Concerning Kneeling in the Act of Receiving

KNEELING IN THE VERY act of taking, eating and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine, in the holy Communion cannot be without sin.

IT is to be understood, that, howsoever [ 1] Kneeling may (in it self considered) be esteemed a natural gesture of the body, as standing, sitting, etc. yet in this case, it is by Institution of man. For neiher nature nor custom, doth teach us ordinarily to knele when we eat & drink neither doth the word require Kneeling in this case. [ 2] If it be by Institution, it must be either in respect of a more reverent receiving, or Not. But if the most soleme sign of reverence (used in these partes of the world) be without all respect of reverence, and that by Institution of authority, in so high a part of God's service may not such Kneeling be judged, if not a gross mocking of Christ, as was the soldiers their bowing of knes before him, yet a taking of the name of god in vain. Seeing all significations of honor, in God's service, ought to be to the honor of his name, and an oath not religiously intended (as in the nature thereof it ought to be) to the honor of God, is the taking of God's name in vain. Did Naaman newly brought to the knowledge of God, attribute so much to bowing in the house of Rimmō when his master leaned on him, so that it was not his voluntary act? And shall we, who have had the Gospel long, kneeling by institution and determination, in a principal parte of God's service, make no accoūpt whether we honor god, or no, by such kneeling?

[ 3] If kneeling be Instituted for a more reverent receuing, then it must be either in regard of God, or of bread and wine If in regard of god then must we be well persuaded that such kneeling is an acceptable service unto his Majesty. And that this may be, we must consider, whether such kneeling be a wilworshipp or a service reasonable, and according to God's will. Least otherwise we find our selves so far from honoring God, as that we provoke him. As did Nadab and Abihu, who offered incense, but not with the very fire which God appointed, and were therefore devoured with fire. And as did King David, & the priests, who carried the Ark otherwise than it ought to have been, and therefore Uzzah died for it, with a sodaīe death. For God will be sanctified (if not By yet) In all them that come near him.

[ 4] But kneeling is contrary to the example of Christ, and his Apostles, who ministered & received sitting, or in such a gesture, as in those countries was most used at eating. From which example to differ, without warrant from God's word cannot be without fault. Seeing examples of holy men, much more of Christ, are to be followed, except there be some reasonable cause to the contrary. And the Apostle to reform an abuse which crept (even in their times) into love feasts, which were immediately before, or after the Lord's supper, did banish them thence, & reduced the manner of administering the Lord's supper to the first institution, saying: shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which I have also delivered unto you, etc. Whereby it is apparent, that that form of administration, which differeth frō the first institution, is worthy no praise and therefore no acceptable service to God. For if the Apostle would not tolerate an indifferent thing (as was a love feast till then) to continue so nere the L. supper, whē it was abused, how would they allow the change of sitting into kneeling, especially in these two considerations?

[ 5] First, because the abuse of love feasts (viz. superfluity ) was never so great, and scandalous, in the Apostles time, as the abuse of kneeling (viz. Idolatry ) was and is in the synagogue of Rome: And besides, Love feasts were either before, or after the L. supper, whereas kneeling is in the principal part of the holy Communion. Therefore if the Apostle banished Love feasts from the L supper, because of the abuse, & brought the Church to the simplicity of the first institution, Is it not a tempting sin to retain the Idolatrous kneeling of Papists, and reject the exemplary sitting of our M. Christ? And the rather, because it is in that sacrament, & in that part of the sacrament, which especially setteth forth our communion with Christ, & his Church, and is therefore called The communion. In du • consideration whereof, how can we imagine, that Christ hath any honor by our kneeling? Seeing it swerveth, not only from his example, but also from the practice of all reformed Churches, except in England, which the Papists them selves call Puritan-papistical, for retainyng this, and other popish corruptions, and, S • ing it may be an argument (especially to a papist not understanding our tongue) that we have communion with Antichrist, & & his synagogue, at least in the Idolatry of bread worship. Which our failing, or carelessness to avow our communiō with Christ and his church, and not abhorring all communion with Antichrist & his synagogue cannot be without grevous sin. Or else Paul sinned, when he rebuked Peter for not holding communion with the Gentiles converted, and wrote without good warrant, where he saith: If any lust to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. & in another place: What communion hath Christ with Belial? Come out, and touch no unclean thing. Doth not God straitly forbid us to serve him, as Idolaters do their gods. These things considered, Can kneeling wherewith Papists do honor their bread̄ God, be honorable to Christ, in his holy sacrament?

[ 6] Secondly, whereas the end of a sacrament is to inform the outward man, by sensible demonstrations, it pleased our M. Christ to use such a gesture, as, agreeably with bread and wine, setteth out our communion and spiritual familiarity with him, and reioycyng in him. And therefore as he saith, If any hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him and he with me, so he saith, Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit with A: braham etc. By which places it appeareth that as by supper, so by sitting, familiar rejoicing, or rreioycing familiarity is expressed. In which respects the communion is called the Lord's supper & not A Sacrifice, & we are said to be partakers of the L. table, & not of an alter. And therefore not kneeling, and sitting is for receiving. We read not of any gesture of body prescribed, or observed in Circumcision, and Baptism as in the Passover & L. supper Because there needeth no material regard to be had of any certain gesture in the 2. former sacraments, so the foreskynne were cut of, and water be used: But in the other two, a gesture, answereable to the action is requisite. And therefore God prescribed to his people: when they were to fly out of Egeipt, the gesture of loins gyrded, & staves in their hands, because the eating then of the passover was in hast. But that gesture being but for that time, as may appear by the omission thereof, when the observation of the passover was established, our Master Christ, who came not to break but fulfill the law, and knew what was fitest to be done, did not eat the passover sitting, a gesture more answerable to eating in peace, than the former used in Egeipt. Whereby kneeling is convinced, as being agesture altogether unanswerable to eating And the rather, because it darkeneth the counsel of God, and being a sign of the greatest Submission obscureth that Reioycing familiarity, which the L. supper signifieth, and sealeth. Do we not condemn the papists for ministering the communion in one kind, because such an administration is against Christ his example, and doeth not lively demonstrate the Lord's death? Here a caveat is to be given, that none take occasion by this discourse, to justify the childish paedagogy of signifiynge ceremonies devised by man, Seeing sitting was used by Christ, and the signification thereof is found in scripture. And therefore that childish paedagogy is not justified by that worthy servant of Christ, M. Cartwright, his judgment, viz. That sitting doth signify our rest in Christ Jesus. [ 7] That kneeling may be more soundly convinced as a will-worship, objections are to be answered. Therefore where it is supposed that Christ and his Apostles ministered & received sitting but by occasion, and not of purpose: because they were sitting before in eating the passover. whereas if Christ had sitten down of purpose to administer the communion, then all that is said is granted to be some purpose. The answer is short, yet full: Christ did sit of purpose, when he ministered his last supper. For after the passover he rose, washed his disciples feet, and sat down again.

[ 8] If it be demanded, why the Church is not bound to the time of evening, as well as to the gesture of sitting, since Christ observed the one, as well as the other? It may be answered: Time being a common circumstance to every action (for nothing can be done, but in some time) the particular time is not to be observed, except Christ had sanctified it to the communion, as God sainctified the 7. day, on which he rested, or (at least) chosen it of purpose, as he did sitting. But whereas it was upon special, and necessary occasion, for the passover must eaten before the L. supper could be instituted instead thereof, and presently after supper the hour came, when Christ was to be betrayed, therefore if the Jews transgressed not the institution of the passover, by changing a gesture, at the first prescribed by God according to that their present occasion, in another fitter for a tīe of rest, much less do Christians transgrese the institution of the L. supper, by changing the time taken by Christ upon occasion, but not prescribed, into some other fitter (in discretion) for the ordinary c • lebration of the L. supper. As probably the Primitive Churches did. For every first day of the week (viz. the L. day) the brethren came together to break bread, id est, to minister the communiō. So that either th • y never met upon the L. day, but in the eve •• ing, or else they c • lebr • ted the communion at some other times. but for my alteration of the gestures • f sitting, especially into kneeling there is not the least probability.

[ 9] It is further objected. That we may kneel in regard of prayers to be used, by prescription of authority, at the deliueryng of the bread and wine. viz. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was givē for thee, preseru thy body and soul into eternal life, and take and eat this. etc. Here unto these answers may be returned. Seeing we reject Christ his example of sitting for kneeling, we must not stand upon what we may do, but humbly consider what we must do. For if there be not a necessary, and a justifiable cause both of those prayers, and of Kneeling in regard of them, do we not presume upon Christ his patience, in rejecting his example? Now, what necessity is there of those prayers, at that very time? Seeing prayers go before, and follow after. Again, must we needs kneel at every bitte of a prayer? Is their more necessity to obey a needless direction to kneel at those prayers, than to follow the example of Christ, In sitting when we take eat and drink, things required in the same sentences? And why must the people kneel, when they hear those prayers, rather than the minister who pronounceth them? But it is a question, Whither those prayers be justifiable or no. For besides that, by reason of them, Kneeling, devis • d and abused by Antichrist, doth cross the practice of Christ and his Apostles, and th • y may seem avayne repetition: Even the adding of thē to the words of institution is contrary to the mind of Christ. For he did first bless or pray, and after gave the Elements, in a sacramental form of words, without any addition, saying, take, eat, etc. Which order of administration, and form of words, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul do so constantly, precisly, and sincerely relate, that any may perceive the meaning of the spirit to be. That the sacramental form of words ought precisely to be observed, without any addition. And the rather because Paul beginneth his relation thus, I have received of the Lord, that which I have also delivered, etc. So that it may seem to be against religion and reason, that to a sacramental form of speech, wherein the minister should only supply the person of Christ, there should be added a prayer, as in the name of the Church. This confusion is fitter for Babylon, than for Zion. Lastly, Why is not a short prayer, after other going before, as well joined to the sacramental form of Baptism: viz N. I baptize thee In the name of the Father etc. If then this addition of prayer to the sacramental form of words, be not of faith, how can we, with faith and a good conscience, confirm, or allow the same with our kneeling?

[ 10] Lastly for justifying of Kneeling, it is affirmed. That it is indifferent whither we sit, stand, or kneel: Seeing Christ did sit, when he did eat the passover. Whereas God commanded the children of Israel in Egypt to eat the passover standing, and some reformed churches receive standing, for all that Christ did sit at his last supper: Therefore the King may appoint Kneeling, as the most reverend gesture, and best beseeming so holy an action. For answer whereunto, howsoever that which is already said, may suffice, Yet it may be further considered, That though it be admitted, that it is indifferent to sit, or to stand, yet it doth not follow, that Kneeling is indifferent, For sitting is the example, and standing is a gesture sometimes used in ordinary eating, and (in the objection) it is said to be prescribed at a sacramental feast. Again, It doth not follow, That because Christ used a gesture fitter for eating in his time, instead of a gesture prescribed upon occasion, it is therefore law full to use a gesture nothing answerable to eating, and that taken out of the Synagogue of Antichrist (as though the word of God came out of it, or to it only) instead of a gesture most answerable to eating, & of purpose used by Christ at the institutiō of the sacrament. So that, notwithstanding all that is said for Kneling, His Majesty (upon whom the burthern as of this gesture so of other ceremonies, is laid) may remember, That Hezekiah appointed Levites in the house of the Lord with Cīballs, etc. according to the commandment of David, and Gad the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet, for the commandment was by the hand of the Lord, and by the hand of his prophets. And withal consider, that if Kneeling were the most reverēt gesture, & best be seeming the holy cōmuniō, our L. & Master would not have sitten down of purpose, at his last supper. And that Ahaz was deceived In deeming the Alter at Damascus, more honorable for God's service, thā the alter of the Lord.

[ 11] Having said that which may be sufficient to a man reasonable, and not contentious, against the institution of kneeling for supposed reverence in regard of God, it remaineth that somewhat be said against the institution of Kneeling, for reverence in regard of bread and wine. Which need not be much, For no sound protestant, of any knowledge, will affirm it, but rather presently consider, That if kneeling be instituted for reverence in reg • rd of bread and wine, It must be either because they represent the body & blood of Christ, though remaining bread and wine touching there substance: And then for like reason, we may worship the crucifix, and image of God, as the papists do: Or, because Christ is really, bodily, & locally, though invisibly, present in thē, either by Transubstātiation, according to the herisy of the papists, or by consubstantiation, according to the herisy of the Lutherans. These things cannot but be considered, And then it must needs follow, that if we abjure these herisyes of Papists, & Lutherans, we must also abhor idolatrous, & superstitious kneeling, their daughter and Nurse, which was never heard of before Transubstantiation was hatched in the synagogue of Antichrist. So that immediately after Pope Innocent decreed Transubstantiation, Pope Honorius decreed kneeling. Therefore if Harding doth grant that it is not well to kneel: but in regard of a real, & bodily presence, a sound protestant should infer, But I detest your real presence, therefore I abhor your Idolatrous kneeling.

[ 12] We are to abhor kneeling, not only because we abhor the herisyes of worshipping images, Transubstantiation, & Consubstantiation, but also, Because it is the show of the greatest evils that ever were, viz. Idolatry in worshipping a God made of a piece of bread, and of communiō with Antichrist, rather than, with Christ, and therefore the greatest scādall that ever was or can be, both in regard of those evils it doth occasionally teach, or confirm, As also in regard of multituds (indeed the most part of people) either not sufficētly instructed in the right understanding, & use of the sacrament, and therefore carried with a blind devotion learned by tradition, or corrupted (more or less) with the leaven of popery. Who all in regard of their weakness, are endangered by this gesture, either grossly to commit the Idolatry of papists, or to have a superstitious estimation of the outward elements. And the rather, because by the 21 Canon it is provided: That no bread, and wine newly brought, shall be used, but first the words of institution shall be rehearsed, when the said bread & wine be present upon the Communion table. As if the words were incantations, & the table like the altar which sanctifieth the sacrifice. May not this proviso seem (at least to the simple) to make way at least to the Popish consecration? How grevous a sin it is to scandalize the w • ache, may appear by the words of Christ: viz. whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. And of Paul: If meat offend my brother, I will eat no flesh, while the world standeth, that I may not offend my brother. What an offense or scandal is, the Apostle showeth in the same chapter, viz. An occasion of falling to the weak. The particular offense he speaketh of is this: Notwithstāding the gospel was preached a convenient time, and that by the Apostles, yet many wanted knowledge, &, even unto that time, did eat as a thing sacrificed to an Idol. Of whom if any should see a man endued with knowledge sit at table in the Idols temple, his weak conscience might occasionally be imboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to Idols. If Paul would never eat flesh rather than he would offend in this case, because in so doing he should sin against Christ, how dare a Christian, having knowledge, kneel in the presence of any, who, for want of knowledge, rec • iue superstitiously. Of which sort, seeing there be so many even until this hour, and ever likely to be, that we know not when, and where to communicate without some such, either old, or young: it followeth, that as sitting at table in the Idols temple, could not be without sin, in the Apostles time, so kneeling cannot be without sin in these days, when the number of faithful teachers is much decreased, but of papists much increased, & by our kneeling much confirmed in their bread worship. Therefore If his Majesty's judgment be sound, that the surplice is not to be worn, if Heathenish men were commorant among us, who, thereby, might take occa ion to be strengthened in their paganism? sh • ll we by our corrupt p • actise of kneeling, strengthen the papists, who swarm among us, in their Idolatry? If the State doth well, in ordaining the sacrament to be administered in usual bread to take away superstitiō, whereas Christ did by occasion, minister in vnleavēeed bread, shall not we do ill, In teaching, or confirming superstition by kneeling, whereas Christ did of purpose minister sitting? Setting up of images in churches only to be l • y men's books, is, by authority condemned, because they are a • stumbling blocks in way of the blind So that they have been, are still, and will be hereafter worshipped by ignorant persons. Is not kneeling as scandalous? How can it then be justified? [ 13] But it is said, that the Kings commandment taketh away scandal, in things indifferent. And it may be averred that this is a begging of the question, except it be proved by the word, that kneeling may be without sin, and that notwithstanding it be an institution of man, contrary to the example of Christ, a sign of communion rather with Antichrist and his synagogue of Rome, than with Christ and his Church, it have no proportion with sacramental eating, and have been, is, and will be bread worship. But suppose that in it self it wereas indifferent as was eating of flesh sacrificed to an Idol, not in the Idols temple, but at a private table where no weak ones were, in the Apostles time: yet how doth the • ings commandment take away scandal from kneeling in public places? Doth it make all so sure, that none can be scandalized? Or, if that cannot be, doth it take away guiltiness from the scandalizer, as if all the blame of scandalizing, were in the Kings commandment? Suerly it must be in the former, or else the latter cannot be, For by scandalizing a weak brother perisheth. Of whose blood, the scandalizer is guilty, as Joab was of Uriah's blood, notwithstanding the Kings commandment. Here his Majesty known to be of a gentle disposition, & to have learned, yea professed better things in Scotland, is most humbly prayed, to take this word (King) as spoken in imitation, and understood of Cantor: who known to be of a violent disposition, did carry matters in the Convocation, and published Canons not orderly, & fully concluded, as some of his suffragane prelates report, But it is impossible, that the Kings commandment should make all so sure, that none can be scandalized, the general ignorance of the people, the disposition of the ignorant unto superstition, the old leaven of popery not purged, & the multipliyng of papists, all well considered. Nay rather, It is • ikely, that by the commandment, the scandal will be the greater. Especially in regard of the 27 Canon, where ministers are commanded, under pain of suspension, Not wittingly to administer the sacrament to any, but such as kneel. May not simple, & superstitious persons take occasion thus to argue? Why should kneeling be thus urged by authority, if the sacramental signs of the body, and blood of Christ, be no more to be reverenced, than water applied in baptizing children? Seeing that is also a sanctified sign of Christ his blood, that w • sheth away our sins, and iniquities.

To conclude, If kneeling in the very act of taking, eating & drinking the sacramental bread & wine, in the holy communion, be (1) an institution of man. (2) If it be the taking of God's name in vain, when it is without all respect of reverence (3) If God be not honored thereby, except it be according to his will. (4) If it swerve from the example of Christ his sitting, & therefore deserveth no praise. (5) If it be a provoking sin to reject the exemplary sitting of christ, whereby we sh • w our selves to be in communion with Christ, & the reformed churches, and to retain kneeling, which for bread worship, ought to be banished, & whereby we seem to be in communion with Antichrist, & his synagogue. 6) If it obscureth that rejoicing familiarity in & with Christ which the L. supper signifieth (7) if the argument from Christ his example be made the stronger, in that he sat of purpose. 8) If the lawfulness of choosing a fitter time than the evening cannot justify our rejecting Christ his exemplary sitting (9) if the bittes of prayer joined with the words of institutiō do make kneeling the more sinful (10) If kneeling be not as indifferent, as standing, nor best beseeming the holy communion, and the King must appoint nothing but by the hand of the Lord. (11) If we ought to abhor kneeling, as we abhor the worshipping of Images, Transubstantiation, & Consubstantiation. (12) If to scandalize be gre • vously to sin, and kneeling be a show of the greatest evils, and withal the greatest scandal. And (13) If it be a begging of the question to affirm, kneeling to be indifferent, & the Kings commandment (so called) doth rather increase, thā lesson scandal by kneeling, It may be averred, that kne • ling in the very act of Taking, eating, and drinking the sacramental bread & wine, in the holy communion, cannot be without sin.

The Printer to the reader.

The copy sent me wanted direction for the quotations: & I wanted an English corrector therefore ha • e I failed more than I would: especially in placing them. • ut pardon I pray, and take knowledge of these principals:

Errata,

Pag 2 put down Rom, 16, 17, 18, phil, 3, 2 • 19, gal, 6, 12 lines, 2 pa, 5, pu, d, mal. 1, 6, 7. l 2 pa 6, 2 king 5, 18 l 3, pa 7, 1 cor. 11, 1, l 5, pa 10, 1 cor, 11, 16 l 3 & 2 cor 6, 15, 17 l 4, & deut 12, 30, 31 l 5, math 8, 11 l 2, pa, 11 set up 1 cor 11, 20 & 10, 21 l 2 & p, d, exo, 12 11 l 6, num, 3, 11, 12 math, 5, 17 & 26, 20 l 12. pa 12, l 1. put out not. & s • t up Job 38, 2 l 1, p, d, 1 cor, 11, 25, 26, l 6, pa 13 s, v: John 13, 4, 12 l 10. p, d, gen, 2, 2, 3, l 3. pa 14 pu, d: Math 26:31:45: Luke 22▪ 53: lin 4 read must be eaten lin 11. read into another. pa 16. li: 2 read sentences prescribed & s: v: math. 6:7 l 5