that which is lawful to the command of Rulers for their own peace though some Brethren be thereby offended 2. It is not confess'd by all That the very nature of Scandal given lyes in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them For 1. Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal after he had accurately considered the use of the word Scandal and the sorts of Scandal § 32 33 34 35 36 37. he inferrs That no man is offended or scandalized but he that falls into some sin That to be angry grieved troubled at any action of another is not to be offended in the Scripture sense Nor consequently doth it follow that I have done amiss in doing that which another man is angry at unless my action be in it self evil For if it be not then he is angry without cause and that is his fault not mine yea and he judgeth or censures his Brother that hath done no hurt which the weak are forbid to do Rom. 14.3 And secondly He is of aâ—l men most unlikely to do that after me which he is angry at me for doing and therefore I have least reason to fear or possibly to foresee that he will be scandaliz'd in the Scripture phrase Which fear or fore-sight were the only just motive to me to abstain from any justifiable indifferent action And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grieved Rom. 14.15 he gathers it from the occasion of the grief of the grieved persons eating with a doubting conscience the three words by which it is explained v 21. Stumbling being offended and being weak or sick that the meaning is â—is grieved i e. wounded or falls into sin Which he endeavours to shew to be agreeable to Language in other words and in that word Whether he be in the right or not this seems to me most agreeable to the Text That 〈◊〉 grief mentioned Rom. 14.15 which is the only place where I find grief in the offended made the effect of offence forbidden is the grief of the offended from his own action in eating with a doubting conscience not from the action of him that used his liberty uncharitably For if the offended had been displeased angry and grieved because he did eat he had not followed his example but would have shunned his practice as judging him licentious in so doing And therefore it is not right that this Author and others object Scandal given by the Conformists because they do that for which their Brethren do mourn as done by them but do not follow them in only are displeased and angry with them for so doing Mr. Jeanes in the 2 d. Edition of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil p. 128. The mistake of Scandal for the angring one is taken notice of by Calvin also upon 1 Cor. 8.13 having affirmed That some corrupted the doctrine of Scandal with foolish glosses and others with their impious calumnies he sheweth the original of both their mistakes touching the meaning of offence in the Apostle Utrique errant in verbo Offendendi Nam offendere accipiunt pro Incurrere in odium vel offensionem hominum aut quod idem ferè est facere quod ipsis displiceat vel minus arrideat Atqui clarissimè patet ex contexâ—u nihil esse aliud quà m malo exemplo ranquam obice fratiem impediâ—e à recto cuâ—su aut illi praebere Causam Lapsus Non ergo hic disputat Paulus de retinendâ hominum gratiâ sed de sublevandis infirmis nè concidant prudenter regendis ne à rectâ viâ deflectant 2 Were Dr. Hammond or my self mistaken yet all that I meet with do make it necessary to active Scandal That it be in all such words or deeds as culpably occasion the fall of another whether of themselves or by accident And for passive Scandal if it be culpably both given and taken then it is Scandalum datum if it be culpably taken and not culpably given then it is Scandalum acceptum as M. Jeanes speaks in his later Edition p. 95. of his Treatise of abstinence from appearance of evil So that until there appear something culpable in hearing the present Ministers they that hear them cannot be justly charged with Scandal given by them to their Brethren And this will not be proved untill it be shewed that either by the nature and condition of their hearing or the intention of the hearers their Brethren are made to sin against God For as it is in the Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer by H. D.M A. commended before by this Author ch 7. p. 60. in the Postscript p. 103. The true notion of a scandalous action is Any action done by us not being required by the Divine Law by which our Brother whether from the nature and condition of the thing done or the intention of him that doth it or both is made to sin against God And therefore it is not confess'd by all that the nature of Scandal given lyes in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty which other Saints are not fully perswaded of in their own minds to be so but are ready to conclude it to be my sin and evil and from thence have occasion of grief or stumbling administred to them unless that Stumbling be by falling into sin through the culpability of my action either from the faulty nature of it or my intention in the doing of it by my unseasonable doing it with fore-sight of the effect which I might have avoided Nor is what this Author saith of the nature of Scandal given evident beyond exception from the Apostles discourse 1 Cor. 8.10 For whereas he supposeth the case of the Church of Corinth concerning the practice of them that eat Idolothytes to have been as he expresseth it on the one side the offending persons judging it their liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple and on the other side others not being fully perswaded hereof were many wayes scandalized at this their practice which therefore the Apostle condemns as unlawful and conceives the nature of Scandal given to be in these two things one judging it his liberty to do it another judging it evil and grieving thereat and that such is the offence of them that hear the present Ministers he is many wayes mistaken 1. That the offending person it is not likely judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple he being described as one that had knowledge opposed to the weak who with conscience of the Idol eat it as a thing offered to an Idol and their conscience being weak was defiled Now it is not likely that the strong that had knowledge by the Doctrine of Christ that what entreth into the
mouth doth not defile and therefore the eating of the Idolothyte though he knew it offered to an Idol could not defile him would yet judge it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple which was manifestly evil even partaking of the Table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 21. Or that it was the weakness of the offended person that he was not fully perswaded of that liberty it had been his weakness and sin if he had judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple But it was the sin of him that had knowledge that he sate at meat in the Idols Temple though it was his liberty to eat it else-where knowing it had been offered to Idols and it was the weakness of the other that he was not so perswaded yet was by the others practice emboldned to it and so was defiled both with the errour and practice of eating against his conscience with the conscience of the Idol that is though he knew it offered to the Idol and therefore was thereby some acknowledgement of the Idol as something honourable or a thing sacred However if it were that the offending person judged it his liberty to sit at mâ—at in the Idols Temple yet this is ill applyed to the hearers of the present Ministers as if their hearing were such an action as was his that sate at meat in the Idols Temple for that was having fellowship with Devils 1 Cor. 10.20 but this is the service of the living God no Idolothyte or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple and as if being perswaded of the liberty to do the one were like thâ— perswasion of the liberty to do the other whereas the hearers judge it not only their liberty to hear the present Ministers but also their duty and so not as the case stands a thing indifferent 2. This Author conceives that the Corinthians were offended in that they were grieved at the practice of him that judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple and that giving occasion of such grief was Scandal given whereas the scandal given was not by causing grief for the offenders practice as evil but in that the offended being swayed by his practice did against his conscience eat the thing offered to Idols and perhaps in the Idols Temple which had been a great sin such as would wound his conscience make him weak or sick and tended to his perdition it being a degree of back sliding to Idolatry And therefore this is ill applyed to the effect of the hearing of the present Ministers which is not in the offended any such backsliding or sin against their conscience tending to their perdition or present wounding of spirit but mourning for their Brethrens conceited back sliding which they conceive tends to their salvation not to their perdition 3. The offence of the Corinthians is set down by this Author without any intimation that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalized because the eating the Idolothyte was both against the precepts of the Mosaical Law and the Apostles decree Acts 15.25 which was of much moment to make the offence Scandal given and not only taken For if offence be taken where there is no probable reason why the scandalized should judge it evil it is his fault who thus judgeth not his who acts that which he sees no reason why any should conceive any evil in it The Apostle therefore did not require to forbear the eating of the Idolothyte but when the weak Brother said This is offered in sacrifice to Idols 1 Cor 10 28. which shewed the reason why he should be offended if he did eat it and that reason might probably induce him to conceive it unlawful which thing is a requisite condition to Scandal given sith if upon any surmise of a weak Brother I must forbear my liberty though there is no shew of reason or no probability why he should conceive it evil to use it my liberty would be as no liberty and a yoak more intolerable than the Law would be on my conscience Now that there is no probable reason why persons should imagine evil in my hearing the present Ministers notwithstanding what this Author saith hath been and shall be further shewed in answering that which is said by this Author 4. This Author doth not mention that which in the case of the Corinthians was requisite to Scandal given to wit that the Scandal should be fore-seen as the words 1 Cor. 10.27 28 intimate and that not only as possible but also as future with some moral certainty by reason of the presence of persons known to scruple the thing I do or some one that intimates his dislike of my action Calvin therefore upon 1 Cor. 8 13. saith Non jubet nos Apostolus divinare nunquid offendiculo futurum sit quod facimus nisi cum est praesens periculum The Apostle doth not bid us divine whether that we do will offend but when there is present danger Now this shews that the hearing the present Ministers is not Scandal given where none are present that are offended nor any give intimation of the futurity of the offence 5. This Author doth not take notice that Scandal given by the use of our liberty is not to be made perpetual as the Apostles words in the same place shew For if I must alwayes abstain from that at which another is offended it will be made sin in it self and so not Scandal given by the intempestive use of our liberty in a thing indifferent but that we must not yield to that we may not lose Truth for peace sake But if men must not hear the present Ministers for the reasons given they must never do it to avoid offence which will be perpetual and so the scandal supposed to be given not such as that which was in the Corinthians liberty in eating Idolothytes 6. It should not have been forgotten That the case of the offended among the Corinthians by eating Idolothytes and the Brethren now in England for hearing the present Ministers cannot be parallel'd rightly because the Corinthians offence was at the time wherein the Gospel had been but lately preached to them and the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty not fully cleared which cannot be said of Christian Professors in England who have been fully instructed therein and therefore in the use of our liberty now cannot be the like offence given and not taken only as was in those dayes among the Corinthians Yet this Author thus chargeth them with Scandal given Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.6 Should it for Arguments sake be granted though in truth it be not so That t is the liberty of Saints to hear the present Ministers yet many of the sincere Lambs of Christ being stumbled grieved and scandalized hereaâ— for that very reason â—f no more could be said herein it becomes our sin to be guilty whereof who can chuse but
joyning together in their praying and praising God Mat. 21.16 Luke 19.39 40. Sure it can be no sin in any person to joyn in the true worship and service of God with any if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence nor power to exclude them and yet is bound to the duties then performed Believers might prophesie and hear it though Unbelievers came in 1 Cor. 14.24 25. Christians are commanded to separate and not touch the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6.17 But those they are to separate from are no other than Unbelievers and the unclean thing is the Idol v. 15 16. not the true service of God because of the presence of some scandalous Brother The people of God are to come out of Babylon Rev. 18 4. but that is no other than Rome and that because of its Idolatry v. 2 3. Rev. 17.2 3 4 5 6 18. We are not to keep company with a man called a Brother if he be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such an one no not to eat 1 Cor. 5.11 But this prohibited keeping Company and eating can be meant of no other than arbitrary unnecessary society in civil things and eating common Bread because v. 10. that keeping Company which is forbidden to such Brethren is allowed in v. 9 10. to the Fornicators of this world which cannot be Gospel Communion keeping company in eating the Lords Supper but civil eating The Doctrine of defiling our selves by the presence of wickâ—d men at the Lords Supper hath begotten so much superstition in the minds of many well-affected people that they can scarce ever break Bread with comfort no not in the best Instituted Churches there being seldom such an unspotted Congregation but that some or other is known or reported or suspected to be guilty of some sin or errour which is made sufficient to exclude themselves from the Communion so that as they use to speak they are not free to break Bread and that before the fault be examined or the person judged upon trial to be guilty and impenitent which makes those very Churches which by themselves are counted purest and best Disciplined to be full of Brawls and rash censures and separations and without any regular Discipline of any long continuance These things being considered I answer that I know no evil in it to account the worst of the Ministers of England Brethren in respect of Gospel Communion if not under regular censure in Hearing Prayer Praising of God eating the Lords Supper nor evil to account them members of the same Church and of one Brotherhood according to the Rime which should not be derided by any holy sober Christians being only the Lords Prayer in Metre It follows Sect. 5. Tender Consciences may call the Bishops Reverend Fathers Nay 3. We cannot so acknowledge them but we must also acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers for theirs they are which how abhorring it is to any tender enlightned soul may easily be conjectured Answ. The Bishops are acknowledged by the present Ministers of the Church of England as their Reverend Fathers in respect of their Ordination but as Brethren only in respect of Gospel Communion Nor do I think the Bishops affect the title of Reverend Fathers as if they were superiours over the Ministers or People in respect of the common Faith had dominion over their Faith or were Lords over Gods heritage or would be called Masters or Fathers in that sense in which our Lord Christ appropriates these Titles to himself and his Father Mat. 23.8 9 10. in which sense I acknowledge any tender enlightned soul should abhor to give it to them I conceive they are far from usurping that Title as the Bishop of Rome doth who now hath ingrossed the Title of Pope that is Father heretofore given to other Ministers even to Deacons and doth claim the Prerogative to be the Oecumenical Bishop and Universal Monarch as Christs Vicar over the whole Church as having power to make Laws binding the Conscience out of the Case of Scandal and Contempt to determine infallibly in point of Faith with much more wherein he sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2.4 But I conceive the Title of Reverend Fathers is given to them and taken by them in no such sense but that they account not only the Ministers but also the meanest Christian their Brethren in Christ. Yet may they be called Reverend Fathers not only in regard of their Age and their success in begetting others through the Gospel in Christ Jesus as the Apostle of himself 1 Cor. 4.15 in which respect there have been and I presume some of them are rightly termed Fathers in Christ but also in respect of their Office and Dignity according to that of the Apostle 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a Father In which respects usual Titles may be given even to the unworthy as St. Paul did Acts 22.1 and 26.25 and such compellations and salutations have been used by holy persons Gen. 42.10 Dan. 6.21 as warrantable which Quakers and tender Consciences not enlightned but darkned by prejudice and undue suggestions abhor as giving flattering Titles to men disclaimed by Elihu Job 32.22 whose example and opinions are not imitable nor doth this Author any good Office to any in such affrightments whereby our Breach is widened and our Wound uncurable Sect 6. It is not proved that the best of the present Ministers are to be separated from as walking disorderly This Author goes on thus But to hear this Plea speak its uttermost let it be granted they are Brethren and may be so esteemed They are Brethren that walk disorderly or they do not That they walk disorderly cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation if submiâ—ting to Ordination or Reordination by a Lord Bishop covenanting and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scripture and the best Reformed Churches to own as consonant to Scripture a Lyturgie or stinted Forms of Prayer in the Church and read them to wear the Surplice c. be disorderly walking they are the very best of them beyond contradiction to be reputed in the number of disorderly Walkers And so after due admonition according to the Scripture and a perseverance in their sin to be separated from by vertue of positive and express precepts of Christ Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3.6 Now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition he received of us with what vehemency authority and holy earnestness doth the Apostle press separation from Brethren that walk disorderly We command you and we command you in the Name of the Lord Jesus and we command you Brethren by vertue of our relation to each other and that love and endearment that is betwixt
daughters that did prophesie Acts 29.1 mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying 1 Cor. 11.5 we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry when God gives such a gift nor sith Priscilla instructed Apollos Acts 18.26 can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able if they be fitted thereto Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of the abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof Mark 14.18 22 23. and positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breadâ—n god 1 Thess. 5.22 as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches if not all at this day Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England cannot be denied nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons and as great a cause of separation from the Communion as it is ministred in the Church of England as any other thing But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper is denied by them For though it is said Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate as they sate yet it is denied that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times 1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chrisâ— that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution making his example in this as a constant rule but it seems rather to have been used occasionally because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper at which they used that gesture as they did eat Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 2. Because St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith he delivered to them what he received of the Lord he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians 3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped v. 25. Luke 22. â—0 and it it is not judged necessary that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed or weekly or monethly in the night or after supper no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 therefore with 〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory 4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians then they must use the self same gesture he used but that was neither sitting nor standing which are used by the opposers of Kneeling but lying along on beds as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Mark 14.18 intimates and is gathered from Joh. 13.23 and other relations of the use of those times which I think will not be denied it being by the learned generally acknowledged See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8 And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures nor however it be different from his practice then can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed or forbidden by his practice at that time kneeling The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22 is urged very importunely not only in this point of knâ—eling at the Lords Supper but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons Writings and Conferences to deterr persons especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing cap. 4. sect 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text so I shall again with some enlargement in this place it being no grievance to me to write the same things again but necessary and so much the rather because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept The chief difficulty is concerning 1. The Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it 1. Concerning the Translation it is doubted whether it should not be rather read abstain from every kind or sort of evil answering to genus and species as Cicero renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Porphyry in his Isagoge Aristotle Plato and other Logicians use it That it may be so saith Mr. Jeans Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine that it is so the Syriack Interpreter and after him Faber and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place where having said the meaning will be from all sort or the whole kind of evil from all that is truly so be it never so small according to that in Pirke avoth be as careful in the keeping a light as a heavy Commandement to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs Theophylact and Leonâ—ius But saith Mr. Jeans It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place and in none of them in a Logical notion It is true and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding but either for the shape or representation to the sight or the sight it self as it is rendred 2 Cor. â— 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors but also in Ecclesiasticus ch 23.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two sorts of men ch 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three sorts of men and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 four kinds which acception is enforced by this reason which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 21. try all things being taken from Merchants that which is evil v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal but will
thereupon and so his distinction as to this thing is rather to be accounted vain and idle than the fear he mentions were the distinction good yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil we must abstain from all appearance of evil whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self or imaginary by accident through others interpretation which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number Yea 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees the Apostles preaching to the Jews yea to good men as Peters going in to Cornelius Acts 11.1 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty may seem evil to good Subjects the obeying Laws of Governours Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted but weak in judgment yea the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly learned and otherwise judicious Divines If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties Gods Laws will cross one another and we must infringe or suspend one or otherwise be necessitated to sin Governours must revoke their Laws and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow Lastly Were the precept so meant that we must abstain from every thing of ours which is an appearance of evil to another our Christian liberty were evacuated there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other and many things lawful and indifferent will appear evil even to the best It s true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty of which before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others but to the scandal that is ruine or harm to another consequent thereon And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text 1 Thess. 5.22 I wrote thus p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another yet no Interpreter that I meet with understands it of such appearance of evil as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such Or by reason of the meer phansie or rigid austerity or evil will or such like cause of him that thinks it evil but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil as are means of drawing to some notorious sin as going to hear a Mass which is a cause and sign of Idolatry or wanton dalliance which is a cause or sign of whoredom And they apply hereto that saying of Julius Caesar that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil but also from the suspition of it So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason upon some ground or none And to speak truth the application of this Text in that manner as it is by some as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self when it appears as evil to another without any further restraint is very absurd and so unreasonable as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born sith there is scarce any thing a man can do but some or other Infidel or Christian weak or strong in the faith Orthodox or Superstitious will think it to be evil that saying by experience being found true quot homines tot sententiae so many men so many minds nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World Out of all which I gather that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to this positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it unless it be in it self evil or evil in their own opinion or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter p. 40. does not say though some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god In answering which passage sect 2. of this Chapter I shewed that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions as for other reasons very clear and convincing so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion which I here subjoyn Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy râ—ceivers and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons either out of ignorance and infirmity or out of malice and obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved it is here declared that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine 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 the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places then one Thus the Common Prayer Book That which is said that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper cap. 21. p. 67. p. 479. of the Rejoynder where he thus saith With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people But with the Papists the Pope when himself performeth the office receiveth sitting as being a type of Christ the Mass Priests receive standing reverently by the Canon of the Mass and for this he cites in the Margin Ord. Rom. apud Bâ—bl Pat. Col. â—om 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter â— edit Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do as did also the Priest till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation bâ—got the