A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 9
Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling, is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept, of the abstaining from appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22.
10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling, which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ, in the first Institution thereof, Mark 14.18, 22, 23. and positive precept, as being what hath an appearance of evil in it (being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Bread…n god) 1 Thess. 5.22. as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after, to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god; not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches (if not all) at this day.
Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England, cannot be denied; nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons, and as great a cause of separation from the Communion, as it is ministred in the Church of England, as any other thing. But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper, is denied by them. For though it is said, Mark 14.18. foreign, which we translate [as they sate] yet it is denied▪ that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times.
1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chris…, that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution, making his example in this as a constant rule: but it seems rather to have been used occasionally, because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper, at which they used that gesture, as they did eat, Mat. 26.26. Mark 14.22.
2. Because St. Paul ▪ 1 Cor. 11.23. where he saith, he delivered to them what he received of the Lord, he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done, if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians.
3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed, v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped, v. 25. Luke 22.…0. and it it is not judged necessary, that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed, or weekly or monethly in the night, or after supper, no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. therefore with … reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory.
4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians, then they must use the self same gesture he used, but that was neither sitting nor standing, which are used by the opposers of Kneeling; but lying along on beds, as the word foreign used Mark 14.18. intimates, and is gathered from Joh. 13.23. and other relations of the use of those times, which I think will not be denied, it being by the learned generally acknowledged. See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8. And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures; nor however it be different from his practice then, can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice, unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed, or forbidden by his practice at that time, kneeling. The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22. is urged very importunely, not only in this point of kn…eling at the Lords Supper, but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons, Writings, and Conferences, to deterr persons, especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings, from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected; and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment, as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes, as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing, cap. 4. sect. 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text, so I shall again with some enlargement in this place, it being no grievance to me to write the same things again, but necessary; and so much the rather, because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject, gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept. The chief difficulty is concerning, 1. The Translation of foreign. 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from, and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it.
1. Concerning the Translation, it is doubted whether it should not be rather read, abstain from every kind or sort of evil, answering to genus and species, as Cicero renders foreign, and as Porphyry in his Isagoge, Aristotle, Plato, and other Logicians use it. That it may be so, saith Mr. Jeans, Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine; that it is so, the Syriack Interpreter, and after him Faber, and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve. But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors. Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place, where having said, the meaning will be from all sort, or the whole kind of evil, from all that is truly so, be it never so small, according to that in Pirke avoth, be as careful in the keeping a light, as a heavy Commandement: to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs▪ Theophylact and Leon…ius. But saith Mr. Jeans, It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place, and in none of them in a Logical notion. It is true, and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding, but either for the shape or representation to the sight, or the sight it self, as it is rendred, 2 Cor. … 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation, that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors, but also in Ecclesiasticus ch. 23.16 foreign two sorts of men, ch. 25.2. foreign three sorts of men, and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. foreign is rendred foreign four kinds; which acception is enforced by this reason, which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word foreign, v. 21. try all things, being taken from Merchants, that which is evil, v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch, A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal, but will abstain from all kind of evil, or adulterate; not from that which appears ill, if it be not; for to what purpose then is his skill or touchstone? but from that which is ill, what ever it appear. From all which a reason may be gathered for Dr. Hammonds Exposition, and Tremellius his Interpretation out of the Syriack, ab omni voluntate malâ fugite fly from every evil will; or as in his Marginal note, negotio malo, sive re malâ, evil business or evil thing; and then kneeling at the Lords Supper will not be proved contrary to this Precept, till it be proved to be of it self an evil thing, and not only what hath an appearance of evil in it.
2. But if it be yielded that it is to be rendred shew, or appearance, and not sort or kind, yet it may be doubted whether, as the Vulgar and Tigurin, it be not rather to be read ab omni specie mala, from every shew or appearance which is evil, rather than ab omni specie…mali, from every shew, or appearance of evil, though it be not evil. Beza in his Annotation on the place saith, We may also interpret it, ab omni specie malâ, from every evil shew or appearance, and that more usual. For otherwise it seems it had been to be written, foreign, the article being adjoyned; and the precept is then to abstain from that which is an appearance it self evil, not from an appearance not evil, but indifferent, and so not from kneeling at the Communion.
3. For the appearance of evil that we are to abstain from, it may be doubted whether it be meant of an appearance in doctrine or in practice. Chrysostome and the Greek Scholiast, and others apply it only to false doctrines, or lies of false Prophets; as if the Apostle had said, though you are not to quench the spirit, v. 19. nor to despise prophesyings, v. 20. yet you are to trie all doctrines, and to hold that which is good, v. 21. and to abstain from that doctrine which appears evil. Against this Mr. Jeans only objects, that an accurate and exact coherence is not necessary in those short precepts: and to understand the words of appearance in practice also suits well with the coherence. Which I will not gain-say: but only say if this be granted, yet if the Interpretation of abstaining from all appearance of evil in practice, be not necessary, but that it may be limited to doctrine, the allegation of it to prove that kneeling at the Lords Supper is an appearance of evil, from which we are to abstain, is not cogent, sith it is not in a point of doctrine to which this text may be limited, but in practice; of which it is uncertain whether this Text be meant, and therefore is not directly opposite to it, as is here asserted.
4. Were it granted that this Text is meant of the appearance of evil in practice, to which it is not denied Interpreters of all sorts do apply it, yet it may be doubted whether the Apostle means it of that which appears evil to another, or to a mans self. Surely the words and series of the Text do best suit with this Interpretation, Abstain from that which appears to your selves to be evil. For having said, try all things, whether doctrines you hear taught, or practices to which you are moved by your own thoughts or others examples or perswasions, to direct them what to do; he adds, hold that which is good, that is, what you find upon trial to be good, and abstain from all evil appearance, or appearance of evil, which so appears to you upon your trial. Which sense, as it hath the concurrence of good Authors, so doth it seem to me to be the genuine meaning of the Text.
1. Because it best suits with the coherence and scope of the Apostle. For it is plain that the Apostle makes these two precepts of holding that which is good, and abstaining from every appearance of evil, the consequents of trying all things, to which it tends: For to what end should men try all things whether doctrines or practices, but that they may hold the one, and abstain from the other? now as it is undoubted, that they are to hold fast that which upon trial appears to themselves to be good, not what appears to another: for to what purpose should they themselves trye, if they must hold what others think good, and not themselves? So for evil, they should abstain from what appears evil to themselves who try, not what so appears to others.
2. The absurdities which follow on this▪ that I must abstain from all that appears evil to another, seem great and unavoidable.
1. Because it would require an impossible task: For it is impossible for me to know what appears to another evil, sith I cannot know his thoughts, and therefore cannot discern what appears to him good o… evil: nor, if I could know somewhat that appears evil to another, is it possible for me to know all that so appears? and yet the Apostle requires me to abstain from all appearance of evil, and that without exception of any man. Which is made impossible, if understood of appearance to others in respect of the thing; abstaining from all that appears evil to another being impossible, without destroying our being, the eating of our meat, clothing of our bodies, and doing other necessaries for our subsistence, appearing evil to some or other, either out of ignorance, hatred, prejudice, superstition, envy, or some other malignant quality, though the thing we do were never so right.
2. That which Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Scandal, p. 9, 10. observes, that appearance of evil is so uncertain and unconstant a thing, that to abstain from it universim, cannot be the matter of any possible command, and that which is of ill report with one, or of evil appearance to one, may be of good report, and appearance of good to a thousand others, is considerable. For then a person must either do nothing, or act that which is appearance of evil to some, when it appears good to others and to himself, which must of necessity create innumerable perplexities, or rather impossibilities, if the Apostles precept be so understood. Nor am I satisfied with what Mr. Jeans saith, This fear will quickly vanish and be discovered to be idle and vain, when anon we shall explain that distinction of appearance of evil into real and imaginary. For (besides that I conceive that no appearance of evil to another, can be said to be real, per se ex natura operis, from the nature and condition of the fact it self: when that of it self, and in its own nature, is a very probable sign of evil, as he explains it, p. 82. but that which is from actions of themselves sinful, and then we are not to abstain from them as appearances of evil, but as evil: all other appearances that are from actions lawful or indifferent, are but imaginary; that is, from others misconceits and censures thereupon, and so his distinction as to this thing, is rather to be accounted vain and idle, than the fear he mentions) were the distinction good, yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain, sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil, we must abstain from all appearance of evil, whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self, or imaginary by accident through others interpretation, which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number.
Yea, 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty, as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees, the Apostles preaching to the Jews; yea, to good men, as Peters going in to Cornelius, Acts 11.1, 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty, may seem evil to good Subjects, the obeying Laws of Governours, Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted, but weak in judgment; yea, the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly, learned, and otherwise judicious Divines. If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties; Gods Laws will cross one another, and we must infringe or suspend one, or otherwise be necessitated to sin: Governours must revoke their Laws, and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws; and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow.
Lastly, Were the precept so meant, that we must abstain from every thing of ours, which is an appearance of evil to another, our Christian liberty were evacuated; there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other, and many things lawful and indifferent, will appear evil, even to the best. Its true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty; of which, before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise, I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing, but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others, but to the scandal; that is, ruine or harm to another consequent thereon. And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text, 1 Thess. 5.22. I wrote thus, p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another, yet no Interpreter that I meet with, understands it of such appearance of evil, as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such: Or by reason of the meer phansie, or rigid austerity, or evil will, or such like cause of him that thinks it evil: but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil, as are means of drawing to some notorious sin; as going to hear a Mass, which is a cause and sign of Idolatry; or wanton dalliance, which is a cause or sign of whoredom. And they apply hereto that saying of Julius Caesar, that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil, but also from the suspition of it. So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose; as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil, whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason, upon some ground or none. And to speak truth, the application of this Text in that manner, as it is by some, as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self, when it appears as evil to another, without any further restraint, is very absurd and so unreasonable, as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born, sith there is scarce any thing a man can do, but some or other Infidel or Christian, weak or strong in the faith; Orthodox or Superstitious, will think it to be evil; that saying by experience being found true, quot homines tot sententiae, so many men, so many minds: nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World. Out of all which I gather, that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling, is not directly opposite to this positive precept, as being what hath an appearance of evil in it, unless it be in it self evil, or evil in their own opinion, or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god. Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter, p. 40. does not say, though some would say, that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish leven, and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god. In answering which passage, sect. 2. of this Chapter, I shewed, that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions, as for other reasons very clear and convincing, so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion, which I here subjoyn. Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling, (which Order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy r…ceivers, and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; it is here declared, that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians.) And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christs natural body, to be at one time in more places then one. Thus the Common Prayer Book. That which is said, that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling, is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god, is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, cap. 21. p. 67. & p. 479. of the Rejoynder, where he thus saith: With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people: But with the Papists, the Pope, when himself performeth the office, receiveth sitting, as being a type of Christ, the Mass Priests receive standing reverently, by the Canon of the Mass: and for this he cites in the Margin, Ord. Rom. apud B…bl. Pat. Col. …om. 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter. …. edit. Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do, as did also the Priest, till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation b…got the Canon of his standing, for fear of shedding ought. But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving, was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of, or for adoration of the Sacrament it self, or any creature, and therefore not Idolatrous. I deny not the errour of their minds, concerning that they received into their mouths. But I deny, that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths: But then turned themselves to God rather, to give him thanks, which was not uncomely. Of which he gives three reasons. 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel. 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received. 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition, to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it, because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves. (To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic. ch. 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv. lat. cult. l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo, à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur, at que consentiunt.) To which is to be added, that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God, and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread, which are not so with the Papists, and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread, as the Papists do. And for that which is said, that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling, is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ, for several hundred years after Christ, to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god; it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters, by the Bishop of Rochester, Paybody, and others, about which, and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day, it is not necessary that I should make inquiry; sith if it were so, yet it proves nor, that the present Ministers of England, do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper.