Against Kneeling in Receiving the Lord’s Supper

.

Order of Contents

Articles
Books
Quotes

.

.

Articles

1600’s

Bradshaw, William – A Proposition Concerning Kneeling in the Very Act of Receiving…  (1605)  29 pp.

Calderwood, David

ch. 1, ‘Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine Proved Unlawful’  in Perth Assembly...  ([Leiden, 1619])

2nd Part, ‘Concerning the Unlawfulness of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving, etc.’, chs. 1-3 & 4-5  of ‘Of the Communicants’ Gesture in the Act of Receiving, Easting & Drinking’  in A Re-Examination of the Five Articles Enacted at Perth, Anno 1618…  ([Holland?] 1636)  The first part defends sitting at Communion.

Rutherford, Samuel – The Divine Right of Church Government...  (1646)

Ch. 1, Question 5, ‘Whether the Ceremonies, Especially Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament, be Guilty of Idolatry?’, pp. 144-192

Ch. 2, Question 1, ‘Whether Kneeling or Sitting be the Most Convenient & Lawful Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament of Christ’s Body & Blood?’, pp. 192-201

.

.

Books

Calderwood, David

A Solution of Doctor Resolutus, his Resolutions for Kneeling  ([Amsterdam] 1619)  55 pp.  See especially chs. 3 & 4.

A Defence of our Arguments Against Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine Impugned by Mr. Michelsone  (Amsterdam, 1620)  75 pp.

Ames, William – A Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent [Noxious] Ceremonies viz. the Surplice, Cross in Baptism & Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine  (Amsterdam, 1622)

Ames (1576–1633) was stripped of his ecclesiastical functions and degrees at Cambridge in England for disapproving and criticizing the Anglican ceremonies.  In 1622, the year of this work, Ames was installed as a theological professor at Franeker, Netherlands.

Ames’s work is a reply to part 1 of Thomas Morton, A Defence of the Innocency of the Three Ceremonies of the Church of England…  (Amsterdam, 1622).  Morton’s part 1 involves general arguments for the ceremonies and replies to the general, critical arguments of the puritan dissenters; hence, Ames’s response, going section by section through Morton’s work, addresses the ceremonies generally.  Morton’s part 2 treats of each of the three ceremonies particularly in three chapters, with the third chapter defending kneeling at communion.

.

.

Quotes

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies  (1637), pt. 2

ch. 2, p. 14

Paybody thinks kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion to be expedient for the reverend using and handling of that holy sacrament, and that much reverence arises to the sacrament from it.

Answer:  I verily believe that more reverence arises to the sacrament from kneeling than is due to it, but I am sure there is no less true reverence of that holy sacrament among such as kneel not in the receiving of it than among such as do kneel.  I hope it is not unknown how humbly and reverently many sincere Christians, with feare and trembling, do address themselves to that most holy sacrament, who yet for all the world, would not kneel in receiving it.  Thus we see that these expediencies pretended for the ceremonies are attained unto as well and better without them, than by them.”

.

ch. 9

p. 44

“The Dr. holds him upon kneeling in receiving the sacramental elements, and denies that it is scandalous or any way inductive to spiritual ruin.  But (if he will) he may consider that the ruder sort who can not distinguish betwixt worshipping the bread and worshipping before the bread, nor discern how to make Christ the passive object of that worship and the bread the active, and how to worship Christ in the Bread, and make the worship relative from the bread to Christ; are by his example induced to bread-worship, when they perceive bowing down before the consecrated bread in the very same form and fashion wherein Papists are seen to worship it, but can not conceive the nice distinctions which he and his companions use to purge their kneeling in that act from idolatry.

As for others who have more knowledge, they are also induced to ruin, being animated by his example to do that which their consciences do condemn.”

.

p. 47

“…It is false which he [Thomas Hooker, an Anglican] says, for kneeling in receiving the Communion is in its own nature evil and idolatrous, because religious adoration, before a mere creature, which purposly we set before us in the act of adoring, to have state in the worship, especially if it be an actual image in that act representing Christ to us (such as the bread in the act of receiving), draws us within the compass of co-adoration, or relative worship, as shall be copiously proven afterwards.”

.

.

Related Pages