in such use matters of more than mere Order. But such is the intended use of some of our ceremonies (as is plain in that Public declaration of Ceremonies in express words affirming so much:) Therefore some of them may not lawfully be used, etc.  
Answ. I confess the Minor to be true of some our Ceremonies; but deny the Mayor Proposition which supposeth the use of a Rite or Ceremony for Signification, to be more than matter of mere Order, when it is not imposed or observed as operative, or as necessary to be observed as a service of God in itself, or binding the conscience Ex se of itself, but with a free conscience. For this can be esteemed but a matter of mere Order sensu largo, in a large sense: The Mayor therefore is faulty by opposing things Coordinate, if they were opposite. I show it in the like.  
Bellarmine would prove that the Church may make laws to bind the conscience, the observation whereof shall be a proper worship of God. To this end he thus disputeth: The Christian Churches observed the Aniversary feasts of Christ's Nativity and Resurrection etc. not for Order, but as Commemorative Ceremonies for Commemoration man may be helped with two crutches, but hindered with three or four: and more, with more.  
2. Because, in sundry of them, they laboured to express the Mysteries and History of the Gospel, as Brentius objecteth, which was (as I may say) to shut out the clear Sun-light, and set up a little candle: or, at the best, to set up a Candle where the Sun shineth, to give light.  
3. Sundry of them, (as the Church's Declaration of Ceremonies saith) were utterly unprofitable, and others dark and dumb.  
4. Many of them consisted in the use of consecrated Creatures, consecrated (as Bellarmine saith) to signify and effect supernatural effects; which was to put upon them the very nature of Sacraments.  
5. Because they placed (as Calvin saith) ipsissimur● Dei cultum, the very worship of God itself in the use of them. But that they were not refused for the very reason of significancy alone, appeareth both by the practice of all Churches, which retain some or others of that kind, as the Feasts of the Nativity, and Easter: And judgements; for all that ever I saw, 
Perkins. Zanch.  professedly allow some such; as namely, dipping under the water in Baptising, as more significant than sprinkling: and even the use of the Cross, as a mere significant Rite, as at the first usage, yea and Kneeling at the Communion, as a token of godly reverence, which in all times before the Doctrine of the Real presence, Beza himself judgeth to have been of lawful and profitable use. And the Treatise called, Dialecticon Eucharistia, printed at Geneva, and set out with Beza his Works and liking, saith, it might also be now well reserved, when the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church is restored. And this the Dutch and French Churches do professedly allow, never thinking it either unlawful, or inconvenient because of the signification, or more than a matter of Order; for they profess to leave all Churches, (as, say they, is fit) to their own liberties therein. All the exception which any of them taketh, is from respect of some inconveniences which they supposed it to be subject unto; which are not such but that Master Cartwright himself resolveth, 
Com. in Luke 22.14.  that a man must not refuse to receive the Sacrament kneeling, when he cannot have it otherwise. I conclude therefore, that this exception against our Ceremonies, that they are Significant, is the child of that unhappy civil war, with which the Churches of England and Scotland, have been, and are vexed.   

CAP. 12. The second Argument answered.  
FRom the scope of the second Commandment, and the public Declaration of the Church, touching our Ceremonies aforesaid, this Argument may be framed:  
Arg. 2. All Ceremonies devised by Man, or added to those which God hath prescribed, which are enjoined or used as means of minding us of God, or helping us in any part of his worship, or carrying us unto him therein, are against the scope of the second Commandment.  
But the Cross and other our Ceremonies are devised by men, or added and applied by men, to those Acts of worship which God hath prescribed, as means to carry our thoughts unto God, and the duties which we tender to him, as the Declaration aforesaid showeth.  
Therefore these our Ceremonies as we intent and use them, are against the scope of the second Commandment.  
Answ. Before Answer to this Argument, some Phrases must be explained.  
1. Added to those which God hath prescribed, is a doubtful speech. For it may signify, addition of them as acts of worship even as the other, and made parts of it, and not only adjuncts to it. And in that meaning the Mayor Proposition is true, but the Assumption of our Ceremonies is false.  
2. Again, to be means of carrying us up to God, or minding us of God and our duties, etc. are ambiguous phrases, and may be understood two ways. 1. So as these means are used and understood as efficient and operative means, which work by some virtue supposed to be in them, as the Papists fancy of their hallowed trinkets; or else, as means only occasional, and obiectum à quo, objectively, which worketh at all nothing upon us, but presents unto the senses an occasion whereby the mind worketh upon itself: as was the case of joshuah his stone, set under an Oak in the Court of the Tabernacle. In the former Notion, the Mayor is true, but the Minor false of our Ceremonies. In the later sense the Minor is most true of our Ceremonies, but the Mayor which saith, that the use of such means for an help to us, is against the scope of the second Commandment, is apparently false.  
For so fare is that commandment from bending against the devising and applying of such helps, as helps to us in the worship of God, that it doth rather require some such. For, 
In his Catechism on the 2. Commandment.  as Mr. Cartwright saith, God in forbidding us to bow down to an Image or similitude set up by man's will, doth on the contrary require, that we bow ourselves in worship of him, and use such gestures as agree to the worship in hand. Of which, seeing God himself hath not given any particular prescription, he hath left the devising or application thereof (under general rules aforesaid) unto men. And that such a thing is lawful and useful, 
Exod. 13.16. Num. 15.38. Deut. 12.12.  God (who utterly forbiddeth any resemblance of himself to be made by man) hath witnessed by his own Institution of Phylacteries and Fringes, as monitory remembrancers unto man.  
Indeed, if God in that second Commandment had simply forbidden all Images and Pictures to be made, as the Turks understand that Law, than it would have followed by Analogy, that men might not devise or use any significant Ceremony at all. But when it is so, that he hath left free unto man the picturing, engraving or expression of any visible creature, or history of things done, even by God himself, so fare as it can be well shadowed out by such workmanship, to teach and to mind us of things profitable, as M. Calvin. Justit. 1.11.12. sheweth, and all our Divines accord; It will be impossible to bring our significant Ceremonies, intended not as an immediate means of worship unto God, but immediately for an help and monitor to our selves, under the lash of that second Commandment.  
For 1. the object is altered. 2. The immediate use (when man's edification, and not the worshipping of God immediately is sought thereby) is clean altered from such use of the forbidden Images, as that Commandment forecloseth.  
All our Divines (I think) are of one mind in this, that Ceremonies ought to be Exercitia pietatis, exercises of piety, which may serve to us as expressions and incitements to duty, as Calvin saith, which may edify unto the worship of God, as Paraeus speaks. Yea, 
Par. Com. in Rom. 14.  even those which simply concern Order and Decency, aught to be to Edification, as Dr. Ames saith, and those of Decorum, such as may show and breed in us a Veneration of God's ordinances. So as significant Ceremonies can not for such an intention of Edifying men, be blamed more than other Rites; unless it be for speaking as it were to the same end, which others do, only more plainly: as touching which I refer to the last Chapter, and what I have foresaid about the second Commandment.   

CAP. XIII. The third Argument answered.  
Argument. 3 Whatsoever worship of God is not commanded, is not accepted of God. But Signing with the Cross and kneeling are worships of God not commanded. Ergo Crossing and kneeling at the Sacrament are worships not accepted.  
Answ. I refer to the fourth Chapter for the Notions of worship, and then Answer thus, that if you understand worship which is properly so & ex se, of and in itself so reputed, the Mayor is true, but the Minor false of these our Ceremonies: if you understand worship Improperly and per aliud, in reference to some other thing, the Minor is true of our Ceremonies, but then the Mayor is untrue.  
For, as necessary and proper worship is commanded, so there is a Circumstantial (as Master Cartwright calls it) or Reductive worship, which is (as touching the particular) only allowed. Now, though God doth more accept of the commanded worship, yet he accepteth also that which he alloweth.  
All prescript forms of prayers to God, if they be found, are (as touching that external form) allowed worship only, but as touching their substance and internal form, they are prescribed; and in that respect, otherwise acceptable then only for the outward form which is not worship in se & propter se, in itself and for itself as the other.  
The use of indifferent things saith Paraeus, doth please God, but non tanquam cultus, scil. in see: but not as worship, to wit, in and of itself.  
But to prove our Ceremonies to be worship (suppose in se & ex se, in and of themselves) at least in our opinion and use of them, you object to this effect.  
Object. 4. Dedication is worship. Ergo, the Cross in our use of it.  
Answ. I deny the Consequence, which if you will prove from the thirtieth Canon, your Argument must be thus form.  
By whatsoever means a thing is dedicated to the service of God or Christ, by that means God is worshipped properly, and that means is made a proper worship of God in se, in itself. But by the sign of the Cross the baptised Infant is dedicated to the service of him, that died for him, at the thirtieth Canon saith. Ergo, By that use of the Cross God is properly worshipped, and the signing with the Cross is made of us, a means of proper worship to God. To this Argument thus framed I further answer, that the Mayor is not found. For as Chamier saith of vows to God, that every vow to God is Formally worship, but not so Materially in the matter voluntarily vowed: So I say, dedication of any thing unto God, is worship Formally, but not always the matter dedicated Ex se, of itself, & much less the outward manner & Solemnity of dedicating.  
I deny not but there may be and is something done in Dedication of a thing to God, which ratione praecepti in se, in respect of Precept and in itself is worship Essential: But there be annexed thereto, other things, which pertain not Essentially to that Dedication, but only to the outward solemnity. And though those Propter aliud, with reference to some other thing may be called worship, yet are they no proper worship, or means of it in themselves.  
In the Dedication of the Temple there were Ingredients of both sorts. The sacrifices, prayers, 
1 Kings 8. and 2 Chron. 6.  and praises of God with joy, were Essential means of the Dedication and worship; but salomon's kneeling on a brazen Scaffold before the Altar, and stretching his hands towards heaven in prayer; the set number of his Peace-offerings the lengthening of the Solemnity unto seven days and 7. days, were means of the Dedication, not ad esse, to the being, but ad ornatum, to the ornament, parts of the solemnity and manner of worship, not worship ex se, but per aliud, in reference only to some thing else, as they served to express and further their holy rejoicing and thankfulness.  
The like may be seen in Nehemiahs' Dedication of the holy City, which was dedicated with praises to God, 
Neh. 12.27, etc.  offerings and prayers Really, but by a Perambulation about the walls and other solemnities there mentioned, Complementally and in Ceremony. The former realities were Essential means of the Dedication, the other only Accessary Ceremonies adjoined to the real things, and no means of worship in themselves, but per aliud, by way of reference and reduction.  
The jews did Dedicate their own houses with prayers, hymns, feastings and other Solemnities, saith Mr. Ainesworth, on Deut. 20.5.  
If it seem hard, That the Dedication is by the Canon referred to that use of the Cross. I answer, that the Canon doth not refer the Dedication to the Cross simply, as though that were the sole or principal means; but only, to that as a Ceremony. For thus go the words. Esteeming it a lawful Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated, etc. And if I should say that Nehemiah dedicated the walls and City of jerusalem, by going about the walls thereof in two divided companies, you could not gainsay me, nor would mistake the matter. For it is usual to ascribe a thing done not alone the principal Agent, but to any Instrument, yea sometimes to occasions which work not, or to adjuncts as Mr. Cartwright well observeth in his Answer to the Remists upon those words of 2. Cor. 4.17. where it is said that our light affliction worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; [Worketh] yea and it is an usual kind of speech to say, a thing is done by such a means as worketh not at all to the doing, but only declareth what is done, or to be done. Thus 
a Gen. 41.13.  joseph is said to have hanged Pharaohs Butler; The Priest to have made 
b Levit. 13.  clean the Leper, the 
c vers. 19  Sacrifices to make Atonement, the Ministers of the Gospel to 
d john 20 23.  remit sins, jeremy 
e jere. 1.10.  to plant and pluck up kingdoms, and to make them drink of the Lords Cup of affliction. And thus we say in Marriages With this ring I thee wed, which is after expounded that they have declared their consent of Marriage, by giving and taking of a Ring. Nor could the Makers of that Canon otherwise understand themselves in those words, unless they would thereby cross all that they have said before in the body of that Canon, in which they deny to the Cross any Operative virtue, and profess that the Sacrament is not better with it, or worse without it. That the child is fully baptised before that be used, and incorporated by the virtue of Baptism into the mystical body of Chri●●, that they use it only as the Fathers in their best use, as a Ceremony and Badge. All which must be overthrown, if Dedication be otherwise ascribed to the Cross, then as unto a Ceremony, which signifieth the use of the Dedication itself (which is Really made by Baptism) which is, to profess the faith of Christ crucified, etc. And that they so meant, and no otherwise, my poor self, and others who have stumbled at the Phrase, might have assured ourselves out of the body and words of the Canon, and the reference of their meaning to the Book of Common prayer, which expressly showeth that this Ceremony is used only in token, etc. And in sooth (had not the Popish abuse and Superstitions about the Cross, made us jealous of all use of it) who would not have thought this a decent Ceremony at the administration of Baptism, to remind all the congregation of their Christian profession, and warfare to which the Sacrament itself doth oblige them?  
Wherefore if you were to subscribe to the letter of the Canon, as you are not, nor any man else, you need not fear to take that interpretation of Ceremonial & only declarative Dedication. For without violence to the Canon or mistake of it, it is not possible to understand it otherwise. And therefore I say, that as I would not let my Curate use it, if I held it unlawful, so I will not forbear the use of it myself, now that in my conscience I think the intended use thereof to be lawful.   

CAP. 14. An Objection used to strengthen the former Argument answered.  
Object. THere is no man that doubteth whether Kneeling be worship or no. Ergo, At least that Ceremony of Kneeling when we receive the Communion, is not a matter of mere Order, but of Worship.  
Answ. 1. It hath been showed before, cap. 10.1. that the gesture of Kneeling is neither worship, nor sign of it, but when so meant. A Carpenter kneels to drive a nail; doth any man think this to be worship? 2. That it is from common use, and by construction a sign of respect or reverence as well in Civil as Sacred uses. 3. That it is not in any action of God's solemn service, either unlawful, as prohibited of God; or necessary, as commanded of him: though in some Actions, more suitable to the kind of Service, and more commodious to us. 4. Lastly, that it never was fastened by divine Ordinance to any one kind of religious action, or other. Wherefore the Question, Whether God hath given man any power to mix Actions of his worship, more than to devise new worship of God, may very well be spared. For it supposeth Kneeling to be a worship by itself, or at least ingraffed by the hand of God, into some one action of his service, which is not so.  
2. We yield Kneeling in the act of receiving the holy Communion, to be in our intention, largo sensu, in a large sense, a worship of God; that is, propter aliud, in reference to some other thing, not in, or ex se, in or of itself, but only as all Circumstances observed as matters of Order and Decency, and Edification, for the honouring of God in his services, are worship, and not otherwise. The public Declaration of the Church is that which must assure us of the intended use, which because it is by some negligence left out of the later printed Books of Common Prayer, I will here set down, that I may be sure you shall know it. There, after a Preamble it is said in these words:  

The 5 Rubric s●t at the end of the Communion. It is extant in all Books printed (as well in octavo, as in fol) in 5. & 6. Edw 6 reestablished 1. Eliz. and still in force.  Whereas it is ordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants kneeling, should receive the holy Communion, which thing being well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given unto the worthy Receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder, which about the holy Communion might otherwise ensue, lest yet the same kneeling might be thought, or taken otherwise, we do declare, that it is not meant thereby, that any Adoration is done, or aught to be done, either unto the sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received; or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians: and as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven, and not here, for it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be in more places than one, at one time.  
3. To which I add, that to take away all appearance of tendering any Adoration to the outward signs, then brought to the Communicants, the Church thought good afterwards 
* 1 Eliz●  to have that short Prayer, The Body of our Lord, etc. then to be made for each Communicant before he receive, (which in King Edward's Book was not appointed) to the end that the Kneeling might not so much as seem to be undertaken upon the sight and respect of the Sacramental signs, and in reference to them. Thus careful have our Fathers been to show us their minds, and to take away all appearance of evil, and ground of suspicion.  
4. And it is worth the marking, that this gesture is at that time only apppointed as a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ, which (if it be not by our own fault) we then receive; and not at any other time, when it might be supposed to be intended to the Sacramental signs, or to Christ, in and by them.  
For as that learned Author of the Treatise called Dialecticon Eucharistia, printed at Geneva, and set out with the second Tome of Beza his Works, in his life time, saith, The Bread is to us the Body of Christ when we adore and receive it, not as they do in Popery at the Elevation, when they only look on, or Circumgestation, when it is carried in the streets, and they that Adore, receive nothing. And for this cause Mr. Calvin in answering that objection of the Papists, 
Inst. 4.17.37.  that they adore Christ in the Sacrament, saith, Si in Coena, etc. If this were done in the Supper, I would say, Eam demum Adorationem esse legitimam, quae non in signo residet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem refertur, that were yet a lawful adoration, which resteth not in the outward sign, but is referred to Christ himself sitting in heaven. And he giveth, after, this reason, that they have no promise of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, not as signatum in signo, as the thing signified in the sign, when it is consecrated to be honoured and carried about as a pompous spectacle, and invocated; but when it is received. For our Lord that said, This is my body, said, Take, eat, this is my body. The Sacraments consist in their use, and are not Sacraments out of their use. The water in the Font is no Sacrament of Baptism, but in the use of it.  
5. Our Church therefore by appointing this gesture at that time when we receive bodily the outward things, spiritually the inward grace annexed (not by corporeal presence, but by institute Relation) to the same; hath not referred this Ceremony to the outward things received of the Ministers hands, no nor simply to the benefits received of, by, and with Christ, as a sign of our partaking them, but only to our humble and grateful acknowledgement of those benefits received from Christ, as the Declaration showeth. So that unless humble and grateful acknowledgement of those benefits agree not to that very hint of time, when, by virtue of God's Ordinance, we receive them, the signification thereof by the gesture, cannot be unlawful or uncomely, though it be not simply necessary, but a matter of Order, not of proper worship in itself.  
6. They therefore which spend their wits and time to prove, either that we ought not to give Adoration to any sanctified creature; or, by adoring it, to transfer our adoration to God or Christ; or to persuade men that this gesture is used of us, at least for Veneration of the consecrated creatures, had (in my opinion) too much time to spare, and not either judgement or Charity enough. For it is not done in relation to the Signs, or simply to the things signified, but only as an expression of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of what we receive, and is to the honouring of God and Christ by Consequent and reduction only belonging, and that but as an outward and free Rite or formality.  
7. But if in the Supper itself we had respect unto the sanctified creatures, as the ordinances of our Lord; and, by bowing ourselves, not to them, but upon occasion of them then brought to us to be received, not resting the honour or adoration in the elements themselves, though sanctified, but only referring it to God and Christ the Son of God, not as carnally present in them, but sitting in heaven, and by his Spirit wonderfully communicating his body and blood to us; you see we should have had M. calvin's approbation, as well as the ancient Fathers, S. Augustine and others which I could name, and not herein deserve to be matched with such of the learned Papists, as would have no Adoration to determine in the Images themselves, but to be referred unto, and rest upon the Prototype, or first Sampler.  
8. For the Lords Sacraments and Word are, (as Calvin saith) the lively images of God, and of his own making, not ours. And therefore we may lawfully, and must have such a respect unto them, as we may not have to any thing devised by man; and we may by them, (as obiectum à quo, by an object from whence, and medium per quod, a means by which) tender our adoration to God, which by an Image of our own heads made, we cannot do, without either breach of the 1 Commandment, if the adoration determine in the image, or prototype thereof being a mere creature; or breach of the 2 Commandment, though the adoration were referred only to God. For he hath said, Thou shalt not make to thyself, etc. but never meant to restrain himself from such representation of himself, as he should like to give; or, us from worshipping him & serving him in the use of them. See Cap. 9  
And hence it is, that the people of God, before and after the Law, have taken notice of God's presence or grace manifested by message, as Exod. 4. or signs ordinary or extraordinary given them of God, and have with free consciences thereupon kneeled or bowed down themselves to God upon, at, or before those representations of Gods special presence or grace. Wherein if any man shall match them with Durand, Occam and others that worship Images, made at the will of men only in relation to that which is worshipped, he shall be injurious to the Saints, and give encouragement to that Popish conceit, without reason.  
The Author of Altar Damasc. yields that the jews, at, or before the Ark, which was Gods instituted sign of his presence, or Temple in respect of the Ark, and so before the burning bush, Ex. 3. or armed man josh 5. or cloud, Ex. 33.9. or other sign given of God as a sign of his special presence, might lawfully upon sight or respect of such a sign, Adore God. But saith he, the Sacraments are not signs of Gods special presence but grace: and before, or respectively to such signs of grace Adoration is not lawful, though only referred to God.  
But this man opposeth without reason, presence and grace, which both did often coincidere, fall both into one, as in the Ark, and cloud, and armed man, which were so signs of his presence, as they also were signs of his favour and grace.  
That Armed man in joshua, professeth to come as a Captain of the Lords host. Paul saith, our Fathers were baptised under the cloud. The Ark is called the Ark of the Covenant; therefore Presence and Grace in these signs, are not opposite but conjunct.  
2. He erreth when he supposeth the jews to have used this Adoration only at, or before the sign of special presence, and not of Grace. For they did it to God upon occasion of his signs of favour, as well as those of his special presence. 
See Pet. Mart. on 1 King.  For when the fire came down from heaven, to burn, and as it were to show God's acceptance of their Sacrifices (which was not simply a signal of his Presence, but of his special favour) the people fell down and worshipped God as well as at his foot stool the Ark, or Cloud, Levit 9 24. and 2. Chron. 7.3.  

Ezra 9.5 and 10 1. with 5.17. and 3.11.  3. He mistaketh in saying they bowed and adored God at or before the Tabernacle or Temple, in respect of the Ark only (so he meaneth) which was therein. Ezra kneeled and cast down himself before the very place of the Temple, as the house God, though there was neither Ark any more after the captivity, nor Temple then standing, but only the place which God had chosen for his name to dwell in, and a foundation of the Lords house.  

Chemnit. in exam. part. 2. pag 91. edit. 1578.  It is much more sound which Chemnitius observeth that the people of God, upon any occasion representing Gods special Presence or favour to them, whether it were only by a Gracious message (as in Ex. 4. and 12.) or Action (as in Gen. 24.26 48.) or sign thereof given from God, they Adored and cast down themselves, of which we have spoken much already, Cap. 10.  
4. But if it were lawful to Adore God only at or before his own Signal of his special Presence, the Ark, why not at the Sacrament, referring all the Adoration to God in Christ? For was the Ark any better sign of God's presence, than the Bread and Wine are of the body and blood of Christ, whose names he himself hath honoured them withal, as the Ark was honoured with the title of jehovah, i. e. for the representation and Sacramental Relation sake?  
Doth any man divide Christ himself from the Graces of Christ? verily we in the Sacrament have no hope of partaking the Grace of Christ, but by partaking himself his very body and blood, though not carnally or bodily, yet really and in truth; not in at our mouths, but into our souls as spiritual food.  
The conclusion of all, is, that if our Church intended that we, in receiving the Communion, should look upon the Bread and Wine not simply as creatures, but as Sacraments of our Lord's institution, and so beholding them, Non quâ sunt, sed quâ significant, not as they are in their own nature, but as what they there signify should tender a knee-worship or Adoration, not at all to them, but only to God or Christ his son, by occasion of them, we should therein do no more than the ancient godly Fathers did before Popery, as that learned tract Dialecticon Eucharistiae showeth; I am sure no more than the godly jews did, as hath been showed. And yet even this Ceremony, so used, should be no proper worship of God, or worship of and by itself, because it is not then and so commanded of the Lord; but only, Improper and Reductive worship, and though not commanded, yet allowed of God's word: And therefore but a matter of mere Order in the sense aforesaid.  
5. But I have already given in our Churches (public) Declaration, by which appeareth, that she goeth not so far; but understandeth this gesture to be only for Signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of those benefits bestowed of Christ in this his Ordinance upon (not all men, but) the worthy Receivers. And therefore they which condemn this Church of a Will-worship, yea of flat Idolatry for this; and teach the poor people to forbear the Communion, rather than to receive it kneeling, have more to answer for to God and his Church, than perhaps they think of.  
6. For while they piously intending to sail from (as I may say) the North-pole of the Popish Idolatry, not heeding the Aequator, have sailed, though not home to the South-Pole, yet too near it, into another extreme of Superstition and Disworship of God. Disworship, in turning their backs upon the Lord's table, for a gesture not forbidden of God: and Superstition in placing such a necessity in sitting or standing, which are neither of them commanded of the Lord (as is confessed) that they think themselves highly to honour and please God in the choice of those gestures, or else not to communicate. This is to worship God after the traditions of men; Or else the jews were not guilty of it, by forbearing out of conscience▪ and for fear of pollution, to eat their meat with unwashen hands. Only this is so much the worse, as the spiritual food which they dare not touch nor taste, unless they may take it sitting or standing, is better than the bodily from which the jews abstained. The Lord who hath given many of them godly desires, vouchsafe in mercy to clear their judgements, and not to lay this error to their charge.   

CAP. 15. The first part of the fourth Argument Answered.  
Arg. 4. THe Law, (i. e. the 2. Commandment) forbiddeth two things: 1. The devising any new ways of worship. 2. The using of prescribed worship otherwise then they are directed. But some of our Ceremonies are devised new ways of worship, or usage of the prescribed worships otherwise then they are directed. Ergo, the Law forbiddeth them.  
Answ. What things the Law of the second Commandment doth forbid, I have said, and grant the same, or, with it, the third Commandment to forbid these two things you mention. But I will consider these two apart, and so make two Arguments of one, for perspicuities sake.  
The Law forbiddeth the divising of new ways of worship, But our Ceremonies are devised new ways of worship, Ergo.  
I suppose you mean, that as the Devising is forbidden, so the things devised, etc. otherwise we shall be untouched, who only use these Ceremonies, but devised none of them. And then I say, that the terms are ambiguous, and must be made clear before the Answer be given to the Argument.  
1. Worship of God (as hath been preoved) is Proper or Improper, Ex se, or per accidens, of itself, or by accident, & per aliud, by reference to some other thing; As for example, saith Chamier. In jeiunio nulla pietas est, 
Cham. Tom. 4. lib. 46. cap 1.  nisi quatenus utile interdum testandae internae poenitentiae & praeparationi ad preces, In fasting there is no worship, but as it is useful sometimes for testification of inward humiliation and for preparation to prayer. So ways, (i e. means) of worship, are also either means by the use whereof Immediately of themselves, Service is done or supposed to be done to God; or means more remote, and not in themselves or by themselves any service, or reputed any service of God, but by accident, and per aliud, in reference to some what else, as in Chamiers instance, Fasting. By new ways, you mean, not lately taken up, but such as have not their Prescription in the Word. For all substantial or proper worship, is new worship to God, which himself hath not Commanded. And then I answer, That of Proper and Immediate worship Ex se, of itself, or so esteemed, the Mayor is true, but the Minor false of our Ceremonies, which being acknowledged things of indifferent nature, and such as the Church may at pleasure alter, cannot be understood to be made, in that sense, any new worship, or ways of worship. But if you speak of worship in a larger meaning of the word; and, by ways, understand any means tending (at the long run) to the honouring of God, and intended only as Adjuncts to the proper worship of God, and for an help to us in the same; Then is the Minor true of our Ceremonies, viz. that they are, in such a notion, new devised ways of worship. But the Mayor, which saith, that all devised ways of worship are even in that sense forbidden, is manifestly false. For example, This or that prescript form of prayer, is a new devised way of worship, as touching the Set-forme, yet not forbidden. The Fasts of the fourth, 
See Zach. 8.19. and junius his Annot.  fift, seventh & tenth months, reminding the very months and special days of their calamities, that they might with more life and feeling humble themselves before God, in the captivity, were such new devised ways of worship to God, in our sense, and not commanded of God, Zach. 7 4. yet not forbidden or condemned, as Master Cartwright confesseth. And the like is to be said of all unprescribed circumstances (considered in their particulars) which belong to Order, Decency and Edification, that they are remote and accidental ways of worship, and devised, or, (which is all one) so applied and determined by the will of man; and yet, neither commanded nor forbidden, but only allowed in themselves.  

Medul Theol. part 2. cap 14. Thes. 24.  For to say, as Doctor Aims, Praecipiuntur in genere sub lege Ordinis Decori & Aedification is, they are commanded in general under the law of order, comeliness and edification, is not reasonable. For if these particulars be commanded which fall under the general heads, then must the observation of the particulars be necessary, because commanded, and not things left to choice. Neither is it sound which he saith, Habendae tamen sunt tanquam ex voluntate Dei praeceptae, 
Ibid. Thes. 27.  they are to be reputed as commanded out of the will of God. Or (as after) that, if they be to all points well ordered, or that, Constitutio ita habenda sit quasi simpliciter Divina, that constitution is to be taken as simply divine; for the constitution is only of the particulars, and is limited to things left of God Indifferent in themselves, and therefore cannot be said to be simply divine, but, after a sort; No not when the things are in kind such as necessarily follow of those things which God hath expressly commanded, 
Ibid. Thes. 24.  which is Doctor Ames his second reason. For example, the very particular place where, and hour when, we must meet unto the public worship of God, are not in themselves particularly commanded in genere suo, under their general, and the observance, even of them, must be with a conscience free from tie to the place or time, in regard of themselves; otherwise, there is a superstitious use of them. So that that which in them may be called Divine and a commanded Circumstance of worship, is, a place, and a time as commodious as we can; but not, this place or this hour. And if all conveniences require this very place, and this very hour, yet is not the place required propter se, for itself, but propter aliud for some other thing: It is therefore better to say, That the particulars devised or determined by men, to be observed as Ceremonies or outward Rites in the worship of God, are in all particulars, when they most agree to the general Rules of the word, only Allowed. And yet, if by the neglect and contempt of such external Rites, Violatur aliquo modo sanctitas cultus religiosi, the purity of religious worship be violated (as Doctor Amer saith, 
Ibid. Thes 23.  and saith well) than the Observation of them must aliquo modo some way be some worship of God, however (as he also saith) In ijs non proprie consistit cultus religiosus, religious worship consisteth not properly in them, not properly saith he; but yet, in a sort, say I.  
And indeed if we will admit no more into the worship of God than is commanded, as the Anabaptists require, we shall, in baptising, only lay on water in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and not use (lawfully) any of those set prayers, before or after, nor rehearse the sum of the Christian faith, nor have any special witnesses, nor then give the name as it were to show that we are as it were without a name, or being Lo-ammy till we be entered into professed Covenant with God; nor, any Scripture then read to show the lawfulness of baptising Infants, no Interrogatories to express the conditions of our Covenant with god; and not only, no sign of the Cross as a monitory Ceremony to the congregation, forasmuch as God hath not commanded any of these thus to be done, in the use of that Sacrament.  
The like may be said of all the Readins, Prefaces, Exhortations and Prayers (excepting that only which by repeating the institution, and praying for the blessing of God on us in that use of them) are prescribed in our Leitourgy, even till we come to the breaking of the Bread and to distribution of it and the Cup. Namely, that these, so fare as by the will of man they are devised, and determined thus to be done, They are not things in their particular thus commanded of God, and therefore Ex se, of themselves, are not proper worship of God, respectively to that very form, Order, and time of using them; But either as they are in their own General, as the prayers; or, referred to Order, Comeliness and Edification, which God hath commanded to be aimed at, and observed in all actions of his worship, i. e. propter aliud, for some other thing. So then in themselves only allowed, and Improperly worship of God.  
And if in such things thus devised and determined by men, which are not in themselves necessary, but only lawful, there may be no respect at all of honouring God in the use of them, though not simply for themselves; How hath the Apostle told us that one man eateth; or, observeth the day to the Lord, and another eateth not; or, observeth not the day; and, this man eateth not; and, observeth not the day, even unto the Lord? Or, what ground of faith could men have in doing things so contrary, as eating and not eating; unless it were, that God had allowed either, but commanded neither the one nor the other? For the Command of one must have been the Prohibition of the contrary. But in rebus medijs, in things indifferent, 
Quo supra in Rom. 14.  saith Paraeus, not only diverse, but even contrary things please God: but non tanquam cultus, not as a worship in themselves. For in such things, no contrariety, yea no variance from the pattern given in the Mount (as I may say) I mean God's Prescript, is tolerable.  
A man is bound, at such a time, to pay an hundred pounds in current English money. In this case if he pay it all in gold, or silver; or, in both, at the time, the bond is discharged, because it was only for such a sum of current English money.  
But if a man be bound to pay the same sum at the same time, in good gold, silver of that value will not discharge his bond, because it was not only for the value in current money, but for the species or kind of money. In this case therefore, the specios, ex se and in se, the very particular kind, in and of itself, is part of the payment, as well as the value. But in the other case the Species or particular kind simply considered ex se, of itself is nothing to the payment, save only in the General, as it is current money, and secondly as it amounteth to the Sum. So is our case. Where God himself hath for his service determined the Circumstances; as, under the Law, The place of Sacrifice, and times of their three solemn Feasts, or Apparel of the Priests, or aught else in particular; Those very Circumstances were part of the proper and principal worship, as well as the main Actions, because of the Command of God. But where God hath commanded only the main substance of a service to him, and not prescribed the particular manners, but only given rules of direction, those particular circumstances are not any worship or service of God in themselves, nor may without Superstition be so esteemed, but only as they are parts of Order and Decency, and serve to the Edification of men, which God hath required in all the main Actions of his prescribed service, i.e. the particulars are propter aliud, in reference to some what else a worship of God, and in themselves only allowed not commanded means thereof.  
I marvel sometimes at some of our brethren, who, to prove that we make our Ceremonies a very worship to God, tell us that if the very same things were done to the very same end by Divine institution, they must needs be worship; and then true worship, because required of God, and therefore ours must needs be worship of God; and not being commanded, Will-worship. As if they had not yet learned, That the only command of God doth make that to be in itself, an Act of necessary and substantial worship to him, which though to the same end, and in the same manner done voluntarily, nor was, nor is esteemed any part of the real worship in itself, but only per & propter aliud, by and for some reference to some other thing. As for example. The building and use of Altars here or there, before God had chosen out the standing place for his Altar (though to the same end, for which the Lords instituted altar served, i e. for Sacrifice) was not worship in respect of the place, or kind of stone used, or height, length, or breadth; But only as an allowed Instrument of the necessary worship, not sanctifying the offering, as did Gods sanctified Altar, but sanctified, in a sort, by the offering.  
To conclude, All that either in truth is, or may be esteemed a proper and necessary part of Divine worship, and means of honouring God, even in the thing so done, must be so made by the will of God, or else is vain and will-worship.  
But such things as are not understood, or used, as in themselves necessary, immediate, and proper worship of God, but only by accident, and propter aliud, in reference are worship but after a sort in themselves, and have no Precept of God upon themselves, in their particular, but only an allowance or General warrant. And this is no otherwise a Will-worship, than was the worship of the freewill offerings, wherein the particular choice was left free to the men themselves. Only, if a man will enhance the value of this Improper and reductive worship, and have it go currant at a higher rate, than God ever allowed, even for proper service in itself, he shall then make of his improper worship, a proper will-worship to God's dishonour, in as much as he will needs return it to God at another rate, than God himself set upon it in his allowance. Which is as one should offer to pay the King's Subjects in silver or gold pieces, rated above the value, which the King himself hath set on them. This is a nonpayment, though the Species or particular kind, be currant, because the value is not right. And when men think to honour God by such means, so esteemed, they dishonour him, not simply in the means, but because of the misprizing and abuse. And so much for this Argument now to the next.   

CAP. XVI. The second part of the fourth Argument answered.  
Argum. 4 pars 2 THe Law, secondly forbiddeth the prescribed worships of God, to be used otherwise then they are directed. But, the Observance of our Ceremonies is an usage of Gods prescribed worship otherwise then the same is directed. Ergo. Forbidden of the Law.  
Answ. If by [otherwise] you mean (in any other outward manner;) and, by [directed] understand [commanded] the Mayor is false. For the circumstances concerning the outward manner, (as touching their particular determination) are not commanded of God, but under the General rules of his Direction, left unto the choice of men, as is confessed in general words by all men that oppose our Ceremonies, however they pair this grant afterwards, of purpose to exclude our Ceremonies from all relief thereby.  
But if by [otherwise] you mean so otherwise, as that, we disjoin what God hath united, the outward worship from the Internal, i. e. the body from the soul; or, that we altar that which God hath Ordered, as in the halfe-Communion of the Papists, etc. Or that the manner and external fashion be not framed to the general rules of God's direction, Order, Decency, and Edification; Then the Mayor is true, that such things are forbidden by the Law, i. e. either by the second or third Commandment. But then the Minor, touching our Ceremonies, must be denied to be true, till it shall be proved, which will not be by this Argument, but must be, if at all, by some particular and just exception against them.   

CAP. 17. The defence of the Answers given to this fourth Argument.  
THis Answer will not seem to satisfy the Argument, till we have discovered and removed sundry petty engines, which have been planted against it, and seem to some men to batter it to the ground, and to make nothing of it, which I will, so fare as I can, set forth Ab ovo.  
When the day of Mercy shined on the Church of God, and gave men strength and spirit to withdraw themselves from that leprous Church of Rome, nothing was more necessary, then to make the people know, that the vain pomp and Stageplays of human Rites which went then currant for an high service of God (while in the mean time his own prescribed service, was either obscured and defaced, or annihilated and neglected) was no true service of God. Hence, you shall find the Divines of that time labouring mainly upon this point, That nothing may be esteemed or used as a worship of God, such as he would reward, and men might not omit without sin, (which was and is the rate of all the Popish Ceremonies in their accounts, from the greatest to the least of them) save only what God himself hath in his word prescribed. In the mean time they denied not a liberty to the Church, for ordaining of things for Order, Decency, and Edification; and such, and so many, as the necessity of the Church should at any time require. But not for a worship, understanding worship as their adversaries did, for such an act as in itself was pleasing to God, and so as he would be offended if it were not so done to him.  
Hereupon sundry well minded people began to think of all that in Popery was made part of the divine worship, and urged as necessary for conscience sake, to be so observed to the honour of God: And not considering warily, whether things were at all in themselves too blame, or only in respect of the superstitious use and opinion of them, they concluded, that all was unlawful to be used in any Act of religious service, which was not commanded (which, of service properly so to be called, is true) and thereupon resolved, no Temples, Bells, Fonts, Gossips, etc. And because they found not a plain command for an Oath in cases of judicature; no swearing: and, for the like reason, no Baptising of Infants, No set forms of prayer, or Order of reading Scripture since it is not in the Bible; no habits, no gestures, but such as were necessary in common use; nothing at all observed which might have any particular reference to any thing Divine or Ecclesiastical, not so much as a Cloak or Gown for a Minister as a distinctive garment, nor ought else which might be called Ecclesiastical. And as men went with more or fewer sails carried along with this conceit, so have they fallen short or gone further in their misapplication of the true ground of Divinity, which our great Divines had delivered ex hypothesi, conditionally and in a strict sense of the terms [Worship of God.]  
From hence, in the first Admonition to the Parliament, they quarrelled at the frame and form of our Church-orders; and, set down this rule, whatsoever is not commanded of God in his word may not be received in the Church. This, when Master Cartwright undertook to defend against the late Archbishop, Doctor Whirgife, he (as he was a man of a great wit and parts) found how that speech might be mainetainable, and yet some liberty left unto the Church in constituting matters of Order; namely, that in as much as the things left unto the Church's determination, were limited to certain general rules of the word which are Commandments, therefore the partioul●rs which according to these rules were appointed, might be said to be commanded, (just as we heard out of Doctor Ames, praecipiuntur in genere suo, they are commanded under their general) which was but a mere shift of his wit. For though those general rules be Precepts, yet the various specialties which fall under them are not thereby commanded (not those, specially) but only allowed.  
But when this Answer was found too short to smite down our Ceremonies, for which, this was pleaded, that they were not contrary but agreeable to the statutes of God's word; and, as such, intended, and to be used; and that, if they would disprove any thing they must insist upon that particular, and not think to condemn it by a general Sentence, as Master Hooker told them: Then they sought out a new way, i. e. That things left to the Church's dispose, are only Circumstances of time and place, and such things of Decorum as were as well received and practised for like ends in common use, as in Ecclesiastical. And by this rare devise (which I take to be Master jacobs') they have made a shift to rescue Churches, Bells, Fonts, a Communion-table and Cloth, and Cup, and if need be, a Church yard to bury in, and some few other matters from the sentence of the Rigid Anabaptists. But have left all other things, which are (as they speak) stated in, i. e. appropriated to any actions of God's external service, to be executed as guilty of some treachery against god, in his worship. Therefore (saith Master jacob) God hath not left unto the Church's liberty or determination, so much as our Ecclesiastical Ceremonies. Which (a better man than he, and one that from my heart I both love and honour) Doctor Ames hath taken, as upon trust from him or other such Author, as his words before alleged may witness in part; and some others of like alleadgement; as namely, Partis 2. disp. 15. Sec. 25. where he boundeth and restraineth all that is left of God unto the choice and disposition of men in this manner, Illa igitur qua pertinent ad ordinem & Decorum, non ita relinquuntur hominum arbitrio, ut possint quod ipsis libet sub illo nomine Ecclesiis obtrudere: sed partim determinantur generalibus Dei praeceptis, partim natura ipsarum rerum, & partim circumstantijs illis quae ex occasione seize offerunt; These things therefore which pertain to order and decency are not so left to the pleasure of men, that they may, under that name and pretext, obtrude what they list upon the Churches; but are determined partly under God's general precepts, partly by the nature of the very things themselves, and partly by those circumstances which occasionally offer themselves. Of which sentence the former half is most true; the later, not so sound. For than nothing at all beyond mere necessity; as, a time, and place (which are his own instances. Thes. 24.) or such, as the very nature of the things necessarily urgeth; or, casualties; as for example, to meet in a wood, in time of persecution; or, when there is no help, to set the bread and wine upon the bare ground; Nothing, I say, more than these, are left unto the Churches ordering; nothing that may, by any signification, help to remember us; Nothing that may serve to breed reverence towards God's ordinances, and put some special outward marks of difference betwixt common or sacred, Civil or Religious affairs; nothing of gestures, habits, memorative days of Christ's Incarnation or Resurrection; No prescript form of prayers to be used otherwise then as a Platform, as Altar Damascenum; unless perhaps sitting at the Communion in token of Co heireship with Christ, because in Civil use it is a table gesture, and fashion of familiarity.  
I will allege some few of our great Divines, and see whether they by Rites and Ceremonies left unto the liberty of the Church, mean nothing but the same which our men understand by Circumstances of time and place, common as well in Civil, as Religious use, though I grant not few to be such. And because they are wont to name time and place, putting thereto a blind [&c.] or [et simitia,] we will see whether about Time and Place, the learned Divines, and they be of one mind.  
A special place destinated, 
Zanch. Tom. 4. pag. 764.  and in respect of the use sanctified, and called Sacred, which unless in case of extreme necessity, should not be employed to any other than the destined uses, Zanchie alloweth and requireth as a thing comely. Will Altar Damascenum (trow you) permit this to the Church's liberty?  
An Altar of Stone, or a Table of wood, 
pag. 485  Zanchie and others leave to the Church's determination, as in se media, indifferent in themselves, though a Table be fit. Will our men say so?  
That the Communion Table should not (but in case of extreme necessity) be put to common use, Zanchie requireth. 
Ibid.  Is this their rule?  
That Table and Vessels for the Communion, 
pag. 785.  he calleth holy Vessels, as dedicated to holy use. Is this all one with Civil use?  
That one lawful End of building Temples, is significancy, 
Repl. to Bish. Morton, part. 1 cap. 3. sect. 32.  to remind us of our Communion with God, and his in heaven, Zanchie affirmeth. Then saith the Replier, Away with all mystical Churches.  
As touching Times of worship, besides the Lords days, 
Calvin. Inst. 4.10.31.  Calvin putteth that under the Church's hand and determination, as not determined in the World; 
Sect. 29.  and on what days the Lords Supper should be administered.  
And Zanchie saith of the Solemnities of Easter, Pentecost, 
Quo supra p. 676.  the Ascension and Nativity of our Lord, sanctified as of the Ancients; or kept holy, it could not be disliked. Nay, that laudabile est, & honestum atque utile, it is laudable, honest or seemly, and profitable, and proves it too. 
So in effect junius count. lib. 4. pag 283.  Will ours allow these Feasts in memorial of the mercies on such days bestowed, as a Circumstance of time, necessary as well in Civil as Religious uses; Do they not condemn the Feast of Dedication, as rashly instituted by the Maccabees? And of their own heads tell us, that the Feast of Purins was either only a merry meeting, of friends; as Mr. jacob, and Altar Damasc. Or, that Mordecei was a Prophet; as the Replyer, only because they would not have it thought that the Church may, by her authority, separate a whole day to the solemn worship of God, unless for Fasting perhaps. Not that the Church can make an hallowing Holiday as is the Lords day, the Sabbath; but, hallowed days for the use to be observed with free Consciences.  
But beside Time and Place, the Divines refer to the Church's determination, whether the Public Prayers shall be all said, or sung; as Zanchie; what Psalms on what days, Calvin quo supra Sect. 31. What habit shall be worn inadministring the Lords Supper, whether their common, or a peculiar garment, woollen or linen. And Zanch (for the signification) prefers the linen, though in other respects he saith; rectius reijcitur, it is better rejected of some Churches. 
a Chem. exam. part. 2. pag. 36.  Chemnitius alloweth some of the old significant Rites used anciently in Baptism, while only so used. junius professeth that if we were agreed in Doctrine, and the superstition removed, we should not disagree with the Papists for the Rite or Ceremony of Exorcism. The like he saith of the use of the 
b junius cont. 2. pag. 1726. an. 23. pag. 1743.  Cross in sacris. But what do I mention these or other particular persons, such as Bucer, Melancthon, against whom and Lavater, Zanchie, and some others, there is a praemunire Caveat added to the Replyers first part, That forsooth some of them wrote in the dawsing of the day, others lived in England, as Martyr; Chemnitius was a Lutheran; Zanchie was of a timorous disposition; they were not well informed when they gave approbation to our Church Rites, and such other gear: by which all men may know, that the judgements of those grave Divines suit not with theirs in this matter. And furthermore, that they had rather sink the reputation of all the Lords Worthies, then yield themselves to have mistaken any thing. If any particular man be of weight with them, it is Mr. Calvin, who in truth deserveth the first honourable chair of them all. When the Bishop Morton had produced a Testimony of his, ex Instit. 4.10.30. as full and direct as could be, to show what he judgeth to be left unto the determination of the Church in matters of Discipline & Ceremonies not determined in the Word. The Replyer (not reciting the text of Caluin) kelleth the Bishop, that there is nothing which without the aequivocation of the word Ceremony will serve his turn; Calvin meant nothing but necessary Circumstances of Order, as time and place, etc. but no significant Ceremonies. Caluin saith, God hath given certain general Rules, unto which must be squared whatsoever the necessity of the Church shall require of time and place, etc. for, there is no necessity of our significant Ceremonies. Wherein he maketh a pretty shift of escape under the shadow of that word necessity. But in following the same matter, Caluin faith, what the utility of the Church shall require, counting that necessary to the Church, which is either of itself, or by accident necessary for the Church's Peace and building up, as he hath before in that Chapter said, and doth after.  
The necessity of the Church required that old Decree of Abstaining from blood and strangled, which in itself was not necessary, nor (as Mr. Sprint hath showed) simply convendent. Which for our use of the Ceremonies instituted, is argument enough; unless there be no need of our Ministry in the Church, or of the Churches quiet, on of obedience to our Prince in things not evil in themselves. But, there is yet no necessary use of our significant humane Ceremonies in the Church. Simple necessity there is none. But necessity of utility, Caluin acknowledgeth, when of Symbolical Rites, he professeth himself to think some such to be a profitable help to the weaker sort, Sect. 28. Which likewise in his Treatise of The Right way of Reforming the Church, he doth also profess: Denying himself at all to strive against Ceremonies, which are either for Order, or yet for Decency, Vel etiam symbola sunt & incitamenta eius quam Deo debemus reverentiae, or such as are signs of, and incitements to that reverence which we own unto God. And in his 78 Epistle to the Lord Protector, Ceremonias ad usum captumque populi esse accomodandas, Ceremonies must be accommodated to the use and capacity of the people; which must be understood, in part, of some significant Ceremonies: else, why ad captum populi? must the people's capacity be so much respected? Indeed Caluin requireth, that such significant Ceremonies be but few, and such as may not obscure Christ. But that he alloweth some such to be instituted of the Church, even for the help of signification, is as clear as the Sun at Noonday. And he that will mark how the Replyer laboureth to hide the light of his Testimonies, shall find, that his Reply thereto borrowed much from his wit, without ask leave of his Conscience. But why do I detain you in the Survey of particular men? The Harmony of Confessions, set out with th● Notes of the French and Dutch Churches, will best show how much the Churches of Christ have judged to be left unto the determination of men. And how short of that allowance all those men come, who will not permit her to constitute so much as one merely Ecclesiastical Ceremony, but to contain her in the constitution of such things, as all men of themselves are bound to observe, even without any Constitution, and which no power of man can forbid.  
You ask me, Where any such power is given to the Church? I answer out of Mr. Caluin, and Dr. Ames too; viz. where she is enjoined to do all things of Gods prescribed worship according to Order, Decency, and to Edification. For what doth necessarily serve unto those rules, she is rather commanded, then simply allowed to consider and take care of. And sure I am, that though Order strictly taken, belongeth but to Vbi, quando, to place and time, etc. yet the determination of that, belonging to each Church, requireth many things. Now, as Order and Decency in the outward manner of handling all and the several parts of Gods instituted service, is required of the Churches; so is it, that all be done to Edification; which is not that all, that men lust to impose under the name of Order, Decency, and Edification, is commanded or allowed by that charge of the Holy Ghost; but that all, which she is to dispose of, be such indeed, so fare as she can judge. Whence will follow, that in Rites serving to Order or Decency, there should be what help we can to Edification by the significancy of those Rites. For seeing the outward ordering should be such, as may most edify, as Dr. Ames saith, how can it be but such a Rite as is Comely for the matter in hand, and agreeable to the use and intent thereof, shall be unto men the more helpful, if it carry some manifest signification in the forehead? For this reason Zanchius preferreth (and so doth M. Perkins) the ceremony of Immersion under the water, before that of sprinkling, or laying on the water, as holding more Analogy to that of Paul, Rom. 6. that we are buried with Christ in Baptism.  
And the same 
* Zanch. To. 4.601. Edit. 1613.  Zanch, speaking of the Ceremonies used in taking a solemn oath, laying the hand upon the Altar; or, as the jews, and we, upon the Book of the Covenant, or lifting up the hand to heaven, saith, That none of these Ceremonies are to be disliked, because they all have their, and those weighty significations. And, in sadness, when it is to us so familiar a thing in all solemn actions, to have something signified to us by Ceremony; how can it be  in a Ceremony of the Church, that it is significant, I mean, simply eo nomine, in that very respect? For, if there be a surfeit made of them, or any operative virtue supposed to be in them, or any necessity or opinion of worshipping God by them ex se, as of and in themselves, such use doth pollute them, and all that so use them.  
In gestures, it will be acknowledged readily, that they may be fitted to the several kinds of Gods prescribed Service, even for signification, as M. Cartwright, and M. Fennor show. But (saith Altar Damasc.) we must not be tied to them. In which, if he meant, not tied by the conscience, as if it were a sin, even in itself, not to use them in the public service of God, I am fully with him: But either I foully mistake him, or else his meaning is, that what we will do freely of ourselves, this way, is good; but if once the Magistrate or Church require it to be done, than all is marred. Think of this, and think withal, whether the same men which refuse kneeling in receiving the Communion, (all or most of them) do not also forbear to kneel when the Commandments are read, to every whereof, a prayer for pardon, and for grace to keep that law, is subjoined. Yea, and when Public profession of the Faith is made, to stand up: which is a most comely gesture, and without all exception. And tell me, in Conscience, what can be the reason of such refusal, but because it is so apppointed by the Law, and Authority both of State and Church? otherwise, they would like well enough then, to stand.  
Ob. But gestures (say they) signify Naturally, or as it were Naturally, but our exception is against such things as signify only by appointment of men, as the Ring in Marriage, Surplice and Cross; and these we condemn.  
I answer. 1. That they question our kneeling, though it signify giving of honour never so naturally; not only as misapplied, but as a significant ceremony. 2. For the Surplice, that it is but a distinctive garment, as the addition of Hoods, to be put on after men's Degrees, may show. But, let it signify the pureness that ought to be in the Minister of God, in God's sight and service. The Ring is merely a civil sign of the Matrimonial Contract, as is joining of hands. The Cross indeed would not signify what it doth of itself, but by Institution. But as I have showed, the very bodily gestures do not of themselves signify; but, by the Intention and Customs of men, which is as by second Nature. And so doth putting off of the hat signify a respect also; which, when they allow, though apppointed by men, at the Sacrament, the signification notwithstanding, this is but a made quarrel, that our Ceremonies signify, not but by Institution and long Custom of men. And I pray you, what difference upon the matter, whether by natural light, or general notice of the meaning, the Ceremony be significant? And, why not? Forsooth, this is to give them part of the nature of Sacraments. Indeed, some in their heat call them Sacraments; as, Master Parker in his Treatise of the Cross. But Doctor Ames checketh that over-shoot, and saith, they are but Sacramentalia, Sacramentals; not well understanding, that Ceremonies were called Sacraments, scil.. not from this, that they signified, for so did almost all Popish Rites, (witness Durandus) but because they were appertinent to some of their Sacraments, non ad esse, but ad ornatum, not to their being, but to their comely being.  
Take away, saith Saint Augustine, the Element, and there is no Sacrament; and, take away the thing signified, saith Zanchie, and there is no Sacrament neither. Sacraments therefore, are not simple signs; but Significantia, obsignantia & instrumentaliter exhibentia quod significant, signs signifying, sealing and instrumentally exhibiting that which they signify. The symbolical Rites in Popery, used to effect some supernatural grace, by their use, were indeed presumptuous and saucy counterfeits of divine Sacraments. But, that mere signification of a moral duty, should more than participate the proper nature of a Sacrament, I shall then believe when I shall perceive the sign of the sun in a shop-window, to partake the nature of the same; or of Baal's Image, made to represent the same. The nature of the Sacraments consisteth not simply, in that they do signify, which is common to all signs; but, in that they signify the Covenant of grace by divine institution, and seal it to us. Nor do I believe that joshua pitched a Sacramental sign in Shechem, though it was to remind them of the Covenant of God, of which, Circumcision was the Sacramental sign: I will now content myself only to oppose this; that this Imagination, that significancy maketh a Ceremony to be evil, doth not appear to me to have entered the heart of any learned man, jew or Christian, till it was of late taken up against our Ceremonies for a Covert; for this I am sure of, 
* See in the Archb. Def. pag. 120. his words.  that the jews had of their own devising above (as Master Cartwright saith) twenty for one, more than we have of Ecclesiastical significant Ceremonies. Of the ancient Christian Churches, it is rather to be lamented (as Augustine in his time did) that they overdid, in having so many; then needful to be proved that all Churches had some such significant Rites. And as for the later Churches of our Religion, some have more, some as many, some fewer than we; but all, some. And that the judgement of the Churches in their Confessions, and of the prime men which have written, is for the allowance of some significant Ceremonies merely Ecclesiastical, though they think (as I do) the fewer the better, is manifest. 
Epist. 8. pag. 211. Tom. 3. opuscul. 2.14.82.  Only Mr. Beza hath a passage which seemeth to contrary this which I have said, namely, That all symbolical Rites ought to be abolished: Contrary to what we had of Mr. Calvin, that some such are to be allowed, as a profitable help to the ruder sort of men. But these two learned men differ not save in show; for Calvin, by symbolical Rites, meaneth such only as are used to signify some duty to be done. And Beza meaneth such symbolical Rites as were used not merely for signification, but as having some operative virtue in them, either ex opere operato, upon the very doing of them as the Cross; or by means of their Consecration by prayers. This to be so, I prove by Beza himself in his 8. and 12. Epistle; from one whereof this Objection is taken. For Beza confesseth the 
a Aduersus fratrem Baldwinum in opuscul. vol. 3. p. 324. Epist. 12.  Crossing to have been sometimes of (at least) tolerable use; yea, and now, the Superstition being removed. Kneeling, sometimes a profitable sign 
b Epist. 12. Opusc. Tom. 3. p. 220.  of Godly reverence in receiving the Sacrament. The use of the 
c Epist. 12. pa. 219. & Epist. 8. p. 212.  Surplice, to be ex se, res media, of itself a matter indifferent; yea, and so the other two. Wherefore, he did not judge mere Signification to have defiled or tainted them, for then their use had never been allowable or indifferent. Therefore this exception against our Ceremonies, that they are significant, was not verily the cause of the quarrel; but the quarrel of this exception. And now I return, that the Church hath Commission to determine of Ecclesiastical Rites, which in truth shall appear to her upon due consideration to be of necessary use, whether per se or per accidens, of themselves or by accident, unto the edification of itself, by Rites used for Order, and Decency: and when need is, significant. And thus much the very definition of a Ceremony, 
V●sin. Catech. impres. Ann. 1621. p. 772.  which Paraeus hath, may witness; when, of Church Ceremonies, he saith, That they are external and solemn Actions instituted in the ecclesiastical Ministry, Ordinis vel Significationis gratia, for order or significations sake, which he maketh, after, two sorts, Divine and Humane. Now I come to your Questions, which I will answer to in short.   

CAP. XVIII. Six Questions about Kneeling answered.  
Quest. 1. WHether you allow kneeling to be worship.  
Answ. Worship is either Cultus Service, or Adoration or Veneration: kneeling is a part of external Adoration per se in itself, as is the being bareheaded; but, not Cultus ex se, service or worship of itself, but per aliud, with reference to another thing, as it is a sign of true internal reverence acknowledged to God, and a part of that comeliness which becometh men in partaking the seals of the Covenant of grace, done to his honour. It is in itself no more than a Circumstance of worship, like as Fasting is, of Humiliation and Prayer; in a word, Cultus reductiue non proprie dictus, worship reductively, not properly so called; lawful, not commanded, as before hath been showed.  
Object. But, if this be not worship, there is no worship of the body?  
I Answer, yes; for the very bodily Action of Eating and Drinking in the Supper, is, on the Receivers part, Cultus dei externus, external worship of God, because commanded. So is the bodily speaking in preaching and prayer publicly. Howbeit I confess, that, of the gestures, there is no bodily worship, i. e. Cultus Dei ex se, worship in and of themselves: Nor, religious Adoration, but ex intention, in respect of intention only: For, God hath not differenced Divine and Civil Adoration by gesture; yet is ours, religious, in this use.  
Quest. 2. Whether, if it be; it may be lawful for men to prescribe any thing of it, to any other action of worship than is warrantable, either by Precept, or Example.  
Answ. That which all men might of themselves lawfully do in the Action of God's worship, the Governors of the Church and Magistrate may lawfully require to be done of them all, i.e. So, as they might lawfully have done it libera conscientia with a free conscience. Indeed if God had tied it only to some one ordinance of his, by Precept, neither men, nor Angels might translate it. Warrant by Example you have before, from the use of God's people in several sorts of his worship. And that the Eucharist itself is an Action of divine worship, who dare deny? But I take no examples to be warrants to us further than they are warranted by the Word.  
Quest. 3. Where the Church hath power given to it, to ordain any Ceremony? Indeed it hath power to direct and take care for Decency and Order, 1. Cor. 14.40. But order is no Ceremony, nor Action, but the accommodation of Vbi, Quando Prius, Posterius, and necessary circumstances to such actions as be prescribed.  
Answ. I have immediately declared the Church's commission out of 1. Cor. 14.26.40. and shown how, for the reason of Order, Decency and Edification, the Church must needs ordain some Ceremonies. For if at all there be none, Religion (as touching the solemnity of it) will come to be as some have said (which Chamier also observes) as it were but a name. 
Vide Chamier To. 1. Panstrat. lib. ●. cap. 19 n. 18.  And if such things as need to be done for Order, and Decency be not settled (as Calvin showeth, Iust. 4.10.31.) all will be dissolved.  
The late devise of circumstances, I have showed before, even the Place for public worship; and, hour of meeting (which men would have to be nothing but circumstances, as they are designed to that special use) are Ceremonies, not qua sunt, sed qua inseruiunt cultui sacro, as they are subseruient to divine worship. Therefore doth Zanchie call them, Ceremonies. And if place and time, as they fall under such observation, be no Ceremonies, than neither the Tabernacle nor solemn Feasts were Ceremonies. These were, I confess, Divine, as commanded; those, are, in their particular determination, Humane; yet, Ceremonies, in their use and reference to the worship then and there to be done to God.  
Quest. 4. Whether it be any less than Idolatry to annex grace unto any thing save unto Gods own Ordinances, which our Declaration seems to do, acknowledging the Ceremonies profitable to Edification, and stirring up of our dull minds to mind holy duties; unless we say, Edification, and quickening of the heart be no Graces.  
Answ. It is Idolatria interpretativa, interpretative idolatry to ascribe to any creature (yea, though sanctified by God's ordinance) the efficiency of grace, which none can work as a cause thereof, efficiently, but God. But it is neither idolatry, nor unbeseeming us, to acknowledge any means by which grace is wrought through the power of God, not wrapped in them, but resident in himself that freely giveth the grace by the right use of them. This we ascribe to God's Sacraments, but not to Church ceremonies.  
The Declaration, you speak of, only saith; that some of our Ceremonies are apt: it doth not say, able to stir up our dull minds; and, not apt to do that, by any virtue in them, or from God by them to us; but only, as external objects and occasions whereby our minds work upon themselves; for it is said, by some notable and special signification.  
Chamier shall resolve this, who hath these words. 
Cham de Canone. lib. 9 cap. 20 s. 40. p. 337.  Neque enim ullus sanus asseruit omnia in Scriptures contineri quae momentum aliquod habent ad fide & pietate animos informandos, sed duntaxat omnia dogmata fidéi & pietatis. Praeter haec autem, plurima sunt, in quibus non est nullum eiusmodi momentum, nor did ever sound Divine affirm all things to be contained in Scriptures which have any use at all for information of men's minds touching faith and piety; but only that all doctrines of faith and piety are there: But besides these (doctrines) there are very many things which are not of no moment unto us:  multa naturalia, in quibus authorem mundi licet agnoscere; in Ecclesia, Ritus & Ceremoniae, as many natural things, in which we may learn to acknowledge the Creator of the world; in the Church Rites and Ceremonies. Where you see that, as unto God's creatures, so unto Ecclesiastical Rite and Ceremonies not contained in the word, he granteth some furtherance to faith and piety not efficienter, as an efficient, but obiective, by way of object. And Calvin requireth, that Ceremonies made for decorum, comeliness, 
Calv. Inst. 4.10.28.  should be such as breed a veneration of God's ordinances, to the end that talibus adminiculis ad pietatem excitemur, by such helps we might be excited unto piety. At whose words, any man that will, may quarrel as justly, as at our Declaration. And indeed, all Ceremonies that some way are not apt to edify us are unprofitable; and yet, the effecting of grace may not be ascribed to any such.  
Quest. 5. I desire to know whether our Ceremonies be not within the compass of those things that perish with the using (i. e. that leave no grace, or aught else behind them) which are according to the commandments of men, and if they be, how we can submit ourselves to their bondage, contrary to the Apostles prescription?  
Answ. I take not our Ceremonies to be within the compass of those things, 
Col. 2.  of which the Apostle saith, they perish in the using (i.e. they come to no such use or end as is aimed at in them) because those (as Zanchie showeth) were such observances as men devised, or used, with an estimation of worshipping God in them ex se as of themselves, and that the conscience is embondaged to that superstition. For that, being down right will-worship (when, to Gods own precept, other things were added by men, as necessary, and binding the conscience, as Zanchie saith) could yield nothing to men but their labour for their pains. Like as, in Math. 15. In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrine (i.e. imposing upon the conscience) men's Traditions; as if they could not be left, without sin. For the tradition was, that to eat with unwashen hands, defiled a man as much as whoredom.  
But in using Rites and Ceremonies prescribed for order, decency and edification, nor as necessary in themselves at all, nor as any worship of God per se, by and of themselves, nor as binding the conscience, extra casum scandali & contemptus, without the case of scandal and contempt, we attain the end of our observance, which is, the discharge of our duties to our Governors, the peace of the Church, and our Ministry. And the Church obtaineth her end, that the service of God is outwardly so ordered. And if the ordinances of God be, by men's prejudice, not the more regarded, but rather the less; or, that they which need not the help of such external Rites, shall despise them; or, others, through carelessness or ignorance shall make no use of any such Monition, as is, by a Ceremony, presented to their remembrance; yet shall the fruit remain to us, according to that which we have sowed.  
Therefore to the second member of this fifth Question (which supposeth that which I will not grant) I need not Answer. But, on the contrary, pray you to consider, if by the Tradition only of men, without my word of God, we shall say to ourselves, wear not a linen Garment in God's service, make not the sign of the Cross in Baptism, kneel not when you receive the Communion; for, if you do, God shall be dishonoured and offended with you: for, such and such good men say so? I now demand, if this be not to embodage ourselves unto the tradition of men, which say (as it is there) touch not, taste not, handle not; and so, bind our consciences where God hath left them free. Verily, I cannot see but such fear of God is in vain, because, by, and from the only precepts of men; and all that is so done, perisheth in the using; and though God in mercy may, and will forgive this sin of their ignorance; yet they can for this have no reward of God; for, who required this at their hands? Standeth the kingdom of God in such things, or his service? 
Tom. 4. lib. 15. cap. 14. s. 16.  I conclude in the words of Chamier, Nam quia noluit spiritus quicquam oneris imponere Ecclesiae, in rebus quidem indifferentibus, certe qui ijsdem sive usurpandis sive cavendis legem ponit, because the spirit would not impose any burden on the Church in things indifferent, certainly he that imposeth a Law touching either the using or shunning of those things: (i.e. as he hath before interpreted, as binding the conscience) Hune nocesse est per consequentiam contradicere legibus prius positis, viz. Deut. 4.2. and Deut. 12. Non adds, etc. It must needs be that such an one by consequence doth contradict those laws imposed of God, thou shalt not add to, etc.  
Quest. 6. I desire to know, whether we may with good Conscience, suffer the making of God's Commandments void by our own Traditions, as we do in pressing these Ceremonies with so much violence, and inflicting such sharp punishments on the neglect of them, and passing by Adultery and Drunkenness, etc. as venial sins.  
Answ. I take your meaning to be, by the Traditions of men, when you say [by our own Traditions,] and that you mean [as they, or some do,] when you say [as we do in pressing them.] For, we that are called only to the observation, whether Private men or Ministers are pressed, but press them not. And then I answer 1. That the pressing of lesser duties, more than greater, caeteris paribus is a sin, which we may not suffer to go without Censure, or Reproof, when we have opportunity. But that we should resist it by not observing the lesser duty, because they sin who press it more than a greater, will not hold. For of those that did so, and are for so doing reproved, our Lord saith, These greater things ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Math. 23.23.  
If you object, That tything of Mints and Cumin were duties contained in the Law, but ours be Ceremonies instituted by men. I grant that difference; but yet say, that if they be such as have allowance in the Word as lawful, the observance of them is a duty on our part to be performed for Conscience sake, though not of the thing for itself, (as in all things commanded of God) yet for Conscience sake of obedience to our Prince and Governors, whom, in lawful things God hath commanded us to obey. So I take it to be a duty to do this; though, a greater duty (because immediately commanded) and simply necessary at all times, to abstain from whoredom and drunkenness etc.  
2. I answer, that a lesser fault in itself, may sometimes be justly more punishable than a greater; as when a greater is confessed, and a lesser defended; or, when he that hath power to inflict grievous penalties in the lesser case, hath not Commission to do so in the greater, which is our Bishop's case, 
See D Ames his Book of Conscience, pa. 304. s. 6. first Edition.  wherein the fault is in the Laws, not in the judges. And 3. That a thing which is in itself the lesser evil, may be for the consequence the greater; as, stealing of grapes in the Palatinate, is worse than Burglary, or breaking of an house in the night, though a man steal not to the value of six pence, is more obnoxious than stealing an herd of cattles with us. Which I speak not to excuse any man, who willingly doth pursue these lighter matters more eagerly than the more important; but to show, that your rule of greater and lesser, must be understood cateris paribus, with respect to circumstances, and not absolutely.  
4. I answer, that though it be a sin not to be suffered without reproof, to press the lighter things more eagerly than the more important; yet doth not that necessarily make void the Commandment of God, but only misplace it. The making void of God's command by man's Tradition, is, when men of themselves appoint something to be done, which may discharge the conscience from the bond of that which God hath commanded. And this was the case of which our Lord spoke, 
Mark 7.11.  Thus you make the Commandment of God of none effect; namely, because they taught, that if a man had once sworn by the Offering, that his father or mother should have nothing by him. That this oath should free him from the Conscience of honouring (with my relief) his father or mother.  
Indeed if our Ceremonies were so delivered unto us, we ought not to suffer them, but to reprove the tender of them, and reject the use. Yea if at all they were delivered by our Church as necessary in themselves, or as proper parts of the service of God in which we use them; or, not as mere Rites of indifferent nature, and movable at the Church's pleasure, and such as (were it not for Order, Discipline, & Peace sake in the Church) we might, without any offence to God, as well leave, as use. For though this Condition, should not make void any one of the ten commandments as did that of the jews, yet because it is contrary to the Law which forbiddeth all addition to itself, that is, as Chamier saith, to bind the Conscience per se, by and of itself, we might not suffer that impiety to pass without contradiction; nor, by our Conformity countenance such a superstition.  
And as this is true on that hand, so is it on the other, that if any man, how holy, learned, or good soever, shall deliver this tradition to men (not having any word of God for himself) You may not wear a Surplice in God's Service, nor make the sign of the Cross at Baptism on the child's forehead, nor kneel in receiving the Lords Supper; for if you do, you shall sin against God, and dishonour him, and it will one day lie on your Conscience as a sin: I may not suffer such a superstition without reproof, not yield any practice to the command or direction of this humane Tradition, for the very same reason. For, as it is superstition de rebus medijs in utramque partem statuere, in things indifferent to make peremptory laws on either hand, either that it must of necessity be so done in obedience to God; or, it must not be so done, for direct obedience to God, as the only Lord of the Conscience: So it is my duty, without partiality on either hand, to show my dislike of their contrary superstitions.  
Nor can it be said, that the one side doth urge Conformity more eagerly than the other doth inconformity. For they urge inconformity directly for Conscience sake to God; and affirm, that it is Ignorance, or an ill Conscience in any man to use them, or both: whereas the other urge them not at all to be used for any Conscience sake, or necessity in themselves, but only for Conscience sake, because they are determined and imposed as matters of Order, and external government by lawful authority.  
Indeed the Church-Officers inflict more grievous penalties upon the refusal of these, as having authority of Law. But the other, at least some of them, inflict deeper wounds, by casting all men which conform, out of the hearts & good opinion of all they can, as timeservers, belly-gods, and what you will else that naught is. Nor is the Suspension of a Minister (in my conceit) a smarter stroke than the suspension of the Lords Sacrament from being received, unless the gesture of sitting or standing may be yielded to them.  
I lament the pressure of either side (if it could be helped) with all my heart, and yet must remember this proverb, Crudelem Medicum intemperans aeger facit, the intemperance of the Patient, puts the Physician upon an harsh course of cure. The Lord God of Peace and Mercy, guide our hearts and minds in the way and study of truth and peace.   

CAP. 19 The Objection from Christ's example, answered.  
Opp. THe Arguments against Kneeling, taken from Christ's Example, Table-gesture, Idolatrous introduction, prohibition to fall down before a consecrated creature, I confess have not moved me much. That which I desire to be satisfied in concerning this gesture, is, First etc.  
Answ. If you had said, these Arguments had not moved you at all. I would of them have said nothing. But lest they might at all solicit your thoughts, I will say something of each of them in order.  
As for Christ's Example, 
Vid. Raynold. in Censura de lib. Apochr. praelect. 79. which Altar Da. alloweth to be so, p. 74●. and appeareth true ex joan. 13.23, 25.  if it bind to that gesture which he used, than it bindeth to lying along. For what ever is to be done by pattern, must be cut just to the pattern, or else it is not done so. For, that Christ did so eat the Passeover with his Disciples; and the Disciples so partake the Communion in that gesture which our Lord non tam instituit quam retinuit in Coena, not which he instituted, but rather continued, is by all the learned on that side confessed. Altar Damasc. p. 745. Mr. Ainsw. Annot. in Exod. 12. Amongst whom this is a rule, that such things as our Lord then did occasionally, are (Altar. Damasc. p. 741.) no examples to us to bind us to the like, and therefore (say they) we are not tied to the night, or to after supper; or to unleavened bread; or to washing of feet, or to the sex, or number of Communicants: which is well said. But, say I, 
Vid. Tremel. in Math. 26 ex libro Talmudico-Scaliger. in Emendat. temporum lib. 6. pag. 534.  that gesture was as occasional as the rest: for it was the custom and Ecclesiastical Ordinance of the jews, to eat the Paschall-Feast so, lying along on beds, in token of the rest which God had now given them in their own land, which being a profitable Ceremony, our Lord himself observed it, and continued the use of it in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, though it was a gesture used in the Passeover; that he might teach us, by his Example, not to be scrupulous about gestures, but to conform ourselves to the lawful customs of the people of God where we are. So, Christ's Example is for us.   

CAP. 20. The objection from a Table-gesture answered.  
2. THe Table-gesture urged, doth cry down the Argument from Christ's Example. For if the thing required a Table-gesture, by nature of itself, then must we not ground it upon any examples, but refer the examples to the Table gesture, as the ground thereof. Nor was that gesture of discubitus, lying along with the jews a common table-gesture, but used only at the Sacrifice, or Sacred Feasts, saith Altar Damasc. which is much for us, 
Altar Dam. pag. 743.  as intimating that it is comely and convenient in our feasting before the Lord, even in the gesture of the body, or manner of using it, to show and witness, that we are not at a common Table; for the jews used this gesture freely at their Sacrifice-Feasts, not at their common supper or meals; and tied themselves to it strictly only in the Paschall Supper, that no other might then be used, without breach of their Constitutions. This our Lord followed.  

Altar Dam. p●g 7●6.  They which urge this Argument most, confess that it is not fit or lawful to use all other Formalities of a common table at the Lords Table. And therefore the use of a common table-gesture, urged by some of them so far, as to say to Receive kneeling is not to receive the Lords Supper, is a most unreasonable strain full of Faction, & not free of Superstition. For any gesture in case of necessity, any comely gesture accompanied with manifest signs of Reverence, is, no doubt, lawful in public; and no one, by any divine Law, necessary: therefore determinable by the Churches of God, as an indifferent Rite. 
Epist. lib. fol. 177.  Doth Christ heed us, whether we take it sitting, standing, or kneeling? saith Oecolampadius.   

CAP. 21. The Objection from Idolatrous introduction answered.  
THe third Argument from Idolatrous Introduction, is a poor one; yea, if it were granted that Antichrist, even in his height, had brought in this Rite of kneeling when we receive, for adoration of the Sacrament. For his misapplying of that gesture to the honour of a creature, as if it were God, cannot make the use of the like gesture unlawful to us in the worshipping of the true God, who condemning all bowing before an Idol, hath required it to himself in his external service, though not with determination with what kind of bowing. And if the Pope's abuse of kneeling have made kneeling unlawful, than the Arrians abuse of sitting at the Lords Supper in neglect of Christ, and to show themselves as it were his companions, should make sitting (not being instituted of Christ) to be also unlawful. Yet the Counsels of Cracovia, Vdislavia, Peterborne, and Seadan (cited in the Altar of Damasc. Latinè, pag. 751.) did not condemn sitting for this abuse of the Arrians, as unlawful to be used in the Lord's Supper, but only dissuade all of their society to use it, leaving to them as indifferent standing or kneeling. And, till of very late, those which spoke most against our use of kneeling, were not so rash as to count it unlawful; but only, for the abuse or peril which might possibly ensue, Inconvenient. So Beza, so M. Cartwright.  
2. But I deny that the gesture of kneeling when we do receive the Communion, was brought into the Church by Antichrist, i. e. the Bishop of Rome, as is pretended; or had any Idolatrous introduction, whatsoever may, since the introduction, have befallen it.  
The Adoration of the Sacrament we know to have been brought into the Roman Church, 
Lib. 3. Decret. tit. de Celebratione Missae. cap. Sanct. i. e Tit. 41. cap. ●  after the determination of Transubstantiation. For that Decree was at the Council of Lateran, 1215. under Innocent. 3. But, Adoration, about the year of our Lord, 1226. But Honorius did not appoint the Adoration to be used in the act of receiving, but at the Elevation, when, say they, Christ is offered up as an heave-offering by the Priest; or, when it was carried through the streets to the sick. And to increase the belief of Christ's real presence under the Species of the Bread, the Feast of Corpus-Christi-day, and Indulgences were after granted by two other Antichrists succeeding Honorius. But none of these made any Decree for Adoration of the Sacrament, at, and in the very time of receiving it, but when it was Elevated, or carried abroad to the sick, or in Pomp.  
2. Neither was the Decree of Honorius for Kneeling, to it or before it, but only for bowing of the body to it reverently. As the Disputer against Kneeling, and Altar Damascenum do rightly observe. 
Alt. Damasc. p. 783.  But that Altar Damascenum saith, this bowing to it was in sign only of veneration, such as to Images, not of divine Adoration; that is, without reason, said and conceived only in favour of his fancied difference of Veneration & Adoration, made by the very outward signs or gestures. For the reason of decreeing bowing and not of kneeling to the Sacrament, could not be because they would not give divine honour to that which they believed to be God, but because the ancient Decree of not Adoring openly and solemnly on their knees, no not in prayer on the Lords days, and the Pentecost, would not permit the gesture of kneeling openly and solemnly to be observed in the Churches for Adoration of the Sacrament.  
So that so long as that Decree for standing in their public service kept any life in it, there was no decree for Adoration of the Sacrament, by kneeling to or before it.  
Indeed since that time the Church of Rome hath changed the gesture of bowing to that of kneeling: The Priest when he hath consecrated each Species, and set them down upon the Altar, must now by the Canon of the Mass adore the Sacrament Kneeling. And so all the people must now do at the Elevation, etc.  
Thus we confess Kneeling before and to the Host, to have come in by Antichrist, when midnight was upon the face of the world, and Antichrist in his height. But we wait for some evidence to prove, first that Antichrist brought in the Rite or Ceremony of Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament. And secondly, that Kneeling so brought in, was intended as any sign of Adoration of the Sacrament, or Christ as existent under the forms of bread and wine.  

Pag. 788.  Altar Damascenum boldly telleth us, that with us, Idem ritus, eodem momento, eadem forma, eodem actu usurpatur, quo apud Pontificios, adeo ut externa specie ne hilum quidem differunt, the same rite, in the same moment of time, in the same form, in the same act is used, as is among the Pontificians; so that in respect of outward species or form they differ not at all.  
He forgetteth himself somewhat; for with us, the Bps. or Ministers communicate Kneeling, 
See Ordo. Rom. apud Bibl. Pat. Col. To. 8. pag. 390. colum. 1. litter. B. Edic. Colon. 1618.  as well as the people. But with them, the Pope, when himself performeth the office, receiveth sitting, as being a type of Christ, the Masspriests receive standing reverently, by the Canon of the Mass. The people indeed receive it Kneeling as we do. But before the gesture of Kneeling can be proved to be of Idolatrous introduction by Antichrist after the Transubstantiation, as is urged, three things must be showed. First, that the Rite and gesture of Kneeling in the Act of receiving, is, and hath been in the Church of Rome itself always Idolatrous, i.e. done, or to be done in Adoration of the visible Sacrament itself. Secondly, that some Pope did bring it in. And thirdly that, since the Transubstantiation: in all which, he will be to seek.  
For granting that the people do Kneel in receiving, (as did also the Priest, till such time as the doctrine of Transubstantiation begot the Canon of his standing, for fear of shedding aught) I deny, that Kneeling in the very time of Receiving, was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of, or for Adoration of the Sacrament itself, or any creature, and therefore not Idolatrous. I deny not the error of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths. But I deny, that they ever intended Adoration of the Species, at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths: But then turned themselves to God rather, to give him thankes, which was not uncomely.  
My reasons are first, because it was never yet enjoined by any Pope that they should then Kneel. Nor is this gesture of Kneeling any of the Roman Rites, nor so mentioned by Bellar. de Missa. lib. 2. c. 15. Nor in the Rubric of the Mass-book, which telleth us of standing, sitting, knocking, bowing and kneeling; and when they must be. Nor ever mentioned by Durandus, or Duranius, who writ of all the Rites and Ceremonies which are of use by any institution in that Church, or have been. Secondly, because so often as in the Mass, Adoration to the Sacrament is to be performed by Priest, or people, it is in plain terms said, let him or them then adore the Sacrament. But it is not said so at the time and moment of receiving; but on the contrary, when it is carried to be given to the sick, the direction is, to let him have a sight of it, that he may first adore it, if he will; which showeth that they do not esteem any sign of reverence to be given for Adoration of the Sacrament when it is received, but only when it is on purpose looked upon. Thirdly, for that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition, to Adore a thing which is not higher than their poles when they adore it, because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves. And hence Master Morison telleth of one in Savoy, 
●●prauatā Religionis O●igo, et incrementum. Edenburgs. 1594. pag. 75.  brought in danger of punishment, for doing his reverence to the Host carried by, out at a window, when he was higher than it, for this was despicere Sacramenium, to disregard or despise the Sacrament.  
I conclude therefore, that it is impossible to prove, that the gesture of Kneeling at that moment of receiving the Sacrament, was in the very Church of Rome idolatrously intended to the Sacrament.  
And as touching the Introduction thereof by any Pope, I also deny that to be proved, or probable (if meaning) of kneeling with respect to the Sacrament in the very moment of receiving it. For there is not to this day, any decree of any Pope or Council, so much as that it should be taken Kneeling of all the Communicants, much less for Adoration of the Sacrament itself.  

Pag. 723.  Altar Damascenum allegeth out of the Romish Ritual, Postea ad communionem accedit, incipiens ab ijs qui sunt ad partem Epistolae, sed primo si sacerdotibs vel alijs ex clero danda est communio ijs ad gradus Altaris genu flexis tribuatur: yet si commode fieri potest, intra sepimentum Altaris sint a laicis distincti, sacerdotes vero tum soli communicent. Then he goes to the Communion, beginning from those who are on the Epistlers side: but first, if the Communion be to be given to the Priests or others of the Clergy, let it be administered to them kneeling at the steps of the Altar; or, if it may conveniently be done, let the Priests be distinguished from the Laics by being within the rails of the Altar, but then let the Priests communicate alone. Such another I find alleged by M. Morison 
* Quo supra. pag 69. . And a third I remember in the Order of Salamanca for the Friars. But all these concern only the Clergy, who coming to receive so near the Altar, are appointed to do it kneeling on the greeces or steps of the Altar, which is done in veneration of the Altar, or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for Adoration to the Host when it is put into, their mouths, and is not given as a rule to all the people wherever they communicate, or when it is communicated to them.  
But it will be perhaps objected. That the people of all sorts do receive kneeling in their Churches. I grant it, but I deny that ever it was by any Pope, since the Transubstantiation, devised or imposed upon them as a Rite or Ceremony to be observed in receiving. For then, we should surely either find when, and by whom; or, at least, that it was done, or had not been so before, which I do not believe that any man can show.  
And the reason why there never was any constitution made in the Roman Church for this gesture, was, as I conceive three fold. 1. Because if they had made, till of later ages, such a Law, they had openly crossed the ancient Rite and Canons made against Kneeling on the lords-days and Pentecost, in any their solemn worship of God. Therefore they rather liked to wink at the closer breach of that Canon, by such as out of private devotion should kneel, when their turn came to receive, on those days of Station, then to cross that by another Canon expressly. Secondly, because they found all men but of a general devotion and desire of honouring God in that Action, of themselves to kneel, they did not find any need, to require that to be done, which was universally done of the people, by an ancient Custom. And thirdly, because this which had been observed of old times, before their new conceit of a Real presence, seemed to give better testimony to that conceit, then if the Ceremony had been by themselves instituted. And indeed this we find, that when the doctrine of Reall-presence by Consubstantiation, began to get head, which was above 100 years before the Transubstantiation, the Patrons of that error did plead the Adoration, which had been generally observed in the use of the Supper before that (but with intendment of the same to Christ the Son of God, as sitting in heaven, and not as existent in or with the bread) to prove the Real presence thereby. For 
a In tertiam partem Thomae Tom. 3. pag. 781.  Suarez saith, as the Real presence proveth the Adoration a priori, so the Adoration proveth the real presence a posteriori.  
Thus 
b Alger. de Sacram. Altaris. lib. 2. c 3.  Algerus, who lived above a hundred years before the Transubstantiation, or voidance of the substance of bread was resolved of; but yet, when a Real presence of Christ's body, in, and with the bread was apprehended; urgeth his matter, saying, Cassa est veneranda sedulitas Adorantium & venerantium, etc. the venerable sedulity of such as adore and worship is in vain, if Christ be not there: And after, we Adore the Sacrament itself, Sacramentum ipsum adoramus tanquam divinum quiddam, as a divine thing, and speak to it as to a living and intelligent thing. O lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, etc. Quia non quod videtur, sed quod vere est, Christum ibi esse credimus, because we believe Christ to be there, not in show, but in truth. Wherein, however he do pervert the customary fashion of the Church in receiving this Sacrament Adorantes adoring it, referring it to the Sacrament itself; and misinterpret those words of the Canon, O lamb of God, etc. which were intended to Christ himself in heaven, 
W. Strabo in Bibl. patr. Colon. To. 9 p 961. i e. cap. 23. de rebus Ecclesiasticis, etc. Florus, a Minister who lived ann. 860. in his Exposition of the Mass, Bibl. Colon. To. 9 pag. 304.  and not as locally in the Sacrament, (as Strabo showeth) used in the time of the breaking of the bread for the Communicants; yet thus much is manifest, that before his time the Church, as he speaketh, generally did use Adoration of Christ himself in celebrating those mysteries. And in his time, and after, before the Transubstantiation, they did Adore Christ as coexistent with the bread, which perhaps gave occasion to Auerrois (who lived eighty years before Honorius) to say that Christians did adore their God, and then eat him. For, at that time, the error of Consubstantiation had gotten strength, and they did as it were confine the local presence of Christ to the bread once sanctified, at least in the Sacramental use of it, and did perform divine honour to the Son of God as being therein. Not yet intending to adore that which was seen, but that which was taken to be therein (ut contentum in continente) ineffably there, yet (ibi) there. The difference betwixt these and the former ages was, in this, That the former Ages did, in receiving the Sacrament, 
c Adoring, as Aug. said, not that which is seen and perisheth, but that which is believed, etc.  adore Christ as therein mystically, as the signified thing is in the Sign, without any opinion of Christ's bodily presence in the creatures themselves, or of alteration made in the substance, nature or form of the creatures; whereas, that Age dreamt of a Consubstantiation, The following, did embrace that monster of Transubstantiation; and then, when all the substance of the visible creature was held to be gone, they did easily turn and intend the Adoration to the visible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature left therein, but only the appearances of familiar creatures, under which, Christ himself was substantially; but invisible.  
That there was this difference, the writings of the several Ages will manifest to any diligent Reader; and among other things, this cause (which is kept, I confess, still; though stripped of the sense it had) that, in celebrating or consecrating, the prayer was not made, that the Bread and Wine might be made the body and blood of Christ in themselves, as is now fancied; but,  nobis accipientibus fiant corpus & sanguis Domini, to us receiving of them they may become the body and blood of the Lord. Intimating that the Real presence of Christ (in a spiritual manner) is not effected in the visible signs; but, in and unto the faithful Receiver of them. And that all the conversion and changing of the Bread and Wine was only in their use, in that they were mystically, and in type, the body and blood of Christ, as the Ark was jehovah, as the Rock was Christ, 1. Corinthians, 10.  
The Adoration therefore of Christ in the use of the Sacrament, hath always been in the Christian Church; First, without any reference of divine honour to the visible things themselves as being really turned into Christ, or containing him within themselves. Afterwards, from the prevailing of Guilmund and other against Berengarine, and the truth, for a real presence of Christ's conjoined with the bread, they directed their Adoration to the creatures; but, not for the creatures or Elements sakes, but for Christ's sake. At last came in the Adoration of the Sacrament or visible element of bread itself, as having no substance or material subsistence, but only the natural Body of Christ by virtue of Consecration, & by Concomitance wholly Christ, who is God to be adored for ever. In the first times and second, the adoration was only in the use. For out of the Sacramental use they did not believe such a Real presence: but, after the abomination of Transubstantiation once got the field, because there was then nothing of the creature supposed to be left, but the Accidents; and those, as Bellar. himself speaketh, united to the person of the Son of God. Then followed, that wheresoever that appeared, Divine honour was held fit to be done thereto, as unto the very Son of God incarnate, and certainly existent under those Species of Bread and Wine, as ever he was on the Cross, or in the womb of his mother; only (for fear of frighting us) he is pleased to be there invisible, and as after the manner of a Spirit, but yet in his very true natural body, the same that was crucified, say they. This most abominable Idolatry followed indeed the Transubstantiation. But the two other sorts of Adoration of Christ in the use of the Sacrament went before this. The middle also was Idolatrous, not in obiecto, in the object, as the last, but interpretative, because they conceived very Christ to be coexistent, then, with the sanctified Creatures; and as so, adored him, but not the visible creatures. The first Adoring was undoubtedly lawful, when the sanctified creatures were understood to be the Body and Blood of Christ, not in rei veritate, as being changed the one into the other, or one coexistent with the other, but in significante mysterio, in a signifying mystery, as August. spoke, made the Body and Blood of Christ, not by any alteration of their substance, form, and nature, as Theodoret; but only by their Institution and Deputation to that use: and therefore were not the very Body and Blood of Christ, nor did exhibit the same (as was after dreamt) to the mouth and body of every Receiver of them, but only to the soul of the true believers, who received spiritually and by faith, rem sacramenti, the thing signified by the outward elements. For all that while, the adoration or divine worship was directed only to Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, and that in the act of Communicating.  
Hence the 1. Nicene Council exhorteth, that men should not be humiliter intenti, humbly intent to the things before them, but look up higher. Hence came into the liturgy, Sursum corda, lift up your hearts. Hence many plain speeches of Saint August. Chrysost. and others, that the Receivers must, as Eagles, mount up to heaven, and take hold of christ there: Prepare mentem non ventrem, fidem non dentes, their heart, not their stomach; faith, not their teeth to receive Christ himself, and feed upon him.  
That Adoration preceded Transubstantiation, 
Ann. 1130. lib de Canonii observantia proposit: 23. prope finem. Tom 11. Bibl. Pat. Colon pag. 460. D. Col. 1.  which was defined at the fourth Lateran Council, Ann. 1215 I show. In the 11 Centurie we have in Radulpho Decano Tungrensi, the manner of receiving the Sacrament set forth in these words: Inclinatus autem dicit antequam communicet, Domine jesu Christe qui voluntate patris cooperante Spiritu sancto, per mortem propriam mundum vivificasti, libera me per hoc sacro-sanctum corpus & sanguinem tuum ab omnibus iniquitatibus & malis meis, etc. Cum distribuit, dicit, Corpus Domini nostri jesu Christi proficiet tibi in vitam aeteruam, Amen. The Priest bowing himself before he communicates, saith thus: O Lord jesus Christ who by the will of the Father, and the consecration of the holy Ghost hast quickened the world through thine own death, deliver me by this thy most holy body, and blood from all mine iniquities and evils whatsoever, &c And when he distributeth the Eucharist unto others, he saith, The body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ be available to thee unto eternal life.  

Anno 1090. Extat. in Bibl Pat. To 11. pag. 383. lit. B. col. 1. about the year of our Lord, 1090  In Micrologo de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus, cap. XVIII. these words, Orationem quam inclinati dicimus antequam communicemus, non ex ordine sed ex religiosorum traditione habemus, scil. hanc: Domine jesu Christe qui ex voluntate patris. Item & illud, Corpus & sanguis Domini jesu Christi quod dicimus cum alijs Eucharistiam distribuimus. Sunt & aliae multae precationes, quas quidem ad pacem & communionem privatam frequentant: sed diligentiores antiquarum traditionum obseruatores, nos in huiusmodi privatis orationibus brevitati stucere docuerunt, potiusque publicis precibus in officio Missae occupaeri. That prayer which, bowing ourselves, we use to say before we communicate, we have not by any order, but by tradition of religious men: to wit, this, O Lord jesus Christ who by the will of the Father. And this also, The body and blood of the Lord jesus Christ, which we say when we distribute the Eucharist. There are also many other prayers which indeed men use at giving the Pax and private communion: but such as are more diligent observers of the more ancient traditions, have taught us to study brevity in such private prayers, and to be rather busied in the public prayers in the office of the Mass.  
These two witnesses, and especially the elder of them, Micrologus, who died above a hundred years before Transubstantiation was defined, tell us these things. First, that beside the public solemn prayers, they had sundry private. Secondly, that they had a prayer which the Minister used to say Inclinatus, bowing himself immediately before he received, and another for each Communicant, the same which we have. Thirdly, that those prayers were not ab aliquo ordine, by any appointment, but of the Tradition of devout men. These testimonies do prove that they received with Adoration, whether Inclinati bowing themselves in their bodies, or on their knees.  
For men never knew till now (if any be so blind to believe it) that kneeling is any more a gesture of Adoration then bowing, Inclinate capita Deo, bow your heads to God, in Chrysostom's Leiturgy was taken to be a posture of Divine Adoration, and not only Kneeling. 
Vasquez de Adoratione lib. cap. 4. num. 36.   Vasquez yet, The external tokens of Adoration, are bowing down of the body, bending the knee, prostration, knocking of the breast, folding of the hands, bearing the head, censing, kissing, setting up lights, etc.  
But Inclinatus may agree to Kneeling, or to bowing down; 
Vide Synod. Turon. Can. 37.  And like enough; that on the Station days, Lords days and Pentecost, they did rather bow, then kneel; I mean, the public Ministers; and kneeled on all other days when they were by Canon bound to pray Kneeling. In which days they also did communicate, and therefore must needs be understood to receive it Kneeling; for when it was delivered, that prayer was said, The body of our Lord, etc.  
Yea it is said by Amalarius, 
Anno. 800. Amalar. de Ordine Antiphonarii cap. 52. apud Bibl. Patr. Colon. Tom. 9 part. 1. pag. 411.  who lived eight hundred year before Berengarius his time, and therefore before the decree for Consubstantiation or Real presence in, or with the Bread, That according to the Order of the Roman Church, in the end of the Psalms they used to say a versicle before the prayer, Quam solemus facere genu flectendo siuè vultum declinando in terram, which we are used to make kneeling, or casting down our face towards the earth, whereby is manifest that at some prayers even in Easter week (for of that he speaketh) they did use indifferently bowing down of the head, or kneeling: and therefore did understand the bowing to be as much a sign of Adoration, as kneeling, and that we may as reasonably say Inclinati kneeling, as it may be said bowing, or bowed down.  
The story of Plegilis reported by Rabanus Maurus (which is botchingly peeced to Paschasius his book, 
Anno. 830.  the corp. & sang. Domini, cap. 41.) Though the thing reported be like to be a fable, or else was a delusion of Satan to help on the doctrine of the Real presence, which was then in brewing; yet so much of it as serves our turn may be well alleged; Namely, when it is said, that when he was in celebrating the Communion he pro more procumbebat, according to custom felt on his knees, which showeth plainly that after the consecration, and before the receiving, the manner was that the Priest fell on his knees. For else would not Rabanus have said, pro more procumbebat.  
These witnesses may (I think) serve to assure us, that at that time, when the Real presence was come into dispute; and after that, till the way of Transubstantiation was defined, They did use to communicate with Adoration. And yet it cannot be showed that any Bishop of Rome did appoint it so to be.   

CAP. XXII. That in the most ancient times, before corruption of the doctrine of the Sacrament began, the Sacrament was received with adoring Gesture.  
NOw, for the more ancient times, in which the doctrine of the Sacrament was the same which ours now is, (as Orthodoxus Consensus most largely, and Duplessis de Missa and others do manifest:) I say with that learned Treatise Dialacticon Eucharistiae confidently, that the Fathers did receive the Sacrament Adoring; Adoring, not the Sacrament but Christ; and to show this, I will begin as high as I can, and come downwards.  
Tertullian de oratione, 
* Cap. 14.  after Reproof of other abuses about prayer, cometh at length to say, Similiter de stationum diebus, non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interueniendum, quod statio soluendo sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo, devotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resoluit, an magis Deo obligat? nun solennior erit statio tua, si & ad aram Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini & reseruato utrumque salvum est, & participatio sacrificij & executio officij. Si statio de militari exemplo nomen accipit (nam & militia dei sumus) utique nulla laetitia, sive (not as it is printed, sine) tristitia obueniens castris stationes militum rescindit. Nam laetitia libentius, tristitia solicitius administrat disciplinam. Likewise on the days of Station most men think they should not be present, at the prayers of the Sacrifice, because the body of our Lord being taken the Station is to be dissolved. Doth then the Eucharist dissolve the observance devoted to God, or rather more oblige unto God? Shall not thy station be more solemn, if thou shalt stand even at the Altar of God? The body of our Lord being taken and reserved, each is safe, both the participation of the Sacrifice, and the performance of that observance (viz. of standing in prayer.) If station take the name from the pattern of soldiers (for we are God's soldiery) verily neither joy or sorrow happening to the camp, dissolves the stations of Soldiers, for joy observes discipline more cheerfully, sorrow more carefully.  
The place is dark, and must be opened, before we can make use of that Testimony, wherefore first we must know, what the days of station do mean. 
* De la Cerda, the jesuite upon this place, num. 143. and 151.152. Bell lib. 2. de bon. oper. cap. 22. aliique.  Some take them to be their set days of Fasting. But that cannot be. For Tertullian himself doth difference them one from another, lib. 2. c. 4. ad uxorem, where showing the mischief and hindrances which a woman shall have by taking an Infidel to be her husband (as some than did in their second marriages) he saith,  si statio facienda sit, Maritus de die conducat ad Balneas: Si ieiunia obseruanda sunt, Maritus eadem die conviviun exerceat, etc. Where jeiunia is not put as an explication of Statio, as if they signified one and the same thing: nor is statio put for the Vigils in the times of their fastings, as de la Cerda on that place, and Bell. lib. 2. de bon. operib. cap. 22. would have it: for those Vigils (as the same Cerda and Bellarmine there confess) were only de nocte of the night, not of the day; whereas Tertullian speaks expressly of station as an act proper to the day time, saying: if a station be to be performed, the husband may that same day lead her to the Baths; if fastings be to be observed, the husband may the same day hold a feast. That Gloss therefore of the jesuites is but a dream. It remains then, that Station is used in a proper not figurative sense, to note some solemn act performed in the day time: and that Statio and Jeiunia are put for different things and the station is letted by carrying her that day to the Baths; Fasts, by her husbands appointing of a Feast that day. Besides fasting could not be absolutely hindered by going to the Baths: nor Vigils at all, by holding a feast in the day, if the Vigils were held only in the nights. Stationum dies, therefore were those day's wherein (by a Tradition universally received) they stood in prayer, and at all the solemn worship of God: of which Tertullian saith, 
Tertull de Coron. Milit cap. 3. Edit. Paris. ●an. 1674.  Diebus dominicis iciunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare, we hold it an heinous thing to fast on the Lords days; or, to adore on our knees: Eadem immunitate a die Paschae ad Pentechostem usque gaudemus, This immunity we enjoy from Easter until Pentecost. This Ceremony of standing on those days, and of not fasting on those days, served to express their belief and joyful remembrance of our Lord's Resurrection from the dead. This is that which Tertullian calleth, devotum Deo obsequium, a devout duty (or service) unto God. And that Tertull. in this place, by Station, where he saith, quod statio soluenda sit; meaneth the very posture or gesture of standing, in the place alleged; appeareth yet further in the words themselves, when he saith, Nun statio tua solennior crit, si & ad aram Dei steteris? shall not thy station be the more solemn; if thou stand at the Altar?  
The Communion-table than is, after the phrase of that time, called the Altar. The Sacraments of Christ's body and blood, the Sacrifices. The prayers used in that action, about the blessing or consecration of Bread and Wine to that use, the prayers of the Sacrifices. All which, by the word [Eucharistia] there used, as it were expositively, are manifest. Wherefore there can be no other meaning of Tertullia's words alleged, but this: That on those days on which the solemn worship of God, was (by a Tradition called Apostolical) performed standing and not kneeling; Many men, or most men [plerique] withdrew themselves, when they came to the celebration of the Supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the Sacramental bread, being taken of the Ministers hand, The station, i. e. standing must be dissolved, or left. And because standing on those days might not be left (as they thought) therefore they rather left the Sacrament on those days, than they would break the rule of standing on those days. Therefore they forbore: which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the Table standing; yet they used not to partake them, [i. e. eat the bread or drink the wine] in any other gesture, than what was on the station days then forbidden, Kneeling.  
And it is to be marked that he doth not say, 
Anno 200.  accepto corpore Domini statio solvitur; but soluenda sit, i. e. when, after the taking of it (
a Tertul. de corona Milit. c. 3. Nec de aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus. Edit. Par. 1624. In Tertull. adorare is Orare lib. de Oratione: and the 1. Council of Nice restraineth it only to prayer. Canon 20. iuxta Binii Edit. 1618.  as was then the manner) of the Ministers hands, they came to receive it into their bodies.  
If the gesture then used, had been standing, this scruple could not have come into their minds: no, nor if it had been sitting, for that, was not forbidden in all the solemn service of God on those days, but used, as appeareth in justin Martyr, in hearing the word of God read and preached. Only kneeling was then restrained, and that (say some) not only in prayer, but in all the divine service; Tertullian saith not, de geniculis orate, pray kneeling, but Adorate adore, as Altar Damascenum observes: The people therefore, not daring to kneel, on those standing days, and not liking to receive the mysteries in any other gesture, then that of Kneeling, whereby they might better show their discerning of the Lords body, in the most humble gesture when they partaked the mysteries; chose on these days, on which they might not Kneel, to forbear the Sacrament, and to take it on other days, when they might kneel in receiving it.  
That it was thus, the Remedies which Tertullian propoundeth, do make yet more clear. For he, to persuade them not to absent themselves from the Sacrifice prayers made at the Altar (i e. the Communion-table) because of that; First telleth them, that their standing shall not be taken away, but made solennior, more remarkable, if they shall stand at the Altar, & therefore they might come to those prayers as well as to others, and stand in them at the Altar, yea, and take the Lords body, i.e. as he 
b Tertull adversus Marci. lib. 4. cap. 40.  elsewhere expoundeth himself, the figure of his body, the bread; and not, assumere, not eat it at that time, but reserve it and carry it away with them, and eat it at home in private, where they might receive it Kneeling. which in the public assembly they might not then do, in the Station days. This he saith, accepto igitur corpore Domini & reseruato, utrumque saluum est, & participatio sacrificij & executio officij. both are by this devise provided for, both the partaking of the Sacrifice, i.e. the Sacrament of Christ's sacrifice; and the performance of that duty of not kneeling in the public worship of God, on those days of Station.  
And that they might see he had no meaning to dissolve the station, or standing, he addeth, that if the name be taken from Military fashion, (as we are Christ's Soldiers) than the standing must be observed, because Soldiers never left their stations, for any joy of good, or sorrow of ill success: but still they kept their station, more cheerfully if things went well, and more carefully, if ill. Nam laetitia libentius, tristitia solicitiùs administrabit disciplinum.  
In sum, the people would not come to take the Sacrament, when they might not kneel in the Act of receiving or partaking it, and therefore forbore to come unto the Communion-Table, and prayer on those Station days. Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneel, and to take the Bread in public standing at the Table, and reserve and carry it away with them, and receive it at their own houses, as they desired, kneeling. Thus should the Eucharist be received, and the tradition of standing on those days in the public worship of God, be also observed.  
I allow not the devise, but only relate it: and out of it, do (in my conscience) observe, that the Christians than did, and before had used, assumere adorantes, to take it adoring, 
Anno 230. Origen Hom. on Diversos. Vide Euseb. Emissen. Hom. in 2. Domin. post. Epiphan. alleged in the Tract of kneeling, p. 195. by Ro●hester.  in reverence, not to the visible signs, but the internal grace.  
And this agreeth well with that advice of Origen, given to every man, that when the Lord cometh to him in the Sacrament, he, humbling himself should say as did the Centurion, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter into my mouth: which words have, (if not since that time, as Durantus affirms, yet) for many ages, been used by the Communicants immediately before the receiving; or some other such like prayer, to which the Communicant said, Amen.  
Now, that from that time of Tertullian, it was a common fashion to take (i.e. accipere) the holy mysteries in the public assembles on the Lords days and Pentecost, and to carry them away, and use them privately in their own houses, or elsewhere every day, ante omnem cibum, fasting, as Tertullian speaketh; or when they would, is manifest (if, 
Tertul. ad uxorem. Cyprian. Heironym.  any thing) in Tertullian, Cyprian, Hierome, and others. And, that they did in private, receive the same kneeling, or prostrate, and that with the approbation of the then Pastors, appeareth in the example of Gorgonia, and the applause of that famous Bishop who reporteth it, Greg. Nazian. who telleth, 
Anno 380. Greg. Nazian. Orat. in lauden Gorgoniae. Edit. Paris. 1609.  how for recovery from her sickness and pain, after all other helps in vain used, she went to the Church and Altar in the night, and there prostrate with faith before the Altar, etc. And having laid her head to the Altar, with like (that is, as is before expressed, with a great) cry and tears wherewith she abounded, (like to that woman who of old washed the feet of Christ) and professed that she would not part thence, till she had obtained cure, and afterwards had with this her medicine, (that is, of her tears, as Elias Cretensis expounds it) rinsed her whole body and that if her hand had any where hid (or laid up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the signs of (Christ's) precious body and blood, she had mingled it with her tears (O admirable thing!) (she presently felt herself cured of her disease, etc. Which place I urge not, conceiving that at that time she did receive those holy mysteries from the hand of any Minister than administering the same unto her, it being in the night season when she is said thus to have done; but that she (in case she had any where reserved any part of the mysteries formerly administered to her, and intended now privately to have eaten and drunk the same in the night) could not but have mingled them with her tears: and thence to show, (as Billius also notes upon the place) the ancient custom of those times to have been this: viz. to reserve the Sacrament, and to eat it privately, as (saith the same Billius) Tertull. lib. 2. ad uxorem testifieth. For, would Greg. Nazianzen have supposed her to have lid up any of those signs or Christ's body and blood, to have made use of them at such a time when she was privately prostrate, and praying with tears at the Altar, if such a thing had not then been in use?  
This reservation might possibly be begun before, by reason of persecution; or, for that reason the rather continued. But I conceive, the either first or most prevailing occasion was this, that on the Lords days they might not receive it kneeling, and their devotion & ignorance together was such, that they held it not fit assumere, to take it, but kneeling or prostrate; not adoring that which was seen, as Augustine saith; and therefore not the Bread or species of Bread, but that which was not seen.  
This abuse of Reservation was after marked in the church, and thereupon all men condemned as accursed, who should accipere, and not sumere, take it in the Church, but not at all partake it. 1. Council of Toledo. And, by the Caesar Augustan Council, all men denounced accursed, that should take it, and not receive (assumere) it (in Ecclesia) in their Church or place of their holy meetings.  
The ancient Rite of not kneeling in their solemn or public prayers or worship on the Lords days, or betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, still continued, often renewed by sundry Synods, and was in a manner unniversally observed. The people therefore that might not still carry the holy things out of the Church as they had used, but must partake them there, were permitted, rather than apppointed to kneel, when they did sumere, and use some private prayers: only at the public prayers they stood. And the Ministers, though on those days they might not kneel at the consecration Prayers, (I mean about the Sacrament) yet they performed them inclinati, bowing their faces towards the ground. And the common people after they had taken the sacred things at the Altar or Communion Table, or otherwise, standing, betook themselves to their private devotions, first on their knees, and so received the Sacrament kneeling in their own places, till that afterwards it was carried to them where they were; as, in the Church of Rome was the manner, at least, Ann. 800. See Ordo. Rom.  
That this is true, 
Sozomen. Hist. lib. 8. cap. 5. who lived, Ann. 430.  appeareth in Sozomens History of that woman, who being tainted with the error of Macedonius, yet to give her husband content, (who threatened to leave her if she would not receive the Sacrament in Chrysostom's, the orthodox Church) went thither, having provided herself of some other bread from home; This woman therefore taketh the sacramental Bread of the Pastor's hand, and then kneeling down as if it had been to prayer (saith Sozomen) conveyed that away, and put her own bread into her mouth, which, when she would have chewed, was turned into a stone: By astonishment whereof, she discovered to chrysostom all the matter. Let him that will and dare, censure the matter; namely, that there was no such miracle done; yet, that Sozomen hath so related it, no man can deny. And thence must needs appear, that the manner of Communicants was so to do, seeing she that desired to be thought to Communicate, did so no doubt, as others used to do, outwardly, in Communicating. 
Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad popul. Antioch.  And this agreeth with Chrysostom's words, Adora & Communica, Adore and Communicate. Nor can this of chrysostom be put off, by the ambiguous and different meaning of the word Adore, as if it might (perhaps) only mean internal adoration, which all men confess to be necessary in that action. For, chrysostom showeth of what kind of Adoration he speaketh usually in this matter, namely, of Externall.  
For in his seventh Homily on Matthew, 
Anno. 400.  he exhorteth (by the example of the Magis, or Wise men which came out of their own country) to Adore, i.e. externally to come to the house of Bread.— But, to adore and honour the Son of God: warneth men, that they counterfeit not as Herod, who said he would come to adore, but meant to kill: and saith, that such like are they which having Mammon in their hearts, do abuse unworthily the Communion of the mystery:— who seem to adore, but as much as in them is, kill him whom they feign themselves to adore.— He concludeth, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Timeamus igitur, Let us fear therefore, lest when we carry the show of suppliants and adorers, we be indeed enemies. Let us then when we are about to adore, cast all things from us etc. In which passage he pl●in●ly requireth so the outward adoration, as it should not be separated from the inward; and shows, that adoration, which even Hypocrites might perform, must needs be only external, and in the fashion (as he saith) of Suppliants.  
The same Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. exhorting (as he doth in his seventh Hom. on Math.) by the example of the Magis, to come humbly to worship Christ, pleadeth that they have more reason to honour his Body which is set before them on the Altar. For, that which is worthy of highest honour (saith he) I will show thee on earth. For, as in the Court of Kings, not the walls, nor the golden roof, but the Body of the King sitting in his throne is the chiefest of all: So, in the heavens is that kingly body, which now on earth is set before thee to be seen, etc. In which passage it is plain, that he calleth for such Adoration, as the Magis performed to Christ lying in the cratch; not, because he thought the very natural body of Christ to be locally there upon the Altar, which he, even there, affirms to be enthronised in the highest Heavens: But because the Bread is the very body of Christ in a mystery only; for he could not else say, It is to be seen on the Altar-table. Nor was this Adoration which he calleth for, intended terminative, to determine in the Sacramental bread, or the species which appeared; or, in Christ as contained therein; but only before the same, and by occasion thereof unto Christ himself sitting in glory as M. Perkins well saith. 

Perk Works Ann. 1609. Vol. ● p. 642.  
Aug. de Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 9   For, as Augustine saith, He that adoreth a profitable sign which God hath commanded, (mark well, that this makes no room for Images which God hath not commanded) and understandeth the signification, doth not adore that which is seen, and perisheth, 
The baptised that were of ●eeres did adore (when they were baptised) not Baptism, but Christ.  but rather that unto which all such things are to be referred, of which he after giveth instance in Baptism, and the Lords Supper. This will not hold in images, nor profit them who adore Christ as contained, and existent in the place, where had been the substance of Bread and Wine, (as they say) indeed, is still; 
* jewel Artic.  
* Defence pa. ●●9. Edit. pr●●●.  any more than for adoration of water in Baptism. The Sacraments (saith Bishop Jewel) in that sort, i. e. in respect of that which they signify, and not in respect of that which they are in themselves, are the flesh of Christ and are so understanded, and believed, and adored; but the whole honour resteth not in them, but is passed over from them to the things which be signified.  
His meaning is, 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, reserved to God; of which two, the difference (as I have showed) cannot always, nor needeth to be showed, in, or by the outward gesture, but is only in the distinction, and intention of the mind. 
1 Chro. 29.20.  The people worshipped (saith the Text) God and the King. Where the outward adoration was one, as the word by which it is expressed, is but one; but the Religious and Civil, were distinct in the mind, intention and reason of either.  
Well saith Doctor Ames, 
D. Ames Antibell. Tom. 3. disp. 37. art. 23.  That veneration or reverence is due to the Sacrament itself as God's Ordinance, And that Christ is to be adored in the use of it, though not as enclosed in the Bread and Wine, or existent in the place of their substance. This digression is to clear Chrysostom's, and the other Ancient Father's meanings. Now, return we to the History.   

CAP. 23. The same shown to be the practice of the Church, in the time of Theodoret, Saint Augustine, and Cyril.  
THeodoret, Dial. 2. hath this passage: 
Anno 430. 2●. Coccius.  Neque enim, etc. For neither after the Consecration do these mystical signs depart from their proper nature, for they remain in their former substance, figure, and kind or species, and therefore are they both seen and felt as before. And yet are they understood to be that which they are made, and are believed and adored, as being the very things which they are believed to be. This testimony showeth plainly, that Theodoret believed neither Transubstantiation, nor Consubstantiation. Not Transubstantiation, for he denieth any change to be made by Consecration, either in the substance, for me or species: nor Consubstantiation, for he saith not, that in, or with those mystical signs is that which is believed and adored; but that the signs themselves ar● understood to be that which is believed and adored, id est, to be that in a Mystery: ●or else how said our Lord, This is my body? How Paul, The rock was Christ? And yet Theodoret plainly showeth, that these; not, Elements, but signs, i. e. Sacraments of Bread and Wine sanctified by the will of Christ to that use, are believed and adored; not meaning, that the adoration should at all rest in the visible things, in which no real change was made, but was referred to what they are, in their signification and use, the body and blood of Christ, inseparably knit to the person of the Son of God, or Deity in that Person.  

〈◊〉 adversus ●●●●um. ●ialecticon ●●thar.  Thus was God worshipped in the Bush, as Lyra saith; and in the Ark, as that learned man, forenamed; and it appeareth, Psal. 95.6 to be so. Thus David's dancing before the Ark, was, before the Lord, 2. Sam. 6.  

●●g de Cate●hisan●●s ru●ibus. cap. 3.  The signs (saith Augustine) are visible things, but invisble things are adored in them. He saith, that invisible things which are in them are adored, not as if he had once dreamt of Christ's being (ibi) there contained in, or under the species (for he often professeth, that Christ's natural body, where it is, is visible, and occupieth a place, or else could not be a body; and is now, and shall be only in heaven, till he come to judgement) but that the Adoration is intended not at all to the Signs themselves, as they are visible things; but to Christ himself, which is not seen; who is in the Signs only, ut signatum in sign, by virtue of a Sacramental Relation, not by any Local inexsistence.  
The same Theodoret, in Dialog. 3. reasoneth from the Adoration done outwardly to the Sacrament (though in Relation to Christ) thereby to prove that the flesh of Christ itself, being the flesh of the Son of God, is to be Adored, saying; How is the Architype itself base or contemptible, whose type is to be Adored and reverenced? Where, first it is manifest that he esteemeth and calleth the Sacrament but a type of the body and blood of Christ, which is the Archtype. and therefore favoureth not any real Carnal presence, but excludeth that: And yet, seeing, from the Adoration done to the type in reference to Christ the Archtype, he so disputeth; he plainly showeth, that it was usual and known to all men then, that such external Adoration or veneration, was performed in the celebration of the mysteries unto them as types, to be passed over (as jewel speaketh) to the Archtype, and not to rest in them. And he that will interpret this Adoration to have been only internal or mental, must conclude, that to the very person of Christ, no external Adoration must be given. For how else will Theodoret's Argument stand good?  
That this was not alone in some places; 
Anno 400.  or in the Eastern Churches, but in many or all; and in the West also take we the Testimonies of Saint Ambrose and S. Augustine. They both, led with the Latin Translation, Psal 94 6. Adorate scabellum eius, in stead of ad scabellum; reading [worship his footstool] for [worship at his foot-state] are troubled to think how that speech could be right, when it was not lawful to Adore any creature. And think you, these mea●t to Adore the consecrated Elements as if they were no creatures? verily no, for Ambrose saith, that they remain the same that they were, and yet are turned to another thing: that is, in use, and mystery an other thing; but in their substance, still the same creatures. Upon this, Ambrose first, and Aug. after him; and many others, after them, inquire what that same footstool (in the Psalm) may be, which men must Adore. They find in Isay 61. That the earth is called the Lords footstool. Well, than men must worship the earth. But this they also abhor, lest they should offend him that is Lord of heaven and earth. They then remember, that Christ's humane body was earth of the earth, and that the same, as taken into the unity of the person of the Son of God, was to be Adored for the Deities sake, to which it is inseparably united. Here is the ground. But then, how shall we Adore that flesh which is not present with us? Hence Augustine: And because he hath walked in that flesh, and hath given us that flesh to be eaten unto Salvation, and no man eateth that flesh unless he hath first adored it, It is found how such a footstool of the Lord is adored, and we not only shall not sin in Adoring it, but shall sinne in not Adoring. But doth the flesh quicken or give life? Our Lord himself hath told, commending (to us) the same earth. It is the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. And, Ideo & ad terram quamlibet cum tu inclinas & prosternis, non quasi terram intuearis, therefore when thou bowest or prostratest thyself to any earth, thou oughtest to behold it, not as earth, but look at that Holy one, whose footstool that is which thou dost adore, for thou adorest for his sake; wherefore he hath added here, Quia sanctum est, etc. In this large passage of Saint Augustine, it is manifest that his devise is, to forefend all Adoration of any mere creature, and to acknowledge the humanity of Christ only, though a creature, to be capable of divine Adoration, in respect of the Deity to which it is personally united. Therefore Augustine was no Papist, nor will his Testimony at all serve their turn, which worship any thing, that is not also God, as the Man Christ is.  

Beza therefore saith, that in Aug. time they did receive, Adorantes: he means kneeling, adversus H●s●us●ū p. 311  But withal, the Text of August. doth manifestly show, that Christ God and Man was adored of every Communicant; before he received the Sacramental flesh of Christ in the Eucharist: And that this was, in Augustine's judgement, so fare from being a sin, that it was a sin not to do it  
But to this is 
b Rep●y to Bishop Morrow, part. 2. cap. 22. to the testimonies of Aug. and Chrysost. Beza saith it ought to be received both with internal and external Adoration. Quest. & Resp. lib. Quest. 243.  answered, that every true Communicant must adore Christ before he partake him in the Sacraments, but that is internally by faith and love, etc. This is true I confess; but is so far from excluding the outward expression by some bodily sign of Godly reverence, that it rather doth require it, that God may be worshipped in body and soul together.  
But this must not be pleaded, to void the Testimony of Aug. alleged to prove external Adoration before communicating. For first, the Text of the Psalm speaketh of bodily worship, and therefore must bodily worship be in Augustine's eye, when he would show to what, or rather whom that worship, which the Psalm requireth, may be tendered. Secondly, when he saith Et ad terram quamlibet te inclinas & prosternas, to whatsoever earth, i.e. flesh of Christ thou bowest and prostratest thyself, look not on it as earth, i.e. as flesh, but look at that holy one whose footstool it is that thou dost adore, i.e. Look to the Godhead of Christ whose flesh thou dost Adore in the mysteries. It cannot therefore be denied with a good conscience, that Augustine speaketh of outward Adoration performed by the bowing or prostrating of the body before the mysteries; not, to them determinatively, but in Relation to Christ himself, and that for his Deities sake. 
Ambr. de S. sancto lib. 3. c. 12.  Which is also the same that Ambrose speaketh of the flesh of Christ saying (which we adore in those mysteries) referring the Adoration not to the mysteries or signs, but to Christ which is represented to us, and Sacramentally exhibited by them. One thing more I would have to be marked in Augustine's words, that he reckoneth Inclination of the body, as well as Prostration on the knee, to be external Adoration, as all men use to do; contrary to the new learning of Altar Damascenum which will have kneeling a proper gesture of Adoration, not other bowings (such as we use in sign of reverence to men;) contrary to Scripture and Commonsense.  
And this of Augustine agreeth with chrysostom, 
Chrysost. Hom. 3. de incomprehensibili natura Dei.  who speaking of the adoration of Christ in the mysteries saith, that therefore the Deacon cryeth not, inclinate capita, bow your heads (which, in the Leitourgy bearing his name, we find, inclinate capita Deo, bow your heads unto God) after the consecration; not to God, as there contained, but represented.  
To the Testimony of Augustine I add this, that the Christians in his time were taxed by the Heathens for worshipping Ceres and Bacchus. From whence is manifest that something was then done, which gave them colour of that calumniation: For the times were not now, with Christians, as formerly, when the Heathens durst feign any thing against Christ; as whom the Imperial power did persecute. And to put the matter out of danger, Augustine showeth, that it was their manner, or Rite of receiving the bread and wine of the Lords Supper. 
Aug. contra Faustum Mazichaeum lib. 20. cap. 13.  A Cerere & Libero dijs Paganorum longe absumus, quamuis panis & calicis Sacramentum nostro ritu amplectamur, it a patres nostri longe fuerunt a Saturniacis catenis, quamuis pro tempore prophetiae Sabbathi vacationem obsernaverunt: We differ wide from Ceres and Bacchus those Pagan Idols, although we embrace that Rite in receiving the Sacrament of the Bread and Cup. So our Ancestors were fare from the chains of the Saturnian heresy although for the time of prophecy, they observed the rest of the Sabbath: whereby it is plain, that like as the jews observation of their Sabbath called Saturn's day, was the occasion that moved the Gentiles, yea and Manichees, to say that the jews worshipped Saturn; So the Ritus, the manner or fashion of the Christians receiving the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, occasioned the malicious Gentiles to say, that they adored Ceres and Bacchus, as their own Gods.  

Fulkes Answer to the Rhemists on 1 Cor. 11.  It is true, I confess, which Doctor Fulke saith, that the Pagans did never worship Bread and Wine: and it is as true that they did not challenge the Christians for worshipping Bread and Wine, for the very 
* Cicero de natura Deorum, 〈◊〉 such a 〈◊〉 as to be●●e●e that very thing which he eateth, to be God.  Heathens counted it a madness in any man to worship that as God which he did eat. This madness came into the world, with Transubstantiation. Wherefore the Pagans did conceive, the Adoration used in receiving the Bread and Wine of the Lords Supper to be intended and done to Ceres and Bacchus their own imaginary Gods, Gods (as they thought) of Bread and Wine: like as they took the observation of Saturne-day the jews Sabbath, to be held in honour of Saturn their Idol; as saith Augustine, the Manichees also did. And therefore this is a pregnant evidence, not for the Papists, that the Sacrament was itself adored, as being made a God, but only for this, that they did then, Panis & vini Sacramenta suo ritu amplecti, receive the Sacrament in that fashion and rite that the Gentiles used; which Ritus was, external Adoration, referring it unto Christ by them. 
〈◊〉. Damasc.  The Altar Damascenum would not have us think, that the Heathens had any more colour of occasion, then only a solemn reverend usage of Bread and Wine. 
〈◊〉  But this is but a shift, when Augustine himself hath told us, that no man did communicate, but he first adored. And we have, out of his words, learned how.  
I will add one Testimony more out of the Mystagogick catechism of Cyrill, either of jerusalem, in whose name it commonly goeth, who lived An. 370. or john of jerusalem, under whose name, Master Robert Cook saith, 

Cook in Censura.  
Du' plessis response a Levesque de Euroux, p. 422. vid Causab●a.   it was marted, etc. and whole, that learned Duplessis taketh it rather to be, (as I for my part do not) who lived near An. 600. In this book, Catechis. 5. This Author after he hath showed in what manner the Bread should be taken, saith, Then come to the Cup of the blood, not stretching out thy hand, Sed pronus & in modum Adorationis & venerationis, decens, but bowing down, and after the manner of Adoration or veneration, saying Amen. Where it cannot be denied that, some prayer was used at the delivery, to which the Communicant said, Amen, which we find currently to have been in use long before, viz. An. 251. namely, 
Ann. 251.  when Novatianus the intruding Bishop of Rome, in administering the Sacrament to the people, 
a Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 42.  took every man's hand betwixt his own; adjuring him that he should not return to Cornelius (the Bp. (by right) then of Rome) and suffered no man to taste of the mysteries, till (in stead of that, he should have said, Amen.) he said, I will not return to Cornelius. Secondly, we mark, in cyril, that the Cup was received by each Communicant with Adoration.   

CAP. 24. A Vindication of Doctor Morton, that Reverend Bishop of Coventrie and Litchfeild, quarrelled by a nameless Replier falsely charging Doctor Morton with abusing of Cyrill, Augustine and chrysostom in this point.  

Reply 2. part. cap. 3. sect. 25. pag. 52. & 53.  We are come to about the 600. year. Now before I go any further, I will take into consideration the Reply, made against some of those Testimonies, in a late in temperate and scoffing Libel, called a Reply to Doctor Mortons' defence, etc. part. 2. cap. 3. Sect. 21. setting down his words.  
The learned Bishop of Chester, to prove that, the Sacrament was received with some adoration, by bowing of the body, before the time of Honorius, hath alleged cyril, Augustine and chrysostom. Let us hear the Repliers Answer.  
Repl. 1. I answer that the Question is here of Kneeling not of other gestures.  
Answ. To which I reply, that the Question is, of Kneeling only as a gesture of adoration; and therefore the proof of bowing for adoration, cometh home to the cause, though not to the word. And, if bowing to the Sacrament, be not adoration, as well as kneeling, why doth himself cite and allow Bale, Duplessis, jewel, Hospinian, and Z●pper, affirming with one consent, that Honorius the third, was the Author of adoration of the Sacrament, who only appointed the people reverend bowing of themselves to it, at the Elevation, etc. As is in this Section, alleged by himself.  
Repl. 2. Answer. It is not now either enquired, what was voluntarily either spoken, or practised by particular men, but what was enjoined unto Churches.  
Answ. I rejoin. The Question is, whether the Sacrament was commonly received with adoration, before Transubstantiation was known, or thought off? This when we prove by Records to have been so; Is it not a mere shift, to tell us, that they inquire for a Decree, not voluntary practice only? As for that he addeth [of some few] it is a blind. For, the Testimonies alleged show the ordinary custom of the Christian Churches, then. And if nothing will serve for proof but a Decree, then can they not prove Kneeling of the people in the act of receiving, ever to have been in the Church of Rome. For they themselves, namely Costerus, 
* Coster. En●●●r pag 353. Edi●. 1590.  maintaineth it, not as a Decree, but as an ancient custom continued (saith he) from the Apostles time.  
Let us have our measure, and then will appear, that either we prove Kneeling; or, in stead of it, adoration by bowing, to have been in the Primitive Church; though not, to the Sacrament itself; as, since: Or else, that they can not prove any Adoration, by kneeling in the act of receiving the Eucharist, no not in the Church of Rome. For neither of us can show a Decree, but only a Custom. For, as for that which is alleged out of the Roman Ritual; that, to the Clergymen, kneeling upon the stairs of the Altar, the Eucharist should be delivered, it doth not at all belong to the common people, who might not kneel there, at the Communion; and the kneeling in that case required, 
See before in Cap. 10.  was respectively to the Altar, or things thereon, not to the Sacrament as then received. That this kneeling respecteth the place, the Altar, Crucifix, or host thereon, and not the partaking of the Sacrament, may appear by this, that the Priest himself is tied by the Mass-book, to receive reverentèr stans, reverently standing.  
Repl. 3. Answer. These very places cyril, Augustine, and chrysostom are usually urged by Papists for their Idolatry: the Defendant therefore doth not well in borrowing their Weapons to fight against us withal, for the Borrower is a servant to the Lender. But the Ceremonies themselves being borrowed of the Papists, it is no marvel if our Prelates be beholding to the Papists for proofs to maintain them by.  
Answ. To this I rejoin. 1. That the same testimonies are alleged by the Papists wrongfully to prove their Idolatry. For, that Adoration which the Fathers professedly referred to Christ as sitting in heaven, the Papists transfer to the Sacrament itself, as being, in the substance, nothing but Christ, and whole Christ. 2. The Defendant borrowed not those Testimonies from the Papists, (who were not the Owners but Abusers of them;) but of the Fathers themselves, to whom (it is not uncomely to say) we are debtors, and to God for them. 3. There is, by us, nothing here said for maintenance of our Ceremonies, which we suppose to be maintainable so far, as not to be unlawful by the Scriptures. The point herein hand, was only matter of fact, viz. Whether the ancient Churches received the Communion adoring, yea, or no? The salt-biting of the Bishop, (as borrowing proofs from the Papists maintenance of Popish ceremonies,) maketh nothing to the Answer of the evidence produced; but turneth the Readers mind, by a brackish gibe, from off the cause, to the persons of the Bishops, which is not plain dealing.  
Repl. 4. Answ. As for Cyril, 1 Doctor Fulke saith of one precept of Cyrils about the Sacrament, extant in the same page, one of which the Defendant citeth his, Verily I took it for a mere superstitious precept, may not this be also superstitious which the Defendant citeth? Sure I am, that about the Sacraments, and about the Cross and Chrism, there is much superstition taught in the Catechisines which go under the name of Cyrill.  
Answ. I reply, Something in Cyrill was superstitious, Ergo, this, is such an inference as the Replyer durst not affirm; and therefore only asketh if it may not be: which is answered with another [May it not be no superstition?] But superstition, or not, is nothing (now) to the question, which only is, Whether the thing was done or no? But this is the Replyers ordinary course, to let the cause alone, and fasten upon something else; as if, to say any thing after a man, were to answer him. But the Replyer hath more to say about Cyrill.  
Repl. 3. I say, Cyrill is corrupted, both by the Defendant, and by the Bishop of Rochester, p. 183. For 1. the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rochester translateth it, [●alling on thy face,] ana the Defendant, [bowing of thyself] whereas, though the word be many times used in such a sense, yet as Stephen (in his great Treasury showeth) it signifieth properly a gesture of the eyes, which appeareth plainly by the words compounded of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Answ. This Answer looks toward the matter. But what had the Replyer to do with the Bishop Rochester? Surely nothing, by the task of his Reply to Bishop Morton, but that he had a desire to give him something of his good will. The Bishop of Rochester allegeth not the Greek text of Cyril, which (perhaps) he saw not▪ but, the Latin translation of him, which is, Sed pronus & adorationis & venerationis in modure, dicas Amen. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be not well rendered, [pronus] in Latin, as it is yet pronu● may be turned (falling on the face) without corruption. For so Martial lib. 1.88. Fe bibis i●●●●dam 〈◊〉 ●ane pronus aquam.  
At least it doth signify a bonding of the ●a●e downwards, as Rober● Stephen observes in his Latin Treasury, as contrary to supine. And this was enough to the Bishop of Rochester's turn; Vivorum cadavera supina fluttare faeminarum prona. Plin. l. 7. c. 17. But, the Bishop (then of Chester) turneth it, bowing thyself. What corruption is in that; unless he should have said bowing thyself with thy face downwards, which he meant, and so did Cyril: for this gesture is opposed to streting out of the hand. [not stretching out thy hand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but bowing thy face downward,] and not (as the Replyer) looking with the eyes downwards, which is no impediment to stretching out the hand, as bowing, downward is. But the word (saith he) is many times used in such a sense. He should have said, mostly: But if it be many times to used, why is the Bishop said to have corrupted the Text? Forsooth, Robert Stephen saith, it signifieth properly a gesture of the eyes. Good, and doth not Rob. Stephen show that it is frequently used for bowing down of the face? And then, whether sense is fit. the place must show, not the word, mistake there might have been, but not corruption. But it is utterly untrue, that Robert Stephen doth say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify properly a gesture of the eyes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronus sum, propendeo, inclino me, vel inclino caput, sum capite obstipo, demitto oculos, saith Stephen. Where, casting down of the eyes, is the last, and only made a secondary ●ense of the word, as following upon the bowing down of the head; and not the primary, and proper. Therefore the same Robert Stephen, in his Greek Concordance, rendereth it incuruo me, and in his Treasury, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inclinatus, supplex. But, the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 show it? Clean contrary. For, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is erigere se, contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in john 8.89. where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both used: the one not for looking down, but for bowing down to write one the ground; the other, not for looking up, but lifting up himself again. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it doth signify bowing down, to look into; as in joan. 20.11. So that the Replier hath falsified his Author, to make good his challenge: and the Bishop of Chester hath not corrupted Cyril. But, he will give us a reason why, in this place at least, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should only be [looking down.]  
Repl. And that cyril respecteth the gesture of the eye it is very probable, because in receiving of the Bread, he biddeth the Receiver first to sanctify his eyes with it, and then to take it. In proportion whereof those words cited are used concerning the Cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  

Cham. de Canone lib. 9 c. 20. 〈…〉. 1. Damasc. 〈…〉. side●, 〈◊〉. 4. cap. ●3.  Answ. I answer. This probability is grounded upon a mistaking of Cyrils words, which are not, that the Communicant should sanctify his eyes, by looking on it; but, per contactum by touching of it, as Chamier saith, & the place itself. So Damasc. saith also, That they should put the mystical Bread to their eyes, foreheads, and lips, etc. and then where is the Replyers ground? But he hath yet more to say.  
Repl. And beside, Cyrill doth manifestly refer the Adoration and worship he speaketh of, to the saying Amen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. Looking down steadfastly upon it, and saying Amen, in manner of Adoration and Veneration. What reason then had Rochester first, and Chester after, to apply the manner of worship and adoration unto the bodily gesture signified in the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉?)  
Answ. If the Adoration be there referred to the prayer used at the delivery of the Cup, in the very act of receiving the same; Then was there Adoration used (and that by Order not voluntarily) in the act of receiving, 
〈◊〉. Al● 〈◊〉 Damasc.  which is the point for which cyril was alleged. Let them, in receiving, referr●● their Adoration to Amen; that is, unto the prayer used at the delivery, who will question them? But they rather condemn the use of any such particular prayer for each Communicant at that time; One, as a private worship in public; Another, as a mixing of several worships; forgetting that every Communicant performeth his private worship, when he receiveth: And, that Bread and Broth, Cream and Strawberries, Wine and Sugar agree not better in our bodily meats, than some acts of worship with other some, though not all. 
2 Chron. 29. ●8.  The people adored, the Priests blew with Trumpets, the Levites sang, and all this continued till the  offering was finished. Here is a mixture of private in public, and several sorts of worship at the  offering.  
2. The Replier having complained of two learned Bishops, that they had corrupted cyril, in their translations, doth himself indeed corrupt him, when he rendereth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [looking down steadfastly upon it] of which like sense of the word he can give no example, as if his grief were not at mistranslation, but only that any but himself should corrupt cyril.  
3. The Adoration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs be referred to the gesture, for it denoteth the same, as all men know. And therefore the Bishops did right in referring it to the gesture required in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which this is a declaration in what manner they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Replier is forced to put the words out of their own order, to refer the Adoration to Amen, though it gain him nothing.  
Repl. 3. Seeing Cyrill hath no precept of bowing the body at the receiving of the Bread, he cannot be so interpreted, concerning the Wine, without imputation of superstitious advancing of the Wine above the Bread.  
Answ. I have showed before, that the manner was, when they had taken the Bread, to carry it to their own places (I mean) in the Churches, where they went to the Table for it; and then, to receive it kneeling apart. And this was (as I think) the cause, why cyril requireth Adoration when they come to the Cup, which they might not carry away from the Table, as they did the other; and not so, for the Bread, because that custom had settled that, long before: viz. that men did sumere Adorantes.  
Repl. 4. Seeing Cyrill had such leisure to appoint his Communicants so many superstitious toys about the Sacraments, with particular description, as that he should in taking the Bread, hold his fingers together, bear up his right hand with his left, take it in the hollow of his hand so borne up, taking great heed that no crume fall, etc. he would surely more expressly have spoken of Kneeling, if it had been used in his time.  
Answ. This follows not: for that being (as we have showed) so engrafted in the people's hearts, to receive the Bread into their mouths, after some private prayers, Kneeling; There was no need to instruct them in that at all, and therefore Cyrill insisteth in the newer Inventions about the Bread, in the manner of taking it at the Table.  
Cyrils' Testimony (we see) hath put the Replyer to many shifts, and will not be shifted off. As for his Answer to those alleged out of Augustine and chrysostom, viz. that they speak only of Internal Adoration, though it have some countenance from some men of excellent learning, yet it cannot stand with their express words, as I have showed before. Wherefore I may now go on with some other witnesses of this point, That the Communion was received with outward Adoration before the Transubstantiation, or Reall-presence (as they call it) was known.   

CAP. 25. More Instances showing the Antiquity of this gesture of Adoring or Kneeling.  

Ann. 530. In Authentica de privilegus dotis haere●●cis mulieribus non praestanuis.  ABout the year of our Lord, 530. Justinian the Emperor made a Decree, that heretical women should have no down. In this, he describeth such as shall be held meet judges of this matter (among other things, by this) that they do in the Catholic Orthodox Church receive sacr●-sanctum & Adorabilem communionem, which very term of Adorable, i.e. venerable, was, no doubt, given unto it, because of their reverend esteem, and manner of receiving it, with outward Adoration, not simply (as often is said) to it; but, to Christ, in, and by his ordinance.  


Ann. 580. a● Coccius, but possevine sets him higher, at 340.  
Bibl. Patrum Tom. ●. part 3. pa 887 & 888. Anno 595.   joannes Climacus grad. 23. thus, Nam simea sunt turpia illa & sceleratae verba, quid est quod dorum coeleste suscipiens Adoro? quomodo possm●●n● & benedicere, etc. Which showeth in mine apprehension, that the manner was to take the Communion adoring. Remigius Rhemensi● (who lived in the end of the fifth Century, An ●89. as Earonius saith) in his Commentaries on 1. Cor. 11.29 C●m timore & tremore debemus accedere ad illud terribile Sacramentum, ut sciat mens reverentiam se debere praestare e●, ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit. Where, though we have not the name of adoration; yet, the reason of it, that by the very comportment of the body in coming to that dreadful Sacrament, the mind might understand what is the internal reverence due to him that giveth his body, the Son of God: whether kneeling, or Bowing, comes to one.   

CAP. 26. Instances of the practice of the Church about the eight hundred years after Christ.  
I will add no more, save only these observations, that how ever in those days, the public prayers were generally performed on the lords-days, and Pentecost, according to the twentith Canon of 1. Nicene council, 
S. Germanus Arch Constant. Rerum Ecclesiasticarum theoria. Bibl. patrum. Colon. Tom. 8. pag. 61. colum. 1. lib. C.  standing and standing upright. Yet when they came to the prayers about, or at the consecration, the Ceremony was, that the Ministers did pray, inclinantes se, or bowing downwards with their heads and faces; Etenim quod pronus Sacerdos mystagogiam faciat, id declarat eum cum solo Deo colloqui, unde & divinam lucis apparitionem cernit, & ad splendorem conspectus filij Dei exhilarescit, & se subtrahit timore & verecundia, quemadmodum Moses quum Deum vidit in monte, ignis specie, perterrefactus recessit & eccultavit faciem suam, reverebatur enim percipere a glor●a Dei faciem. For in that the Priest performs the mysteries bowing of himself, that shows him to converse only with God, whence he sees a divine apparition of light, and both cheers up himself at the splendour of the sight of Christ beholding him, and also withdraws himself out of fear and modesty: Even as Moses when he saw God in the Mount, in the form of fire, being afraid, retired, and hid his face, because his modesty feared to look upon the glory of God face to face.  
In the Roman Church (as appeareth in the Book set out first about or before the year 800. mentioned by 
a Amalar. de Offi●●is Eccles. lib. 31. cap. 31.  Amalarius who lived An 830 called 
b Ordo Rom. in Bibl Patr. Colon. Tom. 8. pa. 397. & 401.  Ordo Romanus) direction is given to the Bishop, when he must inclinare se, bow himself down in some part of the Canon, (as it was called) of the Mass, and when, the Deacons, and Subdeacons' must stare inclinati, stand bowing themselves down; when, se erigere, erect or raise themselves upright. 
c Amalar. de Ordine Antiphonaris lib. cap. 52. in Bib. Pat. Colon. T●m 9 part. 1. ●●g. 4.1.  Amalarius, de glorioso officio quod fit in Romana Ecclesia in Paschali hebdomada (in which the Canon was, that they should pray standing) mentioneth a prayer, Quam solemus dicere genua flectendo, sive vultum declinando in terram, which (saith he) we use to say kneeling, or bowing our faces to the earth, as hath been showed.   

CAP. 27. The former Instances were of times preceding those wherein the Doctrine of the Reall-presence was hatched.  
1. IT may not be truly objected that, at this time, the doctrine of the Reall-presence was settled in the Church of Rome; and that therefore, they now began to use this bowing at the Consecration. For this Book doth not show what was then made, but what was also before that time the received fashion of the Roman Church.  
2. Neither was the Doctrine of Christ's Reall-presence in his natural body, then received of that Church, however Amalarius himself muttereth something of it, whose error was then opposed and censured by a Synod held at Carisiacum, as is showed by that most reverend and learned 
a Answer to a Challenge p. 73 and ●4.  Archbishop of Armach. Doctor Usher.  
Yea, and Paschasius Radbertus, who lived somewhat later than Amalarius, viz. An. 880. and did indeed teach the Real presence of Christ's natural body, in and with the Bread, which is Consubstantiation. (For of the Bread itself, he saith that, the body digesteth it [Etsi 
b Paschas. Radbertus in Mat. l. 12. Tom. ●. Bib pat. Colin. part 2 pag. 1202. colum. 1.  corpus digerit quod extra est] which bee calleth still Bread, as well after as before Consecration; and affirmeth, that alone to profit nothing) yet this man confesseth, 
c Ibid p. 1201.  [Audivi quosdam me reprehendere, etc.] that his opinion was reproved of others as excessive and beyond the truth, etc. Whereby is manifest, that, as yet, it was but an error creeping into the Church, as appeareth by the confessed oppositions of Bertram, alias Ratranus, Rabanus, and others mentioned in the learned Answer of that Reverend Bishop, quo supra. To which I will add the Testimony of 
d Tom 9 Bibl. pat. Colon part 1. pag 934. colum. 1. D. Floruit & vixit. Ann. 870.  Christianus Gramaticus, alias Druthmarus, in his exposition on Math. 16.26. [Deditque discipulis suis & aiit, accipite & comedite, hoc est corpus meum.] Dedit discipulis suis Sacramentum corporis sui in remissionem peccatorum & conseruationem charitatis, ut memores illius facti, semper hoc in figura facerent, quod pro ijs acturus erat, non obliviscerentur, [Hoc est corpus meum] i. e. in Sacramento. & post. Sicut denique si aliquis peregre proficiscens, dilectoribus suis quoddam vinculum dilectionis relinquit, eo tenore ut omni die hoc agant, ut illius non obliviscantur: Ita Deus praecipit agi a nobis, transferens spiritualiter corpus in panem (ut in margin, panem in corpus) & vinum in sanguinem, ut per haec Deo memoremus quae fecit pro nobis de corpore & sanguine suo, & non simus ingrati tam amantissimae charitati. [And he gave it to his disciples, saying, take, eat, this is my body] He gave to his disciples the Sacrament of his body for remission of sins, and conservation of charity, that so they being mindful of his act, might always do this in a figure, which he was about to do; and should not forget it. (This is my body) that is, in a Sacrament, or mystery. And after, lastly as if one going a journey should leave some bond of love among his friends, on condition that every day they should do such a thing, that they might not be unmindful of him. So God hath charged us to do, spiritually changing (the body into bread: for so the margin hath it) bread into his body, and wine into his blood, that by these we might remember what Christ hath done for us of his body and blood, and not be ungrateful to a most loving charity.  
Florus Magister who lived An. 860, (as Coccius) wrote an Exposition of the Mass, wherein he hath these words, 
Bibl. Pat. Tom. ●. part 2 pag. 300. colum. 1.  Cum panis & vini creatura in Sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius ineffabili spiritus sanctificatione, transfertur, manducatur Christus: Propterea manducatur in Sacramento, & manet integer totus in coelo, manet integer totus in cord tuo. When the creature of bread and wine is changed into the flesh and blood of Christ by the ineffable sanctification of the spirit, Christ is eaten: he is eaten by parts in the Sacrament, and whole Christ remains whole in heaven, whole Christ remains whole in thy heart. Whereby is manifest that he believed not either Consubstantiation, or Transubstantiation, but a Sacramental eating of Christ in the mysteries apart, and a spiritual Communication of whole Christ to the heart, even as we do. Hence he there also saith, Totum hoc quod in hac oblatione corporis & sanguinis Domini agitur, mysterium est; aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur, quod videtur speeiem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur (he saith not quod inest) fructum habet spiritualem: All that is done in this oblation of the body and blood of the Lord, is a Mystery: one thing is seen, another is understood: that which is seen hath a bodily shape, that which is understood (he saith not which is in or under the bread) hath a spiritual fruit.  
Yea, that then the Church of Rome did not believe any such Reall-presence, as after it did, may appear by these Arguments.  
1. That they did not understand the Bread to be made the very body of Christ by virtue of any words of consecration used by the Priest; but, by the ineffable working of the Holy Ghost, as Florus saith. And secondly, not the body of Christ in it self, but to the faithful Receiver, to whom the Holy Ghost doth communicate the true body and blood of Christ spiritually, unto life. Therefore was the prayer in the Roman order at the consecration (when 
a Michrol. de Missa rite celebranda c. 14.  none were present, but Communicaturi such as were to communicate) ut oblatio fiat nobis corpus & sanguis Domini, that the oblation may be made to us the body and blood of the Lord: not, ut fiat, simply that it may be made, but (nobis, to us) i. e. as is after expressed, nobis accipientibus, to us the Receivers. They did not then, think the Bread to be made the Body of Christ, in itself; and to gazers on but to the faithful Receivers, [ efficiatur fidelibus corpus & sanguis Christi,] that it may be made so to believers saith 
b Florus ibid. quo supra.  Florus. Indeed the Roman Missal remaineth still the word [nobis] and the words quod sumpsimus;] and use them when the Priest alone communicates, making a solecism betwixt the old words and the new practice. Thirdly, they did not think, that which they saw to be the Species of Bread and Wine; and to have under that show, the body of Christ; but that which they saw, to be the body of Christ, i.e. In a mystery, 
Quo supra. cap. 18.  Cuius corpus ibi confringi videmus & credimus, whose body we see and believe to be there broken saith Micrologus. So it was the body of Christ as they saw it, and saw it broken, which could not be said of his natural body, but only of the mystery or Sacrament of his body.  
4. They did not believe whole Christ to be in either Species, as must needs have been believed, if they had conceited that his very natural body had been in, or with the Bread or Cup, or existent under the shows of them: For Florus expressly saith, we receive him in the Sacrament per parts by parts. And therefore, to teach the people, that however in the Sacrament they receive the body and blood of Christ apart, as communicating with him in his death; yet, whole and living Christ is spiritually communicated to their souls to give them life. The Roman Church observed this Ceremony, 
Ordo Rom. quo supra. pa. 401.  that at [Pax tecum] when the Bishop after the consecration, came to receive, sitting in his Seat, he breaking a piece of the Bread, and putting it into the Cup then held before him, said, Fiat commixtio corporis & sanguinis Christi nobis accipientibus in vitam aeternam, let there be a commixtion of the body and blood of Christ to us receiving it, unto eternal life: meaning thereby, to signify the uniting of Christ's body and blood in his 
c Microl. de Miss. etc. c. 14. Amalar. de office Missae l. 3. c 31. Expositio Missae Edit. per Coccium. pa. 142.  Resurrection, and to pray, that by virtue of partaking of Christ raised from the dead to dye no more, they which partaked his body and blood apart in the mysteries, might live for ever. The words [Et Consecratio] are now found in the Roman Order aforesaid, but were not so (as it seemeth) in that co●ie, which Amalarius then followed. For he, out of that Ordo-Romanus, reporteth only these words, Fiat commixtio corporis & sanguinis Christi nobis accipentibus in vitam aeternam; but no word of Consecration. Nor doth it fit the matter intended. For the Bishop did not mean to consecrate a Sacrament of Christ's Resurrection. And both the Bread and Cup were consecrated before. The present Roman Missal observeth the Ceremony of putting a parcel of the Host into the Cup, at that time of [Pax tecum:] but hath, without any great show of change, altered the words, and to another meaning. For whereas it was only said, Fiat commixtio corporis Christi, etc. which is in plain terms, Let the Resurrection of Christ profit us to eternal life, who receive the Eucharist. They have now made it, Haec commistio & consecratio corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi fiat nobis, etc. as meaning to teach that there is, in the very Sacramental signs, or under them, a mixture of Christ's Body and Blood made; and so a presence of whole Christ in every drop of wine, and crumb of the bread by concomitancy. Haec Commistio fiat.  
Lastly, that the Roman Church did not then believe any Real presence of Christ, as brought under the Species, by the Priests, and formal words of Consecration, appeareth by this, that when the Bishop did consecrate, there was but one Chalice, or cup of wine before him: of which a little was after poured into other vessels of wine, to consecrate that for the Communicants, Quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum, because the Wine that yet was not consecrated, but only mixed with the Blood of our Lord, is sanctified by every way by them used: whereas now, the Consecration is limited to certain formal words, and to only so much as the Priest intendeth to consecrate; because forsooth, no more can be made the Body or Blood of Christ then is at that instant, turned thereunto. Wherefore I now assume as manifest, that the Roman Church was not as yet, nor before the 900 year of our Lord, possessed of the dotages either of Consubstantiation, or Transubstantiation. And yet even then observed, upon the Station days, when they might not kneel in public prayer, yet at the Celebration of the Sacramen to bow down themselves in those prayers (wherein they might not kneel) in token of their humble and reverend acknowledgement of the special grace of God, signed, sealed and exhibited to them thereby. And, that they likewise had care, in the act of receiving, to discern the Lords Body reverentiâ singulariter debitâ, with reverence then specially due to it, 
Rhemig vixit An. 590. habetur in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 5. part. 3 pag. 887 Colum. 2. A.  as Augustine speaketh, no man can doubt. For therefore Rhemigius the Bishop of Rheims, in 1. Cor. 11.24. etc. coupleth the consecration and participation in that respect, saying, Quotiescunque accedimus ad consecrandum, vel percipiendum Sacramentum muneris aeterni, quod nobis Dominus pijssimus in memoriam sui dimisit tenendum, cum timore & compunctione cordis, omnique reverentia debemus accedere: So often as we come to consecrate or partake the Sacrament, etc. we ought to come thereto with fear and compunction of heart, 
Treat. of kneeling, pag. 195.  and with all reverence. So also before him Caesarius Arelatensis. hom. 12. alleged by the Bishop of Rochester, sheweth that during that Action the people were required to abide in the Church, Humiliato corpore & compuncto cord, with humbled bodies and compunction of heart. 
Wall. Strabo de rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 19  This reverend carriage Wall. Strabo showeth to belong to Decency and to Order required of Paul, 1. Cor. 14. which Decorum or Decency being requisite In singulis sanctorum operibus, tamen etiam atque etiam in sanctissimi sanguinis & corporis veneratione seruari debet, etc. in all works of the Saints, much more ought it to be observed with all veneration of the most holy body and blood of Christ, &c and after, Secundum ordinem autem, ut sanctificationem eorum ae cibis caeteris longe distare sciamus, It is according to Order, that we may know that the sactification of those do differ fare from other meats. There he treateth of the receiving of the Communion fasting, and proveth the fitness of it, from the respect of that Decency and Order, in which it ought to be received, and which requireth sober men. This man was so far from the thought of Table gesture, as he taketh it to belong to Order that the great distance betwixt this and common food, should be showed in the bodily receiving. Yea he calleth the very Act of receiving veneration, because it was received with veneration, 
Ephes. 3.14.  like as Paul understandeth Prayer by bowing of the knee, because that was the common gesture; For this cause do I bow the knee to God, etc. So Strabo saith, in the veneration of the blood and body of Christ, in stead of [in the receiving] because it was not received but with veneration; that is, Externall Adoration of Bowing or Kneeling.   

CAP. 28. The second Observation in the practice of the Ancient Churches.  
MY second Observation is, that to take it of the Ministers hands, and to partake, or receive into their mouths, was not always the same; nor always done at the same time, or in the same place. For they did for a long time take it at the Church, carry it home, and there receive it. And after the Counsels of Toledo, and the Caesar-Augustan Council had tied them to assumere in Ecclesia, receive it in the Church, they did yet, in the Greek Church, come up to the Table, or Chancel, to take the Bread standing, but stayed not to eat it there, but carried it to their own places, and there (after private prayer for themselves) did eat it kneeling, as (out of Sozomen) hath been showed. As for the Cup, because they could not take that away with them, as they did the Bread, they did receive that Adoring, as hath been showed out of Cyrill.  

Ordo Rom. quo supra. Tom 8 Bibl. Patr. pag. ●0●  And in the Roman Church, the Priests and Deacons called Ministers of the Altar, came to the Bishop then sitting in his Seat, kissed him, took the bread of his hand, and then went away in sinistra parte Altaris communicaturi, to the left side of the Altar to partake it, where there can be no doubt whether they did kneel, or no, if we remember what hath been alleged out of Micrologus. And as for the Subdeacons that were not allowed to go to the Altar to Communicate, they came to the Bishop's seat, 
Lib. Sacrar. Ceremon. 2. pag. 181.  kissed his hand, and took it in thei● mouths, but not in their hands, which any man must conceive to be kneeling, as the Book of Ceremonies expressly affirmeth. The Bishop, and others at his appointment, carried unto the people, in their own places, and put it into their mouths, which I know not how they should well do, 
Disput against Kneeling, and Altar Damasc.  without that the Receivers kneeled. So then the Testimonies brought by some men, to prove that they did of older times, receive it standing, are true for the act of taking, in those times and places, of which their Authors speak; but not true of the act of receiving or communicating. That the Priest now receiveth standing at the Altar, and not kneeling, as of old; I conceive to be done for the fear of shedding. But it was not so before the Monster of Transubstantiation, I am sure.   

CAP. 29. The third Observation in the ancient practices of the Churches.  
THe third observation is, that besides the Solemn Common Prayers, at which they might not kneel, but only stand, in some of them inclinati, bowing themselves, as at the Celebration. Both the Priest and people, had sometimes their private devotions, at which they might, and did use to kneel, even on those Station days, and such kneeling was not taken to be any breach of the Canon made for standing on such days, in Prayer.  
The Roman order aforesaid showeth, how the Bishop, addressing himself to the consecration, while the Quire sung. Glory be to the Father, etc. the hymme which giveth glory to the Trinity, Pontifex concelebrat secreto orationem ante Altare inclinatus usque ad repetitionem, the Bishop celebrateth a prayer in private bowing himself at the Altar until the repetition: ●ot stans inclinatus; but absolutely, Inclinatus bowing himself. And that the Priest likewise immediately before his receiving did so, Non ex aliquo ordine sed ex religiosorum traditione, not by appointment but by tradition, we have before observed out of Micrologus, de Off. Miss. c. 18.  
This is (as I take it) the thing aimed at in that Decree of Alexander the third, who Poped Ann. 1159 somewhat before Innocent the third, or Honorius; which Decree is pressed by Altar Damascenum, 
Alt. Damasc. pag. 786. Decret. Greg. lib. 2 Tit. 9 cap. quoniam.  to prove that neither the Priest in consecrating, nor the people in receiving were permitted, on those Festivals to kneel. The Decree is this. Diebus Dominicis & alijs praecipuis Festivitatibus, inter Pascha & Pentecostem genu-flexio nequaquam fieri debet, nisi aliquis ex Denotione velit facere in secreto. In consecrationibus Episcoperum, & Clericorun ordinationibus, consecrantes & consecratitantum genua flectere possunt, secundum quod consecrationis modus requirit. Upon Lords days and other chief Festivals, kneeling ought not to be used: unless any dispose to do it privately. In the consecrations of Bishops, and ordination of Ministers both the consecrators and consecrated may kneel according to that which the manner of consecration requireth. You see (saith the Altar of Damascus) that the consecrating and consecrated, in Ordinations are excepted; but not, the Consecrator, nor Reciever of the mysteries, Exceptio firmat regudam in casibus non exceptis, an exception establisheth a rule in all cases not excepted. But this man's earnestness suffered him not to see, that there is an exception made, in this Decree, of kneeling our of Devotion in private, which might have, and I think had respect to those kneel both of Priest and people at the receiving of the Sacrament, when they used private prayers; The Priest for himself, and people every one for himself, as he received.  

Ordo Rom Tom 8 Bibl. P●●. pag ●99. 〈◊〉. 2. li●. D.  And this kneeling could not be understood a breach of the Decree of the first Nicen council, for standing on those days at prayer; for, that was understood of their solemn public prayers, made when all the congregation, in (as it were) profession of Christ's Resurrection, were enjoined to stand. For after they once came to the delivery of the Sacrament, until it was all finished, the Anthem (as they called it) i.e. their singing by turns, for the Communion was continued. So as there was, for that time, no public office of prayer in hand. And that the Decree of Alexander had respect unto such private devotionary prayers, is probable by the words of the Gloss in the title of the Decree, which is this. In praecipuis Festis, & intra Pascha & Pentecostem non fit solennis genuflexio: In principal Festivals and between Easter, and Whitesuntide, 
De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. near the beginning.  there must be no solemn Kneeling▪ i.e. not of the whole congregation together. And this is yet made more probable, if not more then probable, by the words of Wall. Strabo, who saith, Quibus horis & temporibus, what hours and times, we must pray without kneeling, Jnter publica officia, Canon's ostendunt, in the public offices the Canons do show. In Dominicis Festis maioribus & quinquagesima iuxta quos Canones publice paenitentes semper genua flectere debent: Upon more solemn Lords days and in the week before Lent, according to the Canons, the Penitentiaries do always publicly kneel. Where we see, for our purpose two things. 1. That the restraint of Kneeling in prayer, is limited in publica officia, while they are performing public offices. 2. That open Penitentiaries were by Canon to kneel even in those days, because that this gesture of one, two, three, or a few, was not held a breach of that other Canon which respecteth the assembly jointly. And if, without breach of that Canon, the open Penitents might kneel then at the solemn public prayers, how could the private kneeling of each Communicant in his turn, be understood a breach thereof, when this was done while all the public solemn prayers ceased, and hymns only were sung?   

CAP. 30. The fourth Observation touching the same.  
THe fourth Observation is, that however in the time of justin Martyr, An. 150. at least in some places, the Communicants appear to have come up to the Table, and taken every man his portion: yet An. 200. in Tertullia's time, they took it not, but ex Praesidentium manu, from the hand of the Pastors. And that ever since, for aught appeareth, it hath been delivered by the Minister only, or by his hands the Deacons, though Altar Damascenum like it not: And, as hath been showed, was always delivered with a brief prayer foregoing it, which he liketh not neither.   

CAP. 31. The fifth Observation.  
THe fifth Observation is, That in many (if not most) Churches through the world, they did celebrate the Communion, every day. Which as a thing undoubted of, I forbear to prove.   

CAP. 32. The last Observation together with Answers to the Objections made against Kneeling.  

Synod. Turon. cap. 37.  THe last Observation is, That on all other days, save the Lords days and Pentecost, they were, by Order, to make all their prayers, fixis in torram genibus, kneeling both in Tertullia's time, and so along. Now, if by Order, they then prayed kneeling, and a prayer was made for each Communicant at the time of delivery; and he for himself, at the receiving had a short prayer; who can persuade himself, that they did not on all those days receive it kneeling? And if it be, (as Altar Damascenum saith it is) most like that they received it on those days; as they did, on the Lords days: Then say I, that on the Lords days also, they did receive it kneeling; And, on the week days were bound so to do, by that Decree which required them to kneel in all their prayers, consequently. That there is not to be found any Decree for the gesture of kneeling in the Act of receiving, no not in the Romane-Church, before, or after the Real presence, nor yet in the Greek Church (where yet they used to kneel) doth manifest both the Antiquity and universality of this Ceremony, which out of a common notion of all Christians (that in partaking of the body and blood of the Son of God, it was comely for them to express, reverentiam singulariter debitam) did make itself a Law unto them, without any Decree, as out of Tertullian I have showed before.  
And therefore, against Altar Damasc. I say with Master Beza, that this gesture of Adoration in receiving, was in use and state long before the Real presence was hatched; and was taken up by the brewers of the Dream, and pleaded as an Argument for the Real presence, as if the worship intended to the person of Christ sitting in Heaven, had been always meant to him as contained in the Bread and Wine, or shows thereof; which is so professedly manifest in Algerus, 
Bibl. Patr. Colon Tom. 12. part. 1. pag. 435 colum 2. Vel de Sacramento lib. 2. c. 2  who lived anno 1060, as nothing can be more. Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium, vel adorantium veneranda sedulitas, nisi ipsius Sacramenti longe maior crederetur, quam videretur veritas et utilitas; Cum ergo exterius quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia, aut insensati sumus, aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis mysteria: the venerable diligence of so many both administering and adoring this Sacrament, seems vain, unless the truth and profit of the Sacrament were not believed to be fare greater than can be seen with the eye: Seeing therefore those things which appear outwardly, are almost nothing; either we are senseless in bestowing so much adoration upon it, or else we do look upon some internal mysteries of great salvation in it: which though it was no good argument, yet it was an Argument for defect of a better.  
I therefore conclude, that Kneeling in the act of receiving, was not brought into the Church by Antichrist; nor ever was yet strengthened with any Papal Decree; but hath been made a foot-banke unto that Antichristian monster of Transubstantiation, only by misinterpretation of it, by such as sought out all means, and laid hold on any colourable thing, that might suckle the monster of their brain, when it was once borne. Beza therefore, and other Churches which live pellmell with the Popish, where Idolatry is openly in the streets committed, in bowing to a piece of Bread, as if it were nothing else but Christ himself shifted into a new suit of apparel, had reason enough to forbear this gesture in their Churches: and to dissuade it, as a thing which had been, and therefore may be dangerous. 
Beza Epist. 12 & adversus Heshusium in Opusculis pag. 311. & quest. & respon Quest. 243. Edit. 1570.  And therefore Beza doth no where condemn the use of it as in itself unlawful, but only defend the Churches which, in respect of the peril that might ensue, or out of a desire to root the Bread-worship out of the minds of men, do decline the use of this Ceremony.  
And this (what ever that fiery, though learned man, which compiled Altar Damascenum, say to the contrary) was the judgement of all those Divines, who, in the name of the French and Dutch Churches, made certain observations upon the Harmony of confessions set out at Geneva, in Beza his time, An. 1581. for in their fourth Observation upon the confession of Bohemia. in Sect. 14. Confess. de Caena; and on these words, 
Herm Confess 〈◊〉 ●●nea. 〈◊〉 Sect 14. pag. 120.  Populus autem fidelium, usitatissime in genua procumbeus hoc accipit, the faithful most usually receive it kneeling on their knees; say thus: In hoc etiam ritu suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem saluam relinquendam arbitramur: non quod per se hunc morem damnamus, (cum hac, cautione de qua modo diximus obseruatione quarta) sed quoniam ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ex animis evellendam, prestitit plerisque. locis e●m ceremoniam aboleri, in ipsorum signorum sumptione, de qua vid. supra obseruat. 1. ad Heluetiam priorem. In this rite also, we leave each Church to her own liberty; not that we condemn it simply as evil in itself (used with caution given in our fourth Observation) but for the rooting of B●ead-worship our of men's minds, it is better that in most places it were casherred, etc. Where is manifest that they judge this Ceremony, in itself lawful; and therefore leave all Churches to their own liberty, only with caution, that it be not used as any means to cherish the Bread-worship. For which, both the Articles of our Religion, and the Declaration related before, have put in good caution. As for the rest, they do rather make a good defence for such Churches as do forbear it, then at all condemn any that use it.  
And Dialection Eucharistiae printed and published with the second volume of Beza his Works, and in his life time, at Geneva, Ann. 1570. saith, Veteres Eucharistiam cum summareverentia & magno honore tutos tamen ab Jdololatria fuisse, quod nobis etiam, antiquâ disciplinâ revocatâ, & catechismi formâ restitutâ, contingeret. The Ancients received the Eucharist with all reverence and great honour (that is, as he saith on the next page, adorantes, adoring it) and yet were free from all Idolatry, which also we might do, by recalling the ancient discipline, and restoring the form of catechism.  
The Bread-worship was brought in by Antichrist indeed, and was as Cofter (though to another purpose) saith, the greatest idolatry that ever was in the world, if the Bread be not turned into the true and natural body of Christ; as, upon my soul, it is not.  
This Ceremony was not brought in by him, but turned from the Creator by an horrible blindness, to the creature; from which, if we return it to the true owners of all religious Adoration, shall this be our sin, or theirs that will needs condemn us? I lament to see the transport of Passion of such as say, the Formalists seem to believe the Real presence in the Elements; which, if it be true, God will judge us; if not, he that accuseth falsely is guilty of that which he objecteth as a slander; and by the law of God, to bear the same punishment.  
Object. There remaineth the last Objection, viz. That it is not lawful to kneel before a consecrated creature; Ergo, not to kneel in receiving the Communion.  
Answ. The Antecedent is not simply true. The consequence will not hold, if the Antecedent were absolutely true; therefore, the Argument fails. The humane nature of Christ is a consecrated creature, and yet was it lawful to bow before it, as the flesh of God.  
The Ark of God, the Temple, the Holy Mountain, the Altar of God, were mere creatures consecrated of God. So was the Bush, Cloud, the fire which came from heaven, for that present use of them: yet the people of God (as hath been said) bowed before them, worshipping not the creature, but the Creator; and that they did this lawfully (though it was not to commanded of God) we have heard out of Altar Damascenum, and are well assured, out of the Scriptures, Psal. 99.6.8. etc. The terms therefore of bowing before must be stated in some certain meaning to make the Antecedent true.  
1. Bowing before, is sometimes, only bowing down, when a thing is before us and is in sensu diviso, in a divided sense; when the bowing hath no intendment to that thing which is before us. And thus, when ever we bow down, we must needs bow before some creature; consecrated, or not, maketh no difference in this Notion.  
2. Bowing before a creature, is in sensu conjuncto, in a coniunctive sense; and is twofold, first when the creature is respected only as obiectum a quo, the object from which, not ad quod to which we take occasion to bow, by occasion whereof we bow ourselves not at all to the consecrated creature, but unto God who hath sanctified the creature to be a sign of his presence, or special grace, of which sort are the instances given, and this is also lawful.  
3. Bowing before, is also sometimes bowing to the creature, i.e. to determine the Adoration in the creature, whether for it own sake, or in Relation to something else, as the Papists mostly profess their bowing to be done to their Images of Christ, etc. And to the very Species of bread and wine, as united or conjoined to the person of Christ. 
Minutius Faetix in Oct. apud Arnobium.  And thus to bow to any consecrated creature, or before it, is Idolatry; and so it is, to bare the head, or kiss the hand, as the old Idolaters did when the Image of Serapis passed by them. He that shall charge this Church so to bow to the consecrated creature, either for itself, or for Christ's sake, shall apparently slander it. See before the Churches public Declaration.  
But suppose it were unlawful to bow before a consecrated Creature, respectively to it as an occasional object only: and so make the Antecedent thus; It is unlawful to bow down to God before any Consecrated creature, respectively as an object, from whence we take occasion to bow: yet will not the Consequence hold, that therefore it is unlawful to receive the Sacrament kneeling. For it is not ordained, nor understood in this Church, that the Kneeling hath any respect unto the Consecrated Creature, so much as Obiectum à quo, but only hath a respect unto the Declaration of our humble acknowledging the benefits internally communicated to the worthy Receiver. And therefore there is no show of Adoration made before the Consecrated creatures, when they stand on the Table before us, or at any time else; but only we kneel in the act of receiving them. Nor doth the Minister come always before, but more usually on the one side of the Communicants disposed in their Seats. The Signs therefore are but accidentally before the Communicants, when they receive; that is, for the reason of the Distribution, and not of purpose brought before them, to take up any Adoration by the sight of them unto God.  
Altar Damascenum, taking it for granted, that We adore Christ before the holy signs occasionally as before objects à quo, telleth us, that this is all one with that Image-worship, which some of the learned Papists, as Durandus and Holcot, etc. do allow, who would not have the Adoration at all referred to the Image, but to the Prototype: And, to maintain his slander, is content to say, that their Images also are consecrated. Wherein, beside his mistaking of our Kneeling, he commits two faults; one, when he equivocateth in the term Consecrated, as it God's consecration, and that which is merely of men, were alike. A second, when he compareth Images of Gods making and institution, with Images made by the lust of men against Gods forbidding.  
One man, at the Baptism of his Child, will make a Prince to be one of his Witnesses, or as we say, Gossips; and without ask him leave, he sets out a Deputy, and observeth him with State in reference to the Prince. Another hath the Grant of the Prince of such a favour, the Prince designeth his Deputy to represent his Person, that Person is served in State, as if he were a Prince, not to honour him, but the Prince whom for that time he personates. Are these two Cases alike warrantable, or alike ? Such is our Case: the Papists without leave make a Crucifix; and, to the honouring, not of the Crucifix, but of Christ crucified, do suit and service thereto, or before it respectively to it as a type: we have the Image of Christ crucified in the Supper, by his own appointment, we do our homage before them, not as Creatures, but as his deputies, Sacraments; nor, at all to them as they are Creatures, but by occasion of them, or by them to Christ whose they are. Is this all one? This I speak ex Hypothesi, supposing, not granting that we do perform any Adoration to them in relation to Christ himself in our kneeling. 
Zanch. de us. ●●is externi 〈◊〉. pag. 497. Edit. 1623.  Hear Zanchius. Non inepte ex hoc Apostoli loco. (1 Cor. 11 27.) colligi potest, Sacramenta enternis etiam honori & reverentia signis esse efficiend●, non propter ipsa, sed propter illorum institutorem Chrostum. Nam etiam dominus in lege cum vetuit adorari imagines ab hominibus fabricatae, a contrario docuit, suas imagines Sacramenta minirum rerum coelestium symbola non sine aliqua reverentia & honore esse perticipanda. Atque hoc obseruatum vidimus in veteri Ecclesia, tum Israelitica tum Christiana. It may not unfitly be collected from this place of the Apostle (1. Cor. 11.27.) that the Sacraments ought to be honoured with even external signs of honour and reverence, not for themselves, but for their Institutor, Christ. For even in the Law when the Lord forbade the adoring of Images of men's making, on the c●ntr●ary he taught that his Images, the Sacraments, being symbols or signs of heavenly things, should be participated not without some reverence and honour. And this we see observed in the ancient Church, as well Israelitish as Christian.  
Object. But God hath not appointed the Sacraments to be Adored, (saith he) or himself to be Adored before them?  
Answ. Indeed the Sacraments consisting as well of Actions ordained to be done by us: as the Blessing, Breaking, Receiving▪ Eating and Drinking of the Bread, etc. as of the Elements which are sanctified, cannot be said to be appointed to be Adored, unless we shall Adore our action of eating the Bread, and drinking of the Cup of our Lord, which is so a part of the Sacrament, that without them it were no Sacrament to us. That Christ hath not appointed us to Adore him in the receiving of them, both Internally and Externally, is an heretical doctrine, though the expression [Externall] be not determined of him.  
Object. But, Veneration of the Sacraments, saith Altar Damascenum we allow; but not Adoration.  
Answ. See now that all the strife shall be about words, which have (as I have showed) no formal difference of signification, but only by the designment of men in their use, nor in the particular, outward gestures; which, by divine institution, shall difference the one from the other.  
Object. But kneeling is only lawful in actions of Adoration, i.e. Divine?  
Answ. This is not true, for it is confessed to be lawful in Civil use. And I pray you, what action of God's public service is there, which is not an Action of Adoration, how ever the expression thereof be not in every action of his worship necessarily or conveniently one & the same. 
Zanch de cultu Dei externo l. 1. Thes 2. in fine p. 421. Edit. 619.  Visibilis externaque venetatio & Adoratio ad omnes ferme actiones divini cultus concurrit, visible and external veneration and Adoration concurres to almost all actions of divine worship, saith Zanchius.  
Thus we kneel while the ten Commandments are read, party to express our respect of that Law given by the voice of God himself on Mount Sinai, with great state and terror, a Law fit to cast us down and humble us; partly, for the prayer then subjoined to every precept for Grace to observe it, and pardon for our failings,  
Object. Geniculando excipere verba ex ore Lectoris aut Concionatoris proflata ratione sanctitatis, esset idololatria, 
Alt. Damasc. pag. 797.  to receive the word kneeling, as coming from the mouth of a Reader or Preacher in respect of holiness were idolatry.  
Answ. This case cometh not home to that of receiving the Sacraments, which, in that Action, we do not look at as creatures, but as divina symbola, signifying and sealing the Covenant of Grace to us. But yet the Opponent durst not say it is idolatry to hear the word, kneeling; but, 
Externa reverentia est, ut post actionem sacram, (viz. of preaching) coram ministro versium inclinantes deum adorent. Ex 4.24 & 12 28. Neh 8. Apoc. 3.9 Fenner. Theol Edit. 1589. p. 88  when it is done ratione sanctitatis in respect of holiness, which must needs carry in to the person of the Preacher, and not unto God. When Moses and Aaron brought the message to the Elders of Israel, Exod. 4.31. they bowed their heads, no doubt before Moses and Aaron, and not at their backs, and worshipped, not the Messengers of God, for their holiness, but God for sending by them that gracious Message. When we shall profess to bow before, and to the holy mysteries, for respect of their holiness, let us be branded and not spared; till than it were fit that men spared to calumniate the Servants and Churches of the living God.   

CAP. 33. The Conclusion consisting of some private occurrents, and requests of his Friend.  
ANd thus Sir, to satisfy your desire, I have too largely Answered to the objected Questions propounded in your letter; and almost within the time of three weeks which you limited. If you meet with needless repetitions, and find (as is like you may) many defaults, bear with me. For I have written this, as jerusalem was builded, in a troublous time, yea verily in the most troublous time (all things considered) that ever yet came upon me, the very hour of darkness and shadow of death.  
In this time therefore I had cause to look about me, and to consider what I had now in hand, which I also did. And if in all this time wherein I have been soaked and laid to steep in so much tribulation, I had found any wavering or doubtfulness in my mind about these matters, I have written of, assure yourself I should have desisted. But standing fully persuaded as in the sight of the Lord, that I have the truth with me, and follow it. I did, as by starts and fits I could, 
His private letter contained a requests: but because the first of the three concerned only some private sad affairs of his own, & of some of his near friends, that is here omitted, as not at all belonging to the matter here debated.  proceed, knowing that the line of divine light ought to sway our judgements, and not either the sunshine of peace, or shadows of the evening stretched out upon us. Yea and in truth I took this task upon me as a Medicine, to restrain (what I could) my troubled spirit from continual feeding upon that very bitter herb which had troubled it.  
Now I have two Requests unto you, one for the Church of God; the other for myself.  
For the Church of God, I beseech you by our Lord jesus Christ, that if you think as I do, that the Ceremonies in Question, however they may seem to us Inconvenient in some respects; yet, are not unlawful, but such as men (not imprisoned with prejudice) may with good consciences observe, as matters of external Order, imposed on us by lawful authority. Then sir, do your best endeavour to hold those that stand wavering unto their colours. And do not yet make so much way to any evil affected, or open enemies to our Religion, nor weaken our party against the common Adversaries of our faith by disunion of themselves. Let not, for these things in which the kingdom of God standeth not, those things in which it doth stand, be abandoned. Let no man build upon his former persuasion, which can excuse no longer then till it be better informed. Let no man walk after the Tradition of men, though good and learned. Nay let them consider that of grave and holy Zanchy, 
Epist. lib. p. 391.  who writing one Epistle to Queen Elizabeth for Abatement of these Ceremonies, withal wrote another at the same time to that Reverend and holy Bishop jewel to persuade the Ministers not to leave their functions for those things, if the Queen would not remove them, or slack the urging of them. Tell them 
a Beza opusc. in vitae Caluini ad Ann. 1538. p. 368.  how Calvin, though he disliked the reducing of wafer-bread into Geneva in the time of his exile, yet at his return never liked to struggle for the change of it. Remember them of that praise which Master Fox gave to that worthy Bishop and Martyr 
b Fox, Martyr. p. 13●1.  Hooper, how for the public service of the Church he bore and suffered patiently the private contumely of his Conformity. And wish them to take heed that they regard, not too much man's day; For he that shall judge us, is God. As for you self, I hope there will be no need to bid you look upon the wonderful blessing of God upon you and your Ministry, above many of us, while you have used these things with a good conscience. Sir up our brethren who have some authority in the hearts of those godly people, who are unhappily transported to an unutterable dislike of these things which they understand not, and to file off that rough edge of their not somuch opinions, as detestation. And do what you can to move all such as need it, to consideration, whether it shall not be better, and upon their deathbed more cordial, to bear (not being unlawful) the use of these things, rather than to occasion the rending of the Church, the displeasure of our Governors, the stopping of our mouths, the desolation (for aught we know) of our flocks, the distress of our families, and withal (which is not the least) the confirming of an error (by our if not doctrine, yet example) in the hearts of all those, who are, or shall be led to condemn as untolerable, that which God will justify as lawful in us; and so doth, as I am fully persuaded, by his Word.  
Touching myself, I have these requests to you; that you would remit this tract unto meet again, without giving any copy of it, that I may (which I now could not) revise, and amend it. And let me have your free judgement of it; and if you take me to be decived, set up some clear light before me, and pray that mine eyes may be opened. And I shall give glory to God, who knoweth the uprightness of my heart in this matter.  
For the rest, commend me to my friends, more specially to my &c. Let me yet, of the little patch of life remaining, have some relief of comfort in your love continued. And above all, pray for me that the Lord who chastiseth, would keep me in his love, burn out the dross that is in me, sanctify me wholly to himself, and the service of his Church, and keep me (as I hope he will) fast knit unto himself in Christ, and when the time cometh; yea, and till then, vouchsafe to honour his own name in my life and death. Farewell.   
FINIS.