posture, unless I can clearly difcover and See the Law, it will be impoffible for me to tell what pofture I am to ufe; and confequently I must be difcouraged from receiving at all; because if I fhould, I must act wholly upon uncertainties, my Confcience being utterly unrefolved, whether I use the right or wrong pofture. A Law must be difcernable and easie to be found out, especially in this cafe, wherein all Chriftians whatfoever, both Learned and Unlearned, are equally concern'd.

2. IT must be fuppofed, that this Law lieth in fome pofitive Precept or other, or else is fetcht from fome leading and Authoritative Example. For confidering that every posture is indifferent in it felf, neither abfolutely neceffary, nor absolute ly finful, it is impoffible to conceive how I fhould be determined and bound up to the use of one, rather than another, but by fome Command that peremptorily requires my Obedience, or by fome overruling Example that exacteth my imitation. One of these things must be the Law in cafes of this nature; or else there can be none.

3. IT must be fuppofed too, that this Law (whether it be grounded upon fome pofitive Precept, or upon Authoritative Example)

Example) is clearly and evidently to be found in the Word of God. For, to make that unlawful, which the Word of God hath no where, forbidden, is to say in effect, that the Word of God is not the Rule we are to go by, that the Scriptures are fcanty and imperfect, as to the definitions of Good and Evil; that there is another Standard of our Duty over and above that Law of Liberty which is extant in the Bible, and that the great Lawgiver of the World did not make fuffici ent Provifions for the Information and Government of Mens Confciences; and then the next thing is, that Men will fet up any pretence against the Law of Christ, and call Evil, Good; and Good, Evil; according as their Fancy is, and just as the Humour takes them.

THESE three things being premised, we now defire our Diffenting Brethren to fhew us where any Law against Kneeling at the Sacrament is plainly delivered in the whole Word of God. If they say the thing is unlawful, when there is no Law against it, all their talk is nothing but an heap of Non-fence. If they fup pose fuch a Law, but cannot tell where to find it clearly, they ought to confider that doubtful Suppofitions and uncertain Conjectures are no Rules of Confcience,

nor fufficient grounds for feparation from a Church that cannot be proved a Tranfgreffor. If they will ingenioufly confefs as they ought) that there is nothing in the Scripture that condemns a kneeling posture, we shall take it as a fufficient Vindication of our Innocence, and thank them for being fo juft to us; but withal, must leave it to their ferious confideration, whether they have not forfaken the Proteftant Principle, of the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, in making that to be Sinful, when in the account of Scrip

ture it is not fo

BUT to bring the Controverfie to a full Iffue in this cafe, we of the Church of England do go upon three fure Principles. 1. That Chrift gave no pofitive Command (that we read of) about any one particular kind of pofture. 2. That nothing can be clearly against our kneeling posture, from the Example of our Saviour, or of his Apoftles. 3. That were we fure what their posture was at the Institution of this Mystery, it ought not to be judged a leading and Authoritative Example nevertheless.

I. FIRST, we fay, that Chrift gave no pofitive Command (that we read of) about any one particular kind of posture. Of the truth hereof, any Man may be

fatisfied

satisfied presently, by looking into the account that is given in the Scriptures of the Institution of this Sacrament. For neither do the Evangelifts, nor St. Paul speak one word of any particular posture that was ordered at the Celebration of this Mystery. Indeed, our Saviour said, Do this (meaning what he and his Dif ciples did then) as St. Luke and St. Paul affirm. But that Command relates only to the Action of Miniftring and Receiving of Chrift's Paffion; it doth not in any wife refpect a Pofture. For St. Matthew and St. Mark render it, Takė, eat, and drink ye all of this (as St. Matthew speaks of the adminiftration of the Cup:) So that by doing this, must be meant only the Sacramental Action. Befides, it is not faid fimply, Do this, but Do this in remem- brance of me, which manifeftly relates to the breaking of the Bread, and to the pouring out of the Wine, whereby the Paffion is reprefented; and it is not the Pofture (be it what it will) but the Minitration that is the Memorial of a broken and Crucified Jefus. Laftly, the Posture is a Circumstance only; and if Men fuppofe that the Command, Do this, respecteth that Circumftance, they may as well suppose that it refpecteth all the other Circumstances too; and then they must 03 think

think themselves bound to Celebrate the Lord's Supper at Night too, and after a Meal, and in a private Houfe, and in an upper Room, and with fuch a Select Number, and with Unleavened Bread, and the like. For the Command extendeth to all, as well as to one Circumstance, if Men argue that way; but the truth is, it extendeth to no Circumftance at all, and confequently not to any one fort of Pofture; and therefore it must be concluded, that neither Kneeling, nor any other Posture is in it felf Unlawful, or Contradictory to any pofitive Command of Christ.

2. IT must be then fome Example or other of Chrift and his Apoftles, that is pretended to be against us; and this I know is the general Objection, which I fhall confider diftinctly, because at the first fight there seem to be fome intimations in Scripture, which are apt to startle fuch people as do not read the Sacred Story with due Confideration and Care.

r. THEY fay that Kneeling was not our Saviour's pofture, when he himself did eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup. But now, what if our Bleffed Saviour did not receive this Sacrament at all? Indeed 'tis commonly thought, and confidently affirmed that he did fo; but

if