A solution of Doctor Resolutus, his resolutions for kneeling

CHAP. I. A table gesture is necessarie. (Book 1)

THe Doctor taketh needlesse paines to proue fitting in the act of recei∣ving the Sacramentall elements of bread and wine, not to be necessary. For we hold not sitting in special ab∣solutely necessary in the act of recei∣ving, 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 gestu∣res. 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, a 1.1 and alledged not onely the place of Ezkiel, 23.41. But

also Onkelos the Chaldee paraphrast,* 1.2 expressing the sitting of Iosephs brethren, by a word which the Syrians use to expres∣se, sitting with leaning: and Iosephus expressing it by the word Cataclisis, the proper word used to signifie the gesture recei∣ved 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 wri∣ters do interpret the one word indifferently by the other, our vulgar translators have done right in expressing Christs ge∣sture by the word, sitting. The Doctor himselfe at perth as∣sembly, 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 DA∣VID or SALOMON, before the custome of sitting at table in beds entred among the Iewes, he had used the gesture of up∣right 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 uncer∣tainty [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 cu∣stome 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 Sup∣per, and the words were summarie, that they were sooner pro∣nounced, then they could conveniently change rheir gesture. Christ no doubt, at all the Pascall suppers before kept the or∣dinary custome. If at other Paschal suppers, why not also at this? And if at this Paschal supper, why not at the Eucharisti∣cal? 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 loo∣king up to heaven onely. 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 onely that he lifted up his eyes. The Liturgie ascribed to Iames and Ambrose,b 1.3 constantly af∣firme, 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 be∣hoved 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-ge∣sture used at all times before at the Paschal supper, unto a ge∣sture 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 chan∣ged sitting into kneeling, then kneeling is a part of the institu∣tion: & 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 Eucha∣risticall, 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 practi∣sed 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 them∣selves do not admit as compatible, the kneeling of the com∣municants, 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 onely for further confirma∣tion, the authorities both of Papists and Protestants, applying the precept Luk 22.17. Divide it amongst you, to the com∣munion cup. Barradius c 1.4 followeth Augustine and Enthy∣mius, because Luke subjoyneth to that precept, the same protestation that Mathew and Mark do subjoyne to the com∣munion cup; to wit, that Christ would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, untill, &c. and that the cause of the anticipa∣tion was, that the protestation of not drinking more might be joyned with the protestation of not eating more. Iansenius d 1.5 is moved with the same reason, and because the thankesgi∣giving mentioned in the 17. verse is omitted, when Luke re∣turneth afterward to speake of the same cup, because it was al∣ready expressed. Maldonatus e 1.6 sayth, that when Christ gave the cup to one, least he should seeme to will him onely to drink, he sayd, Drink ye all of it, which Luke expressed in cleerer tearmes, cap. 22.17. saying, Divide it among you. VValterius f 1.7 sayth likewayes, that the cup was carried from hand to hand. As for our own writers, Hospinianus g 1.8 sayth, It is manifest, that Christ gave not the cup to every one seve∣rally,

but onely to the first, and the first reached it to the se∣cond, & so forth. Erasmus in his paraphrase h 1.9 sayth, it is obser∣ved by the Ancients, that Luke maketh twice mention of the communion cup. Piscator in his Analysis on Luke, sayth, i 1.10 It is cleare that the words are to be understood of the cup of the Lords supper. Gualter k 1.11 likewise beginneth the institution at the 17. verse. Mornaeus l 1.12 sayth, Christ gave the cup when he sayd, Drink ye all of it: Divide it among you. Sibrandus m 1.13 spea∣keth to the same purpose. Calvin in his Institutions n 1.14 Beza in his last annotations in the same place, VVislets,o 1.15 Bilson,p 1.16 Ie∣wel, q 1.17 and 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 transub∣stantion, yet he granteth the matter itselfe, to wit, that the cup was divided, r 1.18 & reached frō one to another. And Becanus the Iesuit s 1.19 sayth, Drink ye all of it, is all one with take & divide it among you. Now as the cup was divided among the commu∣nicants 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 ta∣ble to dispense the element of the bread. Hospinianus, Mor∣neus, Sibrandus and others, make the precept, divide it among you, common both to the bread and the cup. Cajetane t 1.20 con∣fesseth 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 onely by the Tygurines, and their confederates of Bern, Sca∣phusia, Sangallia, Rhetia; but also by the Kirkes of Geneva, Sa∣voy, Polonie, Hungarie, and Scotland, anno 1566, hath these words, v 1.21: 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 onely the cup, and Christs precept concern the dividing of the cup onely, and not the bread, yet it is sufficient for our pur∣pose, 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 mini∣sters 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 M^r. 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 adulte∣rer? It was replied by the Minister proponer; vvhat if the mini∣ster 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 M^r. 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.x 1.22

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 y 1.23 ancients, and Thomas Aquinas, their Angelical Doctor, citeth it to prove that Christ took rhe Sacrament himselfe, z 1.24 but our Doctor in another sence An∣gellicall, is become so impudent to call in question that which no ancient or moderne writer did call in question before this last yeare. M^r. P. Galloway after the reading of M^r. 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 M^r. Andrew Ramsay, say not that brother. O sayd M^r. 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 threat∣nings

from M^r. Galloway, jests and derisions from Mr. Stru∣thers and Mr. Sideserfe and aversnes from hearing their rea∣sons 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, onely by reason of the Paschall supper special∣ly of the last act thereof, which was changed in the new Sacra∣ment, and that sitting was not chosen of purpose by Christ, or his Apostles. But B. Bilson can tell them a 1.25 that the Lord nei∣ther in his speech nor actions, did comprise the time, place, or persons. And Paraeus b 1.26 sayih, that the evening, the Inne, the number of twelve, by the consent of all, were not Sacramentall but accidentary circumstances. Christ celebrated in the eve∣ning, because the Sacramēt of the new law behoved to succeed the passover, the Sacrament of the old Law, which was ordai∣ned by God to be eaten in the ev••ning, and Christ was to be apprehended before the morning. The Paschal supper was or∣dained to be eaten in Ierusalem, in severall companies and fa∣milies, 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 passeo∣ver. It behoved therefore Christ to celebrate with unleavened bread. All these circumstances were occasionall and unavoy∣dable, by reason of the paschall supper. But Christ might have easily changed into kneeling: for there vvas no ••xpresse com∣mandement given to the people to sit at the P••schall supper. If they stood in Egypt, that standing vvas onely for that time: vvhen they came to Canaan they sate, as Scaliger sayth c 1.27 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, vvhich 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 de∣monstrated, 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. Bil∣son sayth, d 1.28 that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lors supper among the Corinthians, in that they would nei∣ther 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,e 1.29 that the Love-feasts did no wayes admit geniculation at the Lords supper in the act of receiving and no doubt, the Apostle com∣paring 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 f 1.30 sayth, that the Apostles celebrated as Christ did, Et formā observantes in ver∣bis & materiam in rebus, observing both matter and forme: And he sayth, g 1.31 that 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 tradi∣tion. 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.h 1.32 Mor∣naeus testifieth i 1.33 that there are some foot-steps that remain in the monasteries of S^t. 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 Ab∣bots hand. And this form is called by them mandatum, the commandement. Then in the account of the very Benedicti∣nes, 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 pro∣mise 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 knee∣ling 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, k 1.34 that they who receive as is commanded without adoration, are se∣cure 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 Apostoli∣call 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 majo∣rity. 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 l 1.35 would have this Iewish ceremony made a Sacrament and the Do∣ctor 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 it∣selfe: [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 war∣rant 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 than∣kes 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 Ta∣ble 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 there∣fore 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 than∣kesgiving, 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 an∣other great change, to wit, of the order and frame of the insti∣tution. 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 onely narrative, but directive, as the Doctor confessed a litle before. Next, the order and frame of the institution requi∣reth, that the communicants compassing the table, shall divi∣de, the elements among themselves: kneeling putteth all this frame act of joynt, and draweth with it a breach of Christs spe∣ciall 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 onely 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 ea∣ting 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 n 1.36 exhorted all the ministers in the Reformed Kirks, to remove according to their office and dutie, not onely geniculation, but also standing and taking in severall from the Minister en passant, and to re∣store the sitting of the communicants at table, again, vvhere it is vvorne out of use.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Exercitat. 16. pag. 490.
• * 1.2

  Hic fitus ne∣que plane ja∣centis est, ne∣que plane se∣dentis: Idcir∣co hebrei hoc dixerunt sede∣re in lectis.
• b 1.3

  De Sacra∣ment: lib. 4. cap. 5.
• c 1.4

  Tom. 4. Lib. 3. cap. 1.
• d 1.5

  Concordia Evangelica, cap 151.
• e 1.6

  In Math. 26.27.
• f 1.7

  De triplici coena. page ••15.
• g 1.8

  Historie sa∣cramentarie part. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 1.
• h 1.9

  Luc. cap. 22 17.
• i 1.10

  Cap. 22.17
• k 1.11

  In Luke 22 17.
• l 1.12

  De Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 12 p. 154 in folio
• m 1.13

  In cateches. palatino bel∣glcā, quest. 75.
• n 1.14

  Lib. 4. c. 17. sect. 43.
• o 1.15

  De Euchar. quest 4. p. 545
• p 1.16

  Obedience pag 495
• q 1.17

  Of private Masse, divis. 8
• r 1.18

  De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25.
• s 1.19

  De commu∣nione sub utraque specie pag. 125.
• t 1.20

  In Math. 26.
• v 1.21

  Chapt. 2••
• x 1.22

  Pag. 41·42 43.44.
• y 1.23

  De Summa Ecclesie, lib. 1 c. 39.
• z 1.24

  3. quest. 81 art. 1. unde et quidā metrice dixit. Rex sedet in cena, turba cinctus duo∣dona. Se tenet in manibus se cibat ipse cibus.
• a 1.25

  Obedience▪ pag 489
• b 1.26

  In 1. Cor. 11
• c 1.27

  De emend. temporum lib. 6. in the last Edition.
• d 1.28

  Obedience pag. 461.
• e 1.29

  Contra Har∣chium. Aga∣pas quidem ce••te constat vix ac me vix quidem genu∣flexionem ad∣misisse.
• f 1.30

  Rational. lib. 4. cap. 1.
• g 1.31

  Lib. 6. c. 77
• h 1.32

  Apologia contra hinas titeras docto∣ris Augustini. Ex isto mani∣festum cit, quod primiti∣va Ecclesia hanc fidem habuit, et illā confessa est et non secit reve¦rentiam huic Sacramento, quia rilo tem∣pore exemplo Christi seden¦tes statim ac∣ceperunt et nihil retinue∣runt, nec extra domum extu∣lernt et hec institutio diu stetit, sicut Chronica ge∣storum osten∣dunt. v. Tydij Waldensia.
• i 1.33

  De Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 1.
• k 1.34

  Institut. l. 4. cap. 37. sect. 35
• l 1.35

  Hommij con¦troversie Bel∣gice in art. 33
• n 1.36

  In Liturgia ecclesiatum peregrinatum Londini sub. Ed. 6.