man to change those things that belong to the common state §. 6. they are not aduised sure that would haue it left indifferent at least for who list to kneele who list to sit who list to stand Page 6. but of this heretofore Beza is also plentifull to this purpose in Epistola 24. 13. Obiection Yet godly Diuines would haue ceremonies most pure according to Christs institution or example Answere First this obiection is nothing to the purpose in this case there beeing no institution nor cleare example for one gesture more then another Secondly I answere Godly Diuines would not haue contention or opposition maintained in the Church for things indifferent or that may be tollerated when they are once growne to bee in vse Caluin Epist 118. 120. M. Caluin saith that diuersity of rites and vsages in one and the same Church well composed or ordered is not tollerable in Epist 118. wherfore he saith he wished Hooper not to stand out as he did about Cap and Rochet Epist. 120. Beza in conference with Iacobus Andreas Colloquiū mon. pelgartense pag. 425. saith Non repugno quin coena Domini in altari celebrari possit I gaine-say not but that the Lords Supper may be administred vpon an Altar Zanchus lib. 1. de cultu dei externo col 485. And Zanche saith Quta neque Christus neque Apostoliprohibuerūt altaria aut mandarunt vt mensis ligneis vteremur idcirco inter adiophora hoc quoque annumerandum est If Master Beza had beene altogether so indifferent to the Church of England Beza in explā 2. pag. 25. as he was to his neighbours of Zurich I cannot thinke but he would haue written as fauourably concerning our vse of kneeling as hee did of their vse to receiue from their Ministers with their mouthes and not with their hands He saith indeed that vse came vp from a superstitious veneration of the signes the originall of kneeling he makes to be better vt supra hee spares not to call it monstrous when an opinion of worship concurs with it yet he yeeldeth that whatsoeuer is rightly done as viz. to abolish such a vse is not simply and absolutely necessary therefore they that so vrge taking with the hand that they hold it a prophanation to receiue it other-way when receiuing with the mouth only is without impiety and superstition and vpheld to auoyd the perill of innouation I am afraid saith Master Beza they that censure it so hardly doe themselues rather offend or sinne by ignorance of what is fit to bee held in these cases or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of pertinacie and selfe-wilfulnesse Againe if wee may reason as Master Calnin doth Harmon 4 lib. pentateuch writing vpon the second Commandement page 286. for the lawfull vse of such Churches or Temples as haue formerly beene defiled with Idolatrie Quia nos non obstringit quod propter consequentiam vt loquuntur legi additum est which to my vnderstanding is q. d. the abuse of a thing doth not restraine vs from making a lawfull vse vse thereof I see not by this reason how any Popish abuse of kneeling surplice or the Crosse can vtterly make vnlawfull the vsage of them so as in our Church they bee enioyned And if vnder name of taking away what may nourish superstition wee stand precisely to vrge remouing of somewhat which is per se medium in it selfe indifferent M. Caluin saith saith wee may esse in nimio rigore superstitiosi our selues become superstitious in too much strictnesse like him that did caleare fastum Platonis alio fastu Thirdly I know not whom our Church of England are to esteeme for more godly Diuines and free from all partialitie then the two publique professors in the two Vniuersities in King Edwards time Bucer and Martyr who notwithstanding they had not beene formerly accustomed to the vse of our English ceremonies yet beholding them they did in no wise dehort from them but perswaded the vse of them as their letters extant doe shew and partly for this reason Bucer in script Anglic. fol. 708 Hooper because as Bucers words be it is euident that Iesus Christ our Lord did onely prescribe the substance of the ministring both of the word and Sacraments in his owne words and al other things which pertaine to the decent and profitable administration of his mysteries hee hath left and admitted to be ordered by his Church and hence saith he we celebrate the Lords Supper neither in the euening nor in a priuate house nor leaning nor yet with men onely Master Beza to this purpose saith againe Beza Epistola 8. pag. 71. That whatsoeuer was performed by the Apostles in rites and ceremonies he did not iudge that forthwith it must bee followed for a rule without adding or altering because in the beginning the Apostles themselues could not determinately set downe all what they iudged to be expedient for the Churches and therefore they did necessarily proceed by little and little as appeares by their institution of Deacons and their practise so often and in so many things of the Iewish ceremonies Heereto I may adde 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 Gospell which in some other respects they did censure most hardly Acts 16.3 for S. Paul circumcised Timothy although hee professed to the Galathians If they were circumcised Galat. 52. Christ should profit them nothing He made vowes shaued his head Acts 18.18 chap. 8.26 was purified after the Iewish manner and yet he called such obseruations impotent and beggerly rudiments Galat. 4.9 The Apostles also did impose some things tearming them necessary Acts 15.28 as to absteine from bloud and that which is strangled yet I hope we ioyne not with those sectaries who would bring the Church into such bondage againe I wish hartily too that among other godly Diuines they were not neglected I meane in their reasons whose direction otherwise by authority is pressed vpon vs by law for the Preface before the booke of Common Prayer seemes to me to be so penned as may giue all syncere Christians void of preiudice good satisfaction Lastly I cannot but think it dangerous to reason thus that because Popery is Antichristianity therfore it should be a good rule in reformation to shew our selues vnto them most opposite for this false-light like ignis fatuus seemes to haue deceiued the old Arrians who would not entitle the Sonne and the Holy Ghost to be essentially God that so they might be most vnlike the Gentiles who professedly did worship manie 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 meerely names and did not note out so much as a threefold distinction personall and to conclude in stead of instancing farther of old wee cannot deny but the Separatists vpon this ground are departed from vs and if the position be sound we ought all to goe out after them Sed Deus meliora qui facit vnanimes in domo cui in domo sua ex pietate concordia suorum sit laus gloria in sacula seculorum Amen FINIS
THE CONTROVERSIE DEBATED About the Reuerend gesture of Kneeling in the Act of Receiuing the Holy Communion By IAMES WATS Minister of Gods Word at Woodnosborough in Kent And sometime fellow of Magdalene Colledge in Cambridge HEB DDIM HEB DDIEV LONDON Printed by W. I. for Walter Burre and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Crane 1621. TO THE REVEREND and Right Worshipfull M. Doctor Boys Deane of Christ-Church in Canterbury all prosperity and happinesse in the LORD REuerend Sir Albeit I am conscious to my selfe of my inability to answer the opinion your loue long since hath conceiued of some faculty in me for improuements of a Scholler yet cannot Salomons word being represented now to my thought Stultus reputabitur sapiens si tacuerit dishearten me from imparting such of my meditations vnto you as some of them a good while since and some more lately I had written downe to satisfie if I might some scrupulous consciences touching the lawfull and conuenient vse of the gesture of Kneeling in the Acte of receiuing the holy Eucharist About the signe of the Crosse in or after the other Sacrament I had filled many sheetes of paper before I could reade much of the more accurate writings of other men in that argument and being loth according to the old Adage to make that all onely my Cipresse tree I vndertook vpon earnest request of a friend more profitable I hope to the Church in his labours then I can be to shew the vanity of one who gloriously boasts in print to make proofe that the controuerted ceremonies are defended by no other arguments then are vsed by Papists and which by elder Protestants haue bene long since answered Betweene his second though Senior Ignoto to me and my selfe the same was drawne so oft in writing con and pro that yet I am not ashamed to make it appeare to any vpon what termes I left him Then an occasion was offered mee to answer some Quaeres about kneeling and afterwardes more closely to ioyne issue for repelling all the Obiections which I haue obserued in reading and which for the most part haue bin vrged in conferring with mee My arguments and answers such as they be I must professe that I can get no reply to them yet I doe not perceiue that any one formerly opposite is willing to yeeld himselfe perswaded by them And for this cause partly I present submit them to your reuerend 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 iudgment or vnderstanding 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 vnfeinedly your dignity and no lesse the comfort of your owne soule and esteeme in Gods Church by your learned and godly labours published my desire is to adhere to you still in all seruices of loue and that with ingenuity neither soliciting nor expecting any thing else but your fauour and encouragements as formerly you haue vouchsafed me The God of heauen grant vnto you many comfortable yeares to help to support his truth with Sions peace and them that stand for both So I rest Ian. 1. 1619. Your Worships most affectionate to be commanded Iames Wattes QVi genua admissus mensae conuiua tremendae Flectere nescit hoc nescire est nolle proteruis Prauum 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 CONTROVERSIE debated about the gesture meetest to be vsed in our Church of the members thereunto pertaining in the act of receiuing the holy Supper of the Lord by way of Demands or Oppositions with Solutions and Answers adioyning to them and in such forme and order as the Questions are wont commonly to be propounded Question IS it lawfull to kneele in receiuing when Christ sitting did administer to his Disciples and they also receiued sitting Answere First by this question it cannot be supposed that Communicants should receiue sitting except wee also in administring vse the same gesture which in none of our Churches is or well can be obserued 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 vpon anothers bosome for which see Iohn 13. Iob. 13.25 Not as it is saide of him when hee preached sitting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 5.1 ver 23. with the note vpon it Whereunto I adde that all the words vsed in the Originall doe signifie either lying or falling down and not sitting therefore if his example were intended to be a patterne for gesture not to be changed why would we haue it changed into sitting after our fashion and so argue against kneeling hereby Obiection We must follow Christs example in that hee and his did obserue the vsuall gesture Answere But must we thinke he obserued It because it was the vsuall gesture in receiuing other meats nay rather seeing wee must come with another minde and affection and with another intention as not desiring food for the body but for the soule how can it be thought that he would especially commend the common gesture to be vsed now which is vsed at taking ordinary sustenance for the body It may rather be conceiued that our Sauiour did respect to obserue the common gesture which the Iewish Church did then vse in celebrating the Passeouer From whence the argument followes strongly to vrge that we should all conforme our selues to the vsuall custome of this our Church in receiuing also for shall Christ and his Apostles obserue the common gesture with the Church of the Iewes and shall not we obserue the common gesture of the Church whereof we are members shall his example that way tending to peace and vniformitie be of no force therein to sway vs Instance That which Christ did howsoeuer we are sure was best Reply Yet as is supposed he varied in communicating of the Passeouer from the prescript order set downe in the Law Exod. 12. v. 11. which was to be girt and shod with staues in their hands and therefore standing as Doctor Willet vpon that place by those circumstances and by ancient testimony proueth Now if it be credible that this gesture was changeable after it was enioyned how much more the gesture which Christ did vse and his Apostles the same onely being reported to vs and no commandement set downe for vs at all Obiection We say still Christ his doing
and approbation then hath the force of a perpetuall command concerning vs and to binde vs. Answere This assertion is many wayes liable to exceptions for when the Lord said This doe Luk. 22.19 19. 1. Corin. 11.24 it must needs be hee respected the substance and not precisely the circumstances therefore the Minister communicating vnto others is not allowed nor at any hand required to sit Secondly whereas hee alwaies himselfe receiues first Christs owne example will not warrant Thirdly to omit difference of number in Communicants from his number and difference of sexe who doubts but that it is fittest to receiue in the publique place of Gods worship though the first celebration were in a priuate chamber and that it is fittest to receiue in the fore-noone and before dinner albeit the time then were after supper and not then onely 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 euery one tooke his owne Supper before which the Apostle there reprooues onely in respect of the excesse and of such banqueting in the Church and of vncharitablenesse towards the poor not in respect of the time therfore doth expressely mention the time of Christs institution to haue beene in the night by and by after vers 23. Now seeing we hold all those circumstances may vary from the first institution why must onely the same gesture be obseru'd which as I shewed before is not the same but in a generality A common gesture ye presse still must be vsed as Christ did vse it wherein wee would ioyne with you if yee meant common by the Churches vse in receiuing but of that before Obiection Christs institution and the practise of his Apostles may bee vrged against kneeling because they were not required to kneele neither did they so at receiuing when hee himselfe was present and did minister vnto them Answere This shall be answered more directly when a like obiection will come in againe First then I now reply that the words are Math. 26. v. 26. and Marke 14.22 As they did eat Iesus tooke bread c. not as they did sit or as they did lye c. so that our Sauiours practise must needs afford a stronger argument for a necessitie of eating somewhat before which is expressed then for receiuing by such or such a position of the body which is not expressed Secondly seeing the bread was broken to them as they did eate and as their manner of sitting or lying was to eate wee see I thinke a plaine difference how we may kneele more conueniently in receiuing as the seats bee fitted for vs then they could Thirdly the argument from Christ his practise ministring to them who did not kneele to vrge a necessitie as if therefore we may not kneele is a plaine fallacy as if one should say Christ did vsually preach sitting as Math. 4.1 13. v. 2. and Luk. 4.20 therefore we may not preach standing or he is noted to haue preached standing but once therefore we may not doe so often or thus Christ did preach many times but we reade yet onely of one time wherein he tooke a Text. Luk. 4. v. 16. So wee should doe best to preach commonly without taking of a Text. Furthermore seeing the Lord Iesus is propounded to vs for an ensample not onely in his manner of performing the parts of Gods worship but in all manner of conuersation 1 Peter 1.15 excepting what appertained to his diuine nature or to his offices therefore as well seeing he chose to be poore we must refuse to be rich As he wore a coate without seame so we must haue no seame in our vpper garment And thus way may be made for the spirit of contradiction to trouble the whole Church of God and euery member of it Obiection But we marueile still if this gesture of kneeling were to be allowed why all reformed Churches doe disallow it that it is vsed only among the Papists Answere The gesture among the Papists which some relate was commanded first by Pope Honorius the third was kneeling not at receiuing Balaeus de actis Rom. pontif l. 5 pag. 279. but at the eleuation or lifting vp of the Masse-cake or hoast as they tearme it ouer the Priests head that all should then together fall downe and adore it but we haue no such kneeling because we haue no such eleuation nor we haue no such hoast to eleuate but in our hearts we abandon it yet can we imagine no other but that the members of the Church seuerally in time of receiuing did kneele of ancient time because of these and the like sayings of the Fathers that then liued Cyprian ad Quirinum l. 3. cap. 94. as that the Eucharist with feare and honour is to be receiued and that it is to be discerned and distinguished from other meates August in Epist 118. veneratione singulariter debita by a veneration singularly due vnto it And at this day Hodie in mysteris adoramus carnem Christ Amb. dispu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12. we adore Christs flesh in the mysteries which being a sentence the Papists alleadge against the Church of England Doctor Bilson answeres lib. 4. pag. 537. in 8. Verily and so doe we we adore Christ in them we adore not the mysteries themselues which must needes be Ambrose his meaning because he said a little before neither doe we reade 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 lesse Chrysost hom 24. in cap. 16. ad Corinth cum reuerentia tremore with reuerence and trembling then as the wise men did performe to him lying in the manger Matth. 2. which we see there plainely was by kneeling But if these and like sayings of the Ancients should either be suspected or contemned we refuse not the iudgement of Churches reformed now adayes and of the godly learned in them The Church of Bohemia in their confession Anno 1575. as they say first Hoc sacramentum c. This sacrament ought to be administred and receiued without adoration and the worship which is due to God onely so they say by and by after Populus fidelium vsitatissime in genuo procumbens hoc accipit The faithfull people most vsually receiue this falling downe vpon their knees with giuing of thankes and reioycing himns and rehearsall of benefits by the death of Christ and all this as they vnderstand according to Christs bidding Doe this in remembrance of me The Heluetians also in their confession pag. 113. to cleare themselues from hauing a meane regard Sunt enim haeres sanctae venerandae de sacris symbolis of the holy signes they say thus of them These are things holy and venerable And the censure in the name of the Churches of France and