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
vncovered at this table which we do not at common tables but we do it for veneration and not for adoration VVe sit with our heads uncovered when the word is read but not when it is preached to distinguish between the voyce of God and the voyce of man At this holy action the words the symboles the rites are all divine and Christs own words rites and symboles his voyce soundeth through all the tables of the world the symboles are the Princes seales and our celebration is nothing else but a repetition of the first institution and the authentike instrument written over again VVe use not kneeling civilly wheresoever we use the uncovered head but kneeling is the gesture of adoration both in civill and religious uses The uncovering of the head doth noth spoyle us of the liberties and prerogatives of a table sociall admission to it and familiar entertainment at it nor breaketh not the order and frame of the institution but kneeling is guiltie of all these enormities as I have sayd If commodity make custome and custome make decencie section 4 then kneeeling must be condemned as an undecent gesture The Doctor measureth the time of the celebration by his own form when he dispatcheth the communicants with some few words and not by the institution But make the time of celebration never so short yet kneeling is more painfull then any other gesture and consequently not so decent because not so commodious To what purpose serveth all this discourse seeing kneeling is not urged as a table-gesture but as a gesture of adoration Swarez sayth that kneeling which is a note of adoration may be made an act of a penitentiarie for the pain which is joyned with it But we consider not now the pain but the purpose of it in this argument For never man yet thought that kneeling was the fittest table-gesture neither have we ever heard any nation never so barbarous use it He sayth kneeling is more universally received in the reformed Kirkes then sitting If he meane of the Lutheran Kirkes that universalitie is not to be regarded The best reformed Kirkes as they have abandoned the opinion of the bodily presence so have they the gesture of kneeling yea all the Lutherans do not consent to the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist as Illyricus and his followers because they say Christ is to be adored onely where it is his will to be adored As for the Anglican Kirk I deny that the body of that Kirk doth approve kneeling howsoever they be compelled by their Kirk representative to practise it If we should follow examples we must look to voluntaries It is no great commandation of kneeling that it was practised 400 yeares under the Antichrist and howbeit we wer not able to designe some time when another gesture was in use it will not follow that it was in practise in all ages before VVe are not bound to shew the behinning of every corruption VVhilest the husband man was sleeping the evill one did sow his tares among the wheat which he perceived not till they were growen up Yet we will be more liberall and for further satisfaction we use to give an instance of an other gesture which was in use to wit standing at the act of receiving for the space of 500. yea an thousand yeare after Christ and they cannot produce one expresse authentike testimony of kneeling for the space of 500 yea of a 1000 yeare after Christ. And to testifie ancient standing we have yet the custome of Christians in the Orient Honorius it seemeth ordained not kneeling at the elevation of the Masse but a reverend inclination of the body howbeit aftervvard it turned to kneeling But vvhether Honorius ordained kneeling at the elevation and whether kneeling in the act of receiving went before kneeling at the elevation or followed after is not prejudiciall to our cause seeing both vvere bred under the Antichrist and no authentick testimony can be alledged of the gesture of kneeling for a 1000. section 5 Yeares section 6 He admitteth standing on the Lords day and other dayes wherein they did not kneele in time of publick prayer but yet upon other dayes saith he as they might pray kneeling so they might communicate kneeling But he doth not produce so much as one example out of all antiquity The examples alledged by us for standing in the act of receiving are generall and for every day as well as for the Lords day The example alledged by himself doth not specifie any day The testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus and the vvords of Tertullian are confounded in Perth assembly through the Printers fault which by the vvay I vvish the Reader to mark The ancient Kirk changing sitting into standing judged sitting not necessarie It is true Neither do we hold it absolutely necessarie and as for the change vve are not to imitate them herein for they adulterated the forme of the institution many wayes mixing the vvine with water giving the communion to Infants taking the Sacrament home to eate it in their private houses as may be seen in the most ancient vvriters VVe ought to take heed not vvhat any hath done before us sayth Cyprian but vvhat Christ vvho vvas before all did vve must not follow the custome of man but the truth of God And if it be not lawfull sayth he to break the least of the Lords commandements farre lesse is it lawfull to violate so great commandements belonging to the Sacrament of the Lords Passion and of our redemption Calvin findeth great fault with them and sayth that the ancients went neerer the Iudaicall manner of sacrificing then Christs ordinance and the course of the Gospel vvould permit And a little after he saith that if vve think this supper the supper of the Lord and not the supper of men let us not move a naile bredth from it for any authority of mē or prescriptiō of yeares And Tossanus saith that the changing of ceremonies in the Lord supper instituted by Christ and heaping up of other ceremonies divised by mans vvill-vvorship vvas the beginning of error anent the supper and vvas no small occasion of superstition The ancient Kirk judged not standing the fittest gesture for prayer for if they had so judged then they vvould have enjoyned standing at prayer upon other dayes as vvell as upon the Lorde day They stood on the Lords day not because it vvas the fittest gesture for prayer but for signification to signifie their joy for Christs resurrection but kneeling they judged the fittest gesture for prayer as may be seen in the questions attributed to Iustinus The ancient Kirk standing at the receit of the Sacrament ye see then judged not the gesture of prayer the fittest gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament CHAP. III. Kneeling agreeth not best vvith pietie THe Doctor will now prove kneeling to agree best with pietie But if it agree not best with the decencie of a table but overthroweth the
As Mark 6. vvhere the mullititude sate in rowes by fifties and fifties upon the ground to eate of the loaves that peece of ground vvhereabout they sate vvas the form of a table howbeit the matter vvas earth So if the Turkes vvere converted and did communicate after the same forme sitting on the ground in companies with their feet and legs plett the dimension and shape of the ground whereabout they sit is their table their sitting their table-gesture For the high table and the table on the ground answer analologically one to the other This kind of table and table-gesture preserveth the vvhole order of the institution For sitting in this manner the communicants may distribute the elements among thēselves The like we may say of the times of persecution where the artificiall table cannot be had there the natural is sufficient There is no divers fashion of nations taketh away the form of a table nor no different state of time prosperous or troublesome VVine is one of the elements instituted by Christ to be a signe of his blood but what if the communion were celebrated in parts wher there is no vvine to be gotten nor bread made of wheat but of the rootes of hearbes may they not use such things as they have which come neerest to the use of our bread and wine Calvin sayth they may and Beza approveth his judgement for they are to other Symbola analoga saith he The Doctor saith there is no other table-gesture necessarie but that which the Apostle calleth Metechein to participate of the table by eating and drinking as onely prescribed in the institution But we have already sayd that there is such an order of the institution prescribed as will not admit every kind of participation but such as may stand with the rules and precepts of the institution that is with do this and divide it among you And therefore participation with the gesture of kneeling is excluded If to participate onely be required then let us take it by the mouth and not by the hand for greater reverence As for feare of superstition the Doctor will free us of that we are so well informed against transubstantiation and the bodily presence He sayth all nations agree not in one forme of Table-gesture VVhat then do they not all agree in a table-gesture And as for kneeling no nation under the cope of heaven did ever use it for a table-gesture Further it is urged not as the most decent table-gesture but as a gesture of adoration To receive the Sacrament upon the Sabboth day after meat section 6 and vvith uncovered heads is not to be compared with receiving kneeling In the former vve symbolize vvith the pure Kirk and have sufficient vvarrant from the word In the last vvith the Roman Kirk and have no vvarrant so to doe VVe received not the gesture of sitting from the Arrians but from the first primitive and Apostolicall Kirk and Christs example therefore we cannot be sayd to symblize vvith ArArrians The 4 conclusion of Synodus Petricoviensis cited by the Doctor alledgeth that sitting at table is no where used in Europe which is false For when that Synod was holden anno 1578 sitting at table was in use in the Kirkes of Scotland and the Low Countries and is yet still in use among them That Synod consisted of sundrie sortes of protestants some adhering to the Augustane Confession some to the confession of Bohemia some to the Confession of Helvetia The Lutherans would not consent to sitting because of the bodily presence others adhering to the Helvetian confession would not consent to kneeling therefore that they might agree it was permitted to every one to stand or kneele And so not onely for dispite of the Arrians or as Synodus Cracoviensis calleth them Arrianabaptists did they discharge sitting But also for their respects of common agreement among themselves VVe are not to follow the Canons of such confused Synods Yet I vvish the Doctor had set dovvn the words immediately preceeding where they say that it is neither the vvill of God nor the custome of the purer Kirk to smite men with Ecclesiasticall discipline for externall rites and therefore permitteth every man to stand or kneele Yee see the Lutherans notwithstanding of their opinion of the reall presence are not so hot for kneeling as our men who outvvardly professe othervvayes This Synod would not have allowed office-men to be compelled to kneele under the pain of deprivation from their offices whereunto they have right of their life rent by the Lawes of the Land and wherein ther livelihood doth stand This mixt Synod would not have allowed our two pretended Archbishops Mr. Spottiswood and Mr. Law to sit in the court of high commission where they sit without allowance of the Kirk and the States and to exerce like Popes the power of both the Swords suspending depriving fining confining and imprisoning First they delate and then they execute as Doeg did That mixt Synod would not have allowed the foure Ministers of Edinburgh aboue-named to incense his Majestie against the people with their calumnious and sycophanticall letters Mr. Galloway professed openly in pulpit that he would do good service to God who vvould procure their punishment Mr. Struthers declaimed against them because they were not so pliable to his course as he desired Al the foure presse to extinguish that spark of light zeale yet remaing with the better sort which was kindled by those worthies who went before thē shining as burning lāpes Mr. Knox Mr. Lowsō Mr. Bruce c It vvere strange if Calvin should be a favourer of kneeling whose doctrine and perpetuable practise was against it In the section 7 place alledged by the Doctor he preferreth adoration in the supper before adoration in the streets when the bread is carried in pompe or procession he doth not allow it simpliciter in the supper His vvords are generall and may be applied to any part of the supper as well as to the act of receiving and to internall adoration as well as to externall He recalleth us to the institution in the same section and in the words vvhich I haue cited before as the surest warrant for our conscience where he saith the Apostles in the institution and the Apostolicall Kirkes afterward kneeled not P. Martyr wrot his treatise of the Eucharist when he was Professor in Oxford not many yeares after he had forsaken papistry Crammer his speciall friend Ridley and others who saw not all things in the dawning of the day being moved with the stirres and out-cries of the papists to appease them some what enjoyned kneeling in the act of receiving in the renewing of the booke of common prayer P. Martyr a stranger vvas loath to contradict his great friēds the received order or it may be that thē he saw no further his reason is very weak for many do kneele devoutly sayth he when they heare these words read And the word was made flesh