Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Part 4 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Another Position, built upon the same ground.
OVr next position which we inferre, is this: that it is not indifferent Sect. I, to Sit, Stand, Passe, or Kneel, in the act of recieving the Sacramentall Elements of the Lords Supper: because we are bound to follove the example of Christ and his Apostles, who used the gesture of Sitting, in this holy action, as we prove from Ioh. 13. 12. from Math. 26. 20. with 26. Marke 14. 18. with 22.
Our Opposites here bestirre themselvers, and move every stone against us. Three answers they give us, which we will now consider.
First, they tell us, that it is not certaine that the Apostles were sitting when they received this Sacrament from Christ, and that adhuc sub Iudice lis est. Yet let us see, what they have to say against the certainty hereof.
B. Lindsey objecteth, that betweene their eating of the Paschall Supper, and the administration of the Sacrament to the Disciples, five acts interveened. 1. The taking of the Bread. 2. The Thanksgiving. 3. The Breaking. 4. The Precept, Take yee, eat yee. …. The Worde, whereby the Element was made the Sacrament. In which time (saith hee) the gesture of sitting might have beene changed.
Ans. It is first of all to bee noted, that the Apostles were sitting, at that instant when Christ tooke the Bread: for it is said, that hee tooke Bread, whiles they did eat, that is (as hcom. in Math. 26. 26.Maldonat rightly expoundeth it) Antequam surgerent, antequam mensae & ciborum reliquiae removerentun: and so wee use to say, that men are dyning or supping, so long as they sit at Table, and the meat is not removed from before them. To Christs ministring of the Eucharisticall Supper together with the preceeding Supper, Christians had respect when they celebrated the Lords Supper together with the Love-Feasts. Probabile est eos ad Christi exemplum respexisse, qui Eucharistiam inter caenandum instituit (saith icom. in 1. Cor. 11 21.Pareus.) But of this wee need say no more, for the B. himselfe hath here acknowledged no lesse, then that they were sitting at that time when Christ tooke the Bread. OnelyOnly hee saith, that there were five acts which interveened before the administration of the Sacrament to the Disciples (whereof the taking of the Bread was the first) and that in this while the gesture of sitting might have beene changed: which is as much as to say; when …e tooke the Bread they were sitting, but they might have changed this gesture, either in the time of taking the bread, or in the time of thanksgiving, or in the time of breaking the Bread, or whiles he said, Take ye, eat ye, or lastly, in the time of pronouncing those words; This is my body. (for this is the Word w…ereby (in the Bishops judgment) the Element was made the Sacrament, as we shall see afterward.)
Now but by his leave, we will reduce his fyve acts to three: for thus soeaketh the kMath. 26. 26. Marke 14. 22.text. And as they did eat. Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, take, eate, this is my body. Whence it is manifest, that the giving of the Bread to the Disciples, which no man (I suppose) will deny to have beene the administration of it, went before the two last acts, which the B. reckoneth out. Nothing therefore is left to him, but to say, that their gesture of Sitting might have beene changed, either in the taking, or in the blessing, or in the breaking, or else betweene the taking and the blessing, or betweene the blessing and the breaking; yet doth the text knit all the three togither by such a contiguity and connexion, as sheweth unto us, that they all did make up but one continued action, which could not admit any interruption.
I saw a Prelate sit doune to his breakefast, and as he did eate, he Sect. II tooke some cups, and having called for moe, he said he thanked God that he was never given to his belly: and with that, he made a promise to one in the company, which he brake within two dayes after. Wold any man question whether or not the Prelate was sitting, when he made this promise, forasmuch as betweene his sittintg doune to meate, and the making of the promise, there interveened his taking of some cups, his calling for moe, and his pronouncing of those words, I thāke God that I was never given to my belly. Yet might one farre more easily imagine a change of the Prelats gesture, then any such change of the Apostles gesture, in that holy action wheref we speake. Because the text setteth doune such a continued, entire, unbroken, and …ninterrupted action, therefore lInstit. lib. 4. cap. 17. § 35.Calvine gathereth out of the Text, that the Apostles did both take, and eate he Sacramentale Bread…. whiles they were sitting. Non legimus saith he, prostratos adorasse, sed ut erant discumbentes accepisse & manducasse. Christus saith mapud Didcclav. p. 794.Martyr, Eucharistiam Apostolis una secum sedentibus aut discumbentibus distribuit. ndisp. 3. de symb. canae dom. thes 4.G. I. Vossius puts it out of doubt, that Christ was still sitting, at the giving of the Bread to the Apostles. And that the Apostles were still sitting, when they recived the Bread ovbi supraHospinian thinkes it no lesse certaine. They made no doubt of the certainty hereof, who composed that old verse which we find in p3. q. 81. art. 1.Aquinas,
Rex sedet in caena, turla cinctus duodena:
Se tenet in manibus: se cibat ipse cibus.
Papists also put it out of controversy: for nde sacr. Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 30.Bellarmine aknowledgeth. that the Apostles could not externally adore Christ by prostrating themselves in the last Supper quando recumbere cum eo illis necesse erat. Where we see, hee could guesse nothing of the change of their gesture. Intelligendum est saith rconcord. Evang. cap. 129.C. Iansenius, Dominum in novissima hac caena, discubuisse & sedisse ante & post comestum agnum. sIn Luk. 22. 19.D. Stella sticketh not to say, distribuit Salvator mundi panem discumbentibus.
But now having heard B. Lindsey; let us heare what tApol. part 2. cap. 3. sect 5.Paybody will Sect. III …ay. He taketh him to another subterfuge, and tels us, that though we read that Christ tooke Bread whiles they did eate, yet can it not be concluded hence, that he tooke Bread whiles they did sit: because saith he, As they did eate, is expounded by uLuke 22. 20.Luke and x1 Cor. 11. 25.Paul, to be After they bad done eating, or after Supper. Thus is their language divided. B. Lindsey did yeeld to us, that when Christ tooke Bread, they were sitting, and his conjecture was, that this gesture of sitting might have been changed after the taking of the Bread. Paybody saw that he had done with the Argument, if he should graunt, that they were sitting when Christ tooke Bread, therefore he calleth that in question. Vulcans owne gimmers could not make his answer and the Bishops to sticke togither.
But let us examine the ground which Paybody takes for his opinion. He would prove from Luke and Paul, that when Mathew and Marke say, As they were eating, Iesus tooke Bread: the meaning is onelyonly this: After Supper Iesus tooke Bread: importing, that Christs taking of Bread did not make up one cōtinued action with their eating, & that therefore their gesture of sitting might have been changed between their eating of the preceeding Supper, and his taking of the Sacramentall Bread.
Whereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the Suppers which Christ did eate with his Disciples, that night wherein he was betrayed: And whichsoever of them the reader please to followe, it shall bee most easie to breake all the strength of the Argument, which Paybody opposeth unto us.
First then, there are some who think that Christ having kept the Passeover according to the Law, (which is not particularly related, Sect. IV but supponed by the Evangelists,) did sit downe to an common or ordinary Supper, at which he told the Disciples that one of them should betray him. And of this judgment are Calvine and Beza upon Math. 26. 20. Pareus upon Math. 26. 21. Fulke and Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. Tolet and Maldonat upon Ioh. 13. 2. Cornelius Iansenius Conc. Evang. cap. 131. Balthasar Meisnerus, Tractat die fest virid pag. 256. Iohannes Forsterus conc. 4. de pass. p. 538. Chrystophorus Pelargus in Ioh. 13. quaest. 2. and others. The reasons whereby their judgment is confirmed are these,
1. yIoseph. lib. 7. de bello Iud. cap. 17.Many societies conveened to the eating of the Paschall Supper by Twenties. And if Twentie was often the number of them who conveened to the eating of the same, (which also confirmeth their opinion, who thinke that other men and women in the Inne, did eate both the Paschall and Evangelicall Supper, togither with the Apostles in Christs company:) it is not very likely (say some) that all those were sufficiently satisfied and fedde with one lambe, which after it was eight dayes old, was allowed to be offered for the Passeover, as zMos. and Aaron lib. 3. c. 4.Godwyn noteth. acom. in Math. 26. 21.Neque esus unius agni saith Pareus, toti familiae sedandae fami sufficere poterat.
2. The Paschall Supper was not for banquetting or filling of the belly, as bubi supra.Iosephus also writteth. Non tam exsatiendae nutriendieque naturae saith ccom. in 10. 13. 2.Maldonat, quam fervandae legalis Ceremoniae causa sumebatur. Non ventri saith dubi supra.Pareus, sed religionn causa fiebat. But as for that Supper which Christ and his Apostles did eate, immediatly before the Eucharisticall; eannot. on. 1 Cor. 11. 23.Cartwright doubts not to call it a carnall Supper; an earthly repast; a Feast for the belly: which lets us know, that the Sacramentall Bread and Wine was ordained, not for feeding their bodies which were already satisfyed by the ordinary and dayly supper, but for the nourishment of the soule.
3. That beside the Paschall and Evangelicall Suppers, Christ and his Apostles, had also that night another ordinary Supper, fubi supra.Fulke proveth by the broth wherein the Sop was dipped 10. 13. 26. Where as there was no such broth, ordained by the Divine institution, to be used in the Paschall Supper.
4. That there were two Suppers before the Eucharisticall, they gather from Ioh. 13. For first, the Paschall Supper was ended vers. 2. after which Christ washed his Disciples feet. And thereafter we read vers. 12. gpar. ubi supra.Resumptis vestibus rursum ad caenam ordinariam consedisse. The dividing of the Passeover into two services or two Suppers, had no warrant at all from the first institution of that Sacrament: for which cause, they thinke it not likely, that Christ would have thus Dividedit, according to the device & custome of the Iewes in later times; for so much as in Mariage, (and much more in the Pesseover) he did not allow of that which from the beginning was not so. Neither seemeth it to them any way probable, that Christ would have interrupted the eating of the Passeover with the washing of his Disciples feet, before the whole Paschall Supper was ended, and they had done eating of it.
But others (and those very judicious too) are of opinion, that that second course whereunto Christ sate downe after the washing Sect. V of his Disciples feet, and at which he told them, that one of them should betray him, was not an ordinary or commone Supper (because the Paschall Supper was enough of it self to satisfie them,) but a part of the Paschall Supper. And from the Iewish writters they prove, that so the custome was, to divide the Passeover into two courses or services. As for that wherein Christ dipped the sop, they take it to have beene the sauce which was used in the Paschall Supper, called Charoseth: of which the Hebrewes writ, that it was made of the palme tree branches, or of dry figges, or of raysens, which they stamped and mixed with vinegar, till it was thick as mustard, & made like clay, in memory of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt; and that they used to dip both the unleavened bread & the bitter hearbs into this sauce. And as touching that place Io. 13. they expound it by the custome of the Iewes, which was to have two services or two Suppers in the Passeover: And take those words vers. 2. Supper beeing ended, to be meant of the first service: and sitting downe againe to Supper vers. 12. to be meant of the second service.
If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawen togither Sect. VI into one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sate downe after the washing of his Disciples feet, was (for the substance of it) a commone Supper, but yet it hath beene and may be rightly called the second service of the Paschall Supper, for that it was eaten the same night wherein the Paschall lambe was eaten: So should all the difference be taken away. But if the mantainers of these opinions will not be thus agreed, let the Reader consider to which of them he will adhere.
If the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily answered to Paybody, that hIansen. conc. Evang. cap. 131.Inter caenamdum instituta fuit Eucharistia, cum jam rursum mensae accubuissent. Sed post caenam Paschalem, & usum agni legalis. When Mathewe and Marke say, As they did eate, Iesus tooke bread, they speake of the commone or ordinary Supper. But when Luke and Paule say, that he tooke the Cup after Supper, they speake of the Paschall Supper, which was eaten before the commone Supper.
Againe, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ had no other Supper that night before the Evangelicall, except the Paschall only; yet sti'l the answere to Paybody, shall be easie; for whereas he would prove from those words of Luke & Paul, Likewise also the Cup after Supper, that when Mathew and Mark say, As they did eat, Iesus tooke Breade, their meaning is only this, After Supper, Iesus tooke Bread: he reasoneth very inconsideratly: forasmuch as Luke & Paul lay not of the Bread, but of the Cup only, that Iesus tooke it after Supper. And will Paybody say, that he tooke the Cup so soone as he tooke the Bread? If we will speake with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceeding Supper, (to which we reade they sate downe,) Iesus tooke Bread: for nothing at all interveened betwixt their eating of that other preceeding Supper, and his taking of the Eucharisticall Cup, there interveened the Taking, Blessing, Breaking, Distributing, and Eating of the Bread.
Now therefore, from that which hath beene said, we may well conclude, that our Opposites have no reason which they doe or can object, against the certanty of that received tenet that the Apostles received from Christ the Sacramentall Bread and Wine, whiles they were sitting. kIren. lib. 2. pag. 5 5. 361. 362.Dr. Forbesse himself setteth downe some Testimonies of Musculus, Chamier, & the Professors of Leiden, all acknowledging, that the Apostles, when they received the Lords Supper, were still sitting.
The second answere which our Opposites have given us, followeth. Sect. VII They say, that though the Apostles did not change their gesture of si…ting, which they used in the former Supper; when all this is graunted to us, yet there is as great difference betwixt our forme of sitting, and that forme of the Iewes which the Apostles used, as there is betwixt Sedere and Iacere.
Ans. 1. Put the case it were so, yet it hath beene often answered them, that the Apostles kept the Tablegesture, used in that Nation, and so are we bound herein to followe their example, by keeping the tablegesture used in this Nation. For this keeping of the usuall tablegesture of the Nation wherein we live, is not a forsaking, but a following of the commendable example of the Apostles: even as whereas they dranke the Wine which was drunke in that place, and we drinke the Wine which is drunke in this place, yet doe we not hereby differ from that which they did.
2. The words used by the Evangelists, signify our forme of sitting, no lesse then the Iewish. Calepine, Scapula, and Thomasius, in their Dictionories, take foreign, & the Latine words Discumbo, Recumbo, Accumbo (used by Arias Montanus, Beza, Marlorat, Tremellius, &c, in their versions) not only for lying, but also for such sitting, as is opponed to lying; even for sitting up right at Table, after our custome.
3. There is not so great a difference betwixt our forme of sitting, and that which the Iewes used, as our Opposites alledge. For as lAlt. dam. pag. 739.Didoclavius sheweth out of Casaubone; their sitting at banquets was only with a leaning upon the left arme, and so not lying, but sitting with a certaine inclination. When therefore we reade of mHadr. …ua. in nomen…lat.Lecti discubitorij tricliniares, in quibus inter caenandum, discumbebant, we must understand them to have beene seates, which compassed three sides of the Table (the fourth side beeing left open and voide for them who served) and wherein they did sit, with some sort of inclination.
Yet nubi supra pag. 46.B. Lindsey is bold to averre, that the usuall tablegesture of the Iewes, was lying along: and this he would prove from Amos 6. 4. They lye upon beds of yvorie, they stretch themselves out upon their couches.
Ans. 1. If we should yeeld to this Prelate his owne meaning wherein he taketh these words, yet how thinks he that the gesture of Drunkards and Gluttons, which they used when they were pampering themselves in all excesse of riot, and for which also they are upbraided by the Spirit of God, was either the ordinary table gesture of the Iewes, or the gesture used by Christ and his Apostles in their last Supper?
2. If any gesture at all be touched in those words, which he Prelate citeth, it was their gesture they used when they lay downe to sleep, and not their table gesture when they did eat. For Mitta and Ngheres, (the two words which Amos useth,) signify a Bed or a Couch wherein a man useth to lay himself downe to sleep. And in this sence we find both these words Psal. 6. 7. All the night make I my bed (mittathi) to swimme: I water my Couch (Ngharsi) with my teares. The Shunnamite prepared for Elisha a chamber, and there in set for him a bed (Mitta) and a Table, and a Stoole, and a Candlesticke, 2. Kings 4. 10. The Stoole or Chaire was for sitting at Table, but Mitta the Bed was for lying downe to sleep. Now the Prelate I hope will not say, that the Lecti tricliniares, wherein the Iewes used to sit at Table, and which compassed three sides of the same, (as hath beene said,) were their beds wherein they did lye and sleep all night.
But, 3. the place must be yet more exactly opened up. That word which is turned in our English bookes, they lie, commeth from the Radix Schachav, which in Pagnins Lexic on is turned dormire. We find Ruth 3. 7. Lischcav, which Arias Montanus turneth Ad dormiendum, to sleep Our owne English translation. 2. Sam. 11. 9. saith, Vriah sleept, where the originall hath Vajischcav. And the very same word is put most frequently in the bookes of the Kings and the Chronicles, where they speake of the death of the Kings of Iudah and Israel. Pagnine turneth it, & dormivit: and our English translators every where, And he sleept with his Fathers, &c. These things beeing considered, we must with Calvine read the place of Amos, thus; Qui decumbunt vel dormiunt in lectis. The other word which the Prophet useth, is Seruchim. Our English version turneth, They stretch themselves out. But Pagnine, Buxtorf, Tremellius, and Tarnovius, come nearer the sence, who reade Redundantes, Superstuentes, or Luxuriantes. Which sence the English translation also hath in the margen. The Septuagints followed the same sence, for they read foreign i. e. Living in pleasure. So, 1 Tim. 5. 6. shee that liveth in pleasure foreign. And Iam. 5. 5. Yea have lived in pleasure foreign. The Radix is Sarach, Redundavit, or Luxuriavit. So Exod. 26. 12. Sarach, and vers. 13. Saruach, is put for a surplusage or superfluous remainder, redundans & supersluum, as Tremellius readeth. Now then, it is evident, that the thing which Amos layeth to the charge of those who were at ease in Zion, in the words which the Prelat citeth against us, is, that they slept upon beds of yvorie (such was their softnesse and superfluitie,) and swimmed in excessive pleasures upon their couches. And incontinent this filthie and muddie streame of carnall delicacie and excessive voluptousnesse, which defiled their beds, ledde him backe to the uncleane fountaine out of which it ishued, even their riotous pampering of themselves at Table: Therefore he subjoyneth, And eat the lambes out of the flocke, &c. For Ex mensis itur ad cubilia, ex gula in venerem saith Cornelius a lapide commenting upon the same Text. Thus have I cleared he place in such sort, that the B. can not but shoote short of his aimes. Wherefore I goe on to other replies.
4. If the Apostles when they received the Lords Supper, or the Iewes, when they did eat at Table, were lying all along, how could their mouthes receive drinke unspilt? Or how could they have the use of both their armes? which the B. himself would not (I am sure) gainesay, if he would once trie the matter in his owne person, and assay to eat and drinke, whiles he is lying along.
5. The words used by Mathew 26. 20. Mark 14. 18. Where they speake of Christes sitting downe with the twelve, is also used by Iohn. 6. 11. where he speaketh of the peoples sitting downe upon the grasse, to eat the loaves and fishes: and will any man thinke that the people did eat lying along upon the grasse, where they might farre better sit upright?
6. If our Opposites like to speake with others, then let them looke backe upon the Testimonies which I have alledged before. Iansenius putteth discubuisse & sedisse: Martyr, sedentibus aut discumbentibus. Pareus useth the word Consedisse. oTractat. die festo virid. p. 256.M…isuerus, consedendo. Evangelista (saith pIn Luke. 22. 14.D. Stella,) dicit dominum discubuisse, id est sedisse ad mensam.
7. If they like to speake with themselves: qpraelect. Tom. 3. pag 27.Camero speaking of Ihone his leaning on Christes bosome at Supper, saith, Christus autem sedebat medius. rpartic. def. cap. 3. sect. 4.D. Mortone saith, it can not be denyed, that the gesture of Christ and his Apostles, at the last Supper, was sitting: only saith he, the Evangelists leave it uncertaine, whether this sitting was upright or somewhat leaning. It entered not in his minde to guesse any thing of lying. The English Translaters also, say not that Christ lay downe, but that he sate downe.
Their third answere is, that Christs sitting at the last Supper, is no more examplary and imitable, then the upper chamber, or the night season, or the sexe and number of communicants, &c. Sect. VIII
Ans. As for the sexe and number of communicants, sannot. …. 1 Cor. 11. 23.Dr. Fulke rightly observeth, that it is not certaine from Scripture, that twelve men onelyonly and no women did communicate (as tubi supra p. 11.B. Lindsey would have us certainly to believe) But put the case it were certaine, uSee Alt. Dā. p. 742.yet for this and all those other circumstances, which are not examplary; there were speciall reasons either in the urgency of the legall necessity, or in the exigency of present and accidentall occasions, which doe not concerne us: whereas the gesture of sitting, was freely and purposely chosen, and so intended to be examplary, especially since there was no such reason moving Christ to use this gesture of sitting, as doth not concerne us.
xubi supra p. 40.The B. saith, that his sitting, at the former Supper, might have been the reason which moved him to sit at the Eucharisticall Supper. But if Christ had not purposely made choice of the gesture of sitting, as the fittest and most convenient for the Eucharisticall Supper, his sitting at the former Supper, could be no reason to move him, as may appeare by this example. There are some Gentlemen standing in a noble mans waiting roume, and after they have stood a while there, the Noble man commeth forth: they beginne to speake to him, and as they speake, still they stand. Now can any man say, that the reason which moveth them to stand, when they speake to the Noble-man, is, because they were standing before he came to them? So doth the B. come short of giving any speciall reason for Christs sitting, which concerneth not us. He can alledge no more but Christs sitting at the former Supper; which could bee no reason; else he should have also risen from the Eucharisticall Supper, to wash the Disciples feet, even as he rose from the former Supper, for that effect. Wherefore wee conclude, that Christ did voluntarily and of set purpose, choose sitting as the fittest and best beseeming gesture for that holy Banquet.
Finally, yEccl. Pol. lib. 5 sect. 6.Hookers verdict of the gesture of Christ and his Apostles in this Holy Sacrament, is, That our Lord himselfe did that, which custome and long usage had made fit: we, that which fitnesse and great decency hath made usuall. In which words, because he importeth, that they have better warrants for their kneeling, then Christ had for his sitting (which is blasphemie) I leave them as not worthy of an answer. Howsoever, let it be noted, that he aknowledgeth, by kneeling they depart from the example of Christ.