A Defense of our Arguments Against Kneeling in Receiving the Lords Supper, Defense 1
DEFENCE OF OUR I. ARGVMENT.
THE gesture of our Lord, and his Apostles, at the Paschall Supper, was a kind of sitting gesture. The same gesture was continued at the Eucharisticall Supper. For whilst they did eat, to wit, of the second service of the Paschall Supper (and consequently whilst they did sit) Christ took bread, and gave thanks, Math. 26. 26. Mark. 14 22. This collection is so cleere, and evident, that the Papists themselves, hote persecuters for kneeling, doe acknowledge the same. Cardinall Baronius; aAnnal. tom. 1. an, 34. num. 44. Vnde quod dicit Matthaeus, coenantibus autem eis accepit Jesus panem, & benedixit, & quod Marcus a…, & manducantibus illis accepit Iesus panem, & benedicens fregit: idem est ac si dixisset, recumbēubus illis.That Matthew sayth, And as they were eating Jesus took bread, and blessed; and Mark saith, And as they did eat Iesus took bread, and blessed, and brak it, it is all one, as if they had sayd, whilst they were sitting. But Matthew and Mark, sayth our new made Doctor, must be interpreted by Luke and Paul, who do say, that Christ did institute the Sacrament after they had supped, Luk. 22. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 24. I answer, that Paul and Luke speak of the cup, and not of the bread, Likewise after Supper, he …ook the cup, and blessed. Likewise, that is, hee give thankes, as he had done before, when hee took the bread. Neither Paul, nor any of the Evangelists do say, that after hee had supped, hee took the bread, as they doe of the cup. This difference of speech made Bellarmine bDe Eucharist lib. 4. cap. 27.to follow their opinion, who thought, that Christ consecrated, and distributed, the bread, in the very time of the Legall Supper, whilst they were eating of it, and that after other actions interveening, and the Supper ended Christ took the cup. There is no necessitie to collect such a disjunction of so heavenly a mysterie; but the common opinion is to be retained, that this Mysterie was instituted per modum … signi, in one continued action. Alwayes wee may see, that the bread being consecrated, and distributed, and eaten, before Christ took the cup, justly it may be said, that after supper he took the cup, seeing now the first halfe of this holy action was ended, and had intervened between their eating of the Paschall Supper, and the taking of the cup. Put the case that Luke and Paul had said that after Supper he took bread, their words must so interpre… Matthew and Mark, as that there be no contradiction. Christ took bread whiles they were eating, and yet notwithstanding after they had supped, because they were now closing vp their eating, and Christ entred in another act on. Barra…us the Iesuit cTom. 4. l. 3. c. 2. Quavis autē …otū Sacramentū post coenam institutum fuerit, in ipsius tamen coenae fine institutum est, eum adhuc discumberēt, & manducarent. Nam manducarunt …bos alios quosq…e ad institutionem …oelestes …bi ventum est. Ideoque Matth. & Mar. a…unt, mand…cantibus ipsis effectum esse hoc Sacramentū. Adhuc enim in inducabant, cum Dominus accepit panem, benedixit, & fregit.faith, Howb…t the whole Sacrament was instituted after supper, yet it was instituted in the end of the supper, while as they were yet sitting, and eating: for they eat other meat, … the time of the institution of the heavenly food▪ and therfore Matthew and Mark say, that the Sacrament was instituted, while as they were eating: for they were yet eating, when the Lord took bread, blessed, and brake. Thus much for the first collection of the sitting gesture of Christ and his Apostles at the Eucharisticall Supper, upon which all interpreters ancient and moderne hauehave builded. Suppose the first collection should faile, this second collection following will proue it. It behooved them either to sit, stand, or kneele. Stand they could not, for the beds joyned to the table would not suffer that gesture. They did not kneele; for if Christ had changed the ordinarie gesture of sitting at the Paschall supper, into kneeling at the Eucharisticall, a gesture of adoration, and no table gesture, then kneeling had been instituted and not left indifferent, and arbitrarie: For to what end should Christ have changed the one in the other, except it had been his will to have it observed, as other changes made in passing from the last act of the Paschall supper to the Eucharisticall. But our opposites dare not say, that kneeling was instituted. If therfore they neither kneeled nor stood, it followeth that they …ate. Never man was so impudent as to call this in doubt, till within these two or three yeares by past, that two or three hirelings have done it.
In the Apostles times the gesture of sitting was continued in the Kukes: for the lovefeasts and the Lords Supper were so neere conjoyned in time, how be it different in mysterie, that Casaubone dExercit. 16. p. 511. Paulus …otam illam Corinthiorū actionē, quae sacro & cō muni convivio constabat; a potiori parte vocat Coenam Dominicam. Tom. 1. An. 57. Num. 130. Corinthios autem inter coenandum miscentes sacra cō munibus, quod correxit Paulus, Eucharistiā sumere consuevisse. Au. epist. 118. ad Ianuariū affirmat.saith, the whole action consisting of the sacred and common banket, was calied by Paul the Supper of the Lord from the better part. Augustine affirmeth that the Corinthians not onelyonly conjoyned, but also confounded them; and so doth Baronius the Cardinall vnderstand him, when he saith; Augustine ad Januarium epist. 118. affirmeth, that the Corinthians used to take the Eucharist at supper, mixing sacred things with common, which the Apostle corrected. And afterward eNum. 136. scriptū a Philone convivium sacris videtur admixtū quale illud Pauli ad Corinthios.he sayth, that the feasting described by Philo seemeth to have been mixed with sacrea purposes, like that of which Paul writeth in his epistle to the Corinthians. Now at that frugall feasting wherof Philo maketh mention, they sate on the ground upon mattes made of flagges, and their feasting was intermixed with hymnes and praises. Howsoever the Corinthians abused this holy action otherwayes, yet this intermixing declareth the usuall conjunction of the two parts, or actions. They being then in the Apostles time so neerely conjoyned in time, and distinguished onelyonly in mysterie, it behooved them to sit at the one part, as they sate at the other: and so doth Bishop Bilson affirme fObedience pag. 461.. The practise of many Kirks after the Apostles times, even till Augustines daies argueth, that they sate in the Apostles times. Bullinger, gDe origine error▪ circa coenam cap. 4. Vnde nimirum ritus ille ad nos dimanavit, quo vel bodie in Cathedralibus ecclesus & monaster…s Benedictinorum in die Coenae Domini ante parasceuen Coena Domini palam & sp…endidius celebratur. Nam Evangelium Iohannis 4 Diacono publice praelegitur, & dulcisstma illa colloquia Christi, quae abiturus cu… discipulis habuit, recitantur: interim ordine dispositis mensis convivae assident, panem azimum frangentes, & calicem invicem propinantes, & in totum veteris coenae vestigium praeferentes.from the different manner of celebrating this holy Supper related by Augustine, observeth as followeth: Whence that rite is stowed unto us, by which even as yet in Cathedrall Churches, and the Monasteries of the Benedictines on the day called The Supper of the Lord, before good friday, the Supper of the Lord is celebrated openly, and with great pompe: For the Gospell according to John is read publikly by the Deacon, and these most sweete conferences of Christ, which he being to depart had with his disciples are rehearsed. In the mean time the tables being set in order, the banketters sit down to them breaking unleavened bread, and reaching the cup to other, and so everie way representing the trace of the ancient Supper. This footstep of the ancient custome yet remaining amongst the monasteries of S. Bennets order, and observed upon Maundy Thursday, Morneus also observeth. See the Solution of D. resol. resolutions. hp. 12. 27.
Our first Argument then against kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramentall elements is drawn from the example of Christ and his Apostles at the first institution; and the practise of the primitiue Kirks following in the Apostles times. Their gesture was not a gesture of adoration in the act of receiving, but a Table gesture▪ for it was a sit…ing gesture they used, and not kneeling. Christ instituted Baptisme, but wee reade not that he baptised in his own person. But in this Sacrament hee was not onelyonly institutor, as Lord, but also celebrated as a Minister, and set down a most exact and perfect paterne of celebration. The practise of the Apostles following the same order is a direction to us to follow the same also.
We reason likewise from this example and practise, against any other gesture which is not a Table-gesture, howbeit not with the same force, as against kneeling. There is eating with walking (as Pios the Monk did, who said hee would not make a worke of eating his meate) but this is no tablegesture. To stand in the act of receiving, and then passe by, as in some Churches they do, is not a table-gesture. For there is no more use of a Table in this case, when the communicant standeth, & taketh out of the ministers hand, more then of a cupboord, or dressor, suppose it were never so long. For so it serveth onelyonly to the setting on of the elements, that from thence they may bee reached by the hand of the Minister to the Communicant. A table of as short dimensions, may serve to that use, at the Papists require of necessitie for their Altar to hold up the foot of the Chalice, and so much of the plate, as may keep it from falling, together with the Masse-book, and the candle.
We reason thirdly from the same example and practise, but with least vehemencie, against other table-gestures also, as standing about the table; because it is not agreeable to the first paterne and practise. It was not coena stataria, aut ambulatoria, but accubitoria, which Christ and his Apostles celebrated: not a standing or walking, but a sitting supper. But to returne to kneeling, I conclude with the words of Calvin, who sayth, That (i) Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. S. 35.they are sure that they swarve not from Gods commandement, who take the sacramement as God hath commanded without adoration. They have the example of the Apostles, who prostrate not themselves but took sitting. They have the practise of the Apostolicall Kirks, &c. And of Beza against Harchius, kContra Harchium. Scilicet, quū ipse adstans ad mensam Dominus, vere adorandu… qua Deus, & qua De… & homo simul coenam instituebat, surrexerunt singuli discipuli, ut …genua procumbentes, panem illum & vinum illud ex ipsius ma… acciperent: & ignorabant scilicet ipsi Apostoli quo ritu deinceps celebranda mysteria ecclesijs traderent.So like, as when the LORD truely to be adored as God, and as God and man at table did institute this holy Supper, that the disciples arose, to the end that falling on their knees, they might receive that bread and wine out of his hand: and so like as the Apostles were ignorant h… to deliver to the Kirks the manner of celebrating these mysteries.
It is objected first▪ that if this argument be go…d then the minister should teach sitting, because Christ taught sitting. But the case is no alike. For the Lords supper is a rituall action, and a visible object is presented before the communicant. Christ taught us by his example, how to behave our selves in such a case. Next, Christ taught sometime standing, sometime sitting, according to the opportunity of time and place. He sate in the mount, Mat. 5. he stood in the plain, Luk. 6. Paul stood up and made his exhortation in the synagogue, Act. 13. He that prophesied stood up, 1. Cor. 14. 30. as Cajetanus doeth collect. lAudientes sedere, prophetantes stare significat dicendo, Quod si alij sedenti.The originall word signifieth, that the other prophet who was not in the act of prophesying, was sitting, not sitting by. Lastly, this objection may be retorted upon themselves, That seeing Christ and his Apostles and all teachers and hearers in all ages afterward, did not preach or heare preaching kneeling, we can have no warrant to do it. If not at delivery or receiving of the word, then also not at the delivery or receiving of the sacramentall elements.
It is objected next, that Christ and his Apostles sate not at the paschall supper alter our manner of sitting, and that it was rather a lying then a sitting, as the originall words anakeisthai and anapiptem do import? It hath been answered already mP. A. pag. 38. …ol. pag. …. 6.that it was not totally lying, but partly sitting, partly lying, and translated sitting, not lying, by the English translators. Yea the holy Ghost doth expresse this same gesture also by the word sitting in the originall language, Ezech. 23. 41. That kind of gesture, (whether brought in among the Iewes by the Romans or Persians, or if it was as ancient as the dayes of David or Salomon, as some do collect out of 1. Sam. 9. 22. Prov. 7. 14. 16. Cant. 1. 12. it is not materiall) succeeded in the roome of upright sitting, and hath given place again to the same, as answering analogically to it. It was in Christs time the received manner of sitting, and no further is required of us but to observe the received gesture of the countrey, where we are. It is also to be observed that anakeisthai and anapiptein are not the proper vocables to expresse this kind of gesture, as Athenaeus doth testifie. nLib. 1. cap. 18.Beza in Math. 8. 11. sayth, that anaclinesthai is put there for cataclinesthai the proper greek vocable of this gesture. Farther, howbeit in a private parlor a small number did sit after that manner at the first paschall supper, yet it is no way probable, that in the Christian assemblies afterward in Corinth, Ierusalem, or else where, they sate after the same manner. For howsoever there is mention made in ancient writers of houses of 60. 80. or 100. beds, that was not common, but peculiar to princes and great men. Plutarch oSymposia 5.noteth it as a vice in a man to build houses for 30. supping beds, or above. Shall we then think, that the Apostolicall Kirks had the use of such houses for their meetings, or that the Lords supper could be celebrated in such a form in their numerous assemblies.
It is thirdly obiected, that if we be bound to the imitation of Christ, and his Apostles gesture by as good reason we shall be bound to the imitation of the time and place; that is, to celebrate after supper, and in a private house. It is answered that the circumstances of time and place of the first supper were onelyonly occasionall, and the occasion of them was vnavoydable because of the law of the passe over. But the gesture might be easily changed by Christ without violation of Gods law, namely seeing the paschall supper was ended. It was a easie to them to goe to their knees, as to the Aegyptian Naucratits after they were set downe to their feasts, when they began to sing hymnes to their gods. But our Lord would keep the same forme at the Eucharisticall supper, which hee kept at the paschall. Our Doctor sayth, that the Apostles retained these circumstances, and changed them not. I answer, if that were true, we have no reason, nor warrant to doe otherwise. Next, if the Apostles retained these circumstances upon occasion, and not for imitation, upon necessitie, & not voluntarily, then he hath gained nothing. For we deny not, that in times of persecution, or when occasionally there falleth out any necessity, we may celebrate in the night, and in a private house, where the Church is assembled. The Apostles would not have been suffered to celebrate the supper in the temple, as sometime they were overseen to teach. Next, it was not so fit for the celebration of the Lords supper, as for the preaching of the word. The first was ordeined onelyonly for the beleevers: the last, to convert also unbeleeving Iewes. Thirdly, there is no likelihood that they celebrated ever at night. For howbeit at Troas Act. 20. it were granted to have been celebrated at midnight; as some do call it in question, yet who seeth not, that it was then d…layed to that time, not because it was the usuall time, or for imitation of the institution but onelyonly upon occasion. The Apostle being to depart, did continue preaching, and so that action was continued. The Centurie vvriters doe not affirme, that the Corin…hians did celebrate after supper, but onelyonly say videtur, that it seemeth so. But Chrysostome pHomil. 7. …n 1. Cor. 11.affirmeth the contrary, that they did celebrate in the morning. It is sayd Act. 2. 46. that they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking of bread from house to house. Pa…ae…s sayth, qDe symbol. & ritib. eucharist. p. 152. Neque Apostoli ad tempus vespertinum sese adstrinxerūt, sed pro occasione caenam administrarunt, alias diurno tēpore, ut legere est, Act. 2. 46. alias intēpesta nocte, ut act. 20. Quo sacto satis ostenderunt tempus coenae per se esse indifferens.that the Apostles did not adstrict themselves to the evening, but occasionally ministred the Supper, sometimes in the day time, as Act. 2. 46. sometimes late in the night, as Act. 20. whereby they shew that the time of the Supper is indifferent.