Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

SECT. II. Of the Authority by which the Lords Table is settled in the Church, &c.

When we consider how the denial of John's Baptism to be from Heaven, was as much as to deny him to be a Prophet; we may not slightly resent the boldness of some in these days, who rejecting this sa∣cred institute, the Table of the Lord, do no less than reflect that dishonour upon Christ himself, who spake from Heaven, and upon whose Au∣thority this Ordinance is built; partly from his own blessed Example in taking, blessing, and breaking the Bread, and giving it to his Disci∣ples to eat, as his Body in a Mystery, and the Cup likewise. And partly from his express Mandate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hoc facite, or this do, in remembrance of me, Luke 22. 19. which is enlarged or explained by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do shew forth the Lords Death till he come: Which Autho∣rity is confirmed by Christ himself after his Resurrection, Mat. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and Lo, I am with you always to the end of the World, Amen. We see then that this Ordinance of Christ is as clearly delivered, and the perpetu∣ity thereof asserted or declared with as much plainness as any thing commanded by Christ; which also is further evinced from the Pra∣ctice of those Churches, which were most famous for Gifts and Graces, Acts 2. 41, 42, 1 Cor. 1. 5, 6, 7. coming behind in no Gift, were inriched in every thing in all utterance and in all knowledge, and had the Testimony of Christ confirmed in them. Nevertheless they did wait for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; and as in other Services so in this of the Table of the Lord, Chap. 11. &c. For as often as ye eat this Bread, &c. ye shew, or shew ye forth the Lords Death till he come.

But here a Question is moved by some serious Christians, whether by the word do this, is not meant the Passeover together with the Bread and Cup which our Lord did eat with his Disciples the night in which he was betrayed, seeing 'tis to be supposed, some Churches did use to have a Supper at what time they did celebrate the Lords Table. Now to this I answer;

That however it may be probable that some of the Primitive Chur∣ches

did celebrate the Table of the Lord after Supper, yet that the words do this, do not concern either the Passeover eaten by our Sa∣viour, Luke 22. or the Supper used by the Church at Corinth (if in∣deed they did use such a Supper) 1 Cor. 11. But only are to be un∣derstood of that one Bread and one Cup which he blessed, to comme∣morate the great work of our Redemption by his death, I shall en∣deavour to make manifest: For first,

To assert that any other material food is necessary save that one Bread, and that one Cup, doth expose the Asserters to unanswerable difficulties, because no man can assign what other food is necessary, whether Flesh, Fish, Milk, or Fruit; and to venture upon this or that kind of Food without direction from God, is but mans device, not Gods Ordinance: Neither can any man tell what divine signification such Meat as they so set apart must have, seeing Christ and him cru∣cified, &c. is evidently set forth in the due use of the Bread and Cup only, and to guess at this or that Mystery to be signified by any other Terrene Food, is likewise an humane innovation, and opens a gap for many of like nature to obtrude upon us.

But secondly, that which is of greatest importance, is, That the practise hereby opposed, is censured by the Apostle as unnecessary, if not dangerous, 1 Cor. 11. 34. And if any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation. Here the abuse com∣mitted by the Corinthians is reproved; and to rectifie the same their Supper, though not simply unlawful, yet seems to be prohibited in the Church, ver. 22. What, have ye not Houses to eat and to drink in? concluding by this Interrogative, that a Supper at the time of celebra∣ting the Lords Table was so far from being necessary, that it was more meet to receive it at their own houses, then in the Church of God; which is yet more evident from ver. 23. to ver. 30. where the Or∣dinance delivered to the Church by the Apostle as he received it from the Lord, is plainly set down, and the use of one Bread and one Cup only mentioned; and this not as a thing pertaining to, but clearly di∣stinguished from the Supper which Christ had eaten before, in con∣formity to the Law of the Passeover, Mat. 26. And certainly had the Apostle received that Supper of, or from the Lord, as he received that one Bread and one Cup, he would as faithfully have delivered it to the Church as the other; but this he doth not at all, but advises them to avoid the inconveniencies which attended their having a Sup∣per in the Church, to eat that Supper at home, if they could not ab∣stain, or were hungry. I say that very supper, otherwise he allows them to eat two Suppers before breaking of Bread at the Lords Table, which is too vile a conceit for any Christian.

Again, consider the words, ver. 30. Let him eat at home, lest ye come together unto condemnation; which may be taken imperatively as well as ver. 28. and then here is the force of a gentle prohibition against any Supper at the Table of the Lord, save the Bread and Cup only; which prohibition is grounded on an important reason, viz. The danger that attends such feasting in the Church, Lest ye come toge∣ther

for condemnation. Nor doth the Apostle shew them any other way to avoid that danger, but by eating at home; and this directi∣on being given to any one that hungered, it is given to every one, so so that these 3 things are very clear from what is said.

1. There is great danger in using Feasting at the time and place of the celebration of the Lords Table.

2. There is no danger in celebrating the Holy Table without such Feasting. And

3. That therefore one Bread and one Cup is sufficient for that ho∣ly Manducation. And yet

4. We deny not but a Feast of Charity at that time may in it self be lawful.

To which so clearly agrees 1 Cor. 10. 16. that all doubts may va∣nish; The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is IT not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? the Bread which we break, is IT not the Communion of the Body of Christ? Nothing can be more plain, than that these words do assure us, that that one Bread set apart, and that one Cup sanctified by our Saviour and his Apostles, is sufficient for the Lords Table (as it is also called v. 21.) without any other Bread or Cup what∣soever. Yea the terms THIS Bread, and THIS Cup, are of great validity to the point in hand, being exclusive of pluralities of Cups or other Provisions, which to admit as necessary parts of the Lords Ta∣ble, is to subvert Christs Institution, who when speaking of that which he would leave as the Rite of the Communion of his Body and Blood, speaks only of one Bread and one Cup; which also is expresly noted by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. One Body and one Bread, for we are all par∣takers of that one Bread. And had our Saviour intended that the Passeo∣ver he did eat with his Disciples, Mat. 26. should have been celebrated all along with the Lords Table (as some ungroundedly conceive) he would not have said DO THIS, but DO THESE in remembrance of me; but the term THIS only refers to the immediate service of the Bread and Cup: For (saith the Apostle) as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye shew forth the Lords death; so that no more is necessary.

Again, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of THIS Bread, and drink of THIS Cup. And again, whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily, still in the singular num∣ber; so that certainly all festival Meats and Cups are exhibited from any necessary place in the Lords Table; as having nothing to do with the things signified thereby, being also wholy without the verge of Christs Command touching this Ordinance, and therefore sent to our own homes by the Apostle, as being indeed the fittest places for such refections.

As for the Passeover celebrated by our Saviour, Mat. 26. I have carefully consulted all the Evangelists about it, and many Interpre∣ters also, and find that it was the Jewish Passeover, and not another, now instituted, as some would have it. And that our Saviour did now observe it with greater exactness as to the time, than the Jews

then did observe it; as Diodate well notes: * 1.1 And beside this custome of feasting before the receiving of the Holy Bread and Cup is censu∣red by Socrates, l. 5. c. 2. as an error of the Egyptians and Thebaians, of whom he saith, They do not receive the Communion as the manner is among the Christians, for when they have banqueted and crammed themselves with sundry dishes — they use to communicate. And had the Passeover which Christ was now to eat been any other than that which the Law required, how could they have asked our Saviour where they should prepare it for him? They knew the thing it self, what, and how to prepare it (but knew not the particular House where) without his direction. And the same is yet more plain, because our Saviour came up now as at other times to Jerusalem to keep the Feast, a thing well known to his Disciples. Finally, as we read of no other Typical Passeover save that of the Jews, so to imagine one of our own heads, and to say (as some) it is significant, and not to tell us by good autho∣rity what that significancy is (as none can do it) is too great a pre∣sumption.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Diodat. Socrat. l. 5. c. 2.