The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 26

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 inst.i.tution 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 pa.s.sover into two services or two suppers had no warrant at all from the first inst.i.tution 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 pa.s.sover) 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 pa.s.sover with the was.h.i.+ng 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 was.h.i.+ng 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 pa.s.sover 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 pa.s.sover; 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 was.h.i.+ng 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 inst.i.tuta fuit eucharistia, c.u.m 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 ??ap?pt?, ??a?????, ??a?????a?, ????e?a?, p????e?a?, ?at??e?a?, and the Latin words _disc.u.mbo, rec.u.mbo, acc.u.mbo_ (used by Arias, Monta.n.u.s, 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 disc.u.mbebant_,(1246) we must understand them to have been seats which compa.s.sed 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 G.o.d, 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 compa.s.sed 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 Monta.n.u.s 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 dec.u.mbunt 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, ?ataspata???te?, _i.e._, _living in pleasure_. So, 1 Tim. v. 6, _she that lived in pleasure_, spata??s??; and, James v. 5, _Ye have lived in pleasure_, ?spata??sate. 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 a 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 gra.s.s to eat the loaves and fishes: and will any man think that the people did eat lying along upon the gra.s.s, 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 disc.u.mbentibus_. 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 s.e.x and number of communicants, &c.

_Ans._ 1. As for the s.e.x 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 n.o.bleman's waiting-room; and after they have stood there a while, the n.o.bleman 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 n.o.bleman, 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.

CHAPTER VII.

OTHER POSITIONS BUILT UPON THE FORMER GROUND.

_Sect._ 1. The third consequence which we infer upon our former rule of following the example of Christ is, that it is not a thing indifferent to omit the repet.i.tion of those words, "This is my body," enunciatively and demonstratively in the act of distributing the eucharistical bread; and far less is it indifferent so to omit this demonstrative speech in the distribution, as in place of it to surrogate a prayer to preserve the soul and body of the communicant unto everlasting life. Our reason is, because Christ (whose example herein we ought to follow) used no prayer in the distribution, but that demonstrative enunciation, "This is my body." But we go forward.

_Sect._ 2. The fourth position we draw from the same rule is, that it is not indifferent for a minister to omit the breaking of the bread at the Lord's table after the consecration and in the distribution of it, because he ought to follow the example of Christ, who, after he had blessed the bread, and when he was distributing it to them who were at table, brake it,(1257) _manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes_, but had it not carved in small pieces before it was brought to the table. Hence G. J.

Vossius(1258) doth rightly condemn those who, though they break the bread _in multas minutias_, yet they break it not _in actu sacramentali_. Such a breaking as this (he saith well) is not _mystica_, but _coquinaria_.

_Sect._ 3. The fifth position, drawn from the very same ground is, that it is not indifferent for a minister, in the act of distribution, to speak in the singular number, _Take thou, eat thou, drink thou_; because he should follow the example of Christ, who, in the distribution, spake in the plural number, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_; and he who followeth not Christ's example herein, by his speaking in the singular to one, he maketh that to be a private action betwixt himself and the communicant, which Christ made public and common by his speaking to all at one time.

_Sect._ 4. How idly Bishop Lindsey(1259) answereth to these things, it cannot but appear to every one who considereth that we do not challenge them for not breaking the bread at all,-for not p.r.o.nouncing at all these words, "This is my body," or for never p.r.o.nouncing at all these speeches in the plural, _Take ye, eat ye, drink ye_,-but for not breaking the bread in the very act of distribution,-for not p.r.o.nouncing demonstratively those words, "This is my body," in the very act of distribution,-for not speaking in the plural number, "Take ye," &c.-in the very act of distribution, as Christ did, having no other reasons to move him than such as concern us. Why, then, did not the Bishop say something to the point which we press him with? or shall we excuse him because he had nothing to say to it?

_Sect._ 5. Now, last of all, we find yet another point, whereby the Bishop(1260) departeth from the example and mind of Christ. He saith that, by the sacramental word, "This is my body," the bread is made the sacrament, &c.; and that without this word, &c., all our prayers and wishes should serve to no use. Where he will have the bread to be otherwise consecrated by us than it was consecrated by Christ; for that Christ did not consecrate the bread to be the sacrament of his body by those words, "This is my body," it is manifest, because the bread was consecrated before his p.r.o.nouncing of those words; or else what meaneth the blessing of it before he brake it? It was both blessed and broken, and he was also distributing it to the disciples, before ever he said, "This is my body." Beza saith, _Benedictionem expresse ad panis consecrationem et quidem singularem, refert; et omnes nostri referunt, consecrationem intelligentes, &c._ Pareus saith,(1261) _Qua ex communi cibo, in spiritualis alimoniae sacramentum trans.m.u.tetur._ Wherefore we must not think to sanctify the bread by this prescript word, "This is my body," but by prayer and thanksgiving, as Christ did. Our divines hold against the Papists,(1262) _Verba illa quoe in sacramento sunt consecrata, non esse paucula quoedam proscripta; sed praecipue verba orationis, quoe non sunt proescripta_; and that, "through use of the prayers of the church, there is a change in the elements."(1263) Dr Fulk objecteth(1264) against Gregory Martin, "Your popish church doth not either as the Greek liturgies, or as the churches in Ambrose and Augustine's time, for they hold that the elements are consecrated by prayer and thanksgiving." I know none who will speak with Bishop Lindsey in this point except Papists: yet Cornelius a Lapide could also say, _Eucharistia conficitur et conditur sacris precibus_.(1265)

_Sect._ 6. I say not that these words, "This is my body," have no use at all in making the bread to be a sacrament; but that which giveth us dislike is,

1. That the Bishop maketh not the word and prayer together, but the word alone, to sanctify the bread and wine. Now, if both the word and prayer be necessary to sanctify the creatures for the food of our bodies, 1 Tim. iv.

5, much more are they necessary to sanctify them for the food of our souls. _Neque enim solis domini verbis consecratio sit, sed etiam precibus._(1266) The fathers, saith Trelcatius,(1267) had not only respect to those five words, "For this is my body," _dum eucharistiam fieri dixerunt mystica precc, invocatione nominis divini, solemni benedictione, gratiarum actione._ 2. That he makes not the whole word of the inst.i.tution to sanctify the bread, but only that one sentence, "This is my body;"

whereas Christ's will is declared, and, consequently, the elements sanctified by the whole words of the inst.i.tution,(1268) "Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me,"

&c.

That he acknowledged not the bread, though sanctified by prayer, to be the sacrament, except that very word be p.r.o.nounced, "This is my body." Now, when a minister hath, from Christ's will and inst.i.tution, declared that he hath appointed bread and wine to be the elements of his body and blood, when he hath also declared the essential rites of this sacrament.

And, lastly, when, by the prayer of consecration, he hath sanctified the bread and wine which are present, put the case, that all this while those prescript sentences, "This is my body," "This cup is the New Testament in my blood," have not been p.r.o.nounced, yet what hindereth the bread and wine from being the sacramental elements of the Lord's body and blood? It is sounder divinity to say, that the consecration of a sacrament doth not depend _ex certa aliqua formula verborum_.(1269) For it is evident that, in baptism, there is not a certain form of words prescribed, as Bellarmine also proveth;(1270) because Christ saith not, "Say, I baptise thee in the name," &c.: so that he prescribeth not what should be done. Aquinas likewise holdeth,(1271) that the consecration of a sacrament is not absolutely tied to a certain form of words. And so saith Conradus Vorstius,(1272) speaking of the eucharist. Wherefore Vossius(1273) doth rightly condemn the Papists, _quod consecrationem non aliis verbis fieri putant, quam istis, hoc est corpus meum, et hic est sanguis meus_.

CHAPTER VIII.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE NOT THINGS INDIFFERENT TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; BECAUSE SHE DID ABJURE AND REPUDIATE THEM BY A MOST SOLEMN AND GENERAL OATH.

_Sect._ 1. Having spoken of the nature of things indifferent, and showed which things be such; also of the rule whereby to try the indifferency of things: which rule we have applied to certain particular cases;-it remaineth to say somewhat of the main and general purpose, which is princ.i.p.ally questioned in this last part of our dispute, viz., whether cross, kneeling, holidays, bishopping, and the other controverted ceremonies wherewith our church is pressed this day, be such things as we may use freely and indifferently? The negative (which we hold) is strongly confirmed by those arguments which, in the third part of this our dispute, we have put in order against the lawfulness of those ceremonies.

Notwithstanding we have thought fit to add somewhat more in this place.

And, first, we say, whatsoever be the condition of the ceremonies in their own nature, they cannot be indifferently embraced and used by the church of Scotland, which hath not only once cast them forth, but also given her great oath solemnly to the G.o.d of heaven, both witnessing her detestation of the Roman Antichrist's "five b.a.s.t.a.r.d sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments, without the word of G.o.d; all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the kirk, without or against the word of G.o.d;" and likewise "promising, and swearing to continue," as well "in the discipline and use of the holy sacraments," as "in the doctrine," of this reformed church of Scotland, which then first she embraced and used after she was truly reformed from Popery and popish abuses. And this which I say may be seen in the general Confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed by his Majesty's father, of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the several parochines in the land, at his Majesty's strait command; which also was renewed and sworn again, anno 1596, by the General a.s.sembly, by provincial a.s.semblies, by presbyteries and particular parish churches.

_Sect._ 2. No reformed church in Europe is so strictly tied by the bond of an oath and subscription, to hold fast her first discipline and use of the sacraments, and to hold out popish rites, as is the church of Scotland.

And who knoweth not that an oath doth always oblige and bind, _quando est factum de rebus certis et possibilibus, vere ac sine dolo praemeditate, ac c.u.m judicio, juste, ad gloriam Dei, et bonum proximi_?(1274) What one of all those conditions was here wanting? Can we then say any less than a pope said before us:(1275) _Non est tutum quemlibet contra juramentum suum venire, nisi tale sit, quod servatum vergat in interitum salutis aeternae_?

O d.a.m.nable impiety, which maketh so small account of the violation of the aforesaid oath, which hath as great power to bind us as that oath of the princes of Israel made to the Gibeonites, had to bind their posterity, 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2; for it was made by the whole incorporation of this land, and hath no term at which it may cease to bind. Nay (in some respects) it bindeth more straitly than that oath of the princes of Israel. For, 1.

That was made by the princes only; this by prince, pastors, and people: 2.

That was made rashly (for the text showeth that they asked not counsel from the mouth of the Lord); this with most religious and due deliberation: 3. That was made to men; this to the great G.o.d: 4. That sworn but once; this once and again.

_Sect._ 3. Some of our opposites go about to derogate somewhat from the binding power of that oath of the princes of Israel. They are so nettled therewith that they fitch hither and thither. Dr Forbesse(1276) speaketh to the purpose thus: _Juramentum Gibeonitis praest.i.tum contra ipsius Dei mandatum, et inconsulta Deo, non potuissent Josuae et Israelitae opere perficere nisi Deus, extraordinarie de suo mandato dispensa.s.set, compa.s.sione poenitentis illius populi Gibeonitei, et propter honorem sui nominis, ut neque foedifragorum fautor, neque supplicium paenitentium aspernator esse videretur._

_Ans._ 1. If the oath was against the commandment of G.o.d, what dishonour had come to the name of G.o.d though he had not patronised the swearers of it, but hindered them from fulfilling their oath? If a Christian swear to kill a pagan, and hereafter repent of his oath, and not perform it, can there any dishonour redound thereby to the name of Christ? The Doctor, forsooth, must say so.