a thing lawlesse without rule and sinners in Gods â—ies be as disordered and lawlesse men whom neither Gods word nor mans law can rule or make obedient Hence the Beniamites which defloured the Leuits wife and the Prophet Helies children are called the Sonnes or men of Belial Hence the Papistes abroad whose chiefest religon is mans tradition and Schismatikes at home the authors and abettors of confusion in the Church be Belials sonnes Christ hath no communion with Belial nor Christians with the sonnes of Belial either the idolatrous Papists or the lawlesse Schismatikes these hauing separated themselues from vs because of our orderly Kneeling and obedience wee hauing seuered our selues from the other for their manifest impieties Schis Come out and touch no vncleane thing are the wordes of the Apostle which either he wrote without warrant or we must sinne in Kneeling Pro. God bee thanked we haue fulfiled the Apostles words we are come out wee haue left Babylon and next we doe as little touch tast or see any idolatrous pollutions or haue communion with that which is vncleane in our Kneeling as you or any others in your owne opinion neuer so pure and reformed haue either in Sitting bowing or Standing by which sites of body idolatrie hath beene and is committed as well as by Kneeling They which onely and alwaies commit idolatrie bee not they which Kneele for then neuer should we Kneele but wee commit idolatrie and neuer should any commit idolatrie but such as Kneele both which to bee false our experience doth tell vs who find that both the most religious most deuoâ—t doe Kneele when they serue their God and the most idolatrous and superstitious the Papistes only excepted do neuer Kneele at their chiefest exercises of their deuotions Thinke therefore iudiciously of our Kneeling as it deserueth and neither condemne any men for Kneeling if they so do not idolatrouslie or superstitiouslie nor appooue them which Kneele if thereby they dishonour God Blame the Papists who by their Kneeling doe the greatest idolatrie that can bee but blame not vs which most sincerely thereby do serue God Christ not being more opposite to Belial than is the Popish masse to our Communion and the manner of administration of the same albeit both the Papists and we of the Church of England in receiuing they of their Masse we of the Communion in kneeling be like Schis Doth not God straightly forbid vs to serue him as idolaters doe their Gods Pro. You know or should not be ignorant how God had prescribed vnto his people the Israelites a certaine forme and manner how he would of them be worshipped whereunto whosoeuer should adde or any thing take or varie from the same hee was liable to Gods heauie wrath and displeasure The Israelites were faultie herein and therefore great and most grieuous were the punishments not onely threatned but inflicted also by God vpon the people of Israel for their disobedience But we Christians haue onely generall rules no speciall forme of seruice giuen vs by Christ as the Israelites had an assertion so true as some of you Sectaries haue a fancy that because God hath set downe none such in his word the Church therefore should be bound to none at all no not so much as to a forme of prayer and haue euen made praiers against ordinary and common praiers When God therefore hath left vs free blame vs not as Idolaters if differing from Papists in their Idolatrie wee be like vnto them in some indifferent ceremony or other and rather thinke though wee bee like them and they like vs in kneeling yet as they cannot be said to be good Christians and to serue God though they kneele so are not we to be counted Papists and to be Idolatrous though we kneele For by one and the same gesture both they doe worshippe their Idol and wee our Sauiour like in action most vnlike in affection neither they by Gods word iustified because they are like vs nor we condemned being in that ceremony like vnto them Schis These things considered can kneeling wherewith Papists doe honour their breaden God be honourable to Christ in his holy Sacrament Pro. Yea these things rightly considered euen kneeling wherewith the Papists do honor their breaden God may be to the honor of Christ in his holy Sacrament For by that gesture of body whereby they do worship their false God an idoll by the same do we worship the true God our Sauiour sitting at the right hand of the Father in the heauens Now let vs know at the length what the other consideration is why this kneeling is or should be so hatefull vnto God and men SECT 6. Whether Kneeling hindreth the sweet familiarity betweene Christ and his Church Schis SEcondly whereas the end of a Sacrament is to informe the outward man by sensible demonstration it pleaseth our M. Christ to vse such gesture as agreeably with bread and wine setteth out our Communion and spirituall familiarity with him and reioycing in him And therefore as he saith If any heare my voice and open the doore I will come in to him and sup with him and he with me so hee saith Many shall come from the East and West and shall sit with Abraham c. By which places it appeareth that as by Supper so by Sitting familiar reioycing or reioycing familiarity is expressed In which respect the Communion is called the Lords Supper and not a sacrifice and wee are said to bee partakers of the Lords table and not of an Altar And therefore not Kneeling but Sitting is for receiuing Pro. The end of all Sacraments is to informe not the outward onely but the inward man also by sensible demonstrations and therefore bee they called Gods visible word and seene engendring and confirming Faith and edifying the Soule as well as the Word audible and heard And as the word heard and beleeued diuersly doeth affect the soule and to diuers blessed and good purposes so doth the visible word the sacraments especially of the body and blood of Christ. For as Circumcision was a Seale of the righteousnes of Faith that is a testimonie confirming the Faith of Abraham so to euery one which worthily doth partake of the bodie and blood of Christ his verie receauing is a sealing to his faith that of Christ the body was giuen and the blood shed for his sinnes Next it teacheth them how the Sonne of God tooke on him the nature of man that by the oblation of his body and blood he might take away the sinnes of the world Besides the memorie of that sacrifice propitiatorie is made perpetual and thankes ascribed from time to time at the participating of those misteries vnto the blessed dutie By communicating at this holy Sacrament we learne moreouer and do beleeue that as the benefits of Christ are ours and doe appertaine vnto vs in so much as neither the members to the bodie nor the branches to
assertion namely that Kneeling in the very act of receiuing the Sacramentall Bread and wine in the holy communion cannot be without sinne Say not then hence forward how dare a Christian man hauing knowledge kneele in the presence of any who for want of knowledge receiue superstitiously for such a Christian dare kneele hauing good warrant for his so doing may work much good thereby his exemplary Kneeling teaching both the weake to cast away their vncharitable and rash supitions of their neighbours and bretherē for Kneeling who doubt lesse if by none ouert act or speech they declare the contrary receiue religiously superstitious Communicants if any such repaire vnto the Communion to conuert their Kneeling vnto the glory of God which others whome through ignorāce infirmity they do fauor but too much do superstitiously idolatrously abuse in th' Romish sinagogue S. Of which sort of superstitious receiuers seeing ther bee so many euen vntill this houre and euer likely to be that wee know not when and where to Communicate without some such either old or young It followeth that if sitting at the Table in the holy Temple could not bee without sinne in the Apostles time so Kneeling cannot bee without sinne in these dayes when the number of the faithfull teachers bee much decreased but of Papists much increased by our Kneeling much confirmed in their bread worship P. Conceiue better of the Communicants of our Church then that the number of them which superstitiously do receiue should bee so great least the same measure be ministred to you Schismatikes which you offer to others men likewise take offence at your sitting as at a gesture in our churches very vnseemely signe of no rightly deuout religious but prophane persons the number of which more apparently doth increase then doth the number of superstitious Communicāts And so surmises being had by some that such such be superstitious because they Kneele others be vain prophane for that they sit weakenes of mind on either both sides alledged for their Recusancie to ioyne either with those superstitions or these prophane yea with them which bee neither prophane nor superstitous the vnion of our Churche by this new Recusancie and vterly refusing the Communion be dissolued and broken But did none giue offence to weake consciences by their sitting as you say though you name no man many doe by Kneeling yet doth it not follow that because Christians could not sit lawfully at table in the Idols temple and sinne not therefore none can without sinne kneele in our churches and at the holy Communion For our churches bee not Idols temples our Tables in them not Idols tables our communicants not the worst of them no not so much as in show but onely by surmise and vnbrotherly suspitions superstitions If you thinke the contrary great is your sinne and heauie the accompt you shall make for so thinking That teachers especially faithfull teachers decrease I hope not sure I am is not so notorious as that Papists do encrease and the encreasing of these to bee the diminution of the superstitions you speake of But that being encreased they are confirmed yea much confirmed in their bread-worship by our Kneeling is soone said but not prooued nor will euer be iustified S. If his Maiesties iudgement bee sound that the surplice is not to be worne if Heathenish men were conuersant among vs who thereby might take occasion to bee strengthned in their Paganisme shall we by our corrupt practise of Kneeling strengthen the Papists who swarme among vs in their idolatry R. Wee doubt not of the soundnesse and sinceritie of our Kings iudgement Hee conceiueth better of Papists though they bee too bad then of Heathens and Pagans And therefore albeit hee would not suffer the Surplice to bee worne if Heathenish men were conuersant among vs least they should be strengthened in their Paganisme yet doth hee not onely suffer but enioyne the said Surplice to bee worne of the holy Ministers albeit Papists do swarme in this kingdome Thereby not strengthening them as by a Popish relique in their Poperie but letting them and all men see that hee condemneth nothing in vse among them that may bee well vsed And yet had you marked what followeth proceeding from the soundnesse and profoundnesse of his most excellent iugdement you might haue seene that his Highnesse vtterly condemneth not all the doctrine and ceremonies in the Church of Rome taught and vsed but those ceremonies onely and doctrines which are corrupt sauoring of error and superstition not of the puritie and veritie of the primitiue Christians There should you read and perceiue his constant and resolute opinion to bee that no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie than shee hath departed from her selfe when she was in her flourishing and best estate and from Christ her Lord and head Among which corruptions his Maiesty neuer counted either the surplice by you mentioned or the Kneeling betweene vs controuerted to be But whatsoeuer corruptions haue bin either in Kneeling or the surplice yet the said corruptions being taken away and these appointed now reformed to the seruice of God with what face can you call either our practise in kneeling to bee corrupt or the Papists swarming among vs to be confirmed in their bread worship by our kneeling which is nothing Popish S. If the State doth well in ordering the Sacrament to be administred in vsuall bread to tale away superstition whereas Christ did by occasion minister in vnleauened bread shall not we do ill in teaching or confirming superstition by kneeling whereas Christ did of purpose minister sitting P. Doth the State well in changing the bread speake Schismatick for your words are equiuocal If wel therein yet varying from the purpose of Christ then may you see the weakenesse of your fourth argument afore alledged binding vs necessarily to the example of Christ as to a Persian law which may not be broken For he ministred with vnleauened we solemnize the Supper with bread vsuall and leauened and yet in so doing sinne not The same State which changed vnleauened into vsual and bread leauened in place of your pretended sitting hath appointed Kneeling at the Communion changing the site by the same authority which she did the bread thereby doing well in both or neither Which Kneeling also would the same State haue altered into sitting or some other seemly and comly gesture had it beene perswaded that the same Kneeling either had or should offend the mindes of Christian communicants as it knew the sight of vnleauened Waser Cakes would displease the godly and be dishonorable to God Finally if we either teach or confirme superstition by our kneeling we do surely therein very ill but that wee so do is yet in question not granted by me nor will euer be prooued by you Wee swarue no whit from the minde and purpose whatsoeuer wee doe from
to be receiued as the Lords supper on our part nor any part of the same Supper to bee performed with like ceremonies of zeale and deuotion as the verie taking and receiuing the bread and wine neither can wee so expresse and testifie the same reuerence as by Kneeling Your selfe afore saide then which you neuer spake truer words how the most solemne signe of reuerence is Kneeling The Sacrament is called you say The Communion be it so It is likewise called The new Testament and of the Fathers The Sacrament Eucharisticall or of Thanksgiuing and can we better manifest our thankfull hearts vnto our heauenly father then on bended knees And can there be no Communion euen at the Communion if we Kneele Doth the externall either Kneeling Sitting or Standing further or hinder our Communion betweene Christ and his Church These things dulie considered we ought not to imagine but that Christ aswell is honoured and better by Kneeling in the act of receiuing then by any other site or gesture of bodie whatsoeuer Schis That cannot be seeing it swarueth not onely from his example but also from the practise of all reformed churches except in England which the Papists themselues call Puritano-papisticall by retaining this and other Popish corruptions Pro. The swaruing from the example of Christ is no strong and true Argument that wee dishonour God in so doing For if that were true no Curch should bee pure from dishonouring God You cannot name a Church or companie of Christians in the whole world which in the ministring and receiuing the Supper of the Lord varieth not from Christ his example and that manifoldly which yet in their ministrations doe honour God If England herein doe swarue from all reformed Churches will you therefore conclude that the Church of England onely doth dishonour God We condemne not other Churches for their not Kneeling neither doth any Church nor should you Schismatikes condemne ours for our Kneeling And yet false is it that we Christians in England onely when we communicate do Kneele For all the Churches in Basill Saxonie Denmarke and many in Germanie by the orders of their seuerall Churches at the Communion as well as wee in England doe kneele Either therefore those Churches be not in the number of Churches reformed in your iudgement or they dishonour God by their said Kneeling so well as wee the former of which you will not I thinke say and if you should all Gods faithfull seruants thorowout the world will condemne you for your headie and vncharitable iudgement the latter you should not without blushing affirme and wee are so farre from imagining that thereby wee dishonour God as wee are of minde that God is by no externall site or gesture of bodie at the Communion so honoured as by Kneeling What the Papists thinke of and terme the Church of England wee are not ignorant neither doe regard But how Popish they thinke our Kneeling at the holie Communion to bee iudge by their wordes expressing their thoughts of the holy Supper which they terme A peeuish Supper fitter for Pagans than Christians more meete for dogges then men proceeding directly from the Diuell Can any man thinke our kneeling to bee a Popish corruption either hearing these things or reading them either in Popish writings or truly cited out of Popish bookes They abhorre our bread and wine as Schismaticall as hereticall as leading the high way to Gods wrath and indignation to hell damnation It is no Popish corruption which they so abhorre much lesse abhorre they our Kneeling as Popish yea they abhorre it because it is not Popish They are simple and verie strangers from the Papists opinions of our Church and her ceremonies which so thinke and speake Schis Such Kneeling may be an argument especially to a Papist not vnderstanding our tongue that we haue Communion with Antichrist and his Synagogue at least in the Idolatrie of bread-worship which our failng or carelesnesse to auow our Communion with Christ and his Church and not abhorring all Communion with Antichrist and his Synagogue cannot be without grieuous sinne Pro. If what last I said be true as no right Papist whether he vnderstand our tongue or not cannot bee doubtfull of our Kneeling cannot possiblie bee any Argument of Communion with Antichrist and his Synagogue in Idolatrie Besides what Papist is there but knoweth that the bread wine at the Altar once consecrated by their doctrine are transubstantiated forthwith into the verie bodie and blood of Christ and being so transubstantiated by and by as the onely begotten Sonne of God both of Priest and people vnder the paine of the Pope his curse with diuine honour and worship to be adored To haue these thoughts and to exhibit this adoration vnto the elements this is to communicate with Antichrist and his Synagogue but our reuerend and humble Kneeling at the taking and receiuing the bread wine in a thankfull remembrance of the death of Christ and of all the benefits we are partakers of by his passion that without althought or shew of adoring the bread and wine this is no communicating with Antichrist his Synagogue Hauing these cogitations though we Kneele wee haue Communion with Christ and his Church and hauing not these thoughts wee haue no Communion at all with his Church though wee Sit and Kneele not As therefore it is not the Kneeling but the impious conceits wherewith their hearts bee possessed and replenished when they approch to the Sacrament that maketh the Papists to be Idolaters so neither doth our Kneeling exclude vs from all Communion with Christ and his Church nor your Sitting that ioyneth you in fellowship with the same As grosse Idolatrie may you commit in not Kneeling as any persons euer did or as the Papists now doe in Kneeling But we charge not you as you do vs yet very vncharitably whose part were rather to conceiue better of them whose doctrine in the most principal points of Religion about the Sacrament especially is one and the same with yours light being not more contrarie to darknesse nor heauen to hell then what both ye which Sit and wee which Kneele doe hold therein is opposite and contrarie to the doctrine of the Synagogue of Rome Wherefore as we say not that yee differing from vs that Kneele haue no Communion with Christ and his church because ye Sit and doe commit a grieuous sinne did yee not offend against publique order for that with vs yee Kneele not no more should ye haue so much as an imagination that we haue Communion with Antichrist and his Synagogue because wee Kneele and doe commit a grieuous sinne for that with you we Sit not when wee doe receiue especially seeing God doth not forbid and Christian authoritie commandeth vs to Kneele Sittng kneeling are but outward ceremonies nothing to the substance of Religion concerning the true communion with Christ and his Church at all and of themselues indifferent did not the
admimistring the Sacraments then Christians haue Or be Christians in more bondage this way and restrained than the Iewes And might the Iewes vpon good considerations doe these things and may not Christians without sinne doe as they did Wee take therefore what you acknowledge though wee will not acknowledge it to be true namely that the manner of taking and receauing the Passe-ouer was altered the Iewes taking it at the first standing in processe of time sitting What gather you thereof Schis Hereby kneeling is conuinced as being a gesture altogether vnanswereable to eating Pro. Whereof is Kneeling conuinced Shew you haue not yet declared Or what maketh the Iewes sitting at the last or standing at the first to our Kneeling at the Communion Kneeling differeth from Sitting Standing Walking and the like but answereth to eating and drinking well enough For wee may eate to our mutual comfort if the common guise were not otherwise as well Kneeling as Sitting Standing or any other way which you cannot truly deny If ciuilly we may so doe at our common refreshings why not much more Ecclesiasticallie and sacramentallie at the Supper of the Lord Schis Because such Kneeling it darkeneth the counsell of God and being a signe of the greatest submission obscureth the reioycing familiaritie which the Lords Supper signifieth and sealeth Pro. Kneeling at the Communion darkeneth say you the counsell of God and obscureth the Reioycing familiaritie which the Lords Supper signifieth and sealeth For the ratifying of these your assertions you quote Scripture and bring a reason The places of Scripture which you quote be two the former out of Iob the latter from S. Paul Out of the booke of Iob the place is this Who is this that darkeneth the counsell by words without knowledge alledged onely for the phrase sake but concerneth the point in controuersie not a whit S. Pauls words bee these After the same manner also hee tooke the cuppe when he had supped saying this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood This doe as oft as you shall drinke it in remembrance of mee For as often as yee shal eat this bread and drinke this cup yee shew the Lords death till he come Now what is this also against our Kneeling They which worthily participate of the bread and wine though they Kneele doe as comfortably and familiarly Communicate in the blessings of God as they which in any other sort receiue the Sacraments Your reason that it obscureth the reioycing familiaritie which the Lords Supper signifieth and sealeth because it is a signe of the greatest submission is so farre from obscuring that it furthereth the same reioycing familiarity nothing more For who can receiue either to Gods glory more notably or to their owne soules ioy more comfortably then they which with the greatest signe of submission and that vnto the diuine Maiestie repaire vnto the holy Supper Afore you said and truely how kneeling was a signe of the greatest reuerence here you say It is the greatest signe of submission These are no reasons to driue vs from it but very forcible motiues to make vs with cheerefulnes and alacrity to continue our Kneeling Besides you argue me thinkes but from a particular as though spirituall familiaritie only and not other things besides and namely and especially a gratefull remembrance and thankefull acknowledgement of all Gods mercies and fauours which is best expressed by Kneeling were to be in our thoughts When there be many causes inducing vs to receiue the Sacrament if we chuse that gesture we aboue all may testifie our true humiliation and thankefulnesse vnto God rather then our reioycing familiaritie one with another blame vs not And yet is this corporall submission and submissiue thankefulnes at no time without much spiritituall ioy and it may be more encreaseth godly ioy in them which Kneele and in them too before whom they Kneele then your acknowledged lesse reuerent Sitting as at a common feast Schis Doewe not condemne the Papists for ministring the Communion in one kind because such an administration is against Christ his example and doeth not liuely demonstrate the Lords death Pro. The condemnation of the Papists is iust for their such ministring And therefore the Scripture which you point vnto serueth verie aptlie to displaie their impietie which swarue from Christ his institution by ministring the Communion in one kinde but not against vs for Kneeling And their blame is the iuster and the more not so much because they swarue by their said ministring from his example which in some cases as afore hath beene showne is lawfull to be done as for that verie disobediently they transgresse the manifest Commandement of God which hath enioined the said Sacrament to be administred in both kindes Schis Heare a caueat is to be giuen that none take occasion by this discourse of mine to iustifie the childish pedagogy of signifying ceremonies deuised by man seeing Sitting was vsed by Christ the signification thereof is found in Scripture And therefore that childish pedagogie is not iustified by that worthy seruant of Christ M. Cartwright his iudgement viz. that Sitting doth signifie our rest in Christ Iesus Pro. Those children which allow and like of significant ceremonies may bee your Fathers in sound Diuinitie How and by whom such ceremonies are iustified it is needlesse to set downe but that they are iustified by most godlie and learned men their iudgement touching some ceremonies vsed euen at the Communion beare witnesse Greete yee one another with an holy kisse saith Saint Paul Erat elegans admonitio in osculo There was an elegant admonition in the kisse Nam coiunctionem intimam declarabat for it signified a most inward coniunction Also not onely a consent sed communionem sanctorum but the communion of Saints which they professed in doctrine and sacred ceremonies saith Arctius And of the same kisse Nec est dubitandum saith Peter Martyr it is not to bee doubted how in the primitiue Church Christians gaue one another the mutuall kisse of peace and consent before they went vnto the holy communion by which token their purpose was to admonish themselues of the communion of Saints celebrated in the mysteries The marginall annotation from Geneua vpon these words of the Apostle is How the Christians did so kisse in token of mutuall loue which thing was obserued in the primitiue Church when the Lords Supper was ministred Marke these things aduisedlie and you shall see First that to the administration of the Supper ceremonies as kissing more then euer Christ that wee know practised sure I am then hee euer prescribed were added Secondly how the said ceremonies were very elegant and significant And lastly that the said addition and ceremonies no not for their mysticall signification were neuer deemed either vnlawfull or childish as you childishlie doe call them but very highlie commended both by the Apostle and worthy interpretors in the Church of Christ. But to proceede still in the sacred Supper
of the one then of the other For hee vsing both a speciall time and a certaine gesture if hee chose the one hee chose both and if his example bee of vs necessarilie to bee followed in the gesture it is to bee followed also in the time wee can no more alter the one then wee may change the other Schis That followeth not For it was vppon speciall and necessarie occasion for the Passeouer must bee eaten before the Lords Supper could be instituted in stead thereof and presently after Supper the houre came that Christ was to be betraied Pro. Be this acknowledged what hereof Schis Therefore if the Iewes transgressed not the institution of the Passeouer by changing a gesture at the first prescribed by God according to that their present occasion into another fitter for a time of rest much lesse do Christians transgresse the institution of the Lords Supper by changing the time taken by Christ vpon occasion but not prescribed into some fitter in discretion for the ordinarie celebration of the Lords Supper Pro. You haue twice now said that the Iewes changed the gesture of Standing prescribed euen by God himself at their eating the Passeouer if you had once proued your saying to make it out of doubt you had done well Other diuines not to be contemned thinke cleane otherwise namely that the Iewes and euen Christ himselfe kept the old custome of standing neuer changed the same into Sitting Non autem dubium est bee some of their words it is without doubt that Christ performed that ceremonie of eating the Passeouer Stando amictus baculum tenens Standing his loynes girded and holding a staffe in his hand But it may not bee acknowledged which now the second time also you say that their newe Sitting was fitter for a time of rest then their old Standing God hauing prescribed this Standing for a perpetuall memorie euen till the reall Passion of Christ of their suddaine and safe deliuerance from the most grieuous thraldome of theirs in Egypt But did or might the Iewes before the verie and full time was come that the said Passeouer was to take an end alter the rite and site of eating the same changing their Standing prescribed into Sitting not enioynd by God but deuised by themselues as fitter to represent their present and future rest then their former troubles may not Gods people in these dayes change the site of Christs Sitting if he did Sit which was neuer prescribed vnto Christians into Kneeling in their discretion The Iewes transgressed not the institution of the Passeouer say you by changing a gesture at the first prescribed of God and doe Christians transgresse the institution of the Supper by changing a gesture neither first nor last nor at all prescribed if practised by Christ And might Christians in former dayes lawfully change the time chosen by Christ but not prescribed into some other fitter in discretion for the ordinarie celebrating of the Lords Supper and doe Christians now offend in changing a corporall gesture no more enioined then was the time into some fitter in discretion for the celebrating of the Lords Supper in a publique Church at open publique praier and thanksgiuing Haue not Christians in these indifferent matters as great power as had the Iewes and the now liuing Christians as their forefathers And might both Iewes and Christians adde and alter formes of administring the Sacraments not changing their substance and sinne they now which in these dayes doe vse their libertie in these things after the example both of the Christians and Iewes See you not how your owne weapons doe wound your selfe Now among Christians who changed the time Schis Probably the Primitiue Church did Pro. You cannot then certainly say it you doe but probably coniecture that the Primitiue Church made the change What moueth you so to thinke Schis For euery first day of the weeke viz. the Lords day the brethren came together to breake bread that is to minister the Communion So that either they neuer met vpon the Lords day but in the Euening or els they celebrated the Communion at some other times Pro. Be it that the first day yea euerie first day of the weeke namely euery Lords day the Christians came together to breake bread that is to minister the Communion which yet is not agreed vpon among the learned yet that they so met euery first day in the day time and not in the night is but coniecturall yea that they met together in the night as well as in the day to that end the twentie of the Acts doth shew Wherupon some doe note how nocturnall meetings are not simplie and of themselues to be condemned But let it be more then probable and most certaine that the alteration of the time of ministring the Lords Supper came in while the Apostles liued yet did this ministring thereof in the day varie from Christ his ministring the same in the night and being done with good discretion the Church thereby transgressed not the institution of Christ. So without sinne was the gesture of our Sauiour changed into Kneeling whosoeuer were the authors thereof Schis But for any alteration of the gesture of Sitting especially into Kneeling there is not the least probabilitie Pro. When all the world knoweth and seeth the gesture to be altered how can you say it is not probable that it was altered And though it bee not apparent and if you will too not probable that the Apostles altered the gesture and that into Kneeling yet it is most certaine and more then probable that Apostolicall men endued with the holy Spirit were both alterers at the first and vsers afterward of that seemely gesture SECT 9. Whether the prayer at the deliuerie of the bread and wine be iustifiable Schis IT is further obiected that we may Kneele in regard of prayers to be vsed by prescription of authoritie at the deliuerie of the bread and wine viz. The bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ which was giuen for thee preserue thy bodie and soule vnto eternall life and take and eat this c. Pro. What is your answere Schis Hereunto these answers may be returned Pro. Which be they Schis First seeing wee reiect Christ his example of Sitting for Kneeling wee must not stand vpon what wee may doe but humblie consider what wee must doe Pro. Those Christians which Kneele doe no more reiect Christ his example of Sitting then doe you reiect it in ministring the Communion to women priuatly and many wayes besides otherwise then he did If euerie action of Christ be a necessarie iniunction binding Christians to the imitation of the same so as they may not varie therefrom in their discretion but they sinne that which you haue said of the Christians celebrating of the Supper in the day deserueth the same reproofe which this Kneeling doeth both swaruing from this example but surely neither of them tending to Gods dishonour nor against his will But what incenseth
Communion but for that they were abused neither for their abuse were they quite banished out of the Church as you vntruly say but onely blamed and yet continued in the Church of God A fitter example could you not bring forth then this of Loue feasts For neuer did Christ to whose example in celebrating of his Supper you would precisely bind vs institute and minister the said Supper either after or before such a feast as did the Churches in the Apostles times and that commendably This sheweth how things of themselues indifferent and tending vnto edification may be added without sinne vnto the sacred Supper and being added through mans corruption abused may be reduced notwithstanding to their first and laudable institution continued in Gods church as were the Loue feasts Schis Nay hereby it is apparent that that forme of administration which differeth from the first institution is worthy no praise and therefore no acceptable seruice of God Pro. Not so apparent as you weene The Apostle blamed the Corinthians as I haue told you not for their Loue feasts a forme among them of administring the Lords Supper but for their abusing them to the dishonour of God and offence of the world Which feasts afore they were abused were well allowed counted both worthie of praise an acceptable seruice of God differing but not contrarie to his will Which may tell and teach you First how the Church is not alwayes and strictly bound to one and the same forme of administring the holy Supper Next that what Christ did and what he said and instituted is to be considered and that what hee instituted is alwayes and necessarily to bee done but not what he did For his actions serue for our instruction alwayes but not for our imitation euer his institutions bee iniunctions his deedes personall and circumstantiall his precepts substantiall his actions for a great part accessorie and arbitrarie his iniunctions euermore necessarie Hence blame we the Papists for denying the Cup vnto the common people and the Artotorites for adding Cheese to the Lords Supper contrarie to the institution of Christ but we blame neither the Corinthians and primitiue Church of old nor the reformed Churches in these dayes for swaruing from the forme of Christs ministring the Sacrament in certaine ceremoniall indifferent accidentall and circumstantiall points whom we should and would blame were their administring how differing soeuer from the forme of Christ his celebrating the holy Supper a seruice displeasing and not acceptable to God And here the wisdome of our Lord Sauiour sheweth it selfe most admirable who hauing prescribed and instituted what hee would haue done hath not prescribed yet the forme and manner how hee would haue the Sacraments administred enioyning generall things as Take Eate Drinke c. but leauing the speciall maner of taking and receiuing the bread and wine vnto the libertie and discretion of his elected spouse thinking that praise worthy and acceptable vnto his holinesse whatsoeuer in this matter is formally decently and to the edification of his church and children done and performed Schis If the Apostle would not tolerate an indifferent thing as was a Loue feast till then to continue so neere the Lords Supper when it was abused how would they allow the change of Sitting into Kneeling especially in these two considerations Pro. Saint Paul was not of your mind who cannot brooke but doe condemne whatsoeuer vnto Idolatrie or sinne hath beene abused Therefore did hee and his brethren the Apostles continue these Loue feasts whose reformation they sought after they were abused neuer counting them because they were abused by some persons to bee vtterlie and euer afterward to bee vnlawfull and for no vse in Gods Church Hence the Apostles Peter and Iude speake of Loue feasts in vse in their time without condemning them for their abuse and Tertullian reporteth how they were frequent in his dayes and yet euer abused by some ill disposed persons or other And therefore that the said Apostle would both lesse allow of and more condemne Kneeling which neuer was so abused in our Church as were the Loue feasts in the primitiue Church and especially at Corinth is verie vnprobable I may say vnpossible to be true But because you are of mind that for two considerations the Apostles would condemne them conceale not your reasons that they may bee considered of SECT 5. Whether our Kneeling be Popish and Idolatrous Schis FIrst the abuse of Loue feasts viz. superfluity was neuer so great and scandalous in the Apostles times as the abuse of Kneeling viz. Idolatrie was and is in the Synagogue of Rome Pro. It is well that you grant Loue feasts and Kneeling to be of one and the same nature and of themselues indifferent For you confesse they haue all beene abused and so implie that good vse was made both of Kneeling and of Loue feasts afore they were abused but neither could they bee vsed well at the first or abused afterward had they or either of them simplie beene ill and so vnlawfull That as Loue feasts so Kneeling at the receiuing the holy Communion and blessed Sacrament hath bin abused the whole world doth know and may not be denied Let it also be granted which is most true that the abuse of Loue feasts was neuer so great and scandalous in the Apostles times as the abuse of Kneeling was is in the Synagogue of Rome But what make you of all this May wee not therfore Kneele at any time or in any reformed Church when we receiue the Communion because there was and is such abuse of Kneeling in the Synagogue of Rome And if we in our Churches do Kneele is our offence greater then the abuse of Loue feasts or cannot that same thing be vsed without sinne or offence at one time and place which is abused in another or well vsed and to Gods glory by some persons which impiously and to the high dishonor of God is prophaned by others Kneeling in the verie act of receiuing I confesse of some hypocrites in our reformed Churches may be abused as were the Loue feasts in the Apostles dayes but so grosly generally and scandalously as were either the Loue feasts in the primitiue Church or is Kneeling in the Synagogue of Rome me thinks you should blush to say sure I am you shall neuer proue You say Loue feasts were by superfluitie I adde by sursetting also drunkennesse pride vain-glorie contempt of the poore Christians Kneeling also among the Papists vnto Idolatrie a most horrible sinne and superstition is abused but so many wayes in so open sort so impiously is Kneeling abused in no Church reformed Loue feasts by many and that openly were abused by bad Christians who at those Loue feasts were as blots aud spots but was not the fault of the whole Church Christian Kneeling at the Masse is the sinne of all Caco-catholiques yea and of their whole Church but if Kneeling among vs in or any other Church
words contrary to his mind Schis For hee did first blesse or pray and after gaue the Elements in a Sacramentall forme of words without any addition saying Take eate c. which order of administration and forme of words Matthew Marke Luke and Paul doe so constantly precisely and sincerely relate that any may perceiue the meaning of the Spirit to bee That the Sacramentall forme of words ought to be obserued without any addition and the rather because Paul beginneth his relation thus I haue receiued of the Lord that which I haue also deliuered c. Pro. We stand against the Papists wee stand likewise against you Schismatikes that in the ministration of the holy Supper we keepe vs most precisely to the institution of Christ neither shall you nor they euer proue that wee swarue therefrom There be actions to be done of Pastors after the example of Christ there be actions of the people after the example of the Disciples there be things necessary there be accessory there be substantiall and vnmutable there be accidentall and changeable After the example of Christ Pastors are to blesse the bread and wine by calling on the Name of God and opening the institution with prayers and to breake the bread which is to be eaten and the cuppe which is to bee drunke and to deliuer both the bread and wine into the peoples hands with thankesgiuing On the other side it is the part of the flocke to examine themselues 1. To trie both their knowledge as also their faith and repentance to declare the Lords death that is by a true faith to assent vnto his word and institution last of all to eate the bread taken from the ministers hand and to drink the wine with thanksgiuing This was Pauls and the Apostle liturgie saieth Beza and is it not the liturgie of our Church at the administration of the Communion The taking of bread is necessary we take it thankesgiuing that is the sacrifice Eucharisticall is necessarie wee are thankefull the breaking of bread is necessary wee breake it the distribution of bread and wine is necessary we distribute them and that it be giuen only to the Disciples of Christ it is necessary we giue the bread and wine vnto none but Christians For all these things pertaine vnto the substance of the Supper saith Zanchie Now what of these necessary things either want we or doe we not in our Church If any thing we adde it is but for the better setting foth of the Sacrament and stirring vp of good affections which may be done very well without offence to God after the example of Gods people Iewes and Christians as afore more than once hath beene declared Hence Master Caluin so much saith hee as concerneth the outward forme of doing or ministring the Sacrament whether the faithfull receiue it viz. the bread in their hand or not whether they diuide it or euery one eate that which is giuen him whether they put the cup in the hand of the Deacon or deliuer it to the next whether the bread bee leauened or vnleauened whether the wine bee red or whit I might adde whether wee sit or kneele whether our payers and thankesgiuings bee long or short according to the times and occasions whether we vse prayers or no at the deliuerie and receiuing the elements it maketh no matter These things bee indifferent saith Caluin and left at the the libertie of the Church Whereas therefore you say that the very Sacramentall forme of wordes ought preciselie to bee obserued without any addition I say not to the sense and substance of matter but to the very words as if keeping vs to the same sense wee vse other words or more words or in another forme though to the same holy end and purpose were vnlawfull and an adding vnto Christ his institution and so a sinne liable to the heauie curse of God is doctrine strange hithereto not witnessed by the Churches of God Schis It may seeme to bee against religion and reason that to a Sacramentall forme of speech wherein the minister should only supplie the person of Christ there should be added a Prayer as in the name of the Church This confusion is fitter for Babylon than for Sion Pro. That Christ said Take eate this is my Body the Scripture doth manifest but either that Christ vsed no more words tending to prayer thankesgiuing exhortation or instruction or tied his ministers to those verie and onely wordes no scripture doth shew no writter saith but your selfe neither doth it seeme that any sound religion and little reason is in him that so saith being fitter to come from one of the brattes of Babylon than from any childe of Sion Schis Why is not a short prayer after other going before as well ioyned to the Sacramentall forme of Baptisme viz. N. I. baptize thee in the name of the Father c. Pro. The forme of Baptisme is but short the prayers and other good speeches complementing the same both going before and following after set downe in the wisedome of the Church without any speciall commandement of God are neither few nor confused and hitherto vnreprooued for ought I could euer yet heare which may teach you not cynicallie to barke against formes and fashions of administring Gods Sacraments when the matter vttered and vsed is good godly and iustifiable Schis If then this addition of prayer to the sacramentall forme of words bee not of faith how can wee with faith and a good conscience confirme or allow the same with our kneeling Pro. But if this addition to the sacramentall forme of words bee no addition to the substance of the sacrament but onely in the Churches discretion added for the greater glorie of God and comfort of the receiuers then hath it Gods words for the warrant thereof and may be well vttered and reuerently heard and assented vnto euen on our bended knees And so if there be no fault in our kneeling but because of those praiers Kneeling cannot bee faultie because the praiers be iustified SECT 10. Whether Kneeling at the Communion be a gesture indifferent Schis LAstly for iustifying of Kneeling it is affirmed that it is indifferent whether wee Sit Stand or Kneele seeing Christ did Sit when he did eate the Passeouer whereas God commanded the children of Israel in Egypt to eate the Passeouer Standing and some reformed Churches receiue Standing Therefore the King may appoint kneeling as the most reuerend gesture and best beseeming so holy an action Pro. We deeme kneeling to be a corporall site of it selfe indifferent not because Christ did sit when hee should haue stood eating the Passeouer For hee did Stand according to the first institution and not Sitte but beecause it is of the nature euen of Sitting and Standing which I thinke your selfe will not denie to be sites indifferent Besides your selfe haue acknowledged that Kneeling hath beene abused as were the Loue Feasts and therefore might afore bee well vsed as
things indifferent may Againe you haue lately giuen vs to note how kneeling of it selfe is not euill and so to be taken and counted but because it is vsed at certaine prayers which in your conceit are euill at least not iustifiable Therefore indifferent Lastly remember you not how you said of Kneeling that it is the most solemne signe of reuerence and a signe of the greatest submission Therefore not simply euill and to be condemned Nay when you say this of Kneeling why may not the King appoint the most solemne signe of reuerence the signe of the greatest submission or as you now say whether in earnest or sport I waigh not the most reuerend gesture for so is it and best beseeming so holy an action for the Lords Supper Schis For answere whereunto howsoeuer that which is alreadie said may suffice yet it may be further considered that though it be admitted that it is indifferent to Sitte or to Stand yet doth it not follow that Kneeling is indifferent Pro. Doe you but admitte Sitting and Standing to bee indifferent are they so but by way of Concession And though you grant Standing and Sitting to bee so yet doeth it not follow that Kneeling is of the same nature indifferent what reason haue you that it is not Schis For Sitting is the example and Standing is a gesture sometimes vsed in extraordinary eating and in the obiection it is said to be prescribed at a Sacramentall Feast Pro. Leaning and lying may shew vs how Christ ministred his Supper Sitting is none example For hee sat not if Beza if Vilerius if the vulgar Geneua annotation afore cited say true And if because standing in some Churches is prescribed at the sacramentall feast it is to be esteemed indifferent then is kneeling so to be deemed because the most and best reformed Churches appoint kneeling to be the seemliest gesture to be vsed at the sacrament What haue you more to say Schis Againe it doth not follow that because Christ vsed a gesture fitter for eating in his time in stead of a gesture prescribed vpon occasion it is therefore lawfull to vse a gesture nothing answerable to eating and that taken out of the synagogue of Antichrist as though the word of God came out of it or to it onely instead of a gesture most answerable to eating and purposely vsed by Christ at the institution of the Sacrament Pro. Will you not leaue charging of Christ with violating and breaking of Gods ordinance by vsing a gesture not fitter for eating in his time refusing a gesture prescribed vpon occasion in Gods eyes fittest for the Iewish Church Which thing though our Sauiour neither might nor would doe yet is it free for vs Christians and all Churches to vse such gestures at the Communion as are fittest for the daies and countries wherein and where wee liue England and many other Churches purged from the superstition of Poperie haue made choice of Kneeling a site though not answerable to our common eating neither is it necessarie it should be yet seemliest in our eies for our Eucharisticall Ecclesiasticall heauenlie and spirituall repast with Christ and his members Which Site or gesture though Antichrist abuse and Christ that wee read vsed not yet is it not therefore vnlawfull except it can bee shewne that either Christ did forbed it or commaund another or that Christians eithermay not at all or cannot vse that well which in the synagogue of Antichrist hath beene abused Schism So that notwithstanding all that is said for Kneeling his Maiestie vpon whom the burthen as of this gesture so of other ceremonies is laide may remember that Hezekiah appointed Leuites in the house of the Lord with Cymbals c. according to the commaundement of Dauid and Gad the Kinges Seer and Nathan the Prophet for the commandement was by the hand of the Lord and by the hand of his Prophets Pro. Whatsoeuer you haue said yet haue you not hitherto prooued the Kneeling in question to be vnlawfull and therefore cannot conclude the same to bee not indifferent nor to bee enioyned by our King As for his Maiestie like a worthie Hezekiah hee hath appointed Leuites in the houses of the Lord who doe performe their dueties together both at publique prayer hearing of Gods word ministring and communicating in the Sacraments according to the commaundement of blessed Elizabeth and the aduice of her Seers the Prelates and Clergie of the Realme and all correspondent vnto the reuealed will and Counsell of God Sch. Withal his highnes is to consider if kneeling were the most conuenient gesture best beseeming the holy comunion our Lord and Master would not haue Sitten downe of purpose at his last supper Pro. Your selfe haue acknowledged this Kneeling to be the most solemne signe of reuerence which what it doeth differ from the most reuerend gesture hee is sharpe sighted that can discerne and so best beseeming the holy Communion in our iudgement and country Howsoeuer our Lord and Master ministred this his Supper he ministred the same in most decent orderly and reuerend manner yet not binding vs to his example as knowing that is comely in one Country which is not so in another and meete for the time wherein hee liued and instituted the Sacrament which though lawfull is not so conuenient for after times and all places where his Church or part thereof should reside When Christ therefore in these things hath left vs free let no man bring vs into a new bondage Schis And let his Maiesty remember and consider that Ahaz was deceiued in deeming the Altar at Damascus more honourable for Gods seruice then the Altar of Lord. Pro. When you prooue that God hath appointed the site of Sitting to bee the onely gesture for the receiuing of the Communion in his Church as Altars were prescribed by God for his worshippe at Ierusalem and that the site of Kneeling at the said Communion is as vnlawfull as were the Altars at Ierusalem made after the fashion of the Altar at Damascus and lastly that wee in the Church of England commit Idolatrie by our Kneeling as did the Iewes vpon their new made Altars then let both King Iames bee taken for an Ahaz and his loyall and obedient Subiects for Idolaters in the space you are to bee taken for an egregious deprauer both of his sacred Maiestie and of the Church of God vnder his Empire and Gouernement SECT 11. Whether Kneeling at the Communion as much is to be abhorred as the worshipping of Images Schis I Haue said that which may be sufficient to a man reasonable and not contentious against the institution of Kneeling for supposed reuerence in regard of God Pro. You haue said a great deale more then enough to the same purpose but no whit for the satisfaction of any indifferent and reasonable man studious of the Churches quiet and desirous of the truth Schis It remaineth that somewhat be said against the institution of kneeling for reuerence in regard