A Defense of our Arguments Against Kneeling in Receiving the Lords Supper, Defense 5
Defence of our fifth Argument.
KNeeling, say we, maketh many communions in one Congregation, in the place of one, without any necessity: wheras if wee keeped the right order, wee needed not to doe so. This addition without any necessity, he leaveth out, and impugneth the rest. We set to that addition without any necessity, because some Congregations are so populous, that they cannot communicate together in one day. Neither doe I thinke that any reasonable man will allow Congregations to be so populous, that they cannot communicate together in one day. That P…rishes should be of so large extent, and Congregations so populous, is rather to be reformed as an abuse, then to be allowed. So the addition of that clause, without necessitie, is onelyonly made in respect of the corruption of the times, not of that order which should be. Our Argument is grounded upon the Apostles precept, 1. Cor. 11. 33. Where… brethren when ye come together to eat, ta… … another. He sayth, that this text is alledged impertinently, because the Apostle by these words would redresse a certaine abuse which was in the Church of Corinth at their love-feasts, willing the rich to …ary for the poore. This is just the answer of the Rhemists upon this place. Hee exhorteth them say they, to keep their sayd suppers or feasts in unity, peace, and sobriety, the rich expecting the poore, &c. I content me with Fulk his answer. The words that follow (if any be an hungred, let him eat at home) doe declare manifestly, that this expectation, or tarying one for another, is to receive the communion of the Lords supper, and not to the eating of their love-suppers, which were ch…efly to relieve the poore, that were hungry. And bringeth the testimonies of Photius, Chrysostome, Theophilact, Primasius, Ambrose, and Hierome, to this purpose. Ambrose upon this text sayth, He sayth that they must tarry one for another, that the oblation of many may bee celebrated together, and that all may be served, and if any bee impatient, hee may bee fed with earthly bread at home. That you come not together to iudgement, that is, that you keep not the mystery so, as you bee worthy to be reprehended with offence, Hierome or some other under his name, upon this same place sayth, Because none taried for other, that the offring might be made in common, therefore they came together, not unto sanctification, but unto iudgement. Bilson tObedience, p. 461.citeth Augustine to the same purpose: yea Augustine affirmeth, that the Apostle speaking of this sacrament, sayth, For which cause brethren, when you assemble together to eat, expect one another. And againe, vObedience p. 494.he citeth these words of Chrysostome, xHomil. in dictum Pauli oportet hereses esse.Paul calleth … the Lords Supper, which is received in common, with one consent of all assembled together: for untill all communicate and bee partaker… of that spirituall food, the mysteries once set forth, are not taken away, but the Priests standing still, stay for all, yea for the poorest of all. The particle therefore knitting he 33. verse to the verses preceeding, maketh it manifest that this precept is to be referred to the Sacrament. See more of this point in Perth Assembly yP. A: pag. 44.. He saith that we may communicate Sacramentally in divers Parishes, which I thinke no other man ever affirmed. For howbeit they communicate together spiritually, as all Christians doe in the remotest parts of the world, receiving the same spirituall food signified in this Sacrament. Yet they doe not communicate together sacramentally, but who receive the Sacrament together. Cartwright, writing against the Rhemists, speaketh well to this purpose zIn 1. Cor. 11. 24.The Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. 17. meaneth the communion of those that in one Congregation, or Church, eat together, and not of the communion of those that receive the Sacrament in another Church, it is evident, for that hee placeth the seale of this communion in eating all of one bread, and at one table: wheras they that communicate in another Congregation, or Church, communicate not of one table or bread with them that are farre removed, no more then they, that celebrated the Passeover in divers houses, were partakers of one Lamb or Kid. For notwithstanding that Christ (who is the Lamb and the Bread) be but one, yet the outward matter of the Sacrament cannot be one but many, according to the number of places, wherein the Sacrament is ministred. See more in this place, and in 1. Cor. 10. 17. See also Fulk in these places. And whether onelyonly the twelue Apostles did communicate at the first Supper, see Cartwright and Fulk on Matth. 26. 20. This sacramentall communion of one Congregation was expressed yet more lively, where they dranke of one cup, and eat of one bread. The Doctor himself… alledged before aPag. 19.a saying of Musculus, wherein he approved their forme, who used but one cup to signifie the Mysterie of one and the same bloud, wherof all the faithfull do drink alike, yet not condemning the custome of those Churches, which use moe cups in the Lords Supper, because of the multitude of the Communicants. Neither do I think on the other side, that others will condemne those who use but one cup. But to place a greater necessitie in one cup, then in one bread, cannot be commended. They had of old, in some Churches, one bread, as well as one cup, one in number, of one masse, unum unitate numerica sive physus per partium continuationem, and not one in morall conjunction of many peeces, as many dishes are called but one banket. And this one masse or loafe was unbroken, or cut in peeces till the Minister had first blessed; and for this use they had a knife called Sacra …a… cea, as Iewell observeth. bArt. 11.Where also the Reader may finde many testimonies of t… one bread, whereunto I refer. This old custome declareth that sacramentall communion cannot be extended so farre, as the Doctor would have it. See more of this argument(c) P. A. pag. 44. Sol. p. 32. in the two former Treatises.