Chapter 64

ANOTHER POSITION BUILT UPON THE SAME GROUND.

_Sect._ 1. Our next position which we infer, is this: That it is not indifferent to sit, stand, pass, or kneel, in the act of receiving the sacramental elements of the Lord’s supper, because we are bound to follow the example of Christ and his apostles, who used the gesture of sitting in this holy action, as we prove from John xiii. 12; from Matt. xxvi. 20, with 26; Mark xiv. 18, with 22.

Our opposites here bestir themselves, and move every stone against us. Three answers they give us, which we will now consider.

First, They tell us that it is not certain that the apostles were sitting when they received this sacrament from Christ, and that _adhuc sub judice lis est_. Yet let us see what they have to say against the certainty hereof.

Bishop Lindsey objecteth, that, between their eating of the paschal supper and the administration of the sacrament to the disciples, five acts intervened: 1. The taking of the bread; 2. The thanksgiving; 3. The breaking; 4. The precept, “Take ye, eat ye;” 5. The word, whereby the element was made the sacrament. In which time, saith he, the gesture of sitting might have been changed.

_Ans._ It is first of all to be noted, that the apostles were sitting at the instant when Christ took the bread, for it is said that he took bread whilst they did eat; that is (as Maldonat(1223) rightly expoundeth it), _Antequam surgerent, antequam mensae et ciborum reliquiae removerentur_; and so we use to say that men are dining or supping so long as they sit at table and the meat is not removed from before them. To Christ’s ministering of the eucharistical supper together with the preceding supper, Christians had respect when they celebrated the Lord’s supper together with the love-feasts. _Probabile est eos ad Christi exemplum respexisse, qui eucharistiam inter coenandum instituit_, saith Pareus.(1224) But of this we need say no more; for the Bishop himself hath here acknowledged no less than that they were sitting at that time when Christ took the bread. Only he saith, that there were five acts which intervened before the administration of the sacrament to the disciples (whereof the taking of the bread was the first), and that in this while the gesture of sitting might have been changed; which is as much as to say, when he took the bread they were sitting, but they might have changed this gesture, either in the time of taking the bread, or in the time of thanksgiving, or in the time of breaking the bread, or whilst he said, “Take ye, eat ye,” or lastly, in the time of pronouncing those words, “This is my body” (for this is the word whereby, in the Bishop’s judgment, the element was made the sacrament, as we shall see afterward).

Now but, by his leave, we will reduce his five acts to three; for thus speaketh the text, “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed it and break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body,” Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22. Whence it is manifest, that the giving of the bread to the disciples, which no man, I suppose, will deny to have been the administration of it, went before the two last acts which the Bishop reckoneth out. Nothing, therefore, is left to him but to say, that their gesture of sitting might have been changed, either in the taking or in the blessing, or in the breaking, or else between the taking and the blessing, or between the blessing and the breaking; yet doth the text knit all the three together by such a contiguity and connection as showeth unto us that they did all make up but one continued action, which could not admit any interruption.

_Sect._ 2. I saw a prelate sit down to his breakfast, and, as he did eat, he took some cups, and, having called for more, he said, he thanked God that he was never given to his belly; and with that he made a promise to one in the company, which he brake within two days after. Would any man question whether or not the prelate was sitting when he made this promise, forasmuch as between his sitting down to meat and the making of the promise there intervened his taking of some cups, his calling for more, and his pronouncing of these words, I thank God that I was never given to my belly? Yet might one far more easily imagine a change of the prelate’s gesture than any such change of the apostles’ gesture in that holy action whereof we speak. Because the text setteth down such a continued, entire, unbroken, and uninterrupted action, therefore Calvin gathereth out of the text that the apostles did both take and eat the sacramental bread whilst they were sitting. _Non legimus_, saith he,(1225) _prostratos adorasse, sed ut erant discumbentes accepisse et manducasse. Christus_, saith Martyr,(1226) _eucharistiam apostolis una secum sedentibus aut discumbentibus distribuit_. G. J. Vossius(1227) puts it out of doubt that Christ was still sitting at the giving of the bread to the apostles. And that the apostles were still sitting when they received the bread, Hospinian(1228) thinks it no less certain. They made no doubt of the certainty hereof who composed that old verse which we find in Aquinas:(1229)—

Rex sedet in coena, turba cinctus duodena; Se tenet in manibus; se cibat ipse cibus.

Papists also put it out of controversy; for Bellarmine acknowledgeth(1230) that the apostles could not externally adore Christ by prostrating themselves in the last supper, _quando recumbere cum eo illis necesse erat_; where we see he could guess nothing of the change of their gesture. _Intelligendum est_, saith Jansenius,(1231) _dominum in novissima hac coena, discubuisse et sedisse ante et post comestum agnum_. Dr Stella sticketh not to say,(1232) _distribuit salvator mundi panem discumbentibus_.

_Sect._ 3. But now having heard Bishop Lindsey, let us hear what Paybody(1233) will say. He taketh him to another subterfuge, and tells us, that though we read that Christ took bread whilst they did eat, yet can it not be concluded hence that he took bread whilst they did sit; because, saith he, “as they did eat,” is expounded by Luke (chap. xxii. 20) and Paul (1 Cor. xi. 25) to be _after they had done eating_, or _after supper_. Thus is their languages divided. Bishop Lindsey did yield to us, that when Christ took bread they were sitting; and his conjecture was, that this gesture of sitting might have been changed after the taking of the bread. Paybody saw that he had done with the argument if he should grant that they were sitting when Christ took bread, therefore he calleth that in question. Vulcan’s own gimmers could not make his answer and the Bishop’s to stick together.

But let us examine the ground which Paybody takes for his opinion. He would prove from Luke and Paul, that when Matthew and Mark say, “As they were eating, Jesus took bread,” the meaning is only this, _After supper, Jesus took bread_; importing, that Christ’s taking of bread did not make up one continued action with their eating, and that therefore their gesture of sitting might have been changed between their eating of the preceding supper and his taking of the sacramental bread.

Whereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the suppers which Christ did eat with his disciples that night wherein he was betrayed. And whichsoever the reader please to follow, it shall be most easy to break all the strength of the argument which Paybody opposeth unto us.

_Sect._ 4. First, then, some do think that Christ, having kept the passover according to the law (which is not particularly related, but supposed, by the evangelists), sat down to a common or ordinary supper, at which he told the disciples that one of them should betray him. And of this judgment are Calvin and Beza, upon Matt. xxvi. 21; Pareus, upon Matt. xxvi. 21; Fulk and Cartwright, against the Rhemists, upon 1 Cor. xi. 23; Tolet and Maldonat, upon John xiii. 2; Cornelius Jansenius, _Conc. Evang._, cap. 131; Balthazar Meisnerus, _Tract, die Fest. Virid._, p. 256; Johannes Forsterus, _Conc. 4, de Pass._, p. 538; Christophorus Pelargus, in John xiii., quest. 2, and others. The reasons whereby their judgment is confirmed are these:—

1. Many societies convened to the eating of the paschal supper by twenties.(1234) And if twenty was often the number of them who convened to the eating of the same (which also confirmeth their opinion who think that other men and women in the inn did eat both the paschal and evangelical supper together with the apostles in Christ’s company), it is not very likely (say some) that all those were sufficiently satisfied and fed with one lamb, which, after it was eight days old, was allowed to be offered for the passover, as Godwin noteth.(1235) _Neque esus umus agni_, saith Pareus, _toti familiae sedandae fami sufficere poterat._(1236)

2. The paschal supper was not for banquetting or filling of the belly, as Josephus also writeth.(1237) _Non tam exsatiendae nutriendaeque naturae_, saith Maldonat, _quam servandae legalis ceremoniae causa sumebatur_.(1238) _Non ventri_, saith Pareus, _sed religionis causa fiebat_.(1239) But as for that supper which Christ and his apostles did eat immediately before the eucharistical, Cartwright doubts not to call it a carnal supper,(1240) an earthly repast, a feast for the belly, which lets us know, that the sacramental bread and wine was ordained, not for feeding their bodies, which were already satisfied by the ordinary and daily supper, but for the nourishment of the soul.

3. That beside the paschal and evangelical suppers, Christ and his apostles had also that night another ordinary supper, Fulk proveth by the broth wherein the sop was dipped,(1241) John xiii. 26. Whereas there was no such broth ordained by the divine institution to be used in the paschal supper.

4. That there were two suppers before the eucharistical they gather from John xiii. For, first, the paschal supper was ended, ver. 2, after which Christ washed his disciples’ feet. And thereafter we read, ver. 12, _resumptis vestibus rursum ad caenam ordinariam consedisse._(1242) The dividing of the passover into two services or two suppers had no warrant at all from the first institution of that sacrament, for which cause they think it not likely that Christ would have thus divided it according to the device and custom of the Jews in latter times, for so much as in marriage (and much more in the passover) he did not allow of that which from the beginning was not so. Neither seemeth it to them any way probable, that Christ would have interrupted the eating of the passover with the washing of his disciples’ feet before the whole paschal supper was ended, and they had done eating of it.

_Sect_. 5. But others (and those very judicious too) are of opinion, that that second course whereunto Christ sat down after the washing of his disciples’ feet, and at which he told them that one of them should betray him, was not an ordinary or common supper (because the paschal supper was enough of itself to satisfy them), but a part of the paschal supper. And from the Jewish writers they prove that so the custom was to divide the passover into two courses or services. As for that wherein Christ dipped the sop, they take it to have been the sauce which was used in the paschal supper, called _charoseth_, of which the Hebrews write, that it was made of the palm tree branches, or of dry figs, or of raisins, which they stamped and mixed with vinegar till it was thick as mustard, and made like clay, in memory of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt, and that they used to dip both the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs into this sauce. And as touching that place, John xiii., they expound it by the custom of the Jews, which was to have two services or two suppers in the passover; and take those words, ver. 2, “Supper being ended,” to be meant of the first service, and sitting down again to supper, ver. 12, to be meant of the second service.

_Sect._ 6. If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawn together into one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sat down after the washing of his disciples’ feet, was (for the substance of it) a common supper, but yet it hath been and may be rightly called the second service of the paschal supper, for that it was eaten the same night wherein the paschal lamb was eaten, so should all the difference be taken away; but if the maintainers of these opinions will not be thus agreed, let the reader consider to which of them he will adhere.

If the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily answered to Paybody, that _inter coenandum instituta fuit eucharistia, cum jam rursum mensoe accubuissent. Sed post coenam paschalem, et usum agni legalis._(1243) When Matthew and Mark say, As they did eat, Jesus took bread, they speak of the common or ordinary supper; but when Luke and Paul say, that he took the cup after supper, they speak of the paschal supper, which was eaten before the common supper.

Again, if the reader follow the other opinion, which holdeth that Christ had no other supper that night before the evangelical except the paschal only, yet still the answer to Paybody shall be easy; for whereas he would prove from those words of Luke and Paul, “Likewise also the cup after supper,” that when Matthew and Mark say, “As they did eat, Jesus took bread,” their meaning is only this, “After supper Jesus took bread,” he reasoneth very inconsiderately, forasmuch as Luke and Paul say not of the bread, but of the cup only, that Jesus took it after supper. And will Paybody say, that he took the cup so soon as he took the bread? If we will speak with Scripture, we must say, that as they did eat the preceding supper (to which we read they sat down) Jesus took bread; for nothing at all intervened betwixt their eating of that other preceding supper, and his taking of the eucharistical cup, there intervened the taking, blessing, breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread.

Now, therefore, from that which hath been said, we may well conclude that our opposites have no reason which they do or can object against the certainty of that received tenet, that the apostles received from Christ the sacramental bread and wine whilst they were sitting. Dr Forbesse himself(1244) setteth down some testimonies of Musculus, Chamier, and the professors of Leyden, all acknowledging that the apostles, when they received the Lord’s supper, were still sitting.

_Sect._ 7. The second answer that our opposites hath given us, followeth: They say, that though the apostles did not change their gesture of sitting which they used in the former supper, when all this is granted to us, yet there is as great difference betwixt our form of sitting and that form of the Jews which the apostles used as there is betwixt _sedere_ and _jacere_.

_Ans._ 1. Put the case it were so, yet it hath been often answered them, that the apostles kept the table-gesture used in that nation, and so are we bound herein to follow their example, by keeping the table-gesture used in this nation. For this keeping of the usual table gesture of the nation wherein we live is not a forsaking but a following of the commendable example of the apostles, even as whereas they drank the wine which was drunk in that place, and we drink the wine which is drunk in this place, yet do we not hereby differ from that which they did.

2. The words used by the evangelists signify our form of sitting no less than the Jewish, Calepine, Scapula, and Thomasius, in their dictionaries, take ἀναπίπτω, ἀνακλίνω, ἀνακλίνομαι, ἀνάκειμαι, ποράκειμαι, κατάκειμαι, and the Latin words _discumbo, recumbo, accumbo_ (used by Arias, Montanus, Beza, Marlorat, Tremellius, &c., in their versions), not only for lying, but also for such sitting as is opposed to lying, even for sitting upright at table after our custom.

3. There is not so great a difference betwixt our form of sitting and that which the Jews used as our opposites allege. For as Didoclavius showeth out of Casaubon;(1245) their sitting at banquets was only with a leaning upon the left arm, and so not lying, but sitting with a certain inclination. When, therefore, we read of _lecti discubitorii tricliniares, in quibus inter coenandum discumbebant_,(1246) we must understand them to have been seats which compassed three sides of the table (the fourth side being left open and void for them who served), and wherein they did sit with some sort of inclination.

Yet Bishop Lindsey is bold to aver,(1247) that the usual table gesture of the Jews was lying along, and this he would prove from Amos vi. 4, “They lie upon beds of ivory, they stretch themselves out upon their couches.”

_Ans._ 1. If we should yield to this prelate his own meaning wherein he taketh these words, yet how thinks he that the gesture of drunkards and gluttons, which they used when they were pampering themselves in all excess of riot, and for which also they are upbraided by the Spirit of God, was either the ordinary table-gesture of the Jews, or the gesture used by Christ and his apostles in their last supper?

2. If any gesture at all be touched in those words which the prelate citeth, it was the gesture they used when they lay down to sleep, and not their table-gesture when they did eat; for _mitta_ and _ngheres_ (the two words which Amos useth) signify a bed or a couch wherein a man useth to lay himself down to sleep. And in this sense we find both these words, Psal. vi. 7, “All the night make I my bed (_mittathi_) to swim: I water my couch (_ngharsi_) with my tears.” The Shunnamite prepared for Elisha a chamber, and therein set for him a bed (_mitta_), and a table, and a stool, and a candlestick, 2 Kings iv. 10. The stool or chair was for sitting at table, but _mitta_, the bed, was for lying down to sleep. Now, the prelate, I hope, will not say, that the _lecti tricliniares_, wherein the Jews used to sit at table, and which compassed three sides of the same (as hath been said), were their beds wherein they did lie and sleep all night.

But, 3. The place must be yet more exactly opened up. That word which is turned in our English books, _they lie_, cometh from the radix _schachav_, which in Pagnin’s lexicon is turned _dormire_. We find, Ruth iii. 7, _lischcav_, which Arias Montanus turned _ad dormiendum_, to sleep. Our own English translation, 2 Sam. xi. 9, saith, “_Uriah slept_,” where the original hath _vauschcav_; and the very same word is put most frequently in the books of the Kings and the Chronicles, where they speak of the death of the kings of Judah and Israel. Pagnin turneth it _et dormivit_; and our English translators everywhere, “And he slept with his fathers,” &c. These things being considered, we must, with Calvin, read the place of Amos thus: _Qui decumbunt vel dormiunt in lectis._ The other word which the prophet useth is _seruchim_. Our English version turneth it, “They stretch themselves out;” but Pagnin, Buxtorff, Tremellius, and Tarnovius, come nearer the sense, who read _redundantes, superfluentes_, or _luxuriantes_; which sense the English translation also hath in the margin. The Septuagints followed the same sense, for they read, κατασπαταλὼντες, _i.e._, _living in pleasure_. So, 1 Tim. v. 6, _she that lived in pleasure_, σπαταλῶσοι; and, James v. 5, _Ye have lived in pleasure_, ἐσπαταλησατε. The radix is _sarach_, _redundavit_, or _luxuriavit_. So, Exod. xxvi. 12, _sarach_, and, verse 13, _saruach_, is put for a surplusage or superfluous remainder, _redundans superfluum_, as Tremellius readeth. Now, then, it is evident that the thing which Amos layeth to the charge of those who were at ease in Zion, in the words which the prelate citeth against us, is, that they slept upon beds of ivory (such was their softness and superfluity), and swimmed in excessive pleasures upon their couches; and, incontinent, their filthy and muddy stream of carnal delicacy and excessive voluptuousness which defiled their beds, led him back to the unclean fountain out of which it issued, even their riotous pampering of themselves at table; therefore he subjoineth, “And eat the lambs out of the flock,” &c. For _ex mensis itur ad cubilia, ex gula in venerem_, saith Cornelius à Lapide, commenting upon the same text. Thus have I cleared the place in such sort, that the Bishop cannot but shoot short of his aims; wherefore I go on to other replies.

4. If the apostles, when they received the Lord’s supper, or the Jews, when they did eat at table, were lying all along, how could their mouths receive drink unspilt? or how could they have the use of both their arms? which the Bishop himself would not, I am sure, gainsay, if he would once try the matter in his own person, and essay to eat and drink whilst lying along.

5. The words used by Matthew, chap. xxvi. 10, and by Mark, chap. xiv. 18, where they speak of Christ sitting down with the twelve, is also used by John, chap. vi. 11, where he speaketh of the peoples’ sitting down upon the grass to eat the loaves and fishes: and will any man think that the people did eat lying along upon the grass, where they might far better sit upright?

6. If our opposites like to speak with others, then let them look back upon the testimonies which I have alleged before. Jansenius putteth _discubuisse et sedisse_; Martyr, _sedentibus aut discumbentibus_. Pareus useth the word _consedisse_; Meisnerus,(1248) _consedendo; Evangelista_, saith Dr Stella,(1249) _dicit dominum discubuisse, id est sedisse ad mensam_.

7. If they like to speak to themselves: Camero,(1250) speaking of John’s leaning on Christ’s bosom at supper, saith, _Christus autem sedebat medius_; Dr Morton saith,(1251) it cannot be denied that the gesture of Christ and his apostles at the last supper was sitting,—only, saith he, the evangelists leave it uncertain whether this sitting was upright, or somewhat leaning.

_Sect._ 8. Their third answer is, that Christ’s sitting at the last supper is no more exemplary and imitable than the upper chamber, or the night season, or the sex and number of communicants, &c.

_Ans._ 1. As for the sex and number of communicants, Dr Fulk(1252) rightly observeth, that it is not certain from Scripture that twelve men only, and no women, did communicate (as Bishop Lindsey(1253) would have us certainly to believe); but suppose it were certain,(1254) yet for this, and all the other circumstances, which are not exemplary, there were special reasons either in the urgency of the legal necessity, or in the exigency of present and accidental occasions, which do not concern us: whereas the gesture of sitting was freely and purposely chosen, and so intended to be exemplary, especially since there was no such reason moving Christ to use this gesture of sitting as doth not concern us.

The Bishop saith,(1255) that his sitting at the former supper might have been the reason which moved him to sit at the eucharistical supper; but if Christ had not purposely made choice of the gesture of sitting as the fittest and most convenient for the eucharistical supper, his sitting at the former supper could be no reason to move him, as may appear by this example: There are some gentlemen standing in a nobleman’s waiting-room; and after they have stood there a while, the nobleman cometh forth; they begin to speak to him, and, as they speak, still they stand. Now, can any man say that the reason which moveth them to stand when they speak to the nobleman, is, because they were standing before he came to them? So doth the Bishop come short of giving any special reason for Christ’s sitting which concerneth not us. He can allege no more but Christ’s sitting at the former supper, which could be no reason, else he should have also risen from the eucharistical supper to wash the disciples’ feet, even as he rose from the former supper for that effect. Wherefore, we conclude, that Christ did voluntarily, and of set purpose, choose sitting as the fittest and best beseeming gesture for that holy banquet.

Finally, Hooker’s(1256) verdict of the gesture of Christ and his apostles in this holy supper is, “That our Lord himself did that which custom and long usage had made fit; we, that which fitness and great decency hath made usual.” In which words, because cause he importeth that they have better warrants for their kneeling than Christ had for his sitting (which is blasphemy), I leave them as not worthy of an answer. Howsoever, let it be noted that he acknowledged, by kneeling they depart from the example of Christ.