The Apostle showeth that that measure of liberality whereunto he exhorted the Corinthians was not by any divine commandment necessary, yet he adviseth it as a thing expedient, 2 Cor. viii. 8, 10. And were not the Corinthians thereunto bound, because of this expediency of the matter, though it was not necessary? _Juxta verb.u.m_, &c.: "According to G.o.d's word (saith the Bishop of Salisbury(1213)) we are obliged to glorify G.o.d by our good works, not only when necessity requireth, but also when ability furnisheth, and opportunity occurreth," Gal. vi. 10; t.i.t. ii. 14.

_Sect._ 10. As touching the scope of all this dispute, which is the indifferency of the controverted ceremonies, we shall hear sundry reasons against it afterward. For the present, I say no more but this: As in every case, so most especially when we meddle with the worship of G.o.d, or any appurtenance thereof, the rules of the word tie us so straitly, that that which is in its own nature indifferent ought either to be done, or to be left undone, according as it is either agreeable or not agreeable to these rules; and so is never left free to us to be done or omitted at our pleasure: for if at all we be (as certainly we are) abridged of our liberty, chiefly it is in things pertaining to divine worship.

But I marvel why Dr Forbesse discourseth so much for the indifferency of the ceremonies; for, lib. 1, cap. 7, he holdeth, that there were just reasons in the things themselves why the pretended a.s.sembly of Perth should enjoin the five articles; some of which he calleth very convenient and profitable, and others of them necessary in themselves. Sure, if he stand to that which he hath there written, he cannot choose but say that it is unlawful, both for us and for all Christians anywhere, to omit the controverted ceremonies; and that all such as have at any time omitted them, have thereby sinned, in leaving that undone which they ought to have done-for the conveniency and necessity of them which he pretendeth is perpetual and universal.

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE RULE BY WHICH WE ARE TO MEASURE AND TRY WHAT THINGS ARE INDIFFERENT.

_Sect._ 1. That the word of G.o.d is the only rule whereby we must judge of the indifferency of things, none of our opposites, we hope, will deny. "Of things indifferent (saith Paybody(1214)) I lay down this ground, that they be such, and they only, which G.o.d's word hath left free unto us."

Now these things which G.o.d's word leaveth free and indifferent (in respect of their nature and kind) are such things as it neither showeth to be good nor evil. Where we are further to consider, that the word of G.o.d showeth unto us the lawfulness or unlawfulness, goodness or badness of things, not only by precepts and prohibitions, but sometimes also, and more plainly, by examples. So that, not only from the precepts and prohibitions of the word, but likewise from the examples recorded in the same, we may find out that goodness or badness of human actions which taketh away the indifferency of them.

And as for those who will have such things called indifferent as are neither commanded nor forbidden in the word of G.o.d, I ask of them whether they speak of plain and particular precepts and prohibitions, or of general only? If they speak of particular precepts and prohibitions, then, by their rule, the baptising of young children, the taking of water for the element of baptism; a lecturer's public reading of Scripture in the church upon the Sabbath day; the a.s.sembling of synods for putting order to the confusions of the church; the writing and publication of the decrees of the same; and sundry other things which the word hath commended unto us by examples,-should all be things indifferent, because there are not in the word of G.o.d either particular precepts for them, or particular prohibitions against them. But if they speak of general precepts and prohibitions, then are those things commanded in the word of G.o.d for which we have the allowed and commended examples of such as we ought to follow (for, in the general, we are commanded to be followers of such examples, Phil. iv. 8, 9; 1 Cor. xi. 1; Eph. v. 1), though there be no particular precept for the things themselves thus exemplified.

_Sect._ 2. To come, therefore, to the ground which shall give us here some footing, and whereupon we mind to rear up certain superstructions, we hold, that not only we ought to obey the particular precepts of the word of G.o.d, but that also "we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us:" which ground, as it hath been of a long time holden and confirmed by them of our side, so never could, nor ever shall, our opposites subvert it. It is long since the _Abridgement_ confirmed and strengthened it, out of those places of Scripture: Eph. v. 1, "Be ye therefore followers of G.o.d, as dear children;" 1 Cor. xi. 1, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ;" 1 Thess. i. 6, "And ye became followers of us and of the Lord;"

Phil. iii. 17, "Brethren, be followers together of me."

This ground is also at length pressed by Cyprian, who showeth(1215) that, in the holy supper of the Lord, Christ alone is to be followed by us; that we are to do what he did; and that we ought not to take heed what any man hath done before us, but what Christ did, who is before all.

_Sect._ 3. But Bishop Lindsey(1216) asketh of us, if we hold this rule, what is the cause why, at the celebration of the sacrament, we bless not the bread severally by itself, and the cup severally by itself, seeing Christ did so, yet having no cause to move him which concerns not us.

_Ans._ 1. Beside the common blessing of the elements, in the beginning of the action, we give thanks also in the several actions of distribution, saying after this or the like manner: "The Lord Jesus, the same night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks (as we also give thanks to G.o.d who gave his Son to die for us) he brake it," &c. "In like manner also, after supper, he took the cup, and, when he had given thanks (as we also give thanks to G.o.d who gave his Son to shed his blood for us), he gave it," &c. Which form (we conceive) may be construed to be an imitation of the example of Christ.

2. Though we did not observe such a form; yet there were two reasons to move Christ to give thanks severally, both at the giving of the bread, and at the giving of the cup, neither of which concerneth us: 1. The eucharistical supper was one continued action with the other supper which went before it; for it is said, "That whilst they did eat, he took bread,"

&c. Wherefore, for more distinction of it from that supper which immediately proceeded, it was fit that he should give thanks severally at the giving of each element. 2. He had to do with the twelve apostles, whose hearts being so greatly troubled with sorrow, John xvi. 6, and whose minds not well comprehending that which they heard concerning the death of Christ, John xvi. 12, much less those mystical symbols of it, especially at the first hearing, seeing, and using of the same, it was needful for their cause distinctly and severally to bless those elements, thereby to help the weakness of their understanding, and to make them the more capable of so heavenly mysteries.

_Sect._ 4. Now, having heard that which the Bishop had to say against our rule, let us examine his own. He holdeth,(1217) That in the actions of Christ's apostles, or the customs of the church, there is nothing exemplary and left to be imitated of us, but that which either being moral, is generally commanded in the decalogue, or being ceremonial and circ.u.mstantial, is particularly commanded by some constant precept in the gospel.

_Ans._ 1. This rule is most false; for it followeth from it that the example of the apostles' making choice of the element of water in baptism, and requiring a confession of faith from the person who was to be baptised; the example also both of Christ and his apostles using the elements of bread and wine in the holy supper, a table at which they did communicate, and the breaking of the bread, are not left to be imitated of us; because these things are ceremonial, but not particularly commanded in the gospel. So that according to the rule which the Bishop holdeth, we sin in imitating Christ and his apostles in those things, forasmuch as they are not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.

2. His weapons fight against his own fellows, who allege (as we have showed elsewhere) the custom of the church(1218) is a sufficient warrant for certain ceremonies questioned betwixt them and us, which are not particularly commanded by any precept in the gospel. These the Bishop doth unwittingly strike at it whilst he holdeth that such customs of the church are not exemplary, nor left to be imitated of us.

_Sect._ 5. Wherefore we hold still our own rule for sure and certain.

Christ's actions are either _amanda_, as the works of redemption; or _admiranda_, as his miracles; or _notanda_, as many things done by him for some particular reason proper to that time and case, and not belonging to us, which things, notwithstanding, are well worthy of our observation; or _imitanda_, and such are all his actions which had no such special reason moving him thereto as do not concern us.

Calvin, upon 1 Cor. xi. 1, saith well, that the Apostle there calls back both himself and others to Christ, _Tanquam unic.u.m recte agendi exemplar_; and Polycarpus Lycerus, upon Matt. xvi. 24, under that command of following Christ, comprehendeth the imitations of Christ's actions.

Most certainly it is inexcusable presumption to leave the example of Christ, and to do that which seemeth right in our own eyes, as if we were wiser than he. And now, having laid down this ground, we are to build certain positions upon it, us follows.

CHAPTER V.

THE FIRST POSITION WHICH WE BUILD UPON THE GROUND CONFIRMED IN THE FORMER CHAPTER.

_Sect._ 1. From that which hath been said of following Christ, and the commendable example of his apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident that they had some such special reason moving them to do that which they did, as doth not concern us, our first inference is this: That it is not indifferent for a minister to give the sacramental elements of bread and wine out of his own hand to every communicant; forasmuch as our Lord commanded his apostles to divide the cup among them, that is, to reach it one to another, Luke xxii. 17. Some of the interpreters are of opinion, that the cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place is not the same whereof he speaketh after, ver. 20; but they are greatly mistaken; for if it were as they think, then Christ did again drink before his death of that fruit of the vine whereof we read ver. 18, which is manifestly repugnant to his own words. Wherefore, as Maldonat observeth(1219) out of Augustine and Euthimius, there was but one cup; whereof Luke speaketh, first, by antic.i.p.ation, and, afterward, in its own proper place.

_Sect._ 2. But Bishop Lindsey(1220) falleth here upon a very strange speculation; and tells us, that if all the disciples did drink, howbeit they did not deliver the cup one to another, but received it severally from Christ's own hand, they divided the same among them; because every one takes his part of that which is parted, they divide the whole among them. Alas! that I should blot paper with the confutation of such fooleries. I believe, when his Majesty hath distributed and divided so many lands and revenues among the prelates of Scotland, every one of them takes his part, but dare not say, though, that they have divided these lands and revenues among themselves. Can twenty or forty beggars, when an alms is distributed among them, because every one of them getteth his part, say, therefore, that they themselves have parted it among them?

What, then, shall be said of the distributor who giveth to every one his part severally, and by himself? That man who required that his brother should divide the inheritance with him, did not, I trow, desire Christ to cause his brother to take his own part of the inheritance (there was no fear that he would not take his part); but he desired that his brother might give to him his part. So that, to divide anything among men, is not to take it, but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and partaking, dividing a cup and drinking a cup, which differ as much as giving and receiving. Thus we conclude, that when Christ commanded the apostles to divide the cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no other than this, that they should give the cup one to another; which is so plain that a Jesuit(1221) also maketh it to follow upon this command, that Christ did reach the cup _non singulis sed uni, qui proximo, proximus sequenti, et deinceps daret_. Hence it is that Hospinian(1222) thinks it most likely that Christ brake the bread into two parts, _earumque alteram dederit illi qui proximus ei ad dextram acc.u.mbebat, alteram vero ei qui ad sinistram, ut isti deinceps proxime acc.u.mbentibus porrigerent, donec singuli particulam sibi decerpsissent_.

CHAPTER VI.

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, pa.s.s, 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 inst.i.tuit_, 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 p.r.o.nouncing 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 G.o.d 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 p.r.o.nouncing of these words, I thank G.o.d 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 adora.s.se, sed ut erant disc.u.mbentes accep.i.s.se et manduca.s.se. Christus_, saith Martyr,(1226) _eucharistiam apostolis una sec.u.m sedentibus aut disc.u.mbentibus 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 rec.u.mbere c.u.m 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 disc.u.mbentibus_.

_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 pa.s.sover 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 Pa.s.s._, 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 pa.s.sover, as G.o.dwin 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.