A Solution of Doctor Resolutus Resolutions for Kneeling, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. A table gesture is necessarie.
THe Doctor taketh needlesse paines to proue fitting in the act of receiving the Sacramentall elements of bread and wine, not to be necessary. For we hold not sitting in special absolutely necessary in the act of receiving, but a table-gesture in generall, whether sitting or standing about the table, we hold necessary; howbeit not to the essence, yet to the right ministration of the Sacrament. And of these two table gestures. VVe hold sitting most aggreeable to the institution: for Christ setting down before his Apostles, a patterne conforme where unto they should celebrate that holy action thereafter, celebrate the same sitting: and this gesture ougt not to be changed, no not in an other table gesture, without some urgent necessity. To stand at the ministers hand, or to take in passing by, we account no table-gesture; for there is no use in that case more of a table-gesture, then if it were a dressor, or cup-boord; and that kind of gesture taketh away the distribution of the communicants, which is not taken away by standing about the table.
CASAVBONVS, doth acknowledge the gesture of Christ and his Apostles at the Paschal supper, to have been not a section 1 simple lying, but a gesture consisting partly of sitting, and lying, aExercitat. 16. pag. 490.and alledged not onelyonly the place of Ezkiel, 23.41. But also Onkelos the Chaldee paraphrast,Hic fitus neque plane jacentis est, neque plane sedentis: Idcirco hebrei hoc dixerunt sedere in lectis. expressing the sitting of Iosephs brethren, by a word which the Syrians use to expresse, sitting with leaning: and Iosephus expressing it by the word Cataclisis, the proper word used to signifie the gesture received in Christs time: thereafter he alledgeth the phrase of the Rabbins, which they use to expresse sitting with leaning. Seeing therefore the Hebrew, Chaldaick and Rabbinical writers do interpret the one word indifferently by the other, our vulgar translators have done right in expressing Christs gesture by the word, sitting. The Doctor himselfe at perth assembly, confessed that our gesture of upright sitting, and his Apostles gesture at the Paschal supper, were Analoga. If Christ had celebrated the Paschal supper in the dayes of DAVID or SALOMON, before the custome of sitting at table in beds entred among the Iewes, he had used the gesture of upright sitting, as the Iewes did then, and as the Iewes do at this day, when they celebrate the Paschal Supper.
section 2 His first argument against the necessity of sitting, the uncertainty argument 1 of Christs sitting, and the likelihood that they stood or kneeled at the blessing, and continued the same gesture throughout the whole action. The testimony of Athenaeus of the custom of the Naucracites, will not make it probable that Christ kneeled at the blessing. VVhat Ethnickes did on the birth day of Vesta, or festivitie of Apollo, Comaeus was no pattern to Christ to imitate. Neither was it Christ constant gesture to kneele in time of prayer or blessing. It was the custome of the Iewes to sit in the time of the blessing of the bread, and the cup of praise in the last act of the Paschal Supper, and the words were summarie, that they were sooner pronounced, then they could conveniently change rheir gesture. Christ no doubt, at all the Pascall suppers before kept the ordinary custome. If at other Paschal suppers, why not also at this? And if at this Paschal supper, why not at the Eucharistical? except we will think that the one required kneeling more then the other. VVhile as the Disciples were sitting at table in Emaus, Christ gave thankes, and Math. 14. after the people were placed and set on the ground, Christ gave thankes looking up to heaven onelyonly. This lifting up of the eyes to heaven was indeed familiar with Christ, even when he went about some miraculous or extraordinary work, Ioh: 11.41. VVhen he was to raise Lazarus, he gave thankes lifting up his eyes. And when he went out after supper to the garden, and prayed that prayer Ioh. 17. It is said onelyonly that he lifted up his eyes. The Liturgie ascribed to Iames and Ambrose,bDe Sacrament: lib. 4. cap. 5. constantly affirme, that he lifted up his eyes also when he gave thankes at the Eucharistical supper: no further do they affirme.
Put the case the Doctors conjecture were true, it will not follow that Christ and his Apostles continued the gesture of standing or kneeling throughout the whole action. They could not stand all the time: for their sitting with leaning on their left elbowes, and their breasts, towards the table, required the table to be so neere, that they might not stand betwixt the beds and the table. They could not stand upon their beds; for then their feet had been neerer to the table then their hands or their heads. Christ sayd, Arise, let us go hence, Ioh: 14.31. How could they arise if they wer already standing? It behoved them therefore eihter to sit or to kneele.
I prove they kneeleed not by the reasons following: 1. If there had been such a change from sitting to kneeling, the Evangelists would not have omitted it, seeing it had been so great a change from the accustomed and ordinary table-gesture used at all times before at the Paschal supper, unto a gesture of adoration, a gesture of a farre different nature and kinde. The Evangelists make mention of all other changes made in passing from the last act of the Paschall supper to the Evangelicall. There is no reason therefore to think that they omitted this. There is no circumstance of their texts that doth insinuate any such change, but rather the contrary, that while they were eating, and consequently while they were sitting still, Christ tooke bread and gave thankes. 2. If Christ changed sitting into kneeling, then kneeling is a part of the institution: & so all the Kirkes which have not kneeled since Christs his dayes, shall be guiltie of transgressing the institution. For this I hold as a ground; That whatsoever change Christ made, in changing the last act of the Paschal supper into the Eucharisticall, was a part of the institution; namely when the change is made to a rite of worship or adoration For to what end els should the change have been made, if it was not to be practised afterward as a part of the institution? Now our opposites do acknowledge, that kneeling is indifferent, & consequently not a part of the institution. 3. Christ at the delivery of the elements, spake in an enuncirtive form; This is my body that is broken for you: and not in form of a prayer, saying in the Gregorian stile; The body of the Lord preserve thee both body and soule to life everlasting, or in any other such forme of prayer. Therefore the Apostles kneeled not in the act of receiving. And this I hold as an other ground: That kneeling was never practised in the Apostolicall Kirk in time of divinine service, but in the action of publick prayer or thankesgiving, nor ought not to be practised but at the sayd times. Our opposites in our neighbour Kirk pretend that they kneele in regard of the prayer uttered at the delivery of the elements. The ministers of Lincoln denude them of this pretence: yet their alledgance confirmeth my assertion. 4. The elements were carried from hand to hand, and divided by the communicants amongst themselves. Now our opposites themselves do not admit as compatible, the kneeling of the communicants, and the distributing of the elements among themselves.
This last reason is proved at length in Perth Assembly, where unto I referre the Reader, I adde onelyonly for further confirmation, the authorities both of Papists and Protestants, applying the precept Luk 22.17. Divide it amongst you, to the communion cup. Barradius cTom. 4. Lib. 3. cap. 1.followeth Augustine and Enthymius, because Luke subjoyneth to that precept, the same protestation that Mathew and Mark do subjoyne to the communion cup; to wit, that Christ would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, untill, &c. and that the cause of the anticipation was, that the protestation of not drinking more might be joyned with the protestation of not eating more. Iansenius dConcordia Evangelica, cap 151.is moved with the same reason, and because the thankesgigiving mentioned in the 17. verse is omitted, when Luke returneth afterward to speake of the same cup, because it was already expressed. Maldonatus eIn Math. 26.27.sayth, that when Christ gave the cup to one, least he should seeme to will him onelyonly to drink, he sayd, Drink ye all of it, which Luke expressed in cleerer tearmes, cap. 22.17. saying, Divide it among you. VValterius fDe triplici coena. page …15.sayth likewayes, that the cup was carried from hand to hand. As for our own writers, Hospinianus gHistorie sacramentarie part. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 1.sayth, It is manifest, that Christ gave not the cup to every one severally, but onelyonly to the first, and the first reached it to the second, & so forth. Erasmus in his paraphrase hLuc. cap. 22 17.sayth, it is observed by the Ancients, that Luke maketh twice mention of the communion cup. Piscator in his Analysis on Luke, sayth, iCap. 22.17It is cleare that the words are to be understood of the cup of the Lords supper. Gualter kIn Luke 22 17.likewise beginneth the institution at the 17. verse. Mornaeus lDe Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 12 p. 154 in foliosayth, Christ gave the cup when he sayd, Drink ye all of it: Divide it among you. Sibrandus mIn cateches. palatino belglcā, quest. 75.speaketh to the same purpose. Calvin in his Institutions nLib. 4. c. 17. sect. 43.Beza in his last annotations in the same place, VVislets,oDe Euchar. quest 4. p. 545 Bilson,pObedience pag 495 Iewel, qOf private Masse, divis. 8and many moe might be cited to the same effect howbeit Bellarmine is loath to grant that precept to be meant of the communion cup, because of the fruit of the vine, mentioned in the protestation subjoyned, which maketh against transubstantion, yet he granteth the matter itselfe, to wit, that the cup was divided, rDe Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25.& reached frō one to another. And Becanus the Iesuit sDe communione sub utraque specie pag. 125.sayth, Drink ye all of it, is all one with take & divide it among you. Now as the cup was divided among the communicants so was likewise the bread: for as Christ sayd, take ye in the plurall number, drink ye; so he sayd, take ye, eate ye, and not take thou, eate thou. Analogie requireth, that the bread should be divided among the communicants, as well as the cup. It were strange to see the minister remain in his own place when the cup is carried from hand to hand, and to goe along the table to dispense the element of the bread. Hospinianus, Morneus, Sibrandus and others, make the precept, divide it among you, common both to the bread and the cup. Cajetane tIn Math. 26.confesseth that Christ was so farre distant from some of them, that he could not deliver the bread to every one severally, more then the cup. The later confession of Helvetia subscribed not onelyonly by the Tygurines, and their confederates of Bern, Scaphusia, Sangallia, Rhetia; but also by the Kirkes of Geneva, Savoy, Polonie, Hungarie, and Scotland, anno 1566, hath these words, vChapt. 2…: Outwardly the bread is offered by the minister, and the words of the Lord are heard, Receive, eate, This is my body: divide it amongst you, drink ye all of this, This is my blood. Suppose it were granted, that the Apostles divided onelyonly the cup, and Christs precept concern the dividing of the cup onelyonly, and not the bread, yet it is sufficient for our purpose, seeing the communicants must compasse the table with a table-gesture, to the end they may divide the cup among them selves. For if every one take the cup severally out of the ministers hand kneeling, Christs precept concerning the cup is transgressed. I thinke no man will be so absurd as to say, that we should kneele when we receive the bread, but not when we receive the wine. VVhen Mr. Stuthers was urged with this dividing of the communicants, he answered; Is it not better to take it out of the hands of the Minister, then of an adulterer? It was replied by the Minister proponer; vvhat if the minister be a Iudas? I ask, if holy Sixtus and St. Laurence, gave the bread and cup out of their own hands, when the Arch Bishop of St. Andrewes, and Mr. Gladstanes his Arch-deacon gave them to the communicants, all the communicants are presumed to be penitent sinners, & holy persons, neither doth the vertue of the Sacrament depend upon the morall dignity of him that ministreth, or of him that distributeth. And this far for confirmation of the fourth reason, referring the reader for further satisfaction, to Pert Assembly.xPag. 41·42 43.44.
VVhen the bready god was adored in the time of most grosse superstition, the popish Doctors were not so shamelesse, as to deny Christ and his Apostles sitting, to maintaine their kneeling. The old verse, Rex sedet in coena, &c. was current among them. Iohannes de Turrecremata, calleth it, versum antiquorum, a verse of the yDe Summa Ecclesie, lib. 1 c. 39.ancients, and Thomas Aquinas, their Angelical Doctor, citeth it to prove that Christ took rhe Sacrament himselfe, z3. quest. 81 art. 1. unde et quidā metrice dixit. Rex sedet in cena, turba cinctus duodona. Se tenet in manibus se cibat ipse cibus.but our Doctor in another sence Angellicall, is become so impudent to call in question that which no ancient or moderne writer did call in question before this last yeare. Mr. P. Galloway after the reading of Mr. Doctors Book, in wrir, became incontinently so profound a clark, that upon the reconciliation day before the last communion, when the body of the Town of Edinburgh were assembled with their Ministers, he would take in hand to prove a strange paradox, to wit, that Christ and his Apostles sat not at the supper. No, sayd Mr. Andrew Ramsay, say not that brother. O sayd Mr. Struthers, gybing and jesting at the people all the time; he sat this way & counterfeited Christs table-gesture, deriding them whom he ought in all lenitie & meeknes to have instructed. But the honest men received nothing at their hands that day to be a vvarrant to their consciences for kneeling, but threatnings from Mr. Galloway, jests and derisions from Mr. Struthers and Mr. Sideserfe and aversnes from hearing their reasons from Mr. Ramsay, who did moderate that meeting.
It is the triviall argument of our opposites that we are no more bound to sitting, or any particular gesture, then we are argument 2 bound to the time, the place, the order of receiving after meate, the quality of the leavened bread: and that the sitting was occasionall, onelyonly by reason of the Paschall supper specially of the last act thereof, which was changed in the new Sacrament, and that sitting was not chosen of purpose by Christ, or his Apostles. But B. Bilson can tell them aObedience▪ pag 489that the Lord neither in his speech nor actions, did comprise the time, place, or persons. And Paraeus bIn 1. Cor. 11sayih, that the evening, the Inne, the number of twelve, by the consent of all, were not Sacramentall but accidentary circumstances. Christ celebrated in the evening, because the Sacramēt of the new law behoved to succeed the passover, the Sacrament of the old Law, which was ordained by God to be eaten in the ev…ning, and Christ was to be apprehended before the morning. The Paschal supper was ordained to be eaten in Ierusalem, in severall companies and families, and therefore Christ celebrated in an Inne, and to a small company. The Iewes vvere expressely forbidden to have any leavened bread in their houses in time of the passeover. It behoved therefore Christ to celebrate with unleavened bread. All these circumstances were occasionall and unavoydable, by reason of the paschall supper. But Christ might have easily changed into kneeling: for there vvas no …xpresse commandement given to the people to sit at the P…schall supper. If they stood in Egypt, that standing vvas onelyonly for that time: vvhen they came to Canaan they sate, as Scaliger sayth cDe emend. temporum lib. 6. in the last Edition.in argumentum securitatis: or for the proportion and Analogy of other religious feasts, whereat they sate. Seeing Christ might have altered this gesture and did not, but retained as a gesture as fit for the Sacrament of the nevv Lavv as it vvas for the Sacrament of the old Lavv, vvhichwhich is called the oblation of Iehova▪ Numb. 9 7. it▪ is evident that it was his will that it should be retained.
He sayth it shall not expressely be found, nor by reason demonstrated, that sitting vvas received at any time after the first argument 3 institution, either by the Apostles, or any in the primitive or succeeding Churches. VVe may more safely presume that the Apostolicall churches followed Christs example, then he may presume the contrary, which he is never able to prove. The fathers expounding the breaking of bread at Emaus to be the communion, will not deny sitting after the first supper. B. Bilson sayth, dObedience pag. 461.that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lors supper among the Corinthians, in that they would neither at common meats, nor at the Lords table sit altogether, but sorted themselves together in factions and companies, as they favoured or friended each other. Beza sayth,eContra Harchium. Agapas quidem ce…te constat vix ac me vix quidem genuflexionem admisisse. that the Love-feasts did no wayes admit geniculation at the Lords supper in the act of receiving and no doubt, the Apostle comparing their partaking of the table of the Lord and the table of divels together 1 Cor 10.21. did include the gesture with the rest, and oppose the sitting at the Lords table to sitting at table in Idols Chappel. 1 Cor. 8.10. Durandus fRational. lib. 4. cap. 1.sayth, that the Apostles celebrated as Christ did, Et formā observantes in verbis & materiam in rebus, observing both matter and forme: And he sayth, gLib. 6. c. 77that in the first beginning of the Kirkes, the Apostles used no other words, but the words of the institution at the consecration: he sayth, that they added afterward the Lords prayer, but this is but an uncertain and unwritten tradition. The VValdenses alledge out of Chronica gestorum, that the form of the institution was a long time observed in the Kirk, and that the communicants kneeled not, but sate.hApologia contra hinas titeras doctoris Augustini. Ex isto manifestum cit, quod primitiva Ecclesia hanc fidem habuit, et illā confessa est et non secit reverentiam huic Sacramento, quia rilo tempore exemplo Christi sedentes statim acceperunt et nihil retinuerunt, nec extra domum extulernt et hec institutio diu stetit, sicut Chronica gestorum ostendunt. v. Tydij Waldensia. Mornaeus testifieth iDe Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 1.that there are some foot-steps that remain in the monasteries of St. Bennet, where they have no other masse for three dayes before Easter but this form following: The Abbot sanctifieth the bread & the wine, and the Monkes do communicate sitting, receiving the elements out of the Abbots hand. And this form is called by them mandatum, the commandement. Then in the account of the very Benedictines, to sit at table and comunicate, is a commandement. VVe must not think the Apostles altered Crists precept, ordaining the communicants to distribute among themselves, but this could not be done but with a table-gesture. The Apostle in rehearsing the institution declareth, that the words of the promise whereunto the seales are annexed of bread & wine, were uttered not in form of a prayer, but in an enunciative form. It followeth therefore according to the ground already layd down, that in the Apostles time the table-gesture, and not kneeling was the gesture of the communicants. But put the case we were destitute of reasons for the sitting of Apostolicall Kirkes, yet as long as we have nothing to prove the contrary, we ought to adhere to the institution. For Calvin sayth, kInstitut. l. 4. cap. 37. sect. 35that they who receive as is commanded without adoration, are secure that they depart not from gods commandement, then the which security there can nothing be better when we enterprise any thing. They have the example of the Apostles whom vve read not to have adored prostrate, but as they were sitting they received and did eate. They have the use of the Apostolicall Kirk, where it is declared that the faith-full did communicate, not in adoration, but in breaking of bread.
VVe omit the washing of feet, why may we not likewayes, argument 4 sayth the Doctor, omit sitting? That Christ did wash his Disciples feet; was an extraordinary example, to teach the Disciples humility, who were contending for majority. The Doctor his head had need to be washed also. But the washing itselfe was an ordinary custome betwixt the first and second service of the Paschall supper. Bernard of old, and Venator one of the Remonstrants of new lHommij controversie Belgice in art. 33would have this Iewish ceremony made a Sacrament and the Doctor a Sacramentale, belonging to the holy communion, but none of them is worthy of confutation.
He reasoneth now in personam and not from the matter itselfe: argument 5. and 6. for what if there be a fault to kneele in the time of the thankesgiving? followeth it that we should commit a greater fault in the act of receiving. Both minister and people have warrant from other scripture to kneele in time of prayer, but in the very act of banquetting and feasting, we have no warrant at all. Seing a table-gesture is necessary: it is then most necessary and proper, when we are in the very use of the table eating and drinkinking at it: vve may praye and give thankes before we sit down to our ordinarie repast, but when we begin to eate vve use the Table-gesture. Christ sate at the table all the time of the action. It is true. The Table vvas short, and the Company but small, and he had all his guests within his view. The Minister must act his part in the view of the whole congregation: and therefore they may lawfully change sitting into standing for the edification of the hearers and beholders of the action. Sitting we thought never so necessary, but that it might be changed into another table-gesture when necessitie required.
argument 7 He reasoneth again in personam. It followeth not that vve may change sitting, because we conjoyn the blessing of the bread and cup in one blessing, which Christ severed. VVhat if we faile in this, should we faile in the other also? It is true Christ gave several thankes, according to the form of the last act of the paschal supper, but when we joyne them in one thankesgiving, is any thing omitted which ought to have been done? Is not the cup blessed, when it is blessed with the bread? Next, is the frame of the institution broken when there is but one common thankesgiving. But when the table-gesture is changed into a gesture of adoration, the nature and kinde of the gesture is changed. Next, this change draweth vvith it another great change, to wit, of the order and frame of the institution. The order and frame of the institution requireth that the words uttered at the delivery of the elements, be uttered in an enunciative form. For the vvords of the institution are not onelyonly narrative, but directive, as the Doctor confessed a litle before. Next, the order and frame of the institution requireth, that the communicants compassing the table, shall divide, the elements among themselves: kneeling putteth all this frame act of joynt, and draweth with it a breach of Christs speciall commandement, Divide amongst you. The conjunct thankesgiving draweth with it none of these changes.
argument 8 He proponeth their triviall argument of pauls rehearsall of the institution, and the Evangelists, where no mention is made of sitting▪ or any other gesture. By this reason neither a lawfull Minister, nor thankesgiving at the conclusion of the supper, nor a table be necessary for none of these are rehearsed by Paul in the rehearsall of the institution: but Paul presopposeth a lawfull Minister, a table, and a table gesture: for he hath made mention of them already, and here he reherseth onelyonly the words uttered by the minister to the commu…i…ants planted about the table, and proceeding to the very a…tion itselfe. And in his rehearsall he uttered in an enunciati… form the vvords pronounced at the delivery of the elements, and not in form of a prayer: and therefore all gesture of adoration at the receiving was excluded, as we have often sayd. The Evangelists say, that while they were eating, Christ took bread: howbeit their eating did not belong to the institution, yet it includeth their gesture, that while they vvere sitting, Christ took bread, &c. a gesture doth belong to the institution. Out of these vvords do all vvriters collect that they sate at supper.
Hovvbeit vve plead for a table-gesture in generall and not for the absolute necessity of sitting in particular, yet hovv vveakly hath the Doctor disputed against it? Sitting indeed vve think ought not to be changed, no not into another table-gesture, vvithout necessity: Iohannes à Lasco nIn Liturgia ecclesiatum peregrinatum Londini sub. Ed. 6.exhorted all the ministers in the Reformed Kirks, to remove according to their office and dutie, not onelyonly geniculation, but also standing and taking in severall from the Minister en passant, and to restore the sitting of the communicants at table, again, vvhere it is vvorne out of use.