you may apply that very Action in that very Manner, to paying a purely Civil Refpect.' All you have to do here, is to diftinguifh between a Ceremony, which is in its own Nature indifferent, and a Sacrament, which is not fo And therefore let us make the Cafe Parallel, and then fee how thofe who make this Objecti on will like it. Suppofe, that to that Text of Scripture, At the Name of Jefus, every Knee fhall bow, a folemn exprefs Inftitution had been ad-! ded, fo as to make Kneeling Sacramental, in thefe Words, Do this, as oft as ye shall kneel, in remembrance of me; Wou'd Chriftians kneel in Remembrance of any other Perfon dead? No, fure; and Why? Becaufe Kneeling, from being a common Pofture of Reverence and Refpect, whether to God or Man, wou'd have alter'd its Nature, and become the moft folemn Act of Praise and Adoration, which cou'd be paid to the Divinity. So that you fee the Objection goes upon a grofs Mistake; for it is not Drinking, or Kneeling, in Honour of God or of Men, that is blameable; but Drinking or Kneeling to the Dead.

But if it be ftill objected, that Kneeling is in that, Phil. 2. and ro. commanded to be perform'd to Chrift; and therefore may not, for the fame Reason, be us'd in Civil Worfhip: I anfwer, We muft diftinguish between a Metaphorical Expreffion, defign'd to denote the loweft Reverence that can be paid by all Intelligent Beings; and Drinking to the Memory of the Dead, which is a literal and pofitive Inftitu

tion.

But fuppofe I had faid nothing more in Anfwer to this formidable Objection, only have distinguish'd between Kneeling to the Living, and Kneeling to the Dead; and allow'd, that Kneeling to the Living may be ufed in Civili Worship, but not to the Dead; and by reafon of that very Text, At the Name of Jesus, every knee fhall bow. And why? Because Bowing the Knee at the Name of a departed Perfon, is paying a Divine Honour; and therefore tho'. they bowed the Knee to K. Wm when alive, yet it wou'd be rank Idolatry to bow the Knee to the Name of K. W→→

m now he is dead. And if the Cafe be fo glaringly true in this Inftance, which hath neither a positive Form of Inftitution, nor exprefs Words to limit the Action to Chrift alone; how much more is it fo in that Action of Drinking to the Remembrance of the Dead, which hath both? And how plain is it, that to apply this to any other Perfon, wou'd be, in its own Nature, an Idolatrous Act, however Men defign'd it.

W

7thly, Another fays, He knows Drinking to the Glorious or Immortal Memory, &c. to be finful; and therefore he drinks a Health only, To all thofe that love and honour the Memory of K. m. Some stick to the firft Form, viz. To the Glorious and Immortal Memory of K. Wm; to all that lov'd him when alive, and honour his Memory now he is dead. Others who are fhock'd at this, drink only to the Glorious Memory, but leave out Immortal; Others, To all that love and bonour the Memory, &c. And in fhort, this Health has been put into feveral Shapes and Forms,

Forms, to avoid the Prophanenefs and visible Impiety of it; and every one, according to the Regard. he has left for the bleffed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, give it yet a fofter turn. But is not this fporting with things facred? Does not every one fee, that all this is ftill the fame horrid and impious Prophanation of that very Action which is confecrated to the Memory of Chrift alone. For, let them word it how they will, and put it into what Form they pleafe, this no way alters the Nature of the Action; becaufe 'tis ftill drinking in an bonourable Remembrance of the dead. 'Tis all one whether they drink to the Death of K. W-m, to K. Wm dead, or his glorious Actions when alive, or to the glorious Memory, or to the immortal Memory, or to all that love the Memory, &c. ftill there is Application made of the Action of Drinking, to a mere Man, in that very manner which ought never to be applied but to the Perfon of Chrift.

Obj. 8. Another Objection is from that Text of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 21. Te cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils. Here, fay they, the Cup of the Lord is oppos'd only to the Cup of Devils, i. e. a Cup drank in Religious Worship to Idols. What then? Ergo, Drinking in Honour of others, befides Chrift, is condemn'd only as it is done religiously; or with an idolatrous Defign. But this is all a Miftake of the Text, and of the Apostle's Application of it. If there were no other Argument for what I am afferting, one wou'd think the very Mention of this Text, fhou'd be fufC 2

ficient

ficient to strike the Confcience of any good Man, and fill him with Horror at the Thoughts of honouring the Dead by Drinking to their Memory, when he confiders,

Ift, That this was spoke to Chriftians, who could not have drank that Cup which he condemns, by way of religious Worship; and if they had, the Apoftle wou'd have then charg'd them with downright wilful Idolatry.

2dly, That Chriftians cou'd not be fuppos'd to have done it with Intention to prophane the Eucharift. And this is the Reason, as appears by the Context, why the Apoftle informs them of the Sinfulness of what they did; tho' they did it neither with Intention of Idol Worship, nor of prophaning that Sacrament.

3dly, That the very Reafon of that fevere Expreffion, The Cup of Devils, was because they who drank the Cup of the Lord, i, e. in Remembrance of him, could not apply that Action of Drinking, after the fame manner any other way, without the higheft Prophanation of that holy Inftitution. To which we may add,

4thly, That their departed Heroes were the Deities moftly worfhipp'd by the Heathen; and that this Cup here condemn'd, must have been a Cup drank in an honourable Remembrance of them: For otherwife the Antithefis is loft here; and the two Cups in this Text are not rightly oppos'd one to the other; and fo the whole Strefs of the Apoftle's Reafoning fails. This makes it a Cafe fo very like the Modern Practice, that whofoever confiders those Four Things,

Things must be of an Opinion, that he cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of a Departed Monarch. And for the very Reason affign'd in that place by the Apostle, because that Action of Drinking, when apply'd to the Remembrance of the Dead, is full of myfterious Signification, no less than the Communion of the Blood of Chrift, &c.

The

Obj. 9. The Wine drank to the Glorious and Immortal Memory, c. of K. W-m, is not Confecrated, therefore 'tis not Sacramental. Who fays it is? Therefore they don't drink it Religiously. Who fays they do? No; but very Irreligiously. Therefore they don't drink it, by way of Paying any Divine Honour. But 'tis ftrange they cannot fee how they may Pay a Divine Honour, tho' they do not design it fo; and that it is true that in Fact they do fo, tho' the Wine is not Confecrated. Question is, Whether Drinking in Remembrance of K. Wm, be not Paying him a Divine Honour, whether the Wine be Confecrated, or no; or whether they intend it, or not? Nay, tho' they openly profess they defign no Divine Honour; as the Papists do, when they Pray to Saints, and Proftrate themselves in a Pofture of Adoration before Pictures, and Relicks, and Statues. The Question is not about the Bread, nor about the Wine, or about the Confecration of either, or no Confecration of them; but about the Action of Drinking, apply'd to the Memory of the Dead; the Ufing of Wine to that one Pur

pofe;