# Sitting at the Table and Common Cup



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 13, 2014)

For your reading pleasure and enjoyment of God, here is the Common Cup and Sitting at the Table in the Lord's Supper in the Westminster Standards:



The Westminster Standards on the Administration of the Lord’s Supper | Reformed Books Online


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 13, 2014)

Travis, you have a subhheading note, "This was in accordance with the Solemn League and Covenant’s (1643) directive that the worship of the three kingdoms be reformed according to “the example of the best reformed Churches,” namely the Scottish Church, which tenaciously, out of Biblical conviction, practiced using a Common Cup and Sitting at a Table. See the Adopting Act for the Directory of Public Worship below"
This is a tad bit misleading. While the Scots understandably thought this, the English, Presbyterian and Independent alike, clearly did not take the SL&C to mean the Scottish church was the best example of the Reformed churches nor that while they were swearing to preserve Scottish practice, they were not swearing to observe it themselves. This is clear from the debate over and changes in the language of the covenant and comments at the time. 
​


----------



## JOwen (Jul 13, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Travis, you have a subhheading note, "This was in accordance with the Solemn League and Covenant’s (1643) directive that the worship of the three kingdoms be reformed according to “the example of the best reformed Churches,” namely the Scottish Church, which tenaciously, out of Biblical conviction, practiced using a Common Cup and Sitting at a Table. See the Adopting Act for the Directory of Public Worship below"
> This is a tad bit misleading. While the Scots understandably thought this, the English, Presbyterian and Independent alike, clear did not take the SL&C to mean the Scottish church was the best example of the Reformed churches nor that while they were swearing to preserve Scottish practice, they were not swearing to observe it themselves. This is clear from the debate over and changes in the language of the covenant and comments at the time.
> ​



 I agree with brother Coldwell. The SL&C was agreed upon to work TOWARD uniformity in doctrine, worship, and practice. The Independents never broke their covenant obligation to it. They simply had a different opinion on the form of Church Government. 

Dr. Douglas in his excellent book Light in the North says:



> The subscribers to the Solemn League and Covenant (English Parliament had accepted it) were to bind themselves to preserve the Reformed religion in Scotland, and to secure in England and Ireland a reform in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the “Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches.”...To the Scots, the words quoted had but one connotation: Reformation according to the Word of God would necessarily result
> in the adoption of Presbyterianism. *They did not imagine that to many of the English Puritans the clause would convey a very different meaning---that it
> might signify Independency. *It may have, in the same manner, denoted for others some different form of church polity.(J.D. Douglas,_ Light in the North: The Story of the Scottish Covenanters_ (1964:Eerdmans Publishing Company) p. 31)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 13, 2014)

I'm not sure that it didn't occur to the Scots; but the political wrangling is clear. The language changes were aimed to preclude exactly the kind of thought that the Scottish kirk was the best church and their practice was to be aimed for by England. There was no prejuding of the outcome with these changes, though I cannot obsolve the Indpendents of at the very least bad faith. From the beginning they knew they did not have the numbers to sway the Assembly and sought intrigue, delay and common cause with Cromwell for a rebellious civil solution and blatantly sought to make an end run around the Assembly and go directly to parliament.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 13, 2014)

You may be correct, but I'd rather charitably believe that the Independents were hoping for some sort of Providential increase to their own position through the avenue of debate and opening the Scriptures. 

Thomas McCrie:



> It has been repeatedly asserted that the Independent party in the English parliament outwitted our Scottish Divines, by getting the clause inserted in the covenant which binds them to reform the Church of England “according to the Word of God;” by which it is said, they tacitly understood Independency, while the Scots understood it of their beloved Presbytery (Thomas McCrie, Story of the Scottish Church (1988: Free Presbyterian Publications) p. 191).



He goes on to say, 



> The truth is, our ancestors entered into this league with England rather in the hope, and with the desire, that they might be brought into a nearer conformity with the presbyterian discipline, than with any sanguine expectation of seeing this accomplished. They never supposed that England would submit to their polity, without some alteration suited to their circumstances, and accordingly they joined with them in constructing a new Confession and Directory. "We are not to conceive," says Henderson, in a letter dated 1642, "that they will embrace our form. A new form must be set down for us all.



That is my take on the event in a nutshell. Everyone hoped for an outcome that leaned in their own direction. Thus, all could subscribe in good conscience to the SL&C. BTW, all parties involved believed in the Common Cup and the Table. Just to keep on topic. ;-)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 13, 2014)

I am just looking at the Independents several attempts to circumvent the assembly contrary to the rules of the assembly as far as that judgment. On the cup, any congregation of any size in Scotland would have had multiple cups correct? It might have been two or four or something (just not individual tiny thimbles). I am not sure once the concession has been made to more than one cup in use during the administration if the moral high ground starts to slip (for the sake of argument).


----------



## JOwen (Jul 13, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I am just looking at the Independents several attempts to circumvent the assembly contrary to the rules of the assembly as far as that judgment. On the cup, any congregation of any size in Scotland would have had multiple cups correct? It might have been two or four or something (just not individual tiny thimbles). I am not sure once the concession has been made to more than one cup in use during the administration if the moral high ground starts to slip (for the sake of argument).



Agreed. The Common Cup was often more than one cup. The principle being "One cup distributed among many members". The unity of the symbol was kept even though there were in fact several single cups used in table distributions. I means sometimes you were talking 1000 communicants! In my congregation for instance, we have a cup on my left and right (we sit at one large table), and the single cup goes each direction, meeting me in the middle partition on each side. "Divide it" among yourselves ins the principle.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 13, 2014)

JOwen said:


> I means sometimes you were talking 1000 communicants! In my congregation for instance...


You have 1000 communicants???


----------



## JOwen (Jul 13, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > I means sometimes you were talking 1000 communicants! In my congregation for instance...
> ...



err, historically...


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 14, 2014)

Chris and Jerrold, thank you for the helpful clarifications.


I was aware of all the original controversy on this point, but it is hard to write anything quickly on a website that is not controversial. I will go back and try to qualify, revise the article on the said point.

Chris, regarding your point about losing the moral high ground when one begins using "several large vessels" (as stated in the Directory of Public Worship):

I don't believe the moral high ground is lost. There are some indifferent matters that pertain to the administration of the common cup, yet the spiritual and real, practical principle of the cup being common remains even when multiple common cups are used. The cups are still being shared and passed around amongst the communicants (see the Adopting Act to the Directory), and thus the Biblical spiritual principle remains.

This can't be said at all if individual cups are being used. As Gillespie argues:



> _t is not indifferent for a minister to give the sacramental elements of bread and wine out of his own hand to every communicant; forasmuch as our Lord commanded his apostles to divide the cup among them, that is, to reach it one to another (Luke 22:17). Some of the interpreters are of [the—RPNA] opinion, that the cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place is not the same whereof he speaks after (v. 20); but they are greatly mistaken; for if it were as they think, then Christ did again drink before his death of that fruit of the vine whereof we read, v. 18, which is manifestly repugnant to his own words. Wherefore, as Maldonat observes out of Augustine and Euthimius, there was but one cup; whereof Luke speaks, first, by anticipation, and, afterward, in its own proper place.... So that, to divide anything among men, is not to take it, but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and partaking, dividing a cup and drinking a cup, which differ as much as giving and receiving. Thus we conclude, that when Christ commanded the apostles to divide the cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no other than this, that they should give the cup one to another; which is so plain that a Jesuit also makes it to follow upon this command, that Christ did reach the cup not to each one, but to the one, who would give it to his neighbor, the neighbor to the next one, and so on.
> 
> (George Gillespie, A Dispute Against The English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded On The Church of Scotland , pp. 431, 432, emphases added)._


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 14, 2014)

Also, for more resources on the subjects of the Common Cup and Sitting at the Table, I just added these pages:


The Common Cup | Reformed Books Online

Sitting at the Table | Reformed Books Online



If anyone has more resources on the matters (with links), please let me know and I will add them.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 14, 2014)

Even without the historical and theological wrappings it seems reasonable to say there has to be something better than drinking wine from tiny plastic cups.

A thought: could it be argued that we are, in a sense, already sitting at table in our normal worship arrangement having fed together on God's word?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 14, 2014)

You know what the issue is as I've said before in this discussion on PB, which is the cultural yuck factor and it is a strong one (I'd no more drink from someone else's cup than eat from someone one else's fork at dinner). Can the common cup be preserved and not drink from the same cup; ie take a bit into another cup as the cup is passed to the next person? is that not dividing it amongst the partakers? I've heard even more germs are passed if everyone is breaking off a piece of bread which is another concern. Does that have to be done by the bare fingers in the passing? Gillespie does have a somewhat humorous Latin jab about cutting up of the bread beforehand in part four chapter seven (445 in the edition cited; 402-403 in the latest edition). 


Travis Fentiman said:


> I don't believe the moral high ground is lost. There are some indifferent matters that pertain to the administration of the common cup, yet the spiritual and real, practical principle of the cup being common remains even when multiple common cups are used. The cups are still being shared and passed around amongst the communicants (see the Adopting Act to the Directory), and thus the Biblical spiritual principle remains.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 14, 2014)

Gillespie again:



> Neither can they be said to divide the cup amongst themselves (which by the institution they ought to do, in testimony of their communion) when they are not within reach, yea, oftentimes not within sight of one another.... If there were such a symbol of communion in the paschal cup, that the receivers were to divide it amongst themselves, sure this ought to have place much more in the Eucharistical cup, for the Lord’s supper doth more clearly and fully set forth the communion of saints than the passover did (Gillespie, Works, “Miscellany Questions, pp. 96, 97).


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 14, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> You know what the issue is as I've said before in this discussion on PB, which is the cultural yuck factor and it is a strong one (I'd no more drink from someone else's cup than eat from someone one else's fork at dinner).




Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with the Yuck Factor. And Paul (1 Cor. 11:25) seemed to think Jesus' prescriptive command for one cup over-rided the Yuck Factor


----------



## yeutter (Jul 14, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> You know what the issue is as I've said before in this discussion on PB, which is the cultural yuck factor and it is a strong one (I'd no more drink from someone else's cup than eat from someone one else's fork at dinner). Can the common cup be preserved and not drink from the same cup; ie take a bit into another cup as the cup is passed to the next person? is that not dividing it amongst the partakers? ...


The Eastern Orthodox Church does something close to what you have suggested. They spoon a small amount of wine into the mouth of those who are partaking.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 15, 2014)

That would not be distributing it amongst themselves. I'm suggesting the communicates do so as the cup is passed.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jul 20, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> That would not be distributing it amongst themselves. I'm suggesting the communicates do so as the cup is passed.



So, instead of the Scottish Presbyterian "communion token," the Elders could give communicants in good standing one of those little plastic communion cups!?! Then, as the "one cup" is passed around the communicant would pour the wine into his/her own sip-sized plastic communion cup to avoid the cultural "yuck factor" while maintaining "one cup?!?"


----------

