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 [pg 1-217] 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: