A Solution of Doctor Resolutus Resolutions for Kneeling, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. A table-gesture agreeth best with decencie.
THe Doctor goeth about to prove kneeling more decent in the act of receiving, then sitting or any other gesture▪ and so he carpeth not onelyonly our former order vvhichwhich he preferred before any other at Pert Assembly, but also Christ himselfe as not vvise enough to consider vvhat gesture vvas most decent for so holy an action. If another more commodious and better form could have been devised, out of all doubt, sayth Hospinian oHistorie Sacramenta …. 1. lib. 1. cap 5.Christ vvould have instituted it, and the Apostles vvould have recommended it to the Kirkes, and therefore vvilleth, p… cap. 2. l. 1▪that if any thing be found different either in the nature or proper sence of words, or in rite or external ceremony from this rule that it be amended according to the same as the most excellent, most holy, most uncorrupted, most absolute, and most certain rule. If therefore there be any gesture that shall put this rule out of rule: I say it ought not to be esteemed agreeable either to pietie, decency, or charity, let be to be preferred before other gestures.
The Doctor laieth down for a ground, that by the table of section 1 the Lord, 1. Cor. 10.21. is not meant a materiall table or the symbolical and externall part onelyonly, but the body and blood of the Lord, because the Apostle sayth, the Corinthians could not partake both of the table of the Lord and of divels. VVhereas a man may be partaker of both the materiall tables, and drinke both of the materiall cup of the Lord, and the material cup of divels. It is evident notwithstanding of the Doctors wrangling that the Apostle meaneth also of a materiall table, and the Sacrament by a kind of trope called Metonymia subjecti, is denominate from the materiall table whereat the communicants did participate of the elements. The Apostles speaketh not of a natural, but a morall partaking of the Lords table. A man might not lawfully sit at the materiall table of the Lord, and drink of the materiall cup, and sit also at the materiall table of divels in the Idols chappels, and drink of ther materiall cups. for that we may do which we may do by Law or right. Now the communicant in sitting at both the materiall tables professed f…llowship both vvith god and the divell as Paul speaketh. for the two materiall tables were symboles of two contrary professions as Aretius in 1. Cor. 10.21. sayth. for he that eate of the meate of the sacrifice, partaketh of the sacrifice, and he that participateth of the sacrifice, participateth of the religion vvhereunto it belongeth: he that participateth with the religion communicateth with the Idol and false god vvhose religion it is. The table of divels vvas a materiall table in the Idols chappell, whereat the Idolater feasted. See Beza qIn 1 Cor. 8.10. 1 Cor. 10 21., Tilenus▪ rdisput de coena.Caietanus,sIn 1 Cor 8.10. … 1 Cor. 10 21. VVillets. tSy…ops. pag. 414.Novv if the table of divels from vvhichwhich the cursed feasts vvere denominate, vvere materiall tables, then the table of the Lord compared vvith them vvas also materiall. And Beza out of the same verse vvhichwhich the Doctor hath alledged concludeth that in the primitive Kirk there vvere materiall tables and not altars. The Christians offended their weake Brethren by feasting on the things sacrificed in private houses, but in feasting in the temple there was both scandall and error. The Apostle findeth fault both with the one and the other. In a word all such metonymicall speeches do import the verity of the subject. The cup of the new Testament doth import that there was a materiall cup. To partake of the Altar, doth import that the Israelites had an Altar. I conclude with the ground laid down by Paraeus,vIn 1 Cor. 11. A quo ritu totam Eucharistiam deno minaverat ecciesia Apostolica is proculdubio est sacramentalis et necessarius. from whatsoever rite the Sacrament is denominate, it is Sacramentall and necessarie. He inferreth that Sacramentall breaking of the bread after thankesgiving, is necessary to the integrity of the Sacrament: and I inferr upon the same ground that a materiall table is necessary, seeing the Sacrament is denominate metonymically from a table, and called the table of the Lord, to distinguish it from other materiall tables.
His reason to prove kneeling more decent then sitting, is because it is a religious gesture, and more conform to other section 2. and 3. customes and fashions we use at the table of the Lord, which we use not at other tables. as we choose the day light rather thē the night, a sacred place, such as is the temple a reverend order such as to receive before meat, because it it not a common supper, but the Lords supper. The answer is very easie: Are not all these circumstandes and the same carriage observed for the hearing of the word, the day light, the sabboth day, the temple. Next all these customes are not in themselves simpliciter more decent for in the time of persecution the night was as decent as the day, and a desert or a cave as decent as a Kirk: for expediencie maketh decencie in these things. 3. In the primitive Kirk they communicated daily, and yet as decently as on the Sabboth day. 4. The Iewes were more tied to sacred times and temples for celebration of their Sacraments, and keeping of their feasts, then we are, and yet they sate even at the paschall supper, the noblest feast that they had. 5. None of these customes or circumstances do overthrow the table, and take away the right use of it, but kneeling taketh away the right use of the table, and turneth it into an altar or cup-boord: but so doth not sitting. VVhether is a gesture that maketh a table no table more decent for a table, or the gesture that preserveth the use of the Table and all the rules of the feast? Our sitting applied to a holy purpose is sanctified for the time as all our actions are holy when they are done according to Gods will, and with a respect to his glory.
He sayth, that the gesture of the body is morall, voluntary, and changeable, and should be applied according to the nature of the action. It is true, the gesture is changeable, according to that facultie in man which the Philosophers call Locomotiva, but it is to be ordered by Lawes, both in civill and religious affaires.
VVe grant that our maniers and gestures must be composed according to the use use of the table, and not according to the matter or form; but all table whatsoever be their mater, form and use, do require a table-gesture, never one doth admit kneeling. Men use not to kneele, no not at the table of Exchange. The table of exchange doth differ in use from the table appoynted for feasting, and therefore no wonder that they differ in the table gestures. But the table of the Lord agreeth with the feasting table in the analogicall use and end. Christ himselfe hath taught us how to use the Lords table, and with what gesture.
VVe are silent, we sport not, we take nothing before we are commanded and instructed at this table, as we do at other tables and feasts, because in so doing we should dicturb that holy action; but sitting is so farre from disturbing, that it makes us more fit to attend to the commandement and instructions given us.
VVe sit with our heads vncovered at this table, which we do not at common tables, but we do it for veneration and not for adoration. VVe sit with our heads uncovered when the word is read, but not when it is preached, to distinguish between the voyce of God and the voyce of man. At this holy action the words, the symboles, the rites, are all divine, and Christs own words, rites, and symboles; his voyce soundeth through all the tables of the world: the symboles are the Princes seales, and our celebration is nothing else but a repetition of the first institution, and the authentike instrument written over again. VVe use not kneeling civilly, wheresoever we use the uncovered head; but kneeling is the gesture of adoration both in civill and religious uses. The uncovering of the head doth noth spoyle us of the liberties and prerogatives of a table sociall admission to it, and familiar entertainment at it, nor breaketh not the order and frame of the institution, but kneeling is guiltie of all these enormities, as I have sayd.
If commodity make custome, and custome make decencie, section 4 then kneeeling must be condemned as an undecent gesture. The Doctor measureth the time of the celebration by his own form, when he dispatcheth the communicants with some few words, and not by the institution. But make the time of celebration never so short, yet kneeling is more painfull, then any other gesture, and consequently not so decent, because not so commodious. To what purpose serveth all this discourse, seeing kneeling is not urged as a table-gesture, but as a gesture of adoration. Swarez xIn Thomam tom. 1. pag. 764. genuflexio que est nota adorationis potest esse actus penitentic propter pen alitatem, quam habet adjunctā.sayth, that kneeling which is a note of adoration, may be made an act of a penitentiarie, for the pain which is joyned with it. But we consider not now the pain, but the purpose of it, in this argument. For never man yet thought that kneeling was the fittest table-gesture, neither have we ever heard any nation never so barbarous, use it.
He sayth kneeling is more universally received in the reformed Kirkes then sitting. If he meane of the Lutheran Kirkes, that universalitie is not to be regarded. The best reformed Kirkes as they have abandoned the opinion of the bodily presence, so have they the gesture of kneeling: yea all the Lutherans do not consent to the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist as Illyricus and his followers, because they say Christ is to be adored onelyonly where it is his will to be adored. As for the Anglican Kirk, I deny that the body of that Kirk doth approve kneeling howsoever they be compelled by their Kirk representative to practise it. If we should follow examples, we must look to voluntaries.
It is no great commandation of kneeling, that it was practised 400 yeares under the Antichrist: and howbeit we wer not able to designe some time, when another gesture was in use, it will not follow, that it was in practise in all ages before. VVe are not bound to shew the behinning of every corruption. VVhilest the husband man was sleeping, the evill one did sow his tares among the wheat, which he perceived not, till they were growen up. Yet we will be more liberall, and for further satisfaction, we use to give an instance of an other gesture which was in use, to wit, standing at the act of receiving, for the space of 500. yea an thousand yeare after Christ, and they cannot produce one expresse authentike testimony of kneeling for the space of 500 yea of a 1000 yeare after Christ. And to testifie ancient standing, we have yet the custome of Christians in the Orient.‡Morneus de Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 7. quare Ecclesie Orientales adorationem Sacramenti admiserunt nusquam: non que patriarche codstantinopolitano obsequuntur, non quae Antiocheno. Et in Abyssinis etiam ipsis hodie stantes Sacramenta participant nec eo minus reverenter.
Honorius it seemeth ordained not kneeling at the elevation of the Masse, but a reverend inclination of the body: howbeit aftervvard it turned to kneeling. But vvhether Honorius ordained kneeling at the elevation, and whether kneeling in the act of receiving went before kneeling at the elevation or followed after, is not prejudiciall to our cause. seeing both vvere bred under the Antichrist, and no authentick testimony can be alledged of the gesture of kneeling for a 1000. section 5 Yeares.
section 6 He admitteth standing on the Lords day, and other dayes, wherein they did not kneele in time of publick prayer: but yet upon other dayes saith he, as they might pray kneeling, so they might communicate kneeling. But he doth not produce so much as one example out of all antiquity. The examples alledged by us for standing in the act of receiving, are generall, and for every day as well as for the Lords day. The example alledged by himself doth not specifie any day. The testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus,Pag. 59. and the vvords of Tertullian are confounded in Perth assembly through the Printers fault, which by the vvay I vvish the Reader to mark.
The ancient Kirk changing sitting into standing, judged sitting not necessarie, It is true. Neither do we hold it absolutely necessarie, and as for the change vve are not to imitate them herein: for they adulterated the forme of the institution many wayes, mixing the vvine with water, giving the communion to Infants, taking the Sacrament home to eate it in their private houses, as may be seen in the most ancient vvriters. VVe ought to take heed, not vvhat any hath done before us, sayth Cyprian,yLib. 2 epist. 3. quod si nec minima de mandatis dominicis licet solvere quanto magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum dodominice passionis, et nostre redēptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere. but vvhat Christ vvho vvas before all, did: vve must not follow the custome of man, but the truth of God. And if it be not lawfull (sayth he) to break the least of the Lords commandements farre lesse is it lawfull to violate so great commandements belonging to the Sacrament of the Lords Passion, and of our redemption. Calvin zInstitut. lib 4. c. 18 sect. 11findeth great fault with them, and sayth, that the ancients went neerer the Iudaicall manner of sacrificing, then Christs ordinance, and the course of the Gospel vvould permit. And a little after he saith, that if vve think this supper the supper of the Lord, and not the supper of men, let us not move a naile bredth from it, for any authority of mē, or prescriptiō of yeares. And Tossanus saith,aOrat. de coena domini. principium erioris circa cocnam domini, nec minima superstitionis occasio proculdubio fuit, immutatio ceremonia rum a Christo institutarum, et accumulatio illarum, quas humana ethelethrescia successu temporis excogitavit. that the changing of ceremonies in the Lord supper instituted by Christ, and heaping up of other ceremonies divised by mans vvill-vvorship, vvas the beginning of error anent the supper, and vvas no small occasion of superstition.
The ancient Kirk judged not standing the fittest gesture for prayer: for if they had so judged then they vvould have enjoyned standing at prayer upon other dayes as vvell as upon the Lorde day. They stood on the Lords day, not because it vvas the fittest gesture for prayer, but for signification, to signifie their joy for Christs resurrection, but kneeling they judged the fittest gesture for prayer, as may be seen in the questions attributed to Iustinus. bquest. 115. Genuum inclinatio in precatione magis peccatores deo cō mendat, quam si stantes oret.The ancient Kirk standing at the receit of the Sacrament, ye see then, judged not the gesture of prayer, the fittest gesture in the act of receiving the Sacrament.