M
mothcorrupteth
Guest
EPISTLE TO THE READER
It has been my distinct pleasure over the past year or so to spend some of my hobby time hunting down Reformed writings that are currently out of print in the English language. My first foray into this pasttime has been trying to decipher an essay by George Gillespie, one of the four commissioners that the Church of Scotland sent to the Westminster Assembly of Divines while it was convened from 1643 to 1649.
One of the early controversies that had emerged between the Scottish Presbyterian delegates and the English Congregationalist (or Independent) members of the Westminster Assembly was whether to specify, in the Assembly's Directory for the Publick Worship of God, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper should be celebrated with the communicants sitting around the table. The Presbyterians insisted on this practice very strongly, whereas the Congregationalists stiffly resisted it. According to the Independents, the practice was a problem because it conflicted with their definition of the visible Church. To accommodate even a modest-sized parish church around the Table, the Scots had to parcel out the local church into small groups that would approach a single Table in successive companies—once to take the Bread, then once again to take the Cup. This was no great stress for the Presbyterians, who believed in a universal visible Church that existed just as much in the parts as in the whole. However, the Congregationalists, believing that the only visible church was the local one, were horrified at the idea of breaking up the local congregation.
In the end, the debate between Presbyterian and Congregationalist proved insurmountable on this point. The language in the Directory referring to communicants sitting around the Table was rendered in italics when the document was published in 1645, to signify that a local church subscribing to the Directory could conscionably depart from it on this point. Nevertheless, when the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly ratified the Directory on February 3 of that same year, its government stipulated in a public document “That the clause in the Directory, of the administration of the Lord's Supper, which mentioneth the communicants sitting about the table, or at it, be not interpreted as if, in the judgment of this kirk, it were indifferent, and free for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table; or as if we did approve the distributing of the elements by the minister to each communicant, and not by the communicants among themselves.” According to the Presbyterian Scots, sitting at the Table was emphatically not a circumstance of worship amenable to pleas for Christian liberty.
After the Rev. George Gillespie passed away in December 1648, his brother Patrick, minister at Glasgow, had several of George’s essays published that following year in a book titled A Treatise of Miscellany Questions. In Chapter XVIII of that book was an essay that contained what I presume had been George’s main arguments in favor of the communicants sitting at the Table, when he had debated the question in the Westminster Assembly in 1644. The copy of this book that I have had access to while transcribing the essay in question is a scan, published by Google Books, of a printing apparently in the possession of the University of Michigan. The specific essay is contained on pages 218 to 231, and may be accessed here: [FONT="]http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=0iY3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA218[/FONT]
What I have done is to take the old printed English, which is faded and smudged in several places, and worked very hard to copy it into legible text so that a new generation of lay Presbyterians who, like myself, hunger to know their faith’s history, can have easy access to it. I have not received any profit from this project, nor do I expect to; it has been purely a labor of love, in the Reformation spirit of distributing knowledge of God’s word. At all stages, I have conducted this work for the edification and revival of God’s Reformed Church.
But with that out of the way, I do need to clarify my methods. The biggest obstacle for the modern lay reader to approaching the original script is the archaic lettering. The s’s were all those funky old English s’s that look like f’s. All of these have been rendered s in my version. Much of the spelling in the original is very different from modern English; in those instances I updated the spelling. There were also a few points of Greek spelling that I updated to conform to what most readers of New Testament Greek encounter. Namely, in the original [FONT="]π often appears as ϖ, ου is rendered ȣ, and στ is often printed as ϛ. Also, for the Latin phrases, I inserted macrons over the vowels that required them[/FONT]. At the time of this writing, I know only some introductory Greek and Latin, so I welcome the input of anyone who is more skillfully trained in these languages.[FONT="] I have inserted apostrophes where modern English calls for them and have changed many of the common nouns to begin with lower case letters. [/FONT]I have kept the thou’s and thee’s of the original text intact. I kept the abbreviations of Scriptural and Classical references intact. I have kept the paragraph structure intact. The original punctuation is retained, so that quotes appear in italics, not quotation marks. All in all, the only major changes I have introduced are spelling and placing the sequence transition words in bold so that the reader can follow the arguments easier.
To reiterate, I hope my Presbyterian brethren find some sanctification from my work on this essay. This piece of our history needs to be known by the lay folk. As Serenity fans would put it, “Can’t stop the signal”--that’s how I feel about the Reformed classics. They should be aggressively distributed. As such, you are welcome to quote this work wherever you like, and if you don’t want to give me credit, I’m cool with that. If you do, then I’m extra cool with it. Also, you’re free to use my work as a basis for translation into your respective first language, and if you choose to do so with Deutsch or Espa[FONT="]ñ[/FONT]ol, I would be interested in reading it.
Without further ado,
Bobby Phillips
[FONT="]A TREATISE OF MISCELLANY QUESTIONS[/FONT]
[FONT="]BY MR. GEORGE GILLESPIE[/FONT]
[FONT="]Originally printed by the University of Edinburgh, 1649[/FONT]
[FONT="]CHAP. XVIII.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Of the use of a Table in the Lord’s Supper. And of the communicants their coming to, and receiving at the Table.[/FONT]
[FONT="]That a Table ought to be so far used, as that the Elements of bread and wine ought to be set upon it, is not (I think) controverted; but whether there be so much light from Scripture, as that all the communicants ought to come to, and receive at the Table, this I conceive to be the question. For resolution whereof, I humbly offer these following considerations.[/FONT]
[FONT="]First[/FONT][FONT="] of all it may easily appear, that the first guests whom our Savior entertained at this Sacrament of his body and blood, received at the Table. Chrysostome dē prōditiōne Jude, Serm. 30., comparing the Eucharistic supper with the Passover, saith that both of them was [sic] celebrated, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τραπέζῃ, at or on the very same Table. The common supper, Paschal and Eucharistic were all at the same Table, Luke 22:21. But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table. John 13:28. Now no man at the Table knew… Which Texts I do not understand of the Lord’s 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 receive the Lord’s Table. Peradventure it will be replied (for so it hath been replied by some) that the first Communicants their sitting and receiving at the Table, was occasional, 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 Christ’s example, than in the other occasional circumstances: the upper chamber, unleavened bread, after supper, etc. Besides, 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 Christ’s example to have divers successive tables, without which in numerous Congregations, all the communicants cannot receive at the table.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I answer. I. ‘Tis grātīs dictum [a freely offered maxim, i.e. mere assertion], that sitting at the Table was occasional, or such as hath not a standing, but a temporary reason for it, and there is this reason to the contrary: occasional 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 liberty or latitude to choose to do otherwise. For instance, it was not allowed by the Law to have any other bread in Jerusalem, during the feast of Passover, but unleavened bread only. 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 Passover, being also the Testament, or latter will of Jesus Christ. There was also a providential limitation, to such and so many communicants, that is, not exceeding the number which was allowed to eat the Passover together. Let some such reason be brought to prove that sitting at table was occasional, else let it not be called so. Sure if Christ had not thought it fittest, and chose it as the best way, that his Disciples should receive 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 providential limitation. Secondly, I am herein the more confirmed, because Christ himself, as it were on purpose to show, that the sitting and receiving at Table was not occasional, but such a thing as he meant to commend to us for our imitation, he gives this standing and permanent reason for it, that it is a piece of honor 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?[/FONT]
It has been my distinct pleasure over the past year or so to spend some of my hobby time hunting down Reformed writings that are currently out of print in the English language. My first foray into this pasttime has been trying to decipher an essay by George Gillespie, one of the four commissioners that the Church of Scotland sent to the Westminster Assembly of Divines while it was convened from 1643 to 1649.
One of the early controversies that had emerged between the Scottish Presbyterian delegates and the English Congregationalist (or Independent) members of the Westminster Assembly was whether to specify, in the Assembly's Directory for the Publick Worship of God, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper should be celebrated with the communicants sitting around the table. The Presbyterians insisted on this practice very strongly, whereas the Congregationalists stiffly resisted it. According to the Independents, the practice was a problem because it conflicted with their definition of the visible Church. To accommodate even a modest-sized parish church around the Table, the Scots had to parcel out the local church into small groups that would approach a single Table in successive companies—once to take the Bread, then once again to take the Cup. This was no great stress for the Presbyterians, who believed in a universal visible Church that existed just as much in the parts as in the whole. However, the Congregationalists, believing that the only visible church was the local one, were horrified at the idea of breaking up the local congregation.
In the end, the debate between Presbyterian and Congregationalist proved insurmountable on this point. The language in the Directory referring to communicants sitting around the Table was rendered in italics when the document was published in 1645, to signify that a local church subscribing to the Directory could conscionably depart from it on this point. Nevertheless, when the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly ratified the Directory on February 3 of that same year, its government stipulated in a public document “That the clause in the Directory, of the administration of the Lord's Supper, which mentioneth the communicants sitting about the table, or at it, be not interpreted as if, in the judgment of this kirk, it were indifferent, and free for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table; or as if we did approve the distributing of the elements by the minister to each communicant, and not by the communicants among themselves.” According to the Presbyterian Scots, sitting at the Table was emphatically not a circumstance of worship amenable to pleas for Christian liberty.
After the Rev. George Gillespie passed away in December 1648, his brother Patrick, minister at Glasgow, had several of George’s essays published that following year in a book titled A Treatise of Miscellany Questions. In Chapter XVIII of that book was an essay that contained what I presume had been George’s main arguments in favor of the communicants sitting at the Table, when he had debated the question in the Westminster Assembly in 1644. The copy of this book that I have had access to while transcribing the essay in question is a scan, published by Google Books, of a printing apparently in the possession of the University of Michigan. The specific essay is contained on pages 218 to 231, and may be accessed here: [FONT="]http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=0iY3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA218[/FONT]
What I have done is to take the old printed English, which is faded and smudged in several places, and worked very hard to copy it into legible text so that a new generation of lay Presbyterians who, like myself, hunger to know their faith’s history, can have easy access to it. I have not received any profit from this project, nor do I expect to; it has been purely a labor of love, in the Reformation spirit of distributing knowledge of God’s word. At all stages, I have conducted this work for the edification and revival of God’s Reformed Church.
But with that out of the way, I do need to clarify my methods. The biggest obstacle for the modern lay reader to approaching the original script is the archaic lettering. The s’s were all those funky old English s’s that look like f’s. All of these have been rendered s in my version. Much of the spelling in the original is very different from modern English; in those instances I updated the spelling. There were also a few points of Greek spelling that I updated to conform to what most readers of New Testament Greek encounter. Namely, in the original [FONT="]π often appears as ϖ, ου is rendered ȣ, and στ is often printed as ϛ. Also, for the Latin phrases, I inserted macrons over the vowels that required them[/FONT]. At the time of this writing, I know only some introductory Greek and Latin, so I welcome the input of anyone who is more skillfully trained in these languages.[FONT="] I have inserted apostrophes where modern English calls for them and have changed many of the common nouns to begin with lower case letters. [/FONT]I have kept the thou’s and thee’s of the original text intact. I kept the abbreviations of Scriptural and Classical references intact. I have kept the paragraph structure intact. The original punctuation is retained, so that quotes appear in italics, not quotation marks. All in all, the only major changes I have introduced are spelling and placing the sequence transition words in bold so that the reader can follow the arguments easier.
To reiterate, I hope my Presbyterian brethren find some sanctification from my work on this essay. This piece of our history needs to be known by the lay folk. As Serenity fans would put it, “Can’t stop the signal”--that’s how I feel about the Reformed classics. They should be aggressively distributed. As such, you are welcome to quote this work wherever you like, and if you don’t want to give me credit, I’m cool with that. If you do, then I’m extra cool with it. Also, you’re free to use my work as a basis for translation into your respective first language, and if you choose to do so with Deutsch or Espa[FONT="]ñ[/FONT]ol, I would be interested in reading it.
Without further ado,
Bobby Phillips
[FONT="]A TREATISE OF MISCELLANY QUESTIONS[/FONT]
[FONT="]BY MR. GEORGE GILLESPIE[/FONT]
[FONT="]Originally printed by the University of Edinburgh, 1649[/FONT]
[FONT="]CHAP. XVIII.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Of the use of a Table in the Lord’s Supper. And of the communicants their coming to, and receiving at the Table.[/FONT]
[FONT="]That a Table ought to be so far used, as that the Elements of bread and wine ought to be set upon it, is not (I think) controverted; but whether there be so much light from Scripture, as that all the communicants ought to come to, and receive at the Table, this I conceive to be the question. For resolution whereof, I humbly offer these following considerations.[/FONT]
[FONT="]First[/FONT][FONT="] of all it may easily appear, that the first guests whom our Savior entertained at this Sacrament of his body and blood, received at the Table. Chrysostome dē prōditiōne Jude, Serm. 30., comparing the Eucharistic supper with the Passover, saith that both of them was [sic] celebrated, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τραπέζῃ, at or on the very same Table. The common supper, Paschal and Eucharistic were all at the same Table, Luke 22:21. But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the table. John 13:28. Now no man at the Table knew… Which Texts I do not understand of the Lord’s 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 receive the Lord’s Table. Peradventure it will be replied (for so it hath been replied by some) that the first Communicants their sitting and receiving at the Table, was occasional, 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 Christ’s example, than in the other occasional circumstances: the upper chamber, unleavened bread, after supper, etc. Besides, 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 Christ’s example to have divers successive tables, without which in numerous Congregations, all the communicants cannot receive at the table.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I answer. I. ‘Tis grātīs dictum [a freely offered maxim, i.e. mere assertion], that sitting at the Table was occasional, or such as hath not a standing, but a temporary reason for it, and there is this reason to the contrary: occasional 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 liberty or latitude to choose to do otherwise. For instance, it was not allowed by the Law to have any other bread in Jerusalem, during the feast of Passover, but unleavened bread only. 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 Passover, being also the Testament, or latter will of Jesus Christ. There was also a providential limitation, to such and so many communicants, that is, not exceeding the number which was allowed to eat the Passover together. Let some such reason be brought to prove that sitting at table was occasional, else let it not be called so. Sure if Christ had not thought it fittest, and chose it as the best way, that his Disciples should receive 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 providential limitation. Secondly, I am herein the more confirmed, because Christ himself, as it were on purpose to show, that the sitting and receiving at Table was not occasional, but such a thing as he meant to commend to us for our imitation, he gives this standing and permanent reason for it, that it is a piece of honor 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?[/FONT]
Last edited: