Treatise of Miscellaneous Questions, Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
Of the use of a Table in the Lords Supper. And of the communicants their coming to, and receaving at the Table.
THat a Table ought to be so farre used, as that the Elements of bread and wine ought to be set upon it, is not (I think) controverted; but whether therebe so much light from Scripture, as that all the communicants ought to come to, and receave at the Table; This I conceave to be the question. For resolution whereof, I humbly offer these following considerations.
First of all it may easily appeare, that the first guests whom our Saviour intertained at this Sacrament of his body and bloud, receaved at the Table. Chrisostome de proditione Iudae, Serm. 30. Comparing the Eucharisticall supper with the passeover, saith, that both of them was celebrated, foreign at or on the very same Table. The common Supper, the Paschall and the Eucharisticall were all at the Table, Luke 22. 21. But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with mee on the table. John 13. 28. Now no man at the Table knew, &c. Which Texts I do not understand of the Lords Supper (as some do) but of the common Supper. But I suppose no man did ever imagine, that the Apostles being before set at the Table, did remove from it when they were to receave the Lords Table. Peradventure it will be replyed (for so it hath been replyed by some) that the first Communicants their sitting and receaving at the Table, was occasionall, in respect that they had been sitting before at the common and at the Paschal supper, so that in this particular, we are no more bound to follow Christs example, then in the other occasionall cicumstances, the upper chamber, unleavened bread, after supper, &c. Beside, Christ had but twelve communicants, unto whom he was to give the Sacrament, and so might conveniently make them all sit at the table, which now in many Churches cannot conveniently be done. Finally, that it is as great a deviation from Christs example to have divers successive tables, without which innumerous Congregations, all the communicants cannot receave at the table.
I answer. 1. 'Tis gratis dictum, that sitting at the Table was occasionall, or such as hath not a standing, but a temporary reason for it, and there is this reason to the contrary: occasionall circumstances in that action, which are not to be imitated by us, were such as Christ was limited unto by the law, or by the providence of God, so that therein he was not left at a liberty or latitude to choose to doe otherwise. For instance, it was not allowed by the Law to have any other bread in Ierusalem, during the feast of passeover, but unleavened bread onelyonly. The upper room was the place assigned by the Master of the house, God so ordering. After supper it must be, because it must succeed to the passeover, being also the Testament, or latter will of Jesus Christ. There was also a providentiall limitation, to such and so many communicants, that is, not exceeding the number which was allowed to eat the passeover together. Let some such reason be brought to prove that sitting at table, was occasionall, else let it not be called so. Sure if Christ had not thought it fittest, and choosed it as the best way, that his Disciples should receave his last Supper at the table, it was free to him to have changed their posture without encroachment upon any law of Moses, or upon any providentiall limitation. Secondly, I am herein the more confirmed, because Christ himself, as it were on purpose to shew, that the sitting and receaving at Table was not occasionall, but such a thing as he meant to commend unto us for our imitation, he gives this standing and permanent reason for it, that it is a peice of honour that he will have put upon those whom he inviteth, calleth, and alloweth to eat and drink with him, Luke 22. 27. for whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat?
This at meat is not in the Originall, where wee finde onelyonly foreign, he that sitteth, wee may aswell and better supply at table, from vers: 21. adde vers: 30. That yee may (here I supply from vers: 27. and Matth. 8. 11. Sit downe and) eat and drinke at my table in my Kingdome, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Here is an honour of Communion, and an honour of Iurisdiction: The honour of Communion, is to eat and drink at his Table in his Kingdome, and this honour (signified by their sitting, eating and drinking at his table in his last Supper) he puts upon them as beleeving communicants, so that it belongs to all such. There is another honour joyned with a speciall judiciall prerogative, to sit on Thrones, and judge the twelve Tribes of Israel, and herein there is somewhat meant peculiarly of the Apostles, which is notwithstanding mentioned else were in a different phrase, as a Prerogative of all the Saints, 1 Cor: 6. 2. Thirdly, it cannot be denyed, but that the first communicants who receaved from Christ, might with more ease and conveniency be placed at the table, then can bee now in many Churches, which have been accustomed to another way. But we must not bring down our rule to our conveniences, rather bring up our conveniencies to our rule. It is no hard matter to alter pewes and such like things in Churches, where the present posture is inconsistent with following the patterne: and a lesse alteration will serve then is apprehended. Fourthly, the flux and reflux (so to speak) of severall successive tables, where there is a great number to communicat, and the repeating, or pronouncing, and applying to those severall tables of receavers, the words, Take ye, eat ye, which Christ pronounced but once in one act of distribution, these things (I say) cannot be justly charged as deviations from the example of Christ, when the same providence which limited him to a fewer number, calls us to distribute to a great number: Neither can they who so charge us, ever make good what they alledge, unlesse they prove that although Christ had been distributing this Sacrament to all the 500. Disciples, to whom hee appeared after his resurrection (suppose I say, there had been so many communicants) yet he had given them all at once the elements, and had said but once, Take ye, eat yee, and that there had been no intermission at all, nor no partition into severall successive Companies. If this can be proved, then they say much against the use of successive Tables, otherwise not. Fifthly, our dissenting brethren of the Independent way, who dislike our severall and successive tables in one Congregation, as a dividing of those who ought to communicat all together, (for they would have none of the Communicants receave the cup, before all of the Congregation who communicat, have receaved the bread) these brethren, I say, may satisfie themselves from their owne principles; For they hold, that although a Congregation encrease so much, as that they cannot, or be so persecuted, that they may not meet safely in one place, for the Word and Sacraments, and supposing the Church of Ierusalem before the dispersion, Acts 8. 1. to have been so numerous, and to have accressed to so many thousands, as could not receave the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, nor ordinarily assemble into one place for the Worship of God, (that they receaved the Lords Supper in severall companies, and severall houses, is ordinarily collected from Acts 2. 46. and breaking bread from house to house, which the Syriak expoundeth expressely of the Eucharist.) Yet all this (say they) breaks not the Church, but they are still one particular Church. Now if severall companies of the same Church assembled, and receaving the Lords Supper in severall places, be not a breaking or dividing of the Congregation, nor a deviation from the example of Christ, much lesse can they with any reason, charge our communicating by severall companies at successive tables, in the same meeting place or Assembly, to be a breaking of the Congregation, or a deviation from Christs example. If one of their Congregations may receave the Sacrament in severall houses, when (by reason of numerousnesse) they cannot all receave it together in one house, I cannot conceive why they may not much more allow us severall successive tables in the Assembly, when the whole cannot communicat at one table, so much for my first argument taken from Christs example.
The second Argument, I shall take from the generall notion and nature of the Lords Supper, as it is epulum, a banquet or feast. As those things which are competent to every humane society, or lawfull Assembly, are also competent to the Church and people of God; And that which every speaker which speaks in any publik audience ought to doe, the same ought a preacher who speaks to the Church, doe (for instance the posture of his body, and the extension of his voice, ought to be such as he may be best seen and heard) so likewise those things that are competent, and convenient to every feast or banquet, ought not to be wanting in the Lords Supper, which is the marriage feast of the Kings sonne, Matth: 22. 2, 3. a great Supper, Luke 14. 16. the Feast, 1 Cor. 5. 8. Prov. 9. 2. Cant: 5. 1. whatsoever is more meant in these Texts, sure the Lords Supper is one thing, and a principall thing which is intended. The Lords Supper is not onelyonly a feast, but a type, and representation of the Everlasting feast and communion with Christ in glory, Luke 14. 15. Rev. 19. 9. 'Tis true the marrow and fatnesse, the substance and sweetnesse of this feast in the Lords-Supper, lies in the spirituall and invisible part, yet (as Irenaeus said) a Sacrament consists of two parts, one earthly and visible, another heavenly and invisible, so that in the very externall part, although there is that which may difference it from a carnall feast, yet there is that which hath a resemblance of a feast, viz. the eating and drinking of many together in a publick place, a table covered, comely vessels, &c. Otherwise if in the externall dispensation, there were no resemblance of a feast, then we should take away the Analogy betwixt the signe and the thing signified. Now among other things which are suteable to every feast or banquet, even ex more recepto apud omnes gentes, one is, that the guests come to, and sit at the Table; which by the very light of nature, and generall consent of the Nations, is a token of respect, dignity, and honour put upon the guests. As likewise of friendship and commaradship, or sodalitium. Thence the Greek proverbe foreign, not to violat the salt and table. i.e. friendship, whereof eating at one table was a symbole. Thence also that Plautin phrase, communicabo te semper mensa mea. It is aggravation of falshood, and treachery they shall speak lies at one Table, that is, under a profession and signe of friendship, Dan. 11. 27. When David said to Mephibosheth, thou shalt eat bread at my table continually, 2 Sam: 9. 7. doe wee think that David meant no more, but that Mephibosheth should eat of the Kings meat, and be maintained by his favour? Nay Mephibosheths servant had so much. But there is an Emphasis put upon eating at the Kings table, more then upon eating of the Kings meat: So the King expoundeth himselfe, vers: 11. As for Mephibosheth said the King, he shall eat at my Table, as one of the Kings Sonnes, so also doth Mephibosheth interpret it, 2 Sam, 19. 28. Another example (though perhaps it rise not so high) see 1 Kings 2. 7. But shew kindnesse to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy Table. It was an argument of Iezebels favour to the Prophets of the groves, that they did eat at her Table, 1 Kings 18. 19. So did Nehemiah, expresse his friendship, to the 150 Jewes and Rulers who did eat at his Table, Neh. 5. 17. Peradventure in the two last examples, there were some successive (at least severall Tables:) However, eating at any mans Table was ever a Symbole of friendship with him. Wherefore looking upon the Lords Supper as a feast or a great Supper made by the great King, it ought not to be without this friendly respect, dignation, and honour, which hath been universally among the Nations signified and expressed by placeing the guests at the Table. And I can esteem it no lesse then an erring toto genere, when the order and decency, which is universally observed in all other feasts, (as such, that is, not as lavish, excessive, disorderly, but as feasts) is not observed in the Church-feast, the Lords Supper. When the old Prophet did invite the young Prophet to eat bread, and drink water with him, common civility made a table necessary in this single intertainment. 1 Kings 13. 20. And it came to passe as they sat at the Table, &c. If it were a disrespect to invite friends to eat & drink with us, & yet when they come, not to place them at a Table (where a Table may be had) I know no reason why it ought not also to be conceived a wronging of Christs guests, when they are not placed at his Table.
Thirdly, I argue from the name Table, which the Apostle makes use of in this Ordinance. 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the Table of devills. The table of Divells was that which they did sit at, and eat at, in the Idols temple, 1 Cor. 8 10. The Lords Table was that which they did sit at, and eat at in the Church, and in those times (to note thatVide. H. Grotii annot. in Matth. 26. 25. by the way) they did eat their love feasts before the Lords Supper in imitation of Christ, who had the Sacrament after Supper, which doth to me put it the more out of doubt, that those primitive Christians received the Lords Supper at the Table. The name table is also used (not without respect to the Lords Supper) Prov. 9. 2. Wisedome hath killed her beasts (or according to the Hebrew, her killing… She hath mingled her wine, she hath also furnished her Table, where there is another distinct Emphasis upon the furnishing of her Table, beside the preparing of meat and drink. Again Cant: 1. 12. while the King sitteth at his Table, my Spiknard sendeth foorth the smell thereof. It appear… by this smell that she was also at Table with the King: for the words intimat that, when the Church is nearest to Christ, even sitting at Table with him, then her graces send foorth the most pleasant smell, and then doth Christ sup with the Church upon her graces, als well as she with him upon his mercies and comforts, so that here is a mutuall intertainment and communion In that Evangelicall vision of Ezekiel concerning the second house, which is the Church of Christ, there is also mention of a Table and of comming to it, Ezek. 44. 16. & they shall come near to my Table. It hath been alledged by some, that the name table is but figurative when the Scriprure useth it in reference to the Sacrament, & that to partake of the Lords table is no more but to partake of the body and blood of the Lord. So Psalme 78. 19. Can GOD furnish a Table in the wildernesse i. e. give us flesh. To this I answere, when the Name Table is used for meat and drink, this very use of the word doth not exclude but plainly suppose a materiall Table, at which men use to eat and drink, and so a Table is used promensâ dapibus instructâ, so foreign, secundae mensae: Auferre mens as, or the like, though not meant of the wooden table, yet do suppose the wooden Table. I do not doubt, but they in the wildernesse lusted after a perfect furnisht Table, and not meerly after flesh, though that was the cheife thing they desired▪ and I make als little question, but there were both Tables and beds in the wildernesse, such as might be had, and such as Armies use when they encampe and pitch their Tents. But I ask, ought there to be a materiall Table in the Lords Supper, or ought there not, or is it indifferent? I never yet read it, or heard it doubted by any, but there ought to be a materiall Table. All that have been zealous for throwing down Altars, would yet have a Table. If so, by vertue of what warrant ought there to be a Table, and for what use? First by vertue of what warrant? Is it by vertue of Christs example, or any other Scripturall warrant; or is it because of a naturall conveniency and decency? If by a Scripturall warrant, I have what I desire. The same Scripturall warrant which will prove that there ought to be a Table, will also prove that the Communicants ought to come to it, and communicat together at it. For the Scripture alloweth not a greater honour to be put upon some Communicants, that they eat of the Kings meat, and at the Kings Table too, and a lesser honour to be put upon other communicants, that they eat of the Kings meat, but not at the Kings Table. If it be said, that a materiall Table hath not its rise from any scripturall warrant, but from naturall conveniency or decency, then it shall be no trespasse against the word of God, to have no materiall Table at all, otherwise then as a naturall indecency. And beside, I still urge the same argument which I was even now hinting, be it by vertue of a scripturall warrant, or be it by vertue of a naturall conveniency, the argument is the same, how ever▪ all the communicants should come to it, or none at all, for if some come to the Table, and some come not, this is not agreeable to that foreign, or equall honour and dignation, which all the communicants ought to have. Naturall decency a's well as Scripturall warrants are of equall concernment to all the communicants. The second Quaere was, for what end and use ought there to be a materiall table? Is it meerly to be a cupboard for holding the vessels and cups which containe the Elements, and that the Minister may cary them from the Table to those who are to receive? Then it is no Table, for foreign is a Table which we dine or sup at, no by-boord for holding things which servants are to present unto those who sit at the Table. What then? Is the Table of the Lord in the new Testament intended for the same end and use as the Table of the Lord in the old Testament, Mal: 1. 7. The table of the Lord is centemptible? If so, then we make the Table an Altar, and the Sacrament a sacrifice. For the Sacrifice was Gods meat eaten up by fire from Heaven, and the Altar Gods Table, because it contained his meat. But now the Table of the Lord must have another sense in the new Testament; the Lords Supper being no sacrifice, but epulum ex oblatis, a feast upon the body and blood of Christ offered upon the crosse for us. Of this nature of the Lords Supper, Mr Cudworth hath learnedly discoursed in a Treatise printed Anno 1642. I conclude the Table which we speak of, is not for a sacrifice, but for a Sacrament, for a feast, for meat which God offers to us not wee to him. Therefore we ought to come unto the Table of the Lord to receive the mysticall food in the Sacrament, als well as we come to our ordinary Table for our ordinary food. Otherwise what ever use we may devise for a Table in the Sacrament, sure it serves not for the use of a table, at least not to all the Communicants.
Fourthly, I offer also this argument. The comming to and receiving at the Table serveth to set foorth the communion of Saints with Christ and among themselves, which is a principall thing intended in this Sacrament, and without such a symbole as I now plead for, is not plainly and clearly set foorth in this Ordinance. To eat in the same house, and of the same meat, is nothing near such a signe of fellowship or communion, as to eat at the same Table. This difference is noted between Martha and Lazarus, Ioh. 12. 2. when they made a supper to Jesus in Bethany, Martha served, but Lazarus was one of them who sate at the Table with him. Lazarus therefore had more fellowship with Christ at that time. Peter Martyr on 1 Cor: 10. noteth out of Chrysostome that communicare doth imply sodalitium, and is more then participare, to communicat is more then to partake, for one may partake of the same bread, who doth not communicat in the same bread. Hee ha eateth of the same thing, but not at the same Table, cannot be altogether or properly called foreign, or, foreign. you shame them that have not, (or them that are poore) saith the Apostle. What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Cor: 11: 22. So say I those that receive the Sacrament in their Pewes, shame the poor that have no Pewes, wherein they are not to be praised. Sure it were more cōmunion like to sit & receive at one Table. It is the most suteable & significant setting foorth of the communion of Saints, when the children of God are like Olive plants round about his Table, Psal: 128. 3. Therefore the Apostle having mentioned our partaking of one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 17. addeth verse 21. our partaking of one Table, which is the Lords Table. When Communicants come not to the Table, but abide in their Pewes, some here, some there, this is indeed a dividing of the congregation in varias partes partiumque particulas: Neither can they be said to divide the cup amongst themselves, (which by the institution they ought to doe in testimony of their communion) when they are not within reach, yea oftentimes not within sight of one another. There is nothing like a dividing it amongst themselves, where they come not to the Table, and there give the cup each to other. I know some have scrupled whether our Saviours words, Luke 22. 17. Take this and divide it amongst your selves; be meant of the Eucharisticall cup, or of the Paschall. But they goe upon surer reasons who put it out of question, that it is meant of the Eucharisticall cup (which is there mentioned by Luke by way of Anticipation, I shall for the present give but this reason, which I know hath satisfied some who were of another opinion (although much more might be said) that which Luke recordeth to have been spoken by Christ concerning that cup, which he bade them divide amongst themselves, the very same doe Matthew and Mark record to have been spoken by him, concerning the Eucharisticall cup, which was drunk last of all, and after the Paschall supper, viz. That thencefoorth he would not drink of the fruit of the Vine untill he should drink it in the Kingdome of God, which doth not hold true if understood of the Paschall cup, therefore those other Evangelists plainly apply it to the Eucharisticall cup, and there withall they close the historie of the Sacrament, adding only that a hymne was sung, Math: 26. 27, 28, 29. Mark, 14. 23, 24, 25. with Luke 22. 17, 18. And if notwithstanding some will not be perswaded that the words, divide it amongst your selves, were meant of the Eucharisticall cup, as I am confident they are in a mistake, so I hope they will at last yeeld this argument, a fortiori. If there was such a symbole of communion in the Pascall cup, that the receivers were to divide it amongst themselves, sure this ought to have place much more in the Eucharisticall cup, for the Lords supper doth more clearly and fully set forth the communion of Saints, then the Passeover did.
The fifth Argument I shall draw from the words which Christ used in the distribution, Take ye, eat ye, this is my body which is broken for you, and of the cup, Drink ye all of it. The institution is our rule and patterne, and tis high presumption for any man to be wiser than the Sonne of God, or to speak to the communicants individually in the distribution, Take thou, eat thou, This is the Lords body broken for thee, &c. When Christ thought fit in the distribution to speak in the plurall, Take yee, eat ye, &c. 'Tis no answer to say, that the words, Take ye, eat yee, &c. are used in the consecration, for then they are but related Historically. Here is the strength of the Argument, Christ spoke so in the act of distribution, and by way of application to the Communicants in a demonstrative enunciation, therefore so should we. But now this cannot be, where the communicants do not receave at the Table, but in their severall Pewes: This very thing hath occasioned the change of the words of the institution, from the plurall to the singular.
Sixthly, we have some light from antiquity also in this particular, for which purpose there are some notable passages in Chrysostome, tom: 5. de Divers. Nov. Test. locis. Ser: 21. where opening these abuses in the matter of love-feasts, reproved in the Corinthians, who joyned together with these the Sacrament, 1 Cor: 11. this he much insists upon as a principall abuse, that they did eat foreign by themselves, or severally: and foreign, the table is not made Common, for the rich did eat by themselves, not together with the poore. Christ did not so with his Disciples in his last Supper, foreign. For in that Supper, both the Master and all the servants sate together. Chrysostome sheweth further from the Churches custome and forme observed in the administration of the Lords Supper, how justly the Apostle challengeth that abuse in the love feasts. For in the Lords-Supper all approach unto, and receave at the same table For, saith he, that spirituall and holy Table is common to all, both rich and poore—foreign, there is the same honour, the same accesse and approach for all. foreign foreign. And untill all doe partake of this spirituall and holy Table, the things which are set upon the Table, are not taken away, but all the Priests, (or Ministers) stand expecting even him who is the poorest, or smallest of all. So that according to this form and custome which he holdeth forth unto us, the Ministers did not goe about with the Elements unto the severall pewes of the Communicants, but they stood still at the table, and all the Communicants, both poore and rich come to the Table.