A Rightly inform'd Conscience is the in­dispensable Duty of all men to seek as a concernment of the greatest worth; that thereby the irregularities of a Scrupulous Conscience, may not expose men and their Families to that Ruine and Po­verty which may attend the Guidance there­of. [Page 2]And though if a man cannot desert all temporal felicity for the sake of Christ, he can neither ever make a sound Christian, or a good Martyr: Yet men must take heed that those Sufferings which attend a Christian life, come upon them from a good warrant; even such an one as is founded on the Divine Truths of the Scriptures, and therefore, what con­tradicts those truths, is a sufficient ground for any mans sufferings. Now whereas Kneeling at the Sacrament hath lately been the occasion of sundry mens Sufferings, the tendency of the en­suing Discourse, is to remove those Objections that some men may have against that manner of Communion, in endeavouring to remove those Objections and Scruples, which may cause men to lye liable to Excommunication for Non-Conformity to that Gesture: And the first is,

Kneeling suits not with the person of a Co-heir, therefore it is unlawful. And why doth it not? Answer is made, That Kneeling is a carriage whereby we acknowledge our selves to be in a con­dition of inferiority and dis-fellowship with Christ; whereas Sitting is such a position of body, as ar­gueth not subjection and humility, but rather e­quality and familiarity, therefore Kneeling suits not with the person of a Co-heir. I should ra­ther have reasoned quite contrary, thus; We are in a conditon of inferiority and disfellowship [Page 3]with Christ, we owe subjection and humility to Christ; therefore we should Kneel rather than Sit at receiving of the Sacrament.

It is true: We are Co-heirs with Christ, yet this imports not any equallity, Christ is the Son of God by nature, we by Adoption and Grace: Christ is Heir ex propria dignitate, we ex permissione. Heaven is his by an Eter­nal Right, our Inheritance is his purchase; he is the Heir of all things; happy are we if we can obtain the meanest Mansions in the King­dom of Heaven. Which way soever we con­sider Christ, either in his Person, Actions, or Offices, we shall find him far our Superiour, and consequently our selves in a condition of Inferiority with him: Yea, do we not acknow­ledge him to be the Head of his whole Church? And that not only as it receives from him sense and motion in the course of Christi­anity, but as it owes him subjection also, in regard of his Sovereignty. And if the natural head be the most noble of all the parts, how ex­cellent then is he who is the head of the whole Church?

It is true that Christ hath advanced our Nature by his Incarnation and Passion: But that must rather humble us, than puff us up, that we should account our selves his fellows.

And lest the white feathers of our Adoption might Swan-like make us swell, yet the black feet of our manifold Corruptions may justly deject us. The greater favours and honours Christ affords us, the more it be­comes us to be humble.

Thus the Blessed Virgin, when the Angel delivered that Honourable Embassie from the GOD of Heaven, was not lifted up in Pride, but answered in an humble fashion, Behold the Handmaid of the Lord. And John the Bap­tist, who had the honour to be the instru­ment of our Saviours Inauguration at his Bap­tism, how humbly doth he acknowledge, His shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose! So, if Christ shall vouchsafe to esteem us his Servants, (as the Prodigal Son intreated his Father) we are Blessed and happy, tho' we do not account our selves his Fellows. It was no robbery in Christ to be equal with God, but it is no less than Luciferian Pride in us, to make our selves equal to Christ.

Object. But when we come to the Sacrament, we are to act the persons of Co-heirs, so that this so this humble deportment cannot then become us.

Resp. Yes surely, very well. Our Chri­stian duties must not be like Pharaohs Kine [Page 5]that eat up one another, but like the Cheru­bins that looked one upon another, and both to the Mercy Seat. Many Virtues, tho' dif­ferent in themselves, are so connexed, that they consort very well in the same action, as St. Austin hath observed in the Centurion, and the Publican, one receiving Christ with much joy, the other with great humility; Ambo sal­vatorem honorificantes diverso, & quasi contra­rio modo; each of them honouring our Saviour in a diverse, and as were it a contrary manner. And do we not act the persons of Co-heirs when we pray? for we speak familiarly to God, as to a Father: yea, it is the Spirit of Adoption that makes us cry Abba, Father, at those times when upon our Knees we become humble petitioners to our gracious God for his Favours. Thus joy, humility and confidence may all concur in the very same act: Yea, what Duty is exempted from humility, which must ballance all our actions? When we hear the Word of God, we must bring trembling Souls; when we Pray, it becomes us well to prostrate our selves before the Throne of Grace. And will not the like humble de­meanour become us when we come to the Table of the Lord? Yes, and to con­fess there upon our Knees, That we are not worthy to gather up the Crums that are under his Table.

Again, it is disputed that Kneeling crossed the assurance of our Co-heir-ship with Christ, and therefore it is unlawful.

Resp. That this Proposition is untrue, I appeal to the experience of thousands, who do humbly Kneel at the Receiving of the Sa­crament. For my self, I have Receiv'd it di­versly, and I thank God comfortably. Yet have I Received it with as much fruit and comfort when I Kneeled, as when I used o­ther gestures. And I am confident those who use to Receive it Sitting, do gain no more as­surance of their Co-heirship, than those who Receive it Kneeling.

But let us examine the Reasons of this posi­tion; the first whereof is this: It directeth our hearts to an apprehension of disfellowship with Christ in our future state of Glory represented at the Lords Table, by reason that it convinceth the performers thereof to be of an inferior, and unfellow-like condition with Christ: Ergo, it cros­seth our assurance, and therefore it is unlawful.

To this I Answer, That there is great dif­ference between our Co-heirship, and equality of Fellowshhip with Christ. For tho' we be now Co-heirs with Christ through Hope; yet [Page 7]do we challenge no Fellowship of Equality with him, but acknowledge our due Sub­jection to him, as our Lord.

And when we shall hereafter be in actual and real possession of our Inheritance, I hope Christ shall challenge that Priviledge, In the Kings Throne I will be above thee, yea far above all Principality, and Might, and Domination, &c. So that if Kneeling be a Bar to our E­quality and Fellowship (as well it may) yet is it not any hindrance to the apprehension of our Co-heirship with Christ, which is assured to us of our Blessed Saviour by Participation of the blessed Sacrament, without Considera­tion, Intention, or Institution of any Gesture. For it is a groundless Conceit, to hold that Christ intended the Gesture of Sitting as a means to give assurance of our Co-heirship; and it crosseth their opinions who will have no Gesture, or other Ceremony in the Ser­vice of God to be Significant.

Another Reason why Kneeling hinders the Assurance of our Co-heirship, is this, Because it Diverteth our hearts from Meditating on the Death of Christ; for we cannot at the same time Meditate and tender to God a worthy Sacrifice of Prayer.

I Answer, that these are not such opposite employments (as they are called) that they cannot stand together. For, if Intention and Prayer may concur, yea ought not to be se­parated, why may not Meditation also, which hath great Affinity with the same? Yea such correspondence there is (rather than opposi­tion) between Meditation and Prayer, that they are both comprehended in one Hebrew Word. And surely it seems strange to me it should be held impossible, that at the same, instant a man should Meditate upon the bene­fits of Christs Passion, and Pray that he may have an interest therein and benefit thereby.

A third Argument to prove Kneeling un­lawful in the act of Receiving is, That it doth debar us from Partaking with Christ of the Pri­viledges and Prerogatives of this Table, because it debarreth us from social Admittance and En­tertainment, in regard we are not at that time and act, of an Equal and Fellow-like condition with Christ at his Table.

First, I Answer, That civil Tables yield not these supposed Priviledges, and Preroga­tives of an Equal and Fellow-like condition to every Guest. If a poor man were invited to a Noblemans Table, would not an humble [Page 9]carriage become him? And could he, with­out gross Presumption, entertain a thought of Equality, and Fellow-like condition with the Invitant? Yet must we, poor wretches, by this manner of Reasoning, hold our selves wronged and debased, except upon our enter­tainment at Christs Table, we assume Pre­sumptuous thoughts of an Equal and Fellow-like condition with him the King of Kings.

Secondly, It is considerable, that this holy Table and Banquet do differ from others which are meerly civil, neither do they yeild us those Priviledges that the civil do.

At civil Banquets, being at Table with men of worth, it is civility to put on our hats, but not seemly to do so at this Holy Banquet.

Again, when we are at a civil Table, it is a common liberty and priviledge for a Guest to take meat, and carve to himself (an action of more moment than a Gesture) but it is not so at this Holy Table, where every man must receive, only what is delivered to him by the hand of another; neither may he refuse to take and eat what is delivered him; which comes too short of that liberty we have at a civil Table.

And whereas this social Sitting is urged, as an essential Priviledge of the Lords Table, it may seem strange, that till of late it was never so esteemed, nor held so much as any whit ma­terial. For whereas we find plain Precedents in the ancient Writers for practice of other Gestures, I suppose it would be a troublesome task, to find amongst them any one evident Record for the Gesture of Sitting at the Sa­crament.

Fourthly, Kneeling is affirmed to be, 1. Re­pugnant [...]o the Law of Nature. 2. Because it is repugnant to Decency: 3. Being no Ge­sture for a Table of repast; and therefore is unlawful.

For Answer whereunto, I might first distin­guish between a Civil and a Sacred Table, and shew that they require not correspondence of all Comportments, as before I shewed. But it is observable, that Nature hath not pre­scribed any such particular Table-Gesture, as Sitting, Standing, or Kneeling at our Meat. We know that the Muscovites neither have any Table, nor do Sit at their meats as we do. And we read that the Jews leaned, so that their Gesture was nearer Lying, than Sitting. Now these Gestures, in our conceits, seem very Indecent (as M. Calvin hath observed [Page 11]concerning the Gesture of the Jews) because they are dissonant from ours: Yet far be it from us to say they are repugnant to the Law of Nature; for so we should tax our Saviour & his Servants for that they could not justifie. Neither may we fitly say these Gestures are indecent, except we be content that they shall likewise censure ours, which no doubt seem so to them. And if it were granted, that Kneel­ing at a Table of common Repast, were in all mens judgments indecent, yet can it not be so concluded for our Kneeling at the Lords Table, where we are to esteem our selves rather Beggers than Benchers. If the more general Judgment and Practice of men, both Wise, Learned, and Religious, might prevail, I as­sure my self, the Gesture of Kneeling would be accounted Decent; and the best reason that can be given to the contrary is, that they which write against it, do not think it so.

But for the further clearing of this Point, we must understand, that the Law of Na­ture is taken properly and improperly; pro­perly, as it is Dictamen rationis, that which Nature doth dictate to all Nations: Impro­perly, as it is a Custom of some particular Country.

As for instance, the Apostle condemneth mens wearing of long hair, as a thing re­pugnant to Nature; not because it was against the general Law or Rule of Nature: for the French, Germans, Romans, English, and di­vers other Nations, as their Writings and Monuments do Witness, have used in sundry Ages to wear long Hair; yea, the Spartans especially, because it is an Ornament of little Charge; but because Custom, which is a­nother Nature, had made it as it were natu­ral for the Corinthians to wear it short, the Apostle doth condemn them for Violating the same. And so Custom having amongst us made that Gesture, which was of it self In­different, the most Solemn and Seemly Ge­sture at the Lords Table, those that impugn and condemn the same, come under the A­postles Censure, and dispute against them­selves.

Again it is disputed, that Kneeling is a pri­vate Worship during the time and act of the Publick: Ergo, it is unlawful. And why is it a private Worship? Because it presents a Worship wherein the Congregation doth not joyntly partake; for they are not ap­pointed to Kneel, when the Receiver doth Kneel.

I Answer, 1. This Argument condemns directly those Congregations where the Sacra­ment is Received Standing; for whilst some do Stand at the Table, others Sit in remote places, and are not appointed to Stand when the Re­ceivers Stand: So that the Congregation not partaking with them in the act of Standing, they present a private Worship.

2. It Condemns divers Congregations where the Sacrament is Received either Sit­ting or Standing. For in those Churches wherein I have seen most preciseness in the time of Celebration of the Sacrament, whilst some are Receiving, others are imployed, ei­ther in singing of Psalms, or hearing some Scripture read. Now these actions, of sing­ing and reading the Scriptures are more dis­sonant from Meditation, than Prayer is, and therefore if the one be unlawful, the other must needs be so.

Yea, this condemns all Congregations in the World, upon a ground of impossibility; for it is usual that some one, or few, are Re­ceiving whilst others are not (which cannot possibly be otherwise, except there were as many to deliver the Sacrament, as there are to Receive it at the same instant) so that the Congregation doth not, in your account, [Page 14]joyntly partake in presenting the same Wor­ship, except you will say that bare Medita­tion upon the Sacrament is the same that actual Receiving is. Now if this actual Re­ceiving by some particular Persons, being a substantial Action, do not cross the publick Worship, but may have concurrence with it, how much less can a circumstantial Gesture of a particular Person do it? Actions that have such affinity, may concur in the same Worship, without opposition of Publick and Private.

Lastly, I may truly say, that this Argu­ment is a meer Paradox, which, to avoid Kneeling, excludes Praying; insomuch that if a Communicant, during the time of pub­lick Administration, and after he hath Re­ceive the Sacrament, do but beseech God to Bless the same unto him, that it may be a means to Strengthen his Faith, to help him in the act of Mortification, and building of him up in Grace, by this reason he shall Sin a­gainst God; than which what can be more absurd?

To Kneel at the Sacrament, is to leave the imitable Practice of Christ and his Apostles, and in lieu thereof to observe a worse, therefore it is unlawful.

Resp. In this Argument two things are to be considered; First, whether we vary from the practice of Christ? and this I confidently deny; neither shall it be possible for any man, out of the Scriptures, to prove directly what Gesture Christ used at the Institution of the Supper.

Secondly, If it were granted, that our Sa­viour, and his Servants the Apostles did Ce­lebrate and Receive it Sitting; yet are we not necessarily tyed to imitate them therein.

It is truly said, that to Restrain our imita­tion of Christ and his Apostles, to every parti­cular circumstance of their Carriage, were a­gainst common sense. And howsoever in Mo­ral actions we ought to follow Christ in matter of substance, yet are we not alwaies so in respect of circumstance, especially where there is no Precept. Now that the Gesture is not of the substance of the Sacrament, it is clearly evinced, in that neither the Evangelists, nor the Apostle, doth once mention it: For who dares affirm that any substantial matter is omitted by them, who have handled the Doc­trine of the Sacrament most Excellently and Exactly? But to make this more evident by as instance; It was our Saviour Custom to [Page 16]Preach Sitting, as all the Evangelists do shew, and Saint Austin gives reason for it; name­ly, because it doth very well agree with the Dignity of a Teacher; yet the most pre­cise do not imitate him therein, but use to stand when they Preach, though the People Sit. Now (supposing that Christ Sate at the Institution of the Supper) if the general Practice in the one doth not tye us to imi­tation, how can one individual act do it in the other?

So that if we should grant, that our Sa­viour and his Apostles did Celebrate and Receive the Sacrament Sitting; yet both by the Positions and Practice of them who are our Opposites we are in this matter of cir­cumstance freed from necessity of Imitation. Yea, if Sitting had been Christs Gesture, and we bound to Imitation, how durst the ancient Churches, and divers modern Con­gregations make Standing their usual Ge­sture in Celebrating the Sacrament; as you do write of the one, and experience shews of the other?

The Seventh Argument; Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, is a Bowing down before a Consecrated Creature, out of a Religious and Reverent Respect of it, and so is a­gainst [Page 17]the Second Commandment, and conse­quently is unlawful.

I Answer, That Kneeling at the Com­munion is no breach of the Second Com­mandment. It will be evident, if we con­sider the branches of the Commandment, which are two. The first, that we make not any graven Image to our selves, that is, of our own heads: Now the Sacrament, and Elements in the Sacrament, are no humane inventintion, but Gods Sacred Or­dinance, which Christ himself hath com­manded, and left to perpetuate the Remem­brance of his Death till his Coming to Judg­ment; and therefore we offend not against the first Branch.

The Second Branch of the Command­ment forbids the Bowing down to an I­mage, which imports the giving of Reli­gious Worship to any Creature; and this we utterly disclaim; for although we Kneel at the Sacrament, yet we do not Kneel to the Sacrament, but to God the Author of the Sacrament. And this may appear to any, who loves not to be contentious; for that in the act of Receiving only, and not of be­holding the Sacrament, we do Kneel. It is confessed, by way of approbation, that [Page 18]the Ancient Fathers carried a reverent Regard to the Bread and Wine of the Lords Supper, and had a Reverent Conceit of them. And so do we likewise Revere the Sacrament, as an Excellent Ordinance of Almighty God, yet is not that the cause we Kneel, but the Majesty of our God, to whom at that in­stant we Pray; and the Mercy of our God, who vouchsafeth us this great Blessing, causeth us to humble our selves. And if we Receive upon our Knees temporal Fa­vours at the hands of mortal Princes, how much more will it become us to Receive this inestimable spiritual Favour from the hands of of the Immortal God, with all sub­mission and Reverence?

If the Worship at our Receiving, did de­termine in the Sacrament, or were tran­sient by it to God; As the Romanists di­versly hold concerning the Worship of their Images, then would we not Justifie our Acti­on. But forasmuch as it is tendred imme­diately to God, there is no Just cause of Condemning our Practice. For we give to the Sacrament that which belongs to the Sa­crament, namely, a reverent estimation; and to God, that which belongs to God, That is, Humble Adoration.

This Argument used in the Dispute, is like Bellarmin, to prove the Adoring of Creatures; for whereas it is said in the Ninety ninth Psalm, the fifth verse, Fall down before his footstool, the Cardinal would infer, that the Ark was adored. And thus our disputants, because we Kneel before the Sacrament, do conclude that we Kneel to the Sacrament.

But indeed, as the four and twenty El­ders falling down to him that sate on the Throne, though they fell down before the Throne, did not Worship the Throne, but him that Lives for ever: So we, when we Kneel before the Sacrament, at the Receiv­ing of it, do not Kneel to the Sacrament, but to Christ the Author of the Sacra­ment, Who is God blessed for ever.

The eighth Argument is this: It was brought in by that Antichrist of Rome, for the Worship of his Breaden-god, therefore it cannot Lawfully be entertained by the true Pro­fessors of the Gospel.

For Answer to which, I deny both parts of the Argument. Concerning the Ante­cedent, it hath two Branches, and neither sound: The one, That Kneeling was brought [Page 20]in by that Antichrist of Rome; the other, that it was brought in for the Worship of his Bread­en-god.

Now to the First, I demand what Antichrist that was who brought in Kneeling at the Sacra­ment? Some there are, who pe­remptorily affirm that it was Ho­norius the Third. But that is not true; For although Honorius made a Decree for the Adoring of the Sacrament, at the time of Eleva­tion; yet we find not one syl­lable to prove that he decreed any Gesture for the time and act of participation. Yea, it is confident­ly affirmed by him who wrote the Dispute, that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, was not brought in by Honorius.

Now if you demand, by whom was it then brought in? Silence or Ignorance must be the Answer. But methinks, such a confident assertion, that both crosseth the practice, and troubleth the peace of the Church, should have some direct and positive Proof, and not depend upon probability. In­stead wherof there is this reason given: We find neither Decree nor practice of Kneeling, till after the time of Honorius: there­fore it is not like, that either he, or any before him brought it in. But if that reason be good, then I may conclude, that it was neither decreed by Honorius, nor any other Bishop of Rome fol­lowing, because we find no De­cree thereof upon Record.

It is further Affirmed, that sit­ting was the Gesture in the act of Receiving in the time of the In­stitution, and divers years after; and then standing, from about the year one hundred and fifty, to the year one thousand two hun­dred and twenty and upward.

I Answer, That concerning the Gesture used by Christ in the In­stitution, I have already spoken; and now I will very briefly exa­mine the Testimonies inferred for proof of the Ages succeeding.

Where first, Justin Martyr saith, After the Pastors Exhortation upon the Sundays, we all rise up and pray, and afterward the Sacrament is deli­vered to every one.

Now saith the Dispute, if the people had Kneeled in the time of [Page 23]Receiving, he would as well have shewed that, as the other practi­ces in praying and hearing the Word God. For Answer where­unto might not I say, If the people had stood or sate in the time of Re­ceiving, would he not as well have shewed that, as the other practices in praying and hearing the Word? But further, I say, had that Father esteemed the Gesture at the Sacra­ment a thing so material, as you account it, doubtless he would have shewed their practice; but because he did not so esteem it, he did not at all mention it. For whereas it is said, We will rise up and pray: That rising up from their seats, might be as well to Kneel as to Stand.

Clemens Alexandrinus saith, that when some have divided the Sacrament, they suffer every one of the people to take [Page 24]his part. Now how could they take their parts without being reached to them, except they stood or sate at the Table?

To this I might Answer, that umere partem, to take his part, doth not necessarily import an imme­diate taking without delivering. And further, if it be granted, that in the Church of Alexandria they stood at the Table and took the Sacrament themselves, yet it is e­vident by that place in Justin Mar­tyr before mentioned, and likewise by Tertullian, and others, that in other Churches the Sacrament was delivered to the people by the hands of their Pastors, which might be done without Sitting or standing at the Table.

For the Age 300. Eusebius is al­leged, to prove Sitting at the Com­munion, [Page 25]from a comparison of the Christians with the Philosophers, mentioned in Philo Judeus. The indirectness of which collection I might easily shew, were it material. But what need I do it, when it has been done so often to my hands already?

For the year 400. Chrysostom is cited, who saith, Frustra stamus ad altare, In vain we stand at the Altar. But what is that to the peoples Gesture in Receiving? For Chry­sostom speaks only of the Ministers Gesture in the time of Divine Service and Sacrament, at which the people were not present; and therefore there is no mention of their Gesture.

It has been said by some that, If Gregory and many more Fathers and Doctors, should in their writings men­tion [Page 26]that Gorgonia, and sundry others, prostrated themselves on their Knees in the act of partaking at the Lords Table, the same is no disadvantage to the present question. The reason intended is, because such (though many) par­ticulars do not shew the practice of the Church. And may not I use the same words concerning Dionysius in Eusebius, and Clemens Alexandrinus in his Stromats? Can that which they Write of some particular Church, shew the pra­ctice of the Universal?

Lastly, the Custom and Consti­tutions of the Church are urged, which from the Second Age of the Church, to the Year 1220. forbad Kneeling at Prayer, on every Lords Day; for if Kneeling at Prayers was removed, it cannot be imagined that Kneeling at the Sa­crament should be allowed. Now [Page 27]to prove that Kneeling at prayers was removed generally on the Lords Day, divers Fathers and Councels are inferred, yet some of them inconsideratly, and imperti­nently (that I say not cunningly) as namely Cyprian, Stamus ad orationem, We stand at prayer; as though this had been the only gesture, where­as he saith, quando stamus ad oratio­nem, when we stand at prayer, with­out reference to time or place, And the like may be said of An­selme, cited after the same man­ner.

Again, inconsideratly, as that of Basil, de spiritu sancto, cap. 27. For not only Erasmus sufficiently, but Mr. Cooke abundantly hath shewed, that this Book of Basils, or at least the later part of it, (whereof this 27th. Chapter is a part) is a meer counterfeit.

Concerning the testimonies of Tertullian, and the Councel of Nice, they indeed seem to testifie this practice of Praying standing on the Lords Day. but yet that this was not an universal practice, it may appear by St. Austin's Addu­bitation, who Epist. 119. saith, Ʋt autem stantes in illis diebus & omni­bus Dominicis oremus, uterum obique ser­vetur ignoro: That we Pray standing on those and every Lords Day, whether it be every where observed do I not know. And more evidently by Chrysostom's Relation of the Churces Practice in those Parts; which accords di­rectly with ours at this day. Be­fore the Celebration of the Sacrament, (saith he) Prayers are made in ge­neral for all People, and after that, those who do not communicate, are dismissed, another Prayer is begun, wherein we all (not stand, but) cast our selves [Page 29]down in Prayer together, and rise up to­gether. By these Testimonies it is evident that Kneeling at Prayer was not generally removed every Lords Day, and consequently the foundation of this Argument doth fail. Again, the Inference, if the Antecedent were granted, is not good; They did not Kneel upon the Lords Day at Prayer; Ergo, not at the Sacrament.

Thus we see, that what hath been urged and alledged, doth not prove the first Branch of the An­tecedent; namely, That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, was brought in by that Antichrist of Rome; and therefore much less ean the second be proved, viz. That it was brought in for Worship of a Breaden God. For, as we find no footing concerning the Author, so much less concer­ning that End.

Now as the Antecedent is un­certain, So is the Argument un­sound: Some Antichristian Bishop brought in Kneeling in the Act of Re­ceiving: or thus; It hath been abu­sed to Idolatry by some Antichristian Bishop; therefore it is unlawful. A man might as well reason thus; It was proper and peculiar to the Sacri­fices of Hercules, that the Heathen did celebrate them Sitting; therefore it is not lawful for Christians to celebrate this Eucharistical Sacrifice of the Lords Supper so. The unclean Spirit said to our Saviour, Thou art the Holy One of God; and the Spirit of Di­vination, by the Damosel con­cerning Paul and Silas, These men are the Servants of God; (yea, and this they spake to evil ends) there­fore we may not say so. Yea, if this Argument be good, we must remove Fire from our Houses, [Page 31]the Sun out of the Heavens, Bells out of Steeples, Fonts out of Chur­ches, Churches out of the world, because the Chaldeans abused the one, the Persians the other, and the Papists the rest. The places of Scri­pture cited for proof of the Argu­ment, are very impertinent: Some which have a particular reference, are made too general, as that in Leviticus. For whereas it is said, After the doings of the Land of Egypt, and the Land of Canaan, you shall not do; that hath relation to those sins of Uncleanness which are menti­oned in the same Chapter. And the same being general, can no more abide the Light than this; After the manner of the Pagans and Papists shall you not do; but the Pa­gans and Papists do kneel in Prayer; therefore you shall not kneel in Prayer. Or rather thus: The Papists and Pagans do kneel to their Idols, there­fore [Page 32]Professors if the Gospel may not kneel to God: For so indeed it is in­ferred; because the Papists in the Act of Receiving, do kneel to the Bread, therefore we in the same Act may not kneel to God.

The other Places require the defacing of Images and Idols, but what is that to Kneeling? For there is great difference between that which is in it self lawful, and that which is unlawful, as their Idols were, which represented False Gods; between a permanent Substance and a transient Action; between that which may have good use, and that which cannot.

If Antichrist hath stained this Gesture by his Idolatry, shall Christians therefore, having pur­ged it, be debarred of their law­ful Interest therein? Or rather, [Page 33]as the Israelite, having taken in war a Woman amongst the Enemies, when he had shaved her head and pared her nails, might take her home as his own; may not the Church of God take this Gesture, being pared and purged from Ro­mish corruption, and apply it to the Service of God?

Mr. Cartwright tells us, That, If amongst the Romish filth we find any good thing, that we willingly receive, not as theirs, but as the Jews did the holy Ark from the Philistims. For (saith he) herein it is true that is said, The Sheep must not lay down her Fell, because she sees the Wolf sometimes cloathed with it. St. Austin shews that we may lawfully use the wa­ter of Fountains, and woods of the Forests, which by Pagans have been dedicated to their Idols, Epist. 154. And may we not use that Ge­sture [Page 34]that hath been abused to I­dolatry?

But it is Objected, That this Ge­sture can never be purged; And to this purpose are urged the Positi­ons of sundry learned men, who would that all things which have appearance of Popery be banished; and the same is confirmed by the practice of divers Godly men in the like case.

To which I answer; First, That this Position is strange, which will admit no possibility of purging any Ceremonies corrupted in the Church of Rome.

Mr. Robinson, a Dissenter, saith, We do acknowledge it (meaning in the Church of England) many ex­cellent Truths of Doctrine, which we also teach, and many Christian Ordi­nances, which we also practise, being purged from the pollution of Antichrist.

Let us further consider the O­pinions [Page 35]of sundry eminent and learned men in this Case.

Beza saith of this very Gesture, Epist. 12. Geniculatio speciem habet piae venerations, &c. This Bowing of the Knee hath a Kind of godly Reverence, and therefore it might heretofore be used to good purpose,

Bishop Jewel saith, I grant that Sitting, Standing, and other like Cere­monies in the holy Ministration, are left to the discretion of the Church.

Yea, Mr. Cartwright acknowledg­eth again and again, That Sitting is not necessary; and though he say, that Kneeling ts dangerous,, yet he saith not that it is unlawful.

Peter Martyr saith in general, I cannot be perswaded,, that the wicked­ness of the Pope is such, that whatsoe­ver he toucheth must thereupon be pollu­ted, that afterwards it may not be of use to the Godly.

And concerning this Matter in [Page 36]particular, he saith elsewhere, It is no matter of Difference, whether we receive the Sacrament, sitting, standing, or kneeling, so that Christs in [...]sitution be preferred, and occasion of Superstition removed.

And surely those are bad Chi­rurgeons that have no other means of Cure but only by the Saw and the Cautery.

Again the Fact of Hezekiah may be objected, who did not seek to purge, but brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent; and the practice of our Saviour Christ, who held it not sufficient by Doctrine to speak against the Jewish Wash­ings, and so to use them to ano­ther end, but refused that Custom wholly.

Hereunto I answer, first, parti­cular Facts, even of worthy men, do not tie us necessarily to imita­tion. Moses proceeded far against [Page 37]the Israelites Idolatry, when he took the Golden Calf, burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, strewed it upon the water, and made them drink of it. What, have others sinned that have not done the like?

Again, there is great difference between the Brazen Serpent and Kneeling at the Communion, both in their Nature and Use. In their Nature, the one being a transient action, the other a permanent sub­stance, and consequently more apt to be abused to Idolatry. In their Use; for the vertue of Cure being vanished, the Brazen Ser­pent ceased to be of use; but the Act of Kneeling will ever remain necessary, to manifest our humble thankfulness for so great Benefits as we receive by the blessed Sacra­ment.

3. There was great cause why Hezekiah should thus proceed a­gainst [Page 38]the Brazen Serpent, in re­gard that to those days the Children of Israel burnt incense unto it: But so is not the Gesture of Kneeling abu­sed by us, and therefore needs not such an absolute abolishing.

And for our Saviours Practice, it is rather with us than against us; for though he did shun the Superstitious Washings of the Pha­risees, yet who can think that he did utterly forbear all civil and wholsom washing before meat? So we do shun and detest the Ido­latrous Kneeling of the Papists at the Sacrament; but to abandon Kneeling totally, we have no cause nor warrant.