the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
more restrain'd to Vocal Prayer than any other word that signifies Prayer in Scripture 'T is true we read Psal 28.2 Hear the voice of my supplication when I cry unto thee but the voice of my supplication do's not necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For 't is a Hebraiâ—â— and may signify no more than my Supplication or Prayer For so Gen. 4.10 't is said The voice of thy Brother's blood cries c. Now the blood had no real voice to cry with but cry'd just as mental Prayer do's In other places the word signifies both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently Psal 86.6 6.9 or Prayer in general Jer. 31.9 But suppose the word were alwaies us'd for Vocal Prayer yet surely the Promise of pouring out the Spirit of supplications intends a much greater good than the gift of extempore utterance in Prayer of which bad Men may have a greater share than the most devout And what is that greater good but the gift of Heavenly affections in Prayer If it be urg'd that God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son crying Abba Father Gal. 4.6 and that we have receiv'd the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Rom. 8.15 and that these Texts prove us to be enabled to Pray Vocally by the Spirit and that therefore we ought not to Pray by Forms I answer 1. That if these words oblige us to cry Vocally to God by our own gifts then we are equally obliged in all our Vocal Prayers to cry to him in these words Abba Father because that is the cry which the Spirit enables us to make and the Text is every whit as express for one as for the other 2. I deny that crying here do's necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For how often do we find the word apply'd to things that have no Voice at all Thus the stones wou'd immediately cry out Luke 19.40 and the Labourers hire is said to cry to God James 5.4 And indeed crying to God has the same latitude with Prayer which includes both Vocal and Mental 3. Suppose that crying Abba Father by the Spirit signifies Vocal Prayer yet all that can be gather'd from it is only this that when we Pray Vocally we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to address our selves to God with assurance as to a merciful Father and this we may as well do in a Form as otherwise For if we never cry Abba Father by the spirit but when we word our own Prayers we can no more be said to do it when we join with a public Extempore Prayer than when we join with a public Form because we word our own Prayers in neither 'T is true the Scripture speaks of a gift of utterance which say they was given for Praying as well as Preaching but I answer that the gift of utterance was miraculous and particular to the Primitive Ages This gift saies Saint Chrysostom Hom. 24. ad Eph. c. 6. is that which Christ promis'd Mark 13.11 by which the Disciples spake without premeditation and what they spake was the inspir'd Word of God and this Gift no sober Dissenter will pretend to The Apostles began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance Act. 2.4 and the Dissenters may as well pretend to the gift of Tongues as that of Utterance they being both extraordinary But say they tho' all Men have not the Gift of Praying Extempore yet some have and therefore God requires such to Pray by their gift and not by a Form For he requires them not to neglect the gift 1 Tim. 4.14 but to stir up the gift 2 Tim. 1.6 and to Minister the gift 1 Pet. 4.10 and that having gifts c. Rom. 12.6 and if Men are obliged to exercise their gifts in general then they must exercise their gift of Praying Extempore in particular Now to these things I answer First That the gift bestow'd upon Timothy was the gift of Episcopal power which he is exhorted to exercise diligently For at the first plantation of the Gospel the Holy Ghost Pointed out the Men that were to be Bishops as the (f) Clem. 1 Epist ad Corinth Chrysost in Act. 13.2 Fathers testifie For this reason the gift is said to be given him by Prophesy 'T was given also with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and these two circumstances prove that the gift was not the gift of Prophesying but the gift of Episcopal Authority bestow'd upon him by imposition of hands at God's particular Appointment And now I pray how do's this Text prove that we must use a gift of Vocal Prayer in our own words As for 1 Pet. 4.10 Rom. 12.6 I Answer 1. That there can be nothing in them against Praying by a Form for then they wou'd make as much against using the Lord's Prayer as any other Form 2. That the design of those Texts is to stir Men up to diligence in the exercise of those several Offices viz. The Office of a Bishop a Priest a Deacon and a Rich Man For 't is plain that the word Gift do's oftentimes signifie an Office and tho' it may be said that the relief of the Poor is rather the exercise of an Ability than an Office yet I answer that 't is properly the exercise of an Office because the very having Ability do's as much put a Man into the Office of shewing mercy to the Poor as if God had appointed him to it by a solemn Ordination 3. Supposing that by these gifts were not meant Offices but only abilities yet we are obliged so to exercise them That all things may be done to Edification for so the Apostle declares that those extraordinary Gifts that were pour'd out in the Primitive Times were to be us'd 1 Cor. 14.2 6 19 40. as 't is particularly plain by the instance of the Gift of Tongues vers 23 26 28. Now if we are not to exercise our gifts but as they tend to Edification then we must not exercise the gift of Praying Extempore any farther than it tends to Edification And since Praying by a Form in Public Worship do's as I shall afterwards prove tend more to Edification than Praying Extempore therefore 't is plain that we ought to suspend the use of the gift of conceiv'd Prayer Thus I hope I have made it appear that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Scripture and that those Texts which are urg'd against the use of forms of Prayer do prove nothing against them and therefore I think I may safely affirm that the Scripture do's warrant Forms of Prayer I proceed now to shew that Antiquity do's the same This I shall do 1. by answering those Authorities which are objected by the Dissenters against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages 2. By proving that they were us'd in those Ages by a short Historical Account of the matter of Fact 1. Then 't is objected First that Justin Martyr saies Apol. 2. p. 98. That the Minister at the Communion Pray'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
not his Life too dear nor his Blood too much to part with for our sakes This therefore being the Nature of the Sacrament it follows 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture For if the Nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast necessarily requires a Table-gesture then the nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast do's as well require all other Formalities that are essential either to all civil Feasts whatsoever or to all Feasts as they obtain among us and consequently we must carve and drink one to another c. at the Lord's Supper as we alwaies do at other Feasts But this our Dissenters will by no means allow nor do they think themselves obliged to observe all the other Formalities of a Feast tho' they are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as Sitting is It 's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast that one of the Guests and the principal one too shou'd fill out the Wine and break the Bread and distribute it to the rest of the Society but this the Dissenters generally allow of and practise at the Holy Communion It 's not agreeable to the nature of a Feast to sit from the Table dispers'd up and down the Room In all public Feasts there are several Tables provided when one is not big enough to receive the Guests and yet the Dissenters generally receive in their Pews scatter'd up and down the Church and think one Table is sufficient tho' not capable of receiving the twentieth part of the Communicants in some large Parishes and numerous Assemblies And where there are so few that they may come up to and sit at the Table they generally are against it especially the Presbyterians and think they are not obliged to observe that formality tho' constantly practis'd at common and civil Entertainments It 's by no means agreeable to the nature of a Feast to be sorrowful To mourn and grieve at a Feast is as indecent and unsutable as to laugh at a Funeral But sure our Dissenters will not say that to come to the Sacrament with a penitent and broken spirit to come with a hearty sorrow for all our Sin which caus'd so much pain and torment to our dearest and greatest Friend our ever blessed Redeemer to reflect upon the Agonies of his Soul in the Garden the bitterness of his deadly Cup the Torture he endur'd on the Cross with a deep Sympathy and Trouble for the occasion they will not surely I say affirm that such a disposition of Heart and Mind is improper and unsutable to the Nature of this Feast which we solemnize in Commemoration of his Death for our sakes This Sacrament is also call'd the Lord's Supper and consequently the nature of it requires the Evening as the proper season for it and yet our Dissenters make no scruple of Communicating at Noon Again the nature of the Lord's Supper do's not necessarily require a Table-gesture because 't is not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts For we cannot argue from Natural and Civil things to Spiritual or conclude that because they agree in their names they are of the same nature And therefore tho' the Sacrament is a Feast yet because 't is a Spiritual Feast and not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts we must not think that such a gesture as is necessary to the one is also necessary to the other I must add that the nature of the Lord's Supper consider'd as a Feast do's not necessarily require a common Table-gesture in order to right and worthy receiving because the Dissenters grant that it may be worthily receiv'd Standing tho' Standing is no common Table-gesture If any shou'd yet urge that no gesture besides Sitting is agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast and that to use any other gesture wou'd profane the Ordinance I answer that God calls the Passover a Feast Exod. 12.14 and yet he commanded the Israelites to celebrate it with their Loins girt their Shoes on their Feet and their Staff in their Hands which were all signs of haste but no Table-gestures either among the Jews or the Egyptians Now to say that God injoin'd Gestures unsutable to that Ordinance is to call his Wisdom in question and to say that the Feast of the Passover did in it's nature admit of several Gestures is to yield all that I desire for then the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast will admit of several too and consequently do's not oblige us to observe only a Feast-gesture for the due celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Because 't is a very fit Gesture to express Reverence Humility and Gratitude by which Holy affections are requisite to the Sacrament 2. Since Christ ought to be Ador'd at the Lord's Supper for his wonderful kindness to us therefore whatsoever is fit to express our Veneration is not unsutable to the Sacrament and consequently bowing the Knees is proper because 't is an external sign of Reverence 3. Since lifting up our Hands and Eyes and imploying our Tongues in uttering God's Praises are agreeable to the Lord's Supper why shou'd Kneeling be thought unsutable which is only Glorifying God with another part of our Body 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in remembrance of Christ's Death and Sufferings and therefore I desire the Dissenters to consider his Gesture in the very extremity of his Passion and to observe that he then pray'd Kneeling Luke 22.41 And surely no sober Person will say that 't is improper to Kneel at the Sacrament where we Commemorate those Sufferings part of which he endur'd upon his bended Knees 5. If we consider the benefits of the Sacrament we cannot think Kneeling an unbecoming Gesture at it If a grateful hearty sence of God's infinite Mercy thro' the Merits and Sufferings of his Son and of the manifold Benefits which our Lord has purchas'd with his most precious Blood If a Mind deeply humbled under the sense of our own Guilt and Unworthiness to receive any Mercy at all from the Hands of our Creator and Soveraign Lord whom we have by numberless and heinous Crimes so highly provok'd and incens'd against us If such an inward temper and disposition of Soul becomes us at this Holy Feast which I think no Man will deny then surely the most humble and reverential Gesture of the Body will become us too Why shou'd not a submissive lowly deportment of body sute with this solemnity as well as an humble lowly Mind And this is that which our Church (e) See the Declaration at the end of the Communion Service in the B. of Com. Prayer declares to be the end of her Injunction in requiring all the Communicants to Kneel viz. for a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers The Commemoration of the Death and Passion of the
3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own The Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatic If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Goverment and different Governours and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship and endeavour to draw away Members from each other they cannot be thought to be one Church And indeed we may as well say that several sorts of Goverment in the same Nation with distinct Governours distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as we may say that such Congregations are but one Church III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixt and by Occasional Communion By fixt Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt Members of it By occasional Communion they mean praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be Members as occasion serves that is either to gratify their own curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the imputation of Schism Now fixt Communion is the only true notion of Communion for occasional Communion do's not deserve the name of Communion For I have prov'd that he who is not a Member cannot perform an act of Communion and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion as of an Occasional Membership Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fix't and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church 'T is true in one sence we may be Members of a particular Church that is we may live under the Goverment of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church but yet every act of Communion perform'd in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church So that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same nature Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is may be call'd fix't Communion and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present may be call'd occasional Communion and all this may be done without Schism because all these Churches are Members of each other but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the establish'd Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation because the case is vastly different For the establish'd Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other but separate Churches Now 't is impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches of which we are no Members they are not properly acts of Communion Having thus explain'd the Three foregoing particulars I proceed to the main business which was to shew that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England This I shall do by shewing First That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty Secondly That constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is lawful is a necessary duty from whence I shall make it appear Thirdly That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England I. Then it is plain that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ and he that is a Member has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member and 't is certain that Communion in Prayers c. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity and that 't is the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices But to put the matter out of all doubt I shall offer Five things to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty 1. Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member is bound to visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Society of Christians For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices therefore some duties and offices must be perform'd by the Society of Christians especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers as Pastors c. Eph. 4.11 which are of no use if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution that is by the hands of the Ministry authoriz'd for that purpose Acts 2.42 and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable yet none but public Prayers offer'd up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of Church-Communion Nay the Lord's Supper which is the principal part of God's worship is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion 4. The exercise of Church-Authority which consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the external acts of Communion supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Joh. 2.19 Heb. 10.25 then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties Accordingly to have Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries 1 Cor. 10.20 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion before we have a right to Communicate yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion And a right to Communicate without actual Communion which is an exercise of that right is worth nothing because all the blessings of the Gospel are convey'd to us by actual Communion This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church when it may be had for when it can't be had we are not obliged to it But then the greater difficulty is whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all because the Church is divided into Parties Now a man may as well be of no Religion because there are different Opinions in Religion as Communicate with no Church because the Church is divided into Parties For 't is possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual
To bring their own Rule to the case in hand how do they know but our Lord was mov'd to Sit at the Sacrament by Special Reasons drawn from that Time and Place or the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have us'd another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord comply'd with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was only temporary and not design'd for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like Practice If Christ acted upon special Reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the Reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it 4. 'T is absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a principle of duty distinct from the Precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself alwaies govern'd his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man he was obliged by the Natural Law as a Jew by the Mosaic Law as the Messias by the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to Teach and Practise the whole Will of God If therefore we look only to his Example without considering the various capacities and relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the Measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus if we shou'd subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did we shou'd thereby frustrate the great design of the Gospel and yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient warrant for our actions Thus it appears that Christ's bare Example do's not oblige us to do any thing that is not commanded I shall only add that they who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament do not follow it themselves For our Saviour probably us'd a Leaning Gesture and by what Authority do they change it to Sitting Certainly our changing the Gesture is as warrantable as theirs Nor is it enough to say that Sitting comes nearer our Saviour's Gesture than Kneeling for if they keep to their own Rule they must not vary at all The Presbyterians if one may argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For tho' they generally chuse to Sit yet they do not condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in it self and several are willing to receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is suppos'd to have set us whether he lay along or sate upright as that which is injoin'd and practis'd by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allow'd of and practis'd by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have chang'd dipping into sprinkling and 't is strange that those who scruple kneeling at the Lord's Supper can allow of this greater change in Baptism Why shou'd not the Peace and unity of the Church and Charity to the Public prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's Supper as much as mercy and tenderness to the Infant 's Body to sprinkle or pour water on the Face contrary to the first Institution Thirdly kneeling is not therefore repugnant to the nature of the Lord's Supper because 't is no Table-Gesture The Sacrament is a Supper and therefore say they the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same which we use and observe at our ordinary Tables according to the custom and fashion of our Native Country and by consequence we ought to Sit and not to Kneel because sitting is the ordinary Table-gesture according to the mode and fashion of England Here by the way we may observe that this Argument overthrows the two others drawn from the Command and Example of Christ For 1. Different Table-gestures are us'd in different Countries and therefore tho' Christ did Sit yet we are not oblig'd to Sit after his Example unless sitting be in our Country the common Table-gesture 2. If the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-gesture and that gesture in particular which is customary then God has not Commanded any particular gesture because different Countries have different Table-gestures However I shall fuâ—ly Answer this Argument drawn from the Nature of the Sacrament by shewing 1. What is the Nature of it 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture 3. That Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Then the Nature of the Sacrament is easily understood if we consider that the Scripture calls it the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper The Greek Fathers call it a Feast and a Banquet because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord has made for all worthy Receivers 'T is styl'd a Supper and a Feast either because 't was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time or because it represents a Supper and a Feast and so it is not of the same nature with a civil and ordinary Supper or Feast tho' it bear the same name Three things are essential to a Feast Plenty Good Company and Mirth but the Plenty of the Lord's Supper is a Plenty of Spiritual Dainties and the Company consists of the Three Persons of the Trinity and good Christians and the Mirth is wholly Spiritual So that the Lord's Supper differs in its nature from civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs Farther the Lord's Supper is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to commemorate the Death of Christ 'T was also instituted in honour of our Lord and to preserve an Eternal Memory of his wondrous Works and to Bless and Praise our Great Benefactour 'T is also a Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants and signifies that we are in a state of Peace and Friendship with him that we own him to be our God and swear Fidelity to him we take the Sacrament upon it as we ordinarily say that we will not henceforth live unto our selves but to him alone that died for us 'T is also a means to convey to us the Merits of Christ's Death and a Pledge to assure us thereof Lastly 't was instituted to be a Bond of Union between Christians to engage and dispose us to love one another as our Lord loved us who thought
also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God tho' there be no intention of giving Divine Adoration to that Creature is Idolatry Now if the Primitive Christians may be suppos'd to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach to it in order to Receive or immediately after they had Receiv'd the Bread and the Cup from the Hand of the Minister or if they bow'd their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner in the act of Receiving or if they receiv'd it standing upright and ate and drank at the Holy Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven then they incurr'd the Guilt of Idolatry as well as we who Kneel at the Lords supper in the Judgment of those Scotch Casuists and by Consequence Kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament according to the Custom of our Church is not contrary to the practice of the Christian Church in the first and purest Ages For all those Postures before mention'd were Postures of Worship and Adoration and us'd as such by the Primitive Christians especially standing which is allow'd by the (w) Gillesp Disp against E. Po. Câ—r p. 101. Disp of Kneel p. 93. Patrons of sitting to be anciently and generally us'd in time of Divine Worship and particularly in the act of Receiving To conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-Gesture let us suppose the Primitive Christians in some places did receive the Holy Sacrament sitting or lying along upon Beds according to the ancient Custom in those Eastern Countries at their common and ordinary Tables let us put the case that in other places they sate cross-legg'd on Carpets at the Sacrament as the Persians and Turks eat at this day or that they receiv'd standing in other places after the common mode of Feasting which we will suppose only at present Cou'd any Man now object with reason against the lawfulness of sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair according to the Custom of England as being contrary to the Practice of all the Ancients who never sate at all No certainly For tho' they differ from the Ancients as to the site of their Bodies and the particular manner of Receiving yet they all consent in this that they receive in a common Table-Gesture They all observe the same Gesture at the Sacrament that they constantly observ'd at their Civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode And so say I in the present Case What tho' the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament and others bow'd their Heads and Bodies in the act of Receiving and none of them ever us'd Kneeling Yet they and we do very well agree for all that because we all receive in an adoring or worshipping Posture It is one and the same thing variously exprest according to the modes of the different Countries Fifthly and lastly I am to Prove that Kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes This will appear if we consider 1. That it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters as is pretended 2. That 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry I. Then it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters I have already made it very probable that the Primitive Christians receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling and I hope our Dissenters will not charge them with Idolatry I know that they pretend the Kneeling-posture was brought in by Honorius the Third but that which he brought in was a reverent Bow to the Sacrament when the Priest elevates the Patten or Chalice or when the Host is carry'd to any Sick Person and not any Kneeling in the act of receiving For these are the very words of the Decree (x) Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. That the Priests shou'd frequently instruct their People to Bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was celebrated and in like manner when the Priest carry'd it abroad to the Sick Nay as Bishop Stilling fleet (y) Unreasonab of Separat p. 15. saies tho' Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly requir'd by the Roman Church yet in the act oâ— receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion oâ— Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day If any shou'd ask when the Gesture of Kneeling came in I confess I cannot certainly tell but this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of it Novel-customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally we cannot tell from whence the most ancient usages of any Country are deriv'd However I am so far from thinking as our Dissenters do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe that the Kneeling or Adoring posture us'd by the ancient Christians in the act of receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of superstitious and fanciful Men a conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improv'd and explain'd after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby chang'd into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believ'd no more than the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else cou'd they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they receiv'd the dreadful Mysteries as they call'd the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty Signs only and not chang'd into the very Body and Blood of Christ Which is in effect the very Argument us'd by (z) Alger de Sacramentis l. 2. c. 3. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And (a) Costor Enchirid. p. 353. Edit 1590. Costor another Popish Writer is so far from saying even after Transubstantiation took place that the Pope introduced it that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continu'd from the Apostles times But II. Suppose it were otherwise yet 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry as I shall shew in the next Chapter I shall only observe at present that if it be sinful to kneel at the Sacrament because that Gesture has been and is notoriously abus'd by Papists to Idolatrous ends then Sitting is also sinful which is contended for with so much Zeal For the Pope himself fits in