Chapter 19: Communion

Communion. Sect. 26.

In the next Section, entituled Table, our Author seems to have lost more of the moderation that he pretends to, and to have put a keener edge upon his spirit, than in any of those fore-going; and from there it is, that he falls out into some more open revilings, and flourishes of a kind of a Dispute, than elsewhere. In the entrance of his discourse, speaking of the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by Protestants, wherein the Laity are also made partakers of the blessed Cup, according to the Institution of our Savior, the practice of the Apostles and the Universal Primitive Church; this civil Gentleman who complains of unhandsome and unmannerly dealings, of others in their writings, compares it to a treatment at my Lord Mayor's Feast, adding scornfully enough, For who would not have drink to their meat? And what reason can be given, that they should not? Or that a feast with Wine should not, caeteris paribus, be better than without. If he suppose, he shall be able to scoff the Institutions of Christ out of the world, and to laugh men out of their obedience to Him, I hope, he will find himself mistaken, which is all, I shall at present say to him; only, I would advise him to leave for the future such unseemly taunts, lest he should provoke some angry men to return expressions of the like contempt and scorn, upon the transubstantiated Host, which he not only fancies, but adores.

From hence he pretends to proceed to disputing; but being accustomed to a loose rhetorical sophistry, he is not able to take one smooth step towards the true stating of the matter he is to speak to, though he says, he will argue in his plain manner, that is, a manner plainly his, loose, in concluding, sophistical. The plain story is this, Christ instituting his blessed Supper, appointed bread and wine, to be blessed and delivered to them that he invites and admits to it: of the effect of the blessing of these elements of bread and wine, whether it be a transubstantiation of them into the body and blood of Christ, to be corporeally eaten; or a consecration of them into such signs and symbols, as in and by the use thereof, we are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, feeding really on him by faith, is not at all now under dispute. Of the bread and cup so blessed, according to the appointment of Christ, the priests with the Romanists only do partake, the people of the bread only. This exclusion of the people from a participation of the cup, Protestants aver to be contrary to the institution of Christ, practice of the Apostles, nature of the sacrament, constant usage of them in the Primitive Church, and so consequently highly injurious to the sheep of Christ, whom he has bought with the price of his blood, exhibited in that cup to them. Instead of arguing plainly, as he promised to do, in justification of this practice of the Church of Rome, he tells us of the wine they give their people after they have received the body; which he knows to be in their own esteem, a little common drink to wash their mouths, that no crumbs of their wafer should stick by the way. What he adds, of Protestants not believing, that the consecrated wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ, (which is not the matter by himself proposed to debate), of the priest's using both bread and wine in the sacrifice, (though he communicates not both to the people,) when the priest's delivering of the cup, is no part of the sacrifice, but of the communion, besides he knows, that he speaks to Protestants, and so should not have pleaded his fictitious sacrifice, which, as distinct from the communion, Paul speaks of (1 Corinthians 11), neither do they acknowledge, nor can he prove it very vain, yet with these empty flourishes, it is incredible, how he triumphs over Protestants, for charging the Romanists with excluding the people from the use of the cup in the sacrament; when yet it is certain, they do so, nor can he deny it. Yes, but Protestants should not say so, seeing they believe not in transubstantiation. They believe every word, that Christ or his Apostles have delivered, concerning the nature and use of the sacrament, and all that the Primitive Church taught about it; if this will not enable them to say, the Romanists do that, which all the world knows they do, and which they will not deny but that they do, unless they believe in transubstantiation also; they are dealt withal on more severe terms, than I think our author is authorized to put upon them. But, it seems, the advantage lies so much in this matter on the Roman Catholics' side, that the Protestants may be for ever silent about it; and why so? Why Catholics do really partake of the animated and living body of their Redeemer; this ought to be done, to the end we may have life in us, and yet Protestants do it not. Who told you so? Protestants partake of his body and his blood too, which Papists do not; and that really and truly. Again; Catholics have it continually sacrificed before their eyes and the very death and effusion of their Lord's blood prefigured and set before them, for faith to feed upon: This Protestants have not. I think the man is mistaken; and that he intended to say the Catholics have not, and to place Protestants in the beginning of the sentence; for it is certain, that this is the very doctrine of the Protestants concerning this sacrament. They have in it the sacrifice of Christ before their eyes, and the death and effusion of his blood, figured, (for how that should be prefigured which is past, I know not) and set forth for faith to feed upon; this they say, this they teach, and believe; when I know not how Catholics can have any thing figured to them, nothing being the sign of its self; nor is it the feeding of faith, but of the mouth, that they are solicitous about. But this, says he, they do not; though he had not spoken of any doing before, which is an old last that we have been now well used to; and, yet this, says he, ought to be done: For so our Lord commanded, when he said to his Apostles, Hoc facite, This do you, which you have seen me to do, and in that manner you see me do it; exercising before your eye my priestly function according to the order of Melchisedech, with which power I do also invest you, and appoint you to do the like, even to the consummation of the world, in commemoration of my death and passion, exhibiting and showing forth your Lord's death until he come. This Protestants do not, and we are mad-angry, that the Papist does what his Redeemer enjoined him. I fear, his readers, which shall consider this odd medley, will begin to think, that they are not only Protestants who use to be mad-angry. This kind of writing argues, I will not say, both madness and anger, but one of them it does seem plainly to do. For, setting aside a far-fetched false notion or two about Melchisedech, and the doctrine of the sacrament here expressed, is that which the Pope with fire and sword has labored to exterminate out of the world, burning hundreds (I think) in England for believing, that our Lord, instituting his blessed Supper, commanded his Apostles to do the same that he then did, and in the same manner, even to the consummation of the world, in the commemoration of his death, and passion, exhibiting and showing forth their Lord's death until he come; a man would suppose, that he had taken these words out of the liturgy of the Church of England; for therein are they expressly found; and why then have not Protestants that which he speaks of. Yes, but Christ did this in the exercise of his priestly function, and with the same power of priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech, invested his Apostles. Both these may be granted, and the Protestants' doctrine, and faith, concerning this sacrament not at all impeached; but the truth is, they are both false. The Lord Christ exercised indeed his priestly function, when on the cross he offered himself to God through the eternal Spirit a sacrifice for the sins of the world; but it was by virtue of his kingly and prophetical power that he instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, and taught his disciples the use of it, commanding its observation in all his churches to the end of the world. And as for any others, being made priests after the order of Melchisedech, besides himself alone, it is a figment so expressly contrary to the words and reasoning of the Apostle, that I wonder any man not mad or angry, could once entertain any approving thoughts of it. That our author may no more mistake in this matter, I desire he would give me leave to inform him, that setting aside his proper sacrificing of the Son of God, and his hideous figment of transubstantiation, both utter strangers to the Scripture and antiquity, there is nothing can by him be named, concerning this sacrament as to its honor or efficacy, but it is all admitted by Protestants.

He pretends, after this loose harangue, to speak to the thing itself; and tells us, that the consecrated chalice is not ordinarily given to people by the Priest in private communion; as though in some cases, it were given among them to the body of the people, or that they had some public communion wherein it was ordinarily so given; both which he knows to be untrue. So impossible it seems for him to speak plainly and directly to what he treats on. But it is a thing which has need of these artifices; if one falsity be not covered with another, it will quickly rain through all. However, he tells us, that they should do so, is neither expedient nor necessary as to any effects of the Sacrament. I wish, for his own sake, some course might be found to take him off this confidence of setting himself against the Apostles, and the whole primitive Church at once; that he might apprehend the task too difficult for him to undertake, and meddle with it no more. All expediency in the administration of this great ordinance, and all the effects of it, depend solely on the institution and blessing of Christ. If he have appointed the use of both elements, what are we, poor worms, that we should come, now in the end of the world, and say, the use of one of them is not expedient nor necessary to any effects of communion? Are we wiser than he? Have we more care of his Church than he had? Or, do we think, that it becomes us thus arbitrarily to choose, and refuse in the institutions of our Lord and Master? What is it to us, what cavils soever men can lay, that it is not necessary in the way of Protestants, nor in the way of Catholics; we know it is necessary in the way of Christ. And if either Protestants or Catholics leave that way, for me they shall walk in their own ways by themselves. But why is it not necessary in the way of Protestants? Because they place the effect of the communion in the operation of faith, and therefore, according to them, one kind is enough; no, if we have neither kind, there is no loss but of a ceremony, which may be well enough supplied at our ordinary tables. This is pretty logic, which, it seems, our Author learned out of Smith and Seaton. Protestants generally think, that men see with their eyes; and yet they think the light of the Sun necessary to the exercising of their sight; and though they believe, that all saving effects of the Sacrament depend on the operation of faith, (and Catholics do so too, at least, I am sure, they say so;) yet they believe also, that the Sacrament, which Christ appointed, and the use of it, as by him appointed, is necessary in its own kind, for the producing of those effects. These things destroy not, but mutually assist one another, working effectually in their several kinds to the same end and purpose. Nor can there be any operation of faith, as to the special end of the Sacrament, without the administration of it, according to the mind and will of Christ. Besides, Protestants know, that the frequent distinct proposals in the Scripture of the benefits of the death of Christ, as arising sometimes from the suffering of the body, sometimes from the effusion of the blood of their Savior, leads them to such a distinct acting of faith upon him, and receiving of him, as must needs be hindered and disturbed in the administration of the Sacrament under one kind; especially, if that symbol be taken from them, which is peculiarly called his Testament, and that blood wherewith his covenant with them, was sealed. So that, according to the principles of the Protestants, the participation of the Cup is of an indispensable necessity to them that intend to use that ordinance to their benefit and comfort; and what he adds, about drinking at our ordinary tables; because we are now speaking plainly, I must needs tell him, is a profane piece of scurrility, which he may do well to abstain from for the future. What is, or is not necessary, according to their Catholic doctrine, we shall not trouble ourselves, knowing that which is so called by him, to be very far from being truly Catholic; the Romanists' doctrine of concomitancy, being a late figment to countenance their spoiling the people of the legacy of Christ, unknown to antiquity, and contrary to Scripture, and enervating the doctrine of the death of Christ, whose most precious blood was truly separated from his body, the benefit of which separation is exhibited to us in the Sacrament, by himself appointed to represent it; we neither believe nor value.

As the necessity of it is denied, so also, that there is any precept for it; what think you then of [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉]; drink you all of it; that is, this Cup: they think this to be a precept to be observed towards all those who come to this Supper. What Christ did, that he commanded his Apostles to do; he gives the Cup to all that were present at his Supper, and commands them all to drink of it; why, I pray, are they not to do so? Why is not this part of his command as obligatory to them, as any others? Alas, they were the Priests that were present, all lay people were excluded; not one was excluded from the Cup that was there at any part of the ordinance. What, if they were all Priests, that were there, as no one of them was, was the Supper administered to them as Priests, or as Disciples? Or is there any color or pretence, to say, that one kind was given to them as Priests, another as Disciples; Dic aliquem, dic, Quintiliane, colorem. Was not the whole Church of Christ represented by them? Is not the command equal to all? No, as if on purpose to obviate this sacrilegious figment, is not this word (Drink you all of this), added emphatically, above what is spoken of the other kind? Many strange things there are, which these gentlemen would have us believe about this Sacrament; but none of them of a more incredible nature than this, that when Christ says to all his communicants, Drink you all of this, and commands them to do the same that he did, his meaning was, that we should say, Drink you none of this. They had need, not of a Spatula linguae, to let such things as those down our throats, but a bed-staff to cram them down, or they will choke us in the swallowing; and, I am sure, will not well digest, when received. He must have an iron stomach, that can concoct such crude morsels.

But if this will not do, he would fain have us grant, that the whole manner of giving the Communion to the laity, whether under one, or both kinds, is left to the disposition of the Church; I tell you truly, I should have thought so too, had not Christ and his Apostles before-hand determined it: but as the case stands, it is left so much to the disposition of the Church, whether the blessed Cup shall be administered to the people, as it is, whether we shall have any Sacraments or no, and not one jot more. And let not our Author flatter himself, that it was a pre-conceived opinion of the arbitrariness of this business, that made men scruple it no more in former ages, when the Cup was first taken from them. They scrupled it, until you had roasted some of them in the fire, and shed the blood of multitudes by the Sword, which was the old way of satisfying scruples.

At length our Author ventures on Saint Paul, and hopes, if he can satisfy him he shall do well enough; and tells us, this indifferent use of Communion among the ancient Christians in either kind, sometimes the one, sometimes the other, sometimes both, is enough to verify that of Saint Paul, We are all partakers of one Bread and of one Cup. But what is this indifferent use, and who are these ancient Christians he tells us of? Neither is the use of one or of both indifferent among the Papists, nor did the ancient Christians know any thing at all of this business of depriving the people of the Cup; which is but a by-blow of Transubstantiation. He knows they knew nothing of it, whatever he pretends. Neither does the Apostle Paul say nakedly, and only, that We are all partakers of one Bread and one Cup; but, instructing the whole Church of Corinth in the right use of the Lord's Supper, he calls to mind what he had formerly taught them, as to the celebration of it; and this he tells them was the imitation of the Lord himself, according as he had received it in command from him, to give the blessed Bread and Cup to all the Communicants. This he lays down as the Institution of Christ; this he calls them to the right use and practice of; telling the whole Church, that as often as they eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, (not eat the Bread without the Cup) they do show forth the Lord's Death until he come. And therefore does he teach them how to perform their duty herein, in a due manner: Ver. 28. Let, says he, a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. Adding the reason of his caution; for, he that eats, and drinks, unworthily, eats and drinks, &c. intimating also, that they might miscarry in the use of either Element. For, says he, whoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup unworthily. In the administration of the whole Supper, you may offend, unless you give heed in the participation of either Element. What can possibly be spoken more fully, distinctly, plainly, as to Institution, Precept, Practice, and Duty upon all, I know not? And if we must yet dispute about this matter, while we acknowledge the Authority of the Apostle, I think, there is small hopes of being quit of disputes, while this world continues. The pitiful cavils of our Author against the Apostle's express and often repeated words, deserve not our notice; yet for the sake of those whom he intends to deceive, I shall briefly show their insufficiency to invalidate Saint Paul's Authority and Reasonings.

1. He says, that we may easily see what was Saint Paul's opinion from those words, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of our Lord unworthily; and so say I too, the meaning of them is before declared; but, says he, repeating the institution as our Lord delivered, he makes him, after the consecration of the bread, say absolutely, Do this in commemoration of me. But after the chalice, he speaks with a limitation, Do this as oft as you shall drink it, in commemoration of me; What then? Pray, what are the next words? Are they not, For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup? Is not the same term as often annexed to the one, as well as to the other? Is it a limitation of the use of either, and not a limitation of that kind of Commemoration of the Lord's Death to the use of both? From these doughty observations, he concludes, that the particle [and] in the other Text, must needs be taken disjunctively; we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup. That is, all of us, either partake of both, or each one, at least, either of the one or other. A brave exposition! But, what shall we say to the other, and, in the other Texts, so often occurring to the same purpose? Are they also to be taken disjunctively? This, it seems, is to interpret Scripture according to the sense of the Fathers; to vent idle cavils, which they were never so weak, or perverse, as once to dream of. Had the Apostle but once used that expression, this bread, and this cup, yet adjoining that expression to the Institution of Christ, commanding the administration of that bread and cup, it were temerarious boldness so to disjoint his words, and render them incongruous to his purpose? But repeating the same expression so often as he does, still with respect to the Institution of the Ordinance whereof he speaks, to make us believe, that in all those expressions, he intended quite another thing than what he says, is a wild attempt. Miserable error! What sorry shifts do you cast your Patrons upon? Who would love such a beast, that so claws and tears her embracers? The trivial instances of the use of the Particle (and or et) disjunctively, as in that saying, Mulier est domûs salus, & ruina? which is evidently used not of the same individual person, nor of the same actions, but only expresses the different actings of several individuals of the same Species, concern not this business; whose argument is far from being founded alone on the signification of that particle (though its use be constant enough to found an Inference, not to be shaken by a few anomalous instances) but from the necessary use of it in this place, arising from the context of the Apostle's Discourse.

Our Author further adds, that sometimes the whole sacred Synaxis is called Breaking of bread, without any mention of the chalice. And what then? I pray, is not the body of Christ, sometimes mentioned without speaking of the blood, and the blood oftener without speaking of the body; is not the whole Supper called the Cup, without mentioning of the Bread (1 Corinthians 10:21), all by the same Synecdoche? I shall not insist on his gross, palpable mistakes, from Luke 24:30. Nothing but domineering prejudices could ever put men upon such attempts, for the justifying of their errors. Upon the whole matter, we may easily discern, what small cause our Author has from such feeble premises, to erect his triumphant conclusion of the non-necessity of participation of the blessed Cup by the people in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As little cause has he to mention Antiquity and Tradition from the Apostles, which lye universally against him in this matter; and that there is now no such custom in the Romish Church, it is because they have taken up a practice contrary to the command and practice of Christ and his Apostles, and contrary to the custom in obedience thereunto, of all the Churches in the whole world.