Several Treatises of Worship and Ceremonies, Chapter 2 – Title page 6
CHAP. II. KNEELING in the very Act of Taking, Eating and Drinking the Sacramental Bread and Wine, in the holy Communion, cannot be without ſin.
1. IT is to be underſtood, that, howſoever Kneeling may (in it ſelf conſidered) be eſteemed a natural geſture of the body, as ſtanding, ſitting, &c. yet in this caſe, it is by Inſtitution of Man. For neither nature nor cuſtom, doth teach us ordinarily to kneele when we eat and drink, neither doth the Word require Kneeling in this caſe.
2. If it be by inſtitution, it muſt be either in reſpect of a more reverent receiving, or not. But if the moſt ſolemn ſign of reverence (uſed in theſe parts of the World) be without all reſpect of reverence, and that by Inſtitution of Authority, in ſo high a part of Gods Service, may not ſuch Kneeling be judged, if not a groſs mocking of Chriſt, as was the Souldiers their bowing of knees before him,Matth. 27.29. Mal. 1.6, 7. yet a taking the name of God in vain. Seeing all ſignifications of honour, in Gods Service, ought to be to the honour of his Name,Jer. 4.2. and an Oath not religiouſly intended (as in the nature thereof it ought to be) to the Honour of God, is the taking of Gods Name in vain.2 Kings 5.18. Did Naaman newly brought to the knowledge of God, attribute ſo much to bowing in the houſe of Rimmon when his Maſter leaned on him, ſo that it was not his voluntary Act? And ſhall we, who have had the Goſpel long, kneeling by Inſtitution and determination, in a principal part of Gods Service, make no account whether we Honour GOD, or no, by ſuch kneeling?
3. If Kneeling be inſtituted for a more reverent receiving, then it muſt be either in regard of God, or of Bread and Wine; If in regard of God then muſt we be well perſwaded that ſuch kneeling is an acceptable ſervice unto his Majeſty.Rom. 12.1. & 14, 15, 23. Iſa 29.13. Matth. 15.9. And that this may be, we muſt conſider, whether ſuch kneeling be a Will-worſhip or a ſervice reaſonable, and according to Gods Will. Leaſt otherwiſe we finde our ſelves ſo far from honouring God, as that we provoke him. As did Nadab and Abihu, who offered incenſe,Levit. 10.1, 2, 3. but not with the very fire which God appointed, and were therefore devoured with fire. And as did King David, and the Prieſts,1 Chron. 13.10. & 15.12, 13. who carried the Arke otherwiſe than it ought to have been, and therefore Ʋzza died for it, with a ſodain death. For God will be ſanctified (if not by, yet) in all them that come neer him.
4. But kneeling is contrary to the example of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, who miniſtred and received ſitting,Luke 22.14. or in ſuch a geſture as in thoſe Countreys was moſt uſed at eating. From which example to differ, without warrrant from Gods word cannot be without fault. Seeing examples of holy men, much more of Chriſt, are to be followed, except there be ſome reaſonable cauſe to the contrary.1 Cor. 11.1. And the Apoſtle to reform an abuſe which crept (even in their times) into Love-feaſts, which were immediately before, or after the Lords Supper, did baniſh them thence, and reduced the manner of adminiſtring the Lords Supper to the firſt inſtitution, ſaying; Shall I praiſe you in this? 1 Cor. 11.22, 23.I praiſe you not. For I have received of the Lord that which I have alſo delivered unto you, &c. Whereby it is apparent, that, that forme of Adminiſtration, which differeth from the firſt Inſtitution, is worthy no praiſe, and therefore no acceptable ſervice to God. For if the Apoſtle would not tolerate an indifferent thing (as was a Love-feaſt till then) to continue ſo near the Lords Supper, when it was abuſed, how would they allow the change of ſitting into kneeling, eſpecially in theſe two conſiderations?
Firſt, becauſe the abuſe of love feaſts, (viz. ſuperfluity) was never ſo great, and ſcandalous, in the Apoſtles time, as the abuſe of kneeling (viz. Idolatry) was and is in the ſynagogue of Rome: And beſides, Love-feaſts were either before, or after the Lords Supper, whereas kneeling is in the principal part of the holy Communion. Therefore if the Apoſtle baniſhed Love-feaſts from the Lords Supper, becauſe of the abuſe, and brought the Church to the ſimplicity of the firſt Inſtitution, is it not a tempting ſin to retain the idolatrous kneeling of Papiſts, and reject the exemplary ſitting of our M. Chriſt? And the rather, becauſe it is in that Sacrament, and in that part of the Sacrament, which eſpecially ſetteth forth our communion with Chriſt, and his Church, and is therefore, called The Communion. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17.In due conſideration whereof, how can we imagine that Chriſt hath any honour by our kneeling? Seeing it ſwerveth, not onelyonly from his example, but alſo from the practiſe of all reformed Churches, except in England, which the papiſts themſelves call Puritan-Papiſtical, Concertatio Eccleſiae Cathol. in argu.for retaining this, and other popiſh corruptions: and, ſeeing it may be an argument (eſpecially to a Papiſt not underſtanding our tongue) that we have communion with Antichriſt, and his ſynagogue, at leaſt in the idolatry of Breadworſhip. Which our failing, or careleſneſs to avow our communion with Chriſt and his Church, and not abhorring all communion with Antichriſt and his ſynagogue cannot be without grievous ſin.Gal. 2.11, 12. Or elſe Paul ſinned, when he rebuked Peter for not holding communion with the Gentiles converted, and wrote without good warrant, where he ſaith; If any luſt to be contentious, we have no ſuch cuſtome, neither the Churches of God. And in another place:1 Cor. 11.16. 2 Cor. 6.15.17 Deut. 12.30, 31. What communion hath Chriſt with Belial? Come out, and touch no unclean thing. Doth not God ſtreightly forbid us to ſerve him as Idolaters do their gods? Theſe things conſidered, can kneeling wherewith Papiſts do honour their breaden God, be honourable to Chriſt, in his holy Sacrament?
6. Secondly, whereas the end of a Sacrament is to inform the outward man, by ſenſible demonſtrations, it pleaſed our Mr. Chriſt, to uſe ſuch a geſture, as, agreeably with bread and wine, ſetteth out our communion and ſpirituall familiarity with him, and rejoycing in him.Revel. 3.20. And therefore as he ſaith, If any hear my voyce, and open the door, I will come in to him, and ſup with him, and he with me: Matth. 8.11.So he ſaith, Many ſhall come from the caſt and weſt, and ſhall ſit with Abraham, &c. By which place it appeareth that as by Supper, ſo by ſitting, familiar rejoycing, or rejoycing familiarity is expreſſed. In which reſpects the Communion is called the Lords Supp… and not a Sacrifice, 1 Cor. 11.2. & 10.21.and we are ſaid to be partakers of the Lords table, and not of an Altar. And therefore not kneeling, and ſitting is for receiving. We read not of any geſture of body preſcribed, or obſerved in Circumciſion and Baptiſme as in the Paſſeover and Lords Supper. Becauſe there needs no material regard to be had of any certain geſture in the two former Sacraments, ſo the foreskin were cut off, and water be uſed: But in the other two, a geſture, anſwerable to the action is requiſite.Exod 12.11. And therefore God preſcribed to his people: when they were to flye out of Egypt, Num. 9.3.11, 12. Matth. 5.17 & 26.20.the geſture of loynes girded, and ſtaves in their hands, becauſe the eating then of the Paſſeover was in haſt. But that geſture being but for that time, as may appear by the omiſſion thereof, when the obſervation of the Paſſeover was eſtabliſhed, our Mr. Chriſt, who came not to break but fulfill the Law, and knew what was fitteſt to be done, did eat the Paſſeover ſitting, a geſture more anſwerable to eating in peace, than the former uſed in Egypt. Whereby kneeling is convinced, as being a geſture altogether unanſwerable to eating. And the rather,Job 38.2. 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. becauſe it darkneth the counſell of God, and …eing a ſigne of the greateſt ſubmiſſion obſcureth that rejoycing familiarity, which the Lords Supper ſignifieth and ſealeth. Do we not condemn the Papiſts for miniſtring the Communion in one kinde, becauſe ſuch an adminiſtration is againſt Chriſt his example, and doth not lively demonſtrate the Lords death? Here a caveat is to be given, that none take occaſion by this diſcourſe, to juſtifie the childiſh Pedagogy of ſignifying ceremonies deviſed by man, ſeeing ſitting was uſed by Chriſt, and the ſignification thereof is found in Scripture. And therefore that childiſh Pedagogy is not juſtified by that worthy ſervant of Chriſt, Mr. Cartwright his judgement viz. That ſitting doth ſignifie our reſt in Chriſt Jeſus.
7. That kneeling may be more ſoundly convinced as a will-worſhip, objections are to be anſwered. Therefore where it is ſuppoſed that Chriſt and his Apoſtles miniſtred and received fitting but by occaſion, and not of purpoſe: becauſe they were ſitting before in eating the Paſſeover. Whereas if Chriſt had ſitten down of purpoſe to adminiſter the Communion, then all that is ſaid is granted to be ſome purpoſe. The anſwer is ſhort, yet full: Chriſt did ſit of purpoſe, when he miniſtred his laſt Supper. For after the Paſſeover he roſe, waſhed his Diſciples feet, and ſate down again.
8. If it be demanded, why the Church is not bound to the time of evening, as well as to the geſture of ſitting, ſith Chriſt obſerved the one, as well as the other? It may be anſwered;John 13.4.12. Time being a common circumſtance to every action (for nothing can be done, but in ſome time) the particular time is not to be obſerved, except Chriſt had ſanctified it to the communion, as God ſanctified the 7th. day, on which he reſted,Gen. 2.2, 3. or (at leaſt) choſen it of purpoſe, as he did ſitting. But whereas it was upon ſpeciall,Matth. 26.31.45. Luke 22.53. and neceſſary occaſion, for the Paſſeover muſt be eaten before the L. Supper could be inſtituted in ſtead thereof: and preſently after Supper the hour came, when Chriſt was to be betrayed. Therefore if the Jews tranſgreſſed not the Inſtitution of the Paſſeover, by changing a geſture, at the firſt preſcribed by God according to that their preſent occaſion, into another fitter for a time of reſt, much leſs do Chriſtians tranſgreſs the inſtitution of the Lords Supper, by changing the time taken by Chriſt upon occaſion, but not preſcribed, into ſome other fitter (in diſcretion) for the ordinary celebration of the Lords Supper, as probably the Primitive Churches did. For every …ſt day of the week (viz. the Lords day) the brethren came together to break bread,Acts 2.42. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.2: Revel. 1.10 i. e. to minister the Communion. So that either they never met upon the L. day, but in the evening, or elſe they celebrated the Communion at ſome other times. But for my alteration of the geſtures of ſitting, eſpecially into kneeling, there is the leaſt probability.
It is further objected; That we may kneel in regard of prayers to be uſed by preſcription of authority, at the delivering of the bread and wine, viz. The body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, which was given for thee, preſerve thy body and ſoule into eternall life, and take and eate this, &c. Here unto theſe anſwers may be returned; Seeing we reject Chriſts example of ſitting for kneeling, we muſt not ſtand upon what we may do, but humbly conſider what we muſt do. For if there be not a neceſſary and a juſtifiable cauſe both of thoſe prayers, and of kneeling in regard of them, do we not preſume upon Chriſt's patience, in rejecting his example? Now, what neceſſity is there of thoſe prayers, at that very time? ſeeing prayers go before, and follow after. Again, muſt we needs kneel at every bit of a prayer? Is there more neceſſity to obey a needleſs direction to kneel at thoſe prayers, than to follow the example …f Chriſt, in ſitting when we take, eat and drink, things required in the ſame ſentences preſcribed? And why muſt the people kneel, when they hear thoſe prayers, rather then the Miniſter who pronounceth them? But it is a queſtion, whether thoſe prayers be juſtifiable or no. For beſides that, by reaſon of them, Kneeling, deviſed and abuſed by Antichriſt,Mat 6 7 & 26.26. &c. doth croſs the practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and they may ſeem a vain repetition: Even the adding of them to the words of Inſtitution is contrary to the mind of Chriſt. For he did firſt bleſs or pray, and after gave the Elements, in a Sacramentall form of words, without any addition, ſaying, take, eat, Mark 14.21. Luke 22.19, &c.&c. Which order of adminiſtration, and form of words, Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Paul do ſo conſtantly, preciſely, and ſincerely related that any may perceive the meaning of the ſpirit to be. That the ſacramental form of words ought preciſely to be obſerved, without any addition. And the rather, becauſe Paul beginneth his relation thus;1 Cor. 11.23, 24. I have received of the Lord that which I have alſo delivered, &c. So that it may ſeem to be againſt Religion and Reaſon, that to a ſacramentall forme of ſpeech, wherein the Miniſter ſhould onelyonly ſupply the perſon of Chriſt, there ſhould be added a prayer, as in the name of the Church. This confuſion is fitter for Babylon, than for Sion.
Laſtly, Why is not a ſhort prayer, after other going before as well joyned to the ſacramentall forme of Baptiſme: viz. N. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, &c. Rom. 14.5.23:If then this addition of Prayer to the ſacramentall forme of words, be not of faith, how then can we, with faith and a good conſcience, confirm, or allow the ſame with our kneeling?
10. Laſtly, for juſtifying of Kneeling, it is affirmed; That it is indifferent whether we ſit, ſtand, or kneel: ſeeing Chriſt did ſit, when he did eat the Paſſeover. Whereas God commanded the children of Iſrael in Egypt to eate the Paſſeover ſtanding, and ſome Reformed Churches receive ſtanding, for all that Chriſt did ſit at his laſt Supper: Therefore the KING may appoint Kneeling, as the moſt reverent geſture, and beſt beſeeming ſo holy an action. For anſwer whereunto, howſoever that which is already ſaid may ſuffice. Yet it may be further conſidered, that though it be admitted, that it is indifferent to ſit, or to ſtand, yet it doth not follow, that Kneeling is indifferent. For ſitting is the example, and ſtanding is a geſture ſometimes uſed in ordinary eating, and (in the objection) it is ſaid to be preſcribed at a Sacramentall feaſt.
Again, it doth not follow; That becauſe Chriſt uſed a geſture fitter for eating in his time, inſtead of a geſture preſcribed upon occaſion, it is therefore lawfull to uſe a geſture nothing anſwerable to eating,1 Cor. 14.36. and that taken out of the Synagogue of Antichriſt (as though the Word of God came out of it, or to it onelyonly) inſtead of a geſture moſt anſwerable to eating, and of purpoſe uſed by Chriſt at the Inſtitution of the Sacrament. So that, notwithſtanding all that is ſaid for Kneeling, His Majeſtie (upon whom the burthen as of this geſture, ſo of other Ceremonies,2 Chro. 29.25. is layd) may remember, That Hezekiah appointed Levites in the houſe of the Lord, with Cimbals, &c. according to the commandement of David, and Gad the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet, for the commandement was by the hand of the Lord, and by the hand of his Prophets. And withall conſider, that if Kneeling were the moſt reverent geſture, and beſt beſeeming the holy Communion, our Lord and Maſter would not have ſitten down of purpoſe, at his laſt ſupper. And that Ahaz was deceived in deeming the Altar at Damaſcus more honourable for Gods ſervice,2 King. 16.10, 12.14.15. than the Altar of the Lord.
11. Having ſaid that which may be ſufficient to a man reaſonable, and not contentious, againſt the inſtitution of kneeling for ſuppoſed reverence in regard of God, it remaineth that ſomewhat be ſaid againſt the inſtitution of Kneeling, for reverence in regard of bread and wine, which need not to be much. For no ſound Proteſtant of any knowledge, will affirme it, but rather preſently conſider, That if kneeling be inſtituted for reverence in regard of bread and wine, it muſt be either becauſe they repreſent the body and blood of Chriſt, though remaining bread and wine touching their ſubſtance; And then for like reaſon, we may worſhip the Crucifix, and image of God, as the Papiſts do: Or, becauſe Chriſt is really, bodily, and locally, though inviſibly, preſent in them, either by Tranſubſtantiation, according to the hereſie of the Papiſts, or by Conſubſtantiation, according to the hereſie of the Lutherans; Theſe things cannot but be conſidered: And then it muſt needs follow, that if we abjure theſe hereſies of Papiſts, and Lutherans, we muſt alſo abhor idolatrous, and ſuperſtitious kneeling, their daughter and Nurſe, which was never heard of before Tranſubſtantiation was hatched in the ſynagogue of Antichriſt. Reliques of Rome, fol. 98. & 99. Anſw. to Mr. Juels challenge, fol. 111.So that immediately after Pope Innocent decreed Tranſubſtantiation, Pope Honorius decreed kneeling. Therefore if Harding doth grant that it is not well to kneel, but in regard of a reall, and bodily preſence; a ſound Proteſtant ſhould infer; But I deteſt your reall preſence, therefore I abhor your Idolatrous kneeling.
12. We are to abhor kneeling, not onelyonly becauſe we abhor the hereſies of worſhipping Images, Tranſubſtantiation, and Conſubſtantiation, but alſo, becauſe it is the ſhow of the greateſt evils that ever were,1 Theſ. 5.22. viz. Idolatry in worſhipping a God made of a piece of bread, and of communion with Antichriſt, rather than with Chriſt; and therefore the greateſt ſcandall that ever was, or can be, both in regard of thoſe evils it doth occaſionally teach, or confirme, as alſo in regard of multitudes (indeed the moſt part of people) either not ſufficiently inſtructed in the right underſtanding, and uſe of the Sacrament, and therefore carried with a blind devotion learned by tradition, or corrupted (more or leſſe) with the leaven of Popery. Who all in regard of their weakneſſe, are endangered by this geſture, either groſly to commit the Idolatry of Papiſts, or to have a ſuperſtitious eſtimation of the outward Elements. And the rather, becauſe by the 21 Canon it is provided: That no bread, and wine newly brought, ſhall be uſed, but firſt the words of Inſtitution ſhall be rehearſed, when the ſaid bread and wine be preſent upon the Communion Table. As if the words were Incantations, and the Table like the Altar which ſanctifieth the Sacrifice. May not this Proviſo ſeem (at leaſt to the ſimple) to make way at leaſt to the Popiſh conſecration? How grievous a ſin it is to ſcandalize the weak, may appeare by the words of Chriſt, viz. Whoſoever ſhall offend one of theſe little ones, it were better for him, that a mil-ſtone were hanged about his necke, Matth 18.6.and that he were drowned in the midſt of the Sea. And of Paul: 1 Cor. 8.13.If meate offend my brother, I will eat no fleſh, while the world ſtandeth, that I may not offend my brother. What an offence or ſcandall is, the Apoſtle ſheweth in the ſame Chapter, viz. An occaſion of falling to the weake. Verſe 9.The particular offence he ſpeaketh of is this: Notwithſtanding the Goſpell was preached a convenient time, and that by the Apoſtles, yet many wanted knowledge,Verſe 7.10. and, even unto that time, did eat as a thing ſacrificed to an Idoll. Of whom if any ſhould ſee a man endued with knowledge ſit at Table in the Idols Temple, his weak conſcience might occaſionally be imboldened to eat thoſe things which are ſacrificed to Idols. If Paul would never eat fleſh rather then he would offend in this caſe,Verſe 12. becauſe in ſo doing he ſhould ſinne againſt Chriſt; how dare a Chriſtian, having knowledge, kneel in the preſence of any, who, for want of knowledge, receive ſuperſtitiouſly. Of which ſort, ſeeing there be ſo many even untill this hour, and ever likely to be, that we know not when, and where to communicate without ſome ſuch, either old, or young: It followeth, that as ſitting at Table in the Idols Temple, could not be without ſinne, in the Apoſtles time, ſo kneeling cannot be without ſin in theſe dayes, when the number of faithfull Teachers is much decreaſed, but of Papiſts much increaſed, and by our kneeling much confirmed in their Bread-worſhip.Sum of the confeſſion. p. 74. Therefore if his Majeſties judgement be ſound, that the Surplice is not to be worn, if Heatheniſh men were commorant amongſt us, who, thereby, might take occaſion to be ſtrengthened in their paganiſme? Shall we by our corrupt practice of kneeling, ſtrengthen the Papiſts, who ſwarm among us in their Idolatry?
Rub. after the com. Sect. 5.If the State doth well, in ordaining the Sacrament to be adminiſtred in uſuall bread to take away ſuperſtition, whereas Chriſt did by occaſion, miniſter in unleavened bread, ſhall not we do ill, in teaching, or confirming ſuperſtition by kneeling, whereas Chriſt did of purpoſe miniſter ſitting?Hom. againſt peril of Idol. part 3. Levit. 19.14. ſetting up of Images in Churches onelyonly to be Lay-mens books, is, by authority condemned, becauſe they are as ſtumbling blocks in the way of the blinde: So that they have been, are ſtill, and will be hereafter worſhipped by ignorant perſons. Is not kneeling as ſcandalous? How can it then be juſtified?
But is ſaid, that the Kings commandement taketh away ſcandal, in things indifferent. And it may be averred that this is a begging of the queſtion, except it be proved by the word, that kneeling may be without ſin, and that notwithſtanding it be an inſtitution of man, contrary to the example of Chriſt, a ſigne of communion rather with Antichriſt and his ſinagogue of Rome, than which Chriſt and his Church, it have no proportion with ſacramental eating, and have been, is, and will be bread-worſhip. But ſuppoſe that in it ſelf it were as indifferent as was eating of fleſh ſacrificed to an Idol,1 Cor. 10.27, 28. not in the Idols Temple, but at a private table where no weak ones were, in the Apoſtles time: yet how doth the Kings commandement take away ſcandal from kneeling in publick places? Doth it make all ſo ſure, that none can be ſcandalized? Or, if that cannot be, doth it take away guiltineſs from the ſcandalizer, as if all the blame of ſcandalizing, were in the Kings commandement?1 Cor. 8.11. Numb. 35.37. 2 Sam. 11.15.16, 17. Surely it muſt be in the former, or els the latter cannot be, for by ſcandalizing a weak brother periſheth. Of whoſe bloud the ſcandalizer is guilty, as Ioab was of Ʋriahs bloud, notwithſtanding the Kings commandment. Here his Majeſtie known to be of a gentle diſpoſition, and to have learned, yea profeſſed better things in Scotland, is moſt humbly prayed, to take this word (King) as ſpoken in imitation, and underſtood of Cantor: who knowne to be of a violent diſpoſition, did carry matters in the Convocation, and publiſhed Canons not orderly, and fully concluded, as ſome of his ſuffragane prelates report, But it is impoſſible, that the Kings commandement ſhould make all ſo ſure that none can be ſcandalized, the general ignorance of the people, the diſpoſition, of the ignorant unto ſuperſtition, the old leaven of popery not purged and the multiplying of Papiſts, all well conſidered. Nay rather, It is likely, that by the commandementt the ſcandal will be the greater. Eſpecially in regard of the 27 Canon, where miniſters are commanded, under pain of ſuſpenſion, not wittingly to adminiſter the ſacrament to any, but ſuch as kneel. May not ſimple, and ſuperſtitious perſons take occaſion thus to argue? Why ſhould kneeling be thus urged by authority, if the ſacramental ſignes of the body, and bloud of Chriſt, be no more to be reverenced, than water applyed in baptizing children? Seeing that is alſo a ſanctified ſigne of Chriſt his bloud, that waſheth away our ſins, and iniquities.
To conclude, If kneeling in the very act of taking, eating, and drinking the ſacramental bread and wine, in the holy communion, be (1) an inſtitution of man. (2) If it be the taking of of Gods name in vain, when it is without all reſpect of reverence (3) If God be not honoured thereby, except it be according to his will. (4) If it ſwarve from the example of Chriſt his ſitting, and therefore deſerveth no praiſe. (4) If it be a provoking ſin to reject the exemplary ſitting of Chriſt, whereby we ſhew our ſelves to be in communion with Chriſt, and the reformed Churches; and to retain kneeling, which for bread-worſhip, ought to be baniſhed, and whereby we ſeem to be in communion with Antichriſt, and his ſynagogue. (6) If it obſcureth that rejoycing familiaritie in and with Chriſt which the Lords ſupper ſignifieth. (7) If the argument from Chriſt his example be made the ſtronger, in that he ſat of purpoſe. (8) If the lawfulneſs of chuſing a fitter time than the evening cannot juſtifie our rejecting Chriſt his exemplary ſitting. (9) If the bits of prayer joyned with the words of inſtitution do make kneeling the more ſinfull. (10) If kneeling be not as indifferent, as ſtanding, nor beſt beſeeming the holy communion, and the King muſt appoint nothing but by the hand of the Lord. (11) If we ought to abhor kneeling, as we abhor the worſhipping of Images, Tranſubſtantiation, and Conſubſtantiation. (12) If to ſcandalize be grievouſly to ſin, and kneeling be a ſhew of the greateſt evils, and withall the greateſt ſcandal. And (13) If it be a begging of the queſtion to affirm, kneeling to be indifferent, and the Kings commandement (ſo called) doth rather increaſe, than leſſen ſcandal by kneeling, It may be averred, that kneeling in the very act of Taking, eating, and drinking the ſacramental bread and wine, in the holy communion, cannot be without ſin.
A SHORT TREATISE OF THE CROSSE in BAPTISME Contracted into this SYLLOGISME.
No religious uſe of a Popiſh Idol, in Gods publique
ſervice is indifferent, but utterly unlawfull:
But the uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſme is a religious
uſe of a Popiſh Idol in Gods publique ſervice.
Ergo.
The uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſm is not indifferent but utterly unlawfull.
Printed in the yeare 1660.