1. That ceremonial institutions are not inconsistent with the gospel-dispensation, inasmuch as they may not be designed to signify some benefits to be procured by Christ, as they did, which were instituted under the ceremonial law; but they may be considered as rememorative signs of the work of redemption, which has been brought to perfection by him.
2. When the apostle, in the scripture but now mentioned, says, that we shew the Lord’s death till he come, it cannot be meant concerning his coming in the plentiful effusion of the Spirit; inasmuch as this privilege was conferred on the church in the apostle’s days, at the same time, when he speaks of their shewing forth his death. Therefore, doubtless, he intends thereby Christ’s second coming, when this, and all other ordinances, which are now observed in the church, as adapted to the present imperfect state thereof, shall cease; we must therefore conclude from hence, that it was designed to be continued in the church in all ages, as it is at this day.
II. We are to consider the persons by whom this ordinance is to be administered; and these are only such as are lawfully called, and set apart to the pastoral office, whose work is to feed the church, not only by the preaching of the word, but by the administration of the sacraments, which are ordinances for their faith, in which they are said to receive, and spiritually feed upon Christ and his benefits; upon which account God promises to give his people pastors according to his own heart, who should feed them with knowledge and understanding, Jer. iii. 15. Now that none but these are appointed to administer this ordinance, is evident in that they, who partake of it, are said to have communion with him, and with one another therein, for their mutual edification and spiritual advantage; therefore it doth not belong to mankind in general, but the church in particular. And, to prevent confusion therein, Christ has appointed one, or more proper officers in his churches, to whom the management of this work is committed; who are called hereunto, by the providence of God, and the consent and desire of the church, to whom they are to minister.
III. We are now to consider the matter, or the outward elements to be used in the Lord’s supper; and these are bread and wine. Thus it is said, Jesus took bread, Matt. xxvi. 26. and he also took the cup; which, by a metonymy, is put for the wine: For, our Saviour referring to this action, speaks of his drinking the fruit of the vine, ver. 29. As for the bread that is to be used in this ordinance, there was a very warm debate between the Latin and Greek church concerning it; the former, as the Papists do at this day, concluding it absolutely necessary, that it should be unleavened bread, inasmuch as that kind of bread was used by our Lord, when he first instituted it, which was at the time of the passover, when no leaven was to be found in their houses. And they make it also a significant sign of the sincerity and truth with which the Lord’s supper ought to be eaten; for which, they refer to what the apostle says, in 1 Cor. v. 8. Let as keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. But this seems only to be an allusion to the use of unleavened bread in the passover; which, it may be, might have a typical reference to that sincerity and truth with which all the ordinances of God are to be engaged in; but it does not sufficiently appear that he intends hereby that the bread used in the Lord’s supper should be of this kind, or, that it was designed to signify the frame of spirit with which this ordinance is to be celebrated.
On the other hand, the Greek church thought that the bread ought to be leavened, according to our common practice at this day, it being the same that was used at other times. And this seems most eligible, as it puts a just difference between the bread used in the passover, which was a part of the ceremonial law, and a gospel-institution, that is distinct from it. But, I think, there is no need to debate either side of the question with too much warmth, it being a matter of no great importance. As for the wine that is to be used in this ordinance, it is a necessary part thereof; and therefore the Papists are guilty of sacrilege in withholding the cup from the common people[[97]].
IV. We are now to consider what the minister is to do, antecedent to the church’s partaking of the Lord’s supper: He is to set apart the outward elements of bread and wine from a common, to this particular holy use. Upon which account it may be said to be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 1 Tim. iv. 5. The words of institution contain an intimation that these elements are to be used in this ordinance, by Christ’s appointment; without which, no significant sign could be used in any religious matters. And, as for prayer, this is agreeable to Christ’s practice; for, he took bread and blessed it, or prayed for a blessing on it; and as the apostle expresses it; this was accompanied with thanksgiving, as he says; When he had given thanks he brake it, Matt. xxvi. 26. 1 Cor. xi. 24. which is agreeable to the nature and design of the ordinance, as herein we pray for the best of blessings, and express our thankfulness to him for the benefits of Christ’s redemption.
Here I cannot but observe how the Papists pervert this ordinance in the manner of consecrating the bread, which the priest does only by repeating these words in Latin; This is my body; and from thence they take occasion to advance the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation; and suppose, that, by these words pronounced, the bread is changed into the body and blood of Christ; which they assert, contrary to all sense and reason, as well as the end and design of the ordinance; and from hence it will follow, that man has a power to make the body and blood of Christ; and another consequence thereof, will be, that the human nature of Christ is omnipresent, which is inconsistent with a finite nature, and those properties that belong to it as such; from whence it is to be concluded, that it is no where else but in heaven; and it involves in it the greatest contradiction to suppose that it is bread, and having all the qualities thereof; and yet our senses must be so far imposed on, as that we must believe that it is not so, but Christ’s body. It also supposes, that Christ has as many bodies as there are wafers in the world; which is a monstrous absurdity. It likewise confounds the sign with the thing signified, and is very opposite to the sense of those words of scripture, This is my body; which implies no more, than that the bread, which is the same in itself, after the words of consecration, as it was before, is an external symbol of Christ’s body, that is, of the sufferings which he endured therein for his people.
V. We are now to consider the actions both of the minister and the church, when engaged in this ordinance, viz. breaking, distributing, eating the bread, pouring forth, and drinking the wine, for the ends appointed by Christ, in instituting this ordinance. Whether our Saviour gave the bread and wine to every one of the disciples in particular, is not sufficiently determined by the words of institution: For, though Matthew and Mark say, He gave the bread and the cup to the disciples, Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. and Mark xiv. 22, 23. Yet Luke speaking either concerning the cup used in the passover, or that in the Lord’s supper, represents our Saviour as saying to his disciples, Take this and divide it among yourselves, Luke xxii. 17. which seems to intimate that he distributed it to one or more of them, to be conveyed to the rest, that they might divide it among themselves; which is agreeable to the practice of several of the reformed churches in our day, and seems most expedient in case the number of the communicants is very great, and the elements cannot be so conveniently given by the pastor into the hand of every one.
Here I may observe how the Papists pervert this part of the Lord’s supper; inasmuch as they will not permit the common people to touch the bread with their hands, lest they should defile it; but the priest puts it into their mouths; for which purpose it is made up into small, round wafers; and the people are ordered to take great care that they do not use their teeth in chewing it; for that would be, as it were, a crucifying Christ afresh, as offering a kind of violence to what they call his body. But these things are so very absurd and unscriptural, that they confute themselves. And their consecrating a wafer to be reserved in a case prepared for that purpose, and set upon the altar in the church, to be worshipped by all that come near it, savours of gross superstition and idolatry.
We may farther observe, that they deny the people the cup in this ordinance, but not the priests; for what reason, it is hard to determine. And, they mix the wine with water; which, though it does not seem to be agreeable to Christ’s institution, yet it was often practised by the ancient church, from whence they took it; and their making this a sacramental sign of Christ’s divine and human nature, united together in one person, is much more unwarrantable; nor can I approve of what others suppose, viz. that it signifies the blood and water that came out of his side when he was pierced on the cross. And, I can hardly think some Protestants altogether free from the charge of superstition, when they so tenaciously adhere to the use of red wine, as bearing some small resemblance to the colour of Christ’s blood; for which reason others chuse to bear their testimony against this ungrounded opinion, by the using of white wine, without supposing that any thing is signified by it more than by red; and others chuse to use one sort at one time, and another at another, to signify that this is an indifferent matter; and these, I think, are most in the right.