the bread and the cup. Cajetane confesseth that Christ was so farre distant from some of them that he could not deliver the bread to every one severally more then the cup. The later confession of Helvetia subscribed not onely by the Tygurines and their confederates of Bern Scaphusia Sangallia Rhetia but also by the Kirkes of Geneva Savoy Polonie Hungarie and Scotland anno 1566 hath these words Outwardly the bread is offered by the minister and the words of the Lord are heard Receive eate This is my body divide it amongst you drink ye all of this This is my blood Suppose it were granted that the Apostles divided onely the cup and Christs precept concern the dividing of the cup onely and not the bread yet it is sufficient for our purpose seeing the communicants must compasse the table with a table-gesture to the end they may divide the cup among them selves For if every one take the cup severally out of the ministers hand kneeling Christs precept concerning the cup is transgressed I thinke no man will be so absurd as to say that we should kneele when we receive the bread but not when we receive the wine VVhen Mr. Stuthers was urged with this dividing of the communicants he answered Is it not better to take it out of the hands of the Minister then of an adulterer It was replied by the Minister proponer vvhat if the minister be a Iudas I ask if holy Sixtus and St. Laurence gave the bread and cup out of their own hands when the Arch Bishop of St. Andrewes and Mr. Gladstanes his Arch-deacon gave them to the communicants all the communicants are presumed to be penitent sinners holy persons neither doth the vertue of the Sacrament depend upon the morall dignity of him that ministreth or of him that distributeth And this far for confirmation of the fourth reason referring the reader for further satisfaction to Pert Assembly VVhen the bready god was adored in the time of most grosse superstition the popish Doctors were not so shamelesse as to deny Christ and his Apostles sitting to maintaine their kneeling The old verse Rex sedet in coena c. was current among them Iohannes de Turrecremata calleth it versum antiquorum a verse of the ancients and Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor citeth it to prove that Christ took rhe Sacrament himselfe but our Doctor in another sence Angellicall is become so impudent to call in question that which no ancient or moderne writer did call in question before this last yeare Mr. P. Galloway after the reading of Mr. Doctors Book in wrir became incontinently so profound a clark that upon the reconciliation day before the last communion when the body of the Town of Edinburgh were assembled with their Ministers he would take in hand to prove a strange paradox to wit that Christ and his Apostles sat not at the supper No sayd Mr. Andrew Ramsay say not that brother O sayd Mr. Struthers gybing and jesting at the people all the time he sat this way counterfeited Christs table-gesture deriding them whom he ought in all lenitie meeknes to have instructed But the honest men received nothing at their hands that day to be a vvarrant to their consciences for kneeling but threatnings from Mr. Galloway jests and derisions from Mr. Struthers and Mr. Sideserfe and aversnes from hearing their reasons from Mr. Ramsay who did moderate that meeting It is the triviall argument of our opposites that we are no more bound to sitting or any particular gesture then we are argument 2 bound to the time the place the order of receiving after meate the quality of the leavened bread and that the sitting was occasionall onely by reason of the Paschall supper specially of the last act thereof which was changed in the new Sacrament and that sitting was not chosen of purpose by Christ or his Apostles But B. Bilson can tell them that the Lord neither in his speech nor actions did comprise the time place or persons And Paraeus sayih that the evening the Inne the number of twelve by the consent of all were not Sacramentall but accidentary circumstances Christ celebrated in the evening because the SacrameÌ„t of the new law behoved to succeed the passover the Sacrament of the old Law which was ordained by God to be eaten in the evâ—ning and Christ was to be apprehended before the morning The Paschal supper was ordained to be eaten in Ierusalem in severall companies and families and therefore Christ celebrated in an Inne and to a small company The Iewes vvere expressely forbidden to have any leavened bread in their houses in time of the passeover It behoved therefore Christ to celebrate with unleavened bread All these circumstances were occasionall and unavoydable by reason of the paschall supper But Christ might have easily changed into kneeling for there vvas no â—xpresse commandement given to the people to sit at the Pâ—schall supper If they stood in Egypt that standing vvas onely for that time vvhen they came to Canaan they sate as Scaliger sayth in argumentum securitatis or for the proportion and Analogy of other religious feasts whereat they sate Seeing Christ might have altered this gesture and did not but retained as a gesture as fit for the Sacrament of the nevv Lavv as it vvas for the Sacrament of the old Lavv vvhich is called the oblation of Iehova Numb 9 7. it is evident that it was his will that it should be retained He sayth it shall not expressely be found nor by reason demonstrated that sitting vvas received at any time after the first argument 3 institution either by the Apostles or any in the primitive or succeeding Churches VVe may more safely presume that the Apostolicall churches followed Christs example then he may presume the contrary which he is never able to prove The fathers expounding the breaking of bread at Emaus to be the communion will not deny sitting after the first supper B. Bilson sayth that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lors supper among the Corinthians in that they would neither at common meats nor at the Lords table sit altogether but sorted themselves together in factions and companies as they favoured or friended each other Beza sayth that the Love-feasts did no wayes admit geniculation at the Lords supper in the act of receiving and no doubt the Apostle comparing their partaking of the table of the Lord and the table of divels together 1 Cor 10.21 did include the gesture with the rest and oppose the sitting at the Lords table to sitting at table in Idols Chappel 1 Cor. 8.10 Durandus sayth that the Apostles celebrated as Christ did Et formaÌ„ observantes in verbis materiam in rebus observing both matter and forme And he sayth that in the first beginning of the Kirkes the Apostles used no other words but the words of the institution at the consecration he sayth that they added
right use of it how shall it agree best with pietie That gesture agreeth best with pietie that agreeth best with the order and rules of the institution For he cannot be devout sayth Ambrose who presumeth to do otherwaise then the author hath set down The consideration of the giver the gift the manner of donation section 1.2.3.4 and receiving is not plainly set down by the doctor The name of gift is ambiguous as may be seen in Casaubonus For the Fathers sometime called the inward grace of the Sacrament the gift and sometimes the symbolicall part and sometimes they called it the gift somtimes giftes If we were to receive a gift if it were both a morsell of bread out of gods own hand immediatly we ought no doubt to adore and so his similitude of a subject receiving a benefit out of the princes own hand may illustrat the matter very well But at the Lords supper we receive the elements of bread and wine not out of gods own hands immediatly but out of the hands of the Minister who is our fellow-servant 2. Our union with Christ participation of his body and blood is not begun at the Lords supper nether is it proper to it but common to the word and to baptisme By the ministerie of the word and the Sacrament of Baptisme we are made partakers of Christ and his benefites if we have the hand of faith to receive Origen sayth that which we are presently speaking to you is the flesh of Christ. And in another place we are sayd to drinke the blood of Christ not onely by the rites of the Sacraments but also when we heare the word And Hierome sayth howbeit the words of Christ to eate his flesh and drinke his blood may be understood in the mysterie yet more truly the speech of the scriptures is the body and blood of Christ. Augustinus sayth there is no doubt but every one of the faitfull is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a mēber of Christ. Chrisostome sayth that in Baptism we adore the body of Christ. VVe receive then the very same benefits in the vvord and Baptisme which we receive in the Lords supper Our union with Christ is begun by faith faith is vvrought by the ministery of the vvord and confirmed aftervvard by the same vvord and strengthened also by the ministerie of the Sacraments vvhich are seales and pledges to us of our union vvith Christ. 3. These benefites are common to the Sacraments of the old Lavv and the nevv they had the same substance of the seales that vve have did eate the same spirituall food and drink the same spirituall drink that vve do 1 Cor. 10.3.4 Augustine saith that vvhosoever in the Manna understood Christ did eate the same spirituall meat that vve do And yet the people of God in gathering the manna hovvbeit not ministred to them by the hand of men did not kneele The Paschall Lamb vvas the same to the people of God that the Lords supper is to us and yet they sate at the Paschal supper 4. The invvard grace is not given to all the communicants but to the godly onely neither do the godly ever find comfort at the instant of receiving the seale Then according to the Doctors ovvn vvords the action of donation not being perceived at the instant it is then to be acknovvledged vvith thankesgiving vvhen it is felt aftervvard But all the communicants participate of the Sacrament even the vvicked Novv the Lord in setting dovvn the order of the institution had respect to the Sacramentall manner of donation vvhich is common to all and not to the spirituall vvhich is proper to fevv Even the very vvicked eate the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally and vvhen the godly eate spiritually yet they participate not pure spiritualiter as Cajetane speaketh meerely spiritually but Spiritualiter Sacramentaliter And this maner of donation vvith solemne testification vvhich is not purely spirituall but spirituall and sacramentall is common to the godly both under the Lavv and under the Gospell to Baptisme alsvveill as the Lords supper The Apostle 1 Cor. 11. condemneth all manner of unworthy receiving vvhether by hypocrisie when we come without faith and repentance or by prophannes when we come like drunkards and factiously But sitting the Apostle did never condemne but rather approved as the ordinary table-gesture The wicked howbeit they partake not spiritually of the Lords body yet they are guiltie in respect of abusing the seales as Chrysostome sayth he that polluteth the Princes purple robe offendeth the Prince himselfe As for our manner of receiving the common manner is sacramentall and according to that which is common to all should our carriage be The Godly receive also with faith spiritually but as I have sayd not purely spiritually but Spiritually and Sacramentally Faith is accompanied with humility it is true but humilitie is an habit of the Soule and not an act of adoration Faith is accompanied with hunger and thirst it is true but hunger and thirst is not the prayer of the Soule but a provoker of the soule to pray as hunger and thirst provoketh a man to cry for meat and drink Faith is accompanied with joy and joy resolueth in desires it is true but desires are not formallie prayers and praises Faith is accompanied with all other Christian graces For every Christian grace is accompanied with the rest But this concomitance of the habits of other graces which is all times in a Christian doth not import their actuall vvorking at all times Faith is the chiefe vvorker in the act of receiving the rest do assist if there be need but ought not hinder the meditation and application of faith VVhen there do arise any short ejaculations of prayer or praise they are onely occasionall as the cōmunicant doth find himselfe disposed and Faith for to vvork Next they are subtile and swift that there is not that agility in our hompish bodies as to follow with our gestures these swift motions ending perchance in twinkling of an eye Thirdly they are secret between God and the Soule therefore ought to be concealed rather then expressed by gestures of vvorship In a word seeing the manner of our receaving is not purely spirituall but spirituall and Sacramentall the spirituall must not disorder the Sacramentall manner set down by him that is the instituter VVe are bound to heare the word vvith Faith and Faith must be accompanied with humilitie and other Christians graces There vvill arise also from hunger thirst joy desires vvishes mentall ejaculations of player and praise but the hearer must not for all that cease from hearing and fall dovvn to vvorship Is there any thing here required but the like vvas required under the Sacraments of the old Law and is required at the hearing of the vvord The secret and hid covenant made betwixt God and Man is
made at the time of effectuall calling The first solemnization section 5.6.7 of it is made at our entrie in the bosome of the Kirke vvhen vve make personall profession on our part and the Minister in Gods name admitteth us as the mouth of the congregation This is sealed by Baptisme Thereafter the vvord preached to all the members of the congregation is presumed to be delivered to beleevers and penitent persons and Faith and repentance is presupposed into the hearers vvhen the promises of the Gospel ar made unto them So that after their first entry Faith is presumed in the hearer as vvell as in the communicant Next the Sacramentall vvord is generall as the vvord Preached is This is my Body vvhich is broken for you This is the new Testament of my blood vvhich is shed for the remissions of the sins of many It is not delivered in the singular number for thee Peter or thee Paul no more then then the vvord preached The seales and elements are received severally and the Spirit vvorketh severally The word is uttered generally as the Sacramentall word is but the Spirit vvorketh by it severally If a man should kneele for the severall vvork of the Spirit then he must knâ—ele as vvell at the vvord as at the Sacrament As for the severall receiving of the seale it is so received severally at that it must also be received conjunctly vvith other communicants that is that the communicants sitting at one table communicate together and distribute among themselves The severall receiving of the outvvard seales must not break the order of conjunct receiving communicating enjoyned by Christ an actuall remembrancâ— of Christs death passion must not burst forth in vocall thankesgiving in the very act of receiving That as the communicating was conjunct so the thankesgiving may be commoun and that the conjunct communicating be not intertubed VVhen the history of the Passion is read we are in actuall remembrance of Christs death but we burst not out in vocall praises VVhen the seale is received it is received from the hand of men and it is no more but the outward seale grace is not inclosed in it as a plaister in a box or liquor into a vessel The kirk in the time of Novatus was gone froÌ„ the right form of administration and therefore their example is no good argument to prove severall thanksgiving And we read of nothing that was answered then by the coÌ„municants but AmeÌ„ He that delivered sayd The body of the Lord he that received sayd Amen Novatus vvhen he delivered sayd these words to the communicant Sweare to me by the body of the Lord that thou wilt not return to Cornelius in stead of these words the body of the Lord and likewise the receiver answered in place of Amen I will not return to Cornelius Now for a custome of saying Amen at the receiving as a particle of confirmation of the words uttered by the Minister to wit the body of the Lord vve cannot conclude kneeling for they sayd Amen standing But as I sayd before we are not to look to the formes of the ancieÌ„t kirke For the very Papists themselves have thought shame of some of them and the posterior ages abolished many of them Let it be remembred here also that all the D. discourse may be applied to the Sacraments of the old Law as well as of the new For there in their Sacraments the covenant was solemnized and they received the seales and actuall remembrance of the benefits received and to be received was required but kneeling was not required The comparing of the Sacraments of the old Law and new Law and of the word of God with the Sacraments together with the order of the institution may furnish answers to al the Doctors arguments This Sacrament is called the Lords supper partly for honor section 8 of the first institution partly to poynt out to us the liberalitie of the spirituall supper as suppers were more liberall then dinners of old The spirituall part is called a Feast or supper metaphorically it is resembled by the symbolical part It was not necessarie that the symbolicall part should be like coÌ„mon Feasts or suppers in all poynts There are as many poynts in it as may serve to resemble the spirituall supper To which symbolicall representation of a supper a table-gesture and specially sitting was most correspondent and agreeable and so Christ and his Apostles used it Piscator sayth it is evident in that the disciples did eat of the bread and drink of the cup sitting together at table that this action had speciem convivij the shew or semblance of a banket yea that it was a banket indeed but a sacred one And Mornaeus sayth the like It is true the Doctor sayth the name of supper should not diminish the estimation of it but on the other side say I no ceremonie should be brought in to take avvay speciem convivij the semblance of a banket or supper but when the communicants receive severally kneeling as if there were no table not onely is that semblance of a banket or supper which the Lord instituted taken away but all forme of banket or Supper that ever was used in any part of the world As for the giving and receiving at this supper we have spoken already The washing of the Disciples feet and Christ his sitting at section 9 table are not rightly matched together His washing of their feet before the last service of the Paschall supper was an extraordinarie example to teach his Disciples humilitie but his sitting at table was not a thing extraordinary but ordinary usuall He sate with them at the Paschal suppers before according to the custome of the sacred Feast and not to teach them humilitie so did he at the Eucharisticall supper VVe never reasoned after this manner The Apostles sate at table with Christ therefore we may sit now with Christ. Christ is not bodily present now that we may sit with him To ask if we would sit at table suppose Christ glorified would come down from heaven and sit with us were a question not worthy scanning But we reason after this manner when Christ was bodily present the Apostles kneeled not but sate at table farre lesse when he is not bodily present should we kneele That he was then in the state of a servant will not help their cause For howbeit he vvas in the state of a Servant yet upon singular occasions he was adored If I would discourse Rhethorically upon the present occasion they had to move them to kneele then any man would grant that the occasion of adoration was singular and yet they kneeled not for other weightie reasons and causes It is also untrue that the Doctor sayth that he carried at this time onely the forme of a Servant and Minister of the externall element for he carried also in open view the person of a Lord in that he did institute the Sacrament VVe yet
at the Eucharistical except we will think that the one required kneeling more then the other VVhile as the Disciples were sitting at table in Emaus Christ gave thankes and Math. 14. after the people were placed and set on the ground Christ gave thankes looking up to heaven onely This lifting up of the eyes to heaven was indeed familiar with Christ even when he went about some miraculous or extraordinary work Ioh 11.41 VVhen he was to raise Lazarus he gave thankes lifting up his eyes And when he went out after supper to the garden and prayed that prayer Ioh. 17. It is said onely that he lifted up his eyes The Liturgie ascribed to Iames and Ambrose constantly affirme that he lifted up his eyes also when he gave thankes at the Eucharistical supper no further do they affirme Put the case the Doctors conjecture were true it will not follow that Christ and his Apostles continued the gesture of standing or kneeling throughout the whole action They could not stand all the time for their sitting with leaning on their left elbowes and their breasts towards the table required the table to be so neere that they might not stand betwixt the beds and the table They could not stand upon their beds for then their feet had been neerer to the table then their hands or their heads Christ sayd Arise let us go hence Ioh 14.31 How could they arise if they wer already standing It behoved them therefore eihter to sit or to kneele I prove they kneeleed not by the reasons following 1. If there had been such a change from sitting to kneeling the Evangelists would not have omitted it seeing it had been so great a change from the accustomed and ordinary table-gesture used at all times before at the Paschal supper unto a gesture of adoration a gesture of a farre different nature and kinde The Evangelists make mention of all other changes made in passing from the last act of the Paschall supper to the Evangelicall There is no reason therefore to think that they omitted this There is no circumstance of their texts that doth insinuate any such change but rather the contrary that while they were eating and consequently while they were sitting still Christ tooke bread and gave thankes 2. If Christ changed sitting into kneeling then kneeling is a part of the institution so all the Kirkes which have not kneeled since Christs his dayes shall be guiltie of transgressing the institution For this I hold as a ground That whatsoever change Christ made in changing the last act of the Paschal supper into the Eucharisticall was a part of the institution namely when the change is made to a rite of worship or adoration For to what end els should the change have been made if it was not to be practised afterward as a part of the institution Now our opposites do acknowledge that kneeling is indifferent consequently not a part of the institution 3. Christ at the delivery of the elements spake in an enuncirtive form This is my body that is broken for you and not in form of a prayer saying in the Gregorian stile The body of the Lord preserve thee both body and soule to life everlasting or in any other such forme of prayer Therefore the Apostles kneeled not in the act of receiving And this I hold as an other ground That kneeling was never practised in the Apostolicall Kirk in time of divinine service but in the action of publick prayer or thankesgiving nor ought not to be practised but at the sayd times Our opposites in our neighbour Kirk pretend that they kneele in regard of the prayer uttered at the delivery of the elements The ministers of Lincoln denude them of this pretence yet their alledgance confirmeth my assertion 4. The elements were carried from hand to hand and divided by the communicants amongst themselves Now our opposites themselves do not admit as compatible the kneeling of the communicants and the distributing of the elements among themselves This last reason is proved at length in Perth Assembly where unto I referre the Reader I adde onely for further confirmation the authorities both of Papists and Protestants applying the precept Luk 22.17 Divide it amongst you to the communion cup. Barradius followeth Augustine and Enthymius because Luke subjoyneth to that precept the same protestation that Mathew and Mark do subjoyne to the communion cup to wit that Christ would drink no more of the fruit of the vine untill c. and that the cause of the anticipation was that the protestation of not drinking more might be joyned with the protestation of not eating more Iansenius is moved with the same reason and because the thankesgigiving mentioned in the 17. verse is omitted when Luke returneth afterward to speake of the same cup because it was already expressed Maldonatus sayth that when Christ gave the cup to one least he should seeme to will him onely to drink he sayd Drink ye all of it which Luke expressed in cleerer tearmes cap. 22.17 saying Divide it among you VValterius sayth likewayes that the cup was carried from hand to hand As for our own writers Hospinianus sayth It is manifest that Christ gave not the cup to every one severally but onely to the first and the first reached it to the second so forth Erasmus in his paraphrase sayth it is observed by the Ancients that Luke maketh twice mention of the communion cup. Piscator in his Analysis on Luke sayth It is cleare that the words are to be understood of the cup of the Lords supper Gualter likewise beginneth the institution at the 17. verse Mornaeus sayth Christ gave the cup when he sayd Drink ye all of it Divide it among you Sibrandus speaketh to the same purpose Calvin in his Institutions Beza in his last annotations in the same place VVislets Bilson Iewel and many moe might be cited to the same effect howbeit Bellarmine is loath to grant that precept to be meant of the communion cup because of the fruit of the vine mentioned in the protestation subjoyned which maketh against transubstantion yet he granteth the matter itselfe to wit that the cup was divided reached frō one to another And Becanus the Iesuit sayth Drink ye all of it is all one with take divide it among you Now as the cup was divided among the communicants so was likewise the bread for as Christ sayd take ye in the plurall number drink ye so he sayd take ye eate ye and not take thou eate thou Analogie requireth that the bread should be divided among the communicants as well as the cup. It were strange to see the minister remain in his own place when the cup is carried from hand to hand and to goe along the table to dispense the element of the bread Hospinianus Morneus Sibrandus and others make the precept divide it among you common both to
or any other gesture and so he carpeth not onely our former order vvhich he preferred before any other at Pert Assembly but also Christ himselfe as not vvise enough to consider vvhat gesture vvas most decent for so holy an action If another more commodious and better form could have been devised out of all doubt sayth Hospinian Christ vvould have instituted it and the Apostles vvould have recommended it to the Kirkes and therefore vvilleth that if any thing be found different either in the nature or proper sence of words or in rite or external ceremony from this rule that it be amended according to the same as the most excellent most holy most uncorrupted most absolute and most certain rule If therefore there be any gesture that shall put this rule out of rule I say it ought not to be esteemed agreeable either to pietie decency or charity let be to be preferred before other gestures The Doctor laieth down for a ground that by the table of section 1 the Lord 1. Cor. 10.21 is not meant a materiall table or the symbolical and externall part onely but the body and blood of the Lord because the Apostle sayth the Corinthians could not partake both of the table of the Lord and of divels VVhereas a man may be partaker of both the materiall tables and drinke both of the materiall cup of the Lord and the material cup of divels It is evident notwithstanding of the Doctors wrangling that the Apostle meaneth also of a materiall table and the Sacrament by a kind of trope called Metonymia subjecti is denominate from the materiall table whereat the communicants did participate of the elements The Apostles speaketh not of a natural but a morall partaking of the Lords table A man might not lawfully sit at the materiall table of the Lord and drink of the materiall cup and sit also at the materiall table of divels in the Idols chappels and drink of ther materiall cups for that we may do which we may do by Law or right Now the communicant in sitting at both the materiall tables professed fâ—llowship both vvith god and the divell as Paul speaketh for the two materiall tables were symboles of two contrary professions as Aretius in 1. Cor. 10.21 sayth for he that eate of the meate of the sacrifice partaketh of the sacrifice and he that participateth of the sacrifice participateth of the religion vvhereunto it belongeth he that participateth with the religion communicateth with the Idol and false god vvhose religion it is The table of divels vvas a materiall table in the Idols chappell whereat the Idolater feasted See Beza Tilenus Caietanus VVillets Novv if the table of divels from vvhich the cursed feasts vvere denominate vvere materiall tables then the table of the Lord compared vvith them vvas also materiall And Beza out of the same verse vvhich the Doctor hath alledged concludeth that in the primitive Kirk there vvere materiall tables and not altars The Christians offended their weake Brethren by feasting on the things sacrificed in private houses but in feasting in the temple there was both scandall and error The Apostle findeth fault both with the one and the other In a word all such metonymicall speeches do import the verity of the subject The cup of the new Testament doth import that there was a materiall cup. To partake of the Altar doth import that the Israelites had an Altar I conclude with the ground laid down by Paraeus from whatsoever rite the Sacrament is denominate it is Sacramentall and necessarie He inferreth that Sacramentall breaking of the bread after thankesgiving is necessary to the integrity of the Sacrament and I inferr upon the same ground that a materiall table is necessary seeing the Sacrament is denominate metonymically from a table and called the table of the Lord to distinguish it from other materiall tables His reason to prove kneeling more decent then sitting is because it is a religious gesture and more conform to other section 2. and 3. customes and fashions we use at the table of the Lord which we use not at other tables as we choose the day light rather theÌ„ the night a sacred place such as is the temple a reverend order such as to receive before meat because it it not a common supper but the Lords supper The answer is very easie Are not all these circumstandes and the same carriage observed for the hearing of the word the day light the sabboth day the temple Next all these customes are not in themselves simpliciter more decent for in the time of persecution the night was as decent as the day and a desert or a cave as decent as a Kirk for expediencie maketh decencie in these things 3. In the primitive Kirk they communicated daily and yet as decently as on the Sabboth day 4. The Iewes were more tied to sacred times and temples for celebration of their Sacraments and keeping of their feasts then we are and yet they sate even at the paschall supper the noblest feast that they had 5. None of these customes or circumstances do overthrow the table and take away the right use of it but kneeling taketh away the right use of the table and turneth it into an altar or cup-boord but so doth not sitting VVhether is a gesture that maketh a table no table more decent for a table or the gesture that preserveth the use of the Table and all the rules of the feast Our sitting applied to a holy purpose is sanctified for the time as all our actions are holy when they are done according to Gods will and with a respect to his glory He sayth that the gesture of the body is morall voluntary and changeable and should be applied according to the nature of the action It is true the gesture is changeable according to that facultie in man which the Philosophers call Locomotiva but it is to be ordered by Lawes both in civill and religious affaires VVe grant that our maniers and gestures must be composed according to the use use of the table and not according to the matter or form but all table whatsoever be their mater form and use do require a table-gesture never one doth admit kneeling Men use not to kneele no not at the table of Exchange The table of exchange doth differ in use from the table appoynted for feasting and therefore no wonder that they differ in the table gestures But the table of the Lord agreeth with the feasting table in the analogicall use and end Christ himselfe hath taught us how to use the Lords table and with what gesture VVe are silent we sport not we take nothing before we are commanded and instructed at this table as we do at other tables and feasts because in so doing we should dicturb that holy action but sitting is so farre from disturbing that it makes us more fit to attend to the commandement and instructions given us VVe sit with our heads