The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 13

If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help and save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of G.o.d for wors.h.i.+pping things which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us, because _omnis actio est suppositi_, whereas the human nature of Christ is not _suppositum_. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine wors.h.i.+p, do well and warrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found no other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored,(728) except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the king's clothes are adored by him who adores the king. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored only _per accidens. Ego vero_, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(729) _non puta a quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari_. And, I pray, why doth he that wors.h.i.+ps the king wors.h.i.+p his clothes more than any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or a little dog upon his knee? There is no more but the king's own person set by the wors.h.i.+pper to have any state in the wors.h.i.+p, and therefore no more wors.h.i.+pped by him. Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of Christ may be said to be wors.h.i.+pped,(730) namely, that as divine wors.h.i.+p agrees only to the G.o.dhead, and not _personis divinis praecise sumptis_, _i.e._, _sub ratione formali const.i.tutiva personarum quae est __ relatio_: but only as these relations _identificantur_ with the essence of the G.o.dhead; so the manhood of Christ is to be adored _non per se proecise, sed prout suppositatur a Deo_. I answer, if by _suppositatur_ they mean (as they must mean) that the manhood is a.s.sumed into the unity of the person of the Son of G.o.d (for otherwise if they mean that the manhood is made a person, they are Nestorians), that which they say cannot warrant the wors.h.i.+pping of the manhood with divine wors.h.i.+p, because the manhood, even after this a.s.sumption and hypostatical union, and being considered by us as now a.s.sumed into this personal union, is still for all that a creature, and a distinct nature from the G.o.dhead (except we will be Eutychians), so that it cannot yet be said to be wors.h.i.+pped with divine wors.h.i.+p. Dr Field layeth out a third way;(731) for whilst he admitteth the phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively that the man Christ is omnipresent, but the humanity also, he forgeth a strange distinction.

"When we speak (saith he) of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we understand only that human created essence of a man that was in him, sometimes all that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence as essence." By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the human nature. But this distinction is no better than if a man should say, by blackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who ever confounded _abstractum_ and _concretum_, before that in Field's field they were made to stand for one? It is the tenet of the school, that though in G.o.d _concretum_ and _abstractum_ differ not, because _Deus_ and _Deitas_ are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ is one) they are really differenced. For _concretum_ signifieth _aliquid completum subsistens_, and _abstractum_ (such as humanity) signifieth(732) something, _non ut subsistens, sed in quo aliquid est_, as whiteness doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then that Field makes humanity, in the abstract, to have a subsistence? Antonius Sadeel censures Turria.n.u.s(733) for saying that _albedo c.u.m pariete, idem est atque paries albus_: his reason is, because _albedo dicitur __ esse, non c.u.m pariete sed in pariete._ An abstract is no more an abstract if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sense remaining, which is Augustine's, and theirs who speak with him. His sentence which our opposites cite for them is, that it is sin not to adore the flesh of Christ, howbeit very erroneously he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the psalm, "Wors.h.i.+p at his footstool," taking this footstool to be the flesh of Christ. Yet that his meaning was better than his expression, and that he meant not that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the G.o.dhead, whose footstool the flesh is, it is plain from those words which Burges himself citeth out of him:(734) "To whatsoever earth, _i.e._, flesh of Christ, thou bowest and prostrate thyself, look not on it as earth, _i.e._, as flesh; but look at that Holy One whose footstool is that thou dost adore, _i.e._, look to the G.o.dhead of Christ, whose flesh thou dost adore in the mysteries." Wherefore if we would give any sound sense to their words who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note with A. Pola.n.u.s,(735) that _c.u.m dicitur carnem Christi adorari, non est propria sed figurata enunciatio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatis, seu Deus carne vest.i.tus_. But two things I will here advertise my reader of.

1. That though this form of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expounded, receiveth a sound sense, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase when such a meaning is drawn out of it. For how can we, by the flesh of Christ, understand his G.o.dhead? The communion of properties admitteth us to put the man Christ for G.o.d, but not his manhood. And Hooker teacheth rightly,(736) "that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a property of the divine nature) are imputed to the person only in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature really conveyed or translated into the other."

2. Yet our kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, have no such orthodox (though forced) meaning whereby to expound themselves. For Bishop Lindsey will have us,(737) in receiving the sacrament, to bow our knees and adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of the personal union that it hath with the G.o.dhead; therefore he means that we should, and may adore with divine wors.h.i.+p, that which is personally united with the G.o.dhead. And what is that? Not the G.o.dhead sure, but the created nature of the manhood (which not being G.o.d but a creature only, cannot without idolatry be wors.h.i.+pped with divine wors.h.i.+p). I conclude, therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in the sacrament, he understands not the G.o.dhead, as Augustine doth, but that created nature which is united with the G.o.dhead.

_Sect._ 16. But, Secondly, As we have seen what is to be thought of wors.h.i.+pping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider what may be thought of wors.h.i.+pping his flesh in the sacrament; for this was the other head which I proposed. Now, they who wors.h.i.+p the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, must either consider it as present in the sacrament, and in that respect to be adored, because of the personal union of it with the word, or else because of the sacramental union of it with the outward sign, which is a respect supervenient to that of the ubiquity of it in the person of the word. First, then, touching the former of those respects, the personal union of the flesh with the word can neither infer the presence of the flesh in the sacrament to those who worthily receive, nor yet can it make anything for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former; for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it is ever and alike present with the communicants, whether they receive worthily or not, and with the bread and wine, whether they be consecrated to be the signs of his body and blood or not. Therefore divines rightly hold _praesentiam corporis Christi in caena, non ab ubiquitate, sed a verbis Christi pendere_.(738) Not the latter neither; for (as I have showed already) notwithstanding of the personal union, yet the flesh of Christ remaineth a creature, and is not G.o.d, and so cannot at all be wors.h.i.+pped with divine wors.h.i.+p. And if his flesh, could be at all so wors.h.i.+pped,(739) yet were there no reason for wors.h.i.+pping it in the sacrament (in respect of its personal union with the word) more than in all other actions, and at all other times, for ever and always is the flesh of Christ personally united with the word, and in that respect present to us. There remaineth therefore nothing but that other respect of the sacramental union of the flesh of Christ with the sacramental sign, which they can have for wors.h.i.+pping his flesh in the sacrament. Whereas Bishop Lindsey saith,(740) "that it is no error to believe the spiritual, powerful, and personal presence of Christ's body at the sacrament, and in that respect to wors.h.i.+p his flesh and blood there,"-he means, sure, some special respect, for which it may be said that Christ's body is present at the sacrament (so as it is not present out of the sacrament), and in that respect to be there adored. Now Christ's body is spiritually and powerfully present to us in the word (as I showed before), yea, as often as looking by faith upon his body broken and blood shed for us, we receive the sense and a.s.surance of the remission of our sins through his merits, and as for this personal presence of Christ's body which he speaketh of, I have showed also that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament cannot be inferred upon it, wherefore he can tell us nothing which may be thought to infer the presence of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, and the adoration of it in that respect, save only the sacramental union of it with the outward sign. Now adoration in this respect, and for this reason, must suppose the bodily presence of Christ's flesh in the sacrament.

Whereupon the Archbishop of Spalato saith, "that the Papists adore the body of Christ in the sacrament, only because of the supposition of the bodily presence of it, and if they knew that the true body of Christ is not under the species of the bread and wine, they would exhibit no adoration." And elsewhere he showeth,(741) that the mystery of the eucharist cannot make the manhood of Christ to be adored, _quia in pane corporalis Christi praesentia non est_ implying, that if the flesh of Christ be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist, then must it be bodily present in the sign, which is false, and hereupon he gathereth truly, that it cannot be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist.

Further, It is to be remembered (which I have also before noted out of Dr Usher(742)) that the sacramental presence of the body of Christ, or that presence of it which is inferred upon that sacramental union which is betwixt it and the outward sign, is not the real or spiritual presence of it (for in this manner it is present to us out of the sacrament, even as oft as by faith we apprehend it and the virtue thereof); but it is figuratively only so called, the sense being this, that the body of Christ is present and given to us in the sacrament, meaning by his body, the sign of his body. These things being so, whosoever wors.h.i.+ppeth Christ's body in the eucharist, and that in respect of the sacramental presence of it in the same, cannot choose but hold that Christ's body is bodily and really under the species of the bread, and so fall into the idolatry of bread-wors.h.i.+p; or else our divines(743) have not rightly convinced the Papists, as idolatrous wors.h.i.+ppers of the bread in the eucharist, forasmuch as they attribute to it that which it is not, nor hath not, to wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substantially the true and living body of Christ, joined and united to his G.o.dhead. What can Bishop Lindsey now answer for himself, except he say with one of his brethren,(744) that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, because _corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporalis, comitatur sacramentum eucharistiae_. And Christ is there present _corporaliter, modo spirituali_? But this man contradicts himself miserably; for we had him a little before acknowledging that _in pane corporalis Christi praesentia non est_. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? He would say that Christ is not bodily present in the sacrament after a bodily manner, but he is bodily present after a spiritual manner. Why should I blot paper with such a vanity, which implieth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily, spiritually and not spiritually.

_Sect._ 17. The sixth and last argument whereby I prove the kneeling in question to be idolatry, is taken from the nature and kind of the wors.h.i.+p wherein it is used. For the receiving of the sacrament being a mediate wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, wherein the elements come between G.o.d and us, in such sort that they belong to the substance of the wors.h.i.+p (for without the elements, the sacrament is not a sacrament), and withal are susceptive of co-adoration, forasmuch as in the act of receiving, both our minds and our external senses are, and should be, fastened upon them, hereby we evince the idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate wors.h.i.+p, wherein some creature is purposely set between G.o.d and us to have state in the same, it is idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whilst both our minds and senses are fastened upon it. Our opposites have talked many things together to infringe this argument. First, They allege the bowing of G.o.d's people before the ark,(745) the temple, the holy mountain, the altar, the bush, the cloud, the fire which came from heaven. _Ans._ 1.

Where they have read that the people bowed before the altar of G.o.d, I know not. Bishop Lindsey indeed would prove(746) from 2 Chron vi. 12, 13, and Mich. vi. 6, that the people bowed before the altar and the offering. But the first of those places speaks nothing of kneeling before the altar, but only of kneeling before the congregation, that is, in the sight of the congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the altar, yet the altar had been but occasionally and accidentally before him in his adoration, for to what end and use could he have purposely set the altar before him, whilst he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah cannot prove that G.o.d's people did kneel before the offerings at all (for it speaks only of bowing before G.o.d), far less, that they kneeled before them in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and senses fixed upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the sacrament, and that at that instant when our minds and senses are fastened upon the signs, that we may discern the things signified by them, for the exercising of our hearts in a thankful meditation upon the Lord's death.

2. As for the other examples here alleged, G.o.d was immediately present, in and with the ark, the temple, the holy mountain, the bush, the cloud, and the fire which came from heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his people by his own immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence, so that wors.h.i.+pping before these things had the same reason which makes the twenty-four elders in heaven wors.h.i.+p before the throne, Rev. iv. 10; for in these things G.o.d did immediately manifest his presence as well as in heaven. Though there be a difference in the degrees of the immediate manifestation of his presence in earth and in heaven, yet _magis et minus non variant speciem_. Now G.o.d is present in the sacrament, not extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not immediately, but mediately. They must therefore allege some commendable examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary wors.h.i.+p, else they say nothing to the point.

_Sect._ 18. Yet to no better purpose they tell us,(747) that when G.o.d spoke, Abraham fell on his face, and when the fire came down at Elijah's prayer, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And how shall kneeling in a mediate and ordinary wors.h.i.+p be warranted by kneeling in the hearing of G.o.d's own immediate voice, or in seeing the miraculous signs of his extraordinary presence? Howbeit it cannot be proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of seeing the fire fall (when their eyes and their minds were fastened upon it), but that after they had seen the miracle wrought, they so considered of it as to fall down and wors.h.i.+p G.o.d.

But further, it is objected,(748) "that a penitentiary kneels to G.o.d purposely before the congregation, and with a respect to the congregation, &c. When we come to our common tables before we eat, either sitting with our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bless, with a respect to the meat, which is purposely set on table, &c. The pastor, when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set before him purposely upon the table, and with respect to them he gives thanks," &c.

_Ans._ Though a penitentiary kneel to G.o.d purposely in the presence and sight of the congregation, that he may make known to them his repentance for the sin whereby he hath scandalised them, yet is the confessing of his sin to G.o.d, kneeling there upon his knees, an immediate wors.h.i.+p, neither doth the congregation come betwixt him and G.o.d, as belonging to the substance of this wors.h.i.+p, for he kneeleth to G.o.d as well, and maketh confession of his sin, when the congregation is not before him. But I suppose our kneelers themselves will confess, that the elements come so betwixt G.o.d and them when they kneel, that they belong to the essence of the wors.h.i.+p in hand, and that they would not, nor could not, wors.h.i.+p the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, if the elements were not before them.

To be short, the case of a penitentiary standeth thus, that not in his kneeling _simpliciter_, but in his kneeling publicly and in sight of the congregation, he setteth them before him purposely, and with a respect to them, whereas our kneelers do kneel in such sort that their kneeling _simpliciter_, and without an adjection or adjunct, hath a respect to the elements purposely set before them, neither would they at all kneel for that end and purpose for which they do kneel, namely, for wors.h.i.+pping the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(749) except the elements were before the eyes both of their minds and bodies, as the penitentiary doth kneel for making confession of his sin to G.o.d, when the congregation is not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the sacrament he wors.h.i.+ppeth not the flesh and blood of Christ, but the Lord his G.o.d only, yet is the same difference to be put betwixt his kneeling before the elements, and the kneeling of a penitentiary before the congregation, for the very kneeling itself (simply considered) before the elements, respecteth them as then purposely set in our sight that we may kneel before them, whereas, in the case of the penitentiary, it is not his kneeling to confess his sin to G.o.d which hath a respect to the congregation as set in his sight for that purpose, but some circ.u.mstances of his kneeling only, to wit, _when_? At that time when the congregation is a.s.sembled. And _where_? Publicly in sight of the congregation! In regard of these circ.u.mstances, he hath the congregation purposely in his sight, and so respecteth them, but in regard of the kneeling itself simply, the presence of the congregation is but accidental to him who kneeleth and confesseth his sin before G.o.d. As touching giving thanks before the meat set on our common tables, though a man should do it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in controversy, except a man so kneel before his meat, that he have a religious respect to it as a thing separated from a common use and made holy, and likewise have both his mind, and his external senses of seeing, touching, and tasting, fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if a man should thus kneel before his meat, he were an idolater.

Lastly, Giving thanks before the elements of bread and wine, in the beginning of the holy action, is as far from the purpose; for this giving of thanks is an immediate wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, wherein we have our minds and senses, not upon the bread and wine as upon things which have a state in that wors.h.i.+p of the Lord's supper, and belong to the substance of the same (for the very consecration of them to this use is but then _in fieri_), but we wors.h.i.+p G.o.d immediately by prayer and giving of thanks, which is all otherwise in the act of receiving.

_Sect._ 19. Moreover it is objected(750) out of Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii.

3; Mich. vi. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 28-30, that all the people fell on their faces before the legal sacrifices, when the fire consumed the burnt-offering.

Whereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from G.o.d and consumed the burnt-offerings, was one of the miraculous signs of G.o.d's extraordinary and immediate presence (as I have said before), and therefore kneeling before the same hath nothing to do with the present purpose.

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we find in the first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also appear in a more miraculous and extraordinary manner, Lev. ix. 23, "The glory of the Lord appeared to all the people;" 2 Chron. vii. 1, 12, "The glory of the Lord filled the house." They are therefore running at random who take hold of those places to draw out of them the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate and ordinary wors.h.i.+p.

The place of Micah I have answered before; and here I add, that though it could be proved from that place (as it cannot), that the people have bowed before the offerings, and that in the very act of offering, yet how shall it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling they had the offerings purposely before them, and their minds and senses fixed upon them in the very instant of their wors.h.i.+pping.

This I make clear by the last place, 2 Chron. xxix., out of which no more can be drawn but that the people wors.h.i.+pped whilst the priests were yet offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally before the people in their wors.h.i.+pping, and only because it was offered at the same time when the song of the Lord was sung, ver. 27. Such was the forwardness of zeal in restoring religion and purging the temple, that it admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the work till it was perfected; therefore the thing was done suddenly, ver. 36. Since, then, the song and the sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the people wors.h.i.+pped at that time, not because of the sacrifice, which was a mediate wors.h.i.+p, but because of the song of the Lord, which was an immediate wors.h.i.+p. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediate wors.h.i.+p.

But this cannot content our opposites; they will needs have it lawful to kneel, in the hearing of the word, purposely, and with a respect to the word preached (though this be a mediate wors.h.i.+p only). Their warrants(751) are taken out, Exod. iv. 30, 31; Exod. xii. 27; 2 Chron. xx. 18; Matt.

xvii. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred but that these hearers bowed their heads and wors.h.i.+pped, after that they heard the word of the Lord; neither shall they ever warrant bowing and wors.h.i.+pping in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place, we read that the disciples fell on their faces when they heard G.o.d's own immediate voice out of the cloud. What maketh this for falling down to wors.h.i.+p at the hearing of the word preached by men?

How long shall our opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate wors.h.i.+p?

Lastly, It is alleged(752) that G.o.d, in his word, allows not only kneeling at prayer, out also at circ.u.mcision, pa.s.sover, and baptism. The reason of this a.s.sertion is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary, G.o.d not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plain liberty. _Ans._ Whether we be left at plain liberty in all things which being in the general necessary, are not particularly determined in G.o.d's word, it shall be treated of elsewhere in this dispute. In the meantime, whatsoever liberty G.o.d leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an unlawful and idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of receiving a sacrament, when not only we have the outward sign purposely before us, and our minds and senses fastened upon it, for discerning the signification thereof, and the a.n.a.logy betwixt it and the thing signified, but also to look upon it as an image of Christ, or as a vicarious sign standing there in Christ's stead. The indifferency of such a gesture in such a mediate wors.h.i.+p should have been proved before such a rule (as this here given us for a reason) had been applied to it.

_Sect._ 20. But the kneelers would yet make more ado to us, and be still stirring if they can do no more. Wherefore one of our doctors objecteth,(753) that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and wors.h.i.+p G.o.d, yet we do not wors.h.i.+p the heaven; that a man going to bed, prayeth before his bed; that David offered the sacrifices of thanksgiving, in the presence of all the people, Psal. cxvi; that Paul, having taken bread, gave thanks before all them who were in the s.h.i.+p, Acts xxvii. 36; that the Israelites wors.h.i.+pped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. iv. 31.

Hereupon another doctor, harping upon the same string, tells us,(754) that when we kneel in the act of receiving the sacrament, "we kneel no more to bread than to the pulpit when we join our prayers with the minister's."

Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachful to doctors! All these things were and are accidentally present to the wors.h.i.+ppers, and not purposely before them, nor respected as having a religious state in the wors.h.i.+p. What? Do we wors.h.i.+p before the bread in the sacrament, even as before a pulpit, a bed, &c.? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speak of.

Another objection is,(755) that a man who is admitted to the office of a pastor, and receiveth imposition of hands, kneeleth still on his knees till the ordination be ended, the rest about him being standing or sitting.

_Ans._ Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joined with prayer and invocation, hath nothing ado with kneeling in a mediate wors.h.i.+p; for in this case a man kneels because of the immediate wors.h.i.+p of invocation; but when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel religiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which are before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may adore (which is the kind of kneeling now in question), or if any did so, there were more need to give him instruction than ordination.

It is further told us, that he who is baptized,(756) or he who offers him that is to be baptized, humbleth himself, and prayeth that the baptism may be saving unto life eternal, yet wors.h.i.+ppeth not the bason nor the water.

But how long shall simple ones love simplicity, or rather, scorners hate knowledge? Why is kneeling in the immediate wors.h.i.+p of prayer, wherein our minds do purposely respect no earthly thing (but the soul, Psal. xxv. 1, the heart, the hands, Lam. iii. 41, the eyes, Psal. cxxiii. 1, the voice, Psal. v. 3, all directed immediately to heaven) paralleled with kneeling in the mediate wors.h.i.+p of receiving the sacrament, wherein we respect purposely the outward sign, which is then in our sight, that both our minds and our external senses may be fastened upon it? Our minds, by meditation, and attentive consideration of that which is signified, and of the representation thereof by the sign. Our senses, by seeing, handling, breaking, tasting, eating, drinking.

_Sect._ 21. Thus we see that in all these examples alleged by our opposites, there is nothing to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in such a mediate wors.h.i.+p, wherein something belonging to the substance of the wors.h.i.+p comes between G.o.d and us, and is not accidentally, but purposely before us, upon which also our minds and senses in the action of wors.h.i.+p are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament (which I have showed before), namely, that in the instant of receiving the sacrament, the elements are actually images and vicarious signs standing in Christ's stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves with the roving rabble of these impertinent allegations which they have produced to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate wors.h.i.+p, they have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needless, if they had not feared that the former ground should fail them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the act of receiving, they are praying and praising, and so wors.h.i.+pping G.o.d immediately. And if we would know what a man doth then pray for, it is told us, that he is praying and earnestly crying to G.o.d,(757) _ut eum faciat dignum convivam_. To us it seems very strange how a man, when he is actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating can be made in any other sort a banqueter than he is; for _quicquid est, dum est, non potest non esse_. Wherefore if a man in the instant of his receiving be an unworthy banqueter, he cannot at that instant be made any other than he is.

_Sect._ 22. The truth is, we cannot lawfully be either praying or praising in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and minds should then be exercised in meditating upon Christ's death, and the inestimable benefits which comes to us thereby. 1 Cor. xi. 23, "Do this in remembrance of me."

This remembrance is described, ver. 26, "Ye do show the Lord's death." Now one of the special ways whereby we remember Christ, and so do show forth his death, is by private meditation upon his death, as Pareus resolveth.(758)

This meditation is a speech of the soul to itself; and though it may stand with short e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.ns, which may and should have place in all our actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary and continued prayer purposely conceived, as Bishop Lindsey would maintain.(759) For how can we orderly both speak to G.o.d by prayer, and to ourselves by meditation, at one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the soul's exercise in the receiving of the sacrament. And by the contrary, if meditation be entertained as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have place at that time. For it is well said,(760) that _Dum auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus exterius, auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei interius occupamur, orationem continuam et durabilem, absque mentis divagatione __ ab opere praecepto et imperato, instruere non possumus._

_Sect._ 23. But let us hear how the Bishop proveth that we should be praying and praising in the act of receiving the sacrament. "Whatsoever spiritual benefit (saith he)(761) we should receive with a spiritual hunger and thirst, and with a spiritual appet.i.te and desire after the grace and virtue that is therein to salvation, the same we should receive with prayer, which is nothing else but such an appet.i.te and desire; but the body and blood of Christ is such a benefit," &c.

_Ans._ 1. Why did not he prove his proposition? Thought he his bare a.s.sertion should suffice? G.o.d's word is a spiritual benefit, which we should receive with spiritual hunger and thirst; yet the Bishop will not say that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore is false; for though prayer should go before the receiving of such a spiritual benefit as the word or the sacrament, yet we should not pray in the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend, by serious consideration, to what we hear in the word, or what is signified and given to us in the sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the word and receiving the sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual appet.i.te or desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all.

He said before,(762) that every prayer is a meditation, and here he saith, that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire. These are uncouth descriptions of prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a communing with our own souls, prayer a communing with G.o.d. Nor yet can it be said that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire; for prayer is the sending up of our desires to G.o.d, being put in order.

_Sect._ 24. He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the sacrament with thanksgiving. "Whatsoever benefit (saith he) we should receive by extolling, and preaching, and magnifying, and praising the inestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive with thanksgiving. But in the sacrament we should receive the blood of Christ with extolling and preaching," &c. The a.s.sumption he confirms by the words of our Saviour, "Do this in remembrance of me," and by the words of St. Paul, "So oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shall declare, that is, extol, magnify, and praise the Lord's death, till he come again."

_Ans._ His a.s.sumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

1. We remember Christ in the act of receiving by meditation, and not by praise.

2. We show forth the Lord's death in the act of receiving, by using the signs and symbols of his body broken, and his blood shed for us, and by meditating upon his death thereby represented.

3. We deny not that by praise we show forth the Lord's death also, but this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be marked with Pareus,(763) that the showing forth of the Lord's death, must not be restricted to the act of receiving the sacrament, because we do also show forth his death by the preaching of the gospel, and by private and public celebration of it, yea, by a perpetual study of sanctification and thankfulness. So that the showing forth of the Lord's death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying, and praising the same, according to the twenty-third section of the Confession of Faith, to which his argument hath reference, may not be expounded of the very act of receiving the sacrament. Neither do the words of the inst.i.tution refuse, but easily admit, another showing forth of the Lord's death than that which is in the very act of receiving, for the word is not _quando_, but _quoties_. It is only said, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show," &c. Which words cannot be taken only of the instant of eating and drinking.

_Sect._ 25. Now having so strongly proved the unlawfulness and idolatry of kneeling in the act of receiving the holy communion, let me add, _corolarii loco_, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which Bishop Lindsey, in the tail of his dispute about the head of kneeling, offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some modern doctors.

For, 1, What can human testimony avail against such a clear truth? 2. We have more testimonies of divines against kneeling than he hath for it. And here I perceive Dr Mortoune, fearing we should come to good speed this way,(764) would hold in our travel: "We are not ignorant (saith he) that many Protestant authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of kneeling at the receiving of the holy communion."

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same divines whom the Bishop allegeth for it; for Didoclavius(765) hath clear testimonies against it out of Calvin, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the Bishop taketh to be for it.

_Sect._ 26. Neither yet need we here to be moved with Dr Burges's(766) adventurous untaking to prove that, in the most ancient times, before corruption of the sacrament began, the sacrament was received with an adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the mark. One place in Tertullian, _de Oratione_, he hammers upon: _Similiter de stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium eucharistiae resoluit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior, erit statio tua, si et ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini et reservato, utrumque salvum est, et partic.i.p.atio sacrificii, et executio officii._

To these words the Doctor giveth this sense: That many withdrew themselves when they came to the celebration of the supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the sacramental bread, being taken of the minister's hand, the station, _i.e._, standing, must be dissolved and left; and because standing on those days might not be left (as they thought), therefore they rather left the sacrament on those days than they would break the rule of standing on those days; therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the table standing, yet they used not to partake them, _i.e._, eat the bread or drink the wine, in any other gesture than what was on the station days then forbidden, kneeling; and that Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneel, and to take the bread in public, standing at the table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at their own houses as they desired, kneeling.