CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS THEMSELVES; AND THAT

KNEELING IN THE LORD’S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF

RECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.

_Sect._ 1. My fourth argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies

followeth, by which I am to evince that they are not only idolatrous

_reductive_, because monuments of by-past, and _participative_, because

badges of present idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists

themselves to be formally, and in respect of their own using of them,

idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past or present abusing of them

by others. This I will make good: first, of all the ceremonies in general;

then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our opposites here look to

themselves, for this argument proveth to them the box of Pandora, and

containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen before

the opening.

First, then, the ceremonies are idols to Formalists. It had been good to

have remembered that which Ainsworth noteth,(645) that idolothites and

monuments of idolatry should be destroyed, lest themselves at length

become idols. The idolothious ceremonies, we see now, are become idols to

those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester

taketh for his sermon _of the worshipping of imaginations_,—to wit, that

the devil, seeing that idolatrous images would be put down, bent his whole

device, in place of them, to erect and set up divers imaginations, to be

adored and magnified instead of the former,—is, in some things, abused and

misapplied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand; for that

the ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, adored, and

idolised, instead of the idolatrous images which were put down, thus we

instruct and qualify:

_Sect._ 2. First, They are so erected and extolled, that they are more

looked to than the weighty matters of the law of God: all good discipline

must be neglected before they be not holden up. A covetous man is an

idolater, for this respect among others, as Davenant noteth,(646) because

he neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with

the gathering of money. And I suppose every one will think that those

traditions, Mark vii. 8, 9, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the

laying aside of the commandments of God, might well be called idols. Shall

we not then call the ceremonies idols, which are observed with the

neglecting of God’s commandments, and which are advanced above many

substantial points of religion? Idolatry, blasphemy, profanation of the

Sabbath, perjury, adultery, &c., are overlooked, and not corrected nor

reproved, nay, not so much as discountenanced in those who favour and

follow the ceremonies; and if in the fellows and favourites, much more in

the fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations in

certain abject poor bodies? _Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas._

What will not an episcopal conformist pass away with, if there be no more

had against him than the breaking of God’s commandments by open and gross

wickedness? But O what narrow notice is taken of non-conformity! How

mercilessly is it menaced! How cruelly corrected! Well, the ceremonies are

more made of than the substance. And this is so evident, that Dr Burges

himself lamenteth the pressure of conformity,(647) and denieth not that

which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are

inflicted upon the refusal of the ceremonies than upon adultery and

drunkenness.

_Sect._ 3. Secondly, Did not Eli make idols of his sons, 1 Sam. ii. 29,

when he spared them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of God’s

worship? And may not we call the ceremonies idols, which are not only

spared and borne with, to the prejudice of God’s worship, but are likewise

so erected, that the most faithful labourers in God’s house, for their

sake, are depressed, the teachers and maintainers of God’s true worship

cast out? For their sake, many learned and godly men are envied,

contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they pass under the name (I

should say the nickname) of puritans. For their sake many dear Christians

have been imprisoned, fined, banished, &c. For their sake many qualified

and well-gifted men are holden out of the ministry, and a door of entrance

denied to those to whom God hath granted a door of utterance. For their

sake, those whose faithful and painful labours in the Lord’s harvest have

greatly benefited the church, have been thrust from their charges, so that

they could not fulfil the ministry which they have received of the Lord,

to testify of the gospel of the grace of God. The best builders, the wise

master-builders, have been over-turned by them. This is objected to Joseph

Hall by the Brownists; and what can he say to it? Forsooth, “that not so

much the ceremonies are stood upon as obedience. If God please to try Adam

but with an apple, it is enough. What do we quarrel at the value of the

fruit when we have a prohibition? Shemei is slain. What! merely for going

out of the city? The act was little, the bond was great. What _is_

commanded matters not so much as _by whom._” _Ans._ 1. If obedience be the

chief thing stood upon, why are not other laws and statutes urged as

strictly as those which concern the ceremonies? 2. But what means he? What

would he say of those Scottish Protestants imprisoned in the castle of

Scherisburgh in France,(648) who, being commanded by the captain to come

to the mass, answered, “That to do anything that was against their

conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the king?” If he

approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will do

nothing which is against our consciences. We submit ourselves and all

which we have to the king, and to inferior governors we render all due

subjection which we owe to them, but no mortal man hath domination over

our consciences, which are subject to one only Lawgiver, and ruled by his

law. I have shown in the first part of this dispute how conscience is

sought to be bound by the law of the ceremonies, and here, by the way, no

less may be drawn from Hall’s words, which now I examine; for he implieth

in them that we are bound to obey the statutes about the ceremonies merely

for their authority’s sake who command us, though there be no other thing

in the ceremonies themselves which can commend them to us. But I have also

proved before that human laws do not bind to obedience, but only in this

case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those

things which God’s law prescribeth; so that, as human laws, they bind not,

neither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God’s

law. This ground hath seemed to P. Bayne(649) so necessary to be known,

that he hath inserted it in his brief _Exposition of the Fundamental

Points of Religion_. And besides all that which I have said for it before,

I may not here pass over in silence this one thing, that Hall himself

calleth it superstition to make any more sins than the ten

commandments.(650) Either, then, let it be shown out of God’s word that

non-conformity, and the refusing of the English popish ceremonies, is a

fault, or else let us not be thought bound by men’s laws where God’s law

hath left us free. Yet we deal more liberally with our opposites, for if

we prove not the unlawfulness of the ceremonies, both by God’s word and

sound reason, let us then be bound to use them for ordinance’ sake.

3. His comparisons are far wide. They are so far from running upon four

feet, that they have indeed no feet at all, whether we consider the

commandments, or the breach of them, he is altogether extravagant. God

might have commanded Adam to eat the apple which he forbade him to eat,

and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evil; whereas

the will and commandment of men is not _regula regulans_, but _regula

regulata_. Neither can they make good or evil, beseeming or not beseeming,

what they list, but their commandments are to be examined by a higher

rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Jerusalem, and not to go

over the brook Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required; for

as P. Martyr noteth,(651) he was a man of the family of the house of Saul,

2 Sam. xv. 5, and hated the kingdom and throne of David, so that _relictus

liber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israelitis, vel cum Palestinis_. But

what reason is there for charging us with the law of the ceremonies,

except the sole will of the lawmakers? Yet, say that Solomon had no reason

for this his commandment, except his own will and pleasure for trying the

obedience of Shemei, who will say that princes have as great liberty and

power of commanding at their pleasure in matters of religion as in civil

matters? If we consider the breach of the commandments, he is still at

random. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet divines mark in his

eating of that forbidden fruit many gross and horrible sins,(652) as

infidelity, idolatry, pride, ambition, self-love, theft, covetousness,

contempt of God, profanation of God’s name, ingratitude, impostacy,

murdering of his posterity, &c. But, I pray, what exorbitant evils are

found in our modest and Christian-like denial of obedience to the law of

the ceremonies? When Shemei transgressed king Solomon’s commandment,

besides the violation of this,(653) and the disobeying of the charge

wherewith Solomon (by the special direction and inspiration of God) had

charged him, that his former wickedness, and that which he hath done to

David, might be returned upon his head, the Divine Providence so fitly

furnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment. There was also a

great contempt and misregard showed to the king, in that Shemei, knowing

his own evil-deservings, acknowledged (as the truth was) he had received

no small favour, and therefore consented to the king’s word as good, and

promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion

as the seeking of two runagate servants, he reckoned not to despise the

king’s mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandment.

What! Is nonconformity no less piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is

bound to show that it is so. And thus have we pulled down the untempered

mortar wherewith Hall would hide the idolising of the ceremonies.

_Sect._ 4. But Thirdly, Did not Rachel make Jacob an idol, when she

ascribed to him a power of giving children? “Am I in God’s stead?” saith

Jacob, Gen. xxx. 1, 3. How much more reason have we to say that the

ceremonies are idols, are set up in God’s stead, since an operative virtue

is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sin and tentation,

and for working of other spiritual and supernatural effects? Thus is the

sign of the cross an idol to those who conform to Papists in the use of

it. M. Ant. de Dominis holdeth,(654) _Crucis signum contra daemones esse

praesidium_; and that even(655) _ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles

signi crucis, etiam apud infideles, aliquando enituerint_. “Shall I say

(saith Mr Hooker),(656) that the sign of the cross (as we use it) is a

mean in some sort to work our preservation from reproach? Surely the mind

which as yet hath not hardened itself in sin, is seldom provoked thereunto

in any gross and grievous manner, but nature’s secret suggestion objecteth

against it ignominy as a bar, which conceit being entered into that place

of man’s fancy (the forehead), the gates whereof have imprinted in them

that holy sign (the cross), which bringeth forthwith to mind whatsoever

Christ hath wrought and we vowed against sin; it cometh hereby to pass,

that Christian men never want a most effectual, though a silent teacher,

to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame.” What more do Papists

ascribe to the sign of the cross, when they say, that by it Christ keeps

his own faithful ones(657) _contra omnes tentationes et hostes_. Now if

the covetous man be called an idolater, Eph. v. 5, because, though he

think not his money to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it

(which confidence and hope we should repose in God only, Jer. xvii. 7), as

Rainold marketh,(658) then do they make the sign of the cross an idol who

trust by it to be preserved from sin, shame, and reproach, and to have

their minds stayed in the instant of tentation. For who hath given such a

virtue to that dumb and idle sign as to work that which God only can work?

And how have these good fellows imagined, that not by knocking at their

brains, as Jupiter, but by only signing their foreheads, they can

procreate some menacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the

devil himself.

_Sect._ 5. The same kind of operative virtue is ascribed to the ceremony

of confirmation or bishopping; for the English service book teacheth, that

by it children receive strength against sin, and against tentation. And

Hooker hath told us,(659) that albeit the successors of the apostles had

but only for a time such power as by prayer and imposition of hands to

bestow the Holy Ghost, yet confirmation hath continued hitherto for very

special benefits; and that the fathers impute everywhere unto it “that

gift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men,

but when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against

tentation and sin.” Moreover, whilst he is a-showing why this ceremony of

confirmation was separated from baptism, having been long joined with it,

one of his reasons which he giveth for the separation is, that sometimes

the parties who received baptism were infants, at which age they might

well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the army of God,

to bring forth the fruits, and to do the works of the Holy Ghost, their

time of hability was not yet come; which implieth, that by the

confirmation men receive this hability, else there is no sense in that

which he saith. What is idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to rites of

man’s devising, the power and virtue of doing that which none but He to

whom all power in heaven and earth belongs can do; and howbeit Hooker

would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the fathers,

yet it is not unknown, that the first fathers from whom this idolatry hath

descended were those ancient heretics, the Montanists. For as Chemnitius

marketh out of Tertullian and Cyprian,(660) the Montanists were the first

who began to ascribe any spiritual efficacy or operation to rites and

ceremonies devised by men.

_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, That whereunto more respect and account is given than

God alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is placed than

God hath put into it, or will at all communicate to it, is an idol exalted

against God; which maketh Zanchius to say,(661) _Si Luthero vel Calvino

tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, idola tibi fingis._ Now, when

Hooker(662) accounteth festival days, for God’s extraordinary works

wrought upon them, to be holier than other days, what man of sound

judgment will not perceive that these days are idolised, since such an

eminence and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no

difference betwixt them and any other days? We have seen also that the

ceremonies are urged as necessary,(663) but did ever God allow that things

indifferent should be so highly advanced at the pleasure of men? And,

moreover, I have shown(664) that worship is placed in them; in which

respect they must needs be idols, being thus exalted against God’s word,

at which we are commanded to hold us in the matter of worship. Last of

all, they are idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy

mystical significations are given them, which are a great deal more than

God’s word alloweth in any rites of human institution, as shall be

shown(665) afterwards; and so it appeareth how the ceremonies, as now

urged and used, are idols.

Now to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s supper, which I will

prove to be direct and formal idolatry; and from idolatry shall it never

be purged while the world standeth, though our opposites strive for it,

_tanquam pro aris et focis_.

_Sect._ 7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling betwixt them and us

standeth in this: Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the

sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine,—purposely placed in our

sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before

which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration,—be

formally idolatry or not? No man can pick a quarrel at the stating of the

question thus; for, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of

receiving the sacramental elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward

adoration in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore by the

inward graces of faith, love, thankfulness, &c., by the holy and heavenly

exercise whereof we glorify God; so that the controversy is about outward

adoration. 3. No man will deny that the consecrated elements are purposely

placed in our sight when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that

action only accidentally present before us no otherwise than the

table-cloth or the walls of the church are. 4. That the sacramental

elements are in our sight (when we kneel) as signs standing in Christ’s

stead, it is most undeniable; for if these signs stand not in Christ’s

stead to us, the bread bearing _vicem corporis Christi_, and the wine

_vicem sanguinis_, it followeth, that when we eat the bread and drink the

wine, we are no more eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ,

spiritually and sacramentally, than if we were receiving any other bread

and wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our

opposites acknowledge it; for Dr Burges(666) calls the sacraments the

Lord’s images and deputies; and the Archbishop of Spalato saith,(667) that

when we take the sacrament of Christ’s body, we adore _Christum sub hac

figura figuratum_. 5. That kneelers, at the instant of receiving, have the

consecrated bread and wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as

things so stated in that action, that before them they are to exhibit

outward religious adoration as well as inward, it is also most plain; for

otherwise they should fall down and kneel only out of incogitancy, having

no such purpose in their minds, or choice in their wills, as to kneel

before these sacramental signs.

_Sect._ 8. The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirm. Their

negative is destroyed, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons:—

First, The kneelers worship Christ in or by the elements, as their own

confessions declare. “When we take the eucharist, we adore the body of

Christ, _per suum signum_,” saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(668) “We

kneel by the sacrament to the thing specified,” saith the Bishop of

Edinburgh.(669) The Archbishop of St Andrews(670) and Dr Burges(671)

profess the adoring of Christ in the sacrament. Dr Mortoune maintaineth

such an adoration in the sacrament as he calleth relative from the sign to

Christ; and Paybody(672) defendeth him herein. But the replier(673) to Dr

Mortoune’s _Particular Defence_ inferreth well, that if the adoration be

relative from the sign, it must first be carried to the sign as a means of

conveyance unto Christ. Dr Burges(674) alloweth adoration, or divine

worship (as he calleth it), to be given to the sacrament respectively; and

he allegeth a place of Theodoret,(675) to prove that such an adoration as

he there taketh for divine worship is done to the sacrament in relation to

Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to

be passed over to the archetype, which is the body and blood of Christ.

Since, then, that kneeling about which our question is, by the confession

of kneelers themselves, is divine worship given by the sign to the thing

signified, and done to the sacrament respectively or in relation to

Christ, he that will say that it is not idolatry must acquit the Papists

of idolatry also in worshipping before their images; for they do in like

manner profess that they adore _prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem_ or

_in imagine_, and that they give no more to the image but relative or

respective worship. The Rhemists(676) tell us that they do no more but

kneel before the creatures, at, or by them, adoring God. It availeth not

here to excogitate some differences betwixt the sacramental elements and

the popish images, for what difference soever be betwixt them when they

are considered in their own natural being, yet as objects of adoration

they differ not, because when they are considered _in esse adorabili_, we

see the same kind of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the

elements which is by Papists before their images. To come nearer the

point, Papists profess that they give to the outward signs in the

sacrament no other adoration than the same which Formalists give to them.

Franciscus à Sancta Clara saith,(677) that divine worship doth not agree

to the signs _per se_, but only _per accidens_, and he allegeth for

himself that the Council of Trent, can 6. _de euch_, saith not that the

sacrament, but that Christ in the sacrament, is to be adored with

_latria_. To the same purpose I observe that Bellarmine(678) will not take

upon him to maintain any adoration of the sacrament with _latria_, holding

only that Christ in the eucharist is to be thus adored, and that _symbola

externa per se et proprie non sunt adoranda_. Whereupon he determineth,

_status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in eucharistia sit adorandus,

cultu latriae_. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward sign of

Christ’s body in the eucharist nothing else but the species or accidents

of the bread, yet since they attribute to the same _quod sub illis

accidentibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua

Deitate conjunctum_,(679) and since they give adoration or _latria_(680)

to the species, though not _per se_, yet as _quid unum_ with the Body of

Christ which they contain,—hereby it is evident that they worship

idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our

opposites dare say that Papists commit no such idolatry as here I impute

to them? Or, if they acknowledge this idolatry of Papists, how make they

themselves clean? for we see that the worship which Papists give to the

species of the bread is only relative to Christ, and of the same kind with

that which Formalists give to the bread and wine.

_Sect._ 9. Secondly, Religious kneeling before the bread which is set

before us for a sign to stand in Christ’s stead, and before which we adore

whilst it is to us actually an image representing Christ,(681) is the very

bowing down and worshipping forbidden in the second commandment. The

eucharist is called by the fathers _imago, signum, figura, similitudo_, as

Hospinian(682) instanceth out of Origen, Nazianzen, Augustine, Hilary,

Tertullian, Ambrose. The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed,(683)

that the fathers expressly call the sacrament an image of Christ’s body,

and well might they call it so, since the sacramental elements do not only

represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christ’s stead, in such sort

that by the worthy receiving of them we are assured that we receive Christ

himself; and in eating of this bread, and drinking of this wine, we eat

the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ spiritually, and by faith.

Neither could the consecrated elements make a sacrament if they were not

such images standing in Christ’s stead. But what needeth any more? Dr

Burges(684) himself calleth the sacraments the Lord’s images. Now, that a

man who adoreth before the painted or graven image of Christ, though he

profess that he intendeth his whole adoration to Christ, and that he

placeth the image before him only to represent Christ, and to stir up his

mind to worship Christ, doth nevertheless commit idolatry, I trust none of

our opposites will deny. Nay, Bishop Lindsey teacheth plainly,(685) that

it is idolatry to set before the eyes of our minds or bodies any image as

a mean or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be

abstracted from the image, and not given unto it. Well, then, will it

please him to let us see that kneeling before the actual images of

Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, even though these images should

be no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects,

motives and occasions which stir up the mind of the kneeler to worship

Christ (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, though

falsely, as we shall see afterward), is not so great idolatry as the

other. All the difference which he maketh is,(686) “that no true worship

can be properly occasioned by an image, which is a doctor of lies,

teaching nothing of God, but falsehood and vanities; but the blessed

sacrament being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his

death, &c., gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerful and

pregnant occasion of thanksgiving and praise.” Dr Burges,(687)

intermeddling with the same difference-making, will not have the

sacraments, which are images of God’s making and institution, to be

compared with images made by the lust of men. Two differences, then, are

given us. 1. That the sacramental elements have their institution from

God; images not so. 2. That the sacrament is an occasion of worship; an

image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the

ordinance and institution of God makes the use of sacramental images to be

no will-worship, yet doth it not any whit avail to show that adoration

before them is no idolatry. May I not commit idolatry with images of God’s

institution no less than with those invented by men, when (_coeteris

paribus_) there is no other difference betwixt them, considered as objects

of adoration, but that of the ordinance and institution which they have?

What if I fall down at the hearing of a sermon, and religiously adore

before the pastor, as the vicarious sign of Christ himself, who stands

there, in Christ’s stead, 2 Cor. v. 20, referring my adoration to Christ

only, yet in or by that ambassador who stands in Christ’s stead? If this

my adoration should be called so great idolatry as if I should fall down

before a graven image, to worship God in or by it (for it is, indeed, as

great every way), our kneelers, I perceive, would permit me to answer for

myself, that my worshipping of God by the minister cannot be called

idolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven

image is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living image is

no other,) since images of God’s institution must not be paralleled with

those of men’s invention. As to the second difference, I answer, 1. Though

the Bishop muttereth here that no true worship can be occasioned by an

image, yet belike he and his fellows will not stand to it, for many of

them allow the historical use of images; and the Bishop hath not denied,

though his antagonist objecteth it. Dr Mortoune(688) plainly alloweth of

images for historical commemoration; and herein he is followed by Dr

Burges.(689) 2. Whereas he saith that the blessed sacrament is instituted

by Christ to call to our remembrance his death, this inferreth not that it

is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the very act of receiving, as

we shall see afterward. Our question is only about kneeling in the act of

receiving. 3. We confess that the sacrament is an occasion of inward

worship in the receiving of it; for in _eucharistia exercetur summa fides,

spes, charitas, religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum colimus et

glorificamus_.(690) But the outward adoration of kneeling down upon our

knees can be no more occasioned by the blessed sacrament, in the act of

receiving it, than by a graven image in the act of beholding it. The point

which the Bishop had to prove is, that whereas an image cannot be the

occasion of outward adoration and kneeling to God before it in the act of

looking upon it, the sacrament may be, and is, an occasion of kneeling,

when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any

for him, shall ever make good.

_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament before

the vicarious signs which stand in Christ’s stead, and are purposely set

before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore, wanteth

nothing to make up idolatrous co-adoration or relative worship. Our

opposites here tell us of two things necessary to the making up of

idolatry, neither of which is found in their kneeling. First, they say,

except there be an intention in the worshipper to adore the creature which

is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no idolatry. “What shall I

say? saith Paybody.(691) What need I say in this place, but to profess,

and likewise avouch, that we intend only to worship the Lord our God, when

we kneel in the act of receiving? We worship not the bread and wine; we

intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our

sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in

God’s worship.” _Ans._ I showed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr

Mortoune’s adoration, which he calleth relative from the sign to Chris;

yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to

the sign; will this save their kneeling from idolatry? Nay, then, the

three children should not have been idolaters, if they had kneeled before

Nebuchadnezzar’s image, intending their worship to God only, and not to

the image. Our opposites here take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what

saith Calvin?(692) _Si isti boni sapientesque sophistae ibi tum fuissent,

simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo

eos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines, istud quidem_(_693_)_ non est

adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est idololatria

nisi ubi est __ devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda

venerandaque adjunctio atque applicatio_, &c. If Paybody had been in

Calvin’s place, he could not have called the Nicodemites idolaters,

forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the popish images when they

kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest idolaters that ever were,

shall by this doctrine be no idolaters, and Paul shall be censured for

teaching that the Gentiles did worship devils, 1 Cor. x. 10, since they

did not intend to worship devils. _Idolatrae nec olim in paganismo

intendebant, nec hodie in papatu intendant, daemonibus offere quid tum?

Apostolus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant_, saith

Pareus.(694)

_Sect._ 11. The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of

idolatry is, that the creature before which we adore be a passive object

of the adoration; whereas, say they,(695) the sacramental elements are “no

manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active only of

that adoration which, at the sacrament, is given to Christ; that is, such

an object and sign as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification

thereof, to lift up our hearts and adore the only object of our faith, the

Lord Jesus; such as the holy word of God, his works, and benefits are, by

meditation and consideration whereof we are moved and stirred up to adore

him.” _Ans._ 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of

his own book I draw an argument which destroyeth it, thus: If the

sacramental elements were only the active object of their adoration who

kneel before them in the receiving, then their real presence should be but

accidental to the kneelers. But the real presence of the elements, in the

act of receiving, is not accidental to the kneelers; therefore, the

proposition I draw from his own words: “We can neither (saith he(696))

pray to God, nor thank him, nor praise him, but ever there must be, before

the eyes of our minds, at least something of his works, word, or

sacraments, if not before our external senses.” He confesseth it will be

enough, that these active objects of worship be before the eyes of our

minds, and that their real presence, before our external senses, is not

necessary but accidental to us, whose minds are by their means stirred up

to worship. And so it is indeed. For _esse scibile_, or _rememoratiuum_ of

an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the mind to

worship, so that the real presence of such an object is but accidental to

the worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishop’s own

words. For he saith(697) that we kneel before the elements, “having them

in our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary signs, means, and

memorials, to stir us up to worship,” &c. Now if we have them in our sight

and before our senses for this purpose, that they may be means, signs, and

memorials to stir us up to worship, then, sure, their being really before

our senses, is not accidental to us when we kneel. Since Dr Burges(698)

hath been so dull and sottish as to write that “signs are but accidentally

before the communicants when they receive,” he is to be ignominiously

exsibilat for making the sacred sacramental signs to be no otherwise

present than the walls of the church, the nails and timber of the material

table whereupon the elements are set, or anything else accidentally before

the communicants. But, 2. Put the case, they did make the elements only

active objects of worship when they kneel in the act of receiving them.

What! Do some Papists make more of their images when they worship before

them? They hold, as the Archbishop of Spalato noteth,(699) that _Imago est

medium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo exemplar occurrit suo honoratori,

cultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar

feratur_. Will we have them to speak for themselves? Suarez will have

_Imagines esse occasiones vel signa excitantia hominem ad adorandum

prototype_.(700) Friar Pedro de Cabrera,(701) a Spaniard, taketh the

opinion of Durand and his followers to be this: That images are adored

only improperly, because they put men in mind of the persons represented

by them; and he reasoneth against them thus: “If images were only to be

worshipped by way of rememoration and recordation, because they make us

remember the samplers which we do so worship as if they had been then

present, it would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same

adoration wherewith we worship God, seeing all of them do lead us unto the

knowledge and remembrance of God.” Whereby it is evident, that in the

opinion of Durand,(702) and those who are of his mind, images are but

active objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith Becane the Jesuit?(703)

_Imago autem Christi non est occasio idololatriæ apud nos catholicos, quia

non alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum salvatorem, et

beneficia ejus representet._ More particularly he will have the image of

Christ honoured for two reasons. 1. _Quia honor qui exhibetur imagini,

redundat in eum cujus est imago._ 2. _Quia illud in pretio haberi potest,

quod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, et est occasio ut pro

eis acceptis grati existamus. At imago Christi per se revocat nobis in

memoriam beneficium nostræ redemptionis_, &c. That for this respect the

image of Christ is honoured, he confirmed by this simile: _Quia ob eandem

causam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt sacra Biblia, itemque festa

paschatis, pentecostes, nativitatis, et passionis Christi_. What higher

account is here made of images than to be active objects of worship? For

even whilst it is said that the honour done to the image resulteth to him

whose image it is, there is no honour ascribed to the image as a passive

object; but they who honour an image for this respect, and with this

meaning, have it only for an active object which represents and calls to

their mind the first sampler, as the Archbishop of Spalato also

observeth.(704) Neither the Papists only, but some also of the very

heathen idolaters, _norunt in imaginibus nihil deitatis inesse, meras

autem esse rerum absentium repræsentationes_,(705) &c. And what if neither

heathens nor Papists had been of this opinion, that images are but active

objects of worship? Yet I have before observed, that the Bishop himself

acknowledgeth it were idolatry to set before us an image as the active

object of our adoration, though the worship should be abstracted from the

image.

_Sect._ 12. Finally, To shut up this point, it is to be noted that the

using of the sacramental elements, as active objects of worship only,

cannot make kneeling before them in the receiving to be idolatry; for then

might we lawfully, and without idolatry, kneel before every active object

which stirreth up our minds to worship God. All the works of God are such

active objects, as the Bishop also resolveth in the words before cited.

Yet may we not, at the sight of every one of God’s works, kneel down and

adore, whilst the eyes, both of body and mind, are fixed upon it, as the

means and occasion which stirreth us up to worship God. The Bishop,

indeed, holdeth, we may, only he saith this is not necessary,(706) because

when, by the sight of the creatures of God we are moved privately to

worship, our external gesture of adoration is arbitrary, and sometimes no

gesture at all is required. But in the ordinary ministry, when the works

of God or his benefits are propounded, or applied publicly, to stir us up

to worship in the assemblies of the church, then our gesture ceaseth to be

arbitrary; for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the church

where we worship. _Ans._ 1. He shuffleth the point decently, for when he

speaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any creature, he means of

inward worship, as is evident by these words, “Sometime no gesture at all

is required;” but when he speaks of being moved to worship in the

assemblies of the church, by the benefits of God propounded publicly (for

example, by the blessed sacrament), then he means of outward worship, as

is evident by his requiring necessarily a gesture. He should have spoken

of one kind of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward;

for of no other do we dispute. When we are moved by the sacrament to adore

God in the act of receiving, thus can be no other but that which is

inward, and thus we adore God by faith, hope, and love, though neither the

heart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (whereof

himself could not be ignorant) is, that the sacramental elements may be to

us, in the receiving, active objects of outward adoration; or because they

move us to worship inwardly, that therefore we should adore outwardly. 2.

Whereas he teacheth that kneeling before any creature, when thereby we are

moved to worship privately, is lawful; but kneeling before the sacramental

elements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the assemblies of the

church, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here, he

knew, or else he made himself ignorant that both these should be denied by

us. Why, then, did he not make them good? Kneeling before those active

objects which stir up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the

church, it must first be proved lawful both in the church and out of it.

Now, if a man meeting his lord riding up the street upon his black horse,

have his heart stirred up to worship God, by something which he seeth

either in himself or his horse, should fall down and kneel before him or

his horse, as the active object of his worship, I marvel whether the

Bishop would give the man leave to kneel, and stand still as the active

object before the man’s senses? As for us, we hold that we may not kneel

before every creature which stirreth up our hearts to worship God; kneel,

I say, whilst the eyes both of body and mind are fastened upon it as the

active object of our adoration.

_Sect._ 13. The fourth reason whereby I prove the kneeling in question to

be idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, for

reverence to the sacrament, is idolatry. But the kneeling in question is

such, therefore, &c. The proposition is necessary. For if they exhibit

divine adoration (such as then kneeling is confessed to be) for reverence

of the sacrament, they do not only give, but also intend to give, divine

adoration to the same. This is so undeniable that it dasheth Bishop

Lindsey,(707) and makes him give a broad confession, that it is idolatry

to kneel at the sacrament for reverence to the elements. The assumption I

prove from the confession of Formalists. King Edward’s book of Common

Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the communion is enjoined for this

purpose, that the sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverent

and holy estimation. So doth Dr Mortoune tell us,(708) that the reason

wherefore the church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of

receiving the sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due

estimation of such holy rites. Paybody(709) makes one of the respects of

kneeling to be the reverent handling and using of the sacrament. The

Bishop of Winchester exclaimeth against such as do not kneel, for not

regarding the table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all

holies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy symbols and

precious memorials of our greatest delivery, even the reverence which is

given to prayer. Where, by the way, I observe, that when we kneel at

prayer it is not to give reverence to prayer, but to God, whom then most

immediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the sacrament

receiveth no commendation from kneeling at prayer. The Act of Perth about

kneeling, when Bishop Lindsey had polished and refined it as well as he

could, ordained us to kneel at the sacrament in due regard of so divine a

mystery. And what think we is understood by this mystery, for reverence

whereof we are commanded to kneel? The Bishop(710) expoundeth this mystery

to be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here he either

means the spiritual receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the

sacramental. If the spiritual, why did not the Synod ordain us to kneel in

hearing the gospel? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood

of Christ, and that as truly and really as in the sacrament. Whereupon the

Archbishop of Armagh showeth,(711) that the spiritual and inward feeding

upon the body and blood of Christ is to be found out of the sacrament, and

that divers of the fathers do apply the sixth of John to the hearing of

the word also, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, as Cæsiriensis, and

others. Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eat the flesh

of Christ in his word and doctrine. This, I am sure, no man dare deny. The

Bishop, then, must mean by this mystery the sacramental receiving of the

body and blood of Christ. Now, the sacramental receiving of the body and

blood of Christ, is the receiving of the sacramental signs of his body and

blood. And as the Archbishop of Armagh also observeth,(712) the substance

which is outwardly delivered in the sacrament, is not really the body and

blood of Christ. Again he saith,(713) that the bread and wine are not

really the body and blood of Christ, but figuratively and sacramentally.

Thus he opposeth the sacramental presence of the body and blood of Christ

not only to bodily, but also to real presence; and by just analogy,

sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ is not only to be

opposed to a receiving of his body and blood into the hands and mouths of

our bodies, but likewise to the real receiving of the same spiritually

into our souls. It remaineth, therefore, that kneeling in due regard of

the sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be

expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the sacramental signs of Christ’s

body and blood; and so Perth’s canon, and the Bishop’s commentary upon it,

fall in with the rest of those Formalists cited before, avouching and

defending kneeling for reverence to the sacrament.

_Sect._ 14. Those who speak out more plainly than Bishop Lindsey, do here

object to us, that reverence is due to the sacrament, and that we

ourselves do reverence it when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it.

But Didoclavius(714) doth well distinguish betwixt veneration and

adoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors

and equals, for the regard which we bear to them, yet do we not worship

them as we worship the king, on our knees.(715) As, then, in civility,

there is a respect and reverence different from adoration, so it is in

religion also. Yea, Bellarmine(716) himself distinguisheth the reverence

which is due to holy things from adoration. Paybody(717) and Dr

Burges(718) will by no means admit this distinction betwixt veneration and

adoration. But since neither of them hath alleged any reason against it, I

hope they will be weighed down by the authority of the Archbishop of

Spalato,(719) and the Bishop of Edinburgh,(720) both of whom agree to this

distinction. So, then, we give no adoration at all to the sacrament,

because neither by any outward or inward action do we perform any worship

for the honour of the same. Burges himself hath noted to us,(721) that the

first Nicene council exhorteth that men should not be _humiliter intenti_

to the things before them. We neither submit our minds nor humble our

bodies to the sacrament, yet do we render to it veneration,(722) forasmuch

as we esteem highly of it, as a most holy thing, and meddle reverently

with it, without all contempt or unworthy usage. _Res profecto

inanimatae_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(723) _sint sacrae quantum

placet, alium honorem à nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo_, as

that they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said that we

ought not to contemn the word, yet hath it not that respect given to it

which the sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this

veneration given to the sacrament must be somewhat more than

_profanatio_,—I answer, as honour both in the positive and negative sense,

has various degrees, and according to the more or less immediate

manifestation of divine ordinances to us, so ought the degrees of our

veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood as

if one part of God’s sacred worship were to be less contemned than another

(for none of God’s most holy ordinances may be in any sort contemned), but

that for the greater regard of those things which are more immediately

divine, we are not in the usage of them, to take to ourselves so much

scope and liberty as otherwise we may lawfully allow to ourselves in

meddling with such things as are not merely but mixedly divine, and which

are not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention

of means; and thus a higher degree of veneration is due to the sacrament

than to the word preached, not by taking aught from the word, but by

adding more respect to the sacrament than the word hath. The reason hereof

is given to be this,(724) because when we come to the sacrament, _nihil

hic humanum, sed divina omnia_; for Christ’s own words are, or at least

should be spoken to us when we receive the sacrament, and the elements

also are, by Christ’s own institution, holy symbols of his blessed body

and blood; whereas the word preached to us is but fixedly and mediately

divine; and because of this intervention of the ministry of men, and

mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scriptures of God, we are

bidden try the spirits, and are required, after the example of the

Bereans, to search the Scriptures daily, whether these things which we

hear preached be so or not. Now we are not in the like sort to try the

elements, and the words of the institution, whether they be of God or not,

because this is sure to all who know out of Scripture the first principles

of the oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the

sacrament given, according to Christ’s institution, is more merely and

immediately divine than is the word preached; but others (I hear) object,

that if a man should uncover his head at the sight of a graven image, we

would account this to be an adoring of the image; and why then shall not

we call our uncovering at the sacrament adoration also? _Ans._ Though

veneration and adoration be distinguished in holy things to show that

adoration given to them is idolatry, but veneration given to them is not

idolatry, yet in profane things, such as images are, veneration given to

them is idolatry, as well as adoration; and we are idolaters for doing so

much as to respect and reverence them as things sacred or holy; for, as I

touched before, and as Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances,(725)

idolatry is committed when more estimation is had of anything, more

dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it than God

alloweth, or than can stand with God’s revealed will; for a thing thus

regarded, though it be not exalted _ut Deus simpliciter_, yet it is set up

_tanquam Deus ex parte_.

_Sect._ 15. Now Fifthly, If the kneeling in question be not idolatrously

referred to the sacrament, I demand whereunto is it specially intended? We

have heard the confession of some of our opposites (and those not of the

smallest note) avouching kneeling for reverence of the sacrament. Neither

can the mystery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof we

are ordained to kneel), be any other than the sacrament. Yet because

Bishop Lindsey, and some of his kind who desire to hide the foul shape of

their idolatry with the trimmest fairding they can, will not take with the

kneeling in reverence of the sacrament, let them show us which is the

object which they do specially adore, when they kneel in receiving of the

same; for this their kneeling at this time ariseth from another respect

than that which they consider in other parts of God’s worship, let two of

our prelates tell it out: Archbishop of St. Andrews would teach out of

Mouline that we ought to adore the flesh of Jesus Christ in the

eucharist;(726) the Bishop of Edinburgh also will have us to worship the

flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(727) because the humanity of

Christ is there present, being ever and everywhere joined with the

divinity. But a twofold idolatry may be here deprehended. 1. In that they

worship the flesh and blood of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in

the sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the

man Christ with divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his

flesh and blood. 1. Because though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood

is not God, and by consequence cannot be honoured with divine worship. 2.

If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help

and save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of God for worshipping

things which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot

save us nor help us, because _omnis actio est suppositi_, whereas the

human nature of Christ is not _suppositum_. 3. None of those who defend

the adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine worship, do well and

warrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found

no other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be

adored,(728) except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who

adores the word incarnate, even as the king’s clothes are adored by him

who adores the king. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored

only _per accidens. Ego vero_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(729) _non

puta a quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari_. And, I pray,

why doth he that worships the king worship his clothes more than any other

thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or

a little dog upon his knee? There is no more but the king’s own person set

by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more

worshipped by him. Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of

Christ may be said to be worshipped,(730) namely, that as divine worship

agrees only to the Godhead, and not _personis divinis praecise sumptis_,

_i.e._, _sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum quae est __ relatio_:

but only as these relations _identificantur_ with the essence of the

Godhead; so the manhood of Christ is to be adored _non per se proecise,

sed prout suppositatur à Deo_. I answer, if by _suppositatur_ they mean

(as they must mean) that the manhood is assumed into the unity of the

person of the Son of God (for otherwise if they mean that the manhood is

made a person, they are Nestorians), that which they say cannot warrant

the worshipping of the manhood with divine worship, because the manhood,

even after this assumption and hypostatical union, and being considered by

us as now assumed into this personal union, is still for all that a

creature, and a distinct nature from the Godhead (except we will be

Eutychians), so that it cannot yet be said to be worshipped with divine

worship. Dr Field layeth out a third way;(731) for whilst he admitteth the

phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively that the man Christ

is omnipresent, but the humanity also, he forgeth a strange distinction.

“When we speak (saith he) of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we

understand only that human created essence of a man that was in him,

sometimes all that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence

as essence.” By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of

the other divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the human

nature. But this distinction is no better than if a man should say, by

blackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who

ever confounded _abstractum_ and _concretum_, before that in Field’s field

they were made to stand for one? It is the tenet of the school, that

though in God _concretum_ and _abstractum_ differ not, because _Deus_ and

_Deitas_ are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ is

one) they are really differenced. For _concretum_ signifieth _aliquid

completum subsistens_, and _abstractum_ (such as humanity) signifieth(732)

something, _non ut subsistens, sed in quo aliquid est_, as whiteness doth

not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How

comes it then that Field makes humanity, in the abstract, to have a

subsistence? Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus(733) for saying that

_albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus_: his reason is, because

_albedo dicitur __ esse, non cum pariete sed in pariete._ An abstract is

no more an abstract if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sense remaining, which is Augustine’s, and theirs

who speak with him. His sentence which our opposites cite for them is,

that it is sin not to adore the flesh of Christ, howbeit very erroneously

he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the psalm, “Worship

at his footstool,” taking this footstool to be the flesh of Christ. Yet

that his meaning was better than his expression, and that he meant not

that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead,

whose footstool the flesh is, it is plain from those words which Burges

himself citeth out of him:(734) “To whatsoever earth, _i.e._, flesh of

Christ, thou bowest and prostrate thyself, look not on it as earth,

_i.e._, as flesh; but look at that Holy One whose footstool is that thou

dost adore, _i.e._, look to the Godhead of Christ, whose flesh thou dost

adore in the mysteries.” Wherefore if we would give any sound sense to

their words who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note

with A. Polanus,(735) that _cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari, non est

propria sed figurata enunciatio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum

se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatis, seu Deus carne

vestitus_. But two things I will here advertise my reader of.

1. That though this form of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ

is to be adored, being thus expounded, receiveth a sound sense, yet the

expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase when such a

meaning is drawn out of it. For how can we, by the flesh of Christ,

understand his Godhead? The communion of properties admitteth us to put

the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And Hooker teacheth

rightly,(736) “that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and

by consequence, adorability, which is a property of the divine nature) are

imputed to the person only in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the

one nature really conveyed or translated into the other.”

2. Yet our kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the

sacrament, have no such orthodox (though forced) meaning whereby to

expound themselves. For Bishop Lindsey will have us,(737) in receiving the

sacrament, to bow our knees and adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of

the personal union that it hath with the Godhead; therefore he means that

we should, and may adore with divine worship, that which is personally

united with the Godhead. And what is that? Not the Godhead sure, but the

created nature of the manhood (which not being God but a creature only,

cannot without idolatry be worshipped with divine worship). I conclude,

therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in

the sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that

created nature which is united with the Godhead.

_Sect._ 16. But, Secondly, As we have seen what is to be thought of

worshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider what may be

thought of worshipping his flesh in the sacrament; for this was the other

head which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the

sacrament, must either consider it as present in the sacrament, and in

that respect to be adored, because of the personal union of it with the

word, or else because of the sacramental union of it with the outward

sign, which is a respect supervenient to that of the ubiquity of it in the

person of the word. First, then, touching the former of those respects,

the personal union of the flesh with the word can neither infer the

presence of the flesh in the sacrament to those who worthily receive, nor

yet can it make anything for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former;

for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it

is ever and alike present with the communicants, whether they receive

worthily or not, and with the bread and wine, whether they be consecrated

to be the signs of his body and blood or not. Therefore divines rightly

hold _praesentiam corporis Christi in caena, non ab ubiquitate, sed à

verbis Christi pendere_.(738) Not the latter neither; for (as I have

showed already) notwithstanding of the personal union, yet the flesh of

Christ remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so cannot at all be

worshipped with divine worship. And if his flesh, could be at all so

worshipped,(739) yet were there no reason for worshipping it in the

sacrament (in respect of its personal union with the word) more than in

all other actions, and at all other times, for ever and always is the

flesh of Christ personally united with the word, and in that respect

present to us. There remaineth therefore nothing but that other respect of

the sacramental union of the flesh of Christ with the sacramental sign,

which they can have for worshipping his flesh in the sacrament. Whereas

Bishop Lindsey saith,(740) “that it is no error to believe the spiritual,

powerful, and personal presence of Christ’s body at the sacrament, and in

that respect to worship his flesh and blood there,”—he means, sure, some

special respect, for which it may be said that Christ’s body is present at

the sacrament (so as it is not present out of the sacrament), and in that

respect to be there adored. Now Christ’s body is spiritually and

powerfully present to us in the word (as I showed before), yea, as often

as looking by faith upon his body broken and blood shed for us, we receive

the sense and assurance of the remission of our sins through his merits,

and as for this personal presence of Christ’s body which he speaketh of, I

have showed also that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament

cannot be inferred upon it, wherefore he can tell us nothing which may be

thought to infer the presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, and the

adoration of it in that respect, save only the sacramental union of it

with the outward sign. Now adoration in this respect, and for this reason,

must suppose the bodily presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament.

Whereupon the Archbishop of Spalato saith, “that the Papists adore the

body of Christ in the sacrament, only because of the supposition of the

bodily presence of it, and if they knew that the true body of Christ is

not under the species of the bread and wine, they would exhibit no

adoration.” And elsewhere he showeth,(741) that the mystery of the

eucharist cannot make the manhood of Christ to be adored, _quia in pane

corporalis Christi praesentia non est_ implying, that if the flesh of

Christ be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist, then must it

be bodily present in the sign, which is false, and hereupon he gathereth

truly, that it cannot be adored in respect of the mystery of the

eucharist.

Further, It is to be remembered (which I have also before noted out of Dr

Usher(742)) that the sacramental presence of the body of Christ, or that

presence of it which is inferred upon that sacramental union which is

betwixt it and the outward sign, is not the real or spiritual presence of

it (for in this manner it is present to us out of the sacrament, even as

oft as by faith we apprehend it and the virtue thereof); but it is

figuratively only so called, the sense being this, that the body of Christ

is present and given to us in the sacrament, meaning by his body, the sign

of his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christ’s body in

the eucharist, and that in respect of the sacramental presence of it in

the same, cannot choose but hold that Christ’s body is bodily and really

under the species of the bread, and so fall into the idolatry of

bread-worship; or else our divines(743) have not rightly convinced the

Papists, as idolatrous worshippers of the bread in the eucharist,

forasmuch as they attribute to it that which it is not, nor hath not, to

wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substantially the true

and living body of Christ, joined and united to his Godhead. What can

Bishop Lindsey now answer for himself, except he say with one of his

brethren,(744) that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament,

because _corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporalis, comitatur

sacramentum eucharistiae_. And Christ is there present _corporaliter, modo

spirituali_? But this man contradicts himself miserably; for we had him a

little before acknowledging that _in pane corporalis Christi praesentia

non est_. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? He would say that

Christ is not bodily present in the sacrament after a bodily manner, but

he is bodily present after a spiritual manner. Why should I blot paper

with such a vanity, which implieth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily,

spiritually and not spiritually.

_Sect._ 17. The sixth and last argument whereby I prove the kneeling in

question to be idolatry, is taken from the nature and kind of the worship

wherein it is used. For the receiving of the sacrament being a mediate

worship of God, wherein the elements come between God and us, in such sort

that they belong to the substance of the worship (for without the

elements, the sacrament is not a sacrament), and withal are susceptive of

co-adoration, forasmuch as in the act of receiving, both our minds and our

external senses are, and should be, fastened upon them, hereby we evince

the idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship,

wherein some creature is purposely set between God and us to have state in

the same, it is idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whilst both our

minds and senses are fastened upon it. Our opposites have talked many

things together to infringe this argument. First, They allege the bowing

of God’s people before the ark,(745) the temple, the holy mountain, the

altar, the bush, the cloud, the fire which came from heaven. _Ans._ 1.

Where they have read that the people bowed before the altar of God, I know

not. Bishop Lindsey indeed would prove(746) from 2 Chron vi. 12, 13, and

Mich. vi. 6, that the people bowed before the altar and the offering. But

the first of those places speaks nothing of kneeling before the altar, but

only of kneeling before the congregation, that is, in the sight of the

congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the altar, yet the

altar had been but occasionally and accidentally before him in his

adoration, for to what end and use could he have purposely set the altar

before him, whilst he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah cannot

prove that God’s people did kneel before the offerings at all (for it

speaks only of bowing before God), far less, that they kneeled before them

in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and senses fixed

upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the sacrament, and

that at that instant when our minds and senses are fastened upon the

signs, that we may discern the things signified by them, for the

exercising of our hearts in a thankful meditation upon the Lord’s death.

2. As for the other examples here alleged, God was immediately present, in

and with the ark, the temple, the holy mountain, the bush, the cloud, and

the fire which came from heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his

people by his own immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence,

so that worshipping before these things had the same reason which makes

the twenty-four elders in heaven worship before the throne, Rev. iv. 10;

for in these things God did immediately manifest his presence as well as

in heaven. Though there be a difference in the degrees of the immediate

manifestation of his presence in earth and in heaven, yet _magis et minus

non variant speciem_. Now God is present in the sacrament, not

extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not

immediately, but mediately. They must therefore allege some commendable

examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary

worship, else they say nothing to the point.

_Sect._ 18. Yet to no better purpose they tell us,(747) that when God

spoke, Abraham fell on his face, and when the fire came down at Elijah’s

prayer, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And

how shall kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship be warranted by

kneeling in the hearing of God’s own immediate voice, or in seeing the

miraculous signs of his extraordinary presence? Howbeit it cannot be

proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of

seeing the fire fall (when their eyes and their minds were fastened upon

it), but that after they had seen the miracle wrought, they so considered

of it as to fall down and worship God.

But further, it is objected,(748) “that a penitentiary kneels to God

purposely before the congregation, and with a respect to the congregation,

&c. When we come to our common tables before we eat, either sitting with

our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bless,

with a respect to the meat, which is purposely set on table, &c. The

pastor, when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set

before him purposely upon the table, and with respect to them he gives

thanks,” &c.

_Ans._ Though a penitentiary kneel to God purposely in the presence and

sight of the congregation, that he may make known to them his repentance

for the sin whereby he hath scandalised them, yet is the confessing of his

sin to God, kneeling there upon his knees, an immediate worship, neither

doth the congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the

substance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God as well, and maketh

confession of his sin, when the congregation is not before him. But I

suppose our kneelers themselves will confess, that the elements come so

betwixt God and them when they kneel, that they belong to the essence of

the worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not, worship the

flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, if the elements were not

before them.

To be short, the case of a penitentiary standeth thus, that not in his

kneeling _simpliciter_, but in his kneeling publicly and in sight of the

congregation, he setteth them before him purposely, and with a respect to

them, whereas our kneelers do kneel in such sort that their kneeling

_simpliciter_, and without an adjection or adjunct, hath a respect to the

elements purposely set before them, neither would they at all kneel for

that end and purpose for which they do kneel, namely, for worshipping the

flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(749) except the elements were

before the eyes both of their minds and bodies, as the penitentiary doth

kneel for making confession of his sin to God, when the congregation is

not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the sacrament he worshippeth not

the flesh and blood of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same

difference to be put betwixt his kneeling before the elements, and the

kneeling of a penitentiary before the congregation, for the very kneeling

itself (simply considered) before the elements, respecteth them as then

purposely set in our sight that we may kneel before them, whereas, in the

case of the penitentiary, it is not his kneeling to confess his sin to God

which hath a respect to the congregation as set in his sight for that

purpose, but some circumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, _when_? At

that time when the congregation is assembled. And _where_? Publicly in

sight of the congregation! In regard of these circumstances, he hath the

congregation purposely in his sight, and so respecteth them, but in regard

of the kneeling itself simply, the presence of the congregation is but

accidental to him who kneeleth and confesseth his sin before God. As

touching giving thanks before the meat set on our common tables, though a

man should do it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in

controversy, except a man so kneel before his meat, that he have a

religious respect to it as a thing separated from a common use and made

holy, and likewise have both his mind, and his external senses of seeing,

touching, and tasting, fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if

a man should thus kneel before his meat, he were an idolater.

Lastly, Giving thanks before the elements of bread and wine, in the

beginning of the holy action, is as far from the purpose; for this giving

of thanks is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds and

senses, not upon the bread and wine as upon things which have a state in

that worship of the Lord’s supper, and belong to the substance of the same

(for the very consecration of them to this use is but then _in fieri_),

but we worship God immediately by prayer and giving of thanks, which is

all otherwise in the act of receiving.

_Sect._ 19. Moreover it is objected(750) out of Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii.

3; Mich. vi. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 28-30, that all the people fell on their

faces before the legal sacrifices, when the fire consumed the

burnt-offering.

Whereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from God and

consumed the burnt-offerings, was one of the miraculous signs of God’s

extraordinary and immediate presence (as I have said before), and

therefore kneeling before the same hath nothing to do with the present

purpose.

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we find in the

first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also appear in

a more miraculous and extraordinary manner, Lev. ix. 23, “The glory of the

Lord appeared to all the people;” 2 Chron. vii. 1, 12, “The glory of the

Lord filled the house.” They are therefore running at random who take hold

of those places to draw out of them the lawfulness of kneeling in a

mediate and ordinary worship.

The place of Micah I have answered before; and here I add, that though it

could be proved from that place (as it cannot), that the people have bowed

before the offerings, and that in the very act of offering, yet how shall

it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling they had the offerings

purposely before them, and their minds and senses fixed upon them in the

very instant of their worshipping.

This I make clear by the last place, 2 Chron. xxix., out of which no more

can be drawn but that the people worshipped whilst the priests were yet

offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally

before the people in their worshipping, and only because it was offered at

the same time when the song of the Lord was sung, ver. 27. Such was the

forwardness of zeal in restoring religion and purging the temple, that it

admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the work till it was perfected;

therefore the thing was done suddenly, ver. 36. Since, then, the song and

the sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the

people worshipped at that time, not because of the sacrifice, which was a

mediate worship, but because of the song of the Lord, which was an

immediate worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediate worship.

But this cannot content our opposites; they will needs have it lawful to

kneel, in the hearing of the word, purposely, and with a respect to the

word preached (though this be a mediate worship only). Their warrants(751)

are taken out, Exod. iv. 30, 31; Exod. xii. 27; 2 Chron. xx. 18; Matt.

xvii. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred but that

these hearers bowed their heads and worshipped, after that they heard the

word of the Lord; neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping

in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place, we read that the disciples fell on their faces when

they heard God’s own immediate voice out of the cloud. What maketh this

for falling down to worship at the hearing of the word preached by men?

How long shall our opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate

worship?

Lastly, It is alleged(752) that God, in his word, allows not only kneeling

at prayer, out also at circumcision, passover, and baptism. The reason of

this assertion is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary,

God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plain liberty. _Ans._

Whether we be left at plain liberty in all things which being in the

general necessary, are not particularly determined in God’s word, it shall

be treated of elsewhere in this dispute. In the meantime, whatsoever

liberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an

unlawful and idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of

receiving a sacrament, when not only we have the outward sign purposely

before us, and our minds and senses fastened upon it, for discerning the

signification thereof, and the analogy betwixt it and the thing signified,

but also to look upon it as an image of Christ, or as a vicarious sign

standing there in Christ’s stead. The indifferency of such a gesture in

such a mediate worship should have been proved before such a rule (as this

here given us for a reason) had been applied to it.

_Sect._ 20. But the kneelers would yet make more ado to us, and be still

stirring if they can do no more. Wherefore one of our doctors

objecteth,(753) that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and

worship God, yet we do not worship the heaven; that a man going to bed,

prayeth before his bed; that David offered the sacrifices of thanksgiving,

in the presence of all the people, Psal. cxvi; that Paul, having taken

bread, gave thanks before all them who were in the ship, Acts xxvii. 36;

that the Israelites worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. iv. 31.

Hereupon another doctor, harping upon the same string, tells us,(754) that

when we kneel in the act of receiving the sacrament, “we kneel no more to

bread than to the pulpit when we join our prayers with the minister’s.”

Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachful to doctors! All these things were

and are accidentally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before

them, nor respected as having a religious state in the worship. What? Do

we worship before the bread in the sacrament, even as before a pulpit, a

bed, &c.? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speak of.

Another objection is,(755) that a man who is admitted to the office of a

pastor, and receiveth imposition of hands, kneeleth still on his knees

till the ordination be ended, the rest about him being standing or

sitting.

_Ans._ Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joined with

prayer and invocation, hath nothing ado with kneeling in a mediate

worship; for in this case a man kneels because of the immediate worship of

invocation; but when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel

religiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which

are before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may

adore (which is the kind of kneeling now in question), or if any did so,

there were more need to give him instruction than ordination.

It is further told us, that he who is baptized,(756) or he who offers him

that is to be baptized, humbleth himself, and prayeth that the baptism may

be saving unto life eternal, yet worshippeth not the bason nor the water.

But how long shall simple ones love simplicity, or rather, scorners hate

knowledge? Why is kneeling in the immediate worship of prayer, wherein our

minds do purposely respect no earthly thing (but the soul, Psal. xxv. 1,

the heart, the hands, Lam. iii. 41, the eyes, Psal. cxxiii. 1, the voice,

Psal. v. 3, all directed immediately to heaven) paralleled with kneeling

in the mediate worship of receiving the sacrament, wherein we respect

purposely the outward sign, which is then in our sight, that both our

minds and our external senses may be fastened upon it? Our minds, by

meditation, and attentive consideration of that which is signified, and of

the representation thereof by the sign. Our senses, by seeing, handling,

breaking, tasting, eating, drinking.

_Sect._ 21. Thus we see that in all these examples alleged by our

opposites, there is nothing to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in such a

mediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the

worship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally, but purposely

before us, upon which also our minds and senses in the action of worship

are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these

examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament

(which I have showed before), namely, that in the instant of receiving the

sacrament, the elements are actually images and vicarious signs standing

in Christ’s stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves

with the roving rabble of these impertinent allegations which they have

produced to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate worship, they

have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needless, if

they had not feared that the former ground should fail them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the

act of receiving, they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God

immediately. And if we would know what a man doth then pray for, it is

told us, that he is praying and earnestly crying to God,(757) _ut eum

faciat dignum convivam_. To us it seems very strange how a man, when he is

actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating can be made

in any other sort a banqueter than he is; for _quicquid est, dum est, non

potest non esse_. Wherefore if a man in the instant of his receiving be an

unworthy banqueter, he cannot at that instant be made any other than he

is.

_Sect._ 22. The truth is, we cannot lawfully be either praying or praising

in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and minds should then be

exercised in meditating upon Christ’s death, and the inestimable benefits

which comes to us thereby. 1 Cor. xi. 23, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

This remembrance is described, ver. 26, “Ye do show the Lord’s death.” Now

one of the special ways whereby we remember Christ, and so do show forth

his death, is by private meditation upon his death, as Pareus

resolveth.(758)

This meditation is a speech of the soul to itself; and though it may stand

with short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our

actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary and continued prayer

purposely conceived, as Bishop Lindsey would maintain.(759) For how can we

orderly both speak to God by prayer, and to ourselves by meditation, at

one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly

conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the soul’s

exercise in the receiving of the sacrament. And by the contrary, if

meditation be entertained as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have

place at that time. For it is well said,(760) that _Dum auribus, oculis,

manibus, dentibus exterius, auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei

interius occupamur, orationem continuam et durabilem, absque mentis

divagatione __ ab opere praecepto et imperato, instruere non possumus._

_Sect._ 23. But let us hear how the Bishop proveth that we should be

praying and praising in the act of receiving the sacrament. “Whatsoever

spiritual benefit (saith he)(761) we should receive with a spiritual

hunger and thirst, and with a spiritual appetite and desire after the

grace and virtue that is therein to salvation, the same we should receive

with prayer, which is nothing else but such an appetite and desire; but

the body and blood of Christ is such a benefit,” &c.

_Ans._ 1. Why did not he prove his proposition? Thought he his bare

assertion should suffice? God’s word is a spiritual benefit, which we

should receive with spiritual hunger and thirst; yet the Bishop will not

say that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving

it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore

is false; for though prayer should go before the receiving of such a

spiritual benefit as the word or the sacrament, yet we should not pray in

the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend, by serious

consideration, to what we hear in the word, or what is signified and given

to us in the sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the word and

receiving the sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual appetite or

desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all.

He said before,(762) that every prayer is a meditation, and here he saith,

that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire. These are uncouth

descriptions of prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a

communing with our own souls, prayer a communing with God. Nor yet can it

be said that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire; for prayer is

the sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.

_Sect._ 24. He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the

sacrament with thanksgiving. “Whatsoever benefit (saith he) we should

receive by extolling, and preaching, and magnifying, and praising the

inestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive

with thanksgiving. But in the sacrament we should receive the blood of

Christ with extolling and preaching,” &c. The assumption he confirms by

the words of our Saviour, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and by the words

of St. Paul, “So oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye

shall declare, that is, extol, magnify, and praise the Lord’s death, till

he come again.”

_Ans._ His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

1. We remember Christ in the act of receiving by meditation, and not by

praise.

2. We show forth the Lord’s death in the act of receiving, by using the

signs and symbols of his body broken, and his blood shed for us, and by

meditating upon his death thereby represented.

3. We deny not that by praise we show forth the Lord’s death also, but

this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be marked with Pareus,(763)

that the showing forth of the Lord’s death, must not be restricted to the

act of receiving the sacrament, because we do also show forth his death by

the preaching of the gospel, and by private and public celebration of it,

yea, by a perpetual study of sanctification and thankfulness. So that the

showing forth of the Lord’s death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying,

and praising the same, according to the twenty-third section of the

Confession of Faith, to which his argument hath reference, may not be

expounded of the very act of receiving the sacrament. Neither do the words

of the institution refuse, but easily admit, another showing forth of the

Lord’s death than that which is in the very act of receiving, for the word

is not _quando_, but _quoties_. It is only said, “As often as ye eat this

bread, and drink this cup, ye do show,” &c. Which words cannot be taken

only of the instant of eating and drinking.

_Sect._ 25. Now having so strongly proved the unlawfulness and idolatry of

kneeling in the act of receiving the holy communion, let me add,

_corolarii loco_, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which

Bishop Lindsey, in the tail of his dispute about the head of kneeling,

offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some modern doctors.

For, 1, What can human testimony avail against such a clear truth? 2. We

have more testimonies of divines against kneeling than he hath for it. And

here I perceive Dr Mortoune, fearing we should come to good speed this

way,(764) would hold in our travel: “We are not ignorant (saith he) that

many Protestant authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of

kneeling at the receiving of the holy communion.”

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same

divines whom the Bishop allegeth for it; for Didoclavius(765) hath clear

testimonies against it out of Calvin, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the

Bishop taketh to be for it.

_Sect._ 26. Neither yet need we here to be moved with Dr Burges’s(766)

adventurous untaking to prove that, in the most ancient times, before

corruption of the sacrament began, the sacrament was received with an

adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the mark. One place in

Tertullian, _de Oratione_, he hammers upon: _Similiter de stationum diebus

non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio

solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium

eucharistiae resoluit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior, erit statio

tua, si et ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini et reservato,

utrumque salvum est, et participatio sacrificii, et executio officii._

To these words the Doctor giveth this sense: That many withdrew themselves

when they came to the celebration of the supper, because the body of our

Lord, that is, the sacramental bread, being taken of the minister’s hand,

the station, _i.e._, standing, must be dissolved and left; and because

standing on those days might not be left (as they thought), therefore they

rather left the sacrament on those days than they would break the rule of

standing on those days; therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the

table standing, yet they used not to partake them, _i.e._, eat the bread

or drink the wine, in any other gesture than what was on the station days

then forbidden, kneeling; and that Tertullian wishes them to come, though

they might not then kneel, and to take the bread in public, standing at

the table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at

their own houses as they desired, kneeling.

_Ans._ The Doctor by this puts a weapon in our hands against himself; for

if, when they had taken the bread of the minister’s hand, their standing

was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by commending to them

another gesture in the eating of the bread, not standing, then whether

urgeth he that other gesture to be used in the public eating of the bread

or the private? Not in the private; for his advice of reserving and eating

it in private, cometh after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in

case they would not condescend to this course in public, _quod statio

solvenda sit accepto corpore domini_. Needs, then, it must be understood

of the public. Now, if in the public eating of the bread standing was to

be left, which gesture was to come in place of it? Not kneeling.

For, 1. Tertullian saith(767) elsewhere: _Diebus dominicis jejunare nefas

ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare; cadem immunitate a die Paschae ad

Pentcostem usque gaudemus._

2. The doctor himself saith, that upon these station days kneeling was

restrained, not only in prayer, but in all divine service.

Wherefore, if, according to the Doctor’s gloss, the gesture of standing

was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it to be

used in the partaking of the sacrament, can hardly be imagined to have

been any other nor sitting.

Well, the doctor hath unhappily raised this spirit to disquiet himself:

let him bethink how to lay him again. If he cannot, I will assay to make

some help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station days were not the

Lord’s days, together with those fifty betwixt Easter and Pentecost (on

which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden), as the Doctor thinketh,

but they were certain set days of fasting; for they appointed the fourth

and sixth day of the week (that is, Wednesday and Friday) for their

stations, as Tertullian saith;(768) whose words we may understand by

another place of Epiphanus,(769) who writeth that the fast of the fourth

and the sixth day was kept throughout all churches, and held to be an

apostolical constitution. Howbeit herein they did err; for to appoint a

certain time of fasting to be kept by the whole church agreeth not with

Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his apostles, as

Osiander noteth.(770) Always we see what was meant by station days, to

wit, their set days of fifty, fasting, which were called station days, by

a speech borrowed from a military custom, as Tertullian teacheth. For as

soldiers kept those times and places which were appointed for their

watches, and fasted all the while they continued in them, so did

Christians upon their station days resort and meet in the place appointed,

and there remained fasting till their station dissolved. The Doctor taketh

upon him to confute those who understand by the station days set days of

fasting; but all which he allegeth to the contrary is, that he findeth

somewhere in Tertullian _statio_ and _jejunia_ put for different things.

Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that _statio_ and _stata

jejunia_ are put for different things; for no man taketh the stations to

have been occasional, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning, then, of

the words alleged by the Doctor (to give him his own reading of them,

howbeit some read otherwise), thus we take it. There were many who came

not to the sacrament upon the station days, because (in their opinion) the

receiving thereof should break the station, _i.e._, the service of the

day, and that because it should break their fast, a principal duty of the

same. Tertullian showeth they were in error, because their partaking of

the sacrament should not break their station, but make it the more solemn

and remarkable. But if they could not be drawn from that false persuasion

of theirs, that the sacrament should break their fast, yet he wisheth them

at least to come and stand at the table, and receive the sacrament into

their hands, and take it away to eat after (for permitting whereof he had

no warrant), so should they both partake the sacrament and also (according

to their mind, and to their full contentment) keep their stations, which

were often prorogated till even,(771) but ever and at least till the ninth

hour.(772) Finally, from this place, which the Doctor perverteth for

kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture or posture in receiving the

sacrament used in that place where Tertullian lived, was standing;

because, speaking of the receiving of the sacrament, he saith, _Si et ad

aram Dei steteris_.

_Sect._ 27. As for the rest of the testimonies Dr Burges produceth out of

the fathers for kneeling,(773) I need not insist upon them, for either

they speak of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct

unto Christ when we receive the sacrament (and this none of us denieth),

or else they speak of adoring the sacrament, where, by the word

_adoration_, we may not understand any divine worship, inward or outward,

but a reverence of another nature called _veneration_. That this (which we

deny not neither), and no more, is meant by the fathers when they speak of

the adoration of the sacrament, Antonius de Dominis showeth more

copiously.(774) And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the

Doctor’s audacious promises, backed with a verbal discourse to go softly

by us. _Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?_

_Sect._ 28. Finally, If any be curious to know what gesture the ancient

church did use in the receiving of the eucharist, to such I say, first of

all, that Didoclavius maintaineth that which none of our opposites are

able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be produced which may

evince that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius III.,

neither is it less truly observed by the author of the _History of the

Waldenses_,(775) that bowing of the knees before the host was then only

enjoined when the opinion of transubstantiation got place.

Next I say, the ancient gesture, whereof we read most frequently, was

standing. Chrysostom, complaining of few communicants, saith,(776)

_Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare, nemo est

qui simul participet_. The century writers(777) make out of Dionysius

Alexandrinus’s epistle to Xistus, bishop of Rome, that the custom of the

church of Alexandria in receiving the sacrament, was, _ut mensae

assisterent_. It is also noted by Hospiman,(778) that in the days of

Tertullian the Christians _stantes sacramenta percipiebant_.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know that the primitive Christians did take

the holy communion mixedly, and together with their love-feasts, in

imitation of Christ,(779) who, whilst he did eat his other supper, did

also institute the eucharist; and since (as it is observed from 1 Cor. xi.

21, 33(780)) there was a twofold abuse in the church of Corinth “one in

their love-feasts, whilst that which should have served for the knitting

of the knot of love was used to cut the cords thereof, in that every one

(as he best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at table

with him (the other either not tarried for, or shut out when they came,

especially the poor). The other abuse (pulled in by the former) was, for

that those which were companions at one table in the common feast

communicated also in the sacred with the same separation, and severally

from the rest of the church (and the poor especially) which was in their

former banquets.”

Since also we read that the same custom of joining the Lord’s supper

together with common feasts continued long after; for Socrates

reporteth,(781) that the Egyptians adjoining unto Alexandria, together

with the inhabitants of Thebes, used to celebrate the communion upon the

Sunday,(782) after this manner, “when they have banqueted, filled

themselves with sundry delicate dishes, in the evening, after service,

they use to communicate.” How, then, can any man think that the gesture

then used in the Lord’s supper was any other, than the same which was used

in the love-feast or common supper? And what was that but the ordinary

fashion of sitting at table? Since the Laodicean canon,(783) which did

discharge the love-feasts about the year 368, importeth no less than that

the gesture used in them was sitting _Non oportet in Basilicis seu

ecclesiis. Agapen facere et intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere._ Now,

if not only divines of our side, but Papists also, put it out of doubt

that Christ gave the eucharist to his apostles sitting, because being set

down to the preceding supper, it is said, “_while as they did eat, he took

bread_,” &c. (of which things I am to speak afterward), what doth hinder

us to gather, in like manner, that forasmuch as those primitive Christians

did take the Lord’s supper whilst they did eat their own love-feasts,

therefore they sat at the one as well as the other? And so I close with

this collection. Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the

Lord’s supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, “from the

beginning it was not so.”