Christian Concord, Part 10
The last Objection that I am to answer is this; Many of our people will not joyn with us, except they may have all Administrations as formerly, according to the Common Praier-Book; especially except they may kneel at the Receiving of the Lords Supper. And some dividing discontented Divines do encourage them in that opinion and way.
To these I answer. 1. We have not in our Agreement medled with those things, but leave every Minister to his own judgement in Circumstantials, only desiring that we may agree as farre as may be, and therefore that we will hear each others reasons; So that some that do associate with us do constantly deliver the Lords Supper to the people kneeling; who think it most suitable to the state of their flocks.
2. I beleeve there is no example of such a course of choosing Pastors in any age of the Church, for the people to agree with them before-hand to do as they would have them in every gesture or other circumstance, or else they will not own them or communicate with them.
3. It is contrary to the office of Pastors and duties of people. For they are to choose a Pastor to guide them, and not to be guided by them. Yet we acknowledge the people must not follow a Pastor in known sin. But then they must manifest it to be sin, Therefore I adde.
4. There is no Pastor among us but will be ready to give an account, and offer satisfaction to any of his people, concerning any miscarriage or male-administration. For we have engaged our selves to be so accountable before our Brethren of the Association. And if our people do rest on the judgement of other men, we shall be ready to debate the case with any man that they shall bring: Either to receive satisfaction, or to give satisfaction.
5. How impossible is it according to these mens principles to keep our Churches in Unity? For when many parties be of many mindes, and some will have praier on the Books, and others without, some will have one way of administration and some another, a Minister cannot please all: Either therefore they must yield that he be their guide in their worshiping of God, as to Circumstantials, or else they must break in peeces about every circumstantial difference.
6. Would you submit if all the Bishops had advised or required you to forbear kneeling at the Sacrament? If not, it seems you think it necessary of it self: If you would, then it seems you take it for indifferent: And should any for indifferent things reject the guidance of their present Teachers, and the communion of their Brethren, and the Ordinances of God?
7. I think there is no Pastor of our Associations but will be glad to condescend as far as conscience and duty will permit, for the satisfying of any that are truly conscientious, and therefore I doubt not but by speech or action they will easily satisfie them, when there is particular occasion: And more particularly, as some apprehend a necessity of sitting, because of the example of the Apostles, and other Reasons; and others think kneeling necessary for Reverence: I doubt not but all of us shall be willing to yeeld to the middle gesture of standing to any that desire so to receive; what further yeelding may be, I leave to every Minister to determine, according to the weight of the scruples of his people.
But if any will yet so insist on kneeling at the receiving of the Lords Supper, as that they will not joyn with Minister or people, except they may have assurance before-hand so to receive it, I shall give them my thoughts of their way in these few Questions:
Q. 1. Do not such make themselves or their leaders (on whose Authority they take up these conceits) to be wiser then the Lord Jesus and his Apostles? Christ thought it not necessary either to deliver it to his Disciples kneeling, nor yet to command that it should be so delivered. And these men it seems do judge it necessary.
Obj. Christ did not command all things necessary, but left some to the command of the Church.
Answ. Things of a standing necessity which ought to be practised by his Church ordinarily in all ages, Christ hath commanded. But things that vary according to the variation of times, places, persons, &c. he hath determined only in generall, and left the speciall determination to Church-Governours, to be varied as occasion requires; (As what time the Sermon shall begin, how long it shall be, on what Text, where the Congregation shall meet, &c.) Now I would know whether kneeling in the act of receiving have any necessity now which it had not formerly, even 1500. or 1600. years ago: Do any bring any new reason of its necessity? I know of none. The common reason is [We cannot serve God too reverently] And was not that reason as forcible then as now? both when Christ was visibly present, and afterward when the Church for many 100. years was possessed with as great a reverence of God as the highest pretenders now are.
Q. 2. Doth it not imply a deniall of Scripture-sufficiency to be the perfect rule of Faith and Life? the great point that differenceth the Reformed Churches from the Papists. For though it belong not to the Rule (the Word of God) to determine of particular circumstances, which either need no determination or are to be determined variously according to the variation of occasions, (and therefore must not be fixedly determined by humane Laws;) yet doth it undeniably belong to the perfection of a Law to leave as little undetermined as may be, which needs determination; and therefore to determine of that which is of standing necessity: And who can give any reason why Christ should not have commanded kneeling at the Sacrament as well as a Council or Bishop, if it be a matter so ordinarily necessary as is pretended?
Q. 3. Do not these men make themselves wifer then all the Churches of Christ for many hundred years after Christ? For it is certain, that for so long the Church used not to receive kneeling; Proved, 1. In that for a long time the Sacrament was received with their Love-Feasts conjunctly. 2. For longer time the Churches would not so much as kneel in praier on the Lords Day; much lesse in receiving the Sacrament. Yea, they accounted it a hainous offence to kneel in praier, and made many Canons against it in severall ages. But some object, that as they did not receive kneeling, so they did not receive sitting: For it was standing, and standing was then a praier-gesture, and therefore we must receive it in our praier-gesture now.
Ans. 1. Will not standing now satisfie the Consciences of these men, when they think that all the Primitive Churches did but both pray and receive so? 2. When will these men prove what they affirm, that it was standing and not sitting that was the gesture then used in Receiving? Why, they say, because it was standing that was then commanded in the publique worship. Ans. But they should prove that it was in all worship: and not in Prayer and Praises only. How come so many Canons about the Order of Presbyters, Deacons, &c. sitting? Indeed they did keep the Lords day as a day of thanksgiving, as being in commemoration of the greatest mercy that the world hath received, even Redemption by Christ: And therefore partly in commemoration of his Resurrection, partly to avoid all signes of dejection (which were thought unfit on daies of Thanksgiving) they commanded standing in Prayer (not at Sacrament) as judging sitting too unreverent, and kneeling unsutable to the solemnity and rejoycing of the day: so that it was in opposition to kneeling that standing in Prayer was required. And therefore the same Councils forbad Fasting on the Lords day as a haynous sin, and many Fathers made it a mark of the true Churches and Christians not to fast on those daies: yea and Synods did Anathematize them that then fasted: Ignatius his severe censure against such is well known. And therefore they called the Lords daies, the Churches Festivals: And therefore also they forbad kneeling on any week day between Easter and Pentecost, which were Festival seasons. So that our Objectors will never prove that they Received standing: Or if they could, will it follow that it was because that was the Prayer-gesture? I cannot stay to cite many Authors. Only thus much. 1. It appears by their Love-Feasts, at which they sate, that they did not stand in all the service of that day. 2. Justin Martyr saith, Apol. 2. [After this we all Rise and offer Prayers, &c.] And is it not plain then that they sate before they rose? and that standing was but the Prayer gesture in stead of kneeling? 3. The injunction is expresly [for standing, and not kneeling] as opposite. I can shew them where it's said [Die Dominico Jejunium nefas dicimus; vel de Geniculis adorare, &c.] Tertull. (if it be his) de Coron. Milit. cap. 38. Let them shew the like against sitting at the Sacrament.
But what if this had been so? Had it not been as good an Argument to say, Standing was their Hearing-gesture: and sitting is ours: therefore we must Receive sitting because it is our Hearing gesture.] And is it not a better Argument then either to say [Sitting was their eating Gesture (and among them where Christ administred it, a homelier sitting then ours is:) and therefore we must take it in our Eating or Feasting gesture: as it's certain the Primitive Christians did.] It is therefore frequently by the Fathers called [a Feast.] Tertull. (ad Ʋxorem li. 2. c. 4.) cals it [Convivium Dominicum.] Yet will not we urge this better Argument to prove sitting Necessary (but give them that desire it leave to stand:) much less should they urge a plain so phisme for the Necessity of Kneeling.
Quest. 4. Do not these men destroy their own Cause, when they would prove the Necessity of Kneeling, from a Necessity of Conformity to the Universal Church? Nay doth not this Argument shew a Popish heart? For it seems they take not all or any of the Reformed Churches of France, Holland, Germany, Scotland, &c. who Receive sitting or standing, to be any part of the Universal Church. 2. If they take not the Primitive Church for many hundred years to be any part of the Universal Church, then they are worse then Papists. If they do, then may not we better argue [The Primitive Church did not Kneel in Receiving; therefore we must not] then they can argue [The Church of later times did Kneel in Receiving: therefore we must:] For even the Papists in matter of Tradition, do give precedency to the first Churches, and do make the present Church but the preserver and deliverer of the Traditions of the former. Is it not plain therefore that there is something else then the Authority of the first Churches that moves these men; when they cannot be ignorant that Christ and his Apostles and the Church for many hundred years did practice the contrary? Yea they that have written for Kneeling, maintain that there was never any command for it (to the people) no not in the Church of Rome; but that they suffered it to come in as a custom silently, that they might not be observed to contradict the old Canons against Kneeling on the Lords daies. Even as low as Chrysostome's time, it is but [An Adoration of Christ at the Sacrament] that they prove. And who denieth that? We still pray to him before we Receive: Adoration and Kneeling are not all one: and Adoration by Kneeling is not all one with the doing this in the act of Receiving.
Quest. 5. Do not these men make themselves wiser then all the Bishops and Conformists in England, who did ever in their Writings and Disputings, maintain our Ceremonies to be things indifferent? And now they will esteem them so Necessary, that they will turn their back on Gods Ordinances, and become Separatists for them?
Quest. 6. Is it not the more inexcusable for these men to turn Separatists, and that on so small an occasion, as for a Ceremony or Gesture; in that they have both lived in an Age wherein they have so fully seen the mischiefs of Separation: and also have themselves spoke so much against Separatists as they have done? yea and still do; while themselves become the great Separatists, and so do but reproach themselves.
Obj. It is not we that Separate: but they that deny us the Sacrament Kneeling are the Cause.
Ans. So all the Separatists say, It is not long of them; and pretend that they are necessitated to it. But who is to be the Guide of sacred Actions? Minister or People? What if we should deny to give it to them that sit? Would you think that we gave them just occasion to separate? Judge by former times. And yet they have more shew of reason to say so. Besides, I have not seen any put away for Kneeling. But if they may approach the Table and take it with the rest, in what Gesture they please, yet this will not satisfie them unless also it be put into their hands: Though it is undeniable that Christ did deliver it to them all Generally and not to each mans hands, when yet he might more conveniently do it, when they were but twelve. And Clemens Alexand. (Stromat. l. 7.) saith [Also the Eucharist, when some, as the manner is, have divided it, they permit every one of the people to take a part of it: For to an accurate and perfect choosing or refusing (a mans) Conscience is best.] I adde therefore,
Quest. 7. Is it not enough that they refuse themselves to be guided by their Guides in their own Gesture, but they must also needs Guide the Action of the Minister himself, or else they will separate? Should not he, at least, have the same liberty to administer according to his Conscience, as they expect in Receiving according to theirs? If his Conscience tell him, that he should deliver it but to the company conjunctly as Christ did, and their Conscience tell them they should take it Kneeling; why should not he be as much the guide of his own Actions, as they of theirs? If it were a duty to put it into their hands, it is his duty and not theirs; and therefore the not doing it, would be his sin and not theirs: and what need their Conscience therefore drive them from the Ordinance? else we must needs break all in pieces: For if we put it into every mans hands, then they that think we should do otherwise must depart.
Quest. 8. Do not they that would make more duties and sins then God hath made, forget that they have enough to do already? and that they are wont to think it too much that God himself hath commanded them? and that they will leave themselves at last more unexcusable for the neglect of the duties of Gods prescribing, when they could adde so much more?
Quest. 9. Should we not in doubtfull cases take the safer side? And is it not fafer to do as Christ and his Apostles and his Church for many hundred years did, then to follow the novelties of later times? Is it not certain that where there is no Law, there is no transgression? and I know of no Law binding us to Receive kneeling: therefore for my part I cannot fear that Christ will condemn me for following his own, his Apostles and his Churches example, when he never gave me a word to the contrary.
Obj. If Christs example bind to fit, then you must also imitate him in doing it in an upper room, and but to twelve, &c.
Ans. 1. This Objection is nothing to our Question. For we be not affirming that sitting is Necessary, but that it is Certainly lawfull, and that Kneeling is not such a duty, as that men should refuse Communion with a Church for want of it. 2. Both the known Reasons of the thing, and the after practices of the Church, do assure us that Christs administring in an upper room, and but to twelve, and not to women, were all occasionall and mutable; and the Churches did otherwise: But for a Feasting gesture there is no such proof.
Obj. But we are bound by the Canons of the Church which are still in force.
Ans. 1. Scripture is the Churches sufficient Rule, and the perfect Law of God. 2. Those things that Scripture hath left to occasionall determination, no Councils must make standing Laws for to bind at all times. For if such Laws had been fit, God would have made them. 3. It is the present Guides of the Church that are upon the place, and see the occasions, that must determine such Circumstantials as are of mutable determination. And former Church-Governours can no more take away the power of the present, then they can deprive them of their Office; it being essentiall to the Office of every Pastor to be a Guide or Ruler of his Flock. 4. If you think that all Church-Canons (yea though it be General Councils) bind, then you are bound to Contradictories: for one Council hath oft crossed another. And Papists themselves disclaim many things enjoyned by Canons. The 16. Canon of the 4. Counc. of Carthage, requires Ministers not to reade the Books of Heathens: Doth this bind now? Many the like might be mentioned. 5. If you will needs take your selves bound by Canons, I pray you tell me whether the Canons of a few Bishops in England of late, should bind against the Canons and constant practice of the Primitive Church, and of the Apostles themselves? They forbid Kneeling on the Lords day; and the Apostles practised sitting at Sacrament; and either our late Canons are Null for contradicting the former which were of greater authority; or else neither are binding. 6. According to their own grounds, our Bishops had no power to make Canons, both because they were no Bishops, for want of a successive true Ordination, and because they had made themselves uncapable. Even the matter of our Bishops Election, according to many Canons, made them uncapable of ever being Bishops more. The fourth Can. Concil. Aurelian. Decrees, not only that the Clergy and people must consent, but that if their consent were but forced (or they inclined) by the oppression of those in power, that Bishop should be deposed for ever, as coming in more by violence then by lawfull Decree.] Now how our English Bishops came in, I had rather their friend Grotius should tell them then I (though we all know that neither Clergy nor people had any hand in it, but a little ceremonious formality of the Chapter) de Imper. sum. potest. cap. 10. pag. 319. [At posteriori aevo tota electio Regi reddita. Hodie penes Capitula Imago est electionis: vis tota penes Regem. Nam vacante Episcopatu, Rex cum codicillis, licentiam eligendi continentibus, simul transmittit nomen ejus quem eligi cupiat.] About which he cites Burhill, Bilson, &c.
1. The Doctrine of Grotius against a Legislative Power in the Church, you heard before. The Doctrine of the Church of England you may finde, Articl. 6. &. Art. 22. The words are these [Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.] And Art. 22. [When (General Councils) be gathered together, for as much as they be an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may erre, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God: Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they be taken out of holy Scripture.]
It were tedious to cite what Protestant Episcopall Divines say to this point. I will only cite one, Dr Sutlive de Concil. l. 2. c. 3. Where he laies down this Position, [Non omnia conciliorum decreta de sacris Ecclesiae ministris, & eorum Officiis Ecclesiaeque Ceremoniis & Ritibus, Christianos necessariò ligare.] Prob. 1. Non ligant quae novas instituunt Dei colendi formulas, &c. At in actis Conciliorum multa sunt ejus generis decreta. Quis ergo Christianus contra Christianae libertatis leges eis se obligari sinat? 2. Non ligant, idque multo magis, quae repugnant verbo Dei, &c. 3. Non erant imponendae leges onerosae super cervices Christianorum, Mat. 11. Act. 15. Hujusmodi ergo onerosas leges excuti posse, nemo non videt. 4. Christus nos liberavit à servitute traditionum & legum humanarum, &c. cujusmodi plura conciliorum sanctionibus firmantur. 5. Omnia in Ecclesia ad edificationem fieri debent. Si ergo aliqua Conciliorum statuta scandalo sunt Christianis, tolli debent. Si laqueum injiciunt conscientiis, dissolvenda sunt. Si inutilia esse deprehenduntur, & minime decora, abjicienda. Neque sane dubium est quin Ecclesiae Romanae Canones de Ceremoniis, & Ecclesiae Ministrorum caelibatu, & hujusmodi, valde sint captiosi & onerosi & inutiles. 6. Mores Ecclesiae Christianae estendunt omnia Canonum decreta licet alioqui justa non semper ligare. Atque hec ex multarum legum enumeratione videre licet. (See the instances.) 7. Patres Ecclesiae non omnia Conciliorum statuta pariter servabant. (See the proofs.) 8. Ipsa Synagoga Romana, licet alios ad statutorum suorum observationem astringere cupiat; priscorum tamen Conciliorum statuta non servat. 9. Ratio docet, mutanda esse vel quae non decent, vel non prosunt, vel quae onerosa & captiosa esse incipiunt, &c.] So far Dr Sutlive. Much more might be said to this Objection. Some will marvell that I say so much to these men. Let such know that I am not of their minde that despise all the Episcopall men, as fitter to be rejected then united with. Many of them are Godly and Learned and Judicious, and deserve the chiefest room in our Associations. I was desirous also to save the ignorant from the danger which I foresee.