recite the Creed, unfolds them, and by such change of posture, intimates them to be at liberty to stand up if they please.

CHAP. XII.

That the French Church approves of the Athanasian Creed, and requires Assent and Consent unto it.

One reason, why some cannot subscribe the Articles and the Liturgy, is, because they command the belief and use of the Athanasian Creed. The 8th Article says, "it ought to be thoroughly received and believed, because it may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." And the Rubrick in the Liturgy, upon certain days, enjoins the reading of it. Now, they say, they cannot subscribe entirely to the belief or use of it, because of the damnatory clauses that are contained therein. Baxter Nonconform. cap. 40.

But this objection will hold as well against subscribing the French confession. For the 5th Article is in these words: "we therefore approve of those three Creeds, the Apostolical, the Nicene, and the Athanasian; because they are agreeable to the written word of God." Does the Article of the Church of England say any more than this? And may we not read in the church what is agreeable to the word of God, if our Rubrick enjoins it?

I must here note again, what I have proved at large before, that no minister could be ordained in France, till he had first subscribed this confession of faith, whereof that Article about the Athanasian Creed is one: so that they who scruple conformity upon this account here, must have been nonconformists in the Church of France also.

If any are offended further with our Articles or Liturgy, because they call this Creed Athanasius's Creed; they are to consider, that the Church designed not to determine any thing thereby, to oblige men to take it for a Creed of Atha

nasius's composing, but only to give it a name by which it might be distinguished from the other Creeds; as is done in all other confessions: for the French calls it Symbolum Athanasianum, Art. 5. The Helvetic, Symbolum Athanasii, Art. 2. As also the Belgic, Art. 9. Symbolum Athanasii. And the Saxon, Symbolum Athanasianum, Art. 1. Yet all that is designed by any of these confessions, is only that men should take this for an orthodox Creed, without tying them up to believe Athanasius to be the author of it: which being a matter purely historical, is left to the discussion of learned men to determine for or against it, as they see reasons to convince them. And therefore though Bishop Andrews and Rivet say they believe it to be Athanasius's own composure, yet it is no crime in Bishop Usher or Bishop Pearson, Hamond l'Estrange, or Dr. Cave, to dissent from them, and ascribe it to a much later and a Latin author.* The Church is not concerned in this dispute, so long as the Creed itself is allowed to be the orthodox and in that they are all agreed.

Nay I must add, that Mr. B. himself was once agreed with the Church about the use of this Creed, however in his last books his spirit came to be embittered against it. For in his petition for peace and reformation of the Liturgy, p. 26. he orders the Athanasian Creed to be read sometimes in-stead of the other: surely then at that time, when he drew up the form of a new liturgy to be presented to the bishops in 1661, he had none of these objections against the damnatory clauses in it. And if he had considered that just apology, which Dr. Falkner and some others have made for it, he would never have shewn himself so weak, as to have gratified the Socinians with unreasonable scruples against it. See Dr. Falkner Libert. Eccles. p. 145, &c.

* Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution.

CHAP. XIII.

That the French Church does not receive the Communion sitting, but requires all Communicants to receive it in another Posture.

There are two sorts of persons, who dispute with the Church of England about kneeling at the communion. Some absolutely and universally condemn the posture, as sinful and unlawful; because it is a deviation from the practice and example of Christ, who administered the communion to his disciples sitting; which therefore they say, is the only lawful posture. Others are not altogether so rigid as this, but say, they believe it to be lawful to receive the eucharist kneeling, and, upon occasion, themselves do so receive it; but their quarrel at the Liturgy and Canon is, for rejecting those from communion, who dare not kneel in the act of receiving: of this latter sort of objectors, Mr. Baxter is the principal. Case of Engl. Nonconform. c. 14. “I myself," says he, "am for the lawfulness of organs, rails, and coming up to them; and for the lawfulness of kneeling when we sing Psalms, or read the Scripture, or hear the preacher: but I am not for the lawfulness of hanging or damning men, that herein are not of my mind; nor for turning unnecessary things, because they are lawful, into conditions of Church communion, and making kneeling necessary to salvation."

Now, whatever there is in either of these charges, they affect the French Church as much as they do the Church of England. For though the French Church does not receive the communion kneeling, yet neither, 1. does she condemn kneeling as unlawful; nor 2dly, does she use sitting, but a contrary posture, that is, standing; which is as much a deviation from the example of Christ, as kneeling is. Nor 3dly, does she admit any to communion, but such as receive in

that posture and manner as her Rubricks and Canons appoint. So that if there be any force in the arguments urged against the Church of England, they equally hold against the Church of France; or if the one may be justified, so may the other. Let us therefore examine these particulars.

That 1. the French Church condemns not kneeling as unlawful, appears from this; that she allows it lawful to communicate with the English, Lutheran, and Polonian Churches; all which receive the communion kneeling, and in no other posture. Besides, Beza says, "that kneeling at the communion hath a shew of Godly and Christian reverence, and therefore might be used with benefit heretofore. Only he thinks, that since bread-worship came in at this door, those Churches did well who received another gesture. However, he condemns none that still retain it: for, he says; it is not idolatrous in itself; and therefore he determines of it, as of many other ceremonies, that it is not of that moment, as that ministers should leave their office, or the people forsake the communion, because of it." Beza, Ep. 12. p. 107, & 109.

Peter Martyr, who was sometime a minister of the French Church, goes a little further, and says, "it is not material whether we receive the Lord's Supper standing, sitting, or kneeling, so long as the institution of Christ be observed, and all occasion of superstition be cut off." Loc. Com. Class. 2. c. 4. n. 39.

And in his defence of the eucharist against Gardiner, he says, "adoration may be used in time of receiving, provided our minds be applied, not to the elements, but to the thing signified. For then, if we adore the Lord by kneeling, we do not thereby testify any real or corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament." De Euchar. part 1. fol. 5.

He tells us in another place. "That many men piously bow the knee and worship, when they hear those words of the Gospel, the Word was made flesh and yet we may not say, they worship the words, but the Thing signified. So," says he, "what hinders but that we may do the same,

when we receive the eucharist; provided we worship not the external signs, but the Thing signified by them." Loc. Com. Class. 4. c. 10. n. 50.

This learned man did not think kneeling so superstitious, as some would make it; nor sitting so necessary by any command or example of Christ, but that any other decent posture would as well comport with the end of the institution.

And indeed this was always the judgment of all knowing men in the French Church, that the posture of receiving was none of those things, which are of the substance of the sacrament, or which we are precisely bound to follow the example of Christ in; but an accidental circumstance, left to the liberty of the Church, as many other things are, to determine, as she sees most useful and expedient. Take the testimony of one, which may stand for the judgment of the whole Church, because his works were approved by two or three national Synods; that is, the learned Chamier, who in his books de Eucharista, thus answers the popish argument, for mixing water with wine, taken from the example of Christ: "it follows not," says he," that because Christ did it, therefore we are bound to do the same; for he washed his disciples feet at supper, but no man thinks we are bound to do so under pain of mortal sin. He consecrated at even and after supper; which now the Church of Rome forbids. Again, he consecrated lying at table; which custom is long ago laid aside, and observed by none. This gives us to understand, that every thing is not necessary to be done, that Christ did only accidentally or occasionally, in celebrating the eucharist; but only such things as he did, propter ipsius sacramenti plenitudinem, to make it a complete and perfect Sacrament; to which neither washing the feet, nor celebrating at even, nor lying at table, nor mixing water with the wine do appertain." Chamier de Euchar. tom. 4. lib. 6. c. 3. n. 11.

So again, lib. 7. c. 15. n. 13. "All things are not necessary to be imitated that Christ did, when they are only circumstances of his actions. For instance, He celebrated the