if we look well into it, we may find it a very improbable prefumption; and I am clearly of Opinion, that it is a vulgar Errour, and my Reasons are these.

"

1. WE cannot gather fo much from any part of Scripture. Indeed we read, that Chrift did eat of the Pallover with his Difciples, and that when he had Supped-upon the Paffover, he inftituted this Solemnity; but we find not the leaft intimation that he Communicated of the Sacred Elements, at or after the Inftitution. St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul do all agree, that he took Bread (into his hands) that he blessed it, that he brake it, and then gave it to his Difciples, commanding them to take and eat; moreover that he took the Cup (into his hands likewife) that he gave thanks over it, and that then he gave it to his Difciples, that they should drink of it. But in all the relation of the Story, there is not one word of his own eating of the Bread, or drinking of the Wine. Nor, 2dly, is it probable, that he would do so, because there was no reason for his own doing of it. He was bound indeed to Communicate of the Paffover, because he was a Jew, made under the Law, and confequently obliged to obferve the Mofaical Ordinances; but this was a Mystery 0 4

of

think themfelves bound to Celebrate the Lard's Supper at Night too, and after a Meal, and in a private Houle, and in an er Room, and with fuch a Sele Nier, and with Unleavened Bread, the like. For the Command extend a to, as wellas to one Circumftance ✅ Men argue that way; but the truth extended to no Circumftance at and confequently not to day one for Polture, and therefore it must be cond des, that neither Kneeling, sotany ad Polture is in is felf Unlawful, or Cont Story in my politive Command

C

IT nut be then fome Example o era Carit and his Apolles, that mcsendes to be againit us; and this knows the general Objection, which full confider diftinctly, becaufe at thes fint fight there feem to be fome indi tans a Scripture, which are apt to fl fach eople as do not read the Sa Short with due Confideration and Care THEY by that Kneeling was curiour's coffure, when he hi eat of this Bread, and drink of Cm But now, what if our Bleed

at receive this Sacrame

face is commonly though conndenly affirmed that he did l

we may find it a mption; and I am that it is a vulgar ns are these.

er fo much from Indeed we read, the Passover with when he had Saphe instituted this not the leaft inunicated of the Sater the Inftitution. St. Luke, and St. at he took Bread be bleffed it, that gave it to his Diem to take and took the Cup fe) that he gave then he gave it

y thould drink of
on of the Story,
of his own eating
ing of the Wine.
e, that he would
no reason for his
s bound indeed to
Tover, because he
er the Law, and
obferve the Mo-
is wasa Mystery

of

4

of his own appointing, and the Ends and Effects of it did concern his Church only; that his Church might Celebrate a publick Memorial of him, that his Church might feal her Duty to God, and might have the pledge of God's Mercy and Loving kindness to Her; that his Church might partake of Him, and of his Spirit, and receive all the bleffings of the New Covenant. Thefe were weighty Reasons in respect of Chrift's Church; but they did not at all concern Chrift himself. It was not reasonable that he should do this in memory of himself; it was not needful that this fhould be a Covenant-Rite between him, and his Father; it is not conceiveable that he fhould Communicate of his own Body and Blood; it was not poffible, that he who was without Sin, fhould Eat and Drink for the Remiffion of Sins; and therefore it is not probable at all, that he did Communicate of the Sacramental Bread and Wine with his Difciples. And hence it neceffarily followeth, that 'tis moft irrational and abfurd to argue for or against any pofture, from our Saviour's bodily deportment at the Inftitution of this Sacrament, because he himself was no Communicant at that time. For as touching the Pofture that was used at the Pafchal Supper (what

ever that posture was) it is a thing of Foreign Confideration, and impertinent to the Question; and concerns not Vs, because the Customs of the Jews at their Paffover (being grounded upon Peculiar and Special Reasons lay not the leaft tie upon Chriftians at this Sacrament. The Enquiry among Us is, touching Chrift's Example at this new Solemnity; and 'tis Ridiculous to conclude, that to kneel in the act of Receiving, is against the Example of our Lord, when it appears more than probable that he himself received not; what he did at that time with his Difciples, he did purely as their Master, and Priest, but not as a Guest with them then; fo that if any Directions be to be taken from the Example of Chrift, they ferve to guide those who in Chrift's stead Minifter at the Holy Table, rather than to Govern any that are Partakers of the Altar.

2. SEEING then there is no Argument against Kneeling from our Saviour's Example, let us proceed to the second branch of the Objection, and fee whether this posture be against the Example of our Saviour's Difciples? And for the voiding of this pretence alfo, I think we may lay down this as a very fafe Propofition, that 'tis utterly uncertain in what posture

the