THE CONTROVERSY DEBATED About the Reverend gesture of Kneeling, in the Act of Receiving the Holy Communion. By JAMES WATS, Minister of God's Word at Woodnosborough in Kent: And sometime fellow of Magdalene College in Cambridge. HEB DDIM HEB DDIEV printer's device of William Jaggard LONDON, Printed by W. I. for Walter Burr, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's Churchyard, at the sign of the Crane, 1621. TO THE REVEREND and Right Worshipful M. Doctor Boys, Deane of Christ-Church in Canterbury, all prosperity and happiness in the LORD. Reverend Sir: Albeit I am conscious to myself of my inability to answer the opinion your love long since hath conceived of some faculty in me for improvements of a Scholar: yet cannot Salomons word, being represented now to my thought (Stultus reputabitur sapiens si tacuerit) dishearten me from imparting such of my meditations unto you, as some of them a good while since, and some more lately I had written down, to satisfy (if I might) some scrupulous consciences, touching the lawful and convenient use of the gesture of Kneeling in the Act of receiving the holy Eucharist. About the sign of the Cross in or after the other Sacrament, I had filled many sheets of paper, before I could read much of the more accurate writings of other men in that argument, and being loath according to the old Adage, to make that all only my Cypress tree: I undertaken upon earnest request of a friend (more profitable I hope to the Church in his labours, than I can be) to show the vanity of one who gloriously boasts in print, to make proof; that the controverted ceremonies are defended by no other arguments, then are used by Papists, and which by elder Protestants have been long since answered. Between his second (though Senior Ignoto to me) and myself, the same was drawn so oft in writing con and pro, that yet I am not ashamed to make it appear to any upon what terms I left him. Then an occasion was offered me to answer some Quaeres about kneeling, and afterwards more closely to join issue for repelling all the Objections which I have observed in reading, and which for the most part have been urged in conferring with me. My arguments and answers such as they be, I must profess that I can get no reply to them: yet I do not perceive, that any one formerly opposite is willing to yield himself persuaded by them. And for this cause partly I present & submit them to your reverend censure, whether contempt, or some more learning wermeetest to be set against them. Partly, for that I am slow in extemporary speech, and so as is nothing likely to purchase an opinion of more judgement or understanding in me: therefore I had rather let my pen run as you see, then inter Vocales et reales amicos, to be still realiter a mute. I gratulate unfeignedly your dignity, and no less the comfort of your own soul, and esteem in God's Church, by your learned and godly labours published: my desire is to adhere to you still in all services of love, and that with ingenuity: neither soliciting nor expecting any thing else, but your favour and encouragements, as formerly you have vouchsafed me. The God of heaven grant unto you many comfortable years to help to support his truth with Zions peace, and them that stand for both. So I rest. jan. 1. 1619. Your Worship's most affectionate to be commanded, james Wattes. QVi genua, admissus mensae conviva tremendae, Flectere nescit (& hoc nescire est nolle proteruis) Prawm, quod didicit, dediscere discat; & harum, Queis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inest, rationum ponderepressus, Submittat rigidos curuato poplite neruos. Pondus habent haec tela; grauant, franguntque columnas Se non flectentes. Lector, si for sitan anceps, His cessure, Vale, vel responsure Responsis. De hoc libello sic iudicat. T.G. THE CONTROVERSY debated about the gesture meetest to be used in our Church, of the members thereunto pertaining, in the act of receiving the holy Supper of the Lord; by way of Demands or Oppositions, with Solutions and Answers adjoining to them; and in such form and order as the Questions are wont commonly to be propounded. Question. IS it lawful to kneel (in receiving) when Christ sitting, did administer to his Disciples, and they also received sitting? Answer. First, by this question it cannot be supposed that Communicants should receive sitting, except we also in administering, use the same gesture, which in none of our Churches is, or well can be observed. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Math. 26.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luk 22 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ and his Disciples did not sit as our manner is, but it seemeth they lay leaning one upon another's bosom; for which see john 13. job. 13.25. Not as it is said of him when he preached sitting. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Matth. 5.1. ver. 23. with the note upon it. Whereunto I add, that all the words used in the Original do signify either lying, or falling down, and not sitting: therefore if his example were intended to be a pattern for gesture not to be changed, why would we have it changed into sitting after our fashion, and so argue against kneeling hereby? Objection. We must follow Christ's example, in that he and his did observe the usual gesture. Answer. But must we think he observed It, because it was the usual gesture in receiving other meats? nay rather, seeing we must come with another mind and affection, and with another intention (as not desiring food for the body, but for the soul) how can it be thought, that he would especially commend the common gesture to be used now, which is used at taking ordinary sustenance for the body? It may rather be conceived that our Saviour did respect to observe the common gesture which the jewish Church did then use in celebrating the Passeover. From whence the argument follows strongly to urge, that we should all conform ourselves to the usual custom of this our Church in receiving also: for shall Christ and his Apostles observe the common gesture with the Church of the jews: and shall not we observe the common gesture of the Church, whereof we are members? shall his example that way (tending to peace and uniformity) be of no force therein to sway us? Instance. That which Christ did, howsoever, we are sure was best. Reply. Yet (as is supposed) he varied in communicating of the Passeover from the prescript order set down in the Law, Exod. 12. v. 11. which was, to be girt, and shod, with staffs in their hands; and therefore standing, (as Doctor Willet upon that place, by those circumstances, and by ancient testimony proveth). Now if it be credible that this gesture was changeable after it was enjoined: how much more the gesture which Christ did use and his Apostles, the same only being reported to us, and no commandment set down for us at all? Objection. We say still, Christ his doing and approbation then, hath the force of a perpetual command, concerning us, and to bind us. Answer. This assertion is many ways liable to exceptions; for when the Lord said (This do, Luk. 22.19. 19 1. Corin. 11.24.) it must needs be, he respected the substance, and not precisely the circumstances: therefore the Minister communicating unto others is not allowed, nor at any hand required to sit. Secondly, whereas he always himself receives first, Christ's own example will not warrant. Thirdly (to omit difference of number in Communicants from his number, and difference of sex) who doubts but that it is fittest to receive in the public place of God's worship, though the first celebration were in a private chamber? and that it is fittest to receive in the forenoon, and before dinner, albeit the time than were after supper, and not then only, but long afterward? as Acts ch. 20. vers. 11. the breaking of bread was (it seemeth) after the sermon, 1. Cor: 11.21. and so after midnight. Likewise in Corinth every one took his own Supper before, which the Apostle there reproves, only in respect of the excess, and of such banqueting in the Church, and of uncharitableness towards the poor; not in respect of the time, & therefore doth expressly mention the time of Christ's institution, to have been in the night, by and by after, vers. 23. Now seeing we hold all those circumstances may vary from the first institution, why must only the same gesture be observed, which (as I shown before) is not the same but in a generality? A common gesture ye press still must be used as Christ did use it; wherein we would join with you, if ye meant common by the Churches use in receiving; but of that before. Objection. Christ's institution, and the practice of his Apostles may be urged against kneeling, because they were not required to kneel: neither did they so at receiving, when he himself was present, and did minister unto them. Answer. This shall be answered more directly, when a like objection will come in again. First then I now reply, that the words are (Math. 26. v. 26. and Mark 14.22.) As they did eat, jesus took bread, etc. not as they did sit, or as they did lie, etc. so that our Saviour's practice must needs afford a stronger argument for a necessity of eating somewhat before (which is expressed) then for receiving by such or such a position of the body, which is not expressed. Secondly, seeing the bread was broken to them, as they did eat, and as their manner of sitting or lying was to eat: we see (I think) a plain difference, how we may kneel more conveniently in receiving (as the seats be fitted for us) than they could. Thirdly, the argument from Christ his practice (ministering to them who did not kneel) to urge a necessity, as if therefore we may not kneel: is a plain fallacy: as if one should say, Christ did usually preach sitting (as Math. 4.1. & 13. v. 2. and Luk. 4.20.) therefore we may not preach standing: or, he is noted to have preached standing but once, therefore we may not do so often: or thus, Christ did preach many times, but we read yet only of one time wherein he took a Text. Luk. 4. v. 16. So we should do best to preach commonly without taking of a Text. Furthermore, seeing the Lord jesus is propounded to us for an ensample, not only in his manner of performing the parts of God's worship, but in all manner of conversation, 1 Peter 1.15. (excepting what appertained to his divine nature, or to his offices) therefore as well, seeing he chose to be poor, we must refuse to be rich. As he wore a coat without seam, so we must have no seam in our upper garment. And thus, way may be made for the spirit of contradiction, to trouble the whole Church of God, and every member of it. Objection. But we marvel still, if this gesture of kneeling were to be allowed: why all reformed Churches do disallow it, & that it is used only among the Papists? Answer. The gesture among the Papists (which some relate, was commanded first by Pope Honorius the third) was kneeling not at receiving, Balaeus de acts Rom. pontiff. l. 5 pag. 279. but at the elevation or lifting up of the Masse-cake or host (as they term it) over the Priest's head, that all should then together fall down and adore it: but we have no such kneeling, because we have no such elevation, nor we have no such host to elevate, but in our hearts we abandon it: yet can we imagine no other, but that the members of the Church (severally) in time of receiving, did kneel of ancient time, because of these and the like sayings of the Fathers that then lived; Cyprian ad Quirinum. l. 3. cap. 94. as that the Eucharist with fear and honour is to be received, and that it is to be discerned and distinguished from other meats, August in Epist. 118. veneratione singulariter debita; by a veneration singularly due unto it. And, at this day, Hodie in mysteries adoramus carnem Christ. Amb. dispu. Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12. we adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries, which (being a sentence, the Papists allege against the Church of England) Doctor Bilson answers (lib. 4. pag. 537. in 8.) Verily, and so do we, we adore Christ in them, we adore not the mysteries themselves; which must needs be Ambrose his meaning, because he said a little before (neither do we read that any thing is to be adored besides God.) Neque adoratudum quicquam prater deum legimus. Chrysostome also held, that Christ is to be adored in the Sacrament, no less, Chrysost. hom. 24. in cap. 16. ad Corinth. cum reverentia & tremore, with reverence and trembling, then as the wise men did perform to him lying in the manger, Matth. 2. which we see there plainly was by kneeling. But if these and like sayings of the Ancients, should either be suspected or contemned, we refuse not the judgement of Churches reform now adays, and of the godly learned in them. The Church of Bohemia in their confession, Anno 1575. as they say first, Hoc sacramentum, etc. This sacrament ought to be administered and received without adoration, and the worship which is due to God only: so they say by and by after, Populus fidelium usitatissime in genuo procumbens hoc accipit. The faithful people most usually receive this, falling down upon their knees with giving of thankes, and rejoicing, & himns, and rehearsal of benefits, by the death of Christ; and all this (as they understand) according to Christ's bidding, Do this in remembrance of me. The Heluetians also in their confession (pag. 113.) to clear themselves from having a mean regard, Sunt enim haeres sanctae & venerandae. de sacris symbolis, of the holy signs, they say thus of them, These are things holy and venerable. And the censure (in the name of the Churches of France, and of the low-Countries) given upon those words of the Bohemian confession (falling down upon their knees) it is this: In hoc etiam ritu suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem saluam relinquendam arbitramur, non quod per so hunc morem damnamus. In this rite also we think it meet that every Church (they say not every particular man and woman) should be left entirely to their own liberty, not that we in itself condemn this custom, etc. yet those Censurers think (for avoiding bread-worship) it were better in most places this ceremony of kneeling were abolished. But let it also be remembered, that in their preface they modestly submit their judgement (wherein they descent) unto the judgement of their brethren. Like as Master Beza did write concerning the sign of the Cross in Baptism: c Scio nonnull●s sublata crucis adoratione, aliquem signi crucis usum retinuisse. Vtanturigitur ipsi sicuti par est sua libertate. Respons. ad Balduinum. I know that some who have abandoned the worshipping of the Cross, have yet retained some use of the sign of the Cross. Let them therefore as it is meet use their own liberty. Objection. We have heard tho, that Master Beza did disallow kneeling, while the mysteries be in receiving. Answer. He did so: howbeit not simply neither, but for fear of superstition; yet he confesseth there, that it hath d Geniculatio dunsymbola accipiuntur speciem quidem habet piae ac Christianae venerationis, ac proinde olim potuit cum fructu usurpari, etc. Epist. 12 pag. 100 an appearance (not of evil, but) of godly and Christian veneration or reverence, & therefore might once be used with fruit and profit. And he derives not this custom of kneeling from the Papists, but rather thought that their superstition and Idolatry in bread-worship took the beginning from this custom. Nevertheless upon his former concession or grant, we should need (methinke) no fit umpire than himself was to be judged by, for allowance of our use of kneeling; for in his last Epistle of all, his words be these: e Huius seculi dies ita mali sunt, ut iam nemo fere (abiecta vera Religione) cogitet de superstitiodibus revocandis nam superstitiones nunc ijs relinquuntur qus imperiti & Idiota appellanter, tametsi, ad speciem & simulationem retineantur. Impietas autem & religionis omnis contemptus, quod crimen ita nefarium est ut etiam diaboli sint eius iudices, pestiferum illud venenum est a quo te potissimum cavere oportet, utpote quod in eam voraginem homines praecipitat. Epist. 84. Regi Navarrae. The days are so evil now, that none almost (rejecting true religion after they have received it) think of returning again to superstitions. Superstitions are now left for them that be counted ignorant & simple, though they be somewhat retained, and counterfeited for a show. But impiety and contempt of all religion (a crime so detestable, that the devils themselves may and will be judges of it) that is the direful poison above all to beware of, which tumbles men headlong, and overwhelms in that gulf, whereout there is no hope of recovery. And because I find some men forward to muster up the names of worthy neoterical Divines in this question, as if all did plainly avouch kneeling in the act of receiving to be unlawful, I propose in the first place, the sayings of three to be considered of, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr, and Mr. Greenham. Oecolampadius (a most worthy instrument to cause the light of the Gospel to break forth and shine in the house of God, and to dispel the darkness of Popery) giving his f Epistolarum ib. 4 fol 177. ad fratres in agro Solotino. advice unto a Church (concerning the gesture to be used in receiving the Sacrament; no man being reputed to hold farther off from the adoration of it then he) saith thus: Some like to follow the rite of Zurich, some of Berne, some ours of Basil, but may agree all well together, although we use not the same rite as they do. g Nunquid Christus magis sedetes ve! stantes vel genu flec tentes respicit? At nihil consultius esse potest quam ut in unam formulam concedatis. Non patiuntur res vestrae ut in ritibus diversi nunc sitis quando aliae sectae inter vos esse audiuntur, ut licet parum momenti sit in varietate ceremoniarum, apud spirituales, apud eos ta men quibus nōest tantum charitatis studium, si (velictis ijs quae accident plerisque) novam & singularem viam ingrediantur, necesse dicit ut inde simultatibus causa porrigatur. Fatemur esse quidem quod incaena variare non licet, utpote etc. Porro in secundarijs curiosiores esse non tam religio quam superstitio est. Nolumus vos in nostram etc. sed vobis nihil utilius est conformitate quadam. Profecto ubi per ostentatione singularis ritus quaeritur, & receditur a fratrum communs ratione, utilius foret interim caena destitus, etc. date (oro) operam ne sit in vobis varietas Hath Christ respect more to them that sit, or to them that stand, or to them that kneel? yet (saith he again) nothing is more behooveful for you, then to agree all in one form among yourselves. And although there be small weight in variety of ceremonies with them that be spiritual, yet if some (who have not such a respect of love and charity) shall leave those rites which the most approve of, and enter, or go a new way singular from the rest; it must necessarily be the occasion of strife and variance. We confess there is somewhat in the Lord's Supper which in no case may be changed, as if we should have cheese offered us in stead of bread, or milk in stead of wine, or if they should change the Sacrament, & turn it into a sacrifice, or of a Communion make it a private banquet, or any other way that the substance of the Supper may be impeached. But to be overcurious in secondary matters, argues not one to be religious, but rather superstitious. We will not draw ye to observe our ceremonies, nor of the Church of Zurich, nor of Berne; howbeit nothing is more profitable, then that ye do hold a conformity among yourselves. And then his judgement was moreover, that such as (in the rite of receiving) would be singular and odd from the congregation, it were better they were shut out from receiving altogether. Then he fell to entreat thus: I pray do your endeavour, Caveie omnino ne in contemptum veniant Sacramenta. that ye may one do like another, and not vary or be diverse among yourselves; yea and ye must mainly beware of this, That the Sacraments come not into contempt. Whether the Lincolnshire Ministers in their abridgement had cause to allege this worthy man, as standing on their side, I leave it to any one's judgement, that shall compare what they allege, with this that I have set down at large. They cite also Peter Martyr, as being clear on their side, to condemn the gesture of kneeling. Yet who so reads his Commentary upon the book of judges imprinted at Zurich, in the second chapter fol. 33. he shall plainly find these words: I think we should not contend that rites and ceremonies should be any where the same, but there must be this proviso, that all come as near as may be to the word of God, and that edification (with decent order) may be furthered; Nihil alioquin interest si coenae dominicae sacramentum stantes aut sedentes, aut genibus flexis percipiamus, modo institutum Domini conseruetur & occasio superstitionibus praecidatur. Vide etiam inter locos communes, fol 193. otherwise it makes no matter whether we receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper standing, or sitting, or kneeling, so that the Lords ordinance be kept, and that occasion of superstitions may be prevented. And this appears to be penned by him after his book set forth against Stephen Gardiner. I have heard some reply that Peter Martyr is yet against us, because he saith, it makes no matter whether of the gestues be used; and yet our Law binds to kneeling only. Unto which (besides the former rejoinders) this is to the purpose, that the abridgement before named, citing Hooper in his sixth Sermon, as utterly against kneeling, his words are yet found, and by others of them alleged no otherwise than thus: that he could wish it were commanded by the Magistrates, that the receivers should do it standing or sitting, and that sitting rather he thought best. Now if either of these two were enjoined, the other could not be left so indifferent, that every particular man or woman might yet make their choice; therefore that could not be Peter Martyrs meaning, but that herein liberty was left to the choice of every distinct Church. Master Greenham also a worthy man for zeal and industry in preaching the Gospel, and one who is alleged in the Register of opposites, to have much withstood our ceremonies in his younger years; afterward, one coming to ask his advice, whether to sit or kneel, at the Lords Table; it is set down among his grave counsels upon the word (Sacraments) that he gave this answer: For such things let us labour what we may, to do as much as we can for the peace of the Church. Being occasioned to write further upon this argument, and in manner as before: thus I proceeded, first arguing in this manner. IT is the holy Communion, therefore how should not the gesture which is most proper to piety and holiness, be (at least) as fit as any other? Surely standing or sitting are not gestures more fitting devotion then kneeling is; Nay, how are they so much? seeing that, howsoever devotion may concur with them, yet it is not declared by them, but by kneeling we partly express it: therefore to bow down and to worship are often joined together; as, O come let us worship, fall down and kneel, Psa. 95. and in Psal. 22.29. All that be fat on earth shall eat and worship, and they that go down to the dust shall kneel before him: Where we see, eating and worshipping are joined together, and bowing down is not severed from them. 1. Objection. Oh, but this is a main reason why we dare not kneel, lest we should seem to worship, and namely, to worship the Bread and the Wine, because our kneeling is appointed to be before them. Answer. From whom should seeming or censure be feared? Not from any that understand the doctrine of the Church of England, nor yet from the Papists; for they aver still (notwithstanding our kneeling) that we receive but Bread and Wine: howsoever they wrong us herein, yet they traduce us not so much as to say, we pretend to worship them: Lib. 4. de Eucharistia. c. 29. §. 2. For Bellarmine plainly acknowledgeth, we all renounce that. And how should our worship (by any of ourselves) be thought to be directed to the Bread and Wine (as having Christ's body in them, before we receive them, or whiles we are only in the act of receiving) when the order of the words is first to take and eat, before they be Sacramentally declared to become his body and blood? Also the prayer going before, makes it plain against all cavilling, viz. That we receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine, according, etc. in remembrance, etc. may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood. 2. Objection. Yet we think we should not bow down before a creature, to worship God; as the Papists do in and before their images. Answer. No more we do: for our worship is directly to God and to Christ, no way unto the creatures; Tom. 6. conera Maxi● 〈◊〉 3. cap. 22. 〈◊〉 ●54 because (as Saint Augustin saith) In sacramentis non quid sint, sed quid oftendant semper attenditur: We consider not what they are, but what they show or signify. And the signification is such, as it doth justly occasion our humiliation, when we receive, and are about to receive them: for so our famous Divines P. Martyr, BB. jewel, and the Lord du Plesse, all of them allow of Saint Augustine's saying in Psal. 98. No man eats the flesh of Christ, except he first worship it: These divines all say plainly, We do so, we worship him in the Mysteries, but not the Mysteries themselves; in the Sacrament, but not the Sacrament; the Creator in the creature sanctified, and not the Creature. Peter Martyr loc. come. class 4. cap. 10. pag. 863. jewel fully to the same effect in his answer to Harding, Act. 8. division 22. pag. 404. and Morney fourth Book of the Sacrament, cap. 6. p. 452. Hereunto I annex the confession of two worthies among our Martyrs, BB. Ridly and Latimer. Ridly in his disputation at Oxford, answering Doctor Glin, pag. 1451. saith; We adore and worship Christ in the Eucharist: and if you mean the external Sacrament, I say that also is to be worshipped as a Sacrament. Latimer also saith, pag. 1458. We worship Christ in the heavens, and we worship him in the Sacrament; but the massing worship is not to be used. Again, as touching the Papists bowing before Images, they say they worship them, because by them they remember Christ; whereas we do not worship bread and wine in remembrance of Christ, but we worship only Christ, of whom we are remembered by the bread and wine; and Bellarmine shows, if they should worship images no otherwise, it were to be accounted no image-worship at all; his words be these: Siimago non est veneranda nisi improprie, De imag. San. lib. 2. cap. 21. § 2. probatur est. quia nimirum coram illa, vel in illa, aut per illam adoratur exemplar, certe licebit simpliciternegare imagines esse venerandas. 3. Objection. We think still tho, that with respect to creatures we should not bow down religiously before them. Answer. True, if we hold our respect fast to the creatures, and do not ascend in our thoughts higher. But that which outwardly draws our thoughts and affections more to God-ward, should not hinder our devotion in humiliation to bow unto him. Civil gifts (saith Bishop Morton well) ought to be taken from Princes with civil reverence; therefore spiritual gifts, and the instruments by which they are conveyed, are to be received with spiritual and religious reverence, as from the Majesty of Christ. This reason could never seem to want force with me, that the principal pledges of the price of our redemption from the highest Lord, require a bowing to receive them. Secondly, I answer, Sacraments be words visible; if words audible, them spoken to be heard, may justly occasion a falling down, 1 Cor. 14.25. so may these also, but of the former we have an example, 1. Cor. 14.25. A man hearing the secrets of his heart revealed in the exercise of Prophecy, it is affirmed, and not disallowed, that he would fall down on his face to worship God. Thirdly, our bowing before the Sacrament hath in equal construction no more show of Idolatry, than the fact of Hezekiah, when (to be affected the more) he spread a letter before the Lord and before his own eyes, Isa. 37. v. 14. 15. to be more fervent in his prayer, wherein it is probable enough he did not spare to kneel down. Or how is not the objection before made as strong against kneeling down to pray with a book lying open before one, to give direction, and to help devotion? or against uncovering the head to worship God in prayer before the ordinary food set upon our tables? 4. Objection. The Papists by kneeling, worship the bread, how can we then kneel without appearance of evil? Answer. The Papists do so indeed, yet they deny their so doing because they hold transubstantiation, thereby Bellarmine would prove it to be a slander, when we say they worship bread, and therefore need not say that intentionally and formally, but materially they do it. Yet howsoever they do, we may use it nevertheless freely, and the gesture in us is not liable to suspicion, because we renounce their doctrine, and because we have no communion with them; Rom. 16.16. as Saint Paul exhorted the Christian gentiles to salute one another with an holy kiss, albeit the practice of kissing, not only profanely, but superstitiously also had been abused, among them before; adhibita erant ascula in deorum cultu; 2. Elect. cap. 6. as Lipsius shows. 5. Objection. This gesture in kneeling to receive the Sacrament could never be fit, seeing we have no warrant by Christ or his Apostles for it. Answer. This Objection hath two parts. And touching the former, Master Beza was clean of another mind; for he affirms it (against the fourth Objection) to have an appearance of godly and Christian veneration or reverence; Beza Ep. 12. and (to answer this Objection also) he saith in old time it might be used with fruit and profit, ut supra: his judgement also against the use of it now is answered by himself before, pag. 5. Master Burges in his Apology to the Bishop of Lyncolne. §. 10. Master Burges likewise (a Preacher of note) at, in, or before the time of his being silenced, although he made one of his exceptions against subscribing, to be about kneeling at the Communion; yet he said he never stack at it, as a thing unlawful to be used, because (saith he) it is administered with a prayer over every receiver, and for that it is not unlawful, and (if superstition had not stained it) unfit to take such a token of God's favour (as well as the favours of a Prince) upon our knees. Now suppose the prayer be not said particularly over every one, but in common; and that (at the instant of receiving) these words only be used; (Take and eat this, etc.) yet I would fain know, whether every good heart cannot beg and entreat of God (at that instant) for Christ to join himself more feelingly to our souls, as the Bread and Wine are presented and proffered ready to be taken into our bodies. And if the heart incline unto such a prayer, and if it bow: how is it not seemly the body also, (to keep proportion between them) should use the gesture of Beggars and Petitioners? Now to the other part of the Objection (no warrant by Christ's example or by his Apostles) I answer. First, no more is there for sitting, because it is not certain that jesus did sit, no not after the jews common manner; the words of the Text being (as is noted before) as they did eat (not, as they did sit) jesus took the bread, etc. Secondly, I refer to my former writing, how Christ's example may be urged for us. Thirdly, there is warrant for kneeling in way of reverence, if there be warrant then to sit uncovered; for Divines and Zanche by name, yield bearing of the head, to be a gesture of worship, as well as bowing: and it cannot appear likely to us, that the Disciples did eat the Sacrament bareheaded, more than that they did kneel. Fourthly, if Christ did leave a gesture strictly to be observed, how comes it about (I would fain learn) that only kneeling should be excepted against, as swerving from Christ's example, and sitting or standing, either of them, left indifferent? For so T.C. pag. 600. said, Harmon. 4. synod pag. 33. sitting at the Communion is not holden to be necessary; and the Harmony of the four Synods in Hobland, saith; Liberum est stando, sedendo, vel eundo caenam celebrare, non autem geniculan do ob 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 periculum. Fiftly, Christ in administering to his Disciples, did not change place or remove his body, to go first to one, and then to another: will you say then (you may as well) that we should not (as having no warrant by Christ's ex●mple) go from seat to seat, or from one end or one side of the Church or Chancel to minister unto you? Sixtly, to omit other variable circumstances mentioned before (which are of like nature with this, Bucor in Eps. to john Anste. as seemed to Master Bucer) we are sure Christ did administer in unleavened bread; therefore scruple might be made as well about this, as about the gesture; and as Beza reports, Beza in Gita Caluim. Master Caluin did make scruple of it once, not because he would use it, but because he would not have it urged (their custom having been in Geneva, to communicate in common bread before; yea he left the City, rather than he would be tied to minister it so; yet (saith Beza) after he returned the second time, he would never move contention about it, and he did feriously admonish others (who began to take such offence at it, that they thought they were better not communicate at all) to th'end they should no longer (ob istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 litem movere) make stirs for that indifferent thing; so he then rearmed it, howsoever he thought otherwise of it before. Seaventhly, I answer, we are no more bound to the gesture at the first institution, than we are to observe the time in the receiving, because (if the gesture were as is commonly supposed) one was occasional and accidental, as well as the other. The time for the passover you will say, was occasion for the one: and then may the gesture for the passover appear as well to have been occasion for the other. 6. Objection. Christ ordained this Sacrament to be for a banquet, to witness our fellowship with him and our joys, etc. Answer. Yet we should remember, that God is fearful in praises, Exod. 15.11. Psal. 2.11: and that we are commanded to rejoice with trembling; and that the Saints of the heavenly banquet, in the Church triumphant, are not only said to cast off their Crowns (as we now are content to put off our hats) but also to fall down and worship him, Apoe. 4.11. that liveth for evermore, Revelation 4. v. 10. Stephen was admitted into so great grace with God that he saw heaven open, and jesus standing, etc. Acts 7. yet he fell on his knees to pray before him, and so ended this life. Furthermore, I cannot think we should do best to take state upon us, when we are about acting of it; for which we are most humbly to prepare ourselves before. And when as we confess a little before, that we are not worthy to gather up the crumbs under his table: is it meet we stand upon terms (when he offers himself to be our food) as that we ought not to bow to him? The bitter remembrance of our sins, a little before professed by us: should we so slack it, and as it were forget it in the act of receiving, that whereof our sins make us most unworthy, that (as some have written) we may not use a gesture of inferiority and abasement: It suiteth not (they say) with a guest or coheir of Christ, to kneel at his table, as if they that be the true heirs indeed, were not as yet in their minority or nonage (whiles they be on earth) and so by the Apostles rule must be under, Gal. 4.1. and not challenge the privileges which may belong to them when they come to years. 7. Objection. This is a Sacrament of thanksgiving, therefore bowing is not the fittest gesture to be used in it. Answer. It is indeed the Sacrament of thanksgiving, but especially for the death of Christ, and to show his death. August. in Psal. 21. Saint Augustine therefore held, that when the Lords Passion is celebrated, it is as well a time of mourning, and sorrowing, and confessing of sins; as of praises, and of craving pardon for them. And he delivers his judgement more plainly in another place, saying; 〈◊〉 Psal. 98. Non solùm non peccamus adorando, sed peccamus non adorando: we sin not if we do worship Christ (when we are about to eat his flesh) but on the other side, we sin if we do not worship. If men's judgements now adays be urged against it, I need not to be ashamed of this man's judgement (far more ancient) for it. 8. Objection. Eightly, it is objected, that these terms (of the Lords table, Abridgement Lyncoln. and of eating and drinking) make strongly against kneeling, it being no where the custom to kneel at meat, and they that urge this argument most, press the use of tables, as if we did not use tables for our Communions: for what end else is Master Foxe and Doctor Fulke, and other Divines alleged to prove the old communion tables were made of boards? and so placed, that men might stand round about them? And whereas the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (when he was Deane of Winchester) in his book against Hill, pag. 38. mentions an extraordinary celebration of the Communion in Bohemia, and how 30000. did communicate upon 300. Tables, set up in the fields; this is alleged by the silenced Ministers of Lyncolneshire, as the Bohemians manner of receiving, which they did use; and with all, to show the ancient use of receiving the Communion standing. Answer. I answer to the last first. Neither is the Bahemians use and manner here related (in the Testimony cited of a fact extraordinary,) neither can the mention of so many Tables enforce that the Communicants (at least many of them) did not kneel: as for the Bohemians common use, Page 4. it is set down before (in their own confession) to be by kneeling: and touching mention that is made of standing about the Tables; the word is so used sometimes as no particular gesture can be determined by it; for in beginning of describing the prayer which Solomon made to dedicate the Temple, it is said, 1 Kings 8. vers. 22. 1. Kings 8. Verse 22. that he stood before the Altar of the Lord, and stretched forth his hands, and said, O Lord, etc. Yet again, in verse 54. we read thus; Verse 54. When Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer, etc. he arose from before the Altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees, etc. The usual eating otherwhere not to be with kneeling, is much objected, and little to the purpose, if we understand and consider, how different the end and intent is of eating at or before the Lord's Table, from the usual intent of eating food otherwise. Likewise, the setting of other meat upon Tables, is to be eaten by such as sit or stand about them, otherwise than our Communicants possibly can, about the Lords Table, when there are 5. hundred or a thousand to communicate at one time: Besides, the urgeing of Table gesture, may (if one would be contentious) be enforced as well to bring in a liberty of table talk, and table courtesies of one drinking to another; and for men not to be bareheaded, but covered. 9 Objection. The gesture of kneeling is held not to be enjoined, in respect of any lawful or convenient reverence due to the Sacrament; because it is not required in the act of Baptism, unto which as much reverence is due, as to the Supper of the Lord. Answer. Whatsoever reverence were meet to be used by the parties that receive Baptism: they are such now in all Christian Churches, as must be held up by others, and cannot kneel themselves. Secondly, it is a lefthand construction to surmise; as if by this gesture we meant (like the Papists) to magnify this Sacrament more highly than the other; when as the reason is clear on the other side, that the Papists do not charge us for profaning Baptism, as they do in saying we make no more account of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, then of Bread out of the bakehouse, and of Wine out of the cellar, who are sensibly confuted by our reverend gesture (extraordinary from that we use in all other feeding.) And (if we stand stiff to use but the same common gesture) it may be taken of them as a confirmation of the scandal, they would enforce against us. Now I see not what Religion or policy should be in it, to feed them (as one saith) with scandals, as dogs be fed with bones. To yield them any colourable pretence to be clamorous; as it is no way to win them, so it is no way to retain those that are weak, from falling to them. Moreover, if this order were not, and were not strictly enforced, (to kneel) it is to be feared (in these profane times) the holy fymboles or Sacramental signs, and the whole Sacrament, would be profaned much more than they be: sunt enim haeres sanctae venerandaeque: these things are holy, and to be taken with veneration (said the Heluetians in their former confession:) to answer the cavillation of some, who thought they did parum tribuere sacris symbolis: Vide supra. pag. 4. in fir. yield too little to the Sacramental signs. 10. Object. Yet it is gross hypocrisy (say the Lynconians commended by Robinson the separatist, for their zeal in this cause) to pretend more reverence in receining, then was used by the Apostles in Christ his own presence. Ans. We read not that the Apostles did ever kneel to Christ while he was with them; must we then never? Again, we have no ground to conjecture that they sat uncovered before him; how then (by this reason) may we? Father, he said then he was among them as one that served; Luk, 22.27. I trow we do not so reckon of him now. They, for having his presence bodily before their eyes, as some say, it should have occasioned their kneeling the rather (and then they must always have been kneeling,) so I reason on the other side: they (because of his presence before their eyes) needed not such outward helps (as we may now need) to possess their souls with reverence towards him; for it is prudently and judiciously affirmed by S. Aug. lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 50. tom. 4. coi. 884. Augustine, that by means of external gestures performed visibly, the inward & invisible intention which stirs them up, is much increased. Cum genua figunt. And (speaking of bending the knees and prostrating the body) I know not (saith he) how, Hi motus corporis fieri, nisi motu animi non possunt: tamenijsdem rursus externis visibiliter fact is, ille interior invisibilis (quieos fecit) augetur, ac per hoc cordis affectus (qui ut fierentista praecessit) quia factasunt crescit. 11. Ob. The urging of kneeling at the receipt of the Sacrament, is a humane prescript for God's worship. Ans. It is a divine prescript for man to kneel in God's worship, Paeg. 101 or at least to warrant that he may kneel. And it is proved before, that it is convenient in receiving, to worship God and Christ; therefore it is not to be rejected as a mere humane prescript, to apply the gesture (having express warrantise in other parts of God's worship and service) unto this part also, even according to Master Caluins' definition of a Sacrament, Caluin Instit. l. 4. c. 4 sect. 1. where he saith; It is a testimony of divine grace in us, or toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a mutual testification of our piety and service towards him, as the Passeover is called a service, Exod. 12.16. Exod. 12. v. 26. And whereas we profess afterward to offer up ourselves to God a living, holy and acceptable sacrifice, ought not the same to be done indeed as well at the instant when he offers himself unto us? I think then chief. 12. Object. To kneel in receiving, though it be not to worship God otherwise then he hath appointed: yet it is to worship him otherwise then he hath appointed in this thing. Answ. These be like squirrel shifts to leap from bow to bow, and at length to fasten upon a trembling twig where she catches a fall; for it is clear, some things outwardly belonging to God's worship have been allowed, though they have not been required: as God did not appoint David, to build him a house, 1. King. 8: 18. yet the Lord did commend him that he was so minded. So seven days only were required to celebrate the feast of the Passeover, yet the assembly under good Hezekiah agreed together to keep it other seven days, 2. Chro. 30.23 id est, 14. days in all. Secondly, I answer, that to pray before Baptism, is no prescript in the Word at the time of administering it, yet both is lawful, then, and at weddings, and at burials, neither do we fear that for such usage the Lord will say to us one day (vpbraidingly) who hath required this at our hand? Thirdly, I take it to be a general (tenet) in the Church or Churches of Christ, that the ordinances of God may be fitted with circumstances, as by every Church shall be thought convenient for the farther gracing and adorning of them, which are (in right) no more to be counted an addition to God's word, or God's ordinance, than it is an addition to the shape of a man to be arrayed in seemly apparel; in which saying (full out) we have Master Caluin to join with us, Caluin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. §. 29. whose words be these; We shall account that to be comeliness, which shall be so meet for the reverence of holy mysteries, that it be a fit exercise to godliness, or at least such as shall serve for convenient garnishing thereof, and the same not without fruit, but that it may put the faithful in mind, with how great modesty, religiousness, and reverence they ought to handle holy things. I grant that in the ninth section of the same Chapter, §. 9 he saith it was a just cause for him to impugn ceremonies, because the Authors define the worship of God to be contained in them; but this he explains his meaning afterward, Sect. 15. of the worship of God, saying, §. 15. they were accounted as sacrifices to cleanse sin, and to obtain righteousness and salvation, and that the necessity imposed of keeping them, was not only referred to a general end, but was reckoned to confist in the things commanded (in the end of the fifth Section:) §. 5. which cannot fitly be applied to our ceremonious gesture of kneeling, or to other of our ceremonies controverted, of which plainly that necessity (whereby they are urged) respects only general ends of reverence, seemliness, and uniformity, not as if God would not, or could not be pleased without them: Vrsinus part 3. doct. Christ. in fine 2. peacepti. ob. 3. pag. 739. and therefore they are not to be esteemed as essential parts of God's worship, but as things that belong accidentally thereunto. The end of urging them is specified before, and therefore is strictness required for observance, because of the contention & confusion which cannot be avoided, if (as Caluin saith) it should be lawful for every man to change those things that belong to the common state: §. 6. they are not advised sure that would have it left indifferent at least, for who list to kneel, who list to sit, who list to stand: Page. 6. but of this heretofore, Beza is also plentiful to this purpose, in Epistola 24. 13. Objection. Yet godly Divines would have ceremonies most pure according to Christ's institution or example. Answer. First, this objection is nothing to the purpose in this case, there being no institution, nor clear example for one gesture more than another. Secondly, I answer. Godly Divines would not have contention or opposition maintained in the Church for things indifferent, or that may be tolerated when they are once grown to be in use. Caluin. Epist. 118. 120. M. Caluin saith, that diversity of rites and usages in one and the same Church well composed or ordered, is not tolerable in Epist. 118. wherefore he saith, he wished Hooper not to stand out as he did about Cap and Rochet, Epist. 120. Beza in conference with jacobus Andreas, Colloquium mon. pelgartense. pag. 425. saith, Non repugno quin coena Domini in altari celebrari possit. I gainsay not, but that the Lords Supper may be administered upon an Altar. Zanchus lib. 1. de cultu dei externo, col. 485. And Zanche saith, Quta neque Christus, neque Apostoliprohibuerunt altaria, aut mandarunt ut mensis ligneis uteremur, idcirco inter adiophora hoc quoque annumerandum est. If Master Beza had been altogether so indifferent to the Church of England, Beza in explan. 2. pag. 25. as he was to his neighbours of Zurich, I cannot think but he would have written as favourably concerning our use of kneeling, as he did of their use, to receive from their Ministers with their mouths, and not with their hands. He saith indeed that use came up from a superstitious veneration of the signs (& the original of kneeling he makes to be better, ut supra:) he spares not to call it monstrous, when an opinion of worship concurs with it; yet he yields, that whatsoever is rightly done (as viz. to abolish such a use) is not simply and absolutely necessary: therefore they that so urge taking with the hand, that they hold it a profanation to receive it otherway (when receiving with the mouth only is without impiety and superstition, and upheld to avoid the peril of innovation.) I am afraid (saith Master Beza) they that censure it so hardly, do themselves rather offend or sin by ignorance, of what is fit to be held in these cases, or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of pertinacy, and selfe-wilfulnesse. Again, if we may reason as Master Calnin doth, Harmon. 4 lib. pentateuch. writing upon the second Commandment, page. 286. for the lawful use of such Churches or Temples as have formerly been defiled with Idolatry: Quia nos non obstringit quod propter consequentiam ut loquuntur legi additum est; which to my understanding, is q. d. the abuse of a thing doth not restrain us from making a lawful use use thereof. I see not (by this reason) how any Popish abuse of kneeling, surplice, or the Cross, can utterly make unlawful the usage of them, so as in our Church they be enjoined. And if (under name of taking away what may nourish superstition) we stand precisely to urge removing of somewhat which is per se medium, in itself indifferent: M. Caluin saith saith, we may esse in nimio rigore superstitiosi, ourselves become superstitious in too much strictness, like him that did caleare fastum Platonis alio fastu. Thirdly, I know not whom our Church of England are to esteem for more godly Divines, and free from all partiality, than the two public professors in the two Universities in King Edward's time, Bucer and Martyr: who (notwithstanding they had not been formerly accustomed to the use of our English ceremonies) yet (beholding them) they did in no wise dehort from them, but persuaded the use of them (as their letters extant do show:) and partly for this reason, Bucer in script. Anglic. fol. 708 Hooper. because (as Bucers' words be) it is evident that jesus Christ our Lord did only prescribe the substance of the ministering both of the word and Sacraments in his own words, and all other things which pertain to the decent and profitable administration of his mysteries, he hath left and admitted to be ordered by his Church: and hence (saith he) we celebrate the Lords Supper, neither in the evening, nor in a private house, nor leaning, nor yet with men only. Master Beza to this purpose saith again, Beza Epistola. 8. pag. 71. That whatsoever was performed by the Apostles in rites and ceremonies, he did not judge that forthwith it must be followed for a rule without adding or altering; because in the beginning the Apostles themselves could not determinately set down all what they judged to be expedient for the Churches, and therefore they did necessarily proceed by little and little, as appears by their institution of Deacons, and their practice so often, and in so many things of the jewish ceremonies. Hereto I may add that which another hath declared more at large, Sprint in his Cassander. how the Apostles did some things for the peace of the Church, & furtherance of the Gospel, which in some other respects they did censure most hardly; Acts 16.3. for S. Paul circumcised Timothy, although he professed to the Galathians, If they were circumcised, Galat. 52. Christ should profit them nothing. He made vows, shaved his head, Acts 18.18. chap. 8.26. & was purified after the jewish manner, and yet he called such observations impotent and beggarly rudiments, Galat. 4.9. The Apostles also did impose some things, (terming them necessary, Acts 15.28. as to abstain from blood and that which is strangled) yet I hope we join not with those sectaries, who would bring the Church into such bondage again. I wish heartily too, that among other godly Divines they were not neglected (I mean in their reasons) whose direction otherwise by authority is pressed upon us, by law; for the Preface before the book of Common Prayer, seems to me to be so penned, as may give all sincere Christians (void of prejudice) good satisfaction. Lastly, I cannot but think it dangerous to reason thus, that because Popery is Antichristianity, therefore it should be a good rule in reformation, to show ourselves unto them most opposite; for this false-light (like ignis fatuus) seems to have deceived the old Arrians, who would not entitle the Son and the Holy Ghost to be essentially God, that so they might be most unlike the Gentiles, who professedly did worship many gods. Then, the eagernes to be most opposite to Arius, made some to be Tritheits, accounting the three persons to be three gods: and some to hold with Sabellicus, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were but merely names, and did not note out so much as a threefold distinction personal: and to conclude (in stead of instancing farther of old) we cannot deny but the Separatists (upon this ground) are departed from us; and (if the position be sound) we ought all to go out after them. Sed Deus meliora, qui facit unanimes in domo; cui in domo sua ex pietate & concordia suorum, sit laus & gloria in sacula seculorum. Amen. FINIS.